Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece 9781789201468

Citation preview

Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece Proceedings of the International Conference, Rethymno 29-30 May, 2015

Edited by Apostolos Sarris Evita Kalogiropoulou Tuna Kalayci Lia Karimali

International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 20

AS20.indb 1

2/11/18 8:59 PM

© 2017 by International Monographs in Prehistory All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved Paperback: ISBN 978-1-879621-47-3 Hard Cover: ISBN 978-1-879621-48-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Sarris, Apostolos, editor. | Kalogiropoulou, Evita, 1979- editor. |    Kalayci, Tuna, 1980- editor. | Karimali, Lia, editor. Title: Communities, landscapes, and interaction in neolithic Greece :    proceedings of the international conference, Rethymno 29-30 May, 2015 /    edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, Lia    Karimali. Description: Ann Arbor, Michigan : International Monographs in Prehistory,    2017. | Series: Archaeological series ; 20 Identifiers: LCCN 2017045356| ISBN 9781879621480 (hardcover : alk. paper) |    ISBN 9781879621473 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Neolithic period--Greece. | Social archaeology--Greece. |    Landscape archaeology--Greece. | Excavations (Archaeology)--Greece. |    Greece--Antiquities. Classification: LCC GN776.22.G8 C65 2017 | DDC 938--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045356

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ∞ International Monographs in Prehistory Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1266 U.S.A.

AS20.indb 2

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Table of Contents List of Contributors.........................................................................................................................vii List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xiii List of Tables................................................................................................................................. xxv Maps............................................................................................................................................ xxvii

Introduction 1 - Evita Kalogiropoulou and Apostolos Sarris Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction: An Introduction.......................................................1

Part I: Communities, Social Spaces, and Dimensions of Neolithic Lifeways (and Death) 2 - Agathe Reingruber The Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a Circum-Aegean Perspective: Concepts and Narratives...........................................................................................................8 3 - Apostolos Sarris, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Jamieson Donato, Carmen Cuenca García, Meropi Manataki, Gianluca Cantoro, Ian Moffat, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Georgia Karampatso, Kayt Armstrong, Nassos Argyriou, Sylviane Dederix, Cristina Manzetti, Nikos Nikas, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Vasso Rondiri, Polyxeni Arachoviti, Kalliopi Almatzi, Despina Efstathiou, and Evangelia Stamelou Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns of Eastern Thessaly, Greece......................................................................................................................................27 4 - Maria Pappa, Stratos Nanoglou, and Melina Efthymiadou A Road to Variation: Diversity among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia, Greece....49 5 - Dimitra Malamidou, Maria Ntinou, Soultana-Maria Valamoti, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Haïdo Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, and Pascal Darcque An Investigation of Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash: Reconsidering Old and New Data from the late 5th Millennium B.C. Settlement...................60 6 - Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, Thomas Loughlin, Tristan Carter, James Cole, Yorgos Facorellis, Stella Katsarou, Aggeliki Kaznesi, Areti Pentedeka, Vasileios Tsamis, and Nicolas Zorzin Koutroulou Magoula in Pthiotida, Central Greece: a Middle Neolithic Tell site in Context......81 7 - John E. Coleman, Evangelia Karimali, Lilian Karali, Melanie Fillios, Charlotte Diffey, Petra Vaiglova, Amy Bogaard, Jayme Joos, Effie Angeli The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai.................................................................97 8 - William Parkinson, Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael Galaty, Daniel Pullen, Panagiotis Karkanas, Giorgos Papathanassopoulos Diros in Context: Alepotrypa Cave and Ksagounaki Promontory in the Neolithic Period.......126

AS20.indb 3

2/11/18 8:59 PM

9 - Eva Alram-Stern, Apostolos Sarris, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Kalliopi Almatzi, Polyxeni Arachoviti, Vasso Rondiri, Despina Efstathiou, Evangelia Stamelou, Carmen Cuenca García, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Gianluca Cantoro, Jamieson Donati, Meropi Manataki Visviki Magoula Revisited: Comparing Past Excavations' Data to Recent Geophysical Research................................................................................................................................137 10 - Josette Renard and William Cavanagh Kouphovouno (Laconia): Some Thoughts about the Settlement Pattern at the end of the Middle Neolithic....................................................................................................................149 11 - Dimitris Kloukinas Pictures of Home: Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece....................................................................................................................................167 12 - Tomáš Alušík Communities Interaction and (intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece: the Testimony of the Defensive Architecture.....................................................................................................187 13 - Katerina Psimogiannou Fluid Landscapes, Bonded People? The Role of Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange and Deposition during the Final Neolithic Period in Central and Southern Greece....................................................................................................................................199

Part IΙ: Landscape Dynamics and Subsistence Strategies 14 - Evita Kalogiropoulou Islands out of the Mainstream: Landscapes of Action, Settlements and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean..............................................................................................................218 15 - Žarko Tankosić and Markos Katsianis Cycladic or Mainland? The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea................................234 16 - Georgia Stratouli and Odysseas Metaxas Human – Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia, West Greece: the Dynamic Role of Drakaina Cave within an Insular Environment................................................................247 17 - Julien Beck, Dimitris Sakellariou, and Despina Koutsoumba Submerged Neolithic Landscapes off Franchthi Cave: the Measurements from the Terra Submersa Expedition and their Implications .......................................................................261 18 - Georgia Koromila, Panagiotis Karkanas, Georgia Kotzamani, Kerry Harris, Yannis Hamilakis, and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula, Central Greece: an approach through micromorphology and plant remains in dung.....................................269 19 - William Cavanagh, Josette Renard, Amy Bogaard, Armelle Gardeisen, Jean Cantuel, Petra Vaiglova, and Charlotte Diffey Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia, in the MN-LN periods ....................................281

iv

AS20.indb 4

2/11/18 8:59 PM

20 - George Kazantzis Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in the Greek Sector of the Late Neolithic Settlement of Promachon-Topolnica.................................................................................................................292

Part ΙII: Interactions and Material Perspectives 21 - Nikos Efstratiou Social Interaction in the Farming Communities of Neolithic Greece: Archaeological Perceptions............................................................................................................................319 22 - Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Gazmed Elezi, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Anna Papaioannou, Niki Saridaki, Ioanna Siamidou, Teresa Silva, Eirini Tzemopoulou, and Kostas Kotsakis Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions: Inter-Regional Relations between Thessaly and Macedonia during the Early and Middle Neolithic.........................................324 23 - Areti Pentedeka Pottery Exchange Networks under the Microscope: the case of Neolithic Thessaly.................339 24 - Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou The Discovery of Painted Pottery in Caves: an Interpretation in the Case of Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia).........................................................................................................353 25 - Lily Bonga Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery from the Central Origma at Mavropigi-Filotsairi............................................................................................374 26 - David Michael Smith Emergent Networks and Socio-Cultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece.............388 27 - Eva Alram-Stern Ritual and Interaction during the Final Neolithic Period: the example of Aegina-Kolonna....399 28 - Tasos Bekiaris, Christos Stergiou, and Stella Theodoridou Making Choices in a Neolithic Landscape: Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi, Northwest Greece.....................................................................................415 29 - Odysseas Kakavakis Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities of Northern Greece....................................................................................................................................434 30 - Lilian Dogiama Casting A Wide Network: Preliminary Results from the Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblage from Revenia, Pieria (Greece)...........................................................................446

Color Plates..............................................................................................................................465

v

AS20.indb 5

2/11/18 8:59 PM

AS20.indb 6

2/11/18 8:59 PM

List of Contributors

Kalliopi Almatzi Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia – Hellenic Ministry of Culture Athanasaki 1, Volos 38222, Greece

Amy Bogaard School of Archaeology University of Oxford 36 Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 2PG, United Kingdom

Eva Alram-Stern OREA - Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Austrian Academy of Sciences Hollandstraße 11-13, 1020 Wien, Austria

Lily Bonga INSTAP Study Center for East Crete P.O. Box. 364 Pacheia Ammos Ierapetra 72200, Crete, Greece

Tomáš Alušík Institute for History of Medicine and Foreign Languages First Faculty of Medicine Charles University of Prague U Nemocnice 4, 12108 Prague 2, Czech Republic

Gianluca Cantoro GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Effimia Angeli Department of Humanities University of Nottingham University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

Jean Cantuel ASM - Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes, UMR 5140, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier III, F-34000, Montpellier, France

Polyxeni Arachoviti Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia – Hellenic Ministry of Culture Athanasaki 1, Volos 38222, Greece

Tristan Carter Department of Anthropology McMaster University 1280 Main. Str. West Hamilton L8S4L8, Ontario, Canada

Nassos Argyriou GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

William G. Cavanagh Professor Emeritus of Aegean Archaeology Department of Archaeology Humanities University of Nottingham Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

Kayt Armstrong Department of Archaeology Durham University South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom

James Cole School of Environment and Technology University of Brighton Watts Building Lewes Road Brighton BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom

Julien Beck Département des Sciences de l’Antiquité University of Geneva 1211 Genève 4, Switzerland

John E. Coleman Professor Emeritus Department of Classics Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853, USA

Tasos Bekiaris School of History & Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece vii

AS20.indb 7

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Carmen Cuenca-Garcia Department of Archaeology and Cultural History Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Kalvskinnet Campus, Gunnerushuset, Office A474 Erling Skakkes gate 47B, 7012 Trondheim, Norway Pascal Darcque CNRS, UMR 7041 Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 allée de l’Université, F-92023 NANTERRE Cedex, France Sylviane Dederix Aegean Interdisciplinary Studies research group Université Catholique de Louvain 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Anastasia Dimoula ERC Research Project PlantCult School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece Jamieson Donati GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece Charlotte Diffey School of Archaeology University of Oxford 36 Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 2PG, United Kingdom Lilian Dogiama McMaster University Department of Anthropology McMaster University Chester New Hall 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L9, Canada Despina Efstathiou Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia – Hellenic Ministry of Culture Athanasaki 1, Volos 38222, Greece Nikos Efstratiou Department of Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Melina Efthymiadou School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece Gazmend Elezi Cotsen Institute of Archaeology University of California Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA Yorgos Facorellis Department of Antiquities and Works of Art Technological Educational Institute of Athens, 12 Ag. Spyridonos str., 12210 Athens, Greece Melanie Fillios Archaeology School of Humanities University of New England Armidale NSW 2351, Australia Michael L. Galaty Museum of Anthropological Archaeology University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan Armelle Gardeisen ASM - Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes, UMR 5140, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier III, F-34000, Montpellier, France Yannis Hamilakis Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World Brown University Box 1837, 60 George Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA Kerry Harris School of Humanities University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK Jayme Lynn Joos Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University (SUNY) Binghamton 13902, USA Odysseas Kakavakis Ephorate of Antiquities of West Attica, Piraeus and Islands 233 Alkiviadou Street Piraeus 18536, Greece viii

AS20.indb 8

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Tuna Kalayci GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Aggeliki Kaznesi Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology Ministry of Culture and Sport 34b Ardittou str., Athens 11636, Greece

Evita Kalogiropoulou ERC Research Project PlantCult School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Georgia Koromila School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Sciences University of Reading Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AB, United Kingdom

Stella Katsarou Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology Ministry of Culture and Sport 34b Ardittou str., Athens 11636, Greece

Kostas Kotsakis School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Lilian Karali-Giannakopoulou Department of Archaeology and the History of Art National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Panepistimioupoli Zographou- GR 15784 Athens, Greece

Georgia Kotzamani Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports Ephorate of Antiquity of Athens Makriyianni 2-4, Athens 11742, Greece Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki Honorary Ephore of Antiquities Chalkidos 4, 65404 Kavala, Greece

Georgia Karampatsou School of Mineral Resources Engineering Technical University of Crete Chania 73100, Crete, Greece

Despina Koutsoumba Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports Athens 11742, Greece

Evangelia Karimali GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika Emerita director of the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology Greek Ministry of Culture Ardittou 34b, 11636, Athens, Greece

Panagiotis Karkanas Malcolm H. Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science American School of Classical Studies Souidias 54, Athens 10676, Greece

Thomas Loughlin National Museum of Qatar Qatar Museums Doha Qatar

Markos Katsianis Dipilon - Society for the Study of Ancient Topography 5 Roma Str., Athens 10673, Greece

Dimitra Malamidou Ephorate of Antiquities of Kavala-Thasos Archaeological Museum of Kavala Er. Stavrou 17, 65110 Kavala, Greece

George Kazantzis Ephory of Antiquities of Kozani Archaeological Museum of Aeani Aeani 50004, Greece

Meropi Manataki GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Dimitris Kloukinas Ephorate Of Antiquities Of Euboea Arethousis & I. Kiapekou 1 Chalkida 34133, Greece ix

AS20.indb 9

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Cristina Manzetti GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Anastasia Papathanasiou Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology Ministry of Culture and Sport 34b Ardittou str., Athens 11636, Greece Giorgos Papathanassopoulos Emeritus director of Antiquities Ministry of Culture and Sport 5 Mathaiou Liouga str., Glyfada 16675, Greece

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica Ministry of Culture and Sports 11741 Athens, Greece.

William A. Parkinson Field Museum of Natural History & University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL 60605, USA

Odysseas Metaxas Aristoxenou 8 Athens, Greece Ian Moffat Department of Archaeology Flinders University Sturt Road, Bedford Park, 5042, South Australia

Areti Pentedeka Austrian Academy of Sciences OREA Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Hollandstraße 11-13 A-1020 Vienna, Austria

Stratos Nanoglou Ephorate of Antiquities of Pella Archaeological Museum of Pella Pella 58005, Greece

Katerina Psimogiannou Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60607, USA

Nikos Nikas GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Daniel J. Pullen Department of Classics Florida State University  Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA

Maria Ntinou Wiener Laboratory American School of Classical Studies 54 Souidias Street, 10676 Athens, Greece

Agathe Reingruber Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology Free University of Berlin Berlin 14195, Germany

Maria Pappa Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki Region Marias Kallas 21A Thessaloniki 54646, Greece

Josette Renard CNRS-UMR7041-ARSCAN Maison René Ginouvès 92023 Nanterre, France

Trisevgeni Papadakou School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Vasso Rondiri Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia – Hellenic Ministry of Culture Athanasaki 1, Volos 38222, Greece

Anna Papaioannou School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Dimitris Sakellariou Institute of Oceanography Hellenic Centre for Marine Research Anavyssos 19013, Greece

x

AS20.indb 10

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Niki Saridaki School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Stella Theodoridou Department of Mineralogy-Petrology-Economic Geology School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Ioanna Siamidou School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Vasilis Tsamis University College London Archaeology South-East Units 1 & 2 - 2 Chapel Place, Portslade, Brighton, East Sussex, BN41 1DR, United Kingdom

Apostolos Sarris GeoSat ReSeArch Lab Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas Nikiforou Foka 130, Rethymno 74100, Crete, Greece

Zoï Tsirtsoni CNRS, UMR 7041 Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 allée de l’Université, F-92023 NANTERRE Cedex, France

Teresa Silva Department of History and Ethnography School of Classics and Humanity Democritus University of Thrace Komotini 69100, Greece

Eirini Tzemopoulou School of History and Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

François-Xavier Simon Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives (Inrap) Chrono-Environnement UMR6249, CNRS, Bourgogne Franche-Comté University 9, rue Lavoisier, 25000 Besançon, France

Dushka Urem-Kotsou Department of History and Ethnography School of Classics and Humanity Democritus University of Thrace Komotini 69100, Greece

David Michael Smith University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 3BX, United Kingdom

Petra Vaiglova School of Archaeology University of Oxford 36 Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 2PG, United Kingdom

Evangelia Stamelou Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia – Hellenic Ministry of Culture Athanasaki 1, Volos 38222, Greece

Soultana-Maria Valamoti School of History and Archaeology Department of Archaeology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

Christos Stergiou Department of Mineralogy-Petrology-Economic Geology School of Geology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

Konstantinos Vouzaxakis Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa – Hellenic Ministry of Culture Loukianou 1, Karditsa 43132, Greece

Georgia Stratouli Hellenic Ministry of Culture & Sports Ephorate of Antiquities of Chaklidiki & Mount Athos Polygyros 63100, Greece

Nicolas Zorzin Institute of Archaeology National Cheng Kung University No 1, University Road Tainan City 701, Taiwan

Žarko Tankosić Norwegian Institute at Athens Tsami Karatasou 5 Athens 11742, Greece xi

AS20.indb 11

2/11/18 8:59 PM

AS20.indb 12

2/11/18 8:59 PM

List of Figures Map 1. Area covered by the Rethymno conference, with the extents of the detailed maps outlined.............................................................................................................................................. xxvii Map 2. Map of Neolithic sites in northwest Greece.......................................................................... xxviii Map 3. Map of Neolithic sites in northeast Greece...............................................................................xxix Map 4. Map of Neolithic sites in Thessaly.............................................................................................xxx Map 5. Map of Neolithic sites in central Greece..................................................................................xxxi Map 6. Map of Neolithic sites in southern Greece............................................................................. xxxii Chapter 2 Figure 1. The circum-Aegean world and neighboring areas (Marmara region and Lake District), with sites mentioned in the text...........................................................................................................9 Figure 2. Snapshot with the first occurrence of a sedentary lifestyle in the different regions of the circum-Aegean world, the Marmara region, and the Lake District. (Adapted from Reingruber 2011:Figure 9)...................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3. Methods, concepts, and narratives advanced for explaining the Neolithization process in the Aegean before (above) and after (below) important new Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites were discovered around and after 1990.....................................................................................12 Figure 4. Radiocarbon dates from Franchthi Cave in stratigraphical order: (a) FAN Trenches; (b) FAS Trenches. The dates of charcoal from the “Final Mesolithic” and the “Initial Neolithic” overlap to a large degree and appear older than the dates of (short-lived) seeds from units FAN162 and FAN163, possibly owing to the long-lived sample material. In both trenches a gap of more than 500 years followed the mixed Mesolithic–Neolithic sequence. The only sample from a reliable context pertaining to the early pottery phase FCP1 derives from unit FAS129 and overlaps with the MN dates. (After Perlès et al. 2013:Table 2; Reingruber and Thissen 2005:302–303)...................................................................................................................................18 Figure 5. Selected elements of the temporal and spatial connectivity resulting in innovation centers that influenced neighboring regions..................................................................................................19 Figure 6. Radiocarbon dates from Sarakenos Cave, Trench A. (Dates from Sampson et al. 2009:150– 154)....................................................................................................................................................20 Chapter 3 Figure 1. Locations of Neolithic sites mentioned in the text...................................................................28 Figure 2. Results of the survey of Almyros 2: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features....................................32 Figure 3. Results of the survey of Rizomilos 2: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features. ..................................34 Figure 4. Results of the survey of Karatsantangliou: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey together with the results of the flooding simulation based on the DTM; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features. ...............................................................35 Figure 5. Results of the survey of Velestino 2 (Nikonanou): (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient and the GEM-2 conductivity survey; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features................................................................................................................37 Figure 6. Results of the survey of Karatsantagli: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) results of the EM (GEM-2) magnetic susceptibility survey, which covered the center of the settlement and verified the magnetic targets.....................................................................................38 Figure 7. Diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies at Karatsantagli.......39 Figure 8. Results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey at Perdika 1 (Daoutza). ...............................40 Figure 9. Diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies of Perdika 1 (Daoutza)...........................................................................................................................................41 Figure 10. Results of the survey of Perdika 2: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) results of the EM GEM-2 magnetic susceptibility survey; (c) results of the EM GEM-2 soil conductivity survey; (d) diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies....43 xiii

AS20.indb 13

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 11. Results of the survey of Almyriotiki: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies......................................45 Chapter 4 Figure 1. Neolithic sites in central Macedonia and Thessaly mentioned in the text................................51 Figure 2. The excavated area at Vasilika Kyparissi.................................................................................52 Figure 3. Sequence of successive clay floors distinguishable along the side of the trench.....................53 Figure 4. Walls built with mudbricks, bearing a discernible plaster of fine clay.....................................54 Figure 5. Stone foundation of a mudbrick wall.......................................................................................55 Figure 6. Bedding trench of a wall with posts and clay coating..............................................................56 Figure 7. Square hearth with pebble substructure placed on a floor........................................................57 Figure 8. Stones laid in a pattern at the bottom of a pit...........................................................................58 Figure 9. Three successive apple-shaped ovens located in an open area between buildings..................59 Chapter 5 Figure 1. Map showing the location of Dikili Tash in eastern Macedonia, Greece.................................61 Figure 2. Aerial view of the tell from the southeast with the main excavation sectors visible. A water source and pond can be seen to the northeast....................................................................................62 Figure 3. Topographical plan of the tell of Dikili Tash, showing the excavation trenches..... Color Plate I Figure 4. Aerial view of Sector 6, showing Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 and associated ovens.....................63 Figure 5. Ground plan of Building 1........................................................................................................64 Figure 6. General view of Building 3......................................................................................................65 Figure 7. Aerial view of Building 4.........................................................................................................66 Figure 8. Interior of Room A, Building 4................................................................................................67 Figure 9. Building 1, floor of oven 6-015 with two-headed animal figurine in situ................................67 Figure 10. Seeds of Vicia ervilia in Building 1, Dikili Tash 2010 excavation season. ...........................68 Figure 11. Building 1, fallen part of a wall possibly from a door frame and ceramic vessels in situ......68 Figure 12. Jar with incised decoration from Building 3 (height 74 cm). ................................................69 Figure 13. Clay fragments with imprints of wood lying on the floor of Building 1................................70 Figure 14. Concentration of carbonized seeds and associated ceramic vessel on the floor of Building 1...................................................................................................................................................71 Figure 15. Presence of taxa in the exterior areas and buildings. The taxa are grouped in potential vegetation types indicated by different shading. (Courtesy M. Ntinou)...........................................72 Figure 16. Bar chart showing the frequency of occurrence of taxa in the samples of each of the four buildings. (Courtesy M. Ntinou).......................................................................................................74 Figure 17. Fruits of wild pear, cf. Pyrus amygdaliformis, from flotation sample from Building 1, Dikili Tash, 2012 excavation season.................................................................................................74 Figure 18. Seeds of einkorn wheat, Triticum monococcum. (Courtesy S. Valamoti)..............................75 Figure 19. Seeds of flax, Linum usitatissimum, from Building 1. (Courtesy S. Valamoti).....................75 Figure 20. Grape pips and pressings and associated coarse ware vessel in Building 1...........................76 Chapter 6 Figure 1. The distribution of Neolithic sites in central Greece. (Based on Papathanassopoulos 1996)..82 Figure 2. The topography of Koutroulou Magoula (2012)......................................................................83 Figure 3. Results of the magnetometer survey at Koutroulou Magoula (2012)..................... Color Plate I Figure 4. Interpretation of the magnetometer survey at Koutroulou Magoula shown in Figure 3, on Plate I (2012)................................................................................................................... Color Plate II Figure 5. Site plan of Koutroulou Magoula at the end of the 2015 excavation season, showing the most recent surviving Middle Neolithic architectural phase (buildings 1 and 2, in black)...............84 Figure 6. The successive architectural phases of Building 1 at Koutroulou Magoula (Trench H2, from the east; 2010)...........................................................................................................................85 Figure 7. Building 2 at Koutroulou Magoula during excavation (2006), showing the clay slabs which seem to have covered the stone foundations of the walls.......................................................86 Figure 8. Some of the clay Neolithic figurines found at Koutroulou Magoula. (Courtesy Fotis Ifantidis, photographer)...................................................................................................... Color Plate II Figure 9. Pottery sherds of Red-on-White/Buff ware from Koutroulou Magoula, featuring various flamed, stepped, rectangular, and other linear motifs.....................................................Color Plate III xiv

AS20.indb 14

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 10. White-on-Red ware, including the body of a handled and necked globular jar from Building 1..........................................................................................................................................88 Figure 11. The regional Thessalian Neolithic pottery “cultures” as defined by Wace and Thompson (1912)................................................................................................................................................89 Figure 12. Koutroulou Magoula amidst neighboring Neolithic tells in the area south of Karditsa. (source: CNES/Astrium, DigitalGlobe, ©2013 Google, annotated).................................................90 Figure 13. Geological map of Koutroulou Magoula and its vicinity, showing the sampling locations of KMGS1–13 (black triangles): (1) alluvial deposits; (2) fluvio-lacustrine formations (Pliocene); (3) flysch (Late Cretaceous); (4) limestone (Late Cretaceous); (5) shale-chert formations (Triassic-Jurassic); (6) ophiolitic units and mélange. (Adapted from Bornovas and Philippakis 1964; Marinos et al. 1957)................................................................................................................91 Figure 14. Microphotographs of Koutroulou Magoula petrofabrics (under crossed polars): (a) Fabric Group 1 (KTM7, Monochrome Red bowl); (b) raw material of KMGS2 (briquette fired at 700 degrees Celsius); (c) Fabric Group 2 (KMF2, figurine); (d) Fabric Group 4 (KTM25, Whiteon-Red bowl)..................................................................................................................Color Plate III Chapter 7 Figure 1. Map showing Neolithic Halai and nearby Neolithic sites........................................................98 Figure 2. Chart of Atalanti Bay................................................................................................................99 Figure 3. Halai acropolis from the southeast (taken by balloon)...........................................................100 Figure 4. Halai, Area F from above (northeast at top); the Neolithic levels are below those of the Archaic period.................................................................................................................................101 Figure 5. Schematic plan of Neolithic buildings in Area F....................................................................102 Figure 6. Schematic elevation of the southeast scarp of Trench F2, showing stratigraphic divisions (1–5). (Courtesy Mary Eliot, artist).................................................................................................103 Figure 7. Neolithic Buildings II, VI, and VII in Trench F9 from the west............................................104 Figure 8. Neolithic female figurines from Halai. EAM 8038 and EAM 8010 are from the Goldman excavations and are on display in the Athens National Museum....................................................105 Figure 9. Numbers and percentages of Neolithic seashells...................................................................106 Figure 10. Chart of all Neolithic shell frequencies................................................................................106 Figure 11. Neolithic stone and shell ornaments.....................................................................................107 Figure 12. Neolithic worked shell objects. Those in the upper row and at the lower left are made of Spondylus....................................................................................................................................108 Figure 13. Overview of botanical sample composition from Halai in terms of five major plant categories......................................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 14. Overview of the percentages of cereal grain taxa at Halai, arranged by chronological period: Late Early Neolithic (LEN), Early Middle Neolithic (EMN), Late Middle Neolithic (LMN), Early Late Neolithic (ELN), Late Late Neolithic (LLN)...................................................112 Figure 15. Magnified surfaces of a light-slipped monochrome sherd from EU F2c.155 (Stratum 1): (a) exterior, with the intact surface treatment clearly visible; (b) interior, showing deep surface attrition............................................................................................................................................113 Figure 16. Magnified views of a light-slipped coarse ware sherd from EU F2c.150 (Stratum 1): (a) exterior; (b) interior, with left arrow pointing to large pedestalled temper and right arrow indicating a directional gouge of removed clay matrix; (c) interior, with arrows indicating patches of light slip surface treatment remaining amid the visible attrition; (d) interior, with arrow indicating large pedestalled temper protruding from clay matrix.........................................113 Figure 17. Interior surface of a burnished jar fragment from EU F2j.182 accompanied by evidence of later abrasion, with black arrow indicating carbon residue.........................................................114 Figure 18. Two Red-on-White sherds from EU F2j.182 exhibiting only internal evidence of nonabrasive pitting, possibly as a result of the processing of highly acidic foodstuffs........................115 Figure 19. Matt Painted ware from Halai: (a-, b, c, d, e, f, g) Dark-on-Light ware; (h) Miscellaneous ware.................................................................................................................................................116 Figure 20. Matt Painted ware from Halai: (a, b, c) Polychrome ware; (d, e, f) Black-on-Red ware; (g, h, i) Miscellaneous ware. Note that areas and lines of red color appear here in gray................117 Figure 21. Obsidian cortical flakes........................................................................................................119 xv

AS20.indb 15

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 22. Obsidian crested blades: (a) primary crested blades; (b) secondary/tertiary crested blades...............................................................................................................................................120 Figure 23. Obsidian specimens: (a) crested flakes; (b) blade pressure cores.........................................121 Figure 24. Pressure blades; the blade at the right of the figure is the longest blade found at Halai (7.4 cm)...........................................................................................................................................122 Figure 25. Blade usage...........................................................................................................................123 Figure 26. Importation of prepared obsidian cores to Thessaly.............................................................124 Chapter 8 Figure 1. Map showing the location of Diros Bay and The Diros Project study area in Mani. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried).....................................................................................................................127 Figure 2. Map of Alepotrypa Cave on the coast of Diros Bay, showing the location of areas mentioned in the text. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried)...............................................................................128 Figure 3. Map of Diros Bay, showing sites identified during pedestrian survey. Site 2, Ksagounaki Promontory, is located outside the entrance to Alepotrypa Cave, and is the only other significant findspot of Neolithic material identified in the study area. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried)...............130 Figure 4. Map of Ksagounaki Promontory, showing the distribution of geophysical anomalies and excavation blocks. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried).............................................................................131 Figure 5. Photograph of a Final Neolithic double burial on Ksagounaki Promontory. (Courtesy William Ridge, photographer).........................................................................................................132 Figure 6. Photograph of the Mycenaean ossuary on Ksagounaki Promontory. (Courtesy William Ridge, photographer).......................................................................................................................133 Figure 7. Map of megalithic boulders associated with prehistoric terraces on Ksagounaki Promontory. Whereas the more recent agricultural terraces follow the slope of the terrain on the promontory, the prehistoric terraces form straight lines despite the topography. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried).. 134 Chapter 9 Figure 1. Section of Trench A, showing seven cultural layers and twelve strata of clay and charcoal. (Drawing by Heinrich Dürr, 1941, adapted)....................................................................................139 Figure 2. Section of Trench B, showing six cultural layers and strata of clay and sand. (Drawing by Heinrich Dürr, 1941, adapted)....................................................................................................140 Figure 3. Simplified plan of the so-called “megaron” in Area I, published in Völkischer Beobachter. (Adapted from Benecke 1942)........................................................................................................141 Figure 4. Detailed plan of the so-called “megaron” in Area I. (Drawing by Hans Reinerth, 1942, adapted)...........................................................................................................................................141 Figure 5. August 26, 1960, aerial photograph of Visviki Magoula. The aerial photograph identifies several rivers and streams (indicated by arrows) that were no longer a part of the local topography by 2010..................................................................................................................................143 Figure 6. May 4, 2010, GeoEye-1 image around the site of Visviki Magoula......................................144 Figure 7. Resulting map of the high-resolution magnetic data. ............................................................145 Figure 8. Interpretation of the geophysical anomalies. The diagrammatic interpretation of the data is based on the results arising from all the geophysical methods....................................................146 Figure 9. Registration of the old excavation plan in Area I with the topographic data and magnetic results...............................................................................................................................................147 Chapter 10 Figure 1. Map showing the location of Kouphovouno. (Courtesy Jean Cantuel)..................................150 Figure 2. Excavations at Kouphovouno: general plan of Areas A–G. (Courtesy William Cavanagh)..151 Figure 3. Area C: penultimate construction phase (MN2). The undisturbed MN occupation is west of the curved line, and the MN–LN–EH occupation is to the east. (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard, Raphaël Orgeolet, and Josette Renard)...........................................................................................153 Figure 4. Footings of the east wall of Structure CII at the end of the 2005 excavation. (Courtesy Anaïg Frémont, photographer)........................................................................................................155 Figure 5. Area C: last construction phase (MN3). The undisturbed MN occupation is west of the curved line, and the MN–LN–EH occupation is to the east. (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard, Raphaël Orgeolet, and Josette Renard)...........................................................................................156

xvi

AS20.indb 16

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 6. Area G: last construction phase (MN3). (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard and Josette Renard).................................................................................................................................................158 Figure 7. Plan with a line dividing the settlement in two parts: to the west is the area undisturbed by later Neolithic or EH constructions; to the east is the area occupied by later Neolithic and EH constructions. (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard and Josette Renard)............................................160 Figure 8. Distribution of MN pottery from the 1999–2000 pick-up survey at Kouphovouno. (Courtesy William Cavanagh)..................................................................................................................161 Figure 9. Distribution of LN pottery from the 1999–2000 pick-up survey at Kouphovouno. (Courtesy William Cavanagh)..................................................................................................................162 Chapter 11 Figure 1. Map of the Neolithic northern Greek sites that provide evidence about house construction...................................................................................................................................................169 Figure 2. Makriyalos II: remains of “pit-dwellings.” (Pappa and Besios 1999:Figure 10)...................170 Figure 3. Stavroupolis Ia: semi-subterranean dwelling and ancillary structures. (Kotsos 2013: Figure 2)................................................................................................................................................170 Figure 4. Distribution of semi-subterranean dwellings in Neolithic northern Greece...........................171 Figure 5. Avgi I: the rubble of Building 5. (Avgi excavations archive, permission by G. Stratouli).....172 Figure 6. Sossandra: reconstruction of the Neolithic house. (Georgiadou 2015:Figure 16).................173 Figure 7. House building materials in Neolithic northern Greece.........................................................174 Figure 8. Experimental hut at Sarakini (Rhodope, Greece) following the wattle-and-daub technique. (Photo: D. Kloukinas)......................................................................................................................175 Figure 9. Sossandra: reconstruction of the wall of the Neolithic house. (Georgiadou 2015:Figure 5).176 Figure 10. Vassilika: remains of stone socles. (Grammenos 1991:Figure 2a).......................................177 Figure 11. Servia VII: clay-surfaced timber floor. (Ridley et al. 2000:illustration 20 - digital image from CD) ........................................................................................................................................178 Figure 12. Distribution of distinct house construction technologies in Neolithic northern Greece. .....179 Figure 13. Distribution of foundation techniques in Neolithic northern Greece...................................180 Figure 14. Distribution of wall construction and flooring techniques in Neolithic northern Greece....181 Chapter 12 Figure 1. The acropolis of Sesklo, looking toward the southwest. .......................................................189 Figure 2. The acropolis of Dimini, showing the concentric periboloi on the slope from the northeast...................................................................................................................................................190 Figure 3. Livari Katharades from above and north of the site...............................................................192 Chapter 13 Figure 1. FN sites mentioned in the text in the area of east Lokris and northern Phthiotis, central Greece. (After Van de Moortel and Zahou 2006)............................................................................201 Figure 2. FN pits and burials below the EBA II settlement at Proskynas..............................................202 Figure 3. FN pit at Proskynas as found, covered with stones................................................................202 Figure 4. FN pits at Proskynas after excavation....................................................................................203 Figure 5. Part of an FN bowl found in one of the pits at Proskynas......................................................203 Figure 6. FN pit burial of an adult man, 25 years old, underneath a wall of the Early Helladic II House D at Proskynas (mid-fifth millennium B.C.)........................................................................204 Figure 7. FN pit burial of an adult man, 45 years old, found underneath the Early Helladic II open Area B at Proskynas (mid-fifth millennium B.C.)...........................................................................204 Figure 8. FN pit burial of an adult man, 30–35 years old, north of the Early Helladic II House A at Proskynas (mid-fifth millennium B.C.)...........................................................................................205 Figure 9. FN pit at Achinos as found, dug into bedrock and covered with stones................................205 Figure 10. FN pit at Achinos after excavation.......................................................................................206 Figure 11. FN collar jar with horizontal tubular lugs on the body, found broken in the pottery deposit in Chamber Z, Alepotrypa Cave......................................................................................................209 Figure 12. FN collar jar with horizontally pierced tubular lug handles on the body, found broken in the pottery deposit in Chamber Z, Alepotrypa Cave...................................................................209 Chapter 14 Figure 1. Distribution of Neolithic sites in the Cyclades (see Table 1 for site names)..........................221 xvii

AS20.indb 17

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 2. Distribution of Neolithic sites in the northern Sporades (see Table 1 for site names)...........222 Figure 3. Classification of site categories in the Neolithic Cyclades and northern Sporades................223 Figure 4. Landscape habitation preferences in in the Neolithic Cyclades and northern Sporades........225 Figure 5. Suggested contacts and sea communication routes among sites in the Neolithic Cyclades... 226 Figure 6. Suggested contacts and sea communication routes among sites in the Neolithic northern Sporades..........................................................................................................................................227 Chapter 15 Figure 1. Surveys conducted in southern Euboea, showing sites from all known chronological periods. (M. Katsianis)....................................................................................................................235 Figure 2. Definition of the study area (likely the prehistoric Karystia) based on general topography and watershed formation. (M. Katsianis and Z. Tankosić)..............................................................237 Figure 3. Survey area coverage of the Kampos and the Katsaronio Plain, showing sites, findspots, and off-site material presence. (M. Katsianis).................................................................................239 Figure 4. Prehistoric sites in the Karystia included in the current analysis: Late Neolithic (LN), Final Neolithic (FN), and Early Bronze Age (EBA), with sites mentioned in text. (M. Katsianis and Z. Tankosić)..............................................................................................................................240 Figure 5. Distribution of chipped-stone-only sites vs. sites with both pottery and chipped stone in the Karystia. (M. Katsianis and Z. Tankosić)..................................................................................241 Figure 6. Summary of site distribution in relation to modern land cover type (based on Corine Land Cover 2000 data): chipped-stone-only sites (c.s. only) and sites with both pottery and chipped stone (pottery & c.s.). (M. Katsianis)..............................................................................................242 Figure 7. Distribution of prehistoric sites in relation to land capability classification (based on Corine Land Cover 2000 data). (M. Katsianis)...............................................................................243 Chapter 16 Figure 1. Map of the island of Kephalonia in the Ionian Sea, showing location of the village of Poros................................................................................................................................................248 Figure 2. The village of Poros and the gorge (from the east)................................................................248 Figure 3. Aerial view of the gorge (from the southwest).......................................................................249 Figure 4. Poros Gorge; marked is the location of Drakaina Cave.........................................................250 Figure 5. Topographic drawing of the shallow Drakaina Cave, with the excavated trenches in various depths: end of the Neolithic, Late Neolithic I (LN), and Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic II (CH).......251 Figure 6. The northwestern part of the cave..........................................................................................252 Figure 7. The cave’s stratigraphic sequence based on profiles in trench E4 and trenches H3, H4, and H5; the dotted lines represent successive lime plaster surfaces from the Late Neolithic I (LN) and the Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic II (CH)...........................................................................253 Figure 8. Parts of a LN I four-legged vessel (rhyton) found in Drakaina cave.....................................254 Figure 9. Projectile points from LN I deposits in Drakaina cave........................................ Color Plate IV Figure 10. View of the Tzannata Basin and the Aenos Mountain west of the cave...............................255 Figure 11. View of the sea passage between the island and the adjacent mainland east of the cave.....256 Figure 12. Various types of chert projectiles from LN and CH deposits in Drakaina cave................................................................................................................................ Color Plate IV Figure 13. Ground stones coated with red pigment from Drakaina cave..............................Color Plate V Figure 14. Tanged and barbed projectile points from LN II layers of Drakaina cave...........Color Plate V Chapter 17 Figure 1. General map of the Terra Submersa expedition, Bay of Kiladha, and Franchthi Cave..........262 Figure 2. PlanetSolar in front of Franchthi Cave, during the Terra Submersa expedition.....................263 Figure 3. Map of the 2014 geological-geophysical survey in the Bay of Kiladha................................264 Figure 4. Chirp subbottom profile in the Bay of Kiladha. Vertical exaggeration: ± 15x.......................265 Chapter 18 Figure 1. Map showing the modern topographic location of Koutroulou Magoula at the southern edge of the Thessalian Plain............................................................................................................270 Figure 2. Plan of excavation trenches and major identified features at Koutroulou Magoula. (Courtesy the Koutroulou Magoula Archaeology and Archaeological Ethnography Project).................271

xviii

AS20.indb 18

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 3. Photomicrographs of phytoliths from dung-rich contexts at Koutroulou, identified in thin section and in associated extracted samples: (a) cereal inflorescence phytolith in dung-rich ash; (b) stacked and keystone bulliform phytoliths in dung; (c) extracted short-cell phytoliths with paleoenvironmental significance: saddle (in square), bilobes (in circle); (d) extracted shortcell phytoliths with paleoenvironmental significance: saddle (in square), rondel (in triangle), keystone bulliform (in circle); (e) multi-celled phytolith with squat saddles (chloridoid); (f) stacked bulliform cells (reed)..........................................................................................................273 Chapter 19 Figure 1. Excavation Areas A–G at Kouphovouno................................................................................282 Figure 2. Domesticated fauna in the Middle Neolithic (MN) and Late Neolithic (LN) expressed as percentages: number of identified specimens (NISP), minimum number of individuals (MNI), and meat weight (MW). (Cantuel 2010:Figure 14).........................................................................283 Figure 3. Microwear bivariate graph of the density of pits against density of scratches (number per mm2) for the domestic ungulates from Kouphovouno. Ellipses indicate Gaussian confidence ellipses (p = .95) on the centroid of the samples from Kouphovouno and the modern grazer and browser samples adjusted by sample size.................................................................................284 Figure 4. δ13C and δ15N of all Neolithic plants and animals analyzed from Kouphovouno...............287 Figure 5. Δ13C values of wheat, barley, peas, and lentil measured from Kouphovouno compared to watering bands established through experimental studies..........................................................288 Figure 6. δ13C and δ15N of MN and LN goats and sheep analyzed from Kouphovouno....................289 Chapter 20 Figure 1. Map of Greece, showing location of Promachon-Topolnica..................................................293 Figure 2. Structure 4. (After Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2007:Figure 10)........................................294 Figure 3. Retrieval biases: comparison between the first and second phalanges of the three main taxa based on NISP counts..............................................................................................................295 Figure 4. Relative frequencies of the three main taxa at the temporal level: NISP counts....................297 Figure 5. Body part distribution of cattle at the temporal level: broad anatomical categories and MNI counts......................................................................................................................................298 Figure 6. Mortality profiles for cattle.....................................................................................................299 Figure 7. Mortality profiles for caprines (sheep, goat, and sheep/goat mandibles)...............................299 Figure 8. Mortality profiles for sheep....................................................................................................300 Figure 9. Mortality profiles for goats. ...................................................................................................301 Figure 10. Comparison of sheep and goat humeri: breadth (BT) vs. smallest diameter of the trochlea (HTC). (After Davis [1992])...........................................................................................................302 Figure 11. Mortality profiles for pigs.....................................................................................................303 Figure 12. Sexual composition of the pig population: NISP counts......................................................303 Figure 13. Relative frequencies of the three main taxa at the intra-site level: NISP counts from Structure 4 vs. deposits of Phase I...................................................................................................305 Figure 14. Mortality profiles for cattle at the intra-site level: (a) deposits of Phase I; (b) Structure 4. ..............................................................................................................................................307 Figure 15. Mortality profiles for sheep at the intra-site level: (a) deposits of Phase I; (b) Structure 4. ..............................................................................................................................................308 Figure 16. Mortality profiles for goats at the intra-site level:(a) deposits of Phase I; (b) Structure 4...309 Chapter 22 Figure 1. Map of EN and MN sites in Thessaly and Macedonia...........................................................325 Figure 2. EN vessels: (a) Paliambela Kolindros; (b) Revenia Korinos.................................................326 Figure 3. White slip on the interior of vessels: (a) Revenia Korinos ; (b) Paliambela Kolindros.........327 Figure 4. Thin-section micrographs of EN–MN pottery samples: (a) Paliambela Kolindros, EN: local coarse fabric showing quartz, feldspars, volcanic rocks, and tempering with organic inclusions (Pal.96); (b) Revenia Korinos, EN: local medium calcareous fabric showing quartz, feldspars, and micrite calcite (Rev.10); (c) Ritini, EN–MN: medium fabric showing quartz and feldspars, related to northeastern Thessaly (Rit.66); (d) Revenia Korinos, EN–MN: coarse fabric showing phyllites, related to the western region of Pieria (Rev.50); (e) Paliambela Kolindros, MN: local

xix

AS20.indb 19

2/11/18 8:59 PM

coarse fabric showing quartz and feldspars (Pal.77); (f) Apsalos Grammi, MN: local coarse fabric showing quartz, feldspars, and volcanic rocks (AG.72)..................................... Color Plate VI Figure 5. Red-slipped vessels: (a) Paliambela Kolindros; (b) Ritini; (c) Revenia Korinos; (d) Varemenoi Goulon...............................................................................................................................330 Figure 6. Painted vessels: (a) Revenia Korinos; (b) Paliambela Kolindros; (c) Ritini; (d) Varemenoi Goulon; (e) Roditis Paliambela.................................................................................... Color Plate VII Figure 7. Painted vessels from Revenia Korinos...............................................................Color Plate VIII Figure 8. Impresso decoration: (a) Paliambela Kolindros; (b) Varemenoi Goulon; (c) Revenia Korinos; (d) Ritini................................................................................................................................331 Figure 9. Plastic decoration: (a) Revenia Korinos; (b) Varemenoi Goulon...........................................332 Figure 10. Morphology of the Late EN–Early MN vessels: (a) Ritini; (b) Revenia Korinos; (c, d) Roditis Paliambela; (e, f) closed-shaped vessels of the late EN and early MN; (g) bases characteristic of the late EN and early MN............................................................................................333 Figure 11. MN decorated vessels from Varemenoi Goulon...................................................................334 Figure 12. MN pottery from Paliambela Kolindros: (a) Impresso; (b) barbotine; (c) White-on-Red; (d) Chaeronea ware; (e) “flame” pattern....................................................................... Color Plate IX Figure 13. Red-Slipped pottery with black painted decoration of organic origin (bitumen): (a) Apsalos Grammi; (b) Varemenoi Goulon. (Courtesy S. Mavrommatis, photographer).......Color Plate X Chapter 23 Figure 1. Map of Thessaly with the location of all the sites included in the study: (1) Theopetra Cave; (2) Platia Magoula Zarkou; (3) Makrychori 2; (4) Agia Sophia; (5) Otzaki; (6) Arapi; (7) Halki 1; (8) Sesklo; (9) Tsangli; (10) Achilleion; (11) Magoula Sykeon; (12) Orgozinos; (13) Magoula Tsalma/Tyrnavos 5; (14) Hatzimissiotiki Magoula; (15) Agrokipiou Magoula; (16) Magoula Visviki; (17) Magoula Tsapocha/Syrmou; (18) Daoutza; (19) Kamara; (20) Koutroulou Magoula; (21) Mesochori 1; (22) Soufli Magoula; (23) Gonnoi 1; (24) Nikaia 5; (25) Terpsithea 2; (26) Grizano 1; (27) Lefki Karditsas 1; (28) Ampelonas Karditsas; (29) Keramidi; (30) Itea 2; (31) Kastro 1; (32) Rachoula 1; (33) Ypereia 1; (34) Chara 2; (35) Magoula Koskina; (36) Dimini...... 341 Figure 2. Distribution of the identified common fabric groups (CFGs) and their probable production center in the MN (sites numbered as in Figure 1): CFG1, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Scraped and Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG2, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG6, Tsangli? (Scraped ware); CFG7, Halki 1 (Red-on-White ware); CFG9, Kamara (Red-on-White ware); CFG10, Visviki (Red Monochrome ware)......................................................................................345 Figure 3. Microphotographs illustrating the main common fabric groups (CFGs) identified within the Thessalian ceramic assemblages: (a) CFG7, Red-on-White ware, H11/1; (b) CFG7, Redon-White ware, OTZ11/8; (c) CFG7, Red-on-White ware, 186; (d) CFG6, Scraped ware, TS10; (e) CFG6, Scraped ware, SB40; (f) CFG1, Scraped ware, PMZ23; (g) CFG1, Scraped ware, X25; (h) CFG1, Grey ware, OTZ47; (i) CFG2, Grey ware, PMZ56; (j) CFG2, Grey ware, SYK29; (k) CFG2, Grey ware, TS37; (l) CFG3, Grey ware, PMZ57; (m) CFG3, Grey ware, X41; (n) CFG5, Black Burnished ware, M3; (o) CFG5, Black Burnished ware, 4014. (Samples 186 from Chara 2 and 4014 from Soufli Magoula courtesy Prof. G. Schneider. All microphotographs under crossed polars). .................................................................................... Color Plate XI Figure 4. Distribution of the identified common fabric groups (CFGs) and their probable production center in the LN (sites numbered as in Figure 1): CFG1, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Scraped and Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG2, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG3, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG4, Magoula Tsalma (Black Burnished and Blackon-Red ware); CFG5, Makrychori 2 (Black-on-Red ware); CFG8, grog fabric (Bichrome and Polychrome ware)............................................................................................................................346 Figure 5. Microphotographs illustrating the main common fabric groups (CFGs) identified within the Thessalian ceramic assemblages: (a) CFG4, Black Burnished ware, TSAL11/22; (b) CFG4, Black Burnished ware, 1123; (c) CFG4, Black-on-Red ware, MV78; (d) CFG8, Bichrome and Polychrome ware, MV48; (e) CFG8, Bichrome and Polychrome ware, AGR11/14; (f) CFG8, Bichrome and Polychrome ware, TSP11/3; (g) organic material, MV56; (h) organic material, AGR11/16; (i) dung, KTM11/8; (j) dung, KTM11/22; (k) Almyros micro-network, Red-onWhite ware, ATS140; (l) Almyros micro-network, Red-on-White ware, K11/13; (m) Almyros xx

AS20.indb 20

2/11/18 8:59 PM

micro-network, Red-on-White ware, DA11/24; (n) pottery production in the area of Lake Karla, MV19; (o) pottery production in the area of Lake Karla, HM11/2. (Sample ATS140, a geological sample from the vicinity of Kamara, courtesy Colette Beestman. Microphotographs 7–10 in plane polarized light; all others under crossed polars).................................... Color Plate XII Chapter 24 Figure 1. Map of Boeotia, central Greece. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015).....................................354 Figure 2. Map of Greece, showing the location of important Neolithic cave sites and delineating the area of central Greece (ellipse) and the region of Boeotia (box)...............................................355 Figure 3. Profile of Trench A. (After Sampson 2008a)..........................................................................356 Figure 4. Profile of Trench B. (After Sampson 2008b)..........................................................................357 Figure 5. Chaeronea ware (Red-on-White) pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015)...Color Plate XIII Figure 6. Patterned Urfirnis pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015)...............................................359 Figure 7. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015).......................................................360 Figure 8. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015)...................................Color Plate XIV Figure 9. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015).......................................................361 Figure 10. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015).................................Color Plate XIV Figure 11. Polychrome pottery...............................................................................................................362 Figure 12. Vertical distribution of pottery per 10 cm in Trenches D, E, and F......................................363 Figure 13. Fluctuation of painted pottery wares from the MN to the LN in Trenches D, E, and F.......364 Figure 14. Distribution of vessel parts in Trenches D, E, and F............................................................365 Figure 15. Total amounts of painted pottery in Trenches D, E, and F...................................................366 Figure 16. Percentages of fruit stands in Trenches D, E, and F. ...........................................................366 Figure 17. Ground plan of Sarakenos Cave, showing excavated areas. (After Sampson 2014)............367 Chapter 25 Figure 1. Map showing the location of Mavropigi-Filotsairi in relation to other Early Neolithic sites: (1) Mavropigi-Filotsairi; (2) Pontokomi-Souloukia; (3) Pontokomi-Vrisi; (4) PontokomiKsirolimni; (5) Kremastos; (6) Knidi; (7) Gevena-Xiropotamos; (8) Mavranei-Panagia; (9) Konispol Cave; (10) Sidari; (11) Vlusha; (12) Vashtëmi; (13) Podgorie; (14) Velušina; (15) Porodin; (16) Amzabegovo; (17) Vršnik; (18) Kovačevo; (19) Dikili Tash; (20) Mikri Volvi; (21) Lete; (22) Mesimeriani Toumba; (23) Giannitsa B; (24) Axos A; (25) Paliambela Kolindrou; (26) Nea Nikomedeia; (27) Roditis-Paliambela; (28) Servia; (29) Varemenoi-Goules; (30) Nessonis I; (31) Gediki; (32) Otzaki Magoula; (33) Argissa Magoula; (34) Prodromos; (35) Magoulitsa; (36) Choirospilio Cave; (37) Sesklo; (38) Achilleion; (39) Vardali 4; (40) Koutroulou Magoula; (41) Elateia; (42) Chaeronea; (43) Corinth; (44) Franchthi Cave...............375 Figure 2. Site plan of Mavropigi-Filotsairi. (After Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:fig. 5)..............376 Figure 3. The traditional ceramic chronology for the Early Neolithic in the Balkans, based on pottery styles.........................................................................................................................................378 Figure 4. Early Neolithic Red-on-Cream painted pottery from the Central Origma.............................379 Figure 5. Early Neolithic polychrome-painted pottery from the Central Origma.................................380 Figure 6. Early Neolithic Devollite-style Impresso pottery from the Central Origma..........................381 Figure 7. Early Neolithic nail-pinched, fingertip-impressed, or nail-impressed Impresso pottery from the Central Origma.................................................................................................................382 Chapter 26 Figure 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text.........................................................................................389 Figure 2. Cups with strutted handles from Lerna and Aria, to scale. (After Vitelli 2007:CD Photo 66 and Dousougli 1998:Figure 18. Reproduced courtesy the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the Ephorate of Antiquities of the Argolid, and the Archaeological Museum of Nafplion)......................................................................................................................392 Chapter 27 Figure 1. Location of the Final Neolithic figurines in the Innenstadt of Aegina-Kolonna....................400 Figure 2. The Final Neolithic houses and the stone-lined pit below House 8.......................................401 Figure 3. Male figurine with removable pointed cap (MA 6511) from the pit below House 8.............402 Figure 4. Oblong female figurine (MA 6510) from the pit below House 8...........................................402 Figure 5. Two asexual, headless figurines from the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6508; (b) MA 6509...402 xxi

AS20.indb 21

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 6. Two asexual figurines with flat heads from the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6506; (b) MA 6507.................................................................................................................................................402 Figure 7. Male figurine with a removable pointed cap (MA 6511) in a miniature bowl (MA 6030) from the pit below House 8.............................................................................................................403 Figure 8. Two asexual figurines (MA 6508 and 6509) in a fragmented miniature bowl (MA 6029) from the pit below House 8.............................................................................................................403 Figure 9. Fragmented miniature bowl (MA 6031) that was found with a female figurine (MA 6510)................................................................................................................................................403 Figure 10. Fragmented miniature bowl (MA 6028) that was found with two asexual figurines with flat heads (MA 6506 and 6507).......................................................................................................403 Figure 11. Cruciform figurine with pointed cap (MA 6524) from the hearth area below House 1: (a) with cap; (b) without cap...........................................................................................................404 Figure 12. Male figurine with pointed, non-removable cap (MA 6512) from the fill of the pit below House 8............................................................................................................................................404 Figure 13. Male figurine with perforated ears and arm (MA 6515) from the fill of the pit below House 8............................................................................................................................................405 Figure 14. Fragments of male and possibly male figurines from the fill of the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6519; (b) MA 6517; (c) MA 6523, cap and head; (d) MA 6520.........................................405 Figure 15. Asexual figurines from the fill of the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6513; (b) MA 6518; (c) MA 6514; (d) MA 6516; (e) MA 6522.......................................................................................406 Figure 16. Fragment of a composite figurine (MA 6525) from the hearth area below House 1............407 Figure 17. Pregnant female figurine. (Excavations of Kolonna Inventory Number ST875, stray find.)................................................................................................................................................407 Figure 18. Flat female figurine (MA 695) from excavations by G. Welter............................................407 Figure 19. Abstract figurine. (Excavations of Kolonna Inventory Number 629, stray find.)................408 Figure 20. Distribution of figurines with parallels at Kolonna, showing the site’s external connections.................................................................................................................................................408 Chapter 28 Figure 1. Map of northern Greece showing the location of Avgi. ........................................................416 Figure 2. Geological map of the Kastoria region...................................................................................417 Figure 3. Grinding slab made of coarse-grained sandstone (all scales in cm).......................................420 Figure 4. Grinding slab made of granite................................................................................................420 Figure 5. Grinding slab made of fine-grained sandstone.......................................................................421 Figure 6. Limestone polisher with linear wear traces............................................................................421 Figure 7. Fragmented and burned marl sandstone slabs........................................................................422 Figure 8. Edge tool made of serpentinite...............................................................................................422 Figure 9. Serpentinite tool used in an active percussive mode with its ends.........................................423 Figure 10. Serpentinite edge tool with polished surfaces......................................................................425 Figure 11. Serpentinite edge tool with polished surfaces......................................................................426 Figure 12. Piece of silicified wood........................................................................................................427 Figure 13. Map of the Kastoria region indicating the locations of the Neolithic sites of Avgi and Dispilio and the serpentinite quarry at Black Mountain..................................................................428 Figure 14. Secondary flake from the redesign of an edge tool..............................................................428 Figure 15. Edge tool recycled to serve an active percussive function...................................................429 Chapter 29 Figure 1. Google Earth map with sites mentioned in the text. Source sites (indicated with an arrow): Nigrita, Petrota, Vassilika; MN/LN sites: Dimitra, Makri, Sitagroi, Stavroupoli, Thermi, Vassilika; LN sites: Dikili Tash, Kavallari, Makriyalos, Mandalo, Promachonas..........................435 Figure 2. Raw material frequency at central Macedonian sites: (a) Stavroupoli (Skourtopoulou 2004:Table 1); (b) Kavallari (Kakavakis 2011:Figure 26); (c) Thermi (Skourtopoulou 1990:256); (d) Vassilika (Kyriakidou 1991:84).................................................................................................436 Figure 3. Raw material frequency at eastern Macedonian sites: (a) Sitagroi (Tringham 2003:Table 3.2); (b) Dikili Tash (Kourtessi 2008:Figure 2); (c) Dimitra (Kourtessi 1997:213–214); (d) Promachonas (Kourtessi 2008:123)................................................................................................437 xxii

AS20.indb 22

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 4. Chipped stone artifacts from Kavallari: (a) glossed and retouched blade (yellowish brown flint); (b) burin on oblique truncation (yellowish brown flint); (c) end scraper on cortical flake (greenish gray flint); (d) blade-like flake with traces of use (chalcedony); (e) splintered piece (jasper); (f) crested blade (jasper); (g) core platform rejuvenation flake (jasper); (h) glossed and retouched blade (jasper); (i) end scraper on flake (jasper); (j) end scraper on flake (jasper); (k) bladelet (quartz); (l) end scraper on flake (quartz). (Drawings by the author)..........................438 Chapter 30 Figure 1. Map showing the Early Neolithic sites mentioned in the text. (image: Landsat, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO ©2013 Google).......................................................................447 Figure 2. Raw materials used for the tools recovered from Pits 5, 11, and 24......................................448 Figure 3. Breakdown of raw material for Pits 5, 11, and 24, showing count in white boxes. ..............451 Figure 4. Seven prismatic blades on reddish-brown chocolate flint, and a bichrome variety with greenish grey: (top) dorsal faces; (bottom) ventral faces. From left to right: (a) unretouched blade; (b) burinated blade; (c–e) sickle blades; (f–g) unretouched blades...................Color Plate XV Figure 5. Discoid flake core on greyish-white flint, shown from two different sides............................452 Figure 6. Microlith (possible arrowhead) from the medial section of a prismatic blade made on chocolate flint; (top) ventral face; (bottom) dorsal face. ................................................................452 Figure 7. Tool types on flint from Pit 5..................................................................................................453 Figure 8. Tool types on obsidian from Pit 5...........................................................................................453 Figure 9. Overshot cortical flake with retouch on obsidian (knapping accident), shown from four different angles. ..............................................................................................................................454 Figure 10. Flint, obsidian, and quartz tool types from Pit 11. ...............................................................455 Figure 11. Exhausted microblade core on obsidian reused as a pièce esquillée and lacking a preserved striking platform, shown from two different angles............................................................455 Figure 12. Heavily used section of a prismatic blade with retouch that has suffered impact damage on the ventral face (one from the top down, and one from the bottom up), consistent with projectile use; (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face...................................................................456 Figure 13. Flint tools from Pit 24...........................................................................................................457 Figure 14. Flake core on a semi-coarse reddish brown flint with cortical surfaces. The core is shown from four different angles.............................................................................................Color Plate XV Figure 15. Examples of two microliths on blade medial sections from Pit 24: (a) microlith used as a sickle element; (b) microlith possibly used as a transverse arrowhead; (top) dorsal faces; (bottom) ventral faces................................................................................................. Color Plate XVI Figure 16. Transverse arrowhead on a light yellowish-brown flint medial section of prismatic blade: (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face. .........................................................................................457 Figure 17. Series of blades from Pit 24 on chocolate and reddish brown flint variations: a. microlithic sickle element (possibly an arrowhead); b, f, g sickle blades; c. unretouched blade; d. denticulated sickle blade; e. retouched microlith....................................................... Color Plate XVI Figure 18. Obsidian tools from Pit 24....................................................................................................458 Figure 19. Medial prismatic blade section on obsidian retouched and truncated at both ends: (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face, with longitudinal removal that is reminiscent of projectile impact damage.................................................................................................................................459 Figure 20. Denticulated sickle blade with burination on obsidian, with the right side bearing characteristic rounding wear and microfractures and direct retouch on the left and right: (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face...............................................................................................................459

xxiii

AS20.indb 23

2/11/18 8:59 PM

AS20.indb 24

2/11/18 8:59 PM

List of Tables Chapter 2 Table 1. Number of Sherds from the “Preceramic” (PC), Early Ceramic (EN I), and Proto-Sesklo (EN II) Layers in Argissa Magoula...................................................................................................10 Chapter 3 Table 1. List of Sites Surveyed during the ARISTEIA-IGEAN Project..................................................30 Chapter 5 Table 1. Frequency of Taxa in the Wood Charcoal Assemblage from the LN II Exterior Areas.............73 Chapter 6 Table 1. The AMS dates from Koutroulou Magoula (Groningen Laboratory)........................................87 Chapter 7 Table 1. Faunal Summary from Trench F2............................................................................................109 Chapter 9 Table 1. Thessalian Chronology and Pottery Wares..............................................................................142 Chapter 10 Table 1. Calibrated Radiocarbon Estimates from Kouphovouno in Stratified Sequence......................152 Chapter 14 Table 1. Neolithic Sites in the Cyclades and Northern Sporades...........................................................220 Table 2. Landscape Qualities of Neolithic Sites in the Cyclades and Northern Sporades.....................224 Chapter 18 Table 1. Plant Taxa Identified at Koutroulou and Their Habitat Preferences, as Inferred by the Presence of Characteristic Phytolith Types............................................................................................274 Table 2. Summary of Major Habitat Preferences and Life Cycle of the Main Wild/Weed Seeds Considered in the Study...................................................................................................................276 Chapter 19 Table 1. Samples Selected for Stable Isotope Analysis.........................................................................286 Chapter 20 Table 1. Age Stages for Cattle and Pigs.................................................................................................296 Table 2. Age Stages for Sheep and Goats..............................................................................................296 Table 3. Chi-Squared Test Comparing Representation of Cattle and Caprines between Phases I and II......................................................................................................................................................297 Table 4. Chi-Squared Test Comparing Representation of Cattle and Caprines between Phases II and III..............................................................................................................................................297 Table 5. Taxonomic Variability between the Two Study Areas: Species Presence................................304 Table 6. Chi-Squared Test Comparing Representation of Cattle and Caprines between the Two Study Areas......................................................................................................................................305 Table 7. Summary of Differences between the Two Study Areas..........................................................311 Chapter 22 Table 1. Percentages of Slipped and Decorated Pottery within Total Assemblage................................329 Chapter 23 Table 1. Main Attributes Characterizing the Common Fabric Groups (CFG) and Other Fabrics Identified within the Thessalian Ceramic Assemblages..................................................................344 Chapter 24 Table 1. Pattern-Decorated Wares in Central Greece and Adjacent Areas.............................................358 Chapter 28 Table 1. Frequencies of Main Ground Stone Categories at Neolithic Avgi...........................................417 Table 2. Rock Categories and Types Encountered in Avgi’s Ground Stone Assemblage......................419 Chapter 30 Table 1. Types of Flint Found in Pits 5, 11, and 24...............................................................................450 Table 2. Tool Types by Raw Material in the Assemblages from Pits 5, 11, and 24...............................460

xxv

AS20.indb 25

2/11/18 8:59 PM

AS20.indb 26

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Map 1. Area covered by the Rethymno conference, with the extents of the detailed maps outlined.

xxvii

AS20.indb 27

2/11/18 8:59 PM

xxviii

AS20.indb 28

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Map 2. Map of Neolithic sites in northwest Greece.

xxix

AS20.indb 29

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Map 3. Map of Neolithic sites in northeast Greece.

xxx

AS20.indb 30

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Map 4. Map of Neolithic sites in Thessaly.

xxxi

AS20.indb 31

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Map 5. Map of Neolithic sites in central Greece.

xxxii

AS20.indb 32

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Map 6. Map of Neolithic sites in southern Greece.

-1Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction: An Introduction Evita Kalogiropoulou and Apostolos Sarris

This particular proceedings volume constitutes one of the final outcomes of the research project “IGEAN—Innovative Geophysical Approaches for the Study of Early Agricultural Villages of Neolithic Thessaly,” carried out by the Laboratory of Geophysical–Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeoenvironment (GeoSat ReSeArch Lab) of the Institute for Mediterranean Studies–Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas (IMS-FORTH), in cooperation with the Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia, Ministry of Culture and Sports during the period of 2012–2015. The IGEAN research project was co-financed by Greek and European Union resources. The international conference, “Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece” was held in Rethymno, Crete, on the 29th and the 30th of May 2015, at the premises of the Institute for Mediterranean Studies as the final event of the IGEAN research project. This volume is a collection of selected papers that were presented during the corresponding international conference, and it constitutes the outcome of this constructive two-day meeting. The main aim of this volume was to bring together a wide range of scholars contributing different forms of archaeological evidence, in order to demonstrate the varied methodological and theoretical developments of the study of Neolithic Greece and unravel the diversity of material culture remains and interpretations that have emerged in the last few decades from this part of southeastern Europe. Universities and research institutes from numerous destinations are represented together with the Greek Archaeological Service and foreign schools based in Greece, providing comprehensive and detailed coverage. The range of papers reflects the current rapidly changing archaeological environment of Neolithic studies, while various methodological and theoretical approaches, as applied to the study of material culture, highlight the current aims of research on Neolithic Greece. Our efforts were also meant to open a door for a volume of papers that synthesizes archaeological

AS20.indb 1

evidence with historical, regional, and social contexts, and that penetrates into temporal and spatial slices in order to expose the diversity of the Neolithic period in Greece. The aim was to capture the transition of archaeological practice from holistic great schemes and grand narratives to small-scale studies that focus on micro-histories and the analysis of localscale phenomena that delve deeply into the core of social complexity in Neolithic Greece. This volume examines our changing perceptions of Neolithic landscapes in Greece and reconsiders the dynamics of human–environment interactions through a selection of site-specific and interdisciplinary papers. An emphasis on village community, household, and open-air communal spaces reproduces the dominance of the archaeological record over funerary and other monuments in Neolithic Greece, while also demonstrating our growing achievements toward a better understanding of these prehistoric societies. Moreover, some papers revisit older archaeological evidence under the scope of contemporary humancentered theoretical schemes, as well as the application of new scientific techniques such as geophysical prospection, micromorphology, and thin-section petrographic analysis. Scales of Time and Space: From Grand Narratives to Micro-Scale Studies The research framework for studies of the Neolithic period in Greece has been slow to align with the most recent theoretical and analytical trends (Chourmouziadis 2009; Nanoglou 2001:303). From the context of cultural and national identities (Mylonas 1929; Tsountas 2000 [1908]) to the quest for social structures (Chourmouziadis 1979; Theocharis 1967), the application of enthoarchaeology in action (Efstratiou 2002), and the currently prevailing humancentered approach with an emphasis on the regional scale and local distinctiveness (e.g. Kalogiropoulou 2014; Kotsakis 2014; Nanoglou 2008; Pappa et al.

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou and Apostolos Sarris 2004; Souvatzi 2008; Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis 2007; Valamoti 2005), Neolithic research in Greece has come a long way. Over the last few decades, a significant shift in analytical inquiry has taken place, moving toward a wider choice of various theoretical schemes and interpretational approaches that have produced a more diverse, rich, and complex research agenda for the whole of Greek prehistory (Kotsakis 2014). For a long time archaeological research on Neolithic Greece has focused on mounds as obvious landmarks in generally flat landscapes. Since the early 1990s, however, the large-scale salvage excavations that have been carried out broadly throughout the country have become the driving force, with a significant effect on the way Neolithic research in Greece has been formed. Large-scale excavations enabled a shift toward analytical approaches from the chronological and typo-technological descriptions of material culture remains, to multi-temporal spatial analyses, from small-sized and deep trenches to broad-scale interpretative approaches to social structure and communal coherence. Extensive areas of archaeological sites have been exposed at such a scale for the first time, revealing new and unexpected finds that have transformed the research framework and gradually changed our established perceptions of Neolithic Greece. Unexplored landscapes exposed unexpected evidence of habitation, while new settlement formations, such as flat-extended and lakeside sites, have been added to the well-known low mounds and tell sites. Different building forms and construction techniques, together with the emergence of various spatial configurations and residential elements, featured a growing diversity in settlement organization and a variability of people’s daily routines in different communities that formed dissimilar cultural and social site-scapes. In the course of new finds, significant theoretical and methodological developments have been noted in recent years. The shift away from environmental and technological analyses in favor of social approaches and the production of regional narratives, for example, is discernible in recent studies of residential elements (e.g. Kloukinas 2014; Pappa 2008), the social perspectives of pottery and tool products (Skourtopoulou 2006; Tsoraki 2007; Urem-Kotsou 2006), individuality (Nanoglou 2009), cooking and consumption practices as a glue of social cohesion (Kalogiropoulou 2013), and network analysis (e.g. Dimoula 2014; Pentedeka 2008). In this framework, the house and household have become a central analytical topic in the recent research agenda (e.g. Efstratiou 2007; Halstead 1999; Kotsakis 1999; Nanoglou 2008; Souvatzi 2008). Moreover, daily

routines, such as cooking and tool-making, are now historically examined as part of embedded social performances (e.g. Kalogiropoulou 2014; Valamoti 2004, 2005). The present volume reflects these new approaches in the study of site-specific material culture through the lenses of daily life performance, personhood, sharing of social commodities, and events of social cohesion. The Worlds of Neolithic Greece A number of issues are addressed in this volume, spanning from settlement patterns and spatial organization, human choices about landscape habitation, land-use strategies, building techniques, daily routines, and the creation of networks among communities. These issues are approached through the analysis of a wide range of material culture remains, such as pottery, lithic tools, architectural remains, and figurines, together with faunal and plant remains. The questions posed and the vocabulary used demonstrate the emergence of a new set of ideas regarding our current perception of Neolithic worlds that arrives via the present research interest in regional continuity and local distinctiveness. Neolithic histories have been enriched by the results of recent archaeological investigations that build upon previous analyses and interpretations. On the other hand, the Neolithization of the Greek peninsula—as with burial practices and rituals—have a limited representation in this volume (Chapters 2, 13, and 27), to some extent reflecting changes in our research questions and the constraints of archaeological evidence to provide succinct answers to mobility, funerary practices, and ideological and symbolic aspects of peoples’ lives in this region. Contributions cover a geographically broad area from northern Greece, Thessaly, Euboea, central Greece, the Peloponnese, the Cyclades, and the Ionian islands, representing different archaeological traditions, perspectives, and research dynamics, and working with different media. On the other hand, Crete, the Dodecanese, and the islands of the southeastern Aegean are not represented in this synthesis volume. The volume in organized in three interrelated and complementary parts: I. Communities, Social Space, and Dimensions of Neolithic Lifeways (and Death), II. Landscape Dynamics and Subsistence Strategies, and III. Interactions and Material Perspectives. Even if springing from different analytical scales, diversity emerges from the papers in all three sections as a distinctive, key characteristic of understanding Neolithic communities in Greece. The first part of this volume is shaped by a col2

AS20.indb 2

2/11/18 8:59 PM

1 - Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction: An Introduction lection of 12 papers, with an emphasis on the village community, settlement variations, and intra-site spatial formations. It begins with Agathe Reingruber’s paper criticizing the prompt adoption of Near Eastern concepts and terminology for the explanation of the Greek Neolithization process and challenging the holistic approach of the “Neolithic package” by offering an analytical model based on mobility and connectivity in time and space (Chapter 2). In the context of new approaches and innovations, Apostolos Sarris and his team introduce research questions in regard to the organization of space in Neolithic communities by developing an integrated, non-destructive methodology of geospatial technology (i.e. satellite remote sensing, remotely piloted aircraft systems, and ground-based geophysical surveys) (Chapter 3). Exciting geophysical results are also discussed by Visviki Magoula in the context of southeastern Thessaly, where an interdisciplinary research team, led by Eva Alram-Stern and Apostolos Sarris, developed a comparative methodology that integrates excavation data and geophysical records and has resulted in a better understanding of inter- and intra-site settlement patterns at the site (Chapter 9). A first synthesis of inhabitation practices and daily life at the site of Vasilika Kyparissi is provided by Maria Pappa, Stratos Nanoglou, and Melina Efthymiadou (Chapter 4). The contextual approach of this synthesis fills in the broader picture of variability and diversity that has been emerging from central Macedonia over the last three decades. Moreover, following a contextual and synthetic approach, Dimitra Malamidou, together with an interdisciplinary team of distinguished experts, reconsiders old and new data and—through an integrated study of architecture, artifactual, and archaeobotanical remains—attempts a time-specific and focused analysis of the relationships developed between people and nature (Chapter 5). Preliminary results of the chipped stone industry and pottery finds from the site of Koutroulou Magoula in northern Phthiotida are subsequently presented in their wider social context by a team led by Yannis Hamilakis and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika (Chapter 6). Another interdisciplinary team, this time led by John Coleman, contributes to the conference proceedings with a summary paper that touches upon the dynamic relationship between the Neolithic community of Halai on the North Euboean Gulf and the surrounding environment, through the analysis of various forms of material culture (Chapter 7). A synthesis of recent results coming from a multidisciplinary project directed by William Parkinson enhances our understanding of the use of Alepotrypa Cave through the Neolithic period (Chapter 8). An-

other among the set of group projects, Josette Renard and William Cavanagh provide insight into the Middle Neolithic spatial development of Kouphovouno in the southern Peloponnese (Chapter 10). Although evidence of house structures and architectural elements is sporadically and implicitly delivered in several of the papers in Part I, Dimitris Kloukinas offers a comprehensive and finer-grained regional analysis that unravels the variability of house forms and building techniques in Neolithic northern Greece (Chapter 11). Tomas Alusik presents his view on defensive architecture as a means of settlement protection and land use from selected sites in Thessaly, western Macedonia, and Crete (Chapter 12). The final paper in this section, by Katerina Psimogiannou, explores the role of funerary practices in central and southern Greece as agents of various cultural expressions and focal places for social interaction during the Neolithic period (Chapter 13). Subsequently, the second part of this volume is shaped by a smaller set of seven papers, with an emphasis on subsistence strategies, landscape dynamics, and the interactive relationship between humans and nature. Evita Kalogiropoulou reconsiders landscape dynamics in the context of Final Neolithic islands as a process of social transformation that embeds changes in landscape preferences, using a synthesis comparative studies of habitation scenery and the remains of settlement formations (Chapter 14). Dwelling on Aegean island contexts, Žarko Tankosić and Markos Katsianis develop an integrated analysis of old and new data to explore the way the landscape was populated and socially constructed in southern Euboea (Chapter 15). Furthermore, the submerged Neolithic landscape of the Bay of Kiladha—beside Franchthi Cave—is explored by Julian Beck, Dimitris Sakellariou, and Despina Koutsoumpa (Chapter 17). Moving to the west seascape of Greece, Georgia Stratouli and Odysseas Metaxas discuss the symbolic connotations of the special status of Drakaina Cave and the effect of landscape on the cultural perception of the site as a place of repetitive gatherings (Chapter 16). Another insightful paper from the Neolithic site of Koutroulou Magoula, led by Georgia Koromila with contributions from team colleagues, provides an integrated methodological approach that explores animal-related mobility and the use of ecological resources in central Greece (Chapter 18). William Cavanagh and his colleagues offer an overview of Kouphovouno, exploring local farming strategies of the Middle and Late Neolithic site. In return, they suggest a variability of subsistence preferences at the regional scale (Chapter 19). Additionally, George 3

AS20.indb 3

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou and Apostolos Sarris Looking Ahead

Kazantzis discusses different aspects of social space through a comprehensive study of faunal remains from private and public contexts at the Late Neolithic site of Promachon-Topolnica (Chapter 20). The third and final part of this volume is shaped by a collection of 10 papers, with an emphasis on the mobility of humans and goods, social interaction, and the creation of social networks through a selection of material remains. Nikos Efstratiou opens the discussion in this section with a critical commentary on the issue of social interaction in prehistory and the way it is manifested archaeologically (Chapter 21). Subsequently, Dushka Urem-Kotsou and a team of pottery experts provide evidence of close connections and interregional relations between selected Early and Middle Neolithic sites in Thessaly and western Macedonia (Chapter 22). Areti Pentedeka, having examined the pottery from a large number of Middle and Late Neolithic settlements in Thessaly, attempts a regional-scale network analysis that exposes complexity and interregional diversification (Chapter 23). Pottery is also the key analytical material in Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou’s study of exchange networks from Sarakenos Cave (Chapter 24), while Lily Bonga focuses on painted and Impresso pottery from the Early Neolithic site of Mavropigi-Filotsairi in western Macedonia in order to challenge the direction and spread of the Neolithic into Europe (Chapter 25). In addition, David Michael Smith explores the possibility of local Final Neolithic networks on the Argolic Gulf through the study of certain burial behaviors (Chapter 26). Finally, Eva Alram-Stern studies the symbolic properties of a figurine deposition in the Final Neolithic phases of the site of Aegina-Kolonna (Chapter 27). Moving to the analytical framework of stone tool studies, a selection of site-specific and specialized papers touches upon the various aspects of human interaction and the choices people make based on landscape availability. Tasos Bekiaris and his colleagues surpass a mono-causal explanation and suggest a more dynamic interpretation about the impact of complex social factors on the perception of physical properties by Neolithic agents (Chapter 28). A comparative study of the chipped stone industry from different sites in northern Greece by Odysseas Kakavakis unfolds glimpses of the various changing conditions in which Neolithic farmers interacted with each other (Chapter 29). Furthermore, Lilian Dogiama, with her preliminary results on the chipped stone technology from the site of Revenia Korinos, makes a significant contribution to the volume and attempts to alter our perception of Early Neolithic network systems (Chapter 30).

In the last two decades, central and northern Greece have emerged as leading foci of Neolithic research in the country, creating uneven geographical trajectories for our understanding of the period. In this context, the discovery of varied and diverse cultural remains from salvage excavations has not been the result of specific focused research strategies, but rather, to some extent, a result of chance. The wealth and diversity of material culture, however, offers exciting new opportunities for research and triggers novel, productive questions. The present collection of papers reflects the diversity of finds, methods, and archaeological practices that embodies past practices and contemporary methodological and theoretical trends, providing in the meantime a sense of future direction. Today, Neolithic research in Greece is more advanced and ready to stand dialectically among different associated traditions, to produce a distinctive regional research agenda, to effectively confront the fragmented picture of material remains with multiple tools, and to further create smaller or larger narratives. What is clear at the moment is the increasing quest to leave mono-causal or singular historic interpretations usually embedded in grand narratives for micro-scale studies, and to challenge ingrained theoretical perspectives by articulating intensive and multifaceted histories. In this sense, this volume is an essential addition to the increasing body of knowledge from Neolithic Greece that fills a lacuna in contemporary literature and enhances our understanding of the broader context of European Neolithic communities. Acknowledgements Both the conference and the published volume have benefited considerably from the generous help of many people, who contributed significantly with their work, knowledge, and expertise. The editors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the participants of the conference, who shared new results and insights from their work via oral presentations or posters. All the members of the Scientific Committee provided important help during the preparation of the meeting and the completion of the proceedings; for their help we are most grateful. Thanks are due to all our colleagues who chaired sessions or acted as discussants in panels: John Coleman, William Cavanagh, Agathe Reingruber, Stratos Nanoglou, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka-Urem-Kotsou, Nikos Efstratiou, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Eva Alram-Stern, Dimitra 4

AS20.indb 4

2/11/18 8:59 PM

1 - Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction: An Introduction Malamidou, Georgia Stratouli, Areti Penedeka, William Parkinson, and Panayiotis Karkanas. Special thanks are due to Catherine Perlès and Yannis Hamilakis for wrapping up the two-day conference with their insightful remarks, and for leading the meeting in a final, stimulating discussion that looked ahead to the future of our discipline. The administrator of the Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Georgia Papadaki, was a constant help while we were swimming in uncharted waters. Thanks are due to Georgia Papadaki, Lemonia Argyriou, Nasos Argyriou, Kayt Armstrong, Gianluca Cantoro, Aris Kidonakis, Kelsey Lowe, Meropi Manataki, Cristina Manzetti, Ian Moffat, Nikos S. Papadopoulos, and Elias Sarris, who carried the administrative burden during the days of the conference and made this a friendly experience to all its participants. Sincere appreciation goes also to Angelos Chliaoutakis for managing the submission process. This volume owes a great deal to the rigorous peer-reviewing efforts of many experts who willingly provided their help. We are greatly indebted to all the reviewers for patiently reading and evaluating the papers to be included here, and for offering their useful suggestions that improved the final outcome of this book. The publication and final appearance of this volume benefited from the guidance and patience of our publisher, Bob Whallon (Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory), as well as to the meticulous proofreading by Rebecca M. Seifried. Finally, we are most grateful to Nassia Chourmouziadi for making the long trek from Mytilene to Crete, and for honoring us with a passage from the unpublished book by the late Prof. Giorgos C. Chourmouzadis.

μακοχώρια τηε Ροδόπης. Vanias Publications, Thessaloniki. 2007 Neolithic Households in Greece. In Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, Proceedings of a Conference held at Cardiff University, 17–21 April 2001, edited by Ruth Westgate, Nick Fisher, and James Whitley, pp. 29–35. British School at Athens Studies 15. British School at Athens, Athens. Halstead, Paul (editor) 1999 Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Kalogiropoulou, Evita 2013 Cooking, Space and the Formation of Social Identities in Neolithic Northern Greece: Evidence of Thermal Structure Assemblages from Avgi and Dispilio in Kastoria. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Archaeology, and Religion, Cardiff University. 2014 Αναζητώντας Κοινωνικές Ταυτότητες: η Συμβολή των Θερμικών Κατασκευών στην Οργάνωση του Χώρου στη Νεολιθική Μακεδονία. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 305–318. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Kloukinas, Dimitris 2014 Neolithic Building Technology and the Social Context of Construction Practices: The Case of Northern Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cardiff University. Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 2014 Domesticating the Periphery: New Research into the Neolithic of Greece. Pharos 20(1):41–73. Mylonas, George E. 1929 Excavations at Olynthos, I: The Neolithic Settlement. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Nanoglou, Stratos 2001 Social and Monumental Space in Neolithic Thessaly, Greece. European Journal of Archaeology 4:303–322.

References Cited Chourmouziadis, Giorgos C. 1979 To Νεολιθικό Διμήνι. Society for Thessalian Research, Volos. 2009 Αρχαιολογική Ερμηνεία και Ανασκαφική Μεθοδολογία. In Ubi Dubium ibi Libertas: Studies in Honour of Professor Nikola Farakla, edited by Christos Loukos, Nikos Xifaras, and Katerina Pateraki, pp. 29–33. Crete University Press, Rethymno. Dimoula, Anastasia 2014 Πρώιμη Κεραμική Τεχνολογία και Παραγωγή: Το Παράδειγμα της Θεσσαλίας. Unpu1blished Ph.D. dissertation, Artistotle University of Thessaloniki. Efstratiou, Nikos 2002 Εθνοαρχαιολογικές Αναζητήσεις στα Πο5

AS20.indb 5

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou and Apostolos Sarris 2008 Building Biographies and Households: Aspects of Community Life in Neolithic Northern Greece. Journal of Social Archaeology 8:139–160. 2009 Representing People, Constituting Worlds: Multiple ‘Neolithics’ in the Southern Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica 36:283–297. Pappa, Maria 2008 Οργάνωση του Χώρου και Οικιστικά Στοιχεία στους Νεολιθικούς Οικισμούς της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας: Δ.Ε.Θ. – Θέρμη – Μακρύγιαλος. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pappa, Maria, Paul Halstead, Kostas Kotsakis, and Duska Urem-Kotsou 2004 Evidence for Large-Scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Northern Greece. In Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, edited by Paul Halstead and John C. Barrett, pp. 14–44. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pentedeka, Areti 2008 Δίκτυα Ανταλλαγής της Κεραμικής κατά τη Μέση και Νεότερη Νεολιθική στη Θεσσαλία. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http:// invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/110203?ln=en, accessed October 11, 2015. Skourtopoulou, Katerina 2006 Questioning Spatial Contexts: The Contribution of Lithics Studies as Analytical and Interpretative Bodies of Data. In Deconstructing Context: A Critical Approach to Archaeological Practice, edited by Demetra Papaconstantinou, pp. 50–78. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neo-

lithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1967 Η Αυγή της Θεσσαλικής Προϊστορίας: Αρχή και Πρώιμη Εξέλιξη της Νεολιθικής. Filarkhaios Society of Volos, Volos. Tsoraki, Christina 2007 Unravelling Ground Stone Life Histories: The Spatial Organization of Stone Tools and Human Activities at LN Makriyalos, Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 34:289–297. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμηνίου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka 2006 Νεολιθική Κεραμική του Μακρυγιάλου: Διατροφικές Συνήθειες και οι Κοινωνικές Διαστάσεις της Κεραμικής. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, and Kostas Kotsakis 2007 Pottery, Cuisine and Community in the Neolithic of North Greece. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 225–246. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2004 Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: An Archaeobotanical Investigation. BAR International Series 1258. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2005 Grain versus Chaff: Identifying a Contrast between Grain-Rich and Chaff-Rich Sites in the Neolithic of Northern Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 1:259–267.

6

AS20.indb 6

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Part I: Communities, Social Spaces, and Dimensions of Neolithic Lifeways (and Death)

AS20.indb 7

2/11/18 8:59 PM

-2The Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a Circum-Aegean Perspective: Concepts and Narratives Agathe Reingruber

Terminology and Methodology at the Beginning of Modern Archaeological Analysis in the Aegean

Abstract The relative chronological scheme of the Early Neolithic period in Greece relies on sequences elaborated in the 1950s based on evidence from limited trenches. Between 1950 and 1970 concepts deriving from the Near East were applied also in Aegean archaeology. The terms “Preceramic” and “Aceramic” were adopted shortly after the recognition of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the “Fertile Crescent.” Culture change was explained predominantly by colonization processes, based on the assumption that all items belonging to the “Neolithic Package” appeared simultaneously in Southeastern Europe at the very beginning of the Neolithic. Fundamental in this model are the economic products (domesticated species) or single objects and their manufacturing techniques (pots and tools). But change seems to explain only partially the processes of the mid-seventh millennium B.C.: attention needs to be focused on the evidence for continuity as well. Therefore, the superordinate systems of social and cultural behavior (burial customs and exchange networks) are essential in the model presented here. Accordingly, the foundation for the transformations in the Aegean was the mobile way of life for both intra- and extralocal groups of late seafaring foragers-fishers and early seafaring fishers-farmers, with their face-toface contact resulting in the transfer of innovations. The Neolithization process in the Aegean is thus the result of connectivities in time (with the Mesolithic) and in space (circum-Aegean).

The roots of modern archaeological research that is engaged in interdisciplinary methodology were laid before and even during WWII (Hauptmann 2015), but it was only after 1950 that natural scientists became actively involved in excavation campaigns. Robert and Linda Braidwood’s team working in Jarmo (northern Iraq) included a palaeoethnobotanist, a zoologist, a geologist, and a radiocarbon expert (Watson 2006:1011). Braidwood was among the first archaeologists to learn about the radiocarbon method already in 1947, namely from his Chicago colleague Willard F. Libby, and he provided some ancient samples for testing. After overcoming initial difficulties related mainly to the pretreatment of samples and the calibration of the B.P. results, with the early 1960s the radiocarbon method revolutionized our understanding of the correlations and durations of prehistoric (especially Neolithic) cultures. In 1949 Vladimir Milojčić published his important book on chronological issues of the Neolithic in Central and Southeastern Europe, based on comparative stratigraphic observations. This method depended on sound knowledge, sharp observation spirit, and the talent of archaeologists to identify interrelations among distant sites and regions, ultimately through subjective, qualitative analysis. Yet, Milojčić was not completely resistant to involving the natural sciences in prehistoric research. He himself collected 12 charcoal samples from the sites of Argissa and Otzaki Magoula (Figure 1), not being shy of costs and efforts. Following further in the footsteps of Braidwood on the one hand, and pre-war research in Greece on the other, he worked together with the zoologist Joachim Boessneck and the botanist Maria Hopf (Milojčić 1962).

Keywords Preceramic, Aceramic, “secondary Neolithization zone,” “Neolithic package,” “Monochrome pottery horizon,” mobility, networks, connectivity, innovation centers 8

AS20.indb 8

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 1. The circum-Aegean world and neighboring areas (Marmara region and Lake District), with sites mentioned in the text. The direct exchange between Braidwood and Milojčić also resulted in terminological and conceptual transfers of Near Eastern approaches to Southeastern Europe. Milojčić adopted the notion and concept of a “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” (PPN) (German: Präkeramikum, synonymous with “Preceramic”). The formulation “PPN” was coined by Kathleen Kenyon during her excavations in Jericho between 1952 and 1958. There, under meter-high levels with Neolithic pottery, she encountered consistent levels without ceramic products (Kenyon 1957), although small clay objects were already in use (Thissen 2007:219). Therefore, the term PPN defines the time before pots were produced, reflecting a certain stage in the prehistory of the eastern and northeastern Mediterranean (Nissen 2012:169–170). The beginning of this period coincides with the start of the Holocene, and it ends with the early seventh millennium B.C. (Thissen 2007:220). The “Preceramic” level in Argissa Magoula was excavated in 1956 and 1958 by Milojčić. The excavation method he applied was progressive for his time,

since he was not only working in ca. 10-cm spits, but also in 2-x-2-m grids, collecting the finds accordingly. One-to-twenty drawings of the cleaned surfaces and profiles were executed, and pictures also were taken. All finds were perfectly labeled—even the sherds. Indeed, he did not keep the body sherds (a common procedure at that time), but his collaborators counted all the sherds according to categories before discarding them. Even decades later, therefore, I was able to work efficiently with both the documentation and the finds. In this way, I reconstructed that 114 sherds belonged to the lowest spits 31a–d of some 30 cm thickness and 6 sherds to the two so-called “pits” (Table 1; Reingruber 2008). It was not the excavation method but rather the interpretation offered by Milojčić that was problematic: all the sherds from the mentioned spits and pits were interpreted as intrusive, and consequently—according to Milojčić (1962:14)—could be excluded from the discussion. This interpretation was the starting point for the definition of a “Preceramic” period not only in Thessaly, but also in Greece 9

AS20.indb 9

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber generally. In 1957, when Milojčić paused his work in Argissa, Dimitrios Theocharis (1967) cleared the collapsed northern profile in Sesklo and confirmed Milojčić’s appraisal of a “Preceramic” period at the start of the Neolithic. Subsequently, Theocharis identified levels seemingly devoid of sherds also at Soufli Magoula and at Achilleion. At both sites excavations were resumed later on by Kostas Gallis and Marija Gimbutas, respectively, but they did not encounter “Preceramic” levels (Reingruber 2008:94–96). No reinvestigations have been carried out at the site of Gediki, where in 1962 Theocharis opened a very small trench of a maximum size of 8 m2, with no sherds occurring at the bottom of the sequence. Also at Sesklo new large-scale excavations would be needed to obtain a better picture of the lowest levels attributed by Theocharis (1967) to the “Preceramic” period. A slightly different terminology was used by British archaeologists working in central and southwestern Anatolia, among them James Mellaart. At both Ça­ talhöyük and Hacılar he applied the term “Aceramic” for the levels devoid of pottery. In 1957–1960, the British Institute supported excavations not only at Hacılar, but also at Knossos on Crete. When John Evans (1964:142) reached the 10–30 cm lowest level in Knossos, he interpreted it as a “temporary camp” of newcomers, whose most pressing needs obviously did not include pottery. Also in 1968, he explained the absence of pottery “as a delay in organizing pottery production on the new site rather than ignorance of how to make it” (Evans, in Warren et al. 1968:271). In 1971, he revised his interpretation of Knossos X from a “temporary camp” into the “earliest settlement,” and now used the label “Aceramic” (Evans 1971:102, Figure VI). Thus, the term gained a slightly different connotation, since it implied that pottery was already

invented but not yet in use at a specific site for various reasons. According to this understanding of the term “Aceramic,” I will follow Evans throughout this contribution. During more recent excavations at Knossos, Nikos Efstratiou could indeed confirm that a thin level devoid of pottery products was covered by levels containing pottery (Efstratiou et al. 2004:39–49). In Franchthi Cave the archaeozoologist Sebastian Payne was the first to define the so-called “gray clay stratum” as pertaining to an early, even “Aceramic,” group of people (Payne, in Jacobsen 1969:352). In this terminology he was followed by the excavator Thomas Jacobsen (1969:376) himself. No precise definition of the term was given by them; alternatively, the levels without (or with presumably intrusive) sherds were termed “Preceramic” or “Initial Neolithic” (Perlès 2001). Recently, the lowest level at Ulucak near İzmir, also devoid of pottery, was compared to the PPN in the east. The red plastered floors in particular reminded Çiler Çilingiroğlu of comparable floors at “Aceramic” Hacılar and at PPN sites further east (Çilingiroğlu and Çakırlar 2013:24). Judging by the hitherto known thin levels and the few finds from three sites (Franchthi Cave, Knossos, and Ulucak), the “Aceramic” period must have had only a short duration. Time spans of several hundred years, as suggested by some 14C dates, provide only the timeframe in which the levels have accumulated but not their exact duration (Reingruber 2015). As has been shown on basis of reliable 14C sequences from Çukuriçi Höyük (in the eastern Aegean) and Barcın Höyük (in the Marmara region), the earliest deposits can be dated to 6700 and 6600 cal B.C. (Weninger et al. 2014). Around 6700/6600 cal B.C.

Table 1. Number of Sherds from the “Preceramic” (PC), Early Ceramic (EN I), and Proto-Sesklo (EN II) Layers in Argissa Magoula. Spit Spit 27b Spit 27c Spit 28a Spit 28b Spit 29a Spit 30 Spit 31a Spit 31b Spit 31c-d “Pit” δ “Pit” β

Sherds per Spit 367 428 372 374 182 cleaning 56 49 9 2 4

No. of Grids 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 5 1 2

Depth (m) 7.53 7.63 7.73 7.88 8.00 8.00 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.50 8.68

Thickness of Spits (cm)

5 10 10 15 12 10 10 10 20 38

Sherds per Spit and Grid 73 43 37 25 15 9 8 2 1 0–1

Period EN II EN II EN II EN I EN I PC PC PC PC PC

Note: Calculations were made per 10-cm spit and per number of 2-x-2-m grids excavated in the campaign of 1958 (in some parts of the trench the virgin soil was reached in spit 30 in the year 1956). 10

AS20.indb 10

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective at the latest, pottery was in use all over Anatolia, and—not surprisingly—a few small sherds were documented at both Barcın and Çukuriçi (Gerritsen et al. 2013; Horejs et al. 2015:304). It seems that Evans was right indeed with his interpretation that pottery was already integrated into the daily life of some groups of early peasants but was not used at every site from the very beginning. Such a situation, in which only some of the elements of the production economy were uniformly met in basal levels, adds to a more complex picture in which the adaption or rejection of innovative elements must be envisaged (see below). The reevaluations at some sites in the western Aegean, together with the new investigations at other sites (especially in the eastern Aegean), offer good reasoning that the concept of the “Preceramic” period indeed belongs to the history of research. The concept of an “Aceramic” period between 6700 and 6500 cal B.C. needs further substantiation, especially since it appears that such levels are rather the exception than the rule (Figure 1). Certainly, large-scale excavations are needed to reach a better understanding of this short and elusive period. Until recently, studies related to the transition

from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Aegean followed the separations according to countries and continents (Greece and Turkey; Europe and Asia). For a better understanding of the transformations occurring shortly before the middle of the seventh millennium B.C., the Aegean must be conceived in its interconnectedness. Thus, with “Aegean” I mean not only the Aegean Sea and its islands, but also the coastal areas as framed by the Pindus and Tayegetos Mountains in the west, the Voras, Orvilos, and Rhodope Mountains in the north, and the Anatolian Plateau in the east—basically the circum-Aegean world (see Figure 1). It is evident that for this interconnected space a common terminology also would be needed, starting at ca. 6700/6600 B.C. with an “Aegean Early Neolithic I” (Figure 2). Deconstructing: Concepts, Constructs, or Assumptions at the Base of the Narratives Suggested in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century A.D.? It was not only the terminology and methodology that were adopted from Near Eastern archaeological

Figure 2. Snapshot with the first occurrence of a sedentary lifestyle in the different regions of the circumAegean world, the Marmara region, and the Lake District. (Adapted from Reingruber 2011:Figure 9) 11

AS20.indb 11

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber investigations, but also the concepts that were valid at the time for the “Core Area” (basically the “Fertile Crescent”) and the “Primary Neolithization Zone” of central Anatolia (Özdoğan 2008:142–143). Whereas certain concepts like the PPN or a local domestication of plants and animals were indeed the result of precise observation and documentation, their introduction into Aegean archaeology turned these concepts into constructs and credos (see Figure 3, top). Milojčić never published a specific model for the Neolithization process, but he pondered on behalf of domesticated plants (emmer and barley) and animals (sheep) on the “relationships with the Near East” (German: “Beziehungen zum Orient;” Milojčić 1962:24). Theocharis (1973:34–36), on the other hand, was rather inclined to explain the beginning of a sedentary lifestyle in Thessaly as an autochthonous process based on a local domestication of plants and animals, yet acknowledged the temporal supremacy of the Near

East and an “indirect diffusion” from there. In other words, he conceived of an acculturation process in which local, Mesolithic populations were actively involved—a very foresighted viewpoint that was not shared by the international community possibly also for political reasons, as Kostas Kotsakis (2001:64) pointed out. The next generations of archaeologists perpetuated the viewpoints of direct or indirect diffusion with the addition of new (and disputable) concepts, like that of the “Neolithic Package,” and assumptions like that of westward migrating groups of people after an alleged collapse of the PPNB (Özdoğan 2007a:151–153, 2008:143). It was especially the conjunction of these two notions, the “Package” and the “Migration,” that resulted in the colonization model (Özdoğan 2007b; Perlès 2003). Yet no conclusive definition of the terms colonist and colonization have been given by those using them to explain culture change.

Figure 3. Methods, concepts, and narratives advanced for explaining the Neolithization process in the Aegean before (above) and after (below) important new Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites were discovered around and after 1990. 12

AS20.indb 12

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective With the newly excavated Mesolithic sites, especially the caves of Theopetra and Youra, the concept of acculturation has received more support (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000:137; Sampson 1996:46–51). The more thoroughly that mobile groups of pre-Neolithic foragers and fishers could be described, the more their interaction with mobile early farmers is stressed (Reingruber 2008:11–84, 2011). The focus of this model is not just the evidence for cultural change, since indications of cultural continuity are considered equally important. Today, the picture seems to be “clearer than ever before,” especially when accepting “the ‘grand’ narrative” (Efstratiou 2007:124) of the Neolithization process as a demic diffusion (migration or colonization) caused by population pressure. But, as Kotsakis (2001:63–64, 2003:217) demanded at the beginning of this century, the old dichotomy between indigenism and diffusion as models for explaining the complex process of Neolithization must be overcome. In this respect, we must probe not only the introduction of new concepts, but also the critical evaluation of existing ones and their suitability related to our current knowledge and to the general discourses of our times. Indeed, the application of concepts in prehistoric research reflects—apart from ideological and national viewpoints—the general tendencies and discourses that were important in their age. Besides, catastrophes (wars, climatic changes, cultural clashes)—next to their relevance to certain research topics (and funding)—also had a great impact on the life experience of scientists that should not be underestimated. An excellent example of the readjustment of concepts before and after WWII can be given by the work of Vere Gordon Childe himself: his most influential writings exploring the theory that civilization diffused from the Near East northwards and westwards into Europe were published prior to WWII. In 1929 he pondered indeed on single “trading colonies,” but the main explanations for cultural change were those of gradual expansions and slow migration processes (Childe 1929). Yet, in the postbellum climate he prepared his book Prehistoric Migrations in Europe for publication, envisaging colonization processes not only in the Neolithic but also in the Palaeolithic, further invoking the idea of “maritime colonists” in the Bronze Age (Childe 1950). In 1958 “European Barbarians” were juxtaposed with “Oriental Masters” (Childe 1958:7), and the colonization of most of Europe, from the Balkans to the Iberian Peninsula, was effected by farmers acting as “pioneer colonists” (Childe 1958:43). His terminology had thus changed considerably during and after WWII.

The Concept of the “Neolithic Package” Concepts, therefore, must be appraised in their general setting and in connection with their current historical background. This seems advisable for the concept of the “Neolithic Package” as well. Very much in accordance with Childe’s (1951:75–80) definition of key features of the Neolithic way of life, the “Neolithic Package” also included—in addition to the basic elements of subsistence like domesticated animals and plants—pottery, ground and polished stone tools, and weaving implements. Yet, Childe himself never described these elements as belonging to a fixed package. As Laurens Thissen (2010:270) has pointed out, it was only in 1958 when James Mellaart compared Hacılar and Thessaly and later in 1965 when Robert J. Rodden (1965:87, 92) listed “elements” or a “tool kit” pertaining to the Neolithic way of life that certain patterns were carved out. In 1971, at a conference organized by Sir Colin Renfrew in Sheffield, several speakers presented their models of cultural change, which might have further prepared the grounds for the narrative according to which knowledge, techniques, and items moved along with people. For example, Albert J. Ammerman and Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza (1973:345) were using as a proxy for their “wave-of-advance” model the most essential element of the later “Package:” namely, domesticated cereals. In subsequent analytical work dealing with cultural change, the “Neolithic Package” was further equipped, and the precise content of the package in the different regions was specified (Özdoğan 2008:155, Figure 6). Recently the “Neolithic Package” was subdivided into several “Packages,” the concept thus being adapted to new views (Çilingiroğlu 2005; Özdoğan 2010). Yet, the basic attitude remains the same: colonists of a more advanced cultural status brought their knowledge and belongings into an area of lower standing. After WWII and until the early 1970s, Americans sent CARE Packages filled with the basic ingredients to make life-saving meals to support the famished European population, their contents being standardized. The first 20,000 CARE Packages reached the port of Le Havre, France, on May 11, 1946, and by the 1960s more than 83,000 tons of staple foods crossed the Atlantic Ocean (CARE 2013). It is, of course, not my intention to establish a direct link between the CARE Packages and the “Neolithic Packages,” but it seems appropriate to suggest that the notion of “packages” to be sent from better-off regions into regions of lesser development was more a part of daily life in the 1960s and 1970s, when the term was coined, than later on.

13

AS20.indb 13

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber One of the basic raw materials occurring in western Anatolian sites, obsidian, was until recently thought to derive mainly from central Anatolian sources— brought there by westward moving colonists together with other items of the “Neolithic Package” (see Reingruber 2011). The neutron activation analyses (NAA) on obsidian pieces from Dedecik-Heybelitepe (Herling et al. 2008:13–65), Çukuriçi Höyük (Begner et al. 2009:249–271), and Coşkuntepe (Perlès et al. 2011) have shown that the main source of this raw material was Melos. Thereafter, pieces from other eastern Aegean (western Anatolian) sites were tested as well, the results demonstrating the predominance of Melian—not Anatolian—obsidian in the eastern Aegean. Not only the raw materials, but also the tool inventories, differ strongly between central Anatolian and circum-Aegean sites (see also Thissen 2000:154): tanged obsidian points with bifacial retouch were either the exception (in the eastern Aegean) or were not produced at all during the Early Neolithic (EN) in the western Aegean. A brief comparison of bone tool inventories again shows strong differences between the “Primary” and “Secondary Neolithization Zones:” whereas in central Anatolia ornaments like rings, pins, and belt buckles predominate, in the Lake District spoons and points occur frequently (Lichter 2007), while in Thessaly polishers, points, and hooks prevail (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981; Stratouli 1998)—but why should Anatolian colonists not have wrapped such items into their package or packages? Burial customs are never included in the “Package” discussion—probably for the simple reason that the circum-Aegean rites are fundamentally different from the Anatolian ones (Lichter 2017). In many parts of the Aegean both inhumation and cremation had been practiced since Mesolithic times; secondary burials or modeled skulls as known from the Near East are absent (Reingruber 2011). This again raises the question of why colonists, spearheads of their society, did not bring with them their advanced stone and bone tool techniques and their basic customs. Mehmet Özdoğan’s (2007a:153) explanation for this baffling situation is that the elites stayed in the core area. According to Kotsakis (2008:58): “the transformational processes intervening between the point of origin of an entity and its final formation in an archaeologically recognizable form introduce a strong element of fluidity in established social entities.” This fluidity would make the identification of a specific origin an impossible task. But origins must not be sought only in distant regions: Thissen has proposed for the Balkan region rather to envisage

the transition from the Mesolithic to the EN as an uninterrupted historical trajectory, wherein developments of the EN had already started in the Mesolithic. According to this model, complex hunter-gatherer societies readily adopted innovations like farming and pottery production (Thissen 2005:71–72), innovations that were introduced to the area by small pioneer groups (Thissen 2017). If this is the case in the circum-Aegean as well, then the reasoning must be allowed that it is not the “Neolithic Package” brought by colonists into an area that is a helpful concept, but rather the determination of the temporal closeness (or distance) between Mesolithic and Neolithic groups. Also, a closer look at regional varieties might be a good indicator of alternative narratives: the acceptance of certain elements in one area or their refusal in other areas would speak against an Aegean-wide swift spread of the “Package” together with colonists, but rather for the unforeseeable spread of innovations (see below). As John Robb (2013:667, 672) has rightly pointed out, the “Package” never arrived at the beginning of the EN in a certain region, but rather it emerged at the end of a long process—its applicability as a useful concept in discussing Neolithization processes is therefore highly questionable. The Concept of a “Monochrome Pottery Horizon” Another concept that needs some clarification is that of the “Monochrome pottery horizon.” The term monochrome was initially used as a descriptive adjective, meaning “of a single color” or “without paint.” But only after the definition of an Early Pottery Phase (Frühkeramikum) with exclusively “Monochrome pottery” did the terminus turn into a concept (Milojčić 1959). Interestingly, it played a major role in discussions about Neolithization, regarding both acculturation and colonization models. On the one hand, coarse and unpainted pottery was considered in an evolutionary approach to belong to a first, “archaic” stage, with painting and more sophisticated technologies occurring only in an advanced stage (Theocharis 1973:39–40). On the other hand, the “Western Anatolian polished red ware” (Lichter 2005:66) of the second half of the seventh millennium is an exclusively monochrome type, with painting appearing in the area only after 6000 cal B.C. Therefore, “Monochrome pottery” is also included as a basic component of the “Neolithic Package” and is connected to the “initial advance of Neolithic communities” (Özdoğan 2008:151, 166, Figure 10).

14

AS20.indb 14

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective Unfortunately, a precise and binding definition of criteria that turn an unpainted pot into a “Monochrome vessel” has never been offered. Apart from the lack of paint, can a vessel that is covered partially with a red slip still be labeled as “Monochrome?” Is a vessel burnt in different colors (black-topped or variegated) “Monochrome?” Such ambiguities connected to this concept lead to (subjective) interpretations of the material under investigation; even vessels with incisions or impressions or with barbotine decoration were put into this category (Stefanova 1996). In order to avoid such imprecision, the term “Monochrome” should be freed from the terminological load and reduced to its initial value-free meaning: without additional color. Monochrome categories of the same fabric and with similar shapes occurred not only in the EN I but also in the EN II–III, and even in the MN I. Therefore, if “Monochrome pottery” derives from surface collections and not from closed contexts, it is premature to invoke an EN I date on the basis of this ill-defined category. In his fundamental catalogue of Neolithic sites, Kostas Gallis (1992) presented materials from excavations and, predominantly, from surveys. He included (correctly, for the time) surface inventories without painted sherds in the “Monochrome horizon.” Such assignments explain why “all of a sudden” so many new sites appeared in the EN I—yet, these inventories could also be of a later date. As shown elsewhere (Reingruber 2008:481, Table 6.1) only at Argissa Magoula, Gediki, and Sesklo, all of which are in Thessaly, can such a phase be (possibly) envisaged, but the basis for further argumentations is very thin.

Mesolithic sites on Crete (Plakias) and in the Cyclades (or else he rejected the scant evidence of, for example, the finds from Maroulas presented by Kenneth Honea). As Cherry (1981:60) himself pointed out, the term colonization is in fact misleading, since it implies a well-planned expedition by a group of people, which he doubted was the case in the Neolithic. He used it exclusively in a bio-geographical perspective, according to which humans and other species populated a previously uninhabited area. Later, this term was extended to mainland Greece, as local Mesolithic populations were considered insignificant and not “engaged in a process towards more complex societies” (Perlès 2003:100). Not only was the initial meaning of the term (i.e. the first settling of previously uninhabited islands) transformed and now used to explain culture change, but the whole pre-Neolithic population of the Aegean was excluded from further discussion. The assumption of a merely thinly populated Aegean mainland during the Mesolithic, in contrast with the fast development of new sites during the EN and especially the EN I, as deduced on behalf of the “Monochrome pottery horizon,” further fostered the colonization narrative, with Thiessen polygons apparently supporting this view (Perlès 2001:139–143). These assumptions need thorough revision, especially in light of the new Mesolithic discoveries in many parts of the Aegean (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 2015), but also owing to the more precise definition of the EN I phase based on pottery and radiocarbon dates (see below). Reconstructing: Concepts Deriving from the Assessments of Old and New Finds

The Narrative: Colonization and Migration

Mobility and Interaction (the Mesolithic– Neolithic Interface)

Although both the concepts of colonization and migration imply demic movements, an important distinction must be made: as Ammerman and CavalliSforza (1973:344) have also pointed out, migration in prehistory involved a slow and continuous movement over short distances, whereas colonization implies an “intentional settlement by a coherent group of people, usually in a distant land.” In recent publications, caution has been requested to not assert prematurely colonization or migration movements (e.g. Burmeister 2000; Prien 2005; for a critical assessment of migration as a concept in traditional, processual, and post processual archaeology, cf. Chapman and Hamerow 1997). The term colonization reappeared in Aegean research in 1981 when John Cherry (1981:42) discussed the “initial island colonization” throughout the Mediterranean. It is important to note that Cherry published this influential paper before the discovery of

Most examples of the final Mesolithic stage in the Aegean derive from caves with or without stratigraphical gaps during the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic (Figure 1), such as the caves of Youra and Sarakenos (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 2015; Sampson et al. 2009:206–215) or Theopetra (KyparissiApostolika 2000). A very convincing situation for the Mesolithic–Neolithic interface has been revealed in Franchthi, with a continuous stratigraphical sequence from the Final Mesolithic to the Initial Neolithic. Domesticated plants appeared during this interface in units FAN163 and FAN162 (Figure 4; Perlès et al. 2013:Tables 1–2). Other than expected, a gap of 500 years occurred not before but after the first domesticated plants were integrated around 6600/6500 cal B.C. into the daily life of the caves’ inhabitants. This situation 15

AS20.indb 15

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber does not really speak to new people (“colonists”) arriving in a forsaken region, but rather to the community of final foragers/early farmers that can be related to lithic phases Franchthi IX/X that was still mobile and moved into other areas better suited for farming. When looking at the transformations occurring during the middle of the seventh millennium B.C. from the Mesolithic side, from the perspective of hunters, fishers, and gatherers, the changes can be described as the result of adoptions and adaptions to novelties circulating at that time, such as the new techniques being applied in the lithic industry. For instance, in the lowest level of Çukuriçi Höyük in western Anatolia, a microlithic industry has been acknowledged, although the tool in question is a rather “broad segment” (Horejs et al. 2015:309). But together with this traditional technology, new and innovative techniques can be observed as well, especially the early appearance of the pressure technique (Horejs et al. 2015:305, Figure 7). Traditional tool shapes being produced by applying new techniques has been reported also for eastern Greece, where the Mesolithic flake technique was substituted by the Neolithic macroblade technique (Gatsov et al. 2017)—but the shape of arrowheads, in this case trapezes, was maintained. Technical replacement and morphological maintenance (i.e. older technologies persisting, but becoming more and more marginal) could have been the result of advantageous innovations spreading through the Aegean rather than packages reaching the area with new populations moving in. Interestingly, at most of the earliest sites known from the circum-Aegean, a (short) initial occupation phase was followed by an interruption—at least as can be inferred by the 14C dates (cf. for Franchthi: Figure 4 and Reingruber and Thissen 2005, 2017; for Paliambela and Mavropigi: Maniatis 2014:207–209; for Çukuriçi Höyük: Horejs et al. 2015:Table 1 and Weninger et al. 2014:18; for Ulucak: Reingruber 2015:Figure 11 and Weninger et al. 2014; for Knossos: Facorellis and Maniatis 2013). Hence, a still highly mobile way of life can be assumed. These mobile groups of intra- and/or extra-local provenance—conceived by other authors as “pioneer groups” (Horejs et al. 2015:295; Thissen 2017)—can be envisaged as the first generation of

“innovators” and “early adopters” in the terminology of Everett Rogers (2003). The (still) seafaring foragers/farmers of the coastal areas are understood in this model as initiators of an experimental phase, adopting and adapting to new techniques and attitudes, accepting some, refusing others. But only with the strong commitment to a certain location that resulted in the formation of magoules was a “point of no return” reached, the new economy with all its entanglements (Hodder 2012) firmly adopted. As Robb (2013:672) observed, such a process was irreversible, “a one-way door,” no single farming community in the whole of Neolithic Europe switching back to foraging. An important contribution to understanding the dimension of movements is expected from genetic studies. For the time being, samples with ancient DNA are still very sparse, especially from the Neolithic– Mesolithic interface. In the study by Hofmanová et al. (2016:Table 1), the smallest time interval between two individuals was up to 1,000 years. Certainly, mobility (“migration” and “colonization,” in the terminology of the authors) is warranted not only during the appearance of the Neolithic way of life, but also before and after it. Importantly, the study also pointed at genetic continuity, since Aegean Neolithic farmers belonged to lineages observed in the two Mesolithic individuals from Theopetra (Theo1, Theo5). It remains a challenging task to understand the extent of not necessarily large- but also small-scale movements in better temporal and spatial resolution. Intra- and Extra-local Networks and the Connectivity in Time and Space Mobile groups or single persons regularly prospected for obsidian sources on Melos, reaching the island from at least three different cardinal points (Figure 5). And it is precisely this obsidian that is indicative of a flourishing over-regional network operating ever since the Mesolithic (Reingruber 2011). Its occurrence throughout the Aegean might have been based on face-to-face contact and mutual negotiations. These observations lead us to the conclusion that the connectivity is twofold: first, there were strong, provable links between the Aegean coasts that

(Facing page →) Figure 4. Radiocarbon dates from Franchthi Cave in stratigraphical order: (a) FAN Trenches; (b) FAS Trenches. The dates of charcoal from the “Final Mesolithic” and the “Initial Neolithic” overlap to a large degree and appear older than the dates of (short-lived) seeds from units FAN162 and FAN163, possibly owing to the long-lived sample material. In both trenches a gap of more than 500 years followed the mixed Mesolithic–Neolithic sequence. The only sample from a reliable context pertaining to the early pottery phase FCP1 derives from unit FAS129 and overlaps with the MN dates. (After Perlès et al. 2013:Table 2; Reingruber and Thissen 2005:302–303) 16

AS20.indb 16

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective

17

AS20.indb 17

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber were working in both directions (domesticated plants and animals were certainly introduced from western Anatolia, but the obsidian used there was derived from Melos). Second, the bonds with the Mesolithic were equally strong because it was the knowledge of seafaring foragers and their networks that were expanded and amplified. Additionally, the burial practice of inhumation in a crouched position (hocker) was in use throughout the Aegean since Mesolithic times, the first evidence from the eastern Aegean deriving from the site of Girmeler. But to date, cremations are known only from the western Aegean; later this custom appeared also in the Marmara region (Yenikapı) in the sixth millennium B.C., but was not yet attested in the eastern Aegean (Lichter 2017). The evidence is indeed very scant, but it reflects the strong and binding traditions of superordinate systems of social and cultural behavior, as opposed to faster changes in technology and material culture. New techniques, new fashions, and new ideas were constantly integrated into the undeniable Mesolithic substratum, first by the late foragers/ early farmers, and then by the subsequent generations. This model is well supported by the material culture itself, since pottery, tools, figurines, stamps, weaving implements, and new species did not appear suddenly as a “Package.” The transformations spanned several centuries, changing only slowly the daily life of each generation (Figure 5). But the Neolithization process should not be seen merely as a one-way exchange from transmitters to receivers: hunter-gatherer-fishers were rather active partners in this process and not passive receptors.

Aegean, considering the dates from Çukuriçi Höyük at 6700/6600 cal B.C. and those from Franchthi at 6600/6500 cal B.C. (see Figure 4). In the Aegean we still are not able to develop time models based on single household generations of only a few decades, but every year new radiocarbon dates are produced that help (together with the old 14C dates) to develop a reliable temporal resolution that defines time slices of one or a maximum of two centuries. The important first phase of the EN in particular is poorly understood; the lowest levels have been reached mostly in very small trenches less than 40 m2 in area. They induced archaeologists to assume that all elements of the “Neolithic Package” must have arrived with the first colonists, but because of the small-sized trenches, not all the items were detected. However, basing models on assumptions might lead to doubtful results. Preferably, a stricter methodological view according to our present-day knowledge seems advisable. Accordingly, only the finds from a precise context, whether small finds, pottery, mass finds, or architectural elements, should be taken into consideration. As has been shown, a very early stage lasted only for a short period in the timeframe of 6700/6600–6450 cal B.C. (Figures 2 and 3), with pottery appearing at some but presumably not all sites. At some of the earliest sites, architectural elements have been reported, like postholes (at Knossos X) or parts of rectangular buildings, red plastered floors, and fire installations (at Ulucak and Çukuriçi; cf. Horejs et al. 2015:Figure 3, 296). After 6500 cal B.C. rectangular huts that were associated with the “Monochrome pottery horizon” were described also at Argissa and Sesklo. Mud bricks came into use at Achilleion, Otzaki, and Argissa only after 6300/6200, wall buttresses some decades later. Also belonging to the EN II are the securely dated items pertaining to social, cultural, and symbolic expressions (e.g. painted patterns on pottery, figurines; Reingruber 2008). A more ample dynamic unfolded shortly before the end of the sixth millennium, when new settlements were founded especially in Thessaly—probably due to a growing population and an entanglement between humans and things, as described by Hodder (2012). Stamp seals were first proven for the site of Nea Nikomedeia at the turn from the seventh to the sixth millennium B.C.; shortly later they were used in Thessaly as well—as is the case with the Impresso pottery (see below). Therefore, as far as we can judge by today’s evidence, the single elements of the Neolithic way of life did not arrive simultaneously in the Aegean. The so-called “Package” is a palimpsest of 600 years of technical and cultural innovation.

Time Intervals Based on Old and New Radiocarbon Evidence No one today will seriously doubt that new and innovative elements were introduced to the Aegean from Anatolia. The question rather is when and how these elements reached the regions on both the eastern and western shores of the Aegean Sea. Until recently, evidence was insufficient to determine the approximate end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic (especially since this transition can vary from region to region). But new dates from the caves of Franchthi and Sarakenos (Figures 2 and 6) are securely placing the final stage of the Mesolithic in the first half of the seventh millennium B.C. Around 6600 cal B.C., following the plateau in the calibration curve between 7000 and 6700 cal B.C. (Reingruber 2015), the first signs of the Neolithic economy appear (Weninger et al. 2014). There may be a short time lag of a few decades between the eastern and western 18

AS20.indb 18

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective Regional Variety and Innovation Centers

closed shapes, to which tubular lugs were attached, or special shapes with an anti-splash rim, were not produced in Thessaly. Instead, rather simple shapes of mainly small-sized and well-polished vessels with ring bases occurred there. Specific regions maintained not only specific pottery styles but also

Not all elements of the Neolithic lifestyle appeared in uniform dissemination throughout the Aegean. For example, the rich repertoire of ceramic vessels in southwestern Anatolia with predominantly

Figure 5. Selected elements of the temporal and spatial connectivity resulting in innovation centers that influenced neighboring regions. 19

AS20.indb 19

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber specific bone tool inventories (Reingruber 2012). Not every new feature of the Neolithic repertoire was readily adopted throughout the Aegean (Figure 5): genetically transformed wheat varieties (e.g. Triticum aestivum) were not used in the later EN in Thessaly; stamp seals were not found in the south (except for a single object in Nemea). Neither was the Impresso decoration applied in the south, although it occurred throughout the northern Mediterranean. The Impresso decoration is of particular interest: Impresso pottery in Macedonia and Thessaly was of different clay composition than the local pottery (Dimoula 2014:206). First the surfaces of the impressed pots were unpainted (as is practiced in the Balkans as well), but after 6000 cal B.C. it became integrated into the symbolic expression of the painted pottery traditions, resulting in the developed MN fusion-style (Reingruber 2008:Table 4, Figures 1–3). Therefore, contacts were not only trans-Aegean and east-west-east oriented, but indeed circum-Aegean, as they were also north-south directed. Especially in

the final stage of the EN, exchanges occurred also with the Balkans to the north (Reingruber 2017). As analyzed in modern societies, a relationship can be established between agglomerations, local knowledge, and its diffusion. By identifying such geographic concentrations of innovation activities, different causes of the emergence of these concentrations can be examined (Fornahl and Brenner 2009:163–182). We are far from performing such studies in Aegean prehistory on the basis of small trenches alone; nevertheless, a concentration of sites can be pinpointed in Thessaly after 6300 cal B.C. (in the EN II). From there, impulses emanated to neighboring regions as well, Thessaly acting as an innovation center for more southern (Boeotia and the Argolid) and western (west Thessalian plain) regions. This pioneering task was later taken over by western Macedonia, the geographical innovation center shifting toward the north, from where the Neolithization of the Balkans commenced (Figure 5; Reingruber et al. 2017).

Figure 6. Radiocarbon dates from Sarakenos Cave, Trench A. (Dates from Sampson et al. 2009:150–154) 20

AS20.indb 20

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective Acculturation and the Spread of Innovations

given: Çukuriçi XIII for the farmers that were integrating into their daily activities the knowledge of raw material sources from Aegean Mesolithic groups (Horejs 2015:308), and Franchthi IX/X with seeds of domesticated species (Tr. dicoccum) in a transitional Mesolithic–Neolithic context (Perlès et al. 2013). The dichotomy of “foragers” vs. “farmers” would then be resolved; the “fluidity” could be described as that of acculturation processes. Groups still (predominantly) relying on hunting-fishing-collecting were in exchange with groups from pioneer sites that were already keeping animals and growing plants. In this view, it was not the linear spread of the “Neolithic Package” that led to the transformations lasting several hundreds of years (6600–6000 cal B.C.), but rather the unpredictable spread of innovations, where the consequences of adaptions could not be foreseen by the actors themselves, but only in much later retrospection.

Nowadays, the claim for an indigene domestication of animals and plants, or the evolutionary development of pottery technology from primitive to sophisticated, can be refuted. In fact, a pure indigene appearance of the Neolithic way of life has never been advanced; Theocharis rather envisaged the autochthonous development as a result of diffusion. But an acculturation process has not been accepted by the international community; rather much more emphasis has been placed on colonization processes (see Figure 3). But were these first generations indeed colonists or even “maritime colonists,” as Childe wrote in 1950? Stefan Burmeister (2000:544) described the process of colonization as a concerted action, where a central system of power takes over the control of an area, pioneers with special interests initiating the process. This was obviously not the case at the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, when small groups of seafaring forager-fishers interacted with small groups (or single persons belonging to such groups) of seafaring farmers. “One hand cannot tie a package” is an old African saying; the success of the implementation of the Neolithic way of life in the Aegean was not the result of the input of small migrating groups of people alone. Certainly, they initiated an enduring process at ca. 6600 cal B.C., but the consequences were borne and further transformed by the next generations until the commitment to a certain place (after 6500/6400 cal B.C.) and the complexity of a sedentary life with its social implications (around 6300/6200 cal B.C.) stabilized. Certain raw material networks (e.g. obsidian) and basic traditions (e.g. burial customs), as well as certain shapes of stone tools (e.g. trapezes), derived in fact from local, Mesolithic, traditions. To these, new economic (domestication), social (serving food and beverages), and cultural elements (new habits, new fashions) were added that spread together with single persons or small groups of mobile people throughout the Aegean. The Neolithization process can therefore be viewed as the result of a close cooperation between intra- and extra-local mobile groups—some still predominantly foragers and some already predominantly farmers. Rather than describe them as purposeful “colonists,” I would envisage them as “early adopters” of innovations. The process of adaptation and acculturation, perhaps even of individual socialization enforced by family bonds and peer groups, played a major part not only for those already living there, but also for the newcomers. For each case an example can be

Conclusions Discussions on Neolithization processes in the Aegean, especially in the western Aegean, are still indebted to the basic work undertaken by Milojčić and Theocharis. Yet their interpretations were influenced by the discourses of their times. Certain concepts like the PPN, the “Preceramic,” or the “Aceramic” were borrowed from Near Eastern archaeology and adjusted to the situations in the Aegean. There, these concepts lost their methodological validity and turned into credos. With the newly available data for the beginning of a farming economy in the Aegean, a “Preceramic” period coeval with the PPN in the Near East before 6700 cal B.C. must be rejected, this period belonging to the history of research. Pottery was in use in central Anatolia at least since 6700 cal B.C. and spread together with other innovative techniques into the Aegean and the Marmara region one or two centuries later. It is certainly possible that breakable pots were not considered useful at all early sites and therefore were not integrated from the very beginning into daily life, the result being Aceramic basal levels. But they seem to be rather the exception than the rule. If in previous models a seemingly incompatible dichotomy was forced upon the evidence, it was in fact only the two extremes of a fluid and complex process that were being juxtaposed (see Figure 3): a mainly local evolution with little input from outside (indigenous development) vs. the dominant input from outside with a negligible local contribution (colonization). A good corrective for both models might be the temporal resolution: neither was the transformation process between 6600 and 6000 B.C. long enough to 21

AS20.indb 21

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber allow for local developments, nor was it short enough to support a swift colonization. It would rather point to a continuous acculturation that lasted many generations, the first link in the chain not foreboding the effects on the subsequent, let alone on the current one (ourselves).

Cherry, John F. 1981 Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47:41–68. Childe, Vere Gordon 1929 The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1950 Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Aschehoug, Oslo. 1951 Man Makes Himself. New American Library, New York. 1958 The Prehistory of European Society. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex. Çilingiroğlu, Çiler 2005 The Concept of “Neolithic Package”: Considering its Meaning and Applicability. Documenta Praehistorica 32:1–13. Çilingiroğlu, Çiler, and Canan Çakırlar 2013 Towards Configuring the Neolithisation of Aegean Turkey. Documenta Praehistorica 40:21–29. Dimoula, Anastasia 2014 Πρώιμη Κεραμική Τεχνολογία και Παραγωγή: Το Παράδειγμα της Θεσσαλίας. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Artistotle University of Thessaloniki. Efstratiou, Nikos 2007 The Beginning of the Neolithic in Greece: Probing the Limits of a “Grand” Narrative. In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by Sophia Antoniadou and Anthony Pace, pp. 121–133. Pierides Foundation Publications, Athens. Efstratiou, Nikos, Alexandra Karetsou, Eleni S. Banou, and Despina Margomenou 2004 The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos: New Light on an Old Picture. In Knossos: Palace, City, State, edited by Gerald Cadogan, Eleni Hatzaki, and Adonis Vasilakis, pp. 39–49. British School at Athens, Athens. Evans, John D. 1964 Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos, 1957–60: Part I. The Annual of the British School at Athens 59:132–240. 1971 Neolithic Knossos: The Growth of a Settlement. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37(2):95–117. Facorellis, Yorgos, and Yannis Maniatis 2013 Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos: An Overview. In The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete: New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands, edited by Nikos Efstratiou, Alexandra Karetsou,

Acknowledgements During the last decade, I had the great opportunity to repeatedly enjoy the kind hospitality of Professor Dr. Harald Hauptmann and Salwa Hauptmann-Hamza in Heidelberg, discussing on such occasions many of the ideas presented here. As the successor of Vladimir Milojčić at the University of Heidelberg, Harald Hauptmann strongly encouraged my research related to the Early Neolithic in Thessaly. It is a great pleasure for me to dedicate this contribution to him on behalf of his 80th birthday. I am also very grateful to Giorgos Toufexis for his generous support during my work at the Ephorate of Antiquities of Larisa. Laurens Thissen commented upon ambiguities in earlier drafts of this paper and contributed to a clearer structure. Also the comments and remarks of two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the line of argument—my gratitude includes them, too. All deficiencies remain my own responsibility. References Cited Ammerman, Albert J., and Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza 1973 A Population Model for the Diffusion of Early Farming in Europe. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 343–357. Duckworth, London. Begner, Max, Barbara Horejs, and Ernst Pernicka 2009 Zur Herkunft der Obsidianartefakte vom Çukuriçi Höyük. Studia Troica 18:249– 271. Burmeister, Stefan 2000 Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41(4):539–567. CARE 2013 History of CARE. Electronic document, http://www.care.org/impact/our-stories/carehistory, accessed March 15, 2015. Chapman, John, and Helena Hamerow 1997 Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation. BAR International Series 1978. Archaeopress, Oxford. 22

AS20.indb 22

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective and Maria Ntinou, pp. 193–200. Prehistory Monographs 42. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Fornahl, Dirk, and Thomas Brenner 2009 Geographic Concentration of Innovative Activities in Germany. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 20(3):163–182. Gallis, Kostas 1992 Άτλας Προϊστορικών Οικισμών της Ανατολικής Θεσσαλικής Πεδιάδας. Society of Historical Research of Thessaly, Larisa. Gatsov, Ivan, Petranka Nedelcheva, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, and Janusz K. Kozłowski 2017 Lithic Industries and their Role in Neolithisation Models in Southeast Europe. In Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Pertranka Nedelcheva, pp. 57–71. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology Vol. 3. Routledge, London. Gerritsen, Fokke, Rana Özbal, and Laurens Thissen 2013 The Earliest Neolithic Levels at Barcın Höyük, Northwestern Turkey. Anatolica 39:53–92. Hauptmann, Harald 2015 Vorwort des Herausgebers. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/ Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 1–5. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.Herling, Lothar, Kirstin Kasper, Clemens Lichter, and Recep Meriç 2008 Im Westen ichts Neues? Ergebnisse der Grabungen 2003 und 2004 in DedecikHeybelitepe. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58:13–65. Hofmanová, Zuzana, Susanne Kreutzer, Garrett Hellenthal, Christian Sell, Yoan Diekmann, David Díez-del-Molino, Lucy van Dorp, Saioa López, Athanasios Kousathanas, Vivian Link, Karola Kirsanow, Lara M. Cassidy, Rui Martiniano, Melanie Strobel, Amelie Scheu, Kostas Kotsakis, Paul Halstead, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Christina Ziota, Fotini Adaktylou, Shyamalika Gopalan, Dean M. Bobo, Laura Winkelbach, Jens Blöcher, Martina Unterländer, Christoph Leuenberger, Çiler Çilingiroğlu, Barbara Horejs, Fokke Gerritsen, Stephen J. Shennan, Daniel G. Bradley, Mathias

Currat, Krishna R. Veeramah, Daniel Wegmann, Mark G. Thomas, Christina Papageorgopoulou, and Joachim Burger 2016 Early Farmers from across Europe Directly Descended from Neolithic Aegeans. PNAS 113(25):6886–6891. Hodder, Ian 2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. WileyBlackwell, West Sussex. Horejs, Barbara, Bogdana Milić, Felix Ostmann, Ursula Thanheiser, Bernhard Weninger, and Alfred Galik 2015 The Aegean in the Early 7th Millennium BC: Maritime Networks and Colonization. Journal of World Prehistory 28:289–330. Jacobsen, Thomas W. 1969 Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report II: The Franchthi Cave, 1967–1968. Hesperia 38:343–381. Kaczanowska, Małgorzata, and Janusz K. Kozłowski 2015 The Aegean Mesolithic: Material Culture, Chronology, Networks of Contacts. Eurasian Prehistory 11(1–2):31–62. Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1957 Digging up Jericho. Benn, London. Kotsakis, Kostas 2001 Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece. Continuity, Discontinuity or Change of Course? Documenta Praehistorica 28:63–73. 2003 From the Neolithic Side: The Mesolithic/ Neolithic Interface in Greece. In The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives, edited by Nena Galanidou and Catherine Perlès, pp. 217-221. British School at Athens Studies 10. British School at Athens, London. 2008 A Sea of Agency: Crete in the Context of the Earliest Neolithic in Greece. In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, edited by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins, pp. 49–72. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2000 The Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in Greece as Evidenced by the Data at Theopetra Cave in Thessaly. Documenta Praehistorica 27:133–140. Lichter, Clemens 2005 Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: The Actual State of Research. In How Did Farming Reach Europe? 23

AS20.indb 23

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber Anatolian–European Relations from the Second Half of the Seventh through the First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC: International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 59–74. BYZAS 2. Zero Produksiyon, Ankara. 2017 The Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic Between Western Anatolia and the Lower Danube: Evidence from Burial Customs. In Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Pertranka Nedelcheva, pp. 112–122. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology Vol. 3. Routledge, London. Lichter, Clemens (editor) 2007 Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, Stuttgart. Maniatis, Yannis 2014 Χρονολόγηση με Άνθρακα-14 των Μεγάλων Πολιτισμικών Αλλαγών στην Προϊστορική Μακεδονία, Πρόσφατες Εξελίξεις. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 205–222. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Milojčić, Vladimir 1949 Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittelund Südosteuropas. Gebr. Mann, Berlin. 1959 Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien (1953–1958). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 6:1–56. 1962 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien: 1. Das Präkeramische Neolithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 2. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Moundrea-Agrafioti, Antikleia 1981 La Thessalie du Sud-est au Néolithique: Outillage Lithique et Osseux. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Ethnology, University of Paris.

Nissen, Hans J. 2012 Geschichte Alt-Vorderasiens. Oldenbourg Verlag, München. Özdoğan, Mehmet 2007a Von Zentralanatolien nach Europa. Die Ausbreitung der Neolithischen Lebensweise. In Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien: Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 150–160. Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, Stuttgart. 2007b Amidst Mesopotamia-Centric and EuroCentric Approaches: The Changing Role of the Anatolian Peninsula between the East and the West. Anatolian Studies 57:17–24. 2008 An Alternative Approach in Tracing Changes in Demographic Composition. In The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences, edited by Jean-Pierre BocquetAppel and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 139–178. Springer, Dordrecht. 2010 Westward Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Life: Sorting the Neolithic Package into Distinct Packages. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May–10 May 2009, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma, edited by Paolo Matthiae, Frances Pinnock, Lorenzo Nigro, and Nicolò Marchetti, pp. 883–897. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2003 An Alternate (and Old-Fashioned) View of Neolithisation in Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 30:99–113. Perlès, Catherine, Anita Quiles, and Hélène Valladas 2013 Early Seventh-Millennium AMS Dates from Domestic Seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece). Antiquity 87:1001–1015. Perlès, Catherine, Turan Takaoğlu, and Bernard Gratuze 2011 Melian Obsidian in NW Turkey: Evidence for Early Neolithic Trade. Journal of Field Archaeology 36(1):42–49. Prien, Roland 2005 Archäologie und Migration: Vergleichende Studien zur Archäologischen Nachweisbarkeit von Wanderungsbewegungen. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Reingruber, Agathe 2008 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der 24

AS20.indb 24

2/11/18 8:59 PM

2 - Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a circum-Aegean Perspective Argissa-Magula in Thessalien: 2. Das Frühe und das Beginnende Mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte Transägäischer Beziehungen. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 35. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. 2011 Early Neolithic Settlement Patterns and Exchange Networks in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 38:291–305. 2012 Supra-Regional Networks and Innovation Centers in the Aegean Before and Around 6000 cal B.C. In Times of Change: The Turn from the 7th to the 6th Millennium BC in the Near East and Southeast Europe, Proceedings of the Berlin Conference, November 24–26, 2011, edited by Peter F. Biehl and Eva Rosenstock, in press. 2015 The Beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean: Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? Documenta Praehistorica 42:147–158. 2017 The Beginning of the Neolithic Way of Life in the Eastern Lower Danube Area: A View From the North. In Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Pertranka Nedelcheva, pp. 91–111. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology Vol. 3. Routledge, London. Reingruber Agathe and Laurens Thissen 2005 14C Database for the Aegean Catchment (Eastern Greece, Southern Balkans and Western Turkey) 10.000–5500 cal BC. In How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian–European Relations from the Second Half of the Seventh through the First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC, International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 295–327. BYZAS 2. Zero Produksiyon, Ankara. Reingruber, Agathe and Laurens Thissen 2017 The 14SEA Project: A 14C database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000– 3000 calBC). http://www.14sea.org/index. html Reingruber, Agathe, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Pertranka Nedelcheva (editors) 2017 Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology Vol. 3. Routledge, London.

Robb, John 2013 Material Culture, Landscapes of Action, and Structural Causation: A New Model for the Origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54(6):657–683. Rodden, Robert J. 1965 An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. Scientific American 212(4):83–92. Rogers, Everett 2003 Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press, New York. Sampson, Adamantios 1996 New Evidence of the Mesolithic in the Greek Area. Archaiologia (Athens) 61:46–51. Sampson, Adamantios, Janusz K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Anna Budek, Adam Nadachowski, Teresa Tomek, and Barabara Miekina 2009 Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia, from Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Eurasian Prehistory 6(1):199–231. Stefanova, Tatjana 1996 A Comparative Analysis of Pottery from the “Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon” and “Karanovo I Horizon” and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Poročilo 23:15–38. Stratouli, Georgia 1998 Knochenartefakte aus dem Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum Nordgriechenlands. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 32. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1967 Η Αυγή της Θεσσαλικής Προϊστορίας: Αρχή και Πρώιμη Εξέλιξη της Νεολιθικής. Filarchaios Society of Volos, Volos. 1973 Νεολιθική Ελλάς. National Bank of Greece, Athens. Thissen, Laurens 2000 Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: Clues for the Neolithisation of Greece? Documenta Praehistorica 27:141–154. 2005 The Role of Pottery in Agropastoralist Communities in Early Neolithic Southern Romania. In (Un)Settling the Neolithic, edited by Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Vicki Cummings, pp. 71–78. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2007 Die Anfänge der Keramikproduktion in der Türkei – ein Überblick. In Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien: Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 218–229. Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, Stuttgart.

25

AS20.indb 25

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Agathe Reingruber 2010 The Neolithic–Chalcolithic Sequence in the SW Anatolian Lakes Region. Documenta Praehistorica 37:269–282. 2017 The First Balkan Neolithic in the Lower Danube Plain and the Making of a Pottery Tradition. In Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, pp. 79–90. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology Vol. 3. Routledge, London. Warren Peter, M. R. Jarman, H. N. Jarman, N. J. Shackleton, and John D. Evans 1968 Knossos Neolithic, Part II. The Annual of the British School at Athens 63:239–276.

Watson, Patty Jo 2006 Robert John Braidwood, 1907–2003. Biographical Memoirs. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/ braidwood-robert.pdf, accessed March 15, 2015. Weninger, Bernhard, Lee Clare, Fokke Gerritsen, Barbara Horejs, Raiko Krauß, Jörg Linstädter, Rana Özbal, and Eelco J. Rohling 2014 Neolithisation of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 calBC Period of Rapid Climate Change. Documenta Praehistorica 41:1–31.

26

AS20.indb 26

2/11/18 8:59 PM

-3Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns of Eastern Thessaly, Greece Apostolos Sarris, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Jamieson Donati, Carmen Cuenca García, Meropi Manataki, Gianluca Cantoro, Ian Moffat, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Georgia Karampatsou, Kayt Armstrong, Nassos Argyriou, Sylviane Dederix, Cristina Manzetti, Nikos Nikas, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Vasso Rondiri, Polyxeni Arachoviti, Kalliopi Almatzi, Despina Efstathiou, Evangelia Stamelou Abstract

Introduction

The Innovative Geophysical Approaches for the Study of Early Agricultural Villages of Neolithic Thessaly (ARISTEIA-IGEAN) Project made an extensive use of geospatial technologies in the study of the natural environment and social dynamics of Neolithic settlements within the coastal region of eastern Thessaly, Greece. The goal of the project was to offer a broad and non-destructive remote sensing coverage of a number of Neolithic settlements to study habitation practices that were developed in various ecological niches and to document site-specific cultural and environmental characteristics. The methods and techniques used in the IGEAN project included satellite remote sensing, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), ground-based geophysical surveys exploring new generation prospection instrumentation, and soil analyses. The manifold research agenda proved to be effective for the detailed mapping of soils in which archaeological residues of past occupation reside. The full open-access geospatial data is served online at http://igean.ims.forth.gr/. The IGEAN project exposed a large degree of variation in the occupation of the landscape and the usage of space in both small and large settlements. The study was able to capture an integrated image of the habitation settings and highlight the large degree of divergence in the intra-site settlement patterns of these agrarian societies. The synthesis of the results opens up further research questions regarding early agricultural villages of Neolithic Thessaly.

