The Chora of Croton 1: The Neolithic Settlement at Capo Alfiere 9780292792876

Citation preview

The Chora of Croton 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

The Chora of Croton 1 The Neolithic Settlement at Capo Alfiere Jon Morter

Edited by John Robb

Institute of Classical Archaeology University of Texas Press, Austin

Copyright © 2010 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2010 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819 Austin, TX 78713-7819 www.utexas.edu/utpress/about/bpermission.html The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Morter, Jon. The Chora of Croton 1: the Neolithic settlement at Capo Alfiere / Jon Morter, edited by John Robb. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-292-72276-7 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Neolithic period–Italy–Crotone Region. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)–Italy– Crotone Region. 3. Crotone Region (Italy)–Antiquities. I. Robb, John. II. Title. GN776.22.I8.M67 2010 937ʹ.7–dc22 2009030694

For reasons of economy and speed, this volume has been printed from camera-ready copy furnished by ICA, which assumes full responsibility for its contents.

Cover and title page illustration: Stentinello bowl, stratum 3, Capo Alfiere. (Eve Beckweth Chavela)

In memory of Jon Morter and dedicated to Jon’s widow, Hillary, and his daughters, Kate and Clare.

Capo Alfiere, 1987 (CW)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Contents Special Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Jon Morter and Joseph Coleman Carter

Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Joseph Coleman Carter



John Robb and Domenico Marino

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv I. The Neolithic Settlement at Capo Alfiere

1. The Site of Capo Alfiere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Cultural Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Environmental Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 4. History of Research at Capo Alfiere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Stratigraphy Interpreted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6. Architectural and Structural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7. The Ceramic Assemblage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 8. Stone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 9. Miscellaneous Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 10. Organic Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 11. Local Comparative Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 12. Conclusions and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

II. Environment and Economy 13. Geomorphology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Robert L. Folk 14. Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Erika Gál 15. Faunal Analysis: Small Mammalian Bones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Zsófia Eszter Kovács 16. Archaeobotany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini III. Object Studies 17. Bone Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Erika Gál

18. Thin Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Jon Morter and Harry Iceland

(Reprint: “Notes on an Eastern Calabrian Assemblage in the Stentinello Tradition”)



(Reprint: “Four Pieces of Clay: ‘Tokens’ from Capo Alfiere, Calabria”)

19. Tokens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Jon Morter Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Special Acknowledgments The two excavation seasons at Capo Alfiere in 1987 and 1990, and the study season in 1991, were, as all of ICA’s projects in its first quarter century of existence in southern Italy, made possible by generous contributions from a number of loyal supporters. Special mention should be made of the three-year grants from the Brown Foundation of Houston and Maconda Brown O’Connor. To all, listed below, we owe a deep debt of gratitude. The book itself would never have been conceived, much less produced in its current form, were it not for the constant and inspiring initiative of the Packard

Humanities Institute. PHI has provided funding not only for the additional research necessary to turn a dissertation and related specialist studies into a coherent presentation of the site, but also for the talented staff who prepared the material for publication at the ICA offices in Austin. This is a part of a much larger project, sponsored by PHI, that makes possible the publication of archaeological research since 1974 at Metaponto and Croton in southern Italy, and Chersonesos in Crimea. Joseph Coleman Carter Director, ICA

Contributors Austin Community Foundation Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Balz, Washington, D.C. Mrs. Jane Bedichek, Scarsdale, NY Dr. Leo* and Signora Bini,* Rome Mr. Stefano Bini, Rome Mr. F. William Carr, Austin, TX Mr.* and Mrs. Joseph Coleman Carter III, Versailles, KY Mrs. Judy D. Coker, Austin, TX Professor Marian Davis,* Austin, TX Professor* and Mrs. Ronald DeFord, Austin, TX Mr. Gilbert Denman,* The Ewing Halsell Foundation, San Antonio, TX Professor Myron Dorfman,* Austin, TX Ms. Mary Patricia Dougherty, Santa Monica, CA Mr. James R. Dougherty III, Austin, TX Mr. Stephen T. Dougherty, Beeville, TX Mr. Michael Guarino, Austin, TX Mrs. Sandra Heinrichs, Austin, TX Highland Resources, Houston, TX I.B.M. (through Project Quest) Mrs. May Dougherty King,* Corpus Christi, TX Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Kruger, San Antonio, TX Mrs. Lois Ashton Larson,* Elmhurst, IL

Mr. Warren Larson, Elmhurst, IL Mr.* and Mrs. Frank McBee, Austin, TX Mrs. Barbara McCluer,* San Antonio, TX Ms. Etelka McCluer,* San Antonio, TX Professor Benjamin Dean Meritt,* Austin, TX Professor Lucy Shoe Meritt,* Austin, TX Mr. Bert Henry Michelsen,* Elmhurst, IL Mr.* and Mrs.* George S. Nalle, Jr., Austin, TX Maconda Brown O’Connor, Houston, TX Ralph S. O’Connor, Houston, TX Oryx Energy Company, Dallas, TX The David and Lucille Packard Foundation, Palo Alto, CA The Potts Sibley Foundation, Austin, TX Mr. Philip Schaefer, Darien, CT Ms. Johanna Smith, Oak Hill, TX Texas Eastern, Houston, TX Texas Tradewinds Travel, Austin, TX Mr. Ben F. Vaughan, Jr.,* Corpus Christi, TX Mr. and Mrs. Ben F. Vaughan III, Austin, TX Ms. Genevieve Vaughn, Austin, TX The Washington Post Matching Gifts Program Mr. and Mrs. William Willis, Austin, TX Col. Haskell Zipperman,* San Antonio

*deceased

x

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments This opus benefited greatly from the diverse input of all of the members of my dissertation committee, and I would like to thank them for their efforts on my behalf, both in this instance and in the past. I am particularly indebted to Professor James A. Neely, who oversaw the production of this tome and my graduate career in general, and to Professor Joseph C. Carter for inviting me to work at Capo Alfiere, giving me the freedom to set the course of the excavations and the support necessary to carry the work to completion. It is also pleasant to have this opportunity to extend my gratitude to friends and colleagues in Calabria who facilitated the project over the course of several seasons, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, Superintendent of Antiquities for Calabria, and Dottor Roberto Spadea

in his capacity as Inspector at Crotone, and prehistorians Dott. Domenico Marino and Dott. Giuseppe Nicoletti. Additionally, I must thank the floral and faunal specialists in Rome, Dott. Lorenzo Costantini and Dott. Salvatore Scali for their contributions to the project. Finally, recognizing that the results I am presenting here are actually the fruits of the labors of a cast of dozens, I would like to thank all those who dug at Capo Alfiere, with special appreciation to site supervisors David Brown (1987) and Marina Markantonatos (1990); to Juana Ibáñez, the lab supervisor; to geomorphologist Jim Abbott; and to artist/ architect Eve Beckwith, many of whose drawings grace these pages. Jon Morter, Austin, 1992

As in any large, complex undertaking such as this book and the excavation that preceded it—a two-part operation stretching over two decades—many people were involved and deserve our thanks. The list that follows cannot be comprehensive due to the many years intervening. Nonetheless, an attempt is made here to recall those who contributed their time, talents, and resources to this archaeological project.

Lattanzi for her unflagging interest in this work and her constant encouragement over the years. To Dottoressa Lattanzi’s successor, Pier Giovanni Guzzo, our thanks are also extended. The site of Capo Alfiere in 1987 was a grain field under cultivation. In addition to the legalities of the state, the assent of the landowners was required before excavation could start. The owners were proud and independent Calabrians, of a people who had faced centuries of incursions by Goths, Byzantines, Normans, and Saracens; they would not allow lightly a troop of foreign, trowelwielding archaeologists to enter their domain. Moreover, the property consisted of nine narrow parallel strips of land owned by nine different family members, each with a variety of differing interests. From the outset they commanded our respect. Were it not for the timely intervention of Francesco Crugliano— affectionately known as “Zi’ Ciu” (Zio Francesco)— the honorary inspector of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici per la Calabria, the crucial assent in all likelihood would never have been obtained. Negotiations went on for three days while spirits veered between hope and despair. Zi’ Ciu’s enthusiasm, energy, and finely honed powers of persuasion won out in the end, saving the day and the site. Permission was obtained to occupy the location for two months during the summer of 1987 (it was renewed again in 1990), with compensation for the lost crop. The dramatic days leading up

The Excavation To Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, Soprintendente Archaeologica della Calabria, we owe the original invitation made in 1983 to participate in pioneering research in this vast, archaeologically rich, and comparatively little-known region of southern Italy. Her consistent support thereafter resulted in official concessions from the Ministero dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali. These concessions have been renewed annually from 1983 to the present and have allowed us to carry out several projects. The first was an intensive survey in the chora of ancient Croton, a territory of some 250 km 2 stretching from the modern city of Crotone in the northeast to the Tacina valley in the south, including Capo Colonna. Two more projects, both in the area of the survey, were carried out from 1987 to 1991: the excavation of the site of Capo Alfiere, the subject of this book, and the excavation of the site of Torre Bugiafro, a Greek farm near the modern town of Isola Capo Rizzuto. We are grateful to Dottoressa

xi

Jon Morter and Joseph Coleman Carter to the arrival of the team on the site and the opening of the excavation in June of 1987 will be remembered by this writer as among the more intense spent in the cause of archaeology in southern Italy. A project that began doubtfully finished in glory, thanks to the fortunate choice of this site and the stellar performance of the successive teams under the direction of Jon Morter. They consisted of student volunteers, specialists in various aspects of investigation and documentation, and a distinguished group of consultants, whose names are recorded below. The Publication The idea of publishing Jon Morter’s dissertation had been in the minds of his friends and colleagues since the time of his tragic death in May 1997. His good friend John Robb and I began to formulate a plan in 2006, and work began in 2007. Besides the original work, we decided to include the archaeological study of the site by Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini, as well as the archaeozoological study that was begun by Sándor Bökönyi in 1990. These had been integral parts of the original research plan, but the studies were not ready in time for Morter to make full use of them. Both of these distinguished specialists had participated in the excavation, but Bökönyi died on Christmas Day 1994 before producing a manuscript. Costantini and Costantini Biasini refined and greatly expanded the original study of the preserved plant remains. Erika Gál and Zsofa Kovács, with encouragement from László Bartosiewicz, Bökönyi’s pupil and intellectual heir, undertook what were essentially new studies of the faunal remains. John Robb’s contribution has been indispensable from the beginning. Having participated in the ex-

cavation in 1990 at Jon Morter’s right hand, Robb is now an internationally renowned prehistorian and active researcher on the Neolithic in southern Italy. His careful editing of the manuscript, which he updated with precise and informed footnotes without altering Jon Morter’s original text, has given this work a greater than anticipated degree of relevance to the field today. His guidance and judgment are present in every chapter and aspect of the final product. The enthusiastic participation of these and other members of the original team has been decisive in the creation of this study. This includes Robert Folk with his study of the geology of the site and its surrounding region, as well as Christopher Williams, our photographer. The quality of the illustrations owes everything to Chris Williams’ photography, Eve Beckwith’s drawings, and Deena Berg’s production. The reconstruction diagrams, catalog creation, maps, and overall layout are Berg’s. As an archaeologist, she set her goal to explain, and her gift as graphic artist in the digital age has resulted in illustrations that, while faithful to originals, go far beyond them in bringing the site and its materials to colorful life. We are grateful to the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology (JMA) for permission to reprint Jon Morter’s article on the Neolithic tokens from Capo Alfiere, to the Techna Group and Harry Iceland for his coauthored piece with Morter on thin-section analysis, to Sellerio Editore for permission to reproduce drawings by Vincenzo Tusa, and to Albert Ammerman for drawings from his 1985 article, “Early Italian Pottery.” Joseph Coleman Carter Director, ICA Austin, 2008

Publication Team and Consultants James Abbott László Bartoseiwicz Deena Berg Sandor Bökönyi Leo Carter Joseph Coleman Carter

Carol Cook Loredana Costantini Biasini Lorenzo Costantini Cesare D’Annibale Robert Folk Charles Frederick

Erika Gál Harry Iceland Pat Irwin Zsófia Eszter Kovács Giuseppe Nicholetti Dan Patrick

John Robb Salvatore Scali Salvatore Velastro Eliza Walton Chris Williams

Acknowledgments

xii

Capo Alfiere, 1987 excavation team. Jon Morter, bottom right. (CW)

Capo Alfiere, 1990 excavation team. Jon Morter, bottom right. (CW)

1987 Excavation Team Jon Morter, Field Director Jean Alvares Eve Beckwith (Chavela) David Brown Beatrice Christensen Carol Claassen Michele Clement James Coberson Susan Decker

Maria Elliott Miranda Grieder Bilen Ham Juana Ibáñez James Kolbeson Ann Patterson Kathy Weedman Chris Williams Reagan Wilson

1990 Excavation Team Jon Morter, Field Director James Abbott Eve Beckwith (Chavela) Scott Brown Charles Callaway Michele Clement Charles David Frederick Juana Ibáñez Yin Lam Domenico Marino Marina Markantonatos

Cherie Meacham John Robb Franco Scali Peter Seidensecker Sandra Simpson-Kraft J.B. Summit Sharon Thomas Susanna VanSant Joel Walker Chris Williams

Foreword Capo Alfiere and the Chora of Croton Joseph Coleman Carter

Excavating a Neolithic site in the territory of ancient Croton might seem an odd choice for the Institute of Classical Archaeology, given that ICA’s primary focus comes four millennia later, in the period of Greek and Roman occupation. The decision was, however, part of an overall research strategy that originated in ICA’s early projects in the chora of Metaponto during the mid-1970s and early 1980s. ICA’s mission as it evolved was to explore the agricultural territory (chora) surrounding the Greek colony, a subject that was then in its infancy. The first Metaponto project began in 1974 with the excavation of sites not only of the colonial period, but also precolonial at Incoronata, Roman at Pantanello (the tile factory) and San Biagio, and eventually, in 1983, a prehistoric Late Neolithic (Eneolithic) site at Pantanello. The first survey of the chora was underway at Metaponto when in 1983 a parallel survey began in the chora of ancient Croton. Excavations of selected sites there were initiated in 1987, in line with the practice at Metaponto. From the beginning, excavation in both areas aimed at recovering organic evidence of past life: plant, animal, and human remains. The philosophy that influenced these varied activities was a desire to view Greek colonization in Italy in a diachronic perspective, tracing via survey methods the spatial and chronological aspects of settlement in all periods in an area to find the evidence for past animal, plant, and human life that is essential for understanding the changing settlement pattern. This interdisciplinary approach to the chora began with our first joint research project, a collaboration with paleobotanist Lorenzo Costantini in 1978 at Pantanello, and it grew from there. At the University of Texas in the 1980s I found colleagues in other fields—Robert Folk, Ernest Lundelius, Karl Butzer, and Maciej Henneberg— for whom both archaeology and this approach were congenial, and in the case of Butzer, second nature. Geology with Folk and geomorphology with Butzer’s

students, Jim Abbott and Paul Lehman, became part of the mix. And not only did the ICA approach become interdisciplinary, it also became international. The participation of Lorenzo Costantini, followed by Sándor Bökönyi and others, brought both an increased geographical range of experience and of new comparisons—particularly regarding the Near East and Central Europe—and a variety of perspectives to our work that was constantly stimulating. This is the research model that ICA adapted in 1992 for use in exploring the chora of Chersonesos in Crimea. This collaboration with colleagues in related disciplines was very informal. The sharing of ideas and excitement attracted students, and among them was Jon Morter. At our first meeting in 1984, Jon asked me to speak at a colloquium for anthropology graduate students. I eventually persuaded him to change his geographical area of focus from Turkey to southern Italy. Throughout the rest of the decade and into the 1990s, Jon worked for ICA as a researcher and as field director of excavations, first at the Pantanello necropolis in 1986. His talent was immediately apparent. By 1986 the results of the intensive field survey at Croton had begun to rival in importance those from Metaponto in terms of numbers and significance of possible sites found. Under the expert guidance of Cesare D’Annibale, nearly 500 sites, ranging in date from Neolithic to early Medieval, had been located in the approximately 30 km 2 of the study area. It was time to begin sampling sites of the various periods through excavation in order to refine our knowledge of the pottery and types of occupations. In view of Jon’s long interest in prehistory, as well as his excitement about the surface pottery finds from the Capo Alfiere site, it seemed logical to begin there. It was understood from the first that Capo Alfiere would be the subject of Jon’s dissertation. From 1987 onward the excavation and the writing of the dissertation was Jon’s principal focus, but his contributions to ICA’s other research programs continued apace. He directed the renewed survey at Metaponto from 1992 to 1994.

xiv

Foreword

His last excavation with an ICA team was in the chora of Chersonesos in Crimea in 1995. The excavation at Capo Alfiere and Jon’s dissertation were the first steps and sadly the last of a brilliant career in Italian prehistory that was cut short in his fortieth year, just as he was finishing his first year as professor of anthropology at Charleston College in South Carolina. His colleagues John Robb and Domenico Marino, better qualified than I to discuss the significance of his contribution to Italian prehistory, do so in the introduction that follows.

In the roughly ten years that Jon was associated with ICA, he left an indelible and profound mark on our institution. It is fair to say that the experience and the contacts he made enriched his work. It is not an accident that the Capo Alfiere project was the first Neolithic excavation in southern Italy in which paleobotany and archaeozoology played integral roles, which were closely coordinated by Jon in all phases of the excavation. Jon and the ICA team grew together. He remains in our minds and hearts.

Capo Alfiere, 1987. Left, David Brown; right, Jon Morter. (CW)

Introduction John Robb and Domenico Marino

Editorial Thoughts John Robb Jon Morter’s sudden death was tragic for all those who knew him. This volume is dedicated to Jon and, as was his original Ph.D. thesis, to his daughters, Kate and Clare Morter, and to his wife, Hillary Hutchinson. We wish also to remember his parents, Ron and Margaret Morter, and hope that in this book they may understand the high professional and personal esteem in which their son was held by his peers and friends. Yet an academic work cannot be published simply as a fond tribute, however sincerely felt and however worthy the memorial. Capo Alfiere is an extraordinary archaeological site with important implications for the Mediterranean Neolithic. What is more, it had the fortune—all too rare—of being dug by an archaeologist who merited an extraordinary site, who cared about the site, and who excavated it thoughtfully and well. We cannot claim that we are publishing Capo Alfiere as knowledgeably and thoroughly as Jon Morter would have done; but not to publish it at all would be a great loss. In preparing this posthumous work, we had at our disposal Jon’s doctoral thesis—a clear and well-reasoned site report—and a large but not comprehensive archive of site records, drawings, and photographs. Many analyses and inventories were inevitably incomplete; Jon’s postdoctoral years were busy ones with many other commitments, and at the time of his death he was only beginning to reconsider the Capo Alfiere materials and their publication. For example, all materials besides ceramics and daub were inventoried fully, and strategic sampling of the pottery allowed Jon to lay clear its fundamental nature; but the task of compiling a single comprehensive inventory of all finds was still to be done. We have attempted to complete these tasks, and we think the present volume needs no apologies; it is a rare testament that the site can be published posthumously in as full a form as most Mediterranean prehistoric sites ever attain.

The principal item we lack, more than any inventory or analysis, is Jon Morter’s knowledge and insight into Capo Alfiere. Nobody understands a site like its excavator. This raises the issue of editorial policy. Jon’s text has weathered the sixteen years since he wrote it better than most site reports and almost all doctoral dissertations would have done. Yet, inevitably, in re-reading Jon’s text, we encountered many points that Jon certainly would have changed for publication. The field has moved on considerably since he wrote his text in 1992; new specialist reports are now available for Capo Alfiere, there has been much new research at other sites, and general theoretical orientations in archaeology have shifted. He frequently posed questions to which we now know the answer, he sometimes uses information now known to be wrong, and in places he engages with questions that have been resolved or now seem dated. Hence an editorial dilemma: do we amend his text in a way that reflects what he might have done in light of the current state of knowledge, or do we leave it as he penned it? After reflection, we decided it was better to leave Jon’s original text, aside from minor edits for the sake of clarity. He wrote informed by a knowledge of the site that nobody else possessed, and we feared that in “improving” the text we might introduce errors or inconsistencies and obscure nuances that might yield insights into how he understood Capo Alfiere. Moreover, texts possess integrality; if one adds more-recent data to a table, one has to then modify the text discussing it, which means modifying the general interpretation of the topic, and potentially, the entire understanding of the site. We had no wish to see Jon’s original text unravel to be replaced by a new creation informed by a secondhand knowledge of the site. Our solution, therefore, is commentary and annotation. In this introduction, we provide a brief summary of Capo Alfiere’s local context, of work in the area since 1992, and of some salient points of inter-

xvi

Introduction

pretation that highlight the site’s continuing importance. In the text itself, where there are points that require correction, or are confirmed, complemented or contradicted by more-recent information, this is discussed in a footnote signed with the editorial initials. We have complemented Jon’s text with supplementary studies from published and archive sources, new specialist studies, photos, drawings, data tables, and a catalog based upon images in the ICA Capo Alfiere archive. The Neolithic of the Crotone Area Domenico Marino The context for Capo Alfiere is the region between the Esaro river to the north and the valley of the Dragone to the west, bounded on the south and east by the Ionian sea. This area consists of a series of low plains and hills upon which ecological and social conditions have maintained a stable economic regime of cereal growing and pastoralism since the agricultural reforms of the 1950s. The rivers of the area are seasonal torrents; the climate is a temperate Ionian-Adriatic one. The Sila Massif to the north modifies the dry, cold north and northeastern winds of winter and leads to winter as well as autumnal rainfall. From other quarters, the western ponente and the southwestern libeccio are dry, while the southern scirocco, the northeastern grecale and the eastern levante bear moisture. Overall, the region is hot and arid, with abundant autumn rains, adequate winter rains, and almost no rain (less than 15 cm) between spring and summer. The following section, based upon long-term research on the Neolithic of the Crotone area (Marino 1983, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1998), summarizes the local context for Capo Alfiere. Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic The Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic are known from surface finds and incidental finds during other excavations. At Gravina, on the promontory of Crotone, lithic tools were found during excavation of a Hellenistic habitation in a context probably disturbed either by recent building works or by a 16th century well. In contrast, at the Castello of Crotone on the hill where the Classical Acropolis stands, the lithic assemblage was probably recovered in situ. Both sites revealed a geometric lithic industry with blade segments similar to that of the upper-middle Level L of the Grotta della Madonna at Praia a Mare. At the location

Semaforo di Campione, in a hilly area about 150 m above sea level, a lithic industry was found characterized by small dimensions, with abundant denticulates and few geometric tools. Here the relevant comparison is with the Mesolithic level I of the Grotta della Madonna. The presence of Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic sites in the area of dense Neolithic settlement, and particularly the coincidence of site location with some Neolithic sites, implies a possible continuity of settlement between the two periods. Neolithic Settlement of the Crotone Area Surface surveys have revealed numerous Neolithic sites around Crotone in recent years, both with “archaic” Impressed Wares and with Stentinello pottery. The distinction between the two styles is typological. “Archaic” Impressed Wares are characterized by an absence of geometric decoration, while Stentinello Wares feature geometric decorations, often quite elaborate. Stentinello Wares are found throughout the area from the promontory of Crotone in the north to Soverito and the Cutro terrace in the southwest. In the territory of Crotone, Neolithic settlements seem to be located preferentially at the margins of small, level marine terraces at various altitudes. These level zones are separated by a series of valleys that radiate inland from the coast. These valleys constitute natural borders from the various “territories” occupied by the Neolithic sites, and they form the best route of access to the sea, even for the higher inland sites. Sites are generally close to the coast, with most sites within two km of the sea and almost all within four km, or about an hour of walking. Southwest of Capo Colonna, a large number of sites are found inland of Capo Alfiere. The distance between sites of this group is sometimes less than 200 m. Given that at Capo Alfiere itself several phases of occupation are found, it is possible that sites very closely spaced may demonstrate a prolonged occupation of a single community gradually moving laterally over time. Neolithic settlements in the Crotone area occupy wide terraces upon which reddish Pleistocene sands offer permeable soils, easily drained and worked and well suited for Neolithic agriculture. The open position of Neolithic sites shows little concern with defense and the control of territory. Social groups were clearly homogeneous and closely related. The inner highland, centered on the Lago di Sant’ Anna, does not seem to contain Neolithic sites, in

