Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos, Northern Greece 9781407314907, 9781407344720

This book investigates the production technology and inter-site circulation of a large and diverse Late Neolithic cerami

190 80 76MB

English Pages [340] Year 2017

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie
Learning Technology: Cultural Inheritance and Neolithic Pottery Production in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain 9781407308777, 9781407338620
Learning Technology: Cultural Inheritance and Neolithic Pottery Production in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain 9781407308777, 9781407338620

The dynamic relationship between technology, technological practice, and society is the focus of this book, based on the

181 18 15MB Read more

The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece 9781841716176, 9781407326764
The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece 9781841716176, 9781407326764

The Peloponnese forms an approximate cultural province. The precise delimitation of a cultural province, even for a rest

234 109 53MB Read more

Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: An archaeobotanical investigation 9781841716169, 9781407326757
Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: An archaeobotanical investigation 9781841716169, 9781407326757

This book is based on new archaeobotanical data retrieved during the last fifteen years from prehistoric sites located i

276 66 28MB Read more

Dental Microwear in Natufian Hunter-Gatherers and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Agriculturalists from Northern Israel 9781841717180, 9781407328591
Dental Microwear in Natufian Hunter-Gatherers and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Agriculturalists from Northern Israel 9781841717180, 9781407328591

119 106 67MB Read more

Painted Pottery Production and Social Complexity in Neolithic Northwest China 9781407358789, 9781407358796
Painted Pottery Production and Social Complexity in Neolithic Northwest China 9781407358789, 9781407358796

This study focuses on Neolithic period Majiayao-style painted pottery from Northwest China, which is known for its high

193 101 9MB Read more

Dressing for Dinner: Butchery and Bone Deposition at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas, Northern Greece 9781407340319, 9781407310558
Dressing for Dinner: Butchery and Bone Deposition at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas, Northern Greece 9781407340319, 9781407310558

Excavations at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, near the modern town of Kozani in north-western Greece, have yi

155 118 26MB Read more

Neolithic Mortuary Practices in Greece 9781841716633, 9781407327402
Neolithic Mortuary Practices in Greece 9781841716633, 9781407327402

This volumes applies the theory and methods developed in the study of mortuary remains by Americanist archaeologists to

218 109 4MB Read more

The Neolithic Pottery of Ulucak in Aegean Turkey: Organization of production, interregional comparisons and relative chronology 9781407310251, 9781407340036
The Neolithic Pottery of Ulucak in Aegean Turkey: Organization of production, interregional comparisons and relative chronology 9781407310251, 9781407340036

The core of this study encompasses the presentation of the pottery analysis from Levels IV-V at Ulucak Mound in Izmir, T

213 39 51MB Read more

Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece 9781789201468
Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece 9781789201468

The last three decades have witnessed a period of growing archaeological activity in Greece that have enhanced our aware

220 17 450MB Read more

Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe.: Production, Function and Distribution 9781407304779, 9781407336015
Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe.: Production, Function and Distribution 9781407304779, 9781407336015

173 18 49MB Read more

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos, Northern Greece 9781407314907, 9781407344720

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Plates
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Abstract
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN GREECE
CHAPTER 3: MAKRYGIALOS II: THE SITE AND ITS CERAMIC MATERIAL
CHAPTER 4: INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF THE MAKRYGIALOS POTTERY: MACROSCOPIC AND PETROGRAPHIC RESULTS − THE COMPARATIVE SITES
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A: MACROSCOPIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B: THIN SECTION DESCRIPTIONS OF FABRIC GROUPS OF ALL COMPARATIVE MATERIALS
APPENDIX C

Citation preview

The new evidence offers a better understanding of the role of technological choice in ceramic production. Locally produced and imported ceramic categories are found to co-exist. They signify manufacture by different groups or individuals with varying degrees of technological knowledge and skill, probably producing in different places, and within distinct ceramic traditions. More importantly, petrographic analysis provides positive evidence of the long-distance exchange of pots, challenging previously established ideas on the circulation of pottery for this period and geographical area. The emerging picture strongly supports the idea of a dynamic Neolithic society characterised by mobilities, interaction and social competition between people, as revealed through their material culture. ________ Elissavet S. Hitsiou studied archaeology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, and received her PhD from the University of Sheffield, England, working on Neolithic pottery from northern Greece. At a post-doctoral level, she investigated late classical Mendean-type transport amphorae from northern Greece at the Wiener Laboratory, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. She was later employed as Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She has worked as an archaeologist for the Greek Archaeological Service and as a pottery expert in several research projects (e.g. in Mycenae, Avgi, in Kastoria, Greece).

BAR S2843 2017  HITSIOU  POTTERY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND LONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE

This book investigates the production technology and inter-site circulation of a large and diverse Late Neolithic ceramic assemblage from the flat-extended settlement of Makrygialos (Phase II), in northern Greece. Comparative samples from Dimini, in Thessaly, and Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B, in western Macedonia, are also incorporated. It draws conclusions from the use of macroscopic and petrographic analysis of a large number of samples in an integrated project.

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos, Northern Greece Elissavet S. Hitsiou

BAR International Series 2843 9 781407 314907

B A R

2017

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos, Northern Greece Elissavet S. Hitsiou

BAR International Series 2843 2017

Published in by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos, Northern Greece © Elissavet S. Hitsiou Detail of Brown-on-Cream painted ware; drawing by Martha Fyrigos. The Author’s moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407314907 paperback ISBN 9781407344720 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407314907 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com

,

To Christos D. Hitsios for his constant support and encouragement

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the course of writing this book, I received the practical help, encouragement and generosity of good friends and colleagues to whom I owe thanks for different reasons. I am, first of all, indebted to Dr P. Topali, Dr A. Pentedeka, and Dr K. Vouzaxakis for reading chapters of this book and for providing bibliography. I thank them from the heart even if in some instances I was not able to incorporate all their valuable suggestions. Alice Fursdon and Emma Wager proofread an early version of this work; Stylianos Zacharias (MA Cantab.) edited and commented upon its final version; I owe a great deal to all of them. I am grateful to the painter, Martha Fyrigos, who produced the drawing on the front page. Special thanks must go to A. Naskos and B. Kistanis for providing not only invaluable technical support but also encouragement. I would also like to thank P. Mitsopoulou for the digital processing of my original drawings of the Makrygialos pottery. As this book essentially comprises the publication of my PhD thesis, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all those who contributed in one way or another. First of all, I would like to thank Professors K. Kotsakis, P. M. Day and P. Halstead for helping me shape my ideas and for their encouragement in difficult stages of this project. Dr I. K. Whitbread and Professor K. Branigan offered valuable comments and suggestions during the examination of the present research and encouraged its publication. I am genuinely indebted to Dr M. Pappa and M. Besios, for granting me the invaluable opportunity to study this ceramic material. M. Pappa, in particular, has resolved many practical problems and facilitated my fieldwork periods in Makrygialos. I am grateful to the late Professor Hourmouziadis and to Dr V. Adrimi-Sismani, to Dr Pan. Chrysostomou, P. Chrysostomou, and Dr I. Aslanis, for giving me permission to take comparative samples for petrographic analysis from the sites of Dimini, Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B, respectively. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Professor P. Buckland, for reading my work, and to Dr E. Panagiotakopoulou for her support at a crucial moment. I owe many thanks to Dr L. Joyner and Dr P. Quinn for checking earlier drafts of my petrographic descriptions, and Dr E. Kiriatzi for useful discussions on the material. I owe many thanks to Dr A. Krahtopoulou for allowing me to use the geological map of Makrygialos in my unpublished PhD thesis. J. Russell helped me to organise the macroscopic data and performed part of the basic statistical analysis. R. Craigie, M. Brocklesby and M. Beggiora offered invaluable help by resolving computer related problems. This research project was financially supported by the University of Sheffield; the Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield; the Sheffield Centre for Aegean Archaeology; the British Federation for Women Graduates; the Swann-Morton Foundation and the Gilchrist Educational Trust. I express my sincere appreciation to the BAR Editorial Team, for their practical help and support and for their understanding through difficult stages. My sincere gratitude and warm feelings go to the Cox family and Pia Nystrom, in Sheffield, and, Sofia and Miltiadis Papantonakis, in Mytilene; they all created a friendly and cosy environment and tolerated my moods during difficult times. My friends never failed to give me unconditional love, encouragement, and practical support. They shared my enthusiasm and hopes and kept me going during hard times. I feel privileged to have met them. There are not enough words to thank my family. They are the driving force behind this effort. Last but not least, I thank Mihalis for being the source of my strength; without his presence this work would not have been completed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. vii List of Plates ................................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................... xi Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: The Neolithic Period in Greece .................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Chronological Framework of the Greek Neolithic ............................................................................................... 4 2.3 Archaeological Evidence − The General Characteristics ..................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 The Early and Middle Neolithic.................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 The Late and Final Neolithic ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Approaches to the Archaeological Evidence ...................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1 Agricultural Production and Exchange ..................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1.1 The Early and Middle Neolithic ...................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1.2 The Late and Final Neolithic ........................................................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Craft Production and Exchange ................................................................................................................ 12 2.5 General Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Pottery Production ................................................................. 14 2.5.1 Approaches to the Study of Manufacturing Technology .......................................................................... 16 2.5.2 Approaches to the Organisation of Production: Direct Evidence of Production ....................................... 18 2.5.3 Approaches to the Organisation of Production: Indirect Evidence of Production .................................... 19 2.6 Circulation and Exchange of Pottery .................................................................................................................. 24 2.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 Chapter 3: Makrygialos II: The Site and its Ceramic Material ................................................................................. 27 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 3.2 The Late Neolithic Settlement of Makrygialos II, in Pieria, Northern Greece ................................................... 27 3.2.1 The Type Site ............................................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.2 The Makrygialos II Intra-site Organisation of Space ................................................................................ 29 3.3 Makrygialos II: The Material Culture Remains .................................................................................................. 30 3.4 The Phase II Pottery – Activity Areas Chosen for Sampling ............................................................................. 33 3.4.1 Typological Classification and the Makrygialos Ceramic Assemblage .................................................... 35 3.4.2 Typology of the Makrygialos II Pottery.................................................................................................... 35 3.4.2.1 Brown-on-Cream (I) Ware .............................................................................................................. 36 3.4.2.2 Black-on-Red Ware ......................................................................................................................... 37 3.4.2.3 Polychrome Ware ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.4.2.4 Incised (I) Ware ............................................................................................................................... 40 Incised (II) Ware ............................................................................................................................. 40 3.4.2.5 3.4.2.6 Black-topped Ware .......................................................................................................................... 42 3.4.2.7 Black Burnished Ware..................................................................................................................... 44 3.4.2.8 Brown/Greyish Brown Burnished Ware.......................................................................................... 44 3.4.2.9 Undecorated Ware ........................................................................................................................... 45 3.4.3 Rare and Unusual Wares ........................................................................................................................... 46 3.4.3.1 Black Rippled Ware ........................................................................................................................ 46 3.4.3.2 Red-on-Red Painted Ware ............................................................................................................... 46 3.4.3.3 Red-on-Orange Painted Ware.......................................................................................................... 46 3.4.3.4 Red-on-Brown Painted Ware .......................................................................................................... 46 3.4.3.5 White-on-Black Painted Ware ......................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3.6 Brown-on-Brown Painted Ware ...................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3.7 Impressed Ware ............................................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3.8 Plastic Decoration Ware .................................................................................................................. 47 3.4.3.9 Black, Red and Brown Slipped and Burnished Wares .................................................................... 47 3.5 Comparative Sites............................................................................................................................................... 47 3.5.1 Thessaly .................................................................................................................................................... 48 3.5.1.1 Dimini and its Material Culture ....................................................................................................... 48 v