The southern Balkan Peninsula, and especially the area of Greece, was of critical importance in serving as the gateway to the Neolithization of Europe from the Near East (Perlès 2001). Early farming communities first appeared on an extensive scale in Thessaly (central Greece) and provided the seeds for a new European cultural landscape. The early chronology and high density of Neolithic sites in Thessaly makes the region a key area for understanding the pathways in which the Neolithic emerged and pushed northwards into the continent. The ARISTEIA-IGEAN (Innovative Geophysical Approaches for the Study of Early Agricultural Villages of Neolithic Thessaly) Project, which has been running for the past three years, has undertaken a systematic and extensive geophysical exploration of the Neolithic landscapes of Thessaly. The research project focuses on the study of the natural environment and the social dynamics of Neolithic settlements within the coastal regions of eastern Thessaly, Greece (Figure 1). The goal was to offer a broad non-destructive remote sensing coverage of a number of Neolithic settlements in order to study habitation practices that developed in various ecological niches and to document their cultural and environmental characteristics. The geospatial technologies employed satellite remote sensing, aerial reconnaissance through the use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), ground-based geophysical surveys using new generation prospection instrumentation, and soil analyses. The manifold research agenda, which was developed specifically to approach the particular archaeological questions, proved effective for the detailed mapping of soils in which archaeological residues of past occupation are situated. The engagement of the specific methods made it possible to capture both the horizontal and vertical extent of the cultural layers, offering a

Keywords Neolithic Thessaly, magoula, integrated geophysics, satellite data analysis, remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), aerial reconnaissance, intra-site settlement patterns, ARISTEIA-IGEAN 27

AS20.indb 27

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al.

Figure 1. Locations of Neolithic sites mentioned in the text.

28

AS20.indb 28

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns… more holistic image of the plan of the settlements. The results of the methodology applied proved to be revealing in terms of the internal spatial organization of tell sites (known locally as magoules) and the usage of space in their vicinity, outlining at the same time details of the environmental settings of Neolithic settlements. The intra-site distribution and clustering of built environments, their structural differences (daub or stone-built structures of variable sizes), the existence of ditches and enclosures demarcating the limits of the sites, the differentiation between habitation quarters and open spaces within the settlements, and the existence of corridors and entrances within the enclosures are some of the key discoveries of the survey campaign.

an extensive GPS survey, it was possible to create an updated corpus of sites (ca. 340) to reconstruct the geomorphological settings of Thessaly in various phases of the Neolithic period, to use satellite remote sensing for the detection of new magoula sites, and to study the dynamics of the regional Neolithic habitation patterns through the use of multi-criteria spatial processes in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment (neolithicthessaly.ims.forth.gr) (Alexakis et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). A similar project in western Thessaly that is currently running makes use of coring and spatial analyses (Orengo and Krahtopoulou 2014). Despite the above studies that focus on the regional tendencies of Neolithic habitation patterns, the internal spatial organization of the settlements remains poorly defined. Most of the information derives from the early excavations at Sesklo and Dimini, as well as the most recent work at Palioskala, suggesting different templates of settlement organization (Halstead 1992; Toufexis 2006; Tsountas 1908). Both Sesklo and Dimini are located close to river channels, but only Dimini exhibits evidence of six enclosures encircling the settlement (Chourmouziadis 1979). In contrast, Sesklo deviates from the “usual” template of a magoula. Still, the core habitation zone of the settlement consists of highly clustered one- or tworoom stone-built structures (Kotsakis 1994). Similar clustering and a series of concentric stone-built enclosures are exhibited at the Final Neolithic (FN) magoula of Palioskala, located on the banks of Lake Karla (Toufexis 2006). The few remaining sites that have been partially excavated provide ample evidence of some of the internal characteristics of the settlements. However, the limited size of the excavations provided little information regarding the extent of the settlements, their internal organization, the sprawling of habitation outside the limits of the magoules, and the existence of enclosures. Previous geophysical survey has been carried out at Zerelia (Papadopoulos et al. 2011), Sesklo Pyrgou (Sarris 2003), Dimini (Sarris et al. 2001, 2002), and Koutroulou (Kyparissi-Apostolika and Hamilakis 2012; Tsokas et al. 2009), but it was not on a sufficient scale to map patterns and extents of occupation. In order to address the above questions related to the organization of settlements and the context of their dynamic local landscapes, the ARISTEIA-IGEAN project followed a multicomponent and systematic remote sensing campaign targeting a series of Neolithic settlements in the coastal hinterlands of eastern Thessaly. Single- and multi-sensor geophysical instrumentation, coupled with other geospatial technologies, targeted 21 Neolithic settlements of various periods (Table 1) to identify both common and divergent spatial

Study Area and Previous Research Thessaly constitutes one of the main regions of mainland Greece where first farming groups migrating from Anatolia settled. Permanent habitation was adapted to the specific geomorphological conditions of the area, which consists of extensive alluvial and fluvial plains with direct access to the Aegean Sea. Two major plain basins, the southwestern Karditsa-Trikala Plain and the northeastern plain of Larissa-Velestino, were important regions for Neolithic occupation. The analysis of the distribution of pottery and lithics suggests that there was frequent communication between the two plains and the coast (Karimali 1994; Pentedeka 2008; Rondiri 2009; Vouzaxakis 2008). The identification of several Neolithic magoules in Thessaly goes back to the beginning of the twentieth century. With the work of Tsountas (1908), Wace and Thompson (1912), Theocharis (1958), and French (1972), the discovery of new sites became an intriguing topic of investigation, partly due to the outstanding, nearly monumental size of most of the sites and to other features (e.g. height, visibility, duration). From the works of Halstead (1984), and more recently Gallis (1992), van Andel and Runnels (1995), and Perlès (1999), the focus of attention turned to the location of new sites and the identification of the distribution patterns of Neolithic settlements within different environments of Thessaly. The issue of the connection of sites with their environment was only pursued by Halstead (1984), van Andel and Runnels (1995), and Perlès (1999, 2001), who were interested in the distribution of sites in their wider environmental/geological matrix, based on the macroscopic inspection of the topography and geology through fieldwork investigations. A more synthetic and multi-parametric regional research was carried out by the GeoSat ReSeArch Lab of IMS-FORTH. Through 29

AS20.indb 29

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al. elements in light of their environmental setting (see igean.ims.forth.gr).

with the collection of soil samples for further analysis of their chemical and magnetic properties. From a top-to-bottom approach, satellite remote sensing and RPAS aerial images were obtained and processed in a specific pipeline to accentuate archaeological features. Satellite images taken from high-resolution multispectral sensors (WorldView-2, Quickbird, GeoEye-1) were processed and a number of feature enhancement indices (PCA, Tasseled Cap, IR/R, Decorrelation Stretch, and RGB to IHS) were applied together with the calculation of various vegetation indices (ARVI, EVI, MSAVI, MSR, NDVI, WDVI, TSAVI, and SAVI) (Sarris et al. 2013). Additionally, low-altitude aerial photography using RPAS was mainly engaged to detect any shallow architectural features that may exist in the vicinity of the magoules

Methodological Tools In order to achieve an extensive and detailed coverage of Neolithic settlements and explore their organization and built environments, a manifold remote-sensing protocol was designed (Sarris 2013). The environmental settings of the sites and their geomorphological attributes were first studied through satellite and aerial reconnaissance. Broad scanning of the magoules and their surrounding environs was achieved with the use of magnetic and electromagnetic techniques. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and soil resistance techniques were also employed, coupled

Table 1. List of Sites Surveyed during the ARISTEIA-IGEAN Project. Sitea

Periodb

Agios Dimitrios Agios Nikolaos Almyriotiki Almyros 2 Bakalis Belitsi Dexameni Eleuterochori Kamara Karatsantangliou Karatsantagli Kastro Kokkinas Velestino 2 (Nikonanou) Perdika 1 (Daoutza) Perdika 2 Perivlepto (Kastraki 2) Rizomilos 2 Vaitsi Mylos Velestino 3 (Mati) Velestino 4 (Visviki) Zerelia Total

EN, MN LN EN–LBA EN–MN FN–beyond EN, MN N, EBA undefined MN LN EN LN, FN, and historical MN–EBA and Byzantine EN, MN, MBA MN EN, MN N, EBA EN–MBA EN–MN, EBA, and historical MN–LBA EN–LBA and historical

Coverage (ha)c Magnetics EM GPR .39 .75 .08 .09 8.38 4.03 1.30 6.63 2.35 .37 .46 .38 .29 3.02 1.83 .20 .07 .28 .07 .17 .22 1.55 1.05 .10 2.94 1.19 .22 2.65 .56 .18 1.01 .82 .06 2.95 2.05 5.27 2.17 .44 3.83 1.95 .32 5.09 1.78 .64 10.52 3.22 .33 3.16 2.68 .88 3.19 1.78 .45 5.36 .17 4.82 1.85 .29 71.29 30.89 6.7

RPAS 5.19 20.70 7.33 8.84 11.74 3.20 12.17 12.38 7.02 4.10 3.12 13.41 20.46 6.81 10.37 2.50 2.56 30.16 182.06

See Figure 1 for site locations. Period of habitation is based on diagnostic material from each site: Early Neolithic (EN), Middle Neolithic (MN), Late Neolithic (LN), Early Bronze Age (EBA), Middle Bronze Age (MBA), and Late Bronze Age (LBA). c Coverage represents the total area surveyed by each major prospection technique (soil resistance and magnetic susceptibility are not included in this table). In total, the geophysical coverage is the largest ever covered in a single project within the Eastern Mediterranean. a

b

30

AS20.indb 30

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns… through conventional and infrared cameras. The magnetic surveys employed a SENSYS GmbH MX Compact system, consisting of a cart carrying eight fluxgate gradiometer sensors, spaced 25–50 cm apart and connected to a DGPS navigation system. Measurements were taken every 1–10 cm along each transect, depending on the survey speed. Data were processed based on despiking, sensor-offset removal, and FFT deconvolution. Electromagnetic induction instruments were used to measure the magnetic susceptibility and soil conductivity of the soils at various depths (Tabbagh 1986). These surveys employed a Geophex GEM-2, GF Instrument CMD Explorer, and a Geonics EM-31, coupled with a DGPS navigation system, to measure the soil properties at five different frequencies (coil spacing of 1.66 m) with the GEM-2, three different depths (coil spacing of .32 m, .71 m, and 1.18 m) with the CMD, and a coil spacing of 3.66 m for the EM-31. Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) were performed to normalize the soil conductivity measurements, and at the same time a calibration protocol was applied in a systematic way, providing comparable results between the EM magnetic susceptibility and geomagnetic datasets and between resistivity and EM electrical conductivity datasets. Both techniques were applied to provide a high-resolution map of the architectural features existing in the upper strata of the sites. Single- (Sensors & Software Noggin Plus GPR system with 250 MHz antenna) and multi-antenna (MALÅ MIRA GPR with 400 MHz antennas) GPRs were employed for the acquisition of stratigraphic data at various sections of the site with a sampling interval of about 2.5 cm along the parallel traverses 50 cm apart. GPR was particularly useful in revealing the depth of subsurface architectural features. In total, all of the remote sensing, geophysical, and geochemical data were integrated into a GIS platform for better comparison of the measurements and interpretation of the various features. It should be stressed that the use of such a wide array of methods, in a systematic approach, is unique among archaeological research in Greece. The following section highlights eight representative case studies that produced some significant results in regards to the organization of space.

by flat agricultural floodplains, large riverbeds, and streambeds that produce deep gorges, and mountains on the southern periphery. The site rises above the plain by 5–7 m. Magnetic data indicate that the extent of the settlement was not confined within the limits of the magoula, which has an oval shape 54 x 48 m in dimensions. Instead, the settlement spreads out toward the south, outside the core habitation zone (possibly as a consequence of the population growth) (Figure 2). The inner oval enclosure (A10) is related to an enclosure wall about 1.5 m in width. The outer enclosures are much wider but appear to be fragmented. From magnetic and EM magnetic susceptibility measurements, the outer enclosures (A1, A2, A3, A5), with variable width (wider at the east and south, spanning 7–14 m), were most probably built to mitigate flooding events. There are signs of an intermediate ditch (A4, A6, and A7) of smaller width, especially to the east and north. Along the perimeter of the outside ditches there are definite signs of side exits or entrances (C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5) for pathways that radiate out from the settlement. Exits C2 and C3 to the east are much wider than the others, with a width of 3.5–6.5 m. Radially outwards and narrower are the entrances C1 and C5 to the south and east. Entrance C1 is of particular interest, as there are indications of a passage (possibly a type of bridge) over the outer ditch. At least 12 rectilinear structures (B1–B12) are outlined within the limits of the inner enclosure, most of which are oriented in the north-south direction. Two of the largest structures (B4 and B7 with approximate dimensions of 7 x 9 m) are located at the southeast and southwest sides of the settlement, while the smallest structures (B5, B8, and B11) have dimensions of 5 x 3 m. Structures B10 and B12 were verified through soil resistance measurements and produced high resistance anomalies. Geophysical data suggest that the structures are made of daub and are burnt (either intentionally or unintentionally). About half of the area that is confined within the enclosures (ca. 1000 m2) consists of an unfilled space with no evidence of any constructions. This area is clearly distinguishable from the built environment to the south. The magnetic data indicate a wide exit toward the south, and more structural remains (B13–B24) sprawl toward the south and east between the enclosure walls and the surrounding ditches. A simplified flooding simulation indicated that the first water frontier could be expected to arrive toward ditch A8 to the north. On the whole, Almyros 2 indicates an aggregated settlement that seems to have expanded outside the core of the habitation zone to the south with an obvious susceptibility to flooding episodes.

The Neolithic Built Environment Almyros 2 The Early Neolithic (EN) to Middle Neolithic (MN) magoula of Almyros 2 is located 2 km south of the village of Almyros (Vouzaxakis 2008). The landscape around Almyros 2 is diverse and characterized 31

AS20.indb 31

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al.

Figure 2. Results of the survey of Almyros 2: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features.

32

AS20.indb 32

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns… Rizomilos 2

while a smaller stream flows to the south (Vouzaxakis 2008). The modern coastline is just over 5 km from the prehistoric settlement to the east. A contiguous curvilinear magnetic anomaly (A1) separates the natural and cultural deposits, the latter showing higher heterogeneity and higher vertical magnetic gradient values (Figure 4). The magnetic signature of A1, which has a maximum width of about 3.8 m and is probably correlated to a ditch, decreases toward the east. The GEM-2 readings of the soil conductivity indicate higher values of conductivity at the eastern section of the site as well. A flooding simulation based on a recent digital terrain model (DTM) also supports the above assumption, since the virtual 1–2 m flooding front from the southern meander seems to match with the eastern and southeastern outline of A1. The core of the magoula is confined within the almost circular anomaly A3, which has a diameter of 41–47 m. The low amplitude reflections from the GPR indicate that the particular feature represents a 1-m wide enclosure wall. A number of magnetic features are evident within the core of the magoula (A17, A18, A19, and A20), measuring 1,520 m2. All of these features indicate extreme values of the vertical magnetic gradient, which may suggest residues of burning. In contrast, at the position of A17 and A18 strong reflection signals from the GPR outline linear segments of structural remains that mostly consist of stone. GPR slices and VES measurements indicate that architectural features are located within a depth of .6–1.3 m. Toward the east and west, magnetic anomalies A7 and A17 indicate entrances to the inner enclosure of the magoula. To the west of A7, an almost linear anomaly (A14) extends for more than 72 m until reaching A13. Another entrance is suggested by A6, which runs perpendicular to A1 and is oriented in the same direction as A17. Magnetically similar to A3 is A2, which may represent another enclosure wall. In contrast, A1 is much wider and more homogeneous in terms of its magnetic signature, which is more suggestive of an outer ditch. Most probably, A1, A2, and A3 constitute three concentric enclosures of the magoula, with the outer one (A1) used as a defensive construction against periodic flooding from the nearby streams and especially from the one that runs to the south of the magoula, since the elevation difference is less than 2 m. The truncation of these features to the north by the stream suggests that it may have moved to this location by channel avulsion from the north since the Neolithic. Outside of the outer enclosure (A1), a few anomalies appear. The one at A4 may represent the natural levee bank of the adjacent stream meander.

The Neolithic–Early Bronze Age (EBA) settlement of Rizomilos 2 extends over an extensive hill in the middle of a floodplain in close proximity to Lake Karla (Vouzaxakis 2008). The circular shape of the magoula is evident from the topographic map, reaching a relative altitude of about 8 m with respect to the surrounding flat areas. At the top of the magoula an illegal farmstead has been installed. The magnetic survey covered a very large area (10.5 ha) of the settlement and around it (Figure 3). According to the vertical electric soundings, the cultural layers (resistivity of 25 ohm) are buried at a depth of .6–2.2 m. The main locus of the magoula spreads over an almost circular area with a diameter of 210–250 m. The main magoula of Rizomilos 2 is confined by a series of 2–3 concentric ditches (A1, A2, and A3) with widths of 3–5 m. These features were also confirmed by the GEM-2 magnetic susceptibility measurements with a depth from 0 to 1.7 m. Within these larger external ditches, another series of features (B1, B2, B3, and B4) appears, having much smaller widths (less than 2 m) and a more intensive magnetic signature, perhaps suggesting the existence of enclosures. Four main gates to the settlement appear by the openings to both the ditches and the enclosure walls: G1 and G4 are located at opposite sides along east-west directions, while G2 and G3 have northwest-southeast orientations. Geophysics identified only two rectangular structures (C3 and C4) in the core habitation zone of the magoula; however, one should note that a large region of the top of the hill could not be surveyed because of the farmstead. The rest of the structures seem to be located farther from the center, with C1, C10, and C14 and the cluster of C7, C8, and C9 located close to the gates of the magoula. Almost all of them are rectangular and a few (C4, C6, C7, and C8) seem to consist of two rooms. The structural anomalies seem to be positioned with respect to the wider enclosures at the exterior, rather than with the thinner enclosures of the interior. Moving toward the east, the magnetic measurements indicate another probable series of enclosures (B5, B6) that look like fortification walls encircling a small area of the main magoula. The concentric pattern of these rings suggests another smaller settlement, which may predate the main magoula. Karatsantangliou The LN settlement of Karatsantangliou was established near a seasonal stream that passes along the northern side of the magoula, forming a deep ravine, 33

AS20.indb 33

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al.

Figure 3. Results of the survey of Rizomilos 2: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features. 34

AS20.indb 34

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns…

Figure 4. Results of the survey of Karatsantangliou: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey together with the results of the flooding simulation based on the DTM; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features. 35

AS20.indb 35

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al. Anomaly A9 to the southwest has large dimensions (ca. 15 x 9 m), with an extension toward the east for another ca. 10 m.

and west of the settlement, which expands through an elevated zone (on a natural hill) between them. A significant contrast in electrical conductivity values, obtained using GEM-2-HCP, defines the eastern side of the settlement. On the other hand, the measurements of the magnetic susceptibility for 0–1.7 m depth are very high and show a close correlation to the magnetic results (Figure 6). The magnetic data define a series of linear anomalies interpreted as terrace walls (C1–C9) that seem to surround the western side of the site, and a number of isolated, rectangular structures, the combination of which appears to define the limits of the settlement’s built area (Figure 7). A possible western entrance between features C1 and C2, C5 and C6, and C8 and C9 leads to the site. Further to the north, more terrace walls appear (C10–C15) that run along the elevation contours of the natural ridge of the hill. An amorphous terrace wall (C16) toward the south delineates the southeastern edges of the habitation zone. Outside, the magnetic values become distinctly lower and more homogeneous compared to those inside the settlement. Another intense terrace-like anomaly (C17), much wider than the other anomalies mentioned above, appears farther to the south at a distance of about 50 m from the southeastern edge of the settlement. In general, the structural remains appear to extend above the higher elevations of the mound. Thirty-seven structures (A1–A37) have been identified through the magnetic survey, ten of which (A3, A4, A6, A9, A11, A13, A16, A19, A21, A27) are registered in the EM magnetic susceptibility measurements. The core of the settlement is in the northern section, defined by the highest density of dwellings. A sparse cluster of buildings, probably a neighborhood, appears in the southern section of the site, suggesting an expansion of the settlement toward this direction. Most structures are aligned in a north-south direction, although the structures to the northwest have a circular arrangement. The structures are rectangular, and some (e.g. A21, A25, A26, A27, A33, A37) show evidence of internal divisions. Most of the features encountered especially within the nucleus of the magoula to the northwest are interpreted as burnt daub structures on the basis of their elevated magnetic and magnetic susceptibility values. Similarly elevated magnetic values also appear in other sections of the site, especially to the south, despite these features being clearly rectilinear and having larger dimensions than those in the core habitation zone of the magoula. One possibility is that structures like A19, A21, A31, A32, and A33 may have been constructed in both stone and daub, which then was burnt, in contrast to structures like A24 and A25 that seem to have been constructed exclusively

Velestino 2 (Nikonanou) The MN–EBA settlement of Nikonanou (Vouzaxakis 2008) is located just 800 m northwest of Velestino 4 (Visviki) and 1 km northeast of Velestino 3 (Mati). A Byzantine church was built on top of the magoula, severely disturbing the cultural layers of the settlement—which was also destroyed later. The environment around Nikonanou is leveled agricultural land that rises gradually toward the west. The eastern topography rises more sharply toward the foothills of Mount Pelion. As a consequence of the heavy plowing and excavation damage to the site, the geophysical measurements and especially the magnetic data suffered from high noise levels. Despite these challenges, a number of fragmented enclosures can be detected around the magoula. They are not very wide (less than 3 m) and may define at least two enclosures of oval shape (Figure 5). Features A1, A2, A3, and A7 suggest the outer enclosure, and features A6, A8, A12, and A13 the inner enclosure, while A4 and A5 may designate an intermediate enclosure to the south of the magoula. The outer enclosure defines the boundary between the high- and low-conductivity zones (A10), which are suggested from the EM (GEM-2 and EM-31) conductivity measurements. The enclosures appear to have entrances to the northwest and southeast. It is hard to interpret the built area within the magoula, but features B2, B3, B4, and B8 are the most obvious candidates for structural remains. The most intense magnetic anomaly is exhibited at the location of B4 (5.5 x 6.5 m) toward the south-central region of the magoula. B1, B2, B5, B6, and B7 are also identified moderately magnetic, suggesting that all the B anomalies are the result of burning. Karatsantagli (Karatsandagli) The Neolithic settlement of Karatsantagli is located about 1,100 m south of Magoula Zerelia and was inhabited since the EN period (Vouzaxakis 2008). The landscape around Karatsantagli is diverse and characterized by semi-hilly terrain within agricultural floodplains. The topography rises gradually from south to north. Karatsantagli is positioned on top of a natural hill that overlooks the surrounding plain. Large riverbeds and streambeds produce deep gorges in areas, and there are mountains on the southern periphery. In particular, two streams run to the east 36

AS20.indb 36

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns…

Figure 5. Results of the survey of Velestino 2 (Nikonanou): (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient and the GEM-2 conductivity survey; (b) diagrammatic interpretation and annotation of the geophysical features. 37

AS20.indb 37

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al.

Figure 6. Results of the survey of Karatsantagli: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) results of the EM (GEM-2) magnetic susceptibility survey, which covered the center of the settlement and verified the magnetic targets. of stone. If the above assumption is validated by directed investigation, then it may suggest three different phases of occupation, indicating a transition of building techniques from daub to stone based structures.

one or two enclosures. Enclosures are particularly evident to the north-northeast (A1), northwest (A2, A3), and south (A4, A5)—while fragmentary and less magnetically intense, but still present. At least two entrances are visible at A8 and A9 to the west, and one more (A7) to the east. The core habitation zone on the magoula’s summit seems to be confined by another smaller enclosure, inside which there are at least 13 structures (together annotated as C52) that indicate residues of burning. This almost circular enclosure (anomaly A6 with a diameter of about 31–34m) is clearly differentiated from a relatively empty area at A11 to the east. The low values of the vertical magnetic gradient in region A11 match with the very low apparent magnetic susceptibility contrast that is exhibited from the same area through the measurements of the EM GEM-2. The clustering of the dwellings within the core habitation zone is clearly defined. The manifestation of the structural remains as thermal targets (designated by C numbers) suggests burnt clay and mudbrick. About 52 similar (burnt daub) structures, well defined

Perdika 1 (Daoutza) Perdika 1 or Daoutza is a low magoula located in the western part of the Almyros Plain, occupied during the EN–MN periods, but also in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) (Vouzaxakis 2008). Habitation expands over an area of about 230 x 140 m and consists of a densely organized settlement that developed mainly to the south, west, and northwest of the core magoula (Figures 8 and 9). The broader landscape around the prehistoric site is diverse. It is characterized by flat agricultural floodplains, large riverbeds and streambeds producing deep gorges, and mountains on the western and northern peripheries. Magnetic and electromagnetic induction data demonstrate that the settlement is encircled by at least 38

AS20.indb 38

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns…

Figure 7. Diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies at Karatsantagli.

39

AS20.indb 39

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al.

Figure 8. Results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey at Perdika 1 (Daoutza).

40

AS20.indb 40

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns…

Figure 9. Diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies of Perdika 1 (Daoutza).

41

AS20.indb 41

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al. by magnetometry and magnetic susceptibility, have been found dispersed all over the remainder of the settlement, most of which are within the enclosures. Four such structures (C50, C51) also seem to be located close to the stream to the southeast. It is worth noting that the structures on the plateau and within the enclosures are clustered within specific regions, having an alignment toward the north (ca. 2.2° west of true north). In general, the size of the structures spreading outside the nucleus of the magoula is larger than those within the core, spanning from about 8–64 m2 with an average size of 31 m2 (taking into account 46 structures). A different type of rectangular buildings (designated by B numbers), identified by low magnetic values, suggests another occupation phase with different construction methods. This particular type of architecture is spatially blended with the rest of the high-magnetic daub structures. As is suggested from the resistivity values (for structures B1, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, and B11), the specific buildings are interpreted as being stone-built and consisting of two rooms. The fact that there is a lack of overlap between the two different types of architecture suggests that they were either constructed in between the empty space of the previous occupation phase or else there was deliberate clearance and removal of the residues of the older structural remains. It is also important to note that this phase of construction avoided completely settling within the core habitation zone of the magoula. About 25 such stone based structures were identified, having northern orientations and sizes ranging from 14–80 m2. Perdika 1 appears to consist of a magoula and a flat settlement with at least two (and probably three) phases of occupation. Based on geophysical data, it is possible that the original habitation of the core habitation zone of the magoula expanded outside the limits and then a second phase of occupation followed.

been constructed in a very different way from the rest of the Neolithic sites that were surveyed as part of this project (Figure 10). The internal one, A3, seems to define the core of the settlement (63 x 55 m). An internal wall (A13) divides the core of the settlement into two sections. Adjacent to the southern part, there is a series of 4 to 5 continuous structures (A22) with dimensions of about 4.5 x 3.5 m. The structures were revealed clearly from the GPR measurements as strong reflectors located at medium depth (ca. .7–.8 m below the surface). Similar stone-built structures (A21) were identified at the center of the settlement. Both magnetic and apparent magnetic susceptibility measurements indicate the particular features as thermal (magnetic) targets, suggesting intense burning. Two gates, about 6 m wide, appear opposite each other along the northwest and southeast sections of the enclosure. Another gate of similar dimensions appears at the exterior enclosure (defined by A1, A4, A5, and A9). This outer enclosure seems to encircle the settlement in a kind of an elliptical shape (ca. 150 x 100 m), without following the elevation lines to the east. Between the northern (A6) and inner enclosures (A3), more enclosures appear on the plateau of the hill. A12 divides the northern section into two sectors with an opening toward the eastern side. With the exception of the isolated features A18, A19, and A20, which are also associated with burning activities, the rest of the region is magnetically subdued. Some dispersed strong magnetic values appeared at A23, and some extreme values were detected at A17. Despite the diffuse nature of the anomalies, the site indicates a concentration of large structures within a region of about 30 x 40 m. The same region exhibits high values of apparent electrical conductivity (GEM2). Finally, two more enclosures are suggested from the magnetic data to the south (A15) and east (A10) of the surveyed area. Given the location and the plan of the site with multiple enclosures and a limited number of structural remains, it can be suggested tentatively that the site was used mainly for animal husbandry and/ or agricultural activities. Acting as a kind of large farmstead or pastoral farming complex, the internal divisions of the settlement may have been used to confine the animals when they were released on the open landscape for grazing. A similar kind of facility, but of a much smaller scale, has been excavated at the EN–MN site of Kanalia 2 (Adrimi-Sismani 2013). Perdika 2 is of much larger dimensions and consists of a multi-complex system of curving enclosures that may have been constructed for the confinement of the stock or/and for diverting ground water coming from rain.

Perdika 2 Perdika 2 is located on a steep hill about 800 m northwest of Perdika 1. Perdika 2 stands on a natural hill that towers over the surrounding landscape. The western side of the settlement has a precipitous ravine, while the eastern and southern sides have steep slopes. The position of the site up on a steep hill and not directly in the plains below may indicate different modes of human activity. Surface material indicates that the site was active during the MN period (Vouzaxakis 2008). Geophysical survey revealed a complex system of enclosures (ca. 2 m wide), interpreted as having 42

AS20.indb 42

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns…

Figure 10. Results of the survey of Perdika 2: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) results of the EM GEM-2 magnetic susceptibility survey; (c) results of the EM GEM-2 soil conductivity survey; (d) diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies. 43

AS20.indb 43

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al. Almyriotiki

segment turns at an angle of 90° toward the west, while the other continues to the south to become a double system again to the southwest. The ditches appear to project toward the north around the western part of the nucleated settlement, but their signatures quickly become indistinct. In contrast, two or even three ditches are present farther to the west, encircling even the sparsely occupied part of the settlement. Further to the north, both magnetic and EM measurements suggest that the ditches were severely damaged due to flooding episodes. At least four entrances were also noticed through the interrupting trajectory of the ditches. These are especially evident toward the northeastern, southern, and western sections of the enclosures.

Almyriotiki is located within a fertile plain 1 km east of the modern town of Almyros and about 4 km from the present coastline. The settlement sits within a diverse landscape characterized by flat agricultural floodplains, large rivers, and mountains on the western periphery. A few farm installations and rural housing complexes pocket the terrain around Almyriotiki. Elevations around the target site range from 25 to 30 masl. The persistence of habitation in the area of Almyriotiki (EN–LBA) (Vouzaxakis 2008) must be taken into account, as the prehistoric coastline was much closer at that period, consisting also of swamps and marshlands. The geomagnetic survey indicates a wealth of architecture that covers not only the top of the magoula but also farther away over a total area of about 300 x 200 m (Figure 11). VES and GPR data indicate that cultural layers exist around 1 m below the current surface of the soil. The basic elements of the habitation zone consist of a densely occupied nucleus at the top, a more extended organized settlement at the lower outskirts, and a series of ditches enclosing the settlement. The core contains at least 37 burnt daub rectangular (25–60 m2) structures. Most of these are located at the edges of a circular ring about 100 m in diameter, leaving an open space at the center. There is no distinct sign of an enclosure wall here, but the outer walls of the adjacent buildings may have been used as such. A few more structures with similar magnetic signatures are found to the south. Beyond the summit of the magoula, an organized settlement with fewer magnetic structures, interpreted as having been constructed of stone, extends all around the central nucleus except to the north. About 60 buildings were identified by the magnetic, EM, and GPR surveys, most of which have similar or larger dimensions than those of the core zone. Many have more than one room. A large rectangular (10 x 25 m) structure toward the south was shown in the GPR measurements to be three separate buildings built very close to one another. Farther to the west, the density of dwellings seems to gradually decrease. A series of longitudinal anomalies encircle the built-up area and seem to belong to ditches. Evidence for the existence of a second concentric parallel ditch comes from the east and south-central region of the settlement. In contrast to the other Neolithic settlements covered in the survey, the ditches at Almyriotiki do not have a circular morphology around the magoula, but instead divert abruptly where required to encircle most of the extended settlement. The double-ditch system seems to diverge in the southeast, where one

Final Remarks This article summarizes some of the results of the ARISTEIA-IGEAN project that brought to light an extensive amount of new data regarding the spatial organization of Neolithic settlements in eastern Thessaly. The results of remote sensing and geophysical fieldwork offer unique insights for 21 sites, revealing the spatial patterning of settlements on a scale never examined in the archaeology of Neolithic Greece. Only the results of a few representative magoules are presented in this article. The geophysical results presented in this paper reveal a number of important new insights for the Neolithic life in Thessaly. First, the project demonstrates the important contribution of a manifold geophysical approach in revealing the details of the organization and use of space of prehistoric settlements and their relation to the landscape. Second, the results of the geophysical survey contribute to the broader conceptualization of Neolithic landscapes, and it becomes evident that scholars are dealing with a landscape of variation where settlements were adapted to both specific and localized factors. Similar and divergent characteristics can be seen in the planning of the Neolithic villages and structural materials. In most cases, the early daub-built structures were burnt down (intentionally or unintentionally). In almost all cases, the basic nucleus of habitation was encircled by an enclosure wall. This habitation core was often respected in later occupational phases of the settlements. It is perhaps an indication of intentional settlement planning, even in cases where habitation persisted through time. The sprawling communities at Perdika 1 and Almyriotiki indicate a persistence of habitation and a transition from a small, nucleated settlement to a much larger village type of settlement. In these large villages, the dwellings were clustered in small 44

AS20.indb 44

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns…

Figure 11. Results of the survey of Almyriotiki: (a) results of the vertical magnetic gradient survey; (b) diagrammatic representation and coding of the geophysical anomalies.

45

AS20.indb 45

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al. neighborhoods. Open/unbuilt spaces were also left in between the structures. In other cases, such as at Rizomilos 2, there is evidence of a spatial movement of the settlement to an area adjacent to its original location. Moving to the periphery, geophysics has identified a large number of enclosures with various entrances at many of the sites. The exact function and meaning of these enclosures remains unresolved, and various theories have been suggested, including the demarcation of space, defensive purposes, or socio-political obstructions (Andreou et al. 1996; Runnels et al. 2009). Additionally, some enclosures may have been used for animal husbandry or for the storage of water (Pappa and Besios 1999). The results of the IGEAN project support the observation of Toufexis (2006) that wall or ditch enclosures were common elements of Neolithic settlements, although the number and widths of ditches varied markedly between sites. Their trajectories sometimes followed the topography of the magoules, but at other times the ditches enclosed an extension of the built area, even if some structures are also observed at the edges of the ditches and even in the area between them. Most of the settlements that contain ditches were found to be either in the middle of the plain and/or in very close proximity to paleo- or extant channels. A simplified flooding simulation model suggests that ditches may have been used to minimize the impact of repeated flooding episodes (Sarris et al. 2015). This is supported by the subdued magnetic response of the ditch system at Almyros 2 and Almyriotiki, as well as the possible relocation of the settlements at Rizomilos 2 and Visviki (Alram-Stern et al., this volume). The argument becomes even more persuasive if one takes into account the multiple flooding episodes of the Pineios River and Lake Karla, the historical record of severe (sometimes catastrophic) flooding events in Thessaly that appear with cycle periods of 25–50 years (Migiros et al. 2011:218), and the rapid creation of accommodation space due to a tectonic subsidence rate of 1.5 m per 1,000 years (Demitrack 1986). The persistence of habitation in some of these regions suggests the utilization of regional hydrology for extensive farming, supporting the suggestion of van Andel and Runnels (1995) and Vouzaxakis (2008) against the small intensive gardening cultivation proposed by Bogaard (2004). Taken as a whole, the results of the IGEAN project provide a fresh new perspective of Neolithic settlement organization in ways that transcend traditional methods of archaeological exploration. Despite the implications of the project regarding sustainable populations, the spatial context and organization at

intra-site, local, and regional levels, the chronological continuation of habitation, the persistency in occupation, and land use practices, it is obvious that we have just scratched the surface of Neolithic landscapes in Thessaly. Acknowledgements This work was performed in the framework of the IGEAN (“Innovative Geophysical Approaches for the Study of Early Agricultural Villages of Neolithic Thessaly”) project, which is implemented under the “ARISTEIA” Action of the “Operational Programme Education and Lifelong Learning” and is co-funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources. References Cited Adrimi-Sismani, Vasiliki 2013 Αγρότες και Ψαράδες: ‘Παρά Καλλίναον Βοιβίαν Λίμναν.’ Anaskamma 6:49–62. Alexakis, Dimitrios, Apostolos Sarris, Theodoros Astaras, and Konstantinos Albanakis 2009 Detection of Neolithic Settlements in Thessaly (Greece) through Multispectral and Hyperspectral Satellite Imagery. Sensors 9:1167–1187. 2010 Application of GIS, Remote Sensing, and Geomorphology to the Reconstruction of Habitation in Neolithic Thessaly, Greece. SAS Bulletin 33(3):2–4. 2011 Integrated GIS, Remote Sensing and Geomorphologic Approaches for the Reconstruction of the Landscape Habitation of Thessaly during the Neolithic Period. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:89–100. Alexakis, Dimitris, Apostolos Sarris, Theodoros Astaras, Konstantinos Albanakis, and Dimitris Oikonomidis 2008 Contribution of Satellite Imagery and DEMs to the Detection of Neolithic Settlements in Thessaly, Greece. In Proceedings of the 1st International EARSeL Workshop on Advances on Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management, CNR, Rome, September 30–October 4, 2008, edited by Rosa Lasaponara and Nicola Masini, pp. 325–328. Aracne, Rome. Andreou, Stelios, Michalis Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 1996 Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. 46

AS20.indb 46

2/11/18 8:59 PM

3 - Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns… American Journal of Archaeology 100:537– 597. Bogaard, Amy 2004 Neolithic Farming in Central Europe: An Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Practices. Routledge, New York. Demitrack, Anne 1986 The Late Quaternary Geologic History of the Larissa Plain Thessaly, Greece: Tectonic, Climatic, and Human Impact on the Landscape. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. French, David 1972 Notes on the Prehistoric Pottery Groups from Central Greece. Manuscript on file, British School at Athens, Athens. Gallis, Kostas 1992 Άτλας Προϊστορικών Οικισμών της Ανα­ τολικής Θεσσαλικής Πεδιάδας. Society of Historical Research of Thessaly, Larisa. Halstead, Paul 1984 Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, N. Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. 1992 Dimini and the ‘DMP’: Faunal Remains and Animal Exploitation in Late Neolithic Thessaly. The Annual of the British School at Athens 87:29–59. Chourmouziadis, Giorgos 1979 To Νεολιθικό Διμήνι. Society for Thessalian Research, Volos. Karimali, Evagelia 1994 The Neolithic Mode of Production and Exchange Reconsidered: Lithic Production and Exchange Patterns in Thessaly, Greece, During the Transitional Late Neolithic–Bronze Age Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Boston University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Kotsakis, Kostas 1994 The Use of Habitational Space in Neolithic Sesklo. In La Thessalie. Quinze Années de

at the 4th Scientific Meeting AETHSE 4, 15–18 March, Volos, Greece. Migiros, Giorgos, Giorgos Bathrellos, Harikleia Skilodimou, and Theodoros Karamousalis 2011 Pinios (Peneus) River (Central Greece): Hydrological–Geomorphological Elements and Changes during the Quaternary. Central European Journal of Geosciences 3(2):215– 228. Orengo, Hector, and Athanasia Krahtopoulou 2014 Land Reclamation and the Archaeological Record of Central-Western Plain of Thessaly, Central Greece. Paper Presented at the 3rd Landscape Archaeology Conference, 17–20 September, Rome, Italy. Pappa, Maria, and Manthos Besios 1999 The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations. Journal of Field Archaeology 26:177–195. Papadopoulos, Nikos, Apostolos Sarris, and Maria Cristina Salvi 2011 Reconstruction of the Archaeo-Landscape around the Area of the Magoula “Zerelia” in Almyros (Volos, NE Greece). Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of Archaeological Prospection, 19–24 September, Izmir, Turkey. Pentedeka, Areti 2008 Δίκτυα Ανταλλαγής της Κεραμικής κατά τη Μέση και Νεότερη Νεολιθική στη Θεσσαλία. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http:// invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/110203?ln=en, accessed October 11, 2015. Perlès, Catherine 1999 The Distribution of Magoules in Eastern Thessaly. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 42–56. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rondiri, Vasso 2009 Θεσσαλική Νεολιθική Κεραμική: Τεχνο­ λογία και Κατανομή στο Χώρο. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/ record/114741/?ln=el, accessed October 11, 2015. Runnels, Curtis, Cantel White, Claire Payne, Nicolas Wolff, Noam Rifkind, and Steven LeBlanc 2009 Warfare in Neolithic Thessaly: A Case Study.

Recherches Archéologiques, 1975–1990: Bilans et Perspectives. Actes du Colloque

International, Lyon, 17–22 Avril 1990, Vol. A, edited by Jean-Claude Decourt, Bruno Helly, and Kostas Gallis, pp. 125–130. Kapon Editions, Athens. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina, and Yannis Hamilakis 2012 Archaeological and Ethnographic Research at the Site of Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotis, 2009–2011. Paper presented 47

AS20.indb 47

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Apostolos Sarris et al. Hesperia 78(2):165–194. Sarris, Apostolos 2003 Τεχνική Έκθεση του Έργου των Γεωφυσι­ κών Ερευνών στην Περιοχή του Πύργου, Σέσ­κλου, 2002. Manuscript on file, Geosat Research Lab, Institute for Mediterranean Studies, FORTH, Rethymno. 2013 Multi+ or Manifold Geophysical Prospection? In Archaeology in the Digital Era: Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26–29 March 2012, edited by Graeme Earl, Tim Sly, Angeliki Chrysanthi, Patricia Murrieta-Flores, Constantinos Papadopoulos, Iza Romanowska, and David Wheatley, Southampton, 26-30 March 2012, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Sarris, Apostolos, Vaso Adrimi-Sismani, Sofia Topouzi, Steven Soetens, Fotis Triantafyllidis, Vaggelis Kevgas, Charalampos Karathanasis, Anthi Giourou, Katerina Tzaneteas, Thodoros Mavroudis, Kostas Karimalis, Evagelia Karimali, Athina Papadaki, and Giorgos Kritikakis 2001 Geophysical Prospection in Μycenaean Dimini, Magnesia (Greece). Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, 19–23 September, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria. Sarris, Apostolos, Nasos Argyriou, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Jamieson Donati, Carmen Cuenca Garcia, Gianluca Cantoro, and Meropi Manataki 2015 Neolithic Ditches in Thessaly. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation (RSCyp2015), 16–19 March, Paphos, Cyprus. Sarris, Apostolos, Nikos Papadopoulos, Athos Agapiou, Maria Cristina Salvi, Diofantos Hadjimitsis, William Parkinson, Richard Yerkes, Attila Gyucha, and Paul Duffy 2013 Integration of Geophysical Surveys, Ground Hyperspectral Measurements, Aerial and Satellite Imagery for Archaeological Prospection of Prehistoric Sites: the Case Study of Vésztő-Mágor Tell, Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 40(3):1454– 1470. Sarris, Apostolos, Sofia Topouzi, and Vaso AdrimiSismani 2002 Μycenaean Dimini: Integration of Geophysical Surveying and GIS. Paper presented at

the International Conference of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA2002), “The Digital Heritage of Archaeology,” 2–6 April, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Tabbagh, Alain 1986 Applications and Advantages of the Slingram Electromagnetic Method for Archaeological Prospecting. Geophysics 51:576–584. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1958 Εκ της Προκεραμικής Θεσσαλίας. Τhessali­ ka 1:70–86. 1967 Η Αυγή της Θεσσαλικής Προϊστορίας: Αρχή και Πρώιμη Εξέλιξη της Νεολιθικής. Filarkhaios Society of Volos, Volos. Toufexis, George 2006 Η Λίμνη Κάρλα (Βοίβης) και η Ανασκαφή στον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό στη Θέση Παλιόσκαλα. Πρώτα Συμπεράσματα και Προοπτικές. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2–2.3.2003, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 55–64. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 1. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Tsokas, Grigoris N., Georgios Vargemezis, Alexandros Stampolidis, and Nina KyparissiApostolika 2009 Γεωφυσική Διασκόπηση στη Θέση Κου­ τρουλού Μαγούλα Πλησίον του Νέου Μοναστηρίου (Ν. Φθιώτιδας). In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3– 19.3.2006: IΙ. Στερεά Ελλάδα, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 829–837. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 2. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Tsountas, Chistos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμην­ ίου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Curtis N. Runnels 1995 The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69(264):481–500. Vouzaxakis, Kostas 2008 Geographical Patterns and Theories of the Intercommunal Space in the Neolithic Thessaly. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 48

AS20.indb 48

2/11/18 8:59 PM

-4A Road to Variation: Diversity Among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia, Greece Maria Pappa, Stratos Nanoglou, and Melina Efthymiadou

Abstract

What is perhaps more interesting is the position the site holds regarding another major issue: the relation between tells and flat sites. This relation preoccupied landscape archaeology in Greece early on (Andreou and Kotsakis 1987) and continues to carry significant weight in relevant discussions (Kotsakis 1999, 2006; Nanoglou 2001, 2008; Pappa 2008). Before turning to the position of Vasilika within this framework, let us briefly revisit the main parameters of the subject. According to Ruth Tringham (1995), tells are formed because of a restricted and intensive accumulation of debris, whereas flat sites form because of a displacement of consecutive buildings. Several economic or practical reasons have been proposed for this discrepancy. Milojčić (1983:12), for example, interpreted this in terms of plot ownership (see also Tringham 1995:92–93). That is, people rebuilt their houses at the same spot because they had a claim of some sort on that piece of land. Chapman (1989) followed a different path and connected this to the organization of cultivated/grazing land. According to his view, people living on tells would have had to use the land outside the settlement for cultivation, which allows for the possibility of the land being held in common. On the contrary, flat sites would have encompassed cultivated/grazing land among the buildings, which would have made it difficult to own the land at a communal level (Chapman 1989:38). We should be mindful, however, that Chapman’s proposition is an interpretation of the dispersed arrangement of buildings, and not necessarily of the consecutive displacement of buildings—the importance of which will become apparent later on. There is a discursive displacement here that consists in moving from an interpretation of the practice of rebuilding or relocating to an interpretation of the formal characteristics that the consecutive types have come to represent. That is, we move from interpreting the relocation to interpreting the dispersal, although

Vasilika Kyparissi is indeed a site that has been known for some time now, as it was investigated in the 1980s and publicized as Vasilika C. The site has been at the center of discussions pertaining to the size of Neolithic communities, although its internal occupational structure was elusive due to limited excavation. New research carried out since 2013 allows for a better understanding of its inhabitation practices and sheds new light as much as it complicates the picture. This is especially so in view of major projects carried out at a number of extended sites, such as Makriyalos, Pieria, or Thermi in Thessaloniki, which lies just a few kilometers away from Kyparissi. Presenting a first summation of our work at the site, we place it within this emerging new context and offer a few comments on the consequences of these early results on the character of the community and its relevance to the reconstruction of the landscape with which its people interacted. Keywords Neolithic, Thessaly, settlement, tell, flat site, mudbrick architecture The site of Vasilika Kyparissi has been at the center of landscape archaeology in northern Greece from the very beginning. As one of the few Neolithic sites excavated until the mid 1980s, it was used as an example from which to extrapolate for the entire Neolithic in the area. Significantly, for example, it was argued that walls in central Macedonia were built with mudbricks on a stone foundation, which suggested a link with Thessaly (Grammenos 1991:40; see also Andreou and Kotsakis 1987:62). This has since proven to be the exception rather than the rule, and it will be a recurrent issue in this paper. 49

AS20.indb 49

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Maria Pappa et al. the two are not causally linked. For example, a significant point relevant to the relocation, rather than to the dispersal, is that the reposition of houses in flat sites would have rearranged neighborhoods and consequently the relationships among neighbors (Nanoglou 2001). This is where Vasilika Kyparissi enters as an oddity in the literature. It extends to an area larger than tell sites usually occupy, and yet the height of the debris amassed at the site is considerable, reaching at some points nearly 6 m. At times, this has been interpreted as the product of a considerably larger population (e.g. Grammenos 1997:285), but in this paper we will argue that it is because of the combination of two significant sets of practices that the model of tells vs. flat sites keeps apart: (a) the continuous rebuilding of structures at the same location, using mudbricks for the construction of walls, and amassing debris to level the place; and (b) a dispersed arrangement of buildings, with relatively large open spaces devoted to a diverse array of activities.

be excluded. Although mudbricks were found, they were not used for these buildings. The surrounding features were formed so as to accommodate many of the community activities, such as cooking or manufacturing. Many of these features characterize flat sites found throughout central and western Macedonia and Thessaly.1 Turning to the Anthemous Valley, where Vasilika is situated, two flat settlements are located within a range of 10 km: Thermi and Galatista. They share common features with Makriyalos, although only Thermi has been excavated. Thermi extends over 10 ha and is surrounded by ditches and borrow pits, although the layout is not as clear as in the case of Makriyalos. Excavations in the settlement area revealed semi-subterranean round features, and it seems possible that horizontal displacement of successive phases occurred as well (Pappa 2007, 2008). The depositions at Thermi provided a huge knapped stone assemblage, including both finished tools and secondary products. Galatista has been surveyed recently, and the settlement is evidently similar to Makriyalos and Thermi, with a depositional pattern of knapped stone products similar to Thermi (Andreou et al. 2013).

Neighboring Sites This situation is quite unlike what we have come to expect in central Macedonia. Although it is considered to be one of the oldest excavated flat settlements in the area, Vasilika is today an exception and underlines the fact that although flat settlements are the dominant settlement type in central Macedonia, there was great variation in the organization of space in the Neolithic (Figure 1). There have been numerous excavations of flat settlements in recent years, but a significant part of the discussion so far—and the way we understand such settlements in Greece—has been based on the first extensive excavation of a flat site: Makriyalos in Pieria (Pappa 2007, 2008). The total extent of Makriyalos was estimated to be about 50 ha, a rather huge area that was only sparsely inhabited. A major displacement, this time of the entire community, signified the second of the two main successive phases, both dated to the Late Neolithic (LN). In the fist phase, ditches and borrow pits bounded the community, both literally and probably also ideologically. Despite major changes, features like these persisted in the second phase. A major feature of Makriyalos is the wide use of pits for both residential and other purposes. Buildings were round in plan, and their superstructure was made of posts and daub. The subterranean or semi-subterranean part of the buildings was, in many cases, the floor used by the inhabitants, although the presence of a wooden ground-level floor could not

Description of the Current Project The settlement of Vasilika forms a huge low mound that shows up clearly in the flat landscape. The extent of the site is about 18 ha, as calculated by the recent Anthemous Valley Archaeological Project. According to the results of the survey and excavations, deep depositions can be ascertained in this area. The detailed plotting of the surface finds suggests once again the possibility of horizontal displacement between different chronological phases. No artificial boundaries were located during the survey (Andreou et al. 2015). The current excavations are being conducted over a narrow stretch of the land beside and parallel to the modern road, which runs for 300 m with an average width of 3 m (Figure 2). For the moment, we have been able to probe the stratigraphy to a limited depth, but we have already encountered deposits that date from the Middle Neolithic (MN) to the LN II. Most of the features exposed so far date to the LN I, that is, the late sixth millennium B.C. It is within this phase, for example, that we have encountered a sequence of at least six successive clay floors in one of the trenches (Figure 3). Overall, in the investigated area we have encountered closed spaces that alternate with open areas. We have yet to uncover any structure in its entirety, and so 50

AS20.indb 50

2/11/18 8:59 PM

4 - …Diversity Among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia… the overall plan and size of the structures are elusive, but the walls are straight and in most cases follow an east-west alignment. In one case, two outer walls of a building run parallel at a distance of ca. 9 m. The buildings employ a variety of materials and techniques, with no apparent chronological difference: (a) walls entirely built with mudbricks (Figure 4), (b) walls with mudbricks on a stone foundation (Figure 5) and (c) walls with posts and clay coating (Figure 6). The mudbricks have a very consistent size, and although made with varying recipes,2 they seem to have been made using some kind of mold.

Floors and wall plasters were made of fine clay and were often renovated; macroscopically, the renovation of both floors and walls seems to have been made at the same time. Hearths, storage bins, and other features were located on these floors (Figure 7). In most cases, very few artifacts were found on the floors and, apart from a few distinctive sets such as a vessel next to four stone tools, the rooms were probably cleaned. In most cases, the rooms were filled with mudbricks, possibly from their own walls, forming a compact layer more or less 40 cm deep on which a new structure was erected. The consistency of this

Figure 1. Neolithic sites in central Macedonia and Thessaly mentioned in the text. 51

AS20.indb 51

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Maria Pappa et al.

Figure 2. The excavated area at Vasilika Kyparissi. practice, along with the preceding cleaning and the uniform character of the fill, suggest that this was a deliberate act rather than an accidental destruction. The exception to this may pertain to rooms filled with burned materials, where part of the burned material on the floors could be interpreted as the remains of wooden roofs. One of the most interesting features explored at Vasilika was a kind of pit associated with closed rather than open areas. These were rather large and generally cylindrical in shape, and they cut through older floors and structures. Their fill was homogeneous and consisted of the debris unearthed to construct them, which was probably redeposited quickly afterward. They were devoid of artifacts,3 save for a number of stones that were placed at the bottom. On several occasions, these stones were actually ground stone tools. In three of the pits, the stones were deposited in the same pattern, with a number of stones placed in a circle around a central stone (Figure 8). So far, it seems that these sets were some kind of platform on

which a small fire was lit before the pit was covered again with the same earth that had been removed to make it. Their stratigraphic placement is not entirely clear due to modern destruction, but at least a couple of the pits were dug just before the construction of a new clay floor. Parts of the open areas were also configured with care. In some places we found segments of clay surfaces, along with ovens and other features. In one case, three apple-shaped ovens, each succeeding the previous one, were explored (Figure 9). The second oven was better preserved and was partly made of a number of mudbricks. It is possible to suggest that the mudbricks formed a horizontal element, which both covered the firebox and formed a surface. Α low protrusion with impressed and painted patterns was placed at the southern end of the surface. A cluster of clay unfired “sling bullets” was found in another area with at least two ovens, while several refuse pits were also found in open areas. One of the pits included a large number of nearly intact pots, but significant 52

AS20.indb 52

2/11/18 8:59 PM

4 - …Diversity Among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia…

Figure 3. Sequence of successive clay floors distinguishable along the side of the trench. Kyparissi in Context

parts of the open areas were occupied by large, rather shallow pits containing many artifacts in layers with a considerable amount of ash deposits. An immediate contrast between the closed and open areas pertains to the amount of artifacts recovered in each case. Open areas were rich in objects, especially compared to the deliberately filled floors discussed above. We are careful, however, not to suggest that these were the areas where the objects were used. It is also interesting that, contrary to nearby sites, there was very little waste material from chipped stone, and most of the artifacts came to the site already partly formed. On top of this, there were many bone tools and ornaments of bone and stone. Even though these objects have not yet been studied, their sheer number indicates further differences from neighboring sites. Shells were found in low quantities due, perhaps, to the site’s distance from the coast, although artifacts made of Spondylus and other species were present. As at other Neolithic sites, a number of clay artifacts belonging to well-known categories have been found.

Although this is an initial presentation of our research on the site and interpretive suggestions are bound to be limited, we still want to ask what it was like to live in such a place, especially within the context of contemporary sites in the area. First of all, the area uncovered to date suggests a habitation based on dispersed clusters of buildings with open areas devoted to cooking, as well as to the deposition of artifacts after their use, either in pits or in other features.4 If size is any indication, it is possible to extrapolate this arrangement to the rest of the settlement, thus explaining the large size and significant height of the site in terms of dispersed foci of accumulated debris. This suggests that there was a certain similarity with neighboring sites in terms of the way they occupied the land. We have not yet found any outer boundaries of the site, such as the ditches at nearby Thermi; but, as at Thermi, the buildings were not very close to one another. Accordingly, these 53

AS20.indb 53

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Maria Pappa et al.

Figure 4. Walls built with mudbricks, bearing a discernible plaster of fine clay. settlements were not as compact as contemporary sites, for example, in Thessaly or Bulgaria. On this level, then, the inhabitants of Vasilika Kyparissi followed a regional paradigm, wherein the areas among the buildings needed to be large enough for whatever purpose they served. A significant point of departure from what was taking place in neighboring sites pertains to the use of these open areas. Whereas there is evidence of major episodes of knapping stone at Thermi, the lack of relevant waste material at Vasilika Kyparissi suggests that these open areas were devoted to other activities. The differences in the amount of bone tools, bone ornaments, and stone ornaments recovered from Vasilika, even though not necessarily manufactured there, suggests once more that people may have been preoccupied with different activities. This differentiation from nearby sites is evident when it comes to the buildings as well. The dissimilarities are most prominent in the building techniques, which are themselves diversified. Only

one of the techniques observed so far at Vasilika—the use of wooden posts and clay coating—was common in central Macedonia, whereas the other two were not. It is not without merit to highlight the repeated plastering that took place in the buildings made of mudbricks, as opposed to the limited amount of renovation observed in floors and wall plasters associated with the structures built with wooden posts. Although only studied macroscopically, this could point to a different timescale for each kind of structure. The replastering of floors and walls was related to the practice of rebuilding these structures altogether. Together, these two aspects indicate an investment in prolonging the life of certain buildings that was unparalleled in central Macedonia. Attendance to the form and size of the building materials, or the specific way these buildings were in-filled and covered, further highlights their distinctiveness. Detached and yet stable over a long period of time, these buildings would have allowed and compelled the formation of a distinct set of values and would have composed a 54

AS20.indb 54

2/11/18 8:59 PM

4 - …Diversity Among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia…

Figure 5. Stone foundation of a mudbrick wall. 55

AS20.indb 55

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Maria Pappa et al.

Figure 6. Bedding trench of a wall with posts and clay coating. landscape quite peculiar within central Macedonia. This means that the inhabitants of Vasilika probably had diverse and yet quite unique possibilities to evaluate and account for their lives.

used in the mudbricks is equally variable, and it may prove to show some patterned variation. 3 The earlier structures that were disturbed were also devoid of artifacts. 4 An example of this being the deposition of artifacts in streets, although, pending further study, these deposits may prove to be recycled materials brought there to level the surface.

Notes See, for example, the Middle Neolithic site at Grammi, Apsalos (Chrysostomou et al. 2003) or the Late Neolithic site at Makrychori 1, Thessaly (Batzelas 2008; Toufexis 2011). Still, the occurrence of flat sites is especially dense in and around the Thermaic Gulf, from the Early Neolithic site of Revenia, Korinos (Besios and Adaktylou 2006) to the Late Neolithic sites in and around Thessaloniki, including Stavroupoli (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002), the Thessaloniki International Fair (Pappa 2007), and Liti (Pappa and Tzanavari 2014). 2 For example, mudbricks used in the wall foundations contain a high level of gravel. The color of the clay 1

References Cited Andreou, Stelios, and Kostas Kotsakis 1987 Διαστάσεις του Χώρου στην Κεντρι­ κή Μακεδονία: Αποτύπωση της Εν­ δοκοινοτικής και Διακοινοτικής Χω­ ροοργάνωσης. In ΑΜΗΤΌΣ: Τιμητικός Τόμος για Καθηγητή τον Μ. Ανδρόνικο, pp. 57–88. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. 56

AS20.indb 56

2/11/18 8:59 PM

4 - …Diversity Among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia…

Figure 7. Square hearth with pebble substructure placed on a floor. Κορινού. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):357–366. Chapman, John, C. 1989 The Early Balkan village. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its NearEastern Connections, edited by Sandor Bökönyi, pp. 33–43. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Chrysostomou, Anastasia, Christina Poloukidou, and Anna Prokopidou 2003 Επαρχιακή Οδός Αψάλου-Αριδαίας: Η Ανασκαφή του Νεολιθικού Οικισμού στη Θέση Γραμμή. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 15(2001):513– 524. Grammenos, Dimitrios V. 1991 Νεολιθικές Έρευνες στην Κεντρική και Ανατολική Μακεδονία. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Grammenos, Dimitrios V. (editor) 1997 Νεολιθική Μακεδονία. Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens.

Andreou, Stelios, Maria Pappa, Janusz Czebreszuk, Jakub Niebieszczański, Yiannis Papadias, and Michalis Tsioumas 2013 Αρχαιολογικό Πρόγραμμα Κοιλάδας του Ανθεμούντα. In The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 27, in press. Andreou, Stelios, Maria Pappa, and Janusz Czebreszuk 2015 Αρχαιολογικό Πρόγραμμα Κοιλάδας του Ανθεμούντα: Περίοδοι 2010–2011. In The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 25 (2011): 435-442. Batzelas, Christos 2008 Υπόσκαφες Κατοικίες στη Νεολιθι­ κή Θεσσαλία: Προβληματισμός και Ερμηνεί­ε ς με Βάση ένα Πα­ρ άδειγμα από το Μακρυ­χώρι Νομού Λάρισας. In 1ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας, Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου 9–11 Νοεμβρίου 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 33–47. Perifereia Thessalias, Thessaloniki. Besios, Mathaios, and Foteini Adaktylou 2006 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός στα «Ρεβένια» 57

AS20.indb 57

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Maria Pappa et al.

Figure 8. Stones laid in a pattern at the bottom of a pit. Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Stratigraphie und Bauten. Das Mittlere Neolithikum. Die Mittelneolithische Siedlung. Beiträge zur ur- und Früh­ geschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittel­ meer-Kulturraumes Vol. 20. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn Nanoglou, Stratos 2001 Social and Monumental Space in Neolithic Thessaly, Greece. European Journal of Archaeology 4:303–322. 2008 Building Biographies and Households: Aspects of Community Life in Neolithic Northern Greece. Journal of Social Archaeology 8:139–160. Pappa, Maria 2007 Neolithic Societies: Recent Evidence from Northern Greece. In The Struma/ Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-

Grammenos, Dimitrios V., and Stavros Kotsos (eds.) 2002 Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οι­ κισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 2006 Settlement of Discord: Sesklo and the Emerging Household. In Homage to Milutin Garašanin, edited by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, pp. 207–220. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade. Milojčic, Vladimir 1983 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien: 3/2. Das 58

AS20.indb 58

2/11/18 8:59 PM

4 - …Diversity Among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia…

Figure 9. Three successive apple-shaped ovens located in an open area between buildings. Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and SerresAmphipolis (Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp. 257–272. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia. 2008 Οργάνωση του Χώρου και Οικιστικά Στοιχεία στους Νεολιθικούς Οικισμούς της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας: Δ.Ε.Θ. – Θέρμη – Μακρύγιαλος. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pappa, Maria, and Katerina Tzanavari 2014 Λητή Ι: Η Συνέχεια της Ανασκαφής στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό, 2006–2010. In

Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace 24(2010):207–216. Toufexis, Giorgos 2011 Σωστική Ανασκαφή στον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό Μακρυχώρι 1. Chronika B2. Archaiologikon Deltion 56–59(2001– 2004):540–542. Tringham, Ruth 1995 Archaeological Houses, Households, Housework and the Home. In The Home: Words, Interpretations, Meanings, and Environments, edited by David N. Benjamin, David Stea, Eje Aren, and David Saile, pp. 79–107. Avebury Ashgate, Aldershot.

59

AS20.indb 59

2/11/18 8:59 PM

-5– An Investigation of Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash: Reconsidering Old and New Data from the Late 5th Millennium B.C. Settlement Dimitra Malamidou, Maria Ntinou, Soultana-Maria Valamoti, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, and Pascal Darcque Abstract

above the modern ground (71 masl) and extending over 4.5 ha (250 x 180 m at its base). An important freshwater spring lies immediately to the northeast of the tell. The water forms a small pond there, which is further drained by a small river running today along the east side of the tell (Figure 2). To the south stretched the big swamp that occupied the lowest parts of the Drama-Philippi Plain until 1931. The site has been systematically excavated by the Archaeological Society at Athens and the French School at Athens since 1961 (Figure 3, on Color Plate I). Two successive research programs were carried out between 1961 and 2001.2 These programs revealed part of the site’s long stratigraphical sequence from the Late Neolithic (LN) I period to the Late Bronze Age (ca. 5300–1200 cal B.C.) and brought to light substantial architectural remains and all kinds of artifacts from several periods, most remarkably the Neolithic (Darcque et al. 2007; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1997; KoukouliChryssanthaki and Romiopoulou 1992; KoukouliChryssanthaki and Treuil 2008; Treuil 1992, 2004, in press). A third program started in 20083 with the aim of fully reconstructing the history of the tell from the earliest occupation until today (Darcque, Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Malamidou, and Tsirtsoni 2009, 2011, 2013). Altogether, research at the site and in the surrounding Drama-Philippi plain in the last 50 years has revealed rich information (already presented elsewhere4) about the formation of the tell and the evolution of the landscape in the surrounding region (Darcque and Tsirtsoni 2010; Darcque et al. 2014; Glais et al. 2016; Lespez 2008; Lespez et al. 2000). In fact, Dikili Tash is a multi-period tell site. As recent coring has revealed (Lespez et al. 2013), habitation began in the second half of the seventh millennium B.C. during the Early Neolithic, spanned the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, and continued during the Classical/Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods. Ample information from excavations exists for the LN II phase. In particular, open excavation of Sector 6, which covers over 350 m2, allowed for the

Dikili Tash appears today to be one of the prehistoric settlements with the longest occupational sequences in the Aegean and the Balkans (ca. 6500– 1100 B.C.). In the last fifty years, research at the site and in the surrounding Philippi Plain has offered information for understanding the role of natural and anthropogenic processes in tell formation and landscape change. In this paper, we discuss a particular time-window of this long sequence, the years around 4300–4200 cal B.C., for which we now have a large range of high-resolution data from secure contexts. Excavation of large areas in Sector 6 allowed for the exploration of the spatial arrangement and household organization of the settlement in the above period. The buildings that were fully excavated in Sector 6 had been destroyed by fire. Thus they preserved in-situ organic evidence of human activities otherwise undetectable in the archaeological record. The architectural, artifactual, and archaeobotanical (seed/fruit and wood charcoal macroremains) evidence from these buildings is examined here together in an integrated manner in order to reveal different ways of interaction between people and the natural environment in Dikili Tash toward the end of the fifth millennium B.C. Among the issues discussed here is plant exploitation for various purposes, such as food, fuel, construction, and crafts, as well as specific archaeological contexts through which such activities can be discerned. Keywords Northern Greece, Southeastern Europe, Neolithic, crops, wild plant resources, anthracology The tell site of Dikili Tash is located in the southeastern part of the Drama Plain, in eastern Macedonia, northern Greece. It lies some 2.5 km east of the ancient city of Philippi, on the outskirts of the modern town of Krinides in the district of Kavala (Figure 1).1 It is the biggest tell in the region and one of the largest in the Balkans, with its highest point standing at ca. 15 m 60

AS20.indb 60

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Dikili Tash in eastern Macedonia, Greece. exploration of the spatial arrangement and household organization of the settlement in the years around 4300–4200 cal B.C.5 (Figure 4; Darcque, KoukouliChryssanthaki, Malamidou, Treuil, and Tsirtsoni 2011; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1997).

All four buildings (Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4, from west to east) were rectangular, built in parallel rows along the northeast-southwest axis on slightly different levels on the eastern slope of the tell. Building 1, the westernmost of the four buildings, is about 7 m wide and more than 11 m long. There is no clear evidence for internal walls separating different rooms (Figure 5) (Darcque et al. 2013; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1993; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki and Treuil 1989). Buildings 2 and 3 are less well preserved. The western limit of Building 2 is defined by a clear line of twinned postholes, whereas its total length and width have not been determined (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1993:139; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki and Treuil 1989). Building 3 measures 9 x 5 m and has no traces of internal walls (Figure 6; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki 1996; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1993:141). Building 4 is the best preserved of the four buildings. It has a preserved length of 11 m and a width of 6 m (Figure 7) (Darcque et al. 2007; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki 1994, 1995; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1997). The building was divided into three spaces (Rooms A,

The Architectural and Artifactual Evidence Four Neolithic buildings have been unearthed in Sector 6. They were all destroyed by fire—probably not all together in a single fire—around 4300–4200 cal B.C., during the LN II period. Their date is well established from the radiocarbon dating of the destruction layer (Darcque, Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Malamidou, Treuil, and Tsirtsoni 2011:198–199, Figure 13; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1997:694, Figure 7; Maniatis et al. 2014) and a series of thermoluminescence measurements, with results matching the 14C dates of the same contexts (Roque et al. 2002). The Neolithic buildings were found under an Early Bronze Age occupation level dated by radiocarbon to around 3200 cal B.C. (Tsirtsoni 2016). 61

AS20.indb 61

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al.

Figure 2. Aerial view of the tell from the southeast with the main excavation sectors visible. A water source and pond can be seen to the northeast. B, and C, from north to south) by internal walls. Room C is only partly preserved since its southern part has fallen down the tell’s slope. Each space has its own entrance on the southeastern long side and an oven, which is close to the wall opposite the entrance, with its opening turned toward the entrance. The ovens are domed with a rectangular ground plan with round corners and a protruding surface before the opening (Deshayes 1974:72). Next to the ovens, rectangular sink-like clay constructions or platforms completed the “kitchen equipment,” whereas Room A in Building 4 also included a semicircular earthen bench in contact with the southeast wall (Figure 8). Two similar ovens were found in the western part of Building 1 (see Figure 5, loci 6-114 and 6-015), the south of which (locus 6-015) is better preserved. A double-headed zoomorphic figurine was still standing on its floor (Figure 9). Similar objects are known to date from Dikili Tash and neighboring sites, but were never found in primary contexts (Gimbutas 1986:255, Figures LVI:2, LVIII:3, LXIII:4; Marangou 1992:15, Figures 78a and 78d). A grindstone and abundant charred pulses were found on a platform next to the oven (see Figure 5, locus 6-044, and Figure 10). A

hearth or oven occupies the center of the northern part of Building 3, while remains from the substructure of a hearth or oven were found in Building 2 (see Figure 4). No indication of an entrance was found in Buildings 2 and 3. Judging from a wall fragment (see Figure 6), which probably was part of a door frame (locus 6-026; see Figure 11) on the axis of the oven (locus 6-015), the entrance of Building 1 would have been located in its eastern long wall. Each building was equipped with cooking and storage facilities. Each space of Building 4 contained at least three or four big storage bins made of raw clay tempered with rich vegetal material (straw) and decorated with simple grooves (Figure 8). A big jar with incised decoration was uncovered in the southern part of Building 3 (Figure 12) (KoukouliChryssanthaki 1996; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1993:141), while several big jars were collected from Building 1. Numerous vessels for food preparation and consumption; grindstones; tools from stone, clay, bone, or antler; ornaments (beads, pendants); clay figurines; and other small objects were lying on the floor of the buildings at the time of destruction. The equivalent dimensions of the spaces, the re-

62

AS20.indb 62

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 4. Aerial view of Sector 6, showing Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 and associated ovens.

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash…

63

AS20.indb 63

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al. semblances of their internal structure and equipment, and the fact that they had separate entrances with no communication between them, leads to the conclusion that they accommodated independent households. The relatively small dimensions of the rooms suggest that they were used by a limited number of individuals, very likely a nuclear family.

Areas of grey soil containing sherds and bones that were found between and around the buildings have been identified as outdoor spaces, such as streets or courtyards. The destruction layer inside the buildings included a large number of wattle and daub fragments, which had collapsed from the walls and roofs. The destruction by fire helped to preserve in situ, either

Figure 5. Ground plan of Building 1 64

AS20.indb 64

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash…

Figure 6. General view of Building 3. 65

AS20.indb 65

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al. inside or outside the buildings, plenty of charred organic material, which points to the exploitation of a wide variety of plant resources by the occupants of the buildings.

nez and Prévost-Dermarkar 2003; Papadopoulou and Prévost-Dermarkar 2007; Prévost-Dermarkar 2002). House walls were built with posts connected by wattle or joined posts connected with tied-up sticks. The imprints of posts appear to be both round and angular. The angular imprints on many wall fragments suggest the use of split timber. For instance, the walls of Building 4 were constructed out of upright wooden posts, which were placed one next to another and set into foundation trenches. Furthermore, lumps of architectural clay material with vegetal imprints suggest the use of vegetal materials for tempering clayish soil to construct walls, roofs, floors, ovens, storage bins, and so on. Temper (earthen mineral or organic) was necessary in order to prevent the earthen material from cracking during the drying procedure. Chopped straw

Vegetal Imprints Careful collection of the raw clay debris hardened by fire has allowed the study of the imprints of wood and vegetal material used for building and construction (posts, planks, tree branches, reeds, straw, chaff, etc.; see Figure 13). The wide range of wood imprints, which has been recorded during the ongoing study, shows a great deal of know-how and woodworking skills necessary to construct substantial buildings (Germain-Vallée et al. 2011; Martinez 2001; Marti-

Figure 7. Aerial view of Building 4. 66

AS20.indb 66

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash…

Figure 8. Interior of Room A, Building 4

Figure 9. Building 1, floor of oven 6-015 with two-headed animal figurine in situ. 67

AS20.indb 67

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al.

Figure 10. Seeds of Vicia ervilia in Building 1, Dikili Tash 2010 excavation season.

Figure 11. Building 1, fallen part of a wall possibly from a door frame and ceramic vessels in situ. 68

AS20.indb 68

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash…

Figure 12. Jar with incised decoration from Building 3 (height 74 cm). and chaff were the most frequent vegetable temper used for construction earth during the LN II. Different fabrics of earthen material have been identified. Quantities and types of vegetable temper varied from one fabric to another. It seems that the choices were directly related to the intended use of each fabric (i.e. different material for walls, oven vaults, etc.). Mat impressions on vessel bottoms are common indirect evidence for the use of plant fibers in carpet making, basketwork, or wickerwork. In one case, within Building 1, we witnessed the charred remains of mats on the floor, while in other cases we were able

to guess the existence of containers probably made of wood from the form of the concentrations of objects. A burned clod of earth bearing the imprints of interwoven twines, found in Sector 1, has been identified as indirect evidence of a carrying net made of plant fibers containing clay material (Martinez 2004). We are expecting more results from the ongoing study of this kind of finds with recently developed methods for identifying archaeological plant fiber sources (Borojevic and Mountain 2013; Gärtner et al. 2014).

69

AS20.indb 69

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al.

Figure 13. Clay fragments with imprints of wood lying on the floor of Building 1. The Archaeobotanical Evidence

flotation samples, 25 of which were recovered from areas outside the buildings, and 59 from the destruction layer inside the buildings. On the one hand, the wood charcoal material that was scattered in the open areas around the buildings may be explained as discarded firewood remains from domestic hearths or ovens. As such, it has a palaeoecological value and may provide information about the vegetation of the areas used for the procurement of fuel. On the other hand, the material from the interior of the four LN II buildings may provide ethnobotanical information regarding mainly the selection of plant species for construction purposes, as well as the technological aspects of construction.

All contexts of the burned buildings in Sector 6 yielded a rich inventory of wood, stored crops, and wild harvests in a very good state of charred preservation (Figure 14). The excavation and find-collection techniques were adapted to the specificities of this kind of find. Thus, special attention was given to the systematic collection and water sieving of sediments in order to retrieve a maximum number of archaeobotanical (seed/fruit and wood charcoal macroremains) data in context. Due to the intensive sampling, retrieved charred remains were abundant and offered rich direct evidence for the use of wood and crops. Some of the charred wood remains may have come from firewood (cooking, heating, pyrotechnology), while others, apart from construction, witness the presence of objects that could not survive, such as containers, tool handles, furniture, and so on.

Flora and Vegetation Types The presence and distribution of the taxa in outside spaces and inside the four buildings are shown in Figure 15. Deciduous woodland is represented by deciduous oak, ash, oriental hornbeam/hornbeam, and maple, while the undergrowth of such woodland and its more open borders would have included cornelian cherry/dogwood, hazel, small trees of the wild pear and plum families, juniper, and the wayfaring tree. Sun-loving, open vegetation would have grown near

Wood Charcoal and Woodland Management It should be stressed that only part of the material is considered here, since the study of finds from the 2008–2013 campaigns is in progress. The wood charcoal material discussed here comes from 84 water 70

AS20.indb 70

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash…

Figure 14. Concentration of carbonized seeds and associated ceramic vessel on the floor of Building 1. the site and probably next to the deciduous forests and would have included terebinth, Christ’s thorn, and shrubs of the pulse family, along with several evergreen trees such as mock privet, strawberry tree, and evergreen oak. Mountain conifers such as black pine would have grown at higher altitudes on the mountains to the west and north of the basin. Finally, riparian vegetation with softwoods (willow/poplar), hardwoods (alder, oriental plane, elm, ash), and climbers (vine) would have been growing in the nearby wetlands and flood plain.

The proportions of deciduous oak (53.9 percent) suggest that these were the most abundant trees in the LN deciduous woodland, while other deciduous trees played a secondary role. This suggestion is in agreement with the dominant role of deciduous oak in the pollen record of northern Greece for the Early to Middle Holocene (Bottema 1974; Turner and Greig 1986; Wijmstra 1969), with other wood charcoal studies carried out in Neolithic sites in northern Greece (Karkanas et al. 2011; Ntinou 2002, 2010, 2014) and with the present-day extension of deciduous oak woodlands that constitute the main forest cover. Narrow-leafed ash would have been abundant in the wetland areas, as well as manna ash in the oak woods. Vegetation of woodland borders and open vegetation could have expanded as a result of the natural thinning of the forests toward their edges, or as a result of anthropogenic clearings in order to open cultivation plots and paths for access to resources.

Firewood The results from the exterior areas show that deciduous oak is by far the best represented taxon in the LN II assemblage, followed by ash. The remaining taxa are represented in very small numbers (Table 1). Grouped in the vegetation types previously defined, all other trees of deciduous woodland, excluding deciduous oak, total 5.4 percent. Similarly, the wetland taxa excluding ash account for only 3.5 percent of the LN II assemblage from Sector 6, while undergrowth and evergreens have similar proportions around 6 percent. Mountain conifers are hardly present (.2 percent).

Construction Wood (Timber) Flotation samples from the burnt destruction layer of the four LN II buildings showed the presence of many taxa (Figure 16). The frequency of occurrence bar chart shows that deciduous oak was by far 71

AS20.indb 71

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al.

Figure 15. Presence of taxa in the exterior areas and buildings. The taxa are grouped in potential vegetation types indicated by different shading. (Courtesy M. Ntinou)

the most frequently used timber in each one of the buildings (ca. 60–100 percent), followed by ash (ca. 30–60 percent) and to a lesser degree by hornbeam (ca. 10–50 percent) and juniper (ca. 15–50 percent). Hazel, wayfaring/cornelian cherry/dogwood were ubiquitous in all buildings (ca. 5–25 percent).

harvested from trees probably growing around the settlement are wild pears (cf. Pyrus amygdaliformis; Figure 17), acorns (Quercus sp.), figs (Ficus carica L.), blackberries (Rubus fruticosus L. agg.) and grape (Vitis vinifera). A rich variety of cultivated crops include pulses like bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) and cereals such as einkorn (Triticum monococcum; Figure 18) and naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum). Other crops at the site were flax (Linum usitatissimum; Figure 19) and possibly lentil (Lens culinaris). The vast majority of crops appear largely clean of weed seeds. The quantity and purity of their composition suggest that these were clean crops, which were stored inside the buildings or in some phase of processing (grinding, fermenting, or cooking). Some of these crops were associated with ceramic containers, while others were probably stored in perishable containers (for example, wood chests or cloth bags). An impressive grape pip concentration, including grape pips and pressings (numbering more than 3,000 pips) was found in Building 1 in association with a ceramic vessel (Figure 20). It is possible that

Plant Food Procurement The Neolithic buildings in Sector 6 yielded a rich inventory of stored crops and harvests from the wild. Substantial quantities of charred grains, pulses, and fruits were collected from several parts of the excavated area. More than 2,000 soil samples have been processed by flotation and examined for plant remains, 25 of which were fully studied after being selected on the basis of content, context, and richness (Valamoti 2015). The richer concentrations were found within Building 1. This may be attributed to a variety of reasons, such as differential sampling intensity, differential contents, or preservation conditions among the different houses. These alternatives are currently under investigation. Among the identified species 72

AS20.indb 72

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash… Table 1. Frequency of Taxa in the Wood Charcoal Assemblage from the LN II Exterior Areas. Taxa

Number of Fragments

Pinus nigra

Percent of Total Fragments (%) 1

.2

241

53.9

15

3.4

Carpinus orientalis

3

.7

Carpinus sp.

5

1.1

Corylaceae

1

.2

Corylus avellana

5

1.1

Maloideae

4

.9

cf. Maloideae

1

.2

Cornus sp.

2

.4

Viburnum sp.

2

.4

Juniperus sp.

7

1.6

Clematis sp.

1

.2

Pistacia terebinthus

2

.4

Leguminosae

3

.7

cf. Leguminosae

1

.2

Ficus carica

1

.2

18

4.0

1

.2

10

2.2

1

.2

104

23.3

Ulmus sp.

5

1.1

Ulmaceae

3

.7

Alnus sp.

2

.4

Salix/Populus

4

.9

Vitis vinifera

1

.2

Monocotyledon

1

.2

Angiosperm

2

.4

447

100

Quercus sp. deciduous Quercus sp.

Phillyrea/Rhamnus alaternus Quercus sp. evergreen Arbutus sp. cf. Cupressus sempervirens Fraxinus sp.

Total the pips and pressings point to wine production. If this is the case, the fermentation of grape juice must have been underway when the house was destroyed by fire. A small number of grape pips and skins were reported from Building 3 as well (Valamoti 2004), suggesting that wine making may have been practiced by several households at the site, the earliest

evidence to date for wine making in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (Garnier and Valamoti 2016; Valamoti 2015; Valamoti et al. 2007). The grape pips have been identified as morphologically wild (Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996), yet their cultivation or early management cannot be excluded (Valamoti 2015; Valamoti et al. 2007, 2015). 73

AS20.indb 73

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al.

Figure 16. Bar chart showing the frequency of occurrence of taxa in the samples of each of the four buildings. (Courtesy M. Ntinou)

Figure 17. Fruits of wild pear, cf. Pyrus amygdaliformis, from flotation sample from Building 1, Dikili Tash, 2012 excavation season. 74

AS20.indb 74

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash…

Figure 18. Seeds of einkorn wheat, Triticum monococcum. (Courtesy S. Valamoti)

Figure 19. Seeds of flax, Linum usitatissimum, from Building 1. (Courtesy S. Valamoti) 75

AS20.indb 75

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al.

Figure 20. Grape pips and pressings and associated coarse ware vessel in Building 1. Discussion

wood is very resistant to putrefaction. All the shrub taxa are characterized by a flexible wood and the possibility of obtaining branches of regular caliber when coppiced, which would have been especially useful for the wattle-and-daub technique. The anthracological evidence does not show any differentiation in the selection of timber or the fuel procurement strategies between the four buildings. The evidence from the ongoing study of the architectural remains fits with these findings. Storage facilities of great capacity are present in each household within all four buildings of Sector 6, such as at least one very big ceramic jar in Building 3, several very big raw clay jars in Building 4, and at least four big ceramic jars in Building 1. Nevertheless, the archaeobotanical remains in Building 1 are particularly large compared to those from the other households. It is not clear whether these discrepancies in archaeobotanical assemblages reflect an actual difference in the function or status of the households, or result simply from differences in the exact time or conditions of destruction. Based on the simultaneous presence of great quantities of late summer or early autumn crops, we can almost be certain that Building 1 was destroyed in the autumn or winter, when the “cellars” were full (Valamoti 2015). It is not clear

The evidence presented here enables a fresh look at the vegetation exploitation within the context of landscape use by subsistence farmers in Dikili Tash during the LN II. Deciduous oak woodland would have been the most abundant and most frequently managed source for the procurement of firewood for the Neolithic households. The alluvial forests would have been a complementary firewood source. Clearing those forests in order to create pastureland could have provided firewood, which would explain the high proportion of ash in the samples. The presence of taxa from woodland borders and open vegetation could reflect sporadic, day-to-day firewood collection. Their proportions are indicative of their complementary role in the procurement of firewood. Other sources of firewood could have included the remains of woodworking or the special use of certain plants. We mention the remains of vines near Building 4 and stress that the analysis of seed macroremains suggests grape processing activity. Oak tree timbers would have been used for their straight, long trunks and variable caliber branches. Moreover, oak wood is easy to work with and split longitudinally, while ash wood is flexible and hard, hornbeam wood is dense, and juniper 76

AS20.indb 76

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash… whether the other buildings in Sector 6 were destroyed simultaneously, i.e. by the same conflagration, or by different events that were close chronologically. The combined study of architectural data, plant macroremains, and charcoal from the buildings shows that their inhabitants exploited a wide range of plant species—both cultivated crops and wild trees—for food, fuel, craftwork, and construction. They were exploiting different niches of the surrounding vegetation, including riparian environments where the grape vines that yielded the numerous grape remains at the site would have grown. Regarding the people-plant relationship, the Dikili Tash finds suggest intensive use of wild fruit or even some form of early fruit tending, at least for some species, or incipient cultivation during the second half of the fifth millennium. Such intensive interference with woodland vegetation around the settlement, although of a scale undetectable by regional pollen diagrams, seems to be shown in recent environmental proxies from the periphery of the settlement. In fact, Cerealia pollen, which was recorded at the bottom of the archaeological site during recent coring and was associated with other pollen and non-pollen indicators, shows that the first forest clearings occurred in the Early Neolithic, more specifically since 6500 cal B.C. It seems that the first settlers managed to clear the local woodland vegetation that persisted until that time on the edges of the marsh, as the core from the Tenaghi-Philippon marsh shows (Glais et al. 2016). Therefore, the process of landscape modification due to human action began here with the onset of the Neolithic and continued almost uninterruptedly until around 1200 B.C. (the end of the Bronze Age). The ongoing study of the rich excavation material from Dikili Tash, combined with the geomorphological and palynological data, will certainly further develop our understanding of the interaction between human societies and their natural environment during the prehistoric period.

at Athens, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), the National Geographic Society, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS, UMR 7041-Nanterre and UMR 5138-Lyon), the French National Research Agency (ANR) – Program “Balkans 4000,” and the Municipality of Philippi-Kavala. 4 A full presentation of the history of research, as well as a complete and up-to-date bibliography, is provided on the Dikili Tash website: http://www.dikili-tash.fr. 5 All dates discussed in this paper are given at a calibration of 2 sigma. References Cited Borojević, Ksenija, and Rebecca Mountain 2013 Microscopic Identification and Sourcing of Ancient Egyptian Plant fibres using Longitudinal Thin Sectioning. Archaeometry 55(1):81–112. Bottema, Sietse 1974 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Northwest Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Darcque, Pascal, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, René Treuil, and Zoï Tsirtsoni 2007 Recent Researches at the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, Greece: An Overview. In The Struma/ Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp. 247–256. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia. 2011 The Chalcolithic Period at Dikili Tash (Eastern Macedonia, Greece). In The Golden Fifth Millennium: Thrace and its Neighbour Areas in the Chalcolithic, edited by Yavor Boyadzhiev and Stoilka Terzijska-Ignatova, pp. 189–199. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia. Darcque, Pascal, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, and Zoï Tsirtsoni 2009 Dikili Tash. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 133(2):529–541. 2011 Dikili Tash. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 135(2):497–516. 2013 Dikili Tash. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 136/137(2):747–759. Darcque, Pascal, and Zoï Tsirtsoni 2010 Evidence from Dikili Tash (Eastern Macedonia, Greece) and the Tell Issue.

Notes All photographs are from the Dikili-Tash excavation archives, unless otherwise noted. 2 The first was directed by Dimitrios R. Theocharis and Jean Deshayes; the second by Haïdo KoukouliChryssanthaki and René Treuil. 3 This new program is directed by Haïdo KoukouliChryssanthaki, Pascal Darcque, Dimitra Malamidou, and Zoï Tsirtsoni. The research between 2008 and 2012 was supported by the following institutions: the Archaeological Society at Athens, the French School 1

77

AS20.indb 77

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al. In Leben auf dem Tell als soziale Praxis, Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 26-27 Februar 2007, edited by S. Hansen, pp. 55–69. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 14. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Darcque, Pascal, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Haïdo KoukouliChryssanthaki, and Dimitra Malamidou 2015 New Insights to the Copper Age Economy and Chronology at the Tell Settlement of Dikili Tash (Northern Greece). In Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea: Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millennium BCE, International Workshop Budapest 2012, edited by Svend Hansen, Pál Raczky, Alexandra Anders, and Agathe Reingruber, pp. 403–417. Archäologie in Eurasien 31. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Darcque, Pascal, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Haïdo KoukouliChryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Laurent Lespez, and Cécile Germain-Vallée 2014 The Impact of Environmental Changes on the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash (Northern Greece). In PHYSIS, L’Environnement Naturel et la Relation Homme-Milieu dans le Monde Égéen Protohistorique, Actes de la 14e Rencontre Égéenne Internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11–14 Décembre 2012, edited by Gilles Touchais, Robert Laffineur, and Françoise Rougemont, pp. 425–430. Aegaeum 37. Peeters, Leuven–Liège. Deshayes, Jean 1974 Fours Néolithiques de Dikili Tash. In Mélanges Helléniques Offerts à Georges Daux, pp. 67–91. E. de Boccard, Paris. Garnier, Nicolas, and Soultana Maria Valamoti 2016 Prehistoric Winemaking at Dikili Tash (Northern Greece): Integrating Residue Analysis and Archaeobotany, Journal of Archaeological Science 74:195-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.03.003 Gärtner, Holger, Sandro Lucchinetti, and Fritz Hans Schweingruber 2014 New Perspectives for Wood Anatomical analysis in Dendrosciences: The GSL1Microtome. Dendrochronologia 32:47–51. Germain-Vallée, Cécile, Sandra PrévostDermarkar, and Laurent Lespez 2011 Stratégies de Prélèvement et de Mise en œuvre de la “Terre à Bâtir” des Structures de Combustion Néolithiques du site de

Dikili Tash (Grèce) à Partir d’Une Étude Micromorphologique. Archéosciences 35:41–63. Gimbutas, Marija 1986 Mythical Imagery of Sitagroi Society. In Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster, pp. 225–301. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Glais, Arthur, José Antonio López-Sáez, Laurent Lespez, and Robert Davidson 2016 Climate and Human-Environment Relationships on the Edge of the TenaghiPhilippon Marsh (Northern Greece) during the Neolithization Process. Quaternary International 401(1):237–250. Karkanas, Panagiotis, Kosmas Pavlopoulos, Katerina Kouli, Maria Ntinou, Georgia Tsartsidou, Yorgos Facorellis, and Theodora Tsourou 2011 Palaeoenvironments and Site Formation Processes at the Neolithic Lakeside Settlement of Dispilio, Kastoria, Northern Greece. Geoarchaeology 26(1):83–117. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo 1994 Ανασκαφή Προϊστορικού Οικισμού Φιλίπ­ πων (Ντικιλί Τας). Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 41:123–129. 1995 Ανασκαφή Προϊστορικού Οικισμού Φιλίπ­ πων (Ντικιλί Τας). Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 42:109–113. 1996 Ανασκαφή Προϊστορικού Οικισμού Φιλίπ­ πων (Ντικιλί Τας). Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 43:243–245. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, Pascal Darcque, Gilles Touchais, and René Treuil 1993 Ανασκαφή στον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό των Φιλίππων – Θέση Ντικιλί Τας (ΓαλλοΕλληνικό Πρόγραμμα). Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 40:137–150. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, and Katerina Romiopoulou 1992 Οι Ανασκαφές στον Ελληνικό Τομέα του Προϊστορικού Οικισμού Ντικιλί Τας (1961–1967). In Διεθνές Συνέδριο για την Αρχαία Θεσσαλία στη Μνήμη του Δ.Ρ. Θεοχάρη, Βόλος 1987, pp. 226–248. Athens. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, and René Treuil 1989 Ανασκαφή Προϊστορικού Οικισμού Φιλίπ­ πων (Ντικιλί Τας). Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 36:232–242. 78

AS20.indb 78

2/11/18 8:59 PM

5 - …Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash… national Symposium on Archaeometry, May 10th–14th 2010, Tampa (Florida), edited by Robert H. Tykot, pp. 43–50. Open Journal of Archaeometry 2:5262. Marangou, Christina 1992 Ειδώλια.  Figurines et Miniatures du Néolithique Récent et du Bronze Ancien en Grèce. BAR International Series 576. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Martinez, Sylvia 2001 A New Look at House Construction Techniques: Current Research at Dikili Tash, Neolithic Site of Eastern Macedonia. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 13(1999):63–68. 2004 Un Filet de Portage du Néolithique Récent à Dikili Tash (Macédoine Orientale, Grèce). In Approches Fonctionnelles en Préhistoire, Actes du XXVe Congrès Préhistorique de France, Nanterre, 24–26 Novembre 2000, edited by Pierre Bodu and Claude Constantin, pp. 217–222. French Prehistoric Society, Paris. Martinez, Sylvia, and Sandra Prévost-Dermarkar 2003 Les Techniques de Construction de l’Habitat en Terre du Site Néolithique de Dikili Tash (Macédoine Orientale, Grèce). Cahier des Thèmes Transversaux ArScAn IV:147–150. Ntinou, Maria 2002 El Paisaje en el Norte de Grecia desde el Tardiglaciar al Atlantico. Formaciones Vegetales, Recursos y Usos. BAR International Series 1038. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2010 Παλαιοπεριβάλλον και Ανθρώπινες Δραστηριότητες. Η Ανθρακολογία στο Λιμναίο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό στο Δισπηλιό Καστοριάς. Ανάσκαμμα 4:45–60. 2014 Η Φυσική Βλάστηση και οι Προϊστορικές Κοινότητες της Μακεδονίας. Μια Σύνθεση των Πληροφοριών της Ανθρακολογικής Έρευνας. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 409–418. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Papadopoulou, Evanthia, and Sandra PrévostDermarkar 2007 “Il n’y a pas de Cuisine sans Feu”: Une Approche des Techniques Culinaires au Néolithique et à l’Âge du Bronze à Travers

Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, and René Treuil (editors) 2008 Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale. Recherches FrancoHelléniques Dirigées par la Société Archéologique d’Athènes et l’École Française d’Athènes (1986–2001). Bibliothèque de la Société Archéologique d’Athènes 254. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, René Treuil, and Dimitra Malamidou 1997 Προϊστορικός Οικισμός Φιλίππων «ΝτικιλίΤας»: Δέκα Χρόνια Ανασκαφικής Έρευνας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 10Β(1996):681–704. Lespez, Laurent 2008 L’Évolution des Paysages du Néolithique à la Période Ottomane dans la Plaine de Philippes. In Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale. Recherches Franco-Helléniques Dirigées par la Société Archéologique d’Athènes et l’École Française d’Athènes (1986–2001), edited by Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki and René Treuil, pp. 21–394. Bibliothèque de la Société Archéologique d’Athènes 254. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Lespez, Laurent, Rémi Dalongeville, Claudine Noirel-Schutz, Jean-Pierre Suc, Haïdo KoukouliChryssanthaki, and René Treuil 2000 Les Paléoenvironnements du site Préhistorique de Dikili Tash (Macédoine Orientale, Grèce). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 124:413–434. Lespez, Laurent, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Pascal Darcque, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, René Treuil, Robert Davidson, Georgia Kourtessi-Philippakis, and Christine Oberlin 2013 The Lowest Levels at Dikili Tash, Northern Greece: A Missing Link in the Early Neolithic of Europe. Antiquity 87:30–45. Mangafa, Maria, and Kostas Kotsakis 1996 A New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seeds. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:409–418. Maniatis, Yannis, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Christine Oberlin, Pascal Darcque, Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Tasos Siros, Miltos Miteletsis, Stratis Papadopoulos, and Bernd Kromer 2014 New 14C Evidence for the Late NeolithicEarly Bronze Age Transition in Southeast Europe. In Proceedings of the 38th Inter79

AS20.indb 79

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Dimitra Malamidou et al. Reassessing Chronology in Prehistoric Greece and Bulgaria, 5000–3000 cal BC, edited by Zoï Tsirtsoni, pp. 271–298. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 69, Lyon. Turner, Judith, and James A. R. Greig 1986 Vegetational History. In Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster, pp. 44–54. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2004 Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: An Archaeobotanical Investigation. BAR International Series 1258. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2015 Harvesting the ‘Wild’? Exploring the Context of Fruit and Nut Exploitation at Neolithic Dikili Tash, with Special Reference to Wine. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24:35–46. Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Pascal Darcque, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, and Zoï Tsirtsoni 2015 An Archaeobotanical Investigation of Prehistoric Grape Vine Exploitation and Wine Making in Northern Greece: Recent Finds from Dikili Tash. In Olive Oil and Wine Production in Eastern Mediterranean during Antiquity, International Symposium Proceedings, 17–19 November 2011, Urla –Turkey, edited by Adnan Diler, Kaan Şenol, and Ümit Aydinoğlu, pp. 125–139. Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, İzmir. Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Maria Mangafa, Haïdo Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, and Dimitra Malamidou 2007 Grape-Pressings from Northern Greece: The Earliest Wine in the Aegean? Antiquity 81:54–61. Wijmstra, Tiete Alexander 1969 Palynology of the First 30 Metres of a 120 m Deep Section in Northern Greece. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 18:511–527.

les Structures de Combustion en Grèce du Nord. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 123–135. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Prévost-Dermarkar, Sandra 2002 Les Foyers et les Fours Domestiques en Égée au Néolithique et à l’Age du Bronze. In Pains, Fours et Foyers des Temps Passés. Archéologie et Traditions Boulangères des Peuples Agriculteurs d’Europe et du Proche-Orient, edited by Karl Fechner and Marianne Mesnil, pp. 223–237. Civilisations 49. Free University of Brussels, Brussels. Roque, Céline, Pierre Guibert, Emmanuel Vartanian, Françoise Bechtel, René Treuil, Pascal Darcque, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, and Dimitra Malamidou 2002 The Chronology of the Neolithic Sequence at Dikili Tash, Macedonia, Greece: TL Dating of Domestic Ovens. Archaeometry 44:613–633. Treuil, René (editor) 1992 Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 1. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 24. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. 2004 Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 2. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 37. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. in press Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 3. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément. École Française d’Athènes, Athens, in press. Tsirtsoni, Zoï 2016 The Late Neolithic II (Chalcolithic)-Early Bronze Age Transition at the Tell of Dikili Tash. In The Human Face of Radiocarbon:

80

AS20.indb 80

2/11/18 8:59 PM

-6Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece: A Middle Neolithic Tell Site in Context Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, Thomas Loughlin, Tristan Carter, James Cole, Yorgos Facorellis, Stella Katsarou, Aggeliki Kaznesi, Areti Pentedeka, Vasileios Tsamis, and Nicolas Zorzin

Abstract

here is the few drinking vessels that show decoration patterns pointing to other “cultural” traditions (e.g. geometric patterns from southern central Greece). This macroscopic picture seems to be confirmed by petrographic analysis of both pottery vessels and figurines.

In this chapter, we present some of the main preliminary results of the Koutroulou Magoula Archaeology and Archaeological Ethnography Project (begun in 2009), centered around the tell site of Koutroulou Magoula in northern Phthiotida, central Greece. The main occupation phase dates to the first two centuries of the sixth millennium B.C. This proved to be an extremely well-preserved, architecturally elaborate site, the inhabitants of which shaped its space of habitation through a range of substantial and probably communal works, such as terraces and perimeter ditches. The site is also materially rich, and various categories of data are currently under analysis and study, including a large and diverse collection of clay figurines (ca. 350 items to date). We then continue by placing the Middle Neolithic tell settlement in its wider social context, relying in particular on two categories of data: chipped stone and pottery (examined both macroscopically and through petrographic study). The analysis of chipped stone to date has shown that the site participated in a wide network of exchange and circulation of materials, information, and ideas. More than half of the assemblage (58 percent) is made of obsidian, most (if not all) of which has all the visual characteristics of coming from the Cycladic island of Melos. The rest of the material consists of different kinds of flint coming from various distant localities: from the Pindus Mountains to Albania and Bulgaria, and even further to the north. The analysis of pottery, on the other hand, attests to a more localized pattern of circulation and exchange. Painted pottery in particular gives the impression of a local production, with affinities to Achilleion, but also to pottery from Tzani Magoula, Pazaraki, and areas belonging to the so-called West Thessalian group. In pottery terms, Koutroulou Magoula seemed to have interacted more with the Thessalian tradition, and not with that of southern central Greece. An exception

Keywords Middle Neolithic, tell sites, Thessaly, radiocarbon dating, pottery, chipped stone, exchange networks Koutroulou Magoula is a tell site situated at the southwestern edge of the Thessalian Plain, just west of the hills that form the northwestern edge of the Othrys Mountain range. It is also 2.5 km south of the modern town of Neo Monastiri in Phthiotida, within the vicinity of the village of Vardali. The site is part of a rich archaeological landscape, in which dozens of Neolithic tells feature prominently (Figure 1).1 The abundance of prehistoric tell sites in the area between Domokos and Pharsalus was noted by researchers as early as the beginning of the twentieth century. Wace and Thompson (1912:9) mentioned a prehistoric site north of Vardali, and they may well have been referring to Koutroulou Magoula. Systematic archaeological work on the site started in 2001 under the direction of Kyparissi-Apostolika and continued in the 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 seasons (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2006). This work revealed a large habitation site rich in finds and dated primarily to the Middle Neolithic, based on conventional pottery chronology. Its architectural features and material culture are characterized by unique elaboration and preservation. Informally since 2009, and formally since 2010, work on site continued as part of the Koutroulou Magoula Archaeology and Archaeological Ethnography Project, carried out by a large and multi-national team of researchers as a collaboration between the Greek Archaeological Service—more specifically, the Ephorate of Antiquities of Phthiotida 81

AS20.indb 81

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. the present-day communities in the area, through long-term, in-depth, and detailed archaeological ethnography (see Hamilakis 2011). As part of this new project, a range of research activities was initiated, including topographical and surface survey of the tell, a new high-resolution program of geophysical prospection, stratigraphic excavation, a range of new analytical practices, and a program of systematic archaeological ethnography and public archaeology initiatives. The aim has been not only to answer the research questions of this new project, but also study and analyze the material found during the earlier excavations (2001–2008) and prepare the whole site for publication. Our excavation recording methodology is a combination of the “single context” system and the narrative, diary-based procedure traditionally used by the Greek Archaeological Service. In this short article, we will present some of the preliminary results of this new phase of the project, focusing in particular on the positioning of the settlement in its cultural context and in the various networks of regional and long-distance communication and exchange.

Figure 1. The distribution of Neolithic sites in central Greece. (Based on Papathanassopoulos 1996)

Koutroulou Magoula in the Neolithic On the basis of the topographic work carried out to date (by Vasileios Tsamis), Koutroulou Magoula reveals itself to be a tell 206 m long and 182 m wide, situated at 130.7 masl; it rises 6.6 m above the surrounding fields. With an overall area of ca. 3.7 ha (37 stremmata), Koutroulou Magoula is thus much larger (almost twice as large) than most other tell sites in Greece (cf. Kotsakis 1999:67, where it is noted that most tell sites in Greece “rarely exceed 2h”). Almost half of the mound (the western part) has been destroyed as a result of agricultural activity. Because of this, a 169-m-long step extends across the site. Pedestrian survey carried our by the field director (2009–2012), Thomas Loughlin, revealed that intensive activity seems to have been circumscribed to the area of the magoula and that occupation in the semi-destroyed, western part was more extensive than in the eastern part of the site. The topographical survey also showed possible evidence of terracing and retaining walls on the north, east, and south sides. More specifically, the mound was possibly constructed with three levels of terracing, and it is likely that a retaining wall was present at least on the north side (Figure 2). Additional support for these topographical features was provided by the geophysical (magnetometer) survey conducted in 2012, the second geophysical survey at the site (for the first resistivity survey, see

and Evrytania and the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology—and the University of Southampton, under the auspices of the British School at Athens. It is co-directed by Kyparissi-Apostolika and Hamilakis (for preliminary results, see Hamilakis and Kyparissi-Apostolika 2012; Hamilakis and Theou 2013; Kyparissi-Apostolika and Hamilakis 2015; Morgan 2011, 2012, 2013; Papadopoulos et al. 2015; see also Koromila et al., this volume). The main aims of this new project are: • To understand the material and social life of a Middle Neolithic community through the recovery and detailed study of architecture, artifacts, animal and plant remains, soil, sediments, and other geoarchaeological and archaeo-environmental data. • To study the embodied and sensorial ways through which this community produced material memory, place, time, and temporality. • To situate this community in the broader social and physical landscape, and compare its mode of material engagement with other communities nearby. • To study and understand the role and meanings of the material archaeological past and of archaeological practices among 82

AS20.indb 82

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece… Tsokas et al. 2009). The high-resolution magnetometer survey, carried out by James Cole, provided some particularly significant results, confirming at the same time the indications of the pedestrian survey. Discounting the geophysical signature to the extreme east of our survey area, which probably reflects modern activity, it is clear that there are several prominent linear, rectilinear, and dipolar features present within the geophysics (Figure 3, on Color Plate I and Figure 4, on Color Plate II). Given the time depth of human activity in the magoula, the chronological association between these features will need to be clarified through excavation. It is possible, however, that features such as P3-P25 and N9-N23 may represent Neolithic buildings (Figure 4, on Color Plate II), showing the density and extent of building activity. The group of features P1, N6-N8, and N26-N28 may represent the building of terracing, retaining walls, and concentric ditches surrounding the tell. Terraces and retaining walls would have aimed at expanding and supporting living space, while the ditches may have served a

variety of roles and functions, including the marking of site boundaries in material and symbolic terms. A test trench investigation in 2012 (Trench E14) offered some stratigraphic indications of a ditch that was not fully excavated but has an extrapolated U shape; interestingly, this ditch appears to have been recut, suggesting continuous use and maintenance. A further test pit at the periphery of the magoula (Trench Θ22) (see Figure 2), offered some stratigraphic evidence for the existence of a large perimeter ditch. In future fieldwork, we hope to confirm with greater certainty the existence of these ditch features and investigate their nature and character. The features outlined above, and especially the ditches, most likely date to the Middle Neolithic based primarily on their position in relation to the excavated buildings. These ditches would have defined and delineated the area of occupation on the tell, producing at the same time a sense of collectivity, in both social as well as spatial terms. Along with the terracing projects, the ditches were more likely to have

Figure 2. The topography of Koutroulou Magoula (2012). 83

AS20.indb 83

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. been substantial, communal works that would have required a significant investment of labor. Combining the topographic and geophysical research offers a picture of an elaborate, and possibly communal, reshaping of space. These practices are fairly common in the Greek—and broadly, European—Neolithic (see Sarris et al., this volume) but are rarely studied in detail. Koutroulou Magoula represents, therefore, an ideal location to investigate these relationships further, especially in relation to tell sites. To date, excavation at the top of the magoula has unearthed cultural layers that reach at least 2.5 m in depth from the surface of the tell. A coring program conducted in 2012 showed that these cultural layers reach at least 5 m in depth. This corresponds well with the overall 6.6 m rise of the tell from the surface of the surrounding plain. Two rectangular buildings have been unearthed in their entirety, and several others only partially (Figure 5). Building 1, which was unearthed during the earlier excavations directed by Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, preserves two or possibly three building phases, whereas the traces of a further

and more recent Middle Neolithic phase were removed by the excavators in 2001 due to its fragmentary and partially destroyed state. Successive buildings appear to have been rebuilt on the same spot, often respecting previous orientations (Figure 6), a wellknown practice linked to ancestral ties and material memory (e.g. Chapman 1994; Kotsakis 1999; see Souvatzi 2008 for further references and discussion). Most walls, especially in the later phases, appear to have stone foundations with mudbricks for the upper structure. In the early phases of the site, as seen with Building 1 and the building in Trench Z1 (see Figure 5), stone-built walls rise up to or exceed 1 m in height, possibly suggesting that the entire height of the wall may have been stone. At times, different phases used stones of different color and texture, for example white and soft limestone for the later phases, vs. grey, angular, and harder limestone for the earlier phases, which would have had a distinctive aesthetic and sensorial impact if left exposed. In Buildings 1 and 2, as well as the building partially unearthed in the northeast corner of Z1 and the northwest corner

Figure 5. Site plan of Koutroulou Magoula (main excavation area) at the end of the 2015 excavation season. 84

AS20.indb 84

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece… of Z2 in 2015 (see Figure 5), it is more likely that beaten earth or clay floors were laid out on the top of paved, subfloor deposits, constructed of small, flat or semi-rounded stones. The appearance of these possible earthen floors, however, is highly fragmented and disturbed. Building 2 measures 7.2 x 6.4 m and sits on the highest point of the tell, as does Building 1 (see Figure 5). Its stone foundations seem to have been protected by upright clay slabs (Figure 7). It contained very few finds, its southern wall was missing, and during excavation extensive layers of burned clay were noted on the top of the floor and the walls. The function and role of this building is still open to interpretation, but the low density of finds, elaborate architectural features, and the absence of one wall may suggest a non-habitational space, possibly communal in nature, that was deliberately destroyed by fire. The spaces between buildings seemed to have

been intensively used, and they include paved courtyards that may have been partially covered, as suggested by a series of postholes. There were also some elaborate hearths with a concentration of figurines and quern-stones around them, as well as several pits. These open areas were extremely rich in finds, including pottery, faunal remains, and other feasting paraphernalia. The site has already become widely known for its large and distinctive collection of clay figurines, numbering more than 350 objects to date (Figure 8, on Color Plate II), found in diverse contexts and locations across the site. A detailed analysis (funded by the British Academy) including petrography, photogrammetry, and 3D scanning is underway. In addition to several well-known types, there are many forms that seem to depict hybrid human-animal (especially bird-like) entities, as well as imaginary beings. In 2014, a large number of human fingerprints were found on the figurines. These have been subjected to Reflectance Transformation

Figure 6. The successive architectural phases of Building 1 at Koutroulou Magoula (Trench H2, from the east; 2010). 85

AS20.indb 85

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. Imaging (RTI) photography and 3D scanning to allow for further identification and analysis, which may reveal information on the age and possibly the gender of the people who handled them. According to the zooarchaeologist, Kerry Harris (working together with Yannis Hamilakis), and based on preliminary examination of the animal remains found between 2001 and 2012, the Neolithic inhabitants of Koutroulou Magoula kept primarily sheep and goats, which amount to over 70 percent of the sample, but also cattle, pigs, and dogs in smaller numbers. They also hunted, and small numbers of red and roe deer remains were found. In addition, the inhabitants of the tell seem to have had a particular taste for a river shell, the thick-shelled river mussel, Unio crassus, which they had to dig out from the sandy bottoms of the local river, according to Tatiana Theodoropoulou. Most of the bones came from areas outside the buildings, confirming the general impression of the importance of outdoor, communal areas.

Further analysis and study of the material may reveal spatial and chronological diversity in the representation of species, and more broadly in human-animal interactions. In addition to meat, bone marrow was also valued, and bones were heated and then broken up to extract it. It is worth noting that in addition to the animal bones, a number of disarticulated and scattered human bones were found among the Neolithic layers, which may indicate that the bodily remnants of the ancestors were circulating among the living in the spaces of daily routines. According to the archaeobotanist, Georgia Kotzamani, the Neolithic inhabitants of the site cultivated mostly einkorn and emmer wheat, and less commonly barley and oat, but also lentils, peas, bitter vetch, and grass peas. Fig seeds, terebinth, and elder were also found. They also collected a wide variety of wild plants. As part of our project, we carried out a pilot program of AMS radiocarbon dating (coordinated

Figure 7. Building 2 at Koutroulou Magoula during excavation (2006), showing the clay slabs which seem to have covered the stone foundations of the walls. 86

AS20.indb 86

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece…

7095 ± 45

7050 ± 45

7040 ± 45

6990 ± 45

6960 ± 45

6930 ± 45

3745 ± 40

500.0 Trench Θ1, Boring KTLC-1 GrA-60912

9/2012

74.0 Trench Θ3, Context 008/02 GrA-61065

9/9/2009

18.0 Trench Θ4, Context 721/073

GrA-60918

GrA-60919

9/22/2011

128.3 5/30/2002

63.0 11/7/2005

Trench Θ2, Pass IB Square Γ46, Α.Δ.2, Orientation: 130 cm north x 280 cm east Trench Η, Pass IA, Square A38, OM κ.π. 288γ GrA-60916

84.0 9/17/2010 GrA-60921

Trench H3 (Extension), NK285, Context 048/01, base of tholos tomb Trench Θ3, Context 36/23 GrA-60924

Date of Unearthing 9/26/2012 Location Lab Nr

Table 1. The AMS dates from Koutroulou Magoula (Groningen Laboratory).

Depth below Surface (cm) 55.0

14

C Age (B.P.)

Calibrated Date Probabilities (cal B.C.) (%) 2206–2045 68.2 2286­–2032 95.4 5869–5743 68.2 5967–5723 95.4 5894–5776 68.2 5977–5738 95.4 5976–5812 68.2 5984–5764 95.4 5986–5891 68.2 6014–5814 95.4 5987–5899 68.2 6016–5841 95.4 6020–5916 68.2 6055–5891 95.4

by Yorgos Facorellis), and we hope to expand this in the future. The samples were dated by AMS in the Centre for Isotope Research of the University of Groningen, and as can be seen in Table 1, with the exception of a sample that comes from a disturbed context with Bronze Age activity, all six samples give dates which fall within the first two centuries of the sixth millennium B.C. The radiocarbon conventional ages were converted to calendar dates with the latest issue of the international calibration curve IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013), using the Ox­Cal v4.2.4 software (Bronk Ramsey 2009, 2010). Culturally, this period is normally associated with the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Middle Neolithic period. The other interesting feature is that the average time difference between the deepest sample in the sequence—taken from a depth of ca. 5 m from the trench’s surface (via coring, as opposed to excavation)—and the one only 20 cm from the surface is just 150–170 years. This close clustering of dates, which are stratigraphically so far apart, makes Koutroulou Magoula a rather short-lived site within the timeframe of the Neolithic. It also indicates intense, rich, and regular building and depositional activity. The placing of the site within the first two centuries of the sixth millennium by the AMS radiocarbon dates would seem to contradict the dating of the site based on pottery typology. The pottery typology would suggest that the site was occupied a few centuries later. This apparent disparity between the conventional potterytypological dating and the radiocarbon dating points to the need for reconsideration of conventional dating in the Greek Neolithic, something which requires the coordinated effort of researchers from many different sites across the region and beyond. It is also worth mentioning that this is a multitemporal site: there is substantial material evidence for its use for burials in the Late Bronze Age, as a small “Mycenaean” tholos tomb was detected in Trenches H3 and H3 Extension in 2011 and excavated in 2012 (see Figure 5). The tomb was completely looted, most probably in antiquity. Moreover, the tell was also used for burials in medieval times: an inhumation burial of a young woman in an extended position was found and excavated in Trench I4 in 2011 (see Figure 5). It was AMS-dated (Beta–318215: 770 ± 30 B.P.) to cal A.D. 1040–1220 (2σ). This evidence complements earlier finds, such as a twelfth-century A.D. coin and medieval pottery. More detailed information on these important finds will be presented elsewhere, as their presence show that the tell was an important mnemonic site for many thousands of years after its original Neolithic habitation. 87

AS20.indb 87

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. The Pottery Evidence and its LocalRegional Associations

profiles. The site has also revealed a significant collection of elaborate, miniature offering tables standing on three or four legs, and featuring figurative details such as human anatomical parts (legs, fingers). On the basis of Wace and Thompson’s (1912) categorization, the pottery from Koutroulou seems to belong to the “Western” Thessalian group (Figure 11), and comparisons with recently excavated sites nearby testify to its affinities with the region, extending to Achilleion in the east (Gimbutas et al. 1989) and the Karditsa area to the north, that is, within a radius of 30–35 km (Figure 12). Indeed, preliminary observations show that color, texture, and painted patterns in pottery coming from old/known and recently excavated sites in this area, such as Tzani Magoula, Pazaraki, and the mounds in the Sofades region (Chourmouziadis 1967; Dimaki 1994; Rondiri 2009; Tsouknidas 1994; Vaiopoulou 2012; Wace and Thompson 1912) are very similar, if not identical to those at Koutroulou. In contrast, comparative work with southern sites, especially regarding the White-on-Red style, has shown no affinities with Koutroulou. Any potential imports to Koutroulou from outside its region thus are limited to a few ambiguous pieces. Greek Neolithic pottery studies, with few recent exceptions, have been very reluctant to move beyond

Koutroulou Magoula has yielded large quantities of Middle Neolithic pottery fragments from all areas and contexts (amounting to around 45,000 potsherds, including 5,457 catalogued pieces), under study by Stella Katsarou and Aggeliki Kaznesi. Preliminary assessment of the ceramic assemblages attests to large numbers of Red, Buff, and Dark Monochromes, alongside significant quantities of various styles of Pattern-Painted ware. All shapes and features indicate some degree of standardization (cf. Pappa et al. 2004). The Red-on-White, classic Thessalian “solid and linear styles” (Andreou et al. 1996; Gallis 1996; Kotsakis 1983; Theocharis 1973; Tsountas 2000 [1908]) are prevalent in the painted pottery (Figure 9, on Color Plate III). The most usual shapes associated with the red patterns include the flat-bottomed flaring or convex cups, bowls, and wide basins with upright sides (lekanides). The White-on-Red wares are less frequent, but still occur in considerable numbers (Figure 10). Other painted classes, such as the Red-Painted and Scraped wares are found in small quantities. The monochrome vessels consist primarily of small and medium-sized serving containers in flaring

Figure 10. White-on-Red ware, including the body of a handled and necked globular jar from Building 1. 88

AS20.indb 88

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece… classification and typology. The detailed stylistic sequences have been inscribed within a cultural evolutionist perspective and a logic of geographical regionalism (e.g. Wace and Thompson 1912). In this framework, pottery styles and their subdivisions were thought to represent distinct “cultures” within the massive Thessalian Plain. Today, despite the considerable advances in theoretical discussion, this taxonomic paradigm still persists in publications. In doing so, it keeps alive the primarily descriptive and typological-comparative approach to style, which is outdated and of limited potential. In this project, we have sought to challenge this long-established methodology through careful observation of all the macroscopic qualities on all sides of the pottery fragments. Our results have demonstrated that pots carry cross-category features and transcend several of the conventional and well-delineated stylistic groups (cf. Vitelli 1993). There is a wide range of “bilingual” instances of pottery craft in the Koutroulou Magoula assemblage, with feature combinations such as Red-Painted with Red Monochrome, Red-Painted with Scribbled Monochrome, White-Crust on a Red-

on-White painted background, Red Monochrome with Black Monochrome, and many more. Pottery craft thus is not a static, compartmentalized practice, but rather can be changing, fluid, and random, just as easily as it can become standardized, repetitive, and conservative. Our study so far has shown that pottery is associated with intensively accumulated fills of refuse in outdoor areas, which include fragments of plain and decorated vessels as the major component. The bulky nature of these dumps implies that pottery consumption was intensive and conspicuous. While many pots are linked to food preparation (as shown in the examples of cooking vessels, often found with traces of soot) and processing (as in the examples of “clay sieves” that could have been used for milk processing; cf. Salque et al. 2013), the majority of the vessels are tableware for serving food, probably used in performances of convivial feasting (Pappa et al. 2004). These undoubtedly conspicuous events would have been marked by an equally conspicuous deposition of their remnants in the pits found outdoors (cf. Kotsakis 1999; Skourtopoulou 2006), thus producing

Figure 11. The regional Thessalian Neolithic pottery “cultures” as defined by Wace and Thompson (1912). 89

AS20.indb 89

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. material mnemonics (cf. Hamilakis 2010, 2013). The local and regional character of pottery is corroborated by the results of our petrographic study on pottery and clay figurines, carried out by Areti Pentedeka and based on 36 pottery sherds and 23 figurine fragments from all excavated contexts. Additionally, raw material prospection was carried out in the vicinity of Koutroulou Magoula to explore potential clay sources; this was based on geological maps and the compositional compatibility of the different fabrics identified, following petrographic analysis of all ceramic archaeological samples. Thirteen clayey, loose sandy sediments and rock samples were collected to represent the main geological formations of the area (Figure 13). In total, five fabric groups and three loners have been identified. The majority of the fabrics are considered to be of local origin, as their mineralogical composition matches well with the prevalent geological formations in the vicinity: late Cretaceous flysch and tectonized limestone, shale-chert and ophiolitic formations (Marinos et al. 1957; Mariolakos et al. 2001).

Taking into account all available information, Koutroulou Magoula Fabric Groups 1 and 2 comprise the local production of the settlement. Fabric Groups 1 and 2 are medium- to fine-grained, with major inclusion types being quartz, feldspar, sandstone/metasandstone fragments, clay pellets, altered igneous rock fragments, and quartz-rich metamorphic rock fragments (Figure 14, on Color Plate III). These two fabrics comprise almost 85 percent of the samples studied, pottery and figurines alike, and bear a fair resemblance to raw material samples KMGS1–2, KMGS6, and KMGS13, collected in the close vicinity of the mound. The main local clay paste recipe, as expressed by Fabric Groups 1 and 2, points to the persistent exploitation of a specific source: most probably surface sediments (near or even within the settlement area), as suggested by the invariable presence of organic material (phytoliths and phosphates, most probably indicating dung; cf. Koromila et al., this volume). The sediments exploited for pottery production were used rather unrefined, and derived probably from erosion and colluviation

Figure 12. Koutroulou Magoula amidst neighboring Neolithic tells in the area south of Karditsa. (source: CNES/Astrium, DigitalGlobe, ©2013 Google, annotated) 90

AS20.indb 90

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece… at a short distance (i.e. at the outlet of the drainage network in the flat area of the basin, through stream and/or rainwater force), while the high frequency of rounded iron-rich nodules and clay pellets, and the sporadic occurrence of ooids, suggests fluctuations in the water table and transportation (cf. Pentedeka 2015:271–272). These features usually characterize areas with stagnant water or marshes; this kind of micro-ecosystem is also suggested by Koutroulou macrobotanical and phytolithic data (Koromila et al., this volume), as well as the study of building raw materials in the neighboring Middle Neolithic site of Magoula Imvrou Pigadi (Roussos 2010:62). Koutroulou Magoula Fabric Group 4, consisting

only of painted White-on-Red pottery, is a coarse fabric characterized by phyllite, amphibole-rich, and quartz-rich metamorphic rock fragments, quartz, light green amphibole, and mica. This composition is compatible with the geological setting of the Narthaki Mountain to the east of the site; interestingly, it is also attested in a number of similar, amphibole-rich, pottery fabrics of nearby Achilleion, where they are considered to be locally produced (Dimoula 2014:158–163). If this is indeed the case, and is not an example of potters exploiting similar sediment outcrops for pottery manufacture, it can be tentatively argued that these two decorated pots are Achilleion products that were brought to Koutroulou.

Figure 13. Geological map of Koutroulou Magoula and its vicinity, showing the sampling locations of KMGS1–13 (black triangles): (1) alluvial deposits; (2) fluvio-lacustrine formations (Pliocene); (3) flysch (Late Cretaceous); (4) limestone (Late Cretaceous); (5) shale-chert formations (Triassic-Jurassic); (6) ophiolitic units and mélange. (Adapted from Bornovas and Philippakis 1964; Marinos et al. 1957). 91

AS20.indb 91

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. The Chipped Stone and its LongDistance Character

animals, such as red and roe deer. The chalcedony (N = 44, 5 percent) likely originates from outcrops around the mouth of the Strymonas (Struma) River (Arkoudorema region) in the Rhodope Mountains that straddle northern Greece and into Bulgaria, at least 240 km linear distance to the northeast (KourtessiPhilippakis 2009:308). The implements themselves were probably made by Macedonian populations and then exchanged southwards. While the exact provenance of the well-known “honey flint” remains unknown, the region of Epirus/ southern Albania has been suggested as a likely source on the basis of geology and finds distribution (Perlès 1992:124), though another view favors the Danube platform in northeast Bulgaria and southeast Romania (Kozłowski et al. 1996:337; Tringham 2003:84). The technical attributes of some of the “honey flint” blades further suggest links to Bulgaria, with at least one large piece having been produced by the highly skilled lever technique, which is associated with contemporary toolmakers of northeast Bulgaria (Manolakakis 2005). It seems, therefore, that the chipped stone media accessed and employed by the inhabitants of Koutroulou are remarkably cosmopolitan. While the lack of good-quality local raw materials meant that these people necessarily relied on resources and ready-made tools from afar, the significance of these media would have transcended utilitarian/functional desires alone. Knowledge of and participation in remote realms and other worlds, as well as the sensorial and affective qualities of the material, its color and luminosity, its tactile properties and effects, would have been important (cf. Hamilakis 2013).

The chipped stone assemblage, studied by Tristan Carter, reveals a rather different picture from the local and regional pattern of interaction seen with the pottery. Of the 805 chipped stone artifacts recovered from 2001 to 2012, more than half (58 percent) were made of obsidian, the vast majority of which appeared to be Melian, procured in the form of prepared cores and/or finished tools that likely arrived at the site through intermediary exchange. The fact that so much of the assemblage comprised obsidian artifacts is noteworthy in a western Thessalian Middle Neolithic context, where toolkits tend to be primarily made of chert (Karimali 2009:Table 1). The distinction is noteworthy, suggesting that the community enjoyed preferential access to the exchange networks through which this exotic media circulated, and/or the site represented a central gathering and redistribution locus amongst western Thessalian populations. While the relative proportion of obsidian is atypical, the manner in which it was worked on site is entirely in keeping with wider Thessalian lithic traditions of the period, i.e. it was used to make pressure-flaked blades and bladelets, with the relatively few (15 percent) modified tools including notched pieces, plus a few trapezes and scrapers. The close similarity of the obsidian blades from these sites, in terms of the size of the end products and of the method of manufacture, suggested strongly to Catherine Perlès (1990) that these Thessalian communities were linked by itinerant specialists. The remaining 336 artifacts (42 percent) were made from a wide variety of other raw materials, including radiolarite, chalcedony, chert, “chocolate flint,” and “honey flint.” The largest group comprised 165 pieces of a red radiolarite (20 percent), a raw material that likely came from the Pindus Mountains, some 90 km to the northwest (Efstratiou et al. 2011; Kourtessi-Philippakis 2009:308; Perlès 1990:6). This material was worked on site, and a very large proportion of the blades had been denticulated, that is, given a saw-like edge with multiple notches. These edges are often highly glossed, i.e. showing a form of use wear that likely derived from the cutting of cereals. While there are many likely plant-working tools, there are far fewer pieces that can be related to hunting or the processing of animal skins, with only 2 Middle Neolithic projectiles, plus 14 scrapers and 7 perforators. This is not uncommon, however, for Middle Neolithic Aegean toolkits, and as far as the hunting is concerned, the picture is supported by the faunal evidence, which shows very small numbers of hunted

Conclusion Koutroulou Magoula is of great potential in helping us understand in some depth the Greek Neolithic— and Neolithic life in general—and can even transform some of our long-held views on the matter. This was a complex, dynamic, materially elaborate, and, it seems, communally organized site that was constantly in flux. The Neolithic community of Koutroulou Magoula interacted intensely with its immediate landscape and with diverse ecological, terrestrial, and aquatic niches in the plain and surrounding hills and mountains. Domesticated animals in particular shared the space of the tell with its human inhabitants, being thus co-producers of its material presence and history (see Koromila et al., this volume; cf. Overton and Hamilakis 2013). The people of Koutroulou Magoula also partook in a shared local and regional network of communication and cosmological understanding, ex92

AS20.indb 92

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece… American Journal of Archaeology 100:537– 597. Bornovas, Ioannis, and Nikolaos Philippakis 1964 1:50,000 Geological Map of Greece, Farsala Sheet. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Athens. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360. 2010 OxCal, v. 4.2. Online access, https://c14. arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html. Chapman, John 1994 The Living, the Dead, and the Ancestors: Time, Life Cycles and the Mortuary Domain in Later European Prehistory. In Ritual and Remembrance: Responses to Death in Human Societies, edited by Jon Davies, pp. 40–85. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Chourmouziadis, Giorgos 1967 Αρχαιότητες και Mνημεία της Θεσσαλίας. Άγιος Βησσαρίων (Μεγάλο Παζαράκι). Chronika. Archaiologikon Deltion 22:298– 301. Dimaki, Sofia 1994 Προϊστορικοί Οικισμοί στην Β. Φθιώτιδα. In La Thessalie. Quinze Années de Recherches

changing information, possibly materials and objects such as fine pottery, and perhaps even members of their own community as partners. At the same time, they were also engaged in a long-distance network of circulation and exchange of precious, brilliant, and sensorially and affectively memorable and evocative materials and objects, such as special chipped stones and stone tools. The site also may have had a preferential access to obsidian and/or acted as a center for its regional exchange and distribution. The material and embodied histories of the inhabitants of Koutroulou Magoula would have dialectically weaved together the local/regional senses of place, community, and ancestral memory and temporality with the senses of geographical and perhaps cosmological distance, travel, and participation in remote chronotopic realms. Notes All images are copyright of the Koutroulou Magoula Archaeology and Archaeological Ethnography Project. 1

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the sponsoring bodies and institutions of the Koutroulou Magoula Archaeology Archaeological Ethnography Project for their support: the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sport through the Ephorate of Antiquities of Phthiotida and Evrytania and the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, the British School at Athens, and the University of Southampton. Financial help or assistance in personnel and in kind were provided by the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, the British Academy, and all the institutions listed above. Students, primarily from the University of Southampton but also University College London, Melbourne University, University of Laval, and Trinity College Dublin have participated over the years, and have contributed to the success of the project. Last but not least, we are grateful to the workmen and workwomen who labored with us at Koutroulou Magoula, and, of course, to the Municipality of Domokos and all the people of Neo Monastiri and Varvali for their warm welcome, their hospitality, and their continuous support.

Archéologiques, 1975–1990: Bilans et Perspectives. Actes du Colloque International, Lyon,

17–22 Avril 1990, Vol. A, edited by JeanClaude Decourt, Bruno Helly, and Kostas Gallis, pp. 91–102. Kapon Editions, Athens. Dimoula, Anastasia 2014 Πρώιμη Κεραμική Τεχνολογία και Παρα­ γωγή. Το Παράδειγμα της Θεσσαλίας. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Efstratiou, Nikos, Paolo Biagi, Diego E. Angelucci, and R. Nisbet 2011 Middle Palaeolithic Chert Exploitation in the Pindus Mountains of Western Macedonia, Greece. Antiquity 85(328). Electronic document, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/biagi328/, accessed August 21, 2016. Gallis, Kostas 1996 Κεντρική και Δυτική Θεσσαλία. In Neolithic Culture in Greece, edited by Giorgos A. Papathanassopoulos, pp. 61–66. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Gimbutas, Marija, Shan Winn, and Daniel Shimabuku 1989 Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Central Greece, 6400–5600 B.C. Monumenta

References Cited Andreou, Stelios, Michalis Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 1996 Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. 93

AS20.indb 93

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. Archaeologica 14. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Hamilakis, Yannis 2010 Re-collecting the Fragments: Archaeology as Mnemonic Practice. In Material Mnemonics: Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Katina Lillios and Vasileios Tsamis, pp. 188–199. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2011 Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 40:399–414. 2013 Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Affect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hamilakis, Yannis, and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika 2012 Koutroulou Magoula in Central Greece: From the Neolithic to the Present. Antiquity 86(333). Electronic document, http:// antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hamilakis333/, accessed August 21, 2016. Hamilakis, Yannis, and Efthimis Theou 2013 Enacted Multi-temporality: The Archaeological Site as a Shared, Performative Space. In Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity, edited by Alfredo González-Ruibal, pp. 181–194. Routledge, London. Karimali, Lia 2009 Κατανομή Λίθινων Πρώτων Υλών στη Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: Μια Συγκριτική Εξέταση. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3–19.3.2006: I. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 17–29. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 2. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Kotsakis, Kostas 1983 Κεραμεική Τεχνολογία και Κεραμεική Διαφοροποίηση: Προβλήματα της Γραπτής Κεραμεικής της Μέσης Νεολιθικής Εποχής του Σέσκλου. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Kourtessi-Philippakis, Georgia. 2009 Lithics in the Neolithic of Northern Greece:

Territorial Perspectives from an OffObsidian Area. Documenta Praehistorica 36:305–312. Kozłowski, Janusz K., Małgorzata Kaczanowska, and Maciej Pawlikowski 1996 Chipped Stone Industries from Neolithic Levels at Lerna. Hesperia 65(3):295–372. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2006 Κουτρουλού Μαγούλα στο Νέο Μονα­ στήρι (Βόρεια Φθιώτιδα): Η Αποκάλυψη Μιας Νέας, «Αστικής» Αρχιτεκτονικής, Νεολιθικής Εγκατάστασης. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2– 2.3.2003, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 607–617. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 1. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina, and Yannis Hamilakis 2015 Αρχαιολογική και Εθνογραφική Έρευνα στη Θέση Κουτρουλού Μαγούλα Φθιώτι­ δας (2009–2012). In Πρακτικά Επιστημο­ νικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3–18.3.2012: IΙ. Στερεά Ελλάδα, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra Alexandridou, pp. 969–978. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 4. Ministry of Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Manolakakis, Laurence 2005 Les Industries Lithiques Enéolithiques de Bulgarie. Archäologie 88. Leidorf, Rahden/ Westf. Marinos, Georgios, Ioannis Anastasopoulos, Georgios Maratos, Nikolaos Melidonis, and Vassileios Andronopoulos 1957 1:50,000 Geological Map of Greece, Domokos Sheet. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Athens. Mariolakos, Ilias, Stylianos Lekkas, Taxiarchis Papadopoulos, Apostolos Alexopoulos, Ioannis Foundoulis, Ioannis Alexopoulos, Evangelos Spyridonos, Ioannis Bantekas, Dimitrios Mariolakos, and Emmanouil Andreadakis 2001 The Subsurface Tectonic Structure of the Farsala Basin (Thessaly) as Determining Factor of the Hydrogeological Conditions of the Region. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 34(5):1851–1858. Morgan, Catherine 2011 The Work of the British School at Athens, 2009–2010. Archaeological Reports 57:4–14. 94

AS20.indb 94

2/11/18 8:59 PM

6 - Koutroulou Magoula in Phthiotida, Central Greece… Mediterranean Archaeology 5:115–164. Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S. M. Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887. Rondiri, Vasso 2009 Θεσσαλική Νεολιθική Κεραμική: Τεχ­ νολογία και Κατανομή στο Χώρο. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio. lib.auth.gr/record/114741/?ln=el, accessed April 10, 2016. Roussos, Dimitris N. 2010 Building Material and Constructional Choices in Middle Neolithic Greece: An Ecological or Socio-cultural Convention? The Case of Imvrou Pigadi. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Reading. Salque, Melanie, Peter I. Bogucki, Joanna Pyzel, Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka, R. Grygiel, Szmyt Marzena, and Richard P Evershed 2013 Earliest Evidence for Cheese Making in the Sixth Millennium BC in Northern Europe. Nature 493:522–525. Skourtopoulou, Katerina 2006 Questioning Spatial Contexts: The Contribution of Lithics Studies as Analytical and Interpretative Bodies of Data. In Deconstructing Context: A Critical Approach to Archaeological Practice, edited by Demetra Papaconstantinou, pp. 50–78. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1973 Νεολιθική Ελλάς. National Bank of Greece, Athens. Tringham, Ruth E. 2003 Flaked Stone. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970:

2012 The Work of the British School at Athens, 2011–2012. Archaeological Reports 58:3–11. 2013 The Work of the British School at Athens, 2012–2013. Archaeological Reports 59:3–10. Overton, Nick, and Yannis Hamilakis 2013 A Manifesto for a Social Zooarchaeology: Swans and Other Beings in the Mesolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 20(2):111–136. Papadopoulos, Kostas, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, and Yannis Hamilakis 2015 Ψηφιακή Σάρωση, Φωτογραμμετρία, και Ψηφιακές Αναπαραστάσεις: Η Περίπτωση της Κουτρουλού Μαγούλας. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3– 18.3.2012: IΙ. Στερεά Ελλάδα, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra Alexandridou, pp. 979–988. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 4. Ministry of Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Pappa, Maria, Paul Halstead, Kostas Kotsakis, and Duska Urem-Kotsou 2004 Evidence for Large-Scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Northern Greece. In Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, edited by Paul Halstead and John C. Barrett, pp. 14–44. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pentedeka, Areti 2015 Technological and Provenance Study of the Visviki Magoula Ceramic Assemblage. In Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die Neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-

Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 222–297. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Perlès, Catherine 1990 L’Outillage de Pierre Ttaillée Néolithique en Grèce: Approvisionnement et Exploitation des Matières Premières. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 114(1):1–42. 1992 Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of 95

AS20.indb 95

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Yannis Hamilakis et al. 2. The Final Report, edited by Ernestine S. Elster and Colin Renfrew, pp. 81–126. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Tsokas, Grigoris N., Georgios Vargemezis, Alexandros Stampolidis, and Nina KyparissiApostolika 2009 Γεωφυσική Διασκόπηση στη Θέση Κου­ τρουλού Μαγούλα Πλησίον του Νέου Μοναστηρίου (Ν. Φθιώτιδας). In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3– 19.3.2006: IΙ. Στερεά Ελλάδα, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 829–837. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 2. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Tsouknidas, Αthanasios I. 1994 Προϊστορικές Θέσεις περί την Πρόερνα. In La Thessalie. Quinze Années de Recherches

Lyon, 17–22 Avril 1990, Vol. A, edited by Jean-Claude Decourt, Bruno Helly, and Kostas Gallis, pp. 109–124. Kapon Editions, Athens. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Δι­μην­ί­ ου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Vaiopoulou, Maria 2012 Μαγούλα Θεοφάνη: Ένας Προϊστορικός Οικισμός στη Δυτική Θεσσαλική Πεδιάδα. Meletes. Archaiologikon Deltion 58–64 (2003–2009):1–30. Vitelli, Karen D. 1993 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 1. Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 8. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Archéologiques, 1975–1990: Bilans et Perspectives. Actes du Colloque International,

96

AS20.indb 96

2/11/18 8:59 PM

-7The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai John E. Coleman, Evangelia Karimali, Lilian Karali, Melanie Fillios, Charlotte Diffey, Petra Vaiglova, Amy Bogaard, Jayme Joos, and Effie Angeli

Abstract

the bay of Atalanti (Figures 1 and 2). It is one of the few coastal Neolithic sites in Greece that has been excavated in any detail. The sea level has probably risen about 20 m due to worldwide warming after the end of the last ice age and local seismic activity since the Neolithic site was first occupied; the sea, which was then about 2 km distant (at the 20-m bathymetric line in Figure 2), now extends to the edge of the site (Figure 3). As a result, people would have gradually lost some of their farmland during the life of the settlement. Excavations were carried out by Hetty Goldman and Alice Walker Kosmopoulos from 1911 to 1935 (Goldman 1940) and by the Cornell Halai and East Lokris Project starting in 1990 (Coleman 1992, 1999; Coleman and Kakavas 2015). The Goldman-WalkerKosmopoulos expedition explored the Neolithic levels in the “temple area” at the west end of the acropolis, but the results were never published. Although test trenches by the Cornell expedition suggest that much of the area of the Classical acropolis of Halai (see Figure 3) was occupied by the Neolithic village, the Neolithic levels were mainly accessible in Goldman’s “temple area,” our Area F (Figure 4). Cornell Trench F2, 4 m x 4 m in area (Figure 5), was relatively free of buildings and provided a continuous stratigraphic sequence spanning about 700 years, from about 6000 B.C. to 5300 B.C. We subdivided the stratigraphic sequence in Trench F2 into 5 phases (Figure 6), which correspond roughly to the following chronological sequence, listed from earlier to later with aggregated 14 C dates at 1 sigma (Facorellis and Coleman 2012). Phases 3 and 5 are without dates because only a single outlier was available for each. The following phases were identified: (1) late Early Neolithic (EN)/Early Middle Neolithic (MN), 6370–5810 B.C.; (2) Earlier MN, 5870–5750 B.C.; (3) Later MN; (4) Earlier Late Neolithic (LN) I, 5600–5480 B.C.; and (5) Later LN I. We observed no large-scale break in activity suggesting radical changes in the Neolithic population over time. However, there were some changes in the architectural layout of the settlement in the LN I phase, and one building (VI) was burned at the end of the MN and its ruins subsequently built over by an LN

Halai, on the North Euboean Gulf, was excavated by Hetty Goldman and Alice Walker Kosmopoulos during the earlier 20th century and by the Cornell Halai and East Lokris Project in the 1990s. The Neolithic levels on the northwestern side of the hill, which later became the Classical acropolis, date roughly to 6000–5300 B.C. Small buildings are densely grouped together, although with at least one outdoor area that was built over several times on the same plans. A general description focusing on the town’s chronology, architecture, geographical setting, and interactions with other sites and regions is followed by summaries by specialists on shells, animal bones, botanical remains, food processing, pottery, and chipped stone. These show that the town fully enjoyed the rich benefits of its immediate terrestrial and marine environments. Exchange networks probably existed by land and sea between other contemporary sites in the immediate area, and medium range contacts are suggested by the similarities between the pottery and other artifacts from Halai and sites of the interior of central Greece. Melian obsidian, brought to the site in the form of roughly decorticated nodules and worked there, might have been distributed from Halai into the interior of the mainland or even Thessaly. The working of local Spondylus shells also suggests that Halai may have participated in the far distant networks that brought Spondylus ornaments to the rest of Europe. Keywords Neolithic, Aegean prehistory, central Greece, east Lokris, Euboean Gulf, Atalanti Bay, Southeastern Europe Part 1: General Description John E. Coleman Halai in east Lokris is located on the southeastern shore of the North Euboean Gulf at the east end of 97

AS20.indb 97

2/11/18 8:59 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 1. Map showing Neolithic Halai and nearby Neolithic sites. building (VII). One significant change came near the very end of the Neolithic occupation, when a large ditch was dug through the area of our excavations and filled with stones (see Figure 5; “Wall BL”). The settlement was abandoned around 5300 B.C. without any indication of violence. Perhaps the abandonment was connected with the rise of sea level. We mark the transition from the MN to the LN by the inception of Matt Painted ware, which, according to eight radiocarbon dates from the Later MN phase, took place no later than 5600 B.C. Seven buildings were identified in Area F. Most buildings were incompletely preserved, either because later buildings were built on top of earlier ones or because of intrusions of deep pits of the Late Roman period. The buildings were laid out side-by-side but without shared walls (see Figures 4 and 5). As earlier buildings fell into ruin from disrepair, earthquakes, or, occasionally, burning, their ruins were consolidated and new buildings were built on top of them on roughly the same spot and sometimes with similar plans. The buildings had rectangular or sub-rectangular plans

and were constructed of stone socles and mudbrick superstructures. Floors of earth were the rule, but some floors were of a whitish clay and one building, the LN Building VII, had pebble floors. Most buildings had more than one room, although Building III, the smallest and one of the earliest, had only a single room. There are indications of fireplaces within some rooms. A domed oven was built within the ruins of Room 21 in Building IV, and nearby grinding tools suggest that grains were prepared and cooked in the oven. Perhaps the installation was a “bakery” for community use. Most cooking, however, was probably carried out on hearths and fireplaces in open spaces, such as that in Trench F2, which was apparently mostly open to the sky throughout the life of the site and used for fireplaces and informal platforms. None of the buildings at Halai was much larger than the others, which suggests that inequality between families was minimal. Several sequences of three building phases on the same spot (see Figures 5 and 7) suggests that families may have continued to use a plot as their own over long periods of time. 98

AS20.indb 98

2/11/18 8:59 PM

Figure 2. Chart of Atalanti Bay.

