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

Table of contents :
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
Part I Tool Industries
1 The Mesolithic and Neolithic Bone Implements
Part II Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment
2 From Mesolithic Fishermen and Bird Hunters to Neolithic Goat Herders: The Transformation of an Island Economy in the Aegean
3 Non-Vertebral Fish Bones
4 Fish Vertebrae
5 Malacological Material
6 Palynological Evidence
7 Charcoal Analysis
8 Archaeobotanical Seed Remains
Part III Archaeometrical Studies
9 Neolithic Pottery: A Characterization Study
10 Sequential Radiocarbon Dating and Calculation of the Marine Reservoir Effect
11 Clastic Sediments
12 Stable Isotopic Analysis of the Mollusk Shells
Index

Citation preview

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

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

Volume II Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 31

The Cave of the Cyclops Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece Volume II Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies

edited by Adamantios Sampson

contributions by Yannis Bassiakos, Androniki Drivaliari, Yorgos Facorellis, Chryssanthi Ioakim, Lilian Karali, Ioannis Liritzis, Antiklia Moundrea-Agrafioti, Dimitra Mylona, Maria Ntinou, Konstantina Papakosta, Judith Powell, Anaya Sarpaki, Katie Theodorakopoulou, and Katerina Trantalidou

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2011

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press Printing CRWGraphics, Pennsauken, New Jersey Binding Hoster Bindery, Inc., Ivyland, Pennsylvania

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

Copyright © 2011 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix PART I. TOOL INDUSTRIES 1. The Mesolithic and Neolithic Bone Implements, Antiklia Moundrea-Agrafioti....................................3 PART II. DIETARY RESOURCES AND THE PALEOENVIRONMENT 2. From Mesolithic Fishermen and Bird Hunters to Neolithic Goat Herders: The Transformation of an Island Economy in the Aegean, Katerina Trantalidou. ...............................53 Appendix 2.A. Avian measurements............................................................................................102 Appendix 2.B. Cervus elaphus measurements..............................................................................110 Appendix 2.C. Suid measurements..............................................................................................110 Appendix 2.D. Capra sp. measurements......................................................................................112 Appendix 2.E. Ovis aries measurements........................................................................................120

vi

THE CAVE O F THE CYCLOPS

3. Non-Vertebral Fish Bones, Judith Powell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Appendix 3.A. Complete List of Identified Diagnostic Non-Vertebral Fish Bones. . . . . . . . . 177 4. Fish Vertebrae, Dimitra Mylona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Appendix 4.A. Trench CWest Context Description by Level in Relation to Fish Remains. . . 257 Appendix 4.B. Trench CWest Fish Vertebrae Recording. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 5. Malacological Material, Lilian Karali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 6. Palynological Evidence, Chryssanthi Ioakim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 7. Charcoal Analysis, Maria Ntinou. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 8. Archaeobotanical Seed Remains, Anaya Sarpaki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 PART III. ARCHAEOMETRICAL STUDIES 9. Neolithic Pottery: A Characterization Study, Konstantina Papakosta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Appendix 9.A. Petrographic Description of the Fabrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 10. Sequential Radiocarbon Dating and Calculation of the Marine Reservoir Effect, Yorgos Facorellis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 11. Clastic Sediments, Katie Theodorakopoulou and Yannis Bassiakos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 12. Stable Isotopic Analysis of the Mollusk Shells, Androniki Drivaliari, Ioannis Liritzis, and Adamantios Sampson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

List of Tables

Table 1.1.

Distribution of bone implements by trench. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 1.2.

Distribution of bone industry by trench, level, and chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1.3.

Distribution of bone implements by trench and stratum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 1.4.

Distribution of the industry by the principal categories of raw material used. . . . . . . . . 7

Table 1.5.

Distribution of bone tools by animal size and chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 1.6.

Distribution of the industry by the principal categories of animals represented. . . . . . . 8

Table 1.7.

Bone tool groups by tool categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 1.8.

Distribution of hooks and hook preform by strata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 1.9.

Descriptive statistics of hooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 1.10.

Descriptive statistics of bipoints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 1.11A–D. Bipoints: descriptive statistics by group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 1.12.

Correlation of chronological levels and the groups of bipoints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 1.13.

Pointed implements by anatomical categories and blank morphology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 2.1.

Fauna from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 2.2.

Distribution of avifaunal remains throughout the chronological sequence of the cave. . . 124

viii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Table 2.3.

Identifiable bones of Puffinus puffinus by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Table 2.4.

Identifiable bones of Phalacrocorax aristotelis by period.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table 2.5.

Identifiable bones of Otis tarda from all periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 2.6.

Identifiable bones of Phalacrocorax carbo from all periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Table 2.7.

Identifiable bones of Larus audouinii by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Table 2.8.

Identifiable bones of Calonectris diomedea from UM deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 2.9.

Identifiable bones of Corvus corax by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 2.10.

Identifiable bones of Accipitridae by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 2.11.

Identifiable bones of Phasianidae from all periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 2.12.

Identifiable bones of Strigidae by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table 2.13.

Identifiable bones of indeterminate larger birds by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table 2.14.

Identifiable bones of indeterminate medium-sized birds from all periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Table 2.15.

Identifiable bones of indeterminate small-sized birds by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table 2.16.

Total number of ribs, fragmentation pattern, and modification in the caprid and suid category by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Table 2.17.

Frequency of Suidae vertebrae (fragmentation pattern and age classes) by period. . . . . . 137

Table 2.18.

Sus: anatomical representation, fragmentation, modification, and MNI by period. . . . . . 137

Table 2.19.

Isolated teeth of Suidae by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Table 2.20.

Suids: determination of the sex based on the morphological differences in the form of the canine teeth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Table 2.21.

Caprinae: anatomical representation, fragmentation, and modification by period. . . . . . . 140

Table 2.22.

Caprinae: total number of long bone fragments, fragmentation pattern, and modification of bones in the unidentifiable category by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Table 2.23.

Caprinae by period: total number of vertebrae, fragmentation pattern, modification of the bones, and age classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Table 2.24.

Distribution of sheep and goat (NISP) by period based on morphological criteria: mandibular teeth (mainly D4), horn cores, scapulas, humerus, and metapodials. . . . . . . . 146

Table 2.25.

Ovicaprids: quantifying male and female animals based on common morphological differences in the form of the skull, the horn core, the atlas, the epistropheus, the innominate, and the talus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Table 2.26.

Caprinae teeth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Table 2.27.

Caprinae age at death based on dental evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Table 2.28.

Age at death based on post-cranial evidence (after Silver 1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Table 3.1.

Fishing areas of Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Table 3.2.

Weight of non-vertebral fish bones by chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

LIST OF TABLES

ix

Table 3.3.

Epinephelus sp. dentary measurements (no. 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table 3.4.

Sparidae species represented in the Youra fish bone assemblage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Table 3.5.

NISP figures for major species of Sparidae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 3.6.

Oblada melanoura, angular measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 3.7.

Oblada melanoura, dentary measurements (no. 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 3.8.

Diplodus vulgaris, premaxilla measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 3.9.

Diplodus vulgaris, dentary measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 3.10.

Diplodus vulgaris, angular measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Table 3.11.

Pagrus coeruleostictus, premaxilla measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Table 3.12.

Pagrus coeruleostictus, dentary measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Table 3.13.

NISP figures for selected sparids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Table 3.14.

Scomber japonicus, hyomandibular measurements (no. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Table 3.15.

Scorpaenid premaxillae measurements (no. 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Table 3.16.

Taxonomic diversity for Trench CWest. NISP by family and stratigraphic level. . . . . . . . . 172

Table 3.17.

Taxonomic diversity for Trench CEast. NISP by family and stratigraphic level. . . . . . . . . 173

Table 3.18.

Key months for modern catches of ροφοί, φαγγρία, μελανούρια, σκορπιοί, and σαργοί in Greek waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Table 4.1.

Sub-sampling from contexts of Trench CWest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Table 4.2.

The identified fish vertebrae assemblage from Trench CWest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Table 4.3.

Trench CWest: preservation trends observed in the fish vertebrae assemblage. . . . . . . . . . 240

Table 4.4.

Catalog of fish families, genera, and species represented in the fish vertebrae assemblage of Trench CWest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Table 4.5.

Size and anatomical part representation for all families through time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Table 4.6.

Trench CWest: species representation by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Table 4.7A. Trench CWest: LN/Roman species representation by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Table 4.7B. Trench CWest: EN–MN distal species representation by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Table 4.7C. Trench CWest: FM–EN species representation by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Table 4.7D. Trench CWest: UM species representation by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Table 4.7E.

Trench CWest: LM species representation by level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Table 4.8.

Cranial and post-cranial bone representation for selected levels and families. . . . . . . . . . . 249

Table 4.9.

Species representation according to habitat by period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Table 5.1.

Total amounts and percentages of mollusk species with information about habitat (excavation seasons 1992–1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

x

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Table 5.2.

Stratigraphical distribution of the molluscan material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Table 5.3.

Sums of the most frequent mollusk species according to periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Table 6.1.

Grain counts of pollen observed in the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290

Table 7.1.

Correlation between charcoal assemblages, cultural periods, and radiocarbon dates. . . . 301

Table 7.2.

Presence and distribution of the identified plant taxa in the charcoal assemblages from the Mesolithic–Neolithic sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Table 7.3.

Absolute and relative frequency of the taxa identified in the charcoal assemblages from the Mesolithic–Neolithic sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Table 8.1.

List of sample contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Table 8.2.

Results of the studied archaeobotanical samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Table 8.3.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Table 8.4.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Table 8.5.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Table 8.6.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Table 8.7.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Table 8.8.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Table 8.9.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangles 8, 9, and 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Table 8.10.

Seed remains from Trench CEast, Rectangle 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Table 8.11.

Seed remains from Trench CEast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Table 9.1.

Summary of the SEM results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Table 10.1.

Summary of radiocarbon dates of samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Table 10.2.

Radiocarbon ages of pairs of samples of contemporaneous terrestrial and marine mollusk shells collected together in undisturbed anthropogenic layers. . . . . . . . . 366

Table 10.3.

Calculation of the marine reservoir effect (local constant ΔR) in the Aegean Sea using pairs of terrestrial and marine samples collected together in undisturbed anthropogenic layers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Table 11.1.

Section CWest. Total depth of section 3.10 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

Table 11.2.

Section CEast soil samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

Table 11.3.

SEM/EDX analyses from Section CWest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

Table 11.4.

SEM/EDX analyses from Section CEast samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

Table 12.1.

Stable isotope data of mollusk shells in their archaeological context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

List of Figures

Figure 1.1.

Relative frequency of bone implements by trench. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 1.2.

Relative frequency of bone implements by trench and chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 1.3.

Relative frequency of bone tools by animal size and chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 1.4.

Bone industry profile: proportion of major tool groups by chronological period. . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 1.5.

Hooks (BH2, BH4, BH7, BH9–BH13, BH15, BH16, BH18, BH19, BH21–BH25). . . . . 16

Figure 1.6.

Hooks (BH26–BH31). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 1.7.

Hooks (BH32–BH35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 1.8.

Hooks (BH2, BH4, BH6–BH13, BH15–BH19, BH22, BH25–BH31, BH33–BH35). . . . 19

Figure 1.9.

Distribution of hook length and width by chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 1.10. Hook length to width ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 1.11. Distribution of hooks by measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 1.12. Bipoints (BB1–BB7, BB9–BB12, BB14, BB16, BB17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 1.13. Bipoints (BB18, BB20, BB22, BB23, BB25, BB27–BB32, BB35, BB36, BB38, BB39). . . . 30 Figure 1.14. Bipoints (BB3, BB7, BB11, BB14, BB18, BB21, BB23, BB24, BB28, BB29, BB32, BB35–BB41). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 1.15. Bipoints: frequency distribution by length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

xii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Figure 1.16. Bipoints: frequency distribution by width. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 1.17. Bipoints: frequency distribution by thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 1.18. Bipoint length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 1.19. Bipoints: techno-morphological groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 1.20. Bipoints: length dispersion by morphological group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 1.21. Bipoints: dimensions by shape groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 1.22. Bipoints: frequency by chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 1.23. Points (BP10–BP13, BP15, BP16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 1.24. Points (BP17, BP22, BP25, BP28). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 1.25. Pointed tools by chronological period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 1.26. Pointed tools by blank category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 1.27. Pointed tools: dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 1.28. Pointed tools: length by blank category (mean values and standard deviation). . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 1.29. Varia (BV4, BV6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 1.30. Varia (BV3, BV9, BV16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 2.1.

Map of the Northern Sporades and zones A and B of the Maritime National Park (23,000 hectares), after Hau and Hutter 1998, 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 2.2.

Cave of the Cyclops faunal assemblage: species relative abundance based on the number of identified fragments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 2.3.

Main bird species present at the Cave of Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 2.4.

Preserved elements of Puffinus puffinus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 2.5.

Puffinus puffinus: location and percentages of traces of dismembering and filleting (right)

and fire (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 2.6.

Phalacrocorax aristotelis bones (axial skeleton, pectoral girdle, wings, and legs). . . . . . . 69

Figure 2.7.

Preserved elements of Otis tarda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 2.8.

Preserved elements of Corvus corax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 2.9.

Vertebrae of an adult animal from the order Cetacea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 2.10. Sus scrofa maxillae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 2.11. Typical modification (short, deep cuts, and striated cuts indicated by small arrows and breakage) observed on the radii and ulnae of caprinae, mainly sheep elements in this figure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure 2.12. Modifications observed on the radii and ulnae of caprinae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Figure 2.13. Fragmentations and modifications observed on the proximal end of radii of caprinae. . . 81 Figure 2.14. Fragmentations and modifications (gnawing) on the radii of caprinae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

Figure 2.15. Goat horn cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure 2.16. Caprin distal extremity of the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 2.17. Caprin distal extremity of the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 2.18. Evidence of traumatic fractures on caprin ribs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 2.19. Radiography of the previous ribs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 2.20. Ventral view of a caprine scapula bearing a hole, possibly exhibiting a localized non-specific infection of the periosteum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 2.21. Ventral view of caprine innominate, showing abnormal bone formation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 2.22. Radiography of two caprin hip bones (ox coxae). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 2.23. Proximal extremities of large caprin metapodials presenting osteophytes (possibly enthesopathies).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 2.24. Fragments of caprin metapodials.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 2.25. Radiography of whole proximal (upper row) and distal extremities of fused metapodial bones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Figure 2.26. Radiograph showing healthy caprin mandible (top) and mandible of another individual with poor oral health (bottom). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Figure 3.1.

Bone measurements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Figure 3.2.

Premaxillae (left to right) of Diplodus vulgaris, Sarpa salpa, Labridae, and Trachurus trachurus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Figure 3.3.

Hyomandibular (left to right) of Mugilidae: Scomber japonicus, Scorpaena notata, and Sparus aurata.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Figure 3.4.

Muraena helena dentary (top) and quadrate (bottom) from Trench CWest, Level 7, Rects. 1–4 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Figure 3.5.

Epinephelid bones. From left to right: quadrate (CWest, Level 7, Rects. 1–4), hyomandibular (CEast, Level 6), palatine (CEast, Level 6), and maxilla (Trench B, Level 6, Rects. 1–4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Figure 3.6.

Dentex dentex bones: dentary (CEast, Level 18, Rect. 6) and palatine (CEast, Level 17, Rect. 2).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Figure 3.7.

Oblada melanoura bones: premaxillae, angular, and maxilla.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Figure 3.8.

Sarda sarda bones: angular (left: CWest, Level 7, Rects. 1–4) and premaxilla (right: CWest, Level 8, Rects. 1–4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Figure 3.9.

Scorpaenid bones: ceratohyal (left: CWest, Level 7, Rects. 1–4) and preopercle (right: CWest, Level 10, Rects. 3–4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Figure 5.1.

Amounts of each of the most frequent mollusk species according to period.. . . . . . . . . . 270

Figure 5.2.

Worked shells (S1–S4, S6–S11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

xiv

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Figure 6.1.

Palynological diagram: composition by pollen type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Figure 6.2.

Palynological diagram: aboreal pollen (AP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

Figure 6.3.

Palynological diagram: non-aboreal pollen (NAP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Figure 6.4.

Palynological diagram: spores and varia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Figure 7.1.

The island of Youra from the southwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Figure 7.2.

Phrygana (Euphorbiaceae and Labiatae) on the eastern slopes of the island. . . . . . . . . . 298

Figure 7.3.

Pistacia lentiscus (left) and Sarcopoterium spinosum (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Figure 7.4.

Plant formations on the western side of the island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Figure 7.5.

The vegetation near the cave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Figure 7.6.

The effect of prevalent winds on the vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Figure 7.7A. Arbutus sp., radial longitudinal section, x990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.7B. Cercis siliquastrum, transverse section, x130. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.7C. Cercis siliquastrum, tangential longitudinal section, x500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.7D. Ephedra sp., radial longitudinal section, x2500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.7E. Phillyrea-Rhamnus, transverse section, x81. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.7F. Pistacia terebinthus, transverse section, x150. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.7G. Pistacia terebinthus, tangential longitudinal section, x500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Figure 7.8.

Charcoal diagram showing the frequency and distribution of taxa in successive charcoal assemblages from the Mesolithic–Neolithic sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Figure 8.1.

Trench CEast seeds per rectangle by time period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Figure 9.1.

Painted pottery with Red-on-White decoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Figure 9.2.

Petrographic samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Figure 9.3.

Petrographic samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Figure 9.4.

Petrographic samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

Figure 9.5.

SEM samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Figure 9.6.

SEM samples from the Cave of the Cyclops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

Figure 9.7.

Fabrics represented in the EN II–MN periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Figure 9.8.

Fabrics and ware distribution in the EN I–MN periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Figure 9.9.

Fabrics represented in the LN I period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Figure 9.10. Fabric and ware distribution in the LN I period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

LIST OF FIGURES

xv

Fig. 10.1.

Stratigraphy of Trench CEast showing consecutive layers of hearths, as well as layers rich in seashells and land snails deposited as food remains.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Fig. 10.2.

Food residue found during the excavation of the cave. Land mollusks of the species Helix cincta (Müller). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Fig. 10.3.

Food residue found during the excavation of the cave. Marine mollusks of the species Patella ulyssiponensis (Gmelin).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Fig. 10.4.

Calculation of the marine reservoir effect (local constant ΔR) based on the third pair of terrestrial/marine samples in Table 10.3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

Fig. 10.5.

Calendar dates of samples from the cave sorted by trench and depth from surface.. . . . . . 370

Figure 11.1. Element variation in Trench CWest by layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 Figure 11.2. Calcium variation in relation to depth in Trench CWest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 Figure 11.3. Sulfur variation in relation to depth in Trench CWest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 Figure 11.4. Phosphorus variation in relation to depth in Trench CWest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Figure 11.5. Iron variation in relation to depth in Trench CWest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Figure 11.6. Manganese variation in relation to depth in Trench CWest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 Figure 12.1. Stratigraphical section of the south balk of Trench C. Layers 1–12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 Figure 12.2. Stable isotope data for marine shells (Patella ulyssiponensis).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 Figure 12.3. Stable isotope data for terrestrial shells (Helix cincta). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

List of Abbreviations

Bibliographic abbreviations follow the conventions suggested in the American Journal of Archaeology 111.1 (2007), pp. 14–34. A AP B Byz. C ca. cal. cat. no. CEast cm cont. corresp. CWest D

Trench A (originally Trench Alpha) aboreal pollen Trench B (originally Trench Beta) Byzantine Trench C (originally Trench Gamma) approximately calibrated catalog number Eastern division of Trench C centimeter continued corresponding Western division of Trench C Trench D, extension of Trench A (originally Trench Delta)

DEM

diam. dim. dims. dist. DOL DOR E EDX EH EM EN f.

sample from Laboratory of Archaeometry (Institute of Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”) in Athens. diameter dimension dimensions disturbed Dark-on-Light Dark-on-Red Trench E (originally Trench Zeta) energy dispersive x-ray Early Helladic Early Mesolithic Early Neolithic form/forma

xviii

F FM g GRP h. ha indet. km kyr B.P. L. LM LN LOD m masl mg µm mm max. max. dim. Mes. MH MN MNI N NAP NE NISP nm no. NW

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

Trench F Final Mesolithic gram global rachidian profiles height hectare indeterminate kilometer thousand years before present length Lower Mesolithic Late Neolithic Light-on-Dark meter meters above sea level milligram micrometer millimeter maximum maximum dimension Mesolithic Middle Helladic Middle Neolithic minimum number of individuals north non-aboreal pollen northeast number of identified specimens nautical miles number northwest

pers. comm. pers. obsv. PPL PPN PPNA PPNB PPNC pres. r Rom. ROW S s s2 sa SE SEM sp. spp. sr SW th. UM var. W w. WOR XP yr yrs

personal communication personal observation plane-polarized light Pre-Pottery Neolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Pre-Pottery Neolithic C preserved rounded Roman Red-on-White south standard deviation sample variance sub-angular southeast scanning electron microscopy species species (plural) sub-rounded southwest thickness Upper Mesolithic variety west width White-on-Red cross-polarized light year years

Introduction

The archaeological material presented in the first volume has demonstrated the importance of the Cave of the Cyclops, which unquestionably constitutes a byword in the prehistory of the Aegean. The information set out in the second volume mainly comes from the archaeological material, organic residues, and the archaeometric studies that complete the image of this significant archaeological site. Organic residues form a vast amount of material, and its systematic study proved necessary in order to ascertain the significance of the cave. Particularly important is Prof. A. Moundrea-Agrafioti’s study of Mesolithic bone hooks, which are unique. Their typology cannot be compared to any of its parallels, and the uniqueness of this material may have been responsible for the delayed submission of the study, which naturally should have been integrated in the first volume. The 55 bone hooks recovered comprise a body of material that so far is unique in the Aegean, adding to the importance of the archaeological research in the cave. The impressively wide variety of types and sizes from among the earlier to the more recent Mesolithic levels suggests a specialization in the fishing activities of these Mesolithic groups that settled in the northern Aegean. The variety of sizes, analogous to the hooks seen today, allows for a detailed typology. Consequently, it is highly likely that during the Mesolithic period the cave was used as a base and refuge during regular missions of fishing by exceptionally specialized fishermen. Animal bones abound among the higher Neolithic levels of the cave. Animal bones were expectedly scarce among the Mesolithic levels, but the detailed study by Dr. K. Trantalidou proves an early domestication of sheep and goats that is contemporary to domestication in Anatolia, reflecting either an early provenance

xx

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

from the east or a contemporaneous autochthonous domestication in the Aegean and broader contacts with Anatolia. At the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 8th millennium B.C., goats and sheep started to be domesticated at Youra. During the 8th millennium these became fully domesticated, but they had not made their appearance on the Greek mainland yet. It is not my intention to emphasize the Aegean or downgrade the role of Anatolia, but I strongly believe that by highlighting the analogies rather than the immediate contacts, Anatolia may be described not only as a point of reference for the Greek neolithization, but also as another parallel area of activity. Irrespective of the birthplace, the intermediate sites, and the periphery as necessary constituents of a historical moving of people, now it is more important to abandon the theory of one nuclear zone and instead adopt the theory of multiple centers of neolithization that sprang up at the same time under social circumstances that facilitated this turn. It follows that the Aegean—according to recent studies on its reserves of wild fauna and flora—could be one of these centers. The theory of “multi-focus neolithization,” which is put forward here, can account for the contemporaneous development of the neolithization of sites in Iran, southeastern Turkey, Syro-Palestine, and Cyprus. The economy of the Mesolithic is featured in meticulous studies on fish bones by Dr. J. Powell and Dr. D. Mylona. The cave at Youra is the only site so far that yielded so many fish finds and such a variety of species. All the species identified in the archaeological assemblage continue to exist today, and the same families predominate. Marine exploitation during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods concentrated on coastal demersal species and only a few large pelagic species. It is explicitly suggested that marine exploitation dramatically declined toward the end of the Mesolithic, as at Franchthi. Scombridae, Mugillidae, Scorpionidae, and Serranidae dominate in the earlier levels, but there is a discrepancy in the number of vertebral and cranial remains. Sparidae and Serranidae are the most common species in later Mesolithic strata; and in the EN and MN, Sparidae dominate, and the Scombridae species is the second most important group, including medium-sized fish. The Mesolithic fishermen of Youra exploited two major fish sources, the plentiful migratory fish (i.e., Scombridae and Carangidae) that appeared only seasonally, and the coastal fish available on a year-round basis (e.g., Sparidae, Serranidae, Scorpaenidae). The practice of net fishing resulted in numerous fish of exceptionally small size. While most of the coastal species could arguably be caught from the coast, the fishing of the migratory species presupposes the use of boats. Generally, there is no special interest in the fishing of migratory species, a common practice today in the area of the Northern Sporades. According to Powell, the Late Neolithic (LN) people seem to possess more skill in targeting desirable species such as Epinephelus sp. (ροφοί), and thus they are thought to have developed specific strategies that suggest more sophisticated fishing methods—specialized hooks for particular species and perhaps gill nets—and also a better understanding of the environmental conditions. However, the cave has not provided evidence of these skilled fishing activities for the LN period, and it is probable that another site in the Northern Sporades served as a base for specialized fishing. The vertebral assemblage in the cave suggests the systematic processing and conservation of fish through drying, salting, or smoking processes. Hearths are commonly associated with floors, and the connection between the burned fish remains and floors is obvious. The cured fish could be stored deep in the cave, where the conditions for preservation were excellent. The preservation of fish was extensively practiced only in some periods, one probably being the Lower Mesolithic (LM).

INTRODUCTION

Concerning Franchthi Cave, the studies on its fish assemblage have not been completely published yet, but the evidence is analogous to that from Youra. Sparidae is the dominant family, and individuals are generally small to medium in size. What differs is the presence of large tuna in Upper Mesolithic (UM) levels at Franchthi. The fish bone assemblage of Mesolithic Kythnos is still under study, but the presence of large tuna is evident. The intense fishing activities in this area during the Mesolithic can be accounted for in more than one way. The Northern Sporades—specifically the Deserted Islands— is one of the best fishing places in the Aegean. In Mesolithic times the channels between islands were narrower, but their crossings did not pose serious problems for the local population. In the 9th millenium B.C. the island of Youra was much bigger, and it most likely was attached to Psathoura, the northernmost island of the archipelago complex. In some places, such as banks, the shallow sea may have been rich in nutrients for the fish. The Mesolithic inhabitants of the northern Aegean likely experienced dramatic changes of the environment, and they had to deal with all the adversities without being able to use older, alternative practices such as hunting. It is very probable that the new climatic conditions of the Holocene created different microenvironments in the Aegean, greatly affecting the population, maybe to a greater extent than in western Europe. The need to exploit the marine resources for food and the search for proper raw material for the production of tools should account for the development of seafaring in the Northern Sporades. A large exchange network is suggested by the presence of Melian obsidian, as well as flint and bone material for the fabrication of bone hooks. At the same time, on Youra we observe that a systematic collection of shells and terrestrial mollusks took place that could prove significant. The whole material has been studied by Prof. L. Karali of the University of Athens. The numerous snails found in every Mesolithic level attest to the systematic consumption of terrestrial mollusks, a practice also noted in the Mesolithic levels of the caves at Franchthi and Kythnos. Unfortunately, the paleobotanic residues have not shed enough light on the issue of plant domestication, a practice that one would expect to accompany the early animal domestication. Despite meticulous water sieving, which was hindered by the scarce water resources on the deserted island of Youra, the natural residues were rare. Aside from this, it was quite unfortunate that only a small part of the material was put under study; the majority of the material, which, even though it was entrusted to the hands of Dr. A. Sarpaki by Dr. S. Katsarou, was mysteriously lost. Thus, the scarce vegetal samples—which possibly are examples of early domestication compared to the rest of the nutritional remnants—lead to unsound conclusions regarding plan domestication. This has been quite an unfortunate incident, because the extensively discussed issue of the neolithization of southeastern Europe could only benefit from archaeobotanical finds from the Mesolithic or the Neolithic levels. However, considering the morphology and the arid environment of the island, the cultivation of plants as early as the Neolithic is quite unexpected, even though certain wild cereal would not be unlikely. Dr. M. Ntinou’s thorough examination of the carbon material has given sufficient evidence of the environment of Youra and the broader area concerning every phase of the cave’s settlement. This information was also complemented and verified by the palynological study of samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic levels of the cave by Dr. Ch. Ioakim. During the LM, the vegetation was dominated by herbaceous plants belonging to the Cerealia-type, Poaceae, Ranunculaceae, and Rosaceae families. This type of vegetation, found in Philippi (central Macedonia), befits cold and dry climatic conditions. In the UM the herbaceous vegetation clearly replaced a mixed woodland

xxi

xxii

THE CAVE OF THE CYCLOPS

dominated by Quercus and Pinus. The rich herbaceous vegetation suggests that the woodland was not dense. Similarities are seen among Youra and other early Holocene sites in Greece such as Giannitsa, Ioannina, Lake Xinias, and Argos. Archaeometric research on the dating of Mesolithic strata was carried out by Dr. Y. Facorellis. Trial 14C dates on animal and fish bones, shellfish, and land snails were performed by the Laboratory of Archaeometry at the Institute of Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos,” in Athens, and further certified by δ13C measurements performed by the University of Heidelberg, Germany. The results were associated with the charcoal 14C dates from the very same strata. Dates from the above materials appear to diverge regularly by some hundreds of years from the charcoal samples due to the different quantities of oxygen absorbed by plants (charcoal), shellfish, land snails, and mammals. The correlations can be very useful for sites where no charcoal is found, and they are necessary for the estimation of the local marine reservoir effect in every region. Using terrestrial and marine samples from a site in conjunction with the latest issue of the marine calibration curve one can obtain the local constant (ΔR). And, when used together, the local marine reservoir effect and the local constant (ΔR) allow for reliable absolute dating. Particularly important are the archaeometric analyses of pottery samples from every Neolithic phase that show that the Middle Neolithic (MN) inscribed pottery of exceptional quality found in the cave is not linked to the respective pottery of the same era in Thessaly but instead belongs to a pottery group that proliferates in the Northern Sporades. Samples from the later Neolithic, which were studied by the archaeologist Ms. K. Papakosta, showed that during this period the cave’s pottery was strongly attached to Thessaly, Euboea, and the rest of the Aegean. The study of the stable isotopic data from marine mollusks found at the cave was carried out by Dr. A. Drivaliari and Prof. I. Liritzis. Even though the study was based on few samples and the margin of error is quite large, the results show that during the early Holocene climatic changes took place every 1,000–1,200 years. At the Cave of the Cyclops, a warmer climatic period during the LM (8500–7700 B.C.) was traced, which was followed by a colder phase during the UM (7700–6900 B.C.). A rise in temperature was noted in the Final Mesolithic (FM, 6900–6500 B.C.), and the LN (5300–4300 B.C.) featured a cool transitional stage. Finally, the study by Ms. K. Theodorakopoulou and Dr. I. Bassiakos on the clastic cave sediments of anthropogenic origin have helped to shed light on the paleoenvironment and paleoclimate of the early Holocene. Chemical elements such as potassium, aluminum, and silicone could indicate cold temperatures and intense solifluction. The significant rise of these elements during the start of the UM attests to a cold period that probably led to the limited usage of the cave; this is in accordance with the readings of phosphorus, which suggest human activity. The readings of magnesium, which indicates warm and humid climatic conditions, coincide in some layers with the levels of calcium—another indicator of a warm and humid climate. Even though we still have a long way to go until the riddle of Mesolithic occupation in the Greek area is solved, we can distinguish the main characteristics of the Mesolithic culture in the Aegean basin. These include: intense exploitation of sea resources, limited hunting activities, collection of grains and land snails, attempts at animal domestication by isolated island communities, and cave inhumations or open cemeteries. The presence of Melian obsidian, the flint, and the raw material for the manufacture of grinders and bone hooks suggests a large network of exchange for this period. The sea route via the Euboean gulf—known since the

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

Bronze Age and the historical periods—was probably in use during Mesolithic times despite the difficulties posed by primitive means of seafaring. The considerable distance between Youra and Melos reveals a complex network of trade activities and large-scale movements present in the Aegean since the 9th millenium B.C. These activities in the Mesolithic northern Aegean probably were deeply rooted in an Upper Paleolithic tradition, because the sudden development and the specialization in fishing (given the perfection of the tool equipment) seen at the beginning of the Mesolithic are unusual. The resemblance of the lithic industry of the four Mesolithic settlements at Kythnos to the three recently unearthed Mesolithic sites of Ikaria, and the sets of microliths found at the Öküzini and Belbidi caves in Antalya (10,000–7800 yr B.P.) might suggest voyages in the Aegean and contact between Aegean cultures and southwestern Anatolia since this early period. Adamantios Sampson

Part I

Tool Industries

1

The Mesolithic and Neolithic Bone Implements Antiklia Moundrea-Agrafioti

This chapter presents some general issues on the bone industry of the Cave of the Cyclops on the island of Youra. It sets out the stratigraphic and chronological distribution of the bone tools on the site as well as the general features of the bone industry, including the selection of the bones and the species that constituted the raw materials for the

manufacture of bone tools. It also discusses the differences that exist for each chronological period in relation to this selection and the general choices concerning the reduction and fashioning techniques. Finally, the morphological groupings of the tools in the cave will be discussed in detail.*

Introduction In all, 123 bone items were unearthed from the deposits in the Cave of the Cyclops: 105 tools (85%) and 18 preforms or waste from the manufacturing process (15%). Compared to the total amount (more than 29,000; see Trantalidou 2003) of the animal and bird bones recovered in the cave, the number of tools may seem small. Nevertheless, this is not unusual in prehistoric bone industries where, despite the abundant raw material, only a small percentage of the bones were converted into

tools. The systematic study of the cave’s fauna made possible the collection of by-products from the initial phase of the blank’s roughing out, as well as waste from the fashioning of tools and,

* I wish to thank the excavator of the cave, Prof. Adamantios Sampson, for giving me the chance to study the assemblage of bone tools from Youra. Figures were drawn by Tassos Papadogonas. Photos were taken by the author.

