The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece: Volume I - Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution (Prehistory Monographs) [Illustrated] 9781931534208, 1931534209

Citation preview

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece Vol. I

The Cave of the Cyclops Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece

Volume I Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 21

The Cave of the Cyclops Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece Volume I Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution

by Adamantios Sampson

contributions by Malgorzata Kaczanowska, Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki, Georgios B. Koutsouflakis, Janusz K. Kozłowski, Fanis Mavridis, Laia Orphanidis, and Nickos A. Poulianos

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2008

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press Printing CRWGraphics, Pennsauken, New Jersey Binding Hoster Bindery, Inc., Ivyland, Pennsylvania Volume Editors Adamantios Sampson and Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sampson, Adamantios A. The cave of the cyclops : Mesolithic and Neolithic networks in the northern Aegean, Greece / by Adamantios Sampson. p. cm. — (Prehistory monographs ; 21) v. 1. Intra-site analysis, local industries, and regional site distribution Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-931534-20-8 (alk. paper) 1. Cyclops, Cave of the (Greece). 2. Gioúra Island (Greece)—Antiquities. 3. Mesolithic period—Greece—Cyclops, Cave of the. 4. Neolithic period—Greece—Cyclops, Cave of the. 5. Antiquities, Prehistoric—Greece—Cyclops, Cave of the. 6. Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece—Gioúra Island. I. Title. II. Title: Mesolithic and Neolithic networks in the northern Aegean, Greece. GN816.C93 S26 2008 939’.11—dc22 2008042048

Copyright © 2008 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi 1. Cave Setting and Stratigraphy, Adamantios Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Pottery Analysis of the Neolithic Period, Adamantios Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Early Neolithic–Middle Neolithic Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Late Neolithic Ia Pottery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Late Neolithic Ib Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Late Neolithic II Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Statistical Analysis of Early to Late Neolithic Coarse and Monochrome Wares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Pottery Technology and Petrographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3. Middle Neolithic Weavers Paint: Red Painted Patterns as Markers of the Local Group’s Identity, Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

vi

THE CAVE O F THE CYCLOPS

4. Late Neolithic Painted and Burnished Decorated Wares, Fanis Mavridis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5. Pottery Analysis of the Bronze Age and Historical Periods, Adamantios Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 6. Lamps of the Roman Period, Georgios B. Koutsouflakis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 7. Ground Stone Tools, Stone Objects, and Miscellaneous Small Finds, Adamantios Sampson . . . . 161 A Neolithic Figurine from the Cave of the Cyclops, Laia Orphanidis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 8. Chipped Stone Artifacts, Malgorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Kozłowski. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 9. Survey in the Deserted Islands of the Northern Sporades, Adamantios Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 10. History of Animal Husbandry and Agriculture on Youra and the Neighboring Islands of the Northern Sporades, Adamantios Sampson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 11. A Mesolithic Cranial Vault and Other Human Remains, Nickos A. Poulianos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 12. Conclusions, Adamantios Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Tables Figures Plates

List of Tables

Table 1.1.

Stratigraphic sequence and context of Trench CWest–CEast.

Table 1.2.

Correspondence of layers between Trenches B and CWest.

Table 2.1.

Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware shapes of the Early/Middle Neolithic.

Table 2.2.

Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware shapes of the Early/Middle Neolithic according to rim diameter.

Table 2.3.

Distribution of Late Neolithic coarse ware in levels of Trench CEast.

Table 2.4.

Distribution of Late Neolithic monochrome ware in levels of Trench CEast.

Table 2.5.

Distribution of Late Neolithic coarse and monochrome pottery according to rim diameter.

Table 2.6.

Distribution of colors of coarse ware in levels of Trench A.

Table 2.7.

Distribution of colors of monochrome ware in levels of Trench A.

Table 2.8.

Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware handles and lugs in levels of Trench A.

Table 2.9.

Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware bases and rims in levels of Trench A.

Table 3.1.

Amounts of Middle Neolithic painted pottery per trench in comparison with other pottery groups.

Table 3.2.

Approximate number of Middle Neolithic painted vases per trench.

viii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Table 3.3.

Parts of the Middle Neolithic painted ware vessels per trench.

Table 4.1.

Distribution of decorative types of pottery according to trench and level.

Table 4.2.

Percentages of vessel body parts and shapes.

Table 4.3.

Distribution of decorative types according to rim diameter of vases.

Table 8.1.

Major technological groups in the Mesolithic levels.

Table 8.2.

Siliceous stone raw materials in the Mesolithic levels.

Table 8.3.

Tools in the Mesolithic, Early/Middle Neolithic, and Late Neolithic levels.

Table 8.4.

Siliceous stone artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

Table 8.5.

Obsidian artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

Table 8.6.

Major technological groups in the Early/Middle Neolithic levels.

Table 8.7.

Siliceous stone artifacts of the Early/Middle Neolithic period.

Table 8.8.

Obsidian artifacts of the Early/Middle Neolithic period.

Table 8.9.

Major technological groups in the Late Neolithic levels.

Table 8.10. Siliceous stone raw materials in the Late Neolithic levels. Table 8.11. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Late Neolithic period. Table 8.12. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period. Table 11.1. Comparative measurements of the cranial vault from the Cave of the Cylops with other female Mediterranean European skulls. Table 11.2. Fragments of bone from the Mesolithic and Neolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops. Table 12.1. Comparative chronology of Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic cultures in Greece, Anatolia, and the Near East. Table 12.2. Summary of radiocarbon dates of samples from the Cave of the Cyclops.

List of Figures

Figure 1.1.

Map of the Aegean.

Figure 1.2.

Map of the Northern Sporades.

Figure 1.3.

Alonnessos and the Deserted Islands group.

Figure 1.4A.

Ground plan of the Cave of the Cyclops showing the trenches.

Figure 1.4B.

Trenches B, C, and E close to the cave entrance.

Figure 1.5A.

Ground plan of Trench A and its extension (Trench D).

Figure 1.5B.

Trench A. Level 2 in Rectangles 1–4.

Figure 1.6A.

Trench A. Ground plan and section.

Figure 1.6B.

Ground plan of Trench B.

Figure 1.7A.

Trench B. Stratigraphical section of the East Balk.

Figure 1.7B.

Trenches B and C.

Figure 1.8A.

The Western and Eastern divisions of Trench C.

Figure 1.8B.

Trench CWest. Floor of Level 7.

Figure 1.9A.

Trench CWest. Stratigraphical section of the West Balk.

Figure 1.9B.

Trench CWest. Mesolithic floor, hearths, and pit of Level 8.

x

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Figure 1.10A.

Trench CWest. Mesolithic floors and hearth of Level 9.

Figure 1.10B.

Trench CWest. Mesolithic floor of Level 10.

Figure 1.11A.

Trench CWest. Ground plan of Level 11, Rectangles 1–4.

Figure 1.11B.

Trench CWest. Mesolithic floors of Level 12.

Figure 1.12A.

Trench CWest. Level 14, Rectangles 1–4.

Figure 1.12B.

Trench CEast. Level 9, Rectangles 1–3, 5–7.

Figure 1.13A.

Trench CEast. Floors in Level 11.

Figure 1.13B.

Trench CEast. Floors and hearths in Level 12.

Figure 1.14A.

Trench CEast. Level 15.

Figure 1.14B.

Trench CEast. Floors, hearths, and pits in Levels 16–17.

Figure 1.15A.

Trench CEast. Levels 18–19.

Figure 1.15B.

Trench CEast. Levels 21–22.

Figure 1.16A.

Trench C. Sections A–A' and B–B'.

Figure 1.16B.

Hearth and floor in Trench E.

Figure 1.17A.

Ground plan of Trench F.

Figure 1.17B.

Trench C. Stratigraphical section of the South Balk. Layers 1–12.

Figure 1.18A.

Trench C. Floors in the Western and Eastern divisions of the South Balk that correspond to excavation levels.

Figure 1.18B.

Trench C. Succession of layers of the South Balk that correspond to excavation levels.

Figure 2.1.

Early/Middle Neolithic coarse ware open (I.1–I.12) and closed (I.13–I.15) vessel shapes.

Figure 2.2.

Early/Middle Neolithic monchrome ware open (II.1–II.11) and closed (II.13–II.17) vessel shapes.

Figure 2.3.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessel shapes (II.18–II.24). Late Neolithic Ib open vessel shapes (III.1–III.8).

Figure 2.4.

Late Neolithic Ib open vessel shapes.

Figure 2.5.

Late Neolithic Ib open (III.29–III.31) and closed (III.33–III.48) vessel shapes.

Figure 2.6.

Late Neolithic Ib closed vessel shapes (III.49–III.53). Late Neolithic II open (IV.1, IV.2, IV.4) and closed (IV.3) vessel shapes.

Figure 2.7.

Early/Middle Neolithic coarse ware open (1, 2, 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18) and closed (21, 22, 23.1) vessels.

Figure 2.8.

Early/Middle Neolithic coarse ware handle (24) and lug (26); sherds with relief (30, 31), impressed (32, 33/36, 37, 38, 40), pointille (41), and incised (42) decoration.

Figure 2.9.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware open vessels.

Figure 2.10.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware open vessels.

Figure 2.11.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessels.

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

Figure 2.12.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessels.

Figure 2.13.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessels (119–121, 123, 129); handles (131–133) and lugs (134, 135, 138).

Figure 2.14.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware lugs.

Figure 2.15.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware lugs (156–161) and bases (162–164, 167–169, 172–176).

Figure 2.16.

Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware bases (177–180.1); sherds with holes (181–183); sherd with relief decoration (184). Middle Neolithic White-on-Red painted ware (188–193).

Figure 2.17.

Middle Neolithic White-on-Red painted ware (194). Late Neolithic Ib open vessels (197, 198, 201–208, 211.1–211.4, 212, 215).

Figure 2.18.

Late Neolithic Ib open vessels.

Figure 2.19.

Late Neolithic Ib open vessels.

Figure 2.20.

Late Neolithic Ib open vessels.

Figure 2.21.

Late Neolithic Ib open vessels.

Figure 2.22.

Late Neolithic Ib open vessels (283, 287, 289, 291, 303). Late Neolithic ladles (292, 298, 299, 301, 302).

Figure 2.23.

Late Neolithic Ib open (304, 306, 308, 309, 311, 314, 315) and closed vessels (319, 323, 324, 326, 327, 329–331, 335, 338–343).

Figure 2.24.

Late Neolithic Ib closed vessels.

Figure 2.25.

Late Neolithic Ib closed vessels (372, 378–381, 383, 384.1, 385) and handles (386–390).

Figure 2.26.

Late Neolithic Ib handles.

Figure 2.27.

Late Neolithic Ib handles.

Figure 2.28.

Late Neolithic Ib handles.

Figure 2.29.

Late Neolithic Ib handles.

Figure 2.30.

Late Neolithic Ib handles.

Figure 2.31.

Late Neolithic Ib handles.

Figure 2.32.

Late Neolithic Ib lugs.

Figure 2.33.

Late Neolithic Ib lugs.

Figure 2.34.

Late Neolithic Ib lugs.

Figure 2.35.

Late Neolithic Ib bases.

Figure 2.36.

Late Neolithic Ib bases.

Figure 2.37.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with holes (633–640) and relief rope-motif decoration (641, 641.1).

Figure 2.38.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with relief rope-motif decoration (642–648) and incised plastic decoration (649).

xii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Figure 2.39.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with incised plastic decoration.

Figure 2.40.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with incised plastic decoration (664–671) and plain plastic decoration (673–679).

Figure 2.41.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with plain plastic decoration.

Figure 2.42.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with plain plastic decoration (697–698.1) and incised decoration (699–714).

Figure 2.43.

Late Neolithic Ib sherds with incised (716), grooved (717–721.1), and pointille decoration (722). Late Neolithic IIa elephant-head lug (727) with incisions.

Figure 3.1.

Middle Neolithic population in the Cave of the Cyclops as inferred from the excavation of trenches and possible spread of habitation.

Figure 3.2.

Red-on-White ware shape repertory.

Figure 3.3A.

Red-on-White ware lug types. 1: 731; 2: 749; 3: 750; 4: 751.

Figure 3.3B.

Red-on-White vases separated into decoration bands.

Figure 3.3C.

Positions of canvas motifs on Youra vases.

Figure 3.4A.

Structure of canvas types.

Figure 3.4B.

Types of checkers.

Figure 3.4C.

Body fragments with canvas.

Figure 3.5.

Types of other body motifs.

Figure 3.6.

Collection of maze, meander, spiral, and concentric patterns from Youra.

Figure 4.1.

White-on-Dark ware.

Figure 4.2.

Pattern burnished ware.

Figure 4.3.

Matt-painted ware.

Figure 4.4.

Matt-painted ware.

Figure 5.1.

Early Helladic (808–811) and Middle Helladic (812–814) pottery.

Figure 5.2.

Mycenaean (815–819), Geometric (820–823), and 5th century B.C. (824, 827) pottery.

Figure 6.1.

Roman lamps: Group I (RL1, RL3) and Group II (RL5–RL7, RL12–RL17). Scale 1:2.

Figure 6.2.

Roman lamps: Group II (RL18–RL20), Group III (RL21–RL29), and Group IV (RL31–RL37). Scale 1:2.

Figure 6.3.

Roman lamps: Group IV (RL38–RL43), Group V (RL46–RL59), and Group VI (RL61–RL63). Scale 1:2.

Figure 6.4.

Roman lamps: Group VI (RL64–RL68), Group VII (RL69), and Group VIII (RL70–RL80). Scale 1:2.

Figure 6.5.

Roman lamps: Group VIII (RL81–RL93, RL95–RL98, RL100). Scale 1:2.

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

Figure 6.6.

Roman lamps: Group VIII (RL101–RL104, RL106), Group X (RL109–RL120), and lamp RL124, upper and lower parts. Scale 1:2.

Figure 7.1.

Mesolithic stone tools.

Figure 7.2.

Mesolithic stone tools.

Figure 7.3.

Mesolithic (S26–S28) and Neolithic (S31, S32, S35–S41, S44) stone tools.

Figure 7.4.

Neolithic stone tools (S45–S47, S49, S52) and Mesolithic stone objects (S59, S60).

Figure 7.5.

Mesolithic (S61–S63, S66, S68, S69) and Neolithic (S64, S65, S67, S70) stone objects. Mesolithic unfired clay with pointille decoration (SF1–SF3, SF5).

Figure 8.1.

Mesolithic siliceous stone artifacts.

Figure 8.2.

Mesolithic siliceous stone artifacts.

Figure 8.3.

Mesolithic siliceous stone artifacts.

Figure 8.4.

Mesolithic obsidian artifacts (L39–L44, L46). Early/Middle Neolithic siliceous stone artifacts (L51–L53) and obsidian artifacts (L54–L57).

Figure 8.5.

Early/Middle Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

Figure 8.6.

Early/Middle Neolithic obsidian artifacts (L70–L79). Late Neolithic siliceous stone artifacts (L81–L83).

Figure 8.7.

Late Neolithic siliceous stone artifacts (L84–L90, L92) and obsidian artifacts (L96–L98).

Figure 8.8.

Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

Figure 8.9.

Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

Figure 8.10.

Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

Figure 8.11.

Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

Figure 9.1.

Map of the Northern Sporades indicating sites located in the survey.

Figure 9.2.

Map of Gramiza Island.

Figure 9.3.

Map of Peristera Island.

Figure 9.4A.

Map of Pappous and Koumbi Islands.

Figure 9.4B.

Neolithic pottery and obsidian artifacts from Pappous Island.

Figure 9.5.

Map of the Skantzoura group of islands.

Figure 9.6A.

Map of Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi).

Figure 9.6B.

Map of the Tragorema area on Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi).

Figure 9.7.

Map of the Pigadi area on Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi).

Figure 9.8A.

Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery and obsidian artifacts from Psathoura Island.

Figure 9.8B.

Map of Youra Island.

xiv

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Figure 10.1A.

Map of Pappous Island.

Figure 10.1B.

Ground plan of structures on Psathonisi Islet.

Figure 10.2A.

Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi) and Youra on a map of the 16th century A.D. (after Bordone 1534).

Figure 10.2B.

Ground plan of shepherds’ structures on Alonnessos.

Figure 12.1.

Ground plan of the Mesolithic site of Maroulas on Kythnos.

Figure 12.2.

Mesolithic sites in Greece.

Figure 12.3.

Map of Mesolithic Europe.

Figure 12.4.

The Aegean during the Glacial Maximum.

Figure 12.5.

The sea level in the Mesolithic Sporades.

Figure 12.6.

The sea level of the Aegean in 9000 and 4000 B.C. (after Lambeck 1996).

Figure 12.7.

Sea currents in the northern Aegean in the summer and winter (after Papageorgiou 1997).

Figure 12.8.

Sailing routes in the Aegean in the Early Holocene.

Figure 12.9.

Possible Mesolithic sea routes in the central and southern Aegean.

Figure 12.10.

Naval routes during the Neolithic period.

Figure 12.11.

The Aegean, Anatolia, and the Near East during the Early Holocene.

Figure 12.12.

Distribution of Triticum boeoticum in Asia Minor and the Near East.

List of Plates

Plate 1.1A.

The west side of Youra, view from the south. The entrance of a littoral cave is visible on the coast.

Plate 1.1B.

The interior of the island.

Plate 1.2A.

The church of Panagia on Youra.

Plate 1.2B.

Cistern in the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 1.3A.

Stalactite decor in the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 1.3B.

Mesolithic excavation levels in Trench CEast. View from top of South Balk.

Plate 2.1.

EN/MN coarse ware handle (24), sherd with relief decoration (31), sherd with pontille decoration (32), sherds with impressed decoration (37–40), and sherd with incised decoration (42). MN monochrome sherds with traces of burnishing tool marks (83, 86, 96, 97, 104, 120, 121, 124), sherd with plain plastic decoration (184), and White-on-Red painted sherds (194).

Plate 2.2.

LN Ib ladles (292, 294), handles (400, 412, 442, 444, 448), sherd decorated with a row of lugs (483), base with incised decoration (601), sherd with relief rope-motif decoration (641.1), vase decorated with incised plastic bands (649), sherds with plain plastic decoration (675, 679), sherds with incised decoration (700–702), and sherd with grooved decoration (718).

xvi

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Plate 3.1A.

Open bowl (747) with canvas band, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.1B.

Calyx-shaped bowl (748) with parallel lines, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.2.

Neck/rim motifs. 1: 744; 2: 752; 3: 741; 4: 732; 5: 733; 6: 740.

Plate 3.3.

Vase (733). Top: detail of shoulder and body canvas. Bottom: reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.4.

Vase (731) with shoulder canvas, concentric circles, and plant motif. Top: drawing of both sides of vase. Middle left: reconstructed pot. Middle right: detail of rim motif and shoulder canvas. Bottom left: detail of P-meander on shoulder canvas. Bottom right: reconstruction of design on shoulder canvas.

Plate 3.5.

Vase (732) with shoulder canvas, concentric circles, and parallel and stepped lines. Top: drawing. Bottom left: detail of wavy meander on shoulder canvas. Bottom right: reconstruction on design on shoulder canvas.

Plate 3.6A.

Vase (733) with shoulder and body canvas, and concentric circles on body.

Plate 3.6B.

Vase (738) with shoulder canvas and concentric circles on body.

Plate 3.6C.

Vase (739) with shoulder canvas and concentric circles on body.

Plate 3.7.

Vase (736) with shoulder canvas and concentric circles on body. Top: drawing. Middle: reconstruction of design on shoulder canvas. Bottom left and right: detail of shoulder canvas.

Plate 3.8.

Vase (737) with shoulder canvas, concentric circles, and parallel lines. Top: drawing. Middle: detail of shoulder canvas. Bottom: reconstruction of design on shoulder canvas.

Plate 3.9A.

Vase (740) with shoulder canvas, detail and reconstruction of design on shoulder canvas and rim.

Plate 3.9B.

Vase (753) with shoulder and body canvas, detail and rendering.

Plate 3.9C.

Vase (733) with body canvas, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.10.

Vase (734) with body canvas and concentric circles. Top: drawing. Bottom: detail of body canvas and concentric circles.

Plate 3.11.

Vase (735) with body canvas and concentric circles. Top: drawing. Bottom left: detail of body canvas. Bottom right: reconstruction of design of body canvas.

Plate 3.12A.

Vase (741) with concentric circles, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.12B.

Vase (757) with group of concentric circles around lug.

Plate 3.12C.

Vase (758) with net pattern of large lozenges, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.13A.

Vase (759) with concentric squares, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.13B.

Vase (760) with cross-hatched lozenges, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.13C.

Vase (761) with cross-hatched lozenges, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.14A.

Vase (743) with P-meander bands, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.14B.

Vase (730) with lozenges and attached triangles, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.14C.

Vases (762–764) with zigzag pattern.

LIST OF PLATES

xvii

Plate 3.15A.

Vase (742) with horizontal, vertical, and oblique groups of parallel lines, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.15B.

Vases (765, 766) with parallel lines.

Plate 3.15C.

Early painted ware, vase (767) with large solid triangles, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.16A.

Early painted ware, vase (768) with large solid triangles, detail and reconstruction of design.

Plate 3.16B.

Examples of carelessness by a Youra painter (732, 733, 741, 769).

Plate 4.1.

Pattern burnished ware (784, 786, 787.1, 788.1, 789–791) and matt-painted ware (797–800).

Plate 5.1.

Inscription on the base of a 5th-century B.C. kylix (824).

Plate 6.1.

Roman lamps: Group I (RL1–RL4).

Plate 6.2.

Roman lamps: uncataloged examples of the vine rim pattern of Group I.

Plate 6.3.

Roman lamps: Group II (RL5–RL8).

Plate 6.4.

Roman lamps: Group II (RL9–RL11) and Group III (RL21).

Plate 6.5.

Roman lamps: Group IV (RL30) and Group V (RL44, RL45).

Plate 6.6.

Roman lamps: Group VI (RL60), Group VIII (RL94, RL99), and Group IX (RL107).

Plate 6.7.

Roman lamps: uncataloged sherds of Group VI in the tradition of Alpha Globule Lamps.

Plate 6.8.

Roman lamps: Group IX (RL108), Group X (RL109); lamps RL121 and RL122.

Plate 6.9.

Roman lamp RL123. Thymiaterion RL125.

Plate 7.1.

Mesolithic grinder (S8), shaft straighteners (S59, S60), stone pendants (S63, S66, S68); Late Neolithic marble figurine (S70); Neolithic spindle whorls (SF6–SF8); Late Neolithic sherd with incised symbols (829).

Plate 8.1A.

Late Neolithic obsidian and flint artifacts.

Plate 8.1B.

Late Neolithic flint blades.

Plate 8.2A.

Obsidian crescents and tools.

Plate 8.2B.

Late Neolithic obsidian blades and tools.

Plate 9.1A.

Gramiza Island.

Plate 9.1B.

Flint artifacts from Gramiza.

Plate 9.2A.

The island of Pappous from the south.

Plate 9.2B.

Post-Byzantine church on Pappous Island.

xviii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Plate 9.3A.

The western seashore of Piperi Island.

Plate 9.3B.

The islet of Sfika in Kyra-Panagia.

Plate 9.4A.

View of Psathoura Island.

Plate 9.4B.

The northern coast of Psathoura.

Plate 9.5.

Small cave near the south coast of Youra.

Plate 10.1A.

The area around the old monastery on Youra.

Plate 10.1B.

Olive trees on Youra.

Plate 10.2A.

Forest in the interior of Youra.

Plate 10.2B.

Low vegetation around the lighthouse on Psathoura.

Plate 11.1A.

The Mesolithic cranial vault from the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 11.1B.

Endocranion. Because of the advanced age at death, an intense development of the “sagital channel” is observed.

Plate 12.1A.

Mesolithic fishhooks from Youra.

Plate 12.1B.

Mesolithic fishhooks from Youra.

Plate 12.1C.

Bipointed Mesolithic hooks from Youra.

Plate 12.2A.

Mesolithic fish vertebrae from the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 12.2B.

Pavement of a Mesolithic construction at Maroulas on Kythnos.

Plate 12.3A.

Part of a Mesolithic skull from the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 12.3B.

A Mesolithic burial at Maroulas on Kythnos.

Preface

On the deserted island of Youra, the Cave of the Cyclops has always been well known among the inhabitants of the Northern Sporades, particularly sailors and fishermen who visited the cave during their short journeys to the Deserted Islands. The locals all spoke in admiration of its impressive decor and of the fact that they found ancient lamps inside, which they used to take as souvenirs. Being local myself—as the neighboring island of Skopelos, the largest one of the group, is my father’s birthplace—I visited the site at a young age to discover lamps, some of which carried human representations, scattered at many points inside the cave. It would be a fair number of decades later when my assignment in the Ephorate of Speleology gave me the opportunity to visit the cave on the part of the service. Certainly such a significant site would have been inhabited also in earlier times, possibly in the Neolithic Age, because Neolithic habitation had been located on the neighboring island of Kyra-Panagia. A surveying expedition in May 1992 yielded a large number of Neolithic sherds at various points, and already by July of the same year the excavation of the cave had been initiated. The research in the cave lasted five years, until 1996. In fact, this project was a very difficult task due to the great distance of the island from any populated areas, the lack of mooring, supply, and communication possibilities, and the difficulties of calling at any ports in the sea around the Deserted Islands, which is exposed to northerly winds for the majority of the year. Moreover, there was the problem of transporting the enormous volume of equipment to the camp, which lay at a great distance from the coast on a plateau not far

xx

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

from the cave. I wonder if another overland excavation of such difficulties has ever before been conducted in Greece. On the other hand, staying and working in such an exquisite space—ecologically sensitive and intact from lack of human intervention—was a challenge and a unique experience for the team. It was for these reasons that ecologists, experienced climbers, speleologists, and divers would offer to assist as volunteers during all the excavation seasons. During the first season, apart from Hellenistic and Roman pottery, the excavation yielded Neolithic finds at two points inside the cave, while in the last days of our research, Mesolithic finds occurred. Over the years to follow, trenches yielded thick strata of Mesolithic habitation, and thus the island of Youra unexpectedly took a place of special cultural significance on the Aegean map. A series of 14C datings defined the succession of phases between the beginning and the end of the Mesolithic Age. The continuity of habitation from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic increased the importance of the site. Parallel to excavation, the entire group of the Deserted Islands was surveyed, and the collected material affirms the habitation of the islands since the Middle Paleolithic. Underwater investigations that also took place in the area of Youra located ancient coastlines and caves at various depths, which possibly were in use in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic. From the beginning of research, we aimed for scientific cooperation through the study of the material by specialists.

List of Abbreviations

A B Byz. C ca. cat. no. CEast cm cont. corresp. CWest D DEM

diam. dim.

Trench A (originally Trench Alpha) Trench B (originally Trench Beta) Byzantine Trench C (originally Trench Gamma) approximately catalog number Eastern division of Trench C centimeter continued corresponding Western division of Trench C Trench D, extension of Trench A (originally Trench Delta) sample from Laboratory of Archaeometry (Institute of Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”) in Athens. diameter dimension

dims. dist. E EH EN F FM gl. h. in. L L. LIMC

LM LN

dimensions disturbed Trench E (originally Trench Zeta) Early Helladic Early Neolithic Trench F Final Mesolithic glabella height inion Lithic artifact catalog number length Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae (Zurich and Munich 1974–) Lower Mesolithic Late Neolithic

xxii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

LSJ

pers. comm. PPN PPNA PPNB PPNC pres. RL Rom. S S SE SF SS SW th. UM W w.

H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford 1940) m meter mm millimeter max. maximum max. dim. maximum dimension Mes. Mesolithic met. metopion MH Middle Helladic MN Middle Neolithic MNI minimum number of individuals N north NE northeast no. number NW northwest O obsidian op. opisthocranion

personal communication Pre-Pottery Neolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Pre-Pottery Neolithic C preserved Roman lamp catalog number Roman Stone artifact catalog number south southeast Small Find catalog number siliceous stone southwest thickness Upper Mesolithic west width

1

Cave Setting and Stratigraphy Adamantios Sampson*

The Setting of the Cave Northeast of Alonnessos, the Deserted Islands of the Northern Sporades form a unique geographic and cultural assemblage (Figs. 1.1, 1.2). From the coast of Thessaly to Alonnessos, navigation is facilitated across the narrow channels shaped between the islands. However, farther to the north of Alonnessos, the deep sea and wide canal cut off the small islands of Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi), Youra, Psathoura, and Piperi. The fact that in ancient times navigation was not easy in this area is proved by the large number of shipwrecks. During the Middle Ages and later, travelers often

dealt with the Deserted Islands, which frequently served as pirates’ hiding-places due to their isolation. The location of these islands along important sea routes in a north-to-south as well as an east-towest direction has been cited since the end of the Middle Ages. Christoforo Buondelmonti, in his Librum insularum archipelagi of 1420 A.D., refers to Alonnessos as Dromos (de Sinner 1824, 129); other subsequent travelers refer to the islands of Peristera and Alonnessos as Dromi, Didromi, or Diadromi, all of which connote route.

*Acknowledgments should be addressed to all the members of the excavation team, foreigners as well as Greeks, and especially to archaeologists Georgios Koutsouflakis, Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki, Yianna Efstathiou, and Maria Ntinou; archaeometrist Yorgos Facorellis; and speleologists Panagiotis Loizos, Kostas Zoupis, and Eleni Koniari. For their assistance in the realization of the excavation, I wish to thank the inhabitants of Alonnessos and especially Yannis Vlaikos and Mary Athanasiou. I also wish to thank the chief of the forest inspection office on Skopelos for his significant offer of a charter craft for our transportation to the island each year. I regret not being

able to thank the different representatives of the local authority of Alonnessos, who not only did not assist, but often put obstacles before our work. Special acknowledgments should be given to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), and particularly to the Director, Prof. Philip Betancourt, for having financed our excavation, the study of the material, and the publication. I am especially grateful to INSTAP Academic Press for accepting to host this publication, as well as to the team of editors who have so painstakingly undertaken the difficult task of reviewing our work.

2

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Even the larger islands of the Northern Sporades that offer rich dietary resources, such as Alonnessos and Kyra-Panagia, have always been surprisingly scarcely populated or even uninhabited. In striking contrast, the neighboring islands of Skopelos and Skiathos (Fig. 1.2) have been densely populated in most historical periods. In the last centuries of the Turkish domination during the Ottoman period, Alonnessos, the administrative center of the Deserted Islands as well as the main access point to them, had a population of insignificant size. Thus, it would be expected that the remainder of the small islands were completely uninhabited. For long periods of time, these islands have been inhabited solely by monks, who acted as a brake upon any expansion of settlement because this group of islands was a holding of the monastery on Mount Athos. Pelagonisi or Kyra-Panagia, an island praised by foreign travelers for its natural harbors, is the only one truly favorable for settlement. Overall, the islands’ isolation and the beauty and wildness of their landscape have contributed to the creation of numerous myths among foreign travelers and the local inhabitants of the Northern Sporades (Sampson 1997c). Travelers such as F. Piacenza (mid 17th century) offered a number of detailed maps depicting castles, ancient temples, and harbors. These maps also mention inexplicable place-names that, as proved by recent surveying expeditions, only existed in the imagination of these early travelers, who were in the habit of copying information from one another. The name “Cave of the Cyclops” is directly related to ancient Greek mythology, and especially to the Homerean Odyssey, which recounts the visit of Odysseus to the island of the Cyclops. The position of the Youra cave recalls the mythological grotto where the Cyclops Polyphemus captured Odysseus and his comrades. The entrance of that cave was so close to the sea that the terrifying, one-eyed giant could heave large boulders at the ships of Odysseus, who had escaped with his men from the cave of the Cyclops fastened beneath the bellies of the sheep of Polyphemus. Despite the similarity in topography, the Youra cave is far from being explicitly identified as the location of the myth involving the Cyclops. In fact, most archaeogeographers place the cave of the Cyclops in the area of southern Italy. In addition, a few more Greek caves bear the name “Cave of the Cyclops” due solely to their landscape attributes.

Sailing out of Peristera Bay, Youra is the majestic island mystically emerging from the horizon beyond Kyra-Panagia (Fig. 1.3). Often hidden by clouds, the tall peaks of its mountains (570 m in altitude) seem even greater in height when striking against the northern horizon in the afternoon hours. The island of Youra (Pl. 1.1A) appears large and is in fact so, measuring 4 miles long (on a north–south axis) and 1 mile wide (11 km²). Although when seen from a distance it appears to be completely bare, one discovers small forests of briar when sailing along the island’s western coast or walking on its surface (Pl. 1.1B). Especially in its central part, where a deep canyon extends to the west, an unexpectedly large forest radically transforms Youra’s rugged landscape. One can only imagine what the island would have been like prior to the systematic deforestation and extensive fires that took place in different periods, especially in the last two centuries. Cape Erimites is located in the flatter, southern part of the island, and in the northeast are Capes Steno and Geronti. At the southern end of the island, a narrow passage in the mountains contains the only part of Youra inhabited in recent history. The small Monastery of Panagia, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, was erected here (Pl. 1.2A) at a small distance from the quarters of the island’s guards. The Church of Evangelistria is the only part of the old monastery still preserved; it was built in a cruciform shape and preserves 18th-century icons on its templum. An Early Christian settlement may also have been established in this area, as evidenced by ceramic finds of “combed” ware. When the atmosphere is clear, Kyra-Panagia, Gramiza, and other islands become visible to the east from this point. Similarly, from the western side of the island, the low island of Psathoura and, occasionally, Mount Athos appear on the horizon. During the summer season, the sun can be seen to set behind the peaks of Mount Olympus. On Youra, living conditions can be pleasant because on this mountainous saddle the climate is very healthy and lacks humidity. A path descends from the west to a rudimentary dock that still provides access for small fishing boats. This path also leads to a small grove of trees (olive, apple, and fig) and a well that holds water all year long, where the island’s wild goats (Capra aegagrus) come to drink just before nightfall. Down by the seashore and inside a small inlet of rocks in which monks are

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

said to have once pulled their rowboats, rise the foundations of a well-constructed building—a storehouse. The Cave of the Cyclops is visible from here, high in the distance, with its entrance covered by large trees. On the southern side of the island, a vala, as natives call a deep bay in the rocky coastline reminiscent of a fjord, is formed, which provides protection from stormy seas. At the point where the rudimentary dock offers access for small boats, a small cave just above sea level appears with a vertical rock hanging over its entrance. This has been used as an animal fold as well as a human shelter in bad weather conditions. From here, a path shaped on the surface of the rocks leads to the settlement. This route takes much longer than those on the western side, although the port, or rather the dock, on the eastern side is safer and more commonly used. The eastern side of the island is very precipitous—its ground is even vertical at several points. It has been noted that the calcareous rocks of Youra present a westward inclination, and this observation is valid also for the remainder of the surrounding islands. Pnigmenos, a unique all-white beach of sand and gravel, stands in strong contrast to the island’s wild landscape. In this area, the calcareous rocks are intruded upon by the dominance of decayed ophiolithic rock formations. A small spring also exists here. Sailing along the island’s coast to the north, numerous rocky shelters can be detected, some of which still preserve traces of habitation ascribed to the Byzantine or more recent periods. Sailing in the same direction, the relief of the island gradually flattens as far as the angular northern cape of Psathi (39°25' N, 24°10'25" E).

3

The western side of Youra is very different, featuring several gulf formations and lacking any sandy beach. Close to the northern promontory, a “bridge” can be discerned—a cave with two entrances formed by a rare geological phenomenon. Rocky shelters and small caves can be detected along the coastline. A small fjord occurs at the point where the deep canyon of the island begins. In the canyon, we have discovered small caves and rocky shelters that served as human refuges over the years. In a southern direction, very close to the rocky coastline, a spring with abundant water called Varsamia is found. In a large area surrounding this spring, monks have cultivated cereals in the past, although its entire extent is now uncultivated and covered by low shrubs. A smooth path leads from the spring to the settlement, a walk of about 1.5 hours. Another path leads farther inland, initially reaching the settlement. On the way up to the mountain’s peak, small tufts of forest occur as well as a small plateau that sustains enough soil to support low vegetation. At some points, rudimentary water cisterns have been built over the last several years for the needs of the wild goats. Over this plateau to the west is a dense forest of briars and, farther along, another rather rocky plateau extends below the high peak. From this point to the north, all paths disappear, and the way to the northern cape becomes difficult. Moreover, the area is very precipitous, and the soil is eroded. Another path, which begins at some point along this route, leads to the sandy beach of Pnigmenos. This passage is also extremely difficult, as the path is barely discernible because it has been out of use for a long period of time.

The Cave of the Cyclops The Cave of the Cyclops on Youra is located at an altitude of 150 m. The entrance is 7 m wide and, at present, 2.5 m high (Fig. 1.4A). Its entrance faces to the west-northwest and is hidden by large trees (briar), whose roots have extended deep into the cave in search of moisture; on various occasions they posed problems to our archaeological investigation. On the northern side of its entrance, at the point where Trench E was opened (Fig. 1.4B) was a water cistern of uncertain date (Pl. 1.2B). On the

southern side of the entrance, a spacious chamber opens out rather precipitously at its beginning. Rocks and soil have rolled down inside this chamber, along with many pottery sherds. In the part of the cave next to the entrance, numerous rocks have similarly rolled inside due to the steep declivity of the ground. Many of these have been used by shepherds in the construction of a dry wall blocking the passage of animals into the cave. At a distance of 15–20 m from the entrance,

4

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

stalactite pillars form a sort of continuous wall around which deposits of considerable thickness have accumulated (Trenches B and C). From this point onward, the passage along the southern cave wall becomes narrower, and the ground slopes markedly, while the soil is extremely damp and slippery. Steps have been dug into the soil in order to make access possible down a steep slope farther beyond. One then descends to a particularly spacious hall, 50 x 40 m, whose height ranges between 5 and 15 m. Although most of the stalactites have ceased to develop, the stalactite decor of this hall is very dense and impressive (Pl. 1.3A). A thick layer of red clay was deposited at this point during a period of intense water dripping and has formed a flat floor. The erosion of calcareous rocks containing silica often creates deposits of clay found inside caves. Such a deposit formed in the cave later than the Roman period, because the trench opened in this area (Trench F) revealed fragments of lamps dating from the early Roman period underneath the clay deposit. In this layer of clay, two water cisterns of uncertain date, with broad rims around their upper edges and canals that conveyed water into them, have been excavated. The sidewalls of this large chamber are not vertical; instead, several natural niches occur in which concentrations of pottery fragments, as well as intact lamps, were recovered. To the east, large masses of rocks have rolled down or fallen from the ceiling, while large stalactite pillars have been shaped. Inside a niche formed by fallen rocks in

the middle of the chamber, a large concentration of vases dating from the 5th century B.C. (Trench D) was found. One lamp is particularly noteworthy: it was purposely placed on the upper surface of a pillar-shaped stalagmite close to Trench D, and was discovered in situ, covered by stalagmite concretion. From this point, the cave’s layout forms successive levels to the east and the north, presenting numerous niches and stalactite pillars. Roman lamps were recovered in all of these levels. At a level that is markedly high in relation to the floor of the large chamber, thick stalactites have created a sort of wall that forms a natural basin for the collection of water and communicates with the remainder of the cave’s interior halls through a narrow opening. In this area, soil deposits were thin, but they yielded an abundance of pottery that dates from the Early Neolithic to the Roman period. For this reason, this area was chosen for the opening of the first trench (Trench A). Here, the soil was particularly damp at its surface and particularly muddy at greater depths due to the concentration of water at this point of the cave. What is rather inexplicable is a thick layer of soot that occurs everywhere along the sidewalls and the ceiling of this area, despite the fact that this dark and narrow space does not appear to be habitable. North of Trench A, the cave’s ground ascends, and numerous stalagmite pillars occur. The water collected in the basin previously mentioned flows from here. The cave is generally of great speleological interest due to its size and remarkable decor.

The Excavation and Stratigraphy In general, the excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops was conducted in arbitrary horizontal units usually of 0.10–0.20 m increments, which are termed “Levels” and are numbered consecutively for each trench. Each significant geoarchaeological deposit is referred to as a “Layer,” and is again numbered consecutively within individual trenches. If a “Layer” is very thick, it may contain several

artificial “Levels;” conversely, a “Level” may contain more than one stratigraphic “Layer.” The features that were recorded throughout the excavation and are discussed here include floors, hearths, and pits. These have been given consecutive numbers for each trench in a manner similar to the arbitrary horizontal “Levels” and the stratigraphic “Layers.”

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

5

Trenches A and D Trench A, the first trench of our excavation in the cave was opened next to a small natural reservoir— a basin collecting water from neighboring stalactites all year long. This is a completely dark area that communicates with the remainder of the cave through a small round hole opened at a considerably high point. An abundance of pottery dating from the Neolithic and Roman periods was recovered on the irregular and uneven surface of the deposits surrounding the basin. Trench A was laid out in an irregular plan (approximately 4 m in length and 2 m in width) due to the occurrence of stalagmites that restricted its northern and eastern sides (Figs. 1.5–1.6A). Level 1 was 0.15 m thick and contained a darkcolored deposit of soil resulting from extensive burning, which was particularly damp and hard to remove. The impressive abundance of pottery recovered included Hellenistic sherds (mainly fragments of wine amphorae), fragments of Roman vases and lamps, and numerous sherds of Late Neolithic (LN) coarse wares. With the removal of Level 2 (also 0.15 m thick), the surface of bedrock was uncovered along with the upper edges of stalagmites located in the western and northern sides of the trench. The soil was particularly muddy. More pottery, ascribed mainly to the Late Neolithic, was recovered in Rectangles 2 and 4 within successive layers of ash and burned remains (Hearth 1), which were compressed due to the continuous and intense use of this area in different periods (Fig. 1.5B). Despite the interruption of research in this trench for a considerable period of time, the dampness caused by the proximity of Trench A to the water reservoir did not cause the layers to subside. Level 3 was 0.10 m thick and similarly consisted of successive thin layers of ash and burning similar to the overlying Level 4. Hearth 1 was probably continued throughout this level. Within a layer of mud in Rectangles 1 and 2, sherds of Middle Neolithic (MN) painted ware of exceptional quality began to appear. Sieving the soil was impossible, as

was collecting any small finds, with the exception of an obsidian blade. The absence of animal bones and shells, which in other areas of the cave appeared in abundance, was noteworthy. Level 4 reached a depth of 0.50 m and was restricted to Rectangles 1 and 2 because the remaining two rectangles were found to be blocked by bedrock. MN Red-on-White painted ware continued to appear, though in smaller quantities and in a more restricted area than in Level 3. Thus, in the southern part of Rectangles 1 and 2, the characteristic LN matt-painted and incised wares, which already occurred in Level 3, continued to occur, along with four shells of Spondylus gaederopus. It is certain that the deposits of this area have been considerably disturbed due to the cave’s intensive use for its water supply. Any attempts at detailed stratigraphic distinctions were unsuccessful due to the muddy composition of the soil. The trench was then extended to the south, and four more rectangles were opened (Trench D; Fig. 1.5A). Within Levels 1 and 2, Roman and Neolithic sherds were recovered. The deposits consisted of black mud caused by extensive burning. In Level 3, LN pottery appeared in larger quantities. With the removal of Levels 4 and 5, the excavation of the trench reached a depth of 0.60 m on the side of the southern extension. The pottery belonged mainly to the Late Neolithic, while MN painted ware was discovered inside niches. A few animal bones also occurred. In Level 6 (at a depth of 0.65 m), a lightcolored, green to brown layer was uncovered. Easterly-inclined bedrock appeared toward the area of the small basin, where the deposits extended to a depth of 1.10 m. At the deepest points of the level and the layer, MN painted ware was found inside niches. The deposits that had previously remained unexcavated around the natural reservoir were excavated down to a depth of about 1.30 m (Level 7) and yielded an abundance of LN pottery, as well as a bone implement. Abundant Neolithic sherds were also found underwater.

6

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Trench B Trench B (2.50 x 2.00 m) was opened close to the cave’s entrance (Fig. 1.4A). In this area, the soil was dry and ground to dust, apparently due to the long-term housing of animals. Deposits were slightly sloping, and the trench was laid out between two stalagmite pillars (Fig. 1.6B). Level 1 consisted of particularly light-colored and friable soil that contained sherds ascribed to the Roman period along with two bronze coins. In the SW part of the trench (Rectangle 2), a layer of stalagmite crust (travertine) was recovered at a depth of 0.17 m. After its removal, a successive layer of soil containing remains of burning was uncovered. In the same rectangle at a depth of 0.24 m, the bedrock was reached; it presented a strong N–NE inclination, and carried small formations of stalagmites on its surface. At a depth of 0.15 m, MN sherds, mainly painted ware, began to come out in small quantities from the whole extent of the trench. On the eastern side of the trench (Rectangles 1, 4), the soil had a different composition due to intense burning. Down to a depth of approximately 0.40 m, two yellowishwhite layers of ash were distinguished with an intermediate, fine, light brown layer. Level 2 reached a depth of 0.35 m and, in Rectangle 1 close to the balk of the trench, traces of intense burning were observed, below which was a yellowish-red layer. Burned remains—a markedly thick layer of ash (Hearth 1)—continued to occur into the successive level. Thus, Level 3 reached down to a depth of 0.53 m, although excavation was almost brought to an end in a part of the trench (Rectangle 2). Pottery finds were scarce and belonged exclusively to the Middle Neolithic (Sesklo Style). The soil of the deposit continued to be lightcolored, but became more compact and hard. On the eastern balk of the trench, a layer of brown to greenish soil, about 0.20 m in thickness, was distinguished, along with another layer colored in shades of yellow (Fig. 1.7A). All of the rectangles yielded a small number of shells, snails, and a variety of small animal bones. Level 4 reached a depth of 0.70 m, and remains of burning occurred throughout the whole extent of the trench—the area joining Rectangles 1 and 2, in Rectangle 3, and in Rectangle 4, as well as the part

close to the eastern balk of the trench. In the latter area, burned remains were recovered within a thick layer of ash (Hearth 2), in which the base of a MN vase was discovered along with abundant animal bones (at a depth of 0.70 m). The radiocarbon dating of a charcoal sample taken from this point has given a rather expected age, which refers to the 6th millennium (5740–5663 B.C.), and correlates with the chronology of the pottery. From the level of Level 4, pottery ceased to occur in Rectangles 1 and 2, while in Rectangles 3 and 4 sherds were still recovered and became even more abundant in Level 5. A significant difference was apparent in the character of the finds in the successive level of Level 5 (at a depth of 0.70–0.85 m). Thus, the absence of pottery and the recovery of faunal remains (shells, fish bones, and snails) in Rectangles 1 and 2 suggested a Mesolithic context. Still, in Rectangles 3 and 4 MN sherds came out in larger quantities, and the deposits of soil became markedly friable. A hearth discovered in Rectangle 4 (Hearth 3) proved to be of considerable thickness. In the lower level of Level 5, the bedrock, which had initially appeared in the SW part of the trench, almost completely covered the extent of Rectangles 1 and 2. In addition to this, excavation was brought to an end along a considerable part of Rectangle 3 due to the appearance of stalagmite formations. In Rectangles 3 and 4, Level 6 (at a depth of 0.85–1.00 m) consisted of rocks and ash, which seems to be a continuation of Hearth 3. The friable soil has yielded a small number of sherds as well as a large quantity of bones, and an abundance of shells and snails. At this point, it appeared that the Middle Neolithic layers had been mixed with the Mesolithic ones. Finds of a similar character came out in the successive level, which consisted of thick layers of burning, within which a small number of animal and fish bones, shells, and pottery sherds occurred. Below a depth of 0.80 m, the deposits consisted mainly of light-colored ash in the upper levels and dark-colored ash in the lower levels (still Hearth 3). From Levels 7 and 8, pottery was totally absent, although a small quantity of faunal remains, including pig bones, continued to appear. In relation to Level 6, no difference in the soil’s composition was

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

apparent. In Level 9, which reached a depth of 1.50 m, two bone fishhooks characteristic of the Mesolithic were found among an abundance of fish bones. Large rocks had fallen in the NE part of the

7

trench. Another thick layer of ash and scattered charcoal lay at the deepest part of the trench (Hearth 4).

Trench C Trench C (Figs. 1.4, 1.7B; Table 1.1) was located next to Trench B, close to the cave’s entrance. Its excavation began in 1993. Initially, a 0.20 m wide area of the deposits had remained unexcavated between the two trenches, while the size of the excavated area was 4 x 3 m. Once the fallen rocks had been removed, the excavation of the surface layer, which almost reached to the level of the cave’s ceiling, began; it contained mud and recent animal skeletal remains. In this area of the cave directly next to the entrance, poorly constructed dry walls had been built by stock-farmers in recent years to use the cave as an animal fold. Between Trenches B and C, a large stalagmite pillar lies today almost completely covered by ancient deposits, although during the Neolithic Age or even earlier, when the cave was inhabited, it would have appeared impressive and appealing to the prehistoric man. Once the surface soil was removed, it became apparent that the deposits of the trench corresponded to the cave’s marked SE inclination. Level 1 consisted of gray and brown soil, as well as ash and muck, that had been ground to dust either by herds that were held there or wild animals that entered the cave in the winter. This soft layer, recovered both in Trenches B and C, was easily removed but rather friable, and the balk of the trench could not be retained in the higher layers. Byzantine and Roman as well as numerous Neolithic sherds were recovered in this layer. Goat bones were found in abundance, while a number of limpet shells also occurred. Due to the declivity of the ground, the thickness of Level 1 varied between 0.10 and 0.30 m. From the stratigraphy on the northern balk, it became apparent that three distinctive thin layers, in addition to the surface layer, corresponded to Level 1: Layer 1 was gray; Layer 2 was brown and contained small rocks and gravel; Layer 3 was also gray. Level 2 was 0.20 m thick and consisted of light brown soil at its upper level (Layer 4), while below a depth of 0.50 m it became dark gray and sandy

(Layer 5). Once the deposits of the trench had been levelled, it was divided into two sections, the Eastern Division and the Western Division. Level 2 reached a depth of 0.60 m in the entire trench. Within a layer of ash, a considerable amount of Roman pottery, as well as a few lamps of the same period, were recovered close to the balk of the northern part. In the Eastern Division, animal bones occurred in larger quantities than in the Western Division, although pottery was recovered in smaller amounts. Level 3 was 0.10 m thick (at a depth of 0.60–0.70 m). In the Western Division, abundant Neolithic as well as Roman pottery sherds were found inside niches. Floor 1a was unearthed along the NW side of the trench, and can be seen on the stratigraphy of the West Balk; finds on the floor were mixed since Neolithic pottery occurred along with Roman. Level 4 (at a depth of 0.70–0.80 m) was similar in texture. Levels 3 and 4 correspond to Layer 5 on the South Balk. It is noteworthy that within Level 4 (Rectangle 1), a female marble figurine of the Late Neolithic was found.

TRENCH C: WESTERN DIVISION The united excavation in Trench C ceased at the level of Level 5 and excavation proceeded separately in the Western (Trench CWest) and Eastern (Trench CEast) Divisions of the same trench (Fig. 1.8A). In the Western Division, at the level of Level 5 (at a depth of 0.80–0.90 m) the soil continued to be friable, with larger quantities of bones and shells. A large part of Level 5 consisted of a thick layer of ash and burned remains, while Floor 1 made of slightly compressed soil began to appear at a depth of 0.80 m. The floor extended in a slight southward inclination and farther into the Eastern Division of the trench. This floor actually belonged to a large hearth (Hearth 1) that had also been recovered in Trench B at a depth of 0.70 m and was referred to there as Hearth 2. Pottery found here dated mainly

8

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

to the Late Neolithic, while some Roman lamps were recovered inside a niche at the NE side of the trench. Radiocarbon samples taken from Level 5 were fixed at 5308–5232 B.C. (6730±38 B.P.). With the removal of the deposits, the area to be excavated was restricted so that only six rectangles would be further investigated. Two of these (Rectangles 5 and 6) were located in the narrow part of the NE side among stalagmites and stalactites. At this point, the layers were rather disturbed down to a considerable depth, apparently due to the inclination of the ground. In addition to Roman sherds, quite a few sherds of the Early and Middle Neolithic periods were found. Level 5 reached a depth of 0.90 m. In Level 6 (at a depth of 0.90–1.30 m), the soil was similarly friable and contained numerous roots that belonged to trees growing at the cave’s entrance. The soil was differentiated and turned brownish gray. Level 6 was 0.60 m thick and contained, in a large part of the trench, an abundance of burned remains together with plenty of rocks on the eastern side. In the same level, an abundance of bone and shell was recovered. Pottery was particularly scanty and ascribed to the Early Neolithic. A thick layer of burning was recovered in Rectangle 1 close to the side wall of the trench (at a depth of 1.05 m). The radiocarbon dating provided by this aceramic layer of burning was fixed at about 6380–6110 B.C. (7398±64 B.P.) and agreed with another given by marine shells, 6464–6388 B.C. (7971±41 B.P.). At a depth of 1.18 m, Floor 2 was recovered; it consisted of abundant burned remains in the greatest part of Rectangles 1 and 4. In Rectangles 5 and 6, at a depth of 1.15 m, another hearth (Hearth 2) and a floor (Floor 2a) were discovered; numerous shells were found inside and around the hearth. Level 7 (from a depth of 1.30–1.70 m) corresponded to the lowest level of Layer 6 and the upper level of Layer 7. The latter consisted of small gravel and also featured an astonishing concentration of snails and fish bones. Level 7 was almost aceramic and, in Rectangles 1 and 2, contained dispersed burned remains as well as ash in abundance. In Rectangles 5 and 6, the remains of a hearth were uncovered at a depth of 1.40 m (Hearth 3). A thick layer of burning was recovered in a large part of the trench at a depth of 1.60 m. However, this was not traced along the northern side of the trench. In the lower level of Level 7, at a depth of 1.70 m, a floor

(Floor 3) was uncovered in Rectangle 1 (Fig. 1.8B). It should be noted that a small quantity of pottery occurred in Rectangle 4; its presence can be explained by a marked inclination of the layers in this area. This pottery appears to belong to a particularly early phase of the Early Neolithic, but despite the 14C dating on the marine shells fixed at 6328–6220 B.C. (7803±41 B.P.), the layer must belong to a Final Mesolithic deposit, judging from the abundance and kinds of organic species very similar to those recovered within the deeper and undisturbed Mesolithic deposits. Stratigraphy on the western balk of the trench was particularly clear (Fig. 1.9A), whereas those on the northern and eastern sidewalls were problematic due to the roots that covered their entire vertical sides. At this level, there was no visible correlation between the layers of the southern sidewall and those of the western balk. At the lower level of Level 7, another deposit (Layer 8) was recovered; it consisted of brown and gray soil that contained, within its highest level, fewer organic remains than the upper one as well as a small amount of rocks and an abundance of burned remains. In some areas, the soil’s color had turned reddish due to intense burning. Level 8 reached a depth of 1.85 m in Rectangles 3 and 4. In this level, in Rectangles 1 and 3, a floor (Floor 4) made of hard compressed soil occurred (Fig. 1.9B). A thick layer that contained an abundance of snails, shells, and fish bones was uncovered on the surface of this floor. At a depth of 1.75 m, the remains of a hearth (Hearth 4), which consisted of hard, solid clay-earth and stalagmite crust, were uncovered. Radiocarbon sampling of marine shells from Rectangles 3 and 4 has provided a date of 6801–6633 B.C. (8218±43 B.P.). In Rectangle 1, another hearth filled with ash, which extended into the unexcavated part of the trench, was uncovered (Hearth 5). A layer of reddish soil indicative of intense burning was revealed underneath the hearth. A small pit demonstrating disturbance of the deposits was excavated nearby (Pit 1). On the NE side of the trench, a restricted area (2.00 x 0.60 m) was investigated at the level of Level 8. At this point, a layer 0.23 m thick consisted of friable soil and mainly contained snails. From this layer, a small quantity of EN pottery came out; similar pottery had also been found within the higher layers. Radiocarbon samples of charcoal taken

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

from Rectangles 5 and 6 were dated between 6235 and 6094 B.C. (7351±46 B.P.). In Rectangle 5, a rock that had appeared earlier now progressively covered the entire extent of the trench. On its surface, a layer of stone cemented with stalagmite crust was traced, along with burned remains and an abundance of shells and terrestrial mollusks. At the same point, a bone fishhook and two stone burnishers were found. In spite of the previously noted 14C dating and a few EN sherds, these deposits would be more preferably dated to a Final Mesolithic stage because the abundance of fish remains and the variety of species within this layer were again very similar to the preceding Upper Mesolithic samples. At the higher level of Level 9 (at a depth of 1.85–2.00 m) in Rectangles 1 and 3, Floor 5, which presented a marked NE inclination, was recovered (at a depth of 1.88–1.98 m; Fig. 1.10A). Many snails were discovered in Rectangle 3; however, these shells were shattered, possibly due to human activities that took place in this area. At a depth of 1.85 m in Rectangle 1, the remains of another hearth (Hearth 6) were found to continue deeper, while in the SW corner of the trench close to a stalagmite, a large concentration of terrestrial mollusks occurred. In Rectangle 4 at a depth of 2.00 m, a hard floor (Floor 6) that featured ash and reddish soil appeared. Layer 9 yielded fewer shells and snails than the overlying one. Their numbers were even smaller in Rectangle 1, where another bone fishhook was found. An enormous concentration of snails (approximately 3,000) was recovered in Rectangle 5, along with a bone tool and an andesite burnisher. The raw material for the burnisher most probably originated from Psathoura. The charcoal and shells found in Rectangle 5 were radiocarbon-dated to a phase significantly distant from that of the upper layers: the marine shells at 7341–6989 B.C. (8624±20 B.P.), and the snail shells at 7938–7685 B.C. (8754±20 B.P.). Such a chronological gap may possibly be explained by the long-lasting abandonment of this specific area in the cave. Level 10 (at a depth of 2.00–2.25 m) consisted of darker soil and contained shells in abundance (mussels, limpets, Monodonta) as well as terrestrial snails. From a depth of 2.00 m, Layer 9 began to appear and consisted of more friable soil. On the northern balk of the trench, the layer was 0.25 m thick and rested upon the almost level bedrock (Fig. 1.10B). On the western sidewall of the trench,

9

no corresponding layer appeared at an equal depth because a large stalagmite pillar disrupted the succession of deposits. It has been established, however, that a correspondence between the layers of the southern and western sidewalls does occur, as Layers 8 and 9 of the western sidewall (Fig. 1.9A) correspond to Layers 9 and 10 of the southern sidewall. From this depth, the extent of the excavated trench was inevitably restricted, while the bedrock presented a marked eastward inclination. At a depth of 2.10 m, parts of Floor 6 were recovered in almost the entire trench. In Rectangle 2, faunal remains occurred in smaller quantities, and the soil was more friable. A fishhook in the shape of a spindle was found on part of the floor located in Rectangle 2. In Rectangle 4, a friable layer of ash, which had also been recovered within Level 9, continued to appear. In Rectangle 1, four stones in a row were discovered within a layer of hard soil (Fig. 1.10B). They lay in a SW–NE direction and defined the extent of the floor to the NE. A charcoal sample taken from Rectangle 2 was radiocarbon-dated to 7315–7083 B.C. (8209±47 B.P.). In the corner close to the stalagmite pillar, the concentration of snails continued, while another part of the floor was preserved next to it. A similar concentration along with fish and animal bones occurred in Rectangle 5. On the western sidewall of the trench, beneath the level that corresponded to Floor 6, large rocks appeared within a layer that contained a concentration of shells and snails. Level 11 reached a depth of 2.40/2.45 m, where part of a floor (Floor 7) was uncovered in Rectangle 2, while on the southern side a small pit (Pit 2) filled with friable soil was located. Rocks had already appeared in Rectangle 2 at a depth of 2.35 m, along with a small part of Floor 7 (Fig. 1.11). Level 11 corresponded to Layer 10 on the western sidewall of the trench; both were dark brown in color. At an equal depth in Rectangle 4, part of another floor (Floor 7a) was uncovered; on its surface, snails were found in abundance. The marine shells of this level were radiocarbon-dated to 7469–7090 B.C. (8776±19 B.P.), and the snail shells to 8855±28 B.P. or 8199–7853 B.C. At this level the bedrock presented a marked southward inclination. In Rectangle 3, a fallen stalactite was uncovered cemented on the rock. Next to it the upper edge of a stalagmite that had ceased

10

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

to develop was found along with a small “gour,” a natural cavity that collected water continuously dripping from the cave’s ceiling. A concentration of faunal and burned remains occurred in this cavity, which had possibly been used as a hearth (Hearth 7). A charcoal sample taken from this point (at a depth of 2.30–2.32 m) has given a radiocarbon dating fixed at 9250±60 B.P. or 8550–8320 B.C., which is one of the earliest in the cave. Around this cavity, a thin, easily broken stalagmite crust was recovered. In the NW corner of Rectangle 1, a deposit of stone debris, created by the erosion of the cave’s walls, was found. The total absence of finds within this deposit indicated that our archaeological layers were almost reaching an end. Level 12 reached a depth of 2.70 m solely in Rectangle 1, as excavation was restricted to a particularly small area. A charcoal sample from this level has given one of the earliest radiocarbon dates in the cave, fixed at 8600–8340 B.C. (9258±50 B.P.). In Rectangles 2 and 4, the remaining deposit yielded an abundance of fish and bird bones as well as snails, while within its lower level a layer of reddish stone debris and small stones appeared, covering the surface of the bedrock (Layer 12). The next level, Level 13, reached a depth of 2.90 m, while within Level 14 the excavation area was even more restricted due to the gradual recovery of bedrock (Fig. 1.12A). At two points in Rectangles 1 and 4, burned remains were found. The lowest point of the trench reached a depth of 3.10 m.

TRENCH C: EASTERN DIVISION In 1994 excavation in the Eastern Division of Trench C (CEast; Pl. 1.3B) progressed simultaneously with the Western Division. On the long stratigraphical section that includes the southern sidewalls of both Divisions, 12 layers are observed from one end to the other. The numbering of layers is thus uniform for both Divisions, while the numbering of excavation levels is different due to the special needs in each trench necessitating thinner or thicker levels. However, it is important to note that throughout the eastern sidewall there is a marked NW–SE inclination to the layers, while in the Western Division layers are more horizontal. At the eastern end of the trench, layers present an even more intense inclination toward the point where the cave forms a precipice.

In the Eastern Division, Level 5 (at a depth of 0.80–0.90 m) consisted of friable dry soil ground to dust. In Level 5, no remains of hearths were recovered except for scattered pieces of charcoal and a thick layer of ash. Animal bones and a few limpets occurred, while the pottery belonged to the Late Neolithic. Level 6 consisted of similar soil and continued to yield animal bones in abundance along with similar Neolithic pottery. At the northern side of the trench, an area 0.60 m wide initially remained unexcavated in the direction of Trench C until the trench was divided into eight rectangles, each measuring 1 m². In the NW corner of the trench at a depth of 0.95 m, a small hearth (Hearth 1) that contained burned remains was revealed. Abundant shells occurred around the hearth. Level 6 reached a depth of 1.00 m. Level 7 was 0.10 m thick and yielded finds of no particular interest. In Level 8, which reached a depth of 1.20 m, large rocks were uncovered in Rectangle 1. In Rectangles 2 and 3, a locus of solid clay was uncovered, which probably belonged to a floor (Floor 1), along with a small quantity of pottery and shells. Level 8 corresponded to Layer 4 and was sandy and light brown in color. Level 9, 0.20 m thick, also yielded LN I pottery and bones. Layer 5, which was not particularly thick, did not present any significant differences from the one above it. The hard layer of clay, traced in the overlying level, continued to appear in Rectangles 3 and 6. It presented an intense eastward inclination (Fig. 1.12B) and possibly belonged to a floor eroded by a landslide (Floor 2), as the deposits close to the cave’s walls consisted of friable soil. Similar deposits close to the walls of caves result from the decomposition of organic materials and the inevitable sinking of caves. Floor 2, with dispersed burned remains, was also recovered in Rectangles 1 and 2 at a depth of 1.30 m. In Level 10, another floor (Floor 3) was uncovered solely in Rectangle 1, at a depth of 1.45 m. The fact that pottery was particularly scanty in this rectangle, while fish bones were abundant, indicated a Mesolithic Layer that corresponded to Layers 6 and 7 of the Western Division. The distinction between this layer and the exclusively Neolithic one occurring in the overlying Level 9 was not clear, as both deposits had the same grayish color. In Rectangles 5–8, located close to the

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

cave’s walls, pottery still belonged to the Late Neolithic, although some fragments of Roman lamps also occurred. Level 11 reached a depth of 1.55 m, where Floor 4 was uncovered within the Mesolithic Layer 6 in Rectangles 1 and 2 (Fig. 1.13A). Like the previous floors, this one presented an eastward inclination. In the remainder of the rectangles (Rectangles 3, 6, 7, 8, 9), the soil was friable, dark brown, and contained LN as well as Roman sherds. In Rectangle 1, the deposit was purely Mesolithic and corresponded to Layer 7 of the Western Division. Level 12 reached a depth of 1.75 m (Fig. 1.13B). Within it was recovered a hard floor (Floor 5) and Hearth 2. In Rectangle 8, close to the cave’s walls, a hearth (Hearth 3) was uncovered at a depth of 1.60 m, where the deposits dated to the Late Neolithic. In Rectangle 2, a layer of ash 0.15 m thick (Hearth 4) was traced over a successive layer of red soil. In Rectangles 1, 2, and 3, another floor (Floor 6) was found at a depth of 1.75 m. These correspond to Hearth 3 and Floor 3 recovered in Trench CWest Level 7. The Mesolithic deposit in Rectangles 1 and 2 had a light brown color and was quite distinctive from the upper ones. Moreover, part of a third floor (Floor 6a) uncovered in Rectangle 5, at the lowest part of the level (at a depth of 1.75 m), probably dated from the Early or Middle Neolithic. Level 13 reached a depth of 1.95 m in Rectangles 5 and 6, where a hard floor of reddish brown soil (Floor 7a) was recovered along with abundant traces of burning. As indicated by the pottery, Level 13 dated from the Early or Middle Neolithic. In Rectangles 1 and 2, another floor (Floor 7) was uncovered at a depth of 1.80 m and presented a marked eastward inclination. A successive thick deposit was recovered, which consisted of fine-grained, dark brown soil and contained abundant animal bones and small rocks. At the lowest part of the excavation level, a hearth with abundant ash and burned reddish soil was discovered in Rectangles 1 and 2 (Hearth 5). A fishhook and a bone tool were found inside this hearth. At the same level, in Rectangles 9, 10, and 11, the deposits were friable, dark in color, and contained LN pottery along with dispersed Roman sherds. Finally, a floor (Floor 7b) presenting the common eastward inclination was revealed in Rectangle 10.

11

Level 14 reached a depth of 2.20 m in Rectangles 1, 2, 5, and 6. In Rectangle 1, the Mesolithic Layer (Layer 6) was introduced. It has yielded two radiocarbon dates of 7519–7132 B.C. (8864±37 B.P.) from marine shells and 8195–7833 B.C. (8834±20 B.P.) from snail shells, that coincide with the date of the corresponding levels in the Western Division (Levels 9 and 10). A thick, hard floor (Floor 8) was uncovered at a depth of 2.10 m, which consisted of coarse-grained soil and did not contain any rocks. In Rectangle 5, the soil was more compact, reddish, contained successive thin layers of ash, and yielded sherds of the Early Neolithic, but it was in close proximity to the Mesolithic Layer. In Rectangle 3, a stalagmite, whose upper edge had been traced at a higher level, gradually restricted excavation in the trench. In the eastern end of Rectangles 5 and 6, however, the soil was different in texture and yielded pottery of the Late Neolithic period. In Rectangles 9 and 10, the soil continued to be friable and contained abundant animal bones and evidence of burning, within which pottery of the Middle and Late Neolithic periods was found. It is obvious that at this location the Neolithic Layer 5 has a strong inclination and goes deeper. Three samples from Rectangle 9 yielded radiocarbon dates: charcoal resulted in 3644–3539 B.C. (4814±25 B.P.), animal bones gave 4667–4542 B.C. (5741±22 B.P.), and marine shells provided 5326–5256 B.C. (6754±34 B.P.). In the extreme parts of the trench (Rectangles 13, 14, and 15), large rocks were uncovered with Neolithic as well as Roman pottery among them. In this area, deposits are mixed and no stratigraphy can be distinguished. Level 15 reached a depth of 2.30 m. In Rectangles 5, 6, and 7, two layers were distinguished: to the west, the Mesolithic Layer 8 of friable gray soil; to the east, the brown Neolithic Layer 5. It was noteworthy that MN sherds still occurred within Level 16 (0.08 m thick) of Rectangle 3, although the deposit turned out to be mainly Mesolithic. In Rectangle 9, close to a stalagmite, the soil was particularly damp and contained an abundance of roots, while a thin layer of ash was traced to a depth of 2.25 m (Fig. 1.14A). Thus, a restricted part of Rectangle 9 close to the stalagmite proved to be Mesolithic, while the rest dated from the Middle Neolithic. Beneath the Late Neolithic Layer 5, a MN layer was recovered and presented the usual inclination in Rectangle 10. Rectangle 11 yielded pottery

12

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

exclusively of the Middle Neolithic. Additionally, the MN layer, which produced a small quantity of pottery, was traced over the Mesolithic Layer in Rectangle 7. In Rectangle 6 (between Levels 15 and 16), continuous alternations of yellow, red, and gray soil caused by intense burning were observed (Hearth 6; Fig. 1.14B). A charcoal sample was radiocarbon-dated to 6644–6514 B.C. (7779±32 B.P.) in Rectangle 6, and marine shells were dated to 7463–7080 B.C. (8761±29 B.P.) in Rectangle 5. In the SE corner of the latter rectangle, two whitish, curved formations of soil, apparently consisting of ash, were traced within Level 16 (at a depth of 2.40 m). They also extended into Rectangles 7, 9, and 10. Level 17 reached a depth of 2.55 m (Fig. 1.14B). In Rectangle 5, two radiocarbon dates were produced: 7467–7327 B.C. (8283±27 B.P.) from charcoal and 7468–7087 B.C. (8773±24 B.P.) from marine shells. In Rectangle 7, a layer of yellowish and reddish soil that belonged to a transitional chronological phase between the Neolithic and the Mesolithic was traced beneath a thin MN layer. In Rectangle 10, a floor that presented an eastward inclination was uncovered over the Mesolithic Layer (Floor 9a). The deposit over this floor yielded LN pottery. This floor had occurred at a higher level in part of Rectangle 7 as well as in Rectangle 11. At the eastern end of the latter, the pottery dated from the Late Neolithic, although a small number of Middle Helladic (MH) sherds also occurred. In Rectangles 7, 9, 10, and 11, the soil was generally rather compact and damp and, in many cases, did not facilitate the distinction of floors. A thin MN layer continued to appear in the SE corner of Rectangle 9. A remarkable number of snails indicated the location of a garbage pit in this area (Pit 1). In Rectangles 1 and 2 at a depth of 2.30 m, Layer 9 (0.15–0.20 m thick) was uncovered, presenting the usual inclination. It consisted of hard, light brown soil, and contained no organic material. Beneath this layer, a layer of intense burning was traced. It covered Layer 10 and had also been recovered in the Western Division. A garbage pit (Pit 2) that contained a large concentration of snails was located in the SE corner of Rectangle 1 (at a depth of 2.45 m; Figs. 1.14B, 1.15A). The stalagmite that had been found between Rectangles 2 and 3 was gradually uncovered until it occupied the majority of these two rectangles. Moreover, large rocks appearing in Rectangle 2 also restricted it to a great

extent. Finally, in the same rectangle, part of a floor was found at a depth of 2.45 m (Floor 9), while the remains of a hearth that consisted of large pieces of clay were recovered at a depth of 2.55 m (Hearth 7). In Rectangle 3, a large quantity of faunal remains, which continued to appear in successive levels, as well as soil of a particularly friable texture indicated the possible location of a pit (Pit 3). Level 18 was 0.15 m thick (at a depth of 2.55–2.70 m). In Rectangles 1 and 2, large rocks began to appear with enormous quantities of snails, while numerous layers of burning were also traced. At certain points the soil had turned reddish due to burning. A floor that presented a N–S inclination was found (Floor 10). Another floor (Floor 10a) with ash belonged to a late Mesolithic phase in Rectangle 7, although EN sherds occurred in the eastern corner of the rectangle. A third floor (Floor 10b) was uncovered in Rectangle 10 (Fig. 1.15A), and the Mesolithic deposit presented an eastward inclination, while in Rectangle 11, MN pottery continued to appear. In Rectangle 12, MN pottery occurred along with a small quantity of LN pottery within a friable gray deposit located to the east. At the ends of the trench, dark brown soil and rocks continued to appear. In Rectangle 4, MN pottery was still found, while in Rectangle 8, pottery of both the Late and the Middle Neolithic occurred along with the remains of a small hearth (Hearth 8). In Rectangle 5, the soil was slightly reddish and contained smaller quantities of terrestrial mollusks in comparison to the upper layer. Within Level 19, in Rectangle 5, the deposit was similar to Level 18, except for the gray color of the soil, and it contained various organic remains (charcoal, shells, bones, and snails). In fact, two distinctive layers (Layers 10 and 11) yielding faunal remains were located, between which was a thin reddish deposit with pieces of unfired clay. Numerous samples for dating were taken from this rectangle. One charcoal sample was radiocarbondated to 7577–7542 B.C. (8487±22 B.P.), and another of snail shells to 8271–8242 B.C. (9042±24 B.P.); they correspond to the dating provided by marine shells, 7843–7490 B.C. (9011±22 B.P.). In Rectangle 7, the Mesolithic Layer covered a greater area, while the Neolithic Layer (Layer 5), which inclined strongly toward the SE, was restricted to the SE corner. Level 19 reached a depth of 2.80 m, at which point a floor was uncovered in Rectangle 1

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

(Floor 11). Beneath this, Layer 11 presented hardly any differences. Level 20, in Rectangles 3 and 7, consisted of friable soil with ash covering a hard brown layer. This layer presented an inclination from NW to S and was also identified in Rectangle 1 (between Layers 10 and 11). In Rectangle 1, a great concentration of shells and snails was found, beneath which rocks were uncovered at a depth of 3.00 m. A charcoal sample taken from Rectangle 5 was radiocarbondated to 7957–7907 B.C. (8791±23 B.P.), and corresponded to a date using marine shells, 7856–7515 B.C. (9056±28 B.P.). The deposit in Rectangle 6 consisted of more compact brown soil and contained significant quantities of fish bones and snails. On the southern side of the rectangle, compact dark brown soil was recovered. The excavation of the Eastern Division in Trench C was progressively restricted in extent. Those rectangles located close to the sidewalls of the trench remained unexcavated, as they belonged to deposits of a more recent date that contained large rocks. Level 21 was 0.30 m thick (from a depth of 3.00–3.30 m). Excavation in Rectangle 3 almost completely ceased due to the presence of an impressive, large stalagmite. At a depth of 3.15 m, in the northern part of Rectangle 6, a floor (Floor 12a) was uncovered with a N–S inclination. On the surface of this floor, as well as beneath it, an abundance of bones and snails was found. The same deposit of soil—only damper and containing fewer finds—was identified in Rectangle 10, which had almost completely been covered by the large central stalagmite (Figs. 1.15B, 1.16A). A concentration of roots belonging to the trees at the cave’s entrance occurred at this point, due to moisture spread by the stalagmite. Rectangles 1 and 2 were covered by large rocks, among which snails continued to appear. In addition, Floor 12 was unearthed here. Beneath these rocks in Rectangle 2, part of a human cranium was unexpectedly found—actually, it was

13

the most important anthropological find of the excavation (Fig. 1.15B). The rest of the cranium and skeleton may occur to the west, within the unexcavated deposits of the trench. The removal of Level 21 from Rectangles 4 and 5 yielded an enormous quantity of snails and shells amid rocks. At the deepest part of the level, the excavation of Rectangle 5 also ceased due to the recovery of the central stalagmite. In addition, bedrock was unearthed in the northern part of Rectangles 1 and 5, where it presented an intense southward inclination. Finally, on the western side of Rectangle 1, a layer of red stone debris was recovered; it no longer contained any organic material. It was, in fact, the deepest layer of the trench (Layer 12) that had also been recovered in the Western Division. Level 22 yielded numerous small and large rocks in Rectangles 1, 2, 5, and 6, amid which snails were also recovered. The consistency of the deposits did not present any differences in the successive levels, Levels 23 and 24. One of the earliest radiocarbon datings of the cave (9252±31 B.P. or 8547–8339 B.C.) resulted from a charcoal sample taken from Level 23. The layers of these levels did not belong to deposits of any archaeological interest, because they consisted merely of an accumulation of rocks that had rolled down from higher points of the cave. The removal of rocks and the recovery of snails continued down to a depth of 4.40 m, and no further investigation took place. The lowest layer in Level 23 contained an abundance of snails and traces of burning over the surfaces of rocks and stone debris. Due to the declivity of the ground, the use of the cave would have been initiated simultaneously at different levels, while large rocks would have rolled down to the lower parts. Characteristically, the levelling point of the area surrounding the stalagmite pillar in the Eastern Division presented a difference of approximately 1 m in relation to the small stalagmite in the Western Division.

Trench E Trench E was opened precisely at the entrance of the cave (Fig. 1.4), at a point where the remains of a small water reservoir, which was coated with plaster and was probably constructed in recent years,

was situated. The trench measured 2.10 x 1.40 m and was laid out in a NW–SE orientation. Rocks occurred at surface level. Within Level 1, which consisted of hard brown soil, a small number of

14

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Roman sherds were found. Within Level 2 at a depth of 0.30 m, a purely prehistoric layer was uncovered that yielded a small number of MN sherds and animal bones. Within Level 3, at a depth of 0.40 m, a floor (Floor 1) was unearthed in the central part of the trench (Fig. 1.16B), on which pieces of unfired clay occurred along with the remains of a hearth (Hearth 1). In the southern part of the trench, thick layers of ash contained no archaeological finds. Generally in Trench E, the soil was very compact and therefore hard to remove. In contrast to the dry deposits in Trench C, the soil of this area was particularly damp. Moreover, the roots of the trees growing at the cave’s entrance had penetrated into the deposits of the trench, causing various problems for excavation. Within Level 4, which consisted of particularly hard soil, shells and snails were recovered, while pottery had already ceased to occur from the

level of Level 2. Thus, the Mesolithic Layer in Trench E was identified at a significantly higher level in comparison to the remainder of the trenches. Level 5, which was 0.15 m thick, was reached at a depth of 0.75 m, and yielded shells and large fish vertebrae. Level 6 came at a depth of 0.85 m and was similar in texture; however, bedrock had already begun to appear. It presented a N–S inclination and was covered by a hard layer of stalagmite crust. In the SW corner of the trench, a layer of ash was recovered on the bedrock’s surface. The removal of Levels 7 and 8 was restricted in half of the trench, but reached a depth of 1.10 m. The excavation has proved that during the Mesolithic the height of the entrance did not exceed 2.50 m. It also became clear that no thick deposits existed in the area of the cave’s entrance during the Neolithic and Mesolithic, though it is possible that a thicker deposit occurs on the southern side of the entrance.

Trench F Trench F was the only trench opened in the area of the cave’s great hall (Fig. 1.4A). Trench F measured 2 x 2 m and was laid out close to a pit dug into red clay, which served as a water reservoir in the past. Only a small quantity of Hellenistic and Roman pottery had been recovered on this area’s surface. Excavation proved to be particularly difficult because the ground was damp, and the soil contained compact clay that was hard to remove. Level 1 was 0.20 m thick and yielded a small number of Roman sherds, among which were three fragments of lamps. A layer of stalagmite crust 0.03 m thick was recovered at a depth of 0.10 m, while the upper edges of two stalagmites were also unearthed. The reddish soil continued to appear beneath the layer of crust. A thin layer of yellowish soil was found within Level 2 at a depth of 0.25 m. In the greater part of the trench at a depth of 0.35 m, small rocks were uncovered along the surface of the cave’s bedrock, which presented a slight SE–NW inclination (Fig. 1.17A). The layer of soil and clay overlaying stone debris was 0.45 m thick. A concentration of long

goat bones was discovered among the rocks, while fragments of lamps and three Neolithic sherds occurred at another point. The presence of Roman pottery beneath the layer of clayey soil indicated the relatively recent date of this deposit, which was apparently caused by the continuous dripping of water from heavy rainfall. The greater part of this deposit was created in a rather short period of time, as this layer was uniform and contained almost no finds. The absence of archaeological artifacts was similarly observed at other points in the great hall where two water reservoirs had been dug into the ground. Due to the declivity of the bedrock, the layer of clayey soil was greater in thickness. During the Neolithic and later periods, only small rocks, which would have rolled down from higher points of the cave, occurred in the great hall. Generally during the Mesolithic and Neolithic ages, the occupants of the cave hardly used this spacious area. Thus, the small number of Neolithic sherds would have rolled down either from the cave’s entrance or the area where Trench A was opened.

CAVE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

15

Stratigraphical Observations Various problems in the stratigraphy of the deposits have appeared, since the ground of the cave is sloping and presents a steep SE inclination beyond its entrance. The bedrock is particularly steep; it is covered by rocks and stone debris from the disintegration of the cave’s calcareous walls and rocks rolling down from the entrance. However, stones are absent within the Mesolithic layers in Trenches B and C. In many cases, the absence of stones observed in the interior of caves could have been caused either by hot climatic conditions or interstadial periods, such as the Mesolithic. By contrast, frigid climatic periods are responsible for the weathering of the cave’s walls. The early Mesolithic occupants of the cave would have found it hard to locate flat and level points. The ideal activity area would have been between the three stalagmites, at the point where Trench B meets the Western Division of Trench C, where layers are almost flat. Examining the stratigraphical sequence on the western balk of the Western Division in Trench C (Fig. 1.9A), nine layers can be distinguished. Layer 1 is gray in color and 0.22 m thick, while Layer 2 is brown, consists of small gravel, and is 0.10 m thick. Layer 3 is gray and varies in thickness, as does Layer 4, which is light brown. Layer 5 is deep gray in color and 0.35 m thick; at its lower part, it is comprised of a thick layer of ash and burning. Layer 6 is grayish brown in color and 0.60 m thick; it includes a layer of extensive burning and, in the eastern part, contains numerous rocks. At the eastern end of the trench, a significant disturbance of layers occurs. Within Layer 7, which is brown in color, a remarkable concentration of faunal remains (0.15 m thick) was recovered, dating from the late Mesolithic. Layer 8 is grayish brown, 0.40 m thick, and contains a smaller concentration of faunal remains. This layer is also notable for the presence of layers of burning and ash. Approximately in the middle of Layer 8, at a depth of 1.85 m, traces of Floor 4 are visible. The lowest layer, Layer 9 (average thickness 0.30 m), appears to be rather uniform in consistency, with an abundance of shells and terrestrial mollusks. At a depth of 2.10 m, the remains of Floor 6 can be distinguished.

The stratigraphical sequence of Trench B appears to be clearly defined, and is well exhibited in the section of the eastern sidewall of the trench (Fig. 1.7A), which is the other side of the western balk of Trench CWest. The layers of Trench B have no inclination. At the upper level of the deposits, Layer 1 is light brown to yellowish in color and particularly thin (0.05 m. thick), while beneath it, Layer 2 has a maximum thickness of 0.20 m and thins out significantly to the east. Layer 3, also a thin deposit (0.07 m thick), occupies only about half of the balk and is whitish to yellowish in color. Layer 4 (0.08 m thick) is light brown in color. Layer 5 has a whitish to yellowish color and is rather even in thickness over the entire trench (0.15 m thick). At its upper and lower levels, burned remains and ash were recovered (Hearth 1). Layer 6 is brown to green in color, clear of any rocks, and comprised of a thick layer of ash in its lower part (Hearth 2). Layer 7 is approximately 0.07 m thick and has a yellowish-brown color. Layer 8 is light gray and contains a small number of rocks, while a thick layer of ash (Hearth 3) occurs between this and the successive Layer 9. The latter is remarkably thick (0.50 m) and contains more burned remains and ash within it (Hearth 4), while numerous large rocks occur on its western side. Layer 9 is differentiated from Layer 8 by its dark gray color. Trench B is a place where we find a dense sequence of alternating ash layers and burned remains, which we have called “Hearths” and have numbered from 1 to 4. However, they may not be four separate hearths, completely unrelated to each other and accidentally occurring at different depths at the same location; they seem to be, instead, four different episodes of people visiting the same, wellfrequented site of the cave, where older hearth and ash remains must have been visible and were “attracting” the newer generations of the cave users. The correspondence of the layers recovered in the Western Division of Trench C to those of Trench B has been securely estimated, as only an unexcavated deposit of 0.30 m occurs between these trenches (see Table 1.2). In addition to the corresponding layers in these trenches, the hearth found within the lower level of Layer 6 in Trench B has also been located at the lower level of Layer 5 in Trench C

16

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

(Hearth 1). The thick layer of ash distinguished within the lower part of Layer 9 in Trench B is probably related to Hearth 4 of the Western Division of Trench C. Although layers and floors present a regular inclination along the eastern division of Trench C (Fig. 1.17B), this does not mean that the cave’s occupants lived on oblique levels! The accumulation of deposits from higher points in the cave formed a number of small areas with satisfactorily flat and even surfaces. Over time, the precipitous configuration of the cave’s ground resulted in the sinking of deposits, due to the decomposition of organic material in the soil and the constant dripping of water as well as various tectonic factors. Another cause could possibly have been the erosion of floors by human or animal activity. A similar sinking of layers commonly occurs close to the walls of caves, especially those exhibiting a steep inclination of bedrock. In the Eastern Division of Trench C, twelve floors were unearthed, while only nine occurred in the Western Division (Fig. 1.18A). Floor 1 of the Western Division continues to appear in the Eastern Division as Floor 2. Similarly, Floor 2 continues to occur as Floor 3 in the Eastern Division. Floors 6 and 9 of the Western Division were present in the Eastern Division as Floors 9 and 11, respectively. In Fig. 1.18B, layers are arranged in correspondence to levels, as the layers were recovered in the various rectangles in a W–E inclination. The rectangles located in the extreme southern part of the trench (Rectangles 4, 8, 12, and 16) contained deposits that had been disturbed due to the ground’s steep declivity; they do not offer any evidence that aids in understanding the deposits’ stratigraphy. Moreover, Rectangles 13, 14, and 15, on the eastern side of the trench, yielded mixed pottery of the Neolithic and later periods, also due to the steep declivity of the ground in this area.

On the western sidewall of the Eastern Division of Trench C, 12 different layers can be distinguished (though not all of them clearly), and 12 compact floors within them. Down to Layer 6, the deposits are rather homogeneous in relation to those of the Western Division (Fig. 1.17B). At surface level, a light gray layer (0.10–0.12 m thick), can be distinguished. Layer 1 contains small rocks. Layer 2 (average thickness of 0.27 m) is particularly fine in texture and light gray in color, and it becomes thicker to the south. However, this layer contains large rocks and consists of a thick layer of ash in its lower part. Layer 3 is dark gray and has an average thickness of 0.33 m. Layer 4 is sandy in texture and light brown in color with an average thickness of 0.22 m. Its lower part contains traces of burning. The sandy texture of the deposits is the result of the disintegration of rocks and stalagmites. Layer 5 is fairly uniform in composition (average thickness of 0.23 m), light gray in color, and does not contain any faunal remains. Layer 6 is fairly different, contains an abundance of faunal remains, and is dark brown in color. In fact, this Mesolithic Layer (0.40 m thick) continues into the Western Division of Trench C where it is significantly different and has thick layers of ash at its lower level. Layer 7 is thinner (0.20 m thick), grayish-brown in color, and contains a small quantity of faunal remains. Layer 8 has an average thickness of 0.12 m, a dark gray color, and contains an abundance of faunal remains. Layer 9 (0.15 m thick) differs significantly, as it is light brown in color and hard. Layer 10 is 0.30 m thick and dark brown; it contains shells and terrestrial mollusks in abundance. Layer 11 is reddish to brownish in color and measures approximately 0.30 m in thickness. The lowest of the layers, Layer 12, is sterile (containing no archaeological or faunal remains) and consists of red soil and stone debris.

2

Pottery Analysis of the Neolithic Period Adamantios Sampson

This chapter describes and catalogs much of the Neolithic pottery from the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra. Beginning with the Early and Middle Neolithic, a typology of vessels separating out open versus closed shapes, handles and lugs, bases, sherds with holes and decorated sherds is provided for coarse ware (Type I; Fig. 2.1) and monochrome ware (Type II; Figs. 2.2, 2.3), while a brief discussion and accompanying catalog is given for the painted wares of this period. An in-depth discussion and catalog of Red-on-White painted ware is found in Chapter 3. The Late Neolithic pottery, including pottery dating to LN Ia, LN Ib, and LN II, is described and placed in a typology reflecting the categories of the Early and Middle Neolithic wares—LN Ib pottery is Type III (Figs. 2.3–2.6) and LN II pottery is Type IV (Fig. 2.6). The late Neolithic painted and burnished decorated wares are also discussed and cataloged in Chapter 4. Finally, the Early to Late Neolithic pottery is subject to statistical as well as technological and petrographic analyses. The technological and petrographic analysis is covered more extensively in Volume II (forthcoming).

This chapter alternates between overviews of the pottery of each period under discussion, description of the types of pottery within the broad chronological framework, and individual catalog entries for representative sherds within each type. Beginning with this chapter, each sherd cataloged in this volume receives a catalog number in bold face type, numbered consecutively throughout the volume and on the figures. In a few cases a catalog number appears with a decimal point and it bears no relation to the corresponding whole number (for example, 23.1, which does not relate to 23). In addition, each sherd retained its excavation number, which is placed in parenthesis and directly follows the catalog number in the catalog entries. At times an excavation number may include a lower case letter. Each catalog entry contains a description of the shape, fabric, and if necessary, decoration of the sherd. Applicable dimensions are given in meters, and the findspot of each sherd, including trench, level, and rectangle when available, is provided. In addition, precise dating is included in a few instances, when possible.

18

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Early Neolithic–Middle Neolithic Pottery Recognizable EN pottery in the Cave of the Cyclops is scanty and was recovered in Trench B as well as in the Western Division of Trench C. During this early period, human activity in the cave was generally sparse and took place in a restricted area, mainly that surrounding the large stalagmite pillar located between Trenches B and C. No characteristic shapes of this period occur, and therefore it has been hard to distinguish between the EN and the MN coarse wares. Thus, these two pottery categories are being examined together (Tables 2.1, 2.2). In contrast, decorated wares, such as the incised and painted wares, can be easily distinguished. The chronological horizon of the pottery from Youra must be fairly early, because characteristic

Late Sesklo types are missing. A series of radiocarbon datings ascribe the early pottery from the cave to between the end of the 7th millennium and the 3rd century of the 6th millennium B.C. (6380–6110, 6464–6388, 6328–6220, 6235–6094, and 5740–5663 B.C.; see Table 1.1). Corresponding datings have come out at Achilleion (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989), e.g., 6380±100 B.C. for Phase Ia–Ib; 6200±150 B.C. for Phase IIa; 6100±200 B.C. for Phase IIb; 6000±150 B.C. for Phase III; and 5900–5700 B.C. for Phase IV. The pottery includes coarse wares (Figs. 2.1, 2.7, 2.8), monochrome wares (Figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.9– 2.16), and painted wares (Figs. 2.16, 2.17).

Type I. Coarse Ware: Open Vessel Shapes (Figs. 2.1, 2.7) The EN and MN coarse ware vases are overall well manufactured and perfectly fired. Their clay is commonly reddish or gray and occasionally red on the outside and gray on the inside. Their core is commonly gray.

TYPE I.1 These are small shallow vases with a flat quadrilateral rim section and inward-curving walls. This type is uncommon (Fig. 2.7:1, 2). A variation of the type has a more inward-leaning rim with a lug below it. 1 (135). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase carrying plastic decoration (band-lug) horizontally at rim. Flat rim. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. B1. 2 (145). Fragment of rim of a coarse open vase. Markedly inward-leaning, with a hole 0.04 m in diam. below its top. Max. dim. 0.05 m. B1.

TYPE I.2 This type is represented by vases with almost vertical and markedly inward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.7:4, 5). Another characteristic is the curved top of the rim.

3 (138). Fragment of flattened rim of a plain coarse vase. Reddish surface and core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. B1. 4 (154). Fragment of a coarse vase with a horizontal oblong lug. Rough worn surface. Gray clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. B1. 5 (350). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse, thinwalled, open vase. Smoothed reddish surface. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A5west.

TYPE I.3 These are deep vases with almost vertical walls (Fig. 2.7:6) reminiscent of monochrome ware Types II.3 and II.4. They have a low ring base, characteristic flaring of the belly toward the lower parts of the vase, and a uniform profile. A variation of the type has an outward-leaning rim. A similar type has been recovered at Franchthi, Otzaki Magoula, Nea Makri (Theocharis 1956, fig. 23), and Lerna. At Achilleion, this type belongs to Phase IIb (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5.38). At Otzaki Magoula, this form dates from the Early Neolithic (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. VI:15). The same site has yielded numerous vases with vertical walls (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. VI:20, 22), similar to rim no. 5 that belongs to Type

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

I.2. 6 (150). Fragment of rim of a thin-walled, coarse vase. Probable imprint of a seed on lower part. Max. dim. 0.045 m. B1.

TYPE I.4 This type is represented by deep vases with inward-curving walls (Fig. 2.7:7, 8). The vases have pointed or flattened rims, and are S-shaped in profile. 7 (141). Rim of a coarse vase. Flattened top. Max. dim. 0.06 m. B1. 8 (373). Fragment of a coarse open vase. Dark brown surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A5west.

19

and flattened rims (Fig. 2.7:13). Below the rim, these vessels have slightly outward-carinated walls. 13 (375). Rim of a coarse deep open vase. Square section of the top. Reddish brown surface. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A5west.

TYPE I.9 These wide-mouthed vases have a uniform neck and a thick, differentiated, and outward-leaning rim (Fig. 2.7:14). The walls of this vessel type are Sshaped in profile, and this type has a ring base. 14 (147). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. Slightly outward-leaning rim. Max. dim. 0.085 m. B1.

TYPE I.5 This uncommon type of open vase has a markedly outward-leaning, uniform rim (Fig. 2.7:9). Its walls are even in thickness, and it has a flat base and uniform profile. At Otzaki Magoula, these open shallow vases have a larger base (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. 1:7, 8). Similar open vases at Elateia (Weinberg 1962, fig. 5) belong to the Early Neolithic. 9 (155). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase with pointed top. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.057 m. B1.

TYPE I.6 This type of large open vase has vertical walls and a rounded thick rim (Fig. 2.7:10). 10 (203). Fragment of rim of a coarse, thick-walled vase. Flattened rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.16 m. B1.

TYPE I.7

TYPE I.10 These are very shallow bowls with markedly curved walls and a straight rim that is thinner toward the top (Fig. 2.7:15). 15 (360). Fragment of a coarse shallow vase. Inward-leaning rim. Greenish gray surface. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A5west.

TYPE I.11 These deep vases have a particularly large rim diameter (Fig. 2.7:17). They also have a uniform, inward-leaning rim. This is a common type in EN– MN Thessaly. A similar type occurs at Achilleion in Phase Ib (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5.38). 16 (372). Rim of an open vase. Thin walls. Coarse, reddish brown surface. Diam. rim 0.32 m. A5west. 17 (603). Fragment of rim of a deep open vase with inward-leaning walls. Coarse clay. Rough red surface. Diam. rim 0.19 m. A7.

These are miniature coarse cups with curved walls and flat bases (Fig. 2.7:11). Some examples bear a lug.

TYPE I.12

11 (209). Miniature coarse, thick-walled vase, preserving almost half of the rim, body, and flat base. Gray surface and core. H. 0.065; diam. rim 0.062 m. B2. 12 (382). Fragment of a coarse miniature vase bearing a mastoid lug. Diam. rim 0.068 m. A4.

These open vases have marked carination on the body (Fig. 2.7:18). In addition, they have a uniform, straight, and very thin rim. Deep, carinated bowls occur at Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. VI:21, 24).

TYPE I.8

18 (858). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. Carinated in profile with markedly thin-walled upper part of body. Pinkish surface. Diam. rim 0.17 m. E3.

These are deep vases with inward-leaning walls

20

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Type I. Coarse Ware: Closed Vessel Shapes (Figs. 2.1, 2.7) TYPE I.13 This type is represented by closed vases with uniform necks, walls that are S-shaped in profile, and almost vertical rims (Fig. 2.7:21). The body of the vessel is globular, and it has a low ring base. Slight variations of this type occur. Similar globular vases are found at Otzaki Magoula (Milojčićvon Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. XVIII:1, 2). 19 (140a). Fragment of rim, neck, and body, uniform in profile. Semi-cylindrical section of rim. Outwardleaning rim and neck. Coarse closed vase. Reddishbrown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.08 m. B1. 20 (146). Fragment of rim and body of a plain coarse, wide-mouthed vase. S-shaped in profile. Max. dim. 0.075 m. B1. 21 (151). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase. Worn on the inside. Gray surface. Max. dim. 0.048 m. B1.

TYPE I.14

22 (143). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse, thinwalled vase. Rim has cylindrical top and is slightly outward-leaning. Max. dim. 0.07 m. B2.

TYPE I.15 These vases have a differentiated neck (Fig. 2.7:23.1) and rounded body. Vessels with similarly shaped necks also occur at Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. 5:10) and Elateia (Weinberg 1962, fig. 5). 23 (152). Fragment of body of a coarse closed vase. Carinated neck. Brownish-gray surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. B1. 23.1 (865). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome open bowl. Wall carinated at open angle, upper part converging. Pointed high rim, slightly bent off the upper body through an open curved join. Brown surface, slipped and polished. Black core, coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.23 m. A5.

These are closed, fairly wide-mouthed vases with markedly outward-leaning rims (Fig. 2.7:22). The walls of this vessel type are S-shaped in profile.

Handles and Lugs There is a narrow type of strap handle, possibly rising over the rim of a large vase, that occurs among EN coarse ware (27). Fragment no. 28 carries a strap handle with a “tail” on its lower edge. The type of handle with a vertical perforation, broader toward its lower end, is uncommon (Fig. 2.8, Pl. 2.1:24). Other fragments carry mastoid or oblong lugs (Figs. 2.7, 2.8:4, 26). 24 (116). Four fragments of the body of a vase with horizontal strap handle. Below the edges of the handle are small fingernail impressions of small circles in a vertical row at each side of the handle. Brown smoothed surface. Max. dims. 0.14, 0.06, 0.058 m. A1–2, B1. 25 (133). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a horizontal lug. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.095 m. B1.

26 (134). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a circular unperforated lug. Worn, rather rough, brown surface. Reddish-brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. B1. 27 (149). Large vertical cylindrical handle of a plain coarse vase. Reddish-gray surface. Gray clay. Max. dim. 0.18 m. B1. 28 (153). Broken, broad, thin-walled strap handle. Ribbed edges. Coarse, reddish-gray surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.081 m. B1. 29 (374). Fragment of a red monochrome vase carrying plastic decoration. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A5west.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

21

Decoration RELIEF DECORATION Generally, this type of decoration, which is uncommon, has bands that are in low relief (Fig. 2.8; Pl. 2.1). A vertical relief band occurs on the fragment of a large closed vase (30), as well as on the shoulder of another closed vase (31). A thin-walled, oblong lug occurs below the rim of a small open vase (Fig. 2.7:1). 30 (156). Fragment of a coarse vase with a vertical relief band. Tile-colored clay. Max. dim. 0.071 m. B1. 31 (388). Fragment of shoulder of a coarse vase carrying a curvilinear relief band-lug. Greenish-gray surface. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A4.

IMPRESSED, POINTILLE AND INCISED DECORATION Although uncommon, this type of decoration characterizes the third phase of the Early Neolithic in Thessaly. Small impressed circles appear in rows on a number of fragments from the Cave of the Cyclops (Fig. 2.8; Pl. 2.1). On fragment no. 33, the impressions occur in two horizontal rows and are not circular. On another fragment of the same vase (36) three rows of impressions begin from the edge of the handle. Impressed circles occur also at Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. P). On the body fragment of vase no. 24 fingernail impressions occur vertically as a continuation of the handle’s edges. They also run horizontally at the neck of a coarse vase (35). Four similar vases occur in total. Pointille decoration also appears on two handles (Fig. 2.8; Pl. 2.1:32, 39) and on some small open vases. This simple form of decoration characterizes the Early Neolithic III Phase of Thessaly (Milojčićvon Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. O:6). Pointille decorated ware is known from Hagios Petros (Wijnen 1982, 87; Efstratiou 1985) and Achilleion (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5.67, 7). It has been recovered on painted vases carrying Red-on-White decoration, indicating that the latter is earlier than previously assumed.

Incised decoration is particularly uncommon (Fig. 2.8; Pl. 2.1). It occurs on fragment no. 42 with intersecting groups of oblique lines. 32 (15). Fragment of a vertical strap handle and edge (the body of a vase). Fingernail-impressed decoration arranged sparsely in two vertical parallel rows along the edges of the handle. Brownish-gray surface. Reddishbrown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A1. 33 (114). Fragment of body of a coarse, thin-walled vase carrying decoration of small fingernail impressions in two rows. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.085 m. To be mended with sherd 36. A4. 34 (194). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with impressed decoration of small circles in a horizontal row. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.060 m. A3. 35 (195). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with impressed decoration of small circles in a row. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.10 m. A3. 36 (205). Fragment of shoulder of a coarse vase with traces of a handle. Below the handle are three vertical rows of impressed circles; the middle one is the longest. Max. dim. 0.085 m. To be mended with sherd 33. B1. 37 (229). Four fragments of shoulder and body of a plain coarse vase with impressed decoration of small circles in a horizontal row. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.15 m. B1. 38 (545). Fragment of neck of a closed vase with impressed decoration of small circles in a row. Gray coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. D2. 39 (616). Fragment of a broad strap handle with small fingernail-impressed decoration in a vertical row. Gray coarse clay. Gray surface. W. 0.038 m. A7. 40 (657). Fragment of body of a coarse vase. Parts of a row decorated with impressed circles preserved. Gray surface on the outside, brown on the inside. Brown core. Relatively fine clay. Max. dim. 0.062 m. D4. 41 (638). Fragment of a closed vase with low vertical neck differentiated from body in curved carination. On the outside, a horizontal row of pointille parallel to the rim. Gray surface and core. Diam. rim 0.11 m. A7. 42 (325). Sherd with incised decoration of opposing groups of oblique lines. Incised patterns not reserved by relief band. Coarse dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A5east.

22

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Type II. Monochrome Ware: Open Vessel Shapes (Figs. 2.2, 2.9–2.10) Monochrome ware on Youra was recovered in smaller amounts than painted ware vases and in equal amounts with coarse ware, which is generally unusual for Neolithic pottery. Its clay contains gravel inclusions and is similar in quality to the painted ware fabric. Its core is often gray and suggestive of open firing conditions. Off-white and porous clay is less common. Generally the surface of the vase is red, gray, or brownish gray. Fragment no. 150 has a yellowish, well-burnished surface. In distinct cases, mottling on the surface occurs due to uneven firing. Usually the surface of the walls is well burnished, although traces of a burnishing tool are less commonly preserved (Pl. 2.1). Surfaces that are merely burnished, without the application of a wash or a slip (mechanical slip), do occur, as do surfaces with a thin slip. The red monochrome ware from Youra is the counterpart of the wellknown Class A1 ware from Thessaly (Tsountas 1908).

TYPE II.1 This type is represented by medium-depth or shallow vases with curved walls (Fig. 2.9:43, 44, 46–47.1). These vessels are thin-walled, and have a uniform rim. Fragment no. 148 has a vertically pierced lug below the rim. Similar vases have been recovered at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, figs. 22:2; 23:10; 24:8) and Otzaki Magoula (Mottier 1981, pl. 43:7). At Elateia (Weinberg 1962, fig. 6), this type of shallow bowl is very common in the Middle Neolithic. 43 (76). Fragment of short, slightly inward-leaning neck of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Uniform rim with pointed top. Differentiated with a pointed carination. Gray surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A2. 44 (339). Fragment of rim of a monochrome, thinwalled vase with slip and burnished brown surface. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A5west. 45 (489). Rim with pointed top of a thick-walled, open vase. Coarse clay. Brownish-gray surface. Diam. rim 0.22 m. B6. 46 (609). Fragment of rim and body of a mediumsized, thin-walled vase (bowl). Hemispherical in profile. Red monochrome ware. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A7.

47 (614). Fragment of outward-leaning rim of a coarse vase. Brown surface. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.13 m. A7. 47.1 (385). Fragment of hemispherical body of a coarse open bowl, extending to a rounded rim. Reddish surface, brown-gray core, small inclusions visible. Diam. rim 0.25 m. CEast 9, 7.

TYPE II.2 These are medium-depth or shallow vases with curved walls and a differentiated, slightly outwardleaning rim (Fig. 2.9:48–52). The walls of this vessel type are S-shaped in profile. 48 (79). Fragment of a coarse bowl, hemispherical in profile. Cylindrical section of rim. Brown surface and core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A2. 49 (120). Fragment of rim with cylindrical top. Burnished both inside and outside. Max. dim. 0.045 m. B1. 50 (320). Fragment of rim with semi-cylindrical section of a monochrome slipped and burnished vase. Thin-walled. Light brown surface. Brownish-gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A5east. 51 (369). Fragment of rim with cylindrical top of a red monochrome vase. Coarse clay. Lustrous surface, excellently manufactured. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A5west. 52 (376). Sherd of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Carries a low-relief band oblique to the rim. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5east. 53 (384). Fragment of rim of a small coarse, thinwalled vase. Rim with cylindrical top. Open mouth. Black burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.052 m. B5.

TYPE II.3 These deep open vases have curved or almost vertical walls (Fig. 2.9:54, 55). Fragment no. 54 is hollowed below the everted rim. Fragment no. 141 carries two vertical tubular lugs. Vase no. 55, though more shallow, belongs to the same type. This type is common at Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, type 26; Mottier 1981, pl. 13:4) and Achilleion, Phase III, which is ascribed to the Early Neolithic, ca. 6100±150 B.C. (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5.38). 54 (115). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Outward-leaning rim, semi-cylindrical

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

in section. Brown surface and core. Max. dim. 0.085 m. B1. Early Neolithic. 55 (501). Fragment of rim of an open vase with almost vertical walls. Slightly outward-leaning rim. Coarse clay. Brown rough surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.26 m. A7.

TYPE II.4 These are deep, wide-mouthed vases with almost vertical walls at their upper part (Fig. 2.9:56, 57, 59). The neck is not distinctly differentiated from the body. The vase is thin-walled, and has a uniform rim. Fragment no. 60 has a rim with a peculiar triangle section, but may belong to this type. 56 (128). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Brown to reddish-brown surface. Max. dim. 0.075 m. B1. 57 (131). Fragment of rim of a monochrome vase. Light red surface. Max. dim. 0.055 m. B1. 58 (393). Fragment of rim of a deep, broad-mouthed red monochrome vase with converging upper walls. Surface burnished on the outside. Diam. rim 0.08 m. A5west. 59 (606). Fragment of low neck of a deep, broadmouthed red monochrome vase with converging upper walls. Pointed top of everted rim. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A7. 60 (654). Fragment of mouth of a coarse deep, broad-mouthed, thin-walled vase with converging upper walls. Top of rim triangular in section. Rough surface with straw impressions on the inside. Gray core. Dark brown clay. Diam. rim 0.11 m. A7.

23

TYPE II.6 These deep open vases have inward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.9:64–66). They also have a flat thick rim which is triangular in section. Rims that are triangular in section are generally uncommon in the Neolithic Age. They are almost absent from the Late Neolithic, but are apparently common in the Early Neolithic, particularly among large pithoid vases. They are very common among the EN II pottery of Euboea (Sampson 1981, 1996–1998). The leaning of the handle’s edge toward the walls is apparently associated with the content of these vases. This type of rim prevails among large as well as small vases during the entire Early Helladic (Sampson 1985a, 1993a). 64 (211). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Reddish-brown surface and core. Diam. rim 0.18 m. B1. 65 (337). Fragment of rim (square in section) of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5west. 66 (599). Fragment of rim of a deep vase with medium-width mouth and inward-leaning walls. Coarse brown clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CWest 5.

TYPE II.7 This type is a deep open vase with an S-shaped profile and differentiated, markedly outwardleaning rim (Fig. 2.9:67). The type occurs at Otzaki Magoula (Mottier 1981, pls. 3:18; 49:1). 67 (345). Fragment of everted rim and body of an open vase. Burnished surface. Diam. rim 0.13 m. A5west.

TYPE II.5 This type is represented by medium-depth, open vases with almost vertical or curved thin walls (Fig. 2.9:61). In addition, this vessel has a uniform rim. This type frequently occurs in the mature Sesklo Phase at Otzaki Magoula (Mottier 1981, pls. 11:1; 13:4) and Elateia (Weinberg 1962, fig. 5). 61 (210). Fragment of rim with pointed top of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Brown slip. Brown surface and core. Diam. rim 0.16 m. B1. 62 (215). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome vase. Brown slip. Diam. rim 0.12 m. B4. 63 (440a). Fragment of rim and body of a shallow open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Upright walls. Uniform rim with top square in section. Black monochrome surface, very well burnished and smoothed. Coarse gray clay. Diam. rim 0.26 m. CWest 6, 5–6. Early Neolithic.

TYPE II.8 These bowls have markedly outward-leaning walls (Figs. 2.9:68–71, 2.10:72, 73, 75.1). The rim of this vessel is usually uniform. Generally, there are numerous variations for the inclination of the walls as well as the shape of the rim. Fragment no. 71 has curved walls and a pointed rim. Fragment no. 75.1 has a rim that is large in diameter, with the top of the rim triangular in section. A similar type occurs at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 23:3, 4, 24) and Otzaki Magoula (Mottier 1981, pls. 10:3, 10:16, 10:17, 63:8). 68 (389). Two fragments of rim of a thin-walled, open vase. Light red surface. Fine clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. A5west.

24

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

69 (417). Fragment of a coarse open bowl. Uniform rim with flat top. Smoothed brownish-gray surface with traces of burnish. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. CWest 7, 2, 5. 70 (469). Small fragment of a shallow open vase with markedly outward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with curved top. Smoothed surface, brown on the outside, red on the inside. Coarse clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.25 m. CWest 7, 5–6. 71 (602). Fragment of rim with pointed top of a monochrome open, thin-walled bowl. Relatively fine clay. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A7. 72 (607). Fragment of an open bowl with flat top of rim. Coarse brown clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A7. 73 (652). Fragment of rim of an open, thin-walled vase. Pointed top of rim. Burnished surface on the inside. Gray to black clay. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A7. 74 (700). Fragment of rim of an open, thin-walled bowl, hemispherical in profile. Uniform rim with curved top. Very well-smoothed, gray surface on the outside, rough and red on the inside. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.24 m. CWest 6, 5–6. 75 (703). Fragment of body and rim of an open bowl. Straight, markedly outward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. Monochrome red surface on the outside, fine-smoothed brown on the inside. Coarse clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.38 m. CWest 8, 5–7. 75.1 (631a). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome conical bowl. Pointed rim, carinated to the body. Coarse gray-brown surface, traces of red slip and polish. Coarse clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.28 m. CWest 6, 3.

TYPE II.9 This type of vessel is a medium-sized vase with a hemispherical body. Its rim is quadrilateral in section (Fig. 2.10:76–78). This vessel has markedly inward-leaning walls and a fairly differentiated rim. 76 (192). Fragment of rim and body of a miniature, thin-walled vase. Inverted rim. Burnished surface with dark brown slip. Max. dim. 0.025 m. A3. 77 (403). Fragment of body of an open hemispherical vase, possibly with a lug at rim. Brownish-gray surface, black on the inside. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A4, 2. 78 (615). Fragment of rim and body of a hemispherical vase. Gray surface on the inside, red on the outside. Red clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A7.

TYPE II.10 This is a very shallow, thick-walled vase (Fig. 2.10:79). It has a pointed or rounded rim. A similar

type has been recovered at Achilleion, Phase III (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5.38), and Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pls. 6:1–3; Mottier 1981, pl. 9:2, 9:3a, 44:1, 44:3, 46:4). 79 (701). Fragment of rim of a shallow open vase with thick walls. Thin uniform rim and wide mouth. Pointed top of rim. Red burnished surface. Coarse clay with fine-grained gravel inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.34 m. CWest 6, 5–6.

TYPE II.11 These are shallow or medium-depth, widemouthed vases with curved walls (Fig. 2.10:80). A similar type occurs at Otzaki Magoula (Mottier 1981, pl. 40:6). 80 (440b). Fragment of rim of an open, widemouthed bowl. Inward-leaning walls. Red surface. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CWest 7. 81 (704). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl with curved upright walls. Uniform rim with curvilinear top. Smoothed red surface on the outside, rough and gray on the inside. Coarse, light-colored clay. Diam. rim 0.23 m. CWest 8, 5–7.

TYPE II.12 There are no apparent differences between ladles of Early Neolithic II and those of the Late Neolithic. However, three ladles (Fig. 2.10:81.1–81.3) have been ascribed to the Middle Neolithic. Ladle no. 81.2 has a low handle. Ladles of a different shape occur at Achilleion (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, figs. 7.22, 7.71). Ladles attributed to the same period occur at Kurusay Höyük in Asia Minor (Duru 1994, figs. 199–202). 81.1 (511a). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse shallow open vase (ladle). Strap handle incorporated with rim. Red to brown, coarse clay. Gray core. Diam. body 0.24 m. C3. Middle Neolithic. 81.2 (570). Fragment of rim and neck of an open vase (ladle). Everted top of rim with traces of an incorporated vertical strap handle. Red worn surface. Brown core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. C4. Middle Neolithic. 81.3 (674). Cylindrical vertical handle incorporated with rim of a coarse open vase (ladle). Worn surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A4. Middle Neolithic.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

25

Type II. Monochrome Ware: Closed Vessel Shapes (Figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.11–2.13; Pl. 2.1) TYPE II.13 This type is represented by vases with an undifferentiated neck and markedly outward-leaning rim (Fig. 2.11; Pl. 2.1:82–84, 86). The walls of this vessel are S-shaped in profile. Similar vases have been recovered at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 22:8). 82 (80). Fragment of a closed, thin-walled vase. Uniform rim with everted top. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A2. 83 (118). Fragment of rim of a closed vase. Brownish-gray surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.12 m. B1. 84 (604). Fragment of rim of a deep closed vase. Everted rim with top cylindrical in section. Off-white surface on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A7. 85 (611). Fragment of rim of a closed vase with inward-leaning walls. Rim cylindrical in section. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.038 m. A7. 86 (336). Fragment of everted rim of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Burnished and slipped. Brown, very worn surface. Brownish-gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A5west. 87 (653). Fragment of mouth of a closed, thin-walled vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.08 m. A7.

TYPE II.14 These are vases with an undifferentiated neck and a straight, almost vertical, rim (Figs. 2.11, 2.12:89–93). They are narrow-mouthed with a swelling belly. This is the most characteristic monochrome ware shape. It occurs also at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 23:3) and Otzaki Magoula (Mottier 1981, pl. 10:1). 88 (81). Fragment of rather uniform rim with body of a necked vase. Pointed top of rim. Brownish-red burnished surface with thin wash. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A2. 89 (117). Fragment of rim, neck, and body of a vase uniform in profile. Thin-walled. Burnished surface with brown slip. Similarly brown core. Max. dim. 0.12 m. B1. Early Neolithic II. 90 (122). Fragment of rim of a closed, thin-walled vase. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A2.

91 (319). Mended fragment of rim and neck of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Uniform in profile. On shoulder, a vertically pierced, horizontal tab handle. Brown burnished surface, slipped. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A4east. 92 (387). Fragment of neck of a coarse closed vase carrying a vertically pierced, horizontal strap handle. Brownish-red surface. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A5. 93 (498). Fragment of neck and body of a red monochrome vase. Burnished surface with slip. Max. dim. 0.068 m. A6.

TYPE II.15 These closed vases have a low and markedly outward-leaning neck (Fig. 2.12; Pl. 2.1:94–97). This is a usual type among painted ware. A similar type has been recovered at Achilleion, Phase IIa (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5.38), and dates from the Early Neolithic (6000±200 B.C.). At Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. 5), these vases have very low necks. 94 (129). Fragment of low neck and body of a closed monochrome vase. Slightly outward-leaning rim and neck. Reddish slip. Burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.11 m. B1. Early Neolithic II. 95 (377). Fragment of low collar neck of a closed, thick-walled vase. Red monochrome. Very well burnished. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A5east. 96 (264). Fragment of rim, low neck, and body of a thin-walled vase. Marked carination at shoulder. Monochrome ware. Burnished reddish surface, slipped. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.060 m. A4. 97 (613). Fragment of a markedly outward-leaning neck of a closed vase. Burnished surface, black on the inside and outside. Relatively fine red clay with finegrained gravel inclusions. Max. dim. 0.03 m. A7.

TYPE II.16 These are closed spherical vases with a mediumheight, vertical neck (Fig. 2.12:98–101). The type occurs at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 22:7). 98 (77). Fragment of vertical low neck of a closed, thin-walled vase. Uniform rim with pointed top. Rim differentiated from spherical body with pointed angular

26

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

carination. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.038 m. A2. 99 (78). Fragment of very low neck or high rim of a closed vase. Neck or rim differentiated from body by an open curved carination. Red surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.034 m. A2. 100 (213). Fragment of rim and neck of a monochrome vase with red slip. Everted rim. Traces of carination from neck to body. Diam. rim 0.16 m. B4. 101 (612). Fragment of neck of a closed, thin-walled vase. Preserved carination at shoulder. Smoothed surface. Relatively fine clay. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A7.

TYPE II.17 This type is represented by vases with a very low, outward-leaning neck (Fig. 2.12:102, 103, 105, 107, 108). These vessels are fairly wide-mouthed. Rim no. 106 is particularly thick and is hollowed at its neck. Rim no. 107 is pointed and also outwardleaning. Rim no. 108 is similar, although thicker. One example shows traces of a burnishing tool (Pl. 2.1:104). This is a variation of Type II.15, and also occurs in Late Neolithic I. 102 (220). Fragment of rim, low, outward-leaning neck, and body of a monochrome vase. Red slipped on the inside and outside. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A4. 103 (346). Fragment of neck of a monochrome vase. Red surface, very well burnished on the inside and outside. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.13 m. A5west. 104 (368). Fragment of neck and body of a red monochrome vase. Relatively thin-walled. Burnished surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.15 m. A5west. 105 (371). Fragment of low collar neck and body of a red monochrome vase. Very well-burnished surface, slipped. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A5west. 106 (635). Fragment of outward-leaning neck. Red monochrome surface, very well burnished on the outside, coarse on the inside. Red clay with white calcareous inclusions. Diam. rim 0.15 m. A7. 107 (857). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a closed vase. Reddish surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A7. 108 (859). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a closed vase. Thick-walled, neck markedly outward-leaning. Reddish surface. Diam. rim 0.13 m. A6.

TYPE II.18 These vases have an open, spherical belly and a very low neck, almost uniform to the body (Fig. 2.12:109, 110). They also have a differentiated upright rim.

109 (333). Fragment of slightly outward-leaning rim of a thin-walled, monochrome vase. Brownish-red surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A5west. 110 (391). Fragment of neck of a monochrome vase. Red surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5west.

TYPE II.19 These closed vases have a uniform neck and belly (Fig. 2.12:111, 112). They have a differentiated, outward-leaning rim and a rather narrow body. This type occurs at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 24:19). 111 (383). Fragment of neck and body of a closed vase. Preserved carination at shoulder. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.05 m. B5. 112 (610). Fragment of rim and body of a thinwalled, monochrome vase, slightly curved in profile. Light brown, burnished surface on the inside and outside. Relatively fine clay. Diam. rim 0.07 m. A7.

TYPE II.20 These are closed vases with a tall, narrow neck and a markedly outward-leaning rim (Fig. 2.12:113, 114). They have a carinated neck and shoulder. 113 (248). Fragment of rim of a closed, thin-walled vase, well shaped in profile. Everted rim. Neck differentiated from body with an open pointed carination. Monochrome surface of neck on the inside and outside, well burnished, and lustrous. Brownish-gray surface. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Diam. rim 0.075 m. CWest 6, 1–3. 114 (342a). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a small closed monochrome vase. Red surface. Diam. rim 0.07 m. A5west. 115 (347). Fragment of neck of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Markedly everted rim. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A5west. 116 (348). Fragment of neck and body of a coarse vase. Markedly everted rim. Uniform neck and shoulder. Brown surface. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A5west.

TYPE II.21 This type is represented by a closed vase with a medium-height, outward-leaning neck (Figs. 2.12, 2.13; Pl. 2.1:118–120). This vessel is carinated at the shoulder. In general, the mouth is usually wide, although that of fragment no. 119 is very narrow. 117 (318). Fragment of rim and outward-leaning neck of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.16; max. dim. 0.085 m. A1.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

27

118 (351). Fragment of rim of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Preserved carination at shoulder. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A5west. 119 (338). Fragment of neck of a closed vase. Preserved carination at the joint to body. Red surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.08 m. A5west. 120 (605). Fragment of markedly outward-leaning neck of a closed vase. Coarse reddish-brown clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A7.

124 (332). Fragment of rim of a monochrome, thinwalled vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.24 m. A5west. 125 (381). Fragment of rim and neck of a widemouthed, closed vase. Reddish surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.19 m. A7. 126 (866a). Fragment of rim and neck of a large, wide-mouthed vase. Carries protrusion below rim. Reddish surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.25 m. A7.

TYPE II.22

TYPE II.24

This is a closed spherical vase with a swelling belly and markedly differentiated, outward-leaning rim (Fig. 2.13; Pl. 2.1:121).

These are wide-mouthed vases (Fig. 2.13:127– 129). They have a swelling belly and markedly inward-leaning walls. They also display a uniform rim (128, 129). This type is common at Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. 7; Mottier 1981, pl. 15:13) and Elateia (Weinberg 1962, fig. 5).

121 (340). Fragment of rim and neck of a monochrome vase. Red surface. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A5west. 122 (378). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse closed vase. Burnished. Dark brown surface. Diam. rim 0.28 m. A5east.

TYPE II.23 These wide-mouthed vases have a swelling belly and a uniform, almost vertical, neck (Fig. 2.13; Pl. 2.1:123–126). The neck of this vessel is not distinctly differentiated from its shoulder. The vase of fragment no. 124 is large in diameter. 123 (321). Two fragments of rim and body of a coarse large vase with thick, straight, slightly outward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with top square in section, flattened on upper part, and prominent on the inside and outside. Rough gray surface, carelessly smoothed, with traces of a brush. Coarse clay with abundant schist inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.38 m. CEast 12–13, 3–6.

127 (343). Fragment of rim with cylindrical top belonging to a wide-mouthed monochrome vase. Red surface. Diam. rim 0.17 m. A5west. 128 (392). Fragment of rim and neck of a relatively deep, wide-mouthed vase. Curved body differentiated from neck by an open curved carination. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brown rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. CEast 12–13, 7, 8. 129 (399). Fragment of rim of a monochrome and thin-walled vase. Red burnished surface. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A3. 130 (515). Fragment of rim and body of a widemouthed vase. Thin, upright or slightly inward-leaning walls. Everted rim, cylindrical in section. Smoothed, slightly burnished surface, black slip on the outside, red and coarse on the inside. Diam. rim 0.24 m. CWest 8, 5–7.

Handles Handles are generally uncommon among EN monochrome vases. On Youra, only two symmetrical strap handles occur (Fig. 2.13:131, 132). The first is horizontally pierced, the second vertically. There is a single example of a vertical loop handle on the rim (Fig. 2.13:133). 131 (125). Vertical strap handle, markedly hollowed, of a coarse monochrome vase. Red smoothed surface

on the outside, gray and rough on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.10 m. B1. 132 (329). Horizontal strap handle of a coarse vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.035 m. B5. 133 (172). Fragment of rim with a broad strap handle set at rim top and rising high over it. Red surface. Gray clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A3.

28

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Lugs There are several different types of lugs found on the monochrome pottery of Youra (Figs. 2.13–2.15). Conical or mastoid, vertically pierced lugs are most common (147, 148, 152) and are typical of the Early and Middle Neolithic. These are found at Papa-toChoma on Skyros (Theocharis 1959a), in Euboea (Sampson 1981, 1996–1998), and at Achilleion (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989, fig. 5:38). This type of lug occurs in a rounded, elliptical, or triangular shape, or in the shape of a bow tie (143). A similar lug, triangular in section, occurs on fragment no. 149. A single lug is horizontally pierced (153). Unperforated conical or mastoid lugs also occur. Warts are common on the surface of vases. Tubular, vertically pierced lugs are fairly common (150, 155, 157). On fragment no. 141, these oblong lugs are recovered in two successive vertical rows. Some of them are very long (137, 144) and are similar to those from Ayio Gala (Hood 1981, 1982), although Youra’s examples do not form “tails” on their lower edges. Similar lugs occur at the site of Papato-Choma on Skyros (Theocharis 1959a). Double tubular lugs are common (140, 154, 158). Less common is a type of quadrilateral lug (150, 151). Plain unperforated solid lugs formed on the surface of vases are uncommon (159). These are either circular or elliptical in shape, and conical or biconical in section. 134 (82). Narrow vertical tubular lug, rectangular in section. Dark brown surface on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A2. 135 (126). Vertically pierced lug, carinated at upper side. Rough worn surface, brown to gray in color. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. B1. 136 (148). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a horizontally pierced lug. Brownish-red surface on the outside, gray on the inside. Max. dim. 0.057 m. B1. 137 (167). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a vertically pierced, tubular lug. Reddish burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A3. 138 (168). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a vertically pierced, tubular lug. Reddish burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A3. 139 (169). Fragment of body of a red monochrome vase with a vertically pierced, tubular lug. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.064 m. A3. 140 (170). Fragment with a vertically pierced, tubular lug and remnant of a second lug. Coarse surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.044 m. A3.