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

99

AS20.indb 99

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 3. Halai acropolis from the southeast (taken by balloon). The best-preserved sequence was that of Buildings II, VI, and VII (Figure 7). The walls of Building VI were built almost exactly above those of Building II beneath it. Both date to the MN period; Building VI was destroyed by fire, and Building VII, which dates to the LN period, was built immediately above its eastern end. The sequence suggests that the community recognized the right of families to own their plots from generation to generation. Small figurines in human form, under study by Dr. Stratos Nanoglou, provide the only conceivable evidence for religion (Figure 8). As at other Greek Neolithic settlements, our examples are all fragmentary and were found scattered and apparently discarded. The land around Halai is comprised of low hills and small valleys that would have supplied most of the community’s needs for raw materials such as wood, stones for tools, and clay for pottery. Raw material for

stone tools can be found in the bed of the Revenikos River, about 5.5 km southwest of Halai. Local clay sources were available for all the pottery found at Halai within a radius of 3 km from the site, judging from neutron activation analysis by Tyler S. Kendall and ongoing thin-section analysis by Areti Pentedeka. For instance, clay-rich soil with igneous mineral inclusions like those identified in the Halai pottery can be found in the Vivos Valley, 2.5 km southwest of Halai. Terrestrial food resources, including animals and crops such as those common in Aegean Neolithic communities, were also supplemented at Halai by the abundant marine resources that were immediately at hand. The bay of Atalanti and the immediate area of the North Euboean Gulf together form a basin-like area that is ringed with Neolithic villages, mostly dating to the MN and LN periods, i.e., contemporary with the occupation at Halai (see Figure 1). The topography is

100

AS20.indb 100

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 4. Halai, Area F from above (northeast at top); the Neolithic levels are below those of the Archaic period. 101

AS20.indb 101

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 5. Schematic plan of Neolithic buildings in Area F. ideal for local interactions by sea and is also open at either side to the great sea route (θαλάσσιος δρόμος) through the Euboean Gulf that provided long-distance communication along the eastern side of the Greek mainland throughout history. The MN finds from sites in the northwest area

of the North Euboean Gulf and the interior areas of Phokis and Boeotia (e.g. Elateia, Chaeronea, Orchomenos), which could be reached from the coast via passes such as that leading west-southwest from Atalanti, are notably similar to those from Halai (Dimaki 2013). Perhaps we can think of these areas as

102

AS20.indb 102

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 6. Schematic elevation of the southeast scarp of Trench F2, showing stratigraphic divisions (1–5). (Courtesy Mary Eliot, artist) belonging to their own Neolithic cultural interaction zone. Halai has somewhat less close parallels with Thessaly, and there are relatively few with the Peloponnese until the advent of Matt Painted ware in the LN period. We may tentatively conclude, therefore, that in the MN there was active interaction between the North Euboean Gulf and the immediate inland areas of central Greece by land, and more limited interaction with Thessaly, probably mainly by sea, as suggested in particular by the distribution of obsidian. In the LN, interactions increased between all these areas. Part 2: Halai Molluscan Material Lilian Karali The malacological material from the Halai excavations has been under study and analysis by the author from 1997 to 2015 together with the Environmental Archaeology team of Athens University. There are a considerable number of shell remains and a high degree of difficulty in determining the species. Thus, a new methodological approach has been developed for deciphering the variety, quantity, and

use of the invertebrate remains brought to light, and more specifically the identification and quantification of the huge amount of the tiny shell fragments derived from sieving. To date the excavation has produced around 30,000 shells from all the periods of occupation. These are presented in Figures 9 and 10 (showing the species and the numbers in which they occur). Some are whole and well preserved, but many are fragments of marine and land snails. The most prominent genera are Cerithium, Patella, and Ostrea. Most of the mollusks identified come from rocky shore and mixed bottom environments. Most shells are edible and can still be found in the area today. The study of these mollusks based on paleoenvironmental, paleoclimatic, and anthropogenic parameters provides valuable information for the interpretation of some major features of the site’s occupation. Many shells do not bear any signs of human intervention. However, most of the marine mollusks from deposits at the site potentially could have been used as food. The amount of shell debris usually indicates the availability of the species, as well as the economic status of the inhabitants. A great number of sea mollusks would have been needed in

103

AS20.indb 103

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 7. Neolithic Buildings II, VI, and VII in Trench F9 from the west. order to satisfy a significant part of the daily caloric requirements of human beings. If the mollusks were consumed raw, one would expect to observe either a specific fracturation pattern or the traces of the tool used to open the bivalves and extract the flesh from the gastropods. If, on the other hand, the mollusks were cooked, the shells themselves would exhibit no evidence of such a practice. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that natural forces (e.g. earthquakes, which occur with great frequency in east Lokris, or the gradual rise of the shoreline and the inundation of a part of the occupied area) were in part a cause of the large diachronic presence of shells at the site. However, the many shells and molluskan assemblages found in association with other food remains testify to the human exploitation of aquatic and marine resources as food. Knowledge of the natural habitat of these resources suggests the methods by which they were obtained, including the use and type of boats and related fishing technology. Information can also be gained from the worked shells, which include ornaments such as pendants (common in MN deposits) and annular beads (common in LN deposits) (Figure 11). The LN beads were mostly collected during the flotation process, since they were too small to be recognized during the actual

digging. Spondylus shells also occur at Halai (Figure 12, top row and bottom left), both unworked and worked into bracelets. Spondylus shells were widely exported from the Aegean to central and northern Europe at the time of the Halai settlement, and the partially worked pieces at Halai suggest that craftsmen at the site may have participated in such widespread exchange networks. In any case, the stone and shell artifacts, derived from the same species and worked in the usual forms as found elsewhere in Neolithic Greece, add to the general picture of the communication of people and ideas in Neolithic Halai. In order to understand the way of life of the inhabitants of the site, the macro-environment and landscape variations must be defined and analyzed separately for each chronological period. Further analysis of the use of interior and exterior spaces may provide information about the possible existence and localization of workshops for shell processing, and thereby give more insight into the trade in Spondylus shells and ornaments and perhaps other species of shells during the Neolithic period in the Aegean (Karali 1999, 2011, 2013). The frequency of shells in the Neolithic deposits at Halai suggests a close association with both the sea and the land in the everyday lives of the inhabitants.

104

AS20.indb 104

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Figure 8. Neolithic female figurines from Halai. EAM 8038 and EAM 8010 are from the Goldman excavations and are on display in the Athens National Museum.

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

105

AS20.indb 105

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 9. Numbers and percentages of Neolithic seashells.

Figure 10. Chart of all Neolithic shell frequencies. 106

AS20.indb 106

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 11. Neolithic stone and shell ornaments. 107

AS20.indb 107

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 12. Neolithic worked shell objects. Those in the upper row and at the lower left are made of Spondylus. Part 3: The Faunal Evidence Melanie Fillios Domestic animals included goat, sheep, pig, cattle, and dog. Wild animals were also present, albeit in smaller numbers, and included deer, fox, hedgehog, and rodents (Table 1). In area F2, approximately 3,082 bones were analyzed, of which 977 (32 percent) were identifiable to species. The remaining bones were categorized according to size of the animal, with medium to small species accounting for the majority. Given the relative numbers of identified species, it is probable that the unidentified bones belong to the previously identified major domesticates. At Neolithic Halai, goats appear to have been the most heavily utilized domesticate, followed by sheep, pig, and cattle. Given the relatively rocky topography of Greece, as well as the variable browse quality, goats were an economically practical species for human

exploitation. They offered the same basic primary and secondary products as sheep, but with greater flexibility. The environment surrounding Halai would have provided ample space and resources to pasture goats, and indeed even today, goats are still extensively grazed in the surrounding hills. The management of goat and sheep herds likely would have occurred in a similar manner, with shepherds grazing flocks outside the settlement. Age profiles derived from teeth and degree of post-cranial fusion suggest that the majority of ovicaprids were adults, with just three identified as juveniles. Given the small sample size, it can only be suggested that this pattern is an actual reflection of the true herd age structure, which would then be consistent with an emphasis on secondary products (milk and cheese), with meat of lesser importance. Given that the Neolithic period in Greece marks the beginning, or at least the early phase, of animal domestication, the management of any species offers

108

AS20.indb 108

2/11/18 9:00 PM

AS20.indb 109

4

Goat

6 1 8

Roe Deer

Dog

Fox

Hare

Hedgehog

Rodent

Lg./Med. Mammal

4 4

Bird

Fish 466

3

Human

Total NISP per Deposit

6

50

Sm. Mammal

Med./Sm. Mammal

201

-

Deer

Med. Mammal

31

Pig

120

2

Sheep

Sheep/Goat

24

F2a / 1ei

Cow

Species

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

1

39

-

-

-

-

36

F2a /u

Table 1. Faunal Summary from Trench F2.

1,263

5

3

-

10

508

407

16

-

-

8

-

14

2

4

37

146

60

24

19

F2b / 1d

3

-

-

2

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

F2b / 1ei

19

1

-

-

-

2

13

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

F2b / 1c

481

1

3

-

-

83

186

5

-

-

2

-

7

-

3

16

160

3

6

6

F2c / 1b

382

1

1

-

4

98

158

1

-

-

1

1

6

-

1

15

57

22

8

8

F2c / 1c

Trench / Deposit

202

1

-

-

1

58

94

-

-

1

1

-

2

-

-

10

26

5

2

1

F2c / 1d

84

-

-

-

-

20

51

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

3

1

-

2

F2c / 1aii

3

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

F2c / 1ei

-

-

-

17

-

-

-

4

-

11

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

F2j / 1ai

-

-

-

70

-

-

-

-

8

36

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

3

22

F2j / 1aiii

65

-

-

-

-

29

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

-

-

30

F2k / 1b

3,082

13

11

5

25

894

1,157

31

1

1

14

1

35

2

9

110

544

96

42

91

Total NISP per Species

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

109

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al. the potential for consideration of the socioeconomic implications of domestication, including craft specialization and eventually social stratification, which characterize the later Bronze Age. If indeed herds of goats and sheep were managed locally by specialized shepherds, evidence of the differentiation of economic activities should be apparent elsewhere in the material record. In addition to goats and sheep, pigs were also heavily utilized at Neolithic Halai. This pattern is consistent with the exploitation of pigs at a range of Neolithic sites on the mainland, where they frequently comprise the second-most exploited species (Fillios 2007). During this period, pigs were a staple food source and were likely managed, with females kept in and around the settlement and male wild boars used when needed for mating. Evidence of this pattern can be demonstrated through morphological characteristics indicative of domestication, including larger, more robust teeth and a greater degree of prognathism. Due to their behavioral and biological requirements, pigs were generally reared and used locally, a suggestion that can be tested by examining frequencies of skeletal elements. Pig elements recovered from Halai show the presence of all major bones—a pattern that suggests local, on-site slaughtering (and likely rearing). Ageable pig bones show an overwhelmingly juvenile age structure, with teeth suggesting slaughter in the vicinity of one year. Again, this is a pattern that provides further support for local rearing, exploitation, and consumption. A handful of cattle remains were ageable, with those that were ageable showing a mixed age structure of juveniles and adults. Cattle can be used for a variety of reasons, including for primary and secondary products, as well as for traction. Age profiles dominated by older individuals would indicate the latter. At Halai, it is likely that cattle fulfilled all three functions. All major bones are represented, suggesting at the very least on-site slaughter and consumption. Part 4: The Archaeobotanical Remains Charlotte Diffey, Petra Vaiglova, and Amy Bogaard All excavated contexts dated to the Neolithic (ca. 400 units) were processed for the recovery of plant remains by systematic sampling and flotation. During the early field seasons (1990–1994), excavation units were floated completely to maximize the recovery of environmental remains; soil volumes ranged from 1 to 735 liters. In subsequent seasons, however, it was decided that up to ca. 100 liters from each deposit

would be floated, with the potential to float more if environmental remains were sufficiently rich. To date, full archaeobotanical analysis has been carried out on a total of 131 samples from the Halai assemblage, originating from 123 individual excavation units and 6 trenches (Figure 13). These samples were selected because they were relatively rich in charred plant remains and derive from dated loci; together, they provide more or less even coverage of the full chronological sequence. Most of the samples studied were taken from one trench (F2), which was the only trench to have samples from all chronological periods. Plant remains were preserved mainly by charring, the only exception being Buglossoides (Boraginaeceae), whose seeds are naturally calcareous. In terms of the plant spectrum recovered from Halai, domesticated cereals and pulses dominated the assemblage (Figure 14). Among the cultivated cereals, hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) was the most ubiquitous taxon, appearing in 76 percent of analyzed samples. Glume wheats were also well represented throughout the assemblage, with einkorn (Triticum monococcum) being the most commonly identified species. Another cereal, Avena sp. (oat), was also identified in 15 percent of all samples, but may have been a wild gathered resource or an arable weed rather than a cultivated crop. The other common cultivars present at Halai were the pulses; like the domesticated cereal species, these were found in a very high proportion of samples (95 percent), suggesting that they could have been equally important to the diets of the Halai population. From this category, the most commonly identified species was lentil (Lens sp.), followed by pea (Pisum sativum) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus). Other species such as bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) and common vetch (Vicia sativa) occurred in fewer than 10 percent of samples. Wild plant resources were also utilized throughout the Neolithic at Halai. In this category, fig (Ficus carica) was the most ubiquitous species identified (93 percent), making fig the most abundant individual species in the assemblage. Fig was found not only in the form of charred seeds, but also as charred fruit flesh, suggesting that figs were dried and stored to be eaten throughout the year. Other fruit and nut species represented were grape (Vitis sp.) and pistachio (Pistacia sp.), although the low number of remains identified in both cases suggests that they did not form a major component of the Halai diet. Stable isotope analysis is being carried out by Petra Vaiglova and Amy Bogaard at the University of Oxford on selected human, animal, and plant remains from the recovered assemblage at Halai. The sampled crop species include hulled barley, free-threshing wheat,

110

AS20.indb 110

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 13. Overview of botanical sample composition from Halai in terms of five major plant categories. emmer, einkorn, grass pea, and lentil. The animal species include cattle, sheep, goats, dog, pig, hare, roe deer, and fox. The human samples include two juveniles. The aim of this study is both to investigate the nature of the animal and human diets and to obtain direct evidence for the crop cultivation strategies that were practiced by the early farmers in a mixed-farming agricultural system. This work builds on a previous study carried out at the Neolithic site of Kouphovouno near Sparta, where measured stable isotopic values of domestic crops and animals provided insight into the differential management treatments of the cereal crops and which of the cultivated crops could have been consumed by the domestic livestock (Vaiglova et al. 2014). Initial results suggest that the farmers at Halai made distinctive choices in their use of manure on crops that contrasted with the system evidenced at Kouphovouno.

Part 5: Pottery Specialization and Use through Time Jayme Joos A use-alteration analysis was conducted on the Neolithic ceramics recovered from Trench F2 as part of a larger study on ceramic use and foodways at Neolithic Halai. Due to the enormous amount of ceramics recovered from the site, the choice was made to focus on the ceramic sample from Trench F2, representing the most accurate and complete chronological sequence of excavated material. Using criteria outlined by Skibo (1992), a total of 20,042 ceramic sherds were analyzed for evidence of attrition, carbon deposits, and/or surface residues using both the naked eye and a digital microscope at 10–40 power magnification. Although it is well known that complete or nearly

111

AS20.indb 111

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 14. Overview of the percentages of cereal grain taxa at Halai, arranged by chronological period: Late Early Neolithic (LEN), Early Middle Neolithic (EMN), Late Middle Neolithic (LMN), Early Late Neolithic (ELN), Late Late Neolithic (LLN). complete vessels are most useful for use-alteration studies, the successful use of sherds has been documented in certain cases in which post-depositional alteration can be proved unlikely (Beck et al. 2002). In order to ascertain this, the exterior of all sherds was examined in comparison to the interior; in nearly all cases, the exterior of the sherds was found to be intact, whereas the interior surfaces often exhibited evidence of use alteration, providing further evidence that the alteration recorded resulted from use rather than post-depositional processes (Figures 15). In addition to the use-alteration analysis, several further attributes of the ceramics were recorded, including surface treatment (ware), weight, vessel shape, and size. Evidence of attrition was the most common type of use alteration found, with as much as one quarter of the sherds recovered from Stratum 5 exhibiting evidence of abrasion on the interior surface. Pedestalled temper was commonly identified from these sherds, a clear indication of post-firing physical abrasion (Figure 16). Directionality was also evident from many of the abrasive patterns, also suggestive of the patterned, physical abrasion necessary to remove the clay matrix from the space around the raised temper. Despite current theories that pottery was not heavily used during the earlier Neolithic periods, evidence from Halai suggests that pottery was utilized for a variety of functional tasks, even from its earliest occupation. Surprisingly, the types of pottery used most

during the early periods are not heavier coarse wares, but rather finer decorated wares; non-coarse, finer wares (including Red Burnished, Black Burnished, and even Red-on-White pottery) make up 65 percent of the utilized sherds from Stratum 1. And although some distinction can be made between coarser and finer wares at this earlier period largely based on temper size and relative thickness (traditional methods for differentiating the two), they are similar in that the coarser ware shares similar methods of surface treatment with that of the finer wares (with 65.6 percent of the coarse ware from Stratum 1 featuring a light-colored slip, and 12.6 percent red burnished). Although the treatments are not as refined on the coarse ware, most have been treated in some way. By Stratum 4, it is evident that coarse ware had become a very distinct type of category, with larger, thicker vessels featuring little surface treatment dominating the assemblage by weight (as much as 43 percent of the assemblage by Stratum 5). The surface treatment of the coarse ware became minimal through time, and nearly 45 percent of the coarse ware from Stratum 5 was untreated. The coarse ware from Strata 4 and 5 also featured evidence of much heavier utilization, whereas the finer wares with evidence of use alteration featured primarily light abrasion, suggesting minimal use or less rigorous activities. These changes suggest that inhabitants of Halai began to produce a specific, more expedient and durable type of coarse ware pottery with minimal surface treatment

112

AS20.indb 112

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 15. Magnified surfaces of a light-slipped monochrome sherd from EU F2c.155 (Stratum 1): (a) exterior, with the intact surface treatment clearly visible; (b) interior, showing deep surface attrition.

Figure 16. Magnified views of a light-slipped coarse ware sherd from EU F2c.150 (Stratum 1): (a) exterior; (b) interior, with left arrow pointing to large pedestalled temper and right arrow indicating a directional gouge of removed clay matrix; (c) interior, with arrows indicating patches of light slip surface treatment remaining amid the visible attrition; (d) interior, with arrow indicating large pedestalled temper protruding from clay matrix. 113

AS20.indb 113

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al. ca. 5600 B.C. for certain tasks. Significantly, exterior evidence of carbon residue was absent within the Halai assemblage, although evidence of interior carbon residues, heating, and abrasion suggests that stone boiling may have been employed as a method of food preparation. About two-thirds of the evidence for post-firing heat or carbon deposition was accompanied by abrasion, and most occurred at or near the vessel base, which may indicate cooking accompanied by mechanical action (Figure 17). This unique method of cooking has not been adequately investigated for the Greek Neolithic, and it warrants much attention, especially considering more recent work in areas of the Carpathian Basin to the north (Vuković 2011). Of further note are a number of pitted vessels that appear to have been damaged through non-abrasive processes, possibly through the processing of highly acidic foods, such as the soaking or fermenting of cereals (Figure 18).

Part 6: The Appearance of Matt Painted Ware Effie Angeli The beginning of the LN period is defined at Halai by the inception of Matt Painted ware at about 5600 B.C. Sherds of Matt Painted ware first occurred in significant numbers in Stratum 4 in Trench F2, and in comparable levels in other trenches. The ware continued to occur from then until the abandonment of the settlement, i.e., until the end of Stratum 5 in Trench F2 at about 5300 B.C. More than 1,000 pieces of Matt Painted ware were identified, many of which are in good condition and give useful information about their vessel shapes, colors, and uses. The generic term “Matt Painted” covers a variable range of fabrics and colors, but they generally have one feature in common: the paint is matt (i.e. dull colored). The surface of the vessel may be burnished smooth

Figure 17. Interior surface of a burnished jar fragment from EU F2j.182 accompanied by evidence of later abrasion, with black arrow indicating carbon residue. 114

AS20.indb 114

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 18. Two Red-on-White sherds from EU F2j.182 exhibiting only internal evidence of non-abrasive pitting, possibly as a result of the processing of highly acidic foodstuffs. 115

AS20.indb 115

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al. or left in matt, and a wet or slurry finish (self slip) is usual on the coarser sherds. A high burnish is common on the finest Matt Painted vessels. Occasionally the dark or red paint has a low natural luster, and in a few instances, the whole surface has been burnished after painting. The lustrous paint stands out immediately from the rest. The paint on the polychrome sherds is almost invariably lustrous, but it may be matt on the one-color sherds decorated with a single color. A slightly lustrous dark paint also occurs. Although such paint is exceptional in the Peloponnese, it is common, and even usual, in other regions: Acarnania, Attica, Euboea, and of course Thessaly, where it characterizes painted wares of the Arapi style. The fabric may be hard and clinky, like the best Peloponnesian Urfirnis wares, or soft and friable. All Matt Painted sherds have some inclusions in their clay, but in most sherds the inclusions are few and not visible to the naked eye. The clay is thus fine in comparison to Red-on-White ware, which was still produced in this period. The colors of the fired clay fabric range from brick red to light gray, and sometimes there is a dark core. In general, most of the sherds came from open vessels. The most characteristic shapes were shallow open vessels (small and medium in diameter), bowls with vertical or curved walls, broad-mouthed vessels with inward-leaning walls, pedestal bowls, mediumdepth or deep bowls with carinated walls, vases with

marked carination on body, vases with straight walls, slightly outward-leaning and shallow vases with markedly inward-leaning walls, closed vessels with thick neck, and jars. It is very difficult to be sure about the shapes of the closed vessels, as there were very few rim fragments from closed vessels. According to the surface and the painted decoration, Matt Painted ware from Halai can be subdivided into four subcategories: Dark-on-Light, Black-onRed, Polychrome, and Miscellaneous. In all subcategories, the decorative patterns can be found in every part of the vessel. For instance, a very common decorative pattern is a horizontal line on the top of the rim and one or more vertical lines below. Nevertheless, several decorative patterns are usually restricted to the neck or belly of closed vessels, on the interior or exterior side of open vessels, on the foot of pedestal vessels, and on bottoms and handles. Dark-on-Light Dark-on-Light ware is the largest subcategory (Figure 19a–g). The colors of the slip range from pale yellow to yellowish orange and brown. At times the slip is lustrous, and at others matt. The paint varies from chocolate brown to dark brown or very dark gray. The variety of decorative patterns is notable in this subcategory. The most characteristic patterns are two or more horizontal lines (parallel or not), wavy

Figure 19. Matt Painted ware from Halai: (a­, b, c, d, e, f, g) Dark-on-Light ware; (h) Miscellaneous ware. 116

AS20.indb 116

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai lines and zigzags (sometimes contained between two horizontal bands), merging or non-merging triangleedged bands usually contained by two diagonal lines, nested chevrons, crosshatches, fishnets, a horizontal line between two saw-tooth bands, stemmed lozenges, dot-edged bands, step-sided triangles, and a lily diagonal of a band. Polychrome The Polychrome subcategory includes pottery also referred to in the scholarly literature as “Bichrome” (Figure 20a–c). Our sherds are mostly too fragmentary to be separated for sure into those with two and

those with three colors. The color of the slip is usually orange red. There are also a few sherds with white slip. The slip is usually lustrous, but sometimes matt. The decoration of these vessels consists of red and dark-colored lines, usually two or more plain lines (parallel or not), wavy parallel lines contained by horizontal lines, parallel chevrons, and bands with dotted-edges. Black-on-Red The color of the slip in Black-on-Red ware may be brick red, orange red, or red brown, with a lustrous or matt surface (Figure 20d–f). The slip can be thin

Figure 20. Matt Painted ware from Halai: (a, b, c) Polychrome ware; (d, e, f) Black-on-Red ware; (g, h, i) Miscellaneous ware. Note that areas and lines of red color appear here in gray. 117

AS20.indb 117

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al. and smeary, strongly brush-marked, or evenly opaque. The paint varies from dark chocolate and dark brown to black (Phelps 2004:67). Most of the vessels are restricted to simple linear patterns that consist of two or more horizontal plain lines (parallel or not), wavy lines, and crosshatch. Some scholars believe that Black-on-Red pottery derives from the Urfirnis ware of the MN (Dousougli 1998:90). According to Weinberg (1962:40) and Phelps (2004:70), the closeness of Black-on-Red to Urfirnis is due to the fact that the one developed from the other. In Elateia, for instance, Weinberg (1962:40) identified sherds with Urfirnis glaze on one side and red slip on the other, and similar sherds also occurred at Halai. Phelps has also noted that in Group I at Elateia one can perhaps see the evolution of a local Matt Painted Polychrome pottery from the late local Urfirnis. Miscellaneous The Miscellaneous subcategory includes Matt Painted sherds that have characteristics found on Black-on-Red, Polychrome, and Dark-on-Light wares (Figure 19h and 20g–i). However, they do not fit precisely into one of the above subcategories. For instance, the color of the surface of some is very dark, ranging from light brown to gray. The slip on some sherds is lustrous, and the paint varies from gray to chocolate brown and dark brown. The most characteristic decorative patterns are two or more horizontal lines (parallel or not), one or more wavy lines, and dot-edged bands. One body sherd also has a lily diagonal of a band. Although the development of the Matt Painted ware at Halai is still under study, some tentative chronological observations can be made. Matt Painted sherds were less frequent in the earlier LN I strata. In the later LN I, the Matt-Painted ware also comprised a more extensive range of decoration, a development that may have started toward the end of the earlier LN I. Part 7: The Knapped-Stone Industry Lia Karimali The study of the lithic collection (N = 5,472 specimens) found on site suggests that Halai was an important component of the extensive interregional exchange network that circulated Melian obsidian across the Aegean. The detailed study of the reduction sequence suggests that obsidian (the dominant material at 90 percent) came into the site mostly in the

form of roughly decorticated nodules and that it was locally prepared, as shown by the omnipresence as well as the variety of cortical flakes and core preparatory flakes recovered (Figures 21, 22, and 23a). After being prepared, cores were knapped and rejuvenated in order to produce parallel-sided blades by pressure (Figures 23b and 24) for use in several cutting tasks (Figure 25). In sum, the large amount of material found (for comparison, 355 pieces were found at MN Sesklo, and 1,500 obsidian pieces at MN Lerna; MoundreaAgrafioti 1981, Kozłowski et al. 1996) and the fact that the obsidian was locally prepared and produced suggest the exceptional role of Halai in gaining access to an “exotic” maritime material in such an early period. More importantly, Halai’s role “breaks” the rule suggested by Perlès (1990) that during the MN obsidian entered all sites in the southern and central Aegean in the form of prepared cores—a stage of importation assigned to an indirect network controlled by itinerants. The finds from Halai, however, are an exception to this rule and suggest that the site played an active role in obsidian circulation, possibly due to its exceptional position on the bay of Atalanti. Hence, they offer a unique opportunity to understand the modes of obsidian import from the “coastal” perspective (Renfrew et al. 1965). Halai belongs to the fringes of the “contact” zone rather than the “supply” zone (which included Thessaly, as is evidenced by the finds of prepared cores; Figure 26). The Halai material is quite comparable with that of southern Greece (southern Euboea, Saliagos, etc.). We would not be surprised, then, if future comparative studies of lithics from other MN sites of the interior of the mainland (e.g. Chaeronea) show that Halai played a major role in circulating obsidian farther inland (Karimali 2001, 2009). Part 8: Conclusions and Speculations John E. Coleman The Neolithic village at Halai was generally similar to hundreds of other Neolithic villages in Greece. The density of houses in our excavated area is unusual, but we cannot know whether the rest of the site was also so densely settled. Although few other coastal sites so close to the sea have yet to be excavated, many others are known from surface indications, and still others may lie within the sea or beneath accumulations of alluvium along the shores of Greece. The marine sources of food described in Part 2 are of course available at seaside sites like Halai, and it is also possible that marine fish in fresh or

118

AS20.indb 118

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai salted form was exchanged with nearby inland sites. Freshwater fish also would have been available to villages in the hinterland in lakes and streams. The animal husbandry and agricultural practices described in Parts 3 and 4 are similar to those documented elsewhere in Greece, as are the uses and types of pottery described in Parts 5 and 6 and the obsidian described in Part 7. The network of sites in the basin-like area of the bay of Atalanti and the corresponding part of Euboea to its north, as mentioned in Part 1, suggests that many areas suitable for the small-scale villages typical of Greek Neolithic life did, in fact, have Neolithic inhabitation. The proximity of one village to another was rarely more than a few kilometers by land, and a

trip by sea across the bay of Atalanti or between east Lokris and Euboea would have taken at most only a few hours, so that our marine-oriented catchment basin could be considered roughly comparable to those of inland catchment areas where villages were spaced out at fairly regular distances. There is no evidence in our area for unusually large sites that could have exerted a great degree of central control. There are some differences in site size, however, and some larger sites were very close to smaller ones. For instance, the larger site at Halai was only about 1.5 km from a small hilltop site at Vivos-Kotrona to the southwest (not pictured in Figure 1) and only about 4.5 km from the site on a ridge at Proskynas, also to the southwest (Zachou, Psimogiannou and

Figure 21. Obsidian cortical flakes. 119

AS20.indb 119

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 22. Obsidian crested blades: (a) primary crested blades; (b) secondary/tertiary crested blades. Psarogianni 2015), which was probably of intermediate size between Halai and Vivos-Kotrona. Possibly these three sites were part of a local community that shared resources and maintained many ties of kin. At least some agricultural land was within easy walking distance of each site, and grazing land for sheep and goats on higher ground was available in the immediate vicinity. Although surface survey by the Cornell Halai and East Lokris Project and much informal observation during walks over a wide area

of the southeast part of east Lokris have not turned up small scatters of Neolithic sherds that might indicate grazing or other impermanent seasonal activity, such sherds would be very difficult to identify among the frequent scatters of later sherds that are observed. On the other hand, we have made occasional off-site finds of stone axes and flakes of obsidian of probable Neolithic date. Since the local landscapes surrounding the known villages in our area differ to some extent from one an-

120

AS20.indb 120

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 23. Obsidian specimens: (a) crested flakes; (b) blade pressure cores. 121

AS20.indb 121

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 24. Pressure blades; the blade at the right of the figure is the longest blade found at Halai (7.4 cm). other in terms of geology and topography, the villages probably would have had varied access to particular resources, which may have set some limits on the size of their populations. There is as yet no evidence for defensive walls, except for the doubtful example of the filled ditch known as “Wall BL” at Halai. It is of course possible that sites on reasonably level ground, such as Halai and Skala Atalanti, were surrounded by ditches and/or perimeter walls like those at Dimini and many other sites in the Thessalian Plain, as recently revealed by the work of Apostolos Sarris and colleagues (this volume). However, at this point we may assume as a working hypothesis that conflicts between villages were generally peacefully negotiated.

Intermarriage and exchanges of resources and manufactured items between villages were probably common, and we can speak of a local exchange network within the basin-like area around Atalanti Bay. Coastal commodities such as salt and fish, for instance, were likely among the items of exchange. Stones culled from riverbeds, such as the Revenikos River between Proskynas and Mitrou, and worked into tools by nearby villages also would have been exchanged with villages lacking close access to such riverbeds. The local network of sites in and around the bay of Atalanti was not a closed system, since it lay amid the major north-south passage by sea along the east

122

AS20.indb 122

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai

Figure 25. Blade usage. coast of central Greece. Travel by sea in Greece is generally easier than by land. It is therefore likely that the Melian obsidian that reached the North Euboean Gulf came by sea. This view is in keeping with the evidence described in Part 7 that obsidian tools were crafted at Halai from partly worked nodules from Melos and distributed from there to inland sites. Seashells, besides being a food source, were probably also items of exchange. Ornaments from Spondylus shells like those made at Halai, as described in Part 3, are found not only at many other Aegean sites, but also in great quantity along the western Black Sea coast and the Danube basin (e.g. Séfériadès 2010). The shells themselves do not occur in the Black Sea. Hence, it is likely that large numbers of Spondylus shells, both in unworked form and in the form of artifacts such as bracelets, were exported from the Aegean to many areas of Southeastern Europe. Although the details of the exchange networks that existed between the Aegean and Southeastern Europe are still obscure, the popularity of Spondylus shells and ornaments among peoples to the north was probably a stimulant for their collection and production at seaside sites like Halai.

References Cited Beck, Margaret E., James M. Skibo, David J. Hally, and Peter Yang 2002 Sample Selection for Ceramic Use Alteration Analysis: The Effects of Abrasion on Soot. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1-15. Coleman, John E. 1992 Excavations at Halai, 1990–1991. Hesperia 61:265–289. 1999 Halai: The 1992–1994 Field Seasons. Hesperia 68:285–341. Coleman, John E., and George Kakavas 2015 Οι Αλές στην Οπούντια Λοκρίδα. In Αρχαιλογικοί Χώροι και Μνημεία Δήμου Λοκρών: Το Σημερινό Στάδιο της Αρχαιολογικής Έρευνας, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Διημερίδας, Αταλάντη, 30.6–1.7.2012, edited by Maria-Foteini Papakonstantinou pp. 108–141. Dimos Lokroi and the Archaeological Ephorate of Phthiotida and Evrytania, Lamia.

123

AS20.indb 123

2/11/18 9:00 PM

John E. Coleman et al.

Figure 26. Importation of prepared obsidian cores to Thessaly. Dimaki, Sonia 2013 From the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. In Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Locris, edited by José Pascual and Maria-Foteini Papakonstantinou, pp. 395–404. Brill, Leiden. Dousougli, Angelika 1998 Άρια Αργολίδος. Η Χειροποίητη Κε­ ραμεική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής και Χαλκολιθικής Περιόδου. Publications of the Archaiologikon Deltion 66. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Facorellis, Yorgos, and John E. Coleman 2012 Interpreting Radiocarbon Dates from Neolithic Halai, Greece. Radiocarbon 54(3):1–30. Fillios, Melanie A. 2007 Measuring Complexity in Early Bronze Age Greece: The Pig as a Proxy Indicator of Socio-economic Structures. BAR International Series 1722. John and Erica Hedges Ltd., Oxford.

Goldman, Hetty 1940 The Acropolis of Halae. Hesperia 9:381– 514. Karali, Lilian 1999 Shells in Aegean Prehistory. BAR International Series 761. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2011 Malacological Material. In The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece: II. Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archeometrical Studies, edited by Adamantios Sampson, pp. 267–288. Prehistory Monographs 31. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. 2013 The Shells: The Marine Palaeoenvironment and the use of the Molluscan Remains. In The Settlement at Dhaskalio: I. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008, edited by Colin Renfrew, Olga Philaniotou, Neil Brodie, Giorgos

124

AS20.indb 124

2/11/18 9:00 PM

7 - The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai Gavalas, and Michael J. Boyd, pp. 443–450. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Karimali, Lia

2001 Επαναπροσδιορισμός της Συχνότητας Υλικού και της Απόστασης στα Μο­ ντέλα Ανταλλαγής Οψιανού στο Αιγαίο: η Περίπτωση της Θεσσαλίας. In Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Yannis Bassiakos, Eleni Aloupi, and Yorgos Facorellis, pp. 753–761. Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens.

2009 Κατανομή Λίθινων Πρώτων Υλών στη Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: μια Συγκριτική Εξέταση, In Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσ­ σαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 2, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3– 19.3.2006, Τόμος 1: Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 17–29. University of Thessaly and Ministry of Culture, Volos. Kozłowski, Janusz K., Małgorzata Kaczanowska, and Maciej Pawlikowski 1996 Chipped Stone Industries from Neolithic Levels at Lerna. Hesperia 65(3):295–372. Moundrea-Agrafioti, Antikleia 1981 La Thessalie du Sud-est au Néolithique: Outillage Lithique et Osseux. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Ethnology, University of Paris. Perlès, Catherine 1990 L’Outillage de Pierre Ttaillée Néolithique en Grèce: Approvisionnement et Exploitation des Matières Premières. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 114(1):1–42. Phelps, William W. 2004 The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece. BAR International Series 1259. Archaeopress, Oxford. Renfrew, Colin, Johnston R. Cann, and John E. Dixon 1965 Obsidian in the Aegean. The Annual of the British School at Athens 60:225–247. Sampson, Adamantios (editor) 2008 The Sarakenos Cave at Akraephnion,

Boeotia, Greece: I. The Neolithic and the Bronze Age. University of the Aegean and the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Athens. Séfériadès, Michel L. 2010 Spondylus and Long-Distance Trade in Prehistoric Europe. In The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000–3500 BC, edited by David W. Anthony, pp. 178-90. The Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Skibo, James M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. New York, Plenum Press. Vaiglova, Petra, Amy Bogaard, Matthew Collins, William Cavanagh, Christopher Mee, Josette Renard, Angela Lamn, Armelle Gardeisen and Rebecca Fraser 2014 An Integrated Stable Isotope Study of Plants and Animals from Kouphovouno, Southern Greece: A New Look at Neolithic Farming. Journal of Archaeological Science 42:201–215. Vuković, Jasna 2011 Early Neolithic Pottery from Blagotin, Central Serbia: A Use-Alteration Analysis. In Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul, edited by Raiko Krauß, pp. 205–211. Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westf. Weinberg Saul S. 1962 Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959. Hesperia 31(2):158–209. Zachou, Eleni, Katerina Psimogiannou and Konstantina Psarogianni 2015 Η χρήση του λόφου του Προσκυνά από τη Τελική Νεολιθική έως τη Μέση έποχη του Χάλκου, Πρατικά Επιστημονικής Διημερίδας, Αταλάντη, 30.6–1.7.2012, edited by Maria-Foteini Papakonstantinou, pp. 88-105. Dimos Lokroi and the Archaeological Ephorate of Phthiotida and Evrytania, Lamia.

125

AS20.indb 125

2/11/18 9:00 PM

-8Diros in Context: Alepotrypa Cave and Ksagounaki Promontory in the Neolithic Period William A. Parkinson, Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael L. Galaty, Daniel J. Pullen, Panagiotis Karkanas, and Giorgos Papathanassopoulos Abstract In this paper, we present the results of recent research conducted by The Diros Project, a multidisciplinary, international, collaborative project exploring the evolution of settlement in Diros Bay on the western Mani Peninsula of the southern Greek mainland. We discuss the results of our recent intensive survey in Diros Bay as well as our multi-disciplinary investigations of Alepotrypa Cave and Ksagounaki Promontory, located adjacent to the cave. While the cave was used throughout the entire Neolithic period, settlement and burials at the open-air site on the promontory occurred only during the Final Neolithic. Keywords Neolithic, caves, Mani Peninsula, Mediterranean, burials The Mani Peninsula in the southern Peloponnese is the southernmost tip of the European continent (Woodward 1906–1907). Its dry, rocky, mountainous terrain is separated from the rest of the Greek mainland by the impressive Taygetos Mountain range (Forster 1903–1904). Historically, Mani is known for its unique stone towers and the infamous blood feuds that gave rise to them (Allen 1997; Fermor 1958; Mirambel 1942–1943; Stahl 1986). Archaeologically, the region boasts some of the earliest hominid sites in Europe (e.g. Apidima; see Pitsios 1999), and some of the largest Middle and Upper Paleolithic cave sites in the Balkans (e.g. Lakonis [Harvati et al. 2003, 2009; Panagopoulou et al. 2002–2004] and Kalamakia [Darlas 1999; Darlas and de Lumley 2004; de Lumley and Darlas 1998]). In the Neolithic, agricultural communities exploited Alepotrypa Cave (e.g. Papathanassopoulos 1971a, 1971b, 1971c). During the Bronze Age and the Classical period, the region played a critical role at the peripheries of the Mycenaean and Spartan states (Waterhouse and Simpson 1961). In the Byzantine period and later, the peninsula was home to many monasteries and

churches (Greenhalgh and Elipoulos 1985; Kalamara and Roumeliotis 2004; Megaw 1932–1933; Traquair 1908–1909). Despite the obvious potential for Mani to contribute to our understanding of Greek history and prehistory (see, for example, Moschou 1975), the region has not been subject to intensive, systematic, archaeological survey. In this article, we discuss our collaborative research project—The Diros Project—which was initiated in 2010 and has centered around Alepotrypa Cave in Diros Bay in western Mani (Figure 1) under the direction of Dr. Giorgos Papathanassopoulos and through the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology. The Diros Project has been working to place Alepotrypa Cave into a broader geographic and temporal framework. In addition to conducting a survey of the bay around Alepotrypa, we also conducted excavations at an open-air site on Ksagounaki Promontory, located adjacent to the cave entrance. Through our efforts, we have been able to piece together the complicated story of the use of the cave and Diros Bay during the Neolithic period. Here we present the preliminary results of that research and discuss its implications for the later Neolithic in the southern Aegean. The Diros Project Alepotrypa Cave was discovered in the late 1950s by the Greek Speleological Society (Papathanassopou­ los 1971a, 1971b, 1971c, 1982–1983, 1996, 2011; see also Lambert 1971, 1972). The massive cave, which extends over 200 m back into the hill, contains dozens of niches in many different chambers, including a deep, massive, “cathedral” chamber with a brackish water lake (Figure 2). Immediately upon its discovery, the site began to be developed for a sound and light show under the Greek Touristic Service. In addition to blasting back the entrance of the cave, walkways and staircases were constructed throughout the cave and a road was built to provide access to the sister caves of Vlychada. This destruction—both inside and outside the cave—has severely hindered our ability

126

AS20.indb 126

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Diros Bay and The Diros Project study area in Mani. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried) 127

AS20.indb 127

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William A. Parkinson et al.

Figure 2. Map of Alepotrypa Cave on the coast of Diros Bay, showing the location of areas mentioned in the text. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried) to understand the complex dynamics that occurred in and around the cave during the Neolithic. Under the direction of Dr. Papathanassopoulos, Alepotrypa Cave has been the focus of systematic archaeological excavations since the 1970s. Despite these many decades of research and several publications, few specific details about the chronological duration of the use of the cave, or about the differential use of the various parts of the cave throughout the Neolithic, had been made widely known. Papathanasiou has published extensively on her bioarchaeological research from the cave (e.g. Papathanasiou 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005; Papathanasiou et al. 2000; see also Papathanassopoulos 2011:79), but little was known about Alepotrypa Cave within the broader context of Diros Bay or the Mani Peninsula. To address these issues, under the direction of Dr. Papathanassopoulos and through the Ephoreia for Speleology and Paleoanthropology, we established The Diros Project. From 2010 to 2014, with generous funding from the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the National Geographic Society, the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications,

the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, the Field Museum of Natural History, and other granting institutions, we carried out multidisciplinary studies including:

1. Intensive sampling of excavated contexts within Alepotrypa Cave, including sampling for phytolith analysis, micromorphology, absolute dating, and speleothem studies. 2. Systematic analysis and publication of the various materials excavated from Alepotrypa, which never have been published in detail. The centerpiece of this is a Festschrift dedicated to Dr. Papathanassopoulos in honor of his 90th birthday, in press. 3. Intensive, systematic, surface survey of the environs of Diros Bay. 4. Geophysical prospection and test excavations at the open-air site of Ksagounaki Promontory, located adjacent to the entrance of Alepotrypa.

In addition to this research, we also conducted several other geological, geomorphological, and geophysical studies in the region.

128

AS20.indb 128

2/11/18 9:00 PM

8 - Diros in Context… Alepotrypa Cave We initiated a systematic sampling campaign to determine the duration of occupation of the different parts of the cave. This entailed collecting samples for micromorphological and radiocarbon analyses from the deep trench located in the front part of the cave—trench Beta 1 (B1)—as well as from several other sections and features in different parts of the cave (see Figure 2). In much of the literature, the main periods of habitation and use of the cave were reported as Late Neolithic (LN) and Final Neolithic (FN), but we now have the entire Neolithic sequence represented in the cave, with dates that extend from the end of the seventh millennium—about 6100 cal B.C.—to the end of the fourth millennium. This adds a temporal depth to the various activities that occurred in different parts of the cave. For example, ossuaries and inhumation burials occur throughout the front and middle sections of the cave, and many of these now seem to have been used for several, if not dozens, of generations. In general, two different modes of space usage are observed at Alepotrypa Cave and verified by different lines of evidence from the material culture. Chambers A and B, which are the closest to the entrance, are characterized by coarse storage pottery, clay floors, pits, hearths, primary and secondary burials, finished lithic tools, short-term fires made from tree branches, twigs and grasses, and no intensive agricultural activities, implying the use of this area as a “short-term” living space. Chamber Z, by contrast, which is deep inside the cave just before the large “Chamber of the Lakes,” and is therefore less accessible, is characterized by massive quantities of broken closed-shape fineware vessels, scattered human bone, a significantly smaller number of (usually unused) tools, ornaments, and excessive quantities of burnt animal dung, implying a more ritualistic setting. Although different parts of the cave were used throughout the entire Neolithic period, the majority of dates come from the front of the cave; this area was excavated more intensively and for a longer period of time. The range of dates in B1—the deep trench near the entrance—now extends from the end of the seventh millennium to the end of the fourth millennium B.C. The vast majority of dates from other contexts inside the cave come from the fifth and fourth millennia B.C., with a significant concentration around 4000 cal B.C. We have not been able to pin down a more precise date for the end of the sequence, which seems to be sometime during the FN. Although there is one date around 3200 cal B.C., the majority of activity

in the cave seems to have ceased sometime around 3800 cal B.C. Ksagounaki Promontory During our survey of Diros Bay we identified a site on Ksagounaki, a promontory located just northwest of the entrance to the cave (Figure 3). This site, which Dr. Papathanassopoulos (2011:25) previously referred to as “the acropolis” in some of his publications, was the only significant evidence for Neolithic use of the region except for Alepotrypa Cave. There is another cave on the southern part of the bay called Katafigi, where Neolithic finds previously have been reported, and some paleontological remains also are known from the Vlychada tourist cave (Papathanassopoulos 2011). We defined the extent of the distribution of Neolithic artifacts on Ksagounaki initially through tract walking, and then we conducted intensive collection using 10-x-10-m collection units. We then worked with Apostolos Sarris and his team from IMS-FORTH to conduct a geophysical survey of the promontory (Figure 4). Based on the surface collections alone, it seemed as though the site on Ksagounaki was a singlecomponent, FN, habitation site. Except for a handful of post-Byzantine sherds and a single Mycenaean arrowhead, all of the material collected from the surface was FN in date. The promontory was covered in agricultural terraces that had fallen into disuse, and we were curious whether any sub-surface deposits were preserved beneath the (presumably recent) terrace fill. Based upon the distribution of the surface materials and the geophysical survey, we excavated in two areas— Blocks 1 and 2 (see Figure 4). In Block 2, which is located a few terraces above Block 1, we identified the remains of a corner of a FN structure oriented north-south and east-west. Several courses of the wall were preserved in the western profile of the trench, and this wall seems to have been standing when the terrace was constructed, because the rubble of the terrace fill was dumped on either side of the wall. Along the eastern portion of the wall, we identified a round, stone-built, thermal feature containing animal bones that dated to the beginning of the fourth millennium B.C., roughly contemporaneous with the last big spike of activity inside the cave. This is one of the few examples of a stone-built structure in a good FN context in the southern Peloponnese. In Block 1, located less than 20 m away, the picture was much more complicated. Here, as we

129

AS20.indb 129

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William A. Parkinson et al. began to excavate through a dilapidated portion of the recent agricultural terrace, we identified a double infant burial on an FN vessel that dated to ca. 4200 cal B.C. As we expanded the excavation unit to expose the area in front of the infant burial, we identified a multiple burial with two individuals buried with their arms and legs draped over each other (Figure 5). DNA and morphological studies indicated that the individual on the right was an adult male, and the one on the left was an adult female. They were placed this way (seemingly intentionally) in the burial pit. Just adjacent to the embracing couple, we identified another double burial that was either in the same pit as the embracing double burial or in an adjacent pit just next to them. Here we identified a mature male and a younger female in an extremely flexed position that suggests their hands may have been bound behind their back.

We were unable to excavate this feature completely and clarify its stratigraphic relationship to the double burial because of a stone-built ossuary that was constructed on top of it. This ossuary appears to have been cut into a later surface and was lined with several courses of stones that defined a circular or elliptical space. The bottom of the feature was lined with stream-rolled pebbles and contained sequential layers of poorly preserved human remains in secondary contexts (Figure 6). The ossuary yielded ceramics, beads, and a dagger that all indicate it was constructed and used during the Mycenaean (LHIII) period. Other than the one Mycenaean arrowhead that was found on Ksagounaki Promontory, we identified no other Mycenaean artifacts in our survey of Diros Bay. To date, this feature constitutes the only excavated Mycenaean feature in Mani south of the chamber tombs at Gytheio.

Figure 3. Map of Diros Bay, showing sites identified during pedestrian survey. Site 2, Ksagounaki Promontory, is located outside the entrance to Alepotrypa Cave, and is the only other significant findspot of Neolithic material identified in the study area. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried) 130

AS20.indb 130

2/11/18 9:00 PM

8 - Diros in Context…

Figure 4. Map of Ksagounaki Promontory, showing the distribution of geophysical anomalies and excavation blocks. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried) Adjacent to the multiple burials, we also identified a substantial wall that was built and expanded at some point during the FN. A partial, articulated baby burial was placed inside that wall; this also dated to the FN. The wall ran perpendicular to a massive terrace constructed with large rocks. This terrace wall appeared to have been the earliest stone-built construction in Block 1, and it was part of a large system of walls that ran in straight lines along the promontory. Unlike the later agricultural terraces, which were faced with rubble walls and which ran along the contours of the slope of the promontory, these Neolithic terraces were constructed with very large stones that ran in straight lines only a couple of meters apart (Figure 7). These seem to have been architectural terraces into which the burials were excavated. We are certain of the Neolithic date of these walls because they were located on top of earlier FN levels, and many features, such as the large

wall with the partial baby burial and a dense dump of FN ceramics and animal bones, abutted the large stones that make up the substantial terrace. Unfortunately, the end of the story at Ksagounaki Promontory remains unclear. The massive amounts of ceramics, animal bones, lithics, and other objects found throughout the rubble fill of the recent terraces suggests that there was a substantial FN layer on top of these features that has since been incorporated into the recent terrace fill. The dates we have from the excavated features suggest that the FN settlement on Ksagounaki Promontory was in use from ca. 4300 to 3800 cal B.C., a timespan that corresponds with the last intensive phase of use inside Alepotrypa Cave. Conclusions The picture that we are piecing together in Diros Bay suggests that Alepotrypa Cave was used for ritual

131

AS20.indb 131

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William A. Parkinson et al.

Figure 5. Photograph of a Final Neolithic double burial on Ksagounaki Promontory. (Courtesy William Ridge, photographer). purposes—inhumation burials and secondary burials in ossuaries—from at least the Early Neolithic. Preliminary work on strontium isotopes from bones inside the cave, conducted by Julia Giblin (personal communication 2016), suggests that there is a large amount of variation, which could indicate that people—or portions of people—were being brought to the cave, possibly from far afield. These results are especially interesting when compared with morphological studies of human remains conducted by A. Papathanasiou (2001), which indicate that there are many genetic affinities within the burial population from the cave. The work of T. Karkanas (micromorphology), G. Tsartsidou (phytolith analysis), K. Psimogiannou (ceramic analysis), G. Philippaki (stone tools), A. Hadzikoumis (faunal analysis), and M. Ntinou (carbon analysis) suggests that portions of the cave (e.g. Section Z; see Figure 2) also were being used for other rituals for two millennia. Throughout the Neolithic, the front of the cave also seems to have

been used more frequently, and more intensively. A big change occurred sometime during the FN, probably during the later half of the fifth millennium, when the settlement on Ksagounaki Promontory was established adjacent to the cave entrance. Unfortunately, the recent destruction of the area immediately in front of the cave makes it difficult to determine the full extent of the open-air settlement, but it seems to have been quite large; the surface distribution on Ksagounaki Promontory alone covers over 1 ha. By the onset of the third millennium B.C., Diros Bay seems to have been largely abandoned. We identified one small site in the region that has an Early Helladic (EH) II component (Site 3; see Figure 3), but aside from this one site, the area remained unoccupied until the Classical period (Sites 4 and 6; see Figure 3). We are only now beginning to understand how Alepotrypa Cave and Ksagounaki Promontory related to other sites in the broader context of the Aegean

132

AS20.indb 132

2/11/18 9:00 PM

8 - Diros in Context…

Figure 6. Photograph of the Mycenaean ossuary on Ksagounaki Promontory. (Courtesy William Ridge, photographer)

during the later Neolithic. Information from surface surveys suggests that the southern Peloponnese is characterized by a tendency toward dispersal during the FN (Parkinson et al. 2016), but what we have in Diros Bay is clear evidence of nucleation, or of some kind of ritualistic congregation, during the fourth and fifth millennium. Like Alepotrypa Cave and Ksagounaki Promontory, sites such as Franchthi were abandoned sometime during the FN (Jacobsen and Farrand 1987), perhaps indicating a more widespread pattern associated with settlement abandonment before the beginning of the Bronze Age. Unfortunately, the long duration of the FN confounds our understanding of whether these different patterns are temporally correlated. By the EH II period, the settlement system of the Greek mainland was organized around coastal centers that operated as focal points of exchange in a network that integrated the coastal areas of the mainland into the now-populated islands of the southern Aegean (Broodbank 2000). It is possible that sites like those in Diros Bay were an initial step in this direction.

Acknowledgements We want to congratulate and thank the organizers of the conference for pulling this all together. We especially want to thank Apostolos Sarris and the group at IMS-FORTH, with whom some of us have had the pleasure of working for the last fifteen years. We extend our sincere thanks to all our friends, colleagues, and students who worked with us in Diros, especially the Koilakos family who have always welcomed us into their home with open arms. We want to give a special shout-out to Rebecca Seifried, who created the maps and illustrations in this article. Finally, we thank Evita Kalogiropoulou, who did much of the heavy lifting for the conference. References Cited Allen, Peter S. 1997 Finding Meaning in Modifications of the Environment: The Fields and Orchards of Mani. In Aegean Strategies: Studies of Culture and Environment on the European

133

AS20.indb 133

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William A. Parkinson et al.

Figure 7. Map of megalithic boulders associated with prehistoric terraces on Ksagounaki Promontory. Whereas the more recent agricultural terraces follow the slope of the terrain on the promontory, the prehistoric terraces form straight lines despite the topography. (Courtesy Rebecca Seifried) Fringe, edited by P. Nick Kardulias and Mark T. Shutes, pp. 259–269. Rowman and Littlefield, New York. Broodbank, Cyprian 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Darlas, Andreas 1999 Η Παλαιολιθική Μάνη: Η Ανασκαφή στα Καλαμάκια. Dimos Oitylo, Athens. Darlas, Andreas, and Henry de Lumley 2004 La Grotte de Kalamakia (Aréopolis, Grèce). Sa Contribution à la Connaissance du Paléolithique Moyen de Grèce. In Hommes et Carnivores au Paléolithique: Hommage à Philippe Morel. Actes du XIVe Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège, Belgique, 2–8 Septembre 2001, Section 5e: Le Paléo-

lithique Moyen, edited by Le Secrétariat du Congrès, pp. 225–233. BAR International Series 1239. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. de Lumley, Henry, and Andreas Darlas 1998 Fouille Franco-Hellénique de la Grotte de Kalamakia (Aréopolis, Péloponnèse). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 122:655–661. Fermor, Patrick L. 1958 Mani: Travels in the Southern Peloponnese. NYRB Classics, New York. Forster, E. S. 1903–1904 South-Western Laconia. The Annual of the British School at Athens 10:158–189. Greenhalgh, Peter, and Edward Eliopoulos 1985 Deep into Mani: Journey to the Southern Tip of Greece. Faber and Faber, London.

134

AS20.indb 134

2/11/18 9:00 PM

8 - Diros in Context… Harvati, Katerina, Eleni Panagopoulou, and Panagiotis Karkarnas 2003 First Neanderthal Remains from Greece: The Evidence from Lakonis. Journal of Human Evolution 45:465–473. Harvati, Katerina, Eleni Panagopoulou, and Curtis Runnels 2009 The Paleoanthropology of Greece. Evolutionary Anthropology 18:131–143. Jacobsen, Thomas W., and William R. Farrand 1987 Franchthi Cave and Paralia: Maps, Plans, and Sections. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 1. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kalamara, Pari, and Nikos Roumeliotis (editors) 2004 Settlements of Mani. Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Network of Mani Museums. Kapon Editions, Athens. Lambert, Nicole 1971 Fouilles Franco-Helléniques à la Grotte d’Aléopetrypa. Athens Annals of Archaeology 4:199–202. 1972 Grotte d’Aléopetrypa (Magne). Bulletin du Correspondance Hellénique 96:845–871. Megaw, Arthur H. S. 1932–1933 Byzantine Architecture in Mani. The Annual of the British School at Athens 33:137–162. Mirambel, Andre 1942–1943 Blood Vengeance (Maina) in Southern Greece. Byzantion 16:381–392. Moschou, Leda 1975 Topographical Studies of the Mani. Athens Annals of Archaeology 8:160–177. Panagopoulou, Eleni, Panagiotis Karkanas, Georgia Tsartsidou, Eleni Kotjabopoulou, Katerina Harvati, and Maria Ntinou 2002–2004 Late Pleistocene Archaeological and Fossil Human Evidence from Lakonis Cave, Southern Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29:323–349. Papathanasiou, Anastasia 1999 A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Health, Subsistence, and Funerary Behavior in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin: A Case Study from Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate College, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 2001 A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. BAR Internation­ al Series 961. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2003 Stable Isotope Analysis in Neolithic Greece and Possible Implications on Human

Health. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13:314–324. 2005 Health Status of the Neolithic Population of Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126:377–390. Papathanasiou, Anastasia, Clarke Spencer Larsen, and Lynette Norr 2000 Bioarchaeological Inferences from a Neolithic Ossuary from Alepotrypa Cave, Diros, Greece. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10:210–228. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. 1971a Σπήλαια Διρού: Αι Ανασκαφαί του 1970– 1971. Athens Annals of Archaeology 4(1):12–26. 1971b Σπήλαια Διρού (1971): Εκ των Ανασκαφών της Αλεπότρυπας. Athens Annals of Archaeology 4(2):149–154. 1971c Σπήλαια Διρού, 1971. Athens Annals of Archaeology 4(3):289–303. 1982–1983 Ο Ναυτικός Χαρακτήρας του Νεο­ λιθικού Διρού. In Πρακτικά του Α’ Τοπικού Συνεδρίου Λακωνικών Μελετών, Μολάοι, 5–7 Ιουνίου 1982 (Πελοποννησιακά Παράρτημα 9), pp. 221–224. Society for Peloponnesian Studies, Athens. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. 2011 Το Νεολιθικό Διρό: Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα. Melissa Editions, Athens. Parkinson, William A., William Ridge, and Attila Gyucha 2016 Village Nucleation and Centralization in the Later Neolithic of Southeastern Europe: A Long-Term, Comparative, Approach. In Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia B.C., edited by Søren Dietz, Fanis Mavridis, Žarko Tankosić, and Turan Takaoǧlu, Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens. Oxbow Books, Oxford, in press. Pitsios, T. K. 1999 Paleoanthropological Research at the Cave Site of Apidima and the Surrounding Region (South Peloponnese, Greece). Anthropolischer Anzeiger 57:1–11. Stahl, Paul H. 1986 Household, Village, and Village Confederation in Southeastern Europe. Columbia University Press, New York.

135

AS20.indb 135

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William A. Parkinson et al. Traquair, Ramsay 1908–1909 Laconia III: The Churches of Western Mani. The Annual of the British School at Athens 15:177–213. Waterhouse, Helen, and Richard Hope-Simpson 1961 Prehistoric Laconia: Part II. The Annual of

the British School at Athens 56:114–175. Woodward, A. M. 1906–1907 Laconia: Topography and Inscriptions of Taenarum and S. Maina. The Annual of the British School at Athens 13:238–267.

136

AS20.indb 136

2/11/18 9:00 PM

-9Visviki Magoula Revisited: Comparing Past Excavations’ Data to Recent Geophysical Research Eva Alram-Stern, Apostolos Sarris, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Kalliopi Almatzi, Polyxeni Arachoviti, Vasso Rondiri, Despina Efstathiou, Evangelia Stamelou, Carmen Cuenca García, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Gianluca Cantoro, Jamieson Donati, and Meropi Manataki Abstract This paper compares the results of the excavations at Visviki Magoula in southeastern Thessaly, which were carried through by the Reichsamt für Vorgeschichte under the direction of Hans Reinerth in 1941, with the geophysical prospection of the IGEAN project on Neolithic Thessalian settlement mounds by the GeoSat ReSeArch Lab, Institute for Mediterranean Studies–FORTH, under the direction of Apostolos Sarris. The excavations of two deep trenches and the grid excavation on the top of the magoula from 1941 showed the stratigraphic sequence of the settlement starting at the end of the Early Neolithic period and ending at the end of the Late Neolithic period. Furthermore, the grid excavations produced a multi-period longhouse consisting of a sequence of rooms. The geophysical prospection gave insight into the organization of the settlement, which was surrounded by a system of concentric enclosures. Furthermore, it showed that a preceding settlement surrounded by two enclosures existed further east. The area of the longhouse was located in the interior of the central enclosure at its northern boundary, while the center itself was left empty. Keywords Visviki Magoula, Neolithic Thessaly, geophysical prospection, excavation results Introduction Magoula Velestino 4–Visviki (named according to Halstead 1984:232; see also Tsountas 2000 [1908]:4 [No. 9]; Wace and Thompson 1912:8 [No. 9]; Grundmann 1937:Plate 37 [No. 9]; Gallis 1992:93–94, A.T.A.E. 274, Άγιος Γεώργιος Φερών 3) is located on a floodplain at the foot of Mount Chalkodonion and south of Lake Karla, which used to be shallow, resulting in various flooding episodes

during the Neolithic as well as during later periods. The magoula extends over an area of about 200 x 200 m, which is used to cultivate cereals and corn. The site is situated to the west of the national road that connects Volos with Larissa. At the top of the magoula, where the greatest concentration of sherds is noticed, there is also a geodetic base of the Hellenic Military Geographical Service. There are no obvious architectural remains on the surface of the magoula. When surveyed for the first time in 1941, Visviki Magoula was reported to be about 7 m in height and 200 m in diameter (Alram-Stern 2015a)—similar to what we notice even today—which, according to Johnson and Perlès (2004), is one of the smallest settlement mounds in Thessaly. The Archaeological Finds Visviki Magoula is one of the sites excavated in 1941 by Hans Reinerth, head of the Department of Prehistory under the Special Task Force of Reichsleiter Rosenberg. The site was first mentioned by Christos Tsountas (2000 [1908]:4 [No. 9]), but Reinerth’s interest in the site probably goes back to the mapping of Neolithic Thessalian tells by Kimon Grundmann (1937). Following National Socialist ideology, one of the main aims of Reinerth’s excavation was to demonstrate the Nordic origin of Greek Neolithic culture (Benecke 1942). From these excavations a comparatively rich documentation has survived, including plans, profiles, and photos that are now stored in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, as well as in the Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen, along with a large number of finds, including stone and bone tools, as well as pottery. According to the drawings, Reinerth excavated two deep soundings (Trenches A and B) at the northern edge of the site, as well as a grid excavation (Area I) on the top of the tell. The excavations provided information about the history of the site.

137

AS20.indb 137

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Eva Alram-Stern et al. Trench A (Figure 1) produced a sequence of strata dating to the later part of the Early Neolithic (EN) and the Middle Neolithic (MN) periods, followed by deposits and mudbrick and stone walls dating to the Dimini phases of the Late Neolithic (LN) period. The EN and MN strata started at a depth of 6.6 m and had a thickness of about 2.8 m, while the LN strata had a depth of about 3.8 m (Dürauer 2015a). In contrast, Trench B (Figure 2) produced irregular loam layers that were not connected to architectural remains. The earliest pottery in this trench dates to the earlier LN Tsangli and Arapi phases and is connected to a steeply sloping clay layer, which could represent a ditch dug into these pre-Dimini layers. Furthermore, a sandy layer could originate in an unoccupied area outside the settlement. A stone setting came to light just below the surface. In contrast to the other excavated areas, the uppermost layers of Trench B produced substantial fragments of Brownon-Cream Dimini pottery, such that we should argue that architectural remains of this area possibly date to the final phase of the LN period (Dürauer 2015a:75, 2015b:86). A simplified ground plan of Area I (Figure 3) was first published in the Völkischer Beobachter (Benecke 1942). It consisted of a sequence of rooms which ended in antae and a large hearth surrounded by four columns, evoking a Mycenaean hearth room and therefore one of the earliest so-called “megaron” buildings. However, a detailed ground plan found in 1990 (Figure 4; Hänsel 2001), as well as profiles, show that the plan connected stone and mudbrick walls most probably belonging to different architectural phases. Concerning the ground plan, the small rooms in the center of the building, which are indicated in the detailed plan as having mudbrick walls, most probably belonged to an earlier phase than the stone foundations. This is proven by the profile drawings that show lower settlement levels connected with mudbrick walls on stone foundations. However, the stone foundations indicated in the plan belonged to a later settlement phase, and their superimposed mudbricks have not survived (Alram-Stern 2015b, 2015c). In any case, the ground plan suggests that the remains possibly belonged to a long house with a sequence of rooms comparable to houses known from the LN northern Aegean sites, like Pefkakia Magoula and Dikili Tash (Andreou et al. 1996:546; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1993:68–75; Weisshaar 1989:9–12). Concerning a retrieval of the excavated remains, we must take into consideration that according to a contract between the Visviki brothers and Reinerth all stone remains were to be removed after excavation.

The major features connected to the house remains include a small oven of clay, which was surrounded by an area of food preparation, a large oven with a number of spit supports, and a round hearth (see Figure 4; Alram-Stern 2015c). According to the pottery (Table 1), the architectural remains may date to the Arapi and Dimini phases, with the small-sized rooms with mudbrick walls possibly being earlier than the stone walls. The comparatively small amount of pottery dating to the Tsangli-Larissa period may belong to strata below the excavated building remains. However, MN pottery is so rare that it either could have come from lower strata or it may have been dislocated from another area of the mound. The final phase of the LN Dimini phase, characterized by Brown-on-Cream ware, is only found in the surface layer, such that we should argue that these strata have been eroded in the uppermost part of the settlement. The archaeozoological and archaeobotanical records specify the existence of domestic ruminants, cattle, and pig, constituting the main subsistence of the Neolithic population surviving in a landscape cultivated with einkorn and emmer (Galik 2015; Bertsch 2015). From the pottery, it should be argued that Visviki Magoula was mainly supplied by local production, but imports point to contacts with the Dimini area, the Tyrnavos area, and eastern Thessaly (Pentedeka 2015). While obsidian and chipped stone tools were probably not produced on-site, a Spondylus ring production has been proven (Bergner 2015; Galik 2015). Satellite Remote Sensing and Aerial Historical Surveying A GeoEye-1 image from May 4, 2010, was used for satellite remote sensing at Visviki Magoula. The satellite image has an off-nadir angle of 9.9° and a ground sampling distance of .5 m (panchromatic) and 1.81 m (multispectral). In addition to the satellite imagery, an aerial photograph from August 26, 1960, with a scale of 1:15,000 was used. The environment around Visviki Magoula is level agricultural land that rises gradually toward the west beyond the national road (500 m away) and the town of Velestino (2.5 km away). The eastern topography rises more sharply toward the foothills of Mt. Pelion, where there is a large quarry (1.2 km away) and a military base (800 m away). Various streams, irrigation channels, and roads leading to Volos pocket the terrain. There are some modern constructions, including large industrial installations especially toward the south. Several other prehistoric settlements are located in

138

AS20.indb 138

2/11/18 9:00 PM

9 - Visviki Magoula Revisited…

Figure 1. Section of Trench A, showing seven cultural layers and twelve strata of clay and charcoal. (Drawing by Heinrich Dürr, 1941, adapted) 139

AS20.indb 139

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Eva Alram-Stern et al.

Figure 2. Section of Trench B, showing six cultural layers and strata of clay and sand. (Drawing by Heinrich Dürr, 1941, adapted) 140

AS20.indb 140

2/11/18 9:00 PM

9 - Visviki Magoula Revisited…

Figure 3. Simplified plan of the so-called “megaron” in Area I, published in Völkischer Beobachter. (Adapted from Benecke 1942)

Figure 4. Detailed plan of the so-called “megaron” in Area I. (Drawing by Hans Reinerth, 1942, adapted) the same area. These include Velestino 2 (Nikonanou) 800 m to the northwest (Tsountas 2000 [1908]:4 [No. 7]; Wace and Thompson 1912:8 [No. 7]; Halstead 1984:232 [No. 7]; Gallis 1992:94–95, A.T.A.E. 331, Άγιος Γεώργιος Φερών 4), Velestino 3 (Mati) 1.8 km to the west (Tsountas 2000 [1908]:4 [No. 8]; Wace

and Thompson 1912:8 [No. 8]; Halstead 1984:232 [No. 8]; Gallis 1992:103–104, A.T.A.E. 271), and Velestino 5/6 (Bakalis) 3.1 km to the southwest (Wace and Thompson 1912:8 [No. 72]; Halstead 1984:232 [No. 72/152]; Gallis 1992:102–103, A.T.A.E. 270). Cultivation in the region is predominantly wheat and

141

AS20.indb 141

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Eva Alram-Stern et al. Table 1. Thessalian Chronology and Pottery Wares.

Years B.C.

Chronological Subdivision

Important Contexts and Typological Subdivision

Major Pottery Wares

4500–4800

Late Neolithic II

Otzaki B/C-Dimini Otzaki A

Brown-on-Cream Incised Black-on-Red White-on-Red

4800–5300

Late Neolithic I

Arapi Tsangli-Larissa

Black-on-Red White-on-Red Arapi Polychrome Arapi Bichrome Brown-on-Buff Black-Burnished

5300–5800

Middle Neolithic

Sesklo I–III

Red-on-White Red-Monochrome

5800–6500

Early Neolithic

Sesklo A–B Argissa

Early Painted Monochrome

Note: Courtesy Areti Pentedeka. corn. There are also some olive and citrus orchards. Elevations around Visviki Magoula range from 60 to 70 masl. The local environment and land use around Visviki Magoula have changed during the second half of the twentieth century following intensive farming activities and industrialization. Field boundaries and field orientations are different in the August 23, 1960, aerial photograph (Figure 5) than they appear in the May 4, 2010, GeoEye-1 image (Figure 6). During this 50-year interval, the landscape was heavily altered to include industrial facilities, a military base, and the national road. This activity has clearly affected the local environment around Visviki Magoula. Moreover, the August 23, 1960, aerial photograph documents streams and riverbeds that are no longer a part of the landscape. In 1960, two rivers passed 200–300 m from the prehistoric tell at the north and south. Now these rivers are covered over, and the land has been converted for agricultural purposes. A smaller branch of the northern river appears to pass by the prehistoric tell at a distance of only 50 m. Satellite remote sensing within a 1-km radius around Visviki Magoula produced some interesting results. The majority of features correspond to palaeochannels associated with the rivers and streams that once pocketed the terrain. Palaeochannels that

appear as soil and crop marks to the immediate north and south of the site were still rivers in the August 23, 1960, aerial photograph. Most of these are now agricultural fields with little evidence of past hydrological activity. Other anomalies relate to agricultural activity, such as former field divisions and plow lines. A third category of anomalies is unclassified. Surface anomalies in the satellite imagery and in various combinations of spectral filters indicate the outlines of the circular shape of the prehistoric tell. The evidence suggests that the mound is nearly 200 m in diameter. Vegetation stress and soil marks appear in true-color (RGB) images, and define, in particular, what would appear to be a smaller circular feature around 60 m in diameter at the top part of the settlement (http:// igean.ims.forth.gr/sites.php?nid=17256). Geophysical Surveying The geophysical survey at Visviki Magoula was carried out by the GeoSat ReSeArch Lab of IMSFORTH using the SENSYS configuration for the measurement of the vertical magnetic gradient and two ground-penetrating radar (GPR) systems: the Noggin Plus with a 250 MHz antenna and the MALÅ with a 400 MHz antenna. The latter produced very noisy signals and did not offer any useful information. In

142

AS20.indb 142

2/11/18 9:00 PM

9 - Visviki Magoula Revisited…

Figure 5. August 26, 1960, aerial photograph of Visviki Magoula. The aerial photograph identifies several rivers and streams (indicated by arrows) that were no longer a part of the local topography by 2010. contrast, the Noggin Plus GPR verified the results of the magnetic survey that produced a detailed image of the plan of the magoula (Figures 7 and 8). More specifically, the core habitation zone seems to have been confined by an enclosure of oval shape (A5) having a diameter ranging from 70 to 80 m. Within this area of about 4,500 m2, a few architectural remains are shown. The most extended one is a long compound (A28) consisting of various compartments at the northwestern side of the core habitation zone and very close to the inner enclosure. The dimensions of the compound are about 38 x 9 m, and it is most probably the particular feature that has been identified as the megaron-type building resulting from the German excavations of 1942. The intense magnetic signature of the outline of the compound suggests residues of burnt mudbrick and also hot targets within the rooms. At a close distance from the longhouse, two more architectural features (A29 and A30) are indicated, having a similar magnetic signature as the longhouse. With the exception of a small feature (A25), the center of the core habitation zone has been left empty, recalling the central courtyard in Dimini (Souvatzi 2008:112, 159). This was also confirmed by the signals of the GPR survey, which registered

intense reflections from the area of the large compound at A28, mainly from a depth of about 90–100 cm below the surface, and no reflections at all from the central area of the magoula. A strong magnetic feature (A24) representing a smaller longhouse with dimensions of 10.6 x 6 m is also evident at the opposite side within the enclosure. Two more vague anomalies are included within the inner enclosure: A26 and A27, the first most probably associated with a structure and the second possibly representing residues of modern activities. More enclosures are also noticed moving outward from the inner core of the magoula. There are at least two enclosures around the magoula, and sections of them can be seen clearly in the magnetic traces A3, A4, A20, A21, A22, A23 and A32. A few more extended enclosures (A14 and A15) expand further to the north and northeast, where the terrain is flatter with respect to the south. A two-room (12.5 x 6.5 m) and a single-room (3.5 x 4.5m) structure (A17) are located between the probable ditches A14 and A32 toward the northeast, and another candidate structure (A18) can be found inside ditch A15. At least three more structures (A7, A8, and A9) are located to the southwest between the inner enclosure and the sec-

143

AS20.indb 143

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Eva Alram-Stern et al.

Figure 6. May 4, 2010, GeoEye-1 image around the site of Visviki Magoula. ond enclosure, in an area that may constitute one of the gates of the settlement. To the east, a rectangular structure (A10) with dimensions of 9 x 6 m, together with some large dipole anomalies (probable pits; A11), seems to constitute another smaller habitation core, as there are signs of two almost concentric enclosures (5–12 m apart) that run around the particular features to the north and east. The traces of these enclosures are lost as they project toward the center of the magoula, suggesting that they probably belong to an earlier habitation phase than that of the magoula itself. Both clusters at A17 and at A10/A11 are located in the lower elevations of the terrain, and it is possible that their associated enclosures (A14/A15 and A12/ A13, respectively) acted as defensive constructions against flooding, as the simulation models have proven that the northern and western sides of the magoula were more susceptible to flooding. If we take into account that the habitation of these lower elevations at A10/A11 and A17, and even at A18, predates the occupation phase of the magoula, as is suggested from the magnetic survey, it is logical to suggest that there was a dispersed settlement in the earlier phase of occupation and a tendency toward aggregation within the magoula in later phases.

Finally, the large linear anomalies (A1, A2, and A33) that are located in the southern region of the magoula were caused by recent human interventions. A33 is the most recent anomaly, and it was caused by the ditch that was constructed for the water pipe network that leads toward the city of Volos. Integrating the Excavation Plans into the Plan of the Geophysical Survey Despite the lack of detailed information and ground control points, the simplified plan of the longhouse, which was the only one depicted in the excavations, was rectified together with the iso-elevation lines based on the interpretation of the results of the magnetic (SENSYS multi-sensor configuration) and GPR surveys by matching the orientation of the complex of rooms and taking into account its dimensions (Figure 9). The root-mean-square error of the rectification was kept lower than 4 m. It must be mentioned that extended magnetic anomalies do not exist at the highest elevation point, and that if the results of the geophysical survey are compatible with the plan of the excavated long building, the trenches should not exist at the pre-mentioned distance from the

144

AS20.indb 144

2/11/18 9:00 PM

9 - Visviki Magoula Revisited…

Figure 7. Resulting map of the high-resolution magnetic data. highest elevation of the mound. Instead, they should be located at a distance of about 20 m and 46 m from the longhouse for Trenches A and B, respectively (or 57 m and 82 m from the highest elevation of the magoula). Conclusions In general, the geophysical data for Visviki Magoula produced a settlement layout with several enclosures that were previously unknown. The definition of these enclosures outlined the limits of the tell. These measurements coincide with Reinerth’s estimate of the size of the magoula. It is possible that the enclosures acted as a precautionary measure against flooding episodes. Furthermore, the geophysical survey also contributed to the relocation of the older excavation trenches. Trenches A and B were probably located at the fringes of the magoula, Trench B possibly showing the remains of a ditch. The grid excavations were located inside the central enclosure at its northern border.

All in all, the geophysical data speak in favor of a more dispersed occupation, at least during the early phases of habitation. This is indicated by enclosures east of the later enclosures, which are overlaid by later settlement layers. Such conclusions are also supported by Trench A, where an earlier settlement sequence with a thickness of 2.8 m dates from the end of the EN to the MN period, and this earlier evidence of settlement may synchronize with these earlier phases. The abandonment of the eastern enclosures also speaks in favor of a certain shift of settlement during this period. According to the geophysical research, the house remains from the area along the northern border of the inner enclosure seems to belong to a settlement concentration. According to the excavations, these house remains were part of multi-period longhouse constructions that date to the LN Arapi- and OtzakiDimini phases. Therefore it is possible that a more dispersed settlement was followed by a more compact habitation area located around an empty central place.

145

AS20.indb 145

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Eva Alram-Stern et al.

Figure 8. Interpretation of the geophysical anomalies. The diagrammatic interpretation of the data is based on the results arising from all the geophysical methods. Acknowledgements The geophysical prospection was performed in the framework of the IGEAN (“Innovative Geophysical Approaches for the Study of Early Agricultural Villages of Neolithic Thessaly”) project, which is implemented under the “ARISTEIA” Action of the “Operational Programme Education and Lifelong Learning” and is co-funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources. The publication of the excavations of the Reichsamt für Vorgeschichte by Hans Reinerth in 1941 was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (Project No. 21596), the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Aegean Prehistory. References Cited Alram-Stern, Eva 2015a Die topographische Aufnahme des Siedlungshügels und die Planung der Grabung. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die

neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, p. 71. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. 2015b Visviki Magoula–Velestino. The So-Called Megaron Reconsidered. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3– 18.3.2012: Ι. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra Alexandridou, pp. 75–84. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 4. Ministry of Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs and the University of Thessaly, Volos. 2015c Fläche I und das sogenannte Megaron. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika

146

AS20.indb 146

2/11/18 9:00 PM

9 - Visviki Magoula Revisited…

Figure 9. Registration of the old excavation plan in Area I with the topographic data and magnetic results.

Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 76–89. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Alram-Stern, Eva, and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos (editors) 2015 Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 1996 Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100:537– 597. Benecke, Joachim 1942 Steinzeitdörfer in den Ebenen am Olymp. Erster Bericht über Ausgrabungen

des Reichsamtes für Vorgeschichte in Griechenland. Völkischer Beobachter 18 February:6. Bergner, Maximilian 2015 Geschlagene Steingerate. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die Neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, p. 385. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Bertsch, Franz 2015 Die archäozoologischen und archäobotanischen Reste. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/ Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 467–480. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.

147

AS20.indb 147

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Eva Alram-Stern et al. Dürauer, Caroline 2015a Die Schnitte im Südbereich der Magula. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 72–73. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. 2015b Visviki Magoula near Velestino. Trenches A and B. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3–18.3.2012: Ι. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra Alexandridou, pp. 85–94. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 4. Ministry of Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Galik, Alfred 2015 Die bearbeiteten Molluskenreste. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika DousougliZachos, pp. 460–464. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Gallis, Kostas 1992 Άτλας Προϊστορικών Οικισμών της Ανα­ τολικής Θεσσαλικής Πεδιάδας. Society of Historical Research of Thessaly, Larisa. Grundmann, Kimon 1937 Magula Hadzimissiotiki. Eine steinzeitliche Siedlung im Karla-See. Athenische Mitteilungen 62:56–69. Halstead, Paul 1984 Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, N. Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. Hänsel, Bernhard 2001 Ausgrabungen im thessalischen Velestino während des Zweiten Weltkrieges. In Lux

Orientis: Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa, Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann, edited by Rainer M. Boehmer and Joseph Maran, pp. 173–179. Maria Leidorf, Rahden/Westfahlen. Johnson, Mats, and Catherine Perlès 2004 An Overview of Neolithic Settlement Patterns in Eastern Thessaly. In Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, edited by John Cherry, Chris Scarre, and Stephen Shennan, pp. 65–79, McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo 1993 Nτικιλί Τάς. Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 40:68–75. Pentedeka, Areti 2015 Technological and Provenance Study of the Visviki Magoula Ceramic Assemblage. In Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 222–297. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Household in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμηνί­ου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Weisshaar, Hans-Joachim 1989 Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien: 1. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 28. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.

148

AS20.indb 148

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 10 Kouphovouno (Lakonia): Some Thoughts about the Settlement Pattern at the end of the Middle Neolithic Josette Renard and William Cavanagh

Abstract The site of Kouphovouno is located in Lakonia in the southern Peloponnese, ca. 2.5 km southwest of Sparta, on the right side of the Parori, a tributary of the Evrotas River. Continuous occupation over a long time has formed a small tell, which is about 5 m above the alluvial plain. The excavations recovered well-preserved Middle Neolithic remains in two areas, Area C at the top of the tell and Area G on its south slope. In both areas, the last phase of Middle Neolithic occupation is well represented by habitation remains, some of which lay undisturbed by later occupation immediately below the plow soil. The aim of this paper is to examine the remains that give an idea of the organization of the village at the end of the Middle Neolithic period (5600–5500 B.C.) and suggest an evolution in the use of space after the Middle Neolithic. Keywords Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Kouphovouno, architecture, settlement organization This paper on the Kouphovouno Project aims to contribute to the conference’s central theme of settlement patterns and organization, houses, households, and intra-site spatial organization. The project’s agenda was developed explicitly with such aims in view (Cavanagh et al. 2004, 2007) and grew out of the research context looking to settlement form (e.g. Kotsakis 1999), household (e.g. Halstead 1999) and demography (e.g. Whitelaw 2001). Our strategy involved a combination of intensive site survey followed by area excavation and deep soundings. After a long period of concentration on central Greece, research on the Greek Neolithic has also looked to other regions, both to the north and to the south, as well as to the islands.1 At the same time, new issues reflecting on the economy and the environment have led to fresh methodological approaches to territory and the built environment, both diachronic and synchronic. In the last few decades, systematic

surveys carried out in the Peloponnese (see Cavanagh et al. 2004 for references) also note more recent work—such as the surveys on Kythera (Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007), Antikythera (Pentedeka et al. 2010), the Eastern Korinthia (Tartaron et al. 2006), the Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project (Morgan 2008, 2009, 2010), and Sikyon (Lolos 2012)—have revealed a significant number of Neolithic settlements and have led to new reconstructions of the settlement pattern during the period. In particular, it seems that in general lowland settlements occupied in both the Middle Neolithic (MN) and the Late Neolithic (LN), such as Lerna and Berbati FS 400, grew smaller in the LN (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Johnson 1996), and that certain MN settlements were abandoned, temporarily or permanently, in the late MN to early LN, such as Franchthi Paralia, Tsoungiza, Nemea 700 and 702, Berbati Mastos, and Phlius (Johnson 1996). At the same time, an increase in the number of LN settlements has been noted, in particular the occupation of caves (Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009; Sampson 1997), but also other sites (Alram-Stern 1996). The immediate causes of these changes undoubtedly will be difficult to identify, but we can show that they took place in the context of a wetter climate and certain seismic events (Weiberg et al. 2016). The effects of this settlement pattern diversification on intra-site organization perhaps can be observed through excavations, extensive or intensive, of settlements occupied in both the MN and LN. But few settlements have been excavated, and no site excavated until now in the Peloponnese, apart from Kouphovouno, fulfills these conditions; in part, this is because they were abandoned at the end of the MN period, like Franchthi Paralia and perhaps Lerna (Vitelli 2007), or because the conditions of the excavations did not allow for a sufficiently wide exploration of the settlement, as at Lerna. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the results of the survey and excavations at Kouphovouno in order to reveal the organization of a village in the Peloponnese at the end of the MN, and to see if and how the site of Kouphovouno adheres, at the end of the MN and the MN–LN transition, to the settlement pattern which

149

AS20.indb 149

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh has been recognized from the systematic surveys mentioned above. Background The site of Kouphovouno is located in Lakonia in the southern Peloponnese, ca. 2.5 km southwest of Sparta, on the right side of the Parori, a tributary of the Evrotas River (Figure 1). Continuous occupation over a long time has formed a small tell, which is 5 m above the alluvial plain at its highest point (200 masl). The size of the archaeological site has been estimated at ca. 4–5 ha. It was first excavated by O-W. von Vacano in 1941 (Renard 1989), and it was reopened in 2001 after a survey in 1999 and a study season in 2000 (Cavanagh et al. 2004). Five seasons of excavation (2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006) recovered well-preserved MN habitation remains in two areas: Area C at the top of the tell and Area G on its south slope (Figure 2). In Area C, excavation was carried out deeper than in Area G, and it brought to light strata from earlier construction phases of the MN.

Fieldwork ceased in 2006. Kouphovouno was first occupied in the MN period, as is shown by the results of a sounding in Area C taken down to the natural soil, which was found ca. 4 m below the modern surface. The settlement was probably not founded at the start of the MN period, but in the same period as the phase known at Franchthi Paralia as FCP 2.3, namely Franchthi Ceramic Phase mid-MN (Vitelli 1993). Occupation continued through the LN and the Early Bronze Age (EBA), although with possible gaps, and more sporadically during the Middle Helladic, for which period graves have been found (Lagia and Cavanagh 2010), and during the Late Helladic . A little Archaic and Classical pottery was also found. Extensive earth-moving works were carried out in Roman times, disturbing earlier occupation levels. In this paper, emphasis will be placed on the architectural remains of the two latest MN construction phases in Areas C and G, which provide information on the spatial organization of the settlement at the close of the MN.

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Kouphovouno. (Courtesy Jean Cantuel)

150

AS20.indb 150

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)… Excavation Data

Kouphovouno and based on the deep soundings in Areas C and G can be found in Table 1 (after Mee et al. 2014:81, Table 6).

Area C Area C, at the highest point of the tell, was excavated over five seasons. The total extent that was explored was roughly 150 m2. The northern and western parts of Area C, 90 m2 in area, lay almost intact below the plow zone, and all the contexts in this part have been dated to the MN. It proved possible to uncover at least three phases of reorganization of the occupation before a probably voluntary destruction of this sector of the site, judging from the absence or near-absence of in-situ finds. Thereafter, this sector was not rebuilt in any discernible way, but rather it was refilled. The two final construction phases, which we shall provisionally label MN2 and MN3, will form the subject of the following analysis. Radiocarbon dates on charred seeds were calculated on samples taken from contexts associated with structure CIV and were related to the two last construction phases of MN date in Area C: for MN2 (context C0911), 5563–5546 cal B.C., and for MN3 (context C0905), 5613–5477 cal B.C. These dates fit toward the end of the MN sequence at Kouphovouno. A fuller sequence of 14C estimates covering the MN and LN periods at

The Remains of Phase MN2 Phase MN2 is probably the penultimate phase of MN occupation at the site of Kouphovouno (Figure 3). Excavation has uncovered four built structures (CI, CII, CIII, and CIV), probably given over to habitation, storage, and domestic and craft activities. Structure CI is a small, rectangular unit, oriented north-south, measuring 3.2 x 2.5 m overall, and open to the west. It consists of a wall footing .4–.5 m across, made up of irregular stones cemented in clay. Its superstructure was made of building clay, as indicated by the fill between the floors of phases MN2 and MN3. It is not possible to establish whether it was mudbrick sensu stricto, because no example of this sort was uncovered. In-situ finds were rare: a small saddle quern and some sherds lying flat on the floor. Excavation did not allow us to confirm whether this structure was already present during a preceding phase. Structure CII seems to have been a small quadrangular unit, oriented north-south, 4–4.5 x 3–3.5

Figure 2. Excavations at Kouphovouno: general plan of Areas A–G. (Courtesy William Cavanagh) 151

AS20.indb 151

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh Table 1. Calibrated radiocarbon estimates from Kouphovouno in stratified sequence. Phase

Sequence

Unmodelled Date (B.C.) from

to

Middle Neolithic Boundary MN Start

Transitional

Late Neolithic

%

Modelled Date (B.C.) from

to

5913 5713

%

Indices Aa

Cb (%)

95.4

98.5

R_Date OxA-20965 (C0854)

5844 5675

95.4 5805 5671

95.4 108.2

99.6

R_Date OxA-20966 (C0848)

5791 5646

95.4 5776 5656

95.4 104.8

99.7

R_Date OxA-20964 (C0835)

5758 5639

95.4 5748 5641

95.4 102.1

99.8

R_Date OxA-20985 (C0844)

5718 5576

95.4 5714 5619

95.4 101.9

99.8

R_Date OxA-20963 (C0813)

5836 5666

95.4 5793 5663

95.4 108.9

99.8

R_Date OxA-20823 (C0803)

5727 5560

95.4 5728 5572

95.4 106.9

99.8

R_Date OxA-20957 (G2016)

5615 5479

95.4 5622 5524

95.4

73.4

99.9

R_Date OxA-20956 (G2013)

5634 5514

95.4 5607 5490

95.4

84.7

99.8

5578 5303

95.4

97.9

Boundary MN–Transitional R_Date OxA-20947 (G2011)

5374 5218

95.4 5370 5248

95.4 124.3

99.8

R_Date OxA-20976 (G2006)

5369 5220

95.4 5368 5251

95.4 124.0

99.7

R_Date OxA-20952 (G2005)

5469 5229

95.3 5465 5287

95.4 110.3

99.7

R_Date OxA-20955 (G2003)

5321 5211

95.4 5325 5244

95.4

91.6

99.5

R_Date OxA-20954 (G1666)

5342 5214

95.4 5349 5244

95.4 102.2

99.7

95.4

99.2

Boundary Transitional–LN

5312 5228

R_Date OxA-21281 (G1139)

5356 5216

95.4 5295 5213

95.4 102.9

99.6

R_Date OxA-20950 (G1132)

5326 5209

95.4 5296 5211

95.4 103.5

99.5

R_Date OxA-20821 (G1651)

5212 4997

95.4 5293 5107

95.4

89.6

99.4

R_Date OxA-20951 (G1626)

5314 5076

95.4 5303 5151

95.4 111.3

99.6

95.4

97.6

Boundary

5286 5031

Note: Table courtesy Christopher Mee and William Cavanagh. a A is a measure of the agreement of the individual estimate with the model; values above 60 are considered to indicate good agreement. The overall value of A (Aoverall) is 109.3. b C is an indication of how effective the model is by measuring the convergence of the MCMC algorithm; values above 95% indicate consistent convergence. m overall, and evidently open to the north, as indicated by the presence of a pivot stone in situ and set in the floor at the northeast end of the east wall. Two wall footings, stones cemented in clay, were exposed, measuring roughly .4 m across. They met in the southeast, forming an angle slightly less than 90 degrees. A number of aligned stones were found, possibly belonging to a third wall to the west, but the

footing had been mostly destroyed by the roots of an olive tree. The footings of the east wall (Figure 4) had some insets, where wooden posts may have served as a frame for the superstructure and as support for the roof. No stone footing was found to the north, which has led us to propose a wall of light materials (reeds or branches plastered with clay), beyond which a sort of porch was formed bounded to the east

152

AS20.indb 152

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)…

Figure 3. Area C: penultimate construction phase (MN2). The undisturbed MN occupation is west of the curved line, and the MN–LN–EH occupation is to the east. (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard, Raphaël Orgeolet, and Josette Renard)

153

AS20.indb 153

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh by the east wall. Two sorts of support formed by flat slabs, one in the northeast corner and the other in the northwest, could have corresponded with the location of intermediary wooden posts to hold up the porch. There, too, in-situ finds were rare, made up of a few sherds. A sounding made on either side of the south wall revealed the presence of earlier floors associated with this structure. Structure CIII was identified through three stone footings, and a complete footing to the east measured 3 m in length and .4 m in width. Its construction technique is comparable with that of the other two structures. It was not possible to determine either the general orientation of this structure or the location of its entrance0 due to the trench boundary to the west. Structure CIII was built during phase MN2. The footings rested directly on the floor of the courtyard to the east, and there was no trace of a foundation trench. To the west of the east wall, there were probably some stone features erected that were difficult to recognize in the destruction layer, which had collapsed into the interior of the structure at the end of phase MN2. Structure CIV was composed of an alignment of stones oriented northeast-southwest, forming a corner in the northwest with another alignment of stones extending to the east for about .8 m. Three settings made in the longer alignment probably marked the presence of wooden posts serving to support a structure. To the east and south of the structure, disturbances due to later constructions in the LN and EH prevented the elucidation of this structure, and it is impossible to establish whether it was a closed building or open as some sort of shelter. In-situ finds were rare: a saddle quern and a large, tall stone, which was somewhat embedded in the floor. In between these four structures, a large open space was uncovered roughly 6.5 m east-west and 3 m north-south, within which was an installation, probably an open-air pottery firing area or a covered clamp—in other words, a temporary structure. This area, oval in shape, measured roughly 2 m east-west and 3 m north-south, and it was composed of a series of superimposed stratified contexts, consisting of red, purple, and orange levels—the remains of the broken mantle of the structure—separated by whitish, trampled levels containing lime and carbonate that were laid over the firing area when it was not in use. It was bounded to the south by a small wall made of stone and clay with a lime plaster (Ballut et al. 2017). This space was probably already there before phase MN2. In the corner formed by structures CII and CIII in this courtyard, an oven or hearth was constructed, separated from the area used for firing pottery by an alignment of stones 1.5 m long. This

courtyard did not yield many finds: in the region of the hearth, a few stone tools and a few fragments of Urfirnis containers, as well as a saddle-quern, though not in its original place. The Remains of Phase MN3 Phase MN3 has been identified as the final phase of MN occupation in Area C (Figure 5). After Structure CIII had been destroyed and filled in, the very process of refilling led to a releveling of the floors of the other structures, as well as that of the courtyard and associated areas. The other structures underwent various new reconstructions. Structure CI saw its west wall replaced by a wall about .4 m further east, resting on a new floor level. The structure then covered an area 3 x 2.1 m overall. This new footing was made of considerably larger stones chocked with smaller stones. Its entrance to the west seems to have disappeared in favor of a probable entrance to the east. The end of the south wall of phase MN2 thereby formed a sort of anta, perhaps intended to support a porch whose northern end would have been supported by an extension westwards of the north wall. In-situ artifacts were just as rare as in phase MN2: that is, some sherds lying flat, a quern, a stone chisel, and some chipped stone tools. Structure CII certainly underwent modifications after the raising of the floor level from phase MN2. The two small post pads and the pivot stone were buried and replaced, to the west, by a new paving located slightly further to the north. The west part of the structure was very disturbed by the roots of the olive tree mentioned above and by holes made by burrowing animals. Along the east wall, a large, broken bowl with a pedestal base, a small cooking vessel, and a carinated bowl were found in situ. Structure CIII was destroyed and filled in. The fill consisted of the remains of the clay superstructure and probably of the roof, and it was packed up to the top of the stone footings. The complex had been covered over again by the floor level of the courtyard. Structure CIV witnessed the raising of its floor, which did not totally cover the large stone that now gave the appearance of a large saddle quern. On the floor to the east, some sherds from the same container and carbonized seeds were recovered. The courtyard was probably enlarged to the west over the site of Structure CIII and the oven/hearth was raised and reused, probably as a simple hearth. Two large, broken pedestal bowls, one inside the other, and a long bone tool, also broken, rested in situ on the floor of the courtyard to the east of the hearth and to the south of the south wall of Structure CII. A

154

AS20.indb 154

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)…

Figure 4. Footings of the east wall of Structure CII at the end of the 2005 excavation. (Courtesy Anaïg Frémont, photographer) 155

AS20.indb 155

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh

Figure 5. Area C: last construction phase (MN3). The undisturbed MN occupation is west of the curved line, and the MN–LN–EH occupation is to the east. (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard, Raphaël Orgeolet, and Josette Renard)

156

AS20.indb 156

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)… large saddle quern was positioned, again on the floor, just to the west of the hearth. The pottery firing area remained in use, having been raised at the same time as the floor of the courtyard. A number of sherds and cracked stones seem to have been thrown away in the east end of the courtyard. In summary, during the penultimate phase of MN occupation, the excavation of Area C revealed a group of four structures built around a courtyard associated with a pottery-firing area and some cooking installations. The final phase of occupation saw the disappearance of Structure CIII and some modifications to CI, CII, and CIV. After this, the group of buildings was destroyed and the remains filled over. Area G Area G lies on the south slope of the tell, about 25 m southeast of Area C. The extent that was excavated covered some 115 m2. The area was subdivided into several sectors. Sector G1, excavated in 2002 and 2003, revealed mainly LN levels, at which point excavation stopped, as well as an EH II pit. A stratigraphic sounding, however, reached the MN layer, but without reaching the virgin subsoil. Sector G2, excavated in 2005, also exposed LN levels, at which point excavation was suspended. Sector G3, excavated in 2005, yielded LN levels and was halted upon reaching the MN levels. Finally, Sector G3 West, excavated in 2006, essentially revealed MN levels, with the exception of a large cutting of Roman date at the western edge of the sector, which cut into the MN layers. On the east side of Sector G3 West was an EH II pit, which cut into the MN features. Our analysis will concentrate on Sector G3 West and its final occupation phase, corresponding with MN3 in Area C. 14C dates from the latest MN levels in Areas C and G lie within the range 5612–5477 cal B.C. (see Table 1). At the end of this phase, it seems that Sector G3 West saw no new construction in the LN phase. As in the west part of Area C, the west part of Area G was probably deliberately destroyed and filled in. In the MN3 phase (Figure 6), Area G yielded four structures completely or partially exposed. Structure GII is a small rectangle, apsidal at the north end, measuring 3 x 2 m in overall dimensions. The footings are relatively poorly preserved at this level and were constructed during a phase prior to the final leveling of the floor in phase MN3. They are constructed of small stones, arranged as stretchers, consequently following the same construction methods as in Area C. No entrance could be clearly distinguished. The finds found on the floor were few

in number and did not include large containers broken in situ. Structure GIII is located to the east of Structure GII, bridging the excavation of Sectors G3 and G3 West. It was only partially excavated, and it had been partly destroyed by an EH pit to the north. The south wall measured roughly 2.7 m overall, the west wall was preserved for 1.5 m, and the east wall was uncovered over some 1.5 m as well. An entrance was probably located in the southeast corner, judging from a pivot stone found in the fill of the structure. The contexts forming this complex were purely MN in date, whereas to the east of the structure, LN levels were found. A mass of clay, burnt red by fire, was attached to one of the stones of the footing, but no fragments were found indicating the presence of mudbrick. Structure GIV is located to the south of Structure GIII and to the southeast of Structure GII. It continued beyond the limits of the excavation and consisted of well-preserved footings, constructed in the same way as the footings of the other structures. Two walls joined to form a right angle in the northwest. The north wall was excavated to a depth of over 1.4 m and the west to over .8 m. In-situ finds were just as rare as in the other structures already discussed, but those found date exclusively to the MN. Structure GV is located to the northeast of Structure GII and to the north of Structure GIII. It consisted of two wall footings, similar to those of the other structures, which met at a right angle to the southwest. This structure was only partly excavated at the very end of the campaign. No finds were collected. These four structures were grouped around small spaces on the outside, such as a courtyard to the north of Structure GII, around which Structures GII and GV and probably also GIII were arranged, or a small yard of some sort between GII, GIII, and GIV. The courtyard to the north contained some form of stone platform. At the end of the final MN occupation, the buildings were destroyed and filled in, just as in Area C. Discussion Suggestions about the Organization of the Village at the End of the MN What emerges from this presentation of the remains from the final phases of MN occupation in Areas C and G is the arrangement of settlement in small structures erected around courtyards or open spaces intended for domestic and craft activities. Until now, there has been only one site in the

157

AS20.indb 157

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh

Figure 6. Area G: last construction phase (MN3). (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard and Josette Renard) Peloponnese that has yielded architectural remains similar to those at Kouphovouno. At Lerna (Vitelli 2007:Figures 8–10), Sector J (Lerna II) has three subphases (J.A, J.B, and J.C) that reveal units of small size, namely with dimensions of 1.5–2 x 2.5–3.5 m, comparable with Structures CI and GII. They were separated by a space without buildings and underwent alterations like the structures at Kouphovouno. It is worth nothing that Vitelli indicates two levels in sub-phase J.C within which changes took place that are comparable with those observed between phases MN2 and MN3 at Kouphovouno: that is, the walls of the first level were reused, as in Structure CII at

Kouphovouno, or they were replaced by walls slightly shifted in comparison with those preceding them, as in Structure CI at Kouphovouno. Some walls were simply destroyed between the two sub-phases, like those of Structure CIII at Kouphovouno between phases MN2 and MN3. As far as the construction method is concerned, it is worth mentioning House A at Ayioryitika (Petrakis 2002:26–27), which is similar in size (2.2 x 2.7 m) to Kouphovouno Structures CI and GII and shows similar stone footings. It also shows phases of construction in which one phase of footing was built on top of the earlier footings. The superstructure was

158

AS20.indb 158

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)… probably built of mud. A pivot hole for a door was found, which again recalls Structures CII and GIII in Kouphovouno. At Franchthi Paralia, too, a number of walls were revealed (Wilkinson and Duhon 1990:52, Figure 25, 141–143). In terms of general technique, they are similar to those at Kouphovouno, with stone footings and pisé superstructure. Walls L, M, and N formed part of a small quadrangular structure, while the others were linear or curved, some of which were associated with floors, giving a general impression of relatively light constructions not unlike those at Kouphovouno. The settlement was first established in the Early Neolithic and continued through the MN into Franchthi Ceramic Phase 2.5 (the latest MN phase at Franchthi; Vitelli 1993). To find other architectural remains from the MN in Greece, one must turn to central and northern Greece, where many more dwellings have been found and either completely or partially excavated. However, within the scope of this paper, we do not claim to make a complete review of the MN architecture in Greece, and therefore we shall just mention hereafter some examples of rectangular single-cell structures that have a generally larger footprint than is the case for Structures CI and GII at Kouphovouno. These examples can be found in structures 37, 38, 39, 47, and 59 at Sesklo (Souvatzi 2008:Figure 4.5; Theocharis 1968:Figure 1; Tsountas 2000 [1908]:Figure 3.1); House C2 at Otzaki (Milojčić 1983:Figure 3.1); Building 1 at Koutroulou Magoula (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2006; Papadopoulos et al. 2015:Figure 1); houses from phases 5, 6, and 8 at Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofas 1991:Figures 5, 6, 8); or indeed certain houses at Pallini-Leondari in Attica (Steinhauer 2001:29) and House C in Stratum VII at Knossos (Tomkins 2004:43–45). Two hypotheses can be explored with reference to the organization of the MN habitations at Kouphovouno: (1) each structure corresponded to an individual habitation, in which case the houses were very small, with little differentiation within the space and with domestic installations outside, and (2) habitation consisted of several units, which implies more spacious houses and a differentiation of the units into areas for habitation, storage, and craft activities. It is difficult to decide between either hypothesis, given that the excavated part of the settlement at Kouphovouno reveals that the structures probably were emptied of their contents before being reconstructed between phases MN2 and MN3, or before being destroyed and filled in, during which process all remaining indications of the function of these structures were erased. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the successive floors of Structure CIV yielded concentrations of cereal seeds, far more than in any other MN context,

which might, therefore, be taken to indicate that this structure was given over to the storage of grain, unlike the others. It can also be noted that the floors of the various structures belonging to phase MN3 seem to have been much less carefully constructed than those of phase MN2, which might indicate that certain built spaces had perhaps changed function. In brief, at the end of the MN, Kouphovouno would have presented a picture of a settlement composed of buildings clustered around courtyards, in which activities took place communal to several habitation units, as the probable pottery-firing area in Area C reveals. The units did not share walls in common, and access paths for moving around the settlement were constructed between the buildings, for example between Structures CI and CII, CI and CIV, and GII and GIII. After the MN, habitation seems to have been concentrated in the central part of the site in both the LN and EH. The Evolution in the Use of Space inside the Settlement Excavation has shown that Area C could be divided into two main zones, which were arranged on either side of an imaginary line running northeast-southwest (Figure 7). To the west of this line lay the constructions described above, with no trace of reconstruction in the LN or EH. On the other hand, to the east of this line, excavations some 60 m2 in area have shown that various features were constructed in the LN and EH periods. A comparable division can be observed in Area G, where to the east, in Areas G1 and G2, structures and levels clearly datable to the LN period were recorded. Area C The contexts located to the east of the northeastsouthwest line marked on the plan—that is to say, toward the center of the settlement—reveal some notable features that are probably of LN date, as indicated by the proportion of pottery of this date in the assemblages, even though no plan of a complete building of this date has been uncovered. A large irregular spread of unsorted limestone and schist cobbles mixed with dark brown silty clay probably resulted from the destruction of a structure, to which also belonged a series of postholes. The sector was also occupied in the EH, and notably in the EH II. There, too, no buildings were found, because the EH levels at the top of the tell are seriously eroded and probably have disappeared; but several pits and

159

AS20.indb 159

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh

Figure 7. Plan with a line dividing the settlement in two parts: to the west is the area undisturbed by later Neolithic or EH constructions; to the east is the area occupied by later Neolithic and EH constructions. (Courtesy Jean-Pierre Renard and Josette Renard) some stone platforms, whose function still needs to be clarified, have been clearly dated by the pottery they contained. In the contexts to the west of the northeastsouthwest line drawn on the plan—that is to say, in the direction of the edge of the settlement—all the pottery revealed in Area C dates to the MN, which argues in favor of a reorganization of the settlement’s space after the MN. This part of Area C, after the MN3 constructions had been destroyed and leveled (phase MN4), would have been dedicated to functions other than habitation, such as vegetable gardens or pastures. Furthermore, in Area E, located west of Area C and excavated in 2002 (Cavanagh et al. 2007), which was cut by a Roman terrace and ditch, the fills here contained a mixture of pottery from all the periods represented at the site, but with much from the MN. This tends to show that the Roman terracing cut through MN levels and leads to the conclusion that this area, located beyond the imaginary line and the edge of the excavation in Area C, would not have

witnessed occupation in either the LN or indeed the EH periods. These observations lend support to our theory of a change in the occupation of the land. Area G As for Area G, an imaginary line can be traced in Sector G3 West (see Figure 7). The contexts located to the east of this line show various reorganizations of the settlement during occupation after the MN and notably in the LN, a period for which clear levels have been excavated and structures uncovered in Sector G1. LN stone footings of walls, some of which were associated with postholes, and floors were also uncovered, as well as various domestic installations such as stone settings for large jars. In the stratigraphic sounding made in this very sector, MN levels were stratified below MN–LN transitional levels, above which were the LN levels. Representing the EH, pits filled with stones and pottery were excavated. To the west of the line, within the constraints

160

AS20.indb 160

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)… of the excavation, all the contexts uncovered have been dated by their pottery to the end of the MN. The stratigraphic section revealed by the excavation of the Roman cutting (probably the same feature as that uncovered in Area E) shows that it cut directly through MN levels. In this respect, Area F, situated to the west of Sector G3 West, has produced a significant record (Cavanagh et al. 2007). Below a Roman destruction level, recognized by wall stubs and a large mass of tile fragments and pottery, pure MN levels were uncovered. No trace of either LN or EH occupation was found in the archaeological levels of Area F. In contrast, in Areas A, B, D, and H (see Figure 7), all of which were located to the east of our imaginary line, considerable traces were found of LN (including walls in Areas B and D) and EH occupation (stone platforms in Areas A, B, and H). In the pick-up survey conducted before excavation began (Cavanagh et al. 2004), relatively little pottery was collected in the part of the site west of Areas C and G, including Areas E and F, because of poor ground visibility due to dense vegetation. Nev-

ertheless, Neolithic pottery predominated over EBA pottery (Cavanagh et al. 2004:Figures 14 and 22). Furthermore, comparison of the MN and LN pottery likewise indicates that the site was not as extensively settled in the LN period (Figures 8 and 9). These data support each other in confirming the hypothesis that the zones given over to housing in the periods after the MN were concentrated in the center of the site, and the zones on the western side of the site were reassigned. The alternative explanation—that the LN and EH levels in the western part of the site have been lost due to more severe erosion than elsewhere on the tell and to Roman building activity—seems, to us, to be less persuasive. Concluding Remarks Even though the area of land excavated at the site of Kouphovouno represents only a small part of the whole archaeological site, it has proved possible for us to consider the way in which the site was occupied at the end of the MN period. Nevertheless, instances for comparison are sadly lacking, as no other MN site has

Figure 8. Distribution of MN pottery from the 1999–2000 pick-up survey at Kouphovouno. (Courtesy William Cavanagh) 161

AS20.indb 161

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh

Figure 9. Distribution of LN pottery from the 1999–2000 pick-up survey at Kouphovouno. (Courtesy William Cavanagh) been discovered in the plain of Sparta (Mee 2001), and only a few have been reported elsewhere in Lakonia: Apidia, mentioned by Waterhouse and Hope Simpson (1960:86–87), Alepotrypa Cave (Papathanasiou 2013), and Vri Cave near Monemvasia (EfstathiouManolakou 2009:12–13). In all the Peloponnese aside from Lerna in the Argolid, the excavated MN sites, such as Ayioryitika (Petrakis 2002) or Franchthi Paralia (Wilkinson and Duhon 1990:141–143), have not yielded architectural remains that allow for a reflection on the organization of an MN village. If, then, Kouphovouno is the only representative of an MN human establishment in the Sparta area, a number of LN sites, on the other hand, have been explored through survey or excavation, both within Lakonia (Cavanagh et al. 1996; Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009; Karkanas 2006; Papathanassopoulos 1996) and elsewhere in the Peloponnese (Alram-Stern 1996; Cavanagh 1999; Johnson 2004; Mee 2001; Phelps 2004). What can this dispersal of sites and their increase in number reflect, if not perhaps an increase in population and a dispersal to other villages? If some such phenomenon effectively applied to Lakonia between

the MN and the LN, it could explain how some of the inhabited part of the site was not built upon again and how habitation concentrated toward the center of the tell in the LN period. But this in no way implies a complete absence of LN activity in those areas which were not built over, for they could well have been put to new use for farming, whether for agriculture (garden plots could have been cultivated on the immediate edge of the inhabited area) or for pasture or for herding animals in pens or stockades. The investigation of farming strategies at Kouphovouno (see Cavanagh et al., this volume) recognizes a “real contrast in the archaeology of the two periods.” New agricultural and culinary practices are perhaps the reflection of a new way of life and a new social organization, as well as a new occupation of space. The built environment appears to have been less dense in the LN than in the MN, and the houses were possibly more widely spaced apart from one another. This might lead one to suggest an everyday way of life that was less shared or perhaps more concentrated around the family core, without, however, excluding a communal life involving exchanges between the various households. The

162

AS20.indb 162

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)… diversity of forms and decorative styles of LN pottery compared with the uniformity of the MN wares—perhaps a response to a simple desire for change—seems, at the same time, to tend to indicate a desire to mark individual differences (Mee 2007, 2009; Mee et al. 2014), without, however, breaking the cohesion of the extended group (Souvatzi 2008). Of course, these are only suggestions, but in the process of combining the various datasets—palaeoenvironmental, architectural, artifactual—we shall, perhaps, succeed in clarifying the continuities and changes that marked the Neolithic at Kouphovouno. Acknowledgments The excavations at Kouphovouno are a joint project of the British School at Athens and l’École Française d’Athènes. It was carried out under the aegis of the 5th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. We would particularly like to thank the members of the Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture who helped the progress of our project over many years: Dr. E. Kourinou, Dr. A. Mantis, Mrs. A. Panagiotopoulou, Mrs. S. Raftopoulou, Mrs. E. Rozaki, Dr. Th. Spyropoulos, Mr. N. Themos, Mrs. M. Tsouli, Dr. A. Vasiligamvrou, and Mrs. E. Zavvou. We are also most grateful to the staff of the British School at Athens for their assistance. The work was funded by the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, the École Française d’Athènes, The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, and the Universities of Liverpool, Nottingham, BretagneSud and Clermont-Ferrand. We also wish to express special thanks to Raphaël Orgeolet, Thomas Loughlin, and Graeme Laidlaw, who excavated Areas C and G very carefully in 2005 and 2006. We are also most grateful to the anonymous referees who suggested a number of helpful improvements to the text. Notes For a review of major advances in the history of research, see, for example, Alram-Stern 1996, Perlès 2001, and Souvatzi 2008 with references.

1

References Cited Alram-Stern, Eva 1996 Die Ägäische Frühzeit: Serie 2, Forschungsbericht 1975–1993, Band 1, Das Neolithikum in Griechenland, mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern. Austrian Academy

of Sciences Press, Wien. Ballut, Christele, Josette Renard, William G. Cavanagh, and Raphaël Orgeolet 2017 Pottery Firing Structures in the Early Mediterranean: Micromorphological Evidence and Archaeological Data from Middle Neolithic Kouphovouno (Southern Greece). European Journal of Archaeology 20(1) 2017, 98-119. Broodbank, Cyprian, and Evangelia Kiriatzi 2007 The First “Minoans” of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Landscape in the Prepalatial Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 111(2):241–274. Cavanagh, William 1999 Revenons à nos Moutons: Surface Survey and the Peloponnese on the Late and Final Neolithic. In Le Péloponnèse. Archéologie et Histoire, edited by Josette Renard, pp. 31–66. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes. Cavanagh, William, Joost Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and Graham Shipley 1996 Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey: 2. Archaeological Data. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 27. British School at Athens, London. Cavanagh, William, Christopher Mee, and Josette Renard 2004 ‘Sparta before Sparta’: Report on the Intensive Survey at Kouphovouno 1999–2000. The Annual of the British School at Athens 99: 49–128. 2007 Excavations at Kouphovouno, Laconia: Results from the 2001 and 2002 Seasons. The Annual of the British School at Athens 102:11–101. Demoule, Jean-Paul, and Catherine Perlès 1993 The Greek Neolithic: A New Review. Journal of World Prehistory 7(4):355–416. Efstathiou-Manolakou, Ioanna 2009 Archaeological Investigations in the Caves of Laconia. In Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-modern, Proceedings of the Conference held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, edited by William G. Cavanagh, Chrysanthi Gallou, and Mercourios Georgiadis, pp. 5–20. British School at Athens Studies 16. British School at Athens,

163

AS20.indb 163

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh London. Halstead, Paul 1999 Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 77–95. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Johnson, Mats 1996 Water, Animals and Agricultural Technology: A Study of Settlement Patterns and Economic Change in Neolithic Southern Greece. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15(3):267–295. 2004 Early Farming in the Land of Springs: Settlement Patterns and Agriculture in Neolithic Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University. Karkanas, Panagiotis 2006 Late Neolithic Household Activities in Marginal Areas: The Micromorphological Evidence from the Kouveleiki Caves, Peloponnese, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1628–1641. Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2006 Κουτρουλού Μαγούλα στο Νέο Μονασ­ τήρι (Βόρεια Φθιώτιδα): Η Αποκάλυψη Μιας Νέας, «Αστικής» Αρχιτεκτονικής, Νεολιθικής Εγκατάστασης. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2– 2.3.2003, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 607–617. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 1. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Lagia, Anna, and William G. Cavanagh 2010 Burials from Kouphovouno, Sparta, Laconia. In Mesohelladika: La Grèce Continentale au Bronze Moyen, Actes du Colloque International Organisé par l’École Française d’Athènes (8–12 Mars 2006), edited by Gilles Touchais, Anna PhilippaTouchais, Sofia Voutzaki, and James W. Wright, pp. 333–346. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément  52. École Française d’Athènes, Athens.

Lolos, Yannis A. 2011 Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Mee, Christopher 2001 Nucleation and Dispersal in Neolithic and Early Helladic Laconia. In Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Keith Branigan, pp. 1–14. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology. Sheffield Academic Press, London. 2007 The Production and Consumption of Pottery in the Neolithic Peloponnese. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 200–224. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2009 Cohesion and Diversity in the Neolithic Peloponnese: What the Pottery Tells Us. In Being Peloponnesian. Proceedings from the Conference held at the University of Nottingham 31st March–1st April 2007, edited by William Cavanagh and Stephen Hodkinson, pp. 1–11. Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies, online publication. Electronic document, http://www. nottingham.ac.uk/csps/documents/beingpeloponnesian/mee.pdf, accessed April 4, 2016. Mee, Chritopher, Bill Cavanagh, and Josette Renard 2014 The Middle-Late Neolithic transition at Kouphovouno. The Annual of the British School at Athens 109:65–95. Milojčić, Vladimir 1983 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien: 3/2. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Stratigraphie und Bauten. Das Mittlere Neolithikum. Die Mittelneolithische Siedlung. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes Vol. 20. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn Morgan, Catherine 2008 Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project. Archaeological Reports 54:15. 2009 Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project. Archaeological Reports 55:7–8. 2010 Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project. Archaeological Reports 56:20–21. Pantelidou-Gofa, Μaria 1991 Η Νεολιθική Νέα Μάκρη: Τα Οικοδομικά

164

AS20.indb 164

2/11/18 9:00 PM

10 - Kouphovouno (Lakonia)… Υλικά. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Papadopoulos, Constantinos, Yannis Hamilakis, and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika 2015 Light in a Neolithic Dwelling: Building 1 at Koutroulou Magoula (Greece). Antiquity 89:1034–1050. Papathanasiou, Anastasia 2013 Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave, Greece: Past Findings and Present Research. Paper presented at the 7th Routledge Archaeology Lecture, East Tennessee Society of the Archaeological Institute of America and the McClung Museum, Knoxville, Tennessee. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Pentedeka, Areti, Evangelia Kiriatzi, Lindsay Spencer, Andrew Bevan, and James Conolly 2010 From Fabrics to Island Connections: Macroscopic and Microscopic Approaches to the Prehistoric Pottery of Antikythera. The Annual of the British School at Athens 105:1–81. Perlès, Catherine 1999 The Distribution of Magoules in Eastern Thessaly. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 42–56. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Petrakis, Susan L. 2002 Ayioryitika: The 1928 Excavations of Carl Blegen at a Neolithic to Early Helladic Settlement in Arcadia. Prehistory Monographs 3. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Phelps, William W. 2004 The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece. BAR International Series 1259. Archaeopress, Oxford. Renard, Josette 1989 Le Site Néolithique et Helladique Ancien de Kouphovouno (Laconie). Fouilles de O.-W. von Vacano (1941). Aegaeum 4. Université de l’Etat à Liège, Liège. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Steinhauer, Georgios 2001 Two Neolithic Settlements. In Mesogeia: History and Culture of Mesogeia in Attica, edited by Christos Doumas, pp. 28–34.

Eleftherios Venezelos Athens International Airport, Athens. Tartaron, Thomas F., Timothy E. Gregory, Daniel J. Pullen, Jay S. Noller, Richard M. Rothaus, Joseph L. Rife, Lita Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, Robert Schon, William R. Caraher, David K. Pettegrew, and Dimitris Nakassis 2006 The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: Integrated Methods for a Dynamic Landscape. Hesperia 75(4):453–523. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1968 Ανασκαφαί εν Σέσκλω. Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 15:24–30. Tomkins, Peter 2004 Filling in the “Neolithic Background”: Social Life and Social Transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age. In The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited, edited by John C. Barrett and Paul Halstead, pp. 38–63. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προïστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμινίου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Vitelli, Karen D. 1993 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 1. Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 8. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 1999 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 2. The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 10. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2007 Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: V. The Neolithic Pottery from Lerna. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Waterhouse, Helen, and Richard Hope-Simpson 1960 Prehistoric Laconia: Part I. The Annual of the British School at Athens 55:67–107. Weiberg, Erika, Ingmar Unkel, Katerina Kouli, Karin Holmgren, Pavlos Avramidis, Anton Bonnier, Flint Dibble, Martin Finné, Adam Izdebski, Christos Katransiotis, Sharon R. Stocker, Maria Andwinge, Kalliopi Baika, Meighan Boyd, and Christian Heymann 2016 The Socio-Environmental History of the Peloponnese during the Holocene: Towards an Integrated Understanding of the Past. Quaternary Science Reviews 136:40–65. Whitelaw, Todd 2001 From Sites to Communities: Defining the

165

AS20.indb 165

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Josette Renard and William Cavanagh Human Dimensions of Minoan Urbanism. In Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Keith Branigan, pp. 15–37. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology. Sheffield Academic Press, London.

Wilkinson, Tony J., and Susan T. Duhon 1990 Franchthi Paralia: The Sediments, Stratigraphy, and Offshore Investigations, with contributions by John A. Gifford and Sytze Bottema. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 6. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

166

AS20.indb 166

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 11 Pictures of Home: Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece Dimitris Kloukinas

Abstract The present paper addresses house construction practices in Neolithic northern Greece (Macedonia and Thrace). Its main objective is to assemble the available evidence and to summarize the principal characteristics of the architectural record. Moreover, it is to turn the focus to the technological aspects of Neolithic dwellings and to underline the need for finer-grained analyses of their remains. The large number of Neolithic sites excavated during the last decades offers the potential for a more comprehensive regional analysis of building technology. It is supported that, although portraying a more or less mutually tangible “architectural vocabulary,” the record indicates a significant degree of variability. This refers not only to specific stages, but also to the fundamentals of house construction. Although wellestablished traditions are not easily recognizable, the circulation of architectural conceptions and technical solutions hints at the operation of intraregional networks of technological interaction. Keywords Neolithic houses, building technology, architectural variability, northern Greece Neolithic houses, either seen as singularities or as a series of repeated, almost identical units (Bailey 2005:96), constitute the most prominent features in the landscape of Neolithic northern Greece. Their remains can be approached in a multitude of ways stemming from diverse, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, theoretical and methodological standpoints. The schemes employed may range from generalizing ones to micro-level analyses of site- or house-specific assemblages (Bailey 1996:143; Whittle 1996:13). Rather than merely involving walls and designs, houses are commonly viewed as spatial and organizational features that channel movement and everyday activity by dividing space and by creating a more or less fixed background for social interac-

tion (Robb 2007:87, 90). Their visual and tangible characteristics can be viewed as the objectification of collective bodies or institutions encompassing various metaphors and symbolisms that are significant for social configuration (Borić 2008:11; Hodder 1990). In addition to these perspectives, research in the Balkans (Stevanović 1996) and the surrounding areas (Shaffer 1983) has suggested that dwellings should also be perceived as technological products, subjected to similar conceptual schemes as other artifact categories. A technological analysis of building technology moves beyond the description of built forms and spatial attributes. What is more, it is not essentially restricted to the materialistic aspects of the construction process. On the contrary, a refined concept of technology as embedded within social action (Dobres 2000; Ingold 2000) offers useful insights into the multiple dynamics of prehistoric communities. Following an agency-oriented agenda, traceable patterns of architectural variability or continuity and change within different spatiotemporal scales can be informative about social interaction and boundaries. A set of underlying questions that could be posed are summarized as follows (see Dobres 2000:79–80): • How widely shared are certain construction principles, practices, or strategies within different spatiotemporal scales? • How much variability is tolerated, favored, or discouraged? • Does variability refer to specific stages of the chaîne opératoire, or is it more widespread in all stages of the process? • In which phenomenological scales are variations more profound or less visible? • What are the attitudes for or against continuity and innovation? • What is the relationship between the context of technological change and wider sociocultural trajectories? Intraregional diversity and homogeneity are often perceived as being decidedly influenced or constrained by local environments and the level of technical knowledge (e.g. Elia 1982:191; Mould and

167

AS20.indb 167

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas Wardle 2000a:98). However, the great variety in the employment of building materials and techniques in ecologically similar regions does not always justify this assertion. It would seem that available resources and environmental conditions are only broadly limiting factors dictating solely the outside limits of architectural design (Waterson 1997:73). It is, therefore, argued that the use of different materials and techniques, far from being uninformative from a sociocultural viewpoint, should also be seen in terms of cultural choices and affiliations to intraregional networks and identities (Johnson 1997:17). According to the normative paradigm, inter- or intraregional technological variations should be considered as direct measures of the degree of interaction and cultural distinctiveness (Jones 1996; Sackett 1986:632–633). The predominance of a distinctive house type or technology in a region could be approached as reflecting unity, while the co-occurrence of different house types may be attributed to cultural or natural transitions (Fuson 1964:190). The significance of the Neolithic house renders it possible that the “isochrestic” variations observed in the architectural record are, by and large, idiomatic of cultural identity (Sackett 1986:630). However, ethnographic studies suggest that a clear-cut approach to architectural variability is not without problems. Different types of dwellings are commonly used within the same culture, even if one of them is regarded as the “proper” one (Riviére 1995:191). Lemonnier (1986:158) noted that perceptible intracultural differences could sometimes be greater than those between groups belonging to different cultures (see also Donley-Reid 1990; Lebbal 1989). Moreover, the “cultural markers” may deviate greatly from the evidence preserved in the archaeological record. In order to understand these phenomena, it is noted that domestic dwellings, being the most complex and least portable of all artifacts (Stark et al. 1998:212), are not incorporated straightforwardly into the social fields of exchange and group affiliation. Therefore, rather than translating homogeneity or variability into cultural affinity or distance, it is argued here that the focus should turn to the circulation of technological conceptions and technical solutions at different scales of analysis. These may refer to the fundamentals of house construction or to the distribution of specific techniques employed at different stages of the building process. The distribution of technological choices, rather than built forms or archetypes, allows diversity and variability to be approached in terms of different settings of communication and technological transmission. These “technological networks,” be-

ing associated with social interaction, should not be perceived as essentially well bounded or stable. The Neolithic Northern Greek Record: Prospects and Limitations During the last three decades, intensive fieldwork in the form of rescue excavations or more systematic projects (Andreou et al. 2001; Papadimitriou and Tsirtsoni 2010) has considerably enriched the architectural record of northern Greece1 (Figure 1). A large number of settlements, and therefore dwellings, have been uncovered, so that Thessaly is no longer the only Greek region offering the potential for a comprehensive analysis of house construction (Elia 1982:1). A much less compartmentalized database, in terms of both site numbers and their geographical distribution, offers better insights into the range of materials and techniques employed, thus allowing for the identification of patterns of variability or homogeneity, and continuity or change. In addition, more attention has been paid lately to the superstructural remains of the excavated assemblages. These constitute a significant corpus of information that has been widely neglected in the past. The macroscopic and, occasionally, microscopic study of fire-hardened daub fragments from a number of sites, including Avgi, Servia, Dikili Tash, and Sossandra, has provided finer-grained evidence on building technology (Georgiadou 2015; Kloukinas 2014; Martinez 2001; Mould and Wardle 2000a). Nevertheless, there are also limitations that partially temper the quality of the dataset. The varying status of preservation has a direct impact on any attempt to fully reconstruct and compare built forms and techniques. Apart from the perishable nature of the materials themselves, certain construction or house replacement practices, and especially the conditions related to the end-life of dwellings, are deeply implicated in the creation of the record. These include, for instance, the leveling or clearing of older rubble (Mould and Wardle 2000b:34), the reuse and incorporation of materials into later structures, the near-vertical superimposition of dwellings (e.g. Nea Nikomedeia, Servia, Paliambela Kolindros, etc.; Kotsakis and Halstead 2007; Mould and Wardle 2000b; Wardle 1996), and the destruction (intentional or not) of houses by fire. The incompleteness of the picture, inherent in many respects, is further strengthened by the preliminary nature of most excavation reports, the varying quality of recording definition, often restricted to empirical field notes, and the lack of a consistent terminology. It should be stressed here that the inequalities of the record are due not only to the degree

168

AS20.indb 168

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece

Figure 1. Map of the Neolithic northern Greek sites that provide evidence about house construction. of systematic work, but also to how recent several projects are. The detailed analyses of past or more recent assemblages may significantly alter the current picture. Nevertheless, it is still essential to attempt a synthetic approach of the material at hand. This will allow for an evaluation of the record’s potentials and a reconsideration of the methodologies employed. Neolithic Houses in Northern Greece In an attempt to effectively summarize the architectural traditions of northern Greece, two basic house types are recognized. They include the semisubterranean structures or “pit-dwellings” and the above-ground built forms. To these two basic types, one may also add a number of pile-dwellings found at lakeside sites, such as Dispilio (Chourmouziadis 2002) and the sites of the Amyntaio basin (Chrysostomou 2013). The existence of “pit-dwellings” during the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe is a long-debated issue (Lichter 1993:25–27; McPherron and Christopher 1988:469–471; Pappa 2008:321–323). Their interpretation as living spaces presents difficulties,

while it has often been suggested that they should be attributed to the earliest stages of the Neolithic or the initial stages of occupation at certain settlements (Bailey 2000:263–265; Bogdanović 1988:87). In the case of northern Greece, the excavations at Makriyalos (Pappa and Besios 1999) have uncovered an extensive settlement with built forms following exclusively the semi-subterranean type. Pits or pit-like features do not constitute supplementary structures at the site’s periphery. On the contrary, they represent the main living spaces and ancillary structures that were probably organized in compounds. Stemming from the Makriyalos example, a considerable number of sites with “pit-dwellings” have been added to the archaeological record (Figures 2 and 3). In terms of chronological patterns, the longlasting assumption that “pit-dwellings” were only built during the early stages of the Neolithic can be disputed (Pappa 2008:320). More or less sizeable structures appeared in the earliest phases of the Early Neolithic (EN) period in sites including Paliambela Kolindros (Kotsakis and Halstead 2007), Mavropigi (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2013), Revenia Korinos (Besios and Adaktylou 2006), and Giannitsa B

169

AS20.indb 169

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas

Figure 2. Makriyalos II: remains of “pit-dwellings.” (Pappa and Besios 1999:Figure 10)

Figure 3. Stavroupolis Ia: semi-subterranean dwelling and ancillary structures. (Kotsos 2013: Figure 2) 170

AS20.indb 170

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece (Chrysostomou 1994). Similar indications seem to exist for the Middle Neolithic (MN) period (sites include Sfikia, Mikri Volvi, and Liti; Kottaridi 2002; Lioutas and Kotsos 2008; Tzanavari and Filis 2009), while their appearance extends well into the Late Neolithic (LN) I (Makriyalos I–IIa, Stavroupolis Ia, Thermi B, Zagliveri; Grammenos and Kotsos 2002, 2003, 2004; Pappa 2008) and LN II (Makriyalos IIa) periods. Likewise, the presence of semi-subterranean dwellings is not restricted to the initial occupation of a site, thus being related to temporary camps, and is not necessarily related to more mobile lifestyles (Halstead 2005). The distribution of this house type throughout the Neolithic seems to be geographically restricted to central Macedonia (Figure 4), although it is not entirely unknown in other sub-regions (e.g. PromachonTopolnica I; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007). This is not to say that the excavated examples reflect an established, homogeneous tradition lasting from the EN to the LN period. Besides, there is still much variation in terms of size, ground plans, and morphology (including depth, step-shaped entrances, and flooring techniques). However, it is supported here that we probably have to deal with a technological conception that appears and reappears as part of the architectural repertoire of a specific geographical region. This can be termed as the idea of “digging up the house” so as to reduce the amount of vertical wall and, therefore, the vertical loads of the structure.

Regarding ground plans, the majority of the uncovered semi-subterranean structures are circular or ellipsoid, although irregular or almost rectangular ground plans (Revenia Korinos, Zagliveri) are also evident. These are commonly accompanied by smaller pits or ancillary structures that are found either adjacent or close by (e.g. Makriyalos I, Stavroupolis Ia). The pit seems to represent the lower part of the structure, covering approximately one-third of the total height. Traces of floor paving and internal features, as well as postholes, found either at their periphery or the interior, are sporadically evident. The retrieval of burned debris in a number of pit deposits points to a mud and timber superstructure following a wattle-and-daub or comparable technique. The possible employment of alternative techniques entailing the use of stone and/ or mudbrick, is also reported (Besios and Adaktylou 2006:361). As for the roof, the common roofing of nearby structures belonging to the same domestic cluster has been proposed in order to explain the occasional absence or rarity of postholes (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004:18; Pappa 2008:295). An alternative reconstruction could be supported in the case of certain pit features at the sites of Promachon-Topolnica, Makriyalos, and Revenia Korinos. According to this, the pit area constitutes the underground part of the dwelling that could have been used for storage or other ancillary purposes. Rather than representing the living space, it was probably “roofed” with a wooden floor structuring the actual,

Figure 4. Distribution of semi-subterranean dwellings in Neolithic northern Greece. 171

AS20.indb 171

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas ground-level living space of the dwelling (Besios and Adaktylou 2006:358; Pappa and Besios 1999:183). This seems a plausible technical solution for gaining interior space, with no use of a second story that decreases significantly the distance between the two house types under consideration. Moving to above-ground dwellings, these constitute the most recognizable built forms of the record (Figures 5 and 6). They appeared since the EN period in sites including Nea Nikomedeia, Mavropigi, Giannitsa B, Axos A (Chrysostomou 1997), and others, and they gradually replaced “pit-dwellings” wherever identified. In terms of ground plans, rectangular or roughly square ones are by far the most common. Nevertheless, diverse ground plans are not entirely absent. Traces of ellipsoid structures have been attested in a number of sites, such as Avgi III (Stratouli 2013), Dispilio (Chourmouziadi and Yiagoulis 2002:73), and, possibly, Kleitos II (Ziota et al. 2013) and Makriyalos IIb (Pappa 2008:288). A trapezoidal building has been excavated at Final Neolithic (FN) Olynthos (Mylonas 1929), while apsidal structures have also been identi-

fied. Concerning the latter category, the identification of a series of adequately preserved apsidal dwellings at Arkadikos (Peristeri 2006) pushes the appearance of this house form back into the LN/FN period. The great majority of dwellings are free-standing, while sometimes ancillary lean-to structures have been identified (e.g. Servia I-II and Limenaria; Mould and Wardle 2000b:25, 30; Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2002:26). An agglomeration of rooms at FN Olynthos (Houses B and C) seems to represent an exceptional case, unfamiliar north of Thessaly (Mould and Wardle 2000a:112). House 4 at LNII/FNI Dikili Tash II, comprising three rooms with separate entrances, may also represent an unusual arrangement (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1997:693). Building size, wherever possible to estimate, ranges commonly between ca. 20 m2 and 65 m2. Smaller structures and more sizeable buildings, ranging between ca. 80 m2 and 125 m2 (or even 160 m2), are also reported. These dimensions are comparable to the average range recorded in the neighboring regions of Thessaly and the south Balkans (Elia 1982; Lichter 1993; Souvatzi

Figure 5. Avgi I: the rubble of Building 5. (Avgi excavations archive, permission by G. Stratouli) 172

AS20.indb 172

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece 2008:18). Houses may be single- or double-spaced, tripartite or otherwise partitioned. As for the possible existence of second stories or lofts, this has been occasionally supported (Mould and Wardle 2000b:37; Stratouli 2013) on the basis of sizeable postholes or buttresses and the identification of artifacts that seem to have fallen from above. The available data on built forms and internal arrangements do not seem to provide clearly observable patterns. In terms of size fluctuations, for example, the tendency for a gradual increase in the size or the length of buildings supported for Southeastern Europe (Lichter 1993:38–39) cannot be confirmed. Moreover, the number of rooms, partitions, and internal facilities is not necessarily proportional to the building size. According to Souvatzi (2008:20), this may imply that the architectural properties examined did not play a decisive role in household spatial or social definition. One observation that may be significant when examining the formal properties of northern Greek houses is that most “non-rectangular” ground plans derive from LN and FN sites. This could imply a higher degree of experimentation or openness to the adoption of new built forms during the later stages of

the Neolithic, also associated with different attitudes against conformism and innovation. Building Materials and Techniques The architectural record of the region reveals a more or less wide array of organic and inorganic resources used for building (Figure 7). The more heavy and bulky ones seem to have been easily accessible to the inhabitants. Among these, timber and clayey soils were widely used, while the use of stones or cobbles for the construction of socles or reinforcements was much more restricted. Tempering materials mainly included chopped straw, chaff, and other grasses. Coarse-grained sand (Mikro Nissi Akrinis, Megalo Nissi Galanis) and (crushed) shells, wherever available (e.g. Dispilio and Makri), have also been reported. Pebbles, pottery sherds, and other anthropogenic inclusions (e.g. bone fragments and chipped stone) that can be discerned in lower proportions seem to constitute “tolerated” rather than deliberately added material. Their presence implies the exploitation and/ or preparation of construction earth within the activity zone of the settlements. It should be noted here that

Figure 6. Sossandra: reconstruction of the Neolithic house. (Georgiadou 2015:Figure 16) 173

AS20.indb 173

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas the deliberate nature of raw material exploitation in a number of sites is demonstrated by the use of different types of construction earth according to the qualities they offer. Similar conclusions may be drawn for the exploitation and transformation of different tree species into structural timber. The amount of variability increases significantly when looking at the plethora of techniques employed in foundation and wall construction. According to the fundamental concepts of the technologies identified, two principal building methods, following quite different chaînes opératoires, can be distinguished. These include earthfast or post-framed architecture, and structures following what could be termed the “stone and mud or mudbrick” building method that is much more characteristic of the Thessalian record. Their main difference lies in the ways in which builders choose to deal with the vertical loads of the structure. More specifically, in post-framed architecture, the weight of the roof was taken down to the ground independently of the walls, probably by using continuous wall plates or tie beams linking the tops of the wall posts. On the contrary, in stone and mud/

mudbrick structures, the solid, load-bearing walls provide a continuous upper surface for the bearing of the rafters’ feet, thus carrying the weight in a more distributed way. In post-framed architecture, foundations comprise wall posts embedded in the ground, either driven directly into the subsoil or placed into foundation trenches or post pits. The techniques for the screening of the “non-structural” wall include various combinations of timber and construction earth. These may coexist in the construction of a single structure. They may also refer to its gradual “hardening” or repair during its use life. Among the techniques recognized, the use of wattles, thin branches, or reeds plastered with plant-tempered mud seem to have been the most widespread. The wattles are occasionally arranged in a typical wattle-and-daub fashion, entailing the weaving of pliant branches around more sturdy uprights (Figure 8). However, their actual weaving has not always been confirmed (Mould and Wardle 2000a:80–81; Pyke 1996:41). Bundles of reeds and/ or thin branches, set either vertically or horizontally and joined by transverses, are also reported.