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos 3.5.2 Western Macedonia .................................................................................................................................. 49 3.5.2.1 Agrosykia A and its Pottery ............................................................................................................ 49 3.5.2.2 Giannitsa B and its Pottery .............................................................................................................. 50 3.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 4: Integrated Analysis of the Makrygialos Pottery: Macroscopic and Petrographic Results − The Comparative Sites ........................................................................................................................................................... 51 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 4.2 Steps of Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 51 4.3 The Macroscopic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 52 4.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 52 4.3.2 Detailed Recording of the Macroscopic Data ........................................................................................... 53 4.3.3 Processing of the Macroscopic Data ......................................................................................................... 53 4.4 The Petrographic Analysis of the Pottery ........................................................................................................... 54 4.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 54 4.4.2 Sampling Strategy ..................................................................................................................................... 54 4.4.3 Laboratory Work: Thin-section Preparation ............................................................................................. 55 4.4.4 Processing and Interpretation of the Petrographic Data ............................................................................ 55 4.5 Description and Characterisation........................................................................................................................ 56 4.6 Technology and Provenance............................................................................................................................... 57 4.7 Results of the Petrographic Analysis .................................................................................................................. 59 4.7.1 Makrygialos: Location and Geological Environment ............................................................................... 59 4.7.2 Dimini: Location and Geological Environment ........................................................................................ 60 4.7.3 Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B: Location and Geological Environment .................................................... 61 4.8 Results of the Petrographic Analysis .................................................................................................................. 61 4.8.1 Presentation of the Fabric Groups ............................................................................................................. 61 4.9 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 4.9.1 Pottery Production within Makrygialos .................................................................................................... 90 4.9.2 Manufacturing Technology ....................................................................................................................... 90 4.9.3 Provenance Identification ......................................................................................................................... 92 4.9.3.1 Fabric Groups ‘Local’ to Makrygialos ............................................................................................ 92 4.9.3.2 Fabric Groups Imported to Makrygialos ......................................................................................... 93 4.9.4 Organisation of Production ....................................................................................................................... 94 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 103 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 111 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................................... 130 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................................... 225 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................................... 308

vi

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 SOURCES OF DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR A GIVEN MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY ............................................... 16 FIGURE 3.1 BROWN-ON-CREAM (I) WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWL ...................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 3.2 BLACK-ON-RED WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWLS ............................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 3.3 BLACK-ON-RED WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWLS ............................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 3.4 POLYCHROME WARE, ‘FRUITSTAND’ BOWL ..................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 3.5 INCISED (I) WARE, ‘BELLY’ OF A CLOSED GLOBULAR JUG ............................................................................... 40 FIGURE 3.6 INCISED (II) WARE, ‘STEM’ OF A PEDESTAL, FENESTRATED, CONICAL BOWL ................................................... 42 FIGURE 3.7 INCISED (II) WARE, OPEN SLIGHTLY CARINATED BOWL ................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 3.8 BLACK-TOPPED WARE, LARGE OPEN CARINATED BOWL .................................................................................. 43 FIGURE 3.9 BLACK-TOPPED WARE, JUG ? WITH ‘FLARING’ RIM.......................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 3.10 BLACK BURNISHED WARE, OPEN BOWL ........................................................................................................ 44 FIGURE 3.11 BROWN SLIP BURNISHED WARE, SMALL CUP FROM MAKRYGIALOS............................................................... 45 FIGURE 3.12 BROWN BURNISHED WARE, MEDIUM SIZE STORAGE VESSEL ......................................................................... 45 FIGURE 3.13 BROWN BURNISHED WARE, LARGE SIZE STORAGE VESSEL ............................................................................ 45 FIGURE 3.14 BROWN BURNISHED WARE, FLAT BASE OF A COOKING ? VESSEL................................................................... 45 FIGURE 3.15 UNDECORATED WARE, LARGE OPEN BOWL ................................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 3.16 UNDECORATED WARE, LARGE CLOSED STORAGE JAR .................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 3.17 UNDECORATED WARE, LARGE OPEN STORAGE JAR ........................................................................................ 45 FIGURE 3.18 UNDECORATED WARE, LARGE CLOSED STORAGE JAR .................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 3.19 UNDECORATED WARE, LARGE PITHOS ........................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 3.20 UNDECORATED WARE, FLAT BASE OF A STORAGE VESSEL............................................................................. 46 FIGURE 3.21 UNDECORATED WARE, FOOTED-BASE OF AN OPEN VESSEL............................................................................ 46 FIGURE 3.22 UNDECORATED WARE, KNOB ON THE ‘BELLY’ OF A LARGE STORAGE VESSEL ............................................... 46 FIGURE 3.23 MAP OF COMPARATIVE SITES STUDIED .......................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 4.1 SAMPLING STRATEGY DURING MACROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE MAKRYGIALOS II POTTERY .................. 53

