Middle Palaeolithic Occupation and Technology in Northwestern Greece: The Evidence from Open-Air Sites 9781841711492, 9781407352237

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Abstract
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
PART I. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II. THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC OF GREECE: A CRITICAL OVERVIEW
CHAPTER III. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND TO THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC OF NORTH WESTERN GREECE
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
PART II. LITHIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
CHAPTER V. THE LITHIC COLLECTIONS: GENERAL PRESENTATION
CHAPTER VI. THE COASTAL SITES OF EPIRUS
CHAPTER VII. CORFU
CHAPTER VIII. SITES IN THE LOUROS VALLEY
CHAPTER IX. KOKKINOPILOS
CHAPTER X. CONCLUSIONS
Tables
Figures
References

Citation preview

Middle Palaeolithic Occupation and Technology in Northwestern Greece The Evidence from Open-Air Sites

Dimitra Papagianni

BAR International Series 882 2000

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 882 Middle Palaeolithic Occupation and Technology in Northwestern Greece © Dimitra Papagianni and the Publisher 2000 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781841711492 paperback ISBN 9781407352237 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841711492 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2000. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ABSTRACT Middle Palaeolithic Occupation and Technology in Northwestern Greece: The Evidence from Open-Air Sites Dimitra Papagianni Although open-air sites represent the most common type of Middle Palaeolithic site in Greece, they have so far made a minimal contribution to the current picture of the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, which relies disproportionately on evidence from a few isolated rockshelters. This over-reliance on rockshelters derives from the perception that open-air sites have limited research potential. I set out to test the validity of this perception by re-examining the evidence from the open-air sites in northwestern Greece, an area where these sites show a dense and patterned distribution. My work shows that open-air sites have the potential to offer a broader pictubre of industrial variability and regional adaptations than does the study of isolated rockshelters. The technological analysis of the lithic collections from surface finds reveals geographical patterns of variability in the application of primary flaking techniques. I interpret this technological variability as a reflection of temporal modifications in the Middle Palaeolithic settlement patterns, themselves triggered by oscillations in climate and sea levels. The Middle Palaeolithic inhabitants of northwestern Greece moved in a pre-scheduled manner between locations that, due to their natural setting, offered access to a variety of animal, plant, water and raw material resources. There is at present little if any evidence for functional specialisation of individual sites. Combined probably with a broad-spectrum diet, this settlement pattern, although far from random, does not show the complexity of Upper Palaeolithic patterns in the region, which incorporate sites of various functions and degrees of functional specialisation. At a methodological level, this study shows the use that can be made of typological-technological analyses of low time resolution lithic assemblages. In this way it contributes to the development of fieldwork strategies and analytical methodologies appropriate for research in Palaeolithic open-air sites. These sites remain relatively under-investigated in Europe , even in areas with long Palaeolithic research traditions, resulting in potential distortions in our knowledge of the European Palaeolithic.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

IV V

viii PART I. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II.

THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC OF GREECE: A CRITICAL OVERVIEW 3 2.1. The Greek Regional Research Tradition 2.2. Environmental Background 2.3. History of Research on the Greek Middle Palaeolithic 2.4 . Chronology and Dating 2.5 . Site Distribution Patterns and Habitat Preference s 2.6 . Conclusion

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND TO THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC OF NORTHWESTERN GREECE 3. 1. Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes 3.2. The Asprochaliko Rockshelter 3.3. The Geological Context of Open-Air Sites in Northwestern Greece 3.4. Conclusion RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 4.1 . Lithic Analysis in Middle Palaeolithic Research in Greece 4.2. Lithic Variability in Northwestern Greece: Earlier Studies 4.3 . Survey Strategies for Open-Air Sites in Northwestern Greece 4.4 . Research Design 4.5. Conclusion PART II.

3 3 5 14

18 19

20 20 22

29 34 35 35 36 37 39 42

LITHIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

CHAPTER V.

THE LITHIC COLLECTIONS: GENERAL PRESENTATION 5 .1. Size Structure 5.2. Patina 5.3. Reduction Stages 5.4. Technological Groups

43 43 44 44 44

CHAPTER VI.

THE COASTAL SITES OF EPIRUS 6.1. The Sites: The Setting 6.2. The Lithic Collections 6.3. Conclusion

47 47

CORFU 7 .1. The Sites: The Setting 7 .2. The Lithic Collections 7 .3. Conclusion

60 60 60 63

CHAPTER VII.

48 59

CHAPTER VIII. SITES IN THE LOUROS VALLEY 8.1. The Sites: The Setting 8.2. The Lithic Collections 8.3. Conclusion

64 64 64

CHAPTER IX.

70 70

CHAPTER X.

69

KOKKINOPILOS 9.1. The Site and the Test Trenches 9 .2. The Lithic Collections 9.3. Conclusion CONCLUSIONS

72

76 78 11

TABLES FIGURES

85 109

REFERENCES

209

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to Prof. Paul Mellars , my doctoral supervisor , for initially suggesting this research project and, ever since, for his continuous support and constructive advice. Profs. Geoff Bailey, Curtis Runnels and Tjeerd van Andel have endlessly and actively encouraged my interest in the Greek Palaeolithic and in this research project. Prof. van Andel, in particular, has helped me tremendously to make sense of the geological, palaeoenvironrnental and radiometric evidence. My doctoral advisors, Prof. Geoff Bailey and Dr. Preston Miracle, read earlier drafts of the Ph.D. dissertation on which this work is based and offered stimulating criticism. This study would not have been possible if Profs. Geoff Bailey , Curtis Runnels , Augustus Sordinas and Jim Wiseman and Dr. Vangelis Papaconstantinou had not allowed me access to archaeological material generated by their projects or analysed earlier by them. Prof. Geoff Bailey allowed me access to the archives of Eric Higgs ' research in Epirus. Dr. Helen Higgs and Prof. Rhys Jones helped me fill gaps in these archives and clarify many uncertainties with reference to Higgs work in Epirus. Profs. Jim Wiseman, Curtis Runnels and Tjeerd van Andel allowed me unlimited access to the Nikopolis Project's documentation. I am also indebted to the directors of the Archaeological Museum of loannina , Dr. A. Dousougli and Dr. K. Zachos, and of the Archaeological Museum of Kerkyra , A. Preka, for allowing me to study collections stored in these museums . Thanks are also due to the staff of the Archaeological Museum and the Ephoreia in Ioannina for their hospitality during the long time-spans I spent there. In particular , I would like to thank Dr . Eugenia Adam. Thi s project has been supported financially by grants from the British Academy and the A.G . Leventis Foundation , as well as by travel grants from Jesus College , Cambridge and the Department of Archaeolo gy, Cambridge University . Numerous people were kind to supply me with unpublished papers and preliminary research reports. This work would have been literally impossible without my family's limitless psychological and practical support. For this and for their patience , I am deeply grateful. Finally, no words are good enough to thank Mike Morse for all that he knows he has contributed to the completion of this project and, most importantly, for never failing to bring a smile back to my face.

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 5.la. Table 5.lb. Table 5.2. Table Table Table Table

5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6.

Table 6.1. Table 6.2. Table 6.3. Table 6.4. Table 6.5. Table 6.6. Table 6.7. Table 6.8. Table 6.9. Table 6.10. Table 6.11. Table 6.12. Table 6.13. Table 6.14. Table 6.15. Table 6.16. Table 6.17. Table 6.18. Table 6.19. Table 6.20. Table 6.21. Table 6.22. Table 6.23. Table 6.24. Table 6.25. Table 6.26. Table 6.27. Table 6.28. Table 6.29. Table 6.30. Table 6.31. Table 6.32. Table 6.33. Table 6.34. Table 6.35. Table 6.36. Table 6.37. Table 6.38. Table 6.39. Table 6.40. Table 6.41. Table 6.42. Table 6.43. Table 6.44. Table 6.45. Table 6.46. Table 6.47. Table 6.48. Table 6.49. Table 6.50.

Typology of retouched artefacts. Relative frequency of tool types. Number of Levallois points, retouched Levallois points, pseudo-Levallois points, naturally backed knives and typologically Gravettian tools. Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Relative frequency of platform types . Cortex coverage. Intensity of scraper reduction.

85 85

Megalo Karvounari: Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Megalo Karvounari: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and elongation . Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency of platform types . Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and platform types. Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and types of distal ends. Megalo Karvounari: Cortex coverage . Megalo Karvounari : Reduction method and cortex coverage. Megalo Karvounari: Tool types and intensity of reduction. Mikro Karvounari: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Mikro Karvounari: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Mikro Karvounari: Relative frequency of platform types. Mikro Karvounari: Reduction method and platform types. Mikro Karvounari: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Mikro Karvounari: Cortex coverage. Mikro Karvounari: Tool types and intensity of reduction . Morfi: Mean core dimensions by reduction method . Morfi : Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Morfi : Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Morfi: Reduction method and elongation . Morfi: Relative frequency of platform types. Morfi: Reduction method and platform types . Morfi: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Morfi: Reduction method and types of distal ends. Morfi : Cortex coverage. Morfi : Reduction method and cortex coverage. Morfi : Tool types and intensity of reduction. Ayia: Mean core dimensions by reduction method . Ayia : Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Ayia: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation . Ayia: Reduction method and elongation. Ayia: Relative frequency of platform types. Ayia : Reduction method and platform types. Ayia : Reduction method and types of distal ends . Ayia : Reduction method and cortex coverage . Ayia: Tool types and intensity of reduction. Alonaki: Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Alonaki: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Alonaki: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation . Alonaki: Reduction method and elongation. Alonaki: Relative frequency of platform types . Alonaki: Reduction method and platform types. Alonaki: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Alonaki : Reduction method and types of distal ends. Alonaki : Cortex coverage. Alonaki: Reduction method and cortex coverage . Alonaki: Tool types and intensity of reduction . Alonaki : Mean dimensions of cores , flakes and tools made on fine- and coarse-grain raw materials.

88

V

86

87 87 87 87 88

88 88 88

88 88 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 91

91 91

91

92 92 92 92 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 94 94

94

6.51. 6.52. 6.53. 6.54. 6.55. 6.56.

Alonaki : Raw Alonaki: Raw Alonaki : Raw Valanidorachi: Valanidorachi: Valanidorachi:

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. 7.8. 7.9. 7.10. 7.11. 7.12. 7.13. 7.14. 7.15. 7.16. 7.17. 7.18. 7.19. 7.20. 7.21. 7.22. 7.23. 7.24. 7.25. 7.26. 7.27.

Stroyia: Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Stroyia: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method . Stroyia: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation . Stroyia. Reduction method and degree of elongation . Stroyia: Relative frequency of platform types. Stroyia: Reduction method and platform types. Stroyia : Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Stroyia: Reduction method and type s of distal end s. Stroyia: Cortex coverage. Stroyia: Reduction method and cortex coverage . Stroyia: Tool types and intensity of reduction. Messonghi : Mean core dimensions by reduction method . Messonghi. Reduction method and degree of elongation . Me ssonghi: Reduction method and platform types . Messon ghi: Reduction method and types of distal end s. Mess onghi : Reduction method and cortex covera ge. Argyrades: Mean core dimensions by reduction method . Argyrades : Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Argyrades: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation . Argyrades : Reduction method and elongation. Argyrades : Relative frequency of platform types. Argyrades: Reduction method and platform types. Argyrades: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Argyrades : Reduction method and types of distal ends. Argyrades : Cortex coverage . Argyrades: Reduction method and cortex coverage. Argyrades: Tool types and intensity of reduction.

96 96 96 96 96 96 -96 96 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99

Gortses : Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Gortses: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method . Gortses : Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Gortses: Reduction method and elongation . Gortses: Relative frequency of platform types . Gortses: Reduction method and platform types. Gortses: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Gortses: Reduction method and types of distal ends. Gortses: Cortex coverage. Gortses: Reduction method and cortex coverage. Gortses: Tool types and intensity of reduction. Voulista Panayia: Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Voulista Panayia: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method . Voulista Panayia : Relative frequency of material by degree of elon gation . Voulista Panayia: Relative frequency of platform types. Voulista Panayia: Reduction method and platform types. Voulista Panayia: Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Voulista Panayia: Cortex covera ge. Voulista Panayia: Tool types and intensity of reduction . Ayios Yeoryios: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method . Ayios Y eoryios : Reduction method and platform types . Ayio s Yeoryio s: Reduction method and type s of distal ends. Stefani : Mean core dimensions by reduction method . Stefani: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Stefani : Relative frequency of material by degree of elon gation . Stefani : Reduction method and elongation. Stefa ni: Relat ive frequency of platform types .

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 8.1. Table 8.2. Table 8.3. Table 8.4. Table 8.5. Table 8.6. Table 8.7. Table 8.8. Table 8.9. Table 8.10. Table 8.11. Table 8.12. Table 8.13. Table 8.14. Table 8.15. Table 8.16. Table 8.17. Table 8.18. Table 8.19. Table 8.20 . Table 8.21. Table 8.22. Table 8.23. Table 8.24. Table 8.25. Table 8.26. Table 8.27.

material texture and relative frequency of reduction methods : cores . material texture and relative frequency of reduction methods: flakes and tools . material texture and retouch intensity . Relative frequency of platform types. Reduction method and types of distal ends . Tool types and intensity of reduction.

95 95 95 95 95 95

Table Table Table Table Table Table

vi

99

101

101 101 101 101 101

101 102 102 102

102 102 102 102

102 103 103

103 103

103

Table Table Table Table Table Table

8.28. 8.29. 8.30. 8.31. 8.32. 8.33.

Table 9.1. Table 9.2. Table 9.3. Table 9.4. Table 9.5. Table 9.6. Table 9.7. Table 9.8. Table 9.9. Table 9.10. Table 9.11. Table 9.12. Table 9.13. Table 9.14. Table 9.15. Table 9.16. Table 9.17. Table 9.18. Table 9.19. Table 9.20. Table 9.21. Table 9.22. Table 9.23. Table 9.24. Table 9.25: Table 9.26: Table 9.27: Table 9.28: Table 9.29.

Stefani: Stefani: Stefani: Stefani: Stefani: Stefani:

Reduction method and platform types. Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Reduction method and types of distal ends. Cortex coverage. Reduction method and cortex coverage. Tool types and intensity of reduction.

Kokkinopilos, Site P:Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Kokkinopilos , Site p:Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Kokkinopilos , Site ~: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Kokkinopilos , Site ~: Reduction method and elongation. Kokkinopilos, Site p:Relative frequency of platform types. Kokkinopilos , Site ~: Reduction method and platform types. Kokkinopilos, Site p:Relative frequency of types of distal ends . Kokkinopilos , Site ~: Reduction method and types of distal ends. Kokkinopilos, Site ~: Cortex coverage . Kokkinopilos , Site P:Reduction method and cortex coverage. Kokkinopilos, Site p:Tool types and intensity of reduction. Kokkinopilos , Site a: Mean core dimensions by reduction method . Kokkinopilos , Site a: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method. Kokkinopilos, Site a: Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. Kokkinopilos, Site a: Reduction method and elongation. Kokkinopilos , Site a : Relative frequency of platform types . Kokkinopilos , Site a: Reduction method and platform types. Kokkinopilos, Site a : Relative frequency of types of distal ends. Kokkinopilos , Site a : Reduction method and types of distal ends. Kokkinopilos, Site a: Cortex coverage. Kokkinopilos, Site a: Reduction method and cortex coverage. Kokkinopilos , Site a: Tool types and intensity of reduction . Kokkinopilos , area of Site a: Mean core dimensions by reduction method. Kokkinopilos , area of Site a: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method . Kokkinopilos , area of Site a: Reduction method and elongation. Kokkinopilos , area of Site a: Relative frequency of platform types . Kokkinopilos, area of Site a: Reduction method and types of distal ends. Kokkinopilos , area of Site a : Reduction method and cortex coverage . Kokkinopilos, area of Site a : Tool types and intensity of reduction .

Vil

103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 106

106 106 106 106 106

106 106 107 107

107 107

107 107

107 107 108

108 108 108 108

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3.

Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5. Figure 3.6. Figure 3.7. Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.9. Figure 3.10. Figure 3.11. Figure 3.12.

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5.

Figure 6.1. Figure 6.2. Figure 6.3. Figure 6.4. Figure 6.5. Figure 6.6. Figure 6.7. Figure 6.8. Figure 6.9. Figure 6.10. Figure 6.11. Figure 6.12. Figure 6.13. Figure 6.14. Figure 6.15. Figure 6.16. Figure 6.17. Figure 6.18. Figure 6.19.

Map in Greece showing the main Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites. After Runnels (1995), with additions. The Aegean and Ionian coastlines in the Last Glacial Maximum , based on the -130 m isobath. After van Andel and Shackleton (1982). The Aegean and Ionian coastlines at 9,000 BP, based on the -36 m isobath . After van Andel and Shackleton (1982). Map of northwestern Greece showing the principal Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites. After Papagianni (1999). Shoreline fluctuations in northwestern Greece in the last two glacial-interglacial cycles (OIS 6 - OIS 1). Isobaths representing palaeoshores are based on nautical and topographic charts and are highly generalised. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). Climatic and vegetational changes in northwestern Greece in the last two glacial-interglacial cycles (OIS 6 - OIS 1), on the basis of a long pollen core in Lake Ioannina. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). Epirus in the Last Glacial. The area is separated into environmental zones on the basis of the postulated quality of grazing conditions. After Bailey (1992 ). Plan of the Asprochaliko Rockshelter. After Bailey et al. (1983a ). Stratigraphy of the Asprochaliko Rock shelter , as seen at the west face of Trench B . After Bailey et al . (1983a) . Asprochaliko. The basal Mousterian industry. Scale 2/3 normal size. After Gowlett and Carter (1997) . Asprochaliko. The upper Mousterian industry . 1-4: Reconstruction of the Asprochaliko knapping sequence for the production of pseudo-Levallois points ; 5-12 : Asprochaliko pseudo-Levallois points; 13-15: other artefacts from the upper Mousterian. 1- 12: after Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou (1997); 13-15: after Higgs and Vita-Finzi (1966). a. Schematic section of Kokkinopilos. After Bailey et al. (1992) ; b. Geological section of Kokkinopilos . After Runnels and van Andel (in press) . Map showing the distribution of poljes and loutses in southwestern Epirus. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). Thermoluminescence (TL) and infrared stimulated luminescence (IR) sediment dates for western Epirus. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). Chronostratigraphic diagram for archaeological sites, sediments and palaeosols in the Preveza region , as proposed by Runnels and van Andel (in press) .

109 110 110

111

111

112 112 113 113 114

115 116 117 118 118

Absolute length distribution of all artefacts per site. Relative frequencies of intact artefacts. Size distribution of all intact unretouched flakes and retouched artefacts per site. Patina intensity. Reduction stages: Relative frequencies.

119 120 121 122 123

Geological section of Ayia. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). Palaeolithic sites in the Acheron River Valley . After Runnels and van Andel (in press) . Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency ofreduction methods (debitage). Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency of reduction methods (retouched artefacts) . Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and retouched artefacts). Megalo Karvounari: Relative frequency ofreduction methods (cores). Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage) . Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (retouched artefacts). Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage). Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (retouched artefacts) . Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and artefact size (cores). Megalo Karvounari: Reduction method and artefact size (plain flakes). Mikro Karvounari: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Mik.ro Karvounari: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Mikro Karvounari : Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools ). Mikro Karvounari : Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Mikro Karvounari: Reduction method and artefact size. Morfi: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage). Morfi : Relativ e frequency of reduction method s (retouch ed artefacts).

124 124 125 125 125 125 126 126 126 126 127 127 128 128 128 128 129 129 129

viii

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

6.20. 6.21. 6.22. 6.23. 6.24. 6.25. 6.26. 6.27. 6.28.

Figure 6.29. Figure 6.30. Figure 6.31. Figure 6.32. Figure 6.33. Figure 6.34. Figure 6.35. Figure 6.36. Figure 6.37. Figure 6.38. Figure 6.39. Figure 6.40. Figure 6.41. Figure 6.42. Figure 6.43. Figure 6.44. Figure 6.45. Figure 6.46. Figure 6.47. Figure 6.48. Figure 6.49. Figure 6.50. Figure 6.51. Figure 6.52. Figure 6.53. Figure 6.54. Figure 6.55. Figure 6.56. Figure 6.57. Figure 6.58. Figure 6.59. Figure 6.60. Figure 6.61. Figure 6.62. Figure 6.63. Figure 6.64. Figure 6.65. Figure 6.66. Figure 6.67. Figure 6.68. Figure 6.69. Figure 6.70. Figure 7.1. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7.

Morfi: Relative frequency ofreduction methods (debitage and retouched artefacts). Morfi: Relative frequency of reduction methods (cores). Morfi: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage) . Morfi: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (retouched artefacts) . Morfi: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage). Morfi: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (retouched artefacts) . Morfi: Reduction method and artefact size (cores). Morfi: Reduction method and artefact size (plain flakes). Length spectra of lateral scrapers, retouched flakes, and denticulates in Megalo Karvounari and Morfi . Ayia: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage). Ayia: Relative frequency of reduction methods (retouched artefacts) . Ayia: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and retouched artefacts). Ayia: Relative frequency of reduction methods (cores). Ayia: Reduction method and artefact size. Ayia: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools) . Ayia: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Ayia: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Alonaki: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage). Alonaki: Relative frequency ofreduction methods (retouched artefacts). Alonaki : Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Alonaki : Relative frequency of reduction methods (cores). Alonaki: Reduction method and artefact size. Alonaki: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Alonaki: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Alonaki: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Valanidorachi: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Va]anidorachi: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Valanidorachi: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools) . Valanidorachi: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools) . Megalo Karvounari. Cores. Megalo Karvounari. Cores. Megalo Karvounari. 1: core: 2-5 : flakes and tools. Megalo Karvounari. Flakes and tools. Megalo Karvounari. Flakes and tools. Megalo Karvounari . Flakes and tools. Mikro Karvounari. Cores , flakes and tools. Morfi. Cores. Morfi. Flakes and tools. Morfi. Flakes and tools. Morfi. Flakes and tools. Ayia. Cores. No. 1: drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray . Ayia. Flakes and tools. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). 1-5: Ayia; 6-7: Alonaki. Alonaki. Cores. No. 1: drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray. Alonaki. Cores, flakes and tools. After Runnels and van Andel (in press ). Alonaki. Cores. No . 1: drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray . Alonaki. Flakes and tools. 1: Alonaki; 2-3 : Valanidorachi . No. 1: after Runnels and van Andel (in press); no. 2,3; drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray; Valanidorachi: Cores and tools. Nos. 1, 3: drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray . 1: Valanidorachi; 2-5: Skepasto. No. 3: drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray. 1-3: Anavatis; 4: Cheimadio. Map of Corfu showing the Palaeolithic open-air and sheltered sites identified by Sordinas . Shaded areas signify redbeds. After Sardinas (1969) . Messonghi: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Stroyia: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debita ge and tools). Stroyia: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Stroyia: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Stroyia: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Stroyia: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes). IX

129 129 130 130 130 130 131 131 132

133 133 133 133

133 134

134 134 135 135 135 135

135 136 136 136

137 137

137 137 138 139 140 141 142

143 144 145 146

147 148 149 150 151 152

153 154 155 156

157 158 159

160 160

161 161 161

161 162

Figure 7.8. Figure 7.9. Figure 7.10. Figure 7.11. Figure 7 .12. Figure 7 .13. Figure 7.14. Figure 7.15. Figure 7.16. Figure 7.17. Figure 7.18. Figure 7.19. Figure 7 .20. Figure 7 .21. Figure 7 .22. Figure 7 .23.