Figure 7. House building materials in Neolithic northern Greece. 174

AS20.indb 174

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece A quite different framing method (Figure 9) is the filling of the wall panels with a fence-like construction, comprising closely set, round stakes (or thin poles) and split timbers, later packed with layers of mud and finished with fine plaster. The evidence deriving from Avgi I, Servia, Kleitos, Sossandra, and Dikili Tash I suggests that this technique was probably more widespread than has been documented in excavation reports. In addition, the use of plank-shaped timbers or proper planks is also attested. These were probably used for the construction of partitions or as weatherboard cladding to provide extra stability and protection from the elements. An alternative method for wall construction is the so-called rammed earth or pisé de terre technique. In modern versions of the method, the walls are built up in successive “lifts” of layers of plant-tempered mud that are tamped down between some form of shuttering. However, the evidence from Neolithic northern Greek sites (including Arkadikos and Si-

tagroi; Peristeri 2006; Renfrew 1986:176) commonly conforms to the basic principles of earthfast architecture. The identification of postholes both inside and at the sides of walls indicates the application of a composite technique entailing pisé applied on a timber frame. A different chaîne opératoire, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, was applied in the construction of dwellings following the “stone and mud/mudbrick” building method. The foundation of the walls included the use of stone socles or footings (Figure 10). Wherever these were identified in an articulated form, they comprised two or three rows of unworked stones, sometimes bound with clay mortar and a packing of small cobbles, while their width seems to have ranged from ca. 30 cm (e.g. Thermi B IIIa; Pappa 1990:238) up to nearly 1 m (e.g. Olynthos; Mylonas 1929). The use of stone socles had the advantage of preventing ground water and damp from reaching the base of the mud walls.

Figure 8. Experimental hut at Sarakini (Rhodope, Greece) following the wattle-and-daub technique. (Photograph: D. Kloukinas) 175

AS20.indb 175

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas The mudbricks, wherever used for the construction of the superstructure, were laid in horizontal rows on top of the stone footing and set in a thick clayey mortar. Due to the lack of relevant information and poor preservation, it is not clear whether their size was occasionally standardized, thus suggesting that they were formed in (wooden?) molds. The mudbricks from Stavroupolis Ib are described as “loaf-shaped” (therefore handmade) with varying dimensions (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004), while at the site of Vassilika their shape was roughly rectangular (Grammenos 1991:36–37). Whatever the case may be, the production of non-standardized, handmade mudbricks would have considerably increased the quantity of mortar required, as well as the overall duration of the building process. Variations of the building methods described above are also recognized, thus showing that the architectural repertoire of the Neolithic builders was neither standardized nor static across the region. The construction of pisé superstructures on stone footings is implied in a number of sites where no

definite mudbrick-shaped samples or daub fragments with timber impressions were found. The presence of mudbrick walls without stone socles could be supported in the case of Dimitra (Grammenos 1991:32) and Stravroupolis Ib (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004), while a similar building method is probably reflected in the construction of a “clay slab” wall at FN Sitagroi IV (Renfrew 1986:177). Roof construction practices are difficult to reconstruct due to the paucity of available information. It is generally thought, based mainly on clay house models (Trenner 2010) and ethnographic parallels, that Neolithic dwellings had gabled or hipped roofs with an adequate eaves overhang so as to allow for the better run-off of rainwater and to protect the wall surfaces. As for the construction of floors, different techniques have been recognized. These may coexist within a settlement or even a single structure, pointing to the differential shaping and division of the house’s interior space. The so-called “beaten earth” or “trampled” floors recorded in a number of sites seem to imply a minor preparation of the surface. Sometimes

Figure 9. Sossandra: reconstruction of the wall of the Neolithic house. (Georgiadou 2015:Figure 5) 176

AS20.indb 176

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece

Figure 10. Vassilika: remains of stone socles. (Grammenos 1991:Figure 2a) 177

AS20.indb 177

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas they can be equated with the occupational surface formed as a by-product of frequent use, rather than as a deliberately “laid” feature (Mould and Wardle 2000a:89). In other cases, however, micromorphological analyses have identified poorly constructed surfaces with a lime or clayey finishing, occasionally resembling the natural subsoil but with more organic inclusions (Karkanas and Efstratiou 2009). In this respect, these floors do not differ significantly from the so-called “clay-plastered” variants. The latter category comprises floors that are more visible macroscopically and consist of laid deposits of clayey soils creating a level and durable surface. They can be of a hard-packed or a more brittle nature, while in rare cases a substructure of pebbles, granules, or sherds, probably for providing cohesion, has been recognized (sites include Nea Nikomedeia, Megalo Nissi Galanis, and Dimitra). What is more, the exploitation of calcareous soils, gravel, and lime plasters for creating a more impervious floor is indicated at a number of sites, including Mavropigi, Axos A, Giannitsa B, Mandalo, Dikili Tash II, and Makri. At the latter settlement, micromorphological analysis (Karkanas and Efstratiou 2009) revealed that wellprepared floors made of lime, domestic refuse, and

clastic sediment were alternating with layers of less coherent, informal surfaces, probably revealing different temporal circles of renovation. The occasional stone- or pebble-paving of floor surfaces (e.g. Servia I, Olynthos, and Thermi B) and the use of organic matting (sites include Makri, Servia, Sossandra, and Nea Nikomedeia) is also reported. A less frequently observed technique comprises the construction of a solid wooden platform, made either of round or halved poles or thinner branches, which was plastered with plant-tempered earth (Figure 11). Timber or beamed floors have been identified at the sites of Servia, Drossia (Kotsos 1995), Anargyroi III, Mandalo, and possibly Kleitos and Kremastos (Toufexis 1998). However, considering that their preservation is subjected to decay and the salvaging of timbers for later use, a more widespread application of this technique should not be precluded (Mould and Wardle 2000a:89). A Bird’s-Eye View into the Circulation of Technological Solutions This synoptic overview of the northern Greek record reveals close affinities with the architectural

Figure 11. Servia VII: clay-surfaced timber floor. (Ridley et al. 2000:illustration 20 - digital image from CD) 178

AS20.indb 178

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece traditions of the adjacent areas, including Thessaly, the southern Balkans, and northwest Anatolia. The similarities observed point to the sharing of a mutually tangible “architectural vocabulary.” This would, in turn, facilitate the transmission and incorporation of multiple elements into already established traditions, as well as their transformation through time. In any case, the coexistence of many different building techniques in northern and central Greece from an early date till the later stages of the Neolithic does not seem to find clearly identifiable parallel in the surrounding areas (Bailey 2000:48). Regarding Macedonia and Thrace, the available evidence does not support the existence of a straightforward and homogeneous architectural tradition. Rather, built forms, ground plans, building methods, and technical choices show variability throughout the spatiotemporal context examined. There is, of course, a general inventory of building types and techniques influenced by the potentials and limitations of material resources. However, when looking at all the constituents of the building process, it is not possible to identify strictly defined and widely shared prescriptions on how to build a house. The variations observed do not always present easily accessible geographical or chronological patterns. This is partly due to the fact that the region under study is primarily defined by modern geopolitical boundaries. In order to approach and make sense of this patchy dataset, a twofold analysis of the evidence at hand is proposed. The first step would be to move toward the

fundamental concepts of the technologies employed. The objective is to focus on the general principles underlying the building process so as to differentiate between qualitatively diverse technologies and what could be termed “variations on a theme.” In the case of northern Greece, the basic technologies identified include: (a) the semi-subterranean structures; (b) earthfast, above-ground architecture; and (c) the socalled “stone and mud/mudbrick architecture.” The following step is to focus on the different stages of house construction and to isolate those elements that present a more regular distribution. By moving back to the specifics of the building process, it is possible to trace the circulation of certain technological solutions through space and time. Rather than dealing with dwellings as finished products from a formalistic point of view, it is proposed that they should be examined as the outcome of certain processes entailing both corporeal and cognitive schemas. Raw materials, techniques, and end products should be viewed within the context of embodied practices and stocks of knowledge that are enmeshed in social interaction. Starting from the fundamentals of building technology, it becomes obvious that the chaîne opératoire of earthfast, timber, and mud architecture dominates the regional record from the earlier stages of the Neolithic period onwards (Figure 12). Besides, the significance of clay- and woodworking seems to characterize the habitus of Neolithic communities in the wider Balkan region. The techniques employed

Figure 12. Distribution of distinct house construction technologies in Neolithic northern Greece. 179

AS20.indb 179

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas point to a more or less region-wide tradition or “dialect” entailing the intensive exploitation of woodland resources and the application of a complex chaîne opératoire for the production of suitable timbers. This is emphasized by the incorporation of split, squared, and plank-shaped timbers in wall framing, as well as by the construction of timber floors, raised timber platforms (e.g. in lakeside sites), and other features. In western Macedonia, the available evidence indicates the continuing dependency on various combinations of timber and mud, although innovations and variations at the site level are observed. In eastern Macedonia and Thrace, the wattle-and-daub and composite pisé techniques are commonly employed. Variability and diversity in house construction is more pronounced in central Macedonia. Besides, this is the area where almost all the building types and methods recognized in the record have been identified. The construction of semi-subterranean dwellings persists until at least the end of the sixth millennium cal B.C., while post-framed, above-ground architecture continues until the later stages of the Neolithic. In addition, the second half of the sixth millennium marks the appearance of dwellings with solid mud or mudbrick walls on stone foundations. These are mainly identified at a small number of settlements located in the wider area of Thessaloniki and the Chalkidiki Peninsula, although the evidence from late MN/early LN Dimitra (and probably EN Xirolimni; Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2009:119) indicates that their distribution is neither geographically nor temporally

strictly restricted. As for their appearance during the LN, this is probably not irrelevant to the expansion of interaction networks in regions where similar techniques are already established (as in the case of Thessaly). The mapping of individual structural elements referring to foundation, wall construction, and flooring techniques provides comparable insights (Figures 13 and 14). The general picture is one of a mosaic of different techniques presenting irregularity and a great deal of overlap. Among the features presenting a more regular geographical distribution, the use of foundation trenches is mainly attested to in the area west of the Axios River (but see the case of Vassilika; Pappa et al., this volume). Stone foundations, especially when referring to proper socles rather than reinforcements or facings of post-framed walls, are mainly attested to in the central Macedonian plains and the Chalkidiki Peninsula. Another feature presenting a more restricted distribution is the construction of timber floors, again primarily attested to in the area west of the Axios River. The same may be true for the exploitation of certain framing techniques, such as the use of closely set, round or split timbers and proper planks. Nevertheless, the study of the Dikili Tash I assemblage (Martinez 2001) indicates that finer-grained analyses of superstructural remains may alter this picture significantly. As for the distribution of mudbricks, more commonly attested in central Macedonia, this is primarily based on preliminary field reports. It is doubtful whether the presence of

Figure 13. Distribution of foundation techniques in Neolithic northern Greece. 180

AS20.indb 180

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece mudbricks has always been confirmed or whether they represent the prevailing wall construction method. In sum, the distribution patterns of different building types and techniques could support the existence of two possible (although ill-defined) “entities” presenting different characteristics. Western Macedonia, on the one hand, presents a certain degree of variability in terms of the specific techniques used. However, most of the observed differences can still be viewed as “variations on a theme,” as they basically follow the principles of post-framed architecture. On the other hand, the region encompassing the central Macedonian plains and the Chalkidiki Peninsula presents diverse characteristics in terms of both the fundamentals and the specifics of house construction, which sometimes coexist within a single settlement. It could, therefore, be viewed as a boundary zone where different features intermingle. Whether this could also be associated with the co-occurrence of diverse socioeconomic systems or lifestyles remains to be challenged. In any case, if this reading is accurate, north Pieria and the Giannitsa plain could play a significant role in technological interaction and transmission. The relative paucity of the record does not allow similar inferences to be made for the regions of eastern Macedonia and Thrace. Regarding chronological patterns, architectural variability is more evident during the later stages of the period. A similar trend is observed in relation to ground plans, while comparable evidence derives from other aspects of the material culture. In the case

of pottery, manifestations of regional diversity and distinctiveness, reflected in the appearance of local ceramic styles, are more evident during the later stages of the Neolithic. Besides, the LN period has been characterized as a period of variability and change (Kotsakis 2010). Although the circulation of certain architectural features is partly traceable, the fact is that the identification of intraregional boundaries remains problematic, as technologies are commonly overlapping or replaced. This could imply that both technological and social boundaries are of a more fluid and dynamic nature. On the other hand, the difficulty in identifying them could be attributed to the fact that houses, although signaling various messages, are less likely to be used for communicating group membership to outsiders (Cameron 1998:187). The exact workings of house construction should, therefore, be traced at finer analytical scales, such as the settlement or the micro-region. It is within these settings that technologies are formulated based on (culturally determined) pragmatic considerations and are sustained through practical and verbal transmission. When focusing on certain micro-regions, homogeneity in building technology becomes more pronounced. Examples include neighboring sites with identical features, sometimes pointing to their contemporaneous (in archaeological terms) adoption. In the area of Kitrini Limni, Fotiadis (1991) has argued for the adoption of an artificial mud mixture in wall construction at the FN sites of Megalo Nissi Galanis

Figure 14. Distribution of wall construction and flooring techniques in Neolithic northern Greece. 181

AS20.indb 181

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas and Mikro Nissi Akrinis. The roughly contemporaneous appearance of foundation trenches and the employment of comparable flooring techniques at the EN sites of Axos A and Giannitsa B can also be supported. The case of the wider area of Thessaloniki has already been discussed in relation to the appearance of the stone and mudbrick building method. Finally, the presence of apsidal built forms at the LN/FN site of Arkadikos and the neighboring Early Bronze Age (and FN?) site of Sitagroi may suggest a localized architectural tradition in the eastern part of the Drama plain. The adoption of similar techniques by contiguous societies points to the transmission or exchange of technological knowledge and expertise through networks of social interaction that exceed the community boundaries. These networks, also accounting for the development of architectural traditions, operate at a local, although not necessarily bounded, level and may encompass common perspectives and notions of belonging (see Whittle 2003:17, 68–69). It is supported here that a technological approach to house construction may add useful insights into the different networks operating within the region under study, as well as into the different attitudes and dynamics expressed. The potential of the available materials are, of course, far from being exhausted in this paper. Finer-grained analyses of building remains at the site and building scales will provide more concrete evidence of the technologies employed and of the full range of inter- or intra-site variability. The refinement of the database will be valuable for wider archaeological considerations relating to technological and social interaction, the circulation of materials and various artifact categories, and the formation of regional identities. Notes The term northern Greece refers geographically to the regions of Macedonia and Thrace. Thessaly, which is sometimes considered a part of northern Greece (e.g. Andreou et al. 2001), should probably be treated as a separate geographic and cultural entity.

1

References Cited Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 2001 The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. In Aegean Prehistory: A Review, edited by Tracey Cullen, pp. 259–327. American Journal of Archaeology Sup-

plement 1. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. Bailey, Douglass W. 1996 The Life, Times and Works of House 59, Tell Ovcharovo, Bulgaria. In Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, edited by Timothy Darvill and Julian Thomas, pp. 143–156. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2000 Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. Routledge, London. 2005 Beyond the Meaning of Neolithic Houses: Specific Objects and Serial Repetition. In (Un)settling the Neolithic, edited by Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Vicki Cummings, pp. 90–97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Besios, Mathaios, and Foteini Adaktylou 2006 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός στα «Ρεβένια» Κορινού. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):357– 366. Bogdanović, Milenko 1988 Architecture and Structural Features. In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejović, pp. 35–141. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Borić, Dusan 2008 First Households and ‘House Societies’ in European Prehistory. In Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice, edited by Andrew Jones, pp. 109–142. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Cameron, Catherine M. 1998 Coursed Adobe Architecture, Style, and Social Boundaries in the American Southwest. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 183−207. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Chrysostomou, Panagiotis 1994 Οι Νεολιθικές Έρευνες στην Πόλη και στην Επαρχία Γιαννιτσών κατά το 1991. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 5(1991):111–126. Chrysostomou, Panikos 1997 Η Nεολιθική Κατοίκηση στη Bόρεια Pαράκτια Zώνη του Άλλοτε Θερμαϊκού Kόλπου (Eπαρχία Γιαννιτσών). The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 10A(1996):159–172. 2013 Ο Πολιτισμός των Τεσσάρων Λιμνών: Νέα Στοιχεία για τη Διαχρονική Παρουσία στο Λεκανοπέδιο Αμυνταίου Φλώρινας. The

182

AS20.indb 182

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 27, in press. Dobres, Marcia-Anne 2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford. Donley-Reid, Linda W. 1990 A Structuring Structure: The Swahili House. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 114–126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Elia, Ricardo 1982 A Study of the Neolithic Architecture in Thessaly, Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Fotiadis, Michael 1991 Προϊστορική Έρευνα στην Κίτρινη Λίμνη Ν. Κοζάνης, 1988: Μία Σύντομη έκθεση. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 2(1988):41–54. Fuson, Robert H. 1964 House Types of Central Panama. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54:190–208. Georgiadou, Anastasia 2015 The Neolithic House of Sossandra. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Grammenos, Dimitrios V. 1991 Νεολιθικές Έρευνες στην Κεντρική και Ανατολική Μακεδονία. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Grammenos, Dimitrios V., and Stavros Kotsos 2003 Ανασκαφή στον Νεολιθικό Οικισμό του Ζαγκλιβερίου Νομού Θεσσαλονίκης. Makedonika 33(2001–2002):49–75. Grammenos, Dimitrios V., and Stavros Kotsos (editors) 2002 Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικι­ σμό Στραυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. 2004 Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικι­ σμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: Μέρος ΙΙ (1998–2003). Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Halstead, Paul 2005 Resettling the Neolithic: Faunal Evidence for Seasons of Consumption and Residence at Neolithic Sites in Greece. In (Un)settling the Neolithic, edited by Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Vicki Cummings, pp. 38–50. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Hodder, Ian 1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Oxford. Chourmouziadi, Anastasia, and Tryfon Yiagoulis 2002 Προβλήματα και Μέθοδοι Προσέγγισης του Χώρου. In Δισπηλιό 7500 Χρόνια μετά, edited by Giorgos C. Chourmouziadis, pp. 37–74. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Chourmouziadis, Giorgos C. (editor) 2002 Δισπηλιό 7500 Χρόνια μετά. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Ingold, Tim 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London. Johnson, Matthew H. 1997 Vernacular Architecture: The Loss of Innocence. Vernacular Architecture 28:13–19. Jones, Sian 1996 Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past. In Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities, edited by Paul Graves-Brown, Sian Jones, and Clive Gamble, pp. 62–80. Routledge, London. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia 2009 Αιανή και Νομός Κοζάνης: Δέκα Χρόνιας Έρευνας. In Το Α.Ε.Μ.Θ., 20 Χρόνια, Επετειακός Τόμος, edited by Polyxeni Adam-Veleni and Katerina Tzanavari, pp. 105–126. Ministry of Culture and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Janusz K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Yiannis Maniatis, Antonio Curci, Stefania Michalopoulou, Anastasia Papathanasiou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti 2013 New Evidence on the Beginning of Farming in Greece: The Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Macedonia (Greece). Antiquity 87:336. Electronic document, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/mentessidi336/, accessed August 8, 2016. Karkanas, Panagiotis, and Nikos Efstratiou 2009 Floor Sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: Micromorphology Reveals Cycles of Renovation. Antiquity 83:955–967. Kloukinas, Dimitris 2014 Neolithic Building Technology and the Social Context of Construction Practices: The Case of Northern Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cardiff University.

183

AS20.indb 183

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas Kotsakis, Kostas 2010 Η Κεραμεική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής στη Βόρεια Ελλάδα. In Η Ελλάδα στο Ευρύτερο Πολιτισμικό Πλαίσιο των Βαλκανίων κατά την 5η και 4η Χιλιετία π.Χ., edited by Nikos Papadimitriou and Zoï Tsirtsoni, pp. 67–75. Museum of Cycladic Art and Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Athens. Kotsakis, Kostas, and Paul Halstead 2007 Paliambela. In Archaeology in Greece 2006–2007, edited by James Whitley, Sophia Germanidou, Duska Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Irene Nikolakopoulou, Artemis Karnava, and Don Evely, pp. 65–66. Archaeological Reports 53:1–121. Kotsos, Stavros 1995 Ανασκαφή Νεολιθικού Οικισμού στη βιομηχανική Περιοχή Δροσιάς Έδεσσας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 6(1992):195–201. 2013 Ο Νεολιθικός Οικισμός της Σταυρούπο­ λης Θεσσαλονίκης. Archaeology and Arts. Electronic document, http://www. archaiologia.gr/blog/2013/08/26/νέεςανασκαφικές-έρευνες-στη-νεολιθι/, accessed April 9, 2016. Kottaridi, Angeliki 2002 Από τη Νεκρόπολη των Αιγών στον Νεολιθικό Οικισμό των Πιερίων. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 14(2000):526–535. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, Henrieta Todorova, Ioannis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, and Magdalene Valla 2007 Promachon-Topolnica: A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project. In The Struma/ Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp. 43–78. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo, René Treuil, and Dimitra Malamidou 1997 Προϊστορικός Οικισμός Φιλίππων «Ντι­ κι­λ ί-Τας»: Δέκα Χρόνια Ανασκαφικής Έρευνας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 10Β(1996):681– 704. Lebbal, N. 1989 Traditional Berber Architecture in the Aures, Algeria. Vernacular Architecture 20:24–37.

Lemonnier, Pierre 1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147–186. Lichter, Clemens 1993 Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des Sudeuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Verlag Marie L. Leidorf, Erlbach. Lioutas, Asterios, and Stavros Kotsos 2008 Εγνατία Οδός: Ανασκαφή στην Περιοχή της Μικρής Βόλβης. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 20(2006):241– 244. McPherron, Alan, and Chris K. Christopher 1988 The Balkan Neolithic and the Divostin Project in Perspective. In Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, edited by Alan McPherron and Dragoslav Srejović, pp. 463–492. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Martinez, Sylvia 2001 A New Look at House Construction Techniques: Current Research at Dikili Tash, Neolithic Site of Eastern Macedonia. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 13(1999):63–68. Mould, Catharine A., and Kenneth A. Wardle 2000a The Architectural Remains. In Servia I: Anglo-Hellenic Rescue Excavations 1971–73, edited by Cressida Ridley, Kenneth A. Wardle, and Catharine A. Mould, pp. 71–105. The British School at Athens, London. 2000b The Stratigraphy and Phases. In Servia I: Anglo-Hellenic Rescue Excavations 1971–73, edited by Cressida Ridley, Kenneth A. Wardle, and Catharine A. Mould, pp. 21–64. The British School at Athens, London. Mylonas, George E. 1929 Excavations at Olynthos, I: The Neolithic Settlement. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Papadimitriou, Nikos, and Zoï Tsirtsoni (editors) 2010 Η Ελλάδα στο Ευρύτερο Πολιτισμικό Πλαίσιο των Βαλκανίων κατά την 5η και 4η Χιλιετία π.Χ. Museum of Cycladic Art and Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Athens. Papadopoulos, Stratis, and Dimitra Malamidou 2002 Οι Πρώιμες Φάσεις Κατοίκησης του Νεολιθικού Οικισμού Λιμεναρίων. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 14(2000):25–32.

184

AS20.indb 184

2/11/18 9:00 PM

11 - … Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern Greece Pappa, Maria 1990 Οι Ανασκαφικές Τομές. In Dimitris V. Grammenos 1990, Ανασκαφή Νεολιθικού Οικισμού Θέρμης: Ανασκαφική Περίοδος 1987, pp. 229–243. Makedonika 27 (1989– 1990):223–288. 2008 Οργάνωση του Χώρου και Οικιστικά Στοιχεία στους Νεολιθικούς Οικισμούς της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας: Δ.Ε.Θ. – Θέρμη – Μακρύγιαλος. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pappa, Maria, and Manthos Besios 1999 The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations. Journal of Field Archaeology 26:177–195. Peristeri, Katerina 2006 Ανασκαφική Έρευνα 2003 στον Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Αρκαδικού Δράμας στα Αγροτεμάχια 542, 545 Ιδιοκτησίας Φ. Χατζηγιαννίδη. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):25–32. Pyke, Gillian 1996 Structures and Architecture. In Nea Nikomedeia: I. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, Directed by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage, edited by Kenneth A. Wardle, pp. 39–53. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 25. The British School at Athens, London. Renfrew, Colin 1986 The Excavated Areas. In Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster, pp. 175–222. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Ridley, Cressida, Kenneth A. Wardle, and Catharine A. Mould (editors) 2000 Servia I: Anglo-Hellenic Rescue Excavations 1971–73. Supplementary Volume No. 32. The British School at Athens, London. Rivière, Peter 1995 Houses, Places and People: Community and Continuity in Guiana. In About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 189–205. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Robb, John 2007 The Early Mediterranean Village: Agency,

Material Culture, and Social Change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sackett, James R. 1986 Style, Function, and Assemblage Variability: A Reply to Binford. American Antiquity 51:628–634. Shaffer, Gary D. 1983 Neolithic Building Technology in Calabria, Italy. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 Household Dynamics and Variability in the Neolithic of Greece: The Case for a BottomUp Approach. In Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, edited by Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Daniela Hofmann, pp. 17–27. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Stark, Miriam T., Mark D. Elson, and Jeffery J. Clark 1998 Social Boundaries and Technical Choices in Tonto Basin Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 208−231. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Stevanović, Mirjana 1996 The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Stratouli, Georgia 2013 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός Αυγής Καστοριάς: Μία Αγροτική Κοινωνία της 6ης και 5ης Χιλιετίας σε Μετάβαση. Archaeology and Arts. Electronic document, http:// www.archaiologia.gr/blog/2013/10/07/ νέες-ανασκαφικές-έρευνες-στη-νεολιθι-4/, accessed April 9, 2016. Toufexis, George 1998 Ανασκαφή στον Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Κρε­ μαστός του Ν. Γρεβενών. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 8(1994):17–26. Trenner, Jan 2010 Untersuchungen zu den Sogenannten Hausmodellen des Neolithikums und Chalcolithikums in Südosteuropa. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Tzanavari, Katerina, and Konstantinos Filis 2009 Η Λητή από την Προϊστορία μέχρι την Ύστερη Αρχαιότητα. In Το Α.Ε.Μ.Θ., 20

185

AS20.indb 185

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dimitris Kloukinas Χρόνια, Επετειακός Τόμος, edited by Polyxeni Adam-Veleni and Katerina Tzanavari, pp. 369–384. Ministry of Culture and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Wardle, Kenneth A. (editor) 1996 Nea Nikomedeia: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece, 1961–1964, Directed by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 25. The British School at Athens, London. Waterson, Roxana 1997 The Living House: An Anthropology of

Architecture in Southeast Asia. Thames and Hudson, London. Whittle, Alasdair 1996 Houses in Context: Buildings as Process. In Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, edited by Timothy Darvill and Julian Thomas, pp. 13–26. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2003 The Archaeology of People: Dimensions of Neolithic Life. Routledge, London. Ζiota, Christina, Areti Hondroyianni-Metoki, and Evanthia Maggouretsiou 2013 Η Αρχαιολογική Έρευνα στον Κλείτο Κοζάνης το 2009. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 23(2009):37–52.

186

AS20.indb 186

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 12 Community Interaction and (Intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece: The Testimony of the Defensive Architecture Tomáš Alušík

Abstract In this paper, an architectural typology and summary of Greek Neolithic fortifications is presented, together with the study of the connection among forms (types) of defensive architecture, means of settlements protection, and land use. With respect to the state of the research, Thessaly, western Macedonia, and Crete have been chosen as the pilot regions that, at the same time, represent topographically substantial different areas. The existence, form, and appearance of the defensive architecture also testify to the extent and means of community interaction and land use. By the construction of the outer fortification, the community demonstrates its claim to the use of the close vicinity of its settlement. By establishing advanced lookout posts or smaller forts, it can widen or shift the boundaries of “its” territory even further and—in case of need—can also secure, for example, safe access to the port or to natural resources (water, forest, etc.). In the framework of selected (micro-) regions, the sites, defensive architecture, and their overall geographical and chronological context will be thoroughly analyzed. Based on the ascertained evidence, community interaction, means of protection, and land use will be defined in the individual stages of the Neolithic, including a general simplified model that approaches the four basic phases of (intended) land use and community interaction. Keywords Neolithic, Thessaly, western Macedonia, Crete, defensive architecture, land use, interaction Introduction, Methodology, and the State of the Research Since prehistory people have tried to ensure the safety of themselves, their relatives, and their property, in choosing their place of settlement. In different periods and regions, they relied only on the topographical qualities of their settlement, while at other times

and in other places they assured their safety with the help of defensive architecture: most often with outer fortification in a form of an enclosure wall. Examples of fortifications are known in the Greek territory from the Neolithic, especially from its advanced phases. In this paper, an architectural typology and summary of Greek Neolithic fortifications will be carried out. The paper will focus on the connection between forms (types) of defensive architecture, means of settlement protection, and land use. The author will analyze whether the forms of protection documented during his earlier research on a similar topic in Bronze Age Crete (see Alušík 2007, 2016) had already appeared in the Neolithic: i.e. protection of settlement borders, protection of some buildings, establishment of (fortified) refuge areas, and preventive protection consisting of the monitoring of the surrounding area and quick reactions to any possible dangers. Therefore, in the framework of selected (micro-)regions, the sites and their overall geographical and chronological context will be thoroughly analyzed. Although the first sites with the elements of apparently defensive architecture were discovered in Greece (in Thessaly) at the turn of nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there are many ambiguities, arguments, and disputes concerning the chronology, interpretation, and degree of possible defensive effects of their enclosure walls and ditches, as well as other architectural elements of protection (e.g. Runnels et al. 2009:165–172). These mostly result from imperfect excavation and recording methods at the beginning of the twentieth century and, quite often, a limited scope of excavated area in the framework of the examined site (e.g. Tsountas 2000 [1908]; Wace and Thompson 1912). The state of knowledge of the Neolithic is substantially better in some regions of Greece than in others. The greatest number of Neolithic sites, many of which have already been at least partially excavated, are known in northern Greece: in Thessaly and Macedonia. In spite of a series of discoveries and publications in the last few decades, our knowledge of the Greek Neolithic, unfortunately, has not been fully satisfactory. Therefore, there exist only a few

187

AS20.indb 187

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Tomas Alusik concise syntheses of this period (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Papathanassopoulos 1996; Theocharis 1973), of which the most recent (focused on the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in northern Greece) was published in 2001, although it reflects the stage of research until the year 1999 (Andreou et al. 2001). An overall detailed study of Greek Neolithic architecture has not yet been written, neither has a study of defensive architecture (except for Ivanova 2008, which focuses on the Late Neolithic). The introductory chapters of complete overviews of the history of ancient Greek architecture are usually dedicated to the architecture of this period (see e.g. Lagopoulos 2009). Neolithic fortifications are sometimes discussed also in the framework of studies dealing with warfare (e.g. Runnels et al. 2009). Now, selected examples of sites with (presumed) defensive architecture will be presented first. Unless there is consistency in the scholarship concerning the interpretation of certain preserved remains, associated problems and possible alternative functions will be outlined. With respect to the state of research, Thessaly, western Macedonia, and Crete have been chosen as the pilot regions that, at the same time, represent topographically substantially different areas (wide fertile plains in Thessaly; coastal strips and fertile, though more mountainous, regions of Macedonia; and the substantially more mountainous elongated island of Crete, with micro-regions created by the individual main mountain massifs). Next, a typology and analysis of the defensive architecture will be carried out. The basic findings of the appearance and form of this architectural category will be applied in the framework of the settlement pattern analysis of individual micro- and macro-regions. This will help to disclose the particular questions connected with community interaction and land use: for example, why the specific elements and types of defensive architecture were used, and whether they differ in the framework of the three examined regions. The degree of the defensive effects of the architectural elements of protection will indicate which defensive methods were used. In the author’s opinion, on the basis of the form and appearance of the defensive architecture and the settlement pattern analyses of the wider areas, larger territorial units with more settlements can be discerned—namely, cooperating communities, their boundaries, and their (intended) land use. Based on the ascertained evidence, community interaction, means of protection, and land use will be defined in the individual stages of the Neolithic, including a general simplified model of the very basic stages of community creation and interaction ([hopefully] valid for all regions of Greece) and the four basic phases of (intended) land use and community interaction.

Defensive Architecture of the Neolithic Early Neolithic In Greece, there are many Neolithic sites that are protected by some type of defensive architecture. The examples from the pilot regions have been chosen so as to demonstrate the spectrum of types, materials, and construction techniques used. The oldest examples might date back to the Early Neolithic, but their chronology is not very precise. During its oldest phase, the settlement of Nea Nikomedeia (Macedonia) was enclosed by a plain wooden-clayey wall that was soon replaced with a ditch (Demoule and Perlès 1993:370; Rodden 1965; Rutter 2013). Two sectors of two relatively narrow ditches were discovered in the eastern part of the site, which could be of defensive significance (Wardle 1996:51–53, Figure 3.3). An alternative hypothesis prefers a drainage function (Rutter 2013). Middle Neolithic Certainly there are dated examples of defensive architecture that date back to the Middle Neolithic. At Sesklo (Figure 1) in Thessaly, the remains of walls were documented (Andreou et al. 2001:263; Runnels et al. 2009:174, Figure 4; Theocharis 1973:65, 68, Figures 176–178; Tsountas 2000 [1908]). Scant remains of a wall from the Middle Neolithic IIIB, approximately 1 m wide and located on the (south)western side of the top of Kastraki hill, are regarded as fortifications that could have protected this part of the settlement (referred to as an “acropolis”). Other sections of walls are located in lower parts of the hill toward the lower settlement, and they modified the slope terrain into smaller terraces. The highest situated wall, tracing approximately the perimeter of the top plateau of the acropolis, apparently continued as a fortification above the terrain level. This terracing enabled access and movement only in specific directions, which regulated approach to the highest parts of the acropolis and thus increased its defensibility. Another part of this defensive system was a sophisticated baffle gate approximately in the middle of the western side of the acropolis. Its defense was probably also increased by a ditch that separated it even more from the lower settlement (Theocharis 1973:65). To date, no traces of any enclosures have been found around the lower settlement. Other examples of defensive architecture—sections of ditches—were excavated in Achilleion and Soufli Magoula (both in Thessaly). A deep ditch separated only the central part of the settlement

188

AS20.indb 188

2/11/18 9:00 PM

12 - Community Interaction and (Intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece… in Achilleion in the advanced Middle Neolithic phase (Andreou et al. 2001:277; Demoule and Perlès 1993:370; Kotsakis 1999:72). In Soufli Magoula, a deep V-shaped ditch was dug along the perimeter of the whole site (Demoule and Perlès 1993:370; Runnels et al. 2009:173; Theocharis 1973:65). Here, in addition to a defensive significance, it also could have had a practical drainage function. On the other hand, at another site in Thessaly, Hatzimissiotiki Magoula, defense was ensured by means of a wall (Kotsakis 1999:71; Theocharis 1973:65). Apparently, two ditches enclosing the settlement of Avgi (western Macedonia) date back to the Middle Neolithic. A ditch enclosing the oblong settlement on all four sides was identified by geophysical survey: Ditch A, with a U-shaped profile, which was more than 5.8 m wide and over 2.15 m deep. In the western part of the site, an inward double ditch was recorded: Ditch B, comprising two crosscutting profiles. The easternmost profile was wider (1.4 m) and deeper (1.2 m) than the westernmost one (ca. 1.2 m wide and 1.0 m deep; Stratouli 2013; Stratouli et al. 2010:97, Figure 3).

Late Neolithic Most examples of defensive architecture are known to us from the Late and Final Neolithic periods. In the Late Neolithic, the acropolis of Sesklo (see Figure 1) was rebuilt, and along its perimeter, in place of the above-described walls, a long stone wall was built and considerably reinforced on the southwestern side. A large megaron (the seat of a ruler on top of a hill) was built up alongside the eastern eroded side of the acropolis on the highest separate terrace. Even in this case, it can be reasonably presumed that the two discussed walls not only served as terrace retaining walls, but they also continued as a fortification above the terrain level (Andreou et al. 2001:263; Kotsakis 1999:69–71; Runnels et al. 2009:174-175, Figure 5; Theocharis 1973:65–68, Figures 176–178, 186; Tsountas 2000 [1908]). The main building was also elevated at Agia Sofia (Thessaly); it stood on a mudbrick platform, and mudbrick walls directed an entrance to it through a sort of gateway. Apparently, the whole central part of the settlement was ditched in the final phase of

Figure 1. The acropolis of Sesklo, looking toward the southwest. 189

AS20.indb 189

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Tomas Alusik the Late Neolithic, and a section of ditch leading in an east-west direction was exposed (Andreou et al. 2001:274–275; Demoule and Perlès 1993:391; Kotsakis 1999:72; Milojčić et al. 1976:5; Runnels et al. 2009:176). A segment of a ditch was discovered in Arapi and was directly marked as defensive. It leads from southwest to the northwest, and it is approximately 1.4 m deep (Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969:3, Plan II; Runnels et al. 2009:173). The best known and, at the same time, most controversial example of a Neolithic site enclosed by walls with a probable defensive function is Dimini in Thessaly (Figure 2), dating to the Late Neolithic III–IV (Demoule and Perlès 1993:390; Chourmouziadis 1979; Runnels et al. 2009:174–176, Figure 6; Scoufopoulos 1971:17–19; Theocharis 1973:101, 185, 187; Tsountas 2000 [1908]). A megaron-type building is located on the low hill with a large courtyard. This courtyard and the settlement parts located lower down the slope are enclosed with a series of up to seven concentric walls (or periboloi), .6–1.4 m wide, of which only three have been preserved completely.

Specific long passages (baffle gates) existed at all four cardinal points, leading through all the walls up to the highest level of the settlement with the courtyard and megaron. Some structures were situated in the spaces between individual walls, which were 1–15 m wide. The excavator, Tsountas (2000 [1908]), interpreted the periboloi as fortifications protecting the megaron. On the other hand, Chourmouziadis (1979) emphasized their practical function (a result of the site’s gradual growth and efforts of division and maximum space assurance) and social importance. Analogous to Sesklo, even here the walls could be of two functions: practical (terrace retaining wall) and defensive. Baffle gates considerably increase the defensive effect, because the higher levels of the settlement were not accessible when closing some of them. In the flat-extended settlement of Makriyalos in southern Macedonia (Pieria), remains of three ditches enclosing the perimeter of the site were recorded in both habitation phases (I, the beginning of the Late Neolithic, and II, the end of the Late Neolithic; Andreou et al. 2001:294–295; Besios and Pappa 1998; Kotsakis 1999:72; Pappa and Besios 1999; Runnels et

Figure 2. The acropolis of Dimini, showing the concentric periboloi on the slope from the northeast. 190

AS20.indb 190

2/11/18 9:00 PM

12 - Community Interaction and (Intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece… al. 2009:173, Figure 3). During Phase I the settlement, with an area of 28 ha, was situated on the southern slope of the hill and enclosed by two parallel ditches. The inward Ditch A was originally built up as a chain of interconnected holes, and only during a later stage was it adapted to a V-shaped channel. It is up to 3.5 m deep and 4.5 m wide. There was a stone or mudbrick wall situated on its edge, but it is not certain if this wall ran along its whole length or was present only in some places. At about 10 m in front of Ditch A, a channel with a V-shaped profile—Ditch B—was located. A section of Ditch C, which apparently served as an internal partition of the settlement space, was also found. Ditches encircled the settlement during Phase II as well, when it was situated on the northern slope of the same hill. Unfortunately, the overall course of these ditches is not clear. There was a section of ditch over 10 m wide and 100 m long recorded in the western side (originally a natural watercourse). Other sections of plain ditches were discovered in the northern and southeastern sides of the settlement, and the latter rather served as an internal partition. Such a system of ditches ensured the safety of its inhabitants during both habitation phases. As a matter of course, it was not easy to cross the two parallel ditches, and the inward area of the settlement was probably sectioned with another ditch. The defensive effect in Phase I was increased by a wall on the outward side of Ditch A. It is also quite probable that the ditches had symbolic (clear separation of the settlement area from its surroundings) and practical functions (e.g. drainage or water reservoir), and soil excavated during the digging was used in the construction of houses. Final Neolithic A very interesting example of the defensive architecture from the Final Neolithic can be found in Otzaki in Thessaly (Andreou et al. 2001:274; Demoule and Perlès 1993:400; Hauptmann 1981:146, 187, 214, 221; Milojčić 1960, 1983:12–13, 22–23, 28–29, 33–35). The settlement was enclosed with four concentric ditches (Nos. 1–4), of which the largest was approximately 6 m deep and 4.5 m wide. Aside from this, two lines of postholes (two in each of them) were discovered. These were probably the remains of an inner wooden construction of a large earthwork. A section of a 1.2-m-wide wall, which was interpreted as defensive, was discovered in Pefkakia in Thessaly (Andreou et al. 2001:268; Kotsakis 1999:71; Weisshaar 1989). But with respect to its position, this function is uncertain. As at other Neolithic sites, it probably had to do with an inner partition of the settlement space.

Sections of two walls were discovered in Mandalo in Macedonia (Andreou et al. 2001:294 [with further bibliography]). The inner wall was made of fieldstones and reached up to the width of 2.5 m, with a preserved height of about 1.4 m. The outer wall was of similar construction. In all probability, such thick walls served especially for defensive purposes. Unfortunately, the whole course of the walls is not known, and therefore it is possible that they protected the access to the settlement from one side only. Defensive architecture in Crete is well documented from this phase only. Probably the most interesting examples of this architectural type on the island can be found in Livari Katharades (Figure 3). The site is situated on the south-southwestern spur of a rocky massif in the small Livari Bay (in the region of Ziros, southeastern Crete). The cliff is flanked (or divided from other mountains) from the east and west by two gorges. The terrace above the western gorge is called the “Akropolis” (Alušík 2007:34–35, Figures 20, 21, 24, 25; Nowicki 2002:25; Schlager et al. 1997:16; Schlager et al. 2001:192–202, Figures 12–15)—it is a bit larger and is located ca. 30 m higher than the eastern terrace, called the “Bastion” (Alušík 2007:35, Figures 21–23; Nowicki 2002:25; Schlager et al. 1997:16; Schlager et al. 2001:162, 192, Figure 12). From the southwestern side, the “Akropolis” was closed off and surrounded by a wall that followed the edge of the cliff. On the northern side, it was lined by a massive wall, .7–1.7 m wide (much wider than the southeastern wall). The southwestern enclosure wall was built from massive “megalithic” stones set vertically, and the wall incorporated the rocky outcrops as well. What was uncommon was the use of orthostates, i.e. the system of arranging stone blocks vertically. The northern enclosure wall was more massive than the southwestern one and was made from two parallel lines of massive blocks, filled in by smaller stones, earth, and rubble. The so-called “Bastion” was located on the eastern terrace above the gorge (a natural communication axis). It was a complex consisting of several rooms, standing on the perimeter of the terrace enclosed by the wall. The site of Trachilas is located on the peak of the hill (of the same name, in the region of Zakros, eastern Crete), where an enclosure wall was built adjoining the rocky cliff (Alušík 2007:54; Schlager 1987:72–75, Figures 10–12; Vokotopoulos 2000). The wall surrounded an area of approximately rectangular shape. In the southwestern corner, between the rock and the corner of the wall, there were preserved foundations of a rectangular structure with an inner space sized 2.2 x 1.8 m. Vokotopoulos (2000) has recently shifted the date of this site to as late as the Final Neolithic

191

AS20.indb 191

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Tomas Alusik period. Concerning its function, it was recently stated by Schlager (personal communication 2009–2010) that the site could have functioned as a watch or signal post. The author agrees with this suggestion. The settlement of Ammoudi Skinias (located in the region of Agios Vasilios, western Crete) covered the rocky summit and consisted of the summit plateau (ca. 25 x 10 m) and the terrace below (ca. 50 x 20 m) (Alušík 2007:109; Nowicki 2002:40, 43, Figure 17). The remains of a wall with probable defensive function were preserved on the summit plateau, creating a barrier limiting access to the upper parts of the site. For this reason, the wall most probably had a defensive function. The summit plateau protected by the wall thus could have been used as a refuge area, to which the inhabitants fled when in danger. Analysis of the Defensive Architecture The interpretation of the above-described preserved remains as defensive architecture relates to

presumed social behavior—whether people in the Neolithic were engaged in warfare or not. Many studies have been published already on the origin and causes of war in prehistory (see, for example, Arkush and Allen 2006; Guilaine and Zammit 2005; Keeley 1996; Vencl 1984). Recently, Runnels et al. (2009) also showed that the existence of warfare—and thus defensive architecture—was highly likely in Neolithic Thessaly. It is evident from the presented examples of Neolithic defensive architecture that its spectrum was considerably wide. The basic used types were: (1) a ditch, (2) a wall, and (3) an observation point/lookout post, or a combination. Materials used included wood and clay, mudbricks, and stone (which was more frequently used in the later phases of the Neolithic). Ditches already appeared in the Early Neolithic and were constructed during all the later Neolithic phases. Recently, Sarris et al. (this volume) discovered many new sites enclosed by (sometimes multiple) ditch(es) in Eastern Thessaly via the use of geophysi-

Figure 3. Livari Katharades from above and north of the site. 192

AS20.indb 192

2/11/18 9:00 PM

12 - Community Interaction and (Intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece… cal methods. This has not yet been documented in Crete, which is not surprising due to its rugged relief (which other types of defensive architecture comply with better). At some sites (especially in Macedonia, e.g. Avgi or Makriyalos, but also in Thessaly, e.g. Otzaki), there are even multiple ditches, or ditches appear in combination with a wall (e.g. in Agia Sofia, Makriyalos, Otzaki, and possibly Sesklo). Ditch with V-shaped profiles were identified in Makriyalos and Soufli Magoula—generally regarded as the most suitable from the defensive and practical point of view (e.g. Runnels et al. 2009:172–173). Enclosure or barrier walls appeared in Neolithic Greece in more variants, based on the material and form. In the Early and Late/Final Neolithic periods, these walls occurred as wooden-clayey earthworks, and in the Middle Neolithic they were most often made of stone or possibly mudbrick wall. The use of the wall as a defensive means regularly increased, and in the Final Neolithic it appeared almost exclusively. Walls occurred in combination with a ditch (or multiple ditches) at several sites. Terrace retaining walls were used at some sites for terrain modifications that directed communication and limited access into/in the inner area, and thus they increased defensibility of specific parts of the settlement (e.g. the center, “acropolis,” or “upper town”). Among similarly sophisticated defensive elements belong baffle gates or gateways, which were documented in Agia Sofia, Sesklo, and Dimini. Last but not least, the walled settlement (or part of it) also served as a refuge area (e.g. Ammoudi Skinias in Crete). The last architectural type, which was documented only in one of the three regions selected for this paper (Crete), is an observation point/lookout post. The preserved examples date back to the Final Neolithic. Their occurrence in Crete is not surprising, given the very distinct geomorphology of the island (and, actually, also of the Cyclades), where many locations can easily be used as observation points. But this practice is better documented in Crete during the Bronze Age, whereas the examples from the Neolithic are very scarce (see Alušík 2007, 2016; Betancourt 2013). Such sites are located either far from any inhabited area, as freestanding structures (e.g. Trachilas), or close to the central part of the settlement (e.g. KatharadesBastion). As for the architecture, the features have the form of a small tower-like (?) structure. They are always situated in an exposed position above an important communication axis. The presented types of Greek Neolithic defensive architecture match well the context of other sites in Neolithic Europe, where ditches and enclosure walls were often built (e.g. Ivanova 2008; Parkinson and

Duffy 2007; Todorova 1982). The ditch is a universal architectural type that enables people to solve some practical (drainage, source of clay, etc.), defensive, and symbolic issues (clear separation of the inhabited area from the surroundings; e.g. Demoule and Perlès 1993:390). It is quite possible that ditches were originally of exclusively practical function, and that they were adapted into a defensive element only later. Such practicality and advantage of additional functions was probably the main reason for their popularity. The enclosure or barrier wall is an advanced defensive element because it provides inhabitants better protection. Like the ditch, it also can have a symbolic meaning (as a partition from the surroundings). Building it up requires specific architectural knowledge and, of course, a good organization of work. By constructing such a wall, the community demonstrates not only its willingness and readiness to fight, but in some respect also a right and claim to the surrounding territory. One of the indications of intended land use is also the existence of observation points. The community stakes its claim over at least the area between the settlement and the observation point and its adjacent surroundings. At the same time, this confirms (on the basis of parallels from the Bronze Age; see Alušík 2007, 2016; Betancourt 2013; Panagiotakis et al. 2013) a logical assumption that good visibility (namely, visual control of the areas where danger could originate) and possibly also a form of signaling (e.g. by fire) were of great importance to ensure the safety of the settlement’s inhabitants or specific areas. Discussion Intended land use and community interaction in the Greek Neolithic could be better understood if we knew the borders between individual communities and/or territorial units. Territorial borders and the need for land—or the land use of communities or larger units—can differ based on different initial conditions. An important factor is, for example, the means of livelihood. Farmers cultivating soil undoubtedly need a different amount of land than do shepherds or fishermen. Subsistence strategy can be connected with the topographical and environmental conditions and relief that considerably influence the (intended) land use and, as a result, also the form and means of community interaction. Territorial borders in mostly flat country (e.g. in Thessaly) do not need to be clearly visible or set (unless they are defined by a natural feature), or they can possibly be subject to conflicts with neighboring communities. But their disruption or crossing can be quite easy and quickly

193

AS20.indb 193

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Tomas Alusik recognizable, unless the terrain is, for example, forested. On the other hand, the natural borders of a (micro-)region will be respected to a greater degree in a rugged or mountainous terrain (e.g. in western Macedonia or Crete), which exist, for example, on the ridges of main mountain massifs or in gorges. A specific mountainous terrain can form smaller valleys, small costal lowland bays (e.g. Livari Bay in eastern Crete; see Schlager 2011; Schlager et al. 2001), or plateaus (e.g. Lasithi [Kampos] Plateau in eastern Crete; see Watrous 1982 for the settlements), with larger settlements in the valleys or on a plateau, and small hamlets or single farmsteads on the slopes of adjacent hills or mountains. The borders are well defined and at least visually protected (with observation points), because their unobserved crossing by the enemy could result in danger for the inhabitants of the area in question. From the methodological viewpoint, in the author’s opinion an in-depth analysis of settlement patterns and local topographic particularities can indicate where the borders of regions and/or territories existed (see Runnels et al. 2009 and below). Due to an insufficient state of knowledge and amount of data, we cannot be absolutely sure about their exactness. For the purposes of this study, the author used several analyses of settlement patterns and topographical investigations in the regions in question. For Thessaly, the most important and suitable studies are by Demoule and Perlès (1993), Gallis (1992), Halstead (1984, 1999), Perlès (1999) and Runnels et al. (2009). A summary by Andreou et al. (2001) and reports on the Grevena Survey (e.g. Wilkie 1993; Wilkie and Savina 1997) were used as the main source for (western) Macedonia. For Crete—apart from his own topographical observations—the author used the investigations by Nowicki (especially Nowicki 2002) and Schlager et al. (1997, 2001, 2010). Some of these authors dealt with the spatial distribution of settlements or concentrated on the interaction among various regions or communities (e.g. Halstead 1999; Perlès 1999; Runnels et al. 2009), while other studies were only topographical investigations focused on the descriptions of sites and their wider area(s) (e.g. Nowicki 2002; Schlager 2011; Schlager et al. 1997, 2001, 2010). But a factor of dis/contemporaneity of some of the sites has to be borne in mind during these analyses. Another author’s methodological supposition is that, from the viewpoint of defensive architecture, it can be assumed (or at least expected) that important or central settlements with a special “political” meaning would be well fortified. In this way the inhabitants demonstrate the importance of their (central) settlement and preparation for defense,

and in a symbolic way they also claim the right to the surrounding area by an architectural quality and impressive appearance of their fortifications, or possibly also by increasing the height of the settlement tells (Halstead 1999:87–88; Runnels et al. 2009:189–190). On the contrary, the smaller ordinary or secondary sites, eventually those located on the borders, could be less fortified or even not at all if there was a good escape route leading to a nearby refuge area or a central settlement. For the purposes of land use and community interaction analysis, the concept of “no-man’s land” and/or buffer zones (Runnels et al. 2009:183) is interesting and important from the viewpoint of settlement patterns. According to these authors, such uninhabited regions separate individual territorial units and pose the greatest danger of hostile warlike or plundering invasions. In the course of the Neolithic, it is possible to observe a change in the number or area of these regions—what could be related to the merging of the neighboring territories and/or population increase (which can reveal itself in an increase or decrease in the number of settlements; Runnels et al. 2009:186–189). But it is necessary to take into account that a region without any signs of settlement does not necessarily have to be a no-man’s-land. It could be cultivated or used in another way, or it could be an intentionally unsettled area or enclave inside the same territory (Halstead 1999:87; Runnels et al. 2009:184, 187). Moreover, the territories’ borders—depending on other, especially geographical and social, factors—could be located close to each other and pass through the clusters of settlements (e.g. in the mountain ranges or in the middle of a valley), and they could be protected or controlled by the adjacent sites (forts or observation points). With the increase in population and settlement density (documented by the above-mentioned surface surveys and settlement pattern analyses in all the observed areas in the specific [later] phases of the Neolithic), it can be also expected that the need for land would increase and that no-man’s-lands would be considerably smaller, or even cease to exist. So, no-man’s-lands could occur only in some regions and, especially, in periods with lower population (or fewer sites). As has already been mentioned, the absence of such zones does not necessarily mean friendly relationships among neighboring communities/territories whose borders are close to each other. In such situations, the importance of good visibility would increase and new border forts or observation points would be built (unfortunately, there is no evidence of these in Thessaly and in Macedonia; observation points have been documented only in Crete). More distinctive structuring of sites could happen, from the

194

AS20.indb 194

2/11/18 9:00 PM

12 - Community Interaction and (Intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece… defensibility viewpoint, into two or three groups or levels: border monitoring forts or observation points (responsible for warning the other inhabited sites); smaller, little- or unfortified sites on the “front line” (situated closer to the border areas); and large fortified sites with the function of refuge areas situated in the center of the territory. Conclusions The presented examples of defensive architecture in the regions in question enable us to understand three basic means of defense. The first is a preventive observation and control of the territory’s borders, architecturally expressed in observation points/lookout posts. The second is a defense of the perimeter of the site (either on the “front line,” or in larger centers/ refuge areas), architecturally expressed by enclosure or barrier wall(s) and/or ditch(es). The third, documented only in some sites, is the restriction of access to the central part of the settlement, most often by the construction of an inner partition (a wall or ditch) or by terrain modification (terracing). This architectural expression of defense corresponds, to a large extent, with the author’s conclusions on the means of defense in Bronze Age Crete (see e.g. Alušík 2007:147–148). In the Neolithic, the protection of central buildings by modifications, control (by construction of a guardroom, for example), or closing of entrances into the buildings (i.e. entrances that form an integral part of the buildings in question) is not documented, although the third above-mentioned means of defense (access restriction to the central part of the settlement) is of a similar effect. Based on the presented examples of sites, the above-mentioned methodological statements and assumptions, and the settlement pattern and topographical/geomorphological analyses, the author has tried to generalize these facts into a generally valid model and to define the basic phases of (intended) land use and community interaction. Overall, this is the author’s attempt to define a generalized and simplified model (hopefully valid for all regions of Greece) of the very basic and common stages of community creation and interaction. However, it must be stated here that—due to generalization/simplification—it takes into account only social/community interaction and not environmental/climatic parameters. 1. Initial creation and establishment of communities. In this phase, the first settlements are founded and communities are established; they can consist of several close or neighboring sites. Building defensive architecture is not necessary; if it is constructed,

it is only for symbolic or practical reasons. There is enough soil for agriculture, and interaction with other distant communities does not have to be frequent; it is rather of friendly or business character. There can be uninhabited areas or no-man’s-lands. 2. Cooperation and grouping of communities. The first territorial units are created, originating from several communities or (regions of) close/neighboring sites. It apparently depends on the extent of communication and social connection. Already, the individual sites can be divided into “suburban/secondary” and “central/primary” sites in the framework of the establishing territory. Both kinds can have defensive architecture, at that time due to “political” and defensive reasons. The extent of interaction with distant communities/territorial units is increasing, and local conflicts can appear. 3. Substantial community interaction. In connection with the population increase, an influence and range of the territorial units is growing, leading to the founding of new sites (often with defensive architecture) at their perimeter (i.e. in border zones). The importance of good visibility and control of the borders of the individual territories—and therefore also of neighboring communities/territorial units—increases. Construction or rebuilding of the defensive architecture declares power, claim and control of the surrounding territory, preparation for defense, and protection of the inhabitants. Interaction with surrounding neighboring communities is frequent and mostly of hostile character. With respect to the effort and need to ensure natural resources and their ownership or insufficiency, armed conflicts become more frequent. Some uninhabited areas (no-man’s lands) cease to exist. 4. Continuing (or secondary) community interaction. While the search for, assurance, and maintenance of (new) natural resources continues, frequent conflicts are highly probable. At a certain phase—based on a war or agreement—an integration of several original small territories into one larger unit can take place. New social connections are established. The extent of interaction between neighboring communities/territorial units depends on the availability of natural resources and social factors.

195

AS20.indb 195

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Tomas Alusik The author believes that this general model can be applied (with specific modifications regarding especially environmental factors) to some later periods as well, i.e. the Early or (early phases of the) Middle Bronze Age, at least in some regions. According to his research (Alušík 2007, 2016), this model works and is worth testing, refining, and using. In his opinion, the above-mentioned facts and this model document that the basic processes and means of land use and community interaction began in Greece most probably already in the Neolithic. Although this paper is rather theoretical and in some parts also general, the author would be glad if the models and concepts stated here stimulated a discussion and initiated further studies. Although it is possible, in the author’s opinion, to create a generally valid simplified model, it is visible that the process, extent, and means of land use and community interaction differed in particulars in different regions and periods. More data and studies focused on the regional and chronological aspects are needed in the future. References Cited Alušík, Tomáš 2007 Defensive Architecture of Prehistoric Crete. BAR International Series 1637. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2016 Fortifications of Prehistoric Crete: The Current State of Research. In Focus on Fortifications: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East. Papers of the Conference on the Research of Ancient Fortifications, Athens 6–9 December 2012, edited by Rune Frederiksen, Silke Müth, Peter Schneider, and Mike Schnelle, pp. 53–65. Fokus Fortifikation Studies No. 2, Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens Vol. 18. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 2001 The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. In Aegean Prehistory: A Review, edited by Tracey Cullen, pp. 259–327. American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. Arkush, Elisabeth N., and Mark W. Allen (editors) 2006 The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Besios, Manthos, and Maria Pappa 1998 O Νεολιθικός Οικισμός στον Μακρύγιαλο

Πιερίας. Athens Annals of Archaeology 23–28:13–30. Betancourt, Philip P. 2013 Aphrodite’s Kephali: An Early Minoan I Defensive Site in Eastern Crete. With Kostas Chalikias, Heidi M. C. Dierckx, Andrew J. Koh, Evi Margaritis, Floyd W. McCoy, Eleni Nodarou, and David S. Reese. Prehistory Monographs 41. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Chourmouziadis, Giorgos 1979 To Νεολιθικό Διμήνι. Society for Thessalian Research, Volos. Demoule, Jean-Paul, and Catherine Pérles 1993 The Greek Neolithic: A New Review. Journal of World Prehistory 7:355–416. Gallis, Kostas 1992 Άτλας Προϊστορικών Οικισμών της Ανα­ τολικής Θεσσαλικής Πεδιάδας. Society of Historical Research of Thessaly, Larisa. Guilaine, Jean, and Jean Zammit 2005 The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Halstead, Paul 1984 Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, N. Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. 1999 Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 77–95. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Hauptmann, Harald 1981 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki Magula in Thessalien: 3. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 21. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Hauptmann, Harald, and Vladimir Milojčić 1969 Die Funde der Frühen Dimini-Zeit aus der Arapi-Magula Thessalien. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Ivanova, Mariya 2008 Befestigte Siedlungen auf dem Balkan, in der Ägäis und in Westanatolien, ca. 5000–2000 v. Chr. Tübinger Schriften zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie Vol. 8. Waxmann, Münster. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996 War before Civilization. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

196

AS20.indb 196

2/11/18 9:00 PM

12 - Community Interaction and (Intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece… Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Lagopoulos, Alexandros Ph. (editor) 2009 A History of the Greek City. BAR International Series 2050. Archaeopress, Oxford. Milojčić, Vladimir 1960 Hauptergebnisse der Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1953–1958. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. 1983 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki Magula in Thessalien: 3/2. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Stratigraphie und Bauten. Das mittlere Neolithikum. Die Mittelneolithische Siedlung. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 20. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn Milojčić, Vladimir, Angela von den Driesch, Kurt Enderle, Johanna Milojčić-von Zumbusch, and Klaus Kilian 1976 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf Magulen um Larisa in Thessalien 1966. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 15. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Nowicki, Krzysztof 2002 The End of the Neolithic in Crete. Aegean Archaeology 6:7–72. Panagiotakis, Nikos, Marina Panagiotaki, and Apostolos Sarris 2013 The Earliest Communication System in the Aegean. Electryone 2:13–24 Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Pappa, Maria, and Manthos Besios 1999 The Makriyalos Project: Rescue Excavations at the Neolithic Site of Makriyalos, Pieria, Northern Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 108–120. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Parkinson, William A., and Paul R. Duffy 2007 Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:97–141.

Perlès, Catherine 1999 The Distribution of Magoules in Eastern Thessaly. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 42–56. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Rodden, Robert J. 1965 An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. Scientific American 212(4):82–92. Runnels, Curtis N., Claire Payne, Noam V. Rifkind, Chantel White, Nicholas P. Wolff, and Steven A. LeBlanc 2009 Warfare in Neolithic Thessaly: A Case Study. Hesperia 78:165–194. Rutter, Jeremy B. (editor) 2013 Aegean Prehistoric Archaeology. Electronic document, http://www.dartmouth. edu/~prehistory/ aegean/, accessed March 15, 2015. Schlager, Norbert 1987 Untersuchungen zur Prähistorischen Topographie im äussersten Südosten Kretas: Zakros bis Xerokampos. In Kolloquium zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte, Mannheim, 20–22.2.1986, edited by Wolfgang Schiering, pp. 64–82. Deutscher ArchäologenVerband e.V., Mannheim. 2011 Livari. Eine Frühe Siedlungskammer in Südostkreta. In Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 2009: Akten der Tagung vom 6. bis 7. März 2009 am Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaften der Universität Salzburg, edited by Fritz Blakolmer, Claus Reinholdt, Jörg Weilhartner, and Georg Nightingale, pp. 271–282. Phoibos, Wien. Schlager, Norbert, Nadine Alber, Maja Aufschneiter, Marion Frauenglas, Mechthild Ladurner, Elisabeth Mlinar, Erika C. Pieler, René Ployer, Wolfgang Reiter, Ulla Schmiedicke, Ulrike Schuh, Christina Vogelmayer, Johannes Böhm, Lydia Berger, Susanne Guderna, Markus Koller, Felix Lang, Belinda Simon, and David S. Reese 2001 Pleistozäne, Neolithische. Bronzezeitliche und Rezente Befunde und Ruinen im Fernen Osten Kretas. Dokumentation 2000. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 70:157–220. Schlager, Norbert, Tomáš Alušík, Michael Brandl, Ludwig Fuchs, Ute Günkel-Maschek, Christian Kurtze, Elisabeth Mlinar, Marco Pietrovito, Wolfgang Reiter, and Rhea Schlager 2010 Aspro Nero, Agia Irini, Livari in Südostkreta: Dokumentation 2008. Jahreshefte

197

AS20.indb 197

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Tomas Alusik des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 79:231–358. Schlager, Norbert, Johannes Böhm, Kurt Schaller, Birgit Pulsinger, Georg A. Plattner, Maximilian Goriany, Konstanze Karolyi, Wilfried K. Kovacsovics, Andrea Glaser, Ulrike Fornwagner, and Anastasia Angelinoudi 1997 Minoische bis Rezente Ruinen im fernen Osten Kretas. Dokumentation 1996. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 66:1–83. Scoufopoulos, Niki C. 1971 Mycenaean Citadels. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg. Stratouli, Georgia (editor) 2013 The Neolithic Settlement. In Avgi Kastoria Neolithic Settlement Research Program. Electronic document, http://www.neolithicavgi.gr/?page_id=18, accessed March 15, 2015. Stratouli, Georgia, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Tasos Bekiaris, and Nikos Katsikaridis 2010 The Manipulation of Death: A Burial Area at the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi, NW Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 37:95–104. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1973 Νεολιθική Ελλάς. National Bank of Greece, Athens. Todorova, Henrieta 1982 Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. Beck, München. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμη­νί­ ου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Vencl, Slavomil 1984 War and Warfare in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:116–132. Vokotopoulos, Leonidas 2000 Οχυρές Προτομινωϊκές Θέσεις στην

Περιοχή Ζάκρου. In Πεπραγμένα του Η’ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ηράκλειο, 9–14 Σεπτεβρίου 1996, edited by Alexandra Karetsou, Theocharis Detorakis, and Alexis Kalokairinos, pp. 129–146. Society of Cretan Historical Studies, Herakleion. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wardle, Kenneth A. (editor) 1996 Nea Nikomedeia: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece, 1961–1964, Directed by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 25. The British School at Athens, London. Watrous, Livingston Vance 1982 Lasithi: A History of a Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete. Hesperia Supplements 18. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Weisshaar, Hans-Joachim 1989 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien: 1. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 28. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Wilkie, Nancy C. 1993 The Grevena Project. In Αρχαία Μακεδονία V: Ανακοινώσεις κατά το Πέμπτο Διεθνές Συμπόσιο. Θεσσαλονίκη, 10–15 Οκτωβρίου 1989, Vol. 3, pp. 1747–1755. Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki. Wilkie, Nancy C., and Mary E. Savina 1997 The Earliest Farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity 71:201–207.

198

AS20.indb 198

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 13 Fluid Landscapes, Bonded People? The Role of Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition during the Final Neolithic Period in Central and Southern Greece Katerina Psimogiannou

Abstract The Final Neolithic period in central and southern Greece is considered to have witnessed a transformation of the landscape and a general change in settlement patterns. The use of marginal environments and the dispersion of small sites, which were probably engaged in long-distance trade, imply extended and more fluid social networks of interaction. At the same time, the archaeological record indicates an intensification of mortuary and ritual expression through the creation of several burial and ceremonial areas where continuous practices of consumption, exchange, and deposition of material culture seem to have taken place. This paper reviews old and new evidence and presents a recent analysis of material from several sites in the above region (e.g. Phthiotis, Attica, Lakonia), supported by new radiocarbon dates, in order to elaborate (a) the variety of human expression in the cultural landscape of the period, and (b) the role of the above sacred and gathering areas as focal places for social integration and/or social exclusion at the end of the Neolithic period. Keywords Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic, Greek mainland, mortuary patterns, pit deposition, open areas, ritual, social gatherings, caves The past few years have witnessed a growing interest among archaeologists dealing with Balkan and Aegean archaeology regarding the end of the Neolithic period: the so-called Final Neolithic (FN) in the Aegean, as defined by Colin Renfrew (1972), or the Chalcolithic (Coleman 2011; Dousougli 1998). In June 2013 an international conference took place in Athens under the title, “Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Later Neolithic Stages (5000/4800–3200/3000 cal B.C.).” Α year before, a conference was held in Austria regarding the fourth

millennium B.C. in western Anatolia in the context of the neighboring regions of Southeastern Europe and the Aegean under the title “Western Anatolia Before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC?” (Horejs and Mehofer 2014). Two things are obvious from the above titles. First, most archaeologists continue to use the word “transition” when referring to the FN period, despite the fact that it is a period that lasted for almost 1,500 years, and despite the difficulty of defining when and how exactly this transition took place (see discussion in Tsirtsoni 2010, 2014) and mostly whether its characteristics really can be detected in the archaeological record of the Greek Neolithic. Second, if we accept that this transition really existed as such, then the question may be: a transition from what to what? What was the historical and cultural situation preceding and especially following the FN period? Did the Early Bronze Age (EBA) II (2700–2200 cal B.C.), as scholars frequently imply, impose an easy-to-read (and probably easy-to-dig) dichotomy and opposition in social practices between an egalitarian Neolithic and a socially differentiated EBA? Or was it maybe a transition to the very beginning of the EBA (usually called the EBA I), which was then followed by another transitional period in order to get to the “pure” EBA II of a broadly accepted social complexity? Today, many researchers in Aegean archaeology have already put forward the view that many of the processes of transformation, including evidence of complexity and extended trade networks that characterized the EBA II period, can be traced back already to the FN (e.g. Papadatos and Tomkins 2013; Tomkins 2014; see also Tsirtsoni 2014 for the Balkan area and northern Greece). However, an issue that could be addressed in the future is that—in contrast to the above oppositional thinking, in which a society must be either egalitarian, stratified, or in a transition between the two—there is also the possibility of a more dialectic context in which in specific situations equality may have necessitated some forms of political hierarchy

199

AS20.indb 199

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou (McGuire and Saitta 1996:198). In this paper, I am not planning to raise a discussion of whether or not there was any kind of “transition.” What I wish to do for the moment is talk about the FN period in its own right and place it in a specific historical, cultural, and geographical context. I do not plan to present it as a period in comparison with either what preceded or what followed (social complexity, stratification, storage capacity, etc.)—in other words, as a period among linked phases (LN/FN or FN/EH I, or FN/EH) or in dichotomous either-or terms. My goal is to define the cultural characteristics of the period in the area of central and southern Greece, and mostly to raise questions for future research and further thought. The emphasis will be on the Greek mainland. Specific case studies from central Greece, where my research on the FN period originally began (that is, Lokris and Phthiotis; Psimogiannou 2008), will be presented, as well as from the Peloponnese, specifically Alepotrypa Cave in Lakonia. In the long run I wish to provide a thorough presentation of how the FN people created, transformed, and reproduced their physical and cultural landscape—or at least how I “read” that they did (Geertz 1973a). The role of material culture in these processes of landscape formation and transformation is also important in order to gain better insight into how FN people created meaningful places, through meaningful and repetitive actions (Geertz 1973b). The ultimate and future goal of my study is to incorporate the discussion into the broader cultural and geographical context of the end of the Neolithic in Southeastern Europe and deploy cross-cultural anthropological concepts toward the southern Greek Neolithic data regarding the role of ritual and sacred places as powerful mechanisms in human dialogues and social processes (Aldenderfer 1993). The “Birth” and Study of the Final Neolithic Period in the Southern Aegean Region As already mentioned above, the FN period was first designated to define the cultural horizon of the last Neolithic phases in the areas of Attica, Euboea, and the northwestern Cyclades (the “Attica-Kephala culture;” Renfrew 1972). Most surface surveys that were conducted in the past, especially in the Peloponnese, indicated that the FN (4500/4300–3100/3000 cal B.C.) in the southern Greek mainland and the Aegean may be considered a period of settlement expansion, dispersion of small sites in the landscape, and use of marginal environments (Alram-Stern 1998; Cavanagh et al. 2002; Halstead 1994; Runnels and van Andel

1987; van Andel and Runnels 1988; Wells et al. 1990). Among the hallmarks of the period, an intensification of cave usage is also included (Diamant 1974; Wickens 1986), which has been interpreted as an indication of transhumant pastoralism related to this site dispersion (Dousougli 1998). In general, the FN is thought to be characterized by a general change in settlement patterns due to economic, demographic, climatic, and other social changes, including intensified exchange and trade networks between the communities of the Aegean. The Case Studies in Central Greece But what exactly was the archaeological landscape of the period? What kinds of sites have the above surveys, systematic excavations, and rescue excavations throughout time revealed in southern Greece, which have led to several theoretical schemes regarding the social situation of the FN? My personal interest in and work on this period in the above area began during my graduate studies at the University of Thessaloniki (Psimogiannou 2008). For my Masters thesis I examined the FN period at the site of Proskynas in east Lokris, central Greece (Figure 1), which was the first FN site excavated in this area. Since then, as mentioned in the introduction, a proliferation of evidence, conferences, and publications regarding the Neolithic period in general, and the Greek FN in particular, has emerged. In Lokris, and close to Proskynas, FN pottery material and deposits have been found at the coastal sites of Mitrou and Kynos in east Lokris, at Kalapodi in western Lokris, and further north at Achinos on the Maliakos Gulf, Kobotades in the Spercheios Valley near Lamia, and Rachi Panagia and Sofiada in the area of Domokos, closer to Thessaly. The FN deposit at Proskynas (Psimogiannou 2008, 2012) was a thin 20-cm stratum lying above the bedrock of a low hill located close to the Euboean Gulf. An EBA II settlement was founded above this deposit (Zahou 2009). The FN remains are represented by a burial area comprising human burials (Papathanasiou et al. 2009) and a series of pits dug into the bedrock, which extended over the hill on an east-west axis (Figure 2). In the southern part eight pits followed in a sequence (Figures 3 and 4). They were round or ovoid in shape, with a maximum depth of 50 cm and a diameter of up to 150 cm, filled with sherds and large fragments of pottery (Figure 5) bearing traces of burning, bones, shells, and obsidian or flint blades. The pits had been filled and covered also with stones (Figure 3). Further to the north five adult men were deposited in pit graves (Figures 6–8). The pit graves

200

AS20.indb 200

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition… (Burials VI, VII, XIII, XIV, and IX) were shallow and ovoid in shape, containing only single burials sealed with small stones. The skeletons were found in situ in a contracted position, without offerings or fixed orientation. The burials produced radiocarbon dates belonging to the mid-fifth millennium cal B.C. (ca. 4400–4300 cal B.C.). Adjacent to some of these graves, pits containing materials like those found in the southern part of the hill were also investigated. Two other burials include the burnt human remains of a 15-year-old child, deposited in a closed vessel of the period, as well as a rectangular grave of a 10-year-old child, also dug in the bedrock. A similar picture has been exposed in other parts of Phthiotis, such as at Achinos on the Maliakos Gulf (Figures 9 and 10) and further north at Sofiada near

Neo Monastiri (Dakoronia 1998). At these sites, pits were investigated during rescue excavations filled with parts of broken pottery that can be attributed to the FN period. In Kobotades in the Spercheios Valley, where a Late Helladic (Mycenaean) chamber tomb cemetery is being excavated by the Ephorate of Lamia under the direction of Dr. Karatzali, two human burials have been found inside two pits in the bedrock deposit of one of these Late Helladic tombs. One of the burials was dated by 14C to the fourth millennium B.C., while the pottery around them comprised characteristic FN material (personal examination).1 Finally, at Mitrou in Lokris (Van de Moortel and Zahou 2006), an FN layer has been found on the bedrock (personal examination), which is followed by EBA II habitation levels, as was also the case at Proskynas.

Figure 1. FN sites mentioned in the text in the area of east Lokris and northern Phthiotis, central Greece. (After Van de Moortel and Zahou 2006) 201

AS20.indb 201

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou

Figure 2. FN pits and burials below the EBA II settlement at Proskynas.

Figure 3. FN pit at Proskynas as found, covered with stones. 202

AS20.indb 202

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition…

Figure 4. FN pits at Proskynas after excavation.

Figure 5. Part of an FN bowl found in one of the pits at Proskynas. 203

AS20.indb 203

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou

Figure 6. FN pit burial of an adult man, 25 years old, underneath a wall of the Early Helladic II House D at Proskynas (mid-fifth millennium B.C.).

Figure 7. FN pit burial of an adult man, 45 years old, found underneath the Early Helladic II open Area B at Proskynas (mid-fifth millennium B.C.). 204

AS20.indb 204

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition…

Figure 8. FN pit burial of an adult man, 30–35 years old, north of the Early Helladic II House A at Proskynas (mid-fifth millennium B.C.).

Figure 9. FN pit at Achinos as found, dug into bedrock and covered with stones. 205

AS20.indb 205

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou

Figure 10. FN pit at Achinos after excavation. 206

AS20.indb 206

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition… The Final Neolithic Physical and Archaeological Landscape: The Big Picture My study of FN Proskynas provided the opportunity for a revision of the archaeological evidence of the period, both old and new, resulting from rescue and systematic excavations. I have suggested (Psimogiannou 2008, 2012) that the same spatial pattern that appears at Proskynas is found at the majority of the previously excavated and published sites attributed to the FN period. This pattern deserves our attention, and further systematic analysis will be conducted in the future. Based on the archaeological record until now, the landscape of the period is characterized by: (a) intense visibility of human burials and human remains; (b) pits in the vicinity of burials; (c) “pit sites” and/or sites with “wells;” (d) pit digging and “structured deposition;” (e) depositional activities in caves; and (f) settlement remains. Intense Visibility of Human Burials and Human Remains These are found either in cemeteries, such as the known cemeteries of Kephala (Coleman 1977) and Tharrounia (Sampson 1993), comprising built graves dug into the bedrock, or in cemeteries comprising chamber tombs (which may continue into the EBA), such as the case of Kalamaki Achaia and Kalyvia Elis (Rambach 2007). In this case, we may add the Tsepi cemetery in Attica, the use of which is now suggested to have started in the FN period and comprises dug and built tombs (Pantelidou 2007, 2008). Human remains are also found in areas comprising pit burials, such as at Proskynas, and in some cases with a relatively low number (e.g. Aria or Lerna in the Argolid, see Dousougli 1998; Vitelli 2007), which may also be due to limited excavation. Moreover, an important amount of FN human remains and burials have been found in caves, both inside and also outside of them (e.g. Franchthi and Alepotrypa). For example, several burial practices are attested in Alepotrypa Cave (e.g. ossuaries, primary burials, secondary burials, scattered bone; see Papathanasiou 2001, 2009; Papathanasiou et al. 2013). Pits in the Vicinity of Burials In many cases near or around the pit burials, other pits, usually dated to the same period or later, have been found. These pits are described as having similar characteristics in all cases, bearing traces of burning, and containing fragments of pottery, animal

bones, obsidian blades, burnt soil, and so on. In addition to Proskynas, this has been the case also at other sites (the following are a few characteristic cases; see complete catalogue in Psimogiannou 2008, 2012): Lerna (Vitelli 2007); Franchthi Paralia (Vitelli 1999); Alepotrypa Cave (Papathanassopoulos 1971); the Athenian Agora, where the FN remains comprise an FN burial and several pits (Immerwahr 1982; Platon 1968); the southern slope of the Athenian Acropolis, where a multiple FN burial and a number of pits were identified (Dousougli 1998:137–138); Galene in Thessaly (Toufexis 1997); Thebes in Boeotia (Tsota 2009), where an FN cemetery consisting of pits and pit graves surrounding an apsidal building were found. On Crete, the FN remains under the structures of the first Minoan Palace at Phaistos consist of a series of pits excavated into the bedrock and related to a burial in the vicinity (Todaro and Di Tonto 2008). A pit containing a huge number of vessels and animal bones was found among the built graves at Tsepi in Marathon. The pit held datable FN material, providing an earlier date for the first use of this particular cemetery (Pantelidou 2007, 2008). “Pit Sites” and/or Sites with “Wells” In many other cases, whether due to excavation bias or not, only pits have been found. These sites could be characterized as “pit sites,” since they are not associated with any structural features or occupation evidence. This was the case at sites such as Tsoungiza in the Korinthia (Pullen 2011); Prosymna (Blegen 1937) and Halieis (Pullen 2000) in the Argolid; Agios Dimitrios in Elis (Zachos 2008); Nichoria in Messenia (Howell 1992); and Voidokoilia in Pylos (Korres 1977, 1978, 1979). Here we can add Kalapodi and Achinos in Phthiotis, as previously mentioned. A recently excavated pit site, where a large number of pits were exposed during a rescue excavation for the new highway, is Pellana near Sparta (Papagiannis 2012), as well as some sites in northeastern Attica, such as Koropi, Merenda, Spata, and so on (the latter material is under study, but it has been suggested that some of the pits in Merenda might have been used as dwellings due to their large dimensions; see Kakavogianni et al. 2009:161). The same practice has been attested on islands, such as Kastro Tigani on Samos (Felsch 1988), Agia Irini on Kea (Caskey 1972), and Kolonna on Aegina (Felten 2003). In some cases, ditches have been found along with or surrounding these pits, while above the pits paved surfaces constructed with small stones have been also found (e.g. Kastro Tigani). In cases where the depth of the pit was over 1–2 m, the pit was characterized as a “well,” again

207

AS20.indb 207

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou containing similar cultural material as the other pits. That was the case in the northern and western slopes of the Acropolis (Immerwahr 1971; Platon 1968). In the former, 20 deep pits dug in the bedrock (called “wells”) were found containing sherds, and in some cases whole vessels, as well as human skulls and postcranial remains. FN wells are recorded also on Crete (e.g. Kastelli [Mantelli 1992] and elsewhere). Pit Digging and “Structured Deposition” in the Southern Greek Neolithic? Regarding the above pit digging and filling practices, an important discussion has appeared in the past few years in the literature about the Balkan and European Neolithic. In most cases in southern Greece, these FN pits have been characterized as garbage pits (usually called “bothroi;” Hutchinson 1935), as remains of an occupation that was not preserved, thus equating pits with a settlement and structures of perishable materials. In a few cases, they have been interpreted as “pyres/apothetes,” bearing more ritual connotations, based on examples from the Classical and Byzantine periods. Recent discussions and research on the Neolithic of both northern Europe and northern Greece, where a number of LN “pit sites” have appeared as a result of large-scale rescue excavations (e.g. Makriyalos, Thermi, Toumba Kremasti, Avgi Kastorias, etc.; see Pappa 2008; HondrogianniMetoki 2009), a different approach has emerged (Anderson-Whymark and Thomas 2012; Chapman 2000; Pollard 2001; Thomas 2012). The discussion has resulted in an interpretation of a deliberate placing of material inside the pits, constituting an act of “structured deposition,” related also to practices of fragmentation of the artifacts (Chapman 2000). Due to space constraints, I will not provide an analytical discussion of this issue. However, three points could be made here. First, the above pattern of pit digging and filling in FN southern Greece seems to link this activity with both northern Greek and wider European Neolithic traditions. Second, an important archaeological aspect is the possibility of large-scale excavations, which have opened up the discussion of “pit sites” in both northern Greece and northern Europe. In contrast, in southern Greece, limited rescue excavations and, in particular, the fact that most FN sites are covered by thick Bronze Age deposits, have provided a more limited picture, thereby making interpretation and spatial analysis in most cases impossible. Third, accepting the intentionality behind these pit digging and filling practices—whether they are related to an FN settlement existing somewhere nearby or not, to a settlement “to be” in the future,

or to any other kind of landscape use accomplished through the digging of pits and the deposition of material culture therein—implies that a more systematic examination of the contents of the pits in each case is also required. Their contents are similar (sherds, bones, obsidian, burnt soil, etc.), and probably they had been deposited in the pits all together, although fragmentary, so as to represent cultural “wholes” (for example, see discussion in Garrow 2007:Figure 1). I feel that if the contents of the pits were studied as such “wholes” of deposition, and not separated into distinct categories (bones, pottery, etc.), then some interesting results could come out in the future regarding the nature of these deposits. Depositional Activities in Caves: The Case of Alepotrypa Cave in Diros Related to the above discussion, similar practices of “structured deposition” have been attested in caves during the FN period (Tomkins 2009, 2012). In the cave of Alepotrypa, Lakonia (Papathanassopoulos 1971, 1996), human burial activity, which had begun earlier at the end of the Early Neolithic (end of the seventh millennium cal B.C.; see Papathanasiou et al. 2013), became more intense and extensive during the FN, both inside and outside the cave. FN remains in Alepotrypa include primary burials, ossuaries, bone scatters, and secondary burials (Papathanasiou 2001, 2009). As will be presented in more detail in a forthcoming paper (Psimogiannou 2017), Chamber Z in the cave witnessed the deposition of secondary burials and scattered bones. This burial deposition was accompanied by an intentional breakage of pottery, followed by dispersal and deposition in the same place, along with other kinds of artifacts, resulting in a thick accumulation of fragmentary material culture (see Papathanassopoulos 1996:176). Regarding the FN period, and for the purposes of this paper, it is important to note that the pottery deposited in the spaces of Chamber Z (Figures 11 and 12) presents strong affinities with material also deposited in many of the above-mentioned cemeteries and burial areas (e.g. biconical jars from the “wells” in the north slope of the Athenian Acropolis; Immerwahr 1971:5–6, Figure 1), thus integrating FN Alepotrypa in this wider domain of mortuary and depositional activity of the period (for further discussion concerning Alepotrypa Cave, see Psimogiannou 2017). Final Neolithic Settlement Remains In this landscape, the “pure” settlement remains seem—at least based on the current record—less

208

AS20.indb 208

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition…

Figure 11. FN collar jar with horizontal tubular lugs on the body, found broken in the pottery deposit in Chamber Z, Alepotrypa Cave.

Figure 12. FN collar jar with horizontally pierced tubular lug handles on the body, found broken in the pottery deposit in Chamber Z, Alepotrypa Cave. 209

AS20.indb 209

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou conspicuous and dispersed. The implications of this phenomenon remain to be examined further in the future (see also brief discussion in Zahou and Psimogiannou 2015). For the moment, settlements of the period, such as those that have been investigated at Strofilas on Andros (Televantou 2008), Sfakovouni in Arcadia, Zagani in Attica (Steinhauer 2001), as well as Mikrothives (Adrymi-Sismani 2007) and Petromagoula in Thessaly (Hatziaggelakis 1984), are thought to represent short-term occupations dated to around the mid-fourth millennium B.C. or later (see Tsirtsoni 2010 for radiocarbon dates). The Final Neolithic Cultural Landscape: The Small Picture of Human Experience At this point we can move on from the broader archaeological landscape to the cultural landscape of the period and to the people who constructed that landscape. Peter Tomkins (2014) has used the word “flexibility” to describe the new form of households that appeared in the FN on Crete, which seemed freer to operate in isolation as separate socioeconomic units after the breakdown of the later Neolithic village life (Tomkins 2010:37–39). In addition, in the same period in the whole of Southeastern Europe, less detectable settlement types are evident across the entire region after the discontinuation of tell settlements (Krauß 2014). Based on the above archaeological evidence, as well as the dispersed/short-term settlement pattern during the FN in southern Greece, a picture seems to emerge of a more diverse landscape, and thus more “fluid” (probably “open” to negotiations?). This seems to be in contrast with the previous, long-term, and nucleated way of living, evident in the “tell sites” of earlier Neolithic periods (Kotsakis 1999). We may, therefore, wonder if this pattern may imply the existence of some other mechanisms to keep people together in communal arenas, probably outside or in addition to the “pure” domestic sphere. These areas, where social gatherings may have taken place, could have been the cemeteries of built or chamber tombs, “pit sites”, and caves of the period. A similar discussion has been already put forward for the same period in the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000:274) and on Crete (Tomkins and Shoep 2010:73–75). The above places may have served as venues for social bonding and human interaction through participation in communal and ceremonial practices (Metcalf and Huntington 1991; Pearson 1993), including digging, filling, exchanging or breaking, and finally depositing of artifacts, as well as human bodies—in whole and in part. These practices could have taken place during several visits and revisits to these places.

This brings us to my last and most important point regarding the above FN places. All the sites mentioned here, including cemeteries and “pit sites” (and some caves), can be considered “open spaces.” These spaces were used, visited, and revisited several times for periodic offerings and gatherings, indicating that they were “known” foci in the landscape of the period, and probably even territorial markers located on important routes. The revisits also would have been accompanied by new depositions and offerings each time—either leaving behind material culture that was preserved, such as pottery, or not. The importance of these re-depositions in terms of site formation processes and from a chronological perspective (meaning how these revisits and re-depositions [e.g. of pottery] can be detectable and defined chronologically; see LaMotta 2001) will be discussed in another venue. In this context, the practice of exchange and the final deposition itself, during which artifacts or parts of artifacts were removed from above-ground circulation, was an important element of this interaction and intermingling of humans, artifacts, and landscapes (Hodder 2012). Last but not least, it is some of these open, burial, and gathering areas that, as I have already suggested (Psimogiannou 2012), the people of the EBA II claimed and used as a “foundation” for another domain: a domestic one. This is indicated at Proskynas, Mitrou, and elsewhere (Lerna, Voidokoilia, Agios Dimitrios, Kolonna, and Agia Irini), where EBA II settlements are located above FN deposits (see also discussion in Zahou and Psimogiannou 2015), marking at the same time the “beginning” of a long-term use of these places during the Bronze Age. The intermediate stages of this “transformation” (from the FN to the EBA II), if they can be detected in the archaeological record of the Greek mainland, are issues that deserve our attention. It is a fact, however, that similar emphasis on open areas as ritual foci during the FN, preceding a monumental activity in the Bronze Age, has been recently put forward on Crete in the cases of Knossos (Tomkins 2014:358–359) and Phaistos (Todaro 2012; Todaro and Di Tonto 2008). Discussion and Conclusions Human experience, according to anthropological literature, is always determined by place (Cresswell 2004:22–23). A place is how humans make their world meaningful and the way in which they experience this world. But places do not exist and come naturally with meanings and memories attached to them; they are produced through human actions. Therefore, for parts of the landscape to be transformed into focal

210

AS20.indb 210

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition… places of that landscape with embedded meanings, no monumental architecture and other constructions are needed, only human bodies, actions, and intentions. Empty spaces, open areas (e.g. plazas), and physical landscapes (e.g. mounds, caves, etc.) can be equally important. In every era, however, the construction of places has been taking place in a context of power, through the exclusion of some “other.” Those who have the power to dominate usually decide who is considered “out of place” or not (Cresswell 2004:102–123). In the case of FN burial areas, cemeteries, and caves, not all people would have access to these places, ceremonial activities, esoteric knowledge, and of course material culture. Some individuals or families might not have been “qualified” to be buried in the abovementioned places, and not everyone would have been allowed to participate in the activities there or to use the same artifacts/symbols. This differentiation in the accessibility to places, objects, and ideas—at either a local or a supra-local level would have resulted in several social implications or distinctions at the end of the Neolithic. I believe that the above discussion, as well as all the work that has been done by several other researchers in Aegean archaeology in the past few years, indicates that the so-called “missing millennium” of the FN (Renfrew 1972; see also Tomkins 2014), is not so “missing” anymore. Although further systematic analysis is required in regard to the above suggestions, I hope that the issues put forward in this paper are enough to start our re-examination and “re-reading” of the FN in central and southern Greece. Notes One of the FN burials at Kobotades in Phthiotis was dated by 14C to the fourth millennium cal B.C. The dating of the Kobotades FN human remains mentioned in the text is part of a broader project on radiocarbon dating of FN human burials conducted by the author, in collaboration with Dr. Anastasia Papathanasiou, a physical anthropologist with the Greek Ministry of Culture. The project is in progress and all the detailed results will be published in a final paper in the future.

1

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following foundations, institutions, and people who have supported my research and studies so far in both Greece and the United States in several ways, and thereby contributed to the

completion of the present paper: the Greek Ministry of Culture, specifically the Ephorate of Antiquities in Lamia (ΙΔ’ ΕΠΚΑ), the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology in Athens, the Ephorate of Antiquities in Athens (Α’ ΕΠΚΑ), the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the Fulbright Foundation in Greece, the Institute of International Education in NY, the Alexander Onassis Foundation, the J. F. Costopoulos Foundation, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Dr. Eleni Zahou (Greek Ministry of Culture), Dr. Anastasia Papathanasiou (Greek Ministry of Culture), Dr. William Parkinson (Field Museum of Natural History), Dr. Aleydis Van de Moortel (University of Tennessee), Dr. Takis Karkanas (Wiener Lab, ASCSA), Dr. Maria-Photeini Papakonstantinou (Greek Ministry of Culture), Dr. Fanouria Dakoronia (Director Emerita), Dr. Giorgos Papathanassopoulos (Director Emeritus), Dr. Efthymia Karatzali (Greek Ministry of Culture), Dr. Aristea Papastathopoulou (Greek Ministry of Culture), Dr. Vince LaMotta (University of Illinois at Chicago), Dr. Petranka Nedelcheva-Megalla (New Bulgarian University, Sofia) and Dr. Peter Tomkins (University of Sheffield/Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). My paper presentation at the conference “Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece” in May 2015 in Rethymno, Crete, was also supported by the Student Presenter’s Award from the Graduate College, University of Illinois at Chicago. Last but not least, I would like to thank the two reviewers for their comments and suggestions. References Cited Adrymi-Sismani, Vassiliki 2007 Le Site Chalkolithique de Microthèbes au Carrefour du monde Égéen et des Balkans du nord. In Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders, Proceedings of the International Conference, Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yiannis Galanakis, and Robert Laffineur, pp. 73–79. Aegaeum 27. Université de Liège Histoire de l’Art et Archéologie de la Grèce Antique, Liège. Aldenderfer, Mark 1993 Ritual, Hierarchy and Change in Foraging Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:1–40.

211

AS20.indb 211

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou Alram-Stern, Eva 1998 Aigeira-Achaia and the Settlement Pattern on the Peloponnese in the Final Neolithic and EH I. In The Prehistoric Research in Greece and its Perspectives: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, Proceedings of International Symposi­ um in the memory of D.R Theocharis, Thessaloniki-Kastoria, 26–28 November 1998, edited by Eleutheria Voulgari, pp. 21–28. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Anderson-Whymark, Hugo, and Julian Thomas 2012 Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: Beyond the Mundane. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 12. Oxbow Book, Oxford. Blegen, Carl W. 1937 Prosymna, the Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Broodbank, Cyprian 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Caskey, John L. 1972 Investigations in Keos. Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery. Hesperia 41:357–401. Caskey, John L., and Elizabeth G. Caskey 1960 The Earliest Settlement at Eutresis: Supplementary Excavations, 1958. Hesperia 29 (2):126–167. Cavanagh, William, Joost Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and Graham Shipley 2002 Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey: 1. Methodology and Interpretation. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 26. British School at Athens, London. Chapman, John 2000 Pit-Digging and Structured Deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66:61–87. Coleman, John E. 1977 Keos I, Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. 2011 The Petromagoula-Doliana Group and the Beginning of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Ιn Protohelladika: The Southern and Central Greek Mainland, edited by Dora Katsonopoulou, pp. 13–44. Helike IV: Ancient Helike and Aigialeia. The Helike Society, Athens.

Cresswell, Tim 2004 Place: A Short Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Dakoronia, Fanouria 1998 Σοφιάδα Δομοκού. Chronica B1. Archaiologikon Deltion 48(1993):213. Diamant, Steven 1974 The Later Village Farming Stage in Southern Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dousougli, Angelika 1998 Άρια Αργολίδος. Η Χειροποίητη Κεραμεική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής και Χαλκολι­ θικής Περιόδου. Publications of the Archaiologikon Deltion 66. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Felsch, Reiner C. S. 1988 Das Kastro Tigani. Die Spätneolithische und Chalkolithische Siedlung. Samos Band 2. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Felten, Florens 2003 Nέες Ανασκαφές στην Αίγινα Κολώνα. In Πεπραγμένα του 1 ου Συνεδρίου για την Ιστορία και την Αρχαιολογία του Αργοσαρωνικού, Πόρος, 26–29 June 1998, edited by Eleni Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou, pp. 17–27. Ekdosi Demou Porou, Athens. Garrow, Duncan 2007 Placing Pits: Landscape Occupation and Depositional Practice during the Neolithic in East Anglia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73:1–24. Geertz, Clifford 1973a Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In Interpretation of Cultures, edited by Clifford Geertz, pp. 3–30. Basic Books, New York. 1973b Ritual and Social Change. In Interpretation of Cultures by Clifford Geertz, pp. 142–169. Basic Books, New York. Goldmann, Hetty 1931 Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Halstead, Paul 1994 The North-South Divide: Regional Paths to Complexity in Prehistoric Greece. In Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by Clay Mathers and Simmon Stoddart, pp. 195–219. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Hatziangelakis, Leonidas 1984 O Προϊστορικός Οικισμός της Πετρο­ μαγούλας. Anthropologika 5:75–85.

212

AS20.indb 212

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition… Hodder, Ian 2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex. Hondrogianni-Metoki, Areti 2009 Μη Οικιστικές Χρήσεις Χώρου στους Νεολιθικούς Οικισμούς. Η Περίπτωση της Τούμπας Κρεμαστής Κοιλάδας. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Horejs, Barbara, and Mathias Mehofer (editors) 2014 Western Anatolia Before Troy: ProtoUrbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Howell, Roger J. 1992 Final Neolithic Phase. In Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece: The Bronze Age Occupation, Vol. II, edited by William A. McDonald and Nancy C. Wilkie, pp. 8–15. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Hutchinson, Robert W. 1935 Bothroi. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 55 (1):1–19. Immerwahr, Sara A. 1971 The Athenian Agora: XIII. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. 1982 The Earliest Athenian Grave. In Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson, pp. 54–62. Hesperia Supplements 20. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Kakavogianni, Olga, Kleio Dimitriou, Christos Koutsothanasis, and Aikaterini Petrou 2009 Early Helladic Settlement at Merenda. In From Mesogeia to Argosaronikos. Second Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. Research of a Decade, 1994–2003, Proceedings of the Conference held in Athens, December 18–20, 2003, edited by Vivi Vassilopoulou and Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki, pp. 159–175. Ministry of Culture and Municipality of Markopoulo of Mesogeia, Athens. Korres, Georgios S. 1977 Εργασίαι, Έρευναι και Ανασκαφαί ανά την Πυλίαν. Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 24:229–235.

1978 Έρευναι και Ανασκαφαί ανά την Πυλίαν. Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 25:321­–360. 1979 Ανασκαφή Βοϊδοκοιλιάς, Πυλίας. Proceedings of the Archaeological Society at Athens 26:138–155. Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Krauß, Raiko 2014 Troy, Baden Culture and Corded Ware – Correlations in the Balkan-Carpathian Region at the Turn of the 4th millennium B.C. In Western Anatolia Before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and Mathias Mehofer, pp. 261–274. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. LaMotta, Vince 2001 Behavioral Variability in Mortuary Deposition: a Modern Material Culture Study. Arizona Anthropologist 14:53–80. McGuire, Randall H., and Dean J. Saitta 1996 Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them Badly: The Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Antiquity 61(2):197–216. Mantelli, Katia 1992 The Neolithic Well at Kastelli Phournis in Eastern Crete. The Annual of the British School at Athens 87:103–120. Metcalf, Peter, and Richard Huntington 1991 Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pantelidou-Gofas, Maria 2007 Μαραθών: Τσέπι. Ergon:13–20. 2008 The Deposit Pit at Tsepi, Marathon: Features, Formation and the Breakage of the Finds. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, Georgios Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 281–289. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

213

AS20.indb 213

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou Papadatos, Yiannis, and Peter Tomkins 2013 Trading, the Longboat and Cultural Interaction in the Aegean During the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.E.: The View from Kephala, Petras, East Crete. American Journal of Archaeology 117(3):353–381. Papagiannis, Aristeides 2012 Τα Πρωτοελλαδικά Κατάλοιπα στην Περιοχή Μουχτέικα στον Καραβά Λα­ κωνίας και οι Ιδεολογικές Συνάφειές τους. Paper Presented at the conference “Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στην Πελοπόννησο,” 7–11 November, Tripoli, Greece. Papathanasiou, Anastasia 2001 A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. BAR International Series 961. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2009 Mortuary Behavior in Alepotrypa Cave: Assessments from the Study of the Human Osteological Material. In Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-modern, Proceedings of the Conference held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, edited by William G. Cavanagh, Chrysanthi Gallou, and Mercourios Georgiadis, pp. 21–28. British School at Athens Studies 16. British School at Athens, London. Papathanasiou, Anastasia, Panagiotis Karkanas, Stella Katsarou, Georgios Valvis, Katerina Psimogiannou, and Georgia Tsartsidou 2013 Alepotrypa Cave, Diros, 6000–3500 BC: New Evidence Shed New Light on the Excavated Material. Paper presented at the conference “Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Later Neolithic Stages (c. 5000/4800–3200/3000 B.C.),” held at the Athens Acropolis Museum and the Danish Institute in Athens, 7–9 June, Athens, Greece. Papathanasiou, Anastasia, Eleni Zahou, and Michael P. Richards 2009 Bioarchaeological Analysis of the Human Osteological Material from Proskynas, Lokris. In New Directions in the Skeletal Biology of Greece, edited by Lynne A. Schepartz, Chryssi Bourbou, and Sherry C. Fox, pp. 223–236. Occasional Wiener Laboratory Series. Hesperia Supplement

43. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. 1971 Σπήλαια Διρού, 1971. Athens Annals of Archaeology 4(3):289–303. 1996 Burial Customs at Diros. In Neolithic Culture in Greece, edited by Giorgos A. Papathanassopoulos, pp. 175–177. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Pappa, Maria 2008 Οργάνωση του Χώρου και Οικιστικά Στοιχεία στους Νεολιθικούς Οικισμούς της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας: Δ.Ε.Θ. – Θέρμη – Μακρύγιαλος. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pappa, Maria, Paul Halstead, Kostas Kotsakis, and Duska Urem-Kotsou 2004 Evidence for Large-Scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Northern Greece. In Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, edited by Paul Halstead and John C. Barrett, pp. 14–44. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pearson, Mike P. 1993 The Powerful Dead: Archaeological Relationships between the Living and the Dead. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2): 203–229. Platon, Νikolaos 1968 Εργασίαι Διαμορφώσεως και Τακτο­ ποιήσεως του Αρχαιολογικού Χώρου Ακροπόλεως. Chronika B1. Archaiologikon Deltion 21(1966):36–44. Pollard, Joshua 2001 The Aesthetics of Depositional Practice. World Archaeology 33(2):315–333. Psimogiannou, Katerina 2008 Η Νεολιθική Εγκατάσταση στον Προσκυνά Φθιώτιδος. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 2012 Creating Identities in the Mortuary Arena of the Greek Final Neolithic: A Contextual Definition of Practices in Central and Southern Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 39:185–201. 2017 Patterns of Pottery Consumption, Destruction and Deposition at Alepotrypa Cave, Southern Peloponnese, Greece: The Case of Chamber Z during the Neolithic Period. In Alepotrypa: Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Giorgos Papathanassopoulos, edited by Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael Galaty,

214

AS20.indb 214

2/11/18 9:00 PM

13 - … Burial Areas as Places for Interaction, Exchange, and Deposition… Panagiotis Karkanas, William Parkinson, and Daniel Pullen. Oxbow Books, Oxford, in press. Pullen, Daniel J. 2000 The Prehistoric Remains of the Acropolis at Halieis: A Final Report. Hesperia 69(2):133–187. 2011 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: 1. The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Rambach, Jörg 2007 Το ΠΕ Ι Νεκροταφείο της Αρχαίας Ήλιδας. In Πρακτικά του Ζ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών: Πύργος, Γαστούνη, Αμαλιάδα 11–17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2005 (Πελοποννησιακά Παράρτημα 27): Β’. Αρχαιότης, edited by Tasos Gritsopoulos, Konstantinos L. Kotsonis, and Ioanna K. Giannopoulou, pp. 63–92. Society for Peloponnesian Studies, Athens. Renfrew, Colin 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen, London. Runnels, Curtis N., and Tjeerd H. van Andel 1987 The Evolution of Settlement in the Southern Argolid, Greece: An Economic Explanation. Hesperia 56(3):303-334. Sampson, Adamantios (editor) 1993 Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο. Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, Athens. Sofaer, Johanna R. 2006 The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Steinhauer, Georgios 2001 Two Neolithic Settlements. In Mesogeia: History and Culture of Mesogeia in Attica, edited by Christos Doumas, pp. 28–34. Eleftherios Venezelos Athens International Airport, Athens. Televantou, Christina 2008 Strofilas: A Neolithic Settlement on Andros. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, G. Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 43–54. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Thomas, Julian 2012 Introduction: Beyond the Mundane? In Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit

Deposition: Beyond the Mundane, edited by Hugo Anderson-Whymark and Julian Thomas, pp. 1–12. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 12. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Todaro, Simona 2012 Craft Production and Social Practices at Prepalatial Phaistos: The Background to the First ‘Palace.’ In Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, edited by Ilse Schoep, Peter Tomkins, and Jan Driessen, pp. 195–235. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Todaro, Simona, and Serena Di Tonto 2008 The Neolithic Settlement of Phaistos Revisited: Evidence for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age. In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, edited by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins, pp. 176–190. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Tomkins, Peter 2009 Domesticity by Default: Ritual, Ritualization and Cave-Use in the Neolithic Aegean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(2):125–153. 2010 Neolithic Antecedents. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 B.C.), edited by Eric H. Cline, pp. 31–49. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2012 Landscapes of Ritual, Identity and Memory: Reconsidering Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Cave-Use in Crete, Greece. In Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, edited by Holly Moyes, pp. 59–79. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. 2014 Tracing Complexity in ‘the Missing Millennium’: an Overview of Recent Research into the Final Neolithic Period of Crete. In Western Anatolia Before Troy: ProtoUrbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and Mathias Mehofer, pp. 345–364. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Tomkins, Peter, and Ilse Schoep 2010 The Early Bronze Age in Crete. In The Oxford Handbook for the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Eric H. Cline, pp. 66–82. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

215

AS20.indb 215

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Katerina Psimogiannou Toufexis, George 1997 Recent Neolithic Research in the Eastern Thessalian Plain, Greece: A Preliminary Report. In The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age, Proceedings of the International Symposium, October 13th–19th, 1997, UrlaÝzmir (Turkey), edited by Hayat Erkanal, Harald Hauptmann, Vasif Şahoğlu, and Riza Tuncel, pp. 569–579. Ankara University, Ankara. Tsirtsoni, Zoï 2010 The End of the Neolithic in Greece and the Balkans. In Η Ελλάδα στο Ευρύτερο Πολιτισμικό Πλαίσιο των Βαλκανίων κατά την 5η και 4η Χιλιετία π.Χ., edited by Nikos Papadimitriou and Zoï Tsirtsoni, pp. 93–103. Museum of Cycladic Art and Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Athens. 2014 Formation or Transformation? The 4th mil. B.C. in the Aegean and the Balkans. In Western Anatolia Before Troy: ProtoUrbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and M. Mehofer, pp. 275–304. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Tsota, Evi 2009 Ευρήματα της Τελικής Νεολιθικής και ΠΕ Ι Περιόδου από την Ανασκαφή της Ανισόπεδης Διάβασης ΟΣΕ στη Θήβα. In Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στε­ρεάς Ελλάδας 2, Πρακτικά Επιστημονι­ κής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3–19.3.2006, Τόμος 1: Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 863–880. University of Thessaly and Ministry of Culture, Volos. van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Curtis N. Runnels 1988 An Essay on ‘the Emergence of Civilization’ in the Aegean World. Antiquity 62:234–247. Van de Moortel, Aleydis, and Eleni Zahou 2006 Excavations at Mitrou, East Lokris. Aegean Archaeology 7:39–48.

Vitelli, Karen D. 1999 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 2. The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 10. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2007 Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: V. The Neolithic Pottery from Lerna. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Wells, Berit, Curtis N. Runnels, and Eberhard Zangger 1990 The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: The 1988 Season. Opuscula Atheniensia XVIII(15):207–238. Wickens, Jere M. 1986 The Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attica, Greece from Prehistoric through Late Roman Times. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Zachos, Konstantinos L. 2008 Ayios Dhimitrios, a Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnese: The Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods. BAR International Series 1770. Archaeopress, Oxford. Zahou, Eleni 2002 The Development of the Material Culture through the Neolithic to Early Bronze Age as it Appeared in Northern Phthiotis. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, 24–29 September 2002, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2009 Ο Πρωτοελλαδικός Οικισμός του Προ­σκυ­ νά. Η Οργάνωση του Χώρου, η Παραγωγή και η Κατανάλωση της Κεραμεικής. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Zahou, Eleni, and Katerina Psimogiannou 2015 Η Δημιουργία Τόπων στο Λόφο του Προσκυνά: η Απεικόνιση της Ανθρώπινης Δράσης στο Χώρο και στο Χρόνο, In Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 4, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3–18.3.2012, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 817–828. University of Thessaly and Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Volos.

216

AS20.indb 216

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Part IΙ: Landscape Dynamics and Subsistence Strategies

AS20.indb 217

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 14 Islands Out of the Mainstream: Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean Evita Kalogiropoulou

Abstract Humans and landscapes are tied to continuous interaction processes that dynamically and reciprocally transform them. Current debates in landscape studies reconsider the dynamics of human-environment interplays by examining historical embeddedness in landscapes of action, putting emphasis on changes at the local scale, and reevaluating the impact of social transformations on past communities. These everchanging properties were involved in the formation of distinct cultural and social identities as people became increasingly entangled with local territories. This study suggests not only that new areas of habitation sheltered people from the elements and tethered them to their places, but also that they created habitual spaces, forming new identity maps and new conceptual understandings. A progressively increasing number of Final Neolithic cultural remains in the Aegean islands indicates social transformations and possible changes in landscape preferences. This paper examines forms of local social identities and island lifeways in the Cyclades and northern Sporades during the Neolithic period. Key elements of this analysis are the study of landscape habitation preferences and choices on spatial and architectural forms. Keywords Neolithic, Cyclades, Northern Sporades, landscapes of action, architecture, social space, insularity, identity maps Introduction: Tackling the Islands The title of this article is a paraphrase of Cherry’s seminal 1985 article, “Islands Out of the Stream: Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistory,” which described the striking paucity of data in Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean insular environments prior to the Early Bronze Age period and emphatically stated the effects of insularity. Following the Anglo-Saxon bio-geographical

approach to islands, Cherry asked the question of their initial colonization and searched for their connections to the adjacent mainland (Cherry 1985:14). The historiographical importance of this article lies at the initiation of the theoretical agenda of insularity and interaction, with emphasis on the models of colonization that determined the research on early habitation of the Aegean islands in the following decades (e.g. Broodbank 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2013; Davis 1992; Erdoğu 2003; Finlayson 2004; Keegan and Diamond 1987; Perlès 2001; Rainbird 1999; Tomkins 2004). Current approaches to island archaeology aim to go beyond simply charting distance, maritime abilities, or even the availability of new foods, by exploring the many social and cultural factors in human societies (e.g. Broodbank 2013; Efstratiou 2014; Kopaka 2008; Kopaka and Cadogan 2012; Malone 2015; Mavridis 2007; Patton 1996). Further, contemporary studies examine historical embeddedness in landscapes of action, putting emphasis on changes at the local scale and re-evaluating the impact of social transformation on past communities (e.g. Darvill 1997; Ingold 1993; Robb 2013). The long-lasting dominant perception of isolation, in combination with limited excavation data from Aegean insular environments, has delayed a synthetic analysis that would place early island communities in their broader environmental, historical, and social contexts. For the interpretation of the trajectories of the Greek Neolithic, this marginalization has several consequences and constitutes an important role of this analysis. Importantly, island archaeology needs to go beyond the study of coastline configuration and environmental changes to reconsider the social dynamics of human-environment interaction. A key aim of this paper is to unfold some of the various social choices that formed the lives of Neolithic communities in the Cyclades and northern Sporades by producing a synthesis that contextualizes landscape settlement choices and social space configurations. The present study reflects upon the settling of landscapes as a social process and examines the dynamic interaction between landscape and constructed social

218

AS20.indb 218

2/11/18 9:00 PM

spaces. It also attempts to introduce insular Neolithic communities to the discourse on social space that is continuing in other regions of mainland Greece (e.g. Andreou and Kotsakis 1987; Demoule and Perlès 1993; Efstratiou 2007; Halstead 1999; Kalogiropoulou 2014; Kotsakis 1999, 2006, 2014; Nanoglou 2001; Pappa and Besios 1999; Souvatzi 2008; Valamoti 2005). Although a reevaluation of the process of the Aegean colonization using new evidence available for Neolithic Greece is needed, this paper will not be involved with island-mainland dynamics, but rather with the choices people made once they reached the islands. The island complexes of the Cyclades and northern Sporades were chosen based on the recorded diversity of landscape preferences for habitation and the sufficiency of a relatively good assemblage of excavated Neolithic settlements that support a spatial-temporal approach. During the early stages of Neolithic habitation, the Cyclades and northern Sporades were underpopulated. To date, Agios Petros in Kyra Panagia and Cyclops Cave in Youra are the only two known sites inhabited in the Early Neolithic, while evidence of Middle Neolithic sites is sparse (Efstratiou 1985; Sampson 2001, 2008a). On the contrary, a growing number of Late and Final Neolithic sites have been well documented in the region (e.g. Cherry et al. 1991; Coleman 1977; Evans and Renfrew 1968; Renfrew 1972; Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982). Thirty-five Neolithic sites have been recorded in the Cyclades and northern Sporades (Table 1; Figures 1–2): 26 in the former and 9 in the latter. Of these sites, only 12 were archaeologically investigated; the remaining 23 have only involved surface collections. For this study, these sites are classified in the following 6 categories that describe respective habitation choices: settlements, caves or rockshelters, cemeteries, raw material processing grounds, obsidian mines, and sites of unknown use (Figure 3). Neolithic material was found in 9 of the excavated settlements: Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968), Strofilas (Televantou 2008), Kephala (Coleman 1977), Ftelia (Sampson 2002; 2008b), Minoa (Maragkou 2002), Koukounaries (Katsarou and Schilardi 2004), Grotta (Hadjianastassiou 1988), Agios Petros (Efstratiou 1985), and Papa to Homa (Theocharis 1959). Kephala is included in two categories, as a settlement and a cemetery. Two caves, Cyclops Cave (Sampson 2008a, 2008b) and Zas Cave (Zachos 1990, 1999), are among the 12 excavated sites; while a complex of cave chambers or rockshelters have also been excavated at Akrotiri on Thera (Sotirakopoulou 1986, 1996, 2008). Agrilia, Kalogiros, and Kouphi on Melos are considered camps for the initial processing of obsidian, whereas the sites

of Sta Nychia and Demenegaki, located on the same island, are the only obsidian mines recorded in the Cyclades (Cherry and Torrence 1982). Landscapes of Action: Habitation Preferences and the Creation of Insular Identity Maps For an analysis of landscape habitation preferences, bibliographic references and topographic maps were examined. Neolithic sites are recorded as promontories, islets, coastal areas, and mountainous regions (Table 2; Figure 4). Areas associated with fertile lands and water resources that have natural harbors close to the sea constitute the landscape qualities that were preferred for habitation. However, mountainous regions were also chosen. In contrast with past models (e.g. Broodbank 1999a; Keegan and Diamond 1987), a local-scale analysis of the two island complexes reveals that islands were visited or occupied by a small number of communities regardless of their size, since Neolithic evidence was found in small (Youra, Kyra Panagia), medium (Paros, Kea, Mykonos), and large-sized islands (Naxos, Andros) (see Table 2). The same theories suggested that relatively small islands like the Cyclades and northern Sporades could not biologically support more that one settlement (Broodbank 1999a:25; Keegan and Diamond 1987:62; MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Mavridis 2007:285–287; Renfrew 1972). However, a regional inter-spatial analysis shows that Neolithic settlements in the Cyclades and northern Sporades were supported by a network of different satellite, auxiliary sites including caves, camps, and raw processing sites (Figures 5–6). A pedestrian survey of the ancient settlement and cemetery of Kephala in Kea, for example, revealed contemporary archaeological surface remains found at three more sites on the island: Paoura, Sykamia, and Agia Irini. In Andros, surface material found at the sites of Vriokastro and Mikrogiali in the northeastern part of the island are contemporary with the central-western part of Strofilas. The settlement of Ftelia in Mykonos is contemporary with two more known sites: Anavalousa and Mavri Spilia. Additionally, in the northern Sporades (Figure 6) the sites of Pigadi and Planitis are in proximity to Agios Petros in Kyra Panagia, while contemporary archaeological remains from Cyclops Cave at Youra indicate a possible communication network between the two islands. The distribution of Neolithic settlements in our case study shows inter-temporal preference for promontories and prominent places visible from both the sea and the shore, which act as landmarks for interact-

219

AS20.indb 219

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou Table 1. Neolithic Sites in the Cyclades and Northern Sporades. No. Site Cyclades

Island

Archaeology

Date

Habitation Type

1 2 3 4

Strofilas Saliagos Agia Irini Agrilia

Andros Saliagos Kea Melos

excavation excavation excavation survey

LN/FN MN/LN/FN FN FN

5

Akrotiri

Thera

excavation

LN/FN

6 7 8 9

Akrotiri Vani Anavalousa Vriokastro Kalogiros

Melos Mykonos Andros Melos

survey survey survey survey

LN/FN FN FN FN

10 11

Korakia Kouphi

Melos Melos

survey survey

FN FN

12 Mikrogiali 13 Paoura 14 Soleta 15 Fava I 16 Fava II 17 Minoa 18 Koukounaries 19 Grotta 20 Kephala 21 Zas Cave 22 Ftelia 23 Sykamia 24 Mavri Spilia 25 Sta Nychia 26 Demenegaki Northern Sporades

Andros Kea Melos Melos Melos Amorgos Paros Naxos Kea Naxos Mykonos Kea Mykonos Melos Melos

survey survey survey survey survey excavation excavation excavation excavation excavation excavation survey survey survey survey

FN FN FN FN FN FN FN FN LN/FN LN LN FN Neolithica Neolithic Neolithic

settlement settlement unknown raw material processing ground cave chambers/ rockshelter unknown unknown unknown raw material processing ground unknown raw material processing ground unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown settlement settlement settlement settlement and cemetery cave settlement unknown unknown obsidian mine obsidian mine

27 28 29

Cyclops Cave Psathoura Planitis

excavation survey survey

EN/MN/LN Neolithic Neolithic

cave unknown unknown

30 31

Paliofanaro Papa to Homa

Youra Psathoura Kyra Panagia Peristera Skyros

Neolithic MN

unknown settlement

32

Agios Petros

survey sounding trenches excavation

EN/MN

settlement

33 34 35

Gramiza Pappous Pigadi

survey survey survey

Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic

unknown unknown unknown

Kyra Panagia Gramiza Pappous Kyra Panagia

Sites that were identified in surveys and are lacking precise chronological evidence are classified simply as “Neolithic.” a

220

AS20.indb 220

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean

Figure 1. Distribution of Neolithic sites in the Cyclades (see Table 1 for site names). ing populations (see Table 2; Figure 4). Habitation of prominent places indicates control of terrestrial and maritime resources, amplification of navigation and sea routes, territoriality, social interaction, and exchange, and it enables monumentality and social statues among neighboring communities (Chapman 1990, 2008; Kotsakis 1999; Nanoglou 2001). Kephala and Strofilas are two typical examples of habitation of promontories, in addition to the settlement of Papa to Homa. The settlements of Agios Petros and Saliagos are now identified as small islets, but during the Neolithic they were settled at the end of two promontories, which formed shallow and natural bays

that today are submerged under the sea (Efstratiou 2001:240; Morrison 1968:94). Another settlement, Grotta in Naxos, is partially preserved on the modern coastal area, but at one time it extended along a promontory that reached the opposite islet of Palatia in the Neolithic (Hadjianastassiou 1988:18). The coastal site of Ftelia was also founded on a low heel of the inner Panormos Bay overlooking a flat fertile plain. It appears that visibility played a role in the flat coastal settlement of Koukounaries, where three conspicuous terraces were constructed to oversee the natural bay of Naoussa (Katsarou and Schilardi 2004). Habitation of promontories and coastal sites

221

AS20.indb 221

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou

Figure 2. Distribution of Neolithic sites in the northern Sporades (see Table 1 for site names). is synonymous with proximity to the sea. Regions with natural and sheltered harbors were continuously occupied as a means to maintain contact and interaction with neighboring communities. Agios Petros, Ftelia, Grotta, Koukounaries, Saliagos, Kephala, and Strofilas are all settlements that are directly associated with natural harbors—a phenomenon that supports the development of sea routes and strong inter-insular connections among the Neolithic communities (Kopaka 2004:92–93). Additionally, fertile land suitable for cultivation has also played a significant role in habitation (see Table 2). The settlement of Agios Petros, located on

a promontory at the entrance to Kyra Panagia Bay, is close to the fertile soils formed by a river delta (Efstratiou 1985:53). Strofilas was settled in the southern and most fertile region of Andros (Televantou 2008:43), and at the foothills of Koukounaries, a plain traversed by a small stream forms a river delta of fertile alluvial deposits (Katsarou and Schilardi 2004). Based on oceanological studies, Saliagos controlled two large plains in Antiparos and Paros (Evans and Renfrew 1968:77), while Grotta was established directly on top of fertile alluvial deposits (Hadjianastassiou 1988:11). The significance of water resources to daily life is supported by the torrents, karstic springs, and rivers

222

AS20.indb 222

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean

Figure 3. Classification of site categories in the Neolithic Cyclades and northern Sporades. that are recorded at most of the sites discussed here. This demonstrates the importance of a subsistence economy in these insular environments. The site of Cyclops Cave and Zas Cave, found in mountainous landscape settings, not only indicate diversity in habitation preferences, but also could reflect dissimilarity in use properties as satellite or auxiliary sites associated with fishing and husbandry, respectively (Sampson 2008a; Zachos 1999:157–161). Living by the Sea: Markers of Social Space in the Aegean Islands Unlike past studies, this paper does not examine insular Neolithic settlements in comparison with the prevailing site types recorded in mainland Greece, such as tells and flat-extended sites (Mavridis 2007:284). Instead, it aims to explore these distinctive settlement characteristics ascribed in space that unfold glimpses of social life in the insular social communities under

study. The term horizontal sites is introduced to attribute common spatial features to these insular Neolithic settlements. This term describes small sites that typically have shallow archaeological deposits, horizontal spatial development, and exploitation of diverse landscape settings. Unlike flat-extended site, there is no evidence of shift or later expansion of these insular communities to adjacent areas. Despite their horizontal layout, a typical characteristic of these sites is their high visibility due to the selection of prominent landscape settings. Key elements of the present analysis are the scattered architectural remains such as buildings, boundary markers, terraces, and open spaces found at the sites that maintain sufficient built features, such as Agios Petros, Strofilas, Kephala, Saliagos, Koukounaries, Grotta, and Ftelia. The poor preservation of perishable building materials, erosive nature of island environments next to the sea, exposure to windy conditions, and limited systematic archaeological research in

223

AS20.indb 223

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou Table 2. Landscape Qualities of Neolithic Sites in the Cyclades and Northern Sporades. No.

Site

Island

Landscape

Latitude

Hydrology

Size of Island (km2)

Cyclades 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Strofilas Saliagos Agia Irini Agrilia Akrotiri Akrotiri Vani Anavalousa Vriokastro Kalogiros Korakia Kouphi Mikrogiali Paoura Soleta Fava I Fava II Minoa Koukounaries Grotta Kephala Zas Cave Ftelia

Andros Saliagos Kea Melos Thera Melos Mykonos Andros Melos Melos Melos Andros Kea Melos Melos Melos Amorgos Paros Naxos Kea Naxos Mykonos

promontory islet coastal mountainous coastal mountainous promontory mountainous promontory plain mountainous coastal promontory mountainous mountainous mountainous mountainous plain coastal promontory mountainous coastal

? 5 ? 60 ? 80 120 ? 125 50 110 ? 20 160 120 130 ? 75 0 37 628 ?

23

Sykamia

Kea

promontory

20

24 Mavri Spilia 25 Sta Nychia 26 Demenegaki Northern Sporades

Mykonos Melos Melos

mountainous mountainous mountainous

85 ? ?

27

Cyclops Cave

Youra

mountainous

150

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Psathoura Planitis Paliofanaro Papa to Homa Agios Petros Gramiza Pappous Pigadi

Psathoura Kyra Panagia Peristera Skyros Kyra Panagia Gramiza Pappous Kyra Panagia

coastal coastal promontory promontory islet mountainous coastal coastal

4 ? 14 ? 13 ? 0 80

the region has resulted in a shortage of architectural remains. Seasonal habitation in insular landscapes in the Neolithic Aegean may also explain the restrictions of poorly preserved architectural features. Stone was

torrent karstic spring ? torrent river torrent ? torrent river/torrent karstic spring river/torrent torrent torrent torrent river river torrent torrent torrent/ karstic spring torrent/ karstic spring river ? ?

380 8 130 151 76 151 86 380 151 151 151 380 130 380 380 380 121 194 428 130 428 86

lake/karstic spring well torrent karstic spring torrent

10

130 86 380 380

11 209 11 11

the predominant building material used by Neolithic Aegean islanders for all types of constructions: houses (e.g. Strofilas, Saliagos, Ftelia), storage spaces (e.g. Saliagos), terraces (e.g. Koukounaries, Kephala),

224

AS20.indb 224

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean retaining walls (e.g. Saliagos), cooking facilities (e.g. Saliagos, Agios Petros) and demarcation walls (e.g. Kephala, Strofilas, Saliagos). Other materials were used for various features: for example, pebbles for floors or foundation settings at Saliagos and Grotta, respectively (Evans and Renfrew 1968; Hadjianastassiou 1988); floors at Saliagos and Strofilas (Evans and Renfrew 1968; Televantou 2008); dried mud remains possibly from wall plaster or roof material at Ftelia (Sampson 2002); and chalk remains associated with a hearth at Grotta (Hadjianastassiou 1988). Wood is not preserved at any of the studied sites, but its use as a building material in Greek Neolithic settlements is conclusive (e.g. Ridley et al. 2000; Wardle 1996). Small groups that shared and developed common social characteristics inhabited each of these horizontal insular villages. Such characteristics were expressed in their social space and architecture (Broodbank 2000:86; Mavridis 2007:284; Renfrew 1972). Most of the preserved and excavated buildings were rect-

angular, although apsidal and circular floor plans were documented at sites like Ftelia (Sampson 2002), Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968:15–27), and Agios Petros (Efstratiou 1985:12–25), indicating a less standardized architectural form. Houses were mediumsized (about 6 m x 6 m), single-room dwellings, likely designed to shelter one family, and constructed with stone foundations. Although architectural remains are sparse, we can argue that buildings were not scattered randomly through the settlement, and that they were instead established closely together, creating a center of daily social activities in the village (e.g. Saliagos, Ftelia, Kephala). However, the large scale and diversity of architectural features unearthed at the Neolithic settlement of Strofilas counterbalance the general picture of poorly preserved architectural remains in the Cyclades and northern Sporades (Televantou 2008). Strofilas offers the most comprehensive ground plan of Neolithic settlement in the insular Aegean and is an indicator of the intra-site organization of social space

Figure 4. Landscape habitation preferences in in the Neolithic Cyclades and northern Sporades. 225

AS20.indb 225

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou in island environments in the region. Archaeological investigation revealed the complete ground plans of five rectangular and apsidal domestic buildings, with scattered and disjointed walls correspondingly identified. The carvings on the stone floor and the carefully constructed upper structure support the hypothesis that a single structure (Building B) could have been used as a shrine. These findings unravel the symbolic characteristics of Building B, ascribing it special religious or communal use (Televantou 2008:187). House-centered research in prehistoric studies has resulted in the overlooking of yards and open-air

spaces within the boundaries of a communal space. Until recently, open-air spaces were theoretically and methodologically approached as integral components of community space that held an essential role in the organization of daily life and the negotiation of social identities (Bogaard 2005; Brück 2000; Byrd 1994; Halstead 1999; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Kalogiropoulou 2014; Koromila et al., this volume; Nanoglou 2008). At Kephala in Kea and Koukounaries in Paros, the steep terrain was transformed into terraces at various levels, where farming, herding, food preparation, and tool production were performed (Coleman 1977;

Figure 5. Suggested contacts and sea communication routes among sites in the Neolithic Cyclades. 226

AS20.indb 226

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean Katsarou and Schilardi 2004). At Ftelia, the lack of architectural remains in Section D, together with a semi-circular stone hearth, indicated that the yard’s organization was rather for food preparation and cooking (Sampson 2002). Outdoor pebbled floors at Grotta and floors made of flat stones at Agios Petros show special care for the construction of outside spaces in these two settlements (Efstratiou 1985:17–18; Hadjianastassiou 1988). Yards and shared open-air spaces were regularly equipped with cooking facilities, suggesting that food preparation was part of the private domestic routine inside houses but also a part

of the public social activities that formed community habitus (Bourdieu 1977). Cooking facilities were found in house interiors and in the open-air spaces, although a preference for outdoor cooking is noted. For example, at Agios Petros a small assemblage of circular and semi-circular cooking facilities was located within the open-air spaces of the settlement (Efstratiou 1985:13, 15), while fragmented remains of hearths were identified outdoors at Ftelia, Grotta, and Kephala (Sampson 2002; Hadjianastassiou 1988; Coleman 1977). Only at Saliagos was a semi-circular hearth recorded inside a building, in Square V (Evans

Figure 6. Suggested contacts and sea communication routes among sites in the Neolithic northern Sporades. 227

AS20.indb 227

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou and Renfrew 1968:30). Scattered waste and storage pits mark routine practices at Saliagos, Strofilas, and Ftelia. Structure G at Saliagos, in particular, constitutes a circular feature 4 m in diameter that has been identified as a storage space with stone walls and three successive stone floors (Evans and Renfrew 1968:17–18). Collective work was also organized at the settlement scale and indicated communal labor investment and planning. Ditches that demarcate the boundaries of settlements are not recorded at any of the sites, whereas Strofilas and Saliagos are the only two known settlements with robust wall constructions enclosing parts of the sites. The remains of a single circular stone construction, identified as a bastion, was recorded at Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968:23), while three well-preserved bastions were built in the fortification wall of Strofilas (Televantou 2008). These two walling compounds with bastions raise questions about potential competition between rival groups or conflict among neighboring communities (Halstead 1999). Further research in this respect could unfold aspects of diverse structures of social organization and different interaction strategies in the Aegean Neolithic. Other potential functions for walls and bastions may have been to set boundaries between these villages, to enclose farming areas and domesticated livestock, or to protect people from natural phenomena, such as the sea and wind. Symbolism, social status, and monumentality are attributed to the boat rock carvings in the outer part of the Strofilas fortification wall (Televantou 2008:46–48). Communal planning and collective effort are shown in the construction of six walls in the Upper and Lower cemeteries in Kephala, which was considered a demarcation feature between the space of the living and the space of the dead (Coleman 1977:44). Insular Social Identities in Context: A Local-Scale Approach Questions about the dynamics of human-environment interplays, habitation preferences, and social formations in the Aegean Neolithic are multifaceted and cannot be answered by tabulating human agency with studies in spatial trends and patterns. Personalized choices, as well as unpredictable and often irrational human behavior, are overlooked by the exclusive analysis of broad causation. Nevertheless, common and recurrent features have been identified in various and diverse Neolithic residential-scapes. Islands continue to hold particular interest in archaeological models and lead us to confront the essential diversity of human communities (Cherry 1985:146). The cur-

rent discourse examines historic embeddedness in overall residential landscapes by putting emphasis on changes at the local scale and by reevaluating the decisive impact of social transformations on past communities (Asouti 2005; Darvill 1997; Kalogiropoulou 2014; Mac Sweeney 2009; Robb 2013; Shennan 1989; Smyth 2010; Twiss 2007). The local-scale analysis attempted here reveals the variability within patterning in landscape habitation choices and spatial formations, and it unfolds diverse features of social insular identities—both individual and shared. In the islands examined, people appear to have regularly inhabited coastal and prominent environments overlooking sheltered bays, and they were also close to farming land and water resources. Yet the choice of hilly and mountainous settings and the subsidiary use of caves suggest a diversity of landscape properties and forms of exploitation. This study also enhances our understanding of the flexible subsistence and social strategies of the time and indicates a more complex reasoning toward the process of settling. Residential spaces were organized consistently with different building forms that reflect the dynamics of social insular identities. Territoriality was expressed in the construction of demarcation walls and terraces, while conviviality, home life, and sociality were admitted in building structures, cooking facilities, and the configuration of open-air spaces. This study suggests that habitation in these Neolithic insular sites not only provided shelter to islanders from the natural elements and tethered them to the chosen places, but also created new habitual spaces and formed relevant identity maps, as well as, perhaps, a different conceptual understanding between island communities. In between the subtle differences of various habitation preferences and architectural forms, a possible shared notion of analogy and cohesion may unfold the complex mosaic of distinctive social identities of Aegean Neolithic islanders in the Cyclades and northern Sporades. These were negotiated through their mixed subsistence economy and communication with neighboring groups, which was directly and exclusively connected to the sea. They were also continuously formed and transformed by dynamic interactions and exchanges with other insular or mainland communities and influenced by seafaring, microclimate instability, and changes in subsistence strategies. What emerges as a common characteristic from the settlement distribution and landscape habitation in the Neolithic Cyclades and northern Sporades is that the sea is the inextricable component that dynamically features forms of habitus, social organization, and material entanglements in those insular residential environments. The very substance

228

AS20.indb 228

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean of the sea that creates boundaries also builds routes of communication and interconnection. It seems likely, however, that the most important changes were happening in the social landscapes (Robb 2013:664). The investigation of the insular Aegean Neolithic remains a significant research field, the systematic study of which would contribute considerably to the unfolding of very nuanced micro-histories that regulate and formulate the grand narrative of the Greek Neolithic. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Katerina Kopaka, who trained me in island archaeology, for many stimulating discussions about Aegean prehistory and for her support throughout the years. Many thanks go to my colleagues and friends at the Institute for Mediterranean Studies in Rethymno, especially Kayt Armstrong and Kelsey Lowe for editing my English and for making useful comments that improved my paper, and Nasos Argyriou, for his help and patience in the production of the maps. Hector Orengo’s comments and suggestions were of significant help. References Cited Andreou, Stelios, and Kotsakis Kostas 1987 Διαστάσεις του Χώρου στην Κεν­τ ρ­ι ­ κή Μακεδονία: Αποτύπωση της Ενδο­ κοινοτικής και Διακοινοτικής Χωρο­ οργάνωσης. In Αμητός: Τιμητικός Τόμος για Καθηγητή τον Μ. Ανδρόνικο, pp. 57–88. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Asouti, Eleni 2005 Group Identity and the Politics of Dwelling at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 75–91. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 40. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Bogaard, Amy 2005 ‘Garden Agriculture’ and the Nature of Early Farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeology 37:177–196. Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Broodbank, Cyprian 1999a Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead,

pp. 15–41. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 1999b The Insularity of Island Archaeologists: Comments on Railbird’s ‘Islands out of Time’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12:235–239. 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2013 The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. Thames and Hudson, London. Brück, Johanna 2000 Settlement, Landscape and Social Identity: The Early-Middle Bronze Age Transition In Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19:273–300. Byrd, Brian F. 1994 Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the South Asian Village. American Antiquity 14:251–287. Chapman, John 1990 Social Inequality on Bulgarian Tells and the Varna Problem. In The Social Archaeology of Houses, edited by Ross Samson, pp. 49–98. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. 2008 Meet the Ancestors: Settlement Histories in the Neolithic. In Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, edited by Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Daniela Hofmann, pp. 68–80. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Cherry, John F. 1985 Islands out of the Stream: Isolation and Interaction in Early Mediterranean Insular Prehistory. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. Bernard Knapp and Tamara Stech, pp. 12–29. Monograph 25. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Cherry, John, Jack L. Davis, and Eleni Mantzourani (editors) 1991 Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times. Monumenta Archaeologica 16. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

229

AS20.indb 229

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou Cherry John F., and Robin Torrence 1982 The Earliest Prehistory in Melos. In An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos, edited by Colin Renfrew and Malcolm Wagstaff, pp. 24–34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Coleman, John E. 1977 Keos I, Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Darvill, Timothy 1997 Neolithic Landscapes: Identity and Definition. In Neolithic Landscapes, edited by Peter Topping, pp. 1–13. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Davis, Jack L. 1992 Review of the Aegean Prehistory I: The Islands of the Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 96:699–756. Demoule, Jean-Paul, and Catherine Perlès 1993 The Greek Neolithic: A New Review. Journal of World Prehistory 7(4):355–416. Efstratiou, Nikos 1985 Ayios Petros, A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades: Aegean Relationships During the Neolithic of the 5th Millennium. BAR International Series 241. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2001 Ο Νεολιθικός Οικισμός του Άγιου Πέτρου στιν Κυρα-Παναγιά Αλοννήσου και οι Νη­ σιωτικές Εγκαταστάσεις του Αιγαίου: Μια Επανεκτίμηση. In Επιφανειακή Έρευνα στις Βόρειες Σποράδες, edited by Adamantios Sampson, pp. 213–248. Alonnisos Municipality, Rhodes. 2007 Neolithic Households in Greece. In Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, Proceedings of a Conference held at Cardiff University, 17–21 April 2001, edited by Ruth Westgate, Nick Fisher, and James Whitley, pp. 29–35. British School at Athens Studies 15. British School at Athens, Athens. 2014 Reaching the Island. What Next? Material Life and Socio-historical Processes in Early Cyprus. In Structure, Measurement and Meaning: Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus in Honour of David Frankel, edited by Jennifer M. Webb, pp. 3–11. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vol. 143. Paul Åstrőm Főrlag, Uppsala. Erdoğu, Burçin 2003 Visualizing Neolithic Landscape: The Early

Settled Communities in Western Anatolia and Eastern Aegean Islands. European Journal of Archaeology 6:7–23. Evans, John D., and Colin Renfrew 1968 Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 5. Thames and Hudson, London. Finlayson, Bill 2004 Island Colonization, Insularity or Mainstream? In Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries in Cyprus, edited by Edgard J. Peltenburg and Alexander Wasse, pp. 15–22. Levant Supplementary Series 1. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Hadjianastassiou, Olga 1988 A Late Neolithic Settlement at Grotta, Naxos. In Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers in the Centenary Conference of the British School at Athens, Manchester April 1986, edited by Elizabeth B. French and Ken A. Wardle, pp. 11–20. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol. Halstead, Paul 1999 Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 77–95. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford 2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69:17–40. Ingold, Tim 1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25:152–174. Kalogiropoulou, Evita 2014 Αναζητώντας Κοινωνικές Ταυτότητες: η Συμβολή των Θερμικών Κατασκευών στην Οργάνωση του Χώρου στη Νεολιθική Μακεδονία. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 305–318. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Katsarou, Stella, and Demetrius U. Schilardi 2004 Emerging Neolithic and Early Cycladic Settlement in Paros: Koukounaries and Sklavouna. The Annual of the British School at Athens 99:23–48.