4

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

specifically, hooks. The by-products are usually of small size and not easily discerned and identified during the excavation process. Bone tools were collected from three trenches in the cave among the five trenches in total (Tables 1.1– 1.13; Figs. 1.1–1.30; for information on the background of the research and the preliminary reports on the trench’s stratigraphy, see Sampson 1998, 2001, 2006; Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003. See Sampson 2008, 1–16, for the final report). Of the three trenches, Trench C yielded the greatest number of tools (Fig. 1.1); it was opened near the cave’s entrance and was excavated as two separate sections, east and west (referred to as Trenches CEast and CWest). The excavation of Trench CEast comprised 23 successive artificial levels and arrived at a depth of 4.4 m. A total of 69 bone artifacts were found in CEast (55.3% of the total) (Table 1.1). The western section (CWest) consisted of 13 successive levels and reached a depth analogous to CEast (3.10 m). In all, 46 bone artifacts were collected from Trench CWest (37.4%). Several bone artifacts from Trench C were found in association with the floors and the hearths. Most of the artifacts come from the successive ash deposits and bioarchaeological remains deposited between the floors during the seasonal usage phases of the cave. The bone tools from Trenches A and B are exceptionally

scanty (six bone artifacts in total), which is probably due not only to the smaller and thinner deposits in these two trenches, but also to the fact that those trenches date mainly to the Neolithic and include only a small amount of Mesolithic compared to Trench C where the Mesolithic occurs along a greater depth and extent. We can assume that the features of the bone industry in Trench C, where all chronological phases of the cave’s habitation are seen extending from the Lower Mesolithic (LM) up to the Early Neolithic (EN) (Table 1.2), are representative of the distinctive features of the cave’s overall bone industry. The deposits in the cave represent a total duration of prehistoric habitation extending from the middle of the 9th to the end of the 5th millennium B.C., which is from the Mesolithic to Late Neolithic (LN). Contemporarily to Youra, the islet of Hagios Petros was inhabited from the beginning of the Middle Neolithic to the Early and Middle Bronze Age, as proved by the surface layers of the site (Efstratiou 1985, 82). No evidence on Youra was found for any habitation during the Bronze Age. The majority of the bone artifacts come from the Mesolithic deposits (96 tools, 64.2%; Table 1.3; Fig. 1.2). The Mesolithic period in the cave is divided into two phases: the Lower and Upper Mesolithic (UM). The LM dates back to the second half of the

60%

Trench

Frequency

Percent of Total

Valid Percent

A

2

1.6%

1.6%

B

4

3.3%

3.3%

56.7%

50% 38.3%

40%

30% C

1

0.8%

0.8%

20% CEast

68

55.3%

55.3%

CWest

46

37.4%

37.4%

10%

Other

TOTAL

2

123

1.6%

100.0%

1.6%

100.0%

Table 1.1. Distribution of bone implements by trench.

1.7%

3.3%

A

B

1.6%

0.8%

0 C

CEast

CWest

Other

Trench Figure 1.1. Relative frequency of bone implements by trench.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

Chronological Period

Level

Count by Trench CEast CWest Other

5

100%

Total

90%

0

—

—

2

2

80%

6

—

—

1

1

70%

7

—

9

—

9

60%

8

—

5

2

7

9

—

7

—

7

10

2

7

—

9

11

2

6

—

8

12

3

1

—

4

13

5

—

—

5

10%

14

4

—

—

4

0

15

1

—

—

1

16

4

—

—

4

17

3

—

—

3

18

9

—

—

9

19

10

—

—

10

20

8

—

—

8

21

4

—

—

4

50% 40%

Mesolithic

EN and MN

LN

23

1

—

—

1

Total

56

35

5

96

1

—

—

1

1

5

—

2

—

2

6

—

4

—

4

8

—

3

—

3

12

1

—

—

1

14

1

—

—

1

Total

2

9

1

12

1

2

—

—

2

3

—

1

—

1

5

—

1

1

2

6

2

—

1

3

7

1

—

—

1

8

1

—

—

1

9

2

—

—

2

14

2

—

—

2

Total

10

2

2

14

11

1

—

—

1

Total

1

—

—

1

69

46

8

123

UM/LN TOTAL

Table 1.2. Distribution of bone industry by trench, level, and chronological period.

30% 20%

Trench CEast

Trench CWest

LN EN and MN Mesolithic or Neolithic

Other UM LM

Figure 1.2. Relative frequency of bone implements by trench and chronological period.

9th millennium B.C. (based on calibrated radiocarbon dates), which is contemporary with the Early Mesolithic (EM) of the Franchthi Cave in the Argolid (Farrand 2000). A total of 25 bone artifacts were unearthed from the LM deposits (20.3%), almost exclusively from the deeper levels of Trench CEast (Table 1.3). The most important period of habitation in the cave was the UM, which spaned almost 1,200 years—from the beginning of the 8th to the middle of the 7th millennium B.C.—according to the radiocarbon dates provided from the systematic sampling of Trenches CEast and CWest (Facorellis 2003; Sampson 2006, 29, 30; Sampson 2008, table 12.2). A total of 54 bone items (43.9%) were brought to light from the UM deposits. The greater part of the artifacts from Trenches CEast and CWest were dated to this phase, which must correspond to the more regular use of the cave during the Mesolithic period. Based on the archaeological data, a hiatus between the levels of the UM and the EN is posited. The Cave of the Cyclops is not a location where one encounters the early phases of the EN (as already known from Thessaly) or the Early Neolithic I. Based on the pottery, the Neolithic period in the cave starts with an occupation of limited duration that belongs to the middle and late phases of the EN. This phase is con-

6

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI Count and Percentage Trench

Early and Late Neolithic Middle Neolithic

Total

Lower Mesolithic

Upper Mesolithic

Mesolithic or Neolithic

CEast

24 34.8%

30 43.5%

3 4.3%

2 2.9%

10 14.5%

69 100.0%

CWest

1 2.2%

24 52.2%

10 21.7%

9 19.6%

2 4.3%

46 100.0%

Other

—

—

5 62.5%

1 12.5%

2 25.0%

8 100.0%

TOTAL

25 20.3%

54 43.9%

18 14.6%

12 9.8%

14 11.4%

123 100.0%

Table 1.3. Distribution of bone implements by trench and stratum.

temporary with the first Neolithic settlement on the neighboring islet of Hagios Petros, which, like the Cave of the Cyclops on the island of Youra, is of small duration and largely indiscernible from the next phase, the early Middle Neolithic (MN) (Efstratiou 1985, 17). The type and the duration of the EN II occupation is uncertain, and the number of sherds is limited (Katsarou 2001). The excavator, A. Sampson, is analyzing this period jointly with the next Neolithic period, which dates back to the beginning of the MN (known in the Sporades as the “Hagios Petros culture,” because D. Theocharis first used the name of the main habitation phase of the MN on the neighboring islet of Hagios Petros at Kyra-Panagia; see Theocharis 1973; Efstratiou 1985). The excavator examining this period recently proposed the term “Youra–Hagios Petros culture” (Sampson 2008, 82). The UM/EN–MN deposits in the cave, which are not stratigraphically defined with precision, yielded a total of 12 bone artifacts (9.8%)—a small assemblage compared to the UM one. On the contrary, the distribution of ichthyofauna is more diverse than that of the bone industry, as it abounds in mixed levels of UM/EN–MN, and it is exceptionally scanty in LN levels. Finally, the LN is represented by 14

bone artifacts (11.4%) that were found mostly in Trench CEast. This is a relatively large assemblage of tools for this period of cave habitation—which, as the pottery suggests, is represented by an extensive time span (from the early until the late phases of the period; see Sampson 2001, 53–54)—but the ichthyofaunal evidence is very low for this period, so we can assume that the cave was not used on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, the number of identifiable specimens (NISP) of the fish is considerably lower during the LN. According to Mylona (2003, table 13.1), the occurrence of fish in the LN is 0.3%, while according to Powell (2003, table 12.1), the LN NISP amounts to 3.4% of the total. As concerns the spatial distribution of the bone industry, our research cannot extend to the analysis of the horizontal distribution of the bone artifacts. The initial precipitous surface of the cave and the steep slope of the levels toward the inner part of the cave caused some disturbance of the stratigraphy, and the restoration of the correspondence between the levels of the different trenches is sometimes very difficult. This means that the presentation of the bone industry cannot go as far as associating the tools with distinct usage “floors” of the cave or with the hearths for any of the habitation periods.

General Features of the Bone Industry The study of the bone industry proceeded along two distinct lines of analysis. The analytic analysis entails the recording of the morphological and

technical characteristics of the items in order to specify the selection of bones with regard to anatomy, the reduction and manufacturing techniques,

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

the roughing out of blanks, and the techniques that defined the different morpho-functional groups. Next comes the synthetic analysis, which examines

7

these selections by the chronological periods and the typo-functional categories of the tools.

The Raw Material The selection of the raw material relates to the anatomical category of the bone to be converted into a tool as well as the animal species. The selection criteria were not accidental, as the mechanical properties and the natural form of the bones in relation to the desired final form of the active part of the tool were decisive factors. It has been established that in prehistoric bone industries, bones were not chosen haphazardly, and the significant criterion for the selection of bones lay in the functional category of the tool. For example, the manufacture of the two main bone tool categories (pointed and sharp tools) in Neolithic Thessaly required the systematic selection of different anatomical categories of bones (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981). Recent studies have verified that at other settlements in the Greek area, metapodials from sheep/goats were systematically used, for instance, to manufacture pointed tools, while tibia and flat bones such as ribs were used mainly to produce sharp-ended tools (Stratouli 1996; Christidou 1997). In the EN and MN assemblages, the use of antler is scant, and it is assumed that this organic material was used in the manufacture of specific types of artifacts such as handles for stone tools mainly during the LN. These selections are virtually constant despite the geographical and cultural variations or the chronological periods. They are not devoid of exceptions, but the association of the bone category with the form of the tool’s active portion, that is the desired function for each tool, constitutes an intercultural pattern impervious to time. Deviation from this pattern and especially the splintering and reduction techniques used for the bones and antlers more often than not signify the cultural idiosyncrasy of each site. The possibility of defining the animal species and the anatomical provenance of the bone is contingent upon the grade of intervention on the bone’s natural form during the splintering and the fashioning process. The more complicated the reduction techniques of the bones and the fashioning of the blanks, the lesser we are in a position to evaluate the

intentional selection of the bones in regard to anatomy because the morphological features that allow us to define the anatomical category and the animal species fade or are eliminated during fashioning. Based on the above, and after studying the distribution of the tools from the Cave of the Cyclops concerning anatomy, we can conclude that chiefly long bones were used (108 artifacts, 87.8% of the total bone industry) (Table 1.4). Less common are other categories of organic material such as antler (in nine artifacts, 7.3%) and boar tusks (in three cases). The possibility of identifying the long bones anatomically is rather small: the anatomical type of the bone is approximately identified only for 15.4% of the total number of tools (Table 1.5). In addition to the bones of birds (26/123, 21%), long bones of medium-sized mammals, for the most part caprins and suids (72/123, 58.5%), are the prevalent bone types. Very few tools still carry the epiphyses or

Bone (Valid)

Frequency Percent

Valid Cumulative Percent Percent

Metapodial

8

6.5%

6.5%

6.5%

Tibia

8

6.5%

6.5%

13.0%

Fibula

2

1.6%

1.6%

14.6%

Diaphysis

90

73.2%

73.2%

87.8%

Rib

2

1.6%

1.6%

89.4%

Homoplate

1

0.8%

0.8%

90.2%

Antler

9

7.3%

7.3%

97.5%

Tooth

2

2.4%

2.4%

100.0%

TOTAL

123

100.0%

100.0%

Table 1.4. Distribution of the industry by the principal categories of raw material used.

8

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

other distinct anatomical features that make it possible to define more accurately the bone anatomy or the age of the animal; in the cases where the features could be discerned, metapodials (8/123), sheep/goat tibia (5/123), and a carnivore’s fibula (BP11; Fig. 1.23 [UM]) were all identified. Flat bones such as ribs from medium-sized animals (2/123; e.g., BP22; Fig. 1.24 [UM]) or scapulae (1/123; e.g., BV6; Fig. 1.29 [UM]) were scarcely used. It is, therefore, difficult to identify with accuracy the animal species whose bones served as the raw material for tools due to the advanced fashioning of the blanks. It is possible, however, to classify the species as large-sized, medium-sized, or small-sized animals (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981; Stordeur-Yedid 1988, 65). The animals of the size of a deer/bovid are classified as large-sized. The sheep/goat category includes mainly bones from goats rather than from sheep. As for the small carnivorous animals in particular, they could be counted as medium-sized animals, if the species was more recognizable (Tables 1.5, 1.6; Fig. 1.3). This evaluation (worked in collaboration with K. Trantalidou, who also made the identification of the species), of course, is quite precarious, as it is based on the dimensions and the thickness of the bone. Bones from medium-sized mammals constitute the prevalent selection in the bone industry of the cave (72/123, 58.5%), an estimation that corresponds to a great extent with the

fauna of the site where caprins predominate. In general, the bones from sheep/goat and birds are prevalent in the fauna of Youra (63.6% and 29.6%, respectively), while suids are scanty (Trantalidou 2003, 146–157). Second in abundance are bones from small-sized animals (26/123, 21.1%) such as birds and small carnivores; these were regularly used during the Mesolithic (21 artifacts, 26.9%) but less frequently during the Neolithic (5 artifacts, 13.2%). Finally, we must notice that long bones from large-sized animals were also used; the species is most probably deer (21/123, 16.1%). Deer is exceptionally rare among the faunal bones collected at the site, which can be explained by the size of the island and the rocky environment of Youra, which could not have sustained this animal. The particularly low occurrence of deer bones in the fauna of the cave, hardly 0.1% of the mammal bones in total (Trantalidou 2003; also see Trantalidou, this vol., Ch. 2), probably indicates that the existence of the animal’s bones among the nutrition waste is merely accidental. I strongly believe that the occurrence of deer bones and antlers among the raw material of the bone industry indicates that deer bones and antlers were mainly intended for bone tool manufacturing. It is also possible that tools made of deer bone and antler could have very well been brought to the cave as already-shaped and processed artifacts of an “exotic raw material,” as is the case for

Count and Percentage Body Size of Source Total Mesolithic Animal Mesolithic Neolithic or Neolithic

Body Size Valid Cumulative of Source Frequency Percent Percent Percent Animal

Large

11 52.4%

4 19.0%

6 28.6%

21 100.0%

Large

21

17.1%

17.1%

17.1%

Medium

45 62.5%

11 15.3%

16 22.2%

72 100.0%

Medium

72

58.5%

58.5%

75.6%

Small

21 80.8%

2 7.7%

3 11.5%

26 100.0%

Small

26

21.1%

21.1%

96.7%

Unknown

2 50.0%

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

4 100.0%

Unknown

4

3.3%

3.3%

100.0%

TOTAL

79 64.2%

18 14.6%

26 21.1%

123 100.0%

TOTAL

123

100.0%

100.0%

Table 1.5. Distribution of bone tools by animal size and chronological period.

Table 1.6. Distribution of the industry by the principal categories of animals represented.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

the prime-quality stone industry material, such as fine-grained flint and obsidian. They belonged, therefore, to a tool-kit that the seasonal users of the cave carried with them from other areas, and it is even more likely that the users of the cave carried with them antler tools that were already fashioned. Even though it has not been possible to identify the species of the deer from the items fashioned of antler, according to Trantalidou the bones and antler probably originated from a small-sized deer. The small thickness of the antler’s cortex in most of the samples in the Cave of the Cyclops actually suggest that the antlers come from roes or Dama dama (fallow deer). The cortex of the red deer’s antler is 5–8 mm thick, and for the roe the cortex is roughly 4 mm thick (Bergman 1987, 118–119), as in the case of the Cave of the Cyclops’s specimens. It is worth mentioning that the fauna of Hagios Petros is analogous. There, very few deer and Dama dama (fallow deer) bones have been identified, but this animal could not have existed on Kyra-Panagia, as the biotope is totally inappropriate. Bones from Dama dama were found, however, in the cave at Theopetra in western Thessaly, suggesting that this species existed on the mainland (Hamilakis 2000). There is a striking difference between Hagios Petros (where deer bone or antler were not used at all) and the Cave of the Cyclops, at least as far as the Neolithic bone industry is concerned. The distribution of the animal-size categories according to chronological periods (Table 1.5; Fig. 1.3) suggests that medium-sized mammals served greatly as the raw material for the bone industry in the Cave of the Cyclops during the Mesolithic (45/123, 55.1% of the Mesolithic bones) and the

9

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0

Mesolithic

large animal

Mesolithic or Neolithic small animal

Neolithic

medium anima

Figure 1.3. Relative frequency of bone tools by animal size and chronological period.

Neolithic (16/123, 61.5% of the Neolithic bones). It is interesting to observe that during the Mesolithic, bones from the two extreme animal-size categories were mostly used, that is large-sized mammal bones and small-sized mammal and bird bones, while the same does not occur during the Neolithic when a differentiated raw-material economy was introduced. I believe that this was mainly due to the considerable decrease of the two most important tool types during the Mesolithic phase of the cave’s occupation—the bipointed tools and the hooks, which were shaped from the bones of small animals and birds or from antler, as we shall see later in detail.

State of Preservation All organic material in the Cave of the Cyclops, especially the fish and animal bones, are exceptionally well preserved. The state of preservation of the bone industry is excellent: more than half of the artifacts were preserved intact (60/123) or partly intact (20/123). According to the type of the tool, there are clear-cut differences in the state of preservation. Hooks, for instance, were preserved exceptionally well, as 93% of the total

number are entirely or partially intact; 71.4% of the bipoints are intact, as are 63.3% of the total of pointed tools. Additionally, most artifacts have a good state of preservation on the surface of the bone material: the surface is smooth and of homogeneous brown coloration, which probably suggests a previous heating process for the bone. It was also ascertained that, despite the “normal” aspect of the artifacts’ external

10

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

surface, some bones were greatly calcified, although this is not readily distinguishable on the intact items. The calcification technique has been noted on at least 10 items (8.1% of the total number), but it is assumed that its occurrence is more frequent. Trantalidou sees major calcification marks mostly on the suid bones from the cave; therefore, we assume that the calcified tools possibly are made of suid bones. The fragility of the material, especially if it has undergone calcification, is responsible for

the recent shattering of the bone tools during the excavating or the storing process (19/123, 15.4%). Some of the items were burned (14/123, 11.4%), but very few tools were entirely carbonized. The partial carbonization of the tools must be fortuitous, from the association of the items with hearths and layers of coal and ash. Lastly, concretions on the external surfaces of the tools are quite common, and they are more common on the Mesolithic artifacts than on those from other periods.

Reduction and Manufacturing Techniques The operational sequence of the manufacturing techniques of the bone tools consisted of two successive stages: first, the reduction of the natural bone, primarily achieved through the intentional splintering of the bone or antler for the manufacture of the tool’s blank; and second, the fashioning of the blank in order to shape the active portion and the body of the tool. Consequently, each stage consisted of numerous successive or alternative phases according to the natural morphology of the bones, the type of tool in process, and the cultural tradition of each group. The reduction techniques employed in the Cave of the Cyclops entailed many different interventions such as percussion, carving, incising, grooving, scraping, and abrading. On the contrary, the fashioning techniques, which more often than not came after the initial reduction, were not elaborate. They were chiefly techniques that permitted precision, such as scraping with the edge of a flake/blade or abrasion and grinding with the help of fixed or portable grinders. If a bone has been extensively fashioned, the marks of the reduction and, consequently, the identification are hard to trace. The reduction techniques of the blanks in the cave consist of either one technique or a combination of all the previously set out techniques. As we shall see later in more detail, the reduction and fashioning techniques for the blanks are elaborate; the anatomic features of the bones and the marks of the initial phases of the blank sectioning are, accordingly, greatly eliminated. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify many of the initial splintering techniques, both because some of the tools still have traces on them from the initial stages of manufacture and

especially because 18 preforms or reduction byproducts were spotted (14.6%). These items are further classified into the following classes: A. By-products from the process of the blank shaping in splinter or sliver form, and small by-products from other processes (nine items) B. Hook preforms (nine items), which are manufactured with elaborated bone splintering and carving techniques

REDUCTION TECHNIQUES The reduction phase on the bone or the antler consisted of intentional fragmentation and splintering techniques in order to extract the appropriate blank. The prevalent techniques noted in the Cave of the Cyclops are the following.

Incision and Grooving Cutting and sawing with incisions and grooving would be employed in order to extract blanks with parallel sides, length-wise in regard to the diaphysis of long bones, or antlers, or/and transversely to the longitudinal axis. This process was performed with the assistance of stone cutting tools of blade or flake type. The burin, the ideal stone tool for engraving or creating grooves in organic raw material, does not constitute a major tool category in the cave (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003, table 4), and the chipped stone tools used for the processing of the bone must be flakes and blades with usage marks or backed flakes. The incision

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

can be of shallow depth (BP25; Fig. 1.24), or it can end after successive incisions in a deep V-shaped groove (BV3, BV4; Figs. 1.29, 1.30). More often than not the grooves are double, sub-parallel, or converging, and they define with precision the desired width of the splinter (BP12, BP13, BP17; Figs. 1.23, 1.24). When the bone was cut as deeply as the medullar cavity in long bones or the dipole of the ribs or the spongy tissue of the antler, the blank was extracted by fracture (BH29; Figs. 1.6, 1.8). The reduction technique used at the Cave of the Cyclops, which employed incision and grooving of the blanks, was a widespread manufacturing technique that is exceptionally common (105/123 artifacts, 85.4%), allowing us to consider it as the distinguishing feature of this bone industry. This technique was used to a great extent on the Mesolithic artifacts (70/79, 86.9%). The prevalence of this technique is likely due to the extensive number of tools made of symmetrical elongated slivers whose widths needed to be controlled (such as bipoints) and the need to cut wide surfaces on flat parts of bones where a special form was shaped by grooving (such as hooks). Grooving was also extensively used for the longitudinally divided elements as well as for the splintering of diaphyses and epiphyses of long bones to shape pointed tools in Mesolithic and Neolithic times. We were able to identify seven distinct technical phases before the final splintering of the blank on a peculiar by-product preform found in the UM levels: two converging grooves roughed out an elongated blank in the form of a narrow and flat rod. The ends of the blank were then cut out with transverse incisions. Several traces of grooving performed for the splintering of slivers from long bones can be spotted on the sides or the faces of tools, substantiating the sawing process of the blanks. A characteristic case of unachieved grooving on a diaphysis of a large-sized animal bone (deer tibia) is preserved on a burnisher found in the UM levels of Trench C (BV4; Fig. 1.29). It is a short and broad groove, 35 mm long and 2 mm deep, which was left unfinished. The blank was then splintered with elongated grooves toward the opposite direction of the bone’s shaft. The splintering of such a sturdy bone by grooving shows sophisticated skill, which required patience and undoubtedly arduous labor. From a technical point of view, this item represents

11

the ideal possibilities that the grooving procedure offered for blank splintering. The detachment of splinters by grooving is common on antlers as well. Marks from successive elongated incisions of the grooving are preserved on the sides of antler splinters when they are not eliminated by the fashioning (BP25; Fig. 1.24). Furthermore, a transverse circumferential grooving was performed on the antler, which forms a sort of a throat (BP12; Fig. 1.23). However, no by-products from antler manufacturing were found, which makes us believe that tools of this material were brought to the cave already processed as part of the tool-kit the seasonal users of the cave carried with them. The tools were probably manufactured in mainland areas where antlers were much easier to find or acquire, along with processed tools, through exchange. The grooving technique allowed for the controlling of the dimensions of the final tool, as well as for controlling the regularity in the shape of the blank. Double grooving was used for the manufacturing of blanks for bone or antler bipoints, and the manufacture of regular narrow slivers that would serve for points in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. Wide blanks for fine carved objects such as hooks were extracted by incision and grooving. The shaping of the hooks’ blank involved many splintering techniques, including elongated and transverse grooving joined with lateral incisions. The basic reduction techniques for the hooks’ blanks included cutting, incision, abrasion, and grooving. The reduction techniques for these exceptional handiworks will be discussed below.

Fracturing with Instant Percussion In order to extract slivers from long bones or dividing shaft bones, fracturing with instant percussion could be used. This technique did not permit the control of the blank’s fashioning, and it mainly created irregular splinters. It is likely that the blanks made by fracturing were not always intentionally reduced, but were selected from the splinters produced from the shattering of bones to consume the marrow. The reduction technique of direct percussion is not very common in the cave, and it can only be recognized in 7.3% of the tools (9/123), mainly on points fashioned out of asymmetrical splinters (during both the Mesolithic and the Neolithic periods). This technique was also used to splinter long bones that were used while they still preserved a

12

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

flute-like part of the diaphyses intact; the epiphysis on one end was kept as an integrated natural handle for the tool.

Abrasion Abrasion, finally, constitutes an advanced reduction technique that entailed the grinding of the long bone on a fixed stone grinder. Abrasion reduced the thickness of the bone and created flattened surfaces. More often than not, abrasion was used along with grooving in order to extract regular blanks. This technique is mainly known in the mainland bone industry from the LN onward as the typical technique to divide long bones (chiefly sheep and goat metapodials). At the Cave of the Cyclops, reduction with abrasion and grooving is an atypical technique, and it has been noted here on two points (metapodials from the LN; e.g., BP16; Fig. 1.23), as well as on a hook preform from the same period (BH30; Figs. 1.6, 1.8).

FASHIONING TECHNIQUES Following reduction came fashioning, which chiefly shaped the active portion of the tool but could also extend to the body, the base, and the sides. Intensive fashioning is noted only in specific tool categories in which fashioning aimed at controlling the entire shape of the tool. Flaking, whittling, and abrasion constitute the principal fashioning techniques.

Flaking The flaking technique used in order to fashion a blank from a thick bone is unexpected. Flaking technique is normally unknown in the period. However, a hook preform shaped by bifacial flaking (BH27; Figs. 1.6, 1.8) was preserved in the cave. This hook preform is unique, and it must have been flaked by pressure in much the same way as retouched obsidian or flint. Nevertheless, in the case of the Cave of the Cyclops, the projectile points of the preforms suggest that this technique was applied on an item from the UM, when bifacial pressure was not used on obsidian or flint implements; bifacial retouch on projectile points appears in the MN/LN. This technique is difficult to identify, as more often than not the marks from flaking were obliterated during the next stages of processing. Stordeur-Yedid believes that flaking is an archaic technique that

survives in the Natufian period in the Middle East along with more sophisticated fashioning techniques such as whittling and abrasion (Stordeur-Yedid 1988, 76).

Whittling Whittling, the scraping out from the blank with the assistance of a stone tool’s edge, is the prevalent fashioning technique. This is substantiated by the uneven sub-parallel elongated striations on successive flat surfaces. This is the established fashioning technique for the extremities of the tools, the sides, the shank, and even the faces (52.3% of the total number of tools in the Cave of the Cyclops) have been fashioned by whittling (64/123), and some fashioned by whittling combined with abrasion (23%, 28/123).

Abrasion Abrasion as a fashioning technique was performed using a stone grinder and, as a rule, it was applied diagonally to the elongated tool axis. Abrasion left behind successive flat surfaces with a concentration of diagonal striations. It is obvious from the shape of the marks that abrasion was performed on fixed grinders of fine-grained rock in the Cave of the Cyclops. The use of the portable grinder, which leaves irregular marks on the tool, has not been identified in the Cave of the Cyclops (Stordeur-Yedid 1988). More often than not the active portions of the tools were fashioned by abrasion, but the final form of the sides and the bases were extracted by grooving. Abrasion as the sole fashioning method is noticed in 15.6% of the total (19/123), and it was usually complemented by whittling.

Other Means of Fashioning Finally, the fashioning techniques include some special technical interventions that were mostly applied to the proximal part of the tools, such as perforation, attachment, grooves, and tungs, and they pertain to the function, the suspension, and the hafting of the tool. The occurrence of special interventions is quite uncommon in the Cave of the Cyclops industry. We must stress that none of the tools bears perforation or drilling marks; while this technique is quite common on the mainland, it was not known in the Cave of the Cyclops. Two LM hook-like items (BH34, BH35; Figs. 1.7, 1.8) bear

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

grooves for attachment or suspension. They will be examined in greater detail below.

Decoration Finally, we observe that decoration is absolutely absent. It is noteworthy that the Mesolithic bone artifacts in this cave do not bear carvings or incised sculptural decoration similar to those known from the Middle East bone artifacts.The lack of decoration is generally typical of the Neolithic bone industries in the Greek area. Rounded carvings in many bone artifacts of the Natufian period, in particular, are worth noting, as well as the special sculpturing on bone tools in Çatal Höyük (Mellaart 1964) and the settlements of the Marmara area, or of the EN in the Balkans (Stordeur-Yedid 1988; Sidéra 1993; Özdoğan 1999). Nevertheless, in the neighboring Neolithic settlement of Hagios Petros, two bone tubes were collected that bear decoration in the form of transverse grooves that skirt the item’s shaft (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981). The bone industry in the Cave of the Cyclops did not yield anything similar to this, and grooves around the shaft are most unusual and relate only to the suspension of the items. Considering the fashioning techniques altogether, we must stress that for the bone industry of the site, the prevailing fashioning method was whittling and abrasion. Abrasion and the combination of abrasion and whittling prevail in the Mesolithic tool categories, especially for the bipoints and the hooks.

13

MARKS OF USAGE Macroscopic marks of use from post-manufacture or the transformation of the active portion of the items, have been spotted on 30% of the total tool assemblage. They mostly appear as scratches on the active end of the tool (31/123, 25.2%), and at a much lower percentage, as abrasion, rounding, and polishing that relate to the tool’s usage on soft material of low or high density (5/123, 4.1%). A recurrent observation concerns older breakage of the active portion of the tools (23/123, 28.7%). Wear and breakage on the active portion are common in bipoints and points, but it is interesting to notice that wear from usage and breakage is unusual in hooks. Recapitulating the reduction and fashioning techniques in the Cave of the Cyclops, we arrive at the safe conclusion that the two copious artifact categories, hooks (of uncertain anatomical provenance of the blank) and bipoints (objects extensively fashioned, taking advantage of the mechanical property of bones and antlers to develop across an elongated axis), grant superiority to the Mesolithic techniques in comparison with the Neolithic bone industry of the cave. Besides the homogeneity of the technical interventions, one can also note a variety in the way these techniques were employed according to the category and the sub-category of the tools. The variety and the patterns that exist within it will be analyzed below, based on the morphological categories of the tools.

Tool Categories The classification of the tools according to the morphology of the active portion provides a general idea about the composition of the bone industry (Table 1.7). Concerning the three general categories of tools—pointed, cutting-edged, and blunted—that comprise the basic morphotechnical groupings of most bone industries in the Cave of the Cyclops, pointed tools prevail (104/123 tools, 84.5%) in number. They are further sub-categorized into groups of bipoints (41/123, 33.3%), tools with two cutting-edged ends, and points (30/123, 24.4%), which are usually a prevalent sub-category in bone industries. Another category that theoretically also

falls under the pointed-object rubric is hooks (33/123, 26.8%). This category is extremely atypical in Neolithic bone industries in the Helladic region, and while it is encountered only at sites that engaged in fishing activities, it is known only in small numbers. In this cave, hooks form a category of several artifacts to which are added seven hook preforms and five small by-products from hook manufacture; these items corroborate the theory that the fashioning of hooks took place inside the cave. The other categories of tools contain fewer items, and they consist of two pointed tools and two tools with one rounded end. Finally, the bone industry

14

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI 50%

Tools Categories Pointed

Cutting Total and Blunted Varia Edge Percentage

Hooks

33

—

—

—

33 26.8%

Bipoints

41

—

—

—

41 33.3%

Points

30

—

—

—

30 24.4%

Varia

—

4

2

2

8 6.5%

Blanks

—

—

—

11

11 8.9%

Total and Percentage

104 84.6%

4 3.3%

2 1.6%

13 10.6%

123 100.0%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Table 1.7. Bone tool groups by tool categories.

Bipoints Hooks

Points

Varia

Neolithic

Mesolithic or Neolithic

Blanks Mesolithic

Figure 1.4. Bone industry profile: proportion of major tool groups by chronological period.

includes two hook-like samples, which are most probably pendants and not tools. Based on the distribution of the general categories according to the chronological period (Fig. 1.4), it is evident that all basic categories of the bone industry in the cave occur during both the Mesolithic and Neolithic usage periods, but are different as concerns quantity. Hooks and hook preforms occur mainly in the Mesolithic (20/33, 60.6%) and mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic levels (9/33, 27.3%), and their number decreases in the Neolithic levels. Bipoints occur for the most part in the Mesolithic period (32/41, 78%), while their occurrence in the mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic and the Neolithic levels is low (12.2% and 9.8%, respectively), meaning that their distribution is quite diverse compared with the distribution of the 33 hooks. Finally, points occur in

more or less equal numbers in Neolithic (15/30, 50%) and Mesolithic levels (14/30, 46.7%). Based on the above, we are in the position to assume that the bone industry of the cave is a specialized tool industry. The tool categories of the Mesolithic are a special case in bone industries, which has not occurred at other sites in the Helladic region or the Middle East or Asia Minor. The two prevalent categories in number that chiefly occur in Mesolithic and mixed levels— hooks and bipoints—presumably relate to fishing or/and hunting activities. Fewer points are present, and it is the only tool category that occurs in equal amounts both in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. Next, we will deal with the tool categories of the cave, analyzing first the two most significant techno-morphological categories, hooks and bipoints.