Argyrades: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes) . Argyrades: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Argyrades: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools) . Argyrades: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Argyrades: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Stroyia: cores. Stroyia: flakes (1, 2, 4-8) and tools (3). Paliostani: cores (1,2), flakes (6,7) and tools (3-5). Messonghi : cores. Messonghi : flakes and tools. 1-5:Messonghi, flakes and tools ; 6-10: Argyrades , flakes and tools. Argyrades: cores ( 1-5) and pseudo -Leva llois points (6, 7). Argyrades: flakes and tools. Argyrades : flakes and tools. 1: Argyrades; 2-3; Kombitsi; 4: Gouvia ; 5: Dasia ; 6-7: area of Ayios Yeoryios; 8-10: Stalakto 1-4, 6: Mathraki, 5: Othonoi.

Figure 8.1. Figure 8.2. Figure 8.3. Figure 8.4. Figure 8.5. Figure 8.6. Figure 8.7. Figure 8.8. Figure 8.9. Figure 8.10. Figure 8.11. Figure 8.12. Figure 8.13. Figure 8.14. Figure 8.15. Figure 8.16. Figure 8.17. Figure 8.18. Figure 8.19. Figure 8.20. Figure 8.21. Figure 8.22. Figure 8.23. Figure 8.24. Figure 8.25. Figure 8.26. Figure 8.27. Figure 8.28. Figure 8.29. Figure 8.30. Figure 8.31. Figure 8.32. Figure 8.33. Figure 8.34.

Palaeolithic sites at the southern end of the Louros Valley. After Runnels and van Andel (in press). Gortses: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools) . Gortses : Reduction method and length/br eadth ratios (debitage and tools). Gortses: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (deb itage and tools) . Gortses : Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage). Gortses: Relativ e frequency of reduction methods (reto uched tools). Gortses: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools ). Gortses: Relative frequency of reduction methods (cores). Gortses: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes). Voulista Panayia : Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools) . Voulista Panayia: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Voulista Panayia: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Voulista Panayia: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Voulista Panayia: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes ). Ayios Yeoryios: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes). Ayios Yeoryios: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools ). Ayios Yeoryios: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Ayios Yeoryios: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Ayios Yeoryios: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (de bitage and tools). Stefani: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage). Stefani: Relative frequency of reduction methods (retouched tools). Stefani: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Stefani: Relative frequency of reduction methods (cores). Stefani: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes). Stefani: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Stefani : Reduction method and artefact breadth (debitage and tools). Stefani: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Stefani: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Gortses : Cores, flakes and tools. Gortses. Cores , flakes and tools. 1-8: Voulista Panayia; 9-12: Ayios Yeoryios. 1-4: Ayios Yeoryios; 5-9: Galatas. No. 9 drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray . Kranea. Cores , flakes and tools. Nos. I and 3 drawn by Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray. 1-8: Stefani; 9: Iliovounion; 10: Thesprotiko.

Figure 9.1. Figure 9.2. Figure 9.3. Figure 9.4. Figure 9.5. Figure 9.6. Figure 9.7. Figure 9.8.

Kokkinopilos, Site p:Relative frequency of reduction method (deb itage and tool s). Kokkinopilos, Site P: Reduction method and artefact length (deb itage and tools) . Kokkinopilos, Site P: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools ). Kokkinopilos, Site P: Reduction method and breadth/thickne s ratios (deb itage and tools). Kokkinopilos , Site p: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flake ). Kokkinopilos, Site a: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools) . Kokkinopilos, Site a : Reduction method and artefact length (debita ge and tools). Kokkinopilos , Site a: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debi tage and tools).

X

162 163 163 163 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

173 174 175 175 176 176 177 177 177 177 178 179 179

179 179

180 180 181 181 181 181 182 182 182 182 182 183 183 183 183 184 185 186 187 188

189 190 190 190 190 191 192

192 192

Figure 9.9. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

9.10. 9.11. 9.12. 9.13. 9.14. 9.15. 9.16. 9.17. 9.18. 9.19. 9.20.

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

9.21. 9.22. 9.23. 9 .24. 9.25. 9.26. 9.27. 9 .28. 9.29.

Kokkinopilos , Site a: Kokkinopilos , Site ~: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Kokkinopilos, Site a: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes). Kokkinopilos, area of Site a: Reduction method and artefact size (cores and plain flakes). Kokkinopilos, area of Site a: Relative frequency of reduction methods (debitage and tools). Kokkinopilos, area of Site a: Reduction method and artefact length (debitage and tools). Kokkinopilos, area of Site a: Reduction method and breadth/thickness ratios (debitage and tools). Kokkinopilos, area of Site a: Reduction method and length/breadth ratios (debitage and tools). Kokkinopilos. Exposed and surface finds (after Dakaris et al. 1964). Kokkinopilos. Exposed and surface finds (after Dakaris et al. 1964). Kok.kinopilos. Exposed and surface finds (after Dakaris et al. 1964). Pantanassa, Site 11: Refitted artefacts. 1: core; 2: core with refitted flake. 1: Kokkinopilos, Site~ ; 2: Kokkinopilos: surface find; 3,4,6: Pantanassa, Site 4; 5: Pantanassa, Site 3; 7: Pantanassa , Site 1I. Kok.kinopilos, Site ~-Flakes and tools . After Dakaris et al. (1964 ). Kokkinopilos, Site~- Cores. Kokkinopilos , Site~- 1-3: cores; 4-7: flakes and tools. Kokkinopilos, Site ~-Flakes and tools. Kokkinopilos , Site a. Typologically Upper Palaeolithic artefacts . After Dakaris et al . ( 1964). Kokkinopilos, Site a. Cores. 1, 3- 10: Kokkinopilos, Site a; 2: Kokkinopilos , area of Site a.. 1-2: Kokkinopilos, Site a.; 3-10: Kokkinopilos, area of Site a. Kokkinopilos , area of Site a. Cores.

XI

192 193 193 194 194 194 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

PART I. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER

I

INTRODUCTION

The research presented here was designed to examine early human adaptations over a geographical scale that exceeds the catchment area of individual sites and might represent the resource exploitation zone, or at least a part of one, of a group of mobile hunter-gatherers. The particular subject of this study is the Mousterian sites of northwestern Greece (modern regions of Epirus and Corfu). The current evidence of Middle Palaeolithic occupation in this area consists of excavated deposits in one rockshelter and surface collections from numerous open-air sites . The surface collections, which range in size from isolated finds to thousands of artefacts, were generated over the last four decades by four different survey projects: two phases of a Cambridge University project in Epirus (in the 1960s and the 1980s), A. Sordinas ' survey on Corfu in the 1960s , and the Nikopolis Project in Epirus in the 1990s. Only one open-air site has · been excavated , but the stratigraphic integrity of the two trenches is now equivocal. Despite the field research invested in them, the open-air sites have attracted proportionally limited interest in artefact analyses and syntheses of the regional evidence. Instead , discussions of the Mousterian in the region have relied heavily on the evidence from the only rockshelter in the area (Asprochaliko ). My research aimed to integrate the open-air sites into this regional picture on the basis of my analysis of their lithic collections, the only surviving cultural material from these sites. Until this study , only a small portion of this material had been analysed in detail.

level, 'because it forms the basic building block for comparisons at a larger geographical scale , yet has frequently been overlooked or bypassed in the attempt to link local data at the site-level with continental perspectives'. They argued that individual excavated sites are unlikely to be representative of their surrounding geographical area and that exclusive reliance on them can lead to false conclusions. They also noted that 'there are relatively few case-studies which focus on the methodological problems associated with this level of analysis (cc. the regional level), and indeed relatively few areas where the data are yet available to undertake such an analysis ' (ibid.: 155). As a case study, they investigated regional variability in Epirus in the Late Upper Palaeolithic, largely on the basis of the area ' s four (at the time) excavated rockshelters . They concluded that 'it is the rockshelters that represent rather specialised fragments of activity in a marginal hinterland, while it is the larger, but poorly preserved, open-air sites in the coastal lowlands that represent the centre of gravity of the regional settlement system' (ibid.: 156). But they felt that, due to poor conditions of preservation, the open-air sites could not figure further into a regional synthesis. Indeed , the existing archaeological evidence from these sites has a broad chronological resolution which does not allow for a straightforward detection of patterns of association of human adaptations with environmental fluctuations and bio -anthropological developments .

The neglect hitherto of this material was not the only reason for undertakin g this project. Over the last decade , analyses of the lithic industries of Asprochaliko and absolute dates have chailenged the scheme of chronological/cultural succession established in the 1960s. In addition, renewed geological research in the open -air sites and science-based dating have resulted in new models put forth on the geological history and chronology of these sites , the time-resolution of their archaeological material and their future research potential. These developments coincide with a revival of field research in Greek Palaeolithic archaeology. All these factors contribute to the need for developing a new agenda for Palaeolithic research in Greece and in northwestern Greece in particular. Redefining the research potential of the openair sites, which represent the majority of Palaeolithic sites in both these areas, and establishing ways to incorporate them into the changing regional picture is an essential part of this new research agenda . Furthermore , while there are abundant Mousterian open-air sites in most parts of the Old World , they tend to have a secondary role in European Palaeolithic studies, with the exception of some cases of well-preserved and excavated sites. In this sense, showing what use can be made of surface collections and archaeological material of broad time resolution can have methodological implications beyond the area of modern Greece.

Stern (1993, 1994) has argued that with the exception of the rare cases that a few minutes of Stone Age life have been preserved in the archaeological record (e.g ., a refitted flintknapping sequence) , most Palaeolithic sites 'are timeaveraged accumulations of material remains' (Stern 1993: 215; see also Bailey 1983; Papaconstantinou 1986). She identified in Palaeolithic studies a tendency to ignore the problem of low time resolution in the record, to ask questions that the properties of the record do not allow us to tackle and to apply behavioural interpretative models which, borrowed from the social or economic sciences, require data with fine temporal or spatial resolution. She argued that Palaeolithic data are unique in both time depth and time resolution and their interpretation requires developing theoretical and methodological principles unique to the discipline and appropriate for the analysis of time-averaging data.

Bailey and Gamble (1990: 154-5) have emphasised the importance of examining inter-site variability at the regional

Stern's ideas put the methodological problems of a regional analysis of the Mousterian of northwestern Greece into a new perspective. I argue that in the case of the area ' s single excavated and stratified site (Asprochaliko) we have an example of the tendencies identified by Stern: over-optimism about the resolution of the site ' s record and over-reliance on it in order to create an account of regional chronological/cultural developments. In fact , for the time being, all Mousterian sites in the study area , includin g Asprochaliko , can be divided into minimum time units of no less than a few tens of thousands of years . But, time

resolution cannot be judged on the basis of its absolute value; rather, its quality is defined with reference to the questions set and the methodology used in the investigation of these data. In these terms, the wide chronological resolution of the Mousterian evidence from northwestern Greece does not render a regional analysis an impractical exercise.

suggested that there might be a need 'to discard most of the Paleolithic record now available and to start accumulating an entirely new record more amenable to behavioral interpretation ' (Rigaud and Simek 1987: 59). I do not subscribe to this view because old data can and indeed have been used in the investigation of behavioural issues (e.g., Kuhn 1995). Their limitations have to be assessed on a caseby-case basis. Furthermore , I suggest that older data are essential in designing the research strategies that will provide evidence for the further pursuit of behavioural agendas.

In their regional synthesis of the LUP in Epirus, Bailey and Gamble (1990: 156) noted, 'we do not see it as an immediate goal or a high priority to establish a detailed reconstruction of the function and character of individual sites as such. Indeed, this may be a futile goal even in the long term. [...] Our interest is [ ... ] in the overall picture of regional variability that can be built up through a process of intersite comparisons'. I fully subscribe to this approach for my work on the Mousterian of northwestern Greece. With reference to inter-site comparisons in the context of the present research project , it should be noted that Mousterian sites in northwestern Greece are contemporaneous only within a broad time frame. Time units of this length transcend major climatic events, not to mention short-term environmental fluctuations. Obviously , they also exceed by far the temporal frame of the early human activities that gave rise to the archaeological record . Because of these reasons, there are no straightforward equations to be made between variability in the archaeological record and early human adaptive responses to environmental fluctuations or other external stimuli. Rather, this sort of analysis is more apt to identifying long-term trends and patterns in early human mobility, exploitation of resources and distribution of activities in the landscape. Indeed, my technological analysis of the lithic collections from northwestern Greece has revealed such long term patterns of inter-site variability.

In the first part of this volume, I present the background to my research and my methodology. Chapter II contains a summary of the evidence on environmental conditions (climate , vegetation, sea-levels) in Greece in the Middle Palaeolithic , followed by an overview of the history and current stage of Middle Palaeolithic research in Greece. Two issues are discussed in more detail: the problems of dating and chronological/cultural sequences as well as site distribution patterns and habitat preferences .

In Chapter III, I discuss the environmental background to the Middle Palaeolithic of northwestern Greece, the evidence from the Asprochaliko Rockshelter , with emphasis on the recent analyses of its lithic industries and, finally, the geological history and chronology of the open-air sites. Chapter IV contains a presentation of the main questions and the methodology by which this study , and in particular the analysis of the lithic collections, was undertaken. Before that I discuss the state of lithic analysis in Greek Palaeolithic studies and in northwestern Greece in particular , as well as the methodologies of the survey projects that generated the subject collections.

Because the open-air sites of northwestern Greece have been investigated by a number of different teams using various theoretical approaches and different methodologies in fieldwork and data analysis, they provide a unique opportunity to investigate the relative advantages of various research strategies, in particular survey and sampling methods, and to suggest methodological guidelines for future research in the study area and elsewhere. On the other hand, data generated by different projects might not be directly commensurate and represent a methodological challenge for creating a regional synthesis .

The second part of the volume contains the results of my analysis of the lithic collections. After an introductory chapter (Chapter V), where I discuss the main technological, typological and metrical features of the material, I present the sites and the lithic collections organised in three geographic groups: sites on the present Ionian Coast (Chapter VI) , sites on Corfu (Chapter VII) and sites in the Louros Valley (Chapter VIII), of which Kokkinopilos is discussed in a separate chapter (Chapter IX).

In the concluding chapter, I review the evidence generated by Some scholars have adopted a pessmustlc view of data generated by previous generations of archaeologists and

this project and discuss its relevance to the research objectives set out at the beginning.

2

CHAPTER II THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC OF GREECE: A CRITICAL OVERVIEW

The record of observations and the register of ideas that we now know as The Palaeolithic is the result of a series of inward-looking regional traditions of research which, taken together, constitute our understanding of this segment of the past [Gamble 1986: 3].

2.1.

It is an irony of Palaeolithic research in Greece that while it

THE GREEK REGIONAL RESEARCH TRADITION

presents an alternative to the hellenocentrism of .traditional Greek archaeology, it is itself inward-looking. Often the implicit or explicitly stated research objective is to investigate what was happening in the Palaeolithic in a particular part of modern Greece, and it is often the case that the entirety of modern Greece is unquestionably treated as the geographical and cultural context of Palaeolithic evidence from any part of the country. Interestingly, this tendency is not restricted to Greek scholars (e.g., Kourtessi-Philippakis 1986; Darlas 1994; Runnels 1995; papers in Bailey et al. 1999). This may be explained partly by the fact that Greek universities, regional archaeological units and foreign archaeological schools, all are traditionally inward-looking, oriented towards the study of Greek antiquity. Acquiring fieldwork permits and securing research funding requires a degree of conformity to this approach. In addition, many of those undertaking Palaeolithic research in Greece were trained in late prehistoric or classical archaeology, for which Greece is an area of central importance.

Gamble (ibid.) described the European Palaeolithic record as the outcome of a series of regional research traditions that developed somewhat independently. Their boundaries, however, do not usually coincide with the exploitation zones of the highly mobile hunter-gatherers of the Palaeolithic. This incongruity applies to the Palaeolithic of northwestern Greece. One could argue that this area would be best studied in the context of the areas surrounding the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, because geography and climate would have made this a unit suitable for the development of a huntergatherer regional system. Yet, if one wants to see Middle Palaeolithic studies in northwestern Greece in their intellectual context and trace traditional views, assumptions and biases, one has to look at the history of Palaeolithic studies within the boundaries of modern Greece. Language barriers, geography and, most importantly, differences in international political alliances, led to the development of Palaeolithic studies in Greece in isolation from the rest of the Balkan countries. Gamble (ibid.) has identified for the rest of Europe a similar association between international political affiliations and the potential for archaeological research to transcend administrative boundaries. The situation in the Balkans has developed as one of 'individuals and research groups working in relative isolation reinforced by political and geographical conditions' (Bailey 1995: 20). The most extreme case of such isolation is Albania, located . immediately to the north of northwestern Greece.

Within the Greek Palaeolithic research tradition, northwestern Greece, especially Epirus, is the area with the richest database (Fig. 2.1) and has often been used as a reference point for the interpretation of evidence from elsewhere in the country. Comparisons with Epirus material, often made on criteria such as average artefact size, have been used as the basis for assigning dates to unstratified or undated material and for postulating sub~ivisions of Greek Palaeolithic periods into technological, cultural or chronological facies. This practice is particularly common for the Middle Palaeolithic, because the rockshelter of Asprochaliko in Epirus is the only site in Greece that contains a sequence of two stratified Mousterian industries, insecurely dated to c. 96,000 BP and c. 40,000 BP. The central role of Asprochaliko and the Epirus data in general can be traced through the history of Middle Palaeolithic research in Greece. It still dominates discussions of major issues in the Greek Mousterian, such as chronology, industrial variability and site distribution patterns. Following recent re-evaluations of the evidence from Asprochaliko and with the potential incorporation of data from open-air sites into the picture of the Epirus Mousterian, the whole model of the Greek Middle Palaeolithic could be substantially revised.

Sustained Palaeolithic research began in Greece only around 1960 and most of the current knowledge on the subject has been compiled over the last decade, with the publication of the results of some of the pioneering projects and with further field research. The field is still a low research priority in Greek universities and the foreign archaeological schools operating in the country, both of which have only occasionally included the Palaeolithic in their research or teaching activities (for some of the reasons for the neglect of Palaeolithic studies in Greece, see Perles 1987; Papagianni 1993; Galanidou 1996). Consequently, the early prehistory of the Greek peninsula remains overshadowed by the glories of the Classical and Bronze Age civilisations, and large parts of the country are effectively unexplored for traces of Palaeolithic occupation.

2.2.

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

In the over 200,000-year time-span of the Middle Palaeolithic in Europe, large climatic and ecological changes occurred, forming the last part of the glacial/interglacial 3

those documented for the peak of the last glaciation (18,000 BP, ors 2). Woodland populations were scarce, even in southern Europe. The Tenaghi Philippon pollen sequence points to cold, arid climatic conditions with steppe and semidesert vegetation (Smit and Wijmstra 1970). There is, however, evidence for tree refugia, consisting mostly of deciduous trees, in sheltered areas of the western Balkans (Bennett et al. 1991; Tzedakis 1993).

cycles that characterised the Pleistocene. In the last two decades, the amount and detail of knowledge of late Pleistocene climatic and environmental oscillations has vastly improved, particularly with the incorporation of data from deep-sea and ice cores documenting fluctuations in the oxygen-isotope ( 180/1 60) ratios (Imbrie et al. 1984; Shackleton 1987; Bradley 1985; GRIP 1993; Dansgaard et al. 1993; Bender et al. 1994) and from long pollen sequences from across western and southern Europe. The emerging picture of the history of Quaternary climate is one of instability and disequilibrium, marked by high frequency, short term climatic oscillation during both the generally warm and the generally cold oxygen isotope stages (for a recent synthesis of the main sources of evidence and the current state of knowledge of climatic conditions in Europe during the Middle Palaeolithic, see Mellars 1996: 9-32) .

The harsh conditions of the penultimate glacial were succeeded within as little as c. 5,000 years by the last interglacial. From that time on, evidence of Palaeolithic occupation in Greece becomes more established. Narrowly defined, the last interglacial coincides with ors 5e (126,000118,000 BP), a period in which year-round surface and sea temperatures and sea levels were at least as high as at any time during the Holocene. Trees spread outward from refugia and quickly colonised what had been areas of open vegetation. Southern Europe and the circum-Mediterranean areas saw a major expansion of Mediterranean forest characterised by Olea (wild olive) and evergreen oak (Tzedakis 1994; Cheddadi and Rossignol-Strick 1995). Van Andel and Tzedakis (1996) leave open the possibility that the effects of the warm conditions of the last interglacial were more prominently felt in the northern latitudes and continental regions of Eurasia, than in its southern and coastal areas.

The recent advances in research on global climate history help create a more comprehensive picture of environmental changes in Quaternary Greece. Tenaghi Philippon in northeastern Greece (Wijmstra 1969; Wijmstra and Smit 1976) and Lake Ioannina (or Lake Pamvotis) in northwestern Greece (Bottema 1974; Tzedakis 1994) have provided long pollen sequences. But shorter pollen cores reflecting more localised conditions do not reach chronologically as far back as the Middle Palaeolithic (Willis 1992a,b,c, 1997; Turner and Sanchez-Gani 1997) and archaeological sites of the same period do not provide extensive faunal and floral data. As a result, the current evidence is not sufficient to permit environmental reconstructions of high geographical resolution for Greece in the Middle Palaeolithic. Correlation between the environmental and the archaeological record are even more difficult, given the lack of a reliable chronostratigraphic framework for the Greek Middle Palaeolithic .