230

AS20.indb 230

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean Keegan, William F., and Jared M. Diamond 1987 Colonization of Islands: A Biogeographical Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 10, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 49–92. Academic Press, New York. Kopaka, Katerina 2004 Emporoi on the Mediterranean Fringe: Trading for Living on the Small Island of Crete. In Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004, edited by Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco, pp. 91–102. Aegeum 25. Université de Liège, Liège. 2008 What is an Island? Concepts, Meanings and Polysemies of Insular Topoi in Greek Sources. European Journal of Archaeology 11:179–197. Kopaka, Katerina, and Gerald Cadogan 2012 Two Mediterranean Island Life Modes, Two Island Archaeologies. Crete and Cyprus: How Near, How Far? In Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus, International Symposium Organised by the Universities of Crete and Cyprus and the British School at Athens, Nicosia 30 November–2 December 2006, edited by Gerald Cadogan, Maria Iacovou, Katerina Kopaka, and James Whitley, pp. 17–33. British School at Athens Studies 20. British School at Athens, London. Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 2006 Settlement of Discord: Sesklo and the Emerging Household. In Homage to Milutin Garašanin, edited by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, pp. 207–220. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade. 2014 Domesticating the Periphery: New Research into the Neolithic of Greece. Pharos 20(1):41–73. MacArthur, Robert H., and Edward O. Wilson 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mac Sweeney, Naoíse 2009 Beyond Ethnicity: The Overlooked Diversity of Group Identity. Journal of Mediter-

ranean Archaeology 22:101–126. Malone, Caroline 2015 The Neolithic in Mediterranean Europe. In The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, edited by Chris Fowler, Jan Harding, and Daniela Hofmann, 175–194. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Maragkou, Lila I. 2002 Αμοργός Ι: Η Μινώα, η Πόλης, ο Λιμήν, και η Μείζων Περιφέρεια. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Mavridis, Fanis 2007 Ένα Αρχιπέλαγος Πολιτισμού: Η Νεο­ λιθική Περίοδος στα Νησιά του Αιγαίου. Αρχαιολογικά Δεδομάνα, Θεωρία, Ερμη­ νεία. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History and Archaeology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Morrison, Ian 1968 Relative Sea Level Changes in the Saliagos Area since Neolithic Times. In Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos, by John D. Evans and Colin Renfrew, pp. 92–98. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 5. Thames and Hudson, London. Nanoglou, Stratos 2001 Social and Monumental Space in Neolithic Thessaly, Greece. European Journal of Archaeology 4:303–322. 2008 Building Biographies and Households: Aspects of Community Life in Neolithic Northern Greece. Journal of Social Archaeology 8:139–160. Pappa, Maria, and Manthos Besios 1999 The Makriyalos Project: Rescue Excavations at the Neolithic Site of Makriyalos, Pieria, Northern Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 108–120. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Patton, Mark 1996 Islands in Time: Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory. Routledge, London. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rainbird, Paul 1999 Islands out of Time: Towards a Critique of Island Archaeology. Journal of Mediter-

231

AS20.indb 231

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Evita Kalogiropoulou ranean Archaeology 12:216–234. Renfrew, Colin 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen, London. Renfrew, Colin, and Malcolm Wagstaff 1982 An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ridley, Cressida, Kenneth A. Wardle, and Catharine A. Mould (editors) 2000 Servia I: Anglo-Hellenic Rescue Excavations 1971–73. Supplementary Volume No. 32. The British School at Athens, London. Robb, John 2013 Material Culture, Landscapes of Action, and Emergent Causation: A New Model for the Origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54:657–683. Sampson, Adamantios (editor) 2001 Επιφανειακή Έρευνα στις Βόρειες Σπο­ ράδες. Alonnisos Municipality, Rhodes. 2002 The Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos. University of the Aegean, Department of Mediterranean Studies, Rhodes. 2008a The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece: 1. Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution. Prehistory Monographs 21. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. 2008b The Architectural Phase of the Neolithic Settlement of Ftelia on Mykonos. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, G. Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 29–35. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Shennan, Stephen 1989 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 1–32. Unwin Hyman Ltd, London. Smyth, Jessica 2010 The House and the Group Identity in the Irish Neolithic. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 111:1–31. Sotirakopoulou, Panayiota 1986 Early Cycladic Pottery from Akrotiri on Thera and its Chronological Implications. The Annual of the British School at Athens 81:297–312.

1996 Late Neolithic Pottery from Akrotiri on Thera: Its Relations and the Consequent Implications. In Die Nägäische Frühzeit, edited by Eva Alram-Stern, pp. 581–607. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. 2008 Akrotiri, Thera: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages Phases in the Light of Recent Excavations at the Site. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, G. Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 121–134. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Souvatzi, Stella G. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Televantou, Christina 2008 Strofilas: A Neolithic Settlement on Andros. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, G. Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 43–54. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1959 Εκ της Προϊστορίας της Ευβοίας και της Σκύρου. Archive of Euboean Studies 6:279–328. Tomkins, Peter 2004 Filling in the “Neolithic Background”: Social Life and Social Transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age. In The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited, edited by John C. Barrett and Paul Halstead, pp. 38–63. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Twiss, Katheryn C. 2007 Home is Where the Hearth is: Food and Identity in the Neolithic Levant. In The Archaeology of Food and Identity, edited by Katheryn C. Twiss, pp. 50–68. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbon­dale. Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2005 Grain versus Chaff: Identifying a Contrast between Grain-Rich and Chaff-Rich Sites in the Neolithic of Northern Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 1:259–267. Wardle, Kenneth A. (editor) 1996 Nea Nikomedeia: The Excavation of an

232

AS20.indb 232

2/11/18 9:00 PM

14 - … Landscapes of Action, Settlements, and Social Identities in the Neolithic Aegean Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece, 1961–1964, Directed by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 25. The British School at Athens, London. Zachos, Konstantinos L. 1990 The Neolithic Period in Naxos. In Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the 3rd Millennium

BC, edited by Lila Marangou, pp. 46. Museum of Cycladic Arts Publications, Athens. 1999 Zas Cave on Naxos and the Role of Caves in the Aegean Late Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 153–163. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

233

AS20.indb 233

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 15 Cycladic or Mainland? The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea Žarko Tankosić and Markos Katsianis

Abstract We present a first preliminary report on the prehistoric use of space in southern Euboea in an attempt to examine the way the landscape was populated and socially constructed during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in this part of Greece. To achieve this we use legacy data, both published and unpublished, in combination with newly acquired evidence from surface surveys and excavations. We employ GIS to combine data recorded at different scales and using alternative observation methods (field walking, tract walking, GPS survey, systematic material collection, and excavation) into a coherent body of information that supports the analysis of the data’s spatial characteristics. An initial comparison of the spatial distribution of sites in comparison to terrain relief and soil characteristics suggests that large-scale land management was practiced, as is evidenced by the deliberate avoidance of larger habitation of agriculturally significant land. Moreover, the situation in southern Euboea mirrors that in the Cyclades, where there is also sparse evidence of permanent or more substantial habitation predating the Late or even Final Neolithic. Finally, our study indicates that the ritual use of landscape in southern Euboea predates the Neolithic peopling of this part of Greece. Keywords Southern Euboea, Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, GIS, prehistoric landscapes, site distribution This paper examines the Neolithic and, more generally, the prehistoric landscapes of southern Euboea, also known as the Karystia, using research conducted in the area by several generations of archaeologists from a number of Greek and foreign archaeological institutions. Despite the abundance of archaeological evidence and several syntheses on the topic (e.g. Cullen et al. 2013; Keller 1985; Tankosić 2011), the specific configuration of prehistoric remains in this

part of the Aegean has hindered a deeper understanding of the earliest habitation dynamics. In this paper, in parallel with studying the material obtained by the most recent surveys of the Karystian Plain (the Kampos) and the Katsaronio Plain, we also employed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map all the published and unpublished data from the region in order to compile a dataset that would allow a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative study of the evidence. To accomplish this, it was necessary to overcome a salient issue that affects much archaeological research in Greece: how to combine and compare disparate data from archaeological projects recorded at various scales and using alternative observation/recording methods (e.g. extensive field walking, tract walking, GPS survey, (un)systematic artifact collection, excavation, etc.). We also had to develop a methodology that accounted for the various lacunae in the available research and material/data in order to provide a coherent picture of the landscape of southern Euboea. In this preliminary report, we discuss our processing of the legacy data and then proceed to the tentative interpretations that have emerged from an initial assessment of all the available data. This allows us to discuss the socioeconomic processes or possible research biases that lie behind the archaeologically observed patterns of landscape construction, utilization, and material culture deposition. Available Archaeological Data Sources for the Karystia Data was collected from published and unpublished research undertaken by the Southern Euboea Exploration Project (SEEP; working under the aegis of the Canadian Institute in Greece), the Norwegian Archaeological Survey in the Karystia (NASK; the Norwegian Institute at Athens), the dissertation work of Donald Keller, and the pan-Euboean research conducted by other scholars from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the British School at Athens, Indiana University, and the Euboea Ephorate

234

AS20.indb 234

2/11/18 9:00 PM

of the Greek Ministry of Culture (Figure 1). The earliest research in the Karystia consisted of a surface survey that started before WWII, although it was not published until the 1960s (Sacket et al. 1966). This was followed by the pan-Euboean surveys of Theocharis (1959) and Sampson (1981). The first research specifically targeting the Karystia was conducted by Donald Keller (1985), who undertook extensive field walking across the Karystos Bay area for his doctoral dissertation at Indiana University. Keller listed 120 sites and a number of smaller findspots (ca. 45) spanning several millennia. His methodology employed selective collection of diagnostic material (the so-called “grab-bag” method) and thorough textual descriptions in a fieldwork diary. Site designation provided a means to assess and acknowledge important concentrations of material. All sites were plotted on the 1:5,000 Greek military topographical maps using the HATT coordinate system. By the mid-1980s SEEP, directed by the late Malcolm Wallace (University of Toronto) and Donald Keller (American Center for Oriental Research), had

been set up under the aegis of the Canadian Institute in Greece to intensify the archaeological investigation of the area. Between 1984 and 1987 the Paximadi Peninsula was surveyed and limited excavation was conducted (Cullen et al. 2013), and in the following years (1989–1993) extensive surface reconnaissance targeted the Bouros-Kastri region (Wickens 2011); both of these archaeological projects were undertaken by SEEP. In the case of the former research, the objective was total-area coverage that resulted in the detection of 32 sites with chiefly prehistoric material. The latter project aimed to identify diachronic pre-modern routes and produced at least 10 new prehistoric findspots. All sites were plotted in the HATT coordinate system (Jere Wickens, personal communication 2016). Between 2006 and 2008, another survey by SEEP focused on the Kampos, situated between Karystos and Marmari. Initially, the methodology employed the route-survey methods previously used by the Bouros-Kastri survey, complemented by intensive field walking over those sections of the landscape

Figure 1. Surveys conducted in southern Euboea, showing sites from all known chronological periods. (M. Katsianis) 235

AS20.indb 235

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Žarko Tankosić, Markos Katsianis that had been selected after stratified sampling using an arbitrary 100-x-100-m grid for guidance. Material was collected in areas designated as “sites” by both methods we employed, whereas thin material scatter in between was recorded and collected only in the latter case. In both cases, systematic collection from concentrations of material was not undertaken, although all visible diagnostic ceramic fragments and all lithics were collected. Sites and findspots were recorded using GPS devices in the WGS 1984 coordinate system. In total, 36 sites were identified, of which at least 9 (included here) and possibly as many as 16, are of prehistoric date or have a prehistoric component (Tankosić and Chidiroglou 2010). The SEEP Kampos Survey was followed by the excavation of Agia Triada Cave, which brought to light the earliest and some of the best-preserved prehistoric archaeological material in the region. The project, led by the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology of Southern Greece with the cooperation of SEEP, revealed how the cave was used from the Late Neolithic (LN) until the Early Bronze Age (EBA), and also provided evidence for post-prehistoric visitations (Mavridis and Tankosić 2009, 2012, 2016a, 2016b). Finally, between 2011 and 2015 the Katsaronio Plain (locally known as the Ano Kampos) was investigated as part of the Norwegian Archaeological Survey in the Karystia (NASK) project under the aegis of the Norwegian Institute at Athens. The area was divided into an arbitrary grid consisting of 100-x-100-m squares that served as primary recording units. The survey covered the entire designated target area and collected all the material found on the surface. Data were recorded using both GPS readings and transect designations. In total, 106 sites were identified, of which at least 22 are prehistoric (Tankosić and Psoma 2016). Spatial Data Integration The first issue we faced was the definition of the actual study area. Although the Karystia is most often defined as the southern part of Euboea, its exact geographical definition is a matter of some dispute. Until 2006 the Greek state considered the entire southern portion of the island as the Karystia. Based on historical and archaeological evidence, the Karystia—in the sense of the territory of the polis of Karystos—probably extended to somewhere just south of modern-day Styra (Don Keller, personal communication 2008). We felt that for the purposes of this study, neither of these definitions was suitable for application to prehistoric contexts. Thus, we considered the prehistoric Karystia to be the part of

southern Euboea that could have been reached easily on foot or by some other form of terrestrial means of communication/transportation in prehistoric times. Unlike the modern or even Classical, Hellenistic, or Roman times, there was no road network in prehistoric times that would have connected the Karystia with the rest of the island. Moreover, beasts of burden are virtually unknown from the prehistoric zooarchaeological record in the area, as has been deduced from personal experience working with local archaeological remains, including animal bones. We used topographical data provided by ASTER 30-m GDEM to study the topography of the region. By calculating the watersheds in the area, we established two zones that we view as forming a relatively homogeneous area in terms of landscape morphology. The area around Karystos Bay corresponds with the Karystia proper (ca. 96.8 km2 in size), whereas the adjacent areas to the east and west (ca. 148 km2) are relatively easily accessible on foot, or at least can be reached within a reasonable amount of time. The Petalioi Islands to the west (ca. 22.7 km2) should also be added, as they were integrated into the area of the Karystia and were important for prehistoric seafaring routes connecting the Karystia with Attica, as well as the Cyclades with the Karystia, central Euboea, northern Attica, and Boeotia via the Euboean Gulf. There are indications of prehistoric human presence on the Petalioi Islands in the form of surface pottery and lithics (Karystos Museum staff, personal communication 2015), but no systematic archaeological work has been undertaken there (Figure 2). Our definition of the prehistoric Karystia is further supported by the configuration of the terrain, where certain sections within the region are connected and others are isolated. Mountains that are difficult to traverse separate all of southern Euboea from the rest of the island and form a barrier that renders landbased interaction between the Karystia and the rest of Euboea difficult. We believe that the designated area was connected by very frequent (if not daily) and unhindered interaction—at least unhindered by any geomorphological features. It is likely that this interaction formed a local, dispersed Karystian community of people who shared a common identity with other cohabitants of southern Euboea (for further elaboration of this thesis, see Tankosić 2017). The daily shared experiences of the landscape and its visual anchors by the majority of people living in this area could have created a “sight community” (sensu Bernardini and Peeples 2015). Such visual anchors would have included prominent natural features (e.g. Mount Ochi, Lykorema Ridge, and Karystos Bay), but also possible human settlements associated with

236

AS20.indb 236

2/11/18 9:00 PM

15 - … The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea them (e.g. the FN site of Gourimadi on the Lykorema Ridge). Within the framework of this part of the Karystia, we compiled site lists for each survey, which included basic recorded information such as chronology, size of site area, elevation, material presence/absence or artifact counts, etc. Plotting all sites on a single map required the transformation of coordinate values from the HATT and WGS 1984 systems into the UTM WGS 1984 35N coordinate system, which provided a projection system that allows for the seamless integration of openly available data in both the Greek Grid and WGS systems. Plotting all the sites allowed us to distinguish between cases that were repeatedly recorded in different surveys or to merge findspots with adjacent sites. Using recently collected data from the 2015 NASK revisitation season, we also reassessed and grouped several previously independently recorded sites.

Geographical and publicly available data sources were used to provide the necessary spatial background for our study. Aside from the previously mentioned ASTER data, we included USGS/NASA SRTM 90-m DEMs, Corine Land Cover 2000 data, and a CORONA satellite image dated to 1973. We also used the Web Mapping Service basemap for Greece provided by the National Cadastre and Mapping Agency S.A. We employed resources provided by various organizations (e.g. OpenStreetMap, geodata. gov.gr) to integrate the road network and natural features of the area. Information on the geology of the area was extracted from the Karystos-Platanistos 1:50,000 geological map (Greek Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration). Finally, we acquired a 50-cm IKONOS panchromatic satellite image for the Katsaronio Plain, and further remote sensing and archival aerial imaging materials are scheduled to be integrated for the entire region.

Figure 2. Definition of the study area (likely the prehistoric Karystia) based on general topography and watershed formation. (M. Katsianis and Ž. Tankosić) 237

AS20.indb 237

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Žarko Tankosić, Markos Katsianis Data Integration Issues Two issues required special attention, the first being site definition. Sites are designated as such on the basis of concentrations of material; however, survey projects conducted in different time periods and covering distinct areas can deviate significantly in their criteria for the number or density of artifacts that denote a meaningful concentration. In regard to the earlier Karystian surveys, this problem can be addressed using descriptive criteria only. Even in recent fieldwork, however, spatial patterns can vary significantly depending on whether off-site artifact recording and on-site artifact collections are used. For example, the Katsaronio survey data can be summarized according to findspots, collected material, and/or designated sites. The second issue is related to the use of extensive vs. intensive fieldwork methods. Owing to various constraints, the Kampos was surveyed using a sampling method that covered approximately 50 percent of the survey area, and it involved both randomly selected areas (in 2007) as well as the targeted survey of locations where sites are usually found in southern Euboea (in 2006), based on the researchers’ previous experience. The subsequent (2007) identification of sites in the Kampos either at unexpected locations or in close proximity to transects from the 2006 survey may point to gaps in coverage that are very difficult to situate (Figure 3). A substantial number of artifacts attributable to prehistoric times have been found outside artifact concentrations that are commonly considered to mark buried sites. Prehistoric archaeological materials in the Karystia consist mostly of pottery (largely handmade) and chipped (overwhelmingly obsidian but some flint) and polished stone tools. In situations where absolute chronology is not available, which is often the case in the Karystia, stylistic characteristics of pottery are commonly used to differentiate chronological phases. Although frequently useful, the reliance on this type of chronological identification is also problematic. A number of sites with distinct prehistoric character (e.g. containing obsidian) cannot be assigned to a specific chronological phase because of the lack of more sensitive diagnostic material. Given these limitations that are related to the ongoing studies of the most recent survey project, we decided to focus only on designated sites in the current analysis and not to take into account off-site material distributions. In this respect, we included 66 prehistoric sites located over the last four decades of archaeological work in the area. However, if we take into account all the individually recorded findspots, without grouping those found in close proximity to

each other, the total number of known prehistoric scatters may be as high as 75. Prehistoric Site Distribution and the Karystian Landscape Of the 66 prehistoric sites, 33 can be entirely or partly (meaning that material from other post-Neolithic phases was found there) dated to the Neolithic period, with varying degrees of certainty. There is one Middle Bronze Age site (not included in this analysis; see Tankosić and Mathioudaki 2011 for details) and approximately 12 sites dated to the EBA (i.e. with no Neolithic material). As shown in Figure 4, a fairly large number of sites (21) is evidently prehistoric but cannot be assigned to either the Neolithic or the EBA, since no datable pottery or, often, no pottery at all was found on the surface. These prehistoric sites are made up of small sites consisting of a couple of dozen lithic artifacts that likely represent evidence of temporary activities, as well as substantial sites of half a hectare or more that were probably continuously used over a prolonged period of time, were frequently revisited, or mark the location of chronologically limited but very intensive use. The most substantial surface scatters consist purely of lithic artifacts, sometimes in very large numbers ranging from several hundred to several thousand, for example at site 07N35 in the Kampos. This distribution pattern (i.e. large lithic scatters with little or no pottery) appears to involve primarily the prehistoric sites found in the two largest plains of the Karystia, the Kampos and the Katsaronio Plain, both of which have been surveyed systematically in recent years (e.g. Tankosić 2017; Tankosić and Chidiroglou 2010). One could argue that this pattern of chipped-stone-only sites first observed in the Kampos was the result of incomplete coverage of the survey area. A similar pattern, however, seems to be observable in the Katsaronio Plain, where approximately 20 km2 has been surveyed in its entirety by surveyors spaced 10 m apart. Based on current evidence, we cannot pinpoint this phenomenon to a specific prehistoric sub-phase. We argue that these chipped-stone-only sites represent the remains of activities that were specific to the type of landscape where they are found. This landscape consists of flatland or low hills with perennial water flows (Figure 5). To assess this pattern, we attempted to establish a connection between site location and land cover as documented in the Corine Land Cover 2000 data. The analysis indicates that there is a marked concentration of chipped-stone-only sites in areas considered to be of high agricultural potential (arable land and land that hosted permanent crops,

238

AS20.indb 238

2/11/18 9:00 PM

15 - … The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea heterogeneous agriculture, and urban zones, given that the urban zones are situated by the sea in lowland areas). Agricultural activities are the first to come to mind in explaining site/artifact distribution at locations such as these. It is possible, however, that other kinds of activities are also represented by numerous lithic scatters: for example, the production of tools made of soft materials (e.g. wood, bone, or leather)

or hunting. These sites may even represent locations where obsidian implements were fashioned for further use in the Karystia or in adjacent areas. The detailed analysis of the lithics found by the Kampos survey, conducted by William Parkinson (2009, 2010) suggests that some of these sites were devoted to specialized activities (e.g. findspot 07N35; Tankosić and Chidirogolou 2010:14–15); however, we are still largely in the dark as to their dating.

Figure 3. Survey area coverage of the Kampos and the Katsaronio Plain, showing sites, findspots, and off-site material presence. (M. Katsianis) 239

AS20.indb 239

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Žarko Tankosić, Markos Katsianis These sites, in combination with their location in the landscape, represent a deviation from the Neolithic and EBA site patterns commonly found in the area, where both pottery and chipped stone (and sometimes even architectural remains) are visible on the surface (e.g. Agios Georgios, Pelagitissa, Akri Rozos, and Kazara; see Cullen et al. 2013; SapounaSakellaraki 1992). Sites with both pottery and chipped stone seem to be distributed along the edges and outside of the two large plains, in agriculturally more marginal areas. Today these areas are covered by forests, little or no vegetation, pastures, scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation (e.g. the Paximadi Peninsula to the south of the Kampos, the southern Lykorema Ridge, and several other elevated areas in and around the Katsaronio Plain). Some of these areas, such as the Paximadi Peninsula southwest of Karystos, have been significantly affected by recent construction and development (Figure 6). Other possible explanations for this patterning of the material culture and the conspicuous absence of ceramics, such as erosion, displacement/destruc-

tion by recent agricultural activities, and soils with chemical composition detrimental to ceramics, are less likely in our opinion. Erosion and agricultural activities affect both ceramic and lithic artifacts equally; still, lithic concentrations are found in all types of landscapes, including flatlands, slopes, and hilltops. A study assessing the chemical composition of the Karystian soils has not yet been conducted, but it should be noted that where pottery has been found in the Kampos, as at the excavated EBA site of Agios Georgios (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1992; Tankosić 2011), it exhibited no signs of chemical degradation. It seems likely that the observed patterning of sites with pottery and chipped stone vs. chipped-stone-only sites represents evidence of actual past events relating to landscape use and artifact deposition. This situation (Figure 7) should be further investigated for its statistical significance, as well as correlated with other evidence (such as off-site material distribution, site size, and material density), or additional research should be conducted in new landscape zones to completely exclude the possibility of research

Figure 4. Prehistoric sites in the Karystia included in the current analysis: Late Neolithic (LN), Final Neolithic (FN), and Early Bronze Age (EBA), with sites mentioned in text. (M. Katsianis and Ž. Tankosić) 240

AS20.indb 240

2/11/18 9:00 PM

15 - … The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea bias. Nonetheless, current evidence suggests that most of the substantial habitation in the prehistoric Karystia was located outside of those areas that were primarily agricultural. At the same time, the evidence from the two largest Karystian plains indicates activities that required large quantities of obsidian. This patterning of the material culture may point to the planned maximization of agricultural yields, which were to be consumed locally and/or exchanged with trade partners. Following this line of thought, cooperation must have existed among Karystian prehistoric communities and perhaps also a mutual understanding about land rights and ownership. Consequently, one way to interpret the chipped-stone-only sites is to view them as communal places where people from multiple settlements met to prepare tools used in agricultural activities. At least some of those sites would have been used throughout both the Final Neolithic (FN) and the EBA. Further study of the lithic assemblages from these sites will shed more light on this issue.

Earliest Prehistoric Evidence in the Karystia To understand the pattern discussed above, we now turn to the earliest archaeological evidence in the Karystia found thus far. What sets the Karystia apart from the rest of Euboea and the Greek mainland is the absence of pre-LN remains in the area. Despite some reports, sustained surveys and excavations by both international and Greek archaeologists have failed to identify any Early or Middle Neolithic evidence. There is only one location where LN material has been found: Agia Triada Cave, close to the village of Kalyvia, north of Karystos. In stylistic terms, the LN material from the cave belongs to the White-onDark pottery style, which is particularly known from Saliagos (Mavridis and Tankosić 2009, 2016a). Although it has been found in other Aegean contexts, the Saliagos White-on-Dark pottery probably originated in the Cycladic Islands (Evans and Renfrew 1968;

Figure 5. Distribution of chipped-stone-only sites vs. sites with both pottery and chipped stone in the Karystia. (M. Katsianis and Ž. Tankosić) 241

AS20.indb 241

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Žarko Tankosić, Markos Katsianis

Figure 6. Summary of site distribution in relation to modern land cover type (based on Corine Land Cover 2000 data): chipped-stone-only sites (c.s. only) and sites with both pottery and chipped stone (pottery & c.s.). (M. Katsianis)

242

AS20.indb 242

2/11/18 9:00 PM

15 - … The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea Mavridis 2007). Agia Triada Cave, despite its considerable size of more than 3.5 km of explored length, is not suitable for long-term habitation owing to a lack of open spaces, darkness, and damp. Efforts to locate open-air sites in the Karystia with the same White-on-Dark or chronologically similar pottery, such as Matt Painted ware, have not yet fielded results. For example, the Katsaronio Plain would have been well suited to agricultural activities and therefore would have attracted, at least in theory, Neolithic agriculturalists and horticulturalists; however, no evidence dated to this period has been found. Thus, the question arises: how should we interpret only a single location with LN pottery in southern Euboea? On the strength of the available evidence, the site of Agia Triada may represent the remains of brief visitations of the stillnot-permanently-inhabited Karystia by LN seafarers from the Cyclades or other parts of the Aegean where this type of pottery was in use. Although the cave is

not suitable for habitation and is too far from the sea to offer a convenient temporary shelter, it is possible to view it as a place of ritual and/or pilgrimage. Caves have often been used in this way during prehistoric (and later) times: e.g. Perachora at Lake Vouliagmeni (Koumouzelis 1996), Alepotrypa in Mani (Papathanasiou 2009; Papathanasopoulos 1996), or Theopetra in Thessaly (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000). Agia Triada seems to have maintained this ritual role during parts of the EBA, when it was used for burials of a few (likely 7) selected individuals from the Karystian population (Mavridis and Tankosić 2016b). Hence, at least one prominent Karystian location retained its ritual character in the long term. Most of the evidence from the following FN phase and the EBA comes from open-air sites. During these periods, sites in the Karystia that can be interpreted as habitational seem to have been distinctly oriented toward the sea, as they are in most cases either coastal (e.g. Pelagitissa, Akri Rozos), near the coast (e.g.

Figure 7. Distribution of prehistoric sites in relation to land capability classification (based on Corine Land Cover 2000 data). (M. Katsianis) 243

AS20.indb 243

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Žarko Tankosić, Markos Katsianis Agios Georgios), or situated in locations with a clear view of the sea (e.g. Gourimadi and other sites along the southern edge of the Katsaronio Plain). This seems to indicate a deeper connection with the sea, possibly related to seafaring (see Tankosić 2011). Since a small number of excavated prehistoric sites have not produced any evidence for the economically significant exploitation of marine resources in the prehistoric Karystia, we believe this connection to be mostly social and symbolic and related in some way to the sea, which was an important interaction sphere at this time and thus essential to the everyday life of the prehistoric Karystians (Tankosić 2011:283-295).

pattern is not common in the Cyclades or elsewhere in the Neolithic/EBA Greece, it may represent a uniquely Karystian occurrence, testifying to sociopolitical processes and depositional patterns typical of this specific region. In this respect, further work using GIS technologies will target the integration of off-site distributions, their collation with the landscape characteristics, and their assessment based on formal spatial statistics. We expect that this will reveal additional associations between particular materials or activity locations with discrete landscape features and direct future research to previously overlooked areas within the Karystian landscape.

Discussion Some salient characteristics in the patterning of the prehistoric material culture in the Karystia allow us to see the region more as a part of the Cyclades than as a part of the rest of Euboea or the Greek mainland (Tankosić 2017). First, based on the current data, the initial settlement of the area follows Cycladic trends, with the first enduring colonization occurring at the end of the Neolithic (see e.g. Broodbank 1999, 2000; Cherry 1981, 1990) with little evidence for the preceding phases. Secondly, the stylistic characteristics of the Neolithic and EBA material culture are shared with at least the northern Cycladic islands of Andros and Kea, as well as those areas of mainland Greece involved in Neolithic and EBA maritime interactions. Those include, for example, the presence of LN White-onDark pottery, Kephala-style FN pottery, a mixture of Early Helladic and Early Cycladic stylistic features in EBA pottery, and Cycladic-influenced burial customs (Mavridis and Tankosić 2016b). The finds associated with the Agia Triada burials, for example, have direct parallels with those at the Chalandriani cemetery on Syros (Mavridis and Tankosić 2016b). The Karystian landscape itself is more Cycladic in appearance, with lower precipitation levels and more sun than the rest of Euboea and a landscape dominated by low thorny vegetation, or phrygana (Keller 1985:44–62 et passim). Finally, the large quantities of Melian obsidian found throughout southern Euboea, both on- and off-site, testify to strong relations with the western Cyclades. In conclusion, we suggest that the evidence indicates a prehistoric landscape constituted originally by seafarers and later by people with an established Karystian identity. The patterning of the prehistoric material culture in the landscape, especially in relation to chipped-stone-only sites, seems to have played an important role in this process of community building by establishing the loci used for repeated activities involving multiple groups from the area. Since this

Acknowledgments The authors of this paper would like to thank the organizers of the Rethymno conference for inviting us to participate in the publication of the proceedings, as well for the suggestions provided by the two anonymous reviewers. We are grateful to the Canadian Institute in Greece and the Norwegian Institute at Athens for the permit and administrative support. We give special thanks to the Edward A. Schrader Endowment Fund at Indiana University, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, and the Norwegian Institute at Athens for their financial support of our research in the Karystia. We are also grateful to SEEP, the Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea, and the Ephorate for Palaeoanthropology and Speleology for their assistance, especially to Donald Keller, the late Maria Kosma, and Fanis Mavridis. Of course, any remaining errors are our own. References Cited Bernardini, Wesley, and Matthew A. Peeples 2015 Sight Communities: The Social Significance of Shared Visual Landmarks. American Antiquity 80(2):215–235. Broodbank, Cyprian 1999 Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 15–41. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cherry, John F. 1981 Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands. Proceed-

244

AS20.indb 244

2/11/18 9:00 PM

15 - … The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea ings of the Prehistoric Society 47:41–68. 1990 The First Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3(2):145–221. Cullen, Tracey, Lauren E. Talalay, Donald R. Keller, Lia Karimali, and William R. Farrand 2013 The Prehistory of the Paximadi Peninsula, Euboea. Prehistory Monographs 40. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Cullen, Tracey, Lauren E. Talalay, and Žarko Tankosić 2011 The Emerging Prehistory of Southern Euboea. In Euboea and Athens: Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Malcolm B. Wallace, Athens 26–27 June 2009, edited by David W. Rupp and Jonathan E. Tomlinson, pp. 29­–51. Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece 6. Canadian Institute in Greece, Athens. Evans, John D., and Colin Renfrew 1968 Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 5. Thames and Hudson, London. Keller, Donald R. 1985 Archaeological Survey in Southern Euboea, Greece: A Reconstruction of Human Activity from Neolithic Times through the Byzantine Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Koumouzelis, Margarita 1996 Πρωτοελλαδικό Οστεοφυλάκιο στο Σπή­ λαιο Λίμνης Βουλιαγμένης Περαχώρας. Meletes. Archaiologikon Deltion 44–46 (1989–1991):223–237. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina (editor) 2000 Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Mavridis, Fanis 2007 Ένα Αρχιπέλαγος Πολιτισμού: Η Νεο­ λιθική Περίοδος στα Νησιά του Αιγαίου. Αρχαιολογικά Δεδομάνα, Θεωρία, Ερμη­ νεία. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History and Archaeology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Mavridis, Fanis, and Žarko Tankosić 2009 The Ayia Triadha Cave, Southern Euboea: Finds and Implications of the Earliest Hu-

man Habitation in the Area (A Preliminary Report). Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 9(2):47–59. 2012 Σπήλαιο Αγίας Τριάδας Καρύστου. Η ‘Ερευνα των Ετών 2007–2008. In In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3–15.3.2009: IΙ. Στερεά Ελλάδα, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 797–807. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 3. Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the University of Thessaly, Volos. 2016a The Later Neolithic Stages in CentralSouthern Greece Based on the Evidence from the Excavations at the Agia Triada Cave, Southern Euboea. In The Human Face of Radiocarbon: Reassessing Chronology in Prehistoric Greece and Bulgaria, 5000–3000 cal BC, edited by Zoi Tsirtsoni, pp. 419–436. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée No. 69. Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon. 2016b The Early Bronze Age Burial Deposits at the Ayia Triada Cave, Karystos, Euboea: Tentative nterpretations. Hesperia 85(2):207-242. Papathanasiou, Anastasia 2009 Mortuary Behavior in Alepotrypa Cave: Assessments from the Study of the Human Osteological Material. In Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-modern, Proceedings of the Conference held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, edited by William G. Cavanagh, Chrysanthi Gallou, and Mercourios Georgiadis, pp. 21–28. British School at Athens Studies 16. British School at Athens, London. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. 1996 Neolithic Diros: The Alepotrypa Cave. In Neolithic Culture in Greece, edited by Giorgos A. Papathanassopoulos, pp. 80–84. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Parkinson, William A. 2009 Unpublished reports on the study of chipped stone material from the Karystian Kampos survey project. Manuscript on file, Southern Euboea Exploration Project, Karystos, Greece.

245

AS20.indb 245

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Žarko Tankosić, Markos Katsianis 2010 Unpublished reports on the study of chipped stone material from the Karystian Kampos survey project. Manuscript on file, Southern Euboea Exploration Project, Karystos, Greece. Sackett, L. H., V. Hankey, R. J. Howell, T. W. Jacobsen, and M. R. Popham 1966 Prehistoric Euboea: Contributions toward a Survey. The Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 61:33–112. Sampson, Adamantios 1981 Η Νεολιθική και Πρωτοελλαδική Ι στην Εύβοια. Archive of Euboean Studies Annex, Vol. 24. Society for Euboean Studies, Αthens. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, Efie 1992 Οικόπεδο Δ.Ε.Η. Εκτός Σχεδίου Πόλε­ ως στη Θέση Άγιος Γεώργιος Κάμπου. Chronika B1. Archaiologikon Deltion 47(1997):177–178. Tankosić, Žarko 2011 Southern Euboea–Northern Cyclades: An Integrated Analysis of Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Interactions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington. 2017 The Northernmost Cycladic Island? Insularityand the Case of Prehistoric Southern Euboea (the Karystia). In An Island Between Two Worlds: The Archaeology of Euboea from Prehistoric to Byzantine Times, International Scientific Conference, Eretria, 12–14 July 2013, edited by Žarko Tankosić, Maria Kosma, and Fanis Mavri-

dis, pp. 99-110. Papers and Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 6. Norwegian Institute at Athens, Athens Tankosić, Žarko, and Maria Chidiroglou 2010 The Karystian Kampos Survey Project: Methods and Preliminary Results. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10(3):11–17. Tankosić, Žarko, and Iro Mathioudaki 2011 The Finds from the Prehistoric Site of Ayios Nikolaos Mylon, Southern Euboea, Greece. The Annual of the British School at Athens 106(1):99–140. Tankosić, Žarko, and Katerina Psoma 2016 Prehistoric Finds from the Survey of the Katsaronio Plain, Southern Euboea, Greece: A Preliminary Assessment. Paper presented at the 117th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Francisco, California. Theocharis, Dimitrios 1959 Εκ της Προϊστορίας της Ευβοίας και της Σκύρου. Archive of Euboean Studies 6:279–328. Wickens, Jere M. 2011 Survey of the Bouros-Kastri Peninsula in the Southern Karystia, Euboea. In Euboea and Athens: Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Malcolm B. Wallace, Athens 26–27 June 2009, edited by David W. Rupp and Jonathan E. Tomlinson, pp. 77–94. Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece 6. Canadian Institute in Greece, Athens.

246

AS20.indb 246

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 16 Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia, Western Greece: The Dynamic Role of Drakaina Cave within an Insular Environment Georgia Stratouli and Odysseas Metaxas

Abstract

Keywords

This paper dwells on the role of Drakaina Cave, located within the steep gorge of Poros, a small village on the coast of southeastern Kephalonia. Elements pervading recent approaches to insularity and the cultural landscape were incorporated in the evaluation of the general significance of the site, emphasizing the fluidity and mutually constitutive nature of the social milieu and the perception of landscape features. More specifically, the location of the cave is seen as conducive to its use for communal gatherings. This inference is grounded in the following attributes: the gorge, where Drakaina Cave is situated, combines a natural harbor and a passage from the coast toward the inland areas, serving as a place of contact between the local communities and interregional partners. The cave itself is secluded and located on steep cliffs amidst a powerful landscape. As was the case in the recent past, for both these reasons the cave and the gorge could have been embedded in cosmological and mythological narratives of the local Neolithic groups. However, the special status of the cave in the realm of local oral tradition in turn influences and shapes facets of human activity that have centered on the cave through time. We propose that this is reflected in the material culture sequence of the cave’s prehistoric use. The persistent utilization of the cave for knapping and projectile point manufacture, the frequent processing of red pigment, and the construction of lime plaster surfaces are elements that point to repetitive gatherings that involve some symbolic connotations. The locality of the cave was important in the reciprocal relation between the articulation of a local identity and the value of interregional networks. Changes in the configuration of those parameters could have influenced the cultural perception of the site, a fact perhaps evidenced in the changes documented after the end of the Late Neolithic I period.

Ionian Islands, Kephalonia, Drakaina Cave, Late Neolithic, insularity, cultural landscape, material culture The Location of the Cave and its Cultural Record Drakaina Cave is located close to the southeast coast of the island of Kephalonia (Figure 1), on the steep cliffs of Poros Gorge at an altitude of ca. 70 m (Figures 2–4). In its present form, Drakaina is an open shallow cavity with a sheltered area of ca. 90 m2 (Figures 5 and 6). The use of the cave covers two chronological periods, which are separated by a long void. From the late seventh until the early second century B.C., it served as a shrine dedicated mainly to the Nymphs. The prehistoric cultural layers have been dated to two main phases: a transitional Middle/ Late Neolithic and Late Neolithic I phase (ca. 5600– 4900/4800 cal B.C.) and a Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic II phase, which includes the Final Neolithic period (ca. 4900/4800–3700 cal B.C.) (Figure 7). Its use during the prehistoric period is more obscure, but the available evidence suggests that cultic or symbolic aspects were involved in a perhaps multifaceted spectrum of activities. The location of the cave might have been crucial in this respect, and the analysis in this paper will dwell on this issue and the interpretive options it offers. Several aspects of the Late Neolithic (LN)–Final Neolithic (FN) cultural record deserve some attention, pointing to the eminent role of the cave during that period as a locus of social activity, as opposed to more narrow domestic use. A succession of lime plaster surfaces, more frequent and substantial during the FN period (see Figure 7), is a remarkable practice (Karkanas and Stratouli 2008). The surfaces seem to have been constructed in order to cover, rather than create, even areas, since they occasionally blanket projecting rocks. The LN I ceramic material

247

AS20.indb 247

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas

Figure 1. Map of the island of Kephalonia in the Ionian Sea, showing the location of the village of Poros.

Figure 2. The village of Poros and the gorge (from the east). 248

AS20.indb 248

2/11/18 9:00 PM

16 - Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia

Figure 3. Aerial view of the gorge (from the southwest). includes sherds from at least seven four-legged scoops (Figure 8), a vessel type generally regarded as having been used in a ritual context (Mlekuž 2007 with references). During the LN I, a prominent feature is the prolific manufacture and discarding or deposition of projectile points, mainly in the outer part of the cave (Figure 9, on Color Plate IV). The sizable projectile assemblage, and most importantly several specific features, are of significance for the evaluation of the cave’s use. The context and importance of these features have been discussed at length elsewhere (Stratouli and Metaxas 2017). They have been seen as indicative of intermittent social gatherings with symbolic or ritual overtones. In this framework, some facets of the gatherings in Drakaina Cave were linked to the negotiation of a local (though not isolationist) identity. Aspects of the insular nature of Kephalonia were regarded as being instrumental in this process, while the choice of Drakaina Cave for such activities was distinctly pertinent. Thus, in this paper we will concentrate more on the role of the landscape in order to bring some elements of the social activities hosted in Drakaina Cave into focus through this lens.

The Theoretical Framework of the Human–Landscape Interaction in the Case of Drakaina Cave The dynamic role of the landscape features within past societies has been recently discussed from viewpoints that diverge from the ecologically deterministic paradigm, establishing the landscape as dynamic and socially defined by past societies (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Barnatt and Edmonds 2002; Bender 2001; Bradley 2000; Ingold 1993, 2000; Thomas 2001; Tilley 1994, 2004, 2010; Whittle 2004). Such premises might be relevant to the evaluation of Drakaina Cave. The Poros Gorge, a frequented passage connecting the inland areas and the littoral of southeastern Kephalonia, facilitated movements and interaction, influencing facets of human activity (Figures 10 and 11). Of interest for our discussion is the role of paths (Tilley 1994:27–30), and more generally the notion of movement and the dynamic perception of the landscape. The multiple strands of activity coalescing in the Poros Gorge entail that such a landmark will intimately interact with the social matrix and become ingrained in communal memory. The inseparability of landscape and human action results in the gradual

249

AS20.indb 249

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas

Figure 4. Poros Gorge; marked is the location of Drakaina Cave. formation of a narrative, continuously reshaped and transformed according to commensurate changes in human activity, as proposed by Ingold (1993) in his concept of the “taskscape.” Turning to the role of caves in the Greek Neolithic, these premises were influential in the discussion of several parameters connected with non-domestic aspects of cave use. Of particular interest are the notions of “centrality” and “liminality” (Tomkins 2009:137–138, 2012:67–68). Drakaina Cave is pertinent to both, even though they might seem contradictory at first glance. The first notion incorporates much of what has already been outlined, due to the situation of Drakaina Cave in a frequented passage. The second is equally noteworthy, since the secluded situation of the cave itself on nearly vertical cliffs renders it hardly accessible (see Figures 3 and 4). Except for a positive correlation of remoteness with cultic or other non-domestic activities, seclusion from the rest of the community is an important phase in the passage rites of many traditional societies (e.g. Owens and Hayden 1997; Turner 1967). The features discussed above

could have contributed toward a prominent position of Drakaina Cave within the processes involved in the construction of a culturally defined landscape. On a geographically—and perhaps also socially—broader level, we can view the landscape and its ramifications through the lens of insularity. Insular archaeology and the concept of insularity have exhibited a parallel development with landscape archaeology, moving toward more relativistic and dynamic approaches (Berg 2010; Broodbank 2000; Gosden and Pavlides 1994; Knapp 2007; Phoca-Cosmetatou 2011; Rainbird 2007). Islands are consequently understood as elements of an extended and fluid conglomerate of features, encompassing mainland shores, other islands, and the sea itself. The emphasis on the latter has shifted from the difficulties it creates for the islanders, such as inhibiting communication with the outside world, to the chances it creates as a binding element between different regions. It is safe to assume that the natural harbor at the exit of Poros Gorge, in the immediate vicinity of Drakaina Cave (see Figure 2), was important for the

250

AS20.indb 250

2/11/18 9:00 PM

16 - Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia

Figure 5. Topographic drawing of the shallow Drakaina Cave, with the excavated trenches in various depths: end of the Neolithic, Late Neolithic I (LN), and Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic II (CH). contact between the inhabitants of the area and the mainland or the rest of the central Ionian area, and that a lot of traffic was directed through the gorge to and from the inland areas. The concepts of “seascape” or “islandscape,” which are broader than that of insularity and encompass connectivity (Broodbank 2000), can offer additional insights into the role of Drakaina Cave. Furthermore, the overall importance of coastal sites, including symbolic/cosmological connotations, can often be more adequately evaluated in view of their role in seafaring routes or access from

the sea. The central Ionian archipelago is characterized by a multitude of larger and smaller islands or islets, with varying distance between themselves and the mainland (see Figure 1). It is conceivable that a wide array of activities were hosted in such an environment, requiring movement through the sea and ranging from subsistence strategies on a local level to social networks and interregional connectivity (Broodbank 2000:21–23). This entails that a web of relations existed between various groups on different levels. The east littoral of Kephalonia occupies

251

AS20.indb 251

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas

Figure 6. The northwestern part of the cave. a crucial position in the central Ionian archipelago, and we can envisage that the site was a hub of early seafaring and intergroup contact in this area. Furthermore, it has been argued that insularity can also be approached as an intra-island phenomenon, as islands might have regions that differ in many respects (Horden and Purcell 2000). Due to its mountainous terrain, Kephalonia is divided into such micro-regions, thereby favoring nucleated settlement. Landscape features crucial for seafaring could have played an active role in the relationship between those areas in a twofold way: they could have been valuable to areas more peripheral to the navigation routes of the central Ionian archipelago (such as the western parts of Kephalonia), serving as a gateway of interregional contact; but at the same time they could have become a factor in different modes of power negotiation between local Neolithic groups, whether toward equality or asymmetry. At any rate, the degree to which groups invested in monopolizing control of such localities could have been important regarding the intra-island balance of power and the strategies employed by different groups. We can now turn to the cosmological and mythological significance that the site likely had during the

Neolithic. The gorge and the cave could have figured prominently in local mythology during prehistory, as has been the case in recent times. Poros Gorge was involved in various tales that were documented in the past century, occasionally in conjunction with Aenos Mountain, another significant landscape marker. Most of these tales involve Hercules or a supernatural entity called Dragon. The transmission of such tales through time as part of communal memory highlights another issue, namely the fact that they can acquire their own agency, influencing the perception of landscape. The appropriation of the past has probably been, to varying degrees, important in shaping the sociopolitical milieu of Neolithic groups (e.g. Bradley 1998; Kotsakis 1999; Kuijt 1996). Natural places and powerful landscape features loaded with significance in such tales were deemed as important in the realm of the ancestors (Edmonds 1999; Tilley 1994 with references). This brings forward the possibility of some sort of distinction between the area occupied by settlements and the areas beyond their confines, more specifically prominent landscape features. In this respect, such features can be viewed as constituents of an everlasting ancestral world, distinguished from the ephemeral and continually reshaped settlements (for such dualities,

252

AS20.indb 252

2/11/18 9:00 PM

16 - Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia

Figure 7. The cave’s stratigraphic sequence based on profiles in trench E4 and trenches H3, H4, and H5; the dotted lines represent successive lime plaster surfaces from the Late Neolithic I (LN) and the Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic II (CH). see Hodder 1990). Natural places (including caves) or manmade monuments of the past were frequently embedded in the construction and propagation of identities and modes of sociopolitical organization (e.g. Cummings 2003; Watkins 2012). It has been argued that in the course of the Greek Neolithic, the process of social segmentation and the emergence of incipient inequality were intertwined with a changing evaluation of the landscape in cultural terms, as it was implicated in strategies of power negotiation (Hamilakis 2003). The ideological, cosmological, and symbolic foundation of social institutions, as well as specific mnemonic and repetitive performances (e.g. Connerton 1989), could have been closely related with such cosmologically charged landscape features. According to the above, such natural places could have been actively and consciously used in strategies employed by Neolithic groups regarding intra- and inter-group sociopolitical dynamics. As a consequence, Drakaina Cave can be viewed as a place that was significant to the local Neolithic groups in several intertwined ways. We can evaluate the role of the site in economic terms, as well as in terms of its social/symbolic connotations. It appears

that these two sides of the spectrum are mutually constitutive. It would be interesting to consider how the archaeological record of Drakaina Cave fits into this picture. The Cultural Record of Drakaina Cave and its Relationship with the Landscape A comprehensive framework regarding the analysis of Drakaina Cave’s use during the Neolithic must take the aforementioned parameters into account: namely, the inseparability of landscape and human activity on the one hand, and the purposeful utilization of mythologically/cosmologically loaded landscape features on the other. The abundance and overall significance of weapons in Drakaina Cave deserves some attention. As outlined above, the vast majority of the numerous (at least 212) projectile points (Figure 12, on Color Plate IV) comes from the exterior part of the cave, a fact which, along with the voluminous amount of knapping by-products, is strongly suggestive of insitu manufacture because of the presence of adequate light there.

253

AS20.indb 253

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas

Figure 8. Parts of a LN I four-legged vessel (rhyton) found in Drakaina cave. However, the projectile points from Drakaina Cave exhibit other features, which indicate that weapons and their significance—whether practical or symbolic—held a more fundamental value for the groups using the cave. Reddish flint was mostly reserved for the manufacture of projectile points (see Figure 9, on Color Plate IV). In practical terms, it seems odd that this flint category was not used more frequently for other artifact types, at least those involving pressure retouch. This choice suggests a link with the processing of red pigment from goethite, through its thermally induced transformation into hematite. Traces of such pigment have been preserved on the surface of plentiful ground stone tools unearthed in the cave (Figure 13, on Color Plate V). The use of red pigment also included the smearing of Black Burnished pottery, since stains have occasionally been preserved on the external surface of sherds. The above suggest that red color was somehow symbolically significant. Indeed, red color appears to have been frequently used cross-culturally in rituals and performances of varying nature, and red ochre was vested with symbolic power at least since the Upper Palaeolithic (e.g. Borić 2002). Essentially, the utilization of reddish flint almost exclusively for projectiles

probably strengthened and insulated the association of weapons and related activities or concepts (e.g. masculinity) within some kind of symbolic code. Another feature that deserves attention is the fact that during the LN the technological and typological features of projectile points seem to have been distinctively conservative. Tanged points (Figure 14, on Color Plate V) did not appear before the start of the LN II, while the manufacture of asymmetrical (primarily shouldered) points continued after the advent of the LN II, and perhaps even into an initial phase of the FN. For reasons that have been outlined in detail elsewhere (Stratouli and Metaxas 2017), this has been regarded as a conscious choice, at least in regard to the delayed introduction of tanged points. We hold that the main target was to create a locally grounded material culture expression, vis-à-vis the mainland. It might not be coincidental that this was limited to projectile points. As we saw, several other steps in their operational chain, from raw material utilization to use and discard in a specific context, exhibited idiosyncratic features. The role of technology and/or materiality as a constituent of social relations has been vigorously discussed (e.g. Dobres 2000; Hegmon 1998; Lemonnier 1992; Stout 2002).

254

AS20.indb 254

2/11/18 9:00 PM

16 - Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia

Figure 10. View of the Tzannata Basin and the Aenos Mountain west of the cave. The large number of intact and usable arrowheads left on the spot might hint that the ancestral past was relevant to the social gatherings and performances taking place in Drakaina Cave. Such objects could have served as tangible elements of the past (e.g. Meskell 2003), bridging the world of the participants in those periodic performances with that of their ancestors. In any case, the fact that a vertical mode of technological transmission exhibited such considerable resilience underlines its importance within the social and symbolic aspects of the gatherings hosted in Drakaina Cave, irrespective of the role of the past that one is willing to accept in this process. The significance of the landscape, as already outlined, was wider than its pertinence to the ancestral past and the degree to which it permeated the activities carried out in Drakaina Cave. Since the gorge where Drakaina Cave is situated is the sole passage from the Tzannata Basin to the coast (see Figure 10), it was potentially important in hunting expeditions. Deer and wild boar could have been channeled toward the gorge, where they could be ambushed. However, the

location of the cave in the upper part of the gorge, as well as the very steep, almost vertical terrain that impedes movement, entail that the cave itself was of rather limited actual utility in this respect (see Figure 4). Indeed, the percentage of wild fauna among the zooarchaeological remains is low (close to 10 percent), although within the margin usually known from Neolithic settlement sites. If an association with hunting existed, it seems that it was less grounded in a strictly economic basis. The cave served more as a focal point, hosting social gatherings and performances related to hunting or more broadly to the negotiation of a “male” identity. In any case, it is important to remark that even though a straightforward relation with hunting cannot be corroborated, the cave’s significance can be viewed as intertwined with that of Poros Gorge and the activities it facilitated in its immediate surroundings. By examining the general significance of projectile points, it follows that Drakaina Cave was a locus of social activity for reasons transcending its actual or symbolic relationship with hunting.

255

AS20.indb 255

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas

Figure 11. View of the sea passage between the island and the adjacent mainland east of the cave. The aforementioned existence of a material culture boundary with other regions in the wider geographical surroundings, involving many steps in the projectile points’ operational chain, is indicative of this. The use of elements of material culture in this respect has been highlighted in ethnographic studies (Hodder 1982; Wiessner 1983). Aspects of insularity can actively influence expressions of material culture (Broodbank 2000:33; Dawson 2010:89). Any kind of isolation, however, should not be prioritized in an interpretive framework. Insofar as boundaries or interregional connections are socially constituted, the implicit cosmological significance of the gorge, having a “liminal” value as the place of contact between southeastern Kephalonia and the outside world, was evidently pertinent. It is important to stress, therefore, that the forging and propagation of local peculiarities of material culture is not at odds with the significance and appreciation of inter-local relations (Robb 2001). On the contrary, they could well have been complementary. The long-term sustainability of insular groups in the Neolithic was a corollary of stable relations with other extra-local groups (Broodbank 2000). In order to achieve this, elements of a local identity with a communal, corporate character could have been

reinforced, aiming at the countering of centrifugal forces fueled by the unequal access to seafaring and/ or maintenance of contact with distant groups, as well as the challenges of insular environment in general. However, the picture was not static through time. Some sort of reorientation regarding the inter-local relations of the groups using Drakaina Cave after the start of the LN II is traced in a number of simultaneous changes in material culture, evidenced in both pottery and lithics. We can remark that from the LN II onwards, certain idiosyncratic elements of material culture expression, reified by the “parochial” traits of projectile points, were on the decline. This shift has several facets: projectile points became scarcer; tanged and barbed points were introduced; their spatial distribution no longer spiked in the exterior part of the cave; and perhaps more importantly, two distinct groups of projectile points could be distinguished according to an array of morphological and technological criteria. One group of arrowheads was the work of knappers with remarkable technical skill and knowhow. The standardized form of these artifacts seems to contrast the expedient local technological tradition evidenced by the bulk of the projectile points. This might reflect incipient social changes, which characterize the Greek Neolithic during this period (Halstead

256

AS20.indb 256

2/11/18 9:00 PM

16 - Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia 1999; Hamilakis 2003; Tomkins 2004). The gradual progress in seafaring efficiency might have altered the perception of insularity and how the users of the cave were oriented toward other groups. The use or general value of weaponry was probably implicated in novel or discrete levels of the social milieu, including the expression of forms of inequality and access to far-reaching contacts. The polished “mace heads,” copper daggers, and large triangular points circulating in Greece and the Balkans during the FN are more tangible aspects of this trend (Carter and Ydo 1996; Runnels et al. 2009). Some other important innovations are evidenced in Drakaina Cave, as well. Most importantly, the lime plaster surfaces became much more substantial, being an evocative aspect of the cave’s use. The many superimposed lime plaster surfaces covered the vestiges of previous use. This novel tendency can be paralleled with the aforementioned concomitant decline of the conservative morpho-technological traits of the projectile points. It is not necessary to assume that such changes signify a sudden, purposeful rupture with a deeply rooted local tradition. They could be viewed rather as evidence that social and political affairs gradually involved less investment in the past and the diachrony of local tradition, at the expense of inter-regional connectivity. The ways in which the landscape was reinterpreted in such a process is a matter open to debate. It is reasonable to assume that the crucial position of the gorge as a bridge between the coast and the inland areas, as well as the role of the adjacent natural harbor in seafaring, were no less conducive to aspects of Drakaina Cave’s use during the LN II and FN, such as the construction of limeplastered surfaces. According to the data presented in this paper, the significance of Drakaina Cave during the Neolithic was shaped by a multitude of factors. We conclude that a reciprocal relationship existed between the landscape and an array of variables. The landscape influenced human activity, since the geomorphology of the area entailed that Poros Gorge played a crucial role in different facets of human activity, such as hunting, movement to and from the coast, and navigation. Nevertheless, we should not restrict our attention to the ways in which the landscape restricts or enables human action. On the contrary, its significance in the life of Neolithic islanders rendered the gorge and the cave that it hosts a powerful locality, and its importance was even broader when seen through the perspective of insularity. The role of Poros Gorge and Drakaina Cave was accentuated by the fact that they are situated at a point of contact between southeastern Kephalonia and adjacent or more distant places. At

least during the LN I, some of the symbolic aspects of the gatherings taking place in Drakaina Cave, as well as several material culture peculiarities, could have been stimulated from a need to reconcile external relations—which often induce instability due to aggrandizing behavior—with a more or less egalitarian social status quo. The interaction between the cultural appropriation of the landscape and human activity was a continuous process. The longevity of several aspects of the archaeological record of Drakaina Cave, in terms of either the preponderance of certain activities or more specific technologies and practices employed, is noteworthy. This is rather suggestive that the site hosted repetitive events, which were themselves entangled with forms of oral tradition. It is important to note that even though the cave finally ceased to be used after the Roman occupation of the island, it retained an eminent position in the local mythological tradition, judging from elements that have survived until today. References Cited Ashmore, Wendy, and A. Bernard Knapp 1999 Archaeology of Landscapes: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Barnatt, John, and Mark Edmonds 2002 Places Apart? Caves and Monuments in Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(1):113–129. Bender, Barbara 2001 Landscapes On-the-Move. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1):75–89. Berg, Ina 2010 Re-Capturing the Sea: The Past and Future of ‘Island Archaeology’ in Greece. Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 4(1):16–26. Borić, Dusan 2002 Apotropaism and the Temporality of Colours: Colourful Mesolithic – Neolithic Seasons in the Danube Gorges. In Colouring the Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research, edited by Andrew Jones and Gavin MacGregor, pp. 23–43. Berg, Oxford. Bradley, Richard 1998 Ruined Buildings, Ruined Stones: Enclosures, Tombs and Natural Places in the Neolithic of South-West England. World Archaeology 30(1):13–22.

257

AS20.indb 257

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London. Broodbank, Cyprian 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Carter, Tristan, and Mark Ydo 1996 The Chipped and Ground Stone. In Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey: 2. Archaeological Data, edited by William Cavanagh, Joost Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and Graham Shipley, pp. 141–182. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 27. British School at Athens, London. Connerton, Paul 1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cummings, Vicki 2003 Building from Memory: Remembering the Past at Neolithic Monuments in Western Britain. In Archaeologies of Remembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies, edited by Howard Williams, pp. 25–44. Klewer Plenum, London. Dawson, Helen 2010 “One, None, and a Hundred Thousand”: Settlements and Identities in the Prehistoric Mediterranean Islands. Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 4(1):82–98. Dobres, Marcia-Anne 2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford. Edmonds, Mark 1999 Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. Routledge, London. Gosden, Chris, and Christina Pavlides 1994 Are Islands Insular? Landscape vs. Seascape in the Case of the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea. Archaeology of Oceania 29(1):162–171. Halstead, Paul 1999 Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 77–95. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Hamilakis, Yannis 2003 The Sacred Geography of Hunting: Wild Animals, Social Power and Gender in

Early Farming Societies. Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by Eleni Kotjabopoulou, Yannis Hamilakis, Paul Halstead, Clive Gamble, and Paraskevi Elefanti, pp. 239–247. British School at Athens Studies 9. British School at Athens, London. Hegmon, Michelle 1998 Technology, Style and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 264–279. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Oxford. Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell 2000 The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Blackwell, Oxford. Ingold, Tim 1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2):152–173. 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London. Karkanas, Panagiotis, and Georgia Stratouli 2008 Neolithic Lime Plastered Floors in Drakaina Cave, Kephalonia Island, Western Greece: Evidence of the Significance of the Site. The Annual of the British School at Athens 103:27–42. Knapp, A. Bernard 2007 Insularity and Island Identity in the Prehistoric Mediterranean. In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by Sophia Antoniadou and Anthony Pace, pp. 37–62. Pierides Foundation Publications, Athens. Kotsakis, Kostas 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Kuijt, Ian 1996 Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A Period Mortuary Practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15:313–336.

258

AS20.indb 258

2/11/18 9:00 PM

16 - Human–Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia Lemonnier, Pierre 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 88. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Meskell, Lynn 2003 Memory’s Materiality: Ancestral Presence, Commemorative Practice, and Disjunctive Locales. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, pp. 34–55. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Mlekuž, Dimitrij 2007 Sheep are Your Mother: Rhyta and InterSpecies Politics in the Neolithic of the Eastern Adriatic. Documenta Praehistorica 34:267–280. Owens, D’Ann, and Brian Hayden 1997 Prehistoric Rites of Passage: A Comparative Study of Transegalitarian Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:121–161. Phoca-Cosmetatou, Nellie (editor) 2011 The First Mediterranean Islanders: Initial Occupation and Survival Strategies. University of Oxford School of Archaeology Monograph 74. David Brown Book Company, Oxford. Rainbird, Paul 2007 The Archaeology of Islands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Robb, John 2001 Island Identities: Ritual,  Travel and the Creation of Difference in Neolithic Malta. European Journal of Archaeology 4:175– 202. Runnels, Curtis N., Claire Payne, Noam V. Rifkind, Chantel White, Nicholas P. Wolff, and Steven A. LeBlanc 2009 Warfare in Neolithic Thessaly: A Case Study. Hesperia 78:165–194. Stout, Dietrich 2002 Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production: An Ethnographic Case Study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 45(3):693–722. Stratouli, Georgia, and Odysseas Metaxas 2017 Tracing Social Changes in the Late Neolithic/Final Neolithic Transition at Drakaina Cave, Kephalonia, W. Greece. In Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia B.C., edited by Søren Dietz, Fanis Mavridis, Žarko Tankosić, and Turan Takaoǧlu, Monograph

of the Danish Institute at Athens. Oxbow Books, Oxford, in press. Thomas, Julian 2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 165–186. Polity Press, Cambridge. Tilley, Christopher 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg, Oxford. 2004 The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Berg, Oxford. 2010 Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities. Explorations of Landscape Phenomenology 3. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Tomkins, Peter 2004 Filling in the “Neolithic Background”: Social Life and Social Transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age. In The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited, edited by John C. Barrett and Paul Halstead, pp. 38–63. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2009 Domesticity by Default: Ritual, Ritualization and Cave-Use in the Neolithic Aegean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(2):125–153. 2012 Landscapes of Ritual, Identity and Memory: Reconsidering Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Cave-Use in Crete, Greece. In Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, edited by Holly Moyes, pp. 59–79. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Turner, Victor W. 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Watkins, Trevor 2012 Household, Community, and Social Landscape: Maintaining Social Memory in the Early Neolithic of Southwest Asia. In “As Time Goes By?” Monuments, Landscapes and the Temporal Perspective, Proceedings of the International Workshop “SocioEnvironmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes II (14th–18th March 2011) in Kiel, Vol. 2, edited by Martin Furholt, Martin Hinz, and Doris Mischka, pp. 23–44. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Whittle, Alasdair 2004 Stones that Float to the Sky: Portal Dolmens and their Landscapes of Memory and

259

AS20.indb 259

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Stratouli, Odysseas Metaxas Myth. In The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice, edited by Vicki Cummings and Chris Fowler, pp. 81–90. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253–276.

260

AS20.indb 260

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 17 Submerged Neolithic Landscapes off Franchthi Cave: The Measurements from the Terra Submersa Expedition and their Implications Julien Beck, Dimitris Sakellariou, and Despina Koutsoumba

Abstract Systematic, high-resolution seafloor and subseafloor geological-geophysical survey was conducted in August 2014 with the aims of (1) mapping in high resolution the seafloor, the sedimentary deposits, and the sub-seafloor structure of the Eastern Argolic Gulf; (2) mapping precisely and reconstructing the paleoshorelines and submerged prehistoric landscapes of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, when the sea level was lower than present; and (3) searching for and discovering potentially surviving remains of prehistoric human presence or occupation on the submerged landscapes close to Franchthi Cave. The survey was part of the University of Geneva Terra Submersa expedition, in collaboration with the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities, PlanetSolar, the Laténium (Switzerland), and the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece. Preliminary results of the processing and interpretation of the Boomer and Chirp sub-bottom profiles, the swath bathymetric data, and the side scan sonar records yielded a wealth of information on the location, depth, and nature of the submerged shorelines of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene age and on the numerous morphological features and environmental conditions of the submerged Neolithic and pre-Neolithic landscapes in the Bay of Kiladha, off Franchthi Cave. These results, and their implications for the Franchthi Neolithic, are discussed in light of previous research (geological-geophysical surveying and coring) in the Bay of Kiladha. Keywords submerged prehistoric landscapes, Neolithic, Franchthi Cave, southern Argolid, Greece The study of submerged prehistoric landscapes is a developing, multidisciplinary field of research involving geology, archaeology, and marine geosciences (Bailey and Flemming 2008; Bailey et al. 2012;

Evans et al. 2014; Flemming et al. 2014; Harff et al. 2016). Its aim is to reconstruct the morphology, evolution, and human occupation of prehistoric coastal areas that have since been covered by water. In this case, the focus is on the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene landscapes of the southern Argolid, which were submerged by the sea-level rise following the Last Glacial Maximum. More specifically, the study zone is the small Bay of Kiladha, on the shores of which lies the well-known prehistoric site of Franchthi Cave (Figure 1). Excavations at Franchthi Cave and Former Research in the Bay of Kiladha Franchthi Cave is a vast karstic formation overlooking a small pebble beach on the north side of the bay. It was partially excavated between 1967 and 1979 by a team from Indiana University, under the supervision of T. W. Jacobsen.1 The project was innovative in many ways, including a focus on the site’s environmental context: i.e. taking into account the evolution of climate, landscape, and available resources, as well as their impact on cultural choices through time. Special methodologies were developed accordingly, such as the introduction of systematic archaeological sieving—new to Aegean archaeology at the time (Diamant 1979)—and submarine exploration (see below). The excavations revealed that the cave was occupied for an exceptionally long period of time, although not necessarily continuously, from at least the Upper Paleolithic (ca. 40 kyr B.P.) to the end of the Neolithic (ca. 5 kyr B.P.). During the Neolithic, occupation was not limited to the cave proper, but extended to a lower terrace close to the shore (the “Paralia” or beach sector). Stone structures (partition/ terrace walls or possible wall foundations) were found there, leading the excavators to suggest that the area could have been the northern limit of a settlement that was later submerged by the postglacial sea-level rise (among others, see Gifford 1990:85; Jacobsen 1976:83–84, 1981:309). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Bay of

261

AS20.indb 261

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Julien Beck et al. Kiladha was thus searched for a submerged Neolithic settlement linked to Franchthi Cave. On this occasion, marine geophysical surveying and coring in the bay (Gifford 1990; van Andel 1987; van Andel et al. 1980), as well as a marine geophysical survey covering the entire shelf of the southern Argolid (van Andel and Lianos 1983, 1984), led to a specific model of evolution for the local shorelines during the postglacial sea-level rise. This model was essentially based on what was observed in the bay after extensive profiling, and it was confirmed by measurements elsewhere on the shelf: the presence of a basal reflector (the pre-transgression surface of a Late Pleistocene and Early to Middle Holocene coastal plain), covered by a series of what was then interpreted as transgressive deposits—layers of fine sediments linked to the rising sea level. Sealevel rise in the southern Argolid was thus generally described as a slow but constant transgressive process, virtually unabated by the small local streams and their equally small sediment loads, or by any other type of terrestrial depositional activity. Van Andel (1987:34) concluded that the shores of the southern Argolid had prograded little during the Holocene. On the contrary, the coastal plains were gradually receding, a loss of territory that was described, archaeologically speak-

ing, as “the most important postglacial environmental event, in the beginning because of the diminishing resources available to the hunter-gatherers, and later as it reduced the most valuable arable land, especially the fields near coastal springs” (van Andel and Hansen 1987:62). As for a Neolithic settlement linked to Franchthi Cave, the marine geophysical survey and coring in the bay neither proved nor disproved its existence (Gifford 1990). The Terra Submersa Expedition The search for submerged traces of prehistoric human activity near the cave was resumed in 2012 by the Bay of Kiladha project, a research collaboration between the University of Geneva (under the aegis of the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece) and the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities (Beck et al. 2013; Beck and Koutsoumba 2014, 2015). A new bathymetric chart of the area in front of Franchthi Cave was made, and in 2013 an experimental coring system was tested. In the summer of 2014, a systematic, high-resolution seafloor and sub-seafloor geological-geophysical survey was conducted with the aims of: (1) mapping in high resolution the seafloor,

Figure 1. General map of the Terra Submersa expedition, Bay of Kiladha, and Franchthi Cave. 262

AS20.indb 262

2/11/18 9:00 PM

17 - Submerged Neolithic Landscapes off Franchthi Cave… sedimentary deposits, and sub-seafloor structure of the Eastern Argolic Gulf; (2) mapping precisely and reconstructing the paleo-shorelines and submerged prehistoric landscapes of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, when the sea level was lower than present; and (3) searching for and discovering potentially surviving remains of prehistoric human presence or occupation on the submerged landscapes close to Franchthi Cave. This survey was part of the University of Geneva Terra Submersa expedition, in collaboration with the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities, PlanetSolar, the Laténium (Switzerland), and the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece. Two research vessels, one Swiss and one Greek, participated in the expedition: PlanetSolar, currently the largest solar-powered boat ever built (Figure 2), and Alkyon, from the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research. The Paleo-Riverbed and the Unusual Layer Close to the Modern Village of Kiladha

Preliminary results of the processing and interpre-

tation of the Boomer and Chirp sub-bottom profiles, the swath bathymetric data, and the side scan sonar records (Sakellariou et al. 2015) yielded a wealth of information on the location, depth, and nature of the submerged shorelines of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene age and on the numerous morphological features and environmental conditions of the submerged Neolithic and pre-Neolithic landscapes in the Bay of Kiladha, off Franchthi Cave (Figure 3). Particularly worthy of attention are the “Franchthi River” paleo-riverbed (red dotted lines in Figure 3), which can now be traced seawards to about the present-day -30 m depth contour, and an unusual layer (marked in yellow in Figure 3) close to the modern village of Kiladha. As is revealed by sub-bottom profiling (Figure 4), the layer in question is part of a geomorphological evolution of the bay, which does not match previous observations. The following is a preliminary interpretation of the geophysical data involved. The purple dotted line in Figure 4 represents a paleo-valley with the riverbed and fluvial terraces on both sides. This is the landscape of the Last Glacial Maximum and Early Holocene, when the sea level was at -120 m and began rising to its present level. The deepest point of the riverbed in

Figure 2. PlanetSolar in front of Franchthi Cave, during the Terra Submersa expedition. 263

AS20.indb 263

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Julien Beck et al.

Figure 3. Map of the 2014 geological-geophysical survey in the Bay of Kiladha. 264

AS20.indb 264

2/11/18 9:00 PM

17 - Submerged Neolithic Landscapes off Franchthi Cave…

Figure 4. Chirp subbottom profile in the Bay of Kiladha. Vertical exaggeration: ± 15x. 265

AS20.indb 265

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Julien Beck et al. this particular profile is at about 19–20 m below the present sea level. During the Late Glacial Maximum, the riverbed in the former Kiladha Valley was about 100 m higher than sea level, with a mean seaward slope of about 1–1.5 percent as obtained from the seismic profiles acquired in the Bay of Kiladha. This configuration indicates that the river may have been very energetic during heavy rain events and had the potential to erode its valley. When the sea level rose during the Late Pleistocene–Early Holocene and the difference in altitude between the riverbed and sea level began to reduce gradually, the river lost its energy and could no longer erode its bed. During this stage, the river valley was filled by coarse-grained, strongly reflecting, fluvial deposits (thin dotted green lines in Figure 4). When the narrow paleo-valley was completely filled in, the wider valley began to be covered gradually by fine-grained, acoustically transparent, possibly flood deposits (thick dotted green lines in Figure 4), similar to the terrestrial deposits of the present-day low plain of Kiladha. By this time, the sea level was only a few meters lower than the depositional paleolandscape shown on the seismic profile, probably at about 15–20 m below the present sea level. Note that episodic, abrupt uplift/subsidence events caused by earthquakes and tectonic activity superimposed on eustatic, gradual sea-level rise, might alter significantly the “normal” sea-level rise curve. The thick dotted blue line (Figure 4) represents a strongly reflecting layer (the aforementioned “yellow” layer in Figure 3), which (a) truncates the green reflectors below, indicating subaerial erosion, and (b) marks the deposition of coarse-grained material. The latter may be beach deposits such as beach rock, coarse sand, or cultural remains. The right end of the thick dotted blue line may correspond to the beach (land to the left, sea to the right) when the sea level was about 11 m lower than today. The time range for this level varies from about 10–12 to 7 kyr B.P., depending on the source used (sea-level curve or coring in the bay, see Gifford 1990; Van Andel 1987). The blue line indicates the surface that was subsequently covered by marine transgressive deposits, meaning that the former valley was inundated by the sea at about this time. A Reappraisal of the Archaeological Data from Franchthi Cave This new model for the geomorphological evolution of the Bay of Kiladha, including sediments deposited by the river (and therefore progradation, or at least delayed marine transgression), differs sig-

nificantly from previous research. The difference can be explained by the methods used in 2014 during the Terra Submersa expedition, which were much more advanced technologically (400 kHz multi beam, 2–11 kHz chirp sub-bottom profiler), allowing us to obtain higher resolution data. It has important implications regarding our understanding of the Neolithic landscape around Franchthi Cave: (a) There was apparently less loss of valuable arable land and fields near coastal springs (the latter are abundant in the vicinity of Franchthi Cave) than previously thought (van Andel and Hansen 1987:62). This, in turn, means less stress for the local farming and/or herding population(s). Was this the case only in the Bay of Kiladha, or should the dynamics of sea-level rise, and their impact on Neolithic communities, be reconsidered for the entire southern Argolid in view of the present results? (b) Ever since the first geological-geophysical investigations were made in the bay, it was believed that in the Neolithic there was a ca. 200-m-wide terrace in front of the cave, overlooking a marsh and an inlet (the result of marine transgression; see van Andel 1987:Figure 21). The edge of the terrace would have been chosen as the place for an open-air settlement, possibly continuous with the Paralia remains—a rather appropriate decision in view of an uneven, partly inundated coastal plain (Gifford 1990; van Andel 1987). Now given the preliminary results of the 2014 survey, it seems that there was no marked terrace facing the cave and no marsh or inlet, and that the coastal plain was rather level. An outdoor settlement need not have been so close to the cave. In fact, the unusual layer marked in yellow in Figure 3 (or thick dotted blue line in Figure 4) near the modern village of Kiladha could be the remains of a Neolithic settlement. In this case, how would such a site relate to the cave and to the Paralia sector? Could there be more than one Neolithic settlement, or at least more than one “Neolithic activity area” (Gifford 1990:85), in the Bay of Kiladha? Final interpretation of the geophysical data from the 2014 Terra Submersa expedition, together with a reappraisal of the archaeological data from Franchthi Cave in light of the new proposed model of geophysical evolution, as well as further research in the Bay of Kiladha, will undoubtedly help to clarify such issues.

266

AS20.indb 266

2/11/18 9:00 PM

17 - Submerged Neolithic Landscapes off Franchthi Cave… Notes Jacobsen published a series of preliminary reports in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. Jacobsen 1976) and summarized the results of the Franchthi excavations in the early 1980s (Jacobsen 1981). More detailed reports of the findings have been published in the “Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece” volumes by Indiana University Press (Bloomington and Indianapolis), as well as in many scientific articles.

1

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the organizers of the Rethymno conference, as well as Karen D. Vitelli, Director of the Franchthi Project, and the two anonymous reviewers, for their corrections and fruitful comments. We also want to acknowledge the University of Geneva, the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, the Greek Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities, PlanetSolar, the Laténium (Switzerland), the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece, the Société Académique de Genève, the Fondation Metin Arditi, the Fondation Henri Moser, and the municipality of Kranidhi for their support of the Terra Submersa expedition. Our special gratitude goes to the captain and crew of both the Alkyon, the research vessel of the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, and PlanetSolar, the solar-powered catamaran, for their extremely collaborative spirit and support during the summer 2014 geophysical survey . References Cited Bailey, Geoff N., and Nicholas Flemming 2008 Archaeology of the Continental Shelf: Marine Resources, Submerged Landscapes and Underwater Archaeology. Quaternary Science Reviews 27:2153–2165. Bailey, Geoff, Dimitris Sakellariou, and members of the SPLASHCOS network 2012 SPLASHCOS: Submerged Prehistoric Archaeology and Landscapes of the Continental Shelf. Antiquity Project Gallery 86(334). Electronic document, http://antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/sakellariou334, accessed August 31, 2016. Beck, Julien, and Despina Koutsoumba 2014 Baie de Kiladha 2013. Antike Kunst 57:162–165. 2015 Baie de Kiladha 2014. Antike Kunst 58:187–190.

Beck, Julien, Fabien Langenegger, and Despina Koutsoumba 2013 Baie de Kiladha 2012. Antike Kunst 56:107–109. Diamant, Steven 1979 A Short History of Archaeological Sieving at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 6(2):203–217. Evans, Amanda M., Joe C. Flatman, and Nicholas C. Flemming (editors) 2014 Prehistoric Archaeology of the Continental Shelf: A Global Review. Springer, New York. Flemming, Nicholas C., M. Namık Ça‭ğ‬atay, Francesco Latino Chiocci, Nena Galanidou, Gilles Lericolais, Hauke Jöns, Tine Missiaen, Fionnbarr Moore, Alar Rosentau, Dimitris Sakellariou, Birgitte Skar, Alan Stevenson, and Henk Weerts 2014 Land Beneath the Waves: Submerged Landscapes and Sea Level Change. A Joint Geoscience-Humanities Strategy for European Continental Shelf Prehistoric Research. Position Paper No. 21. European Marine Board, Ostend, Belgium. Gifford, John A. 1990 Analysis of Submarine Sediments off Franchthi Cave. In Franchthi Paralia: The Sediments, Stratigraphy, and Offshore Investigations, edited by Tony J. Wilkinson and Susan T. Duhon, with contributions by John A. Gifford and Sytze Bottema, pp. 85–116. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 6. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Harff, Jan, Geoff Bailey, and Friedrich Lüth (editors) 2016 Geology and Archaeology: Submerged Landscapes of the Continental Shelf. Special Publication No. 411. Geological Society, London. Jacobsen, Thomas W. 1976 17,000 Years of Greek Prehistory. Scientific American 234(6):76–87. 1981 Franchthi Cave and the Beginning of Settled Village Life in Greece. Hesperia 50(4):303–319. Sakellariou, Dimitris, Julien Beck, Grigoris Rousakis, Panos Georgiou, Ioannis Panagiotopoulos, Ioannis Morfis, Konstantina Tsampouraki-Kraounaki, and Alexandra Zavitsanou 2015 Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes off Franchthi Cave, East Argolic Gulf: Preliminary Results. Proceedings of the 11th

267

AS20.indb 267

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Julien Beck et al. Panhellenic Symposium on Oceanography and Fisheries, pp. 993–996. Mytilene, Greece. van Andel, Tjeerd H. 1987 The Adjacent Sea. In Landscape and People of the Franchthi Region, by Tjeerd H. van Andel and Susan B. Sutton, with contributions by Julie M. Hansen and Charles J. Vitaliano, pp. 31–54. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 2. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Julie M. Hansen 1987 Evolution of the Franchthi Landscape. In Landscape and People of the Franchthi Region, edited by Tjeerd H. van Andel and Susan B. Sutton, with contributions by Julie M. Hansen and Charles J. Vitaliano, pp. 55–62. Excavations at Franchthi Cave,

Greece, Fasc. 2. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. van Andel, Tjeerd H., Thomas W. Jacobsen, Jon B. Jolly, and Nikolaos Lianos 1980 Late Quaternary History of the Coastal Zone near Franchthi Cave, Southern Argolid, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 7(4):389–402. van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Nikolaos Lianos 1983 Prehistoric and Historic Shorelines of the Southern Argolid Peninsula: A Subbottom Profiler Study. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 12:303–324. 1984 High-Resolution Seismic Reflection Profiles for the Reconstruction of Post-Glacial Transgressive Shorelines: An Example from Greece. Quaternary Research 22:31–45.

268

AS20.indb 268

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 18 Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula, Central Greece: An Approach through Micromorphology and Plant Remains in Dung Georgia Koromila, Panagiotis Karkanas, Georgia Kotzamani, Kerry Harris, Yannis Hamilakis, and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika Abstract This paper examines evidence on animal diet through the study of dung and its contents in order to discuss animal-related mobility and the use of ecological resources at Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula in central Greece. Micromorphological analysis of intact sediments was employed in order to identify the presence of animal dung in archaeological deposits, thereby providing direct evidence of animal diet. Building on these observations, phytolith and archaeobotanical analyses were used to further investigate plant content of dung-rich deposits. Micromorphology showed that dung was a major contributor to sediment accumulation at the site. It was encountered in trampled (likely penning) deposits, secondary refuse accumulations, and insitu fuel. It was also found that the dung is extremely rich in phytoliths, including wild-grass- and reedderived morphotypes and domesticated cereals. Plant macroremains from dung-rich contexts revealed a similarly diverse picture of animal diet, including cereals, weeds, and fruits. It is thereby suggested that a combination of animal foddering and grazing practices were employed by the inhabitants of Koutroulou. The integration of micromorphology with archaeobotanical, zooarchaeological, and other analytical methods, as well as with broader archaeological, on-site and off-site data, provides a more holistic understanding of human and animal relationships with the environment. Keywords micromorphology, phytoliths, archaeobotany, animal diet, paleoenvironment Among the recent proliferation of raw material provenience studies (e.g. Kilikoglou et al. 1996; Milić 2014; Pentedeka 2011; Quinn et al. 2010; Whitbread and Mari 2014) that provide a suitable dataset to discuss regional-scale movement and communication

patterns and networks, smaller-scale, settlement-based ways of movement can be overlooked. Village daily life is far from static, however, and one way to approach small-scale, subtle types of mobility is by examining the implications of farming-related tasks. These tasks include the herding of domestic animals: the joint human-animal ways of engaging with the landscape created by this activity comprise a fundamental part of Neolithic lifeways. Studies of animal-related mobility in Neolithic Greece have primarily focused on questions of seasonal movement and the degree of settlement permanence. Halstead (2005) examined faunal data from sites of different types to conclude that there is no supporting evidence for the hypothesis of transhumance, as faunal assemblages are compatible with year-round presence of domesticates. Valamoti (2007) approached animal-related mobility by analyzing archaeobotanical remains from dung-rich contexts in four sites (tells and flat/extended sites). She proposed that in tell sites, animals were kept within or in proximity to the settlement year round, in contrast to flat sites, where the absence of seeds and fruits in dung suggests summer movement away from the settlement. Recent studies of the archaeobotanical content of dung-derived deposits at Neolithic sites in Greece reveal the multiplicity of animal feeding options, following in each case spatial, environmental, and socioeconomic contingencies. These options range from an emphasis on grazing of arable land in Final Neolithic–Early Bronze Age Mandalo (Valamoti and Jones 2003) and Final Neolithic Arkadikos (Valamoti 2004), to grazing in different patches of vegetation in the landscape of Late Neolithic Makri, and to some form of herd movement during summer months at Middle Neolithic Apsalos (Valamoti 2006) and Late Neolithic Makriyalos (Valamoti 2004). Vaiglova et al. (2014) also highlight diversity in animal feeding practices at Middle and Late Neolithic Kouphovouno, Peloponnese, based on isotopic dietary signatures of animal bones. Within this research framework, the present study

269

AS20.indb 269

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Koromila et al. proposes a combined approach for the investigation of herbivore diet in order to explore human-animal environmental relationships at Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula in central Greece. This is achieved by the examination of plant content of dung-rich deposits through the integration of micromorphology, phytolith analysis, and archaeobotany, with additional data from the faunal record. This integrated approach aims at providing new ways of exploring human-animal environmental interactions; thus our study has wider methodological implications beyond the specific case study. Case Study Excavations at Koutroulou Magoula were begun in 2001 by the 14th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (now the Ephorate of Antiquities of Pthiotida and Evrytania), under the direction of Dr. Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2006). Informally since 2009, and officially since 2010, the site has been investigated as part of the Koutroulou Magoula Archaeology and Archaeological Ethnography Project, which is a collaboration between the Greek Archaeological Service and the University of Southampton under the auspices of the British School at Athens (Hamilakis and Kyparissi-Apostolika

2012; Morgan 2011, 2012, 2013). It is located near the village of Vardali, ca. 2.5 km south of the village of Neo Monastiri, Phthiotida, at the southern edge of the Thessalian Plain (Figure 1), and it comprises a distinct mound that rises 6.6 m above the modern plain surface. The anthropogenic character of the mound is attested by cultural layers excavated down to ca. 2.5 m in depth from the tell’s surface; the anthropogenic stratigraphy is expected to continue to the base of the mound and is still under investigation. The bulk of excavated deposits at Koutroulou are dated, based on AMS radiocarbon dating (see Hamilakis et al., this volume), to the first two centuries of the sixth millennium B.C.; there is also extensive evidence of later Bronze Age and Medieval activity at the top of the mound. The organization of settlement space was characterized by rectilinear, free-standing buildings with stone wall foundations (Figure 2), as revealed by the excavation and the geophysical surveys. The buildings were constructed in relative proximity to each other; e.g. Buildings 1 and 2 are separated by less than 2 m distance. Open spaces in between buildings are characterized by midden-like, charred, and ashy deposits; spatial features such as fire installations, stake holes, and paved surfaces; and dense accumulation of anthropogenic residues, such as pottery, animal

Figure 1. Map showing the modern topographic location of Koutroulou Magoula at the southern edge of the Thessalian Plain. 270

AS20.indb 270

2/11/18 9:00 PM

18 - Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula… bones, ground stones, lithics, and clay figurines, all indicating extensive human activity. At the periphery of the site, curvilinear features indicated by the geophysical survey have been preliminarily interpreted as ditches (Hamilakis and Kyparissi-Apostolika 2012; Kyparissi-Apostolika and Hamilakis 2015). In order to obtain a holistic understanding of Neolithic life at the site, it is important to study its position within the wider landscape. Located at the southern edge of the Trikala alluvial basin at the low rises formed at the junction between the Othrys and Revenia Mountains to its southeast, the settlement was in proximity to both upland and lowland types of environments and resources. According to palynological studies (Bottema 1979, 1982), lowland vegetational zones in Thessaly during the Neolithic were characterized as wet environments, possibly affected by periodic flooding (van Andel and Runnels 1995), with strong arboreal presence at least until ca. 4000 B.C., as well as patches of shorter grassland. Upland forested regions were covered by mixed, oak-dominated woodland. The topographic location of Koutroulou at the ecotone between different geomorphological

and environmental zones afforded access to diverse environments and resources of low and high altitude, potentially including woodland, semi-open grasslands, and wetland vegetation within the alluvial plain. Aims and Methods This paper aims at examining the ways of movement, access to, interaction with, and use of landscape features at Koutroulou, specifically related to animals, by employing: 1. Micromorphology, in order to identify dung-rich deposits and examine dung in situ to provide evidence on animal diet; 2. Phytolith analysis, in order to quantify and complement micromorphological analysis of plant remains in the composition of animal diet and their environmental implications; 3. Archaeobotanical analysis of dungrich deposits in order to examine the comparative frequencies of domestic and wild plant (e.g. cereal vs. wild fruit/weeds)

Figure 2. Plan of the main excavated area of Koutroulou Magoula at the end of the 2015 excavation season. 271

AS20.indb 271

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Koromila et al. and infer grazing or foddering practices, as well as seasons of consumption; 4. Zooarchaeological analysis to document presence and significance of animal species in the composition of the faunal assemblage. Subsequent integration of the available evidence aims at composing a comprehensive picture of animal diet, mobility, and interaction with environmental features. Drawing on ethnographic data, an attempt will be made to establish an experiential understanding of possible tasks and the different temporalities involved. Dung Abundance and Distribution Evidence of the presence, abundance, spatial and temporal patterns of distribution, depositional pathways, and contextual associations of animal dung is provided by thin-section analysis (Bullock et al. 1985; Courty et al. 1989; Stoops 2003; Stoops et al. 2010), conducted on 35 large-format (5 x 7 cm) and 17 mammoth-sized (14 x 7 cm) thin sections. These were prepared from intact sediment samples collected from diverse contexts at the site, including both internal and external areas. Indicators used for the identification of dung presence comprise: fecal calcareous spherulites that are formed in the gut of animals (Canti 1999); large amounts of plant tissue and high-abundance levels of phytoliths originating from ingested plant material (Shahack-Gross 2011); organic-rich and phosphatic groundmass (Karkanas and Goldberg 2010); and occasionally preserved microlaminated fabrics (Courty et al. 1991; Macphail et al. 1997; Shahack-Gross 2011). According to thin section recording, much of the accumulated material at Koutroulou is in fact of dung origin. Dung was observed in several forms that indicate diverse component micro-histories and variable degrees of disaggregation and mixing. First, relatively undisturbed micro-layers, interpreted as trampled penning deposits, were encountered both in open-exterior and roofed-interior areas, more specifically between Buildings 1 and 2, and in the interior space defined by wall features in Trench Z1. Second, aggregates of combined dung indicators were observed as one of the recurring inclusion types in midden-like deposits. Such deposits were identified mainly in the open area to the south of Building 1. Third, spherulites, phytoliths, and small aggregates were observed as randomly dispersed components within homogenized occupational sediments in both open areas examined. Dung-derived remains were also a significant component of in-situ ash residues,

indicating that dung was used as fuel, possibly alongside wood. Based on this evidence, it can be argued that dung followed many and diverse paths to final deposition: as in-situ trampled material; as material transported, dispersed, and mixed with other anthropogenic remains; and as fuel, either preserved in situ or as redistributed silica-rich ash. The significance of animal dung as a major contributor to the total residue accumulation at the site suggests marked animal presence. High concentrations and widespread occurrence indicate that this was a material in abundance, likely produced on-site and subsequently redistributed via diverse pathways and modes of deposition. This hypothesis is further supported by evidence of trampled penning deposits both in close proximity to and within buildings. In addition, use of dung as fuel indicates that it was an available and important material resource for the inhabitants of Koutroulou. The high levels of dung accumulation and use are consistent with animals being kept on site and their mobility being restricted to short distances in proximity to the settlement. Phytoliths Phytoliths are inorganic plant remains, formed as silica originating from the groundwater precipitates at the walls of plant cells; thus they are a type of “cast” of plant anatomy, preserved after the organic part has decayed, and resilient under most taphonomic conditions (Piperno 2006). Micromorphological analysis shows that phytoliths are a significant component of dung remains at Koutroulou, preserved in high concentrations up to 20–30 percent by area. As ingested food remains, phytoliths provide direct evidence for animal diet and its environmental origin(s). Recurring morphotypes within aggregated dung identified in thin section (Figure 3a­–b) originate from diverse plant categories, including cereals, reeds, wild grasses, and dicots (trees/ shrubs). In order to complement the contextual—but only quasi-quantitative—information that can be gained by thin-section analysis (see also Matthews 2010:101), phytoliths were extracted from sediment subsamples collected along with the micromorphological blocks and separately counted in order to quantify individual morphotypes. The 21 analyzed subsamples were selected based on abundance of phytolith-rich herbivore dung, as attested by micromorphology. It is, therefore, argued that most of the extracted phytolith material is of dung origin, and thereby indicative of animal diet. Below, specific phytolith categories are examined according to their significance for identification

272

AS20.indb 272

2/11/18 9:00 PM

18 - Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula…

Figure 3. Photomicrographs of phytoliths from dung-rich contexts at Koutroulou, identified in thin section and in associated extracted samples: (a) cereal inflorescence phytolith in dung-rich ash; (b) stacked and keystone bulliform phytoliths in dung; (c) extracted short-cell phytoliths with paleoenvironmental significance: saddle (in square), bilobes (in circle); (d) extracted short-cell phytoliths with paleoenvironmental significance: saddle (in square), rondel (in triangle), keystone bulliform (in circle); (e) multicelled phytolith with squat saddles (chloridoid); (f) stacked bulliform cells (reed).

273

AS20.indb 273

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Koromila et al. of plant taxa and plant parts (see Piperno 2006) and their implications regarding animal diet. The examined phytolith assemblages are grassdominated, although dicots generally produce much lower numbers of phytoliths than grasses (Tsartsidou 2009; Tsartsidou et al. 2007) and, therefore, can be under-represented. Further paleoenvironmental information is provided by the presence and abundance of short-cell phytoliths of grass origin. In the examined samples from Koutroulou, there is co-occurrence of phytoliths associated with plants of different environmental preferences, i.e. rondels, saddles, bilobes, and bulliform types (Table 1 and Figure 3c–f). Correlations between these phytolith categories suggest overall covariance, apart from rondels, which do not correlate at all with any of the other short-cell types. As rondels are produced by both wild grasses and domesticated cereals, their independent variance can be interpreted as due to different and/or multiple sources of input. Spatial and contextual comparisons indicate higher concentrations of saddles, bilobates, and bulliforms in the dung-rich ash context in Trench H3. The occurrence of multi-celled husk phytoliths that can be diagnostic of cereals indicates admixture of domesticated cereals and wild grasses, with no clear context associations. Species-level identification of wheat and barley husk articulated phytoliths (after Rosen 1992), where possible, indicates higher concentrations of wheat-like phytoliths in middenlike deposits; barley-like cases mostly concentrate in charred dung and a penning unit. Abundance of inflorescence phytolith types was also used to assess assemblage composition and seasonality (Rosen 2005). The general co-occurrence of leaf/stem and inflorescence-derived phytolith types is

consistent with whole plants being consumed. The low fluctuation in their ratio between successive laminated deposits does not support the hypothesis of seasonal rotation in their deposition. Storage of collected grain and fodder, however, might have masked potential seasonal signatures. To summarize, phytolith analysis indicates that diverse plant categories contributed to animal diet at Koutroulou. Wild grass resources identified in the dung suggest an origin from wet and dry environments that could include fallow fields. Phytoliths of pooid grasses, which include cereals, seem to originate from different types of input; this is consistent with a combined origin from foddering and grazing practices. The abundance fluctuations of phytolith morphotypes from different grass taxa indicate variability in sample composition, with increased presence of wild species recorded in dung fuel in Trench H3. Although seasonal variation was likely a key factor affecting variable dietary choices, potential seasonal signatures were not preserved between successive fine stratigraphic layers. Plant Macroremains Systematic soil sampling across the whole excavated space of Koutroulou Magoula resulted in the retrieval of a relatively rich archaeobotanical assemblage that represents all types of contexts, and thus may provide useful insights into multiple aspects of the contribution of plants to the socioeconomic life of the Middle Neolithic settlement. Further evidence on animal feeding patterns and, by extension, on the ways the exploitation of plant environment and its products may have been integrated with animal husbandry practices (Charles 1998), was pursued

Table 1. Plant Taxa Identified at Koutroulou and Their Habitat Preferences, as Inferred by the Presence of Characteristic Phytolith Types.

Grass Sub-Family Pooidae

Characteristic Phytolith Morphotypes Rondels, crenates

Chloridoidae

Saddles

Arundidoidae

Paleoenvironmental Significance Tall grasses of cool and moist environments, including Near Eastern cereals Short and drought-adapted grasses, including certain weed species Reeds, wet/marshy environments

(Tall) saddles, bilobes, keystone and stacked bulliforms, many stomata Note: After Jenkins and Rosen (2007), Ollendorf et al. (1988), Piperno (2006), and Shillito (2011). 274

AS20.indb 274

2/11/18 9:00 PM

18 - Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula… through the study of seed, fruit, and other plant part macroremains (i.e. chaff) preserved in dung deposits at the site. In this vein, the botanical content of 26 soil samples, deriving from contexts for which micromorphology attested the presence of animal dung, was examined in order to supplement respective data gathered through phytolith analysis. Most of the samples come from open spaces between and around Buildings 1 and 2 (Trenches Θ1, Θ2, Η3, and Θ3ext), while one sample corresponds to the interior space defined by wall features in Trench Z1. The bulk of plant remains encountered in the samples has been preserved through carbonization, but mineralized remains are also present. The archaeobotanical material of the samples (coarse and fine flot sections) is rather abundant, with more than 50 identifiable and quantifiable items counted. A large part of the finds is fragmented, allowing for only relative recording of their presence. All samples exhibit mixed composition, containing in most cases cereal grains and chaff (einkorn, emmer, and barley) as the major components, followed in quantitative order by wild/weed seeds, fruit seeds (namely, fig and cornelian cherry), and occasionally few legume remains (lentil and common pea). The group of wild/weed seeds comprises both annual and perennial taxa that thrive in different ecological niches, ranging from arable land and fallow fields to different types of grassland and wetter/aquatic environments. Table 2 summarizes the main wild/weed species spotted in the archaeobotanical samples of this study according to principal habitat preferences and life cycle. No major differences in the samples’ composition in relation to spatial attributes are traceable, although small variations in the relative proportions of chaff, grain, wild/weed seeds, and fruits are observed. The recurrent pattern of admixture in the Koutroulou Magoula dung-associated samples, with crop processing by-products (cereal glume bases) coexisting with wild seeds of different potential origin, is most probably suggestive of animal feeding practices that involved both cereal chaff or straw foddering, as well as grazing of the stubble and fallow fields of the community, with parallel exploitation of further ecological niches in proximity to the settlement (meadow, grassland, ruderal, dry, and wet habitats). Thus, macrobotanical data from dung-derived deposits of the site is in accordance with the picture obtained through phytolith evidence, which implied that the combination of on-site keeping/foddering of animals with small-scale mobility of the herds and grazing of nearby open habitats was the preferred animal husbandry practice at Koutroulou. Plant taxa representation in the archaeobotanical samples points

toward the existence of a variety of micro-ecosystems in the surrounding landscape (fallow fields, grassland and meadow pastures, wet/marshy environments), providing seasonal diversity in animal diet throughout the year. Integration with Faunal Data Analysis of the animal bone material is still only in the primary assessment stage; however, a total of 22,375 animal bone fragments have been noted so far from excavation years 2001–2011. Of this material, 32 percent are identifiable to species, which may increase during the detailed recording process. At this stage, no attempt has been made to distinguish between sheep and goat; however, as a combined category, “sheep/goat” are by far the most frequently occurring species (73 percent). Other species recorded are cattle (14 percent), pigs (12 percent) and dogs (1 percent), as well as a number of fragments of both bone and antler from red deer (N = 8) and roe deer (N = 7). Hare and tortoise bones are also noted as present. The high frequency of sheep/goat and cattle species in the animal bone assemblage is consistent with the observation that the phytolith assemblages are grass-dominated, with the lowland grassland perhaps being used for cattle, and sheep and goat herded on the upland grazing area. The tree and shrub phytoliths might be linked with the presence of goats and pigs in the assemblage; the former being browsers, and the latter perhaps herded in woodland areas. Alternatively, shrubs and trees could have been collected in the surrounding environments and brought to the site to be consumed by animals as fodder. The presence of roe deer and red deer in the faunal assemblage, both of which prefer woodland habitats (or open upland, in the case of the latter), indicate that these environments were also encountered. At this stage, it is not possible to comment on seasonality of occupation based on the animal bone evidence. The taphonomic condition of the animal bone material suggests variation in fragmentation patterns across the site, with some areas (e.g. the external area to the east of Building 2) containing intensively fragmented bone material (e.g. bone fragments or splinters). This fragmentation may have been caused by animal trampling, for example, in the penning areas. There is also evidence of bone material having been burnt to a high temperature, turning it completely black. These bones do not appear to have been burnt in situ in the context from which they were recovered,

275

AS20.indb 275

2/11/18 9:00 PM

AS20.indb 276

Cynodon dactylon (P)

Gramineae (I) Labiatae (I) Phalaris sp. (I) Polycnemum majus/arvense (A) Verbena officinalis (P)

Chenopodium album (A)

Eragrostis minor (A)

Galium/Asperula sp. (A)

Lithospermum arvensis (A)

Lolium temulentum (A)

Lolium sp. (A)

Rumex sp. (I) 

Rubiaceae (A)

Portulaca oleracea (A)

Malva sp. (I)

Bromus sp. (P)

Bilderdykia convolvulus (A)a

Stipa sp. (P)

Erodium sp. (I)

Echium vulgare (P)

Compositae (I)

Anthemis sp. (I)

Dry Places/Grassland

Ranunculus sp. (I)

Damp Places/Meadows

Scirpus sp. (P)

Wet Environments

Leguminosae small (I)

Medicago sp. (I)

Small-Seeded Legumes

Note: Main sources of ecological information: Gennadios (2005[1914]), Polunin (1969, 1980), and Tutin et al. (1964–1980). a A = annual, P = perennial, and I = indeterminate.

Species

Weed/Grassland

Weed (Arable/Ruderal)

Table 2. Summary of Major Habitat Preferences and Life Cycle of the Main Wild/Weed Seeds Considered in the Study.

Georgia Koromila et al.

276

2/11/18 9:00 PM

18 - Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula… but rather may represent the redeposition of burnt bone material, perhaps also related to middening practices. Discussion The examined dataset provides evidence that is compatible with continuous animal presence near the settlement. Such evidence comprises probable penning deposits within the settlement, abundance and widespread redistribution of dung in on-site accumulated sediments, and its use as fuel, suggesting that dung was a significant and available resource for the community of Koutroulou. Furthermore, long periods of absence (e.g. during the summer months), proposed for certain Neolithic sites (Valamoti 2007), are not supported in this case due to the consistent presence of fruits, seeds, and inflorescence grass and cereal parts in animal diet. Thus, continuous coexistence between humans and animals at the site is implied. Data on animal diet, obtained through the study of plant remains in dung, indicate diverse ecological input that originated at least partly from grazing outside the limits of the inhabited settlement area. This suggests mobility, likely in the form of small-scale herding, involving routine short-distance travelling that may have varied according to the needs and preferences of different species. Throughout the year, such mobility would have depended on the seasonal cycles of farming and livestock rearing, demonstrating at the same time the close connection between plant and animal lives. Undertaking herding-related tasks and associated roles within the community could have had social and experiential implications. As suggested by ethnographic studies (e.g. Abdi 2003), it is plausible that such tasks were performed by young household members who were not required for other agricultural, more labor-intensive activities. For these individuals or groups, herding could have been one of multiple pathways to familiarization with the world beyond the settlement—a means of knowledge acquisition through well-trodden paths connecting places, in a context where animals and humans could have had interchanging roles and relationships of leader and follower (Ingold and Vergunst 2008). In other words, it is stressed here how the shared realities between humans, animals, and the landscape shaped knowledge and meaning, and how humans and other animals co-produced the material constitution of Koutroulou Magoula. This obtained familiarity with and knowledge of the landscape would have played an essential part in developing and sustaining the diverse animal-feeding strategies adopted by the inhabitants of Koutroulou.

The demonstrated diverse composition of animal diet suggests a range of origins and vegetation habitats: grazing in upland dry grasslands, fallow fields, wet environments near streams, and/or the floodplain lowlands, as well as the consumption of stored grain fodder. The combined use of diverse ecological niches, which are possibly dependent on seasonal availability, highlights an understanding of the environmental potential and a flexibility and diversity in human and animal livelihoods. On a broader scale, the evidence presented here is consistent with the pattern of intensive, smallscale, mixed farming proposed for Neolithic Greece and Southeastern Europe (e.g. Bogaard 2005, 2012; Halstead 2011, 2014; Valamoti 2007). This pattern includes rotational, intensive garden-scale cultivation of cereals and pulses and intensive manuring (Bogaard 2012; Vaiglova et al. 2014). Indeed, year-round animal presence in Koutroulou is consistent with small-scale husbandry integrated with agricultural practices. The use of dung as fuel indicates a knowledge and appreciation of its properties. Such knowledge is compatible with other potential uses, e.g. as manure. Finally, the demonstrated flexible and varied approach to animal feeding is in agreement with the suggested broader diversity of Neolithic farming regimes. This study also demonstrates that, if we are to understand Neolithic worlds, we will have to practice a multi-species archaeology rather than a purely anthropocentric one (see Armstrong Oma 2010, 2013; Brittain and Overton 2013; Hamilakis and Overton 2013; O’Connor 1997; Overton and Hamilakis 2013). Animals were cohabitants of the elaborate Neolithic buildings and, with the deposition of their dung, contributed significantly to the creation of the Neolithic mound. They were thus co-producers of the materiality of Koutroulou Magoula and co-shapers of the Neolithic world of this site. Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Work Integrated evidence from micromorphology, phytoliths, plant macroremains, and animal bones at Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula suggests a flexibility in animal dietary choices, with the combination of foddering and grazing practices in the form of small-scale mobility of herds at proximal distances. Engagement with and use of diverse micro-environments is indicative of a profound knowledge of the landscape and available resources. The diversity of animal feeding practices at Koutroulou Magoula provides supporting evidence for an intensive, mixed farming mode of Neolithic life, and the data overall point to a world

277

AS20.indb 277

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Koromila et al. in which humans, other animals, and plants were all active participants. The dataset discussed here is far from complete, with the potential for integration with more data categories, including macro-charcoal and other environmental proxies, to reconstruct a more complete picture of vegetation and paleoenvironment, as well as isotope signatures of animal bones to provide complementary evidence on diet and human-animal interaction. Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without invaluable support and funding, for which we are sincerely grateful. We particularly wish to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK; the British School at Athens; the Ephorate of Antiquities of Phthiotida and Evrytania, Greece; the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP); the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports; the University of Reading, UK; and the University of Southampton, UK. References Cited Abdi, Kamyar 2003 The Early Development of Pastoralism in the Central Zagros Mountains. Journal of World Prehistory 17:395–448. Armstrong Oma, Kristin 2010 Between Trust and Domination: Social Contracts between Humans and Animals. World Archaeology 42:175–187. 2013 Human-Animal Meeting Points: Use of Space in the Household Arena in Past Societies. Society & Animals 21:162–177. Bogaard, Amy 2005 ‘Garden Agriculture’ and the Nature of Early Farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeology 37:177–196. 2012 Middening and Manuring in Neolithic Europe: Issues of Plausibility, Intensity and Archaeological Method. In Manure Matters: Historical, Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives, edited by Richard Jones, pp. 25–39. Ashgate, Farnham. Bottema, Sytze 1979 Pollen Analytical Investigations in Thessaly (Greece). Palaeohistoria 21:19–40. 1982 Palynological Investigations in Greece with Special Reference to Pollen as an Indicator of Human Activity. Palaeohistoria 24:257–289.

Brittain, Marcus, and Nick Overton 2013 The Significance of Others: A Prehistory of Rhythm and Interspecies Participation. Society & Animals 21:134–149. Bullock, Peter, Nicolas Fedoroff, A. Jongerius, Georges Stoops, and Tatiana Tursina 1985 Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Waine Research, Wolverhampton. Canti, Matthew G. 1999 The Production and Preservation of Faecal Spherulites: Animals, Environment and Taphonomy. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:251–258. Charles, Michael 1998 Fodder from Dung: The Recognition and Interpretation of Dung Derived Plant Material from Archaeological Sites. In Fodder: Archaeological, Historical and Ethnographic Studies, edited by Michael Charles, Paul Halstead, and Glynis Jones, pp. 111–122. Environmental Archaeology 1. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Courty, Marie A., Paul Goldberg, and Richard I. Macphail 1989 Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Courty, Marie A., Richard I. Macphail, and Julia Wattez 1991 Soil Micromorphological Indicators of Pastoralism, with Special Reference to Arene Candide, Finale Ligure, Italy. Rivista di Studi Liguri A, LVII:127–150. Gennadios, Panagiotis 2005 [1914] Λεξικόν Φυτολογικόν. Damianos Publications, Athens. Halstead, Paul 2005 Resettling the Neolithic: Faunal Evidence for Seasons of Consumption and Residence at Neolithic Sites in Greece. In (Un)settling the Neolithic, edited by Douglass Bailey, Alasdair Whittle, and Vicki Cummings, pp. 38–50. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2011 Farming, Material Culture and Ideology: Repackaging the Neolithic of Greece (and Europe). In Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in Honor of Andrew Sherratt, edited by Angelos Hadjikoumis, Erick Robinson, and Sarah Viner, pp. 131–151. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2014 Two Oxen Ahead: Pre-Mechanised Farming in The Mediterranean. Wiley Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Hamilakis, Yannis, and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika 2012 Koutroulou Magoula in Central Greece:

278

AS20.indb 278

2/11/18 9:00 PM

18 - Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula… From the Neolithic to the Present. Antiquity 86(333). Electronic document, http:// antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hamilakis333/, accessed April 10, 2016. Hamilakis, Yannis, and Nick Overton 2013 A Multi-Species Archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 20:159–173. Ingold, Tim, and Jo L. Vergunst 2008 Introduction. In Ways of Walking: Ethnography and Practice on Foot, edited by Tim Ingold and Jo L. Vergunst, pp. 1–19. Ashgate, Aldershot. Jenkins, Emma, and Arlene M. Rosen 2007 The Phytoliths. In The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan. Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and Evaluation of the PrePottery Neolithic A site of WF16, edited by Bill Finlayson and Steven Mithen, pp. 429–436. Council for British Research in the Levant. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Karkanas, Panagiotis, and Paul Goldberg 2010 Phosphatic Features. In Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths, edited by Georges Stoops, Vera Marcelino, and Florias Mees, pp. 521–541. Elsevier, Oxford. Kilikoglou, Vassilis, Yannis Bassiakos, Apostolos P. Grimanis, Kleodimos Souvatzis, Angeliki Pilali-Papasteriou, and Aikaterini PapanthimouPapaefthimiou 1996 Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(3):343–349. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2006 Κουτρουλού Μαγούλα στο Νέο Μονα­ στήρι (Βόρεια Φθιώτιδα): Η Αποκάλυψη Μιας Νέας, «Αστικής» Αρχιτεκτονικής, Νεολιθικής Εγκατάστασης. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2– 2.3.2003, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 607–617. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 1. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina, and Yannis Hamilakis 2015 Αρχαιολογική και Εθνογραφική Έρευ­να στη Θέση Κουτρουλού Μαγούλα Φθιώτιδας (2009–2012). In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3–18.3.2012: IΙ. Στερεά Ελλάδα, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra Alexandridou, pp. 969–978. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 4. Ministry of

Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Macphail, Richard I., Marie A. Courty, Jon Hather, and Julia Wattez 1997 The Soil Micromorphological Evidence of Domestic Occupation and Stabling Activities. In Arene Candide: A Functional and Environmental Assessment of the Holocene Sequences Excavated by L. Bernando ’Brea-Cardini (1940–1950), edited by Roberto Maggi, pp. 53–88. Soprintendenza Archeologica della Liguria, Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia umana V, Rome. Matthews, Wendy 2010 Geoarchaeology and Taphonomy of Plant Remains and Microarchaeological Residues in Early Urban Environments in the Ancient Near East. Quaternary International 214:98–113. Milić, Marina 2014 PXRF Characterisation of Obsidian from Central Anatolia, the Aegean and Central Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:285–296. Morgan, Catherine A. 2011 The Work of the British School at Athens, 2009–2010. Archaeological Reports 57:4–14. 2012 The Work of the British School at Athens, 2011–2012. Archaeological Reports 58:3–11. 2013 The Work of the British School at Athens, 2012–2013. Archaeological Reports 59:3–10. O’Connor, Terry P. 1997 Working at Relationships: Another Look at Animal Domestication. Antiquity 71:149– 156. Ollendorf, Amy I., Susan C. Mulholland, and George Rapp, Jr. 1988 Phytolith Analysis as a Means of Plant Identification: Arundo donax and Phragmites communis. Annals of Botany 61:209–214. Overton, Nick, and Yannis Hamilakis 2013 A Manifesto for a Social Zooarchaeology: Swans and Other Beings in the Mesolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 20:111–136. Pentedeka, Areti 2011 Links of Clay in Neolithic Greece: The Case of Platia Magoula Zarkou. In Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology: A Diachronic Perspective on The Aegean, edited by Ann Brysbaert, pp. 106–125. Routledge, London.

279

AS20.indb 279

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Georgia Koromila et al. Piperno, Dolores R. 2006 Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Palaeoecologists. AltaMira Press, Oxford. Polunin, Oleg 1969 Flowers of Europe: A Field Guide. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1980 Flowers of Greece and the Balkans: A Field Guide. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Quinn, Patrick, Peter Day, Vassilis Kilikoglou, Edward Faber, Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki, and Adamantios Sampson 2010 Keeping an Eye on Your Pots: The Provenance of Neolithic Ceramics from the Cave of the Cyclops, Youra, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(5):1042–1052. Rosen, Arlene M. 1992 Preliminary Identification of Silica Skeletons from Near Eastern Archaeological Sites: An Anatomical Approach. In Phytolith Systematics: Emerging Issues, edited by George Rapp Jr. and Susan C. Mulholland, pp. 129–147. Plenum Press, New York. 2005 Phytolith Indicators of Plant and Land Use at Çatalhöyük. In Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 203–212. British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 38. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Shahack-Gross, Ruth 2011 Herbivorous Livestock Dung: Formation, Taphonomy, Methods for Identification, and Archaeological Significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:205–218. Shillito, Lisa-Marie 2011 Daily Activities, Diet and Resource Use at Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Microstratigraphic and Biomolecular Evidence from Middens. Archaeopress, Oxford. Stoops, Georges 2003 Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith Thin Sections. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Stoops, Georges, Vera Marcelino, and Florias Mees (editors) 2010 Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths. Elsevier, Oxford. Tsartsidou, Georgia 2009 Η Συμβολή των Φυτολίθων στην Ανα­ γνώριση της Χρήσης του Χώρου στην Προϊστορία. Συγκριτική Μελέτη Ενός Εθνογραφικού Παραδείγματος και Μιας

Νεολιθικής Θέσης. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Tsartsidou, Georgia, Simcha Lev-Yadun, Rosa-Maria Albert, Arlene Miller-Rosen, Nikos Efstratiou, and Steve Weiner 2007 The Phytolith Archaeological Record: Strengths and Weaknesses Evaluated Based on A Quantitative Modern Reference Collection from Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1262–1275. Tutin, Thomas G., Vernon H. Heywood, Norman A. Burges, David H. Valentine, Stuart M. Walters, and David A. Webb (editors) 1964–1980 Flora Europaea. 5 vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Vaiglova, Petra, Amy Bogaard, Matthew Collins, William Cavanagh, Christopher Mee, Josette Renard, Angela Lamb, Armelle Gardeisen, and Rebecca Fraser 2014 An Integrated Stable Isotope Study of Plants and Animals from Kouphovouno, Southern Greece: A New Look at Neolithic Farming. Journal of Archaeological Science 42:201–215. Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2004 Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece. An Archaeobotanical Investigation. BAR International Series 1258. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

2006 Η Συμβολή των Αρχαιοβοτανικών Κα­ ταλοίπων στη Διερεύνηση των Εκτετα­ μένων Οικισμών: Τα Δεδομένα από το Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Άψαλος-Γραμμή. Egnatia 10: 9–130. 2007 Detecting Seasonal Movement from Animal Dung: An Investigation in Neolithic Northern Greece. Antiquity 81:1053–1064. Valamoti, Soultana Maria, and Glynis Jones 2003 Plant Diversity and Storage at Mandalo, Macedonia, Greece: Archaeobotanical Evidence from the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. The Annual of the British School at Athens 98:1–35. van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Curtis N. Runnels 1995 The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69:481–500. Whitbread, Ian, and Alexandra Mari 2014 Provenance and Proximity: A Technological Analysis of Late and Final Neolithic Ceramics from Euripides Cave, Salamis, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:79–88.

280

AS20.indb 280

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 19 Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia, in the MN–LN Periods William Cavanagh, Josette Renard, Amy Bogaard, Armelle Gardeisen, Jean Cantuel, Petra Vaiglova, and Charlotte Diffey

Abstract

Introduction: The Site of Kouphovouno

This paper presents a summary overview of recent work on the faunal and plant remains from the Middle and Late Neolithic contexts (roughly 5800–5000 cal B.C.) excavated at the site of Kouphovouno in central Lakonia. It aims to alert researchers to a number of more specialized studies, some unpublished dissertations, and other recently published journal articles, which examined the plant and animal assemblages, as well as the nature of animal feeding habits. The faunal remains indicate that the distribution of the proportions of the main domesticated species was very similar in both the Middle and Late Neolithic periods; the kill-off patterns and butchery residue, however, hint at a different pattern of consumption from one period to the other. The dental wear analysis brought out the constrained range of the domestic ungulates, mainly feeding on grass rather than ligneous plants; pigs might have been kept in the village environs. Archaeobotanical analysis points inter alia to a significant role for free-threshing wheat, alongside hulled barley (the most ubiquitous crop) and glume wheats. An abundance of free-threshing wheat is unusual for the Neolithic of Greece (though also attested at Neolithic Knossos, for example) but known in the Neolithic Balkans. The widespread incidence of fig, fruit fragments, and seeds, is also notable. Stable isotope studies lead to inferences on contrasting management regimes for free-threshing wheat vs. barley. Some preliminary conclusions are suggested on the farming strategies inferred. We point to the differences between our observations at Kouphovouno and those from other contemporary sites in Greece, even those belonging to the same “archaeological culture.” Each village developed its own preferences. It must be emphasized that this is very much a report on work in progress.

Kouphovouno is a tell site located on the southern outskirts of modern Sparta in the Peloponnese. The site was first systematically recorded after exploration and excavations conducted by von Vacano in 1941 (Renard 1989:20–21), although there is reason to believe that a hoard of Late Neolithic (LN) stone figurines and other finds recovered in the 19th century must have come from the site (see Cavanagh et al. 2004:53–55). The new campaign of research started in 1999 with an intensive surface and geophysical survey of the site, together with coring. This confirmed earlier research that the site was occupied from the Middle Neolithic (MN) to the LN, and in the early Middle and Late Bronze Age; a significant Late Roman villa was also located at the site. The Neolithic site extended over some 4–5 ha, indicating it was one of a series of quite large tell sites that are thinly distributed across southern Greece. The excavations in 2001–2006 were a joint AngloFrench project under the aegis of the 5th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. Over the course of this period, seven Areas were opened over the central part of the site (Figure 1) using a combination of area excavation and deep soundings, to reveal something of the nature of habitation at the site and to give a fuller diachronic sequence, respectively. The more extensive investigations were concentrated in Area C, on the crown of the hill, and Area G, some 30 m to the south; the two major deep soundings were also made respectively in Areas C and G. Although we originally considered there to have been continuous occupation of the site over most of the prehistoric period, it now seems more probable that there are gaps in the sequence; in particular the Final Neolithic (FN) and Early Helladic (EH) III periods are not nearly as well represented as we had hoped, though there is some FN occupation. Most of the following discussion will refer to the middle MN to earlier LN periods, and more specifically to the period of roughly 5800–5000 BC (Mee et al. 2014).

Keywords Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Kouphovouno, dental wear analysis, stable isotope analysis

281

AS20.indb 281

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William Cavanagh et al. Background Analysis of the faunal and archaeobotanical remains from the site of Kouphovouno has brought together the expertise of a number of specialists as an interdisciplinary team, and it is our aim in this article to summarize progress toward the final publication of the excavation. The environmental program has been overseen by Amy Bogaard and Armelle Gardeisen, who have supervised all stages of the analysis from the setting up of sampling protocols and field procedures through post-excavation processing, species identification, and laboratory analyses. Faunal remains were analyzed by Armelle Gardeisen and Jean Cantuel (Cantuel 2010; Cantuel et al. 2008; Cavanagh et al. 2007:37–41, 72, 84; Rivals et al. 2011). The archaeobotanical remains have been processed at the laboratories of the Universities of Sheffield and Oxford by Nicola Stone, Dorothée Desvignes, Angela Walker, and Charlotte Diffey (2014), all working under Bogaard’s supervision. The isotope studies were conducted by Petra Vaiglova and carried out at the NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory at the British Geological Survey at Keyworth and the Research

Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art at the University of Oxford (Vaiglova, Bogaard, Collins, et al. 2014; Vaiglova, Rivals, Bogaard, et al. 2014), as an M.Sc. thesis supervised by Amy Bogaard and Julia Lee-Thorp. Sampling Strategy All intact archaeological contexts were processed for recovery of animal remains (by dry sieving of deposits to 1 cm) and plant remains (through systematic bulk sampling and flotation). Samples for sieving and flotation were taken from every excavation unit, floating about 60 liters of soil wherever possible. Particularly rich units and floor deposits were subsampled using a grid system as a means of exploring spatial variation. All flotation and residue sorting was supervised by Amy Bogaard. Bulk samples were first dry sieved through a 1 cm mesh (and finds from the sieve were returned to the context finds bags) before flotation. All samples were then processed using a Siraf-style flotation machine; the floated material was retained by stacked geological sieves with apertures of 1 mm and .3 mm. The heavy residue was sieved

Figure 1. Excavation Areas A–G at Kouphovouno. 282

AS20.indb 282

2/11/18 9:00 PM

19 - Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia… at 4 mm to create a “fine residue” of less than 4 mm, which was subsampled to a maximum fraction of oneeighth. This subsample was sorted on site during the excavation season or during the study season in 2004, and if it was estimated that at least 100 identifiable items would be recovered from the entire sample, the rest of the sample was also sorted. The overall faunal and floral analyses are based on all the identifiable remains recovered from secure archaeological contexts (disturbed contexts such as plough zones were not sampled); an element of mixing is inevitable on multiperiod sites, and the question of residuality at Kouphovouno is discussed in Mee et al. (2014)—the noise factor, significant in Early Bronze Age (EBA) contexts, should not undermine our conclusions regarding the MN and LN. The samples for more specialized analyses (dental wear and isotopic studies) were selected by the specialists as being the most suitable and reliable for their studies; inevitably there are financial constraints and even more samples would be even better, but we are confident that our conclusions are reasonable and take the sample sizes into account. The Faunal Data Of the 14,350 bone fragments, some 8,244 (57.4 percent) could be identified anatomically and to species. We can hardly summarize in a few words the

detailed analysis by Cantuel and Gardeisen (Cantuel 2010; Cantuel et al. 2008), but instead we mention some observations in their comparison of the MN and LN assemblages. During the course of the Neolithic, as they suggest, the faunal representation did not change perceptibly from the MN to the LN (Figure 2): ovicaprids always formed the greater proportion, and bovids reached just 10 percent of the number of identified specimens (NISP). Pigs formed some 30 percent of the domesticated fauna in both phases. As far as husbandry strategies are concerned, however, some development was observed. There was a shift from the MN to the LN period in terms of how secondary products were exploited: while through both periods bovids and caprines were exploited for milk products, wool, and traction, we can observe a slight trend toward the production of tender meat during the LN. Basically, during the MN the ruminants were slaughtered at an advanced age, while the mortality profile of the LN shows a selection of juvenile animals in order to produce a good quality of meat, even though this interpretation does not exclude mixed methods of husbandry. These findings could, indeed, be the result of an evolution in the mode by which meat was distributed and then consumed (Cantuel 2010:95–96). Wild animal bones are not common, but show a variety of species including red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Sus scrofa),

Figure 2. Domesticated fauna in the Middle Neolithic (MN) and Late Neolithic (LN) expressed as percentages: number of identified specimens (NISP), minimum number of individuals (MNI), and meat weight (MW). (Cantuel 2010:Figure 14) 283

AS20.indb 283

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William Cavanagh et al. aurochs (Bos primigenius), wild goat (Capra sp.), hare (Lepus sp.), wolf (Canis lupus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), cat (Felis silvestris), and weasel (Mustela nivalis) (Rivals et al. 2011:530). Dental Wear Analysis This study aimed to explore interspecific variations in domestic and wild ungulate diets and management at the site. Results from dental wear analyses on domestic ungulates have the potential to give insight into the strategies employed to feed livestock, whether through the regulation of grazing and foraging (natural vegetation), or through the use of supplementary fodders such as leafy or grassy hay. A total sample of 416 teeth was investigated, which included adult teeth to avoid any bias due to age differences. Tooth mesowear analysis evaluates the relief and sharpness of cusp apices in ways that are correlated with the relative amounts of attrition and abrasive dental wear. Among relevant taxa, a diet with low levels of abrasion maintains sharpened apices on the buccal cusps as the tooth wears. In contrast, high

levels of abrasion, associated with a diet of siliceous grass and/or a high rate of soil or dust particle ingestion, results in more rounded and blunted buccal cusp apices. Cusp sharpness is sensitive to age among young and senescent individuals. However, for intermediate age groups, mesowear is strongly related to diet. Microwear analysis concentrates on the microscopic scratches and pits that form on a tooth’s surface: heavily pitted surfaces typically result from hard fragments, while scratched surfaces result from tough food items like leaves. The investigation of environmental context and livestock management used a combination of mesowear and microwear analyses. Interspecific differences between ungulate taxa were identified, especially between wild and domestic ungulates, indicating that the wild taxa were browsers, while the domestic livestock were grazers. In Figure 3, pigs lie above the cattle and ovicaprids, which plot between modern leaf browsers and grazers. It is tentatively suggested that pigs were kept in the village environs in a more or less free-ranging condition, and they were probably fed but also able to root.

Figure 3. Microwear bivariate graph of the density of pits against density of scratches (number per mm2) for the domestic ungulates from Kouphovouno. Ellipses indicate Gaussian confidence ellipses (p = .95) on the centroid of the samples from Kouphovouno and the modern grazer and browser samples adjusted by sample size. 284

AS20.indb 284

2/11/18 9:00 PM

19 - Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia… No significant difference was observed between Ovis and Capra, though it is worth mentioning that the specification was based on morphological differences of teeth, which can be problematic. We shall return to this below in discussing the isotope results. Archaeobotanical Analysis

The aims of the analysis were to: 1. Identify the range of crop and wild plant taxa deposited, and to assess their role in the subsistence economy; 2. Identify consumption practices, including the use of plants for food and fodder, as well as activities which may have contributed to the deposition of archaeobotanical remains such as plant processing and storage; 3. Integrate results from stable isotope analysis with primary archaeobotanical analysis as a means of refining inferences on land management systems and crop husbandry regimes (see the next section); and 4. Assess change or continuity in agricultural systems through time, and interpret any apparent changes in light of related archaeological evidence. Again, we only highlight some of the main points from a much more detailed, ongoing study. Some 15,000 archaeobotanical remains were recovered from 96 different contexts (not all Neolithic in date). The main botanical taxa identified from the Neolithic samples at Kouphovouno are summarized as follows. Domesticated species dominate the assemblage. Among the cereals, hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) occurs most widely throughout the site, in 72 percent of all samples. By contrast, glume wheats (Triticum monococcum and Triticum dicoccum) and free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum) are found in 34 percent and 32 percent of all samples, respectively. However, free-threshing wheat is found in much higher quantities per sample than either glume wheat species. The significant occurrence of free-threshing wheat at Kouphovouno provides contrasts with other archaeobotanical assemblages analyzed from many sites of similar date, though free-threshing wheat is attested at Neolithic Knossos (Sarpaki 2013) and is well known from Neolithic Bulgaria, for example (Marinova 2007). Of course these varieties had been cultivated in Greece for over 1,000 years before the occupation of Kouphovouno and probably need to be situated in a process in which different communities had developed varied preferences in response to both cultural and environmental constraints (Valamoti and Kotsakis 2007:78–79).

Pulses also occur widely across the site, and are found in 66 percent of all samples. Lentil (Lens sp.) and pea (Pisum sativum) are the most commonly identified species in the assemblage, and the number of pulses identified generally at Kouphovouno seems to have been consistent through both the MN and the LN periods. Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), by contrast, occur only sporadically, suggesting that these species were contaminants rather than recognized cultivars in their own right. Flax occurs rarely, perhaps as much because of its poor preservation through charring as its rarity at the site, and could have been used as a source of oil and/or fiber. Fig also seems to have been an important resource to the inhabitants of Kouphovouno, as it is the most ubiquitous fruit/nut taxon found in the assemblage (63 percent). It is found as charred fruit flesh as well as in the form of “loose” charred seeds, suggesting that figs were dried and stored for year-round consumption. Thus they could have served as an important source of sugar, minerals, and some vitamins, especially when fresh fruits were not available. It is commonly held that the fig was not domesticated until the EBA, though others have suggested a much earlier date (Kislev et al. 2006; Zohary et al. 2012:126–130); its systematic exploitation over several millennia before the EBA in Greece and the Near East certainly indicates a close relationship conducive to improvement. Other percentages of fruit and nut species are relatively low. Grape and pistachio are present but in just 5 percent and 2 percent of samples, respectively. Grape pips occur, however, in contexts G2009 and G2003, which belong to the very earliest levels of LN date, around 5400 cal B.C. Intensive exploitation of grape has been reported from Dikili Tash in the later fifth millennium (Valamoti 2015; Valamoti et al. 2007). Before drawing broader conclusions about the agricultural economy at Kouphovouno, we shall turn to the isotope studies. Crop and Animal Stable Isotope Studies The stable isotope signatures of ancient charred plant and faunal bone remains were used to investigate the crop cultivation and animal husbandry practices employed by early farmers. Previous work on the nature of Neolithic agriculture has shed light on the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal husbandry strategies. Thus, the by-products of crop cultivation can be used as fodder to feed the animals, and the by-products of the animals, notably manure, can be used to fertilize the soils in which the crops are grown. But just how this interdependent strategy was

285

AS20.indb 285

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William Cavanagh et al. maintained remains to be investigated on a case-bycase basis. The aim of this study was to use isotopic evidence to address questions of how intensively the cereal and pulse crops were managed, what the diets of the livestock were, and how the farmers at Kouphovouno made use of the surrounding landscape for the grazing of animals. These results are interpreted in light of the other analyses already summarized above. Stable isotope analysis is based on the principle that all organisms in the ecosystem are made up of tissues that are constantly replaced during their lifetime. This means that old atoms and molecules that make up the tissues are constantly replaced by new ones, which come directly from the food consumed. All food has distinctive isotopic signatures depending on its original environment and the biochemical processes undergone during digestion. These signatures are then locked into the organisms’ tissue chemistry and, when measured, enable us to make inferences about the nature of the organisms’ diet. The relevant chemistry involves the ratios of the heavier and lighter stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen (13C/12C and 15 N/14N). These values, expressed as δ13C and δ15N, are measured in comparison with internationally set standards in units of parts per thousand (per mille). Plants that grow in soils with a high organic content (such as manured fields) have a higher δ15N than plants that grow in 15N-depleted soils. This is because the organic fraction loses the lighter 14N in the form

of ammonia through volatilization, leaving behind a higher concentration of the heavier 15N. Crops cultivated in wetter soils have higher negative δ13C values than crops grown in more arid conditions due to the differing degrees to which the lighter 12C is replenished during photosynthesis. Animal tissues reflect the isotopic composition of their dietary N, plus an enrichment factor. The value of this factor is continually debated but generally accepted to be around 3–5 per mille. In this way, the higher on the food chain that an animal is situated, the higher its δ15N relative to organisms below it. Table 1 lists the samples selected for stable isotope analysis, and the results are summarized in Figure 4. The plants cluster more tightly by species than the animals and there is almost no overlap between the plant species, except for two barley samples, which lie in the pea region. The free-threshing wheat samples have considerably higher δ15N than the barley samples. The peas show a noticeable enrichment over their source of nitrogen—air, which is defined as 0 per mille. The animals have higher δ13C compared to the plants due to carbon enrichment between plant food source and the animal consumer. The faunal results do not separate out by species as distinctly as the plant results, but there are still statistically significant differences between some of the faunal species clusters. The dog (gray diamond) and pig (open square) values

Table 1. Samples Selected for Stable Isotope Analysis.

Type Plant samples

Animal samples

Species Free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum L./Triticum durum Desf.) Hulled barley grain (Hordeum vulgare L.) Common pea (Pisum sativum L.) Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) Domestic cattle (Bos taurus L.) Dog (Canis lupus familiaris L.) Domestic sheep (Ovis aries L.) Domestic goat (Capra hircus L.) Domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus E.) Wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa L.) Hare (Lepus europaeus P.) Bear (Ursus arctos L.) Wild goat (Capra aegagrus E./Capra ibex L.)

Count 12 7 7 1 16 7 14 7 25 2 2 1 1

286

AS20.indb 286

2/11/18 9:00 PM

19 - Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia… are more enriched over the rest of the animals in terms of their δ15N, which reflects their more omnivorous dietary adaptation. The diets of the sheep and goats vary isotopically, and this difference shifts, as we shall see below, between the MN and LN. Isotopic Results for Plants The nitrogen results shed light on the agricultural regimes developed by the farmers at Kouphovouno. Figure 4 shows that there is a ca. 3 per mille difference between the average δ15N of the two cereals analyzed thus far (mean free-threshing wheat δ15N = 5.9 ± 0.7

per mille; mean hulled barley δ15N = 2.7 ± 1.2 per mille). This indicates that the wheat was grown in soils that were markedly more enriched in 15N than the soils in which the barley grew. Environmental factors such as aridity, soil salinity, and sea-spray effect can be ruled out as causes of soil 15N enrichment in this location, and thus the higher free-threshing wheat values are probably a result of cultivation in more intensively managed soils than those in which the barley grew. Likewise, the peas at 1–2 per mille δ15N indicate growing in manured soils. The carbon isotope results reveal something about the watering regimes of the plants. In order

Figure 4. δ13C and δ15N of all Neolithic plants and animals analyzed from Kouphovouno. 287

AS20.indb 287

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William Cavanagh et al. to do this, the δ13C values are converted into Δ13C values, which allow us to compare values of crops grown at different time periods during which the δ13C of atmospheric CO2 varied. Figure 5 shows that the wheat and barley grown at Kouphovouno had similar water status, as they both fall into the respective moderately watered bands. The peas and lentil, on the other hand, are situated in the well-watered region, and their significantly higher Δ13C suggest that these crops were being artificially watered. Isotopic Results for Animals We have seen with the microware results that pigs were probably managed within the environs of the village. The average δ15N of the pigs is 5.9 ± 0.9 per mille (see Figure 4). Subtracting their trophic level enrichment of 3–5 per mille to estimate the isotopic composition of their diet gives us values of around .9–2.9 per mille. This means that the pigs may have consumed a combination of free-threshing wheat chaff, hulled barley chaff, hulled barley grain, pulse products and by-products, or other food items with similar isotopic compositions. What they could not

have been consuming in significant amounts is the free-threshing wheat grain. In light of this, it would follow that free-threshing wheat was grown essentially for human consumption. Whilst it was not possible to distinguish between the diets of sheep and goat on the basis of the dental wear analysis, the isotope results enable a more nuanced interpretation, though it should be noted that sample sizes are extremely limited (Figure 6). MN sheep have significantly lower δ13C values compared to the LN sheep and all of the goats. This carbon signal might be interpreted in different ways, but in terms of dietary signatures, it may indicate grazing in areas that are wetter. On the other hand, LN sheep have the highest δ15N of all the ovicaprids in both phases. This is probably due to differences in husbandry practices. Sheep in the later phase may have been given access to grazing on arable lands (fallow fields or vegetation growing on the edges of fields), whereas goats may have been left to browse on vegetation or woody parts of plants in unmanaged fields (and therefore would not have been affected by the manuring effect). Regardless of the causes of the distinctions in the diets, what we

Figure 5. Δ13C values of wheat, barley, peas, and lentil measured from Kouphovouno compared to watering bands established through experimental studies. 288

AS20.indb 288

2/11/18 9:00 PM

19 - Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia… can suggest is that the sheep and goats were managed in different ways and that their management changed between the MN and the LN. Concluding Remarks The first point we wish to emphasize is that what has been presented here is a small part of a series of much more detailed studies, which form a larger multidisciplinary undertaking. Our attempts to integrate the findings from all different areas of expertise is still ongoing as we move toward the final publication of the excavated material. The package of plant and animal foods recovered at this site is consistent with those that had dominated most Neolithic sites for well over 1,000 years before the establishment of the village at Kouphovouno. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that preferences varied from community to community, even within regions that shared a broadly similar material culture and roughly similar climatic and environmental contexts. Thus we have noted the unusual significance of free-threshing wheat in the Kouphovouno assemblage compared with the predominance of einkorn and emmer at other Neolithic Greek sites; this raises

questions which need further research. The model of intensive garden cultivation, which is applicable to much of the Neolithic Near East and Europe, took on a particular emphasis at Kouphovouno, with intensive cultivation of free-threshing wheat and pulses in plots close to the settlement and less intensive cultivation of hulled barley, evidently in a zone further away. No doubt there was flexibility in the use of grain as animal fodder depending on fluctuations in the harvest from year to year. Artificial watering of pulses, on the other hand, is suggested by the stable isotope results. We can also say, more positively, that the isotope signal for the pigs in our sample indicates that they may have fed on general food waste, but that they could not have consumed significant amounts of free-threshing wheat, which must have been reserved for human consumption. We have also highlighted the relatively common occurrence of fig remains at Kouphovouno, marking its importance as a storable resource for human consumption. The animal husbandry regimes at Kouphovouno have also been clarified. The dental wear analysis has clearly shown a dietary difference between some wild and domesticated species: specifically, Capra sp. is significantly different from the domestic goat. This

Figure 6. δ13C and δ15N of MN and LN goats and sheep analyzed from Kouphovouno. 289

AS20.indb 289

2/11/18 9:00 PM

William Cavanagh et al. confirms the human control of flocks, perhaps even the corralling/penning of animals in confined areas that would consequently be overgrazed (Halstead and Isaakidou 2013:131; Mainland and Halstead 2005). The isotope studies have further contributed to this picture by suggesting that in the MN at Kouphovouno the sheep were grazed in wetter pastures than the goats (hence their more depleted 13C isotope signature). The area abounds in springs fed from the Taygetos massif, so well-watered forage would certainly have been easily accessible. There are also indications of a change through time, whereby the sheep from LN contexts have a higher δ15N signal, perhaps indicating they were allowed to browse on or in the vicinity of those fields with enriched soils. Such careful shepherding would not be inconsistent with the more general observation that the kill-off pattern from LN levels suggests a butchery strategy aimed more at the production of tender meat than had been the case earlier. The integration of the environmental evidence with the other archaeological evidence from Kouphovouno is still ongoing, but we might make one further provisional observation. Although the transition from the MN to the LN at Kouphovouno was a gradual process (Mee et al. 2014), a real contrast can be recognized in the archaeology of the two periods. One aspect of this has been underlined by Chris Mee. He has pointed to the marked difference not only in technique and decoration between the MN and LN ceramics, but also in their capacity: there was a move away from large vessels to smaller vessels for the consumption of food and drink (Mee 2007). In some way, these changes must reflect an alteration in the social context of the consumption of food; whether they reflect changes from more open commensality to dining concentrated on the close family group, or to increasing social differentiation, episodic feasting, or a combination of these, is still very open to discussion. Against the broader regional cultural developments, the import of the environmental studies so far, however, is to suggest very individual agricultural practices in each community, tailored to meet local conditions and to cater to local tastes. References Cited Cantuel, Jean 2010 L’Exploitation de la Faune Durant le Néolithique en Grèce Continentale. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Laboratoire de Géographie Physique et Environnementale, Université de Clermont-Ferrand II, Clermont-Ferrand.