John Robb and Domenico Marino spite of the excellent agricultural potential of its soils and abundant water. This area corresponds generally to the territory occupied by woodlands—particularly oaks—until the agricultural reforms of the 1950s. Neolithic peoples may have considered this area as a collective resource for uses other than settlement. Neolithic Lowland Sites Only one site in central and southern Calabria has been investigated stratigraphically, and hence data on internal site organization is almost completely lacking. Many other sites, however, are known. Site dimensions vary; this may reflect either functional differences among sites or, perhaps, the lateral movement of sites gradually over time. Among the Crotone sites, the site of Vrica is notable, located on a terrace south of Crotone 160 m above sea level with a surface area of about a hectare. On this wide area at least eleven concentrations of material— daub, pottery, lithics, and faunal remains—have been found that probably correspond to houses. These may not, however, have all been occupied contemporaneously. Interestingly, obsidian was found in only five concentrations, with polished stone axes and chisels found only at one site. This may indicate chronological or functional differences between households. Only one Neolithic site has been excavated in the Crotone area—Capo Alfiere—on which work was performed by the Institute of Classical Archaeology under Joseph Coleman Carter, with site direction by Jon Morter. The most significant result of the initial 1987 season was the identification of a large wall in sandstone slabs, which delimits a portion of a structure, although the original size cannot be determined. A considerable area of cobbled pavement was found, along with a house floor with postholes around its perimeter; the large wall seemed to enclose the area of the hut. The site’s original extent has been reduced by erosion, plowing and recent buildings (some illegal), and it is difficult to estimate how much the site extended beyond Morter’s excavations. As Morter notes, the Capo Alfiere structures bear comparison with the Sicilian sites of Serra del Palco and Piano Vento. Other results followed during the 1990 campaign (in which this writer participated), particularly the identification of an earlier Neolithic occupation with remains of a cobbled surface. Surface collections by the present writer found numerous daub fragments with the impressions of squarish beams, often up to

xvii

5 cm in diameter. In one case there were clear signs of the cords used to tie beams together; in other cases there are reed impressions, and some bear a smoothed surface. Hence we must hypothesize at least one wattle-and-daub structure now destroyed. Underwater Neolithic Sites A distinct possibility exists in the Crotone area that there are coastal sites now submerged beneath the ocean. It is known that the coastline has shifted significantly over the ages, through both general sea level rise and local subsidence. The coastal margin of the Crotone peninsula is particularly fragile. Environmental studies have shown that, over the last 80–100 years, erosion has caused a retreat of up to 150 m of the external edge of the peninsula and a lowering of the outside margin of the terraces by as much as 8 m. From this, and from the evidence below, it is clear that Capo Alfiere and other “coastal” sites would not have been on the coast during the Neolithic occupation. Recent underwater research by this writer has located Neolithic remains at Le Castella (Isola di Capo Rizzuto). Here a rectangular structure outlined by at least nine circular holes cut into the flat rock surface is visible 4–5 m below the present sea level. There is a large grinding stone present, similar to that found in the hut at Capo Alfiere, along with Stentinello pottery and obsidian. Sea level changes are attested here also by numerous quarries for blocks and columns of stone dating to the Classical period (between the 6th and 4th centuries BC), at depths between 3 and 7 m. Beyond the shore, there are numerous wide submerged reefs along the coast south of Crotone that were originally small islands. Like the modern promontories, these have been progressively eroded and submerged. Remains of structures dating to late antiquity (around the 7th century AD) demonstrate that they were above water throughout the prehistoric period. It is unknown whether they may have been visited during the Neolithic. Highland Neolithic Sites Besides these habitation sites, other Neolithic sites are known from findings of obsidian, particularly in the inland mountains. One of the most probable routes in central and southern Calabria for the trade in obsidian from Lipari runs across the peninsula at the Catanzaro gap. This constitutes the shortest pathway —about 30 km as the crow flies—between the Tyr-

xviii

Introduction

rhenian and Ionian coasts. In Central Calabria, obsidian and associated flint industries have been found at Timpa del Gigante (Cotronei), above 1,050 m in the mountainous heart of the Sila Massif, as well as around the Late Neolithic site of Lago Cecita, above 1,140 m. These findings are situated on routes connecting the Ionic and Tyrrhenian coasts, and showed that Neolithic people frequented inland as well as coastal areas. The raw materials for the axes of Capo Alfiere came from the Sila Massif as well, though it is possible that these varied types of rock were found near the coast where they may have been transported in the major rivers, the Neto and the Tacina. Recent Research on the Calabrian Neolithic John Robb Knowledge of the Neolithic in Calabria has grown enormously over the last two decades. A survey of prehistoric sites in 1978 lists nine Neolithic sites (Radmilli 1978). A recent survey of Neolithic sites (Fugazzola Delpino et al. 2004) lists 289, without including a number of additional known sites. However, the vast majority of these sites are surface finds, many of which have not been the subject of professional attention and most of which are poorly dated. Only twenty Neolithic sites have been excavated at all, and eight of these consist of Neolithic or possibly Neolithic remains (often a few flakes of obsidian) found during excavation of sites of other periods ranging from Classical to Paleolithic. Hence only thirteen Neolithic sites have been excavated in Calabria to any real degree. These fall in clusters. Five are from Northern Calabria, principally the Sibari plain and its adjoining hills (Grotta San Michele, Grotta Sant’Angelo, Grotta della Madonna, Grotta della Monaca, and Favella); five are scattered in Central Calabria (Lago di Cecita, Capo Alfiere, Corazzo, Girifalco, and Piano di Curinga); and three are clustered in southern Aspromonte (Umbro, Penitenzeria, Castello di Bova). Knowledge of these sites is summarized briefly in Table I.1 It is significant that only four of these sites had been excavated and published in 1992 (Grotta Sant’Angelo III, Favella, Grotta della Madonna, 1

See Fugazzola Delpino, et al. 2004 for references; also Ammerman 1979, 1985, 1987, 1988; Ammerman et al. 1988; Cardosa 1996; La Rocca 2005; Lucifero 1901; Marino 1993; Natali 2004; Robb 2004, 2007; S. Tinè 1962a, 1962b, 1964, 1986, 1988; V. Tinè 2004, forthcoming; V. Tinè and Natali 2005; V. Tinè, personal communication; M. Cardosa, personal communication; A. Coscarella, personal communication; D. Marino, personal communication.

Piana di Curinga); and for Favella and Grotta della Madonna, our knowledge has been greatly broadened by recent reopening of the excavations. Thus, there is now a much greater regional context for Capo Alfiere than there was when Jon Morter was writing. Pottery, Chronology, and Regions This expansion of research provides a much more detailed picture of the cultural-historical framework than was available to Morter. The framework developed by S. Tinè in the early 1960s, based on excavations in northern Calabria, posited a general development from Impressed Wares through a sequence of painted wares (bichromes, trichromes, and Serra d’Alto) and finally to Diana Wares. This sequence paralleled that in Puglia and Basilicata, as well as that established in the preceding decade by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier on Lipari, which was the first stratified Neolithic sequence excavated in Sicily. Stentinello Wares were slotted into this scheme in various ways. In one version (shown, for example, in the public display at the Museo Nazionale di Reggio Calabria, following S. Tinè’s scheme and the Lipari sequence), Stentinello Wares are considered a local version of Impressed Wares, and hence Early Neolithic. In contrast, Morter, influenced by Sicilian debates over the presence of a pre-Stentinello phase at Grotta dell’Uzzo, saw Stentinello Wares as a Middle Neolithic ware, following an Early Neolithic Impressed Ware. At the time Morter was writing, Whitehouse had challenged Tinè’s ceramic sequence for Puglia on methodological and conceptual grounds deriving from New Archaeology, and it was coming to be acknowledged that it might not fit southern Calabria and Sicily. Morter himself makes these points, but a clear alternative picture had not yet been defined. Thanks in part to three new projects providing radiocarbon dates (Acconia, Bova Marina, and Capo Alfiere itself), it became apparent that there is a sharp division between northern Calabria and central and southern Calabria. Northern Calabria follows the Puglia–Basilicata–Campania sequence closely, but in central and southern Calabria, Stentinello Wares were used for a long span of time encompassing most or all of the 6th millennium BC and the first half of the 5th millennium BC—in other words, all of the Early and Middle Neolithic. They were followed by Diana Wares at approximately the same time as elsewhere in

John Robb and Domenico Marino

Site

xix

Description

Grotta della Monaca Sant’Agata di Esaro

Cave site. Ongoing excavations by L. La Rocca and colleagues (Bari). Copper and Bronze Age exploitation of minerals and ores (perhaps as sources of colorants) in a deep, winding cave. Neolithic occupation with hearths and painted pottery attested near the mouth of the cave; may have been frequented for the same purposes.

Grotta San Michele di Saracena (408)

Cave site in hills above plain of Sibari. Ongoing excavations by V. Tinè. Ceramic sequence: Impressed Ware, bande rosse bichrome wares, trichrome wares, Serra d’Alto, Diana, Macchia a Mare—Zinzulusa—Spatarella, Eneolithic, Bronze Age. Habitation site. Excavations have revealed Diana-period hearths and postholes.

Grotta Sant’Angelo III di Cassano Ionio (379)

Cave site in hills above plain of Sibari. Excavations by S. Tinè. Ceramic sequence: bande rosse bichrome wares, trichrome wares, Serra d’Alto, and Diana. Habitation and possibly ritual site. The first deeply stratified Neolithic site excavated stratigraphically in Calabria, it established the basic sequence for northern Calabria, which was until recently taken as general to the entire region.

Favella (382)

Open-air lowland habitation site in plain of Sibari. Excavations by S. Tinè in early 1960s, resumed by V. Tinè. Ceramic sequence: Impressed Wares, Serra d’Alto, Diana, and Macchia a Mare–Zinzulus–Spatarella phases. Most structures date to earlier phases. Numerous pits of uncertain purpose and burials. Abundant daub for houses; none found in situ. Economy heavily dependent upon domesticated plants and animals.

Grotta della Madonn Praia a Mare (391)

Cave habitation site on Tyrrhenian coast of northern Calabria. Early excavations by Blanc and Cardini reopened by Museo Pigorini (Fugazzola Delpino, V. Tinè, and colleagues). Ceramic sequence: Bande rosse bichrome wares, trichromes, Serra d’Alto, Diana, and Macchia a Mare–Zinzulus–Spatarella phases. Stratigraphy from Mesolithic to present. Original excavations confirmed northern Calabrian sequence known from the Grotta Sant’Angelo III. Neolithic levels from re-excavations are now beginning to be published.

Lago Cecita

Late Neolithic (Diana) open-air site, on edge of lake in Sila highlands. Ongoing excavations by D. Marino.

Capo Alfiere (430)

Stentinello site on coastal terrace near Crotone, excavated by J. Morter and team from Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Texas (1987, 1990). Open-air site with hut, paved surfaces, and large enclosure wall; economy heavily reliant upon domesticates (see further details in this volume).

Corazzo di Soverito (498)

Open-air site on coastal plain of Isola di Capo Rizzuto near Crotone, with Stentinello and Diana phases. Small test excavations by A. Geniola and D. Marino.

Girifalco (345)

Diana-period funerary site in hills of central Calabria, south of Catanzaro. Lucifero (1901) reports antiquarian finds of Diana vessels and polished-stone tools as grave goods in small cist tombs, apparently containing multiple burials; one skull preserved in Crotone museum and objects displayed in Reggio museum. Dated to Diana period by vessel style and tomb style, but excavation details and date are sketchy.

Piano di Curinga

Open-air area of coastal sand dunes in Acconia, Piano di Curinga, near southern edge of plain of Lamezia. Extensive survey, geophysical prospection, and small excavations by A. Ammerman in 1980s. Ceramic sequence from unstratified sites: Stentinello and Diana phases. Settlement pattern apparently of dispersed wattle-and-daub huts; economy based upon domesticates; significant involvement in obsidian trade (Ammerman argues for specialized processing sites at landfall for boats coming from Lipari via Stromboli).

Umbro, Bova Marina

Rock shelter site in hilly lowlands on south coast of Aspromonte, excavated by J. Robb (1998–2001). Ceramic sequence: Stentinello and Diana phases, spanning early 6th through mid-5th millennium bc. Apparently small special-function site with no sign of houses; perhaps used seasonally for storage, herding, pottery-making.

Penitenzeria, Bova Marina

Open-air site on level terrace in hilly lowlands on south coast of Aspromonte, excavated by J. Robb (2000– 2003). Ceramic sequence: small Diana component; principal occupation is Stentinello, dated to later 6th millennium bc. Economy apparently based on domesticates; lithic industry heavily based upon obsidian; settlement apparently dispersed in small sites; presence of houses indicated by daub, but none in situ.

Castello di Bova (523)

Small terrace just below the peak of the Castello of Bova. Small excavations by Soprintendenza Archeologica della Calabria, directed by M. Cardosa, and in ongoing Medieval excavations by A. Coscarella. Finds suggest principal Neolithic occupation in Stentinello phase and demonstrate presence of typical Neolithic material culture. Stratigraphy disturbed by Classical and substantial Medieval and modern occupation.

Table I Neolithic excavations in Calabria. Numbers in parentheses are site numbers in Fugazzola Delpino et al. 2004.

xx

Introduction

southern Italy. In these regions, painted wares always remain a scarce minority, and it is still not entirely clear whether there was an initial phase of pre-Stentinello Impressed Wares. Ironically, therefore, Capo Alfiere remains a Middle Neolithic site, as Morter designated it, but for entirely different reasons. Stentinello Wares are not specifically Middle Neolithic pottery, as Morter thought; they are both the Early and Middle Neolithic ceramics in the area. However, the radiocarbon dates for Capo Alfiere place it in the later part of the Stentinello sequence, with the later occupation at Capo Alfiere close to the end of the period. In a larger purview, this confirms the regionalism of Neolithic pottery. On the largest scale, there are distinct Neolithic sequences for the peninsular southern Italy and for Sicily–Calabria. To some extent this reflects the fact that Calabria is an artificial geographic entity, a political construction. The tip of the peninsula is mountainous and impenetrable; for much of prehistory and early history, southern Calabria had much more in common with eastern Sicily than with northern Calabria. Yet even within each sequence, there is regional diversity. There are suggestions that the Stentinello style may have had a different history within Calabria than it did within Sicily, and it is now apparent that the Lipari sequence, rather than being typical of the region as was assumed for many years, is a unique hybrid mixing elements from several areas. Capo Alfiere: A Living Community Capo Alfiere can be seen in much sharper social focus now, because of both burgeoning research throughout southern Italy and recent theoretical developments that emphasize the social context of material culture (see Robb 2007 for a recent synthesis). In some ways, Capo Alfiere reveals a site with material culture typical of the Neolithic, not only for Calabria but also for much of southern Italy. As elsewhere, the economy appears overwhelmingly based upon domesticated grains and animals, though there are some important differences: the high presence of pulses and barley, and the use of acorns, for example. The use of marine resources at Capo Alfiere remains doubtful. On the one hand, in spite of the intensive flotation program, few fish bones were recovered, a situation mirrored in many other Neolithic sites as well as in stable-

isotope analyses of human bone which show little use of seafoods. On the other hand, a relatively large number of shells—not quantified, but probably well over 1,000 pieces (E. Gàl, personal communication)—may suggest use of shellfish. Although shellfish leave durable and obvious remains, they provide only a small amount of nutrition, so the dietary contribution these shells represent may not have been great; shell was also used as raw materials for tools and ornaments. The use of chipped stone tools follows widespread Neolithic patterns—a relatively minimal blade-based industry with few formal tools. As we would expect, given that Lipari was the major obsidian source in the region, the use of obsidian is much higher at Capo Alfiere than in sites to the north and east, and lower than at sites to the south and west. The increase in obsidian use through the Neolithic, seen in changes between the earlier and later occupations at the site, is also seen regionally. Both pottery styles and obsidian emphasize a connection with neighbors to the south rather than to the north, suggesting perhaps that the “Stentinello” phenomenon may have had some social reality beyond that of an abstract pottery style. As Morter notes, microvariation is ubiquitous in Stentinello pottery. In Bova Marina, this is seen in the contrast between the way bowls were decorated at Penitenzeria and at Umbro, a site only 200 m away but dating to one or a few centuries earlier. Capo Alfiere displays the same characteristic of having a handful of basic pottery designs that constitute the core of a local corpus reproduced with minor variations in many vessels. While Stentinello wares can be divided typologically into five or six regional substyles, it is useful also to view this variability as a result of the social processes, in particular the perpetuation of learning networks among small, widely spaced communities of potters. Morter’s emphasis upon the visual qualities of pottery remains pioneering today, for instance in his treatment of the role of aesthetics of color in influencing the potter’s choices. Moreover, Capo Alfiere is one of very few sites where it has been possible to characterize change within a style, and it adds weight to the argument that Diana wares emerged through a process of convergence as potters selected Diana-like traits such as undecorated surfaces, burnishing, and red surface color from their existing repertory. Capo Alfiere has a rich assemblage of small finds. Some items are curiosities of unknown significance,

xxi

John Robb and Domenico Marino Event

Stratum

Pavement and small wall constructed

Stratum I

Use life of earlier occupation

Stratum I

Complex of large wall, pavement, and hut with hearth and querns inside, constructed

Stratum IIa

Use life of house

Stratum IIa

Conventional Calibration

Bayesian Calibration

5230–4570 bc, animal bone

4782–4370 bc

4681–4385 bc, ash in hearth

4588–4344 bc

4559–4222 bc, charcoal associated with burning

4450–4244 bc

Two fine pots smashed upon pavement before filling/leveling, perhaps as intentional deposit Area leveled for reuse; packed-earth floor inset with smaller quern constructed

Stratum IIb

Area burnt Wall collapse and tumble

Stratum II rubble

Two pits dug into tumble; pits have burnt sides and may have been used as strutture di combustione (or earth ovens)

Stratum IIc

4369–4040 bc, charcoal in pit

4342–4048 bc

Abandonment and formation of soil above tumbled levels

Stratum IIc

4240–3490 bc

4351–3788 bc

Table II Sequence of habitational events at Capo Alfiere with Bayesian calibrations of dates.

e.g., sharks’ teeth, also found in small numbers at Neolithic sites throughout southern Italy. The clay “tokens” are unique, but may be akin to small, often highly schematized figurines from Neolithic sites; examples are known from both Favella and Penitenzeria. While both disc-like shell beads and long, tapering dentalium beads occur elsewhere, Capo Alfiere yielded a high number of these relative to other southern Italian Neolithic sites. Perhaps bead manufacture was a local speciality, based upon patchily available local resources. As Morter noted, the shoreline has changed since the Neolithic, but even today many stretches of the Calabrian coast are surprisingly poor in shellfish. A similar consideration holds for the site’s polished-stone axes. Capo Alfiere conforms to the widespread common pattern that axes found on habitation sites are typically broken, reused, and discarded, while axes from surface finds and from carefully constructed contexts are whole and often unused. This underlines the unique nature of the cache of five stone axes found near the large wall at Capo Alfiere. Morter suggested that these were axes of local central Calabrian stone, regarded as important valuables and cached until they could be traded. This idea seems very likely and emphasizes the site as a visited location where trade took place. We may see Capo Alfiere as the coastal hub of

a small, dense community occupying a broad, fertile coastal plain, utilizing local resources for trade and located near an important landfall, near where transpeninsular routes through the Catanzaro isthmus met the coastal navigation route. Finally, there is the architecture, the acknowledged pièce de résistance of the Capo Alfiere excavations. Although Morter inclines towards internal explanations for the unusual features of the site—for instance, in noting that the visually impressive aspects of the wall were directed inwards—the reconstruction above may provide a context for the massive wall enclosing the pavement and hut. Some aspects of the architecture give an immediate feeling of human, inhabited space: for example, the carefully constructed setting in the center of the hut of a hearth, with the grinding stone inset into the pavement next to it to take advantage of light and warmth, and a small patch of clay paving to provide a smooth, comfortable surface to kneel upon. One direction of future research at the site may be spatial analysis of finds to add depth to the sense of occupation. Capo Alfiere: Time Span Revisited What is also striking, and which adds considerable life to the reconstruction of the site, is the sheer busy-

xxii

Introduction

ness of the site in a relatively compressed time span. If we translate the stratigraphy of the complex Harris matrix (see Chapter 5, Fig. 5.1) into a sequence of social events, we can see how many things happened in a single place within a few hundred years (Table II).2 A development since Morter’s writing is the technique of Bayesian calibration, which converts a stratigraphic sequence into a true microhistory (Bayliss and Whittle 2007). In the case of Capo Alfiere, where the dates overlap considerably, Bayesian calibration can narrow the intervals. This refinement is not sufficient to create a genuine microhistory: the interval between the use of the hearth and the construction of new fill and pavement above it shrinks from at most 459 years to at most 344 years. Nonetheless, this could still represent a use life for the hearth and structure of up to fourteen generations—certainly longer than the use life of one or two generations generally postulated for wattle-and-daub huts. Besides tightening up the general chronology, the Bayesian calibration does have two important social implications. One is to place the earlier Neolithic occupation within a somewhat later interval; this means that it precedes more directly the later Neolithic occupation, adding to the impression of continuity of occupation at a single place and making still more dramatic the shift in Stentinello pottery style and in obsidian use that Morter identified between the two levels. The other is to constrain the dates for the soil covering the house rubble and the pits dug through the rubble, placing both within the Diana period. This confirms the supposition of a Late Neolithic revisitation of the site for whatever purpose these burned pits served, and it means that this reuse of the site may have occurred no later than a century or two after the Stentinello occupation of the site, when the ruins of the large wall would still have been clearly visible and perhaps when people still held a clear memory of ancestral habitation of the place. We can see both regional and local histories in the Capo Alfiere sequence. On the small scale, there are events within the evolution of a community such as the filling and leveling of a perfectly functional cobbled pavement to replace it with another one; like the intentional burning of daub structures (also attested at Capo Alfiere though not stratigraphically positioned), 2 I am grateful to Craig Alexander for carrying out the Bayesian calibration of these dates (see the Appendix to this Introduction, below).

these may refer to specific social moments of foundation, abandonment and re-foundation. On the largest scale, this resonates with the pattern from areas as broadly separated as Lipari, Matera, and the Tavoliere in Puglia, with the Middle Neolithic as the most heavily built-up period in the Neolithic, followed by a Diana period, when long-used settlements were abandoned and, sometimes, revisited for purposes such as aggregation, feasting or burial. Appendix: Bayesian Calibration of Capo Alfiere Radiocarbon Dates John Robb and Craig Alexander Bayesian calibration is a statistical technique for interpreting radiocarbon dates that takes contextual information into account. Standard radiocarbon dates fall within an interval that is determined purely by the stochastic aspects of the counting process during radiocarbon determination; when these are calibrated using a calibration curve such as IntCal 04, they also take into account atmospheric variations through time in the reservoir of carbon-14. However, we can also constrain radiocarbon dates using information about the archaeological context. Suppose our calibrated date falls (with 95% confidence) within the interval 5200–4800 BC [cal.], but we know with certainty, upon stratigraphic grounds, that it must fall before an event dated to 5000 BC; an interval integrating the radiocarbon date and the archaeological evidence would therefore be 5200–5000 BC. The principle is similar when we have two radiocarbon dates in stratigraphic sequence, though the mathematics are more complex; instead of gauging the interval of the date being calibrated against a fixed point, we are gauging it against another radiocarbon date that we know on a priori grounds must come before or after it, and this second radiocarbon date has its own probabilistic interval within which it is likely to fall. Capo Alfiere presents a promising situation for Bayesian calibration. Of the five dates available for the site and falling within the Neolithic, the first three dates must follow each other in stratigraphic sequence; while stratigraphic relations between the last two are not clear, both must follow the first three. (The final date, from disturbed levels possibly associated with the Bell Beaker, was not used in this calibration exercise, as its context is uncertain; the goal was to understand the sequence within the Neolithic,

xxiii

John Robb and Domenico Marino and Bayesian calibration would have made little difference to its interpretation.) Bayesian calibration was carried out by C. Alexander using OxCal 4.0 with the IntCal 04 calibration curve. Because Bayesian calibration takes into account contextual information about the site’s archaeology, it has to incorporate a model constraining how the dates can relate to each other. The Capo Alfiere dates were modeled under a range of possible conditions; results were very similar for all of them, and here we present only one model. In this model, the dates were assigned to three phases: 1. An earlier Neolithic occupation represented by the first date (Stratum I) 2. A later Neolithic occupation (Stratum II) represented by the second date (the hearth in the hut floor, Stratum IIa) and a third date (the filling and reconstructing of a new pavement above the hut floor/pavement level (Stratum IIb) 3. A third phase represented by the two dates for the soil over the rubble from the wall’s destrucTime span

tion and the pit dug through this rubble (Stratum IIc). Each phase was required to follow the previous one, and no overlap between phases was allowed. The resulting Bayesian-calibrated dates are shown in Table III and in Figure I. As this shows, the principal effects of Bayesian calibration are the following: 1. To shorten the intervals of the date for Stratum I, making the earlier occupation dated to probably between about 4800 and 4500 BC; this is closer to the second occupation. 2. To shorten the dates for the post-wall collapse occupation, and place it before about 3700 BC and probably before the end of the fourth millennium BC, firmly within the Diana period. The Capo Alfiere sequence thus is likely to fall mostly or entirely between about 4800 BC and 4000 BC, with the second occupation (Stratum II) falling within 4550 and 4300 BC.