vii

LIST OF PLATES PLATE 3.1 BROWN-ON-CREAM (I) WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWL FROM MAKRYGIALOS ..................................................... 36 PLATE 3.2 COMMON DECORATIVE MOTIFS IN BROWN-ON-CREAM (I) WARE FROM MAKRYGIALOS................................... 37 PLATE 3.3 ‘REPAIR HOLES’ IN BROWN-ON-CREAM (I) WARE FROM MAKRYGIALOS .......................................................... 37 PLATE 3.4 BROWN-ON-BUFF WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWL FROM MAKRYGIALOS ............................................................. 37 PLATE 3.5 BLACK-ON-RED WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWLS WITH LINEAR DECORATIVE MOTIFS FROM MAKRYGIALOS ....... 38 PLATE 3.6 BLACK-ON-RED WARE, SHALLOW OPEN CONICAL BOWL FROM MAKRYGIALOS ............................................... 38 PLATE 3.7 BLACK-ON-RED WARE, DEEP CONICAL BOWL WITH VERTICAL HANDLE FROM MAKRYGIALOS ......................... 39 PLATE 3.8 BROWN-ON-CREAM (II) WARE, OPEN CONICAL BOWLS FROM MAKRYGIALOS .................................................. 39 PLATE 3.9 POLYCHROME WARE, INNER SIDE OF A RIM OF A ‘FRUITSTAND’ FROM MAKRYGIALOS ..................................... 39 PLATE 3.10 TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF POLYCHROME WARE FROM MAKRYGIALOS ............................................................... 39 PLATE 3.11 INCISED (I) WARE, TYPICAL DECORATIVE MOTIFS FROM MAKRYGIALOS ........................................................ 40 PLATE 3.12 INCISED (II) WARE FROM MAKRYGIALOS ....................................................................................................... 41 PLATE 3.13 INCISED (II) WARE FROM MAKRYGIALOS ....................................................................................................... 41 PLATE 3.14 INCISED (II) WARE, WITH BROWN, RED AND BLACK PAINTED ZONES FROM MAKRYGIALOS ............................ 41 PLATE 3.15 INCISED (II) WARE, LOWER PART OF A PEDESTAL, FENESTRATED BOWL FROM MAKRYGIALOS ....................... 41 PLATE 3.16A INCISED (II) WARE, SMALL SHALLOW BOWL WITH ROUNDED BASE FROM MAKRYGIALOS (INTERIOR).......... 42 PLATE 3.17 BLACK-TOPPED WARE, LARGE OPEN CARINATED BOWL FROM MAKRYGIALOS ............................................... 42 PLATE 3.18 BLACK-TOPPED WARE, IMPRESSED DECORATION ON THE TOP HALF PART OF THE VESSELS FROM MAKRYGIALOS ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 PLATE 3.19A. BLACK-TOPPED WARE, WITH IMPRESSED AND PAINTED DECORATION ON THE UPPER AND LOWER PART OF AN OPEN CARINATED BOWL FROM MAKRYGIALOS ........................................................................................................ 43 PLATE 3.20 BLACK BURNISHED WARE, LARGE COOKING (?) POT FROM MAKRYGIALOS .................................................... 44 PLATE 3.21 BROWN BURNISHED WARE, LARGE STORAGE VESSEL FROM MAKRYGIALOS .................................................. 44 PLATE 3.22 BROWN BURNISHED WARE, SMALL SHALLOW DISH FROM MAKRYGIALOS ..................................................... 44 PLATE 4.1 FABRIC GROUP 1 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM (I), PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ............... 61 PLATE 4.2A-C. HIGH-FIRED VERSION OF FABRIC GROUP 1 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM (I), PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS, DIMINI AND AGROSYKIA RESPECTIVELY (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) .................................................................................... 62 PLATE 4.3A-B. EVIDENCE OF CLAY MIXING IN FABRIC GROUP 1, PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS AND AGROSYKIA (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 PLATE 4.4A-B. EVIDENCE OF CLAY MIXING IN FABRIC GROUP 1, PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS (A) AND DIMINI (B)(FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 63 PLATE 4.5A-D. STRONG PREFERRED ORIENTATION OF VOIDS AND INCLUSIONS INDICATING COILING, PRESENT IN ALL COMPARATIVE SITES (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ....................................................................................................... 63 PLATE 4.6A-D. DETAILED VIEW OF FABRIC GROUP 1 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM, PRESENT IN ALL FOUR COMPARATIVE SITES (FIELD OF VIEW: 0.99MM) ........................................................................................................................................ 64 PLATE 4.7A-C. EXAMPLES OF FABRIC GROUP 2 WITH TEXTURAL CONCENTRATION FEATURES (TCFS), PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS (A, C) AND DIMINI (B) (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ............................................................................ 65 PLATE 4.8A-B. FABRIC GROUP 3, PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS (A) AND DIMINI (B) IN BROWN-ON-CREAM (I) AND POLYCHROME RESPECTIVELY (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ......................................................................................... 66 PLATE 4.9A-B. FABRIC GROUP 4 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM, PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS (A) AND DIMINI (B) (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM)................................................................................................................................................................... 67 PLATE 4.10A. FABRIC GROUP 5 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM, PRESENT IN DIMINI (A) (FIELD OF VIEW: 0.99MM) ...................... 67 PLATE 4.11 FABRIC GROUP 6 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ..................... 68 PLATE 4.12 FABRIC GROUP 7 IN POLYCHROME, PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM).............................. 69 PLATE 4.13A-B. FABRIC GROUP 8 IN POLYCHROME (A) AND UNDECORATED WARE (B), PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM).................................................................................................................................................... 70 PLATE 4.14 FABRIC GROUP 9 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM, PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) .................... 71 PLATE 4.15 FABRIC GROUP 10 IN BLACK BURNISHED, PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ................... 71 PLATE 4.16 FABRIC GROUP 11 IN BLACK-ON-RED, PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM)......................... 72 PLATE 4.17A-B. FABRIC GROUP 12 IN INCISED, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS (A) AND DIMINI (B), (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM)................................................................................................................................................................... 73 PLATE 4.18A-B. FABRIC GROUP 13 IN INCISED (I), PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS (A) AND DIMINI (B), (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM)................................................................................................................................................................... 73 PLATE 4.19 FABRIC GROUP 14 IN BLACK-ON-RED, PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM)......................... 74 PLATE 4.20 FABRIC GROUP 15 IN BLACK-ON-RED, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ........... 75

viii

List of Plates PLATE 4.21A-D. USE OF FABRIC GROUP 15 (PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS) IN THE MANUFACTURE OF POLYCHROME, BLACK BURNISHED, BROWN BURNISHED AND RED SLIPPED BURNISHED................................................................ 75 PLATE 4.22A-B. FABRIC GROUP 1 IN BROWN-ON-CREAM (A), PRESENT IN ALL FOUR COMPARATIVE SITES AND FABRIC GROUP 15 IN BLACK-ON-RED (B), PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 0.99MM) ............................ 76 PLATE 4.23A-B. FABRIC GROUPS 16 (A) AND 15 (B) IN BLACK-ON-RED, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ........................................................................................................................................................ 77 PLATE 4.24A-C. USE OF FABRIC GROUP 17, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BLACK TOPPED, BLACK BURNISHED AND INCISED (I), (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) .............................................................................. 77 PLATE 4.25A-B. USE OF FABRIC GROUP 18 IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BLACK TOPPED AND RED SLIPPED BURNISHED WARES (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ............................................................................................................................ 78 PLATE 4.26 USE OF FABRIC GROUP 19, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF DIFFERENT WARES, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ........................................................................................................................................ 79 PLATE 4.27A-B. COARSE AND VERY COARSE VERSION OF FABRIC GROUP 20 IN BROWN BURNISHED AND UNDECORATED WARES RESPECTIVELY, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ................................................................................................... 79 PLATE 4.28 USE OF FABRIC GROUP 21, PRESENT ONLY IN MARKYGIALOS, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF UNDECORATED POTTERY, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ........................................................................................................................ 80 PLATE 4.29 FABRIC GROUP 23, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, IN UNDECORATED POTTERY, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 81 PLATE 4.30 STRONG PREFERRED ORIENTATION OF BOTH VOIDS AND INCLUSIONS INDICATING COILING, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM)................................................................................................................................................................... 81 PLATE 4.31 FABRIC GROUP 24, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, IN BROWN BURNISHED POTTERY, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM)................................................................................................................................................................... 82 PLATE 4.32A-B. EVIDENCE OF CLAY MIXING IN FABRIC GROUP 24, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ......................................... 82 PLATE 4.33 EVIDENCE OF CLAY MIXING IN THE CLAY CONCENTRATION FEATURES IN FABRIC GROUP 25, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM)................................................................................................................................................................... 83 PLATE 4.34A. FABRIC GROUP 26 IN BROWN BURNISHED POTTERY, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ......................................... 83 PLATE 4.35 FABRIC GROUP 27 IN BROWN BURNISHED WARE, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ................................................. 84 PLATE 4.36A-B. GROG-TEMPERED FABRIC (FABRIC GROUP 32), PRESENT ONLY IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ..... 86 PLATE 4.37 FABRIC GROUP 33 (MICACEOUS) PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) ..................... 87 PLATE 4.38 SERPENTINIFEROUS ROCKS IN FABRIC GROUP 34, PRESENT IN DIMINI, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ................. 87 PLATE 4.39 VOLCANIC ROCKS IN FABRIC GROUP 35, PRESENT IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) .................. 88 PLATE 4.40 ROUNDED LIMESTONE IN FABRIC GROUP 36 PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ... 88 PLATE 4.41 CHERT IN FABRIC GROUP 37, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM) .......................... 88 PLATE 4.42 LIMESTONE/SERPENTINE IN FABRIC GROUP 38, BROWN BURNISHED WARE, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ........................................................................................................................................ 89 PLATE 4.43A-B. PHYLLITE/SCHIST AND ALTERED IGNEOUS ROCK FRAGMENTS IN FABRIC GROUP 39, UNDECORATED WARE, IN MAKRYGIALOS (A) AND DIMINI (B), (FIELD OF VIEW: 3.90MM) ................................................................ 89 PLATE 4.44 MUDSTONE/SILTSTONE IN FABRIC GROUP 40, PRESENT ONLY IN MAKRYGIALOS, (FIELD OF VIEW: 2.44MM). 90

ix

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASES AND CHRONOLOGY FOR NORTHERN GREECE: NEOLITHIC PERIOD (AFTER DEMOULE AND PERLÈS 1993: 367 AND ANDREOU, FOTIADIS AND KOTSAKIS 2001: 260) .......................................................... 5 TABLE 4.1 MAKRYGIALOS II, DIMINI, AGROSYKIA A AND GIANNITSA B FABRIC GROUPS AND THEIR MAIN ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 102

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DMP

Domestic Mode of Production

EBA

Early Bronze Age

EN

Early Neolithic

FG

Fabric Group

FN

Final Neolithic

INAA

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis

LN (I and II)

Late Neolithic (I and II)

MK (I and II)

Makrygialos (I and II)

MN

Middle Neolithic

PPL

Plane Polarised Light

RC dates

Radiocarbon dates

SEM

Scanning Electron Microscopy

tcfs

Textural Concentration Features

XP

Crossed Polars

XRD

X-ray Diffraction

XRF

X-ray Fluorescence

xi

ABSTRACT This book investigates the production technology and inter-site circulation of a large and diverse Late Neolithic ceramic assemblage from the flat-extended settlement of Makrygialos (Phase II), in northern Greece. Comparative samples from Dimini, in Thessaly, and Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B, in western Macedonia, are also incorporated. It draws conclusions from the use of macroscopic and petrographic analysis of a large number of samples in an integrated project. The new evidence offers a better understanding of the role of technological choice in ceramic production. Locally produced and imported ceramic categories are found to co-exist. These signify manufacture by different groups or individuals with varying degrees of technological knowledge and skill, likely production in different places, and distinct ceramic traditions. More importantly, petrographic analysis provides positive evidence of the long-distance exchange of pots, challenging previously established ideas on the circulation of pottery for this period and geographical area. The emerging picture strongly supports the idea of a dynamic Neolithic society characterised by mobilities, interaction and social competition between people, as revealed through their material culture. Keywords Late Neolithic pottery, production technology, exchange, petrographic analysis, interaction, mobilities, Makrygialos, northern Greece

xii

CHAPTER 1

display increasing social complexity and form the backdrop to the emergence of well-defined, hierarchically-structured states (Renfrew 1972). These changes were traced through and explained by parameters such as population growth, craft specialisation in the production of certain categories of material culture, and long-distance exchange, which in the majority of cases were considered directly inter-related.

INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the 1990s, a period during which Greece had been transformed into a construction site due to large-scale public works, a unique archaeological site was discovered in Macedonia, northern Greece. Owing to an exemplary salvage excavation that gradually developed into a multidisciplinary research project, the Late Neolithic (LN) settlement of Makrygialos 1, in Pieria, was investigated to an unprecedented extent (Besios and Pappa 1998b; Pappa 1997, 2007, 2008; Pappa and Besios 1999a, b; Pappa et al. 2013). On grounds of distinct pottery styles, complemented by radiocarbon dating, the site was dated to both sub-phases of the Late Neolithic (LN I and II). This flat-extended, horizontally inhabited settlement, outside the norm of the well-known Neolithic tell sites of Thessaly, revealed enormous quantities of archaeological materials. Most of them stand out for their diversity and complexity. Yet, it is the ceramic assemblage of Neolithic Makrygialos that probably constitutes the most prominent of all.

The Neolithic period in Greece, conversely, has traditionally been contemplated as egalitarian and characterised by self-sufficiency, in comparison to the more sophisticated organisation of the later periods. Agricultural and craft production and exchange are among the broad themes through which the study of this period has been undertaken. These subjects have been approached through the concept of the ‘Domestic Mode of Production’ (DMP), where the idea of underproduction – production only to cover the consumption needs of a ‘household’ – has dominated (Sahlins 1972). Whilst the definition of the Neolithic household, as represented in the archaeological record, remains open to debate (Souvatzi 2014), emphasis has been given to the investigation of craft production and exchange. Two categories of material culture, in particular, have been employed in the exploration of these mechanisms: stone tools and pottery. These have been used as sensitive indices to measure craft specialisation and exchange, two processes that in the literature are associated with social complexity.

In studies of the Greek Neolithic the analysis of pottery has occupied an important place. It is essentially based on this category of material culture that the period itself has been divided into distinct chronological phases and subphases. Initially, such divisions were made on grounds of stylistic and morphological similarities and differences, influenced by evolutionary schemes. They were used for the reconstruction of chrono-typological sequences in order to establish the cultural history and originality of the Greek Neolithic (Hauptmann 1981; Milojcic 1960; Theocharis 1973; Tsountas 1908; Wace and Thompson 1912). Gradually, however, and within the theoretical framework of ‘ceramic ecology’ and ‘New Archaeology’, the study of pottery became a search for social and economic processes and production relationships, even symbolic meanings, that were observed in the organisation of the society in question (Halstead 1981a, 1989, 1992b, 1995; Hourmouziadis 1979, 1980, 1981; Kotsakis 1983, 1992, 1994; Perlès 1992; Perlès and Vitelli 1994; Renfrew 1973; Torrence 1986; Vitelli 1989, 1993a, 1995).

Since the last decade of the twentieth century, however, scholars have acknowledged the powerful dynamics and the complex nature of Greek Neolithic society. What they started to recognise in its structure were active communication networks, specialised technological know-how and high investment in craft production, triggering social relations of cohesion, power and competition. The mechanism of exchange, the technology of production and the hotly debated concept of ‘household’ monopolised the dialogue. All these parameters have been investigated at different levels: the individual/‘household’, the community, and inter-community scale (Broodbank 1992; Demoule and Perlès 1993; Halstead 1999a, 1999b; Kotsakis 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1999; Perlès 2001; Perlès and Vitelli 1999; Vitelli 1993a, 1993b, 1995). In the debate on the Greek Neolithic, for the largest part of the twentieth century, arguments and explanatory models were built largely on assumptions. These were to an

The search for socio-economic and cultural changes was, until relatively recently, primarily focused on studies of the Bronze Age in the Aegean, which was believed to 1 The site is also known in the literature as 'Makriyalos'. The present study did not follow this change of spelling as it preceded it in its original form.

1

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos extent compromised due to the nature of the, thenavailable evidence itself. For example, the basis of the archaeological information used had been the product: • •

On the level of observation, the archaeological questions that this research aims to answer include the following: within this pottery assemblage, are there distinct fabric categories that are consistent and constitute quite different recipes and raw materials? Is all the ceramic assemblage locally made, or do local examples co-exist with imported wares? If so, which are these wares? Are there readily distinguishable functional categories, which are then associated with specific wares and fabrics? Furthermore, do different morphological and decorative classes of pottery reveal any meaningful associations with distinct fabric groups? On an intra-site level, how does the ceramic material circulate? Is the distribution restricted for some wares to specific contexts, whilst being wider for others across the settlement? Ultimately, was pottery circulating and exchanged over long distances during this period? These questions are basic, but crucial, as they have serious implications for cultural, economic and ideological aspects of the societal organisation of the Makrygialos community.

of surface finds or small trial trenches, and, of small-scale excavations at tell sites that, until recently, were considered the predominant type of spatial habitation during the Neolithic.

Further to this, the collected data had been retrieved predominantly from one particular geographical area: Thessaly, which functioned as yardstick for other regions. The discovery and excavation of the Late Neolithic settlement of Makrygialos offers a unique opportunity to re-investigate some of the aforementioned central issues through examination of its diverse categories of material culture. This book is engaged in the study of the pottery from sub-phase II at Makrygialos (MK II). The importance of this material lies in several factors: •

• •

On an interpretative level, an important contribution will be to understand the clues that the Makrygialos pottery production technology offers regarding a better interpretation of the intra-site organisation of this settlement. What was the role of ceramics within the community and how were they manipulated during this period in relationships with other contemporary communities? More to the point, if circulation and longdistance exchange did occur, what are the meanings and the possible reasons behind the movement of pots and people in this particular point in space and time? Finally, to what extent could answers to the aforementioned questions shed some light on and inform previously established ideas concerning the Greek Neolithic in general?

it comes from a large, extensively-excavated site, whose development can be traced horizontally, and which offers very rich evidence of all categories of material culture; it belongs to a flat-extended settlement, outside the presumed norm of the Neolithic tell site, and is located in a geographical area other than Thessaly; most importantly, it is the first time that such an extensive research project has been undertaken for this particular chronological phase and geographical area in northern Greece. The strength of the present research lies upon its integrated methodology which combines macroscopic examination with petrographic analysis of a large number of pottery samples, covering the whole range of wares, fabrics and shapes present in the material rather than concentrating on a single ceramic category. Τhe purpose of this is to study the intra-site production technology of the Makrygialos assemblage. At the same time, comparative petrographic analysis of sufficient samples from contemporary sites located in both Thessaly and western Macedonia is also undertaken for the investigation of inter-site circulation of the studied material.

To be able to address such questions and follow the main argument, this book is organised into five chapters (including the Introduction). The detailed macroscopic and microscopic analyses are presented in Appendices A and B at the end of the book, along with catalogues of the analysed samples. The structure of the chapters is briefly presented below: Chapter 2 presents the chronological and theoretical framework of Greek Neolithic studies as these are relevant to this work. The presentation is achieved:

Through examination of the organisation of production technology and through study of the circulation of the later Late Neolithic pottery, this research sets out to explore the social complexity of the LN period in its own right, as reproduced in this particular category of material culture. More specifically, it is engaged in the investigation of the role of pottery in the lives of the Neolithic inhabitants as this is expressed through their technological choices, aesthetic preferences and in the patterns of circulation and long-distance exchange. These patterns are examined as effective mechanisms responsible for intense communication, human relationships and the forming and negotiating of people's identities.

•

•

through a brief review of the body of archaeological evidence available for the Early (EN), Middle (MN), Late (LN I and II) and Final Neolithic (FN) – the emphasis is on the Late Neolithic period to which the studied material belongs – and, through an assessment of the way researchers have interpreted the available material culture.

In addition, it explores approaches to the study of Greek Neolithic pottery, in the context of wider debates in ceramic studies. The focal points remain pottery

2

Introduction production and circulation/exchange, as they have been investigated through theoretical constructs such as domestic production versus specialisation, and through discussion of manufacturing technology and its parameters, the organisation of production and the movement of pots over long distances. A brief discussion of typological classification in general and of the typological models used since the turn of the century, particularly to describe Greek Neolithic pottery, is followed by an account of the typological model adopted in the present study.