Hooks Hooks represent the second largest category of bone artifacts in the Cave of the Cyclops (Figs. 1.5–1.8). This particular assemblage is one of the largest assemblages of bone hooks not only in

Greece, but also in the wider Mediterranean (Otte et al. 1995; Runnels 1995; Özdoğan 1997; Leighton 1999; Russell 2003; Costa 2004) and the Middle East (Table 1.8). Twenty-six hooks were unearthed

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

in total, along with seven hook preforms and five small technical by-products from the manufacture of hooks. Bone hooks are objects whose form is obtained through different reduction and fashioning techniques to an exact conceptual scheme that defines the hook standard through time, from its first appearance until today. Concerning this pattern, the variations in size and form of the bone hooks were dictated by the functional specializations in the fishing of small or large fish, while the differences in shape and the technical interventions relate to the cultural and technological traditions of different settlements. Hooks appear first during the Upper Paleolithic (at sites in Europe and the Middle East as fishing tools), but they are a marginal group of tools (CleyetMerle 1990, 70). The increase in the number of hooks and their prevalent position in the bone industries relate to the societies at the beginning of the Holocene. The exploitation of nutritional resources from the rivers, the lakes, and the sea—jointly with the systematic collection of vegetable resources, fruit, wild cereals, and legumes—signify a major change in the subsistence economy of the Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic in Europe and the Middle East. Thus, the specialization and the multiplication of the bone artifacts that relate to fishing, including hooks, harpoons, and gorges, signify a shift in the bone industries at the beginning of the Holocene. In Greece, the critical turn toward a “Mesolithic” way of life (i.e., exploiting wild vegetation, mollusks, and fish) is quite early. In the Franchthi Cave, for instance, it is thought to have started already in the Late Paleolithic; according to Perlès, the shift in Franchthi is seen from stone phase IV (beginning of the Tardiglacial) until stone phase V, namely between the 13th and 11th millennium B.P., before the beginning of the Holocene. During these phases, the first change in the natural environment of the cave took place, as well as the “Mesolithic” way of life (foragers) (Perlès 1987, 131–132; 1999). Despite that, there is no corroborating evidence for the use of bone hooks before the Neolithic. In the Franchthi Cave, five hooks in total have been unearthed, which, according to preliminary reports, are all Neolithic. Of the 329 bone tools in the cave, hooks represent 1.5% of the total (Payne 1973, 254). Six hooks in total were recovered at EN II Nea Nikomedeia (Rodden 1965), and recent excavations in Dispilio

15

brought to light approximately 13 hooks (Stratouli 2002, 168). Such a large number of hooks, therefore, from the Mesolithic deposits in the Cave of the Cyclops is quite noteworthy, and it sets the foundation for the theory of tool usage concerning the already established issue of fishing activity, spotlighting the Aegean area when it comes to discussing how fishing hooks came about during the Mesolithic. Since hooks were unknown artifacts at the coastal Mesolithic sites of Franchthi (Payne 1973; Perlès 1990, 1999; Rose 1995) and Sidari (Sordinas 1970), their occurrence in the Mesolithic levels of the Cave of the Cyclops signals an important cultural peculiarity (Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, 131). Of critical importance is the precise chronological and stratigraphical interrelation among the hooks of the site. It has been suggested that almost all the hooks from the cave belonged to the Mesolithic period, even the hooks found in mixed Mesolithic/ Neolithic levels of the cave (Sampson 1998, 2001). After close examination of the excavation data, it was concluded that hooks were recovered from the following levels: LM and UM, as well as mixed UM and EN levels. It was also concluded that the number of hooks in mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic levels is significantly smaller than in the Mesolithic. Considering the chronological gap between the UM phase of occupation dating back to 7500–6700 B.C. and the first Neolithic phase of habitation of the cave during the EN, a hiatus of at least 300–200

Chronological Period

Count and Percentage Hook

Total and Hook Preform Percentage

LM

2 7.7%

1 14.3%

3 9.1%

UM

13 50.0%

4 57.1%

17 51.5%

Mesolithic or Neolithic

9 34.6%

—

9 27.3%

EN and MN

2 7.7%

1 14.3%

3 9.1%

LN

—

1 14.3%

1 3.0%

Total and Percentage

26 100.0%

7 100.0%

33 100.0%

Table 1.8. Distribution of hooks and hook preform by strata.

16

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Figure 1.5. Hooks (BH2, BH4, BH7, BH9–BH13, BH15, BH16, BH18, BH19, BH21–BH25). Scale 1:1.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

Figure 1.6. Hooks (BH26–BH31). Scale 1:1.

17

18

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Figure 1.7. Hooks (BH32–BH35). Scale 1:1.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

BH2

BH4

BH6

BH12

BH13

BH15

BH22

BH7

BH8

BH16

BH25

BH9

BH17

BH26

19

BH10

BH18

BH11

BH19

BH27

BH28

BH29

BH30

BH31

BH33

BH34

BH35

Figure 1.8. Hooks (BH2, BH4, BH6–BH13, BH15–BH19, BH22, BH25–BH31, BH33–BH35). Scale 1:1.

20

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

years seems to divide the two periods, which, according to the excavator, perhaps, in fact, does not exist (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003; Sampson 2006, 28). Thus, interest lies in deciding whether the hooks found in the mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic levels in the Cave of the Cyclops should be defined as Mesolithic or Neolithic: whether hooks from the two periods share common techno-morphological features or are dissimilar and are from separate technical traditions. A Mesolithic tradition was unknown until it was discovered in the Cave of the Cyclops, and the Neolithic tradition was the only tradition known from Greece (known from Franchthi [unpublished data], Nea Nikomedeia [Rodden 1965; Stratouli 1998, 146] and Dispilio [Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003]). One must also seek similarities to Mesolithic hooks from the Middle East region (i.e., Asia Minor and the Near East). Lastly, Mesolithic hooks are also linked to the issue of hook-like items known as “brooches” from pre-ceramic Greece, which supposedly served as hooks. The issue of comparative analysis between the Mesolithic hooks in the Cave of the Cyclops and the pre-ceramic brooches was recently discussed in detail, and the possibility of comparing the two was dismissed. In collaboration with the excavator, we again closely went through all possible interrelations for the hooks and the hook preforms in the Cave of the Cyclops based on the stratigraphical data in order to fix a date. After separating the hooks by trenches, the following were concluded (Table 1.8): only two phases of usage in the cave seem to yield a significant amount of hooks and hook preforms, namely the UM (17/33, 51.5%) and the mixed Mesolithic/EN deposits (9/33, 27.3%). Along with the three hooks from the Lower Mesolithic, 60.6% of the hooks in the cave come from Mesolithic phases of habitation, 27.3% come from mixed Mesolithic and Neolithic deposits, and 12.1% from Neolithic deposits. The fluctuation in values of occurrence of the second most important Mesolithic tool category, namely the bipoints, which are scant in the mixed deposits in the cave, provides convincing evidence of hook manufacture and use during the beginning of the Neolithic period as well. It is likely, however, that the taphonomic pattern of the hooks is different from that of the bipoints due to the difference in size or functional factors. The fluctuation of values is also consistent

with the percentage of ichthyofauna occurrence, which is clearly bountiful in the Mesolithic and the mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic levels, but also occurred, though significantly reduced, in EN/MN and EN levels (Mylona 2003, 184, 186, table 13.2; Powell 2003, 175, table 12.1).

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOOKS The hooks in the Cave of the Cyclops have a good state of preservation: 13 out of 26 hooks are preserved undamaged. Of these, 12 are partially intact, bearing minor snaps or wear signs mainly at the proximal end of the shank (some even recent) but not at the point, and one is preserved in fragments. It should be noted that the snaps during the excavation process are noted mainly on the shank’s end. The fine state of preservation suggests that some hooks were probably never utilized. Preforms and by-products from hook manufacture further indicate that the cave served as a place of manufacturing, repairing, or substituting fishing tools. Hooks were predominantly manufactured out of splinters of long bones from medium-sized mammals such as caprins or suids, but also from bones of small-sized wild animals and birds as the minute size and thickness of some artifacts indicate (30.3%) (e.g., BH4, BH6, BH7, BH9, BH10, BH11, BH12, BH13, BH15, BH19, BH28, BH30, BH31, BH32, BH33; Figs. 1.5–1.8). Less commonly used are bones of large-sized mammals (BH16; Figs. 1.5, 1.8) and ribs or “flakes” from large long bones. More rarely, the teeth from suids or an antler served as raw material for the shaping of a hook. This means that the local fauna found at the island was the main raw material for hook manufacture.

REDUCTION TECHNIQUES The reduction techniques used in the manufacture of the hooks are complex because they presuppose the roughing out and the selection of the appropriate blank on which the conceptual scheme of the desired hook would be shaped. As the preforms in the cave suggest, there is a clear distinction in hooks between the reduction phase and the shaping of the roughed-out form and the fashioning phase. During the latter, the final form of the tool comes about by processing the special portions of

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

the implement, namely the shank and the point, the throat, and the bend. What distinguishes the Cave of the Cyclops from other sites is that we do not have to limit ourselves to mere hypotheses as to how hooks were actually manufactured based on the marks on the complete artifacts, because we also have several hook preforms and by-products that substantiate all the reduction phases as well as the diverse technical choices and the various versions for every category of hook. Based on the preforms, we arrive at the conclusion that two major chains of operation were followed in order to shape the rough-out form: 1. The hook was roughed out from the extremity of a long and relatively wide blank, which was extracted by grooving. The conceptual scheme of the hook was roughed out through grooves and incisions (BH30, BH31, BH32, BH33; Figs. 1.6–1.8). 2. The hook was roughed out by flaking on a wide matrix of thick bone (BH27; Figs. 1.6– 1.8). Concerning preforms, the first case is the most typical. The length of the blank is relatively long, almost three times that of the final rough-out. During the fashioning process, the blank was held at one end and the hook was fashioned on the opposite end. The process included many stages and phases: first, the blank was detached by elongated grooving. In some cases the faces of the blank were flattened by grinding. We see in one item that both faces from the blank’s end were ground on a fixed grinder to achieve a reduced thickness of the bone (BH30; Figs. 1.6–1.8). At the extremity of the blank, the outline of the shank, the throat, and the point of the hook were marked out with incisions and notches. Finally, the place of the bifacial bend of the hook was defined by side notches and cut by transverse incision and grooving. The final detachment of the rough-out was done with percussion or snapping at the spot of the transverse grooving (BH29; Figs. 1.6–1.8). Preform BH29 provides evidence for the final phase of the detachment of the rough-out from the blank. The transverse grooving on both faces of the flat sliver suggests the detachment of the

21

rough-out by snapping. In this case, the rough-out was abandoned for unknown reasons before the final fashioning phase. In the Cave of the Cyclops we came across a remarkable variation in the manufacturing process of the hooks on an elongated blank: two hooks were roughed out simultaneously, one at each end of the blank (BH33; Figs. 1.7, 1.8). This technique is reminiscent of the processing of metal hooks as described in the Encyclopédie (Diderot and d’Alembert [n.d.], pl. 18). Despite the differences between the two media, we notice that both techniques seek to achieve the same goal, namely the simultaneous manufacture of a pair of “twin” hooks from the same blank, symmetrical and homogeneous in form, shape, and weight (and, also, the use of the largest part of the blank). The throat of the hook was shaped only faintly on the rough-out by incising and whittling and, in one case, by flaking (BH27; Figs. 1.6, 1.8). Accidents often happened during the fashioning process of the shank (the point, or the throat) (BH31, BH32; Figs. 1.6–1.8) that led to the abandonment of the draft and the production of small by-products (found in five instances; see e.g., BV16; Fig. 1.30). It is important to notice that there was no evidence of drilling for the fashioning of the throat. Drilling, a technique that is considered to be quite early and one that facilitates the fashioning of the throat, increases the endurance of the hook during fashioning and usage. This technique is noted on the Natufian hooks in the Middle East. Campana describes the manufacture techniques of the four hooks from the Natufian phase in the Kebara Cave, where the throat was made by boring (Campana 1989, 101). Stordeur, on the other hand, based on the study of bone tools from the Mallaha site of the same period, maintains that the use of a mechanical drill does not occur in the Natufian period and is a feature of the consequent period, the PPNA (Mureybet’s phase IB) (Stordeur-Yedid 1988, 105). The technique is also noted in the European Mesolithic hooks, and also on the hooks and the hook-like items from the EN in the Balkans and Greece (Bačkalov 1979, 49, 52, pl. 17; Cleyet-Merle 1990, 121; Sidèra 1998). Drilling was also applied on hooks from pre-ceramic Cyprus (Hagios AndreasKastros; Le Brun 1981), while the Neolithic site Hagios Epiktitos-Vrisi (Peltenburg 1982; Chavane 1980) has yielded magnificent samples of hooks or

22

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

pendants with drilled throats and suspension perforations. This technique is noted in Greece on pre-ceramic belt hooks. The drilling technique has been identified on a belt hook from Sesklo (for more information about the drilling process in the manufacture of belt hooks in pre-ceramic periods, see Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, 136–138). The same manufacturing technique has been noted on EN hooks at Nea Nikomedeia, and possibly also on Neolithic hooks from Franchthi Cave. Many preforms from the first stages of hook fashioning were unearthed in Nea Nikomedeia, on which one of the first technical phases in the shaping of the preform was drilling. According to Payne, who informed us on the preforms of Nea Nikomedeia, this technique is typical of the manufacture of hooks at Nea Nikomedeia. The blanks of the hooks were large, flat splinters on which successive holes were opened and subsequently connected to form a larger elongated hole. The “belt eye” at Nea Nikomedeia is nothing but a hook’s preform (Rodden 1965; Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, 134; R. Payne, pers. comm.). There is no doubt that the craftsmen of the cave did not use this technique during both the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. The chain of operation in the cave concerning the fashioning of Mesolithic hooks is different from earlier traditions of the Middle East, as well as from Neolithic traditions in Greece, the Balkans, and Neolithic Cyprus.

FASHIONING TECHNIQUES After the detachment of the preforms, each part of the hook was shaped with precise movements. The bend was shaped in a regular convex form by cross-grinding, scraping, and abrasion. Multiple small adjacent abrasion facets are visible on many specimens, and they smooth out the irregularities. The ends of the shank and the point of the hook were whittled and abraded to a point. It is important to notice that among the hooks in this cave there are no cases of hooks with barbed points, nor specific fashioning of the shank’s extremity (grooves or notches) for the attachment of the fishing line. More often than not the shank is significantly longer than the point, but there are also cases where this difference is minor (as in the crescent shaped hooks). The hooks in the Natufian period bear grooves for attachments, as a sample from Kebara indicates (Campana 1989, 41, 102). In the hooks from Nea Nikomedeia,

the end of the shank is bent inward, as in Neolithic hooks from the Balkan and the Mesolithic sites of Iron Gates in the Danube (Srejović 1972, pl. 12; Bačkalov 1979, pls. III, XVII, LXXVII). The Neolithic hooks from Franchthi Cave bear an outwardly bent shank, while on the ones from Dispilio, the notches on the external face of the upright shank must relate to the attachment formations. Despite the advanced state of fashioning in most of the hooks, only a few samples provide evidence of complete modification of the bone’s natural surfaces (BH25; Figs. 1.5, 1.8). The wide surfaces of the hooks made from the bones of small animals or birds usually have a low degree of fashioning (e.g., BH12, BH15; Figs. 1.5, 1.8). Lastly, of paramount importance in the fashioning of hooks was the throat: the U-shaped form of the throat was cut flat or sideways in a P-shape. The shape of the throat defines the direction of the point and the depth of the neck. There are hooks bearing a sub-parallel direction for the point and the shank (e.g., BH19; Figs. 1.5, 1.8) and hooks with converging shank ends and a crooked point (BH18, BH25, BH26; Figs. 1.5, 1.6, 1.8).

CLASSIFICATION OF THE HOOKS In order to classify the hooks in the Cave of the Cyclops, we have adopted a simple grouping scheme based on measurements and technomorphology. By analyzing the distributions according to the dimensions (length, width, and elongation ratio, i.e., length/width) and the manufacturing technique in relation to the blank, different classes of hooks are distinguished. We could have classified them according to the differences in size within the same general form. This must be the case today in the industrial production of metal hooks, where each category is available in a range of sizes (Powell 1996). Inversely, we could have analyzed the variety according to classes of size. We opted for the latter, as the hooks in this cave do not follow a standardization for their morphology, as is the case, for instance, for metal hooks. The statistical data on the dimensions of the hooks can be seen in Table 1.9. The distribution of the hooks in relation to the main dimensions (length and width) and according to the chronological phases can be seen in Figure 1.9. Two distinct groups exist, one of hooks shorter than 20

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

23

40

Standard Deviation

Length (mm)

33

9

106

26.00

17.51

Width (mm)

33

6

18

11.48

3.22

Thickness (mm)

33

1

5

2.79

1.24

Gape (mm)

24

3

12

6.50

2.28

Bite Throat (mm)

24

3

16

7.83

3.43

30

Length (mm)

Measurements n Minimum Maximum Mean

20

10

0 Length/Width ratio

33

Valid n (listwise)

24

1.3

7.6

2.236

1.259

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

width (mm) Neolithic

Mesolithic or Neolithic

Mesolithic

Table 1.9. Descriptive statistics of hooks.

Figure 1.9. Distribution of hook length and width by chronological period.

mm and not more than 12 mm wide, and the second of hooks 20–30 mm long and 12–16 mm wide. Moreover, I believe that the chart shows clearly that dimensions do not link to the chronological periods. We will, therefore, classify the hooks according to their length, as this feature can account for general classification, and it is pivotal if one assumes that it relates to the size of the fish it was supposed to catch. Fish, however, did not necessarily follow this rule; large fish can also be caught with small hooks, and vice versa. In particular, by observing the length/width ratio we can distinguish four sub-categories of hooks that are important in regard to the group we analyze (Figs. 1.10, 1.11). These groups were mainly formed according to the length of the shank, and the hooks are categorized into three unequal groups. The first consists of six hooks, almost as long as wide, with minimal difference in length between the shank and the point. The second group includes 12 items, with the shank being longer (and the length of the hook can be even double that of the width). Last but not least, eight

items comprise the third group whose length is 2.5 times greater than the width. Based on the above, three major categories of hooks are formed, the small, the medium-sized, and the large hooks. The categories have different individual features.

Small Hooks The length of the small-sized hooks ranges from 9 to 16 mm (BH4, BH7, BH9–BH13, BH15, BH19, BH28; Figs 1.5, 1.6, 1.8). Ten items from the cave are categorized as small hooks. These hooks bear two techno-morphological variations that relate to the type of bone of the blank. The first variation is the almost complete fashioning of the blank, which is a bone from a medium-sized animal. The length/width ratio between the shank and the point is 1–1.5. In some cases the shank is convex at the point, which gives a crescent shape to the hook (BH11; Figs. 1.5, 1.8). In other examples, the shank is upright, parallel to the point (BB10; Fig. 1.12). The bite in this group is relatively shallow. The second variation appears in splinters of bone from small-sized animals or large-sized birds; this is

24

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI 10

10

8 40

7 6

4 3

Length (mm)

30

Count

6

20

10

2 14

12 10

8 Gape (mm)

0 1.2–1.5

1.5–1.8

1.8–2.1

6

4

18 14 16 10 12 8 4 6 Throat (mm)

2.1–2.4 large

medium

small

Length:Width Figure 1.10. Hook length to width ratio. Standard deviation = 0.31; mean = 1.8; n = 26.00.

Figure 1.11. Distribution of hooks by measurements.

the reason they are remarkably thin (approximately 1 mm thick). The cross-section of the hook’s base is exceptionally convex, which gives these hooks a particular curved shape (BH7, BH11, BH12, BH15, BH19). The degree of fashioning in the carved hooks is low, mainly concerning the outline, the bend, the ends of the point, and the shank, but not the surfaces. The suspension end is always longer than the point (length/width 1.5–2). The bend was rounded by whittling and not by abrasion, and in some cases the mark from the transverse grooving in the base during reduction is preserved (BH19; Figs. 1.5, 1.8). The greater part of the small hooks come from UM levels and mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic levels, but it is also the only category of hook types in undisturbed Neolithic levels.

elaborate. Medium-sized hooks come mainly from UM levels or mixed UM/EN–MN levels. Two hooks from the Upper Mesolithic, probably of suid bone, bear a sharp-edged point and a pointed long shank with a deep throat. A shallow groove was fashioned on both sides of the bend, probably to attach the line (BH18; Figs. 1.5, 1.8). The only hook made of antler is of medium size and bears manufacturing marks that are similar to those of the other medium-sized hooks. The compact part of the antler is thin, the spongy substance is not extractable, and the internal face of the hook is rather rough (BH16; Figs 1.5, 1.8). This unique antler hook comes from a mixed UM/ EN level.

Medium-Sized Hooks Medium-sized hooks present a larger variety in dimensions (18–28 mm long), and 14 examples of this size were recovered from the cave. The hooks consist of a long shank and a larger elongation (length/width ratio is 1.5–2 [8 items] and 2–2.5 [4 items]). The shank is usually upright and parallel to the point; the throat is deep (BH2, BH18, BH22, BH23). The fashioning is extensive and

Large-Sized Hooks Large-sized hooks are rather scarce: only two were found at the Cave of the Cyclops. This category includes two artifacts of excellent preservation and of considerable elongation, the length ranging from 30 to 35 mm (length/width ratio is 2–2.5) (BH24, BH26). They are specimens of exceptional quality, and their blank from large-size animal bone has been elaborately reduced and fashioned. The first example belongs to the UM (BH25; Figs. 1.5, 1.8), and the second came from mixed

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

Mesolithic/EN levels (BH26; Figs. 1.6, 1.8). Technically, they are similar to medium-sized hooks: the fashioning of their shank and base is extensive, and their point is long and edged. They were clearly intended for larger catches.

Hook-Like Objects The special use of two hook-like items in the Mesolithic levels of the cave is noteworthy. Among the hooks, two LM items stand out (BH34, BH35), which, though hook-like, differ from the other hooks, and this explains why we classify them as a separate sub-category. The attachment grooves are at the end of a very elongated shank, which is a distinctive feature on both samples. The first example (anatomically defined by Trantalidou) does not bear a real point, but a rounded, low hook-like end (BH34; Figs. 1.7, 1.8). The second specimen was found fractured on the bend, while the end’s shape, which might have been hook-like, is unknown (BH35; Figs. 1.7, 1.8). As previously mentioned, the shank’s end for the hooks in the cave does not bear any type of particular modification for the attachment of the suspension line. Both cases of hook-shaped objects bear marks of fashioning of the suspension end; the first, either by bilateral shallow grooving, and the second by circumferential incision. Hook-like item BH34, which was preserved intact, is quite robust (53 mm long) and was fashioned on a deer metapodial bone (MoundreaAgrafioti 1981, table 21), an imported raw material, while the surface has been significantly smoothed by wear. It may well be a pendant. Hook-like item BH35 should be a preform. The groove on the shank does not bear marks of use, the marks of the blank’s detachment by grooving have not been scraped, and it may be that the breakage of the point during fashioning led to the disposal of the item. There are no further morphological analogies between these two items. In contrast, their fashioning techniques and the shaping of the attachment neck are different. When comparing them to the most well-known hook-like items in the Greek area, the belt hooks from pre-ceramic Thessaly (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981), we particularly stressed their most striking differences regarding the fashioning techniques. Nevertheless, the big belt hooks from Soufli

25

Magoula and the two hook-shaped specimens in question here share a common feature, namely the fashioning of the attachment grooves on the shank’s suspension end. The hook-like items in the Cave of the Cyclops are at least two millennia older than the Early Neolithic belt hooks in Thessaly. It is fairly possible, however, that these two artifacts had served as real hooks; their variable shape as well as their large size in comparison to the rest of the hooks from the cave could suggest that they had been made to serve, in particular, for the fishing of large fish (such as tuna, a species that is adequately attested in the cave deposits). If we also discuss the ethnoarchaeological view of the functionality of those items, we may find it relevant that modern fishermen from Alonnessos use hooks of exactly the same size as their Mesolithic counterparts to catch tuna weighing as much as 100– 150 kg. The lower pointed edge of BH34 probably broke while in use and, consequentially, was modified to become rounded. Such modification may have derived from a kind of symbolic use of this particular object. The edge of BH35 is also broken, and although it is a little bit smaller than BH34, it is more robust, probably because of some special use. The fact that both items are broken at the same spot—while no such pattern of breakage is observed in the hooks of ordinary type (except for BH24)—is a strong indication of the forceful pressure the hooks suffered due to the weight of the large fish. Additionally, the fact that BH34 and BH35 bear a notch for the suspension line, which is absent in the other hooks, can only be explained as a functional improvement so that the hook can respond to catching large, heavy fish.

DATE OF THE HOOKS Based on the distribution of the hooks according to stratigraphy, we can conclude that the two Lower Mesolithic hooks are robust and of large or medium size (BH22; BH24; Figs. 1.5, 1.8). Hooks of all sizes and categories belong to the UM, and they are similarly spotted in mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic levels. Small curved hooks of bird bone occur only in UM levels. We are not, thus, in a position to tell whether Neolithic hooks can be distinguished from Mesolithic ones. The large number of hooks from mixed

26

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

levels (13), their homogeneity to the hooks in the UM, and the remarkably small amount of clearly Neolithic hooks (2) does not permit us to find any differences. However, one thing is clear: no form of hook that occurs only in the mixed or the Neolithic levels does not also occur in the Mesolithic. The difficulty in defining the date of the hooks in the mixed levels is similar to the one in the stone tool industry, only now it is reversed. According to stone tools experts, Mesolithic layers include every known type from the Neolithic (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 1998, 2003). The hooks in the Cave of the Cyclops are not standardized, or they are at least less standardized than the ones from Nea Nikomedeia, or even the more recent ones from Dispilio (Chourmouziades 1996). Nevertheless, irrespective of size, they share a common feature, namely how the line was attached. Due to the shank’s form, the line probably first went through the throat and the base of the hook and then attached to the end of the shank. The variety in sizes may be contingent upon the various fish catches (fishing for small-sized or large-sized fish) or because of the various technical fishing traditions of the Mesolithic fishermen who would visit the cave at various periods with a huge hiatus between them. Additionally, variety can be explained by personal factors, since some hooks, as we saw earlier, were produced two at a time. Finally, the connection of the hooks with the fish caught is probably not feasible. Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and bogue were caught with unknown hooks from small boats. I would like to stress that, despite the nonsystematic study of the use marks on the hooks from the Cave of the Cyclops, I believe that they related to fishery. Based on the use marks, Campana (1989, 102–103) raises questions on whether the four Mesolithic hooks of the Kebara culture were intended for fishing, which morphologically and size-wise resemble some hooks from the Cave of the Cyclops. The use marks make him suggest that these are brooch hooks and not fishing hooks. It is worth noting that according to the preliminary publications on the Mesolithic site of Maroulas in Kythnos, no hooks were unearthed at that site (Sampson et al. 2002).

DISCUSSION The hooks from the cave are not standardized, and they seem to follow different techno-morphological patterns. Uniformity should be related to the manufacture of some hooks in pairs from the same blank and apparently by the same craftsman, as previously shown, based on the preforms. Hooks of every size-group were manufactured diversely, probably on account of the distinct technical traditions of the Mesolithic fishermen who inhabited the cave seasonally for at least a millennium with huge time intervals in between. Even though it is probable that these fishermen came from the large islands in the Northern Sporades or even southeastern Thessaly, we cannot overlook the possibility that their base camp was elsewhere, and that Youra had established contact with more remote areas in the northern or northeastern Aegean. Irrespective of the dissimilarities regarding blanks, techniques, and size, the hooks in the cave share a common feature: the form of the shank’s end and thus the attachment of the fishing line. The pointed shank’s tip that can be seen in every variant from Youra does not allow for the immediate attachment of the suspension line. Invariably, the fishing line must have been attached through the throat and the base of the hook, and afterwards on the shank’s end. This long-held technique was basic, and it corresponds with a uniform fishing activity system, very different from the one of pre-ceramic Cyprus, for instance, or Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia, or the Mesolithic and Neolithic hook samples from the Balkans, but most importantly Mesolithic Franchthi Cave, where even though the fishing activity was important, Mesolithic hooks are notably non-existent. The broader association to the Youra hooks’ tradition is presently unknown to us, although it did not concentrate in the Sporades area, and in order to shed light on this issue, new sites need to be unearthed. In the case of the hooks from Youra, it was undoubtedly established that the hooks were employed for fishing. The diverse range of sizes and their grouping into three distinct size assortments must be associated with the various fishing games (fishing for small or large fish, and so on). However, the

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

connection of the hooks with the fishing game, which is rather well-known to us through the study of the ichthyo-fauna (Powell 1996, 36; 2003; this vol., Ch. 3; Mylona 2003; this vol., Ch. 4), seems hard to establish. Large-sized demersal fish were probably fished with the application of hooks and fishing lines from boats, as suggested by the evidence from Trench CEast, Level 19, Rectangle 6, which was dated to the UM (see Facorellis, this vol., Ch. 10, Table 10.1). It is assumed that hooks were also applied for coastal fishing activities.

CATALOG OF HOOKS BH1. Medium hook. L. 27; w. 14; th. 3 mm. Trench B, Level 8. Mesolithic. BH2. Medium hook. L. 28; w. 12; th. 4 mm. Trench B, Level 8. Mesolithic. BH3. Medium hook. L. 20; w. 10; th. 1 mm. Trench B, Level 6. Mesolithic. BH4. Small hook. L. 9; w. 6; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BH5. Small hook. L. 12; w. 8; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BH6. Small hook. L. 15; w. 7; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 6. EN/MN. BH7. Small hook. L. 14; w. 11; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BH8. Medium hook. L. 20; w. 11; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BH9. Small hook. L. 12; w. 9; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. UM. BH10. Small hook. L. 14; w. 11; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. UM. BH11. Small hook. L. 12; w. 9; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. UM. BH12. Small hook. L. 13; w. 8; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. EN/MN. BH13. Small hook. L. 16; w. 8; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BH14. Small hook. L. 13; w. 8; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 11. UM.

27

BH15. Small hook. L. 22; w. 10; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. UM. BH16. Medium hook. L. 28; w. 15; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 12. Mesolithic/EN. BH17. Medium hook. L. 23; w. 13; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. UM. BH18. Medium hook. L. 28; w. 13; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 16. UM. BH19. Small hook. L. 18; w. 11; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 16. UM. BH20. Medium hook. L. 30; w. 13; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 17. UM. BH21. Small hook. L. 18; w. 9; th. 3 mm. Surface level. Mesolithic. BH22. Medium hook. L. 28; w. 16; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM. BH23. Medium hook. L. 20; w. 12; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 10. UM. BH24. Large hook. L. 35; w. 14; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 21. LM. BH25. Medium hook. L. 29; w. 14; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. UM. BH26. Large hook. L. 35; w. 18; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 17. UM. BH27. Preform. L. 34; w. 18; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 16. UM. BH28. Preform. L. 18; w. 8; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 12. EN/MN. BH29. Preform. L. 28; w. 18; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 13. UM. BH30. Preform. L. 106; w. 14; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 3. LN. BH31. Preform. L. 37; w. 11; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 13. UM. BH32. Preform. L. 48; w. 10; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM. BH33. Preform. L. 48; w. 10; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM. BH34. Large hook. L. 53; w. 14; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. LM. BH35. Large hook. L. 48; w. 22; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM.

28

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Bipoints The classification of bipoints consists of 41 pointed artifacts with both ends symmetrically sharpened along the length axis (Figs. 1.12–1.14). The symmetrical growth of the ends distinguishes them from pointed tools that bear a fashioned though not pointed base, such as some points (BP10). Their state of preservation is remarkably good: 32 out of 41 are intact or partly intact. Bipoints were fashioned on regular diaphyses slivers of medium-sized or small-sized mammals (21/41), bird diaphyses (9/41), and, to a smaller extent, antler slivers (7/41). Antler was almost exclusively used in the Mesolithic levels of the cave for the manufacture of bipoints. Finally, two bipoints were fashioned out of boar’s tusk slivers, and they comprise the sole category of artifacts in the cave that featured the use of a boar’s tusk. It is interesting to note that this type of raw material, typical of the site despite its abundance on the island due to the presence of suidae and caprins (Trantalidou 2003), was hardly used in the manufacture of hooks and even less of bipoints. Thus, the manufacture of bipoints features the application of various organic material, and the artifacts comprise another tool category, besides hooks, for which bird bones are typical. As regards the reduction techniques, the blank of the bipoint was detached by double grooving that allowed for the extraction of splinters with parallel sides and controllable width. Some of the debris that resulted from this technique probably

relates to the shaping of the bipoints’ blanks. (BV9; Fig. 1.30). Bipoints were mainly roughed out by whittling (58.4%); this technique frequently caused elimination of the splinter’s anatomical attributes. Where the whittling is partial, the shaping of the sides and the points is particularly meticulous. The abrasion technique is less frequent (24.4%) and invariably succeeds and complements the whittling procedure (BB9, BB11; Figs. 1.12, 1.14). It was mainly applied for the shaping of certain classes such as the crescent-shaped bipoint (BB7; Figs. 1.12, 1.14). The thorough shaping accounts mainly for the circular or ellipsoid crosssections of the points, whereas the flattened or triangular cross-sections are more sporadic.

BIPOINT TYPOLOGY The dimensions of the bipoints vary markedly as regards length, which ranges from 23 to 100 mm and diverges invariably from the average rate of 46 mm (Table 1.10; Fig. 1.15). Contrarily, the width does not diverge greatly from the average rate of 5 mm (Table 1.10; Fig. 1.16). The same goes for the thickness that invariably diverges 1.5 mm from the average rate of 4 mm (Table 1.10; Fig. 1.17). The bipoints do not constitute a uniform group, and length is pivotal in the division of bipoints into three distinct classes (Fig. 1.18). Small-sized bipoints, whose length ranges from 23 to 39 mm, were roughed out mainly on bones of small animals or birds (14/41, 34.1%).

Measurements

n

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

Variance

Length (mm)

32

23

100

46.16

15.90

252.717

Width (mm)

41

3

8

5.41

1.28

1.649

Thickness (mm)

41

1

7

3.66

1.48

2.180

Length/Width ratio

31

4.6

15.0

8.798

2.207

4.871

Width/Thickness ratio

41

0.8

4.0

1.732

0.788

0.621

Valid n (listwise)

31

Table 1.10. Descriptive statistics of bipoints.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

Figure 1.12. Bipoints (BB1–BB7, BB9–BB12, BB14, BB16, BB17).

29

30

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Figure 1.13. Bipoints (BB18, BB20, BB22, BB23, BB25, BB27–BB32, BB35, BB36, BB38, BB39).

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

BB3

BB7

BB23

BB24

BB36

BB37

BB11

BB28

BB38

31

BB14

BB18

BB21

BB29

BB32

BB35

BB39

BB40

BB41

Figure 1.14. Bipoints (BB3, BB7, BB11, BB14, BB18, BB21, BB23, BB24, BB28, BB29, BB32, BB35–BB41). Scale 1:1.

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Medium-sized bipoints, 40 to 59 mm long, comprise the biggest group (20/41, 48.8%). Finally, largesized bipoints, 60 to 80 mm long, are far less frequent (6/41, 14.6%), and only one item is 100 mm long. Bipoints that fall under these size categories feature techno-morphological variations that are mainly contingent on the degree of the splinter’s shaping and the different types of bones that served as raw material. The following technomorphological groups exist (Figs. 1.19 and 1.20):

14

12

10

Count

32

6

Group A. Spindle-Shaped Bipoints on Wholly Fashioned Splinters

4

2

0 20

14

12

12

10

10

8

8

4

2

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Width (mm) Figure 1.16. Bipoints: frequency distribution by width. Standard deviation = 1.28 mm; mean = 5 mm; n = 41.00 mm.

50

60

80

70

90

100

6

4

0

40

Figure 1.15. Bipoints: frequency distribution by length. Standard deviation = 15.90 mm; mean = 46 mm; n = 32.00 mm.

14

6

30

Length (mm)

Count

Count

This group of bipoints is the largest because it consists of 21 items, about 50% of the total assemblage (Table 1.11A; Fig. 1.19). They were roughed out on splinters that belonged to medium-sized or largesized mammals (BB3, BB5, BB9, BB11, BB22), or cervid antlers (BB3, BB5, BB14, BB16, BB21, BB35, BB36). The slivers were detached from the blank by double grooving, and the subsequent fashioning involved thorough whittling that scraped off the natural grooves and the external surface of the sliver. Occasionally, small flat surfaces are found,

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Thickness (mm) Figure 1.17. Bipoints: frequency distribution by thickness. Standard deviation = 1.48 mm; mean = 4 mm; n = 41.00 mm.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS 48.8%

50%

33

30

40% 34.1% 19

Count

Percent

20 30%

20% 10

14.6%

8

7

6

10% 3%

1

0 20–40

40–60

60–80

0

80–100

A

B

Length (mm) Figure 1.18. Bipoint length.