141 (173). Two fragments, non-joining, of a red monochrome vase with rows of vertical lugs. Gray core. Max. dims. 0.05, 0.03 m. A3. 142 (174). Fragment of a monochrome vase with a small, vertically pierced lug, triangular in section. Black burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A3. 143 (206). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a vertically pierced lug. Red surface on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.065 m. B1. 144 (222). Fragment of body of a thin-walled vase with a vertically pierced, tubular lug. Brownish-red surface, worn slip. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.040 m. A4. 145 (281). Vertically pierced lug in the shape of a knob of a thin-walled vase. Reddish surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.028 m. 146 (302). Small, vertically pierced, tubular lug. Reddish surface. Fine clay. Max. dim. 0.032 m. A3, 2. 147 (322). Fragment of a thin-walled, closed vase with a vertically pierced, mastoid lug. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.047 m. A4east. 148 (323). Fragment of rim of a plain coarse vase with preserved traces of a vertically pierced, horizontal lug. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5east. 149 (326). Sherd of a coarse vase with a vertically pierced lug that has a triangular profile. Reddish surface. Coarse clay with inclusions. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A5east. 150 (334). Fragment of body of a monochrome vase with a vertically pierced, tubular lug. Burnished surface, slipped. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A5. 151 (344). Sherd with a vertically pierced, horizontal strap lug. Preserved traces of painted decoration. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A5west. 152 (349). Vertically pierced, horizontal lug of a small, thin-walled vase. Off-white surface, burnished on the outside. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A5west. 153 (355). Fragment of a coarse vase with a horizontally pierced, mastoid lug. Burnished surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A5. 154 (456). Double, vertically pierced, tubular lug of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Brownish-red surface. Brown to gray core. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A3. 155 (476). Broad tubular lug of a plain coarse vase. Off-white to red surface due to uneven firing. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A2. 156 (481). Small horizontal strap handle/lug of a red monochrome, thin-walled vase. Burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A3.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

157 (495). Fragment of a closed vase with a tubular lug. L. of lug 0.045 m. A4. 158 (502). Fragment of rim of a red monochrome closed vase with two vertically pierced, tubular lugs. Burnished surface on the outside. Relatively fine clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.12; L. 0.085; w. 0.055 m. A7. 159 (330). Fragment of upright wall of a coarse vase with oval wart on lower end. Wart triangular in section.

29

Reddish surface, reddish core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.11 m. CWest 5, 2. 160 (650). Fragment of neck of a coarse closed vase with a vertically pierced, mastoid lug. Gray surface. Max. dim. 0.048 m. A5. 161 (867a). Fragment of a closed vase with a vertically pierced lug, triangular in shape. Reddish clay. Max. dim. 0.067 m. A6.

Bases In most cases, Early and Middle Neolithic bases are ring shaped, particularly on closed vessels. At Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 31), ring-shaped bases constitute an element of early dating. In Euboea (Sampson 1981, 2000) and on Skyros (Theocharis 1959a), they are characteristic of the Early and Middle Neolithic. In the Cave of the Cyclops a great variety of bases occur (Figs. 2.15, 2.16) with edges that are either rounded (170, 173) or pointed (174). These bases may be very low (170), medium height (162, 174), or tall (176, 178). Tall ring-shaped bases occur at Otzaki Magoula in Thessaly (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. 13). Flat bases are common among open vessels. Similar flat bases hollowed at their lower side are uncommon (167, 177), though rounded (163, 166), or pointed ones do occur. Slightly hollowed bases also occur (168, 175, 180.1). 162 (119). Ring-shaped base with rounded edges belonging to a coarse monochrome vase. Reddish surface and core. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.09 m. B1. 163 (130). Fragment of a flat base and body of a monochrome vase. Dark brown burnished surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.065 m. B1. 164 (132). Fragment of a flat base and body of a plain coarse, thick-walled vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.057 m. B1. 165 (137). Fragment of flat base of plain coarse vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.044 m. B1. 166 (139). Flat base with rounded join to body. Worn. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.036 m. B1. 167 (142). Fragment of a flat base of a plain coarse, thick-walled vase. Max. dim. 0.075 m. B1. 168 (144). Hollowed base with wide-standing surface, uniform in profile with body. Max. dim. 0.085 m. B1. 169 (207). Low, ring-shaped base of a coarse vase. Brownish-gray surface on the outside, reddish on the inside. Max. dim. 0.12 m. B1.

170 (208). Fragment of a ring-shaped base, hollowed underneath. Reddish surface. Max. dim. 0.11 m. B1. 171 (214). Fragment of a flat base and body of a plain coarse vase. Gray surface and core. Diam. base 0.07 m. B4. 172 (386). High ring-shaped base of a coarse vase. Red surface. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.10 m. B5. 173 (486). Tall, ring-shaped base of a plain coarse vase. Diam. base 0.05 m. B6. 174 (328). Ring-shaped base, hollowed underneath, of a plain coarse vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Diam. base 0.10 m. B5. 175 (647). Hollowed base of a coarse pithoid vase. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.07 m. B3. 176 (341). Fragment of a high, ring-shaped base of a plain coarse vase. Reddish surface. Gray core. H. base 0.06; diam. base 0.12 m. A5. 177 (370). Four sherds from a low, raised flat base of a monochrome open vase. Red surface. Diam. base 0.10 m. A5. 178 (743). Fragment of tall, ring-shaped base with rounded edges of a coarse closed vase. Curved standing surface. Red rough surface. Reddish-gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.12 m. CWest 6, 5. 179 (744). Fragment of a medium-height, outwardleaning, ring-shaped base with rounded edges. Base of a medium-sized or large coarse closed, thick-walled vase. Rough reddish-gray surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.12 m. CEast 5. 180 (861a). Narrow, ring-shaped base of a small vase. Rough coarse surface. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.056 m. A6. 180.1 (140b). Fragment of a flat hollowed base and adjoining body of a coarse, probably open, vase. Bottom wall becomes thinner than the body wall, body-base join rounded. Red-brown surface, brown core, clay with small inclusions. Diam. base 0.10 m. CEast 10, 5.

30

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Sherds with Holes Holes pierced on the body of vases appear on a small number of EN and MN coarse and monochrome ware sherds (Fig. 2.16). These may be regular or irregular in shape. An irregularly pierced hole opened after firing occurs on the surface of an open vase (2). On fragment no. 181, two holes occur, one of which is irregularly pierced. A regularly pierced hole appears on the surface of closed vase no. 182.

181 (331). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with two perforations at close distance to one another. Brownishgray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. B4. 182 (487). Sherd of a coarse vase with a perforation. Gray surface. Max. dim. 0.06 m. B6. 183 (274). Three fragments of rim of a coarse vase. Perforation just below edge of rim. Red surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A4.

Decoration Plastic decoration occurs in the form of bands set in various manners on coarse and monochrome wares (Fig. 2.16; Pl. 2.1). A zigzag relief line occurs on only one sherd (185), while another sherd has a simple vertical relief band (184). In addition, oblique relief bands occur below the rim of a small open vase (52).

184 (324). Fragment of body of a coarse, thin-walled vase decorated with a vertical relief band. Light brown surface and core. Max. dim. 0.09 m. A5. 185 (353). Fragment of vase bearing plastic decoration and off-white slip over red clay. Zigzag relief band. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A5.

Painted Ware EARLY PAINTED WARE A small number of early painted ware sherds, a category of pottery known from Thessaly, were recovered in the Western Division of Trench C in the Cave of the Cyclops (see Ch. 3). These are thinwalled sherds, decorated with broad red bands or solid triangles. Early painted ware vases occur at Hagios Petros (Wijnen 1982) and Otzaki Magoula (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. F). The examples from the Cave of the Cyclops should be dated to the end of the EN and the very beginning of the MN, and can be regarded as the earliest attempts at red patterning on a white slipped surface (see also Ch. 3). Additionally, we find sherds with variegated surfaces, thus with orange and red-brown clouds, but it is uncertain whether this is deliberately produced, as in the case of the high-quality variegated ware of the latest EN phase of Thessaly (late 7th millennium B.C.), or if it occurs incidentally due to uncontrolled firing conditions.

186 (601). Fragment of body of a coarse vase curved in profile. Variegated surface on the outside. Coarse red clay. Max. dim. 0.10 m. A7. 187 (639). Fragment of body of a coarse deep vase with thin vertical walls. Surface red on the inside, variegated on the outside. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.11 m. A7.

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC PAINTED WARE White-on-Red Painted Ware White-on-Red painted ware is considered contemporaneous with vases carrying Red-on-White decoration, but it occurs in considerably smaller quantities. A few dozen sherds were recovered from Trench A and the Western Division of Trench C along with other MN painted wares (Figs. 2.16, 2.17; Pl. 2.1). They are very carefully manufactured and carry a thick red slip that covers the entire surface of the vases. The walls of the vase are thin and

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

scraped on the inside, similar to Red-on-Light painted ware. This type of decoration usually appears on closed shapes, seemingly similar to Types II.18, II.21, and II.22 of monochrome ware. Decorative ornaments are painted in white over a red ground, and are usually very faded. Decorative themes include lozenges and V-shaped motifs (193), successive zigzag lines (194), straight parallel lines, and checkerboard patterns (188, 189, 192). 188 (717). Small fragment of body of a vase preserving part of decoration with solid white lozenges on a red-slipped and burnished ground. Red surface on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.041 m. A5. 189 (718). Fragment of body of a vase preserving part of decoration with solid white lozenges on red slipped and burnished ground. Red surface on the inside. Red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.043 m. CEast 6, 5–6. 190 (719). Small fragment of body of a vase preserving vague painted decoration, horizontally arranged, on the outside part. White paint on red-slipped ground. Burnished surface on the outside, red and rough on the inside. Red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.057 m. CEast 8, 5–6. 191 (720). Fragment of body preserving a painted horizontal thin zigzag line on the outside part. White decoration on brown-slipped ground. Burnished surface on the outside, gray and rough on the inside. Max. dim. 0.05 m. CEast 8, 5–6. 192 (837). Two fragments of body of a vase with painted decoration. White checkerboard pattern on red burnished outside surface. Similarly red, slightly smoothed, inside surface. Brown core. Clay has very fine inclusions. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.072 m. A5.

31

193 (840). Fragment of body of a vase with white painted decoration over red lustrous slip. Horizontal line on the perimeter of the body borders a band of lozenges, of which the central lozenges are solid. Dark brown, coarse, and rough surface on the inside. Dark brown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. A5. 194 (841). Ten fragments with joins of a vase body with white painted decoration over red, fine burnished slip. Decoration is vague, but apparently rich, and includes parallel straight lines, some of which seem to frame panels with various decorative motifs. Parallel zigzags and closed angular patterns are also preserved. Brown rough surface on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dims. 0.078, 0.065, 0.05, 0.057, 0.04, 0.045, 0.04, 0.045, 0.04, 0.023 m. A5. 195 (842). Fragment of body of a vase with decoration of parallel oblique bands over red lustrous slip. Brownishgray, relatively smoothed, inside surface. Brownish-gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.057 m. A4.

Red-on-White Painted Ware The study of the notably rich and significant category of Red-on-White painted wares from Youra was undertaken by S. Katsarou-Tzeveleki (see Ch. 3). At Youra, this pottery class dates mainly to the early phase of the Middle Neolithic. These vase shapes have also been recovered at various EN sites in Thessaly, such as Otzaki Magoula, Sesklo, and Achilleion. An analogous pottery category occurs in the same chronological period at many sites in Asia Minor, such as Hacılar (Mellaart 1970) and has been dated to a period between 6135 and 5885 B.C.

Late Neolithic Ia Pottery This phase is represented in the Cave of the Cyclops by a very limited number of pottery finds. Some small fragments of black burnished ware occur; these are characteristic of the beginning of Late Neolithic Ia, and are contemporaneous with the Tsangli Phase in Thessaly (Theocharis 1973). A large rim fragment of an open vase (196) was recovered in the Western Division of Trench C. A similar shape was recovered at Arapi Magoula in Thessaly (Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969, pl. 4:1, 2, 10). Some of the matt-painted ware fragments described

in Chapter 4 may date from the same early phase. They were recovered mainly in Trench A and are not securely stratified. In addition, it is well known that matt-painted ware was produced over a long period of time, until the later phases of LN Ia. 196 (500). Fragment of slightly everted rim with thin curved top. May belong to upright neck of wide-mouthed vase, differentiated from body by open curved carination, or to open vase with curved body and upright profile. Thin-walled vase. Black monochrome surface; worn on the inside. Coarse clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.19 m. CEast 8, 1–3.

32

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Late Neolithic Ib Pottery Pottery ascribed to this period was recovered from Trenches A and C, while it was absent from Trenches B and E. Overall, a very small number of sherds were recovered inside the cave. However, the upper levels of Trench C yielded a particularly great quantity of pottery belonging to a late LN I phase—the Late Neolithic Ib. As far as shapes are concerned, there are no differences between coarse and monochrome wares. Generally, pottery of fine quality and burnished wares appear in small numbers, and the small amount of such pottery recovered can be examined with the monochrome ware (Tables 2.3–2.5).

LN Ib pottery from Youra can be generally characterized as semi-coarse ware. The clay of coarse and monochrome wares is fairly coarse, with fine-grained gravel inclusions and a gray core. The surface of the vases show nuances of red, brown, black, and orange. Slips, though uncommon, are either brown or red. A number of black burnished sherds were recovered in Trench A. Instead of a slip, a strong burnishing of the clay (“mechanical slip”) is common, and has also been observed in Euboea (Tharrounia Cave, Sampson 1993a), on Samos (Furness 1956), and elsewhere.

Type III. Open Vessel Shapes (Figs. 2.3–2.5, 2.17–2.23) TYPE III.1 These are deep vases (bowls or basins) with upright walls and a thick rim, medium depth or very deep with thick coarse walls (Fig. 2.17:197, 198). This is a coarse ware, usually with a uniform rim. The diameter of the rims ranges between 20 and 30 cm. This shape was widely used in everyday life and occurs at numerous Neolithic sites, such as Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 37:251) and Yali (Sampson 1988c, 75, types 24, 26). 197 (22). Fragment of a coarse open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Uniform rim with top square in section. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A1. 198 (179). Fragment of rim of a coarse open vase. Brownish-red surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A3. 199 (586). Fragment of body of a hemispherical bowl. Reddish-brown smoothed surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.26 m. C4. 200 (794). Fragment of a large open hemispherical vase. Uniform rim, with rounded top. Relatively smoothed surface, variegated (gray, brown, reddish) due to uneven firing on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. The marked hardness of the sherd indicates firing at high temperatures. Diam. rim 0.32 m. CEast 9, 9.

TYPE III.2 This type is represented by deep open vases with almost vertical walls (Fig. 2.17:201–203, 205–208,

211.1–211.4). The fragments recovered indicate no curving rims. Based on the tops of the rims, these are classified into two groups. The first group includes vases with upright walls and a rounded (202, 203), quadrilateral (211.1), or pointed (211.2, 500) rim. In some cases, the rim is thickened toward the edge. In other cases, the walls are almost imperceptibly inward- or outward-leaning (211.3, 500, 720). Most of the fragments belong to small- or medium-sized vases, although some of them belong to large basins or pithoid vases. They are usually large in diameter. As the state of preservation of the vessels is fragmentary, their shape has not been fully restored. The same type occurs at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, fig. 37:178, 180, 184), Plakari in Karystos (Keller 1985, fig. 2.5), Thorikos (Spitaels 1982, 14, type A1, fig. 1.3), and Kastria of Kalavryta (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 36:597, 667). The second group contains vases with vertical walls and a flattened, swelling rim (211.4). This type of vase is uncommon. 201 (24). Fragment of a coarse, wide-mouthed vase with walls slightly inward-leaning toward rim. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A1. 202 (31). Fragment of a coarse open vase with curved, relatively thick walls. Uniform rim, slightly inward-leaning, slightly thicker on top. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A1. 203 (34). Fragment of a wide-mouthed vase with relatively thick walls, vertical close to uniform rim. Red,

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

possibly monochrome, surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.068 m. A1. 204 (38). Fragment of a wide-mouthed vase with inward-leaning walls and thick, outward-leaning rim, differentiated in curved carination. Monochrome surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A1. 205 (70). Fragment of a deep bowl, hemispherical in profile, with thin walls upright close to rim. Uniform rim with slanting imperfect top. Gray slipped surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A2. 206 (183). Fragment of rim of a monochrome vase. Brown burnished surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A3. 207 (184). Fragment of rim of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A3. 208 (236). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase with very thin walls. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A4, 1–2. 209 (449). Slightly inward-leaning neck(?) fragment of a narrow-mouthed vase. Uniform rim with thickened top on the inside. Brownish-red surface, rough on the outside, smoothed on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.13 m. CEast 9, 1–3. 210 (464). Small fragment of rim of an open vase with thin vertical walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. Black monochrome, fine-burnished, and lustrous surface on the outside, gray, coarse, and rough on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. CEast 13, 7–9. 211 (559). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase spherical in profile. Black surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.08 m. C3. 211.1 (54). Fragment of a flat rim slightly detached from the upright upper walls of a monochrome open bowl. Reddish surface, slipped and polished. Browngray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.09 m. CEast 5, 7. 211.2 (188). Fragment of a pointed rim, uniform to the hemispherical upper wall of a coarse open bowl. Gray-brown surface, dark gray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.03 m. CEast 6, 4. 211.3 (37). Fragment of a pointed rim, uniform to the slightly converging upper walls of a coarse open bowl. Brown surface, brown core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A4. 211.4 (275). Fragment of a round articulated rim bent out from the vertical hemispherical wall of a monochrome open bowl. Brown-gray surface, slipped and polished. Brown-gray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.08 m. CEast 4, 3.

TYPE III.3 These are open vases with a carinated profile and everted rim. They are of medium depth, with the rim

33

differentiated from the body by a curved carination (Fig. 2.17:212). Occasionally, these vases carry a perforated or unperforated lug at or below the rim. A sufficiently similar vase was recovered intact at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 43:540). 212 (65). Fragment of an open, thin-walled vase, hemispherical in profile. High everted rim with curved top forms an S-shaped profile with body. Brown monochrome burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A1. 213 (418). Small fragment of an open vase with curved, relatively thin walls. Uniform rim with curved top. Brownish-gray surface, rough and imperfectly modelled on the outside, smoothed on the inside. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 13, 7–8.

TYPE III.4 These open vases have slightly curved walls and a differentiated rim (Fig. 2.17:215). They are deep or of medium depth, with a differentiated, outwardleaning rim. Lugs appear on the shoulder. Rim fragment no. 214 is a variation of the type. Fragments 543 and 641 preserve part of a rope-motif decoration. A similar shape, with walls that are more vertical, has been recovered at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 46:418). 214 (544). Fragment of rim of an open coarse vase. Horizontal oblong lug just below rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.25 m. CEast 7. 215 (775). Fragment of rim, neck, and hemispherical body of a vase. Low upright neck, uniform rim with rounded top. Wide shallow groove running around base of neck, where it is differentiated from shoulder. Carination shows that the neck consists of a separately modelled part attached to the body. Reddish-brown, burnished surface on the outside, off-white, rough, and worn on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. CEast 9.

TYPE III.5 These are deep vases with an almost vertical upper section of their walls (Fig. 2.18:216). This type has a curved lower section of the body, while the rim is vertical or very slightly outward-leaning. These vases often carry an oversized strap handle rising from the rim. Fragment no. 422 has a handle at its rim. 216 (201). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse, thinwalled vase preserving traces of a vertical strap handle. Greenish-gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.18 m. A3.

34

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

TYPE III.6 This type contains bowls with straight, markedly outward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.18:217–220). These are shallow vases that are large in diameter. They have a uniform rim, with a pointed or rounded top. This type is common, and belongs to a vessel used in everyday life, which is recovered generally from all LN sites. The majority of these vessels are burnished. The type occurs at Kephala (Coleman 1977, type A2, pl. 28:F, M, N), Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, figs. 31:7, 31:18, 32:38), Hagios Dimitrios (Zachos 1987a, type A3), and Franchthi II (Jacobsen 1973, 273, fig. 8:8), and similarly at Emporio X–IX (Hood 1981, fig. 98:4c, 120), Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, 23, 24), and Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 31). 217 (33). Fragment of a coarse open bowl with thin, outward-leaning walls and uniform rim. Reddish surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A1. 218 (187). Fragment of rim of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A3. 219 (231). Fragment of slightly everted rim of a plain coarse vase. Light brown surface and core. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A4, 1. 220 (625). Fragment of a thick-walled, open bowl. Walls outward-leaning. Rim with pointed top. Rough surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.30 m. C4. 221 (627). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. High, outward-leaning rim with pointed top, differentiated from body by a smooth carination. Black surface, monochrome on the outside, rougher on the inside. Coarse, well-fired clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 7.

TYPE III.7 These are bowls with slightly outward-leaning rims (Fig. 2.18:222, 225–225.2). They are deep vessels with straight walls and rounded rims. Fragment no. 225.1 has a pierced lug, while no. 544 has a thickened rim and preserves part of a lug. Two other fragments (225.2, 573) have small unperforated lugs. This type occurs in the Kitsos Cave (Lambert 1981, 310, types CP 21, 22), and at Kalythies on Rhodes (Sampson 1987a, fig. 35:333, 339), Kephala (Coleman 1977, pl. 47:F), Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, pl. 14), Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 28), and Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 31:32, 284).

222 (553). Fragment of rim of a coarse open, thinwalled vase. Black surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.028 m. CEast 3. 223 (556). Fragment of rim of a thin-walled vase. Black surface on the outside, brown on the inside. Traces of burnishing. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. C3. 224 (557). Fragment of rim of an open vase. Reddishbrown surface. Preserved traces of burnishing both on the inside and outside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. C3. 225 (618). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase with a slightly curved oblong lug, which is triangular in section and parallel to rim. Brown, slightly burnished surface. Gray coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.26 m. C3. 225.1 (617). Fragment of rim of an open bowl with a horizontally pierced, strap lug below rim. Coarse red clay. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A7. 225.2 (104a). Fragment of the outward-leaning body of a coarse open bowl (probably with a conical profile), extending to a rounded rim. Small part of a horizontal cylindrical handle 0.05 m below rim edge. Gray-brown surface, gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.10 m. CWest 4, 6.

TYPE III.8 These very open bowls have straight, slightly outward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.18:226, 227). The rims of these vessels have pointed or rounded tops. They are of medium depth. Similar samples have been recovered at numerous Neolithic sites, such as Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 32). 226 (641). Fragment of rim and wall of a coarse open, thin-walled vase. Rim slightly outward-leaning with pointed top. Red surface on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.25 m. C5. 227 (655). Fragment of neck and body of a coarse open, thin-walled vase. Neck has uniform rim. Reddish-brown, slightly burnished surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A7.

TYPE III.9 These are shallow bowls with slightly curved walls (Figs. 2.18, 2.19:228, 229, 231–234). They have a uniform rim, which is usually pointed. They are markedly thin-walled vases, and not very large in diameter (0.16–0.20 m). Fragment nos. 575 and 576 have a perforated lug on the lower part of their wall. This type is particularly common on mainland

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

Greece, and has been recovered at Plakari in Karystos (Keller 1982, 54–56, figs. 2.6:P63, 87, 2.7, 2.8:P126), Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 106, fig. 133:174, 205), in the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, fig. 10:52–56), and at Kephala (Coleman 1977, 13, pls. 27:G, 28:J), Hagios Dimitrios (Zachos 1987a, types A4, A5), and Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 45, type 27, fig. 35:90, 116, 121).

35

Nestor’s Cave (Sampson 1980, fig. 18:41), in the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, fig. 8:2–4), and at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, fig. 36:159, 160).

228 (53). Fragment of a shallow bowl with uniform rim, hemispherical in profile. Walls inward-leaning close to rim. Rim with curved top. Dark brown surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.03 m. A1. 229 (294). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. Brown, slightly burnished surface. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A4, 1. 230 (532). Fragment of rim and body of a small shallow vase. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brown smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 7. 231 (621). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Brown surface, burnished both on inside and outside. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.24 m. C4. 232 (622). Fragment of rim of a coarse large, thickwalled vase. Rim with flat top. Red surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.056 m. C4. 233 (623). Fragment of a coarse shallow hemispherical vase. Gray rough surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. C4. 234 (624). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase. Rim with pointed top. Brownish-gray surface. On the outside, a small groove caused by a seed or gravel imprint. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.33 m. C4. 235 (642). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open hemispherical vase. Rim with pointed top. Red surface. Brown core. Diam. rim 0.18 m. C2.

236 (177). Fragment of inverted rim, semi-spherical in section, belonging to a coarse vase. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A3. 237 (254). Fragment of rim and body of a plain coarse vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A3. 238 (414). Fragment of rim of a wide-mouthed vase. Thin walls, inward-leaning close to mouth. Uniform rim with pointed top. Black burnished surface on the outside, reddish-gray and fine-smoothed on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim > 0.14 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 239 (441). Fragment of rim of a wide-mouthed vase. Thin walls, inward-leaning close to mouth. Uniform rim with flat inverted top. Red surface, rough and worn on the outside, fine-smoothed on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Max. dim. 0.04 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 240 (446). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse, wide-mouthed vase. Curved walls, inward-leaning close to rim. Uniform rim with flat everted top. Reddishbrown, rough surface. Preserved traces of a brush. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.024 m. CEast 11, 8–9. 241 (447). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl with straight or slightly inward-leaning walls. Hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with asymmetrical rounded quadrangular top. Slightly smoothed surface, dark brown on the outside, light brown on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.36 m. CEast 6. 242 (628). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse large deep open vase. Dark brown, rough surface. Gray coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.31 m. C4. 242.1 (637a). Fragment of a converging low neck of a small coarse jar. Rim is pointed and bent slightly upward. Brown coarse surface, gray-brown core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A3.

TYPE III.10

TYPE III.11

This is a wide-mouthed, deep vase with straight, inward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.19:236, 237, 239, 242.1). In most cases, it has a uniform rim. However, fragment no. 242.1 has a slightly differentiated rim. Some of the fragments possibly belong to pithoid vessels with a rather narrow neck, and can be ascribed to deep open vases. Their diameter ranges between 0.12 and 0.16 m. Numerous variations occur, depending on the inclination of the walls and the type of rim. This vessel type is very common and has been recovered at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 140, fig. 41:330, 631), in

These are deep vases with curved, inward-leaning walls (Figs. 2.19, 2.20:244–247, 248.1). This vessel is regular and hemispherical in profile. Its walls lean inward at various angles. The walls of fragments (248.1, 707) are not markedly inwardleaning. The rims of this vessel type have an even thickness, or become thinner and pointed toward the top. The rim of fragment no. 239 is triangular in section. Rims are rarely differentiated (441), with traces of a handle below the rim. The diameter of this vessel type is much larger than that of Type III.10 (with a maximum diameter of about 0.32 m).

36

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Type III.11 is very common. At Kastria it represents 28.5 percent of the deep vases (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 138, figs. 41–42). Many of the deep vessels from Youra are small pithoid vases, which also bear rope-motif decoration similar to that of large pithoi (641, 642, 644, 646). At Kephala, Type III.11 is examined under types B1 and B2 (Coleman 1977, 15, pl. 31:A, D). At Tharrounia, it occurs in the Late Neolithic Ib and the beginning of the Late Neolithic IIa (Sampson 1993a, fig. 123:103, 104). Similar vases have been recovered at Ayio Gala on Chios (Hood 1981, Upper Cave II, figs. 30:174–178, 31:179–185), on Yali near Nissiros (Sampson 1988c, 77, type 6), and at Emporio X–VI (Hood 1981, figs. 100, 127, 128). 243 (68a). Fragment of a bowl with hemispherical walls inverted close to rim. Uniform rim with almost flat top. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A2. 244 (180). Fragment of rim of a monochrome, thinwalled vase, burnished, with slip. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.044 m. A3. 245 (517). Fragment of a coarse vase with asymmetrical rim. Oblong lug below rim and parallel to it. Brown coarse clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.34 m. C, surface find. 246 (555). Fragment of an open vase with a horizontal lug parallel to rim. Burnished surface on the outside, reddish brown and coarse on the inside. Gray coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. C3. 247 (572). Fragment of an inward-curving rim of a coarse open deep vase. Black surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.26 m. C5. 248 (640). Fragment of rim and body of a plain coarse vase with inward-leaning walls. Red rough surface. Gray clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. C4. 248.1 (178). Fragment of a pointed rim uniform to the converging upper wall of a coarse open or widemouthed, deep bowl. Red-brown surface, dark brown core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A6.

TYPE III.12 These are medium-depth or deep open vases with a hemispherical body. The walls are curved and differentiated, and the rim is slightly outwardleaning. This vessel has thin walls that thicken toward the base (Fig. 2.20:249). Similar types were recovered at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 116, fig. 37:760). 249 (630). Fragment of rim and body of an open, thinwalled cup. Hemispherical in profile. Rim with everted top. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. C4.

TYPE III.13 This type of shallow open vase has curved walls (Fig. 2.20:250, 251, 254–255.3). This type is very common on Youra. It is usually rather large in diameter, like no. 255, and has walls of even thickness and a uniform rounded rim. The rim of fragment no. 255.1 is gradually thinner toward the top, and fragment no. 459 presents a strap handle at the rim. A great variety of types occur, depending on the inclination and thickness of walls and rim (255.2, 255.3, 314). Fragment no. 252 has a rim with a flat top. Bowls of this type also bear relief bands below the rim, like no. 691. Similar vessel types were recovered at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, pl. 19), Franchthi II (Jacobsen 1973, 273, fig. 8:4), Plakari in Karystos (Keller 1982, 60, fig. 2.15), Kephala (Coleman 1977, 13, type A1, pl. 27A, C), Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 111, figs. 65:25, 173; 67:268), Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 33), and in the Kitsos Cave (Lambert 1981, 309, CP 19). 250 (27). Fragment of a shallow bowl, hemispherical in profile, with uniform rim. Pointed, slightly inwardleaning top of rim. Gray monochrome surface and gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A1. 251 (55). Fragment of a shallow bowl with thin hemispherical walls. Uniform pointed rim, inward-leaning close to its top. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.03 m. A1. 252 (406). Fragment of rim of an open bowl with thick upright walls and hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with flat top, everted on both sides. Light red, rather rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.28 m. CEast 12, 7–8. 253 (433). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Thin upright walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brown surface, slightly rough on the outside, brownish gray and finesmoothed on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. C5. 254 (620). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse vase with inverted rim. Brownish-gray surface. Gray coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.23 m. C4. 255 (566). Rim fragment of an open vase, spherical in profile. Light brown surface and clay. Diam. rim 0.30 m. C4. 255.1 (518). Fragment of rim and carinated body of monochrome open bowl. Rim has pointed end. Brown surface, slipped and polished. Dark brown core, coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. B4. 255.2 (309). Fragment of the closely curving body of an open monochrome bowl, ending in a pointed rim.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

Gray-brown surface, dark gray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.07 m. CEast 10, 5. 255.3 (651). Fragment of the hemispherical upper wall of a coarse monochrome open bowl ending in a thickened pointed rim, which curves inward. Gray surface, dark gray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.06 m. B3.

TYPE III.14 These are shallow or medium-depth vases with markedly inward-leaning walls of even thickness (Fig. 2.20:259, 260). This vessel is usually large in diameter with a uniform rim. 256 (407). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl. Straight walls, markedly inward-leaning and thinner close to rim. Uniform rim with rounded top. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.30 m. CEast 12, 7–8. 257 (408). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse small shallow vase, hemispherical in profile. Thin walls, inward-leaning close to rim. Uniform rim with flat top. Rough surface, gray on the outside, black on the inside. Traces of brush. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. CEast 13, 1–6. 258 (429). Fragment of rim of an open bowl with inward-leaning walls. Thick inverted rim with rounded top. Gray smoothed surface. Brownish-gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.30 m. CEast 10, 2, 5, 8. 259 (554). Fragment of rim and body of an open coarse hemispherical vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.062; diam. body 0.16 m. C3. 260 (619). Fragment of rim and body of an open coarse hemispherical vase. Small unpierced mastoid lug just below rim. Brown variegated surface. Brown core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.25 m. C4.

TYPE III.15 These are shallow open vases (bowls) with thin, outward-leaning walls (Figs. 2.20, 2.21:262, 267– 267.2). They have a uniform rim with either a rounded or pointed top. Fragment no. 267.2 has a differentiated rim. The diameter of the rim ranges between 0.16 and 0.20 m. This shape is fairly hemispherical, and occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 106, fig. 33:313, 526), Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 45, type 27, fig. 35:90, 116, 121), and Emporio X–VI (Hood 1981, figs. 98:5, 121), in the region of Laconia (Waterhouse and HopeSimpson 1960, 99, fig. 15:2), at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 31), and in the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, fig. 10:52–56).

37

261 (68b). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. Variegated surface, also burnished on the inside. Brownish gray clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. C4. 262 (232). Fragment of rim and outward-leaning wall of a coarse vase. Brownish-gray surface and core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A4, 1–2. 263 (421). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl with almost straight, outward-leaning walls. Hemispherical in profile. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brownishgray surface, fairly well burnished. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.34 m. CEast 9, 4–6. 264 (430). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl, hemispherical in profile, with markedly outwardleaning walls. Uniform rim with rounded top. Brown monochrome surface, very well burnished and lustrous. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.29 m. CEast 10. 265 (437). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl hemispherical in profile. Thin, outward-leaning walls and uniform rim with pointed top. Brownish-gray surface, preserved traces of fine burnish. Two seed or gravel imprints on the outside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 7. 266 (538). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Thick, slightly outwardleaning walls and uniform rim with top quadrangular in section. Reddish-brown, fine-burnished surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.17 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 267 (552). Fragment of rim of a coarse open vase, hemispherical in profile. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.065 m. C3. 267.1 (568). Fragment of a pointed rim uniform to the hemispherical upper wall of a coarse open bowl. Gray surface, dark gray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.07 m. CEast 3, 4. 267.2 (821). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome, thin-walled, open bowl with conical profile. Articulated round rim. Brown surface, slipped and polished. Gray core, coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. CWest 4, 4.

TYPE III.16 This is a category of small shallow, open vases (Fig. 2.21:269) with slightly or markedly inwardleaning walls. These vessels have a uniform rounded rim. They are medium-depth vases, that are small in diameter. Fragment no. 675 has relief decoration below the rim and almost vertical walls. Fragment no. 687 also has a relief pattern below the rim. No. 462 has one or two handles. They are limited in quantity. This type occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 36:520).

38

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

268 (494). Fragment of rim with cylindrical top. Black coarse surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A3. 269 (565). Fragment of an open vase, hemispherical in profile. Burnished surface both on the inside and outside. Brownish-gray core. Diam. rim 0.12 m. C4. 270 (803). Fragment of an open hemispherical vase. Thin uniform rim with rounded top. Variegated (reddish, gray, buff-brown) surface due to imperfect firing. Smoothed surface. Gray core. Clay with scanty inclusions. Diam. rim 0.08 m. A4.

TYPE III.17 These are medium-depth, open vases with a differentiated rim (Fig. 2.21:271). They have carinated walls, with the rim gradually thinner toward the pointed top. Fragment no. 465 also carries a handle at its rim. 271 (673). Fragment of rim of an open shallow vase. Relatively thin, inward-leaning walls. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A5.

TYPE III.18 These deep open vases have almost vertical walls (Fig. 2.21:272). They are hemispherical with walls of even thickness, and a uniform rim that is usually thinner toward the top. These vases usually carry a handle at the rim. This type occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, figs. 35:671; 37:668), Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, pl. 19), Laconia (Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson 1960, 99, fig. 15:1), and Kalythies on Rhodes (Sampson 1987a, fig. 41). 272 (352). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase. A small vertical flat handle with a straplike ridge rises from the rim. Brownish-gray surface. Diam. rim 0.13 m. A5.

TYPE III.19 These shallow or medium-depth, open vases have markedly outward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.21:274). They have a differentiated rim, which is thinner at the top. This type of bowl is uncommon, and occurs in a late phase at Pefkakia in Volos (Weisshaar 1989, pl. 8:3, type 22). It is also not common at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 108, fig. 34:730), but it occurs in abundance at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 28).

273 (20a). Fragment of rim of a coarse shallow bowl. Differentiated, outward-leaning rim. Brown surface on the outside. Diam. rim 0.5 m. CEast 8. 274 (238). Fragment of rim of a coarse open vase. Brownish-gray surface. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A4, 1–2.

TYPE III.20 These are shallow or medium-depth bowls, carinated at the body (Fig. 2.21:275, 276, 276.1). They have an upright or outward-leaning upper section of the vase, and an outward-leaning rim that is thinner at the top. Fragment no. 275 has an upright rim, while no. 276.1 also carries a handle. These vases are large in diameter (with a maximum diameter of about 0.25 m). 275 (71). Fragment of a coarse vase with markedly carinated body. Vertical upper part of vase. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A4east. 276 (396). Fragment of a coarse vase with carinated walls. Black surface, with traces of burnishing. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A6west. 276.1 (511b). Fragment of carinated body of a coarse open bowl preserving rim and small handle attached to it. Rim has pointed end and stands upright, uniform to the upper part of the body. Red-brown surface, slipped. Black core, coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.23 m. CWest 3, 4.

TYPE III.21 These shallow or medium-depth bowls are markedly carinated in profile, and have inward-leaning walls (Fig. 2.21:277, 278). Fragment no. 278 has an pointed rim, whereas no. 277 has an everted rim. Generally, these vases, like those of Type III.20, are uncommon. Type III.21 is likewise uncommon at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 124, fig. 38:366, 465), Kephala (Coleman 1977, type B1, pl. 31:T), and Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, fig. 40:244). 277 (582). Fragment of an open vase, carinated in profile. Everted rim. Burnished surface, both on the inside and outside. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.039 m. C5. 278 (828). Fragment of rim and body of an open hemispherical vase, carinated in profile. Uniform rim with flat top. Brown surface. Preserved traces of smoothing on the outside. Gray core. Clay has copious inclusions. Diam. rim 0.32 m. CEast 10, 12. 279 (658). Fragment of rim of a small, thin-walled vase, carinated in profile. Brown smoothed surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.028 m. A4.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

TYPE III.22 This type of vessel is a deep vase with a differentiated, upright rim (Fig. 2.21:280, 281). It has a semi-cylindrical body, with a rim that is usually thinner toward the top and slightly outward-leaning. The rim is usually large in diameter. A handle rising over the rim is very common. This type of vase is common and occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, pl. 20, fig. 40:114), in Nestor’s Cave (Sampson 1980, fig. 18:39), and in Franchthi II (Jacobsen 1973, 273, fig. 8:3). 280 (354). Fragment of rim of an open coarse vase. Incorporated broad vertical strap handle, thinner toward its lower edge. Light brown surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A5west. 281 (356). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase. Reddish-brown surface. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A5west. 282 (546). Fragment of a coarse vase with flat rim and low neck. Brown clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A7.

39

and smoothing. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 286 (453). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl. Hemispherical in profile, with vertical walls. Vertical rim with flat top slightly differentiated from body. Gray surface, traces of smoothing with a brush. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim > 0.19 m. CEast 8, 1–4. 287 (507). Fragment of rim and body of a hemispherical bowl with an articulated vertical rim. Gray surface on the outside, black in places on the inside, rough on both sides. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.08; diam. rim 0.14 m. C4. 288 (525). Fragment of outward-leaning neck. Uniform everted rim, with rounded top, differentiated from shoulder by a curved carination. Gray surface, worn on the outside, monochrome on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 9, 7–8. 289 (631b). Fragment of rim and body of a deep coarse open vase with S-shaped profile close to rim. Rim cylindrical at top. Red-brown surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. C4. 290 (659). Fragment of rim and body of a cup, slightly carinated close to rim (S-shaped). Gray rough surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.27 m. C5.

TYPE III.23 These are deep open vases with an S-shaped profile (Fig. 2.22:283, 287, 289). They have an upright low neck-rim, differentiated by an open curved carination that forms a fairly marked shoulder. The rim of these vessels has a rounded or pointed top. Numerous similar vases were recovered on Youra in many varieties depending on the inclination of the walls and the rim. Handles often occur at the rim. These vessels were also recovered at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, fig. 36:151) and Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 40:706). 283 (32). Fragment of an open, thin-walled vase with hemispherical body. Thick, outward-leaning rim with cylindrical top, differentiated from body by a curved carination. Monochrome surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A1. 284 (413). Small fragment of neck-rim and shoulder of a small wide-mouthed and thin-walled vase spherical in profile. Low, outward-leaning neck-rim with pointed top, differentiated from body by an open curved carination. Brownish-gray, fine-smoothed surface on the outside, gray and rough, with traces of a brush, on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.10 m. CEast 7. 285 (450). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Asymmetrical, almost vertical, rim slightly differentiated from body. Brownish-gray surface, preserved traces of burnishing

TYPE III.24 These deep vases are carinated in profile (Fig. 2.22:291), and they have a carinated, markedly outward-leaning neck and a rounded rim. The rim is not large in diameter. A strap handle occurs at the shoulder. 291. Fragment of wall and rim of a deep, narrowmouthed, coarse open vase. Narrow strap handle, cylindrical in section, incorporated with rim. Carinated in profile. Reddish-brown surface on the outside, black on the inside. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.09 m. A2.

TYPE III.25 This category is represented by ladles (Fig. 2.22: 292, 298, 299, 301; Pl. 2.2:294). This everyday type of vessel presents only slight variations in shape during the entire Neolithic Age. A highly raised handle with a small or large horizontal perforation is characteristic. The capacity of this vessel is usually limited. Numerous fragments of ladles were recovered on Youra, but only two vessels were finally mended (292 and 299). Ladle no. 292 dates from the Late Neolithic Ib, though it is very slightly different from its MN counterparts. Ladle no. 298 has a very low handle.

40

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

292 (509). Fragment of a ladle preserving part of a handle. Black mottling on the outside surface due to uneven firing. Brown clay with inclusions. Diam. rim 0.07 m. C3. 293 vacat. 294 (527). Fragment of rim and body of a small shallow open vase (ladle). Curved, slightly inwardleaning walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brownish-gray, smooth surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CEast 6. 295 (539). Fragment of body of a small shallow open vase (ladle), hemispherical in profile. Thin, outwardleaning walls. Uniform rim with thin curved top. Light brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.11 m. CEast 8, 7–9. 296 (540). Fragment of body of a small shallow open vase (ladle), hemispherical in profile. Thin, outwardleaning walls. Uniform rim with thin curved top. Light brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.07 m. CEast 8, 7–9. 297 vacat. 298 (573). Small open vase (ladle) with traces of a high vertical handle. Gray core. Reddish-brown clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. C5. 299 (643). Partly preserved coarse ladle. Small fragment of body and handle missing. Rough brown surface, dark in places. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.07 m. CEast 6. 300 (669). Fragment of a small spherical vase (ladle). Traces of a handle. CEast 9, 9. 301 vacat. 302 (697). Fragment of rim and body of a shallow open vase (large ladle), hemispherical in profile. Broad vertical thin strap handle incorporated with rim. Handle rising over rim and attached to the lower part of body. Brown, rather smooth surface. Gray core. Coarse clay with copious lime inclusions. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CEast 6.

that is thinner toward the top. Fragment no. 307 has a pointed rim, thickened on the inside. Fragment no. 651 carries a plastic band with vertical incisions below the rim. 304 (66). Fragment of a wide-mouthed, thin-walled vase. Slightly everted rim with curved, outward-leaning top. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.03 m. A2. 305 (67). Fragment of a wide-mouthed vase with thin walls, inward-leaning at the upper part. High vertical rim with pointed top, differentiated from body by an open obtuse carination. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A2. 306 (477). Fragment of everted rim and body of a coarse vase. Red surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A3. 307 (698). Fragment of rim of a wide-mouthed vase. Walls are inward-leaning close to mouth. Tall upright rim with pointed top. Brownish gray surface, finesmoothed. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 11, 2.

TYPE III.28 These are shallow, wide-mouthed vases with lugs (Fig. 2.23:308). These vessels are characteristically decorated with vertical grooves. They usually have a dark surface and horizontally pierced lugs. The type occurs in a later phase of the Athenian Agora and is referred to as a “squat jar” (Immerwahr 1971). It has been recovered at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 125, fig. 38), in the Sarakenos Cave in Kopais (Sampson 2000), at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 185, fig. 189:4, 8), in the region of Macedonia (Heurtley 1939, fig. 111), and at Pefkakia (Weisshaar 1989, 25, pls. XIV:6, 35:1, type 53).

303. Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase. Outward-leaning rim large in diameter. Decorated with a prominent oblique zone. Red surface. Diam. rim 0.32 m. CEast 6.

308 (100). Fragment of a small open vase with curvilinear profile of body. Outward-leaning neck differentiated from body by curved carination and shallow horizontal groove. Oblique tubular, vertically pierced lug on upper part of body. Outside surface of body and lug covered with groups of thin shallow grooves in vertical or oblique arrangement. Gray surface, monochrome and smoothed on the outside, rough on the inside. Reddish core. Coarse impure clay. Max. dim. 0.06; diam. rim 0.12 m. A2.

TYPE III.27

TYPE III.29

These are small, deep pithoid vases with a differentiated rim (Fig. 2.23:304, 306). The rim diameter ranges between 0.20 and 0.25 m. This vessel type has relatively thin walls, and an outward-leaning rim

These are deep, wide-mouthed vases with straight walls (Fig. 2.23:309). On rare occasions they have a differentiated rim. This vessel has rather thick walls and a flat or rounded upper part of the rim.

TYPE III.26 These large, basin-like vases have an oblique plastic band decoration below the rim (Fig. 2.22:303).

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

309 (670a). Fragment of rim and body of a deep, widemouthed vase. Slightly everted rim with pointed top. Burnished surface on the outside. Red coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.082 m. CEast 7. 310 (415). Fragment of rim of a wide-mouthed vase with inward-leaning walls. Curved deep body. Slightly differentiated rim gradually upright toward top; asymmetrical broad curved top. Rough surface: gray with thin wash on the outside, red and coarse on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 12–13, 7–8.

TYPE III.30 These spherical vases have markedly inwardleaning walls (Fig. 2.23:311). They are thin- or thick-walled, and have a uniform or differentiated rim. Their rim is large in diameter. 311 (426). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Inward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with flat top. Reddish-gray, worn surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.36 m. CEast 9, 7–8. 312 (660). Fragment of rim of an open vase. Slightly everted rim with top cylindrical in section. Red surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.26 m. C5.

TYPE III.31 This category is represented by “feeders” (313). These are open vases, small in diameter, with outward-leaning rims. Below the rim is a cylindrical spout of an uncommon type rarely recovered in the Late Neolithic. Similar tubular spouts occur at Kephala (Coleman 1977, 14, pl. 28:G), Palaia Kokkinia (Theocharis 1951, 108, fig. 21), Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, fig. 50:93), and Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 144, fig. 39). 313 (764). Fragment of rim of a wide-mouthed vase. Vertical walls. Uniform rim with thin pointed top. A round spout opens from inside below rim (feeder?).

41

Red-brown surface, relatively smooth. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.15 m. CEast 8, 7–9.

TYPE III.32 This group of vases has been identified as “scoop”-type vessels (Fig. 2.23:314, 315). These are open vases with a rim that is asymmetrical in relation to its body. Unfortunately, it has been impossible to fully restore their shapes, so the resulting shapes are not identical in all cases. They are probably most reminiscent of “scoop” vessels, a type commonly recovered in the Late Neolithic Ib. Similar vases occur at Pefkakia (Weisshaar 1989, pl. 92:6, 14), Otzaki Magoula (Hauptmann 1981, pls. 95, 96), and Sesklo (Tsountas 1908, National Archaeological Museum in Athens no. 6046). Examples were also recovered at Tharrounia, usually with horned lugs (Sampson 1993a, 91, fig. 78). 314 (73). Fragment of an open vessel with asymmetrical, thin-walled body in the shape of a “scoop.” Uniform rim with inverted top. Brownish-gray surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A2. 315 (234). Fragment of rim of a monochrome “scoop” vessel. Thin-walled. Red surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A4, 1–2. 316 (448). Fragment of rim and body of a small, thin-walled vase, hemispherical in profile. Uniform asymmetrical rim with pointed top. Brown, finesmoothed surface. Light-colored core. Coarse clay with copious lime inclusions. Diam. rim 0.10 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 317 (497). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open, thin-walled vase. Asymmetrical body, slightly carinated. Uniform rim with flat top, and an incorporated low vertical triangular lug(?). Brown, rather smooth surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.19 m. CEast 6. 318 (591). Fragment of a “scoop” vessel with asymmetrical rim. Reddish-brown surface on the outside, gray on the inside. Relatively fine clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. CWest 5, 5–6.

Type III. Closed Vessel Shapes (Figs. 2.4–2.6, 2.23–2.25) TYPE III.33 These are narrow-mouthed vases with a neck that is undifferentiated from the body, but with a differentiated, everted rim (Fig. 2.23:319, 323, 324). This is a fairly uncommon type.

319 (36). Fragment of a medium-sized, wide-mouthed vase. Curved body with thin walls inward-leaning close to rim. Protruding rim cylindrical in section. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A1.

42

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

320 (419). Fragment of rim and body of a widemouthed vase with inward-leaning walls. Rim with flat top, almost cylindrical in section. Brown smoothed surface. Brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.20 m. CEast 10, 2, 5, 8. 321 (443). Fragment of shoulder of a closed, thinwalled vase. Spherical body differentiated from neck by an open carination where a shallow groove runs around the base of the neck. Red monochrome, well-burnished surface on the outside; gray, coarse, and rough on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay with fine-grained gravel inclusions. Diam. neck 0.07 m. CEast 8, 7–9. 322 (531). Small fragment of rim of a necked, thinwalled vase. Rim cylindrical in section. Red monochrome surface, very well burnished and lustrous. Red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.016 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 323 (666). Fragment of rim of a thin-walled vase. Rim with flat everted top. Red surface. Gray clay. Max. dim. 0.018 m. CEast 7. 324 (768). Fragment of rim of a closed vase with markedly inward-leaning walls. Reddish clay. Diam. rim 0.12 m. C5.

TYPE III.34 These are narrow-mouthed vases with a mediumheight neck (Fig. 2.23:326, 327). The neck is undifferentiated from the body. They have a markedly outward-leaning rim. This type occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, type K/E7, pl. 22), in Nestor’s Cave (Sampson 1980, fig. 16:14), in the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, fig. 18:178), and at Ayio Gala (Hood 1981, Upper Cave II, fig. 36:224, 225), Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 41), and Kalythies on Rhodes (Sampson 1987a). 325 (537). Fragment of outward-leaning neck of a coarse, closed or wide-mouthed vase. Neck differentiated from body in curved carination. Uniform rim with rounded top. Gray smooth surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 326 (596). Fragment of neck of a coarse closed vase. Uniform everted rim. Gray surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CWest 3. 327 (632). Fragment of rim, neck, and shoulder of a closed, thin-walled vase. Everted top of rim. Uniform carination from neck to shoulder. Diam. rim 0.08 m. C4. 328 (822). Fragment of rim and body of a closed vase. Everted rim with pointed top, differentiated by a curved carination. Burnished surface with brown slip. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 7.

TYPE III.35 This is a rather wide-mouthed, closed vase with an everted rim (Fig. 2.23:329–331, 335). Its rim is similar to Type II.33. It has walls of even thickness and no neck. This type occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 50:376) and at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 48). 329 (182). Fragment of rim of a plain coarse burnished vase. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A3. 330 (189). Fragment of slightly everted rim of a plain coarse vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.025 m. A3. 331 (253). Fragment of rim-neck of a coarse, thinwalled vase. Brown surface. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A3. 332 (411). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a widemouthed vase. Thin, almost vertical, walls slightly inward-leaning close to mouth. High everted rim, differentiated from body by an open curved carination. Light brown, smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim > 0.15 m. CEast 11, 2, 3, 5, 6. 333 (416). Fragment of neck of a deep closed, thinwalled vase. Vertical neck. Uniform rim, differentiated from body by a smooth open curved carination. Red surface, monochrome burnished on the outside, coarse and rough on the inside. Red core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Diam. rim 0.10 m. CEast 13, 7–9. 334 (442). Fragment of neck of a coarse closed vase. Walls inward-leaning close to mouth. Upright neck, differentiated from body by a smooth open curved carination. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brown rough surface. Brownish-gray core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 9, 1–3. 335 (478). Fragment of everted rim and body of a coarse vase. Rim cylindrical in section. Red surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A3. 336 (526). Small fragment of rim and shoulder of a wide-mouthed vase. Thin walls inward-leaning close to rim. Rim cylindrical in section. Brown smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.13 m. CWest 6, 5–6. 337 (536). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a closed or wide-mouthed vase. Thin walls, inward-leaning close to rim. Thin low upright rim. Rough surface, reddish brown on the outside, gray on the inside, with traces of a brush. Brownish-gray core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Diam. rim 0.20 m. CEast 11, 8–9.

TYPE III.36 These are closed, fairly wide-mouthed vases with a low upright neck (Fig. 2.23:338–341). There is no explicit differentiation of the neck from the body. A

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

similar type was recovered at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 135, table 20), although the latter is carinated at the shoulder. 338 (181). Fragment of rim, low neck, and body of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Carination at base of neck. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.044 m. A3. 339 (230). Fragment of slightly everted rim of a plain coarse vase. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A4. 340 (293). Fragment of rim with pointed, slightly everted top. Burnished surface. Coarse dark brown clay. Max. dim. 0.048 m. A4, 1. 341 (664). Fragment of low neck of a closed vase. Burnished lustrous surface. Black clay with inclusions. Max. dim. 0.025 m. A6.

TYPE III.37 These closed vases have low, outward-leaning necks (Fig. 2.23:342, 343). These are vases with a narrow neck or wide mouth, and they are markedly carinated at the shoulder. The rim of the vessel is of even thickness and is not rounded. There is no indication of a handle. This type has been recovered in abundance at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 51: types 22, 23, 24; 129:type 6; 131:type 17), and it also occurs at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 164, fig. 49:422). 342 (634). Fragment of outward-leaning neck of a coarse closed vase. Reddish surface. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.10 m. C5. 343 (637b). Fragment of mouth of a thin-walled, closed vase. Reddish-brown surface. Dark core. Relatively fine clay. Diam. rim 0.11 m. A7.

TYPE III.38 These are closed vases with an upright, mediumheight neck (Fig. 2.24:344). These vases have a narrow neck or a wide mouth and no carination at the shoulder. A similar type was recovered at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 49:75). 344 (451). Fragment of rim, neck, and body of a coarse vase uniform in profile. Rim and neck slightly outward-leaning. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A5east. 345 (530). Fragment of neck of a closed or widemouthed, thin-walled vase. Medium-height, vertical neck, differentiated from shoulder by an open curved carination. Uniform rim with thin flat top. Black surface with traces of burnishing. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 7.

43

TYPE III.39 This is a closed vase with a tall narrow, outwardleaning neck (Fig. 2.24:346, 347, 350). This vessel is carinated at the shoulder, and has a uniform rim of even thickness. Rim fragment no. 347 is hollowed on the inside. This type occurs at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 113, table 30), in the Cave of Lakes at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 141, table 22), and at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 41). 346 (72). Fragment of a closed, thin-walled vase. Inward-leaning walls become everted close to top of rim. Brown monochrome slipped surface. Max. dim. 0.036 m. A2. 347 (74). Fragment of high neck or high rim of a closed vase. Differentiated from body by an obtuse carination. Dark brown, almost black, fine-smoothed surface. Brown core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A2. 348 (311). Fragment of neck of a coarse vase. Preserved carination on lower part of neck. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. A4, 2. 349 (551). Two sherds of neck of a closed spherical, thin-walled vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.08 m. A7. 350 (656). Fragment of neck and rim of a coarse closed vase. Slightly outward-leaning walls. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.13 m. A4.

TYPE III.40 These closed vases have a low, outward-leaning neck (Fig. 2.24:351–353, 356). Numerous variations of this type occur, depending on the outward inclination of the neck. These vessels have a rounded or pointed rim. Fragment no. 356 has a peculiar inverted top of its rim. 351 (69). Fragment of a closed vase with low, markedly outward-leaning neck-rim, which is differentiated from body by carination. Thin walls. Spherical in profile. Brown-slipped surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A2. 352 (200). Fragment of rim, low neck, and body of a monochrome, thin-walled vase with markedly outwardleaning neck. Carinated at base of neck. Dark brown surface and core. Black slip. Max. dim. 0.10 m. A3. 353 (268). Fragment of rim of a monochrome closed vase. Rather flat rim with pointed top. Brownish gray burnished and slipped surface. Similarly brownish-gray core. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A4. 354 (262). Fragment of rim of a plain closed vase. Slightly everted rim, semi-cylindrical in section. Gray surface and core. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A4.

44

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

355 (528). Fragment of a low, outward-leaning neck, differentiated from shoulder by a curved carination. Uniform everted rim with rounded top. Brown surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. CEast 8, 1–4. 356 (535). Small fragment of low, outward-leaning neck of a closed, thin-walled vase. Rim with flat top, oblique on the inside with pointed edge. Preserved carination at base of neck. Dark brown, rough surface. Diam. rim 0.13 m. CEast 8, 4–6.

TYPE III.41 This type is represented by vases with a narrow, vertical, low or medium-height, undifferentiated neck (Fig. 2.24:357). This vessel has a rounded rim. There are numerous variations of the type, depending on the thickness of the neck. This type occurs in Upper Cave II of Ayio Gala (Hood 1981, fig. 36:217), and at Elateia (Weinberg 1962, pl. 66d), Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 44), Kalythies on Rhodes (Sampson 1987a, fig. 44:455, 464), and Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 162, fig. 49:30, 68). 357 (26). Fragment of slightly outward-leaning, medium-height neck of a monochrome closed vase. Uniform rim with pointed top. Brown surface and core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A1. 358 (424). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a deep closed vase. Upright, medium-height, undifferentiated neck. Uniform asymmetrical rim with rounded top. Brown rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dims. 0.06, 0.045 m. CEast 16, 3.

TYPE III.42 These vases have a high vertical, narrowmouthed neck (Fig. 2.24:359, 360). They have a differentiated, markedly everted rim. Fragment no. 359, with a curved neck, represents a variation of this type. Numerous variations of this type occur on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 41, 42). 359 (19). Fragment of a closed, thin-walled vase with vertical neck. Body markedly convex in profile. Red surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A1. 360 (185). Fragment of slightly everted rim of a monochrome closed, thin-walled vase. Gray burnished and slipped surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.15 m. A3. 361 (805). Fragment of a closed vase with walls flaring toward the top. Neck differentiated from shoulder by a curved carination. Uniform rim with rounded top.

Reddish surface, burnished on the outside, smoothed on the inside. Gray core. Fine clay. Diam. rim 0.09 m. CEast 11.

TYPE III.43 These vases have a high, inward-leaning neck (Fig. 2.24:362, 363). This vessel has a uniform rim, narrow mouth, and carinated shoulder. This type is very common at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 141, table 22). Similar vases have been recovered at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 51:type 20), and in Nestor’s Cave (Sampson 1980, fig. 16:5). Fragment no. 374, with a peculiar narrow curved neck and a thickening, inward-leaning rim, is ascribed to the same type. 362 (23). Fragment of a coarse closed vase with slightly inward-leaning walls. Vertical neck. Uniform rim with pointed top. Carination at base of neck. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A1. 363 (289). Fragment of rim with flat top of a coarse vase. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A4.

TYPE III.44 These are vases with an undifferentiated neck and flaring, spherical belly (Fig. 2.24:365, 366). They may be wide- or narrow-mouthed, and have a differentiated, rounded rim. There are variations of this type depending on the formation of the rim. These vases are ascribed to type B1 at Kephala (Coleman 1977, 15, pl. 34:E–H). At Tharrounia, these vases also carry a handle (Sampson 1993a, figs. 43:339; 125:147). Similar vases are found at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, fig. 51:591). 364 (436). Fragment of neck of a closed vase. Low neck, undifferentiated from body with a smooth curved carination. Uniform rim with rounded top. Rough surface, brownish gray on the outside, gray on the inside. Brown core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Diam. rim 0.17 m. CEast 12–13, 7–9. 365 (590). Fragment of rim and body of a closed spherical vase. Uniform rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CWest 5, 5–6. 366 (592). Fragment of a closed vase with low neck and rounded rim. Burnished, dark brown surface on the inside and outside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CWest 5, 5–6.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

TYPE III.45 These deep vases are S-shaped in profile (Fig. 2.24:367). Their shape has not been fully restored. The profile and differentiated rim with handle of these vases are similar to Type III.23, an open vessel type. The difference between these types consists of the width of the mouth of the vase. 367 (260). Fragment of rim and handle of a closed, wide-mouthed vase. Walls S-shaped in profile. Rounded, outward-leaning rim. Brown surface. Diam. rim 0.15 m. CEast 8.

TYPE III.46 These are vases with a narrow, tall, vertical neck (Fig. 2.24:368, 369). Many types of this vase occur at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, figs. 42, 44). 368 (277). Fragment of rim and neck of a coarse closed vase. Carination at base of neck. Brownish-gray surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.16 m. A4. 369 (292). Fragment of neck of a closed vase. Preserved carination on lower part. Dark brown surface, slightly burnished walls. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A4, 1.

TYPE III.47 This is a closed, rather wide-mouthed vase with walls that are crooked in profile and a markedly inward-leaning neck (Fig. 2.24:370, 371). There is carination at the shoulder, which is not angular but curved. Fragment no. 371 has an unusually shaped carination. This type is uncommon. 370 (578a). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a closed coarse vase. Brown monochrome surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CEast 9. 371 (845a). Fragment of rim and carinated shoulder of a coarse closed vase. Neck inward-leaning. Red surface. Max. dim. 0.047; diam. rim 0.13 m. CEast 8.

45

373 (422a). Fragment of neck of a deep closed, thinwalled vase. High upright neck, slightly convex. Uniform rim with rounded top. Brown monochrome surface with traces of fine burnishing and lustrousness. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.20; h. neck 0.08 m. CEast 6. 374 (512a). Wide-mouthed, thin-walled vase. Uniform vertical rim with rounded top. Carries a slightly angular carination at shoulder. Diam. rim 0.17–0.20 m. A4. 375 (578b). Fragment of neck and shoulder of a closed vase. Red burnished surface on the outside, coarse on the inside. Gray core. Diam. neck 0.14 m. CWest 5. 376 (667). Fragment of neck of a coarse closed vase. Groove at base of neck. Red rough surface. Off-white to brown clay. Max. dim. 0.052 m. CEast 7. 377 (845b). Fragment of neck and shoulder of a large closed vase. Thin red slip. Reddish clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. CEast 11. 378 (846a). Fragment of rim and shoulder of a large closed vase. Brown clay. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CEast 12.

TYPE III.49 These are vases with an angular carination at the shoulder (Fig. 2.25:379). This is a very widemouthed vessel type. 379 (512b). Fragment of neck and rim of a closed spherical vase. Preserved carination at shoulder. Light brown surface. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.22 m. CWest 3.

TYPE III.50 These are wide-mouthed vases with a very high, outward-leaning neck (Fig. 2.25:380). A similar type occurs at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 50). 380 (422b). Fragment of neck of a coarse closed vase. Brown surface on the outside, gray on the inside. Diam. rim 0.13 m. CEast 11.

TYPE III.51 TYPE III.48 These vases have a biconical body and straight, markedly inward-leaning walls. Their rims are uniform. This vessel is rather narrow-mouthed (Fig. 2.25:372, 378). Similar shapes occur at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, fig. 51). 372 (240). Fragment of neck and body of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Groove at base of neck. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A4, 1–2.

These medium-sized pithoid vases have a large rim diameter (Fig. 2.25:381). The maximum diameter of the rim exceeds 0.30 m. This vessel has rather thick walls, and a uniform or differentiated rim. The thick rim of fragment no. 381 is hollowed on the inside. 381 (428). Large fragment of rim and body of a coarse deep closed vase. Walls inward-leaning close to rim. Rim tends to become upright and is slightly differentiated from body by an open curved carination.

46

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Pointed oblique top. Red surface and core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.29 m. C5. 382 (432). Large fragment of rim and body of a closed or wide-mouthed vase. Deep curved body. Walls inward-leaning close to rim. Asymmetrical pointed top on uniform rim. Red rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.28 m. CEast 9, 7–8.

TYPE III.52 This type of large pithoid vase has a very high, vertical neck and a carinated shoulder (Figs. 2.25:383, 384.1). The rim of this vessel is uniform. The diameter of the rim exceeds 0.25 m. 383 (431). Large fragment of neck of a coarse deep, closed or wide-mouthed vase. High neck with straight, outward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. Preserved traces of an open curved carination that differentiates neck from shoulder. Brown rough

surface. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel inclusions. Diam. neck 0.28 m. CEast 6, 5–6. 384 (480). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse pithoid vessel. Rim with pointed top. Reddish coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. A3. 384.1 (670b). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse deep, wide-mouthed jar. Rim and body join to form an S-profile. Round articulated rim protruding outward. Brown-gray coarse surface. Black core, coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. CWest 3, 3.

TYPE III.53 These are wide-mouthed pithoid vases with a low neck (Fig. 2.25:385). 385 (558). Fragment of a closed vase spherical in profile. Outward-leaning rim. Groove at base of neck. Brown surface on the outside, red on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.26 m. CWest 3.

Handles (Figs. 2.25–2.31; Pl. 2.2) LN Ib handles appear in abundance at various Neolithic sites in Euboea (e.g., Tharrounia, Sampson 1993a), the Dodecanese (Sampson 1987a), and at Kastria in Kalavryta (Katsarou and Sampson 1997). Because of their solid manufacture handles are, in most cases, preserved intact. In the Cave of the Cyclops numerous types of handles can be distinguished, although their dating and chronological succession cannot easily be defined with certainty.

BROAD STRAP HANDLES ON BODY Broad, horizontally pierced, strap handles in a variety of types represent the most common shape among the handles, and are often located on the body of the vessel (Figs. 2.25–2.31). Handle no. 386 is exceptionally broad, with prominent edges on its lower part and a slightly hollowed back. Handle no. 390, also with prominent edges, is symmetrically narrow in the middle and is rather set off from the walls of the vase. Handle no. 410 is similar. Handle nos. 392 and 393 are angular in section and are also rather prominent from the walls. Handle nos. 394 and 425 are slightly asymmetrical, while handle no. 406 is fairly regular in shape. Handle no. 681 belongs to a different type with a markedly hollowed back.

BROAD STRAP HANDLES ON RIM Broad strap handles are also located at the rim of the vessel (Figs. 2.27–2.31; Pl. 2.2). Vase no. 448 carries a regular, though fairly asymmetrical, handle, which has prominent edges on its lower part and is not narrower in its middle part. Handle nos. 464 and 466 are regular with straight sides. Handle nos. 404 and 405 belong to a rather different type, which has prominent edges on its lower part and is narrower in its middle part. Handle nos. 404, 420, 442, 444, and 470 are characteristically curved at their upper part. Handle nos. 442 and 444 are hollowed on their back. Handle no. 459 is similar, with markedly prominent edges on its lower part. Handle nos. 440, 453, and 471 have a bow-shaped upper part. Handle no. 465 is smaller and moderately broad. Handle no. 451 is characteristically convex, similar to handles found mainly on the body of vases. Handle no. 280 has an uncommon triangular shape with prominent edges on its upper part.

NARROW STRAP HANDLES Narrow strap handles at the rim (Figs. 2.25–2.28, 2.30, 2.31; Pl. 2.2) are most common (291, 424, 461, 462). Handle nos. 387 and 388 belong to a simple type. Handle nos. 395 and 412 have prominent

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

edges. Handle nos. 423, 427, and 455 have prominent edges on both their upper and lower parts. Handle no. 413 is peculiarly convex at its sides.

CYLINDRICAL HANDLES Cylindrical handles are generally uncommon on Neolithic pottery (Figs. 2.26, 2.28–2.30). Two vertical handles (422, 443) and one horizontal handle (445), placed at the rim, one vertical handle (403), one horizontal handle (418), and a handle with a hornlike protuberance (463) are the examples from Youra.

HORIZONTAL HANDLES This type is uncommon in Neolithic pottery (Figs. 2.26–2.29, 2.31). Two examples from Youra have a horizontal thin strap handle with a markedly angular carination on the shoulder of the vessel (407, 649) and belong to vases of the same type. A simple broad strap handle shape (431) occurs at Youra, as do other types that have prominent edges or are markedly narrow in their middle part. A number of examples of a peculiar handle that is trapezoidal in shape occur (436). Horizontal handle no. 411 is ellipsoid in section. Occasionally, bowtie-shaped handles occur. These are broader at their ends and narrower in their middle part (391, 397). Others have markedly prominent edges on their lower part (401, 663). Handle 663 also carries horizontal incisions along its edges.

HANDLES WITH HORNLIKE PROTUBERANCES Hornlike lugs on handles are rather uncommon (Figs. 2.26, 2.31). The lugs are usually conical with a pointed top, e.g., those on fragment nos. 476 and 477. Fragment 402 carries the handle on its rim, while the lug is cylindrical with a flat top and similar to the unusual handle no. 475. Handle no. 478 carries a wart on its upper part. This type of handle mainly occurs within LN Ib strata or strata of the transitional phase between LN Ib and LN IIa. At Tharrounia, it is mainly assigned to LN Ib (Sampson 1993a, 160, figs. 174:2; 175:5). The type’s early chronology is evidenced at Sitagroi (Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster 1986, fig. 11:6)

47

and Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 45, pl. XXXII:7). In the Dodecanese, the wart type is uncommon (Sampson 1987a, 27, pls. 2, 5, 8, figs. 20, 23). According to Furness (1956), the wart type was derived from hornlike lugs and constitutes a later form. Handles with warts have been recovered also in LN II settlements such as Kephala (Coleman 1977, pl. 38), Yali (Sampson 1988c, pl. 7), Tigani on Samos (Furness 1956), Emporio on Chios (Hood 1981, pl. 32:170), the Athenian Agora (Immerwahr 1971, pl. 13:91), and at numerous sites in the Peloponnese (Phelps 1975, fig. 51:3, 6, 16, 20). 386 (1). Fragment of a closed vase with low broad strap handle on curved carination of body. Handle markedly set off from walls of body; on both sides, thick, outward-rolling edges. Reddish surface. Grayish, tile-colored core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. A1. 387 (2). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with straight walls and high narrow vertical strap handle. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A1. 388 (5). Fragment of body of a vase with narrow vertical strap handle, which is narrower on its lower part. Brown surface on the outside, slipped and smoothed; slip poorly preserved on handle. Dark brown on the inside, rather worn. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A1. 389 (7). Vertical broad strap handle on the body of a coarse vase with curved profile. Handle markedly set off from walls of body. Red rough surface. Similarly red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A1. 390 (9). Fragment of body of a vase with broad strap handle. Handle markedly curved, not finely modelled. Red surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A1. 391 (12). Fragment of body of a large vase with horizontal strap handle. Handle broader at ends. Narrower upper perforation and broader lower perforation for practical reasons (the handle is better adjusted to one’s hand when vase is carried), resulting in a downward-pointing funnel shape. Smoothed surface, reddish brown and worn in places on the outside, brown on the inside. Brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.13 m. A1. 392 (16). Broad vertical strap handle on body of a plain coarse vase. Rough surface, reddish brown on the outside, brownish gray on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A1. 393 (20b). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with broad vertical strap handle. Reddish worn surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A1. 394 (87). Fragment of a vase with broad vertical strap handle, markedly set-off from body, almost triangular in section. Red smoothed surface. Brown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. A2.

48

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

395 (88). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with thin vertical strap handle. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A2. 396 (89). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with a narrow low, almost tubular, vertical strap handle. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A2. 397 (91). Fragment of body of a vase with vertically pierced, horizontal strap handle. Gray surface, preserved traces of slip. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A2. 398 (92). Fragment of body of a vase with low, almost tubular, broad vertical strap handle. Reddish worn surface. Similarly reddish core. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A2. 399 (93). Fragment of body of a vase with low, almost tubular, broad vertical strap handle. Handle rather thick in section. Reddish-brown surface on the outside, brownish gray on the inside. Core also brownish gray. Max. dim. 0.095 m. A2. 400 (101). Fragment of body and rim of an open coarse vase with hemispherical profile. Broad strap handle incorporated with rim. Reddish-brown, slipped, and rather smoothed surface on the outside, brown and rough on the inside. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A2. 401 (102). Vertically pierced, horizontal strap handle with ribbed edges on body of a plain coarse vase. Light red surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.10 m. A2. 402 (212). Fragment of a monochrome open bowl with vertical walls preserving a lug handle of roughly elephant-head type attached to the rim. Handle has a rectangular, slightly outward-leaning ledge on top. Rim uniform to body. Reddish surface, slipped and polished. Gray core, coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. CEast 8, 7. 403 (104b). Fragment of vertical cylindrical handle of a small monochrome vase. Black burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A2. 404 (107). Fragment of body and rim of an open vase with broad vertical strap handle. Handle incorporated with rim and rising high over it (end of rim not preserved). Curved ribs starting from lower edge of handle. Dark brown, smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.085 m. A5. 405 (108). Fragment of an open vase with body carinated on its upper part. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim and rising high over it. Curved ribs starting from lower edge of handle. Brownish-tinged, worn, rather smooth surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A2. 406 (112). Fragment of body of vase with broad vertical strap handle. Handle elliptical in section. On upper end of the handle is a low horizontal lug. Surface is brown slipped and burnished on the outside; gray coarse and worn on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A3.

407 (136). Horizontal thin strap handle with angular carination on shoulder of a plain coarse vase. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. C1. 408 (175). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with vertical lug handle narrower in its middle part and broader at its edges. Off-white surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A3. 409 (198). Broad vertical strap handle rising above rim of a coarse vase. Greenish-gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A3. 410 (199). Broad vertical strap handle on body of a coarse vase. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.11 m. A3. 411 (243). Horizontal handle with ellipsoid section on the body of a coarse vase. Brownish-gray surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A4, 1–2. 412 (244). Thin vertical strap handle on body of a coarse vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A4, 1–2. 413 (245). Thin vertical strap handle on body of a coarse vase. Brownish-gray surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A4, 1–2. 414 vacat. 415 (255). Narrow vertical strap handle detached from body wall. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A4. 416 (259). Broad vertical strap handle on body of a monochrome vase. Handle narrows toward its lower part. Two grooves along both sides of its back. Dark brown, slipped and burnished surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A4. 417 (283). Fragment of body of a closely curved open vase bearing a horizontal lug handle on upper part. Burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A4, 1. 418 (288). Cylindrical, vertically pierced strap handle. Reddish brown, slightly burnished surface, irregular on the inside. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A4. 419 vacat. 420 (306). Broad vertical strap handle on rim of a coarse vase. Brownish-gray surface. Max. dim. 0.095 m. Surface find. 421 (307). Fragment of a broad vertical strap handle detached from the body of a coarse vase. Reddishbrown surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A/D 2. 422 (317). Vertical cylindrical handle incorporated with rim of a coarse vase. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.10 m. A1. 423 (364). Thin vertical handle, cylindrical in section, on body of a coarse vase. Coarse clay with inclusions. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A5. 424 (401). Fragment of a deep open vase. Thin vertical strap handle rising from rim. Max. dim. 0.115 m. A3.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

425 (475). Broad strap handle on body of a coarse vase. Handle narrows on its lower part. Brown surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A2. 426 (492). Vertical strap handle detached from the body of a plain coarse vase. Handle is broad at its upper part but narrows at its lower part. Worn surface. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A4. 427 (550). Thin vertical strap handle on shoulder of a small closed vase. Red surface on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.032 m. C3. 428 (584). Thin horizontal strap handle with large perforation on the upper body of an open or broadmouthed vase. Very worn. Red surface. Reddish-gray, coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.12 m. CWest 5. 429 (648). Fragment of a coarse vase with vertically pierced, horizontal strap handle. Red coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. A5. 430 (676). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with small horizontal strap handle. Handle triangular in profile, with vertical elliptical perforation. Relatively smooth surface, brown on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.077 m. CWest 5, 5–6. 431 (725). Fragment of body of a vase with thin, vertically pierced, horizontal strap handle. Black surface on the outside, with traces of burnish; gray, coarse, and rough on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.063. CEast 13, 4, 5. 432 (728). Fragment of body of an open vase with slightly curved profile and small, narrow, vertical strap handle. Brown smoothed surface with traces of slip. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel particles. Max. dim. 0.06; h. handle 0.03 m. CWest 5. 433 (729). Fragment of body of a coarse deep, widemouthed vase with spherical profile. Possibly upright neck, differentiated from body by an open curved carination. In the middle of belly is a broad vertical strap handle, markedly set-off, semi-circular in section. Brown, relatively smooth surface. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel particles. Max. dim. 0.13; max. diam. body 0.28; h. handle 0.05 m. CEast 13, 7–9. 434 (738). Fragment of body with horizontal handle on the shoulder of the vessel. Handle cylindrical in section, with large circular perforation. Light-colored core. Red worn surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. CEast 9, 5–6. 435 (772). Fragment of body of a vase with part of vertical strap handle. Slipped but worn surface, dark brown on the outside, brown on the inside. Reddish-brown core. Clay with abundant inclusions. Max. dim. 0.059 m. CEast 10. 436 (773). Two fragments of body of a large vase with vertically pierced, broad horizontal strap handle. Narrower upper perforation and broader lower perforation, resulting in an upward-pointing funnel shape, similar to no. 391 above. Slipped, fine-smoothed surface, brown on the outside, brownish gray on the inside.

49

Reddish-yellow core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.165 m. CEast 11. 437 (774). Fragment of body of a large vase with a broad vertical strap handle. Rough, reddish-brown, variously tinged surface with traces of slip. Similarly reddishbrown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.13 m. CEast 10. 438 (797). Fragment of a large vase with a broad vertical strap handle. Spool-shaped handle concave in the middle of its back. Protuberances along the inner side of the edges of the handle, due to pressure applied during its adjustment on to the body of the vase. Gray surface (dense salts) on the outside; light gray and rough on the inside. Light gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.115 m. CEast 11. 439 vacat. 440 (6). Fragment of rim of a thin-walled vase with curved profile and incorporated broad vertical strap handle. Handle slightly hollowed along its back. Brownish-gray, smoothed surface, not slipped. Similarly brownish-gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A1. 441 (21). Fragment of a coarse, wide-mouthed vase with walls inward-leaning close to rim. Uniform rim with flat top. Traces of the edge of a detached (possibly broad) vertical strap handle just below rim. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A1. 442 (85). Fragment of a thin-walled bowl with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with pointed inverted top. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim and rising over it. Handle slightly hollowed along its back. Dark brown surface on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Clay with coarse inclusions. Max. dim. 0.10 m. A2. 443 (86). Fragment of a thin-walled, hemispherical bowl. Uniform rim with pointed top, slightly inverted. Vertical cylindrical handle incorporated with rim and rising over it. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A2. 444 (90). Fragment of a deep, wide-mouthed vase with thin upright spherical walls and uniform rim with rounded top. Low broad vertical strap handle, hollowed along the middle of its back, incorporated with rim. Brown, relatively smoothed surface. Similarly brown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A2. 445 (113). Fragment of rim of an open shallow vase with curved walls. Uniform rim with rounded top. Horizontal arched handle, cylindrical in section, partially preserved, incorporated with rim and not rising over it. Brown (reddish in places) surface, relatively fine smoothed. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.09 m. A3. 446 (124). Fragment of body and rim of a coarse open vase. Broad strap handle, slightly hollowed along back, incorporated with rim and rising over it. Red surface with traces of burnish. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel particles. Max. dim. 0.077 m. CEast 11, 3, 6.

50

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

447 (127). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with vertical walls. Uniform rim with flat top. Broad vertical strap handle rising from, and over, rim. Dark brown worn surface, possibly burnished originally. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A4. 448 (176). Fragment of rim of a vase with broad vertical strap handle. Brownish-gray burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.088 m. A3. 449 (204). Fragment of body of a vase with curved profile and a well-formed, narrow vertical strap handle. Red-slipped surface, relatively smooth on the outside, burnished on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.10; h. handle 0.06 m. CEast 13, 7–9. 450 (242). Fragment of neck-body of a large coarse closed vase. Traces of a broken broad vertical strap handle. Light brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.11 m. A4, 1–2. 451 (252). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase, with broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Brownish-gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.085 m. A3. 452 (276). Fragment of rim of a plain coarse vase, with broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A5, pond. 453 (280). Fragment of rim of a medium-sized, coarse vase with broad strap handle incorporated with rim. Gray surface. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A4, 1. 454 (284). Fragment of neck and body of a thinwalled, coarse closed vase. Traces of a broad strap handle on body. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A4, 1. 455 (366). Fragment of neck and shoulder of a burnished closed vase with small vertical strap handle at juncture of neck and body. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A5. 456 (405). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl with almost straight walls. Uniform rim with thin curved top, slightly everted. On the outside, 0.03 m below top of rim, broken broad vertical strap handle in oblique position. Reddish-brown (gray in places) surface, smoothed. Reddish-brown core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.25 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 457 (427a). Fragment of rim of an open vase with broken, incorporated broad vertical strap handle. High everted rim, differentiated from body by carination. Handle also adjusted to rim with carination. Rough surface, brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 458 (514). Fragment of rim of a small coarse vase, possibly an open cup. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. CWest 3. 459 (529). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl with spherical profile. Broad strap handle with ribbed edges incorporated with rim. Brown surface, red in places. Diam. body 0.36 m. A2.

460 (560). Fragment of an open cup, with broad strap handle incorporated with rim. Black surface with traces of burnish. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A2. 461 (575). Fragment of rim of an open cup. Traces of a narrow vertical strap handle incorporated with rim; handle not preserved. Red surface, very worn. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A5. 462 (588). Fragment of rim of a coarse open cup. Narrow vertical strap handle incorporated with rim and rising over it. Reddish-brown surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.11 m. CWest 4. 463 (589). Fragment of a small open vase, with cylindrical vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Handle with vertical groove on its back. Gray to black surface and core. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CWest 5. 464 (636). Fragment of a thick-walled, open cup, with broad strap handle incorporated with rim. Red burnished surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.10 m. C5. 465 (663). Fragment of a coarse open, thin-walled cup with an everted rim. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Brownish-gray surface. Max. dim. 0.05 m. CWest 4. 466 (671). Fragment of an open cup, with broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Gray surface and core; surface smoothed on the inside. Max. dim. 0.082 m. C5. 467 (723). Fragment of rim and body of a shallow open, thin-walled bowl with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with pointed top. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim and rising slightly over it. Dark brown, smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.22 m. CEast 13, 7–9. 468 (726). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open, thin-walled vase with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. On the back of the handle is a seed or gravel imprint. Adjacent to the lower edge of the handle, a low relief curved band starts from the body to the rim. Smoothed surface, brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. C5. 469 (730). Fragment of an open vase with curved body. Uniform rim with thin top. Small vertical strap handle incorporated with rim and rising just over it. Black rough surface. Brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045; w. handle 0.012 m. CEast 7. 470 (731). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase. Relatively thin walls. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim and hollowed along its back. Brown rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.25 m. CEast 7, 2, 5. 471 (732). Fragment of rim and body of an open, thick-walled vase with spherical profile, slightly inward-leaning close to rim. Broad vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Handle ribbed along its edges and middle of its back. Smoothed surface, brown on the

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

outside, black on the inside. Brown core. Coarse clay with gravel particles. Diam. rim 0.25 m. CEast 10. 472 (780). Fragment of an open vase with vertical walls and uniform rim. Narrow vertical strap handle incorporated with rim. Brownish-gray, smoothed, and thin-slipped surface. Dark brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. CEast 11. 473 (796). Fragment of body of an open vase (a cooking pot) with outward-leaning walls. Handle and small part of the rim preserved. Broad vertical strap handle, not incorporated with rim, on shoulder of vase. Slightly everted rim with pointed top. Gray surface on the outside, covered with thick slip. Surface worn from most parts of the body and handle. Reddish-brown surface on handle. Gray smoothed surface on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.105 m. CEast 12. 474 (824). Fragment of rim and body of a closed vase. Rounded rim, neck carinated to body. Traces of the edges of a small horizontal handle or lug on body. Buff rough surface. Gray core. Coarse impure clay. Diam. rim 0.09 m. CEast 12.

51

475 (241). A unique vertical strap handle, triangular in profile, on body of vase. Rounded hornlike lug, also triangular in section, in the center of its back. Mastoid lugs, in the shape of warts, on each of four edges of handle. Wavy-lined sides. Symmetrical cavities on its lower part and confronting grooves at joint with body. Handle may represent an anthropomorphic seated figure or a female figure with emphasized pubic triangle. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.11 m. A4, 1–2. 476 (519). Fragment of body of a small vase with surface burnished on the outside. Thin strap handle with incisions along its back and a small hornlike lug on its upper part. Max. dim. 0.05 m. CEast 3. 477 (547). Vertical strap handle on body of a coarse vase, with hornlike lug on its upper part. Red surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A7. 478 (779). Fragment of body with a vertical strap handle elliptical in section. Plastic wart on handle’s upper edge. Rough surface, brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.095 m. CEast 10, 9.

Lugs WARTS AND UNPERFORATED LUGS Unperforated lugs in various types are fairly common (Figs. 2.32–2.34; Pl. 2.2). Small mastoid protrusions served as a potter’s mark or prevented the vase from slipping during transport (Vitelli 1977). The conical type (492, 537, 575) is the simplest, while oblong lugs more or less set off from the walls of the vase (494, 497, 545, 557) are also common. Often these lugs are set below the rim (574). The oblique oblong lug on fragment no. 556 belongs to a rare type. Some of the solid unperforated ledges may have served a practical purpose, providing a means to lift the pot (484, 485, 540). Circular warts on small or large vases (488) generally occur in rather small numbers at all Neolithic sites.

PERFORATED LUGS Perforated lugs, which have been pierced either horizontally or vertically, occur in a number of shapes on Late Neolithic vases (Figs. 2.32–2.34). Horizontally pierced lugs with an almost round shape are rather common (479–482). These are not particularly set off from the walls of the vase. In some cases, they carry a very narrow perforation (538). A number of lugs are quadrilateral in shape

and pierced vertically or horizontally (580.2). The type of lug in the shape of a grubbing mattock (490) also occurs; it is characteristic of LN Ib at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a). Single or double triangular lugs are similarly triangular in section (543). Tubular lugs, pierced either horizontally (486, 487) or vertically (491, 493, 496), also occur. Vertically pierced lugs are rather uncommon (535, 541, 567, 576, 580.1) and are quite different from their MN counterparts. A rare type of lug carries three vertical perforations (534). 479 (3). Broad vertical lug with trapezoidal profile and section. Small horizontal perforation. Brown coarse rough surface. Black core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A1. 480 (4). Fragment of body with horizontally pierced strap lug. Gray rough surface. Similarly gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A1. 481 (8). Vertical lug with almost triangular profile, curved section, and circular horizontal perforation. Brownish-gray surface and core. Coarse impure clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A1. 482 (10). Horizontal pierced tubular lug. Red worn surface. Gray core. Clay with minimal inclusions. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A1. 483 (11). Fragment of a coarse vase with relief decoration of small unperforated mastoid lugs (three of which

52

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

are preserved) in a horizontal row. Reddish surface, smoothed on the outside, worn on the inside. Similarly red core. Coarse clay with small gravel particles. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A1. 484 (17). Fragment of body of a vase with unperforated horizontal lug. Lug trapezoidal in section with broad, slightly concave sides. Variegated (reddish-brown to brownish-gray) rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A1. 485 (18). Small fragment of body of a coarse vase with a hornlike unperforated, upward-leaning lug. Rough surface, reddish brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Grayish-black core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A1. 486 (56). Horizontal tubular lug almost rectangular in section with horizontal perforation. Worn surface with traces of reddish-brown slip on the outside. Reddish-gray core of lug, gray core of walls. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.038 m. A1. 487 (57a). Broad, horizontally pierced tubular lug, triangular in section. Fine-smoothed surface, reddish brown on the outside, dark brown on the inside. Black core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A1. 488 (58). Fragment of a vase with prominent plastic unperforated lug in the shape of a knob. Reddish surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.038 m. A1. 489 (83). Broad horizontal unperforated lug, slightly upward-leaning, thin and rectangular in section. Brown surface on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055; L. lug 0.04 m. A2. 490 (84). Fragment of a vase with pierced horizontal lug in the shape of a grubbing mattock. Lug triangular in section, slightly upward-leaning. Light brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A2. 491 (94). Fragment of a vase with vertical tubular lug, vertically pierced. Black smoothed surface. Dark brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A2. 492 (95). Fragment of a vase with unperforated mastoid lug. Worn surface, brownish gray on the outside, brown on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.057 m. A2. 493 (96). Broken, vertically pierced, tubular lug with cylindrical perforation. Surface very worn on the outside. Reddish-brown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A2. 494 (97). Fragment of a coarse vase with an imperfect, small and horizontal, unperforated oblong lug. Lug triangular in section. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A2. 495 (99). Fragment of a vase with spherical body, relatively thick-walled. Small unperforated mastoid lug. Brown to red, rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.085 m. A2. 496 (103). Fragment of body of a plain coarse vase bearing two vertical tubular lugs. Brown rough surface.

Brownish-gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A2. 497 (105). Fragment of body of a vase with small and low, unperforated oblong lug. Lug triangular in section. Brownish-gray surface, relatively smoothed, chipped on the outside. Black core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A2. 498 (106). Fragment of the body of a coarse vase preserving part of a tubular, horizontally pierced lug, rather triangular in section. Surface brownish gray, smoothed, and slipped on the outside, black and rough on the inside. Reddish-brown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A2. 499 (171). Fragment of a coarse vase with unperforated horizontal lug. Lug triangular in section. Reddishbrown surface. Max. dim. 0.059 m. A3. 500 (218). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Preserved traces of unperforated lug close to rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse impure clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. A4. 501 (224). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with horizontal unperforated lug. Preserved plastic decoration attached to lower edge of lug. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A4. 502 (225). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with unperforated mastoid lug. Light brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A4. 503 (226). Fragment of body of a plain coarse vase with vertically pierced lug. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A4. 504 (246). Vertically pierced lug of a plain coarse vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A4, 1–2. 505 (247). Fragment of body of a vase with unperforated mastoid lug. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A4, 1–2. 506 (256). Vertically pierced tubular lug of a coarse vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A3. 507 (257). Fragment of body of a burnished and slipped vase. Double horizontal lug with double vertical perforation. Dark brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.09 m. A4. 508 (265). Horizontally pierced lug of a coarse vase. Reddish surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A4. 509 (279). Unperforated lug, triangular in section, of a large coarse vase. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Coarse impure clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A4, 1. 510 (358). Fragment of a red monochrome vase with small, vertically pierced lug in the shape of a knob. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.063 m. A5. 511 (400). Fragment of a coarse vase with round wart. Max. dim. 0.083 m. A3. 512 (452). Horizontally pierced lug of a coarse closed vase, triangular in profile. Brown surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A5.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

513 (455). Unperforated knob-shaped lug of a plain coarse vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A4, 2. 514 (462). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with unperforated mastoid lug. Light brown surface. Brownish-gray core. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A6. 515 (493). Fragment of a coarse closed vase with unperforated triangular lug. Brownish-gray surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. B6. 516 (569). Horizontal tubular lug with horizontal perforation of a plain coarse vase. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.092 m. C4. 517 (585). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with vertically pierced strap lug. Brown surface on the outside, red on the inside. Max. dim. 0.065 m. C4. 518 (649). Vertical tubular lug of a coarse vase, vertically pierced. Red surface, smoothed on the outside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A5. 519 (677). Fragment of body with horizontal unperforated triangular lug, markedly upward-leaning. Brown coarse rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08; L. lug 0.055 m. CEast 7. 520 (678). Fragment of body of an open vase with prominent, small unperforated horizontal lug. Oblong profile with rounded corners. Reddis-brown, smoothed burnished surface. Light-colored core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.07; L. lug 0.02 m. CEast 7. 521 (684). Fragment of body of a vase with slightly prominent, small strap lug. Circular vertical perforation, curved in section. Burnished surface, red on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.049; h. lug 0.015 m. CEast 7. 522 (686). Fragment of body of a vase with two small unperforated mastoid lugs. Lugs triangular in section with upward-turned top. Red rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05; w. lugs 0.008; distance between lugs 0.01 m. CEast 11, 3–6. 523 (687). Fragment of body of a vase with markedly prominent, large and thick, unperforated horizontal lug. Lug, triangular in section, has arched profile with indented edge shaped by four symmetrical impressions. Gray, relatively smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.084; L. lug 0.086 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 524 (689). Fragment of body of an open vase with a vertically pierced, horizontal lug. Reddish-gray, coarse surface. Gray core. Well-fired, coarse clay with small gravel particles. Max. dim. 0.07; h. lug 0.03 m. CEast 13, 4, 5. 525 (690). Fragment of body of an open vase with small horizontal, slightly prominent, unperforated lug. Lug triangular in section with arched profile. Red surface, very well smoothed. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.056; L. lug 0.038 m. CEast 8, 5–6. 526 (691). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with large horizontal unperforated lug. Lug has flat upper

53

surface and oblong profile with rounded corners, and is relatively thin in section. Reddish brown, rough surface. Gray core. Coarse clay with gravel particles. Max. dim. 0.095; L. lug 0.082; w. lug 0.025 m. C5. 527 (724). Fragment of body of an open vase with slightly prominent, horizontal strap lug. Narrow vertical perforation. Surface monochrome reddish and rough on the outside, monochrome black and lustrous on the inside, with traces of burnish. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 528 (727). Fragment of body of a vase with horizontal triangular, slightly prominent lug. Elliptical vertical perforation. Surface brown and rough on the outside, gray and smoothed on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. CWest 6, 5–6. 529 (733). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with rounded top. Markedly prominent, small wart 0.018 m below rim, triangular in section. Brown smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.39 m. CEast 9, 1–3. 530 (736). Fragment of body of an open vase with slightly carinated profile. On the outside, small unperforated mastoid lugs in loose horizontal arrangement (two of which are preserved). Reddish-brown, monochrome, lustrous surface with traces of fine burnish. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. body 0.28; diam. lug 0.013 m. CEast 7. 531 (737). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with small horizontal lug. Lug cylindrical in section with elliptical vertical perforation. Brownish-gray, relatively smoothed surface. Similarly brownish-gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.061 m. CEast 12, 3–6. 532 (739). Fragment of body of a vase with round lug. Oblique perforation. Red lustrous surface with traces of fine burnish. Similarly red core. Coarse clay with small particles of gravel. Max. dim. 0.06; diam. lug 0.025 m. C5. 533 (778). Fragment of body of a vase with horizontal (almost trapezoidal), unperforated lug, triangular in section. Surface brown and worn with traces of slip on the outside; gray and rough on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. CEast 10. 534 (798). Fragment of a large vase with thin, horizontal oblong lug. Lug triangular in section, with three circular vertical perforations. Light brown surface. Brown to orange-red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.10 m. CEast 10. 535 (799). Fragment of a vase with horizontal triangular lug. Lug vertically pierced, triangular in section. Smoothed, slipped surface, dark brown on the outside, black on the inside. Brown core. Clay with fine inclusions. Max. dim. 0.042 m. CEast 10. 536 (800). Fragment of a vase with horizontal unperforated lug almost triangular in section. Rough surface, dark brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Dark

54

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

brown to gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.035 m. CEast 11. 537 (806). Fragment of a monochrome vase with low unperforated mastoid lug. Surface brown, slipped, and burnished on the outside, gray on the inside, with traces of smoothing. Similarly gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.025 m. CEast 12. 538 (809). Fragment of a pithoid vase with horizontally pierced lug. Rough surface, dark brown and weathered on the outside, black on the inside. Dark brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. CEast 11. 539 (810). Fragment of a coarse vase with unperforated mastoid lug. Rough brown surface. Similarly brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. CEast 11. 540 (812). Fragment of a vase with unperforated, horizontal oval lug, slightly upward-leaning. Variegated (red-to-black) slipped, fine-smoothed surface. Darkcolored core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. CEast 12. 541 (814). Fragment of a vase with horizontal, vertically pierced lug, triangular in section. Surface worn on the outside, with traces of smooth brown slip, brown and rough on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. CEast 12. 542 (25). Fragment of a deep open bowl with curved profile. High everted rim with imperfect top, differentiated from body by a curved carination. Horizontal unperforated lug in the shape of a grubbing mattock just below rim. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.34 m. A1. 543 (251). Pierced lug on body of a plain coarse vase. Lower part of lug’s perforation is broader. Brown surface and core. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A4. 544 (62). Fragment of an open vase with thin straight, outward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. A slightly prominent protrusion just below rim, possibly a worn lug. Brown surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A1. 545 (98). Fragment of an open vase with uniform rounded top. Just below rim, unperforated, horizontal oblong lug, square in section and short in length. Black, rather smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A2. 546 (123). Fragment of body of a closed vase with horizontal, vertically-pierced strap lug. Preserved traces of second lug in a row. Surface rough on the outside with traces of black slip and fine burnish; similarly rough surface on the inside with traces of a brush. Red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.063 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 547 (221). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl with hemispherical profile. Uniform thin rim and inward-leaning walls close to rim top. Horizontal, slightly prominent, unperforated lug with flat upper surface and curved profile 0.02 m below exterior rim top. Black rough surface with traces of smoothing. Gray core. Coarse brittle clay. Diam. rim 0.26; L. lug 0.04 m. CEast 8, 1–3.

548 (286). Horizontal unperforated lug of a vase. Red surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.083 m. A4, 1. 549 (300). Horizontal unperforated oblong lug of a coarse vase. Slightly burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A3, 2. 550 (301). Small, vertically pierced lug. Reddish surface. Coarse clay with minimal inclusions. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A3, 2. 551 (303). Small, vertically pierced lug. Brown burnished surface. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A3, 2. 552 (410). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. Inward-leaning walls close to rim showing a regular carination 0.06 m below rim top. Uniform rim with pointed top. Horizontal, slightly prominent, unperforated lug with flat upper surface and curved profile 0.02 m below exterior rim top. Black rough surface with traces of smoothing. Gray core. Coarse brittle clay. Diam. rim 0.26; L. lug 0.04 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 553 (420). Small fragment of rim of an open vase with flat top and unperforated triangular lug. Walls may have been almost vertical. Monochrome red surface, fine-burnished and lustrous. Red core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.024 m. CEast 12, 7–9. 554 (445). Small fragment of rim of an open, thinwalled vase. Thin horizontal unperforated lug close to rim (0.006 m below). Lug triangular in section, with flat upper surface and oblong profile with rounded corners. Light brown surface, slightly smoothed. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.029 m. CEast 5. 555 (459). Fragment of rim with traces of prominent unperforated lug. Reddish-brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A3, 2. 556 (503). Fragment of rim of a closed vase with inward-leaning, curved walls and unperforated, vertical oblique oblong lug. Surface burnished on the outside, rough on the inside. Brown, relatively fine clay. Max. dim. 0.10; diam. rim 0.08 m. A7. 557 (504). Fragment of rim of an open vase with unperforated, horizontal oblong lug parallel to rim. Gray, relatively impure clay. Max. dim. 0.03; diam. rim 0.12 m. A7. 558 (533). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl with hemispherical profile. Vertical walls. Uniform asymmetrical rim with curved top. Small horizontal unperforated lug placed 0.02 m below rim. Lug triangular in section, with flat upper surface and oblong profile with rounded corners. Rough surface, brownish gray on the outside, reddish gray on the inside. Lightcolored core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.037; L. lug 0.029 m. CEast 6. 559 (534). Fragment of rim and body of an open bowl with thick upright walls and hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with almost flat top, slanting on the inside. Unperforated lug in the shape of a knob, markedly prominent, 0.02 m. below rim. Reddish-gray, rough surface

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

with traces of imperfect smoothing. Light-colored core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. C5. 560 (564). Fragment of rim of an open vase with incorporated unperforated double mastoid lug. Brownish-gray surface. Max. dim. 0.056 m. A4. 561 (587). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase with horizontal unperforated oblong lug just below rim. Brownish-gray surface. Diam. rim 0.30 m. C4. 562 (597). Fragment of rim and body of a shallow open cup. Just below rim, horizontal strap lug, horizontally pierced. Surface reddish brown on the outside, black on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A3. 563 (600). Fragment of body of a monochrome vase with vertically pierced lug, semi-cylindrical in section. Gray surface with traces of burnish on the inside and outside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A5. 564 (679). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with relatively thin walls and hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with curved top. Markedly prominent, unperforated horizontal lug, rather in the shape of a grubbing mattock, triangular in section. Surface brown and relatively smooth on the outside, monochrome black, markedly lustrous, and very well burnished on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.35 m. CEast 9, 7–8. 565 (680). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl with outward-leaning walls and hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with curved top. Broad tubular, horizontally pierced lug 0.03 m below rim. Relatively smoothed surface, gray on the outside, reddish brown on the inside. Reddish-gray core. Coarse impure clay. Diam. rim 0.23 m. CEast 10, 2, 5, 8. 566 (682). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase. Shallow curved body and uniform rim with pointed top. Horizontal wart-lug, triangular in section with curved profile, 0.015 m below rim. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.14; w. lug 0.04 m. CEast 11, 8, 9. 567 (683). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with spherical profile. Uniform rim with curved top. Small thin horizontal lug with oblong profile, vertical perforation, rounded corners 0.018 m below rim. Brown surface with traces of burnish. Light-colored core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.32 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 568 (692). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with relatively thin spherical, inward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with flat asymmetrical top. Small unperforated horizontal lug, slightly prominent and triangular in section, 0.018 m below rim. Brown, relatively smooth surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.34; L. lug 0.035 m. CEast 7, 5–6. 569 (693). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with hemispherical profile, inward-leaning close to rim. Uniform rim with flat top. Just below top of rim, thin

55

unperforated horizontal lug, slightly prominent, with curved asymmetrical profile. Gray smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.34 m. CEast 11, 2, 3, 5, 6. 570 (694). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with cylindrical top. Small unperforated horizontal lug with profile rather in the shape of a grubbing mattock 0.013 m below rim. Smoothed surface, red on the outside, gray on the inside. Light red core. Coarse impure clay. Diam. rim 0.25; L. lug 0.03 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 571 (696). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with outward-leaning walls and hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with curved top. Broad tubular, horizontally pierced lug just below rim top. Gray smooth surface. Reddish core. Coarse impure clay. Diam. rim 0.28; L. lug 0.04 m. CEast 13, 3, 6. 572 (777). Fragment of rim and body of a large open vase with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with flat top, inward-curved. Horizontal unperforated lug, triangular in section, 0.015 m below rim. Brown smoothed surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.42 m. CEast 12. 573 (801). Fragment of an open vase with rounded, slightly everted rim top. Preserved part of unperforated horizontal, upward-leaning lug, triangular in section. Light brown, rough surface, slipped on the outside. Similarly light brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CEast 11. 574 (802). Fragment of an open vase. Uniform rim with flat top. Unperforated horizontal trapezoidal lug, almost triangular in section, ca. 0.01 m below rim. Dark brown, rough surface. Similarly dark brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 11. 575 (804). Fragment of an open hemispherical vase. Uniform rim with slanting flat top. Below rim, small unperforated mastoid lug. Brown rough surface, worn on the outside, traces of a brush on the inside. Similarly brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 11. 576 (811). Fragment of an open hemispherical vase. Uniform rim with flat top. Horizontal wart-lug with vertical perforation, triangular in section. Surface brown and weathered on the outside, gray to black and rough on the inside, imperfectly smoothed. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 11. 577 (815). Probable fragment of an unperforated lug vertical to rim that is not preserved. Two of the lug’s edges are preserved, while the other two are broken. Reddish-brown, smoothed surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.035 m. CEast 11. 578 (626b). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase with outward-leaning walls. Top of rim cylindrical in section. Oblong unperforated lug parallel to rim. Preserved traces of a hole. Diam. rim 0.30 m. C4. 579 (688). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim

56

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

with almost flat top, on which small, roughly executed impressions at close range (two of them preserved) create an indented edge of rim top. Just below rim (0.015 m), coarse large mastoid wart, slightly prominent. Red worn surface, relatively smooth on the outside, rough on the inside. Light red core. Impure clay with abundant inclusions. Diam. rim 0.30 m. CEast 8, 7–9. 580 (771). Fragment of rim and body of an open hemispherical vase. Uniform rim with rounded top. Horizontal unperforated lug, thin and oblong in section, 0.02 m below rim; almost flat upper surface. Brown

variegated smoothed surface. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.40; L. lug 0.05 m. CEast 10. 580.1 (813). Fragment of a perforated lug, semicylindrical in section, on body of vase. Brown to reddish-brown, smoothed surface. Reddish-brown core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. CEast 11. 580.2 (548a). Fragment of body of monochrome (probably open) vase, carrying a perforated lug. Lug is vertical, broad, and flat, and is horizontally pierced. Brown coarse surface, slipped and polished. Dark brown core, coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. CWest 3, 5.

Bases The Late Neolithic bases (Figs. 2.35, 2.36; Pl. 2.2) are separated into two main categories, flat and ring-shaped. A great percentage of Late Neolithic bases are flat but differentiated from the body of the vessel (588, 590, 600, 614). Usually bases are either markedly or slightly sunk. Flat, non-splayed bases form either an obtuse or acute angle with the body (582, 589, 592, 626). Bases forming a slight curve on their lower side are rather uncommon. Ring-shaped bases can be identified as splayed bases that are concave on their lower side (585, 609). Ring-shaped bases vary in height and are either rounded or pointed on their periphery (581, 606, 607). Bases 602 and 632 have a flat pedestal. Tall ring-shaped bases (604, 612, 632.1) occur rather rarely, while tall conical pedestals (631) are particularly rare. 581 (30). Three fragments of a low pedestal of a ringshaped base of a coarse open vase. Surface of support markedly outward-leaning. Off-white surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.058 m. A1. 582 (40). Fragment of a flat base. Splayed surface of support with curved edge. Red coarse surface. Impure clay. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A1. 583 (41). Fragment of a low ring base with curved, outward-leaning surface of support. Red surface. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.11 m. A1. 584 (42). Flat base of a small, possibly closed, thickwalled vase. Base differentiated from body by slightly curved carination. Reddish-brown surface and core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.04 m. A2. 585 (43). Low ring-shaped base. Outward-leaning surface of support with pointed edge. Red surface and core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.095 m. A2. 586 (44). Fragment of a raised flat base of a coarse, thin-walled, open vase. Surface brown on the outside,

black on the inside. Dark brown core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.042 m. A1. 587 (45). Fragment of a low ring-shaped base. Straight surface of support with rounded edge. Red rough coarse surface. Similarly red core. Relatively pure clay. Diam. base 0.06 m. A1. 588 (46). Fragment of a flat base with rounded side edge. Red coarse surface. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.051 m. A1. 589 (47). Fragment of a flat base uniform with body. Rounded edge. Gray coarse surface. Similarly gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A1. 590 (48). Fragment of a flat base with pointed side edge. Differentiated from body by carination. Red surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.044 m. A1. 591 (49). Fragment of a coarse, thin-walled vase with spherical profile and flat uniform base. Red surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.071 m. A1. 592 (50). Fragment of a flat base of a large vase. Red surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.061 m. A2. 593 (51). Flat base with pointed side edge. Brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.09 m. A1. 594 (52). Fragment of a coarse, thin-walled vase with straight profile and flat base. Base differentiated from body by broad curved carination. Surface off-white on the outside, black on the inside. Black core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.078 m. A1. 595 (61). Flat base, slightly differentiated from body. Reddish coarse surface. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.07 m. A1. 596 (63). Flat base with pointed side edge. Surface red on the outside, brown on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.056 m. A1. 597 (64). Flat base of a vase with curved profile. Base differentiated from body by slight carination. Dark brown surface and core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.047 m. A1. 598 (163). Low ring-shaped base of a coarse vase. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A1–2.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

599 (197). Flat base of a coarse, thick-walled vase with preserved mat impression. Surface brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. diam. base 0.14 m. A3. 600 (202). Fragment of flat base of a monochrome vase. Reddish-brown slip on off-white clay. Max. diam. base 0.08 m. A3. 601 (227). Fragment of body and flat base of a coarse, thin-walled vase. On the exterior, red slip and traces of incised decoration. Groove where body joins base. Diam. base 0.06 m. A4. 602 (228). Ring-shaped base of a coarse vase with concave lower part. Brown surface and core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.14 m. A4. 603 (239). Fragment of flat base of a plain coarse vase. Light brown surface. Gray core. Diam. base 0.14 m. A4, 1. 604 (263). Fragment of a ring-shaped base of a coarse vase. Brownish-gray surface, very worn. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A4. 605 (266). Fragment of ring-shaped base of a monochrome vase, unusually hollowed on its lower part. Dark brown surface, burnished and with dark slip on the outside. Gray core. Diam. base 0.10 m. A4. 606 (267). Ring-shaped base of a plain coarse vase with concave lower part. Gray surface and core. Diam. base 0.09 m. A4. 607 (269). Ring-shaped base of a small coarse vase, hollowed on its lower part. Reddish surface and core. Diam. base 0.50 m. A4. 608 (278). Fragment of low ring-shaped base of a plain coarse vase. Flat surface of support. Brown surface. Diam. base 0.12 m. A4, 1. 609 (290). Low ring-shaped base of a coarse vase. Red surface and core. Diam. base 0.10 m. A4, 1. 610 (308). Fragment of body and flat base of a plain coarse vase with curved profile. Red to brown surface. Diam. base 0.07 m. A2, extension. 611 (359). Two fragments of low ring-shaped base of a small red monochrome vase. Diam. base 0.06 m. A5. 612 (362). High, outward-leaning, ring-shaped base of a coarse vase. Red surface. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.09 m. A/D 1. 613 (380). Fragment of flat base of a coarse vase. Uniform body and base. Surface brownish gray on the outside, red on the inside. Coarse clay. Diam. base 0.07 m. A5. 614 (510). Flat base of a plain coarse vase, possibly a pithos, with preserved mat impression. Brown surface. Gray core. Diam. base 0.13 m. C3. 615 (595). Fragment of a ring-shaped base. Worn surface, gray on the outside, light brown on the inside. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.09 m. C3.

57

616 (427b). Fragment of body and base of a closed vase. Medium height, outward-leaning, ring-shaped base with rounded edge. Reddish coarse rough surface. Red core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.09 m. CEast 7. 617 (741). Fragment of body and flat base of a coarse deep open vase with thick straight, outwardleaning walls. Smooth surface, brown on the outside, red on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.18 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 618 (742). Large fragment of body and flat base of a coarse deep vase with straight, outward-leaning walls. Reddish-brown, rough surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.12 m. CEast 11, 1, 4, 7. 619 (746). Low ring-shaped base of a coarse closed vase, outward-leaning with rounded edge. Red rough surface. Reddish core. Impure clay with abundant particles of gravel. Diam. base 0.075 m. A2. 620 (747). Fragment of body and low, ring-shaped base of a coarse, medium-sized vase with curved profile. Brownish-gray, rough surface. Reddish core. Impure clay with sparse particles of gravel. Diam. base 0.25 m. CEast 11, 2–6. 621 (748). Fragment of body and flat base of an open, thin-walled vase, spherical in profile. Brown smooth surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.065 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 622 (749). Fragment of body and flat base of a coarse closed vase, spherical in profile. Brown surface, relatively smooth on the outside, rough on the inside. Diam. base 0.10 m. CEast 6. 623 (750). Fragment of a ring-shaped base of medium height, outward-leaning, with rounded edge. Red, finesmoothed surface. Gray core. Impure clay with particles of gravel. Diam. base 0.11 m. CEast 8, 7–8. 624 (751). Low ring-shaped base with rounded edge of a coarse closed, large- or medium-sized vase. Surface red and smoothed on the outside, gray and rough on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay with particles of gravel. Diam. base 0.11 m. CEast 6. 625 (752). Fragment of body and flat base of a vase with thick, outward-leaning walls. Brown, relatively smooth surface. Gray core. Impure coarse clay. Diam. base 0.12 m. CEast 11, 2–6. 626 (753). Large fragment of body and flat base of a deep vase with thick straight, outward-leaning walls. Brown rough surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.20 m. CEast 10. 627 (829). Fragment of ring-shaped base differentiated from body by curved carination. Surface with light-colored, off-white, worn slip. Reddish-brown core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.11 m. CEast 11. 628 (830). Fragment of ring-shaped base of a small vase. Surface of ring burnished and slipped in places, off-white and gray on the outside; similar gray slip on

58

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

the inside. Gray core. Relatively pure clay with inclusions. Diam. base 0.05 m. CEast 10. 629 (831). Fragment of a high ring-shaped base. Tile-colored, rough surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.23 m. CEast 11. 630 (832). Fragment of body and disk-shaped, flat base of a vase. Base differentiated from body by angular carination, slightly convex on its lower part. Brown smooth surface on the outside and along sides, burnished and worn; gray rough surface on the inside and lower part. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.08 m. CEast 11.

631 (833). High conical base. Fine-smoothed surface on the outside, with reddish-brown, brown, and gray slip in places; gray rough surface on the inside. Tile-colored core. Diam. base 0.105 m. CEast 12. 632 (839). Fragment of a low ring-shaped base, slightly outward-leaning, with flat surface of support. Red surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.06 m. CEast 11, 2, 5, 6. 632.1 (342b). Fragment of a high narrow, ring-shaped base leaning outward to a rounded edge. Part of lower body preserved. Reddish coarse surface, red-brown core, small inclusions visible. Diam. base 0.09 m. CEast 3, 5.

Sherds with Holes Sherds carrying holes (Fig. 2.37) primarily belong to open vases (633–640). It is most probable that the pierced holes were meant for the restoration and mending of vases. However, it is also possible that they served for the suspension of the vase. The holes were created with a rotating drill, similar to the bow drill used until recently by traditional craftsmen. 633 (438). Fragment of rim and body of a deep open bowl with upright walls and hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with pointed top. Small perforation pierced from the outside after firing, 0.015 m below rim. Smoothed surface, black on the outside, brown on the inside. Brownish-gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.38 m. CEast 11, 8–9. 634 (543). Fragment of rim and body of a small, thinwalled vase with spherical profile. Hole below rim. Black surface with traces of burnish. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.26 m. A2. 635 (548b). Fragment of rim and body of small open vase with curved upright walls. Uniform rim, imperfectly modelled, with curved top. Hole pierced from outside after firing, 0.006 m below rim. Gray rough surface. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 636 (567). Fragment of a deep coarse vase with hole below rim. Gray rough surface. Max. dim. 0.082 m. C4.

637 (593). Fragment of rim of an open vase with flat top and perforation 0.03 m below the rim. Surface brown and burnished on the outside, red and coarse on the inside. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A1. 638 (792). Fragment of rim of open vase with outwardleaning walls. Uniform rim with rounded top. Hole ca. 0.01 m below rim, 0.005 m diameter on outside, and 0.009 m on inside. Surface reddish brown and smoothed on the outside, brown and lustrous on the inside. Brown core. Clay with minimal inclusions. Diam. rim 0.28 m. CEast 10. 639 (793). Fragment of body of a vase with two holes, one of which is half-preserved. The intact hole is 0.009 m in diameter on the outside and 0.006 m on the inside. Surface black and rough on the outside, gray and rough on the inside, with traces of a brush. Black core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.067 m. CEast 10, 12. 640 (795). Fragment of a vase with sharply defined, deep cavity in the shape of a funnel on the outside (an attempt to perforate the vase after firing). The max. diam. of the hole is 0.007 m and it preserves traces of two perimeters. Surface brownish gray, smoothed, and burnished on the outside, rough on the inside. Core gray to brown in places. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.033 m. CEast 11.

Decoration RELIEF ROPE-MOTIF DECORATION Relief rope-motif decoration occurs rather rarely at Youra (Figs. 2.37, 2.38; Pl. 2.2). Decoration with simple plastic bands is more common, although it is

usually recovered on smaller vases and not on pithoid vessels. The rarity and simplicity of the rope-motif decoration indicates the early dating of this type. Although, until recently, ascribed only to

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

the Late Neolithic II period, the excavations of Tharrounia in Euboea and Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia have proved that this type of decoration made its appearance in the second half of LN I. The absence of simple plastic motifs, which appear in the LN II phase, is characteristic at Youra. Similar rope motifs on pottery have occurred at almost every LN site, whether settlements or caves. Early examples of rope-motif decoration have been recovered in Arapi Magoula (Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969, pl. ix). In the Cave of Lakes at Kastria, this type also appears to be early in date and is ascribed to the Late Neolithic Ib period (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 225, figs. 64, 66–70). The closest known parallels belong to samples recovered at Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977, pl. 44:A–H), where they are found in significantly larger numbers. At Ftelia on Mykonos, a large quantity of sherds, mainly belonging to pithoid vessels, carry impressions (Sampson 2002a, 81, fig. 77). Parallels among motifs found at Ftelia and those from the Sarakenos Cave are surprisingly strong. Similar motifs occur also at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, figs. 154–156) and similar impressions of certain regularity appear on Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 42:9). As for the use of such prominent rope-motif plastic bands, it is possible that they facilitated the carrying of vases as well as prevented them from breaking. Simple plastic bands could serve in similar ways by reinforcing the endurance of two separately modelled parts of the same vase (Hampe and Winter 1962). Fragment no. 543 has an unusual rope motif of pointed, pyramidal protrusions in a row; the regularity of this motif indicates the use of a rough tool. The decoration of open vase no. 643 is rather similar. The motif on deep open vase no. 641.1 is of a rather more typical character; it was apparently made with simple fingernail impressions and lacks regularity. Even simpler is the motif on vase no. 646, which consists of simple fingernail cavities on a prominent plastic band. The motif on vase nos. 647 and 648 is unusual and resembles an imitation of a flower petal. The band on vase no. 642 is more elaborate and reminiscent of a chain. Except for vase no. 543, which is a large, widemouthed, pithoid vase, the vases are small, deep, and rather wide-mouthed. In almost all cases, the decoration is developed on a prominent plastic

59

band below the rim. No examples of decoration on the body of the vase occur, unlike the vases recovered at other Neolithic sites. Large pithoid vessels are generally absent from the Cave of the Cyclops, in part because transporting them from the beach up to this site would have been extremely difficult. 641 (39). Five mended fragments of a coarse large, wide-mouthed, pithoid vase. Thick, inward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with flat top. A row of pyramidal protrusions in tight horizontal arrangement running around the perimeter of the vase represents a variety of rope-motif decoration, ca. 0.01 m below rim. Brown, slightly smoothed surface. Gray core. Coarse impure clay. Diam. rim 0.32 m. A1–2. 641.1 (365). Two sherds of a coarse basinlike vase. Rim square in section. Prominent plastic zone with ropemotif decoration just below rim. Surface burnished on the outside. Diam. rim 0.35 m. A5. 642 (505). Fragment of rim of a vase with horizontal plastic rope-motif decoration parallel to rim. Brown surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.08; diam. rim 0.20 m. A7. 643 (562). Fragment of a coarse open vase with ropemotif decoration below rim. Brown surface, rough on the inside. Diam. rim 0.28 m. C4. 644 (672). Fragment of rim of a plain coarse vase with zone of rope-motif decoration below the rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.085 m. C5. 645 (758). Fragment of rim and body of open bowl with hemispherical profile. Slightly outward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with flat top. Running around the vase 0.01 m below the rim is a horizontal, prominent plastic zone, triangular in section, decorated with roughly-formed impressions(?). Brown surface, smooth on the outside, rough on the inside. Impure coarse clay. Red clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. C5. 646 (759). Fragment of rim and body of a large deep vase. Slightly inward-leaning walls. Uniform rim with flat top. Just below rim, slightly oblique, broad prominent plastic zone, triangular in section, decorated with deep symmetrical impressions (three of which are preserved). Surface gray and rough on the outside with traces of burnish on rim and plastic zone; brown and smoothed on the inside with traces of burnish around rim. Gray core. Impure coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.34 m. CEast 6. 647 (760). Fragment of rim of a vase with row of impressions below top of rim. Unusual flower petal motif. Max. dim. 0.064 m. CEast 11. 648 (808). Fragment of rim and body of a vase with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with flat top. Horizontal row of mastoid protrusions (two of which are preserved) reminiscent of a rope motif ca. 0.02 m below rim. Rough worn surface, brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 12.

60

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

INCISED PLASTIC DECORATION In most cases, with this type of decoration the rope motif has been replaced with simple vertical incised lines on the surface of thin prominent plastic bands (Figs. 2.38–2.40; Pl. 2.2). These prominent plastic bands with incisions usually occur on the body of vases that are small and closed. The incisions are either vertical (649–651, 657) or, more rarely, oblique (664). On fragment no. 650, the incisions are tightly arranged, while they are loosely arranged on other fragments (651, 652). The incisions/impressions on fragment nos. 669 and 670 are lozenge-shaped and in a rather loose arrangement. These incised plastic bands are placed below the rim (651) or, more commonly, on the shoulder of large or small closed vases (650, 656, 657, 664). They are rather commonly curvilinear (649, 661, 670) and are adopted on the entire body of the vase. In one case, a horizontal band intersects a vertical one (669). A plastic band in the shape of a garland with incisions appears on a small open vase (667). In two cases thin, prominent plastic bands occur on handles (649, 668). On closed vase no. 649, incisions are also adopted on the surface of the handle. On large closed vase no. 661, two curved bands with incisions begin from the broad lug of the vase. Similar small incised lines on plastic bands have been recovered in the cave at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 152–154, figs. 150, 153), as well as at Kastria (on the surface of “scoop”-type vessels; Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 131, fig. 38), although the Youra examples are rather different. It could be claimed that these incisions are precursors of the rope motifs. 649 (59). Seven fragments, partly mended, of a closed, wide-mouthed vase. Bulky curved body with thin, inward-leaning walls. Markedly outward-leaning, medium-height neck, differentiated from body by pointed carination. Uniform rim with pointed top. On shoulder, horizontal strap handle, triangular in shape. Markedly high carination on handle. Three parallel attached plastic bands with dense vertical incisions. Max. dim. of largest sherd 0.22 m. A3. 650 (111). Four fragments of body of a coarse, thinwalled vase. Imperfect prominent zone decorated with small vertical incised lines. Rough surface, reddish brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. of largest sherd 0.12 m. A2. 651 (157). Fragment of body and rim of a monochrome vase with vertical incisions on a prominent

plastic zone. Brownish-gray surface, burnished. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A2. 652 (158). Two mended fragments of a coarse vase with small deep vertical incisions on a horizontal, low relief zone. Max. dim. 0.135 m. A1–2. 653 (159). Fragment of a coarse vase decorated with shallow vertical incisions on plastic zone. Max. dim. 0.054 m. A2. 654 (160). Fragment of a coarse vase with oblique incisions on a prominent plastic zone. Reddish to gray surface. Max. dim. 0.025 m. A1–2. To be mended with no. 655 (162). 655 (162). Three small fragments of a coarse vase decorated with small vertical incisions on a prominent plastic zone. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.038 m. A2. To be mended with no. 654 (160). 656 (164). Two small fragments of shoulder and body of a coarse closed, thin-walled vase decorated with oblique incisions. Gray surface. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.033 m. A2. To be mended with no. 671. 657 (165). Fragment of a coarse vase decorated with deep small vertical incisions on a slightly prominent zone running around the surface of the vase. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A2. 658 (193). Fragment of body of a plain coarse vase with prominent plastic zone decorated with small parallel vertical lines. Gray surface and core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A3. 659 (285). Two fragments of a monochrome vase with vertical incisions on a slightly prominent plastic zone. Gray surface, red in places due to imperfect firing; burnished both on outside and inside. Max. dims. 0.06, 0.075 m. A4, 2. 660 (299). Fragment of a plain coarse vase with vertical incisions on two parallel prominent plastic zones. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.065 m. A3. 661 (314). Three mended fragments of body of a coarse hemispherical vase. Preserved part of horizontal cylindrical handle, vertically pierced. Curved prominent plastic garlands decorated with small vertical incised lines begin above handle’s upper edge. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.21 m. A/D 3. 662 (316). Fragment of body of a plain coarse vase with horizontal prominent plastic band decorated with small vertical incised lines. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A/D 1. 663 (395). Fragment of a coarse vase with a broad, vertically pierced, horizontal strap handle. Horizontal incisions on edges of handle. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.13 m. A3. 664 (458). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with plastic band, along which small oblique incised lines are vertically arranged. Brown surface with traces of burnish. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.085 m. A3, 2.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

665 (460). Fragment of neck and shoulder of a coarse vase. Neck decorated with horizontal plastic band with small oblique incised lines. Brown to black surface with traces of burnish. Brownish-gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.035. A2. 666 (463). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open vase with inward-leaning walls. Uniform rim. Outside rim, prominent band with sparse oblique grooves, roughly executed (one of which is preserved). Brownish-gray surface, relatively smooth. Gray core. Impure clay, well fired. Diam. rim 0.36 m. CEast 10, 2, 5, 8. 667 (645). Fragment of rim of an open vase. Semicircular, prominent band with incisions, hanging from rim. Red rough surface. Reddish-gray core. Max. dim. 0.07 m. A/D 5. 668 (646). Broad strap handle decorated with small thin, horizontal parallel incisions on vertical plastic band along its back. Greenish-gray surface. Gray core. Impure clay. W. 0.043 m. A5. 669 (757). Two fragments of body of a vase. One fragment has two slightly prominent bands, triangular in section, decorated with deep, relatively tight oblique incisions, partly preserved. Surface gray and smoothed on the outside, red and rough on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay with gravel particles. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.054 m. C5. 670 (761). Two large fragments of vase with straight walls. On the outside, part of a curved, slightly prominent zone, triangular in section and decorated with deep oblique incisions. Reddish-brown, fine-smoothed surface. Gray core. Impure coarse clay. Max. dim. of one fragment 0.093 m. CEast 13, 3, 6. Belongs to the same vase as no. 324 (768). 671 (835a). Three fragments of neck and shoulder of a closed vase with inward-leaning walls. Neck differentiated from body by regular curved carination, near which horizontal, slightly prominent zone runs around vase. Zone decorated with vertical and oblique rough incisions (several of which are preserved). Gray rough surface. Brownish-gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.045; w. of plastic zone 0.007 m. A3. To be mended with no. 656. 672 (836). Small fragment of neck and shoulder of a closed vase with thick, inward-leaning walls. Neck differentiated from body by regular curved carination. Vertical prominent zone, quadrilateral in section, partly preserved. Zone decorated with deep, rough, highly symmetrical incisions (three of which are preserved). Gray surface, smoothed on the outside, rough on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.038; w. of plastic zone 0.009 m. A1.