Cantuel, Jean, Armelle Gardeisen, and Josette Renard 2008 L’Exploitation de la Faune Durant le Néolithique dans le Bassin Egéen. In Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, edited by Emmanuelle Vila, Lionel Gourichon, Alice M. Choyke and Hijlke Buitenhus, pp. 279–298. Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon. Cavanagh, William, Christopher Mee, and Josette Renard 2004 ‘Sparta before Sparta’: Report on the Intensive Survey at Kouphovouno 1999–2000. The Annual of the British School at Athens 99:49–128. 2007 Excavations at Kouphovouno, Laconia: Results from the 2001 and 2002 Seasons. The Annual of the British School at Athens 102:11–101. Diffey, Charlotte 2014 An Archaeobotanical Analysis of Neolithic Halai, East Lokris, and Neolithic Kouphovouno, Laconia, Greece. Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, University of Oxford. Halstead, Paul, and Valasia Isaakidou 2013 Early Stock-Keeping in Greece. In The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge, James Conolly, Keith Dobney, Katie Manning, and Stephen Shennan, pp. 129–143. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Kislev, Mordechai E., Anat Hartmann, and Ofer Bar-Yosef 2006 Early Domesticated Fig in the Jordan Valley. Science 312 (5778):1372–1374. Mainland, Ingrid, and Paul Halstead 2002 The Diet and Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats at Neolithic Makriyalos. In Diet and Health in Past Animal Populations: Current Research and Future Directions. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002, edited by Jessica Davies, Marian Fabis, Ingrid Mainland, Meadow Richards, and Richard Thomas, pp. 104–111. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Marinova, Elena M. 2007 Archaeobotanical Data from the Early Neolithic of Bulgaria. In The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge and James Conolly, pp. 93–109. Left Coast

290

AS20.indb 290

2/11/18 9:00 PM

19 - Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia… Press, Walnut Creek, California. Mee, Christopher 2007 The Production and Consumption of Pottery in the Neolithic Peloponnese. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 200–224. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Mee, Christopher, Bill Cavanagh, and Josette Renard 2014 The Middle–Late Neolithic Transition at Kouphovouno. The Annual of the British School at Athens 109:65–95. Renard, Josette 1989 Le Site Néolithique et Helladique Ancien de Kouphovouno (Laconie). Fouilles de O.-W. von Vacano (1941). Aegaeum 4. Université de l’Etat à Liège, Liège. Rivals, Florent, Armelle Gardeisen, and Jean Cantuel 2011 Domestic and Wild Ungulate Dietary Traits at Kouphovouno (Sparta, Greece): Implications for Livestock Management and Palaeoenvironment in the Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:528–537. Sarpaki, Anaya 2013 The Economy of Neolithic Knossos: The Archaeobotanical Data. In The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete: New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands, edited by Nikos Efstratiou, Alexandra Karetsou, and Maria Ntinou, pp. 63–94. Prehistory Monographs 42. INSTAPAcademic Press, Philadelphia. Vaiglova, Petra, Amy Bogaard, Matthew Collins, William Cavanagh, Christopher Mee, Josette Renard, Angela Lamb, Armelle Gardeisen, and Rebecca Fraser 2014 An Integrated Stable Isotope Study of Plants and Animals from Kouphovouno, Southern Greece: A New Look at Neolithic Farm-

ing. Journal of Archaeological Science 42:201–215. Vaiglova, Petra, Florent Rivals, Amy Bogaard, Rebecca Fraser, Armelle Gardeisen, William Cavanagh, Christopher Mee, Josette Renard, and Angela Lamb 2014 Interpreting Ancient Crop and Animal Management Strategies at Neolithic Kouphovouno, Southern Greece: Results of Integrating Crop and Animal Stable Isotopes and Dental Micro- and Meso-Wear. In PHYSIS, L’Environnement Naturel et la Relation Homme-Milieu dans le Monde Égéen Protohistorique, Actes de la 14e Rencontre Égéenne Internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11–14 Décembre 2012, edited by Gilles Touchais, Robert Laffineur, and Françoise Rougemont, pp. 287–296. Aegaeum 37. Peeters, Leuven–Liège. Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2015 Harvesting the ‘Wild’? Exploring the Context of Fruit and Nut Exploitation at Neolithic Dikili Tash, with Special Reference to Wine. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24:35–46. Valamoti, Soultana Maria, and Kostas Kotsakis 2007 Transitions to Agriculture in the Aegean: The Archaeobotanical Evidence. In The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge and James Conolly, pp. 75–91. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Maria Mangafa, Haïdo Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, and Dimitra Malamidou 2007 Grape-Pressings from Northern Greece: The Earliest Wine in the Aegean? Antiquity 81:54–61. Zohary, Daniel, Maria Hopf, and Ehud Weiss 2012 Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

291

AS20.indb 291

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 20 Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in the Greek Sector of the Late Neolithic Settlement of Promachon-Topolnica George Kazantzis

Abstract In this paper, I discuss the animal bone assemblage from the Greek sector of the Late Neolithic flatextended settlement of Promachon-Topolnica in Macedonia, northern Greece. The faunal evidence indicates a small-scale economy, with a highly mixed composition of livestock, particularly tuned to the production of meat. However, other secondary products, such as milk, also might have been used, although they might have been less important. Although caprines form the most frequent species throughout the course of the Late Neolithic, cattle was probably the most prized animal. Among the principal domesticates, cattle would have provided the largest quantities of meat; hence it would have been far more important than caprines (and pigs). The substantial number of bucrania recovered from a large circular timber-framed subterranean structure (Structure 4) attest to the species’ symbolic significance as well. The faunal evidence is largely consistent with the excavators’argument regarding the “public” function of this particular structure, which was probably “reserved” exclusively for large-scale feasting. This contradicts the information from the rest of the deposits, for which a more likely household origin is suggested. Keywords zooarchaeology, Greece, Macedonia, PromachonTopolnica, Late Neolithic, animal husbandry Excavations on the border between Greece (Promachon sector) and Bulgaria (Topolnica sector) in the Strymonas River basin in central Macedonia, Greece, have revealed a flat-extended settlement dating to the Late Neolithic (Figure 1; Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007). Three distinct phases of occupation have been defined1 on the basis of material culture evidence, structural features, and absolute dating (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007, 2014). A large (15 m in radius and 7 m in depth), roughly circular,

timber-framed subterranean structure (Structure 4, Promachon sector), belonging to the first phase of occupation (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007, 2014), is undoubtedly one of the most interesting features of the settlement (Figure 2). On the basis of its large size, the exceptional material culture evidence that was recovered, and the vast quantity of animal bones and bucrania, it has been suggested that it was possibly a distinct structure denoting delineation and separation from the rest of the deposits, which include three semi-subterranean structures.2 In addition to the rich array of material culture evidence, the excavation yielded a substantial quantity of animal bones, thus offering an unparalleled opportunity to study the human-animal relationships. The faunal material from the deposits in the Greek sector of Promachon formed the subject of the author’s doctoral research (Kazantzis 2015). The scope of the current paper does not differ from the scope of the doctoral research: to present new information on subsistence strategies in an underrepresented area of northern Greece during a time period (fifth and fourth millennia B.C.) that is considered one of the most dynamic eras of the prehistory of Southeastern Europe. Preliminary results—including species representation and body part distribution—have been presented and discussed in previous contributions (Kazantzis 2014a, 2014b). This paper however, will focus on the age-at-death data of the principal domesticates in order to further assess their economic significance. The faunal material from the deposits in Structure 4 formed a separate study, and the results have been published in a preliminary report (Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013).3 An unprecedented opportunity is therefore presented to compare the results of the two separate studies using the faunal material as the main source of evidence. It should be noted, however, that the author’s methodology is not directly compatible with that followed for the faunal material from Structure 4. Regardless of differences in methodological protocols, this intra-site comparison provides the opportunity to assess the level of spatial differentiation on-site, commenting on what the different areas of

292

AS20.indb 292

2/11/18 9:00 PM

the settlement may have represented culturally and socially for the Neolithic people of Promachon. Overall, it is anticipated that the current paper will contribute to our understanding of Promachon’s use of space, as well as the inhabitants’ economic, social, and cultural activities, highlighting also the potential of zooarchaeology in the investigation of past patterns of human behavior. Methods and Analytical Techniques A number of anatomic atlases were used to achieve correct anatomical and taxonomical identification (Hillson 1986, 1992; Pales and Lambert 1971; Schmid 1972). The sheep and goat distinction followed Boesseneck (1969) and Kratochvil (1969) for postcranial elements, and it was attempted on the distal humerus, proximal radius, distal metacarpal and distal metatarsal, distal tibia, calcaneum, and astragalus (Kazantzis 2014b, 2015). Distinction between sheep and goat deciduous teeth followed Payne (1985), and for permanent teeth followed Halstead et al. (2002). A “diagnostic zones” approach (Watson 1979) was used in Promachon’s faunal assemblage, but with

substantial modifications following Davis (1992). Only a number of bone zones were recorded (Kazantzis 2014b, 2015): this ensured as much correct anatomical and taxonomical identification as possible. The recording system partly circumvented inter-taxon anatomical differences, as only certain key parts of the skeleton were recorded, and it also reduced fragmentation bias as zones of bones were counted only if more than one-half was present (Kazantzis 2014b, 2015). Eventually, the recording system prevented any single zone from being counted twice. The number of identified specimens (NISP) is used in this paper as the basic measure of taxonomic abundance. All recorded bones, isolated teeth, and mandibles are given an NISP value of 1. However, it should be noted that NISP suffers from a number of biases, most notable being the underrepresentation of small taxa in comparison to the larger ones in handcollected assemblages (Payne 1972a, 1972b, 1975). For instance, a simple test exploring the frequencies between the larger first and the smaller second phalanges of the principal domesticates (Figure 3) indicates that smaller animals, such as caprines and pigs, as well as small body parts and young age groups, are biased against in terms of NISP. This is, therefore, a

Figure 1. Map of Greece, showing location of Promachon-Topolnica. 293

AS20.indb 293

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis bias that we have to keep in mind when interpreting the results. Tooth wear stages were recorded following the methods of Grant (1982) for cattle and pigs and Payne (1973, 1987) for sheep and goats. Tooth wear stages from a single mandible were then combined into age stages, using only mandibles with at least two teeth with recordable wear in the dP4 / P4 – M3 row. For this study, O’Connor’s (1988) age stages were used for cattle and pigs (Table 1) and Payne’s (1973, 1987) age stages for sheep and goats (Table 2). It was only possible to separate the sexes using morphological characteristics in pigs. For other taxa, any attempts to detect the sexual composition of the assemblage had to rely on metrical analyses (Kazantzis 2015; Kazantzis and Albarella 2016). Pig

isolated canines, as well as those in jaws and their alveoli, were used for the estimation of the sexual composition of the pig population. The Domestic Taxa Frequencies between domestic and wild animals and frequencies between the three main taxa have been presented in previous contributions (Kazantzis 2014a, 2014b). For heuristic purposes, however, they will be presented here as well. Domesticated animals constituted the overwhelming majority (95 percent during Phase I, increasing by 1 percent during Phase II and another 2 percent during Phase III), which is a typical situation for Late Neolithic Greek settlements. No dramatic differences occurred with

Figure 2. Structure 4. (After Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2007:Figure 10)

294

AS20.indb 294

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica time, but a gradual increase in caprines, paralleled by an equivalent decrease in cattle, was noticeable (Figure 4). In order to test whether the differences between phases in cattle and caprine representation were statistically significant, Chi-squared tests were conducted. These indicated that the representation of the two taxa was significantly different between Phases I and II (p = .015)4 (Table 3) and highly different between Phases II and III (p = .003)5 (Table 4). Pigs,6 which were the least common of the main domesticates, were consistently represented throughout the three main phases, with negligible differences between phases (Kazantzis 2014b, 2015). Age-at-Death Bos taurus The sample size of age-able cattle mandibles was small (NISP = 18). This may be the result of cattle heads being detached from the rest of the carcass and being deposited elsewhere (Kazantzis 2015). Body part distribution7 of cattle in the three phases under study revealed a rather interesting pattern (Figure 5). In Phases II and III, the highest minimum number of

individuals (MNI)8 values were gained from loose teeth (first and second mandibular molars). This is not strange, since cattle teeth are dense and large elements, which survive major taphonomic alterations and retrieval biases. However, the most interesting pattern was the one observed during Phase I: this showed that the highest MNI values derived from the astragali, but not teeth. Astragali are large, dense, and robust elements that are not easily overlooked during excavation. There are, however, no obvious taphonomic factors that could explain their better representation than teeth. We must therefore assume that this difference was in fact genuine at the time of the original formation of the cattle assemblage (Kazantzis 2015). The presence of 36 bucrania from Structure 4 (Trantalidou 2010) may provide an explanation regarding the peculiarity of Phase I. Trantalidou and Gkioni (2008:223) argued: “Naturally, these anatomical elements (the bucrania) should be absent from the rest of the zooarchaeological material.” It is highly likely, therefore, that the observed trend of the underrepresentation of cattle teeth during Phase I may be due to some cattle heads being processed differently from the rest of the carcass without necessarily being disposed of off-site. In other words, cattle heads during Phase I may have been detached from

Figure 3. Retrieval biases: comparison between the first and second phalanges of the three main taxa based on NISP counts. 295

AS20.indb 295

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis the rest of the carcass and disposed in Structure 4. One would argue, however, that this “treatment” would only be “reserved” for the upper part of the cranium, and not the lower part. Indeed, in Promachon, each bucranium consisted of the frontal, nasal, temporal, lacrymal, zygomatic, and maxilla bones (Trantalidou 2010), but not the mandible. A glance, however, at the body part distribution of cattle from this particular structure (Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013:413, Table 4), suggests that mandibles were represented with high frequency, similar to the one observed for the rest of the crania. This confirms previous suggestions that whole cattle heads may have been detached from the rest of the cattle carcass. However, these may have been carefully processed in order to detach the upper part of the cranium from the mandibles. It is therefore likely that cattle mandibles were disposed of in Structure 4, whereas the rest of the crania were either suspended on the posts around the periphery of the structure, or disposed of in the same way as the mandibles. Table 1. Age stages for cattle and pigs. Age Stage Tooth Wear Stage Neonate Juvenile Immature Subadult Adult Elderly

dP4 not yet in wear M1 not yet in wear

M1 in wear, M2 not yet in wear

M2 in wear, M3 not yet in wear

M3 in wear, not yet heavily worn

M3 heavily worn (stage j or beyond)a

Note: Following O’Connor (1988). a Sensu Grant (1982).

Returning to the age-at-death data for cattle, the protocol decision of reconstructing the mortality profiles by using only the mandibles with at least two teeth with recordable wear in the dP4 / P4 ­– M3 row, obviously affected the already small size of the sample.9 In addition, no cattle mandibles with more than one tooth with recordable wear were recovered from the deposits of Phase III. Therefore, in order to mitigate the biases created by the small sample size, Phases I and II are treated together out of necessity. With the caveat of small sample size in mind, the age-at-death data that is highlighted in Figure 6 exhibit three mortality peaks: the first and most prominent at the “Subadult” stage (39 percent), the second at the “Immature” stage (28 percent) and the third at the “Adult” stage (22 percent). About 11 percent of the mandibles were also attributed to the “Juvenile” stage. The extremely small sample size of age-able cattle mandibles renders any discussion of the economic importance of the species somewhat perplexing. However, despite such caveat, we can suggest that the mortality profile for cattle indicates a considerable potential for the production of meat, with most animals being slaughtered when their maximum body weight had been reached (Kazantzis 2015). Caprinae Figure 7 presents the percentage of attribution of mandible wear stages for caprines (sheep/goat, sheep, and goat), considering all three phases (NISP = 136). The mandible wear data for caprines exhibit an almost even distribution of wear stages, though the greatest amount of slaughtering (almost 60 percent of the population) occurred between stages E and G (2–6

Table 2. Age stages for sheep and goats. Age Stage

Tooth Wear Stage

Estimated Age

A

dP4 not yet in wear

0–2 months

B C D E F G H I

dP4 in wear, M1 not yet in wear

2–6 months

M2 in wear, M3 not yet in wear

1–2 years

Posterior cusp of M3 in wear (stages 9–10)

3–4 years

M3 stage 11, M2 stage post-9

6–8 years

M1 in wear, M2 not yet in wear

6–12 months

M3 in wear, posterior cusp still unworn (stages 1–8)

2–3 years

M3 stage 11, M2 stage 9

4–6 years

M3 stage post-11

8–10 years

Note: Following Payne (1973, 1987). 296

AS20.indb 296

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica

Figure 4. Relative frequencies of the three main taxa at the temporal level: NISP counts. Table 3. Chi-squared test comparing representation of cattle and caprines between phases I and II.

Counted Values*

Phase I

Phase II

Total

Bos taurus

918.0

975.0

1,893.0

Caprinae

888.0

1,103.0

1991.0

1,806.0

2,078.0

3,884.0

Total Expected Values

Phase I

Phase II

Total

Bos taurus

880.2

1,012.8

1,893.0

Caprinae

925.8

1,065.2

1,991.0

1,806.0

2,078.0

3,884.0

Total * p = .015 Table 4. Chi-squared test comparing representation of cattle and caprines between phases II and III.

Counted Values*

Phase II

Bos taurus

Phase III

Total

975.0

551.0

1,526.0

Caprinae

1,103.0

767.0

1,870.0

Total

2,078.0

1,318.0

3,396.0

Expected Values

Phase II

Bos taurus

Phase III

Total

933.8

592.2

1,526.0

Caprinae

1,144.2

725.8

1,870.0

Total

2,078.0

1,318.0

3,396.0

* p = .003 297

AS20.indb 297

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis

Figure 5. Body part distribution of cattle at the temporal level: broad anatomical categories and MNI counts. years). Overall, the evidence of wear data is suggestive of the fact that caprines in Promachon were used for primary products (meat). One would argue that the scarcity of very young individuals (stages A and B, 0–6 months: 1 percent) does not conform to Payne’s (1973) idealized model of dairy husbandry.10 However, as Halstead (1998) noted, the culling of lambs and kids (2–3 months old or less) is characteristic of a specialized economy seeking a surplus production intended for trade and commerce, whereas herders with a mixed economy and a small number of animals not seeking to maximize but rather to produce a consistent return, extend the culling age up to six months (Rowley-Conwy 2000). The latter model is more appropriate to Promachon, where during the Late Neolithic about 11 percent of the caprine population was slaughtered before they reached their first year (wear stages A, B, and C). It is therefore probable that the management of the caprine population at Promachon included—in addition to the exploitation of meat—a small-scale exploitation of milk. While the interpretation of Neolithic milk exploi-

tation was initially challenged (see Clutton-Brock 1981; Halstead 1998; McCormick 1992), it is now widely accepted due to mounting evidence for widespread dairy husbandry in this period (Evershed et al. 2008; Legge and Moore 2011). However, this form of combined meat and milk husbandry is rather difficult to identify without corroborating evidence (e.g. milk residues in ceramics). Nevertheless, mortality profiles approximating the “meat model” are compatible with the exploitation of a mixture of products; thus, the “meat model” does not necessarily preclude the exploitation of caprines for milk, but rather implies that any such use was most likely of low intensity and limited in scale (Halstead and Isaakidou 2013). The apparent frequency of older individuals (wear stages G, H and I, 4–10 years: 45 percent in total) indicates that a number of—probably female—caprines were used for breeding and also milk. One would argue that this high frequency of older individuals, combined with the presence of loom weights and clay spindle whorls found in Promachon (KoukouliChryssanthaki et al. 2007), might indicate that other secondary products—besides milk—were used, the

298

AS20.indb 298

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica

Figure 6. Mortality profiles for cattle.

Figure 7. Mortality profiles for caprines (sheep, goat, and sheep/goat mandibles). 299

AS20.indb 299

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis most likely of which would have been fleece.11 However, loom weights and clay spindle whorls do not necessarily indicate the use of animal fibers. Woven flax is well known to have been used as early as the eighth millennium B.C. in the Near East (Perlès 2001), while the same organic material is also known to have been used in the Balkans during the late stage of the Neolithic (Borojević 2006). In any case, the appearance of fine hairs—characteristic of wool—results from a long-term process of selection for particular reproductive traits (Halstead 1998), which does not seem to have occurred until the Bronze Age (cf. Helmer et al. 2007; Perlès 2001; Ryder 1969, 1982, 1993). In order to find out whether the two closely related species were subject to different exploitation strategies, I also explored the wear data from the mandibles of sheep and goats, respectively. A substantial number of age-able sheep mandibles with at least two teeth in the dP4 / P4 – M3 row were recovered (NISP = 79). Figure 8 indicates that 41 percent of sheep was killed off between the first and the fourth year (wear stages D, E, F). This suggests that these animals were slaughtered for meat. About 47 percent of the sheep population was killed off between the fourth and tenth year (wear stages G, H, I); of these, about 24 percent was killed between the age of four and six years (wear stage G). We can therefore assume that sheep—probably female

individuals—were kept until they had lambed at least once, and hence produced milk and offspring (Kazantzis 2015). Unlike sheep, the sample size of age-able goat mandibles was rather small (NISP = 23). Harvest profiles for this species (Figure 9) suggest that animals less than two years old (wear stages A to D), account for less than 4 percent of the mortality profile. The dearth of very young individuals (wear stages A, B, C and D: 4 percent in total) indicates that goats in Promachon were not particularly exploited for milk; this may be surprising considering that goats are known to be more prolific milk yielders than sheep (Halstead 1998; Ryder 1982). About 33 percent of the goat population was killed off at stage E (2–3 years), while 45 percent was killed off at stages F and G (3–4 years and 4–6 years, respectively), suggesting that goats in Promachon were killed primarily for their meat. However, the apparent frequency of older individuals (wear stages H and I: 9 percent) indicates that some goats might have been kept until the end of their lives for breeding (Kazantzis 2015). All in all, the mortality profiles indicate that caprines were used for meat; with regard to the presence of secondary products, it is more likely that the use of caprines included a small-scale exploitation for milk, rather than fleece. It is probable that milk might have been the product with which the Neolithic people of

Figure 8. Mortality profiles for sheep. 300

AS20.indb 300

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica Promachon would “balance the loss” from the small quantities of caprine meat—in comparison to that of cattle and pigs (Kazantzis 2015). Sheep were subject to different exploitation strategies than goats; the evidence seems to suggest that sheep were used for meat and milk, while goats were used mainly for meat. In addition, a number of individuals (probably female) from both species might have been kept until the end of their lives for breeding (Kazantzis 2015). In the case of Promachon, biometry assumed an important role in the investigation of the sexual composition of the caprine population, since the separation of sexes using osteomorphological criteria presented a certain level of difficulty and risk. In Figure 10, the width (BT) is plotted against the smallest diameter (HTC) of the trochlea of sheep and goat humeri. The measurements used are not substantially affected by post-fusion growth, which means that age plays a less confusing role in their interpretation (see Albarella and Payne 2005; Albarella et al. 2006; Kazantzis and Albarella 2016; Rowley-Conwy et al. 2012); they are, however, much affected by sex variation (Payne and Bull 1988). The diagram shows that most specimens plot on the lower end of the distribution, from the lower left corner toward the center of the scatterplot. However, there are two (or four, depending on where one decides to draw the line) large outliers from both species plotting away form the main distribu-

tion towards the upper right corner of the diagram. Considering that BT and HTC are much affected by sex variation, the two groups can be interpreted as representing female (the overwhelming majority) and male individuals.12 The much larger proportion of females is consistent with the argument that at most sites—including Promachon—females predominate, as only a few males need to be kept for reproduction (Albarella 1997). Sus sp. Before discussing the mortality profiles for pigs,13 it is important to note that—unlike ruminants—estimates of the age-at-death of pigs based on tooth wear data may be subject to bias. This is due to dental attrition being highly affected by the degree to which this species dig for their food (Halstead and Isaakidou 2013). Dental eruption and wear data for pigs reveal two mortality peaks (Figure 11): the first and most prominent at the “Immature” stage (44 percent) and the second at the “Subadult” stage (41 percent). About 11 percent of individuals were killed at the “Juvenile” stage, while only 4 percent of the individuals survived into the “Adult” stage. All in all, the mortality profiles for pigs at Promachon indicate that these animals were used for their meat. In addition, some of the adult and subadult individuals (females) might have been used for breeding (Kazantzis 2015).

Figure 9. Mortality profiles for goats. 301

AS20.indb 301

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis Estimates of the sexual composition of the pig population were based on the morphological criteria of the canines (Figure 12). When only isolated canines are considered, males and females are represented with similar frequencies; in this case, the ratio between male and female pigs is 1 to 1.3. In order to mitigate the biases created by differential retrieval, since isolated female canines are much smaller than those of their male counterparts, the frequency is recalculated, taking into account canines in jaws and their alveoli, as these should only be negligibly affected by such bias. In this case, females predominate with a much higher frequency than males, which is probably closer to reality: 73 percent of the sexed canines attached to jaws and their respective alveoli derive from females, while 27 percent derive from males. The ratio between male and female pigs is in this case 1 to 2.6 (Kazantzis 2015). The higher frequency of female pig canines probably reflects the practice of keeping more mature female pigs for breeding. If this is the case, then we must assume that a high number of pigs culled at a

young age for their meat—as previously suggested— were mainly males. It is also highly likely that the very young animals, which could not be sexed due to the non-diagnostic shape of the deciduous canine, were also predominately males. In any case, the occurrence of a substantial proportion of older females packed with the presence of a small number of pig neonatal postcranial bones (NISP = 12), suggests that at Promachon there was an emphasis on pork production and the pigs were not merely imported from elsewhere (Kazantzis 2015). Intra-Site Variation: Phase I and Structure 4 In total, 8,842 animal bones and teeth from the deposits of Structure 4 (Phase I) were recorded (Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013); this number is higher than that from the rest of the deposits of Phase I (Kazantzis 2015), of which 2,263 bones and teeth were recorded in total.14 It must be considered, however, that the dataset from our study area derives

Figure 10. Comparison of sheep and goat humeri: breadth (BT) vs. smallest diameter of the trochlea (HTC). (After Davis [1992]) 302

AS20.indb 302

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica from a selective, diagnostic-zone approach, and is therefore not directly comparable in quantity to that of Structure 4. In total, 11 species were identified in the latter structural feature, whereas the number of species

identified from the deposits in Phase I is 19 (Table 5). Considering the much larger assemblage from Structure 4, this indicates a much lesser taxonomic variability in the assemblage from this context (Kazantzis 2015).

Figure 11. Mortality profiles for pigs.

Figure 12. Sexual composition of the pig population: NISP counts. 303

AS20.indb 303

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis Figure 13 compares the frequency of the three main domesticated species between Structure 4 and the rest of the deposits of Phase I (in terms of NISP). Pigs are represented with lower frequencies than any other domesticate in both study areas (7 percent in Structure 4, and 15 percent in the rest of the deposits). There is, however, a great difference in the frequencies between cattle and caprines, since the former are substantially better represented than the latter in Structure 4, while the two species are almost equally represented in the rest of the deposits of Phase I. In order to test whether the differences between the two areas in cattle and caprine representation were statisti-

cally significant, a Chi-squared test was conducted. This indicated that the representation of the two taxa is highly different between Structure 4 and the rest of the deposits of Phase I (p = .000)15 (Table 6). One would argue that the differences in the NISP frequencies of cattle and caprines between the two study areas are due to methodological differences between the two studies. Fragmentation of the bucrania that were found in Structure 4 (Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013; Trantalidou 2010; Trantalidou and Gkioni 2008) enhances the possibility of cattle cranial elements (i.e. horn cores, maxillae, mandibles) being counted more than once (Kazantzis

Table 5. Taxonomic variability between the two study areas: species presence. Species Composition

Promachon Sector Deposits of Phase Ib Present

Bos taurus

Structure 4a Present

Ovis aries

Present

Present

Capra hircus

Present

Present

Sus sp.

Present

Present

Canis familiaris

Present

Present

Cervus elaphus

Present

Present

Dama dama

Present

Present

-

Present

Bos primigenius

Present

-c

Lepus europaeus

Present

Present

Vulpes vulpes

-

Present

Rupicapra rupicapra

-

Present

Sus scrofa

Present

-c

Lynx lynx

-

Present

Ursus arctos

-

Present

Meles meles

-

Present

Mustela putorius

-

Present

Anser anser

-

Present

Grus grus

-

Present

Present

Present

Capreolus capreolus

Homo sapiens

Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013. Kazantzis 2015. c As already noted, the significance of the presence of the aurochs and wild pigs from the deposits not associated with Structure 4 was evaluated through biometrical analyses (Kazantzis 2015) and not through insitu identification of large specimens. Biometry did not confirm the presence of aurochs, but it did confirm the presence of wild pigs, in contrast to the deposits of Structure 4, where the presence of both species was reported. a

b

304

AS20.indb 304

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica

Figure 13. Relative frequencies of the three main taxa at the intra-site level: NISP counts from Structure 4 vs. deposits of Phase I. Table 6. Chi-Squared Test Comparing Representation of Cattle and Caprines between the Two Study Areas.

Counted Values*

Structure 4

Bos taurus Caprinae Total Expected Values

Deposits of Phase I

Total

7,031.0

918.0

7,949.0

790.0

888.0

1,678.0

7,821.0

1,806.0

9,627.0

Structure 4

Deposits of Phase I

Total

Bos taurus

6,457.8

1,491.2

7,949.0

Caprinae

1,363.2

314.8

1,678.0

Total

7,821.0

1,806.0

9,627.0

* p = .000 2015); in addition, isolated cattle teeth would also be likely candidates for multiple recording of the same specimen, thus inflating the total NISP values of the species. Nevertheless, a glance at the table providing the body part distribution for cattle from Structure 4 (Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013:Table 4) indicates that postcranial elements are very well represented; this suggests that the pattern is most likely “genuine” and that the fragmented bucrania cannot be the only reason for the overall high frequency of cattle in Structure 4. The possibility that the high frequency of cattle

postcranial elements in Structure 4 is the result of a recovery bias should also be considered, but—unlike the deposits from the rest of the site—the deposits in Structure 4 were sieved through a 1 mm mesh (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007; Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013), thus ruling out the possibility that smaller animals such as caprines (and pigs) were biased against (Kazantzis 2015). Methodological and recovery differences between the two areas are unlikely, therefore, to account for the substantially higher representation of cattle in Structure 4. It can thus be concluded that in terms

305

AS20.indb 305

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis of NISP, the remains of cattle dominate Structure 4, whereas no particular emphasis on a single species can be detected in the rest of the deposits—although there are hints that, due to recovery biases, caprines are seriously underrepresented in comparison with cattle in the deposits not associated with Structure 4 (see Figure 3). As previously argued, the assessment of the ageat-death for the main domesticates in Promachon was based on O’Connor’s (1988) mandible wear stages for cattle and pigs, and Payne’s (1973) mandible wear stages for caprines. On the other hand, Theodorogianni and Trantalidou (2013) use six mandible wear stages for assessing the age-at-death for cattle and sheep (less than 6 months, 6 months, 6–18 months, 1.5–2.5 years, 2.5–3 years, and beyond 3 years), and five for assessing the age-at-death for goats (less than 6 months, 6–18 months, 1.5–2.5 years, 2.5–3 years, and beyond three years).16 Due, therefore, to the incompatibility of the methodology followed in the two study areas, we should be cautious with our interpretations. Figure 14 presents the comparison of cattle age-at-death between the two study areas. Elderly individuals (more than 3 years) are absent from both areas; of interest, however, is the fact that neonate individuals (calves; less than 6 months old) are represented in Structure 4 at 18 percent, whereas they are completely absent from the rest of the deposits. One would argue that the absence of neonates from the deposits not associated with Structure 4 might be the result of carnivore gnawing, dog being the species most likely responsible for most of the chewing. This argument is true, since bone articulations of young animals are particularly vulnerable to carnivore attrition. However, the frequency of carnivore gnawing at Promachon is low, occurring only on 4 percent of the total postcranial elements, and on 5 percent of cattle postcranial elements (Kazantzis 2015). Therefore, carnivore attrition is unlikely to account for the absence of neonate individuals from the deposits not associated with Structure 4. It could also be argued that the differences in the frequency of calves between the two study areas are the result of recovery biases. As previously noted, the deposits of Structure 4 were sieved (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007; Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013), whereas the bulk of the faunal material from the rest of the deposits was hand-collected. Indeed, a small number of unworn isolated mandibular first/ second molars of cattle from the deposits not associated with Structure 4 indicates that a number of calf mandibles were particularly affected by fragmentation mechanisms and, ultimately, poor recovery procedures

(Kazantzis 2015). However, the frequency of calves from Structure 4 is considerably high (18 percent), and it cannot be explained only on the basis of differential recovery between Structure 4 and the rest of the deposits. It is rather suggested that the overall pattern indicates a “genuine” difference, and that there is differential disposal of calves between Structure 4 and the rest of the deposits of Phase I; in addition, older individuals do not seem to have been disposed of in different ways (Kazantzis 2015). Figure 15 presents the age-at-death of sheep between Structure 4 (Theodorogianni and Trantalidou 2013) and the rest of the deposits of Phase I. Lambs (0–6 months) are represented at 3 percent in Structure 4, while they are completely absent from the rest of the deposits (stages A and B, sensu Payne [1973]; 0–6 months). Despite the fact that this trend is similar to the one identified for cattle, the proportion of sheep neonates is too small to give us any confidence in the occurrence of a deliberate disposal pattern. Other factors, such as differential recovery bias, may play a role. However, a much larger discrepancy can be seen with regard to the rest of the sheep population. More specifically, Structure 4 has a higher frequency of younger sheep (6 months to 3 years; 62 percent overall), while older sheep predominate in the rest of the deposits of Phase I (stages F, G, H, I, sensu Payne [1973]; 66 percent). In other words, it seems that sheep from Structure 4 have a younger age profile than their counterparts from the rest of the deposits of Phase I. This appears to be a “genuine” trend and, although it is difficult to pinpoint the reasons why such age differences occur, it does confirm the peculiarity of Structure 4 in comparison to the rest of the site. The comparison of the age-at-death of goats between the two study areas is presented in Figure 16. The pattern for goats is similar to that observed for sheep. Although the small difference in the frequency of kids (0–6 months) between the two areas could be attributed to recovery bias or other taphonomic factors, Structure 4 also has a high frequency of younger individuals (6 months to 3 years; 84 percent), while individuals being killed between 3 to 10 years (stages F, G, H, I, sensu Payne [1973]) dominate in the rest of the deposits (69 percent). Therefore, the results indicate a younger profile of goats in Structure 4 and an older profile of the same species from the rest of the area in Phase I. This should be interpreted cautiously due to the very small sample size for goats, but the similarity to the sheep pattern gives some confidence in the reliability of the results. Overall, there seems to be a differential disposal

306

AS20.indb 306

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica

Figure 14. Mortality profiles for cattle at the intra-site level: (a) deposits of Phase I; (b) Structure 4. of caprines—on the basis of age—between Structure 4 and the rest of deposits; the information thus enhances suggestions regarding the different use of space, with the disposal of younger sheep and goats in Structure 4 and the disposal of their older counterparts in the rest of the deposits of Phase I.

Scale and Nature of Animal Husbandry in Promachon At Promachon, the faunal evidence exhibits a number of characteristics that are consistent with a small-scale mixed economy, rather than extensive

307

AS20.indb 307

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis

Figure 15. Mortality profiles for sheep at the intra-site level: (a) deposits of Phase I; (b) Structure 4. and specialized herding (Kazantzis 2015). The economy at Promachon is not focused on the exploitation of a single domestic species, but rather on the exploitation of a highly mixed composition of livestock (cattle, caprines, and pigs). The ageing evidence also supports the argument of small-scale herding. The age-at-death data for the three main domesticates do

not indicate the pastoral specialism proposed by the secondary products revolution (SPR) model (Arnold and Greenfield 2006; Greenfield 2005). The use of cattle for traction, which constitutes a major capital intensification of arable farming (Gilman 1981), as well as the exploitation of caprines for their fleece, seem rather unlikely. All in all, the ageing evidence

308

AS20.indb 308

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica

Figure 16. Mortality profiles for goats at the intra-site level: (a) deposits of Phase I; (b) Structure 4.

from Promachon indicates that animals were bred and kept primarily for their meat (Kazantzis 2015). Having said that, small-scale exploitation of milk is not impossible, even though the age-at-death data does not conform to Payne’s (1973) idealized milk model. Although such analyses have not been carried out in Promachon, the traces of milk residues and lipids,

which were discovered in the ceramics from the nearby site of Stavroupolis (Evershed et al. 2008), attested to the exploitation of milk in the area of Macedonia during the late stage of the Neolithic. It is therefore possible that settlements that were contemporary and close to Stavroupolis—including also Promachon—were aware of the utilization of milk (Kazantzis 2015).

309

AS20.indb 309

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis Of particular interest is the fact that the management of sheep is different from that of goats. Sheep predominate, the ratio between the two closely related species being 1 to 4.2. While goat remains provided a kill-off pattern that is highly typical of a focus on meat exploitation, this is less so for sheep, which may therefore, to some extent, also have been used for secondary products (Kazantzis 2015). It is therefore possible that sheep milk would have constituted a “welcome and nutritionally valuable variety” (Halstead 1989:30) into the crop (Valamoti 2007) and meat diet of the Neolithic people of Promachon. Size Matters: The Importance of Cattle in Promachon Caprines in Promachon are represented in higher frequencies than any other domesticated species onsite. However, the abundance of a species in terms of the number of fragments does not necessarily indicate that this species had the highest economic importance (Kazantzis 2015). Although caprines at Promachon are represented with a higher frequency than cattle (both on a phase-by-phase level and also for the whole cultural sequence of the Late Neolithic), from an economic and symbolic point of view, cattle could have been more important than caprines. Cattle are much larger than caprines (and pigs), and therefore, they would have undoubtedly provided the largest quantities of meat than any other domesticated animal on-site. Hence, in terms of meat provision, cattle would have been far more important than caprines (and pigs). The economic importance of cattle can also be attested through inter-site analyses. Cattle in Promachon are represented in a higher frequency than at any other contemporary site from Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly (Kazantzis 2014a, 2014b, 2015).17 Although—as previously argued—the abundance of a species should not be confused with its importance, the higher frequency of cattle at Promachon (in comparison to other contemporary sites) provides an indication that cattle would have played a particularly significant role for the inhabitants of Promachon. Cattle, like all other animals, but perhaps particularly so, has symbolic significance as well. With regard to the Neolithic, the large number of cattle zoomorphic figurines from a number of sites such as Knossos, Itea, Sitagroi, and Zarko (Toufexis 2003) indicates that cattle were probably the most highly prized animals (Halstead and Isaakidou 2013). In view of the absence of cattle zoomorphic figurines at Promachon, the presence of 36 bucrania (Trantalidou 2010; Trantalidou and Gkioni 2008) from the deposits

of Structure 4 constitutes probably the most reliable source of evidence for highlighting the symbolic importance of cattle on-site (Kazantzis 2015). Lastly, but also quite importantly, the occurrence of bucrania tends to increase at times when the economic importance of cattle is high (Orton 2008). This is also the case at Promachon. The bucrania at Promachon were found in the deposits of Structure 4, which belongs to the first phase of occupation, when cattle are represented in the highest frequencies (NISP) than any other phase. It can be suggested, therefore, that there is a link between the economic and the symbolic significance of the species, and that these two variables should not be entirely disentangled (Kazantzis 2015). “Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption”: Contemplating the Use of Space at Promachon The comparison of the faunal material between Structure 4 and the rest of the deposits of Phase I provided some interesting insights regarding the use of space during the first phase of occupation at Promachon (Table 7).18 We should note, however, that due to the differences in the methods of study of the faunal material between the two areas, the results of this comparison should be approached with caution. The comparison of the faunal assemblages between the two study areas indicated that the remains of cattle dominate the deposits of Structure 4, whereas no particular emphasis on a single species could be detected in the rest of the deposits of Phase I. In Structure 4 there was an emphasis on the disposal of calves and younger caprines, whereas the exact opposite pattern was detected in the rest of the deposits of Phase I. Of particular interest was also the presence of a large number of bucrania in Structure 4, whereas cattle cranial elements were underrepresented in comparison to postcranial elements in the rest of the deposits. Spatial differentiation during the first phase of occupation was also attested by evidence beyond that of animal bones: luxury vessels with high quality decoration, baskets, jewelry, marble and clay figurines, wooden bark with painted decorations, and other, noneveryday material culture objects were recovered from the deposits of Structure 4 (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007). On the contrary, this “wealth” of material culture was not as frequently recovered from the rest of the deposits of Phase I. With regard to the latter deposits, the large assemblage of animal bones, the evidence for unselective deposition of anatomical parts of domestic animals,

310

AS20.indb 310

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica Table 7. Summary of Differences between the Two Study Areas. Promachon Sector

Evidence Faunal

Archaeological

Structure 4

Deposits of Phase I

Emphasis on cattle (% NISP)

No particular emphasis on a single species (% NISP)

Presence of calves

Absence of calves

Younger caprines

Older caprines

Bucrania

Underrepresentation of cranial elements (teeth)

Large circular subterranean structure

Three semi-subterranean structures

Exceptional material culture evidence

Standardized cooking and serving vessels

and the large number of standardized cooking and serving vessels indicates that the entire chaîne opératoire, from slaughter to consumption, took place on-site (Kazantzis 2015). Contextual analysis from these deposits did not indicate a preferential disposal of the remains of any particular species, either domestic or wild: pits were not “reserved” for any particular purpose, and generally, nothing in the overall archaeological context suggests social exclusivity (Kazantzis 2015). The higher frequency of older sheep and goats suggests that these animals were not bred exclusively for meat, but secondary products were also used, although they may have been less important. It is possible that consumption of animal carcasses in the deposits of Phase I did not have a particular symbolic (and/or ritual) significance and that it did not involve large gatherings of people. Therefore, the consumers are unlikely to have been particularly chosen people, but merely extended family groups or similar social gatherings. Unlike these deposits, the deposits of Structure 4 were the recipients of consumption residues associated exclusively with large-scale feasting. The mass disposal of this material in Structure 4 could be interpreted “as a symbolic reinforcement of the importance of a series of major consumption events,” as Halstead (2007:39) implied in the case of Pit 212 from the Late Neolithic Makriyalos, in Pieria, Greece. The high frequency of cattle remains from the deposits of Structure 4 may be explained on the basis of the particular symbolic significance of this animal for the Neolithic people at Promachon (Kazantzis 2015). The high frequency of calves was particularly noteworthy. A possible explanation is that this age group could represent young casualties, such as animals that died immediately or relatively soon after birth, due to disease, weakness, difficult adaptation in the local environment, and so on. Given, however,

the exceptional and distinctive function and nature of Structure 4 (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007), it would be highly unlikely that ailing animals were killed and/or simply disposed of into the latter structural feature. It is rather suggested that the preferential disposal of calves in Structure 4 reflects a purely economic perspective: calves might have been part of the cattle population that had to be slaughtered for the production of milk. As caprines, cattle might also have been used for milk, even though the age-at-death data from the deposits not associated with Structure 4 is not consistent with Payne’s (1973) milk model due to the absence of very young individuals. Nevertheless, this age category (calves) does exist, and it is already present in the large subterranean structure with a high frequency (18 percent). In any case, the economic perspective cannot be entirely disentangled from the symbolic perspective. In other words, the need for milk does not preclude the possibility that calves might have been also considered a species with symbolic significance (Kazantzis 2015). The presence of luxurious material culture evidence (Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 2007), packed with the presence of a characteristic age group such as calves, is largely consistent with the distinctive and symbolic nature of Structure 4. On the other hand, the significance of the presence of younger caprines is difficult to understand; yet, it is tempting to assume that this part of the caprine population was reserved particularly for large-scale feasting (Kazantzis 2015). It can be suggested, therefore, that there are differences in the use of space during the first phase of occupation in Promachon. It is highly likely that the consumption of animal carcasses between the two areas of the settlement did not have the same significance and did not involve the same number of people. Probably, the consumption events that took place in

311

AS20.indb 311

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis Structure 4 involved a larger and/or particularly chosen number of participants and were of higher symbolic (and/or ritual) significance than those from the rest of the settlement (Kazantzis 2015). Overall, the faunal evidence is largely consistent with the argument of the excavation team regarding spatial differentiation during the first phase of occupation at Promachon. Whether domestic taxa between the two areas of the settlement were subject to differential feeding regimes—as in the case of caprines from Makriyalos (Mainland and Halstead 2002)—is a possibility that should not be precluded, and should represent a priority for future research. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki for entrusting me with the faunal material from Promachon sector for my doctoral research, and Ioannis Alsanis for providing information on stratigraphy and structural features. Katerina Trantalidou and Ourania Theodorogianni made important observations on the faunal material from Structure 4, and my thesis supervisor, Dr. Umberto Albarella, provided much needed help, edifying criticism, and huge encouragement during my three-year doctoral research. Lastly, but also quite importantly, I would like to thank the organizing committee of the conference in which this paper was presented, and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Notes Phase I (5320–5070 cal B.C.), Phase II (5070–4700 cal B.C.), and Phase III (4460–4250 cal B.C.). 2 Also known as pit-dwellings, pit-houses, and pit-huts (Bailey 2000; Halstead 2011). 3 Two papers dealing with the bucrania from Structure 4 have been published (Trantalidou 2010; Trantalidou and Gkioni 2008). 4 Less than 5 percent likelihood that the differences are due to chance. 5 Less than 1 percent likelihood that the differences are due to chance. 6 No attempts were made to identify aurochs and wild pig specimens a priori (i.e. on the basis of the general impression of size at the time of the recording). Rather, it was considered more appropriate to identify these species through biometrical analyses (Kazantzis 2015; Kazantzis and Albarella 2016). These did not confirm the presence of the aurochs; however, they did confirm the presence of wild pigs. Therefore, the 1

pig sample, which is used to calculate the frequency of the three main domesticated species at Promachon—in terms of NISP—includes both domestic and wild pig specimens. However, there are two things to be considered: firstly, it is difficult to quantify wild pig specimens that have been identified through biometrical analyses; secondly, the chosen methodology does not substantially affect the frequencies of the domestic taxa, since pigs are represented with the lowest frequencies among any other domesticated animal on-site during all phases under study. 7 Body part distribution was calculated using the minimum number of individuals (MNI) rather than NISP in order to eliminate the bias from elements that occur more frequently in the body. 8 MNI was used as a predictor of taxonomic frequency rather than a predictor of the number of animals that were kept in Promachon (Kazantzis 2014b, 2015). In general, MNI uses the most frequent anatomical element for each taxon as a predictor of this taxon’s frequency (Lyman 1994). The calculation of the MNI in Promachon was conducted simply by dividing the total number of a single anatomical element of one species to the number of the same elements that the identified species has in its skeleton. 9 Six cattle mandibles with only one tooth in the dP4 / P4 – M3 row were recovered. 10 Payne’s (1973) “milk model” can be summarized as follows: in order to suggest milk exploitation from any given assemblage, you must have a substantial proportion of very young individuals (and a proportion of older ones) slaughtered to facilitate milk production. This model has, however, been subject to much debate over the years (see Halstead 1998; McCormick 1992). 11 The term fleece is intended in its larger sense, whatever the nature of animal fibers. 12 As in the case of aurochs and wild pigs (see Note 6), it is difficult to quantify female and male caprine specimens that have been identified through biometry. 13 See Note 6. 14 Excluding specimens that were only roughly attributed to taxa (i.e. cattle/red deer; red deer/fallow deer; sheep/goat/roe deer; dog/red fox) and non-countable specimens. 15 Less than 1 percent likelihood that the differences are due to chance. 16 Only the frequencies (percent NISP) of cattle and sheep and goat mandible wear stages are provided. 17 It should be noted, however, that the level of retrieval bias has not been fully assessed at all sites. 18 The title for this section owes to one of the most creative of sources: “Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption” (Miracle and Milner 2002).

312

AS20.indb 312

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica References Cited Albarella, Umberto 1997 Shape Variation of Cattle Metapodials: Age, Sex or Breed? Some Examples from Medieval and Postmediaeval Sites. Anthropozoologica 25:37-47. Albarella, Umberto, and Sebastian Payne 2005 Neolithic Pigs from Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, England: A Biometrical Database. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:589–599. Albarella, Umberto, Keith Dobney, and Peter Rowley-Conwy 2006 The Domestication of the Pig (Sus scrofa): New Challenges and Approaches. In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, edited by Melinda A. Zeder, Daniel, Bradley, Eve Emshwiller, and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 209–227. University of California Press, Berkeley. Arnold, Elizabeth R., and Haskel J. Greenfield 2006 The Origins of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate Southeastern Europe: A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Central Balkans. BAR International Series 1538. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Bailey, Douglass W. 2000 Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. Routledge, London. Boesseneck, Jecquier 1969 Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and Goat (Capra hircus Linné). In Science in Archaeology, edited by Don R. Brothwell, and Eric S. Higgs, pp. 331–358. Thames and Hudson, London. Borojević, Ksenija 2006 Terra and Silva in the Pannonian Plain: Opovo Agro-Gathering in the Late Neolithic. BAR International Series 1563. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1981 Contribution to Discussion. In Farming Practice in British Prehistory, edited by Roger Mercer, pp. 218–220. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Davis, Simon J. M. 1992 A Rapid Method for Recording Information about Mammal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 19/92.

Evershed, Richard P., Sebastian Payne, Andrew G. Sherratt, Mark S. Copley, Jennifer Coolidge, Duska Urem-Kotsu, Kostas Kotsakis, Mehmet Özdoğan, Aslý E. Özdoğan, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse, Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, Douglass Bailey, RadianRomus Andeescu, Stuart Campbell, Shahina Farid, Ian Hodder, Nurcan Yalman, Mihriban Özbaşaran, Erhan Bıçakcı, Yossef Garfinkel, Thomas Levy, and Margie M Burton 2008 Earliest Date for Milk Use in the Near East and Southeastern Europe Linked to Cattle Herding. Nature 455:528–531. Gilman, Antonio 1981 The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe. Current Anthropology 22:1–23. Grant, Annie 1982 The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by Bob Wilson, Caroline Grigson, and Sebastian Payne, pp. 91–108. BAR International Series 109. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Greenfield, Haskel J. 2005 A Reconsideration of the Secondary Products Revolution in Southeastern Europe: On the Origins and Use of Domestic Animals for Milk, Wool and Traction in the Central Balkans. In The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying, edited by Jacqueline Mulville and A. K. Outram, pp. 14–31. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Halstead, Paul 1989 Like Raising Damp? An Ecological Approach to the Spread of Farming in Southeast and Central Europe. In The Beginnings of Agriculture, Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology, No. 8, edited by Annie Milles, Diane Williams, and Neville Gardner, pp. 23–53. BAR International Series 496. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 1998 Mortality Models and Milking: Problems of Uniformitarianism, Optimality and Equifinality Reconsidered. Anthropozoologica 27:3–20. 2007 Carcasses and Commensality: Investigating the Social Context of Meat Consumption in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Greece. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 25–48. Oxbow Books,

313

AS20.indb 313

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis Oxford. 2011 Farming, Material Culture and Ideology: Repackaging the Neolithic of Greece (and Europe). In Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in Honor of Andrew Sherratt, edited by Angelos Hadjikoumis, Erick Robinson, and Sarah Viner, pp. 131–151. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Halstead, Paul, P. Collins, and Valasia Isaakidou 2002 Sorting the Sheep from the Goats: Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of Adult Ovis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:545–553. Halstead, Paul, and Valasia Isaakidou 2013 Early Stock-Keeping in Greece. In The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue Colledge, James Conolly, Keith Dobney, Katie Manning, and Stephen Shennan, pp. 129–143. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Helmer, Daniel, Lionel Gourichon, and Emmanuelle Vila 2007 The Development of the Exploitation of Products from Capra and Ovis (Meat, Milk and Fleece) from the PPNB to the Early Bronze in the Northern Near East (8700–2000 BC cal). Anthropozoologica 42:41–69. Hillson, Simon 1986 Teeth. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992 Mammal Bones and Teeth: An Introductory Guide to Methods of Identification. University College London, Institute of Archaeology, London. Kazantzis, George 2014a Preliminary Results from a Faunal Assemblage in Greek Central Macedonia: The Case of the Late Neolithic Promachon Sector. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Zooarchaeology Forum (PZAF) Assemblage:19–31. 2014b The Vertebrate Fauna from a Late Neolithic Settlement in Eastern Macedonia: The Case of Promachon Sector – Preliminary Results. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 437–451. Archaeological Museum of Thes-

saloniki, Thessaloniki. 2015 The Zooarchaeology of the Late Neolithic Strymon (Struma) River Valley: The Case of the Greek Sector of Promachon-Topolnica. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Kazantzis, George, and Umberto Albarella 2016 Size and Shape of Greek Late Neolithic Livestock Suggest the Existence of Multiple and Distinctive Animal Husbandry Cultures. Journal of Archaeological Science, in press. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki Haïdo, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, and Magdalene Valla 2007 Promachon-Topolnica: A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project. In The Struma/ Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp. 43–78. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia. 2014 Γεωφυσική Έρευνα και Αρχαιολογική Πραγματικότητα στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Προμαχών-Topolnica. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 251-260. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Kratochvil, Z. 1969 Species Criteria on the Distal Section of the Tibia in Ovis ammon f. aries L. and Capra aegagrus f. hircus L. Acta Veterinaria (Brno) 38:483–490. Legge, Anthony J., and Andrew M. T. Moore 2011 Clutching at Straw: The Early Neolithic of Croatia and the Dispersal of Agriculture. In Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe: Studies in Honor of Andrew Sherratt, edited by Angelos Hadjikoumis, Erick Robinson, and Sarah Viner, pp. 176–195. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Lyman, R. Lee 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McCormick, Finbar 1992 Early Faunal Evidence for Dairying. Oxford

314

AS20.indb 314

2/11/18 9:00 PM

20 - Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in…Late Neolithic…Promachon-Topolnica Journal of Archaeology 11:201–210. Mainland, Ingrid, and Paul Halstead 2002 The Diet and Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats at Neolithic Makriyalos. In Diet and Health in Past Animal Populations: Current Research and Future Directions. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002, edited by Jessica Davies, Marian Fabis, Ingrid Mainland, Meadow Richards, and Richard Thomas, pp. 104–111. Oxford Books, Oxbow. Miracle, Preston, and Nicky Milner (editors) 2002 Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. O’Connor, Terry P. 1988 Bones from the General Accident Site, Tanner Row. Council for British Archaeology, London. Orton, David C. 2008 Beyond Hunting and Herding: Humans, Animals and the Political Economy of the Vinča Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge. Pales, Léon, and Charles Lambert 1971 Atlas Ostéologique pour Servir à l’Iden­ tification des Mammiféres du Quaternaire. Paris, Editions du Centre de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris VII. Payne, Sebastian 1972a Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by Eric S. Higgs, pp. 49–64. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1972b On the Interpretation of Bone Samples from Archaeological Sites. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by Eric S. Higgs, pp. 65–81. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1973 Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats. Anatolian Studies 23:281–303. 1975 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias. In Archaeozoological Studies, edited by A. T. Clason, pp. 7–17. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 1985 Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis and Goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:139–147. 1987 Reference Codes for Wear States in the Mandibular Cheek Teeth of Sheep and Goats. Journal of Archaeological Science

14:609–614. Payne, Sebastian, and G. Bull 1988 Components of Variation in Measurements of Pig Bones and Teeth and the Use of Measurements to Distinguish Wild from Domestic Pig Remains. Archaeozoologia 2:27–66. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rowley-Conwy, Peter 2000 Milking Caprines, Hunting Pigs: The Neolithic Economy of Arene Candide in its West Mediterranean Context. In Animal Bones, Human Societies, edited by Peter Rowley-Conwy, pp. 124–132. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Rowley-Conwy, Peter, Umberto Albarella, and Keith Dobney 2012 Distinguishing Wild Boar from Domestic Pigs in Prehistory: A Review of Approaches and Recent Results. Journal of World Prehistory 25:1–44. Ryder, Michael L. 1969 Changes in the Fleece of Sheep Following Domestication (with a Note on the Coat of Cattle). In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by Peter J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 495–521. Duckworth, London. 1982 Sheep and Man. Duckworth, London. 1993 Sheep and Goat Husbandry with Particular Reference to Textile Fibre and Milk Production. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7:9–32. Schmid, Elisabeth 1972 Atlas for Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. Theodorogianni, Ourania, and Katerina Trantalidou 2013 H Διαχείριση του Ζωικού Κεφαλαίου στη Κοιλάδα του Στρυμόνα: Δειγματοληπτική Έρευνα στη Κοιλάδα του Στρυμόνα. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 23(2009):407–426. Τoufexis, George 2003 Animals in the Neolithic Art of Thessaly. Ιn Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by Eleni Kotjabopoulou, Yannis Hamilakis, Paul Halstead, Clive Gamble, and Paraskevi Elephanti, pp. 263–271. British School at Athens Studies 9. British School at Athens, London.

315

AS20.indb 315

2/11/18 9:00 PM

George Kazantzis Trantalidou, Katerina 2010 Bovid Skulls in Southeastern European Neolithic Dwellings: The Case of the Subterranean Circular Room at PromachonTopolnica in the Strymon Valley, Greece. In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Complexity, Colonialism, and Animal Transformations, edited by Douglas V. Campana, Pamela Crabtree, S. D. deFrance, Justin Lev-Tov, and A. M. Choyke, pp. 213–219. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Trantalidou, Katerina, and G. Gkioni 2008 Προμαχών-Τοpolnica: Tα Βούκρανα του Μεγάλου Υπόσκαφου Χώρου: Ζωολογικός Προσδιορισμός και Πολιτισμικά Παράλ­ ληλα από την Ανατολική Μεσόγειο. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 20(2006):217–228.

Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2007 Agriculture and Use of Space at Promachon-Topolnica: Preliminary Observations on the Archaeobotanical Material. In The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp. 523–530. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia. Watson, John P. N. 1979 The Estimation of the Relative Frequencies of Mammalian Species: Khirokitia. Journal of Archaeological Science 6:127– 137.

316

AS20.indb 316

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Part ΙII: Interactions and Material Perspectives

AS20.indb 317

2/11/18 9:00 PM

AS20.indb 318

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 21 Social Interaction in the Farming Communities of Neolithic Greece: Archaeological Perceptions Nikos Efstratiou

Abstract The paper is a critical comment on the issue of social interaction in prehistory and the way it is manifested archaeologically. It is argued that social space is a manifold entity made up of fluid and changing social relations and processes, and that dialectics should be rigorously employed in regard to notions of social reality and social interaction. Attention is drawn to the social analysis that makes a distinction between concepts like social and individual phenomena, and therefore between forms of social interaction. Keywords social interaction, social phenomena, farming, Neolithic Greece I would like to start by defining what I consider to be social interaction in prehistory, or what, in other words, is at the core of our attempt to conceptualize all forms of the manifestation of past social interactions by documenting them archaeologically in the first place. I consider this introductory note regarding definition an essential part of the presentation that follows, which aims to contribute to the topics of this conference and the discussions that will follow. So, by social interaction I mean any form of social relations and processes among people who belong to the same social group in a historically determined social reality. This is intentionally a very broad definition, which I suspect, because of its generality, would be accepted and agreed upon readily. The Archaeology of Social Interaction My next point explicitly concerns us as archaeologists and our practice. There are relations and processes—that is, forms of social interaction—in prehistory (as in any other historical period) that are offered, at least in their generic description, for direct empirical (archaeological) observation, and there are

some that are not. The spatial distribution of specific materials or objects—for instance, within a community or between settlements—discloses, however indirectly, certain forms of social interaction that are already in the scope of archaeological attention in one way or another. Variations in the size, plan, or construction of houses and their material content in a settlement are justifiably related to intersections of social relations within a community. Similarly, members of a household unit engage in different categories of relations with each other based on age, sex, and labor divisions, thus creating forms of social interaction. These archaeological examples refer to forms of social interaction, indications of which, as stated above, can be empirically detected (e.g. increased presence of “goods” in a household); and therefore they are rightly used to address aspects of social research. However, speculations—or if you prefer, assumptions—of any scale and intensity still remain at the core of this kind of archaeological interpretation and tentative reconstructions of past social life, including forms of social interaction. Nevertheless, one can easily claim—with a high element of truth— that this constitutes a limitation of our discipline. Whether unavoidable or not, or manageable or not, assumptions of this order exist to pinpoint the difficulties in understanding past social structures and in contextualizing specific explanatory paradigms. So the fundamental question remains as pivotal as ever: how can we approach forms of past social interaction (social relations and processes) and indeed understand their many interconnections while relying only on assumptions, particularly if we sustain and acknowledge that social phenomena are not autonomous and self contained but rather determined by or associated with other phenomena that we often disregard? That said, one may ask: is there a degree of relative (perhaps) autonomy that characterizes some of these very phenomena of social interaction? If yes, one can claim that this could be handled fairly by archaeological constructs, empirically detected and presented in the form of a distribution map of ceramic types or raw

319

AS20.indb 319

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Nikos Efstratiou materials and a statistical diagram with a number of parameters, such as volume or distance, among others; this, in practice, tends to create an illusion of reality that is supposed to refer to social relations but can never be the case. But if we accept “no” as an answer—acknowledging that social phenomena are not autonomous—the way is open for an interesting intellectual journey into a process of social research that shall venture to reveal the social realities of the past (Efstratiou 2014:3). I shall not argue in favor of the former, that is, the view that phenomena of interaction in a society are autonomous and self-contained; in my opinion this would mean that we not only sustain a gross empiricism in archaeology, but also that we concur with the idea that social reality is linear and static and thereby can take the form of measurements and counting, which, I suspect (and hope), is not the case at all for all of us. There is, however, something else that is implicitly even more worrying. It is the indirect acceptance of the validity of a traditional formal logic, which holds that A and B—that is, two social phenomena (or in our case, two archaeological parameters)—are always either the cause or effect of each other (Carchedi 2011:17). Could this provide a satisfactory context for obtaining answers to questions that deal with dynamic elements of past social realities? Could the application of this formal logic measure and explain society’s qualitative changes, which appear in the course of time? On the contrary, I am more inclined toward the suggestion that social research in prehistory—especially when focused on forms of social interaction—should strive to emphasize the dialectic nature of these phenomena and not be constrained—consciously or not—by the recognition of their exclusively formal causal determination and their apparent “cause-and-effect” relationship. This is a point with clear—and sometimes dramatic—archaeological repercussions, upon which I would like to comment briefly. Let me use as an example the entity of social space, which, despite its often self-evident content, remains—or should remain, as I shall try to argue below—open to archaeological debate as far as both its conception and performance are concerned. Social space has a manifold content, with the main question being how we as archaeologists should approach and try to describe it. What, after all, constitutes social space? I choose once again the benefits of a general description: social space is an entity made up of social relations and processes—that is, both social and individual phenomena and their mutuality: “people are considered as members of social groups rather in their individuality, respectively” (Carchedi 2011:14). Thus,

social space does not exist independently of people and the relations between them; and in this sense, social space is fluid and open to continuous change. Under these non-static circumstances, the question arises as to how we define it and how we relate and understand the many parts that comprise it and their interconnections? Are the architectural remains of an Early Neolithic settlement, for example—the plans, numbers or density of houses, presence of open areas, material evidence of activities related to different everyday practices, etc., or the specific arrangements of space-use in the interior, such as cooking features, food remains, or areas of special activities (sleeping or burial)—the starting point for discussing forms of social interaction in the context of a community or its expression (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2013:1)? Similarly, and at another scale, do different types of occupation (tell, flat, or cave sites) relate to stereotypic expressions of social space which a priori are determined by the social relations they house (Perlès 2001:174)? Things are hardly as straightforward as archaeologists wish to present them. Although I concede that statements like these are of key importance for any kind of relevant archaeological reconstruction, I am willing to accept their challenge and the discussion they evoke as hypotheses which have to be tested, emphasizing in particular the need to elaborate on the many dialectics of the specific social contexts in which they are set: the historically specific forms of social reality they constitute in part. How easy it is to accept statements like: “… the very permanence of the (Neolithic) settlement may actually have contributed to making individual differences socially acceptable” (Perlès 2001:199), unless they are followed by at least some hints as to the fluidity of the social phenomena that are involved. I am not saying that archaeologists are unaware of these interconnections between social phenomena in the context of a given social reality. Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, the question remains as to how openly we report these interconnections, and how systematically we attempt to pinpoint them and engage with them in our discussions. I am afraid that the debate that develops in this context is often very short and too aphoristic (Efstratiou 2012:33). To mention another example: quite often the fixed (default?) social units that are thought to be at work in prehistory, like the postulated concept of the “Neolithic household,” presuppose specific, undeviating, and long-lasting expressions of social space and, ultimately, forms of social interaction. This leads to statements like “the spatial promiscuity of the different households … may have been what promoted the desire for differentiation” (Perlès 2001:199). The issue here, in my view, is

320

AS20.indb 320

2/11/18 9:00 PM

21 - Social Interaction in the Farming Communities of Neolithic Greece not whether this suggestion is valid or not, but rather the exuberance and dynamics of the archaeological inquiry into the social relations and phenomena that eventually drive and configure social differentiation in the context of the specific social reality that we study (that is, the Neolithic community); and by “dynamics of the archaeological inquiry” I am referring both to the potentialities of archaeology itself to detect these phenomena empirically in the material record, and also to the inevitability that these very phenomena are offered for observation in a given social reality. And while the former—the chance to detect specific phenomena empirically—is easy to report or manage as it is exclusively about the recovery of data, field practices, and methods of analysis, etc., the latter— that is, the suggestion that there are social phenomena that are not offered for direct detection—constitutes a matter of serious concern and debate. The point that I would like to underline here refers to the benefit, in my opinion, of the dialectics in regard to social research, and more specifically to notions of social reality and social interaction. It is precisely this dialectic nature of the conditions that ultimately pertains to the phenomena of social interaction that ought to be, in my opinion, our focus of attention. For instance, it has been argued that social phenomena are in a constant state of acquiring a form from a realm of potentialities, and they have been described as being always both potential and realized, both determinant and determined, and subject to constant movement and change (Carchedi 2011:7); by “potentialities,” following Carchedi (2011:8), I mean “actually-existing aspects of objective reality” that at any given moment in time are utilized by the group itself, acquire a definite form and are thus realized. This perhaps simplistic (in its initial perception) statement, while undoubtedly to some extent self-evident (who can deny, for instance, that reality is in constant movement?), should be dealt with as a critical reference to forms of social interaction (processes and relations) in prehistory. This real— and in a way, provocative—temporal dimension of a phenomenon (the potential phenomena becoming both realized and opposite) is twofold: it emphasizes the continuous interplay between these two modes (potential vs. realized), setting the limits for archaeology of a direct vis-à-vis indirect archaeological (empirical) observation. One may wonder whether this, in a sense, “direct vs. indirect” detection of social interactions is conditioned ultimately not simply by their chances of surviving in the archaeological record—usually through their material presence—but primarily by an array of potentialities embedded in a historically and socially-specific reality (in this case,

the Neolithic). In other words, how we as archaeologists cope with the suggestion that there are certain social phenomena and forms of social interaction in the Neolithic that are to be apprehended and accounted for in an indirect way; that is, phenomena which are in a state of acquiring their form from a realm of Neolithic potentialities, a process which is likely to be observed only indirectly. What these potentialities and means are, and how they can be detected in the archaeological record, are challenging questions that undoubtedly transcend the self-evident and so should not be treated as such. Let me draw two additional examples from the Neolithic in the hope that they will contribute to this argument. The first refers to the suggestion that the circulation of lithic raw materials, ceramic products, figurines, and consumer goods within a community, in a region, or between distant places—usually presented in the form of a distribution map or a statistical analysis—signifies something beyond an empirically constructed archaeological reality (Efstratiou 2014:3). Does, for example, the simple presence or the volume of dispersion of similar materials or objects in neighboring prehistoric communities convey a meaningful indication of social interaction? Moreover, is there a possibility that under different temporal circumstances or social and historical conditions, two particular parameters—in the above case, distance and volume—can be both the determinant and determined factors of this very same social interaction? Is the qualitative relationship between these two parameters stable and undifferentiated in time? Should we accept this potentially qualitative diversity? Which of the two (distance or volume)—both of which are detected empirically—is an eventuality that we should appraise? My second pertinent example, which I am sure you are familiar with, focuses on the observation that we too readily resort to symbolic explanations when we are unable to explain specific forms of social interaction in terms of direct cause and effect; I am sure that many of you will recall some instances in Greek Neolithic narratives. Quite often, for example, specific ceramic type wares do not appear to serve practical uses or display some unorthodox correlations of numbers, forms, shapes, decorative patterns, or state of preservation (being out of context or found fragmented, etc.). Shall we concede, then, that only formal causal determinations (like those mentioned above) can explain similar social phenomena (processes, relations), which subsequently shape social space on a strictly “cause-and-effect” basis? Or should we invest more in a dialectic logic which suggests that “A and

321

AS20.indb 321

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Nikos Efstratiou B are always both the cause and effect of each other” (Carchedi 2011:18, emphasis added). And if we sustain the former (a straightforward correlation), is it perhaps because of the fact that this kind of causal relationship is simply much closer to a formal archaeological observation, constructed and justified by a standard and acceptable empirical documentation (control) process? We should be cautious when quantitative methods, such as counting in mathematics and statistics, are used exclusively to portray a social reality. I can already hear the counter-argument: “Okay, but this is all we have to base our archaeological reconstruction of past social relations on.” However true, this is only part of the story. The objection here is that, since these parameters usually serve formal logic, they cannot measure or explain qualitative changes and, more importantly, do not allow for the possibility of a contradictory reality. Shall we then accept that anything appearing to take the form of an inconsistency or contradiction in social interaction processes should be treated as a mistake? The answer, I believe, is no, unless of course quantitative sizes—often described as “auxiliary methods” (Carchedi 2011:43)—are at the service of a dialectical logic verification; that is, when they try to describe not a static but a dynamic and contradictory social reality, where the focus is on changes in the social content of phenomena embedded in a historically and socially-specific reality (in our case, the Neolithic). This, I suggest, should be at the core of our archaeological research agenda. Needless to say, of course, I fully acknowledge the challenges of such a venture, not for a moment underestimating the difficulties involved. I would also concede that archaeological frustrations like these are not new, and that remedies are already at hand. They usually take the form of a number of contingent determinants or predominates which aspire to give content to the social phenomena that are engaged in social interaction. I am referring, among other things, to some notions and expressions that are already used but still vaguely defined, like individual decisions, contingent events, cultural norms, and collective identities, which, although they have been employed quite regularly in Neolithic narratives, retain a generic content, often giving the impression that they relish and rely on their generality. In any case, these are concepts which often cause confusion and require clarification. Although this is not the place or the time to expand on this, I would like to use an example and draw your attention to the kind of social analysis that proceeds with a distinction between concepts like social and individual phenomena (relations and processes), and therefore forms of social interaction. This distinction

refers to people who are both individuals and at the same time members of a social group; in Marxist terms, they are concrete and abstract individuals, respectively (Marx 1967 [1867]). Concrete individuals depend on their capacity to differentiate individually and therefore to be unique, while abstract individuals are contingent on their ability to share common social features with other members of a community; a male farmer, with the name X, a member of a family of five, living in a community in northern Greece (individual), and working as a Neolithic farmer (abstract). The primary question here is whether concrete and abstract individuals—to borrow these two terms for a moment—are exclusive to each other in relation to the social phenomena with which they are engaged. In reality the answer is “no” since they can be both, but in analytical terms the answer is “yes”: they are either concrete or abstract. This is because concrete individuals are engaged in individual phenomena, where the emphasis is on relations and processes that are specific, unique, and subjective (the actions he takes in his social life, such as making friends), while abstract individuals are involved in social phenomena, where the emphasis is on the objective conditions under which social relations are carried out (he is a farmer cultivating a piece of land). As a result, concrete individuals are unique and their interactions depend on their individuality, while in the case of abstract individuals the emphasis is on the features they have in common with other group members—for instance, they are all farmers cultivating fields—and in this sense they are not unique but replaceable (Carchedi 2011:29). This, I believe, constitutes a clear distinction for the way we as archaeologists actually choose—or in the requisition of a post-processual doctrine, we often have already predetermined—to conceptualize and address forms of social interactions in the past. If I may venture my own opinion, I concur with the suggestion that social phenomena reproduce themselves through abstract individuals who carry “specific social relations and engage in (those) processes” (land labor) and, therefore, are seen “from the point of view of some common features” (having been farmers) (Carchedi 2011:24), and irrespectively of concrete individuals (Carchedi 2011:35). Although I emphasize that both individual and social phenomena (and their dialectical interplay) constitute two dimensions of the same social reality, it is obvious that the critical question to be asked in relation to the form of social interaction that we address every time is whether the description of a phenomenon carried by a concrete individual—with its apparent subjectivity and specificity—could reveal those social relations,

322

AS20.indb 322

2/11/18 9:00 PM

21 - Social Interaction in the Farming Communities of Neolithic Greece in the context of which both concrete and abstract individuals function in prehistory, and not simply the unique individual relations they develop; and how balanced, as a result, we value both the former and the latter since they both constitute the social space of a Neolithic community. This is a focal question, for it seems that in archaeological reasoning the category of concrete individuals and the description of individual phenomena have won the day. A Final Note In conclusion, what I think we could concur with, every time we try to relate archaeological observations with social interaction in prehistory, is that we are dealing with forms that are fluid, dynamic, and temporal, and therefore in a constant state of change, and that have the power to transform social reality and its basic unit: social phenomena. At the same time, social interaction tends to form part of the volume and intensity of social life, in terms of quantity and intersections of social relations, respectively, and they therefore play a determining role in prehistoric society. I am particularly keen to see—in view of the thoughts expressed in the short theoretical note above —how some of the presuppositions (in the form of some very specific and recurring themes) currently at work in the reconstruction process of the different forms of social space, which I am sure will be discussed in the conference, operate in the Greek Neolithic. References Cited Carchedi, Guglielmo 2011 Behind the Crisis: Marx’s Dialectics of Value and Knowledge. Brill, Leiden.

Efstratiou, Nikos 2012 Early Cypriot Prehistory in the Light of Recent Developments. In Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology: Fifty Years On, edited by Jennifer M. Webb and David Frankel, pp. 33–43. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vol. 137. Paul Åstrőm Főrlag, Uppsala. 2014 Reaching the Island. What Next? Material Life and Socio-historical Processes in Early Cyprus. In Structure, Measurement and Meaning: Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus in Honour of David Frankel, edited by Jennifer M. Webb, pp. 3–11. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vol. 143. Paul Åstrőm Főrlag, Uppsala. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Janusz K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Yiannis Maniatis, Antonio Curci, Stefania Michalopoulou, Anastasia Papathanasiou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti 2013 New Evidence on the Beginning of Farming in Greece: The Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Macedonia (Greece). Antiquity 87:336. Electronic document, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/mentessidi336/, accessed August 8, 2016. Marx, Karl 1967 [1867] Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. International Publishers, New York. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

323

AS20.indb 323

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 22 Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions: Interregional Relations between Thessaly and Macedonia during the Early and Middle Neolithic Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Gazmend Elezi, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Anna Papaioannou, Niki Saridaki, Ioanna Siamidou, Teresa Silva, Eirini Tzemopoulou, and Kostas Kotsakis

Abstract Based on the pottery analysis of sites from central and western Macedonia, it can be argued that there is a close connection between these regions and Thessaly during the Early and Middle Neolithic. However, this wide network of communication may have been remodeled, as manifested in the pottery. For instance, sites like Revenia, Ritini, and Varemenoi Goulon during the Middle Neolithic appear distinct from Paliambela Kolindros. In this paper we shall present data from sites from the areas of Pieria and the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas River, both morphological data and data from petrographic thin section analysis. Keywords Neolithic, pottery, Macedonia, Thessaly, network, communication The last two decades of archaeological investigations in the region of Macedonia, Greece, have revealed a number of sites dating to the Early Neolithic (EN) and Middle Neolithic (MN), covering an existing gap in research into the earlier phases of the Neolithic. As the study of these excavations and their materials progresses, a complex picture arises regarding the interaction of the communities with one another and their environment, and challenging existing chronological frameworks and placing the onset of the Neolithic in Macedonia earlier than previously thought. This paper aims to explore communication between the sites of Macedonia and Thessaly during the EN (6700/6500–5800 B.C.) and MN (5800– 5400/5300 BC) (Andreou et al. 2001:260, Table 1) through pottery analysis by examining the morphological, stylistic, and technological characteristics of vessels. Pottery technology will be further examined by petrographic analysis, which also provides evidence for the mobility of the pots and the exploitation of the

broader environment by local communities. As part of the “Thales-Exploring” research project, we had the rare opportunity to study extensively the ceramic assemblages of many of these newly excavated sites (14 in total), which allows us to discuss the above issues at a much larger scale than was previously feasible. The geographical scope of this study is central and western Macedonia (Figure 1). These areas provide firm evidence of relations with Thessaly, though not always of the same intensity as is suggested by the pottery analysis. Our study focuses on three sites in the area of Pieria: Paliambela Kolindros (Kotsakis and Halstead 2004), Revenia Korinos (Besios and Adaktylou 2006; Besios, Adaktylou, Athanasiadou, Gerofoka, Gagali, and Christakou-Tolia 2005), and Ritini (Besios, Athanasiadou, Noulas, and ChristakouTolia 2005), and two sites in the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas River: Varemenoi Goulon and Paliambela Roditis (Roditis hereafter) (Chondrogianni-Metoki 2004, 2009). The EN and MN periods are represented at all the sites, though not to the same extent. Radiocarbon dates, available for three of the sites discussed in this paper, confirm habitation throughout the EN and MN at Paliambela Kolindros (6600–5400 cal B.C.; Maniatis et al. 2015), and at Varemenoi Goulon (6430–5670 B.C.; Chondrogianni-Metoki 2009:453), while Roditis was inhabited for a shorter period of time (6220–5900 B.C.; Chondrogianni-Metoki 2009:457). The other two sites, Revenia and Ritini, are dated based on the morphological and stylistic characteristics of pottery to the EN–MN and late EN/ early MN, respectively. According to the radiocarbon dates, the beginning of the Neolithic period in Thessaly is placed approximately at the 6500 B.C. (Perlès 2001, Reingruber and Thissen 2005:298–299, 2009:753–754) or a bit earlier and, until recently, appeared to precede the beginning of the Neolithic in Macedonia. New 14C dates from northern Greece chronologically link central (Maniatis et al. 2015) and western Macedonia (Karamitrou-

324

AS20.indb 324

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Figure 1. Map of EN and MN sites in Thessaly and Macedonia. Mendesidi et al. 2013) with Thessaly. Since the EN and MN periods are much better known in Thessaly, research has resulted in the further partition of the periods into three sub-phases (Reingruber and Thissen 2005:298–299, 2009:753–754). However, it is too early to adopt a similar partition for Macedonia on the basis of the few available dates, although the situation is rapidly changing. The discussion in this paper will not, therefore, follow the tripartite Thessalian periodization, but instead will be organized by periods with more loosely defined sub-phases resulting in Early EN, Later EN/MN, and MN. Nonetheless, the absolute dates in Thessaly and Macedonia point toward more or less contemporaneous evidence in these areas based on pottery, providing a firm basis for the discussion that follows. The Earliest Phase of the Early Neolithic The earliest assemblages that we have studied, dating from 6600 to around 6400 B.C., come from two closely located sites in Pieria: Paliambela Kolindros (Papadakou 2011; Papadakou et al. 2015) and Revenia Korinos (14C dating currently in progress; Papaioannou

2011; Silva 2011; Urem-Kotsou, Papaioannou, and Papadakou 2012; Urem-Kotsou, Papaioannou, Silva, Adaktylou, and Besios 2015). The pottery of this phase mostly lacks decoration; very few decorated sherds may belong to this period, which come from the upper levels of the contexts in question in Paliambela. The monochrome phase that marks the beginning of the Neolithic in Greece was initially recognized in Thessaly (Theocharis 1967; Wijnen 1981), but its existence as a chronological horizon has been extensively debated and is still questioned by many scholars (see Bonga, this volume). The current identification of monochrome in early contexts in Pieria suggests that it might be a substantial common phenomenon, at least for some settlements. In Thessaly, this does not appear as a homogenous phenomenon, but varies among sites regarding its specific characteristics (Dimoula 2014). Common morphological traits of the ceramic assemblages accentuate the possibility of contact between these regions, especially when the rapid expansion of pottery technology came to dominate the EN landscape. The shapes of the early vessels in Pieria, as in Thessaly, are mostly simple, open forms, with

325

AS20.indb 325

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al. spherical, hemispherical, or conical shapes or vertical walls, and medium size, varying generally from 18 to 30 cm in diameter (Figure 2). Closed vessels are very rare and are mostly limited to hole-mouthed vessels and the occasional examples of askoid vessels (Figure 2, top). The bases of the vessels are generally flat, but discoid and ring bases are not unknown. Occasionally vessels bear perforated lugs. The uneven walls of the vessels and the lack of control in firing, visible in the clouded surfaces and the often-black cores, point to the variously successful attempts of the early potters to control this new material. Within the rather simple repertoire of shapes, the pots themselves are rarely identical to each other, exhibiting a notable lack of standardization in the produced result. However, there has been no indication of a non-ceramic phase, and pottery appears as a consolidated technology from the earliest levels at Paliambela. Consumption and display appear to be the main functions of the pottery, as Björk (1995) has noted for Achilleion in Thessaly and Vitelli (1989) for southern Greece. There is no indication of use over fire or otherwise particularly inferred vessel use (e.g. long-term storage). There is, however, one feature that is probably use related, and that is the presence of a white coating/slip on the interior of some open vessels

(Figure 3). The preliminary results of the chemical analysis indicate that it could have been derived from bone (Stratis 2015), as has been proposed for EN assemblages in the Balkans (Vieugué et al. 2015). This possibly could have served as a protection for the surfaces, but further analysis is needed to correlate this phenomenon with actual use patterns. Although the early pottery in Pieria shares similar morphological characteristics, it also exhibits certain differences regarding technology and style. At both Revenia and Paliambela the vessel surfaces are well burnished and only occasionally slipped. However, in Revenia pots are mainly very light colored, while in Paliambela a wider range of coloration—mostly dark—is exhibited. The same phenomenon between closely located sites is also observed in the Aliakmonas area (western Macedonia) in the advanced EN phase (see below). Differences between these two early sites are further underlined by the results of the analytical study of pottery technology. Ceramic petrography, refiring tests, and geological prospection suggest two different modes in ceramic production (Dimoula et al. 2014; Saridaki, Kotsakis, Urem-Kotsou, and Chrysostomou 2014; Saridaki, Kotsakis, Urem-Kotsou, Papadakou, and Papaioannou in press). At Paliambela

Figure 2. EN vessels: (a) Paliambela Kolindros; (b) Revenia Korinos. 326

AS20.indb 326

2/11/18 9:00 PM

22 - Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions…

Figure 3. White slip on the interior of vessels: (a) Revenia Korinos ; (b) Paliambela Kolindros. 327

AS20.indb 327

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al. (Figure 4a, on Color Plate VI), early pottery production is characterized by the manipulation of a variety of mainly non-calcareous raw material sources, located in either close proximity or more distant areas up to 5 km from the site, while the pots are often fired in uneven firing conditions. At Revenia (Figure 4b, on Color Plate VI), on the contrary, ceramic production is one-dimensional, using a very limited number of mostly calcareous clay sources located in the site’s vicinity and persisting in the production of a certain buff ware, supported by the achievement of homogeneous firing conditions. At both sites, a few samples indicate a certain level of interaction, not only between the two but also with settlements in a broader area yet to be identified. A phyllite fabric (Figure 4d, on Color Plate VI) was identified and interpreted as deriving from an area located at least 25 km away from the sites in the western part of the region of Pieria. This was also the case in Thessaly, where the analytical study of the pottery from a series of EN sites has suggested different scales of interaction among settlements: either within short distances or more extensively (Dimoula 2014). In contrast to the predominantly mineral-tempered Thessalian EN pottery (Dimoula 2014), the early pottery in Macedonia is also characterized by varied tempering practices, such as the addition of organic material (Figure 4a, on Color Plate VI) or shell particles into the clay paste. The latter is definitely related to the sites’ immediate proximity to the sea, but the former indicates the development of a distinct technological practice. The coexistence of different trends in pottery technology including clay fabrics, vessel coloration, and the overall style at the sites that are geographically close to each other, and thus share a similar geological environment, is also observed in Macedonia in the next EN phase. The Late Early Neolithic to Early Middle Neolithic The next phase of the EN in Thessalian terms will be presented together with the last phase of the early and the beginning of the MN period for two reasons. Firstly, despite the recent intensive work on absolute dating, a refined correlation of the excavated settlements and their phases has not yet been achieved due to the fact that many of the dating projects are still ongoing. Secondly, the pottery itself, and the material culture in general, do not exhibit a visible break, but rather a gradual process of change while maintaining continuity. This period is represented at all our sites, including Paliambela

(Maniatis et al. 2015; Papadakou 2011; Papadakou et al. 2015), Revenia (Papaioannou 2011; Silva 2011; Urem-Kotsou, Papaioannou, and Papadakou 2012; Urem-Kotsou, Papaioannou, Silva, Adaktylou, and Besios 2015), Ritini in the area of Pieria and Roditis (Intze 2011), and Varemenoi in the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas River (Chondrogianni-Metoki 2004, 2009). One of the most prominent features of the pottery in this period is the surface treatment of the vessels. The use of slips proliferates at all sites, mainly red and brown (Figure 5), but to a different extent within each site. Thus, some sites show a strong preference for slipped vessels, while at other sites it is still a prominent feature, but to a lesser extent (Table 1). Furthermore, there is a gradual increase in decorated pottery, especially painted decoration. Again, certain differences between the settlements appear. In the area of Pieria, at Revenia and Ritini, there is a remarkable production of painted vessels, whereas in neighboring Paliambela and in Varemenoi Goulon and Roditis in the Aliakmonas area, painted pottery is scarcer (Table 1). The painted decoration consists almost exclusively of red paint directly on the burnished light colored surfaces, and in a few cases on a white slip (Figure 6, on Color Plate VII, and Figure 7, on Color Plate VIII). This painted ware relates both areas of Macedonia closely to Thessaly, though not all to the same extent. It is noteworthy that decoration with white paint on red slip is present in three out of five sites in a very small number, a feature also encountered at sites further north, such as Nea Nikomedeia (Yiouni 1996) or Giannitsa B, where it is the main type of decoration (Chrysostomou 1997). This ware also appears in Thessaly, though not as the primary type of painted decoration. The other characteristic decorative feature is the “impresso” technique, made by the potter’s nail or a pointed instrument pressed onto the wet clay surface. As in the case of Thessaly (Dimoula 2014:48–49, 58–59), Impresso ware appears differentially in the sites of Macedonia. We observed a strong preference in Paliambela and the other sites in Pieria, whereas in Varemenoi and Roditis it is quite rare (Table 1, Figure 8). Finally, a small number of sherds with plastic decoration is present at all sites except for Roditis (Table 1). Plastic decoration consists mostly of small knobs and bands, but there are also isolated examples of anthropomorphic plastic decoration in Pieria (Figure 9). EN Black-Topped ware, known from Thessaly (Reingruber 2008), was identified at Roditis in small quantities (Figure 10c), which further relates the area of the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas River to Thessaly.

328

AS20.indb 328

2/11/18 9:00 PM

22 - Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions… Table 1. Percentages of slipped and decorated pottery within total assemblage.

Decorated Painted PotImpresso Plastic Pottery tery Decoration Decoration Paliambela 19.9% 3.1% .7% 1.9% .1% Revenia 53.2% 11.9% 10.5% 1.4% .03% Ritini 30.2% 16.7% 14.7% 1.7% .1% Roditis 9.4% 1.3% .8% .4% 0% Varemenoi Goulon 71.6% 1.4% .9% .2% .2% Note: All percentages refer to the total of the ceramic assemblage excluding uncertain sherds. EN/MN Site

Red Slip

During this entire period the vessels were mostly open-shaped, although the morphological variety increased. Closed-shaped vessels, with or without necks, were now regularly present and became more frequent in the MN (Figure 10e–f). There was an increase in more complex shapes, such as vessels with a high foot or multiple legs, as the late EN advanced to the MN. Vessels were of small and medium size, with rare perforated lugs and ring or flat bases, and they generally displayed noticeable morphological similarities with Thessaly. It appears that for a long time after its appearance, pottery still was not used regularly to fulfill everyday needs, such as cooking and large-scale storage, and this is likely to be true also for the early MN. Some sites may be treated as exceptions, such as Ritini, where at least some pots were used over fire, while in Paliambela the first large storage vessels might belong to this period. Generally, we can note similarities with Thessaly in both the techniques used and the motifs and their arrangement on the vessels. The morphology of the vessels, too, accords with this observation, not only in the overall shapes but also in the details: the often rolled rims, so characteristic of Thessalian pottery of the period; the perforated lugs; and more importantly the variety of complexly made bases, such as ring and raised bases (for construction details of the pottery from Sesklo in Thessaly, see Kotsakis 1983). To this we also must add the existence of oval or rectangular bases, a feature also known from this period in Thessaly (Figure 10g). Differences between the settlements within these areas, even those neighboring one another, continue, but strong similarities between some of them have also been attested. The combination of macroscopic and analytical studies of pottery from the sites in Pieria has shown that the wares and fabrics of Revenia and Ritini are rather similar to each other, while the pottery from Paliambela remains different. More specifically, in both Revenia and Ritini a

limited number of raw material sources continued to be in use, as was the case during the previous period. Change is detected in the processing of raw materials, which now included sieving/levigation for the increasing production of fine fabrics, along with the generalized practice of clay mixing. Occasionally, tempering with organic material and shells is still observed. However, it appears that there is no specific correlation between the decorated wares and the fabric groups. The above results show that during this phase ancient potters had already defined their preferred raw material sources and instead focused their interest/experimentation on different manufacturing and decoration techniques (Saridaki, Kotsakis, Urem-Kotsou, and Chrysostomou 2014; Saridaki, Kotsakis, Urem-Kotsou, Papadakou, and Papaioannou in press). Although the analytical study of the pottery from this phase at Paliambela is still at an early stage, several samples analyzed by petrography indicate continuity from the earlier phase in terms of raw material choices (see Figure 4e, on Color Plate VI). This preliminary observation, along with the certain stylistic differences of pottery in relation to Revenia and Ritini, clearly distinguish Paliambela from the other sites. Importantly, during this period specific fabrics can be interpreted as potential imports from other sites within the region of Pieria, as well as from Thessaly. In Revenia three fabrics have an off-site origin. In Ritini three fabrics are interpreted as imports, as well. One of these fabrics at Ritini is connected to northeastern Thessaly (see Figure 4c, on Color Plate VI), while a fabric with volcanic rocks possibly derives from the area of Paliambela, as is the case for the related Revenia fabric. Generally it can be argued that the ceramic categories that circulated involved mainly Red-Slipped bowls and, to a lesser extent, decorated pottery, such as the example of the Impresso sherd from Revenia, which possibly derives from Thessaly.

329

AS20.indb 329

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Figure 5. Red-slipped vessels: (a) Paliambela Kolindros; (b) Ritini; (c) Revenia Korinos; (d) Varemenoi Goulon.

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al.

330

AS20.indb 330

2/11/18 9:00 PM

22 - Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions…

Figure 8. Impresso decoration: (a) Paliambela Kolindros; (b) Varemenoi Goulon; (c) Revenia Korinos; (d) Ritini. The analytical study of ceramic production at the sites in the Aliakmonas River area is still in progress, but, as evidenced in the colors of the vessels, differences in the exploitation of raw material sources between Roditi and Varemenoi must also be notable. At the site of Varemenoi, potters exploited a variety of clay sources from the vicinity of the settlement, evidenced also in the variety of vessel colors (as is the case at Paliambela), while at nearby Roditis fewer sources were used in pottery manufacture, showing again an emphasis on the production of very light colored pots (as at Revenia). All these differentiations indicate different perceptions of the materials, techniques, and final appearance of the pots among early Neolithic communities that must have encountered each other. The Middle Neolithic Among the sites studied, the more advanced phases of the MN are represented only at Varemenoi Goulon and Paliambela Kolindros. The data from the pottery study is still being processed, and so an

extensive discussion is not yet possible. However, some observations can be made based on preliminary results. The settlement of Varemenoi Goulon exhibits a strong resemblance to the pottery of Thessaly (Figure 11), as does the neighboring site of Servia (Chondrogianni-Metoki 2009; Ridley and Wardle 1979; Wardle and Vlachodimitropoulou 2000). Both the shapes and the motifs (i.e. the “flame” pattern and Painted/Scraped wares), are very characteristic of the pottery in Thessaly, as known from examples at Sesklo (Kotsakis 1983), Otzaki (Milojčić-von Zumbuch and Milojčić 1971), and other Thessalian sites (Demoule et al. 1988, Gallis 1992). These wares appear to be the ones that circulated outside the borders of Thessaly in western and central Macedonia, as shown by the cases of Servia and Varemenoi, where Thessalian wares predominate. In Paliambela Kolindros, sherds with characteristic Thessalian “flame”-pattern motifs (Figure 12e, on Color Plate IX) and “Scraped” ware are also found, but they are rare. In addition, there are a limited number of vessels present in the assemblage that are presumably imported to the settlement from the south (Figure 12d,

331

AS20.indb 331

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al.

Figure 9. Plastic decoration: (a) Revenia Korinos; (b) Varemenoi Goulon. on Color Plate IX). Stylistically these appear to belong to Chaeronea ware (Wace and Thompson 1912). An equally restricted number of Chaeronea pottery, almost identical to the Paliambela examples and presumably imported to the site, is found in Mesimeriani Toumba to the east of Paliambela (across the Thermaic Gulf) (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002:531, Figure 8). However, elements associated with northern pottery traditions also occur at Paliambela, such as barbotine and White-on-Red decorations, though in very small numbers (Figures 12b and 12c, respectively, on Color Plate IX). It is also worth mentioning that in both Varemenoi and Paliambela, there is Red-Slipped pottery with black painted decoration of organic origin, known as bitumen and derived from birch bark (Mitkidou et al. 2008). This type of paint is associated with northern Macedonia—most notably the site of Apsalos in Almopia (Vouzara 2009; Urem-Kotsou et al. 2014), where painted decoration is almost exclusively restricted to bitumen (Figure 13, on Color Plate X). This allows us to conclude that while the main interaction of these two settlements, especially Varemenoi Goulon (and western Macedonia), was with Thessaly, they also appear to have participated in networks that stretched to the north.

A small quantity of painted pottery in the Thessalian style, with characteristic reddish paint on the light cultured surface, is also found at the site of Stavroupolis in Thessaloniki (Urem-Kotsou and Gioura 2004:274, Figures 1.1–1.7) and further north in Rizari in Edessa (Chrysostomou 2008:30, Figure 7). Rizari seems to be the northernmost settlement where the Thessalian style was incorporated into the local pottery tradition, judging from the few examples. “Scraped” ware, however, has not yet been found in these settlements. The interdisciplinary study of the characteristic wares of the MN period in Thessaly has indicated that the Red-Slipped ware was generally produced locally, while the “Scraped” ware, which required a standardized production mode, was characterized by limited circulation within the northern Thessalian plain (Pentedeka 2008). Nonetheless, the above-mentioned wares (Red-Slipped, Painted/Scraped) appear to be the ones that also circulated outside the borders of Thessaly in western and central Macedonia. This is clearly evidenced in the case of Servia, where Thessalian wares predominate (Ridley and Wardle 1979), as well as in Varemenoi. The pottery from the settlements of this period in central Macedonia certainly

332

AS20.indb 332

2/11/18 9:00 PM

22 - Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions…

Figure 10. Morphology of the Late EN–Early MN vessels: (a) Ritini; (b) Revenia Korinos; (c, d) Roditis Paliambela; (e, f) closed-shaped vessels of the late EN and early MN; (g) bases characteristic of the late EN and early MN. show relationships with Thessaly, but perhaps not to the same extent as the sites in the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas. Additionally, a certain number of vessels appears to have circulated between the northern and central regions in Macedonia, such as the Red-Slipped bowls from the area of Aridea found in Stavroupolis (Urem-Kotsou and Dimitriades 2004), or from other sites found in the settlement of Apsalos in Aridea (see Figure 4f, on Color Plate VI) (Saridaki 2011; Saridaki, Kotsakis, Urem-Kotsou, and Chrysostomou 2014; Saridaki, Kotsakis, UremKotsou, Papadakou, and Papaioannou in press). This

general trend indicates that during the MN, networks of circulation or exchange of certain wares operated at a regional and also interregional level. Conclusions The aim of this paper was to examine the connections of early farmers in western and central Macedonia with those in Thessaly, as evidenced by the contemporaneous ceramic traditions that developed for almost 1,000 years in both regions. A detailed study of pottery morphology and technology

333

AS20.indb 333

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al.

Figure 11. MN decorated vessels from Varemenoi Goulon. from several sites shows strong similarities between the pottery from Macedonia and that from Thessaly from the onset of the period throughout the EN and MN. Through time, however, some differences between central and western Macedonia are observed regarding this issue. Pottery from the settlements in

the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas River displays very strong resemblance to the pottery of Thessaly throughout the periods examined in this paper. The sites in central Macedonia show a more complex pattern of relations, which suggests certain variability in the way the communities in Macedonia shared

334

AS20.indb 334

2/11/18 9:00 PM

22 - Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions… elements with the Thessalian pottery traditions. In Pieria, pottery from some settlements, like Revenia and Ritini, clearly resembles Thessalian painted ware, such as the pottery from Prodromos in western Thessaly (Chourmouziadis 1971), and in general displays more common features with Thessaly than with other nearby settlements. Others further north, like Paliambela and Stavroupolis, exhibit elements of Thessalian pottery that are visible throughout these periods, but they incorporated the elements in a more selective way, developing their own discernable pottery tradition. On the basis of style, both areas also appear to have been associated with the northern part of Macedonia, though perhaps this is less so for the Aliakmonas Valley than for central Macedonia. The strong resemblance of pottery from the settlements in the middle reaches of the Aliakmonas to the Thessalian pottery styles has been related to the relatively easy communication with Thessaly through the Sarantaporos Pass. However, the imports from Thessaly to the settlements in Pieria also testify to the interaction between communities in central Macedonia with Thessaly. Nonetheless, differences between the settlements in central Macedonia regarding the incorporation of some Thessalian pottery traditions into the local pottery suggest that this exchange might not have been related only to the ease of communication across the landscape, but also to deliberate choices of each community. These cultural choices are also seen in the more local differentiation in style and pottery technology that can be seen in the communities in both central and western Macedonia. As we have seen in both areas, some of the closely located settlements display pronounced differences regarding their ceramic style that easily distinguishes them at the local level, although they must have encountered each other, at the very least, when moving across the landscape to fulfill various everyday tasks. This is further supported by a petrographic analysis of the pottery from Pieria, which provides evidence not only of the mobility of the pots as finished products, but also of the movement of people in the broader landscape for the procurement of clay. The selection and collection of clay for pot-making might have been combined with other activities that would engage the people with their broader environment—enhancing also the interaction with one another and with members of different communities—in addition to the activities related to more distant places, such as the exploitation of woodland resources. The mountainous zone in the western part of the Pieria is rich in such resources, which must have been exploited at least as a source of raw materials for the production of tars and pitches.

The use of birch bark tar and pine pitch is testified for the mending and decoration of pottery in Pieria. Pots made of clay originating in the western part of Pieria have been identified in Revenia and Paliambela by petrographic analysis, which testifies to the interaction of the settlements in the eastern and western parts of the area. The patterns of interaction between Thessaly and Macedonia display certain changes through time, as evidenced by the mobility of the pots as finished products. During the early phase of the Neolithic, interaction on an intraregional rather than an interregional level is suggested by the petrographic study of the pottery from Pieria. In the later phases of the EN, pottery traveled further on an interregional level (imports from Thessaly), while in the MN, vessels traveled even farther distances. A similar pattern of networking related to pottery has been suggested for Thessaly (see also Pentedeka, this volume). Placing the pottery into the wider networking context, it generally conforms with the broader patterns of the exchange network of other raw materials and finished products, such as, for example, lithics and shell (Spondylus and Glycymeris) and stone ornaments, which appear to have traveled longer distances in advanced Neolithic periods. Pottery, however, is a form of material culture directly related to everyday practices and mainly produced locally for local consumption. Vessels certainly provide evidence of interaction with distant places, but perhaps most importantly, pot-making—when considered in its local landscape—provides more nuanced understandings of the movements of people and their interaction with each other. Acknowledgments We would like to warmly thank Prof. A. Koroneos, N. Kipouros, and A. Stamatiadis for their technical support in the preparation of thin sections. Giorgos Toufexis is thanked for help with the details on Thessalian pottery. We are also greatly indebted to the excavators F. Adaktylou, A. Athanasiadou, M. Bessios, and A. Chondrogianni-Metoki for allowing the study of pottery from their excavations and for their readiness in providing all the necessary information, and to Ph. Stefanou for help in producing the map. This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) – Research Funding Program: Thales, Investing in Knowledge Society through the European Social Fund.

335

AS20.indb 335

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al. References Cited Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 2001 The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. In Aegean Prehistory: A Review, edited by Tracey Cullen, pp. 259–327. American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. Besios, Mathaios, and Foteini Adaktylou 2006 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός στα «Ρεβένια» Κορινού. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):357–366. Besios, Mathaios, Foteini Adaktylou, Athina Athanasiadou, Eleni Gerofoka, Katerina Gagali and Maria Christakou-Tolia. 2005 Ανασκαφές Βόρειας Πιερίας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 17(2003):435–441. Besios, Mathaios, Athina Athanasiadou, Kostas Noulas and Maria Christakou-Tolia 2005 Ανασκαφές τον Αγωγό Ύδρευσης Βόρειας Πιερίας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 17(2003):451-457. Björk, Claude 1995 Early Pottery in Greece: A Technological and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleon Thessaly. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vol. 115. Paul Åstrőm Főrlag, Jonsered. Chondrogianni-Metoki, Areti 2004 Αλιάκμων 2000–2002: Σωστική Ανασκαφή σε δυο Οικισμούς της Αρχαιότερης και Μέσης Νεολιθικής Περιόδου. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 16(2002):557–570. 2009 Αλιάκμων 1985–2005. Η Αρχαιολογική Έρευνα στην Περιοχή της Τεχνητής Λίμνης Πολυφύτου (Κοιλάδα μέσου ρου του Αλιάκμονα), Αποτελέσματα και Προοπτικές. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace, 20 Years:449-461. Chourmouziadis, Giorgos 1971 Η Διακεκοσμημένη Κεραμεική της Αρ­ χαιοτέρας Νεολιθικής Περιόδου εις την Θεσσαλίαν. Archaiologiki Ephimeris:166–187. Chrysostomou, Anastasia 2008 Αρχαία Έδεσσα. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Chrysostomou, Panikos 1997 Ο Νεολιθικός Οικισμός Γιαννιτσά Β. Νέα Ανασκαφικά Δεδομένα. The Archaeo-

logical Work of Macedonia and Thrace 7(1993):135–145. Demoule, Jean-Paul, Kostas Gallis and Laurens Manolakakis 1988 Transition entre les Cultures Néolithiques de Sesklo et de Dimini: Les Catégories Céramiques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 112:1–58. Dimoula, Anastasia 2014 Πρώιμη Κεραμική Τεχνολογία και Παρα­ γωγή: Το Παράδειγμα της Θεσσαλίας. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Artistotle University of Thessaloniki. Dimoula, Anastasia, Niki Saridaki, Anna Papaioannou, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, and Kostas Kotsakis 2014 Mobile Pots: Regional Interaction during the Neolithic Period in Northern Greece. Paper presented at the international conference “Northern Greece and Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic Period: An Interaction Zone,” 26–29 June, Thessaloniki, Greece. Gallis, Kostas 1992 Άτλας Προϊστορικών Οικισμών της Ανα­ τολικής Θεσσαλικής Πεδιάδας. Society of Historical Research of Thessaly, Larisa. Grammenos, Dimitrios V., and Stavros Kotsos 2002 Ανασκαφή στον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό «Μεσημεριανή Τούμπα» Τριλόφου Ν. Θεσσαλονίκης, Ανασκαφικές Περίοδοι 1992, 1994–1996, 2001. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Intze, Zoi 2011 Ο Νεολιθικός Οικισμός της Ρητίνης Πιερίας. Η Κεραμική από το Μεγάλο Λάκκο. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Janus K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Yannis Maniatis, Antonio Curci, Stefania Michalopoulou, Athanassia Papathanasiou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti 2013 New Evidence on the Beginning of Farming in Greece: The Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Macedonia (Greece). Antiquity 87:336. Electronic document, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/mentessidi336/, accessed May 24, 2016. Kotsakis, Kostas 1983 Κεραμεική Τεχνολογία και Κεραμεική Διαφοροποίηση: Προβλήματα της Γραπτής

336

AS20.indb 336

2/11/18 9:00 PM

22 - Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions… Κεραμεικής της Μέσης Νεολιθικής Εποχής του Σέσκλου. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Kotsakis, Kostas, and Paul Halstead 2004 Ανασκαφή στα Νεολιθικά Παλιάμπελα Κόλινδρος. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 16(2002):407– 415. Maniatis, Yannis, Kostas Kotsakis, and Paul Halstead 2015 Nέες Ραδιοχρονολογήσεις της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής στη Μακεδονία. Παλιάμπελα Κολινδρού. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 25(2011):149-156. Milojčić-von Zumbusch, Johanna, and Vladimir Milojčić 1971 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraummes Vol. 10. Dr. Rudolf Habelt , Bonn. Mitkidou, Sofia, Evaggelia Dimitrakoudi, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Despina Papadopoulou , Kostas Kotsakis , John A. Stratis, Ioulia StephanidouStephanatou 2008 Organic Residue Analysis of Neolithic Pottery from North Greece. Microchemica Acta 160(4):493–498. Papadakou, Trisevgeni 2011 Η Κεραμεική της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής από τη Θέση Παλιάμπελα Κολίνδρου. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Papadakou, Trisevgeni, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, and Kostas Kotsakis 2015 Κεραμεική της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής από τα Παλιάμπελα Κολίνδρου. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 25(2011):157-162. Papaioannou, Anna 2011 H Κεραμεική από τους Λάκκους 7 και 11 της Πρώϊμης Νεολιθικής Θέσης Ρεβενίων Κορινού. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pentedeka, Areti 2008 Δίκτυα Ανταλλαγής της Κεραμικής κατά τη Μέση και Νεότερη Νεολιθική στη Θεσσαλία. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/ record/110203?ln=en, accessed October 11, 2015.

Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reingruber, Agathe 2008 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien: 2. Das Frühe und das Beginnende Mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte Transägäischer Beziehungen. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 35. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Reingruber, Agathe, and Laurens Thissen 2005 14C Database for the Aegean Catchment (Eastern Greece, Southern Balkans and Western Turkey) 10.000–5500 cal BC. In How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian–European Relations from the Second Half of the Seventh through the First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC, International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 295–327. BYZAS 2. Zero Produksiyon, Ankara. 2009 Depending on 14C Data: Chronological Frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 51(2):751–770. Ridley, Cressida, and Ken A. Wardle 1979 Rescue Excavations at Servia 1971–1973: A Preliminary Report. The Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 74:185–230. Saridaki, Niki 2011 Άψαλος-Γραμμή: Η Ανάλυση της Κεραμι­ κής υπό το Πρίσμα της Πετρογραφίας. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Saridaki, Niki, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka UremKotsou, and Anastasia Chrysostomou 2014 Άψαλος-Γραμμή: Τα Πρώτα Αποτελέσμα­ τα της Ανάλυσης της Κεραμικής της Μέσης Νεολιθικής Περιόδου. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 24(2010):81–86. Saridaki, Niki, Kostas Kotsakis, Dushka UremKotsou, Trisevgeni Papadakou, and Anna Papaioannou in press Pottery production practices during the Neolithic in Pieria, Macedonia (Northern Greece). In press. In Silvia Amicone, S. Patrick Quinn, Miljana Radivojević, Miroslav Marić, and Neda Mircović-Marić

337

AS20.indb 337

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Dushka Urem-Kotsou et al. (eds.). Tracing pottery making recipes in the Balkans, 6th – 4th millennium BC. Archeopress. Silva, Teresa 2011 Early Neolithic Pottery from Revenia. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Stratis, John 2015 White Slip on Neolithic Pots. Paper presented at the workshop “Exploitation of Resources in the Neolithic Period in Northern Greece: Material Culture and Environment,” 13 March, Thessaloniki, Greece. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1967 Η Αυγή της Θεσσαλικής Προϊστορίας: Αρχή και Πρώιμη Εξέλιξη της Νεολιθικής. Filarkhaios Society of Volos, Volos. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, and Sarantis Dimitriades 2004 Η Tεχνολογία της Kεραμικής του Nεο­ λιθικού Oικισμού της Σταυρούπολης: Nέες Παρατηρήσεις και Συμπεράσματα. In Dimitrios V. Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: Μέρος ΙΙ (1998–2003), pp. 305–337. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, and Evlambia Gioura 2004 Η Κεραμεική των Νέων Ανασκαφών. In Dimitrios V. Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: Μέρος ΙΙ (1998–2003), pp. 219–304. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anna Papaioannou, and Trisevgeni Papadakou 2012 Νεολιθική Κεραμική στην Πιερία. In Οι Αρχαιολόγοι Μιλούν για τη Βόρεια Πιερία, pp. 39–47. Festival of Olympos, Katerini. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anna Papaioannou, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Niki Saridaki, and Zoi Intze 2014 Pottery and Stylistic Boundaries: Early and Middle Neolithic Pottery in Macedonia. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula,

pp. 505–517. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anna Papaioannou, Teresa Silva, Foteini Adaktylou, and Manthos Besios 2015 H Πρώϊμη και Μέση Νεολιθική Θέση «Ρεβένια» Κορινού. Τα Πρώτα Απο­ τελέσματα από τη Μελέτη της Κερα­μεικής. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 25(2011):163-172. Vieugué, Julien, Laura Salanova, Martin Regert, Sigrid Mirabaud, Anne-Solenn Le Hȏ, and Éric Laval 2015 The Consumption of Bone Powder in the Early Neolithic Societies of Southeastern Europe: Evidence of a Diet Stress? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(2):495– 511. Vitelli, Karen D. 1989 Were Pots First Made for Foods? Doubts from Franchthi. World Archaeology 21(1):17–29. Vouzara, Garyfallia 2009 Άψαλος: Η Κεραμική της Τομής ΙΓ και η Κεραμική με Κόκκινο Επίχρισμα των Ορυγμάτων του Νεολιθικού Οικισμού. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Wace, Alan, John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wardle, Kenneth A., and V. Vlachodimitropoulou 2000 Ανασκαφή Σερβίων Κοζάνης 1971–73: Αποτελέσματα. In The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 12 (1998):543–556. Wijnen, Mies 1981 The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo: An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 14. Leiden University Press, Leiden. Yiouni, Paraskevi 1996 The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. In Nea Nikomedeia: I. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, Directed by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage, edited by Kenneth A. Wardle, pp. 55–193. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 25. The British School at Athens, London.

338

AS20.indb 338

2/11/18 9:00 PM

- 23 Pottery Exchange Networks Under the Microscope: The Case of Neolithic Thessaly Areti Pentedeka

Abstract Thessaly, situated in the heart of the Greek mainland, comprises a diverse landscape, combining mountain formations, flat plains, river valleys, lacustrine environments, and coastland in harmony. A rich and rather uniform pottery production characterizes the entire region throughout the Neolithic period, forming a robust typology that has heavily influenced our view of the Neolithic of central and northern Greece. A large-scale analytical program, based on ceramic petrography and including published results of older chemical and petrographic analyses, investigated coarse- and fineware potting traditions and connectivity within Thessaly during the Middle and Late Neolithic. The pottery examined derived from a large number of settlements in Thessaly and combined excavation and surface/survey contexts. A number of production centers, most frequently warespecific, was detected, while the parallel activity of different exchange networks and the variability of the distribution patterns highlighted the complexity of this connectivity and exposed substantial interregional diversification within Thessaly. Keywords exchange networks, pottery, Thessaly, Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, petrographic analysis Pottery Exchange Networks under the Microscope: Introducing the Methodology The study of exchange in Neolithic Greece has received little attention in comparison to, for example, pottery typology or figurine studies. Most of the relevant literature focuses on the circulation and distribution of raw materials used for the production of stone tools, and in particular obsidian (e.g. Karimali 2009, Perlès 1990). In effect, it was the search for the ancient obsidian sources in the spirit of New Archaeology that launched the discussion on exchange

in Neolithic Greece (Renfrew 1972:440–475; Renfrew et al. 1965). Catherine Perlès (1992), in the (so far) unique review on systems of exchange in Neolithic Greece, examined almost all the artifact categories, including excavation finds that are usually found in large quantities, like pottery and lithics, as well as rare finds (shell or stone ornaments, stone vases, stone seals and ear-studs, metal objects, and marble figurines). This review is not without problems, although it is undisputedly important, as it presents all the different organizations of patterns of exchange as they were recognized in the archaeological record at the time of its publication. With regard to pottery, the main argument was that Neolithic pottery did not circulate, and when it did, it concerned only highly decorated finewares, which acted as rare goods. In her response to Perlès, Vitelli (1993) highlighted some attributes she considered important for and specific to pottery production and distribution, for instance the need to view monochrome wares as equally significant to the decorated ones, to accept that the knowledge of firing is specialized, or to take into account the specific excavation context when characterizing an artifact as being of utilitarian or non-utilitarian use. In a later paper co-authored by Perlès and Vitelli (1999), craft specialization and exchange were approached within a social, rather than a purely economic, framework. The dynamic of social organization was emphasized, especially with regard to pottery production and craft specialization; thus, this comprehensive review revealed the diversity of exchange practices and laid the groundwork for technology-sensitive approaches to exchange (e.g. Perlès 2007, 2012). Nevertheless, there is a series of issues pertaining to the above that need to be revisited and clarified, since they are fundamental when discussing exchange, especially of pottery. Exchange is archaeologically tangible through the detection of networks resulting from the distribution of artifacts or raw materials deriving from a specific and known source. In the case of pottery, what can be identified are the source and the final destination of the pottery, thus testifying to

339

AS20.indb 339

2/11/18 9:00 PM

Areti Pentedeka its circulation. Exchange, therefore, is inferred from the connectivity revealed by the movement of things and people in the landscape (as outlined by Ingold 2000:187–208, 2011:145–155), exhibiting an inherent spatial dimension. The identification of the source can be achieved only through the use of analytical techniques like petrographic or chemical analysis. The characterization of production as being local to a specific settlement, however, is not restricted to the identification of the local raw material sources. A local potting tradition is formed primarily by the potting technology that is adopted. It has been convincingly argued within material culture studies that technology is a way through which people give society a material dimension, thus rendering society durable; technology manifests the ideas, perceptions, and symbolisms via which society comes into existence and reproduces itself (Latour 1991:51–55, 79, 1993:379–380; Latour and Lemonnier 1994:15–16). Within this society-sensitive perspective, the study of technology benefited greatly from the chaîne opératoire concept (Cresswell 1996; Lemonnier 1976; for a thorough review, see Roux 2016). The chaîne opératoire comprises a set of actions leading to the finished product; for each stage, the craftsman makes a series of technological choices, rendering technology fluid, since it is exactly through these choices that technology is formed by, as much as it forms, human practice (Lemonnier 1993; Sillar and Tite 2000; van der Leeuw 1993). It is during and through the technological practice that the agents form and transform their individual and collective identities (Dobres 1999, 2000:127–163; Gosselain 1998; Pfaffenberger 1999). Returning to pottery exchange, the formation of a local potting tradition can be studied via the reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire of the various pottery wares, and in particular of specific technological choices in all stages of the pottery making. Technological knowledge can be equally distinctive and informative regarding the structure and organization of pottery networks, as well as clay paste recipes and the actual pottery products. Petrographic analysis is considered to be the most suitable analytical technique applicable to archaeological ceramics for the investigation of both pottery technology and provenance issues. It enables the identification of the mineralogical composition of the pottery and its direct comparison with the sediments deriving from the geological formations in the vicinity of the site under study. In this way, the local pottery production is compositionally characterized, and, in combination with raw material prospection and chemical analysis, ancient exchange/trade can be discussed further. The detailed examination of the

raw materials that were used can shed light not only on the ancient perception of a given environment as a resource and as a familiar terrain; to a certain extent it can also reveal certain natural traits characterizing the surrounding environment at the time (e.g. lakes, marshes, etc.) that are not observable in the present. Moreover, petrographic analysis allows for the observation of various elements of manufacturing technology and surface treatment techniques, thus illuminating the choices ancient potters made within their social, cultural, and natural environments (Whitbread 1995, 2001). Such an approach allows for inferences about technological traditions, the organization of production (e.g. standardization), and the distribution of wares and fabrics, and ultimately some suggestions about the social role of ceramics in the given society. At the same time, however, it brings the movement of humans and things to light, revealing the lived-through landscape (as a tangled mesh of personalized trails; Ingold 2011:47). Thessaly during the Neolithic: A Case Study for Analysis Situated in the heart of the Greek mainland, Thessaly comprises a diverse landscape, combining mountain formations, flat plains, river valleys, lacustrine environments, and coastland in harmony. It was a densely populated area during the Neolithic, the majority of settlements forming tells and others being extended, while cave habitation is also attested (Gallis 1992; Halstead 1984; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000; Milojčić 1960; Reinders 2004; Theocharis 1967, 1973; Tsountas 2000 [1908]; Wace and Thompson 1912; YPPOT 2012:158–159). A rich and rather uniform pottery production characterized the entire region throughout the Neolithic period, forming a robust typology that has heavily influenced our view of the Neolithic in central and northern Greece (Demoule et al. 1988; Gallis 1992; Hauptmann 1981; Kotsakis 1983; Milojčić 1960; Mottier 1981; Rondiri 2009; Wace and Thompson 1912). This stylistic affinity has been examined by two large-scale archaeometric projects to detect whether it is a result of mere stylistic adoption favored by shared beliefs between the Neolithic communities of Thessaly, with pottery production being local in every respect, or whether it is a marker of pottery exchange within the wider region of Thessaly. In the early 1990s, Schneider et al. (1991) analyzed ca. 1,000 pottery samples, mainly surface finds, using chemical analysis with X-ray fluorescence, as well as limited X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and petrographic analysis. An important outcome of their

340

AS20.indb 340

2/11/18 9:00 PM

23 - Pottery Exchange Networks…Neolithic Thessaly research was the detection, beyond any doubt, of a specific production center for the Late Neolithic Grey ware in northwest Thessaly (in the vicinity of Platia Magoula Zarkou, if not in Platia Magoula Zarkou itself). From there, Grey ware was circulated within the rest of Thessaly and beyond. Additionally, the authors suggested Makrychori 2 as a possible center for the production of some of the Black Burnished pottery that was analyzed (Figure 1). Almost 30 years after this important study, it became apparent that Neolithic pottery circulation and exchange across Thessaly should be re-examined within a different, more society- and technologysensitive context. Building upon their analytical work, I developed the theoretical and methodological framework outlined above (for elaboration and further discussion on this holistic approach, see Pentedeka 2008:6–36, 2011) and adopted an integrated method-

ology including petrographic analysis, refiring tests, and raw material prospection and experimentation, as well as the existing corpus of chemical analysis. A total of almost 1,000 samples was examined; the sherds were representative of major undecorated and decorated wares dating to the Middle Neolithic (MN) II–III (coarse, Red Monochrome/A1, Scraped, Red-on-White, White-on-Red wares), Late Neolithic (LN) I (coarse, Red Monochrome, Scraped/Protogrey, Protogrey, Grey/Grey-on-Grey, Black Burnished, Matt-Painted, Black-on-Red, Bichrome, Polychrome wares), and LN II phases (coarse, Black-on-Red, Brown-on-Cream, Incised wares), covering the time span of ca. 5800–4500 B.C. (for detailed discussion and phase synchronization, see Alram-Stern 2015:91– 101, Table 1). The selected samples derive from 18 stratified excavation assemblages (Theopetra Cave, Platia Magoula Zarkou, Makrychori 2, Agia Sophia,

Figure 1. Map of Thessaly with the location of all the sites included in the study: (1) Theopetra Cave; (2) Platia Magoula Zarkou; (3) Makrychori 2; (4) Agia Sophia; (5) Otzaki; (6) Arapi; (7) Halki 1; (8) Sesklo; (9) Tsangli; (10) Achilleion; (11) Magoula Sykeon; (12) Orgozinos; (13) Magoula Tsalma/Tyrnavos 5; (14) Hatzimissiotiki Magoula; (15) Agrokipiou Magoula; (16) Magoula Visviki; (17) Magoula Tsapocha/ Syrmou; (18) Daoutza; (19) Kamara; (20) Koutroulou Magoula; (21) Mesochori 1; (22) Soufli Magoula; (23) Gonnoi 1; (24) Nikaia 5; (25) Terpsithea 2; (26) Grizano 1; (27) Lefki Karditsas 1; (28) Ampelonas Karditsas; (29) Keramidi; (30) Itea 2; (31) Kastro 1; (32) Rachoula 1; (33) Ypereia 1; (34) Chara 2; (35) Magoula Koskina; (36) Dimini. 341

AS20.indb 341

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Areti Pentedeka Otzaki, Arapi, Halki 1, Sesklo, Tsangli, Achilleion, Sykeon, Orgozinos, Agrokipiou, Hatzimissiotiki, Visviki, Tsapocha/Syrmou, Kamara, Koutroulou) and surface collections by D. R. Theocharis (Daoutza) and K. Gallis (most of them included in Gallis 1992: Mesochori 1, Soufli Magoula, Gonnoi 1, Nikaia 5, Terpsithea 2, Grizano 1, Lefki Karditsas 1, Ampelonas Karditsas, Keramidi, Itea 2, Kastro 1, Rachoula 1, Ypereia 1, Chara 2, and Magoula Koskina) (see Figure 1; for a detailed presentation of analytical data and a discussion of various aspects of research results, see Pentedeka 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015; Rondiri 2009). After clarifying provenance and technology issues (for the former, the contribution of the raw material samples was decisive), it became apparent that certain settlements had developed distinctive fabric recipes, usually ware-specific and characterized by a rather fixed chaîne opératoire. These distinctive fabrics, typical for specific sites, were identified in the ceramic assemblage of a number of other Thessalian sites, thus forming common fabric groups (CFG). Further comparison with the survey pottery samples analyzed by Schneider et al. (1991) and integration of their chemical analyses results and conclusions led to very interesting findings with regard to pottery circulation alongside local pottery manufacture (Table 1). During the MN, Red-on-White and Scraped wares presented small-scale circulation with at least one discernible production center for each (Figure 2), namely Halki 1 for Red-on-White (CFG7), and Platia Magoula Zarkou (CFG1, CFG2)—possibly also Tsangli (CFG6)—for Scraped ware, while monochrome pottery shows some mobility (CFG1), but in very low total numbers (Figure 3a–g, on Color Plate XI). Pottery circulation seems to have intensified from the LN onward (Figure 4). During its first phase (LN I), multiple networks were established, in particular for Black Burnished and Grey wares. For the latter, Platia Magoula Zarkou seems to have been a major center (CFG1–3, Figure 3h–m, on Color Plate XI), whereas production centers for Black Burnished ware include Magoula Tsalma (CFG4, Figure 5a–b, on Color Plate XII) and Makrychori 2 (CFG5, Figure 3n–o, on Color Plate XII). In the following phase, the LN II, Magoula Tsalma is attested as a major production center for the Black-on-Red ware (CFG4, Figure 5c, on Color Plate XII). Hitsiou (2003) has suggested that Dimini was the center for Brown-on-Cream ware production, but recent research indicates the existence of at least one more center that cannot be securely located at present (Pentedeka 2015:267–269). Therefore, production centers seem to have been mostly ware-specific, with the exceptions of Platia

Magoula Zarkou, which was active in the circulation of a number of wares throughout the Neolithic, and of Magoula Tsalma during the LN. The production, and also to a lesser extent the consumption, of specific wares seems to have diversified within Thessaly. Grey ware, in its Monochrome and Grey-on-Grey decorated versions, shows higher frequency in west Thessaly. Despite the local manufacture of this ware at some sites, for instance at Magoula Sykeon (Pentedeka 2008:163–171), it is Platia Magoula Zarkou where up to 80 percent of the studied samples seem to have been produced (Pentedeka 2008:201–203). Within this production, three fabric groups (CFG1–3)—that is, three different sets of technological choices—are identified for the manufacture of vessels of the same ware (Figure 3h–m, on Color Plate XI). This differentiation is not observed in the morphological and typological attributes of Grey pottery, which is characterized by extraordinary uniformity (Demoule et al. 1988:17–23). Interregional diversification is also observed in the case of the Black Burnished and Black-on-Red wares. Although their local manufacture is attested at many sites, it is the production of Makrychori 2 (CFG5) and Magoula Tsalma (CFG4) which stand out and seems to be rather popular, especially in northeastern Thessaly (CFG5, Figure 3n–o, on Color Plate XI; CFG4, Figure 5a–c, on Color Plate XII). The identification of a production center—that is, a way of pottery making assigned as local to one settlement and imported to another—not only relates to a specific geochemical composition (i.e. to specific raw materials used), but also includes other attributes like clay paste preparation, surface treatment, or firing. Such an example is the grog-tempering practice (CFG8) attested in the assemblages of Tsapocha, Visviki, and Agrokipiou, but also reported for Dimini, in relation primarily to Polychrome and Bichrome wares (Hitsiou 2003:152–153; Pentedeka 2015:272). Grog is usually added to clay pastes already containing non-plastic inclusions, which relate to the geological formations found in the vicinity of the site and correspond to well-defined fabrics of each settlement (Figure 5d–f, on Color Plate XII). The Polychrome and Bichrome wares seem to be related to the formation of a grog-tempering tradition attested so far only in southern Thessaly; this tradition exemplifies the sharing of beliefs and ideas rather than the circulation of pots themselves. Thessaly is also defined by an environmental diversity combining mountains, flat plains, river valleys, lacustrine environments, and coastland. An integrated approach for the study of pottery assemblages and ceramic technology can reveal the impact of environmental factors, as much as it does human

342

AS20.indb 342

2/11/18 9:01 PM

AS20.indb 343

Marls, quartz, feldspar, not fully burnt-out organic material petrofabric; same chemical group as CFG2

Quartz-rich metamorphic fragMagoula Tsalma (TSAL) / Black Burnished ments and mineral components; Tyrnavos area Black-on-Red chemical group 3.4.5 (Schneider et al.1991:59, continued in 57 due to a printing mistake)

Biotite epidote amphibole schist fragments and mineral components; chemical group 3.4.1 (Schneider et al. 1991:59)

CFG4

CFG5

Makrychori 2 (M)

Platia Magoula Zarkou (PMZ) / West Thessaly

Black Burnished

Protogrey Grey/Grey-on-Grey

Scraped Scraped/Protogrey Protogrey Grey/Grey-on-Grey

CFG3

Platia Magoula Zarkou (PMZ)

Same petrofabric composition as in CFG1, biotite in various stages of thermal deformation; chemical group 3.2.1 (Schneider et al. 1991:54–55)

CFG2

Red Monochrome Scraped Scraped/Protogrey Protogrey Grey/Grey-on-Grey

Platia Magoula Zarkou (PMZ)

Gneiss and biotite/chlorite schist fragments petrofabric

CFG1

Connected Wares

Suggested Production Center

Composition

Fabric Group

MN–LN I

Otzaki (OTZ), Arapi, Halki 1 (H, X), Tsangli (TS), Orgozinos, Sykeon (SYK), Terpsithea 2, Grizano 1, Lefki Karditsas 1, Ampelonas Karditsas 1, Keramidi, Itea 2

LN I

LN I–II

Continued on next page…

Platia Magoula Zarkou (PMZ), Halki 1 (H, X), Soufli Magoula, Kastro 1

Platia Magoula Zarkou (PMZ), Makrychori 2 (M), Agia Sophia, Otzaki (OTZ), Halki 1 (H, X), Magoula Visviki (MV), Magoula Tsapocha/ Syrmou (TSP), Kastro 1

Theopetra Cave, Makrychori LN I 2 (M), Agia Sophia, Otzaki (OTZ), Halki 1 (H, X), Orgozinos, Sykeon (SYK), Magoula Tsalma (TSAL), Kastro 1, Rachoula 1, Ypereia 1, Chara 2, Magoula Koskina

MN–LN I

Timespan

Theopetra Cave, Otzaki (OTZ), Halki 1 (H, X), Tsangli (TS), Mesochori 1, Soufli Magoula

Connected Sites

Table 1. Main attributes characterizing the common fabric groups (CFG) and other fabrics identified within the Thessalian ceramic assemblages.

23 - Pottery Exchange Networks…Neolithic Thessaly

343

2/11/18 9:01 PM

AS20.indb 344

Mica schist petrofabric (strong planar preferred orientation, lepidoblastic texture)

Variable compositions, common feature is grog temper

Micritic calcite and textural compositional features (clay pellets) petrofabric

Altered igneous and metamorphic (greenschsist) rock fragments petrofabric

Composition

Variable compositions, common Agrokipiou (AGR), Mafeature is organic material (roots?) goula Visviki (MV)

Variable compositions, common Koutroulou Magoula feature is organic material (roots?) (KTM) and dung

CFG7

CFG8

CFG9

CFG10

Fabric Group

-

-

Red Monochrome

Red-on-White

Bichrome Polychrome

Suggested Production Center

All wares identified within these assemblages

All wares identified within these assemblages

Connected Wares

MN

MN

Timespan

-

-

Connected Sites

Hatzimissiotiki (HM)

Daoutza (DA)

MN

MN–LN

Timespan

MN

MN

Agrokipiou (AGR), Magoula LN I Visviki (MV), Magoula Tsapocha/Syrmou (TSP)

Otzaki (OTZ), Soufli Magoula

Halki 1 (H, X), Sesklo (SB)

Scraped

Red-on-White

Connected Sites

Connected Wares

Indications of Surface Sediment Exploitation

Magoula Visviki (MV)

Kamara (K)

-

Halki 1 (H, X)

Tsangli (TS)? / Southeast Thessaly

Fine quartz, alkali feldspar and mica petrofabric; chemical group 3.1.4 (Schneider et al. 1991:16, 54)

CFG6

Suggested Production Center

Composition

Fabric Group

Table 1 – continued…

Areti Pentedeka

344

2/11/18 9:01 PM

23 - Pottery Exchange Networks…Neolithic Thessaly agency. On a purely analytical level, it can highlight some segments of “nature” that still survive in “culture,” to recall a popular duality. One such example within the existing sample set is the indication of the existence of stagnant waters or marshy areas around specific sites. The recurring presence of fine organic material, as incomplete infilling of predominantly elongated voids sometimes retaining the relic cellular texture, possibly indicates plant remains (e.g. roots) in the raw material source (Fitzpatrick 1990), pointing to the use of surface sediments rather than tempering with vegetal material. Such organic material is present in the Agrokipiou and Visviki Magoula assemblages, and it should relate to their location in the outlet of the drainage system of the streams originating from Chalkodonion Mountain. At Koutroulou Magoula, situated at the foot of Narthaki Mountain, again organic matter is observed, this time accompanied by phytoliths and phosphates, suggesting the presence of dung in the surface sediments that were used, and possibly locating them very close to, if not within,

the settlement (Figure 5g–j, on Color Plate XII). On a different level of observation, it can be argued that the natural environment may favor the formation of micro-networks: examples of such micro-networks are revealed in distinct geomorphological entities such as the Almyros basin and Lake Karla. At Almyros, the petrographic analysis of selected samples deriving from Kamara and Daoutza showed the existence of a small local network related mainly to the MN Redon-White ware (CFG9, Figure 5k–m, on Color Plate XII). This calcareous fabric includes a few incised and almost half of the Red-on-White samples from Kamara, and is very similar in texture and composition to a raw material sample collected from the vicinity of the site (Figure 5k, on Color Plate XII; ATS140, collected by Colette Beestman-Kruyshaar for her Ph.D. research on Hellenistic Halos, Universiteit van Amsterdam). It is considered to be local to Kamara, while it is also attested in a small number of Red-onWhite samples from Daoutza, probably indicating the existence of a localized Almyros network.

Figure 2. Distribution of the identified common fabric groups (CFGs) and their probable production center in the MN (sites numbered as in Figure 1): CFG1, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Scraped and Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG2, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG6, Tsangli? (Scraped ware); CFG7, Halki 1 (Red-on-White ware); CFG9, Kamara (Red-on-White ware); CFG10, Visviki (Red Monochrome ware). 345

AS20.indb 345

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Areti Pentedeka At Karla, the petrographic analysis of selected samples deriving from Agrokipiou and Visviki resulted in the distinction of large fabric groups, undisputedly of local origin to each site, as they are compatible to local geology and match raw materials that were sampled (Pentedeka 2015). Nevertheless, all these fabrics present significant internal variability with regard to the relative proportions of the various components, suggesting clay paste recipes that are not standardized. In this case, however, it rather reflects the natural variability within the raw material sources, possibly as a result of climatic conditions and the hydrological instability of the region, as best exemplified in the case of Lake Karla. The lake was shallow, especially at its western and northern limits, resulting in severe fluctuation of the total area occupied by the lake and a changing shoreline during times of increased water supply (Ananiadis 1956; Constantinidis 1988:211; Demitrack 1994:39; Moumou 2007:70–72; Moumou et al. 2010, note the shoreline migration stages in Figure 4, and the

estimated 4.5 km displacement in the western part of the lake). With regard to the Neolithic period, there is no consensus on the maximum water level or size of Lake Karla (Alexakis 2009:85–88; Alexakis et al. 2011:92–93; Caputo et al. 1994:226; Grundmann 1937:56–61; Halstead 1984:36–37; Schneider 1961). More significantly, however, it is difficult to estimate the coverage of stagnant waters or marshy areas, as a result of the drainage system of the complex stream network of the surrounding hillsides and the recession of the lakeshore, evidently affecting the landscape experience (Alexakis 2009:Figures 5.2–5.3; Constantinidis 1988:211; Moumou 2007:35, 39, 66–153, Figures 5.1–5.2; Moumou et al. 2010; Palikaridou 1998:29–32, Figures 1.5.2–1.5.3). The complex stream network could have caused circumstantial blending and internal variability to the raw material sources used by the neighboring sites of Agrokipiou and Visviki Magoules, the main fabrics of which display considerable compositional similarity, that should not be immediately associated with exchange

Figure 4. Distribution of the identified common fabric groups (CFGs) and their probable production center in the LN (sites numbered as in Figure 1): CFG1, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Scraped and Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG2, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Grey-on-Grey ware); CFG3, Platia Magoula Zarkou (Grey-onGrey ware); CFG4, Magoula Tsalma (Black Burnished and Black-on-Red ware); CFG5, Makrychori 2 (Black-on-Red ware); CFG8, grog fabric (Bichrome and Polychrome ware). 346

AS20.indb 346

2/11/18 9:01 PM

23 - Pottery Exchange Networks…Neolithic Thessaly practices. This applies also for Halki 1, situated at the northern edge of the Karla basin, where the internal variability within its local fabrics is striking (Pentedeka 2008:131–141, 353–374, Figures 6.78–6.92), and partially for Hatzimissiotiki, which is considered to have always been an island within the lake (Alexakis 2009:86–87; Palikaridou 1998:71–74). On the basis of the analyzed samples, some of the Hatzimissiotiki fabrics seem to relate to sources to the southwest of the site, while other fabrics are very similar to distinctly local Visviki (Figure 5n–o, on Color Plate XII) and Dimini fabrics. The ratio of local and assumed imported pottery to the settlement is higher than what is attested at other sites, while Halki 1 is the only site from those examined so far that participated in almost all identified networks. Landscapes and Exchange Before attempting interpretations of all the above, it would be useful to clarify some fundamental issues when discussing pottery exchange networks via connectivity schemes, especially in societies without a market economy. Connectivity is archaeologically perceived through the neutralizing detection of networks resulting from the distribution of artifacts or raw materials deriving from a specific and known source. In the case of pottery, what can be identified are its source and its last use/discard place, thus testifying to its circulation and manifesting connectivity; what is almost impossible to reconstruct, however, is the exact route, which was not necessarily direct from the production center to the final findspot. Exchange, therefore, is inferred from the movement of things and people in the landscape (Ingold 2000:187–208, 2011:145–155), exhibiting the inherent spatial dimension within the entire meshwork of intertwined trails along which people carry on their lives. More important, however, is the internal temporal dimension that lies always behind this kind of interaction (Bourdieu 1977:5–9). The distinction between connectivity and exchange, therefore, is to specify what is given in return (be it material or immaterial), and when. The degree of preservation of the archaeological record does not allow for a complete reconstruction of this interaction, at least in the case of Neolithic Thessaly. Nevertheless, the action of giving and taking/receiving unfolds within a specific context and for specific reasons that deserve our interest, and can be depicted as a network of interactions between people and things. Such networks are topologically composed of nodes and links (Knappett 2006:242) and resemble in essence more of a tangled mesh of interwoven and complexly knotted threads, in which

every thread is a way of life (the social context of the action), and every knot a place (Ingold 2007:72–84). As Ingold aptly argued, in exemplifying the distinction between a network and a meshwork, “the key is the recognition that the lines of the meshwork are not connectors. They are the paths along which life is lived. And it is in the binding together of lines, not in the connecting of points, that the mesh is constituted” (Ingold 2011:150–151; emphasis in original). When applied to the archaeological record, meshworks are less tangible than networks; they can be mapped with nodes being the sites (synthesis of persons and things, the “place” in Ingold’s terms) as well as the agents of exchange (in the tangible form of an object). The links (not always retrieved in detail) are the connections developed among such nodes, rendering space a familiar landscape (a “meshwork”) by denoting interaction among and between people and things (in our case, the pots). Returning to pottery circulation in Neolithic Thessaly, in assessing the ways the discerned networks are structured, various patterns of settlement involvement can be identified, depending on the intensity, degree, and form of participation for each settlement (Pentedeka 2008:197–210). The links observed between particular settlements during the MN continued and intensified in the LN. This applied especially to the network of relations developed by the inhabitants of Platia Magoula Zarkou during the MN, which included Theopetra Cave, Otzaki, Halki 1, and Tsangli. This network survived in the following period, experiencing a significant expansion by including many other settlements throughout Thessaly. In an overall assessment of all networks for both periods, the settlements of Platia Magoula Zarkou, Magoula Tsalma, Otzaki, Makrychori 2, Tsangli, and Halki 1 stand out as diachronically important nodes, although the degree and form of participation is variable for each settlement, resulting in three different patterns of settlement involvement in exchange networks. The first pattern includes the “source” settlements (i.e. settlements that are active primarily as production centers for the networks they participate in). Platia Magoula Zarkou is the only settlement where this pattern is recognized, and it could be characterized as a diachronic “source” settlement. The second pattern includes settlements which act as “source” settlements in some of the networks they participate in, while in others they operate as “recipient” settlements, demonstrating relatively balanced reciprocal relations. The most characteristic example of this pattern is Magoula Tsalma (to a smaller extent, also Makrychori 2 and Tsangli). Finally, the third pattern concerns settlements that appear to act primarily as

347

AS20.indb 347

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Areti Pentedeka “recipient” settlements in the networks they participate in, like Otzaki or Halki 1. Halki 1, in particular, represents a diachronic “recipient” settlement, being the only site from those examined so far that participates in almost all the identified networks. Here it would be useful to open a parenthesis and refer briefly to the networks attested to by the chipped stone industry of Thessaly during the Neolithic, for obvious comparative reasons. Karimali (2009) has described the two major lithic exchange networks active in Thessaly: that of the obsidian from Melos, and that of the chocolate flint from the Pindos Mountains. Obsidian is widespread at the coastal sites, usually imported in the form of semi-prepared and prepared cores, and it is observed at several sites in the eastern Thessalian Plain, either in the form of prepared cores or in later stages of production (e.g. blades or finished tools). Chocolate flint predominates in the western Thessalian Plain, where all sites present the entire production sequence, while in the eastern plain it is usually found in the form of flakes which were then processed further. All the Thessalian sites seem to have possessed the know-how for stone tool making, although it was performed on different raw materials. The reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire is also used in the case of lithics to determine the exact stage of importation to each site, that is, as raw material, prepared cores, formed but unfinished tools, or finished items (Karimali 2001:756–757). Each of these stages implies different on-site reduction strategies and organization of production. Returning to the pottery meshwork of Neolithic Thessaly, it should not be a mere coincidence that the settlements standing out as diachronically important nodes were, with rare exceptions, inhabited for thousands of years, forming visible tells in the Thessalian Plain. It has been suggested that tells are a clear mark of continuity and symbolic relation to the ancestors and so provide prominent monuments as fixed places in the landscape (Kotsakis 1999). The parallel activity of different networks observed in pottery applies also to chipped stone raw material networks, which co-exist and overlap. It should be emphasized, however, that the conditions of participation in or exclusion from a network are not formed on geographical terms of distance to the source (Karimali 2005). The temporal dimension of exchange is probably more decisive than the spatial one, and the emerging patterns are depictions of a palimpsest of movements, meaningful strands of past ways of life. Unfortunately, it is usually not feasible to suggest or reveal the context of movement; however, these nodes (or knots) should not be envisaged as

some form of primitive markets, but rather as places where the use of pots made elsewhere (the outcome of exchange) formed or transformed the individual and/or collective identities of the agents. Similarly, ethnographic studies suggest the practice of grogtempering, as observed in the LN Polychrome and Bichrome wares of southern Thessaly. It is usually symbolically charged, and its choice should be more significant for the producers as members of certain social groups (e.g. Rainbird 1999). Such concepts comprise part of technological traditions, embedded in a society’s system of beliefs, concepts, and practices and transmitted through close social contacts, usually kin-based and often related to marriage networks (as in, for example, Dobres 1999, 2000; Gosselain 1998). In the same line of reasoning, the intense connectivity observed at the settlements related to Karla (Halki 1, Hatzimissiotiki), although difficult to be fully explained with the present data, may have constituted a safety networking in times of need (excessive flooding episodes, loss of crops, etc.; a rough parallel can be the notion of “social storage” in Halstead and O’Shea [1982]). Conclusions The integrated approach for the study of pottery assemblages and ceramic technology has revealed the existence of different production centers, most frequently ware-specific, the parallel activity of different exchange networks, and the variability of distribution patterns of the pottery that was produced. The concept of the chaîne opératoire proved to be very useful for the understanding of certain aspects of exchange networks for both pottery and lithics. Especially for pottery, it facilitated in the identification of a number of fabrics, usually ware-specific and associated with exchange networks, which were characterized by different organization patterns and degrees of site involvement. The connotations of these finds are significant for the unraveling of the complex relations developed between settlements situated in different micro-environments and the recognition of interregional diversification in Thessaly. Exchange as a form of networking constitutes a fluid frame of practice, since the agents involved are not only people but also objects, in this case pots: they “attach people because they circulate in their hands and define their social bond by their very circulation” (Latour 1991:89). The study of exchange and its networks reveals a new perception of the Thessalian landscape within the Neolithic cosmos, which appears less uniform and more segmented, yet more “human” than originally considered.