In the final chapter, chapter 5, the results of the macroscopic and petrographic analysis of this pottery are brought together and all the key elements that emerged from the analysis along with their implications are considered. The purpose is to point out the essential concepts linked to pottery that help to incorporate it into the discussion on the Greek Neolithic in general and, ultimately, to explore how such concepts inform and to what extent confirm or question previously established ideas. Finally, conclusions and issues for further research are presented. Following the aforementioned paths, this research provides a fresh perspective on Late Neolithic material culture, based on an integrated analytical methodology.

Chapter 3 presents the Late Neolithic settlement of Makrygialos (Phase II), along with a brief account of all the categories of material culture remains from that site. The emphasis here is on the extensive presentation of all the established ceramic wares and shapes. The detailed typology of the Makrygialos Phase II pottery is presented as developed through its initial macroscopic examination. Finally, a presentation of the comparative sites of Dimini, in Thessaly, and Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B, in western Macedonia, is offered along with their ceramic materials.

Thus, the present book investigates aspects of the production technology, the circulation and long-distance exchange of pottery dated to the second phase of the Neolithic settlement of Makrygialos (MK II). The research that essentially supports the present publication was originally completed as part of the writer’s doctoral dissertation. Since then, the study of the residential remains and the intra-site organisation of space in Makrygialos has been concluded and offers valuable information and a different perspective on the level of interpretation (Pappa 2007, 2008). Further to this, recent work conducted on Neolithic ceramic assemblages in the wider Thessalian region builds upon the present work, strengthening the writer’s initial results and views (Pentedeka 2011, 2012, 2015; Quinn et al. 2010).

Chapter 4 presents the integrated methodology employed in this study of the Makrygialos II pottery, which was carried out on the following levels of analysis: • • • •

macroscopic examination (a ware- and fabric-based analysis) study of the geological maps and literature referring to the geological environment of the area under investigation petrographic analysis of a large number of representative samples, selected on the basis of the detailed macroscopic examination petrographic examination of comparative material sampled from three other contemporary settlements (Dimini, Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B) located in Thessaly and western Macedonia.

Finally, the book should not be considered a comprehensive account of all the research carried out in the intervening time. It does, however, comprise an update of the original thesis which aims to contribute to the recent debate on developments regarding the Neolithic of Greece.

It finally presents and discusses the results of the petrographic characterisation of the four ceramic assemblages under study (namely Makrygialos, Dimini, Agrosykia A and Giannitsa B) along with an account of their production technology. Provenance ascription is attempted where possible. First, the location and geological environment of each site is presented separately, together with any previous analytical work done in that specific area. This is followed by a detailed presentation of all the fabric groups formed from the ceramics examined. These have been classified and analysed together, rather than split by site. The purpose is to examine the interplay between and across the same and different categories of pottery from the different sites, in order to investigate choices made by the ancient potters. Mineralogical/compositional and textural differences are the main criteria used in forming the fabric groups presented here in an attempt to ascribe provenance identification. Finally, a discussion of the ‘imported’ and ‘local’ fabrics is provided.

3

CHAPTER 2

THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN GREECE 2.1

suggests that it sustained itself through regular to intensive communications between communities and individuals, where specialised knowledge and social competition shaped to a large extent the production relations and the patterns of consumption of material goods. As a result, subtle social inequalities in human relations are acknowledged, local variations and regional homogeneity are seen to coexist and complex mechanisms such as the short and long-distance exchange of craft goods are thought to secure the endurance and cultural connection of the Neolithic communities (Hitsiou; 2003; Pentedeka 2011, 2015; Quinn et al. 2010; Tomkins 2004).

Introduction

A remarkable exploration of the Greek Neolithic, which is rich in the remains of material culture, was carried out in the last century by Greek and foreign archaeologists (Hauptmann 1981; Milojčić 1960; Theocharis 1973; Tsountas 1908; Wace and Thompson 1912). Nevertheless, under the influence of the culture-historical perspective, a lack of interpretation of this society in its own right and, instead, comparison with more complex structures of the later periods, i.e. the Bronze Age, predominated in the relevant literature for the most part of the twentieth century. As a result, Neolithic society was understood and characterised by isolation, egalitarianism on the basis of an assumed selfsufficiency, and restricted mobilities, especially of objects (Hourmouziadis 1979; Renfrew 1972; Trigger 1989).

In this chapter, a concise account of the gradual changes in the researchers’ analytical perceptions regarding the constitution and organisation of Neolithic society is presented. First, the chronological framework of the period is defined and then a summary of the available published archaeological evidence is presented, divided into the conventional phases of the Greek Neolithic, i.e. Early (EN), Middle (MN), Late (LN) and Final (FN) Neolithic. It is not the aim of the writer to undertake a detailed review of research carried out on the period, as this has been done elsewhere (Alram-Stern 1996; Andreou et al. 2001; Demoule and Perlès1993; Halstead 1999a; Papathanassopoulos 1996; Perlès 1992). Instead, the emphasis is on some key research approaches which facilitate interpretation of the remains of the surviving material culture. These essentially contribute to our deeper understanding of the Neolithic ‘reality’ whilst highlighting prospects for future research. From this body of evidence the purpose is to identify the elements that the present book examines. Throughout the study, the geographical focus will be Thessaly and northern Greece, where Makrygialos is located, although extensive reference is also made to important work undertaken on the Neolithic of southern Greece.

Since the focus of this comparison remained on the similarities that these societies shared, any elements of diversity and complexity that the material evidence of the Neolithic revealed were essentially obscured and negated. Such elements include, for instance, subtle inequalities in human relations (more pronounced during the LN), not so much on an economic but rather on a social level. The restricted intra-site distribution of certain types of pottery across MN and LN settlements or the emergence of distinct and highly homogenous ceramic styles in the late phase of the LN probably indicate social competition and differentiation. It was mostly during the last decade of the twentieth century when new evidence, resulting from an unprecedented scale of archaeological fieldwork, led established researchers to cautiously reassess or further elaborate their previous significant contributions to the discussion (Halstead 1989, 1992a-b, 1995, 1999a; Kotsakis 1983, 1994, 1996a-c, 1999, 2006a; Perlès 1992; 2001; Perlès and Vitelli 1994, 1999; Vitelli 1993a, 1995). Such evidence revealed a wealth of information on the use of space, on settlement organisation and site types, the Neolithic inhabitants’ production relations, their choices and preferences, communication, and ideology.

2.2

Chronological Framework of the Greek Neolithic

Even though the bulk of early archaeological work conducted during the twentieth century was to a large extent devoted to resolving chronological problems and despite the numerous radiocarbon dates that have been acquired, there is still not a common time framework for the whole of Neolithic Greece. The diversity of the available material culture remains across the different geographical regions and the different degrees to which each of these regions was archaeologically investigated, usually due to historical reasons, are responsible for this.

Since the beginning of our century, however, study of new material culture remains and/or reinvestigation of old evidence allowed a multifaceted view of the Greek Neolithic society to emerge. The new interpretation

4

The Neolithic Period in Greece For Thessaly, Tsountas (1908) and Wace and Thompson (1912) were the first pioneers to work towards the establishment of a chrono-typological framework that would be adequate to describe the cultural history of the region. A further refinement was made possible by detailed stratigraphic evidence from the excavations of Milojčić and Theocharis, resulting in a chronology of the Thessalian Neolithic and its relationship to South Greece and the Balkans (for a detailed account, see Otto 1985: 42, fig. 11).

from reconstruction of chrono-typological sequences and cultural processes to investigation of economic, social and symbolic aspects of this culture. The explanatory models put forward were formulated through analysis and comparison of certain categories of material evidence and, especially the last three decades, developed more into detailed interpretative schemes. The key concept of the ‘household’ and the model of the ‘domestic mode of production’, borrowed from the anthropological discipline, became central in understanding agricultural/subsistence and craft production alongside assumed small-scale exchange. Moreover, they contributed immensely in defining crucial mechanisms that reproduced the Neolithic Society.