Conventional calibrated dates

Bayesian calibrated dates

Length of interval represented by date for first occupation

660 years

412 years

Time elapsed between date for first occupation and hearth in second occupation

Min. interval 111 years; max. interval 886 years

Min. interval 0 years; max. interval 436 years

Length of interval represented by date for hearth in second occupation

296 years

244 years

Time elapsed between date for hearth in second occupation and filling/repaving in second occupation

Min. interval 174 years; max. interval 459 years

Min. interval 0 years; max. interval 344 years

Length of interval represented by date for filling/repaving in second occupation

337 years

206 years

Time elapsed between filling/repaving in second occupation and pit dug through overlying wall rubble

Min. interval 147 years; max. interval 519 years

Min. interval 0 years; max. interval 402 years

Length of interval represented by date for pit dug through overlying wall rubble

329 years

294 years

Time elapsed between pit dug through overlying wall rubble and soil overlying wall rubble Length of interval represented by date for soil overlying wall rubble

(not calculated because stratigraphic relations between the two dates are unclear) 750 years

563 years

Table III Timing of events at Capo Alfiere using conventional and Bayesian calibration.

xxiv

Introduction

Figure I Conventional and Bayesian calibration of dates at Capo Alfiere.

John Robb and Domenico Marino

xxv

References Ammerman, A. J. 1979. A Study of Obsidian Exchange Networks in Calabria. World Archaeology 11: 95–110. ——— 1985. The Acconia Survey: Neolithic Settlement and the Obsidian Trade. Occasional Publication 10. Institute of Archaeology, London. ——— 1987. Ricenti contributi sul neolitico della Calabria. In Atti della XXVI riunione scientifica: Il neolitico in Italia, 333–49. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ——— 1988. Towards the Study of Neolithic Households. Origini 14 (1988–89): 73–82. Ammerman, A. J., G. D. Shaffer, and N. Hartmann. 1988. A Neolithic Household at Piano di Curinga, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 121–40. Bayliss, A., and A. Whittle. 2007. Histories of the Dead: Building Chronologies for Five Southern British Long Barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (1), supplement, Cambridge. Cardosa, M. 1996. Castello di Bova Superiore (Reggio Calabria): Nuovi dati sulla prima età del Bronzo nella Calabria meridionale ionica. In L’antica età del Bronzo in Italia: Atti del Congresso di Viareggio, 9–12 gennaio 1995, ed. D. Cocchi Genick, 592–93. Franco Cantini/Museo A.C. Blanc, Viareggio. Fugazzola Delpino, M. A., A. Pessina, and V. Tinè. 2004. Il neolitico in Italia: Ricognizione, catalogazione e pubblicazione dei dati bibliografici, archivistici, materiali e monumentali. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. La Rocca, F. 2005. La miniera pre-protostorica di Grotta della Monaca (Sant’Agata di Esaro–Cosenza). Centro Regionale di Speleologia “Enzo dei Medici,” Roseto (Cosenza). Lucifero, A. 1901. Girifalco. Rivista italiana di scienze naturali: 115. Marino, D. 1983. Ricerche preistoriche nel territorio di Crotone: Tre stazioni tentinelliani. BA thesis, Università degli Studi di Bari. ——— 1989. Ricerche preistoriche nel territorio di Crotone: Il sito di Capo Alfiere. Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Bari 32: 59–83. ——— 1993. Il neolitico nella Calabria centro-orientale: Ricerche 1974–1990. Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Bari 35–36:21–101. ——— 1995. La protostoria della Calabria centro-orientale. Doctoral thesis, University of Rome. ——— 1996. Calabria centro-meridionale ionica. In Forme e tempi della neolitizzazione in Italia meridionale e in Sicilia: Atti del seminario internazionale de Rossano, 29 ap­rile–2 maggio 1994, IRACEB, ed. V. Tiné, vol. 1, 79–

80, 138–40, 185–91, 239–42, 315–18, 367–70; vol. 2, 426, 453, 526, 554–55, 573. Soveria Mannelli, Rossano. ——— 1998. Culture du vase campaniforme en Italie meridionale. In Atlas du neolithique européen, vol. 2A, L’Europe occidentale, Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 46, ed. J. Guilaine, 66–67. Université de Liège. Natali, E. 2004. Favella e la facies delle ceramiche impresse arcaiche del Sud-Est. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 145–63. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Radmilli, A. 1978. Guida della preistoria italiana. Sansoni, Florence. Robb, J. E. 2004. Il neolitico dell’Aspromonte. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 175–88. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ——— 2007. The Early Mediterranean Village: Agency, Material Culture and Social Change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tinè, S. 1962a. Scavi preistorici in Calabria. Klearchos 4: 7–11. ——— 1962b. Successione delle culture preistoriche in Calabria alla luce dei recenti scavi in provincia di Cosenza. Klearchos 4: 38-48. ——— 1964. La grotta di S. Angelo III a Cassano Ionio. Atti e memorie della Società della Magna Grecia 5: 11–55. ——— 1986. Collezioni preistoriche e protostoriche. In Il Museo Nazionale di Reggio Calabria, ed. E. Lattanzi, 12–31. Gangemi, Rome. ——— 1988. Il neolitico. In Storia della Calabria Antica, ed. S. Settis, 39–63. Gangemi, Reggio Calabria. Tinè, V. 2004. Il neolitico in Calabria. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 115–44. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ——— Forthcoming. Favella: Un villaggio neolitico della Sibaritide, Studi di paletnologia 2. Museo Pigorini, Rome. Tinè, V., and E. Natali. 2005. Grotta San Michele di Saracena (CS): La campagna di scavo 2003. In Preistoria e protostoria della Calabria, vol. 1, Scavi e ricerche 2003, ed. B. Ambrogio and V. Tinè, 17–28. Gruppo Archeologico Pellarese, Pellaro. Note: For annual reports of the Bova Marina Archaeological Project, see www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~jer39/BMAP/

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 The Site of Capo Alfiere

Figure 1.1 Capo Alfiere, looking south-southwest from Capo Colonna. The Neolithic site is on the tip of the headland. (CW)

let is, however, a recent phenomenon, mostly resulting from settlement in the 1950s after the division and redistribution of property formerly owned by large estates. Politically, Crotone and this area are now part of the province of Catanzaro, a town some fifty km to the west.2 This is the central province of the three major modern administrative subdivisions of Calabria. The scatter of Neolithic material indicating the location of the site is situated along the top of a cliff face, on the east side of the coastal headland of Capo

Capo Alfiere is a small promontory (Fig. 1.1) on Italy’s Ionian coast, located about halfway down the eastern coast of Calabria, which is the southernmost region of the Italian peninsula (Fig. 1.2). The promontory is approximately 8 km south of the harbor town of Crotone. This is the largest nearby population center and has been such since the founding of a Greek colony there more than two and a half millennia ago. Capo Alfiere is on the coast of what would have been the southern part of the territory of the Greek city. Today, there is a cluster of recent houses about 100 m north of the site, which is called Alfiere.1 This present ham-

Morter followed. It is not uncommon to find toponyms on IGM maps at variance with local usage. Here we note that “Alfiere” is probably a variant of the correct name, but we follow Morter’s usage for reasons of consistency (information from D. Marino, personal communication, 2007). (JR) 2 Crotone has been proposed as the center for a new province, so this may change shortly. (As Morter foretold, the Crotone area has become an independent province, with the city of Crotone as its capital [JR]).

1 There is some ambiguity about the correct form of the name. The correct

form may be “Alfieri,” as first referenced by Giovanbattista di Nola Molisi in Cronaca dell’Antichissima e Nobilissima Cittá di Crotone e della Magna Grecia (1649). However, the name also appears on some Istituto Geografico Militare (IGM) maps as “Alfiere” and this is evidently what

1

The Site of Capo Alfiere

2

Crotone

Capo Colonna

Capo Alfiere

0

2 km

Le Castella Capo Rizzuto

Figure 1.2 Map of the territory of ancient Croton (modern Crotone).

resize original

Figure 1.3 View of the Capo Alfiere site, looking northeast towards Capo Colonna. (CW)

Jon Morter

3

Figure 1.4 Looking west. The headland at Capo Alfiere, showing erosion of slope. The excavation site is noted by the arrow; the commercial campground is directly below. (G. Cantafero).

Alfiere. To the east, this location overlooks the sandy beach of Hera Lacinia (named after the noted Greek temple, one column of which still stands approximately 2 km to the east-northeast). The headland itself has a slight crest, with all Neolithic remains to date coming from the east side. To the west of the headland is another sandy beach. This stretch of coastline as a whole is part of the southern coast of the major cape of Capo Colonna, named after the lone column (Fig. 1.3). This is the last headland as the coast, as one comes east from a point near the break in the mountains at Catanzaro, turns north towards the Gulf of Taranto. The headland of Capo Alfiere is currently subject to erosion by the sea. Loss of site area, collapsing down slope, is quite clear (Fig. 1.4). The Neolithic site at present occupies a strip about 20 m wide running for perhaps 100 m along the cliff. It is on the property of two families, and a boundary ditch between these was cut in the early 1980s. The more northern and eastern property is lower in elevation, which may be from soil loss at some point. After dividing the land holdings, the ditch continues through the site along the edge of the cliff to the tip of the headland, apparently to carry water away from the terraces on the lower part of the cliff, which are part of a commercial campground. In the past ten years, both faces of the headland of Capo Alfiere have been subject to periodic—and illegal—bulldozing, intended to improve the existing campground on the east, or in anticipation of an expansion to the southwest.

The sherd scatter at the site was noted for including unusual amounts of Neolithic pottery with impressed decoration in the Stentinello tradition (named for its type site on the island of Sicily), which is generally dated to the 5th millennium bc.3 The scatter includes occasional Greek and Roman pieces, presumably from nearby sites of those periods also found during survey. Bronze Age ceramics have also been reported some 100 m to the west (Marino, personal communication, 1990).4 During the Second World War, Italian troops had a position, possibly only a trench, on the tip of the headland, which would have overlooked both of the neighboring beaches. Topographic maps of the 1950s show a small structure near the tip of the point. This building no longer exists. The owners of the western part of the site area became proprietors during the land reorganization of the 1950s. At that time, one son of the family lived in that structure (reported as a drystone construction), using the property for sheep grazing while it was deforested and prepared for ploughing. This implies that the area had not been in intensive arable use for some time. Today, all parts of the surviving site area are normally used for grain, legume, or sugar beet cultivation. Ordinarily, these crops do not require very intrusive ploughing. However, conversations with farmers in this area have in3

One of the general developments since 1992 has been the realization that Stentinello wares were used over a long period between the early to mid-6th millennium bc and the early to mid-5th millennium. (JR) 4 Dott. Domenico Marino is a prehistorian from Crotone who has done extensive work in this region.

4

The Site of Capo Alfiere

dicated that during the re-division of the land in the 1950s, the large calcareous boulders that used to dot the landscape were removed with a bulldozer. Many fields were further “improved” by dredging with the rear prong of the machine to bring up boulders concealed just below the surface. This practice is generally not conducive to the good preservation of archaeological sites. The work at Capo Alfiere represents the first large excavation at an archaeological site of the Middle Neolithic period for the east-central area of Calabria. Surface finds from this and other sites in the 1970s (Ammerman 1979; Salvatori 1973) had led to the conclusion that the Middle Neolithic material culture from the southern half of Calabria was related to that of Sicily, and more specifically to the cultural manifestation named after the site of Stentinello near Syracuse. However, excavations had been confined to the Tyrrhenian side of Calabria, with studies of house structures, settlement, and trade in obsidian, a naturally occurring volcanic glass mostly originating in this area from the Eolian islands in the Tyrrhenian sea (see Ammerman 1979, 1983, 1985a; Ammerman, et al. 1988; Shaffer 1983). Although there was a general understanding of material similarity to the Stentinello sphere, little was known of the nature of the Middle Neolithic occupation of the area near Crotone.5

In 1987, the site at Capo Alfiere was selected for excavation by a team from the Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICA), which is based at the University of Texas at Austin under the overall direction of Professor Joseph Coleman Carter. Previous survey work by the same group had demonstrated the presence of large numbers of sites of all periods in this area (e.g., Carter and D’Annibale 1985), ranging from Neolithic through Late Roman (Fig. 1.2).6 The next stage was to be a series of excavations, at sites of various periods, aimed at closely defining the chronological sequence in the Crotone area. This would help refine the chronology available for understanding the survey and provide more complete data on aspects, such as the economy, not readily recoverable from surface finds. To date, work has been carried out at Neolithic and Classical sites. The site at Capo Alfiere was chosen because it had produced interesting surface material and seemed promising for recovery of several types of data. It was also subject to erosion by the sea and damage from “improvements” to the adjacent campground, so to some extent there was an aspect of salvage to the work. Excavations in 1987 and 1990 were directed by the present writer.

5 This

6

situation has changed substantially (see the Introduction for a brief synthesis of these recent developments in Calabrian Neolithic archaeology). While there has been little further publication of Ammerman’s work at Acconia, two other extensive projects focused on the Neolithic have taken place: first, at Favella, directed by V. Tinè, just north of the area, where Stentinello-type pottery has been found in the plain of Sibari; second, at Bova Marina, near the southern tip of Calabria, directed by Robb. (JR)

ICA’s work at Crotone resumed in 2005. Publication of the chora of Crotone survey (1983–1987, 1990–1991, and 2005–present) and the 1988 excavations at Torre Bugiafra are in preparation. (JR, JCC)

2 Cultural Setting

The accumulating evidence of the last decade now makes it possible to begin a review of the southern Italian Neolithic with a summary of the absolute (radiocarbon) dating evidence available, rather than immediately tackling the precarious edifice built around relative chronologies. After laying out the basic time scale as well as the most common horizon markers and their nomenclature, the discussion will examine briefly the concept of the Neolithic and Neolithizisation as it applies to this part of the Mediterranean Basin. This will give some idea of the problems that might be addressed by the results from Capo Alfiere. Finally there follows a review of recent work in Calabria of the present state of knowledge, and of its implications for the broader picture and vice versa. Chronological Outline Tentative but increasing evidence exists to show that the introduction of a Neolithic economy—or at least elements thereof—into southern Italy may have begun as early as 6000 BC [cal. 7000 bc]1 (Guilaine 1979).2 The close of the Neolithic period and its transformation into the Eneolithic and subsequent Bronze Age is put in the mid-3rd millennium bc [or cal. early to mid-4th millennium bc] (Whitehouse 1986).3 This gives an overall span of about three and a half millen-

0

100 km

Figure 2.1 Neolithic sites in southern Italy and Sicily. Black triangles indicate obsidian sources.

nia for the duration of the Neolithic.4 Within this, the period is divided into three or four major phases partly derived from the old relative chronologies based on pottery, but with an attempt to reconcile regional ceramic variation with the absolute dates available (Tinè 1983; Whitehouse 1986). Painting first in broad strokes, one can say that for the tripartite division of phases, the term “Early Neolithic” refers to initial Neolithic settlement almost invariably characterized by the presence of “impressed ware” pottery (ceramica impressa). This stage develops, presumably, into the Middle Neolithic at some point put variously between 800 and 1500 years later. The Middle Neolithic is ceramically defined by various combinations of more complex impressed decoration (e.g., Stentinello), “scratched” decoration (graffito or

1The

convention of adding “cal.” in brackets with calibrated radiocarbon dates will be followed here, given that there is frequently a large difference between the calibrated and uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, and so knowledge of the one under consideration is vital. 2Since 1992, many more radiocarbon dates have accumulated (see Skeates and Whitehouse 1994), and critical scrutiny has reassessed some of the claims for a Neolithic occupation of Italy as early as the 7th millennium bc, particularly those based upon the single very early date from Coppa Nevigata, Puglia (Skeates 1994). For a synthesis of issues involved in dating the onset of the Neolithic, see Skeates 2003 and Guilaine and Cremonesi 2003. The general picture is of an early Neolithic beginning not much earlier than 6200 bc in Puglia, and spreading to adjacent regions by about 6000 bc, with the bulk of central and northern Italy experiencing the Neolithic transition in the first half of the 6th millennium bc. For Calabria, the earliest Neolithic at present is at Favella, north of Crotone in the Plain of Sibari, around 6000 bc (Tinè 2004, forthcoming); the earliest Neolithic dates at present in southern Calabria are around 5700 bc (Robb 2004). Hence, one might expect the Neolithic transition in the Crotone area, bracketed between these two areas, to have occurred between about 6000 bc and about 5700 bc. (JR) 3This estimate is still current, with approximately 3500 bc a transition between the Neolithic and the Copper Age in Southern Italy. (JR)

4 As noted above, two and a half millennia (circa 6000–3500 bc) is prob-

ably a more current estimate. (JR)

5

6

Cultural Setting

Matera Scratched Wares), and painted decoration of increasing elaboration (e.g., Serra d’Alto Ware, Ripoli Trichrome). Around 3200 bc [cal. 4000 bc] throughout the southern Italian peninsula there seems to have been a general switch to a plain burnished style of ceramics (known as Diana or Diana-Bellavista) which is considered diagnostic of the Late Neolithic. Each ceramic style tends to be named for a distinctive decorative characteristic or type site and is generally used to designate a period of time with greater specificity than “early,” “middle,” and “late.” Some of the most widely known and distinctive ceramic styles are those just mentioned. Several of them derive from the southeastern part of the peninsula: Puglia and Basilicata. Such seriation can be taken to extremes: S. Tinè’s latest (1983) sequence for the Tavoliere area, in Puglia, has no less than eleven named phases and sub phases. Unfortunately, this seriation does not entirely agree with the results of associated radiocarbon dates, so a more complicated overlapping system of local variants may ultimately emerge (Whitehouse 1986). Although the broad absolute chronological framework and associated major ceramic trends are emerging, local variation in ceramics is producing problems for a region accustomed to broad generalization from tight seriation.5 Also of note are the rather early dates coming out for the Early Neolithic Period (Guilaine 1979; Sargent 1985), as recognized by the presence of ceramics. Discussion focuses on the age of these dates, on the associated pottery (which then becomes a wider ceramic marker), and of what this implies regarding the degree and nature of the transition to a Neolithic, or food-producing, economy and way of life (Lewthwaite 1981). There are now several radiocarbon results from the mid- to early 6th millennium bc from south5 This

paragraph presents the received wisdom on the general ceramic sequence in the 1980s and early 1990s. Morter’s comments on the theoretical problems involved in such a scheme were highly perceptive and have generally been borne out by more recent research. Our understanding of it has changed much in the last fifteen years. See the discussion in the Introduction above. Briefly, instead of a simple scheme equating Early Neolithic with Impressed Wares, Middle Neolithic with painted and Stentinello wares, and Late Neolithic with Diana Wares, it is now clear that, as Morter comments below, there are two sequences, one in the eastern side of the peninsula and one in the western side. In the eastern side of the peninsula, the Early Neolithic contains Impressed Wares, painted wares, and various derivatives such as Matera Scratched Wares; these are followed by increasingly elaborate Middle Neolithic versions, then by Serra d’Alto Wares, and in the Late Neolithic by Diana-Bellavista Wares. In Calabria and Sicily, a combination of impressed wares and Stentinello Wares continues in use through the Early and Middle Neolithic; a phase solely of impressed wares has been hypothesized but has yet to be unequivocally demonstrated. (JR)

Location

Date [cal.]

Ceramics

Grotta dell’Uzzo Sicily

5960±70 bc

aceramic Neolithic

Casa San Paolo, Puglia

5950±100 bc

mixed painted

Santa Tecchia, Puglia

5650±100 bc

impressed and red band painted

Praia a Mare, Calabria

5605±85 bc

impressed and red band painted

Table 2.1 Radiocarbon results for southern Italy and Sicily (after Sargent 1985). Location

Nea Nikomedia

Franchthi Cave

Sesklo

Date

Ceramics

5830±270 bc

impressed and fine painted

5607±91 bc

impressed and fine painted

5331±74 bc

impressed and fine painted

6030±110 bc.

aceramic Neolithic

5980±100 bc.

aceramic Neolithic

5844±140 bc

aceramic Neolithic

5533±72 bc

pre-pottery Neolithic

5805±97 bc.

pre-pottery Neolithic

5350±93 bc

pre-pottery Neolithic

Table 2.2 Radiocarbon results for Greece (after Sargent 1985). Location

Date

Ceramics

6020±130 bc

Cardial ware

5700±150 bc

Cardial ware

Camprafaud, France

5950±150 bc

Cardial ware

Ile Riou, France

5650v100 bc

Cardial ware

Basi, Corsica

5750±150 bc

Cardial ware

Curacchiaghiu, Corsica

5650±180 bc

punch-impressed

Cap Ragnon, France

Velderpino, Spain Kristel-Jardins, Algeria

6000± ? bc.

smooth-surface ware

5810±190 bc

Mediterranean Neolithic

Table 2.3 Radiocarbon results for western Mediterranean sites (after Sargent 1985).