The last interglacial was followed by period of slow climatic deterioration comprising four main episodes of climatic oscillation (orS 5d-a, 116,000-74,000 BP). 5d and 5b were cool, dry stadials, while 5c and 5a were much more moderate interstadials. The degree of climatic fluctuation during this period is reflected by the changes in the extent of global ice masses; it is estimated that in the stadials (5d and 5b) the total ice sheet volume was about half its equivalent in full glacial conditions (ors 2), while in the interstadials (5c and 5a) it was reduced by about another 50% (Shackleton 1977, 1987). These climatic oscillations appear in pollen sequences as 'alternations between expanding open vegetation and returns of forest conditions' (van Andel and Tzedakis 1996: 491). For the eastern Mediterranean that meant alternations of cold, dry chenopod and Artemisia steppe vegetation with Mediterranean mixed evergreen and deciduous woodland. In the interstadials, landscapes were more open than during the last interglacial, while semi-desert and desert plant communities were not completely absent (Cheddadi and Rossignol-Strick 1995). In the stadials, tree refugia were still common, allowing for rapid tree expansions at the beginning of the interstadials (van Andel and Tzedakis 1996).

Gamble placed Greece in the same regional unit as the Dinaric Coast, southern Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia (Gamble 1986: 72-4), areas where climatic conditions during the Ice Age were not as severe as further north in Europe. The pollen record shows that in the southern Balkans the cold periods were semiarid with predominant Artemisia steppe vegetation and occasional concentrations of oak and pine trees (Bottema 1978; Wijmstra 1969; Wijmstra et al. 1990), while warmer conditions favoured the expansion of deciduous forests. Comparisons between the Ioannina and Tenaghi Philippon pollen sequences show that throughout the Ice Age vegetation in eastern Greece was less diverse and tree populations less persistent than in western Greece where local conditions allowed for the survival of tree refugia (Bennett et al. 1991).

True Ice Age conditions started in ors 4 (74,000-59,000 BP). Though still far from the values they reached in the last glacial maximum, average temperatures and continental ice sheet volumes were more severe than anything experienced since ors 6 (Shackleton 1977, 1987; Mellars 1996). In southern Europe , annual temperatures were c. 12-13 °c lower and precipitation 650-800 mm less than at present, resulting in an expansion of tundra and cold, arid steppe (Guiot et al. 1989). Tree populations contracted into a few refugia even in areas that tend to retain conditions favourable for trees, such as northwestern Greece (van Andel and Tzedakis 1996).

Current evidence on the earliest human presence in Greece is sparse and controversial and does not go further back than 400-200,000 BP. On the basis of the most reliable of the associated anthropological and archaeological finds (Petralona skull, lithic material from Epirus, Thessaly, western and central Macedonia) , it is reasonably safe to suggest that Palaeolithic occupation in Greece must have began by or during ors 6 (290,000-127,000 BP). At that period, particularly in its later part, average temperatures, sea-levels and ice sheet volumes reached levels similar to 4

The following stage, OIS 3 (59,000-24,000 BP), was a period of generally mild climate. Its primary characteristic, though, is a high frequency of brief and sharp climatic oscillations that lasted from 100 to 1,000 years. At least 12 of these have been identified in the Greenland GISP2 and GISP ice cores (GRIP 1993; Dansgaard et al. 1993; Grootes et al. 1993), along with four more prolonged interstadials (2,000-4,000 years) during which temperatures rose by 5-7 °c on average. In general, the ecological effects of the OIS 3 interstadials were much less marked than those of earlier interstadials in the last glaciation, such as Sa and Sc (Mellars 1996: 25-8), although, vegetational conditions across Europe varied significantly with latitude (van Andel and Tzedakis 1996). Greece was partially covered by patchy, open woodland: mixed deciduous woodland (beech, oak, elm, hazel and lime) in northern Greece (Wijmstra 1969; Tzedakis 1994), deciduous and evergreen woodland (oak, pine and juniper) in southern Greece (van Andel and Tzedakis 1996). In northwestern Greece, as in central Italy, sufficient moisture and optimal soil conditions allowed for some of the highest tree densities recorded in OIS 3 (van Andel and Tzedakis 1996).

1995) support the suggestion that with sea-levels 6-10 m higher than at present the Mediterranean 'must have appeared essentially as it is today' (Shackleton et al. 1984: 313). Low sea-levels would expose extensive well-watered and presumably productive coastal plains in most parts of Greece. With sea-levels more than 50 m lower than current levels, the lowland plain along the Ionian Sea in western Greece would incorporate the islands of Corfu and Levkas, and fully connect Epirus to Aetolia and Akamania in west-central Greece and to the western Peloponnese. Kephallinia and Zakynthos were joined into one large offshore island. Apart from an interruption by a mountainous zone across central Albania, the western Greek coastal plain . was the southernmost extension of the vast lowland plain in the northern part of the Adriatic Sea, connecting Italy to Slovenian and Croatia. On the Aegean side, Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly were connected to northern Anatolia by another extensive coastal plain. This is particularly important in reference to potential early human migration routes between Europe and the Near East. Further south, Euboea was attached to the mainland and the east side of the Peloponnese was also connected to central Greece. The Greek peninsula was incised by deep-cutting rivers and several large, deep lakes, which with higher sea-levels would turn back into open sea areas. Climatic amelioration and the resulting melting of ice sheets and rise in sea-levels would trim away parts if not all of these extensive coastal plains, depriving humans of resource-full habitats and of possible migration routes, and probably resulting in changes in adaptive strategies and exploitation territories (van Andel and Shackleton 1982).

Changes in oxygen-isotope ratios ( 180/ 160) in deep-sea cores provide an estimate of the total volume of sea water stored in glaciers (Shackleton 1977, 1987), and thus of fluctuations in sea-levels. Raised reefs and coastal terraces or submerged shore features preserve a more direct record of past variations in sea-levels (Chappell and Shackleton 1986). During the Middle Palaeolithic, global sea-levels were at their lowest point in OIS 6, when they dropped to c. -130 m below those of the present day, a reduction similar to that of the last glacial maximum (OIS 2). Shortly after that, in OIS 5e, maximum global sea-level was reached, equivalent to or even 6-10 m higher than present levels. Both extremes, though, did not persist for more than five to 10 millennia at a time, and during most of the Middle Palaeolithic sea-levels fluctuated between intermediate positions. During the cold stages of OIS 5d and Sb, sea-levels were about 50-60 m lower than they are at present, while in the OIS 5c and Sa interstadials they were only 10-20 m below current levels. The relatively low sea-levels of OIS 4 (60-80 m below present values) were succeeded by a series of rapid fluctuations, in accordance with the climatic oscillations of OIS 3.

Faunal and floral data from excavated Middle Palaeolithic deposits are rare in Greece. Published reports on faunal remains are only available for Maara Cave in northern Greece, Asprochaliko in northwestern Greece and Kalamakia Cave in the southern Peloponnese and do not include much more than species identification. The common herbivore species (deer, ibex, capra, equids, rhinoceros and pig) represent animals adapted to a variety of climatic conditions and vegetation. As for carnivores, only isolated finds of cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) have been reported (Maara, Theopetra). With the exception of findspots by the banks of Peneios River in Thessaly, where faunal remain were found, organic materials are not preserved in open-air sites. Reports on floral remains are even more rare. Wild almond, wild pea and blackberry are among the species identified in Theopetra Cave in Thessaly.

Despite the accuracy of sea-level data on a global scale, reconstructing past shorelines is not a straightforward enterprise, especially in tectonically active areas like Greece, where coastal terraces or submerged shores might have been affected by uplift or subsidence (e.g., Runnels and van Andel in press). Lambeck (1996) has presented a detailed reconstruction of Aegean sea-levels since the Last Glacial Maximum. For earlier periods, larger uncertainties in the evidence allow only extrapolations on the basis of the more recent data. Lambeck suggested that in the penultimate Glacial Maximum (c. 135,000 BP) sea-levels in the Aegean were as low as in the Last Glacial Maximum (between -115 and -135 m) (Fig. 2.2), that in OIS 5d-a, they were similar to those prevailing between 9,000 and 7,000 BP and that in OIS 4 and 3, they were similar to those of 12,000-10,000 BP (Lambeck 1996: 599, Fig. 4) (Fig. 2.3). As for the last interglacial, recent global sea-level estimates (Stirling et al.

2.3.

HISTORY OF RESEARCH ON THE GREEK MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC

Although Palaeolithic research in Greece started as early as the end of the nineteenth century, it was restricted until the late 1950s to short-term projects and chance finds, of which very little involved Middle Palaeolithic remains. In the 1960s, Palaeolithic research in Greece went through a pioneering phase, with Eric Higgs' widespread surface surveys in northern Greece and initiation of a long-term research project in Epirus, with the excavations at Franchthi Cave in the Peloponnese, and with the discovery of the

5

Shortly afterwards, in 1960, Dimitris Theocharis, a leading Greek prehistorian, discovered 10 more Palaeolithic findspots in Thessaly, most of them again along the Peneios River. The lithic material he collected does not differ significantly from the earlier collections in the area (Theocharis 1967; Freund 1971). In one of these sites, Theocharis found a human occipital bone. The bone was never published, but J .L. Angel, a physical anthropologist who examined it, concluded that it should not be classified as a Neanderthal in the classic sense of the term. Theocharis was the first Greek archaeologist of authority to realise the importance of incorporating the Palaeolithic into the study of Greek prehistory and to undertake field research in it. His interest was stimulated by an attempt to document the preNeolithic inhabitation of Greece as a means to strengthen his theory of a local origin of the Greek Neolithic. The publication of his findings in Thessaly (Theocharis 1967), based on Bordes' typology, is still one of the very few monographs on the Palaeolithic and publications of lithic material written in modern Greek. It was followed by over 20 years of a lack of interest in developing a modem Greek terminology for Palaeolithic studies.

Petralona skull in Macedonia (Fig. 2.1). From the late 1960s to the mid 1980s, there was a marked decline in the intensity of field research, though since then there has been a rejuvenation. Mousterian sites are the most widespread and most abundant Palaeolithic sites in Greece, representing all types of early humans habitats (caves, rockshelters and open-air sites). There are, however, sharp imbalances between different parts of the country in the intensity of research and the quantity and quality of evidence. In addition, high tectonic activity throughout Greece is likely to have affected site preservation, exposure and apparent distribution patterns. Long stratified sequences are sparse and their resolution coarse, not allowing for the establishment of reliable regional frameworks of chronostratigraphic succession. Allowing for projects that are currently in progress or at the analysis stage, none of the excavated Middle Palaeolithic sites has been fully published. 2.3.1. Early Work

Shortly before the 1960s, chance discoveries of Palaeolithic artefacts inspired a few archaeologists working on later periods of Greek prehistory to expand their interests to the Palaeolithic. These were the earliest examples of a series of exploratory projects that set out to provide the outlines of the Palaeolithic era in the area of modern Greece. In 1958 and 1959, a German team (University of Heidelberg) that was primarily engaged in the excavation of a Neolithic site in Thessaly undertook a Palaeolithic survey of the banks of the Peneios River in the same region (Milojcic 1958; Milojcic et al. 1965; Freund 1971) and a geological study of the Quaternary deposits in the area (Schneider 1968). The team identified 19 Palaeolithic findspots, all consisting of small numbers of lithic artefacts and faunal remains eroding from terrace profiles at the banks of the river. These locations were interpreted as redeposited remnants of sites destroyed by downcutting by the river. The fresh condition of the lithics and bones and the absence of traces of rolling led the researchers to believe that the finds could only have been transported over short distances and that the association of the lithic artefacts with the faunal material reflected contemporaneity rather than post-depositional processes (Milojcic et al. 1965: 15, 24-41).

Further south, in the Peloponnese, some Palaeolithic work was being carried out as well. In 1959, following the chance discovery of a Levallois artefact, Perry Bialor and Michael Jameson undertook a series of test trenches in caves and rockshelters in the Argolid (northeastern Peloponnese), but found no evidence of human habitation (Bialor and Jameson 1962). In 1960, Jean Servais collected a few typologically Mousterian artefacts in western Elis (western Peloponnese). In the short publication of his findings, he urged geologists and prehistorians to start research in the Greek Palaeolithic (Servais 1961). These two projects provided the impetus for further work in the same areas by other American and French teams. The beginning of the 1960s saw the accidental discovery of a complete fossilised human cranium in a cave near the village of Petralona in Chalkidiki (northern Greece). The details of the depositional context of the cranium have been lost and its dating and stratigraphic association are problematic and controversial. Though initially identified as a classic Neanderthal, the cranium is now most commonly regarded as a Homo heidelbergensis. Estimations of its age vary between 700,000 and 200,000 BP, but most researchers date it to c. 400-200,000 BP (Kok:koros and Kanellis 1961; Poulianos 1971, 1977, 1981; Stringer 1974, 1983; Stringer et al. 1979; Hennig et al. 1981, 1982; Ikeya 1982; Liritzis 1982; Wintle and Jacobs 1982; Stringer and Gamble 1993: 67-9). The archaeological picture of the cave is equally unclear. The stone and bone artefacts discovered in alleged stratigraphic association with the skull have never been adequately published (Poulianos 1971, 1978; Poulianos and Poulianos 1980; Kourtessi-Philippakis 1986: 36-47), resulting in doubts and controversy (e.g., Adam 1989: 11; Runnels 1995: 708)." Nevertheless, the Petralona skull testifies to an early occupation of the Greek area, and its discovery generated enthusiasm for the research potential of the Greek Palaeolithic. Other archaeological evidence from this time period is still scarce in Greece (Darlas 1995b; Runnels 1995), although Roebroeks and van Kolfschoten (1995) include the

Large mammals (elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, horse and various ruminants), which Milojcic et al. (ibid.) attributed to the last interglacial, dominated the faunal remains. The lithic material was more mixed, even in individual findspots, and was subdivided on the basis of typological and geological criteria. The majority of it was thought to represent an early Middle Palaeolithic industry and, on the basis of the faunal remains, was dated to the Riss/Wurm interglacial (ibid.: 20). The Mousterian character is prominent in the typology of this group, as is the use of the Levallois technique. About a quarter of the lithic material was assigned to a late Upper Palaeolithic industry. The presence of some carinated scrapers, Aurignacian blades and bifacial leafpoints raised the possibility of the presence of a late Middle Palaeolithic industry with limited distribution, but the evidence was considered inconclusive (Freund 1971: 185-6, 189). 6

area in those most likely to produce evidence for the earliest occupation of Europe.

'Kokkinopilos industry' (found at the open-air sites), a Levallois-Mousterian industry with faceted platform preparation and bifacial leafpoints. One 14C date at >39,900 BP, regarded at the time as reliable, was obtained from the upper part of Asprochaliko' s Mousterian sequence (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Bailey et al. 1983a).

In 1962, two major research projects, both specifically designed for the investigation of the Greek Palaeolithic, were initiated: the Cambridge University project in western Macedonia and Epirus (northwestern Greece) and a French project in Elis (western Peloponnese). The Cambridge project, directed by Eric Higgs, aimed to establish a chronological framework of industrial successions in the Greek area, to investigate their relationship to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic elsewhere in Europe and 'to discover evidence of climatic oscillations related to the late Pleistocene' (Dakaris et al. 1964: 200). The reasons for choosing to do research in Greece were 'its geographical position in relation to possible migrations from Asia into Europe or from Africa via the Levant and Turkey' and that 'Greece may be expected to have been a climatically favoured area during a glaciation' (ibid.: 200; Higgs 1963a).

The Cambridge University project is the longest standing Palaeolithic research project in Greece. The importance of Higgs' work in Epirus lies not just in the discovery and excavation of a number of sites, but also in the development of a palaeogeographical approach, in which individual sites are seen as inter-related foci of seasonal activity of mobile groups in the context of the local landscape (Higgs 1975). This is one of the few cases in which a well defined theoretical model has been applied in the Greek Palaeolithic, shaping methodology, research priorities and interpretations. Higgs' approach was influential elsewhere: 'The evolution of these ideas in the course of the Epirus work spearheaded the development of the palaeoeconomic approach to prehistory' (Bailey 1992: 2).

In 1962, Higgs' team undertook regional surveys in western Macedonia and Epirus. In the area of Palaeokastron, in western Macedonia, a solitary Acheulian handaxe made of trachyte was discovered (Dakaris et al. 1964; Higgs 1964, 1965) - the first and one of the few handaxes ever found in Greece - as well as a bifacial leafpoint, 'reminiscent to those of Kokkinopilos' (Dakaris et al.: 202-3) and a pseudoLevallois point (Touratsoglou 1969). The survey was much more fruitful in Epirus, and soon Higgs concentrated in this area. The open-air site of Kokkinopilos, containing characteristic Middle and Upper Palaeolithic material, was the most important site discovered in 1962. Higgs reported the discovery of in situ chipping floors at the site (Higgs 1963a,b; Dakaris et al. 1964). In the next season, Higgs' team cut test trenches in two of these locations (Sites a and~) (ibid.) and continued the survey and collection of surface material. Ayios Yeoryios, Old Ayios Yeoryios, Voulista Panagia, Stefani, Morfi and Karvounari are some of the sites discovered and investigated at that time (Higgs 1965). Because the open-air sites did not provide long stratified sequences that would permit the establishment of a local Palaeolithic chronostratigraphic sequence, Higgs soon concentrated on the excavation of sheltered sites. From 1964 to 1966, he excavated the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sequence of the Asprochaliko Rockshelter (Higgs 1966, 1967; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966) and from 1966 to 1967 the Kastritsa Cave which gave only Upper Palaeolithic material (Higgs 1967; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967; Higgs 1968).

Servais' exploratory work in Elis (western Peloponnese) in the late 1950s, inspired a French team to undertake a Palaeolithic survey in the region, paralleling Higgs' work to the north. The survey lasted from 1962 to 1964 and was led by Andre Leroi-Gourhan (the first year), Jean and Nicole Chavaillon and Francis Hours (Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1963a,b; Leroi-Gourhan 1964b; Chavaillon et al. 1964, 1967, 1969). Fifty open-air sites were discovered, most of them concentrated in three coastal areas, Kastro (21 sites), Loutra (six sites) and Amalias (19 sites), and only one site further inland (Vasilaki). Only 10 of these sites yielded more than 100 artefacts each, and none more than 200 artefacts. No organic material was preserved. The team divided the sediments. on which the sites are located into four layers (couches A-D), spanning from the Tertiary to the Holocene (Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969). On the basis of a typological analysis of the lithic assemblages and their position in the geological sequences of the sites, the following industrial-chronological succession was proposed: ( 1) a 'classical' Mousterian industry, represented by small samples, with Mousterian points, side scrapers and Levallois debitage (found in couche C); (2) a second, 'evolved' Mousterian industry, found at the lower levels of couche B, attributed to the end of the Middle Palaeolithic, and differing from the first Mousterian industry in the rarity of Mousterian points, the high frequency of Levallois debitage, often in the form of thin, elongated flakes with faceted platforms, the higher frequency of side scrapers and the presence of some Upper Palaeolithic tool-types (e.g., nucleiform end scrapers); (3) an early Upper Palaeolithic industry, poorly represented, from the higher levels of couche B, characterised by the rarity of Levallois debitage and side scrapers, and the presence of various types of end scrapers (carinated, nosed, nucleiform), blades with continuous retouch, small bladelet cores and small cores on pebbles; and (4) Neolithic and Bronze Age material from couche A (Chavaillon et al. 1969: 146-7).

Higgs and Vita-Finzi (1966: 20-2) identified and described three Middle Palaeolithic industries: (1) the 'basal Mousterian' (from the lower levels of Asprochaliko), characterised by elongated Levallois blanks, (2) the 'microMousterian' (from the upper part of the Middle Palaeolithic sequence of Asprochaliko), an industry with generally small implement· size, rare blades, small points and low frequency of finished tools; lately the name 'upper industry' is preferred for this assemblage (Papaconstantinou 1988; Bailey et al. 1992; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997; Gowlett and Carter 1997) and from now on the term 'upper Mousterian' will be used here for this industry; and (3) the 7

In an attempt to relate this sequence to Palaeolithic industries

Palaeolithic to the Neolithic (Jacobsen 1987-1991). A few artefacts with Levallois or Mousterian characteristics were found, some unstratified on the surface and some mixed in the equivocal Aurignacian layer at the base of the sequence (Perles 1987: 49-51). The excavation did not reach the bedrock of the cave, so the possibility that there are unexcavated Middle Palaeolithic layers in the site cannot be ruled out.

found elsewhere in Greece and especially in Epirus, Chavaillon et al. (1969) suggested the following scheme: (1) the Mousterian of couche C is equivalent to the basal Mousterian of Asprochaliko; (2) the 'evolved' Mousterian from the lower levels of couche B is related to the upper Mousterian of Asprochaliko, on the basis of similarities such as general dimensions of the artefacts, rarity of retouched pieces and presence of end scrapers, but despite the absence of the Levallois technique in the upper Mousterian of Asprochaliko; (3) a Mousterian with bifacial leafpoints, found at Vasilaki and at some sites in the Amalias region, is similar to the 'Kokkinopilos industry ' ; and (4) the Upper Palaeolithic industry is related to the Gravettian industries of Epirus.

Kephalari Cave in the same region also contains a long, as yet undated sequence that seems to span from the late Middle Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. The site was excavated briefly (1975- 1976) by a German team (Felsch 1973; Reisch 1976, 1980; see also Runnels 1988: 285-6). The base of the sequence has yielded a small-scale industry, rich in side scrapers (typically very narrow convergent scrapers and dejete scrapers), with some denticulates, few Mousterian points and a small Levallois component. Reisch interpreted this as a late Middle Palaeolithic industry, dating to an interstadial of the last glaciation, perhaps 50,000 BP. It is overlain by an industry rich in typical Aurignacian end scrapers, blades with continuous edge retouch and burins. Reisch interpreted this as an Aurignacian industry, but as in Franchthi, the quantities of material recovered are so small that the existence of a distinct phase, let alone an Aurignacian one, is uncertain (Runnels 1995: 714).

In Corfu between 1964 and 1966, Augustus Sordinas identified and sampled 11 Middle Palaeolithic open-air findspots during a prehistoric survey of the island for his Ph.D. dissertation. He described the lithic material from these sites as Levallois -Mousterian , resembling the Epirus assemblages, particularly in tool typology and platform preparation, and postulated that during periods of low sealevels Corfu was connected to Epirus by a landbridge (Sordinas 1965, 1968a, 1969, 1970a, 1983). He suggested that low sea-levels would also have narrowed the Otranto straight, facilitating contacts between Epirus and southern Italy through Corfu: 'Corfu is a sort of palaeolithic outpost indicating possible connections between the palaeolithic cultures of the southern Balkans and southern Italy' (Sordinas 1969: 398; Sordinas 1983). He also reported similar finds from Levkas, Kephallinia and Zakynthos (Sordinas 1970b). For his dissertation, Sordinas ( 1968b) concentrated on the Neolithic and Bronze Age and did not study the Middle Palaeolithic finds in much detail. His later work on the Palaeolithic of Corfu did not involve Middle Palaeolithic sites.