PLAIN PLASTIC DECORATION Plain plastic bands ornamenting large pithoid vessels, similar to those recovered from other

61

Neolithic sites, occur in very small numbers at Youra (Figs. 2.40–2.42; Pl. 2.2). These decorative motifs are simple, linear or curvilinear, and seem to never intersect with one another. Parallels occur at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 215, figs. 62, 63), in the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, fig. 15:147), at Alepotrypa (Papathanassopoulos 1996, 222:27), in Nestor’s Cave (Sampson 1980, fig. 17:32, 33), in the Tharrounia Cave (Sampson 1993a, 158, figs. 139–141), in the Sarakenos Cave, Asea (Phelps 1975, fig. 60), and at Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977, 18, pl. 3). Bands are rounded or pointed on the back and, in some cases, are only slightly set off from the walls of the vase. Large open vase 698.1 has a linear band oblique to the rim. Two large closed vases (686, 689) are decorated with curvilinear motifs. Simple vertical bands occur on closed vase no. 685. On fragment no. 690, two oblique bands may cross. A solitary S-shaped motif appears on open vase no. 695, and curvilinear motifs occur below the rim of spherical vase no. 687. In some cases, simple linear bands are formed below the rim (676, 698). On shallow open vase no. 691, linear motifs also occur close to the rim. Oblique vertical and horizontal bands close to the rim occur at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 131, fig. 38), while a rich variety of solitary, curvilinear plastic bands come from Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, figs. 87–89). 673 (13). Fragment of body of a closed vase with plastic decoration. Preserved section of the beginning of a band. Dark brown monochrome surface, burnished and smoothed on the outside, brownish gray and rough on the inside. Similar brownish-gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.11 m. A1. 674 (14). Two joined fragments of body of a coarse vase with segment of plastic decoration. Slightly prominent curved zone. Gray surface and core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.11 m. A1. 675 (35). Fragment of a coarse open, thin-walled vase with hemispherical profile, slightly S-shaped close to uniform rim. Applied thin oblique plastic band below rim. Brown rough surface and core. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A1. 676 (60). Fragment of a coarse shallow bowl with hemispherical profile and uniform rim. Curved, inward-leaning top of rim. Preserved segment of applied thin horizontal band, triangular in section, just below rim; it is not certain whether band belongs to part of an elongated lug or a plastic decoration zone. Reddish-brown, slightly smoothed surface. Similarly

62

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

reddish-brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim ca. 0.36 m. A1. 677 (190). Fragment of body of a plain coarse vase decorated with curved plastic motif. Gray surface and core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A3. 678 (282). Fragment of body of a coarse, thin-walled vase with slightly prominent plastic zone. Red surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.075 m. A4. 679 (310). Fragment of a plain coarse vase with a curved prominent zone of plastic decoration. Max. dim. 0.061 m. A4, 2. 680 (313). Fragment of a coarse, open-mouthed vase with a prominent zone of plastic decoration just below rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A/D 2. 681 (315). Fragment of body of a monochrome vase with broad vertical strap handle. Prominent plastic bands continue from four ends of handle. Dark brown surface, burnished. Reddish-gray core. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A/D 1. 682 (335). Fragment of body of a monochrome vase decorated with horizontal plastic band. Off-white burnished surface, slipped. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.055 m. A5. 683 (474). Fragment of rim of a coarse vase with plastic zone just below rim. Brown surface. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A2. 684 (561). Fragment of an open vase with curved prominent band below rim. Reddish-brown surface, slightly burnished on the outside, coarse on the inside. Diam. rim 0.28 m. C4. 685 (574). Two joined fragments of a coarse vase with vertical prominent zone. Brown surface, slightly burnished. Gray core. Max. dim. 0.11 m. C5. 686 (579). Fragment of body of a plain coarse vase decorated with curved prominent band. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.11 m. C5. 687 (594). Fragment of rim with pointed top of a deep vase with spherical profile. Plastic decoration of curved prominent band, triangular in section, begins from rim. Brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.13 m. C3. 688 (662). Fragment of a coarse, thin-walled vase. Decorated with thin vertical prominent zone. Brown surface. Max. dim. 0.035 m. A7. 689 (695). Two joined fragments of body of a vase preserving segment of thin vertical prominent zone, triangular in section. Brown surface, relatively smoothed. Gray core. Impure coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.11 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 690 (734). Fragment of body of a vase with slightly curved profile. Preserved segment of two oblique prominent bands, cylindrical in section. Surface brownish gray and smoothed on the outside; red and rough on the inside. Brown core. Impure coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.085 m. CEast 12, 3–6.

691 (735). Fragment of rim of a coarse open vase with curved profile. On the exterior, preserved segment of slightly prominent band, triangular in section. Rough gray surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.062 m. CEast 8, 4–6. 692 (755). Fragment of body of an open, thickwalled vase. On the exterior, preserved segment of thin curved, slightly prominent zone, cylindrical in section. Decorated with sparse shallow thin incisions, roughly executed. Surface gray and rough on the outside, red to brown and smooth on the inside. Brown core. Impure coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.065 m. C5. 693 (756). Small fragment of body of a thin-walled vase. On the exterior, preserved segment of thin curved prominent zone, triangular in section. Gray smooth surface. Similarly gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.033 m. CEast 6. 694 (762). Fragment of body of an open vase. On the exterior, thin, slightly prominent zone, triangular in section. Brownish-gray, smooth surface. Similarly brownish-gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.075 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 695 (767). Fragment of rim and body of a monochrome shallow open vase with hemispherical profile. Uniform rim with thin pointed top. On the exterior, just below rim, preserved segment from the beginning of a horizontal, slightly-prominent serpentine zone with tightly arranged curves, cylindrical in section. Brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay with abundant lime particles, well fired. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 13. 696 (770). Two non-joining fragments of neck and shoulder of a closed or wide-mouthed vase, differentiated by broad curved carination. On shoulder, continuous, slightly-prominent plastic zone, triangular in section. Red monochrome surface, markedly burnished on the outside, red and fine-smoothed on the inside. Red core. Impure clay with gravel particles. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.055 m. CEast 11, 8, 9. 697 (776). Two non-joining fragments of body of a vase with curved prominent zone. Surface variegated (from brown/reddish brown to black) due to uneven firing, relatively smoothed on the outside, dark brown and rough on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.065 m. CEast 10. 698 (838). Fragment of rim of an open, thick-walled vase. Preserved segment of horizontal prominent zone below rim. Surface brown and smoothed on the outside; red and rough on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. CEast 7. 698.1 (644). Fragment of flaring body extending to a rounded rim of a monochrome open bowl. A thin, low relief, plastic zone, triangular in section, is obliquely attached on the outer body. Light red surface, dark gray core, small inclusions visible. Max. dim. 0.11 m. A4.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

INCISED DECORATION As at many other Late Neolithic sites, incised decoration is rather uncommon at Youra in LN Ib (Figs. 2.42, 2.43; Pl. 2.2). Incisions are usually deep—in some cases, deep enough to form grooves. In almost all cases, these motifs are not incised regularly; they are apparently executed roughly, indicating the lack of careful attention to their design. Roughly executed incisions occur on fragment nos. 700 and 702. Incised decoration is usually positioned on the body of vases, although it can also occur close to the rim (701, 712, 713). Vase no. 699 carries incised decoration on its shoulder, arranged on both sides of the handle. In three cases, incised motifs of vertical lines decorate the surface of handles of coarse vases (476, 706, 709). On fragment no. 705, small oblique lines decorate the surface of the flat rim. This kind of decoration on the rim is rare, but occurs in abundance in Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, figs. 74, 75). Incised decorative motifs usually consist of oblique lines arranged in opposing groups (702, 708), intersecting groups of oblique lines, or continuous parallel crooked lines. In some cases, these motifs are rather vague and confusing (713, 714). In one case (701), the incisions are bounded by a horizontal line at their upper part. In one case (707), incisions occur inside a rectangular frame. The same incised motifs occur commonly at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 233, 234, figs. 33, 36–38, 41, 46), and similar isolated examples have been recovered in the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, fig. 14:13), at Alepotrypa (Phelps 1975, fig. 56:4), in the Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia, at Palaia Kokkinia (Theocharis 1951, 105, fig. 17), and at Plakari (Keller 1985, fig. 93:P 6, 24, 44). Early examples of incised, small oblique lines occur on the surface of large coarse vases on Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 40:17). In Thessaly, this same motif has been recovered at Pefkakia (Weisshaar 1989). Incised decorated vases have been recovered in abundance in Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, figs. 82–86, type 4), although with significantly different techniques of decoration and pottery manufacture. Moreover, at Kastria, all motifs of incised decoration are absent, except for the markedly shallow incisions of the Prosymna type (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 236–252; for Prosymna itself,

63

see Blegen 1937, 132–133), which can be ascribed to the same period as those recovered at Youra. Parallels to the incised decorated vases of Youra also occur at Kephala (Coleman 1977, pl.44:a–h), although these must be ascribed to a later phase. 699 (109). Fragment of body of a coarse vase with traces of a strap handle. Vertical incisions on both sides next to the handle. Brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.080 m. A2. 700 (110). Fragment of body of a vase with incised decoration of oblique lines arranged in opposing groups. Brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. A2. 701 (196). Fragment of slightly everted rim of a monochrome, thin-walled vase. Incision on the perimeter of the neck joining the body, below which are parallel oblique incisions. Diam. rim 0.12 m. A3. 702 (217). Fragment of body of a coarse vase decorated with opposing oblique incised lines. Gray surface and core. Max. dim. 0.06 m. A3. 703 (287). Vertical strap handle that becomes narrower toward its lower part. Vertical incisions along the edges. Off-white surface. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A4, 1. 704 (466). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with curved profile. Uniform rim with flat top, slightly set off. On the exterior, preserved segment of two oblique incisions forming an angle with top pointing toward the rim (possibly part of a crooked horizontal line). Deep, relatively broad incisions. Reddish brown, rough surface. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.24 m. CEast 11, 1, 4, 7. 705 (499). Fragment of rim and body of a large open basin with straight (almost vertical), outward-leaning, thick walls. Uniform rim with top, square in section, prominent on the inside, with deep oblique, roughly executed incisions (two of which are preserved). Brownish-gray, slightly smoothed surface. Gray core. Impure clay with gravel particles. Diam. rim 0.42 m. CEast 7, 5–6. 706 (508). Fragment of body of a red monochrome vase preserving part of vertical strap handle or lug. Two straight deviating incised lines on the surface of handle/lug. Relatively pure clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. C4. 707 (513). Fragment of inverted rim of a coarse closed vase. On the exterior, incisions below rim. Red surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.045 m. C3. 708 (516). Fragment of body of a coarse vase decorated with oblique incised parallel lines arranged in opposing groups. Brown rough surface. Max. dim. 0.08 m. CEast 9. 709 (608). Fragment of rim with handle of a small cup. Strap handle, horizontally pierced, with parallel incisions on its surface. Gray surface. Markedly impure clay. Max. dim. 0.04 m. C5.

64

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

710 (661). Fragment of a coarse, thin-walled vase. On the exterior, thin parallel incised lines. Gray surface and core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.025 m. C5. 711 (783). Fragment of a coarse vase decorated with two deeply incised, oblique parallel lines. Rough surface, brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Clay with fine inclusions. Max. dim. 0.04 m. CEast 11. 712 (784). Fragment of everted rim of a closed vase with spherical body. Pointed top of rim. Incision on the perimeter of the vase, ca. 0.006 m. below rim, bordering a zone decorated with successive incisions. Smoothed surface, reddish on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Clay with fine inclusions. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 11. 713 (785). Fragment of everted rim of an open vase. Rounded top of rim. Incised decoration of intersecting groups of oblique parallel lines. Brown smoothed surface. Gray core. Clay with fine inclusions. Diam. rim 0.20 m. CEast 12. 714 (786). Fragment of body of a vase with incised decoration. Horizontal incision borders a zone decorated with intersecting straight lines that probably form lozenges. Incisions deeply, but roughly, executed. Rough surface, dark brown on the outside, gray on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.06 m. CEast 12. 715 (820). Fragment of rim and body of an open vase with straight walls. Uniform rim with rounded top, carrying incisions on upper surface. Relatively smoothed surface, reddish brown to gray in places. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.30 m. CEast 12. 716 (845c). Fragment of a vase preserving part of the lower edge of a strap handle. Handle decorated with rows of horizontal incisions along the rib of its upper surface and edges (one edge preserved). Gray worn surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A1.

GROOVED DECORATION It is often hard to distinguish between incisions and grooves. Generally, grooves are characterized as cuttings that are more than 3–4 mm wide (Fig. 2.43; Pl. 2.2). Parallel grooves commonly occur on the shoulder of closed vases (372, 721.1) as well as close to the rim (720). Parallel crooked bands appear on the body of closed vase no. 719. Vertical grooves also occur on a small closed vase (718) with burnished black surface. A motif consisting of deep grooves and rounded depressions appears below the rim of open vase no. 721. On a fragment of large vase no. 717, deep incisions similar to grooves radiate from a faint round lug whose upper part is flattened. Deep incisions also occur on the lower part of

the body of vase no. 601 close to its base. This type of decoration is rather reminiscent of the relief bands on the Black Monochrome ware recovered at Seimen Mnema of Eretria (Sampson 1981) as well as Emporio of Chios (Hood 1981, 1982). Fragment no. 308, which definitely carries grooved decoration, is a unique example of its type at Youra. It belongs to a shallow, wide-mouthed vase with a vertically pierced lug. This type of vase, although generally rare, occurs at many Late Neolithic sites and is dated to the end of the Late Neolithic Ib period. It has been recovered from the Athenian Agora (Immerwahr 1971, 9–10, 30–31, pl. 6:70–75), Kephala (Coleman 1977, 15, pl. 29:M), the Cave of Theopetra (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000b), and rather abundantly, at Kastria (Katsarou and Sampson 1997, 127, fig. 39). This type is very close to the shape of the golden grooved vases of Makrykapa exhibited in the Benaki Museum (Segall 1938, 11, 211–212, fig. 13), as well as to the silver vases of the same provenance kept in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (von Bothmer 1971, 21, n. 96). 717 (161). Three fragments of body of a burnished vase. Deep grooves radiate from slightly prominent, flat lug. Max. dim. of one sherd 0.09 m. A2. 718 (394). Sherd with black surface carrying grooves. Finely burnished. Max. dim. 0.04 m. A5west. 719 (766). Small fragment of body of a coarse vase. On the exterior, preserved segment of two sets of two shallow grooves intersecting in a right angle, created with an implement. Gray smoothed surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.07 m. CEast 11, 1, 4, 7. 720 (781). Fragment of rim of a vase with inwardleaning walls. Uniform rim with pointed top. Two parallel grooves on the perimeter of the vase ca. 0.01 m. below rim. Brown surface, slipped and burnished on the outside; coarse and rough in places on the inside. Black core. Clay with fine inclusions. Diam. rim. 0.09 m. CEast 10. 721 (787). Fragment of a closed vase with straight walls, inward-leaning close to rim. Uniform rim with flat top. Close to rim, preserved segment of groups of oblique intersecting grooves arranged in alternating directions. Between grooves, impressed circles of various sizes. Brown surface, smoothed on the outside, rough on the inside. Brown core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast 11. 721.1 (402). Fragment of upper body of a monochrome open bowl, preserving stepped join of rim or neck to main body. Low groove runs around the body on top of the join. Black surface, slipped and polished. Black core, fine clay. Max. dim. 0.09 m. CEast 7, 5.

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

POINTILLE DECORATION Only two sherds (which actually belong to the same vase) recovered in the Cave of the Cyclops carry pointille decoration of impressed dots framed by linear incisions (Fig. 2.43:722). This motif occurs in remarkable abundance in Thessaly and Euboea (Tharrounia, Sampson 1993a, figs. 75, 76), and it has also been recovered at Hagios Petros

65

(Efstratiou 1985). It is possibly a characteristic decoration of the peculiar “scoop” vessels. 722 (765). Fragment of an open, thin-walled vase. On the exterior, preserved segment of a horizontal band 0.013 m long, bordered by narrow shallow grooves and filled with dense deep pointille in a free arrangement. Surface reddish and smooth on the outside; brown and well smoothed on the inside. Gray core. Impure clay. Max. dim. 0.03 m. CEast 13, 4, 5.

Late Neolithic II Pottery Shapes (Fig. 2.6) Within the higher levels of Trench C and within the upper deposits of Trench A, a small number of sherds from undecorated vases that are dated to the early phase of Late Neolithic II were recovered. Painted ware sherds from the same deposits are discussed in Chapter 4. Most of the plain sherds are from closed or broad-mouthed vessels. One sherd of a shallow open vessel was also found.

medium height and extends to a pointed rim. Brown-red coarse surface, gray core. Diam. rim 0.13 m. CEast 4.

TYPE IV.3 These closed vases have a thick everted rim, as well as a uniform neck and body (725).

TYPE IV.1

725 (249). Fragment of rim, neck, and body of a closed vase. Thick everted rim, neck joined to the body with an open curve. Brownish coarse surface, gray core, coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.05 m. A2.

These are small vases with a uniform neck and body, and an everted rim (723).

TYPE IV.4

723 (835b). Fragment of rim, neck, and body of a closed vase. Rim is slightly everted. Brown coarse surface, gray core. Diam. rim 0.15 m. CEast 3.

These are wide-mouthed vases that are Sshaped in profile (726).

TYPE IV.2 These are vases with a medium-height, outwardleaning neck (724).

726 (412). Fragment of rim of a shallow open bowl with thin vertical walls and curved profile. Slightly everted rim, large in diameter, differentiated from body by wide curved carination. Smoothed surface with brownish-gray slip. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.26 m. CEast 13, 7–9.

724 (258a). Fragment of rim and neck of a closed or medium-sized vase. The outward-leaning neck is of

Handles and Lugs of Late Neolithic IIa Most of these handles and lugs (Figs. 2.21, 2.27, 2.39, 2.41–2.43) are cataloged under Late Neolithic Ib, but it is possible that they could also date

to Late Neolithic IIa, and are therefore discussed here. The most characteristic handles are triangular in shape, lean downward, and are outlined by two

66

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

deep incisions (416, 703). Two outlining incisions also occur on lug no. 727. Another handle is set on the rim of an open vase (280). Handle no. 681, slightly prominent from the body of the vase, is hollowed and reminiscent of false handles recovered at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a). Tubular lugs (550, 551) are similar to LN samples recovered at Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a), in the Athenian Agora (Immerwahr 1971), and at Kephala (Coleman 1977). No. 727 is of the characteristic

“elephant-head” type of lug, which becomes very popular by the mature LN in the central Greek mainland and on Euboea. Lugs of this type also occur on pattern burnished vases (see Ch. 4). Vertically pierced lug no. 661 is considered very uncommon; it also carries a relief rope motif. 727 (305). Thin elephant-head lug on body of a coarse vase. Grooved on either side. Brownish-gray surface. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.08 m. A4, 1–2.

Statistical Analysis of Early to Late Neolithic Coarse and Monochrome Wares TRENCH A The closed area in Trench A yielded a large quantity of pottery that dates from the Late Neolithic and Middle Neolithic, but primarily from the first of these periods. A total amount of 5,768 coarse and 947 monochrome sherds belong to the Late Neolithic, to which the 400 unstratified sherds recovered from the water of the small pond in this area should be added. A large quantity of pottery must still lie underwater, below a layer of mud. Since water and muddy deposits did not permit the sieving of soil from Trench A, the estimated total number of sherds is considerably greater. The largest amount of coarse ware (Table 2.6) was furnished by Level 1 (1,344 sherds) and Level 7 (1,181 sherds). With reference to the color of the surface, brown (34 percent) and red (33 percent) shades prevail, while sherds in black hues are scanty and represent only 3 percent of the total. Gray shades represent a significant percentage (21 percent), and sherds in various colors constitute 10 percent. Among monochrome ware vases (Table 2.7), red (35 percent) and brown (31 percent) sherds prevail, while black sherds again are scanty (7 percent). The largest amount of monochrome ware was furnished by Level 5 (280 sherds). In comparison to the total number of sherds from Trench A, there appears to be a limited number of rims. Outward-leaning/everted rims prevail over inward-leaning/inverted ones both among coarse and monochrome wares. As usual, strap handles

(196) prevail in relation to other types, for instance cylindrical handles (21) (Table 2.8). Also, bases are mainly (82 percent) flat (Table 2.9). Nevertheless, there is a fair number of ring-shaped bases in monochrome ware. The numbers of handles, lugs, and bases give an estimated total of 150–180 vases from Trench A.

TRENCH B Trench B yielded an unusually small quantity of sherds, which exclusively date from the Middle Neolithic. Six levels produced a total of only 308 sherds, of which 61 are monochrome. Nine handles and seven lugs have been identified, as well as 12 flat and four ring-shaped bases. Rims mainly belong to open shapes with upright walls. A limited quantity of painted ware sherds came out of Levels 1 and 2.

TRENCH C Trench C yielded a total of 4,853 coarse and 954 monochrome sherds that date from the Late Neolithic. The three upper levels of Trench C yielded a limited amount of Neolithic pottery. Within Level 4, there are 410 coarse and 50 monochrome sherds. Excavation in the trench was uniform up to and including Level 4, when at Level 5 it was separated into a Western and Eastern Division. The Western Division furnished 750 coarse and 301

THE POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

monochrome sherds. Brown and red varieties prevail (388 and 285 sherds, respectively), while black sherds are fewer (113 sherds). From Level 6, pottery almost exclusively belongs to the Middle Neolithic, but certain Early Neolithic types are present. There is a total of 437 sherds from Level 6, among which red and brown ones prevail, as they do in Level 7 (411 sherds). Level 8 produced 247 sherds that almost exclusively belong to coarse wares. Levels 7 and 8, Rectangles 5 and 6, yielded 186 coarse and 26 monochrome EN and MN sherds, which belong to open shapes. Among the total amount of EN/MN pottery from Trench CWest, there are only 22 strap and four cylindrical handles as well as 22 vertically pierced lugs. There are 17 flat and eight ring-shaped bases, although the former is generally more common among EN/MN wares. Of the coarse and monochrome rims, 60 are outward-leaning/everted and 26 are inward-leaning/inverted. The Eastern Division yielded 240 coarse and 55 monochrome sherds of the Late Neolithic in Level 5 (Tables 2.3, 2.4). In Level 6, the quantity of ceramic material increased (515 coarse and 57 monochrome sherds). There is approximately the same amount of pottery within Level 7, even though the monochrome ware sherds (108) almost doubled. The decrease in material noted within Level 8 (300 coarse and 18 monochrome sherds) is inexplicable. Levels 9 and 13 have a large amount of coarse ware, while a progressive reduction in the number of coarse sherds is noted from Level 14. The number of monochrome sherds similarly decreases from Level 10, while their number unexpectedly increases (171 sherds) within Level 14 (Table 2.4). Level 11 yielded 117 outward-leaning/everted and 38 inwardleaning/inverted rims.

67

The material from Level 14 shows a preference for open vases with upright rim and walls (18 samples compared to five with everted rim, seven with upright curved, and eight with everted curved). Necked types (13) prevail among closed shapes. Monochrome sherds (171) are unusually numerous in relation to coarse sherds (305). Handles are exclusively of the strap variety, and there is an unusually large amount of ring-shaped bases. Level 15 yielded 131 coarse and 49 monochrome sherds, as well as 13 flat bases and one ring-shaped base. Handles are mainly of the strap variety. The quantity of rim fragments is smaller, but vertical rims as well as necked closed shapes prevail again. Level 16 yielded 74 coarse and 23 monochrome sherds. Among rims, those with curved and upright profiles seem to prevail. An unusually large number of EN/MN monochrome sherds (53) is noted in relation to coarse sherds (13) within Level 17. Rims belong to open shapes, with the exception of one closed shape. From other rectangles of the same level, 55 coarse and 40 monochrome sherds of the Late Neolithic were recovered. Vertical straight rims prevail, and necked closed shapes are abundant. An inversion of the usual situation is found within Level 18, with 73 monochrome and 55 coarse sherds of the Early/Middle Neolithic. Out of 40 rim fragments, the majority belong to vases with upright walls. With reference to the color of the surface of the vases from Levels 1 to 11, among coarse sherds, 1,060 are brown and 698 are red. Gray sherds, as well as those of various other colors, are rare. Among monochrome ware, brown (33 percent) and black (31 percent) sherds prevail.

Pottery Technology and Petrographic Analysis A large number of Neolithic sherds of various wares found in the Cave of the Cyclops have been subjected to petrographic analysis. Thin sections have been studied by K. Papakosta (forthcoming) at the National Center for Scientific Research (NCSR) “Demokritos” laboratories in Athens as well as at

the University of Sheffield. Earlier analyses of MN pottery from Hagios Petros resulted in the distinction of three sub-groups that exhibit no correlation with the pottery of this period from Thessaly (Liritzis, Orphanides, and Efstratiou 1991).

3

Middle Neolithic Weavers Paint: Red Patterns as Markers of the Local Group’s Identity Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki*

Middle Neolithic Occupation in the Cave Excavation revealed that the earliest postMesolithic human activity inside the Cave of the Cyclops occurred in two distinct areas: in the hall of the entrance and in an isolated area of the interior, which is surrounded by high stalactite and stalagmite columns. In the entrance hall, the Early to Middle Neolithic occupants spread their activity across most of the area (Fig. 1.4A), as can be concluded from the

presence of a coherent, though variably thick, EN– MN deposit. This activity showed considerable intensity around a locus of successive hearths (Hearths 2, 3, and 4) in Trench B, Rectangle 4 (Fig. 1.6B). These hearths consisted of several sublayers of ash and charcoal alternating with reddish-yellow substrata that were almost baked and obviously suggested repeated use of the locus. The hearth was a

*The author thanks: Prof. A. Sampson for the opportunity to join the Youra Project research team and study this unique material; the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology of Southern Greece in the Ministry of Culture for hosting this research at its Athens offices; conservators, Mr. Panayiotis Polydoropoulos from the same Ephorate and Mr. Michel Roggenbucke from the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete; Mrs. Sofia Tsourinaki, research weaver from the Benaki Museum in Athens, who highlighted the strong connection

between the ancient patterns of Youra vases and the weaving technique; Mrs. Katerina Mavragani, painter from the 21st Ephorate of the Ministry of Culture, who has studied the painting technique of these vases and helped in pattern reconstruction; Mrs. Christina Xanthopoulou for translating the Greek text into English. I am especially grateful to INSTAP Academic Press and the editorial team headed by Dr. Susan Ferrence for reviewing the text and making substantial suggestions.

70

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

short distance from a stalagmite column, which the Middle Neolithic population had probably utilized to better support the hearth’s foundation. Unfortunately, much of the EN–MN deposit at the entrance has been disturbed by later human activity or subjected to erosional processes by subterranean waters or sediment subsidence. The other occupation area is located at the central part of the cave’s interior (Trenches A and D; Fig. 1.4A) on a natural terrace lying atop accumulated rocks and stalagmite formations at a considerable height from the floor of the cave’s main chamber. This area is only accessible by a narrow trail from the entrance along the cave wall. The terrace is completely dark and very isolated, as it is enclosed by stalagmite “curtains” that leave only a small opening at one side. The place is small (about 10 m2) and had an uneven floor in the Middle Neolithic, which we conclude from the spread of little stalagmites developing on the excavated floor. At one side, there is a natural cavity about 1 m deep inside the stalagmite bed where dripping water is concentrated. Though dark, cold, and extremely humid, the occupation of this place by all successive residents of the cave

probably should be attributed to the abundance of water. Unfortunately, the deposits are so muddy that they preserve no stratigraphic sequence (Fig. 1.6A) and, therefore, make impossible any evaluation of the well-attested, dispersed charcoal found here. In fact, information on this area can only be inferred from ceramics, which outnumber the artifacts originating from the entrance, at least for the Middle Neolithic. In summary, the Middle Neolithic occupants of the Cave of the Cyclops spread extensively in the area of the entrance, but for some reason occupied the distinct interior spot more intensely (Fig. 3.1). The entrance is far more advantageous in terms of size, natural light, temperature, and floor smoothness for temporary residence or refuge, but it was in the interior that we uncovered 80 percent of the total Middle Neolithic pottery of the cave, which was mostly painted. Nevertheless, apart from some pottery, the entrance of that period preserved a considerable assemblage of dietary remains, chipped obsidian and flint, as well as a few bone fishhooks, while the interior area preserved no material remains other than ceramics.

Type V. The Red-on-White Painted Pottery Red-on-White painted pottery is the main component of the Middle Neolithic deposits and, as mentioned above, was mostly recovered in the dark cave interior (Table 3.1). It consisted of a total of 598 fragments (not one pot was found intact), 495 of which came from the interior context. The total diminished to 466 pieces after obvious joins had been made (Table 3.2). The presentation of the pottery discussed and cataloged in this chapter follows the format begun in Chapter 2, which provided an overview of the Early–Late Neolithic pottery from the Cave of the Cyclops. The Redon-White painted pottery is designated as Type V, and the catalog numbers (in bold) continue consecutively from those in Chapter 2.

SHAPE REPERTOIRE The pots are mostly made of coarse clay deriving from some local sediment naturally mixed with limestone fragments. It is not clear whether

some of these fragments were intentionally added as temper. However coarse the clay may have been, visible surfaces have been smoothed very carefully and slipped to obliterate traces of coarseness. Vessels are limited to a few shapes, among which varieties of the deep ovoid vase, whose broad mouth forms either a collar neck or a thick high rim, are prevalent. The principal shapes of the Middle Neolithic vases from Youra have been categorized in the following typology (Fig. 3.2).

TYPE V.1 This category is represented by a deep open cup. Hemispherical in profile, the cup ends at a plain or differentiated, upright or slightly incurving rim (728, 729). The body is estimated to measure ca. 0.20 m in depth. The base has not been preserved, but we assume that it was a high, ring-shaped base (Theocharis 1973, pls. I, IV). This cup should be placed at an earlier stage compared to the rest of the

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

material. It certainly belongs to tableware, though it is broad and deep enough for quickly mixing food. Similar vessels are recorded from Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 21c, 21l, 34d, 34e). 728. Fragments (three) from a deep hemispherical bowl with straight rim. Worn, brown, straight and zigzag lines and rim band on light brown background. Inner surface coarse yellowish brown. Diam. rim 0.24 m. B6. 729. Fragment from a deep hemispherical bowl with thin, outward-curving rim. Worn, brown, straight and zigzag lines and rim band on light brown background. Inner surface coarse yellowish brown. Diam. rim 0.23 m. B6.

TYPE V.2 This is a deep ovoid vase. It has a neck and is either a broad-mouthed or closed vessel (730–740). A popular shape of the period, this group comprises a large number of vessels with general similarities in profile, but small differences in details of curvature and mouth diameter. The body varies between spherical, ovoid, and slightly compressed at its lower part. Its upper part consists of an inward-leaning shoulder, slightly curved or even straight, with an average inclination of ca. 130 degrees. The profile is so widely curved that separation between shoulder and body cannot be located at a certain point (i.e., closed curvature or carination). Two or four rounded lugs with vertical perforations are very often attached just under the middle of the maximum height of the body. The shoulder ends at a collar neck, which was produced from a separate coil and attached to the body at the end of the manufacturing process. This is why the neck join has always been very sensitive to breakage. The height of the neck ranges between 0.02 and 0.07 m and has either a collar or funnel shape, but the majority of vessels support a 0.03–0.04 m collar. The angle at the junction with the body is about 130–140 degrees, while the inclination of the neck is around 65–70 degrees. Wall thickness increases at the point of the junction with the shoulder, but decreases toward the upper end of the rim, which is pointed or rounded. There is a single case of a neck that carries an everted top instead of a plain rim. The diameter of the mouth measures around 0.20 m, except for a few vases that seem to exceed 0.25 m. Fewer fragments have been found that belong to the lower part of the body; some are carinated at a

71

small distance from the base, which makes the vase look squat. The squat profile is very popular at the time in this and other shapes; it is found in the neighboring settlement of Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, figs. 29–31) and on the Greek mainland at Sesklo (Tsountas 1908, fig. 83; Kotsakis 1983, fig. 138) and Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 105, 110–111). Wall thickness averages 0.05 m, but increases at such low carination. Despite the large number of pots from this group, only a single example of a base has been preserved. It consists of a narrow (0.05 m diameter) ring that is 0.03 m high, in accordance with the structural preferences of this period for ring-shaped bases over flat and rounded bases. We therefore assume that such were the bases of all vessels of the group. The total height of the vase must be approximately equal to the rim diameter (0.25–0.30 m). A similar vase is recorded at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 223, fig. 9a:1). The voluminous, hard-to-move shape of the container does not suit it to transport purposes. Its occurrence at the Cave of the Cyclops, however, suggests that it was somehow transported there, and it probably was not empty. Actually, it could have been easily secured on a transport animal or the back of a human. On the other hand, the narrow ring-shaped base excludes a possible function of cooking on fire, as it inhibits heat diffusion and thermal efficiency. Besides, a cooking vessel can be supported easily on fire, either on wood or ash, and does not need to carry a base itself. In fact, the large opening of its mouth and the capacity of its shape make this vase suitable for multiple functions. Its broad diameter may suggest a use for the container involving food preparation, processing either warm or cold materials (for instance, mixing or fermentation)—though not on fire—alongside a function as tableware for serving. At the same time, the vessel may have been used for short-term storage of solid (grains or powdered) foodstuffs, as its large mouth makes it rather inappropriate for liquids. In this case, it is suggested here that the collar neck creates an additional protection zone for the contents of the vase, and the inclination of the neck was possibly intended to serve for fastening a leather or cloth cover, which would stretch around and firmly bind the rim. Such a cover would protect the vessel’s contents from insects and external environmental factors and allow it to ventilate at the same time.

72

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

This vessel type is spread throughout the mainland, east and west (Mellaart 1975, figs. 71–72). It is found in Albania (Korkuti 1995, fig. 11:1–3) and at Nea Nikomedeia (Yiouni 1996, 94), Sesklo (Wijnen 1982, 37:6; Kotsakis 1983, 75, shape 12), Otzaki (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971), Soufli Magoula (Papathanassopoulos 1996, 341, cat. no. 306), Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 115), Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 30, figs. 32–33), Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, 315), Euboea (Sampson 1981, figs. 11, 18), and Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 26n, 97). 730. Fragments (11) from body and neck join of broad-mouthed vase. Red solid triangles attached to solid lozenges on whitish background. Inner surface coarse reddish brown. Diam. at base of neck 0.16 m. A5. 731. Fragments (eight) from globular body, short collar neck, and vertically pierced round lugs of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Red patterns on light yellow background; reversed solid triangles on both sides of the neck, meander on shoulder canvas zone, sets of concentric circles alternating with “plant” motif on body. Inner surface coarse red. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5. 732. Fragments (22) from globular body, short collar neck, and narrow, ring-shaped base of deep, broadmouthed vase. Red-orange patterns on whitish background; interlocking dogtooth on both sides of neck, wavy zigzag lines on shoulder canvas zone, sets of concentric circles completed with parallel and stepped lines on body, horizontal lines on lower body, solid base. Inner surface coarse red. Diam. rim. 0.18; h. base 0.03; diam. base 0.05 m. A5. 733. Fragments (17) from globular body and collar neck of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Red patterns on whitish background; opposing solid triangles alternating with solid lozenges on both sides of neck, zigzag lines and checkers on shoulder canvas zone, rows of solid squares on body canvas triangles defined by vertical zigzags and alternating with sets of concentric circles. Inner surface coarse red. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A5. 734. Fragments (10) from globular body of closed or broad-mouthed vase. Red patterns on yellowish background; rows of solid squares on body canvas triangles defined by vertical zigzags and alternating with sets of concentric circles. Inner surface coarse red. Max. diam. body ca. 0.25 m. A5. 735. Fragments (five) from globular body of closed or broad-mouthed vase. Red patterns on yellowish background; zigzags on body canvas triangles defined by vertical zigzags and alternating with sets of concentric circles. Inner surface coarse red. Max. diam. body ca. 0.20 m. A5. 736. Fragments (seven) from globular body and collar neck of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Red-brown patterns

on yellowish-brown background; reversed solid triangles on both sides of the neck, concentric triangles completed with checkerboard on shoulder canvas zone, sets of concentric circles completed with parallel lines on body. Inner surface coarse red. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A5. 737. Fragments (seven) from globular body and collar neck of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Red-brown patterns on yellowish-brown background; interlocking dogtooth on both sides of the neck, concentric triangles and lozenges completed with checkerboard on shoulder canvas zone, sets of concentric circles completed with parallel lines on body. Inner surface coarse red. Diam. rim 0.22 m. A5. 738. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Brown patterns on reddish-yellow background; zigzag lines on shoulder canvas zone, sets of concentric circles completed with parallel lines on body. Inner surface coarse red. Max. diam. body ca. 0.21 m. A5. 739. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Brown patterns on reddish-yellow background; zigzag lines on shoulder canvas zone, sets of concentric circles associated with parallel lines on body. Inner surface coarse reddish brown. Max. diam. body ca. 0.19 m. A5. 740. Fragment from shoulder and collar neck of deep, broad-mouthed vase. Red patterns on yellowish background; opposing solid triangles on both sides of neck, concentric lozenges and triangles on shoulder canvas. Inner surface coarse red. Diam. rim 0.18 m. CEast18, 4.

TYPE V.3 This is a deep ovoid vase with a closed neck. It is a closed shape with a bulky and high body. It is similar to Type V.2, but the neck is more closed, measuring ca. 0.12 m in diameter (741–743). The closed mouth is probably indicative of a transport or storage function, and seems to suggest liquid contents, in comparison to Type V.2. 741. Fragments (29) from globular closed vase with high collar neck. Red patterns on yellowish background; reversed solid triangles on both sides of the neck, sets of concentric circles on body. Inner body surface coarse reddish brown. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5. 742. Fragments (27) from globular body of closed vase. Brown parallel lines separated into vertical, horizontal, and oblique bands on green-brown background. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. diam. body ca. 0.23 m. A5. 743. Fragments (26) from globular body and high collar neck of closed vase. Red-brown patterns on yellowish background; reversed solid triangles on both sides of the neck, parallel meander lines and concentric rectangles on body. Inner surface coarse brown. Diam. rim 0.10 m. A5.

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

TYPE V.4 This category is represented by deep, bell-shaped vases. Included here are two varieties: one is globular with inward-curving walls (744), and the other is long and narrow with upright walls (745). In the first group, the rim can be plain or rolled. The single example from the second group has a slashed rim, 0.045 m high. The depth of these vases is unknown, and reconstructions are based on similar examples from Hagios Petros and the mainland. This type of open and deep container may have been used for mixing or fermenting of foodstuffs, though not on a cooking hearth. The slashed rim may be intended to facilitate the fastening of a flexible cover, as suggested above for Type V.2. 744. Fragment of broad-mouthed vase with incurving upper walls ending in a straight rim. Vertical knob on the rim edge. Red-brown net on yellow background. Inner surface slipped yellow, unpainted. Diam. rim 0.14 m. A5. 745. Fragment of broad-mouthed vase with vertical profile ending in an angular, outward-curving rim. Brown zigzag and other lines on light gray surface. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A7.

TYPE V.5 This is an open vessel with upright walls and an upper part that is S-shaped in profile (746). It is shallow, with a rim large in diameter that must be equal to its total width. Such shapes have multifunctional capacities as tableware or for mixing food in small quantities. Similar shapes are recorded from Skyros (Theocharis 1959b, 315, fig. 33:10, 11), and Otzaki (Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, pl. 9). 746. Fragment from open vase with S-profile. Slipped light yellow gray on both surfaces, patterns not preserved. Diam. rim 0.20 m. A7.

TYPE V.6 This category contains shallow convex bowls. This is an unusual shape in the Greek Neolithic (Kotsakis 1983, fig. 10), and it has been considered to be orientalizing (Efstratiou 1985, 28). The body of the vase consists of two parts joined at an angle (Pl. 3.1A:747). Its upper part is upright and convex in profile (i.e., with an outward-leaning rim). Its lower part is calyx-shaped. The painter has

73

incorporated the shape’s carination into the structure of its decoration by identifying it with the lower finishing line of the decorative zone, which has been underlined with a broad solid band for this reason. The base has not been preserved, unlike similar examples from the neighboring site of Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 28, fig. 5:1, 2), which carry either a rounded or a ring-shaped base. In terms of function, the shape is an excellent example of tableware—for serving and especially for drinking. Most probably it was not placed on the fire for cooking, because its convex-angular outline is incompatible with thermal conductivity. Furthermore, the cavities formed in the interior of the container inhibit the cooking of its contents. What distinguishes this shape from the contemporary repertoire is the combination of convex profile with carination, making this vessel very sophisticated. In addition to Hagios Petros, another example is recorded at Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 3:r, 30:k, o). 747. Fragments (11) from a carinated bowl with convex upper profile. Red-brown concentric lozenges and triangles completed with checkerboard in canvas zone on yellowish background. Inner surface slipped grayblack. Diam. rim 0.17 m. A5.

TYPE V.7 This category is represented by the calyx-shaped bowl (Pl. 3.1B:748). This is another rare shape. The upper part is heavily inclined outward (65 degrees) and is joined to the rounded lower part at an obtuse angle of 160 degrees. A small cavity is formed in the center of the high calyx walls. In a manner similar to Type V.6, the painter used the carination to mark the lower end of the decoration zone and placed the borderline just on it. This type of open container initially points to its utility for serving solid foods or liquids. The exceptionally marked inclination of the walls and the choice of an angular carination, all marking the central cavity, cannot be accidental. One also could attribute these choices to a specific functional purpose, such as the need to keep small quantities of plant materials concentrated in the very center to burn essences on the fire. Vitelli (1993a, 214–215) has assumed this function for similar vases from Franchthi Cave, positing that vegetable substances may have had aromatic or other psychotherapeutic

74

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

qualities when burned. She has observed traces of scraping on the interior of these containers, which she concluded were the result of cleaning residues from gluey substances. The Youra example did not bear such traces, but it has evident deposits of smoke on the outer surface, which have severely altered the color of the decorative patterns. It

cannot be clearly discerned whether this was the result of unsuccessful firing or is owed to the use of the vase as an incense burner. 748. Fragment from carinated bowl with an outwardleaning upper body. Two opposing sets of gray-black parallel lines on light gray background. Inner surface slipped dark. Diam. rim 0.17 m. CWest 8, 5–6.

Lugs No examples of handles of Red-on-White painted pottery have been preserved, and the number of lugs is limited (Fig. 3.3A; Table 3.3). A thin horizontal arched lug (751) that looks like a rib should be dated among the earliest of the sample. Similar types are found at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 54), Skyros (Theocharis 1959b, 316, fig. 34), and Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, fig. 17). The rest of the lugs are vertically pierced ovoid knobs (731, 749, 750), which are mostly attached to the belly of the Type V.2 deep, broad-mouthed bowl. It is possible that these vases carried two or four similar lugs at diametrically opposite points. The perforations of the lugs are small, ca. 0.05–0.08 m in diameter. These types are widespread at all contemporary sites, including at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 31, figs. 39–40), on Skyros (Theocharis 1959b, 318, fig. 35), in Euboea (Sampson 1981, pl. 2c), at Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, 39), in the Franchthi Cave (Vitelli 1993a, fig. 14), on Chios (Hood 1981, fig. 8:4), and at Hacılar IX–VI in Asia Minor (Mellaart 1975). They are found even as late as Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968). The practical value of these lugs is disputed (Efstratiou 1985, 35; Vitelli 1993a, 100). The fact that they get detached easily shows that the surface of attachment was not stable even at the moment when the vase was brand new; they therefore could not support the entire weight of the vase, especially

if it was full. Furthermore, the presence of a ringshaped base proves that the vessel was not designed for suspension. Finally, the size and shape of the lugs are such that they cannot replace handles, unless one assumes the use of a shaft, such as a wooden stick or rope. The use of rope, in particular, could be warranted for securing the vases on animals or men, in the case of transportation. Here, however, these specific vases are considered inappropriate for transport and were designed instead to stand on their base. These lugs were therefore either simply decorative (Vitelli 1993a, 100; Katsarou 2001b, 26–27), or their practical value must be sought elsewhere. In fact, it is suggested here that these lugs were intended to facilitate fastening a cover from the vase’s neck or rim with thin, stretched ropes bound in their holes. 749. Fragment from open vase bearing vertically pierced, round lug. Worn red motifs on yellowish background. Inner surface slipped and burnished black. Max. h. 0.052 m. A4. 750. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed vase bearing a vertically pierced lug. Slipped yellow, with red zigzag line on lug. Inner surface coarse red. Max. h. 0.029 m. CWest 6. 751. Fragments (two) from body of closed vase bearing unpierced horizontal lug. Brown diagonal bands on whitish background. Inner surface coarse red. Max. h. of one sherd 0.052 m. Max. w. 0.046, 0.031 m. A4.

Red Pattern Decoration The execution of the red patterns on the vases and the manufacture of the pots as a whole demonstrate supreme craftsmanship. The patterns, which are mostly curvilinear, are complex, though they

manifest considerable standardization. We have distinguished approximately 50 different patterns, including some that are partly preserved and not fully identified. Few patterns, however, are used on

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

each vessel, which suggests that Neolithic painters created complexity not by using many different patterns on the same vessel, but by combining a small number of the same patterns (possibly only two or three) in many different ways. Each vase type is divided into specific decoration zones, each of which is ornamented with the same standardized patterns according to the size and curvature of the zone. The major decoration zones (Fig. 3.3B) are the neck/rim, shoulder, main body, lower body, base, and lugs. It is possible that the zones of shoulder, main body, and lower body are a united decorative field. Carination or other morphological boundaries between these zones can serve as structural boundaries for decoration, and are thus almost always delineated with painted bands.

NECK/RIM A considerable number of neck and rim sherds were found (a total of 155 pieces; see Table 3.3). This enables the observation that the potters’ choices followed a certain pattern in the treatment of these parts of the vases. The neck and rim are the only fields of the vessel that are also decorated on the interior. The motifs of the interior almost always copy those of the corresponding outer surface. Closed or broad-mouthed and deep vases are usually left coarse and unslipped inside, except for a few cases where the inner surface has been smoothed and slipped. Open pots are always slipped on the inside, but are never painted. There are several different types of motifs that are usually found in the neck/rim area (Pl. 3.2).

Net This motif (Pl. 3.2:1) consists of two crossing sets of thin parallel lines covering a narrow band along the rim (744). Crossing produces a series of adjoining lozenges, one vertical row of which has been painted solid. Similar examples were found at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 35, figs. 10:1, 30:1) and in Thessaly (Demoule, Gallis, and Manolakakis 1988, fig. 4:5).

Hatched Triangles The hatched triangles (Pl. 3.2:2) on the rim/neck have varying number, thickness, inclination, and intermediary distance of hatched lines (752).

75

752. Fragment from low, outward-curving neck of closed vase. Red hatched triangles on yellowish background on both surfaces. Diam. rim 0.18 m. A5.

Solid Triangles The apex of the solid triangle (Pl. 3.2:3) points downward (731, 741, 743). This is one of the most popular motifs of the period, as indicated at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 218, fig. 5:5), Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 98:A, 138:17, 141), Pyrasos (Theocharis 1959a, 42, fig. 9:1, 2, 5), Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, figs. A:2–43, 76), and Franchthi Cave (Vitelli 1993a, fig. 20r).

Interlocking Dogtooth The interlocking dogtooth motif (Pl. 3.2:4) has two opposing rows of solid interlocking triangles: the upper row hangs from the rim and the lower stands on the line of the neck join (732, 737). This pattern is very popular (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 10:6).

Solid Lozenges Alternating with Sets of Opposing Triangles This motif (Pl. 3.2:5) is the only neck decoration pattern consisting of two different motifs, the lozenge and the triangle (733). The vertically opposing triangles are equilateral but not touching. Freestanding lozenges fill the intermediate area between the sets. The decoration is executed with little care for details of line thickness and inclination.

Opposed Solid Triangles These occur in sets of two opposed solid triangles (Pl. 3.2:6) with overlapping apices, but they are placed eccentrically (740). Sets are placed without intermediate distance and cover the entire height of the neck.

SHOULDER AND BODY: CANVAS The recovery of 434 shoulder and body sherds from different parts of the vessel (Table 3.3) leads to the conclusion that canvas is a major shoulder and body motif (Fig. 3.3C). At the Cave of the Cyclops, it has been recorded on 14 vases, mostly broadmouthed and deep ovoid vessels (Types V.2 and V.3), except for one example coming from an open convex phiale (Type V.6). Canvas is a kind of thin net made from two crossing sets of parallel lines, which

76

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

can be divided into two types based on line inclination (Fig. 3.4A). The most popular variety has oblique, cross-hatched lines inclined at 40–50 degrees and 150–160 degrees to the left and right respectively. The other style of canvas, although much rarer, consists of vertical lines crossing horizontal parallel lines at, or close to, a right angle. Canvas lines are usually as thin as 0.5–0.8 mm on average, but can be even less in some cases, which suggests that they were painted with a onehair brush (Mavragani 2001, 38). The distance between the lines is about 2 mm on average, but there are considerable divergences from this average in favor of larger or smaller distances. Actually, one kind of distance variation can be observed on almost every pot with shoulder canvas between the upper and lower part of the canvas band: oblique lines from each of the crossing sets tend to converge toward the neck, but diverge toward the belly (Pl. 3.3:733). It is possible that this can be explained as the result of different diameters between neck and belly, but it may also indicate that the potter was painting the canvas lines from neck to belly. Canvas is never left plain; this fact emphasizes the idiosyncratic function of this particular motif among known Neolithic patterns. The net, which divides the decorative field into hundreds of small squares, is actually drawn with the intention to serve as a metric base, to guide the execution of the final patterns that the potter has in mind. Within this net, the Youra painter drew the patterns by filling some squares with paint and reserving others, so that the final pattern shows symmetry and good proportion. Such a process necessitates that the desired design is arranged in squares, which the painter counted on the canvas under the general rule that each solid or reserved line should be as thick as one square. Small oversights are an inevitable result of the handicraft, and they are mostly owed to differences of distance between parallel lines, which cause unequal squares and thus small distortions to the final design. In summary, the canvas is made to measure and has a functional value instead of a decorative value; this is why its hatched lines are painted so thinly so that they are almost invisible in the final pattern. The neighboring settlement of Hagios Petros is the only site where a similar canvas has been

recorded to date, again with the same function (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 48). Although various net patterns have been recorded on the mainland, canvas bands functioning in such a manner are totally absent, which points to a local idiosyncrasy in the population of the Northern Sporades, as suggested already by Theocharis (1973, 57) and later by Efstratiou (1985).

Shoulder Canvas Shoulder canvas consists of a band, about 0.06–0.075 m high, starting from the neck join and extending around the upper part of the vase. Unlike the upper boundary, which coincides with the neck join, the lower boundary is defined by a thick horizontal band. The location of this band at about one-third the height of the body is arbitrary, because no distinctive structural feature, such as carination or even close curvature, exists in this area of the vessel. Based on estimations, the shoulder canvas should contain approximately 380 cross-hatched lines in total around the vessel— about 160 lines for each set. In the case of canvas where vertical lines cross with horizontal parallel lines, however, the former should number slightly more than 380 all around, while the latter should not exceed 20 from the neck to the lower canvas border zone. Shoulder canvas can host a considerable number of motifs, including two varieties of meander lines, checkers with horizontal zigzags, interlocking triangles, and concentric lozenges. Meander lines can be either P-shaped (731) or wavy (732, 738, 739). P-meander can be executed only on the type of canvas where hatched lines cross at right angles (Fig. 3.4A:1; Pl. 3.4:731). It consists of successive Ps moving rather randomly in alternating vertical and horizontal axes. In addition, Ps are not equal in the length of their arms. Such features are understood as indicating that the painter deliberately followed no predetermined plan. The second variety is a complicated stepped pattern or labyrinth. The wavy meander requires the standard type of canvas where lines cross at acute angles (Fig. 3.4A:2; Pls. 3.5, 3.6B, C:732, 738, 739). It actually consists of one zigzag line winding between vertical and horizontal axes inside the canvas zone. Meander patterns are rather rare in contemporary pottery. Tsountas records one ceramic fragment

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

from Sesklo depicting a meander line, though not on canvas (Tsountas 1908, 188, fig. 98). In Asia Minor, Hacılar I was the center of the so-called “meander pottery style” (Mellaart 1961, 177) of the beginning of the 6th millennium B.C. Similar meander/labyrinth patterns were standardized, however, especially on seals in that period. In fact, there are two Thessalian steatite seals and a contemporary sealing from the same area depicting exactly the same design (Theocharis 1959a, 66, fig. 28)—a kind of labyrinth consisting of rectangular areas set symmetrically on either side of a central line/axis. Another labyrinth design comes from the biggest and most important seal from Sesklo, also dated to the Middle Neolithic period (Tsountas 1908, 340, fig. 271; Papathanassopoulos 1996, 334, cat. no. 283), while the collection of seals by Theocharis (1973, 299, pl. 20) includes more samples of these types. In summary, Youra patterns fit well into a broad group of various meander or labyrinth designs (Onasoglou 1996, 163), which do not merely constitute common patterns, but also seem to be part of a major symbolic code within Neolithic society, as indicated by their presence on seals. Apart from meanders, the shoulder canvas is decorated with various combinations of horizontal zigzags (Pls. 3.3, 3.6A:733), concentric lozenges, or opposing interlocking triangles (Pl. 3.7:736). Opposed triangles alternating with sets of concentric lozenges (Pls. 3.8, 3.9A:737, 740) roughly reproduce neck/rim motif 5 (Pl. 3.2:5); lozenge sets touch the upper and lower boundary band and usually have a solid center. Checkers always fill the reserved area between these patterns. Checkers are produced by alternating solid and reserved squares, either individually or by uniting four squares so that the pattern is larger and more clear (Fig. 3.4B). There is always considerable carelessness in the brushstrokes, which are mostly ellipsoid, very often protruding into the adjoining blank squares, and only rarely fill their own square completely. Checkers are a very popular Neolithic pattern and are often found on parts of the vessel other than the body, such as around the rim, as in an open shape from Macedonia (Grammenos 1991, pl.

77

15:6), or on strap handles, as at Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 157:14). More examples come from Sesklo (Tsountas 1908, 188, fig. 98), Phthiotis (Dimaki 1994, fig. 19), and Franchthi Cave (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 13:i, 29:p, 29:q, 30:j). Checkers from Youra and Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 46), however, are not merely placed side by side with other patterns, but are absolutely bound to them by the underlying metric base that unites the entire frieze.

Body Canvas Body canvas is placed in a large triangle or a lozenge rather than a horizontal frieze (Pls. 3.3, 3.6A, 3.9B, C, 3.10, 3.11). Most impressive are two pots where this triangular body canvas zone is attached to—and actually hangs from—the shoulder canvas frieze (Pls. 3.3, 3.6A, 3.9B:733, 753). Lines from both nets are similar in terms of thickness, inclination, and intermediate distance. Close observation at the joins, however, reveals no exact correspondence between shoulder and body net lines, suggesting that the painter did not manufacture the shoulder and body canvas with one movement of his hand. Body canvas is decorated with sparse solid squares (Pls. 3.3, 3.6A, 3.9C, 3.10:733, 734), parallel zigzags, which give a wavy impression (Pl. 3.11:735), and possibly checkers (Fig. 3.4C:754–756). Body canvas often alternates with concentric circles. 753. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed, thin-walled vase. Red line separating shoulder from body canvas zone on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse red. Max. h. 0.026 m. CEast 17, 7. 754. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed vase. Red-brown checkerboard on canvas on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. h. 0.027 m. CEast 18, 4. 755. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed, thin-walled vase. Red solid squares on canvas on whitish background. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. h. 0.041 m. CEast 7. 756. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed, thin-walled vase. Red solid squares on canvas on greenish-yellow background. Inner surface coarse red. Max. w. 0.058 m. CEast 18, 4.

78

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

OTHER BODY MOTIFS In addition to canvas, there are several other motifs (Fig. 3.5) that decorate vessels either independently or in association with canvas.

Concentric Circles This is a popular motif (Fig. 3.5:1; Pls. 3.4–3.8, 3.10–3.12B:731–739, 741, 757) often underlying a shoulder canvas motif or alternating with a body canvas triangle/lozenge. The concentric circles occur in sets, usually around the lugs of a vase (Pl. 3.12A, B:741, 757). Most groups contain six to nine circles, on average approximately 5–7 mm thick, placed at roughly equal distance. The diameter of the circles progressively decreases until the smallest circle can fit around the central knob. It appears that vessels can have as many such groups as the number of lugs—i.e., up to four (Pl. 3.12B). There are also rare examples of circles very sparsely set within a concentric group (Fig. 3.5:18). Similar patterns have been found at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 215, fig. 2:3, 4), Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 149:6, 7), and also on some Thessalian seals (Theocharis 1973, 299, pl. XX). 757. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed vase bearing vertically pierced round lug. Red concentric circles surround lug on whitish background, worn motifs on lug. Inner surface coarse reddish brown. Max. w. 0.050 m. A4.

Stepped Lines Stepped lines (Fig. 3.5:2; Pl. 3.5:732) occur in groups of two, three, four, and six. They are usually attached to concentric circles or groups of parallel lines in an inclined position, but they have been painted later, as observed from differences between overlying and underlying colors. Similar motifs have been documented from Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 218, fig. 5:5), Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, fig. G:4–67), and elsewhere in central Greece (Weinberg 1962, 178, pl. 55l), but also from slightly later Urfirnis pottery (Phelps 1975, 160, 161).

one central line that continues straight up. The total height of the motif is approximately 0.15 m. It seems that this motif is a schematized depiction of a naturalistic image—possibly a tree whose trunk corresponds to the vertical part of the design and whose branches correspond to the curving bands. Naturalistic representations are very rare in this period (Theocharis 1967, 134; 1973, pl. XVIII; Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 134:12, 143:3, 152:16).

Inclined Parallel Lines with a Free End This motif occurs on numerous occasions (Fig. 3.5:4; Pls. 3.5, 3.6B–3.8:732, 736–739). The inclined parallel lines are set in groups of two, five, or even 10. They are usually placed at an inclined position of approximately 45 degrees in the reserved area between shoulder canvas and groups of concentric circles. They make contact with the concentric circles, while the other end is free.

Lozenge Net The lozenge net consists of crossing sets of parallel lines (Fig. 3.5:5; Pls. 3.9B, 3.12C:753, 758). This motif is very similar to neck/rim motif 1 (Pl. 3.2:1), but it covers a wider area and consists of larger lozenges due to thicker lines that cross much further apart. Lozenges are painted solid in selected vertical rows. One can observe small differences in terms of thickness, inclination, and distance between the lines. This is a very popular pattern at contemporary Neolithic sites, as we can see from Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 219, fig. 6:3, 4), Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 138, 145, 155), Sesklo (Tsountas 1908, pl. 7:2), Albania (Korkuti 1995, pl. 18:1–4), Phthiotis (Dimaki 1994, figs. 17:x, 22:g; Tsouknidas 1994, fig. 11), Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, fig. 76:6–136), Liani Ammos in Euboea (Sampson 1996–1998, fig. 14), and Franchthi Cave (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 20:q, 30:e, g, h, 31:a, d). 758. Fragments (15) from body of closed vase. Redbrown net pattern on light brown background. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. diam. 0.195 m. A5.

“Plant” Motif

Concentric Squares

The “plant” motif (Fig. 3.5:3; Pl. 3.4:731) consists of seven vertical lines 4–6 mm thick, standing on a group of horizontal bands. Their upper part curves downward like an umbrella, except for

The concentric square motif (Fig. 3.5:6; Pl. 3.13A:759) contains five, seven, or nine squares with a solid center. This motif is recorded on a seal from Thessaly (Papathanassopoulos 1996, 334,

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

cat. no. 283). It should most likely be regarded as another expression of the labyrinth pattern. 759. Fragments (10) from lower body of thickwalled, closed vase with strong curvature. Red concentric squares in sets. Inner surface coarse red. Max. diam. 0.176 m. A5.

79

(Efstratiou 1985, fig. 5:7) and Tsani Magoula near Karditsa (Wace and Thompson 1912, 84f).

Zigzag Lines or Bands

Lozenges with Attached Triangles at Top and Bottom

There are several variations on this motif (Fig. 3.5:10–14; Pls. 3.3, 3.6A, 3.14C:733, 762–764). The zigzag lines are found in groups, and vary in terms of inclination, density, length, and number of zigzags per set. Most vertical zigzags are placed at the border of the body canvas zones, usually in groups of five. Similar vertical zigzags constitute what the Turkish call the “yıldırım ” (thunder) pattern of Asia Minor (Theocharis 1967, 136). There are a few vases from Youra where large zigzag bands cover the entire surface of the body, either in a vertical or horizontal position (Pl. 3.14C:762, 764; see also Efstratiou 1985, figs. 49, 50, 52). In one case, there are small solid triangles attached to the outer zigzag of the set (Pl. 3.14C:763; see also Efstratiou 1985, fig. 45). Zigzags are very popular in the Greek Neolithic, though with different functions between northern and southern traditions. In Thessaly, they are usually complementary to flamed and stepped patterns (Tsountas 1908, 189; Theocharis 1959a, 48, fig. 15:1–2; Otto 1985, pl. 32; Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 137:10–12, 138:6, 138:11, 141, 157). In contrast, in the Peloponnese, the pattern occurs as an independent decorative element (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 11, 12, 30), which is also revived by later Urfirnis Ware. Sets of zigzags similar to those from Youra are found incised at the slightly later site of Nea Makri in Attica (PantelidouGofa 1995, figs. 75–76). This pattern also corresponds with designs on contemporary seals, such as those from Nea Nikomedeia (Onasoglou 1996, 163; Papathanassopoulos 1996, 331, cat. no. 271), Sesklo, and other Thessalian sites (Theocharis 1967, 149–151, fig. 89; 1973, 299, pl. XX).

This motif combines solid lozenges and triangles (Fig. 3.5:9; Pl. 3.14B:730). They are set next to one another in a horizontal or slightly inclined row. The pattern is found on several vases from the Cave of the Cyclops, though executed in varying sizes and with enough carelessness to create an impression of movement. Each component is possibly a schematic representation of a human, and altogether the motif may show people dancing. Other examples come from Hagios Petros

762. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed vessel. Brown dense zigzags on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. w. 0.025 m. A4. 763. Fragment from body of closed vase with thin walls. Set of five horizontal zigzags, with the upper one attached to solid triangles. Inner surface coarse red. Max. h. 0.026 m. CWest 5. 764. Fragment from shoulder and body of closed vase. Loose brown vertical zigzags on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse red. Max. diam. body 0.016 m. A.

Cross-hatched Lozenges This motif is made of crossing parallel lines within a lozenge shape (Fig. 3.5:7, 15, 21). A checkerboard pattern is created by painting interior lozenges black (Pl. 3.13B:760). This decoration is similar to motifs from Achilleion (Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 150:2, 3), Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, fig. 76:3–115), and Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, fig. 29:i, n). There is one example where the central lozenge of the net is painted solid (Pl. 3.13C:761). 760. Fragment from body of deep, broad-mouthed or closed, thin-walled vase. Dark brown checkerboard on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse red. Max. h. 0.041 m. CEast 18, 4. 761. Fragment from lower body of deep, broadmouthed or closed, thick-walled vase. Brown lozenge net from thin lines on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. h. 0.057 m. CWest 3.

Meander Bands Surrounding Concentric Rectangles This motif combines the meander with concentric rectangles (Fig. 3.5:8; Pl. 3.14A:743). Four thick meander bands, divided into sets of two and placed opposite each other, wind around the pot. Two rectangles, placed one inside the other, fill the reserved area between opposing Ps. The reserved area is almost 0.08 m long; the central rectangle is painted solid. Each vase can have a maximum of six sets of rectangles.

80

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

Parallel Straight or Curved Lines or Bands in Groups This motif also demonstrates several variations (Fig. 3.5:16, 17, 19, 20; Pls. 3.1B, 3.15A, B:742, 748, 765, 766). The parallel lines may be on several parts of the vase, even the neck. Those on the lower body are usually the boundary to upper decoration and circle the pot (Fig. 3.5:19; Pls. 3.4, 3.5:731, 732). Fewer examples of such groups intersect on the body from different directions (Fig. 3.5:16, 17, 20; Pls. 3.1B, 3.15A:742, 748). Many examples of this motif come from Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, figs. 2, 46, 47, 49, 53), Albania (Korkuti 1995, pl. 18), Thessaly (Theocharis 1959a, 42, fig. 9:3, 7; Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 141:11, 154:12, 154:13, 162:6), and Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, figs. 30:a, 30:i, 31:b). 765. Fragments (four) from body of deep, broadmouthed or closed vase. Red concentric circles in sets completed with parallel lines on whitish background. Inner surface coarse reddish brown. Max. w. 0.028, 0.013, 0.030, 0.033 m. A. 766. Fragments (two) from body of deep, broadmouthed or closed vase. Red sets of concentric circles associated with parallel lines on body. Inner surface coarse reddish brown. Max. h. 0.050, 0.028 m. A.

Large Solid Triangles The large, solid triangles cover much of the body of the vessel (Pls. 3.15C, 3.16A:767, 768). This pattern should be assigned an earlier date within the last phase of the Early Neolithic based on the evidence of similar decorative elements from Thessaly (Theocharis 1973, pl. IV:1, 5; Winn and Shimabuku 1989, 137:1–4; Yiouni 1996, 132) and central Greece (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, fig. 76:2–43). A thin plastic zone on a worn painted fragment again suggests a late Early Neolithic date, judging from Nea Nikomedeia (Yiouni 1996, 170:3) and Ayio Gala (Hood 1981, fig. 18:89). Also, see the discussion of Early Painted Ware in Chapter 2. 767. Fragments (two) from body of a thin-walled, closed vase. Large red-brown, solid triangle on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse reddish brown. Max. h. 0.029, 0.053 m. C7, 1–4. 768. Fragments (two) from body of closed vase. Large brown solid triangle on yellowish background. Inner surface coarse gray. Max. h. 0.044, 0.019 m. A.

LUGS AND BASES Lugs and bases have the least amount of extant information concerning their decoration: only eight lugs and one base were found in the Red-onWhite pottery from the Cave of the Cyclops (Table 3.3). Lugs are usually painted with short lines placed in opposing diagonal sets (Pl. 3.4:731) or are decorated with zigzags (Fig. 3.3A:750). Some of the lugs are detached from the body of the vessel, indicating that, during manufacture, the body of the vessel had dried before the wet clay lug was attached. Each of the large, deep, broad-mouthed, necked jars probably bore more than two lugs on the body, most likely four lugs placed symmetrically at the maximum diameter of the body. Only one base sherd has been retrieved, and it is solidly covered with paint. It can possibly be inferred, therefore, that all bases were painted solid.

MISTAKES IN DECORATION All of these patterns are executed with much attention to detail, which is especially impressive for the micrographic patterns such as the canvas nets and overlying motifs. The painters were masters of this craft, and their expertise cannot be disproved by any small carelessness (Pl. 3.16B)— such as slight metric inequalities between translated motifs, curling canvas lines instead of absolutely straight lines, and poor connections between crossing patterns—which only can be discovered by close observation. There is, however, one field where this craft can be unsuccessful, and that has to do with the stage of burnishing. It seems that the pot surfaces were still a little wet when the potter started burnishing, which spoils the decoration by moving particles of the pigment to the neighboring fields, “dirtying” other patterns or reserved areas (Pl. 3.16B:741, 769). 769. Body fragment of deep, broad-mouthed or closed vase. Brown labyrinth on yellowish ground. Spoiled slip. Inner surface coarse brown. Max. w. 0.065 m. A5.

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

81

Chronology The group of painted vases from the Cave of the Cyclops that was described above should be dated to the early Middle Neolithic, Sesklo I phase (Gallis 1996b, 120), or Achilleion IIIb–IVa phases (Gimbutas 1989a, 28), therefore, the beginning of the 6th millennium B.C. In fact, one radiocarbon date from Trench B of the Cave of the Cyclops fits quite well within this relative chronological frame (5793–5640 B.C.; see Facorellis, forthcoming). This dating is confirmed by the affinities of Youra material with the neighboring site of Hagios Petros, suggesting that relations between the two sites were very close, if not that the cave’s occupants originated from Hagios Petros. Painted pots from Youra fall within the broad family of the so-called A3b wares of Tsountas (1908) and the A3b–c wares of Wace and Thompson (1912). They exhibit some earlier elements, however, and thus should be placed in a slightly earlier stage than classic Sesklo, as also pointed out by Theocharis (1973, 57) and Efstratiou (1985, 77–78) for the material from Hagios Petros. Basic criteria for this dating includes the rather archaic shapes at Youra and Hagios Petros (collar neck, ovoid body, low carination), which are reminiscent of older examples from Skyros (Theocharis 1959b) and similar archaic features still preserved in the cultures of Chaeroneia and Elateia in central Greece (Weinberg 1962; French 1972; Phelps 1975). By contrast, such features in Thessaly had already been subjected to

considerable development. Another chronological marker results from stylistic comparisons with mainland patterns, suggesting that the complex linear designs employed in the Northern Sporades are associated with the southeastern Thessalian and central Greek linear tradition (e.g., at Zerelia, Chaeroneia, Elateia, and Orchomenos), rather than the more freehand flamed and stepped style from western Thessaly. A few fragments of Youra pottery have been recorded that may belong to a pre-Sesklo phase or EN III, according to the Thessalian diagram of periods by Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić (1971; see also Theocharis 1973, 47; Gallis 1996b, 120), and thus to the end of the 7th millennium B.C. This date is based on stylistic criteria of shape and patterning, such as the use of the deep open bowl, and the employment of large bands and triangles for the decoration of the body of the vessel. Within these few fragments, however, we cannot yet discern any hint of localized style. It can be concluded, therefore, that the Cave of the Cyclops was occupied briefly, though intensely, in the beginning of the 6th millennium B.C. and minimally at a slightly earlier stage. Decoration patterns show that the inhabitants belonged to a broader social sphere and shared common traditions and symbols with other people on both coasts of the Aegean, but they had at the same time developed their local idiosyncratic culture.

The Cave of the Cyclops Ceramic Vessel: What Is It? To summarize, a series of Middle Neolithic Redon-White painted vases were discovered in two spots in the Cave of the Cyclops, on the rather steep and isolated island of Youra. They are mostly deep ovoid vessels, apart from a few open bowls, and are decorated with complex sets of curvilinear patterns and nets. Most of the pots were located in a narrow, dark, humid, and uncomfortable terrace of the interior of the cave, and only a small portion was recovered within the entrance deposits. A series of questions arise out of their discovery. Who brought these vases

inside the cave? From where and how were they brought? For what reason—did they serve a ritual or practical function? Is there some meaning in the fact that most pots preserved only their upper part? After more than a decade of research, we are now able to put forth our own scenario to answer questions such as who, how, and why. To interpret the Youra vessels, one has to start from the general question, “what is a ceramic vessel?” Is it an object of evolution or diffusion? A construct of measurable parameters: length, height,

82

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

thickness, depth, color, material? A technical invention? The product of social conflict? The result of adaptation to a given environment? The outcome of a process of selection? A vector of messages? A system of structures? A set of ideas? A functional, decorative, or ritual utensil? Terms like “utilitarian” or “household pottery,” “ritual vessel,” “funeral vessel,” or even “value-object” have occasionally been used to interpret the role of Greek Neolithic pottery and move away from a simple typological definition. These interpretations were heavily influenced by the views of Binford (1962), who divided objects into technofacts, ideofacts, and sociofacts. Realizing, however, that each vessel has no single meaning but brings together several properties, Binford (1965) revisited his theory and described a primary and a secondary function for objects. This discussion of archaeological theory lasted about 40 years, and we are very fortunate to have put it behind us. In particular, the last two decades of the 20th century saw a conciliatory spirit in this fruitful debate, in addition to a tendency for self-criticism of unilateral models proposed up to then by evolutionist, diffusionist, processual, Marxist, structuralist, functionalist, and determinist archaeologists. In the context of this movement, which became a wider trend in the anthropology of the 1980s—the socalled “decade of cultural criticism”—and led to the

introduction of post-processual theory by Hodder (1991, 156–181) and Trigger (1989), we are now able to choose the elements that define a ceramic vessel. These elements are denoted by keywords such as “know-how,” “skill,” “use,” “meaning,” “symbol,” “structure,” and “historic context,” which are complementary in the final interpretation. Each vessel is a technical achievement and, at the same time, the product of skillful craftsmanship and expertise. It is made to serve a specific economic strategy and contribute to a productive process, which makes it a potentially utilitarian object. It reflects something of the personality of its maker and user in terms of their sex, aesthetics, and mode of thinking that also structures the object, though it can even reflect the mood of the moment. It may depend on symbolism that the makers and users improvise themselves or reproduce in the context of a religious, ritual, or customary tradition, but also on their position within the social dynamics of the group. All this means that each vessel has an identity—the identity of the person or group that created it, a message that marks it as recognizable within a cultural context with specific local and temporal boundaries. This identity is reflected in the formal features of each vessel; any change in identity entails a change of form. The following sections will discuss the above aspects of meaning one by one.

1. Member of a Cultural Group The occupants of the Cave of the Cyclops are unique so far on Youra, because no traces of other sites have been located on the island. The only contemporary site is Hagios Petros, which is located in a protected bay on the southern side of the neighboring island of Kyra-Panagia. The Cave of the Cyclops is actually in the immediate vicinity of this island, although not of the village itself. Hagios Petros was a village of a few dozen families by the early 6th millenium B.C., and the settlement lasted for about 1,000 years, (Efstratiou 1985; 2001, 239). Although no other contemporary sites have been excavated in the area, it seems that there is a considerable precedent for occupation of this region, as suggested by the dense surface Paleolithic finds (Sampson 1998a; Panagopoulou, Kotjabopolou, and Karkanas 2001), the Mesolithic deposits of the

Cave of the Cyclops, and the Early Neolithic site on Skyros (Theocharis 1959b). Hagios Petros and the Cave of the Cyclops are strongly linked by identical pottery decorations and shapes, so that we may talk not only about similar cultures, but also about the same people and workshops at both sites—in other words, about a united Youra–Hagios Petros culture (Katsarou 2001b, 18). It is very likely that the occupants of the cave came from Hagios Petros, unless another contemporary village existed at the time in the area. Within a wider geographical context, the Youra– Hagios Petros culture demonstrates only general affinities with contemporary mainland cultures, which makes it look very local. Regarding the material from Hagios Petros, Theocharis (1973, 57)

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

and Efstratiou (1985) pointed out this idiosyncrasy many years ago. But even as early as 1959, the difference had been hinted at by Theocharis’ findings of a small EN site with idiosyncratic features on the neighboring island of Skyros (Theocharis 1959b). Today, there is a clearer view of these local features, combined in the material culture of the two sites. Foremost is the use of local motifs (size and ways of structuring) on pottery. Canvas is unique to the Sporades, but even well-known motifs are handled in different sizes and levels of complexity. Combined with this is the use of archaic pottery shapes. Another feature is the microlithic tool technology in the cave and potentially also at Hagios Petros (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1992), possibly deriving from the Mesolithic tradition of the area. Finally, there are special clay figurine types from Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 38–44, 52), mixing Thessalian and Anatolian facial features. Their manufacture is poor and usually they are unbaked. Is it possible that they also were in the cave, but did not survive post-depositional processes? Such local features denote another sub-group of the Greek Middle Neolithic, to add to the subgroups already identified by most scholars (Wace and Thompson 1912; Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971, 100; French 1972; Theocharis 1973; Washburn 1983a; 1984; Efstratiou 1985, 100). These include eastern (Sesklo, Achilleion) versus western (Karditsa) Thessalian pottery, the wares of central Greece, and the pottery of the Peloponnese. The exact region that seems to share the closest affinities to the Sporades, and where the style may have originated, is found in west central Greece rather than in Thessaly. Tsangli and Zerelia may be considered the northern boundaries of this group, while Elateia, Chaeroneia, Orchomenos, Alai, Atalanti, and Nea Makri are its major sites. Their cultural link with the Sporades is demonstrated by similarities in painted patterns and the survival of archaic shapes, such as the broad-mouthed, deep ovoid vessel, which developed newer versions in contemporary Thessaly. Theocharis highlights the difference between Thessaly and central Greece by separating solid from linear styles (Theocharis 1967, 134; 1973, 77). He regards central Greek types as rather conservative, mostly based on simple linear designs (such as nets, triangles, chevrons, and diamonds), and structured by strict rules of

83

translation, juxtaposition, or concentrism compared to contemporary Thessalian flame and step patterns, which are mostly rendered freehand and depict motion. Such different orientations of decoration are also observed in following generations; for instance, Nea Makri’s late MN pottery has the same examples of incised zigzags and lozenges, as mentioned above. According to Efstratiou, southern Asia Minor is another region that may have influenced the nature of the pottery at Youra. This link was first noticed with regard to the Hagios Petros figurative art that bore some unusual traits for the contemporary Greek Neolithic (Efstratiou 1985, 68–74). Efstratiou also based this link on certain pottery shapes, such as the convex phiale (Efstratiou 1985, 34), which abounds at Hagios Petros and is typical of Çatal Höyük (Mellaart 1975) but is rare on the Greek mainland. Another similar feature, according to Efstratiou (1985, 34), was the meander pottery style of Hacılar (Mellaart 1961) and patterns—such as the wavy line—that characterized eastern Aegean wares. It is indeed possible that some Anatolian influence is reflected in the Youra–Hagios Petros material culture. Of course, typological similarities should be used very cautiously for further explanations, because older diffusionist or genetic theories are now under criticism. As Hodder (1986) has suggested, similar patterns may have different meanings for different people, societies, or communities, and should not be regarded as direct evidence of place of origin. In fact, as mentioned above, the Sporades have been densely occupied since the Paleolithic, so that the occupants of the cave and the village of Hagios Petros may well have been descendants of those early colonists. According to a theory by Chourmouziades, however, stated by Efstratiou (1985, 57), Neolithic colonists may have moved to the islands to survive an economic crisis on the mainland. An important element to highlight about these people is their communication with mainland cultures via the sea, rather than their origin. Their location on these islands, separated by difficult straits where the sea and winds can be extremely rough and dangerous, suggests that these islanders had developed navigation techniques and had improved knowledge of the sea and natural phenomena. Communication was actually a matter of

84

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

survival for them, not just a requirement for trade or exchange. Neolithic societies were largely supported by communication networks, which provided not only raw materials (such as clay and obsidian) or finished products (pottery, tools), but they also incorporated the isolated communities into a wider social sphere. Such communication played a reviving role, bringing ideas and new people and giving local people the opportunity to travel out of their community. It thus ensured their biological and cultural survival. Of course, this communication could be either peaceful or competitive, and part of the local tradition possibly was assimilated by stronger outside influences. In other words, the sea did not necessarily play a limiting role, as some determinists have supported. However “small” a world may be, it can become very “big” with the aid of communication networks (Cullen 1985; Kotsakis 1996b, 169–170). Efstratiou reflects this: . . . Permanent occupation in locations which might look remote does not always presuppose cultural isolation or lack of communication. There is certainly a delicate balance between what the environment can provide and what the prevailing technology can offer. What has been overlooked is the sense of familiarity the settlers must have already had with the environment, its capacities and its limitations, which must have been the first condition for people moving to establish settlements

in the area. It is not an urge for experimentation and exploration which leads to such communities being set up, but rather the feeling of being in a familiar environment . . . communities at all levels of development tend to exploit situations, economic and environmental which they recognize as suitable to their technological skills; they do not initiate them and if the term “colonization” even in its weakest sense suggests adventure, experimentation and cultural isolation, it should, I think, be abandoned. (Efstratiou 1985, 59)

Additionally, Chourmouziades (1996, 58–60) has suggested the concept of centricity as opposed to the concept of periphery regarding the Neolithic village of Dispilio, near the lake of Kastoria, in northwestern Macedonia. He believes that a certain place is selected for settlement according to its position within a communication network. What he has stated for Dispilio fits very well with the case of the Youra–Hagios Petros culture—that prehistory knows no borders and any culture may be equally central with any other. The material culture of each such “central” site is not the pathetic recipient of cultural diffusion, but rather a culture which is active and regenerative through interaction. It is not a culture which flourishes because it is located on a certain route, but is rather a culture which by its own activities makes the development of such a route possible. (Chourmouziades 1996, 58–60)

2. An Economic Object Like any other item, the ceramic vessel is the product of a specific subsistence strategy that processes natural resources to ensure survival, self-sufficiency, and growth for the population. This strategy determines every choice in the operational chain, from collection of raw materials to production and final use. This is why the reconstruction of subsistence strategy has been the interpretive goal of all research studies investigating artifacts such as ceramics. The Neolithic mode of production in the Greek area involved productive forces, relations, and processes based mainly on the axis of farming/stock raising/fishing at the level of primary production, and handicraft (e.g., pottery, lithic industries, weaving) and trade at the secondary level. The quality and

quantity of pottery as a product of secondary processing was directly dependent on the quality and quantity of the material issued by the primary productive activities, because they determined the availability of time and degree of systemization that could increase successful transformation. Yet, it also depended a great deal on the primary material, mostly foodstuff, which was processed either by cooking or other methods of preparation for immediate consumption, or by preservation, storage, and transportation for subsistence or symbolic use. Unfortunately, we are unable to clearly ascertain the significance of the Youra vases for the economy of the site. No food remains or traces of use (e.g., evidence of fire) were identified to associate them

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

with stages of the economic process. Nor is it possible to distinguish any symbols providing information on local farming, stock raising, or fishing production among their decorative elements. We assume that, even with regard to symbolic functions, they were used for serving, short-term storage, or transportation of food mixtures. They may also have been used for food preparation without the involvement of fire (i.e., by mixing or fermentation). The situation in Hagios Petros is similar, as the pottery does not contribute any information on the subsistence strategy of the settlement. Therefore, in both sites, such information is derived only from complementary bone or vegetal findings, which suggest a combined agropastoral and fishing economy. One feature that may have economic significance within Middle Neolithic Youra pottery is the fact that painted ware outnumbers any other pottery group from the cave, while contemporary coarse ware is rare. Although the occupation of the cave may have involved special patterns of pottery distribution that do not represent the whole system of subsistence, we cannot rule out that this pattern provides evidence for the model of Middle Neolithic economy observed in contemporary sites.

85

According to this model, early pottery was limited in comparison with the mature 6th millennium B.C. or later Neolithic stages, and its use had not spread to include the bulk of everyday practical needs (Vitelli 1993a; Björk 1995, 114–115; Yiouni 1996). At Franchthi Cave, for example, Vitelli (1993a, 210) calculated that the annual production of pottery resulted in just 12–13 vessels in the beginning of the Neolithic and less than 100 in the stage contemporary to Youra, but twice as many in the Late Neolithic. The absence of large storage vessels from EN–MN settlements, though these sites were largely based on farming production, is another symptom of the same model. In the settlement of Hagios Petros, for example, Efstratiou (1985, 28) mentions only a few fragments of large coarse ware. This phenomenon is interpreted either as limited storage or limited use of pottery for storage compared with containers made of other materials (e.g., wood) or subterranean storage areas. The direct relationship between storage and pottery becomes evident by the late 6th millennium B.C. as a result of population growth and improved farming methods. Thus, pottery also acquires a clearer economic significance at that time.

3. A Product of Specialization The indication for specialization in the Middle Neolithic community of the Sporades is by far the most economically significant information that this material can provide. The possibility of secondary processing presupposes a sufficient surplus of primary products to allow some individuals to move beyond the basic production of food to some degree, and work part-time or full-time in specialty production. By acquiring and expanding knowledge, they survive by exchanging their products for part of the surplus of the settlement’s primary goods (Kotsakis 1996b, 169). At the same time, their specialized activity contributes toward creating a surplus that is channelled into exchange and increases the consumption needs of its productive agents. Potters represented one such specialized group. Obviously, the more the community is able to reward the labor and time of specialized potters, the more systematically potters are able to work and the

higher the quality of their products and size of their production. Because pottery demands time, physical energy, suitable materials, and specialized support in terms of equipment and know-how in all of its stages, it represents an “investment” by the economy of any community. The degree of specialization of potters and, more generally, the ability of Neolithic society to sustain specialized groups are questions that have frequently been addressed in literature about the Neolithic period. Some scholars underestimate the need of systematic labor for the production of pottery. In particular, Perlès (1992) has argued that, unlike raw materials for making stone tools, clay sources abounded, allowing pottery to be more favored and perhaps requiring less specialization; she thus implies that pots could be made in any household. Her theory, however, has been criticized by increasing numbers of scholars who favor a theory of specific individuals being systematically occupied with pottery production during the Neolithic

86

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

(Kotsakis 1983, 211; Vitelli 1993a, 216–217; Kalogirou 1994, 219). Unskilled individuals or “apprentices,” as Kalogirou characteristically puts it (1994, 222), could not have formed, painted, and fired these vessels. It has even been suggested that the reputation of certain masters crossed the boundaries of communities (Schneider et al. 1990, 1994) and that specialization may have led to the existence of travelling potters as early as the 6th millennium B.C. (Björk 1995, 134). Specialization during the Late Neolithic is more easily confirmed. For example, specialization in LN Black-on-Red pottery is implied by standardization of shapes and patterns, but also by standardization of fabrics as revealed by analyses of paste (Tsolakidou et al. 2008). Chemical sample analyses of this ware group from 10 different sites in eastern Macedonia showed that their ceramic fabric is similar and clearly distinct from other ware groups at the same sites. This implies sufficient organization of technology to ensure similarity by employing specific recipes, which perhaps originated from some central point that cannot be considered anything other than an atelier. It also implies organization of traffic from the center of production. The individuals involved in this production and traffic network cannot have been amateurs or accidental agents. At any rate, one should not rush to conclude that ceramic production in the Neolithic coincided with full-time occupation and the type of organized collective ateliers, carrying out commissions and trading vessels, that developed in subsequent millennia. In any case, specialization—few producers, more consumers of a specific product, in the words of Costin (1991)—existed already in the Paleolithic, but its dynamics and degree of development varied depending on the period and material. The vases from the Cave of the Cyclops prove most vividly that the Middle Neolithic economy had the potential to support specialized groups. The knowledge, craftsmanship, and expertise required for the production of the painted vessels, in particular, could not have been acquired without permanent and systematic employment in this craft. These vessels are not products of idle, secondary, or amateurish activity. Even though they belong to an early stage, their underlying expertise, mastery, and know-how could not have been acquired without the systematic production of pottery, which would entail a substantial investment of time to the detriment of

other productive activities. This investment involves not only the time required for the making of the vessel, but also the necessary time to set up installations, make tools, collect and process raw materials, and control the firing stages. The direct inspiration of Youra pottery decoration from weaving indicates the existence of another handicraft of the secondary economy apart from pottery. Woven items must have played a primary role in household furniture: they were tradeable products in high demand and of vital importance for the composition of the Neolithic home. Woven products—fine fabrics and heavy rugs, coverings, partitions, but also cloths, mats, nets, and ropes— almost certainly outnumbered ceramic products in the home. Like pottery, weaving involves a series of activities that require long and systematic occupation with the object. From the collection of vegetal or animal fibers, washing, carding, spinning, and dyeing to the maintenance and processing of prefabricated products, weaving requires a great deal of time, labor, patience, a multitude of implements, installations, knowledge, and expertise. Certain groups of the population must have systematically practiced the craft of fabric- and basket-weaving in exchange for part of the food production surplus. The flourishing and quality of pottery and weaving were due to systematic occupation and specialization, which were possible because the group had ensured enough food production surplus with its economic strategy to sustain members specializing in non-food-producing activities through a system of exchange. The community eventually had the economic potential to sustain not only the potters and weavers visible in the material of the Cave of the Cyclops and the settlement of Hagios Petros, but chipped stone specialists or perhaps even “tradesmen,” i.e., people commuting between islands and the mainland to transport raw materials or other items. In summary, the Middle Neolithic pottery from the Cave of the Cyclops indicates an economy able to afford this secondary production system. The source of a thriving agricultural economy at Hagios Petros is visible in the fertile lands surrounding the settlement, while in the Cave of the Cyclops this information is missing. To fill the gap, the barren island should perhaps be associated either with Hagios Petros or with another similar but as yet unknown settlement in the area.

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

As an investment of time, labor, and materials resulting in—or consciously striving toward—an increasing surplus, pottery has an economic exchange value that is redeemed either by possessing the item (which corresponds to possession/storage of economic capital) or by exchanging it. Theocharis (1973, 39–40) has suggested that pots were tradeable; even coarse pottery is tradeable, according to Démoule and Perlès (1993). Yet to equate the function of high quality pottery to the role of “currency” (i.e., items that were manufactured to operate by exchange) cannot be confirmed by the

87

Neolithic evidence found to date, and it would be unjustified to argue this case for the Youra vessels. “Currency” appeared in later periods, when the complexity of society made it possible for community authorities to control quantities of production. For the Middle Neolithic, we can assume only that certain groups may have had access to items and raw materials that were not accessible to the entire population, as seems to be the case at Sesklo (Maniatis, Perdikatsis, and Kotsakis 1988; Kotsakis 1996b, 168), which also implies some degree of social differentiation.

4. A Product of Know-how The Middle Neolithic painted pottery from the Cave of the Cyclops is a small technological miracle. It is the outcome of a carefully tended process, from selection of raw materials to manufacture, painting, and firing. This could only have been executed by experienced and specialized technicians. The mixture of suitable clay and nonplastics shows an awareness of the method that provides vessels with resilience from thermal stresses during firing. Vessels were modelled with symmetry and stability. The polishing, burnishing, and firing processes complied with familiar techniques for high-quality painted pottery on the mainland; this shows that equally skillful technicians lived in the Sporades. Each decoration is the living image of a particular painter’s hand. The painting process can be reconstructed by following the lines, upward or downward strokes of the brush, filling, use of the oblique or other inclination of the tip, indications of painting speed, as well as evidence of trembling and mistakes. Different hands have not been identified, however, as this would require a highly specialized “graphological” study of the decorations. The canvas decoration is the most striking part of this technology: the accuracy in executing delicate, complex, and minute decorations indicates a steady hand on the difficult curving surface of the vessel, familiarity with the dyeing material, and the capacity to alternate the use of brushes of different sizes, including the unusual implement of a single hair to draw lines thinner than half a millimeter. The decoration of canvas is miniature-like

because it consists of small individual decorative areas arising from the intersection of the canvas lines. Each space has a surface area of a few tenths of a square millimeter and is either painted solid (checkers, zigzag lines, angles, or lozenges—each requiring a different stroke) or is left unpainted. This segmentation of decorative space aims at a composition with no recognizable details giving off a general impression of symmetry. The drawings on these vessels are meant to be viewed from a distance, just like a painting with small patterns is meant to be contemplated from afar. By focusing on the details, however, one can notice small deviations in the patterns’ inclination and size, which are totally justified by their handmade nature and should not undermine our impression of the skill and steadfastness of their painters. On the other hand, tiny inconsistencies indicate that the technician struck a balance between perfection and speed, sacrificing a small part of the former to save precious time, and put a certain limit on investment of time. Unlimited consumption of time meant waste with no gain for the painter, because the overall effect seems perfect anyway despite the tiny “mistakes.” Besides, perfection in the sense of a machine’s absolute accuracy cannot be achieved by hand, because hand dexterity has its limits. At that time, there were no pictures of mechanical decoration with which to compare it, so the effect must have seemed more than perfect. All of this evidence attests to the extraordinary technical skill, expertise, and know-how of local

88

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

ateliers that had tools and “fine” hands for producing pottery of such caliber. This technique, as Efstratiou (1985, 56) agrees with respect to Hagios Petros, must have resulted from many years of

experience within a tradition developed either on-site or elsewhere and then imported to the Northern Sporades.

5. An Object Made for Practical Use The shapes of the Youra vessels have a specific utilitarian potential. It remains to be determined whether this potential was utilized or, because of the vessels’ painted decoration, served no practical purposes. The question of the functional value of decorated vessels, especially painted ones, has given rise to various debates and theories. Many researchers, especially processual archaeologists, used to divide pottery into utilitarian and non-utilitarian (Demoule and Perlès 1993), taking a separatist view. The term “utilitarian” refers to the functional value of the formal characteristics of each vessel and not to their symbolic/conceptual (non-utilitarian) aspects. In this respect, utilitarian refers mainly to shape and not to decoration, which has no functional, but only semantic and symbolic, value. Recently, however, scholars increasingly suggest that there is no division between utilitarian and social or symbolic pottery, based on studies at Kitrini Limni, Sesklo, Dimini, and Dispilio (Kalogirou 1994, 229; Voulgari 2002, 234; Souvatzi 2008). Researchers have come to believe, on the contrary, that each vessel possesses both symbolic and functional elements. It is maintained here that the functionality of formal traits in each vessel is part of the overall conceptual/symbolic and utilitarian role that the vessel is meant to play. In other words, the presence of symbols on the object does not reduce its functionality in the least. For instance, a drinking vessel that bears the engraved name of its owner is still a drinking vessel, though it is not the same as a cup with no distinguishing traits; perhaps their frequency of use is different. In this respect, Vitelli’s (1993a, 101) simplistic formulation concerning pottery from Franchthi Cave is adopted here: decorated vessels may not have had the same use as undecorated ones. More emphatically, decorated versus undecorated vessels involved not so much different uses as different use priorities. The shape of decorated vessels was not totally irrelevant; on the contrary, despite their different destinations,

decorated and undecorated vessels must have shared an area of common use. The field is still at the beginning of using organic residue analyses in pottery, and the results of these analyses will soon radically change our idea of decorated vessels as purely symbolic and use-“proof.” Besides, sporadic information on the participation of painted vessels in practical functions does exist (e.g., two painted Neolithic jars with grain residue found at Servia; Heurtley 1939, 53, 135; Rhomiopoulou and Ridley 1974). As far as the Youra vessels are concerned, the investment of labor and time implied by painted decoration does not contradict their utilitarian function as containers of some sort. The shapes of the Youra vessels are not accidental nor products of purposeless innovation. These shapes also occur with unpainted and monochrome vessels, which means that they incorporate acquired utilitarian properties. They still could have been decorative (i.e., an “item to be exhibited,” according to Björk 1995, 128) or symbolic at the same time; if a particular shape did not serve some purpose, it would probably not exist. Potters would not have produced many different shapes for vessels had the shapes not meant something to them. If they needed the ceramic backdrop only to develop their symbols, they would have been more likely to choose the same shape—probably one much easier to decorate than the difficult and demanding spherical body they persisted in making. The question becomes all the more pertinent if we assume that the cave’s population did not live permanently on the island of Youra, but arrived there at regular intervals, carrying their household chattel from a place of permanent installation (possibly Hagios Petros). Why did they not choose a smaller shape more easily transported by sea, rather than the massive spherical vessel, if the latter was non-utilitarian (therefore, ritual or decorative) and destined to travel empty? On the other hand, having such a laboriously crafted vessel traveling empty

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

underestimates its shape and the work invested in its construction. One is prompted to argue that practical use accounts for these vessels no less than their symbolic function does. The Youra vessels served a practical purpose within some kind of symbolic process. What might that purpose have been? (The symbolic aspect of these vessels will be discussed below.) There are no indications as to their former content, either in the Youra examples or in those from Hagios Petros. The relationship between pottery and preparation of food, however, is most probable.

POTTERY FROM YOURA AT THE SERVICE OF FOOD MANAGEMENT Food management and processing is the domain par excellence associated with pottery. Yet the reasons for the appearance of ceramic vessels in the Aegean in the second half of the 7th millennium b.c. seem to have nothing to do with diet. Their emergence was associated previously with the so-called “Neolithic Revolution” (i.e., the domestication of animals and plants, permanent installations, and the discovery/revolution of cooking). After the latest discovery of Upper Palaeolithic clay establishments for food at Klisoura in the Peloponnese (Karkanas et al. 2004), one could easily argue that the function of the first pottery in the Early Neolithic was for food preparation. According to a more recent approach, however, permanent settlements were not linked to the emergence of pottery (Björk 1995, 1). Thriving, nonceramic settlements in the Near and Middle East between 10,000 and 7500 b.c. point in the same direction. Yet pottery does not appear to be connected with cooking, nor does it seem to arise from a change in dietary habits. On the contrary, early pottery is of exquisite quality and is painted. According to Gardner’s (1978) observations, early vessels from Achilleion, Sitagroi, and Anza bear no evidence of use for cooking. Similarly, no traces of fire have been identified on vessels from EN Knossos. At Nea Nikomedeia there is no distinct fabric or vessel shape that provides definitive proof for the existence of cooking pots. Yiouni, however, does not exclude the use of such pots; she explains this fact by citing the short duration of the local tradition of pottery manufacture and use, given that

89

Nea Nikomedeia is one of the earliest ceramic sites in the Balkans (Yiouni 1996, 190). At Franchthi Cave, cooking pots account for no more than a mere 10 percent of the pottery, and their capacity is too small to assume they were used to cook for large groups of people. Vitelli (1989, 1993a, 1993b) believes that raw food had already been abandoned as of the Mesolithic, when ways of cooking were improvised that may well have survived into the beginning of the Neolithic. Evidence in that direction includes the presence of broad beans in Mesolithic sites and the bitter vetch that could only be eaten after it had been boiled and the water drained (Yiouni 1996, 191). According to another view, however, vetch could be eaten directly after soaking, once the water had been evacuated (Kalogirou 1994, 227). Wooden or stone structures (e.g., grids, slabs) would have ensured a hot, grilled, or smoked meat meal, well before the invention of pottery. The first “boiling” could have been achieved by placing a hot stone in liquid (for instance, milk; Björk 1995, 118). It is thought that cooking was invented in the Mesolithic because it multiplied foodstuffs (i.e., plant or animal foods that were hard or poisonous in their raw state were made edible), often made them healthier or more easily digestible, and increased dietary possibilities, which is very important for a growing population. Initially, Neolithic populations probably followed the same cooking recipes employed during the Mesolithic, still without the use of pottery. Besides, diet is an element of social identity, and taste is an idiosyncratic cultural value; both are integrated into tradition and change slowly. For these reasons, it is most likely that pottery appeared to fulfill a function other than cooking. Its advantages for cooking (choice of shape, swift production of large numbers of vessels, thermal conductivity of clay, long life span, no damaging influence on foodstuffs) were gradually discovered by Neolithic populations, which led to a change in dietary habits. These changes occurred not at the beginning of the Neolithic, however, but later, perhaps in the 6th millennium, and became widespread and well established in the 5th millennium B.C. At the time of Youra’s occupation, people started to use pottery for foodstuffs, perhaps in the ways described by ethnoarchaeologists (Rice 1987, 208–243)—for cooking, serving, transportation, storage, and preservation. Probably, though, the

90

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

use of pottery had not yet spread and was still selective, mostly oriented toward distinct functions with symbolic meanings. Neolithic pottery probably served other purposes as well, perhaps unrelated to food preparation, such as processing (i.e., dyeing) hides and animal/plant fibers or as musical instruments. As to the kinds of foodstuffs and preparations practiced in the Neolithic, we draw our evidence from actual dietary finds such as animal bones, shells, fish, and grain (pollen, phytoliths), and we seek inspiration from ethnographic parallels. Meat, milk, blood, fish, shells, vegetables, cereals, and fruits are thought to have been the main dietary ingredients (Bogucki 1986; Vencl 1994; Trantalidou 1996). Their distribution in farming, stock raising, or fishing communities varied; farmers probably enjoyed a wider variety of foodstuffs. In general, foodstuffs are divided into solid and liquid, vegetal and animal, farm or food collection products. Collection of vegetal foodstuffs is a commonly accepted source of food for the Neolithic, as it is thought to have covered approximately 20–30 percent of total food consumption (Björk 1995, 117); only Démoule and Perlès (1993) exclude it completely from Neolithic food sources. The possibility that the residents of Hagios Petros supplemented their diet with wild berries and fruits is suggested by Efstratiou (1985, 53). As for processing techniques, solid foodstuffs are subject to grinding, gruel-like preparations, mixing, soaking, crushing to extract juice, kneading, roasting, boiling (either alone or with liquid foodstuffs), or combining with alimentary byproducts (e.g., cheese, yogurt). Naturally, water and salt act as catalysts in the latter processing. With regard to Youra vessels in particular, it is most likely that food/meal preparation was their major function as part of some distinguished event. Their painted decoration, however, excludes placement on fire because flames or ashes would have a devastating effect on colors and veneers and thus devalue the “investment” represented by each vessel. It is true that a painted dish and sherds from other painted vessels were found in the cave of Theopetra with deposits of soot on their decorated surface (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000b), suggesting that cooking vessels could have been painted and that painted vessels were sometimes exposed to fire. It is maintained here, however, that the investment

of time and labor in the majority of Youra painted vessels was too great to expose them to fire. Only the calyx-shaped vessel (Type V.7; Pl. 3.1B:748) may have served a purpose specifically related to fire, if we judge from the alteration of color on its surface. It is an open-rimmed, internally burnished, and polished vessel. The use of such open-rimmed and shallow vessels over fire was not uncommon. Analysis of organic residues identified a small cup at Makriyalos, Pieria, as a cooking vessel among other pots with expected cooking functions, though it would never have qualified as such under different circumstances (Urem-Kotsou, Kotsakis, and Stern 2002). At the Neolithic site of Stavroupoli in northern Greece, several open and shallow bowls as well as an offering table were identified as containing animal fat (Decavallas 2004, 355). Vitelli interprets a similar open bowl from Franchthi not as a cooking pot for preparing food, but as a vessel intended for the evaporation or burning of aromatic substances, with suspected ritual associations (Vitelli 1993a, 215–216). As for the rest of the Youra vessels, the color variations were caused not by use in cooking, but during firing, which is supported by the fact that the alterations are spread across the entire surface of the vessels and not only at their base. The high, ring-shaped base of the vessels also points to a non-cooking use, or at least a function that does not include fire. Small cracks like those usually considered indicative of a use associated with fire cannot be identified easily or distinguished from firing cracks on the Youra vessels. Finally, there are no handles to help transport the pot during cooking by way of a wooden shaft threaded through the hole, and the existing protuberances are not of a suitable size or quality for such a purpose. Even if the vessels do not look suitable for cooking on fire, they still may have been used for preparing food in a way that involved no actual fire (whether flame or ash). They could have been used for mixing various solid or liquid foodstuffs or for kneading, soaking, brewing, or a combination of these, perhaps with the addition of water boiled or heated in another pot (Vitelli 1993a, 214–215; Kalogirou 1994, 228). In case the vessel came in contact, even if indirectly, with boiled water or other hot materials, it should have been able to maintain its temperature. Thin walls and suitable temper, therefore, may have been employed deliberately to

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

serve this purpose. It is difficult to evaluate the significance of the porosity of Youra vessels (i.e., the volume of empty spaces encrusted in the clay), which seems rather large in most vessels, with the exception of a few that are internally polished or burnished. External burnishing seals the pores and ensures impermeability. On the other hand, aerating foodstuffs through the pores of internally coarse vessels may have been necessary, for instance, to drain excessive fluids and retain the thicker portion. In view of the multiple roles that may be attributed to prehistoric vessels, the Youra pots also most likely functioned in the serving and consumption of foodstuffs. Serving is actually attached more closely to elite pottery than cooking. In the Neolithic, food generally seems to have been consumed in common, directly out of large vessels without using small individual plates, which is also suggested by the few small capacity, open-rimmed vessels of this period. In contemporary ethnological parallels that describe traditional customs, food (especially solid meals such as casseroles like shepherd’s pie) was often consumed directly out of the common pot. This activity took on symbolic dimensions, as was the case with eating together in general, hence the Greek expression “they separated their pots” to denote quarreling. We should, therefore, not always expect prehistoric people to have specialized household items nor consider each vessel as belonging to an individual. Besides, many solid foodstuffs were probably eaten by hand. Open-rimmed shallow vessels, in particular, may have been associated with drinking instead. Apart from food preparation and serving, deep vessels may themselves have transported prepared foodstuffs to the cave and provided short-term storage. Any contents that they carried into the cave could not have been liquid, as that would require a close-necked vessel. At any rate, either with solid or liquid contents, carrying these filled vessels into the cave would not have been easy given the rugged island topography and the steep trail leading to the Cave of the Cyclops. The protuberances on some vessels do not seem suitable for tying onto the body of humans or animals. These vessels, when full, therefore, could only have been transported with both hands to avoid spilling their contents. When empty, they could have been carried by animals. As for more open shapes, such as the carinated bowl (Type V.6; Pl. 3.1A:747) or the

91

S-profile vases (Type V.5), they were probably transported empty inside other vessels or sacks to be used for serving and local consumption. Incidentally, the question of how the hundreds of vessels found in remote and inaccessible caves were brought there has not yet been considered in a comprehensive manner. Consider, for example, the painted and unpainted pottery from the cave of Theopetra, located on a steep rock in the western plain of Karditsa (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000a; Katsarou 2000), or the pottery from the cave of Sarakeno, on the cliffs surrounding the Kopais basin, about 100 m above ground level (Sampson 2006b). Both caves yielded a large quantity of Middle Neolithic vases. Were those pots transported to these locations empty or filled? How were they transported? Were they eventually produced on the spot? Did the vessels come and go, or did they stay in the cave for repeated use? Returning to the scenario of filled vessels being brought into the Cave of the Cyclops, it is possible that they had a cover of some kind for storage. Given that ceramic lids were not constructed in the Neolithic, other materials, such as mat, leather, or cloth could have done the job easily, each offering different advantages. The use of such flexible stoppers is very likely for these vessels, as they add no extra weight (a slab, for instance, would be more suitable for an immovable jar) and allow ventilation and protection from dust and insects. Leather is perhaps more watertight and, thus, more suitable for liquids or foodstuffs that should remain moist. Leather and cloth work better if they are tied tightly around the base of the rim and their upper surface is well stretched. It is strongly suggested here that the shape of the neck and perforated knobs on the Youra vessels would have been dictated by the use of such flexible covers. The neck, for example, tends to have a marked outward tilt and is high enough to accommodate a well-stretched cover. The cover was either tied or fixed with a rope around the lugs, which would likely explain these small vertical knobs. Also, the decorations of the body might have been repeated on the covering using embroidery or weaving. Long-term storage is rather weakly associated with Youra vessels in comparison to short-term storage of some foodstuffs that were intended for consumption soon after their placement in storage. Storage is linked with strong symbolism because it

92

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

incorporates anxieties and wishes about survival and continuity for the community and its traditions. In the case of Youra, the decoration of the vessels and their small capacity definitely imply only symbolic storage. At any rate, during this period, systematic storage does not yet appear to have been strongly associated with pottery. Although large vessels were also used in the Early–Middle Neolithic (for example, at Franchthi Cave and Achilleion), the relationship between pottery and storage developed largely as a function of the economic conditions prevailing by the beginning of LN I. It is at this time that farming and stock raising skyrocketed in quantity and quality, leading to surpluses that required storage (including animal products, fruits, cereals, legumes, etc.) and creating the need for processing (such as drying, salting, smoking) for future availability. In the Early–Middle Neolithic, by contrast, production was still relatively limited; storage in non-ceramic containers (e.g., baskets, hides, or storage pits), which were supplementary to pottery in later periods as shown for example in Makriyalos (Papa

and Besios 1999), must have been common as indicated by examples from Nea Makri, Attica (Pantelidiou-Gofa 1991). Specifically, Yiouni (1996, 185) mentions that the number of storage vessels for each generation at Nea Nikomedeia was extremely small and goes on to interpret this as indicating the simultaneous use of perishable materials. At Achilleion, Björk (1995) identifies similar economic developments and concludes that production at this stage was still rather small, leading to small surpluses and limited storage needs. On the other hand, the conditions prevailing after the Middle Neolithic led to such a surplus of products that massive accumulation and preservation of foodstuffs was necessary for future consumption or exchange. Caves have predominantly been associated with such activities, particularly in the Late Neolithic (Sampson 1993a). It is precisely to distinguish different economic concepts of storage between the Early–Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic here that the terms “short-term” with respect to the former and “long-term” with respect to the latter are used.

6. A Structural Construction The decoration of Youra vases is comprised of individual structural elements in compliance with norms that, according to structural archaeologists, echo norms of the individual’s or society’s life. Thus, the object can be compared to a “text” that is “written” and “read” in terms of words and phonemes combined according to rules of grammar. Isolating the smallest constituent unit of decoration (i.e., an element that cannot be broken down further, but only multiplied) using formal/design analysis is an arbitrary process of reading determined by subjective criteria. To consider certain lines drawn by the potter as falling under one theme rather than another forms part of an interpretation. For example, what should be taken as the basic structural unit in solid triangles with their tops pointing downward—the solid triangle as a whole, the triangle’s outline, or each of the three thin lines combined with angles to form the triangle? In hatched triangles, is the fundamental structural unit the hatched triangle as a whole or the triangle as an outline where hatching is a qualitative feature? Or should the basic structural value

be found in the thin straight line? Such straight or curving lines actually serve as the basis of structure in any decoration, not only at Youra, but throughout the Neolithic. Yet, to deconstruct motifs to such an extent flattens all decorations into shapeless phonemes and ignores that fixed themes/“words” already had been established, such as the solid triangle, the diamond, the zigzag line, or the canvas. I believe that such fixed “words” were selected by the potter to construct the decorative “phrase,” and they were not made up from the start by combining straight lines and curves. Even qualitative features, like the filling of internal surfaces with solid painting or hatching, the arrangement (for instance, either standing up or tilted), thickness, or length, constitute fixed characteristics of the structural unit, because they are established through mechanisms of schematization and reproduction. Decorative patterns at Youra are based on only 12 structural figures: the straight line, straight band, zigzag line, curving line, circle, solid triangle, square, diamond, angle, parallelogram, meander, and

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

net. How are these patterns and their combinations structured on the vases? The Cave of the Cyclops vessels are generally divided into two large groups: those with canvas and those without canvas. Both groups, however, follow the same rules of decoration, which are based on multiplying each theme in one of the following ways: by translation; alternating opposites; alternation around a common center (e.g., diamonds, circles, angles, squares) that may be solid or, in the case of circles, coincide with applied lugs; or criss-crossing (e.g., canvas, net patterns). Features of shape usually strongly influence how patterns are structured. The deep ovoid vases are divided into main decorative zones that coincide with the structural sections of the vessel— either three, the neck, shoulder, and lower half of the body, or two, the neck and body (apart from protuberances and the base). Open bowls are divided into two zones—upper and lower body (apart from the base)—on the basis of their carination. Carinations, either from neck to shoulder or from body to base, are usually highlighted by painted bands, a widespread feature in this period. Typically, the same structural concept was further transmitted to the following generations of Urfirnis and LN matt-painted pottery. Only between the shoulder and the main body of the deep ovoid vases is there no form-related differentiation, such as a sudden change in outline. The point of transition lies at about one-third of the body’s height, above the largest diameter and the protuberances, and is only notional (i.e., not visible in terms of form). The painter was free to separate the vessel into decorative zones or treat it as a single surface. Potters do not seem to have cared for distinguishing shoulders clearly by, for instance, introducing some form of bend at the lower margin of the shoulder; they may not have wanted to limit the body, which could also be treated as a united area of decoration. Besides, it would disrupt the dialogue between shoulder and body decoration, which persists even when the decoration of the two areas is different and not in contact. In addition, such bending seems unnecessary for the vessel’s function. Particular themes that are never seen on bodies occur on both the inside and outside of necks. When shoulder and body decoration is separated, each surface has its own repertoire. Shoulder themes are never seen on bodies and vice versa, because the

93

body’s canvas has a different size and incorporates different decorations. The shoulder coincides with the idea of a zone, while this is less pronounced on the body. Decorations on the body are not limited by narrow margins, while on the shoulder they are less free. The lower part of the body has narrow scope for decoration. Finally, the unique preserved base fragment is solidly painted. These variations describe the roles attributed to various sections of the vessel by the painter. When shoulder and body were treated as a single area, decorations grew larger because their conception followed the surface that they covered. Protuberances became a structural part of decoration: their position dictated the placement of sets of concentric circles around them and, thus, the arrangement of all of the decoration on the body.

HOW TO INTERPRET STRUCTURE? Archaeologists seduced by the structural approach have been led to believe that it is possible to grasp the meaning behind the structure of rock paintings in Paleolithic art, decorative patterns in pottery, or architectural configuration in residential or funeral complexes, and that this meaning reflects social, economic, or ideological reality for the ancient population (Shepard 1948, 1956; Muller 1977; Redman 1977; Plog 1980; Hodder 1982; Washburn 1983a, 1983b; Washburn, ed. 1983; Hardin 1984; Otto 1985; Hodder 1986, 35). Washburn begins her article “Toward a Theory of Structural Style in Art” (1983b) with the phrase: “We will discuss the relation between structure in ancient art and social relations.” Thus, art is considered to obey a system of rules, like any other behavior or form of material civilization. A very comprehensive structural approach to the Greek Neolithic is employed by Otto in her discussion of Thessalian Neolithic decorations (1985). Washburn (1983a, 1984) also distinguishes between cultural subgroups of the Greek Neolithic on the structural level. Recently, Voulgari (2002, 217–241) has taken a similar approach to decorated pottery from the Neolithic lake settlement of Dispilio, located in northwestern Macedonia. Washburn’s study (1983a, 1984) of Neolithic painted decoration on mainland Greece concludes that, despite the wide distribution of certain popular patterns (e.g., circles, nets, chevrons, triangles,

94

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

parallel lines or bands, steps, and flames), variations of these decorations occur within each area, such as Thessaly, central Greece, and the Peloponnese. The size of patterns, their association with other themes, their position on vessels, and their frequency of occurrence are all subject to variation. Large alternating circles are unique to the Sporades, while in Thessaly, circles are small, number one or two at the most, and occur as filling in the interstices of flamed patterns. Crossed lines occur everywhere, but their manifestation in the Sporades—their density and thinness, placement on shoulders, and use as a metric base for other decorations—is quite unique. In terms of arrangement, Thessalian decoration is mainly based on stepped and flamed patterns, usually developed along the diagonal axis and arranged in opposing forms, rather than simple parallel (either horizontal or vertical) translation of points or alternating patterns around a common center (such as circles, diamonds, squares, and parallel chevrons). In addition, decorations in Thessaly are not strictly linear, but executed with a sense of motion at the edge; they are called “flames” (i.e., they diverge from geometrical forms). By contrast, in central Greece (defined by such sites as Elateia, Chaeroneia, Orchomenos, and Nea Makri) and the Peloponnese, patterns are more geometric. The arrangement of patterns is based mainly on austere, not necessarily complex, symmetry: it usually involves simple repetition or alternation of single patterns or groups, either horizontally, vertically, or around a common center (e.g., diamonds, chevrons). The themes and syntax are clearly close to those of Youra and Hagios Petros. The most typical example of this similarity is the survival of an incised version of the same combination of concentric diamonds with alternating chevrons and checkers at Nea Makri (Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, figs. 75–76) to the end of the Middle Neolithic.

Washburn (1983a, 140) argues that these elements of design structure seem to indicate homogeneous cultural composition and intensity of cultural interaction, as tested with ethnographic data. She notices limited coexistence of variations in any one area, which she interprets as limited communication between regions and the absence of a center that would function as a “market” (therefore, central place distribution), concentrating objects—and ideas—from multiple areas (Washburn 1983a, 163). Washburn ultimately has made yet another kind of typological analysis. Interpretive perspectives of formal analysis are “illusory,” as Hodder puts it (1986, 40). Is it really possible to link design form to society so directly? To what extent can we assume that subjectively defined design structures had universal social implications? Is it not arbitrary to assume that determined structures of patterns had the same meaning in all of those different cultural contexts? Such interpretations ignore that there is a symbolic meaning which mediates between structure of design and social functions (Hodder 1986, 40); it is this meaning that we should read first of all. Could this perhaps explain why structural theory, for all of its appeal, failed to prevail as a method of archaeological inquiry? Research should be protected from similar arbitrary links between symmetry and processes of social interaction, as suggested by scholars including Hodder (1982), Arnold (1983), and Lathrap (1983, 26). The view presented here, therefore, is that structure mostly indicates the individual traits of the particular people who produced these vessels. Norms point to them and not necessarily to the entire society and its activities. On the other hand, any person, including the Youra painter, can use structure creatively to make new structure and new societies.

7. Symbol and Message of Identity The ceramic vessel of Youra is a bearer of meanings and symbols transfigured into matter (“the potas-person metaphor,” Kalogirou 1994, 62). Space, in this case meaning the Cave of the Cyclops, is also an “object” susceptible to symbolization and interpretation. In other words, every vase is as much a

signifier as a linguistic sign. The dual entity of form-meaning/symbol coincides, in fact, with the linguistic model of signifier-signified as suggested by Saussure (1916) to associate words with their significance. This model was the foundation of the discipline of semantics, which calls a sign “anything

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

that can be considered as the semiological substitute of another thing” (Eco 1976, 26). Eco extended the notion of signifier beyond linguistic signs (words or phonemes) to physical bearers (manmade objects) called material signs. The signified is the meaning of the bearer, its mental image (Eco 1976, 37), or even a psychological reality associated with its conception. For instance, the linguistic sign “figurine,” as text and phoneme, is the signifier of an idea, the personification of a divine form, or the representation of a human being (the signified). Aside from the word “figurine,” the objectfigurine, with all of its material characteristics, is a signifier of the same notion. According to Saussure (1916), only products of the human mind are material signs (i.e., intentional morphological inventions), not physical objects or incidental actions effected without mental processing by man (such as a tree, an animal, or a physical phenomenon). Unlike natural products, the cultural object is a purposeful dual entity that expresses a notion conceived by a human being and transfigured into matter through know-how. For example, in the case of the figurine, the object—whether of clay, stone, or metal, male or female, steatopygic or not—is the signifier of a notion conceived by the human mind, whether the notion of divinity or fertility, or the image of a particular person. A physical object can also become a sign if invested with meaning by human beings. In this case, the physical object is “consecrated” by the emotional and ideological investment of an individual or community. It is transformed as a result of its particular social function and, in transcending its physical condition, enters the domain of the community’s symbols and system of values. In this scenario, a simple stone of suitable form can be used as a weapon in a given moment without further processing. Fire is a sign. A vegetal, animal, or physical phenomenon can acquire symbolic dimensions in the human mind, paving the way for a mythological tradition or symbolism. The environment is admired, loved, and feared; thus, it takes a place in the emotional world and the human imagination. The primordial place of nature and its elements in mythology is a manifestation of nature’s influence on ideology. In another example, an open, flat space where the community celebrates its festivities takes on a symbolic value and is vested with

95

the ideological content of the events it hosts until it ceases to be a mundane, indifferent flat plot. The same holds true for a cave. In all of these examples, physical forms operate as substitutes for practical and/or symbolic functions, whereby people, without changing—at least not at first—the physical aspects of the object, invest it with their own meanings and transform it into a cultural object. Each signifier is comprised of individual structural elements and characteristics of form that imitate reality in a naturalistic or abstract way or are ascribed a particular significance by arbitrary convention at some moment in history (e.g., linguistic signs). That is, a pre-existing system of structural elements is organized and combined in a novel way each time a new signifier needs to be created to assign a new signified. Just as phonetic signs have structure, so material signs obey structural organization (i.e., they arise from the combination and organization of morphological elements). For instance, such is the role of forms and ornaments in the syntax of ceramic decoration or architecture. Thus, the ceramic vessel is a metaphorical and metonymic sign. Its meanings are messages emanating from a sender (for instance, the object’s manufacturer) who consciously or unconsciously reifies his/her concepts through the vessel. The receiver can be any person who first conceives of the semantic bearer as observable image and then invests it with a conceptual dimension (interpreter). The figurine of a steatopygic woman made in clay by a Neolithic craftsperson embodies an ideological background that is readable by the community to which the craftsperson belongs and within which it assumes this signifying role. However, the same figurine may have another meaning to a different Neolithic group or to someone who lived in subsequent times (e.g., a modern looter, researcher, or visitor to a museum). The sender often is also the receiver, because he/she is the first to conceive of the morphological and notional reality of the object. In addition, meaning can be redefined by use. Users project their own interpretations onto an object when they use it for different purposes or ascribe different roles to it. Each utilitarian choice is a point of view, a process of generating meaning, and a projection of the user’s ideologies and symbolisms inscribed on the vessel through wear and tear. Wobst (1977) argues that each object increases its symbolic content as more and more sections

96

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

of society come in contact with it. The more an object is “looked at,” the more messages it acquires. Ethnographic studies have shown that artisans are not always aware of what they represent through decoration (Miller 1985). Decoration has reached them already stylized over many generations and has lost its conceptual content, maintaining only an abstract symbolization. The transmission and diffusion of a pattern from generation to generation alters its structure because the pattern may not be reproduced accurately, especially when its conceptual content is not fully understood by the people who reproduce it. The pattern is degenerated but repeated within a tradition ensuring social continuity. In summary, to attribute a semantic dimension to any product of culture is to inscribe it in a process of communication similar to text. Each social and individual subject is reconstituted by way of communication, which ensures recognizability in a wider social context. Regardless of whether the sense intended by the sender is the same as the one construed by the receiver, the object constitutes a code in itself. Not only the symbols painted or incised on the vessel, but any element of its form (e.g., color, shape, polish), create part of this code. The Youra vessel is such a sign.

THE ORIGIN OF YOURA’S SYMBOLS The symbolic aspect of Youra’s pottery consists of various linear or curving ornaments and their structural elements, as discussed above in detail. The decorations of the Youra vessels have a geometrical character, unlike naturalistic forms that aim at a figurative representation of reality. Linear patterns are either accidental or develop from natural forms by way of abstraction, schematization, and mannerism. These forms may have acquired the status of symbols of metonymic character over the course of centuries or millennia. The process of schematization is based on a selection process, whereby people keep what they consider important and cast away the rest (Washburn 1983b, 2). The original form is not altered by this selection; on the contrary, any unnecessary characteristics are abandoned, and only those elements that are absolutely indispensable for recognition are kept. Abstract nonfigurative forms organized in patterns (e.g., crossed lines, crosses, arrows) existed already in

earlier European Paleolithic art, often alongside figurative themes such as animals. While figurative art (e.g., naturalistic representations, figurines) is an imitation and often exerts a magical power on human beings, schematic themes are not likenesses, so they move away from their physical models. Schematic themes, however, do possess a conceptual essence and trigger the faculty of the mind to retrieve memories. These signs are rooted deep in time, as attested by the history of human script (either pictogram, ideogram, syllabogram, or alphabet). Therefore, arbitrary as they may seem, each can operate as an illusionary presence that alludes to the essence or “soul” of a thing, as is the case with the drawings of children. This, not the external appearance of the thing, is what the symbolic sign tries to capture. According to Plato, this faculty of retrieval is due to the “memory” of pre-inscribed mental objects of schematic form. These shapes, therefore, may not have had a conscious meaning for the potter. They may have survived schematically in a local tradition while their initial meaning changed or was lost to the particular potter. Some of the shapes were perhaps created by potters expressing their own thoughts or worldview. In either case, some of the shapes are likely to have originated from schematization of forms found in the natural environment. Such naturalistic themes are rarely found in pottery or any other forms of representation, such as seals (Sampson 1993a, 219, fig. 207:OD16). At Youra in particular, the undulating line (e.g., wavy meander) may indicate the sea or waves; vertical parallel lines with curving ends (e.g., “plant” motif) may imply trees; the canvas may suggest the wefts and warps of weaving. The wavelike lines are very common in the Hagios Petros pottery (Efstratiou 1985, 215, fig. 2:1, 6, 45, 48), both inside and outside the canvas. They are often rendered freely outside the canvas, which gives the pattern a naturalistic look that is indeed reminiscent of waves. The potter’s worldview is manifested not only in each separate ornament, but in the overall structure according to which themes are arranged into decorative proposals. Just as these patterns have a history in the Paleolithic, so they have a future through the centuries into the Bronze Age. It is not by chance that many of these patterns proved timeless and were used consistently by subsequent

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

populations, not only during the Neolithic (Theocharis 1967, 162), but also later. Among the schematized patterns, it is important to highlight the maze or meander themes. These ornaments—two types of meanders on the shoulder canvas; meandering lines; concentric squares, circles, and lozenges; one fragment with a spiraling pattern (Fig. 3.6)—prevail in Youra pottery, and all encompass the same concept of labyrinth. The presence of the same decorative idea in contemporary Thessalian seals (Tsountas 1908, 340, fig. 271; Theocharis 1959a, 66, fig. 28; Theocharis 1973, 299, pl. XX; Onasoglou 1996, 163; Papathanassopoulos 1996, 334, cat. nos. 279, 281, 283) may be particularly significant as to the extent of this pattern’s acceptability. It may have eluded the attention of research so far, but these patterns seem to mean something special; perhaps they are “ideograms” of certain meanings concerning ownership.