C

D

E

Morphological Group Figure 1.19. Bipoints: techno-morphological groups.

which came about either on account of the whittling procedure or the abrasion on the flat granulated surface of a grinder (BB9, BB11). The points are symmetrical to the elongated axis of the main face. The incision on the body and the points is circular or slightly ellipsoid. The length fluctuates from 37 to 100 mm, and the average length is 52 mm. The constant divergence of the length is significant, and the average thickness is 4.6 mm. The width/thickness ratio averages 1.3, indicating an almost circular cross-section. A spindle-shaped bipoint is longer than the group average (100 mm) and is reminiscent of the large points of the Natufian culture (Campana 1989) or the Upper Paleolithic. To this period date the amphi-conic points abounding in Kastritsa (nine points of bone and 60 of antler represent 68% of this site’s bone tool kit) (Campana 1989, 246, table 13.2). Only five samples—four of bone and one of antler— are cited from Klidhi (Adam and Kotjabopoulou 1997, 247, fig. 13.2). Bent spindle-shaped bipoints (seven samples) constitute a variation among this group as they feature complete fashioning and bent vertical cross-section. The points are bent several millimeters off the perpendicular along the natural slant of the external surface of the diaphysis that yielded the splinter (e.g., BB1, BB4).

95% CI Length

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

n=

19

8

7

6

1

A

B

C

D

E

Morphological Group Figure 1.20. Bipoints: length dispersion by morphological group.

Group B. Spindle-Shaped Bipoints on Splinters that Bear Signs of the Blank’s Medullar Cavity This group consists of eight spindle-shaped bipoints that differ because of the far less extensive retouch of the base, while the medullar cavity of the sliver is visible at the middle part of the bipoint (BB2, BB10, BB12, BB18, BB20, BB23, BB36, BB38; Table 1.11B). The pointed ends were fashioned by symmetrical converging of the sliver’s two sides, and the vertical cross-section was bent. The completion of the points’ formation is done by whittling or abrasion on a fixed grinder, more often than

34

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

not transversely to the length axis. The raw material mostly came in large-sized or medium-sized animal bone splinters, a feature common with group A as regards the roughing out of the blank, but different as regards the degree of the elimination of the anatomical attributes. Concerning dimensions, this group has much in common with group A, but its representatives are in average longer and the cross-section is more flattened (width/thickness ratio 1.5) (Table 1.11B; Figs. 1.20, 1.21). The pointed ends are significantly smoothed, their cross-section is circular, and the wear marks are uncommon.

Group C. Bipoints on Bird Bone Slivers The attribute that all seven bipoints of this group share is the small size of the blank, which came about from splinters of large-sized bird bones (BB25, BB26, BB27, BB28, BB29, BB30, BB32). Technically, they constitute miniatures of group B; the medullar cavity is visible, the sides and the points were carefully smoothed, and the profile is upright. The points are shaped symmetrically to the length axis, and the body was incised convexly. These quite fragile items are 28 to 43 mm long (average length 35.3 mm), and they are significantly elongated

Bipoint Group A

Bipoint Group B

n Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard Deviation

n Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard Deviation

Length (mm)

11

37

100

52.82

17.87

Length (mm)

8

40

75

54.88

11.91

Width (mm)

19

4

8

6.05

1.13

Width (mm)

8

5

8

5.63

1.19

Thickness (mm)

19

3

7

4.58

1.02

Thickness (mm)

8

3

5

4.00

0.93

Length/Width ratio

11

5.3

12.5

8.556

2.237

Length/Width ratio

8

7.9

15.0

9.942

2.408

Width/Thickness 19 ratio

0.8

1.8

1.356

0.269

Width/Thickness 8 ratio

1.0

2.7

1.488

0.541

Valid n (listwise)

Valid n (listwise)

11

8

Bipoint Group C

Bipoint Group D

n Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard Deviation

n Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard Deviation

Length (mm)

7

28

43

35.29

5.85

Length (mm)

5

23

42

31.20

9.20

Width (mm)

7

3

4

3.86

0.38

Width (mm)

6

4

6

4.83

0.98

Thickness (mm)

7

1

2

1.57

0.53

Thickness (mm)

6

1

4

2.67

1.21

Length/Width ratio

6

7.5

10.8

9.292

1.269

Length/Width ratio

5

4.6

10.0

6.870

2.015

Width/Thickness 7 ratio

2.0

4.0

2.714

0.951

Width/Thickness 6 ratio

1.3

4.0

2.139

1.008

Valid n (listwise)

6

Table 1.11A–D. Bipoints: descriptive statistics by group.

Valid n (listwise)

5

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

(length/width ratio on average 9:1) and noticeably thin (1.6 mm) (Table 1.11C; Figs. 1.20, 1.21). These bipoints could be paralleled by the small hooks made of bird bones. Despite the thin base, the bipoints fashioned from bird bone slivers were very well preserved. Most of them are preserved intact, and some bear minor breaks at the point’s end. As these items are from a morphological point of view close to the so-called “gorge sets,” it must be made clear here that they bear no formation whatsoever on the middle (a throat or incisions) that could facilitate suspension. The bipoints from bird bones were retrieved only from the Mesolithic levels of the cave (three from LM levels, and four from UM levels).

Group D. Crescent-Shaped Bipoints The group consists of six bipoints, which, as in group C, are quite narrow, but bring out the crescent shape of the blank (BB1, BB7, BB16; Table 1.11D). This peculiar shape owes its existence to the fact that the objects were fashioned on flat splinters that featured one straight or curved side, whereas the other was bent, due to abrasion. A small and symmetrical bipoint (BB31) bears groups of parallel oblique incisions, although it is not clear whether this is due to shaping or decoration.

Group E. Varia Last, a bipoint (BB17) was shaped on an intact diaphysis of a small animal or bird bone. It is the only sample that was not manufactured out of a splinter. The two ends of the diaphysis underwent sharpening, but the body remained tubelike (Fig. 1.12).

same tools? Undoubtedly, the activities with which bipoints were associated must be defined, and one must decide whether these were gorge sets, as proposed by the excavator, or hunting points. It is unfortunate that hardly any bone tools can be assigned to the Mesolithic phase of Theopetra, and Perlès’s assumption that inland hunting sites would yield points cannot be verified. Contrarily, at the Cave of the Cyclops the association of the points with coastal insular and open-sea fishery has been established. The geographic location of the cave does not explain the large number of hunting points and the fact that they were not found in Mesolithic Theopetra where the natural environment allows for systematic hunting activities. The comparative evidence that results from the Neolithic bone industries corroborates the theory that similar artifacts are not frequently found at Neolithic sites. The fact that the bipoints were not known in the neighboring settlement of Hagios Petros is important even though the pointed tools from this site comprise the main class of bone tools (they represent 81.6% of the EN–MN tools and 84.6% of the LN bone tools) (Efstratiou 1985). Bipoints like the spindle-shaped class of groups A and B and the small bipoints made of bird bones of group C have appeared neither in Neolithic Thessaly nor in the wider Helladic area. Bone tools that bear two pointed ends on flattened bone splinters (mostly on bovid ribs) are more well-known from the Helladic area, such as the group of many

BIPOINTS DATED AND DEFINED It can be said that bipoints constitute the most typical class of Mesolithic artifacts from the cave, as they outnumber hooks in the Mesolithic levels. A total of 78% of the total assemblage (32/41) were unearthed from the Mesolithic levels of the cave, mostly from the UM phase (Table 1.12; Fig. 1.22). Five bipoints were retrieved from the mixed UM/EN level, and only four came from Neolithic levels. Despite the small number of the Neolithic bipoints, the issue here is, as in the case of the hooks, whether and to what extent this class continued also in the Neolithic period; in other words, to what extent did the activities that associate the bipoints with the Mesolithic persist also during the Neolithic with the

35

Figure 1.21. Bipoints: dimensions by shape groups.

36

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Count Bipoint Group

Total

LM

UM

Mesolithic or Neolithic

EN/MN

LN

A

4

10

2

1

2

19

B

2

3

3

—

—

8

C

3

4

—

—

—

7

D

2

3

—

1

—

6

E

1

—

—

—

—

1

TOTAL

12

20

5

2

2

41

Table 1.12. Correlation of chronological levels and the groups of bipoints.

bone tools from Neolithic Knossos, from the LN and FN periods. The search for morphological parallels basically leads to specific types of points of the Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic from the European area (Camps-Fabrer, ed., 1974; Cleyet-Merle 1990; Camps-Fabrer 1993; Ramseyer 2000). The numerous amphiconic points of the Upper Paleolithic from the cave of Kastritsa in Epiros can be mentioned here, as well as parallels from Klidhi (Adam and Kotjabopoulou 1997). Some Paleolithic points of bone and antler are morphologically similar to groups A and B from the Cave of the Cyclops, but they are mostly items of larger size. Similar artifacts are well-known from Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in the Iron Gates of the Danube (e.g., Lepenski Vir and Vlasac), which have been defined as points for hunting and fishing activities, and in the Neolithic phases they co-exist with fewer hooks (Srejović 1972, fig. 48; Bačkalov 1979, pls. 6–8, 41). It must also be emphasized that in the same area, bipoints from human skeletons in the Mesolithic burials in Shela Cladovec (8th millennium B.P.) were found, which is indicative of their secondary use as weapons. They bear close morphological similarities to the bipoints of Natufians of the Middle East when bone tools were extensively used, and more types of tools were manufactured (Belfer-Cohen and BarYosef 1981; Stordeur 1985, 13–23; Cauvin 1985; Campana 1989). Bipoints constitute a major tool class of the Natufian culture (Valla 1984; Bar-Yosef and Valla, eds., 1991), and they are also found in the

later phases of the pre-ceramic Neolithic A and B (Campana 1989, 47–49, 83–92, 131–135). Even though the assemblages in the Middle East are mostly older than the bipoints in the Cave of the Cyclops, they are unique when it comes to the study of the bipoints’ function in question here, since much has been published about them and, moreover, the use marks have been thoroughly studied. The parallels may also extend to numerous samples of bipoints from Neolithic sites in the Balkans and Europe that bear close, or not so close, resemblances to the Cave of the Cyclops bipoints, but we do not deem it necessary to present assemblages

Mesolithic or Neolithic 12.2%

Neolithic 9.8%

Mesolithic 78.0%

Figure 1.22. Bipoints: frequency by chronological period.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

geographically and culturally much different from our topic here. However, the cases of the lacustrine settlements of France and the Alps, where bipoints hafted with wooden handles have been retrieved and used as harpoons or arrow points, are interesting. These cases shed much light on the issue of the hafting of morphologically similar bipoints to those of the Cave of the Cyclops. For some, especially those whose size is small, it has been proposed that they were hooks. The question of the bipoints’s function can obviously be answered in more than one way. Depending on the period, the morphology, and the various parallels, bipoints are seen as points largely when they belong to Paleolithic or Mesolithic assemblages. The bow found in the European Mesolithic and the Middle East Natufian period probably verifies the use of bone bipoints as ballistic points. Actually, gorges relate not only to fishing, but more often than not to preying of birds (Feustel 1973, 165). The small bipoints, according to the ethnographic analogies, were thought to be gorges, provided that the parallels gave evidence for such a theory, as was the case, for instance, for the bipoints of Levantine El-Wad. Campana studied the use marks on bipoints that had been deemed points and gorges from Hayonim, Kebara, El-Wad, and other sites from the Natufian and the Proto-Neolithic in Zagros. These studies did not verify any of the proposed theories about their usage. Large bipoints bear marks that indicate craft-related activities, such as the manufacture of baskets, while the so-called gorges of El-Wad cannot be associated with fishery, but with pointed tools and perforators, or even fasteners or toggles. He concluded that only the small bipoints with incisions and notches in the middle could have been used as gorges (Feustel 1973, 165–166; Campana 1989). It is clear, therefore, that the proposed usages as regards bipoints, depending on their morphology, are probably unsound. In order to classify pointed tools, we apply the method that was proposed for the Neolithic bone tools in southeast Thessaly (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981). This is based on a system that categorizes artifacts according to the degree of reduction on the blank’s bone. However, given the peculiar surroundings of the Cave of the Cyclops, the hooks, and the established fishing activities, the assumption that these are hooks

37

seems rational. Among the tools from southeast Thessaly, for example, sharp tools represent about 15% of the total; they therefore constitute the second most abundant category of artifacts (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 313, table 22). The fact that hooks and gorges coexist postulates the parallel application of two different fishing techniques, one older with gorges, and another, more advanced technique practiced with bent hooks. Technologically, bent hooks comprise a technical novelty that is believed to have gradually superseded the use of gorges. We saw that the bipoints from the Cave of the Cyclops did not comprise a homogeneous class but constituted two main groups: one of spindleshaped bipoints of mostly medium size and varying dimensions (groups A and B); the other of small and fragile bipoints made from bird bones. A marginal number of some samples are either too large or too small and have a crescent or spindled shape. Hardly any category bears formations on the middle part of the body that alludes to gorges. Groups A and B are morphologically analogous to points, and the small bipoints of these two groups and those of groups C and D could be either arrow points or gorges. A third suggestion could be that they were hafted like the samples from lacustrine settlements in order to form harpoons with more than one point or bone barbs of sophisticated hooks or harpoons, as the ethnographic parallels indicate. Lastly, we should also consider the possibility that bipoints did not relate to fishing but to hunting activities for overland animals—small caprins or birds on the island—of which remnants abound among the food debris. A meticulous study of the macro-marks on the bipoints from the Cave of the Cyclops will help define their exact use.

CATALOG OF BIPOINTS BB1. Bipoint, group D. L. 63; w. 6; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. UM. BB2. Bipoint, group B. L. 58; w. 5; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM. BB3. Bipoint, group A. L. 54; w. 7; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. LM. BB4. Bipoint, group A. L. 53; w. 5; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. UM. BB5. Bipoint, group A. W. 8; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 6. LN.

38

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

BB6. Bipoint, group A. L. 100; w. 8; th. 6 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BB7. Bipoint, group D. L. 40; w. 5; th. 3 mm. Surface level. Mesolithic. BB8. Bipoint, group D. L. 42; w. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM. BB9. Bipoint, group A. L. 40; w. 6; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. UM. BB10. Bipoint, group B. L. 63; w. 8; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 10. Mesolithic. BB11. Bipoint, group A. L. 41; w. 6; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 21. LM. BB12. Bipoint, group B. L. 62; w. 7; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. UM. BB13. Bipoint, group A. L. 45; w. 5; th. 6 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. LM. BB14. Bipoint, group A. L. 58; w. 7; th. 7 mm. Trench CEast, Level 16. UM. BB15. Bipoint, group B. L. 40; w. 4; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. UM. BB16. Bipoint, group D. L. 37; w. 7; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. UM. BB17. Bipoint, group E. L. 54; w. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 23. LM. BB18. Bipoint, group B. L. 75; w. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. LM. BB19. Bipoint, group D. W. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 21. LM. BB20. Bipoint, group B. L. 50; w. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BB21. Bipoint, group A. W. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 12. UM. BB22. Bipoint, group A. W. 7; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. EN/MN. BB23. Bipoint, group A. W. 7; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 6. LN.

BB24. Bipoint, group A. W. 5; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. LM. BB25. Bipoint, group C. L. 30; w. 4; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. UM. BB26. Bipoint, group C. L. 38; w. 3; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM. BB27. Bipoint, group C. L. 30; w. 4; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 11. UM. BB28. Bipoint, group C. L. 38; w. 4; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 11. UM. BB29. Bipoint, group C. L. 40; w. 4; th. 1 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. LM. BB30. Bipoint, group C. L. 28; w. 4; th. 1 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. LM. BB31. Bipoint, group D. L. 23; w. 5; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM. BB32. Bipoint, group C. L. 43; w. 4; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM. BB33. Bipoint, group B. L. 50; w. 5; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 13. UM. BB34. Bipoint, group A. L. 52; w. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 11. UM. BB35. Bipoint, group A. L. 38; w. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BB36. Bipoint, group B. L. 41; w. 5; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BB37. Bipoint, group A. W. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic. BB38. Bipoint, group A. W. 4; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM. BB39. Bipoint, group D. L. 28; w. 4; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BB40. Bipoint, group D. L. 23; w. 4; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 6. EN/MN. BB41. Bipoint, group A. W. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 11. UM.

Pointed Tools The class of the pointed tools—that is the artifacts that bear one pointed end—consists of 30 bone tools (24.4% of the total; Table 1.7; Figs. 1.23, 1.24). Chronologically, the pointed tools form a category that is featured among the Mesolithic and the Neolithic levels of the cave in equal numbers (Fig. 1.4). A more careful study of the distribution patterns shows, however, that most pointed tools from the cave were retrieved from the UM (11/30) and the LN (9/30) levels (Fig. 1.25). Pointed tools were largely

roughed out of elongated splinters from long bones of medium-sized animals (25/30). Two examples are made of the diaphyses from long deer bones, and two others are made from bird or small animal bones. Finally, an antler was probably used as a pointed tool with no further fashioning (Table 1.13). Pointed tools bear frequent breaks due to their shape: 19 out of 30 are preserved intact (63.3% of the total). Breaks appear mostly on the pointed tool’s body, especially those that were shaped of fine, elongated splinters,

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

and not so much on the pointed end. Two upper parts of tools with a pointed end that we categorize as pointed tools are featured by a circular cross-section, and they probably do not come from pointed tools but bipoints.

POINTED TOOL TYPOLOGY The pointed tools from the cave, depending on the anatomy and the degree of reduction on the blank’s bone, are further divided into three sub-categories (Table 1.13; Fig. 1.26).

Group A. Pointed Tools on Elongated Splinters These tools were fashioned on splinters from long bones of medium-size animals, and, in two cases, bird bones (18 pointed tools: 10 from the Mesolithic and eight from the Neolithic) (Table 1.13). Only a few pointed tools are made on uneven splinters that have undergone minor fashioning (3/18). Most pointed tools were fashioned on even, elongated splinters roughed out of the diaphysis of long bones with converging grooves (4/18) or parallel grooves; these techniques yielded elongated and even-surfaced tools with straight sides (11/18) (e.g., BP10, BP12, BP15, BP25). Two samples from the Mesolithic that fall under this category (BP12, BP25) bear visible marks from the grooves on the sides. The sharpening of the point was performed by abrasion. Some tools carry a point that is relatively robust and blunt from wear. The base was smoothed or, in two cases, transversely incised (BP25).

Group B. Pointed Tools on Longitudinally Divided Long Bones This group consists of only a few artifacts (5/30) and is mainly featured among LN levels (Table 1.13). The category of the pointed tools that were fashioned on a divided metapodial and carry the divided epiphysis at the lower end features just one item that comes from the LN level, during which period this type was extremely common (BP16). The rest of the samples were fashioned out of metapodials or the bones of the shank that were first longitudinally divided and then detached by grooving at four places. The pointed tools of this category are artifacts of great perfection; their blanks are even and elongated, the epiphysis of the base is processed and smoothed, and the state of preservation is excellent (BP13, BP17, BP26). Two samples were

39

retrieved from LN levels. Similar cases are wellknown from the LN in Thessaly and many Helladic sites of this period. These tools are notably elongated, and their morphology is phenomenal.

Group C. Pointed Tools on Intact Long Bones This class consists largely of tools fashioned on bones that more often than not preserve their diaphyses and epiphysis intact. In the Cave of the Cyclops, no typical samples of this category were found. Only one item on a fibula falls under this category, while the other two samples have had their diaphyses longitudinally divided at a smaller or greater extent, but the tube-like form of the bone has been preserved. Of the three pointed tools of this category, only two are intact. A pointed tool of the UM was fashioned on a carnivore’s fibula (BP11; Fig. 1.23). The sharpening of the point was carried out by abrasion, slightly diverging from the axis of symmetry. The whole surface bears signs of wear up to the epiphysis. The base also has signs of minor wear. The second sample, BP22 (Fig. 1.24), was fashioned on a tibia from a caprin, and it dates to the EN/MN. The epiphysis has been extracted, and the tube of the diaphysis has been divided up to the base. Lastly, a pointed tool from the UM that is preserved in fragments was fashioned on a long bone of a large-sized animal. The two latter samples are quite robust points on which the signs of usage are found only at the point and around it, in contrast to the pointed tools on a splinter, on which usage is seen also on the body of the tool. It is important here to stress the fact that contrary to the neighboring settlement of Hagios Petros where the pointed tools from the EN–MN were chiefly fashioned on whole metapodials, in the Cave of the Cyclops this category did not exist among the Neolithic levels. This disparity is of great significance because the settlement of Hagios Petros, compared to the Neolithic sites of southeastern Thessaly, differs greatly as far as the variety of bone tools is concerned, and pointed tools predominate. It has been suggested that this peculiarity was probably due to the fishing activities that the people of the settlement engaged in, whereby the repair, say, of the nets or the process of the vegetal fibers could be associated with the abundance of the pointed tools. Figure 1.27 gives evidence for the dimensions of the complete pointed tools according to the above

40

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Figure 1.23. Points (BP10–BP13, BP15, BP16).

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

Figure 1.24. Points (BP17, BP22, BP25, BP28).

41

42

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Count Total Metapodial

Tibia

Fibula

Diaphysis

Antler

Group A (sliver or splinter)

—

2

—

16

—

18

Group B (longitudinally divided elements)

4

1

—

—

—

5

Group C (complete bone)

—

1

1

1

—

3

Other

—

—

—

—

1

1

Undetermined

—

—

—

3

—

3

TOTAL

4

4

1

20

1

30

Table 1.13. Pointed implements by anatomical categories and blank morphology.

12

Unknown 10%

11 10

9

Count

8

Other 3% Unmodified bone 10%

6 4

Splinters/slivers 60%

5 3 2

2 0 LM

UM

Mesolithic EN–MN or Neolithic

LN

Split longitudinally 17%

Figure 1.25. Pointed tools by chronological period.

Figure 1.26. Pointed tools by blank category.

three groups, and Figure 1.28 sets out the fluctuation of their length per blank category. The latter shows that the pointed tools on splinters are the shortest, with an average length of 60 mm. The pointed tools fashioned on a divided long bone are much longer. It can be argued that the pointed tools from the Cave of the Cyclops are typically featured by the elongation of the blanks and the thorough processing. The pointed tools that date from the Mesolithic underwent thorough processing; the blanks were detached with double grooves in order to control the width and the shape of the tool, and the pointed end was fashioned mostly by whittling and less by abrasion. The usage marks are mostly found at the points, and the body may also bear signs of

extensive grinding either due to use or the handling of the tools. The pointed tools from the LN that outnumber all other Neolithic points were shaped according to a different technique. Of greater importance was the detachment of the blank by means of sophisticated splintering processes along the bones and the diaphyses, and abrasion applied prior to the detachment of the blank.

CATALOG OF POINTED TOOLS BP1. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 81; w. 8; th. 7 mm. Trench CEast, Level 8. LN. BP2. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 37; w. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. LM.

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS 120

43

120

Mean +/- 2 Length (mm)

Length (mm)

100

80

60

40

100

80

60

40

20 4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

n=

12

splinter/sliver

Width (mm)

5

2

longitudinally divided

unsplit bone

Blank category

Figure 1.27. Pointed tools: dimensions.

Figure 1.28. Pointed tools: length by blank category (mean values and standard deviation).

BP3. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 53; w. 6; th. 5 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM. BP4. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 70; w. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM. BP5. Pointed tool, fragment. L. 30; w. 7; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 15. UM. BP6. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 30; w. 6; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. LN. BP7. Pointed tool, fragment. L. 33; w. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 12. UM. BP8. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 41; w. 8; th. 1 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. LM. BP9. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 46; w. 5; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 5. EN/MN. BP10. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 95; w. 5; th. 4 mm. Trench C, Level 1. LN. BP11. Pointed tool, unsplit bone. L. 102; w. 7; th. 7 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. UM. BP12. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 97; w. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. UM. BP13. Pointed tool, longitudinally divided. L. 96; w. 6; th. 3 mm. Trench A, Level 5. LN. BP14. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 49; w. 9; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. UM. BP15. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 63; w. 6; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 21. LM.

BP16. Pointed tool, longitudinally divided. L. 78; w. 8; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 1. LN. BP17. Pointed tool, longitudinally divided. L. 97; w. 5; th. 3 mm. Trench A, Level 6. LN. BP18. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 60; w. 6; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 14. LN. BP19. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 60; w. 6; th. 5 mm. Trench CEast, Level 7. LN. BP20. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 29; w. 5; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 9. LN. BP21. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 51; w. 9; th. 5 mm. Trench CWest, Level 11. UM. BP22. Pointed tool, unsplit bone. L. 78; w. 13; th. 5 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. EN/MN. BP23. Pointed tool, longitudinally divided. L. 77; w. 16; th. 8 mm. Trench CEast, Level 20. UM. BP24. Pointed tool, other. L. 85; w. 12; th. 12 mm. Trench B, Level 1. EN/MN. BP25. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 68; w. 5; th. 2 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BP26. Pointed tool, longitudinally divided. L. 92; w. 7; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 6. EN/MN. BP27. Pointed tool, fragment. L. 26; w. 7; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 11. Mesolithic/Neolithic. BP28. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 43; w. 7; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. EN/MN.

44

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

BP29. Pointed tool, splinter/sliver. L. 55; w. 7; th. 3 mm. Trench CEast, Level 11. UM.

BP30. Pointed tool, unsplit bone. L. 71; w. 8; th. 15 mm. Trench CWest, Level 8. Mesolithic/Neolithic.

Varia This category consists of six tools that are either too sharp, too rounded, or too worn to classify elsewhere (Figs. 1.29, 1.30). Only the most important of them are worth noting.

SHARP TOOLS Sharp tools are most uncommon in the Cave of the Cyclops. They were fashioned on longitudinally divided sides or flat bones such as the sample of a flattened tool from the UM that comes from a shoulder blade (BV6). Both sides of the surface have been whittled, the sides bear no signs of use, and the base bears signs of later breakage, thus hindering the reconstruction of its original shape. One other sharp tool (BV3; LN) was fashioned on a bovid rib divided widthwise whose sides converge toward the upper end. Only the upper part of the tool is preserved, though without the end. The reduction grooves that brought about the widthwise division are visible, and the interior of the bone has not been smoothed. Analogous wellknown samples from the LN are usually quite long, and their active end is blunted or pointed. They sometimes bear a perforation at the base, and they are thought to be weaving tools.

BLUNTED TOOLS

Figure 1.29. Varia (BV4, BV6).

The tools with blunted ends are rather few, as the activities to which they were typically attached (such as grinding on soft surfaces) seemingly did not take place inside the cave. The first sample of this classification is a wonderful artifact that dates from the UM and was fashioned on a flat sliver from a deer’s shank bone (BV4). On the outer surface it bears an incomplete groove 37 mm long and 2 mm deep, which probably signals the beginning of the blank’s reduction technique by grooving that was left unfinished. Afterward, the tool was used as a grinder, the bone was divided longitudinally, and the sides were fashioned by abrasion on a flat grinder. The active end is blunted and extensively abraded due to wear. This sample is indicative of the mastery of the reduction techniques during the Mesolithic, which involved grooving the bones of large animals. For the division or the grooving techniques, sharp artifacts of flint must have been used,

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

45

and this explains the remarkably limited number of engraved stone tools from this phase. The only group with numerous flint tools from the Mesolithic comprises splintered pieces (11 samples), and it is followed by the group with the laterally processed tools (eight samples) (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003, table 9.4). Both classifications could be associated with the fashioning of the bone.

CATALOG OF VARIA BV1. Cutting tool (pointed), longitudinally divided. L. 57; w. 21; th. 8 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BV2. Cutting tool (pointed), splinter/sliver. L. 20; w. 8; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 9. UM. BV3. Cutting tool (pointed), transversely divided. L. 49; w. 14; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 5. LN. BV4. Cutting tool, unsplit bone. L. 80; w. 29 th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 17. UM. BV5. Blunted tool, fragment. L. 22; w. 2; th. 5 mm. Trench CWest, Level 5. EN/MN. BV6. Blunted tool, fragment. L. 38; w. 14; th. 4 mm. Trench CWest, Level 12. LM. BV7. Blank, splinter/sliver. L. 61; w. 9; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. LM. BV8. Blank, splinter/sliver. L. 25; w. 9; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic/Neolithic. BV9. Blank, splinter/sliver. L. 26; w. 7; th. 1 mm. Trench CWest, Level 7. Mesolithic/Neolithic. BV10. Blank, splinter/sliver. L. 48; w. 9; th. 6 mm. Trench CWest, Level 10. UM.

BV3

BV9

BV16

Figure 1.30. Varia (BV3, BV9, BV16). Scale 1:1.

BV11. Blank, splinter/sliver. L. 27; w. 4; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 11. UM. BV12. Blank, transversely divided. L. 34; w. 8; th. 6 mm. Trench CEast, Level 19. LM. BV13. Hook blank, splinter/sliver. L. 31; w. 4; th. 4 mm. Trench CEast, Level 9. LN. BV14. Hook blank, splinter/sliver. L. 42; w. 7; th. 3 mm. Trench CWest, Level 6. EN/MN. BV15. Hook blank, splinter/sliver. L. 28; w. 6; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 13. LM. BV16. Hook blank, splinter/sliver. L. 20; w. 6; th. 1 mm. Trench CEast, Level 13. LM. BV17. Hook blank, splinter/sliver. L. 106; w. 8; th. 2 mm. Trench CEast, Level 18. LM.

Discussion In the previous chapters we set out the technical and morphological characteristics of the bone industry of the Cave of the Cyclops and focused on the technical choices concerning the use of the animal and the raw material, most of which were available on the island (e.g., bones from caprins, suids, and migratory birds) or were brought in from the mainland (e.g., deer bones and antlers). Moreover, we presented the techno-morphological features of the major tool and weapon categories of the cave and discussed the stratigraphic distribution for each class and their interrelationships. We concluded that the bone industry found among the Mesolithic levels of the cave, especially of the UM, is transparent and

homogeneous as far as the technical selections and the morpho-functional groups of the tools are concerned, despite the long duration of the phase. Contrarily, the bone industry of the Neolithic phases is rather inconspicuous. Moreover, the tools found among mixed levels of the UM/EN–MN and the scarce Neolithic tools hinder the reconstruction of the functional profile of the Neolithic bone industry. This study’s intention was to shed light on the particular characteristics of the Mesolithic bone industry so as to unfold the mysteries of a unique bone industry and tackle the problem that arises when trying to compare tools from the Cave of the Cyclops with modern bone tool corpora. This is not possible

46

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

due to the meager relevant literature on the bone industry of major sites such as Franchthi Cave, but also to the fact that they cannot be compared with any tool-kits from the bone industries of mainland Mesolithic sites that date to the 9th and the 8th millennia B.C. Even though it seems reasonable to locate the home base of the Cave of the Cyclops’s Mesolithic settlers in southeast Thessaly or Euboea, the possibility that the Mesolithic fishermen came from the Aegean or Asia Minor cannot be excluded. The recent excavations at Maroulas in Kythnos (Sampson et al. 2002) show that the northern part of the Cyclades should not be culturally linked to the seasonal Mesolithic inhabitants of Youra. The adequate knowledge we possess today on the technical features and the tool variety of the mainland Neolithic bone industries has enabled us to ascertain the disparities between these and the Mesolithic and the Neolithic bone industries of the Cave of the Cyclops. However, we must stress that the bone industry in the cave—both Mesolithic and Neolithic—exploited the peculiar insular environment, and it would be unsafe to compare it with the tool industries of the agricultural/animal-breeding settlements of the mainland Neolithic. The bone industry of the Cave of the Cyclops is a specialized tool-industry because it consists exclusively of three tool categories: bipoints, pointed tools, and hooks. The bone tools were manufactured largely in situ with great craftsmanship, and the sophisticated technical interventions indicate mastery of advanced reduction and fashioning techniques by grooving and abrasion. What separates it from the bone industries of the Middle East in Anatolia and the Balkans is the fact that the inhabitants were not aware of the perforation technique in order to fashion hooks or suspend objects from a bone, and that no decorative and sculptural interventions—the two technical and stylistic features indicative of the bone industries of the Natufian culture and the PPN of the Middle East— were noted. The Mesolithic fishermen and hunters mastered the manufacture of hooks and bipoints already from the first use of the cave and throughout the Mesolithic. Two Mesolithic hook-shaped pendants substantiate the symbolic status of the hook during the LM period. The three different types of hooks were intended for different kinds of fish in different biotopes. The coexistence of bent hooks and gorges was not so extensive. We

believe that gorges were probably a small group of bipoints of bird bones. Large-sized bipoints had to be used for hunting or the manufacture of sophisticated harpoons. Mesolithic fishermen and hunters inhabited the cave at irregular intervals during the second half of the 9th millennium B.C. (LM), and more regularly during the 8th millennium until the middle of the 7th millennium cal. B.C. (UM). This is a period in time that coincides with the UM of the Franchthi Cave and, according to the dating, it lasted until the first settlements of the “pre-ceramic” Neolithic in Thessaly. The differences between the two sites are striking, and they indicate two different modi vivendi in a Mesolithic economic environment that seasonally relied on fishery. The bone industry, remarkably advanced in the Cave of the Cyclops and less specialized in the Franchthi Cave, where no hooks or bipoints were found, is pivotal for distinguishing between the two Mesolithic sites. It is unfortunate that the crucial period of the beginning of the Neolithic is not at all featured in the Cave of the Cyclops. After a phase of desertion, the first Neolithic occupation took place toward the end of the Early Neolithic. Due to the mixed UM–EN/MN levels, it is difficult to comprehend the transitional stage of the cave’s usage from the Mesolithic fishermen and hunters to the Neolithic seasonal inhabitants of the cave during the “Youra–Hagios Petros Culture” phase. Fishery was practiced also during the Neolithic period as the fish remnants verify, but it is hard to notice morphological changes or peculiarities concerning Neolithic and Mesolithic fishing tools. In the Neolithic bone industry of the Cave of the Cyclops, the number of hooks and bipoints typically decreases while the pointed tool number increases. However, the form of the scarce Neolithic hooks does not differ from the Mesolithic’s as regards techno-morphology. This is odd due to the striking differences between the technical patterns of the Mesolithic hooks from the Cave of the Cyclops and the few Neolithic hooks from Franchthi and Nea Nikomedeia, which, in addition to the differences, constitute a different pattern. The small number of Neolithic hooks from the Cave of the Cyclops indicates a change not so much in the form of the fishing tools as in the practice of fishery, which must have employed traps or nets. The activities with which bipoints were most likely associated (i.e., hunting) were hardly practiced, or they were

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

totally forsaken during Neolithic times. The Cave of the Cyclops is a rare site, as the bone industry was vital in the expression of the relevant cultural identity. Even though our knowledge of the Mesolithic

47

settlements in the Greek area is poor, the Cave of the Cyclops sheds light on a new culture and makes it only a matter of time before new insular or coastal sites with similar cultural traditions to come to light.