Not far from Kephalari is the rockshelter of Kokkinovrachos, where, in 1974, E. Protonotariou -Deilaki cut two testtrenches and recovered a typologically Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblage (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1975; KourtessiPhilippakis 1986: 138-9). At the southern end of the Peloponnese , excavation in Apidima Cave since 1978 have yielded interesting anthropological finds (Pitsios l 985a,b, 1996). Two of the skulls found were identified as archaic Homo sapiens (pre-Neanderthal) and provisionally dated between 300,000 and 100,000 BP. Reports on associated remains of human occupation include traces of fire and stone tools, some possibly Mousterian. However, the anthropological and archaeological picture of the cave has not been thoroughly documented. Critics emphasise that the interior of the cave has been repeatedly washed out by the sea and question the association of the skulls, which were found attached to the cave walls in very hard breccia, with the rest of the deposits (e.g., Darlas 1994: 322).

During this first phase of substantial Palaeolithic research in Greece, the main objectives were to accumulate primary evidence and to establish a chronostratigraphic framework. Naturally, the latter relied heavily on evidence from Epirus, the only area with excavated stratified sequences. Using lithic typology, material found elsewhere in Greece was matched to the Epirus assemblages and accordingly placed in the scheme of chronological/industrial development. The assumption was that the nature and pace of cultural change would have been uniform through the area of modern Greece. With the emphasis on chronological classification, open-air sites were regarded as of limited research potential. Surface surveys were important in order to document Palaeolithic presence in hitherto unexplored areas, but the resulting finds could only be interpreted if they closely matched excavated assemblages.

Despite these excavations, Asprochaliko retained its central role in the study of the Greek Mousterian , primarily because, in effect, it remained the only site for which information was widely available. Reports on Kokkinovrachos and Apidima are brief, while the publication of Kephalari (Reisch 1980) is inaccessible. The decline in intensity of Palaeolithic research between the late 1960s and late 1970s is evident not only in the small number of excavations undertaken, but also in the lack of major regional surveys. Nevertheless, the few smallscale surveys undertaken in this period enriched the record with some new sites or at least pointed to the possibility of the existence of Palaeolithic remains in regions that had not been investigated before. From Elia in Laconia (southeastern Peloponnese) Reisch (1982) reported a Levallois-Mousterian industry made on diabase and quartzite. He dated this industry to the beginning of the last glaciation, based on its

2.3.2. A Period of Decline

The late 1960s to late 1970s were dominated by the excavations at Franchthi Cave in the Argolid, northeastern Peloponnese. For a while this was the only sustained Palaeolithic project in Greece . The site preserves an unusually long sequence of deposits from the early Upper 8

palaeogeographical work (Papaconstantinou 1988; Bailey, Cadbury et al. 1997; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997).

association with Neo-Tyrrhenian raised beach deposits. Another industry, represented by a very small number of artefacts and associated with Eu-Tyrrhenian beach deposits in the same area, was postulated to date to the last interglacial. However, the use of ancient sea-shores for the relative dating of archaeological finds is a questionable method, particularly in areas like this that have a complex tectonic history of recent uplift (Lambeck 1996; van Andel, personal communication, 1998). Reisch (in Kowalczyk and Winter 1979) also reported some surface finds from the areas of Kastro and Trypiti in Elis (western Peloponnese) found in the course of a geological survey. Kavvadias (1984) presented what he claimed to be Middle Palaeolithic surface finds from the island of Kephallinia. On the same island, in the course of a geological survey, Cubuk (1976) found some stone tools which he attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic. In both these reports, the finds are not well documented and the claims made should be treated with caution. E. Sarandea-Micha (1986, 1992, 1996), an amateur archaeologist, reported several Palaeolithic workshops and residential sites on the island of Euboea (central Greece), where a few Palaeolithic surface sites had been identified earlier (Sackett et al. 1966). Most of the lithic artefacts collected by Sarandea-Micha seem to date to the Middle Palaeolithic. Typologically Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic material is also present, while the presence of Lower Palaeolithic artefacts is disputed.

The excavations at Klithi ( 1983-1988) seem to have inspired a rejuvenation of interest in the Greek Palaeolithic. From the mid 1980s onward and especially in the 1990s, field research is flourishing. Some of the recent projects focus exclusively on the Palaeolithic, and in others, the Palaeolithic is seen as an indispensable part of regional prehistoric research. So far, very little of this work has been published, and most of what follows is based on preliminary reports. The Cambridge project also acted as a 'greenhouse' for the training of Greek students in Palaeolithic archaeology. Much of the current increase in Greek-led field projects can be credited to this young generation of Greek Palaeolithic archaeologists. At about the time the Cambridge team returned to Epirus, the Stanford University Environmental and Archaeological Survey of the Southern Argolid (western Peloponnese) began (van Andel and Runnels 1987; Jameson et al. 1994; Runnels et al. 1995). Four open-air findspots with Middle Palaeolithic lithic material were identified, all located near lithic raw material sources or along routes leading to the coastal lowlands. The finds were described as 'a small-scale Levallois-Mousterian industry with Mousterian points, side scrapers, denticulates, and bifacial leafpoints' (Runnels 1988: 286). On the basis of Uranium-series dates obtained on pedogenic carbonates found in the lithics-bearing redbeds, three episodes of redbed formation were identified, 'beginning in the mid-Pleistocene and ending before the last glacial maximum' (Pope et al. 1984: 264). Based on another Uranium-series date of 52,000± 13,000 BP, obtained on groundwater carbonate crust formed on lithic artefacts, the lithic material was dated between 50,000 and 40,000 BP, 'probably closer to 50,000 yr BP' (ibid.: 266). In a synthesis of the Middle Palaeolithic industries of the Argolid, Runnels (1988: 286) argued that 'The Levallois-Mousterian of Kephalari (levels 27-28), Elia [Elaea], and the southern Argolid are very similar, especially in the small scale and the presence of bifacial elements, and an estimate of c. 60-40 KYA for an age is plausible'.

2.3.3. Rejuvenation of Interest

In 1979, a small Cambridge University group led by Geoff Bailey returned to Epirus to complete the study and publication of the sites excavated by Eric Higgs in the 1960s (Bailey et al. 1983a,b; Papaconstantinou 1988; Adam 1989; Bailey 1997a). The aim was 'not only to add to knowledge of chronology and stratigraphy, but to develop and improve on the palaeogeographical approach begun by Higgs' (Bailey 1992: 4), continuing the emphasis on off-site data and interdisciplinary research. Eventually the team became engaged in the excavation of the rockshelter of Klithi, which contained late Upper Palaeolithic deposits (Gravettian and Epigravettian) dating to 20,000-12,000 BP (Bailey et al. 1984, 1986; Bailey 1992, 1997a).

In the second half of the 1980s, Andreas Darlas undertook a number of small-scale surveys of Palaeolithic open-air sites in Achaia (northwestern Peloponnese) (Darlas 1989; 1991; 1994: 316-9; 1995a). He found sites with Middle Palaeolithic lithic material on marine terraces along the current coastline (Kalamaki and Lak.kopetra), on the valley of the Peiros River, the main river in the region, and on isolated inland locations. He used a variety of methods for the relative dating of these sites: typology of the lithic assemblages, association of marine terraces with sea level oscillations and stratification of river terraces.

Contributions to Middle Palaeolithic research in Epirus included: (1) the re-analysis and brief report on the stratigraphy and the lithic and faunal assemblages of the Mousterian layers of Asprochaliko (Bailey et al. 1983a); (2) the two T/L dates of c. 96,000 BP for the base of the Mousterian layers at Asprochaliko (Huxtable et al. 1992); (3) the detailed techno-typological analyses of Asprochaliko's Mousterian lithic assemblages (Papaconstantinou 1988; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997; Gowlett and Carter 1997); (4) the attempt to date the Kokkinopilos redbeds and the re-interpretation of their geological history with emphasis on the effects of Epirus' high tectonic activity, resulting in the pessimistic view that none of the archaeological material on the Epirus Palaeolithic open-air sites could be in situ (Bailey et al. 1992); and (5) the discovery of some more open-air sites with surface material attributable to the Middle Palaeolithic (e.g., Tsouknida , Chiliomodi, Parapotamos) in the course of geological and

In the area of Kalamaki, the archaeological material was found at the top of marine terraces, which Darlas (1991) associated with the high sea-levels of OIS Sc, thus providing a maximum date for the artefacts. He described the Middle Palaeolithic material as an evolved, late Mousterian, typologically dominated by side scrapers (single or double). Mousterian points in the assemblage are rare, while 9

denticulates and notches are common. Due to these characteristics, Darlas found this industry similar to the Mousterian from the lower levels of couche B in the open-air sites of Elis (Chavaillon et al. 1969). He recognised, though, three differences between them: in Kalamaki, the Levallois technique is much less common than in Elis and there are almost no typologically Upper Palaeolithic tools and no pebble tools. Nevertheless, Darlas postulated a date similar to the one suggested for the industry from couche B in Elis, namely late Middle Palaeolithic, between 60,000 and 35,000 BP. Upper Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic lithic material is also abundant in Kalamaki. A few kilometres further west, a marine terrace in Mavri Myti (Lakkopetra) was associated by Darlas (1995a) with OIS Sa. He described the lithic material from the top of this terrace as a Mousterian industry in which both the debitage and the tool-typology are influenced by the pebble-shaped local raw material. Abundant cortical flakes, naturally backed knives and pebble-tools (comprising over half the tool-kit) were found alongside discoid cores, Levallois flakes and side scrapers on Levallois or simple blanks. On the basis of his interpretation of the marine terrace stratification, Darlas suggested that this industry dates to the beginning of OIS 4 (c. 80,000 BP). In the valley of the Peiros River, lithic material, probably dating to all prehistoric and historic periods, is abundant. Darlas ( 1994) interpreted this area as a focal point for the collection and primary flaking of raw materials throughout the Palaeolithic. The material assigned to the Middle Palaeolithic (on the basis of the stratification of the findsbearing river terraces) is dominated by cores and unretouched flakes. Characteristic Middle Palaeolithic elements include side scrapers (the most common tool type in the material), discoid and Levallois cores, Levallois flakes and faceted platform preparation. Artefact dimensions are consistently larger than in material from other sites in Achaia, and the intensity of retouch seems low. In an open-air location in the area of Elaeochori, west of Peiros River, Darlas (1989) collected a lithic assemblage that he dated, on typological grounds to the Middle/ Upper Palaeolithic transition, 35,00030,000 BP. He described the finds as an archaic, atypical Aurignacian industry with abundant carinated and nosed end scrapers, usually made on thick blanks. All the other Aurignacian type-fossils (e.g., Aurignacian blades, Dufour blades, Font-Yves points) are absent. Blades account for just 6.8% of the debitage and are usually unretouched. Darlas considered the relatively high frequency of racloirs, notches and denticulates as an indication of the archaic character of the industry. He acknowledged that in the material collected there is a small component of both pre- and post-Aurignacian artefacts, but maintained that the main body of the collection represents a distinct Aurignacian industry and that the site itself is in its primary context. Between 1987 and 1991, Curtis Runnels led a Palaeolithic survey in Thessaly (Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993b) aiming at a more precise understanding of the Thessalian Middle Palaeolithic than the one provided by earlier research in the area. The survey targeted the banks of the Peneios River and selected areas with relict alluvial

palaeosols, as identified in palaeosol maps (Demitrack 1986). Thirty-two surface findspots with Middle Palaeolithic lithic material were found and 211 lithic artefacts were collected in the first field season (Runnels 1988). Contrary to Milojcic et al. (1965), who interpreted the findspots they identified as redeposited remnants of sites destroyed by downcutting by the river, Runnels and van Andel (1993b) considered the Middle Palaeolithic sites as in situ: 'The Middle Paleolithic artifacts are found cemented in gravel beds laid down by the Peneios in the late Pleistocene and exposed by late Holocene incision of the river' (ibid.: 299). According to them, the findspots represent 'short-term camps and kill sites on the banks of the Peneios .River that were alternately buried and exposed by the river as it changed course through time' (ibid.: 303). They also argued that 'there may be more than one facies of the Middle Paleolithic represented, but a definite statement on the sequence or succession of industries of Mousterian type is not possible because the river has undoubtedly removed parts of the sequence' (ibid.: 303). The lithic material collected seems consistent with short-term sites used in the course of hunting forays. Cores and cortical pieces are rare, indicating that 'prepared blanks and finished tools were brought to this part of Thessaly and were discarded along the banks of the Peneios after very little use' (Runnels 1988: 282). The primary stages of tool manufacture took place further away from the river, at other Thessalian sites, where good quality raw material was abundant. Milojcic et al. (1965) dated the Middle Palaeolithic of Thessaly to the Last Interglacial on the basis of the mammalian and molluscan fauna recovered at the sites. But Runnels and van Andel (1993b) cited radiometric dates ( 14C and U/Th) that place the deposition of the finds-bearing geological deposits between 40,000 and 27,000 BP (Schneider 1968: 34; Demitrack 1986; Runnels 1988) and dated the archaeological sites to the same time-interval. They interpreted the fauna} remains reported by Milojcic et al. ( 1965) as a mixture of warm and cold, steppe and forest types, which, in the context of the relatively mild climatic conditions of the southern Balkans, could fit both interstadials and stadials (Runnels and van Andel 1993b: 301-2). Runnels (1988: 277) described the lithic material collected by his and earlier surveys in Thessaly as a mixture of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic types, 'a Levallois-Mousterian facies with bifacial leafpoints, side scrapers, Mousterian points, denticulates, and Aurignacian-type end scrapers, burins, retouched blades, and bifacial leafpoints with rounded bases'. Unlike Milojcic et al. (1965), Theocharis (1967) and Freund (1971), Runnels did not assign the typologically Middle Palaeolithic and the typologically Upper Palaeolithic surface material to two chronologically separate industries randomly mixed by post-depositional processes, but to a single late Mousterian industry. The reasoning for this is that all findspots are located in a thin, geologically not very mature alluvium that is chronologically bracketed between 45,000 and 28,000 BP, on the basis of five 14C and U/Th dates on samples taken from various locations along the Peneios River (Runnels and van Andel 1993b: 300-1). Runnels drew special

In Rodia, the lithic material is associated with a river terrace. The 'fresh', mint condition of the artefacts suggests little if any transport. And just as for the later Middle Palaeolithic findspots in Thessaly, Runnels and van Andel concluded that 'the artifacts probably represent sites on gravel bars that formed within the river system, were briefly occupied during low water, and soon buried with little disturbance' (ibid.: 305). Combining radiometric dates with soil maturity observations, they dated the geological context of the site and the lithic material itself between 400,000 and 200,000 BP (ibid.: 310). The Megalo Monastiri findspots are not firmly dated, but a similar provisional age was postulated, because of the association of the findspots with highly mature Pleistocene palaeosols, dated elsewhere at >200,000 BP, and because of the similarities in the lithic collections with Rodia (ibid.: 314).

attention to the presence of bifacial leafpoints. These, along with the Aurignacian elements in the assemblages, are the basis for his argument that the Thessalian late Middle Palaeolithic is similar to Balkan and southeastern European Mousterian and transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic industries, such as the Szeletian. In the context of the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, Runnels argued that the Thessalian Levallois-Mousterian has close affinities with two of the Epirus industries, namely the upper Mousterian of Asprochaliko and the 'Kokkinopilos industry', due to the overall small artefact size and the presence of bifacial leafpoints. He recognised two successive facies in the Greek Middle Palaeolithic: (1) 'a facies having larger tools but no leafpoints, and making greater use of the Levallois technique', represented by the basal Mousterian of Asprochaliko and some of the surface finds in Corfu and Laconia, and (2) 'a second, later facies rich in side scrapers, points, denticulates, and leafpoints', found in Asprochaliko (the upper Mousterian), Kokkinopilos, Corfu, Kephalari, and most of the open-air sites in the Peloponnese. The latter, representing the majority of the Middle Palaeolithic material found in Greece, is a small-scale Levallois-Mousterian that incorporates typical Upper Palaeolithic artefact types in both caves and open-air sites (Runnels 1988: 287).

Although in this phase only surface surveys of Middle Palaeolithic sites were undertaken, crucial developments in the field resulted from re-visiting Higgs' work in Epirus. The detailed analyses of Asprochaliko' s two Mousterian industries showed that the differences between them were exaggerated in the original studies. Hence, the chronostratigraphic scheme established in the 1960s on the basis of these industries and encompassing all the Greek Mousterian was flawed. At the same time, TL dates from Asprochaliko (c. 96,000 BP) were the first radiometric dates to document that the . Greek Middle Palaeolithic extended back at least into the last interglacial. As a result, Asprochaliko continued to be a major reference point in Mousterian studies in Greece.

In the same paper, Runnels attempted to relate the Greek Middle Palaeolithic to the then recent major developments in the Near East (Valladas et al. 1987, 1988). He put forward the hypothesis that Greece and the Near East were inhabited at about the same time (60,000 BP) by late Neanderthal populations driven away from central Europe by climatic deterioration and that the Greek Middle Palaeolithic is relatively late (c. 50,000-32,000 BP), is similar to the Szeletian of Hungary and might be the product of late Neanderthals in contact with anatomically modem humans. In more recent publications, Runnels did change his opinion that the Greek Middle Palaeolithic is a late phenomenon, but still supports the scheme of two chronologically successive facies of Greek Mousterian industries (as described above), the later of which he dates to c. 60,000-30,000 BP (e.g., Runnels 1995; Runnels and van Andel 1993b, in press).

2.3.4. Recent Work

Over the last decade, the revival of interest triggered by the Klithi Project has resulted in several major field projects. With the eventual publication of their results, Asprochaliko will cease to be the only well documented stratified Mousterian site in Greece. The earliest of these projects was the excavation (1987-1997) of Theopetra Cave (Thessaly), located at the side of the Peneios River, but much further inland than the open-air sites. Theopetra has provided a stratigraphic sequence spanning from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Neolithic (Kyparissi-Apostolika 1990, 1991, 1996, 1999; Fakorellis et al. 1993). For the Middle Palaeolithic part of the sequence, preliminary reports cite six conventional 14 C dates that span from 33,000 to 40,000 BP, with error limits up to 4,000 years. These are likely to be minimum dates, but so far there is no reference to absolute dates with methods reaching beyond the radiocarbon limit. A hard layer at the bottom of the Middle Palaeolithic sequence, right above the bedrock, is thought to represent periods with cold climatic conditions. A part of the stratigraphic sequences bracketed by two 14C dates of 25,354±2,132 BP and 38,079±1,942 BP is interpreted as potentially containing deposits corresponding to the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. This point and other stratigraphic issues remain to be clarified in the final publication of the excavations. Judging from the 14C dates, the Upper Palaeolithic occupation of the cave seems to start just before 14,000 BP, but the preliminary reports contain no reference to a stratigraphic hiatus between the Middle Palaeolithic or

Runnels and van Andel (1993b) also reported late Lower Palaeolithic or early Middle Palaeolithic finds from Rodia (Findspot 30) and Megalo Monastiri (Findspots 50-55) in Thessaly. The lithic material, a total of 114 artefacts, is primarily made from white quartz cobbles, with a few artefacts made from reddish-brown radiolarite. Unworked cobbles of both raw materials are abundant in both areas. Simple flakes with large, broad platforms represent the majority of the material collected. The Levallois technique is present in only a few of the artefacts made from radiolarite. The most characteristic artefacts, classifiable either as cores or as choppers and chopping tools, are quartz pebbles, flaked with direct hard hammer percussion along a single line to form a long cutting edge. Tools on flakes include end- and side-scrapers, notches and denticulates, often formed by Clactonian notches, bees and intensively retouched composite tools.

11

overall artefact density and preliminary indications from a micromorphological analysis of the site's deposits led Panagopoulou to suggest that the occupation of the site was sporadic and that 'the focus of the settlement system during the Middle Palaeolithic would not be the cave but the openair sites of the area ' (ibid.: 261). Similarities between Theopetra and the Thessalian open-air sites (Milojcic et al. 1965; Freund 1971; Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993b) include the use of the same types of raw materials and the presence of Levallois debitage, dejete scrapers and bifacial leafpoints.

the transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic and the late Upper Palaeolithic layers. The Middle Palaeolithic deposits at the central part of the cave are rich in ash remnants, presumably representing simple hearths. They contain abundant stone tools and plant remains, but hardly any faunal material. By contrast, in the eastern and darker part of the cave, there are hardly any traces of fire, but lithic and faunal material appear in very high densities. It is not clear yet whether these differences are the outcome of spatial patterns of distribution of in-site activities or are due to localised differences in soil preservation. With the exception of a reference to an Ursus speleus tooth (Kyparissi-Apostolika 1990), further information on the faunal remains is not yet available. Wild almond, wild pea and blackberry are among the species represented in the burnt seeds recovered.

In the 1990s, the number of excavations of Palaeolithic sites has increased significantly. Two of these sites, the caves of Maara and Kalamakia, contain Middle Palaeolithic deposits. In 1992, a test trench was cut in Maara Cave in eastern Macedonia (Trandalidou and Darlas 1995; Trandalidou 1996). The preliminary reports place the site at 50,000 BP on the basis of absolute dates (probably , though not clearly stated in the reports, obtained with ESR) , on which no further details are given. Two successive fossil-bearing layers were identified, but Trandalidou regarded all the material found as representing a single unit. The faunal remains encompass species that live in cold or open environments (Equus Caballus, Coelodonta antiquitatis, Mammuthus primigenius) with animals adapted to more moderate climatic conditions (Cervus sps., Megaloceros giganteus). Trandalidou regarded this mixture of species as representing the climatic conditions of the early Wilrm. Rhinoceros and mammoth are found only in the lower part of the deposits, while equids are the most common species throughout the sequence. Remains of carnivores (Ursus spelaeus) are sparse.