348

AS20.indb 348

2/11/18 9:01 PM

23 - Pottery Exchange Networks…Neolithic Thessaly Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Univ.-Doz. Dr. E. Alram, Prof. K. Gallis, Prof. Y. Hamilakis, L. Hatziangelakis, Prof. K. Kotsakis, Dr. A. Kyparissi-Apostolika, E. Nikolaou, Dr. V. Rondiri, Prof. G. Schneider, and G. Toufexis for entrusting me with the study of their material; Dr. P. Koutsovitis, K. Papaspyropoulos, and Dr. S. Valkaniotis for geological information and mapping; the ΙΓ΄, ΙΕ΄, and ΛΔ΄ Ephorates, the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, and the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration for issuing the sampling permits; the British School at Athens and the Fitch Laboratory for infrastructure use during PhD research and manifold support as Williams Fellow in Ceramic Petrology. This study would not have been completed without the support of the following funding bodies: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Research Committee, Institute for Aegean Prehistory, The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Der Wissenschaftsfonds, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, The British Academy, and Psychas Foundation. The anonymous referees are sincerely thanked for their constructive remarks; any mistakes remain the responsibility of the author. References Cited Alexakis, Dimitrios 2009 Η Συμβολή της Γεωμορφολογίας με τη Βοήθεια της Τηλεπισκόπησης και των Γεωγραφικών Συστημάτων Πληροφοριών στη Χαρτογράφηση Αρχαιολογικών Θέσε­ ων. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http:// invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/113472?ln=el, accessed October 11, 2015. Alexakis, Dimitrios, Apostolos Sarris, Theodoros Astaras, and Konstantinos Albanakis 2011 Integrated GIS, Remote Sensing and Geomorphologic Approaches for the Reconstruction of the Landscape Habitation of Thessaly during the Neolithic Period. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:89–100. Alram-Stern, Eva 2015 Die Keramik. Einleitung. In Die Deut­schen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die Neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 91–101. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.

Ananiadis, Constantine 1956 Limnological Study of Lake Karla. Bulletin de l’Institut Océanographique 1083:1-19. Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Caputo, Riccardo, Jean-Paul Bravard, and Bruno Helly 1994 The Pliocene-Quaternary Tecto-sedimentary Evolution of the Larissa Plain (Eastern Thessaly, Greece). Geodynamica Acta 7(4):19–231. Constantinidis, Dimitrios 1988 Η Ιζηματογένεση και η Ηλικία της Απο­ ξηραμένης Λίμνης Κάρλας. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 20(2):209–222. Cresswell, Robert 1996 Prométhée ou Pandore? Propos de Technologie Culturelle. Éditions Kimé, Paris. Demitrack, Anne 1994 A Dated Stratigraphy for the Late Quaternary in Eastern Thessaly and What it Implies about Landscape Changes. In La Thessalie. Quinze Années de Recherches Archéologiques, 1975–1990: Bilans et Perspectives. Actes du Colloque International, Lyon, 17–22 Avril 1990, Vol. A, edited by Jean-Claude Decourt, Bruno Helly, and Kostas Gallis, pp. 37–40. Kapon Editions, Athens. Demoule, Jean-Paul, Kostas Gallis, and Laurence Manolakakis 1988 Transition entre les Cultures Néolithiques de Sesklo et de Dimini: Les Catégories Céramiques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 112:1–58. Dobres, Marcia-Anne 1999 Technology’s Links and Chaînes: The Processual Unfolding of Technique and Technician. In The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and Christopher R. Hoffman, pp. 124–146. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford. Fitzpatrick, Ewart Adsil 1990 Roots in Thin Sections of Soils. Developments in Soil Science 19:9–23.

Gallis, Kostas

1992 Άτλας Προϊστορικών Οικισμών της Ανα­ τολικής Θεσσαλικής Πεδιάδας. Society of Historical Research of Thessaly, Larisa.

349

AS20.indb 349

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Areti Pentedeka Gosselain, Oliver 1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 78–106. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Grundmann, Kimon 1937 Magula Hadzimissiotiki. Eine steinzeitliche Siedlung im Karla-See. Athenische Mitteilungen 62:56–69. Halstead, Paul 1984 Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, N. Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. Halstead, Paul, and John O’Shea 1982 A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew and Steven Shennan, pp. 92–99. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hauptmann, Harald 1981 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien: 3. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 21. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Hitsiou, Elissavet 2003 Production and Circulation of the Late Neolithic Pottery from Makrygialos (Phase II), Macedonia, Northern Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sheffield. Ingold, Tim 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London. 2007 Lines: A Brief History. Routledge, London. 2011 Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Routledge, London. Karimali, Lia 2001 Επαναπροσδιορισμός της Συχνότητας Υλικού και της Απόστασης στα Μοντέλα Ανταλλαγής Οψιανού στο Αιγαίο: Η Περίπτωση της Θεσσαλίας. In Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Yannis Bassiakos, Eleni Aloupi, and Yorgos Facorellis, pp. 753–761. Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens.

2005 Inferences and Limitations in ChippedStone Modeling: Learning from an Ethnoarchaeological Case (Threshing-Sledge Production in Thessaly, Greece). In Lithic Toolkits in Ethnoarchaeological Contexts, edited by Xavier Terradas, pp. 47–56. Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liege 2001. BAR International Series 1370. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2009 Κατανομή Λίθινων Πρώτων Υλών στη Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: Μια Συγκριτική Εξέταση. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3–19.3.2006: I. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 17–29. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 2. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Knappett, Carl 2006 Beyond Skin: Layering and Networking in Art and Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16:239–251. Kotsakis, Kostas 1983 Κεραμεική Τεχνολογία και Κεραμεική Διαφοροποίηση: Προβλήματα της Γραπτής Κεραμεικής της Μέσης Νεολιθικής Εποχής του Σέσκλου. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 1999 What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2000 The Neolithic Period in Theopetra Cave. In Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998, edited by Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, pp. 181–234. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Latour, Bruno 1991 We Have Never been Modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1993 Ethnography of a “High-Tech” Case: About Aramis. In Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Culture Since the Neolithic, edited by Pierre Lemonnier, pp. 372–398. Routledge, London. Latour, Bruno, and Pierre Lemonnier 1994 Introduction: Genèse Sociale des Techniques, Genèse Technique des Humains. In

350

AS20.indb 350

2/11/18 9:01 PM

23 - Pottery Exchange Networks…Neolithic Thessaly De la Préhistoire aux Missiles Balistiques. L’Intelligence Sociale des Techniques, edited by Bruno Latour and Pierre Lemonnier, pp. 9–24. Editions La Découverte, Paris. Lemonnier, Pierre 1976 La Description des Chaînes Opératoires: Contribution à l’Analyse des Systèmes Techniques. Techniques et Culture 1:100– 151. 1993 Introduction. In Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Culture Since the Neolithic, edited by Pierre Lemonnier, pp. 1–35. Routledge, London. Milojčić, Vladimir 1960 Hauptergebnisse der Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1953–1958. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Mottier, Yvette 1981 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien: 2. Das Mittlere Neolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 22. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Moumou, Chrissi 2007 Η Δράση των Χειμάρρων της Λεκάνης της Κάρλας σε Φυσικό και Ανθρωπογενές Περιβάλλον. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/ record/100713?ln=el, accessed October 11, 2015. Moumou, Chrissi, Kostas Vouvalidis, Sofia Pechlivanidou, and Panagiotis Nikolaou 2010 The Fluvial Action of the Karla Basin Streams in a Natural and Man-Made Environment. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 43(2):706–714. Palikaridou, Anthoula 1998 Οι Παλαιοακτές της τέως Λίμνης Κάρλας. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pentedeka, Areti 2008 Δίκτυα Ανταλλαγής της Κεραμικής κατά τη Μέση και Νεότερη Νεολιθική στη Θεσσαλία. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/ record/110203?ln=en, accessed October 11, 2015. 2011 Links of Clay in Neolithic Greece: The Case of Platia Magoula Zarkou. In Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology: A Diachronic Perspective on

the Aegean, edited by Ann Brysbaert, pp. 106–125. Routledge, London. 2012 Δίκτυα Ανταλλαγής της Κεραμικής  στη Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: Κόμβοι και Σύν­ δεσμοι, Οικισμοί και Σχέσεις. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3– 15.3.2009: Ι. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 45–56. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 3. Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the University of Thessaly, Volos. 2015 Technological and Provenance Study of the Visviki Magoula Ceramic Assemblage. In Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die Neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Angelika Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 222–297. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 36. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Perlès, Catherine 1990 L’Outillage de Pierre Ttaillée Néolithique en Grèce: Approvisionnement et Exploitation des Matières Premières. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 114(1):1–42. 1992 Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5:115–164. 2007 Échanges et Technologie: l’Exemple du Néolithique. In XXVIe Congrès Préhistorique de France, Avignon-Bonnieux, 21–25 Septembre 2004, Congrès du Centenaire: Un Siècle de Construction du Discours Scientifique en Préhistoire, Vol. 3, pp. 53–62. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris. 2012 Le Statut des Échanges au Néolithique. Rubricatum: Revista del Museu de Gavà 5:539–546. Perlès, Catherine, and Karen D. Vitelli 1999 Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 96–107. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Pfaffenberger, Bryan 1999 Worlds in the Making: Technological Activities and the Construction of Intersubjective Meaning. In The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and Christopher R. Hoffman, pp. 147–164.

351

AS20.indb 351

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Areti Pentedeka Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Rainbird, Paul 1999 Entangled Biographies: Western Pacific Ceramics and the Tombs of Pohnpei. World Archaeology 31:214–224. Reinders, H. Reinder (editor) 2004 Prehistoric Sites at the Almyros and Sourpi Plains (Thessaly, Greece). Royal Van Gorcum, Assen. Renfrew, Colin 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen, London. Renfrew, Colin, Johnston R. Cann, and John E. Dixon 1965 Obsidian in the Aegean. The Annual of the British School at Athens 60:225–247. Rondiri, Vasso 2009 Θεσσαλική Νεολιθική Κεραμική: Τεχνο­ λογία και Κατανομή στο Χώρο. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio. lib.auth.gr/record/114741/?ln=el, accessed October 11, 2015. Roux, Valentine 2016 Ceramic Manufacture: The Chaîne Opératoire Approach. In Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, edited by Alice Hunt, pp. 101-113. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schneider, Gerwulf, Heinz Knoll, Kostas Gallis, and Jean-Paul Demoule 1991 Transition entre les Cultures Néolithiques de Sesklo et de Dimini: Recherches Minéralogiques, Chimiques et Technologiques sur les Céramiques et les Argiles. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 115:1–64. Schneider, Horst Ernst 1961 Über den Thessalischen See. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques 12:315– 317. Sillar, Bill, and Michael S. Tite 2000 The Challenge of “Technological Choices” for Materials Science Approaches in Ar-

chaeology. Archaeometry 42:2–20. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1967 Η Αυγή της Θεσσαλικής Προϊστορίας: Αρχή και Πρώιμη Εξέλιξη της Νεολιθικής. Filarkhaios Society of Volos, Volos. 1973 Νεολιθική Ελλάς. National Bank of Greece, Athens. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμη­ νίου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. van der Leeuw, Sander E. 1993 Giving the Potter a Choice: Conceptual Aspects of Pottery Techniques. In Technological Choices: Transformations in Material Culture Since the Neolithic, edited by Pierre Lemonnier, pp. 238–288. Routledge, London. Vitelli, Karen D. 1993 Power to the Potters. Comment on Perlès’ “Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece” (JMA 5:115–64). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6:247–257. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Whitbread, Ian K. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae. A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4. The British School at Athens, Athens. 2001 Ceramic Petrology, Clay Geochemistry and Ceramic Production: From Technology to the Mind of the Potter. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by Don R. Brothwell and A. Mark Pollard, pp. 449–459. John Wiley and Sons, London. YPPOT 2012 2000–2010 Από το Ανασκαφικό έργο των Εφορειών Αρχαιοτήτων. Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Athens. Available online, www.yppo.gr/0/anaskafes/pdfs/ IE_EPKA.pdf, accessed October 11, 2015.

352

AS20.indb 352

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 24 The Discovery of Painted Pottery in Caves: An Interpretation in the Case of Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou

Abstract

shifts that have led to an acclaimed evolution.

Sarakenos Cave is the longest-lived cave excavation in Greece, with an uninterrupted stratigraphical sequence from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. Human activity in the cave was related to the varying environment of Lake Kopais, the cave’s strategic position, and its particular configuration, constituting a communal focal point for local societies. Among the finds, the painted pottery speaks to several prolonged, universal, and exclusive craft traditions stretching across mainland Greece, primarily exhibiting conservatism and standardization. In this paper, several key issues concerning the Neolithic material culture are examined, such as (a) the mode of production of painted pottery through typological analysis; (b) the manners of pottery consumption in the context of the cave; and (c) the interpretation of interregional, common traditions. The scarcity of burials or other ritual-related, non-domestic contexts has directed the quest for locating places of symbolic behavior toward cave sites, which are automatically constituted as a uniform “type” of wild places juxtaposed with domestic areas. In the case of Sarakenos Cave, however, multiple diverse activities have been documented. Contextual analysis suggests that painted pots were neither intended nor treated as special items. Primarily, they related to food culture (procurement, production, preparation, and consumption) and commensality, challenging their proposed importance as valuable goods. The rural frame poses human movement and activity not just inside the cave itself, but also, and more importantly, beyond the confines of the settlement. A second variable is proposed: the communal, interregional space as an arena for social interaction. Lastly, the continuity of the stratigraphy allows for the monitoring of certain debated socioeconomic and cultural transitions. The documented economic dimensions of painted pottery traditions are related to the ongoing debate about prehistoric economies. In this light, the examination of a cave site contributes significantly, as these sites have been closely related to several socioeconomic

Keywords Neolithic, central Greece, Boeotia, painted pottery, caves, contextual analysis, traditions, fragmentation, prestige objects, conspicuous consumption The central subject of this paper is the social conditions and practices surrounding the deposition of painted pottery in caves. The two analytical components are the painted pottery and the cave, as examined through (a) the typology of painted pottery, and (b) its use in the contexts of the cave. The main purpose is to question the widespread assumption that prestige good economies and conspicuous consumption were mechanisms basic to the social dynamics of the Neolithic period (following Barrett 2012:6). Concepts such as intentional fragmentation, structured deposition, (conspicuous) consumption, and social competition have dominated sociocultural interpretations and pottery studies. Alternatively, these are approached here through the focus on long periods of cultural uniformity and social stability, materialized by long-lived traditions. From the grand narrative to the micro-scale of the individual site, an intermediate scale is applied: the regional society of Kopais and, at a second level, central Greece. Equally important is the analytical frame: the cave is examined not as an autonomous site, but as an indispensable part of a system—a network of habitation sites and their vital rural surroundings. Research on the Neolithic in Central Greece Central Greece is bordered to the north by the Spercheios River (Alram-Stern 2005:183) and the mountain massif in Pthiotis (Figure 1). Its periphery encompassed a large part of the mainland, Boeotia, Phokis, and Attica,1 as well as neighboring coasts and islands such as Euboea, Skyros, and Kephalonia via passages such as the Corinthian and Euboean Gulfs.

353

AS20.indb 353

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou It features some of the highest mountains in Greece, but also a very long coastline, elongated seawater patches, and large off-shore islands. Boeotia, the most intensely researched part, lies at the heart of this region. The first Neolithic excavations were conducted by Georgios Sotiriadis at Chaeronea and Elateia (Sotiriadis 1908) and by the German Institute at Orchomenos (Kunze 1931). Hetty Goldman excavated Eutresis (Goldman 1927) and Halai (Lokris) together with Alice Walker (Goldman 1940). In postwar times, almost all were resumed: Eutresis by John and Elizabeth Caskey (1960), Chaeronea by Tzavella-Evjen (2012), Halai by John Coleman (Coleman et al. 1992, 1994), and Elateia by Saul Weinberg (1962).2 On Euboea, excavated Neolithic sites include the settlements of Varka Psachna, Agia Kalliopi, and Skoteini Cave (Tharrounia), excavated by Adamantios Sampson (1977, 1993) with Agia Triada Cave recently added (Mavridis and Tankosić 2009). Dimitrios Theocharis (1959) discovered sites on Skyros and Bazaraki on the Boeotian coast and excavated Agios Petros, which was later reinvestigated by Nikos Efstratiou (1985). A decade later, Cyclops Cave (Youra) was excavated (Sampson 2008b). To the west, Agios Nikolaos Cave (Astakos, Akarnania) was excavated by Sylvia Benton (1947), and Corycean Cave (Phokis)

by Pierre Amandry (1981). Recently, the excavations of Pagkali (Aetolia) (Dietz and Moschos 2006) and Drakaina Cave (Kephalonia) (Stratouli 2005) have been added. Excavation and Stratigraphy in Sarakenos Cave Sarakenos Cave is located in the southeast fringes of the Kopais Basin,3 at an altitude of 200 m (Figure 2; Sampson 2008a). Its location is strategic, between (a) Euboea and Boeotia, and (b) Thessaly and southern Greece. The natural environment was regulated by Lake Kopais (Farinetti 2008), with marshy waters in the vicinity of the cave (Okuda et al. 2001). The decline of archaeological deposits after a climatic shift4 in the third millennium B.C. highlights the centrality of the natural environment to human activity at the site and in Kopais (see also Weninger et al. 2009). Excavations were first conducted in the 1970s by Theodoros Spyropoulos (1973). Since 1994, new excavations have revealed an area 220 m2 in size (Sampson 2008a:25–52, 2014:14–30). The uniform, flat-floored interior has produced a cohesive and continuous stratigraphy over an extensive area that is considerably deep and undisturbed. The deepest stratum belongs to the Upper Palaeolithic,5

Figure 1. Map of Boeotia, central Greece. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015) 354

AS20.indb 354

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) followed by a thick Mesolithic stratum (Figure 3). The Neolithic stratum is also very thick (Figures 3 and 4). The chronology is corroborated by abundant 14 C dates (Sampson 2008a:48–50; Sampson et al. 2009:200–220). The Setting and Settlement Pattern of Sarakenos Cave Location, natural environment, and spatial configuration define the unique functional parameters of each cave. Sarakenos Cave forms a spacious dome of more than 2,000 m2 with a wide arched entrance

(10 x 5 m), providing ample ventilation and light (Sampson 2014:8). The internal micro-environment is dry and stable, limiting collapse episodes and water influx—frequent hazards in the taphonomy of caves (e.g. Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000:19–20; Lambert 1981:691; Vitelli 1993:32–33). The Kopais Basin6 itself is a particularly attractive ecosystem, with several settlements evenly distributed around it (see Figure 1). The cave was an easily accessible point amidst this vital space: a communal, extramural site that was neither desolate nor wild, but rather a dynamic, intrinsic social place that challenges the interpretation of caves as being marginal

Figure 2. Map of Greece, showing the location of important Neolithic cave sites and delineating the area of central Greece (ellipse) and the region of Boeotia (box). 355

AS20.indb 355

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou and secluded (Mastrogiannopoulou and Sampson 2013; for a different view, see Tomkins 2009:146). In general, a regular settlement pattern is observable in central Greece beginning in the Early Neolithic, with evenly distributed, long-lived settlements, but also smaller remote sites (Bintliff et al. 2006:665–672). Caves with diverse characteristics (altitude, capacity, accessibility) were integrated into this pattern. Even in remote cases, they were associated with a neighboring habitation site: Cyclops Cave was associated with the settlement of Agios Petros (Katsarou-Tzeveleki 2008:81; Quinn et al. 2010), while below Corycean Cave (1,400 masl), remains of a seasonal site have been reported (Péchoux 1981:5). Evidently, farm life extended well beyond the alluvial plains into diverse ecological zones, indicating adjustability of habitation, extensive social networks, intense mobility, and exploitation of resources.

Typology and Chronology of the Painted Pottery from Sarakenos Cave The study of pottery is fundamental to the interpretation of human activity at a site in terms of chronology (Table 1), correlation, and subsistence (food storage, preparation, and consumption) (Skibo 2013:2–3; Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis 2007:226). For several authors, typology has been restricted to stylistic classification and the construction of “culture histories,” although it has equally important technological and social implications (e.g. Chapman and Gaydarska 2007:20–21; Hodder 2013:301).7 Painted pottery in particular represents one of the first forms of abstract expression, as well as a specialist craft tradition. Decorated tableware, which was involved in exchange networks (Pentedeka 2008:211–213) and food culture, fosters the investigation of the

Figure 3. Profile of Trench A. (After Sampson 2008a) 356

AS20.indb 356

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) socioeconomic role of material culture. Typological Development In Sarakenos Cave, the high frequency and fine preservation of painted pottery provided a rich, representative assemblage (Mastrogiannopoulou 2015), which accords well with the established typology of central Greece (Kunze 1931; Tzavella-Evjen 2012; Wace and Thompson 1912; Weinberg 1962). Heralded by White Slip ware, Chaeronea ware appears in the late Early Neolithic (EN) to early Middle Neolithic (MN) with the familiar rounded shapes (Figure 5, on Color Plate XIII). The early Late Neolithic (LN) I (transitional with the MN) is heralded by the Monochrome Urfirnis, along with the first Black/Grey Polished ware. The Patterned Urfirnis follows shortly after (Figure 6). Although the technical properties of the

Urfirnis vessels are distinctive, links with Chaeronea ware are recognized in shape repertoire. At the same time, innovation is observed in shape repertoire and synthesis. Later during the LN IA, the Matt Painted ware appears (Figures 7, 8 on Color Plate XIV, 9 and 10). Rounded shapes are replaced by straight ones while others, such as the fruit stand, continue. Numerous transitional examples suggest that the Matt Painted developed through the Urfirnis, such as the so-called Black-on-Red ware (Phelps 2004:69).8 In the LN IB the Polychrome ware9 appears (Figure 11), distinct in fabric, shape, and decoration repertoire. Stratigraphical Distribution Owing to the secure stratigraphical provenance and preservation of fineware surfaces in large fragments, some main typological features can be rec-

Figure 4. Profile of Trench B. (After Sampson 2008b) 357

AS20.indb 357

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou Table 1. Pattern-decorated wares in Central Greece and adjacent areas.

Period

Thessaly

Central Greece

EN Early MN

A3a A3b

White Paste Chaeronea Ware (early)

Peloponnese

Dates (cal B.C.) 6300 5800

Chaeronea Ware, Urfirnis (Monochrome) Late MN A3b (Classical Chaeronea Ware Urfirnis (Mono5300 Sesklo) (late) chrome & Patterned) Early LN IA Black/Grey Polished, Black/Grey Polished, Black/Grey Polished, 5100 Black-on-Red Urfirnis (Patterned), Urfirnis (Patterned), Matt Painted Matt Painted Late LN IA Black/Grey Polished, Black/Grey Polished, Black/Grey Polished, 4800 Matt Painted Matt Painted Matt Painted LN IB Arapi Phase, Dimini Polychrome (Gonia/ Polychrome (Gonia/ 4300–4100 Phase Klenia) Klenia) Note: After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015. ognized: (a) the standardization of decoration within each ware; (b) the firm correlation between shape and decoration with standardized, replicated vessel types; and (c) the continuation between decorative wares. The stratigraphical (vertical) sequence of wares is continuous with no observed hiatus: between trenches D, E, and F, there was a remarkably analogous distribution per 10-cm excavation spit (Figure 12). In the LN strata, pottery increased considerably compared to the MN strata mainly because pottery became generally more ubiquitous: both strata were equally thick and diverse in finds, as activity was evidently intense in both phases.

Painted Pottery Traditions in Central Greece

Absolute Chronology

Viewing painted pottery from Sarakenos Cave in its regional context, a sequence of prolonged and universal traditions crystallizes. In regard to Matt Painted pottery, Weinberg (1962:198) commented characteristically, “It is a simple and rather monotonous repertory.” Each type finds plentiful parallels throughout central Greece, while local variations are rare. In other words, painted wares were widespread, commonly established, and long-lived, and continuity is accentuated by the transitional wares: no tradition was abandoned abruptly. The prominent feature in this sequence of traditions is conservatism—a presumably inherent trait of pottery production. However, in the case of painted decoration this was a result of choice and preference rather than a technicality. On the one hand, conservatism indicates potters’ choices to follow and

The Sarakenos assemblage finds close parallels with sites around Boeotia and broader central Greece. The diachronic activity of people in the cave and within its regional context, as well as the gradual transformations of painted pottery, can be monitored. The transition between the MN and LN is particularly important: this has been stratigraphically documented at numerous sites such as Eutresis, Elateia, Halai, Orchomenos, and Sarakenos Cave.10 Furthermore, it has been corroborated by recent absolute dates from Sarakenos Cave and Halai ranging between 5600 and 5300 cal B.C. (Facorellis and Coleman 2012:11). It is noteworthy that this MN–LN transition also has been documented in the Peloponnese (Mee et al. 2014:17).

The recognition of tradition in material culture is vital if we are to properly understand the nature of individual agency and social and political power (Osborne 2008:284–288). What distinguishes tradition from habitus is the fact that acting in a traditional fashion is always a conscious choice: traditions are the conscious products of individuals in active and reciprocal relation with the past. The Importance of Conservatism

358

AS20.indb 358

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia)

Figure 6. Patterned Urfirnis pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015) 359

AS20.indb 359

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou maintain specific decorative modes, thereby avoiding variation. On the other hand, it also manifests a stable preference for specific tableware on behalf of the users. These two aspects emphasize the social dimension of painted pots both as craft products and as functioning objects. Hence, the conservatism pervading these traditions was multi-causal. Firstly, it related to the mode of production, and specifically to the transmission mechanisms of technical skill and knowledge (Roux 2011:80). Secondly, the synchronous changes in decoration, shape, and mechanical properties related to the function of the vessels and their association with culinary traditions (Sherratt 2003:62). Thirdly, conservatism was sustained by networks of interaction (Mee 2007:207–210; Phelps 2004:96).

Socioeconomic Implications In sum, painted pots were the product of a network of socioeconomic practices that were manifestly common, widespread, and highly standardized throughout central Greece (Mastrogiannopoulou 2015). Technical standardization poses a contradiction for the Neolithic economy, as it is usually related to the intensification of production, the maximization of profit, and the appearance of market economies. Whether and how these parameters operated in a pre-monetary, agricultural economy extends beyond the limits of this article (see Garraty and Stark 2010; Karimali 1994; Porčić 2012:174–175). The operation of pottery production centers/workshops, as well as the demand for technical skill/specialization, is undeniable. These

Figure 7. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015) 360

AS20.indb 360

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia)

Figure 9. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015).

361

AS20.indb 361

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou

Figure 11. Polychrome pottery. 362

AS20.indb 362

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) parameters, however, did not necessarily transform the painted pots into prestige objects (Mee 2007:210; for a different view, see Perlès and Vitelli 1999:101; Tomkins 2007:182; Vitelli 1999:100). The critical parameter is scale: in small-scale societies objects are not transformed into markers of status, because social relations are direct and distance between private and public relations is small (Carrier 1995:7–8). Despite skillful production, supply was not restricted temporally or spatially. Quite the opposite: painted pots remained popular and common. Production aimed primarily toward familiar, standardized objects instead of personalized, distinctive ones, as proposed in other cases (Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis 2007:230). Although they were valued, they were also popular and broadly accessible. In terms of production and supply, there is no indication that they were manufactured or circulated as objects with some special or restricted value. Their special decoration and value more likely was related to the social importance of food consumption—further confirmed by their contextual analysis in the following section. The Use of Painted Pots in Sarakenos Cave Contextual analysis is the middle ground where landscape and artifacts meet (McAnany and Hodder 2009:1–2), especially in the case of caves.11 Caves are frequently treated as a safer ground for contextual analysis because they have been physically preserved

to the present day. However, contextual analysis in caves presents its own shortcomings: a finer identification of contexts is impeded by (a) a holistic treatment of the cave as a single, static context; and (b) the complexity of formation processes, which are usually highly episodic (Angelucci et al. 2009; Karkanas 2013). Although the pottery from Sarakenos Cave was in close affinity with settlements and other caves of the region, it may have been involved in particular activities pertaining to the cave as a spatial, and at times ritualized, unit (Katsarou and Sampson 2013). “Structured” deposits are considered to be meaningful indicators of ritual practice (Garrow 2012:105– 106). However, attention has been drawn recently to the need to be more explicit in the interpretational leap from odd deposits to the patterning of material culture. Distribution of Pottery The fluctuation of quantities of pottery was remarkably analogous between trenches diachronically, as depicted in Figures 12–14 (Mastrogiannopoulou 2015). This analogy is confirmed when comparing proportions of different parts of the vessels in each trench (Figure 14). Trench D consistently produced the highest amounts of painted pottery (Figure 15). This differential distribution did not, however, produce qualitative features, such as a differential concentration of shapes or wares: this is confirmed, for example, by the percentages of fruit stands in each trench, which

Figure 12. Vertical distribution of pottery per 10 cm in Trenches D, E, and F. 363

AS20.indb 363

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou oscillated around 5 percent (Figure 16). Instead, the systematic proliferation of pottery in Trench D reveals a practical and stable preference for the best illuminated and directly accessed part of the cave. Co-Findings and Spatial Features The small and rare objects suggest that activity in the cave was not purely quotidian. These items were found dispersed in various areas, or sometimes clustered on activity floors. An assemblage of approximately 10,700 stone beads was recovered, as well as perforated shells and Spondylus bracelets. Other special objects include figurines (about 2,000 clay fragments and a small group of marble figurines; Sampson 2014:52–61) and clay “sling bullets.”12 The above-mentioned objects were usually found scattered on activity surfaces such as beaten floors and hearths. Both their distribution and co-findings suggest that they were used alongside practical activities, as documented by the broad spectrum of bone and stone tools, especially around hearths. Both spatially and temporally, the rare objects may have been involved

in distinct ritual occasions. However, the persons involved were actively aware of the fact that the cave was used and visited for other purposes, as these special objects were deposited on the same activity floors with no effort to keep them separate. This is confirmed by the rare discovery of special deposits, such as pits or hoards. The discovery of a structured deposit in Trench D, with intact deer antlers and fragments of figurines and pottery, demonstrates that ritual practices did, in fact, take place here (Sampson 2014:55–56). Even in this instance, however, the objects were not deposited in a secluded manner: they were found immediately after the entrance in a broadly accessible area with numerous successive floors of activity. Evidently, ritual practice was not alienated from the mundane. Food preparation and consumption was ubiquitous and systematic, judging from the abundant food remains (faunal and floral), dense concentrations of ash and charcoal, and fixed features such as stonelined hearths and clay-built basins (Figure 17) in both the MN and LN strata. Painted pottery seems to have been primarily utilized for food consumption in the same way and style as at nearby settlements.

Figure 13. Fluctuation of painted pottery wares from the MN to the LN in Trenches D, E, and F. 364

AS20.indb 364

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) Modes of Pottery Deposition The symbolic practice of intentional fragmentation, in combination with the enchainment of fragments, could very well be practiced in caves (Karali et al. 2005; Katsarou-Tzeveleki 2008; Tomkins 2009). However, intentional fragmentation is more likely to apply to the case of special objects, such as figurines and ornaments, than to pottery (Brittain and Harris 2010:581; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007:3–7). The discovery of structured deposits or other closed contexts was rare in Sarakenos Cave. Even if this is partly a post-depositional effect, additional factors suggest that the pottery was not deliberately fragmented: (1) the diverse fragmentation patterns indicate that there was no specific fragmentation pattern, while (2) the frequent mending perforations indicate the avoidance of fragmentation. Quite the opposite: in the entrance area with the most intense activity, several intact or completely refitted vessels were found. Consequently, the painted pots were most likely discarded after being utilized; deposition followed their active usage during food consumption, as documented above. This mode of treatment challenges the recurrent interpretation of intentional fragmentation and deposition of pottery in caves. In the case of

Sarakenos, painted pottery appears as a mundane material element, common in both the cave and the settlements. People “transferred” activities from the settlements into the cave, which functioned as an auxiliary space within their area of activation. It is possible that pottery fragments and other discarded objects and residue were also reminders of past activities. For embodied social memory to be transmitted, some conditions of sociality are necessary (Peterson 2012: 280)—sociality being the involvement of more than one persons, indexing transformations to artifacts, places, or bodies; performance; and calendrical and spatial repetition. The cave offered a place where social memory was maintained through the active preservation of social practices, such as commensality. The deposition of objects in the cave was an aftermath, and not the primary purpose. Keeping in mind that the objects were discarded in a communal, widely accessed space—as a rule, visible and/ or accessible with no effort to render them inaccessible—this emphasizes the social dimension of these practices vis-à-vis a supposed restricted value of the objects themselves. Subsequent visitors engaged in the establishment of these practices, as the remains of previous activities were visible and probably accessible. The clay-built basins, in particular, indicate

Figure 14. Distribution of vessel parts in Trenches D, E, and F. 365

AS20.indb 365

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou

Figure 15. Total amounts of painted pottery in Trenches D, E, and F.

Figure 16. Percentages of fruit stands in Trenches D, E, and F.

366

AS20.indb 366

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) a provision for repeated, and possibly customary, practices.13 Rows of postholes in the beaten floors, apparently from divisions of the interior space, again suggest a systematic and established presence in the cave. Human Activity in Caves in the Neolithic Classifications of Neolithic Caves Several attempts to categorize human activity in caves have been made, which can be distinguished in two strands (Papathanassopoulos 2011:22–23; Stratouli 1998; Trantalidou et al. 2010; Zachos 1998). The first and oldest is in essence more practical. It associates caves with rural activity and subsistence practices, such as herding, dairying, food storage, and

the collection of wild goods (Cavanagh 2007:115–116; Johnson 1996:288–289; Sampson 1992; Sherratt 1981). In this frame, the increase in cave habitation is correlated with the “secondary products revolution” and the development of dairying during the LN–FN. However, the diachronic use of caves in central Greece long before the LN does not conform to this evolutionary mode. Besides, it is proposed that the spread of dairying was a gradual process that had started in the Balkans already by the EN (Craig et al. 2005; Evershed 2012; Salque et al. 2012). In any case, dairying practices were not directly associated with fine tableware. Still, tableware could be associated with the direct supply and consumption of seasonal dairying products from shepherds—a practice with possibly festive and customary character. The consumption of such products could have taken place on site.14 Other

Figure 17. Ground plan of Sarakenos Cave, showing excavated areas. (After Sampson 2014) 367

AS20.indb 367

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou seasonal foodstuffs may have been exchanged as well, such as salt and fish (Cavanagh 2007:118). The second approach focuses on rituality. Caves are treated as elements of the wild landscape—marginal areas detached from the domestic space. The deposition of valuable or rare objects is considered indicative of practices that took place specifically in caves because they functioned as ritual places (Nakou 1995; Tomkins 2009). Topographically, caves are also viewed as “persistent” places in the landscape that inspired monumentality (Hull 2014:173; Mavridis et al. 2013:2–3; Stratouli 2005; Tomkins 2009:135). Although their location is fixed, caves can be very unstable due to geology and tectonics. Moreover, unrestricted access15 transformed them into places that were perceived in varying ways. A common shortcoming to both approaches is that they assume a predetermined function, which masks synchronic or diachronic distinctions. Caves are treated as a uniform “site type” in contrast with domestic sites. Admittedly, their use as primary dwellings is considered unlikely (Sampson 1992). Habitation, however, does not equal the notion of “dwelling” in as much as people did not spend their lives in the confines of the house or settlement. For Neolithic subsistence, the vital space extended well beyond the settlement on a systematic basis, not only for agriculture and farming, but also for the procurement of natural resources (e.g. fresh water, wood for fuel and building material, medicinal herbs), the exchange of goods, and social interaction (Chapman and Gaydarska 2007:196–197). The Distinction of Ritual Another important shortcoming is the severance of rituality, the identification of which is debatable especially in small-scale societies (Brück 1999; Hull 2014:164–165). For the Greek Neolithic, this is further complicated by the scarcity of monumental architecture in the form of large-scale or burial structures. Inevitably, the quest for ritual places focuses on caves, reinforced by the unanimous exclusion of the “dwelling” hypothesis. However, the ritual and the mundane were probably overlapping rather than distinct spheres (Garrow 2012:106). Rather than representing an entirely separate and elevated sphere of activity, it was actually a mode of conduct that people could slip into and out of throughout the course of a normal day (Thomas 2012:126). Returning to Sarakenos Cave, the site appears as an auxiliary area that hosted a broad range of activities. The key features were its particular lacustrine resources, capacity, centrality, and unrestricted access,

which transformed it into a communal and interregional place. Seasonal activities overlapped with occasional visits or systematic use by local societies. Accordingly, rituality, as in the case of the painted pottery found in Sarakenos Cave, did not pertain to the pots as prestige objects that were conspicuously deposited, nor to a supposed liminal and detached perception of the space of the cave. Rituality can be detected in occasions of commensality in the cave and other acts of social performance, which were evidently interwoven with the mundane. The cave represented primarily an arena of interaction, where social practices maintained long-lived traditions and forged uniformity, communality, and solidarity. Conclusions According to the typological analysis of the painted pottery of Sarakenos Cave, some traditions were crystallized in the production of painted pots. According to the contextual analysis, it can be argued that the painted pots were utilitarian objects for food consumption—a social practice that took place in both domestic and extramural spaces during the MN and LN I. The painted pots were neither manufactured nor treated as prestige objects, by definition. Instead, they were mainly utilitarian objects used for commensal occasions, with a commonly established style that societies maintained and replicated for long periods of time. The symbolism of food consumption pervaded both private and communal occasions in similar ways between caves and settlements. Within the cave, painted pottery was discarded within a communal space in various depositional modes, which does not corroborate the hypothesis of intentional fragmentation. Commensality primarily facilitated the incorporation of participants into regional traditions, the perpetuation of social practices, and societal solidarity. The deposition of painted tableware was the outcome of practices that reinforced social memory and egalitarianism. Notes The role of Attica remains problematic, as very few settlements have been excavated: according to the available data, however—and especially from older excavations such as Kitsos Cave, Rizoupolis Cave, and Marathon Cave, but also more recent ones—Attica presents close affinities with both the northeastern Peloponnese and Boeotia-Euboea and seems to have been incorporated into the broader sphere of central Greece, especially during the Late Neolithic.

1

368

AS20.indb 368

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) Weinberg (1949:524) also emphasized the connections between central Greece and the northeastern Peloponnese, having already excavated at Corinth. 3 The former Lake Kopais was drained in modern times. 4 Indicated by cryoclastic rubble in the cave, the decline of forest vegetation, and the submergence of the lake. 5 Possibly with a deeper Middle Palaeolithic stratum, based on evidence for a Levallois industry. 6 The Kopais Basin is actually a polje, a large, flatfloored depression within karst limestone (Papadopoulou 1990:115). 7 In fact, it also macroscopically examines function and technology through features such as shape and fabric. 8 For similar observations for the Peloponnese, see Dousougli (1998:59). 9 Also known as “Gonia/Klenia ware” (Blegen 1930). 10 For similar stratigraphical observations for the Peloponnese, see Mee (2007:210– 211). 11 This is due to the scarcity of spatial features and the indispensable relation with the natural landscape. 12 These have close parallels with finds from Elateia and Chaeronea (Tzavella-Evjen 2012:86–88; Weinberg 1962:202–203). 13 Similar basins (bothroi) have been found in Alepotrypa Cave. 14 Parallels for such practices exist today in rural Greece. 15 Provided they were not in close proximity to a settlement. 2

References Cited Alram-Stern, Eva 2005 The Early Neolithic Settlement in Central and Southern Greece. The Actual State of Research. In How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the Seventh through the First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC, International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 183–194. BYZAS 2. Zero Produksiyon, Ankara. Amandry, Pierre 1981 L’Exploration Archéologique de la Grotte. In L’Antre Corycien, Vol. I, pp. 75–93. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 7. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. Angelucci, Diego E., Giovanni Boschian, Marta Fontanals, Annaluisa Pedrotti, and Josep Maria Vergès 2009 Shepherds and Karst: The Use of Caves and Rock-Shelters in the Mediterranean Region

during the Neolithic. World Archaeology 41(2):191–214. Barrett, John C. 2012 Are Models of Prestige Goods Economies and Conspicuous Consumption Applicable to the Archaeology of the Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Britain? In Image, Memory and Monumentality: Archaeological Engagements with the Material World, edited by Andrew M. Jones, Joshua Pollard, Michael J. Allen, and Julie Gardiner, pp. 6–18. Prehistoric Society Research Paper 5. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Benton, Susan 1947 Hagios Nikolaos near Astakos in Akarnania. The Annual of the British School at Athens 42:156–183. Bintliff, John, Emeri Farinetti, Kalliope Sarri, and Renato Sebastiani 2006 Landscape and Early Farming Settlement Dynamics in Central Greece. Geoarchaeology 21(7):665–674. Blegen, Carl W. 1930 Gonia. Metropolitan Museum Studies 3(1):55–80. Brittain, Marcus, and Oliver Harris 2010 Enchaining Arguments and Fragmenting Assumptions: Reconsidering the Fragmentation Debate in Archaeology. World Archaeology 42:581–594. Brück, Johanna 1999 Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3):313–344. Carrier, James C. 1995 Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism since 1700. Routledge, London. Caskey, John L., and Elizabeth G. Caskey 1960 The Earliest Settlement at Eutresis: Supplementary Excavations, 1958. Hesperia 29 (2):126–167. Cavanagh, William 2007 Food Preservation in Greece during the Late and Final Neolithic Periods. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 109–122. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Chapman, John, and Bisserka Gaydarska 2007 Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Contexts. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

369

AS20.indb 369

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou Coleman, John, Kerill O’ Neil, Melanie Pomeroy, Karren E. Carr, and Andrew Heafitz 1992 Excavations at Halai, 1990–1991. Hesperia 61(3): 265–289. Coleman, John, Patricia S. Wren, Kathleen M. Quinn, Kerill O’ Neil, Wendy Yielding, and Julie Near 1999 Halai: The 1992–1994 Field Seasons. Hesperia 68(3):285­–341. Craig, Oliver E., John Chapman, Carl Heron, Laura H. Willis, László Bartosiewicz, Gillian Taylor, Alasdair Whittle, and Matthew Collins 2005 Did the First Farmers of Central and Eastern Europe Produce Dairy Foods? Antiquity 79:882–894. Dietz, Søren, and Moschos, Ioannis (editors) 2006 Chalkis Aitolias I: The Prehistoric Periods. Monographs of the Danish Institute in Athens 7. Aarhus University Press, Athens. Dousougli, Angelika 1998 Άρια Αργολίδος. Η Χειροποίητη Κεραμεική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής και Χαλκολιθικής Περιόδου. Publications of the Archaio­ logikon Deltion 66. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Efstratiou, Nikos 1985 Ayios Petros, A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades: Aegean Relationships During the Neolithic of the 5th Millennium. BAR International Series 241. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Evershed, Richard P. 2012 New Insights into the Early Neolithic Economy and Management of Animals in Southern and Central Europe Revealed Using Lipid Residue Analyses of Pottery Vessels. Anthropozoologica 47(2):45–61. Farinetti, Emeri 2008 Fluctuating Landscapes: The Case of the Copais Basin in Ancient Boeotia. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 86(3.8):115– 138. Facorellis, Yorgos, and John E. Coleman 2012 Interpreting Radiocarbon Dates from Neolithic Halai, Greece. Radiocarbon 54(3):1–30. Garraty, Christopher P., and Barbara L. Stark 2010 Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Garrow, Duncan 2012 Odd Deposits and Average Practice. A Critical History of the Concept of Structured

Deposition. Archaeological Dialogues 19(2):85–115. Goldman, Hetty 1927 Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1940 The Acropolis of Halae. Hesperia 9:381– 514. Hodder, Ian 2013 Why Do Pottery Styles Change? In K. Levent Zoroğlu’na Armağan: Studies in Honour of K. Levent Zoroğlu, edited by Mehmet Tekocak, pp. 293–301. Suna and İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul. Hull, Kathleen L. 2014 Ritual as Performance in Small-Scale Societies. World Archaeology 46(2): 164–177. Johnson, Mats 1996 Water, Animals and Agricultural Technology: A Study of Settlement Patterns and Economic Change in Neolithic Southern Greece. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15(3):267–295. Thomas, Julian 2012 Some Deposits are More Structured than Others. Archaeological Dialogues 19(2):124–127. Karali, Lilian, Fanis Mavridis, and Lina Kormazopoulou 2005 Cultural Landscapes During the Late and Final Neolithic of the Aegean. A Case Study from Leontari Cave, Mt Hymettos, Athens, Greece. Antiquity 79(303). Electronic document, http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ mavridis/, accessed August 31, 2016. Karimali, Evangelia 1994 The Neolithic Mode of Production and Exchange Reconsidered: Lithic Production and Exchange Patterns in Thessaly, Greece, During the Transitional Late Neolithic– Bronze Age Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Boston University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Karkanas, Panagiotis 2013 Cave Sediment Studies in Greece: A Contextual Approach to the Archaeological Record. In Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece, edited by Fanis Mavridis and Jesper Tae Jensen, pp. 73–82. BAR International Series 2558. Archaeopress, Oxford. Karkanas, Panagiotis, and Georgia Stratouli 2008 Neolithic Lime Plastered Floors in Drakaina

370

AS20.indb 370

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) Cave, Kephalonia Island, Western Greece: Evidence of the Significance of the Site. The Annual of the British School at Athens 103:27–42. Katsarou, Stella, and Αdamantios Sampson 2013 Perspectives of Symbolism and Ritualism for the Late Neolithic Communities at Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia. In Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece, edited by Fanis Mavridis and Jesper Tae Jensen, pp. 142–152. BAR International Series 2558. Archaeopress, Oxford. Katsarou-Tzeveleki, Stella 2008 Middle Neolithic Weaver’s Paint: Red Patterns as Markers of the Local Group’s Identity. In The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece: 1. Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, edited by Adamantios Sampson, pp. 69–110. Prehistory Monographs 21. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Kunze, Emil 1931 Orchomenos II: Die Neolithische Keramik. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung, Neue Folge 5. Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2000 The Excavation of Theopetra Cave. In Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998, edited by Nina KyparissiApostolika, pp. 17–36. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Lambert, Nicole (editor) 1981 La Grotte Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique). Missions 1968–1978: L’Occupation Néolithique. 2 vols. Recherche sur les Grandes Civilisations 7. École Française d’Athènes, Paris. McAnany, Patricia A., and Ιan Hodder 2009 Thinking about Stratigraphic Sequences in Social Terms. Archaeological Dialogues 16(1):1–22. Mastrogiannopoulou, Vagia 2015 Συμβολή στην Ερμηνεία της Γραπτής Νεο­ λιθικής Κεραμικής, με Βάση το Σπήλαιο Σαρακηνού, Κωπαϊδας στην Κεντρική Ελλάδα. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History and Archaeology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

Mastrogiannopoulou, Vagia, and Adamantios Sampson 2013 Late Neolithic Traditions: New Evidence from the Cave of Sarakenos, Kopais. In Communities in Transition: The CircumAegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia B.C., edited by Søren Dietz, Fanis Mavridis, Žarko Tankosić, and Turan Takaoǧlu, Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens. Oxbow Books, Oxford, in press. Mavridis, Fanis, Jesper Tae Jensen, and Lina Kormazopoulou 2013 Stable Spaces–Changing Perception: Cave Archaeology in Greece. In Stable Places and Changing Perceptions: Cave Archaeology in Greece, edited by Fanis Mavridis and Jesper Tae Jensen, pp. 2–16. BAR International Series 2558. Archaeopress, Oxford. Mavridis, Fanis, and Žarko Tankosić 2009 The Ayia Triadha Cave, Southern Euboea: Finds and Implications of the Earliest Human Habitation in the Area (A Preliminary Report). Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 9(2):47–59. Mee, Christopher 2007 The Production and Consumption of Pottery in the Neolithic Peloponnese. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 200–224. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Mee Christopher, Bill Cavanagh, and Josette Renard 2014 The Middle–Late Neolithic Transition at Kouphovouno. The Annual of the British School at Athens 109:65–95. Nakou, Georgia 1995 The Cutting Edge: A New Look at Early Aegean Mettalurgy. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8(2):1–32. Okuda, Masaaki, Yasuda Yoshinori, and Takeshi Setoguchi 2001 Middle to Late Pleistocene Vegetation History and Climatic Changes at Lake Kopais, Southeast Greece. Boreas 30(1):73–82. Osborne, Robin 2008 Introduction: For Tradition as an Analytical Category. World Archaeology 40(3):281– 294. Papadopoulou, Kyriakoula 1990 Γεωμορφολογική μελέτη της περιοχής Κωπαϊδας (Βοιωτία). Unpublished Ph.D.

371

AS20.indb 371

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou dissertation, Department of History and Archaeology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 2011 Το Νεολιθικό Διρό: Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα. Melissa Editions, Athens. Péchoux, Pierre-Yves 1981 Présentation Géomorphologique de la Grotte. In L’Antre Corycien, Vol. I, pp. 3–28. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 7. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. Pentedeka, Areti 2008 Δίκτυα Ανταλλαγής της Κεραμικής κατά τη Μέση και Νεότερη Νεολιθική στη Θεσσαλία. Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Available online, http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/ record/110203?ln=en, accessed October 11, 2015. Perlès, Catherine and Karen D. Vitelli 1999 Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 96–107. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Peterson, Rick 2012 Social Memory and Ritual Performance. Journal of Social Archaeology 13(2):266– 283. Phelps, William W. 2004 The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece. BAR International Series 1259. Archaeopress, Oxford. Porčić, Marco 2012 Social Complexity and Inequality in the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: Reviewing the Evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 39:167–183. Quinn, Patrick, Peter Day, Vassilis Kilikoglou, Edward Faber, Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki, and Adamantios Sampson 2010 Keeping an Eye on your Pots: The Provenance of Neolithic Ceramics from the Cave of the Cyclops, Youra, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(5):1042–1052. Roux, Valentine 2011 Anthropological Interpretation of Ceramic Assemblages: Foundations and Implementations of Technological Analysis. In Archaeological Ceramics: A Review of Current Research, edited by Simona Scarcella, pp. 80–88. BAR International Series 2193. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Salque, Melanie, Giovanna Radi, Cristina Fabbri, Antonio Tagliacozzo, Beatriz Pino Uria, Sabine Wolfram, Harald Stäuble, Isabel Hohle, Alasdair Whittle, Daniela Hofmann, Joachim Pechtl, Sabine Schade-Lindig, U. Eisenhauer, and Richard P. Evershed 2012 New Insights into the Early Neolithic Economy and Management of Animals in Southern and Central Europe Revealed Using Lipid Residue Analyses of Pottery Vessels. Anthropozoologica 47(2):45–61. Sampson, Adamantios 1977 Ανασκαφή στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό της Βάρκας Ψαχνών–Εύβοιας. Archive of Euboean Studies 21:5–72. 1992 Late Neolithic Remains at Tharrounia, Euboea: A Model for the Seasonal Use of Caves. The Annual of the British School at Athens 87:61–101. 2014 Το Σπήλαιο Σαρακηνού στο Ακραίφνιο Βοιωτίας. Συμβολή στην Προϊστορία της Κεντρικής Ελλάδος. University of the Aegean and the Municipality of Orchomenos, Athens. Sampson, Adamantios (editor) 1993 Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο. Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, Athens. 2008a The Sarakenos Cave at Akraephnion, Boeotia, Greece: I. The Neolithic and the Bronze Age. University of the Aegean and the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Athens. 2008b The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece: 1. Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution. Prehistory Monographs 21. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Sampson, Adamantios, Janusz K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Anna Budek, Adam Nadachowski, Teresa Tomek, and Barabara Miekina 2009 Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia, from Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Eurasian Prehistory 6(1):199–231. Sherratt, Andrew 1981 Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by Ian Hodder, Glynn Isaac, and Norman Hammond, pp. 261–306. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2003 Diet and Cuisine: Farming and its Transfor-

372

AS20.indb 372

2/11/18 9:01 PM

24 - …Painted Pottery in…Sarakenos Cave (Kopais, Boeotia) mations as Reflected in Pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 29:61–71. Skibo, James M. 2013 Understanding Pottery Function. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Springer, New York. Spyropoulos, Theodoros 1973 Εισαγωγή εις την Μελέτην του Κωπαϊδικού Χώρου. Athens Annals of Archaeology 6(2):201–214. Stratouli, Georgia 1998 Η Ανάγνωση των Χρήσεων των Σπη­λαίων στη Νεολιθική Ελλάδα: Εμπειρικές και Διεπιστημονικές Προσεγγίσεις. In Άν­ θρωπος και Σπηλαιοπεριβάλλον, πρακτικά του Α’ Πανελλήνιο Σπηλαιολογικό Συ­ νέδριο, Αθήνα 26–29 Νοεμβρίου 1992, pp. 59–61. Ministry of Culture and the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology, Athens. 2005 Symbolic Behavior at Places of Social Activity Beyond the Domestic Area in the Ionian Neolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 32:123–132. Theocharis, Dimitrios R. 1959 Εκ της Προϊστορίας της Ευβοίας και της Σκύρου. Archive of Euboean Studies 6:279–328. Trantalidou, Katerina, Evi Belegrinou, and Niels H. Andreasen 2010 Pastoral Societies in the Southern Balkan Peninsula: The Evidence from Caves Occupied During the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic Era. Anodos: Studies of the Ancient World 10:295–320. Tomkins, Peter 2007 Communality and Competition: The Social Life of Food and Containers at Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 174–199. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2009 Domesticity by Default: Ritual, Ritualization and Cave-Use in the Neolithic Aegean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(2):125–153.

Tzavella-Evjen, Hara 2012 Χαιρώνεια. Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 275. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, and Kostas Kotsakis 2007 Pottery, Cuisine and Community in the Neolithic of North Greece. In Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Christopher Mee and Josette Renard, pp. 225–246. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Vitelli, Karen D. 1993 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 1. Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 8. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 1999 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 2. The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 10. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Weninger, Bernhard, Lee Clare, Eelco J. Rohling, Ofer Bar-Yosef , Utz Böhner, Mihael Budja, Manfred Bundschuh, Angelica Feurdean, Hans-Georg Gebel, Olaf Jöris, Jörg Linstädter, Paul Mayewski, Tobias Mühlenbruch, Agathe Reingruber, Gary Rollefson, Daniel Schyle, Laurens Thissen, ­Henrieta Todorova, and Christoph Zielhofer 2009 The Impact of Rapid Climate Change on Prehistoric Societies During the Holocene in the Eastern Mediterranean. Documenta Praehistorica 26:7–59. Weinberg, Saul 1949 Investigations at Corinth, 1947–1948. Hesperia 18(1):148–157. 1962 Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959. Hesperia 31(2):158–209. Zachos, Kostas 1998 Σπηλαιοκατοίκηση στην Πελοπόννησο κατά τη Νεώτερη Νεολιθική Περίοδο. In Άνθρωπος και Σπηλαιοπεριβάλλον, πρακτικά του Α’Πανελλήνιο Σπηλαιολογικό Συνέδριο, Αθήνα 26–29 Νοεμβρίου 1992, pp. 3–58. Ministry of Culture and the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology, Athens.

373

AS20.indb 373

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 25 Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery from the Central Origma at Mavropigi-Filotsairi Lily A. Bonga

Abstract The Early Neolithic settlement of MavropigiFilotsairi in western Macedonia, dated to 6590–6450 to 6200–6010 cal B.C. (2σ), provides a fresh look at Early Neolithic Greece. Its geographic location on a natural crossroads between the Balkans and southern Greece is reflected in the cultural material, which demonstrates affinities with sites in the surrounding plains and valleys. These connections offer new information on the process of Neolithization in the Balkan Peninsula by early farming groups via Greece and are also reflected in the site’s ceramic assemblage. This paper focuses on the decorated pottery from one deposit at the site, which challenges the established chronologies of painted and Impresso pottery in both Greece and the neighboring regions and has ramifications regarding the direction and rate of the spread of the Neolithic into Europe. Keywords Early Neolithic, painted pottery, Impresso pottery, Neolithization, chronology, Balkan Peninsula, western Macedonia This paper presents working thoughts on the preliminary study of the ceramic assemblage from the Early Neolithic (EN) site of Mavropigi-Filotsairi in western Macedonia, Greece, in order to highlight the ways in which the site is positioned to enhance and refocus our current thinking about the EN period. It is limited to a small portion of the material from one deposit, the Central Origma, in which the excavators discerned three phases, all dating to within the EN period. It focuses on the decorated pottery as a basis for a discussion of its chronology and the cultural relationships between the site and the surrounding communities. It is widely known that decorated pottery often makes up only a fraction of the total ceramic assemblage at most Neolithic sites, yet it remains an indispensable focus of traditional ceramic studies

because of its potential to reveal intra- and extra-site developments and trade relations. Recent approaches to ceramics, however, are more inclined to include considerations of the agency of the pots and potters in shaping their communities at the social, economic, or religious levels. While this paper does indeed focus on the decorated pottery, it does this as a means of engaging in a discussion of the problems in distinguishing chronology and cultural change from the choices made by potters and pottery users and processes of deposition. The full publication of this deposit and the site shall be presented elsewhere. The decorated pottery of Mavropigi-Filotsairi is significant due to its early radiocarbon dates, which push back the beginning of decorated pottery, both painted and Impresso, and reveal that some stylistic parallels, traditionally placed toward the end of the EN and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic, may in fact begin much earlier. In particular, Impresso is indicative of the EN in the Adriatic, and both WhitePainted pottery and Impresso are key markers for the formation of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös cultural complex in the Balkans and Carpathians. Overview of the Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi-Filotsairi and its Excavation Mavropigi-Filotsairi is located at a natural geographic crossroads in the plain of Ptolemaida at an elevation of 670–750 masl (Figure 1). It is situated between the Vermio Mountains and Mount Askion, near the former marshland of Kitrini Limni (also known as Sarigioli or Sari Göl). Rescue excavations were carried out in 2005 and 2006 by Georgia Karamitrou-Mentessidi (former Ephor) and the 30th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities over a period of ten months (Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007, 2013; Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2013, 2016). An area of 4000 m² of the flat-extended settlement was excavated. Although material dating to the Late Neolithic, Roman, and Hellenistic periods were found on the site, the majority of the occupation—and, sub-

374

AS20.indb 374

2/11/18 9:01 PM

sequently, the focus of the excavation—was in the EN settlement, which dates to ca. 6590/6450–6200/6010 cal B.C. (2σ) (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2013, 2016; Maniatis 2014). The architectural remains of 10 houses were uncovered (Figure 2). These consisted of three earlier pit-dwellings and at least seven later freestanding, post-framed houses with sunken foundation trenches. The rectilinear houses ranged in size from 50 m² to 90 m², comparable to the houses at EN Nea Nikomedeia. Seventeen prehistoric (and one historic) burials of adults, teenagers, and infants were buried throughout the site in pits inside and around the houses after the

Figure 1. Map showing the location of MavropigiFilotsairi in relation to other Early Neolithic sites: (1) Mavropigi-Filotsairi; (2) PontokomiSouloukia; (3) Pontokomi-Vrisi; (4) PontokomiKsirolimni; (5) Kremastos; (6) Knidi; (7) GevenaXiropotamos; (8) Mavranei-Panagia; (9) Konispol Cave; (10) Sidari; (11) Vlusha; (12) Vashtëmi; (13) Podgorie; (14) Velušina; (15) Porodin; (16) Amzabegovo; (17) Vršnik; (18) Kovačevo; (19) Dikili Tash; (20) Mikri Volvi; (21) Lete; (22) Mesimeriani Toumba; (23) Giannitsa B; (24) Axos A; (25) Paliambela Kolindrou; (26) Nea Nikomedeia; (27) Roditis-Paliambela; (28) Servia; (29) Varemenoi-Goules; (30) Nessonis I; (31) Gediki; (32) Otzaki Magoula; (33) Argissa Magoula; (34) Prodromos; (35) Magoulitsa; (36) Choirospilio Cave; (37) Sesklo; (38) Achilleion; (39) Vardali 4; (40) Koutroulou Magoula; (41) Elateia; (42) Chaeronea; (43) Corinth; (44) Franchthi Cave.

houses had been abandoned (Papageorgopoulou 2014; Papathanasiou and Richards 2011). An abundance of charred emmer and a new glume wheat type in a child and juvenile burial (Burials 1 and 2) may be an indication of a funerary rite (Valamoti 2011); the only other evidence for grave goods is a collection of polished, chipped, and bone tools and a stone frog amulet in Burial 7. The study of the small finds from MavropigiFilotsairi is ongoing, and only the analyses of the archaeobotanical materials (Valamoti 2011), chipped stone (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016), and burials (Papageorgopoulou 2014; Papathanasiou and Richards 2011) have been completed. Three main phases (see below) of the EN settlement were identified by the excavators based on the ca. 2-m deep deposits of a large pit dwelling in the center of the settlement, dubbed the “Central Origma” (Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007:524–526, KaramitrouMentessidi et al. 2016:51–53, Figures 7–11). Due to the longevity of the Central Origma throughout the settlement’s habitation, it is the only feature at the settlement that preserves all three phases. Phase I is only found within the Central Origma. Outside the Central Origma, Phase II was detected in the Western Origma and in an ellipsoidal structure (Ellipsoidal House). Phase III was found in all areas of the settlement (including the Central Origma), and it has at least two sub-phases (IIIa and IIIb), although it remains to be determined if these sub-phases represent different specific tasks and activities performed in the various zones of the settlement, or if they are of chronological significance (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:77). All of the rectilinear houses belong to Phase III, although they were not all contemporary, as some of their plans overlap. It is hoped that the study of the finds, in conjunction with the radiocarbon dates, will help to clarify the situation. The Central Origma was the first structure built by the early farmers at the settlement, and it remained in use throughout the occupation of the site (KaramitrouMentessidi et al. 2016:51, Figures 7, 10). Its size expanded over time, and the structure evolved from a semi-subterranean pithouse to an aboveground house built on gently sloping ground. The deposition of pottery in the Central Origma appears to have been a gradual accumulation of material through habitation, followed by intentional deposition and abandonment. The Central Origma is interpreted as a dwelling based on the existence of a series of floors, hearths, and associated artifacts. The existence of pithouses in EN Greece continues to be a debated topic, as many sites with so-called pithouses have been reinterpreted as clay digging, rubbish, or work pits (Perlès

375

AS20.indb 375

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lily A. Bonga

Figure 2. Site plan of Mavropigi-Filotsairi. (After Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:fig. 5)

376

AS20.indb 376

2/11/18 9:01 PM

25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery… 2001:184–185, 193–194), although there is concrete evidence of pithouses in the later Neolithic periods in Greece, as well as in neighboring Starčevo culture sites (e.g. Divostin in Serbia, Polyanitsa in Bulgaria, and Zadubravlje in Croatia). In the first phase (Phase I), the Central Origma began as a 2-roomed, semi-subterranean “pithouse,” 25 m2 in size (15 m2 for the western room, and 10 m2 for the eastern room; Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007:525), with hard-packed earthen and clay floors and a built plaster hearth; no evidence of roofing was found in this phase (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:51–52, Figure 8). The depths of the deposits ranged from 40 cm to 60 cm. In Phase II, the Central Origma doubled in size, and the amount of small finds of all types (pottery, ground stone tools, lithics, animal bones) also increased, while bits of clay and roofing material were recovered, as was a lime-plaster floor (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:51–52, Figure 9). This phase ended in fire, as indicated by a change in soil color and a concentration of burnt artifacts. The depths of the deposits ranged from 20 cm to 70 cm (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:51). In Phase III, the Central Origma became a large aboveground structure, 100 m2 in size (KaramitrouMentessidi et al. 2016:51, Figure 11). A series of external postholes surrounded the Central Origma, along with a number of small pits functionally related to it. In the earlier part of this phase (Phase IIIa), a series of three clay and lime-plaster floors and a circular plastered hearth, together with the existence of a stone mortar, ground stone tools, and cooking pots found on the floors, indicate that the Central Origma continued to be used as a dwelling. This notion is reinforced by the recovery of numerous pieces of daub with branch impressions form this phase (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:52). By the end of Phase IIIb, however, the structure may have fallen out of use, as House 1 infringed upon its boundaries and a deep pit was cut into the southern part of the floor for the interment of two child burials. These burials were accompanied by charred seeds and stone beads (Papageorgopoulou 2014; Papathanasiou and Richards 2011; Valamoti 2011). The depth of the deposits is ca. 80 cm. Within and around the houses are numerous small pits that seem to have been primarily used for refuse, although they may have been used for storage or as workspaces at different times throughout the duration of the settlement. The larger pits outside the rectilinear houses may have been dug initially for mud or clay to be used in the house construction, and subsequently used for other purposes (such as workspace, storage, or refuse). Rows of postholes either in isolation or

stemming from houses may have provided semicovered or shaded spaces for domestic work. Mavropigi-Filotsairi’s Contribution to Traditional Chronologies Based on Painted Pottery In absolute terms, the EN in Greece is traditionally dated to 6540/6400–5950 B.C. (Perlès 2001:110). Recent fieldwork in northern Greece, along with improvements in the methodology and calibration accuracy of radiocarbon dates (Maniatis 2014; Perlès et al. 2013; Reingruber and Thissen 2005, 2009; Thissen 2000) reveal that sites in Macedonia are as old, if not older, than those in Thessaly and western Anatolia, and that the majority of EN sites in Greece belong to the end of the period, with only a few sites toward the beginning.1 In relative terms, the EN period is divided into three sub-phases, the EN 1–3, on the basis of excavations in Thessaly (Figure 3). These subdivisions are based primarily on ceramic sequences from early excavations and remain poorly defined, particularly the EN 2–3 transition (Wijnen 1981:35). Although the shortcomings of this old chronology have been known for some time (e.g. the lack of clearly stratified sites that span the duration of the EN, and the fact that the earliest radiocarbon dates come from pits which may or may not be stratified), Mavropigi-Filotsairi readdresses them and also raises new problems. Additionally, the Aceramic period is no longer substantiated on the mainland (Reingruber 2008), although it may still apply to Crete. The EN 1 (ca. 6400–6350/6300 B.C.) is traditionally conceived as a purely monochrome phase lacking decorated pottery. Although monochrome phases have been reported from sites outside of Thessaly (e.g. Elateia and Corinth), it is doubtful that this truly represents a chronological horizon, as the sites either range in date or the data are limited to small areas or trial trenches. The same can be said for the earliest phase at Mavropigi-Filotsairi in the Central Origma, a 25 m2 area containing only 76 sherds, none of which were decorated. These are important considerations because, based on analogy with Greece, a hypothetical monochrome phase has been proposed for the definition of Starčevo Ia (Lazarovici 1979), as well as for sites in Bulgaria (e.g. Krainitsi I, Koprivets I, and Polyanitsa-Plateau I). Furthermore, there is no documented monochrome phase in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM; Naumov 2009:4). This fact argues that the concept of a monochrome phase as a chronological horizon is a construct of modern archaeologists rather

377

AS20.indb 377

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lily A. Bonga than an accurate representation of the past. Lastly, it should also be noted that sites closer to the Adriatic Sea with monochrome phases, such as Sidari on Corfu, Vlusha and Konispol Cave in Albania, and Samograd I in Central Dalmatia, have monochrome layers followed by Impresso rather than painted pottery (Bunguri 2014). The EN 2 is defined by the appearance of Red-onWhite painted pottery in Thessaly around 6300–6200 B.C. (Schubert 1999; ca. 6250 B.C. according to Müller 1988, 1994; and ca. 6350/6300 B.C. according to Wijnen 1981). Its inverse, White-on-Red ware, begins shortly after in Greek Macedonia (e.g. Giannitsa B, Axos A, Nea Nikomedeia, Mesimeriani Toumba), also around 6300/6200 B.C. (Maniatis 2014). Further north, White-on-Red painted pottery begins slightly later, around 6100–6000 B.C. in the central Balkans (e.g. Gura Baciului, Amzabegovo, Ocna Sibiului, Donja Branjevina), western Bulgaria (e.g. Kovačevo, Čavdar, Slatina, and Gălăbnik, but also at Karanovo), and Aşağı Pınar in Turkish Thrace (Schubert 1999). These three clusters of White-on-Red painted pot-

tery, although generally contemporary, are unrelated (Pavúk 2007). Although this distinction between Red-on-White and White-on-Red has been noted occasionally (Tasić 2007:113, Urem-Kotsou et al. 2014), it is generally overlooked in the scholarship on early painted pottery, much of which is focused on whether or not the painted pottery bears (Tasić 2003, 2007; Naumov 2009, 2010) or does not bear (Schubert 1999, 2005) a relationship with Anatolian precedents. Furthermore, the debate about painted pottery’s origins is further obfuscated by the potential existence of a monochrome phase of chronological significance in certain places or times in Southeastern Europe. The EN 3 traditionally begins with the appearance of “Magoulitsa-phase” Impresso in Greece and with the first White-on-Red painted pottery. In the Central Origma, no White-on-Red painted pottery was recovered, although it was present in other areas of the settlement. Instead, 149 Red-on-White/ Cream sherds were revealed (Figure 4). The Red-onWhite/Cream bears simple large geometric designs

Figure 3. The traditional ceramic chronology for the Early Neolithic in the Balkans, based on pottery styles.

378

AS20.indb 378

2/11/18 9:01 PM

25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery… and broad bands, similar to that of Nea Nikomedeia in Thessaly and the Haliakmon Valley (Washburn 1984). Yet the majority of the painted pottery (290 sherds) belongs to polychrome painted ware (Figure 5). The polychrome consists of broad curvilinear and linear motifs painted with a red slip and outlined with thin white lines to give contrast with the tan-pink background. These compositions and motifs are distinct from the contemporary Red-on-White/Cream. This type of polychrome pottery is not characteristic of other known EN sites, in Greece and only one sherd has been published from Nea Nikomedeia (Yiouni 1996:Figure 5.35 [No. 12]) and from PontokomiSouloukia (Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2014:247, Figure 6 [second sherd from right, bottom row]). This picture shall surely change when the material from sites in the immediate vicinity of Mavropigi-Filotsairi is fully examined. Until then, the closest parallels for the polychrome pottery come from the EN sites of Podgorie I in the Korça Basin in Albania. The relationship between Thessaly, the Korça Basin, and central Macedonia is well documented in other periods of Neolithic (Lera

et al. 2015), particularly in the Late Neolithic in terms of imported pottery in each region, including “rhyta” (four-legged vessels with oblique openings and thick basket handles), Čakran or “straw-impressed” incised pottery, and brown-on-buff in the Classic Dimini style; these interactions are now understood to have begun much earlier. Recent fieldwork in the Korça Basin (including re-excavation of Vashtëmi) and radiocarbon dates from soil cores confirm the antiquity of Podgorie and Vashtëmi and clarify their relationship, which was previously unclear and contradictory within various excavation reports (Ruzi 2012:4; Andoni 2017). Furthermore, Podgorie and Vashtëmi were previously dated to the end of the EN period and the Early Middle Neolithic (in Greek terms). The dates from Vashtëmi seem to indicate that it (at 6470–6370 B.C.) is older than Podgorie I (6070–5970 B.C.) (Allen and Gjipali 2014). This makes “ceramic” sense, as the Podgorie I White-on-Red and polychrome is of a better quality (Ruzi 2012) than that of Podgorie IA, and also because it shares some motifs with later sites such as Giannitsa B and Axos in central Macedonia and Kovačevo in Bulgaria—these sites also have similar

Figure 4. Early Neolithic Red-on-Cream painted pottery from the Central Origma.

379

AS20.indb 379

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lily A. Bonga radiocarbon dates (Maniatis 2014; Reingruber and Thissen 2005). Impresso Pottery from MavropigiFilotsairi As with the painted pottery, the finds from Mavropigi-Filotsairi demonstrate that Impresso pottery begins much earlier than previously thought, ca. 6400 B.C. Generally speaking, it is a slightly later Impresso B type that was thought to be a localized phenomenon in northeastern Thessaly (e.g. Nessonis

I, Gediki, Argissa Magoula, Otzaki Magoula) at the end of the EN, ca. 6000 B.C. (Müller 1988, 1994; or 6000/5900 B.C. according to Reingruber 2011), but is now documented throughout Thessaly and is shown to have continued into the early Middle Neolithic at sites in southern Thessaly (e.g. Magoulitsa, Prodromos, Achilleion, Vardali, Koutroulou Magoula). Single or double nail-marks, elongated “slash” or “dash” marks, rows of small punctuations (pseudo-Cardium imitation shell impressions), and arcaded and “fluted” barbotine decoration characterize this later phase. Earlier Impresso pottery, similar to that of Mavropigi-

Figure 5. Early Neolithic polychrome-painted pottery from the Central Origma.

380

AS20.indb 380

2/11/18 9:01 PM

25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…

Figure 6. Early Neolithic Devollite-style Impresso pottery from the Central Origma.

381

AS20.indb 381

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lily A. Bonga Filotsairi, is also documented elsewhere in western and central Macedonia (e.g. Paliambela Kolindrou, Giannitsa B, Mavranei-Panagia, Varemenoi-Goules). A distinctive feature of the early Impresso from Mavropigi-Filotsairi is characterized more by the use of tools than fingers, whereas shell impressions are absent (Figure 6). Interestingly, it again finds its closest parallels in the Korça Basin at Podgorie I and also at Vashtëmi, particularly what is known in the Albanian literature as the Devollite type, in which various tools (including reeds, bone tools, and sticks) are used to create impressions and rough surfaces, including barbotine decoration (Korkuti 1982, 1995,

2007; Prendi and Andrea 1981). Nails, finger pinches, and fingertips are also common (Figure 7). Several techniques may also be combined on the same pot. The choice for the simultaneous use of these two decorative systems (and also different painted styles) may stem from sensatory/symbolic experience of potting—painting is done when the vase is hard and dry, while impression and pinching must be performed on a moist pot. Similarly, the choice of temper (mineral and often micaceous for painted pottery but generally more chaff for Impresso) may also have symbolic or tactile meaning aside from functional aspects. While chaff tempering may seem “crude,” es-

Figure 7. Early Neolithic nail-pinched, fingertip-impressed, or nail-impressed Impresso pottery from the Central Origma. 382

AS20.indb 382

2/11/18 9:01 PM

25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery… pecially when used for pots decorated in the easiest way possible (and perhaps also unaesthetic to some modern eyes), it surely contrasts with the high level of potting knowledge necessary to create a polychrome pot, which required the knowledge of particular clay and mineral sources as well as firing techniques.2 Thus, the contemporaneous use of Impresso and painted pottery—and of two different stylistic traditions— demonstrates a cultural preference and intentional choice to employ divergent technologies and decorative systems. The data from Mavropigi-Filotsairi also suggests that the skill or tradition of polychrome painted pottery was lost by the end of the EN period and demonstrates that pottery technology did not develop in a linear fashion in terms of technological or stylistic achievement. It remains to be determined, however, whether the abandonment of polychrome painted pottery was the result of a deliberate cultural choice (e.g. switching to easier technologies to produce decorated pottery, or if polychrome pottery no longer served a social/ symbol function), or if its disappearance was due to regional and/or chronological differences with other sites. Lastly, particular parallels in plastic decoration (e.g. a monochrome pot with a an added plastic spiral) with sites further north in the Iron Gates with similar radiocarbon dates (e.g. Lepenski Vir [Borić 2011:Figure 13] and Banja [Srejović 1988:Cover image]) may reflect adventurous pioneers, but are more likely coincidental rather than reflections of actual contacts; this highlights the problems raised when comparing relatively similar ceramics over broad geographical distances. Mavropigi-Filotsairi’s Relationship with Surrounding Early Neolithic Communities In addition to the parallels in decorated pottery to the east, west, and south, other aspects of the material culture reinforce the relationships between sites like Mavropigi-Filotsairi, Vashtëmi, Podgorie, and Nea Nikomedeia. Each of these sites may be representative of other settlements in their respective basins. For example, frog amulets; face pots; vessels with small, low feet; rhyta; Impresso; Red-on-White pottery; and stamp seals are found at Nea Nikomedeia, Mavropigi-Filotsairi, and Ksirolimni-Portes, as well as Vashtëmi and Podgorie. Yet triangular altars and spoons seem to be found at either Vashtëmi or Podgorie. Polychrome is found in the Korça Basin only at Podgorie, and while rare at Mavropigi-Filotsairi, White-on-Red painted pottery is common at Nea

Nikomedeia, Axos A, Giannitsa B, and at Vashtëmi and Podgorie. White-on-Red painted pottery is rare at Mavropigi-Filotsairi, but not at Nea Nikomedeia, Axos A, and Giannitsa B, or at Vashtëmi and Podgorie. Similarly, choices of imported material in the chipped stone also hint at these east-west connections between basins. Imported “honey” flint (silex blond) most likely arrived at the settlement from southwestern Albania (not Bulgaria), likely through sites like Vashtëmi and Podgorie in the Korça Basin (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:72). Imported Melian obsidian may have circulated from Nea Nikomedeia itself or from other sites near the Thermaic Gulf, or alternatively from EN communities in Thessaly (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:57) via sites like Nea Nikomedeia and Servia. These variations between basins probably arose from cultural, social, and economic interactions of the EN communities. The plains and basins in western and central Macedonia were important centers not only during the EN, but also throughout antiquity, because of their position as inland routes, which often followed river courses despite the fact that the rivers themselves were not navigable. These plains are still invaluable resources, although they are now being reshaped and exploited for the production of electricity through strip mining and the creating of artificial lakes, such as Polyfytos Lake on the course of the Aliakmonas River (Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007). These locations were chosen first to meet certain natural requirements of Neolithic people, plants, and animals, such as alluvial soils for crops, land for pasture, fresh water, and a salt source (Biagi et al 2005; Tasić 2000), and secondarily to provide security against crop failure (van Andel and Runnels 1995; for an opposing opinion, see Wilkie and Savina 1997) by having secondary resources readily available (e.g. the marshy Kitrini Limni Lake), even if they were not otherwise exploited. Each of these basins developed its own peculiarities in terms of material culture, architecture, settlement layout, and ceramic identity, and may confirm the “leap-frogging” (Spataro 2010; Zilhão 1997) from one micro-environment to the next. Paleo-landscapes also may have dictated the communication routes. For instance, interaction to the north, either in Pelagonia (FYROM) or beyond, seems limited, and most of the known sites in Pelagonia itself are of later date (e.g. Velušina and Porodin)—perhaps due to the presence of swampland in the earlier part of the EN (Naumov 2009:26). Instead, the plains and basins of FYROM appear to have been accessed through the Axos/Vardar River plains, based both on similarities in material culture (including pot-

383

AS20.indb 383

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lily A. Bonga tery and white-painted decoration) between sites like Nea Nikomedeia, Giannitsa B, and Amzabegovo and Vršnik in the Ovče Pole, Polog, and Skopje regions (Naumov 2009:26) as well as on radiocarbon dates (contra Perlès 2001:60). Our understanding of EN Greek Macedonia (and particularly western Macedonia) is rapidly changing and will continue to evolve and expand. While the EN settlement of Nea Nikomedeia has remained the best-known EN site in Macedonia since its excavation in the 1960s, in the past 20 years surveys and excavations conducted by the University of Thessaloniki, local ephorates, and foreign projects have enhanced the dataset. Within the Grevena and Kozani prefectures alone, 44 EN sites are now known (23 and 21, KaramitrouMentessidi 2014; respectively; Wilkie and Savina 1997), although only two have been subject to extensive rescue excavation (Mavropigi-Filotsairi and Ksirolimni-Portes). The rest are known only from either surface material or small trial trenches (e.g. Pontokomi-Vrisi, Knidi, Pontokomi-Souloukia, Roditis-Paliambela, Varemenoi-Goules, Kremastos). The picture will continue to fill in with recent fieldwork in the Amindeon Basin (Chrysostomou et al. 2015) and full publication of the Kitrini Limni and Grevena surveys. As the analysis of cultural material from Mavropigi-Filotsairi moves forward, it is clear that it will contribute actively to the debate and understanding of EN Greece and the process of Neolithization, as well as regional variability and cultural choice within the early farming communities of Southeastern Europe. Determining which of the cultural differences are chronological or regional variations and to what extent they reflect the choice and agency of pottery and potters remains to be determined. Notes The 2010 soil cores from Dikili Tash also confirm the early habitation of eastern Macedonia, which until now had remained problematic (Lespez et al. 2013). It should also be noted that specialists are not in complete agreement regarding the interpretations of radiocarbon dates, some of whom argue that the dates in Greece that are earlier than those from western Anatolia should be rejected, since the “Neolithic package” was introduced from Anatolia. 2 From macroscopic inspection, it seems that the polychrome pots were produced by “painting” or selectively slipping the areas desired to be red with a ferruginous slip and then outlining it with a thin 1

white paint (either a kaolin or marl slip) to heighten the contrast between the natural, self-slip (mechanical slip) of the pot and the area painted red. The pot was then lightly burnished to ensure that the paint would adhere and then fired in a oxidized or weakly reduced atmosphere, which kept the iron-based pigments red and left the background a light buff color. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the conference organizers and sponsors, Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, and Evagelia Karimali, the staff at the Archaeological Museum of Aiani Museum, and the 30th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory Study Center for East Crete, and especially Dr. Nikos Efstratiou and Dr. Georgia Karamitrou-Mentessidi for their permission to study the material, and Stephania Michalopoulou for her all her indispensable help. References Cited Andoni, Edlira 2017 Investigating Ceramic Differences During the Early Neolithic in the South-eastern of Albania: The Settlements of Podgori and Pogradec. Anglisticum Journal 6(2):20– 28. Allen, Susan, and Ilirjan Gjipali 2014 New Light on the Early Neolithic Period in Albania: The Southern Albania Neolithic Archaeological Project (SANAP), 2006– 2013. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Albanian Archaeological Studies. 65th Anniversary of Albanian Archaeology, 21–22 November, Tirana 2013, pp. 107–119. Center for Albanian Studies and Institute of Archaeology, Botimet Albanologjike, Tirana. Biagi, Paolo, Stephen Shennan, and Michela

Spataro 2005 Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for

the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education, edited by Lolita Nikolova, John Fritz, and Jude Higgins, pp. 43–51. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6–7. Wiley-Blackwell, Salt Lake City. Borić, Dusan 2011 Adaptations and Transformations of the Danube Gorges Foragers (c. 13.000–5500

384

AS20.indb 384

2/11/18 9:01 PM

25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery… BC): An Overview. In Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul, edited by Raiko Krauß, pp. 157–203. Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westf. Bunguri, Adem 2014 Different Models for the Neolithisation of Albania. Documenta Praehistorica 41:79–94. Chrysostomou, Panicos, Tryfon Jagoulis, and Andreas Mäder 2015 The “Culture of Four Lakes”. Prehistoric Lakeside Settlements (6th–2nd mill. BC) in the Amindeon Basin, Western Macedonia, Greece. Archéologie Suisse 38(3):24–32. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia 2007 Μαυροπηγή 2005: Λιγνιτωρυχεία και Αρχαιότητες. In The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 19(2005):511– 540. 2013 Εορδαία 2009: Η Έρευνα στην Αναρράχη και στη Μαυροπηγή. In The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 23(2009):275–300. 2014 Περί Προϊστορικών Θέσεων στη Δυτική Μακεδονία: Νομοί Κοζάνης και Γρεβενών. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 233–250. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Janusz K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Yiannis Maniatis, Antonio Curci, Stephania Michalopoulou, Anastasia Papathanasiou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti 2013 New Evidence on the Beginning of Farming in Greece: The Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Macedonia (Greece). Antiquity 87:336. Electronic document, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/mentessidi336/,accessed May 3, 2015. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, and Janusz K. Kozłowski 2016 Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Greek Macedonia. Eurasian Prehistory 12(1–2):47–116.

Korkuti, Muzafer 1982 Vashtemia, një Vendbanim i Neolitit të Hershëm. Illiria 2:91–146. 1995 Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien, Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans, Vol. 4. Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt. 2007 The Early Neolithic of Albanian in a Balkan Perspective. In A Short Walk through the Balkans: The First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions, edited by Michela Spataro and Paolo Biagi, pp. 113–118. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Griuli-Venezia Giulia, Trieste. Lazarovici, Gheorghe 1979 Neoliticul Banatului. Biblioteca Musei Napocensis 4. Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Lera, Petrika, Stavros Oikonomidis, Aris Papyiannis, and Akis Tsonos. 2015 Βαλκανικές Γεωγραφικές Αντιστοιχίες: Ενδεικτικές Σχέσεις μεταξύ της ΝΑ Αλβανίας και της Θεσσαλίας μέσα από τη Νεολιθική Κεραμική. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3– 18.3.2012: I. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra Alexandridou, pp. 17–28. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 4. Ministry of Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Lespez, Laurent, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Pascal Darcque, Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, René Treuil, Robert Davidson, Georgia Kourtessi-Philippakis, and Christine Oberlin 2013 The Lowest Levels at Dikili Tash, Northern Greece: A Missing Link in the Early Neolithic of Europe. Antiquity 87:30–45. Maniatis, Yiannis 2014 Χρονολόγηση με Άνθρακα-14 των Με­ γάλων Πολιτισμικών Αλλαγών στην Προϊστορική Μακεδονία, Πρόσφατες Εξελίξεις. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 205–222. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Müller, Johannes 1988 Cultural Definition of the Early Neolithic

385

AS20.indb 385

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lily A. Bonga and its Interaction in the Eastern Adriatic. Berytus 36:101–125. 1994 Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9. Volker Spiess, Berlin. Naumov, Goce 2009 Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic Visual Culture from the Republic of Macedonia. BAR International Series 1910. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2010 Symmetry Analysis of Neolithic Painted Pottery from the Republic of Macedonia. Archaeoligia e Calcolatori 21:255–274. Papageorgopoulou, Christina 2014 Αρχαίο DNA: Εφαρμογές, Προοπτικές, Περιορισμοί. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 477–488. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Papathanasiou, Anastasia, and Michael P. Richards 2011 Ανθρωπολογικά Κατάλοιπα από τις Πρώι­ μες Θέσεις Μαυροπηγής, Ξηρολίμνης και Ποντοκώμης της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής στη Δυτική Μακεδονία. Archaeological Work in Upper Macedonia 1(2009):257– 274. Pavúk, Juraj 2007 Enstehung und Gliederung der Neolithischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan: Fallbeispiel Gălăbnik. In The Struma/ Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis (Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp. 164–174. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Perlès, Catherine, Anita Quiles, and Hélène Valladas 2013 Early Seventh-Millennium AMS Dates from Domestic Seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece). Antiquity 87:1001–1015. Prendi, Frano, and Zhaneta Andrea 1981 Të Dhëna të Rëja mbi Neolitin në Shqipëri. Iliria 11(2):15–40.

Reingruber, Agathe 2008 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien: 2. Das Frühe und das Beginnende Mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte Transägäischer Beziehungen. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 35. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. 2011 Early Neolithic Settlement Patterns and Exchange Networks in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 38:291–305. Reingruber, Agathe, and Laurens Thissen 2005 CANeW 14C Databases and 14C Charts: Aegean Catchment (Eastern Greece, Southern Balkans, and Western Turkey), 10,000–5500 cal BC. Electronic document, http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20 Aegean %20C14%20dbase%20, accessed May 5, 2015. 2009 Depending on 14C Data: Chronological Frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 51(2):751–770. Ruzi, Eugene 2012 Investigating Compositional Variability among Early Neolithic Ceramics from Korça Region, Albania. Chronika 3:1–15. Schubert, Holger 1999 Die Bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien. International Archaeology 47. Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westf. 2005 Everyone’s Black Box – Where does the European Ornamentation Come From? In How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the Seventh through the First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC, International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp. 239–254. BYZAS 2. Zero Produksiyon, Ankara. Spataro, Michela 2010 The Neolithisation of the Central Balkans: Leapfrogging Diffusion and Cultural Transmission. In The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe, International Symposium, Mainz 24 June–26 June 2005, edited by Jörg Petrasch, pp. 95–105. RGZM-Tagungen 4. Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz. Srejović, Dragoslav (editor) 1988 The Neolithic of Serbia: Archaeological Research 1948–1988. The University of

386

AS20.indb 386

2/11/18 9:01 PM

25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery… Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Center for Archaeological Research, Belgrade. Tasić, Nenad N. 2000 Salt Use in the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Balkan Peninsula. In Technology, Style and Society: Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory, edited by Lolita Nikolova, pp. 35–40. BAR International Series 854. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 2003 The White Painted Ornament of the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Central Balkans. In Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe, edited by Lolita Nikolova, p. 181–191. British Archaeological Report International Series 1139. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2007 Tell-Tale Squares. In A Short Walk through the Balkans: The First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions, edited by Michela Sparato and Paolo Biagi, pp. 103–11. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Griuli-Venezia Giulia, Trieste. Thissen, Laurens 2000 A Chronological Framework for the Neolithisation of the Southern Balkans. In Karanovo: III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, edited by Stefan Hiller and Vassil Nikolov, pp. 193–212. Phoibos, Vienna. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anna Papaoionnaou, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Niki Saridaki, and Zoi Intze 2014 Pottery and Stylistic Boundaries: Early and Middle Neolithic Pottery in Macedonia. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November

2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 505–517. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Curtis N. Runnels 1995 The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69:481–500. Valamoti, Soultana Maria 2011 Σπόροι για τους Νεκρούς; Αρχαιοβοτανικά Δεδομένα από τη Μαυροπηγή Κοζάνης, Θέση Φυλλοτσαϊρι. Archaeological Work in Upper Macedonia 1(2009):245–256. Washburn, Dorothy K. 1984 A Study of the Red on Cream and Cream on Red Designs on Early Neolithic Ceramics from Nea Nikomedeia. American Journal of Archaeology 8(3):305–324. Wijnen, Mies 1981 The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo: An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece. Analecta Praehistoric Leinesia 14. Leiden University Press, Leiden. Wilkie, Nancy C., and Mary E. Savina 1997 The Earliest Farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity 71:201–207. Yiouni, Paraskevi 1996 The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. In Nea Nikomedeia: I. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, Directed by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage, edited by Kenneth A. Wardle, pp. 55–193. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 25. The British School at Athens, London. Zilhão, João 1997 Maritime Pioneer Colonisation in the Early Neolithic of the West Mediterranean. Testing the Model against the Evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 24:19–42.

387

AS20.indb 387

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 26 Emergent Networks and Sociocultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece David Michael Smith

Abstract Introducing themes from social psychology and complexity science, this paper explores the contribution of localized prosocial networks to cultural change in the Final Neolithic Peloponnese. Although the dearth of well-published, stratified Final Neolithic contexts continues to present considerable difficulties, it suggests that a series of burials on the Argolic Gulf may offer evidence for the construction and maintenance of local networks and the conscious curation of shared identity through repeated episodes of prosocial interaction. This behavior, it is suggested, would have helped to structure other forms of activity and may offer an explanatory model for emergent sociocultural phenomena (including monumental architecture and the foundation of discrete, formalized extramural cemetery space) previously considered typical of the Early Helladic, but now visible during the Final Neolithic. Keywords burial, ceramics, complexity, emergence, Final Neolithic, Peloponnese, prosociality Traditionally characterized by a handful of burials, scant architectural remains, and an overabundance of low-fired pottery which, for the most part, offered only a damning indictment of Final Neolithic (FN) ceramic technology, the rather bleak picture of the FN Peloponnese has been markedly improved during the last decade (Figure 1). Excavation of the doublefaced, rubble-filled Wall 31 at Geraki (Crouwel 2012; MacVeagh Thorne 2012) positions Laconia and the Peloponnese within a monumental FN architectural tradition that has its clearest expression in central and southern Attica1 and at Strofilas on Andros (Televantou 2008); the monumental terrace wall at Ksagounaki (Parkinson et al., this volume) may represent a second monumental tradition in the same region. The FN foundation of cemeteries at Kalamaki (Vasilogambrou 1996–1997) and Elis (Rambach 2007)

in the northwestern Peloponnese offers a parallel to the earliest burials of the Tsepi cemetery in Boeotia (Pantelidou-Gofa 2005) and to the cemeteries of Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977) and Tharrounia on Euboea (Sampson 1993). The identification of FN material at the surface remains problematic, although regionalized patterns of activity are evident in an increasingly large volume of Peloponnesian survey data,2 and while petrographic analysis has done less to elucidate Peloponnesian ceramic networks and tempering traditions in the FN than it has for other phases, there are notable proximal examples in the FN–Early Helladic (EH) I chert fabric from deposit α at Kastraki on Kastri (Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007:248), the comparable FN–EH I grog-tempered fabric GROb on Antikythera (perhaps a Kytheran import, see Pentedeka et al. 2010:16, 38), and those identified at the Euripides Cave on Salamis (Whitbread and Mari 2014:86–87).3 All offer a complementary perspective on the identification at the regional scale of the Attic-Kephala koine: material parallels that reflect the existence of behavioral, material, ideological, and technological networks. Although finer chronological resolution has been possible for the Cretan FN (see Tomkins 2008), the absolute Peloponnesian sequence remains incomplete and rather fragmentary and, despite several claims to the contrary, there is still no mainland sequence which clearly bridges the FN–EH I transition. A date for the beginning of the FN at approximately 4300 B.C. seems likely (for a recent summary of evidence, see Alram-Stern 2014:305–308), while work by Cavanagh et al. (2016:Table 5) has suggested a mean start date of 3257 B.C. for EH I.4 Franchthi Ceramic Phase (FCP) 5 offers arguably the most valuable local ceramic chronology for the period, but even this represents only part of the very long FN sequence in southern Greece, divided into two subphases (5.1 and 5.2) and not well defined in absolute terms. The earliest 14C sample for FCP 5.1 derives from a late stage, FCP 5.1b (P1660, FAS:72), and offers a calibrated date of 4310–3970 cal B.C. The chronological gap between the beginning of FCP 5.1a and FCP 5.1b is

388

AS20.indb 388

2/11/18 9:01 PM

not clear, although it may be relatively short (Vitelli 1999:89). The latest sample derives from an FCP 5.2 context containing stratified Heavy Burnished pottery (P1659, FA:39) and dates to 4230–3790 cal B.C. (Vitelli 1999:Table 9), placing activity at Franchthi within the early–mid FN. Ceramic contemporaneity thus carries a potentially broad absolute range and, without further refinement, must be treated with an appropriate level of caution. The historical absence of data has inevitably limited academic discourse on the particularities of FN sociocultural organization. This is not true of the subsequent EH where, long framed by neoevolutionary thinking, material and sociostructural developments evident by its middle phase, EH II (ca. 2950–2250 B.C.; see Cavanagh et al. 2016:Table 5), have commonly been considered a priori evidence for the hierarchical centralization of sociopolitical authority at the level of the chiefdom. In this rather flexible anthropological model, “complexity” repre-

sents an inevitable product of these institutionalized political power structures and of directed change resulting from the social and economic inequality that they engender. The perpetuation of the EH chiefdom as a sociopolitical keystone owes much to Renfrew’s multi-component culture-system analysis, in which social differentiation implied economic specialization, and specialization sustained a hierarchical redistributive economy structured around the control of bulk agricultural products by a permanent central agency of coordination (see Renfrew 1972:264–265). Here the chiefdom forms a direct antecedent of the later palatial economy; an evolutionary waypoint toward even greater “complexity” in the later Bronze Age (see recently Pullen 2011a). It is, of course, unrealistic to characterize something as contextually sensitive and conceptually slippery as “complexity” as a fixed evolutionary stage (achieved or not achieved) within any real world system. Yet, the historical tendency to do just that, and to identify its

Figure 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text. 389

AS20.indb 389

2/11/18 9:01 PM

David Michael Smith presence as contingent on the top-down mediation of socioeconomic behavior through an authoritarian hierarchy, has seen the Servician chief survive far longer in isolation on the Greek mainland than he might otherwise have done. Complexity discourse has moved beyond the binarism of simplicity and complexity, egalitarianism and hierarchy, and center and periphery (see Kohring and Wynne-Jones 2007). In its place is a more adaptable understanding of what “complexity” may actually mean in real terms: the interaction and tension between dynamic cross-scale social and economic processes and the potential therein for the contemporary and complimentary operation of different organizational strategies. Among the latter, the creation of “bottom-up” self-organizing inter- and intra-group relationships represents an important process (or set of processes) with the potential to facilitate and structure behaviors traditionally considered symptomatic of central organization (see Collar et al. 2015; Knappett 2011, 2013; Schoep and Knappett 2004). Within this ontological shift toward networkthinking, “emergence” has developed as a means of capturing within our analyses the contribution of local, small-scale interpersonal behaviors to global change within a system (see Sawyer 2001, 2005, 2009). This paper is not intended to serve as an extended critique of emergence (or network analysis more generally), but rather to highlight the potential significance of supposedly “low-level,” and particularly symbolic, communication to “higher-level” change and the appearance of more or less stable socially emergent macroproperties (see Sawyer 2005:202). Small actions can equal big change, or so it would seem. If we consider that the perceived “complex” cultural features of the FN and EH may represent the emergent result of multiple prosocial5 episodes, then we might also look to the FN for those behaviors capable of generating suitable conditions for development: the growth and reproduction of sociocultural networks and the material embodiment of shared behavior and identity construction between groups over distance at a scale below that of the trans-regional koine. Networks and Prosociality: A Case Study from the Argolid The strategic adaptation of behavior at critical points during the burial process offers an opportunity for the articulation and renegotiation of collective group identity; at the expense of (or in addition to) elements of the self, the dead can be manipulated to encode symbolic and ideological meaning in line with a shared orthodoxy designed to reinforce com-

monality (see Carr 1995; on the value of ritual for the development of prosocial sentiment, see Fischer et al. 2013). It is this potential for the conscious construction of in-group identity that makes the burial record such a useful medium for the analysis of prehistoric networks. Notwithstanding those examples noted, the southern Greek mortuary record is rather sparse, and recent additions from Kolonna Stadt I (Touchais 1999:671) and Ksagounaki (Smith 2013:25; Parkinson et al., this volume) are published only in the most preliminary form. Yet, even with such a limited dataset, integrative prosocial behavior might be tentatively identified on the Argolic Gulf in a series of burials from the paralia at Franchthi, Lerna, and Aria (Ayios Vlassis).6 Of six FN pit burials on the Franchthi paralia (see Jacobsen and Cullen 1981:Table 1), the double burial of young “adult” male Fr61 and “adult” female Fr62, and the single ca. 28-year-old female Fr63, can be more accurately placed into FCP 5.2. The remainder, a further ca. 28-year-old female (Fr19) and two unsexed children of approximately eight years of age (Fr69 and Fr115), may also belong to FCP 5.2, but this cannot be confirmed.7 At Aria, FCP 5.2 is represented by the pit burial of an unsexed child of approximately four years of age (Pit 6, Dousougli 1998:132) and at Lerna in pit burials HTN-1 and JC-1 (Banks’ burials 7 and 8, see 2016:175–179), both females in their mid-twenties (240Ler and 242Ler, see Angel 1971:40). Within this group, analogues are immediately apparent in the exclusive use of pit graves for deposition, and the predominance of prepubescent children and females in their mid- to late-twenties. The provision of a stone ring around Lerna Burial 8 is paralleled at Aria, and at both sites, interments are made into abandoned settlement space (see Banks 2016:89; Dousougli 1998:131–133). It is similarly true that the paralia at Franchthi offers no evidence for then-recent or contemporary settlement, although in this case the area appears to have fallen out of use much earlier, in late FCP 2 (Vitelli 1999:10). The apparent absence of perinatal and infant dead on the Argolic Gulf is intriguing, although the reality of any regional distinction in the practices afforded to this group is unclear in light of a more general absence of very young dead across the Peloponnese. The low numbers of burials identified perhaps indicates some distinction from the wider burial community, although it is difficult to know what, if any, selection criteria may have been imposed. As these similarities in age, sex, and grave form hint at the existence of shared selection criteria, so the objects interred with the dead suggest some standardization of practice. Grave offerings are rare in both

390

AS20.indb 390

2/11/18 9:01 PM

26 - Emergent Networks and Sociocultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece the Late Neolithic and Final Neolithic Peloponnese. Most published examples derive from the three sites under discussion, where they are comprised almost exclusively of low numbers of comparable cup and bowl forms, with Burnished or variant Crusted surface treatments. At Franchthi, the young female Fr 63 is accompanied by a small “cup” preserving a fugitive powdery red-orange surface treatment (FP197, Vitelli 1999:Figure 67i).8 A small “bowl” with a single squared lug, concave base, and a similar powdery coating (L1394) accompanies Lerna Burial 7 alongside a carinated bowl with White Crusted decoration (L465) and a Heavy Burnished bowl with a single squared lug (L1445, Vitelli 2007:195–196, 323, 328–329, Figures 78a, 85a, c, f). As Vitelli (1999:69) has noted, the nature of this powder and the stage of manufacture at which it was applied are not clear; if it represents the post-firing application of cinnabar (a mercuric ore), then we might reasonably assume a specific symbolic value in its addition. The development of this surface treatment on the FCP 4 “rhyta” from the site would seem to support the possibility.9 The same fugitive surface treatment is present on cups with strutted loop handles placed at the lower legs of both the child burial at Aria (Dousougli 1998:132–133, Plates 18, 52 [No. 194]) and Lerna Burial 8 (L1610, Vitelli 2007:198; also Caskey 1959:Plate 41a; Phelps 2004:109–110). These two vessels (Figure 2) represent the only complete profiles for the form known from the Peloponnese, although strutted “ribbon handles” are noted from Agora Wells T26:3, U24:3, and T24:2 (Immewahr 1971:29–30), in association with the Western Group within the cemetery at Kephala (Coleman 1977:17, 93, Plate 83 AT and AU) and at Pefkakia (Weisshaar 1989:187, Figure 50.9). Dousougli (1998:133) reports additional examples in the museum at Alepotrypa, although the only comparable published example belongs to a small amphoriskos (Δ.1308; Papathanassopoulos 2011:223). The shape is not present among the FN material published from the Southern Argolid survey (see Pullen 1995), Halieis (Pullen 2000), Argos Aspis (Touchais 1980), Midea (some certainly FCP 5.2, Johnson 1999:91–94), or Tsoungiza to the north (Pullen 2011b:32–33), although chronological differences may be partly to blame. While a causal relationship has been identified between the general FN decline of finepainted pottery and a reduction in the use of pottery to encode symbolic meaning (Mee 2010:8), these cups perhaps represent one instance where a non-domestic function is more likely than not. Rare and elaborate, their asymmetrical design renders them inherently unstable and prone to toppling under their own weight if less than half full (Vitelli 2007:329), an apparent

functional compromise which suggests the encoding of an ideological component and a use-value beyond the utilitarian. It is worth noting in this context that slight differences in the size and style of these cups indicate production at two different sites to a common design, rather than the coincidental acquisition of goods from a single source. In addition, the child at Aria was accompanied by a biconical Pattern-Burnished bowl on a ring base that also preserved traces of fugitive orange slip (Dousougli 1998:132–133, Plates 18, 52 [No. 193]; Papathanassopoulos 1996:273 [No. 138]). There was no comparable vessel identified with Lerna Burial 8, although excavation records suggest the presence of a “red and white” painted flat-bottomed jar with a strap handle (now lost; Vitelli 2007:203, footnote 27). We might also note the deliberate inclusion of a single body sherd with powdery white and orange polychrome decoration next to the skull, one of only two examples of such from the site (Vitelli 2007:196). The idea that other fragments of this vessel might have been removed by those present at the burial (Vitelli 2007:212–213) is an intriguing one, if all but impossible to prove. Proximity suggests a relationship between Lerna Burials 7 and 8 and the construction of several claylined “ash pits” (AP1­–8) containing broken and burnt pottery (including fragments of a so-called “drum” in AP3), alongside low numbers of stones, lithics, bone, and shell (see Banks 2016:82–89). These pits were built over at least two separate episodes during FCP 5.2, as evidenced by the superimposed construction of AP4. There is no direct stratigraphic relationship between pit and burial, although a symbolic character and a possible connection with funerary ritual is suggested by Vitelli (2007:211–212); Banks (2016:84–85), alternatively, concedes only a possible association with communal cooking. At Franchthi, a similar relationship is perhaps evident between the single certain FCP 5 child, Fr115, and two deep limefilled pits that also yielded lithics, ground stone tools, bone, and shell (Vitelli 1999:87–88). In this case, Fr115 lies between and above these features, although for how long the construction preceded burial, or whether these features represent components of a single event, remains unclear. Franchthi, Lerna, and Aria offer a fairly robust picture of networked behavior: the burial process consciously homogenized in order to reinforce in-group identity within an “imagined” Argolic community (see Sollars 2005:263). The Argolic Gulf is not the only area in which we might recognize this type of behavior, although it is certainly the most compelling. Across the Parnon Massif, the burials of Ossuaries I and II and Pit B at Alepotrypa (Papathanasiou 1999a,

391

AS20.indb 391

2/11/18 9:01 PM

David Michael Smith

Figure 2. Cups with strutted handles from Lerna and Aria, to scale. (After Vitelli 2007:CD Photo 66 and Dousougli 1998:Figure 18. Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the Ephorate of Antiquities of the Argolid, and the Archaeological Museum of Nafplion) 1999b, 2003, 2009; Papathanasiou et al. 2000) manifest what might reasonably be considered conspicuous collectivism, while evidence here and on the eastern edge of the Vromatas Plain at Kouveleiki Caves A and B (Kontaxi 2006:182–183) for the conscious distinction or objectification of crania using stone circles or slabs may reflect a further instance of shared ideological behavior. The same may well be true of two possible FCP 5.2 double male-female pit burials recently identified at Ksagounaki (Parkinson et al., this volume), which find their only direct parallel in the double pit burial Fr61-62 from Franchthi. These sites were evidently part of one or more well-integrated FN networks, although the behavioral parallel here is far less explicit, and it may be premature to attempt association of the type proposed above.10 Similarly, the late FN foundation of cemeteries of rock-cut chamber tombs at Elis and Kalamaki would seem to represent a conscious alignment of depositional practice; the two sites may well have been in contact over land following a similar route to the modern Patras–Pyrgos road, or by sea between the Patraikos and Kyparissi Gulf. Unfortunately, neither is currently published in sufficient detail to permit a more meaningful discussion.11

The more localized behaviors of the Argolic Gulf parallel a relative increase in visible activity across the Argolid at large. An FCP 5.2 foundation date is likely for the settlement on the Aspis at Argos (Touchais 1980), as it may well be at Midea (Demakopoulou et al. 2008:11), while some 24 findspots identified by the Southern Argolid Exploration Project yielded FN material and a further 12 yielded material which could be either FN or EH I (Jameson et al. 1994:225–319). Much is coarse and abraded, although Pattern-Burnished pottery was recovered from Ermioni Magoula (E13) and the presence of Pattern-Burnished and White Crusted sherds from Kotena Cave (G9; Runnels and Munn 1994:521) is intriguing and should indicate occupation in FCP 5. No data has yet appeared from the ongoing Western Argolid Research Project, although one hopes that it may offer a wider regional perspective on these developments. The settlement pattern of the FN–EH southern Argolid appears symptomatic of change in the social and economic dynamic and the mode and frequency of intercommunal contact, although it is not yet clear whether those acts of prosociality identified on the Argolic coast can be considered a prelude to this shift or a corollary of it.

392

AS20.indb 392

2/11/18 9:01 PM

26 - Emergent Networks and Sociocultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece Concluding Remarks It seems likely that both interaction and the creation and maintenance of social bonds during funerary ritual would have provided precedent for collaboration in other ways, and perhaps also an improved chance of success when engaging in novel or risky behaviors. Over time, it is entirely reasonable to expect that certain of these networks would have collapsed or atrophied, and that tensions would have developed between others, forcing reorientation and introducing a degree of uncertainty to even everyday social and economic activities. In this scenario, the existence of curated processes through which new associations might be formalized would have proved hugely important, even if interaction subsequently proved to be more or less uneven over time and, perhaps, over very small distances. The potential importance of local “low-level” networks to FN groups in the Peloponnese is clear, although how far it should prove possible to recognize their emergent macroproperties in the architecture, infrastructure, and material culture of this period and the subsequent EH is a question which might only be answered with the future publication of stratified FN remains from sites both within the Argolid and beyond it. Notes At Megalo Rimbari (MacVeagh Thorne 2012:119); Kiaphi Thiti and perhaps Keramoti (Lohmann et al. 2002:5, 14); Thorikos and Zagani (Steinhauer 2001:33); Etosi (Pikermi; Lohmann et al. 2002:14– 15); Gouri Lachi (Steinhauer 2001:31); and, less certainly, the Hill of Pani (Alimos; Kaza-Papageorgiou 2000:105–106). Note also the possible FN date of the perimeter wall at Akri Rozos on Euboea (Cullen et al. 2013:93). 2 Principally from the southern Argolid (Jameson et al. 1994; Runnels et al. 1995), Laconia (Cavanagh et al. 1996, 2002), the Asea Valley (Forsén and Forsén 2003), the Berbati Valley (Lindblom and Wells 2011; Wells 1996), the Methana Peninsula (Mee and Taylor 1997), the Nemea Valley (Cherry et al. 2013; Wright et al. 1990), and the Pylian hinterlands (Davis et al. 1997). 3 Petrographic analysis of the Aigeira assemblage has identified a continued use of the same local clay source between the FN and EH I (Scherbentype A1; Alram-Stern 2011:202; Sauer 2006:89, 96, Table 14). 4 Radiocarbon dates from Kouveleiki Cave B in Laconia (Kontaxi 2006) correspond relatively closely with those for FCP 5 (ca. 4458–3700 B.C.). Although 1

occupied somewhat earlier (ca. 5300 B.C.), the end of activity in Cave A broadly corresponds with that of Cave B (ca. 3820 B.C.). The recently proposed phasing of the occupational sequence at Alepotrypa (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2015:199–200; for earlier dates, see Zouridakis and Papathanassopoulos 1995), which clarified an occupation roughly comparable to FCP 5.2 (Phase A, 4200–3800 cal B.C.), has now been abandoned (Panagiotis Karkanas, personal communication 2016), although individual 14C dates from the site still support activity during the fourth millennium B.C. No published 14C date from Limnes Cave Phase III fall within the fourth millennium (ranging between 4521–4460 cal B.C. (C28) and 4225–4046 cal B.C. (C10); Sampson 1997:539), and the same is true of Agios Dimitrios (HD10020: 4340–4160 cal B.C. and HD10163: 4250–4040 cal B.C.; Zachos 2008:223). In contrast, the marine-corrected date range of a group of Cerastoderma edule L. from Findspot 4 at Halieis covers most of it (3909–3367 cal B.C.), although a “late” FN occupation is proposed based on differences with the FCP 5 assemblage (Pullen 2000:184–186). The same has been suggested at Aigeira (Alram-Stern 2003, 2011:202) and Kouphovouno (Mee 2010) in the absence of Crusted or Pattern-Burnished sherds. Both “early” and “late” FN pottery has been identified at Corinth (LN Iva–b; Lavezzi 2003) and Geraki (Crouwel 2012:134–135; Crouwel et al. 2004:16–17), although the contexts in which they appear at the latter are mixed and lack radiocarbon data. Coleman (2011) has recently argued for a general late FN hiatus in southern Greece, although this seems rather unlikely. 5 The study of prosociality has its origins in evolutionary and social psychology, although in each area the topic is considered rather differently. At its most basic, prosocial behavior can be considered to refer to any act which benefits another (see Schroder and Graziano 2015), although in the context of this study the focus is on social identity and its effect on cooperation within and between groups at the meso- and macro-level (Penner et al. 2005). 6 Too little is known of the male pit burial from nearby Koutsouria (see Protonariou-Deilaki 1971:10–11) to permit its discussion here, although an FN date is possible. 7 There is a discrepancy between the burials assigned to FCP 5 by Vitelli (1999:87) and those assigned by Jacobsen and Cullen (1981:85). Disagreement over the FN date for Fr69, as per Jacobsen and Cullen, is less problematic, since the possibility of an FN date is retained by Vitelli. More difficult is Vitelli’s attribution of an FCP 5 date to Fr18, a ca. 33-year-old female previously queried as MN, and a possible FCP 5 date to Fr221 from Area Q4, which to my knowledge has

393

AS20.indb 393

2/11/18 9:01 PM

David Michael Smith yet to be explicitly described in print. 8 The presumably arbitrary distinction between “cup” and “small bowl” may be slightly misleading here, since their rim diameters are rather more similar than one might presume at ca. 12 cm and 15 cm, respectively. 9 A surface treatment similar to FN Crusted Ware (White-Slipped and Red-Painted) is noted by AlramStern on a group of FN figurines from Kolonna (see Alram-Stern, this volume; Felten and Hiller 1996). How closely this mirrors the “powdery” post-firing treatments of the Argolic Gulf is not yet clear, although the association of a similar treatment with objects which seem to be ritual in nature is important, as is their apparently deliberate association with sherds of Pattern-Burnished pottery. 10 Although 14C data from both Alepotrypa and Kouveleiki A and B allow for contemporaneous use, specific contextual and chronological detail is lacking. The presence of White Crusted decoration on a collared bowl accompanying the infant jar burial from Kouveleiki A (see Kontaxi 2006:189, Figures 7–9; Koumouzelis 1995:158–159, Figures 17–18) should indicate a date in the FCP 5. It is perhaps worth noting that Geraki offers FN ceramic parallels to both Kouveleiki and Alepotrypa (Crouwel 2012:127), although without a clear use-context the significance of this fact is rather unclear. 11 Several tombs in the “northern row” at Elis are certainly “late” FN; Pattern-Burnished and Red Crusted pottery is reported, and activity within the cemetery is dated to ca. 3400–2800 B.C. (Rambach 2007:64–67). Tomb Nine at Kalamaki might also be placed into the late FN based on the presence of a dark-slipped and burnished carinated bowl and a biconical jar with “fluted” and relief decoration (Johnson 1999:325–328; Vitelli 2007:197). Parallels in both ceramics and depositional practice would seem to continue during the EH I. Unfortunately, with the exception of late FN Aigeira (Alram-Stern 2003) and Agios Dimitrios Phase I (Zachos 2008), there are too few well-published FN sites from the northwest Peloponnese to allow us to properly contextualize these developments at a local level. Acknowledgements Sincerest thanks to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the Ephorate of Antiquities in the Argolid, and the Nafplion Archaeological Museum for permission to reproduce the vessels illustrated in Figure 2; to Takis Karkanas and Bill Parkinson for discussions on the chronology of Alepotrypa, and to the two anonymous reviewers whose useful sugges-

tions for improvement were gratefully acknowledged and incorporated. References Cited Alram-Stern, Eva 2003 The Acropolis of Aigeira before the Mycenaean Settlement. In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. IV, edited by Manfred Bietak, pp. 437–454. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. 2011 The Acropolis of Aigeira and the Distribution of Settlement at the Corinthian Gulf during Early Helladic I. In Protohelladika: The Southern and Central Greek Mainland, edited by Dora Katsonopoulou, pp. 199–210. Helike IV: Ancient Helike and Aigialeia. The Helike Society, Athens. 2014 Times of Change: Greece and the Aegean during the 4th Millennium BC? In Western Anatolia before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and Mathias Mehofer, pp. 305–327. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Angel, J. Lawrence 1971 Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: II. The People. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Banks, Elizabeth C. 2016 Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: VII. The Neolithic Settlement. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher, Tom F. G. Higham, Fiona Brock, Diane Baker, Peter Ditchfield, and Richard A. Staff 2015 Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 35. Archaeometry 57(1):177–216. Broodbank, Cyprian, and Evangelia Kiriatzi 2007 The First “Minoans” of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Landscape in the Prepalatial Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 111:241–274. Carr, Christopher 1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:105–200.

394

AS20.indb 394

2/11/18 9:01 PM

26 - Emergent Networks and Sociocultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece Caskey, John L. 1959 Activities at Lerna, 1958–1959. Hesperia 28(3):202–207. Cavanagh, William, Joost Crouwel, Richard W. V. Catling, and Graham Shipley 1996 Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey: 2. Archaeological Data. Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 27. British School at Athens, London. 2002 Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey: I. Methodology and Interpretation. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 26. British School at Athens, London. Cavanagh, William, Christopher Mee, and Josette Renard 2016 Early Bronze Age Chronology of Mainland Greece: A Review with New Dates from the Excavations at Kouphovouno. First View Article. April 2016. Annual of the British School at Athens. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S0068245416000022. Cherry, John F., Jack L. Davis, and Ada Kalogirou 2013 The Nemea Valley in the Early Bronze Age. In The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese: Topography and History from Prehistoric Times until the End of Antiquity, edited by Konstantinos Kissas and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, pp. 333–344. Hirmer Verlag GmbH, Munich. Coleman, John E. 1977 Keos I. Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. 2011 The Petromagoula-Doliana Group and the Beginning of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Ιn Protohelladika: The Southern and Central Greek Mainland, edited by Dora Katsonopoulou, pp. 13–44. Helike IV: Ancient Helike and Aigialeia. The Helike Society, Athens. Collar, Anna, Fiona Coward, Tom Brughmans, and Barbara J. Mills 2015 Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:1–32. Crouwel, Joost H. 2012 Early Helladic and Final Neolithic Pottery in the Area of the Early Fortification Wall at Geraki. Pharos 18(1):125–140. Crouwel, Joost H., Mieke Prent, Elizabeth Langridge-Noti, and Jos van der Vin 2004 Geraki. An Acropolis Site in Lakonia.

Preliminary Report on the Ninth Season (2003). Pharos 11:1–34. Cullen, Tracy, Lauren E. Talalay, Donald R. Keller, Lia Karimali, and William R. Farrand 2013 The Prehistory of the Paximadi Peninsula, Euboea. Prehistory Monographs 40. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Davis, Jack L., Susan E. Alcock, John Bennett, Yannis G. Lolos, and Cynthia W. Shelmerdine 1997 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey. Hesperia 66(3):391–494. Demakopoulou, Katie, Nicoletta Divari-Valakou, Monica Nilsson, and Ann-Louise Schallin 2008 Excavations in Midea 2006. Opuscula 1:7–30. Dousougli, Angelika 1998 Άρια Αργολίδος. Η Χειροποίητη Κεραμεική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής και Χαλκολιθι­ κής Περιόδου. Publications of the Archaiologikon Deltion 66. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Felten, Florens, and Stefan Hiller 1996 Ausgrabungen in der Vorgeschichtlichen Innenstadt von Ägina-Kolonna (Alt- Ägina). Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 65:29–111. Fischer, Ronald, Rohan Callander, Paul Reddish, and Joseph Bulbulia 2013 How Do Rituals Affect Cooperation? An Experimental Field Study Comparing Nine Ritual Types. Human Nature 24:115–125. Forsén, Jeanette, and Bjorn Forsén (editors) 2003 The Asea Valley Survey: An Arcadian Mountain Valley from the Palaeolithic until Modern Times. Paul Åströms Förlag, Stockholm. Immerwahr, Sara A. 1971 The Athenian Agora: XIII. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Jacobsen, Thomas W., and Tracy Cullen 1981 A Consideration of Mortuary Practices in Neolithic Greece: Burials from Franchthi Cave. In Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death, edited by Sarah C. Humphreys and Helen King, pp. 79–101. Academic Press, London. Jameson, Michael H., Curtis N. Runnels, and Tjeerd H. van Andel (editors) 1994 A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

395

AS20.indb 395

2/11/18 9:01 PM

David Michael Smith Johnson, Mats 1999 Chronology of Greece and South-East Europe in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65:319–336. Kaza-Papageorgiou, Konstantina 2000 Λόφος Πανί. Archaiologikon Deltion 55:105–106. Knappett, Carl 2011 An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2013 Network Analysis in Archaeology, New Approaches to Regional Interaction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kohring, Sheila, and Stephanie Wynne-Jones (editors) 2007 Socialising Complexity: Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Kontaxi, Chrysanthi 2006 Α´ και Β´ Κουβελέϊκες Σπηλιές: Στὸ Ἀλεποχώρι Λακωνίας κατὰ τὴν Νεολιθικὴ Εποχὴ (Παράλληλη Χρήση Δύο Σπηλαί­ ων). In Πρακτικά του Ζ’Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών: Πύργος, Γαστούνη, Αμαλιάδα 11–17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2005 (Πελοποννησιακά Παράρτημα 27): Α’. Αρχαιολογικών, edited by Tasos Gritsopoulos, Konstantinos L. Kotsonis, and Ioanna K. Giannopoulou, pp. 177–190. Society for Peloponnesian Studies, Athens. Koumouzelis, Margarita 1995 Η Κεραμική από την Α Κουβελέϊκη Σπηλιά Αλεποχωρίου Λακωνίας. Athens Annals of Archaeology 22:143–160. Lavezzi, John C. 2003 Corinth before the Mycenaeans. In Corinth: XX. Corinth, the Centenary 1896–1996, edited by Charles K. Williams II and Nancy Bookidis, pp. 63–74. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Lindblom, Michael, and Berit Wells (editors) 2011 Mastos in the Berbati Valley: An Intensive Archaeological Survey. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4, 54. The Swedish Institute at Athens, Athens. Lohmann, Hans, Gerd Weisgerber, and Georg Kalaitzoglou 2002 Ein Endneolithisches Wehrdorf auf dem Megalo Rimbari (Attika) und Verwandte Anlagen. Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithischen Attika. Boreas. Münstersche Beiträge Zur Archäologie 25:1–48.

MacVeagh Thorne, Stuart 2012 The Early Fortification Walls of Geraki: Final Neolithic and Early Helladic. Pharos 18(1):105–124. Mee, Christopher B. 2009 Cohesion and Diversity in the Neolithic Peloponnese: What the Pottery Tells Us. In Being Peloponnesian. Proceedings from the Conference held at the University of Nottingham 31st March–1st April 2007, edited by William Cavanagh and Stephen Hodkinson, pp. 1–11. Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies, online publication. Electronic document, http://www. nottingham.ac.uk/csps/documents/beingpeloponnesian/mee.pdf, accessed January 12, 2011. Mee, Christopher B., and Gary Taylor 1997 Prehistoric Methana. In A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, edited by Christopher B. Mee and Hamish Forbes, pp. 42–56. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. Pantelidou-Gofas, Maria 2005 Το Πρωτοελλαδικό Νεκροταφείο στο Τσέπι Μαραθώνος. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Papathanasiou, Anastasia 1999a A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Health, Subsistence, and Funerary Behavior in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin: A Case Study from Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate College, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 1999b Health Status of the Neolithic Population of Alepotrypa Cave, Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126:377–390. 2003 Stable Isotope Analysis in Neolithic Greece and Possible Implications on Human Health. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13:314–324. 2009 Mortuary Behavior in Alepotrypa Cave: Assessments from the Study of the Human Osteological Material. In Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-modern, Proceedings of the Conference held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, edited by William G. Cavanagh, Chrysanthi Gallou, and Mercourios Georgiadis, pp.

396

AS20.indb 396

2/11/18 9:01 PM

26 - Emergent Networks and Sociocultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece 21–28. British School at Athens Studies 16. British School at Athens, London. Papathanasiou, Anastasia, Clark Spencer Larsen, and Lynette Norr 2000 Bioarchaeological Inferences from a Neolithic Ossuary from Alepotrypa Cave, Diros, Greece. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10:210–228. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. 2011 Το Νεολιθικό Διρό: Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα. Melissa Editions, Athens. Penner, Louis A., John F. Dovidio, Jane A. Piliavin, and David A. Schroeder 2005 Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 365-392. Pentedeka, Areti, Evangelia Kiriatzi, Lindsay Spencer, Andrew Bevan, and James Conolly 2010 From Fabrics to Island Connections: Macroscopic and Microscopic Approaches to the Prehistoric Pottery of Antikythera. Annual of the British School at Athens 105:1–81. Phelps, William W. 2004 The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece. BAR International Series 1259. Archaeopress, Oxford. Protonariou-Deilaki, Evangelia 1971 Ανασκαφή Ναυπλίας. Athens Annals of Archaeology 4(1):10–11. Pullen, Daniel J. 1995 The Pottery of the Neolithic, Early Helladic I, and Early Helladic II Periods. In Artifact and Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece: 1. The Prehistoric and Early Iron Age Pottery and the Lithic Artifacts, edited by Curtis Runnels, Daniel J. Pullen, and Susan Langdon, pp. 6–42. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 2000 The Prehistoric Remains of the Acropolis at Halieis: A Final Report. Hesperia 69(2):133–187. 2011a Before the Palaces: Redistribution and Chiefdoms in Mainland Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 115:185–195. 2011b Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: 1. The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Rambach, Jörg 2007 Το ΠΕ Ι Νεκροταφείο της Αρχαίας Ήλιδας. In Πρακτικά του Ζ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου

Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών: Πύργος, Γαστούνη, Αμαλιάδα 11–17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2005 (Πελοποννησιακά Παράρτημα 27): Β’. Αρχαιότης, edited by Tasos Gritsopoulos, Konstantinos L. Kotsonis, and Ioanna K. Giannopoulou, pp. 63–92. Society for Peloponnesian Studies, Athens. Renfrew, Colin 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen, London. Runnels, Curtis N., and Mark H. Munn 1994 Appendix A: A Register of Sites. In A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day, edited by Michael H. Jameson, Curtis N. Runnels, and Tjeerd H. van Andel, pp. 415–538. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Runnels, Curtis N., Daniel J. Pullen, and Susan Langdon (editors) 1995 Artifact and Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece: 1. The Prehistoric and Early Iron Age Pottery and the Lithic Artifacts. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Sampson, Adamantios (editor) 1993 Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το Σπήλαιο, ο Οικισμός, το Νεκροταφείο. Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, Athens. Sampson, Adamantios 1997 Το Σπήλαιο των Λιμνών στα Καστριά Καλαβρύτων: Μία Προϊστορική Θέση στην Ορεινή Πελοπόννησο. Society for Peloponnesian Studies, Athens. Sauer, Roman 2006 Ergebnisse Mineralogisch-Petrographischer Analysen von Ausgewählten Keramikproben. In Aigeira I: Die Mykenische Akropolis: 3. Vormykenische Keramik. Kleinfunde. Archäozoologische und Ar­ chäobotanische Hinterlassenschaften. Naturwissenschaftliche Datierung, edited by Eva Alram-Stern and Sigrid DegerJalkotzy, pp. 89–100. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Sawyer, R. Keith 2001 Emergence in Sociology: Contemporary Philosophy of Mind and Some Implications for Sociological Theory. American Journal of Sociology 107:551–585. 2005 Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2009 The Science of Social Emergence. In Hand-

397

AS20.indb 397

2/11/18 9:01 PM

David Michael Smith book of Research on Agent-Based Societies: Social and Cultural Interactions, edited by Goran Trajkovski and Samuel G. Collins, pp. 1–16. Information Science Reference, Hershey, Pennsylvania. Schoep, Ilse, and Carl Knappett 2004 Dual Emergence: Evolving Heterarchy, Exploding Hierarchy. In The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited, edited by John C. Barrett and Paul Halstead, pp. 21–37. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Schroeder, David A., and William G. Graziano (editors) 2015 The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Smith, David M. 2013 Mainland Greece (Prehistoric). Archaeological Reports 59:22–33. Sollars, Luke 2005 Settlement in the Prehistoric Mediter­ranean. In The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, edited by Emma Blake and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 252–269. Blackwell, Oxford. Steinhauer, Georgios 2001 Two Neolithic Settlements. In Mesogeia: History and Culture of Mesogeia in Attica, edited by Christos Doumas, pp. 28–34. Eleftherios Venezelos Athens International Airport, Athens. Televantou, Christina 2008 Strofilas: A Neolithic Settlement on Andros. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, Giorgos Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 43–54. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Tomkins, Peter 2008 Time, Space and the Reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic. In Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, edited by Valasia Isaakidou and Peter Tomkins, pp. 21–48. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Touchais, Gilles 1980 La Céramique Néolithique de l’Aspis. In Études Argiennes, pp. 1–40. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 6. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. 1999 Chronique des Fouilles et Découverts Archéologiques en Grèce en 1998: Égine. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 123(2):670–672.

Vasilogambrou, Adamantia 1996–1997 Πρωτοελλαδικό Νεκροταφείο στο Καλαμάκι Ελαιοχωρίου-Λουσίκων Αχαΐας. In Πρακτικά του Ε’ Συνεδρίου Πελο­ ποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος-Ναύπλιον 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995 (Πελοποννησιακά Παράρτημα 22), pp. 366–399. Society for Peloponnesian Studies, Athens. Vitelli, Karen D. 1999 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 2. The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 10. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2007 Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid: V. The Neolithic Pottery from Lerna. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Weisshaar, Hans-Joachim 1989 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien: 1. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes Vol. 28. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Wells, Berit (editor) 1996 The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4, 44. Paul Åströms Förlag, Stockholm. Whitbread, Ian, and Alexandra Mari 2014 Provenance and Proximity: A Technological Analysis of Late and Final Neolithic Ceramics from Euripides Cave, Salamis, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:79–88. Wright, James C., John F. Cherry, Jack L. Davis, Eleni Mantzourani, Susan B. Sutton, and Robert F. Sutton, Jr. 1990 The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report. Hesperia 59(4):579– 659. Zachos, Konstantinos L. 2008 Ayios Dhimitrios. A Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnese: The Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods. BAR International Series S1170. Archaeopress, Oxford. Zouridakis, Nikolaos, and Giorgos A. Papathanassopoulos 1995 Χρονολογήσεις με τη Μέθοδο του Ραδιε­ νεργού Άνθρακα στο Νεολιθικό Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα-Διρού. EKEFE Demokritos, Athens.

398

AS20.indb 398

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 27 Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period: The Example of Aegina-Kolonna Eva Alram-Stern

Abstract This paper deals with the figurines of one of the earliest settlement phases of Aegina-Kolonna dating to the period of the Attica-Kephala Culture (first part of fourth millennium B.C.). The most important component is an assemblage of 18 figurines found in a stone-lined pit, which has been interpreted as a communal deposit. While six complete figurines and six fragments of figurines were deposited loosely in the pit, six complete figurines were set into four miniature bowls. Four of these were arranged in pairs, each having the same appearance and therefore interpreted as representations of pairs of individuals of the same sex/function. The miniature bowls could represent separate social spaces, although the figurines also must have been related to each other. Nine of the figurines are identified as males, partly based on their pointed, removable caps. All in all, this complex seems to have been a special arrangement for a special purpose. Most of the figurines in this complex are of local character, demonstrating cultural diversity during the Final Neolithic period. On the other hand, various other figurines from Kolonna have parallels at other Aegean sites, indicating interaction over long distances, a point which has already been argued on the basis of other finds of the Final Neolithic period. Keywords figurines, ritual, Final Neolithic, Aegean, interaction The site of Kolonna on the island of Aegina is well known for its Early Helladic (EH) and Middle Helladic (MH) settlement, which was one of the major centers in the Bronze Age Aegean (Felten 2007; Walter and Felten 1981). However, according to partly stratified finds, Aegina-Kolonna was already settled from the Neolithic period onwards. Various contexts show that substantial leveling, as well as building activities, are to be attributed to the Attica-Kephala Culture of the Final Neolithic (FN) period (Alram-

Stern 1996:219–220). In general, the FN sequence is still little understood. Chronologically, a new collection of 14C data by Zoï Tsirtsoni (2014) should help us assign the Attica-Kephala Culture to the early part of the fourth millennium B.C. In Kolonna, two major contexts of the Attica-Kephala Culture contained figurines, one with 18 figurines deposited inside an FN house situated under the MH House 8, and another one consisting of four figurines from an area with a hearth situated under the MH House 1. Additional figurines deriving from mixed contexts can be attributed to the FN period by their dated parallels (Figure 1). The Context of the Figurines in the Pit under House 8 Special interest should be focused on the deposit of 12 intact and 6 partially preserved figurines that were excavated under the MH House 8, Room C of the Innenstadt (Figure 2; Felten 2003:19). The figurines were deposited in a stone-lined pit that was set into the interior of a house close to a wall (Felten and Hiller 1996:64–76). The pit, which was 28 cm deep, contained FN pottery fragments, many of which have a red pattern-burnished surface, and lug handles characteristic of the Attica-Kephala Culture (Lydia Berger, personal communication 2013). On the bottom of the pit, six intact figurines were found inside four miniature bowls (Figures 3–10):1 two figurines were set separately into two bowls, while the four other figurines were placed into two bowls in pairs. Concerning their connection with miniature bowls, one of the figurines that was identified securely as a male was set into a complete bowl. This bowl still shows the foot impressions of the figurine; therefore, it must have been produced originally to contain it. An oblong figurine, which according to its breasts is to be recognized as female, was also set separately into a half-preserved bowl. The two pairs of figurines were asexual, mostly schematic, and were placed in bowls that were already

399

AS20.indb 399

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Figure 1. Location of the Final Neolithic figurines in the Innenstadt of Aegina-Kolonna.

Eva Alram-Stern

400

AS20.indb 400

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… deposited as fragments. The bottom of the interior of a broken bowl, which contained a pair of intact figurines made without heads, was covered with a thick white lime paste. The depressions of the figurines were still visible in this paste, such that the figurines must have been intentionally glued into the bowl. The second fragmented bowl contained two intact, short cruciform figurines with flattened heads. The rest of the figurines were deposited into the fill of the pit at a higher level, after the deposition of the six figurines in the miniature bowls. Six of these were intact, and six were fragments. As for the complete figurines, we do not know if they were deposited in an upright position or laid down in a certain position. As for the fragments—three torsos, two heads, and at least two separate caps—we should argue that they were thrown into the pit as fragments. We cannot say if their deposition as fragments should be seen in connection with an intentional breakage of the figurines (Chapman 2000:72–74), or if they were thrown into the pit when they fell out of use (Perlès 2001:263). In any case, we should also consider whether these fragments, heads, and torsos, were deliberately selected and therefore had a special meaning.

The Figurines, Their Sex, and Their Social Roles During recent years, publications of figurines from the Aegean and the Balkans have concentrated on gender studies and observations concerning their role as individuals (Bailey 1994a, 2013). Generally, it is argued that female figurines outnumber male figurines in the Aegean. Furthermore, a widespread class comprises asexual figurines (Bailey 2013:247–248; Marangou 2009; Mina 2007). At the same time, figurines, being an interpretation of reality created by and for the society, must have followed the politics of representation (Bailey 2013:245–246). In this sense, the variation of types united in this context is most remarkable. Starting with the figurines from the bowls, there is a half-reclining male figurine characterized by a most simplified appearance, with the face featuring only a clearly projecting nose, and the sex indicated by the penis (Figure 3). Such a selection of details must have had meaning to the users of the figurines. In this context, the indication of the sex is outstanding, although another figurine in the fill of the pit has a quite similar shaping of the penis. Another

Figure 2. The Final Neolithic houses and the stone-lined pit below House 8. 401

AS20.indb 401

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern most distinctive feature is the removable pointed cap. Two similar heads with projecting noses and removable caps were found in the higher part of the pit. As a matter of fact, removable caps were unknown in the Aegean until now; the only figurine with a removable cap known to me is a female figurine from Šuplevec (Hansen 2007:Figure 172). Another figurine with a removable cap was found in the Troas (Schliemann 1881:746). The female figurine from the second bowl is cruciform, the face even more schematic, and the breasts are just slightly indicated. In contrast to the male figurine, the head is flattened (Figure 4). Most interesting are the two pairs of figurines of asexual type, which were decorated with red paint on a white slip. To my knowledge, with the exception

of the pairs of figurines with uncertain excavation context from Sfakovouni (Spyropoulos 1991), pairs of figurines are unknown in the Aegean. The pair that was glued into the bowl is characterized by its schematic cruciform appearance without any indication of a head (Figure 5). Two similar figurines were found in this assemblage around the hearth in House 1. However, one of these was provided with a removable pointed cap (Figure 11). Another cap should probably be connected with the second headless figurine that was found in the same context. Therefore, these figurines could change their appearance via their caps as temporary clothing. Since caps also were found in the fill of the pit under House 8,

Figure 5. Two asexual, headless figurines from the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6508; (b) MA 6509. Figure 3. Male figurine with removable pointed cap (MA 6511) from the pit below House 8.

Figure 4. Oblong female figurine (MA 6510) from the pit below House 8.

Figure 6. Two asexual figurines with flat heads from the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6506; (b) MA 6507.

402

AS20.indb 402

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… the same should be argued for these figurines. The caps most probably functioned as part of the dress by expressing social identity (Mina 2007:278) and, therefore, were distinct cultural markers (Talalay 2000:8). At the same time, the appearance as well as the function of these figurines could be changed by putting the cap on and off. Although we should also keep in mind that headgear was not necessarily confined to gendered figurines or to a specific

gender (Stratos Nanoglou, personal communication 2015), I would like to argue that that these asexual figurines could actually depict male figurines when wearing their caps. My interpretation is based on the male figurine with the removable cap from the pit (see Figure 3). Furthermore, my proposal to identify these figurines as being gendered by their headgear as males is supported by a small sample of male figurines with pointed heads, which, according to the Aegina sample, probably does not show their hairstyle but rather their headdress. There is another male figurine with a pointed headdress from the fill of the pit at Kolonna (Figure 12), as well as the entirely preserved male figurines with pointed heads from FN contexts

Figure 9. Fragmented miniature bowl (MA 6031) that was found with a female figurine (MA 6510). Figure 7. Male figurine with a removable pointed cap (MA 6511) in a miniature bowl (MA 6030) from the pit below House 8.

Figure 8. Two asexual figurines (MA 6508 and 6509) in a fragmented miniature bowl (MA 6029) from the pit below House 8.

Figure 10. Fragmented miniature bowl (MA 6028) that was found with two asexual figurines with flat heads (MA 6506 and 6507).

403

AS20.indb 403

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern in Kephala, Kea (Coleman 1977:80 [No. 160]) and Zerelia, Thessaly (Wace and Thompson 1912:Figure 110). Therefore, the caps could allow a sex designation to be given to the pair of asexual figurines glued into the bowl, with their gender moving from asexual to male (Bailey 1994b:221; Talalay 2000:9) when putting on the cap. At the same time, their social role was changing. Concerning the appearance of the figurines

Figure 11. Cruciform figurine with pointed cap (MA 6524) from the hearth area below House 1: (a) with cap; (b) without cap.

without heads, we have to consider that the absence of heads could point to the existence of heads of different material, as is known for acrolithic figurines in Late Neolithic (LN) Thessaly (Nanoglou 2016). These figurines could have been provided with heads or headgear of perishable material, as has been suggested for the Hamangia figurines (Bailey 2005:64). The second pair of figurines is also cruciform and asexual, but were provided with heads (Figure 6). Although asexual, I would like to suggest that they be thought of as female: their slightly curved appearance, which is comparable to the female figurine from this context, could indicate breasts. Furthermore, the flattening of the head, which is similar to that of the single female figurine in the bowl discussed above, stands in contrast to the male figurines, and FN female figurines also are quite often provided with a flat head (e.g. Spyropoulos 1991). The figurines in each pair are connected to each other by their similar appearance. Based on this, I would suggest that each pair consisted of figurines of identical sex and/or function. It should be noted that both pairs consist of a taller and a smaller figurine. Therefore, they may display pairs of different age or importance connected by a relationship such as mother/daughter–father/son, or older/younger brother/ cousin–older/younger sister/cousin, and therefore could reflect relations of age or power within a family (Bailey 2005:85–86; Mina 2007:280). However, they could also represent older/younger or more/ less important persons related to each other by their activity or function in the community, and therefore could have played a certain economic or social role. Furthermore, it must be noted that their shape and schematization is in strong contrast to the figurines found in their bowls as singles. The figurines from the upper fill of the pit again included four secure and two possible male figurines, one of them with a pointed, although non-removable cap (Figure 12), a male figurine with perforated ears and hand (Figure 13), and two lower bodies of male figurines along with heads with removable pointed caps possibly belonging to male figurines (Figure 14). In contrast, just five figurines had no indication of sex (Figure 15). Although asexual, I am inclined to add one of these with a pointed head to the number of male figurines. The Figurines from Kolonna: Local Character and External Connections

Figure 12. Male figurine with pointed, non-removable cap (MA 6512) from the fill of the pit below House 8

Although similarities to other figurines from southern Greek sites exist, the figurines from the context below House 8 are unique and local in terms

404

AS20.indb 404

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… of their style. Their local production is seen in their clay, which belongs to macroscopic groups 1 and 2 as defined by Gauss and Kiriatzi (2011:47–50), many of them being characterized by gold mica. Furthermore, some of the figurines show highly abraded red paint on a thick white slip, which points to their originally colorful appearance (Figures 5, 15d, and 16). Red paint has also been reported from figurines from Franchthi Cave (Talalay 1993:21–23, 90–91, FC4, FC112), and was therefore one of the surface treatments used on figurines in southern Greece. The local production of the figurines fits their unique character. Especially for the male figurines, the shaping of the nose, in combination with the presentation of the penis and the removable pointed caps, are traits that are not reported from any other Neolithic site in the Aegean. All in all, the schematic, asexual or sexualized figurines seem to belong to the most widely distributed types of the LN and FN periods in the Aegean, and they are even known in Western Anatolia (Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012a:221, Figure 3). Several similar, slightly flattened figurines come from Kephala, Kea (Coleman 1977:90 [No. 198], Plate 72), Leontari Cave, Attica (Karali et al. 2006:38–39, Figure 8), the Kitsos Cave/Attica (Vialou 1981:395–396, Figure 254), Corinth (Phelps 1987:248 [No. 30], Plate 39) and several sites in Thessaly (Gallis and Orphanidis 1996:394–395, Nos. 343–344; Tsountas 2000 [1908]:297–300, Figure 225, Plates 35.6–35.7 and 36.6; Wace and Thompson 1912:41, 50, Figure 26n;

Figure 13. Male figurine with perforated ears and arm (MA 6515) from the fill of the pit below House 8.