Bibliography Adam, E. and E. Kotjabopoulou. 1997. “The Organic Artefacts from Klithi,” in Klithi: Palaeolithic Settlement and Quaternary Landscapes in Northwest Greece. 1: Excavation and Intra-site Analysis at Klithi, G.N. Bailey, ed., Cambridge, pp. 245–259. Bačkalov, A., 1979. Predmeti od kosti i roga u preneolitu i neolitu Srbije [Bone and Antler Objects in the PreNeolithic and Neolithic of Serbia] (Fontes Arcaeologiae Iugoslaviae 2), Belgrade. Bar-Yosef, O., and F.R. Valla, eds. 1991. The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Ann Arbor. Belfer-Cohen, A., and O. Bar-Yosef. 1981. “The Aurignacian in Hayonim Cave,” Paléorient 7 (2), pp. 19–42.

Chourmouziades, G.H. 1996. Το Δισπηλιό Καστοριάς: Ένας λιμναίος προïστορικός οικισμός, Thessaloniki. Christidou, R. 1997. “Dimitra: Bone-Working,” in Neolithic Macedonia, D.B. Grammenos, ed., Athens, pp. 128–199. Cleyet-Merle, J.-J. 1990. La préhistoire de la pêche, Paris. Costa L.-J. 2004. Corse préhistorique: Peuplement d’une île et modes de vie des sociétés insulaires, IX-IIe millénaires av. J.-C., Paris. Diderot, D., and J. D’Alembert. n.d. L’Encyclopédie Diderot et d’Alembert 2: Chasses, pêches, Paris. Efstratiou, N. 1985. Agios Petros: A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades. Aegean Relationships during the Neolithic of the 5th Millennium (BAR-IS 241), Oxford.

Bergman, C.A. 1987. “Hafting and Use of Bone and Antler Points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon,” in La main et l’outil: Manches et emmanchements préhistorique. Table ronde C.N.R.S. tenue à Lyon du 26 au 29 novembre 1984 (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 15), D. Stordeur-Yedid, ed., Lyon, pp. 117–126.

Facorellis, G. 2003. “Radiocarbon Dating the Greek Mesolithic,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 51–68.

Campana, D.V. 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant (BAR-IS 494), Oxford.

Farrand, W.R. 2000. Depositional History of Franchthi Cave: Sediments, Stratigraphy, and Chronology (Franchthi 12), Bloomington.

Camps-Fabrer, H. 1993. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. 6: Éléments récepteurs, Aix-enProvence.

Feustel, R. 1973. Technik der Steinzeit: Archäolithikum– Mesolithikum (Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Thüringens 4), Weimar.

Camps-Fabrer, H., ed. 1974. Premier Colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la préhistoire, Abbaye de Sénanque, avril 1974, Aix-en-Provence.

Hamilakis, Y. 2000. “Zooarchaeology of Neolithic Theopetra: Preliminary Report,” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research, 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, November 6–7, 1998, N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ed., Athens, pp. 263–266.

Cauvin, J. 1985. “Les cultures villageoises et civilizations préurbains d’Asie antérieure,” in La protohistoire de l’Europe. Le Néolithique et la Chalcolithique entre la Méditerranée et la Mer Baltique, J. Lichardus, M. Lichardus-Itten, G. Bailloud, and J. Cauvin, eds., Paris, pp. 156–206. Chavane M.-J. 1980. “L’os et l’ivoire à Chypre de l’époque néolithique a l’époque classique,” in Objets en os, historiques et actuels. Première réunion du groupe de travail no. 6 sur l’industrie de l’os, GIS, Lyon, mars 1979 (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 1), D. Stordeur-Yedid, ed., Lyon, pp. 19–40.

Katsarou, S. 2001. “Η κεραμική με ερυθρά κοσμήματα από τα στρώματα της Μέσης Νεολιθικής του Σπηλαίου του Κύκλωπτα,” in Αρχαιολογική έρευνα στις Βόρειες Σποράδες, A. Sampson, ed., Alonnessos, pp. 11–31. Leighton, R. 1999. Sicily before History: An Archaeological Survey from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age, Ithaca, New York. Le Brun, A. 1981. Un cite néolithique précéramique en Chypre: Cap Andreas–Katsros, Paris.

48

ANTIKLIA MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI

Mellaart, J. 1964. “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963: Third Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 14, pp. 39–119.

Powell, J. 1996. Fishing in the Prehistoric Aegean (SIMAPB 137), Jonsered.

Moundrea-Agrafioti, E.A. 1981. La Thessalie du sudest au néolithique: Outillage lithique et osseux, Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris X.

———. 2003. “The Fish Bone Assemblage from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra: Evidence for Continuity and Change,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 173–180.

———. 2003. “Mesolithic Fish Hooks from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 131–141. Mylona, D. 2003. “The Exploitation of Fish Resources in Mesolithic Sporades: Fish Remains from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 181–188. Otte, M., I. Yalçinkaya, J.-M. Leotard, M. Kartal, O. Bar-Yosef, J. Kozłowski, I.L. Bayón, and A. Marshak. 1995. “The Epi-Palaeolithic of Öküzini Cave (SW Anatolia) and Its Mobiliary Art,” Antiquity 69, pp. 931–944. Özdoğan, M. 1997. “Anatolia from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene Climatic Optimum: Cultural Formations and the Impact of the Environmental Setting,” Paléorient 23 (2), pp. 25–38. ———. 1999. “Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia,” in Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries (Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3), N. Başgelen and M. Özdoğan, eds., Istanbul, pp. 203–224. Payne, R. 1973. “Bone Tools,” in “Excavations in the Franchthi Cave, 1969–1971, Part II,” T.W. Jacobsen, Hesperia 42, pp. 253–254. Peltenburg, E.J. 1982. Vrysi: A Subterranean Settlement in Cyprus. Excavation at Prehistoric Ayios Epitkitos Vrysi, 1969–1973, Warminster. Perlès, C. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide Grèce). I: Présentation générale et industries paléolithiques (Franchthi 3), Bloomington. ———. 1990. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide Grèce). II: Les industries du mésolithique et du néolithique initial (Franchthi 5), Bloomington. ———. 1999. “Long-Term Perspectives on the Occupation of the Franchthi Cave: Continuity and Discontinuity,” in The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas. Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994 (BSA Studies 3), G.N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds., London, pp. 97–107. ———. 2003. “The Mesolithic at Franchthi: An Overview of the Data and Problems,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 79–87.

Ramseyer, D. 2000. “Les armes de chasse néolithiques des stations lacustres et palustres suisses,” Anthropologie et Préhistoire 111, pp. 130–142. Rodden, R.J. 1965. “An Early Neolithic Village in Greece,” Scientific American 212 (4), pp. 82–88. Rose, M. 1995. “Fishing at Franchthi Cave, Greece: Changing Environments and Patterns of Exploitation,” Old World Archaeology Newsletter 18, pp. 21–26. Runnels, C. 1995. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of the Neolithic,” AJA 99, pp. 699–728. Russell, N. 2003. “Worked Bone 2003,” Çatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report, http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ archive_reports/2003/ar03_13.html. Sampson, A. 1998. ‘The Neolithic and Mesolithic Occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra, Alonnessos, Greece,” BSA 93, pp. 1–22. ———. 2001. “Το σπήλαιο του Κύκλωπα Γιούρων. Τα νεολιθικά και μεσολιθικά στρώματα,” in Αρχαιολογική Έρευνα στις Βόρειες Σποράδες, A. Sampson, ed., Alonnessos, pp. 41–69. ———. 2006. Η Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου: Παλαιολιθική–Μεσολιθική–Νεολιθική, Athens. ———. 2008. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. 1: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution (Prehistory Monographs 21), Philadelphia. Sampson, A., J.K. Kozłowski, and M. Kaczanowska. 1998. “Entre l’Anatolie et les Balkans: Une séquence Mésolithique-Néolithique de l’île de Youra (Sporades du Nord),” in Préhistoire d’Anatolie: Genèse des deux mondes. Actes du colloque international, Liège, 28 avril–3 mai 1997 (Études et recherches archéologiques de l’université de Liège 85), M. Otte, ed., Liège, pp. 125–142. ———. 2003. “Mesolithic Chipped Stone Industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the Island of Youra (Northern Sporades),” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 123–130. Sampson, A., J.K. Kozłowski, M. Kaczanowska, and V. Giannouli. 2002. “The Mesolithic Settlement at

THE MESOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC BONE IMPLEMENTS

Maroulas, Kythnos,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2 (1), pp. 45–67. Sidéra, I. 1993. Les assemblages osseux en bassins parisien et rhénan du Vie au IVe millénaire B.C. Histoire, technoéconomie et culture, Ph.D. diss., University of Paris I, Panthéon–Sorbonne. ———. 1998. “Nouveaux éléments d’origine proche orientale dans le Néolithique ancien balkanique: analyse de l’industrie osseuse,” in Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes (Études et recherches archéologiques de l’université de Liège 85), M. Otte, ed., Liège, pp. 215–240. Sordinas, A. 1970. Stone Implements from Northwestern Corfu, Greece, Memphis, TN. Srejović, D. 1972. Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir, trans. L.F. Edwards, New York City. Stordeur, D. 1985. “Classification multiple des outillages osseux de Khirokitia, Chypre, VIe millénaire,” in L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le néolithique et l’âge des métaux: Troisième réunion du groupe de travail no 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Aix-en-Provence, 26–28 Octobre, 1983, H. Camps-Fabrer, ed., Paris, pp. 11–24.

49

Stordeur-Yedid, D. 1988. Outils et armes en os du gisement natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan) Israël (Mémoires et travaux du Centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 6), Paris. Stratouli, G. 1996. “Die Fischerei der Ägäis während des Neolithikums. Zur Technik und zum potentiellen Ertrag,” PZ 71, pp. 1–27. ———. 1998. Knochenartefakte aus dem Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum Nordgriechenlands (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 32), Bonn. ———. 2002. “Τα εργαλεία από λειασμένο λίθο, οστό και κέρατο,” in Δισπηλιό 7500 Χρόνια Μετά, G. Chourmouziades, ed., Thessaloniki, pp. 155–174. Theocharis, D.R. 1973. Neolithic Greece, Athens. Trantalidou, K. 2003. “Faunal Remains from the Earliest Strata of the Cave of Cyclope Youra,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 143–172. Valla, F.R. 1984. Les industries de silex de Mallaha (Eynan) et du Natoufien dans le Levant (Mémoires et travaux du Centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 3), Paris.

Part II

Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment

2

From Mesolithic Fishermen and Bird Hunters to Neolithic Goat Herders: The Transformation of an Island Economy in the Aegean Katerina Trantalidou

The way of life, the production, the exchanges, and the social organization of the Mesolithic and the Neolithic island communities comprise some of the most interesting research problems in Greek prehistory today (Galanidou and Perlès 2003; Renfrew 2003).* For these periods, the subsistence economy and the ecology of the Aegean give rise to fascinating questions, especially for an island like Youra in

the Northern Sporades (Fig. 2.1), whose total surface area is 11 km2 (4 x 1 miles of surface, according to Sampson 1997, 90), and where it is possible to gain an insight into how man survived in hard conditions. Today, the island of Youra is deserted, and its environment is comprised of maquis and garrigue vegetation, a steep coastline, a rudimentary dock, an absence of arable land, and only one spring

* In 1994–1995, when the excavator Adamantios Sampson

I remember are: N. Antonopoulou, Ch. Babi, K. Karaidrou, V. Katochianou, S. Katsarou, I. Kavoura, E. Kokkinaki, G. Kordatzaki, V. Kontrafouri, A. Kourtessi, A. Kotsi, D. Kritharas, A. Leontiou, V. Milidaki, Ch. Nam, I. Moutafi, E. Patsou, V. Tsitsaroli, and M. Theodossi (all from the Univ. of Athens) and R. Theodorogianni (Univ. of Volos). I would like to thank them all. L. Valassi (archaeologist, Thera excavations) very generously corrected my English. I am also grateful to all the scientists mentioned in the text (and in previous articles), and to Jennifer Sacher of INSTAP Academic Press for reviewing the text and making substantial suggestions. I bear the whole responsibility for the material recorded, the identification, the numbers of fragments, and the interpretation of the finds.

asked me to study the cave’s osteological material, I thought it was an excellent opportunity to train the new generation of archaeozoologists. The material was well preserved and the quantity was significant, allowing us to examine the bones many times over and understand the morphological features. More than 30 students and young archaeologists have worked on the material at different stages, and most of them had the opportunity to receive a grant. It was an important experience for me and for them: we recorded every piece and corrected each specimen many times; students gained knowledge in osteology, classification, statistics, and rationalism; and I learned more about people and how to improve my methods of teaching. Among the names

54

KATERINA TRANTALIDOU

located at the northern end of the islet (Sampson 1996a; 1996b; 2008, 1–3). Research focuses on the following questions: (1) When and why did people choose to settle in this environment? Researchers adopt the hypothesis of seasonal habitation, at least for the Mesolithic period (Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, 140; Powell 2003a, 178). (2) How did human groups survive? What environmental and technological changes allowed for the transition to a Neolithic economy? (3) Do pollen (Ioakim, this vol., Ch. 6) and macrobotanical remains (Sarpaki, this vol., Ch. 8) reveal that the late Pleistocene dry and steppe-like vegetation in the Sporades became richer in flora (Bottema 2003) similarly to what is considered the case for northern and central Greece before and during the Mesolithic period?

(4) When and to what extent did the human population living on that islet turn to food production (the intensive use [or not] of wild and cultivated cereals/pulses)? Did they cultivate or only import food from Alonnessos for the period they chose to stay on the island? Do we have unique and special conditions, or are we looking at research problems that can be seen throughout the Mediterranean or even a worldwide scale? The bioarchaeological data found on the island of Youra in the Cave of the Cyclops provides an important amount of information. The subsistence activities of the first inhabitants, the species themselves (the indigenous edible animal species and the introduction of new fauna), the human predation for meat and secondary animal products (bones, leather, eggs, plumage, etc.), as well as the settlers’ impact on the landscape, will be examined in this paper. Our aim is to understand past human behavior.

Figure 2.1. Map of the Northern Sporades and zones A and B of the Maritime National Park (23,000 hectares), after Hau and Hutter 1998, 31.

FROM MESOLITHIC FISHERMEN AND BIRD HUNTERS TO NEOLITHIC GOAT HERDERS

55

Environmental Data from the Cave’s Interior The Cave of the Cyclops is a relatively wide limestone cavity, by Greek standards. The main chamber measures 50 x 40 m. The six trenches excavated so far (Trench A: 4.00 x 2.00 x 3.65 m; Trench D: 4.00 x 2.00 x 0.60 m; Trench B: 2.50 x 2.00 x 1.60 m; Trench C: 4.00 x 3.00 x 3.10 m on the west side and 4.40 m on the east part; Trench F: 2.00 x 2.00 x 0.45 m; and Trench E: 2.10 x 1.40 x 1.10 m [Sampson 1998; 2001b, fig. 2; 2008]) correspond to some 395 m2 of excavated area versus the unexcavated 2,000 m2 of the main chamber, which is about 20% of the cave’s interior surface. The trenches reached a depth ranging from 1.60–3.65 m, revealing successive occupation levels. Approximately 69 m3 of deposits were examined. The habitation floors and the other excavated areas decreased horizontally in the lower strata where the trenches became narrower due to technical reasons (so as to avoid the collapse of the trench walls), and some squares remained unexcavated. The excavation yielded no architectural structures, which is a typical characteristic for caves. Common for Neolithic cave sites, the habitation floors were sometimes leveled with debris, stones, and clay, and hearths and thick ash layers were present. The inhabitants collected water in the cave’s natural basins—which is usual for caves—but the excavators also found three artificial clay cisterns and water pipes (Trench A: Sampson 2001b) dating to the Neolithic and perhaps later (Trench E), when the climate became drier. Apart from these water collection installations, the inhabitants could also use a spring located in the southwestern part of the island. Clearly, this is a form of water control: a necessity brought about not only by climatic changes but also by population growth, as can be interpreted by the extent and the thickness of the different deposits (e.g., the main bulk of Trench A belongs to the Late Neolithic [LN] period).

The relatively few lithic artifacts discovered in the lower strata were all made from siliceous rocks, mostly collected from the surface of the island. Some of them were worked in the cave. The flint-knapping industry shows significant analogies with the Theopetra Cave (located in inland Thessaly) and quite important differences with the tools from the Mesolithic phases of Franchthi Cave (in the Peloponnese). The obsidian tools found in the Mesolithic assemblages were not processed on the site, but they must have been imported from the island of Melos. They could, however, be intrusive from the Neolithic assemblages (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003, 128; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 2008, 172). Despite this, we can assume that people navigated to the island from very early periods. Yet, what is more important for our understanding of the faunal data is that the obsidian microliths found at Youra show similarities with tools from the Aceramic and Early Neolithic (EN) levels of Belbidi Cave and those from Öküzini Cave (Ia2, Ib1) dated between 8700 and 7800 B.P. (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 2008, 172); both sites are located in the Attaleia area in Anatolia. The researchers also found similarities with early Holocene industries in central Anatolia (Pinarbasi, dated to about 8500 B.P., and Kizil I) (Sampson, Kozłowski, and Kaczanowska 2003; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 2008, 172). These observations could lead to suppositions for probable relations and exchanges between people on Youra and the inhabitants of the coastal area of southern Asia Minor. Moreover, the Sporades islands acted like a natural bridge, linking the west coast of the Aegean Sea to Asia Minor (Sampson 1996b). Unfortunately, at present, we still have no data from coastal sites on the east side of Asia Minor, which could help us understand the movement of peoples.

Chronological Framework For the archaeologist, the importance of the Cave of the Cyclops lies in the fact that it is one of the earliest Holocene human habitations excavated in the

Aegean area. This was recognized due to the absence of pottery sherds from the oldest levels and the quantity and preservation of the bioarchaeological

56

KATERINA TRANTALIDOU

material (Table 2.1; Fig. 2.2). Trench C, situated close to the entrance, exhibited the longest sequence of habitation. The lowest deposits, which had no pottery, were about 3 m thick, but in some rectangles the material was mixed with the Neolithic assemblages due to soil inclination. Major contaminations are the most common feature in caves due to several natural agents, including, but not limited to, the inclinations of the deposits toward the walls and bedrock, the usual floods that occurred during wet periods, or the presence of animals at time when humans did not use the cave. The succession of chronological periods—Lower Mesolithic (LM), Upper Mesolithic (UM), Final Mesolithic (FM), and Neolithic—different from those established until now in Cyprus (Guilaine et al. 2000) and in western Asia (Bar-Yosef 2001, 131; Renfrew 2003, 25), were identified based on the observations of the excavator, the cultural characteristics (typology of lithic artifacts) of the Greek sites (Franchthi Cave, Sidari, Theopetra Cave, Sarakenos Cave, Zaimis Cave, Maroulas on Kythnos, Youra), and, in my opinion, the absence of cultivated plants (for the description of the stratigraphy and the chronology, see Sampson 2001b, 41–50; 2008, 1– 16; Facorellis, this vol., Ch. 10). The application of different terms and subdivisions creates a significant problem in Greece. For instance, Neolithic sites with a certain thickness of deposits and absence of sherds that date between 6800–6600 B.C. (e.g., Argissa in Thessaly, Franchthi in the Peloponnese, and Knossos X on Crete) have been characterized as Aceramic Neolithic (Gallis 1996, 28–29), a term that professor Sampson has not adopted for the Cave of the Cyclops. Radiocarbon dating of 38 samples of marine and terrestrial origin (mollusks and charcoal) from undisturbed levels revealed a considerable number of dates from 8600 to 4000 B.C. and attested to quasicontinuity from Mesolithic to LN, in Aegean terms (Facorellis and Maniatis 2001; Facorellis 2003). In fact, the whole sequence began as early as 9274 ± 43/9258 ± 50/9252 ± 31/9250 ± 60 B.P., that is 8626–8323 B.C./8610–8299 B.C./8606–8316 B.C./ 8690–8290 B.C. (9th millennium: Facorellis 2003, 58–60). The excavator divided the Mesolithic into two sub-periods, the second of which began in the middle of the 8th millennium B.C. For Youra, the

Mesolithic period lasted until 6629–6496/6643– 6531 cal B.C., covering a period of 2,000 years, with chronological hiatuses during the LM and the transition from the FM to the EN. According to the excavator (Sampson 1996b, 1996c), by the end of the Mesolithic period, about 6500 B.C., an EN I encampment existed. The cave was then re-occupied in the EN II (6026–5995 and 5765–5663 B.C.) and experienced continuous occupation until the EN III and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic (MN). The inhabitant’s culture had close affinities with the permanent settlements of the Sporades, such as Hagios Petros. The most intense period of human activity was in the LN IB (5th millennium B.C.), which decreased in the LN II period (4th millennium B.C.). Pottery of that period shows relations with sites on the island of Euboea, the north Aegean, and western Asia Minor. The material culture and the absolute chronology confirm several abandonments of the site and re-uses of the cave even during the Neolithic, where there had been a hiatus of 500 years. The deposits also demonstrated a re-use of the cave during the Bronze Age and sporadic installations during the Classical, Hellenistic, and Imperial times (5th c. B.C.–1st half of the 4th c. A.D.) (Sampson 1998; 2001b, with previous bibliography). The stratigraphy of the cave (Sampson 2001b; 2008, 5–16) and the history of the island’s occupation suggest that as the centuries went by Youra became a less important area for people to settle, even on a temporary basis (Sampson 2001a, 205). There is no open-air Neolithic site on the island. During both the Byzantine era and the Ottoman occupation there were only a few monks who lived in a monastery and pirates who roamed the area. There were rare signs of human activity between 1680 to 1940 A.D. when the island was used as a place of pasture for sheep (in the recent past) and grazing land for goats in antiquity and today (Sampson 1997, 79, 89, citing the geographer F. Piacenza and the traveler J. Janssonium of 17th century). The islet continues to be an important landmark for navigation (Agouridis 1997) and a productive fishing area, just as it was in all the periods in the Holocene (Mylona 2003; Powell 2003a, 2003b).

FROM MESOLITHIC FISHERMEN AND BIRD HUNTERS TO NEOLITHIC GOAT HERDERS

57

35,000 Pisces 30,000 Aves 25,000 Phocidae 20,000 Lagomorpha 15,000 Suidae 10,000 Bovidae 5,000 Cervidae

0 LM

UM

UM/EN

EN

EN/MN

LN I

LN

Neolithic

LN/Roman

Figure 2.2. Cave of the Cyclops faunal assemblage: species relative abundance based on the number of identified fragments.

Important Conditioning Factors Bioarchaeological information (180,537 elements recorded up to now) could contribute to an understanding of the changes in the environment and its impact on people.

CLIMATE Judging from the concentration of land-snails (Karali 2001, 173–175; Sampson 2001b, 46) in the cave’s Mesolithic sequence, the presence of Cervus elaphus and Sus scrofa in the lowest strata of the cave (9th millennium: Trantalidou 2003, 146–148), and the pollen diagrams from Thessaly (where open and very open oak woodland with grasses existed; see Bottema 2003, 42–48), the accumulated evidence indicates that the temperature from the Paleolithic onward increased as did the humidity (though more gradually), at least during the earliest period of the cave’s occupation. Wild plant foods (fruits, nuts, edible roots, tubers, bulbs, and leaves) would have been more available than they are today, and they could have served as a buffer

against resource failure. Nevertheless, according to the mammalian fauna, the gradual introduction of specimens belonging to the Caprinae family from the first centuries of the 8th millennium and the low values of other mammal species, points toward drier conditions (Trantalidou 2003, fig. 1). According to the data of the terrestrial malacofauna, 17,423 gastropods from nine species have been collected. The Helicidae family predominated since 17,201 mollusks—belonging mainly to Helix aspersa and also Chiclostoma cepaea (79 shells)— have been found (Karali 2001, 174–175; Ch. 5). There is no evidence suggesting that all of them had been eaten, but they could have been a form of food reserve and thus constituted a factor for stability (Karali 1999, 13; for a critical viewpoint of Mesolithic subsistence and the bulk of the diet in the Alps, see Chaix 1988; and for the human parameters regarding the accumulation of the mollusk Cepaea nemoralis in the FM and EN of western Mediterranean sites, see André 1987).

58

KATERINA TRANTALIDOU

COASTLINE The researchers that conducted surveys (Theocharis 1970, 1971; Sampson 1996b, 2001a), geoarchaeological investigations (Panagopoulou, Kotjabopoulou, and Karkanas 2001), and the study of lithic assemblages found Paleolithic and Mesolithic artifacts on the Sporades islands. It is worth noting that Paleolithic tools, and, more specifically, Middle Paleolithic lithic artifacts, apart from those from the Thessalian mainland, have been collected from the islands of Alonnessos, Kyra-Panagia/ Hagios Petros, Youra, Gramiza, and Psathoura (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1992; Sampson 1996b). The scientists who studied the colonization of the Mediterranean islands (Cherry 1981), as well as the experts that carried out investigations to determine sea level fluctuations, tectonic movements, and to extract sediment evidence (van Andel et al. 1980; Bintliff and van Zeist 1982; van Andel and Shackleton 1982; Broodbank 1995; Lambeck 1996) agree that during the last glacial optimum (18,000 to 16,000 B.P.), when the sea level reached 118 m below the modern one, the islands of the Sporades archipelagos were connected to the Thessalian mainland, thus forming a long arcade peninsula. In that geomorphologic formation, the island of Alonnessos formed the eastern cape, leaving a narrow, shallow channel between it and the island of Kyra-Panagia. The group of eight/nine smaller islands from Kyra-Panagia to Psathoura (Fig. 2.1), including Youra, belonged to another bigger landmass at that time. Today, Kyra-Panagia (28 km2) seems to be the most important island of that second group, as it has two safe harbors, arable land, and potential pasture land, mainly for goats (Efstratiou 1985; Sampson 1997, 21). From their studies, the geologists and archaeologists arrived at two important conclusions: (1) during the Mesolithic and EN periods the corresponding sea level must have been 60–40 m and 40–30 m lower than it is today (Sampson 2001b, 61, using the data available from the coasts of Troy and the Pagassitikos Bay); and (2) the Northern Sporades would have a considerable number of Paleolithic and Mesolithic circumstantial occupations, but the tectonic and eustatic processes and the erosion that have taken place on the islands have affected most of the sites quite seriously. All this could offer a possible

explanation for why Neolithic herders-farmers chose to settle on Kyra-Panagia and Hagios Petros.

MARINE RESOURCES It seems that prehistoric people of the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods constantly frequented the same area and camped in the cave. In addition, Neolithic open-air sites are found on the islets of Gramiza, Pappous, and Psathoura, all of which had limited arable land. The important marine sources may explain why these areas were occupied. As Powell (this vol., Ch. 3) writes, those islands lie at the edge of some of the most productive seas in Greece today, which are the Macedonian gulfs, the Thermaic Gulf, and the gulf of Chalkidiki. The Italian geographer B. Bordone, who traveled in the area at the beginning of the 16th century, had also noted the abundance of fish (Sampson 1997, 58). Mylona (this vol., Ch. 4) focused on the connection of the Black Sea with the Aegean by the Sea of Marmara, probably at the beginning of the UM. This condition resulted in the considerable influx of lowsalinity waters into the north Aegean and increased the productivity of the sea. The environmental dimension would have important consequences on animals and people, as will be seen below. At the Cave of the Cyclops, 54,824 mollusks belonging to 30 marine species have been recorded. The dominant species—Patella caerulea, Patella aspera (37,632 shells), Monodonta turbinata (8,427 shells), and Mytillus galloprovincialis (7,079 shells)— are species commonly found on rocky coasts (Table 2.1). They again underline the stony landscape and the seafood component in the diet. The few mollusks that came from sandy environments were harvested mostly during the Neolithic period, either from the smallest beach on Youra islet or elsewhere. In the future it would be useful to determine the seasonality of shell collecting, perhaps by isotope analysis (Deith [1983, 67] discusses the Asturian sites in Cantabria, 8650–6800 B.P., where people used techniques of optimal foraging strategy), and associate the results with other bioarchaeological data. The 8,635 fish bones (Table 2.1) represent 19 families and 29 species from all periods. Inshore taxa, such as members of the Sparidae (the dominant group), Serranidae, Scorpaenidae, and Zeidae

FROM MESOLITHIC FISHERMEN AND BIRD HUNTERS TO NEOLITHIC GOAT HERDERS

families, formed the main bulk of all fish caught in all periods. They were very common in the EN, but the greatest amount was found in LN deposits. Pelagic migratory fish, especially members of the Scombridae family, that move towards the shore in May, and euryhaline fish such as the Mugilidae family, constitute less important quantities. They were more abundant during the EN and UM, respectively (Powell 2001, 2003, Ch. 3; Mylona 2003, Ch. 4). Fish could have been caught by hooks or bi-points (Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003), using limpets as bait (Emperaire 2003, 254). The huge amount of fish remains, concentrated mainly in the deepest deposits, provide us with the same picture found on other Aegean sites (e.g., the corresponding Mesolithic strata at Maroulas on the island Kythnos; see Mylona, forthcoming; Trantalidou, forthcoming). As practiced by many of the coastal groups of the Mesolithic period in Europe

59

and elsewhere, people relied heavily on fish and shellfish as a food source. Some examples outside the Aegean include: Sidari on Corfu (Sordinas 2003, with previous bibliography); France (in Bretagne at Téviec and Hoëdic, in Morbihan at Beg er Vil, and in Finistère at Beg an Dorchenn; see Tresset 2002, 16, 25); southern Europe (the Capsians: Evans 1969, 480; Karali 1999, 12); Britain, Scotland, and along the coastal sites of 7th–5th millennium B.C. Ireland (Evans 1969); the Americas at the Canaliño sites (Evans 1969, 480), the Englefield campsite of marine mammal/bird hunters and shell collectors on an islet of the Otway Sea in the Patagonian archipelago (6000–8000 B.P.; Legoupil 2003, 12), and in Woodland period North Carolina (Claassen 1983); the Far East (the Hoabinians and Toalians); and Africa (Evans 1969). Across all sites and in similar environmental conditions, people had similar reactions toward survival.

Methodology Animal bones constitute the most common environmental remains recovered from a site that provide evidence for past activities and beliefs. The 99,047 avian and mammalian bones (Apps. 2.A–2.E; Tables 2.1–2.38; Fig. 2.2) that are presented in this study are extremely well preserved due to the cave’s conditions. Caves in Greece have more or less the same conditions regarding temperature and humidity, which contribute to the conservation of the bone periosteum and facilitate the diagnosis of the cut marks and pathological phenomena. We recorded many bones, but all the intrusive animals—like the Testudidae and the Ophidians—do not help our investigation and are, therefore, not included in this article. The material was sorted and studied at the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, where we separated human bones, animal orders, taxa, and species. Fish remains were transported to the Fitch Laboratory at the British School at Athens and the Aegean Institute in Rethymnon; the invertebrate assemblage was transferred to the University of Athens; and after their examination, the mammal bones were transferred to and remain stored at the Volos Archaeological Museum in Thessaly.

The sorting of the material into chronological periods followed the general scheme adopted by researchers working at the site. Four periods were distinguished in the stratigraphy: LM, UM, UM/EN (EN I and II made up a small portion of the assemblage), and LN. When it was possible, we separated the EN/MN and the first phase of the LN (LN I). In the cases where our references were not clear enough to divide the material into more specific periods (EN, MN, and LN I and II), the material is classified simply as Neolithic, ca. 6000–3500 B.C. Finally, we consider as mixed strata the material of the upper levels and some of the other remains found toward the wall of the cave. A detailed account of the statistical treatment of the Mesolithic deposits is not given in this study. The analysis is referred to in an article already published (Trantalidou 2003). The remains of each site reflect the behavior of the human community that lived there. Each assemblage has its own features. A series of analytical tests, using the scientific tools we describe, should be applied in order to obtain the maximum information each entity can possibly yield. Traditional methods of study were applied to this material (e.g., recording of all

60

KATERINA TRANTALIDOU

animal bones, analyses of skeletal size, age, and sex profiles) and adapted to our conditions of study. In order to obtain the greatest amount of information possible from our material, we had treat each category of material as a separate entity. The information is presented here in extensive tables instead of diagrams, as it is easier for any researcher interested to access the data. The methodological considerations made for the different types of material include: (1) Identification of goats and sheep. After many pioneer works, the differentiation between sheep and goats now tends to be concrete. We recorded and drew separately the two caprids, using as reference works published until 1994, the year that we started this investigation. Unfortunately, the articles of Buitenhuis (1995), Rowley-Conwy (1998), Munson (2000), and Halstead, Collins, and Isaakidou (2002) were not taken in account, because our analysis of the data was completed prior to their publication. Since the quantity of the material was so great (90,731 bones) and our observations indicate that fishermen on Youra exploited both sheep and goat in the same manner, I decided to quantify sheep and goat together, bearing in mind that Capra made up the majority. (2) Study of the avian material. Because the comparative collections existing in Greece (at the Universities, at the small collections of the Museums of Natural History, and especially at the Wiener Laboratory at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens [ASCSA]) do not exceed, in total, a few dozen species, the investigation was limited to the species that were the most well represented. Dr. C. Chauviré and Dr. C. Lefèvre of the Museum of Natural History in Paris were the scientists who, in 1996, oriented the research toward the species mentioned below. As I do not have any grant to return to the Comparative Anatomy Laboratory and collaborate with them, the problem regarding the species list is far from solved. (3) Quantification. The bone assemblage collected at the cave is so large that many quantification methods were used during analysis. However, we are conscientious that all methods are subject to a number of biases. The number of identified specimens (NISP) cannot be translated into dietary contribution, but it can denote the huge amount of bioarchaeological material preserved and indicate the biodiversity on and around the island. For the calculation of the minimum number of individuals

(MNI) present in the samples, we recorded the proximal and the distal part, as well as the side of the anatomical element, the epiphysal union, the different patterns of crown wear, etc. (Chaplin 1971; Klein 1976; Binford 1984, using the Minimum Animal Unit; Gamble 1997, using the Modified General Utility Index and grouping of anatomical elements into food utility groups). In our tables, however, we make no distinction of the proximal and distal part of the same element, as the tables would have been far too large. Concerning the animals slaughtered by man, I deliberately ignored sex and age and divided the most common anatomical part in two. These numbers, the lowest we could propose, are only indicative; they do not correspond accurately to the anatomical segments consumed and the real number of individuals that were kept on the island for (at least) four millennia. In addition to taphonomic processes, it should not be forgotten that only a small part of the cave has been investigated. Numbers simply show the tendencies and the efforts of the exploitation of the environment. (4) Radiographs on caprid bone lesions were carried out by Dr. Sherry Fox, Director of the Wiener Laboratory at the ASCSA. (5) No comparison has been made between bone counts (NISP) and bone weight (Uerpmann 1973) since the list of mammal species is very limited. In the case of Youra, only the relative abundance of the species is a safe criterion. DNA analyses to determine the development of the domestic form of Capra and Sus on the island and its relationship with its wild progenitor were not successful. The pig bones were fossilized and did not contain any collagen. But, according to macroscopic observations and biometry, we can conclude that they belong to the Sus scrofa lineage. Goat bones, the predominate species on Youra, were not severely altered, a taphonomic feature that provides us with a terminus ante quem. Goats arrived on the island some hundreds of years after the pigs. They probably belong to the Capra aegagrus lineage, as the modern feral animals do, but we still have no answer as to their provenance from a molecular-biology point of view. On the contrary, stable isotope analysis to reconstruct the diet of the pigs was carried out by Professor M. Richards at the laboratories of the Max Planck Institute in Germany and financed by the Holley Martlew Archaeological Foundation. Several

FROM MESOLITHIC FISHERMEN AND BIRD HUNTERS TO NEOLITHIC GOAT HERDERS

other projects (e.g., dental microwear analysis for investigating the ancient diet of caprids [Mainland 2003]) are still in progress at French, Belgian, and English laboratories.