More recently, a further modification leading to subdivisions of certain phases of the Neolithic (i.e. between LN I and II) was provided. These essentially resolved past controversies, e.g. in relation to the ‘placement’ of the Final Neolithic (or ‘Chalcolithic’) between the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Demoule and Perlès, in their review of the Greek Neolithic, offer a synthetic and simple chronological framework, which is related to chronologies for other

2.3.1

The Early and Middle Neolithic

Even during the earlier phases, the evidence from Thessaly suggests a rather busy social environment with a densely inhabited landscape which eventually becomes

Archaeological Phases Early Neolithic Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic Ι Late Neolithic II Final Neolithic

Years cal BC 6700/6500 - 5800/5600 5800/5600 - 5400/5300 5400/5300 - 4900/4800 4900/4800 - 4500 4500 - 3300/3100

Table 2.1 Archaeological Phases and Chronology for northern Greece: Neolithic period (after Demoule and Perlès 1993: 367 and Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 2001: 260) parts of Greece during the Neolithic, excluding Crete, but briefly including the Balkans. This is presented in both uncalibrated and calibrated years (Demoule and Perlès 1993: 366, Figure 2). A more detailed account of comparative chronologies between northern Greece and the Balkans is given by Whittle (Whittle 1996: 42, Table 3.4). Finally, Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis, in their extensive review of the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece, have suggested a new chronological framework (Andreou et al., 2001: 260). This combined chronology, presented above, although rather broad, is yet simple, easy to follow and, now, widely accepted by researchers who carry out archaeological work on northern Greek and Thessalian material (Pappa 2008; Pentedeka 2012, 2015). For these reasons it is adopted in the present study; although reference is often made to sites that cover the whole range of chronological phases of the table above, the place of the LN period with its two sub-phases remains central, as it is the best documented in Greece. 2.3

Archaeological Characteristics

Evidence

−

The

'crowded' in its eastern basin, especially towards the Late Neolithic (Vouzaxakis 2009: 61-62). This is also mirrored in the social organisation of settlements. The Middle Neolithic (MN), for instance, is currently viewed as a period of ‘massive urban development’ and of significant social changes (Kotsakis 2006a: 208). Opinions on settlement sizes differ, since they have been variously estimated as covering an area of either ca. 0.51.0 ha (Halstead 1984, 1994: 200), with populations ranging from 50 to 300 inhabitants per Neolithic village (Halstead 1984, 1994; Theocharis 1973), or 2 to 5.5 ha (Demoule and Perlès1993: 370). This excludes Sesklo whose two components (A and B) had reached over 13 ha in total (Kotsakis 2006a: 207-08). The sites were located in diverse environments, e.g. by a river bank (Argissa), in the foothills of mountains (Gediki), on low coastal hills (Sesklo), or in low-lying areas of the eastern or western Thessalian basin (Achilleion, Prodromos). Until relatively recently, the archaeological evidence for the same period in Macedonia and Thrace was restricted and resulted from a different scale and intensity of research. As Kotsakis has discussed extensively, this was in part due to geopolitical and historical factors and substantially affected the way prehistorians ‘placed’ and interpreted northern Greece’s relations with the rest of Europe and the Aegean (Kotsakis 1991, 1998: 47, 2006b). Archaeological understanding of the period was

General

As said above, during the course of the twentieth century, researchers have established relative and absolute chronologies of the Greek Neolithic period and explored several aspects concerning the structure and organisation of its society. In doing so, they have eventually moved

5

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos largely based on information from the low-mound settlement of the Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia. This is located in the southern alluvial plain of western Macedonia (Rodden 1965). The variety of its structural features and the richness of its diverse material culture, as the first part of its final publication reveals, make it a unique settlement for this chronological period (Rodden 1996; Yiouni 1996b). Understanding of the period was also based on the Middle Neolithic settlement of Servia, in the mid-Aliakmon valley (Ridley and Wardle 1979). The general characteristics of these two sites match those of their Thessalian contemporaries.

(Theocharis 1973: 40). As examples of similar extended settlements, he cited Achilleion, in Thessaly, and Nea Makri and Corinth in southern Greece. Based on Kotsakis’ recent reinvestigation of Sesklo, however, it is clarified that the dense architectural structure in the extended component of Sesklo B bears no similarities either with the dispersed habitation of Makrygialos, the typical flat-extended site in Macedonia, or with Neolithic sites in Anatolia (Kotsakis 2006a: 210). At the same time, he claims that Neolithic sites consisting of a tell and a flat-extended component, simultaneously inhabited, may have been very common in this period in Greece and the Balkans. Yet, the researchers’ focus on tell sites until recently prevented them from detecting the combined type of site (Kotsakis 2006a: 209). The Neolithic settlement of Paliambela, in central Macedonia, may become an ideal example for the systematic study and understanding of this type of spatial and social organisation (Kotsakis and Halstead 2004).

The fact that the majority of known Early and Middle Neolithic sites were continuously occupied throughout the two phases has been read as an element of stability (Demoule and Perlès1993: 368; Halstead 1984; Theocharis 1973). As far as central and eastern Macedonia and Thrace are concerned, there seems to be a gap in our knowledge of the EN period despite the impressive amount of new archaeological research in the abovementioned areas owing to large-scale rescue excavations and surface surveys (Andreou et al. 2001: 298-99). Yet, in more recent studies of this early period in northern Greece and Crete, researchers argue in favour of a considerable degree of relative complexity not only in the production and consumption strategies but also in the circulation and exchange of material goods (Perlès 2001; Tomkins 2004).

It was believed that most of these early settlements were open, with closely spaced, free-standing houses and open courtyards. The exceptions, however, of Soufli, Achilleion, Nea Nikomedeia and Servia, where a wall or a pair of walls or ditches enclosed the inhabited areas, indicated that such constructions were probably universal, if not always discovered. Enclosure ditches, even during this early period, may have served a practical purpose such as drainage, as is the case with Magoula Visviki, in Thessaly (Sarris et al. 2015: 562, 576-77). Moreover, they may have carried symbolic meaning providing territorial demarcation, the symbolic antithesis between structured and natural space but may also have provided protection (Pappa 2008: 362). There is still much debate regarding this particular issue (Andreou et al. 2001; Aslanis 1990; Hourmouziadis 1979; Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1999; Pappa and Besios 1999a, 1999b).

In the literature, until relatively recently, tell sites were assumed to have been the dominant type site of the Neolithic landscape. Tells are characterised by an accumulation of successive, continuous habitation layers, as a result of persistent occupation of the same location over a long time. Thus, the settlements expanded vertically rather than horizontally, covering a moderately restricted area and thereby maintaining a clearly visible height (Kotsakis 1999: 66-69). Such an understanding of settlement patterns and type sites, however, has been almost entirely based on evidence from Thessaly and has largely relied upon archaeological finds from surface surveys and small trial trenches. As exceptions, Sesklo, Dimini and Achilleion are the most extensively excavated sites (Gimbutas et al. 1989; Hourmouziadis 1979; Kotsakis 1994; Milojčić 1960; Theocharis 1973; Tsountas 1908; Wace and Thompson 1912).

In Neolithic tell architecture, rectangular, free-standing ‘houses’ with floor areas of 20 to 70 m2, usually, and/or much smaller clusters of adjoined ‘rooms’ dominated, and these have been interpreted as ‘family houses’ (Theocharis 1973). Nea Nikomedeia, Sesklo, Servia and Achilleion include good examples of house architecture (Gimbutas et al. 1989; Ridley and Wardle 1979; Rodden 1965; Theocharis 1973). A variety of construction forms and materials have been identified not only on different sites but also within the same site, for example, at Sesklo. Mudbrick appears to have been in general use often combined with stone foundations, where this material was available, alongside wattle-and-daub. Variation is observed in structures for the preparation and cooking of food, which were placed both inside houses and in open courtyards. This pattern may suggest private food consumption on a regular basis and communal consumption that must have taken place simultaneously but, possibly, on special occasions (Tomkins 2004: 43). There is, however, very little evidence for pottery kilns, as will be discussed later in this chapter.

The tell-type of site was assumed to be the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. Sesklo, for instance, exhibits a dual habitation pattern as it consists of two contemporary components of which one is a tell (acropolis = Sesklo A) and the other an extended site (polis = Sesklo B). Mainly for this reason, the site was treated, until recently, as an isolated oddity, outside the tell site norm (Kotsakis 1999: 66). Theocharis, after having examined the site, clearly stated that ‘…[it] was an extensive settlement from the beginning of the period....the settlement had spread out onto a flat, gently sloping ridge, which was a Pliocene ‘terrace’, and did not therefore have the appearance of a ‘magula’ or tell’

6

The Neolithic Period in Greece Achilleion (Bjork 1995; Gardner 1978; Winn & Shimabuku 1989), Nea Nikomedeia (Youni 1996b; Washburn 1983), Sesklo (Kotsakis 1983; Wijnen 1982, 1994) and Franchthi (Cullen 1985; Vitelli 1989, 1993a-b, 1995, 1999; Washburn 1983). Pottery was considered to be predominantly locally produced and the output of domestic production (Vitelli 1989: 19; Perlès1992; Wijnen 1994: 152; Yiouni 1996b: 77). Nevertheless, more recent research on EN ceramics strongly points to a different reality as will be outlined in more detail in the following sections (Tomkins and Day 2001; Tomkins 2004: 48). In addition, the choice of raw materials and techniques is taken to indicate well-informed potters. During the EN, the range of wares and fabrics is relatively restricted, vessels are fired at low temperatures and produced to a more or less similar size and shape in small quantities, e.g. estimated annual production at Franchthi is 12-13 pots, a pattern that seems to characterise the production technology of Knossos during the same period (Tomkins 2004: 45). At the same time the presence of ‘local styles’ has been detected at each site (Vitelli 1989: 19, 21, 1995: 60). Stylistic similarities in pottery decoration between distant geographical areas are taken to suggest close cultural links and ties. For example, the occurrence of white or red painted and finger-impressed wares found in EN Nea Nikomedeia are compared to similar pottery styles in central Bulgaria, eastern Yugoslavia and central Greece (Rodden 1965: 87; Yiouni 1996b).