Jon Morter ern Italy and Sicily; Sargent (1985) lists the dates and ceramic associations (Table 2.1). Doubts about the reliability of the Praia a Mare date (see Sargent 1985) first appeared in the 1970s. However, given that similar dates and associations are now emerging in Puglia, it no longer seems completely anomalous (Guilaine 1979; Sargent 1985). Also questioned is the aceramic Neolithic level at Grotta dell’Uzzo, defined by excavation outside the cave mouth, where sloping strata were apparently dug with horizontal levels (Ammerman, personal communication, 1990). These early dates can be compared with those from Greece (Table 2.2). These results indicate essentially no time lag between the beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and that in southern Italy. Sargent (1985) provides information looking farther west (Table 2.3). Here, then, are a series of sites around the western Mediterranean coast producing impressed ceramics apparently during the early 6th millennium bc [cal. 7th millennium bc]. Although there may be doubts about the reliability of contexts from Grotta dell’Uzzo and Grotta della Madonna, there is an accumulating body of evidence to suggest that they, and more particularly the Puglia finds, need not necessarily be anomalous.6 What appears to be indicated is a rapid spread of Neolithic traits (i.e., pottery) around the circumference of the Mediterranean in the early 6th millennium bc. This runs counter to the frequently held notion of a Neolithic wave of advance spreading steadily out from the Bosphorus across Europe (e.g., Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984).7 It also raises the question of what the appearance of material culture traits (pottery) means in terms of concomitant changes in way of life or economy. In other words, one must confirm that the economic and cultural implications of the archaeological label “Neolithic” correspond to actual changes from the preceding way of life, which is generally taken as post-Pleistocene hunting-and-gathering adaptations, implied by the term Mesolithic. 6See note 2 above on the possible 7th millennium bc dates for the beginning of the Neolithic in southern Italy. It is now clear that the earliest Neolithic in Greece precedes that in Italy by at least three centuries and possibly by up to half a millennium. (JR) 7 Presciently, Morter here pinpoints a pattern of “enclave migration” that has since been identified by Bogucki (2003) for the LBK and by Zilhâo (2003) for the western Mediterranean (cf. also Skeates 2003 for Italy). This is the very rapid expansion of the Neolithic by leapfrogging between small enclaves around the coasts of the Mediterranean and the river valleys of central Europe, in a process entirely incompatible with any model of steady advance driven by population pressure. (JR)

7

What is Neolithic? Traditionally, the advent of the Neolithic period is defined as the point at which the human subsistence strategy changed from gathering, foraging, and hunting to principal reliance on food production through the domestication of plants and animals (Barker 1985: 7). With this shift practically every other aspect of life changed as well. The phrase “Neolithic Revolution” was coined by Gordon Childe (Barker 1985, 7) to define this as a major event in the human trajectory. For southern Italy, much of the evidence for a Mesolithic occupation is from cave sites. Until recently, the concept of a Mesolithic manifestation, distinguishable from that existing immediately after the Paleolithic—Ice Age—occupation of the area, was disputed; however, a recognizable Holocene adaptation has now been traced (Tusa 1983). This was a hunter-gatherer adaptation to the warmer climate of the Holocene, in place by about 10,000 years ago. The earlier megafauna had disappeared, but animals such as deer, pig, and cattle were still hunted. Fish and shellfish seem to have been important parts of the diet in coastal locations, although the change in sea level means that much evidence for this aspect will have been lost. A distinctive aspect of the material culture of this society was the miniaturization of some of the chipped-stone tool work, producing pieces frequently referred to as microlithic (Trump 1980: 19). Production of pieces that had geometric outlines (trapezoidal, rhomboidal) and were heavily retouched was also typical. As the slow acceptance of the Mesolithic as a distinguishable entity in this area suggests, these characteristics should not be assumed to indicate a radical break from the preceding Paleolithic period, but are probably a result of a gradual development therefrom. This hunting-and-gathering existence represented the backdrop against which the elements of the Neolithic way of life, with its domesticated plants and animals, were introduced. The domesticates of the European Neolithic, both floral and faunal, were mostly of Middle Eastern derivation. Cereal crops, such as wheats and barleys, and small herd animals—sheep and goats—derive from Middle Eastern feral species. Other animals, such as cattle and pigs, had a more widespread natural range, including much of Europe. Although the original domestication probably took place in the Middle East, this is less certain; admixtures of European-derived

8

Cultural Setting

feral examples or local domestication are conceivable for some species. Bökönyi (1989) has suggested deliberate interbreeding of domestic and surviving feral cattle in southern Italy as late as the Roman period.8 Adoption of food production is presumed to have been responsible in large part for a switch from mobile to sedentary human settlement. Sedentism, with its large increase of occupation debris in discrete locations, is often the most archaeologically visible evidence of the economic change, even when direct evidence of the foods themselves is not preserved. Generally associated are technological innovations or changes, such as the use of pottery and ground-stone objects not normally seen in the Mesolithic. Thus, when one looks at the archaeological record, a typical Neolithic “suite” of traits is expected to be diagnostic of this transition to food production. Confusion arises, therefore, when only one or two elements occur. Settlement pattern evidence can be similarly inconsistent. The linienbandkeramik (LBK) phenomenon in central Europe is a classic example of the colonization of new areas by a fully agricultural society; in this case, settlement evidence is conspicuous. In other areas, Neolithic occupation is represented most prominently in the archaeological record by funeral monuments or enclosures (e.g., “causeway camps” in England), which apparently have a communal and ritual purpose, while associated habitation evidence seems to indicate a dispersed pattern of small settlements (e.g., Scarre 1983, 343, on northern France). The nature of the Early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean is likewise poorly understood. Pottery is present, and sometimes the skeletal remains of sheep and goats, but the settlement pattern does not appear to have changed from the Mesolithic; some domesticated cereal grains have been found in an otherwise Mesolithic level of a cave-associated deposit. Should these anomalous elements be taken to indicate the transition to a complete Neolithic economy, or not? As the period has traditionally been defined on the basis of the presence of pottery, the occurrence of that material around the edges of the western Mediterranean Basin is classified as the Early Neolithic. However, this frequently remains to be proved. In few in-

8 Models of indigenous domestication of sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs within Europe were moderately current in the 1980s but have since fallen out of favor. Recent genetic evidence has established clearly that Neolithic domesticates derive from Near Eastern ancestral populations. Interbreeding of feral and domestic animals remains possible, however, particularly for pigs. (JR)

stances a full Neolithic economy can be demonstrated before the period labeled as the Middle Neolithic (see Whitehouse 1968a). In the traditional view of the remorseless spread of land-consuming farming settlements, little thought is generally given to what became of the people pursuing a hunter-gatherer existence in the path of the advancing wave. The Early Neolithic of the western Mediterranean may provide evidence for a revised view, which suggests a more gradual process, allowing interaction between the spreading Neolithic ideas of food production and associated technology, and the acculturation of preexisting populations. It may not have been a simple and uniform process in distribution and direction, as such a wave model might bring to mind; nor was it a fast process if it took a thousand or more years. The southern Italian situation is not clear but is becoming more so. The most-recent excavations at the site of Coppa Nevigata, an open coastal site with pottery on the east coast of southern Italy, have confirmed the approximate veracity of its long-disputed radiocarbon date (6200 bc). A new carbon-14 date of 5830±320 [cal. 6610 bc] is also in broad agreement with preliminary thermoluminescence runs (Whitehouse 1987). Although shellfish were a conspicuous economic item at the site, new finds of the remains of cereal crops in conjunction with the ceramics strongly suggest a basically agricultural economy (Whitehouse 1987).9 This might be supported by the subsequent intensity of Neolithic period activity on the nearby Tavoliere plain as the period progressed. Conversely, the present evidence from Sicily on the other side of the peninsula is less definitive. Most evidence to date is from the cave site of Grotta dell’Uzzo, near Palermo. This excavation has provoked suggestions of both an aceramic Neolithic phase and an Early Neolithic phase with simple impressed pottery (as will be discussed further below). However, given that this is a cave site, it is difficult to know how representative the activities of its occupants would have been of an actual food-producing occupation in the vicinity. (One must also examine the veracity of the claimed association of cereals with “Mesolithic” assemblages and the dating thereof, as mentioned earlier). 9More

work at Coppa Nevigata has produced a suite of dates clustering around 6000 bc (Cassano et al. 1987). Except for some element of shellfish, the economy looks typical of the agricultural economy of the Tavoliere ditched villages. (JR)

9

Jon Morter Calabria, which lies between southeastern Italy and Sicily (Fig. 2.1), has not yet produced evidence to shed any light on the problem. The sequence from Grotta della Madonna on the northwestern Calabrian coast may not be completely reliable for the crucial levels (Ammerman, personal communication, 1991). Recent renewed work at Favella, on the plain of Sibari, which may be dealing with a site of that age, is not yet sufficiently developed.10 Pottery and the Southern Italian Neolithic The early attempts at pottery seriation for the southern Italian Neolithic rapidly demonstrated one glaring anomaly: different trajectories existed for the southeastern Italian and Sicilian areas in the Middle Neolithic. Whereas ceramic fashions develop from simpler impressed wares to painted ceramics of increasing complexity (ultimately Serra d’Alto Ware) in the southeast, in Sicily it was recognized quite early that a different and elaborately impressed style of decoration developed. This is known as the Stentinello style (Fig.2.2), after its type site, located near Syracuse and first dug by Orsi in the late 19th century (Orsi 1890, 1911, 1915). This phenomenon is now frequently referred to as the Stentinello Neolithic and marks a very distinctive ceramic horizon. Subsequently, very similar or identical ceramics have been found marking the earliest known occupations in the Eolian Islands (Castellaro Vecchio phase: Bernabò Brea 1957), on Malta (Ghar Dalam phase: Trump 1980), and in Calabria, where the style is also known as Stentinello (Salvatori 1973; Ammerman 1985a). In Calabria it presumably succeeded an earlier simple, or Cardial, impressed (Early Neolithic) phase, as yet undocumented (Shaffer 1983), to parallel the situation proposed for Sicily (Tusa 1983). It appears, then, that at the beginning of the Middle Neolithic there were at least two major ceramic traditions in southern Italy, one in the east and the other in the west and islands. Further complicating the picture, painted ceramics may also have been produced in the Early and earlier Middle Neolithic in the west. Small quantities of the so-called bande rosse non marginate bichrome are sometimes found on sites with impressed wares.11 10Favella provides evidence of a completely agricultural village dating to very early in the 6th millenium bc [cal.]. (V. Tinè forthcoming). It is very much similar to the general pattern known from Puglia except for the lack of an enclosure ditch. (JR) 11That is, in a style of wide red bands without edging lines, a category from Tiné’s classifications. (JR)

0

5 cm

CA-0115-01

Figure 2.2 Example of Stentinello-style vessel from Capo Alfiere.

Tinè found a large amount of this material at Grotta Sant’Angelo III (S. Tinè 1962). The significance and sources of this material are not understood at present, but its frequent co-occurrence with all kinds of impressed wares throughout southern Italy is striking.12 By the end of the Middle Neolithic the painted polychrome tradition and Serra d’Alto-style material was apparently replacing that of Stentinello in the west, although the extent of mixing or supplanting is unclear (Holloway 1991; Tusa 1983).13 By the Late Neolithic, plain burnished Diana-style ceramics, with distinctive volute handles, were ubiquitous from east to west, although varying in surface color. The remarks above address only the ceramic traditions. In comparing the two areas, one must also ask about more substantial issues, such as lifestyle and economy. Pottery waste is only a minor by-product of human occupation: although the material provides a useful chronological and spatial marker for archaeologists, other evidence must be used to describe the broader culture. Several overlapping and interrelated distributions of ceramic styles may be present in the southern Italian archaeological record. One should avoid the tendency to reify an archaeologically documented distribution into a corresponding social grouping. It does not appear to have been that simple. The type site of Stentinello is one of several known from the southeastern corner of Sicily. These sites were ditched villages, where the settlement was enclosed by a large ditch and bank. Stentinello itself has a cliff12 The problem identified here remains puzzling. Throughout the Stentinello range of Calabria and Sicily, small amounts of painted buff fineware (figulina) are found in most assemblages, although they are nowhere dominant. It remains unclear whether these are local productions or imports. The Grotta Sant’Angelo lies in northern Calabria, outside the Stentinello zone, where painted wares were normally used. (JR) 13 It now seems that the trichrome and Serra d’Alto painted wares occur as a minority rather than as a dominant style for a distinct period, and the basic transition is from Stentinello Wares to Diana Wares. (JR)

10

Cultural Setting

top situation with a circuit ditch and bank (Orsi 1915; S.Tinè 1961), presumably defensive.14 Excavations by S. Tinè (1961) showed the presence within of at least one rectangular structure, with post sockets cut into the bedrock as the ditch was. Fauna was mostly sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs, with minimal wild game (Orsi 1915; Tusa 1983). In terms of settlement layout, this is similar to the contemporary situation known for further east, such as the site of Serra d’Alto (Lo Porto 1989), and on the Tavoliere (e.g., Jones 1987; S. Tinè 1983), where one sees ditched-village settlements with houses presumed within. Our lack of knowledge is shown by Ruth Whitehouse (1984), who catalogs structures optimistically identified as houses and shows that many supposed pit houses are far too small and were probably just pits.15 The most well-known and widely studied area in the southeast is the Tavoliere plain, where aerial photography has demonstrated large numbers of ditchedenclosure sites, some very large (Bradford 1949; Cassano and Manfredini 1983; Jones 1987; S. Tinè 1983). Within these enclosures, which sometimes have several concentric ditches, are much smaller horseshoeshaped enclosures. These smaller enclosures are not complete circuits; nor are they shaped to be obviously defensive. It is assumed that these features represent individual compounds around houses. Santo Tinè (1983) has undertaken the most complete excavation of such compounds, exposing three. Ploughing has largely removed the original Neolithic ground surface, so although he presents a reconstructed rectangular structure within one of the horseshoes, his evidence is not particularly strong (S. Tinè 1983; Whitehouse 1984). Jones and Maude (1987) have adapted the “compound of individual huts” idea to propose that analogies for the Neolithic society of the Tavoliere be sought in the cattle herding societies of sub-Saharan Africa. In this regard, however, the use of ditches to delineate the compounds seems somewhat problematic.16 Knowledge of the Stentinello Neolithic in Sicily The Stentinello “culture” was defined by Paolo Orsi, the great pioneer of Sicilian and southern Italian ar14 “Clifftop” is something of an overstatement: the site is located on a low,

wide bedrock shelf on the coast north of Siracusa, and it is today partly submerged. (JR) 15 There is now consensus (Cremonesi 1988) that the small pitlike hut floors—fondi di capanne—are not likely residential structures. (JR) 16See Skeates (2002) for a discussion of potential symbolic aspects of Tavoliere village ditches. (JR)

chaeology, on the basis of excavations at the type site of Stentinello, near Syracuse (Orsi 1890, 1911, 1915), and later (Orsi 1924) at other nearby sites. He was able to demonstrate an occupational horizon associated with the examples of elaborately decorated pottery that had been arriving sporadically at the Syracuse museum through incidental finds in the area. Realizing the site’s importance, Orsi conducted four seasons of excavation at Stentinello. Unfortunately, the results were never fully published. The site of Stentinello is located on a clifftop.17 It was surrounded by a large ditch, cut into the local roccia tufacea.18 Most of the associated artifacts appear to have been recovered from the deep circuit ditch. Orsi reported traces of structural remains, including large walls and cobbled surfaces, visible in parts of the site (Orsi 1915; S. Tinè 1961). Subsequent excavations by S. Tinè (1961) found evidence of a rectangular structure within the ditch circuit, its wall line defined by postholes cut into the bedrock. By the time of Tinè’s work, however, much of the interior of the site had been deep ploughed to bedrock and any obvious standing features were lost. Orsi was not particularly impressed by the chipped-stone industry at Stentinello, which he found lacking in variety. Most of the finds were blades of chert or obsidian, with little further modification. However, the exuberant decoration of the ceramics came as a surprise, “senza esagerare, meraviglioso”19 The complex and ever varying impressed patterns on the pots frequently had been filled with a white pigment, identified as calcium carbonate (Orsi 1890, 192). Animal bone collected by Orsi indicated the presence of sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs. Other foods included large limpet shells, vertebrae of large fish, and large land snails (Orsi 1915, 209). The presence of this Stone Age culture in southeastern Sicily, demonstrated by the finds from Stentinello, was confirmed by further finds of similar sites nearby such as Matrensa and Megara Hyblea (Orsi 1924). The elaborate and complicated impressed designs are very distinctive. Frequently, small quantities of red painted pottery (the bande rosse non marginate mentioned above) are found in association with, or as part of, a Stentinello assemblage, as is also the case 17See

Note 14. (JR) bedrock. (JR) 19 “Without exaggerating, marvelous” (Orsi 1890, 185). (JR) 18Volcanic

Jon Morter

11

for ceramic assemblages producing impressed wares in southeastern Italy. This is also true of the ceramics from the site of the same period on Lipari (Bernabò Brea 1957). Castellaro Vecchio represents the first known permanent occupation on the island of Lipari, the major obsidian source for Sicily and southern Italy, lying just off the north coast of Sicily. No structural remains survive from the site, which had been destroyed by ploughing, so excavations recovered only the associated artifactual material. This site was not in a specifically defensive position. All subsequent occupations of the island focused around the acropolis at Lipari, resulting in a deep, stratified deposit there.20 To the south of Sicily, Stentinello-style ceramics seem to mark the first occupation of the island of Malta. This is referred to as the Ghar Dalam phase. Subsequent ceramic styles seem to parallel those of the southern Italian peninsula until at least the end of the Neolithic (Trump 1980). Not much is known of the earliest architecture: one enigmatic, larger than normal stretch of walling was recognized, but it could not be traced because it ran under important later buildings. Tusa (1985) has noted the lack of work on possible similarities with the contemporary material from north Africa, although the trip would not have been difficult for such apparently capable seafarers— nautical abilities are inferred from the considerable traffic in obsidian from Lipari discussed below. As further work has been done in the west of Sicily, it has been suggested that the “classic” Stentinello pattern of large agricultural ditched villages (villaggi trincerati) may not be universal to the island, and that there may be regional and topographic variation across Sicily itself (Tusa 1983).21 Recent work in the south-central part of the island has demonstrated the longevity of some Stentinello sites. At both Piano Vento and Serra del Palco excavations have shown several superimposed

Middle Neolithic occupations (Castellana 1987; La Rosa 1987). Neither of these sites has yet yielded evidence of a protective ditch, although Piano Vento has an eminently defensible hilltop position. Both have, however, contributed to our knowledge of domestic architecture. Several partial or complete cobble hut floors were found at Piano Vento, as were cobbled areas at Serra del Palco. Serra del Palco has yielded a massive drystone wall enclosure, about 10 by 20 m in dimension. Traces of something possibly similar are reported from Piano Vento as well. Orsi had little means of tracing the precursors, if any, of his find at Stentinello. The recent discoveries at Grotta dell’Uzzo, and several other cave sites, are being pushed strongly as evidence for an earlier, preStentinello, Neolithic manifestation in Sicily (Tusa 1983, 1985), although this idea has been questioned as well (Ammerman, personal communication, 1991). If correct, this would establish an Early Neolithic phase, seen by Tusa (1983, 142) as possessing attributes of both Mesolithic and Neolithic technology. He lists such attributes as simple ceramic decoration, a Mesolithic-style microlithic tool industry, combined hunter-gatherer and agricultural subsistence, and habitation primarily in caves (Tusa 1983). Indeed, Tusa has made a case for a more sedentary existence by Mesolithic people at cave sites such as Grotta dell’Uzzo prior to the Neolithic (Tusa 1985). The problem with this scenario is that most of the evidence for the Early Neolithic has come from cave sites. The argument for the nonexistence of other types of sites remains ex silentio at this stage. One must also note that these same levels at Grotta dell’ Uzzo also correspond to an apparent greater emphasis on the exploitation of marine resources with probably associated navigational capacity (Piperno 1985). This has interesting implications not only of an economic nature, but also for the possibility of increased ease and frequency of long-distance contacts.

20 This description is not quite correct. Subsequent Neolithic occupation focused upon the acropolis, below the medieval walls and cathedral, but settlement in the Late Neolithic Diana period expanded greatly to occupy the level plain of Contrada Diana below and west of the acropolis (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1960). It is worth noting also the excavation of a small Stentinello-period house floor at Rinella (Rinicedda) on the south coast of Salina, facing Castellaro Vecchio site on the northwestern coast of Lipari (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1995). (JR) 21This idea has been borne out by subsequent research, which has shown that large villages, whether ditched or not, characterize only some areas of the Italian Neolithic; settlement in much of Calabria and Sicily seems to have been based on dispersed houses (Robb 2007, Chapter 3). (JR)

Research on the Middle Neolithic in Calabria For Calabria, the Neolithic period was poorly known until recently, as shown in Whitehouse’s (1969) maps illustrating site distributions for the southern Italian Neolithic. As recently as the late 1960s, there was almost no published information for most of Calabria. Hints that the Middle Neolithic in Calabria might have had a Stentinello character began arising with a few finds from the Grotta della Madonna excavations

12

Cultural Setting

in northwestern Calabria (Cardini 1970). Costabile (1972) reported a site with considerable Stentinellostyle material from the southern part of Calabria, and, a year later, Salvatori (1973) reported Stentinello-type material from a site at Capo Alfiere on the east coast near Crotone. More directed research began in the mid- to late 1970s. Ammerman began a study of the Neolithic period, especially traffic in obsidian. This work first involved an initial reconnaissance for sites in several parts of the region, and Stentinello finds at twelve localities were reported (Ammerman 1979, 1985a). A more intense survey and excavation program, concentrating on Stentinello remains, followed in Acconia. This plain on the west coast of Calabria faces the Eolian Islands and Lipari, a major source of the obsidian (Ammerman 1985a). Subsequently, more survey work specifically directed at the Neolithic period has been done on the east coast by Hodder and Malone (1984) in the area of Roccella, and by Marino (1983, 1989) and Nicoletti (1989) in the vicinity of Crotone.22 The Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICA) team from the University of Texas at Austin, researching the rural territory of the Classical Greek colonial establishment of Croton (modern Crotone), has also recorded numerous Neolithic finds in the course of their survey work, again in the neighborhood of Crotone.23 This work has established the general presence of Stentinello material in at least the coastal areas of southern and central Calabria. Further north, the few finds from the site of the Grotta della Madonna (northwest Calabria) are as yet insufficient to make a case for the established presence of a Stentinello facies. Limited excavations in the northeast around the plain of Sibari suggest the contrary. Finds from Favella suggest an occupation with impressed-ware pottery, but not in the Stentinello style (S. Tinè, personal communication, 1991). In the nearby Grotta di Sant’Angelo, a sounding produced a stratum with mixed simple impressed coarseware and abundant bichrome, red-painted fineware (bande rosse) (S. Tinè 1962). There is still the problem of the contemporaneity of the simple impressed/bande rosse horizon and a Stentinello facies, so it could be that the latter has not 22See

introductory remarks above for a summary of more recent research on the Neolithic in Calabria. (JR) 23These sites are sometimes mixed with and overlap sites dating to the Greek, Roman, and Medieval periods. See the survey map, Fig. 1.2, and Chapter 11 for update on survey results. (JCC, JR)

been found yet for the area. Thus, the northern limit of the Stentinello cultural area is uncertain, although present evidence argues against a Stentinello horizon for northeastern Calabria (the Crati valley and plain of Sibari). A point of interest in the future will be the chronological placement of the stratum at Favella, which appears to represent a group using impressed ware that predates the Serra d’Alto ceramic phase. Tinè hopes that it may prove to be the elusive Early Neolithic facies. Given the nearby finds of bande rosse ceramics at Grotta Sant’Angelo, and the unknown nature of the trajectory here, that remains to be seen.24 While survey and chance finds have established the presence of a Stentinello phase in the Middle Neolithic in Calabria, excavation and investigation of the nature of that occupation have been limited. On the west coast, Ammerman’s team conducted an intensive survey in conjunction with magnetometer prospecting on the cluster of sites at Acconia. Results were checked and expanded with a series of borings, tests, and excavations (Ammerman 1986). On the east coast, the ICA team has conducted two seasons of excavation at Capo Alfiere. Ammerman’s Survey Results at Acconia The geological conditions at Acconia were ideal for the use of a magnetometer. The Neolithic sites are on former sand dunes, sometimes located a meter or more below the surface. The structures were apparently wattle and clay daub, with the peculiarity common at Stentinello sites that the daub had been heavily fire-hardened (sintered) at some point. This meant that the sites of former Neolithic structures were represented by concentrations of fired daub introduced into a sandy soil, easily detectable by magnetometry. More than seventy such daub concentrations, distributed among ten sites with Stentinello-style pottery, were found with the machine and confirmed by auger borings. Several were then excavated to obtain information on house form. From the plotted distributions of daub, stones, and other finds, Ammerman and his colleagues (Ammerman, et al. 1988; Shaffer 1983) used a computer to interpolate the vanished wall lines 24Morter’s assessment of the Stentinello/painted-ware boundary between

Crotone and Sibari remains valid. Recent work at Favella and other sites in the Sibari area has confirmed that, although Stentinello Wares are known from one or two sites, by and large the sequence begins with “archaic” impressed wares and then proceeds to “evolved” impressed wares and painted wares, without substantial Stentinello presence (S. Tinè 2004, forthcoming). (JR)

Jon Morter

13

of the houses. This predicted houses with four sides but distinctly rhomboidal in outline, presumably some form of rectangular structure. The absolute dates obtained for this series of sites ranged from 5190±50 bc to 3910±60 bc [cal. 5750–4550 bc] (Shaffer 1983). Information to date does not indicate that these were ditched settlements in the manner of the wellknown Sicilian examples. However, excavation seems to have been limited to the immediate vicinity of a few structures and not designed to examine broader areas within a settlement. One structure (H) did yield several semi-intact pottery vessels, allowing some scope for the study of ceramic distributions at the household level (Ammerman 1983; Ammerman and Bonardi 1986). The distribution of occupation sites within the Acconia study area has suggested increased site size by the Late Neolithic. Ammerman has noted that alternative models of Neolithic exploitation of the area will need to be considered (Ammerman 1986); one cannot assume the existence of large village sites, seen as typical in Eastern Sicily. He proposed that a pattern of shifting farmsteads or small hamlets could fit the Middle Neolithic evidence in western Calabria as well as or better than large, permanent villages. A major thrust of Ammerman’s project was the study of obsidian export from Lipari to the adjacent mainland. He has shown that as much as 90% of the chipped stone from the Acconia sites with Stentinello-style pottery was obsidian (Ammerman and Andrefsky 1982), in contrast with the surface recovery of only 15% to 30% obsidian in the debitage collection at sites on the opposite side of the peninsula. The presence of what seem to be obsidian-processing sites on the Calabrian coast facing Lipari, and the relatively lesser use of obsidian on Sicily in the Middle Neolithic, has suggested that Calabria-based groups may have been the most involved in extracting this resource, with most of the primary processing done at the off-loading point before distribution (S. Tinè, personal communication, 1991).25

The Acconia project has not yet published information on the economic evidence of faunal and floral remains. However, the soil matrix for the excavations, paleodune sands, was not conducive to good preservation of bone or seeds, and hence the lacuna.