RELIGION AND CUSTOMARY LIFE What can these symbols actually mean? It has been suggested that these symbols and the vessels that bear them have to do with some sort of religion or sacredness in the Neolithic (Gimbutas 1989b). Is this theory confirmed in the Cave of the Cyclops? As yet, the Greek Neolithic has yielded no clear evidence of an established religious consciousness and worship like those from areas such as southern Turkey, Syria, or Mesopotamia already by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. As to the eventual association of metaphysical meanings with pottery, we may safely conclude that there are no exclusively funeral vessels in the Greek Neolithic, based on burials and jar inhumations from Thessaly (Gallis 1996a, 171), the Kouveleki Cave in Mani (Papathanassopoulos 1996, 341–343, cat. nos. 305–313), the Athenian Agora (Immerwahr 1971), the cave of Tharrounia in Euboea (Sampson 1993a, 239), and Kephala in the Cyclades (Coleman 1977). Nevertheless, several researchers believe that there was, if not an established religion, at least a metaphysical investigation into the notions of life and death or ancestors (Talalay 1993, 81; Orphanidis and Sampson 1993). Gimbutas (1989b, 220), in particular, boldly goes so far as to reconstruct—based on the types of figurines and the places they were found at Achilleion—a religious life with specific rituals

97

and places of worship, which she calls “shrines,” in the daily household routine. She associates these rituals with painted vessels, ladles, and quadrupedal tables of clay (Gimbutas 1989b, 221), which she interprets as cult equipment. She assumes the presence of priests and priestesses and the existence of not one, but several deities, mainly female, some of whom originated in the Paleolithic. The “faces” of these deities were perpetuated in subsequent cults of the Bronze Age. In general, Gimbutas suggests that the basis of this religion was the worship of life, rebirth, and fertility, and it lacked elements of after-death worship. Specifically, Gimbutas (1989b, 221) ascribes a symbolic and, indeed, religious content to the painted ornaments of contemporary pottery from Achilleion. She considers them part of an established Neolithic ritual for the worship of specific female deities (e.g., Bird Goddess, Serpent Goddess, Mother Goddess, Pregnant Goddess), which was celebrated in specially arranged areas of the home by ordained persons (priests). Such symbols include alternating Vs, zigzags, straight or wavelike lines, and triangles, which she attributes to the Upper Paleolithic. The V, frequently seen in painted form on handles and protuberances (at Achilleion, Sesklo, Tsangli, and Youra) or embossed on the body, is associated by Gimbutas with female symbols and the Bird Goddess in particular. She notes, furthermore, that the combination of large Vs with solid or reserved triangles, like those found on the canvas of the Youra vessels, is very common. The pattern of interlocking triangles, which occurs on the neck of vessels from the Cave of the Cyclops, and is painted in large bands on the body of Sesklo pots, is attributed by her to an ornithomorphic model (beak), again associated with the birdlike image of the main deity of Achilleion. She provides the same explanation for reverse solid triangles, which are very popular on rims during the Middle Neolithic. Incidentally, human figurines with similar bird faces were found at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, 40). Dense vertical, parallel, and wavelike lines, reminiscent of rain, as well as crossed lines are linked by Gimbutas with pan-European prehistoric symbols (1989b, 223). The wavelike lines are associated with the importance of water as the source of life. The crossed lines are not attributed to weaving models or other objects (e.g., nets), but are

98

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

considered variations of Vs and symbolic triangles. Finally, she believes that stepped decorations (which occur at Youra as well), represent horns of rams—animals of great value in the Neolithic economy. All of these are colorful assumptions, mentioned here mainly for their historic value in the literature. Vitelli’s ideas share a close affinity with those of Gimbutas, almost fanatically linking early pottery with sacral-ritual functions that eventually combined with sacred cures. Vitelli notices that some vessels were broken on purpose and do not bear evidence of use; she associates these with ritual meals. Drawing from Sheratt (1991, 57), she adds that the potters who produced these vessels perhaps were not the same persons as those who made utensils for everyday use. She is convinced that the former were distinguished members of Neolithic society with a spiritual role in the community; she calls them initiators, priests, diviners, shamans, spiritualists, or ritual healers (Vitelli 1993a, 217; 1995, 60–62). In her view, this role is partly due to the nature of pottery: when transubstantiated in fire, it looks to those not initiated in ceramic methods like a “miracle,” bestowing “metaphysical powers” on the potter. The potter is an initiator who knows secrets, and this is what grants him power. The presence of such “holy” persons would guarantee cohesion in the community at the beginning of the Neolithic when social conflicts were perhaps intense. In the mature Neolithic, these secrets were no longer the attribute of only a few, because pottery was diffused to serve the daily routine of the household; those who made it and used it were no longer a small minority of initiated persons, but virtually everybody. Researchers often assume a sacred importance for pottery almost arbitrarily, judging only from the quality of painted decoration or the unusual shape of the vessel, as with LN scoops, rhyta, or quadrupedal utensils (Coleman 1977, 11; Sampson 1993a, 91; Zachos 1996, 89). Only rarely are ceramic symbols readable and capable of guiding us to symbolic content in pottery. For example, two plastic figures (a female and an ithyphallic male) on a jar from the cave of Tharrounia, Euboea (Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 206, figs. 202, 211 no. 27) may be associated with wishful symbolizations of fertility with greater certainty. This hypothetical sense of religion was recently expressed through a theory on customary life in the

Greek Neolithic (i.e., a tradition of social events whose perpetuation was identified with the community’s continuity). These practices may not have been far removed from religion, as they were probably associated with the symbolism of (re)production and fertility. Many of these events probably incorporated a local mythology inspired by natural phenomena and elements of the environment (e.g., trees, woods, lakes, rivers, and caves) that almost reached the limits of sacredness. Prejudice, superstition, and even medical cures may well have formed an important part of customary life. The discovery for example of a LN foundation offering at Platia Magoula in Thessaly (Gallis 1996a) is strong evidence in this direction. Furthermore, recent literature has seen an increased interest in collecting evidence for communal practices in the Greek Neolithic settlements and cave deposits. Halstead (2004) summarizes the theoretical background for social gatherings and feasting and further extends the issue by arguing that commensalities were important for Neolithic society as they must have served “. . . inter alia, to mobilise additional agricultural labour, to negotiate and affirm social relationships at both an intra- and inter-settlement level, and to convert agricultural surpluses into symbolic capital in the context of social competition” (Halstead 2004, 157). He even argues for competitive feasting as a political strategy undertaken by farming households for promoting subsistence security (Halstead 2004, 158). Some specialized research has been undertaken within the framework of the feasting theory in Greece. Evidence from Neolithic Makriyalos in Macedonia (south of Thessaloniki), suggests largescale feasting in the settlement (Papa, Halstead, Kotsakis, and Urem-Kotsou 2004). At LN Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2006a) the concentration of polychrome crusted tableware with food-mixing rim-perforated basins, pedestalled chafing dishes, and figurines has been assigned a similar interpretation of social gathering involving food preparation, consumption, and maybe also “ceremonial” painting of the polychrome ornaments on the pottery. Also recently, Stratouli (2007) discussed social deposition of pottery and symbolic restoration of floor surfaces by occupants of the Drakaina Cave on Kephallonia (in the Ionian Sea) to improve social cohesion and discourse. Before these assessments, Bjork (1995, 130) suggested

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

that ritual drinking was taking place in certain sacred areas of the Neolithic settlement. All of these supposed practices were closely related to the symbolic meanings that food and drink carry within every society, as both constitute very characteristic cultural products. Diet and foodstuffs—from production to processing (cooking, kneading, mixing, collecting, etc.), apart from consumption and storage—take on a symbolic content and a particular social status in all ethnographic studies (Vencl 1994, 299). Any particularity or change in food and drink habits are indicative of a cultural idiosyncrasy and almost certainly reflect some social interaction (UremKotsou, Kotsakis, and Stern 2002, 110). Certain food substances and liquids carry primary symbolic value through time. For example, water, which is fundamental to survival, was at the center of such symbolism in later periods. The presence of a freshwater source was a basic criterion for human settlement already in the Paleolithic. In dry or arid zones, people collected rainwater in cisterns or pumped water from the ground. Water is both directly and indirectly indispensable for the human body, allowing human survival, but also ensuring the survival of animals and guaranteeing good crop yields. Claims over water give rise to conflict, while arrangements for its exploitation bring cooperation and lead to social hierarchy and central administration. Water, together with the earth, is a symbol of homeland (for e.g., see the Persian request of earth and water from the Macedonians in Herodotus 5.17). It is a symbol of purification and, in later periods, an object of worship. Similar symbolic associations were created with respect to bread (note also bread decorations), salt, olive oil, wine, and cereals. Sacred drinks and recipes are reported from several periods and cultures. Ethnological and folk studies prove that, together with its food contents, the ceramic container is also symbolized, as in the case of a wine, olive oil, or cereal jar (Cullen and Keller 1990, 200–204). Pots are an integral part of food symbolism and also of the particular practices related to eating and drinking. All of these three, i.e., foodstuffs, containers, and the actions that connect them, are a united set of social values and are inseparable within any study of the functional and ideological understanding of pottery. Ornaments on the pottery are also inseparable from that meaning. Actually, many

99

other artifacts, which are made of perishable materials such as wood or cloth, may be associated with food preparation and consumption. I am intrigued to suggest that cloth in particular was associated with Youra containers. The cloth could have been used as mouth coverings, which equally bore symbolism with the pots as expressed through similar ornamentation. I could go even further by suggesting that any physical transporter of these meaningful pots and their contents, either animal or human, also automatically shared the same meaning. The importance of the painted symbol, container, and content (it is difficult to determine which aspect to put first, as I do not know from which one the meaning originated) increases the significance of the ceramic material and shape and, by extension, its physical maintenance. The user respects this form and tries to preserve it intact, which is impossible because every material is subject to wear and tear. To preserve a symbolic vessel (e.g., by gluing) is, in fact, an effort to preserve the symbol itself. In summary, the function of EN–MN painted pottery in ritual and within customary Neolithic practices are strongly hypothesized by modern scholars. These hypotheses should remain in mind (along with the imaginary picture of complementary cloth artifcats) during the study of a few other aspects of Youra pottery, which follows.

“WEAVING” BACKGROUND The interlacing of decorative patterns and their combinations, particularly on canvas vessels, suggests they were not established for pottery, but copied from somewhere else, almost certainly from woven materials and fabrics. Weaving, however, like basket, net, or rope making, is barely visible in the archaeological record, even though it acted as a catalyst in the Neolithic. Weaving is a very primitive craft and perhaps should be considered even older than the domestication of animals, with people using wool from dead animals or game, fluff rubbed off on trees, or maybe even their own hair (Barber 1991). One must assume that woven items were omnipresent in the Neolithic home as covers, bedding, mats, partitions, and, of course, cloth. The presence of similar decorative patterns (for instance, checkers) on figurines and house simulacra in Neolithic

100

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

Thessaly (Theocharis 1973, 41–43) is perhaps a confirmation of the association of woven items with houses and people. Because of their perishable nature, knowledge about woven goods can only be gleaned indirectly from impressions on wet vessel bases, their influence on ceramic decoration, their representation in figurines, the related tools, and only rarely from raw materials. Only impressions on vessels abound in the archaeological record, however, and these derive mostly from mats, because mats were directly involved in the process of pottery manufacture and drying (Beloyanni 1993, 346–359; Tzachili 1997, 139), and far less frequently from fabrics (CarringtonSmith 1977, 114–117). Important information can be gained from clay weights and bone needles used both in weaving and net making. Also, an emphasis on raising certain breeds of goat and sheep to specific ages is indirect evidence of the exploitation of wool—alongside milk, meat, labor, and manure—which is a highly valuable by-product of domestication (Trantalidou 1996). A huge amount of information exists about the influence of weaving on pottery, which was documented early in archaeological research. Indeed, Buschor (1912) attributed characteristics of the pottery of the Geometric period to the influence of weaving. Recently the relationship between weaving and pottery has been discussed mostly with regard to MN ceramic decoration in central and eastern Thessaly (Theocharis 1973, 67; Tzachili 1997). At the same time, great emphasis has been placed on the influence of weaving on Neolithic pottery at certain sites in Asia Minor, mainly Çatal Höyük (Mellaart 1967, 1975), which is thought to provide a typical example of the relationship between the two crafts (Burnham 1965). In a recent review, the weaver S. Tsourinaki (2001, 34) concludes that the weave-like motifs of Youra and Hagios Petros are astonishingly reminiscent of pure images of fabric. She goes on to justify this relationship by recognizing different weaving techniques in the way painted decorations are interlaced. The Sporades vessels borrow decorations from weaving and render them according to the same structure by which fabrics are woven. That is, Tsourinaki sees a wider loan of weaving combinations, which goes beyond a single pattern and extends to the arrangement and linking of patterns. For instance, the horizontal translation of

decorations is seen as a loan from weaving. By extending the argument, one might say that Youra’s pottery borrows its structure and symmetry from weaving—not just its isolated decorations, but the way that the surface of the vessel is divided into sections to be filled by decorations as well. In other words, the Youra pottery borrows a mental process with all of its organizing criteria and taxonomic values, because structure is primarily a way of thinking and only secondly a technique. This interpretation verges on the arbitrary, but other similar interpretive attempts are just as speculative. For example, Kent (1983, 135) recognizes six temporal and spatial categories of weaving in aboriginal civilizations in the southwestern United States. She identifies a preference for concentric versus juxtaposed patterns, which she interprets as an expression of their world-centric outlook. She interprets certain bold structural changes as an expression of social and economic changes. Moreover, she considers that the persistence of a type indicates resistance and survival of older ways of life in the face of dramatic change. The structure in Youra’s pottery contains the mathematical elements of thinking used in weaving. The vessel is separated into sections; on vases with canvas decoration, the shoulder and the body are divided into metric units by a fine net, which forms the metric base to arrange decorations with symmetry. Just as weavers count wefts and warps, leaving one and taking up the next, so potters count the canvas’s squares, filling one with paint and leaving the next unpainted. But even in the absence of canvas, the surface is divided mentally into large sections to accommodate symmetrical circles around the body and intermediate decorations. Without such structure, the multitude of decorations covering as much as 80 percent of the surface and possibly the perishable cover would have been painted in a disorderly and inconsistent fashion, making the pot look messy. With this structure, patterns are neatly ordered into “propositions,” however difficult it may be for us to interpret them. The weaver of Hagios Petros and Youra was a measured, tidy personality with well-distributed, organizing values. There can be no weaving without mathematical structure. Design and combination of decorative details must be determined in advance in the craftsperson’s mind, together with all of the necessary calculations. These calculations count wefts

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

and warps to achieve proper alternation of colors and patterns (Tzachili 1997, 267–270). By providing stability and rhythm to the woven fabric, the symmetrical repetition of dimensions contributes significantly to achieving a successful decoration; this repetition facilitates the memorization of numbers, which Tzachili (1997, 268) considers an important factor of success. Rhythm, in particular, is a subconscious human faculty with healing properties (e.g., serenity, balance) that are triggered in collective activities (Schott-Billmann 1997, 51). In relation to weaving, rhythm is manifested in the synchronization of weaving movements and even sets off other simultaneous rhythmic behaviors (e.g., dancing, singing). This repetition is also found in ritual situations and corresponds to self-regeneration, endlessly renewable energy, and renaissance. The French psychologist Schott-Billmann (1997, 138) believes that when humans insist on repetition in their designs on materials, it is an expression of some strong desire of humans for life. Actually, repetition is the secret of success of the accomplished weaver, and refers to the practice of the mind in conjunction with the repeated movement of the hands. The art of the loom is indeed an art of the mind, as it presupposes that the weaver performs multiple calculations in her head and demonstrates memory and concentration in order to transform her—as Barber (1991) and Tzachili (1997, 276) put it—ideal designs into material images. The mental exercise and calculations required for the weaving process are so intense that they invest the art of weaving with metaphorical meanings, which denote designs organized in the mind (“to weave plots”) or malice, entrapment, or machinations put together without the knowledge of others (Tzachili 1997, 276). The relationship between weaving and pottery in the Sporades is very close and immediate on the level of structure and is not limited to the loan of a few isolated patterns. Art uses codified and organized non-verbal schemes. There can be no art without rules (Schott-Billmann 1997, 102). For instance, cubists adopted archaic systems of repetition, often drawing from series of letters and dots. We can venture to say, therefore, that the canvas group potters were copying not mere patterns but norms. They drew as if they were weaving, and they assimilated the mathematical structure of weaving as well as if they were weavers themselves.

101

It is not unthinkable that we have before us a population with two orientations of technical specialization—weaving and pottery. It may well be a group of women, because both crafts are associated with women rather than men by ethnological and anthropological research (see below). It is not impossible, therefore, that one craft drew from the other, as they were practiced by the same persons or by different persons who worked “side by side” within the same group. The fact that weaving was most influential may be taken as evidence that this craft was primary and practised more often than that of pottery painting. Several scholars (Theocharis 1967, 130; Tzachili 1997, 221) consider decoration with dyes a very ancient craft, exercized long before its first appearance on pottery on materials that leave no traces, such as mat, stone, wood, basket, or fabric. This type of decoration provided the prototypes later copied in vase painting. At Youra, potters did not merely copy from other materials, but “wove” with colors and brushes. On this weaving structure, they may have improvised patterns designed only for use on ceramic vases. To summarize, we may conclude that symbols of long tradition were imprinted on weaving: they acquired structure and forms adapted to the technique of textures, which were later transferred to pottery using a weaving structure. It should not be overlooked, however, that Youra and Hagios Petros pottery includes vases with patterns other than canvas (e.g., circles, vegetal decorations), where a direct relationship between weavers and potters cannot be documented with certainty. Most likely these patterns from equally long traditions were passed down to pottery without the interference of weaving. In general, the relation between the two crafts and their artisans is obvious, not only in the pottery of Youra, but in a large portion of MN pottery in the Greek region, such as the Red-on-White ware of the Sesklo culture (Theocharis 1973, 283–290, pls. 4–11; Winn and Shimabuku 1989), the Urfirnis ware of the Peloponnese (Theocharis 1973, 291, pl. 12), as well as the Neolithic wares of Asia Minor (Mellaart 1975). Neolithic pottery was influenced to a lesser extent by crafts other than weaving, such as basketry (see the MN bowl from Lianokladi in Theocharis 1973, fig. 48); woodcarving, as suggested by some Dimini vases of the Greek Late Neolithic (see the famous brown polished incised jar with handles, exhibited at the

102

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

Volos Museum, Thessaly, which looks like a wood sculpture); or metalwork, as demonstrated by the sharply articulated and carinated black burnished vases of the late 6th-millennium B.C. Balkan Neolithic. Late Neolithic painted pottery (e.g., Black-on-White ware, matt-painted ware) stylized its symbols to such an extent that any relation to weaving is either remote or invisible. Anyway, it should be noted that pottery is not always the bearer par excellence of a society’s symbols. At Çatal Höyük, for example, the highly elaborate painted decorations on houses had no equivalent in the household’s pots, which were strictly monochrome (Mellaart 1967).

MESSAGE OF IDENTITY The transfer of weaving models to the pottery of Youra–Hagios Petros conveyed a message of identity. In view of their superb quality, painted wares were prestigious articles and, via their weave-like patterns, they became prestigious articles of a particular group, exhibiting their skill, identity, and even tradition. One should not forget that weavers are familiar with the symbolization of their work, because fabrics and woven articles are objects par excellence of perceptual and symbolic significance for the individual. For instance, we dress not only to protect ourselves from the gaze of others, but to attract gaze. We are what we wear (Gilman 2002; Corrigan 2008): our aesthetics, boldness or timidity, and dynamism can be read in our clothes. They also reflect our financial situation, marital status (e.g., the outfit of the single woman, the betrothed, the bride, the widow in folk tradition), social standing, and descent. Similarly, the household’s drapery bears related symbolism (for instance, the bride’s trousseau). Finally, our society is reflected in our clothes. In the context of such strong symbolization of clothing, it is not unlikely that the weavers of Hagios Petros and Youra put symbols on pottery to show who they were. Their pots functioned as a message conveying their meanings. The act of contemplating a vessel creates a relationship of communication between its author and the onlooker/ reader, who becomes a receiver of messages. In the context of this communication, the author extends his/her readability and that of the author’s group in the community and eventually a wider social area

by means of the object or the reputation it creates; thus, the identity of the author is underlined and the author’s status is enhanced. In this way, wares from the Youra–Hagios Petros culture function as remembrances of woven materials: they enhance, perpetuate, and expand their symbols and the readability of their group within the settlement’s community and the wider social area in which they circulate. Of course, it is impossible to tell whether this specialization involved a common descent for the members of the group perpetuating their tradition and identity. At any rate, it is not unthinkable that “weave-like” vessels and their owners, with their distinct traits, participated in social (customary) manifestations of the community in the Cave of the Cyclops. Here, together with other groups, they offered (and broke?) their pots/symbols, perhaps together with their content. It has been suggested that vessels carried small marks of difference to indicate a particular person, user, or artisan. Kalogirou (1994, 101), who interprets a certain slight wrinkling on the rim of LN wares from Kitrini Limni as such a mark, is influenced by Vitelli’s line of argument (1993a, 216) for decorated early burnished pottery at Franchthi, where each vessel was thought to bear different ornaments to intentionally indicate a different person. Perhaps also at Youra, thematic variations of decoration do not merely suggest a specific social group (the weavers), but distinctive persons through personalized vessels. The question arises whether it is possible to identify the hands of particular authors in Youra’s material. The criteria for such reading should include the choice of decoration on each vessel; the metric parameters of each ornament, accounting for all differences and similarities; and the “motion” of decoration as an indication of each painter’s craftsmanship—in other words, the painter’s “signature.” We only may safely identify indications of differentiation in the canvas group, which definitely suggest more than one, and perhaps as many as four, painters for these wares. We do not know what relationships these painters entertained with the painters of the other vessels. The absence of canvas on the other pots may suggest that they came from different hands; however, one cannot be sure. The difference in style between the two groups, which manifests mainly in the profusion of decoration in the canvas wares in contrast to the

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

stark ornaments and small surface coverage in the rest, is perhaps the main argument pointing to different hands or groups of painters. There are patterns common to both groups (e.g., solid triangles on the neck, concentric circles, straight or curving parallel lines, diamonds), but this in itself is not sufficient proof to establish provenance from the same painters. Likewise, similarities or differences among vessels without canvas is not of safe hermeneutical value. The power of patterns as symbols and messages is supported by their presence, with a fair degree of symmetry and centrality, on contemporary seals (Theocharis 1973, 299, pl. XX; Onasoglou 1996, 163). Obviously, the role of seals is obscure

103

to us. Unlike seals and sealings from the Bronze Age, where we may speak quite safely of ownership titles, Neolithic sealings are too rare for seals to be considered marks of ownership with any degree of certainty (Onasoglou 1996, 164). Their use to imprint ornaments on the bodies of pots is only speculation. Nevertheless, Theocharis (1967, 149) considers them to be markers of ownership directly inspired by weaving. Ultimately, the only thing that may be said with some degree of certainty is that these patterns, whatever their meaning, enunciate fixed communication codes on all sorts of materials and objects, including non-extant items like fabrics, and possibly even human bodies.

8. A Product of Society What kind of society is reflected in Youra’s pottery? Can we detect, behind the individual, any social interaction with other individuals or groups? Do productive and social forces coincide so that every differentiation in production is reflected in social structure? According to Marxist theory, social actors clash because they are unequal. The causes of conflict are not explained but taken for granted, and they stand at the basis of any cultural activity, such as typology, ritual, and art. Specificities among groups are interpreted as the need for differentiation in the context of competition. Processual archaeologists view such conflict and inequality as deterministic (i.e., passively borne by the individual), because their causes are rooted in rules that are embedded in the subconsciousness, inescapable to all societies, and automatically at work (Bourdieu 1977). Are there inequalities and social antagonisms in the society of Youra, and to what extent is their pottery the product of these forces? Hypotheses on the existence of social inequalities in the Greek Neolithic were initially formulated on the basis of vague assumptions, mainly with regard to the villages of Sesklo and Dimini. Unfortunately, the scarce offerings and simplicity of Neolithic graves offer little help in imagining Neolithic society. Theocharis, with Sesklo in mind, derives oppositions from the settlement’s size (Theocharis 1973, 68). Kotsakis (1983, 209) extends this argument, writing that hierarchical societies, in general, are

characterized by larger populations and denser habitation compared with non-hierarchical societies. The densely populated settlements of Asia Minor, Syro-Palestine, and the Middle East bear signs of social differentiation already in the Natufian culture and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic as attested in architectural variability, powerful symbolic features, and mortuary practices (Kuijt 2000). Vitelli (1993a) also subscribes to the theory of social inequality and attributes it to increased friction in the beginning of the 6th millennium B.C., due to the transitional nature of this period, with some groups making solid progress and others lagging behind. She argues that potters were vectors of inequality, as initiators of rare and new knowledge, and eventually bearers of additional highly valued properties (acting as healers or priests). In her view, however, this inequality was dampened by compensatory factors, such as participation of everyone in rituals and practices for the common good. She considers Middle Neolithic society to be a counterbalancing field of opposing trends and views pottery as an aspect of social dialogue between the individual and the social context, a view expressing the post-processual approach. Innovations imply intensification of friction, while retreat into conservative norms implies a corresponding ease of tension. The notion that Middle Neolithic society protected equality is also put forth by Björk (1995, 124, 126), who believes that

104

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

part of all property (e.g., cooked meals) was distributed equally to all. According to Vitelli, during the Late Neolithic, the former “secret” of pottery spread widely, which caused chain reactions in social structure. The ceramic pot was no longer rare, and its maker no longer occupied a prominent social position, which was eventually taken up by the metal worker. The secret of pottery became common knowledge, and the object lost the magical power assigned to it by the collective investment of the early period. Social antagonism became more fierce, raging among individuals and leading to hierarchies that were not as easily eroded as those of the past due to self-interest. Parenthetically, one should also consider the evidence provided by the recent surprising find of the latest Neolithic settlement at Strofilas on the island of Andros in the Cyclades (Televantou 2008), where the acropolis is protected by a developed system of fortification walls; more fortified settlements of the same period have been recovered in Attica (Steinhauer 2001). In particular, the Strofilas rock art engravings depict fierce navigators traveling on ships. Maybe they were invaders or pirates; otherwise, why should such complex fortifications be necessary? Recent research on pottery from Sesklo confirms the older hypotheses about social inequality. This research is based on the quantitative distribution of pottery (i.e., the uneven spatial distribution of painted and unpainted pottery), as well as on “luxury” and prestige items (jewelry, metal objects, figurines). At Sesklo, this disparity has been interpreted as an indication, if not proof, of a fixed social hierarchy able to control not only wealth, but know-how, which was not equally distributed (Maniatis, Perdikatsis, and Kotsakis 1988; Kotsakis 1996a, 52–57; 1996b, 169; 1996c; Souvatzi 2008). In particular, according to Kotsakis the uneven distribution of painted pottery suggests a variance of access to raw materials but also special categories of wares whose function is not merely utilitarian, but associated with the fundamental economic and ideological magnitudes of Neolithic life (Kotsakis 1996a, 52). He states that the indications seem to suggest that this variance reflects deeper structural aspects in the organization of the settlement and does not represent simple distinctions of function between buildings (Kotsakis 1996a, 52). Kotsakis concludes that the asymmetry observed in space

may reflect a kind of social asymmetry (Kotsakis 1996a, 54). Unfortunately, the dispersal of pottery in the settlement of Hagios Petros does not show variance of distribution between buildings to justify a similar conclusion. The survey of uneven distribution, albeit contributing to a better understanding of Neolithic society, fails to answer another question: do different social groups have different pottery, either utilitarian or symbolic? In other words, does pottery vary between socially differentiated groups? A recent study on the red monochrome pottery of the later Middle Neolithic at Sesklo confirms the above conclusions by combining the quantitative approach with the qualitative criterion of ceramic material (Pentedeka and Kotsakis 2008). It has been observed that two different clay mixtures, which externally look alike, were used for particular forms in this pottery group, one in the acropolis and one in the town beneath. The researchers explain the intentional separation of clays as an effort to imply difference or even social antagonism between certain groups in the two areas. It is difficult, however, to envision how the distinct clay mixtures and the resulting social differentiation were distinguished in practice: vessels look the same externally, and the difference between them is only visible in the core, if they break. Ethnoarchaeological researchers, who are able to study and compare pottery from every layer of a living social hierarchy, are divided over pottery as a field of expression of social competition. Earlier on, this concept was taken for granted and, as in structural theory, social models were matched with types of decoration. In an attempt to interpret the pottery of the Coahuila culture, for example, Taylor (1948) draws conclusions about society based on the decoration of extant fabrics from ancient sites and weaving techniques. More recently, this relationship has been questioned: Stanislawski (1978) believes that variance in pottery does not reflect the existence of two different groups, and similarities are quite possible between two different linguistic and social groups. After his ethnoarchaeological research in Africa, Hodder (1986, 109) also argued that relations of social hierarchy are not reflected in pottery. Yet, contemporary research does not reject the relationship between pottery and social differentiation, and Hodder (1982) has come to take this view as well. Neolithic material culture may reflect either

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

the dominant ideology of the majority or the subversive ideology of a minority. It constitutes a field of social dialogue where more powerful social groups eventually find a way to impose their views and ultimately extinguish the possibility of this dialogue. In other words, we may argue that the statement made by pottery also reflects context. The opposite may be argued just as easily (i.e., the potter produces something that is incompatible with established aesthetics, ways of thinking, or even symbols, taking exception with the surroundings and using the product as a “voice” of protest or condemnation). The existence of common unifying rules accepted by all members of the group is by no means self-evident. Besides, any effects exerted by the social, economic, or symbolic system are filtered through the personal choices of the male or female potter. Incidentally, these choices depend on permanent traits like character and personality, as well as volatile or shortlived parameters like the mood of the moment, which may be hard to identify yet play a key role, especially in works of art. Pottery—whether or not a field of conflicting characteristics—also represents an area of unity and is probably modified only by deep and possibly slow changes in tradition and existing social relations. This is not just a matter of the potters’ unwillingness to risk time, labor,

105

materials, and user confidence. Pottery confirms the continuity of any group and, in this role, also constitutes a symbol of unity and collective identity. Thus, changes in pottery usually are met with great resistance from the potters’ conservatism, in whose context ceramic products are stylized and fixed. What sort of society underlies the form of Youra’s pottery? There is not enough evidence at the moment to argue that it is the product of social antagonism. The type of vessels found at Youra are not isolated articles, but occur at two sites, in the Cave of the Cyclops and the settlement of Hagios Petros. Could this mean that they were totally accepted within their social context and were not the product of social competition? Furthermore, despite their unquestionable particularities, these vessels rely on a background of accepted general standards, such as the aesthetics of Red-on-White ware, linearity of decoration, fixed outline of form, manufacturing specifications for clay, and technical processing. Could these specific wares, however peculiar, have been understood and accepted by the community both in strict geographical terms and in the wider social context of the Neolithic Aegean? Although at this time it remains difficult to acknowledge conflict and fierce competition in a Middle Neolithic society, the question remains open.

9. A Product of Men or Women? Who is behind Youra’s pottery, men or women? And what might the interaction of the sexes in the Neolithic society of the Sporades have been? The relationship between the sexes in Neolithic society and the production process has attracted more attention from feminist archaeology in the last decade. Feminist archaeology (Arnold 1985, 101) tries to examine historical data free from modern social prejudice against women, which is based on the biological weakness of women versus men and the negative assessment of the female reproductive capacity. By transcending the male-oriented version of the archaeological past, one may look for a variety of roles for men and women in prehistoric society where distinctions were rather unlikely and actions were probably taken according to necessity (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001, 44).

Perhaps it should be assumed that the division of social roles between the sexes emerged gradually, only once the basic problems of survival had been overcome. Based on ethnographic parallels we believe that the participation of women in Neolithic society was associated more with the home and nearby activities, similar to adolescents and the elderly. Far-off dislocation that demanded long absences (e.g., hunting, trade, or war) must have been more closely associated with men and younger members of the community. Pregnancy, parturition, and motherhood would limit women to a restricted range of action as compared with men. This range of action, instead of adversely affecting the position of women in Neolithic society and economy in favor of men, would give women a leading role. The woman was responsible for taking

106

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

care of and maintaining the home and the domestic animals and, as a result, for managing the surplus from farming and stock raising. According to Vitelli (1993a, xx), the Neolithic woman operated as a worker who improvised her tools (i.e., she looked for raw materials to fabricate the objects necessary for her work). In this light, it is probably the woman who was responsible for the collection (Wright 1995) and processing of plastic and non-plastic raw materials, and she fashioned pots of sizes and forms that suited her. In the majority of traditional ceramic centers, pottery is a female activity (Arnold 1985, 101– 108). The relationship of pottery to woman helps explain the rapid diffusion of ceramic know-how through intertribal marriages (Björk 1995, 134). Naturally, when pottery first appeared in the Neolithic Aegean, it was not as a tool. As we have seen already, most scholars now agree that the first wares were not intended for cooking or storage, but ultimately for ritual purposes. The role of women is even more obscure at this stage, although the same scholars would have her play a leading part in these early rituals. It has not been possible to identify typically female symbols/decorations in Neolithic pottery, although they must exist, considering other cultural products (e.g., clothing) where such differentiation is better marked, at least in ethnological terms. On the other hand, finds such as female figurines provide only inconclusive information on the position of women in Neolithic society. The majority of female figurines, many of which are interpreted as celebrating motherhood and the sacred role of fertility, do not prove that society was matriarchal, especially considering that male fertility is equally celebrated in the art of figurines (e.g., phallic sculptures). To summarize, researchers seem increasingly inclined to attribute high social status to Neolithic women because of their leading role in the reproduction of the group’s manpower and the preservation of its wealth. At this stage, women made the group larger and stronger and stood for its cohesion. This perhaps represented the culmination of her power. She subsequently lost power as subsistence strategies left the domestic sphere and grew too far afield for women to maintain (Ehrenberg 1989). Men gradually must have taken over farming, and male children became more desirable as extra hands

were needed to work the land. At that point, pottery was no longer intended only for use in the home, but also for commercialization, and society became more dependent on male potters who were not tied to the domestic sphere. It is evidenced in the entire Mediterranean that during the Bronze Age, aspects of ceramic production (especially of jars) became the trade of itinerant craftspersons (Bloedow 1997), who, we believe, were men. Youra’s pottery, like any prehistoric ware, does not yield direct proof of the extent of female participation in ceramic production or the position of women in the community at large. The model described above, which is a product of applying modern ethnological and anthropological observations to prehistory, is largely accepted for the Greek region (Vitelli 1993a, 217; Tzachili 1997, 271). At Youra–Hagios Petros—as with any prehistoric ware that is highly influenced by weaving—the assumption of considerable female involvement in pottery is further corroborated by the relationship of the decoration to weaving. Weaving is a female activity according to ethnological, ancient literary, and iconographic sources. Every time the term “weave” is mentioned by Homer, the subject is a woman, as opposed to the metaphorical use of the phrase “to weave plots,” which is always related to men (Tzachili 1997, 271). The relationship of women to weaving is also a product of their close association with the home and with nature, where they seek, collect, test, and sort various raw materials including vegetal fibers and animal fibers from domestic animals (Barber 1997; Kopaka 1997; Nordquist 1997). The woman cards, spins, dyes, and weaves, but also sews, knits, embroiders, lays, washes, changes, and maintains fabrics. There is, however, one ethnological example—a Zairean tribe—where weaving is practiced by men, not women, at the center of the village. In this tribe women only embroider (Adams 1983). Based on the above discussion, it therefore may be assumed that pottery and weaving are closely related to women. As each craft was practiced in the MN Sporades within the same population, if not by the same individuals, it is most likely that the craftspersons were women, and the combination of weaving and pottery production represents a double female tradition. This does not mean that the symbolic use of vessels in the Cave of the Cyclops was also carried out by women.

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

107

10. What Is the Role of the Painted Symbols/Messages in the Cave of the Cyclops? Decorated painted vessels, of great symbolic value, and figurines have come to light in other caves during roughly the same period as the Cave of the Cyclops, for example at Theopetra, Sarakenos in Boeotia, and Franchthi (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000a; Sampson 2006b; Talalay 1993; Vitelli 1993a). Similar forms and patterns in this decorated pottery are found at contemporary settlements, such as Hagios Petros and at Thessalian sites, though they differ with regard to quantitative details. In addition, painted pottery of great variety and refinement was found in all of the caves also used during the Late Neolithic, for instance from the caves at Tharrounia in Euboea (Sampson 1993a), Sarakenos in Boeotia (Sampson 2006b), Theopetra in Kalambaka (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000a), the Corycian Cave on Mount Parnassos (Touchais 1981a), the Euripides Cave in Salamis (Mari 2001), the Franchthi Cave (Vitelli 1999), the Kouveleikes (Koumouzeli 1988) and Alepotrypa (Papathanassopoulos 1996) caves in Mani, and the Drakaina Cave on Kephallonia (Stratouli 2007), to mention just a few. Apart from their practical functions for storage, human accommodation, and animal confinement, caves also have strong symbolic potential. Their dark interior and striking decoration, and the awe inspired by the sense of the unknown and the unexplored, invest them with symbolic significance for the community, excite the imagination, and inspire “mythologies.” In addition, because of their vital importance to the community as a means to protect and maintain resources (e.g., animals, food, water), particularly during the Late Neolithic, they help define a population. As ancestral land, they serve as burial grounds for new members and represent continuity. In an attempt to interpret the use of the Euripides Cave during the Late Neolithic, Mari (2001, 183) concludes that the practical activities evidenced in the cave may have had symbolic attributes, and the various items recovered may have been equally meaningful. Similar magical/ religious significance may also be evident in the Middle Neolithic. For example, the study of MN Franchthi (Vitelli 1993a, 215) draws the same conclusions, namely that painted vessels probably had

limited practical scope and were connected with some special function inside the cave. At Youra, the cave is large and deep, it has plenty of water and rich decoration, and it is situated at a strategic location. The MN pottery is mostly painted; unpainted or monochrome vessels are rather limited. Food remnants and tools are equally limited, which may be seen as an indication of the cave’s non-utilitarian use. The location where the vessels were discovered in the Cave of the Cyclops is fraught with symbolic indications that are unavailable from the distribution of comparable painted material in the settlement of Hagios Petros. In particular, painted pottery was identified in an inner isolated recess with no natural light, clearly demarcated by stalagmites at a fair distance from the floor. It is the cave’s most humid area, where a small collection of water probably existed on the same spot during the Middle Neolithic. Another factor implies a preselected location for the wares: the overwhelming majority of pottery fragments come from the upper part of vessels; 367 upper-body sherds were identified compared to 82 lower-body sherds and only one base (Table 3.3). Does this represent the ritual breakage or killing of vessels? According to this scenario, these vessels were not meant to remain empty, in the same way that the Neolithic painted decorated vessel was not made solely as a work of art. These vessels must have had some functional value: the goods that they held (possibly fruits or other foodstuffs) bore as much symbolic content as the decoration painted on their surface. I have analyzed above how much diet, cooking, and food, aside from representing survival, possess strong symbolism deeply rooted in tradition and identity and how meaningful become all artifacts associated with a certain food context. Subsequently, reconstruction of the activity involving the painted ceramics of the Cave of the Cyclops on the island of Youra is possible. The contents of Youra’s pottery may have been prepared elsewhere, inside the same or a different pot, and transported to the cave. This brings up the question of origin. Where did the vessels begin their journey: from another settlement on Youra, another island,

108

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

the village of Hagios Petros on its neighboring island? It is probable that the broad-mouthed, deep vessels were covered by equally decorated covers made of fabric. The pots and their contents were laid in artificial illumination (because the area of deposition lacks natural light), suggesting a practical preparation of the spot. In this illumination, the red patterns would have come alive with brightness. The polish of the surface, perfectly preserved to this date, would have shone vividly and produced strong reflections. In addition, assuming that the vessels got wet in this humid environment, the water would have intensified the colors and deepened the contrast between the decorations and the light background, adding motion and life to the symbolic themes. How often were these events repeated during the generally short period of this pottery? Was it one or more times per year? How many vessels were deposited on each occasion? Were they broken on the spot and their contents scattered? Did people really deposit only selected fragments, or is this a misconception? Was abundance of water the purpose of this ritual? Were these activities addressed to a specific deified idea? Why are Hagios Petros’s figurines completely absent from the cave? Could it be that their expedient structure, produced at low temperatures (Efstratiou 1985, 43), did not survive in the muddy conditions of this specific location? Unfortunately, these questions have no answers. Each ritual could not have lasted long, because the configuration of the area is inconvenient: no more than three to four participants could have attended, at least in the inner recess. The area is narrow, and the entrance allows only one person at a time, perhaps not even in a standing position. Nevertheless, it is likely that Youra’s vessels were

associated with sacred moments inside the cave that were collective rather than individual. Which group lies behind them? Perhaps it was the weavers, the group identified with the ware’s symbols, which allude to their weaving identity. It is not unthinkable that this group represented, directly or indirectly, the entire population of the area, which might have specialized in this activity. At any rate, these events seem to have a collective character organized around a ceremonial repetition. Recent evidence from the Drakaina Cave in Kephallonia (western Greece) has raised similar questions of intentional breakage and selective deposition of pottery within a particular context of social gatherings. In summary, our image of religious and ritual life during the Neolithic is still unclear despite occasional hypotheses and the fact that Neolithic research is almost a century old. Even so, caves provide significant indications of their function as areas of social ceremonies in the Late Neolithic, more than in the Early/Middle Neolithic. The variety of decorated vessels in most Late Neolithic caves, the figurines, and the sporadic symbolic finds, such as the familiar jar with the male-female embossed figures from the cave in Tharrounia, Euboea (Orphanidis and Sampson 1993, 206), may have played specific roles in a series of symbolic actions. At least some caves should be redefined for the Neolithic as loci of organized social gatherings and feastings that were possibly connected with the seasonal symbolism of food production, in addition to other functions that they may have served. Such events would improve cohesion within the society and would reinforce and solidify tradition within the younder and older members of the group.

11. A Historical Object Like all cultural objects, the Youra vessel is a historical object: it was produced in the course of specific historical processes that would never be repeated. In this sense, it is unique, because it is impossible to have exactly the same factors produce exactly the same thing again. Time, materials, culture, and the mood of the moment have changed. This position has not always been self-evident. For most of the 20th century, prehistoric civilizations

were held hostage to determinism (i.e., the theory that human behavior is predictable regardless of time and space). Local peculiarities had no relevance under the force of general laws; the perennial annihilated the role of the individual in any given local, temporal, or cultural context. It was a universalizing approach that placed alterity in a secondary position and ultimately denied it. By the 1970s and more consistently during the 1980s, the theory

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC WEAVERS PAINT

of the unity of human behavior began to collapse as researchers argued in favor of the unpredictable nature of human behavior and the idiosyncracy of time and place in pre-industrial societies. Nowadays, we tend to consider that universal laws are not necessary to study the process of change in any civilization, and priority instead should be given to the association of each item with contemporary finds. Each cultural object is a product that resulted from a specific context, and this makes it a historical object because the context will never be the same again. The object can never be constructed in an identical way in terms of form or meaning because it is subject to the progression of time, thoughts, personal moods, inspiration, technological improvement, and change of materials. In other words, in different contexts, the same object has different meanings. These contexts are not a

109

series of facts external to human beings, but actions and thoughts of specific persons. Thus, the notions of choice, will, and conscious or subconscious intervention by individuals in shaping their own lives, which had been underestimated or altogether ignored, are now entering the field of theory. People reflect, take action, are chosen, choose, assign roles, interpret, and categorize the visible world. Each object is in itself a category, a convention, and an interpretation: it assumes a role and is placed into a personal value system. Moreover, the object in question can assume this role only inside the particular ideological context that produced it. The notion of context challenges the hermeneutical ability of ethnoarchaeology, which draws examples from modern traditional societies to interpret societies of the past, considering them as intercultural phenomena regardless of time and place.

Conclusion: The Youra Vessel as a Unity The Youra vessel, like any Neolithic earthenware, is a complex mix of forms and meanings that meets several needs, both functional and symbolic, some of which prevail and others of which recede. The total impact of these factors is cumulative, as multiple influences coalesce in the object and jointly define its role. It is impossible to define the relationship between function and symbolism without underestimating one or the other. Various theories have tried to explain the difference of symbolic gravity versus functionality by assigning priority or exclusivity to one or the other through the categorization of pottery. Binford (1962, 1965) introduced such classifications, dividing vessels into technofacts when they constitute tools, ideofacts when they are carriers of ideology, and sociofacts when they indicate social hierarchy. A functionalist approach that found favor in archaeological interpretation consists of separating pottery into utilitarian/household and non-utilitarian wares, an equally simplistic and dualistic idea. A sociological approach distinguishes between elitist and utilitarian pottery. Björk (1995) divides Achilleion’s wares into two groups, heavy and light, depending on the stress accumulating in the clay through use. The former were used only for cooking, the latter for storage, serving, and display. Björk

(1995) associates these categories with levels of symbolism, concluding that light pottery is more differentiated as compared to heavy pottery. Increasingly, however, researchers agree that “luxury” Neolithic ware should not be underestimated from the viewpoint of utility. Besides, Neolithic society does not seem to have reached such complexity of religious and funeral practices to produce different pottery for utilitarian, funeral, and religious uses, as occured from the Bronze Age onward. Each form, either general or individual, incorporates not one but several messages at the same time. Roles in Neolithic pottery overlap to such an extent that the network of conceptual forms and symbolism cannot be broken down. These meanings are interdependent and inextricably “bound” together. They are often subconscious, because identity is shaped not only by knowledge acquired and controlled consciously, but by experience transmitted by tradition or formed in the minds and hearts of people. No doubt the functionality of any pottery form depends on the extent and kind of symbols it carries. Intensity and frequency of use are reduced as symbolic content (hence, investment of time and labor) increases. The awe surrounding symbols certainly inhibits a vessel’s intensive daily use. Its tradeable

110

STELLA KATSAROU-TZEVELEKI

value is different: its place in the value system of the community is parallel to the meanings it carries. Because it is undetermined where one category ends and another begins, one should refrain from placing pottery into categories such as utilitarian, non-utilitarian, household, and symbolic among others, which are arbitrarily divisive. By separating these characteristics, we also separate the personality of the maker behind the pot, which can only be unitary. Thus, while preserving the unity of meaning in every vessel from Youra, its characteristics can be summarized. It is a historical object; the typical product of a particular cultural group. It is defined precisely in space by two sites in the central Aegean, the settlement of Hagios Petros on the island of Kyra-Panagia and the Cave of the Cyclops on the island of Youra, both in the Northern Sporades. Also, it is defined precisely in time as the early Middle Neolithic (approximately 5800 B.C.). As a cultural object, it incorporates cultural influences from contemporary groups of the Greek Neolithic, with emphasis on central Greece. The Youra vessel has an excellent technological structure fabricated by skilled potters and painters. It is an item with utilitarian potential for food

processing. It is a symbolic item embodying symbols of an age-old tradition. It constitutes an element of identity bearing the marks of another specialized activity, weaving. It may represent a restricted group; as such, it may be a message, because it makes the group visible and recognizable to any external observer in the community, the wider social context, or through time. At the same time, however, its role is not static: as a symbolic object, it travels in the geographical catchment area of the community and participates in collective symbolic practices in the Cave of the Cyclops, where it may be ritually deposited. It is the result of specialized and systematic occupation and, as such, the product of a thriving economy able to sustain and reward specialized groups. It represents an investment in time, labor, material, and skill, and is a token of wealth and status for its owner. It may even be the product of embryonic social inequality or differentiation. Finally, it is a work of female inspiration and execution. The Youra vessel is a work of consistent and symmetrical technique, structured by craftspeople who measured and calculated their movements with precision and care for detail, but who were practical enough to avoid waste of time and labor. And, of course, it is a work of art.

4

Late Neolithic Painted and Burnished Decorated Wares Fanis Mavridis*

The fragments of Late Neolithic painted and burnished decorated wares represent only a minor amount of the entire ceramic assemblage from the thick Mesolithic and Neolithic deposits in the Cave of the Cyclops (Sampson 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1998a, 1998b). The pottery is discussed and dated on stylistic and typological grounds because the upper levels of deposits had been disturbed in the majority of the trenches due to both ancient and modern activities inside the cave, and also because of the specific character of deposition. Identifying and dating this particularly limited number of LN painted and burnished wares therefore requires comparison of their shapes to close parallels from other Aegean sites. Due to the fragmentary state of the material, however, the reconstruction of the shapes and the detailed study of the decoration proved rather difficult.

The identified sherds of LN painted and burnished decorated wares are limited in number. (There are only 50 sherds under study.) The distribution of the three relevant pottery wares (classified below) in each of the trenches, as well as the wares’ relative frequency, are studied only in relation to the remainder of the pottery groups recovered in the cave (Table 4.1). The numerical comparison of the sherds belonging to the three LN decorated wares therefore does not indicate any significant quantitative deviation from what was recovered in the trenches (White-on-Dark, 28 percent; pattern burnished, 46 percent; matt-painted, 26 percent). The majority of sherds were recovered in Trench A (54 percent) and Trench C (34 percent), while relevant finds in Trench D (6 percent) and other trenches were sporadic. These data are in accordance with the

*I would like to thank Professor A. Sampson for his support and valuable comments, S. Katsarou-Tzeveleki for information concerning the excavation, V. Kiriatzi for her comments on a draft of this paper, M. Kostopoulou for reading my English text, and T. Karamolegou for help with the

computer facilities. Only sherds that provide some information on shape or decoration are included in this chapter. The chapter’s structure and the analysis of each ware are not always uniform due to the limited number of sherds under study and the data available.

112

FANIS MAVRIDIS

general picture of the pottery recovered in the cave, as a significant amount of the LN pottery was recovered in Trench A (Sampson 1998b, 71). The sherds under study belong both to open and closed shapes (Table 4.2). In considering identifiable shapes, it seems that closed vases (46 percent) and relatively small open ones (24 percent) are the most frequent LN shapes in the cave. It is possible, however, that the number of unidentifiable sherds (30 percent) constitutes a bias to the statistics of the shapes that are present. Due to the material’s fragmentary state, outside of the body fragments that comprise 62 percent of the sherds under study, only small rim fragments (30 percent), two lugs (4 percent), and two shoulder fragments of closed vases (4 percent) have been preserved (Tables 4.2, 4.3); no fragments from the lower part or the base of the vases are extant. The LN groups of painted and burnished decorated wares are classified as: Type VI pottery with white painted decoration on a dark burnished ground (White-on-Dark ware); Type VII pottery with pattern burnished decoration; and Type VIII

pottery with matt-painted decoration. Within these types, the sherds are cataloged using the system specified in Chapter 2: each sherd receives a catalog number (in bold) followed by its excavation number (in parentheses). The catalog numbers in this chapter are a continuation of those in Chapter 3. In general, the painted and burnished decorated wares of the Late Neolithic from Youra are preserved in a very fragmentary state. The few identified sherds show that most of the material belongs to the Late Neolithic Ib and II phases, with evidence of contacts with and similarities to several areas in the Aegean. In contrast to the earlier periods when the site belonged to the Thessalian cultural sphere, it appears to have belonged to an Aegean koiné in the Late Neolithic, as attested by the mattpainted and later pattern burnished wares. Whiteon-Dark ware had a vast spatial and chronological distribution on mainland Greece and the Aegean islands during the Late Neolithic. It seems that the limited number of sherds from Youra belong to a mature phase of the Late Neolithic.

Type VI. Pottery with White Painted Decoration on Dark Burnished Ground (White-on-Dark Ware) The fabric of White-on-Dark ware is fairly uniform (Fig. 4.1). The paste has inclusions of various sizes that can be easily detected with the naked eye, even in finer and more thin-walled sherds. Mica seldom appears. Firing is uneven; in most cases, a difference in color occurs between the core and parts closer to the surface. The surface is usually burnished and dark gray-black in color, while the brown/reddish-brown color of certain samples is due to variable firing conditions. Mottled areas also occur on the surface of certain sherds. Moreover, differences in surface treatment, especially between thin-walled and coarser vases, are apparent. The heavily burnished treatment of the surface of some samples, however, does not permit the identification of slip in all cases. Similar variations in the degree of luster, surface treatment, and color have been reported from material found at other sites, such as Grotta on Naxos (Hadjianastasiou 1988, 14) and Akrotiri on Thera (Sotirakopoulou 1996, 582). Few

rim fragments (eight out of 14 sherds) were identifiable as belonging to open, wide-mouthed, or closed shapes. Several body fragments (burnished on the inside) belong to open vases, while other sherds (rough and unslipped or unburnished on the inside) belong to closed vases. The bowl with slightly convex walls (a rounded bowl, no. 778) is a very common shape. It is known from several LN sites, such as Karystos in Euboea (Sampson 1985a, fig. 3), Saliagos near Antiparos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 49), Grotta (Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 3), Akrotiri (Sotirakopoulou 1996, fig. 2:F237, Ap26), and Kalythies on Rhodes (Sampson 1987a, fig. 60:654, 658, 662, 663). The conical bowl with carination high on the body underlining the lower part of the rim (773, 779) shows an important spatial and chronological distribution. Samples of the G1a ware carinated bowl (Wace and Thompson 1912, 17) that occur in regions such as Thessaly (e.g., the bowl found at

LATE NEOLITHIC PAINTED AND BURNISHED DECORATED WARES

Kouphovouno [Theocharis 1959a, fig. 5:1], with slight variations compared to the samples from Youra) or south and central Greece (Efstratiou 1985, 65) offer some parallels. Similarities also exist with some shapes of the Arapi Phase in Thessaly (Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969, pl. 16) as well as with a LN carinated bowl fragment found at Hagios Petros (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 11:3). A carinated bowl from the upper levels of Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 52:7) is very close to the Youra material. Carinated open vases are also known from Late Chalcolithic sites in Anatolia (French 1961, fig. 4:19). Moreover, parallels of the straight-walled bowl with fine decoration (780) are known from Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 35:21) and Akrotiri (Sotirakopoulou 1986, fig. 1:4196; 1999). Many similar sherds are known from Grotta (Hadjianastasiou 1988, 17), Kalythies (Sampson 1987a, figs. 57:632, 57:633, 58:639), and other sites. Few other body fragments belong to open vases, and they give no specific indication of shape (782). There is also limited evidence for closed or widemouthed shapes. A rim fragment (775) belongs to a rather wide-mouthed vase with its neck differentiated from its body. Vases from Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 53:4, 8, but with a higher cylindrical neck) and Kalythies (Sampson 1987a, figs. 44:455, 44:464, 46:491), as well as from certain eastern Aegean sites such as Tigani on Samos (Felsch 1988, fig. 63:267) and Emporio on Chios (Hood 1981, fig. 131), can be compared to the Youra example. Hole-mouthed jars (774) are very common in the Late Neolithic. The shape is known from several sites where White-on-Dark painted ware occurs, such as the Hagia Triada Cave in Euboea (Sampson 1988a, fig. 83:686), Kalythies (Sampson 1987a, fig. 57:626), Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 40:13–14), Tigani (Felsch 1988, fig. 54:74), and mainland Greece (Phelps 1975, fig. 35:3–4). Finally, another fragment (777) with a thick rounded rim may belong to a wide-mouthed vase. This type is similarly known from sites where White-on-Dark ware occurs, such as Akrotiri (Sotirakopoulou 1996, fig. 2:1; 1999). This shape, however, is also characteristic of other plain or burnished wares, as found at Emporio (Phase VIII: Hood 1981, figs. 128:218, 131:279). Moreover, several body fragments belonging to closed vases have been identified mainly on the grounds of their

113

rough and unburnished inside surface (772, 781, 783). One of them (776) belongs to a vase with a carinated body and possibly could be identified as part of a vase similar to those found at Tigani (Felsch 1988, fig. 72). In almost all cases, white paint was applied after the burnishing of the surface; in certain examples, it has disappeared, leaving intact the burnished surface of the vase. The execution of the decoration is particularly elaborate on some sherds (780) but careless in other cases (782). This distinction in execution of decoration can be related to thin-walled versus coarser vases (i.e., the fine and more elaborate decoration of thin- and straight-walled bowls in comparison to simple straight lines or bands on coarser vases). Because of the small number of sherds recovered, however, no direct conclusions relating the quality of clay, the surface treatment, and the decoration can be drawn. Moreover, no detailed analysis concerning the syntax of decoration can be made due to the small size of the fragments preserved. The repertoire of motifs on white painted decorated ware from Youra is restricted to simple rectilinear motifs. Complex arrangements of lines and more elaborate motifs, such as the circles, lozenges, triangles, and hatched or cross-hatched motifs known especially from Saliagos and Kalythies, do not occur here. The wavy-line motif (782) is known from several sites, such as the Hagia Triada Cave (Sampson 1988a, fig. 5) and Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 56:4, 7). It occurs in diagonal, vertical, and horizontal arrangements, often in combination with other motifs (Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 50:15, 51:6, 52:2, 7). It is combined with parallel straight lines at Akrotiri (Sotirakopoulou 1996, fig. 3:9) and on mainland Greece at sites where the G1a1 ware (according to the typology of Wace and Thompson 1912, fig. 55:L) occurs. At Grotta, the wavy line is the sole curvilinear motif (Hadjianastasiou 1988, 17). Other patterns consist of parallel lines in diagonal arrangement descending from the rim (774), broad lines descending from the rim and meeting with another diagonal line (778), broad lines/bands on the rim of closed vases (777), and systems of fine diagonal lines arranged in groups and separated by other horizontal lines (780). These simple motifs, in various arrangements and combinations, are known from many sites where White-on-Dark painted ware

114

FANIS MAVRIDIS

occurs. The continuous zigzag lines (multiple chevrons) below the rim of carinated bowls (773, 779) should be further commented upon. This motif is very well known from several Aegean sites, including Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 33:5, 49:6), Akrotiri (Sotirakopoulou 1996, fig. 3: X341), and the Vathy Cave on Kalymnos (Furness 1956, pl. XIX:11–12). In addition to G1a ware open shapes, closed vases are also decorated with this motif (Felsch 1988, fig. 54:74). White-on-Dark ware is considered by some scholars to be contemporary with the Late Neolithic I of the Greek mainland (see review in Sampson 1984, 239). Some connections with the Greek mainland have also been mentioned in relation to sherds from Grotta (Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 1:13; pl. 14) and especially Ftelia (Sampson 2002a). The same early date has been proposed for Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, 88–91), which is considered to be more or less contemporary with Kalythies I–II and Emporio X–IX (Sampson 1984, 1988a). This phase can be considered the earliest stage of Whiteon-Dark painted ware known from the Aegean islands. In the eastern Aegean, however, this ware seems to be more common at Emporio VIII–VII, while it also occurs at Tigani (Felsch 1988), Poliochni on Lemnos (Bernabò Brea 1964), and other sites (Sampson 1984, 240). Nevertheless, it appears that White-on-Dark painted ware either exists for a long period of time or the interval between the first appearance of White-on-Dark ware and the pattern burnished and crusted wares is not prolonged, because they are found together at several sites (Sotirakopoulou 1996, 586; Mavridis 2007) such as the Zas Cave on Naxos (Zachos 1987b, 696; 1994, 103) and the open settlement of Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 1997a, 2002a). As far as the date of White-on-Dark ware on Youra is concerned, certain features of the few and fragmentary sherds may offer some general clues. The types of carinated bowls found on Youra are very rare on Saliagos. Straight-walled bowls, which also occur on Youra, slightly increase in number in the later strata of Saliagos. The latter vases also occur at Grotta and Akrotiri; these sites are considered to be of a rather late date in relation to Saliagos. The material from Youra, therefore, can be considered either as contemporary with, or slightly later than, the last phases of Saliagos, but preceding the appearance of pattern burnished ware.

White-on-Dark ware is thus no longer considered a local Cycladic category with distinct characteristics (Renfrew 1972, 66; Coleman 1974, 334–335; Evans and Renfrew 1968, 36, 81–82; Theocharis 1981, 128, 158; see also review in Sotirakopoulou 1999). It is known from several sites in the Cyclades such as Ftelia (Sampson 1997a, 2002a) and Mavri Spilia (Belmont and Renfrew 1964) on Mykonos; Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968), the Zas Cave (Zachos 1987b, 1994), and Grotta on Naxos (Hadjianastasiou 1988); Minoa on Amorgos (Marangou 1985, 185–186; 1994, 307–332); Akrotiri on Thera (Sotirakopoulou 1999); and others. Also, it is known from island sites in the southern Aegean such as the Kalythies and Koumelo Caves on Rhodes (Sampson 1987a) and the Vathy Cave on Kalymnos (Maiuri 1928; Furness 1956), as well as from island sites in the northern Aegean such as Thermi and the Taxiarches Cave on Mytilene (Avgerinou 1996, 130), Myrina on Lemnos (Dova 1997), Emporio and Ayio Gala on Chios (Hood 1981, 1982), and Tigani on Samos (Felsch 1988). Finally, it exhibits a large distribution on mainland Greece—from the Kitsos Cave and Palaia Kokkinia in Attica; Orchomenos, Eutresis, and Elateia in central Greece; Aria, Asea, and Corinth in the Peloponnese; and also at sites in Thessaly and Macedonia (see catalog in Sotirakopoulou 1986, 299). The study of this ceramic material can be rather problematic due to its large distribution and the chronological and cultural differences among various sites in the wide Aegean region—especially considering the limited number of sites that preserve secure stratification data, exhibit detailed pottery typologies, and have been published. It seems that the evolution of wares in the Aegean occurred more or less in parallel, but had different dimensions according to specific cultural choices and the importance or use of each pottery ware in various areas. 770 (866b). Rim and neck fragment of a closed vase. Carries decoration of two diagonal lines beginning from rim. Burnished, reddish, and mottled surface on the outside; rough and dark gray on the inside. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.061; w. 0.034; th. 0.008 m. D. Surface find. 771 (867b). Body fragment of a thin-walled, possibly open vase. Carries decoration of three fine parallel lines. Worn, with traces of burnishing. Reddish-brown clay with inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.034; w. 0.04; th. 0.004 m. A7.

LATE NEOLITHIC PAINTED AND BURNISHED DECORATED WARES

772 (868). Body fragment of a vase, rather closed in shape. Decoration of a zigzag line and traces of another vertical line. Burnished black surface, brown in places. Coarse clay with inclusions and some mica. Gray core. H. 0.038; w. 0.035; th. 0.005 m. A7, 2. 773 (270). Rim and body fragment of a bowl. Carination marking the beginning of concave rim. Below rim, decorated with a system of four fine lines forming multiple (continuous) chevrons. Burnished surface. Coarse reddish clay with inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.20; h. 0.10; th. 0.007 m. A4. 774 (581). Rim fragment of a wide-mouthed vase. Thick rounded rim. Carries decoration of four diagonal lines beginning from rim. Burnished, very dark gray surface. Coarse reddish clay with copious inclusions. Diam. rim 0.16; h. 0.035; th. 0.006–0.001 m. CWest 5. 775 (583). Rim and neck fragment of a rather widemouthed vase. Rounded rim. Preserved traces of two diagonal lines beginning from rim. Black surface, slipped and burnished on the outside, rough on the inside. Coarse clay with copious inclusions and mica. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.16; h. 0.041; th. 0.008 m. CWest 5. 776 (665). Fragment of carinated body of a closed vase. Carries decoration of diagonal lines. Black burnished surface on the outside, rough and gray on the inside. Semi-coarse clay with some inclusions and mica. Gray core. H. 0.028; w. 0.043; th. 0.006 m. C3. 777 (699). Rim fragment of a rather wide-mouthed vase. Thick rounded rim. Carries decoration of four broad diagonal lines beginning from rim. Black burnished mottled surface. Coarse reddish clay with copious inclusions and mica. Diam. rim 0.25; h. 0.026; th. 0.006–0.001 m. CEast 7. 778 (706). Rim and body fragment of a bowl with slightly convex walls and plain rim. Black burnished

115

surface. Carries decoration of two vertical, rather thick straight lines beginning from rim, and a third diagonal line attached to one of them. Coarse reddish clay. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.16; h. 0.056; th. 0.005 m. CEast 8, 1–3. 779 (708). Rim and body fragment of a bowl with carination marking the beginning of concave rim. Conical body. Carries decoration of five diagonal thin lines from rim to carination and traces of two more forming multiple (continuous) chevrons. Burnished surface, brownish black in places. Coarse clay with copious inclusions and mica. Gray core. Diam. 0.28; h. 0.067; th. 0.006 m. CWest 7, 6. 780 (709). Rim and body fragment of a straight-sided bowl with plain rim. Decorated with a system of five and six diagonal lines plus two more horizontal lines. Very fine, well-preserved, thin lines. Very well-burnished, dark gray surface. Semi-coarse reddish clay. Gray core. H. 0.047; w. 0.037; th. 0.004 m. CEast 7, 5. 781 (710). Body fragment of a closed vase. Carries decoration of diagonal lines forming chevrons. Reddish-brown surface, mottled on the outside, rough on the inside. Coarse clay with copious inclusions and some mica. Gray core. H. 0.025; w. 0.032; th. 0.008 m. CEast 13, 4–5. 782 (711). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Slipped and burnished black surface, mottled on the outside. Carries decoration of two parallel wavy lines, with preserved traces of three more lines of uncertain shape. Coarse clay with some inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.052; w. 0.053; th. 0.005 m. CEast 8. 783 (712). Body fragment of a closed vase, Sshaped in profile. Carries decoration of four thin diagonal lines. Burnished surface. Coarse, reddish-brown clay with copious inclusions and some mica. Gray core. H. 0.052; w. 0.046; th. 0.007 m. CEast 6.

Type VII. Pattern Burnished Ware Pattern burnished decoration has already been described by several scholars (Heidenreich 1935– 1936, 128; Phelps 1975, 304; Zachos 1987a, 51). More recent technological analyses of several sherds from the Tharrounia Cave and the site of Psachna on Euboea, however, have significantly clarified the method of manufacture of this type of decoration. The surface of the vase was initially slipped and burnished. The decoration was then executed on the burnished surface prior to firing in the areas selected to appear lustrous. The remainder of the surface was usually matt and different in color from the burnished motifs. Finally, when the vase

had completely dried, it was fired at a temperature of approximately 750–800°C (Maniatis and Kylikoglou 1993, 438). The majority of the fragments from the Cave of the Cyclops were decorated after their surface had been slipped, according to the procedure summarized above (Fig. 4.2; Pl. 4.1). A limited number of body sherds and an elephant-head lug (788), however, may belong to a category of pattern burnished ware identified by Sampson in Euboea (Group B, Sampson 1981, 154). The clay of the Youra material is reddish brown with inclusions and some mica. The sherds have a black core and are occasionally

116

FANIS MAVRIDIS

fired red/reddish brown on the surface. Some of them present mottled areas, and their color ranges from orange-red to various tints of brown. Occasionally, especially on large vases, the execution of decoration is careless, and burnished lines are closely spaced. The contrast between the surface and burnished motifs is thus not always clear. This has been similarly observed on material from other sites (Coleman 1977, 11). On Youra, the pattern burnished ware is represented by a small number of sherds (23 fragments). Of these, six rim fragments, two lugs, and several body fragments have been identified, and they provide some information about shapes and composition of decoration. The majority of rim fragments belong to closed and wide-mouthed shapes. One of them (790) comes from a closed vase with a rounded, rather thick rim that is everted and differentiated from the shoulder. This type is also known from other sites, such as Tharrounia, where similar patterns occur (Mari 1993, figs. 133:89, 142:71), and Kephala, where the closed spherical vases are undecorated (Coleman 1977, pl. 31:N). Two other fragments (793, 786), which belong to more or less the same closed shape, have a rounded, slightly everted rim; no. 793 has a black burnished surface and motifs. They can be compared to jars from Tharrounia (Mari 1993, fig. 143:78–79), as well as to some hole-mouthed jars from Kephala, which lack pattern burnished decoration (Coleman 1977, fig. 34:E–G). Moreover, a characteristic jar rim (789), rather everted and differentiated from the shoulder, is similar to types known from Tharrounia (Mari 1993, fig. 113:85–87). Sherds from Plakari also exhibit certain similarities, though they are undecorated (Keller 1982, figs. 2.13, 2.16). Another shape from the Cave of the Cyclops (791) bears a characteristic neck differentiated from its convex shoulder. It is also known from Kephala, where it is undecorated (Coleman 1977, 134, fig. 33:4). More or less similar wide-mouthed and closed vases with their neck, shoulder, and spherical body carrying pattern burnished decoration are known from Emporio (Hood 1981, fig. 131:265, 275). Two body fragments (788, 788.1), one from an open and the other from a closed vase, preserve elephant-head lugs. This type of lug occurs very commonly on jars as well as open vases, with or without pattern burnished decoration. Moreover, the pattern burnished ware as well as the elephant-head

lug generally mark the beginning of the Late Neolithic II. These lugs are known from northern Greece and Thessaly (e.g., Pefkakia, Weisshaar 1989, pls. 6, 43:6, 8), Euboea (e.g., the Tharrounia Cave, Mari 1993, 45), Attica (e.g., Thorikos, Spitaels 1982, fig. 1.6:9, 11, on burnished bowls without pattern burnished decoration), the Peloponnese (e.g., Aria in the Argolid, Douzougli 1998, 132), and the Aegean Islands (e.g., Kephala, Coleman 1977, pls. 28, 31; the Zas Cave, Zachos 1987b, fig. 9, on a jar with pattern burnished decoration; Ftelia on Mykonos, Sampson 2002a). Some body fragments (rough, unslipped, and unburnished on the inside) belong to closed vases (784), although the identification of specific shapes is difficult. One rim fragment (794) comes from a bowl with slightly convex walls and rounded rim. This shape is very common and known from several LN II sites, such as Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977, fig. 40:B, C) and Plakari in South Euboea (Keller 1982, fig. 2:2). Other body fragments, slipped and burnished on the inside (785, 785.1) appear to belong to open shapes with curved walls. Some of the sherds have a dark gray/black surface and burnished motifs of the same color. These sherds (787, 787.1, 794.1) are decorated with narrow (787) or broad (794.1) burnished lines on the outside. Another sherd (793) belongs to the rim of a closed vase (a jar) and is rather everted and differentiated from its shoulder in a manner similar to those described above. It appears that the dark gray/black color of these sherds does not identify them as a distinct class of this ware because the color is due to different firing conditions. Late Neolithic I black pattern burnished ware, known from several sites on mainland Greece, such as Varka in Psachna of Euboea (Sampson 1977, 51) and Orchomenos (Kunze 1931, pl. X), and found as well in Thessaly (Hansen 1933, 181), is not related to LN II red pattern burnished ware (Phelps 1975, 211–212; Demoule, Gallis, and Manolakakis 1988, 35; Gallis 1992, 55; Mari 1993, 143). Decoration within these distinct categories seems different, since that of LN I black pattern burnished ware is confined to a small zone usually below the rim or close to the carination of the vase, while LN II red/orange burnished patterns usually cover the entire surface of the vase. Decorative patterns are simple and comprise straight lines that vary in width from broad (794.1:

LATE NEOLITHIC PAINTED AND BURNISHED DECORATED WARES

w. 0.07 m) to medium (786 and 791: w. 0.04–0.05 m). The latter are more common, though there are also a few examples of narrow lines (787: w. 0.02– 0.03 m). In one instance, a burnished horizontal line defines the top of the rim, from which diagonal lines descend (790). In many cases, diagonal or vertical lines appear in various combinations (784, 786, 787.1, 789). Generally, motifs occur below the rim and on the body of vases. However, it is hard to make further observations on the composition and structure of decorative patterns in relation to the different parts of vases, because no fragments of bases or the lower parts of vases have been recovered. Pattern burnished decoration on the outside surface of jars is a general rule at Youra, but 794 is decorated both on the inside and outside, as are some vases from other sites, such as Kephala (Coleman 1977, 1). Additionally, sherds decorated on the outside have been found at sites including the Tharrounia Cave (Mari 1993, 136) and Plakari in south Euboea (Keller 1982). The relevant material from Hagios Demetrios in Triphylia bears traces of decoration on both sides of the surface of the vase (Zachos 1987a, 53). At Kephala, pattern burnished decoration rarely occurs on both surfaces of the bowls. The majority of shallow bowls exhibit decoration on the inside surface (Coleman 1977, 11). As a rule, most pattern burnished sherds found at different sites are decorated with lines in a simple arrangement (Sampson 1981, 154; Zachos 1987a, 52). More complex styles of decoration with patterns like the meander, interlocking hooks, or curvilinear bands, as known from Kephala (Coleman 1977, pls. 42:E, 86:A, O), Thorikos (Spitaels 1982, 27, no. 39) or Aegina (Walter and Felten 1981, pls. 72–73), do not occur on Youra. In terms of technology, shapes, and decoration, the pattern burnished ware from Youra is ascribed to the Attica-Kephala style (for regional styles and varieties of this ware, see Renfrew 1972, 77; Phelps 1975, 308–309; Zachos 1987a, 52). The Attica-Kephala culture, which includes pattern burnished and other wares, is known from sites in the northern Aegean (including the remote cave of Youra), Euboea, Attica, the Cyclades, and the Peloponnese. In general, this LN II culture appears to be widespread in the Aegean during the last phases of the Neolithic Age.

117

784 (869). Body fragment of a closed vase. Decorated with burnished, diagonal and vertical bands forming angles. Slipped and burnished. Rough on the inside. Coarse clay with many inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.046; w. 0.093; th. 0.006 m. A1. 785 (216). Body fragment of an open vase with curved walls. Decorated with six diagonal burnished lines. Slipped and burnished both on the inside and outside. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.04; w. 0.052; th. 0.005 m. A4, 1. 785.1 (261). Body fragment of an open vase with curved, inward-turned walls. Slipped and heavily burnished. Decorated with four burnished, diagonal bands. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.049; w. 0.037; th. 0.005 m. 786 (219). Rim and body fragment of a closed vase. Rounded, rather straight rim. Decorated with four diagonal burnished lines on the outside, two of which begin from another vertical line. Burnished and slipped. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.13; h. 0.049; th. 0.008 m. A3, 4. 787 (272). Body fragment of a vase decorated with thin burnished lines in black. Slipped and burnished, black surface. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.04; w. 0.051; th. 0.004 m. A4. 787.1 (461). Body fragment of a closed vase. Slipped and burnished on the outside, unslipped on the inside. Decorated with diagonal and vertical burnished bands which form angles. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.045; w. 0.093; th. 0.006 m. 788 (273). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls and an elephant-head lug. Worn, preserved traces of burnished bands. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.055; w. 0.052; th. 0.009 m. A4. 788.1 (846b). Body fragment of a closed vase with curved walls and an elephant-head lug. Burnished, orange on the outside; unburnished on the inside. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.083; w. 0.076; th. 0.008 m. Handle: h. 0.047; w. 0.031 m. A. 789 (304). Rim fragment of a closed vase. Plain rim, distinct from body. Decorated with six straight or slightly curved, diagonal burnished lines. Slipped and burnished. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.10; h. 0.046; th. 0.008 m. A3, 2. 790 (580). Rim and body fragment of a closed vase. Thickened, slightly turned, and rounded rim. Decorated with one horizontal and three diagonal burnished lines. Slipped and burnished on the outside. Coarse reddish clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.10; h. 0.042; th. 0.007 m. CWest 5. 791 (685). Rim, neck, and shoulder fragment of a wide-mouthed vase. Plain uniform rim with convex neck and rounded shoulder. Decorated with burnished bands on the outside. Slipped and burnished. Coarse

118

FANIS MAVRIDIS

clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.26; h. 0.056; th. 0.008 m. CEast 10, 1, 4, 7. 792 (721). Body fragment of an open vase with curved walls. Decorated with six rather thin, burnished lines. Burnished surface, unslipped on the outside. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.041; w. 0.054; th. 0.006 m. CEast 9. 793 (763). Rim fragment of a closed vase. Plain rim distinct from body. Decorated with diagonal burnished bands. Slipped and burnished. Coarse reddish clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.045; w. 0.046; th. 0.008 m. A3, 4. 794 (789). Rim and body fragment of a bowl with slightly convex walls. Rounded rim. Decorated with

diagonal burnished bands both on the inside and outside. Slipped and burnished. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Dark gray core. H. 0.05; w. 0.026; th. 0.007 m. CEast 14, 9–10. 794.1 (258b). Body fragment of a closed vase with broad burnished lines in black. Slipped and burnished, black surface. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.028; w. 0.032; th. 0.008–0.016 m. 794.2 (576). Body fragment of a vase with burnished lines in black. Slipped and burnished, black surface. Coarse clay with copious inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.049; w. 0.077; th. 0.009 m.

Type VIII. Matt-Painted Ware Very few matt-painted sherds (13 fragments) have been identified, and three sub-categories (described below) have been distinguished (Figs. 4.3, 4.4; Pl. 4.1). In general, the clay of the polychrome (Type VIII.2) and Dark-on-Light (Type VIII.3) varieties exhibits plenty of calcium inclusions, which provide ceramics with special properties. The high firing temperature (1050–1080°C) produces the light surface color, which the dark decoration contrasts. The black paint used for the decoration was produced from a fine suspension of clay mixed with manganese oxides. Prior to decoration, the surface was smoothed so that the paint could be evenly applied (Maniatis and Kylikoglou and 1993, 440). Matt-painted ware makes a very early appearance in Thessaly, and it shares common shapes with the pottery of the Larissa Culture (Gallis 1992, 59). It is also characteristic of the Tsangli and Arapi Phases and represents Wace and Thompson’s B3e ware (1912, 17). The closest parallels to the Youra matt-painted ware are found among the pottery of central and southern Greece (Gallis 1992, 59; Wace and Thompson 1912, 103–104, figs. 53–54; Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969, pls. IV, 4; Hauptmann 1981, pl. 69; Demoule, Gallis, and Manolakakis 1988, 27, fig. 10). Matt-painted ware occurs in the lowest levels of sites with LN material, such as at Varka in Psachna where it was found together with Urfirnis and red and black burnished wares (Sampson 1981, 110). This seems to be the case for all of mainland Greece in the first half of the Late Neolithic

(Douzougli 1998, 93). Moreover, the later variety of matt-painted ware that usually has a slipped and burnished surface has been identified by Phelps at several sites, such as Klenia, Gonia, and Alepotrypa (Phelps 1975, 252).

TYPE VIII.1. MATT BLACK DECORATION ON BURNISHED RED GROUND (BLACK-ON-RED WARE) A single closed vessel with a strap handle rising from the rim represents this first type (Fig. 4.4, Pl. 4.1:799). In addition to the rim and handle fragments, several body parts from the same vase were found. The clay is semi-coarse with some inclusions, while the black paint was applied on the burnished slip that is the same color as the clay. Black-on-Red ware, B3d according to the typology of Wace and Blegen (1912, 16), is sometimes difficult to distinguish from Type VIII.3 (Dark-onLight) pottery (see below), especially because of the diverse colors of decoration and surface caused by variable firing conditions. Moreover, Type VIII.1 and Type VIII.3 show no major differences in shape (Gallis 1992, 59). Hauptmann and Milojčić (1969, 27) correlate the B3d–B3e Thessalian wares with those of southern Greece in terms of techniques and motifs, but others find differences between the painted ceramic products of the two regions (French 1972, 9; Phelps 1975, 191–198). Black-on-Red ware is found in Thessaly from the first stages of the Late Neolithic (Gallis 1992, 59).

LATE NEOLITHIC PAINTED AND BURNISHED DECORATED WARES

Most scholars believe that Black-on-Red pottery derives from the Urfirnis ware of the Middle Neolithic (Douzougli 1998, 90). The presence of Black-on-Red ware inside the Bothros 3 assemblage from Elateia (Weinberg 1962, 182) is important for its chronology. This ware is also reported from the Forum West at Corinth (Lavezzi 1978, 422), and it continues after the end of the first half of the Late Neolithic because it is found at Gonia and other sites together with the polychrome variety (Type VIII.2). The date of vase no. 799 from Youra must be related to the later assemblages known from mainland Greece where Black-on-Red pottery is found in association with fully developed Type VIII.3 pottery as well as the Type VIII.2 variety. The decoration of the Youra sample is simple: it consists of zigzag lines beginning from the rim and continuing to the handle and body of the vase. In general, Black-on-Red ware patterns are restricted to simple linear motifs. Zigzag parallel lines are very common, with the outer one usually wider. Broad bands sometimes have solid or simple geometric border motifs. Below the rim, lines varying in width are attested. Net patterns are also present, as well as simple straight lines defining the parts of the vases (Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969, pl. IV:4, 2; Gallis 1987, figs. 7:1–4, 7:15–16, 8:2–3; Demoule, Gallis, and Manolakakis 1988, figs. 9, 21). Simple linear motifs are attested on matt Blackon-Red pottery from sites in central and southern Greece, such as Orchomenos (Kunze 1931, 39, pls. IV:4, XXII:2a–c, XXIII:1d, XXXIII:2, where a sherd with zigzag lines is illustrated), Corinth (Weinberg 1937, 513), Forum West at Corinth (Lavezzi 1978, 422), Gonia (Blegen 1930, 55–80), Aria (Douzougli 1998, 89), Alepotrypa (Papathanassopoulos 1971a, 1971b, 1971c), Group I of Eutresis (Caskey and Caskey 1960, 127–167), the Corycian Cave (Touchais 1981, 143), the Tharrounia Cave (Sampson 1993a, 71), the Kitsos Cave (Lambert 1981, pl. 39), as well as many other sites (French 1972, 9; Phelps 1975, 194). This variety of decoration is completely absent from Klenia and very rare at Franchthi (Douzougli 1998, 89).

TYPE VIII.2. MATT POLYCHROME DECORATION Only three fragments, whose curved walls indicate that they may come from closed vases, belong

119

to the polychrome variety of matt-painted ware (Figs. 4.3, 4.4; Pl. 4.1). The clay is fine to semicoarse, rather hard-fired, and has few inclusions, some of which are white. The study of its decoration is problematic because only small fragments are preserved. In general terms and judging from the material at various sites, black decoration is matt as a rule, while red patterns usually have a low gloss. There are also exceptions where the red is matt or crusty, or the surface has been burnished after decoration (Phelps 1975, 276). Simple lines and bands are black and red in color (797, 800). It seems that patterns consist of alternating red and black lines or black lines used as a border for red motifs. The width of lines varies from broad (797, 798) to narrow (800). In one case, a broad red line bordered by two black ones is combined with an independent “ladder” pattern (798). Type VIII.2 is, in general, contemporary with pottery that is matt-painted on a burnished ground (Touchais 1981, 152). It is well known from LN sites in central Greece and the Peloponnese (French 1972, fig. 7). The correlation of material from Thessaly with that of central and southern Greece is not very clear (Theocharis 1973, 109). At Elateia (Weinberg 1962) and Kouphovouno (Theocharis 1959a, 7), the decoration of red lines bordered by black is considered late in relation to decoration in which red and black motifs are independent. At Corinth, patterns are simple and linear. By contrast, at Gonia, patterns are geometrically constructed of broad red lines edged with black straight or zigzag lines; added black is always applied over red. At Klenia, red is the dominant color, while black is used as a separate and subordinate element, never as a border. The material from Prosymna (Blegen 1937, 373, figs. 628–631, pl. 3) is close to that from Gonia, and the fact that this ware was found at eastern Yerogalaro together with LN II coarse pottery implies that it is relatively late (Phelps 1975, 283, 285). Type VIII.2 is known from Thessaly (Wace and Thompson 1912, 16–17, 31, 60–61, 77, 100, 141; Milojčić 1955, 163; Theocharis 1959a, 56; Hauptmann and Milojčić 1969, 26–27, 60–68); Euboea, at sites such as Varka in Psachna (Sampson 1997b, fig. E); Attica (see catalog in Phelps 1975, 286); central Greece (Weinberg 1962; Kunze 1931, pl. IV); and southern Greece (Lavezzi 1978, 421, nos. 56–58; Phelps 1975, 275–290; Weinberg 1937, 515; Kosmopoulos 1948, 56, pl. 4;

120

FANIS MAVRIDIS

Hadjipouliou-Kalliri 1981, 156; Douzougli 1998, 110). At Varka, an example (Sampson 1977, fig. E) is very similar to sherd no. 797, where black lines are used as a border for red motifs. This is also similar to the examples from Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a, 67, figs. 73–77). In addition to chronological differences, it is evident that the syntax and character of decoration varies among sites and regions (Sampson 1993a, 83; Touchais 1981, 154). The polychrome variety is not characteristic of the beginning of the Late Neolithic I. It seems that the matt-painted and polychrome varieties found together on Youra belong to a mature phase of the Late Neolithic, contemporary with Tharrounia Phase II (Sampson 1993a, 85). The material from the Euboean sites belongs to the later phase of the polychrome ware, contemporary with the material from Prosymna and Gonia. In particular, at the site of Varka in Psachna, polychrome sherds were found within the upper levels (Sampson 1981, 111). A later date is also proposed by Phelps (1975, 245) for the material from southern Greece. Polychrome ware seems to reach its end before the appearance of the crusted and pattern burnished wares that are characteristic of the Late Neolithic II.

TYPE VIII.3. MATT BROWN/BLACK DECORATION ON LIGHT GROUND (DARK-ON-LIGHT) This ware is the commonest variety of the Late Neolithic on mainland Greece. The surface of the sherds from Youra is burnished or smoothed and light colored (Figs. 4.3, 4.4). Decoration is matt black or brown on some sherds (802) due to variation in firing conditions. The clay is again fine to semi-coarse with few inclusions. The nine fragments of this type belong to body sherds from open and closed vases with curved walls, though no secure reconstruction of shapes is possible. Some sherds preserve traces of a whitish/buff thin slip on the outside surface, which is applied prior to the decoration of the vases. Patterns are more variable and sophisticated in relation to other LN decorated wares on Youra. “Ladder” patterns are associated with curved lines, while broad lines forming a triangle enclose net patterns (796). In one case, broad straight bands bear dots on both sides (796.1).

Sherd no. 795 carries broad parallel lines with small asymmetrical solid motifs on the upper band in a row. Other sherds carry simple lines or bands, always on the outside surface—diagonal lines (801), parallel lines, and a combination of parallel, horizontal, and diagonal lines (802). These motifs are known in various combinations from other areas (Sampson 1981, fig. 67; Phelps 1975, figs. 40:24, 43:38, 43:68, 45:19), but the composition of decoration seems to be different. 795 (57b). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Decorated with four horizontal, matt-painted black zones; on the top of the upper zone, seven asymmetrical solid motifs in a row. Burnished surfaces. Semi-coarse clay with limited inclusions. Thin gray core. H. 0.095; w. 0.067; th. 0.006 m. A4. 796 (296). Two joined body fragments of a vase with curved walls. Buff-whitish slip on the outside. Decorated with matt-painted black motifs (brown in parts because of the firing). Motifs consist of thick curved bands combined with a “ladder” pattern, as well as bands that form a rectangle and triangle enclosing a net pattern. Burnished on the outside. Semi-coarse, reddish-orange clay with limited inclusions. Thin gray core. H. 0.068; w. 0.174; th. 0.006 m. CEast 7. 796.1 (716). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Matt-painted decoration with a thick band and two vertical rows of dots, one row on each side of the band. Semi-coarse clay with limited inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.032; w. 0.045; th. 0.005 m. 797 (297). Body fragment of a possibly closed vase with curved walls. Buff-whitish, thin slip on the outside. Decorated with two parallel red bands between three black bands. Burnished on the outside. Semicoarse clay with limited inclusions. H. 0.057; w. 0.10; th. 0.006 m. A3. 798 (298). Part of body (eight fragments) of a vase with curved walls. Whitish/buff, thin slip on some parts of the outside. Decorated with two independent motifs, a “ladder” and a red line bordered by two black lines. Burnished on the outside, smoothed on the inside. Semicoarse clay, reddish orange in color, with limited inclusions. Thin gray core. H. 0.23; w. 0.20; th. 0.006 m. CEast 6. 799 (357). Rim, handle, and body fragments (11) of a closed vase with spherical body. Flat outward-leaning rim. Carries a ribbon-shaped handle beginning from rim. Red slipped and burnished. All of the preserved parts are decorated with diagonal zigzag lines in black. Coarse reddish clay with inclusions. Gray core. Diam. rim 0.08; h. 0.073; th. 0.009 m. A5. 800 (361). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Decorated with black, matt-painted lines combined with lines in red. Preserved traces of red paint at one end.

LATE NEOLITHIC PAINTED AND BURNISHED DECORATED WARES

Burnished on the outside, smoothed on the inside. Semicoarse, reddish-orange clay with limited inclusions. H. 0.051; w. 0.079; th. 0.006 m. A3. 801 (541). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Decorated with diagonal black, matt-painted lines. Burnished surface. Semi-coarse, reddish-orange clay with limited inclusions. Thin gray core. H. 0.038; w. 0.035; th. 0.005 m. A2. 802 (542). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Decorated with black, matt-painted motifs of horizontal

121

and diagonal lines crossing and converging. Burnished surface. Semi-coarse, reddish-orange clay with limited inclusions. H. 0.039; w. 0.046; th. 0.008 m. A2. 802.1 (571). Body fragment of a vase with curved walls. Traces of matt-painted decoration with thick bands. Semi-coarse clay with limited inclusions. Gray core. H. 0.083; w. 0.073; th. 0.005 m.

5

Pottery Analysis of the Bronze Age and Historical Periods Adamantios Sampson

This chapter provides an overview and catalog of the Bronze Age through historical period pottery found in the Cave of the Cyclops. Although limited in number, the pottery discussed here includes Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, Mycenaean, and Geometric wares, as well as pottery from the

Classical and Hellenistic periods. The catalog for this chapter continues in the same format as the preceding chapters, with catalog numbers in bold followed by excavation numbers in parentheses. The catalog numbers follow in succession the numbers from Chapter 4.

Early Helladic Pottery Scattered sherds ascribed to Early Helladic II, based mainly on their shape but also on their slip and the quality of their clay, have come out of the upper layers of Trench C (Fig. 5.1). Their clay is particularly brittle compared to Neolithic standards, with a characteristic thick burnished slip. Most common among the shapes is the shallow bowl (808), with variations in the form of rim. A closed vase with markedly outward-leaning rim (809) belongs to a common type that occurs in numerous EH sites (Sampson 1985a, pl. 12:2). The closed

shape with a relatively wide mouth and a handle rising from the rim is less common. The type of neck fragment (806) with an uncommon carinated profile has also been recovered at Manika (Sampson 1985a, pl. 13) and Kalogerovrysi (Sampson 1993b). 803 (434). Fragment of rim and body of a deep open vase with almost vertical walls. Uniform asymmetrical rim with pointed top. Red rough surface. Gray core. Impure coarse clay. Diam. rim 0.35 m. CEast 9, 7–8. 804 (435). Fragment of rim and body of a coarse open bowl with thick, outward-leaning walls curved in

124

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

profile. Inverted rim cylindrical in section. Relatively rough, brownish-gray surface; preserved traces of a brush on the outside. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.30 m. C5. 805 (439). Fragment of rim of a coarse open bowl, hemispherical in profile. Almost upright walls. Thick rim, flat at top. Smoothed brown surface with preserved traces of a brush. Gray core. Impure clay with copious lime inclusions. Diam. rim 0.30 m. C5. 806 (702). Fragment of neck of a closed vase. Neck carinated in profile. Markedly outward-leaning walls close to rim. Smooth brown surface. Gray core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.13 m. C3, 5–6. 807 (705). Fragment of rim and strap handle of a monochrome, closed, and thin-walled vase. Uniform rim with pointed top. Red surface, very well burnished

and lustrous. Red core. Impure clay. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 9, 4–6. 808 (754). Fragment of rim and body of a shallow, thin-walled bowl. Walls upright close to rim. Uniform rim with pointed top. Light brown surface, very well smoothed. Gray core. Impure clay with particularly fine gravel inclusions. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 12, 3, 6. 809 (861b). Fragment of neck of a closed vase. Markedly outward-leaning rim. Red-slipped surface. Diam. rim 0.12 m. CEast 7. 810 (862). Low, ring-shaped base of a coarse closed vase. Brown surface. Impure clay. Diam. base 0.013 m. C5. 811 (863). Fragment of a red-slipped strap handle. Reddish clay. Max. dim. 0.088 m. CEast 6.

Middle Helladic Pottery Evidence for the Middle Helladic period occurs more rarely in the cave and is represented only by minimal traces recovered in Trench C (Fig. 5.1). The large fragment of a Minyan vase, carinated in profile and carrying a strap handle on its shoulder (813), is noteworthy (Sampson 1993b, fig. 43:14). A vertically pierced handle like no. 814 is common among MH pithoid vessels. The vessel with tall neck and markedly outward-leaning walls (812) is featured in MH coarse ware.

812 (425). Fragment of tall, slightly outward-leaning neck and shoulder of a coarse closed vase. Uniform rim with rounded top. Shoulder differentiated from neck by a wide carination. Light brown surface. Gray core. Relatively pure clay, well fired. Diam. rim 0.13 m. C5. 813 (864). Fragment of rim, shoulder, and belly of a thin-walled Minyan vase. Strap handle on shoulder. Gray surface. Pure clay. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 7. 814 (865). Fragment of belly of a large closed vase carrying a horizontal, vertically pierced, cylindrical handle. Orange surface. Max. dim. 0.14 m. C5.

Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery A particularly limited number of Late Helladic sherds have been recovered within the upper layers of Trench CEast (Fig. 5.2). They show that during this period the cave was very rarely visited, similar to the Early and Middle Helladic periods. Although it is known that during the Mycenaean Age caves were used as cult places, no evidence for this occurs in the Cave of the Cyclops. Mostly fragments of small and large open vases (kylikes, bowls) have been found. Although decoration occurs only on rare occasions, it allows the dating of some examples to the Late Helladic period. An arched handle belongs to this period, and a number

of painted sherds of closed shapes can be ascribed to the same chronological horizon. 815 (1050). Fragment of flaring rim of a painted stemmed kylix, decorated with vertical curvilinear motif surrounded by dark points. Yellowish slip, black paint. Diam. rim 0.16 m. CEast 6, 4. 816 (1051). Fragment of collar neck of a broadmouthed vase decorated with solid horizontal band. Separated from shoulder by angular carination. Yellowish slip, black paint. Diam. rim 0.14 m. CEast 6, 5. 817 (1025). Fragment of vertical rim with flaring edge of a kylix decorated with concentric circles. Yellowish slip, brown-black paint. Diam. rim 0.15 m. CEast 5, 10.

POTTERY ANALYSIS OF THE BRONZE AGE AND HISTORICAL PERIODS

818 (1030). Fragment of vertical concave rim of a painted kylix decorated with parallel horizontal bands starting from rim edge. Yellowish slip, brown-black paint. Diam. rim 0.15 m. CEast 6, 10. 819 (1018). Fragment of body of an open bowl or kylix with an arched horizontal handle, cylindrical in section. Handle left unpainted except for solid bands surrounding the handle attachments and two ring bands surrounding the arch at right end. Max. w. 0.075 m. CEast 7, 4.

In addition, a few, fairly uncharacteristic sherds found close to the cave’s entrance and from the surface of Trench C possibly belong to the Geometric period. However, they are not sufficiently diagnostic, as they belong to the bodies of large closed vases such as those in Fig. 5.2.

125

820 (1016). Fragment of shoulder of a closed jar with dark painted concentric bands around the join to the neck. Yellowish slip, brown-black paint. Diam. neck join 0.11 m. CEast 6, 6. 821 (1003). Fragment of body of a closed jar bearing dark painted parallel bands on the upper part, undecorated on the lower part. Light yellowish slip, brown paint. Max. diam. body 0.24 m. CEast 4, 3. 822 (1008). Fragment of body of a closed jar bearing set of at least four dark painted parallel bands on its upper part, undecorated on its lower part. Light yellowish slip, brown paint. Max. h. 0.06 m. CEast 4, 5. 823 (1010). Fragment of body of a thin-walled, closed jar preserving part of a stemmed motif. Light yellowish slip, brown paint. Max. h. 0.03 m. CEast 4, 5.

Pottery of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods All of the areas of the Cave of the Cyclops furnished a relative abundance of pottery ascribed to the historical era (Fig. 5.2; Pl. 5.1). The overwhelming majority of the pottery belongs to the Hellenistic period and consists of large and small vases of everyday use. An abundance of amphorae with pointed lower ends bear witness to the cave’s use as a storage space. A large quantity of Hellenistic pottery came from Trench A and the interior parts of the cave. Trench D yielded exclusively Hellenistic material down to the bedrock. This assemblage may be subject to a special study in the future. The Classical and Hellenistic pottery recovered inside a niche in the large hall of the cave was a surprising discovery. This material is comprised of several hundred sherds, among which the large fragments of three black-glazed kylikes and two kotylai of the 5th century B.C. can be distinguished. It was possible to mend a kylix (824) and a kotyle (827). The base of the kylix was incised with LE in late Archaic characters (Pl. 5.1), possibly the initials of the vase’s owner. The limited use of the cave as a cult place during these years should not be excluded; in this respect, additional research of certain spaces in the main hall and a specialist’s study of this material are needed. 824 (1009). Black-glazed kylix with half of rim, body, and base preserved. Flaring concave rim attached

to broad hemispherical body through an angular join. Bowl sits on a short stem ending in a wide, hollowed base with flat rounded edge. Late Archaic–Early Classical, inscribed LE inside the hollow. Luster preserved intact. H. 0.076; diam. rim 0.19; diam. base 0.087 m. Main cave hall, surface find. 825 (1002). Fragment of rim, body, and base of a black-glazed kylix. Outward-leaning, flaring rim and curved body joined through an angular join. H. 0.070; diam. rim 0.16; diam. base 0.06 m. Main cave hall, surface find. 826 (1004). Fragment of rim and body of a blackglazed kylix joined in angular section. Luster worn. Diam. rim 0.19 m. Main cave hall, surface find. 827 (1012). Black-glazed kotyle preserved intact. Rim extending from conical walls sitting on a low, flat ring base. Horizontal handles attached on the side of the rim. H. 0.12; diam. rim 0.16; diam. base 0.11 m. Main cave hall, surface find. 828 (1013). Fragment of rim and body of unpainted kotyle. Rim extending from a conical body preserving a horizontal handle attachment on the side of the rim. Diam. rim 0.14 m. Main cave hall, surface find.

A large number of sherds recovered from the interior parts of the cave, in Trenches A and D, belong to the Roman period. Lamps prevail, occurring everywhere from the entrance to the most inaccessible parts of the cave. Their specific study was undertaken by G. Koutsouflakis (see Ch. 6).

6

Lamps of the Roman Period Georgios B. Koutsouflakis*

This study includes the lamps of the Roman period discovered during the excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra island during the 1992–1995 campaigns. A general description of the recovery of the Roman lamps is provided, followed by a typology and catalog of numerous examples found in the cave. In addition, a small catalog and discussion of the signatures and potters’ marks found on the lamps is included. The Roman lamps discovered in the Cave of the Cyclops allow for a discussion of the cult practices in caves during this period. An appendix to the chapter lists the caves of Crete, Attica, Euboea, the Peloponnese, the Ionian islands, and Boeotia that contain accumulations of Roman lamps. Sherds of at least 1,208 lamps have been recorded in the Cave of the Cyclops. This number is based on the number of the lamp handles found, assuming

one lamp for every handle. A very limited proportion of handleless lamps (less than 1%) does not seriously disturb this count. The lamp’s handle is the most solid part of this fragile object. Once the lamp breaks, it can be easily reduced to very small sherds without leaving any recognizable remains. The handle is the only part of the lamp generally preserved intact without suffering any great damage in the special conditions of the cave. The number of lamps inferred from their handles indicates a safe minimum and is by no means an absolute count. On the contrary, one might suspect that this number is misleading. It is easy to presume that anything that breaks in a closed environment like that of the Youra cave remains there if it is not removed on purpose. It is assumed that no visitor of the Roman period would have bothered to collect the sherds of his recently broken lamp,

*I have greatly benefited during the study of this material from the advice of some colleagues, although the responsibility for all statements, opinions, and estimations remains mine. I wish to thank the director of the Youra Project, Prof. A.

Sampson, for giving me permission to publish this material and for the fruitful cooperation through the years. I am also grateful to Th. Webb, P. Micha, and D. Mytilinaiou for recommendations on the final text.

128

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

and even if he intended to, this would have been extremely difficult in the absolute darkness that would have resulted from the breakage of the lamp. However, removal and collection of fragmentary or intact material has taken place extensively during the last two centuries when the cave became publicly known to pioneers, tourists, and souvenir hunters. Today, many of the inhabitants of the adjacent islands possess complete lamps or parts of them, in many cases inherited from their ancestors. Even in one of the earliest tourist guides of the territory from 1958, the cave is referred to as the “famous” place where the visitor might easily find a lamp with erotic depictions. This information clearly shows that the cave has suffered from widespread plundering of its surface layers throughout the 20th century. The damage that has been done is easily understood if we draw an analogy to other caves providing similar material. When the Vari Cave was excavated in Attica, the excavator reported the recovery of almost 1,000 intact lamps (Bassett 1903, 338). A similar number is also reported by K. Romaios (1905, 109) in the publication of the material found in the cave of Pan, located on Mount Parnes in Attica. These caves were located in areas near Athens, much easier to approach than the Youra cave. But despite their proximity to the capital city of Greece, the material in upper levels and on the surface was still well preserved during the beginning of the 20th century. The main reason for this was that public interest in caves had not yet developed. Therefore, in the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra, it might be presumed that the number of complete lamps at the turn of the century may have been in the thousands. These comparative numbers are indicative in many ways of the plunder that took place during the 20th century. In addition to the illegal export of lamps from the cave, there are a great number that have been permanently enclosed under layers of stalagmite formations. These lamps can still be traced today, but not extracted. Finally, a large number of lamps inside the remaining deposits are as yet untouched by excavation. In the first category, there is not much that can be done beyond a general count. At least 70 lamps have been traced within the stalagmite layers, most of them at the northeast end of the cave. They are a valuable source of information because many of them remain in situ, in the

exact position placed by ancient visitors. In the second category, there is the expectation of recovery during a possible future research campaign. The lamps of the cave can be divided into four distinctive groups using their mode of recovery. The first group includes sherds collected from the top soil during the preliminary survey. This material is the most numerous and fragmentary. Lamp sherds were found throughout the cave, much destroyed and trod upon in the easily accessible areas, but in better condition deep in the inner cave where the human foot could not easily approach. Much of the latter material was found in small or larger concentrations at the ends of the steeply inclined downgrades of the cave or in narrow hollows or niches. No complete lamp is attributed to this group, and significant effort during many months in an attempt to correlate and bring together thousands of fragments has produced few results. The information gained from this group in matters of typology is very limited. This material was open, however, to statistical analysis. The second group includes material recovered from the trenches cut in the cave’s floor during the 1992–1995 seasons. This group provides the largest number of complete lamps, mainly found in the upper levels of the stratigraphy. Many fragmentary parts have been correlated and restored, producing diagnostic shapes. Also, a limited number of fragments have been found in deeper levels among Neolithic material, especially near the vertical rock cuts where sherds fell due to the abrupt inclination of the cave’s walls. This is a common phenomenon in caves of this kind. Unfortunately, the stratigraphical data of the upper levels is also poor, since the Roman layers were clearly disturbed by later activities. The third group includes lamps found in situ in narrow niches between the stalagmites, mainly at points high up on the cave’s walls where both the visitor’s eye could not reach them and the dripping of the stalactites was not strong enough to enclose them in limestone. These lamps were placed in these niches on purpose, in many cases at a considerable height (over four meters). Their presence highlights many questions concerning the use of the cave during the Roman period. The fourth group contains lamps which were retrieved through donations from private collections, mainly from inhabitants of Alonnessos. In

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

these instances, it is certain that the lamps originate from the cave, but any information concerning their accurate findspot is lacking. The state of preservation of this material was extremely disappointing. When I first visited the cave in 1992, much of the main path in the interior, especially where bare rock was exposed, was covered by a thin layer of brick-red, crunchy shingle. Soon it became apparent that this layer was formed from hundreds of trampled, destroyed lamps. Apart from these, more than 6,000 lamp fragments were collected during the four campaigns, in addition to 22 lamps preserved in good condition. From this total only 1,600–1,700 fragments can be attributed to diagnostic types. However, the catalog provided in the present study contains only 124 lamps and fragments of lamps (with statistical analysis for all the others) for the purpose of avoiding an extensive and repetitive catalog of the same types. Unfortunately, the special conditions of the cave do not favor the preservation of such finely made and fragile objects. In addition to human action, two

129

main factors played a role in the poor preservation of the material: the dripping of the stalactites and the humidity. Through the years, sweating stalactites produce a crust of limestone, which encloses anything exposed under it. In the case of the lamps, this resulted in a solid layer of limestone above the surface of the individual lamp creating the shape of a stone mold. Laboratory conservation can offer little help in these cases beyond a mechanical abstraction (with all the hazards involved) or an immersion in a sparse solution of hydrochloric acid, which, in this case, might irreparably injure the clay’s complexion and damage any surface decoration. The second factor, humidity, also played a devastating role by soaking the thin walls of the lamps, especially those of low quality that were not particularly well fired. The soaking resulted in a deterioration of the lamp walls, and subsequently pulverized the surface of the clay. However, it is characteristic that the humidity injured specific groups and types of lamps (for example, the group Alpha Globule Lamps), while others of different fabrics and technical features remained unassailable.

Defining an Origin and Chronology Almost all published studies of ancient lamps deal mainly with material connected to excavated parts of large ancient cities, which had their own workshops of lamp production. In these cases, the first step of the study—which is concerned with a product of domestic use and one of industrial production with a large number of different types—is a primary separation of the imported lamps from those of local manufacture. In the material of this study, there is no such dilemma: it is known beforehand that all lamps found in the Cave of the Cyclops have been produced outside the geographic vicinity of Youra island and are imported from elsewhere. Despite the large-scale survey conducted (see Ch. 9), no organized settlement has been located at this point on the island. Consequently, the concern here is mainly the diagnosis of the origin of the lamps and all subsequent matters that might arise. Lamps constitute objects of everyday use and, at least with regard to urban populations, products of primary necessity. The mechanism governing their

construction and production has been studied sufficiently in detail (Vertet 1983; Karivieri 1996, 20–26). Most large towns of the Roman Empire had their own production workshops, following in most cases a common language in typological approach, throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Any type of moldmade lamp can be copied and adopted from one shop to another through a relatively simple process. Although trademarks were already present, especially in the production of luxurious lamps, it seems that copying among the less elaborate series was something of an everyday practice in the workshops. Copies were not circulated exclusively in the closed neighborhood of the town’s workshops: specific groups of Corinthian lamps of the 2nd century A.D. were copied by the Athenian workshops (Perlzweig 1961, 11–13), while later, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the copying went the opposite way (Garnett 1975, 178–179). Intensive copying resulted in a common language of ornamental decorations and parallel development in all regions of the Roman

130

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

imperium without necessarily deriving from the exports of one particular city. The amount of material stemming from a town like Athens or Corinth can produce secure information about local production. When workshops are studied in detail, the more popular motifs can be distinguished through the frequency of their repetition. In addition, the chronological limits in which they operate can be determined. Following this chain back link by link, one can trace the identification and origin of the archetype. However, in the case of the Youra material, this approach is extremely difficult and may be risky. Either exact copies—even in their dimensions—will have to be sought, so that their origin from the same or a relative generation of molds might be traced, or focus should be placed on the kinds and qualities of clay, slips, and glazes. The microscopic examination of the technical elements is perhaps the safest method for defining the origin of a lamp, but aside from some examples of well-known characteristic fabrics, no comparative study of clays has yet appeared in lychnology. The variety of fabrics seems to be great even within the limits of a single city. How many different kinds of clay could have been used in Athens from the 1st to the 4th century A.D., when we know that a single workshop commonly used two or three different qualities of clay deriving from different sources?

A problem related to the determination of the origin of the lamps concerns their chronology. Although much of the material is well documented and derives from stratified deposits, the absolute lack of coins in the context seriously extends any chronological limits that might be suggested. The presence of Roman pottery in the same context provides little help: the field is accustomed to date Roman pottery from the presence of lamps instead of dating Roman lamps from the presence of pottery. The disturbance of the rest of the Roman levels and the absence of secure stratigraphical data again forces one to rely upon the typological approach. Consequently, dates are not provided for each individual lamp, but are given for the type or stylistic grouping of lamps, leaving room for declination of about 50 years. In this chapter, 124 lamps are cataloged and placed within a typology. Catalog numbers are given the designation “RL” for Roman lamp, and appear in bold. The dimensions of complete lamps or sherds in the catalog are given in meters. For the description of the majority of the rim motifs, reference is made in parenthesis to Karivieri’s catalog (1996, pls. 53–54), for example (K-1) = Karivieri, rim motif no. 1. Following the typology, a catalog and brief description of inscriptions and potters’ marks found on the base of several of the lamps is provided.

Typology The arrangement of large deposits of lamps in categories, groups, or types has been a problem occasionally addressed in a number of different ways by scholars. Bassett (1903) was the first to attempt a systematic classification of the lamps found in the Vari Cave, dividing them by means of the shape of the base and creating further subdivisions based on rim and disk decoration, the handle shape, and the signatures or potters’ marks. However, the first generally accepted typology was that of O. Broneer based on material found in the excavations at Corinth. The 37 lamp types established by Broneer were initially based on shape analysis and their subcategories on special features of the lamp decoration. Later on, he adjusted the typology that he established

in 1930 after publishing the results of the study of the lamps at Isthmia (Broneer 1977). Thompson adopted this typology in his first publication of the Agora lamps (Thompson 1933). Kübler, on the other hand, treats Kerameikos lamps in a different way, and his arrangement is based mainly upon the stylistic analysis of the disk representations and on their technical characteristics (Kübler 1952). Miltner (1937) devised a separate typology for the lamps found in the excavations held by the Austrian Mission in Ephesus, dividing his material into 12 types on the basis of stylistic criteria, each type being further subdivided into four or five groups. Perlzweig (1961), dealing with the lamps found in the Athenian Agora, avoided creating a new typology and

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

arranged her material in groups by means of disk decoration or nozzle shape. Her work, regardless of any partial revision it may have undergone, remains the primary publication so far, especially with regard to the study of Attic lamps. In a later article of S.A. Butcher, Binder (née Perlzweig) is cited and highlights the weaknesses of her Agora VII volume (1961), mainly with a view to the dates suggested, which she feels are much earlier than the actual ones (see quote in Butcher 1982, 138–139). It should be stressed that the forthcoming publication of approximately 20,000 lamps found in the excavations of the German School in the Kerameikos cemetery will eventually solve the problems of the dating of Attic lamps in a more definitive way. Perlzweig’s method of classification was followed by Gill and Hedgecock (1992) in the publication of the lamp sherds belonging to the Fitzwilliam Museum. Bailey (1988), republishing the former catalog by Walters and the group of lamps now in the possession of the British Museum, divided his material into thematic units by means of disk representation and place of provenance. Sampson (1987b) and Sapouna (1998), dealing with the material from Chalkis and Crete,

131

devised a separate typology. Petropoulos (1999) adopted Broneer’s and Bailey’s typology and added some new subcategories. It appears that the adoption of yet another new typology, whatever the criteria, would create more problems than it would eventually solve. This would only be feasible if a deposit emanated from a common place of manufacture, and it could not be applied to lamps with different provenances. However, grouping the lamps is essential for the purposes of this study in order to ensure the overall understanding of the diversity of the Youra material and to provide a clear treatment. For this reason, the lamps are divided into 10 groups, with the main criteria for the typology being decorative features or shape of the lamp. The lamps are further separated based on their place of provenance—whenever this could be identified with certainty. In the case of each group, additional evidence is furnished. It should be noted that this grouping of the lamps does not attempt to create a new typology. Instead it is a working convention, making it easier to discuss the many dissimilar lamps in this publication.

Group I Group I is comprised of moldmade lamps. The common feature they share, which constitutes the main criterion for grouping them together—apart from their more or less similar shape—is the occurrence of the vine as their standard rim pattern (Fig. 6.1; Pl. 6.1:RL1–RL4). Their shape could be characterized as globular-conical. They also have the same type of nozzle: either short and projecting slightly from the body (RL4), or, more frequently, fairly long and projecting and distinguishing itself from the body (RL3). Group I lamps are slightly oversized and solidly made with thick walls and markedly stout construction. Their bases vary, and they may be flat or bear a ring. The disk is concave in section, framed by one or two rings, with the filling hole in the center and rays radiating from it. Whenever an airing hole occurs, it is placed on the axis between the nozzle and the filling hole, usually near the outer ring of the disk (RL1–RL3). The nozzle is semicircular in

the front and trapezoidal in the back. The handles are oval in shape, slightly offset to the back, and marked by three grooves running lengthwise from the framing ring(s) of the disk down to the lower attachment of the handle. The rim is convex in section and carries decoration in high relief. The clay of Group I lamps occurs in all shades of brown, and it is usually coated with a brown or yellowish slip, more rarely with a buff or red slip, a fact that probably alludes to different centers of fabrication. The firing of Group I lamps is rather poor, which accounts for their deterioration and poor state of preservation. The main feature of Group I lamps, as stated above, is the vine rim pattern (alternating grape clusters and leaves). The fact that this rim pattern occurs with the highest frequency within the cave material, represented on more than 650 sherds (Pl. 6.2), which in turn corresponds to at least 200–250 different lamps, should not be taken lightly. Its frequency in

132

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

the Attic repertory and the fact that it was adopted by more than one shop bear witness to its popularity as a rim pattern in the Roman era. Apart from the large Athenian shops (Priamos, Leonteus, Pireithos, Elpidephoros, Leaf Shop, Eutyches), the vine pattern also occurs on works of minor shops (Agapios, Stratolaos, Eukarpos, Soteria, Krateros, Theodoulos, A-shop). Moreover, the fact that the vine pattern survived for such a long period of time— from the early 3rd to the late 5th century A.D.— attests to the way a theme derived from the Dionysian cult and especially popular in pagan and ethnic cult would be adopted by Christians and persist on Christian lamps as well due to its parabolic meaning. According to mythology, Ampelos was the son of a Satyr and a Nymph and was transformed by Dionysos after his death into a vine branch (Ov. Fast. 3.409–410). Numerous passages of Christian writers attest to the parabolic meaning (see Mt 20:1–16, 21:33–46; Mk 12:1–12; Lk 20:9–19; Ga 2:20; Phil 1:20; Ro 14: 7; Ti 1:1. The iconographic type of Christ called “I am the vine” is derived from the passage Jn 15:1–2). Three of the lamps of this category bear an ivy or heart-shaped leaf in relief on the transition from body to handle (RL2), or on the base (RL3 and RL4). The characteristics they have in common infer that they must have been products of the wellknown Attic Leaf Shop, which started production in the beginning of the 3rd century. Four identical lamps have been found in Corinth; however, the view that these lamps were manufactured there has long been rejected. This leaf pattern constitutes the hallmark of this shop, which, for unknown reasons, ceased production in the early 4th century. Lamp RL1 from this group belongs to a different shop and must be considered earlier than the other three, as can be detected by the higher and better modeled relief. At any rate, none of these four lamps could postdate the sack of Athens by the Herulians, a time when a sudden drop in the quality of lamp production is observed, caused by a paucity of means and lack of archetypes. Lamps with the same rim pattern would continue to be produced throughout the 4th century, presenting, however, a markedly linear, two-dimensional treatment (Perlzweig 1961, 21).

The fabric of all lamps and sherds of this group is Athenian beyond any dispute. RL1. Lamp with handle and part of disk missing. Rim decoration of vine pattern (K-3) with six leaves and four clusters. Disk decorated with ray pattern, declining toward the center filling hole; one framing ring; airing hole behind the nozzle; flat base. Buff yellow clay, no slip. Pres. L. 0.104; diam. 0.080; pres. h. 0.033 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1522, 1544; Perdrizet 1908, fig. 838; Broneer 1930, no. 925 (fig. 162); Broneer 1977, nos. 2.797, 2.801; Clement 1971, 107, pl. 87a–b. RL2. Intact lamp. Missing small sherds of the inner disk. Pierced handle with three parallel grooves. Rim decoration of vine pattern (K-3) with six leaves and four clusters; plain disk declining toward the central filling hole with two framing rings; airing hole behind the nozzle. Ring-framed base with indistinctive relief decoration; heart-shaped relief ornament under the handle. Brownish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage and stalagmite encrustation. L. 0.106; diam. 0.080; h. 0.050 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1512; Broneer 1930, no. 925 (fig. 162, with the same leaf pattern under the handle); Bruneau 1965, no. 4679. RL3. Intact lamp. Missing small part of the inner disk; small fracture on the top of the handle. Oval pierced handle with three parallel grooves. Rim decoration of vine pattern (K-3) with six leaves and four clusters; plain disk declining toward the central filling hole; one framing ring; airing hole behind the nozzle. Ring base with central ivy leaf in shallow relief; large protruding triangular nozzle set off from rim. Light brownish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, stalagmite encrustation. L. 0.101; diam. 0.068; h. 0.047 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1540; Robinson 1959, J 23; Gerousi 1994, pl. 222:a (from Thera). RL4. Lamp restored from 15 fragments. Missing the central part of the disk and part of the rim and body near the handle. Oval pierced handle with three parallel grooves. Rim decoration of vine pattern (K-3) with six leaves and four clusters; plain disk with one framing ring; flat base with raised outline of leaf in the center. Brownish-yellow clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, stalagmite encrustation. L. 0.10; diam. 0.075; h. 0.044 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1516 (with the same relief on the base); Bruneau 1965, no. 4679; Broneer 1930, no. 925 (base relief); Philadelpheus 1922, 70, fig. 9:2.

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

133

Group II Group II consists of 16 cataloged lamps (Figs. 6.1, 6.2; Pls. 6.3, 6.4:RL5–RL20). The Group II lamps share a more globular shape than Group I lamps with the nozzle being a much more integral part of the body and projecting only slightly from it (RL6). The handles are round in section, pierced in the center, and present a slight bend toward the back. They are usually marked by two grooves and are often disproportionately large. Group II is comprised of lamps of relatively small dimensions. Their concave disk, occupying most of the upper surface, is framed by single or double rings. The central part bears decoration consisting of figures—animals and living creatures in general (RL5, RL7, RL9). This results in the placement of the filling hole at the side. The rim, as far as can be judged from the decayed surfaces, is, in most examples, left plain. The bases are either flat or framed by a ring. The nozzles are often heart shaped (RL6, RL7), or carry two shallow recessions in the back (RL8, RL9, RL11). Additional air holes are not customary. The clay used in Group II lamps is usually differentiated by its color, with shades running from brown to red. A red or orange slip is occasionally added, lending these lamps a particularly glossy appearance. The walls of Group II lamps are usually thin and present considerable fluctuation in the quality of firing. Lamps of Group II form more or less a uniform general type, with common technical characteristics and size, common origin and chronology, and similar types of decoration consisting of isolated figures on the disk, with emphasis on representations of animals. In the surviving specimens of lamps, the figures include a clam, birds, a deer, a horse, and a donkey. The distinctive Group II specimens should not, by any means, be confused with examples of Group VIII, some of which also bear isolated representations of animals, but in all other aspects (fabric, origin, chronology) are different. The clam is Aphrodite’s sacred shell. It is found on lamp RL5. This relief motif is evidently nonAttic, and its presence in the material from the Athenian Agora is very limited. On the contrary, this subject is particularly popular—as would be expected—on the islands of Cyprus and Knidos (Bailey

1988, 85–88, fig. 110). The unique example found in the Cave of the Cyclops bears a peculiar spiral pattern on either side of the nozzle. This trait does not occur on the lamps from the above mentioned areas. However, it does occur in Ephesus (Bailey 1988, no. Q 3038, pl. 100, top left). Unfortunately, there are more differences than similarities between the lamps of Ephesus and the example from Youra. A Cypriot origin for the Youra lamp should be ruled out mainly due to the form of its handle, which does not occur on Cypriot lamps. Even Knidian lamps that bear similarities to the lamp from the Cave of the Cyclops with regard to their shape and relief decoration do not have any handles. A lamp identical to the Youra lamp was recovered in Athens (Perlzweig 1961, no. 143) and was identified as an import, although without any indication of a specific place of origin. Despite the difficulties in attributing the Youra lamp to any known workshop, it is likely that Asia Minor remains a strong candidate for its provenance. The bird motif is found on lamps RL7, RL15, and RL17. The image on RL7 probably represents the eagle of Zeus, although this symbol is usually rendered in a frontal position. This motif occurs in almost all the provinces of the Roman Empire, and is quite diversified. However, the three-quarter position of the bird on the lamp from Youra and the turn of the head toward the back are not typical of any other type. The animals portrayed on the Group II lamps from the Cave of the Cyclops include a leaping deer (RL11), a horse (RL14), and a donkey (RL16). The subject of the deer occurs only once in the lamps found in the Athenian Agora (Perlzweig 1961, no. 163), and it is considered to be an import from Ephesos. As a decorative subject, the deer appears on lamps originating from Britain, Gaul, Rome, Tarsus, Cyprus, and Knidos (Bailey 1988, 70–71). The relief of the horse on RL14, with the filling hole of the lamp placed underneath the animal’s belly, appears on lamps from Knidos. In those examples, however, the animal is rendered facing to the right, and there is no indication of the ground on which it stands. The donkey relief that occurs at Youra (RL16) has not as yet been identified elsewhere. Its micrographic treatment probably indicates that the representation comprised more than one figure.

134

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

Other representations appearing on the rest of the Group II sherds include a fruit stand or krater (RL12) and a face (RL13). In addition, the obliterated disks of RL6, RL8, and RL18 should have had similar representations. Lamp RL9 may have featured the head of a goddess. The rim of Group II lamps was usually left plain (RL5, RL7–RL9, RL11, RL12, RL18); otherwise, the ovule pattern was applied (RL6). On at least three examples (RL6, RL7, and RL10) the nozzles are heart shaped, with lamp RL6 displaying the crudest modeling. Lamps with this type of nozzle have been found in small quantities in the Athenian Agora (Perlzweig 1961, nos. 143, 162–164) as well as at Corinth (Broneer 1930, nos. 505, 507). However, their limited number does not do justice to the hypothesis that they were locally produced. Broneer classifies them under his Type XXV and regards them, with the exception of just one example, as imports (Broneer 1930, 84–86). Perlzweig classifies them under “Red on White,” proposing Ephesus as their place of origin (Perlzweig 1961, 5–6). The heart-shaped nozzle constitutes a stylistic element characteristic of the 2nd century A.D., and appears in the shops of Egypt, Tunis, Tarsus, Ephesus, and especially in those of Cyprus and Knidos. Lamp RL10 is the only tangible example from the material of the Cave of the Cyclops that was manufactured without a handle (although there is reason to believe that a number of sherds belong to this same type of lamp). Very few lamps of this type appear in other places on the Greek mainland (Perlzweig 1961, 133; Bruneau 1965, no. 4652), whereas an abundance of this type of lamp is observed at sites in Asia Minor. Knidos is considered to be the production center par excellence. It seems that lamps with no handles were almost exclusively manufactured and used there, and they were exported to the rest of the sites in Asia Minor (Bailey 1988, pl. 86–96). The floruit of the Knidian shops, according to the material in the British Museum, lasted throughout the 2nd century A.D. The nozzle of three Group II lamps (RL8, RL9, and RL11) is set off from the body by a deep groove, with two circles flanking it in the back. This type of nozzle is especially common in Ephesus

(Bailey 1988, pl. 102), and it is occasionally encountered in Tunis, Egypt, and Knidos (Bailey 1988, pls. 12–14, 43–45, 90). Similar lamps have been found in Athens (Perlzweig 1961, nos. 168–169, 171, 176) and at Corinth (Broneer 1930, fig. 41). Broneer lists this type of nozzle together with the heart-shaped nozzle under Type XXV, which he considers imported (Broneer 1930, 84–86). The limited number in which they appear in the two largest urban centers of the Greek mainland, as well as the striking technical peculiarities they display, makes that conclusion exceedingly likely. Lamp RL8 has an exact parallel in the British Museum (Walters 1914, no. 1156, fig. 245) deriving from Ephesus, a place where this type of nozzle is widespread. In the light of this evidence, the lamps of Group II should be attributed to Asia Minor. In addition to the examples discussed here, another 270 small sherds that preserve no decoration belong to this group, representing a minimum of approximately 40–60 lamps. The whole group antedates Group I lamps and is assigned to the end of the 1st and 2nd century A.D. RL5. Almost intact lamp, restored from four fragments. Missing part of the nozzle and inner disk. Handle is solid with two parallel grooves and two knots on the side. Disk has a central clam shell, and two framing rings with a shallow groove between them. Sloping rim with two spirals springing from the back of the nozzle. The base is plain with two outer rings. Reddishbrown clay, no slip. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. L. 0.085; diam. 0.066; h. 0.034 m. Second half of 2nd into early 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 143; Robinson 1959, M283; Broneer 1930, no. 456 (Broneer’s Type XXIV). RL6. Almost intact lamp. Missing part of the inner disk. Pierced handle with three parallel grooves instead of two. Plain undecorated disk with two narrow framing rings. Sloping rim decorated with ovolo pattern attached to outer framing ring (K-2); heart-shaped nozzle; flat base. Reddish-brown clay, well fired. L. 0.097; diam. 0.075; h. 0.052 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 133–134 (however, with differentiated nozzle); Bailey 1988, Q 2.480 (from Cyprus). RL7. Almost intact lamp with a missing handle. Disk decorated with fowl in relief—probably an eagle or pigeon—with the head turning to its left. Filling hole to the side due to the motif; two framing rings. Undecorated rim; heart-shaped nozzle; base with framing ring.

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

Reddish clay, red orange slip. Pres. L. 0.076; diam. 0.064; pres. h. 0.026 m. Second half of 1st into 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Christodoulidou 1990–1995, 256, fig. 2; Bailey 1988, Q 1210 (from Italy with the same bird posture). RL8. Lamp missing the major part of the disk. Two framing rings around the disk; round pierced handle with two parallel grooves; sloping plain rim with two impressed globules alongside the nozzle; flat base. Reddish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage and cover of stalagmite encrustation. L. 0.094; diam. 0.07; h. 0.051 m. 2nd century A.D. RL9. Intact lamp. Round pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Indistinct central decoration (probably a head) and rim motif due to extensive surface wear. Filling hole at the edge of the disk; disk framed by grooved ring; flat base; two impressed circles alongside the nozzle. Poorly made product with asymmetrical connection of the two parts, perhaps due to problematic mold. Reddish-brown clay, well fired. L. 0.09; diam. 0.062; h. 0.043 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallels found. General similarity to Perlzweig 1961, no. 144. The Agora lamp bears a head on the disk and is considered to be of Egyptian origin. RL10. Handleless lamp restored from three fragments; missing parts of the disk and base. Ovolo rim pattern (K-2); disk framed by two rings; heart-shaped nozzle; flat base. Reddish-brown clay. Extensive postdepositional surface damage. L. 0.083; diam. 0.068; h. 0.026 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 133 (similar fabric); Bruneau 1965, no. 4652; Bailey 1988, Q 2962. RL11. Lamp missing parts of the nozzle and disk. Round pierced handle with two parallel grooves; plain rim. Disk decorated with galloping deer facing right; framed by ring; flat base; two punch marks on either side of the nozzle, with nozzle separated from rim by vertical groove. Reddish-brown clay, well fired. Pres. L. 0.096; diam. 0.068; h. 0.044 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 163 (for the central motif of the running deer; example is grouped in the “Red on White” category and is considered to be imported); Loeschcke 1919, 501, pl. 13; Sapouna 1998, pls. 22:260, 37:1 (with ovolo pattern on the rim); Heimerl 2001, pl. 15:615; Goldman 1950, pl. 99:144. RL12. Lamp fragment preserving part of disk, rim, and nozzle. Central motif of a krater; double framing ring; ovolo rim pattern. Dark brown, burned clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.05 x 0.05 m. 2nd to early 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pl. 12:496; Bailey 1988, Q 2019 EA (from Egypt).

135

RL13. Disk fragment of lamp with central motif of a head, probably Medusa, half preserved. Red clay, dark red glaze, well fired. Dims. 0.022 x 0.017 m. End of 1st to 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pls. 6:239, 18:805; Sapouna 1998, pl. 20:229; Bruneau 1971, 457, fig. 12 (Selene). RL14. Disk fragment of lamp with central motif of an animal (probably a horse or ox) facing to the right. Representation of the ground line. One framing ring; plain undecorated rim; filling hole between the legs of the animal. Brownish clay, red slip, well fired. Dims. 0.028 x 0.024 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Bailey 1988, Q 2891–2893. RL15. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of a bird facing to the right. Reddish-brown clay, red glaze, well fired. Dims. 0.036 x 0.021 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Walters 1914, no. 999 (from Pozzuoli with a similar bird); Bailey 1988, Q 3057 (from Ephesus); Sapouna 1998, pl. 26:322; Heimerl 2001, pl. 20:962. RL16. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of a donkey, which might be part of an erotic scene (man with donkey). Dark brown clay. Dims. 0.027 x 0.026 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Sapouna 1998, pl. 14:164; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, 416, fig. 17. RL17. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of a standing goose or hen facing right. Traces of filling hole behind the neck. Reddish-brown clay, red slip. Dims. 0.029 x 0.025 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 131 (with similar representation, imported from East Aegean region); Bailey 1988, Q 2812, Q 2845 (from Knidos). RL18. Lamp fragment preserving part of the disk, rim, handle, body, and base. Rectangular pierced handle. Undecorated plain rim and (possibly) disk; one framing ring; flat base. Reddish clay, poorly fired. Pres. L. 0.083; pres. h. 0.052 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 252 (imported from Corinth); Thompson 1936, 43. RL19. Disk fragment of a lamp with an unrecognizable central motif. One framing ring; plain undecorated rim. Reddish clay, red slip, well fired. Dims. 0.041 x 0.027 m. 2nd century A.D. RL20. Fragment of disk and nozzle of a lamp. Unrecognizable central motif (perhaps human or animal legs on a baseline. Two framing rings; plain rim; airing hole behind the nozzle. Light brown clay, well fired. Dims. 0.050 x 0.035 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Sapouna 1998, pl. 18:209; Petropoulos 1999, pl. 37:M125 (both are uncertain).