Reconstruction of the EN and MN subsistence economy is based on the assumption that communities maintained a sedentary character. The definition of the concept of sedentism, as opposed to mobility, is still disputed as there is disagreement on its forms, levels and its interpretation in cultural terms. Archaeological and ethno-historic data, which seriously challenge the link between agriculture, house building and the ‘settling down’ process, have also been overlooked (cf. Kaiser and Voytek 1983: 324; Kelly 1992: 44-45, 49; Whittle 1997: 15-16, 21). Here, once more, most of the debate on subsistence economy relies on palaeo-economic evidence from Thessaly and stresses changes in subsistence strategies in the transition from the Early and Middle to the Late and Final Neolithic (Halstead 1981a, 1984, 1989, 1992b, 1994, 1995). During the earlier phases, small, nucleated settlements are thought to have relied on a small-scale, diversified, mixed agricultural economy, seen as an element of interdependence. Subsistence mainly consisted of a wide range of domesticates, essentially cereal crops and pulses, einkorn, emmer, bread wheat, lentils and peas. In terms of arable land use, due to the small size of Neolithic settlements, it has been suggested that early inhabitants adopted an intensive horticultural regime, where cereals and pulses were cultivated in rotation in small plots/‘gardens’ in close proximity to the settlement. According to Halstead, such a strategy could produce more food than an alternative with bare fallow, would improve the soil composition and, after harvesting, allow animal fodder and consequently field manuring (1981a: 320).

On a parallel line of argument, stylistic similarities in the design elements of painted Urfirnis pottery from five contemporary MN sites in southern Greece were tested to explore the nature of inter-community contact through interaction amongst potters (Cullen 1985). Here again, pottery is considered the output of household production or production ‘by a few talented individuals from each community rather than, for example, central production and subsequent distribution’ (Cullen 1985: 82). During this phase (MN), the picture in Thessaly and South Greece changes slightly and a greater variation in surface treatment/decoration is observed, along with a sharp increase, compared to the preceding phase, in production output, i.e. 150-170 pots per year at Franchthi. Pottery was fired at higher temperatures and the symmetry and regularity in the vessels’ form, with elegant, sharp profiles and added, often pedestal, bases, is taken to suggest much more experienced and skilled potters with higher technological knowledge, willing to take risks. The idea that the first coarse cooking and storage vessels appear during this phase in relatively small quantities was eventually challenged. It appears that cooking pots, along with storage vessels, have probably been in use since the EN at Nea Nikomedeia (Yiouni 1996b: 187-91) and at other southern European EN settlements such as Anza, Achilleion, and Sitagroi (Gardner 1978; Yiouni 1996b). More recently, integrated analyses on MN but also LN I ceramic assemblages from Thessaly (Pentedeka 2008, 2011, 2012) and the Cave of the Cyclops, in the Sporades islands (Quinn et al. 2010), provide solid evidence that sheds light on the diversity which characterises the technology and the co-existing patterns of production of

Hunting-gathering, on the other hand, is assumed to have taken place in areas where the presence of EN and MN settlements was very rare or absent, due to environmental constraints in agriculturally marginal areas (Halstead 1994: 200). In addition, the breeding of livestock, e.g. sheep, goat, cow and pig, is thought to have been a supplementary strategy (Andreou et al. 1996: 558; Halstead 1981a, 1984, 1994: 200-201). Evidence of high slaughter rates for young animals suggests that a meat production strategy was also employed. According to Halstead, however, this did not necessarily exclude the exploitation of secondary products, e.g. milk and wool, although clear evidence primarily comes from Early Bronze Age (EBA) and later contexts. Moreover, drawing on ethnographic evidence, Halstead suggested that even if meat exploitation was not intensive, the importance of maintaining domestic stock is seen in many small-scale, non-industrial societies as a symbol of prestige and wealth and as a coping mechanism against food emergencies (Halstead 1981a: 320). In the production of craft goods, significant technological developments took place as new materials and techniques were explored. The firing of clay and the beginning of pottery making were amongst the most important ones. Until recently, this particular body of evidence from the EN and MN was more or less restricted to sites such as

7

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos this pottery. The aforementioned research projects essentially contribute to a reassessment of crucial aspects of the Neolithic period as a whole by submitting new data and interpretations of a rather intense circulation of pottery types, at least on a regional level.

previously been uninhabited landscape. Vasilika C, Thermi B, Arethousa and Makrygialos, all in central Macedonia, are typical examples of this new habitation pattern. Simultaneous changes were also observed in the South, where cave habitation was increasingly favoured, and the apparent first occupation in some of the Aegean islands took place, a development, which is not firmly defined chronologically (Cherry 1990; Davis 1992; Demoule and Perlès1993).

For the same period, however, stone tool production suggests a notably different pattern. Exploitation and long-distance exchange of ‘exotic’ materials is favoured, whilst local resources are neglected to a large extent, and if used, are associated with low-quality products and much simpler techniques (Perlès1992: 125, 136; Renfrew 1973: 180; Theocharis 1973: 45; Torrence 1986). Although typological simplicity characterises this period, it is combined with a rather sophisticated exploitation of raw materials, acquired from long-distance sources. Obsidian from the island of Melos and fine-grained chert, honey flint and jasper, probably obtained from the west and northwestern part of Greece, represent the most typical examples of non-local production. They usually occur in pressure-flaked, fine and large blades and bladelets, imported into the sites as preformed or partially flaked cores and distributed in small quantities. The above pattern, along with the absence of local variability in intra-site tool production, has been explained as the result of groups of specialists acquiring and distributing raw materials and specialist itinerant knappers operating throughout Greece (Perlès1993: 382-83). 2.3.2

The discovery of large, flat-extended sites in Macedonia, primarily related to the Late Neolithic period, required that all assumptions about the predominance of the tell site during this period be rethought. This new pattern of habitation and land use suggests settlements that extended horizontally and discontinuously, over areas ranging from 12 ha (Thermi B) or 25 ha (Vasilika C) to over 50 ha (Makrygialos), or even 100 ha (Andreou and Kotsakis 1986; Andreou et al. 2001). A distinctive feature is the presence of enclosures/ditches around most of these nontell sites, but as noted above, similar constructions also appear at some tell sites. Moreover, their purpose cannot be generalised for all settlements, as each case may maintain a unique character (Kotsakis 1999: 72). Excavation at most of the flat-extended sites, with the exception of Makrygialos where the systematic study of material remains is still in progress, was until recently on a small scale (Pappa 2008). The available evidence from all excavations suggests a non-intensive use of space. What is more, sometimes unused areas have been detected between structures or parts of the settlement appear to have been abandoned. Kotsakis argues that the use of space in flat extended sites ‘stresses communality’ whereas individuality is the element that prevails in tell sites, through the concept of continuity of the individual house (Kotsakis 2006: 210). This may not apply, however, to all such cases, i.e. the Makrygialos II phase, where the element of individuality is implied not only in the architectural remains but also in varied categories of material culture such as pottery. Interpretation of the character of these sites is not yet conclusive.

The Late and Final Neolithic

Research suggests that changes in habitation and land use patterns took place during the transition from the Early and Middle to the Late and Final Neolithic phases (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Halstead 1984, 1989, 1994). In Thessaly, the number of new sites, thought to be of a small size and short duration, significantly increased during the LN, and was followed by a concentration of the population in much fewer sites in the FN. There also seems to have been a shift in the favoured locations of new settlements, now distributed more regularly but at greater distances apart, from the foothills to the alluvial plains (Demoule and Perlès1993: 388; Halstead 1984, 1989, 1994: 200). Tell sites are originally thought to have dominated during this period again. It should be acknowledged, however, that all these assumptions have been established on evidence that is largely derived from surface surveys or small trial trenches.

The evidence for architectural remains for the LN and FN was essentially fragmentary until recently. In Thessaly, this was predominantly restricted to sites such as Dimini, Sesklo, Agia Sophia, and, lately, Magoula Visviki. These settlements are associated with long, rectangular and freestanding buildings (so-called ‘Megara’), usually comprising two to three rooms and facing a central courtyard, around which clusters of smaller domestic units, ‘households’, were organised expanding on a lower level. Dimini, the best-preserved example of this period, is characterised by a set of concentric perimeter walls, whose function was in the first place interpreted as defensive (Theocharis 1973; Tsountas 1908). During its latest re-investigation, however, careful evaluation of the architectural features suggested a rather different picture, according to which the purpose of the walls was to demarcate the four main domestic wards into which the settlement was thought to be segmented. Each of these wards, or ‘courtyard groups’, was organised around a main, large domestic/production unit with smaller

In Macedonia, for the Late to Final Neolithic period, it is evident from excavations of the last couple of decades that new settlements were established in previously uninhabited areas such as central and western Macedonia. New, horizontally shifting, flat-extended sites have been discovered either through surface surveys or through small- and large-scale rescue excavations (Andreou and Kotsakis 1986; Andreou et al. 2001; Besios and Pappa 1994, 1998; Grammenos 1992, 1996; Grammenos et al. 1992; Pappa and Besios 1999a, 1999b; Pappa 1997; 2008). Such settlements occupied very large areas discontinuously and covered what apparently had 8

The Neolithic Period in Greece rooms/areas for food preparation/cooking and storage attached to it (Hourmouziadis 1979). Hourmouziadis argued that the building of the enclosures took place gradually, as a response to population growth and the settlement’s need for expansion, and in order to secure the maximum possible space for use by the community. In addition, however, he stressed the Neolithic inhabitants’ tendency to demarcate their space, resulting in the isolation of domestic units. This interpretation has been closely associated with the observation that during the Late Neolithic the placement of cooking facilities (hearths and ovens) is no longer both inside and between houses, in open yards, but is mainly restricted to indoor spaces. Such a ‘reading’ of the material evidence, i.e. architectural segmentation that is taken to imply social isolation of the ‘households’, becomes a new element that is particularly assigned to this final phase of the Late Neolithic.