Weisshaar 1989:49–50, Plates 66.6, 66.8, 66.9, 82.24, and 82.26). A more naturalistic version has been found in Sfakovouni (Spyropoulos 1991). In contrast, short cruciform figurines similar to the ones from Kolonna are unknown in the Aegean. Only one male figurine from Kephala has generally similar resemblances (Coleman 1977:80 [No. 160]). However, there are also figurines that show more wide-ranging connections. These include a male figurine from the pit under House 8 that compares well with figurines characterized by perforated ears and a perforation on one arm (Figure 13). Figurines of clay with multiple perforations in their ears and/ or arms are known from the Cyclades from Kephala (Coleman 1977:68 [No. 128]) and Ftelia, Mykonos (Orphanidis 2002:142, Figure 148), Sarakenos Cave, Boeotia (Orphanidis 2008:403 [No. 4]), Corycean

Figure 14. Fragments of male and possibly male figurines from the fill of the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6519; (b) MA 6517; (c) MA 6523, cap and head; (d) MA 6520.

405

AS20.indb 405

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern Cave, Phokis (Touchais et al. 1981:243 [No. 420]), Theopetra Cave, Thessaly (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000:199 [No. 2], Figure 14.14.2), as well as from Dikili Tash (Papadimitriou and Tsirtsoni 2010:115 [No. 13]) and Sitagroi (Gimbutas 1986:295–296, Nos. 130 and 137) in eastern Macedonia. But these are singular finds having their origin in figurines of clay and bone from various regions of the Balkans. In these regions, they are characterized by multiple perforations (e.g. Hansen 2007:Plates 254–255 from Divostin; Plates 300–314 from Rast; Plate 370 from Karanovo VI; Plate 385 from Ruse; Plates 420–424 from Cǎscioarele; Plates 428–429 from Gumelniţa; Figure 136 and Plate 409.2 from Pietrele) or isolated perforations (e.g. Hansen 2007:Plate 143.1 from

Zelenikovo; Plate 146 from Porodin; Plate 170.2 from Veselinovo). According to finds from Romania, these perforations originally served for attaching gold wires and beads, i.e. jewelry (Hansen 2007:236–237, Figure 136 and Plate 409.2 from Pietrele). A fragment from the hearth under House 1 is possibly part of a two- or three-headed composite figurine (Figure 16), which are known from the middle Rachmani stratum of Pefkakia Magoula (Weisshaar 1989:201, Plates 66.18 and XVII.7) and Rachmani in Thessaly (Wace and Thompson 1912:52, Figure 28), but also from Parţa in Romania (Hansen 2007:211, 214, Figure 107). In general, many FN figurines demonstrate a greater emphasis on heads than in previous periods (Nanoglou 2005:150–151) as well as a process

Figure 15. Asexual figurines from the fill of the pit below House 8: (a) MA 6513; (b) MA 6518; (c) MA 6514; (d) MA 6516; (e) MA 6522. 406

AS20.indb 406

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… of assembling figurines (Nanoglou 2015:54, 2016). Apart from these two figurines, there are several others from less clear contexts that have parallels in the Aegean. These include a pregnant female figurine with a most detailed representation of its belly and an incision that most probably indicated the vulva (Figure 17). This attitude has been interpreted by Bailey (1994b:223) as a gesture of sexual insult. It is unique in southern Greece, but it compares well with a figurine from Vassilika in Macedonia (Papathanassopoulos 1996:295 [No. 195]) and another from Cǎscioarele in Romania (Hansen 2007:Plate 415.1). A female figurine with a schematic flat body and head, pellets as breasts, stumpy arms, and undivided legs seems to have its origin in the earlier LN phases (Figure 18), as can be seen by comparison with finds from Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968:63–64, Figure 77.1) and Ftelia (Orphanidis 2002:121, Figure 131

Figure 16. Fragment of a composite figurine (MA 6525) from the hearth area below House 1.

Figure 17. Pregnant female figurine. (Excavations of Kolonna Inventory Number ST875, stray find.)

[A4L5], Plate 23.1 [left]). This type is widespread, and a variety of such flat figurines of FN date are known from Franchthi Cave (Talalay 1993:21–23 [90 FC4, 91 FC112], Table 5 Group I), Alepotrypa Cave (Papathanassopoulos 2011:225 [No. 177], 226 [No. 179]) and Kephala (Coleman 1977:90 [Nos. 196–198], Plate 72), but also from as far away as Thessaly (Papathanassopoulos 1996:214 [No. 10]; Gallis and Orphanidis 1996:392 [No. 341]), Thermi B, Macedonia (Marangou 1990:Plate 2.1), and Bakla Tepe in Western Anatolia (Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012b:93, Figure 2). An asexual, flat, amorphous figurine of coarse clay, which was a stray find, is characterized by a narrower upper part with a rounded top and a broad oval lower body separated from the upper part by a notch at each side of the figurine (Figure 19). This stray find has a parallel at Strofilas (Andros) and is also depicted in the rock art of Plaka (Televantou 2016:43, 47–48, Figures 9 and 15). Another similar figurine comes from Emporio (Chios) period VII (Hood 1981:629 [No. 15], Figure 285, Plate 131). It is probably not by chance that the contour of the figurine also recalls the so-called “ring idols” that were made of gold in the Balkans and produced of other materials in the Aegean (Mehofer 2014:470–472, 488–490, Figure 6). According to their depictions on rock art at Strofilas (Televantou 2008:49–50, Figures 6 and 10), as well as on Dimini bowls (Demakopoulou 1998:68, Figures 75–76) and on pottery from Franchthi (Vitelli 1999:Figure 64), their symbolism must have been understood by the local people, and the same has to be suspected for the figurines.

Figure 18. Flat female figurine (MA 695) from excavations by G. Welter.

407

AS20.indb 407

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern

Figure 19. Abstract figurine. (Excavations of Kolonna Inventory Number 629, stray find.)

In summary, the majority of the figurines from Kolonna show similarities in shape with parallels from other southern Greek sites. Based on such analogies, inter-site relations have been deduced for northern Greece (Nanoglou 2006), and the same can be argued for southern Greece. At the same time, differences in shape point to a local tradition of figurine production. A similar local character can be seen in other places in southern Greece, such as Sfakovouni in Arcadia and Kephala on Kea, pointing to cultural diversity during the FN period. On the other hand, there are also figurine types at Kolonna that have parallels in other regions of the Aegean, but based on an analysis of their clay, they are not imports and must have been produced at Kolonna (Figure 20). Furthermore, in some cases, such as the multi-headed figurine and the abstract figurine, the idea behind the figurine must also have been introduced to the island. Therefore, these types

Figure 20. Distribution of figurines with parallels at Kolonna, showing the site’s external connections 408

AS20.indb 408

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… of figurines must have been introduced to the site via its external contacts and therefore indicate interaction over long distances, especially in metallurgy and metal finds (Mehofer 2014; Pernicka 2014). Most probably, ideas and shapes were transferred by persons: possibly itinerants or women exchanged as brides (Talalay 2000:4). The Miniature Bowls and Their Use Of special interest are the miniature bowls from the pit that contained six of the figurines (Figures 7–10). For the LN and FN such miniature bowls are well known all over Greece, in Thessaly (e.g. Weisshaar 1989:36–37, Plate 117 [Types 114–115]) and in southern Greece (Vitelli 1999:78, Figures 58a–58e, 59a, 60a), where they have been found in settlements, caves, and burial contexts (Marangou 1992:245–246). As at Kolonna, the quality of their surface treatments varies to a great degree, from unfinished surfaces with the details of shaping still visible to slipped and wellburnished surfaces. The four bowls from Kolonna have either vertical or oblique walls, with simple rounded rims or indentations made with fingertips. These details correspond to normal-sized vessels (e.g. Vitelli 1999:270, Figures 62a–62d; Zachos 2008:28–29, Figures 15–17). None of these analogies, however, gives any evidence as to the primary use of the figurines. Another context with both figurines and miniature bowls comes from Rachmani, House Q (Wace and Thompson 1912:43, 49, 52–53, Figures 25 and 28). Such a combination of miniature bowls with figurines could be seen as a feature connecting Thessaly with the Balkans. At Chalcolithic sites in Bulgaria, miniature bowls occur together with figurines and various other miniatures in settlement contexts like Ovčarovo (Hansen 2007:Plate 325) or Gradešnica (Nikolov 1970), and these have been interpreted as “cult-scenes” (Marangou 1992:219–22, 1996:180). However, since in all these cases miniature bowls were placed beside the figurines, they were most probably understood as containers for foodstuff or other goods and were connected to the figurines by ritual only. At Kolonna, by contrast, one figurine was placed within a complete bowl, which seems to have been produced for this purpose. All the other bowls most probably were used previously as intact vessels, and therefore their intended use changed by their reuse as fragments. Figurines set into bowls are rare: analogous finds with figurines set into larger vessels come from the Cucuteni culture at Ghelăieşti (Cucoş 1973; Marangou

1996:188). Further containers connected with figurines are open house models, like the house models of Platia Magoula Zarkou (Gallis 1985), Ghelăieşti (Bailey 2010:120, Figure 5-5; Marangou 1996:188), and Kissonerga-Masphilia on Cyprus (Bolger 1992). Thus the house models containing figurines could represent miniatures of the domus as the social space for groups of Neolithic people (Bailey 2013:255; Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1997:100; Souvatzi and Skafida 2003). Based on these figurines in house models, we could argue that the miniature bowls from Aegina actually also were understood in a similar way as miniatures of built space. The Deposit in the Pit below House 8: Analogies and Interpretation To summarize the stages of construction and deposit of the pit below House 8, the stone-lined pit itself was dug inside the house, and since no earlier buildings were present, the pit was probably laid out either as a foundation deposit during the course of the house’s construction or while the house was in use. The assemblage of Kolonna was deposited in two stages: first the figurines in the pots, then the complete and fragmented figurines. Details in the production and deposition of the figurines in the miniature bowls are also interesting. The figurines themselves were shaped by a few movements, using the fingers and fingertips to obtain exactly the desired shape. All the figurines were fired at low temperatures. As can be seen by the foot impressions in the bowl, at least one of the miniature bowls was shaped while taking into account the position of the figurine that would be put into the bowl. Apparently, both were also made of the same clay and had a similar low firing temperature, so that they even may have been produced in a single working process (Figure 14). Therefore, we can retrace at least a part of the production sequence for the special purpose of this deposit. Furthermore, at least two of the figurines were attached within a fragmented miniature bowl using a limy material as cement (Figure 15). The surface of the figurines is not well preserved; this may be due to the fact that the red paint did not adhere well to the clay, but it could also be an indication of the use of the figurines. All in all, this means that this whole was produced and brought together as an unusual arrangement for a special purpose. This fact supports the hypothesis by Nanoglou (2015:51) regarding the focus on action and on bringing the figurines together for a particular purpose. After having laid down the deposit, it was most probably covered by the floor of the house and hence

409

AS20.indb 409

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern sealed. In this sense, after having been covered, the assemblage was most probably no longer visible to the inhabitants of the house. This suggests that the figurines were brought together for a particular ritual, and in consequence were hidden (Nanoglou 2015:51). The context of the house model of Platia Magoula Zarkou, a group of figurines from Pontokomi at Kitrini Limni Kozanis (Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2002:628) and of Kissonerga, Cyprus (Bolger 1992) argue for such an interpretation (Gallis 1985; Talalay 1993:77). Such depositions are rarely found in Neolithic Greece, but are well known in the Balkan area, where they have been interpreted as foundation deposits (Makkay 1979; Marangou 1992:225). In regard to the figurines in the miniature bowls, these objects were separated from each other either singly or in pairs by being put into separate bowls. If each bowl is interpreted as a miniature social space, the figurines can be seen as representing miniature actors, i.e. persons or individuals (Knapp and van Dommelen 2008; Meskell 2001), each with its own space. This stands in contrast with the figurines that were set in larger groups in bowls or with the house models mentioned above. On the other hand, these six figurines were interconnected by their deposition at the bottom of the pit. Furthermore, they were associated with the other figurines found loose in the pit. Therefore, I would argue that the figurines in the pit represented individuals related to each other, the figurines in the bowls being of primary importance. In this sense—as Nanoglou (2015:51) has pointed out—the grouping of these figurines was meaningful. Each bowl contained figurines with different appearances, pointing to their different position or function in society. Furthermore, the comparatively large number of figurines from the pit argues for a communal act of deposition (Chapman 2000:111–112; Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1997:103; Marangou 1996:179). Counting the number of male figurines, the pit contained five secure males and one possible male, as well as two figurines that could be convertible to males. Only one figurine was securely female, two were probably female, and five figurines were asexual. The same emphasis is seen in the assemblage around the hearth under House 1, where three figurines were probably male and none were female. Therefore, the contexts from Kolonna stand in contrast to the evidence from other sites in the Aegean, where female figurines dominate the material (Mina 2007:268–272), a fact which Bailey (1994a:222–225) explained as relating to the role of women in the household. The dominance of male figurines in Kolonna could be due to a specific ritual.

Comparing the number of male, female, and asexual figurines with the figurines in the house model of Platia Magoula Zarkou, however, we see that the house model also contained figurines of both sexes—as well as of different ages—most probably representing members of a household and therefore a family (Gallis 2001; Nanoglou 2005:148). In contrast to the house model, the Kolonna deposit contains an even higher number of male and asexual figurines, which must be connected with the social roles and functions of the individuals depicted in this deposit. This becomes especially apparent if we consider the presence of the two figurines with an outstanding presentation of the penis, as well as the emphasis that was put on the headgear of the male figurines. If we consider the number of figurines and their mostly local character, I suggest that most of the figurines from this context actually were shaped to represent the generic inhabitants of the village of Aegina. The only exception is the figurine with perforated ears, which may point to the presence of a different, “exotic” individual. In any case, the social roles of the individuals represented in these figurines were most probably connected with the purpose of the house that was associated with the deposit. Unlike in other contexts (Nanoglou 2009), females did not play a major role in this house; therefore, we must consider a special use for this house that warranted this ritual action. Conclusions Although several figurines from Kolonna have parallels with figurines from other sites in the Aegean and the Balkans, the pit deposit below House 8 is characterized by figurines with features that are unknown at other sites. Otherwise, although also unique in its composition, it can be compared with deposits known from the Balkans, as well as the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, it should be argued that such arrangements of the figurines excavated up until now in this large geographical area were arranged, if not produced, for the purpose of certain ritual acts on various special occasions; however, they are to be interpreted separately from each other. Acknowledgements. The figurines have been entrusted to me for publication by Florens Felten, at the time head of the Austrian Excavations of Kolonna, and his wife Vasso Felten (Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Salzburg). Lydia Berger and Melissa Vetters were

410

AS20.indb 410

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… of indispensable help to my work in the storerooms at Kolonna. The digitization of the drawings and the adaption of the photographs for publication have been carried out by Mario Börner and Marion Frauenglas. The text was edited by Roderick B. Salisbury. I would like to thank Stratos Nanoglou for discussing the evidence, as well as for providing me with literature. I would also like to thank Areti Pentedeka for discussing technological aspects and Christoph Schwall for providing me with comparative material from the eastern Aegean area. Notes In the figure captions, “Museum of Aegina, Inventory Number” is abbreviated as “MA.” 1

References Cited Alram-Stern, Eva 1996 Die Ägäische Frühzeit: Serie 2, Forschungsbericht 1975–1993, Band 1, Das Neolithikum in Griechenland, mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Bailey, Douglass W. 1994a Reading Prehistoric Figurines as Individuals. World Archaeology 25:321–331. 1994b The Representation of Gender: Homology or Propaganda. Journal of European Archaeology 2:215–228. 2005 Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge, London. 2010 The Figurines of Old Europe. In The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000–3500 BC, edited by David W. Anthony, pp. 113–127. The Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 2013 Figurines, Corporeality, and the Origins of the Gendered Body. In A Companion to Gender Prehistory, edited by Diane Bolger, pp. 244–264. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. Bolger, Diane L. 1992 The Archaeology of Fertility and Birth: A Ritual Deposit from Chalcolithic Cyprus. Journal of Anthropological Research 48:145–164. Chapman, John 2000 Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehis-

tory of South Eastern Europe. Routledge, London. Coleman, John E. 1977 Keos I, Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Cucoş, Ștephan 1973 Un complex ritual Cucutenian Descoperit la Ghelăieşti (Jud. Neamț). Studii şi Cercetari de Istorie Veche 2(24):207–215. Demakopoulou, Katie 1998 Κοσμήματα της Ελληνικής Προϊστορίας: Ο Νεολιθικός Θησαυρός. Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens. Erkanal, Hayat, and Vasif Şahoğlu 2012a Liman Tepe (1992–). In Dil ve Tarih-Coğ­ rafya Fakültesi 75. DTCF Yıl Armağani. Arkeoloji Bölümü Tarihçesi ve Kazıları (1936–2011), edited by Orhan Bingöl, Aliye Öztan, and Harun Taşkıran, pp. 219–230. Ani, Armağan Serisi Supplement 3.2. Ankara University, Ankara. 2012b Bakla Tepe (1995–2001). In Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi 75. DTCF Yıl Armağani. Arkeoloji Bölümü Tarihçesi ve Kazıları (1936–2011), edited by Orhan Bingöl, Aliye Öztan, and Harun Taşkıran, pp. 91–98. Ani, Armağan Serisi Supplement 3.2. Ankara University, Ankara. Evans, John D., and Colin Renfrew 1968 Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 5. Thames and Hudson, London. Felten, Florens 2003 Nέες Ανασκαφές στην Αίγινα Κολώνα. In Πεπραγμένα του 1ου Συνεδρίου για την Ιστορία και την Αρχαιολογία του Αργοσαρωνικού, Πόρος, 26–29 June 1998, edited by Eleni Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou, pp. 17–27. Ekdosi Demou Porou, Athens. 2007 Aegina-Kolonna: The History of a Greek Acropolis. In Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms: Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, October 31st–November 2nd, 2004, edited by Florens Felten, Walter Gauss, and Rudolphine Smetana, pp. 11–34. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Felten, Florens, and Stefan Hiller 1996 Ausgrabungen in der vorgeschichtlichen Innenstadt von Ägina-Kolonna (Alt- Ägina). Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 65:29–111.

411

AS20.indb 411

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern Gallis, Kostas 1985 A Late Neolithic Offering from Thessaly. Antiquity 59:20–24. 2001 Tracing the Relation of a Neolithic Figurine to a Specific Individual of the Neolithic Society of Thessaly (Greece). In Lux Orientis: Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa, Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann, edited by Rainer M. Boehmer and Joseph Maran, pp. 139–143. Maria Leidorf, Rahden/Westfahlen. Gallis, Kostas, and Laia Orphanidis 1996 Figurines of Neolithic Thessaly, Vol. I. Research Centre for Antiquity 3. Academy of Athens, Athens. Gauss, Walter, and Evangelia Kiriatzi 2011 Pottery Production and Supply at Bronze Age Kolonna, Aegina: An Integrated Archaeological and Scientific Study of a Ceramic Landscape. Ägina–Kolonna, Forschungen und Ergebnisse V. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Gimbutas, Marija 1986 Mythical Imagery of Sitagroi Society. In Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I, edited by Colin

Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster, pp. 225–301. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Hansen, Svend 2007 Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Archäologie in Eurasien 20. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. Hood, Sinclair 1981 Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala: Excavations in Chios 1938–1955. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 15. Thames and Hudson, London. Karali, Lilian, Fanis Mavridis, and Lina Kormazopoulou 2006 Σπήλαιο Λεονταρίου Υμηττού Αττικής. Ένα Πετρώδες και Ορεινό Περιβάλλον. Προκαταρκτικά Στοιχεία για την Έρευνα των ετών 2003–2005. Athens Annals of Archaeology 39:31–44. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia 2002 Νομός Κοζάνης 2000. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 14(2000):607–635. Knapp, A. Bernard, and Peter van Dommelen 2008 Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals

and Agents in Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18:15–34. Kokkinidou, Dimitra, and Maria Nikolaidou 1997 Body Imagery in the Aegean Neo­lith­ ic: Ideological Implications of Anthro­ pomorphic Figurines. In Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, edited by Jenny Moore and Eleanor Scott, pp. 88–112. Leister University Press, London. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Nina 2000 The Neolithic Period in Theopetra Cave. In Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998, edited by Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, pp. 181–234. Ministry of Culture, Athens. Makkay, János 1979 Foundation Sacrifices in Neolithic Houses of the Carpathian Basin. In The Intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion, Acts of the Valcamonica Symposium ’79, edited by Emmanuel Anati, pp. 157–167. Edizioni del Centro and Jaco Books, Milan. Marangou, Christina 1990 Τα Νεολιθικά Ειδώλια της Θέρμης  Β (Ανασκαφικές Περίοδοι 1987 και 1989). In Ανασκαφή Νεολιθικού Οικισμού Θέρ­ μης έρμηςύΒυζαντινής Εγκαταστάσης τάρά τον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό Θέρμη έρμΑνασκαφική Περίοδος 1989. edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos, pp. 427–442. Makedonika 28. Society for Macedonian Studies, Thessaloniki. 1992 Ειδώλια:  Figurines et miniatures du Néolithique Récent et du Bronze Ancien en Grèce. BAR International Series 576. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1996 Assembling, Displaying, and Dissembling Neolithic and Eneolithic Figurines and Models. Journal of European Archaeology 4:177–202. 2009 Gendered/Sexed and Sexless Beings in Prehistory: Readings of the Invisible Gender. In Fylo: Engendering Prehistoric “Stratigraphies” in the Aegean and the Mediterranean, Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno 2–5 June 2005, edited by Katerina Kopaka, pp. 81–95. Aegaeum 30. Peeters, Leuven–Liège.

412

AS20.indb 412

2/11/18 9:01 PM

27 - Ritual and Interaction During the Final Neolithic Period… Mehofer, Mathias 2014 Metallurgy during the Chalcolithic and the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Western Anatolia. In Western Anatolia Before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and Mathias Mehofer, pp. 463–490. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Meskell, Lynn 2001 Archaeologies of Identity. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 187–213. Polity Press, Cambridge. Mina, Maria 2007 Figurines without Sex: People without Gender? In Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues, edited by Sue Hamilton, Ruth D. Whitehouse, and Katherine I. Wright, pp. 263–282. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Nikolov, Bogdan 1970 L’Art Plastique des Idoles du Village de Gradešnica. Arheologija:56–68. Nanoglou, Stratos 2005 Subjectivity and Material Culture in Thessaly, Greece: The Case of Neolithic Anthropomorphic Imagery. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15:2:141–156. 2006 Regional Perspectives on the Neolithic Anthropomorphic Imagery of Northern Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19(2):155–176. 2009 Representing People, Constituting Worlds: Multiple ‘Neolithics’ in the Southern Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica 36:283– 297. 2015 Situated Intentions: Providing a Framework for the Destruction of Objects in Aegean Prehistory. In THRAVSMA: Contextualising the Intentional Destruction of Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus, edited by Kate Harrell and Jan Driessen, pp. 49–59, AEGIS Actes de Colloques 9. UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Leuven. 2016 The Beast with Many Heads: Assembling Bodies and the Changing History in the fifth Millennium BC. In Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia B.C., edited by Søren Dietz, Fanis Mavridis, Žarko Tankosić, and

Turan Takaoǧlu, Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens. Oxbow Books, Oxford, in press. Orphanidis, Laia 2002 Neolithic Figurine Art from Ftelia. In The Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos, edited by Adamantios Sampson, pp. 141–145. University of the Aegean, Department of Mediterranean Studies, Rhodes. 2008 The Figurines of Sarakenos Cave at Acraephnion. In The Sarakenos Cave at Akraephnion, Boeotia, Greece: I. The Neolithic and the Bronze Age, edited by Adamantios Sampson, pp. 401–409. University of the Aegean and the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Athens. Papadimitriou, Nikos, and Zoï Tsirtsoni (editors) 2010 Η Ελλάδα στο Ευρύτερο Πολιτισμικό Πλαίσιο των Βαλκανίων κατά την 5η και 4η Χιλιετία π.Χ. Museum of Cycladic Art and Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Athens. Papathanassopoulos, Giorgos A. (editor) 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. 2011 Το Νεολιθικό Διρό: Σπήλαιο Αλεπότρυπα. Melissa Editions, Athens. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pernicka, Ernst 2014 The Development of Metallurgy in Western Anatolia, the Aegean and Southeastern Europe before Troy. In Western Anatolia Before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and Mathias Mehofer, pp. 447–461. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Phelps, William W. 1987 Prehistoric Figurines from Corinth. Hesperia 56:233–253. Schliemann, Heinrich 1881 Ilios, Stadt und Land der Trojaner: Forschungen und Entdeckungen in der Troas und Besonderes auf der Baustelle von Troja. Brockhaus, Leipzig. Souvatzi, Stella, and Evangelia Skafida 2003 Neolithic Communities and Symbolic Meaning: Perceptions and Expressions of

413

AS20.indb 413

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Eva Alram-Stern Symbolic and Social Structures at Late Neolithic Dimini, Thessaly. In Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe, edited by Lolita Nikolova, pp. 429–441. BAR International Series 1139. Archaeopress, Oxford. Spyropoulos, Theodoros 1991 Monuments Archéologiques et Musée d’Arcadie. Tripolis Museum, Tripolis. Talalay, Lauren E. 1993 Deities, Dolls, and Devices: Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 9. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2000 Archaeological Ms.conceptions: Contemplating Gender and Power in the Greek Neolithic. In Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present, edited by Moira Donald and Linda Hurcombe, pp. 3–16. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Televantou, Christina A. 2008 Strofilas: A Neolithic Settlement on Andros. In Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge, 25–28 March 2004, edited by Neil Brodie, Jennifer Doole, G. Gavalas, and Colin Renfrew, pp. 43–54. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. 2016 Figurines from Strofilas, Andros. In Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context, edited by Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, and Michael Boyd. Oxbow Books, London. Touchais, Gilles, Liliane-Chantal Courtois, Εlefthèria Dimou, and Catherine Perlès 1981 Le matériel néolithique. In L’Antre Corycien, Vol. I, pp. 95–172, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplement 7. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. Tsirtsoni, Zoï 2014 Formation or Transformation? The 4th mil. B.C. in the Aegean and the Balkans. In Western Anatolia Before Troy: ProtoUrbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC?

Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna Austria, 21–24 November, 2012, edited by Barbara Horejs and M. Mehofer, pp. 275–304. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna. Tsountas, Christos 2000 [1908] Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Διμη­­νί­ ου και Σέσκλου. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Vialou, Denis 1981 Objets de Parure. In La Grotte Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique). Missions 1968–1978: L’Occupation Néolithique, Vol. I, edited by Nicole Lambert, pp. 391–419. Recherche sur les Grandes Civilisations 7. École Française d’Athènes, Paris. Vitelli, Karen D. 1999 Franchthi Neolithic Pottery: 2. The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 10. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Wace, Alan John Bayard, and Maurice Scott Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Walter, Hans, and Florens Felten 1981 Alt-Ägina: 3.1. Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt: Befestigungen, Häuser, Funde. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. Weisshaar, Hans-Joachim 1989 Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien: 1. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes Vol. 28. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Zachos, Konstantinos L. 2008 Ayios Dhimitrios, a Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnese: The Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods. BAR International Series S1170. Archaeopress, Oxford.

414

AS20.indb 414

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 28 Making Choices in a Neolithic Landscape: Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi, Northwestern Greece Tasos Bekiaris, Christos Stergiou, and Stella Theodoridou

Abstract

Keywords

Ground stone objects are an indispensable and rather essential material element of Neolithic life. For many years, archaeological interest in such artifacts was confined to their techno-morphological description, failing to sufficiently integrate them into the Neolithic technological and social practices. Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Avgi (ca. 5650–4500 cal B.C.), in the region of Kastoria, northwestern Greece, brought to light one of the largest ground stone assemblages known from Neolithic Greece. More than 8,000 ground stone tools and objects, raw materials, and by-products comprise a valuable record for investigating ground stone technology within the context of a Neolithic community. This paper focuses on the selection of rocks and minerals employed in the production of ground stone artifacts at Neolithic Avgi. The availability of diverse raw materials such as sandstones, limestones, marls, conglomerates, and ophiolites in the vicinity of the Neolithic settlement, along with the large size of the assemblage, allows for a thorough exploration of the technological choices made during various stages of ground stone manufacture. By linking specific tooltypes such as grinding stones, abraders, percussion tools, edge tools, and mace heads with different raw materials, we explore how the physical properties of the rocks were perceived by the Neolithic people. Furthermore, we investigate the various criteria through which material selection and ground stone production was achieved. The paper suggests that these were complex technological procedures and that human choices were determined not only by environmental or mere “practical” factors (i.e. the proximity and availability of the resources, the appropriateness and workability of the rocks), but rather they were formed and practiced in accordance with various social aspects (i.e. participation in social networks, technological traditions, aesthetics, and symbolic values).

ground stone, raw materials, rock provenance, technological choices, grinding tools, edge tools, Neolithic, Avgi, northern Greece In recent years, the archaeological debate about the Greek Neolithic has radically shifted toward new pathways of investigating the social processes and material assemblages of the early farming communities, due to the rapid expansion of excavations and (often interdisciplinary) research projects (Kotsakis 2014). On such fertile ground, interest in ground stone objects, a category of material culture that for many years was overlooked by archaeological thought (Rowan and Ebeling 2008), has emerged (e.g. Alisøy 2002; Bekiaris 2007, 2010, 2012, forthcoming; Chadou 2011; Chondrou 2010; Ninou 2006; Stroulia 2005, 2010, 2014; Tsiolaki 2009; Tsoraki 2007, 2008, 2012). Ground stone objects are now perceived as a rather essential material element of the Neolithic life, while the vast majority of current research aims to move beyond the techno-morphological and generic functional descriptions of such artifacts and integrate them into broader Neolithic technological and social practices (e.g. Stroulia and Chondrou 2013; Tsoraki 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). This paper investigates the ground stone technology at Avgi, a Neolithic settlement in northwestern Greece, by focusing on the selection of rocks and minerals employed in ground stone production. The availability of diverse raw materials in the vicinity of the Neolithic settlement and the large size of the assemblage allow for a thorough exploration of the technological choices (Lemmonier 2002) made by the Neolithic stoneworkers during various stages of ground stone production. The discussion will be based on both the results of the ongoing petrographic analysis of Avgi’s ground stone assemblage and the tentative results of the archaeological study.1

415

AS20.indb 415

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al. The Site and the Assemblage The Neolithic site of Avgi (Figure 1) is located on the gentle slopes of a hilly terrain (ca. 700 masl) in the Kastoria region of northwestern Greece (Stratouli 2006). It forms an extended settlement, exhibiting clear patterns of horizontal shifting. Approximately 2,000 m2 have been investigated between 2002 and 2008 during excavations carried out by the former IZ’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (Stratouli 2010). Three occupation phases, spanning the end of Middle Neolithic (MN) and the Late Neolithic (LN; chronological scheme based on Andreou et al. 2001), are evident in the site’s stratigraphic sequence (Stratouli et al. 2014): AVGI I, dated to the late MN/early LN (ca. 5650–5300/5200 cal B.C.), AVGI II, dated to the LN I (ca. 5300/5200–4900 cal B.C.), and AVGI III, dated to the LN II and III (ca. 4900–4500 cal B.C.). Excavations at Neolithic Avgi brought to light one of the largest ground stone assemblages known from Neolithic Greece. The assemblage comprises ca. 8,000 artifacts (Bekiaris 2012), a number which is rather unique considering the extent of the excavation. The exceptional size of the assemblage indicates that ground stones were a significant and indispensable material element of the Neolithic community at Avgi.

Based on the analysis of their use wear patterns (i.e. use wear traces, morphology and configuration of the use surfaces, kinetics, and degree of use) conducted at both a macroscopic and stereoscopic level (8x–40x), the ground stones of Neolithic Avgi have been attributed to the following categories (Table 1): grinding/abrasive tools, such as stable and handheld grinding stones, polishers, and abraders; percussion tools, such as globular hammer stones and tools used in a percussive mode with their ends; edge tools, like axes, adzes, and chisels; multiple-use tools, which could have acted in an abrasive and percussive mode simultaneously; possible raw materials and debitage, such as ground stone flakes and preforms; miscellanea, including fragments of stone vases, mace heads, stone slabs and pigments; and several items of indeterminate function. The Geological Setting From the geological point of view (cf. Myhill 2011; Plastiras 1981; Plastiras and Rozos 1978; Savoyat, Verdier, Monopolis, and Germaine 1971; Savoyat, Monopolis, and Germaine 1971), the broader region of Kastoria and Avgi (Figure 2) consists of Paleozoic metamorphic rocks belonging to the Pelagonian geotectonic zone; Mesozoic limestones, granites, and

Figure 1. Map of northern Greece showing the location of Avgi. 416

AS20.indb 416

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi… ophiolites (part of the Vardar/Axios ocean); Miocene molasse sediments; as well as Holocene alluvial deposits. The Miocene molasse sediments are part of the so-called Mesohellenic Trough, an elongated Table 1. Frequencies of Main Ground Stone Categories at Neolithic Avgi. Ground Stone Category

Number

Percent

Grinding/abrasive tools

2,075

71.4

Miscellanea

183

6.3

Edge tools

176

6.0

Raw materials and debitage

153

5.3

Multiple-use tools

119

4.1

Percussion tools

105

3.6

96

3.3

2,907

100.0

Indeterminate Total

basin that have been developed in southern Albania and northern Greece during the Alpine orogenic processes. Avgi is located on this sedimentary unit, which incorporates mainly blue to grey-blue sandstone marls with silt intercalations and various fossils of bryozoans, gastropods, and echinoderms. The whole region is divided into two major rock groups. The first group includes the widely exposed Miocene molasse sediments belonging to the Ontria and Tsotyli formations of the Mesohellenic Trough. These molasse sediments, subdivided by Brunn (1956) into five formations, were deposited during the late stages of the Alpine orogeny (Eocene–Miocene) in a fore-arc tectonic basin that spreads 130 km to the southeast. The most distinctive rocks found in the area are sandstones, marls, and conglomerates. The second group contains various rock types. The most widespread rocks belong to the Pelagonian zone and consist of a composite crystalline basement of gneisses, schists, amphibolites, and intercalated serpentinized ultramafic rocks (Anders et al. 2006),

Figure 2. Geological map of the Kastoria region. 417

AS20.indb 417

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al. intruded by Permo-Triassic granites (Most 2003) and overlain by Triassic–Jurassic recrystallized limestones (Kilias and Mountrakis 1989). Less extensive are the ophiolitic rocks from the bordering Vardar/Axios zone, overthrusted to the west on the Pelagonian zone (Nance 1981; Schermer 1993). Finally, Holocene alluvial and deltaic deposits are found along the Aliakmonas River and its tributaries, and around Lake Kastoria as well. These are mainly loose sediments including sands, silts, clays, and conglomerates. Based on the results of the preliminary petrographic study,2 the ground stone assemblage of Neolithic Avgi comprises, so far, 26 different types of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks, as well as some minerals (Table 2). This diverse raw material inventory reflects—to some extent—the geological variability of the region, but it also integrates the various choices and social mechanisms through which the stones reached the Neolithic community. Choosing the Rocks: Mechanical Properties and Tool Types Raw material preferences for ground stone production are often considered to be structured by variables such as the mechanical properties and functional capacity of the selected rocks (cf. Adams 2002:18–21; Alisøy 2002). As the tentative results of the petrographic analysis suggest, such notions have influenced—to a certain extent—the selection process at Avgi, since the Neolithic stoneworkers exploited rocks with particular characteristics for the production of specific tool types. Awareness of the mechanical qualities of rocks (cf. Adams et al. 2009), such as their mineral composition, granularity, texture, grain cementation, and cohesion, hardness, durability, workability, and thermal resistance, was crucial while choosing rocks meant to serve certain functions. Various types of sandstones were used for the production of grinding/abrasive tools. Grinding slabs and grinders, tools that were often used in combination in order to pulverize substances such as grains, spices, pigments, and clay (Stroulia 2010; Tsoraki 2007; Wright 1992), demanded the use of coarse and medium-grained sandstones (Figure 3), with angular quartz grains and metamorphic rock fragments that would easily cut through the processed material. The selected sandstones were highly cohesive with well-cemented grains, in order to avoid—to some extent—the production of stone powder, which would contaminate the foodstuffs under processing. A small number of grinding tools are made of coarse-grained granite (Figure 4), an igneous holocrystalline rock

consisting of various minerals (i.e. quartz, feldspars, and amphiboles). Conglomerates and breccia were also used for the manufacture of grinding implements, while some grinding tools were made of fine-grained varieties of sandstone (Figure 5). Rock-type variation, along with other technical choices (i.e. tool size, morphology, manufacturing techniques, and use-wear patterns) could be indicative of the tools’ employment in different grinding tasks (e.g. Bekiaris 2007, 2010; Runnels 1981; Stroulia 2010; Tsoraki 2007, 2012). Food preparation, for instance, could necessitate the use of different rocks (e.g. sandstone varieties, granites, conglomerates) with various textures for making different meals (e.g. Adams 1999:479–480; Pappa et al. 2013:81), such as foods in powder form, like flour, or coarse-grained meals like “groat” or bulgur (Stroulia 2010:48–50). Quartz sandstone, a quartz-rich variety of sandstone, was employed in the manufacture of abraders. Due to its great hardness, quartz provides an excellent abrasive agent, ideal for shaping and transforming other implements through abrasion. Smoothing and polishing tasks employed tools made of limestone with smoothed surface textures. Limestone pebbles (Figure 6) and cobbles were involved in the final manufacturing stages of other artifacts, such as pottery, wooden implements, and leathers, by enhancing their appearance through polishing (Adams 2002:91–97; Bekiaris 2010, 2012, forthcoming). A different type of sedimentary rock was selected for the production of stone slabs. Marl sandstones with high concentrations of phyllosilicate minerals, such as muscovite, were collected in the form of slabs (Figure 7), probably from primary sources. The marl sandstone slabs are highly compacted with very small pores, and they are characterized by high thermal resistance. This trait was utterly significant for their selection, since their use involved direct exposure to fire, probably as cooking surfaces. Cooking on stone slabs is a well-known tradition in the region of Kastoria, and also in many other modern villages in Macedonia (Stratouli et al. 2013). Extremely durable igneous and metamorphic rocks have been used for producing heavy-duty tools, such as edge tools (cf. Stroulia 2010:68–71; Tsoraki 2011) and end tools, a special group of percussion tools that were used for forceful impact strokes with their ends (cf. Stroulia 2010:94–98). For both categories, the distinctive preference in the use of serpentinites is evident. Serpentinites are part of the ophiolitic sequence, defined by metamorphic characteristics and water addition during the sequence’s current emplacement. Occasionally they present different characteristics due to their formation position and conditions

418

AS20.indb 418

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi… Table 2. Rock Categories and Types Encountered in Avgi’s Ground Stone Assemblage. Rock Category Rock Type

Count

Percent

Sedimentary rocks

2,480

85.3

Sandstone

993

34.2

Limestone

661

22.7

Siltstone

390

13.4

Quartz sandstone

233

8.0

Marl sandstone

61

2.1

Mica sandstone

48

1.7

Conglomerate

34

1.2

Breccia

18

.6

Indeterminate sedimentary

15

.5

Ophicalcite

15

.5

Marl

6

.2

Bauxite

3

.1

Silicified wood

2

.1

Biogenic mass

1

.0

Metamorphic rocks

188

6.5

Serpentinite

142

4.9

Gneiss

13

.4

Amphibolite

10

.3

Marble

7

.2

Indeterminate metamorphic

6

.2

Silica sediments

6

.2

Schist

4

.1

121

4.2

Granite

58

2.0

Gabbro

47

1.6

Dolerite

8

.3

Peridotite

6

.2

Pyroxenite

2

.1

63

2.2

Quartz

53

1.8

Serpentine

10

.3

Indeterminate rocks

55

1.9

55

1.9

Igneous rocks

Minerals

Indeterminate

(Myhill 2011). At Neolithic Avgi, the serpentinites favored for edge tool production (Figure 8) were hard enough to perform their chopping tasks and be recycled as percussive tools, but with the appropriate softness in order to be worked and shaped as desired. End tools (Figure 9), on the other hand, employed serpentinites from the lower strata of the ophiolithic sequence, characterized by extreme hardness. Those rocks were probably more appropriate for performing forceful impacts. The selection of serpentinites was also affected by other factors, which goes beyond the physical properties and the suitability of the rocks. These will be discussed below. Acquiring the Rocks: Material Sources and Methods of Procurement The presence of natural, water-worn surfaces on the vast majority of the analyzed ground stones indicates that the Neolithic inhabitants of Avgi had acquired their raw materials mainly from secondary sources, like riverbeds and streams (cf. Alisøy 2002; Kardulias and Runnels 1995; Stroulia 2010). The Aliakmonas River, currently flowing at a distance of ca. 3 km west of the site, would have provided a rich source for raw material acquisition. Different rocks were probably obtained from different parts of the river. Nowadays, for instance, large, coarse-grained boulders used in the manufacture of grinding slabs are encountered more frequently in the upstream parts of the river (Stratouli et al. 2013). The rocks that were obtained from primary sources were significantly fewer in number. Those examples include the marl sandstone slabs, bauxites, serpentinites, and a few large sandstone tools with no water-rolled surfaces. No evidence of quarrying was traced on those artifacts, suggesting that the rocks were not extracted from the mother bedrocks. Instead, they were probably collected from the vicinity after their natural removal from the rock. Therefore, both primary and secondary sources facilitated the collection, rather than the extraction, of raw materials—a procurement method usually regarded as efficient and “time-saving” (Tsoraki 2011b). However, choosing the right stones from an abundant source such as the Aliakmonas River, where different rock categories coexisted, was not an easy task. The exploitation of such rich sources certainly required experience, deep knowledge, and skills, elements that the Neolithic people had gained from years of interaction with the landscape and its resources (Alisøy 2002; Risch 2008; Tsoraki 2011b). As Edmonds (1999:37) pointed out, material traditions emerged through such interactions, binding people to places and to each other.

419

AS20.indb 419

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al.

Figure 3. Grinding slab made of coarse-grained sandstone (all scales in cm).

Figure 4. Grinding slab made of granite. 420

AS20.indb 420

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi…

Figure 5. Grinding slab made of fine-grained sandstone.

Figure 6. Limestone polisher with linear wear traces. 421

AS20.indb 421

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al.

Figure 7. Fragmented and burned marl sandstone slabs.

Figure 8. Edge tool made of serpentinite. 422

AS20.indb 422

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi… The raw material sources for the ground stones of Avgi could not be determined with accuracy at this point in the research. However, we can safely assume that the majority of rocks employed in the ground stone technology at Avgi were locally available. Sandstones, siltstones, and limestones were abundant in the vicinity of the site, while other rocks such as bauxite and granite came from more distant areas, probably from the northern parts of the region, perhaps indicating an indirect method of acquisition. Marble, on the other hand, probably originated at a non-local source and reached the site through exchange networks. “Exotic” and distant raw materials are not uncommon in the assemblages of Neolithic Avgi: materials documented at the site include chert implements from non-local sources and obsidian artifacts (Andreasen 2011), probably from Melos and/or Karpathia, two sources that are both represented at the nearby Neolithic lakesite of Dispilio (Milić 2014), while several ornaments from the marine mollusk Spondylus gaederopus, an

amber pendant, and two beads made of malachite (a copper carbonate hydroxide mineral) are also of non-local origin. Distant raw materials suggest that the Neolithic inhabitants of Avgi were active agents in extended social networks, which facilitated the movement of materials, people, and ideas between Neolithic communities. Changing the Rocks: Production Locales and Techniques Another significant issue concerns the ways in which raw material choices affected the technology of production. As at other Neolithic sites (e.g. Makriyalos, Franchthi, Kremasti, and Makri), ground stone technology at Avgi is characterized by variability in the technological choices related to manufacture (cf. Bekiaris 2007; Stroulia 2010, 2014; Tsoraki 2007) Various techniques, such as pecking, flaking, grinding, polishing, sawing, and drilling, were prac-

Figure 9. Serpentinite tool used in an active percussive mode with its ends. 423

AS20.indb 423

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al. ticed—individually or in combination—in order to shape and transform the rocks (shaping and retouching the preforms), increase their efficiency, maintain their functionality (restore the worn-out active faces), facilitate their use (secure the stability, the comfort handling, or the proper hafting of the tools), and prolong their life-cycles (redesigning). Not all the objects received the same degree of modification, nor were all of them modified via the same techniques. Many tools (i.e. handstones, hammerstones, and polishers) were modified exclusively through use. These are usually called “expedient” or “a posteriori” tools (Stroulia 2010; Wright 1992). Other objects, such as edge tools, mace heads, and grinding tools, were the material outcome of formalized production sequences (Tsoraki 2007, 2011a, 2011b), some of which were rather complex. The production of ground stone tools could have been performed at various locales, both inside and outside the Neolithic settlement. Archaeological evidence (i.e. unworked cobbles and flakes) indicates that ground stone reduction occurred partly on-site. However, the vast majority of the analyzed debitage belong to sedimentary raw materials, namely sandstones, indicating a clear preference in the lithic materials that were processed on-site. This choice might have been structured by reasons such as the abundance of sandstones in the immediate environment of the Neolithic settlement, though it could also be related to specific stone-working traditions of the Neolithic community or long-held traditions of exploiting and managing certain lithic resources (Edmonds 1999:37). The heavier and larger raw materials, like the coarsegrained boulders or the conglomerates, could have been subjected to some kind of primary shaping at their sources in order to reduce the transport weight. Some of them also could have been test-knapped before their collection, in order to avoid breakage due to frailties of the rock structure (Stroulia 2010:36), or to check their granularity and texture, elements that are not always clear in the water-worn cortex of the rock. Other stages in the manufacture process, such as grinding, polishing, and drilling, which often required water and sand, also could have taken place off-site, near streams and rivers. Therefore, apart from the selection of raw material, ground stone technology was also bound to several landscape locales that were involved in the manufacture process. Perceiving the Rocks: Colors and Aesthetics Not all the modifications described above targeted the functionality of the tools. Edge tools received a

special kind of surface treatment by being subjected to heavy polishing (Figure 10), irrespective of their size, type, and uses. Grinding and smoothing are important steps in the chaînes opératoires of most edge tools (Edmonds 1995:51), aiming at the formation of smooth surfaces that could easily slip through the penetrated material, significantly reducing friction (Tsoraki 2011c:298). Yet the Neolithic stoneworkers chose not only to smooth the active parts of those objects, but also to polish all their faces, including their unutilized parts: namely, their sides and butts (cf. Alisøy 2002; Tsoraki 20011b, 2011c). Polishing, an advanced stage in the grinding process, is a rather complex technical trait. It is a time-consuming process that requires certain skills and knowledge, along with a series of tools and technical “components” (i.e. grinding surfaces/abraders and abrasive agents, such as sand or water) in order to be achieved (Stroulia 2010:68–69). It has been suggested that the polishing of edge tools, not only in Greece but also in many Neolithic sites across Europe, aimed at the enhancement of the visual appearance of these objects, particularly the accentuation of their natural colors (Edmonds 1995; Stroulia 2010; Tsoraki 2011b, 2011c). The discussion of the significance of edge tool color is not new to the archaeological discipline (Cooney 2002; Edmonds 1995). Some researchers have linked color intensity with specific raw materials (e.g. Tsoraki 2011b, 2011c). At Neolithic Avgi, there was a preference for accentuating the colors of serpentinites, in contrast to other materials, such as limestone or gabbro. The colors of serpentinites are visually striking. They include various hues of light to dark green, and sometimes grayish and black with light green veins (Figures 10 and 11). It has been argued that the distinctiveness in the appearance of the objects also enhanced the textural properties of the rocks, and thus could have created a visual association between the raw materials and the landscapes in which they originated (Tsoraki 2011b:238). To stretch the discussion a bit further, the remarkable colors of the serpentinites could have affected—up to a certain point—their preferential selection for the production of edge tools, over and above other available raw materials, such as sandstones, limestones, granites, and gabbros (Tsoraki 2011c:300). Highly polished surfaces were a technological trait that is also traced in other material groups at Neolithic Avgi (i.e. mace heads, ornaments, and pottery). Another indication that may reflect the variety of ways in which the Neolithic people perceived the landscape and chose their resources lies in a rather “peculiar” group of ground stones. This group consists exclusively of raw materials that exhibit no signs of

424

AS20.indb 424

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi…

Figure 10. Serpentinite edge tool with polished surfaces. use wear. These raw materials deviate from the common rock types that were employed for ground stone production at Avgi, suggesting that they were not meant for any kind of future use. Pieces of silicified wood (Figure 12), silica sediments, calcium carbonate concentrations rich in biogenetic material, pyroxenites, and amphibolites comprise this heterogeneous group of artifacts. The reasons that the Neolithic people collected those stones and brought them to their settlement remain unclear. Some of the pieces (i.e. the silicified woods or the biogenetic masses) could have been collected out of simple curiosity about their uncommonness or rarity. Whatever the reasons behind this selection, they do not seem to be related to the mechanical properties of the rocks. Instead, they might reflect qualities of the lithic material that were fully comprehensible by the Neolithic people, but that are invisible to us. Color, smell, aesthetics, place of origin, specific memories, the healing properties of the rock, or its metaphysical aspects could be such qualities (Carter 2008; Edmonds 1999; Taçon 1991).

Accessing the Rocks: The Case of Edge Tools Finally, an issue that remains to be explored concerns the accessibility of the resources and the possible control over certain raw materials. The evidence for this discussion comes from the edge tool category. As stated above, the vast majority of edge tools are made from serpentinite, a metamorphic rock encountered rather rarely in the region of Kastoria. However, a huge serpentinite source, a quarry, could be found at the so-called Black Mountain (Mavro Vouno) at Maniakoi, at a distance of ca. 8 km to the northeast. This source was heavily exploited by the Neolithic community of Dispilio (Figure 13), as suggested by chemical analysis conducted by V. Melfos and G. Stratouli (2002). At Dispilio, the edge tool assemblage is remarkable (Stratouli 2002), comprising hundreds of axes, adzes, and chisels, but also debitage belonging to all the stages of the manufacture sequence. Blanks with quarrying evidence, preforms, and waste by-

425

AS20.indb 425

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al.

Figure 11. Serpentinite edge tool with polished surfaces. products are rather frequent, indicating that the production of edge tools actually occurred at the lake site. On the contrary, at Neolithic Avgi any evidence that would suggest the manufacture of edge tools within the settlement is extremely vague. Instead, there are several flakes (Figure 14) and some preforms from the secondary treatment of such objects: namely, their reshaping and redesigning. Even if the initial stages of the manufacturing process were carried out in the vicinity of the settlement (i.e. the nearby streams), we would expect the presence of at least some preforms or blanks in the assemblage. Therefore, we must assume that these objects reached the site as finished goods, having been produced elsewhere either by members of the community of Avgi or by another Neolithic group, with the community of Neolithic Dispilio being one possibility. Another significant trait of Avgi’s edge tools is their heavy degree of use. In actuality these are not

simply heavily used implements, but rather exhausted tools with complex use cycles. Their edges bear evidence of multiple resharpening episodes, while their overall size was frequently altered in order to fit the reformed edge, as the secondary pecking and sawing marks preserved on their sides suggest. After their exhaustion as edge tools, almost every single item was recycled in order to serve an active percussive function with both its dull edge and butt (Figure 15). The efforts to prolong the use-lives of the tools, along with their recycling, could indicate that the Neolithic inhabitants of Avgi refused, for some reason, to abandon them. Was that choice driven by specific ties the Neolithic people had with those objects, or by ascribed meanings and values that are invisible to us? Another possible explanation is that the Neolithic stone-workers of Avgi had no access to the serpentinites of Black Mountain, with the quarry being controlled by other Neolithic communities of

426

AS20.indb 426

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi…

Figure 12. Piece of silicified wood. 427

AS20.indb 427

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al.

Figure 13. Map of the Kastoria region indicating the locations of the Neolithic sites of Avgi and Dispilio and the serpentinite quarry at Black Mountain.

Figure 14. Secondary flake from the redesign of an edge tool. 428

AS20.indb 428

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi…

Figure 15. Edge tool recycled to serve an active percussive function. the region. Control over resources and rights of access based on kinship, affiliation, territoriality, customs, or other social bonds may have existed in the Neolithic, determining the raw material choices (Edmonds 1999). Conclusions: Socializing the Rocks The petrographic examination of the raw materials employed in the ground stone assemblage from Neolithic Avgi, although still at a preliminary stage, has shed some light on the ways in which the Neolithic stone-workers perceived, experienced, and exploited the landscape and its resources. An interesting pattern that emerged through the petrographic study was the selection of rocks with specific mechanical properties and natural characteristics for the making of particular tool types that would be suitable for the accomplishment of certain tasks. The selection of appropriate rocks for the intended tasks was a process that required a deep knowledge of the landscape, and it certainly reflects the experience gained by years of interaction with given material sources. In addition, at

Avgi, as at other Neolithic sites, certain preferences in the surface treatment of specific rocks indicates that the choices of the Neolithic people were also structured by other notions of “appropriateness” (Tsoraki 2011b:235), which exceed the mechanical qualities of the rocks. For instance, the accentuation of the serpentinites’ colors and distinct textural features, achieved through the technique of polishing, suggests that the visual appearance of certain rocks and objects held some meaning for the Neolithic people (Cooney 2002; Edmonds 1995). Equally intriguing, though still vague, are the reasons behind the selection of rocks that were not meant to serve a tool-related purpose. The reasoning behind those choices may have varied and is not easily accessible, at least from our own, modern perspective. Curiosity, aesthetics, and links with specific memories and places could be the concepts behind these selections. Finally, specific patterns observed in the edge tools, such as their over-exhaustion and heavy recycling, as well as the absence of material that would suggest the on-site production of these tools, could indicate an indirect

429

AS20.indb 429

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al. method of acquisition for the edge tools and restricted access to the lithic resources—in this case, the Black Mountain quarry, which may have been controlled by other Neolithic communities in the region. In recent years, several studies have challenged our ways of thinking about how prehistoric societies obtained their lithic raw materials by emphasizing the complexity of the acquisition process and by expanding the viewpoints through which the mineral sources were classified and perceived in the past. At the core of many of these studies (e.g. Stroulia 2005; Tsoraki 2011a, 2011b) lies the idea that raw material selection should not be perceived only as a “mundane,” routine activity, but also as a social practice, a web of actions and interactions between agents, materials, practices, and landscapes (Dobres 2000; Ingold 2000). In this socially constituted framework, the technical events should not be perceived as isolated processes (Tsoraki 2011c), but rather as acts that weave communities, crafts, and knowledge into various technological networks. The acquisition of stone, for example, would have required the collaboration of several community members in order to be achieved. During this process, several other technical actions (i.e. the procurement of other raw materials, animal herding, food gathering, stone reduction) and crafts might have occurred simultaneously within the same group of people or within different communities in the same locale (i.e. the Aliakmonas River valley). Such processes would have created technological fields where ideas, knowledge, and skills could be shared and different crafts and techniques practiced and experienced by the participants (Edmonds 1995; Tsoraki 2011c). As stated above, the raw materials were obtained through different social pathways and were the outcome of various social interactions (e.g. local resources, distant materials, direct procurement, and exchange). Through these processes, in which the rocks were active components, technological traditions and connections emerged, creating bonds between stone materials and people, local and distant landscapes, and perhaps specific locales and memories/events (Edmonds 1999). Notes A total of 2,907 ground stone artifacts are currently under study for the purposes of Bekiaris’ Ph.D. dissertation, carried out in the Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and entitled “Τεχνολογίες Τριπτών στη Νεολιθική της Βόρειας Ελλάδας: Το Παράδειγμα του Νεολιθικού Οικισμού Αυγής Καστοριάς.”

1

The petrographic study was generously funded by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP).

2

References Cited Adams, Jenny L. 1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Correlates for Subsistence Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3):475–498. 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Adams, Jenny L., Selina Delgado, Laure Dubreuil, Caroline Hamon, Hugues Plisson, and Roberto Risch 2009 Functional Analysis of Macro-Lithic Artefacts. In Non-Flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old Prejudices and New Directions, edited by Farina Sternke, Lotte Eigeland, and Laurent-Jacques Costa, pp. 43–66. BAR International Series 1939. Archaeopress, Oxford. Alisøy, Hege Agathe 2002 Consumption of Ground Stone Tools at Stavroupoli. In Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης, edited by Dimitris Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, pp. 561–608. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Anders, Birte, Thomas Reischmann, Dimitris Kostopoulos, and Ulrike Poller 2006 The Oldest Rocks of Greece: First Evidence for a Precambrian Terrane within the Pelagonian Zone. Geology Magazine 143:41–58. Andreasen, Niels H. 2011 The Chipped Stone Artefacts from Neolithic Avgi: Some Observations from the Continued Study of the West Sector in 2011. Electronic document, http://www. neolithicavgi.gr/?page_id=492, accessed August 29, 2016. Andreou, Stelios, Michael Fotiadis, and Kostas Kotsakis 2001 The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. In Aegean Prehistory: A Review, edited by Tracy Cullen, pp. 259–327. American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. Bekiaris, Tasos 2007 Τριπτά Εργαλεία από το Νεολιθικό Οικισμό της Μάκρης Έβρου. Unpublished M.A. the-

430

AS20.indb 430

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi… sis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 2010 Ground Stone Tools from Drakaina Cave: An Overview. Electronic document, http://www.drakainacave.gr/index.php? option=com_content&view=article& id=70&Itemid=48&lang=en, accessed August 29, 2016. 2012 Ground Stone Artefacts from the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi: A Preliminary Report. Electronic document, http://www.neolithicavgi.gr/?page_id=494&langswitch_ lang=en, accessed August 29, 2016. forthcoming Ground Stone Tools from Drakaina Cave: Grounds for Thought. In Drakaina Cave on Kephalonia Island, Western Greece: A Place of Social Activity during the Neolithic, edited by Georgia Stratouli. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia. Brunn, Jan 1956 Contribution à l’étude Géologique du Pinde Septentrional et d’une Partie de la Macédoine Occidentale. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques 1(7):1–358. Carter, Tristan 2008 Beyond the Mohs Scale: Raw Material Choice and the Production of Stone Vases in a Late Minoan Context. In New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, edited by Yorke M. Rowan and Jennie R. Ebeling, pp. 66–81. Equinox, London. Chadou, Maria 2011 Τα Λίθινα Τριπτά Εργαλεία από τον Ηλιότοπο του Ανατολικού Λαγκαδά. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Chondrou, Danai 2010 Τριπτά Eργαλεία από τη Nεολιθική Θέση της Τούμπας Kρεμαστής Kοιλάδας. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Cooney, Gabriel 2002 So Many Shades of Rocks: Color Symbolism and Irish Stone Axeheads. In Colouring the Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research, edited by Andrew Jones and Gavin MacGregor, pp. 93–107. Berg Publishers, Oxford. Dobres, Marcia-Anne 2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Edmonds, Mark 1995 Stone Tools and Society: Working Stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. B.T. Batsford Ltd., London. 1999 Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. Routledge, London. Hoek, Evert, and Paul Marinos 2000 Predicting Tunnel Squeezing Problems in Weak Heterogeneous Rock Masses. Tunnels and Tunnelling International, Part 1 – November 2000, Part 2 – December 2000. Electronic document, https://www. rocscience.com/documents/hoek/references/H2000d.pdf, accessed August 29, 2016. Ingold, Τim 2000 Tools, Minds and Machines: An Excursion in the Philosophy of Technology. In Τhe Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, pp. 294–311. Routledge, London. Kardulias, Nick P., and Curtis Runnels 1995 The Lithic Artifacts: Flaked Stone and Other Nonflaked Lithics. In Artifact and Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece: 1. The Prehistoric and Early Iron Age Pottery and the Lithic Artifacts, edited by Curtis Runnels, Daniel J. Pullen, and Susan Langdon, pp. 74–139. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Kilias, Adamantios, and Dimosthenis Mountrakis 1989 Το Τεκτονικό Κάλυμμα της Πελαγονικής: Τεκτονική, Μεταμόρφωση και Μαγ­ ματισμός. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 23(1):29–46. Kotsakis, Kostas 2014 Domesticating the Periphery: New Research into the Neolithic of Greece. Pharos 20(1):41–73. Lemmonier, Pierre 2002 Introduction. In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culture since the Neolithic, edited by Pierre Lemmonier, pp. 1–35. Routledge, London. Melfos, Vassilis, and Georgia Stratouli 2002 Η Προέλευση των Πρώτων Υλών για τα Τέχνεργα του Οικισμού. In Δισπηλιό 7500 Χρόνια Μετά, edited by Giorgos C. Chourmouziadis, pp. 175–183. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Milić, Marina 2014 PXRF Characterisation of Obsidian from

431

AS20.indb 431

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Tasos Bekiaris et al. Central Anatolia, the Aegean and Central Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:285–296. Most, Thomas 2003 Geodynamic Evolution of the Eastern Pelagonian Zone in Northwestern Greece and the Republic of Macedonia: Implications from U/Pb, Rb/Sr, K/Ar, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology and Fission Track Thermochronology. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geosciences, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Myhill, Robert 2011 Constraints on the Evolution of the Mesohellenic Ophiolite from Subophiolitic Metamorphic Rocks.  Geological Society of America Special Papers 480:75–94. Nance, Damian 1981 Tectonic History of a Segment of the Pelagonian Zone, Northeastern Greece. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 18:1111–1126. Ninou, Ismini 2006 Analysis of Grinding Stones from Neolithic Sites of Northern Greece: Dispilio and Apsalos. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton. Pappa, Maria, Paul Halstead, Kostas Kotsakis, Amy Bogaard, Rebecca Fraser, Valasia Isaakidou, Ingrid Mainland, Dimitra Mylona, Katerina Skourtopoulou, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Christina Tsoraki, Duska Urem-Kotsou, Soultana-Maria Valamoti, and Rena Veropoulidou 2013 The Neolithic Site of Makriyalos, Northern Greece: A Reconstruction of the Social and Economic Structure of the Settlement Through a Comparative Study of the Finds. In Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek World: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science, Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Netherlands Institute at Athens on 22–24 March 2010, edited by Sophia Voutsaki and Soultana Maria Valamoti, pp. 77–88. Pharos Supplement 1. Peeters, Leuven. Plastiras, Vasilios 1981 1:50,000 Geological Map of Greece, Koritsa-Mesopotamia Sheet. Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration,Athens. Plastiras, Vasilios, and Dimitrios Rozos 1978 1:50,000 Geological Map of Greece, Kastoria Sheet. Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration, Athens.

Risch, Roberto 2008 From Production Traces to Social Organisation: Towards an Epistemology of Functional Analysis. In “Prehistoric Technology” 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy, Proceedings of the International Congress, Verona (Italy) 20–23 April 2005), edited by Laura Longo and Natalia Skakun, pp. 513–521. BAR International Series 1783. Archeopress, Oxford. Rowan, Yorke M., and Jennie R. Ebeling 2008 Introduction: Keeping our Nose to the Grinding Stone. In New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, edited by Yorke M. Rowan and Jennie R. Ebeling, pp. 1–15. Equinox, London. Runnels, Curtis N. 1981 A Diachronic Study and Economic Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid, Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Savoyat, Edmond, Alexandre Verdier, Dionisios Monopolis, and Bizon Germaine 1971 1:50,000 Geological Map of Greece, Argos Orestikon Sheet. Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration, Athens. Savoyat, Edmond, Dionisios Monopolis, and Bizon Germaine 1971 1:50,000 Geological Map of Greece, Nestorion Sheet. Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration, Athens. Schermer, Elizabeth R. 1993 Geometry and Kinematics of Continental Basement Deformation during the Alpine Orogeny, Mt. Olympos Region, Greece. Journal of Structural Geology 15:571–591. Stratouli, Georgia 2002 Τα Eργαλεία από Λειασμένο Λίθο, Οστό και Κέρατο. In Δισπηλιό 7500 Χρόνια Μετά, edited by Giorgos C. Chourmouziadis, pp. 155–174. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. 2006 Νεολιθική Αυγή Καστοριάς 2003–2004: Τα Πρώτα Βήματα ενός Ερευνητικού Προγράμματος. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):661– 668. 2010 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός Αυγής Καστοριάς 2006–2007: Χωρο-οργανωτικές Πρακτικές 6ης και 5ης Χιλιετίας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 21(2007):7–14.

432

AS20.indb 432

2/11/18 9:01 PM

28 - … Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology in Neolithic Avgi… Stratouli, Georgia, Tasos Bekiaris, and Nikos Katsikaridis 2013 Μαθαίνοντας για την παρασκευή της τροφής στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Αυγής. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 27, in press. Stratouli, Georgia, Tasos Bekiaris, Nikos Katsikaridis, and Vasso Tzevelekidi 2014 Integrating the Past, Determining the Present, Establishing the Future: Identification and Interpretation of Structured Deposition at the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi in Kastoria, Northern Greece. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 349–357. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Stroulia, Anna 2005 Λίθινα Τριπτά από την Κίτρινη Λίμνη Κοζάνης: Πρώτη Προσέγγιση, Πρώτα Ερωτήματα. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 17(2003):571–580. 2010 Flexible Stones: Ground Stone Tools from Francthi Cave. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 14. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2014 Εργαλεία με Kόψη από την Κρεμαστή Κοιλάδα, Nομού Κοζάνης: Bιογραφικές Παρατηρήσεις. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 24(2010):63–71. Stroulia, Anna, and Danai Chondrou 2013 Destroying the Means of Production: The Case of Ground Stone Tools from Kremasti-Kilada, Greece. In Destruction: Archaeological, Philological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Jan Driessen, pp. 109–131. Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Taçon, Paul S. C. 1991 The Power of Stone: Symbolic Aspects of Stone Use and Tool Development in Western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65:192–207. Tsiolaki, Efi 2009 Τριπτά λίθινα εργαλεία της Μέσης και Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού από την

Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Tsoraki, Christina 2007 Unravelling Ground Stone Life Histories: The Spatial Organization of Stone Tools and Human Activities at LN Makriyalos, Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 34:289–297. 2008 Neolithic Society in Northern Greece: The Evidence of Ground Stone Artefacts. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. 2011a Disentangling Neolithic Networks: Ground Stone Technology, Material Engagements and Networks of Action. In Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology: A Diachronic Perspective on the Aegean, edited by Ann Brysbaert, pp. 12–29. Routledge, New York. 2011b Stone-Working Traditions in the Prehistoric Aegean: The Production and Consumption of Edge Tools at Late Neolithic Makriyalos. In Stone Axe Studies III, edited by Vin Davis and Mark Edmonds, pp. 231–244. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2011c Shiny and Colourful: Raw Material Selection and the Production of Edge Tools in Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Greece. In Flint and Stone in the Neolithic Period, edited by Alan Saville, pp. 287–303, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 11. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2012 Ground Stone Technologies at the Bronze Age Settlement of Sissi: Preliminary Results. In Excavations at Sissi III: Preliminary Report on the 2011 Campaign, edited by Jan Driessen, Ilse Schoep, Maria Anastasiadou, Frank Carpentier, Isabelle Crevecoeur, Sylviane Déderix, Maud Devolder, Florence Gaignerot-Driessen, Simon Jusseret, Charlotte Langohr, Quentin Letesson, Florence Liard, Aurore Schmitt, Christina Tsoraki, and Rena Veropoulidou, pp. 201–221. Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Wright, Katherine I. 1992 A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18(2):53–81.

433

AS20.indb 433

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 29 Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities of Northern Greece Odysseas Kakavakis

Abstract This paper focuses on communication and interaction among the Neolithic people of northern Greece from the perspective of the chipped stone industries. Chipped stone is a durable and variable material encountered in all Neolithic settlements. At the same time, it is a dynamic tool of analysis and knowledge, mainly because the production sequence can be studied and reconstructed in its entirety. Lithic raw materials are, in addition, assignable to specific or potential sources (local, regional, or distant) on the grounds of geochemical and petrographical evidence. The primary aim of this study is to analyze the different aspects and characteristics of the chipped stone assemblages of northern Greece in order to look more closely into patterns of acquisition, production, and exchange. Within this framework, emphasis is placed on shifts in chipped stone patterns during the settlements’ lifespan. Evidence that comes from lithic procurement sites and activity areas, although partial and preliminary, may also contribute toward a better understanding of production contexts and lithic resource management from a territorial perspective. In this regard, chipped stone analysis is expected to provide an insight into the changing conditions in which Neolithic farmers interacted with each other. Keywords Northern Greece, Neolithic communities, lithic resource use, chipped stone industries, material culture, exchange networks, social interaction According to the agency theory (Dobres and Robb 2000:11–12; Hodder and Hutson 2003:99–105), each activity encompasses ideas and beliefs that are reproduced in the material conditions of daily practices. People use material culture not only to reproduce but also to negotiate and change the perception of who they are. The various artifacts, providing insight into ideological aspects of life, are regarded as having an active role in giving meaning to behavior and identity.

Chipped stone artifacts comprise an important source of information on the relation between human agency and environment. By nature of the material, lithic technology is a reductive process with characteristic products and by-products. In a technical context, it is possible to reconstruct the entire sequence of activities, from raw material acquisition to core reduction, tool shaping, use, and discard (Inizan et al. 1999:14). The chaîne opératoire, or “artifact biography” approach, attempts to detect options, intentions, and pursuits behind technical acts, thereby providing a deeper understanding of human thinking and decision making (LaMotta and Schiffer 2001:21). Recent studies have explored the hermeneutic potential of chipped stone analysis, producing narratives about how stone artifact deposition contributes to structuring identity (Skourtopoulou 2006; Stratouli and Metaxas 2009). In addition, the ongoing research at lithic procurement sites, alongside characterization studies, is instrumental for further investigation of chipped stone variation. The present study discusses lithic material distribution at the Neolithic sites of northern Greece from a territorial point of view. The published assemblages date to the late Middle Neolithic (MN) and Late Neolithic (LN),1 ca. 5500–4000/3800 B.C. The territorial perspective has been applied to other regions of mainland Greece as well. In Thessaly, for example, the uneven distribution of obsidian and chocolate flint has been attested on the basis of the distance of sites from the Pagasetic Gulf (Karimali 2009). The Lithic Assemblages of Northern Greece: Aspects and Characteristics The Neolithic populations of northern Greece (Figure 1) developed diverse cultural traditions, which are mainly evident in the distribution and frequency of ceramic wares (Aslanis 1992:219–222). From the raw material point of view, the chipped stone assemblages also contribute to cultural diversity. Early research in the 1980s produced a distribution pattern that indicated uneven access to sources

434

AS20.indb 434

2/11/18 9:01 PM

(Fotiadis 1985:290–291; Grammenos 1997:293–297). The above suggestion was reinforced by specialized studies, most of which appeared in the literature from 1990 onward. Over the years, lithic material circulation in northern Greece became the focus of intensive research (Kourtessi 2008; Skourtopoulou 2013). Raw Material Acquisition and Distribution The chipped stone industries exhibit a great variety of raw materials. Quartz and different kinds of cryptocrystalline stones comprise the basic categories (Kakavakis 2014:599–601). Petrographic characterization studies suggest that stone tool making was based on the exploitation of local and regional sources (Dimitriadis and Skourtopoulou 2001:784–786). Quartz pebbles are abundant in secondary deposits. The milky white variety is present at almost all the Neolithic sites excavated in northern Greece. A higher frequency is observed in the region between the Strymonas River and the Thermaic Gulf (Skourtopoulou 2002:545). The rock crystal variety constitutes a distinct category encountered in much

smaller quantities. Siliceous stones classified as flint, chert, chalcedony, and opal are prevalent at sites east of the Strymonas River (Kourtessi 2009:307; Skourtopoulou 1998a:40). Primary sources have been traced in the mountainous area southeast of Nigrita (Kambouroglou and Peristeri 2006; 2008; Kourtessi 1993), at Petrota in Thrace (Fotiadis et al. 2003), and northward in the Rhodope Mountains (Manolakakis 2005:34). Some of these sites bear evidence of outcrop quarrying. The lithic material is considerably varied even at a single source, ranging from opaque to translucent. Also known as siliceous limonite, jasper is very common in central Macedonia (Skourtopoulou 2004:401-402). Surface occurrences are widespread in the region. A significant source site is located very close to the Neolithic settlement of Vassilika (Grammenos 1991:119). Cavities carved into the bedrock, although hard to date as no knapping waste was found, indicates quarrying activity. Various kinds of flint and chert are the dominant raw materials in the west. Radiolarian chert is highly represented (Doulkeridou 2009:31–32; Skourtopou-

Figure 1. Google Earth map with sites mentioned in the text. Source sites (indicated with an arrow): Nigrita, Petrota, Vassilika; MN/LN sites: Dimitra, Makri, Sitagroi, Stavroupoli, Thermi, Vassilika; LN sites: Dikili Tash, Kavallari, Makriyalos, Mandalo, Promachonas. 435

AS20.indb 435

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Odysseas Kakavakis lou 1999:Figure 8.2). Sources are found in the Pindus Mountains and in river deposits (Elster 1994:176; Tsangouli 2002:149). Raw materials imported from exotic sources make up a minority. Melian obsidian is best represented at sites located close to the coasts of the Thermaic Gulf (Skourtopoulou 2002:546–547). In addition, Carpathian obsidian was identified in the Mandalo LN assemblage (Kilikoglou et al. 1996). Balkan flint from northeastern Bulgaria has been reported at several sites, mostly in eastern Macedonia. However, due to macroscopic similarity with regional flints, it is difficult to estimate its representation in an accurate way (Dimitriadis and Skourtopoulou 2003:128–131; Manolakakis 2005:201). The above evidence clearly shows a preference for flint and chalcedony in the east, quartz and jasper in the center, and radiolarian chert in the west of northern Greece. This pattern corresponds with each region’s geological context (Dimitriadis and Skourtopoulou 2001:Figure 1). Alongside expedient procurement from surface occurrences, there are also traces of outcrop

quarrying (Kambouroglou and Peristeri 2006:18), which represents a labor-intensive activity. The demand for knappable stones was sufficiently satisfied by local and regional sources available within a radius of approximately 50 km (Manolakakis 2005:32). Intra-Site Variation: Some Examples Stavroupoli is located close to the coast of the Thermaic Gulf (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002, 2004). Quartz and jasper were the dominant raw materials employed for chipped stone tool manufacture, as in the rest of central Macedonia (Figure 2a). Obsidian and high-quality flints were much more frequent in comparison to other sites (Skourtopoulou 2004:362– 363). However, major changes took place during the settlement’s lifespan. In the second phase, quartz increased significantly while all the other categories were reduced almost by half. Contemporary with Stavroupoli phase II, the site of Kavallari2 in the Langadas Basin shows a different pattern of raw material frequency (Figure 2b).

Figure 2. Raw material frequency at central Macedonian sites: (a) Stavroupoli (Skourtopoulou 2004:Table 1); (b) Kavallari (Kakavakis 2011:Figure 26); (c) Thermi (Skourtopoulou 1990:256); (d) Vassilika (Kyriakidou 1991:84). 436

AS20.indb 436

2/11/18 9:01 PM

29 - Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities… Jasper constitutes the basic category, while quartz is considerably less numerous than flint and chalcedony (Kakavakis 2011:123–125). Obsidian is not represented in the studied sample. At Vassilika (Grammenos 1991:30–31) and Thermi (Pappa et al. 2002, 2003), located south of Stavroupoli, the lithic industries are mainly composed of two raw materials (Figures 2c and 2d): jasper, which is far more prevalent, and milky white quartz (Kyriakidou 1991:84; Skourtopoulou 1990:255–257). The remaining categories are heavily underrepresented. The Sitagroi tell lies on the east bank of the Angitis River (Elster and Renfrew 2003; Renfrew et al. 1986). Yellowish brown flint comprises the most dominant raw material (Tringham 2003:82–90). Particularly in Sitagroi phase II, this category represents three-quarters of the lithic industry (Figure 3a). The picture is quite different in the earliest phase I: quartz alongside rock crystal is the first-choice raw material, followed by different varieties of chalcedony and chert, while yellowish brown flint accounts for less than one-quarter. Represented by a single piece, obsidian is statistically non-diagnosable.

Three eastern Macedonian sites provide comparable data (Figures 3b–3d): Dikili Tash in the Drama Basin (Treuil 1992, 2004), Dimitra in the Angitis Valley (Grammenos 1997:27–57), and Promachonas on the west bank of the Strymonas River (Koukouli et al. 2005). In Dikili Tash I, quartz together with rock crystal is represented almost to the same degree as yellowish brown flint, while chalcedony and chert account for more than half of the lithic assemblage. Obsidian quantities are minimal (Kourtessi 2008:116–117). The same picture is seen at Dimitra and in the Greek sector of Promachonas (Koukouli et al. 2001:114–115; Kourtessi 2008:122–123). By contrast, the Dikili Tash II assemblage is entirely composed of yellowish brown flint (Séfériadès 1992:75). Lithic Production The available stones were knapped to produce flakes and blades, which were often retouched into specific tool types (Figure 4). Different levels of skill can be recognized on the basis of technology and product type. Cores were most commonly reduced by

Figure 3. Raw material frequency at eastern Macedonian sites: (a) Sitagroi (Tringham 2003:Table 3.2); (b) Dikili Tash (Kourtessi 2008:Figure 2); (c) Dimitra (Kourtessi 1997:213–214); (d) Promachonas (Kourtessi 2008:123). 437

AS20.indb 437

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Odysseas Kakavakis percussion techniques (Skourtopoulou 1998b:10–11). Pressure flaking was also used, especially for highquality flints and rock crystal (Manolakakis 2005:195). Decortication and core preparation flakes are usually rare in the settlements (Kourtessi 2009:306). There are reasons to believe that early-stage reduction took place in workshop areas close to the sources. A few conical blade cores from Petrota seem to represent in-situ flaked material that was left behind at

the quarry (Fotiadis et al. 2003:10–11). The Nigrita artifacts are also said to cover a broad spectrum of the lithic production process (Kambouroglou and Peristeri 2008:211). The above evidence suggests that raw materials were transported from the sources as prepared or partially exploited cores. Recent finds from the Aliakmonas River in western Macedonia support this suggestion (Galanidou 2010:4–5). However, no knapping debris is present at the Vassilika quarry

Figure 4. Chipped stone artifacts from Kavallari: (a) glossed and retouched blade (yellowish brown flint); (b) burin on oblique truncation (yellowish brown flint); (c) end scraper on cortical flake (greenish gray flint); (d) blade-like flake with traces of use (chalcedony); (e) splintered piece (jasper); (f) crested blade (jasper); (g) core platform rejuvenation flake (jasper); (h) glossed and retouched blade (jasper); (i) end scraper on flake (jasper); (j) end scraper on flake (jasper); (k) bladelet (quartz); (l) end scraper on flake (quartz). (Drawings by the author) 438

AS20.indb 438

2/11/18 9:01 PM

29 - Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities… (Grammenos 1991:120). This indicates a procurement strategy that involved the transportation of unworked blocks. Extensive evidence of on-site lithic production activities has been traced in horizontally extended settlements. Spatial analysis at Stavroupoli and Makriyalos identified areas of quartz and, to a smaller scale, jasper flaking. Pits found in the workshop areas contained large quantities of waste, such as exhausted cores, core rejuvenation by-products, and non-flake debitage (Skourtopoulou 2002:543–544, 2006:62). Thermi is identified as a jasper-working site on the grounds that raw nodules were intensively processed in situ. Lithic production activity organized on a communal scale is associated with pits and paved areas (Pappa et al. 2002:181, 2003:274). Although excavated to a much lesser extent, similar evidence is also present at Vassilika (Skourtopoulou 2013:14). Both settlements are located at a distance of less than 13 km from the main source. Farther away, there is no strong indication of nodule decortication or core cresting (Skourtopoulou 2002:541). In the case of the foreign raw materials, smallscale obsidian blade production has been reported at Stavroupoli (Skourtopoulou 2004:389). At the other sites, obsidian was imported in the form of finished blades, which is also true for the North Bulgarian flint. The latter is distinguished from regionally available yellowish brown flints on technological grounds. According to Manolakakis (2005:267–269), the imported blades are large and pressure flaked; they have a linear butt and a carefully abraded overhang. The local ones are shorter, most commonly produced by percussion. Lithic Resources, Interaction, and Material Culture Evidence from the lithic record points to the existence of several procurement networks. At the same time, questions are raised relating to territorial aspects of the landscape. The changing pattern of lithic resource use is also very interesting from a material culture perspective. Territorial Considerations The sources of knappable lithic raw materials are probably not extensively mapped. Despite this fact, the available data from the Neolithic of northern Greece allow for some preliminary comments on lithic resource management and use. The Nigrita quarries are situated at equal distances from the surrounding settlements (Figure 1), at an elevation of ca. 100–300 masl. The lithic material at-

tributed to these sources, namely flint and chalcedony, is much more abundant in eastern Macedonia. In central Macedonia, flint and chalcedony are found in considerably smaller quantities, with no sufficient evidence of on-site working (Skourtopoulou 2013:3). On these grounds, it could be argued that during some periods the raw materials arrived there by means of exchange. This pattern is indicative of territorial boundaries and landscape negotiations in terms of raw material distribution that are not obvious in the archaeological record. The ethnographic record shows that people can develop strong cultural ties with particular places and raw materials (Ericson 1984:3). Thus, access to certain areas becomes restricted to groups affiliated by regional and cultural identities (Karimali 2001:757–758). With regard to yellowish brown flint, eastern Macedonia provides contrasting evidence. Possible sources are found in the Rhodope Mountains of southern Bulgaria (Gurova 2008:Figure 11) and in the Nigrita area, according to recent reports (Kambouroglou and Peristeri 2008:213–214). At Sitagroi, it occurs as blade cores that were knapped in situ (Tringham 2003:84). Some indications of core reduction also exist at Dimitra (Kourtessi 1997:214). No such traces were found at Dikili Tash, but the recovery of numerous chips confirms in-situ retouching and tool resharpening (Kourtessi 2008:119). The strong presence of cores in the Sitagroi assemblage implies that the settlement played an active role in the regional networks. A similar pattern is observed in central Macedonia. It has been suggested that sites situated close to the sources, namely Thermi and Vassilika, acted as production centers that supplied cores and ready-to-use blanks within a radius of ca. 50 km (Skourtopoulou 2013:11). Settlements outside the Vassilika Valley have yielded lower percentages of jasper, while in-situ flaking is not pronounced. The jasper network probably extended west of the Axios River, as evidenced at Makriyalos. Material Culture Perspectives Two sites demonstrate striking changes with regard to raw material frequency. At Stavroupoli, on the one hand, cryptocrystalline stones not directly available are quite prevalent in the first phase, as opposed to the second phase when local quartz increases significantly at the expense of other materials. At Sitagroi, on the other hand, quartz and rock crystal account for almost half of the chipped stone assemblage in the first phase, while in the second and third phases these materials are represented in very low percentages.

439

AS20.indb 439

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Odysseas Kakavakis The changes in the lithic record are related to a wider context of changes (Kakavakis 2014:603-604). In Stavroupoli phase I, the abundance of non-quartz lithics is parallel to the presence of numerous figurines and Spondylus shell ornaments, artifact categories that are underrepresented in the region between the Axios and Strymonas Rivers (Nanoglou 2014:639–640; Veropoulidou 2014:473). The ceramic assemblage is also considerably varied. In the first phase, 18 decorated wares were in use (Grammenos and Kotsos 2002:Table A3). The prevalence of quartz in Stavroupoli phase II, and at the same time the decrease of the other materials by half, coincides with a ceramic repertoire restricted to 11 decorated wares. At Sitagroi, the MN phase I represents a monochrome ceramic tradition that extends to the eastern Balkans (Aslanis 1992:147; Keighley 1986:345; Todorova 2003:270). Painted pottery increases in the LN phases II and III (Evans 1986:393; Keighley 1986:350–351). The same phases provide evidence of copper smelting (Renfrew and Slater 2003:303, 307) and intensive Spondylus shell working (Miller 2003:369–374). These developments coincide with a lack of interest in quartz and rock crystal. The raw material that dominates the lithic assemblage is a yellowish brown flint that is reminiscent of the North Bulgarian one. Yellowish brown flint was very common in the LN industries of the Serres and Drama Basins. At that time, graphite decorated pottery became an important component of the regional ceramic assemblages (Demoule 2004:70, 179–181), while Spondylus shell was worked at several sites (Karali 2004:560–571). Graphite decoration and other items of symbolic material culture were also very popular in the Balkans (Bailey 2000:209–236). Spondylus shell ornaments, in particular, are found in abundance on the Bulgarian coasts of the Black Sea (Nikolaidou and Ifantidis 2014:Figure 2). In this regard, the intensive use of yellowish brown flint in eastern Macedonia could be seen as underlining cultural affinities with the north. Translucent stones, often classified as chalcedony or opal, are plentiful in the chipped stone assemblages of northeastern Greece. Fieldwork in the wider Petrota area produced evidence indicating a strong presence of these materials at sites dating to the Neolithic period. The team of the Petrota project suggests that these were highly appreciated as carriers of special values (Fotiadis et al. 2003:16–17). The interest in translucent materials, accounting for almost half of the lithic industries in settlements such as Dimitra, Dikili Tash, and Makri, emphasizes affinities between eastern Macedonia and Thrace.

West of the Axios, one-tenth of the Makriyalos assemblage consists of high-quality stones probably imported from northeastern Greece; Melian obsidian is also present in relatively high quantities (Skourtopoulou 1999:122). At Makriyalos, the interrelation between imported lithics and expressive material culture is pronounced. The excavations produced numerous figurines and Spondylus shell ornaments, as well as dozens of copper artifacts (Pappa and Besios 1999:116–117; Pappa and Veropoulidou 2011:110– 115). Situated at the entrance to the Thermaic Gulf, at a passage between Thessaly and Macedonia, the site is viewed as a place that attracted agents of different cultural traditions. In the second phase of habitation (Makriyalos II), a series of pits were found containing high-quality stone tools alongside various artifacts of special value. Interpreted as “structured depositions,” these contexts emphasize the symbolic potential of lithic artifact deposition for structuring memory and identity (Skourtopoulou 2006:67–73). Conclusions The Neolithic communities of northern Greece relied on local and regional sources for chipped stone tool manufacture. Albeit of mediocre to low quality, quartz and jasper were efficiently adjusted to flake as well as blade technologies (Skourtopoulou 2013:5). Statistical data and reduction sequence analyses indicate that the sources were not always directly accessible and that some sort of exchange must have taken place (Kakavakis 2014:601; Skourtopoulou 2013:11–12). Tools made of exotic raw materials are also present in small quantities, reflecting links with the north and the south. Certain sites have yielded evidence for long-term fluctuation in raw material frequency, which is related to a wider context of changes in the archaeological record. At Sitagroi and Stavroupoli, in particular, proportions of high-quality lithics increased in periods that witnessed a significant growth and variety in other categories of material culture, such as decorated pottery, figurines, copper, and Spondylus shell ornaments. The above artifact categories represent different network types (Perlès 1992:117–119). However, the exact nature of those networks and the way in which they operated remain unclear. From an interpretive point of view, emphasis has been placed on aspects of craft specialization, social hierarchy, and cultural identity (Karimali 2001:759–760; Perlès 1992:148–150; Skourtopoulou 1998b:9–10). In the current state of research, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive understanding of all the issues related to lithic procurement and exchange.

440

AS20.indb 440

2/11/18 9:01 PM

29 - Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities… One can point out the rapid growth of material culture and the transport of various products over long distances, which indicate increased social interaction (Skourtopoulou 1998b:12). Additionally, there is considerable evidence to suggest that chipped stone circulation in northern Greece ran parallel to meaningful transactions. From this perspective, lithic procurement networks represent social networks in changing contexts of interaction. Notes The LN period is further divided into LN I and LN II (Koukouli 1996:114). 2 Unpublished excavation conducted by the Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki in 2006 and 2007, directed by Stavros Kotsos. The settlement belongs to the flat-extended type and dates to the LN II period (Stavros Kotsos, personal communication 2010). 1

References Cited Aslanis, Ioannis 1992 H Προϊστορία της Μακεδονίας: Ι. Η Νεολιθική Εποχή. Kardamitsa Publications, Athens. Bailey, Douglass W. 2000 Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. Routledge, London. Demoule, Jean-Paul 2004 Les Récipients en Céramique du Néolithique Récent (Chalcolithique): Description, Evolution et Contexte Régionale. In Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 2, edited by René Treuil, pp. 63–270. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 37. École Française d’Athènes, Athens.

Dimitriadis, Sarantis, and Katerina Skourtopoulou 2001 Characterization of Lithic Materials by Petrographic and SEM Techniques: Towards Suggestions on Chipped Stone Tool Provenance from Neolithic Sites of Northern Greece. In Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Yannis Bassiakos, Eleni Aloupi, and Yorgos Facorellis, pp. 779–790. Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens. 2003 Petrographic Examination of Chipped Stone Material. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Ex-

cavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970: 2. The Final Report, edited by Ernestine S. Elster and Colin Renfrew, pp. 127–132. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles. Dobres, Marcia-Anne, and John E. Robb 2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 3-17. Routledge, London. Doulkeridou, Sofia 2009 Ορισμένες Παρατηρήσεις για τη Λιθοτεχ­ νία Λαξεμένου Λίθου από το Δισπηλιό Καστοριάς. Anaskamma 3:27–36. Elster, Ernestine S. 1994 Prehistoric Tools in Thessaly: Achilleion, Makrychori 2 and Plateia Magoula Zarkou. In La Thessalie. Quinze Années de Recherches Archéologiques, 1975–1990: Bilans et Perspectives. Actes du Colloque International, Lyon, 17–22 Avril 1990, Vol. A, edited by Jean-Claude Decourt, Bruno Helly, and Kostas Gallis, pp. 169–176. Kapon Editions, Athens. Elster, Ernestine S., and Colin Renfrew (editors) 2003 Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970: 2. The Final Report. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Ericson, Jonathon E. 1984 Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 1–9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Evans, Robert K. 1986 The Pottery of Phase III. In Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster, pp. 393–428. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Fotiadis, Michael 1985 Economy, Ecology and Settlement among Subsistence Farmers in the Serres Basin, Northeastern Greece, 5000–1000 BC. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Fotiadis, Michael, Dimitra Papayanni, and Nikos Efstratiou 2003 Πετρωτά Θράκης: Προϊστορικό Λατομείο

441

AS20.indb 441

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Odysseas Kakavakis Πυριτόλιθου. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 15(2001):9–18. Galanidou, Nena 2010 Η Προϊστορία της Ανθρώπινης Κατοίκησης στη Λεκάνη της Λίμνης της Καστοριάς: οι Μαρτυρίες από τη Συλλογή Πανταζόπου­ λου. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 21(2007):1–6. Grammenos, Dimitrios V. 1991 Νεολιθικές Έρευνες στην Κεντρική και Ανατολική Μακεδονία. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Grammenos, Dimitrios V. (editor) 1997 Νεολιθική Μακεδονία. Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens. Grammenos, Dimitrios V., and Stavros Kotsos (editors) 2002 Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικι­ σμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. 2004 Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικι­ σμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: Μέρος ΙΙ (1998–2003). Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Gurova, Maria 2008 Towards an Understanding of Early Neolithic Populations: A Flint Perspective from Bulgaria. Documenta Praehistorica 35:111–129. Hodder, Ian, and Scott Hutson 2003 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Inizan, Marie-Louise, Michèle Reduron-Ballinger, Hélène Roche, and Jacques Tixier 1999 Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Translated by Jehanne FéblotAugustins. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, Tome 5. Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Préhistoriques, Nanterre. Kakavakis, Odysseas 2011 Οι Λιθοτεχνίες Πελεκημένου Λίθου της Νεολιθικής Εποχής στην Ανατολική και Κεντρική Μακεδονία: Παράγοντες και Συνθήκες Διαφοροποίησης. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology and History of Art, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. 2014 In Search of Social Networks during the Neolithic Period in Macedonia (Northern Greece): The Case of Chipped Stone Industries. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Pro-

ceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 599–606. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Kambouroglou, Evangelos, and Katerina Peristeri 2006 Λατομεία και Θέσεις Πυριτόλιθου Προ­ ϊστο­ρικών Χρόνων στη Μακεδονία. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):17–24. 2008 Επιφανειακή ‘Ερευνα 2006 για τον Εντοπισμό Λατομείων και Θέσεων Πρώτης Ύλης Προϊστορικών Εργαλείων (Πυριτόλιθου) Νομού Σερρών. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 20(2006):209–216. Karali, Lilian 2004 Ανασκαφή Σταυρούπολης: Μαλακολογικό Υλικό. In Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθι­ κό Οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: Μέρος ΙΙ (1998–2003), edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, pp. 527–604. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Karimali, Lia 2001 Επαναπροσδιορισμός της Συχνότητας Υλικού και της Απόστασης στα Μοντέλα Ανταλλαγής Οψιανού στο Αιγαίο: Η Περίπτωση της Νεολιθικής Θεσσαλίας. In Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Yannis Bassiakos, Eleni Aloupi, and Yorgos Facorellis, pp. 753–761. Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens. 2009 Κατανομή Λίθινων Πρώτων Υλών στη Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: Μια Συγκριτική Εξέταση. In Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3–19.3.2006: I. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 17–29. Archaeological Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece 2. Ministry of Culture and the University of Thessaly, Volos. Keighley, Jenifer Marriott 1986 The Pottery of Phases I and II. In Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster, pp. 345–392. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

442

AS20.indb 442

2/11/18 9:01 PM

29 - Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities… Kilikoglou, Vassilis, Yannis Bassiakos, Apostolos P. Grimanis, Kleodimos Souvatzis, Angeliki Pilali-Papasteriou, and Aikaterini PapanthimouPapaefthimiou 1996 Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(3):343–349. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Haïdo 1996 Pottery: Macedonia-Thrace. In Neolithic Culture in Greece, edited by George A. Papathanassopoulos, pp. 112–117. Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Haïdo, Ioannis Aslanis, Foteini Konstantopoulou, and Magdalini Valla 2001 Ανασκαφή στον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό Προμαχώνα-Topolniča κατά το 1999. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 13(1999):111–116. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Haïdo, Ioannis Aslanis, Ivan Vaisov, and Magdalini Valla 2005 Promachonas-Topolniča 2002–2003 (Pro­ ma­chon-Topolniča: A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project). The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 17(2003):91–110. Kourtessi-Philippakis, Georgia 1993 Η Διερεύνηση της Παλαιολιθικής κα­ τοίκησης στην Ανατολική Μακεδονία: Προκαταρκτική Έκθεση 1989–1990. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 4(1990):553–559. 1997 Les Industries Lithiques Tailleés. In Neolithiki Makedonia, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos, pp. 212–216. Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens. 2008 Λίθινες Πρώτες Ύλες και Εγχειρημα­ τικές Αλυσίδες στη Βόρεια Ελλάδα: Το Παράδειγμα του Dikili Tash. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 20(2006):115–126. 2009 Lithics in the Neolithic of Northern Greece: Territorial Perspectives from an OffObsidian Area. Documenta Praehistorica 36:305–312. Kyriakidou, Maria 1991 Η Λιθοτεχνία των Φάσεων III και IV (Ύστερες Φάσεις της ΥN) του Οικισμού των Βασιλικών, Ν. Θεσσαλονίκης. M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. LaMotta, Vincent M., and Michael B. Schiffer 2001 Behavioral Archaeology: Towards a New Synthesis. In Archaeological Theory Today,

edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 14–64. Polity Press, Cambridge. Manolakakis, Laurence 2005 Les Industries Lithiques Enéolithiques de Bulgarie. Archäologie 88. Leidorf, Rahden/ Westf. Miller, Michele 2003 Technical Aspects of Ornament Production at Sitagroi. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970: 2. The Final Report, edited by Ernestine S. Elster and Colin Renfrew, pp. 369–382. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Nanoglou, Stratos 2014 Η Αναπαράσταση των Ανθρώπων στη Νεολιθική Μακεδονία. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 639–644. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Nikolaidou, Marianna, and Fotis Ifantidis 2014 Ταξίδια του Νεολιθικού Spondylus: Αρ­ χαιολογικές Καταδύσεις στα Βαθειά Νερά της Αιγαιακής Προϊστορίας. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 645–659. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Pappa, Maria, Fotini Adaktylou, and Stratos Nanoglou 2003 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός Θέρμης 2000–2001. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 15(2001):271–278. Pappa, Maria, and Manthos Besios 1999 The Makriyalos Project: Rescue Excavations at the Neolithic Site of Makriyalos, Pieria, Northern Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 108–120. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Pappa, Maria, Stratos Nanoglou, and Aglaia Nitsou 2002 Ανασκαφή Νεολιθικού Οικισμού Θέρμης. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 14(2000):179–186.

443

AS20.indb 443

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Odysseas Kakavakis Pappa, Maria, and Rena Veropoulidou 2011 The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Evidence from the Spondylus Gaederopus Artifacts. In Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data and Approaches. Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies, edited by Fotis Ifantidis and Marianna Nikolaidou, pp. 105–121. BAR International Series 2216. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Perlès, Catherine 1992 Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5:115–164. Renfrew, Colin, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine S. Elster (editors) 1986 Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. I. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Renfrew, Colin, and Elizabeth A. Slater 2003 Metal Artifacts and Metallurgy. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970: 2. The Final Report, edited by Ernestine S. Elster and Colin Renfrew, pp. 301–318. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Séfériadès, Μichel L. 1992 L’Outillage: I. La Pierre Taillée. In Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 1, edited by René Treuil, pp. 59–83. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 24. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. Skourtopoulou, Katerina 1990 Ανασκαφή Νεολιθικού Οικισμού Θέρμης: Ανασκαφική Περίοδος 1987. Η Λιθοτεχνία. Makedonika 27:255–262. 1998a The Chipped Stone Industries of Makri: Domestic Contexts of Tool Production and Use. Saguntum 31:40–45. 1998b Technical Behaviour and the Identification of Social Patterning: A Preliminary Discussion of Some New Evidence from the Late Neolithic of Northern Greece. In Craft Specialization: Operational Sequences and Beyond. Papers from the EAA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna, September 24-28 1997, edited by Sarah Milliken and Massino Vidale, pp. 9–16. BAR International Series 720. British Archaeological

Reports, Oxford. 1999 The Chipped Stone from Makriyalos: A Preliminary Report. In Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by Paul Halstead, pp. 121–127. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 2002 Η Λιθοτεχνία Απολεπισμένου Λίθου από τον Οικισμό της Σταυρούπολης: Τα Πρώτα Στοιχεία. In Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικσμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, pp. 537– 559. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. 2004 Η Λιθοτεχνία Αποκρουσμένου Λίθου στον Οικισμό της Σταυρούπολης. In Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό Οικι­ σμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: Μέρος ΙΙ (1998–2003, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos and Stavros Kotsos, pp. 361–474. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. 2006 Questioning Spatial Contexts: The Contribution of Lithics Studies as Analytical and Interpretative Bodies of Data. In Deconstructing Context: A Critical Approach to Archaeological Practice, edited by Demetra Papaconstantinou, pp. 50–78. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2013 Οι Λιθοτεχνίες Απολεπισμένου Λίθου της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας. In Μελέτες για την Προϊστορική Μακεδονία, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos. Proistorimata Supplement 1, 2013. Electronic document, http://proistoria.wordpress.com, accessed April 21, 2015. Stratouli, Georgia, and Odysseas Metaxas 2009 Projectile Tips from Neolithic Layers of Drakaina Cave on Kephalonia, Ionian Islands, W. Greece: Technological ‘Conservatism’ and Social Identity. In Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of Session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, edited by Jean-Marc Pétillon, Marie-Hélène Dias-Meirinho, Pierre Cattelain, Matthieu Honegger, Christian Normand, and Nicolas Valdeyron. Palethnology 1:309–327. Electronic document, http://blogs.univ-tlse2.fr/ palethnologie/wp-content/files/2009/enGB/Palethnology-2009-GB-15-StratouliMetaxas.pdf, accessed January 27, 2015.

444

AS20.indb 444

2/11/18 9:01 PM

29 - Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities… Todorova, Henrieta 2003 Prehistory of Bulgaria. In Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos, pp. 257–328. Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, Thessaloniki. Treuil, René (editor) 1992 Dikili Tash, Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 1. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 24. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. 2004 Dikili Tash. Village préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Vol. 2. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 37. École Française d’Athènes, Athens. Tringham, Ruth 2003 Flaked Stone. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece 1968–1970: 2. The Final Report, edited by Ernestine

S. Elster and Colin Renfrew, pp. 81–126. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Tsangouli, Chrysa 2002 Τα Λίθινα Λαξεμένα Εργαλεία. In Δισπηλιό 7500 Χρόνια Μετά, edited by Giorgos C. Chourmouziadis, pp. 145–154. University Studio Press, Thessaloniki. Veropoulidou, Rena 2014 Όψεις της Διατροφής και του Υλικού Πολιτισμού της Νεολιθικής και της εποχής του Χαλκού στην Κεντρική Μακεδονία: Μια Οστρεοαρχαιολογική Προσέγγιση. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 465–475. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki.

445

AS20.indb 445

2/11/18 9:01 PM

- 30 Casting a Wide Network: Preliminary Results from the Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages from Revenia, Pieria (Greece) Lilian Dogiama

Abstract In this chapter I present the preliminary results of my study of the chipped stone assemblage from the Early Neolithic site of Revenia Korinos, in northern Pieria (sixth to fifth millennium B.C.). Revenia is a flat-extended settlement with semi-subterranean structures and 86 large pits with evidence of preferential deposition of material. Some of its unique features are five human burials within the structures, strikingly reminiscent of Neolithic practices in the Near East and Anatolia, and its enormous shell midden deposits, whose size is unique among Greek Neolithic sites. The chipped stone assemblage is equally interesting. The people of Revenia had access to high-quality raw materials that “travelled” a long way to reach the site. Most notable among these are obsidian, chocolate, and honey flint. These exotica are represented in great numbers within the assemblage and demonstrate strong connections and established networks that are quite unusual for sites of such an early date. In the case of obsidian, we know that its circulation during prehistory was never widespread in northern Greece and that when it did occur, it was always in minute amounts. In this respect, Revenia seems to be a unique case study that could potentially alter our perceptions of Neolithic networks. Keywords Greek Neolithic, Early Neolithic, flat-extended sites, chipped stone tools, obsidian, chocolate flint, honey flint, microliths, projectile technology Since the early 2000s, Neolithic research in northern Greece has been experiencing an unforeseen bloom with many new sites being discovered and excavated as a result of large-scale construction work (Kotsos 2014; Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2006). Our understanding of the Early Neolithic period in particular has vastly improved as a result of this surge in excavation. In central and western Macedonia, Greece, this period until recently was represented by

only a few sites (e.g. Nea Nikomedeia, Servia, and Giannitsa B). Recent research has filled this gap with at least five new previously unknown Early Neolithic sites that are located in central Macedonia (Figure 1). These sites are mostly of the flat-extended type with thin deposits covered by thick alluvium in later years, making them invisible (Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2006). The site of Revenia in northern Pieria is one of these recently discovered sites. The Site in a Nutshell Situated in a small, well-watered valley in close proximity to the sea and flanked to the west by the Pieria Mountains, the site of Revenia was discovered during the construction of a poultry factory. A rescue excavation was conducted from 2002 to 2004 by Fotini Adaktylou and Manthos Besios of the 27th Ephorate of Antiquities1 of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture (Besios and Adaktylou 2004). Revenia belongs to the type of the flat-extended settlement with thin deposits and a horizontally shifting occupational pattern (Besios et al. 2005). The study of pottery types has determined that the site was in use from the early phases of the Early Neolithic until the beginning of the Middle Neolithic (ca. 6500–5800 B.C.) (Urem-Kotsou et al. 2012). The results of absolute dating analyses are expected to come out soon. The site is replete with pits that are densely distributed and even overlapping at times. The presence of large numbers of pits is hardly unexpected for a Neolithic site in the wider region of Macedonia and Thessaly (Batzelas 2009; Giannouli 2006). At Revenia a total of 86 pits are dug into the natural bedrock; they are most commonly roughly circular in shape, but there are also a few rectangular ones. Some pits seem to be associated with postholes. The largest pits, which often bear internal features (i.e. platforms), may have been part of semi-subterranean pit dwellings (Besios and Adaktylou 2004). Other pits seem to have been used to deposit discarded materials. What sets Revenia apart from other sites is that some pits appear to have served as the discard location for only

446

AS20.indb 446

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Figure 1. Map showing the Early Neolithic sites mentioned in the text. (image: Landsat, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO ©2013 Google)

specific materials: i.e. there are “shell pits,” “bone pits,” “pottery pits,” etc. Preliminary results suggest that pottery pits tend to lie mostly in the southeastern and northwestern part of the site, whereas bone pits are in the northeastern part (Besios and Adaktylou 2004:358). The ongoing study for the publication of the site’s stratigraphy by the excavator, Fotini Adaktylou, will certainly elucidate these issues and answer many of the questions that have been raised. Another important feature of the site is its burial record, which is quite rich for the standard of Greek Neolithic sites: 11 burials have been excavated from within pits, demonstrating a striking resemblance to burial practices of Anatolia and the Near East (Triantafyllou and Adaktylou 2015). Chipped Stone Assemblage and Contexts of Deposition The study of the Revenia chipped stone assemblage began in September 2014 and is still in progress. The assemblage contains approximately 2,600 chipped stone artifacts in total. The preliminary results presented in this paper come from a small part

of the assemblage, as only 11 percent of the material has been studied thus far. For the first stage of my study, I targeted three contexts of particular interest, which Ι studied in their entirety: Pits 5, 11, and 24. These three contexts represent domestic and refuse contexts and were chosen for study because they exhibit a number of intriguing features. Pit 5 is the largest and deepest pit found at the site (1.68 m in depth and 5.2 m in diameter). It is circular, with straight walls. The pit was divided into three internal shallower pits. Its layout and contents suggest that Pit 5 most likely served as a semi-subterranean pit house. Large concentrations of pottery and seashells were recovered from the pit and are currently under study (Besios and Adaktylou 2004:359). Pit 11 is the largest rectangular pit on site (2.95 x 3.25 m in length; 1.05 m in depth). The excavators hypothesize that it constitutes the lower part of an above-ground rectangular house structure (Besios and Adaktylou 2004:360). Five articulated burials were recovered inside the pit (Triantafyllou and Adaktylou 2015). The pit yielded large amounts of finds, but none seem to have been deposited as grave goods (Besios and Adaktylou 2004:360).

447

AS20.indb 447

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama Pit 24 is a large and deep circular pit with two internal spaces with an unclear association with each other (.7 m in depth and 3.7 m in diameter). The pit yielded large amounts of animal and some human bone along with many ground stone tool fragments, but only a few pottery sherds (Besios and Adaktylou 2004:360). Sediment and micro-artifact analyses were unable to determine with certainty the use of the pit; it is possible that it was used as both a house and a refuse pit, with a hiatus of abandonment in between (Besios et al. 2005). Lithic Raw Materials The raw materials used at Revenia are unusual compared to what is usually found at northern Greek Neolithic sites. A general overview of the entire assemblage shows that obsidian and flint are the two

Figure 2. Raw materials used for the tools recovered from Pits 5, 11, and 24. most common raw materials used in the production of stone tools (Figure 2). Obsidian is usually the least represented raw material in northern Greek Neolithic chipped stone assemblages. The northernmost sites where obsidian had ever been found until now were in Thessaly (Karimali 2009; Perlès 2001:202, 208; Skourtopoulou 2013:13). This fact, however, has been overturned for the first time by the Revenia assemblage. The site not only provides clear evidence of in situ obsidian knapping, but also appears to have held a special place within circulation networks, as the raw material is present in large quantities in the settlement. Macroscopically, the obsidian is black milky grey, resembling the Melian variety, although such a claim needs to be verified by geochemical analysis. Flint constitutes the most common raw material for the manufacture of stone tools in central Macedonia (Skourtopoulou 2013). The main type used

at Revenia is the Thessalian chocolate radiolaritic jasper, a homogenous fine-grained, non-translucent raw material whose sources have been located in the Pindos Mountains (Alexakis et al. 2008, 2009; Perlès 2001:202). Chocolate flint, as it is usually called, is well known from Thessalian and Greek Macedonian sites for its high quality and knapping potential, especially in blade production (Karimali 2009; Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981). A reddish-brown, non-translucent, and also good-quality flint is the second-most used raw material in the assemblage, and a close third is a light yellowish-brown, finegrained, and translucent type of flint (for percentage distribution, see Table 1). The latter two types also have some variations in color: the reddish-brown has a bichrome variation of reddish brown and greenish grey, whereas the light yellowish-brown ranges from greyish white to light pink. These color variations are a common occurrence in flint, and in all likelihood they all originated from the same source. Even though flint is to be expected at a northern Greek Neolithic site, it should be noted that the inhabitants of Revenia preferred and/or had access to fine-grained flints of good quality that allowed for excellent control over the knapping procedure (Table 1). Among these we should also note the presence of honey flint. This type, albeit found in small quantities in the studied contexts, is another type of exotic raw material of exquisite quality which is speculated to originate in sources in western Greece (Perlès 2001:78), or in the Rhodope Mountains in Thrace (Dimitriadis and Skourtopoulou 2001). A northern Bulgarian origin should be excluded, as the material from Revenia lacks the characteristic whitish inclusions of the so-called “Balkan” flint (Maria Gurova, personal communication 2015). Apart from obsidian and flint, the assemblage also has small quantities of opal and quartz. Opal is a white or yellowish-white, fine-grained, translucent siliceous rock representing a total of 4 percent of the assemblage (10 pieces). The quartz found at Revenia is of two distinct qualities: one is yellowish white and semi-coarse, and the other is pure white, homogenous, and fine-grained. Quartz comprises 6 percent of the studied assemblage (17 pieces). The Chipped Stone Assemblage of Pit 5 The assemblage from Pit 5 is dominated by flint (48.6 percent), with large amounts of obsidian (33.6 percent) and much smaller amounts of quartz (13.2 percent) and opal (4.4 percent; see Figure 3). Chocolate flint is the most common raw material in the pit, used primarily in the manufacture of prismatic

448

AS20.indb 448

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria… blades of regular shape. Blades are fragmented with mostly medial sections finding their way into the assemblage, a fact that makes the identification of the knapping technique difficult. In all likelihood, these are blades made by soft hammer direct or indirect percussion. Small flakes and knapping debris provide evidence of in-situ knapping in or around the pit. The prismatic blade blanks served mostly as sickle elements, judging from the characteristic silica gloss on their edges (Figure 4, on Color Plate XV). Other interesting pieces of flint are a small discoid flake core on greyish-white, opaque, goodquality flint with four flake removals (Figure 5), and one transverse arrowhead on chocolate flint. This microlithic arrowhead is made on the medial section of a prismatic pressure blade; its one edge is tapered and sharp, whereas the opposite is backed (Figure 6).

There are also three scrapers on flake blanks and five engraving tools (two on opal) on burinated blades and flakes (see Figure 7 for a breakdown of all tool types). The obsidian chaîne opératoire is similar to that of the flint industry (Figure 8). There is evidence of in-situ knapping of the material in the form of knapping debris and, most importantly, one cortical overshot flake from a core, which was the result of a technical accident (plunging blade, Figure 9). Blade production seems to have been the main industry; some blades were later further modified into “formal” tools such as denticulates and burins. However, the majority of blades remained unretouched, most likely because the sharp edge of an obsidian blade is already an ideal cutting tool. We should note also the presence of three fragmented microblades (.5–1 mm thick and

Table 1. Types of Flint Found in Pits 5, 11, and 24. Flint Type

Munsell Color

Quality

Percentage of Assemblage (%)

Chocolate

7.5YR 2.5/2

Fine-grained

24

Reddish-brown

2.5YR 3/3

Fine-grained

17

Light yellowish-brown

10YR 7/4

Fine-grained

16

Dark brown

7.5YR 2.5/2

Fine-grained

9

Honey flint

10YR 6/3

Fine-grained

4

Dark greyish-brown

10YR 3/2

Coarse

3

Bichrome: light yellowish-brown and pure white

10YR 7/4

Fine-grained and semi-coarse

1.5

2.5YR 3/3 & 5GY 4/1

Fine-grained

1.5

Greyish-brown

10YR 4/2

Fine-grained

1.5

Greyish-white

10YR 7/1

Fine-grained

1.5

Light pink

2.5YR 7/2

Fine-grained

1.5

Yellowish-brown

10YR 5/8

Fine-grained

1.5

Banded chocolate

2.5YR 3/3

Fine-grained

0.7

5YR 3/3 & 5/4

Semi-coarse

0.7

2.5Y 2.5/1

Fine-grained

.7

Dark bluish-grey

N3/

Fine-grained

.7

Dark reddish-grey

10R 3/2

Fine-grained

.7

Grey brown with lighter stripes

10YR 4/2

Fine-grained

.7

Light grey

10YR 5/1

Fine-grained

.7

Light yellowish-brown with reddish veins

10YR 7/4

Fine-grained

.7

10R 4/2

Fine-grained

.7

Bichrome: reddish-brown and greenish-grey

Bichrome: dark red and pinkish-brown Black

Reddish with light grey patches

449

AS20.indb 449

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama

Figure 3. Breakdown of raw material for Pits 5, 11, and 24, showing count in white boxes. 3–7 mm wide) which were most certainly pressure flaked, judging by the regularity of their sides and their minute dimensions. Most obsidian tools were found fragmented, which can be attributed to the brittleness of the raw material. The Chipped Stone Assemblage of Pit 11 The amount of chipped stone recovered from Pit 11 is markedly smaller than the previous pit. Obsidian comprises 52 percent of the assemblage, flint 44.4 percent, and quartz a mere 2.7 percent (see Figure 3). Overall, the picture is similar to that of Pit 5. Chocolate flint is again the most represented type of flint. Overall, the flint industry was geared towards the production of prismatic blades, some of which were retouched and one burinated, while others served as sickle elements (Figure 10). In-situ knapping took place in or around the pit (knapping debris), but not in the earlier stages, as no core pieces or cortical flakes were found. Furthermore, there was a microblade industry delivered by means of pressure flaking, which is represented by three distal fragments and two microliths from medial microblade sections with burinations on their sides.

The obsidian industry of Pit 11 was focused on blade and microblade production. The fragmentary status of the blades makes it hard to tell with certainty which technique was used, but hard hammer direct percussion can definitely be excluded. As far as the toolkit is concerned, there are three engraving tools on blades and one flake that were burinated, one waste by-product of the burin technique (burin spall), one retouched microlith, one scraper on a cortical piece, and one prismatic blade with pièce esquillée marks (see Figure 10). We should note here the presence of an exhausted obsidian microblade core with pièce esquillée marks on its striking platform from secondary use (Figure 11). The core, the cortex-bearing scraper, and a small amount of obsidian debris attest to the on-site knapping of obsidian. Another interesting piece is a nearly complete prismatic blade of triangular cross section with alternate scaled and short retouch; the blade bears heavy use wear at both the distal and proximal ends, and the right side has two notches, while the ventral face has longitudinal removals originating from the top and bottom. The use wear and the removals are consistent with impact damage from use as an arrowhead (Figure 12) (Yaroshevich et al. 2013:Figure 2).

450

AS20.indb 450

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria…

Figure 5. Discoid flake core on greyish-white flint, shown from two different sides. The Chipped Stone Assemblage of Pit 24 Pit 24 has the most chipped stone tools of all three pits examined here, in both flint and obsidian. Obsidian tools constitute the majority of the assemblage at 58 percent, while flint makes up 37.4 percent of the total, opal 3.8 percent, and quartz .7 percent (see Figure 3). The flint industry is once again dominated by blades: there are 11 prismatic blades, none complete, of trapezoid or triangular cross section; the few proximal sections (four) indicate soft hammer percussion, as the platforms are wide and the bulbs diffuse; only three have been retouched. Some of the blades would have become parts of composite sickles, like the four blades with silica gloss found in the pit. Other tools found include a burin spall turned into a perforating tool (i.e. a drill bit), one scraper, and one engraving

Figure 6. Microlith (possible arrowhead) from the medial section of a prismatic blade made on chocolate flint; (top) ventral face; (bottom) dorsal face. tool on the medial section of a prismatic blade (Figure 13). A flake industry is also evident from the finds in the pit but not from the same chaîne opératoire, as they are made from different raw materials: one flake core on semi-coarse reddish-brown flint with cortex on two faces, knapped by direct percussion with multiple striking platforms and no apparent organization in flake removing (Figure 14, on Color Plate XV);

451

AS20.indb 451

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama

Figure 7. Tool types on flint from Pit 5.

Figure 8. Tool types on obsidian from Pit 5. 452

AS20.indb 452

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria…

Figure 9. Overshot cortical flake with retouch on obsidian (knapping accident), shown from four different angles. 453

AS20.indb 453

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama

Figure 10. Flint, obsidian, and quartz tool types from Pit 11.

Figure 11. Exhausted microblade core on obsidian reused as a pièce esquillée and lacking a preserved striking platform, shown from two different angles. 454

AS20.indb 454

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria…

Figure 12. Heavily used section of a prismatic blade with retouch that has suffered impact damage on the ventral face (one from the top down, and one from the bottom up), consistent with projectile use; (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face.

one secondary decortication flake of chocolate flint; and five internal flakes on light yellowish-brown and light pink flints. The debris recovered mostly through sieving belongs to the chocolate, reddish-brown, and light yellowish-brown flint types, indicating that these types were knapped on site. The flint microliths amount to 11 retouched medial sections of prismatic blades made on light yellowish-brown and reddishbrown flint; the microliths belong to the triangle and trapeze types (Figure 15, on Color Plate XVI); two of the microliths may have been used as transverse arrowheads (Figure 16). Pit 24 has a series of very regular prismatic blades on reddish-brown and chocolate flint: some were used as sickles, while others were left unused and unretouched (Figure 17, on Color Plate XVI). These seem to be blades from the same one or two cores. Debris from the same raw material also points to their onsite manufacture. Even though not all have preserved at their proximal ends, it is safe to assume that they were made with indirect or soft hammer percussion by a very skilled knapper. This is corroborated by one languette accident found on the same raw material. The obsidian industry of Pit 24 (Figure 18) is similar to the other pits and is also focused on the manufacture of blades and microblades. In total, nine unretouched blade fragments were recovered, including many proximal sections that suggest soft hammer and/or indirect percussion; an additional seven fragments bear partial or discontinuous subparallel short retouch on a low angle. The thickness of the obsidian blades is 2.5 mm on average and their width is 12.2 mm, with straight edges and an overall regular shape. The prismatic microblades are most likely the product of pressure flaking, although a very skilled knapper would be able to produce these by indirect percussion as well; only one bears retouch. Other tools from the pit include seven burins, one denticulate, and one perforating tool, all made on blade blanks. The obsidian microliths number six in total, made on the truncated medial sections of retouched and burinated blades; two of them were most likely used as arrowheads (Figure 19). Sickle elements are usually made on flint, as obsidian might be too brittle for such usage. That said, in Pit 24 there are three examples of obsidian sickle blades with use wear associated with harvesting plants (i.e. rounded edges and polishes; Figure 20). Notes on Technology The overall picture, as derived from all three contexts, is that there is no significant differentiation between the way flint and obsidian were used (Table 2).

455

AS20.indb 455

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama

Figure 13. Flint tools from Pit 24.

Figure 16. Transverse arrowhead on a light yellowish-brown flint medial section of prismatic blade: (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face. 456

AS20.indb 456

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria…

Figure 18. Obsidian tools from Pit 24.

Both materials are of excellent quality—only a small amount of flint is of lesser quality—and were therefore used interchangeably in the manufacture of stone tools. The only exception to this is the pressure-flaked microblade industry executed primarily on obsidian, with only a handful of attempts on flint and quartz. This preference for obsidian stems from the specific requirements of pressure flaking for a highly homogenous, fine-grained, inclusion-free siliceous material that will allow for a perfect execution. The main blank that was produced is the prismatic blade acquired through indirect soft hammer percussion with precision and evident technical skill. Flint blades have an average width of 12.9 mm and an average thickness 2.7 mm. Obsidian blades are slightly narrower at 12.4 mm and thinner at 2.3 mm. The blade is a versatile tool that can be used immediately after being made, either as a cutting implement or a sickle element, or it can be further modified by retouch, truncation, and/or burination to become a different tool, such as a burin, denticulate, or microlithic tool, all of which are present in the Revenia assemblage. Flakes also constitute a large part of the assemblage and are usually turned into scrapers or used without any retouch. Both the blade and flake industries were clearly produced at the site, as attested by blade and flake cores, cortical flakes, and technical accidents (e.g. overshot

flake from core). At this stage, having studied only a small portion of the entire assemblage, I can say that both obsidian and flint reached the settlement at least as partially decorticated and/or prepared cores. However, I cannot exclude that earlier stages of the chaîne opératoire might also exist in the remainder of the assemblage. The opal and quartz industries do not differ from the flint and obsidian ones. The same tool types also were produced in these raw materials but in smaller amounts (see Table 2). Quartz was knapped in situ, but that does not seem to be the case with opal, as there are no pieces from any manufacturing stages other than the final product. This, however, might change as the study continues. Perhaps the most interesting element of the Revenia chipped stone assemblage is the presence of microlithic technology. Microliths are small fragments of regular prismatic blades obtained by creating two notches on either side of the blade and then snapping it on a surface that acts as an anvil (for a detailed explanation of the process, see Inizan et al. 1992:81–83). The Revenia microliths from the three pits I studied number 25 in total: 5 from Pit 5, 3 from Pit 11, and 17 from Pit 24. Thus far it seems that flint was the preferred raw material for their manufacture (17 pieces), although obsidian was also used (7 pieces). The microliths are on average 14.8 mm long, 13.4 mm

457

AS20.indb 457

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama

Figure 19. Medial prismatic blade section on obsidian retouched and truncated at both ends: (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face, with longitudinal removal that is reminiscent of projectile impact damage. wide, and 2.6 mm thick. The microliths of Revenia were made on the truncated medial sections of regular prismatic blades. Then, either with crossed abrupt retouch or lateral burination, the knappers removed one side to create a steep angle straight edge—suitable probably for hafting—while the other side remained tapered and as sharp as it was originally. The most common microliths are triangles and trapezes, but

Figure 20. Denticulated sickle blade with burination on obsidian, with the right side bearing characteristic rounding wear and microfractures and direct retouch on the left and right: (top) dorsal face; (bottom) ventral face. there is also one example of a square microlith. Ethnoarchaeological and experimental research has demonstrated that these tiny tools were usually

458

AS20.indb 458

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria… Table 2. Tool Types by Raw Material in the Assemblages from Pits 5, 11, and 24. Tool Type Blades Flakes Sickle blades Burins Microblades Microliths Retouched blades Pièces esquillées Scrapers Microlithic sickle elements Transverse arrowheads Burin spalls Denticulates Cortical flakes Flake cores Core pieces (accidents) Perforators Microblade core Backed blade Debris Total

Flint 24 16 15 5 4 9 6 3 4 5 3 2 1 2 1 20 120

Obsidian 22 14 4 12 14 6 8 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 38 133

mounted on handles made of wood or bone to create composite tools, such as sickles, arrows, and harpoons (Yaroshevich et al. 2010, 2013). In the case of Revenia, microliths seem to have been multi-purpose tools: some were used as arrowheads, an assumption based on diagnostic impact damage associated with projectile use (see Yaroshevich et al. 2013:Figure 2); others were used as sickle elements, as evidenced by the presence of silica gloss and rounded edges. For most of them, however, there is no macroscopically visible use wear that can help determine their use. A specialized study on use wear would undoubtedly shed more light on this issue. As with the majority of tools, I am inclined to think that the microliths too were not intended for one particular use, but rather were used (and reused) in a variety of different tasks and chores. It is very likely that the inhabitants of Revenia preferred microliths because of the following advantages: they are easy to make (the difficult part is knapping the blade, while making a microlith only takes a few minutes), one can

Opal 3 1 1 3 1 1 10

Quartz 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 17

Total 52 36 21 20 20 15 14 9 8 6 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 58 280

easily make three microliths from a single blade, and lastly they can be easily replaced when broken, lost, or dulled without having to replace the entire tool. In Southeastern Europe, microlithic industries roughly contemporaneous to the one from Revenia have been found in Albania, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria (Lichardus et al. 2000:5). One such example comes from the site of Aktopraklık in northwestern Anatolia, where a microlithic transverse arrowhead was found lodged in the vertebra of an individual buried at the site (Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2011). In Greece, as elsewhere, microliths are more commonly associated with the Mesolithic rather than the Neolithic period. Neolithic microliths, however, are different from their Mesolithic counterparts, as they are made on blade blanks and not on flakes, and thus it cannot be argued that they are a vestigial tool type (Perlès 2001:43). However, they have been found at Greek sites spanning the entire Neolithic period (e.g. in Dimitra, Argissa, Franchthi, Kitsos, and Sitagroi). To my knowledge, this is the first time that microliths

459

AS20.indb 459

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama have been identified in an Early Neolithic site in central Macedonia. Finding Meaning in Stone Tools As mentioned above, Pits 5 and 11 are the best candidates for house structures; the pits are large enough with adequately straight sides, and a mixed variety of everyday household items was recovered from them. Additionally, Pit 11 yielded five burials, a practice reminiscent of the intramural burials of Çatalhöyük and other sites in Anatolia and the Near East (see Hodder 2006:123–126). The tools found in these two pits include those that could have been used to cover a variety of everyday tasks that would have taken place in or around a Neolithic house, as well as those that would have been stored indoors. Activities would have included the making and shaping of stone tools (cores, cortical flakes, knapping debris), engraving or perhaps woodworking (burins, burin spalls, scrapers, pieces esquilleés), harvesting (sickle blades), and various cutting implements (blades, flakes). A safe assumption on the use of the pits, however, will only be reached when the other materials and the stratigraphy of the pits have been studied. Pit 24 is a specialized deposition pit with large amounts of animal bones. It is also the context where most of the microliths were found (17 in total). The abundance of microliths and animal bones might be indicative of hunting activities. In this scenario, the microliths—parts of composite arrows (arrowheads and lateral barbs)—were brought back to the site inside the carcasses of the hunted animals, which were placed inside Pit 24 perhaps to be skinned, dismembered, and prepared for a feast. This hypothesis, however, needs to be corroborated by the zooarchaeological study that is under way. The rest of the tools from the pit are similar in nature to the ones from the other pits. The Revenia toolkit is designed to cover every important task in the everyday life of a permanent Neolithic settlement. There are sickle elements used in agricultural chores, engraving tools used in woodwork and bone tool manufacture, boring tools to pierce holes in a variety of materials, and the ubiquitous sharp-edged blades that make excellent all-purpose cutting tools. It seems that the inhabitants of Revenia invested heavily in their participation in exchange networks, which allowed them access to some of the best raw materials for knapping. They had connections that supplied them with obsidian, most probably from Melos in southern Greece, chocolate flint from western Greece, and honey flint from western or northeastern

Greece. This preference for the most luxurious and exotic materials could also be attributed to the high level of technical knowledge of the inhabitants of Revenia. They were very skilled in two of the most difficult knapping techniques: pressure flaking and indirect percussion. These techniques can produce parallel-sided thin blades that can then be used in a variety of tasks. In order to reap the benefits of these techniques, however, the knapper must have goodquality raw materials that will allow him/her to have greater control over fracture mechanics. The presence of arrowheads in an agro-pastoral community should not strike us as an oddity. It is well attested that Neolithic people continued hunting wild animals even though, in theory, they had available meat from their domesticated animals (Kent 1989). It would be interesting to investigate the role of hunting further to see how frequently they hunted and which species were preferred, in order to understand why hunting continued to exist after the advent of agriculture and pastoralism, which provided some food security. In conclusion, I would like to stress how our perceptions of the Neolithic period continue to change and grow. The site of Revenia is radically different from what has long been considered a “typical” Neolithic site in Greece. It is not a long-lived tell site, and yet we can see how successful its inhabitants were in acquiring the best technical knowledge and raw materials to produce high-quality tools and weapons that, in turn, allowed them to have their own lifeworld in the landscape of northern Pieria. The more sites we excavate and the more analyses we perform, the better we will understand all the different versions of the lived experience during the Neolithic period. Notes The excavations were begun by the 16th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and continued later by the newly established 27th Ephorate.

1

Acknowledgements I am indebted to Fotini Adaktylou for her invaluable help and for sharing her deep knowledge of the site with me. Many thanks go to Manthos Besios for his kind support throughout this process. I have benefited greatly from discussions with Maria Gurova and Yiannis Manos, to whom I also owe thanks. Special thanks go to Maria Petekidou for help with the figures. I also thank the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments were very insightful and improved my

460

AS20.indb 460

2/11/18 9:01 PM

30 - …The Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages From Revenia, Pieria… work vastly. The research was made possible with funding from the Norwegian Institute at Athens, for which I am grateful. References Cited Alexakis, Dimitrios, Lia Karimali, and Lena Kokkinaki 2009 Lithic Distribution Modeling in the Aegean Through GIS. Poster presented at the 37th Annual International Conference of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Williamsburg, VA Alexakis, Dimitris, Apostolos Sarris, Thanasis Astaras, and Dimitris Oikonomidis 2008 Geomorphologic and Satellite Imagery Approaches for the Reconstruction of Neolithic Thessaly Landscape. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 42(2):23–32. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Songül 2011 Homicide at Aktopraklık, a Prehistoric Village in Turkey. Near Eastern Archaeology 74(1):60–61. Batzelas, Christos 2009 Νεολιθικές Υπόσκαφες Κατοικίες στη Θεσσαλία. Ένα Παράδειγμα από το Μακρυχώρι Λάρισας. Συσχετισμοί και Συγκρίσεις με Ανάλογες Κατασκευές από τη Μακεδονία. In Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 3, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 12.3–15.3.2009, Τόμος 1: Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainan, pp. 57–69. University of Thessaly and Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Volos. Besios, Mathaios, and Foteini Adaktylou 2006 Νεολιθικός Οικισμός στα «Ρεβένια» Κορινού. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 18(2004):357–366. Besios, Mathaios, Foteini Adaktylou, Athina Athanasiadou, Eleni Gerofoka, Katerina Gagali, and Maria Christakou-Tolia 2005 Ανασκαφές Βόρειας Πιερίας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 17(2003):435–441. Dimitriadis, Sarantis, and Katerina Skourtopoulou 2001 Characterization of Lithic Materials by Petrographic and SEM Techniques: Towards Suggestions on Chipped Stone Tool Provenance from Neolithic Sites of Northern Greece. In Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Yannis Bassiakos, Eleni Aloupi, and Yorgos

Facorellis, pp. 779–790. Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens. Giannouli, Evgenia 2006 Σκέψεις για τις Οικίες-Ορύγματα υπό το Φως των Δεδομένων της Θεσσαλίας. In Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 1, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2–2.3.2003, Τόμος 1: Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 27–41. University of Thessaly and Ministry of Culture, Volos. Hodder, Ian 2006 The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. Thames and Hudson, London. Inizan, Marie-Louise, Hélène Roche, and Jacques Tixier 1992 Technology of Knapped Stone. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, Tome 3. Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Préhistoriques, Meudon. Karimali, Lia 2009 Κατανομή Λίθινων Πρώτων Υλών στη Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: μια Συγκριτική Εξέταση, In Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 2, Πρακτικά Επι ­ στημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 16.3– 19.3.2006, Τόμος 1: Θεσσαλία, edited by Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian, pp. 17–29. University of Thessaly and Ministry of Culture, Volos. Kent, Susan 1989 Hunters as Farmers: The Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kotsos, Stavros 2014 Settlement and Housing during the 6th Millennium BC in Western Thessaloniki and the Adjacent Langadas Province. In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the International Conference, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp. 315–322. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Kotsos, Stavros, and Dushka Urem-Kotsou 2006 Filling in the Neolithic Landscape of Central Macedonia, Greece. In Homage to Milutin Garašanin, edited by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, pp. 193–205. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade

461

AS20.indb 461

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Lilian Dogiama Lichardus, Jan, Ivan Gatsov, Maria Gurova, and Ilja K. Iliev 2000 Geometric Microliths from the Middle Neolithic Site of Drama-Gerena (Southeast Bulgaria) and the Problem of Mesolithic Tradition in South-Eastern Europe. In Eurasia Antiqua: Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens, Band 6, pp. 1–12. Deutches Archäologisches Institut Eurasien Abteilung. Reprint. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. Moundrea-Agrafioti, Antikleia 1981 La Thessalie du Sud-est au Néolithique: Outillage Lithique et Osseux. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Ethnology, University of Paris. Perlès, Catherine 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Skourtopoulou, Katerina 2013 Οι Λιθοτεχνίες Απολεπισμένου Λίθου της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας. In Μελέτες για την Προϊστορική Μακεδονία, edited by Dimitrios V. Grammenos. Proistorimata Supplement 1, 2013. Electronic document, http://proistoria.wordpress.com, accessed April 21, 2015.

Triantafyllou, Sevi, and Foteini Adaktylou 2015 Η Μεταχείριση των Νεκρών κατά την Πρώιμη Νεολιθική Περίοδο στη Μακεδο­ νία: Μια Πρώτη Ματιά στα Ρεβένια Κορινούτης Βόρειας Πιερίας. The Archaeological Work of Macedonia and Thrace 29, in press. Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anna Papaioannou, and Trisevgeni Papadakou 2012 Νεολιθική Κεραμική στην Πιερία. In Οι Αρχαιολόγοι Μιλούν για τη Βόρεια Πιερία, pp. 39–47. Festival of Olympos, Katerini. Yaroshevich, Alla, Daniel Kaufman, Dmitri Nuzhnyy, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Mina Weinstein-Evron 2010 Design and Performance of Microlith Implemented Projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:368–388. Yaroshevich, Alla, Dani Nadel, and Alexander Tsatskin 2013 Composite Projectiles and Hafting Tech­ nologies at Ohalo II (23 ka, Israel): Analyses of Impact Fractures, Morphometric Characteristics, and Adhesive Remains on Microlithic Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:4009–4023.

462

AS20.indb 462

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Color Plates

AS20.indb 463

2/11/18 9:01 PM

AS20.indb 464

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate I

Chapter 5, Figure 3. Topographical plan of the tell of Dikili Tash, showing the excavation trenches.

Chapter 6, Figure 3. Results of the magnetometer survey at Koutroulou Magoula (2012). 465

AS20.indb 465

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate II

Chapter 6, Figure 4. Interpretation of the magnetometer survey at Koutroulou Magoula shown in Figure 3, on Plate I (2012).

Chapter 6, Figure 8. Some of the clay Neolithic figurines found at Koutroulou Magoula. (Courtesy Fotis Ifantidis, photographer). 466

AS20.indb 466

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate III

Chapter 6, Figure 9. Pottery sherds of Red-on-White/Buff ware from Koutroulou Magoula, featuring various flamed, stepped, rectangular, and other linear motifs.

Chapter 6, Figure 14. Microphotographs of Koutroulou Magoula petrofabrics (under crossed polars): (a) Fabric Group 1 (KTM7, Monochrome Red bowl); (b) raw material of KMGS2 (briquette fired at 700 degrees Celsius); (c) Fabric Group 2 (KMF2, figurine); (d) Fabric Group 4 (KTM25, White-on-Red bowl). 467

AS20.indb 467

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate IV

Chapter 16, Figure 9. Projectile points from LN I deposits in Drakaina cave.

Chapter 16, Figure 12. Various types of chert projectiles from LN and CH deposits in Drakaina cave. 468

AS20.indb 468

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate V

Chapter 16, Figure 13. Ground stones coated with red pigment from Drakaina cave.

Chapter 16, Figure 14. Tanged and barbed projectile points from LN II layers of Drakaina cave. 469

AS20.indb 469

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate VI

Chapter 22, Figure 4. Thin-section micrographs of EN–MN pottery samples: (a) Paliambela Kolindros, EN: local coarse fabric showing quartz, feldspars, volcanic rocks, and tempering with organic inclusions (Pal.96); (b) Revenia Korinos, EN: local medium calcareous fabric showing quartz, feldspars, and micrite calcite (Rev.10); (c) Ritini, EN–MN: medium fabric showing quartz and feldspars, related to northeastern Thessaly (Rit.66); (d) Revenia Korinos, EN–MN: coarse fabric showing phyllites, related to the western region of Pieria (Rev.50); (e) Paliambela Kolindros, MN: local coarse fabric showing quartz and feldspars (Pal.77); (f) Apsalos Grammi, MN: local coarse fabric showing quartz, feldspars, and volcanic rocks (AG.72).

470

AS20.indb 470

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Chapter 22, Figure 6. Painted vessels: (a) Revenia Korinos; (b) Paliambela Kolindros; (c) Ritini; (d) Varemenoi Goulon; (e) Roditis Paliambela.

Plate VII

471

AS20.indb 471

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate VIII

Chapter 22, Figure 7. Painted vessels from Revenia Korinos.

472

AS20.indb 472

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate IX

Chapter 22, Figure 12. MN pottery from Paliambela Kolindros: (a) Impresso; (b) barbotine; (c) White-onRed; (d) Chaeronea ware; (e) “flame” pattern.

473

AS20.indb 473

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate X

Chapter 22, Figure 13. Red-Slipped pottery with black painted decoration of organic origin (bitumen): (a) Apsalos Grammi; (b) Varemenoi Goulon. (Courtesy S. Mavrommatis, photographer).

474

AS20.indb 474

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate XI

Chapter 23, Figure 3. Microphotographs illustrating the main common fabric groups (CFGs)  identified within the Thessalian ceramic assemblages: (a) CFG7, Red-on-White ware, H11/1; (b) CFG7, Red-onWhite ware, OTZ11/8; (c) CFG7, Red-on-White ware, 186; (d) CFG6, Scraped ware, TS10; (e) CFG6, Scraped ware, SB40; (f) CFG1, Scraped ware, PMZ23; (g) CFG1, Scraped ware, X25; (h) CFG1, Grey ware, OTZ47; (i) CFG2, Grey ware, PMZ56; (j) CFG2, Grey ware, SYK29; (k) CFG2, Grey ware, TS37; (l) CFG3, Grey ware, PMZ57; (m) CFG3, Grey ware, X41; (n) CFG5, Black Burnished ware, M3; (o) CFG5, Black Burnished ware, 4014. (Samples 186 from Chara 2 and 4014 from Soufli Magoula courtesy Prof. G. Schneider. All microphotographs under crossed polars). 475

AS20.indb 475

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate XII

Chapter 23, Figure 5. Microphotographs illustrating the main common fabric groups (CFGs)  identified within the Thessalian ceramic assemblages: (a) CFG4, Black Burnished ware, TSAL11/22; (b) CFG4, Black Burnished ware, 1123; (c) CFG4, Black-on-Red ware, MV78; (d) CFG8, Bichrome and Polychrome ware, MV48; (e) CFG8, Bichrome and Polychrome ware, AGR11/14; (f) CFG8, Bichrome and Polychrome ware, TSP11/3; (g) organic material, MV56; (h) organic material, AGR11/16; (i) dung, KTM11/8; (j) dung, KTM11/22; (k) Almyros micro-network, Red-on-White ware, ATS140; (l) Almyros micro-network, Red-on-White ware, K11/13; (m) Almyros micro-network, Red-on-White ware, DA11/24; (n) pottery production in the area of Lake Karla, MV19; (o) pottery production in the area of Lake Karla, HM11/2. (Sample ATS140, a geological sample from the vicinity of Kamara, courtesy Colette Beestman. Microphotographs 7–10 in plane polarized light; all others under crossed polars). 476

AS20.indb 476

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate XIII

Chapter 24, Figure 5. Chaeronea ware (Red-on-White) pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015). 477

AS20.indb 477

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate XIV

Chapter 24, Figure 8. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015).

Chapter 24, Figure 10. Matt Painted pottery. (After Mastrogiannopoulou 2015). 478

AS20.indb 478

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate XV

Chapter 30, Figure 4. Seven prismatic blades on reddish-brown chocolate flint, and a bichrome variety with greenish grey: (top) dorsal faces; (bottom) ventral faces. From left to right: (a) unretouched blade; (b) burinated blade; (c–e) sickle blades; (f–g) unretouched blades.

Chapter 30, Figure 14. Flake core on a semi-coarse reddish brown flint with cortical surfaces. The core is shown from four different angles. 479

AS20.indb 479

2/11/18 9:01 PM

Plate XVI

Chapter 30, Figure 15. Examples of two microliths on blade medial sections from Pit 24: (a) microlith used as a sickle element; (b) microlith possibly used as a transverse arrowhead; (top) dorsal faces; (bottom) ventral faces.

Chapter 30, Figure 17. Series of blades from Pit 24 on chocolate and reddish brown flint variations: a. microlithic sickle element (possibly an arrowhead); b, f, g sickle blades; c. unretouched blade; d. denticulated sickle blade; e. retouched microlith. 480

AS20.indb 480

2/11/18 9:01 PM