61

(6) To complete publication, I decided to include measurable data, not only to elucidate the size and the proportions of the animals, as we usually do, but to create a basis for future comparisons.

The Cave as a Fishermen’s Camp The cave was probably frequented by small groups of fishermen. As Powell (2003a) reminds us, the Youra assemblage represents several fishing expeditions over long periods. Based on modern catches, she proposes that the fishermen camped on Youra either in the first half of the year or in autumn. It might be possible to estimate the number of persons that could have participated in such a base camp if we rely on the following ethnographic parallels and the research carried out on hunting and fishing camps: 1. Faunal assemblages recovered from a wide range of Natufian sites, dated between 12,750–10,450 B.P., could be interpreted as the result of communal hunting (Campana and Crabtree 1990). 2. At the Mesolithic site of Starr Carr in Yorkshire, in Britain, scientists estimated that only a small group would have occupied the site. The region was occupied during the late glacial, dated to around 9488±350 B.P. or 7538 B.P. (Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1988). 3. At Paleo-Indian salmon fishing and salmon preserving sites, like the Keatley Creek in British Columbia on the Fraser River (4000/3500–2400 B.P.) and present Indian sites, human groups tended to stay every year for about three months at each location (Beyriès 1995). 4. The numbers given for the Nunamiut Eskimo looking for wild animals are five individuals x 130 days at a seasonal camp (data before the second World War: Binford 1978, 428–431).

5. The opportunistic hunting methods of the !Kung people (a desert-dwelling group in southern Africa) requires a small number of adult males (Campana and Crabtree 1990, 235). 6. Researchers in northern Australia looking at Aborigine populations recorded that the Anbarra people in Arnehm Land took 194 days x 34 people during a 12-month period— 1972/1973—to collect shellfish, targeting a single species during each expedition. The same behavior was attested at ten archaeological sites in the same area (Meehan 1983, 3–17). 7. Owens Valley Paiute Indians, in California, used men, women and children when hunting. Hunting required between six and 30 nuclear families (Campana and Crabtree 1990). 8. More than 200 Washoe, a North American Indian tribe in California, joined forces to catch rabbits (Campana and Crabtree 1990, 232). 9. Recent research in the Nata River region of northeastern Botswana (28,000 km2 area in the eastern and northeastern Kalahari Desert) on foraging and food producing populations known as the Tyua, documented that people responded to food stress using a variety of strategies. Mobility and a small group of people linked through familial and friendship ties were two means by which to cope with the variance in the distribution and abundance

62

KATERINA TRANTALIDOU

of resources. To cover areas that vary from 87–400 km2, the average group size was 39 persons (from 14 to 88 individuals)— that is less than one person per square kilometer. They had moved 6–15 times in seven years during the 1960s, and 1–9 times during the 1970s. Fishing was carried out at times when pools formed in the river and usually a communal effort was made sometimes with 75 to 150 persons. (Hitchock 1989, 65–85). 10. In some cases, scientists argue for yearround occupations in places like Danish Mesolithic sites or the Asturian sites where it seems that foragers had adopted the intensive exploitation of mollusks (Deith 1983, 67). 11. Based on excavations on the coastal Harappan site of Prahag on the Oman Sea in Pakistan, Desse (1997) calculated that 5–10 persons working year-round could accumulate 130–250 tons of fish waste.

12. In addition, recent ethnographic works on 19 aquatic foraging camps located on the shores of Lake Turkana, Kenya (Stewart, Gifford-Gonzalez, and Rybczynski 1997) identified day camps, short- (one week) and long-term (over six weeks) camps as well as fish processing camps and fish-waste camps. Different groups repeatedly occupied 50% of those camps, often successively. The occupation area varied widely from ca. 6 m2 to 8,400 m2, with about half being approximately 500 m2. For the island of Youra, based on our calculations, no more than a few dozen persons could have been present at the same time in the cave and on the island. Moreover, permanent Neolithic settlements, according to Renfrew (1972, 238), correspond to 100–300 persons per hectare (see also Halstead 1992, 47). At best, we could argue the island served as a long-term camp when the sea would have been calm in the Aegean, in autumn or in early spring for instance.

Fish Processing The household equipment (spoons) and the ornaments made of shell encountered from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic (Sampson 1996b; 1996c; Karali 2001, 177–180) provide evidence for the work effort, the technology, and the aesthetics of people camping in the cave. But, in my opinion, a greater understanding of the economic role of the marine resources, the social networks, and labor intensification can be achieved if we study the taphonomy, the spatial distribution, and the anatomical representation of the fish remains. According to Mylona (2003) the fish were processed and preserved; that is to say they were decapitated, cut into pieces, and smoked or salted (though evidence of the latter is very difficult to prove). Some of the processing took place inside the cave, some out at sea, and some on the rocks near the sea. This strategy, that is the preparation of fish (Wheeler and Jones 1989, 70–71) in areas where capture is abundant, by Mediterranean standards, could be employed for storage, to preserve the

population through periods of inactivity and low food productivity, or for export. Surplus fish could be sent and consumed far from Youra. Excavations and studies of sites on the current sea shore on the Baluchi coast at Makran in Pakistan (e.g., Miri Qalat, where occupation lasted from the 4th to the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C.; Prahag, inhabited during the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C.; see Desse and Besenval 1995, 163–170) provided evidence showing that marine wealth can compensate for land aridity and that processed fish, without the employment of sophisticated means, could be sent hundreds of kilometers away from the area of production. As the authors pointed out, the Baluchi littoral is the area mentioned by Arrian (Anab. 6.28.5: “μετὰ τὴν Γαδρωσῶν γῆν” as “γῆν τὴν τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων”) when he describes the fish-eaters who dry the big fish under the sun (see also Hdt. 3.19 and Strabo 15.2.1 for mention of the Arabian and Persian Gulfs, respectively). Desiccated fish could

FROM MESOLITHIC FISHERMEN AND BIRD HUNTERS TO NEOLITHIC GOAT HERDERS

also be used to make flour and even pancakes, a possibility we cannot exclude in regards to the cave remains. Pakistani fishermen today need only one knife, a grinder (Sampson notes the presence of a grinder in the UM layers; Sampson 2001b, 46, 59), and two receptacles—one that contained seawater and the other salt—in order to process fish (Desse and Besenval 1995, fig. 9). During the Mesolithic era these receptacles could have been made from perishable material such as animal leather, or people could also use the cave’s gours. The men remove the viscera and the head and then cover the fish with salt for two or three days. Then, they leave the dry fish in soil cavities, sometimes protected with mats to keep away predators such as sea birds, for a week. If the group has a considerable number of people there could be a specialization in the labor (e.g., some people remove the heads, some open the fish up, and others carry out the salting; see Desse and Besenval 1995, 169). The ashes in the cave remind us of the possibility that fires may have been lit either for smoking the fish or just for keeping away insects and animals.

63

Similar conditions are described for the exploitation of aquatic resources by the North American Indians on the Fraser River. Beyriès (1995) points to the light wooden structures built by the Indians either for drying fish filets in the wind and the sun or for smoking the salmon, an operation that required three days. If the quality of the preservation was good, the fish could remain unspoiled for two years or more (Beyriès 1995). During the seasonal fishing in the Nata River region of southern Africa, the catch was either eaten in situ, or, it was processed for storage when fish were caught in substantial amounts. Processing involved slicing open the fish with a knife and placing it in the sun to dry. Sometimes a mixture of salt and ground chili peppers was applied to the fish to further preserve it. In some cases, fish were smoked (Hitchcock 1989, 78). If our supposition that the preserved fish traveled various distances is correct, then we can understand the typological similarities in the lithic artifacts between Asia Minor and the Sporades as well as the introduction of caprids as early as the latest years of the so-called LM period.

Avian Exploitation Today, on the islands of the Northern Sporades, there are some 55 avian species (Hau and Hutter 1998, 94–99). Bird populations can be divided into resident species, summer visitors (usually breeding), winter visitors, occasional visitors, and spring and autumn migrants. All live in particular habitats. Cliff-reproducing birds are identified below by an asterisk. It should also be noted that birds usually

have more than one name in scientific or common language, and they are present in more than one ecological area (for the ecology and biotopes, see Zervas 1947; Ondrias 1978; Handrinos and Demetropoulos 1982, 59, 64–193; Bruun and Singer 1988; Hellenic Ornithological Society 1996; Hau and Hutter 1998; for the names, see Mühle 1844; Kanellis and Bauer 1973; Ondrias 1978; 1994; Apalodemos 1993).

Birds Living and/or Nesting on High Rocky Shores BIRDS OF PREY Falco eleonorae* (μαυροπετρίτης, Eleonora’s Falcon). L. reaches 0.38 m. The Aegean sea holds the most important population—3,000 pairs. Nest and hunt in colonies of up to 30 falcons. Pass their winter on the island of Madagascar.

Falco tinnunculus (βραχοκιρκίνεζο, Kestrel). L 0.32– 0.35 m. Falco peregrinus (πετρίτης, Peregrine Falcon). L. 0.38–0.48 m. Rare.

64

KATERINA TRANTALIDOU

Haliaeetus albicilla (θαλασσαετός, White-tailed Eagle). L. 0.68–0.92 m. Rare; threatened. Hieraaetus fasciatus* (σπιζαετός, Bonelli’s Eagle). Rare. Athene noctua (κουκουβάγια, Little Owl). L. 0.22 m.

SMALLER BIRDS LIVING AND/OR NESTING ON CLIFFS Apus apus (μαυροροσταχτάρα, Common Swift). L. 0.16 m. Summer visitor. Apus melba (βουνοσταχτάρα, Alpine Swift). L. 0.21 m. Summer visitor. Monticola solitarius (γαλαζοκότσυφας, Blue Rock Thrust). L. 0.30 m. Nests on safe rock cracks. Sitta neumayer (βραχοτσοπανάκος, Rock Nuthatch). L. 0.12 m. Ptyonoprogne rupestris (πετροχελίδονο, Crag Martin). L. 0.15 m. Hirundo daurica (κοκκινοχελίδονο, Red-rumped Swallow). L. 0.18 m. Summer visitor. Corvus corax (κόρακας, Raven). L. 0.65 m.

SEABIRDS BREEDING ON INACCESSIBLE ISLETS AND IN SEA CAVES Larus audouinii* (αιγαιόγλαρος, Audouin’s Gull; Fig. 2.3:C) L. 0.50 m. Threatened; species population in Greece does not exceed 400 pairs. Puffinus puffinus yelkouan* (μύχος, Manx Shearwater; Fig. 2.3:A). L. 0.35–0.48 m. Feed themselves offshore, following large shoals of fish. Visits nest only at night. Limited world expansion but has important numbers in Europe. Calonectris diomedea* (αρτέμης, Cory’s Shearwater; Fig. 2.3:B) L. 0.45–0.50 m. Despite its superficial resemblance to gulls, it is a relative of the albatross. On land it is vulnerable and is adapted to an off-shore life, coming ashore only to nest; visits nest only at night. Summer visitor. Only 5,000 pairs in the whole of the Aegean and Crete; limited world expansion but has important numbers in Europe. Hydrobates pelagicus (πετρίλος, Storm Petrel). Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis (κορμοράνος, Cormorant; Fig. 2.3:E). L. 0.90 m. Nests in colonies but does not breed in the Aegean; winter visitor. Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii* (θαλασσοκόρακας, Shag; Fig. 2.3:F). L. 0.70–0.75 m. Does not frequent open seas; usually appears as a solitary figure clinging to coastal reefs. Approximately 180 birds remain today.

Birds Living and Nesting in Maquis, Bushes, Fields, Open Woodland, and Rocky Landscape BIRDS OF PREY Falco subbuteo (δεντρογέρακας, Hobby). L. 0.63– 0.70 m.

Otus scops (γκιώνης, Scops Owl, L. 0.19 m) Circeaetus gallicus* (φιδαετός, Short-toed Eagle). L. 0.63–0.70 m. Summer visitor; flies toward west and northeast Africa during the winter.

Buteo buteo (ποντικοβαρβακίνα, Buzzard). L. 0.50– 0.56 m. Pernis apivorus (σφηκιάρης, Honey Buzzard). L. 0.50–0.58 m. Summer visitor. Aquila pomarina (κραυγαετός, Lesser Spotted Eagle). L. 0.60–0.66 m. Summer visitor. Accipiter gentilis (διπλοσάνιο, Goshawk). L. 0.48– 0.60 m. Accipiter nisus (ξεφτέρι, Sparrow Hawk; Fig. 2.3:D). L. 0.27–0.37 m.

SMALLER BIRDS Lanius collurio (αετομάχος, Red-backed Shrike). L. 0.17–0.18 m. Lanius senator (κοκκινοκεφαλάς, Woodchat Shrike). L. 0.19 m. Summer visitor. Prunella modularis (θαμνοσκόπος, Dunnock). L. 0.145 m.

FROM MESOLITHIC FISHERMEN AND BIRD HUNTERS TO NEOLITHIC GOAT HERDERS

65

Cercotrichas galactotes (κουφαηδόνι, Rufous Warbler). L. 0.155 m. Summer visitor.

Corvus corone conix (σταχτοκουρούνα, Hooded Crow). L. 0.46 m.

Luscinia megarhynchos (αηδόνι, Nightingale). L. 0.165 m.

Emberiza melanocephala (αμπελουργός, Blackheaded Bunting). L. 0.18 m. Summer visitor.

Hippolais pallida (ωχροστρατσίδα, Olivaceous Warbler). L. 0.13 m. Summer visitor.

Emberiza cirlus (σιρλοτσίχλονο, Corn Bunting). L. 0.165 m.

Muscicapa striata (σταχτομυγοχάφτης, Spotted Flycatcher). L. 0.14 m.

Oenache hispanica (ασπροκωλίνα, Black-eared Wheatear). L. 0.145 m. Summer visitor.

Sylvia atricapilla (σταφιδοτσιροβάκος, Blackcap). L. 0.14 m.

Passer domesticus Sparrow). L. 0.145 m.

Sylvia hortensis (δεντροτσιροβάκος, Orphean Warbler). L. 0.14 m. Summer visitor.

Passer hispanoliensis (δεντροσπουργίτης, Spanish Sparrow). L. 0.145 m.

Sylvia communis (θαμνοτσιροβάκος, Whitethroat). L. 0.15 m. Summer visitor.

Parus ater (ελατοπαπαδίτσα, Goal Tit). L. 0.115 m.

(σπιτοσπουργίτης,

House

Pedrix pedrix (λιβαδοπέρδικες, Partridge). L. 0.30 m. Sylvia melanocephala (μαυροτσιροβάκος, Sardinian Warbler). L. 0.135 m.

Phasianus colchicus (φασιανός, Pheasant). L. 0.75– 0.85 m.

Sylvia cantillans (κοκκινιτσιροβάκος, Subalpine Warbler). L. 0.12 m. Summer visitor. Sylvia rüppelli (μουστακοτσιροβάκος, Rüppell’s Warbler). L. 0.14 m. Summer visitor. Phylloscopus bonelli (βουνοφυλλοσκόπος, Bonelli’s Warbler). L. 0.11 m. Summer visitor. Phylloscopus collybita (δεντροφυλλοσκόποι, Chiffchaff). L. 0.11 m. Migratory. Calandrella brachydactyla (μικρογαλιάντρα, Shorttoed Lark). L. 0.14 m. Galerida cristata (κατσουλιέρης, Crested Lark). L. 0.17 m. Caprimulgus europaeus (γιδοβυζάστρα, Nightjar). L. 0.28 m. Summer visitor.

WATERFOWL Sulidae (σούλα, Gannets). L. 0.90 m. Egretta garzetta (λευκοτσικνιάς, Little Egret). L. 0.55 m. Summer visitor. Egretta alba (αργυροτσικνιάς, Great White Egret). L. 0.88 m. Winter visitor. Ardeola ralloides (κρυπτοτσικνιάς, Squacco Heron). L. 0.46 m. Summer visitor. Ardea purpurea (πορφυροτσικνιάς, Purple Heron). L. 0.78 m. Summer visitor. Ixobrychus minutus (μικροτσικνιάς, Little Bittern). L. 0.36 m.

Avian Assemblage during the Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods The identified osteological material (6,262 fragments; App. 2.A; Tables 2.2–2.15; Fig. 2.3) is comprised of the following families: Accipitridae (Accipiter nisus), Corvidae (Corvus corax), Laridae (Larus audouinii), Otidae (Otis tarda [Trantalidou 2003, fig. 11.12; 2008, fig. 3.4]), Phalacrocoracidae (Phalacrocorax carbo [Trantalidou 2008, fig. 3.3], Phalacrocorax aristotelis), Phasianidae (Alectoris

chukar[?], Coturnix coturnix[?]), Procellaridae (Puffinus puffinus [Trantalidou 2003, fig. 11.10]), Calonectris diomedea), Strigidae (Athena noctua, Otus scops), indeterminate large birds (measuring between 0.50–0.90 m in length), indeterminate medium-sized birds (measuring between 0.30– 0.50 m), and indeterminate small birds (35 mm in length), indicating that fish hooks were used to catch both large and small fish. The large number of remains of very small fish, such as annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis) and bogue (Boops boops), however, could have been produced most efficiently through net fishing. Net and trap fishing can be practiced with implements made exclusively by organic materials that might not leave any archaeological traces (von Brandt 1972). No other finds from the cave, apart from the fishhooks, have been recognized as related to fishing. While most of the coastal species and some of the largest migratory ones could conceivably be caught from the coast, the fishing of the small migratory fish presupposes the use of a boat (A. Kalianiotis, pers. comm.). Sailing has been attested

in the Aegean from as early as the 11th millennium B.P., but no details on the physical boats or sailing techniques are known. The discussion on Mesolithic sailing in the Aegean is mainly based on the presence of a few fragments of Melian obsidian in Mesolithic layers in Franchthi Cave and an experiment on sailing the Aegean using a reed boat, a modified version of the Corfiot “papyrella,” which is presumed to fall within the technological regime available to the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Aegean (Tzalas 1995). The high numbers of the small, migratory schooling fish offer indirect evidence to the use of boats by the Mesolithic fishermen at Youra. The vertebral assemblage from the cave suggests the systematic processing and preservation of fish. For some species, part of the preparation was probably done right after the catch—on the boat or on the beach—while for others the whole process appears to have taken place within the cave. The processing involved decapitation and possibly the removal of some of the thoracic vertebrae (probably the first five). The remains of this procedure were left on the floor of the cave. No direct evidence indicates the use of any particular preservation technique, but the nature of the most commonly preserved species suggest the use of smoking, salting, and drying. The hearths, which are associated with floors, may have been used for the purpose of fish drying. Salting is also a possible preservation method (Petanidou 1977), but no more inference on salting at Mesolithic and Neolithic Youra can be drawn at the moment. It is possible that preservation was practiced more intensively in some periods than others because indications for it are not evident in all levels. The fish bone assemblage at Cape Andreas-Kastros indicates that fish preservation was also a common practice for the people in the eastern Mediterranean. Through these practices, the Youra fishermen were participating in a broader tradition of marine exploitation in the central and eastern parts of the Mediterranean during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

FISH VERTEBRAE

255

Bibliography Aksu, A.E., R.N. Hiscott, P.J. Mudie, A. Rochon, M.A. Kaminski, T. Abrajano, and D. Yaşar. 2002. “Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean Contradicts Noah’s Flood Hypothesis,” The Geological Society of America Today 12 (5), pp. 4–9. Aksu, A.E., R.N. Hiscott, and D. Yaşar. 1999. “Oscillating Quarternary Water Levels of the Marmara Sea and Vigorous Outflow into the Aegean Sea from the Marmara Sea–Black Sea Drainage Corridor,” Marine Geology 153, pp. 275–302. Athanassopoulos, M.G. 1923. “Sur les Tonnides en Grèce,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences 177 (10), pp. 501–502. Bintliff, L.J. 1977. Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece: Based on Original Fieldwork (BAR-IS 28), 2 vols., Oxford. Cassoli, P.F., and A. Tagliacozzo. 1995. “Lo sfruttamento delle risorse marine tra il Mesolitico e il Neolitico alla Grotta dell’Uzzo, Trapani, (Sicilia),” in Atti del 1º Convegno nazionale di archeozoologia: RovigoAccademia dei Concordi, 5–7 marzo 1993 (Padusa Quaderni 1), Rovigo, pp. 157–169. Colley, S. 1987. “Cooking Fish on a Fire: An Experiment in Differential Burning.” Paper read at the 1987 Fish Remains Working Group of the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ), September 1987, York. Cutting, C.L. 1955. Fish Saving: A History of Fish Preservation from Ancient to Modern Times, London. ———. 1962. “The Influence of Drying, Salting and Smoking on the Nutritive Value of Fish,” in Fish in Nutrition, E. Heen and R. Kreuzer, eds., London, pp. 161–179. Desse, J. 1984. “Les poissons,” in La Grotte préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique). Missions, 1968–1978: L’occupation néolithique. Les vestiges des temps paléolithiques, de l’antiquité et de l’histoire récente, N. Lambert, ed., Paris, pp. 607–610. Desse, J., and N. Desse-Berset. 1994a. “Osteometry and Fishing Strategies at Cape Andreas-Kastros (Cyprus, 8th millennium BP),” in Fish Exploitation in the Past.

Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group (Annales sciences zoologiques 274), W. Van Neer, ed., Tervuren, pp. 69–79. ———. 1994b. “Stratégies de pêche au 8ème millénaire: Les poissons de Cap Andreas-Kastros (Chypre),” in Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1988–1991 (Études néolithiques), A. Le Brun, ed., Paris, pp. 335–360. Froese, R., and D. Pauly, eds. 2006. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication, www.fishbase.org, version (10/2009). Guest-Papamanoli, A. 1985. “Un pêche au guêt: Le ‘Taliani,’ origine, évolution et distribution géographique,” in L’exploitation de la mer de l’Antiquité à nos jours. 1: La mer, lieu de production. Vèmes Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 24–26 octobre 1984, Juan-les-Pins, pp. 186–203. Hureau, J.C., and T. Monod, eds. 1973. Check List of the Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, 2 vols., Paris. Jameson, H.M., C.N. Runnels, and T.H. van Andel. 1994. A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day, Stanford. Jones, A.K.G. 1990. “Experiments with Fish Bones and Otoliths: Implications for the Reconstruction of Past Diet and Economy,” in Experimentation and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology (Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 9), D.E. Robinson, ed., Oxford, pp. 143–146. Jones, G.A., and A.R. Gagnon. 1994. “Radiocarbon Chronology of the Black Sea Sediments,” Deep Sea Research 41, pp. 531–557. Koukoules, Ph. 1948. “Ἐκ τοῦ ἁλιευτικοῦ βίου τῶν Βυζαντινῶν,” Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρίας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 18, pp. 28–41. Koutrakis, E.T. 1999. “Ανασκόπηση των Iστορικών Aναφορών και της Sυστηματικής των Κεφάλων (Mugilidae) της Μεσογείου,” Γεωτεχνικά Επιστημονικά Θέματα 10, pp. 365–374.

256

DIMITRA MYLONA

Kraft, J.C., D.F. Belknap, and I. Kayan. 1983. “Potentials of Discovery of Human Occupation Sites on the Continental Shelves and Nearshore Coastal Zones,” in Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, eds., London, pp. 87–120. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge. Moundrea-Agrafioti, A. 2003. “Mesolithic Fish Hooks from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), in N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 131–142. Mylona, D. 2003. “The Exploitation of Fish Resources in the Mesolithic Sporades: Fish Remains from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), in N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 181–188. ———. Forthcoming. “Mesolithic Fishers at Maroulas, Kythnos: The Fish Bones,” in The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas, A. Sampson, M. Kaczanowska, and J.K. Kozłowski, eds. Nicholson, R.A. 1992. “Bone Survival: The Effects of Sedimentary Abrasion and Trampling on Fresh and Cooked Bone,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 2, pp. 79–90. Oikonomides, P.S. 1997. Ιχθυολογία, Thessaloniki. Papanastasiou, D.P. 1976. Ἁλιεύματα, Athens. Payne, S. 1973. “Animal Bones,” in T.W. Jacobsen, “Excavation in the Franchthi Cave, 1969–1971, Part 1,” Hesperia 42, pp. 59–66. Petanidou, Th. 1977. Salt: Salt in European History and Civilization, Athens. Powell, J. 2003. “The Fish Bone Assemblage from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra: Evidence for Continuity and Change,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), in N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 173–181. Pyke, M. 1964. Food Science and Technology, London. Rose, M. 1994. With Line and Glittering Bronze Hook: Fishing in the Aegean Bronze Age, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Sampson, A. 2008a. The Cave of Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. 1: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution (Prehistory Monographs 21), Philadelphia.

———. 2008b. “Cave Setting and Stratigraphy,” in The Cave of Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. 1: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution (Prehistory Monographs 21), A. Sampson, Philadelphia, pp. 1–16. ———. 2008c. “Ground Stone Tools,” in The Cave of Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. 1: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution (Prehistory Monographs 21), A. Sampson, Philadelphia, pp. 161–164. Sampson, A., M. Kaczanowska, J.K. Kozłowski, eds. Forthcoming. The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas. Sampson, A., J.K. Kozłowski, M. Kaszanowska, and B. Giannouli. 2002. “The Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas, Kythnos,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2, pp. 45–67. Shipman, P., G. Foster, and M. Schoeninger. 1984. “Burnt Bones and Teeth: An Experimental Study of Color, Morphology, Crystal Structure and Shrinkage,” JAS 11, pp. 307–325. Trantalidou, K. 2003. “Faunal Remains from the Earliest Strata of Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), N. Galanidou and C. Perlès, eds., London, pp. 143–172. Tzalas, H. 1995. “On the Obsidian Trail: With a Papyrus Craft in the Cyclades,” in Tropis III. 3rd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity: Evgenidou Foundation, Athens, 24, 25, 26, 27 August 1989, H. Tzalas, ed., Athens, pp. 441–469. Tzedakis, P. 1999. “The Last Climatic Cycle at Kopais, Central Greece,” Journal of the Geological Society 156, pp. 425–434. van Andel, T.H., and J.C. Shackleton. 1982. “Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Coastlines of Greece and the Aegean,” JFA 9, pp. 445–454. von Brandt, A. 1972. Fish Catching Methods of the World, London. von den Driesch, A. 1994. “Hyperostosis in Fish,” in Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group (Annales sciences zoologiques 274), W. Van Neer, ed., Tervuren, pp. 37–45. Wheeler, A.C., and K.G.A. Jones. 1989. Fishes (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology), New York.

FISH VERTEBRAE

257

Level, Rectangle

Date (yr B.P.)

Stratigraphy and Context

Fish Vertebrae and Cranial Bones

6

7398±64 B.P., 7971±41 B.P.

Presence of hearth in Rects. 1–4.

High frequency of burned Sparidae (small and medium size) and a few Scomber sp. and Scorpaenidae. Several chewed Scomber sp.

7

7803±41 B.P.

Small pebbles and a high concentration of fish bones and snails. Rects. 1–2: scattered burned material and ash. Rects. 5–6: floor and hearth.

Few fish vertebrae; a single one burned. Very many cranial bones (see Powell, this vol., Ch. 3).

8, 1–4

8218±43 B.P.

8, 5–6

7351±46 B.P.

Rect. 3: floor overlaid with a thick No vertebrae remains from Rects. 1–4, deposit of snails, marine mollusks and despite the field observations for abundance of fish bones; remains of a hearth. fish bones, and the high numbers of cranial In Rect. 1 a hearth with ash. bones (see Powell, this vol., Ch. 3). High number Rect. 5 reached rock. Burning traces, of vertebrae in Rects. 5–6. Slight burning on abundance of marine and land mollusks. Sparidae and Scomber sp. vertebrae. Scomber Also, a bone hook. sp. bones more affected by chewing/crushing.

9

8624±20 B.P.

Rects. 1–3: floor with abundance of crushed snails, probably due to human activity. Hearth and a bone hook in Rect. 1. Rect. 4: floor with ash. Rect. 5: very high concentration of land snails.

Fish vertebrae are much more abundant than cranial bones. Burning and crushing fairly common. The only certain cut mark is one on a Mugilidae vertebra. The discrepancy of cranial versus vertebral bones affect certain families only (Scombridae, Mugilidae, Scorpaenidae, and Serranidae).

10

8209±47 B.P.

Abundance of land and marine mollusks. Floor found in Rects. 1–2.

Not much variety of species. Similar condition with the cranial bones.

11

8776±19 B.P.

The level contained two floors associated with snails and a hearth.

Abundance of fish bones. Several burned vertebrae. Some calcified (this type of burning not found in other levels).

12

9258±50 B.P.

Small surface. Many fish and bird bones. Traces of burning.

Small number of vertebrae (and cranial bones) despite field observations.

13

n/a

Restricted surface. Some burning.

Numerous fish bones despite the small extent of the excavated area.

14

9274±43 B.P.

Restricted surface.

Very few fish remains.

Appendix 4.A. Trench CWest context description by level in relation to fish remains. Stratigraphic data based on Sampson 2008b.