centre, located in the western Thessalian plain, and was exchanged between neighbouring communities over a radius of no more than ca. 70 km. This fine ware is thought to have had high social value, as repair holes on sherds testify. At the same time, the distribution of Grey monochrome ware is restricted to the eastern Thessalian plain. Along with the Polychrome, White-on-Red, and Black-on-Red, mainly occurring during the earlier Arapi, Agia Sophia and Otzaki sub-phases respectively, new, very distinct decorative styles, such as Brown-on-Cream and Incised ware appear during the latest sub-phase, known as ‘Classical Dimini’. These ‘chronological’ subdivisions of LN are made primarily on stylistic rather than stratigraphic grounds. In eastern Macedonia and Thrace, on the other hand, different styles predominate including Graphite-painted, Incised and local Black-onRed. A few sherds of Graphite-painted and Black-on-Red have been found at the Late Neolithic coastal settlement of Pefkakia, near Dimini, and were assumed to have originated in the plain of Drama, in eastern Macedonia (Keighley 1986: 369). As for the highly-decorated painted wares of ‘Classical Dimini’, until relatively recently it had been assumed that their distribution was restricted to the eastern plain of Thessaly and nowhere else in Neolithic Greece. This particular type of pottery and its possible long-distance exchange is the focal point of the present study and will be extensively discussed in the following chapters of this book.

With the transition from the earlier to the later Neolithic phases, it has been suggested that early farming settlements in fertile areas were eventually abandoned and that herding started to take place as a new subsistence strategy (Halstead 1981a). The employment of new strategies appears to emerge around the same period as available evidence of cave habitation, especially in southern Greece, in combination with the colonisation of agriculturally marginal areas, which is explained to be a result of population growth (Halstead 1981a: 326).

Geographical differences are also marked between northern and southern Greece regarding another category of material culture: stone tools. As noted earlier, raw materials such as obsidian, flint and jasper are known to have circulated over long distances since the beginning of the Early Neolithic, in contrast with pottery, which is thought to have been locally produced and consumed. During the later phases of the Neolithic, the quantities of imported obsidian in the South increase dramatically and this is followed by technological developments in its procurement and manufacturing techniques. It has been suggested that, as a result, local materials are almost abandoned, but the general variability in manufacture is taken to suggest that both specialists and non-specialist groups of producers were operating simultaneously. The large quantities of obsidian, combined with the fact that it is now imported in variable condition to each site, has been associated with the parallel development of the colonisation of the Cycladic islands, and has been interpreted as evidence for direct procurement and unlimited access to the sources (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Cherry 1990; Torrence 1986). In Thessaly, on the other hand, an area more distant from possible sources, the use of materials and techniques appears unchanged in comparison to the earlier periods. It has been suggested that these different choices of tools and materials, which occurred between northern and southern Greece, should be associated with divergent economic strategies rather than cultural differences (Demoule and Perlès 1993: 394).

In the domain of craft production, a new picture is suggested to have emerged during this period, which has been interpreted in rather divergent ways (Perlès1992; Schneider et al. 1991, 1994; Vitelli 1993a, 1995). Archaeologists agree that pottery production became more diversified and increased dramatically. Large, coarse vessels predominated. A wide range of functional categories and shapes appeared, e.g. storage, cooking, eating and drinking vessels found in different use contexts. What strikes one as a new element, however, beside the technological developments, is the sophisticated and dense decoration of restricted categories of containers to which a social and symbolic character has been assigned. The differences in ceramic styles throughout Greece are significant, associated with different patterns of production and distribution. During the earlier phases of the Late Neolithic (the so-called preDimini phases), there is a clear geographical division between Macedonia, Thessaly and southern Greece, on the one hand, and eastern Macedonia and Thrace on the other, where stylistic parallels with the Balkans are detected. Matt-painted, black-topped and impressed wares occur widely distributed in most parts of northern and southern Greece, following local manufacturing traditions, while the first specialised production centres are identified in Thessaly, as regards the Grey-on-Grey ware (Schneider et al. 1991, 1994). Chemical and limited petrographic analysis on a number of samples from the transitional late Middle and early Late Neolithic phases show that Grey-on-Grey painted pottery was most likely manufactured in one production

In addition to stone tools that were exchanged over long distances and used to cover everyday needs (with very 9

Pottery Production Technology and Long-distance Exchange in Late Neolithic Makrygialos few exceptions), and pottery that was predominantly locally produced and very rarely exchanged, there was a third category of material ‘goods’. These are considered rare/‘exotic’ and mainly comprise Spondylus shell ornaments, stone vessels and rare metal objects. It is probable that archaeologically largely invisible items, such as textiles, were also involved. All these are viewed as components of long-distance exchange networks and are thought to have been used in ritual and ceremonial occasions (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Perlès 1992). Spondylus gaederopus is found in moderately large quantities in settlements of northern Greece, e.g. Dimini, Sitagroi and Makrygialos. It is believed that shell ornaments were manufactured in coastal areas by specialists and exchanged inland, as far as central Europe, as finished products, although this view has been disputed by Halstead (1993: 604, 608). The picture, however, appears different in the South, where the virtual absence of Spondylus shell ornaments in settlements is taken to suggest a lack of demand, due to the fact that they were near to the sources, and therefore the raw material was not highly valued (Hourmouziadis 1979; Renfrew 1973; Shackleton 1988).

incorporated into the general model of the ‘Domestic Mode of Production’. The archaeological problem, therefore, was approached from a rather similar theoretical perspective but investigated through different categories of material evidence. Halstead focused on agricultural production, that was explained by reference to the ideas of the ‘DMP’ and ‘social storage’, whilst Perlès and Vitelli concentrated on the production of stone tools and pottery, respectively, emphasising specialisation and exchange. 2.4.1

The assumption of a ‘family household’ as the basic unit of production resulted in the direct association between household production and what is known in the literature as the ‘Domestic Mode of Production’ (Halstead 1989, 1992b: 20; Sahlins 1972). As said above, its primary components, with reference to the Greek Neolithic, have been a) crop and animal husbandry for food production, and b) craft production. The main idea around which the debate on household production has developed is that of underproduction, where each household is assumed to have produced as much as was necessary to cover its needs for survival (Sahlins 1972: 86). This selfsufficiency has always been seen as an element of a simple egalitarian society, mainly assigned to the Neolithic period, as opposed to the more ‘complex’ social structures of later periods.

Admittedly, the transformations that took place were major during these late phases of the Neolithic and pertained to all different aspects of this culture in the whole of Greece, even though in different degrees. 2.4

Agricultural Production and Exchange

Approaches to the Archaeological Evidence

According to Halstead’s ideas, Neolithic inhabitants had to develop ‘buffering mechanisms’ to cope with the risks and uncertainties of temporal (seasonal, inter-annual or long-term) production fluctuations. Storage was arguably the main mechanism for coping with seasonal shortages, as these would to some extent have been predictable. Thus, reciprocal sharing of food between domestic units, hospitality and small-scale exchange with more distant neighbours were possible strategies employed against long-term seasonal food scarcity. Storage of normal surplus in good years for consumption during the bad years would also have been a major response to these circumstances.

Site types, the organisation of settlements and their spatial distribution across the Neolithic landscape have been some of the ‘lenses’ through which Greek Neolithic society has been studied and explained. The subsistence economy and agricultural and craft production have equally dominated the relevant discussion. Borrowed from the tradition of economic anthropology, the concept of ‘household’ as the basic social and production unit and the model of the ‘Domestic Mode of Production’ (DMP) served as key interpretative frameworks (Sahlins 1972). Within those, the structure of the society in question is investigated in terms of increasing social complexity and issues of variability and social change become central and tested against the available archaeological evidence. Yet, as mentioned earlier, most of this evidence was essentially retrieved from small trial trenches and survey material, especially in the case of Thessaly.

The changing of surplus through time has been examined in the context of the Neolithic farming communities of Thessaly (Halstead 1989: 68-9, 1992b: 23-4; Halstead and O’Shea 1982). Here once more, significant differences have been observed in the transition from the Early and Middle to the Late and Final Neolithic.

The complex issue of the organisation of Greek Neolithic society has been approached and explored mainly through two major themes: those of production and exchange. Both concepts originally derived from the theoretical tradition of economic anthropology (Sahlins 1972). Under this influence, two prevalent directions have been followed over the years in an effort to reconstruct and interpret socio-economic aspects of Greek Neolithic culture. Halstead (1981a, 1989, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1999b), on the one hand, and Perlès and Vitelli (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Perlès1992; Perlès and Vitelli 1999; Vitelli 1993a, 1995), on the other, put forward their views

2.4.1.1 The Early and Middle Neolithic During the earlier phases (EN and MN), the close spacing of the farming communities (mean distance

Unsere Partner sammeln Daten und verwenden Cookies zur Personalisierung und Messung von Anzeigen. Erfahren Sie, wie wir und unser Anzeigenpartner Google Daten sammeln und verwenden. Cookies zulassen