136

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

Group III Group III constitutes a particular category of lamps with common provenience (Fig. 6.2; Pl. 6.4: RL21–RL29). They stand out for their oval shape and characteristically projecting nozzle, which is often egg shaped (RL21, RL24). The handles are similar to those of Group I (oval in section and offset from the back with three grooves), whereas the disk tends to become flat or slightly sloping. The filling hole is placed in the center and small ovules constitute the rim pattern. These lamps are of Attic provenience and are dated around the middle of the 3rd century A.D. The most striking feature of Group III lamps is their fabric, with shades running from light brown to buff and a particularly sugary texture. The slip, whenever one is applied, is creamy. Their firing could be described as insufficient. For this reason, lamps of this category have suffered considerable damage on the surface with evident marks of corrosion. Their walls are thick but not stout. From the total amount of lamp material, around 50 sherds are assigned to this group. Based on their dispersion throughout the Cave of the Cyclops, it is estimated that they represent about 15–20 lamps (apparently representing a rather small group in the overall material of the cave). However, considering their vulnerable fabric, the initial number of Group III lamps might have been much higher. RL21. Lamp restored from seven fragments. Pierced handle with three parallel grooves; inner disk declines toward the central filling hole; two wide framing rings; rim decorated with six pairs of globules; egg-shaped nozzle set off from rim by one curving ridge; flat base. Soft, light, buff clay, poorly fired. L. 0.10; diam. 0.064; h. 0.045 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1308, 1311, 1583 (sharing the same fabric).

RL22. Fragments of a lamp disk. Rim motif of knots (K-15). Two external framing rings with another two internal rings framing the filling hole (top fragment); one external and one internal framing ring (bottom fragment). Yellow buff clay, poorly fired. Dims. 0.045 x 0.032, 0.052 x 0.041 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1596; Bruneau 1965, no. 4672 (imported from Attica); Broneer 1930, no. 908. RL23. Fragment of disk and rim of a lamp. Unknown central motif. Two framing rings; rim pattern of globules in triads. Light brown clay, whitish slip. Dims. 0.057 x 0.025 m. 3rd century A.D. RL24. Fragment of disk, rim, and nozzle of a lamp. Plain undecorated disk. Two framing rings; rim pattern of pairs of globules; egg-shaped nozzle. Buff yellowish clay, whitish slip. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Pres. L. 0.060; w. 0.035 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1308 (with the same technical characteristics). RL25. Disk fragment of a lamp. Two framing rings; rim pattern of globule triangles. Light brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.038 x 0.023 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1588; Broneer 1930, no. 645. RL26. Disk fragment of a lamp. Two framing rings; rim pattern of globule triads. Light brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.040 x 0.027 m. 3rd century A.D. RL27. Disk fragment of a lamp, probably with plain undecorated center. Two framing rings; rim decorated with a ring of globules (K-15). Brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.022 x 0.035 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1596. RL28. Disk fragment of a lamp. Plain disk; one framing ring; rim pattern of globule pairs. Light brown clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.045 x 0.023 m. 3rd century A.D. RL29. Disk fragment of a lamp. Plain disk; two framing rings; globule ring on the rim. Light brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.040 x 0.020 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1307, 1596.

Group IV The ovule rim pattern is the typical trait of Group IV lamps (Figs. 6.2, 6.3; Pl. 6.5:RL30–RL43). These fragments derive from many different types of lamps, some of them preserving part of the central disk, the nozzle, or the handle. As a result it is

extremely difficult to date them and certify their provenience based on considerations of style. Additional evidence can be furnished by the close observation of the rim pattern and other technical features. On sherds RL31, RL32, RL35, RL36, and

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

RL42 the ovules are well modeled and are separated by panels into four groups. This type of small ovule in connection with the presence of panels constitutes one of the most typical traits of Corinthian lamps of the 2nd and early 3rd century A.D. The pattern would be borrowed in the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. by Attic shops, but would eventually be abandoned in the second half of the century, possibly as a result of the Herulian invasion. This would have been due mainly to the fact that special skill and care were required in order to take lamps from the mold so as not to coarsen their delicate relief. In the difficult years that followed the Herulian invasion, potters no longer had the luxury of lingering on such elitist activities and thus waste valuable labor force. Many of the archetypes and molds may have been in all probability destroyed. Also, the low relief and the minute treatment of the Corinthian type ovules do not allow for the creation of new molds taken presumably from lamps that may have been preserved. Based on this evidence these sherds should be dated in the years before 267 A.D. Sherds RL31, RL32, RL34, and RL35 stand out from the rest of the group for their extra thin, egg-shell walls and their excellent firing, which render them harder and gives them the feel of porcelain to the touch. They probably represent works of the golden period of late 2nd-century A.D. Corinthian shops. Sherd RL31 presents a combination of rim patterns (ovules with wreathed leaves), which has never before been recorded on a lamp. This pattern seems to be intermediate between K-20 (dated to the 3rd century) and K-22 (dated to the 3rd to early 4th century A.D.) (Karivieri 1996, 69–70). During the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., the ovolo rim pattern was combined with a large range of disk decorations. On the examples from Youra we find combinations with rays (RL31), rosettes (RL32–RL36), and decorative scenes. Sherds RL37–RL40 belong to lamps with relief representation on the disk, of which, however, only faint traces have survived. The ovule rim pattern occurs in a continual chain, the ovules are of larger size and carelessly modeled, and in at least one specimen, (RL40) they are double. These sherds share approximately the same technical characteristics, with striking glossy glazes in shades of red spread over the initial white slip. Their walls are thick and stout, and they are rather small in size. In addition, the firing of these lamps is exquisite.

137

Lamp RL30, presumably with a similar representative disk decoration, shares the same technical characteristics, and it presents a more complete version of this subgroup. It is the only example of a Group IV lamp preserving part of the base, which has a unique stamped eight-ray star with no exact parallel known in the corpus of Roman lamps. The technical features and the type of ovule pattern of the above mentioned lamp and sherds are strongly reminiscent of lamps from Asia Minor, especially those deriving from Ephesus. At any rate, similar ovule pattern types are encountered in Egypt and Cyprus. RL30. Lamp restored from 12 fragments. Missing parts of the disk, rim, and base. Oval pierced handle; rim ornamented with large ovolo pattern (K-2). Nozzle set off from rim by vertical groove; flat base with impressed decorative motif of an eight-ray star. Reddish-brown clay with deep red slip, excellent firing. L. 0.096: diam. 0.065; h. 0.047 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pl. 8:321. RL31. Two fragments of rim and disk of lamp. Rim motif of pressed Corinthian ovolo (K-1), and relief triple wreath (right fragment). Disk decorated with ray pattern smoothly declining toward the center; one framing ring. These fragments are attributed to a special category of “egg-shell” lamps. Brown clay, excellently fired. Dims. 0.035 x 0.026, 0.026 x 0.016 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 259; Broneer 1930, nos. 555–556; Petropoulos 1999, pls. 24:B45, 24:B49, 25:B50; Pelekanidou 1994, pl. 158:e, bottom right (from Salonika); Baziotopoulou-Valavani 1980, pl. 114:right; Bruneau 1971, 469, figs. 26–27. RL32. Two fragments of rim and disk of an “eggshell” lamp of extremely good quality. Paneled rim with Corinthian ovolo pattern (K-1); disk decorated with a rosette of acanthus leaves, framed by two rings. Light brown clay, excellently fired. Dims. 0.032 x 0.025, 0.041 x 0.023 m. 2nd into early 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Petropoulos 1999, pl. 37:M126; Sampson 1987b, 93; Petridis 1992, figs. 8–9 (with the same excellent quality). RL33. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif of rosette (with 16 or 18 petals). One wide framing ring; ovolo pattern on the rim. Red clay, orange slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.045 x 0.035 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Watrous 1996, pl. 31:a. RL34. Disk fragment of an eggshell lamp with central motif of multi-petal rosette. One framing ring; ovolo pattern on the rim (K-1). Buff eggshell clay, excellently fired. Dims. 0.040 x 0.036 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1977, no. 2458. RL35. Disk fragment of an eggshell lamp with central motif of multi-petal rosette. One framing ring; paneled

138

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

rim with ovolo pattern (K-1). Eggshell buff clay, excellently fired. Dims. 0.040 x 0.023 m. First half of the 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1784. RL36. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif of pointed-petal rosette. One framing ring; paneled rim with ovolo pattern (K-1). Orange clay and slip. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.046 x 0.019 m. Second half of 2nd into first half of 3rd century A.D. RL37. Disk fragment of a lamp with uncertain central motif (perhaps part of an altar). Two framing rings; ovolo rim pattern (K-2). Reddish clay, orange glaze, excellently fired. Pres. L. 0.062; pres. w. 0.032 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Sapouna 1998, pls. 12:134, 12:135, 35:3; Bruneau 1965, pl. 31:4598; Miltner 1937, pl. 11:45; Petropoulos 1999, pl. 28:B 102. RL38. Disk fragment of a lamp with unrecognizable central motif. Two framing rings; ovolo rim pattern (K-2). Certain characteristics might suggest that the central motif was a ship or boat. Brownish clay, deep red glaze, well fired. Dims. 0.047 x 0.027 m. 2nd century A.D. RL39. Fragment of disk and handle of a lamp. Oval pierced handle with two parallel grooves. The disk preserves traces of a human head in small climax, facing the viewer (or facing to the left). Two framing rings; ovolo rim pattern (K-2). Brown clay, red slip, excellently fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims.

0.051 x 0.048 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1930, no. 676. RL40. Fragment of disk and handle of a lamp with unrecognizable central motif. Oval pierced handle with two grooves. Two framing rings; ovolo rim pattern (K2). Brown clay, brownish slip, excellently fired. Dims. 0.049 x 0.022 m. 2nd to early 3rd century A.D. RL41. Fragment of rim and handle of a lamp. Oval pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Rim pattern of impressed circles. Brown clay, reddish slip, well fired. Dims. 0.056 x 0.028 m. Late 1st to 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pl. 16:663. RL42. Lamp fragment preserving parts of the disk, handle, rim, and body. Unrecognizable central motif; two framing rings; ovolo pattern of the Corinthian type on the rim (K-1); oval pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Brown clay, reddish slip, well fired. Pres. L. 0.075; pres. h. 0.044 m. Second half of 2nd into first half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallel found. Similarity to Perdrizet 1908, 189, fig. 810 (uncertain). RL43. Disk fragment of a lamp with unrecognizable central motif. One large framing ring; ovolo pattern on the rim with two circles beside the nozzle. Brownish clay, red glaze. Extensive post-depositional surface damage and stalagmitic covering. Dims. 0.025 x 0.030 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D.

Group V A special trait of this group is the disk decoration, with more or less stylized rosettes or circular leaf patterns found, in general, on the disk. The sherds selected for publication constitute typical examples of all the types encountered in the cave (Fig. 6.3; Pl. 6.5:RL44–RL59). A total of more than 140 disk sherds were collected, which in turn represent approximately 40–50 lamps. Based on stylistic criteria three basic categories have been discerned.

GROUP V.1. ROSETTES WITHOUT RIM PATTERN This subcategory includes sherds RL45, RL49, RL53–RL55, and RL58. In all these examples, with the exception of RL49, panels are axially spaced on the plain rim. On lamps RL45, RL53, and RL54, acanthus leaves can be identified with certainty, and on the fragmentary lamp RL54, two

concentric circles of acanthus leaves are easily discernible. On lamps RL45 and RL53, the leaves are wreathed with dots.

GROUP V.2. ROSETTES WITH CIRCLES, DOTS, OR STYLIZED LEAVES AS RIM PATTERNS This subgroup includes RL44, RL46–RL48, RL56, RL57, and RL59. Sherds RL46 and RL47 display depressions that impinge the groove framing the disk. In all probability, these depressions constitute a memory or a debased form of the ovule pattern, emanating from the past generation or degenerate molds (the phenomenon of ovules having been detached from the framing line of the rim and tending to take the form of circles is often observed). The rims of sherds RL44 and RL57 are partitioned by panels, and this is probably the case for sherds RL46 and RL48 as well. Finally, a particular

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

similarity—with regard to their exquisite technical traits—associates lamp RL44 with sherd RL48; they differ only in the placement of the dot rim pattern, and they should derive from the same shop.

GROUP V.3. ROSETTES WITH CURVING PETALS This subdivision includes RL50–RL52. They represent the smallest category in number, comprised of only 10 sherds. On all three cataloged specimens a rim pattern interrupted by panels is encountered.

DISCUSSION Lamps with decoration of ray rosettes are common in the Athens of the 3rd and mainly the 4th century A.D. (Perlzweig 1961, pl. 30–31). The later lamps of this category stand out for their blurred shape and the coarse and poor treatment of the rim pattern. The rim patterns that occur in the Youra material are basically not encountered among Attic lamps. An exception to this, is the K-20 pattern of sherd RL57, which occurs on Agora lamp no. 1817. Panels, when they are encountered on Attic lamps, often bear additional grooves, an element that does not appear anywhere in the Cave of the Cyclops material (Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1647, 1662, 1679, 1681, 1707, 1737). There are, however, a substantial number of plain panels (Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1649, 1651, 1817). Rosettes with curving leaves appear to be equally unusual both in Athens and on Youra. In the published Agora lamps, only 6 examples occur: nos. 1671, 1737, 1812, 1821, 1912, and 1918. However, none of these can be considered similar to the 3 cataloged sherds recovered from the Youra material. RL44. Lamp fragment, with most of the base, half of the body and handle, and a small part of the rim and disk preserved. Solid oval handle with two parallel grooves; flat base framed with grooved ring and bearing the incised signature CAIAMOT; paneled rim with two lines of knots and disk motif of multi-leaf rosette framed by ring. Diam. 0.083; pres. h. 0.033 m. Late 2nd into first half of 3rd century A.D. RL45. Moldmade lamp restored from nine fragments; missing the nozzle and parts of the disk, rim, and body. Oval pierced handle with three grooves; paneled rim decorated with pairs of knots; disk decorated with rosette of nine pointed petals, framed by two rings; airing hole

139

behind the nozzle; ring-framed base. Light brownish clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, cover of stalagmite encrustation. Pres. L. 0.090; pres. diam. 0.079; h. 0.038 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1930, no. 695 (with two concentric rosettes); Perlzweig 1961, no. 1972 (with different rim motif). RL46. Fragment of a lamp preserving oval pierced handle and part of rim and disk. Central decoration of pointed rosette; one framing ring; rim pattern of impressed knots. Light orange clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.063 x 0.028 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. RL47. Lamp fragment restored from two sherds, preserving part of disk and rim. Central decoration of multi-leaf rosette; one framing ring; rim pattern of impressed knots. Light orange clay. Dims. 0.052 x 0.032 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. RL48. Part of disk and rim of a lamp. Central motif of multi-leaf rosette, framed by two rings; rim pattern of two knotted rings. Brownish clay, poorly fired. Dims. 0.030 x 0.022 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallels found. Similar to Petropoulos 1999, pl. 33:M44, M97–M98 (concentric rosettes with lesspointed petals). RL49. Half of a lamp with plain rim, central decoration of multi-leaf rosette, and one framing ring. Oval pierced handle with two grooves. Flat base with part of inscription BEIT[...]. Orange clay. Extensive postdepositional surface damage. Pres. L. 0.085; h. 0.040 m. 2nd century A.D. RL50. Disk fragment of a lamp preserving part of the nozzle. Central motif of a multi-petal rosette with curving petals. Two framing rings; paneled rim with motif of two knotted rings. Brownish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.068 x 0.021 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1812, pl. 47c. RL51. Disk fragment of a lamp. Central motif of a multi-petal rosette with curving petals. Two framing rings; airing hole behind the nozzle; rim with inner band of spiral pattern (K-17), outer band plain. Yellowish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.040 x 0.033 m. 3rd to early 4th century A.D. RL52. Fragment of a lamp preserving part of disk and rim. Central motif of a multi-petal rosette with curving petals. Two framing rings; paneled rim with ring of impressed buttons. Reddish-brown clay. Dims. 0.055 x 0.020 m. 3rd century A.D. RL53. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif of a rosette with petals tipped by globules. Two framing rings; plain paneled rim. Yellow clay, well fired. Pres. L. 0.079; pres. w. 0.034 m. 3rd into early 4th century A.D. RL54. Fragment of lamp preserving part of the disk and body. Pierced oval handle with two grooves. Disk motif of double rosette with inner ring of nine petals,

140

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

outer ring of 18 petals. One framing ring; undecorated paneled rim. Light brown clay, whitish slip, well fired. Pres. L. 0.092; pres. w. 0.053 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1930, no. 695 (with inscription PXCUOQOT); Petropoulos 1999, pl. 47:M339; Sampson 1987b, 93, fig. 15 (with ovolo rim pattern). RL55. Disk fragment with central motif of a pointed rosette. Pierced oval handle with two parallel grooves. One framing ring; plain paneled rim. Brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.062 x 0.025 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1930, no. 695 (with inscription PXCUOQOT). RL56. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif of multi-petal rosette. Two framing rings; rim pattern of groups of globules. Brown clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.048 x 0.017 m. 3rd century A.D. RL57. Disk fragment with central motif of multi-petal rosette. Petals may be curving. One framing ring; paneled

rim with wreath pattern (K-22). Brown clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.038 x 0.030 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1818; Pelekanidou 1994, pl. 244:c (bottom right). RL58. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif of rosette. One wide framing ring. Brownish-red clay, brown slip, well fired. Dims. 0.045 x 0.025 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1713; Broneer 1930, no. 967. RL59. Fragment of disk, rim, and body of a lamp with central motif of rosette. Double framing ring; rim pattern of raised wreath (K-20). Light brown clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.050 x 0.031; pres. h. 0.029 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1812 (for the central motif).

Group VI Group VI lamps constitute a special category with certain traits in common with regard to their decorative scheme, their shape, and their technical characteristics (Figs. 6.3, 6.4; Pl. 6.6:RL60–RL68). They are marked mainly by the globule rim pattern that covers the rim of the disk as well as the entire body. Their shape tends to become oval. The nozzle on the lamps is rather large, projects significantly from the body, and is flanked by a curved volute pattern. The handles are oval in shape, and they are often set off toward the back. Finally, the base is framed with one or more circles. The placement of the globules and the overall shape establishes Group VI in the Alpha Globule Lamps tradition (see Group VII below for Alpha Globule Lamps), and it is very likely that the revival of this old-fashioned technique could be attributed to a certain shop that remodeled the degenerated pattern and produced a new series of archetypes. This must have taken place, according to Perlzweig’s “traditional” chronology, sometime around the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. The pattern remained particularly popular throughout the century and survives in a more blurred form until the late 4th century. The fragmentarily preserved lamps from Youra belong to the middle of the 3rd century, a time when the production of this group still retained decent artistic standards. The clay is markedly brown-buff with a sugary texture, and the

slip is usually yellowish white. The firing is insufficient and the walls are rather thick. The technical features of the Group VI lamps demonstrate similarities to the Group III lamps, and, thus, a common provenience could be surmised. In addition to the lamps cataloged here, another 70 sherds, representing approximately 20 to 30 lamps (Pl. 6.7), bear the same pattern and should be related to this group. RL60. Lamp restored from six fragments. Missing half of the disk, rim, and nozzle, and a small part of the base. Pierced oval handle with three parallel grooves. Rim motif of globules and volutes, with volutes facing toward the disk and relief ornament between them (K16). Body ornamented with five rows of globules on every side; flat base with rosette motif of eight globules around a central globule. Cream buff clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. L. 0.090; diam. 0.065; h. 0.043 m. First half of the 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1242 (exact copy); Broneer 1930, nos. 909–911 (the same type in a more provincial version). RL61. Disk fragment of a lamp. Central motif of petal-shaped volutes facing toward the rim and globule between them. Two framing rings; rim pattern of three buds and sprays. Brown clay, whitish slip. Dims. 0.033 x 0.034 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 707 (only for the rim pattern). RL62. Fragment of disk and rim of a lamp with central motif of petal-shaped volutes facing toward the rim and a triad of leaves between them. One framing ring;

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

paneled rim with triple wreath pattern (K-22). Brown clay, light brown slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.058 x 0.030 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 970 (only for the rim pattern). RL63. Fragment of nozzle and rim of a lamp, decorated with outward-facing, petal-shaped volutes with central stem between them crowned with rhombus. Brown clay, poorly fired. Dims. 0.046 x 0.049 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1224. RL64. Disk fragment of a lamp, with two framing rings and outward-facing, petal-shaped volutes behind the nozzle, and central stem and airing hole between them. Brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.036 x 0.030 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1224, 1233, 1242. RL65. Disk fragment of a lamp. Plain disk; one framing ring; rim pattern of outward-facing, petalshaped volutes and rayed globules (K-16). Light brown clay, poorly fired. Dims. 0.038 x 0.022 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1242.

141

RL66. Fragment of disk of a lamp with an outward-facing, petal-shaped volute and one framing ring. Brownish clay. Dims. 0.026 x 0.024 m. 3rd century A.D. RL67. Fragment of disk and nozzle of a lamp, with outward-facing, petal-shaped volute behind the nozzle and rayed globules as rim pattern (K-16). Brownish clay, light brown slip. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, stalagmite encrustation. Dims. 0.049 x 0.029 m. 3rd century A.D. RL68. Fragments of disk, rim, and nozzle attributed to same lamp. Central motif of four outward-facing, petal-shaped volutes. One framing ring; paneled rim with globule-rosette pattern; airing hole behind the nozzle. Yellow buff clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Reconstructed pres. L. 0.081; reconstructed pres. w. 0.060; reconstructed pres. h. 0.030 m. 3rd century A.D.

Group VII More than 480 small sherds belong to this type. Due to their extremely fragmentary state of preservation, however, they are not included in the catalog; only one example is represented here (Fig. 6.4: RL69). These sherds were spread throughout the cave, and they indicate a minimum of 50–70 lamps. They constitute a uniform group, which is designated in the literature as Alpha Globule Lamps. These lamps, products of Attic shops, are an intermediate type between Hellenistic and Roman lamps and were predominate in the local market of Athens from the middle of the 1st to the end of the 2nd century A.D., satisfying the demand for cheaper lamps among the poorer customers. They are also encountered in small quantities in the Peloponnese (Karivieri 1996, 44). The quality of their manufacture and their aesthetic characteristics are not noteworthy, at least

when compared to what would follow in the 3rd century A.D. Their body shape is amphiconical, the nozzle is semicircular with two relief volutes, and the handle is banded. The entire surface of the rim and the body is covered with globules, either placed in regular rows or scattered haphazardly. In the majority of cases the fabric is brick red with a distinctively red, purple, or orange glaze. The base of Group VII lamps usually carries a capital A in relief, after which the entire group was named. RL69. Two fragments of the body of a lamp decorated with small irregularly placed knots. The fragments are attributed to the group known as Alpha Globule Lamps. Brownish clay with deep red slip, poorly fired. Dims. 0.048 x 0.027, 0.030 x 0.013 m. Second half of 1st into 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 418, 426, 433; Zorides 1977, pl. 10:19; Davidson and Thompson 1943, fig. 26:108–111.

Group VIII Group VIII consists of all remaining lamps and sherds with discernible representations on their disks apart from those that are specifically assigned to Group II based on their common fabric, place of origin, and date (Figs. 6.4–6.6; Pl. 6.6:

RL70–RL106). These lamps originate from a variety of locations and do not share the same date or fabric. They are separated into types on the basis of their disk representations.

142

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

GROUP VIII.1. GLADIATORS Gladiators are represented on three of the cataloged lamps (Fig. 6.4:RL70–RL71.1). The disk of RL70 is in a good state of preservation despite the extensive corrosion of the surface. The gladiator on the left is ready to attack with his sword (no longer discernible) his opponent, who has already fallen down and is hopelessly trying to defend himself by lifting his sword. The winner holds his shield in his left hand. An erect trident, or fuscina, a well-known additional weapon of the retiarii (gladiators who fought with nets) is visible behind his left shoulder. The rim of the lamp is paneled and seems to be plain. The possibility, however, that there were Corinthian-type ovules on the periphery cannot be excluded. Lamp RL71 depicts the bust and the head of a gladiator armed with a short sword or dagger, and probably forms part of a representation comprised of two gladiators confronting each other. An identical parallel has not as yet been found, but its technical traits indicate an Asia Minor provenience. The poorly preserved disk fragment (RL71.1), with the stretched, left-facing head and no parallels in the known corpus of lamp representations, is attributed without any certainty to a gladiator based on the crude, barbaric characteristics of the face. It probably originates from Asia Minor. Gladiatorial battles were never a particularly popular scheme of decoration in the Attic repertory, and the duration of this representation seems to be rather limited (end of 3rd to first half of 4th century A.D.). In contrast, the proportion of these lamps in Corinth appears relatively high. RL70. Lamp disk decorated with two dueling gladiators. Oval pierced handle. Filling hole between legs of standing gladiator; plain paneled rim. Reddish-brown clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, stalagmite encrustation. Pres. L. 0.085; pres. diam. 0.080 m. Late 2nd into 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perdrizet 1908, 189, fig. 814 (with different rim motif); Philadelpheus 1922, 73, fig. 12; Bruneau 1971, 474, fig. 35. RL71. Disk fragment of a lamp with gladiator facing to the right, armed with a short sword. A shield might be attached to his chest (depiction obscure). Orange-red clay, red glaze. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.030 x 0.024 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1930, no. 649; Heimerl 2001, pl. 10:403.

RL71.1. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of a left-facing head. The somehow stretched, barbaric features might indicate a gladiator. Red clay, well fired, red slip. Dims. 0.029 x 0.021 m. 2nd century A.D.

GROUP VIII.2. EROS A number of sherds depict Eros (Fig. 6.4: RL72–RL76). Eros facing to the right and playing a double flute is found on four sherds, two of which are published here (RL72, RL73). Attic shops adopted this particular representation for more than 150 years. It occurs in the repertory of the Soteria, Preimos, Leonteus, Chione, and Aworkshops. Out of these shops, Preimos seems to be the earliest, and this therefore may be the shop that either created the archetype or copied the subject from an imported lamp. Leonteus—somewhat later than Preimos—took the theme and passed it on to the later shops. These two shops are contemporary and they are likely to have collaborated, as inferred from the lamps bearing both their signatures. Should the two sherds from the Cave of the Cyclops be assigned to a specific shop, it would be, in all probability, Preimos’ shop, based not only on the signatures identified on certain bases found in the cave, but also on their fine outlines and high relief, which are signs of an early date. Sherd RL76 could be restored as Eros standing with a lyre, a theme equally popular on Roman sarcophagi (for relevant bibliography, see Perlzweig 1961, 114). This theme was adopted by the Attic shops of Eutyches, Leonteus, Rouphos, and Helpidephoros. Works of the first two shops have been detected in the material of the cave. Sherd RL75 probably carried the same disk representation. Other alternative reconstructions are Eros with a syrinx or Eros with a torch and thyrsus, both documented on Athenian lamps. The reconstruction of RL74 remains problematic. Eros is facing to the right in a three-quarter position with his hands down but without the usual turn of the head to the back, whereas his wings are folded only on his left. This type has not been found previously, at least as indicated by published material. RL72. Disk fragment of a lamp with depiction of Eros facing to the right, playing the double flute. One framing ring. Reddish buff clay. Dims. 0.035 x 0.028 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos.

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

707, 711; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, 417, fig. 7; Bassett 1903, pl. 13:7; Kübler 1952, fig. 61. RL73. Disk fragment of a lamp representing Eros facing right, playing the double flute. Two framing rings. Dark reddish clay, well fired. Dims. 0.049 x 0.024 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 707, 711; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, 417, fig. 7; Bassett 1903, pl. 13:7; Kübler 1952, fig. 61. RL74. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of Eros facing right. One framing ring. Yellowish clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.042 x 0.030 m. 3rd century A.D. RL75. Fragment of disk of a lamp representing the head of a figure facing left. The figure is probably Eros, with the carved line belonging to his right wing. Two framing rings; destroyed rim pattern (possibly K-6). Yellowish clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.030 x 0.033 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 684, 725, 740; Kübler 1952, 112, figs. 11, 12 (from Attica). RL76. Disk fragment of a lamp with the head of Eros turned to the left. The representation is safely restored as a standing Eros with lyre. One framing ring. Yellow clay, poorly fired. Dims. 0.040 x 0.020 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 684–688; Kübler 1952, fig. 9; Knigge 1988, 87, fig. 78; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, fig. 5.

GROUP VIII.3. SHIPS Ship representations are featured on three cataloged examples (Fig. 6.4:RL77–RL79). The first two sherds of this subgroup are Attic, and the third, in all probability, derives from Asia Minor. The ship appears in the Attic repertory during the late 3rd century A.D., and its occurrence is rather limited. In the material from the Agora, a total of approximately 3,000 published lamps, only 13 bear representations of ships. On sherds RL77 and RL78, the rim is plain, whereas sherd RL79 carries a pattern of impressed circles (K-29). On all three specimens the rim is interrupted by panels without additional grooves or decorative frames. The Attic shops that incorporated ship representations into their repertory were those of Elpidephoros, Leonteus, and most importantly, Eutyches. The presence of works of the last two shops is further attested by the signatures encountered in the Cave of the Cyclops. It should be noted that the reconstruction of the representation of the fragmentarily preserved disk sherd RL79 is rather problematic, and its interpretation as a ship prow is tentative.

143

RL77. Lamp fragment preserving part of disk, rim, and base. Central motif of boat. One framing ring; plain paneled rim; flat base with traces of unreadable inscription. Yellowish-brown clay, well fired. Pres. L. 0.080; pres. w. 0.035; pres. h. 0.032 m. Second half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1023; Bruneau 1965, no. 4670 (from Attica); Karivieri 1996, pl. 32:59, fig. 29; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, 420. RL78. Fragment of disk of a lamp restored from two sherds. Central motif of a boat or ship with a steering oar in the stern. One framing ring; plain paneled rim; airing hole behind the nozzle. Red clay, well fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.073 x 0.058 m. Second half of 3rd into early 4th century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1023; Karivieri 1996, pl. 32:59, fig. 29; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, 420. RL79. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif, which is probably a ship. One framing ring and rim pattern of impressed circles (K-29). Orange clay, red slip. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, stalagmite encrustation. Pres. L. 0.080; pres. w. 0.045 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D.

GROUP VIII.4. EROTIC SYMPLEGMAS Erotic symplegmas (groups of intertwined figures) are found on several lamps from the Cave of the Cyclops (Figs. 6.4, 6.5:RL80–RL88). In addition to the sherds cited in this catalog, there are at least 40 more disk fragments that should be attributed to similar representations. They all derive from Attic shops or, to be more accurate, from Attic archetypes, dated securely in the 3rd century A.D. The shop par excellence that adopted or created and afterward established all the different versions of erotic scenes that would become common ground in the Attic repertory, was that of Pireithos. The shops of Leonteus and Eutyches carried on this tradition. Works of these three shops were found in the Cave of the Cyclops, with those of Pireithos’ shop being the most numerous (a total of 16 bases). The repertory is comprised of four already known representations: A. Symplegma of a woman with a horse (RL80, RL84). Another 7 sherds, from different lamps, contain the same depiction. B. Erotic symplegma with a lamp stand (RL81, RL87), as well as another 3 sherds.

144

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

C. Erotic symplegma with an infant (RL83), plus another 5 sherds. D. Symplegma of a man and a donkey (RL88), along with another 13 sherds. In addition, sherds RL82 and RL85 represent male figures draped with himations and facing to the left, whereas sherd RL86 shows a nude male figure facing to the right. The similarities observed in the position of the upper body indicate that they formed part of a related type of symplegma, which remains unidentified. The three sherds share common technical traits with lamp RL88, which can be quite safely assigned to Pireithos. RL80. Fragments (two) of lamp preserving part of disk and rim. A horse head and perhaps a human head survive from the disk theme. The depiction was probably a symplegma of a woman and horse, framed by one ring. Paneled rim with plain external zone; internal zone decorated with band of reel and trefoil (K-13). Greenish-brown clay, well fired. Dims. 0.047 x 0.023, 0.054 x 0.019 m. 3rd into early 4th century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 831 (with inscription QOT on the base). For the rim motif see Perlzweig 1961, nos. 823, 834. RL81. Fragments (two) of disk and rim of a lamp. Disk decorated with erotic symplegma, framed by one ring. A man lying on a bed is partly preserved. Rim pattern of knotted rosette; airing hole placed under the bed. Light brownish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. The depiction was revealed after removing a layer of stalagmite encrustation. Dims. 0.045 x 0.030, 0.041 x 0.025 m. First half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 814 (with inscription PIQEIHOT on the base); Sapouna 1998, pls. 13:144, 14:161, Petropoulos 1999, pl. 29:B 113. RL82. Disk fragment of a lamp preserving part of a standing, half-dressed man facing left, most probably part of an erotic scene. Yellow buff clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.050 x 0.034 m. Second half of the 3rd century A.D. RL83. Fragment of disk and rim of a lamp with a central motif of an erotic symplegma and child. Disk framed by two rings; rim pattern of dotted rosettes (K-11); plain external zone; airing hole behind the nozzle. Yellowish clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, cover of stalagmite encrustation. Dims. 0.050 x 0.046 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 811, 812 (with inscriptions PQEI/LOT and PIQEIHOT). RL84. Fragment of disk and rim of a lamp representing a human and a horse head. The central motif can be restored as an erotic symplegma of woman and horse, as parallels from Athens demonstrate. Plain inner band on

the rim; outer band of reel and trefoil pattern (K-13). Yellow clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.042 x 0.021 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 831–833; rim pattern Perlzweig 1961, no. 823. RL85. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of a standing, half-dressed man turned to the left. The figure should be attributed to an erotic symplegma. Brown clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.030 x 0.018 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. RL86. Fragment of disk of a lamp representing a standing man facing right, most probably from an erotic symplegma. One framing ring; unreadable rim pattern. Yellow clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.050 x 0.028 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 834; Bruneau 1971, 469, fig. 28. RL87. Disk fragment of a lamp with central motif of a reclining figure. The central scene is restored as an erotic symplegma with lamp stand. One framing ring; airing hole behind the nozzle; pattern of sprays with three buds on the paneled rim. Yellowish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage, stalagmite encrustation. Dims. 0.079 x 0.039 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 814 (with inscription PIQEIH[OT]); Bruneau 1965, no. 4666 (with inscription PIQEIHOT), Broneer 1930, no. 1198 (with inscription KE); Sapouna 1998, pl. 14:161; Heimerl 2001, pl. 21:995; Petropoulos 1999, pl. 29:B 113 (with lamp stand missing); Niniou-Kindeli 1991, 426, pl. 162:b; Chrysostomou and Stephani 1994, 543–544, pl. 164:e. RL88. Lamp fragment restored from three sherds. Symplegma of man and donkey with a tree on the disk. The donkey is missing, see RL16. Oval pierced handle with two parallel grooves. One framing ring; paneled rim with inner band of dot rosettes, lined hooks, and plain outer band (K-10). Ring-framed base with the inscription PIQEIHOT; relief ivy leaf under the handle. Light brown clay, light brown slip, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Pres. L. 0.065; diam. 0.084; h. 0.045 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 2076, 823 (for the ivy leaf under the handle), nos. 827–830 (for the central motif—derived from a degenerated mold); Menzel 1954, pl. 47:3 (with the same motif and signature); Sapouna 1998, pl. 14:164; Kübler 1952, 107, no. 48.

GROUP VIII.5. ANIMALS Animals are pictured on five cataloged sherds (Fig. 6.5:RL89–RL93). Lamp RL89 has the least problematic figure in that it can be easily restored

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

as a cock disturbed by two smaller animals. The theme is already known from similar Attic works (see below) assigned to the shops of Leonteus, Bromios, Eutyches, Stratolaos, and the GK-shop. In the Vari Cave, a lamp with similar representation carries the signature DE instead of the habitual abbreviation KE with an incised wreath between the two letters. The existence of the DE shop is disputed (Perlzweig 1961, 31), and this must be either an error on the part of the signer or a mistaken reading of the signature. The theme is dated from the end of the 3rd to the beginning of the 4th century A.D. Two more fragmentary sherds that presumably carried the same representation were found in the Cave of the Cyclops. Sherd RL90, picturing the lower part of a seated dog slightly turned to the left, represents a group of seven additional, very fragmentary sherds with the same theme. It constitutes a very common pictorial scene in Athens during the second half of the 3rd century A.D. and, in particular, during the 4th century A.D.: more than 250 of the Kerameikos lamps carry the same representation (Perlzweig 1961, 128). The shops of Eutyches, Theodoulos, Leonteus, Naumachios, and the socalled Leaf Shop adopted the seated dog combined with the S-rim pattern, whereas the same theme attained a more limited success in conjunction with other rim patterns (Kyrakos, Incised-Ashop). The archetype, therefore, was probably a creation of the Leaf Shop, which was the first to launch into the market the 8-S-pattern, around the middle of the 3rd century A.D. Sherd RL93, with the crouching lion facing right, is the best preserved specimen of a group of at least 10 more sherds bearing the same representation. The rim pattern is unfortunately not preserved on any of the 11 sherds. This pictorial representation was very popular not only in Athens but also in Corinth, with the latter probably copying Attic archetypes. The production of this motif seems to have started during the late 3rd century, as it does not occur in works of earlier shops. The scene was common in the shops of the early 4th century A.D. It was adopted by Eutyches, Preimos, Leonteus, Stratolaos, Kyrakos, Chione, and the Incised Leaf shops. The theme in a debased form is encountered until the first half of the 5th century (Perlzweig 1961, no. 2411). The sherds found in the Cave of the Cyclops appear to correspond

145

typologically to the late 3rd- and early 4th-century A.D. figures, as their outlines are rather plastic although additional incision is omitted. Sherd RL 92 is one of the limited representations of a monkey on lamps derived from the Aegean area. The theme is so far known to us only from Attic lamps either as a seated monkey playing the flute or as two monkeys facing each other, seated on a table and playing a game (Karivieri 1996, 168). The representation from Youra is similar to the latter type known from lamps of the Bromios, Elpidephoros, Incised Leaf, and A-shops, although the posture of the monkey is different. The fact that this may represent an unknown theme cannot be ruled out. The high relief of the figure and the clear-cut outlines favor its placement among the works of the 3rd century A.D., presumably in the years prior to the Herulian sack. RL89. Disk fragment of a lamp restored from two sherds. The central theme of the disk depicted a fight between a rooster and two animals, probably cats. The rooster’s feet and one cat are preserved in the fragment. Rim with inner band of herringbone pattern; plain outer band (K-22). One framing ring; airing hole behind the nozzle. Reddish-brown clay, excellent firing. Dims. 0.074 x 0.040 m. Late 3rd to early 4th century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 921–922; Kübler 1952, 122–123, 125; Bruneau 1965, no. 4667, pl. 32; Waldhauer 1914, 484, pl. 46. RL90. Disk fragment of a lamp. Central motif of seated dog facing to the left, framed by two rings. Airing hole behind the nozzle; rim decorated with 8-S-pattern (K-19), probably paneled. Light brown clay, whitish slip, well fired. Dims. 0.035 x 0.042 m. Second half of the 3rd to early 4th century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 924 (with KE inscription on the base), 925–927; Kübler 1952, fig. 21, 44 (from Attica); Broneer 1930, no. 1254; Karivieri 1996, pl. 30:32–33; Broneer 1977, no. 2969; Bovon 1966, no. 504, pl. 13. RL91. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of an animal—probably a horse or a lion. Traces of filling hole. Brownish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.038 x 0.021 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Sapouna 1998, pl. 23:273. RL92. Disk fragment of a lamp representing a seated monkey facing left. Light brown clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.028 x 0.021 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 889; Waldhauer 1914, pl. 46:489. RL93. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of a lion facing right. Brown clay, well fired. Dims. 0.040 x 0.035 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 970 (with inscription PQEI/LOT),

146

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

971–987; Kübler 1952, 119, fig. 26 (from Attica); Broneer 1930, nos. 1216–1217; Karivieri 1996, pl. 4:47; Broneer 1977, pl. 32:2987–2988; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, no. 26a; Wohl 1981, pl. 34:6; Garnett 1975, pl. 43:10.

GROUP VIII.6. MYTHOLOGICAL FIGURES OR DEITIES Several lamps from the Cave of the Cyclops have mythological representations on their disks (Fig. 6.5; Pl. 6.6:RL94–RL98). Sherd RL95 is the best preserved specimen among the four sherds that carry the representation of the bust of Athena Promachos. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the sherd in question, as well as the extensive wear on the rest of the sherds, does not allow them to be placed in any of the two categories established by Perlzweig (1961, 111; see also Karivieri 1996, 168). The theme of Athena Promachos first appears on Corinthian lamps of the 1st and the 2nd century A.D., and it becomes one of the standard themes in the Attic repertory in the following centuries. The persistence of both the Corinthian and Athenian craftsmen and their dedication to the same general type, as well as the existence of a substantial number of similar lamps in various areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, is an indication that their prototype must have been a worldfamous statue. In Athens, this theme occurs in the repertory of the shops of Bromios, Eutyches, Kyrakos, Leonteus, Preimos, Polykarpos, and Stratolaos. In Corinth it is found in the shops of Markianos, Avaskanthos, and Sposianos. Sherd RL98 features a standing female figure wearing a peplos. It is likely to represent Athena, a type known through a fragmentary disk found in the Athenian Agora and a lamp in the British Museum (Perlzweig 1961, no. 54; Bailey 1988, Q 3290). In this case, it should be restored with a shield touching the ground on the goddess’ right side. On the British Museum lamp, Athena holds a spear in her left hand while she is stretching her right arm toward the Erichthonios snake, which is featured crouching around a tree on the left. On sherd RL98, the left arm of the figure was presumably resting on the shield, as is the case on the Agora specimen. Both examples are considered to derive from the eastern Aegean area and are dated in the 1st century A.D.

A seated male figure can be discerned on the partly preserved disk of lamp RL97. The representation can be safely restored as showing a seated horseman with a horse on his left. This is a rare subject in the corpus of lamps: a similar lamp has been found in Kerameikos (signed by Elpidephoros) and another one in Kechraies, while two more are exhibited in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. The archetype should be attributed to Elpidephoros’ shop, renowned for its high quality of production. The virtues of this shop can also be detected on the Youra sherd, namely the high relief, the plasticity, and the fine outline of the figure despite the corrosion. On disk RL94, which is almost entirely preserved, although with extensive flaking, there appears a woman standing on the ground and holding what is probably a spear in her left hand while bending her right arm upward. On her left, beneath the filling hole, a spiral form is slightly visible, probably a crouched snake. On the right side of the disk, a second level is visible, on which stood another figure or object that was completely obliterated. The rim is decorated with panels and double-dotted rosettes. Both the gesture and posture of the central figure are not found on disk representations. However, several small details could be of some assistance in identifying the figure. First of all, the head is oblong, and one is inclined to believe that only the hypothetical presence of a helmet could account for this oddity. The outline of the drape is not continuous, and it seems that it is parted a little higher than the hips, while a diagonal line, running down from the shoulders, crosses the bust (possible depicting an aegis). These elements suggest that this is a representation of Athena. The presence of the snake, if this could be considered safe, should be identified with Erichthonios. The theme is not unusual in lamp representations, and it may be paralleled by the lamp Q 3290 of the British Museum, which has already been mentioned above. Most likely, the shield of the goddess or an altar was represented on the second level. This hypothetical reconstruction, however, should be considered anything but secure. An equally possible alternative reconstruction is that it is a representation of Artemis, if it is assumed that what she holds in her left hand is not a spear but a bow. Also, what looks like an aegis could be the belt of the quiver, while the bend of the right hand

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

above the shoulder could be the gesture to take an arrow from the quiver, as is exactly the case on an example from the Agora (Perlzweig 1961, no. 247) that was imported from Corinth (for representations of Artemis in a similar position, see LIMC 2[2]:455, nos. 133, 137; 458–459, nos. 171–175; 516, no. 937). The goddess would be accompanied by a dog on her right and probably a deer on her left— although the available space is very limited—as is the case on lamp 3177 of the National Museum of Athens (see also Skarmoutsou-Demetropoulou 1990, 152–155, pl. 73:c, from Corinth). The representation from Youra is completely unknown in the repertory of Attic lamps. In addition, the identification of the rim pattern remains problematic. Simple dotted rosettes interrupted by panels are known from the shop of Eutyches, Pireithos, and other 3rd-century A.D. shops, but the similarities between the Attic lamps and the lamp from Youra add up to only these two features. One cannot overlook the fact that in the above-mentioned cases, every quarter of the rim carries four rosettes, whereas on the lamp from the Cave of the Cyclops there are only two. In addition, on the Youra disk the outer plain ring is absent and the rosettes occupy the overall width of the rim. The absence of a central representation, as well as that of the rim pattern from the repertory of the published Attic lamps, makes it difficult to surmise that the lamp is Attic. RL94. Lamp with disk decorated with central standing figure, handling a spear(?) between indistinguishable objects or creatures. Filling hole placed on the side; double framing ring. Flat paneled rim with motif of pointed rosette; airing hole in the back of the nozzle. Light orange clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Diam. 0.082 m. First half of 3rd century A.D. RL95. Disk fragment of a lamp preserving the head of Athena, who faces left and wears a Corinthian-type crested helmet. Brownish clay, well fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.035 x 0.020 m. First half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 649–669; Bassett 1903, 342, fig. 3 (from the Vari Cave); Kübler 1952, 115, 125, figs. 19, 40; Broneer 1930, nos. 582, 1104; Gill and Hedgecock 1992, 413, no. 2; Menzel 1954, 81, 83, nos. 536, 545, pl. 46:1–2; Wiseman 1969, pl. 24a; Bailey 1988, Q 3258–3259, Q 3261 (from Corinth); Sapouna 1998, pl. 1:10 (from Crete); Bruneau 1971, no. 449, fig. 2; Goldman 1950, pl. 102:209. RL96. Fragment of disk of a lamp with central motif of a musician (Apollo or Orpheus) who faces right and plays the lyre. Disk framed by two rings; rim pattern of

147

leaf pairs (K-37). Brownish clay, well fired. Dims. 0.062 x 0.050 m. 2nd to early 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Broneer 1930, no. 496; Sapouna 1998, pls. 10:107–108, 41:3. RL97. Disk fragment of a lamp representing a seated man in sharp relief. Although badly damaged, the central motif can be securely restored as a resting horseman. Yellowish clay, poorly fired. Surface wear. Dims. 0.046 x 0.030 m. First half of the 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Kübler 1952, 105, fig. 1 (from Attica, with inscription EKPIDGUOQOT on the base); Williams 1981, pl. 10. RL98. Disk fragment of a lamp with representation of standing, frontal, female figure in sharp relief. It is quite possible that the figure represents Athena Promachos or Nike, although certain well-known characteristics of the first famous statue are missing. Brown clay, well fired. Dims. 0.038 x 0.022 m. 2nd to first half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, 54; Bailey 1988, Q 3290 (with some differentiations); Goldman 1950, pl. 107:341; Sapouna 1998, pl. 6:62–64.

GROUP VIII. RIM PATTERNS Certain lamps with representations on their disks are distinguished by their rim pattern. Lamp RL99 (Pl. 6.5) and the sherds RL90, RL100, and RL101 (Figs. 6.5, 6.6) each have an identical S-pattern on the rim, with double rings framing the central disk, and parting panels. A similar 8-S-pattern is found on the paneled rim of lamp RL104 (Fig. 6.6). Unfortunately, the central representations on all but RL90 are not preserved. These examples constitute just a sample of the numerous sherds with the same rim pattern gathered in the cave: a total of 56 sherds that correspond to 30–40 different lamps. This pattern is a creation of the Leaf Shop around the middle of the 3rd century A.D., and it appears to have evolved from the stylization of more sophisticated patterns that were previously used in the shops of Elpidephoros and Preimos. This rim pattern forms the hallmark of the Leaf Shop, and the other contemporary shops seem to avoid it, thereby acknowledging its “copyright.” Only after the decline of the Leaf Shop in the beginning of the 4th century does this pattern pass into the possession of the Eutyches and Leonteus shops (Perlzweig 1961, 57; Kübler 1952, 116–126). Sherds RL102 and RL103 (Fig. 6.6) preserve only small parts of the disk representations, and their restoration is not feasible. The rim pattern consisting of pairs of globules flanking a line (K-21)

148

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

with two inner rings is known mainly from lamps signed by Preimos or is directly associated with this shop. It is not encountered after the beginning of the 4th century A.D. The partly preserved disk of sherd RL106 (Fig. 6.6), with an obscure central motive, bears the K21 rim pattern, which gained a certain amount of popularity among the Attic workshops of the mid3rd century. RL99. Restored from 17 fragments. Missing parts of the disk, rim, nozzle, and body. Oval punched handle with three parallel grooves. Paneled rim with 8-S-pattern (K-19); disk framed by double ring; flat base with raised outline of leaf in the center. Buff yellow clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Pres. L. 0.102; diam. 0.078; h. 0.050 m. 3rd into early 4th century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 767, 784, 908 (for the rim pattern), 1178 (for the base); Bassett 1903, pl. 13, fig. 6 (from the Vari Cave); Broneer 1930, nos. 1316 (fig. 195), 1185; Kübler 1952, 117, 120, figs. 20, 23, 27. RL100. Half of a lamp with unknown central motif framed by two rings and 8-S-pattern on the rim (K-19). Airing hole behind the nozzle; flat base with incised branch. Orange to brown clay, unevenly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Pres. L. 0.076; pres. diam. 0.076; pres. h. 0.038 m. Early 4th century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 908; Broneer 1930, no. 124. For the incised branch on the base, see Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1509–1510, 1839, 2183. RL101. Lamp fragment preserving part of the disk and nozzle. Right-facing human head on top of the disk.

The central motif might have been an erotic symplegma. Two framing rings; 8-S-pattern on the rim (K-19); airing hole behind the nozzle. Light brown clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.076 x 0.045 m. Late 3rd into early 4th century A.D. RL102. Disk fragment of a lamp with an unrecognizable central motif. Two framing rings; paneled rim decorated with two globule rings framing a relief ring (K-21). Brown clay, light brown slip, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.045 x 0.029 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 660, 905 (with similar rim pattern). RL103. Disk fragment of a lamp with an unrecognizable central motif. Two framing rings, and globule wreath pattern on the rim (K-21). Brownish clay, poorly fired, orange slip. Dims. 0.043 x 0.037 m. 3rd century A.D.(?). Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 660, 905 (only for the rim pattern). RL104. Part of disk and rim of a lamp preserving an obscure central motif, which might be a horse, ship, or bed. 8-S-pattern on the paneled rim. Filling hole under the motif. Reddish clay, well fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.070 x 0.049 m. Second half of the 3rd into first quarter of the 4th century A.D. RL105 vacat. RL106. Fragment of disk and rim of a lamp with an unrecognizable central motif. One framing ring; paneled rim with the inner zone decorated with dotted rosettes and plain outer zone (K-11). Airing hole behind the nozzle. Yellowish-white clay, poorly fired. Extensive postdepositional surface damage. Dims. 0.077 x 0.036 m. 3rd century A.D.

Group IX These two lamps (Pls. 6.6, 6.8:RL107, RL108), present particular features that differentiate them from all the other lamps. They possess noticeably smaller dimensions, a body that tends to be circular, a nozzle that barely projects from the body, and a handle carrying two instead of three grooves. Also, these lamps are without air holes. Lamp RL107 has a ray pattern in the center and a plain rim. It is of coarser manufacture and has excessively thick walls. Lamp RL108 bears a rosette of 10 leaves on its disk. The rim is interrupted by rudimentary panels that are framed in circular recessions, repeated on either side of the handle and the wick hole. The same recessions are also observed on the nozzle of lamp RL107. The base of lamp

RL107 has an ambiguous signature, -POT or -OPOT, while on the base of lamp RL108, EUECIOT can be read with certainty. Both of these shops are entirely unknown, at least in the hitherto published material. RL107. Almost-intact lamp with two fractures on the rim. Pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Disk declining toward the central filling hole, decorated with ray pattern; one framing ring; plain undecorated rim; two pairs of small impressed circles on each side of the nozzle and handle. Flat base with unreadable inscription (see above). Light brownish clay, coarse fabric, well fired. L. 0.096; diam. 0.074; h. 0.053 m. 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Petropoulos 1999, pls. 29:B111, 33:M9; Perlzweig 1961, nos. 259 (with ovolo pattern on the rim, imported from Corinth), 1452; Broneer 1930, 551 (with a different

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

type of handle); Bailey 1988, Q 3241 (from Corinth, with ovolo pattern on the rim). RL108. Almost intact lamp. Missing parts of the disk, and with a small fracture under the nozzle. Pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Disk decorated with rosette of 10 wide petals and two framing rings. Plain paneled

149

rim with pairs of impressed circles alongside the handle, nozzle, and panels. Flat base with impressed inscription EUECIOT. Light brownish clay, well fired. L. 0.084; diam. 0.063; h. 0.040 m. 2nd century into early 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallels found. For a general similarity, see Broneer 1930, nos. 695, 697.

Group X All the lamps that do not carry a representation on their disk and have a rim pattern that does not place them among any of the preceding groups are collected in this group (Figs. 6.6; Pl. 6.8:RL109–RL120). Even though they are recorded in this group, they do not derive from a common provenience or, even more so, have common or close dating. Lamp RL109 is the best-preserved specimen of this group. The rim pattern—a continuous volute of stylized ivy leaves—is unknown in this form. Its shape, however, is identical to four lamps recorded by Perlzweig (1961, nos. 1470, 1575, 1578, and 1581). Lamp no. 1578 from the Agora material carries the signature of Philomousos, a rather small Attic shop that was active around the middle of the 3rd century A.D. The three preserved final letters -ROT on the base of RL109, in conjunction with the similar shape, does not leave the slightest doubt that it derives from this shop. Moreover, the presence of the vine leaf in relief at the attachment point of the handle, which is not testified on any other lamp of this shop, is of great interest. Sherd RL110 is without difficulty paralleled by lamp nos. 1576 and 1577 published by Perlzweig (1961), creations of Attic shops of the middle of the 3rd century A.D. On the disk there may have been a ray pattern, which has now faded away. Sherds RL112 and RL113 have similar decoration consisting of ivy leaves accompanied by flowers or globules. The pattern is of Attic provenience, although it is not among the particularly popular ones, as it is encountered in limited numbers. It is dated to the middle of the 3rd century A.D. Probably around the end of the century, the pattern passes into the country, as evidenced by its occurrence in a potter’s shop in Chalkis (Sampson 1987b, 93). The initial form of the pattern should be ivy leaves framed in flowers. These flowers eventually transformed into globules due to old perished molds and repeated copying.

Sherd RL111 carries a shell rim pattern, unidentified as yet elsewhere in the known corpus of lamps. Seven more fragments of the same rim pattern were found in the cave, indicative of the presence of at least three or four other lamps with the same motif. Sherds RL114–RL116 and RL118 are decorated with clusters of globules. Several parallels have been located among the material of the Agora for sherd RL114. There is, however, significant difference in the shape, and an Attic provenience, therefore, is questioned. Although the technical traits of RL115 give away its origin from the Asia Minor littoral, it still remains close to the tradition of the Alpha Globule Lamps. Sherd RL116 should be considered an Attic product of the 3rd century A.D. It is difficult to make any assertion regarding sherd RL118 without knowing the exact form of the rim pattern (possibly pairs or triads of globules). The presence however of a dividing panel testifies to its Greek origin. Finally, the vivid glaze of the sherds of RL119 and RL120—from different lamps but of common provenience—is an indication of nonGreek origin. RL109. Lamp restored from four fragments, missing parts from the disk, rim, and base. Oval pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Disk declining toward the central filling hole with ray pattern and two framing rings; airing hole behind the nozzle; flat rim with motif of reversing hooks with floral ends. Relief motif of vine leaf under the handle; flat base with fragmentary inscription [...]ROT. Orange buff clay. L. 0.10; diam. 0.083; h. 0.043 m. First half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallel found. Close similarity to Perlzweig 1961, no. 1581 (with panels on the rim and rosette endings in reversed hooks). RL110. Fragment of lamp disk. Rim pattern of Amazon shields, rosettes of four heart-shaped petals, and globules. Yellowish-brown clay. Dims. 0.049 x 0.027 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1576–1577. RL111 (34). Fragments (two) of rim of a lamp, decorated with shell motif in relief. Round pierced handle

150

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

with three parallel grooves. Brownish clay, red slip, well fired. L. 0.058; h. 0.050 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. RL112. Disk fragment of a lamp decorated with ray pattern and two framing rings. Rim pattern of raised ivy leaves and knots. Buff yellowish clay, brown slip, very well fired. Dims. 0.045 x 0.029 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Sampson 1987b, 93, fig. 18; Perlzweig 1961, no. 1419. RL113. Disk fragment of a lamp decorated with ray pattern and one framing ring. Rim pattern of raised ivy leaves and clumps of berries (K-43). Yellowish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.045 x 0.023 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1419. RL114. Fragment of lamp preserving disk and handle. Round handle with four parallel grooves. Plain disk with wide framing ring; globule ring on the rim (K-15). Brown clay, whitish slip, poorly fired. Pres. L. 0.075; diam. 0.060 m. 2nd–3rd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallels found. Similarities to Perlzweig 1961, nos. 1090, 1596; Broneer 1930, no. 908. RL115. Fragment of lamp preserving part of disk and handle. Round pierced handle with two parallel grooves. Plain, undecorated disk; one framing ring; rim pattern of three rings of globules. Brown clay, red glaze, excellent firing. Pres. L. 0.078 m. Late 1st to 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Miltner 1937, 191, pl. 13; Heimerl 2001, pl. 6:228–229.

RL116. Disk fragment of a lamp. Plain undecorated disk; two framing rings; rim pattern of three globule rings. Brownish clay. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.045 x 0.026 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: No exact parallels found. Similarity to Perlzweig 1961, no. 1586 (with ray pattern on the disk). RL117. Fragment of disk and handle of a lamp. Oval pierced handle with two grooves. Disk motif of rays; two framing rings; rim pattern of triple wreath (K-22). Light brown clay, light slip. Dims. 0.030 x 0.028 m. Late 2nd to first half of 3rd century A.D. RL118. Fragment of paneled rim of a lamp, decorated with two unordered globule rings. Yellowish-brown clay, poorly fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage. Dims. 0.058 x 0.035 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Petropoulos 1999, pl. 44:M338. RL119. Fragment of a lamp with plain disk. Oval pierced handle. One framing ring; three globule rings on the rim. Brownish clay, blood-red glaze. Dims. 0.060 x 0.045 m. Late 1st to 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pl. 6:226. RL120. Fragment of a lamp with plain disk; double framing ring; three globule rings on the rim. Brownish clay, blood-red glaze. Dims. 0.073 x 0.031 m. Late 1st to 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pl. 6:226.

Plainly Decorated, Undecorated, or Poorly Preserved Lamps Four diagnostic examples cannot be attributed to any of the adopted types and are indicative of some hundreds of plain or badly damaged sherds which were found in the Cave of the Cyclops (Fig. 6.6; Pls. 6.8, 6.9:RL121–RL124). RL121 and RL122 probably originate from Athens, and they represent what seems to be a less-artistic side of the Athenian lamp production. With simple decoration of circles or no decoration at all, thick walls, and coarse fabric, these examples were the “heavy duty” lamps of that period, manufactured for local use and rarely exported elsewhere. The poorly preserved example (RL 124), if originally undecorated on the disk, might be attributed to the same category. RL 123 is one of the many complete or almost complete lamps extracted from the cave, heavily damaged from stalagmite encrustation. Nothing remains from the original rim and disk decoration, and it cannot be classified according to the system followed here.

RL121. Almost intact lamp, missing the nozzle. Pierced handle with three parallel grooves. Disk and rim decorated with rings of relief bands and grooves; inner disk inclined to the central filling hole; airing hole behind the nozzle. Ring-framed base with central knot. Light brownish clay, coarse fabric, well fired. Extensive stalagmite encrustation. Pres. L. 0.085; diam. 0.075; h. 0.042 m. First half of 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1146. RL122. Lamp, missing parts from the disk, rim, nozzle, and handle. Solid handle. Undecorated, extremely artless, perhaps from degenerated mold. Filling hole on the left side of the disk, probably due to an indistinctive central motif. Flat base. Gray clay, coarse fabric. L. 0.119; diam. 0.095; h. 0.044 m. 3rd century A.D. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1177 (with the same coarse fabric). RL123. Lamp, missing part of the handle and the disk. Oval pierced handle. Indistinctive rim motif and disk decoration. Flat base. Reddish-brown clay, well fired. Extensive post-depositional surface damage and stalagmite encrustation. L. 0.094; diam. 0.068; h. 0.040 m. Second half of 1st into first half of 2nd century A.D. Comparanda: Heimerl 2001, pl. 8:298.

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

RL124. Lamp restored from five fragments, missing parts of the disk, base, and most of the body. Oval, solid handle with two parallel grooves. Plain undecorated rim; disk framed by ring; flat base with grooved rim.

151

Brownish clay, well fired. L. 0.090; diam. 0.083; h. 0.050 m. Second half of 3rd into first half of 4th century A.D.

Thymiaterion Among the abundance of lamps that were gathered in the cave, a distinguished position is held by the plinth of a thymiaterion, an incense burner (Pl. 6.9:RL125). The surviving fragment was restored by joining three sherds, and although one-fifth of the base is missing, it is preserved in an excellent state. The plinth is rectangular and open underneath, with slightly concave walls built by hand from several separate moldmade elements. The interior is hollow. On top it bears three holes and parts of the attachment point of the two border lamp stands and the central pinecone that supported the thymiaterion bowl. None of the three is preserved. On the front, within a grooved frame, two theatrical masks (of a slave and a negroid) are featured in relief and linked together by swags. A third mask on the right edge is not preserved. On top of every swag there is an impressed eight-leaf rosette. The back side of the base is framed and bears an incised inscription HEOIC KABE. The clay is brick red with a vivid orange slip that lends a metallic glow and texture to this ceremonial piece. This is not a common utensil, attested by the fact that very few thymiateria have been preserved to the present day (Robinson 1959, 38 n. 7). Parallels for the Youra thymiaterion are found in the British Museum (Bailey 1988, nos. Q 2727, Q 2729, see also fragments Q 2730, Q 2733). Knidos is mentioned as the provenience of three of these examples. The specimens from the British Museum are preserved in an excellent state and allow for a safe reconstruction of the example from the Cave of the Cyclops. The two border lamp stands were decorated with sleeping Eros in relief (Sampson 1987b, fig. 46; Grandjouan 1961, pl. 7:263; Shear 1938, 352, fig. 36), and they were crowned by two lamps (Type V in Loeschcke’s typology [1919]) with identical rosettes on the disks. In the center of British

Museum thymiaterion Q 2727, a stylized column rose to support a shallow phiale, while in the center of Q 2729 there was a pinecone crowned with a phiale. It seems that the Youra thymiaterion combines the two different types: plinth and border lamp stands are identical to Q 2727, while the central pinecone is identical to Q 2729. Presumably all these examples came from the same workshop, which was producing thymiateria in many different combinations of plinths, lamp stands, fluted columns, and pinecones. The back side of the base from British Museum example Q 2727 is destroyed; however, the first letter (H) of the inscription is preserved. This inscription had already been restored as HEOIR KABE before the discovery of the Youra lamp because it occurs on one fragment of a thymiaterion plinth found on Knidos (Love 1973, 415). The meaning of the inscription is unclear; it can be translated either as “take this for the gods” or as “receive from the gods.” Both meanings make absolutely clear that it is a votive offering (see also Pollux’s Onomasticon 1.28). This inscription seems to be common on thymiateria and lamps intended for ceremonial use. A lamp shaped like a ship with the same inscription on its base comes from Chalkis (Sampson 1987b, 101, fig. 45). All examples are dated 70–120 A.D. RL125. Fragmentary thymiaterion restored from three sherds preserving four-fifths of the base. Rectangular plinth, open underneath, slightly concave walls, hand built from moldmade elements, hollow interior. Three holes and parts of attachment point of two border lamp stands and central pinecone. Preserved front of base depicts two masks in relief linked by swag, which is topped by impressed eight-leaf rosette; back of base with inscription HEOIC KABE. Excellent preservation of base. Pres. L. 0.161 m. Late 1st–early 2nd century A.D.

152

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

Signatures and Potters’ Marks Several of the lamps discovered in the Cave of the Cyclops contain inscriptions or potters’ marks on the base of the lamp. These can be identified with known workshops or represent previously unidentified artisans. 1. CTM-UO[QOT]. Fragment of base with relief letters. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 310; Broneer 1930, pl. 30, 575–576. The signature of Synphoros in the Agora example is incised, and the letters fit on to two lines, though with a different separation: CTMUO-QOT. It is considered to be a Corinthian import dated in the early 3rd century A.D. A certain Synphoros attested on five lamps in Crete might be an independent lamp maker (Sapouna 1998, 106). The sherd from Youra is too small to be attributed with certainty to any specific one of the above shops. 2. [...]OKOT or perhaps KOTC[...] if read backward. Probable writing C[] in the latter case even though this name is attested as OTJOT. For Loukios (KOTJIOR), see Broneer 1930, nos. 582, 603, 745–749; Perlzweig 1961, nos. 238, 253, 264, 267, 276, 287, 305–307. The latter are Corinthian products of the 2nd century A.D. A certain Loukios is found also in Patra. For other works signed by Loukios, see Petropoulos 1999, 116–117; Perlzweig 1961, 93. The ending -OKOT is not attested in the known corpus of lamp signatures. 3. KE. Inscription on a quarter of a ring base. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1167. Abbreviation of Leonteus (KEOMSETR), which usually occurs in the form with a stylized branch between the two letters. In the Agora material, whenever the branch is missing the letters are placed within two concentric circles (Perlzweig 1961, no. 1509). On the Youra example—which occurs in at least four cases—the letters are only framed by the ring of the base, comprising the entire field widthwise. This is an Attic shop active during the second half of the 3rd and the first quarter of the 4th century A.D., and it is considered to have begun around the time of the Herulian destruction. Leonteus often signs the lamps together with the Leaf Shop, Preimos, and Pireithos, whose works have also been attested among the Youra material. 4. OM[...]I[...]. Inscription on a quarter of a base. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 308. It is obviously a work of the OMGC\ILOT (Onesimos) workshop, which is dated in the late 2nd and early 3rd century A.D. It remained unknown for many years whether this was an Attic or a Corinthian shop, but finally it proved to be a lamp maker from Patra (Petropoulos 1999, 118–120). 5. -E. Base, 4/5 preserved. It bears two letters in relief separated by a vertical line. Judging from the preserved traces, the first letter could be either a C or a T. A similar two-letter signature of this combination is not

attested in the catalog entries of published lamps. However, if T was the first letter, the signature read backwards would produce ET, which could stand for the extremely large Athenian Eutyches (Eujtuvch~) workshop that signed in a variety of ways (Perlzweig 1961, 34–35). The incorrect positioning of the letters (TE instead of ET) could betray the work of a copy shop that changed the trademark on purpose, if not a production failure. For similar anagrammatizing of signatures see Petropoulos 1999, 118–120 (regarding the jOnhvsimo~, or Onesimos, workshop in Patra) 6. PIQEIHOT. Signature found on the ring base of lamp RL88. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 823. Relief signature from a perished mold. This lamp is assigned to the well-known Attic shop of Pireithos, which flourished in the middle of the 3rd century and ceased production shortly after the Herulian invasion (Perlzweig 1961, 47–48). Overall, 16 fragments from different bases have been found in the Cave of the Cyclops bearing the name of Pireithos in relief letters. 7. [...]IHO. Half of a ring base with relief signature significantly obliterated. The omicron impinges the framing ring. The density and placement of the three letters as well as their form, which bears similarities to the above-mentioned signature, oblige us to assign this base to Pireithos’ shop. A signature of this particular shop under the form of PIQEIHO is not attested. However, it is known that after the Herulian sack the shop was faced with a number of problems regarding its production, and may have been forced to use defective molds (Perlzweig 1961, 47, 126, no. 876). Another signature ending in -HO framed by two rings is preserved among the material from the Cave of the Cyclops. 8. PQEI/LOT. Signature on a ring base. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 1512. The Preimos shop is one of the largest Attic shops, active from the early 3rd to the early 4th century. Its relation to the homonymous, somewhat earlier, Corinthian and Patra shop is not as yet fully understood. For the probable relationship of these shops, as well as for their eventual relationship to the Latin potter Primus, see Perlzweig 1961, 48–49; Karivieri 1996, 33, 45. The matter is fully discussed by Petropoulos (1999, 120–123). Among the material from the cave another five bases are preserved bearing fragments of signatures, which allow us to assign them to this shop (see also numbers 9 and 10 below). 9. PQE[...]. Fragment of a ring base of the Preimos shop. Above the preserved letters is a stylized ivy leaf, the trademark of the Incised Leaf Shop (Perlzweig 1961, 58–59). The signature Preimos occupies 2/3 of the field of the base. Both the pattern and the signature are incised. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, no. 970 (differing only in the presence of a stalk on the ivy leaf). These two shops were active contemporaneously for half a century, while

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

the latter survives in all probability until the middle of the 4th century A.D. Therefore, one would justifiably surmise that a mold from the Preimos shop passed into the possession of the Incised Leaf Shop (Perlzweig 1961, 27). 10. [PQ]EIL/[O]T. Fragment of a ring base of the Preimos shop. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 2259, 2261, 2268, 2269, all of which present the same separation of the name (PQEIL/OT). 11. [...]TVG. A quarter of a ring base from the Attic shop of Eutyches, active from the middle of the 3rd until the middle of the 4th century A.D. (Perlzweig 1961, 34–38). The same signature is with certainty identified in the case of two more bases from Youra. Comparanda: Perlzweig 1961, nos. 2134–2136. 12. CAIA/MOT. Signature of Gaianos on the flat base of lamp RL44 with a small part missing (Pl. 6.4). The signature is written with the potter’s own hand, incised in the leather-hard clay. Apart from this particular base, seven more examples from the Cave of the Cyclops are preserved bearing letters of the same name and handwriting. The same signature is used with the middle A inserted between the end of the first and the second line. The name Gaianos is not testified elsewhere among the already-known shops. Judging from the few fragments encountered in the Cave of the Cyclops, one can establish a connection with a category of lamps that share common technical traits, such as fine walls and good firing, which gives them a metallic texture. Lamp RL44 is technically perfect even in the non-visible inner part where, as a rule, potters paid no particular attention. On the basis of the above, it is considered highly improbable that this lamp should constitute the work of a copyist, who either erased the prime signature or simply wrote down his own. Gaianos, wherever he was working, was an extremely good lampmaker, creating, at least from a technical point of view, masterpieces. 13. BEI[ ]S[ ] or BEIS[ ]P[ ]. Fragment of a signature on the base of lamp RL49. The signature develops in two lines and the reading of the B is not entirely certain. No similar signature has occurred among the corpus of published lamps. 14. HEA[...]. Fragment of a signature on a quarter of a flat base. Unknown lamp maker. 15. EUECIOT. Flat base of lamp RL108 with impressed signature. In between the letters E and C, a small circle of the same size is inserted exactly in the center of the base. The shop of Ephesios is completely unknown on the basis of the as yet published material. 16. [...]POT or [...]OPOT. The signature is impressed and placed on the axis of the flat base of lamp RL107. The first three or four letters have been erased. In the center of the base is a small circle the size of the letters. It could be conceived of as either an O, or as a decorative element like the one described for the base of lamp RL108 above. No shop is known to us using the

153

ending -opou; however, the ending -pou is attested as a genitive of three shops: Eukarpos, Polykarpos, and Karpos. The first two should be excluded, as there is no available space left to fit in the remaining first half of the signature. The shop of Karpos would be the only feasible solution, for the letters could be spaced in a balanced fashion, flanking the decorative circle. Unfortunately, even this supposition does not seem to be valid in view of typological criteria. 17. Relief leaf. It occurs on the attachment point of the handle of lamp RL2, on the bases of lamps RL3, RL94, and RL99, and—with certainty—on 14 other fragments of bases originating in the Cave of the Cyclops. It constituted the trademark of the shop named “Leaf Shop” by Perlzweig, most likely the largest Attic shop. This shop produced lamps for almost two centuries from the beginning of the 3rd to the late 4th and even the early 5th century A.D. It is considered to be the prompter of the 8-S-rim pattern and is one of the few shops that successfully overcame the crisis that ensued after the Herulian destruction by adapting its repertory to simpler patterns and thus increasing its production. 18. [...]ROT. Signature on the flat base of lamp RL109. A longitudinal crack in the base caused almost the entire signature to be erased leaving distinct only the two last letters as well as the edge of the third letter from the end which is restored as R. The signature was written in one line, and, as the dense placement of the letters suggests, this name should be polysyllabic. The only logical restoration of the name is [UIKOLOT]ROT (Philomousos), a well known Attic shop of the 3rd century A.D. (Perlzweig 1961, no. 1504). This surmise is further strengthened by purely typological criteria.

Overall, the number of base fragments gathered in the Cave of the Cyclops reaches 536 pieces, which represent around 400 different bases. From these 400 bases, 66 bore legible signatures or makers marks, whereas there are 20 more bases (which bore signatures now erased beyond any recognition), raising the total number of signed bases to 86. This would give a ratio of bases with and without signatures of around 1:5. From the total of the bases with legible signatures, 18 are assigned to the Leaf Shop (27.3%), 18 to Pireithos’ shop (27.3%), 8 to the shop of Gaianos (12.1%), 6 to Preimos’ shop (9.1%), 4 to the Leonteus shop (6.1%), 3 to Eutyches’ shop (4.5%), and one base each (1.5% [13.5% overall]) to the shops of Philomousos, Synphoros, Loukios, Onesimos, Ephesios, BEIT[ ]T[ ], [...]POS, THEA[...], and the Preimos Incised Leaf Shop. Although it would be risky to come to any conclusions based on this kind of statistical analysis,

154

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

one should pay attention to the information certain percentages convey. Particular interest resides in the high percentage of material from the Pireithos shop in comparison to that of the by far larger shops of Eutyches and Leonteus. This difference, fragmentary as the material in question may be, cannot be considered fortuitous. It obviously corresponds to a historical reality, which should be further discussed. It is concluded here that the explanation can be found in the difference in the time of production of these two shops. The Pireithos shop is active from the beginning to the third quarter of the 3rd century A.D., with the highest level of its productivity placed in the middle of the century. The shop remains active perhaps two or three decades after the Herulian destruction of Athens (267 A.D.), opposing the hardship of the era before it succumbs to the competition. The Eutyches shop is active from the middle of the 3rd to the 5th century A.D., and is most productive in

the first half of the 4th century A.D. Finally, the Leonteus shop starts its production in the second half of the 3rd century A.D., reaching the height of its productivity almost half a century later. The relatively low percentage of the last two shops in comparison to that of the Pireithos is to be justified only if it is presumed that the number of the Athenian visitors (or lamps) in the cave were reduced in the last two or three decades of the 3rd century A.D. This hypothesis is reinforced by the typological analysis of the Athenian lamps. The majority of these lamps do not exceed the limits of the 3rd century, and not a single Athenian lamp can be dated safely after 350 A.D. This hypothesis also explains the absolute lack in the material in the Cave of the Cyclops of products of some large Athenian shops of the 4th century A.D. (e.g., Soteria, Theodoulos, Stratolaos). The high proportion (12.1%) of the completely unknown Gaianos workshop remains remarkable.

Cult Practices in the Cave of the Cyclops during the Roman Imperial Period A lack of natural light in the Youra Cave required those who entered to carry an artificial light source. Due to this necessity, the discovery of a large amount of lamps in a naturally dark environment could easily be considered obvious and self-evident. However, in addition to their practical function, the appearance of these objects raises many questions concerning the cave’s use during the Roman Imperial Period. Even though the cave is located on a deserted—both during Roman and modern times—and isolated island, one might attribute the large number of lamps to the occasional visits of sailors and fishermen. This explanation is supported by a large quantity of transport vessels found in the cave’s surface layers, which suggests that seafarers may have used the cave’s spring to replenish their water supplies. This observation should not be overrated. A reason for caution is the fact that the island lacks safe, natural harbors for mooring, and sojourning without a safe anchorage in those days could prove to be hazardous. On the contrary, one could find much safer

anchorages for the provision of water in a number of nearby locations. At any rate, one gains the impression that the involvement of lamps for lighting would be impractical considering the more efficient solutions they could have resorted to: the cave is a distance of about one mile on a course sloping upward from the closest anchorage, a long way to carry a lamp full of oil. The oil definitely had to be transported in a separate pot, which was not a practical solution for someone who could rely in an easier fashion on a torch or a taper. Historical evidence from the same period (2nd century A.D.) supports the use of such implements in caves. Pausanias (10.32.7), visiting the famous “Korykion Andron” in Phokis, reports it “as being visited without the necessary involvement of torches” (“to; de; a[ntron to; Kwruvkion megevqei te uJperbavllei ta; eijrhmevna kai; e[stin ejpi; plei`ston oJdeu`sai di v aujtou` kai; a[neu lampthvrwn,” where lampthvr stands for a torch, or lantern, see LSJ, s.v. “lampthvr”). This passage, although negative, clearly indicates that

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

the most prominent means of illumination for visiting a cave during those days was a torch and certainly not a lamp. In any case, it is difficult to account for the presence of intact lamps in the cave, which were certainly more numerous than the number preserved to this day. The occurrence of shattered sherds of lamps in a dark and particularly slippery environment like a cave could be easily justified. However, no visitor, let alone a sailor would leave behind an intact lamp—at least not without a specific reason. Likewise, it is difficult to interpret the discovery of many lamps in stalagmite niches found at a great height, in low cavities reachable only by crawling, and, in general, in places within the cave located far away from the water source where the presence of such an object would obviously serve no practical purpose. Scholarly research has already since the 19th century associated the occurrence of a large group of lamps with religious ceremonies (Nilsson 1950, 96–111). The use of lighting mediums during the nocturnal ceremonies, at least from a practical point of view, should be considered up to a certain point self-evident. However, from the early days this practice was associated with specific cults and formed an integral part of the ritual, even when those ceremonies were performed during the day (Nilsson 1916, 336). The late lexicographer Hesychios indicated that the term “iJavrax” stands for the “lamp relating to the sanctities” (luvcno~ oJ pro;~ ta; iJera;; Latte 1966, 344). It is not clear if this term refers to any lamp involved in sacred ceremonies, or if iJavrax relates to a certain type of lamp. In any case, lamps were strongly connected to cult practice beyond their practical use. Lamps appear quite early in the dumps from the largest sanctuaries. However, they cannot be identified with certainty as ceremonial utensils, votive offerings, or utensils for practical use alone. The use of lamps in cult practice dates back to the Archaic period—despite Athenaeus’ quote that the lamp was a new discovery because the preceding generations were using torches (Deip. 15.700). Lamps are particularly frequent among the finds from sanctuaries dedicated to Demeter. A substantial quantity of lamps were found in the precinct of Eleusis together with vases and figurines dated to the 5th and late 6th century B.C. (Mylonas and Kourouniotes 1933,

155

282). In Troizen, the sanctuary of Demeter Thesmophoros was identified on the basis of similar deposits where more than 2,000 lamps were found (Welter 1941, 20–21). Groups of lamps from sanctuaries of Demeter are also found in Halicarnassus and Knidos (Newton 1962, 327, 378, 393, 402) as well as in the sanctuary of Tegea (Romaios 1911, 274; Karo 1911, 132–133), in Gortys, Crete (Karo 1909, 102), and in the Thesmophorion on the Pnyx hill at Athens (Thompson 1936, 179). Furthermore, one should not forget similar finds outside the Aegean world; for instance, the sanctuaries of Demeter in Akragas, Gela, and Selinous (Koldewey and Puchstein 1899, 85, 89). The majority of these lamps were dedications. This is strongly indicated by the miniature lamps, which could hardly have served immediate practical functions. It seems that lamps played an important role in many different types of cult practices. During the excavations conducted by the University of Texas in the area of the Gymnasium of Ancient Corinth, a subterranean structure was located, forming part of a bath complex that collapsed during the 6th century A.D., enclosing a total of some 4,000 Roman lamps (Garnett 1975, 173–206). This basement was used as a place for conducting rituals, and the lamps served as offerings. The identity of the worshipped deity is not known, but considering the architectural context, one could surmise that the latter was associated with water. Another deposit of lamps is reported from a Roman bath at Isthmia (Wohl 1981). This material might be connected with the large group of lamps that was discovered there in Poseidon’s sanctuary (Broneer 1977). Since the early Roman times lamps played a significant role in the cult of Palaimon, whose night festivities were illuminated by thousands of lamps that the worshippers would afterwards offer in the cult place as dedications to the hero (Broneer 1977, 92). Only a few sites in Greece reflect so clearly the importance of lamps in ancient religion. Since early in Greek history, caves have been a particularly beloved place of worship. Moreover, in many cases they constituted a stronghold of paganism until Late Antiquity. The use of lamps in caves is attested as early as the Minoan era. Lamp concentrations are reported in 23 caves in Greece (see appendix below), mainly in Attica and Crete. Unfortunately, it is not legitimate to make any further conclusions concerning their presence and

156

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

purpose as the evidence is not of equal value. Caves excavated according to current archaeological practice are very few, and the majority of the reports derive from poorly documented caves and concern material observed through survey or trial trenches, which might not be indicative. Early visitors and scholars did not pay serious attention to later post-Classical material, a fact reflected especially in the caves of Crete. By the time P. Faure visited most of the Cretan caves, much of the surface material was looted or cleaned out, so his reports of “a few scattered lamp sherds,” although valuable today, can hardly be a basis for further estimations. A small number of broken fragments of lamps could easily be interpreted as remains of occasional unlucky visitors. However, some exceptional examples make absolutely clear that the occurrence of lamps in large quantities could only be associated with religious practices. In the cave of Psychro, Crete, lamps were found as votive offerings (Hogarth 1899–1900, 105). At Amnissos, the harbor town of Knossos, the cave of Eileithya is quoted by Homer and Strabo as a place of worship (Hom. Od. 19.188; Strabo 10.4.8). Here there is mention of the “abundance of lamps” of both Roman and Christian times, without providing additional information about the nature of the material (Marinatos 1929, 95–101). Mention is also made of the discovery of Roman lamps in the Hagia Paraskevi Cave (Faure 1969, 199), as well as in the Zeus Cave on Mt. Ida (Sakellarakis 1983, pl. 278b; Sapouna 1998). However, the most outstanding examples of lamp accumulations come from Attica: in the Vari Cave, Mount Hymettos, thousands of lamps were used in the worship of the Nymphs, Pan, the Graces, and Apollo Chersos (Bassett 1901, 338–347). A similar practice is attested in the Mount Parnes Cave (Romaios 1905, 110–116; Skias 1918, 15–17)— known also to the locals as “lamp cave” (lucnosphvlaion), where Pan and the Nymphs were worshipped. It should be noted, however, with the majority of lamps were Christian. A third cave in the vicinity of Athens on Mount Penteli, dedicated to the Nymphs, confirms the same pattern (Zorides 1977, 4–11). In all these caves, the lamps are interpreted as votive offerings. Naturally, the Youra cave should not be viewed as an exception, all the more as it is located on a deserted island, access to which is particularly difficult.

All evidence suggests that the lamps in the Cave of the Cyclops were involved in cult practice. The use of the cave for worship is further accentuated by the discovery of the thymiaterion, a vessel directly associated with cult. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to help us identify the deity or deities worshipped in the Cave of the Cyclops. Pan and the Nymphs could be candidates in any cave or water source because, from the early years of their cult, caves are considered their natural residence. Likewise, it is difficult to assert whether this worship was occasional—taking place during the sailing season, roughly estimated from April to October—or if it was performed on set dates according to a religious calendar. Due to the variety of the lamps’ construction, shape, clay, etc., it should be noted that to argue a case of a regular yearly festivity in honor of a deity wherein worshippers would have come from the adjoining urban centers, one would expect that the Youra material would present greater uniformity. In addition, the fact that the lamps are haphazardly placed and are distributed throughout the area of the cave does not give the impression of a systematic cult. In the time span of the three and onehalf centuries that the lamps cover, not a single effort was made to clean up previous offerings, a fact that is testified by the occurrence of Alpha Globule Lamp sherds along with 4th-century lamps side by side in the exact same niches. At the edges of certain flat areas, a particular accumulation of sherds is very likely due more to an attempt to put aside the older lamps in order to place the new ones than to any systematic effort to clean the place. Supporting this conclusion, the occasional performance of worship may lead to the complete absence of any other kind of offerings, inscriptions, ceremonial vessels, coins, or terracotta works. One of the earlier visitors, probably from Knidos, left as an offering a rather luxurious utensil, the thymiaterion; this, however, seems to be a unique exception in a total of some thousand lamps. Also, the varied provenience of the lamps from the cave and the higher proportion of Attic lamps indicate that worship was occasional and was associated with sea-lanes used by merchant vessels. Evidence from a seventh-century Byzantine shipwreck excavated off the coast of Asia Minor (Yassi Ada) shows that it is possible that, at least in one case, a ship carried lamps that were stored

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

on board for dedication at shrines along the way— in this case at Christian shrines—since some of these might have been in isolated areas (Vitelli 1982, 189–201). Even at Delos there seems to have been no local manufacture of lamps on the island (Bruneau 1965, 14). Yassi Ada I is one of the very few shipwrecks found in relatively good condition and excavated completely; thus, the information gained can be considered secure. The exemplary excavation of the wreck provided a total of 24 lamps, a number much higher than actually needed for use on board, but still not large enough to be considered a trade item. However, a 4th-century A.D. shipwreck excavated at the same area provided only four lamps (and limited evidence for glass lamps on board), but this number might be much less than the original one since the wreck was distorted by a later shipwreck, and some of the artifacts on board lie still buried under the sand (Bass and van Doorninck 1971, 27–37). The evidence suggests that Athenian ships heading for the North Aegean or the Bosporus would anchor in the leeward bay of Megali Vala, replenish their water supply, and dedicate to some deity one of the ship’s lamps to ensure divine protection for the rest of the journey. It should be emphasized that the island of Youra and the complex of the Northern Sporades in general, constituted one of the main navigational junctions in the Aegean throughout antiquity, as is indicated by the more than 15 ancient wrecks dating from the 5th century B.C. to the 12th century A.D. so far located in the islands of Skopelos, Alonnessos, Peristera, Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi island), and Psathoura (Hadjidaki 1996; Kritzas 1971; Chaniotes 1994, 854, 862–864; Throckmorton 1971). Even if little can be said with certainty about the type of worship that was performed within the cave, the time span of the use of the Cave of the Cyclops is nevertheless precisely defined. The lamps from the cave seem to have reached the island from two directions. The majority of them come from the Greek mainland where standards are set by Athens. Certainly it cannot be entirely ruled out that the lamps, which have been taken for Attic, may be secondary imitations from other regional cities that have not as yet been adequately excavated or published. The example of Chalkis (Sampson 1987b) is didactic as it shows exactly

157

this dispersion of prototypes from the large urban centers toward the periphery. The lamps of the “Attic style” or “school” amount to 60–70% of the total number of lamps, while 20–25% derive from Asia Minor. The presence of lamps from Asia Minor in the cave culminates during the 2nd century A.D. and seems to cease abruptly around the beginning of the 3rd century. On the contrary, the Attic presence, as is detected in the lamps of Group VII, seems to be confined in the first two centuries A.D. and becomes more intense throughout the 3rd century A.D. It should be noted, however, that the original number of Alpha Globule Lamps might have been much larger than the remaining sherds indicate. This category of lamps was one of the first to enter the cave and suffered two or three centuries of intense human presence, where much of the earlier material was presumably—on purpose or not—distorted and destroyed. The complete absence of Christian lamps is remarkable, especially in contrast with the Mount Parnes and Vari caves that have furnished large groups of lamps. In the Cave of the Cyclops, no lamp is dated after the second or third quarter of the 4th century A.D., a time when lamps with Christian symbols have not as yet appeared. This could be due to the striking edict issued in the year 391 A.D. by Theodosius, when all sacrifice was prohibited and the temples and sanctuaries of the ethnic religion were closed to the public throughout the empire. In a subsequent, more drastic law issued by the same emperor one year later, the ban was extended to lighting lamps, burning incense, and hanging up garlands (Jones 1964, 1:167–168; 2:938–939; Mommsen 1905, XVI.X, 10–12). Caves are abandoned in Crete at about the same time. Of course, one could argue against this view. It is reasonable to think that imperial control would be quite limited on an isolated island like Youra. Concerning the material from the Vari and Mount Parnes caves in Attika, Skias (1918, 15–17) supported the view that lamps with Christian symbols, which were found in great numbers, were not necessarily connected to the Christian religion. If this is the case, it seems that ethnic cult practice in caves was not, at least in Attica, impeded by imperial edicts. In the same way, Youra might have been too far away to be influenced by prohibitive edicts. Changes in the navigational routes of ships possibly played a role in the pause of cult practice in the

158

GEORGIOS B. KOUTSOUFLAKIS

Cave of the Cyclops. A limited number of 6th- and 7th-century A.D. amphora sherds show that the cave was still used by mariners, presumably for provisioning of water rather than any kind of cult

practice. After that the cave is abandoned and, as is testified by the complete absence of Byzantine and later pottery, it ceases to be visited.

Appendix: Catalog of Caves with Accumulations of Roman Lamps Crete 1. Champasso (Cavmpasso) Cave in Psathi. Located in the area of Ierapetra. P. Faure made a small-scale excavation during 1957 and reported an abundance of lamps and cult items of the Roman period (Faure 1958a, 515; 1958b, 32; 1964, 177–8; 1967, 133; 1996, 23–24). The presence of lamps was for many years known to the locals, who collected a great deal of the material. 2. Trypa sto Seli (Truvpa sto Seliv) Cave in the area of Hagios Nikolaos. Excavated by K. Davaras during 1972. He refers to a “collection of Roman lamps” among Minoan and Hellenistic material (Davaras 1973, 592; 1974, 56). The cave might have been dedicated to Pan or Hermes (Faure 1996, 29). 3. Phaneromeni (Fanerwmevnh) Cave, near Malia. Excavated by Marinatos in 1937. Young (1937, 139) reports the recovery of Roman lamps. 4. Psychros (Yucrov~) Cave in the area of Lasithi. Excavated by Halbherr and Chantzidakis (1866), Evans (1896), Demargne (1897), and Hogarth (1899–1900). Among Minoan and Archaic material a few Hellenistic and Roman lamps are reported (Watrous 1996, 46, 55; Hogarth 1899–1900, 98; Faure 1964, 157; 1996, 36). 5. Hagia Paraskevi (Ag. Paraskeuhv) Cave in Gouves, known also as “Skoteino” (Skoteinov). Excavated by Evans (early 20th cent.), Pendlebury (1933), Faure (1953–1959), and Davaras (1962). Numerous Roman lamps are reported (Faure 1969, 199; 1996, 53; Davaras 1969, 622; Alexiou 1963, 312). 6. Aneragdospilios (Aneragdovsphlio~) Cave in Kalithea Pediados. The cave is referred to as “Speos Eileithyias” by Marinatos. Excavated by Hantzidakis (1866) and Marinatos (1929–1930). Marinatos reports the existence of “many” lamps of the Hellenistic and Roman period (1929, 98–99; 1930, 95), while Faure refers to “countless” burned lamps from the Pax Romana period (1996, 59). 7. Tsi Marias (Tsh Mariva~) Cave also referred to as Trypa (Truvpa), somewhere between Phaistos and

Gortys. The cave was surveyed by P. Faure. He reported “many” sherds of Hellenistic and Roman lamps and provided the information that many intact lamps were delivered from there to the Herakleion Museum (1967, 135; 1996, 87–88). 8. Idaion Andron (Idaivo Antro) v Cave on Mount Ida. Excavated by Pasparakis (1884–1885), Halbherr (1885), Xanthoudides (1918), Faure (1956), Marinatos (1956), and Sakellarakis (1983–1989). There is no estimation of the total number of lamps or sherds extracted from the deposits. Fabricius reports in 1885 that he saw over 100 lamps. It seems that the main corpus was of Roman date. A good number of lamps and sherds (350), from the campaigns of Sakellarakis, were published recently by P. Sapouna (1998). 9. Leras (Lerav~) Cave in the area of Akrotiri Chanion. Excavated by Faure (1959–1961) and Davaras (1966). Faure reports “millions de fragments de vases et de lampes antiques” (Faure 1961–1962, 196) without defining if the million refers to the vases or the lamps. Davaras published five Hellenistic and one Roman example (1967, 497, pl. 369). 10. Speliara tou Hagios Antoniou (Sphliavra tou Ag. Antwnivou) Cave close to Patsos. The cave was looted for many years. Among the disturbed deposits extracted, P. Faure reported sherds of lamps dated to the 1st cent. B.C. (1996, 114). 11. Agiasmatsi (Agiasmavtsi) Cave in the area of Sphakia. Excavated by Faure (1965, 1966) and Tsifetakis (1968). Faure reported “many” sherds of Roman lamps (1969, 200; 1996, 124) and nozzles of Classical lamps (1967, 137). Several new fragments were traced recently (Francis et al. 2000, 466–468). 12. Lagoufi (Lagkouvfi) Cave in the area of Palaiochora. Faure reported sherds of Classical and Hellenistic lamps spread over the top soil (Faure 1967, 134; 1996, 153).

LAMPS OF THE ROMAN PERIOD

159

Attica 13. Lychnospelia (Lucnosphliav) Cave on Mount Parnes. Excavated by Skias (1900–1901), who reports more than 2,000 lamps recovered during his campaign, plus a good number which he estimates were already looted by the locals (Skias 1918, 15–17; Romaios 1905, 110–116; Skias 1900, 40). The lamps cover a long period from the Classical up to the Late Roman era, with the main corpus of the material dating from the 2nd to the 6th century A.D. 14. Spelaio Nymphon (Sphvlaio Numfwvn) Cave on Mount Penteli. Excavated by Zorides during 1975. The

preliminary publication includes 30 intact lamps, dated from the Late Classical to the Early Roman period (Zorides 1977, pls. 7–9). Presumably the actual number must have been much greater. 15. Vari (Bavrh) Cave in Vari. Bassett (1903, 338) reports almost 1,000 lamps “of Roman type, late in date.” Only a few are published, and they might be dated from the 2nd to the 5th century A.D. 16. Spelaio Panos (Sphvlaio Panov~) Cave in Daphni. Excavated by Travlos in 1932. He reports the presence of a few sherds of Classical lamps (Travlos 1937, 405).

Euboea 17. Kouros (Sphvlaio Kouvrou) Cave in Triada. Sampson reported the presence of Roman lamps in an environment that indicates cult practice (Sampson 1976, 157; 1985b, 42). 18. Hagia Triada (Ag. Triavda) Cave near Karystos. Sampson reports Roman lamps in the same environment

with bronze fishhooks, which he suggests are offerings (Sampson 1985b, 42). 19. Drakospilia (Drakosphliav) Cave on Mount Eretriakos Olympos, surveyed by Sampson in 1975. He reports the presence of lamps in the surface level (Sampson 1975, 153).

Peloponnese 20. Velanidia (Belanidiav) Cave near Neapolis, Laconia, surveyed by Sampson in 1994. The cave is mentioned only once in bibliography (Sampson 1997a,

356). Sampson, per vocem, informed me of the presence of numerous sherds of Roman lamps.

Ionian Islands 21. Melissani (Melissavnh) Cave near Sami on Kephallonia. Dontas reports the recovery of 3 Hellenistic lamps (1964, 28–35). 22. Spilia tis Drakainas (Sphliav th~ Dravkaina~) Cave in Poros on Kephallonia. Excavated by Chatziotou

in 1992–1993. She refers to fragments of 5 lamps of Classical and Hellenistic date.

Boeotia 23. Andro Leivethridon ( Antro v Leibhqrivdwn) Cave on Mount Helikon. Excavated by Vasilopoulou during several campaigns between the years 1987–1994. She reports the presence of “numerous lamps of Hellenistic and

Roman period” (Vasilopoulou 1994, 845; Kambouroglou, Kiritsi-Kambouroglou, and Chatzitheodorou 1987, 259–260).

7

Ground Stone Tools, Stone Objects, and Miscellaneous Small Finds Adamantios Sampson

This chapter examines the stone tools and stone objects found in the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra. Ground stone utensils, predominantly grinders, from both the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods are cataloged. Other stone objects, including pebbles, pendants, potential slings, and shaft straighteners are described. In addition, L. Orphanidis discusses a marble figurine from the Neolithic period. The 70 objects treated here are cataloged consecutively with the designation “S” for stone, therefore S1–S70.

Small finds of other materials are also described in this chapter: shell objects; various clay finds including unfired and badly fired pieces, spindle whorls, and an incised sherd; and a Neolithic metal needle. Excluding the inscribed sherd, those small finds cataloged here are designated “SF” and numbered in consecutive order. The inscribed sherd is given a catalog number (in bold) that follows consecutively the last entry from Chapter 5, while its excavation number appears in parentheses.

Stone Tools of the Mesolithic Period A large number of grinders have been recovered from the Mesolithic layers of the Cave of the Cyclops (Figs. 7.1–7.3; Pl. 7.1). It is hard to distinguish any typological differences between these grinders and their Neolithic counterparts. The Mesolithic objects are larger, and many Mesolithic tools remain in their natural form. Materials for the

grinders include sandstone, limestone, and schist; but volcanic rocks, which certainly come from the nearby island of Psathoura, are also commonly used. A large number of fragments of andesite outcrops have not been included in the tools under examination. Implements made of andesite from the area of the Saronic Gulf have been recovered

162

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

from Mesolithic strata in the Franchthi Cave (Runnels 1981), where they were used for the grinding of cereals or the formation and treatment of bone implements and shells. They must have served a similar function in the Cave of the Cyclops, but no millstones that could possibly have been used for grinding wild cereals were found here in any of the Mesolithic levels. Regularlyshaped schist slabs that could have served this function were found, but they do not carry any traces of use. Schist slabs have been recovered in pre-ceramic settlements in Thessaly, mainly at Argissa (Theocharis 1967, 81), and they were interpreted as objects used for food preparation. In addition, small-sized millstones with a concave side have been recovered in pre-ceramic Thessaly (Theocharis 1967, 82, fig. 41). Grinders occur in almost all levels of both the western and eastern divisions of Trench C, but more frequently in Trench CWest. In particular, numerous grinders and fragments of stone implements were found in Levels 11 and 12, many of them made of volcanic rock. Grinder S5 (Fig. 7.1) has an irregular ellipsoid shape and also carries traces of use on many sides. Tool S14 (Fig. 7.1) is similar in shape. Grinding implements that are ovoid in shape and made of andesite are exceptionally large in size (Fig. 7.2: S23, S25). Tools S9 and S12 (Fig. 7.1) belong to the same type. Tool S22 (Fig. 7.2) is irregular and trilateral in shape, with one end pointed and the other one flat due to intensive use. Grinder S21 (Fig. 7.2) has an unusual shape, with greater length than the other grinders, and shows no traces of elaboration. Other tools also appear in the Mesolithic levels. Tool S18 of limestone (Fig. 7.2) consists of a shapeless flake, which, however, is elaborated on one side and, therefore, could have had various functions. Grinder S8 (Fig. 7.1), with a regular shape that turns thinner in the middle and with one end pointed and smoothed, could have been used as an axe. It is not possible to reconstruct the shape of trilateral tool S1 (Fig. 7.1) made of sandstone, which must have originally been large in size. Tool S24 (Fig. 7.2), with an irregular multifaceted shape and numerous chips on the body, possibly belonged to a pestle. It carries traces of use at a fair number of points as well as at its pointed end. Thus far stone grinders rarely occur at Mesolithic sites. Grinders of a pre-ceramic date have been

recovered at Argissa (Milojčić, Boessneck, and Hopf 1962, pl. 20). A small number of grinding tools have been recovered at the excavation of the Mesolithic settlement of Maroulas on Kythnos, two of which were elaborated before use (Sampson et al. 2002, fig. 18). Also, stone grinders with traces of wear due to intensive use occur at the Mesolithic settlement of Shela Cladovei in Romania (Păunescu 1996; see also Păunescu 1989; Prinz 1987). S1. Part of a stone implement of sandstone, very worn. One side has an elaborated cavity. L. 0.093; w. 0.085 m. CWest 11. Lower Mesolithic. S2. Part of a grinder with signs of smoothing on a narrow side. L. 0.03; w. 0.08; th. 0.055 m. CEast 23. Lower Mesolithic. S3. Grinder of black flint with numerous chips on all sides. Almost spherical. L. 0.06; w. 0.048; th. 0.034 m. CEast 17, 5. Upper Mesolithic. S4. Part of a quadrilateral grinder of black schist. L. 0.062; w. 0.06; th. 0.044 m. CEast 19, 7. Upper Mesolithic. S5. Grinder, irregular in shape, with numerous chips. Signs of use on two sides. L. 0.065; w. 0.062; th. 0.05 m. CWest 8. Final Mesolithic. S6. Part of a grinder, irregular in shape. L. 0.05; w. 0.075; th. 0.05 m. CWest 8. Final Mesolithic. S7. Grinder of volcanic stone from Psathoura. Smoothed on all sides with a cavity on one side. L. 0.062; w. 0.078; th. 0.037 m. CEast 19, 6. Upper Mesolithic. S8. Intact grinder of gray, fine-grained stone. One side fairly smoothed and almost pointed, in a manner resembling an axe. The remainder of the surface is fairly rough. The slimness of the implement may have contributed to its effectiveness. L. 0.115; w. 0.041; th. 0.01 m. CWest 12. Lower Mesolithic. S9. Part of a large grinder of gray flint, poor in quality. L. 0.08; w. 0.092; th. 0.047 m. CWest 11. Lower Mesolithic. S10. Part of a grinder of gray schist, flat on two sides. L. 0.07; w. 0.073; th. 0.036 m. CWest 8, 5–6. Lower Mesolithic. S11. Part of a grinder of black stone. Almost flat on one side, concave on the other. L. 0.07; w. 0.06; th. 0.04 m. CEast 18, 1. Lower Mesolithic. S12. Part of a grinder of green schist with numerous chips. Signs of use on a narrow side. L. 0.09; w. 0.098; th. 0.05 m. CEast 20, 10. Upper Mesolithic. S13. Part of a grinder of green sandstone. Signs of use along the edge of the preserved end. L. 0.09; w. 0.064; th. 0.048 m. CEast 22. Upper Mesolithic. S14. Grinder with signs of use at one end. L. 0.055; w. 0.048; th. 0.034 m. CWest 12. Lower Mesolithic.

GROUND STONE TOOLS, STONE OBJECTS, AND MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS

S15. Fragment of a grinder with signs of use at one end. L. 0.051; w. 0.062; th. 0.044 m. CWest 11, 1. Lower Mesolithic. S16. Part of a grinder of Psathoura andesite with one flat end, apparently due to use. L. 0.051; w. 0.05 m. CWest 9. Upper Mesolithic. S17. Part of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Signs of chipping on one side. L. 0.07; w. 0.11; th. 0.045 m. CWest 8, 5. Final Mesolithic. S18. Implement of limestone with rough surface. Although not elaborated, it carries retouch along one working edge. Its size and shape are very appropriate for use. L. 0.102; w. 0.09; th. 0.02 m. CEast 21, 1. Lower Mesolithic. S19. Fragment of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Signs of percussion on one narrow and one long side. L. 0.07; w. 0.051; th. 0.062 m. CEast 16, 3. Final Mesolithic. S20. Grinder of gray stone, irregular in shape, with numerous chips. Signs of use on one side. L. 0.065; w. 0.06; th. 0.046 m. CWest 8, 3–4. Final Mesolithic. S21. Intact grinder of an unusual type. On one side it becomes wider, while on the other it has a cavity to facilitate use. L. 0.115; w. 0.42; th. 0.03 m. CWest 9, 3–4. Upper Mesolithic. S22. Intact grinder of limestone. Flat at one end due to use. L. 0.105; w. 0.071; th. 0.052 m. CEast 21, 3, 7. Lower Mesolithic.

163

S23. Part of a large grinder of Psathoura andesite. Smoothed and spongy sides. L. 0.091; w. 0.083; th. 0.064 m. CEast 22, 7. Lower Mesolithic. S24. Intact irregular tool of multifaceted shape with chips on all sides. Signs of use on one narrow side. L. 0.09; w. 0.072 m. CWest 8, 3. Upper Mesolithic. S25. Part of a large grinder of Psathoura andesite. L. 0.102; w. 0.113; th. 0.051 m. CEast 22, 3, 7. Lower Mesolithic. S26. Part of a grinder of sandstone. L. 0.04; w. 0.065 m. CEast 17, 5. Upper Mesolithic. S27. Part of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Flat on one side; the other is concave due to use. L. 0.08; w. 0.082; th. 0.047 m. CEast 22, 3, 7. Lower Mesolithic. S28. Fragment of a smoothed implement of gray flint (chert), poor in quality. Signs of use on one narrow side. L. 0.063; w. 0.06 m. CWest 9. Upper Mesolithic. S29. Part of a grinder of Psathoura andesite, multifaceted in shape. Naturally smoothed sides. L. 0.075; w. 0.035; th. 0.06 m. CWest 12. Lower Mesolithic. S30. Part of an implement of sandstone, irregular in shape. L. 0.05; w. 0.075; th. 0.048 m. CWest 3. Final Mesolithic.

Stone Tools of the Neolithic Period In general, the Neolithic stone tools in the Cave of the Cyclops are fewer in number than those of the Mesolithic, and they have mainly been unearthed from the Late Neolithic levels (Figs. 7.3, 7.4). The absence of millstones—apart from two fragments— in the Neolithic levels is noteworthy because these implements are frequently found in caves. This may suggest that in this period only limited food preparation or related activities took place in the cave. However, grinders occur more frequently, the majority of them dating to Late Neolithic I. Most of the grinders have an ellipsoid shape (Figs. 7.3, 7.4:S36, S39, S44, S46, S49), though some are quadrilateral (Fig. 7.3:S31, S32). Implements S40, S41 (Fig. 7.3), and S51 (Fig. 7.4) are irregular in shape. Schist, sandstone, and marble are the main materials of these tools, but the andesite of Psathoura is also present.

S31. Grinder of schist, quadrilateral in shape and broken at one end. Flat on one side with the other poorly elaborated. L. 0.112; w. 0.062; th. 0.021 m. CEast 10, 6. Late Neolithic. S32. Fragment of a quadrilateral implement of sandstone. Smoothed on one side. L. 0.043; w. 0.041; th. 0.018 m. C3. Late Neolithic. S33. Fragment of a grinder of brown flint of considerable weight and rich in metal constituents. L. 0.06; w. 0.03; th. 0.021 m. CWest 4. Late Neolithic. S34. Fragment of a grinder with rounded shape. L. 0.03; w. 0.062; th. 0.061 m. CEast 9, 6. Late Neolithic. S35. Implement of marble, cubic in shape. Broken on one side. Belongs to a percussion tool used for soft materials. L. 0.068; w. 0.065 m. C5. Late Neolithic. S36. Grinder of sandstone, flat on two sides. Signs of use on one narrow side. L. 0.13; w. 0.06 m. A2. Early Neolithic.

164

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

S37. Broken grinder of schist, quadrangular in section. Signs of use on one side and at one end. L. 0.055; w. 0.052; th. 0.041 m. C1. Late Neolithic. S38. Fragment of a grinder of green schist used as a whetstone. Boldly smoothed on two long sides. L. 0.048; w. 0.043; th. 0.017 m. CEast 15, 12. Late Neolithic. S39. Grinder of sandstone with signs of use on one long side and at both ends. L. 0.115; w. 0.066; th. 0.05 m. D2. Late Neolithic. S40. Broken grinder of white marble. Irregular in shape. Entire surface smoothed. L. 0.052; w. 0.068 m. CWest 4. Late Neolithic. S41. Broken grinder of white marble. Smoothed at wider part. Flat on one side. L. 0.035; w. 0.061; th. 0.052 m. C4. Late Neolithic. S42. Fragment of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Flat on one side with signs of smoothing. L. 0.065; w. 0.046 m. C4. Late Neolithic. S43. Fragment of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Rounded tool with a base. L. 0.052; w. 0.073 m. B1. Late Neolithic. S44. Fragment of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Flat on one side, concave on the other. L. 0.062; w. 0.096; th. 0.051 m. E4. Late Neolithic. S45. Grinder of white marble. Broken at upper section. All sides smoothed. L. 0.059; w. 0.061 m. C5. Late Neolithic. S46. Fragment of an implement of schist with almost cylindrical shape. Signs of use on long sides and at one end. L. 0.06; w. 0.046 m. C1. Late Neolithic. S47. Fragment of an implement with one angular end that could function as a chisel. Green schist with metal constituents, possibly copper. Except for one end,

the surface is rough. L. 0.06; th. 0.011 m. CEast 8, 5. Late Neolithic. S48. Part of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Spongy surface. L. 0.05; w. 0.096; th. 0.056 m. E4. Late Neolithic. S49. Part of a marble grinder. Smoothed surface. L. 0.053; w. 0.082; th. 0.047 m. CEast 11, 5. Middle Neolithic. S50. Grinder of gray sandstone, flat on one side due to use. Slightly broken on the other side. L. 0.105; w. 0.071; th. 0.036 m. CEast 17, 12. Middle Neolithic(?). S51. Grinder of limestone, irregular in shape with smoothed sides. Flat on one side. L. 0.046; w. 0.071 m. C5. Late Neolithic. S52. Grinder of green schist with rounded facets. Signs of use at one end. L. 0.106; w. 0.061; th. 0.05 m. D2. Late Neolithic. S53. Fragment of a grinder of brown flint with metal constituents. L. 0.06; w. 0.031 m. CWest 4. Late Neolithic. S54. Part of a grinder of Psathoura andesite. Spongy surface. L. 0.052; w. 0.094; th. 0.056 m. E5. Late Neolithic. S55. Fragment of a grinder of sandstone. L. 0.03; w. 0.091; th. 0.065 m. CEast 9, 6. Late Neolithic. S56. Part of a millstone of green sandstone. Deep cavity on upper section. L. 0.18; w. 0.15; th. 0.085 m. C2. Late Neolithic. S57. Fragment of a millstone of sandstone with two flat sides. Small cavity on upper section. L. 0.162; w. 0.20; th. 0.095 m. C3. Late Neolithic. S58. Fragment of grinder of Psathoura andesite. One narrow side flat due to use. L. 0.049; w. 0.065 m. B1. Middle Neolithic.

Various Stone Objects In addition to the ground stone tools, other stone objects were found in the Cave of the Cyclops (Figs. 7.4, 7.5; Pl. 7.1). In a layer of the Lower Mesolithic, two pebbles were found with symmetrical cavities (Fig. 7.4; Pl. 7.1:S59, S60). Parallels are rare, but occur within Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic layers in the Near East, where such objects are called “shaft straighteners.” They were used to straighten the stems of arrows to make them symmetrical. Parallels have been recovered at Cafer Höyük (Cauvin, Aurenche, and Cauvin 1999, 87–104; Cauvin 1985, 131, fig. 2). In Moravia, a similar object is dated to 8315±55 B.P. (Valoch 1989, 461).

Object S62 (Fig. 7.5), which dates to the Upper Mesolithic, is rough over a greater part of its surface. It must also have been a grinder, but its long and narrow shape suggests that it served as a grinder for materials other than cereals. Two small pendants of black stone date from the Mesolithic (Fig. 7.5; Pl. 7.1:S63, S66). These consist of pebbles with a perforation; they are exceptionally smoothed, and due to their small size seem to be examples of advanced miniature craftsmanship. Pebble S69 (Fig. 7.5) was also destined for a pendant, as was S68 (Fig. 7.5; Pl. 7.1), which however is broken at its upper section. Pendant S67

GROUND STONE TOOLS, STONE OBJECTS, AND MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS

(Fig. 7.5) is dated to the Late Neolithic, and clearly is larger in size than its Mesolithic counterparts. A marble object from a Middle Neolithic level is particularly heavy (Fig. 7.5:S64), and it could have served as a sort of weapon (possibly a sling bullet). Similar oval or biconical objects occur at Early Neolithic and Late Neolithic sites in Thessaly (Tsountas 1908, 344; Gimbutas 1989c, 257, fig. 8.15), as well as at Middle Neolithic sites on Euboea (Sampson 1996–1998, 88, fig. 18). Such biconical objects are known from all Neolithic settlements in the Balkans (Vutiropoulos 1991) and the Middle East (Korfmann 1972). Unexpectedly, many similar clay objects occur at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, 125, fig. 136). Tzavella-Evjen (2001, 39) questions the interpretation of these objects as “sling bullets;” similar finds in the Near and Middle East have been interpreted as tokens. Numerous smoothed pebbles such as S65 and S69 (Fig. 7.5) with flat facets and assuming various shapes were found during the excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops. Although their function cannot be determined with certainty, it is possible that they belonged to semi-worked objects designed as pendants. Similar pebbles have been recovered in the Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia and at Ftelia on Mykonos (Sampson 2002a, 121, fig. 133). S59. Broken stone tool with transverse cavity. Missing one end. L. 0.08; w. 0.046; th. 0.021; w. of cavity 0.012 m. CWest 8, 5. Upper Mesolithic.

165

S60. Stone tool, similar but smaller in size than S59. It has two transverse cavities and is broken at one end. L. 0.05; w. 0.03; th. 0.014; w. of cavities 0.008 and 0.007 m. CEast 20, 6. Upper Mesolithic. S61. Stone object with two deep incisions, which are not straight as on the two previous examples (S59, S60). L. 0.026; w. 0.018; th. 0.007 m. CWest 10, 1–2. Lower Mesolithic. S62. Fragment of a stone object used as a grinder. Rough surface over majority of grinder. L. 0.073; w. 0.023; th. 0.006 m. CWest 8, 2. Upper Mesolithic. S63. Stone pendant made from a black, lustrous pebble with a very small transverse perforation. L. 0.016; w. 0.01; th. 0.004 m. CWest 10, 1. Lower Mesolithic. S64. Ovoid object of white marble, well smoothed. Possibly functioned as a sling bullet. L. 0.037; w. 0.033; th. 0.026 m. CEast 8, 1. Middle Neolithic. S65. Thin oblong pebble with signs of use. L. 0.05; w. 0.01; th. 0.006 m. C4. Late Neolithic. S66. Pendant made from a black lustrous stone. L. 0.021; w. 0.015; th. 0.002 m. CEast 23. Lower Mesolithic. S67. Pendant made from a brown unworked pebble. Rough surface. Has a relatively large transverse perforation. L. 0.033; w. 0.024; th. 0.008 m. CWest 5. Late Neolithic. S68. Pendant made from an oblong pebble that was broken at the upper section. L. 0.028; w. 0.008; th. 0.003 m. CEast 20, 5. Lower Mesolithic. S69. Thin, oblong pebble. L. 0.07; w. 0.02; th. 0.002 m. CEast 16, 1. Upper Mesolithic.

A Neolithic Figurine from the Cave of the Cyclops Laia Orphanidis A schematic figurine (SF70; Fig. 7.5; Pl. 7.1) in the shape of a violin was discovered in the Cave of the Cyclops in Level 4 of Trench C (Fig. 7.5; Pl. 7.1). It is dated to the Late Neolithic period. The violin form is already known from the Greek Late Neolithic period, from Saliagos island in the Cyclades (Evans and Renfrew 1968; Renfrew 1969; Orphanidis 1998, 157) and from Thessaly (Orphanidis 1994; Gallis and Orphanidis 1996, nos. 335 [ORF 473], 336 [ORF 55], 337 [ORF 373], 338 [ORF 386], 339 [ORF 486], 340 [ORF 372]; Orphanidis forthcoming a, nos. ORF 149, 155, 156,

159, 171, 172, 447). Most of these schematic flat figurines bear grooves that mark arm protrusions or have a pointed lower part. This is not the case in the example from Youra. The absence of arms occurs in another schematic Thessalian type too, which, however, has a pear shape (Gallis and Orphanidis 1996, 303 [ORF 273]). Nevertheless, the extreme stylization in the rendering of the human body at Youra seems to have at least one analogy in Thessaly (Orphanidis forthcoming a, no. ORF 194); thus figurine art can be added to previously known evidence of contact between the two areas in the

166

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Neolithic period. Further interpretation of the artifacts falls within broader discussions on the meaning of the art of the Neolithic figurine and assigning various functions to such objects, from dolls and personal representatons to magic and cultic devices (Orphanidis 1981; 1992; 1996; 1998; forthcoming b and c).

S70. Intact, stylized, Late Neolithic figurine in the shape of a violin and with a flat surface. Long conical neck with diminishing thickness toward flattened top; the body has the form of an irregular rhombus with rounded bottom portraying large buttocks; no facial features or any trace of decoration. Sex unknown, possibly female. Whitish marble; very smooth; polished. H. 0.057; w. 0.032; th. 0.010 m. C4, 1.

Miscellaneous Objects Made of Shell Several shell artifacts were found in the Cave of the Cyclops. Two smoothed fragments of Spondylus gaederopus recovered in Late Neolithic layers belong to bracelets. This shell, which occurs in abundance in the sea region of the Northern Sporades, seems to have been used for the manufacture of pendant beads as well as for other kinds of jewelry. A large quantity of jewelry made of Spondylus gaederopus shells have been found elsewhere in

Greece. From Dimini alone, about 100 such samples are known (Tsuneki 1989). On Saliagos, bracelets of Spondylus gaederopus shells have been found (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 20). Ladles made out of mussels have been found on Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 82); these correspond to examples made of limpets from Youra (jewelry and objects made of shells found at Youra are discussed by L. Karali, forthcoming).

Fragments of Miscellaneous Clay Finds Mesolithic levels in Trench CEast, mainly ascribed to the Lower Mesolithic, have yielded numerous shapeless rounded fragments of either unfired or badly-fired clay that do not appear to belong to any vessel shape (Fig. 7.5:SF1–SF3, SF5). Specif icially, these come from Levels 16 to 22. It seems probable that these fragments are remnants of clay fireplaces that are comparable to similar pieces found recently in Upper Paleolithic levels in the Klisoura Cave (Koumouzelis 2003). It cannot be excluded, however, that some of these clay fragments may belong to coarse-made vessels that were occasionally used, as a single coarse rim fragment has been preserved. The occurrence of pointille and incisions on four examples suggests that these may be fragments of decorated vessels. Such samples dated to the Mesolithic have also been reported in the Theopetra Cave (N. Kyparissi, pers. comm.). The occurrence of clay at pre-Neolithic sites throughout the world usually

reflects experimental attempts on a new material and not a systematic use of ceramics. Numerous shapeless and unfired pieces of clay in Level 22, Rectangles 3 and 7 in Trench CEast may possibly be from a floor in this area made of clay collected from the interior of the cave where clay deposits occur in abundance. SF1. Fragment of clay with curved end on one side and two rows of pointille. Beige-colored clay. L. 0.07; w. 0.06 m. CEast 16, 1. SF2. Fragment of clay with pointille in curvilinear arrangement. Beige-colored clay. L. 0.06; w. 0.045 m. CEast 16, 1. SF3. Fragment of clay with pointille in a row. Reddish clay. L. 0.07; w. 0.064 m. CEast 16, 1. SF4. Fragment of clay with a complete perforation. Beige-colored clay. L. 0.056; w. 0.054 m. CEast 22, 3, 7. SF5. Fragment of fired clay with curved end (rim?) that has incisions and pointille in a row. Beige-colored clay; similarly colored slip. L. 0.065; w. 0.052 m. CEast 18, 5.

GROUND STONE TOOLS, STONE OBJECTS, AND MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS

167

Clay Spindle Whorls A few spindle whorls (SF6–SF8) were uncovered from the Neolithic levels in Trench C (Pl. 7.1), probably suggesting a limited stay in the cave. Two were found in Level 3 and one in Level 4 of Trench C. The conical and biconical types are the most common.

SF7. Round conical spindle whorl, perforated through the center. Brown coarse clay, untreated surface. Diam. 0.025 m. C3. SF8. Round conical spindle whorl, perforated through the center. Small chip at the edge. Brown coarse clay, untreated surface. Diam. 0.022 m. C4.

SF6. Round biconical spindle whorl, perforated through the center. Small chip at the edge. Brown coarse clay, untreated surface. Diam. 0.032 m. C3.

Clay Sherd with Incised Symbols Every year, new incised symbols come to light from excavations all over Greece. The most famous is the incised wooden tablet of Dispilio at Kastoria (Chourmouziades 2002, 260) that dates to the end of the 6th millennium B.C. The tablet has many rows with signs. Some of the signs are reminiscent of Linear B syllabic letters. At Ftelia on Mykonos, three examples of incised symbols on clay were found (Sampson 2002a, 127), two of which are simple and one that is composed of many characters. Isolated finds come from Yali on Nissyros (unpublished data), the Tharrounia Cave in Euboea (Sampson 1993a, fig. 82:6, 8), Giannitsa (P. Chrysostomou, pers. comm.), as well as the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra. The example from Youra has three incised symbols that do not constitute part of the decoration (Pl. 7.1:829). The symbols have similarities with those found on the Kastoria tablet as well as on other incised sherds of Balkan Neolithic sites (Winn 1981; Lazarovici 2003). It seems that Greece stands on the periphery of a broad zone including the northern Balkans and the Danube, where numerous incised Neolithic signs have been recovered (Winn 1973, 1981). Certainly these do not constitute simple potters’ marks, but rather a system of communication, a “protoscript,”

which some scholars have tried to relate to religious practices (Gimbutas 1991). In Greece, isolated signs described as potters’ marks have been found in Early Helladic Lerna (Wiencke 1989, 507 n. 8), at Hagia Eirene on Keos (Caskey 1972, 368, pl. 78:B70), on Mount Kynthos on Delos (MacGillivray 1979, 36, figs. 4–6, 8:48), and at Phylakopi on Melos (Atkinson et al. 1904, 94, 177, 254). Recently, an assemblage of vases from a grave of the Kastri phase on Melos, now being studied, brought to light numerous symbols of great significance, since they are reminiscent of letters of the Greek alphabet. Numerous signs on pottery from the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Age were studied at Hagia Eirene on Keos (Bikaki 1984). These Bronze Age signs seem to cover a hiatus between the Neolithic protoscript and Mycenean Linear B, and their frequent occurrence indicates a widely used communication system that could be considered a script. 829 (769). Fragment of body of what was probably an open vase. On the outside surface, shallow incisions carelessly executed with the use of a thin, pointed tool; indeterminate representations of letter-like symbols. Smoothed, fairly worn surface, red on the outside, yellowish brown on the inside. Gray core. Coarse clay. Max. dim. 0.041 m. CEast 9, 7–8.

168

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Metallic Object A single bronze Neolithic needle (SF9) was unearthed from Trench CEast, Level 7. From the pottery and the other finds in the same level, it can be dated to Late Neolithic Ib. In the same Neolithic phase, numerous bronze artifacts were recovered at other Neolithic sites of the Aegean, such as Ftelia on Mykonos (Maxwell 2002, 147), Kalythies Cave in the Dodecanese (Sampson 1987a), Yali near Nissyros (Sampson 1988a), Tharrounia Cave (Sampson 1993a, 222, fig. 208), Kitsos Cave in Attica (Lambert 1981, fig. 288), and Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977, pl. 66:28). More specifically, needles of Neolithic type have also been found in the Kalythies Cave (Sampson 1987a, 55), the Kitsos

Cave (Lambert 1981, fig. 288), the Tharrounia Cave (Sampson 1993a, 222–223, fig. 208), at Kephala (Coleman 1977, 41, 108), and at Paradeisos in Thrace (Hellström 1987, pl. 48:18, 19). The analysis by Eleni Mangou in the laboratory of the National Museum of Athens shows that the needle from Youra contains a percentage of copper (74.65%), arsenic (1.91%), and tin (0.40%); these percentages are characteristic of Late Neolithic artifacts. SF9. Part of a bronze needle preserving pointed end. Narrow and long, cylindrical in section. Green color. Fragile. L. 0.06; diam. 0.002 m. CEast 7.

8

Chipped Stone Artifacts Malgorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Kozłowski*

In this chapter we have taken into account all well-stratified chipped stone artifacts from the excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops based on the final version of the stratigraphical attribution of September 2000. Since this list differs somewhat from preliminary stratigraphic lists, the number of artifacts in various levels in turn differs slightly from our previous reports on the lithic industries from Youra (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 1998, 2003). The most important differences are that some of the artifacts from levels that were initially thought to be mixed have been reascribed to “pure” stratigraphical units, and that several tools (including all tools with bifacial retouch) have been reassigned from the Early/Middle Neolithic to the Late Neolithic period. We have left out of this analysis the artifacts whose stratigraphic attribution is too

broad in order not to introduce “information noise” into the sequence of evolution of the lithic industries under discussion. Siliceous stone and obsidian lithics from the Mesolithic, Early/Middle Neolithic, and Late Neolithic levels of the Cave of the Cyclops are discussed and analyzed (see also Tables 8.1–8.12). The lithics are given catalog numbers L1–L211, which are linked to the original excavation numbers for Mesolithic siliceous stone (Table 8.4) and obsidian (Table 8.5), Early/Middle Neolithic siliceous stone (Table 8.7) and obsidian (Table 8.8), and Late Neolithic siliceous stone (Table 8.11) and obsidian (Table 8.12) artifacts. Most of the artifacts were found in both the Western and Eastern divisions of Trench C; a small number, however, were also retrieved from Trench A, Trench B, and Trench E.

*This final report on the lithic industries from the excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra Island was sponsored by

the Polish Ministry of Science and Information (Project No. 2H01H03924).