In a preliminary report on the Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages from Theopetra, Panagopoulou ( 1999) identified variability in reduction strategies and tool morphology , high frequency of retouched tools, intensive utilisation of lithic resources and low overall artefact density . The report does not present the material by stratigraphic unit, leaving open the possibility for stratigraphic and chronological structuring of some of the observed variability. The primary raw material was a local, good-quality radiolarite. Chert and quartzite were also used. Several methods of blank production were employed: Levallois (lineal, recurrent unidirectional, recurrent centripetal), discoid, Quina and non-systematic. Recurrent Levallois methods, both centripetal and unidirectional, are the most abundant and consistently represented. Additional research is needed to clarify whether these different teduction strategies 'represent successive stages in a single reduction process, or independent approaches to flake production stratigraphically and chronologically distinct' (ibid.: 253). Relatively small flakes (30-40 mm) comprise the main component of the debitage. There is also a distinct group of laminar debitage produced from single platform cores, often with platform preparation. These flakes/blades were heavily selected as blanks for retouched tools. Scrapers of various sub-types are the dominant tool-type, while denticulates and notches are not common. The points (Levallois or Mousterian) often show evidence of reduction of the striking platform and thinning of the proximal end, 'probably as a hafting modification' (ibid.: 260). Bifacial and unifacial leafpoints were only found out of stratigraphic context. Elsewhere in Greece, bifacial leafpoints have only been found in open-air sites. The high frequency and typological range of the retouched tools put Theopetra in contrast with the other two Greek Middle Palaeolithic sheltered sites (Asprochaliko and Kalamakia) that have yielded substantial lithic assemblages .

Only 38 lithic artefacts were recovered in the test trench, all in fresh, 'mint' condition. Almost all of them were found in the upper layer. Over 75% of them are made from quartz. The rest, including the only Levallois flake and the only blade found, is made on flint. The tools, all common Mousterian types, encompass 50% of the material. Darlas described the assemblage as a Typical Mousterian industry that 'seems to belong to a very evolved stage of the Middle Palaeolithic, as is evident mainly by the characteristics of the flint tools' (Trandalidou and Darlas 1995: 599). No cores were found, and flakes and tools have no or very little cortex on their dorsal surfaces, suggesting that the primary stages of reduction did not take place at the site. Finished tools and blanks were brought into the site and only resharpened there, as indicated by the resharpening flakes found. All these, along with the high frequency of tools and the small amount of lithic material recovered, led Trandalidou to argue that the site represents a short-term occupation, probably a killing, butchering or scavenging site. Much further south, in the southern Peloponnese, the Middle Palaeolithic cave of Kalamakia is subject to a more long-term excavation (1993-present) (de Lumley and Darlas 1994, 1996; Darlas 1996; Darlas and de Lumley 1999). The site is part of a complex of caves situated on cliffs overlooking the sea. The excavators argue that in the Pleistocene these caves would have alternated between being above and under the sea, dependin g on the fluctuations of the sea-levels, but the particular cave under excavation has not had its Pleistocene

In Theopetra , most cores are heavily reduced, the tools show evidence of extensive utilisation and repeated resharpening, and potentially more reduced tool types are more common than less reduced ones (double side versus single side scrapers). This intensive utilisation of lithic resources cannot be attributed to raw material shortage. Panagopoulou (ibid.) suggested that it might be linked with the function of the site within the regional settlement-procurement system. The low 12

occupation has become a standard part of the research agendas of regional diachronic surveys. A good example of this is the Nikopolis Project, a surface survey of the Preveza District (southwestern Epirus) run by Boston University and the Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (19911996) (Wiseman and Dousougli-Zachos 1994; Wiseman and Zachos in press). Several open-air sites with Middle Palaeolithic material were discovered (e.g., Alonaki, Valanidorachi, Anavatis, Kranea), and there was further investigation and a new interpretation of the geological history of the open-air sites in the region and a series of absolute dates on sediment samples from a number of these sites (Runnels and van Andel 1993a, in press; van Andel 1998; Runnels, van Andel et al. 1999).

deposits washed out by the sea after the end of the last interglacial. To explain this, they postulate the following process: In 01S 5a, the cave was covered by the water. After that and for the entire remaining length of the last glaciation, sea-levels were always lower than in 01S Sa and the cave was above sea-level, overlooking a lowland plain. At c. 40,000 BP, the cave's entrance was completely blocked by a pile of rockfalls. Only in the Holocene, the rising sea eroded away the rockfalls and re-exposed the cave. This theory, though, seems not to take into account the tectonic action that has resulted in substantial recent uplift along this coast. On the basis of this theory, Dar las and de Lumley attribute the lower part of the existing sequence in the cave to marine sediments deposited in 01S Sa. Right above these start the archaeological deposits, the base of which is associated with the beginning of OIS 4 (c. 80,000-75,000 BP). The end of human occupation in the cave is placed at c. 40,000 BP. The dates quoted are based on this interpretation of the process and timing of accumulation of the cave deposits. Prospects for absolute dates are relatively poor, due to lack of material suitable for radiometric dating (Darlas, personal communication, 1998).

A surface survey on Alonissos, an island off Thessaly (Panagopoulou et al. in press) resulted in several findspots that yielded a mixture of lithic artefacts characteristic of the Middle or Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. Intact stratified sequences, which would facilitate a more reliable separation of the three components of these industries, were not found in the few test trenches cut. Levallois reduction (lineal or recurrent centripetal) is dominant among the Mousterian material. Cores are heavily reduced and decortification products are rare, suggesting conditions of raw material stress.

The preliminary reports identify two main occupation levels. Both accommodate hearths, which either involve no lithic structures or very simple ones. There is also reference to a number of other simple lithic structures. Faunal remains are abundant, most very fragmentary and often burnt. The identifiable material comes predominantly from capra and deer, while other species (wild boar, bovids, rhinoceros, elephant and various carnivores) are rare. The microfauna recovered points to relatively moderate climatic conditions with short intervals of deterioration. The lithic industry was made on various raw materials (flint, quartz, limestone), but the most interesting one is an andesitic rock (lapis lacedemonius), the sources of which seem to be located about 30 km away from the cave. This 'exotic' raw material was found almost exclusively in the form of retouched tools and Levallois debitage. The most frequently used raw materials were flint in the lower level industry and quartz in the upper level. In the upper level, there were also shells (Glycymeris violacescens) retouched into scrapers. In general, it appears that the primary stages of reduction did not take place in the cave, since few by-products of these stages have been identified. By contrast, resharpening flakes are abundant, indicating that blanks and finished tools were frequently resharpened in the cave. The lithic material is described as a Typical Mousterian industry with small average implement size. About 90% of the lithics are smaller than 20 mm, leaving only c. 120 pieces over 20 mm in length, on which Darlas and de Lumley (1999) seem to have based all their quantitative and qualitative remarks. According to them, the Levallois technique appears in moderate frequency. Side scrapers and points are the most common tool-types, while denticulates and notches are relatively rare. The upper level industry is described as a 'mousteroid' industry, 'qualitatively different' and 'less carefully executed' than that of the lower lever, with tools that 'do not belong to the standardised Mousterian types' (ibid.: 300-1).

In northern Greece, Runnels and van Andel recently discovered several open-air Middle Palaeolithic sites in the area of Langadas in central Macedonia (Tj. van Andel, personal communication, 1998). This research was part of a long-term project of the University of Thessaloniki primarily focusing on the Neolithic occupation of the area. Further east, in Thrace, 23 findspots that might represent Palaeolithic open-air sites were identified in 1993 (Efstratiou and Ammerman 1996; Ammerman et al. 1999). This was the first systematic survey for Palaeolithic sites in an area that lies immediately by the 'gate ' to Europe from the Middle East. Preliminary reports maintain that at least some of the lithic material dates to the Middle Palaeolithic. Finds include characteristic Mousterian artefacts, such as discoid cores and double side scrapers, along with two bifacial tools, which are very rare in the Greek Palaeolithic. Preliminary geomorphological observations suggest that the sites were located in a valley with abundant water resources, such as small lakes, swamps and fresh water springs that were presumably attractive to both hunter-gatherers and their potential prey. Nearby flint sources provided an additional attraction to the area. This pattern is rather familiar from other Greek regions, like Epirus (e.g., Runnels 1995). Recent surface finds and excavations in northwest Turkey (e.g., Arsebtik 1993; Arsebtik and Ozbasaran 1999; Kuhn et al. 1996; Stiner et al. 1996), immediately to the east, underline the importance of this region, which, despite modem national borders, should be treated as a geographical unit with Thrace. Short term surveys undertaken in the late 1980s and the 1990s also generated a number of references to Middle Palaeolithic open-air sites in various parts of Greece. Papaconstantinou (1989) identified Middle Palaeolithic material at low altitudes and near the current coastline in the areas of Aetolia and Akamania (west-central Greece). In

On top of the increase in the number of Palaeolithic excavations in the 1990s, the search for traces of Palaeolithic 13

Levkas, Runnels and van Andel recovered Middle and Upper Palaeolithic surface material from red earth deposits (Dousougli 1999). In Zakynthos, two Middle Palaeolithic surface sites were identified, one of which is interpreted as a workshop for the primary flaking of flint pebbles (KourtessiPhilippakis and Sorel 1996). The lithic material is compared to the Pontinian in Italy, primarily because both industries are made on small flint pebbles. The age of the sites is estimated on the basis of their association with marine terraces and of the morphology of the lithic artefacts. Finally, Middle Palaeolithic artefacts were found in a test trench in Peristeri I Cave (Kouklessi), c. 10 km north of Asprochaliko in Epirus. Further excavations at the site are due to continue.

Andel 1993a,b). This combination is not always the outcome of a co-operation of experts from both fields, but rather of archaeologists employing their geological knowledge in the field (e.g., Darlas 1989, 1991, 1995a; Reisch 1982; Sardinas 1969, 1983). Two main categories of geological arguments have been used: (1) glacial/ interglacial sea-level history and identification of associated beach deposits (Reich 1982; Darlas 1991; 1995a), and (2) palaeosol stratigraphy (Runnels and van Andel 1993a,b; van Andel 1998). The archaeological arguments used for relative dating are typological, metrical and occasionally technological analogies of the lithic assemblages recovered from the undated sites with more securely dated material in Greece or elsewhere in Europe (Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Darlas 1989; 1991; 1995a; Runnels and van Andel 1993a,b). In Greece, Asprochaliko has been most frequently used for reference points for such analogies (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969; Runnels 1988). Lithic collections with elongated , blade-like Levallois debitage have sometimes been regarded as 'developed ', 'evolved' Mousterian assemblages dating to the late Middle Palaeolithic (Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969). Equally , the presence of Upper Palaeolithic tool types in assemblages with a predominantly Mousterian character has been commonly and implicitly taken to indicate chronological proximity to the Upper Palaeolithic (e.g., Milojcic et al. 1965, Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969; Runnels 1988, 1995; Darlas 1994). Small average artefact size, dominance of nonLevallois techniques and presence of pseudo-Levallois points are used as criteria for ascribing assemblages to a late phase of the Greek Mousterian (Runnels 1988), while the presence of bifacial leafpoints often 'makes' a collection transitional between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic (ibid .: 282, 287). However, these parameters can be affected by a variety of factors and have no clear chronological or cultural implications, particularly in an area like Greece, where there is no established scheme of association between chronology and the typological or technological characteristics of lithic assemblages or individual artefacts. Similarly, 'type-fossils' such as bifacial implements, pseudo-Levallois points and offset scrapers are not reliable chronological or cultural markers when found in isolation.

The preceding review of Middle Palaeolithic work in Greece shows that the evidence collected so far is insufficient to address many of the key issues that have motivated research. The establishment of a local scheme of chronostratigraphic succession, a major objective in the history of the field, has been impeded by the coarse chronological resolution and the lack of long stratified sequences in the few excavated sites. This condition also hampers the search for covariations between cultural and environmental changes. Analyses of the lithic material have often been superficial and have done little to contribute to the identification of cultural patterns. Only in the last decade have researchers begun to gain insights into the nature and extent of technological variability within the Greek Mousterian. Furthermore, because many parts of Greece have not been thoroughly investigated, it is unclear at the moment whether regional patterns of site density and distribution reflect differences in Middle Palaeolithic occupation or just imbalances in the intensity of research (Bailey 1995). Although the number of excavated sheltered sites has increased lately, these continue to be few and geographically separated. Studies of regional adaptations need to incorporate the open-air sites, which have been mostly overlooked, even if this requires working with a broad time resolution. 2.4.

CHRONOLOGY AND DATING

In the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, absolute dates have been used alongside the relative dating methods of geology and lithic typology. Since the number of excavations is small and the majority of the known sites are open-air sites with a shortage of material suitable for radiometric dating, absolute dates are scarce; many sites have not been dated at all (Kephalari and Kalamakia Caves, most of the open-air sites); in general, there are few dates per site (e.g., Asprochaliko) or only dates with methods that do not surpass the 40,000 BP limit (Theopetra); of the existing absolute dates, some were acquired in the 1960s (Bailey et al. 1983a) or are insufficiently documented (Huxtable et al. 1992); dates from unexcavated surface sites usually refer to the geological horizon with which the finds were associated rather than the cultural material itself (Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel in press).

2.4.1. The Onset of the Middle Palaeolithic

Radiometric dates from sites in Epirus (Asprochaliko, Kokkinopilos, Anavatis) show that at least in this part of the Greek peninsula the Middle Palaeolithic had started by the last interglacial (Huxtable et al. 1992; Runnels and van Andel in press; van Andel 1998). The presence of earlier Mousterian material is controversial. From their surveys in Thessaly, Epirus and central Macedonia , Runnels and van Andel (1993a,b, in press) reported a series of lithic collections which they dated to 400,000 -200,000 BP. They suggested that this material is late Lower Palaeolithic and is separated by a chronological gap from the Mousterian, which in Greece does not start before the last interglacial. Whether these collections should be called Lower or Middle Palaeolithic is in many ways a debate over a technical issue. The most commonly used marker for the transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic is the use of the Levallois

The majority of the undated sites have been assigned dates on the basis of combinations of geological arguments with archaeological classification schemes (e.g., Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969; Darlas 1989 ; 1991; 1995a; Runnels and van 14

bifacial leafpoints and other elements that elsewhere in Europe are associated with the early Upper Palaeolithic. For example, Darlas (1994) suggested that two successive phases can be identified in the transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic period in Greece: (1) an 'evolved Middle Palaeolithic', rich in racloirs and small Levallois flakes, and with few end scraper and blades (as examples of this group he cites the material from Thessaly and from Kokkinopilos in Epirus), and (2) an early Aurignacian industry, found in Kephalari and Elaeochori, that combines Mousterian elements (Levallois flakes, small discoid cores, faceted platforms and racloirs) with Aurignacian ones (rich in carinated end scrapers and dihedral and busques burins). The underlying assumption here is that the presence . of some Upper Palaeolithic elements (few end scrapers and blades) makes a Mousterian industry 'evolved ' and chronologically closer to the Upper Palaeolithic, while a more even mixture of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic elements signifies an early Aurignacian industry . These, though, are unjustified assumptions for an area where little is known about the chronology and the process of the Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transition and where blade industries had been common at least from as far back as the last interglacial.

technique (Mellars 1996: 4), but there are no clear-cut typological differences between the two periods. Many researchers have suggested the replacement of the terms Lower and Middle Palaeolithic with the unifying term Early Palaeolithic (e.g., Gamble 1986; Rolland 1986), as indeed Runnels and van Andel (in press; Runnels 1995) tend to do in their more recent work. Nevertheless, the surface material in question is in some of its attributes unlike any excavated Palaeolithic assemblage from Greece. It is likely to represent a variant of the Greek Mousterian that predates the last interglacial, or a variant that is synchronous but functionally different to the Mousterian material dating from OIS 5 onwards, or even industries that pre-date the Mousterian. The issue cannot be resolved with the current fragmentary picture of technological variability and chronological change within and before the Greek Mousterian. In any case and given the shortage of absolute dates from Greece, the last interglacial can only be treated as a tentative chronological limit for the onset of the Middle Palaeolithic. 2.4.2. The End of the Middle Palaeolithic and the Transition to the Upper Palaeolithic The effects of the lack of secure dates are more obvious in regard to the issue of the end of the Mousterian in Greece and the transition to the Upper Palaeolithic. Much of the alleged late Middle Palaeolithic, early Aurignacian or transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic lithic material has been assigned dates on the basis of a combination of artefact typology with interpretations of the geological history and chronology of the finds-bearing deposits. The lack of anthropological remains further contributes to the current uncertainties.

The shortage of excavated sequences, the coarse stratigraphic resolution of the known sites and, in some cases, the lack of detailed documentation, make it difficult to accept that transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic horizons have been isolated in any of the cases that such claims have been made. For Theopetra Cave , for example, preliminary reports contain no information on the archaeological material recovered from the transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic deposits (Kyparissi-Apostolika 1996, 1999). Rather, they give the impression that a transitional stage is postulated only because the 14C results date this part of the sequence to a time range that elsewhere in eastern Europe coincides with the Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transition. The excavated deposits of Kephalari Cave may conespond chronologically to the Middle Palaeolithic and the transition to the Upper Palaeolithic (Reisch 1980). There are indications for a hiatus between the two time periods, but, as Runnels notes, 'the layers in question are thin and have very few artefacts , a difficulty complicated by a lack of dates for the sequence and full publication' (Runnels 1995: 714). Runnels (1988 , 1995) argued that the open-air sites in Thessaly contain a single transitional industry, characterised by typologically Middle Palaeolithic and typologically Aurignacian material and bifacial leafpoints , all found in the same depositional horizon. Claims for the presence of transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic lithic material have also been made for a number of undated surface sites in Thessaly and the Peloponnese (Theocharis 1967; Chavaillon et al. 1969).

The end of the Middle Palaeolithic in Greece is usually placed between 35,000 BP and 30,000 BP, but relevant radiometric dates are sparse. At Asprochaliko , the end of the 14 Middle Palaeolithic occupation is undated. A C date of >39,000 BP from the upper Mousterian layer (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Bailey et al. 1983a) is not reliable (see Chapter III) and in any case the sample dated did not come from the very top of the Middle Palaeolithic layers. In the Argolid, material from an open-air site was dated to 52,000±13 ,000 BP, but this is probably a minimum date (Pope et al. 1984). In Theopetra Cave, deposits bracketed by two conventional 14C dates of 25,354±2,132 BP and 38,079± 1,942 BP are seen as potentially containing transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic material (KyparissiApostolika 1996, 1999). Of these, the older date in particular is likely to be a minimum date. Runnels and van Andel (1993b) dated some of the open-air sites in Thessaly to between 45,000 and 28,000 BP ( 14C and U/Th). In summary, for the time being the end of the Mousterian in any part of Greece can only be dated with a resolution of approximately 17,000 years.

Runnels (1995) argued that in the Thessalian open-air sites there is evidence of acculturation between the Mousterian inhabitants of the area and groups of anatomically modern humans migrating into Europe from the Near East. It is very difficult, though, to establish a case of acculturation using material with a time resolution of approximately 17,000 years. A horizon containing a mixture of Middle and early Upper Palaeolithic lithic material could have resulted from independent visits by Neanderthals and anatomically modern

Alleged transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic industries have been reported from excavated and surface sites throughout Greece. This material is either undated or dated by absolute dates of a broad resolution. Most importantly, its transitional Middle/Upper Palaeolithic character is questionable. Usually , lithic material is identified as transitional because of the presence of blades, end scrapers, 15

(1988, 1995) suggested a similar scheme, although somewhat modified to accommodate the evidence accumulated since the 1960s. He identified an early elongated LevalloisMousterian, starting at c. 100,000 BP, and a late Mousterian (c. 60,000-40,000 BP), Levallois or non-Levallois, with overall small implement size. Runnels used the evidence from Asprochaliko and other sites in Epirus in conjunction with absolute dates and lithic material from open-air sites in Thessaly and the Argolid. Asprochaliko, though, still the type-site of this model, is the only site where both phases are present in a stratigraphic succession associated with radiometric dates and remains the reference point for analogies between lithic material from different parts of Greece.

humans, separated in time by decades, centuries or millennia. The case for acculturation between the two human groups remains difficult to prove, even in the sites (e.g., SaintCesaire, Arcy-sur-Cure) that have provided the most convincing evidence (Leveque et al. 1993; Hublin et al. 1996; d' Errico 1998). At the moment, there is no secure evidence that the two human groups coincided in Greece. In addition, Runnels assumes that in Greece, Mousterian industries were produced by Neanderthals and early Upper Palaeolithic industries by anatomically modern humans. This association cannot be assumed a priori, but is one of the issues open to investigation. Collections from open-air sites often contain at least a few typologically Aurignacian artefacts (usually carinated or nosed end scrapers), generating suggestions for early Upper Palaeolithic occupation . Such material was found in open-air sites in the western Peloponnese (Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969; Darlas 1989), Thessaly (Milojcic et al. 1965; Freund 1971; Runnels and van Andel 1993b), Epirus (Runnels, Karimali et al. in press; Runnels and van Andel in press) , at the base of the sequence at Franchthi Cave (Perles 1987) and in Seidi Cave in Boeotia (Stampfuss 1942; Schmid 1965). All this material is poorly dated. The collections from Elaeochori (northwestern Peloponnese) (Darlas 1989) and Spilaio (Epirus) (Runnels, Karimali et al. in press; Runnels and van Andel in press) are regarded by their finders as representing distinct Aurignacian industries rather than mixtures of typologically Aurignacian artefacts with material from other periods. They both have a high frequency of end scrapers, predominantly nosed and carinated , but almost no blades. They share these characteristics with the Kleisoura rockshelters (northeastern Peloponnese) (Koumouzelis and Kozlowski 1996; Koumouzelis et al. 1996), where a stratified and radiometrically Aurignacian industry was found, the only one so far in Greece. However, this is a late Aurignacian (32,000-19,500 BP) (Kozlowski, personal communication, 1999), over 10,000 years later than the early Aurignacian of Bacho Kiro (45-43,000 BP) (Banesz and Kozlowski 1993; Kozlowski 1992; Mellars and Stringer 1989; Mellars 1990, 1996) and persisting well after Gravettian industries were established in northwestern Greece and further north in the Balkans (Bailey 1997a; Bailey et al. 1999). Consequently , the presence of typologically Aurignacian artefacts does not necessarily indicate an early Upper Palaeolithic date and an association with the spread of modern humans into Europe .

Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou (1997: 477) have challenged these models, arguing that they are based on comparisons that are highly inappropriate for the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, 'where there is no clearly established pattern of relationship between dates and formal, technological and typological features of the flint industries'. Others, such as Darlas (1994) consider the current evidence as insufficient to permit a synthesis. In order to investigate the validity of the suggested schemes of chronological subdivisions of the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, one needs to address two issues: (1) whether the two industrial groups identified were distinct groups with widespread distribution, and (2) whether they show a chronological patterning that would allow us to consider them as chronologically successive phases. Levallois-Mousterian material with a tendency to elongation has so far been identified in open-air and sheltered sites in Epirus, Corfu, Thessaly and Elis. The basal Mousterian of Asprochaliko has traditionally been the most characteristic example of this group. But the recent analysis of the basal Mousterian (Gowlett and Carter 1997) has shown that the elongated Levallois debitage amounts to only c. 20% of an assemblage otherwise dominated by small-scale (30 mm average length) discoid debitage. There are indications that the elongated material clusters towards the top of the basal Mousterian deposits. Elongated Levallois material was also found in most of the open-air sites in Epirus and Corfu, always in unexcavated or unstratified contexts. TL dates from three of these sites (Anavatis: 128,000±23,000 BP, Kokkinopilos: ::;91,000±14,000 BP, Ayia: 65,500±6,800 BP, 84,000±11,000 BP, 83,100±12,000 BP) (van Andel 1998; Runnels and van Andel in press) broadly coincide with the Asprochaliko dates in placing the elongated Levallois industries in the first half of the last interglacial/glacial cycle.