25Additional

may be one). Outside this zone some sites participated much more actively in obsidian circulation than others. (JR) 26 A major development of the last decade has been a series of datings showing that Stentinello wares were used in Calabria for much of the 6th millennium bc as well. Capo Alfiere thus might well be termed a Middle Neolithic site because of its absolute dates, which fall in the later part of the Stentinello period, rather than because of its Stentinello pottery, which was typical of both the Early and Middle Neolithic in this area. (JR)

data make the situation appear more complex (Farr 2008). At Bova Marina (Umbro and Penitenzeria) on the southern tip of Calabria, assemblages contain more than 90% obsidian; even up around Crotone obsidian frequencies rise about to 50% (see Chapter 8). Farther afield in Campania and along the Adriatic coast, a few sites have strikingly high amounts of obsidian. There is clearly an obsidian-rich zone in southern and central Calabria that corresponds well to the distribution of Stentinello pottery (Robb 2007), with specialized sites where people visited transiently and reduced obsidian for trade (Contrada Diana itself

Summary Capo Alfiere is a site at the northeastern edge of the area producing Stentinello ceramics. This means, in the archaeological sense, a Middle Neolithic culture area that includes southern Calabria, Sicily, the Eolian islands, and the Maltese group, and which dates to the 5th millennium bc.26 Although this is a large area, and a time span of as much as 1,000 years is possible for the production of Stentinello-style ceramics, little study has been done on this ceramic’s regional or chronological variation. Ammerman has made some tentative suggestions regarding ocher treatment, but generally Stentinello ceramics are treated as homogeneous. Beyond Sicily, the relative lack of work until very recently has probably contributed to this attitude. Similarly for Calabria, there is a general lack of information on settlement patterning, or even settlement types—again, with the noticeable exception of the Acconia research—as well as a dearth of subsistence information. Work at Capo Alfiere was initiated in part to begin to address these problems, at least for the immediate Crotone area. The site was excavated as part of a diachronic study that includes looking at agriculture and land use from the Neolithic through the Medieval period; as such it was dug with local objectives in mind. However, given the relative lack of this kind of information for the Neolithic in southern Italy and Sicily, the broader implications for the work in the prehistory of this area of the Mediterranean deserves careful consideration.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3 Environmental Setting

When discussing the placement of settlements among preindustrial societies, it is essential to address environmental constraints. This is particularly true for Neolithic communities, which are presumed to be locally autonomous and economically wholly agrarian. This chapter thus begins with a discussion of the environmental situation of the Crotone area, and of the availability of raw materials known to have been utilized in the Neolithic period. Possible environmental changes since that time must also be considered, and consequently the direct applicability of evidence derived from the recent past. Finally, attention will be paid both to the environmental constraints on the Neolithic occupation, and the possible effects of that activity on subsequent environmental conditions. Calabria The area currently called Calabria is the southernmost region of the Italian mainFigure 3.1 Map of Calabria. Red triangle indicates source of obsidian. land (Fig. 3.1). It is a long, mountainous peninsula, with its western coast on the Tyrrhenian Sea, while the Ionian Sea and the Gulf of of the agricultural land is on Pliocene marine deposits Taranto are to the east. At its southwestern tip are the around the fringes of the mountains. The largest lowStraits of Messina, beyond which lies the large island land area is the plain of Sibari in the northeast. of Sicily. The majority of Calabria is mountainous, The Sila Massif is not volcanic. A line of volcanoes functionally a continuation of the Apennine chain. does exist running north to south across the Mediter The Calabrian peninsula is constricted in shape ranean a little to the west. Several of these are sources about halfway down its length. At this point there is of obsidian, a widely exploited raw material in prehisalso a gap in the mountains, allowing relatively easy toric times. The obsidian source nearest to Calabria passage between coasts and marked by the town of is on the island of Lipari, some 150 km across the Catanzaro. North of this, the range is known as the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Sila Massif itself is a probable Sila Massif, formed of crystalline rocks, with granites source for various metamorphic rocks, such as jadeflanked on the western side by schists. To the south of ite and serpentinite, used prehistorically for polished Catanzaro, granites give way to gneisses and schists in stone tools (Dixon 1989). Cherts and other knappable the Aspromonte, behind the city of Reggio Calabria stones of lesser quality also occur, both outcropping in and the Straits of Messina (Walker 1958, 212). Most exposed strata and redeposited in stream channels. 15

16

Environmental Setting

Figure 3.2 View looking north of Capo Alfiere from the beach, showing lowest marine terrace.

The Study Area Crotone—as well as the study area for the ICA survey—is about halfway up the Ionian side of the peninsula. Here the north–south oriented coastline of the Gulf of Taranto turns east as far as the egress of the transpeninsula crossing point at Catanzaro, 40 km away. This coastal corner forms a broad, relatively flat headland marked by the capes of Capo Colonna and Capo Rizzuto. It was an important landfall for shipping, as demonstrated by the large number of wrecks of all periods found along this stretch of coast. The city of Crotone—Croton in classical times—is just north of Capo Colonna. In antiquity, this was one of the few natural harbors along the entire coast, and was mentioned as a port in the Satyricon of Petronius. Topography and Geology The conspicuous topographic feature of the peninsula between Crotone and Le Castella is the series of marine terraces that step back from the present shoreline towards the interior (Figs. 3.2–3). These are relatively flat on top, sometimes sloping steeply at the edge towards the next terrace down, and frequently in a dissected manner. There are two major terraces; one is 25 to 35 m above present sea level, dating to the Tyrrhenian interglacial (Folk 1987).1 Overlooking this level is a major plateau ranging between 150 and 200 m above sea level, rising westward to 242 m near the town of Cutro (Folk 1987). 1

Chapter 13 is the illustrated and revised version of Dr. Folk’s 1987 report. (JR)

The geologic material in these terraces is a soft bluish marine clay of middle Pliocene to early Pleistocene date. This is draped against and over earlier uplifted and severely distorted sandstone and clay beds of Miocene or early Pliocene age (Folk 1987). The upper bluish clays—argille azzure, or argilla marnosa di Cutro, as it is known locally—are 500 to 1,000 m thick, and so archaeologically can be seen as a bedrock for the local area (Folk 1987). This clay “is subject to intense landsliding during wet weather and forms. . . steep, badland slopes over much of its outcrop area” (Folk 1987, 3). Sand and gravel deposits of Pleistocene age are found on top of the argilla marnosa or “draped like garlands around the cliffed edges” (Folk 1987, 4). The level surfaces of the terraces represent stages in the lowering sea level during the Pleistocene. The sands and gravel deposits atop the terraces vary in thickness from a maximum of 20 m, and can be patchy (Folk 1987). These sediments are a mixture of carbonate and siliceous debris (Folk 1987). The latter are derived from the Sila Massif inland, presumably via the River Neto, which provides the major drainage to the area and empties into the sea just north of Crotone. The Pleistocene capping sediments are highly porous, letting water percolate to the impermeable clays below. The edges of ridgetops or terraces, where the interface between the two strata crops out, are thus a frequent location for water sources in the form of springs or seeps. Surveys have shown that settlement has tended to cluster at these points in all periods.

Jon Morter The tips of the three major coastal promontories— Capo Colonna, Capo Rizzuto, and Le Castella—are protected from erosion from the coastal currents by “thick sections of Tyrrhenian age carbonate sediments of reef and back-reef origin” (Folk 1987, 5). Even so this is not completely effective. The vulnerability of the exposed argille marnose to weathering by sea or atmosphere can be seen at many spots, including Capo Alfiere, where steep slopes of Pleistocene sand, gravels, and limestones, thus undercut, collapse down the slope of the clay below (Fig. 3.3). Soils The present soil covering for much of this area is clay. Usually this is dark gray near the surface, because of organic inclusions, and paler farther down. The clay is quite alkaline, and climatic conditions are currently not conducive to the formation of humus. Moisture loss and overheating are rapid when conditions are dry, whereas too much water simply puddles on the surface, similarly inhibiting organics while creating a widespread quagmire. In some locales sandier clays occur, so intensive viticulture and olive industries are possible. Elsewhere, before the recent construction of irrigation systems, open grain fields were the norm (Brasacchio 1950). Both Folk (1987) and Delano Smith (1987) have remarked on the detrimental effects that the concentrated nature of the rainfall pattern can have on the soils and rocks of the region, particularly if these are exposed by defoliation from whatever cause. On any steep clay slopes, landslips

17

and erosion continue to be a major problem (Brasacchio 1950). Climate The present Mediterranean climate acting on this topography can be characterized by “moderate rainfall markedly concentrated in the winter months, mild winter temperatures rarely if ever falling to freezing point, and warm to hot summers” (Trump 1980, 6). The eastern side of Calabria is drier than the west. The massif of the Sila range places the Ionian coast in the Ionic-Adriatic weather system, preventing the moisture borne in westerly winds from reaching the eastern side of the peninsula. Rainfall on the Ionian coast averages 50 to 75 cm per year. This compares with 75 to 100 cm generally on the opposite side of the Sila Massif, and up to 150 cm for that area of the Tyrrhenian coast just north and west of the Straits of Messina (Walker 1958). This also means that this coast is exposed to cold and drier winds from the Alps and Balkans in the winter months (Brasacchio 1950). Most rainfall now comes from easterly and southerly winds off the Mediterranean. However, the latter can also be very dry (the scirocco). Locally, most rainfall occurs in the autumn, continuing somewhat in the winter and spring, with almost none in the summer (Brasacchio 1950). Until recently, the local climate was thought to be generally unfavorable to intensive forms of cultivation because of lack of rain, high rates of evaporation, and damaging winter winds (Brasacchio 1950).

Figure 3.3 Survey photo, looking north to Capo Colonna. Note eroding Pleistocene deposits and Pliocene clays.

18

Environmental Setting

Figure 3.4 Slope vegetation below Capo Alfiere.

Flora and Fauna As Whitehouse (1968b) notes, the current vegetation in southern Italy can in no measure be considered climax cover. Standing on the site of Capo Alfiere today, one is looking across a landscape where the vegetation is almost entirely a result of human activity. The flora and fauna predominant on this landscape are domesticates or introductions—recently eucalyptus and prickly pear cactus. What is currently visible is derived from the “well-known crop trilogy of Mediterranean Europe” (Delano Smith 1979, 192), that is grain, olive and vine, and the complementary domestic animals (pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats). However, the economic infrastructure is now changing extremely rapidly. The peasant lifestyle, dependent upon a balance of the products of these various plants and animals, supplemented by household gardens and seasonal gathering such as land-snail collection in June, is fast disappearing. Milk supply is no longer dependent on each household’s maintaining a goat; tractors have replaced oxen and mules. Frequently, farming the small plots created by the division of the large estates in the 1950s has become a part-time activity, supplementing cash earned elsewhere. The same is true for fishing, now done from motorized boats. Although at present the crops have remained the same, their economic significance has not. Change is likely to continue. As large-scale irrigation pipelines are laid into this area—something that

has been proceeding rapidly over the last ten years— cash crops such as citrus are being introduced. Preparation of the ground for these orchards includes deep ploughing to a meter or more in depth, resulting in the widespread destruction of buried archaeological material, a process that is now ongoing throughout Italy. Even the dense stands of trees now visible on steeply sloping hillsides west of the site are recent, the result of attempts in the last thirty years to stabilize the clay badlands of the slopes. Eucalyptus is a popular species for this purpose. Where such groves have not been planted, the steep slopes carry a thick, weedy cover in wet years and are almost bare when rain is lacking. This is the kind of cover Whitehouse (1968b, 339) describes as garrigue, being derived from macchia further degraded by overgrazing.2 True macchia was widespread in the Crotone area before the land reforms of the 1950s, when much more land was cleared and brought under cultivation (Nicoletti 1989, 8). Little of this type of cover now remains. Current Environmental Changes in the Study Area There is some evidence that the coastline between Crotone and Le Castella may be undergoing a period of change. Underwater archaeological finds include stone quarrying for column drums, presumably of Classical Greek date, submerged Roman and medi-

2 Macchia

(maquis in French) is a low, scrubby mixed vegetation; garrigue is a weedier precursor to it. (JR)

Jon Morter aeval harbour moles, and finds of Bronze Age pottery some distance from the shore. These suggest that the local sea level has risen by several m (possibly as many as 6) in the last 2,000 or so years (Gino Cantafera and Domenico Marino, personal communication, 1991).3 Geomorphological evidence tends to support this, in that deep downcutting of stream channels is not seen here. This contrasts with the situation at Metaponto, where river channel downcutting of more than 10 m is reported (James Abbott, personal communication, 1991).4 Classical authors commented on the presence of small islands several km off the point of Capo Colonna; the islands no longer exist today (Brasacchio 1950). There are two immediate possible explanations for a change in sea level, either the water level itself is rising generally, or locally the land is sinking. Both possibilities have some support. Around Crotone, there is a gentle eastward slope visible in the flat terraces immediately behind the coast (James Abbott and Charles Frederick, personal communication 1990),5 possibly suggesting that this section of the coast may be subject to general subsidence at present. Folk notes that although Calabria itself is presently thought to be subject to general uplift, local subsidence is quite possible (personal communication, 1991).6 Evidence of widespread or eustatic sea level change since 6000 bc is problematic (Delano Smith 1979). However, Van Andel and Sutton (1987) have argued that general sea level rise is still taking place, although at a slow pace and subject to locally variable isostatic compensation for shifting water distribution that makes general observation of the change difficult (Van Andel and Sutton 1987, 33). They present evidence for a Neolithic site in the Argolid submerged by 11 m since the 6th millennium bc (Van Andel and Sutton 3 Gino Cantafera is an amateur underwater archaeologist, based in Crotone, who has done extensive work documenting underwater finds along this coast. Dott. Domenico Marino is a prehistorian, originally from Crotone, who has worked with Cantafera and is very familiar with this area. 4 James Abbott is presently pursuing doctoral research in the Department of Geography, the University of Texas at Austin. He is working on a geomorphological study of the southern Italian coastal area in connection with the Institute for Classical Archaeology projects at Crotone and Metaponto. (He completed his dissertation in 1997). (JR) 5 Charles Frederick is a doctoral candidate in the Geography Department, the University of Texas at Austin. (After receiving his doctorate in 1997 he became staff geoarchaeologist at the Texas Department of Transportation.) (JR) 6 Dr. Robert Folk is Dave P. Carlton Professor Emeritus in the Department of Geology at the University of Texas at Austin.

19

1987, 33). Similar findings are also reported on the Mediterranean coast of France, where the sea level of the early 6th millennium bc has been estimated at approximately 10 m lower than today (Mills 1983, 103). Again, submerged Neolithic sites have been found (Mills 1983, 103). This has implications for any discussion of Croton’s coastline possibly extant during the Neolithic period. If one takes the position of assuming a relatively constant sea level since then (6000 bc would be essentially near the beginning of the Neolithic period locally), a change of at least 5 or more meters seems to have occurred, presumably as the land sank. Conversely, if the rate of change of sea level is assumed to have been steady since 6000 bc (approximately 1 m per 500 years), then a local sea level change of some 16 m may have occurred, either through the land’s sinking or the sea’s rising. If this is correct, then Capo Alfiere would not have been a coastal location during its Neolithic occupation. Even if only 5 m of change has occurred, this still means that the coast may have been dramatically different 5,000 or more years ago. Given the evidence from the Argolid and Provence, a sea level rise of at least 10 m seems quite possible.7 Climate and Environment in the Neolithic The spread of the Neolithic in the western Mediterranean seems to correspond very broadly to the transition from the Boreal to Atlantic climatic episodes. This is dated at between 6200 bc and 5500 bc depending upon one’s source (compare Barker 1985; Champion et al. 1984; Delano Smith 1979). Weatherwise, there appears to have been a warming and moistening trend resulting in a “climatic optimum” at about 5500 bc (Delano Smith 1979). The dryer weather of the Boreal period, with colder winters, gave way to warmer 7 In this discussion, Morter shows his preception by raising several issues

the complexity of which has since become much more evident. It was not really until a decade after Morter wrote this that human-induced climate change (global warming) came to scientific attention, and with it the possibility that sea levels have been rising in recent history. However, sea level change ascribable to recent human-induced climate change would not seem, on present evidence, to account for the scale of changes noted here. Studies of the Calabrian and Sicilian coastline indicate general uplift along the Tyrrhenian coast and eastern Sicily; however, an increasing amount of evidence suggests that the Ionian coast may be sinking locally. For example, underwater reconnaissance at Bova Marina has recently located peat deposits dated to about 4000 bc at a depth between 25 and 30 m. This suggests, as Morter suggests for Capo Alfiere, that the Neolithic coastline is substantially submerged and sites currently located on the coast would have originally been well inland. (JR)

20

Environmental Setting

and moister conditions.8 The ecological consequence of this was apparently to produce conditions ideal for forest vegetation. Beech-dominated cover moved to higher elevations as deciduous oak forests became dominant below about 1200 m in elevation. The evergreen oaks, which become so common later on, seem to have been restricted to very low or drier locations (Delano Smith 1979). “By the end of the Atlantic, the landscape of Mediterranean Europe would have been one of a heavily forested region” according to Delano Smith (1979, 312). One can anticipate that this forested landscape would have been home to some large wild fauna not now seen in the Crotone area. The aurochs (Bos primigenius) existed in Italy until at least Roman times (Bökönyi 1989a) and is now extinct. The wild boar (Sus scrofa meridionalis), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), bear (Ursus arctos) and wolf (Canis lupus) are all known from earlier Mesolithic hunting in this region (Whitehouse 1968b). Conversely, the early domestic fauna commonly found at archaeological sites—sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), and pig (Sus domesticus)— was not native to southern Italy and is considered to have been introduced during the Neolithic period (Bökönyi 1989a, 371). The European mouflon (Ovis musimon) is now considered to be a feral version of the Neolithic domesticates (Clutton-Brock 1987, 53). The end of the Atlantic phase occurred around 3000 bc (Delano Smith 1979, 313). This would correspond with the Final Neolithic or Eneolithic in Italy. Drier conditions in the Subboreal favored evergreen oaks (particularly the holm oak, Quercus ilex) at lower elevations, or near dryer or disturbed areas. Also found is the cork oak (Quercus suber). A notable forest of Q. suber gave its name to the area around Le Castella known as Soverito. Remnants of this forest were apparently in existence until the middle of this century (Marino, personal communication, 1990). Although palynological evidence for southern Europe is limited, Delano Smith has some geomorphological support for this climatic model. Evidence from the silting of ditches dug during the Early to 8

This picture has been modified substantially over the last decade by climate reconstruction based upon Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. It remains true that climate in the Neolithic was generally slightly warmer and probably moister than today. What has become clear is the frequency and rapidity of variation. At the largest scale, post-glacial warming happened very rapidly. On a smaller scale, there appear to have been many warmer or colder episodes during the Neolithic period. (JR)

Middle Neolithic periods on the Tavoliere suggests warmer and wetter conditions than at present (Delano Smith 1983). She proposes that the likely forest cover there would have initially yielded highly fertile soil when first cleared for agriculture. However, she goes on to note that the combination of defoliation and warm, moist weather may have resulted in a very rapid loss of nitrogen from the soil, loss of soil fertility, and over the long term the initiation of the erosion to which these soils are so susceptible (Delano Smith 1979, 317; 1983, 13). The Mediterranean region is frequently characterized by its red soils. These form typically on limestone parent material. Delano Smith believes that these soils are probably Pleistocene in age and are only visible as a result of the loss of overlying blacker soils, now found redeposited in the river valleys (Delano Smith 1979, 281). She has suggested that the loss of more-recent soils is primarily a result of human activity beginning in Neolithic times, in combination with conducive climatic and sedimentary conditions. Working near Metaponto, Brückner (1986) has identified what he believes to be four episodes of severe erosion leading to valley filling strata. He dates the final three of these to the 9th century bc–3rd century AD (but especially to the height of the Greek colony in the 5th to 3rd centuries bc), to the 7th–8th centuries AD or the high Medieval period at some point, and to the 19th century, respectively. The earliest episode Brückner dates to before 4150 bc. He believes that it was a result of climatic fluctuations before the Neolithic. However, this is still being investigated and could be a result of Neolithic activity (Abbott, personal communication, 1991). In the Crotone area, such a sequence has not yet been found, although it may also exist there. This is because, as noted earlier, the deep downcutting of the river courses, which would create a section through the fill sequences in the valleys, does not appear to be present (Abbott, personal communication, 1991). One other change in the landscape also needs to be mentioned. This is the presence of swampier areas, particularly adjacent to the coast. Before World War II this region was notoriously malarial, an indicator of such conditions nearby (Brasacchio 1950). Around Crotone, most of these formerly swampy areas are gone, now drained and under cultivation. In the vicinity of Capo Colonna, where the evidence suggests

Jon Morter that the sea is rising, there is no recent evidence for coastal lagoons and swamps. Nonetheless, one must bear in mind that, if the supposition of rising sea level is correct (at present, information is lacking one way or the other) it is possible that shoals and marshes might have existed here during the Neolithic. Thus, marsh resources, or possibly more extensive shallow coastal conditions, might have been present then, as is thought to be the case for the coastal site of Coppa Nevigata on the coast of Puglia, where molluscs are a conspicuous part of the faunal assemblage (Bökönyi 1989a, 372).9 Interpretative Problems Related to the Climate and Environment of the Neolithic Period It seems likely that initial Neolithic colonization, or the introduction of Neolithic subsistence techniques through food production, would have encountered conditions in the Crotone area similar to those on the Tavoliere suggested by Delano Smith. One of the questions to be asked of the data is whether the deforested, extensive agricultural system found in the post-Medieval period originated in the Neolithic. Put more broadly, what were the Neolithic farming techniques, and what was their environmental effect? Recent commentators (e.g., Sherratt [1981]; Halstead [1981]) have questioned the presumption of extensive, as opposed to intensive, agriculture before the introduction of ploughing in the Bronze Age. They also query the assumption of the necessity of arboreally destructive swiddening in an environment with initially better soils (i.e., not jungle), which might maintain fertility with careful husbandry (Halstead 1981). There is also the resource renewability possible with the careful use of deciduous trees, which need not necessarily lead to widespread deforestation, as, for example, from fuel collection (Rackham 1982). Thus, in considering the evidence for Neolithic farming systems and their environmental effects, 9 This picture, of the draining and filling (bonifica) of marshes, is true for coastal swampy areas throughout Italy. At the same time, over the years there has accumulated surprisingly little evidence for the consumption of shellfish, and hence this must be left only as a possibility; certainly the faunal evidence from Capo Alfiere itself does not bear out any substantial consumption of shellfish. (JR)

21

there are at least two hypothetical scenarios. A model of intensive gardening, maintaining yields with crop rotation and manuring, suggests that massive environmental damage need not be automatically assumed of agricultural colonizers. Conversely, discovering evidence of massive erosion and landscape degradation coincidental with the Neolithic arrival might lead one to suggest that the agricultural techniques employed were less than environmentally benign.10 Summary This section reviews evidence of the broad environmental conditions and resources that might have been presented to Neolithic agriculturalists in the Crotone area. In the recent historical past, social, soil and weather conditions made extensive cropping patterns the most viable agricultural option. However, simi­ larity to today’s patterns for either climatic conditions or the likely farming methods employed cannot be automatically assumed. Indeed, the Neolithic conditions for both weather and initial vegetation cover, as well as the soils below, may have been far more favorable. Additionally, one must anticipate that the organization of labor within these early farming communities would have been also nonanalogous to anything known for this area from the historical past. Thus, two aspects of Neolithic exploitation of the environment around Crotone will ultimately need to be borne in mind when one considers both the archaeological and environmental data. First, given the probability of different and more conducive conditions, can an extensive, deforesting agriculture be assumed? Second, if widespread Neolithic damage to the landscape is documented, what facets of the Neolithic exploitative system, itself relatively poorly understood, were responsible? 10 Since Morter wrote, there has accumulated very little evidence for any large-scale deforestation in the Neolithic; as far as geomorphological evidence attests, it appears to date to the Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Roman times, and it was renewed most devastatingly in the 18th–19th centuries with the need for timber and fuel. While there is very little evidence of any kind for Neolithic Italian farming techniques, Morter’s first hypothesis, small-scale gardening, appears most likely based upon considerations such as the lack of intensified pastoralism and the limited economic needs of small communities. (JR)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