170

MALGORZATA KACZANOWSKA AND JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI

Mesolithic Levels The general breakdown of the 179 Mesolithic chipped stone artifacts (Table 8.1) is as follows: 112 flakes (62.57% of the total); 13 blades (7.26%); seven chips (3.91%); two chunks (1.12%); and 45 tools (25.14%). The difference in the number of artifacts made of siliceous stone (164 specimens, 91.62%; Figs. 8.1–8.3) and those of obsidian (15 specimens, 8.38%; Fig. 8.4) is considerable. The distribution of obsidian artifacts is not uniform throughout the Mesolithic levels. Only siliceous stone artifacts are present in Trench C from the floor of the sediments up to Level 19 in the Eastern sector (CEast) and up to Level 13 in the Western sector (CWest). Analysis of the radiometric dates has enabled us to place the Upper Mesolithic levels in the Western sector (Levels 9–11) in the range of calibrated dates between 7500 and 7000 B.C. In the Eastern sector, Levels 14–17 correspond to a similar time range. The Lower Mesolithic levels in the Western sector have been dated in the range of 8600 to 8300 B.C.: Level 13 yielded only one artifact and Level 14 contained no lithic artifacts. In the Eastern sector, Levels 18–22, dated to 8500–7800 B.C., yielded 47 artifacts, but Level 23, dated ca. 8500–8300 B.C., produced only one stone artifact. In the group of artifacts made of siliceous stone (164 specimens, 91.62% of all of the Mesolithic stone artifacts), flakes are the most numerous with 110 specimens (67.07% of the siliceous artifacts); there are also nine blades (5.49%), six chips (3.66%), two chunks (1.22%), and 37 tools (22.56%). The breakdown of obsidian artifacts (15 specimens, 8.38% of all the Mesolithic stone artifacts) is different: tools are the most numerous (eight specimens); there are also four blades, two flakes, and one chip. This suggests that the methods of procurement of siliceous stone and obsidian were totally different. Of the siliceous material (Table 8.2), F1 flint predominates, accounting for 88 specimens (53.66% of the total). Next in proportion are F3 flint (19 specimens; 11.59%) and F8 flint (18 specimens; 10.98%). Other raw materials are represented by individual specimens. There are five wholly cortical flakes (4.54% of the total number of flakes) and 23 partially cortical specimens (20.91%). Despite the absence of cores, therefore, local processing of

siliceous stone seems confirmed. When the most frequent types of flints are considered, one finds that among 57 flakes made from F1 flint, one flake is wholly cortical, and 12 are partially covered with cortex. Out of 12 flakes made from F8 flint, five are wholly cortical. F3 flint is represented also by 16 flakes, of which two are wholly cortical. It can, therefore, be assumed that all of the flint types mentioned above were worked on the site, beginning from the decortication phase. That the complete operational chain of blank production took place locally is evidenced by the presence of blades from F1 flint (four specimens), F9 flint (three specimens), F8 flint (one specimen), and F3 flint (one specimen) in conjunction with a far greater number of flakes. The possibility that the flakes were intentional products of core reduction, however, should also be taken into consideration, as numerous flake tools made from these flints have been discovered. The technique of detaching both blades and flakes from siliceous stone was similar. In both cases, platforms were either single blow or linear. The shape of the platforms on both blades and flakes is the same: in both groups, lenticular platforms are the most frequent. Again, there are no major dissimilarities between the two groups as far as percussion points are concerned. In both groups, bulbs are distinct and points of percussion can easily be seen. On the basis of the examination of the flakes, it can be inferred that both the hard hammer (evidenced by the presence of double bulbs and percussion cones) and the punch (indicated by the presence of a “lip”) were used to detach them. The reconstruction of methods of core preparation is difficult as the number of specimens, especially blades, is small. The occurrence of tablets and trimming blades may, however, indicate that cores were prepared or rejuvenated in the course of reduction. No traces of local processing are evidenced by the structure of obsidian artifacts, which suggests that finished blades and tools (microliths especially) were brought to the site. The small blade series (four unretouched and two retouched specimens) makes it impossible to reconstruct the coring process. It is significant that the technological features of these

CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

specimens, however, differ from those of specimens made from siliceous stone. First of all, faceted platforms, which are unknown among flint blades, occur, and percussion points are only weakly distinguishable. The preparation of cores from which obsidian blades were obtained was very careful: two partially retouched trimming blades, and one unretouched blade struck off after the crested blades were found. One of the trimming blades shows traces of a trimming edge shaped by the hard hammer. The second, with a strongly obtuse angle between prepared surfaces, points to the application of the pressure technique (Fig. 8.4:L46), and resembles Late Neolithic specimens. The dimensions of the obsidian blades are similar to those of the flint blades, but their shapes are fairly different. The index of blade width to platform length of the rare obsidian blades is very different from the same ratio in blades made from siliceous stone, where platform length more closely approximates blade width. The Mesolithic levels contained 37 siliceous stone tools and only eight obsidian tools (Tables 8.3–8.5; Figs. 8.1–8.4). The lower part of the Mesolithic sequence contains tools of F1–F3, F6, and F8 flints, and Ch3 chalcedony only. These include several types of scrapers (nine specimens): two small flake end scrapers (L1, L2); one straight end scraper on a trimming blade (L3); four high end scrapers with denticulated (L4), nosed (L5, L6), and multiple carinated fronts (L7) made on flakes; and two scrapers on cortical flakes: one double irregular (L8) and one macroscraper (L9). Also, five retouched flakes were recovered (L10– L14). The tool kit includes one denticulated (L15) and three notched tools (L16–L18), and a bec on a flake (L19). In addition, nine splintered pieces (L20–L28) and two fragments of splintered pieces (L29, L30) were found. There are also two burinlike spalls struck off from the narrow side of splintered pieces (L31, L32). One dihedral burin (L33) on a morphologically different blade resembling Upper Paleolithic blanks (with different surface smoothing compared to Mesolithic artifacts) and one blade with two adjacent scars in the proximal part (L34) were also attributed to the Upper Mesolithic levels. One cortical flake, which was made from F1 flint, had one edge strongly worn (nibbled and rounded) for scraping and cutting (L35). Additionally, there is one fragment of an undetermined retouched tool (L36).

171

In the upper part of the Mesolithic sequence, backed pieces appear as the only novel element of siliceous stone tools. One specimen has a straight blunted back shaped by croisée retouch (L37), and the other has a slightly convex shape formed by steep marginal retouch (L38). Both specimens are made on thick blades or blade-flakes. The appearance of backed pieces in Level 10 of the Western sector of Trench C corresponds to the part of the sequence that already contained obsidian tools. Level 10 is dated to 8209±47 B.P. (7315–7083 B.C.). Obsidian tools from the Mesolithic levels (Fig. 8.4) comprise a set of shapes that subsequently appears in all of the Neolithic levels, namely: crescents, trapezes, simple backed bladelets, retouched truncations, and retouched blades. Crescents are represented by a mesial fragment of a specimen with a slightly curved back shaped by steep, coupante retouch (L39), and a very small specimen with a slightly angulated back shaped by steep marginal retouch (L40). The latter tool has an impact scar in the distal part and flat scars from pressure placced on the base. This indicates that it may have been used as a hafted projectile point like an arrowhead. There is one trapeze with retouch on three sides (L41). It has a denticulated, nibbled edge that, together with scars from pressure on denticulated projections along the longer edge, suggests that the trapeze was an insert of a knife used for working hard materials such as bone or shell. A tiny fragment of a hypermicrolithic backed bladelet (L42) and an oblique truncation on a blade (L43) do not show use-wear. Another truncation on a secondary trimming blade (L44) shows use-wear on two corners, the proximal with retouched truncation and the distal with a transversal break. The use-wear in both cases is seen as gloss, probably due to working with plants. Two other blades were also discovered: a blade with denticulated inverse retouch (L45) and a blade that was struck off after the crested blade from a core with flat side preparation by pressure and fine, direct discontinuous retouch (L46). The latter specimen shows use-wear on both lateral edges; traces of crushing are on one edge, and the other has nibbling and short oblique striations. In the case of this specimen, the careful side preparation was done using the pressure-flaking technique. Another crested blade shows traces of

172

MALGORZATA KACZANOWSKA AND JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI

the hard hammer for retrimming the crest (L47). Three unretouched blades are also present (L48–L50). The difference between the Lower and the subsequent Upper Mesolithic assemblages primarily consists of the absence of obsidian artifacts and flint backed blades in the Lower Mesolithic. Although the Lower Mesolithic is characterized by very few retouched tools—only four specimens—they represent the major tool categories typical of the Upper Mesolithic: end scrapers such as a high end scraper with three fronts (L7) and a multiple flake, strongly used end scraper (L8); retouched flakes, represented by an example with lateral, semi-steep, denticulated retouch (L15); and a pseudo-burin detached from the edge of a splintered piece (L32). In the Lower Mesolithic the most important raw materials are F1 and F3 flint and Ch3 chalcedony. The dating of the Upper Mesolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops to a period before about 7500–7000 years B.P. places them at a time earlier than the oldest traces of the Ceramic Neolithic on the eastern coast of Greece. Consequently, analogies must be sought among Mesolithic finds from continental Greece and possibly Turkish Thrace and Anatolia. Unfortunately, no pre-Eneolithic finds from the western coast of Anatolia have been recorded. As far as siliceous stone artifacts are concerned, the dominant flaking and splintered techniques that were used in their production point to links with the Mesolithic of continental Greece (Kozłowski 1996). The Early Holocene industries known in the territory of the Argolid are flake industries, frequently with atypical high scrapers, denticulated scrapers, retouched flakes, notched and denticulated tools, and becs. Such is the content of, for example, phases lithiques VII and VIII in the Franchthi Cave (Perlès 1990b), or layers 3–5a from Cave 1 in Klisoura Gorge (Koumouzelis et al. 1996). These industries, based primarily on local raw materials (although, at Franchthi, obsidian is also present),

show a very low proportion of blades and bladelets. Also, they do not contain large backed pieces, whether straight or arched. The only site in central Greece where large backed pieces occur in layers dated from the 8th to the 6th millennium B.C. is Theopetra Cave (Adam 1999; Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999). Our impression, however, is that there is strong contamination there with Early Neolithic macroblade industries. Some Early Holocene sites in the European Black Sea coast of Turkey have furnished relatively large Gravette points with a slightly convex back (e.g., Agacli; cf. Gatsov 2000). The style of obsidian microliths from the Cave of the Cyclops is distinctly different from microliths known in the Mesolithic of continental Greece. First of all, crescents and trapezes with three retouched sides are not recorded in continental Greece. In continental sequences, arched backed pieces and crescents vanish at the end of the Pleistocene before 10,000 B.P. They are thus absent in the Early Holocene levels in Cave 1 of Klisoura Gorge, whereas they occur in Cave 4 in the layers dating before the end of the Pleistocene (Koumouzelis et al. 1996). If we assume that the presence of microliths in the Mesolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops is not the effect of contamination from overlying levels, then this is the first instance of such a set of geometric microliths in the Aegean Sea basin in the period between 8700 and 8200 years B.P. From the same period, identical forms of microliths are known from the southern coast of Anatolia, notably in the region of Antalya. Segments, triangles, trapezes with three retouched sides, and angulated backed bladelets occur in Öküzini Cave both in layer Ia2 (ca. 10,000 years B.P.) and in layer Ib1 (8700–7800 years B.P.) (Yalçinkaya et al. 1995; Otte et al. 1995). A similar set of microliths occurs in the sequence of layers B and C of Beldibi Cave near Antalya (Bonstanci 1959; 1965, pls. 2, 3), where layer C is aceramic and layer B1 contains the first Neolithic pottery.

Early/Middle Neolithic Levels A total of 71 chipped stone artifacts (Tables 8.3, 8.6–8.8; Figs. 8.4–8.6) were discovered in the

Early/Middle Neolithic levels (ca. 7400–7300 B.P.; 6340–6170 B.C.), including 12 flakes (16.90%

CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

of the total), 28 blades (39.44%), one exhausted core (1.41%), one chunk (1.41%), and 29 tools (40.84%) (Table 8.6). At this time, the radical change in the major technological groups represented suggests that local processing was much less important than in the Mesolithic period, both for siliceous stone artifacts (only eight flakes, three blades, one exhausted core, one chunk, and two tools) and for obsidian artifacts (56 specimens). Obsidian becomes the dominant raw material, as a dramatic drop takes place in the percentage of siliceous stone artifacts. All the flint types that had so far predominated, except F1 (seven flakes and one blade) and F2 (only one blade), disappear. For F1 flint, local production is exemplified by a strongly exhausted discoidal core for flakes (L51). The 25 obsidian blades (44.64% of the obsidian artifacts), have been preserved mainly as fragments (see Table 8.6). A few preserved platforms are plain. Platforms are also faceted, lenticular, or trapezoidal in shape. The majority of bulbs show bulbar scars and marked points of percussion. Blade cross-sections are triangular or trapezoidal; lateral edges are parallel, and profiles are straight. Trimming blades and blades struck off after the crested blade indicate that initial core preparation was carried out. The blades seem somewhat broader than the previously described Mesolithic specimens (width ranges most frequently between 9 and 12 mm; with specimens up to 18 mm wide also present). The few obsidian flakes (four specimens) must also come from rejuvenation in the course of core reduction. These are small flakes that do not exceed 26 mm in length and 20 mm in width. The Early/Middle Neolithic levels yielded two siliceous stone tools and 27 obsidian tools (48.21% of the obsidian artifacts). The most typical tool for the Early Neolithic macroblade industries is a sickle blade with denticulated, continuous obverse retouch on one side and partial inverse retouch on the other side. The flint specimen (L52) shows lateral silica gloss, which is partly later than the obverse retouch and partly earlier than the inverse retouch. It is made from honey-colored flint described in the literature as “silex blond” (Perlès 1983b, 1990b). Its shape and function, as well as its raw material, which probably originates from western Bulgaria, connect it strongly with the Early Balkan Neolithic (cf. Gatsov 1993). The second siliceous stone artifact is a fairly broad quartzite blade with slightly denticulated,

173

inverse, lateral retouch and obverse retouch forming a tang (L53). The blade is typical of the Early Balkan Neolithic. Basically, obsidian tools are represented by the same groups as those recorded in the Mesolithic levels. There are six crescents, including three slender specimens with slightly arched blunted backs formed by marginal retouch (L54–L56) and three fragments of crescents with strongly arched blunted backs (L57–L59). The crescents have flat flake scars on the base, sometimes of piquant-trièdre type (L54, L57, L58). This indicates that they could have been used as projectile points and the scars on the base could have been caused by counter-impact (pressure on the haft). Four other geometric microliths are present: a trapeze with three retouched sides (L60) and three scalene triangles, one with an inversely retouched third side (L61), one with an obliquely retouched base (L62), and one with a micronotch on the third side (L63). Truncations include two oblique specimens with truncated tips. One is on a secondary crested blade (L64) and displays use-wear similar to that on side scrapers for the working of hide. The other truncation could have functioned as a sickle blade (L65). Generally, the two specimens resemble truncations known in the Early Neolithic of the Eastern Balkans. Obsidian blades with lateral retouch (three specimens) constitute a characteristic group. Two blades have obverse-inverse, discontinuous, fine, denticulated retouch congruent with their function as sickle blades (L66, L67). Because the blades are strongly polished, other types of use-wear cannot be identified. The third specimen is the distal part of a blade with bilateral retouch of appointé type, with partial inverse retouch, and a pseudoburin blow that might have been caused by impact (L68). All the specimens described above have analogues in the industries of the Early Neolithic in eastern Greece. In addition, two burins were discovered: a dihedral mesial burin (L69) and a burin on a snap (L70). On the latter specimen, rounding and polishing on the edge opposite the burin blow reveal intensive utilization. One of the obsidian blades has a flat inverse lateral notch on the proximal part (L71); it was used as a knife on the lateral edge, probably for cutting wood. There are nine splintered pieces of obsidian, predominantly on blades and flakes (L72–L80).

174

MALGORZATA KACZANOWSKA AND JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI

To sum up, the tool kit of siliceous stone artifacts from the Early/Middle Neolithic levels is comprised of all the forms that are typical for the macroblade industries of the Early/Middle Neolithic in continental Greece. More importantly, one of the specimens is made from a raw material that is without doubt of north Balkan origin. Among the obsidian artifacts, there are specimens displaying typological links with the Early Neolithic in continental Greece where, especially in the Argolid, obsidian was frequently used. On the other hand, obsidian geometric microliths, which have no equivalents at Early/Middle Neolithic sites in continental Greece, continue to occur in the Cave of the Cyclops. The only other possible evidence of the presence of segments, triangles, and trapezes in an

Early Neolithic context is from the site of SamariMagula in Thessaly. It should be emphasized, however, that, contrary to Tellenbach’s opinion (1983), the discoverer of these materials, D. Theocharis, was not at all certain of the correlation between the microliths and the Ceramic Neolithic context. Indeed, he stated that the microliths at SamariMagula had been obtained from elsewhere (Theocharis 1973). The age of the microliths from Samari-Magula, in any case, is not known. Although sporadic examples of trapezes occur at Early Neolithic sites in Thessaly (e.g., at OtzakiMagula), their shape is totally different and they show different production techniques from the specimens retrieved from the Cave of the Cyclops.

Late Neolithic Levels A total of 356 chipped stone artifacts of the Late Neolithic have been recorded in the Cave of the Cyclops (Table 8.9). This includes one pebble fragment (0.28% of the total), 69 flakes (19.38%), 140 blades (39.33%), one chip (0.28%), and 145 tools (40.73%). Such a breakdown continues the pattern of the Early/Middle Neolithic. The ratio of obsidian specimens to siliceous stone specimens is 288 to 68 (80.90% to 19.10%). The type of flints recorded in the Mesolithic levels recur, but new raw materials appear, including Ch1 and Ch2 chalcedony, F4 flint, and R1 radiolarite (Table 8.10). The group of siliceous stone artifacts (68 examples) contains 46 flakes, seven blades, 14 tools, and one pebble fragment (Tables 8.9, 8.11; Figs. 8.6, 8.7; Pl. 8.1). Such an assemblage suggests that some bifacial tools were brought to the site in their finished form, but the full cycle of production of flake and blade blanks from F1, F2, and F3 flint took place on-site. Only a small number of flint flakes come from the preliminary phase of reduction (three specimens). Most of the recovered flakes were detached in the course of single platform core reduction or from 90° cores. There are also two refitted flakes from centripetal core preparation made from F2 flint (Fig. 8.6:L81). The straightened butt edge and the presence of plain platforms is worthy of notice.

The shape of the platform is usually lenticular or triangular. Percussion points, as bulbs, are marked, and there are sometimes bulbar scars. The curve of flake length shows two modes: from 16 to 25 mm and from 31 to 40 mm. This indicates that a portion of the small flakes come from retouching. Blades made from siliceous stone show traces of cortex, which is in agreement with the absence of trimming blades. The characteristic features of butts and percussion points are the same as those of flakes. Obsidian artifacts are represented by 23 flakes, 133 blades, one chip, and 131 tools (Tables 8.9, 8.12; Figs. 8.7–8.11; Pls. 8.1, 8.2). The core reduction cycle therefore is not complete in the Cave of the Cyclops. In all likelihood, finished blades and tools were supplied to the site. The flakes certainly do not come from preliminary core shaping, but they could have been detached in the course of core rejuvenation or retouching, or they are the products of splintered technique. The specimens are rather small (6–31 mm long; 7–25 mm wide) and thin (up to 2.5 mm thickness). The relatively large number of obsidian blades enables a better reconstruction of the technique used in their production. These blades were detached from carefully prepared, single-platform cores (only one specimen has lateral cortex). Butts are predominantly faceted (42 specimens;

CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

72.4% of the preserved butts), followed in number by plain butts (10 specimens; 17.2%). Butt angles of 90° are the most numerous. The butts are lenticular (23 specimens; 42.8%), trapezoidal (13 specimens; 23.6%), or triangular (11 specimens; 20%). The most frequent index of the ratio of blade width to butt length is 40:80; i.e., the dominant butts are broad in comparison to blade width. This is in opposition to the index of blade width to butt length in the aceramic levels, where the value of 20:40 is most frequent. With regard to the Early/Middle Neolithic levels, one finds a tendency for this index to increase from the earlier to the later periods. Percussion features continue to be well-marked bulbs, frequently with bulbar scars. In most cases, the butt edge was not straightened. In comparison with earlier levels, therefore, no important differences in percussion mode are observed. The presence of crested blades (two examples, see Fig. 8.10: L184.1) and secondary trimming blades (five examples) indicates that cores were shaped before exploitation. Blade cross-sections are trapezoidal (59%) or triangular (34.5%). The lateral profile of blades is straight, which is often the result of the snapping of the distal parts. Blades with convex profiles also occur, indicating that as the reduction of a core advanced its profile approached “bullet cores.” Because blade fragmentation is considerable, more precise information about the shape of cores cannot be obtained. The distribution of blade length is, then, an asymmetrical unimodal curve that could be the effect of a higher frequency of short blades with the distal part snapped off. As a rule, blade length does not exceed 70 mm; the blade width forms a Gaussian curve with the mode between 7 and 12 mm. Based on the number of examined specimens, this points to the homogeneous character of the assemblage. Blade thickness ranges from 1 to 4 mm. The Late Neolithic assemblage, in general, shows a greater degree of standardization of blades than the artifact inventories from earlier levels. The greatest number of obsidian tools (131) was found in the Late Neolithic levels. This far outnumbers the siliceous stone tools (14) from the Late Neolithic levels (see Tables 8.3, 8.11, 8.12). An important point is that the Late Neolithic at Youra contained bifacially retouched leaf points that are typical in continental Greece and the

175

Aegean during that period (see Figs. 8.6, 8.7). Two heart-shaped points have complete bifacial retouch and are made from both radiolarite (L82) and F1 flint (L83). A third point represents a type à face plane, made on a blade from silicified limestone (L84). A fourth specimen is a small triangular arrowhead with a concave base and a bifacially retouched side (L85). It is made on a radiolarite flake with the point in its proximal part. The raw material comes, in all likelihood, from east-central Greece. In terms of typology, the specimen has parallels in the industries of the Middle Neolithic, such as the Sesklo culture. An identical arrowhead was discovered at Tsangli (Tellenbach 1983, pl. 39: 5). The base of a similar F3 flint arrowhead (but shaped by abrupt retouch) was also found in a Late Neolithic level at Youra (L86). In addition, the following siliceous stone artifacts have parallels in the Aegean Late Neolithic: a geometric point with an oblique truncation and a straight, abruptly retouched base (L87); a blade from Ch1 chalcedony with bifacial, denticulated retouch and a burin blow (L88); and three large blades with partial lateral retouch and notches (L89–L91). One example (L90) is very regular and has a notch at the base. One bipolar splintered piece from silex blond, a typical Neolithic raw material, also occurs in Late Neolithic levels at Youra (L92). Other tools made from siliceous stone (retouched flakes) are not diagnostic: two small retouched flakes (L93, L94), and one splintered piece (L95). It is interesting that the series of obsidian tools (Figs. 8.7–8.11) repeats precisely the typological assemblage from earlier levels, especially in the case of microliths. As many as 46 crescents and their fragments are present, including 13 weakly convex specimens with steep marginal retouch (L96–L103.1) and also discontinuous retouch (L104). In five examples, burin blows shape both ends of the crescent (L105–L108), and in six examples, a burin shapes one end of the crescent (L109–L113). Crescents with a more convex blunted back feature marginal retouch (10 examples; L114–L119) coupante retouch (10 examples; L120, L121), or even croisée retouch (10 examples; L122, L123). These specimens also display microburin blows shaping one or both ends, which could either be earlier or later than the retouch on the blunted back (L120, L124) and often divides the specimen into two halves

176

MALGORZATA KACZANOWSKA AND JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI

(L122, L125). Four very small specimens were semicircular in shape and also had microburin blows at the ends (L124). Some pieces are irregular (L126–L129). All of the above described crescents were made on bladelets. Five specimens, however, were made on flakes (L130–L132). In addition, 12 crescent fragments (L133–L137) and a Krukowski microburin detached from an arched backed piece (L138) were retrieved. Among other microliths, two wholly prepared triangles (L139, L140) and two fragments of triangles (L141, L142) were identified; six trapezes with three sides retouched (L143–L148) and two trapezes proper with two retouched truncations (L149, L150) also could be distinguished. Trapezes like this did not occur in the lower levels of the cave. Additionally, one of the trapezes (L149) was made on a crested blade (carefully executed using pressure technique). Along with geometric microliths, two fragments of simple backed bladelets were recorded (L151, L152). The latter had retouch on the opposite edge, and its ends were shaped by microburin blows. A double truncation, perhaps a kind of rhombus (L153) can also be ascribed to the microliths group. Other microlithic forms are single truncations (15 specimens), which include seven oblique truncations on blades (L154–L160) six hypermicrolithics including fragments (L161– L166), a flake specimen, and an undulated truncation with inverse retouch (L167). Among the most common shapes are blades with lateral retouch (17 specimens), which is predominantly fine, discontinuous, and both inverse and obverse (L168–L180). There is only one retouched blade with parallel retouch of appointée type (L181), which also has use-wear, possibly indicating wood planing, and one blade with ventral thinning of the base (L182). The next group contains microretouched bladelets with both inverse (L183) and obverse (L184) retouch. Two end scrapers were found (L185, L186), one of which has a marginal burin blow struck accidentally from a transversal break due to the pressure on the haft (L185). One example of a kind of a bec on transverse notch was recorded (L187). Two burins include a Corbiac-type burin (L188) and a burin on a snap

on a crested blade (L189). Also, one blade has a single burin blow in the distal part of a bladelet (L190). This is probably an impact fracture, which confirms that unretouched bladelets were used as projectile points. As in other levels, the splintered pieces, predominantly made on blade fragments, are relatively numerous (15 examples; L191–L205). The Late Neolithic diagnostic forms are represented by four fragments of tanged points. All have ventral or bifacial marginal retouch shaping triangular tangs (L206–L209). Also, a very carefully bifacially retouched leaf point fragment shaped by pressure technique (L210) and a fragment of a point with a bifacially retouched distal end (L211) were retrieved. The range of tools of siliceous stone includes bifacial points with flat invasive retouch and subtriangular shapes (heart-shaped), which have equivalents throughout the Late and Terminal Neolithic of the eastern Balkans (Demoule and Perlès 1993, 394). These forms, like the obsidian tanged points, are also found in the Aegean islands, notably at sites of the Saliagos culture (Evans and Renfrew 1968). This means that the island of Youra occupies an important position in the context of the Late Neolithic colonization of the northern Aegean. The rich set of obsidian microliths, on the contrary, does not have equivalents in the Late Neolithic of southeastern Europe and Anatolia. Neither the arched backed blades recorded at Dikili Tash I in eastern Macedonia made on tablets as a kind of quartiers d’orange (Séfériadès 1992), nor the large arched backed blades known from the Late Eneolithic complex of the Cernavoda III culture, comtemporary with the Early Bronze Age in Greece (Pãunescu 1970), can be treated as analogous with the Late Neolithic crescents from Youra. The long persistence of geometric microliths at Youra is an exceptional phenomenon in the Aegean Sea basin, although such geometric microliths (crescents and truncations) were also found in the Neolithic layers at Hagios Petros on the island of Kyra-Panagia, which is also in the Northern Sporades (Efstratiou 1985; MoundreaAgrafioti 1992).

CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

177

Conclusions The sequence of the Mesolithic and Neolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops can be examined from the point of view of raw materials, technology, and typology. As far as raw materials are concerned, artifacts made from siliceous stones predominate in the Mesolithic levels, whereas in the Early/Middle and Late Neolithic levels obsidian artifacts become ascendant. In the Mesolithic, flints—notably F1, F2, and F3 flints—were, in all probability, processed on the site, starting from the shaping of cores to tool production. This would suggest that deposits of these flints were available on the island of Youra or on nearby islands. Other siliceous raw materials and particularly obsidian were brought to the site as blades or finished tools. The possibility that obsidian, which is fairly rare in the Upper Mesolithic levels, is a contamination from the overlying levels cannot be excluded however. When the structure of major technological groups is examined, a radical change can be seen between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic levels. The change consists of a sharp increase in the proportion of blades and retouched tools in Neolithic levels. It can be clearly seen that as the importance of obsidian grows, the role of locally processing easily accessible siliceous stone diminishes. Notably, the finds from the Mesolithic levels are, to a large extent, based on the flaking technique. Flakes detached from discoidal and single-platform cores were made intentionally into blanks, subsequently to be used in the production of tools. The high ratio of flakes in the Mesolithic levels at Youra therefore is not only evidence of the full production cycle on site, but also of the use of a specific technology. It should, moreover, be stressed that obsidian blades in the Mesolithic levels were different from flint blades. This suggests that either different techniques were used for different raw materials or that obsidian artifacts in the Mesolithic levels are contaminations from higher levels. In comparison to Mesolithic industries, Neolithic tool production focused primarily on blades, while unretouched blades show use-wear. The technological features of obsidian blades do not show chronological progression, although the uneven distribution of blades in the levels (with the

first concentration in the Late Neolithic) could play a certain role. For example, the proportion of faceted platforms, which are ascribed by Perlès (1990b; Demoule and Perlès 1993) to the diagnostic features of the Late Neolithic series (associated with the use of metal tips for pressure flaking), is higher in the Mesolithic than in the Early/Middle Neolithic levels. In the Late Neolithic, the ratio of faceted platforms dramatically increases. This may point to the presence of contaminants from the Late Neolithic levels in the earlier levels. On the other hand, some technological features seem to more closely parallel the temporal trend (e.g., the platform length to blade width index), which, however, could result from the fact that, in this particular index, both obsidian blades and blades made from siliceous stones were taken into account. Morphometric studies also confirm certain temporal trends. The largest width values (length could be measured for only a small number of specimens, insufficient for formulating conclusions) can be seen in the Mesolithic levels, which is probably due to the dominance of flint raw materials and the general flake character of the industry. Subsequently, blade width diminishes, only to increase again in the Early Neolithic and finally to decrease in the Late Neolithic. It should be added that the largest tools on blades appear in the Early/Middle Neolithic (L52, L53, L66, L67). The occurrence of flake tools (mainly end scrapers and retouched flakes) in the Mesolithic, macroblade tools with marginal retouch in the Early/Middle Neolithic, and bifacial leaf points in the Late Neolithic are the distinctive typological trends of each period. This is in agreement with our knowledge about the evolution of lithic industries in the Aegean Sea basin. The geometric microliths present a more complex and more fascinating problem. They are represented by the same set in all levels. If we assume that they are contaminants from Late Neolithic levels (in accordance with the assumption that obsidian processing at Youra is associated with the Late Neolithic), then two questions arise: 1) Why are there no similar stratigraphic displacements of other tools (e.g., bifacial

178

MALGORZATA KACZANOWSKA AND JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI

tools such as fragments of tanged points that are also fairly small in size)? 2) Why do geometric microliths occur exclusively in the Northern Sporades (e.g., Youra and Alonnessos) in the Late Neolithic, although they are absent at all other recorded Late Neolithic sites both in the Balkans and in Anatolia? The fact that similar microliths appear in Mesolithic (Epipaleolithic) and Early Ceramic layers of the caves in southwestern Anatolia dated to the Early Holocene (Fontugne et al. 1999) may suggest that they appeared on the island of Youra at the same time. The prolonged occurrence of geometric microliths in an unchanged shape on Youra would then be the effect of adaptation to local ecological conditions and the type of subsistence economy based on foraging, fishing, and bird hunting that encouraged seasonal (episodic) occupation of the island by various population groups until the end of the Late Neolithic. The fundamental problem facing the researcher of lithic industries in the Cave of the Cyclops then is the homogeneity of the inventories in the various levels. Throughout the sequence, with the exception of the Lower Mesolithic levels, a stable set of obsidian artifacts is recorded with the same types of geometric microliths. This homogeneity, together with a lack of noticeable innovations in the technology of obsidian blade production, could suggest that some levels were contaminated by finds from other levels.

It should be stressed that no refitted pieces have been found that could be made up of debitage products from the various levels. At the same time, refitted pieces are rare because neither obsidian nor any siliceous stone was fully processed on site; also, no raw material is represented in all stages of the operational chain. In fact, there are only two instances of refits. The first involves two flakes from F2 flint, both originating from Late Neolithic levels (one was discovered in Level 14 of the Eastern sector of Trench C, the other in Level 17 of the Eastern sector of Trench C). The disagreement with respect to the depth of deposition in the Late Neolithic level has probably been caused by the inclination of the levels. The second example involves two flakes detached from the same nodule of F8 flint. They were discovered in the lower part of the Mesolithic levels—in Level 19 and Level 21—in the Eastern sector of Trench C. Unfortunately, we have not found other examples of refits, which would verify the homogeneity of particular levels. Another argument against intrusions is the radiocarbon dating of the Early/Middle Neolithic levels and of certain of the Mesolithic levels, which is in agreement with the stratigraphy. In light of the arguments provided above, it seems fairly unlikely that mass displacement of artifacts could have taken place within the whole stratigraphic sequence from the Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic, causing “unification” of the contents of various levels, particularly with respect to the obsidian artifacts.

9

Survey in the Deserted Islands of the Northern Sporades Adamantios Sampson

A systematic surveying expedition on the large island of Youra and the nearby islands of the Northern Sporades was complementary to the research project of the Cave of the Cyclops (Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.1; Sampson 2001b). Since the 1970s, the survey team has carried out periodic investigations on Psathoura and Kyra-Panagia (also called Pelagonisi; see Ch. 1). The scanty surface pottery finds, mainly ascribed to historical times, have not been published however. Also in the 1970s, during the excavation at the settlement of Hagios Petros on Kyra-Panagia, limited investigations were conducted on the island though they did not furnish any finds of significance (Efstratiou 1985). Until the 1990s, the deserted islands of the Northern Sporades remained unexplored due to their remoteness and isolation (Fig. 9.1). Various foreign travelers recorded valuable information on ancient sites located on the islands. The hope of verifying their clues provided crucial motivation for undertaking a systematic survey during the 1992–1996 excavation seasons. Not unexpectedly, however, the investigation of those sites indicated on the travelers’

maps proved fruitless. Instead, numerous prehistoric remains were recovered at sites of strategic importance. Unfortunately, the majority of these have suffered significantly due to erosion. Paleolithic sites were traced in abundance, especially sites of the Middle Paleolithic, both at mountainous inland locations and in coastal areas. Except for one Mesolithic site on Kyra-Panagia, no other sites of this period were discovered. However, it is highly probable that in the past many of these sank into the sea. Finally, Neolithic finds occurred almost everywhere, even though the sites were eroded, and pottery was badly worn and, in many cases, impossible to diagnose. The sites discovered in the survey are presented in this chapter within the context of the islands and islets of the Northern Sporades: Gramiza, Peristera, Pappous, Koumbi, the Skantzoura group, Piperi, Kyra-Panagia, Sfika, Psathoura, Psathonisi, and Youra. A brief description of the topography, flora and fauna, history, and architectural installations of each island is given. This is followed by a brief discussion of the finds.

180

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Gramiza or Prasonisi Gramiza is an island with high mountains and lacks a port, located between Youra and KyraPanagia (Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.1; Pl. 9.1). Its southern and western sides are relatively flat, while the northern and eastern ones are almost vertical and very precipitous (Fig. 9.2). Thin vegetation consisting of bushes appears from the coastal zone to the island’s summit, which is flat and rich in vegetation of Pistacia terebinthus and holly bushes. Just below the summit, clearings occur on successive levels retaining adequate deposits of terra

rossa. The majority of the finds were recovered in this area. Gramiza, as one of the most remote islands of the archipelago, was identified as a pirates’ hideaway in the times prior to and following the Greek Revolution (1821) by most travelers of the 19th century, who usually called this island group the “Devil’s Islands” (Sampson 1997, 156– 187). Until recently, shepherds from Alonnessos have used the island for grazing goats. Monks established on the island of Pappous have also used Gramiza for breeding their herds.

Finds Finds include a small number of worn sherds dated to prehistoric and historical times, as well as numerous fragments of obsidian blades and flakes,

and flakes of flint bearing a white patina. Also, there are blades and flakes of flint that appear to be pre-Neolithic (Pl. 9.1B; Sampson 1996d).

Peristera Peristera, which means “female dove,” is an oblong island, 4.5 miles long and 14.5 km² in area, which is located immediately to the east of Alonnessos (Figs. 1.2, 1.3). Its highest mountain peak reaches 259 m. The southwest end of Peristera is separated from Alonnessos by a channel 1.5 miles (300 m) wide, which becomes narrower around the middle (Fig. 9.3). At this location lies one of the safest ports in the Northern Sporades, Vasiliko (lat 39°11'40" N, long 23°58'40" E). According to later geographers and travelers, the harbor was named Vasiliko, meaning “royal” (see, for example, Bordone 1534), probably because ancient historians record that the fleet of Antiochus III, King of Syria, under Pelopidas as admiral, anchored there during the war against the Romans in 192 B.C. A few years earlier in 199 B.C., the Roman fleet sought refuge there due to bad weather (Livy 31.45). As the channel is well protected from most adverse weather conditions, some foreign travelers (for instance, Bordone

1534; Boschini 1658) refer to Peristera together with Alonnessos as Dromi or Corso, variants for the Greek drovmo~ and Latin cursus, which mean “way.” The German geographer Bursian (1871) identified Peristera with the island Evonymos of Pliny (HN 4.23). Today, Peristera is an uninhabited island that merely hosts a number of shepherds with their flocks. It is also known as Xero, meaning “dried up,” which probably derives from the infertile landscape. It appears, however, that a few centuries ago it was both inhabited and cultivated. Peristera was often called Sarakeno, for example by Bordone (1534), Portacchi (1568), and by Boschini (1658), who mentions Sarakeno as one of the Dromi (see above). All three report that the island was adequately populated. Dapper (1703) also calls the island Sarakeno. This name, “Saracen Island,” most likely derives from the Byzantine period when the Saracens were thought to have anchored in Vasiliko harbor after they captured Thessaloniki in 904 A.D.

SURVEY IN THE DESERTED ISLANDS OF THE NORTHERN SPORADES

181

Finds On the surface of the island, ancient remains of the Classical period or later years have been recovered, comprised mainly of ancient graves. The only prehistoric remains so far discovered were found at the northern end of the island, at the site of Paliofanaro or Aspro (Fig. 9.3), overlooking the northern entrance to the bay that opens up between Alonnessos and Peristera. The site, exposed as it is to the sea and winds, has been

eroded. At certain points where soil is still retained between the rocks, worn Neolithic sherds were found along with obsidian fragments, among which were two blades. Another site has been recently discovered at the cove of Vasiliko Bay, following the suggestion of T. Mavrikis. A survey conducted there by A. Moundrea and L. Skafida yielded obsidian and flint tools dating from the Neolithic and Paleolithic periods.

Pappous This is a particularly small and oblong island between Youra and Kyra-Panagia (Fig. 9.4A; Pl. 9.2A). The island is rather low and rocky, although open areas of rich terra rossa occur at many points, and in the past these were systematically cultivated by monks. The vegetation of holly bushes and Pistacia terebinthus is very low. At the highest point of the island, a small church of the cruciform architectural type (Pl. 9.2B) along with

a number of cells date to the Ottoman period. A preserved date, 1668, possibly refers to the year of construction. The remains of a round mill and two water cisterns are also preserved. Scattered pottery of various chronological periods occurred throughout the island. Between Gramiza and the island of Pappous rises the small round islet of Koumbi. Investigations on this islet yielded only a single sherd of a 5th century B.C. vase.

Finds A limited number of worn Neolithic sherds, one with a quadrilateral unpierced lug, were found. Also, the survey yielded numerous Classical sherds of the 5th century B.C., one fragment of a Roman lamp, a rounded sherd secondarily used as a spindle whorl, and numerous sherds carrying “combed” decoration of Early Byzantine date. In addition to

ceramic finds, numerous fragments of obsidian blades, as well as a smaller number of flakes were discovered. A pointed obsidian blade was reported, as well as another one with signs of elaboration on its sides (Fig. 9.4B). Finally, one fragment of a blade made of white flint with patina was found; it was similar to the one recovered on Gramiza.

Skantzoura The name refers to a group of islands 12 miles southeast of Cape Telio on Alonnessos (Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.5). The largest island is called Megalo Skantzouro (lat 39°04'45" N, long 24°06'30" E) and is 3 miles long, with a particularly precipitous

coastline. Its area, along with the smaller islands, measures 7.7 km². Cape Glypha lies to the north, Cape Liano to the southeast, and Cape Kavos to the northwest. The islets of Korakas, Parousa, Skandili, and Strogylo are located close to the largest island’s

182

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

western and southwestern sides. All have precipitous coastlines and no port. The largest island, with its highest point of 107 m, is covered by small trees (Juniperus phoenicea) and other bushes, and a significant number of olive trees have been cultivated. On its northern side in a small plain, an old monastery, today uninhabited, is preserved. This island is identified with the ancient Skandira cited by Pliny (HN 4.12.72). Foreign travelers often

mention it, as it was situated along important sea routes (Sampson 1998a). At the site of Kouroupi, where the monastery is located, a Hellenistic fortified site was discovered. At some point, a number of isolated rural installations dated to historical times were found. In general, it seems that flocks from the nearby island of Alonnessos were grazed on the main island of the group, either on a seasonal or a permanent basis.

Finds A large number of sherds are ascribed to the Classical period (5th–4th century B.C.); several belong to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Numerous fragments of Early Byzantine combed ware were also found. In addition, a significant number of sherds belong to wine amphorae of different

periods. At many sites, pottery dated to historical times and, in particular, to the Byzantine period was recovered. At the island’s summit, worn Neolithic sherds, as well as abundant obsidian fragments were found. Finally, one worn Byzantine coin and a bronze artifact were collected.

Piperi The easternmost island of the Northern Sporades and the most isolated one (lat 39°20' N, long 24°19' E) is Piperi (Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.1; Pl. 9.3A). It is 29 miles from Patitiri of Alonnessos, 11 miles southeast of Psathoura’s lighthouse, and 24 miles north of Skyros. It measures 7 km² in area. The terrain of the island is mountainous, with a precipitous coastline, and the point of access to the island is found at a precipitous location on its southeast side. For the most part, Piperi is covered by a forest of pine trees; the remainder of the island supports low bushes. A few

oak trees also occur. Near the highest point on the island are the ruins of the old monastery of Zoodohos Pigi, whose catholicon is preserved almost intact. Zoodohos Pigi used to belong to the monastery of Xeropotamos of Mount Athos, and it constituted a prosperous community during the Ottoman period. In the past, monks intensively cultivated the land that surrounded the monastery. On the western side of the island, which is particularly precipitous, a spring with limited water is gathered in a cistern.

Finds In the area of the monastery, sherds ascribed to various chronological periods were recovered. There were a few worn prehistoric sherds, possibly

Neolithic in date. In addition, some obsidian fragments were recovered.

SURVEY IN THE DESERTED ISLANDS OF THE NORTHERN SPORADES

183

Kyra-Panagia or Pelagonisi The largest of the deserted islands with an area of 25 km², Kyra-Panagia (Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.1, 9.6A) is located northeast of Alonnessos, from which it is separated by the channel of Pelagonisi, 3.5 miles wide. The island is 4.5 miles long and 2.2 miles wide. It is mountainous (350 m altitude), with precipitous shores on the eastern, northern, and western sides. A plain called Pegnio is located on its western side. The island is mainly limestone, but ophiolithic formations also occur on its eastern side. The island offers fair quantities of spring water, and wells have been drilled at various points. In the east, a small bay is formed at the site where the monastery of Panagia is located, while in the north is the particularly safe Bay of Planitis, with a narrow entrance closed by the islet of Sfika. In the southern part of the island, where shores are smoother, a large bay opens out. This area is called Hagios Petros, the place where the monastery mentioned by old manuscripts of the Lavra monastery is situated, and the remains of an Early Christian basilica are preserved. Within the gulf, several smaller bays are formed. On the islet of Hagios Petros, which would have been a peninsula in prehistoric times, a Neolithic settlement was discovered and partly excavated (Efstratiou 1985). Flint dating from the Paleolithic Age was recovered on the islet. Efstratiou claims that certain caves located 40 m underneath the water may have been inhabited during the Paleolithic Age (Efstratiou 2000). Kyra-Panagia (or Pelagonisi) can be identified with ancient Alonnessos, as cited by Demosthenes (4.32, 12.15), Hegesippos (1.7.5), and Strabo (9.5.16); though various scholars have occasionally identified ancient Alonnessos with other islands of the Northern Sporades or even of the northern Aegean Sea (Sampson 1970, 358). In the time of Strabo (2nd century A.D.), the island still retained the name Alonnessos and was inhabited. The Roman geographer Pomponios Melas (2.106) in the 1st century A.D. refers to an island named Polyaigos in the same region. It is not known, however, whether he was referring to Kyra-Panagia or to Youra, since both of these islands were capable of providing for a large number of animals. In addition, KyraPanagia has occasionally been identified with the Euthyra or Solymnia of Pliny (HN 4.23). It is first

mentioned as Kyra-Panagia in a manuscript of the monastery of Lavra, dating from 993 A.D. (Sampson 1997c, 24–25). In 1420, Buondelmonti calls it Limen (de Sinner 1824, 129), apparently because it was well known for its two harbors (limavni [limani] means harbor in modern Greek). The island maintained the name Limen until about the 17th century, but it was mostly called Pelagos, Pelagonisi, or Gymnopelagos (Sampson 1997c, 58). Investigations undertaken on the island in the last years have resulted in locating four new sites. One of them is situated in Tragorema, at the Bay of Hagios Petros, not far from the area of Paleomonastiro (Fig. 9.6B). This is a flat coastal site close to a small beach. A thick deposit of terra rossa is preserved over the solid conglomerate rock. Worn Neolithic sherds were recovered, among them the high pedestal of a fruitstand. Moreover, two fragments of millstones were found. The second site was traced in a gorge at Pigadi (Fig. 9.7) on the road that leads from the monastery to Hagios Petros. On the neighboring slopes, abundant coarse Neolithic sherds were recovered, among them a fragment of a pithoid vase. In addition, many obsidian objects were found. In the area of Planitis a third site was identified on a fortified promontory where various pottery sherds were found. The majority of the pottery dates to the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods (Skafida 2001, 260). Here may have stood the only ancient town of the island, mentioned by Strabo (9.5.16). Skafida also mentions the presence of rural installations (Skafida 2001). In this area, a detailed survey was undertaken along the coast, as well as in the interior of the island. Very few prehistoric remains were discovered though. The rocky peninsula situated in the middle of the bay only yielded approximately one dozen prehistoric sherds among a large quantity of more recent pottery. At the entrance of the bay, on the western side, an abundance of Early Byzantine pottery was found, as well as a significant number of Neolithic sherds and some obsidian fragments. Generally, the area does not favor habitation, since its coastline is particularly precipitous. Besides, given the limited depth of the small bay, environmental conditions would have been quite different

184

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

in the Neolithic Age. Assuming that the sea level was 20 m lower than it is now, the site may have been merely a plain. Finally, on the islet of Sfika, which closes in the Bay of Planitis (Fig. 9.6A), a detailed survey was conducted and a fourth site was located (Pl. 9.3B). Unfortunately, the wind and the sea have completely eroded Sfika’s flanks and peak. The scarce pottery recovered on its western side, which is protected from the winds, dates from historical times. At its summit, flint, seashells, and earth mollusks were found, although no pottery occurred. Apparently, the islet was inhabited in the Mesolithic period, but erosion has doubtless destroyed much of

the evidence. The underwater caves that exist on its eastern and northern sides were formed in conglomerate rock, and they were very likely used for habitation in an early period when the sea level was lower. A survey conducted to the west of Sfika, in the coastal area that retains significantly thick deposits of terra rossa, yielded a few Neolithic sherds and obsidian. Estimating that in the Mesolithic and Neolithic Ages the islet was 20 to 50 m lower than today, it would not have been as efficient as it is today in protecting the coast from northerly winds or signaling the bay’s entrance. Instead, it would have been merely a low hill or a cape.

Psathoura The northernmost island of the archipelago, Psathoura has a diameter of 2 km and an area of 0.77 km² (Fig. 9.1). Psathoura is separated from Youra by a homonymous channel 3 miles wide. Its coastline is rocky and particularly precipitous, except for the southern side, where a small beach is situated. The island is very low and flat (Pl. 9.4A), features which are reflected in its name psatha or psathoura (yavqa or yaqouvra), which means rush mat. The highest point of the island (17 m) is located on the northern side, where a high lighthouse is situated (lat 30°30' N, long 24°10'49" E). In the past, the ruins visible on the northern side of the island were considered to be parts of ancient fortifications, but they are probably much more recent (Pl. 9.4B). In fact, Psathoura is a volcano that was active during the Pliocene, and is related to the Lichadonisi volcano on Euboea, the Metohi volcano, and the

Oxylithos volcano, all of which share common petrographic features. Its lava consists of augite, andesite, and olivine rocks (Papastamatiou 1961, 39–74). The soil of Psathoura is quite fertile, and there is some well water. Vegetation is thin on the northern side of the island and fairly dense and high on the southern side. The sea around the island is shallow and contains many reefs, particularly on the southern side. This site is possibly the location of a sunken ancient town. Underwater research, however, has traced only geological formations that in the 19th century fishermen mistook for walls of buildings. On the small island of Psathonisi, which is located 1 km from Psathoura and barely reaches the height of 3 m, a large quantity of pottery dating mainly to the Byzantine period or later was found. The shallowness of the water between the two islands suggests that in ancient times they would have been united.

Finds Pottery of various periods is scattered all over Psathoura, though the greatest concentration of sherds is on the southern side of the island (Fig. 9.8A). A great number of coarse sherds, among which are several rims of bowls and bases of vases, are Neolithic. A vertically pierced lug belongs to

the Early Neolithic II. Some coarse sherds made of clay with andesite inclusions seem to have been produced on the island. Abundant flint fragments bearing a white patina date from the Middle Paleolithic (Sampson 1996d). Some flakes of flint may be of levallois type. There

SURVEY IN THE DESERTED ISLANDS OF THE NORTHERN SPORADES

is also an abundance of obsidian blades and flakes that appear to have been treated in situ. Two fragments of rims with triangular sections date to Early Helladic II. A large number of sherds are ascribed to the Classical period (5th–4th century B.C.), and several sherds date to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Numerous fragments of Early

185

Byzantine combed ware were found. A large number of sherds belong to wine amphorae of different periods. In addition, one worn Byzantine coin and a bronze artifact were collected. Finally, a fragment of a bronze pin of unknown date was found that is 94.63% bronze and 0.41% arsenic.

Youra Youra is located northwest of Kyra-Panagia, from which it is separated by a homonymous channel 2 miles wide (Figs. 1.2, 1.3, 9.1). Youra is 11 km² in area, quite mountainous with its highest elevation at 570 m, and it has no port (Fig. 9.8B). During the period of excavation in the Cave of the Cyclops, various surveys were carried out on the island. Capes, glades, hilltops, plateaus at the island’s higher points, rock shelters, and small caves were investigated. Additionally, a survey was conducted in the area of the research team’s camping site, as well as on a flat prairie to the west. In the area of the prairie, two small trenches were opened. They yielded nothing but a limited number of Classical and a few coarse Neolithic sherds. It is possible that some sort of a small installation existed here, since this is the only part of the island with flat ground fit for cultivation. Moreover, the saddle of mountains provides certain strategic advantages with a view to both the east and west. In the same area, close to the path leading from the northern dock to the camping site, a few fragments of flint with a white patina and a pointed flake dating to the Middle Paleolithic were found. Nowhere else on the island did similar objects occur, not even in the Cave of the Cyclops. This area should be explored further. Its surface is densely covered by bushes though. Numerous rock shelters situated in gorges or close to the coast were explored. They yielded no prehistoric remains and produced limited pottery of Byzantine or later date. In a small cave located in the center of the island, abundant faunal remains (barnacles) were found, but no pottery. A rather large cave

situated by the sea next to the southern dock had apparently been used in prehistoric times (Pl. 9.5). Unfortunately, the fact that it was used to house animals has caused the destruction of the deposits, as the cave has a steep incline at its entrance. Only at a certain point in the entrance was a thin deposit preserved, which contained an abundance of sea shells similar in size to those of the Mesolithic layers excavated in the Cave of the Cyclops. Other rock shelters surveyed on the eastern side of the island did not yield any prehistoric finds. In one of them, traces of habitation dating from Byzantine or later years were recovered. It has been assumed that this rock shelter used to be a hermitage. No traces of prehistoric or historical finds were recovered in any other part of the island, possibly because it has remained mostly uninhabited, with the exception of the Cave of the Cyclops and the area surrounding the camping site. A little farther below the highest point on the island, numerous fragments of a large pithoid vase were found, possibly dating to late antiquity. In Neolithic times, the greater part of the island seems to have been uninhabited, though usable as a place for grazing animals and hunting. Evidence of more intense human activities might have been expected near the island’s main spring, which is called Varsimia and is located north of the Cave of the Cyclops on the southwestern side of Youra. Unfortunately, a survey in the area was very difficult due to the dense bushes that cover the surface, and it has been impossible to spot any finds dating earlier than Byzantine times.

10

History of Animal Husbandry and Agriculture on Youra and the Neighboring Islands of the Northern Sporades Adamantios Sampson

An investigation into the native flora and fauna, the animal husbandry and agriculture, and the occupation of the island of Youra and the surrounding islands of the Northern Sporades throughout history may provide clues to the use of this area during prehistoric times. The discussion begins with a description of herding and cultivation on

Youra, and continues with an outline of these activities on Pappous, Koumbi, and Gramiza; Piperi and Skantzoura; Psathoura and Psathonisi; KyraPanagia; and Alonnessos. When examined in this way, an ethnoarchaeological model of the way of life in the Northern Sporades is formed.

Youra The earliest information regarding Youra has been handed down from travelers who visited or heard rumors about the deserted islands of the Northern Sporades. B. Bordone (1534) describes Youra’s wonderful aspects, while both F. Piacenza (1688) and M. Boschini (1658) mention an abundance of wild goats that can be explained by the rich grazing and plentiful fresh water of the island.

A map of the island illustrating an ancient temple on the northern side and a castle on the southern side belongs to the same period, but one is obliged to take this piece of information as completely imaginary. At least as early as the 18th century Youra was called “the Devil’s Island” (ChoiseulGouffier 1778), and it was known as such even after the Greek Revolution of 1821.

188

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Interviews with monks and investigation of the monuments (Sampson 1970, 1997c) attest to the existence of a coenobium (monastery) during the Ottoman period (Pl. 10.1A). During the 17th (or possibly the 18th) century, small monasteries were established on virtually all of the deserted islands of the Northern Sporades (Piperi, Skantzoura, Pelagonisi, and Pappous) as well as on Youra (Sampson 1997c, 27). It has not been ruled out that a monastery was built on Youra earlier than the 18th century, as it is known that Ierotheos of the Peloponnese, who was later declared a saint, was a teacher at the Academy on Skopelos between 1723 and 1735, when he retired to the monastery of Youra where he died in 1745 (Sathas 1868). It is said that the monastery on Youra hosted up to 50 monks, but this is rather exaggerated. The monks built water reservoirs and a well on the northern side of the island, and they cultivated thousands of square meters of land in the area where relics of the old monastery are today located. In the area of Varsamia, on the western side of the island where a spring offers fine drinkable water, monks cultivated a large expanse of land. A large number of olive trees are found in a ravine not far from the Cave of the Cyclops (Pl. 10.1B). They were planted by monks and still produce olives, although no one tends to them any longer. The monks planted other trees—such as almond, apple, and fig trees—that are still standing on the southern side of the island. Tradition says that the monks were killed by lightning striking the small church—all except one, who had gone fishing. It is said that since that time the monastery remained unoccupied. Nevertheless, around 1920 we learn of another monk living on the island. In addition to the coenobium, there were hermits dwelling inside small caves on the island in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods. Others speak of pirates who used the island as a base for their operations until the 19th century. This is probably why Youra is otherwise known as Devil’s Island. The evidence of the island’s use for grazing dates back to 1841. A document of the Municipality of Alonnessos mentions an Emm. Triantafyllou as owner of 50 sheep on Alonnessos and 50 goats on Youra. The document comments that he could barely manage to support his family. Another document of the same year (1841) belongs to a German, L. Ross, and it mentions that a monk and a shepherd

with his family lived on the island of Youra. This is probably the same shepherd indicated in the previous document. In that period, the famed wild goats of Youra lived on the island, and this is also attested by travelers. According to Schultze-Westrum (1963, 145–182), the Youra goat is descended from the domesticated goat (Capra aegagrus f. hircus) that returned to a wild state. In those days this species was, of course, not protected, and it would have been natural for these animals to crossbreed with the goats of the shepherds from Alonnessos. Obviously, this species would have undergone a great decrease in number, since it was a preferred game for its tasty meat. The vegetation on the island would have been fairly well preserved until then. A significant number of native flora have been located on the island, including Fritillaria sporadum (also known as Rhinopetal) of the lily (Liliaceae) family (Hau and Hutter 1997). After the mid 19th century, the forests of holly trees on the island attracted crews of woodcutters from Salamis, who undertook the systematic cutting of trees on Youra with the permission of the Greek government. This supply of wood was intended for coal—in that period there was a great demand for braziers, and the holly tree was sought, as its wood does not easily burn. The inhabitants of Alonnessos claim that the people from Salamis (Koulouri) stayed on the island for many years and lived in makeshift lodgings or even small caves. The remains of kilns (coal-making furnaces) can be located at many points in ravines. To exploit the wealth of forest on the entire island, paths for the passage of mules were opened everywhere. This was probably the greatest ecological catastrophe that took place on the island in recent times. It is unknown when this systematic deforestation ceased. From the parts of the forest that still survive, one can appreciate how dense it would have been originally (Pl. 10.2A). It is unlikely, however, that the entire island was covered by forest, especially taking into account L. Ross (1851), who commented that the island was bare aside from streaks of pine forest. It is obvious that since he was observing Youra from a distance, he was unable to identify the species of the trees. It is quite possible that the island had been subjected to deforestation in earlier times, while the rampant grazing of wild animals would have significantly ravaged the vegetation. It

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND AGRICULTURE ON YOURA AND THE NEIGHBORING ISLANDS

is noteworthy that the holly tree, unlike the pine, does not have the ability to propagate, and as a result the forest cannot regenerate. This was also hampered by the continuous grazing of goats. It should be noted that the specific species of holly tree (Quercus coccifera) grows exclusively on Youra, and it belongs to a primary maquis. A secondary bushy vegetation exists after the degeneration of trees on the nearby islands of Pelagonisi, Gramiza, Psathoura, and Skantzoura, and expansive pine forests (Pinus halepensis) exist only on Piperi. Other shrubs that transformed into trees include the wild olive tree (Olea europaea oleaster), several Cistus species, and Phillyrea latifolia, all of which are a type of tall maquis. One also comes across Pistacia lentiscus (mastic tree) and Myrtus communis (myrtle) within a limited area on Youra. Between 1920 and 1935 stock breeders from Skopelos or Alonnessos rented the island from the Greek State and brought only sheep, since the wild goat began to be protected. One of those shepherds, called Marcos, converted the Cave of the Cyclops into an enclosure, and from that time the cave was called “Marcos’ Cave.” To assist the growth of grass necessary for sheep, over the years the shepherds burned large tracts of land mainly containing low shrubs called spiny burnet (Sarcopoterium spinosum). Sometimes, however, parts of the forest were destroyed. Unfortunately, the shepherds had to do this because sheep mainly feed on either withered grass or sprouts (blastavne~ or vlastanes in Greek) and are more sensitive, especially in the summer when the landscape becomes dry. Goats, on the other hand, are tougher, and can also feed on low shrubs. In 1936 the Greek government took strict measures for the protection of forests. That year was difficult for stock breeders, as stock breeding all over Greece was greatly restricted, and many were forced to move great distances to find new level plains for grazing, while others were even forced to sell their herds. For a few years prior to World War II, the wild goats of Youra lived in their natural environment free from any trouble. During the war (1941–1944), shepherds and goat herders came to settle on the island, bringing along 7,000 sheep and goats. Six families, including those of N. Anagnostou, A. Stamatiou, and E. Malamatenia, lived permanently on the island, while others resided there seasonally. Herds were commonly

189

small (up to 100 animals), but some were considerably larger. As a result, the intensive and rampant grazing on the island destroyed another part of the forest and shrubs, as fires were set every year to make grass grow. Moreover, the domesticated goats crossbred with the wild species. After the war and after the stock breeders had abandoned the island, the forest and wild goats began to be protected and cared for again. The wild goats soon multiplied and numbered approximately 1,000. In order to separate pure-blood animals from those crossbred with domesticated goats, the island was divided by a fence. As wild animals often become too numerous, each year the state allowed hunters to kill the males. Today, only a small number of these animals survive (approximately 60), while more animals live outside the fence. The goats on the island feed on a variety of vegetation. Holly as low shrubs constitutes good feed, but today this plant has become a tree, and thus it is saved from grazing. The low thorny shrub Sarcopoterium spinosum is widely spread, overwhelming the island. In autumn, when the plant sprouts, it becomes feed for animals. Wild celery, broom, wild marjoram, King’s Spear (Asphodeline lutea, also known as a type of edible wild onion in Greece) after its leaves have dried, wild garlic, asparagus, and other sorts of greens, are all food for goats. Acorns, when they are still tender, also constitute good food for the wild goats. Today this wild species enjoys special protection, and water reservoirs have been constructed at many locations on the island. In the past, water was scarce or even non-existent, and animals suffered during the summer months. During the winter, the wild goats find refuge in small caves or rocky shelters. The Cave of the Cyclops, prior to the closure of its entrance, was used as a shelter for the wild goats and in the past for the sheep kept on the island. As a result, a thick layer of manure accumulated in the area close to the entrance. The shepherd who used the cave prior to the Ottoman period had built a small drywall to prevent animals from getting lost. This shepherd lived inside a drywall, single room construction (2 x 3 m) approximately 30 m north of the entrance. It is not known whether it was the same shepherd or earlier stock breeders who built the cistern close to the cave’s entrance, which obviously served for animals to drink. It is logical that shepherds living on Youra would have used small caves as enclosures for

190

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

their animals. This is how one comes across place names like the “Cave of Poriotis,” “Cave of Marcos,” and “Cave of Chliveros.” In any case, enclosures on the island are scarce, and can be found more densely in the southern part close to the old monastery (Fig. 9.8B). There are no other structures related to animal grazing on the island. In the 1950s, the watchmen on Youra owned small herds of sheep that grazed throughout the year without any added feed. At one stage they brought cattle to the island, but this proved unproductive due to the absence of adequate food and water. The watchmen also engaged in bee keeping. Although this was conducted on a small scale, the production was great, as the island offers large areas of thyme. It is said that in a good year, one bee hive could produce 7–10 kilos of honey of extraordinary quality. Agriculture on the island of Youra has clearly been limited. Approximately one hectare (10,000 m²) of land was cultivated by the monks in an area close to the monastery, half of which had been cleared of rocks. The cultivation of grains under

good conditions could yield up to 2–3 tons. In that area, the monks had planted 5–6 almond trees still producing nuts today. A small area must have been cultivated with garden vegetables, and it was irrigated from the large cistern next to the church. After the monks had abandoned Youra, this land seems not to have been cultivated again. As attested, the stock breeders of the island were never engaged in cultivation. On the small open and flat plateau north of the old monastery where a well is located, olive, almond, and fig trees were planted. A wild apple tree was also found there still producing fruit every year. There were crops in the area of Varsamia where the spring is located, but the extent of the area is not known. Today everything lies barren, as well as the garden of vegetables near the spring. A grove of about 40 olive trees, planted in a ravine not far from the Cave of the Cyclops, would have managed a small production of oil. Other smaller olive trees can be found on the western side of Youra not far from the olive grove. In any case, it was noted that the olive trees produced fruit over two consecutive years.

Pappous, Koumbi, and Gramiza The model of occupation by monks during the Ottoman period on the island of Pappous, located between the islands of Youra and Kyra-Panagia, constitutes a rare pattern for survival and economic management. A number of animals grazed in a limited area of low vegetation of Pistacia lentiscus and holm oak. As the morphology of the island is low, with many plains and rich deposits of soil, systematic cultivation of grains and legumes took place. It is almost inconceivable as to how such a limited extent of land would be sufficient to support a large number of people and animals (Fig. 10.1A). The fact that the still-preserved windmill was capable of grinding the wheat both from Youra and Kyra-Panagia has made a lasting impression upon this author. Today the island is fallow, but many open areas with thick layers of terra rossa occur. The two

large cisterns mainly served for irrigation of fields with garden vegetables. During the early days wild rabbits were transferred to the island, and today they have grown in number. The rocky island of Koumbi located between Gramiza and Pappous (see Ch. 9) was used by monks for grazing their animals, as it does not offer land fit for cultivation. Gramiza, a fairly large but rocky and precipitous island, offers a well-protected open plateau appropriate for cultivation. This island is said to have been exploited by monks for grazing as well as for cultivation. In later years, a civilian rented the island for grazing; he also owned a spacious well-built room on the highest point of the island.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND AGRICULTURE ON YOURA AND THE NEIGHBORING ISLANDS

191

Piperi and Skantzoura The island of Piperi, detached from the remainder of the group of islands east of Youra, was not ideal for grazing because a dense pine forest covered it to a great extent. Despite this, many goats live on the island today, feeding on holm oak and Pistacia lentiscus. In the past, cattle brought to the island were adapted to its environment, and over the years became much smaller in size. Today, only a few animals remain on the island after being hunted by poachers. During the Ottoman period, a famed monastery operated on Piperi under the auspices of the great monastery of Xeropotamos on Mount Athos. Caesarius Dapontes, a scholar of the 18th century originating from Skopelos, spent time there (Sampson 1997c, 26). In his books and manuscripts he describes the beauty of the island that was particularly inaccessible and inhospitable. A large number of monks cultivated an extent of land surrounding the monastery, and they managed to be fairly self-sufficient in their production of grain. They also installed an olive press and produced oil from the trees on the island. A single spring can be found on the eastern side of the island beneath the monastery, which despite the scarcity of water, managed to sustain the monastic community for centuries. One can only admire the patience and diligence of the monks who survived on this isolated island, carrying millstones from Psathoura and other necessities along inaccessible

paths and over the rocks on the island peaks. Aside from its role in monastic life, from time to time Piperi also served as a base for pirates who exploited its unapproachable position. F. Piacenza (1688) spoke of pirates seeking shelter on the island as early as the mid 17th century. Pirates existed in the area during the Greek Revolution war years (1821–1831) and later as well, until they were finally pursued by the Greek Navy. In later times, after its dependence on Mount Athos had ceased, Piperi became the property of Th. Lemonis from Skopelos, owner of the few semi-wild animals still living on the island. Quite a few years ago, a resident of Alonnessos, K. Agallos, lived on the island for a number of years and herded goats. The enclosure located at a small distance to the west of the old monastery closer to the sea probably belonged to him. Skantzoura is another island that is fairly isolated but located very close to Alonnessos. A monastery operated there during the Ottoman period. The vegetation on the island is low and consists mainly of Juniperus phoenicea—a species not to be found on the other islands—as well as Quercus coccifera and Pistacia lentiscus. Winter is the most appropriate season for grazing sheep and goats on Skantzoura, as there is a good deal of grass, but in the summer animals suffer, as mentioned by the stock breeders. Today the island is rented by shepherds who let goats graze freely.

Psathoura and Psathonisi Psathoura is the northernmost island of the Northern Sporades (Pl. 10.2B). An active volcano of the Miocene has created rugged black rocks as well as an extensive plateau with an abundance of volcanic and fairly fertile earth. As indicated by other volcanic areas (Santorini, Yali, Nisyros), these rocks retain moisture, and despite the absence of irrigation, the ground is quite fertile. In the 19th century, a large part of the island belonged to both a resident of Skopelos and a resident of Alonnessos. Wheat was cultivated with

significant yield. In addition, the island supported cattle throughout the year, while “thinner” animals were not sustainable on the island, as goats would eventually eat a sort of grass found all over the island and die. The island never had any spring water, but cisterns and wells were constructed. Fairly developed bushy vegetation can be found on the southern side of the island, mainly consisting of Pistacia lentiscus and Olea europea that have grown into trees due to the absence of grazing. F. Piacenza (1688) mentioned that shepherds lived on

192

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

the island, while on the northern side an old town had already been destroyed in his times. Sheep were brought to the neighboring islet of Psathonisi—a particularly low island—to feed on reeds. In earlier times, the island supported cattle.

Despite its small size, cereals or lucerne were sown on the island. Today a derelict enclosure and a roughly constructed dwelling still stand (Fig. 10.1B).

Kyra-Panagia Kyra-Panagia is a large island that is 28 km² in area (Figs. 9.6A, 10.2A). It offers large tracts of land fit for cultivation, expansive pastureland, two safe harbors, and spring water (four springs and six artesian wells). It appears that this island was the ancient Alonnessos that Philip II of Macedon sought to have in his possession. Today, however, the island is relatively uninhabited, since only one monk lives in the monastery of the Virgin Mary, and one family lives in the old settlement located on the southern part of the island. Vegetation is mainly low and consists of developed shrubs: Pistacia lentiscus, strawberry trees (Arbutus andrachne), holly, wild olive, laurel, briar (Erica arborea), and a few other trees (pine, holly, olive). Many olive trees (about 600) can be found close to Hagios Petros, and in the past they produced three tons of oil per year. In addition, many fruit-bearing trees can be found in the area surrounding the small settlement and close to the monastery of the Virgin Mary. The island is the most appropriate for raising goats, and shepherds from Alonnessos or other places constantly come to the island for this purpose. In a manuscript of Antonio di Millo (1591), it is mentioned that the island was uninhabited. In the beginning of the 17th century, however, 15 shepherds from Syros lived on Kyra-Panagia, as referenced in the Isolario of F. Lupazzolo (1638, see Hasluck 1910–1911). Although the information of the Italian traveler, F. Piacenza (1688), is vague, and his identification of the island is problematic, it appears that in his time (mid 17th century) 40 shepherds lived on Kyra-Panagia along with a significant number of monks. In addition, it is mentioned that the Ottomans cut down trees on the island to construct their galleys, while piracy also was rampant in the area. During the same period, M. Boschini (1658) observed that most of Kyra-Panagia was deforested, and it had only a few inhabitants.

Due to its rich natural resources, a large agricultural and stock-breeding settlement could survive completely self-sufficiently on Kyra-Panagia. The island’s economy, however, was based mainly on stock breeding alone. Efstratiou (1985) believes that the Neolithic settlement of Hagios Petros depended more on stock breeding than on fishing, judging from the scarcity of fish bones recovered in the excavation of that site. A few decades ago, shepherds from Alonnessos rented the island from the monastery of Lavra to graze their animals. About 2,000 goats grazed there, and the shepherds adopted a pattern of restricted transhumance. The animals were seasonally taken from the field and brought to higher locations. From October to April the goats lived in stockyards in the lowlands, while in the summer they moved to mountainous areas. Three stockyards are preserved, all with enclosures. Although the island is not particularly large, there are significant climatic differences from one location to another. From May to June the animals were brought to the stockyards at Anixiatika, whereas in June and July they stayed in the coolest stockyard at an altitude of 300 m. From August to October they stayed in a stockyard on the northern side of the island, close to the bay of Planitis. In a manner similar to the rest of the deserted islands, intensive grazing on Kyra-Panagia resulted in a relatively low form of vegetation. Attempts were made to bring sheep and cattle to the island in the 1960s, but these failed, as the grass was insufficient. In the past there must have been pigs on the island as well, as the place name of Gournomantri (meaning “pig enclosure”) indicates. The stock breeders who lived on the island in the past also systematically engaged in the production of cheese. During the milking season (from April 1st to July 31st), six persons would milk 2,000 animals and collect 500 kilos on a daily basis. A total of

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND AGRICULTURE ON YOURA AND THE NEIGHBORING ISLANDS

1,500 goats were born annually, an extreme number even for present standards when animals are given added feed. At Easter the younger animals were slaughtered and sold to the surrounding islands. These shepherds were not engaged in fishing despite the abundance of fisheries on the island. As early as the beginning of the 16th century, B. Bordone (1534) mentions the plenitude of fish in the harbors of Hagios Petros and Planitis. Also, the shepherds did not cultivate grains; instead they brought all the necessary cereals from Alonnessos. They did undertake limited bee keeping, however. They produced 60–80 kilograms of honey

193

from 40 beehives on an annual basis. In the 1970s, 10 people lived on the island, while in the 1980s the inhabitants of Kyra-Panagia decreased as tourism on Alonnessos increased. Today another strategy of animal husbandry has been put into practice on Kyra-Panagia. A stock breeder from Volos has rented the entire island from the monastery of Lavra and keeps more than 4,000 goats in a semi-wild state, without being milked or given any added feed. From time to time, he snares the animals headed for slaughter by using traps and gathers them on the islet of Hagios Petros where the Neolithic settlement is located.

Alonnessos It is imperative that one becomes familiar with the economy of the large island located north of Skopelos that has always been the center of the whole area and the main base of access to the deserted islands. Alonnessos is, in fact, ancient Ikos (Sampson 1970), which had two towns in ancient times. Today, the greater part of the island is covered by dense pine forests and shrubs, and only a small part on the southern side of the island is cultivated. Its inhabitants have always cultivated cereals, planted olive trees, and had extensive vineyards. From ancient times to the middle of the 20th century, wine was the main product exported. Today, these vineyards no longer exist, only a small area of land is cultivated, and olive oil provides only a secondary income, since tourism enterprises make up the primary resource. In the 1960s the vineyards were ravaged by a disease stemming from America, and ever since that time the local inhabitants turned their attention to the sea. Today, 85 families live by fishing. Due to the cultivation of the southern side of the island, grazing was restricted to its northern side in the area of Geraka, where there are no pine trees but a bushy region fit for grazing goats. The distance from Chorio, the island’s main settlement, is a 4–5 hour walk. This economic peculiarity was dictated by the island’s configuration and special environmental conditions. The pastureland in Geraka was not private but held by the state. Many families lived either permanently or temporarily in

the area, and each one owned a herd of 100–200 animals. One shepherd claims to have 1,000– 1,500 animals. Water can be found only at a single location, and therefore great effort was made to obtain water supplies. Each family had many members who were necessary to supervise the herds and oversee the cultivation of the fields close to Chorio. At Geraka, each family cultivated limited quantities of cereals and legumes (lentils and broad beans) in a small area of land. The Kalogiannaios and the Tsoukanades families were the main families living in the area, and today they still boast large numbers. Families who lived permanently at Geraka formed a tightly connected community with direct relations to the mountain and none at all to the sea. The cultural behavior of this stock-breeding community at Geraka appears to be the result of a long-term and complicated process, which must be attributed to environmental and other factors. Elements of social behavior shaped from conditions of a permanent and stable nature, such as the environment, usually have significantly greater impact on the cultural behavior of a group than any transient changes of political form (Efstratiou 1984). The inhabitants of Alonnessos, therefore, became fishermen at a much later period. In the past very few of the inhabitants of Alonnessos would fish, and this only occasionally. Instead, they would often trade wine for fish. At Geraka an incident is recounted concerning an elderly shepherd who sometimes fished for milkfish

194

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

using fishing line made from the hair of cattle tails. Perhaps this ethnographic parallel could explain the method used by the Mesolithic fishermen of Youra. Until 30 years ago, the population of the island was particularly limited in number, and people were forced to work off the island in order to make a living. The inhabitants of Alonnessos, women in particular, would go to Skopelos during the summer and work in the plum factories. Many women also worked as housekeepers for the wealthy residents of Skopelos. The people of Alonnessos were generally considered “inferior” to those of Skopelos. Year after year in May and June, many inhabitants of Alonnessos would go on boats to Chalkidiki and assist in the harvest, bringing back the necessary wheat. Agricultural production on the island was always low. It is said that two buckets of sown wheat would render four buckets harvested. These trips to the north ceased in the 1960s, with the introduction of combine-harvester machines. Today only a few locals graze animals on the island. Stock breeding is controlled by approximately 10 individuals, who have introduced new strategic methods that require limited effort and enable ownership of well over 500 animals. A stock breeder at Geraka tends about 1,000 goats, which graze freely inside an enclosed area. The animals graze all day on the mountain and return in the morning for added feed and water. They are not milked and are exclusively used for meat production. Another stock

breeder with a similar number of animals owns a large area in the highlands south of Geraka. He normally milks animals once a day, and he claims that the quantity of milk is five times that of the past, when animals would graze only in the forest. Most of the stock breeders with large herds, however, do not milk them, as this requires much effort and men. Today, winter and summer stockyards exist at Geraka. To the south, on a plateau of the eastern side of the island, there are 4–5 farmhouses similar to the “shacks” on Skopelos. In the same area, two winter and two summer stockyards of a complicated architectural form can be found. Two other stockyards, one of which still operates today, occur on the western side of the island, close to the small country church of Hagios Konstantinos. They are, in fact, summer enclosures made of picket (giortous), and their interior room is supported by interlocking wood, while spaces are closed with thorny shrubs. In the first enclosure (Fig. 10.2B, right), two separate spaces are formed: a rectangular one (8 x 7 m) and another one ellipsoidal in plan (10 x 8 m). The interior has different levels supported by retaining walls. The second enclosure (Fig. 10.2B, left), located on the edge of a small tract, appears older and is fairly run-down. It consists of two rooms that are rectangular and trapezoidal in shape. The second enclosure also has a circular space at one end that could be closed off handily using wire.

11

A Mesolithic Cranial Vault and Other Human Remains Nickos A. Poulianos

Introduction During the 1995 excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops, a human cranial vault (calvarium) was discovered at a depth of 3.10 m in Rectangle 2 of Level 21 of Trench CEast (see Fig. 1.15B). It is estimated to be about 10,000–11,000 years old (Sampson 1996a, 1998a). The calvarium was

deposited as an isolated fragment, since no other remains of its skeleton were found. This is the first remnant of an individual of such an advanced age found in the Greek islands. Other human bone fragments have also been excavated, however from later cultural levels.

The Cranial Vault The human cranial vault was unearthed in nine fragments, which were transported to Athens and deposited at the Cyclades Ephorate of Antiquities. The preservation and restoration of the fragments were undertaken by the author. All of the peripheral bone margins were evidently broken during the deposition of the calvarium into the archaeological layer. About ten small fragments, 2–3 grams each, were preserved but not chemically treated with

consolidating materials for eventual future lab analysis (for example, DNA, proteins, etc.). The restoration indicated that fragments of the parietal, frontal, and occipital bones compose the cranial vault. The parietals are almost complete, apart from the mastoid and the sphenoidal angles. The frontal bone is preserved almost as far as the metopion and the occipital bone almost as far as the inion. The thin bone structure, the relatively

196

NICKOS A. POULIANOS

small cranial width (see Table 11.1; Pl. 11.1), and the well-developed parietal tubercles suggest that it belonged to a female individual about 65–70 years old (on the basis of Olivier’s 1969 criteria). Signs of slight osteoporosis are present near the coronal suture. The only possible diagonal outer measurement is the skull’s maximum width, which is 0.136 m. The maximum cranial length cannot be measured precisely. However, the maximum length between the broken metopion and inion is 0.186 m, which probably coincides with the maximum cranial length. Judging from the morphology and bone inclination, it could not exceed 0.190 m and could not be less than 0.181 m. Thus, its cranial index

lies between 71.5 (in the case of 0.190 m) and 75.1 (in the case of 0.181 m), with an average value of 73.3. Therefore, the calvarium belonged to a dolichocranic skull. The form of the calvarium when viewed in norma verticalis is pentagonoid (after Sergi 1914), and the development of the inion is of the first degree (according to Broca’s scale [1879]). The fine relief of the skull’s bones is worthy of mention. Along with the craniometric features, it indicates that Aegean-Mediterranean traits prevail over the Epirotic-continental ones (for more details concerning the above terminology, see A. Poulianos 1988, 2002).

Comparison and Discussion Due to the lack of craniometric and morphological data from the Balkans, the comparison here relies on four female “Protomediterranean” skulls. One is from Monclus, southern France (Ferembach 1974a, 1974b), and the other three are from the Crimean cemetery of Voloshki (Debetz 1955). According to Ferembach (1974b) with regard to the western Mediterranean (specifically, northern France and Spain), the Protomediterranean anthropological type is a continuation of Upper Paleolithic populations. This type coexisted with Late Cromagnonoids of northern and eastern France, while Italy was also influenced by the features of the Obercassel Central European type. For closer comparison, the measurements of a female Protomediterranean skull (with the most refined relief) from Monclus (Ferembach 1974b), which approach the corresponding measurements of the Youra skull, are reported in Table 11.1. The skeletal remains from sites on the Mediterranean coasts of North Africa (e.g., Taforalt, Afalou; cf. Ferembach 1962) and the Middle East are influenced by certain Negroid traits, though not so much as those from the African Mesolithic sites of Sudan (Greene and Armelagos 1972) and Kenya (Leakey 1935). Nine buried Mesolithic skeletons were found at Voloshki, belonging to a group with a particular anthropological composition. Although one of them

presents some Mongoloid characteristics, they were classified by Debets (1955) within two European anthropological types: (a) the Late Cro-Magnon type influenced by certain African features (low orbits, slight prognathism, relatively wide nose, and strongly expressed dolichocrania), and (b) the Protomediterranean type (high orbits, orthognathism, stenorrinia, and moderate dolichocrania). Three female (and three male) skulls, the mean measurements of which approach those of the Youra skull, belong to the last type. Thus, the comparative Mesolithic examples of Table 11.1 strengthen the hypothesis that the cranial vault from the Cave of the Cyclops belongs to the Mediterranean-Aegean anthropological type. Debetz (1955) attributes the African influences at Voloshki to a northward migration of Negroid elements. This migration, however, was moderated by previous contacts with inhabitants of the Middle East during the Mesolithic, and the African influences notably disappeared from Crimea later in the Neolithic. In my opinion, the Youra cranial vault indicates that the Protomediterranean influences, at least on the Crimean peninsula, also could have originated in the northern Aegean area, especially if Youra represents the earliest Protomediterranean skull found in the Balkans, if not all of Europe (since the Mesolithic appeared earlier in the southeastern area of the continent). Thus, diachronic interaction

A MESOLITHIC CRANIAL VAULT AND OTHER HUMAN REMAINS

between European anthropological types, as well as those of other continents, is evident, especially around their points of contact and marginal spread. Most probably, such events took place during favorable paleoclimatic conditions and occur as early as the Lower Pleistocene (Poulianos 1995). On continental Greece, Mesolithic human remains come from three other caves: Franchthi Cave in the Argolid (Jacobsen 1969; Poulianos 1975), Kokkinovouni Cave in Attica (Poulianos 1974), and Theopetra Cave in Thessaly (Stravopodi, Manolis, and Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999). The Attica remnant (8,700 years old) is represented only by an isolated fragment of an occipital bone; however, it reveals Epirotic-continental traits, mainly because of its large dimensions (especially its width). The almost complete male skeleton of the Argolid (9,500 years old) is more easily distinguished as belonging to the same type, because it also resembles the Upper Paleolithic skulls from Cro-Magnon and Przedmost (cf. Poulianos 1974, 1988). In Theopetra Cave, the remains of two skeletons were found during the last decade. The first is a female Mesolithic skeleton (7,500–8,500 years old). The second belongs to an Upper Paleolithic male (14,500 years old). Only the cranial vault was rescued from the latter; the rest of the skull, along with much of the postcranial material, was unfortunately destroyed. The bones of the Upper Paleolithic skull are much thicker and of more primitive morphology compared to the Mesolithic skull, probably indicating that climatic changes during the end of the Upper Pleistocene (ca. 12,000 years B.P.) caused a particularly rapid evolutionary process in a relatively short time interval. On the other hand, the general morphology of the Mesolithic skull supports its grouping with the Epirotic-continental (and particularly the “Protosarakatsanic”) type (see also Poulianos 2000). The geographic spread of the Epirotic-continental type among the modern populations of the Greek

197

mainland (see Poulianos 1988) is also confirmed by the morphology of the Mesolithic skeletons described above (mainly from the Argolid and Thessaly), which likely occupied the majority of the southern Balkans during the Mesolithic. The Youra skull provides the first proof for the parallel appearance of the Aegean anthropological type—accompanied by the refinement of the bones and a fishing economy. In the following periods, the Epirotic-continental type gradually moved inland, abandoning the coastal areas to the Aegean type. The existence of the Aegean type in such an early period was confirmed by the discovery of a Mesolithic cemetery at Maroulas on Kythnos Island by A. Sampson in 1996. Because many of the graves were found near the seashore or even underwater, their skeletal remains were so highly corroded that few of them were rescued. Nevertheless, it is obvious, especially from the limb bones, that most of them have the slender morphology of the Aegean type and clearly belong to Europeoids. I should note, however, the exception of one female strongly brachycranic skull from the Mesolithic site of Maroulas on Kythnos in the Cyclades (Poulianos, forthcoming). The spread of the Aegean type to most of the islands and coastal areas is more evident during later periods. An example is a female skull of Late Minoan Crete (see Table 11.1), which was discovered by St. Alexiou and studied by A. Poulianos (1967). As expected of more recent skulls, it is more tumescent in the parietal and occipital regions as compared to the Youra cranial vault. However, the measurements and the refinements of bones and skull relief indicate that a close affinity to the Aegean type existed diachronically. Thus, the anthropological data from the southern Balkans as well as the broader Mediterranean area show that the roots of not only the Epirotic-continental type but also the Aegean type reach at least into the Mesolithic period. For the above reasons, the cranial vault from the Cave of the Cyclops may be considered one of the most important discoveries of Greek paleoanthropology and prehistory.

198

NICKOS A. POULIANOS

Other Human Remains Aside from the female cranial vault described above, human bones or bone fragments have been discovered within various later levels of the Cave of the Cyclops (see Table 11.2). These bones do not offer further comparative anthropological conclusions. However, they confirm the archaeological data, for example that the use of the cave was continuous during the Mesolithic as well as the Neolithic periods because they belong to both sets

of stratigraphic units. The minimum number of individuals, also according to the stratigraphic data, is 9; along with the female cranial vault, the number becomes 10. The fact that some bones belong to adults and others to young individuals indicates that during their expeditions, the Neolithic and Mesolithic inhabitants of the northern Aegean were accompanied by young people, probably to practice navigating, fishing, and/or to perform other tasks.

Ethnoarchaeology In addition to the above anthropological observations, some insights of an ethnoarchaeological nature can be made about the cranial vault. There is a slight “deepening” of the frontal bone parallel to the coronal suture. It is probably due to a kind of swaddling-band (see Debetz 1936), which is an unknown custom for such an early period. Also, it is possible to assume that Mesolithic women participated in open-sea fishing. Youra is a very small and rocky island that offers no possibilities for habitation during the winter. Because of the compulsory migration from Youra to the surrounding islands during the winter, the woman represented by the skull fragment must have had a close relationship with the sea. In addition, Greek island women participated in fishing activity until recently (personal communication by Charalambos Douris, Kostas Karambassis, and other inhabitants of Ikaria Island).

A Mesolithic skull with such an advanced age at death (65–70 years) has never before been found. Thus, it is possible to assume that the Aegean population had a high average life expectancy, which could be due to the enriched diet, vigorous climate, more peaceful social life, and controlled population growth on the islands. Bones of goat, pig (probably domesticated), and various birds indicate that the diet of the Mesolithic fishermen was enriched by a considerable variety of proteins (Sampson 1996a, 1998a). The advanced age of life would have enabled the accumulation of technological and social knowledge (see also Poulianos 2000). Therefore, based on the above data, fishing techniques and knowledge of navigation in the Aegean Sea could have easily been developed to a greater degree under such favorable conditions in the next epochs.

Conclusion The Mesolithic cranial vault (10,000–11,000 years old) found in the Cave of the Cyclops most probably belongs to a female individual 65–70 years old and of the Aegean-“Protomediterranean” European anthropological type. The ethnoarchaeological

evidence indicates a population with a beneficial environmental and cultural background. The cranial vault may represent the earliest “Protomediterranean” Mesolithic find, not only from the Aegean, but also from the rest of Europe.

12

Conclusions Adamantios Sampson

Gathering together the evidence collected from the excavation of the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra, the study of the artifacts and organic remains (see also Sampson, forthcoming), and the survey of the surrounding islands provides a comprehensive picture of the human occupation of the site. Drawing upon the archaeological, historical, and ethnological evidence for human activity in the Northern Sporades and particularly on the island of Youra, an image of the use of the cave over time and its place

in the prehistory and history of the Northern Sporades as well as Greece is formed. An understanding of the culture and achievements of the Mesolithic and Neolithic occupants of the Cave of the Cyclops allows for comparison with contemporary cultures in Europe and the Near East and an examination of survival strategies, cultural and technological developments, and far ranging questions associated with the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods throughout Europe and the eastern Mediterranean.

The Use of the Cave of the Cyclops through Time The Mesolithic Period During the Mesolithic period the Cave of the Cyclops was inhabited in the area close to the entrance, while no activity is evident in the rest of the

cave. As food remains consisting of goat and pig bones were recovered all the way down to the deeper layers, we may deduce that Mesolithic people

200

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

occupied the site and the island regularly and probably for at least a substantial period of the year. The fine-grained soil of the Mesolithic deposits can be associated with the prolonged existence of animals inside the entrance, and suggests that the site was used as a pen whether or not human beings were living inside; wild animals also may have taken shelter in the cave during the winter. It is also possible that

the early occupants blocked the area of the entrance with some kind of poorly-constructed walls both toward the interior of the cave in order to protect the animals from getting lost or injured in the darkness and toward the exterior of the cave to prevent them from escaping out into the hills. This has been a common practice for shepherds using caves in the area until recently.

The Early and Middle Neolithic Periods In the early part of the Neolithic period, habitation inside the cave appears to have been scarce and only after long intervals, as is also suggested by the mixed stratigraphy. Occupation was still limited to the cave’s entrance. Toward the end of the Early Neolithic and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic, activity inside the cave became more intense around the large stalagmite pillar in the area between Trenches B and C of the cave’s entrance. However, the occurrence of a limited number of floor or hearth remains there suggests that the use of the Cave of the Cyclops was still not continuous nor for long periods of time. Occupation was considerably decreased toward the area of the cave’s opening, as indicated by the thin MN Level 2 of Trench E. Apart from serving as a domicile for humans, the Cave of the Cyclops may have been used as a pen for domestic animals or a shelter for wild game when it was uninhabited by humans.

This is the earliest period that the human inhabitants of the Cave of the Cyclops explore and use the dark area next to the small pond of the cave’s interior, as indicated by Trench A (see Ch. 3). The reason for the use of this area is obscure: A large accumulation of pottery decorated with red, weavinginspired patterns has been retrieved, while other artifacts and food remains are missing. It is possible that this narrow, humid, and completely dark space was unrelated to common domestic activities, although it cannot be excluded that the water reservoir may have been exploited at this time. However, the sophisticated pottery in association with the imposing character of this part of the cave suggests that this place inspired some particular symbolic meaning for the MN people of the area, which may have even extended to ritual enactments.

The Late Neolithic Period Following a period of about one millennium during which the cave remained unoccupied, habitation was again observed in the entrance area as well as the interior of the cave in the late years of Late Neolithic I. Deposits are fairly thick and contain habitation features such as floors and hearths, which suggest that human occupation increased compared to the earlier Neolithic and was of longer duration during LN Ib (approximately 5800–5300 B.C.), as indicated by the pottery. The large number of pithoid vases points to food storage activities in this period. At the same time, the fine consistency of the soil indicates the intensive presence of animals in the

cave in a manner similar to the Mesolithic period. However, storage and animal housing practices probably do not occur simultaneously at the site; moreover, a portion of the animal bones from this phase represent non-domestic fauna (Trantalidou, forthcoming). In any case, the presence of animals caused serious damage to the preservation of human features. In the same period, activities in the area close to the small pond within the cave (Trench A) became very intensive. In this location there are numerous vessels of various shapes and sizes as well as jars deposited inside thick layers of burned material.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal remains from this date were also retrieved from the large hall of the cave (Trench F). In summary, the population occupying the cave during this period probably comes from a nearby open settlement, and they used the Cave of the Cyclops as a supplementary site for subsistence purposes.

201

Sporadic pottery finds dated to the end of the Late Neolithic (LN II) have been recovered within the upper deposits of the cave’s entrance, but their number is too limited to provide a secure explanation of the use of the site at that time.

The Bronze Age through Historic Periods There are some minor Bronze Age traces in the Cave of the Cyclops, all stemming from Trench C. A few sherds date to the Early Bronze Age, a small quantity, including examples of Minyan ware, date to the Middle Bronze Age, while the smallest amount of fragments date to the Mycenaean period. This rarity of Bronze Age finds indicates that during the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C., humans visited the cave and possibly also the island of Youra very infrequently. There is also some probable Geometric pottery. Two intact vases and a considerable number of sherds from the Classical period (5th century B.C.) were collected from a niche deep inside the cave, and these are possibly connected to ritual practices. A few Classical sherds were also found within the surface deposits of the trenches at the cave’s entrance, and

they may also be associated with sacred practices. In Hellenistic times the human presence became much more intensive, as suggested by the numerous fragments of the pointed lower ends of amphorae, which served to transport water. These occur throughout the upper deposits at the entrance of the cave and on the surface of the main interior hall of the cave. The use of the Cave of the Cyclops increased radically during Roman times (1st century B.C.–1st century A.D.); in addition to the pottery of this period, thousands of lamps in all areas of the cave, even in the narrowest niches, are evidence of extraordinary ritual practices (see Ch. 6). On the basis of environmental studies showing increased humidity during the Roman period, it is assumed that occupation of the cave for purposes other than symbolic activity would be impossible at that time.

Mesolithic and Neolithic Economy on Youra and Ethnographic Parallels Mammals and Fowls In modern times the island of Youra has been a bountiful pasture due to its large size and vegetation, which was even more abundant in the 19th century A.D. than it is today. We assume that the shallow deposits of soil existing today in limited areas on the island represent only a tiny percent of the island’s original thick soil deposits that must have eroded over time. The earliest Youra inhabitants would have herded imported domesticated animals on these pastures unless they domesticated

their local wild ancestors, which existed on Youra already from the Pleistocene era (see Trantalidou, forthcoming). The study of faunal material from the Cave of the Cyclops shows that the occurrence of wild goat (Capra aegagrus) in comparison to other species is substantial in the Neolithic period. In the Mesolithic layers the number of caprids is very limited, while their size is greater than the Neolithic specimens. Trantalidou (2003, 166) has supported elsewhere that on Youra in the Lower

202

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Mesolithic a selective crossbreeding took place to achieve domestication. The presence of some bones of the species Cervus elaphus (red deer) in Mesolithic layers is impressive. The wet conditions of the Mesolithic period and the forest environment (Ioakim, forthcoming) would have favored the presence of deer, which had probably colonized Youra by swimming from neighboring land. The study of bone hooks revealed that many of them were made of deer bones (Moundrea-Agrafioti, forthcoming). Although goats seem to have naturally adapted to this rugged island, there is evidence that before World War II shepherds from Alonnessos also grazed their sheep on Youra and actually burned the woods and bushes to make grass for them. Sheep were also present in Neolithic Youra and similar anti-ecological behavior and shortsighted practices may have been undertaken. In the early stages of Mesolithic Youra there is evidence of keeping pigs. It seems reasonable that

such an important animal for meat production would be maintained on the island, especially since the vegetation of Youra consisted mainly of acorn-producing oak trees (see Ioakim, forthcoming; Ntinou, forthcoming), the pig’s preferential food source. Nevertheless, the relevant bone samples from the cave are limited, and though some sort of early domestication of this species is possible due to their small size, this has not been substantiated (Trantalidou 2003, 147). Acorn ripens between October and December, and it is possible that Mesolithic people would have regularly come to the island during this season to gather the crop, a scenario also proposed for Mesolithic sites in Europe (Bonsall 1989). The recovery of a significant bird bone assemblage from the Mesolithic deposits of the Cave of the Cyclops (see Trantalidou, forthcoming) suggests that, to a considerable degree, the early prehistoric population of Youra supplemented their diet with hunting.

Shells The collection of shells seems to have constituted a primary subsistence activity of the cave’s occupants throughout the entire Mesolithic period (see Karali, forthcoming). Chiefly limpets (Patella vulgata) and secondly mollusks (Monodonta) and mussels (mytillus) must have provided the people of Youra with plentiful proteins. The first two species are not especially tasty and are now considered to be the food of “poor” populations, as they occur in abundance in the Aegean and can be collected easily on the shore. Especially with reference to the shell’s nutritional value, different opinions have been put forward; the prevailing theory concludes that although they are rich in proteins, they could not have exceeded the role of a nutritional supplement. The overconsumption of shells noted in the Mesolithic in northern Europe (Bonsall 1989) and elsewhere should be attributed primarily to the hot and humid climatic conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the Holocene. The beginning of the consumption of shells in Franchthi Cave is dated to the same period, approximately 11,000 B.P. (Shackleton 1988, 17). In the Mesolithic, shells were collected from various depths and locations (rocks and sandy beds),

while at the beginning of the Neolithic the collection of shells was carried out only from rocky coastal sites. Mussels, in particular, do not exist today in the water around the islands of the Northern Sporades, except in Kyra-Panagia’s Planitis Bay, where the species has prospered due to the sandy bed and brackish waters of this area. Still, one has to consider that if the sea level in the Mesolithic was 40–50 meters lower than at present, the present day shallowwater Bay of Planitis would not exist. Nonetheless, even when the sea level was lower, other bays with sandy beds would have existed where this species could survive. However, it seems unlikely that the island of Youra had any bays due to its abrupt geomorphology, while Kyra-Panagia, on the other hand, must have always had bays and a greater variety in the morphology of its seabed. Consequently, in the 9th and 8th millennia B.C. it is possible that the occupants of the Cave of the Cyclops either collected mussels from the nearby island or the inhabitants of Kyra-Panagia transported the mussels they collected to the cave. The large mussel assemblage within the cave’s Mesolithic deposits also suggests that the

CONCLUSIONS

passage separating the islands of Youra and KyraPanagia was rather short and easy to cross at that time, as the sensitive mussels would not have survived a long journey to the cave. It should be noted that the recovery of Mesolithic chipped stone artifacts on the island of Sfika at the present entrance of Planitis Bay provides evidence confirming human presence in that area. In Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic Youra the number of shells is dramatically reduced. Nevertheless, limpets continued to be a popular food source until the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Besides limpets and mussels, a small quantity of other species such as Ostrea edulis (oyster) and Spondylus gaederopus (Aegean mussel) were recovered in the cave deposits. Local fishermen supplied the information that some of the aforementioned

203

species still exist in the western parts of Youra at a depth of 5–7 m, and even Spondylus gaederopus may appear more rarely and possibly exists in very deep waters. With reference to ethnographic parallels regarding subsistence on shells, the case of Australia is noteworthy; women were almost exclusively responsible for collecting shells (Flood 1995, 247), and they worked together with men only during those periods when shells were the only possible food resource. In addition, the seasonal abundance of shells and fish was an opportunity for social festivities or ceremonies. It is useful to keep this in mind when assessing the possible symbolic aspect of the Mesolithic shell assemblage from the Cave of the Cyclops in addition to its economic impact.

Fishing The prerequisites for fish to be considered a population’s primary food resource are that fishermen are specialized and people show a preference for eating fish. This has not been the case throughout the history of the Northern Sporades. On the contrary, in the last few centuries the inhabitants of Alonnessos, although living in an environment with plenty of fish, were rather exclusively oriented toward stock breeding, and they lived in the mountainous areas of the island away from the sea (see Ch. 10). Local history indicates that the population of Alonnessos originated in Macedonia and Thessaly and was therefore traditionally involved in agriculture and animal husbandry. It is only in the last decades that they have begun to build small rowboats for fishing after a flow of tourists swamped the area. Similarly, the small groups of people who in time inhabited the smaller islands (Piperi, Kyra-Panagia, Skantzoura, and Youra) were exclusively stock breeders and almost never fished. Practices associated with the sea were also rendered difficult due to the absence of ports or appropriate bays on these islands—with the exception of Kyra-Panagia—and the islands’ precipitous coastlines (see Chs. 9 and 10). Our ethnoarchaeological research in the area has also shown that the monks who lived on Youra island in the Ottoman period rarely depended upon fishing. This is also

confirmed by the absence of any considerable construction on the coast except for a small natural recess created on the rocks, allowing for a small boat to be pulled ashore. The large variety of fish—both with respect to size and species (19 species)—recovered in the Mesolithic levels of the Cave of the Cyclops indicates that the inhabitants at that time based their diet on a range of fish, including even the smallest ones, which they probably caught with nets and hooks (see Moundrea-Agrafioti, forthcoming). This suggests that Mesolithic fishermen were knowledgeable about which hook catches which fish and how this was facilitated. Considering that the area of the Northern Sporades was until recently one of the richest “fisheries” in the Aegean, one can imagine how bountiful the catches were during those early times. The great abundance of fish in the Bay of Planitis on Kyra-Panagia was already mentioned by foreign travelers in the 17th century (Boschini 1658). Fishing on an ongoing basis to meet the dietary requirements of the population involved a number of specialized persons, as well as a rudimentary and secure means of navigation, especially for the fishing of migratory species. In Mesolithic Youra, specialization is evident in the perfection of hooks and the invention of other fishing techniques. The different shapes and sizes of hooks and their number (32)

204

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

allow a good typology (Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, 136, fig. 10.4; forthcoming). Until recently, hooks were exclusively recovered from the Neolithic strata of Franchthi Cave and Nea Nikomedia, and they were simple in form with a notch for the line and a single point. In contrast, the Mesolithic hooks from Youra are very fine and exhibit a rich repertoire of shapes (but always with two points), suggesting that local fishermen had become intensively involved in specialized fishing for every type of catch (Pl. 12.1A, B). It is suggested here that all varieties of hooks were introduced as a Mesolithic invention. The evidence indicates that at that time the livelihood of the community on Youra was based on skilled seafaring. Although some of the hooks were found within levels containing Early and Middle Neolithic pottery (Trench CWest 7 and 8), we suspected from the beginning that all hooks were of a Mesolithic date, and, at the very least, dated to its final phases. Results of 14C analyses performed on the 3 hooks retrieved from the EN/MN levels have confirmed their Upper Mesolithic date (CWest 7, 3: 7780±100 B.P.; CWest 6, 1: 7890±50 B.P.; CEast 17, 5: 7780±50 B.P.). Similarily, the occurrence of a single hook in a LN level (CEast 9) can possibly be explained by the disturbance of the deposits in that area due to the inclination of the ground. The existence of channels among the islands of the Northern Sporades in combination with the difficult seafaring conditions in the region probably accounted for an advance in navigation techniques by the Mesolithic populations. The change of local geography at the end of the Paleolithic as a result of the rise of the sea level enhanced the transformation of the area into a fishery, as new banks were created and people advanced to systematic fishing within a limited period of time. During the Mesolithic, when the sea level was 40– 50 m lower than present, many new fishing sites were created between Youra and Psathoura. Perhaps the occupants of the Cave of the Cyclops fished in these areas. One cannot be certain whether the intensive fishing that took place during the Mesolithic period should be attributed to a shortage of hunting or if it simply reflects a preference for seafood. Most probably, even in those early times, there existed a mixed economic model based on fishing as well as hunting and food gathering (snails and shells). A diet exclusively based on fishing would have been too

perilous for a population, especially given the dangers that the sea entails. It has been demonstrated that a large quantity of fish (8–10 kg) is required to meet a family’s needs and provide sufficient calories and protein, and this quantity of fish is not easily procured (Stratouli 1996). At this point, one should reflect on the well-known Greek proverb of the fisherman and the hunter who hardly ever see their plate full with their catch. Stratouli (1996) claims that in the Aegean, the capacity for fish provisions—which changes every year—along with the inadequate fishing technology of prehistoric times would not provide for a predictable and rich diet. However, the case of Youra is different because the fisheries in the area could sufficiently satisfy the dietary needs of the people if fished intensively. This conclusion is reinforced by the vast quantity of fish bones recovered in the Mesolithic levels of the Cave of the Cyclops. In contrast, during the Early and Middle Neolithic there is a dramatic decrease of fish bones in the cave. However, there is no difference between the Upper Mesolithic and the Early and Middle Neolithic with regard to the species recorded in the cave. The consumption of fish appears to decrease even more during the Late Neolithic, as evidenced by organic remains inside the Cave of the Cyclops and the settlement at Hagios Petros, where only a small quantity of fish bones were found. The contemporary counterpart of Youra during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods is Franchthi Cave in the Argolid, where the fish remains are also significant, although the samples are much inferior in quality and number compared to those from the Cave of the Cyclops. In addition, no hooks occurred in the Mesolithic strata at Franchthi, while the four Late Neolithic hooks are different than those from Youra. At the end of the Paleolithic and the early Mesolithic, fish bones at Franchthi represent a much smaller proportion of the total faunal remains. However, from 9000 B.C. a significant change took place (Rose 1989), evidenced by the great number of tuna (Tunnus thynnus) and Sparidae bones. At that time fishing appears to supply nearly 50% of the entire dietary needs. During the Neolithic period at Franchthi the Sparidae species is prevalent, while tuna is considerably reduced. Thus, it seems that Neolithic inhabitants of Franchthi fished close to the coast with the assistance of nets or hooks.

CONCLUSIONS

The issue of seasonal fishing for fish of the tuna family, which in the last few decades has amassed numerous exponents, must also be mentioned. According to Evans and Renfrew (1968), tuna fishing constituted the basic motive for the habitation of the small islands in the Aegean, such as Saliagos near Antiparos. Bintliff (1977) and Mee (1984) drew particular attention to tuna fishing in the Aegean, formulating the hypothesis that the prosperity of Troy could be attributed to tuna fishing, since the site was close to this species’ sea route. On the other hand, Gallant (1985) held that the migratory character of tuna did not allow one to depend upon this type of fishing. It should also be noted that our ethnological research in the Northern Sporades has shown that tuna fishing has never played a significant role in the economy of the islands in recent history. The model of settlement on the Aegean islands on the grounds of seasonal fishing does not appear to be substantiated by the finds of the Northern Sporades. Moreover, only a limited quantity of fish bones were found at Hagios Petros, which proves that seasonal fishing was not the main reason for the settlement of the island of Kyra-Panagia. The Mesolithic ichthyological remains in the Cave of the Cyclops indicate that the proportion of tuna species is very limited in comparison to the other species still living in the area. Unpublished information on the Franchthi fish assemblage indicates that tuna could be caught effortlessly, even close to the coast, and this was not dependent on the season (Mylona, forthcoming). On Saliagos a large concentration of tuna species was observed, representing 40% of the fish provisions. This observation could be coincidental and provides insufficient basis for theories, such as that of Bintliff (1977), who argues that the habits of migratory fish species created the basis for marine achievements in the beginning of the Late Neolithic period. The conclusions of Efstratiou (1985, 7) and Powell (1996, 49, 54) are more convincing. They assert that the most significant outcome of fishing activities was not only the exploitation of marine riches—which tend to be limited—but also the development of shipbuilding techniques, the production of more powerful vessels, and the exploitation of all types of marine resources. Nevertheless, the primitive fishermen of the Northern Sporades could not have overlooked the

205

great seasonal gathering of fish. At present among local fishermen the origins of the tuna fish shoals remain a mystery. They appear toward the end of autumn north of the island of Skantzoura and in the open sea around Youra, and they literally make the sea “boil with fish.” The large spindle-shaped hooks with two sharp tips (Pl. 12.1C) were probably intended for catching large fish such as tuna. Fishing for tuna demanded even greater specialization than other types of fishing, and since it was practiced in the open sea and in deep waters, prehistoric fishermen faced numerous dangers. In the context of ethnographic parallels, one sees that even today the fishermen of Alonnessos only occasionally fish for tuna. A local fisherman, Kostas Alexiou, provided invaluable information with regard to fishing in the northern Aegean. Systematic tuna fishing can only be practiced with the use of large vessels. Moreover, the shoals that appear seasonally in the area from September to November–December are comprised of fish that weigh 5–10 kg, the so-called tonakia (small tuna), which are an entirely different species from the large tuna. These fish are caught with the use of surface long-lines or sardine baits with transparent fishing lines. The small tuna prefer deep water, and the most common fishing area is located north of Alonnessos and Skopelos reaching up to Halkidiki on the coast of the mainland in waters 1,100–1,300 m deep. Passages of tuna can be observed in many other areas of the Aegean, and fishermen often make long voyages to Chios or Samos following their streams. Other fishermen believe that tuna can be found throughout the year in the Aegean but are usually caught in autumn. It is said that the large tuna, which often weigh 100–300 kg, are caught throughout the whole year. It is thought that these fish do not migrate and they can be caught in shallow waters. Recently, large tuna fish have appeared even inside the Pagasitikos Gulf in Thessaly. These large fish are caught with the use of a single hook and a whole sardine as bait along a 150 m fishing line. Fishermen sometimes lure the fish by throwing small pieces of sardine into the water. Once the fish is hooked, they do not pull it out of the water; instead, they throw in floats and follow it for two to three hours until it is exhausted. A similar fishing technique would have been laborious and dangerous for prehistoric fishermen, as they would have drifted for hours in the open sea.

206

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

It is quite possible, however, that at the time large tuna were visible within shallow waters. It is noteworthy that tuna is not appreciated in the Northern Sporades and, generally, in the Aegean due to its poor taste and fatty flesh. Today, systematic tuna fishing supplies canning factories, and the fish is exported to Japan where there is great demand. Due to its high calorie content, we would expect that prehistoric fishermen had a special preference for this species; however, the low amount of tuna remains in comparison to other species of fish certainly does not support this. It is worthwhile to repeat here that our ethnological parallels from the Aegean show that migratory species today still represent only a small percentage of the total catches. Although it is considered that Mesolithic fishermen only occasionally caught large fish (Pl. 12.2A), even if this is the case, the necessity to improve navigational techniques was great. Improved seagoing vessels were not only needed for catching large species of fish, but also for voyages to obtain the valuable raw material of obsidian. This was either transported directly from Melos or obtained indirectly elsewhere (Sampson et al. 2002, 63). Thus, the need to obtain marine food resources and the quest for the necessary materials to manufacture stone and bone tools in this period probably constituted the main reasons for the development of navigation. Therefore, Bintliff’s (1977, 117) view that the voyages of the Mesolithic inhabitants from Franchthi to Melos can be solely attributed to tuna fishing is not shared here. The results of the surface investigation conducted in 1999 on the islands of Parapola and Falkonera, located between Melos and the Argolid (Sampson 2006a, 497–498), did not yield any finds dated earlier than the Early Helladic and Early Cycladic period (3rd millennium B.C.), when the progress in navigation was remarkable. In the Mesolithic and even in the Neolithic the contacts between the Franchthi inhabitants and Melos are rather indirect and were achieved through the natural bridge formed by the islands of the western Cyclades. The finds from the Cave of the Cyclops provide information on fishing techniques in the Northern Sporades during prehistoric periods. The number of hooks from Mesolithic levels suggests that during the Lower Mesolithic, fishing was already practiced with the assistance of this invention, either from the coast or from crafts placed close to the shore or out

in the open sea. It also must be acknowledged that nets were used, mainly for small fish, whose bones can be found in great quantities inside the Cave of the Cyclops. However, it is obvious that these early fishermen used other methods. The type of bone tools with two points (Von Brandt 1964, 34; Powell 1996, 124) are actually simple types of hooks that were already in use during the Paleolithic in Europe. Probably, they were also used for hunting animals and birds. On Youra, the bipointed hooks (Pl. 12.1C) seem to relate exclusively to fishing (see Moundrea-Agrafioti, forthcoming). Data collected during our systematic ethnographic research in the area of the Northern Sporades and other geographical areas of the Aegean confirm that in recent years, similar tools were used to fish for octopus and squid. Such evidence comes from the Pagasitikos Gulf of Thessaly to the west of Youra and the island of Symi in the Dodecanese of the southeastern Aegean. With regard to bait, limpets and mussels might have been used, as fishing with this type of bait is still practiced today. Fragments of limpet shells found in the settlement of Hagios Petros were characterized as fishing bait (Efstratiou 1985; Powell 1996, 165). These fragments, however, were not necessarily evidence of bait because limpets could have been broken by the inhabitants walking in the area of the settlement. Also, it would have been impractical to remove the limpets from the sea and transport them to the settlement in order to use them as bait, as it is fairly easy to remove their flesh using a tool or another limpet shell, and this would be accomplished by the shore. Therefore, limpet fragments recovered inside the Cave of the Cyclops and at Hagios Petros were most probably consumed as food, and the breakage of their shells must be the result of people treading on them. Bait could also have been supplied by small fish (as practiced today) or food remains. Fishing lines for hooks and nets could have been made from twisted animal hair or natural fibers. Oppian (Halieutica 3.75) mentions that fishing line is made from horse tails or flax, and it is known that in the 19th century twisted hair from horse tails was used in the same way (Apostolidis 1883). At the time of World War II, during a period of shortage in fishing material, a shepherd from Geraka, Alonnessos, used to fish with fishing lines made from a cow’s tail.

CONCLUSIONS

If systematic fishing of mainly medium- and large-sized fish did take place in the Mesolithic period, an associated problem would be how to preserve and store the catch. Possibly, the only solution to this problem would be to invent ways of preserving fish regardless of their size. Thus, one can assume that the cave’s dampness may have been a factor as it renders it an ideal place for the storage of salted fish. Based on information furnished by local fishermen, salted fish can be stored for approximately two months in a cool location, but, inside the cave, this period could have been extended to approximately two years. According to K. Alexiou, sea salt is not appropriate for the preservation of fish because it easily dissolves in water. Processed salt and especially mineral salt are more suitable. On Youra, naturally formed cavities occur close to the shore where salt can be collected. In addition, seawater could be intentionally transported to and deposited inside such cavities for the production of salt. Other techniques of fish preservation include smoking or sun-drying. In any case, prior to salting

207

fish, sun-drying is essential for 5–15 days based on the size of the fish. Smoking the fish could have been performed inside the Cave of the Cyclops, since hearths were found on every floor in the Mesolithic levels (Mylona, forthcoming). Similarly, in the Danube River Valley in Germany and France, hearths found at Mesolithic sites were used for smoking trout (Le Gall 1996, 113). We know that caves have always been used for food preparation and preservation since prehistoric people utilized them as “refrigerators” (see Sampson 1993a). The Cave of the Cyclops, the only large and damp cave in the Northern Sporades, could have served as a storage area in addition to its function as a site for habitation. Surely it must have been used as a temporary shelter for fishermen, who would also have found a supply of water there. It is worth mentioning that a few decades earlier, when the cave was open to visitors, it had become a gathering place for fishermen from Skopelos and Alonnessos; they would gather there during all seasons to eat and light a fire when the sea was relatively calm.

Farming, Animal Husbandry, and Food Gathering It is certain that all theories that base the settlement of the Aegean islands (Cherry 1981) on seasonal fishing have not been supported by on-site observations of the environmental idiosyncrasies of each island in different seasons. Even on the seemingly less-fertile islands of the Aegean there are many prospective nutritional resources. On the islands of the Northern Sporades—even the smallest ones—there are sufficient food resources to feed small populations through land cultivation and animal husbandry. The same is true for the seemingly bare Cycladic islands. The richness of food resources (mainly barley) on small islands such as Mykonos and desolate Delos is remarkable (Sampson 2002a). A number of monks (allegedly 20) lived on Youra during the last three centuries, and they maintained themselves through the cultivation of grain on small pieces of land, the planting of olive trees, and fishing. Moreover, they based their nutrition almost exclusively on their flocks. Small communities of monks lived on the islands of Piperi, Skantzoura,

and Pappous. These small groups of people could have been completely self-sufficient through the cultivation of cereals and the herding of animals. For example, on the low ground of the island of Pappous, between Youra and Kyra-Panagia, in an area of only a few dozen acres, there was a balanced distribution of land during the Ottoman period; a part of the island with low vegetation was intended for animal breeding, while the remainder of the island had been cleared and was fully cultivated by the monks. It was easier for people to live on Youra, as it is considerably larger and offers spring water. There was great potential for stock breeding, and it is known that many thousands of animals were bred there before World War II. Nevertheless, shepherds who lived there were not self-sufficient, since they did not cultivate any land and had to purchase cereals and other necessities in exchange for their cheese and animals. Similarly, prehistoric groups of people could survive without the cultivation of land, using it instead as pasture. The cultivation of

208

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

limited pieces of land—which undoubtedly did not receive water—would be risky in periods of drought. Therefore, the population would have mainly depended upon animal husbandry. According to the finds of the excavation in the Cave of the Cyclops, specialization in stock breeding is evident, especially in the Late Neolithic. Another source of food that is often overlooked are resources gathered from the island. Apart from the fruits of wild trees, which one assumes were used for food, large quantities of terrestrial snails have been recovered in the Cave of the Cyclops, especially within Mesolithic layers (see Karali, forthcoming). It is possible that the wet climate of that period favored the appearance of an unusually large species of snail. An increase of these terrestrial mollusks has been observed in the Mesolithic and pre-ceramic strata of Thessaly and the Argolid. We do not know whether this species disappeared during the succeeding Neolithic phases, or if people simply disliked this type of food. It is worth noting

that the snails found in the excavation were pierced on their side and not on their backs. This was also the way people from the Northern Sporades extracted food from snail shells until recently, according to the local population. In addition, as mentioned above, the consumption of acorns is quite probable in the Mesolithic. Therefore it is possible that seasonal collection and storage of this fruit took place on the island of Youra, where acorns abound. The fruits of the wild pistachio tree are found within Mesolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops, mainly in the lower levels of the Mesolithic (Sarpaki, forthcoming). Although bitter and sour, they could serve as medicine or as a spice after they have been processed. It seems that the cave occupants practiced a limited collection of wild fruits or cereals apart from the pistachio tree fruit, as one can assume from the absence of palaeobotanical finds in the Upper Mesolithic levels (the late Maria Mangafa thoroughly searched our remains from the dry sieve).

The Significance and Chronology of the Greek Mesolithic Considering the ignorance of the Mesolithic period in Greece until about a decade ago, scholars have reached the point today where they were able to talk of a new stage in civilization with apparent peculiarities in southeast Europe. Despite this, knowledge on this matter is still limited: on one hand in relation to the diffusion and the size of habitation in Greece, and on the other hand regarding the significance of this phase’s economic changes. The material emerging from excavations does not always shed any light. The main feature of this period is a cultural gap with a general lack of finds (i.e., organic remains and artifacts). Every newly recovered site offers different material that raises more queries. A prime example is the varied lithic industries occurring at every site. Until now, the appearance of the Mesolithic phase at Franchthi Cave has been over-estimated, and it was only a few years ago that more Mesolithic sites were discovered on mainland Greece (e.g., Klisoura and Theopetra). The discovery of two Mesolithic

sites in the region of the Aegean islands (the Cave of the Cyclops and Maroulas on Kythnos) has altered the facts for this period and opened up new horizons for research, confirming the movement of Mesolithic populations and the possibility of early contacts with the opposite Aegean coast. Furthermore, the recent discovery of four Mesolithic sites in Ikaria, the industry of which bears striking resemblance to Kythnos, reinforces Mesolithic sea-faring in the Aegean (Sampson 2006a, 63). Also, the recent, still unpublished, discovery of habitation during the Mesolithic that we have excavated in Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia (Sampson 2006b) shows that evidence of this era should be sought mainly in the interior of caves where man-made deposits are better preserved. Surveying expeditions have begun to locate even more sites in Greece, while these findings must be appreciated on the grounds of excavation research. The discovery of the open air Mesolithic settlement at Maroulas on Kythnos (Sampson 1996e;

CONCLUSIONS

Sampson et al. 2002, 2005)—and more specifically considering its position on an island—is, to date, a unique case for Greece (Fig. 12.1; Pl. 12.2B). However, one should not be too optimistic considering the number of other similar sites that may have been covered due to the rise in sea level. Equally, open-air sites on mainland Greece today may be lying deep underground or have been completely eroded (Fig. 12.2). In reference to the chronological framework of the Mesolithic in Greece (see Table 12.1), excavations have provided such a large range of dates that this period can be divided into two phases: Lower and Upper Mesolithic. Additionally, in some cases a Final Mesolithic stage can be discerned. The Lower Mesolithic commences at the beginning of the 9th millennium B.C. Actually, the new dates from Kythnos push backward the beginning of the Mesolithic from the mid 9th millennium, which had been believed thus far, to the early 9th millennium B.C. The Upper Mesolithic begins in the mid 8th millennium B.C. A significant change in lithic industry determines the two stages of the Mesolithic (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 1998). We have a series of 34 14C dates from charcoal or animal bone/mollusk samples retrieved from the Mesolithic layers in the Cave of the Cyclops, plus three Mesolithic dates from artifacts (bone hooks) found in overlying EN/MN levels. These dates have elucidated the entire chronological sequence of the Aegean Mesolithic. Dates obtained from shells correspond to a large degree to those obtained from charcoal (see Facorellis 2003, 51; forthcoming). Many dating results from different trenches (see Table 12.2) and levels belong to the 9th millennium, and they indicate intensive occupation during the Lower Mesolithic, which at Youra began at approximately 8600–8500 B.C. A regular chronological sequence occurred from Level 9 in Trench CWest (ca. 7000 B.C.) until bedrock. A break of 1,000 years separates Levels 11 and 12 (between 8776±19 B.P. and 9258±50 B.P.), while dates from Levels 12 to 14 are more or less the same. In Trench CEast a regular sequence from Levels 15 to 23 also occurs (see Table 12.2). Corresponding dates and phases of the Mesolithic were observed in Franchthi Cave (Runnels 2001, 246). Dates from skeletal remains and other samples in the Theopetra Cave between 7050– 7010 B.C. (8070±60 B.P.) refer to the Upper

209

Mesolithic (Kyparissi 2001, 30). Four dates from the 2005 campaign at the Mesolithic site of Maroulas on Kythnos (9350±35 B.P., 8698–8564 B.C., 68% probability; 9385±35 B.P., 8714–8622 B.C., 68% probability; 9415±30 B.P., 8739–8640 B.C., 68% probability; 9405±30 B.P., 8722–8637 B.C., 68% probability) set the burials and the openair structures in the beginning of the Lower Mesolithic, while a later dating from the same site (Honea 1975) is not certain. Moreover, the recent excavation in Sarakenos Cave in the Kopais Basin revealed a thick Mesolithic layer interposed between a Paleolithic and an Early Neolithic stratum. Three radiocarbon dates (9233±30, 9230±30, and 9177±30 B.P.) confirmed the occupation of the cave in the Lower Mesolithic. The excavation in Klisoura Gorge in Prosymna (Koumouzelis and Kozłowski 1996; Koumouzelis, Kozłowski, and Ginter 2003, 118) revealed Mesolithic strata that probably correspond to the Upper Mesolithic of Franchthi Cave. In reference to the same period, pollen samples from the Argolid document a rise in forests, with the deciduous oak as the prevalent species (Bottema and Worldring 1990, 231). However, Mesolithic occupation in the caves of Prosymna extended until the end of the 7th millennium B.C. and was contemporary with the Early Neolithic at Lerna (J. Kozłowski, pers. comm.). It is possible that in the same period hunter-gatherers with traditional Mesolithic lithic technology lived not far from populations already adapted to a farming economy, as has been observed in Mesolithic Europe. The Mesolithic settlement of western Greece probably took place much later, even though certain features are common. Shells and fish samples found within Mesolithic strata at Sidari on Corfu (Sordinas 1969, 2003) date to 5870±340 B.C. uncalibrated. On the basis of the lithic material, the site is probably dated to the Upper Mesolithic, but the low date indicates that it is partly contemporary with the Early or Middle Neolithic of mainland Greece (Sampson 2006a). The evidence from the Mesolithic(?) settlement in Lepenski Vir in Serbia (Srejović 1969), where the floors of triangular huts were excavated, is also later in date. Proto-Lepenski Vir yielded dates close to 5800 B.C.—dates similar to those from Corfu. Moreover, probable Mesolithic sites were located in the Preveza area in western Greece by Runnels (2001, 251), but their date is unknown.

210

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

The study of the material from the Zaimis Cave in Attica (Markovitz 1929) was also indicative of two phases, which correspond to the earlier and later Mesolithic periods. A similar sequence also occurs in the Balkan Mesolithic (Tellenbach 1983, 122). Quite a few dates from the 7th millennium B.C., indicating the Early Neolithic, occur in the Cave of the Cyclops. A series of dates from the late 7th millennium, 6380–6110 B.C. and 6464–6388 B.C. (CWest 6), 6328–6220 B.C. (CWest 7), and 6235– 6094 B.C. (CWest 8), obviously characterize the Early Neolithic and correspond to a deposit 0.50 m thick. The earliest samples of domesticated animals were found in the layers of the same period. With a gap of 200–300 years, two earlier dates, 6801–6633 B.C. (CWest 8) and 6644–6514 B.C. (CEast 15, 6), relate to a Final Mesolithic stage or the transition to a proto-Neolithic phase. The end of the Mesolithic in Franchthi Cave as well as in the Cave of the Cyclops has not been precisely established. In the latter, large chronological differences within the same levels (CWest 7 and 8) also provide evidence of a gap. Dates from the 7th millennium, more limited in frequency than those of the two preceding millennia, show a limited occupation of the cave in this period. In addition, the scarcity of finds of this period in the Cave of the Cyclops and other Greek caves could possibly relate to specific climatological changes that occurred in the second half of the 7th millennium, i.e., the so-called Neolithic Glacial period, set by

paleoclimatologists between 6400 and 6000 B.C. (Jonsen et al. 1992; Dansgaard et al. 1993). The situation in Thessaly is much different during the 7th millenium B.C., where several densely occupied sites were characterized as pre-ceramic (Milojčić, Boessneck, and Hopf 1962; Theocharis 1967). Moreover, the technology of stone tools of this phase, similar to the Early Neolithic, seems to suggest that this is an Early Neolithic phase. At Achilleion (Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku 1989), this phase was not distinguished from the Early Neolithic, while at the rest of the sites of this period (Gentiki, Soufli, Magoula, Argissa, and Sesklo) it has been openly connected to the successive Neolithic phases. A probable reason for this conclusion may be the limited size of the trenches at these sites. At Argissa and Sesklo, two dates from the so-called pre-ceramic period pertain to the second half of the 7th millennium B.C. (6424±100 and 6280±93 B.C.). In Franchthi Cave the 7th millennium B.C. has been characterized as pre-ceramic Neolithic (Jacobsen 1973, 275–276), yet the existence of such a layer is not certain. Dates associated with this stratum at Franchthi were set at 6269±110 and 6218±100 B.C. The aceramic stratum at Knossos has also yielded dates from the second half of the 7th millennium B.C., which, however, are less precise (6341±180 and 6197±140 B.C.), but a recent excavation has revealed pre-ceramic layers with earlier dates around 7000 B.C. (Efstratiou, pers. comm.).