2.4.3. Chronological Phases

Higgs and Vita Finzi ( 1966) suggested that Levallois industries with a tendency to elongation dominated at the early part of the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, while towards the end of it there was a shift to small-scale Mousterian industries. Chavaillon et al. (1967 , 1969), Milojcic et al. (1965) and Kourtessi-Philippakis (1986: 2 18-20) adopted this scheme. The identification of these two industrial groups and their placing in a chronological sequence was largely based on Asprochaliko. Typological and metrical comparisons of the Epirot assemblages with surface material from Elis (western Peloponnese) and Thessaly (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Chavaillon et al. 1969) were found not to contradict this proposed sequence. More recently, Runnels

In Thessaly, elongated Levallois material has been found in open-air sites (Theocharis 1967; Freund 1971) and in Theopetra Cave (Panagopoulou 1999). At this stage of the analysis of Theopetra, it is not clear whether the elongated Levallois clusters stratigraphically at any part of the sequence. Absolute dates from the cave reach only as far back as 44,000 BP, but are likely to include minimum dates. Elongated Levallois material was also found in open-air sites in Elis in an apparently higher geological layer (couche B) than a 'classical' Levallois-Mousterian industry. Chavaillon et al. (1969: 146-7) attributed this elongated industry to the 16

Typology and size seem to be the primary focus of Higgs and Vita-Finzi (1966), Chavaillon et al. (1969) and Runnels ( 1988) when attempting to establish parallels between the assemblages they ascribed to a late phase of the Greek Mousterian. Arguably, some of these collections (i.e., from Argolid and Thessaly) are too small to allow the use of any other criteria. These criteria were sometimes used selectively, at the expense of other attributes of the assemblages. This is best exemplified in the case of the parallels between Asprochaliko' s upper Mousterian and the couche B industry in Elis (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Chavaillon et al. 1969), where some typological and metrical similarities were considered important enough to outweigh the clear technological difference between them: the couche B assemblages have a high frequency of Levallois debitage, often in the form of thin, elongated flakes with faceted platform preparation, while Asprochaliko' s upper Mousterian is a non-Levallois industry. Broad typological categories such as side scrapers or points encompass a range of variability that makes them of little use for inter-assemblage comparisons. The upper Mousterian of Asprochaliko, for example, is characterised by the use of an idiosyncratic primary reduction sequence for the manufacture of pseudoLevallois points (see Chapter Ill). These points, though, 'when found in isolation, they are simply pseudo-Levallois points' (Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997: 477). Type-fossils like bifacial leafpoints are particularly unreliable, because they have never been found in secure contexts in Greece, and outside Greece they show a wide chronological and geographical distribution (Allsworth-Jones 1986, 1990). Average artefact size is also a non-reliable criterion, as it can be affected by either deliberate technological choice or raw material availability. At least for as long as systematic raw material studies are rare in Greece (for an exception see Perles 1987, 1990), it is not possible to assess whether small scale lithic industries represent a chronologically defined cultural trend or are the result of raw material availability. Furthermore, most of the existing references to small-scale Greek Palaeolithic industries are based on visual examination of the material, rather than on statistically processed measurements. The case of Asprochaliko's upper Mousterian, which was originally named 'micro-Mousterian' (Higgs 1965; Higgs and VitaFinzi 1966; Bailey et al. 1983a) but in recent re-examinations proved to be of the same average implement size as the underlying basal Mousterian (Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997; GowJett and Carter 1997; contra Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966), is an illustration of the shortcomings of the intuitive method of visual examination of assemblages. In summary, the technological integrity of this second group of Greek Mousterian industries is also questionable.

end of the Middle Palaeolithic, on the basis of its geological context, the presence of early Upper Palaeolithic tool-types and probably, although not explicitly stated in the publications, because at that time elongated industries were considered to be a late phenomenon in the Mousterian. In all cases of assemblages assigned to the postulated group of elongated Levallois industries, the elongated Levallois debitage constitutes only a relatively small component of the total debitage. The reliability of the dating of this material is highly variable. But most importantly, it is uncertain whether each one of these assemblages represents a single industry with an elongated Levallois component or a chronological palimpsest of industries with different technological characteristics. Even in excavated sites, the stratigraphic resolution is too coarse to allow much temporal subdivision of the lithic material. In summary and for the time being, the technological and chronological integrity of this group throughout Greece is questionable. In the 1960s, Higgs and Vita-Finzi (1966) and Chavaillon et al. (1969) drew parallels between the 'evolved' Mousterian from the lower levels of couche B in open-air sites in Elis and the upper Mousterian of Asprochaliko on the basis of similarities such as overall artefact dimensions, rarity of retouched pieces and the presence of end scrapers. This gave rise to the concept of a 'micro-Mousterian' phase at the later part of the Greek Middle Palaeolithic, based on the upper Mousterian industry (then called 'micro-Mousterian') of Asprochaliko, dated at >39,900 BP. More recently, Runnels ( 1988) added to this group assemblages from open-air sites in Thessaly (40,000-27,000 BP) (ibid.; Runnels and van Andel 1993b) and the Argolid (50,000 and 40,000 BP) (Pope et al. 1984), from Elia in southern Peloponnese (Reisch 1982) and from Kephalari Cave (Reisch 1980). Although he did not call this group 'micro-Mousterian', he argued that these assemblages show similarities, such as small average artefact size and presence of side scrapers, points and bifacial leafpoints, and consistency in the associated absolute dates, that allow us to regard them as a group of contemporaneous industries marking the last part of the Greek Mousterian. He also argued that this late phase is more widespread geographically than the earlier one and that areas such as Thessaly and the Peloponnese were only occupied towards the end of the Middle Palaeolithic (c. 45,000-30,000 BP) (Runnels 1995). Absolute dates from sites in various parts of Greece do cluster between 50,000 BP and 40,000 BP: Maara Cave in Macedonia (Trandalidou and Darlas 1995), Asprochaliko in Epirus (Bailey et al. 1983a), Theopetra Cave (KyparissiApostolika 1996) and open-air sites in Thessaly (Runnels and van Andel 1993b) and the Argolid (Pope et al. 1984). At least some of these, though, are likely to be minimum dates (Theopetra), or are unreliable 14C dates (Asprochaliko). Most importantly, the number of absolute dates and the number and distribution of dated sites is for the moment too small to permit any suggestion of inter-regional differences in the chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic in Greece to be either dismissed or substantiated.

It is not clear at the moment whether the known lithic variability in the Greek Middle Palaeolithic reflects chronological developments or is related to functional or cultural factors. This, of course, relates to the broader problem of the significance of Mousterian industrial variability, an issue that has been a major focus of attention in Middle Palaeolithic archaeology (Binford and Binford 1966, 1969; Binford 1973; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970; Mellars 1969, 1970, 1992; Rolland 1981; Dibble 1988; Rolland and Dibble 1990; Dibble and Rolland 1992; for a 17

Although most Mousterian sites are in coastal and lowland areas while Upper Palaeolithic sites are also found further inland and in higher elevations, there is not necessarily a contrast in site distribution patterns between the two periods. For most of the Upper Palaeolithic, large coastal plains, rich in resources, were available. Since these plains are now submerged, any potential traces of occupation have disappeared. However, shorelines in mild stages of the Middle Palaeolithic were more similar to current ones. Hence, traces of lowland occupation in these periods can still be found. Consequently, the apparent differences between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in the intensity of concentration in lowland areas might be an artefact of site preservation. The only clear difference between the two periods is the shortage of traces of Mousterian occupation in inland areas and high elevations (Bailey, Cadbury et al. 1997).

recent synthesis, see Mellars 1996: 315-55). In the Greek Mousterian, the range of lithic variability across space and time is only now beginning to emerge. This is not to say that syntheses should be avoided until more evidence is available. Syntheses are indispensable, in the sense that they allow scholars to identify gaps and uncertainties in the current evidence and accordingly direct future research. But the uneven nature of the present evidence would render premature any attempt to create for the Greek area a comprehensive, unifying picture of chronostratigraphic development in the Middle Palaeolithic. For the time being, there are a number of methodological problems that need to be addressed. Loosely defined terms, such as 'Levallois', 'elongated' 'small-scale' or 'evolved, late Mousterian', are often used assertively. Most importantly, individual research teams rarely define criteria for what comprises an industry. This seems particularly important for the unstratified collections from open-air sites, but given the poor timeresolution of the published evidence from Greek rockshelters, it is equally important for excavated material as well. 2.5.

In searching for the reasons why certain locations and habitats might have been chosen for occupation in the Middle Palaeolithic , a considerable amount of research has focused on the environmental setting of the known sites (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967, Higgs and Webley 1971; King and Bailey 1985; Runnels and van Andel 1993a,b, in press; Jameson et al. 1994). Often, though, these studies are based on conflicting interpretations of the local geological history. And as far as open-air locations are concerned, it is often debated whether they represent primary or redeposited sites.

SITE DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS AND HABITAT PREFERENCES

The distribution of Middle Palaeolithic sites in Greece shows some interesting patterns, such as high concentrations in particular areas, differences between open-air and sheltered sites and differences with equivalent Upper Palaeolithic patterns. But the lack of extensive research throughout the country results in a degree of skepticism over the validity of these patterns and overshadows any discussion of their significance (Bailey 1995). The ultimate question in discussing site distribution patterns is whether it is possible to identify consistent criteria for the selection of certain locations or habitats for occupation and even recognise elements of planning and logistical use of the landscape.

In Thessaly, Middle Palaeolithic sites (open-air findspots and a cave) are all concentrated along the banks of Peneios River, the major water source in the area. However, these are also the areas where Pleistocene deposits are most likely to be exposed and where local Palaeolithic research has concentrated so far. Runnels and van Andel suggested that the open-air locations were 'short-term camps and kiil sites' in a setting of 'wide plains traversed by multi-channel braided rivers' with alder and, perhaps, oak woodland and abundant wildlife (Runnels and van Andel 1993b: 303). A preliminary study of the lithic assemblages from Theopetra Cave (Panagopoulou 1999) suggests that this site as well was a sporadically used short-term camp.

Looking at a map showing the Middle Palaeolithic sites in Greece, some basic distribution patterns are immediately evident: there are far more open-air sites than rockshelters and caves with Middle Palaeolithic remains, and there is a high concentration of sites in western and in particular northwestern Greece, as well as in coastal or lowland areas. Some of these patterns, such as the numerical predominance of open-air over sheltered sites and the significant reduction in the number of open-air sites in the Upper Palaeolithic, are not unique to Greece (e.g., Mellars 1996: 254-6, 261 for a similar situation in southwestern France). What is less common is that at least some of the Greek open-air sites have produced hundreds of lithic artefacts. The fact that northwestern Greece has produced more Middle Palaeolithic material in Greece, both in the number of known sites and in the amount of archaeological remains recovered , cannot be attributed only to the greater intensity of research in this area, since a number of comprehensive regional surveys have been undertaken in other parts of the country (Thessaly, Argolid, Elis). But whether this difference is due to more intense Mousterian occupation in the area, or is the outcome of local conditions of site preservation and exposure by erosion, is still open to question.

Compared to Epirus, Thessaly shows significant differences in site distribution patterns, size and richness of individual sites. But it is also separated from Epirus by the Pindos mountain range and has a totally different environmental setting. The difference between these two areas shows the degree of variability in early human adaptations that is to be expected within Greece's variable environmental settings, marked by topographic features that could hinder communications. In Epirus, Middle Palaeolithic open-air sites are consistently associated with redbeds, whose origin and geological history has been hotly debated. The only rockshelter in the area (Asprochaliko) is located along the narrow valley of Louros River, very close to the most prominent of the open-air sites (Kokkinopilos). Runnels and van Andel (1993a, in press) interpret the redbeds as residual deposits in seasonal lakes and marshes and suggest that this type of environment 18

attracted both Palaeolithic peoples and animals with its abundant water, food and raw material resources.

Gamble 1993: 168), a basic level of adaptation that one would expect from a population that survived Ice Age Europe for over 200,000 years?

Bailey and Gamble (1990), Bailey et al. (1993) and Sturdy et al. (1997) proposed a model that separates Palaeolithic Epirus into three environmental zones which run roughly north-northwest to south-southeast (Fig. 3.4). Two zones with conditions favourable for animal grazing and human settlement were separated by a third zone of inaccessible and unproductive terrain (high elevation limestone and flysch). The eastern, inland zone provided good summer grazing conditions while the western, coastal zone could be used year-round or only in the winter and was the most resourcerich. The whole of the Epirus region, however, was occupied by 'a single social or economic unit or "mating network"' (ibid.: 612) of about 500-1,000 people. Animal movements in the two favourable zones could be predicted and controlled relatively easily. Accordingly, Palaeolithic sites are located on spots that are particularly advantageous for the control of animal movements.

2.6.

CONCLUSION

After 35 years of research on the Middle Palaeolithic in Greece, very little is certain about this time period, and many of the alleged 'patterns' and sequences are merely 'artefacts' of the particular research conditions in the field and reflect the preconceived ideas of the researchers involved. Major issues, such as the chronological length of the period and potential subdivisions within it, the relationship of the Middle Palaeolithic material with remains from the preceding and following periods, and the nature and degree of regional differences, are still largely unexplored. Neither the excavated nor the unstratified archaeological material is characterised by refined time resolution, and the evidence has to be discussed in time units of tens of thousands of years. Most of these shortcomings can essentially be attributed to the limited amount of research undertaken so far. But interest in the field seems to be accelerating, creating the need for designing a research agenda that will allow for the carefully planned development of the field. I propose three major elements of such an agenda: ( 1) the need to develop analytical methods for studying material with broad time resolution, which, at this stage at least, constitutes the vast majority of the available evidence, (2) the need to create an integrated local approach to Palaeolithic studies that will draw upon elements of the existing long regional traditions in the field and will facilitate comparisons between the works of individual researchers, and (3) the need to establish a better temporal framework on the basis of excavations in stratified sites (sheltered or open-air) with up-to-date procedures. For the first objective, Middle Palaeolithic research in Greece will be on methodologically new ground, creating original approaches that might, in the long term, facilitate the further incorporation of evidence from open-air sites into models of the European Middle Palaeolithic. This study is an early step in the attempt to analyse material of long time-resolution, drawing upon earlier work by projects with different objectives and methodologies. In this sense it intends to contribute to the realisation of the first two elements of the agenda set above. The last objective will require excavations and the application of emerging dating techniques.

Runnels has argued that 'the distribution of Mousterian sites in Greece reveals the importance of water to the Neanderthals' (Runnels 1995: 712). He stated that Middle Palaeolithic sites are abundant in well-watered Greek regions, such as Epirus, Thessaly and Elis, where they cluster around rivers and lakes. By contrast, in arid areas of the Argolid (eastern Peloponnese) very little evidence of Mousterian activity has been recovered. Runnels also suggested that 'the association of Mousterian sites with water suggests that the Neanderthals used more planning and scheduling than is sometimes thought' (ibid.: 713). He argued that the distribution of sites in Epirus and the Argolid suggests logistical planning, with a division of activities between base camps and specialised flint working and hunting stands located within a day's walk from the camp. But he admitted that in both areas the base camps are missing, either because they have been submerged by rising sea-levels (Epirus) or because the caves where they might have been located have not been thoroughly excavated (Franchthi and Kephalari caves). But do the elements identified by Runnels (seasonal movement between inland and coast, preference for wellwatered areas, advantageous hunting spots and locations rich in food and raw material resources) constitute evidence of complex behaviour with planning and logistical use of the landscape? Or do they show an ability to plan 'but only with limited depth and provision for the future' (Stringer and

19

CHAPTER III THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND TO THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC OF NORTHWESTERN GREECE

Turning to the region that has so far attracted most research interest in the Greek Palaeolithic, this chapter presents the existing palaeoenvironmental, geological and archaeological evidence that forms the immediate context of Mousterian open-air sites in northwestern Greece. Since the early days of Middle Palaeolithic research in the area, the evidence from the Asprochaliko Rockshelter acquired a dominant role against a backdrop of open-air sites with unclear geological histories and, until recently, little prospects for radiometric dating. But in the last decade or so, the archaeological picture of Asprochaliko has been changing, along with developments in the geology and absolute dating of open-air sites. As a result, the differences in chronological resolution between Asprochaliko and the open-air sites are not as great as used to be perceived. This changing picture demonstrates the need for developing new research goals and strategies for the next phases of Mousterian research in the area.

now tend to be regarded as located on redeposited sediments (Bailey et al. 1992). By contrast, the Upper Palaeolithic of the region has been more thoroughly researched, with three excavated and fully or partially published sites (Asprochaliko, Kastritsa, Klithi and Boila) (Higgs 1966, 1967; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967; Bailey et al. 1983a,b; Bailey 1997a; Kotjabopoulou et al. 1997). These, though, are all sheltered sites and were apparently used as specialised stands rather than base-camps. Upper Palaeolithic open-air sites, which might have been the focus of the regional settlement system (Bailey and Gamble 1990), are rare in northwestern Greece and poor in archaeological material. There is also a marked difference in site distribution patterns between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: while Middle Palaeolithic sites are clustered in the southern part of the region, in lowland areas along the coast and on Corfu, Upper Palaeolithic sites are less dense but reach well into the mountainous terrain of northern and eastern Epirus. The end of the Mousterian in northwestern Greece is undated while the earliest absolute date for Upper Palaeolithic remains in the area is 26,100±900 BP (Asprochaliko) and is associated with a Gravettian industry. Some material from surface sites (Spilaio and isolated finds elsewhere) is typologically Aurignacian, but is not necessarily early Upper Palaeolithic. The mountainous hinterland was not occupied before the end of the last Glacial Maximum.

Northwestern Greece is delimited by three prominent topographic features: the Pindos Mountains in the east, the Ambracian Gulf (or Gulf of Arta) and the Pindos Mountains in the south, the Ionian Sea in the west (Fig. 3.1). The Pindos range continues further north into modern Albania, and the current political border does not lie on a natural boundary. Geographically, northwestern Greece is currently separated into the mainland district of Epirus and the island of Corfu, lying less than 3 km off the mainland. For much of the Late Pleistocene, Corfu was connected to the mainland by an extensive coastal plain and therefore Corfu is treated here as an integral part of the region under study. Lower sea levels and the emerging coastal lowlands would also have made northwestern Greece less isolated from neighbouring areas to the north and south. In this sense, a separate study of the evidence from Epirus and Corfu would arbitrarily truncate the original exploitation territory of Mousterian huntergatherers. Aetolia and Akarnania, immediately to the south of Epirus, are virtually unexplored for Palaeolithic remains (Papaconstantinou 1989). In periods of low sea-levels, this part of the mainland incorporated the island of Levkas, where, on a recent survey, several redbed deposits rich in Palaeolithic lithic material were identified (Dousougli 1999). To the north, finds in southern Albania suggest similarities with the material from Epirus and Corfu (e.g., Korkuti 1983; Harrold et al. 1999), but the current political isolation of Albania did not allow the incorporation of this material into the present study.

3.1.

MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC LANDSCAPES

The topography of northwestern Greece is diverse: in Epirus limestone mountain ridges and plateaus, running in a predominantly NW-SE direction, alternate with flysch plateaus; both are often dissected by deep river valleys. In the south, the mountainous terrain is replaced by lowland river or coastal plains of alluvial origin. The high elevation areas (up to c. 2,500 m) that border Epirus to the north and east are relatively inaccessible even by modem standards and must have been inhospitable to humans during major parts of the Pleistocene. Four main rivers dissect the Epirot land: (clockwise from the east) Arachthos, Louros, Acheron and Thiamis, of which the first two drain into the Ambracian Gulf (Gulf of Arta), the others into the Ionian Sea. The coastal area is generally less mountainous than the hinterland, and elevations tend to be higher in the northern part of the coast than in the southern. Corfu shows a similar elevation gradient from the relatively high Pantokrator Mountain (c. 900 m) in the northeast to moderate and low elevations further south.

The earliest absolute dates from northwestern Greece coincide with the onset of the Last Interglacial (Huxtable et al. 1992; van Andel 1998; Runnels and van Andel in press). In addition, Runnels and van Andel (1993a, in press) have dated, on geological and typological grounds, lithic material from their surveys to 200,000-150,000 BP. The Middle Palaeolithic is widely represented in northwestern Greece (Fig. 3.1). All but one of the Middle Palaeolithic sites are open-air sites, which, with the exception of Kokkinopilos , have only been investigated by surface surveys. Even at Kokkinopilos , the two trenches excavated by Higgs ' team

3.1.1. Geological History

Ever since Eric Higgs' early work in Epirus, Palaeolithic work in northwestern Greece has been multidisciplinary with research on the recent geological history of the area forming an indispensable part of it (Dakaris et al. 1964; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Harris and Vita-Finzi 1968; King and Bailey 1985; Bailey et al. 1992, 1993; Runnels and van Andel 1993a, in press; Bailey 1997b; van Andel 1998), 20

internal drainage through renewed uplift accompanied by extensive faulting'. The karst landscape is very different from the river-dominated landscapes found elsewhere in Greece (e.g., Thessaly), which, according to Runnels and van Andel, have shaped geoarchaeological work in Epirus in the 1960s (e.g., Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966), although there are only a few localised river-dominated landscapes in Epirus, associated with Louros, Arachthos and the lower Acheron Rivers. Because northwestern Greece is a mountainous and tectonically active area, its karstic landscape is eroding rapidly, except for localised areas that act as sediment traps, attracting and preserving the sediments produced by the dissolution of the limestone. Runnels and van Andel's (in press) view of the Palaeolithic occupation in northwestern Greece is based on their argument that in the late Pleistocene these localised sediment traps (depressions and closed basins) were major attractive points in the landscape for diverse wildlife resources and early humans.

although more so in Epirus than in Corfu (Sordinas 1969). Interpretations of the area's geology have been changing significantly over the last 35 years, and major issues are still debated (for example, see Bailey et al. 1992, 1993 versus Runnels and van Andel 1993a, in press and van Andel 1998). Different researchers have emphasised different agencies as the major factors affecting change: erosion (Higgs and VitaFinzi 1966; Vita-Finzi 1978; MacLeod and Vita-Finzi 1982), tectonics (King and Bailey 1985; Bailey et al. 1992) and dissolution of the limestone bedrock (Runnels and van Andel 1993a, in press; van Andel 1998). In the 1960s, Higgs and Vita-Finzi (1966) envisaged a landscape shaped by two successive cycles of erosion of hill soils, development of alluvial fans and aggradation in valley bottoms. The first phase of the cycle, represented by the 'Red Beds' or 'Kokkinopilos Formation', would have taken place in the late Pleistocene, and the second, represented by the 'Valley-floor Alluvium', in historic times (Vita-Finzi 1978; MacLeod and Vita-Finzi 1982).