4 History of Research at Capo Alfiere

Research Prior to the Excavations The Neolithic site at Capo Alfiere entered the archaeological literature in 1973, when its existence was recorded by staff from the Museo Archeologico di Crotone (Salvatori 1973). Material was being brought to the surface by agricultural activity and erosion of the cliff where the site sits. It was further exposed in the early 1980s by the cutting of a boundary ditch along the cliff edge, revealing a stratum bearing material that was similar to the Stentinello-style ceramics known from Sicily and Lipari. The preliminary notice was followed by visits in the mid-1970s by Albert J. Ammerman. At that time he was carrying out an initial reconnaissance of prospective areas with Neolithic sites in Calabria, which he later developed around Acconia on the west coast (Ammerman 1985a). During the 1980s, there were two more parties interested in the site. Local prehistorian Domenico Marino (Fig. 4.1) visited the site several times and used the surface collections to discuss Stentinello period finds in the Crotone area (Marino 1983, 1989). Additionally, the site was visited by survey crews of the Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICA) of the University of Texas at Austin, who were working on blanket survey coverage of the peninsula of Capo Colonna at the request of the Soprintendenza archeologica della Calabria (see Chapter 11, D’Annibale 1990). The ICA surveys were part of a broader research project (ongoing at the time of this writing) into the chorai or rural territories of Greek colonies on the southern Italian coast. This process was begun around Metaponto in 1974 and expanded to Crotone as a second, Figure 4.1 Jon Morter and Do- comparative case in 1983 menico Marino at Capo Alfiere. (Carter and D’Annibale

1985). Although using the Greek period as a focus, this project is not temporally restricted, and to gain a more complete understanding of the interaction between human occupations and the landscape, it extends the chronological scope to periods both preceding and succeeding the Greeks. The survey is used as a preliminary phase in the research, to be fleshed out more fully with excavations and environmental studies as questions and problems arise. Capo Alfiere, with its apparent buried stratum of Neolithic date, was seen as a useful starting point for the recovery of information on the first food-producing phase of the occupation of the area. Surface examination indicated that faunal remains were present and that there was a good chance that floral material might also be preserved. Review of Excavation History and Objectives With regular concessions from the Ministero dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali and the support of the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Calabria, and the superintendent, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, ICA carried out two seasons of excavation at Capo Alfiere, in 1987 and 1990. The objective in 1987 was to recover samples of economic subsistence data, together with sufficient contextual information about the settlement to be able to interpret the subsistence data with confidence. The Figure 4.2 Lorenzo Costantini, sieving for botanical remains. results included an unusually large quantity of seeds from the Neolithic contexts and a rich sampling of faunal remains (Fig. 4.2).1

1

The botanical materials are discussed in Chapter 16 by Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini. The faunal remains were examined by the late Professor Sandor Bökönyi, with completed analysis and discussion by Professor Erika Gál and Zsofia Eszter Kovács in Chapters 14 and 15. (JR)

23

24

History of Research at Capo Alfiere

The Approach in 1987

Survey work had shown that, in the side of the modern ditch through the site, a darker stratum was present at a depth of about 1.5 m from the present ground surface. The 1987 excavation began by cleaning off this section for a stretch of about 30 m to assess the deposit. Meanwhile, a test unit 2 m 2 (Trench 2) was sunk into the field behind about 20 m to the west to assess the stratigraphy on the other side of the excavation concesFigure 4.3 Looking northeast. View of site at the end of the 1990 excavation season. sion plot. Figure 4.4 shows the Digging lasted eight weeks with a maximum crew concession plot relative to the site location. Trench of sixteen, reduced to ten for the closing fortnight. 2 is marked on Figure 4.5, which shows the posiAlthough the floral and faunal materials were found tion of the excavated areas within the site. This in 1987, the unusual architectural finds were felt work revealed three main points, listed below.

to warrant further investigation, both in their own right and to aid in the interpretation of the other finds (see Morter 1990). Initial categorization and analysis of the finds was begun in 1987 while the excavation was in progress. Further study of the artifacts recovered in 1987 was done for three weeks in the early summer of 1988. The summer of 1990 was the earliest that circumstances permitted a second excavation season at the site (Fig. 4.3). That season lasted twelve weeks with a crew of twelve to eighteen. Again, as far as possible, artifact study coincided with the excavation season. Six weeks of detailed study of the ceramics (by the present writer) and the chipped stone (by Yin Lam of the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta) were possible in the summer of 1991, along with additional drawing and photographic work.2 2

Yin Lam is now of the Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia. The following years were busy ones for Jon Morter, who was field director of excavations in Metaponto and in the Crimean Chersonesos, Ukraine, as well as taking up a new teaching position at the College of Charleston, South Carolina. He renewed activity analyzing the Capo Alfiere database in 1995–1996, and was planning a full analysis of the Neolithic ceramics at the time of his death. Subsequent work on the collections has included a study of some of the pottery by S. Scarcella in 2006 and study of the obsidian and repacking, relabelling and curation by H. Farr in 2007. (JR)

1. The majority of the 1.5 m of overburden at the east side of the site was of recent origin, being surplus soil bulldozed over from a nearby gas wellhead operation (referred to as “AGIP soil” after the gas company responsible). Thus, the buried darker horizon spotted during the survey was a former plough zone, worked until recently. Conspicuous debris from the 1950s was found above the plough zone, presumably from the occupation of the drystone structure there at that time. 2. The test pit (Trench 2) revealed only plough soil to a depth of about 50 cm, which directly overlays the calcareous, friable bedrock. This showed that the bedrock rose rapidly from east to west, and that no intact remains survived towards the center of the headland of Capo Alfiere, where the ground rises somewhat. It is possible that features that had been cut into the bedrock survive here, but we had no inexpensive means of looking for them. 3. Intact Neolithic period deposits were evident beneath the plough zone in the long section along the side of the modern ditch. The ditch had also cut through a very large drystone wall and other rubble, suggesting a structure.

25

Jon Morter

Figure 4.4 Capo Alfiere, site location plan. Note drainage ditch (dark green) that cuts through the eastern portion of the site (tan square). White lines indicate 10 m grid. Contour interval is 20 cm.

0

30 m

1987 excavation 1990 excavation

Figure 4.5 Capo Alfiere. Plan of excavation trenches.

26

History of Research at Capo Alfiere

These results indicated that the most intact deposits were beside the modern ditch and might include good structural evidence. This latter was unexpected, but seemed useful for the interpretation of other finds. Methodology The excavation methodology was to use a horizontal or open-area approach, exposing as large an area of the site as possible, and keeping as much of the working area as chronologically synchronized as possible. It has been found that a larger working area can give a much clearer idea what is being revealed. Several of the stratigraphic problems encountered—or created— stemmed from situations that dictated restricted Figure 4.6 Looking east-southeast. Capo Alfiere during the 1990 excavaexcavation. tions. The drainage ditch is visible cutting through the site next to the cliff Site recording was based on the context sys- edge. Aspects of the 1990 excavation include the cliff-edge extension of tem (Harris 1979), in which a single sequence Trench 4 (at tripod), Trench 6 (excavators at upper right corner), and the of numbers is assigned to stratigraphic elements extension of Trench 1 across the southern edge of the site. such as layers, features, etc. Numbers can also be as- with a zero point designated in the sea to the south signed to events, such as the cutting of a pit (with a and west.4 second number for its subsequent fill) or a floor surface Except in obvious plough zone situations, soil was and its associated finds. Assigning these additional removed by meter square provenience units and sieved numbers can help determine the sequence of activities with a mesh of approximately 5 mm. This means that or deposits in a site up to the point of excavation. Crit- the recovery of most classes of finds can be taken as ical to the system is the recording of the relationship quite reliable and representative, even for small piecof a unit to its surrounding contexts (e.g., above, below, es.5 Soil samples from more-sensitive contexts—e.g., cut by, etc.). The numbers themselves mean nothing; those believed undisturbed by modern activity such as ploughing—were taken from the field for water flotanor does the sequence in which they were assigned. Small finds or artifacts were initially assigned pro- tion recovery of carbonized plant remains and small venience based on the context with which they were fauna. As far as possible, flotation processing occurred associated. Ideally, three-dimensional point prove- within a few days of sampling to provide a rapid innience of finds is practiced. However, the large quan- formation feedback to the excavators. Unfortunately, tities of materials from Mediterranean sites usually it was not possible to float soil at the site because of precludes point-provenience recording except in spe- water supply problems. cial instances. At Capo Alfiere, finds were collected 4 The Capo Alfiere excavations followed a fairly standard methodology. by 1 m 2 within a context area to allow more-detailed By “context,” the British-trained Morter refers to a unit of excavation spatial analysis later if desired. The grid used was con- which corresponds to both “stratum” and “feature” in American parlance and unità stratigraficha in Italian usage. As in most American, British, structed arbitrarily, oriented on magnetic north, 3 and and Italian prehistoric excavations, these contexts, which can be quite 3

The grid coordinates operate like a standard map. All squares are referred to by an easting and northing from zero, and so designated by their southwestern corner. More-exact provenience can be assigned by adding the requisite fractions of a meter to the relevant square reference. The zero point for Capo Alfiere was arbitrarily set 400 m south and 800 m west of the site, with the intent of producing dissimilar easting and northing readings and reducing the likelihood of on-site recording error. It is then obvious when coordinates have been accidentally switched.

extensive, were subdivided into arbitrary horizontal units (1 m quadrants) and vertical units (arbitrary levels). (JR) 5 As an additional check on finds, a pottery lot or batch number system was used. Each group of artifacts from a day’s work in a particular context and square was assigned a unique batch number. This allowed easy checking of material through the laboratory, and also permitted further differentiation of finds from several days’ work in one spot should that prove desirable later. Each group of finds thus has a context, grid, and batch designation. This apparent overdocumentation is useful for sorting out field notation errors at some later date.

27

Jon Morter

beneath the plough zone soil about 5 m back from, and paralleling, our prepared section along the ditch. From this point west, all Neolithic deposits, including the big walls, had been completely scraped away by ploughing. Thus, the intact Neolithic material actually consisted of a strip 5 m wide paralleling the ditch and cliff edge. Plough scars were conspicuous on the tops of the wall boulders. To the north of the northern wall, the ploughing could be followed sinking into the daub and stone scatter against the wall, such that only the meter-wide strip sheltered by the wall could be conA

No

w rth

all

Hearth area B

age d itch

The 1987 Excavations The main area of excavation, Trench 1 (Figs. 4.6–8), was placed to cover the wall feature seen in the standing section formed by the side of the modern ditch, and the apparently intact rubble accumulation to the south of it. Up to 1.5 m of recent overburden (the AGIP wellhead spoil mentioned above) was removed by machine. At that point, hand tools were employed to assess the depth of plough soil above the rubble. To save time, much of the upper plough zone was not sieved, but most was removed manually because of the unevenness of the rubble below. The 1987 excavation area in Trench 1 amounted to some 60 m 2. The north stone wall, noted in the section that cut through the site, was found to continue intact for 5.3 m to the west-southwest. It was built of large slabs and boulders. Another stretch of similar walling was found at the southern end of the trench. Between these two constructions was a carpet of stone rubble, quite dense in places, with one or two noticeable gaps. The bedrock, rising towards the higher ground in the center of the headland to the west, was found directly

Drain

Figure 4.7 Looking north over Trench 1 and Extension 1. The drainage ditch is on the right and the southwest wall in the center.

So

ut

hw es

tw all

Trench 1 D

Trench 1 extension E 0

2m

Figure 4.8 Capo Alfiere, location of soundings.

C

28

History of Research at Capo Alfiere

Figure 4.9 View looking northwest, Sounding B in center.

sidered intact. It appears that a combination of the massiveness of the walls and a dip in the ground at this spot had combined to preserve the stone and daub rubble enclosed by the walls. As the rubble carpet was exposed, tentative evidence of a surface or some possible activity across the top of it was suggested by the position of some rocks and indications of a trodden earthen surface in places (i.e., harder soil, apparently packed, and artifacts lying horizontally). However, because of the plough disturbance, it is difficult to be sure if this was evidence of an occupation or the ploughing itself. As the extent of the rubble was revealed and the massive and highly unusual nature of the walls realized, it became obvious that the site was too complicated and too important for one short season of excavation. Most of the rubble was left intact as the 1987 season wound down, but digging was continued where large gaps were obvious. There were two reasons for this: 1) to assess the stratigraphy below the rubble itself, which was more extensive than was first apparent from our cleaned section in the ditch; 2) to check whether the site had an earlier component, as suggested by the collection of sherds from the surface. Limited soundings within two gaps present in the rubble (about 4 m 2 total), inside the enclosing walls, indicated the existence of one probable, and a

second possible, cobble pavement. The larger of these holes, Sounding B, seemed to continue through the rubble and actually be a later pit (Fig. 4.9). To the north of the northern wall, where stone rubble was not encountered, it was decided to continue excavating to bedrock (about 5 m 2 in extent) for a true sounding or saggio (Sounding A). This work revealed a foundation trench for the wall. It also suggested that an earlier stratum might exist. Because of the sloping nature of the bedrock, the extent of the sounding at the bottom was so restricted that, given our knowledge at the time, the sample of supposedly earlier material was too small to be distinguishable from the other Neolithic material at the site. The existence of an earlier phase, as opposed to possible multiple layers of very similar material, was thus left unproven. Farther north, beyond the main trench, a large lens of pale, almost ashy soil was visible in the ditch section. The top of this feature had been truncated by ploughing, as we demonstrated with a small, one meter square test, Trench 3 (Fig. 4.5), and so its exact relation to the rest of the site is still uncertain. At the close of the 1987 season, it was felt possible that the major walls themselves might represent part of a standing structure, with paving within. The southern extent of the trench, however, had not reached the far side of the southwest wall. So knowledge of the rest of the settlement, and hence of the nature of the structure or the significance of the finds

Jon Morter

29

Figure 4.10 Looking south at the baulk of Trench 1, with Trench 1 Extension beyond.

associated with it, was minimal. The site had demonstrated that, in addition to a large sample of rather fine Stentinello ceramics, seeds and faunal remains, the economic data sought by the overarching project did survive. However, the context of this information was still problematic.

The Approach in 1990 In 1990, the project had the opportunity to resume the excavation at Capo Alfiere. The questions to be answered continued to be: 1. What was the structure or enclosure defined by the large wall? 2. Could these walls be traced further? and 3. What was the nature of the rest of the occupation beyond the enclosure? Excavations were aimed at expanding the area opened in 1987 to look at the adjacent part of the site and to sample other parts of the site. Tests were placed in the narrow strip of ground between the modern ditch and the present cliff edge to see whether farther stretches of the walls might survive there. Also, a magnetometer was brought onto the site to check for evidence of other buried features that might aid in our understanding of the layout of the settlement. We were particularly curious to see whether a ditch around the circumference of the site might have existed, as this is a common feature at Sicilian sites in similar coastal situations, such as the type site of Stentinello itself.

The 1990 Excavations To trace the line of the southwest wall and look at the area beyond it, an additional 27 m 2 were added to the south end of Trench 1, and then a further 18 m 2 as the Trench 1 Extension (Figs. 4.5–6). To check the possible survival of walls eastward between the ditch and cliff edge, two small trenches (Trench 4 and Trench 6) totaling 10 m 2 were dug. The southwest wall line had not been completely traced when it disappeared into the southern baulk of the 1987 trench (Fig. 4.10). It should then have intersected, and appeared in, the section cut by the ditch and cleaned in 1987. Yet it, and any continuation of the rubble spread, were not visible in the section, except for an enigmatic single line of small stones seen in the section some meters further south. In addition, a small trial of some 6 m 2 (Trench 5) was dug beside the ditch ten m south of the 1987 trench (Fig.4.5). Trench 5 was placed some distance from the previous work in an attempt to check the extent of the surviving deposit to the south. All our trenches in 1990 demonstrated that plough damage to the site was even more widespread than we feared. Just as the ploughing dipped beyond the north wall, so it was also lower to the south of the southwest wall (Fig. 4.11). This has meant the loss of all related levels, if such existed, in our trenches to the south. Similarly, at some point the area between the remnants of the site and the cliff edge had also been ploughed. That episode went down to the bedrock,

30

History of Research at Capo Alfiere

Figure 4.11 Looking north. Note plough marks in Trench 1 Extension.

where plough scars were evident on the rock, up to the cliff edge. Presumably, this agricultural work occurred before the most recent collapse of the cliff face; buried crevices found in the bedrock in three of our trenches show the erosional process still active. The ploughing evidence also explained the disappearance of the southeastern end of the southwest wall. It was completely removed a half-meter before its intersection with the ditch line and our cleaned section. Trench 5, the southernmost test, found no intact ancient levels but confirmed more-recent history. Several strands of rusted barbed wire and a coin of the Italian Empire dating to 1940 supported the stories told of the military post that once existed nearby. Although ploughing to the south of the walls had removed any substantial area of the Neolithic level corresponding to that of the rubble spread preserved within the major walls, it had not destroyed the entire Neolithic deposit. Left intact in two places was

Figure 4.12 Rubble carpet, Trench 1.

an earlier Neolithic stratum, which, once recognized, could be traced continuing under the later level preserved within the large walls. The enigmatic stone line in our cleaned section along the ditch proved to be the edge of a small area of cobble floor belonging to this lower stratum. Intriguingly, in the areas south of the southwest wall, the soil above the lower stratum was pale, almost white, where it had escaped ploughing. Within the area enclosed by the walls, this lens of whitish soil was not encountered in the section or in a very small trial (Sounding C) cut to confirm the presence of the lower stratum. Within the area enclosed by the big walls, the major effort was directed at dissecting the rubble carpet (Fig. 4.12). It was found that this did not extend across the entire enclosure, but seemed to trail off to the south (at least as preserved). It was quickly concluded that our 1987 hypothesis of two possible cobble surfaces in the rubble was not correct. However, as the rocks in the tumble were carefully removed, a cobble pavement was revealed below the rubble. More dramatically, the edge of this pavement clearly outlined the shape of a structure within the enclosure of the big walls (Fig. 4.13). This pavement has been badly damaged in some parts, either by subsequent prehistoric activity or recent agriculture, but it shows one end of a rectangular structure with rounded corners. The other half of the structure has been lost with the portion of the site next to the cliff edge. The paving had itself been modified in one area. The original stone-lined hearth, adjacent saddle quern, and associated features had been covered with rubble, and another packed-earth surface was created above (see Chapters 5 and 6). This second surface had then been scorched by burning before being itself covered by rubble, this time a collapse that was presumably less deliberate. A further pit, probably Neolithic in date, cut both these surfaces. The accumulating rubble had then apparently also fallen into that, covering the ash that filled the bottom. As was the case for the vestiges of a similar feature found in 1987, heat from some activity in it had baked the sides and turned the soil red. The remote sensing experiment with magnetometry was largely defeated by circumstances beyond our control, namely modern building activity. Just to the north of the site are several abandoned chicken sheds. A new illegal cottage was being built at the time about 50 m west of the excavation area. Both of

Jon Morter

Figure 4.13 Looking southeast. Stratum IIa pavement.

these have steel reinforced concrete construction and so throw very strong magnetic “shadows”. Thus the area available for viable magnetometry work was restricted and the lack of results not surprising. In the viably prospected area we did not find evidence suggesting a ditch around the site. Nor did we see such a feature in the exposed cliff-face that now bisects the site. Evidence to date, therefore, argues against a ditch around the site as a whole, but it is not conclusive. Review of the Excavation Results Results of the excavations can be divided into two categories: the surviving portion of the upper stratum, bounded by two stretches of the large stone walling, and the evidence for an earlier stratum below. Work to date indicates that over much of its area the site is in poor shape, if intact deposits exist at all. The exception is the spot picked by the ICA project. It appears that the ground here once formed a small hollow or depression. In the very recent past, and possibly much earlier, the quantities of stone (plus the size of the rocks used by the Neolithic walls) and presence until recently of the drystone building (or ruin) nearby deterred or restricted ploughing, reducing damage. In the early 1980s, the material from the AGIP operation filled in the hollow and added up to a meter and

31

a half in additional overburden. This protected this part of the site very effectively. The original hollow might also have been partly responsible for the soil accumulation at this spot, and hence the distinguishable earlier Neolithic stratum. Within the excavated areas, the upper stratum survives only within the area protected by the massiveness of the stone walls. It appears to have had several phases of activity, although the temporal separation between these may have been quite short. Thereafter, it seems likely that continued activity took place on, or in, the stone rubble there. However, plough damage makes sorting that out difficult and problematic. South of the wall-enclosed area, ploughing has removed the levels corresponding to the upper stratum and damaged what lay beneath. The existence of a lower stratum is clear. It can be traced beneath the enclosure area, and it was cut through by the deep Sounding A made in 1987 immediately to the north of the enclosure walling (Fig. 4.8). This continuity explains the evidence of lower levels that we believed we had encountered there. Unfortunately, the restricted area of the sounding made identification of a precise occupation surface (or surfaces) difficult at the time. More difficult to interpret is the interface between the lower and higher strata. To both the north and south of the walled area were paler, “ashier” fills not found within. Unfortunately, these were badly damaged in both cases. One task must be to sort out the relation of these fills to the enclosure, and to the lower stratum. It seems quite likely that another stratum existed between the lower and upper enclosure levels.6 6

The status in 2007 is not ideal, but much of the site is under legal protection. Since the close of the 1990 excavations, the excavated area of the Capo Alfiere site has been expropriated and now is protected by the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Calabria. The excavated areas are thus protected from further damage by ploughing and other agricultural activity. However, building activity, sometimes illegal, in adjacent areas may have an impact upon any preserved areas of the site outside the area available for Morter’s excavations, and ongoing cliff-edge erosion threatens the oceanward edge of the site. (JR)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5 Stratigraphy Interpreted

As currently reconstructed, the stratigraphy of this excavated portion of Capo Alfiere consists of two main strata of Neolithic date. For the purposes of this discussion, the lowest stratum, or level, has been designated Stratum I, while the upper is called Stratum II (Fig. 5.1). Both of these can be further subdivided by further episodes of Neolithic activity, at least locally. The presence and date of a surface surviving above

Stratum III, plough soil/AGIP soil Stratum III, mixed Stratum II c, pit

the rubble is still problematic. The finds suggest that something of that sort can be assumed, however, and it will be designated Stratum III. The natural shallow basin formed by the underlying bedrock at this spot was an important factor in the site formation process. It is probably responsible both for the preservation of the standing structures (Stratum II), and for the accumulation of sediments over Stratum I.

Stratum II, rubble Stratum IIb, burnt floor Stratum IIa, large walls, pavement

Stratum Ib, gray-white soil Stratum Ia, earlier wall, pavement

Figure 5.1 Harris matrix of Trench 1 and Trench 1 Extension.