Context Level

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

LN/Roman 3

Sparidae

medium

caudal

1

3

Sparidae

small

caudal

2

3

Sparidae

small

abdominal

4

3

unidentifiable

2

6, 5–6

Murraenidae

1

6, 5–6

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

1

6, 5–6

Sparidae

medium

caudal

4

4

Appendix 4.B. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

258

DIMITRA MYLONA

Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

EN/MN 6, 5–6

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

1

6, 5–6

Sparidae

small

caudal

6

6, 5–6

Sparidae

small

abdominal

1

7, 5–6

Epinephelus sp.

medium

abdominal

1

7, 5–6

Murraenidae

7, 5–6

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

1

7, 5–6

Serranidae

medium

caudal

1

7, 5–6

Sparidae

medium

caudal

1

7, 5–6

Sparidae

small

caudal

3

7, 5–6

Sparidae

small

abdominal

1

1 1

FM/EN 6, 1–4

Murraenidae

9

3

6, 1–4

Exocoetidae

small

caudal

1

1

6, 1–4

Gadidae

small

caudal

5

6, 1–4

Zeus faber

medium

abdominal

1

6, 1–4

Trachurus trachurus

medium

caudal

1

6, 1–4

Serranus scriba

small

caudal

1

6, 1–4

Serranidae

large

abdominal

1

6, 1–4

Serranidae

large

caudal

1

6, 1–4

Serranidae

small

caudal

4

6, 1–4

Pagrus pagrus

medium

abdominal

1

6, 1–4

Boops salpa

medium

abdominal

1

6, 1–4

Sparidae

large

caudal

1

6, 1–4

Sparidae

medium

caudal

67

7

6, 1–4

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

47

2

6, 1–4

Sparidae

small

caudal

233

10

6, 1–4

Sparidae

small

abdominal

64

3

6, 1–4

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

15

3

6, 1–4

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

3

3

6, 1–4

Mugilidae

large

caudal

1

6, 1–4

Mugilidae

medium

caudal

1

1

8

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

FISH VERTEBRAE Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

259

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

FM/EN (cont.) 6, 1–4

Mugilidae

medium

abdominal

1

6, 1–4

Scorpaenidae

medium

abdominal

1

6, 1–4

Scorpaenidae

small

caudal

2

6, 1–4

unknown

medium

abdominal

3

6, 1–4

unknown

small

caudal

8

6, 1–4

unknown

small

abdominal

2

6, 1–4

unidentifiable

7, 1–4

Sparidae

small

caudal

1

7, 1–4

Sparidae

small

abdominal

1

8, 5–6

Murraenidae

8, 5–6

Exocoetus sp.

small

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Gadidae

medium

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Serranus cf. scriba

medium

abdominal

1

8, 5–6

Serranidae

large

caudal

2

8, 5–6

Serranidae

large

abdominal

2

8, 5–6

Serranidae

med/large

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Serranidae

med/large

abdominal

1

8, 5–6

Serranidae

small

caudal

28

8, 5–6

Serranidae

small

abdominal

3

8, 5–6

Dentex dentex

large

caudal

2

8, 5–6

Pagellus erythrinus/ Dentex dentex

medium

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Boops salpa

small

abdominal

1

8, 5–6

Sparidae

medium

caudal

18

8, 5–6

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

4

8, 5–6

Sparidae

small

caudal

391

15

8, 5–6

Sparidae

small

abdominal

106

1

8, 5–6

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

77

2

8, 5–6

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

41

5

8, 5–6

Scombridae

medium

caudal

2

8, 5–6

Scombridae

small

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

1

2

83

10

1

1

1

1

1

8

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

260

DIMITRA MYLONA

Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

FM/EN (cont.) 8, 5–6

Mugilidae

medium

abdominal

2

8, 5–6

Mugilidae

small

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

1

8, 5–6

Scorpaenidae

medium

abdominal

1

8, 5–6

Scorpaenidae

small

caudal

1

8, 5–6

unknown

medium

abdominal

1

8, 5–6

unidentifiable

various

156 UM

9

Gadidae

small

caudal

8

9

Zeus faber

large

caudal

1

9

Serranus cabrilla

small

caudal

1

9

Serranidae

medium

caudal

2

9

Serranidae

small

caudal

12

9

Serranidae

small

abdominal

1

9

Pagellus erythrinus/ Dentex dentex

medium

caudal

3

9

Dentex dentex

large

abdominal

1

9

Boops salpa

medium

abdominal

1

9

Sparidae

large

caudal

2

9

Sparidae

large

abdominal

3

9

Sparidae

med/large

caudal

1

9

Sparidae

medium

caudal

179

9

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

75

9

Sparidae

small

caudal

413

25

9

Sparidae

small

abdominal

36

1

9

Sparidae (except Dentex sp.)

large

caudal

2

9

Centracanthidae

small

caudal

9

9

Labridae

medium

caudal

13

3

9

Scomber sp.

small

abdominal

133

8

9

Mugilidae

large

caudal

6

9

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

10

9

Mugilidae

medium

caudal

2

1

1

5

44 6 17

6 2

2

4

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

FISH VERTEBRAE Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

261

# Found

Burned

Chewed

1

1

Cut

Pathological

UM (cont.) 9

Mugilidae

medium

abdominal

1

9

Mugilidae

small

abdominal

2

9

Scorpaenidae

large

abdominal

3

9

Scorpaenidae

medium

abdominal

3

9

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

3

9

Triglidae

medium

caudal

1

9

Triglidae

small

caudal

1

9

Soleidae

small

9

unknown

large

abdominal

2

9

unknown

medium

abdominal

23

9

unknown

medium

caudal

7

9

unknown

small

abdominal

20

9

unknown

small

caudal

15

9

unidentifiable

9, 1–2

Dentex dentex

medium

caudal

1

9, 1–2

Sparidae

medium

caudal

3

9, 1–2

Scomber sp.

small

caudal

3

9, 1–2

Scomber sp.

small

abdominal

1

9, 1–2

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

2

9, 3–4

Muraenidae

9, 3–4

Zeus faber

large

abdominal

4

9, 3–4

Trachurus sp.

small

abdominal

1

9, 3–4

Serranus cabrilla

small

abdominal

1

9, 3–4

Serranus scriba

small

abdominal

1

9, 3–4

Dentex sp.

medium

abdominal

2

9, 3–4

Sparidae

large

caudal

3

9, 3–4

Sparidae

large

abdominal

1

9, 3–4

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

1

1

9, 3–4

Sparidae

medium

caudal

12

4

9, 3–4

Sparidae

small

caudal

44

7

9, 3–4

Sparidae

small

abdominal

10

1

1

1

6

1

699

1

4

7

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

262

DIMITRA MYLONA

Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

# Found

Burned

Chewed

2

2

Cut

Pathological

UM (cont.) 9, 3–4

Labrus sp.

small

abdominal

1

9, 3–4

Scomber sp.

small

abdominal

4

9, 3–4

Scomber sp.

small

caudal

13

9, 3–4

Scombridae

large

caudal

1

9, 3–4

Scombridae

large

abdominal

2

9, 3–4

Scombridae

medium

caudal

6

9, 3–4

Scombridae

medium

abdominal

2

9, 3–4

Sphyraenidae

large

caudal

1

9, 3–4

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

6

9, 3–4

Mugilidae

large

caudal

4

9, 3–4

Scorpaenidae

large

abdominal

1

9, 3–4

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

1

9, 3–4

unidentifiable

10

Gadidae

small

caudal

16

10

Epinephelus sp.

medium

abdominal

1

10

Serranidae

large

abdominal

1

10

Serranidae

medium

abdominal

11

10

Serranidae

small

caudal

7

10

Dentex dentex

large

caudal

3

10

Dentex dentex

large

abdominal

2

10

Sparidae

large

caudal

4

10

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

1

10

Sparidae

medium

caudal

11

1

10

Sparidae

small

caudal

13

2

10

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

7

10

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

2

10

Scombridae

large

caudal

3

10

Scombridae

medium

caudal

9

10

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

2

10

Mugilidae

large

caudal

7

3

10

Mugilidae

medium

caudal

1

1

1

1

1 1

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

FISH VERTEBRAE Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

263

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

UM (cont.) 10

Mugilidae

medium

abdominal

1

1

10

Mugilidae

small

abdominal

1

10

Scorpaenidae

medium

abdominal

2

10

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

1

10

unknown

medium

abdominal

4

10

unknown

small

abdominal

2

10

unidentifiable

10, 3–4

Epinephelus sp.

large

abdominal

2

10, 3–4

Serranus cabrilla

small

caudal

6

10, 3–4

Serranus cabrilla

small

abdominal

2

10, 3–4

Serranidae

medium

abdominal

2

10, 3–4

Serranidae

small

abdominal

1

10, 3–4

Serranidae

small

caudal

19

10, 3–4

Sparidae

medium

caudal

9

10, 3–4

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

2

10, 3–4

Sparidae

small

caudal

13

1

10, 3–4

Sparidae

small

abdominal

2

1

10, 3–4

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

8

4

10, 3–4

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

2

10, 3–4

Mugilidae

large

caudal

13

10, 3–4

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

1

10, 3–4

Mugilidae

small

abdominal

4

10, 3–4

Scorpaenidae

large

abdominal

3

2

10, 3–4

Scorpaenidae

medium

abdominal

1

1

10, 3–4

unknown

medium

caudal

4

10, 3–4

unknown

small

caudal

2

10, 3–4

unknown

small

abdominal

26

10, 3–4

unidentifiable

11

Muraenidae

medium

11

Ecocoetidae

small

caudal

1

11

Gadidae

small

caudal

16

1

21

1?

1

1

1

1

33 24

1

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

264

DIMITRA MYLONA

Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

UM (cont.) 11

Zeus faber

large

1

11

Zeus faber

medium

8

11

Zeus faber

medium

abdominal

1

11

Moronidae

medium

abdominal

2

11

Epinephelus sp.

large

abdominal

3

11

Serranus cabrilla

small

caudal

3

11

Serranus scriba

small

abdominal

1

11

Serranidae

large

caudal

1

11

Serranidae

medium

caudal

14

11

Serranidae

medium

abdominal

33

3

11

Serranidae

small

caudal

17

2

11

Serranidae

small

abdominal

49

3

11

Pomatomus saltlator

medium

abdominal

1

11

Trachurus sp.

caudal

7

11

Dentex dentex

large

abdominal

3

11

Dentex dentex

large

caudal

3

11

Dentex dentex

medium

caudal

1

medium

caudal

6

medium

abdominal

1

1 1

11 11

Pagellus erythrinus/ Dentex dentex Pagellus erythrinus/ Dentex dentex

3

6

11

Boops salpa

medium

abdominal

4

11

Sparidae

large

caudal

4

11

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

31

5

11

Sparidae

medium

caudal

134

1

11

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

5

1

11

Sparidae

small

caudal

431

10

48

11

Sparidae

small

abdominal

86

4

9

11

Centracanthidae

small

abdominal

6

11

Centracanthidae

small

caudal

1

11

Labridae

medium

caudal

6

1

11

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

16

7

2

11

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

22

4

7

70

3

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

FISH VERTEBRAE Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

265

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

UM (cont.) 11

Scombridae

medium

caudal

1

11

Scombridae

medium

abdominal

5

11

Mugilidae

large

caudal

3

11

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

7

11

Mugilidae

medium

abdominal

3

11

Mugilidae

medium

caudal

9

11

Mugilidae

small

caudal

1

11

Mugilidae

small

abdominal

10

11

Scorpaenidae

large

abdominal

2

11

Scorpaenidae

large

caudal

2

11

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

13

11

Scorpaenidae

medium

abdominal

6

11

unknown

medium

abdominal

6

11

unknown

medium

caudal

7

11

unknown

small

abdominal

25

11

unknown

small

caudal

99

11

unidentifiable

small

2

194 FM

12, 1–4

Muraenidae

4

12, 1–4

Zeus faber

large

abdominal

4

12, 1–4

Serranus cabrilla

small

abdominal

1

12, 1–4

Serranus scriba

small

abdominal

1

12, 1–4

Trachurus sp.

small

abdominal

1

12, 1–4

Dentex sp.

medium

abdominal

2

12, 1–4

Sparidae

medium

caudal

12

3

12, 1–4

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

1

1

12, 1–4

Sparidae

small

caudal

44

7

12, 1–4

Sparidae

small

abdominal

9

12, 1–4

Labridae

small

abdominal

1

12, 1–4

Scomber sp.

small

abdominal

4

12, 1–4

Scomber sp.

small

caudal

13

2

1

2

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

266

DIMITRA MYLONA

Context Level, Rectangle

Species

Body Size

Anatomical Part

# Found

Burned

Chewed

Cut

Pathological

FM (cont.) 12, 1–4

Sphyraena sphyraena

large

caudal

1

12, 1–4

Mugilidae

large

abdominal

2

12, 1–4

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

3

12, 1–4

unidentifiable

28

13, 1–4

Congridae/Murraenidae

1

13, 1–4

Gadidae

small

abdominal

3

13, 1–4

Gadidae

small

caudal

4

13, 1–4

Serranidae

small

caudal

4

13, 1–4

Dentex dentex

large

caudal

2

13, 1–4

Dentex dentex

large

abdominal

1

13, 1–4

Sparidae

large

abdomial

1

13, 1–4

Sparidae

large

caudal

1

13, 1–4

Sparidae

medium

abdominal

13

13, 1–4

Sparidae

medium

caudal

19

13, 1–4

Sparidae

small

caudal

119

13, 1–4

Sparidae

small

abdominal

24

13, 1–4

Scomber sp.

medium

caudal

20

13, 1–4

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

8

13, 1–4

Scombridae

medium

abdominal

1

13, 1–4

Mugilidae

small

caudal

3

13, 1–4

Scorpaenidae

large

caudal

1

13, 1–4

Scorpaenidae

medium

caudal

3

13, 1–4

unknown

medium

abdominal

1

13, 1–4

unknown

small

caudal

7

13, 1–4

unidentifiable

58

14

Muraenidae

1

14

Pagellus erythrinus/ Dentex dentex

medium

caudal

1

14

Sparidae

medium

caudal

2

14

Scomber sp.

medium

abdominal

2

14

Mugilidae

medium

caudal

1

14

Mugilidae

medium

abdominal

1

14

unidentifiable

1

1

1

2

2

Appendix 4.B, cont. Trench CWest fish vertebrae recording. For an explanation of the parameters and values used in this table, see pp. 238–239.

5

Malacological Material Lilian Karali

Modern archaeological research deals with all the evidence brought to light through excavation, both the artifacts and the biological remains.* All are essential for studying the past, which is confronted as a total of elements and events (Shackley 1981, 1985). In the framework of environmental archaeology, evidence is provided by material that at first glance goes unnoticed, such as floral, faunal, and human remains. Of considerable significance among these remains are mollusks, particularly in Greece (Karali 1999b, 1).

The study of mollusks from archaeological contexts provides archaeologists, ecologists, and biologists with a wide range of information. Marine ecosystems, the exploitation of marine resources, subsistence behavior, and cultural interrelations can be detected from the study of the shells. Additionally, the paleoclimatic conditions (cold, warm, salty waters, etc.) can be understood from more sophisticated studies (as for example, oxygenisotope analysis).

Methodology Collection of the molluscan material was conducted during the 1992, 1993, and 1994 excavation

seasons. Special treatment relating both to the retrieval of faunal material and to the analysis of

* I wish to express my warmest thanks to Prof. Sampson for the assignment of the molluscan material, and also to the archaeologists Evi Tsota (Ephorate of Boetia) and Vagia

Mastrogiannopoulou (Ph.D. candidate, University of Athens) for their assistance in this demanding task.

268

LILIAN KARALI

such material has been applied; for a more detailed discussion on the methodology of faunal retrieval at the Cave of the Cyclops, see Powell, this volume, Chapter 2. The method of random sampling was applied due to the density of finds and the volume of excavated deposits. Molluscan material was collected from undisturbed deposits that aroused special interest (due to special features or the overall traits of the finds within a deposit). The data was processed in the following order: 1. Identification of shells at species level. The first step was the identification of the shell species. The importance of defining shells at the species level is that, in most cases, this definition determines the provenience of the shell. In order to carry out this task, comparative collections (personal) and various monographs and guides have been used (Lellak 1975; Abbot and Dance 1982; Tornaritis 1987; Vaught 1989; Delamotte and Vardala-Theodorou 1994). As the taxonomy of mollusks is constantly being revised, the order of the genera, as presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 (as well as in all other tables in this study) follows current, widely accepted systems. 2. Determination of artifactual type. Studying shell artifacts involves two basic steps: (1) the description of the end result, and (2) the analysis of the technique used to achieve the end product. Observations of the various techniques are based mainly on the work of Francis (1982) and Taborin (1974a, 1974b, 1993). Both authors identify four main techniques of working: grinding, sawing, hammering, and drilling. Although the easiest method is to use naturally abraded shells, in some cases it is impossible to determine the technique employed, often because worn or broken artifacts

do not bear any clear evidence. In addition to this problem, wear is also caused by the various depositional and post-depositional processes that occur at any archaeological site. For shell artifacts, a basic terminology is important in order to compile a type list, which is necessary for the classification and understanding of the uses. 3. Data collection. The species type and all information available from the excavation (locus, basket, height, registration number, etc.) were entered into a computer database program. 4. Analysis. Computations and percentages were calculated using Microsoft Excel 9.0. There are two common procedures for presenting quantitative data analysis: NISP (number of identified specimens) or MNI (minimum number of individuals) (e.g., Grayson 1984; Lyman 1994). When studying mollusks that were used as food, it is important to calculate the MNI, as every two valves of a bivalve represent one animal, and the MNI is more indicative of how much mollusk meat was consumed. Thus, it is assumed that the NISP reflects the actual number of artifacts. But because of the natural tendency of larger specimens to break (Claassen 1998, 68), the use of NISP in shell analysis presents a distorted impression of the actual number of shells collected by ancient groups (Bar-Yosef 1999, 30–31). The present study aims to focus on the excavation that took place at the Cave of the Cyclops on the island of Youra. The full description of the shells found in the area (Table 5.1) will serve to illustrate and complete the research carried out on the island.

Molluscan Remains Description of the Molluscan Fauna Molluscan fauna is the second largest phylum in the animal kingdom with about 80,000 to 100,000 living species. There are eight classes of mollusks, four of which are widely exploited:

gastropods, bivalves, scaphopods, and cephalopods. The shell (the exoskeleton) of the first three classes is made of calcium carbonate, most often in the form of calcite but also (especially in

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

mother-of-pearl) in the form of aragonite, which can be preserved. Although we must always be alert to the possibility that mollusks not currently found in an area may be present archaeologically, this appears not to be the case with the molluscan remains from Youra. All of the mollusks identified from the archaeological material at the Cave of the Cyclops are found today in the waters of the Aegean. Table 5.1 presents all the species included in this study. Many species live on the coral reefs, most of them within the littoral

269

zones (subdivided from highest to lowest into: supralittoral, mesolittoral, infralittoral, and circumlittoral). Others live in the depths and even at the parts of the bottom of the sea where the sun still reaches. Most of the shells are common today, as we know from examining the specimens. It should also be emphasized that examination of the specimens from the cave provided much evidence indicating that the mollusks were mostly collected as food. A few are porous due to the activity of sea worms and weathering on the dead mollusk’s shell.

Description of the Shells Collecting the whole amount of molluscan remains from the Cave of Cyclops was impossible due to the vast quantities found. The total number of the examined and identified shells from the site is 72,247, which includes the data of shells studied onsite and shells transferred and studied in the laboratory of Athens University. Table 5.1 presents the amount of each species included in this study, accompanied by information about habitat; Table 5.2 presents the amounts of all species found according to trench, level, and rectangle; and Table 5.3 and Figure 5.1 present a chronological overview of the most frequent mollusk species found at the cave. Of the 72,247 shells studied, 54,824 are from marine mollusks and 17,423 are from terrestrial mollusks. A total of 37 species are represented by this sample: 28 marine and nine terrestrial. The most common shell species belong to the Patellidae family, which appear with 37,632 specimens, followed by the Trochidae family (with 8,585 specimens), the Mytilidae (with 7,100 specimens), and the land snails (with 17,423 specimens). The most popular species were present through all the levels (Tables 5.1, 5.3; Fig. 5.1). Patella aspersa totals nearly 50% of the molluscan material. This marine mollusk constitutes the most popular species in every period from the end of the Neolithic down to the lower Mesolithic levels. The second most popular species, however, was a land snail, Helix aspersa, which comprised approximately 25% of the total molluscan finds. Mytilus galloprovincialis and Monodonta turbinata each comprise approximately 10%; and lastly, Patella caerulea

amounts to approximately 5.5%. In total, out of the 38 identified species, the five most popular comprise 97% of the overall number. The proportions between species remained stable throughout the periods, with minor exceptions (Fig. 5.1). Patella aspersa and Helix aspersa were the most popular species diachronically. More specifically, Patella aspersa remained the most popular species diachronically, with the exception of the bottom Mesolithic layers, where Helix aspersa sums were slightly higher. Chronologically, mollusk consumption presents small fluctuations from the Late Neolithic (LN) to the Early Neolithic (EN)/Middle Neolithic (MN) levels and then down to the Mesolithic levels (Table 5.3). Yet, if we take into account both mixed levels, we shall observe that consumption in Neolithic levels, when treated as a single period, was nearly double the consumption in the Mesolithic ones. This pattern must reflect the intensity of the use of the cave, if we consider molluscan finds as food remains. A closer look brings forth some interesting observations. An intriguing case is that of the huge amounts of land snails, namely the Helix species, found in specific deposits in Mesolithic levels. As shown in Table 5.3 and Figure 5.1, consumption of these species increased sharply, especially during the Mesolithic but also during the LN. The same, though on a smaller scale, holds true for Mytilus galloprovincialis. Consumption of Patella aspersa, however, was never affected. On the other hand, Monodonta turbinata had an opposite course during these respective periods.

270

LILIAN KARALI

6,000

Helix aspersa 4,983

5,000

5,055

5,002

Patella aspersa Monodonta turbinata Patella caerulea

4,000 3,884 3,497

3,325

3,701

Mytilus galloprovincialis

3,000 2,720

2,772

2,451

1,990

2,000

1,875 1,572 1,028

1,000

712

811 446

0

1,692 1,416

110 31

LM

652

726

641

452

188

UM

624 558 338

102

EN/MN

LN–EN/MN Disturbed

LN

LN Disturbed

Figure 5.1. Amounts of each of the most frequent mollusk species according to period.

Marine Mollusks Most seashells are found in intertidal to shallow waters on sandy, muddy, or rocky bottoms. Most of the more colorful species are found in warm waters near coral reefs. Pelagic mollusks are those that live at or near the surface of the water. Intertidal or littoral species are found between the high and low tide lines of the seashore; some are found above the high tide line in the so-called splash zone. Many species thrive in areas such as mangrove swamps where fresh water meets sea water. Shallow water shells include those from either the high-tide line, including the intertidal zone, or the low-tide line to a depth of 80 to 200 feet. The interpretation of both boundaries varies according to different authors. Deep water or abyssal specimens are those found in either 200 feet or, according to some, 400 or more feet of water. In fact, the term “moderately deep” has been used for only 80 feet or more, and our term “deep water” follows this usage. The marine mollusks represented at the Cave of the Cyclops include the following species:

Two small cardinal teeth with two lateral teeth in left valves. Usually in sand or mud from mid-tide line to deep water. Worldwide in most waters.

Acanthocardium tuberculatum (Linné, 1758). Family: Cardiidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Heterodonta; genus: Veneroida. Quantity: 2 shells. Small to very large shell, thin, rounded triangular, inflated, with external ligament.

Columbella rustica (Linné, 1758). Family: Columbellidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 1,098 shells. Small solid shell, glossy, with attractive patterns. Outer lip thickened,

Cerithium rupestre Risso, 1826. Family: Cerithiidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 1 shell. Medium-sized, elongated shell with high spire. Small oblique aperture with eccentric nucleus. On sand, in seaweed among corals, in shallow intertidal water. Temperate to tropical waters. Charonia tritonis variegata (Lamarck, 1816). Family: Cymatiidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Taenioglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 12 shells. Thick, solid, ovate shell, with different-colored spires. Decorated with spiral cords with varices. Attached to rocks and coral on muddy sand in shallow to deep waters. Temperate to tropical waters. Chlamys multistriata (Poli, 1795). Family: Pectinidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Pterioida. Quantity: 4 shells. Small to large, fan-shaped to nearly circular shell. Mostly inequivalve; inequilateral. Both valves convex, unequal ears, prominent radial ribs, often with scales. Shallow to very deep water, worldwide.

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

especially at center. It has a short siphonal canal. Burrows in sand and coral in shallow to deep waters in the intertidal zone. Temperate to tropical regions. Conus mediterraneus (Bruguière, 1792). Family: Conidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Stenoglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 1 shell. Shell mainly thick and heavy with conical shape. Large body whorl; coronate with spiral threads, especially on spire and toward base. Usually beneath rocks in coral crevices, in seaweeds, in intertidal to deep water zones in the Mediterranean. Crassostrea angulata (Lamarck, 1819). Family: Ostreidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Pterioida. Quantity: 2 shells. Small to large, with irregular radial ribbing. Inequivalve with margins very deeply folded. On rocks, sea whips, in intertidal, shallow water. Worldwide in temperate waters. Cyclope neritea (Linné, 1758). Family: Nassariidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Stenoglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 338 shells. Thick shell, ovate with tapering. Surface generally cancellate; outer lip dentate. Burrows in sand or mud in intertidal to deep waters, worldwide. Diodora graeca (Linné, 1758). Family: Fissurellidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Prosobranchia; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 1 shell. Oval-shaped, conical shell with a rounded hole in the tip of the shell. Body colored red and yellow with spots. Attached to rocks in the low water zone. Diodora italica (Defrance, 1820). Family: Fissurellidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Prosobranchia; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 1 shell. Small conical shell, oval shaped. Most have spires with a perforated subcentral apex, usually a slit or channel. Attaches to rocks and coral, mainly in shallow intertidal water, worldwide.

271

under stones in mud or sand in intertidal waters. Worldwide, especially in cool waters. Monodonta articulata (Lamarck, 1822). Family: Trochidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 96 shells. Thick and heavy shell, mainly flat with round base. Surface smooth with spiral cords. Attaches to rocks in intertidal zone, worldwide. Monodonta turbinata (Born, 1780). Family: Trochidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 8,427 shells. Trochus shell umbilicated, spire pointed and prominent. Lives on rocks and sand in the Mediterranean. Mytilus barbatus (Linné, 1758). Family: Mytilidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Mytiloida. Quantity: 1 shell. Small to large, thin, elongated shell with rounded posterior. Ligament usually external. Sharp beaks at anterior. Inside nacreous. Found on rocks, pilings, under stones, in mud or sand, often in large colonies in intertidal water. Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck, 1819). Family: Mytilidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Mytiloida. Quantity: 7,079 shells. Very common and with numerous subspecies. Usually found in large colonies on rock, sand, or mud in intertidal, shallow water from 20 to 50 mm deep; edible. Nassarius (Hinia) incrassatus (Ströem, 1768). Family: Nassariidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Stenoglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 1 shell. Small, thick shell with tapering, pointed spire. Surface generally cancellate; axial ribs nodulose; outer lip dentate. Burrows in sand or mud in intertidal to deep waters, worldwide.

Gibbula albida (Gmelin, 1791). Family: Trochidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 62 shells. Conical shell with spires. Light brown color with white lines. Attaches to rocks in the intertidal zone of the Mediterranean.

Ocinebrina edwarsii (Payraudeau, 1826). Family: Muricidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Stenoglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 1 shell. Large spiral shell with turreted whorls. Surface sculpture quite elaborate, with spines, fronds, and nodules. Burrows in sand or mud among rocks and corals in shallow intertidal waters. Temperate to tropical waters, worldwide.

Luria lurida (Linné, 1758). Family: Cypraeidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Taenioglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 16 shells. Ovate- to pyriformshaped shell with flat convex base. Spire usually hidden by large body whorl. Very glossy, smooth shell with striking patterns. Attaches to rocks and corals, mostly in shallow waters.

Ostrea edulis (Linné, 1758). Family: Ostreidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Pterioida. Quantity: 1 shell. Small to large, thick shell with irregular radial ribbing. Inequivalve: left or lower valve is larger, thicker, and quite convex; right valve is nearly flat. Found on rocks and sea whips, in intertidal, shallow water. Worldwide in temperate waters.

Modiolus adriaticus (Lamarck, 1819). Family: Mytilidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Mytiloida. Quantity: 20 shells. Thin, elongated shell with rounded posterior. It has an external ligament and a long hinge line with a few weak teeth behind a sunken ligament. Attaches to rocks, pilings, or found

Patella aspersa (Linné, 1758). Family: Patellidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 33,654 shells. Small to medium shell, conical, oval, cup or saucer shaped with subcentral apex. Attaches to rocks in intertidal zone.

272

LILIAN KARALI

Patella caerulea (Linné, 1758). Family: Patellidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Diotocardia. Quantity: 3,978 shells. Solid shell conch, coned top near the front end, 20–55 mm long. Externally, the surface bears multiple bars, and internally it is glossy and radiate. Its color can vary from gray to bright or dark reddish. Adheres on rocks in the middle coastal zone of the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Pinna nobilis (Linné, 1758). Family: Pinnidae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Mytiloida. Quantity: 3 shells. Medium to large shell, very thin and translucent, with radial ribs and external ligament. Anterior muscle scar small; posterior muscle scar large and near center. Anchors vertically in mud, sand, or gravel in shallow to deep water. Worldwide in warm temperate waters. Spondylus gaederopus (Linné, 1758). Family: Spondylidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Pteriomorphia; genus: Pterioida. Quantity: 6 shells. Thick shell with inflated valves and radial ribs with large spines. Mainly internal ligament in small, strong central pit bordered by calcareous ridges. Attaches to rocks in intertidal to deep waters in the Mediterranean. Tonna galea (Linné, 1758). Family: Tonnidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Streptoneura; genus: Monotocardia.

Quantity: 1 shell. Thin globose ventricose shell with short turbinate spire. Very large body whorl and aperture with thin, crenulated outer lip. Burrows in sand beyond coral reefs in deep water. Temperate to tropical waters. Trunculariopsis trunculus (Linné, 1758). Family: Muricidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Stenoglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 9 shells. Large, thin spiral shell with turreted whorls. Surface sculpture quite elaborate, with spines, fronds, and nodules. Burrows in sand or mud among rocks and corals in intertidal shallow waters. Temperate to tropical waters, worldwide. Turitella communis (Risso, 1826). Family: Turridae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Stenoglossa; genus: Monotocardia. Quantity: 2 shells. Medium-sized shell, strongly carinated with tall, pointed spire. Slit on posterior end of outer lip. It has venom gland and terminal nucleus. Burrows in sand or under rocks in intertidal and deep to very deep waters. Venus verrucosa (Linné, 1758). Family: Veneridae; class: Bivalvia; subclass: Heterodonta; genus: Veneroida. Quantity: 7 shells. Medium-sized, thick, ovate shell with smaller escutcheon. Porcelaneous surface, often polished. Prominent external ligament on platform, posterior to back. Burrows slightly below surface in sand or mud. Worldwide in intertidal to deep water.

Land Snails The analysis of terrestrial mollusks, or land snails, from archaeological contexts has produced valuable data on past environments and man’s activities therein. The study of land snails has had varied applications in archaeology and will continue to make valuable contributions to the study of paleoeconomy. Buried soils might be expected to contain the most reliable assemblages with relatively low frequencies of allochthonous elements. Snails are both proverbially and actually stenotopic, and therefore, they are influenced strongly by local environmental factors. They may provide information on the climatic conditions and vegetation because of some characteristic traits such as hibernation and systematic soil preference. For example, the presence of Lindholmiola lens can indicate the surface of a habitation level, as it usually forms colonies there. Also, its presence is combined with the existence of pine trees. Similarly, Helix and Chiclostoma indicate soils rich in calcium with high pH levels (possibly due to dense, low vegetation).

Land snails may be found on an archaeological site as a result of natural or human activity. The meat of the animal is edible, and their shells can be used as personal ornaments. They may occur naturally, being either contemporary with the archaeological material or burrowing into the deposit after the occupation of the site. In either case, it may be possible to determine the micro-environment of the site using the land snails. When found at archaeological sites, the snail shells usually have lost their color and growth lines due to calcification, making identification of the species difficult at times. At the Cave of the Cyclops, 17,423 snails have been found, representing nine species (Table 5.1). The terrestrial mollusks represented at the Cave of the Cyclops include the following species: Albinaria caerulea (Deshayes, 1835). Family: Clausiliidae; class: Gastropoda; genus: Albinaria. Quantity: 27 shells. Conical shell with ribs extending to the parietal side of the aperture. Attaches to limestone rocks and walls.

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

Chiclostoma cepaea (Nemoralis) (Linné, 1758). Family: Helicidae; class: Gastropoda; genus: Capaea. Quantity: 79 shells. Needs humid conditions and shady conditions with rocks. Active only during humid weather conditions; effectively hidden in periods of drought. Chilostoma cyclolabris (Deshayes, 1839). Family: Helicidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Ariantinae; genus: Stylomatophora. Quantity: 3 shells. Needs humid conditions and shady conditions with rocks. Active only during humid weather conditions; effectively hidden in periods of drought. Cochlicella barbara (Linné, 1758). Family: Helicidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Monachinae; genus: Stylomatophora. Quantity: 2 shells. Shell is an elongated cone of 7–8 very slightly convex whorls with shallow sutures. Umbilicus minute and partly obscured by columellar lip. Prefers dry, exposed sites near the sea, especially dunes, occasionally inland in southern France. Found in the Mediterranean region. Chiclostoma elegans (Müller, 1774). Family: Helicidae; class: Gastropoda; genus: Cyclostomatidae. Quantity: 14 shells. Needs humid conditions and shady conditions with rocks. Active only during humid weather conditions; effectively hidden in periods of drought.

273

Helicella profuga (Schmidt, 1854). Family: Helicidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Ariantinae; genus: Stylomatophora. Quantity: 49 shells. Shell depressed above, convex below with a low conical spire. It is a common Mediterranean specimen, found in relatively shaded places under stone and on trees and logs, unlike most Helicidae. Helix aspersa Müller, 1774. Family: Helicidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Ariantinae; genus: Stylomatophora. Quantity: 17,201 shells. Shell globular with 4–5 rapidly expanding and slightly convex whorls. Usually pale brown, occasionally yellow, with 0–5 dark spiral bands. Found in the Mediterranean and western Europe. Lindholmiola lens (Férussac, 1832). Family: Endodontidae; class: Gastropoda; subclass: Ariantinae; genus: Stylomatophora. Quantity: 40 shells. Flat whorls, upper side usually not flat and strong periphery. Hidden in plants, usually pine trees. Rumina decollata (Linné, 1758). Family: Subulinidae; class: Gastropoda; genus: Stylomatophora. Quantity: 8 shells. Small- to medium-sized snail, found in dry open places, scrub, and grassy screes, mostly on calcareous soils. The animal is quite small.

Worked Shells The way in which shells are worked depends on the quality and shape of the material (Taborin 1974a, 123–128) as well as on the desired form the craftsman wishes to create. The basic methods of working shell are perforation and shaping, and they are encountered separately or in combination (Karali 1996).The shell’s thickness and shape are decisive for the manner and methods of working it and, consequently, of the objects that can be formed from it. The limpet (Patella sp.), for example, round in shape and with a fine shell, is suitable for limited

working and thus limited uses; in contrast, Spondylus sp., with its thick and resistant shell, is an ideal raw material for creating minor objects. Shell objects can be divided into categories depending on the form and the use of the shell. Ornamental objects and objects of usage have been found in the Cave of the Cyclops: seven spoonshaped objects of the species Patella, two beads, and two fragments of bangles made of Spondylus. The importance of the worked objects can be valued within the cultural meaning of the Neolithic Age.

Shell Ornaments Shell ornaments are used during the prehistoric period in the Aegean. From Paleolithic and Mesolithic times the finds are very few, but they become numerous in Neolithic times. Although very few objects used as ornaments are found on the island of

Youra, they are characteristic of the whole civilization and not only of one period because they occur from the Aceramic Neolithic until the end of the Neolithic Age.

274

LILIAN KARALI

BEADS There are many categories of shell beads from Neolithic Greece. They are distinguished by their shape and the grade of the working of the shell. We know of unworked perforated shells, as well as shells shaped to a high degree that have the shape of a disk, a cylinder, a tube (round or rectangular), a polygon, a trefoil, or a star, to name a few. The two small round-shaped beads that have been found in the cave are of great importance (S1, S2); one of them belongs to the Aceramic Neolithic period and the other to the Late Neolithic. Both beads belong to the Spondylus species, and they are very small and very well shaped. We should not exclude the shells of the species Columbella sp., Nassa sp., and Cypraea sp., which bear perforations and were used as beads or necklaces. S1 (SHA 8). Fig. 5.2. CWest, Level 7, Rectangles 1–4. 1993. Bead from Spondylus gaederopus Linné, perfect smoothing and shaping. It has an off-white color and measures 0.5 x 0.7 cm. Aceramic Neolithic. S2 (SHA 9). Fig. 5.2. CEast, Level 10, Rectangles 1, 4, 7. Very small bead from Spondylus gaederopus Linné; excellent smoothing, shaping, and form. It has a bright gray color and measures 0.3 x 0.1 cm. Late Neolithic.

BRACELETS Shell bracelets (S3, S4) are characteristic ornaments of the Neolithic Age—especially of the last phase. These artifacts are found throughout Greece, especially in Macedonia during the Middle and Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age (Karali 1992b, 153–164; 1992c; 1993, 63–64; 1999a). Bracelet fragments are known from earlier phases of the Neolithic in Thessaly (at least two fragments are

reported from Sesklo [Theocharis 1958, 70]), and some have been found at Halai in Boeotia (WalkerKosmopoulos 1948; Karali 1999a, forthcoming). Shell bracelets also occur in the southern Aegean in the Cyclades and on the Peloponnese (Karali 2006). The number of such finds increases considerably during the Middle and especially the Late Neolithic period, but their presence falls off during the Bronze Age, or so the few known examples suggest. Shell bracelets are characterized by their excellent shaping and the variety of their dimensions and diameter (Karali 1999b, 3–42). The shells of Spondylus gaederopus (Linné) and Glycimeris glycimeris (Lamarck) were commonly used for making oval objects such as bracelets; and the size and thickness of the bracelet varies depending on the type of shell used as raw material. Their specific use, particularly those of small diameter, is unknown. It is a possibility that they were used as exchange commodities in transactions with the Danubian lands and Central Europe. S3 (SHA 12, SHA 13). Fig. 5.2. CWest, Level 10, Rectangles 3–6. Two fragments of an annular object of worked shell of the species Spondylus gaederopus Linné. Both fragments are of the same valve, and they can be joined. It is the type of shaping with excellent smoothing of the internal and external surface. They are an off-white color and measure 3.6 x 1.1–1.2 cm in diameter. Late EN–early MN. S4 (SHA 11). Fig. 5.2. CWest, Level 5, Rectangles 5– 6. Fragment of an annular shaped object of the species Spondylus gaederopus Linné. It belongs at the upper valve, near its umbo, the ears of which are carefully smoothed. This is a well-known technique of shaping, with excellent smoothing of the internal and external surface. It is an off-white color and measures 3 x 1.2 cm. Late EN–early MN.