3.1.2. Climate and Vegetation

Higgs and Vita-Finzi (1966) did discuss seismic activity in a few parts of Epirus (e.g., Lake Ioannina), but tectonic activity was first given a major role in geoarchaeological work in the area by King and Bailey (1985). Northwestern Greece is located at the meeting point of three tectonic plates (the Mediterranean plate, the Greek block and the Italian/ Apulian block), whose rapid convergence ( 10-15 mm/year; Le Pichon et al. 1995) is causing widespread deformation, involving both regional uplift and subsidence (Clews 1989; Waters 1994). The magnitude of this tectonic activity is debated. King and Bailey (1985) suggested minimum uplift rates of 40-80 m/100,000 years. Bailey et al. (1993: 297) regarded tectonic activity in Epirus as comparable to regions such as Japan, New Zealand and the Near East, 'where uplift rates of between metres and tens of metres per millennium are well established' (see also King et al. 1997). Runnels and van Andel (in press) have questioned the validity of such high values of uplift and subsidence rates, arguing that these estimates 'rest mainly on an assumed similarity in seismic activity between Epirus and other active, but actually tectonically quite different regions'. Instead, they quote locally documented rates, such as 10 rn/100,000 years, 25 m/100,000 years, 15-35 rn/100,000 years, and 0-16 m/100,000 years. The archaeological implication of this discussion is whether or not tectonic activity since Middle or Upper Palaeolithic times could have substantially changed the landscape of northwestern Greece. King and Bailey (1985) and (Bailey et al. 1992, 1993) argue that it could have significantly altered the Palaeolithic sites themselves, the depositional context of the archaeological material and the local environment of the sites. By contrast, Runnels and van Andel (in press), while recognising the effects of tectonics on the formation of landscape features that attracted early humans and on recent erosion, do not agree that seismic activity would suffice 'to alter the Epirotic landscape perceptibly during the last 100-200 kyr'.

In the southern Balkans, the areas lying on the western flank of the Pindos Mountains show higher precipitation levels and more diverse vegetation than their counterparts on the eastern side. The present climate in northwestern Greece is characterised by moderate summer droughts and precipitation levels that are among the highest in Greece, but vegetation and c1imate are not uniform throughout this topographically diverse region (Bailey, Turner et al. 1997). Average annual temperatures, precipitation and length of the summer dry season and/or winter frost periods vary with altitude, latitude and distance from the sea. Summer aridity is most prolonged in the lowland areas of southern Epirus, with up to 100 biologically dry days per year (see also data given by MacLeod and Vita-Finzi 1982). The coastal areas further north, Corfu, and the lowland plateaus further inland in Epirus experience a shorter summer dry season. In the northern and eastern mountainous areas, the relatively low elevations have no significant summer drought, while in the highest parts winter frost periods can last up to four months (Higgs et al. 1967). Nowadays, forests are restricted to the higher and less accessible mountain slopes, but this reflects the effects of anthropogenic pressures rather than the potential of the climatic conditions for tree growth. Long pollen sequences from Lake Ioannina (470 m above sea level) provide a direct record of Quaternary vegetation and climate in northwestern Greece, reaching back as much as 423,000 years, although they do not have a high resolution for OIS 4 and 3 (Bottema 1974, 1994; Tzedakis 1991, 1993, 1994). Lake Ioannina is a large lake located in a relatively low altitude roughly in the middle of Epirus and has probably acted as a pollen trap for a wide geographic area. Hence, the Ioannina pollen cores provide a generalised view of vegetation and climate in northwestern Greece. They do not reflect the more diversified local conditions that must have existed across the topographicalJy diverse area of northwestern Greece. Local conditions are better studied using pollen cores from small lakes in Epirus (Willis 1992a,b,c, 1997; Turner and Sanchez-Goiii 1997). Although these sequences do not extend further back than the Last Glacial Maximum, very generalised inferences about the local vegetation response to climatic amelioration and interregional differences in forest coverage can be made. For the

For Runnels and van Andel (ibid.), the most prominent geological characteristic of northwestern Greece is that it is a karstic landscape: 'The main influence on the landscape of the past five million years has been the dissolution of its limestone bedrock during uplift and subsequent peneplanation and the more recent creation of basins of 21

moment, the pollen evidence on climate and vegetation in northwestern Greece cannot be complemented by either faunal or floral assemblages from Middle Palaeolithic sites in the area.

3.1.3. Shorelines During most of the late Pleistocene there was a coastal plain along the Ionian Coast, but with significant fluctuations of its width and area, its resource potential and, possibly, its role in the regional hunter-gatherer system (Fig. 3.2). The emerged plain assumed its maximum extent during the extreme glacial conditions of OIS 6 and 2, while, in OIS 5e, the coastline retreated to about its current position. These three periods account for only a total of c. 30,000 years of the Late Pleistocene. In the remaining time, 'the coastal plain, although continuous was narrow' (Runnels and van Andel in press; see also Sturdy et al. 1997). Comparing the coastal zone with the known open-air Palaeolithic sites further inland, Runnels and van Andel (in press) pointed out that 'if the resource potential of the coastal zone is assumed to be roughly equal to its area, most of the time the plains were at best equal in potential to the combined area of all poljes '. This comparison , of course, rests on the geological interpretation put forward by Runnels and van Andel (ibid .) that in Epirus, Palaeolithic open -air sites are located in poljes, which were rich in wildlife resources. But even if the coastal zone did not have a resource potential that was unique in the area, it would still retain its importance as a communication path, particularly with the backdrop of the mountainous terrain of northwestern Greece (Shackleton et al. 1984; Sturdy et al. 1997).

In cold and dry periods of the Pleistocene, when glaciers covered the highest ranges of the Pindos Mountains (Macklin et al. 1997), northwestern Greece was dominated by open steppe vegetation, but tree populations survived in sheltered refugia in lowland valleys (Benett et al. 1991; Tzedakis 1993) (Fig. 3.3). In warmer periods, these tree populations expanded out of the refugia from early on, partially or completely replacing the open vegetation. But, the climatic and vegetational history of the area should be seen as a continuum rather than as successive shifts between cold and warm periods (Tzedakis 1994). While discontinuous desertsteppe prevailed in extreme glacial conditions and forests in fully interglacial phases, there were long periods of intermediate climatic and vegetational conditions in between these two extremes. These intermediate periods 'have been the norm for most of the Quaternary , representing 70-80% of the past 400 ka.' (ibid. : 420) . Vegetation in these times fluctuated between continuou s steppe , steppe with local tree concentrations and open woodland (steppe, forest-steppe and steppe-forest) (ibid.). Throughout the sequence, the expansion , establishment and retreat both of forest and of open vegetation follow consistent broad patterns: forestdominated periods started and ended with relatively open vegetation ; open vegetation -dominated periods started with transitional steppe-forest or forest-steppe, followed by grassland steppe communities and discontinuous desertsteppe (Artemisia and chenopod) and, finally, a return to transitional parkland before the onset of the next forest period (Tzedakis 1993, 1994).

Between 105,000 and 10,000 BP, the Ambracian Gulf was separated from the Ionian Sea, forming a lake. In OIS 3 this lake was reduced to a small area at the eastern end of the current Ambracian Gulf. The Louros and Arachthos Rivers continued to carry down sediments and deposit them at the edge of the Ambracian gulf/lake 'in the form of a delta complex very similar to the present one' (Runnels and van Andel in press).

This pattern of open vegetation and scattered tree refugia in glacial conditions followed by rapid expansion of woodland with climatic amelioration , is also evident in the short, more localised pollen sequences. There is, however, evidence for variation in the basic pattern with altitude even within a small geographic area. In northern inland Epirus , the expansion of trees from the early postglacial on was more apparent in high altitudes than in lowland areas, where open parkland conditions continued to prevail (Willis 1992a,b,c, 1997). Southern Epirus and low altitudes are only represented by the pollen sequence of Lake Ziros, adjacent to the open-air site of Kokkinopilos and just under 50 metres above sea level (Turner and Sanchez-Gorn 1997). Compared to cores from further north and from higher elevations, tree representation in the late glacial was somewhat higher in Ziros, while in the early postglacial a mixture of woodland and steppe was rapidly established.

As for the role of Corfu in the regional hunter-gatherer system, the island was fully connected to mainland Epirus when sea-levels were at -80 m or lower (OIS 6, 4 and 2). Since the present least depth of the shelf between Corfu and Epirus is -45 to -50 m, the two areas were connected by a land bridge in OIS 3 and 4 and maybe in OIS 5d and 5d (ibid .). Only in the Last Interglacial and maybe in OIS 5c and 5a, was Corfu separated from the mainland as it is today. This would not have been an insurmountable obstacle for Middle Palaeolithic people , as Mousterian remains from the islands of Alonnissos (Panagopoulou et al. in press) and Kephallinia (Kavvadias 1984) demonstrate, but it might have hindered the migration of herbivores , thus leading to an alteration in the regional resource exploitation system.

3.2. The continuous survival of small populations of temperate trees in sheltered refugia is an idiosyncratic characteristic of Epirus , attributed to local high precipitation levels and topographic variability (Bottema 1974, 1994; Benett et al. 1991; Tzedakis 1993). By contrast , the long pollen sequence from Tenaghi Philippon in Macedonia , on the eastern side of the Pindos Mountains, shows no evidence for persistence of tree populations in glacial periods and a spectrum of vegetation in interglacial periods that is sparser than that in Ioannina.

THE ASPROCHALIKO ROCKSHELTER

Asprochaliko continues to be the most influential site from the Greek Middle Palaeolithic. Although its Middle Palaeolithic deposits have a total thickness of just two metres and their radiometric dating is poor , Asprochaliko is still the only site both with a Mousterian sequence extending back in time to 100,000 BP (Huxtable et al. 1992) and with a documented technological change of the lithic industries throughout this sequence (Papaconstantinou 1988; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997; Gowlett and Carter 1997). Although the analysis of Asprochaliko's lithic 22

the them, rock X, as big as 5m x 2m x 2m and at least 50 tones in weight) and extensive calcification and cementation.

material has been delayed for over 25 years - and the faunal remains have never been thoroughly studied - Asprochaliko is still the best documented excavated Middle Palaeolithic site in Greece and will remain so until the analysis and publication of more recent excavations (Theopetra and Kalamakia Caves) become available.

Asprochaliko's stratigraphy (Fig. 3.6) is clearest in the rectangles situated in the western and eastern areas of the site (R 2-4 and R 41, 42, 52, respectively), adjacent to the back wall of the rockshelter. All but the uppermost layers are discontinuous, being separated by a large rock (rock X), and were given different numbers (Bailey et al. 1983a: 20, Table 1). Both inside the rockshelter and at the talus, the deposits show a grading in colour 'from a uniform red-brown at the base to more variegated reds and yellows in the upper levels' (ibid.: 19), a colour change which often does not coincide with changes in the cultural material (Higgs 1965).

Asprochaliko is located on the west bank of the Louros River, by the road connecting the modem towns of Arta and Ioannina, just as the river enters a narrow ravine. It currently lies about 20 m above the river. It is a relatively small (c. 18m x 10m), south facing, limestone rockshelter with a shallow overhang. The total area available for occupation under the overhang was about 150 square metres. Higgs associated Asprochaliko's attraction for Palaeolithic huntergatherers with its setting 'in a narrow ravine which would have been a good gametrap', close to a river which 'would have supplied water to both the inhabitants of the cave and the wild game' (Higgs 1965: 370). Although referring mainly to the Upper Palaeolithic, Higgs envisaged a situation where coastal and inland areas were alternatively occupied in the winter and summer seasons, with rockshelters being the home bases (Asprochaliko in the winter, Kastritsa in the summer) and open-air sites serving as kill or transit sites (Higgs et al. 1967; Higgs and Webley 1971). Palaeolithic people followed migrating herds of animals (Higgs and VitaFinzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967), much like the groups of transhumant pastoralists that survived in Epirus up until the middle of this century. Bailey et al. (1983a), however, estimated very low rates of accumulation of material in Asprochaliko and Kastritsa. This led them to suggest that 'the rockshelters were much less frequently used than is implied by the home-base concept, and that the major settlements are elsewhere, perhaps open-air sites that have been destroyed or that escaped discovery' (ibid.: 36; see also Bailey and Gamble 1990).

The following stratigraphy applies to the deposits inside the rockshelter. The uppermost layers (layers 1-3) contain Bronze Age and later material. Layers 4, 7 and 10, varying in colour from light brown to yellow, and at places rich in hearths, contain an Upper Palaeolithic industry with abundant backed bladelets. Layers 13 (west area) and 5 (east area) are a fine-grained yellow deposit that extends throughout the excavated area and are virtually void of cultural material, suggesting 'a major hiatus of occupation' (Bailey et al. 1983a: 20). Between this sterile layer and the bedrock lie the Middle Palaeolithic deposits. The upper part of these (Layers 14 in the west area and 9 in the east area), which are orange or pink in colour, contain the upper Mousterian industry. All remaining layers (16, 18 and 19 in the west area, 11, 12, 15 and 17 in the east area) are grouped together as one stratigraphic unit with average thickness of 1.0-1.5 m, that contains the basal Mousterian industry. The individual layers vary in colour and in density of bones, stone artefacts and hearth remains. Major rockfalls appear to have been concentrated between the upper part of the basal Mousterian layers and the upper Mousterian. It is unclear whether the fall of rock X occurred during the upper part of the Mousterian occupation (Layers 14 and 9) or in the Upper Palaeolithic.

The role of Asprochaliko as a gametrap is also emphasised in the context of the model that divides Epirus into three palaeoecological zones (Fig. 3.4) (Bailey and Gamble 1990; Bailey et al. 1993; Sturdy et al. 1997) (see Chapter II). Asprochaliko lies at the southern end of the eastern favourable zone, between summer grazing areas to the north and winter areas to the south and west. Located just off the migration routes of ibex, chamois, deer, cattle and horse, the site facilitated the monitoring of animal movements and capture of animals. Although the fauna! spectrum of the Mousterian layers is slightly broader than that of the Upper Palaeolithic levels, the differences are small and 'it is not possible to make any definitive statement about how far if at all Middle Palaeolithic strategies of local landscape use differed from later ones' (Sturdy et al. 1997: 602).

The talus deposits outside the rockshelter are not cemented and bear no direct stratigraphic association with the cemented deposits within the rockshelter. These two areas are separated by what Higgs (1966: 292) described as 'a vertical sheet of stalagmite', a thin travertine layer formed under the dripline of the rockshelter (Bailey et al. 1983a). Radiometric dates and artifactual evidence indicate that the talus deposits are mixed (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966) but Bailey et al. (1983a) suggest that this mixing is localised and that some of the talus deposits might be in situ. In any case, only the lowest layer and its cultural material (Layer 18, containing a basal Mousterian assemblage) can be treated as stratigraphicall y reliable.

3.2.1. Stratigraphy

Papaconstantinou (1988), Adam (1989) and Gowlett and Carter (1997) have pointed out the problems of resolution and stratigraphic reliability with the Asprochaliko material. Most of these problems originate from the methodology of the 1960s excavation (i.e., digging in 15 cm spits) and the stratigraphic complications of the site itself, such as major rockfalls, cementation and steeply sloping layers. Additional curation problems have accumulated in the over-20-year time span between the excavation and the study of the finds. As a result, finds of securely known provenance are only a part,

A trench (Trench B) running south-north and from the front to the rear of the rockshelter, as well as a series of rectangles at the eastern part of the site (R 41, 42, 51, 52), were excavated to bedrock, an average depth of Sm (Fig. 3.5). The excavation was based on a 1.5m x I.Sm grid. 'Material was segregated according to layers defined by differences of colour, texture and lithology, and related to a unified grid of horizontal spits divided at 15 cm intervals' (Bailey et al. 1983a: 18). The excavation was hindered by rockfalls (one of 23

Mousterian and the Gravettian layers are separated by a sterile layer, while the 14C date for the Gravettian layers (26, 100±900 BP) is a minimum age, the duration of the chronological hiatus between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic layers is also unknown. Despite the problems with these dates, the chronological sequence of Asprochaliko retains its influential character in the Greek Middle Palaeolithic . The c. 96,000 BP TL dates are often taken to signify the onset of the Middle Palaeolithic in Greece (e.g., Bailey 1992; Darlas 1994; Huxtable et al. 1992; Runnels 1995; Panagopoulou 1996), probably because up until recently they were the earliest absolute dates from Greece (but see van Andel 1998). The >39,900 BP radiocarbon date has been used, together with other absolute dates? to date a supposed late Mousterian phase in Epirus and elsewhere in Greece (e.g., Runnels 1988; 1995).

not necessarily representative, of the total excavated material, which is itself a part, spatially localised, of the material buried at the site. In some areas, as for example in the area under the big rockfall in the middle of the rockshelter, excavation did not reach the Middle Palaeolithic deposits. As Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou (1997: 460) have warned, 'For all these reasons interpretations of vertical and horizontal variability should be treated with caution '. 3.2.2. Chronology

During the original excavation of Asprochaliko, six radiocarbon dates were obtained (Bailey et al. 1983a: 21). Most of these samples were recognised at the time of excavation as either possibly contaminated or associated with mixed deposits. And, as 14C dates acquired in the mid 1960s, they have additional reliability problems. One date of 26,100±900 BP from Layer 10 gives a minimum age for the onset of Upper Palaeolithic occupation at the site. Three samples from the Mousterian deposits inside the rockshelter , two from the upper Mousterian Layer 14 and one from the basal Mousterian Layer 18, gave dates of >39,900 BP, 24,900±1100 BP and 37,000+4100-2700 BP respectively , but the last two were noted at the time of excavation as possibly contaminated (ibid.) . Two samples from the talus gave ages much younger than the associated cultural material suggested and are in reverse order of the stratigraphy (17,200±400 BP for Spit 28, 13,700±260 BP for Spit 29-31) , further confirming that the talus deposits were at least partially mixed. This leaves only the >39,900 BP reading from Layer 14 as a relatively reliable one. On the basis of this reading, Higgs (1966; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966) placed not just the upper Mousterian but the entire Middle Palaeolithic sequence of Asprochaliko and unstratified material from Epirus open -air sites at c. 40,000 BP. Bailey et al. (1983a) accepted the >39,900 BP for the dating of the upper Mousterian. Later, this date was aborted as of little significance (Bailey et al. 1992), although Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou ( 1997) seem to consider it as viable.

3.2.3. Faunal Remains

The only available information comes from a brief account by Bailey et al. (1983a). The main species accounted for in the few hundred identified specimens from Asprochaliko ' s Mousterian layers are: red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama) , ibex (Capra ibex), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) , and aurochs (Bos primigenius). Other identified species include: Sus scrofa, Ursus speleus, Canis lupus and Felis pardus (the last two only in the upper Mousterian). Red deer is the predominant species in the basal Mousterian (53% of the identified specimens) , while red deer and fallow deer are the predominant species in the upper Mousterian (33% and 39% respectively). Six teeth ofrhinoceros , including one identified as Stephanorhinus (formerly Dicerorhinus) kirchbergensis, come from the basal Mousterian layers. They point to temperate climatic conditions, being broadly in agreement with the 100,000 BP TL dates from the same layers. As for the general state of Asprochaliko's faunal remains, Bailey et al. (ibid.) remark that the bones are 'heavily fragmented with much evidence of breakage ', and that, despite the presence of carnivores in the material, 'there is virtually no evidence of carnivore tooth marks on the small sample of material examined from this point of view' (ibid.: 34).

Attempts to improve the dating evidence from Asprochaliko were made during the second phase of Cambridge University research in Epirus. AMS radiocarbon dating of bone collagen was aborted because the samples proved unsuitable (Gowlett et al. 1987), but thermoluminescence dating was more successful. Two pieces of burnt flint found in Layer 18 (basal Mousterian) during the original excavation gave dates of 102,000±14,000 BP and 96,000±11,000 BP (Huxtable et al. 1992), pushing back the chronology of Asprochaliko and the Greek Middle Palaeolithic by c. 50,000 years. Critics point out, though, that these dates 'lack the detail necessary to evaluate them' (Runnels and van Andel in press) . No burnt flint was identified in material from other parts of the site's sequence .

3.2.4. Lithic Industries: Early Studies

As described above, the two stratified Mousterian industries found in Asprochaliko are: ( 1) the basal Mousterian, a Levallois-Mousterian industry with elongated blanks, found in the lowest part of the sequence (Fig. 3.7), and (2) the upper Mousterian, originally named 'micro-Mousterian' (Higgs 1965; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Bailey et al. 1983a) and characterised by the production of pseudo-Levallois points (Fig. 3.8). Higgs described the basal Mousterian as 'a large Mousterian industry with refined retouch. [ ... ] It included large blades with thick platforms and finely retouched racloirs, thick broad points and both tortoise and disc cores ' (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966: 20). He described the upper Mousterian as 'a coarse assemblage ' (Higgs 1965: 372), a non-Levallois industry, with rare blades, small Mousterian-type points and small scrapers with step retouch. He remarked that 'the micro-Mousterian of Asprochaliko differs from the basal Mousterian in that it is smaller, it lacks the refined retouched of the lower industry, and racloirs and finished tools are rare ' (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966: 21). He

Clearly, Asprochaliko is still far from being an adequately dated site. The TL samples are from the base of the basal Mousterian layers, which spread across the bottom of the rockshelter with an average thickness of at least 1 m. The existing dates give no indication as to the duration of the basal Mousterian industry . The >39,900 BP reading for the upper Mousterian is at the limit of the radiocarbon technique and is at best a minimum date. And since the upper 24

(81.0% in the upper Mousterian, 80.9% in the basal Mousterian), unmodified flakes (7 .1 % and 8.9% respectively) and utilised flakes (8.0% and 6.9% respectively), the total for the three categories amounting to 96.2% and 96.7% respectively. The relative frequency of retouched tools is indeed slightly higher in the upper Mousterian (2.0% versus 1.6%), but in both cases tools are rare. The upper Mousterian has a higher ratio of trimming/rejuvenation flakes to cores (1.2/1 versus 0.9/1) but the small samples involved would make this difference statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, the interpretation by Bailey et al. (1983a) for intensive use ofraw materials in the upper Mousterian came to influence later discussions of the differences between the two Mousterian industries of Asprochaliko (e.g., Runnels 1988; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997). Whether the upper Mousterian is really a case of intensive use of raw material, however, is still an unresolved issue.

also pointed out that the upper Mousterian is only slightly patinated, while the basal Mousterian is heavily patinated (Higgs 1965). It is worth noting that Higgs' reports provide no means (e.g., typological lists, measurements) for testing the validity of the characteristics he attributed to Asprochaliko' s industries. In the 1960s, when these industries were discovered, the typological approach was the norm in lithic studies and Bordes' system of classification dominated Mousterian lithic analysis. But because of Higgs' palaeoeconomic approach, the emphasis in his projects was not on detailed artefact analysis. The identification of two separate Mousterian industries and their brief published descriptions were based on preliminary examinations of the lithic material rather than on lengthy studies. Nevertheless, these brief provisional descriptions formed the basis for comparisons of surface lithic material, mostly undated, from elsewhere in Greece with Asprochaliko and have resulted in the Asprochaliko' s dominant role in the creation of a chronostratigraphic sequence for the Greek Middle Palaeolithic (Chavaillon et al. 1967, 1969; Milojcic et al. 1965; Sordinas 1969; Runnels 1988).