33

Stratigraphy Interpreted

34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

1st test, top level cleaning section of ditch 1st test, arbitrary level 1st test, arbitrary level 1st test, arbitrary level burnt clay surface north large wall feature = [93] 2nd test, top level stain = ghost of stone N wall [7] pit; see fill [104] pit AGIP soil overburden debris of recent house stone pavement; see assoc. finds [105] upper plough zone continued plough zone plough zone S of wall [7] tumble, plough zone N of wall [7] cleaning tumble S of wall [7] plough soil = [16] & [17] ax cache below [19], N of [7] 48, 66 possible upper surface fill below [23], N of [7] tumble, below [20] clay feature/object foundation trench, N of [7] gray ash lens in section, N of [7] tumble foundation trench, continuing [28] fill below [25] fill (floors?) below [24] gap in wall [7] (plough damage?) below [32], possible level tumble, W side of site below topsoil S of [11] fill below [33], arbitrary fill below [35], arbitrary stacked rock/tumble? = [52]? below [39] to bedrock below plough soil S of S wall [43] SW large wall below [38] in S hole in tumble paleosol/bedrock below [37] below [38] in N hole in tumble tumble, E side of trench rodent burrow/natural fissure matrix below [30] small section of tumble above [52] tumble house stone pavement

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

below [21] (Trench 3) (Trench 3) rock feature (Trench 3) top of fill of pit [12] wall line (?) between [7] & [43] gap in wall [43] charcoal-rich soil fill in pit [12] arbitrary layer below [44], Sounding B baked outer surface of pit [12] arbitrary layer below [61], Sounding B arbitrary layer below [63], Sounding B arbitrary layer below [64], Sounding B bottom fill of pit [68], below [65] red paleosol, outside [65] pit believed in S paving opening, Sounding B S opening in paving N opening in paving discontinuous light gray lens in S section gray-brown soil horizon below plough in S profile lower dark gray brown horizon in S profile light brown soil above red paleosol, S profile red paleosol, = [67]? “calcarenitic” bedrock gray soil horizon N dark brown soil horizon north lower plough soil, S of structure (wall [43]) plough soil from (Trench 4) lower plough soil, S of wall [43] plough soil from (Trench 4) pre bedrock, (Trench 4) plough soil, Extension 1 tumble on S wall [43] on bedrock (Trench 4) top plough soil (Trench 5) gray below plough soil S of [43] fissure fill (Trench 5) possible features in section, N (baulk) fissure fill (Trench 5) see also [89] gray/white soil (S of [43] and Extension 1 possible feature/pit (N of wall [43]) surface inside walls, N of [43] feature, lower level, N of wall [43] plough soil/mixed (Trench 6) same as [94] plough soil/mixed (Trench 6) cleaning tumble, = [52]/[30]

100 cleaning [7] 101 tumble over pavement, = [52] 102 burrow/fissure, see also [49] 103 gray stuff along S side wall [43] 104 fill of pit [11] 105 soil over pavement [15], Extension 1 106 gray and white soil below [103] & [88], S of [43] 107 white soil, Extension 1 108 discounted possible feature (actually = more [52]) 109 gray fill, below [94], near [43] 110 brown fill (extension) 111 material from surface of [6] 112 possible foundation trench to wall [43] 113 possible feature in foundation trench to wall [43] 114 possible pit 115 stony fill below [6] 116 fill below [6] 117 below [110] (level?), Extension 1 118 posthole in pavement 119 possible pit 120 improbable post hole 121 possible posthole 122 rocks of the hearth below [128] 123 possible foundation trench, N of wall [43] 124 wall fragment 125 discarded 126 sherd popping below [117] 127 red fill below [126], Extension 1 128 ashy fill of hearth, see [122] 129 linear feature (extension) 130 natural fissure 131 fill over inset mortar [141] (= [115]) 132 fill, test N of wall [43], Sounding D 133 fill under [109], Sounding C 134 pit by pavement 135 red material on daub paving [136] by mortar [141] 136 daub paving by mortar [141] 137 surface at base of test by wall [43], Sounding D 138 stuff around small mortar [142] 139 soil below flagstones [53] 140 soil below inset mortar [141] 141 inset mortar 142 smaller, bowl mortar 143 possible posthole in paving 144 foundation trench S of wall [7]; see also [10]

Table 5.1 Excavated contexts. Parentheses indicate trenches outside of Trench 1 and Trench 1 Extension.

35

Jon Morter W

E

South west wall (IIa)

0

2m

Bedrock Stratum Ia, red soil Stratum Ib, gray-white soil Unexcavated

Stratum IIa, foundation trench Stratum IIa, wall Stratum II, rubble Plough soil

Figure 5.2 Schematic composite W–E section through Trench 1, looking north.

Stratum I Stratum I will be considered here as having two recognizable phases, designated Ia and Ib. Stratum Ia will refer to the lowest recognized element.1 Stratum Ib is a construct to define a later, higher entity encountered near the large walls, which was not well preserved to any great extent. Stratum Ia was exposed intact in four places (Figs. 5.2–4). It was best traced in Trench 1 Extension, where approximately seven m 2 of the excavation reached this level. In Sounding A, located north of the northern large wall, Stratum Ia was encountered over an area of about a square meter. Within the area enclosed by the large walls, Sounding C, approximately half a square meter, was cut down to Stratum Ia at the ditch section edge to confirm its presence. Finally, Sounding D, of about two m 2, was cut against the south side of the southwest enclosure wall to examine its stratigraphy. This located a surface, below the level equivalent to the large walls (Stratum II), sloping steeply down from the west (Fig. 5.5). This surface would again appear to correspond with Stratum Ia, showing that it too slopes up out of the basin in the bedrock and is lost to ploughing on the west. At all points the indications of a surface equivalent to Stratum Ia occurred at the approximate interface between the red sandy soil overlying the calcareous bedrock, and the grayer soils above. However, this was not a clear soil boundary, so definition of surfaces associated with the level was done using presence and attitude of artifacts, as well as the associated features. In several spots the concentration of bone was quite distinctive, serving to signal the presence of the level, particularly in the ditch section. In the excavation of Trench 1 Extension, a portion of cobblestone pavement was found associated Figure 5.3 Plan showing features by stratum. Red lines indicate section cuts. Gray areas indicate soundings.

1 This is as a physically defined entity. Note that the ceramics recovered could be seen to suggest that a yet earlier element may have existed somewhere nearby. This is discussed in Chapter 7.

Stratigraphy Interpreted

36 N

S

North wall (IIa)

Southwest wall (IIa)

Wall (Ia)

0

2m

Stratum IIb, earth flooring Stratum II rubble Stratum IIc, burnt pit with carbon Plough soil Unexcavated Figure 5.4 Schematic composite N–S section through Trench 1, looking east.

Bedrock Stratum Ia, red soil Stratum Ia, wall Stratum Ib, gray-white soil

Stratum IIa, foundation trench Stratum IIa walls Stratum IIa, paving and hearth Stratum IIa, ash layer

of Stratum Ia, before the level of Stratum II. Beyond the walls we were not so lucky. Outside the enclosure, very little of a recognizable level that might be equivalent to that of its construction could be traced, because of plough damage. However, south of the southwest enclosure wall there was a level above that of Stratum Ia. This has been designated Ib, as it appears to have been above the lowest remains but below the vestiges of anything associated with Stratum II. The soil at this level was recognizably paler (referred to as gray or white by the excavators). This paler sediment was not noted within the enclosure, so it seems likely that it was a Figure 5.5 Looking SE. Sounding D, with earlier Stratum Ia level and line of stones. result of activity associated with Strawith Stratum I (Fig. 5.3). The presence of the bound- tum II that discolored the soil below. ary ditch and excavation limits precluded tracing this No identifiable features survived in association feature any distance.2 Also in this area was a short with Stratum Ib, but its existence and ephemeral nalinear stretch of daub and debris accumulation. Exca- ture were further suggested in 1987 by Sounding A vation to this level was extended slightly in the clos- north of the enclosure. A possible intermediate level ing days of the 1990 season to define this feature. A was noted there at the time. In summary, one can suggest that a distinct occuprecisely similar feature was found in Sounding C. Associated with the sloping surface beneath the pation level (Stratum Ia) with associated features could large southwest wall was a short stretch of an earlier be traced across the main excavation areas. Above this line of stones (Figs. 5.2; 5.5). This paralleled the line of there was a second early level (Stratum Ib), with no the later big wall, but was sitting on the earlier surface associated features to date, although possibly associ(Stratum Ia), so presumably built therefrom, and was ated with the whitish soil seen immediately south of the enclosure walls. structurally unrelated to the later construction. Within the area enclosed by the large walls, there Stratum II was up to 20 cm of soil accumulation over the top Stratum II is the area enclosed by the large walls and 2 There were approximately 2 m of overburden above this feature, which its contents, which was protected from destruction by meant that extending the trench again in the closing days of the 1990 the mass of the structure. Within the excavated areas season was logistically out of the question. Furthermore, the ploughing had barely missed this feature, indicating that its survival to any very little that could be reliably associated with this great extent in the area south of the trench was unlikely. Ploughing had stratum survived beyond the large walls. scraped the bedrock in Trench 5, some 5 m further south.

Jon Morter

37

Figure 5.6 Looking southeast. Paving within enclosure walls is partially uncovered during removal of rubble, 1987 excavation.

For interpretative purposes, this stratum has been subdivided on the basis of depositional or formation events. The first phase—Stratum IIa—consisted of the large walls and the hut pavement plus the large quern and associated features (Fig. 5.6). Above a portion of the hut floor was a modification and reuse episode—Stratum IIb—where the surface had been leveled. A packed-earth floor followed and was subsequently burned. Rocky tumble then covered much of the interior of the enclosed space, concealing the pavements (Fig. 5.7). Two pits—Stratum IIc—were carved into this tumble; one of them definitely cut through both earlier Stratum II floors. Both pits had reddened sides and had filled up with more tumble. Stratum IIa is the most architecturally significant area of the site. The massive enclosure walls run around the surviving portion of a hut floor pavement. Based on the point of excavation of the foundation trenches of the walls, they have been interpreted as more or less contemporary with the hut. A large quern and sunken hearth were set into the pavement (Fig. 5.8). The ash from the hearth was found in situ and yielded a radiocarbon date of 5650±70 bc (TX7043). This gives a date of between 4681 and 4358 bc [cal.] (99% probability) when corrected (see Table 5.2).3 3 Radiocarbon calibrations are calculated using the University of Washington Radiocarbon Calibration Program, 1987. They are presented here using the probability distribution method, using the 2 sigma error range and associated probability of inclusion. Delta C-13 corrections have been included where applicable.

Survival of material at this level was good in the area of the site between the two enclosing walls. The lower parts of the rubble carpet over the hut paving and extending partially southward seemed to be largely intact. To the north of the enclosure, in the area adjacent to the north wall dug in 1987, was a small surviving ribbon of collapsed daub tumble, heavily scarred by ploughing. The cache of polishedstone axes was found there (see Chapter 8). To the south of the enclosure, a small patch of whitish fill could be seen running over the foundation trench of the wall, and it can thus be tentatively identified as associated with the occupation. From about 2 m beyond the wall, all equivalent deposits had been lost. The pale color of this fill, which did not continue noticeably within the enclosure, suggests some activity occurring outside. As mentioned, this discoloration extended into the soil of Stratum Ib below, which fill was cut by the excavation of the foundation trench and so is definitely earlier than the large walls. Where the stones and all associated deposits of the large southwest wall had been ploughed away on the extreme eastern edge of the trench, the wall line was still visible as a slightly darker soil color. This might also be seen as a vestige of the previous presence of the wall, which prevented the discoloration of the soil beneath it; this assumption again supports the idea that the whitening of the soils was later than the construction of the big walls. The recognizable paleness

38

Stratigraphy Interpreted

of the soils associated with Stratum Ib reached into the southern extension of the main trench, so if the color was indeed the result of later activity, the soils of which are now lost, it, too, presumably extended 5 m or more south of the enclosure. When the rubble within the enclosure was first revealed in 1987, there was an area of several square meters in the center largely devoid of rocks. At the time this was suggested as a possible pit, so the area was excavated as Sounding B (Fig. 5.3). This test was also Figure 5.7 Looking NW. North wall, rubble layer in ditch section before excavation. done to allow a better assessment of the rubble layer using the section exposed in the side of This seems to have been deliberate. Thus, this second the sounding. In retrospect, we can now tell from our floor sealed a 5 to 10 cm thickness of hearth ash, and plans and elevation readings that several of the appar- the larger quern. So far, two smashed vessels have ently isolated rocks removed—considered “floating” at been recognized as associated, being also sealed with the time—were probably part of the hut floor. This the cobble paving. suggests that the central portion of the hut paving, The original extent of the burnt-earth floor deseither by accident or design, had sparser rocks, at least ignated as Stratum IIb is difficult to judge. It covered at the time of its abandonment. The lower reaches of the northern portion of the hut paving, where the the sounding, where definite color changes and mate- floor level appeared to have been deliberately raised to cover the hearth and larger quern. However, exrial were found, were probably Stratum Ia. The hearth and inset quern of the hut pavement cept for the enigmatic burnt disturbance below some are clustered in the northern half of the structure, and rubble 2 m to the south, no trace of anything equivaboth are lower than the level of most of the paving. In lent was found beyond the rockless gap in the center a subsequent modification (Stratum IIb), this hollow of the paving (i.e., on the surviving west and south area and adjacent flagstones were covered with rubble portions of the building). There is an outside possibiland fill, and a new beaten earth surface was created. ity that this earth floor might have sloped steeply upward to the west and been removed by ploughing above the surviving surface of the rubble, but this seems unlikely. Stratum IIb appears then to have been a limited modification to the previous floor. The surface of Stratum IIb was heavily burned in several places. It also seems likely that a smaller stone mortar, found set at or below this floor level, was associated with this surface rather than with the earlier features below. A radiocarbon assay run on the burnt soil from this floor came out at 5450±60BP (TX 7042). This gives a corrected Figure 5.8 Looking west. Detail of inset quern and adjacent features. Left, section date of between 4459 and 4222 bc through hearth ash; right, plaster features and paving.

Jon Morter

39

[cal.] (91% probability). This date corresponds well with that for the hearth below, and both give a good indication of the likely time range of the structure, although the degree of overlap makes it unhelpful for gauging the time separation between the two episodes of occupation. If the assumption that the structure was still in existence during the construction of the higher floor is correct, then a gap of less than fifty years between the episodes of floor usage is probable. The carpet of rocky tumble found in 1987 sealed both Strata IIa and IIb. It was thickFigure 5.9 Sounding C, pit (Context 66) dug into rubble layer containing ashy soil and charcoal. est and most complete for the area immediately above the hut structure, becoming less ashy, with more intact carbon at the bottom, and more vestigial in the area to the south. This rubble ran much rubble above that. In 1987, carbon from this up to the northern wall, and traces were found on and feature provided the first radiocarbon date from the around the stub of the southwest wall. It is difficult to site. The result was 5410±80 BP (TX5785), which know how much has been lost to subsequent activity, calibrates to between 4369 and 4040 bc (95% probparticularly to ploughing beside the southwest wall. ability). The similar nature of the northern pit plus Two pits (Stratum IIc) were excavated that cut the ceramics therein suggest it was of similar date. As through this tumble. Both were similar in form. The the date and ceramics found were Neolithic, but the northern pit was more intact, located inside the hut stratigraphy shows them to be later than the floors just south of the hearth (Figs. 5.3–4). There had been and probably the hut if not also the enclosure, the two a considerable fire in it as the sides had been baked and pits have been designated Stratum IIc. turned red. The fill was very ashy at the bottom, and Stratum II can thus be seen to include the mosthad rocks above that, apparently from tumble falling prominent features yet recovered—the enclosure walls into the open hole after disuse. Because the sides were and hut—as well as a reuse episode within the hut, discolored, it was possible to follow the cut of the pit and some Neolithic pits cut into the rubble derived above the upper floor in the hut and into the tumble from the later collapse of these structures. The radioabove. It thus appears that this feature was dug out carbon dates indicate that all this activity occurred in after rubble had covered the location of the structure, the second half of the 5th millennium bc.4 presumably after its collapse. Stratum III The second pit in Sounding C was farther south The interpretation of the remains subsequent to the colthan the hut, although within the original area of the enclosure (Fig. 5.9). It was difficult to relate strati- lapse of the enclosure and hut is the most problematic. graphically to the rest of the deposit because it barely 4 While a number of interpretations of these pits can be made, one possurvived the cutting of the boundary ditch, which had sibility is that they were used for cooking. Pits filled with ash, charcoal, destroyed the majority of it. Again, the red discolored and stones were probably used as earth ovens in Neolithic southern Italy 2007, Chapter 4). Here fires were clearly made within the pits. and baked sides showed that it had been cut from (Robb It would be interesting to know whether any stones in their fill showed somewhere within or above the rubble fall. Its fill was evidence of burning. (JR)

40

Stratigraphy Interpreted

In 1987, it was thought that there were indications in places of a surface surviving on top of the rubble layer that covered the paving and subsequent earth floor of Strata IIa and IIb. This surface was felt to represent activity on the rubble fall after the abandonment of the structures. As the two pits indicate, there was definitely subsequent activity. The problem, however, is that the extent to which the rubble fall has been disturbed by ploughing is uncertain and thus so is the reliability of any suggested surface. With the preponderance of weedy plants, as well as finds of small rodents and reptiles at this level (see Chapter 10),5 the floral and faunal remains from 1987 did provide support for the idea of an abandonment episode. Finds and features from this level include both Neolithic and probable Bronze Age evidence. In 1989, some bone from the fill immediately above the rubble was run to provide another radiocarbon date. The result was 5030±180 BP (TX6489), which calibrates to between 4240 and 3490 bc [cal.] (97% probability). Given the subsequent increased awareness of likely mixing, this value of this date should probably not be weighed heavily. As noted above, there is tentative evidence of Bronze Age activity at this spot. This, for descriptive purposes here, has been labeled Stratum III. North of the main trench, in the ditch section, is a large shallow gray lens. It is quite distinct, but its stratigraphic relationship is unclear as it has been disturbed by the plough. As it appeared to be very ashy, a sample of this was taken in 1987. The radiocarbon result was 3500±60 BP (TX5786), which calibrates to between 1891 and 1743 BC [cal.] (92% probability). Due to the low amounts of carbon in the sample, this result was considered questionable and ignored at the time. Since then, however, a large portion of a possible campaniform (or Bell-Beaker type) vessel has been reconstructed from sherds found in the top of the rubble in the main trench and in the lower plough zone. As the date is plausible for a campaniform vessel, it can no longer be lightly discounted, and one should probably assume that a Bronze Age component was originally present. This then means that mixing with the uppermost Neolithic materials (such as the bones of the radiocarbon sample) is possible, and interpretation of the Neolithic finds from the top of the rubble must proceed with caution. 5

Also Chapters 14–16 with full reports. (JR)

Summary In reviewing these results one can say that the stratigraphy of the site indicates the presence of at least three significant strata. Of these, substantial components survive from the lower two, while the uppermost is inferred from finds for disturbed contexts, and from a feature—the ash lens—not reached in the main excavation. Furthermore, the two main strata, which are certainly Neolithic in date, can be subdivided into at least five phases of activity. Two levels are suggested for Stratum I. Stratum Ia is represented in several areas of the site, and portions of several associated features have been identified. Stratum Ib is defined on the basis of its relation to the later building at the site, but it does not seem to survive as extensively. Pottery from both of these levels is in the Stentinello tradition, indicating that they are of Middle Neolithic date. Because of the lack of carbon samples, no radiocarbon dates are available as yet. The ceramics found suggest that further subdivision of Stratum Ia may ultimately prove necessary. This facet will be discussed further in the report on the ceramics (Chapter 7). Three subphases of activity can be differentiated in Stratum II. Of these, the best preserved was the earliest and lowest, represented by the large enclosure walls and hut floor. The two subsequent phases, while producing very similar radiocarbon dates, appear to represent modifications to the hut floor, and then Neolithic activity after the collapse of much of the structure and possibly also the enclosure walls. A phase number has not been given to the actual period of accumulation of the structural rubble, which does in fact separate IIb and IIc. The radiocarbon dates place Stratum II and its activities generally in the second half of the 5th millennium bc [cal.], which is appropriate for the Stentinello-style pottery found (Table 5.2). It is more problematic, if the ceramics are not simply Stentinello alone, and this too will be addressed later in the section on the pottery. Finally, there is the Bronze Age activity at the site. This is suggested by two lines of evidence: the radiocarbon date from the ash lens and some pottery finds (Table 5.2). The designation as Stratum III has been used to cover this material, although no intact equivalent level has been identified in the main excavation area.

41

Jon Morter

Context

Lab no.

Age BP

Age BP delta 13 correction

Age BC

Age BC calibrated 1 sigma (78% confidence)

Age BC calibrated 2 sigma (95% confidence)

Charcoal [60] from pit [12] that cut the Neolithic pavement and the rubble above it

TX5785

5410±80

–

3460±80

4355–4223

4369–4040

Ashy fill in lens N side of excavation [29] not securely tied to stratigraphy

TX5786

3500±60

–

–

–

1891–1743

Bone from lowest soil above rubble in structure [18]

TX6489

5030±180

–

3080±180

4010–3640

4240–3490

Burnt earth [6] of secondary surface above hearth and paving

TX7042

5450±60

–

3500±60

4358–4240

4459–4222

From hearth ash [128]

TX7043

5700±70

5650±70

3700±70

4587–4453

4681–4358

Bone associated with lowest stratum, principally from contexts [117] and [110]

TX7767

5700±130

5960±140

4010±140

5060–4720

5230–4570

Table 5.2 Capo Alfiere, summary of C-14 dates.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6 Architectural and Structural Features

The work at Capo Alfiere has demonstrated the presence of two kinds of architectural features—walls and cobble pavements—plus pits and one other enigmatic entity. These were the first excavations at a site of this period for this area, so little was known beforehand regarding what might be found. As was noted earlier, our own preconceptions, based on work in a different part of Calabria with distinctly different geological conditions (i.e., sand dunes), proved misleading. Paved Floors Portions of two paved floors have been found at the site. Both appear fairly similar in conception, although different in date. The stone employed in both cases consisted of fragments of the locally available calcareous bedrock, which can, and probably always could, be collected within a few meters of any construction attempted on the site. Very little of the structure in the lowest level (Stratum Ia) has likely survived the recent ravages of the site. Not all of the remaining area of the paving was cleared during the excavation, so an indeterminate, but probably not extensive, amount remains beneath the south baulk (Figs. 6.1–3). Uncovered was

0

1m

Figure 6.2 Lower pavement from Stratum Ia.

a short stretch of the western edge of a pavement. Presumably, it was part of a hut floor. The triangular section revealed was approximately 1.5 m in length from north to south and 0.8 m across at the south baulk. The majority of whatever structure this was had undoubtedly been removed by the cutting of the boundary ditch in the early 1980s, and probably by ploughing some time before that. The plough had passed only a few centimeters higher than the top of the paving, removing all subsequent Neolithic deposits, so survival of even this portion of the floor was providential. The flat stones used in this construction were packed irregularly, but quite closely, together. Few were more than 30 cm across in any direction. The stones were the local calcareous material, seemingly unshaped. One piece was a broken Figure 6.1 Looking west. Left, lower pavement; center, Sounding E. 43

Architectural and Structural Features

44

quern fragment reused as floor cobble. Beyond that, it is impossible to say how large the structure represented once was, or what original shape it had.1 The pavement from Stratum IIa was altogether more intact, and preserved over a wider area, so much more can be said about that structure. The pavement edge clearly outlines the shape of a hut (Figs. 6.3–4). Dissected by the boundary ditch, the eastern portion of the building is now gone. Estimates of its original size and shape must be made on the basis of the surviving part. Perhaps half remains. The cobbling survives to indicate the lines of three walls, but, as mentioned, it was sparser in the center of the building. One complete side of the structure is thus clear. This is the western wall line, and it was 4.8 m long. The east-west orientation of the building appears to parallel the northern enclosure wall; the western side is thus approximately perpendicular to that, or 20° west of magnetic north. The maximum length of the other east-west dimension surviving is just over 3 m on the north side. Interestingly, the corners of the structure were rounded, not square. Although the flooring was stone, it appears that the walls were probably wattle and daub.2 Along the west side, the cobbles against the wall line tipped upwards at the very edge. This can be seen as indicating their having been placed immediately against a wall. Despite careful examination, 1

0

1m

Figure 6.3 Hut pavement and associated features.