The Greek Mesolithic and Its Correlation to Civilizations of the Near East and Anatolia Although the Mesolithic culture appears later in Greece than in the Near East, there are similarities and analogies between the two cultures (Table 12.1), especially with regard to lithic industry, burial practices, and domestic architecture. The Natufian Culture (12,500–10,500/10,000 B.C.) in Syria and Palestine corresponds to an Epipaleolithic and then a Mesolithic stage in Greece (Garrod 1932; Neuville 1951). The Natufian lithic industry is characterized by microlithic tools of trapezoidal, triangular, or

crescent shape (Cauvin 1966), although larger tool types are also present, especially in the later Natufian phase, which is intermixed with the early Neolithic economy. It has been noted that the Natufian cave inhabitants were involved in hunting, and this accounts for the great frequency of lithic objects. People settled in valleys (Ain Mallaha) and enjoyed a varied diet based on plentiful food resources. Basically, the characteristics of the later Natufian phase resemble those of the beginning

CONCLUSIONS

of the Neolithic economic and cultural phase. Habitation occurred on a semi-permanent or permanent basis, and populations exploited all food resources, particularly vegetables. As a rule, occupation at this time pertains to small encampments, not to be identified as settlements or villages. Parallels can be drawn between these locations and the Gravettian sites in Central and Eastern Europe (Dolni Vestonice and Pavlov in the Czech Republic), and in this respect it is preferable to consider the Natufian Culture as Epipaleolithic (BarYosef 1970). Though particularly limited in number, crescentshaped tools are characteristic of the Natufian Culture. However, no comparison can be made with the crescents found in the Aegean (in the Cave of the Cyclops and on Kyra-Panagia) because the manufacturing technique is different. Specific hunting methods can account for the continued use of crescents in the Northern Sporades during the Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic. Microlithic implements are rare at Greek Mesolithic sites, which may be due to the specific methods of procuring food. Is it also coincidental that the Natufian of Syria and Palestine and the Mesolithic phase in the Aegean share common characteristics in burial practices and the construction of dwellings? Standard Natufian burial practice involves inhumation in pits under the floors of domestic structures (Bar-Yosef and Valla 1991). On Kythnos in the Cyclades we have found 15 burials under the floors of dwellings, either in bent or semi-bent position, similar to the Natufian burials. The unique Mesolithic Aegean constructions have the same circular or ellipsoid form as the Natufian circular structures (Sampson et al. 2002). In Anatolia the contemporary early phases are absent except at a few sites in southeast Asia Minor (Table 12.1). The area of Antalya (Albrecht et al. 1992) has yielded numerous finds, and the chronological sequence is similar to that found in SyroPalestine. Primary or secondary contacts through coastal routes may have been possible between the two areas. Our knowledge of these periods comes solely from the occupation of caves, a pattern that prevails in this area. The Aurignacian phase, with its eastern characteristics, develops into a phase, which is referred to as the Belbasi Culture (Bostanci 1965) dating to 13,000 B.C.; this corresponds to the

211

Kebaran Geometric phase (Bostanci 1965). The Belbasi Phase can be divided into three stages, and it features microlithic artifacts (triangular-shaped tools, points, and blades). The Belbidi Culture (10th millennium B.C.) follows the Belbasi Phase (Bostanci 1959, 1965); this is divided into two stages (Aceramic C and Early Neolithic B1), and its lithic industry is comprised of segments, triangles, trapezes with three retouched sides, and crescent-shaped and backed blades. In addition, bone and stone artifacts are decorated with fish or cattle representations. Several Belbidi tool types relate to those from the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra (Sampson 1998a, 17; Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 1998; see Ch. 8), which are considered to be contemporaneous and unique in the Aegean. Furthermore, the Cave of k zini (Otte et al. 1995; Yal inkaya et al. 1995) in levels Ia2 (9th millennium B.C.) and Ib1 (8th millennium B.C.) yielded plenty of archaeological finds, including the same set of microliths that bear similarities to the Youra lithics. In these phases, the occupants of the caves hunted deer, wild goats, and cattle, and they also fished. Millstones provide evidence for the collection of wild cereals from the foothills of the Taurus Mountains. The later dating of the Mesolithic and the Epipaleolithic in southwest Anatolia in comparison to the Syro-Palestinian area is more convenient as it provides a better match to the Aegean chronology, and plausibly suggests exchanges between the two areas. Taking into account that the Natufian tradition also spread to Syro-Palestine and during the following proto-Neolithic phase (10,500–8500 B.C.) to Mureybet and Jericho, it appears that there is contemporaneity between the Mesolithic of the Aegean and the PPNA of the Levant. In addition, the Mesolithic period of Cyprus (11th millennium B.C.), without proof of direct contact with southwest Anatolia and Palestine, offered tool types in accordance with the Mesolithic economic standards. As Cyprus was separated from the mainland already before the Pleistocene, it was a difficult target for permanent colonization (Held 1989). At Aetokremnos, 95% of the osteological material belongs to pygmy hippopotamuses (with a population of 200), while there is also a variety of bird species and small-sized animals. The archaeobotanical material from the site is remarkably limited.

212

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

The site of Aetokremnos (Simmons 1991, 1999) suggests a non-domestic economic pattern and an early seafaring technology. The samples of lithic industry from Aetokremnos are relatively few, but a complete series of chipped stone implements were recovered: burins, “thumbnail” scrapers, truncations, notches, and a few microlithic examples. These bear strong affinities to samples from Karain in southern Anatolia (Albrecht 1988) and could either belong to the Natufian or the PPNA in the Levant. The site of Aetokremnos (10,500 B.P.) dates slightly before the early Mesolithic phases in the Aegean, but is contemporary with Belbidi Cave in Antalya. There are further similarities between the circular constructions of Kythnos and those of the pre-ceramic phase of Cyprus (Sillourokampos), contemporary with the Mesolithic period in the Aegean (Katsarou 2001b).

Cape Andreas Kastros on Cyprus (Desse and Desse-Berset 1994) is another early aceramic site contemporary with the Aegean Upper Mesolithic (8th millennium B.C.). Affinities between Youra and Cape Andreas are signified by hooks found at both sites and the low percentage of certain anatomical parts of the Scombridae and Mugilidae species, which suggest similarities in fish preservation methods. Although it is premature to make reference to direct contacts between these regions of the Aegean and the Near East since no interaction between the Dodecanese and southwest Anatolia has been confirmed, an analogous development or diffusion of ideas from the Near East as well as their endurance in the Aegean can be identified.

The Mesolithic in the European Region The Mesolithic sites in western and northern Europe increase in number toward the end of the Pleistocene due to the radical climatic changes and the settlement of mainland sites (Fig. 12.3). Climate changes were more extreme in these regions in comparison to the changes in the Mediterranean, and there were various stages of climatic change. After the Wurm IV phase came the Upper Dryas phase, dated between 11,000 and 10,500 B.P.; the Boreal Phase lasted for two millennia, between 9500–7500 B.P., and was followed by the Atlantic Period, dated to 7500–5500 B.P. (Alley and Clark 1999). Fishing and shell gathering were the main characteristics of the subsistence economy of the mainland and the lake settlements of Europe. Fish was prevalent in the diet, as evidenced by isotopic studies done on human skeletons. Similar results come from analysis of Eskimo bones in Greenland (Bonsall 1989). Large shell heaps, which accumulated by the seashore from the Mesolithic populations’ food refuse, are of great importance. Microlithic tools abound, which is considered as evidence for the use of bows (Rozoy 1990) for catching either birds or fish. Changes in tool technology had already taken place at the end of the Paleolithic (around the 13th

millennium B.P. or the Middle Dryas period), and preceded the climatic changes. Further changes continued in the warm Allerod phase (12th millennium B.P.) that followed and culminated during the Dryas III phase, when the climate was once again frigid. In the latter phase, the oblique truncation and the triangle techniques spread, while shortly before the beginning of the Atlantic phase in 7500 B.P. (i.e., around 7800 B.P.) trapezoid-shaped tools became typical. According to Rozoy, innovations were a reaction not to the environmental changes, but to the constant pressure of the living conditions, such as cold weather and the limited amount of animals or vegetation due to the bad climate. The Mesolithic in northern and western Europe was of long duration, and can be divided into five phases: the Bonsal Mesolithic (10,250–8850 B.P.), the Early Mesolithic (8850–8350 B.P.), the Boreal Mesolithic (8350–7700 B.P.), the Later Mesolithic (7700–7350 B.P.), and the Final Mesolithic (7350– 6150 B.P.). Generally, the Mesolithic in northern and western Europe is characterized by the intensive exploitation of natural resources, settlements of more permanent nature, and the tendency toward a more complex form of social organization (Coen 1977; Binford 1983).

CONCLUSIONS

The tendency to exploit all possible seafood resources including shellfish spread at this time. The gathering of shellfish was usually carried out as a form of supplementary food. It was practiced on a seasonal basis and was dependent on activity relating to other types of food, such as fish. It is thought that shells indicate the time when humans were onshore, but not the reason for their presence. Shellfish may have been preserved after being dried—although some believe that they were eaten raw (Deith 1989)—and this may have taken place while the Mesolithic inhabitants were drying or smoke-drying other types of food such as fish. The storage of shellfish has left no traces, but it does not necessarily mean that this did not happen. For example, the Tlingit of Alaska stored large quantities of shellfish after they dried or smoked them (Oberg 1973) by placing them in airtight crates or hanging them from the ceiling. In any event, storage indicates a sense of sedentism. During the Jomon Period (7000–6000 B.P.) in Japan, round pits were opened inside houses for the storage of dried fruits and oak (Akazawa 1986). Storage pits were found inside a building in Ireland (Woodman 1985). In Sweden, stored food (e.g., seal flesh) inside pottery vessels occurs from the end of the Mesolithic (Welinder 1975). Another source of food in the Mesolithic of Europe comes from oak, plentiful in the wet and warm climate of the time. Its consumption by man has not been ascertained in Greece. On Youra, the main flora species of the island is holly oak, which could serve as food appropriate for wild or domesticated pigs. The acorn was a basic part of the diet in northwest Europe. Clarke (1976) estimated the large quantities of vegetable protein that could be produced by oak trees per year: each tree produced one metric ton of acorns, and 20–25 metric tons of acorns could be gathered on 1 km² of land (or 5–10 metric tons of mushrooms, which were another source of nutrition). The closest parallels to the Mesolithic occupation of Greece are found in the Northern Balkans and Italy. Multiple burials have been reported at Vlasac and Lepenski Vir in Serbia (Srejović 1969). Vlasac yielded 10 cremations that date to the Upper Mesolithic (8250–7950 B.P.). In the Adriatic region, Upper Mesolithic cave sites were located in Albania (Konispol Cave; Harrold et al. 1999), and in

213

Montenegro, where several caves have been excavated. The important cave of Odmut, republished by J. Kozłowski (Kozłowski, Kozłowski, and Radovainović 1994), produced a peculiar industry of isosceles trapezes without the microburin technique. Farther north in Trieste, many open air sites and caves were located (see Spataro 2002). Of great interest is the chronological sequence in Grotta Benussi and the dates recently obtained for the Preboreal, Boreal, and Early Castelnovian Mesolithic in Edera Cave (Biagi and Spataro 1999–2000). On the western Adriatic coast the area with the most dense Mesolithic occupation is Apulia, where openair sites, caves, and surface finds are reported (Spataro 2002, 22). In eastern Sicily, the Uzzo Cave (Segre and Piperno 1975; Piperno, Scali, and Taglicozzo 1980) shares many common characteristics with Franchthi and Youra. In the Later Mesolithic, groups occupied the cave on a permanent basis (Tusa 1985). Although the cave is situated close to the sea, its residents hunted red deer and pigs. Ten primary burials of 12 persons of various ages and both sexes were found inside the cave. The burials lay close to the cave’s wall, and were opened within earlier strata of occupation. Even though it was hard to distinguish funeral gifts from the skeletal remains of the dead, a celebrated example is a burial in which a barnacle was found and the remains of the dead were holding the jaw of a deer. In the Maglemosian Culture of the Baltic (Bonsall 1989) and the North Sea, the remains of wooden constructions such as pales, rafts, and boats were preserved. This culture is characterized by settlements close to the shore and the accumulation of huge quantities of shells, which form the so-called shell-piles. Fishing equipment, such as sinkers for nets or bone hooks, were recovered in many settlements. Apart from the usual type of curved hook, these were also shaped with two pointy edges (gorges), similar to the bipointed examples from Youra. Large quantities of fish bones and hooks have been found at Tybrind Vig in Denmark (Price 1990 n. 48). New evidence of the Mesolithic in northern and western Europe shows that the constructions, which were used as temporary huts or formed the bases of tents, are no different than the circular constructions found on Kythnos (Sampson et al. 2002). Round or rectangular constructions have been

214

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

found in Arctic Norway measuring between 2 x 4 m or 2.50 x 3.50 m (the smallest) and 3.50 x 4.00 m or 4.50 x 6.00 m (the largest) (Engelstad 1989). Circular areas dug into the ground similar to those at Maroulas have also been located. Traces of semi-

circular huts, 7–8 m in diameter with postholes, have been found in Portugal (Roche 1989, 607), while triangular floors are the common type of constructions in Proto-Lepenski Vir in Serbia (Srejović 1969, fig. 12).

Burial Practices in the Mesolithic The fact that there are minimal skeletal finds in the Cave of the Cyclops is possibly incidental. The human skull, which was recovered within the deeper layers of the cave (Level 21 of Trench CEast; see Ch. 11), was not accompanied by other bones and was possibly placed there intentionally (Pl. 12.3A). The skull was determined to be that of a woman of advanced age, and it was dated to approximately 11,000–10,000 B.P. Comparison for the Youra skeletal remains is found in eight burials, which also included two cremations, discovered in Franchthi at the entrance of the cave. All of them date to the Lower Mesolithic with the exception of one dating to the subsequent Upper Mesolithic period. Many other bone fragments and teeth recovered among abundant animal bones date from both periods. These scattered bones belong to people of various ages, and all were found inside niches. The majority belong to the Lower Mesolithic, and only 6 samples come from the Upper and Final Mesolithic. The burials and the concentration of scattered bones belong to approximately 28 individuals, a limited number considering the cave was inhabited for at least 1,500 years (Cullen 1995, 275). One burial yielded the intact body of a man (Burial 1) who was 25–30 years old and who probably died from a strong blow to the head. His skeleton lay in a semi-contracted position, oriented north–south and facing east. Stones and a pile of terrestrial mollusks were placed upon the body while other stones surrounded the pit in which he was buried. The terrestrial mollusks belonged to a species that has not been found in any other area inside the cave, and it is postulated that they were part of a burial ritual (Cullen 1995). Judging from a hearth that was found close to the burial, the skeletal remains are thought to date to 9260± 140 B.P. However, the hearth is not necessarily

connected to the burial, since the strata of the specific niche consist of occupation deposits. At Franchthi, within a deeper stratum underneath Burial 1, the remains of seven more burials were found. Corpses lay in the common semi-contracted position, and some were probably buried together. It is characteristic that these burials, similar to Burial 1, were discovered in a particular area of the cave that was possibly used for this special purpose for a long period of time. Among the seven burials, two of them, belonging to a man and a woman, consisted of burned bones that were intentionally cremated. This was indicated by the condition of the skulls, which were found to have been exposed to fire, and the variable incineration of the longer bones, which were obviously covered by clothing (Cullen 1995). These constitute the earliest cremations in Greece; cremation was time-consuming and required specialization. Observations about cremation in Northern Europe defined various phases at different temperatures of incineration. At Franchthi, the cremations are estimated to have reached temperatures between 400 and 800°C. A total of 150 kgs of wood and many hours were needed for the bones to be calcified. One cannot be certain about the meaning of these two cremations at Franchthi, but the fact that they differ from usual burial practices might either signify some symbolic meaning or represent the inhabitants’ endeavours to cleanse the area. The one skeleton of an infant at Franchthi, which was found almost intact in another trench, originates from the Upper Mesolithic. In addition, parts of other skeletons were recovered in the same area as the infant together with piles of terrestrial mollusks and ashes that date to 8700–8500 B.P. Pieces of pierced shells of the Dentalium and Cyclope neritea species belonged to necklaces, which were collected close to the burial but did not definitively belong to it.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible that the burials at Franchthi were re-opened for other corpses, an observation also made in the Near East (for instance, at El-Wad; Bar-Yosef and Valla 1991) and at other sites in Europe. In Brittany (Bonsall 1989), tombs were opened on shell middens, and were opened again for new burials. After the final burial, stones were placed on the grave, and a residence was built on it. Men, women, and children were buried together in many Mesolithic sites in Northern Europe, while at Newell in England, a site that yielded 700 tombs, two-thirds of the male burials were accompanied by funeral gifts (Clark and Neeley 1987). Mesolithic sites in Northern Europe have yielded scattered bones in burials out of specific order, and they may be indicative of special death rituals. It is possible that, in some cases, human bones found within various strata of caves and mixed with faunal remains and other material pertain to secondary burials. This was evident both in Tharrounia (Sampson 1993a) and on Youra. At Franchthi, no observation was made on the bones to determine whether they show traces of corrosion and toothmarks of carnivorous animals after their exposure to the surface or cut-marks that could indicate cannibalism. Also, the placement of bones in specific areas after the primary burial, which would suggest secondary burial rituals, has not been confirmed. It is more likely that the disturbance of earlier burials by the cave’s occupants occurred due to practical reasons. Cases of secondary burials have not been observed at Franchthi, but the cremation of the two corpses found in different positions may refer to a final burial that took place at a later phase. Mesolithic burials also occur on Kythnos. Although Cherry (1979, 28) and Perl s (1990a) doubted the dating of the skeletal remains from Kythnos to the Mesolithic period, the excavation of the area substantiated the Mesolithic character of the site (Sampson et al. 2002; Sampson 2006a). The dead were buried in various ways (Sampson et al. 2002). In one case (Burial 1), the corpse was inhumed inside a rock-cut pit (Pl. 12.3B) with a slab placed on top of the body. In another case, the corpse was placed inside a shallow pit, irregular in shape, with an accumulation of rocks on its periphery. The corpse of Burial 1 lay supine in a contracted position, defined and surrounded by a row of stones; a large slab covered the entire burial. The sixteen burials on Kythnos, both those cut in the rock and those

215

dug into the earth, were under the stone-paved floors of the village dwellings (Sampson 2006a). Slabs placed on the chest of corpses have also been recovered in Ain Mallaha and El-Wad in Palestine (Perrot 1966, 461; Wright 1978, 211). This practice could be suggestive of some fear of the dead, whereas at Franchthi, rocks inside burials are very small and could be a sign of respect offered by every member of the community (Cullen 1995, 282). On Kythnos, special care was taken in adorning the dead, as shown by the occurrence of ocher on some skeletal parts. The ocher contained inside mortars at Franchthi signifies that these vessels were used for the production of paint for the dead or dyes for various materials. Ocher has also been recovered on pendants of the Lower Mesolithic. A stone with traces of ocher was found under the head of a corpse at the Grotte des Enfants in northern Italy (Newell, Constandse-Westermann, and Meiklejohn 1979), while colored pebbles have been reported from Mesolithic Vlasac in Yugoslavia (Srejović and Letica 1978). Evidence for burial practices also comes from Theopetra Cave in Thessaly (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000a, 2000b, 2006). The Mesolithic skeleton in Theopetra Cave dates to 7050–7010 B.C. (8070± 60 B.P.) and was found in a semi-contracted position like the burials at Franchthi. Judging from its date, it probably belongs to a later phase of this period. The corpse was inhumed in a pit, and according to the anthropological study, it belonged to an 18–20-year-old woman, approximately 1.57 m tall. According to anthropologists (KyparissiApostolika 2006), this type of burial is reminiscent of those among the Natufians from Nahal Oren and Hatoula in Palestine. The anthropological type of this burial differs from the Protomediterranean skull of Youra. At Lepenski Vir in Serbia, it has been observed that skulls and jaws were buried separately, and in one case a jaw was positioned on the floor of a paved structure (Srejović 1969, 118). In the Middle East, the examination of the burial customs of Natufian populations yielded many similarities with those of the Greek Mesolithic. Natufian Mesolithic burial practices are confirmed after the discovery of hundreds of burials (Ferembach 1961), especially in caves (Kebara, Erq el-Ahmar, and Hayonim). Both primary and secondary burials occur, while the posture of the dead varies. Inhumation takes place in a squatting

216

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

or supine position, and some individuals were found in a contracted position, possibly with their limbs originally tied and sewn with leather. There are cases of graves covered by stone floors (at Erq el-Amar and El-Wad). Burial remains were collected at the sites of Ain Mallaha and Wadi Fallah; Perrot (1966) explained the custom of primary and secondary burials to be a result of a semi-nomadic way of life. According to him, secondary burials were for the individuals who died away from their settlement. After a primary burial, corpses would be exhumed, and parts of their skeletal remains would be brought back to the permanent settlement, along with the rest of the group. Secondary burials

occurred inside shallow graves and storage pits at sites such as Ain Mallaha, Erq el-Ahmar, El-Wad, and Kebara. Funeral offerings are rarely recovered inside burials, an observation also valid for Mesolithic Europe. The tooth of a horse species and gazelle horns accompanied, respectively, several skulls in Erq el-Ahmar and Ain Mallaha. Jewels, such as beaded necklaces, crowns, Dentalium shells sewn on cloth, and bracelets, were often recovered (Garrod and Bate 1937). It should be noted that Dentalium shells abound at Franchthi. In addition, there are many instances of red ocher on bones in Ain Mallaha and Wadi Fallah.

The Question of Sea Level Change in the Northern Aegean during the Holocene An understanding of the environmental changes and the successive adaptations of man in the period when the Cave of the Cyclops was inhabited is one of the main objectives of this research, aiming at an interpretation of the behavioral patterns of the prehistoric people who crossed the Northern Aegean in the Final Paleolithic and the Mesolithic. Many questions arising from the study of the impressive archaeological material would find much simpler answers in light of regional environmental conditions during the era 10,000 years ago. It is possible that in the area of the Northern Sporades, as in the entire Aegean region, the early Holocene microenvironments existed under more dramatic circumstances than in central and western Europe. The populations of hunters and foragers living in areas of the Aegean faced many difficulties in a radically altered environment, deprived of their usual food resources. The terrain of Youra and all the surrounding islands, with the island’s rocky and precipitous coastline, prompt one to accept that significant changes took place between that early age and the present day. Considering the large-scale changes in the sea level at the end of the last Ice Age, which chronologically coincides with the beginning of the Mesolithic on Youra, the examination of these natural phenomena becomes particularly important. It has been generally acknowledged that toward the

end of the last Ice Age (ca. 18,000–16,000 B.C.) the sea level reached its lowest level, approximately 120 m lower than today, or 150 m, according to some scholars (Bird and Fabri 1987). As a result of this drop, the islands of the Northern Sporades would have practically joined the Thessalian mainland, forming a long peninsula oriented from northeast to southwest, with the exception of a small channel in the strait between Alonnessos and Kyra-Panagia and an even smaller channel between Kyra-Panagia and Youra (Fig. 12.4). This can account for the remains of occupation in the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic that have been discovered on Alonnessos and the Northern Sporades’ deserted islands in recent years (Panagopoulou, Kotjabopoulou, and Karkanas 2001). Of course, by the Middle Paleolithic the sea level had already risen to a level fluctuating between 35 and 55 m lower than the present. The small channels between the islands would not be an obstacle for the people of that time; they probably posed a challenge, which prompted the people to invent ways to cross the watery divisions. Considering the present sea level, Psathoura, Youra, Prasonisi, and all the small nearby islands formed a cluster dwarfed by the mountain peaks of Youra, with a small plain to the south and a very extensive plain to the north located between Youra and Psathoura.

CONCLUSIONS

However, at the end of the Pleistocene when the sea level started to rise abruptly and the islands became isolated from each other, the prehistoric inhabitants of this area were probably forced to adapt to the new conditions and invent effective sailing and fishing techniques from a relatively early era. It is possible that the former lowland areas that were inundated with water would have created fisheries, and the local people may have engaged in this activity. This may explain the early fishing activities in the Aegean. Toward the end of the Paleolithic (10,000–9000 B.C.) the sea level was approximately 80 m lower than the present, and the temperature was 2–3°C lower as well (Bintliff and van Zeist 1982, 289; Fairbanks 1989). Thus, the climatic changes through time (increase in temperature and humidity) continued to cause a significant rise in the sea level; this resulted in a sea level 50–60 m lower than the present in 8500 B.C., and in 7000 B.C. approximately 39 m lower than today. Lambeck’s (1996) studies have shown that in the beginning of the Mesolithic the sea level was approximately 50 m lower than it is at present (Figs. 12.5, 12.6). Analyses of geological material from drillings in central and northern Greece (van Zeist and Bottema 1982; Allen 1997; Tzedakis 1993, 1999) have shown that the hot and damp climate continued until 6000 B.C. Between 8000 and 5000 B.C. (i.e., from the Lower Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic), there was a rise in the humidity level, while from 5000 B.C. (Late Neolithic) onward winters were colder and summers were warmer. It is during this period—which attracts interest due to intensive human activities inside the Cave of the Cyclops— that the separation of the islands began, Youra took its present form, Psathoura became much larger, and a small island appeared to the northeast of Youra where a well-known bank with plenty of fish is located today. The islands of Gramiza, Koumbi, and Pappous appear to have remained clustered. The rise in sea level continued incessantly, and around 6250 B.C., in the Early Neolithic, the sea level was 30 m lower than the present (Chronis 1986, 20), or perhaps somewhat lower in level (34 m) according to others (Kraft, Kayan, and Erol 1982, 11). During the Mesolithic, the rise in temperature was regular, and only toward the end of this period did the rise accelerate, along with a rise in humidity and much rainfall. According to Bottema

217

(1974) and Magny (1982, 3), winter temperatures in the Mesolithic were similar to the present, and corresponded to those of the climatic Boreal Phase in northern Europe. Around 6000 B.C., the sea level was 28 m lower than today, and during the Middle Neolithic it remained constant at approximately 25–30 m. In this period, there are indications of an increase in humidity in the lowlands, and it is believed that many coastal plains were inundated by seawater in northwest Greece (Bottema 1974, 159). During this period, vegetation became more dense, and the lakes of northern Greece increased in size. It is considered that the warmer and damper climate that prevailed after the end of the Paleolithic lasted until 5900–5600 B.C. From that period onward, a drop in rainfall was noted, and the climate converted to a sub-Mediterranean climate with very warm and dry summers (Bottema 1974, 161; Beug 1982, 99). Toward the end of the Middle Neolithic, the climate began to be ideal (optimum climatique), while the decrease in rainfall caused plains to dry and created fertile sedimentary soil fit for cultivation. During the same period, it has been estimated that there was a rise of the sea level in various areas of the Aegean, but the same has not been confirmed for the Macedonian coastline (Kraft, Kayan, and Erol 1982, fig. 4; Psychoyos 1988, 172). From the beginning of the Late Neolithic (ca. 5300 B.C.), an intense rise in the sea level resulted in the inundation of the Macedonian coastal lowlands. Around 5000 B.C. the optimum climatique culminated, and temperatures rose 2°C above the present, with an increase in rainfall (Bottema 1974, 159; Lamb 1977). These conditions prevailed until 4800 B.C. when intense human activity commenced on Youra, and the cave’s occupants were actively engaged in stock breeding. At the beginning of Late Neolithic Ia (5300–4800 B.C.), the sea level, as Kraft (1982, 18) claims, rose up to 25 m but was still 20 m lower than the present, with a tendency to stabilize during the second half of the Late Neolithic. Lambeck disagrees, and claims that around 4500– 4000 B.C. the sea level was lower by 5–6 m. From 4800 B.C. onward an even more rapid rise in the sea level began, with a maximum rise during the first half of the 4th millennium B.C. (Kraft 1982; Schulz 1989, 386). This rise was followed by a smaller increase in the Black Sea. It is estimated that in this phase the sea level rose 3 m higher than

218

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

the present (Flint 1971, 84, 318; Schulz 1989, 375). This has been traditionally used as a explanation for the abandonment of coastal sites in Macedonia and the moving of people inland between 3800 and 3300 B.C. According to Aslanis (1992, 1993), these phenomena can be explained by the fact that an increase in the humidity spread malaria throughout the coastal plains. The study of skeletal remains from the cemetery at Kephala on Keos (Coleman 1977, 133) proved that malaria was a widespread disease at the end of the Neolithic. Populations also moved in Bulgaria, as lowland and coastal settlements were abandoned. The Varna (Todorova 1986; 1990) and the Vinča Cultures came to an end, and it is noted that Neolithic sites moved to higher altitudes (Ruzie and Pavlovic 1988, 59). According to Todorova (1990, 697), the waves of human migration from the steppes to the south (Kurgan peoples) probably resulted from the novel climatic conditions. However, in Thessaly and southern Greece no movement of population occurred (unless this has not yet been identified due to lack of research). Nevertheless, toward the end of the 4th millennium, after another significant drop, the level of the sea was stabilized (Flint 1971, 319), and the Macedonian coastal sites were resettled. If there was such a great rise in temperature, a general drought would have probably forced people to seek shelter at higher altitudes and in caves. In this period a boom in the occupation of caves is noted (Corycian, Kastria, Tharrounia, Kitsos, and Alepotrypa). According to Faug res (1978), the rise in temperature created a second wave of drought inland. However, all these environmental changes that would have drastically affected the sensitive economy of the Neolithic are still speculative and need to be reexamined, partly because such changes and their impact on the economy are not always clear, and also because the specialists are not unanimous on their palaeo-climatological observations and conclusions. Pirazzoli and other scholars insist that the scenarios presented with regard to the rise in sea level and the sinking of land in the northern Aegean, based on the submerged remains along the Thracian coast (Papageorgiou et al. 1996), cannot be accepted on archaeological and geological grounds. They believe that no natural mechanisms that would have caused such enormous rises of 5, 10, or 15 m occurred, and that, on the other hand, some tectonic

phenomena could have caused a sinking of up to 9 m, as in the case of southwest Crete (Pirazzoli 1986, 62). However, they claim that in the case of Thrace, stronger proof is needed to confirm that this tectonic activity took place. The speculated rise in sea level during the 4th millennium B.C. was based on the fact that several elevated coasts of the Aegean, the Dardanelles, and the eastern Mediterranean reflect traces of the optimum climatique. However, radiocarbon dating and marine biology have proven that the majority of elevated coastlines show diverse seismic elevations and multiple tectonic activity dated to an earlier phase (6000–5000 B.C.) or that the proposed coastlines were not, in fact, documented (Keraudren 1979). As Pirazzoli (1991) proved, much of the Thracian hypothesis consists of various cases of sinking and elevation that lack any substantial evidence. The curves that form the coast of Thrace differ, and this is probably a sign of local tectonic activity of limited force. Unfortunately, even those who disagree with the optimum climatique theory do not have another solution to suggest. In any case, it is a fact that during the last 5,500 years, the sea level rose several times above the present level or fell significantly. According to Flemming (Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973), archaeo-geological research in the southern Aegean shows that during the last 4,000 years there has been a sea level fluctuation between +3 and -5 m. During the Classical period, it has been confirmed that the sea level dropped between 5–7 to 10–15 m, while in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. it dropped at least 5 m. In 365 B.C., a rise that took place in western Crete was attributed to tectonic causes. According to Stiros, the climatological conditions in the northern Aegean are not conducive to the development of marine micro-organisms closely affixed to the sea level. From studying Lithofaga in northeast Euboea however, it is possible to confirm the elevation of the land and a series of tectonic movements in the period between 1050–900 B.C. and 510–380 B.C. (Stiros et al. 1992). In our opinion, the fluctuations of sea level in the Aegean cannot possibly be the result of tectonic causes alone, as these create small-range environmental changes. We believe that all those changes probably can be attributed to a combination of climatic and tectonic causes, and that further intensive investigation is necessary to confirm this.

CONCLUSIONS

219

Sea Routes: Crossing the Prehistoric Aegean Looking closely at the position of the Northern Sporades on a map, one is surprised by their orderly arrangement from the southwest to the northeast. Even though the deserted northern islands of the group have always been considered isolated, they are essentially very close to one another, with the possibility of easy access between them. Although the sea in the northern archipelago is open, often with a very silent undulation, there are many periods of good weather throughout the year, with a dead calm of one or two weeks, unlike the Cyclades and Dodecanese where winds are much stronger. Much has been written on the prehistoric sea routes of the northeast Aegean to the south through the Euboean Gulf (Sampson 1985a, 1988a, 1997b; Agouridis 1997). It is self-evident that the Northern Sporades form a continuous chain in this route that would naturally end or begin with the northern Euboean coast, which has been sheltered from rough weather from prehistoric times until the present. In this way, sailors can avoid the inhospitable and dangerous waters of the eastern coast of Euboea and the terrifying cape of Cavo d’Oro. From Psathoura—the northernmost island of the Sporades—southward to Euboea, there is continuous visual contact between the islands. On the other hand, the route to the northeast of Psathoura is difficult. Although the coast of Chalkidiki, especially Mount Athos, is often visible from Youra or Psathoura, the distance of 80 nautical miles probably discouraged navigation in prehistoric times. East of Youra, the solitary island of Piperi is inhospitable, and it would not ever have favored sailing. Between this point and the closest island of Hagios Efstratios, the open sea could have been easily crossed in good weather. For ships sailing west, the high peaks of Youra from Hagios Efstratios would be easily distinguished for the greater part of the year, a valuable guide on the route to the southwest. In the opposite direction, the low peaks of Hagios Efstratios (243 m) and Lemnos (319 m) would not have greatly assisted ships sailing to the northeast, as the visibility of those mountains theoretically does not exceed over 35 nautical miles. However, under rare circumstances visibility can be significantly greater; Agouridis (1997, 17) notes that in exceptional cases, Hagios Efstratios, Lemnos, and

Lesbos are visible from Skyros. Besides Athos, one can also distinguish the low mountains of the other two peninsulas of Chalkidiki from Youra, as well as Mount Olympus at sunset. In addition, sea currents, which would have been well known back in prehistoric times (Papageorgiou 1997), played a significant role in seafaring, especially in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic when sails were still not in use. The current of the northeast Aegean drifting from the Hellespont to the southwest facilitates navigation in a north to south direction, especially in the summer season when it is stronger. Another current from the eastern Mediterranean flows from the south northward along the coast of Asia Minor, facilitating seafaring from the Dodecanese and Crete to the northeast Aegean (Fig. 12.7). Recent studies (Zodiatis 1994) showed that the northeast Aegean stream, except for its stable southward course, forms small-scale cyclonic and anticyclonic flow regions or eddies in the area between Lemnos and the Northern Sporades, especially in the summer season. These anticyclonic flows facilitate the navigation of small vessels from the Northern Sporades to Lemnos as well as to Chalkidiki. In the winter, anticyclonic flows south of Lemnos would have enabled rowboats to follow the current from Skyros to Chios, and then drift to the northeast Aegean assisted by southern winds. There are also smaller-scale currents, such as that flowing from Attica and Euboea and passing across the islands of Andros, Tenos, and Mykonos in the direction of Ikaria and Samos, which would have impacted navigation connecting the Cyclades with the eastern Aegean during prehistoric times (Fig. 12.8). In an effort to explain the similarities between the Mesolithic tools of the Cave of the Cyclops and corresponding finds in southeast Asia Minor (Antalya), one could propose a sea route toward the east for the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Aegean. However, navigation in the Aegean during the winter would be particularly dangerous because the northeast current is weaker (prevented by southern winds usually blowing in this season), while both northern and southern winds are very strong. Thus, traveling in those early times would have taken

220

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

place between spring and fall, maybe with the exception of a short lull (Halcyon days) prevailing in the middle of the winter. With reference again to the northern Aegean, the most difficult passage is that from Lemnos to the Northern Sporades, with strong winds and dangerous currents. Aside from this difficult passage, the remainder of the route to the east is fairly easy, as the distance between Lemnos and the coast of Asia Minor is very short. Another possible route would be that following the coastline of Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, which would have benefited from the security of constant visual contact with the coast but would have been rather time consuming. The fleet of Persia’s King Xerxes followed this course in the 5th century B.C., but this choice seems to have been dictated by specific military reasons, in addition to the fact that the Persians did not share the sailing experience of the Greeks. This inexperience at sea is evident because they were not aware of the sea route through the Euboean Gulf (Sampson 1999). Thus, part of their fleet opted to make the dangerous crossing of eastern Euboea and was wrecked close to Cape Kafireas. In opposition to Agouridis’ (1997, 8) beliefs, this sea route from the northern Aegean to the Cyclades had never been easy. However, ancient Greek sailors knew this route, as cited in the Argonautic expedition (Apollonius, Argonautica 1.910–921) as well as the Trojan campaign (Serverin 1989). Since the Early Bronze Age, this passage of the northern Aegean was widely used, especially for trading between western Asia Minor (Troy), Euboea, and the Cyclades. Relations also existed between Poliochni on Lemnos, Euboea (Manika, Kymi), and Skyros (Palamari). The flourishing of Manika as an important center during the Early Bronze Age (Sampson 1985a, 1988b) is attributed to the fact that it controlled the Strait of Euripos and the passage of the Euboean Gulf. The same route must have also been used in the Neolithic or the Mesolithic, despite the more primitive means of navigation and the greater difficulties encountered by the people of that era. Also, despite the fact that the specific route was time consuming and demanded particular skills in navigation and experience at sea, it seems logical that people of those times would procure obsidian from Melos through the passage of the Euboean Gulf. Examining this assumption, one must realize that

during the Mesolithic, the sea level was 40–50 m lower than at present and a large part of the Euboean Gulf would have been land. Therefore, navigation in this area would have been impossible. Even during the Neolithic, the sea level was much lower than the present, and this picture most probably remained unchanged until the Early Bronze Age (Kambouroglou, Marukian, and Sampson 1988, 1989). However, we believe that passage through the Euboean Gulf would have been possible with the use of various floating devices or through terrestrial means. It seems unlikely that the Mesolithic people would have passed along the dangerous and long route of the eastern coast of Euboea. From Melos to south Euboea, the voyage would not have presented any serious difficulties because there are only small distances between the islands. Kythnos, where a significant Mesolithic settlement was recently discovered, would have been a naval station on this voyage. Considering the bad weather conditions prevailing in the open Myrtoon Sea as well as the lack of assisting currents in this area, and in light of evidence from our survey on the islets of Falconera and Parapola in 1999 (Sampson 2006a, 497–498), we have concluded that the transport of obsidian from Melos to Franchthi followed an indirect course passing through the Cycladic islands and Attica (Fig. 12.9). Agouridis (1997) arrives at the same conclusion, and claims that the inhabitants of Attica procured obsidian from Franchthi. This is bolstered by the fact that the small islands between Melos and Ermionis, which should have been the natural naval stations of those times, have not offered any Mesolithic or Neolithic finds (Kyrou 1990). During an experimental project undertaken in 1988 with a straw boat (papyrella), the voyage from Lavrion to Melos took 7 days and encountered a series of significant problems (Tzalas 1987, 20). During the Early Neolithic, close affinities occur between the figurines from Kyra-Panagia and those of Asia Minor (Efstratiou 1985). In addition, there are significant similarities among the pottery wares from Youra, Euboea, Skyros, and Chios (Ayio Gala). These indicate that another particularly dangerous sea route was occasionally taken from a northwest to a southeast direction (Fig. 12.10), which passed through the open sea between Euboea, Skyros, and the eastern Aegean islands. This route would have been considerably

CONCLUSIONS

facilitated by the anticyclonic flows of the northeast Aegean current (Papageorgiou 1997, fig. 5). Therefore, it becomes apparent that from an early age people would cross the open Aegean Sea, even in areas with no visual contact between islands. This possibility can be compared to the daring voyages undertaken by the inhabitants of Skopelos and Alonnessos, who crossed the open sea with small boats during World War II—using either oars or sails—to procure cereals and oil from Chios and Mytilene. Predicting the weather, the navigators were able to reach their destination after continuous rowing for many days with no wind. In the same way, up until the 1960s, the inhabitants of Alonnessos used to travel repeatedly to Chalkidiki during the harvesting and threshing seasons in order to acquire wheat. Certainly, similar voyages in the open sea would have been undertaken during prehistoric times.

221

Voyages covering even greater distances were constantly undertaken in Polynesia, and about 40,000 years ago the inhabitants of Australia sailed hundreds of miles in the open sea. This leads to the conclusion that early islanders had the potential to develop navigation techniques through the experience and knowledge inherited from their ancestors. This probably resulted in the consideration of navigation as a form of fine art (Agouridis 1997, 15). The Mesolithic fishermen of Youra appear to have specialized in navigation, and they probably carried on a vivid marine tradition originating from the Upper Paleolithic since they lived in an environment closely dependant on the sea and in an area considered to be one of the most difficult in terms of navigation in the Aegean.

The Northern Sporades Culture: Special Characteristics Until the 1970s, no one suspected the existence of a Middle Neolithic settlement such as Hagios Petros in the deserted islands of the Northern Sporades. The excavations of Theocharis and Efstratiou at this site provided evidence of pottery characteristics and figurines attesting to cultural autonomy. However, the recent excavations in the Cave of the Cyclops, supplemented by a survey of the surrounding islands, have shown traces of occupation even on the smallest of these islands, and proved that this culture begins about three millennia earlier than Hagios Petros. There are numerous indications that an early Aegean culture had spread in the area already in the Mesolithic period (9th millennium B.C.), but to this day, only the Cave of the Cyclops has been excavated. It is possible that open-air sites of the same period did not leave any traces due to extensive erosion. It is most likely that such Mesolithic sites existed on the islands of Gramiza, Psathoura, and Sphinga, which was a peninsula in northern Kyra-Panagia in that era. The main characteristics of this early island culture demonstrated dependence on marine activities,

including the gathering of food and materials, as well as intensive specialization in sailing and fishing. Organic remains provide evidence of this dependence, while specialization was evidenced by the development of several types of hooks. The lithic industry of the islands relied on local materials but also included obsidian from Melos, indicating that people were able to sail long distances to obtain necessary raw materials. The manufacture of jewelry and tools from various shells (Spondylus, Patella) is another component of this early phase. It is possible that the island population was indigenous, the descendants of Paleolithic elements that may have already existed in the area, as evidenced by tools of the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic recovered on almost all of the islands (Alonnessos, Psathoura, Youra, Kyra-Panagia, and Gramiza; see Ch. 9). The Paleolithic hunters, who searched for their game from Thessaly to the northernmost end of the peninsula (Psathoura), possibly became fishermen and stock farmers after environmental changes caused the development of a mild climate. However, it is also possible that

222

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

population groups from neighboring Thessaly settled on the islands at the end of the Holocene. According to the present evidence, the human presence in this area was sporadic for a long period, but then this island culture culminates at the end of the Early Neolithic. At this time, the excavated sites of Hagios Petros and the Cave of the Cyclops must have been closely related. In addition, other settlements must have existed during this period, but sites located at present have not yielded any diagnostic finds. The exquisite pottery of this period is reminiscent of the Thessalian red on white ware, but with differences in the applied local slip, which was cream colored for the background and cherry colored or red-brown for decorative elements. The decoration of the local pottery wares from Youra and Kyra-Panagia, consisting of canvas-like patterns created by combinations of horizontal and vertical lines, is a unique style, and proves that it could only have been the product of a specialized local workshop (see Ch. 3). It is also possible that it was the work of a competent craftsman or several generations of craftsmen of the area. On the basis of pottery analysis, it was demonstrated that the

EN/MN pottery, including the canvas-like style and the monochrome ware, can be characterized as local and is different than the corresponding ware of Thessaly with reference to its clay and firing (Liritzis, Orphanidis, and Efstratiou 1991, 307; Papakosta, forthcoming). In addition, no indication of pottery exchange with Thessaly occurs. In contrast, during the Late Neolithic the limestone/ dolomite fabric of the EN/MN is scarce at Youra, and the pottery is imported from elsewhere. The analyses of clay showed that the Late Neolithic pottery of Youra and Hagios Petros is connected to Thessaly, Euboea, and perhaps the southern Aegean. In addition, the figurine art from the Northern Sporades resembles figurines from Euboea, the eastern Aegean (Furness 1956, fig. 13.1; Hood 1981, 63, fig. 43), and Hacılar (Mellaart 1970) in Asia Minor. One figurine has Balkan parallels (Efstratiou 1985, fig. 70, pl. 28; Gimbutas 1982; 1986, 225–301). It seems that the inhabitants of the Northern Sporades were particularly successful in combining cultural elements adopted from the surrounding areas, and, ultimately, they created their own unique culture.

From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: The Early Productive Stages It has been noted that during the late Mesolithic period in western Europe, both general and specialized strategies for procuring food resources existed. Two main reasons have been considered as indirect factors that led to the turning point toward agriculture. In the first case, the last Mesolithic societies were not economically viable because they invested in activities that did not yield any favorable results. In the second case, communities that specialized on a narrow spectrum in their search for food resources were trapped by super-dependence and competition with neighbors engaged in agriculture; their choices gradually led to intensified specialization and finally to the collapse of the hunting economy. The question that still remains is whether the origin of the first food-producing cultures is to be

sought from a local background or if they were the result of diffusion from the East (see sites on Fig. 12.11). There are several theories that attempt to answer this query. According to the “demic diffusion” model of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984), the spread of farming in Europe was the result of two different processes. The first was a cultural diffusion that involved the passage of cereals and farming techniques from one local group to the next without any displacement of the respective groups. The second was a “demic diffusion” involving the movement of the early farmers. In the case of the “wave of advance model” (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1971), this movement is thought to be due to the relocation of Neolithic settlements over short distances (Ammerman 2003). The “demic diffusion” is envisioned as a slow and

CONCLUSIONS

continuous dispersal of populations rather than colonization. In contrast, the “availability model” (Zvelebil 1986b, 11) takes the view that farming replaced hunting-gathering strategies slowly and through lengthy adaptations of everyday practices to new ideas rather than through quick acceptance of innovation. This indigenist model presupposes a continuity between the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic in a defined region, and it cannot be applied everywhere in Europe. In the Mediterranean area (Greece, Italy, and the Adriatic), the Mesolithic sites are much fewer than the Early Neolithic sites and their distribution is not the same. Zvelebil (2000, 57) contributes to the neolithization model by supporting small-scale movements of the population within the contact zones between foragers and farmers, and by suggesting that, in addition to the economic parameter, the established social networks such as partnerships and kinship may have played an important role in the population’s reaction to innovation. Another recent model, as proposed by Zilhão (1997, 38), is based on his experience at Portuguese shell middens and Early Neolithic sites. According to his “leapfrog colonisation model,” the spread of farming from the southeast to the northwest Mediterranean took place rapidly, that is at a rate of 5 km per year, as the radiocarbon dates from Portuguese sites suggest. Moreover, he claims that “this spread of farmers and shepherds could be described as a punctuated event not the outcome of a slow, regular east–west spread from one area to the next” (Zilhão 1997, 21). The process of transition from the hunting stage to the productive economic stage has been slow in certain cases (e.g., Syro-Palestine), lasting for 4,500 years, and rapid in others; thus, in some places it occurred earlier than in others. In the Middle East as well as Greece, this change was realized at an early age due to the significant variety of solutions for procuring food and the differentiated typology of the lithic industry in use. On the other hand, in western Europe this transition was delayed because of the technological investment in the already existing economy. The steps leading to a complete Neolithic economy in the Middle East and Anatolia were uneven; it is remarkable that in some places no farming existed while in others self-sown cereals were already

223

harvested. During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) at Jarmo (Braidwood 1956) in the southern Zagros (6750–6500 B.C.), while pigs and goats were already domesticated, sheep were not included. At Çayönü (Özdoğan 2003) and Cafer Höyük (Moulins 1993) in southeast Asia Minor (7200–6500 B.C.) as well as at Can Hasan, Turkey (Payne 1972) the cultivation of cereals appears, but not stock breeding, which begins at the end of this period. In the aceramic phase at Hacılar (Mellaart 1975) on the Ikonion Plain, no animal domestication occurs, but there is a form of agriculture. It is possible that this evidence represents an early attempt toward neolithization, reflecting an early stage similar to the proto-Neolithic of SyroPalestine, during which the largest amounts of food were collected through hunting and fishing. As in the Near East, where two to three millennia went by preceding the productive economy of the PPNB, in the Aegean (Youra and Kythnos) this process probably lasted for one or two millennia, although a preceramic stage counterpart to that in the Near East seems impossible in Greece. In Greece, an early attempt was made to detect the appearance of neolithization and the location of a pre-ceramic phase at sites, especially in Thessaly (Theocharis 1967) and southern Greece (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1992, 97). It appeared for a moment that this phase would cover the transitional stage from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. However, today this pre-ceramic phase is not acknowledged by most experts (Bloedow 1991), and has not been successfully confirmed in the stratigraphy. In Greece, agriculture and animal husbandry began in the early 7th millennium B.C. on Crete and later in Thessaly. In Theopetra Cave, Mangafa’s preliminary report (2000, 136; see also Kotzamani 2006) mentions wild, single-grained, wheat samples (Triticum boeoticum) and cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. exasticum) from Mesolithic strata. Wild barley at Franchthi dates from the 9th millennium B.C., and was found within later Paleolithic strata, while Mesolithic strata in the same cave contained wild cereals (barley, oats) and legumes (Hansen and Renfrew 1978; Perl s 1987, 11). At Youra, there are fragments of cereals in the Lower and Upper Mesolithic, which are not diagnostic, as well as some fragments of lentils (Sarpaki, forthcoming), but unfortunately the sample was too small to be evaluated. In the Lower

224

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Mesolithic, Capra aegagrus (wild goat) is present at a transitional stage of domestication on the island (Trantalidou 2003, 170), and suids (Sus scrofa [wild boar]) appear in the lowest level where no caprids exist. In the Upper Mesolithic caprids show no differences from the domesticated caprids found in Early Neolithic levels of Thessaly, as Trantalidou (forthcoming) claims. However, with reference to Greece it has also been claimed that only some of the wild ancestors of plants were, in fact, part of indigenous flora (Renfrew 1973; Bökönyi 1973), and, in this sense, Greece could not represent a clearly indigenous Neolithic civilization (Kotsakis 1992, 122). Nevertheless, various researchers (Dennell 1983; Barker 1985) have maintained that the seeming absence of wild cereals and wild sheep and goat from European ecological systems does not constitute a reliable indication of their absence at the end of the Pleistocene. This argument does not provide a plausible answer to the question: Why have the Neolithic sites in Greece, besides Franchthi Cave and probably Youra, provided no samples of wild and domesticated animals together, as is the case in the Middle East? As Kotsakis claims (1992, 122), if we wish to apply a new approach to neolithization in Greece and view it not as a Middle East resonance—direct or indirect—but rather as an autonomous evolution, we are obliged to modify our theoretical framework and defy its restrictions. The “Nuclear Zone” theory, which supports that productive economy originated in the Middle East and was exported from there to all other areas (Braidwood 1960; Braidwood and Howe 1960) does not provide an adequate explanation, as commented by Binford (1968, 1983) and Flannery (1973) in the past and by numerous indigenist-theory scholars at present. The research into the Neolithic in Greece has up to now not been successful in drawing away from the consequences of the theoretical archetypes of the “Nuclear Zone,” while the diffusionist explanation of this theory has been reduced to a stereotype that does not allow for the expression of diverse opinions (Wijnen 1982, 4). Therefore, it is imperative that any theoretical thoughts on the emergence of the Neolithic in Greece are released from the suffocating domination of “wild ancestors,” and confront the real dimensions of this phenomenon. Such an impact is evident in the work of Barker (1985) and Dennell (1983), who tried to

explain the absence of wild animals and plants in Greece by giving alternative solutions. At present it seems that no in-depth research concerning flora has been undertaken. Since self-sown, single-grain wheat (Triticum boeoticum) occurs in Greece, the Balkans, and the entire Mediterranean basin (Fig. 12.12), it would be possible for the developed species Triticum dicoccoides to have emanated from a crossing with another wild plant. It is fairly possible that the areas that maintained wild ancestors of grains decreased in the course of time, and extensive research by specialists is needed. An area believed to maintain wild grains of cereals even today is the Grevena region in eastern Macedonia. According to another prevailing view, the process of adopting agriculture and animal husbandry in Greece was not at all uniform (Lewthwaite 1986; Halstead 1989a, 1989b). Several researchers have noted the local and geographically wider differences in diverse ecological environments (Dennell 1978). According to the “marginal zone” hypothesis set forth by Binford (1968) and Flannery (1973), the demographic growth that resulted in the increase in exploitation of natural resources was the main mechanism for economic transformation. The result of this demographic explosion was the movement of population groups to regions located on the outskirts of a privileged area where confrontation with a less privileged environment led to more intensive exploitation techniques. Assuming that a crisis of over-population forced population groups from the Middle East and Anatolia to emigrate to Greece, these groups would have traveled mainly by sea because distances were great and large areas were possibly forested, which would have made access by land more difficult. Moreover, a land passage involved traveling through Thrace, a region that, in general, has not presented evidence earlier than the mid 6th millennium B.C. In eastern Thrace, however, some earlier sites like Hoca Çeşme have been discovered recently (Özdoğan 1999), but no Mesolithic sites are as yet evident. At the same time, Early Neolithic sites in Bulgaria suggest a spread from west to east rather than east to west, while the Sea of Marmara, connecting the Aegean and the Black Sea, acted more like a barrier than a bridge. Moreover, one cannot overlook the fact that the earliest Neolithic traces in Europe are found in Thessaly, in Crete, and recently in the Aegean

CONCLUSIONS

Basin (the Cave of the Cyclops). Therefore, the appearance of a fully developed Neolithic in mainland Greece from the 7th millennium B.C. would suggest an autochthonous origin for the Greek Neolithic. Although lacking any tangible evidence, Theocharis (1973, 24) had already proposed that there was an indigenous growth in Thessaly concurrent with the knowledge of animal domestication and land cultivation achieved through contacts with the Middle East. But what role did the Cave of the Cyclops and, generally, the Northern Sporades play in the process of neolithization? In addition, how autochthonous would the latter be, considering that domesticated animals appeared in the area 1,500 years earlier than in Thessaly? Could this mean that the early contacts between East and West were achieved in the Aegean Basin through naval routes? Even though the study of the finds from Theopetra Cave has not been completed, it seems that this site might constitute one of a large network of different sites, which lie buried at significantly deep levels within the deposits of the Thessalian plain, and might be located only accidentally. Let’s come now to another hypothesis in an attempt to determine the wild ancestors of the earliest animals found in Greece. The wild goat (Capra aegagrus) also occurs in the Paleolithic of Franchthi Cave, but it is thought to be extinct prior to the Mesolithic (Payne 1972). This rather arbitrary proposal is justified by the fact that in the beginning of the Holocene environmental conditions rapidly changed and the ecosystem became forested. Research of the past few decades in Epirus has determined a dense population of wild animals from the Upper Paleolithic and the Epipaleolithic (35,000–9000 B.P.). Could those animals constitute ancestral species of domesticated animals of the 7th millenium B.C.? Pollen analysis (Bottema 1974; Greig and Turner 1974) from different regions of Greece (eastern Macedonia, Epirus, Xyniada, and Kopais) has shown that similar conditions did not exist throughout Greece, and that the wild animals may not have disappeared completely but instead adapted to different ecosystems. The presence of caprids from an early period (9th millennium B.C.) on Youra—unless it signifies the constant presence of the species in the Greek area—makes the scenario of its transportation to the region at a very early stage, possibly

225

at the same time with its appearance in Anatolia, very plausible. An earlier occurrence of the domesticated goat is evidenced at Asiab Kermans in Iran around the beginning of the 9th millennium B.C. (Bökönyi 1977, 9), while in other areas it appears much later. For the time being, the question still remains unanswered; but, at the same time, bones of both domesticated and non-domesticated animals from sites in Anatolia, the Aegean, and other areas in the Mediterranean are undergoing DNA analysis, which will hopefully shed light on the problem (Trantalidou 2003, forthcoming). The only animal whose wild ancestor does not seem to exist in Greece is the sheep (Dennell 1978, 158). It may have been imported from the East, since it is known to have existed as early as the 9th millennium B.C. in northern Iraq and northern Iran. Nevertheless, Barker (1985) suggests that sheep and goats existed in a wild form at the end of the Pleistocene and continued to exist at the end of the Holocene in some Mediterranean areas. The case of Crete is fairly revealing but at the same time enigmatic. From the early stages of the Neolithic, people crossed the open Aegean Sea, purchased obsidian from Melos, and engaged in cultivation and animal husbandry. Apart from other animals, sheep were domesticated from the beginning of the 7th millennium—even earlier than at many sites in the East. Until today, the origins of the aceramic Neolithic on Crete have been sought in the Middle East or Asia Minor (Broodbank 1995). If we accept that the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Aegean had the ability to sail long distances already by the beginning of the Holocene, it is quite possible that in a later phase they could have transferred ideas and technology from the East. Such imported elements would then have been more successfully applied in the new environmental conditions of the Holocene, and have finally led to a decrease in hunting wild animals by imposing new means of procuring food. If immigration from the East had really taken place, similarities to the Middle East or Anatolia would occur in the earlier phases (pre-ceramic and Early Neolithic), at least as far as architecture and stone tool industry. This, however, is not true. It seems impossible that these immigrant groups, as much as they may have been cut off from their homeland, would have completely rejected forms of their original material culture (Wijnen 1982). How far backward in time is the early settling of Crete? If a local

226

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

Mesolithic culture existed on Crete, it is still obscure, as only later Mesolithic has so far been located on the island (Efstratiou et al. 2004). Could the pre-ceramic Cretan culture be an Aegean matter and be related to communication networks starting from mainland Greece and the Cycladic islands? To conclude, we can suggest that the neolithization phenomenon began in Greece at a very early stage, though not as early as in the East. The wild, self-sown vegetation of Greece could have constituted the foundation of local agriculture without foreign intervention, and the majority of wild

ancestors of domesticated animals could have originally lived in this area. Contacts with the East are certain at a much earlier stage, and could be responsible for imports of some more-evolved plants as well as sheep. The continuously increasing number of finds on mainland Greece and in the Aegean may possibly contribute to the creation of an extension of the “Nuclear Zone.” For the moment, neolithization remains a puzzle, as recent archaeological research does not provide us with simple answers to the important question of how farming reached Europe.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Abbreviations follow the conventions of the American Journal of Archaeology 111.1 (2007), pp. 14–34.

Adam, E. 1999. “Preliminary Presentation of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Stone Industries of Theopetra Cave, Western Thessaly,” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 266–270. Adams, M.J. 1983. “Where Two Dimensions Meet: The Kuba of Zaire,” in Washburn, ed., 1983a, pp. 40–55. Agouridis, C. 1997. “Sea Routes and Navigation in the Third Millennium Aegean,” OJA 16, pp. 1–24. Akazawa, T. 1986. “Regional Variation in Procurement System in Jomon Hunter-Gatherers,” in Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers in Japan: New Research Methods, T. Akazawa and C.M. Aikens, eds., Tokyo, pp. 73–89. Albrecht, G. 1988. “Preliminary Results of the Excavation in the Karain B Cave near Antalya, Turkey: The Upper Paleolithic Assemblages and the Upper Pleistocene Climatic Development,” Paléorient 14, pp. 211–222. Albrecht, G., B. Albrecht, H. Berke, D. Burger, J. Moser, W. Rähle, W. Schoch, G. Storch, H.P. Uerpmann, and B. Urban. 1992. “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Finds from Öküzini,” Paléorient 18, pp. 123–141.

Alexiou, S. 1963. “Skoteinov,” ArchDelt 18, Chronika B2 (1965), p. 312. Allen, H. 1997. “The Environmental Conditions of the Kopais Basin, Boeotia, During the Postglacial with Special Reference to the Mycenaean Period,” in Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece. The Proceedings of the 6th International Boeotian Conference (BAR-IS 666), J. Bintliff, ed., Oxford, pp. 39–58. Alley, R., and P. Clark. 1999. “The Deglaciation of the Northern Hemisphere: A Global Perspective,” Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science 27, pp. 149–182. Alram-Stern, E. 1996. Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 2. Forschungsbericht 1975–1993 1: Das Neolithikum in Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 16), Vienna. Ammerman, A.J. 2003. “Looking Back,” in The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward (AIA Colloquia and Conference Papers 6), A.J. Ammerman and P. Biagi, eds., Boston, pp. 3–23.

230

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Ammerman, A.J., and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1971. “Measuring the Rate of Spread of Early Farming in Europe,” Man 6, pp. 674–688.

Bar-Yosef, O., and F.R. Valla. 1991. The Natufian Culture in the Levant (International Monographs in Prehistory 1), Ann Arbor.

———. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and Genetics of Population in Europe, Princeton.

Bass, G.F., and F.H. van Doorninck. 1971. “A FourthCentury Shipwreck at Yassi Ada,” AJA 75, pp. 27–37.

Apostolidis, N. 1883. To Yavrema sthn Ellavda, Athens.

Bassett, S.E. 1903. “The Cave at Vari. VI: The Terracotta Lamps,” AJA 7, pp. 338–349.

Arnold, D.E. 1983. “Design Structure and Community Organization in Quinua, Peru,” in Washburn, ed., 1983a, pp. 56–73. ———. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge. Aslanis, I. 1992. H Proi>storiva th~ Makedoniva~ I: H Neoliqikhv Epochv, Athens. ———. 1993. “H Calkoliqikhv Perivodo~ ston Boreioelladikov Cwvro: Problhvmata Anagnwvrish~ kai Diavrkeia~,” in Ancient Macedonia V. Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 10–15, 1989, Thessaloniki, pp. 133–145. Atkinson, T.D., R.C. Bosanquet, C.C. Edgar, A.J. Evans, D.G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith, and F.B. Welch. 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos Conducted by the British School at Athens (Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 4), London. Avgerinou, P. 1996. “The Northeast Aegean Islands,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 130–131. Bailey, D.M. 1988. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum III: Roman Provincial Lamps, London. Bailey, G.N., E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds. 1999. The Paleolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas: Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994 (BSA Studies 3), London. Barber, E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean, New York. ———. 1997. “Minoan Women and the Challenges of Weaving for Home, Trade and Shrine,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 515–519.

Baziotopoulou-Valavani, E. 1980. “Pelavtia Antivkura",” ArchDelt 35, Chronika B1 (1988), pp. 260–264. Belmont, J.S., and C. Renfrew. 1964. “Two Prehistoric Sites on Mykonos,” AJA 68, pp. 395–404. Beloyanni, M. 1993. “Apotupwvmata Plevgmato" sti" Bavsei~ Aggeivwn apov to Sphvlaio Skoteinhv Qarrounivwn,” in Sampson 1993a, pp. 346–359. Bernabò-Brea, L. 1964. Poliochni: Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos (Monografie della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene e della Missione Italiane in Oriente 1), Rome. Beug, H.J. 1982. “Vegetation History and Climatic Changes in Central and Southern Europe,” in Harding, ed., 1982, pp. 85–102. Biagi, P., and M. Spataro. 1999–2000. “Plotting the Evidence: Some Aspects of the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Mediterranean Basin,” Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia 12, pp. 15–54. Bikaki, A.H. 1984. Keos IV: Ayia Irini. The Potter’s Marks, Mainz. Binford, L.R. 1962. “Archaeology as Anthropology,” AmerAnt 28, pp. 217–225. ———. 1965. “Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process,” AmerAnt 31, pp. 203–210. ———. 1968. “Post Pleistocene Adaptations,” in New Perspectives in Archaeology, S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford, eds., Chicago, pp. 313–341. ———. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record, London.

Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe, Cambridge.

Bintliff, J. 1977. Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece, Based on Original Fieldwork (BAR Suppl. 28), Oxford.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1970. The Epipalaeolithic Cultures of Palestine, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University.

Bintliff, J., and W. van Zeist, eds. 1982. Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments, and Human Communities in the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory (BAR-IS 133), Oxford. Bird, E.C.F., and P. Fabri. 1987. “Archaeological Evidence of Coastline Changes with Reference to Latium, Italy,” Centre National de Recherche Scientifique 1987, pp. 107–113. Björk, C. 1995. Early Pottery in Greece: A Technological and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleion, Thessaly (SIMA 115), Jonsered. Blegen, C. 1930. “Gonia,” MMS 3, pp. 55–80. ———. 1937. Prosymna: The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum, Cambridge. Bloedow, E.F. 1991. “The ‘Aceramic’ Neolithic Phase in Greece Reconsidered,” MeditArch 4, pp. 1–43. ———. 1997. “Itinerant Craftsmen and Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 439–449.

231

Bottema, S. 1974. Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Northwestern Greece, Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen. Bottema, S., G. Entjes-Nieborg, and W. van Zeist, eds. 1990. Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Proceedings of the INQUA/BAI Symposium on the Impact of Ancient Man on the Landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean Region and the Northeast, Groninga, Netherlands, 6–9 March 1989, Rotterdam. Bottema, S., and H. Worldring. 1990. “Anthropogenic Indicators in the Pollen Record of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape,” in Bottema, EntjesNieborg, and van Zeist, eds., 1990, pp. 231–264. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge. Bovon, A. 1966. Lampes d’Argos (Études Péloponnésiennes 5), Paris.

Bogucki, P. 1986. “The Antiquity of Dairying in Temperate Europe,” Expedition 28, pp. 51–58.

Braidwood, R.J. 1956. “Excavations at Jarmo,” ILN April 28, pp. 410–411.

Bökönyi, S. 1973. “H Kthnotrofiva,” in Theocharis 1973, pp. 165–178.

Braidwood, R. 1960 [1979]. “The Agricultural Revolution in Hunters, Farmers and Civilizations,” in Old World Archaeology, C.C. Lamberg-Karlowsky, ed., 1979, San Francisco, pp. 91–99.

———. 1977. The Animal Remains from Four Sites in the Kermanshah Valley, Iran. Asiab, Sarab, Dehsavar and Siahbid: The Faunal Evolution, Environmental Changes and Development of Animal Husbandry, VIII–III Millennia B.C. (BAR Suppl. 34), Oxford. Bonsall, C., ed. 1989. The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the 3rd International Symposium, Edinburgh, 1985, Edinburgh. Bordone, B. 1534. Isolario, Venice. Borziak, I. 1994. “Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul în spaşiul dintre Nistru şi Prut (The Paleolithic and the Mesolithic in the Dnjestr-Pruth Area of Moldova),” Thraco-Dacica 15, pp. 19–40. Boschini, M. 1658. L’Archipelago con tutte le isole. Scogli secche e bassi fondi, Venice. Bostanci, E.Y. 1959. “Researches on the Mediterranean Coast of Anatolia. New Palaeolithic Site at Beldibi Near Antalya: Preliminary Report,” Anatolia 4, pp. 129–178. ———. 1965. “The Mesolithic at Beldibi and Belbasi and Relation with the Other Findings in Anatolia,” Antropoloji 3, pp. 91–142.

Braidwood, R., and B. Howe. 1960. Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, Chicago. Broca, M. 1879. Instructions générales pour les recherches anthropologiques à faire sur le vivant, Paris. Broneer, O. 1930. Terracotta Lamps (Corinth IV, pt. 2), Cambridge, MA. ———. 1977. Terracotta Lamps (Isthmia III), Princeton. Broodbank, C. 1995. This Small World the Great: An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Ph.D. diss., University of London. Bruneau, Ph. 1965. Les Lampes (Délos 26), Paris. ———. 1971. “Lampes Corinthiennes,” BCH 95, pp. 437–501. Burnham, H. 1965. “Çatal Hüyük: The Textiles and Twined Fabrics,” AnatSt 15, pp. 169–174. Bursian, C. 1871. Geographie von Griechenland, Band II, Leipzig.

232

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Buschor, E. 1912. Beitrage zur Geschichte der griechischen Textilkunst: die Anfänge und der orientalische Import, Munich. Butcher, S.A. 1982. “Late Roman Lamps from a Mine Gallery at Thoricos,” in Spitaels, ed., 1982b, pp. 137–143 Carrington-Smith, J. 1977. “Appendix 2: Cloth and Mat Impressions,” in Colemann 1977, pp. 114–127. Caskey, J.L. 1972. “Investigations in Keos, Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery,” Hesperia 41, pp. 357–401. Caskey, J.L., and E.G. Caskey. 1960. “The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis: Supplementary Excavations, 1958,” Hesperia 29, pp. 126–167. Cauvin, J. 1985. “Le Néolithique de Cafer Höyük (Turquie). Bilan provisoire après quatre campagnes (1979–1983),” Cahiers de l’Euphrate 4, pp. 123–133.

Pediavda tou Kovlpou tou Qermai>kou,v Ph.D. diss., University of Athens. Chrysostomou, A., and E. Stephani. 1994. “Nerovmuloi (Lovfo" Gkorivtsa),” ArchDelt 49, Chronika B2 (1999), pp. 543–544. Clark, G.A., and M. Neeley. 1987. “Social Differentiation in European Mesolithic Burial Data,” in Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends, P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil, and H.P. Blankholm, eds., Sheffield, pp. 121–127. Clarke, D. 1976. “Mesolithic Europe, the Economic Basis,” in Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth, and K.E. Wilson, eds., London, pp. 449–481. Clement, P. 1971. “Isthmia Excavations: West Cemetery (Filis), East Field, The Hexamilion,” ArchDelt 26, Chronika B1 (1974), pp. 100–111.

Cauvin, J., O. Aurenche, and M.-C. Cauvin. 1999. “The Pre-pottery Site of Caferhöyük (Malatya District),” in Neolithic Cultures of Turkey, M. Özdogan, ed., Istanbul, pp. 87–104.

Coen, M.N. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture, New Haven.

Cauvin, M.C. 1966. “L’industrie natoufienne de Mallaha. Note préliminaire,” L’Anthropologie 70, pp. 485–493.

Coleman, J.E. 1974. “The Chronology and Interconnections of the Cycladic Islands in the Neolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age,” AJA 78, pp. 333–344.

Chaniotes, F.K. (Dimitrios). 1994. “Bovreie" Sporavde" (Nhvso~ Peristevra, Nhvso~ Fagkrouv, Nhvso~ Yaqouvra, Nhvso~ Kurav-Panagiav),” ArchDelt 49, Chronika B2 (1999), pp. 862–864. Cherry, J. 1979. “Four Problems in Cycladic Prehistory,” in Papers in Cycladic Prehistory, J.L. Davis and J.F. Cherry, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 22–47. ———. 1981. “Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonisation of the Mediterranean Islands,” PPS 47, pp. 41–68. Choiseul-Gouffier, M.G.A. 1778. Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce, Paris. Chourmouziades, G.H. 1996. The Prehistoric Lakeside Settlement of Dispilio (Kastoria): Some Important Information in First Person Singular, Thessaloniki. ———, ed. 2002. Disphliov, 7500 Crovnia metav, Thessaloniki. Christodoulidou, E. 1990–1995. “Ellhnistikoiv kai Rwmai>koiv Luvcnoi apov thn Periochv tou Galerianouv Sugkrothvmato",”AAA 23–28, pp. 255–262. Chronis, G. 1986. Suvgcronh Dunamikovthta kai Izhmatogevnesh katav to Provsfato Olovkaino sthn

———. 1977. Keos I: Kephala. A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery, Princeton. Corrigan, P. 2008. The Dressed Society: Clothing, the Body and Some Meanings of the World, London. Costin, C.L. 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting and Explaining the Organization of Production,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory I, M.B. Schiffer, ed., Tucson, pp. 1–56. Cullen, T. 1985. “Social Implications of Ceramic Style in the Neolithic Peloponnese,” in Ancient Technology to Modern Science. Proceedings of a Society Forum at the 86th Annual Meeting of the American Ceramic Society, May 1, 1984, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Ceramics and Civilization 1), W.D. Kingery, ed., Columbus, pp. 77–98. ———. 1995. “Mesolithic Mortuary Ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece,” Antiquity 69, pp. 270–289. Cullen, T., and D.R. Keller. 1990. “The Greek Pithos through Time: Multiple Functions and Diverse Imagery,” in The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present, W.D. Kingery, ed., Westerville, OH, pp. 183–209.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dansgaard, W., S.J. Johnsen, H.B. Clausen, D. DahlJensen, N.S. Gundestrup, C.U. Hammer, C.S. Hvidberg, J.P. Steffensen, and A.E. Sveinbjörnsdottir. 1993. “Evidence for General Instability in Past Climate from a 250-Kyr Ice-Core Record,” Nature 364, pp. 218–219.

233

et Dimini: Les catégories céramiques,” BCH 112, pp. 1–58. Démoule, J.-P., and C. Perlès. 1993. “The Greek Neolithic: A New Review,” Journal of World Prehistory 7, pp. 355–416.

Dapper, O. 1703. Description exacte de l’Archipel, Amsterdam.

Dennell, R. 1978. Early Farming in South Bulgaria from the VI to the III Millennia BC (BAR Suppl. 45), Oxford.

Davaras, C. 1967. “Sphvlaion Lerav (Sphvlaion tou Panov"),” ArchDelt 22, Chronika B2 (1969), pp. 495–497.

———. 1983. European Economic Prehistory: A New Approach, New York.

———. 1969. “Trois Bronzes Minoens de Skoteino,” BCH 93, pp. 620–650. ———. 1973. “ Agio~ v Nikovlao~,” ArchDelt 28, Chronika B2 (1977), pp. 592–593. ———. 1974. “Arcaiovthte" kai Mnhmeiva Anatolikhv" Krhvth", 1972,” Amavlqeia 5, pp. 40–62. Davidson, G.R., and D.B. Thompson. 1943. Small Objects from the Pnyx I (Hesperia Suppl. 7), Princeton. de Sinner, L., ed. 1824. Christophori Bondelmontii Florentini Liber Insularum Archipelagi, Leipzig and Berlin. Debetz, G.F. 1936. Палеоантропология CCCP [Paleoantropologia SSSR], Moscow. ———. 1955. “Черепа из эпипалеолитического могильника у c. Волошского,” Советская Этнография [Sovietskaya Etnografiya] 3, pp. 62–73. Decavallas, O. 2004. “Organic Residues from the Neolithic Pottery of Stavroupoli, Thessaloniki. Indications for the Presence of Both Animal and Plant Lipids,” in Swstikev~ Anaskafev~ sto Neoliqikov Oikismov Stauropolhv~ Qessalonikhv~, Mero~ II: 1998–2003 (Dhmosiveumata tou Arcaiologikouv Institouvtou Boreivou Ellavdo~ 6), D.B. Grammenos and S. Kotsos, eds., Thessaloniki, pp. 349–357. Decourt, J.C., B. Helly, and K. Gallis, eds. 1994. La Thessalie: Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975–1990. Bilans et perspectives: Actes du Colloque International, Lyon, 17–22 Avril, 1990, Athens.

Desse, J., and N. Desse-Berset. 1994. “Stratégies de pêche au 8e millénnaire: Les poissons de Cap Andreas-Kastros (Chypre),” in Fouilles Récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1988–1991, A. Le Brun, ed., Paris, pp. 335–360. Dietz, S., L. Kolonas, S. Houby-Nielsen, and I. Moschos, eds. 2000. “The Greek-Danish Excavations in Aetolian Chalkis 1997–1998: Second Preliminary Report,” Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 3, Athens, pp. 219–301. Dimaki, S. 1994. “Proi>storikoiv Oikismoiv sthn Bovreia Fqiwvtida,” in Decourt, Helly, and Gallis, eds., 1994, pp. 91–102. Dontas, G.S. 1964. “Eurhvmata apov to parav thn Savmhn th~ Kefallhniva~ Sphvlaion Melissavnh,” ArchEph 1964 [1967], pp. 28–35. Doumas, C., and V. La Rosa, eds. 1997. H Poliovcnh kai h Prwvimh Epochv tou Calkouv sto Bovreio Aigaivo: Dieqnev~ Sunevdrio, Aqhvna, 22–25 Aprilivou 1996, Athens. Douzougli, A. 1998. Aria v Argolivdo~: Ceiropoivhth Keramikhv th~ Neovterh~ Neoliqikhv~ kai th~ Calkoliqikhv~ Periovdou, Athens. Dova, A. 1997. “Muvrina Lhvmnou: Oi Arcaiovtere~ Favsei~ tou Proi>storikouv Oikismouv,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 282–297. Duru, R. 1994. Kurusay Hoyük I: Results of the Excavations, 1978–1988. The Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods, Ankara. Eco, U. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington, IN. Efstratiou, N. 1984. “Eqnoarcaiologikev~ Ev reune~ sth Qravkh,” Arcaiologiva 13, pp. 20–26.

Deith, A. 1989. “Clams and Salmonberries: Interpreting Seasonality Data from Shells,” in Bonsall, ed., 1989, pp. 73–79.

———. 1985. Agios Petros: A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades (BAR-IS 241), Oxford.

Démoule, J.-P., K. Gallis, and L. Manolakakis. 1988. “Transition entre les cultures Néolithiques de Sesklo

———. 2001. “O Neoliqikov~ Oikismov~ tou Agivou Pevtrou sthn Kurav-Panagiav Alonnhvsou kai oi

234

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Nhsiwtikev~ Egkatastavsei~ tou Aigaivou-Mia Epanektivmhsh,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 231–250. Efstratiou, N., A. Karetsou, E. Banou, and D. Margomenou. 2004. “The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos: New Light on an Old Picture,” in Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organized by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’ Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, eds., London, pp. 39–49. Ehrenberg, M. 1989. Women in Prehistory, London. Engelstad, E. 1989. “Mesolithic House Sites in Arctic Norway,” in Bonsall, ed., 1989, pp. 331–337. Evans, J., and C. Renfrew. 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos (BSA Suppl. 5), Oxford. Fabricius, E. 1885. “Atthümer auf Kreta II: Die Idäische Zeusgrotte,” AM 10, pp. 59–72. Facorellis, Y. 2003. “Radiocarbon Dating the Greek Mesolithic,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 51–67. ———. [forthcoming]. “Calculation of the Local Marine Resevoir Effect in the Northern Sporades: Sequential Radiocarbon Dating of the Cave of the Cyclops,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Fairbanks, R.G. 1989. “A 17,000 Year-old GlacioEustatic Sea Level Record: Influence of Glacial Melting Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep-Ocean Circulation,” Nature 342, pp. 637–642. Faugères, L. 1978. Recherches géomorphologiques en Grèce septentrionale (Macédoine centrale et occidentale), Paris. Faure, P. 1956. “Grottes crétoises,” BCH 80, pp. 95–103. ———. 1958a. “Spéléologie et topographie crétoises,” BCH 82, pp. 495–515. ———. 1958b. “Spéléologie crétoise et humanisme,” BAssBudé 4(3), pp. 27–50. ———. 1961–1962. “La grotte de Léra (Kydonias) et la Nymphe Akakallis,” in Pepragmevna tou A' Dieqnouv~ Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou I (CretChron 15–16), pp. 195–199. ———. 1964. Fonctions des Cavernes Crétoises: École française d’Athènes (Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris.

———. 1967. “Nouvelles recherches sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétoises,” BCH 91, pp. 114–150. ———. 1969. “Sur trois sortes de sanctuaires crétoises,” BCH 93, pp. 174–213. ———. 1978. “Chronique des cavernes crétoises (1972–1977),” BCH 102, pp. 629–640. ———. 1996. Ierav Sphvlaia th~ Krhvth~, Herakleion. Felsch, R.C.S. 1988. Samos II: Das Kastro Tigani. Die späteneolithische Chalcolithische Siedlung, Bonn. Ferembach, D. 1961. “Squelettes du Nord d’Israel. Étude Anthropologique,” L’Anthropos 65, pp. 46–66. ———. 1962. La nécropole épipaléolithique de Taforalt (Maroc oriental). Étude des squelletes humaines, Paris. ———. 1974a. “Les hommes de l’Épipaléolithique et du Mésolithique de la France et du Nord-Ouest du bassin méditerranéen,” Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 2, pp. 201–236. ———. 1974b. “La squelette épicastelnovienne de la baume de Monclus (Gard),” Bulletin et Mémoires de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris 1, pp. 109–127. Flannery, K. 1973. “The Origins of Agriculture,” Annual Review of Anthropology 2, pp. 271–310. Flemming, N.C., N.M.G. Czartoryska, and P.M. Hunter. 1973. “Archaeological Evidence for Eustatic and Tectonic Components of Relative Sea Level Change in the South Aegean,” in Marine Archaeology, D.J. Blackman, ed., Hamden, CT, pp. 1–66. Flint, R.F. 1971. Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York. Flood, J. 1995. Archaeology of the Dreamtime: The Story of Prehistoric Australia and its People, Sydney. Fontugne, M., C. Kuzucuoğlu, M. Karabiyikoğlu, C. Hatté, and J.-F. Pastre. 1999. “From Pleniglacial to Holocene: A 14C Chronostratigraphy of Environmental Changes in the Konya Plain, Turkey,” Quaternary Science Reviews 18, pp. 573–591. Francis, J., S. Price, J. Moody, and L. Nixon. 2000. “Agiasmatsi: A Greek Cave Sanctuary in Sphakia, SW Crete,” BSA 95, pp. 427–471. French, D.H. 1961. “Late Chalcolithic Pottery in North-West Turkey and the Aegean,” AS 11, pp. 99–141. ———. 1972. Notes on Prehistoric Pottery Groups from Central Greece, Athens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Furness, A. 1956. “Some Early Pottery from Samos, Kalimnos and Chios,” PPS 22, pp. 173–212. Galanidou, N., and C. Perlès, eds. 2003. The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), London. Gallant, T.W. 1985. A Fisherman’s Tale, Gent. Gallis, K. 1987. “Die stratigraphische Einordnung der Larissa-Kultur: Eine Richtigstellung,” PZ 62, pp. 147–163. ———. 1992. Atla" v Proi>storikwvn Oikismwvn th" Anatolikhv" Qessalikhv~ Pediavda", Larissa. ———. 1996a. “Burial Customs,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 171–174. ———. 1996b. “Thessaly - The Northern Sporades,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 120–123. Gallis, K., and L. Orphanidis. 1994. “Twenty New Faces from the Neolithic Society of Thessaly,” in Actes du Colloque International “La Thessalie, 15 Anneés de Recherches Archéologiques (1975–1990). Bilans et Perspectives,” Lyon, 17–22 Avril 1990, Athens, pp. 155–162. ———. 1996. Figurines of Neolithic Thessaly (Akadhmiva Aqhnwvn Kevntron Ereuvnh~ th~ Arcaiovthto~ Monografiva 3), Athens. Gardner, E.J. 1978. The Pottery Technology of the Neolithic Period in Southeastern Europe, Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Garnett, K.S. 1975. “Late Roman Corinthian Lamps from the Fountain of the Lamps,” Hesperia 44, pp. 173–206. Garrod, D.A.E. 1932. “A New Mesolithic Industry. The Natufian of Palestine,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 62, pp. 257–269. Garrod, D.A.E., and D.M.A. Bate. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: Excavations at the Wady elMughara I, Oxford. Gatsov, I. 1993. Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries in Western Bulgaria, Krakow. ———. 2000. “Chipped Stone Assemblages from SouthBulgaria and North-West Turkey (Epi-Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic),” in Technology, Style, and Society: Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory (BAR-IS 854), L. Nikolova, ed., Oxford, pp. 1–28.

235

Gerousi, E. 1994. “Qhvra. Perivssa (Agiva Eirhvnh, Oikovpedo Karamolevgkou),” ArchDelt 49, Chronika B2 (1999), pp. 690–695. Gill, D., and D. Hedgecock. 1992. “Debris from an Athenian Lamp Workshop of the Roman Period,” BSA 87, pp. 411–421. Gilman, C.P. 2002. The Dress of Women: A Critical Introduction to the Symbolism and Sociology of Clothing, M.R. Hill and M.J. Deegan, eds., Westport, CT. Gimbutas, M. 1982. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500–3500 BC: Myths and Cult Images, Los Angeles. ———. 1986. “Mythical Imagery of Sitagroi Society,” in Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster, eds., 1986, pp. 225–301. ———. 1989a. “Chronology,” in Gimbutas, Winn, and Simabuku, eds., 1989, pp. 23–31. ———. 1989b. “Figurines and Cult Equipment: Their Role in the Reconstruction of Neolithic Religion,” in Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku, eds., 1989, pp. 171–227. ———. 1989c. “Ornaments and Miscellaneous Objects,” in Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku, eds., 1989, pp. 251–272. ———. 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe, San Francisco. Gimbutas, M., S. Winn, and D. Shimabuku, eds. 1989. Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece (6400–5600 B.C.) (Monumenta archaeologica 14), Los Angeles. Goldman, H., ed. 1950. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Princeton. Grammenos, D.B. 1991. Neoliqikev" Ereune" v sthn Kentrikhv kai Anatolikhv Makedoniva, Athens. Grandjouan, C. 1961. Terracottas and Plastic Lamps of the Roman Period (Agora VI), Princeton. Greene, D., and G. Armelagos. 1972. The Wadi Halfa Mesolithic Population (University of Massachusetts Department of Anthropology Research Report 11), Amherst, MA. Greig, J.R.A., and J. Turner. 1974. “Some Pollen Diagrams from Greece and their Archaeological Significance,” JAS 1, pp. 177–194. Hadjianastasiou, O. 1988. “A Late Neolithic Settlement at Grotta, Naxos,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory:

236

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Papers Presented in the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, A.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 11–20. Hadjidaki, E. 1996. “Underwater Excavations of a Late Fifth Century Merchant Ship at Alonessos, Greece: The 1991–1993 Seasons,” BCH 120, pp. 561–593. Hadjipouliou-Kalliri, E. 1981. “Neoliqikhv Keramikhv apov thn Areia v sthn Argolivda,” ArchDelt 36, Meletes A' (1989), pp. 139–167. Halbherr, F. 1888. “Scavi e trovamenti nell’antro de Zeus sul monte Ida in Creta,” in Museo italiano di antichita II, D. Comparetti, ed., Florence, pp. 689–768. Halstead, P. 1989a. “The Economy has a Normal Surplus: Economic Stability and Social Change among Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, Greece,” in Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, P. Halstead and J. O’Shea, eds., Cambridge, pp. 68–80. ———. 1989b. “Like Rising Damp? An Ecological Approach to the Spread of Farming in Southeast and Central Europe,” in The Beginning of Agriculture (BAR 496), A. Milles, D. Williams, and N. Gardner, eds., Oxford, pp. 23–53. ———. 2004. “Farming and Feasting in the Neolithic of Greece: The Ecological Context of Fighting with Food,” Documenta Praehistorica 31, pp. 151–161. Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1962. Bei Töpfern und Töpferinnen in Kreta, Messenien und Zypern, Mainz. Hansen, H.D. 1933. Early Civilization in Thessaly, Baltimore. Hansen, J. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 7), Bloomington, IN. Hansen, J., and J.M. Renfrew. 1978. “Palaeolithic– Neolithic Seed Remains at Franchthi Cave, Greece,” Nature 271, pp. 349–352.

of Southern Albania,” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 361–372. Hasluck, F.W. 1910–1911. “Depopulation in Aegean Islands and the Turkish Conquest,” BSA 17, pp. 151–181. Hau, G., and C.P. Hutter. 1997. Nördliche Sporaden: Natur zwischen Inseln und Meer, Athens. Hauptmann, H. 1981. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien III: Das späte Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum (Beiträge zur urund frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes 21), Bonn. Hauptmann, H., and V. Milojčić. 1969. Die Funde der Frühen Dimini-Zeit aus der Arapi- Magula, Thessalien (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 9), Bonn. Heidenreich, R. 1935–1936. “Vorgeschichtliches in der Stadt Samos: Die Funde,” AM 60–61, pp. 125–183. Heimerl, A. 2001. Die Römischen Lampen aus Pergamon vom Beginn der Kaiserzeit bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. n. Chr. (Pergamenische Forschungen 13), Berlin and New York. Held, S. 1989. “Colonization Cycles on Cyprus I: The Biogeographic and Paleontological Foundation of Early Prehistoric Settlement,” RDAC 1989, pp. 8–26. Hellström, P. 1987. Paradeisos: A Late Neolithic Settlement in Aegean Thrace (Memoir. Mendelhavsmuseet [Stockholm, Sweden] 7), Stockholm. Heurtley, W.A. 1939. Prehistoric Macedonia. An Archaeological Renaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of the Stroma) in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Early Iron Ages, Cambridge. Hill, J.N., and J. Gunn, eds. 1977. The Individual in Prehistory: Studies in Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, New York. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge.

Hardin, M.A. 1984. “Models of Decoration,” in The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology (Albert Egges van Giffen Instituut voor Prae- en Protohistorie Cingula 7), S. van der Leeuw and A. Pritchard, eds., Amsterdam, pp. 573–607.

———. 1991. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 2nd ed., Cambridge.

Harding, A.F., ed. 1982. Climatic Changes in Later Prehistory, Edinburgh.

Hogarth, D.G. 1899–1900. “The Dictean Cave,” BSA 6, pp. 94–116.

Harrold, F.B., M.M. Korkuti, B.B. Ellwood, K.M. Petrusso, and J. Schuldenrein. 1999. “The Palaeolithic

Honea, K. 1975. “Prehistoric Remains on the Island of Kythnos,” AJA 79, pp. 277–279.

———. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 1st ed., Cambridge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hood, S. 1981. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala, vol. 1 (BSA Suppl. 15), London. ———. 1982. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala, vol. 2 (BSA Suppl. 16), London. Ioakim, C. [forthcoming]. “The Palynological Evidence,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Immerwhar, S.A. 1971. The Neolithic and the Bronze Ages (Agora XIII), Princeton. Jacobsen, T. 1969. “The Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report II: The Franchthi Cave 1967–68,” Hesperia 38, pp. 343–381. ———. 1973. “Excavations in the Franchthi Cave, 1969–1971, Part 2,” Hesperia 42, pp. 253–283. Jones, A.H.M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire 284–602, vols. I and II, Oxford. Jonsen, S.L., H.B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrup, C.U. Hammer, P. Iverson, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, and J.P. Steffensen. 1992. “Irregular Glacial Interstadia Record in a New Greenland Ice Core,” Nature 359, pp. 311–313. Kalogirou, A. 1994. Production and Consumption of Pottery in Kitrini Limni, West Macedonia, Greece, 4,500 B.C.–3,500 B.C., Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Kambouroglou, E., S. Kiritsi-Kambouroglou, and Th. Chatzitheodorou. 1987. “To sphvlaio ‘Nuvmfh" Korwvneia"’ sthn Agiva Triavda Boiwtiva",” in Anasthvlwsh-Sunthvrhsh-Prostasiva Mnhmeivwn kai Sunovlwn: Tecnikhv Periodikhv vEkdosh, Vol. 2, Athens, pp. 251–260. Kambouroglou, E., H. Marukian, and A. Sampson. 1988. “Coastal Evolution and Archaeology North and South of Chalkis (Euboea) in the Last 5,000 Years,” in Archaeology of Coastal Changes (BAR-IS 404), A. Raban, ed., Oxford, pp. 71–79. ———. 1989. “The Coastal Topography and Archaeology of Manika, an Early Helladic Town in West Central Euboea, Greece,” in Maniatis, ed., 1989, pp. 461–467. Karali, L. [forthcoming]. “Malacological Material,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Karivieri, A. 1996. The Athenian Lamp Industry in Late Antiquity, Helsinki.

237

Karkanas, P., M. Koumouzelis, J.K. Kozłowski, V. Sitlivy, K. Sobczyk, F. Berna, and S. Weiner. 2004. “The Earliest Evidence for Clay Hearths: Aurignacian Features in Klisoura Cave 1, Southern Greece,” Antiquity 78, pp. 513–525. Karo, G. 1909. “Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1908 in Griechenland,” AA 1909, pp. 84–123. ———. 1911. “Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1910 in Griechenland,” AA 1911, pp. 119–158. Katsarou, S. 2000. “H Monovcrwmh Kerameikhv th" Neoliqikhv" w" Proi>ovn mia" Diadikasiva" Epiloghv": H Perivptwsh tou Sphlaivou th" Qeovpetra",” in Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., 2000a, pp. 235–261. ———. 2001a. “Aegean and Cyprus in the Early Holocene: Brothers or Distant Relatives?” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 1, pp. 43–55. ———. 2001b. “H Keramikhv me Eruqrav Kosmhvmata apov ta Strwvmata th" Mevsh" Neoliqikhv" tou Sphlaivou tou Kuvklwpa,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 11–31. Katsarou, S., and A. Sampson. 1997. “Favsei" I–III. H Neoliqikhv Keramikhv,” in Sampson 1997a, pp. 77–262. Keller, D. 1982. “Final Neolithic Pottery from Plakari, Karystos,” in Spitaels, ed., 1982b, pp. 47–68. ———. 1985. Archaeological Survey in Southern Euboea, Greece: A Reconstruction of Human Activity from Neolithic Times through the Byzantine Period, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Kent, K. 1983. “Temporal Shifts in the Structure of Traditional Southwestern Textile Design,” in Washburn, ed., 1983a, pp. 113–137. Keraudren, B. 1979. “Le Plio-Pleistocene marin et oligohalin en Grèce: stratigraphie et paléogéographie,” Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géologie Physique 21, pp. 17–28. Knigge, U. 1988. Der Kerameikos von Athen: Führung durch Ausgrabungen und Geschichte, Athens. Koldewey, R., and O. Puchstein. 1899. Griechische Tempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien, Berlin. Kopaka, K. 1997. “‘Women’s Arts—Men’s Crafts.’ Towards a Framework for Approaching Gender Skills in the Prehistoric Aegean,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 521–531.

238

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Korfmann, M. 1972. Schleuder und Bogen in Südwest Asien: Von der frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der historischen Stadtstaaten, Bonn. Korkuti, M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien (Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans 4), Mainz. Kotsakis, K. 1983. Kerameikhv Tecnologiva kai Kerameikhv Diaforopoivhsh: Problhvmata th" Grapthv" Kerameikhv" th" Mevsh" Neoliqikhv" Epochv~ tou Sevsklou, Ph.D. diss., University of Thessaloniki. ———. 1992. “O Neoliqikov" Trovpo" Paragwghv": Iqagenhv" hv Apoiko",” v in Dieqnev" Sunevdrio gia thn Arcaiva Qessaliva sth Mnhvmh tou Dhmhvtrh R. Qeocavrh. Praktikav (Upourgeivo Politismouv Dhmosieuvmata tou Arcaiologikouv Deltivou 48), Athens, pp. 120–135. ———. 1996a. “The Coastal Settlements of Thessaly,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 49–57. ———. 1996b. “Exchange and Relations,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 168–170. ———. 1996c. “Pottery Technology,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 245–247. Kotzamani, G. 2006. “H Arcaiobotanikhv E v reuna sto Sphvlaio th~ Qeovpetra~. Mia Sunoptikhv Qewvrhsh,” in Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., 2006, pp. 135–138. Koumouzelis, M. 1989. “H Keramikhv apov thn ‘A' Koubelevi>kh Sphliav’ Alepocwrivou Lakwniva~,” AAA 22, pp. 143–160. ———. 2003. “Aurignacian Architectural Remains at Klissoura, Prosymna,” paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Cave Archaeology, Geology, and Palaeontology, Athens, October 17–19, 2003. Koumouzelis, M., and J. Kozłowski. 1996. “Proi>storikev" Qevsei" sto Faravggi th" Kleisouvra~,” Arcaiologiva kai Tevcne" 60, pp. 58–62. Koumouzelis, M., J. Kozłowski, and B. Ginter. 2003. “Mesolithic Finds from Cave 1 in the Klissoura Gorge, Argolid,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 113–122. Koumouzelis, M., J. Kozłowski, M. Kaczanowska, M. Pawlikowski, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2003. “Contrasting Raw Materials Procurement Systems in the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic of Argolide (Peloponnese),” in Échanges et Diffusion dans la

Préhistorie Mediterranéene. Actes des 121e congrés nationaux des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Section Pré- et Protohistoire, Nice, 1996, B. Vandermeersch, ed., Paris, pp. 7–14. Koumouzelis, M., J. Kozłowski, M. Nowak, K. Sobczyk, M. Kaczanowska, M. Pawlikowski, and A. Pazdur. 1996. “Prehistoric Settlement in the Klissoura Gorge, Argolid, Greece (Excavation 1993–1994),” Préhistoire Européene 8, pp. 143–173. Kozłowski, J. 1996. “Technomorphological Changes in the Early Holocene Lithic Industries in Southeastern Europe,” in Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. Proceedings of the Second workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, Warsaw University, 3–7 April 1995, S.K. Kozłowski and H. Gebel, eds., Berlin, pp. 137–144. Kozłowski, J., S.K. Kozłowski, and I. Radovainović. 1994. Meso- and Neolithic Sequence from the Odmut Cave (Montenegro), Warsaw. Kraft, J.C., J. Kayan, and O. Erol. 1982. “Geology and Palaeographic Reconstruction of the Vicinity of Troy,” in Troy: The Archaeological Geology (Troy Supplementary Monograph 4), C. Rapp and J.A. Giford, eds., Princeton, pp. 11–41. Kritzas, C. 1971. “To Buzantinovn Nauavgion Pelagonnhvsou-Alonnhvsou,” AAA 4, pp. 176–182. Kübler, K. 1952. “Zum Formwandel in der spätantiken attischen Tonplastik,” JdI 67, pp. 99–145. Kuijt, I., ed. 2000. Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation, New York. Kunze, E. 1931. Orchomenos II: Die neolithische Keramik (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Abteilung 5), Munich. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 1999. “The Palaeolithic Deposits of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly (Greece),” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 232–239. ———, ed. 2000a. Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998, Athens. ———. 2000b. “H Neoliqikhv Perivodo" tou Sphlaivou Qeovpetra",” Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., 2000a, pp. 181–234. ———. 2001. Ta Proi>storikav Kosmhvmata th" Qessaliva~, Athens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, ed. 2006. Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998, 2nd ed., Athens. Kyrou, A. 1990. Sto Staurodrovmi tou Argolikouv, Athens. Laffineur, R., and P.P. Betancourt, eds. 1997. TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16), Liège. Lamb, H.H. 1977. Climate: Present, Past and Future, London. Lambeck, K. 1996. “Sea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Time,” Antiquity 70, pp. 588–611. Lambert, N. 1981. La grotte préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique), missions 1968–1978. l’Occupation néolithique, les vestiges des temps paléolithiques, de l’antique et de l’historie récente, vols. I–II, Paris. Lathrap, D.W. 1983. “Recent Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics and their Implications for Archaeological Inter pretation,” in Washburn, ed., 1983a, pp. 25–39. Latte, K. 1966. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. II, Copenhagen. Lavezzi, J. 1978. “Prehistoric Investigations at Corinth,” Hesperia 47, pp. 402–451. Lazarov, M., and K. Angelova, eds. 1994. Thracia Pontica VI.1: La Thrace et les sociétés maritimes anciennes, Sozopol, Bulgaria. Lazarovici, C.-M. 2003. “Pre-Writing Signs on NeoEneolithic Altars,” in Early Symbolic System for Communication in Southeastern Europe (BAR-IS 1139), L. Nikolova, ed., Oxford, pp. 85–96. Leakey, L.S.B. 1935. The Stone Age Races of Kenya, London. Le Gall, O. 1996. “Les pêches de la Mesolithique. Quelques données de l’Europe Occidentale,” in The Mesolithic: The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli, 8–14 September 1996, S.K. Kozłowski and C. Tozzi, eds., Forli, Italy, pp. 113–124. Lewthwaite, J. 1986. “The Transition to Food Production: A Mediterranean Perspective,” in Zvelebil, ed., 1986a, pp. 53–66. Liritzis, I., L. Orphanides, and N. Efstratiou. 1991. “Neolithic Thessaly and the Sporades. Remarks on Cultural Contacts between Sesklo, Dimini and

239

Hagios Petros Based on Trace Element Analysis and Archaeological Evidence,” OJA 10, pp. 307–313. Loeschcke, S. 1919. Lampen aus Vindonissa: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte von Vindonissa und des Antiken Beleuchtungs Wesens, Zürich. Love, I.C. 1973. “A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Knidos, 1972,” AJA 77, pp. 413–424. MacGillivray, J.A. 1979. Early Cycladic Pottery from Mount Kynthos in Delos, Edinburgh. Magny, M. 1982. “Atlantic and Sub-Boreal Dampness and Dryness?” in Harding, ed., 1982, pp. 33–43. Maiuri, A. 1928. “Esploriazone di grotte con avanzi preistorici nell’ isola di Calimno,” Clara Rhodos 1, pp. 104–117. Mair, A.W., ed. 1928. Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus (Loeb Classical Library 219), London. Maniatis, Y., ed. 1989. Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium, Amsterdam. Maniatis, Y., and V. Kylikoglou. 1993. “Technological Studies of Neolithic Ceramics from Tharrounia and Psachna, Euboea,” in Sampson 1993a, pp. 438–441. Maniatis, Y., V. Perdikatsis, and K. Kotsakis. 1988. “Assessment of In-site Variability of Pottery from Sesklo, Thessaly,” Archaeometry 30, pp. 264–274. Mangafa, M. 2000. “H Ekmetavlleush twn Futwvn apov th Mevsh Palaioliqikhv evw" th Neoliqikhv Perivodo. Apov thn Karposulloghv sthn Kallievrgeia. Arcaiobotanikhv Melevth sto Sphvlaio Qeovpetra~,” in Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., 2000b, pp. 135–137. Marangou, L. 1985. “Anaskafhv Minwva~ Amorgouv, 1985,” Prakt 1985, pp. 177–200. ———. 1994. “Neve~ Marturive~ gia thn Istoriva th~ Arcaiva~ Amorgouv,” Epethriv~ Etaireiva~ Kukladikwvn Meletwvn 15, pp. 307–332. Mari, A. 1993. “Aggeiva me Stilbwthv Diakovsmhsh,” in Sampson 1993a, pp. 136–151. ———. 2001. H Neoliqikhv Epochv sto Sarwnikov: Marturive" gia th Crhvsh tou Sphlaivou tou Euripivdh sth Salamivna me Bavsh thn Keramikhv th" Newvterh" kai Telikhv" Neoliqikhv", Ph.D. diss., University of Thessaloniki. Marinatos, S. 1929. “Anaskafaiv en Krhvth,” Prakt 1929, pp. 94–104. ———. 1930. “Anaskafaiv en Krhvth,” Prakt 1930, pp. 91–99.

240

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Markovitz, A. “Periv twn mevcri Shvmera Ereunwvn epiv th" Liqikhv" Periovdou th" Ellavdo",” Praktikav Anqrwpologikhv" Etaireiva" 1929, pp. 114–134. Martin, R. 1928. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematischer Darstellung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden, Jena, Germany. Mavragani, K. 2001. “H Zwgrafikhv Apotuvpwsh se Duvo Aggeiva th" Mevsh" Neoliqikhv" apov to Sphvlaio tou Kuvklwpa,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 37–40. Mavridis, F. 2007. An Archipelago of Cultures: Island Archaeology in the Aegean from the End of the Pleistocene to the Beginning of the Bronze Age. Archaeological Data, Theory, Interpretation, Ph.D. diss., University of Athens. Maxwell, V. 2002. “Metalworking at Ftelia,” in Sampson 2002a, pp. 147–149. Mee, C. 1984. “The Mycenaeans and Troy,” in The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context, L. Foxhall and J.K. Davies, eds., Bristol, pp. 45–56. Mellaart, J. 1961. “Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau,” AnatSt 11, pp. 159–184. ———. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia, London. ———. 1970. Excavations at Hacılar, London. ———. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East, London. Menzel, H. 1954. Antike Lampen im RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum zu Mainz, Mainz. Miller, D. 1985. Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India, Cambridge. Millo, A. di. 1591. Unpublished manuscript, British Museum, London. Milojčić, V. 1955. “Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen auf den Magula von Otzaki-Magula, Arapi und Gremnos bei Larissa, 1955,” AA 1955, pp. 157–231. Milojčić, V., J. Boessneck, and M. Hopf. 1962. Thessalien I: Die Präkeramische Neolithikum, Bonn. Milojčić-von Zumbusch, J., and V. Milojčić. 1971. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I: Das frühe Neolithikum, parts I–II (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 10/11), Bonn. Miltner, F. 1937. Das Cömeterium der Sieben Schläfer (Ephesos IV.2), Vienna.

Mommsen, Th. 1905. Codex Theodosianus, Berlin. Mottier, Y. 1981. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien II: Das Mittlere Neolithikum (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 22), Bonn. Moulins, D. 1993. “Les restes de plantes carbonisées de Cafer Höyük,” Cahiers de l’Euphrate 7, pp. 191–198. Moundrea-Agrafioti, A. 1992. “ Agio" v Pevtro" KuravPanagiav". Stoiceiva th" Liqotecniva" tou Laxemevnou Livqou,” in Dieqnouv" Sunedrivou gia thn Arcaiva Qessaliva sth Mnhvmh tou Dhmhvtrh R. Qeocavrh: Praktikav (Upourgeivo Politismouv Dhmosieuvmata tou Arcaiologikouv Deltivou 48), Volos, pp. 191–201. ———. 2003. “Mesolithic Fish Hooks from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in Galanidou and Perlès, ed., 2003, pp. 131–141. ———. [forthcoming]. “Mesolithic and Neolithic Bone Implements,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Muller, J. 1977. “Individual Variation in Art Styles,” in Hill and Gunn, eds., 1977, pp. 23–39. Mylona, D. [forthcoming]. “Fish Bone Material I: The Vertebrae,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Mylonas, G.E., and K. Kourouniotes. 1933. “Excavations at Eleusis, 1932. Preliminary Report,” AJA 37, pp. 271–286. Neuville, R. 1951. “Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du désert du Judée,” Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine 24, pp. 108–120. Newell, R.R., T.S. Constandse-Westermann, and C. Meiklejohn. 1979. “The Skeletal Remains of Mesolithic Man in Western Europe: An Evaluative Catalogue,” Journal of Human Evolution 8, pp. 1–228. Newton, C.T. 1962. A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Branchidae, vol. II, London. Nilsson, M.P. 1916. “Die Prozessionstypen im griechischen Kult,” JdI 31, pp. 309–339. ———. 1950. “Lampen und Kerzen im Kult der Antike,” OpArch 6, pp. 96–111. Niniou-Kindeli, V. 1991. “Periochv Kantavnou Selivnou, Qevsh Agio~ v Nikovlao~ Sfakivwn, Anwvpolh Sfakivwn,” ArchDelt 46, Chronika B2 (1996), p. 426. Nordquist, G. 1997. “Male Craft and Female Industry. Two Types of Production in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 533–538.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

Ntinou, M. [forthcoming]. “Charcoal Analysis,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming.

Otto, B. 1985. Die verzierte Keramik der Sesklo- und Diminikultur Thessaliens, Mainz.

Oberg, K. 1973. The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians, Seattle.

Özdoğan, M. 1999. “Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures between the Balkans and Anatolia,” in Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilisation. New Discoveries, M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen, eds., Istanbul, pp. 203–224.

Olivier, G. 1969. Practical Anthropology, Springfield. Onasoglou, A. 1996. “Seals,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 163–164. Orphanidis, L. 1981. Les Practiques funéraires en Grèce et en Anatolie à l’époque Néolithique, Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne. ———. 1992. “Thoughts on the Neolithic Figurines of the Aegean,” SMEA 30, pp. 165–178. ———. 1994. “Neolithic Figurines: Birth of a Mythology or Symbols of Reality?” in Actes du IVeme atélier européen du réseau de cooperation scientifique et techniques PACT-EURETHNO (Conseil de l’Europe) “Les temps de l’Europe: temps mythiques européens,” Delphes, Septembre 14–18, 1992, Strasbourg, pp. 46–51. ———. 1996. “Thessaly, the Northern Sporades, Central Greece,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 153–154.

———. 2003a. “Çayönü. Site-clef du Néolithique Précéramique,” Dossiers d’Archéologie 281, pp. 30–35. ———. 2003b. “Hoca Çeşme: Un site du Néolithique Ancien en Thrace,” Dossiers d’Archéologie 281, pp. 26–29. Panagopoulou, E., E. Kotjabopoulou, and P. Karkanas. 2001. “Gewarcaiologikhv vEreuna sthn Alovnnhso: Neva Stoiceiva gia thn Palaioliqikhv kai th Mesoliqikhv ston Aigaiakov Cwvro,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 121–152. Pantelidou-Gofa, M. 1991. H Neoliqikhv Neva Mavkrh: Ta Oikodomikav (Bivblioqekhv th~ en Aqenaiv~ Arcaiologikhv~ Etaireiva~ 119), Athens. ———. 1995. H Neoliqikhv Neva Mavkrh: H Kerameikhv, Athens.

———. 1998. Eisagwghv sth Neoliqikhv Eidwloplastikhv. Notioanatolikhv Eurwvph kai Anatolikhv Mesovgeio~ (Akadhmiva Aqhnwvn Kevntron Ereuvnh~ th~ Arcaiovthto~ Monografiva 4), Athens.

Papa, M., and M. Besios. 1999. “The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations,” JFA 26, pp. 177–195.

———. [forthcoming a]. Neolithic Figurines of Thessaly: The A. Bastis Collection (Akadhmiva Aqhnwvn Kevntron Ereuvnh~ th~ Arcaiovthto~ Monografiva), Athens.

Papa, M., P. Halstead, K. Kotsakis, and D. Urem-Kotsou. 2004. “Evidence for Large-scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, N. Greece,” in Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), P. Halstead and J. Barrett, eds., Oxford, pp. 16–44.

———. [forthcoming b]. Ermhneutikhv th~ Neoliqikhv~ Eidwloplastikhv~ (Akadhmiva Aqhnwvn Kevntron Ereuvnh~ th~ Arcaiovthto~ Monografiva), Athens. ———. [forthcoming c]. “Proi>storikav Eidwvlia. H Ermhneutikhv Qewriva th~ Epanavlhyh~,” in Timhtikov~ Tovmo~ gia ton Kaqhghthv Spuvro Iakwbivdh (Akadhmiva Aqhnwvn Kevntron Ereuvnh~ th~ Arcaiovthto~ Monografiva), Athens. Orphanidis, L., and A. Sampson. 1993. “Eidwvlia kai Eidwloplastikhv,” in Sampson 1993a, pp. 202–218. Otte, M., I. Yalçinkaya, J.-M. Leotard, M. Kartal, O. BarYosef, J. Kozłowski, I.L. Bayón, and A. Marshack. 1995. “The Epi-Palaeolithic of Öküzini Cave (SW Anatolia) and its Mobiliary Art,” Antiquity 69, pp. 931–944.

Papageorgiou, D. 1997. “Reuvmata kai Anemoi v sto Bovreio Aigaivo,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 424–442. Papageorgiou, S., S. Stiros, P. Papavasiliou, and M. Moutsoulas. 1996. “Diereunhvsh th~ Scevsh~ metaxuv Metabolhv~ th~ Paravktia~ Topografiva~ kai th~ Istoriva~ th" Katoivkhsh~ sth Makedoniva kai Qravkh",” in Archaeometrical and Archaeological Research in Macedonia and Thrace. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of the Hellenic Archaeometrical Society, Thessaloniki 26–28 March 1993, Thessaloniki, pp. 245–263. Papakosta, K. [forthcoming]. “Characterization Study of the Neolithic Pottery,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming.

242

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Papastamatiou, I. 1961. “Metalpikav Hfaivsteia Euboiva" kai Skuvrou,” Arceivon Euboi>kwvn Meletwvn 8, pp. 39–74. Papathanassopoulos, G.A. 1971a. “Sphvlaia Dirouv: Ai Anaskafaiv tou 1970–71,” AAA 4, pp. 12–26. ———. 1971b. “Sphvlaia tou Durouv (1971): Ek twn Anaskafwvn th~ Alepovtrupa~,” AAA 4, pp. 149–154. ———. 1971c. “Sphvlaia Durouv, 1971,” AAA 4, pp. 289–303. ———, ed. 1996. Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens. Păunescu, A. 1970. Evoluţia Uneltor și Armelor de Piatră Cioplită Descoperite pe Teritoriul Romănei, Bucharest. ———. 1989. “Le paléolithique et le mésolithique de Roumanie (Un bref aperçu),” L’Anthropologie 93, pp. 123–158. ———. 1996. “Ostrovul Corbului: Die mesolithische Siedlung der Shela Cladovei-Kultur 1.b,” in Ostrovul Corbului, H. Hauptmann and P. Roman, eds., Bucharest, pp. 155–214. Payne, S. 1972. “Can Hasan III: The Anatolian Aceramic and the Greek Neolithic,” in Papers in Economic Prehistory, E.S. Higgs, ed., Cambridge, pp. 191–194. Pelekanidou, E. 1994. “Anaskafhv Bovreia tou Koimhthrivou th" Euaggelivstria",” ArchDelt 49, Chronika B2 (1999), pp. 526–529. Pentedeka, A., and K. Kotsakis. 2008. “Thin Sectioning Neolithic Identities: The Red Monochrome Ware (A1) from Middle Neolithic Sesklo, Thessaly,” in Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry, National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens, 28–31 May 2003 (BAR-IS 1746), Y. Facorellis, N. Zacharias, and K. Polikreti, eds., Oxford, pp. 305–312. Perdrizet, P. 1908. Monuments figurés, petits bronzes, terres cuites, antiquités diverses (FdD V), Paris. Perlès, C. 1983a. “Aperçu sur les industries mesolithiques de Franchthi, Argolide, Greece,” in Advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology (Archaeologia Interregionalis 5), Warsaw, pp. 163–171. ———. 1983b. “Circulation de l’obsidienne en Méditerranée orientale: peut-on appliquer les modèles?” in Séminaire sur les structures d’habitat:

Circulation et échanges, le déplacement et le séjour, Paris, pp. 128–139. ———. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) I: Présentation générale et industries paléolithiques (Franchthi 3), Bloomington, IN. ———. 1988. “New Ways with an Old Problem: Chipped Stone Assemblages as an Index of Cultural Discontinuity in Early Greek Prehistory,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory, E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 477–488. ———. 1990a. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) II: Les industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique initial (Franchthi 5), Bloomington, IN. ———. 1990b. “L’outillage de Pierre taillée néolithique en Gréce: Approvisionnement et exploitation des matières premières,” BCH 114, pp. 1–42. ———. 1992. “Systems of Exchange and Organisation of Production in Neolithic Greece,” JMA 5, pp. 115–164. Perlzweig, J. 1961. Lamps of the Roman Period, First to Seventh Century after Christ (Agora VII), Princeton. Perrot, J. 1966. “Le gisement Natoufien de Mallaha, Israel,” L’Anthropologie 70, pp. 437–483. Petridis, P. 1992. “Les lampes de Kritika,” BCH 116, pp. 649–671. Petropoulos, M. 1999. Ta Ergasthvria twn Rwmai>kwvn Lucnariwvn th" Pavtra" kai to Lucnomanteivo, Athens. Phelps, W. 1975. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece, Ph.D. diss., University of London. Philadelpheus, A. 1922. “Prebevzh" Mouseivon,” ArchEph 1922, pp. 66–79. Piacenza, F. 1688. L’Egeo redivino, Modena. Piperno, M., S. Scali, and A. Taglicozzo. 1980. “Mesolitico e neolitico alla Grotta dell’Uzzo,” Quaternaria 22, pp. 275–300. Pirazzoli, P. 1986. “The Early Byzantine Tectonic Paroxysm,” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Suppl. 62, pp. 31–49. ———. 1991. World Atlas of Holocene Sea-Level Changes (Elsevier Oceanography Series 58), Amsterdam.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pirazolli, P., J. Thommeret, Y. Thommeret, J. Laborel, and L.F. Montaggion. 1982. “Crustal Block Movements from Holocene Shorelines. Crete and Antikythera,” Tectonophysics 68, pp. 27–43. Plog, S. 1980. Stylistic Variations in Prehistoric Ceramics. Design Analysis in the American Southwest, Cambridge. Portacchi, T. 1568. L’isole piu famose dell’mondo, Venice. Poulianos, A.N. 1967. “Epivmetron: Usterominwi>kovn Kranivon ek tou Tavfou Katsampav,” in Usterominwi>koiv Tavfoi Limevno" Knwsouv (Katsampav) (Bivblioqekhv th~ en Aqenaiv~ Arcaiologikhv~ Etaireiva~ 56), by S. Alexiou, Athens, pp. 84–85.

243

Redman, C.L. 1977. “The Analytical Individual and Prehistoric Style Variability,” in Hill and Gunn, eds., 1977, pp. 41–53. Renfrew, C. 1969. “The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figurines,” AJA 73, pp. 1–32. ———. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation in the Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millenium B.C., London. Renfrew, C., M. Gimbutas, and E.S. Elster, eds. 1986. Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeastern Greece, vol. I (Monumenta archaeologia 13), Los Angeles. Renfrew, J.M. 1973. Paleothenobotany: The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near East and Europe, New York.

———. 1974. “O Mesoliqikov" Kavtoiko" th" Attikhv": O Arcaiovtero" w" Shvmera Gnwstov" Homo sapiens sth Stereav Ellavda,” Anqrwpo" v 1, pp. 40–54.

Rhomiopoulou, K., and C. Ridley. 1974. “Prehistoric Settlement of Servia (W. Macedonia): Excavations 1973,” AAA 7, pp. 351–360.

———. 1975. “O Mesoliqikov" Anqrwpo" v apov thn Koilavda Argolivda~,” Anqrwpo" v 2, pp. 3–20.

Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago.

———. [1988] 2002. H Proevleush twn Ellhvnwn, Athens.

Robinson, H.S. 1959. Pottery of the Roman Period, Chronology (Agora V), Princeton.

Poulianos, N.A. 1995. La grotta e l’uomo di Petralona, trans. B. Chiarelli, Florence.

Roche, J. 1989. “Spatial Organization in the Mesolithic Sites of Muge, Portugal,” in Bonsall, ed., 1989, pp. 607–613.

———. 2000. Anqrwpologikhv Etaireiva Ellavdo~, Athens. ———. [forthcoming]. “Human Skeletal Remains from Mesolithic Maroulas,” in Maroulas on Kythnos: A Mesolithic Site in the Cyclades, A. Sampson. Powell, J. 1996. Fishing in the Prehistoric Aegean (SIMA 137), Jonsered. Price, T.D. 1989. “The Reconstruction of Mesolithic Diets,” in Bonsall, ed., 1989, pp. 48–59. Prinz, B. 1987. Mesolithic Adaptations on the Lower Danube: Vlasac and the Iron Gates (BAR-IS 330), Oxford. Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. 1992. “Parathrhvsei" sthn Prokeramikhv (apov th Qessaliva sta Dendrav th" Argolivdo~) Pararthvmata,” in Dieqnouv" Sunedrivou gia thn Arcaiva Qessaliva sth Mnhvmh tou Dhmhvtrh R. Qeocavrh: Praktikav (Upourgeivo Politismouv Dhmosieuvmata tou Arcaiologikouv Deltivou 48), Volos, pp. 97–111. Psychoyos, O. 1988. Déplacement de la ligne de rivage et sites archéologiques dans les régions côtières de la Mer Egée, au Néolithique et à l’age du Bronze (SIMA 62), Jonsered.

Romaios, K. 1905. “Eurhvmata Anaskafhv" tou epiv th" Pavrnhqo" vAntrou,” ArchEph 1905, pp. 99–158. ———. 1911. “Genikhv Ekqevsi" periv twn Tegeva Anaskafwvn en E v tei 1910,” Prakt 1911, pp. 274–276. Rose, M. 1989. Early Fishing in the Aegean, Oxford. Rozoy, J.-G.1989. “The Revolution of the Bowmen in Europe,” in Bonsall, ed., 1989, pp. 13–28. Ross, L. 1851. Wanderungen in Griechenland, Halle. Runnels, C. 1981. A Diachronic Study and Economic Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid, Greece, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University ———. 2001. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of the Neolithic,” in Aegean Prehistory: A Review (AJA Suppl. 1), T. Cullen, ed., Boston, pp. 225–258. Ružić, N., and N. Pavlović. 1988. “Neolithic Sites in Serbia Explored and Published in the Period 1968–1988,” in The Neolithic of Serbia: Archaeological Research 1948–1988, D. Srezović, ed., Belgrade, pp. 69–124.

244

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Sakellarakis, I. 1983. “Anaskafhv Idaivou Antrou,” v Praktika 1983, pp. 415–500. Sampson, A. 1970. “H vIko", h Alovnnhso" kai oi vErhme" Nhsivde" twn Boreivwn Sporavdwn katav thn Arcaiovthta,” Arceivon Euboi>kwvn Meletwvn 16, pp. 349–370. ———. 1975. “Drakosphliav,” ArchDelt 30, Chronika B1 (1983), p. 153. ———. 1976. “Triavda,” ArchDelt 31, Chronika B1 (1984), p. 157. ———. 1977. “Anaskafhvv ston Proi>storikov Oikismov th~ Bavrka~ Yacnwvn-Euboiva~,” Arceivon Euboi>kwvn Meletwvn 21, pp. 1–60. ———. 1980. “To Sphvlaion Nevstoro~” in “Anaskafaiv anav thn Pulivan,” by G.S. Korres, Prakt 1980, pp. 175–187. ———. 1981. H Neoliqikhv kai h Prwtoelladikhv I sthn Euvboia (Arceivon Euboi>kwvn Meletwvn Suppl. 24), Athens.

———. 1996c. “The Cyclops Cave at Youra Alonnissos,” in Papathanossopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 58–59. ———. 1996d. “Palaioliqikev" Qevsei" sthn Euvboia kai sti" Bovreie" Sporavde~,” Arcaiologiva kai Tevcne" 60, pp. 51–56. ———. 1996e. “Neva Stoiceiva gia thn Mesoliqikhv Perivodo ston Ellhnikov Cwvro,” Arcaiologiva kai Tevcne" 61, pp. 46–51. ———. 1996–1998. “Trei" Neve" Qevsei" th" Arcaiovterh" Neoliqikhv" sthn Euvboia: Neva Dedomevna gia thn Proi>storiva tou Aigaivou,” AAA 29–31, pp. 79–94. ———. 1997a. To Sphvlaio twn Limnwvn sta Kastriav Kalabruvtwn. Mia Proi>storikhv Qevsh sthn Oreinhv Pelopovnnhso (Etaireiva Peloponnhsiakwvn Spoudwvn 7), Athens.

———. 1984. “The Neolithic of the Dodecanese and the Aegean Neolithic Culture,” BSA 79, pp. 239–249.

———. 1997b. “Navigation and Sea Routes in the Northern Sporades from the Prehistoric Period to Nowadays,” Archaeology of Peparethian Studies 1, pp. 161–170.

———. 1985a. Mavnika. Mia Prwtoelladikhv Povlh sth Calkivda, Athens.

———. 1997c. Perihghtev" kai Gewgravfoi sti" Bovreie" Sporavde~, Skopelos.

———. 1985b. “Ta Sphvlaia kai h Crhvsh tou" sthn Euvboia kai genikovtera ston Ellhnikov Cwvro,” Arcaiologiva kai Tevcne" 15, pp. 37–44.

———. 1998a. “The Neolithic and Mesolithic Occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra, Alonnessos, Greece,” BSA 93, pp. 1–22.

———. 1987a. H Neoliqikhv Perivodo" sta Dwdekavnhsa, Athens.

———. 1998b. “Anaskafhv sto Sphvlaio tou Kuvklwpa katav to vEto" 1992,” in Anqrwpo" v kai Sphlaioperibavllon. A' Panellhvnio Sphlaiologikov Sunevdrio 26–29 Noevmbriou 1992, Athens, pp. 69–74.

———. 1987b. “Ena Kerameikov Ergasthvrio sth Calkivda th" Rwmaiokrativa",” Anqrwpologikav kai Arcaiologikav Cronikav 2, pp. 73–131. ———. 1988a. “H Neoliqikhv sto Cwvro tou Aigaivou,” AAA 18, pp. 255–268. ———. 1988b. Mavnika II. O Prwtoelladikov" Oikismov" kai to Nekrotafeivo, Athens. ———. 1988c. H Neoliqikhv Katoivkhsh sto Gualiv th" Nisuvrou, Athens. ———. 1993a. Skoteinhv Qarrounivwn: To Sphvlaio, o Oikismov" kai to Nekrotafeivo, Athens. ———. 1993b. Kalogerovbrush: vEna" Oikismov" th" Prwvimh" kai Mevsh" Calkokrativa" sta Fuvlla th" Euvboia~, Athens. ———. 1996b. “La grotte de Cyclope: Un abri de pêcheurs préhistoriques?” Archéologia 328, pp. 54–59.

———. 1999. “Aulis mycénienne et la route maritime de l’Égée du Nord,” in MELETEMATA: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), R. Laffineur, P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, and W.D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 741–746. ———. 2000. “To Sphvlaio Sarakhnouv kai h Sphlaiokatoivkhsh sthn Kwpai?da,” in Praktikav tou G ' Sunedrivou Boiwtikwvn Spoudwvn, Thebes, pp. 133–155. ———, ed. 2001a. Arcaiologikhv vEreuna sti" Bovreie" Sporavde", Alonnessos. ———. 2001b. “Epifaneiakhv vEreuna sta Erhmovnhsa twn B. Sporavdwn,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 203–216.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 2001c. “To Sphvlaio tou Kuvklwpa Giouvrwn. Ta Neoliqikav kai Mesoliqikav Strwvmata,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, p. 41–70. ———. 2002a. The Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos, Rhodes. ———. 2002b. “To Sphvlaio tou Kuvklwpa sta Giouvra th" Alonnhvsou kai h Shmasiva tou gia thn Proi>storiva th" Lekavnh" tou Aigaivou,” Corpus 56, p. 37. ———. 2006a. H Proi>storiva tou Aigaivou, Athens. ———. 2006b. “The Sarakenos Cave and the Palaeoenvironment in the Copais Basin, Boeotia, Central Greece,” in Cults, Coins, History and Inscriptions VII: Studies in Honor of John M. Fossey, vol. III, P.J. Smith, ed., Montreal, pp. 61–75. ——— ed., [forthcoming]. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Vol. II: Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources, the Palaeoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies (Prehistory Monographs), Philadelphia. Sampson, A., Y. Facorellis, and Y. Maniatis. 1998. “New Evidence for the Cave Occupation during the Late Neolithic Period in Greece,” in 3rd International Symposium “14C and Archaeology,” Lyon, 6–10 avril 1998 (Mémoires de la Société Françoise 26), J. Evin, ed., Paris, pp. 279–286. Sampson A., and J. Kozłowski. 1999. “The Cave of Cyclope in the Northern Aegean: A Specialized Fishing Shelter of the Mesolithic and the Neolithic Period,” Neo-lithics 3, pp. 5–7. Sampson, A., J. Kozłowski, and M. Kaczanowska. 1998. “Entre l’Anatolie et les Balkans: une séquence Mésolithique-Néolithique de l’île de Youra (Sporades du Nord),” in Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes. Études et recherches archéologiques de l’université de Liège, M. Otte, ed., Liège, pp. 125–142. ———. 2003. “Mesolithic Chipped Stone Industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the Island of Youra,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 123–130.