3.2.5. Lithic Industries: Present Views The typology and technology of Asprochaliko 's Mousterian industries were studied in detail in the 1980s. The upper Mousterian was studied by Papaconstantinou (1988; see also Bailey et al. 1992; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997) and the basal Mousterian by Gowlett and Carter ( 1997; see also Huxtable et al. 1992). These studies have challenged some of the earlier perceptions of this material (Higgs 1965; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Bailey et al. 1983a) and revealed 'more uniformity between the two types of industries in a number of respects than was previously supposed, as well as some fresh contrasts' (Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997: 461).

In the re-examination of Higgs' work in the late 1970s, the lithic assemblages of Asprochaliko were studied following an idiosyncratic system (designed by D. Sturdy) that was rarely used elsewhere, in which the material was divided into the following groups: Class I (cores, core trimming and rejuvenation flakes, retouched tools), Class II ('expedient tools': flakes with minor retouch or utilisation), Class III (unmodified flakes), Class IV (waste) (Bailey et al. 1983a.: 30). The retouched Middle Palaeolithic artefacts were studied following Bordes' typology, but no typological lists were published. According to the report, the basal Mousterian falls into the Typical Mousterian category, but there is no information on the typological profile of the upper Mousterian industry. Still, this study confirmed most aspects of Higgs' accounts of the two industries and the differences between them. More importantly, it re-affirmed that there was 'a general tendency to smaller implement size' in the upper Mousterian (ibid.: 30).

Major aspects of the lithic material remain fairly unchanged throughout the Mousterian sequence. The raw materials used are flint and occasionally quartz and quartzite pebbles, probably collected from the Louros River or its tributaries. There appears to be little change in the quality and, most notably, the size of the primary nodules selected for knapping. In both assemblages, river cobbles larger than those used would have been available, so metrical or technological characteristics of each industry and differences between the two industries cannot be attributed to constraints imposed by raw material availability (Gowlett and Carter 1997). The overall composition of the assemblages - relative frequency of cores, retouched tools, flakes and their subcategories (cortical, common and predetermined), microchips and fragments - also varies little. Typologically both assemblages are dominated by scrapers, usually of the single lateral type, and typologically unclassifiable partially retouched flakes. Upper Palaeolithic tool-types are consistently rare throughout the sequence. As for the average implement size, previously regarded as the main difference between the two assemblages (hence the original name 'micro-Mousterian' for the upper Mousterian), it remains fairly constant throughout the sequence and among the debitage and the retouched tools (mean length 30mm and 35 mm respectively) (Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou: 461-2, Fig. 24.1). The impression of an implement size difference between the two assemblages is due to the long narrow flakes that characterise the basal Mousterian, but those amount to only c. ~0% of all debitage. However, despite this new evidence for continuity between the two

The only difference with Higgs' accounts is that Bailey et al. (ibid.) identified a more exhaustive use of raw material in the upper than the basal Mousterian: 'The basal Mousterian has very high proportions of waste flakes and unmodified or slightly modified flakes. [ ... ] The Micro-Mousterian is characterised by a far more intensive use of raw material, with fewer flakes and waste pieces, a higher ratio of trimming/ rejuvenation flakes to cores, slightly higher proportions of retouched tools, amongst which scrapers including thick scrapers are relatively more abundant, and a general tendency to smaller implement size' (ibid.: 30). Higgs' accounts of the upper Mousterian are essentially reverse: 'There were many thousands of waste flakes, and finished tools were rare and crudely retouched. There were occasional side scrapers, a few thick end scrapers, and crudely finished small points' (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966: 20). The data published by Bailey et al. (1983a) do not support their claim for more exhaustive use of raw material in the upper Mousterian. Both assemblages are dominated by waste 25

favour of this single nodule hypothesis. However, Gowlett and Carter (ibid.) also cite two factors that conflict with it: (1) the very low frequency of large flakes, compared to the one expected if all cores had started out as large cores, and (2) the high proportion of small cores that retain cortex, indicating that they were not heavily reduced. These observations lend weight to an alternative hypothesis: large and small cores were worked independently from each other to produce large and small flakes respectively; small cores often started out from small pebbles. Gowlett and Carter (ibid .) do not choose between these two alternative hypotheses. They also contemplate the possibility that flakes greater than 60 mm in length were produced outside the site and imported as blanks , but conclude that the ratio of large flakes to single platform cores is adequate to uphold on-site knapping of the large flakes.

industries, there are technological differences between them. The technological shift occurs in the upper spits of Layer 16, the stratigraphic boundary between the two Mousterian industries. In the basal Mousterian (Gowlett and Carter 1997; Huxtable et al. 1992) (Fig. 3.7), the flake-blades were not a by-product but a deliberate end of a unipolar reduction sequence, requiring core preparation and 'intelligent use of previous flaking facets on the cores ' (Huxtable et al. 1992: 111). Given the recent broadening of the Levallois definition (e.g. Boeda 1994; Dibble and Bar-Yosef 1995), these flakes/blades can technically be regarded as Levallois flakes 'but the principal emphasis is on elongation' (Gowlett and Carter 1997: 448). The larger cores in the assemblage bear negative scars produced by the successive detachments of elongated flakes. Most are single platform cores, ranging in length between 50 mm and 80 mm, with a few up to 100 mm. Occasionally, these cores were worked from two opposed striking platforms (bipolar) . Faceted platform preparation is virtually absent from both cores and flakes (Gowlett and Carter 1997), though it is relatively more common among the retouched tools (Papaconstantinou 1988: 77). In the second primary reduction mode, small flakes were produced from small discoid cores worked on two opposite faces.

Typologically , the basal Mousterian is dominated by side scrapers (mostly single-side), notches and denticulates , thus falling in the Typical Mousterian category. Because of the heavy selection of elongated flakes for retouch, the length spectrum of the retouched tools ranges significantly higher than that of the debitage . The highest proportion of scrapers and notches is between 30 mm and 50 mm in length, with scrapers ranging from 20-120 mm and notches from 20-80 mm. There are no macroscopic indications for hafting. Still, Gowlett and Carter (ibid.) consider the high frequency of small flakes and notches as possible indirect evidence for wood-working and hafting.

Over 70% of the debitage in the basal Mousterian is smaller than 30 mm in length and 90-95% of it is under 60 mm. In accordance with the debitage, more than half of the cores are less than 50 mm in greatest dimension. Gowlett and Carter (1997: 448) interpret this metrical data as showing that 'the major aim on the site in the basal Mousterian was to produce small flakes in the range 20-40 mm'. This conclusion reduces the importance of the long narrow flakes, which were previously regarded as the main feature of the basal Mousterian. Furthermore, 'these long flakes may have been concentrated in certain spits towards the top of the basal Mousterian (especially spits 28/29 and possibly 35/36)' (ibid.: 449). Notably, the TL dates at c. 100,000 BP came from deeper in the site (spits 36-40).

The upper Mousterian industry in Asprochaliko (Papaconstantinou 1988; Bailey et al. 1992; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997) (Fig. 3.8), is characterised by the production of pseudo-Levallois points, using a reduction sequence that involved preparation of the core and predetermination of the shape of the detached flakes. Based on a technological analysis of the debitage and experimental flint knapping , Papaconstantinou (1988: 145-7; Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou 1997: 461-3) identified and described the following reduction sequence (Fig. 3.8.14): After the decortification of the raw nodule, a striking platform was prepared by direct retouch. Then the flaking surface of the core was prepared by detaching two flakes with their axes of percussion at right angles to each other. A new striking platform was prepared , from which a third, pointed flake was struck, with its axis of percussion tangential to the core and perpendicular to the main scar left by the first two flake removals. Often the core used in this reduction sequence was a flake, rather than a nodule. In this case, the bulbar side of the flake-core was used as a flaking surface, and the first of the two preparatory flakes removed was a Kombewa flake (i.e., a flake with two bulbar sides; Tixier et al. 1980: 52-3). Typologically, the sought-after end product was a pseudo -Levallois point, relatively thick (5-8 mm) and with a maximum length of 30 mm (Fig. 3.8.5-12).

The association between the two size groups of debitage (small flakes and elongated flakes) and the two modes of primary reduction (unipolar parallel and discoid) is not clearly documented. Gowlett and Carter (ibid.) clearly associate the large cores with the unipolar parallel reduction and the small cores with the discoid sequence. They seem to imply that, in a similar manner, the larger flakes (>30 mm in length) are associated with the unipolar reduction and the smaller flakes ( 1.5 1.5-1.99 >2.00 32.2 (37) 38.6 (27) 34.6 (64)

17.4 (20) 22.9 (16) 18.9 (35)

14.8 (17) 15.7 (11) 15.7 (29)

Table 6.21. Morfi : Relative frequency of material by degree of elongation. The sample includes all intact plain flakes and retouched tools.

-Reduction Method

< 1.5

Radial (n: 29) 96.6 (28) Convergent (n: 48) 54.2 (26) Unipolar paral. (n: 51) 58.8 (30) Bipolal parallel (n: 16) 68.8 (l l) Uni-paral./radial (n: 4) 50.0 (2) Bi-paral./radial (n: l) 100.0 (l) Unidentifiable (n: 36) 63.9 (23) All flak.+tools (n: 185) 65.4 (121)

Length/Breadth Ratios ~1.5 1.5-1.99 3.4 (I) 45.8 (22) 41.2(21) 31.3 (5) 50.0 (2) 0.0 36.1 (13) 34.6 (64).

3.4 (1) 27. l (13) 19.6 (10) 12.5 (2) 25.0 (l) 0.0 22.2 (8) 18.9 (35)

~2.00

0.0 18.8 (9) 21.6(11) 18.8 (3) 25.0 (l) 0.0 13.9 (5) 15.7 (29)

Table 6.22. Morfi: Reduction method and elongation. The sample includes all intact plain flakes and retouched tools .

cortical All flak./blade s (n: 183) All tools (n: 102) All .e.Iatforms (n: 295)

2.7 (5) 2.9 (3) 2.7 (8)

dihedral

plain 68.3 (125) 68.7 (70) 69.0 (204)

10.9 (20) 10.8 (11) 10.5 (31)

3-5 facets

5-10 facets

12.6 (23) 11.8(12) 12.2 (36)

5.3 (10) 5 .9 (6) 5.3 (16)

Table 6.23. Morfi : Relative frequency of platform types. The third samples includes also all identifiable platforms of possibly retouched artefacts .

Reduction Method

cortical

Radial (n: 35) Convergent (n: 69) Unipolar paral. (n: 64) BipolaJ parallel (n: 19) Uni-paral./radiaJ (n : 7) Bi-paral./radial (n : 1) Unidentifiable (n: l 00) All platform s (n: 295)

0.0 0.0 1.6(1) 0.0 0.0 0 .0 7.0 (7) 2 .7 (8)

plain

dihedral

57. l (20) 66.7 (46) 73.4 (47) 57.9 (11) 57. 1 (4) 100.0 (l) 75.0 (75) 69.0 (204)

11.4 (4) 13.0 (9) 10.9 (7) 15.8 (3) 14.3 (l) 0 .0 7.0 (7) 10.5 (31)

3-5 facets

5-10 facets

22 .9 (8) 15.9(11) 7.8 (5) 15.8 (3) 28 .6 (2) 0.0 7.0 (7) 12.2 (36)

8.6 (3) 4.3 (3) 6.3 (4) l 1.0 (2) 0 .0 0 .0 4.0 (4) 5.3 (16)

Table 6.24. Morfi: Reduction method and platform types . The sample includes all identifiable platforms .

-

Reduction Method

normal

61.8 (21) Radial (n:34) 34.5 (20) Convergent (n:58) Unipolar paral. (n :50) 36.0 (18) Bipolal parall. (n: 19) 57.9 (11) Uni-paral./radial (n:7) 85.7 (6) Bi-paral./radial (n: 1) 100.0 (1) Unidentifiable (n:93) 37 .6 (35) All distal ends (n:262) 42 .7 (112)

hinged

plung.

20 .6 (7) 5.9 (2) 6.9 (4) 20.7 (12) 14.0 (7) 16.0 (8) 5.3 (1) 10.5 (2) 14.3 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 ( 19) 10.8 ( IO) 14.5 (38) 13.4 (35)

step

cortical

0.0 1.7 (1) 2.0 (1) 5.3 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 (3)

2.9 (1) 17.2 (10) 12.0 (6) 10.5 (2) 0.0 0.0 20.4 (19) 14.5 (38)

hing. plung. +cort. +cort. 0.0 8.6 (5) 2.0 (1) 5.3 (1) 0 .0 0.0 2.2 (2) 3.4 (9)

8.8 (3) 10.3 (6) 18.0 (9) 5.3 (1) 0.0 0.0 8.6 (8) 10.3 (27)

Table 6.26. Morfi : Reduction method and types of distal ends. The sample includes all identifiable distal ends.

0%

1-10%

All flak./blades (n : 126) 49.2 (62) 31.0 (39) 65.8 (48) All tools (n :73) 9.6 (7) All flak .+tools (n:200) 55.0 (110) 23.5 (47)

11-25%

26-50%

51-75%

76-100%

4.0 (5) 8.2 (6) 5.5 (11)

7. 1 (9) 12.3 (9) 9.0 (18)

4.8 (6) 4 .1 (3) 4.5 (9)

4.0 (5) 0.0 2.5 (5)

Table 6.27. Morfi: Cortex coverage. The samples include all intact plain flakes and retouched tools . The third group includes also all intact possibly retouched artefacts .

\0

normal

hinged

plung.

step

cortical

hing. plung. +cort. +cort.

All flk./blad . (n:194) 43.8 (85) 13.9 (27) 12.9 (25) 0.5 (1) 15.5 (30) 4.1 (8) 9.3 (18) 40.4 (23) 17.5 (10) 17.5 (10) 3.5 (2) 5.3 (3) 1.8 (1) 14.0 (8) All tools (n:57) All distal end s (n:262) 42 .7 (112) 14.5 (38) 13.4 (35) 1.2 (3) 14.5 (38) 3.4 (9) 10.3 (27)

Table 6.25. Morfi : Relative frequency of types of distal ends. The third group includes also all identifiable distal ends of possibly cetouched artefacts.

Reduction Method Radial (n :29) · Convergent (n:49) Unipolar paral. (n:53) Bipolal parallel (n: 16) Uni-paral./radial (n:6) Bi-paral./radial (n: l) Unidentifiable (n: 46) All flak.+tools (n:200)

0%

1-10%

75 .9 (22) 67.3 (33) 52.8 (28) 50.0 (8) 50.0 (3) 100.0 (1) 32.6 (15) 55.0 (110)

17.2 (5) 18.4 (9) 32.1 (17) 43.7 (7) 33.3 (2) 0 .0 15.2 (7) 23.5 (47)

11-25%

26-50%

3.4 (1) 3.4 (1) 6.1 (3) 8.2 (4) 9.4 (5) 1.9 (1) 6.3 (1) 0.0 0.0 16.7 (1) 0.0 0.0 2.2 (1) 23.9 (11) 5.5 (11) 9.0 (18)

51-75% 76-100% 0.0 0.0 3.8 (2) 0.0 0 .0 0.0 15.2 (7) 4 .5 (9)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 10.9 (5) 2.5 (5)

Table 6.28. Morfi: Reduction method and cortex coverage. The sample includes -all intact plain flakes , retouched tools and possibly retouched rutefacts .

Invasiveness mean s.d. 3.81 3.62 3.95 3.00 3.25 3.63 1.98

Single side scrapers Double side scrapers Convergent scrapers Dejete scrapers Transversal scrapers All scrapers Retouched flakes

Index of Resharpening mean s.d.

2. 147 2.181 1.571

0.44 0.46 0.56 0.36 0.49 0.47 0.35

1.753 2.004 1.052

n. of ret. edges

0.150 0.154 0.226

32 13 10 I 8 66 22

0.227 0.175 0.125

Radial (n: 7) Convergent (n: 9) Unipolar paral. (n: IO) Uni-paral./radial (n: 3) Unidentifiable (n: 8) All flak.+tools (n: 37)

< 1.5 85.7 (6) 33.3 (3) 40 .0 (4) 66.7 (2) 62.5 (5) 54.1 (20)

Length/Breadth Ratios ~1.5 1.5-1.99 14.3 (I) 66.7 (6) 60.0 (6) 33.3 (1) 37.5 (3) 45.9 (17)

14.3 (1) 44.4 (4) 30.0 (3) 33.3 (I) 25.0 (2) 29.7 (11)

~2.00 0.0 22.2 (2) 30.0 (3) 0.0 12.5 ( 1) 16.2 (6)

Table 6.33. Ayia: Reduction method and elongation. The sample includes all intact plain flakes and retouched tools.

Table 6.29. Morfi: Tool types and intensity of reduction.

~

Reduction Method

cortical

plain

dihedral

3-5 facets

2.4 (2) 5.9 (1) 2.9 (3)

70.7 (58) 70.6 (12) 69.9 (72)

13.4 (11) 11.8 (2) 13.6 (14)

12.2 (10) 11.8 (2) 12.6 (13)

Reduction Method

Length s.d. mean

Breadth mean s.d.

Thickness mean s.d.

n.

Radial Convergent Unipolar parallel (prismatic) Bipolar parallel (prismatic) All parallel

57.6 55.0 74.0 47.0 56.0

68.4 51.0 72.0 55.0 60.7

30.0 18.0 74 .0 38.0 50.0

22.1

5

All flak./blades (n: 82) All tools (n: 17) All platforms (n: 103)

22.6 26.2

2 3

Table 6.34. Ayia: Relative frequency of platform types. The third group includes also all identifiable platforms of possibly retouched artefacts.

18.8

11.3 17.5

32.5

19.8 17.1

Table 6.30. Ayia: Mean core dimensions by reduction method (includes only intact heavily patinated cores, class 3 and 4).

Reduction Method

Length mean s.d.

Breadth mean s.d.

Radial Convergent Unipolar parallel Uni-parallel/radial

42.0 65.6 68.3 54.0

35.6 40.7 43.4 44.0

12.6 21.8 22.9 "25.5

11.8 6.4 12.4 12.7

Thickness mean s.d. 7.0 11.7 10.9 10.0

2.0 3.9 4 .8

4.2

n. 5 6 7 2

Table 6.31. Ayia: Mean dimensions of unmodified flakes by reduction method.

Reduction Method

Figure 3.5. Plan of the Asprochaliko Rockshelter. After Bailey et al. (1983a) .

t•e

... A

20

l 0 40

G

Cloy

IOI]

[2m

SiltyCl■ r

~ s,-

GB

Tr•venine

~

OungM.mvs

.. v-

Aslly llkklll,own

Figure 3.6. Stratigraphy of the Asprochaliko Rockshelter, as seen at the west face of Trench B. After Bailey et al. (1983a).

113

Figure 3.7. Asprochaliko. The basal Mousterian industry. Scale 2/3 normal size. After Gowlett and Carter (1997).

114

1

13~ 14.

2

3

0

3 cm

8

0

Figure 3.8. Asprochaliko. The upper Mousterian industry. 1-4: Reconstruction of the Asprochaliko knapping sequence for the production of pseudo-Levallois points ; 512: Asprochaliko pseudo -Levallois points: 13-15: other artefacts from the upper Mousterian. 1- 12: after Papaconstantinou and Vassilopoulou (1997); 13-15: after Higgs and Vita-Finzi ( 1966). 115

·paleosol

(0

c~

l

I a:

..

(.) 00 .-

W

140

z

~ 1/)

1

It)

paleosol ,,,paleosol

a: .. >

GI

..,C'l cc~ -~

a::

----130

w

.·..: .: ·~·: #'

O~E N _, >-

z>O

fine fl int gravel

"0 .! ~ Cl

"handaxe "

.&; 1/)

'i E ~

>,

(0

.., '

120

paleosol """'""''"I-pale

grey silt

paleosol

a: > It) / ····::::,:, : ::::, , :: :,,:: a:

@ ::H::~::;n:r,\: H

:J

0

>

U1 -

65 +- -

-

------

60 +- - - - - --- ---

!

55 +--

-

50 +--

A ---

= g'

-

--

-

• --

-

-

-

--

---

----

-

--

! -

--

-

--:

--------

-- ---------

.!

20

A A

10

35

I

A

+-- - - - ~ ---

i 30 -- ---

•

---

•

--

-

-

---------

-

-

--

-

25 -+---.5---+----+----t------+----~ conver .

radial

unipolar parallel

unipolar paralleV radial

bipolar parallel

radial

unipolar parallel

bipolar parallel

unipolar paralleV radial

Fig. 7.12. Argyrades: Reduction Method and br/th Ratios (debitage+tools, n: 38)

Fig. 7.11. Argyrades: Reduction Method and 1/br Ratios (debitage+tools, n: 38)

3-?""""-------

conver .

- ----------=

7 .5 ...-------------

-

---

-.........,

A 2.75 -- -----

-

-

-

-

-

---

7

-----

6.5

A A

6

A A

2.25 ~

~

2 1.75

.!

1.5

01 C

it

u, u,

6

.:.c

Cl>

..

! ~

5 .5 5

C

u

:E 4 .5

~ ~

..m

4

.0

3 .5 1.25

A

3

A 2 .5

0.75 +- -..! -A

-

-

--------

-

-

-

---