Shell Objects of Usage Archaeological evidence for shell tools shows that they come from different regions in Greece, but the objects are limited. The most important category includes shells of different types and sizes that were probably used as spoons. They are found in Macedonia, the Cyclades, and in the Peloponnese (Karali 1999b, 23–26).

At Franchthi Cave in Ermionida (Reese 1987, 208), apart from the shells of Mytilus sp., some shells of Spondylus sp. (LN) were used as spoons. Some types of spoons are also known from Saliagos. Spoons from Mytilus sp. were found in the more ancient layers of that settlement; in the more recent layers a different kind of shell was used. So,

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

the spoon from the species Charonia, with a round shape, represents an evolution from the oval-shaped spoon fashioned from Mytilus seen in the previous phase (Shackleton 1968). Among the 178 specimens found at Saliagos, it is difficult to find shells with no working that were used as spoons. Four other specimens from Saliagos (Shackleton 1968, nos. 343, 436, 438, and 442) belong to another category of spoons that are rounded, slightly shaped, and smoothed carelessly. Spoon-shaped objects are also known from Paradeisos (EN), Nikomedeia (EN), Tharrounia in Euboea, and also from the Kitsos Cave in Attica (EN), and the Alepotrypa Cave in Mani (LN). Unique until now are the seven “real” spoons, six from the species Patella caerulea Linné (S5–S10) and one from Ostrea sp. (S11), which have been found recently at the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra. It is interesting that they are from different cultural phases (Aceramic, Early Neolithic, and Late Neolithic), and they are used with no changes to their original spoon shape. They are spoons with a sharp (triangular or trapezoid) end, bearing a projection (sometimes broken) in order to receive a wooden or bone handle. The identification of the species is possible because the internal surface of the valve preserves its form and the external surface, and, despite the smoothing, most of the morphological characteristics of the limpet are usually preserved. Similar objects from bone have been found at other Neolithic sites, such as Dikili-Tash (LN) (Karali 1992b, fig. 3). S5 (SHA 7). CEast, Level 19, Rectangle 7. Spoon, almost complete, from shaped shell of the species Patella caerulea Linné. A part of the handle projection is missing. The working is obvious: cutting and smoothing of the edge of the external surface of the shell. The handle should be at the point where the cone has the largest radius. Oblong shape, trapezoid with rounded edges. It is of an off-white color and measures 5.8 x 3 cm. Aceramic Neolithic (Sampson 1996, phase 1). S6 (SHA 6). Fig. 5.2. CEast, Level 20, Rectangle 1. Entire spoon from shaped shell of the species Patella caerulea Linné. Well worked, with light smoothing of the external surface. After cutting the arcs of the originally round shell, the piece was worked into the shape of a trapezium. The angles of the trapezium are rounded, as are the two small sides, and the larger one, which seems to be the front one, has a small cutting. The handle is located at the point where the cone has the largest radius. Incorporating the use of the natural cavity creates the

275

greatest possible capacity. It has a yellowish color and bright nacre on the inside. The shell measures 3.5 x 2.1 cm. Aceramic Neolithic. S7 (SHA 5). Fig. 5.2. CEast, Level 19, Rectangle 7. Complete spoon from shaped shell of the species Patella caerulea Linné. Extensive working and smoothing on the two faces of the spoon, and the handle is located at the point where the cone has the greatest radius. This object is similar to S6 mentioned above, but this example is more impressive because it is larger and the shell is preserved in very good condition with a bright nacre. It has an off-white/yellowish color and measures 4.6 x 2.9 cm. Early Neolithic. S8 (SHA 1). Fig. 5.2. CWest, Levels 6–8. Spoon, almost complete, from a shaped shell of the species Patella caerulea Linné. Very well shaped. External surface has been smoothed in order to obliterate the natural projections of the limpet’s surface. Cutting and smoothing of the edge of the shell created an oval spoon with a sharp end like a handle. It is impressive the way that the natural cavity of the shell is used in order to gain the largest capacity. The shell is quite thick and large (measuring 5.5 x 4.5 cm), and it looks similar to a large modern spoon. The handle is located at the point where the cone has the greatest radius. It has of an off-white color, and the internal nacre is dulled with the imprints of roots. Measures 5.5 x 2–4 cm, with a thickness of 0.12 cm. Early Neolithic. S9 (SHA 4). Fig. 5.2. CEast, Level 18, Rectangle 7. Spoon, almost entire, shaped from shell of the species Patella caerulea Linné. Very well shaped. The internal surface and cutting are partly smoothed, and the edge of the shell has been smoothed in order to create an oval spoon with a sharp edge. It is impressive the way the natural cavity of the spoon is used in order to gain the greatest capacity. The spoon bears two cuttings at the point of the sharp edge and at the point of the projection of the handle. The handle is located at the point where the cone has the greatest radius. Original dimensions 5 x 4.5 cm; it is quite thick at the edge. It has an off-white color with a bright nacre. Measures 4.5 x 3.7 cm. Early Neolithic. S10 (SHA 2). Fig. 5.2. CEast, Level 15, Rectangle 12. Spoon, almost entire, from a partly shaped shell of the species Patella caerulea Linné. Slightly shaped external surface. The round edge has not been shaped a lot, apart from four cuttings—two at the front side and two at the back—which have a functional meaning. Due to the lack of a projection to receive a handle, the two cuttings at the back side are intended to support the object, and the two at the front side make it round. It is a different type of spoon, characterized by a shape that is almost round and the placement of the handle at the side where the cone forms the smallest radius. It has an off-white color and a bright nacre with linear imprints of roots. Measures 4.7 x 5.4 cm. Late Neolithic.

276

LILIAN KARALI

0

1

S1

2 cm

S3

S2

S7

S6

S9

S8

S10 0

1

S4

S11 5 cm

Figure 5.2. Worked shells (S1–S4, S6–S11).

S11 (SHA 3). Fig. 5.2. CEast, Level 14a, Rectangle 7. Small spatula, almost entire, shaped from a shell of Ostrea sp. at the beginning of fossilization. Intensively worked, with smoothing of the edge at the internal and external surface. Oval shape and a handle-like projection

at one end where the cone has the smallest radius. The internal surface is not very concave, and this leads to the conclusion that the object was probably used as a spatula. It has an off-white color and measures 3.8 x 2.3 cm. Late Neolithic.

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

277

Discussion In addition to the 72,247 identified shells previously mentioned, 601 unidentifiable mollusk fragments (about 0.82% of the total NISP) were found at the Cave of the Cyclops. Table 5.1 summarizes the above information. The assemblages of the cave are characterized by the following findings: 1.

About 52% of the total of identified shells belong to Patella sp.

2.

About 23% of the total of identified shells belong to Helix sp.

3.

Over 85% of the shells in the above two categories were not worked but were collected as ready-to-use beads from the shores of the site.

4.

The remaining 25% of the total of identified shells was dominated by a large number of fragments of several unidentified shells.

5.

15 species are represented by just one or two specimens.

Conclusions The assemblage from the cave has a rather monotonous appearance, with about three quarters of the shells composed of only two genera (probably four different species). The other quarter shows a great diversity of species. The proportions of complete, worked, and broken shells do not lend support to the idea of shell working on-site. Despite the limitations of the sample, we arrive at several conclusions concerning possible changes in the molluscan assemblage from the Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic periods. At first sight, there appears to be a growing specialization in the collection effort, resulting in a smaller range of mollusk families represented in the later chronological periods. This would not be surprising. As collection technologies developed, some particular species were caught. Changes in taxonomic diversity, however, can be perceived as a result of sample size, and it is not an indication of change in species diversity, at least to some extent. There is evidence for a certain degree of similarity between the shell assemblages of the Cave of the Cyclops and other sites. There are also differences. These differences might reflect the nomadic way of life of this hunter-gatherer society. The climate during the Mesolithic was considerably more humid, and this can account—at least partially—for the increase of land snails. Given the restrictions of the insular environment, they would

constitute a considerable protein source. The restricted resources are reflected again in the stability presented in the preferred species. At the same time, this stability constitutes an inherent characteristic of the economy practiced in every period. Hence, we shall observe that food collecting was practiced not only in the Mesolithic but continued into the Neolithic, and, moreover, that it focused on the same species. The maintenance of the same dietary preferences can bear several explanations. As mentioned above, it was partially due to the natural resources of the island, but it also reflects the choice of the inhabitants. The basic marine species were all collected from the surface of rocks or shallow waters—in other words—from approximate, prolific, and easily accessible sources. This bears evidence for the economic strategy. The fact that food collecting contributed considerably to subsistence is no surprise for the Mesolithic phase of the cave. Interestingly, however, collection persisted into the Neolithic period, when the micro-economy of the site would focus on pastoral activities such as herding ovicaprids and exploiting their products. In other words, a broader and more flexible economic strategy is outlined compared to other insular or coastal Neolithic sites in the Aegean (e.g., Saliagos, Ftelia, Zas Cave, Tharrounia, Franchthi, and Makrigialos).

278

LILIAN KARALI

Since very few species were dominant and consistent, it may be that they were used for certain reasons, perhaps for some type of group identity, which is necessary even among nomadic people. The use of shell and other materials is consistent: they have specific meanings, often of symbolic nature, and they often reflect status symbols and assets within the society. In the sheltered space of the cave, practices connected with ritual might have taken place on occasion (Karali, Mavridis, and Kormazopoulou 2005). Especially during the Late Neolithic, the use of caves seems to have increased, probably as herding was increasingly incorporated in the economic

strategy (Zachos 1999, 158–161). Rare items like metal objects, sophisticated flint or obsidian points, and Spondylus ornaments are commonly found in such places. Their exotic material and/or sophisticated craftsmanship could have conferred symbolic significance to them as prestige items. The manufacture of Spondylus bracelets is connected by some authors with specialized craftsmen (Karali 1991, 1992a, 1999a, 1999b; Perlés 2001; Halstead 1993, 607–608). For example, during the 5th millenium Spondylus and Dentalium ornaments were widely distributed in the Balkans (Bailey 2000, 222–223); their procurement demanded access to restricted knowledge and extensive exchange networks.

Bibliography Abbot, R.T., and S.P. Dance. 1982. Compendium of Sea Shells, New York. Bailey, D. 2000. Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation, and Identity, London. Bar-Yosef Mayer, E.D. 1999. The Role of Shells in the Reconstruction of Socio-Economic Aspects of Neolithic through Early Bronze Age Societies in Sinai, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Claassen, C. 1998. Shells, Cambridge. Delamotte, M., and E. Vardala-Theodorou. 1994. Κοχύλια­από­τις­ελληνικές­θάλασσες, Kephisia. Francis, P. 1982. “Experiments with Early Techniques for Making Whole Shells into Beads,” Current Anthropology 23 (6), p. 89. Grayson, D.K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology, New York. Halstead, P. 1993. “Spondylus Shell Ornaments from Late Neolithic Dimini, Greece: Specialized Manufacture or Unequal Accumulation?” Antiquity 67, pp. 603–609. Karali, L. 1991. “Parure en coquillage du site Dimitra en Macédoine Protohistorique,” in THALASSA: L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’ Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographics (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse, 23–25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7), R. Laffineur and L. Basch, eds., Liège, pp. 315–324.

———. 1992a. “‘Βραχιόλια από σπόνδυλο’ Ανθρωπολογικό Συμπόσιο Ελληνικής Ανθρωπολογικής Εταιρείας ‘Άνθροπος και περιβάλλον στον Ελλαδικό χώρο’Αθήνα, 11–13/12/1987,” Ανθρωπο­λογικά­Ανάλεκτα 50, pp. 57–61. ———. 1992b. “Le matériel malacologique,” in DikiliTash: Village préhistorique en Macédoine orientale (BCH Suppl. 24), R. Treuil, ed., Paris, pp. 112–113, 153–164, 206–207. ———. 1992c. “The Study of Malacological Material from the Cemeteries Castri and Larnaki,” in Prehistoric Thasos, Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, ed., Athens, pp. 756–759. ———. 1993. “La parure en coquillage eu region mediterraneus,” Αρχαιογνωσία 7, pp. 41–64. ———. 1996. “Shell, Bone, and Stone Jewelry” in Neolithic Culture in Greece, G. Papathanassopoulos, ed., Athens, pp. 165–166. ———. 1999a. “Η κόσμηση στη Νεολιθική Μακεδονία: Κοσμήματα οστρέινα, λίθινα, μετάλλινα,” in Ancient Macedonia IV. Papers Read at the Sixth International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996 (Ίδρυμα­Μελετών­Χερσο­νήσου του­Αίμου 272), Thessaloniki, pp. 531–536. ———. 1999b. Shells in Aegean Prehistory (BAR-IS 761), Oxford. ———. 2006. “Shells from Early Bronze Age Markiani,” in Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (BSA Suppl. 40), L. Marangou, C. Renfrew, Ch. Doumas, and G. Gavalas, London, pp. 242–244. ———. Forthcoming. “The Molluscan Material of Sarakenos Cave in Copais (Boeotia),” in The Neolithic and Bronze Age Occupation of Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia (Greece): Cave Settlement Patterns and Population Movements in Central and Southern Greece, A. Sampson. Karali, L., F. Mavridis, and L. Kormazopoulou. 2005. “Cultural Landscapes during the Late and Final Neolithic of the Aegean: A Case Study from Leondari Cave, Mt. Hymetos, Athens, Greece,” Antiquity 79, no. 303, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/mavridis/index.html. Lellak, J. 1975. Coquillages atlas illustré, Paris. Lyman, R.L. 1994. “Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology,” American Antiquity 59, pp. 36–71. Perlés, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe, Cambridge. Reese, D.S. 1987. “The EM IIA Shells from Knossos, with Comments on Neolithic to EM III Shell Utilization,” BSA 82, pp. 207–211. Sampson, A. 1996. “Excavation at the Cave of Cyclope on Youra, Alonnessos,” in Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 2. Forschungsbericht 1975–1993 1: Das Neolithikum in Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 16), E. Alram-Stern, ed., Vienna, pp. 507–520. Shackleton, N.J. 1968. “Appendix IX: The Mollusca, the Crustacea, the Echinodermata,” in Excavations

279

at Saliagos near Antiparos (BSA Suppl. 5), C. Renfrew and J.D. Evans, eds., Oxford, pp. 122–138. Shackley, M. 1981. Environmental Archaeology, London. ———. 1985. Using Environmental Archaeology, London. Taborin, Y. 1974a. “La parure en coquillage de l’epi paleolithique au Bronze ancien en France (I),” GalliaPrHist 17.1, pp. 101–179. ———. 1974b. “La parure en coquillage de l’epi paleolithique au Bronze ancien en France (II),” GalliaPrHist 17.2, pp. 307–417. ———. 1993. “Traces de faconnage et d’usage sur les coquillages perfores,” in Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 8–9–10 décembre 1990 (Études et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 50), P.C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, eds., pp. 255–267, Liège. Theocharis, D. 1958. “’Εκ τῆς Προκεραμεικῆς Θεσσαλίας,” Θεσσαλικὰ 1, pp. 70–86. Tornaritis, G. 1987. Mediterranean Sea Shells: Cyprus, Nicosia. Vaught, K.C. 1989. A Classification of the Living Mollusca, Melbourne, Florida. Walker-Kosmopoulos, L. 1948. The Prehistoric Inhabitation of Corinth, Munich. Zachos, K. 1999. “Zas Cave on Naxos and the Role of Caves in the Aegean Late Neolithic,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 153–163.

280

LILIAN KARALI

Total

% of the Total Identified

Class

Biotype

Acanthocardium tuberculatum (Linné, 1758)

2

0.003%

bivalve

marine/sand or mud (depth 1–2 m)

Albinaria caerulea (Deshayes, 1835)

27

0.037%

gastropod

land

Cerithium rupestre Risso, 1826

1

0.001%

gastropod

marine/coral, rocks or sand (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal shallow water

Charonia tritonis variegata (Lamarck, 1816)

12

0.017%

gastropod

marine/corals, mud, rocks or sand (depth 1–2 m)

shallow to deep water

Chiclostoma cepaea (Linné, 1758)

79

0.109%

gastropod

land/wide variety of conditions, climates, and habitats

n/a

Chiclostoma elegans (Müller, 1774)

14

0.019%

gastropod

land/shady conditions, in woods, especially on a chalky soil

n/a

Chilostoma cyclolabris (Deshayes, 1839)

3

0.004%

gastropod

land

n/a

Chlamys multistriata (Poli, 1795)

4

0.006%

bivalve

Cochlicella barbara (Linné, 1758)

2

0.003%

gastropod

land/dry places, especially dunes

Columbella rustica (Linné, 1758)

1,098

1.520%

gastropod

marine/coral or sand (depth 1–2 m)

shallow to deep water

Conus mediterraneus (Bruguière, 1792)

1

0.001%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal to deep water

Crassostrea angulata (Lamarck, 1819)

2

0.003%

bivalve

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal shallow water

Cyclope neritea (Linné, 1758)

338

0.468%

gastropod

marine/sand or mud (depth 1–2 m or >3 m)

Diodora graeca (Linné, 1758)

1

0.001%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal shallow water

Diodora italica (Defrance, 1820)

1

0.001%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal shallow water

Gibbula albida (Gmelin, 1791)

62

0.086%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth >3 m)

intertidal

Helicella profuga (Schmidt, 1854)

49

0.068%

gastropod

land

n/a

17,201

23.809%

gastropod

land/wide variety of conditions, climates, and habitats

n/a

Lindholmiola lens (Férussac, 1832)

40

0.055%

gastropod

land/under stones

n/a

Luria lurida (Linné, 1758)

16

0.022%

gastropod

marine/rocks or coral (depth 1–2 m)

shallow water

Modiolus adriaticus (Lamarck, 1819)

20

0.028%

bivalve

marine/rocks, sand or mud (depth >3 m)

intertidal

Monodonta articulata (Lamarck, 1822)

96

0.133%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal

Monodonta turbinata (Born, 1780)

8,427

11.664%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal

1

0.001%

bivalve

marine/rocks (depth >3 m)

intertidal

Species

Helix aspersa Müller, 1774

Mytilus barbatus (Linné, 1758)

marine/sand or rocks (depth 1–2 m)

Marine Zone deep water n/a

deep water n/a

intertidal to deep water

Table 5.1. Total amounts and percentages of mollusk species with information about habitat (excavation seasons 1992–1995).

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

281

Species

Total

% of the Total Identified

Class

Biotype

Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819

7,079

9.798%

bivalve

marine/rocks (depth >3 m)

Nassarius hinia incrassatus (Ströem, 1768)

1

0.001%

gastropod

marine/mud or sand (depth >3 m)

intertidal to deep water

Ocinebrina edwarsii (Payraudeau, 1826)

1

0.001%

gastropod

marine/rocks or sand (depth >3 m)

intertidal shallow water

Ostrea edulis Linné, 1758

1

0.001%

bivalve

marine/rocks (depth >3 m)

intertidal shallow water

Patella aspersa (Linné, 1758)

33,654

46.582%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal

Patella caerulea (Linné, 1758)

3,978

5.506%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal

Pinna nobilis Linné, 1758

3

0.004%

bivalve

marine/sand or mud (depth >3 m)

shallow to deep water

Trunculariopsis trunculus Linné, 1758

9

0.012%

gastropod

marine/sand, rocks, corals and mud (depth >3 m)

intertidal shallow water

Turitella communis Risso, 1826

2

0.003%

gastropod

marine/rocks or sand (depth >3 m)

intertidal to deep water

Rumina decollata (Linné, 1758)

8

0.011%

gastropod

land/tolerant of dry and cold conditions, during which they burrow into the soil

n/a

Spondylus gaederopus Linné, 1758

6

0.008%

gastropod

marine/rocks (depth >3 m)

intertidal to deep water

Venus verrucosa (Linné, 1758)

7

0.010%

bivalve

marine/sand or mud (depth 1–2 m)

intertidal to deep water

Shell Summary

Total Identified

Unidentified Fragments

Total Identified + Unidentified

Total

72,247

Marine Zone

Species Summary

intertidal

Number of Species

gastropods

28

bivalves

9

land

9

marine

28

marine/depth 1–2m

15

marine/depth >3m

13

Class

601 (0.825% of total 72,848)

Biotype

72,848

Marine Zone

Table 5.1, cont. Total amounts and percentages of mollusk species with information about habitat (excavation seasons 1992–1995).

1–4

1992

1

1992

4

B

7

C

4–5

1–4

1992 1993

3

3

12

C

7

1–4

1993

24

C

8

1–4

1993

5

1

Helicella profuga

Gibbula albida

Diodora italica

Diodora graeca

Cyclope neritea

6

Crassostrea angulata

5

B

Conus mediterraneus

B

Columbella rustica

1992

Cochlicella barbara

1992

4

Chlamys multistriata

1, 2, 3

B

Chiclostoma capea

B

Charonia tritonis variegata

1992

Cerithium rupestre

4

Albinaria caerulea

A

Acanthocardium tuberculatum

Level

Excavation Season

Trench

Rectangle

Context

Chilostoma cyclolabris

LILIAN KARALI

Chiclostoma elegans

282

1

12

C

6–8

1993

CEast

2

1994

4

CEast

4

1993

1

6

CEast

5

1994

11

4

CEast

6

1994

7

CEast

7

1994

1

1

1

2

1

CEast

8

1–3

1994

1

2

56

15

CEast

8

4–6

1994

CEast

8

7–8

1994

CEast

9

1–3

1994

1

CEast

9

4–6

1994

1

CEast

9

7–9

1994

CEast

10

1, 4, 7 1994

CEast

10

2, 5, 8 1994

1

CEast

10

3, 6, 9 1994

1

CEast

11

1, 4, 7 1994

CEast

11

2, 5, 6 1994

CEast

12

1994

CEast

13

1994

CEast

14

1995

CEast

15

1995

CEast

16

1995

CEast

17

1995

CEast

18

1995

CEast

19

1995

CEast

20

1995

CEast

21

1995

CEast

22

1995

CEast

23

1995

CEast

29

1995

4

1 1 4 1

2

3 5

3

6

2 1

1

5

1

2

1

1

6

15

2

5

1

3

6 1

16 1

6

67

19

32

14

27

16

5

8

68

17

2

56

17

2

1

102

22

1

1

78

14

1

1 1 1

2

2

1 1

1

Table 5.2. Stratigraphical distribution of the molluscan material.

1

15

2

1

3

57 58

9

20

2

5

1

1

1

1 1

1

70

24

388

259

26

13

118

97

50

84

147

225

Fragments

30

Venus verrucosa

52

39

Turitella communis

55

8

Trunculariopsis trunculus

16

1

Tonna galea

6

Spondylus gaederopus

40

283

Rumina decollata

26

31

Pinna nobilis

Patella caerulea

50

12

Ostrea edulis

11 5

Nassarius hinia incrassatus

Patella aspera

Ocinebrina edwarsii

Mytilus galloprovincialis

Mytilus barbatus

Monodonta turbinata

Monodonta articulata

Modiolus adriaticus

Luria lurida

Lindholmiola lens

Helix aspersa

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

1 25 61 75

4

19 31

5

45

1

194 35

14

1

70 607

1

1

99

12

433

68

498

191

8

1

109

5

316

3

25

1

679

42

1,512

15

472

41

838

16

617

53

750

24

165

12

256

7

13

53

3

209

5

3

85

5

91

2

206

32

264

36

210

13

337

2

286

71

1,558

124

47

126

65

27

205

2

234

29

462

153

110

382

468

871

8

18

317

206

125

2,044

25

1

41

442

223

1,810

29

18

64

208

830

9

6 94

3 5

49

3

31

3

49

3

15

2

870

2

2

1

3

4

1

2 248 132

404

1

4

1

2

181 1,163

1

6

75

209

3,258

128

3

66

558

1,195

23

964

2

8

64

246

31

579

1

23

46

562

3

5

66

1,297

762

8

1

30

936

846

91

31

2

2

37

27

1

13 11

1

2

27

2 1

1

1,614

2 1

4

1

1

13

148

1,162

1,481

2

26 1

2

1 1

4 15

2

1

1

CEast 10–12

1995

CEast 12–13 7–9

1994

1–3 CEast roots

1994

CEast 14–18

1995

CEast 15–16

1995

1–6 CEast roots

1994

CEast 17–18

1995

CEast 18–19

1995

CWest 1–2

1994

CWest

3

1993/1994

CWest

4

1993

CWest

5

CWest

6

5–6 1993/1994

CWest

7

1–4

CWest

8

5–6 1993/1994

CWest

9

1994

CWest

10

1994

CWest

11

1994

CWest

12

1994

CWest

13

1994

CWest

14

Helicella profuga

Gibbula albida

Diodora italica

Diodora graeca

Cyclope neritea

Crassostrea angulata

Conus mediterraneus

Columbella rustica

Cochlicella barbara

Chlamys multistriata

Chiclostoma capea

Charonia tritonis variegata

Cerithium rupestre

4 1

3

2

3 1

1

1

1

3 3

3

2

1

1 1

1993

CWest 7–8

Albinaria caerulea

Acanthocardium tuberculatum

Excavation Season

Rectangle

Level

Trench

Context

Chilostoma cyclolabris

LILIAN KARALI

Chiclostoma elegans

284

8 7

1 1

1993

4

4

6 26 6

5

3

4

7

4

8

6

2

24

97

14

149 110

1 1

1

3

6

2

35

1

11

2

2

11

3

2

5

6

3

2

10

2

1

1

4

1994 3

1994

E

2

1994

E

3

1994

E

4

1994

E

6

1994

E

5–6

1995

E

7–8

1995

TOTAL

1

1

1

3

2

27

1

12

79

14

3

4

Table 5.2, cont. Stratigraphical distribution of the molluscan material.

2

1,098

1

2

338

1

1

62

49

9

7

22

144

31

400

25

3

21

4

8

100

9

1

55 3

7

52

63

262

637

991

14

1

2

1

6 1

887

1

1

2

2

1,960 185

1

312

1

59

19

626

26

511

Fragments

Venus verrucosa

Turitella communis

Trunculariopsis trunculus

Tonna galea

9 19

650

Spondylus gaederopus

6 2,060

286

1

66

17

6

Rumina decollata

1

35

86

285

54

39

189

Pinna nobilis

Patella caerulea

Patella aspera

Ostrea edulis

Ocinebrina edwarsii

Nassarius hinia incrassatus

Mytilus galloprovincialis

Mytilus barbatus

Monodonta turbinata

Monodonta articulata

Modiolus adriaticus

Luria lurida

Lindholmiola lens

Helix aspersa

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

1

1

277

6

709

333

3

23

5

2

32

473

332

245

170

1,279

612

1

340

202

2,065

753

224

73

1,656

207

107

51

48

1,350

34

169

1

3

1

2

15

112

160

9

38

571

659

215

17

32

6

1

9

1

135

5

12

9

264

2

1

2

6

7

2

6

1

61

4

19

7

177

2

2

9

5

3

20

52

1

2

1,112

1

17 348 638 1

2

2

1

17,201

40

16

20

96

8,427

1

7,079

1

1

1

3

2

12

33,654 3,978

3

8

6

1

9

2

7

601

286

LILIAN KARALI

Context Helix Monodonta aspersa turbinata

Period Chronology

LN dist.

Rect.

Mytilus galloprovincialis

Patella Patella Sum of Sum by aspersa caerulea Level Period

Trench

Level

Roman–LN dist.

CEast

2

1

—

—

1

—

2

LN dist.

CEast

4

99

433

68

498

191

1,289

6

109

5

316

3

439

LN dist.

CEast

5

LN–Roman dist.

CEast

8

7, 8

13

53

3

209

—

278

LN dist.

CEast

9

7–9

15

210

13

337

2

577

3: LN dist.; 6: LN; 9: LN dist.

CEast

10

3, 6, 9

—

2

—

4

—

6

LN dist.

CEast

14

404

442

223

1810

29

2,908

LN dist.

CWest

4

86

626

26

709

333

1,780

624

1,875

338

3,884

558

Subtotal LN

CEast

6

94

679

42

1,512

15

2,342

LN

CEast

7

—

472

41

838

16

1,367

LN

CEast

8

1–3

49

617

53

750

24

1,493

LN

CEast

8

4–6

31

165

12

256

—

464

LN

CEast

9

4–6

49

206

32

264

36

587

LN

CEast

11

1, 4, 7

248

65

27

205

2

547

LN

CEast

15

181

64

208

830

9

1,292

LN

CEast

12, 13

22

144

31

400

—

597

LN

CEast

52

39

6

—

—

97

726

2,451

452

5,055

102

LN

8,786

7–9

Virgin soil

Subtotal

LN– EN/MN dist.

7,279

EN/MN; 3: Roman– LN dist.

CEast

9

1–3

3

85

5

91

—

184

1: EN; 7: LN dist.

CEast

10

1, 4, 7

870

286

71

1,558

—

2,785

2: EN/MN; 5: LN–EN/MN

CEast

10

2, 5, 8

3

124

47

126

148

448

2: UM; 5: EN/MN; 6: LN

CEast

11

2, 5, 6

132

234

29

462

153

1,010

1: UM; 3, 7: LN; 6: EN/MN

CEast

12

110

382

468

871

8

1,839

1, 5: EN; 9: LN dist.

CEast

10–12

9

7

—

54

—

70

LN, EN

CEast

15–16

3

63

—

66

—

132

LN (1, 2, 3, 4)/EN–MN dist. (5, 6)

CWest

5

286

511

32

473

332

1,634

1,416

1,692

652

3,701

641

8,102

Subtotal

1–6

Table 5.3. Sums of the most frequent mollusk species according to periods.

MALACOLOGICAL MATERIAL

Context Helix Monodonta aspersa turbinata

Period Chronology

EN/MN

Patella Patella Sum of Sum by aspersa caerulea Level Period

Level

Rect.

EN/MN dist.

CWest

6

5, 6

650

245

170

1,279

612

2,956

EN

CWest

7

1–4

887

340

202

2,065

753

4,247

EN

CWest

8

5, 6

1,960

224

73

1,656

207

4,120

EN

CWest

7, 8

3

—

2

1

2

—

5

3,497

811

446

5,002

1,572

UM

CEast

16

1,163

75

209

3,258

128

4,833

UM

CWest

9

185

51

48

1,350

34

1,668

UM

CWest

10

312

15

112

160

9

608

UM

CWest

11

1,112

571

659

215

17

2,574

2,772

712

1,028

4,983

188

Subtotal

LM

Mytilus galloprovincialis

Trench

Subtotal

UM

287

LM

CEast

19

579

23

46

562

3

1,213

LM

CEast

20

1,481

66

1,297

762

8

3,614

LM

CEast

18, 19

262

—

637

991

14

1,904

LM

CWest

12

17

—

—

6

1

24

LM

CWest

13

348

9

1

135

5

498

LM

CWest

14

638

12

9

264

—

923

3,325

110

1,990

2,720

31

12,360

7,651

4,906

25,345

3,092

Subtotal TOTAL

Table 5.3, cont. Sums of the most frequent mollusk species according to periods.

11,328

9,683

8,176

6

Palynological Evidence Chryssanthi Ioakim

The aim of this paper is to present the palynological study and to provide information on the environmental situation surrounding the site of the Cave of the Cyclops from an ecological view.* The results presented in this chapter are part of an

archaeological research program directed toward the understanding of changes in cave patterns and land use in the Northern Sporades during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

Field and Laboratory Work Pollen analysis of the sediments from Trench CEast shows that the accumulation inside the cave began on a level of collapsed rocks, and the sediments were introduced mainly as detritus from the plateau and the slopes. The sediments of CEast were characterized by dark brown silty clay and brown

silt, and the depth of these levels varies from 2.30 to 2.90 m. All strata had the same inclination to the south and east, and the stratigraphy was clear. The sediment samples were collected from various levels of Trench CEast with a small corer by Prof. A. Sampson, and the radiocarbon dating was carried

*Acknowledgments should be addressed to all members of the excavation team and particularly to the director, Prof. Adamantios Sampson, for the permission to study and publish the material. Special acknowledgment should also be given to

the INSTAP Academic Press for accepting this publication, as well as to the team of editors who have undertaken the difficult task of reviewing our work.

290

CHRYSSANTHI IOAKIM

out by the National Center of Scientific Research (NSCR) “Demokritos” in Athens (see Facorellis this vol., Ch. 10). In total, 20 sediment samples from Trench CEast were analyzed for palynological evidence (Table 6.1). The collected material was treated, according to the standard palynological method, with hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) acids in order to remove carbonates and silicates, and part of the organic material was removed by hot 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH). Afterwards, particles were eliminated and sieved through a 10-µm nylon mesh. Slides were prepared using glycerin jelly as a mounting medium. The palynomorphs (pollen, terrestrial spores, and algae cysts and spores) were analyzed per sample under a binocular light transmission Nikon microscope. One or two slides of each processed sample were counted at x25 magnification according to standard procedure. For each sample, at least 300–500 pollen grains were counted besides the 67 dominant taxa that are identified (Table 6.1). The palynological results are presented as percentages in a detailed diagram (Figs. 6.1–6.4).

Sample Number

Context (Trench and Level, Rect.)

Chronology

1

CEast 16, 1

UM

2

CEast 16, 6

UM

3

CEast 16, 11

MN

4

CEast 17, 1

UM

5

CEast 17, 2

UM

6

CEast 17, 5

8283 ± 27 yr B.P., 7467–7327 B.C.

7

CEast 18, 1

LM

8

CEast 18, 2

LM

9

CEast 18, 3

UM

10

CEast 18, 6

UM

11

CEast 18, 7

UM

12

CEast 19, 6

UM

13

CEast 19, 10

Mesolithic/EN

14

CEast 20, 3

LM

15

CEast 20, 4

?

16

CEast 20, 6

LM

17

CEast 20, 7

UM

18

CEast 20, 9

?

19

CEast 20, 10

UM

20

CEast 20, 11

UM

Table 6.1. Grain counts of pollen observed in the Cave of the Cyclops.

Pollen Analysis The usual method for reconstruction the vegetational history of a region is the construction of a pollen percentage diagram (Figs. 6.1–6.4). The pollen diagram data is based on a pollen sum of total land pollen, which have been separated by groups into AP (arboreal pollen [including Hedera and Ericaceae]) and NAP (non-arboreal pollen) categories. The vertical axis of each diagram (Figs. 6.1–6.4) depicts data in stratigraphical order, and the horizontal axis represents the relative frequencies of pollen abundance. Figure 6.1 illustrates the pollen sums of the different groups, which include AP, NAP, spores of pteridophytes, and varia. In Figures 6.2–6.4 the order for the types along the top of the horizontal axis is arboreal, shrubs, herbaceous components and the ferns, according to their paleoecological significance. Lower frequencies of occurrence (