245

Sarpaki, A. [forthcoming]. “The Mesolithic and the Neolithization of the Cave of the Cyclops as Seen through the Archaeobotanical Remains,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Sathas, K. 1868. Neoellhnikhv Filologiva (1453–1821), Athens. Saussure, F., 1916. Cours de linguistique générale, Paris. Schneider, G., H. Knoll, C.J. Gallis, and J.-P. Démoule. 1990. “Production and Distribution of Coarse and Fine Pottery in Neolithic Thessaly, Greece,” Archaeometry 90, pp. 513–523. ———. 1994. “Production and Circulation of Neolithic Thessalian Pottery: Chemical and Mineralogical Analyses,” in Decourt, Helly, and Gallis 1994, pp. 61–70. Schott-Billmann, F. 1997. Quand la danse guérit. Approche anthropologique de la fonction thérapeutique de la danse, Paris. Schultze-Westrum, T. 1963. “Die Wildziegen der Ägaischen Inseln,” Saugetier Kundliche Mitteilungen 11, pp. 145–182. Schulz, H.D. 1989. “Die geologische Entwicklung der Bucht von Kastanas im Holozan,” in Kastanas. Die Grabung und der Baubefund (Prähistorische Archäologie in Sudosteuropa 7, Teil 2), B. Hansel, ed., Berlin, pp. 375–394. Séfériadès, M. 1992. “Le Metal,” in Dikili-Tash: Village préhistorique en Macédoine orientale (BCH Suppl. 24), R. Treuil, ed., Paris, pp. 113–119. Segall, B. 1938. Museum Benaki: Katalog der goldschmiede Arbeiten, Athens. Segre, E., and M. Piperno. 1975. “Scavi alla grotta dell’Uzzo. Relazione preliminare,” Sicilia Archeologica 27, pp. 11–16. Sergi, G. 1914. The Mediterranean Race, London. Serverin, T. 1989. The Jason Voyage. The Quest for the Golden Fleece, London.

———. 2005. “New Contributions to the Early Settlement of the Aegean Islands,” Rocznik Polskiej Akademii Umiejetnosci 2005, pp. 272–284.

Shackleton, J.C. 1988. Marine Molluscan Remains from Franchthi Cave (Franchthi 4), Bloomington, IN.

Sampson, A., J. Kozłowski, M. Kaczanowska, and V. Giannouli. 2002. “The Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas, Kythnos,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2, pp. 45–67.

Shear, L.T. 1938. “Excavations in the Athenian Agora: The Campaign of 1937,” Hesperia 7, pp. 311–362.

Sapouna, P. 1998. Die Bildlampen römischer Zeit aus der Idäische Zeusgrotte auf Kreta (BAR–IS 696), Oxford.

Shepard, A.O. 1948. The Symmetry of Abstract Design with Special Reference to Ceramic Decoration (Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 547), Washington, D.C.

246

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

———. 1956. Ceramics for the Archaeologist (Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 609), Washington, D.C. Sheratt, A. 1991. “Sacred and Profane Substances: The Ritual Use of Narcotics in Later Neolithic Europe,” in Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford 1989, P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates, and J. Toms, eds., Oxford, pp. 50–64. Simmons, A.H. 1991. “Humans, Island Colonisation and Pleistocene Extinctions in the Mediterranean: The View from Akrotiri Aetokremnos,” Antiquity 65, pp. 857–869. ———. 1999. Faunal Extinction in an Island Society: Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus, New York.

Spitaels, P. 1982a. “Final Neolithic Pottery from Thorikos,” in Spitaels, ed., 1982b, pp. 9–45. ———, ed. 1982b. Studies in South Attica I (Miscellania Graeca 5), Gent. Srejović, D. 1969. Lepenski Vir: Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju, Belgrade. Srejović, D., and Z. Letica. 1978. Vlasac: A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates I. Archaeology, Belgrade. Stanislawski, M.B. 1978. “Ethnoarchaeology of Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pottery Making: Styles of Learning,” in Experimental Archaeology, D. Ingersoll, J.E. Yellen, and W. McDonald, eds., New York, pp. 378–408.

Skafida, E. 2001. “Provsfate" Arcaiologikev" vEreune" sthn Alovnnhso, Erhmovnhsa kai Skovpelo,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 251–266.

Steinhauer, G. 2001. “Apov thn Proi>storiva th" Mesogaiva". Duvo Oikismoiv sta Mesovgeia,” in Mesogaiva. Istoriva kai Politismov" twn Mesogeivwn Attikhv", G. Aikaterinidis, ed., Athens, pp. 29–34.

Skarmoutsou-Demetropoulou, K. 1990. “Nomov" Korivnqou: Arcaiva Kovrinqo" (Oikovpedo K. Micalakovpoulou),” ArchDelt 45, Chronika B1 (1995), pp. 152–155.

Stiros, S., M. Arnold, P.A. Pirazzoli, J. Laborel, F. Laborel, and S. Papageorgiou. 1992. “Historical Coseismic Uplift in Euboea Island, Greece,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 108, pp. 109–117.

Skias, A. 1900. “Anaskafaiv parav thn Fulhvn,” Prakt 1900, pp. 38–50.

Stratouli, G. 1996. “Die Fischerei der Ägäis während des Neolithikums. Zur Technik und zum potentiellen Ertrag,” PZ 71, pp. 1–27.

———. 1918. “To parav thn Fulhvn vAntron tou Panov",” ArchEph 1918, pp. 1–28. Sordinas, A. 1969. “Investigations of Prehistoric Corfu during 1964–66,” Balkan Studies 10, pp. 393–424. ———. 2003. “The ‘Sidarian’: Maritime Mesolithic Non-Geometric Microliths in Western Greece,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 89–97. Sotirakopoulou, P. 1986. “Early Cycladic Pottery from Akrotiri on Thera and its Chronological Implications,” BSA 81, pp. 297–312. ———. 1996. “Late Neolithic Pottery from Akrotiri on Thera: Its Relations and the Consequent Implications,” in Alram-Stern 1996, pp. 581–607. ———. 1999. Akrwthvri Qhvra". H Neoliqikhv kai h Prwvimh Epochv tou Calkouv epi th Bavsei th" Keramikhv~ (Bivblioqekhv th~ en Aqenaiv~ Arcaiologikhv~ Etaireiva~ 191), Athens. Souvatzi, S.G. 2008. A Social Archaeology of Households in Greece: An Anthropological Approach, Cambridge. Spataro, M. 2002. The First Farming Communities of the Adriatic: Pottery Production and Circulation in the Early and Middle Neolithic, Trieste.

———. 2007. “Tracing the Ionia Neolithic: The Contribution of Recent Excavations in Drakaina Cave, Poros, Kephallonia,” in Prehistoric Corfu and Adjacent Areas: Problems – Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference Dedicated to Augustus Sordinas, Corfu, 17 December 2004, G. Arvanitou-Metallinou, ed., Corfu, pp. 105–126. Stravopodi, E., S. Manolis, and N. KyparissiApostolika. 1999. “Palaeoanthropological Findings from Theopetra Cave in Thessaly: A Preliminary Report,” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 271–281. Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk. 1998. “INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP,” Radiocarbon 40, pp. 1041–1083. Talalay, L.E. 1993. Deities, Dolls, and Devices: Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece (Franchthi 9), Bloomington, IN. Taylor, W.W. 1948. A Study of Archaeology (Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 69), New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Televantou, C. 2008. “Strofilas, a Neolithic Settlement on Andros,” in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (McDonald Institute Monographs), N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew, eds., Cambridge, pp. 43–53. Tellenbach, M. 1983. “Materialien zum präkeramischen Neolithikum in Süd-Ost-Europa. Typologischstratygraphische Untersuchungen zu lithischen Gerätschaften,” BerRGK 64, pp. 21–138. Theocharis, D. 1951. “Anaskafhv en Palaia/v Kokkiniav Peiraiwv~,” Prakt 93, pp. 93–127. ———. 1956. “Nea Makri: eine grosse neolithische Siedlung in der Nähe von Marathon,” AM 71, pp. 1–29. ———. 1958. “Neoliqikav Eurhvmata apov thn Periochv th" Iwlkouv,” Qessalikav 1, pp. 3–15. ———. 1959a. “Puvraso",” Qessalikav 2, pp. 29–68. ———. 1959b. “Ek th" Proi>storiva" Euboiva" kai Skuvrou,” Arceivon Euboi>kwvn Meletwvn 6, pp. 279–328. ———. 1967. H Aughv th~ Qessalikhv~ Proi>storiva~: Archv kai Prwvimh Exevlixh th~ Neoliqikhv~ (Qessalikav Melethvmata 1), Volos. ———. 1973. Neoliqikhv Ellav", Athens. ———. 1981. Neoliqikov" Politismov", Athens. Thompson, H. 1933. “Terracotta Lamps,” Hesperia 2, pp. 195–215. ———. 1936. “Pnyx and Thesmophorion,” Hesperia 5, pp. 151–200. Throckmorton, P. 1971. “Exploration of a Byzantine Wreck at Pelagos Island near Alonessos,” AAA 4, pp. 183–185. Todorova, H. 1986. Kamenno-mednata epokha v Bulgariia: peto khiliadoletie predi novata era, Sofia. ———. 1989. “La transition de l’énéolithique à l’âge de Bronze en Bulgarie,” in Maniatis, ed., 1989, pp. 697–708. Touchais, G. 1981. “Le matériel néolithique,” in L’antre corycien I (BCH Suppl. 7), G. Touchais, ed., Paris, pp. 95–172. Trantalidou, C. 1996. “Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Hunting, Fishing,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 95–102.

247

———. 2003. “Faunal Remains from the Earliest Strata of the Cave of Cyclops, Youra,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 143–172. ———. [forthcoming]. “From Mesolithic Fishermen and Bird Hunters to Neolithic Goat Herders: The Mammal and Bird Bone Assemablages,” in Sampson, ed., forthcoming. Travlos, I. 1937. “Sphvlaion tou Pavno~ parav to Dafniv,” ArchEph 1937, pp. 391–408. Trigger, B.G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. Tsolakidou, A., B. Kilikoglou, D. Malamidou, and Z. Tsirtsoni. 2008. “Compositional Patterns on Blackon-Red Ware from Eastern Macedonia and Potential Raw Material Sources,” in Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry, National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens, 28–31 May 2003 (BAR-IS 1746), Y. Facorellis, N. Zacharias, and K. Polikreti, eds., Oxford, p. 173. Tsouknidas, A.I. 1994. “Proi>storikev" Qevsei" periv thn Proevrna,” in Decourt, Helly, and Gallis, eds., 1994, pp. 109–124. Tsountas, Ch. 1908. Ai Proi>storikaiv Akropovlei" Dimhnivou kai Sevsklou. Athens. Tsourinaki, S. 2001. “H Grapthv Kerameikhv twn Giouvrwn kai h Scevsh th" me thn Ufantikhv Tevcnh,” in Sampson, ed., 2001a, pp. 33–36. Tsuneki, A. 1989. “The Manufacture of Spondylus Shell Objects at Neolithic Dimini,” Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 25, pp. 1–21. Tusa, S. 1985. “The Beginning of Farming Communities in Sicily: The Evidence in Uzzo Cave,” in Papers in Italian Archaeology IV: The Cambridge Conference (BAR-IS 244), C. Malone, and S. Stoddart, eds., Oxford, pp. 61–82. Tzachili, I. 1997. Ufantikhv kai Ufavntre" sto Proi>storikov Aigaivo (2000–1000 p. X.), Herakleion. Tzalas, H., ed. 1987. Tropis II: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Delphi. Tzavella-Evjen, H. 2001. “Neolithic Boiotian Economy: Recording and Exchange System at Chaeroneia,” in Kallivsteuma: Melevte" pro~ Timhvn th" O v lga" Tzavcou-Alexandrhv, A. Alexandri and I. Leventi, eds., Athens, pp. 35–42.

248

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Tzedakis, P. 1993. “Long-Term Tree Populations in Northwest Greece through Multiple Quaternary Climatic Cycles,” Nature 364, pp. 437–440. ———. 1999. “The Last Climatic Cycle at Kopais, Central Greece,” Journal of the Geological Society 156, pp. 425–434. Urem-Kotsou, D., K. Kotsakis, and B. Stern. 2002. “Defining Function in Neolithic Ceramics: The Example of Makriyalos, Greece,” Documenta Praehistorica 29, pp. 109–118. Valoch, K. 1989. “The Mesolithic Site of Smolin, South Moravia,” in Bonsall, ed., 1989, pp. 461–470. Van Andel, T.H. 1989. “Late Quaternary Sea Level Changes and Archaeology,” Antiquity 63, pp. 733–745. Van Andel, T.H., and J.C. Shackleton. 1982. “Late Palaeolithic and Neolithic Coastlines of Greece and the Aegean,” JFA 9, pp. 445–454. van Zeist, W., and S. Bottema. 1982. “Vegetational History of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East during the last 20,000 years,” in Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Regions in Later Prehistory (BAR-IS 133), J.L. Bintliff and W. van Zeist, eds., Oxford, pp. 277–321. Vasilopoulou, V. 1994. “Nomov" Boiwtiva" ( Antro v Leibhqrivdwn tou Elikwvna),” ArchDelt 49, Chronika B2 (1999), pp. 844–845. Vencl, S. 1994. “The Archaeology of Thirst,” Journal of European Archaeology 2, pp. 299–326. Vertet, H. 1983. Recherches sur les techniques de fabrication des lampes en terre cuite du centre de la Gaule (Revue Archéologique SITES 20), Avignon. Vitelli, K. 1977. “Neolithic Potter’s Marks from Lerna and the Franchthi Cave,” JWalt 36, pp. 17–30. ———. 1982. “The Lamps,” in Yassi Ada I: A SeventhCentury Byzantine Shipwreck, G.F. Bass and Fr.H. Van Doorninck, eds., College Station, TX, pp. 189–201. ———. 1989. “Were Pots First Made for Foods? Doubts from Franchthi,” WorldArch 21, pp. 17–29. ———. 1993a. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery I: Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2 (Franchthi 8), Bloomington, IN. ———. 1993b. “Power to the Potters: Comment on Perlès’ ‘Systems of Exchange and Organisation of Production in Neolithic Greece,’” JMA 6, pp. 245–257.

———. 1995. “Pots, Potters and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society,” in The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, W.K. Barnett and J.W. Hoopes, eds., Washington, D.C., pp. 55–63. ———. 1999. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery II: The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5 (Franchthi 10), Bloomington, IN. von Bothmer, D. 1971. Ancient Art from New York Private Collections. Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, December 17 1959–February 28, 1960, New York. Von Brandt, A. 1964. Fish Catching Methods of the World, London. Voulgari, L. 2002. “Decorated Pottery: Seeking the Social Practices,” in Chourmouziadis, ed., 2002, pp. 217–241. Vutiropoulos, N. 1991. Fernwaffen in Südösteuropa: Neolithikum bis früh Bronzezeit (Internationale Archäology 4), Buch am Erlbach, Germany. Wace, A.J.B., and M.S. Thompson. 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge. Waldhauer, O. 1914. Die antiken Tonlampen, St. Petersburg. Waldren, W.H, and J.A. Ensayat, eds. 2002. World Islands in Prehistory: International Insular Investigations. Fifth Deia Conference of Prehistory (BAR-IS 1095), Oxford. Walter, H., and F. Felten. 1981. Alt-Ägina III, 1: Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt, Befestigungen, Häuser, Funde, Mainz. Walters, H.B. 1914. Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum, London. Washburn, D.K., ed. 1983a. Structure and Cognition in Art, Cambridge. ———. 1983b. “Symmetry Analysis of Ceramic Design: Two Tests of the Method on Neolithic Material from Greece and the Aegean,” in Washburn, ed., 1983a, pp. 138–164. ———. 1983c. “Toward a Theory of Structural Style in Art,” in Washburn, ed., 1983a, pp. 1–7. ———. 1984. “A Study of the Red-on-Cream and Cream-on-Red Designs on Early Neolithic Ceramics from Nea Nikomedeia,” AJA 88, pp. 305–324. Waterhouse, H., and R. Hope-Simpson. 1960. “Prehistoric Laconia, Part I,” BSA 55, pp. 67–107.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Watrous, L.V. 1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete (Aegaeum 15), Liège. Weinberg, S. 1937. “Remains from Prehistoric Corinth,” Hesperia 6, pp. 487–524. ———. 1962. “Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959,” Hesperia 31, pp. 158–209. Weisshaar, H.J. 1989. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien I: Das späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum (Beträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 28), Bonn. Welinder, S. 1975. “The Economy of the Pitted Ware Culture in Eastern Sweden,” Meddelanden fran Lunds Universiteits Historiska Museum, 1975–1976, pp. 20–30. Welter, G. 1941. Troizen and Kalaureia, Berlin. Wiencke, M.H. 1989. “Change in Early Helladic II,” AJA 93, pp. 495–509. Wijnen, M H. 1982. The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo: An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 14), Leiden. Williams, H. 1981. Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth, 5: The Lamps, Leiden. Winn, S.M. 1973. The Signs of the Vinča Culture, Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. ———. 1981. Pre-Writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the Vinča Culture, ca. 4000 BC, Calgary. Winn, S., and D. Shimabuku. 1989. “Pottery,” in Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuku, eds., 1989, pp. 75–157. Wiseman, J. 1969. “Excavations at Corinth: The Gymnasium Area, 1967–1968,” Hesperia 38, pp. 64–106. Wobst, H.M. 1977. “Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange,” in For the Director: Research and Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin (Anthropological Papers 61), C.E. Cleland, ed., Ann Arbor, pp. 317–342. Wohl, L. 1981. “A Deposit of Lamps from the Roman Bath at Isthmia,” Hesperia 50, pp. 112–140. Woodman, P.C. 1985. “Mobility in the Mesolithic of Northwestern Europe: An Alternative Explanation,” in Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of

249

Cultural Complexity, T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, eds., Orlando, pp. 325–339. Wright, G.A. 1978. “Social Differentiation in the Early Natufian,” in Social Archaeology, C.L. Redman, M.J. Berman, E.V. Curtin, W.T. Langhorne, N.M. Versaggi, and J.C. Wagner, eds., New York, pp. 202–223. Wright, R.P. 1995. “Women’s Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory,” in Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, J.M. Gero and M. Conkey, eds., Oxford, pp. 194–223. Yalçinkaya, I., J.-M. Leotard, M. Kartal, M. Otte, O. Bar-Yosef, I. Carmi, A. Gautier, E. Gilot, P. Goldberg, J. Kozłowski, D. Lieberman, I. LopezBayon, M. Pawlikowski, St. Thiebault, V. Ancion, M. Patou, A. Emery-Barbier, and D. Bonjean. 1995. “Les occupations tardiglaciaires du site d’Öküzini, sud-ouest de la Turquie. Résultats préliminaries des dernières recherches,” L’Anthropologie 99, pp. 562–583. Yiouni, P. 1996. “The Early Neolithic Pottery: Technology, Typology and Functional Analysis,” in Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964 (BSA Suppl. 25), K. Wardle, ed., London, pp. 55–193. Young, G.M. 1937. “Archaeology in Greece 1936–1937,” JHS 57, pp. 119–146. Zachos, K. 1987a. Ayios Demetrios: A Prehistoric Settlement in the South West Peloponnese. The Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods, Ph.D. diss., Boston University. ———. 1987b. “Navxo" (Sphvlaio Za),” ArchDelt 42, Chronika B2 (1992), pp. 694–700. ———. 1994. “Arcaiologikev" vEreune" sto Sphvlaio Za Navxou,” in H Navxo" diav Mevsou twn Aiwvnwn, Praktikav A' Panellhnivou Sunedrivou, Filwvti, 3–6 September 1992, I.K. Probonas and S.E. Psarras, eds., Athens, pp. 99–113. ———. 1996. “The Zas Cave,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 88–89. ———. 1998. “Sphlaiokatoivkhsh sthn Pelopovnnhso katav th Neovterh Neoliqikhv perivodo,” in Anqrwpo" v kai Sphlaioperibavllon. A' Panellhvnio Sphlaiologikov Sunevdrio 26–29 Noevmbriou 1992, Athens, pp. 53–58. Zilhão, J. 1997. “Maritime Pioneer Colonisation in the Early Neolithic of the West Mediterranean. Testing

250

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

the Model against the Evidence,” Poročilo o raziskovanju palaeolitica, neolitica in eneolitica v Sloveniji 24, pp. 19–42. Zodiatis, G. 1994. “Advection of the Black Sea Water in the North Aegean Sea,” The Global Atmosphere and Ocean System 2, pp. 41–60. Zorides, P. 1977. “H Sphliav twn Numfwvn th" Pentevlh",” ArchEph 1977, pp. 4–11. Zvelebil, M., ed. 1986a. Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming, Cambridge.

———. 1986b. “Mesolithic Prelude and Neolithic Revolution,” in Zvelebil, ed., 1986a, pp. 5–15. ———. 2000. “The Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe,” in Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, eds., Cambridge, pp. 57–79.

Index

Index

Achilleion, 18–19, 21–22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 71, 72, 75– 79, 81, 83, 89, 92, 97, 109, 210 Aetokremnos, 211–212 agriculture, 187, 189–190, 203, 222–224, 226 Akrotiri, 112–114, 158 andesite, 9, 161–164, 184 Antalya, 172, 211–212, 219 Asia Minor, 24, 31, 74, 77, 79, 83, 100–101, 103, 133–134, 137, 142–143, 149, 156–157, 211, 219, 220, 222–223, 225, Ayio Gala, 28, 36, 42, 44, 80, 114, 220

band, 18, 21, 22, 30–31, 36, 40, 50, 58–62, 64–65, 71–81, 89, 92–94, 97, 113, 117–121, 124–125, 139, 144–145, 150, 198 base, 6, 17–20, 29, 33, 36, 42–46, 56–58, 64, 66–67, 70– 77, 80, 90–91, 93–94, 100, 107, 112, 117, 124–125, 130–137, 139–145, 147–153, 164, 171, 173, 175–176, 184, 188, 191, 193, 207, 213 blade, 5, 170–178, 180–181, 185, 211 blank, 77, 170–171, 174, 177 Buondelmonti, C., 1, 183 burial, 97, 107, 209, 210–211, 213–216 burin, 171–173, 175–176

Cafer Höyük, 164, 223 canvas, 72, 73, 75–80, 83, 87, 92–97, 99–103, 222 capra, 2, 188, 201, 224–225 carinated, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43–46, 48, 51, 53, 71, 73–74, 91, 102, 112–115, 123–124, 171 chipped stone, 86, 169, 170, 172, 174, 203, 212 chunk, 170, 173 circle, 20–21, 64, 72, 77–78, 80, 92–94, 97, 100–101, 103, 113, 124, 134–135, 138, 140, 143, 148–150, 152, 153 closed vessel, 20, 25, 29, 41, 71, 79, 118 Corycian Cave, 35, 37, 42, 61, 63, 107, 119 crescent, 171–173, 175–176, 210–211 cult(ic), 97, 124–125, 132, 154–159, 166 curved, 12, 18–24, 26–27, 29–36, 39–51, 53–58, 60– 63, 65, 67, 71, 80, 115–121, 123, 125, 140, 166, 171, 213 cylindrical handle, 20, 34, 47, 48–49, 60, 66–67, 124 Cyprus, 133–134, 137, 211, 212

deserted islands, 1, 2, 179, 183, 192–193, 216, 221 Dimini, 88, 101, 103, 166 domesticated, 188–189, 198, 201, 210, 213, 223–226

254

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

economy, 84–86, 98, 105, 110, 178, 192–193, 197, 201, 205, 209–210, 212, 218, 222, 223–224 Emporio, 34, 36–37, 47, 64, 113, 114, 116

farming, 84–85, 90, 92, 98, 106, 207, 209, 222–223, 226 figurine, 7, 83, 95–98, 100, 104, 106–108, 155, 161, 165–166, 220–222 fish, 9, 90, 193, 203–207, 209, 211–213, 217 fish bone, 6–8, 10, 13, 192, 204, 205, 213 fishing, 2, 84–85, 90, 178, 188, 192–194, 198, 203, 205– 207, 212, 213, 217, 221, 223 flake, 162, 170–178, 180–181, 184–185 flint, 70, 162–164, 170–175, 177–178, 180–181, 183–185 food, 71, 73, 84–86, 89–91, 98–99, 107–108, 110, 162– 163, 189–190, 199–200, 202–203, 206–208, 210–213, 216, 221–223, 225 food gathering, 204, 207 Franchthi, 18, 34, 36, 39, 71–75, 77–80, 85, 88–90, 92, 102, 107, 119, 162, 172, 197, 202, 204–206, 208–210, 213–216, 220, 223–225 Ftelia, 34, 36–38, 42–45, 59, 63, 98, 114, 116, 165, 167, 168

geometric(al), 94, 96, 119, 172–178 grinder, 161–165 groove(d), 33, 35, 40, 42, 45–46, 48, 50–51, 57, 61, 63– 66, 131–140, 143–144, 148–151, 165

Hagios Dimitrios, 34–35 Hagios Petros, 21–23, 25–26, 29–30, 65, 67, 71–81, 83– 86, 88–90, 94, 96–97, 100–102, 104–108, 110, 113, 176, 179, 183, 192–193, 204–206, 221–222 hearth, 4–12, 15–16, 69–70, 73, 200, 207, 214 hole, 5, 17, 18, 30, 55, 58, 74, 90, 113, 116, 131–136, 139, 141–151 Holocene, 172, 178, 185, 202, 216, 222, 225 hook, 7, 9, 11, 70, 117, 144, 149, 159, 202–206, 209, 212–213, 221 horizontal handle, 47–51, 125 hunting, 105, 178, 202, 204, 206, 210–211, 222–223, 225 husbandry, 187, 193, 203, 207–208, 223–225

identity, 69, 82, 89, 94, 102, 105, 107–110, 155 Ikaria, 198, 208, 219 implement, 5, 64, 86–87, 154, 161–164, 211–212 impressed, 21, 64–65, 135, 137–139, 143, 148–149, 151, 153 incised, 5, 18, 21, 57, 60–61, 63–64, 79, 83, 94, 96, 101, 125, 139, 145, 148, 151–153, 161, 167

inward-leaning, 18, 19, 22–25, 27, 32–33, 35–38, 40–46, 49–50, 54–55, 59–61, 64, 66–67, 71

Kalythies, 34, 38, 42, 44, 112–114, 168 Kastria, 32–44, 46, 59–61, 63–64, 218 Kephala, 34–36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 59, 61, 63–64, 66, 97, 116–117, 168, 218 Kythnos, 162, 167, 197, 208–209, 211–213, 215, 220, 223

lozenge, 31, 60, 64, 72–73, 75–79, 83, 87, 97, 113 lug, 17–22, 24, 28–29, 33–34, 36–37, 40–41, 47–48, 51– 56, 60–61, 63–67, 71–72, 74–75, 78, 80, 91, 93, 112, 115–117, 181, 184

mainland, 34, 66, 71–73, 76, 81–83, 86–87, 93, 112–114, 116, 118–120, 134, 157, 197, 205, 208–209, 211–212, 216, 225, 226, marble, 7, 161, 163–166 Maroulas, 162, 197, 208–209, 214 matt(-painted), 5, 31, 93, 102, 111–112, 118–121 meander, 72, 76–77, 79, 83, 92, 96–97, 117 message, 82, 94–96, 102–103, 107, 109–110 metallic, 151, 153, 168 microlith(ic), 83, 170, 172–178, 210–212 Middle East, 89, 103, 165, 196, 215, 223–225 millstone, 162–164, 183, 191, 211 mollusk, 9, 12, 15–16, 184, 202, 208–209, 214 monastery, 2, 182–183, 188, 190–193 monochrome, 17–18, 20, 22–34, 36–37, 39–45, 48, 52– 57, 60–64, 66–67, 88, 102, 104, 107, 222

Nea Makri, 18, 72, 74–75, 78–79, 83, 92, 94 Nea Nikomedeia, 72, 79–80, 89, 92 Near East, 199, 210, 212, 215, 223 neck, 19–27, 29, 31, 33–35, 39–46, 49–51, 60–65, 67, 70–72, 74–78, 80–81, 91, 93, 97, 103, 113–117, 123– 125, 135, 166 necklace, 214, 216 neolithization, 223–226 Nestor’s Cave, 35, 39, 42 net, 73, 75–80, 83, 86, 93, 97, 99, 100, 119, 120, 142, 203–204, 206, 213 Northern Sporades culture, 221

obsidian, 5, 70, 84, 169–178, 180–185, 206, 220–221, 225, occupation, 69, 70, 82, 84–86, 89, 110, 178, 187, 190, 199–201, 209–211, 213, 214, 216, 218, 221 Öküzini, 172, 211

INDEX

open vessel, 18, 22, 29, 32, 41, 45, 65, 73 origin(ate), 9, 70, 81, 83, 86, 96, 99, 107, 129, 130, 133, 134–135, 141–142, 149–150, 153, 173–174, 178, 191, 196, 203, 205, 214, 221–222, 224–225 outward-leaning, 18–20, 22–27, 32–34, 37–46, 48, 51, 54–58, 60, 63, 65–67 ovoid, 70–72, 74–75, 81, 83, 93

Palestine, 103, 210–211, 215, 223 pattern, 21, 31, 37, 69, 72–83, 85–87, 92–94, 96–97, 99– 103, 107–108, 113, 116–117, 119, 131–141, 143–145, 147–150, 152–153, 156, 174, 190, 192, 200, 210–212, 216, 222 pattern burnished, 66, 111, 112, 114–117, 120 percussion, 163, 170–171, 173–175 perforated, 33–34, 51, 56, 91, 98, 167 petrographic, 17, 67, 184 plastic, 18, 20, 30, 40, 51–52, 59–62, 80, 98, 106, 145 Pliny, 180, 182–183 pointille, 21, 65, 166 Prosymna, 63, 119, 120, 209 protuberance, 47 Psathoura, 1, 2, 9, 157, 161–164, 179, 184, 187, 189, 191, 204, 216–217, 219, 221

red-on-white, 5, 17, 21, 30–31, 70, 74, 80, 101, 105 relief, 3, 21–22, 30, 36–37, 50–51, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 131–134, 137, 140–142, 144–153, 196–197 repertoire, 70, 73, 93, 113, 204 retouch, 163, 169, 171, 173, 175–177 ritual(ly), 81–82, 88, 90, 97–99, 101, 103, 106–108, 110, 155, 200–201, 214–215 rock shelter, 185 rope motif, 33, 36, 58–60, 66, 74, 91, 99 rosette, 137–141, 144, 146–149, 151

Saliagos, 47, 59, 63, 74, 205 sandstone, 161–164 Sarakenos, 40, 59, 61, 107, 165, 208–209 schist, 27, 161–164 sea level, 3, 184, 202, 204, 209, 216–218, 220 sea route, 205, 219–220 Sesklo, 6, 18, 23, 31, 41, 71–72, 77–79, 81, 83, 87–88, 97, 101, 103–104, 175, 210 shoulder, 21, 25–27, 33, 39, 42–51, 60–64, 71–72, 75–79, 93, 97, 100, 112, 116–177, 124–125, 142, 147 silex blond, 173, 175 siliceous, 169–171, 173–175, 177–178 sheep, 2, 100, 188–192, 202, 223–226

255

skull, 196–198, 214–216 slip, 22–28, 30–32, 36, 42–43, 45, 47–49, 51–54, 57–58, 65, 80, 112, 118, 120, 123–125, 131–138, 140–145, 148, 150–151, 166, 222 spherical, 25–27, 33, 35–36, 39–46, 49–50, 52, 55–58, 61–62, 64, 71, 88, 116, 120, 162 spindle whorl, 161, 167, 181 S-shaped, 19–20, 22–23, 25, 33, 39, 45, 61, 73 statistics, statistical, 17, 66, 112, 128–129, 153 Strabo, 156, 183 strap handle, 20–21, 24–25, 27–28, 33, 36, 39–40, 47–51, 60–64, 77, 118, 124 structure, 73, 82, 92–96, 100–101, 103–104, 108, 110– 111, 117, 155, 170, 177, 195, 215 symbol, 82, 94, 99, 105, 133

technology, 67, 83–84, 86–87, 117, 177–178, 204, 209– 210, 212, 225 tectonic, 16, 218 Tharrounia, 32, 34–41, 43–44, 46–47, 51, 59–61, 63, 65– 66, 97–98, 107–108, 115–117, 119–120, 168, 215, 218, Theopetra, 64, 90–91, 107, 166, 172, 197, 208–209, 215, 223, 225 thymiaterion, 151, 156 tool, 9, 11, 22, 26, 59, 83, 106, 162–165, 167, 171–174, 177, 206, 210–212, 225 trapeze, 171, 173 triangle, 23, 51, 75, 77–78, 80, 92, 120, 212, truncation, 171, 173, 175–176, 212 tuna, 204–206

volcano, 184, 191

wart, 28–29, 47, 51–53, 55–56 weaver, 69, 86, 100–102, 108 weaving, 69, 84, 86, 91, 96–97, 99–104, 106, 108, 110, 200 white painted, 5, 17, 31, 70, 74, 81, 112–113 wide-mouthed, 19–20, 23, 26–27, 31–33, 35, 39–42, 45– 46, 49, 59–60, 62, 64–65, 112–113, 115–117 wild goat, 2–3, 187–189, 201, 211, 224–225

Yali, 32, 36, 47, 167–168, 191 Youra–Hagios Petros culture, 82, 84, 102

zigzag, 30–31, 71–74, 76–77, 79–80, 83, 87, 92, 97, 114–115, 119–120

Tables

TABLE 1.1

Trench

Level (Depth in m)

C

surface

C

1 (0–0.40)

1, 2, 3

Byz., Rom.–LN dist.

C

2 (0.40–0.60)

4, 5

Rom.–LN dist.

CWest

3 (0.60–0.70)

5

CWest

4 (0.70–0.80)

1, 2, 3, 4

5 (0.80–0.90)

1, 2, 3, 4

LN

5, 6

EN/MN dist.

CWest

Rectangle

Layer

CWest

Relative Chronology

Absolute Chronology

Rom.–LN dist.

Floor 1a

5

(0.80)

CWest

Feature

Rom.–LN dist. LN 6730±38 B.P. 5308–5232 B.C.

Floor 1, Hearth 1

6 (0.90–1.30)

1, 2, 3, 4

(0.90–1.20)

5, 6

(1.05)

1

Aceramic ash layer

(1.15)

5, 6

Hearth 2, Floor 2a

(1.18)

1, 4

Floor 2

7 (1.30–1.70)

1, 2, 3, 4

(1.20–1.40)

5, 6

(1.40)

5, 6

Hearth 3

(1.70)

1, 2

Floor 3

8 (1.70–1.85)

1, 2, 3, 4

UM

(1.40–1.85)

5

FM/EN

(1.85)

3, 4

shell

UM

8218±43 B.P. 6801–6633 B.C.

5, 6

charcoal

FM/EN

7351±46 B.P. 6235–6094 B.C.

(1.75)

1, 2, 3, 4

Hearth 4

(1.85)

1, 3, 5

Floor 4

1

Hearth 5, Pit 1

CWest

9 (1.85–2.00)

shell

FM/EN EN/MN dist.

6, 7, 8

shell

7398±64 B.P. 6380–6110 B.C.

FM/EN

7803±41 B.P 6328–6220 B.C.

EN/MN

1, 2, 3, 4

UM

CWest

shell 5

7971±41 B.P. 6464–6388 B.C.

5

UM charcoal

8624±20 B.P. 7341–6989 B.C. 8754±20 B.P. 7938–7685 B.C.

Table 1.1. Stratigraphic sequence and context of Trench CWest–CEast. UM = Upper Mesolithic, FM = Final Mesolithic, EN = Early Neolithic, MN = Middle Neolithic, LN = Late Neolithic, Rom. = Roman, Byz. = Byzantine, dist. = disturbed.

TABLE 1.1

Trench

CWest

Level (Depth in m)

Rectangle

9 (1.85)

1

Hearth 6

(1.88–1.98)

1, 3

Floor 5

(2.00)

4

Floor 6

10 (2.00–2.20)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

CWest

CWest

Layer

Feature

9

Relative Chronology

UM

UM

2

shell

UM

(2.10)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Floor 6

UM

11 (2.20–2.40/2.45)

1, 2, 3, 4

(2.30–2.32)

3

Hearth 7

(2.35)

2

Floor 7, Pit 2

(2.35)

10

4

LM

8776±19 B.P. 7469–7090 B.C.

charcoal

8855±28 B.P. 8199–7853 B.C.

(2.45)

2

Floor 7

(2.45)

4

Floor 7a

CWest

13 (2.70–2.90)

1, 2, 3

LM

CWest

14 (2.90–3.10)

1, 2, 3

LM

CEast

3 (0.60–0.70)

CEast

4 (0.70–0.80)

CEast

5 (0.80–0.90)

CEast

6 (0.90–1.00)

charcoal

1, 5, 9

CEast

LN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

LN Hearth 1 LN

1, 2, 3

4

LN

5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11

Rom.–LN dist.

2, 3 9 (1.20–1.40) CEast

(1.30)

9258±50 B.P. 8600–8340 B.C.

LN

7 (1.00–1.10) 8 (1.10–1.20)

LM

LN

(0.95) CEast

9250±60 B.P. 8550–8320 B.C.

Floor 7a shell

1, 2, 3, 4

CWest

8209±47 B.P. 7315–7083 B.C.

UM

12 (2.40/2.45–2.70)

12

Absolute Chronology

1, 2, 3

Floor 1 5

EN/MN

5, 6, 7

LN

9, 10, 11

LN dist.

1, 2, 3, 6, 7

Floor 2

Table 1.1 cont. Stratigraphic sequence and context of Trench CWest–CEast. LM = Lower Mesolithic, UM = Upper Mesolithic, EN = Early Neolithic, MN = Middle Neolithic, LN = Late Neolithic, Rom. = Roman, dist. = disturbed.

TABLE 1.1

Trench

Level (Depth in m)

Rectangle

10 (1.40–1.46)

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

EN/MN–LN

3, 7, 11

LN dist.

CEast

Layer

1

11 (1.46–1.55)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9

UM, EN/MN–LN dist.

10, 11

LN

3, 6

Floor 3

Floor 2

1

12 (1.55–1.75)

1, 2, 3, 6, 7

UM–LN

5, 6

FM/EN

9, 10, 11

LN

(1.55)

6, 7

Floor 4

3, 7

Floor 5

3

Hearth 2

8

Hearth 3

2

Hearth 4*

(1.75)

1, 2, 3

Floor 6**

(1.75)

5

Floor 6a

13 (1.75–1.95)

1, 2

(1.60)

Floor 7a

7, 10

LN

EN/MN

FM/EN LN

(1.80)

1, 2

Floor 7

(1.95)

1, 2

Hearth 5

9, 10, 11

14 (1.95–2.20)

Mes.

UM

5, 6

(1.95)

LN/Rom.

10

Floor 7b snails

1, 2

6

UM charcoal

5, 6

FM/EN, LN

7, 8, 10

LN

CEast 5

charcoal

LN

(2.10)

8834±20 B.P. 8195–7833 B.C.

5741±22 B.P. 4667–4542 B.C. 6754±34 B.P 5326–5256 B.C.

snails 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

8864±37 B.P. 7519–7132 B.C.

4814±25 B.P. 3644–3539 B.C.

charcoal 9

Absolute Chronology

Mes.

(1.55)

CEast

CEast

Relative Chronology

(1.45)

CEast

6, 7

Feature

LN dist. Floor 8

Table 1.1 cont. Stratigraphic sequence and context of Trench CWest–CEast. Mes. = Mesolithic, UM = Upper Mesolithic, FM = Final Mesolithic, EN = Early Neolithic, MN = Middle Neolithic, LN = Late Neolithic, Rom. = Roman, dist. = disturbed. *Hearth 4 = Hearth 3, CWest 7. **Floor 6 = Floor 3, CWest 7.

TABLE 1.1

Trench

Level (Depth in m)

Rectangle

15 (2.20–2.30)

3

CEast

16 (2.30–2.38)

CEast (down to 2.40)

17 (2.38–2.55)

Layer

Feature

Relative Chronology

Absolute Chronology

EN/MN

5, 6

8

UM, FM

7, 9, 11, 12

5

LN

1, 2, 6

UM

3, 5, 9

UM/EN/MN

7

EN/MN–LN

10, 11

MN

6

Hearth 6 charcoal

7779±32 B.P. 6644–6514 B.C.

5

shell

8761±29 B.P. 7463–7080 B.C.

1, 2, 6, 9

UM charcoal

5

UM shell

3

UM/EN/MN

4, 7, 8, 10, 12

EN/MN

11

LN

8283±27 B.P. 7467–7327 B.C. 8773±24 B.P. 7468–7087 B.C.

CEast 7, 10, 11

Floor 9a

LN, MH

5

Pit 1

MN

(2.30)

1, 2

(2.45)

1

Pit 2

(2.45)

2

Floor 9

(2.55)

2

Hearth 7

(2.55)

3

Pit 3

18 (2.55–2.70)

1, 2

Floor 10

CEast

9

LM

3, 5, 6, 7

UM

4

EN/MN

8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Mes.–LN

(2.70)

7

Floor 10a

FM

(2.70)

10

Floor 10b

Mes.

(2.80)

8

Hearth 8

MN–LN

Table 1.1 cont. Stratigraphic sequence and context of Trench CWest–CEast. Mes. = Mesolithic, LM = Lower Mesolithic, UM = Upper Mesolithic, FM = Final Mesolithic, EN = Early Neolithic, MN = Middle Neolithic, LN = Late Neolithic, MH = Middle Helladic, dist. = disturbed.

TABLE 1.1

Trench

Level (Depth in m)

Rectangle

19 (2.70–2.80)

1

Layer

Feature

Relative Chronology LM

8487±22 B.P 7577–7542 B.C.

charcoal charcoal 5

UM

10, 11

CEast 6, 7

UM

10

Mes./EN

(2.80)

1

20 (2.80–3.00)

1, 2, 3, 6

5

Neolithic Floor 11

10, 11

LM 8791±23 B.P. 7957–7907 B.C.

charcoal CEast

LM

5

9056±28 B.P 7856–7515 B.C.

shell

CEast

7, 10

UM

21 (3.00–3.30)

1, 2, 3, 7

LM

(3.15)

5, 6

Floor 12a

1, 2

Floor 12

1 CEast

22 (3.30–3.60)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

CEast

23 (3.60–4.00)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

CEast

24 (4.00–4.40)

9042±24 B.P. 8271–8242 B.C. 9011±22 B.P. 7843–7490 B.C.

shell

7

Absolute Chronology

12 LM charcoal

LM

9252±31 B.P. 8547–8339 B.C.

Table 1.1 cont. Stratigraphic sequence and context of Trench CWest–CEast. Mes. = Mesolithic, LM = Lower Mesolithic, UM = Upper Mesolithic, EN = Early Neolithic, dist. = disturbed.

TABLE 1.2

Trench B

Trench CWest

Layers 1, 2

Layer 1

Layers 3, 4

Layer 2

Layer 4

Layer 3

Layer 5

Layer 4

Layer 6

Layer 5

Layer 7

Layer 6 (upper)

Layer 8

Layer 6 (lower)

Layer 9

Layers 7, 8

Table 1.2. Correspondence of layers between Trenches B and CWest.

TABLES 2.1 AND 2.2

Trench

Shapes

A3

A4

A5east

A5west

CWest 4

CWest 7

I.2

—

5

5

3

—

1

I.4

—

—

2

1

—

—

II.8

—

—

3

2

—

—

II.11

4

—

7

10

—

—

II.15

6

—

—

—

3

5

Table 2.1. Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware shapes of the Early/Middle Neolithic.

Diameter of Rim Shapes

0–0.10 m 0.11–0.15 m 0.16–0.20 m 0.21–0.25 m 0.26–0.30 m

I.2, I.11

3

7

15

12

3

I.4, I.13, II.19

—

—

3

—

—

I.15, II.15, II.21, II.22

3

5

7

2

—

Table 2.2. Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware shapes of the Early/Middle Neolithic according to rim diameter.

TABLES 2.3 AND 2.4

600

Number of sherds

500

400

300

200

100

0 0

1

2

3

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

13

14

15

16

17

18

16

17

Levels of Trench CEast

Table 2.3. Distribution of Late Neolithic coarse ware in levels of Trench CEast.

180 160

Number of sherds

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Levels of Trench CEast

Table 2.4. Distribution of Late Neolithic monochrome ware in levels of Trench CEast.

13

14

15

TABLES 2.5 AND 2.6

16

Coarse ware Monochrome ware

14

Number of sherds

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 0–0.10 m

0

0.16–0.20 m

0.10–0.15 m

0.21–0.25 m

0.26–0.30 m

0.30 m+

Rim Diameter

Table 2.5. Distribution of Late Neolithic coarse and monochrome pottery according to rim diameter.

Trench A Levels

Red

Black

Brown

Gray

Various

Total Sherds

1

387

67

471

341

78

1,344

2

374

44

134

182

212

946

3

356

0

228

153

43

780

4

196

0

176

91

28

491

5

194

0

311

70

57

632

6

112

5

143

78

66

404

7

231

67

486

310

87

1,181

TOTAL

1,850

183

1,949

1,225

571

5,778

Percent of Total Sherds

32%

3%

34%

21%

10%

100%

Table 2.6. Distribution of colors of coarse ware in levels of Trench A.

TABLES 2.7, 2.8, AND 2.9

Trench A Levels

Red

Black

Brown

Gray

Various

Total Sherds

1

11

6

11

11

—

39

2

31

36

19

29

1

116

3

41

5

36

81

10

173

4

24

4

23

53

5

109

5

97

4

134

21

24

280

6

82

5

54

9

3

153

7

45

7

18

7

—

77

TOTAL

331

67

295

211

43

947

Percent of Total Sherds

34.95%

7.07%

31.15%

22.28%

4.54%

100%

Table 2.7 Distribution of colors of monochrome ware in levels of Trench A.

Trench A Levels

Coarse Ware Strap handles Cylindrical handles

Monochrome Ware Lugs

Strap handles Cylindrical handles

Lugs

1

47

7

16

1

—

3

2

48

3

13

3

1

1

3

28

—

28

2

1

6

4

23

2

13

2

—

2

5

11

3

18

3

1

1

6

6

—

16

—

—

3

7

20

3

21

2

—

—

TOTAL

183

18

125

13

3

16

Table 2.8. Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware handles and lugs in levels of Trench A.

Bases Trench A Levels

Coarse

Rims Monochrome

Coarse

Monochrome

Flat

Ring-shaped

Flat

Ring-shaped

Inverted

Everted

Inverted

Everted

1

61

10

—

—

6

54

1

4

2

46

8

3

—

15

24

2

7

3

45

2

—

—

15

24

11

11

4

41

2

3

1

10

14

3

5

5

36

15

5

6

3

26

11

10

6

17

12

1

3

5

34

10

12

7

28

3

1

—

20

35

—

2

TOTAL

274

52

13

10

74

211

38

51

Table 2.9. Distribution of coarse and monochrome ware bases and rims in levels of Trench A.

TABLES 3.1, 3.2, AND 3.3

MN Painted

MN Coarse/ Monochrome

Late Neolithic

Bronze Age

Historical Periods

TOTAL

495 (39.7%)

210 (16.9%)

320 (25.7%)

0

220 (17.7%)

1245

B

7 (2.9%)

133 (54.7%)

58 (23.9%)

0

45 (18.5%)

243

C

93 (3.0%)

125 (4.0%)

2,530 (80.9%)

28 (0.9%)

350 (11.2%)

3126

F

0

0

0

0

265 (100%)

265

E

3 (5.8%)

16 (30.8%)

18 (34.6%)

0

15 (28.8%)

52

598 (12.1%)

484 (9.8%)

2,926 (59.3%)

28 (0.6%)

895 (18.2%)

4931

Trench A/D

TOTAL

Table 3.1. Amounts of Middle Neolithic painted pottery per trench in comparison with other pottery groups.

Trench MN Painted Vases

TOTAL A/D

B

C

E

Number of sherds before restoration

495 (82.8%)

7 (1.2%)

93 (15.5%)

3 (0.5%)

598

Number of sherds after restoration

365 (78.3%)

7 (1.5%)

91 (19.6%)

3 (0.6%)

466

Approximate number of vases

50 (61.0%)

4 (4.9%)

25 (30.5%)

3 (3.6%)

82

Table 3.2. Approximate number of Middle Neolithic painted vases per trench.

Trench Vessel Parts

TOTAL A/D

B

C

E

Neck

88

2

20

0

110

Rim

33

2

10

0

45

Shoulder

62

0

14

0

76

Lower Body

73

0

9

0

82

Upper Body

95

3

26

3

127

Unidentified Body

141

0

8

0

149

Lug

6

0

2

0

8

Base

1

0

0

0

1

499

7

89

3

598

TOTAL

Table 3.3. Parts of the Middle Neolithic painted ware vessels per trench.

TABLE 4.1

Trenches and Levels

Matt-Painted Black-on-Red Polychrome Dark-on-Light

White-on-Dark

Pattern Total Burnished

Total and Percentage for Each Trench

A surface

—

—

—

—

1

1

A1

—

—

—

—

1

1

A2

—

—

—

—

—

0

A3

—

3

2

—

6

11

A4

—

—

—

1

8

9

A5west

1

—

—

—

—

1

A7

—

—

—

2

1

3

A8

—

—

1

—

—

1

A/D 2

—

—

2

—

—

2

A/D 4

—

—

1

—

—

1

CEast 3

—

—

—

1

—

1

CEast 6

—

—

—

1

1

2

CEast 8

—

—

—

2

—

2

CEast 9

—

—

—

—

1

1

CEast 10

—

—

—

—

1

1

CEast 13

—

—

—

1

—

1

CEast 14

—

—

—

—

1

1

CEast 18

—

—

2

1

—

3

CWest 5

—

—

—

—

2

2

CWest 7

—

—

—

3

—

3

No Context

—

—

1

2

—

3

3 (6%)

1 (2%)

3 (6%)

9 (18%) 14 (28%)

23 (46%)

50

50 (100%)

27 (54%)

3 (6%)

17 (34%)

Total and Percentage for Each Ware

Matt-Painted Total 13 (26%)

Table 4.1. Distribution of decorative types of pottery according to trench and level.

TABLES 4.2 AND 4.3

Pottery Groups

Rims

Body

Lugs Shoulder TOTAL

Open

Closed Unidentified TOTAL

Matt-Painted TOTAL

1

12

—

—

13 (26%)

2

7

4

13 (26%)

Black-on-Red

1

(+)

(+)

—

1 (2%)

—

1

—

1 (2%)

Polychrome

—

3

—

—

3 (6%)

—

3

—

3 (6%)

Dark-on-Light

—

9

—

—

9 (18%)

2

3

4

9 (18%)

White-on-Dark

8

4

—

2

14 (28%)

7

5

2

14 (28%)

Pattern burnished

6

15

2

—

23 (46%)

3

11

9

23 (46%)

15 (30%)

50 (100%)

TOTAL

15 (30%) 31 (62%) 2 (4%)

2 (4%)

50 (100%) 12 (24%) 23 (46%)

Table 4.2. Percentages of vessel body parts and shapes. Bases were not identified. + represents several sherds of the same vase.

Decorative Types

0–0.10 m

0.11–0.15 m

0.16–0.20 m

0.21–0.30 m

TOTAL

White-on-Dark

—

2

3

2

7

Pattern burnished

2

1

—

—

3

Matt-painted

—

—

1

—

1

TOTAL

2

3

4

2

11

Table 4.3. Distribution of decorative types according to rim diameter of vases.

TABLES 8.1 AND 8.2

Siliceous stone

Group

Obsidian*

TOTAL

No.

% of SS

No.

No.

%

Flakes

110

67.07%

2

112

62.57%

Blades

9

5.49%

4

13

7.26%

Chips

6

3.66%

1

7

3.91%

Chunks

2

1.22%

—

2

1.12%

Tools

37

22.56%

8

45

25.14%

TOTAL

164

91.62%

15 (8.38%)

179

100.00%

Table 8.1. Major technological groups in the Mesolithic levels. SS = siliceous stone. *Due to the small amount of finds, percentages are not given for individual groups of obsidian artifacts.

Type of siliceous stone

Flakes Blades Chips Chunks Tools TOTAL

%

F1

Brown opaque flint

57

4

3

1

23

88

53.66%

F2

Silicified limestone

7

—

—

—

1

8

4.88%

F3

Black opaque flint

16

1

1

—

1

19

11.59%

F5

Brown transparent flint with white spots

—

—

—

—

1

1

0.61%

F6

White coarse flint with intrusions

—

—

—

—

1

1

0.61%

F7

Reddish-brown opaque coarse flint

2

—

—

—

—

2

1.22%

F8

Buff opaque homogeneous flint

12

1

—

—

5

18

10.98%

F9

Beige flint (Cretaceous)

3

3

—

—

—

6

3.66%

F10

Black transparent flint

1

—

—

—

—

1

0.61%

FB

Burnt flint

5

—

2

1

3

11

6.71%

Ch3

Violet chalcedony with dark veins

—

—

—

—

1

1

0.61%

Q

Quartz

3

—

—

—

1

4

2.44%

G

Greenstone

1

—

—

—

—

1

0.61%

A

Brown andesite

3

—

—

—

—

3

1.83%

110

9

6

2

37

164

100.00%

TOTAL

Table 8.2. Siliceous stone raw materials in the Mesolithic levels.

TABLES 8.3 AND 8.4

Mesolithic

Tool type

Early/Middle Neolithic

Late Neolithic

SS

O

SS

O

SS + O

% of LN

Crescents

—

2

—

6

46

31.72%

Trapezes

—

1

—

1

8

5.52%

Triangles

—

—

—

3

4

2.76%

Backed blades

2

1

—

—

2

1.38%

Truncations

—

2

—

2

15

10.34%

Double truncations

—

—

—

—

1

0.69%

Retouched blades

1

1

—

3

21

14.48%

Burins

1

—

—

2

2

1.38%

Splintered pieces

11

—

—

9

17

11.72%

Retouched flakes

5

—

—

—

3

2.07%

Becs

1

—

—

—

1

0.69%

Microretouched blades

—

—

—

—

—

—

End scrapers

9

—

—

—

2

1.38%

Denticulated tools

1

1

—

—

—

—

Notched tools

3

—

—

1

3

2.07%

Sickle blades

—

—

1

—

—

—

Bifacially worked tools and arrowheads

—

—

—

—

8

5.52%

Tanged points (blades)

—

—

1

—

4

2.76%

Burin spalls

2

—

—

—

—

—

Microburins

—

—

—

—

1

0.69%

Fragments

1

—

—

—

7

4.83%

TOTAL

37

8

2

27

145

100.00%

Table 8.3. Tools in the Mesolithic, Early/Middle Neolithic, and Late Neolithic levels. O = obsidian. SS = siliceous stones.

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

9

CWest

9

1–5

Not analyzed

10

CWest

9

1–5

Not analyzed

11

CWest

10

1, 2

Flake

12

CWest

10

1, 2

Flake

13

CWest

10

1, 2

Flake

L38 (14)

CWest

10

3, 4

Backed piece

15

CWest

10

3, 4

Flake

16

CWest

10

3, 4

Flake

L37 (17)

CWest

10

3, 4

Backed piece

18

CWest

11

1–4

Flake

Table 8.4. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

Figure

8.3

8.3

TABLE 8.4

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

19

CWest

11

1–4

Blade

20

CWest

11

1–4

Flake

L19 (85)

CEast

14

1, 2

Bec

8.2

L10 (110)

CEast

16

2

Retouched flake

8.1

L21 (111)

CEast

16

2

Splintered piece

8.2

L8 (112)

CEast

16

2

End scraper

8.1

113

CEast

16

2

Flake

L27 (115)

CEast

16

5

Chip from retouch and splintered piece

116

CEast

16

5

Not analyzed

117

CEast

16

5

Flake and chip

118

CEast

16

5

Not analyzed

119

CEast

16

5

Flake

120

CEast

16

5

Flake

121

CEast

16

6

Flake

122

CEast

16

6

Flake

123

CEast

16

6

Flake

124

CEast

16

6

Flake

131

CEast

17

1

Flake

L18 (132)

CEast

17

1

Notched flake

133

CEast

17

1

Blade

134

CEast

17

1

Flake

L24 (135)

CEast

17

2

Splintered piece

136

CEast

17

2

Chunk

137

CEast

17

2

Flake

138

CEast

17

2

Not analyzed

139

CEast

17

5

Flake

L36 (140)

CEast

17

5

Tool fragment

L13 (141)

CEast

17

6

Retouched flake

8.2

L16 (142)

CEast

17

6

Notched flake

8.2

143

CEast

17

6

Flake

144

CEast

17

6

Flake

145

CEast

18

1

Flake

146

CEast

18

1

Flake

147

CEast

18

3

Flake

L23 (148)

CEast

18

3

Flake and splintered piece on flake

149

CEast

18

5

Flake

150

CEast

18

5

Flake

151

CEast

18

5

Flake

152

CEast

18

5

Flake

Table 8.4 cont. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

Figure

8.3

8.2

8.3

8.3

TABLE 8.4

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

153

CEast

18

6

Flake

154

CEast

18

6

Flake

155

CEast

18

6

Flake

156

CEast

18

6

Flake

157

CEast

18

7

Flake

L31 (158)

CEast

18

7

Burin-like spall

159

CEast

18

7

Flake

160

CEast

18

7

Flake

161

CEast

18

7

Flake

162

CEast

18

7

Not analyzed

163

CEast

18

7

Flake

164

CEast

18

7

Flake

L25 (165)

CEast

18

—

Flake; splintered piece

8.3

L1 (166)

CEast

18

9

End scraper

8.1

L35 (167)

CEast

18

9

Flake with use-wear

8.3

L4 (168)

CEast

19

5

End scraper

8.1

169

CEast

19

5

Flake

170

CEast

19

5

Flake

171

CEast

19

5

Blade

172

CEast

19

5

Flake

173

CEast

19

5

Flake

L29 (174)

CEast

19

5

Fragment of splintered piece

175

CEast

19

6

Blade

L3 (176)

CEast

19

6

End scraper

177

CEast

19

6

Flake

L17 (178)

CEast

19

6

Notched tool

179

CEast

19

6

Flake

180

CEast

19

7

Flake

L2 (181)

CEast

19

7

Flake; end scraper

182

CEast

19

7

Not analyzed

L12 (183)

CEast

19

7

2 flakes and 1 retouched flake

184

CEast

19

7

Flake

L34 (185)

CEast

19

7

Blade with 2 adjacent scars

186

CEast

19

7

Flake

189

CEast

20

1

Flake

190

CEast

20

2

Flake

L15 (191)

CEast

20

2

Denticulated tool

192

CEast

20

3

Flake

193

CEast

20

5

Not analyzed

Table 8.4 cont. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

Figure

8.3

8.1

8.2

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.2

TABLE 8.4

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

194

CEast

20

5

Flake

195

CEast

20

5

Flake

L5 (196)

CEast

20

6

End scraper

197

CEast

20

6

Flake

198

CEast

20

6

Flake

199

CEast

20

7

Flake

200

CEast

20

7

Flake

201

CEast

20

7

Flake

202

CEast

20

7

Flake

203

CEast

20

7

Flake

Figure

8.1

204

CEast

20

7

Flake

L6 (205)

CEast

18–20

2

End scraper

206

CEast

18–20

2

Blade

L7 (207)

CEast

18–20

2

Multiple end scraper

8.1

L20 (208)

CEast

18–20

2

Splintered piece

8.2

209

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

210

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

211

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

L32 (212)

CEast

18–20

2

Burin-like spall

213

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

214

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

215

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

216

CEast

18–20

2

Flake

217

CEast

21

3, 7

Chunk

218

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

219

CEast

21

3, 7

Blade

220

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

221

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

222

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

L11 (223)

CEast

21

3, 7

Retouched flake

224

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

225

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

226

CEast

21

3, 7

Blade

227

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

228

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

229

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

230

CEast

21

3, 7

Flake

231

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

232

CEast

22

3, 7

Blade

Table 8.4 cont. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

8.1

8.3

8.2

TABLE 8.4

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

233

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

234

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

235

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

236

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

237

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

238

CEast

23

3, 7

Flake

242

CWest

8

1–4

Flake

L22 (243)

CWest

8

1–4

Splintered piece

244

CEast

12

1, 2

Blade

L30 (250)

E

6

—

Fragment of splintered piece

L33 (251)

E

6

—

Burin

252

CWest

9

1–5

Chip

253

CWest

9

1–5

Chip

254

CWest

13

1–3

Flake

260

CEast

14

1, 2

Flake

L26 (264)

CEast

18

5

Splintered piece

265

CEast

18

7

Flake

266

CEast

18

7

Flake

267

CEast

18

7

Flake

268

CEast

18

7

Flake

269

CEast

18

7

Flake

272

CEast

19

7

Flake

310

CEast

22

3, 7

Flake

Figure

8.3

8.3

8.3

312

CEast

17

1

Flake

L28 (313)

CEast

18

1

Splintered piece

314

CWest

9

1–5

Chip

315

CEast

16

2

Chip

321

CEast

19

5

Flake

322

CEast

17

5

Flake

324

CEast

19

5

Flake

325

CEast

12

1, 2

Flake

326

CEast

18

5

Flake

327

CEast

18

5

Flake

328

CEast

19

5

Flake

329

CEast

17

6

Flake

330

CEast

17

6

Bone fragment

331

CWest

10

3, 4

Flake

347

CEast

20

7

Not analyzed

L9 (349)

CEast

21

1

Macro-end scraper

8.1

L14 (351)

CEast

17

5

Flake with proximal splintered retouch

8.2

Table 8.4 cont. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

TABLES 8.5, 8.6, AND 8.7

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

L44 (4)

B

9

—

Truncation

8.4

L39 (132)

CWest

9

1–5

Crescent fragment

8.4

133

CWest

9

1–5

Flake

134

CWest

9

1–5

Flake

L40 (135)

CWest

9

1–5

Crescent fragment with impact scars

8.4

L42 (136)

CWest

9

1–5

Fragment of hypermicrolithic backed piece

8.4

L43 (137)

CWest

12

1–4

Truncation fragment

8.4

L48 (138)

CWest

13

1–3

Blade

L46 (139)

CWest

13

1–3

Retouched blade

8.4

L41 (423)

CEast

17

5

Trapeze

8.4

L49 (428)

CEast

19

7

Blade

L45 (432)

E

6

—

Denticulated blade

L50 (436)

E

6

—

Blade

L47 (437)

CWest

9

1–5

Crested blade

438

CWest

9

1–5

Chip

Table 8.5. Obsidian artifacts of the Mesolithic period.

Group

Siliceous stone

Obsidian

Total

No.

No.

No.

%

Flakes

8

4

12

16.90%

Blades

3

25

28

39.44%

Exhausted cores

1

—

1

1.41%

Chunks

1

—

1

1.41%

Tools

2

27

29

40.84%

TOTAL

15

56

71

100.00%

Table 8.6. Major technological groups in the Early/Middle Neolithic levels. Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

5

CWest

6

1–4

Flake

6

CWest

7

5, 6

Flake

7

CWest

7

5, 6

Flake

8

CWest

7

5, 6

Flake

Figure

41

CWest

6

5, 6

Flake

L52 (42)

CWest

6

5, 6

Retouched blade with sickle gloss

83

CEast

12

5, 6

Blade

84

CEast

12

5, 6

Flake

L51 (107)

CEast

15

3

Core

8.4

L53 (108)

CEast

15

3

Nibbled blade with retouched tang

8.4

114

CEast

16

3

Blade

271

CEast

18

11

Chunk

273

CWest

6

1–4

Flake

274

CWest

6

1–4

Blade

311

CEast

17

7

Flake

Table 8.7. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Early/Middle Neolithic period.

8.4

TABLE 8.8

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

1

A

3

2

Blade

L65 (2)

A

3

2

Truncation

75

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

Figure 8.5

76

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L73 (77)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

8.6

L63 (78)

CWest

6

5, 6

Triangle

8.5

79

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L78 (80)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

81

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

82

CWest

6

5, 6

Flake

83

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L67 (84)

CWest

6

5, 6

Retouched blade

8.5

L77 (85)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

8.6

86

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L58 (87)

CWest

6

5, 6

Crescent

8.5

L56 (88)

CWest

6

5, 6

Crescent

8.4

8.6

89

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L55 (90)

CWest

6

5, 6

Crescent

8.4

L72 (91)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

8.6

92

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

93

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L70 (94)

CWest

6

5, 6

Burin

8.6

L62 (95)

CWest

6

5, 6

Triangle

8.5

L74 (96)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

8.6

97

CWest

6

5, 6

Blade

L76 (98)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

8.6

L59 (99)

CWest

6

5, 6

Crescent

8.5

L64 (100)

CWest

6

5, 6

Truncation

8.5

L66 (101)

CWest

6

5, 6

Retouched blade

8.5

L54 (102)

CWest

6

5, 6

Crescent

8.4

L75 (103)

CWest

6

5, 6

Splintered piece

8.6

104

CWest

7

1–4

Blade

105

CWest

7

5, 6

Blade

L57 (106)

CWest

7

5, 6

Crescent fragment

107

CWest

7

5, 6

Blade

108

CWest

7

5, 6

Blade

L79 (109)

CWest

7

5, 6

Splintered piece

110

CWest

7

5, 6

Blade

L60 (111)

CWest

8

5, 6

Trapeze

112

CWest

8

5, 6

Blade

Table 8.8. Obsidian artifacts of the Early/Middle Neolithic period.

8.4

8.6

8.5

TABLES 8.8 AND 8.9

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

L80 (113)

CWest

8

5, 6

Splintered piece

L61 (114)

CWest

8

5, 6

Triangle

115

CWest

8

5, 6

Blade

116

CWest

8

5, 6

Blade

117

CWest

8

5, 6

Flake

118

CWest

8

5, 6

Not analyzed

119

CWest

8

5, 6

Blade

120

CWest

8

5, 6

Flake

121

CWest

8

5, 6

Blade

L68 (378)

CEast

12

5, 6

Retouched blade

8.5

L69 (379)

CEast

12

5, 6

Burin

8.5

381

CEast

13

5, 6

Blade

382

CEast

13

5, 6

Blade

383

CEast

13

5, 6

Flake

427

CEast

18

11

Blade

L71 (430)

E

3

—

Fragment of crested blade with flat inverse retouched notch

431

E

3

—

Blade

8.5

8.6

Table 8.8 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Early/Middle Neolithic period.

Group

Siliceous stone

Obsidian

Total

No.

% of SS

No.

% of O

No.

%

Pebble

1

1.47%

—

—

1

0.28%

Flakes

46

67.65%

23

7.99%

69

19.38%

Blades

7

10.29%

133

46.18%

140

39.33%

Chips

—

—

1

0.35%

1

0.28%

Tools

14

20.59%

131

45.48%

145

40.73%

TOTAL

68 (19.10%*)

100.00%

288 (80.90%*)

100.00%

356

100.00%

Table 8.9. Major technological groups in the Late Neolithic levels. *Percentage of total LN stone artifacts.

TABLES 8.10 AND 8.11

Type of siliceous stone

Pebbles

Flakes

Blades

Tools Total

%

F1

Brown opaque flint

—

28

2

5

35

51.47%

F2

Silicified limestone

1

2

2

1

6

8.82%

F3

Black opaque flint

—

13

2

—

15

22.06%

F4

Brown smooth transparent flint

—

—

—

2

2

2.94%

F5

Brown transparent flint with white spots

—

—

1

—

1

1.47%

Ch1

Gray-brown, slightly transparent chalcedony

—

—

—

1

1

1.47%

Ch2

White chalcedony

—

—

—

1

1

1.47%

Ch3

Violet chalcedony with dark veins

—

1

—

—

1

1.47%

R1

Red radiolarite

—

—

—

1

1

1.47%

SB

“Silex blond”

—

—

—

1

1

1.47%

Q

Quartz

—

1

—

—

1

1.47%

FB

Burnt flint

—

1

—

2

3

4.41%

1

46

7

14

68

100.00%

TOTAL

Table 8.10. Siliceous stone raw materials in the Late Neolithic levels.

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

L84 (1)

CWest

5

L93 (2)

CWest

5

1–4

Point à face plane

8.7

1–4

Retouched flake and flake

3

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

4

CWest

5

1–4

Not analyzed

L83 (21)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Bifacial point

22

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

23

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

24

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

25

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

L82 (26)

CEast

5

—

Bifacial point

27

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

L88 (28)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Denticulated blade

29

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

30

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

31

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

32

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

33

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

L95 (34)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Splintered piece

35

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

36

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

37

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

38

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

39

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

Table 8.11. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

8.6

8.6

8.7

TABLE 8.11

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

40

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

L87 (43)

CEast

1–6 (wall)

1

Geometric point

44

CEast

8

9–11

Flake

45

CEast

8

9–11

Flake

46

CEast

8

9–11

Flake

47

CEast

8

9–11

Flake

48

CEast

9

5–7

Not analyzed

49

CEast

9

5–7

Not analyzed

50

CEast

9

5–7

Not analyzed

51

CEast

9

5–7

Not analyzed

52

CEast

9

5–7

Not analyzed

53

CEast

9

5–7

Not analyzed

54

CEast

9

9, 10

Not analyzed

55

CEast

9

9, 10

Flake

56

CEast

9

9, 10

Blade

57

CEast

9

9, 10

Flake

58

CEast

9

9, 10

Flake

L90 (59)

CEast

9

9, 10

Retouched blade

L94 (86)

CEast

14

7

Retouched flake

L85 (87)

CEast

14

9

Arrowhead

8.7

L89 (88)

CEast

14

9

Retouched blade

8.7

89

CEast

14

9, 10

Blade fragment

90

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

L86 (91)

CEast

14

9, 10

Arrowhead fragment

92

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

93

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

94

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

95

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

L92 (96)

CEast

14

9, 10

Splintered piece

97

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

98

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

99

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

100

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

101

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

102

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

103

CEast

14

9, 10

Pebble fragment

104

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

105

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

106

CEast

14

11–14

Flake

128

CEast

15–16

10

Flake

Table 8.11 cont. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

Figure 8.7

8.7

8.7

8.7

TABLES 8.11 AND 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

129

CEast

15–16

10

Flake

130

CEast

15–16

10

Flake

L91 (247)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Retouched blade

248

CEast

12–13

9–11

Flake

249

CEast

14

11–14

Blade

256

CEast

9

5–7

Flake

257

CEast

8

9–11

Flake

261

CEast

14

7

Blade

L81 (262)

CEast

14

11–14

Flake (refitted with 263)

8.6

L81 (263)

CEast

17

10

Flake (refitted with 262)

8.6

320

CEast

8

9–11

Blade

323

CEast

10

3, 7, 11

Not analyzed

350

CEast

11

7

Blade

Table 8.11 cont. Siliceous stone artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

L100 (5)

C

3

—

Crescent

8.8

L193 (6)

C

3

—

Splintered piece

L192 (7)

C

3

—

Splintered piece

8

C

3

—

Blade

9

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L191 (10)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Splintered piece

11

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

12

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

13

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

14

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

15

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

16

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

17

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L194 (18)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Splintered piece

19

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L151 (20)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Backed piece

21

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

22

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L169 (23)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Retouched blade

8.11

8.11

8.10

24

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L154 (25)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Truncation

8.10

L134 (26)

CWest

4

—

Crescent fragment

8.9

L147 (27)

CWest

4

—

Trapeze

8.10

Table 8.12. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

28

CWest

4

—

Blade

L206 (29)

CWest

4

—

Tanged point fragment

30

CWest

4

—

Blade

L141 (31)

CWest

4

—

Triangle fragment

8.9

L135 (32)

CWest

4

—

Crescent fragment

8.9

33

CWest

4

—

Flake

34

CWest

4

—

Flake

L170 (35)

CWest

4

—

Retouched blade fragment

L136 (36)

CWest

4

—

Crescent fragment

L195 (37)

CWest

4

—

Splintered piece

38

CWest

4

—

Blade

L123 (39)

CWest

4

—

Crescent

L171 (40)

CWest

4

—

Retouched blade

L196 (41)

CWest

4

—

Splintered piece

42

CWest

4

—

Blade

43

CWest

4

—

Blade

44

CWest

4

—

Blade

45

CWest

4

—

Blade

L197 (46)

CWest

4

1–4

Splintered piece

L207 (47)

CWest

4

1–4

Tanged point

48

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

49

CWest

5

1–4

Flake

L172 (50)

CWest

5

1–4

Retouched blade

L118 (51)

CWest

5

1–4

Crescent

L162 (52)

CWest

5

1–4

Truncation

53

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

54

CWest

5

1–4

Flake

55

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

L116 (56)

CWest

5

1–4

Crescent

57

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

58

CWest

5

1–4

Notched blade

59

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

60

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

61

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

62

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

63

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

L161 (64)

CWest

5

1–4

Truncation

65

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

L163 (66)

CWest

5

1–4

Truncation

67

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

Figure 8.11

8.9

8.9

8.11

8.8

8.8

8.10

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

68

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

L187 (69)

CWest

5

1–4

Transversal notched bec

70

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

L168 (71)

CWest

5

1–4

Retouched blade

72

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

73

CWest

5

1–4

Blade

L173 (74)

CWest

5

1–4

Retouched blade

L203 (122)

CEast

8

9–11

Splintered piece

123

CEast

8

9–11

Blade

L103.1 (124)

CEast

8

9–11

Crescent

8.8

L101 (125)

CEast

8

9–11

Crescent

8.8

L174 (126)

CEast

8

9–11

Retouched blade

127

CEast

8

9–11

Blade

L145 (128)

CEast

8

9–11

Trapeze

129

CEast

8

9–11

Blade

130

CEast

8

9–11

Flake

8.11

8.10

8.10

131

CEast

8

9–11

Blade

L132 (140)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent (atypical)

141

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

142

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

143

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L144 (144)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Trapeze

8.10

L209 (145)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Tanged point fragment

8.11

146

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

147

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L188 (148)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Corbiac burin

149

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Tool fragment

L128 (150)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent fragment

151

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

152

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

L106 (153)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent

154

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L96 (155)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent

156

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

L108 (157)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent

158

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Toot fragment

159

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Flake

160

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

161

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

162

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

8.9

8.9

8.8

8.7

8.8

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

L183 (163)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Microretouched blade

8.10

L105 (164)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent

8.8

L190 (165)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade with impact scars

8.11

166

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Notched crested blade

167

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L152 (168)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Backed blade

169

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L184 (170)

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Microretouched blade

171

CEast

4

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Blade

L137 (172)

CEast

5

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Crescent

8.9

L160 (173)

CEast

5

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

Truncation

8.10

174

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L182 (175)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade with ventral thinning of the base

L164 (176)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Truncation

L165 (177)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Truncation

178

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

179

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

180

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L112 (181)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

182

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

183

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L204 (184)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Splintered piece

185

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

8.10

8.10

8.8

L98 (186)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

8.7

L208 (187)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Tanged point fragment

8.11

188

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent fragment

189

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

190

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L198 (191)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Splintered piece

192

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

193

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L124 (194)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent fragment

L166 (195)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Truncation

L99 (196)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

8.8

L127 (197)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

8.9

198

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

199

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L130 (200)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

201

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

202

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

8.9

8.9

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

203

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

204

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

205

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

206

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

207

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

207

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

208

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

209

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

210

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Not analyzed

211

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L138 (212)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Microburin

213

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

214

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

215

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

216

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L131 (217)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

218

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

219

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

220

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent fragment

221

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L175 (222)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Retouched blade

L119 (223)

CEast

6

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

234

CEast

1–6

1

Blade

L140 (235)

CEast

1–6

1

Triangle

236

CEast

1–6

1

Blade

237

CEast

1–6

1

Blade

238

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

239

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L176 (240)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Retouched blade

241

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

242

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

243

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

244

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L159 (245)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Truncation

L199 (246)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Splintered piece

L129 (247)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

8.9

L142 (248)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Triangle fragment

8.9

L111 (249)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

8.8

250

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L126 (251)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

Figure

8.9

8.9

8.8

8.9

8.10

8.9

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

252

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

253

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

254

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L205 (255)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Splintered piece

L107 (256)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Crescent

257

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

258

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

259

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

260

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

261

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

262

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

263

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L189 (264)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Burin

265

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

266

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

267

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

L155 (268)

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Truncation

269

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

270

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

271

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Flake

272

CEast

7

1–3, 5–7, 9–11

Blade

273

CEast

8

1–3

Blade

274

CEast

8

1–3

Blade

Figure

8.8

8.11

8.10

275

CEast

8

1–3

Blade

L115 (276)

CEast

8

1–3

Crescent

277

CEast

8

1–3

Blade

L210 (278)

CEast

8

1–3

Bifacially retouched point fragment

279

CEast

8

1–3

Blade

280

CEast

8

1–3

Blade

L120 (281)

CEast

8

1–3

Crescent

8.8

L156 (283)

CEast

8

1–3

Truncation

8.10

284

CEast

8

1–3

Tool fragment

285

CEast

8

1–3

Flake

L211 (286)

CEast

8

1–3

Point fragment

L177 (287)

CEast

8

1–3

Retouched blade

L200 (288)

CEast

8

1–3

Splintered piece

289

CEast

8

5–7

Flake

290

CEast

8

5–7

Not analyzed

291

CEast

8

5–7

Flake

292

CEast

8

5–7

Tool fragment

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

8.8

8.11

8.11

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

293

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

294

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

295

CEast

8

5–7

Tool fragment

Figure

296

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

L110 (297)

CEast

8

5–7

Crescent

298

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

L143 (299)

CEast

8

5–7

Trapeze

300

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

301

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

302

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

303

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

L201 (304)

CEast

8

5–7

Splintered piece

305

CEast

8

5–7

Blade

310

CEast

9

1–3

Tool fragment

311

CEast

9

5–7

Blade

L125 (312)

CEast

9

5–7

Crescent fragment

L178 (313)

CEast

9

5–7

Retouched blade fragment

314

CEast

9

5–7

Tool fragment (truncation?)

L167 (315)

CEast

9

5–7

Tool fragment (truncation?)

316

CEast

9

5–7

Notched tool

L104 (317)

CEast

9

5–7

Crescent

8.8

L157 (318)

CEast

9

5–7

Truncation

8.10

319

CEast

9

5–7

Blade

L148 (320)

CEast

9

5–7

Trapeze

321

CEast

9

5–7

Blade

322

CEast

9

5–7

Blade

323

CEast

9

5–7

Blade

324

CEast

9

5–7

Blade fragment

L146 (325)

CEast

9

9, 10

Trapeze

326

CEast

9

9, 10

Chip

327

CEast

9

9, 10

Blade

L149 (328)

CEast

9

9, 10

Trapeze

339

CEast

10

3, 7, 11

Blade

340

CEast

10

3, 7, 11

Blade

L117 (342)

CEast

10

3, 7, 11

Crescent

343

CEast

10

3, 7, 11

Blade

384

CEast

12–13

9–11

Flake

385

CEast

12–13

9–11

Blade

386

CEast

12–13

9–11

Blade

387

CEast

12–13

9–11

Blade

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

8.8

8.9

8.9

8.10

8.10

8.10

8.8

TABLE 8.12

Number

Trench

Level

Rectangle

Artifact category

Figure

L153 (388)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Double truncation (rhombus)

8.10

389

CEast

12–13

9–11

Blade

L103 (390)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Crescent

8.8

L113 (391)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Crescent fragment

8.8

392

CEast

12–13

9–11

Blade

L179 (393)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Retouched blade

394

CEast

12–13

9–11

Tool fragment

L133 (395)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Crescent fragment

8.9

L102 (396)

CEast

12–13

9–11

Crescent

8.8

397

CEast

14

7

Blade

L180 (398)

CEast

14

9, 10

Retouched blade

399

CEast

14

9, 10

Flake

400

CEast

14

9, 10

Retouched flake

L139 (401)

CEast

14

9, 10

Triangle

402

CEast

14

9, 10

Blade

L158 (403)

CEast

14

9, 10

Truncation

8.10

L122 (404)

CEast

14

9, 10

Crescent fragment

8.8

405

CEast

14

9, 10

Blade

406

CEast

14

9, 10

Blade

L97 (407)

CEast

14

9, 10

Crescent

8.7

L185 (408)

CEast

14

9, 10

Micro-end scraper

8.10

L114 (409)

CEast

14

9, 10

Crescent

8.8

L109 (410)

CEast

14

9, 10

Crescent

8.8

411

CEast

14

9, 10

Blade

412

CEast

14

11–14

Blade

L121 (413)

CEast

14

11–14

Crescent

414

CEast

14

11–14

Blade

L150 (415)

CEast

15

7

Trapeze

L186 (416)

CEast

15

9

End scraper

417

CEast

15

9

Blade

418

CEast

16

3

Flake

422

CEast

15–16

10

Blade

L184.1 (424)

CEast

17

11

Crested blade

8.10

L181 (425)

CEast

17

11

Retouched blade

8.10

435

CEast

8

9, 10

Secondary crested blade

L202 (439)

CEast

8

2

Splintered piece

453

CEast

11

7

Not analyzed

Table 8.12 cont. Obsidian artifacts of the Late Neolithic period.

8.9

8.8

8.10

TABLE 11.1

Martin1

Anthropological Features

Mesolithic Cave of the Cyclops, Youra

Mesolithic Monclus

Late Minoan Knossos

1

Cranial length (gl.-op.)

—

0.186

0.183

1b

Cranial length (mes.-op.)

0.186?

—

—

0.185

1c

Cranial length (met.-in.)

0.186?

—

—

—

Cranial circumference (met.-in.)

0.265?

—

—

—

Cranial length (met.-op.)

0.181?

—

—

—

Bregma-opisthocranion

0.137?

—

—

—

Bregma-opisthocranion chord

0.320?

—

—

Cranial breadth

0.136

0.131

0.133

0.136

Cranial index I

0.0731

0.0697

0.0715

0.0735

Cranial index II

0.0751

—

—

0.0743

Max. frontal breadth

0.118?

0.117

0.117

Stenion-stenion

0.114?

—

—

30

Bregmatic chord

0.118

0.121

0.119

0.124

27

Bregmatic arc

0.130

0.133

0.130

—

Corresp. height

0.024

—

0.030

33(1)

Lambda inion chord

0.069?

0.058

—

28(1)

Upper inion arc

0.071?

0.062

—

Lower inion arc

0.039?

—

—

8

10

0.188

Mesolithic Voloshki

—

0.117 —

— 0.072 — 0.044

Corresp. height

0.010

—

—

Frontal bone thickness

0.006

0.006

—

—

—

Parietal bone thickness

0.005

0.005

—

—

Obelion bone thickness

0.006

0.005

—

—

Bregma bone thickness

0.006

0.007

—

—

Vertex bone thickness

0.010

—

—

—

Table 11.1. Comparative measurements of the cranial vault from the Cave of the Cyclops with other female Mediterranean European skulls. 1 Martin 1928.

TABLE 11.2

Section Level Rectangle Excavation

Bone

Sex/Age

MNI* per level

Period

CEast

6

3

6/29/1994

Metatarsal I

adult

1

Late Neolithic Ib

CEast

16

10

7/07/1995

Rib fragment

adult

1

Early/Middle Neolithic

CEast

16

1

7/15/1995

Hand phalanx V (middle)

young or female

1

Upper Mesolithic

CEast

17

2

7/10/1995

Foot phalanx II (first)

—

1

Upper Mesolithic

CEast

18

7

7/15/1995

1

Upper Mesolithic

CEast

18

1

7/17/1995

Fragment of a hand phalanx

—

—

Lower Mesolithic

CWest

5

5

7/01/1993

Fibula diaphyseal fragment

—

—

Late Neolithic I

CWest

7

1

7/01/1993

Crown of lower (2nd?) premolar, heavily worn

—

1

Final Mesolithic

CWest

8

3

6/29/1994

Metatarsal III right

young

1

Upper Mesolithic

CWest

8

3

7/01/1994

Metatarsal I

adult (female?)

1

Upper Mesolithic

7/07/1994

Hand phalanx IV (middle)

young or female

1

Upper Mesolithic

CWest

10

2

Foot phalanx I (third?) young or female

Table 11.2. Fragments of bone from the Mesolithic and Neolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops. *MNI = minimum number of individuals.

TABLE 12.1

Years B.C.

Aegean Basin

Greek Mainland

SW Anatolia

Near East

Cyprus

6000 Youra and Hagios Petros EN

Sidari UM?

6500

Beldibi EN

Youra FM

Final PPN B– PPN C

7000 UM

Youra UM 7500

Franchthi Cave UM Zaimis Cave UM Klisoura UM

Aceramic Hacilar

Theopetra Cave UM

8000

Aceramic Belbidi Cave

Silourokampos B Late PPN B

Early PPN B Silourokampos A

LM

Youra Cave LM 8500

Franchthi Cave LM

Cape Andreas

Öküzini Cave Ib1 PPN A

Kythnos LM Sarakenos Cave LM Öküzini Cave Ia2 9000

9500 Proto-Neolithic (Jericho)

Aetokremnos

10000

10500

11000

11500 Natufian culture 12000

12500 Belbasi 13000

Table 12.1. Comparative chronology of Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic cultures in Greece, Anatolia, and the Near East. LM = Lower Mesolithic, UM = Upper Mesolithic, FM = Final Mesolithic, PPN = Pre-Pottery Neolithic, and EN = Early Neolithic.

TABLE 12.2

Lab No.*

Trench and Level, Rectangle

Depth (m)

Sample Date

DEM-268

A3, 1–2

0.37

DEM-266

B4, 4

DEM-267

B7, 1–4

13

Material

d C (‰)

Age (yr B.P.)

Calibrated Date

7/3/92

Charcoal

-25.00

1879±51

80–210 A.D. (68.3%) 10–320 A.D. (95.4%)

0.70

7/3/92

Charcoal

-25.00

6837±40

5740–5663 B.C. (68.3%) 5796–5639 B.C. (95.4%)

1.18

7/3/92

Charcoal

-25.00

5311±36

4222–4046 B.C. (68.3%) 4245–4002 B.C. (95.4%) 1700–1955 A.D. (68.3%) 1680–1955 A.D. (95.4%)

Calibrated Date Corrected for Marine Reservoir Effect (DR = 41±19)

DEM-392

CWest 5, 1–4 0.80–0.90

7/7/93

Charcoal

-25.00

34±56

DEM-345

CWest 5, 1–4 0.80–0.90

7/5/93

Patella ulyssiponensis Gmelin

1.00

6730±38

5343–5275 B.C. (68.3%) 5308–5232 B.C. (68.3%) 5382–5232 B.C. (95.4%) 5356–5193 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-393

CWest 6, 1–4

1.20

7/7/93

Charcoal

-25.00

7398±64

6380–6110 B.C. (68.3%) 6400–6090 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-370

CWest 6, 1–4

1.20

7/7/93

Patella ulyssiponensis Gmelin

1.00

7971±41

6505–6416 B.C. (68.3%) 6464–6388 B.C. (68.3%) 6581–6395 B.C. (95.4%) 6552–6345 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-369

CWest 7, 1–4 1.40–1.50

7/8/93

Patella ulyssiponensis Gmelin

1.00

7803±41

6363–6260 B.C. (68.3%) 6328–6220 B.C. (68.3%) 6394–6221 B.C. (95.4%) 6380–6176 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-594

CWest 8, 5–6 1.40–1.85

7/4/94

Charcoal

-25.00

7351±46

6235–6094 B.C. (68.3%) 6375–6072 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-368

CWest 8, 3–4 1.70–1.85

7/13/93

Patella ulyssiponensis Gmelin

1.00

8218±43

6845–6683 B.C. (68.3%) 6801–6633 B.C. (68.3%) 6931–6633 B.C. (95.4%) 6909–6577 B.C. (95.4%)

8624±20

7412–7017 B.C. (68.3%) 7341–6989 B.C. (68.3%) 7644–6980 B.C. (95.4%) 7639–6949 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-431

CWest 9, 5

Patella 1.85–2.00 7/6–7/94 ulyssiponensis 0.17** Gmelin

DEM-430

CWest 9, 5

1.85–2.00 7/6–7/94

DEM-595

CWest 10, 1–2

2.00–2.20

7/7/94

DEM-435

CWest 11, 4 2.20–2.40

7/11/94

DEM-434

CWest 11, 4 2.20–2.40

7/11/94

Helix cincta (Müller)

2.40–2.70

7/13–14/ 94

CWest 14, 1 2.90–3.10

7/14–15/ 94

DEM-596

DEM-597

CWest 12, 1–2

Helix cincta (Müller)

-8.75** 8754±20

7938–7685 B.C. (68.3%) 7957–7655 B.C. (95.4%)

-25.00

8209±47

7315–7083 B.C. (68.3%) 7449–7077 B.C. (95.4%)

Patella ulyssiponensis 1.02** Gmelin

8776±19

7482–7120 B.C. (68.3%) 7469–7090 B.C. (68.3%) 7799–7074 B.C. (95.4%) 7789–7048 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

-7.93** 8855±28

8199–7853 B.C. (68.3%) 8203–7816 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

-25.00

9258±50

8600–8340 B.C. (68.3%) 8610–8300 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

-25.00

9274±43

8604–8341 B.C. (68.3%) 8628–8318 B.C. (95.4%)

Table 12.2. Summary of radiocarbon dates of samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. Patella ulyssiponensis Gmelin is a marine mollusk, and Helix cincta (Müller) is a terrestrial mollusk. Date calibration performed using calibration curve INTCAL98 (Stuiver et al. 1998). *Laboratory of Archaeometry (Institute of Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”) in Athens. ** denotes d13C measurements calculated at the Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg.

TABLE 12.2

Trench Lab No.* and Level, Rectangle

Depth Sample (m) Date

Calibrated Date

Calibrated Date Corrected for Marine Reservoir Effect (DR = 41±19)

7645–7145 B.C. (68.3%) 7817–7123 B.C. (95.4%)

7519–7132 B.C. (68.3%) 7801–7098 B.C. (95.4%)

13

Material

d C Age (‰) (yr B.P.)

DEM-416

Patella CEast 14, 1 1.95–2.20 20/7/94 ulyssiponensis 0.91** 8864±37 Gmelin

DEM-415

CEast 14, 1 1.95–2.20 7/20/94

DEM-521

CEast 14, 9 2.03–2.13

7/5/95

DEM-525

CEast 14, 9 2.03–2.13

DEM-494

Helix cincta (Müller)

8.94** 8834±20

8195–7833 B.C. (68.3%) 8198–7760 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

-25.00 4814±25

3644–3539 B.C. (68.3%) 3652–3527 B.C. (95.4%)

7/5/95

Patella ulyssiponensis 2.55** 6754±34 Gmelin

5357–5296 B.C. (68.3%) 5406–5270 B.C. (95.4%)

CEast 14, 9 2.03–2.13

7/5/95

Animal bones -21.00 5741±22

4667–4542 B.C. (68.3%) 4685–4501 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-636

CEast 15, 6 2.13–2.28

7/7/95

DEM-547

CEast 15, 5 2.13–2.28

7/7/95

DEM-580

CEast 17, 5 2.38–2.47 7/10/95

-25.00 8283±27

7467–7327 B.C. (68.3%) 7516–7195 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-545

Patella CEast 17, 5 2.38–2.47 7/10/95 ulyssiponensis 0.63** 8773±24 Gmelin

7481–7117 B.C. (68.3%) 7799–7071 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-522

CEast 19, 5

2.80

7/11/95

-25.00 8487±22

7577–7542 B.C. (68.3%) 7582–7495 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-543

CEast 19, 5

2.80

Patella 7/11/95 ulyssiponensis 1.13** 9011±22 Gmelin

7854–7514 B.C. (68.3%) 7970–7181 B.C. (95.4%)

DEM-544

CEast 19, 5

2.80

7/11/95

Helix cincta (Müller)

DEM-524

CEast 20, 5

3.02

7/18/95

Charcoal

DEM-573

CEast 20, 5

3.02

Patella 7/18/95 ulyssiponensis Gmelin

DEM-523

CWest, Rect. 3 2.30–2.32 7/12/95 (inside the stalagmite)

DEM-598

CEast 23, 7 3.60–4.00 7/25/95

-25.00 7779±32

6644–6514 B.C. (68.3%) 6653–6484 B.C. (95.4%)

Patella ulyssiponensis 0.89** 8761±29 Gmelin

7478–7107 B.C. (68.3%) 7791–7061 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

9042±24

8271–8242 B.C. (68.3%) 8287–8235 B.C. (95.4%)

-25.00 8791±23

7957–7907 B.C. (68.3%) 8156–7748 B.C. (95.4%)

-8.00

9056±28

7870–7541 B.C. (68.3%) 8300–7204 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

-25.00 9250±60

8550–8320 B.C. (68.3%) 8630–8290 B.C. (95.4%)

Charcoal

-25.00 9252±31

8547–8339 B.C. (68.3%) 8602–8318 B.C. (95.4%)

1.00

5326–5256 B.C. (68.3%) 5364–5216 B.C. (95.4%)

7463–7080 B.C. (68.3%) 7789–7036 B.C. (95.4%)

7468–7087 B.C. (68.3%) 7789–7045 B.C. (95.4%)

7843–7490 B.C. (68.3%) 7887–7164 B.C. (95.4%)

7856–7515 B.C. (68.3%) 7970–7179 B.C. (95.4%)

Table 12.2 cont. Summary of radiocarbon dates of samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. Patella ulyssiponensis Gmelin is a marine mollusk, and Helix cincta (Müller) is a terrestrial mollusk. Date calibration performed using calibration curve INTCAL98 (Stuiver et al. 1998). *Laboratory of Archaeometry (Institute of Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”) in Athens. ** denotes d13C measurements calculated at the Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg.

Figures

FIGURE 1.1

TURKEY

GREECE Aegean Sea

Crete

Figure 1.1. Map of the Aegean.

Figure 1.2. Map of the Northern Sporades.

Skiathos

Skopelos

Alonnessos

Peristera

Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi)

Cave of the Cyclops

Skantzoura

Hagios Petros

Gramiza

Youra

Psathoura

Piperi

FIGURE 1.2

FIGURE 1.3

Psathoura

Youra

Pappous Cave of the Cyclops Gramiza Piperi Hagios Petros Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi)

Alonnessos

Peristera Kokkinokastro

Skantzoura

Figure 1.3. Alonnessos and the Deserted Islands group.

FIGURE 1.4

Figure 1.4A. Ground plan of the Cave of the Cyclops showing the trenches.

Figure 1.4B. Trenches B, C, and E close to the cave entrance.

FIGURE 1.5

Figure 1.5A. Ground plan of Trench A and its extension (Trench D).

Figure 1.5B. Trench A. Level 2 in Rectangles 1–4.

FIGURE 1.6

Figure 1.6A. Trench A. Ground plan and section.

CWest EAST BALK

4

1

3

2

Figure 1.6B. Ground plan of Trench B.

FIGURE 1.7

Rectangle 4

Rectangle 1

LAYERS

0

LEVELS

WEST BALK

EAST BALK

Figure 1.7A. Trench B. Stratigraphical section of the East Balk.

SOUTH BALK

Figure 1.7B. Trenches B and C. The common sidewall between them is shaded (East Balk for B, West Balk for C).

WEST BALK

FIGURE 1.8

13

14

15

16

9

10

11

12

7

8

3

4

5

1

6

2

SOUTH BALK Figure 1.8A. The Western and Eastern divisions of Trench C.

4 CEast

3

1 floor 3

2

SOUTH BALK Figure 1.8B. Trench CWest. Floor of Level 7.

FIGURE 1.9

Rectangle 1

Rectangle 3

Rectangle 5

Figure 1.9A. Trench CWest. Stratigraphical section of the West Balk.

WEST BALK

pit 1

Friable soil and snails

floor 4 1 3

SOUTH BALK

hearth 5

5

hearth 4 4 2 6 CEast

Figure 1.9B. Trench CWest. Mesolithic floor, hearths, and pit of Level 8.

FIGURE 1.10

WEST BALK large concentration of snails

large concentration of snails

5

3

SOUTH BALK

1 2

4

6

CEast

Figure 1.10A. Trench CWest. Mesolithic floors and hearth of Level 9.

WEST BALK concentration of snails SOUTH BALK

3

5

1

4 2

CEast Figure 1.10B. Trench CWest. Mesolithic floor of Level 10.

6

FIGURE 1.11

WEST BALK

SOUTH BALK

1

pit 2

CEast Figure 1.11A. Trench CWest. Ground plan of Level 11, Rectangles 1–4.

WEST BALK 3

SOUTH BALK

5

6

CEast Figure 1.11B. Trench CWest. Mesolithic floors of Level 12.

FIGURE 1.12

WEST BALK

1

SOUTH BALK

3

4

2

CEast Figure 1.12A. Trench CWest. Level 14, Rectangles 1–4.

SOUTH BALK

3

2

CWest

7

6 floor 2

CEast Figure 1.12B. Trench CEast. Level 9, Rectangles 1–3, 5–7.

5

FIGURE 1.13

SOUTH BALK

floor 4 CWest

floor 2 8

10

9

11

Figure 1.13A. Trench CEast. Floors in Level 11.

SOUTH BALK

CWest

7

6

5 floor 6a

11

10

9

Figure 1.13B. Trench CEast. Floors and hearths in Level 12.

FIGURE 1.14

13

14

15

16

11

12

CWest

2.25

SOUTH BALK Figure 1.14A. Trench CEast. Level 15.

10 floor 9a 2.55 hearth 6 CWest

6 pit 1 2

pit 3

SOUTH BALK Figure 1.14B. Trench CEast. Floors, hearths, and pits in Levels 16–17.

FIGURE 1.15

SOUTH BALK floor 11

2

floor 10a CWest

hearth 8

7 hearth 6

floor 10b

Figure 1.15A. Trench CEast. Levels 18–19.

SOUTH BALK floor 12

3

2

1 floor 12a

7

6

5 CWest

Figure 1.15B. Trench CEast. Levels 21–22.

FIGURE 1.16

Figure 1.16A. Trench C. Sections A–A' and B–B'.

floor 1

hearth 1

Figure 1.16B. Hearth and floor in Trench E.

FIGURE 1.17

Figure 1.17A. Ground plan of Trench F.

R3

R2

R1

R2

R1

Figure 1.17B. Trench C. Stratigraphical section of the South Balk. Layers 1–12.

FIGURE 1.18

Figure 1.18A. Trench C. Floors in the Western and Eastern divisions of the South Balk that correspond to excavation levels. Some floors in the interior of the trench do not appear in this balk, which is the sidewall of Rectangles CWest 1 and 2 and CEast 1, 2, and 3.

Figure 1.18B. Trench C. Succession of layers of the South Balk that correspond to excavation levels.

FIGURE 2.1

Figure 2.1. Early/Middle Neolithic coarse ware open (I.1–I.12) and closed (I.13–I.15) vessel shapes.

FIGURE 2.2

Figure 2.2. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware open (II.1–II.11) and closed (II.13–II.17) vessel shapes.

FIGURE 2.3

Figure 2.3. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessel shapes (II.18–II.24). Late Neolithic Ib open vessel shapes (III.1–III.8).

FIGURE 2.4

Figure 2.4. Late Neolithic Ib open vessel shapes.

FIGURE 2.5

Figure 2.5. Late Neolithic Ib open (III.29–III.31) and closed (III.33–III.48) vessel shapes.

FIGURE 2.6

Figure 2.6. Late Neolithic Ib closed vessel shapes (III.49–III.53). Late Neolithic II coarse ware open (IV.1, IV.2, IV.4) and closed (IV.3) vessel shapes.

FIGURE 2.7

Figure 2.7. Early/Middle Neolithic coarse ware open (1, 2, 4–11, 13–15, 17, 18) and closed (21, 22, 23.1) vessels. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.8

Figure 2.8. Early/Middle Neolithic coarse ware handle (24) and lug (26); sherds with relief (30, 31), impressed (32, 33/36, 37, 38, 40), pointille (41), and incised (42) decoration.

FIGURE 2.9

Figure 2.9. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware open vessels. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.10

Figure 2.10. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware open vessels. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.11

Figure 2.11. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessels. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.12

Figure 2.12. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessels. Not to scale.

FIGURE 2.13

Figure 2.13. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware closed vessels (119–121, 123–129); handles (131–133) and lugs (134, 135, 138). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.14

Figure 2.14. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware lugs.

FIGURE 2.15

Figure 2.15. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome ware lugs (156–161) and bases (162–164, 167–169, 172–176). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.16

Figure 2.16. Early/Middle Neolithic monochrome bases (177–180.1); sherds with holes (181–183); and sherd with relief decoration (184). Middle Neolithic White-on-Red painted ware (188–193). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.17

Figure 2.17. Middle Neolithic White-on-Red painted ware (194). Late Neolithic Ib open vessels (197, 198, 201–208, 211.1–211.4, 212, 215). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.18

Figure 2.18. Late Neolithic Ib open vessels. Not to scale.

FIGURE 2.19

Figure 2.19. Late Neolithic Ib open vessels. Not to scale.

FIGURE 2.20

Figure 2.20. Late Neolithic Ib open vessels. Not to scale.

FIGURE 2.21

Figure 2.21. Late Neolithic Ib open vessels. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.22

Figure 2.22. Late Neolithic Ib open vessels (283, 287, 289, 291, 303). Late Neolithic ladles (292, 298, 299, 301, 302). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.23

Figure 2.23. Late Neolithic Ib open (304, 306, 308, 309, 311, 314, 315) and closed vessels (319, 323, 324, 326, 327, 329–331, 335, 338–343). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.24

Figure 2.24. Late Neolithic Ib closed vessels. Not to scale.

FIGURE 2.25

Figure 2.25. Late Neolithic Ib closed vessels (372, 378–381, 383, 384.1, 385) and handles (386–390). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.26

Figure 2.26. Late Neolithic Ib handles.

FIGURE 2.27

Figure 2.27. Late Neolithic Ib handles.

FIGURE 2.28

Figure 2.28. Late Neolithic Ib handles. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.29

Figure 2.29. Late Neolithic Ib handles. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.30

Figure 2.30. Late Neolithic Ib handles. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.31

Figure 2.31. Late Neolithic Ib handles. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.32

Figure 2.32. Late Neolithic Ib lugs.

FIGURE 2.33

Figure 2.33. Late Neolithic Ib lugs. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.34

Figure 2.34. Late Neolithic Ib lugs. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.35

Figure 2.35. Late Neolithic Ib bases. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.36

Figure 2.36. Late Neolithic Ib bases. Not to scale.

FIGURE 2.37

Figure 2.37. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with holes (633–640) and relief rope-motif decoration (641, 641.1).

FIGURE 2.38

Figure 2.38. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with relief rope-motif decoration (642–648) and incised plastic decoration (649).

FIGURE 2.39

Figure 2.39. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with incised plastic decoration.

FIGURE 2.40

Figure 2.40. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with incised plastic decoration (664–671) and plain plastic decoration (673–679). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.41

Figure 2.41. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with plain plastic decoration. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.42

Figure 2.42. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with plain plastic decoration (697–698.1) and incised decoration (699–714). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 2.43

Figure 2.43. Late Neolithic Ib sherds with incised (716), grooved (717–721.1), and pointille decoration (722). Late Neolithic IIa elephant-head lug (727) with incisions.

N

FIGURE 3.1

0 1 2

7

C A/D

B

E

Figure 3.1. Middle Neolithic population in the Cave of the Cyclops as inferred from the excavation of trenches (dark shading) and possible spread of habitation (light shading).

FIGURE 3.2

V.1

V.2

V.3

V.4

V.5 Figure 3.2. Red-on-White ware shape repertory.

V.6

V.7

FIGURE 3.3

1

3

2

4

Figure 3.3A. Red-on-White ware lug types 1: 731; 2: 749; 3: 750; 4: 751. Not to scale.

neck/rim shoulder lug body

upper body lower body base

upper body/ shoulder

upper body/ shoulder

lower body

lower body

Figure 3.3B. Red-on-White vases separated into decoration bands.

shoulder

upper body/ shoulder

Figure 3.3C. Positions of canvas motifs on Youra vases.

shoulder

body

body

FIGURE 3.4

1

2 Figure 3.4A. Structure of canvas types.

Figure 3.4B. Types of checkers.

754

755

Figure 3.4C. Body fragments with canvas. Not to scale.

756

FIGURE 3.5

2

1

5

6

8

11

4

3

7

10

9

12

13

14

15

17

16

18

Figure 3.5. Types of other body motifs. Not to scale.

19

20

21

FIGURE 3.6

Figure 3.6. Collection of maze, meander, spiral, and concentric patterns from Youra. Not to scale.

FIGURE 4.1

Figure 4.1. White-on-Dark ware. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 4.2

Figure 4.2. Pattern burnished ware. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 4.3

Figure 4.3. Matt-painted ware. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 4.4

Figure 4.4. Matt-painted ware. Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 5.1

Figure 5.1. Early Helladic (808–811) and Middle Helladic (812–814) pottery.

FIGURE 5.2

Figure 5.2. Mycenaean (815–819), Geometric (820–823), and 5th century B.C. (824, 827) pottery. Scale 1:3.

FIGURE 6.1

RL3

RL1

RL6

RL5

RL12

RL13

RL14

RL15

RL7

RL16

Figure 6.1. Roman lamps: Group I (RL1, RL3) and Group II (RL5–RL7, RL12–RL17). Scale 1:2.

RL17

FIGURE 6.2

RL18

RL23

RL28

RL33

RL20

RL19

RL24

RL34

RL26

RL25

RL29

RL27

RL32

RL31

RL35

RL22

RL21

RL36

RL37

Figure 6.2. Roman lamps: Group II (RL18–RL20), Group III (RL21–RL29), and Group IV (RL31–RL37). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 6.3

RL38

RL39

RL43

RL46

RL47

RL51

RL50

RL59

RL41

RL42

RL48

RL49

RL53

RL52

RL55

RL54

RL58

RL40

RL56

RL61

RL62

RL57

RL63

Figure 6.3. Roman lamps: Group IV (RL38–RL43), Group V (RL46–RL59), and Group VI (RL61–RL63). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 6.4

RL65

RL64

RL66

RL67

RL68

RL69

RL78

RL 71.1

RL75

RL74

RL73

RL77

RL71

RL70

RL79

RL72

RL76

RL80

Figure 6.4. Roman lamps: Group VI (RL64–RL68), Group VII (RL69), and Group VIII (RL70–RL80). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 6.5

RL81

RL87

RL86

RL95

RL88

RL90

RL89

RL96

RL85

RL84

RL83

RL82

RL91

RL97

RL93

RL92

RL98 RL100

Figure 6.5. Roman lamps: Group VIII (RL81–RL93, RL95–RL98, RL100). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 6.6

RL101

RL102

RL103

RL104

RL112

RL111

RL110

RL106

RL113

RL109

RL114

RL115

RL116

RL117

RL118

RL119

RL120

RL124 disk

RL124 base

Figure 6.6. Roman lamps: Group VIII (RL101–RL104, RL106), Group X (RL109–RL120), and lamp RL124, upper and lower parts. Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 7.1

(1:4)

Figure 7.1. Mesolithic stone tools. Scale 1:3 unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 7.2

Figure 7.2. Mesolithic stone tools. Scale 1:3.

FIGURE 7.3

(1:4)

(1:5)

(1:4)

(1:4)

Figure 7.3. Mesolithic (S26–S28) and Neolithic (S31, S32, S35–S41, S44) stone tools. Scale 1:3 unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 7.4

(1:2)

(1:2)

(1:2)

Figure 7.4. Neolithic stone tools (S45–S47, S49, S52) and Mesolithic stone objects (S59, S60). Scale 1:3 unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 7.5

(1:2)

(1:2)

(1:4)

(1:2)

(1:4)

(1:2)

(1:2)

Figure 7.5. Mesolithic (S61–S63, S66, S68, S69) and Neolithic (S64, S65, S67, S70) stone objects. Mesolithic unfired clay with pointille decoration (SF1–SF3, SF5). Scale 1:3 unless otherwise stated.

FIGURE 8.1

L1

L2

L5

L3

L6

L7

0

L8

Figure 8.1. Mesolithic siliceous stone artifacts.

L4

3 cm

L10

L9

0

3 cm

FIGURE 8.2

L13

L12

L11

3 cm

0

L14

L16

L15

L17 Figure 8.2. Mesolithic siliceous stone artifacts.

L18

L19

L20

L21 0

3 cm

FIGURE 8.3

L22

L23

L25

L31

L24

L26

L32

L35

Figure 8.3. Mesolithic siliceous stone artifacts.

L27

L34

L33

L37

L38

0

3 cm

FIGURE 8.4

L39

L40

L43

L42

L41

L44 0

L51

L46

L52

L54

2 cm

L53

L55

L56

L57 0

3 cm

Figure 8.4. Mesolithic obsidian artifacts (L39–L44, L46). Early/Middle Neolithic siliceous stone artifacts (L51–L53) and obsidian artifacts (L54–L57).

FIGURE 8.5

L58

L59

L63

L62

0

L61

L60

0

2 cm

L65

L64

0

2 cm

L67

Figure 8.5. Early/Middle Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

2 cm

L66

0

2 cm

L69

L68

0

3 cm

FIGURE 8.6

0

3 cm

0

L70

2 cm

0

3 cm

L72

L71

L74

0

L75

L73

L76

L77

2 cm

0

L78

L79

0

3 cm

L82

3 cm

L81

0

3 cm

L83

Figure 8.6. Early/Middle Neolithic obsidian artifacts (L70–L79). Late Neolithic siliceous stone artifacts (L81–L83).

FIGURE 8.7

L85

L84

L87

L88

L92

L86

L89

L96

L90

L97

L98 0

Figure 8.7. Late Neolithic siliceous stone artifacts (L84–L90, L92) and obsidian artifacts (L96–L98).

3 cm

FIGURE 8.8

0

0

2 cm

L101

L100

L99

0

L102

2 cm

L103

L105

L104

L103.1

L107

2 cm

L108

L109

L110

L106

L111

L112

0

L113

0

2 cm

L118

L114

0

L115

L116

2 cm

L117

2 cm

L119

Figure 8.8. Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

L120

L121

0

L122

3 cm

FIGURE 8.9

0

L123

0

L124

2 cm

0

L127

L126

L125

0

2 cm

L128

2 cm

L129

L130

0

2 cm

0

L133

L132

L131

L136

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

L135

L134

2 cm

L137

L140

2 cm

L141

Figure 8.9. Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

L138

L139

L142

L143

0

3 cm

FIGURE 8.10

L144

L150

L156

L145

L146

L151

L152

L148

L153

L158

L157

0

L168

L147

L159

L149

L154

L160

Figure 8.10. Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

L161

0

2 cm

L181

L155

L183

L184

L184.1

0

2 cm

L185

3 cm

FIGURE 8.11

0

0

2 cm

L189

L187

2 cm

L190

L191

0

L206

L192

0

2 cm

L208

2 cm

0

2 cm

L209

Figure 8.11. Late Neolithic obsidian artifacts.

L207

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

L211

L210

0

3 cm

FIGURE 9.1

Figure 9.1. Map of the Northern Sporades indicating sites located in the survey. Dashed line indicates a depth of 100 m, and other numbers indicate depth of the sea today.

FIGURE 9.2

Figure 9.2. Map of Gramiza Island.

FIGURE 9.3

Figure 9.3. Map of Peristera Island.

FIGURE 9.4

Figure 9.4A. Map of Pappous and Koumbi Islands. Triangles indicate highest peaks.

Figure 9.4B. Neolithic pottery and obsidian artifacts from Pappous Island. Scale 1:1.

FIGURE 9.5

Kouroupi Strogylo

Megalo Skantzouro

Parousa

Skandili

Korakas

0

150 m

Figure 9.5. Map of the Skantzoura group of islands. Dashed line indicates a depth of 100 m, and other numbers indicate depth of the sea today.

FIGURE 9.6

4

3

1 Tragorema

2 Pigadi

Figure 9.6A. Map of Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi).

Figure 9.6B. Map of the Tragorema area on Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi).

FIGURE 9.7

Figure 9.7. Map of the Pigadi area on Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi).

FIGURE 9.8

Figure 9.8A. Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery and obsidian artifacts from Psathoura Island. Scale 1:1. Erimitis

Perivolaki cave

mountain peak cave

Varsamia spring

Cave of the Cyclops old monastery

coastal caves

Figure 9.8B. Map of Youra Island.

Pnigmenos

faults 0

150 m

FIGURE 10.1

13

10 cultivated area

windmill 17m

0

100 m

Figure 10.1A. Map of Pappous Island.

Figure 10.1B. Ground plan of structures on Psathonisi Islet.

FIGURE 10.2

Figure 10.2A. Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi) and Youra on a map of the 16th century A.D. (after Bordone 1534).

0

1

2m

Figure 10.2B. Ground plan of shepherds’ structures on Alonnessos.

FIGURE 12.1

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

1 G1-3

2

2

G4

6

3

4 G5

5

6

6

7 9 5 8 G8 3 9 fish

7

1 10 8

11 0

5m

Figure 12.1. Ground plan of the Mesolithic site of Maroulas on Kythnos.

FIGURE 12.2

7 4

2 Aegean Sea

6

5 9 10 11

8

12 3 1 13

N

0

50

100 km

Figure 12.2. Mesolithic sites in Greece: 1. Franchthi Cave, 2. Cave of the Cyclops, 3. Kythnos, 4. Theopetra Cave, 5. Skyros, 6. Preveza, 7. Sidari, 8. Klissoura, 9. Sarakenos Cave, 10. Zaimis Cave, 11. Argolid, 12. Ikaria, 13. Melos.

FIGURE 12.3

N

Atlanic Ocean

North Sea Baltic Sea

Black Sea tic ria Ad a Se

Medite r ra ne

a

n a Se

Figure 12.3. Map of Mesolithic Europe.

FIGURE 12.4

Sea of Marmara

Aegean Sea

Ionian Sea

N

0

50

100 km

Mediterranean Sea

Figure 12.4. The Aegean during the Glacial Maximum.

FIGURE 12.5

Psathoura

Youra

Gramiza Kyra-Panagia (Pelagonisi)

Alonnessos

Peristera

N

Adelphia Skantzoura

0

5

10 km

Figure 12.5. The sea level in the Mesolithic Sporades.

FIGURE 12.6

N

N

48

4

52 56

6

0

85

170 km

Figure 12.6. The sea level of the Aegean in 9000 and 4000 B.C. (after Lambeck 1996).

0

85

170 km

FIGURE 12.7

summer

0

45

90 km

0

45

90 km

N

winter

N

Figure 12.7. Sea currents in the northern Aegean in the summer and winter (after Papageorgiou 1997).

FIGURE 12.8

Cave of the Cyclops

Skyros

Aegean Sea

Zaimis Cave

Kythnos

Franchthi Cave

Milos

N

0

25

50

75 km

Figure 12.8. Sailing routes in the Aegean in the Early Holocene.

FIGURE 12.9

Kythnos Franchthi

Parapola Falconera

N 0

15

30

45 km

Melos

Figure 12.9. Possible Mesolithic sea routes in the central and southern Aegean.

FIGURE 12.10

Sea of Marmara

Youra

Aegean Sea Ionian Sea

N

0

50

100

150 km

Mediterranean Sea

Figure 12.10. Naval routes during the Neolithic period.

FIGURE 12.11

Sea of Azov 7

Black Sea 8

6

of Mar mara Sea

1

4

A Se eg a ean

18

3

12

11

2 9

10

13

20 19 5 16 17 Mediterranean Sea

14

N 15

0

100

200

300 km

Figure 12.11. The Aegean, Anatolia, and the Near East during the Early Holocene. 1. Cave of the Cyclops, 2. Kythnos, 3. Franchthi Cave, 4. Sesklo, 5. Knossos, 6. Hoca Çeşme, 7. Lepenski-Vir, 8. Karanovo, 9. Hacılar, 10. Çatal Höyük, 11. Asikli Höyük, 12. Cafer Höyük, 13. Nevali Cori, 14. Ain Mallaha, 15. Jericho, 16. Aetokremnos, 17. Sillourokampos, 18. Theopetra Cave, 19. Karain, 20. Öküzini.

FIGURE 12.12

Black Sea a Se ian sp Ca

Mediterranean Sea

N

0

200

400

600 km

an rsi Pe ulf G

Red Sea

Figure 12.12. Distribution of Triticum boeoticum in Asia Minor and the Near East.

Plates

PLATE 1.1

Plate 1.1A. The west side of Youra, view from south. The entrance of a littoral cave is visible on the coast.

Plate 1.1B. The interior of the island.

PLATE 1.2

Plate 1.2A. The church of Panagia on Youra.

Plate 1.2B. Cistern in the Cave of the Cyclops.

PLATE 1.3

Plate 1.3A. Stalactite decor in the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 1.3B. Mesolithic excavation levels in Trench CEast. View from top of South Balk.

PLATE 2.1

31

38

96

37

32

24

40

39

97

184

42

104

83

120

121

86

124

194

Plate 2.1. EN/MN coarse ware handle (24), sherd with relief decoration (31), sherd with pontille decoration (32), sherds with impressed decoration (37–40), and sherd with incised decoration (42). MN monochrome sherds with traces of burnishing tool marks (83, 86, 96, 97, 104, 120, 121, 124), sherd with plain plastic decoration (184), and White-on-Red painted sherds (194). Not to scale.

PLATE 2.2

0

292

442

2

4 cm

294

400

448

444

483

641.1

601

649

0

675

679

412

700

701

2

4 cm

702

718

Plate 2.2. LN Ib ladles (292, 294), handles (400, 412, 442, 444, 448), sherd decorated with a row of lugs (483), base with incised decoration (601), sherd with relief rope-motif decoration (641.1), vase decorated with incised plastic bands (649), sherds with plain plastic decoration (675, 679), sherds with incised decoration (700–702), and sherd with grooved decoration (718). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

PLATE 3.1

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.1A. Open bowl (747) with canvas band, detail and reconstruction of design.

0

Plate 3.1B. Calyx-shaped bowl (748) with parallel lines, detail and reconstruction of design.

2 cm

PLATE 3.2

0

1

2 cm

2

0

3

0

2 cm

4

5

0

2 cm

6 0

Plate 3.2. Neck/rim motifs. 1: 744; 2: 752; 3: 741; 4: 732; 5: 733; 6: 740.

2 cm

0

2 cm

2 cm

PLATE 3.3

0

2 cm

Plate 3.3. Vase (733). Top: detail of shoulder and body canvas. Bottom: reconstruction of design.

PLATE 3.4

0

0

2 cm

2 cm

Plate 3.4. Vase (731) with shoulder canvas, concentric circles, and plant motif. Top: drawing of both sides of vase. Middle left: reconstructed pot. Middle right: detail of rim motif and shoulder canvas. Bottom left: detail of Pmeander on shoulder canvas. Bottom right: reconstruction of design on shoulder canvas.

PLATE 3.5

0

0

2 cm

2 cm

Plate 3.5. Vase (732) with shoulder canvas, concentric circles, and parallel and stepped lines. Top: drawing. Bottom left: detail of wavy meander on shoulder canvas. Bottom right: reconstruction on design on shoulder canvas.

PLATE 3.6

0

2 cm

Plate 3.6A. Vase (733) with shoulder and body canvas, and concentric circles on body.

Plate 3.6B. Vase (738) with shoulder canvas and concentric circles on body.

Plate 3.6C. Vase (739) with shoulder canvas and concentric circles on body.

PLATE 3.7

0

0

2 cm

2 cm

Plate 3.7. Vase (736) with shoulder canvas and concentric circles on body. Top: drawing. Middle: reconstruction of design on shoulder canvas. Bottom left and right: detail of shoulder canvas.

PLATE 3.8

0

2 cm

Plate 3.8. Vase (737) with shoulder canvas, concentric circles, and parallel lines. Top: drawing. Middle: detail of shoulder canvas. Bottom: reconstruction on design on shoulder canvas.

PLATE 3.9

0

2 cm

Plate 3.9A. Vase (740) with shoulder canvas, detail and reconstruction on design of shoulder canvas and rim.

2 cm

0

0

Plate 3.9B. Vase (753) with shoulder and body canvas, detail and rendering.

0

2 cm

Plate 3.9C. Vase (733) with body canvas, detail and reconstruction of design.

2 cm

PLATE 3.10

0

2 cm

Plate 3.10. Vase (734) with body canvas and concentric circles. Top: drawing. Bottom: detail of body canvas and concentric circles.

PLATE 3.11

0

0

2 cm

2 cm

Plate 3.11. Vase (735) with body canvas and concentric circles. Top: drawing. Bottom left: detail of body canvas. Bottom right: reconstruction of design of body canvas.

PLATE 3.12

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.12A. Vase (741) with concentric circles, detail and reconstruction of design.

0

2 cm

Plate 3.12B. Vase (757) with group of concentric circles around lug.

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.12C. Vase (758) with net pattern of large lozenges, detail and reconstruction of design.

PLATE 3.13

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.13A. Vase (759) with concentric squares, detail and reconstruction of design.

2 cm

0

Plate 3.13B. Vase (760) with cross-hatched lozenges, detail and reconstruction of design.

0

2 cm

0

Plate 3.13C. Vase (761) with cross-hatched lozenges, detail and reconstruction of design.

2 cm

PLATE 3.14

0

0 2 cm

2 cm

Plate 3.14A. Vase (743) with P-meander bands, detail and reconstruction of design.

0

0

2 cm

2 cm

Plate 3.14B. Vase (730) with lozenges and attached triangles, detail and reconstruction of design.

0

2 cm

762 Plate 3.14C. Vases (762–764) with zigzag pattern.

2 cm

0

763

0

2 cm

764

PLATE 3.15

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.15A. Vase (742) with horizontal, vertical, and oblique groups of parallel lines, detail and reconstruction of design.

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.15B. Vases (765, 766) with parallel lines.

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.15C. Early painted ware, vase (767) with large solid triangles, detail and reconstruction of design.

PLATE 3.16

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

Plate 3.16A. Early painted ware, vase (768) with large solid triangles, detail and reconstruction of design.

733

732

741 Plate 3.16B. Examples of carelessness by a Youra painter (732, 733, 741, 769).

769

PLATE 4.1

784

785

786

787.1

788.1

789

790

791

797

0

2 cm

799

798

0

2 cm

800

0

Plate 4.1. Pattern burnished ware (784–786, 787.1, 788.1, 789–791) and matt-painted ware (797–800). Not to scale unless otherwise stated.

2 cm

PLATE 5.1

0

2 cm

Plate 5.1. Inscription on the base of a 5th-century B.C. kylix (824).

PLATE 6.1

0

5 cm

0

RL1

0

5 cm

RL2

5 cm

RL3 Plate 6.1. Roman lamps: Group I (RL1–RL4).

0

5 cm

RL4

PLATE 6.2

0

5 cm

Plate 6.2. Roman lamps: uncataloged examples of the vine rim pattern of Group I.

PLATE 6.3

0

5 cm

0

RL5

0

5 cm

RL6

5 cm

RL7 Plate 6.3. Roman lamps: Group II (RL5–RL8).

0

5 cm

RL8

PLATE 6.4

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

RL9

0

RL10

5 cm

RL11 Plate 6.4. Roman lamps: Group II (RL9–RL11) and Group III (RL21).

0

5 cm

RL21

PLATE 6.5

0

0

5 cm

5 cm

RL30

0

RL44 disk

5 cm

0

RL44 base Plate 6.5. Roman lamps: Group IV (RL30) and Group V (RL44, RL45).

5 cm

RL45

PLATE 6.6

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

RL94

RL60

0

5 cm

RL99

0

5 cm

RL107

Plate 6.6. Roman lamps: Group VI (RL60), Group VIII (RL94, RL99), and Group IX (RL107).

PLATE 6.7

0

5 cm

Plate 6.7. Roman lamps: uncataloged sherds of Group VI in the tradition of Alpha Globule Lamps.

PLATE 6.8

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

RL108

0

RL109

5 cm

RL121

0

5 cm

RL122

Plate 6.8. Roman lamps: Group IX (RL108) and Group X (RL109); lamps RL121 and RL122.

PLATE 6.9

0

5 cm

RL123

Front

Back

RL125 (scale 1:2)

Plate 6.9. Roman lamp RL123. Thymiaterion RL125.

PLATE 7.1

2 cm

0

S8

2 cm

0

S59

S66

S63

S60

2 cm

0

2 cm

0

S70

S68

2 cm

0

SF6

2 cm

0

2 cm

0

2 cm

0

SF7

SF8

2 cm

0

829 Plate 7.1. Mesolithic grinder (S8), shaft straighteners (S59, S60), and stone pendants (S63, S66, S68); Late Neolithic marble figurine (S70); Neolithic spindle whorls (SF6–SF8); Late Neolithic sherd with incised symbols (829).

PLATE 8.1

2 cm

0

Plate 8.1A. Late Neolithic obsidian and flint artifacts.

0

Plate 8.1B. Late Neolithic flint blades.

2 cm

PLATE 8.2

0

2 cm

Plate 8.2A. Obsidian crescents and tools.

0

Plate 8.2B. Late Neolithic obsidian blades and tools.

2 cm

PLATE 9.1

Plate 9.1A. Gramiza Island.

0

Plate 9.1B. Flint artifacts from Gramiza.

2 cm

PLATE 9.2

Plate 9.2A. The island of Pappous from the south.

Plate 9.2B. Post-Byzantine church on Pappous Island.

PLATE 9.3

Plate 9.3A. The western seashore of Piperi Island.

Plate 9.3B. The islet of Sfika in Kyra-Panagia.

PLATE 9.4

Plate 9.4A. View of Psathoura Island.

Plate 9.4B. The northern coast of Psathoura.

PLATE 9.5

Plate 9.5. Small cave near the south coast of Youra.

PLATE 10.1

Plate 10.1A. The area around the old monastery on Youra.

Plate 10.1B. Olive trees on Youra.

PLATE 10.2

Plate 10.2A. Forest in the interior of Youra.

Plate 10.2B. Low vegetation around the lighthouse on Psathoura.

PLATE 11.1

Plate 11.1A. The Mesolithic cranial vault from the Cave of the Cyclops, inion view.

Plate 11.1B. Endocranion. Because of the advanced age at death, an intense development of the “sagital channel” is observed.

PLATE 12.1

0

2 cm

Plate 12.1A. Mesolithic fishhooks from Youra.

2 cm

0

Plate 12.1B. Mesolithic fishhooks from Youra.

0

Plate 12.1C. Bipointed Mesolithic hooks from Youra.

2 cm

PLATE 12.2

0

Plate 12.2A. Mesolithic fish vertebrae from the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 12.2B. Pavement of a Mesolithic construction at Maroulas on Kythnos.

2 cm

PLATE 12.3

0

Plate 12.3A. Part of a Mesolithic skull from the Cave of the Cyclops.

Plate 12.3B. A Mesolithic burial at Maroulas on Kythnos.

2 cm