It is not clear why Morter considers this fragment of pavement likely to have been a hut floor. Since 1992, cobbled stone pavements have been excavated at a number of Neolithic sites. While they are occasionally interpreted as hut floors, they are rarely demonstrably related to other components of houses such as walls, foundation ditches or postholes, and more often they are interpreted as openair work surfaces. However, Morter’s interpretation may have been motivated by some observation particular to the Capo Alfiere excavations, which are admittedly unique, for instance, by comparison with the other cobbled pavement which is more securely interpretable as a house floor (JR). 2 “Wattle and daub is a standard British nomenclature for a type of walling made of heavy basketry (wattles) covered with mud plaster (daub). It is usually used as walling within timber framing, and so the presence of structural timbers is also generally assumed. (JR)

Jon Morter

45

no trace of posts or a sleeper-beam trough was seen along the wall line. One definite post socket was discovered, with wedging rocks, just inside the cobble paving (rather than on the wall line) near the northwest corner. Because of the chaotic nature of the tumble covering this spot, one cannot be absolutely certain that this posthole was associated with the cobble floor; however, it does seem highly likely that this was the case. A corresponding gap in the pavement at the southwest corner might be interpreted as a pad for another upright Figure 6.4 Looking northeast. Hut pavement, with south wall in the foreground. there. These two features might then provide a clue to the manner of the walling. As no stone wall socle was found, it must be assumed that the sides of the building were wattle and daub. The curved corners support this idea, for, as Shaffer (1983, 416) notes, daub plastering at corners is better curved, rather than squared, to prevent cracking. However, the rubble that covered the flooring did not contain much obvious intact daub-like material. Sintered (burned) daub is a diagnostic characteristic of buildings from Middle Neolithic sites at Acconia on the west coast (Shaffer 1983), and it does occur at this site too. Limited examination of the daub from the site Figure 6.5 Looking southwest. Left, hearth with ash deposit has shown generally that there are at least two kinds before finding of quern; right, flat paving. present (Juana Ibáñez, personal communication, 1991).3 There are also examples of plastering over the daub. However, recognizable daub was absent in concentration in the rubble overlying this pavement. This presumably means one of three things: the assumption of a wattle-and-daub construction is wrong, the daub used here was not fired and dissolved after its collapse, or possibly a reed thatch or some such construction was employed instead.4 Given the sharp and distinctly tipped edge to the cobbled floor indicating that a wall was present, one of the two latter possibilities seems plausible. Other facets of this building survive that allow one to go beyond the description of shape. Set into the Figure 6.6 Hearthstones after removal of ash. 3

Juana Ibáñez, a doctoral student in the Department of Geography at the University of Texas at Austin, examined some daub from the site in the course of her research on the palynological sequence for the Crotone area during the Holocene. (Ibáñez is now at the Univ. of New Orleans.) 4 All-thatch structures were known in Calabria in the very recent past. A photograph of an example from near Rome is the final illustration in Jones (1987, plate LVIb).

floor of the structure was a hearth and, to the north of that, a basin quern. The hearth (Figs. 6.5–6) had a slab floor itself and was set in a slight basin-shaped depression. Ash was preserved in it because the area had been sealed by later modifications to the floor (Stratum IIb).

46

Architectural and Structural Features

Figure 6.7 Looking west. Mortar quern (center); stone-lined hearth (left); flat plaster pavement (right).

It appeared to have been about 1 m across, but it was damaged on all sides except the north. The intention of the builders may have been to place the hearth in the center of the structure. It was just under 2 m from the north wall line (where the relation is clear) and approximately 2 m from the western and southern walls, but in both of the latter cases an unknown (if probably limited) amount of the hearth had been lost to later activity. If the hearth was originally central, then one can suggest that the structure itself was probably built to be approximately square. This would make it about 4.8 m to a side. The quern (Fig. 6.7) was inset into the floor immediately beside the hearth, and to the north. It was not oriented parallel to the west wall, but set approximately north-south. The object itself was large at 44 by 37 cm, and had originally been larger (52 cm long), a piece having been broken off, perhaps during installation, and reused as a wedge in one corner. The quern was presumably intended to be operated from its northern end—a person seated at the southern end would have been on the edge of the hearth slabs. At the northern end, extending the work surface, was a very carefully prepared flat plaster pavement, possibly incorporating some lime to give a caliche effect. This was about 30 cm wide. Beyond the plaster was a group of noticeably larger calcareous slabs indicating a distinct area within the paved flooring of the hut (Fig. 6.5). The in situ fragments of a small vase with an-

thropomorphic features—nose and eyes—were found on this pavement.5 Another mortar-shaped ground-stone vessel was found just to the west of the large quern (Fig. 6.8). It was difficult to judge whether this second piece was associated with the larger quern and abandoned at the same time, or if it was part of the furniture of the subsequent floor (IIb) that sealed the hearth area (IIa). If part of the lower ensemble, the second quern would not have been set into the ground; if it belonged with the later surface, it would have been firmly embedded. The latter option seems the most likely, although an association of two different shapes of grinding vessel in one work area is attractive. It is also possible that it was in use at both floor levels. If one associates the mortar with the later surface (IIb), the evidence of burning and the presence of a grinding vessel could argue for approximate continuity of function; this however, assumes that the burning of the floor was not a deliberate part of the construction technique, as will be discussed below. What, then, is the overall impression of this structure? The combined evidence for this building suggests that it was a wattle-and-daub or thatch construction with a cobbled floor and corner posts. As5

Presumably the plastered surface was created to allow a person to work at the quern while kneeling in more comfort than a cobbled surface would allow; placing the quern in front of the hearth would afford light to work by as well as warmth. (JR)

Jon Morter

Figure 6.8 Looking east. Second mortar left of the first quern.

suming a central hearth, the construction would have been roughly square and about 4.8 m on a side. The quern and associated work space suggests that the entrance was probably not on the north wall; indeed the presence of the northern enclosure wall less than 1 m from the northern hut wall bolsters this assumption (Fig. 6.3). A similar situation may have held with respect to the nearby southwest enclosure wall. Although the two boulders closest to the western hut wall were probably not in situ when found, they are almost certainly from the southwest enclosure wall, and its approximate line close by is quite clear. The enclosure walls indicate that there was open space beside the south side of the hut; the eastern side is lost. A possible reconstruction is that the eastern side mirrors the west, with a doorway on the south side of the hut. This would then put the grinding area behind the hearth when viewed from the entry, all of which has a certain satisfying symmetry. Parallels to the Flooring The Neolithic use of cobble pavements in huts at Capo Alfiere would appear to be the first of its kind reported in Calabria. Although the better-preserved example from Stratum II may be fairly late in the Middle Neolithic sequence for the area, the lower example from Stratum I is certainly (if, as yet, indefinitely) earlier and seems to be of very similar conception. To place this construction in context, one needs to look at what is known of Neolithic architecture elsewhere in Calabria, from Stentinello contexts on Sicily and environs, and from elsewhere in southern Italy.

47

The Acconia project has been the other major piece of work on the Neolithic in Calabria (Ammerman 1985a, 1986; Ammerman et al. 1988), except for excavations in caves. Several “Stentinello” structures were encountered during this work, and studies were done on their construction (Shaffer 1983). Daub was the distinctive construction element at Acconia, and particularly in the excavations at Piano di Curinga; it was extensively preserved because much of it had been sintered. As the geologic matrix was ancient dune formations, the clay and any stone used had, of necessity, to be transported to the site by the builders. Several structures were found at a meter’s depth below present ground surface because the daub of the buildings had been sintered and the clay somewhat fired. The collapse of the huts had resulted in a carpet of burned clay, and hence each structure gave a strong magnetometer signal, distinct within the sandy matrix. Shaffer used rock and daub scatter density in a best-fit model to suggest the likely position of the wall lines of the houses. These wall positions were then compared with any stains and soil features found below the scatters to predict building shape and size. His calculations frequently generated rhomboidal entities, but he then notes that presumably approximate rectangularity should be assumed for the original prior to collapse (Shaffer 1983, 157). The building dimensions that the Piano di Curinga calculations produced varied in size from 2.5 by 2.0 m to 5.5 by 4.5 m (Shaffer 1983, 416). Since the baking of the daub also preserved the impressions of the perishable construction materials, he was able to describe the types of vegetation employed, offer evidence of the season during which this vegetation was gathered, and provide interesting details on wattling techniques. Some stone was employed in the construction of the huts at Piano di Curinga. But because every rock had to be carried to the site, large features such as cobbled floors did not seem to have been attempted; indeed little trace of any form of floor preparation was found (Shaffer 1983: 161). Definite evidence existed for the inclusion of some stones in the daub plaster, but this may have been an accidental phenomenon. Use of some of the larger stones as thatch weights or as other incidental items can be suggested, but it is impossible to confirm one way or the other (Shaffer 1983). So, apart from the suggestion of a few associated features such as hearths, the huts appear to have been largely wattle-

48

Architectural and Structural Features

and-daub constructions with the peculiarity of having much of the daubing sintered, apparently deliberately.6 Based on the presence of some heavily fired daub fragments with convex surfaces, Shaffer has proposed that an oven may have been built very close to one house wall, and that these fragments might have been derived from that feature.7 Sintered daub has been found at Capo Alfiere (Fig. 6.9), but it was not the dominant element in the rubble overlying either of the cobble pavements found to date. It seems logical here to contrast the geologic situations of the two areas. Whereas, as Shaffer emphasizes strongly, all mineral building materials at Piano di Curinga had to be carried to the structure, at Capo Alfiere both stone and clayey soils were easily accessible near the structures. Hence a frequent use of stone is to be expected. It is difficult to judge whether the sintering of daub on the houses was an attempt to maintain the walls longer and so reduce the necessity of frequent replasterings, or, as Shaffer (1983, 596) suggests, to fix imported clay material at that spot for future reuse. Either maintenance or acquisition of more clay might be presumed less onerous where the raw materials are closer to hand.8 Several Stentinello period sites on Sicily have yielded evidence of structures. Excavations at both Serra del Palco (La Rosa 1987) and Piano Vento (Castellana 1987) have produced cobble surfaces and evidence of house structures from occupations in the 6A

similar situation apparently holds for Neolithic structures at Favella in northern Calabria on the floodplain of the River Crati near Sybaris. In 1991, excavations there by Professor Santo Tinè, of the University of Genoa, revealed a structure of the Early or Middle Neolithic, with impressed ware pottery, but not of the Stentinello type, marked by a strong daub scatter alone (V. Tinè, personal communication, 1991). (Further research at Favella has revealed very substantial deposits, but as yet no houses excavated in situ have been published.) (JR) 7 More-recent research has generally confirmed this picture. In Calabria, as Morter notes in the preceding footnote, excavations by S. Tinè and V. Tinè have uncovered extensive daub scatters (V. Tinè, forthcoming). In Bova Marina, excavations at Penitenzeria have revealed daub from houses with impressions of branches and sticks in it and plastered faces. Neither site has revealed architectural deposits in situ in a way that might allow reconstruction of house form, but a number of other sites, such as Ripa Tetta, Balsignano, Catignano, and Casale del Dolce, suggest that houses were generally rectangular or apsidal (see Robb 2007, Chapter 3). (JR) 8 Several analysts have argued convincingly that houses were intentionally burnt at the end of their use life and that this habit accounts for the common finds of burnt, fired daub on Italian Neolithic habitation sites. However, it is likely that this was done for cultural reasons rather than to harden the daub for reuse as a wall filler, as Shaffer argues, particularly when it occurs in areas naturally rich in both stone and clay (see Robb 2007, Chapter 3; V. Tinè, forthcoming). (JR).

Stentinello tradition, in addition to examples of large walls. As far as has been reported, early work at Stentinello itself was largely confined to tracing and sampling the copious material in the circuit ditch. In the early 1960s Santo Tinè (1961) did a short investigatory season there and found a structure. The Sicilian data will be considered next. Serra del Palco and Piano Vento are both in southcentral Sicily near Agrigento. Both have a series of structural remains that encompass several building techniques, apparently used interchangeably. Both sites are reported as being in the Stentinello tradition but with heavy admixture of trichrome figulina ceramics. The excavator puts the main occupation at Piano Vento in the 5th and early 4th millennium bc (Castellana 1987), but notes that there is also a “preStentinello” stratum at the bottom, which he dates to the late 7th or early 6th millennium bc (Castellana 1990, 14). At Piano Vento huts were apparently both round, varying from 2.2 to 2.8 m across, and rectangular with side length up to 6.0 m. Floors were of daub or cobbles, or both. Sometimes clay floors were then sintered, if the excavator’s description of “beaten terra cotta” has been understood correctly. The excavations also found portions of wall footings built of small calcareous rocks, some of which are described as set per taglio or on edge (Castellana 1987, 796). These wall socles were sometimes plastered. The superstructure of the huts is then presumed to be wattle-and-daub. One of the paved segments at Piano Vento is interpreted as an external patio-like feature. Similar techniques are reported at Serra del Palco, where an initial hut pavement was succeeded by four stamped-clay floors, sometimes showing signs of burning. Two of these floors had a matrix of clay with cobbles. There, an ellipsoidal structure of 9.5 by 6.0 m is proposed. By the time of Tinè’s briefly renewed excavations at Stentinello itself (S. Tinè 1961), the entire interior of the site had been deep ploughed. This meant that essentially all deposits above the bedrock had been mixed. Tinè refers to an extant area of cobbling and two visible walls marked in Orsi’s records that were no longer there (S. Tinè 1961, 114). By cleaning the bedrock within the circuit ditch, Tinè did find evidence of one structure. This was an approximately rectangular arrangement of rock-cut post holes, located just behind the likely line of any defensive bank

Jon Morter

Figure 6.9 Above, daub fragment with impressions left by branches and a flat surface; right, reconstruction of surface intersection.

associated with the ditch. It measured roughly 5.1 by 3.1 m. Rock-cut holes, also presumed to be for posts, have been identified as the earliest sign of occupation at Serra del Palco (La Rosa 1987), although no evident pattern was recognizable there. As flooring is concerned, similar techniques can be seen used at both of the two sites in the Agrigentino, and these closely resemble the situation at Capo Alfiere. Both sites are on rocky hilltops, so a similar use of materials would be expected. As noted, the tipping at the edge of the floor at Capo Alfiere argues against its being an external feature (as suggested at Piano Vento on one occasion), but the possibility cannot be totally excluded. Similarly, the modification of a floor with clay or packed earth that was then exposed to fire, as occurred in level IIb at Capo Alfiere, is closely paralleled at both Piano Vento and Serra del Palco. To date, no rock-cut features have been identified at Capo Alfiere, but the area of calcareous bedrock exposed has been limited. Given that the geologic conditions are similar to those of all three Sicilian sites mentioned, such features are likely here also.9 In a recent compilation of much of the evidence for Neolithic domestic structures in southeastern Italy, Whitehouse lists ten sites with potential candidates: that is, sites with features that were reported as domestic architecture (Whitehouse 1984). Of these cases, she suggests that at least two were not habitation 9 It is also worth noting two other Sicilian Neolithic structures, the excavation of a small oval hut floor at Gisira, and a well-defined, shallow oval pit that apparently served as a hut floor at the site of Rinicedda, at Rinella on Salina in the Lipari Islands. (JR)

49

structures or not Neolithic. The remaining sites show evidence of three forms of construction: 1) drystone wall footings, belonging to structures of rectilinear or apsidal shape; 2) a sunken ovoid area described as a hut (Whitehouse 1984, 1121); and 3) small circular pavements, or clay floors. On the Tavoliere, where one might expect the best results from the extensive work there, the plough damage has been extremely severe, so frequently only scraps of structures survive, making the reconstruction of building shape and size problematic (see, for example, S. Tinè’s major work at Passo di Corvo). On the basis of the paucity of cut features (such as postholes, pits, etc.) that might have survived the ploughing within the Tavoliere ditched sites, Jones and Maude have proposed that even there most structures may have been largely ephemeral, except towards the edge of the plain, where better stone was available nearby (Jones and Maude 1987). Using modern examples, Tinè has suggested that for the Tavoliere, the small circular stone pavements were not structures, but might have been bases for haystacks (S. Tinè 1983). Whitehouse (1984) finds the idea of small, circular, essentially one-person huts attractive in the context of the “U” ditch enclosures within which these are found. She draws attention to the correspondence to Flannery’s (1972) suggestion that a pattern of compounds containing individual huts might be one hypothetical habitation arrangement to consider for early agriculturalists. While the small circular floors noted range in size between 2.5 and 3.0 m, the rectilinear structures, where recoverable, appear to have been bigger with about 6 by 4 m being typical. Tinè (1983, Tav. 57) reconstructs his rectilinear apsidal example from Passo di Corvo at 7 m long, but Whitehouse is unconvinced. More recently, Guilaine and Cremonesi (1987) have reported fragments of cobble pavements at Trasano. As of 1986 they had not defined any definite building plans. Numerous indications of hearths, ovens, and burnt rock suggest a domestic situation.10 In sum, these various lines of evidence raise several points in assessing the situation at Capo Alfiere. 10 Since Morter wrote, many other houses and related structures have been published, bringing the number of known Neolithic houses from Sicily, southern Italy and central Italy to close to 20. They generally conform to the pattern of small rectangular or apsidal buildings with wattleand-daub walls. Other structures common on habitational sites include pits of varying sizes, shapes, and functions, small ditches, and cobbled pavements. Morter’s summary here has been largely borne out by these recent discoveries (Robb 2007, Chapter 3). (JR)

50

Architectural and Structural Features 1.  As might be expected, building material is strongly influenced by the availability of raw materials immediately at the site, so cobble pavements, for example, are a common phenomenon where suitable stone is easily available. Nonetheless, the dominant material for superstructures is generally conceived to be wattle and daub, and this technique is demonstrably used even at Piano di Curinga, where considerable effort is needed to procure raw materials. 2. There do not seem to be radical differences in conception between the buildings in Sicily and those reported for southeastern Italy, with the exception of the apparent frequent use of the sintering of clay surfaces—either walls or floors—in the so-called Stentinello zone. 3. Both round and square huts are reported from both eastern and western spheres.The size ranges of these buildings appear extremely similar; this is particularly true of the small round constructions, where a diameter exceeding 3 m is not reported. Otherwise, for rectangular buildings, any combination of dimensions between 4 and 6 m appears to be most common. In considering this evidence, however, one should note that the absolute number of structures known is quite low, usually one or two from any one level at a site. The exception to this would be the site of Molfetta, in Bari province, where Whitehouse (1984) notes that the excavator (A. Mosso in 1910) reported forty small circular hut floors.

The Walls The original placement of the main excavation at Capo Alfiere in 1987 was determined by the identification of a surprisingly large wall jutting out from the section cut by the modern ditch through the site (Fig. 5.7). The wall, and associated debris, proved to be part of the Neolithic deposit, and to have a corresponding stretch of walling running at approximately 90° to it. These walls were the most significant discoveries of the 1987 season. In 1990, after the earlier levels at the site had been recognized, another stretch of earlier walling was found. From a structural standpoint, the walls of the two periods appear quite distinct and, for the most part, can be considered separately. The earliest wall has not been completely uncovered, so it is not possible to describe it in complete de-

tail. It was found just to the south of the more southerly of the two later walls, running approximately northwest to southeast (Fig. 6.10). At its northwestern end, it encroached upon a small sounding that had been cut to examine the larger wall nearby. This sounding showed that it appeared to be sitting on a surface that ran beneath the upper walls, interpreted as Stratum Ia, and that this lower wall apparently terminated at that spot. Its southeast end had been removed by ploughing, probably the same event that had truncated the larger wall nearby. The surviving stretch is 2.13 m long; obviously its original length is unknown. Essentially all that survives is a linear arrangement of stones, one course high as revealed to date. The rocks used were unshaped and no more than 40 cm across, so can be considered small. This feature was not evident until material equivalent to the later wall level (II) was removed, so it probably was not extant when the later wall was built. Its interpretation here is as a probable wall line or socle, but this must remain tentative with so little uncovered and so short a stretch remaining. The two upper walls are interesting and elaborate constructions (Fig. 6.11). They appear to be contemporary with the hut beside them and so would date to the second half of the 5th millennium bc. There are two stretches of this walling, forming two sides of what appears to be some form of enclosure. The northern wall, running approximately east-northeast to west-southwest, or at about 20° south of west, was the first feature noticed in the cleaning of the modern ditch section in 1987. The ditch has cut the wall, removing any traces of the feature in the direction of the cliff edge. West of the ditch, 5.3 m of this walling was traced before rising bedrock met the bottom of the plough zone and all Neolithic deposits were

Figure 6.10 Looking northwest. View of wall Ia.

Jon Morter

51

Figure 6.11 Looking southwest. Upper IIa north wall on right, southwest wall in background.

lost. The southwest wall is best preserved 5 m to the south of the northern one. There, a 5 meter length is oriented northwest to southeast, passing within half a meter of the southwestern corner of the hut pavement. Damaged slabs and rock impressions show that the wall continued to the ditch line, although ploughing has now removed all traces of it at its point of intersection with the ditch. Following this wall line northwest towards the north wall, one finds a cluster of large boulders, the most southern of which is probably in situ. The gap between this boulder and the rest of the southwest wall had been interpreted as a doorway, but it seems more likely that it is a result of ploughing. The other boulders are also certainly from the wall, but they may have been moved by ploughing. Thus, it is difficult to be sure whether the southwest wall originally curved slightly to parallel the western side of the hut before meeting the north wall, or if it continued in a more closely northwestern direction for the remaining 2.5 m to a junction. Both courses have now been lost to the plough. Whatever its position, it seems certain that the two walls met to form the corner of an enclosure that included within it the upper hut pavement. The eastern and southern extent of the walls, as well as the enclosure they suggest, is difficult to judge because modern agricultural work has truncated both

features. In 1990, two small trenches were opened on the eastern side of the ditch, in the berm separating it and the cliff edge. One extended to the very brink of the present cliff. Both of these excavations demonstrated that ploughing had removed any deposits beneath the berm, and indicate that the last collapse of the cliff face was probably recent. The size and even the actual closure of the circuit made by the walls is thus unretrievable through excavation, and the extent and shape of the enclosure must be inferred from circumstantial and comparative evidence. As has been remarked, the size of these walls is impressive, and the construction technique is intriguingly idiosyncratic. Large boulders of the local calcareous bedrock, up to a meter in any one direction, were used. Frequently these are slab shape, making construction easy even when none of the rocks seem deliberately dressed. Both walls have a central core of drystone construction, built in courses. There was evidence of the use of a foundation trench for both walls. Three courses are standing in the section of the bestpreserved part of the north wall (Fig. 6.12), although this does not amount to much of the probable original standing height. On one or both sides of the core of both walls is a further line of large slabs, untrimmed, up to a meter in length and up to 20 cm thick, set on edge against the wall face. Where these remain ver-

52

Architectural and Structural Features

tical, they have been broken off by ploughing at the level of the surviving wall top, so it is impossible to say how tall they originally were. The presence of these vertical slabs is odd, but their manner of installation is yet more interesting. Examination of the damaged ends of both walls showed that the vertical slabs on the inside of the enclosure—that is, facing towards the hut—had been set prior to the construction of the core of the wall. In both cases, small wedging rocks were present beside the verticals. The horizontal courses, central to the wall, were then laid over the small wedges. On the outer face, the only evidence is from the north wall, where the vertical slabs were propped against the wall core and then wedged with other stones dropped into the foundation trench. Along both wall lines, several vertical slabs had been dislodged by ploughing, but the impression left by each rock was evident from the color and softer consistency of its subsequent fill. This meant that some traces of missing stretches of the walls were recoverable. Thus, the sequence of construction of the walls can be proposed (Fig. 6.13). First, a line of large slabs was erected, probably in a narrow trench, on one side and at the base of a shallow foundation trench. These uprights were wedged with small rocks and probably dirt. Second, a multicourse drystone wall, incorporating some very large boulders, was built, backed against the slabs. Finally, another set of slabs was set upright along the other wall face, and was held in place by rocks and dirt to backfill any remaining void.

Figure 6.12 North wall detail.

1. In a shallow foundation ditch, a line of large slabs is wedged into place. with small rocks and earth.

2. A multicourse drystone wall is built backing against the slabs.

3. Another set of slabs is wedged against the core of the wall and held in place by rocks and earth. Remaing space in the foundation trench is backfilled.

Figure 6.13 Wall assembly method.

53

Jon Morter

0

10 m

Figure 6.14 Comparison of structures from sites in Italy, Sicily, and Malta.

What is unknown is the nature and height of the walls above the first course or so found extant above their original ground surface. Little evidence was available at the site, so much must be inferred from consideration of parallels and possible interpretations. Within the area bounded by the walls was the large carpet of stone tumble encountered in 1987. This did not seem to extend north of the walls, but an accumulation of sintered daub predominated in the small area protected from ploughing by the north wall. To the south the levels were too disturbed to be reliable, and, for the phase in question, they are largely gone. The rubble carpet was thickest, but also least disturbed, over the area of the hut. If the wall continued upward incorporating large boulders, one can assume that these have now been removed by the plough. It seems unlikely that a wall requiring such a substantial foundation would continue upwards in wattle and daub alone. So the sintered daub may well derive from other structures nearby, although it could be collapsed plaster. Collapse of an upper wall portion built with smaller rocks might produce the kind of tumble found, although obvious tip lines were not evident. Given the subsequent destruction by Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern activity, one may only speculate. Some intimation might be possible from comparative sources, and these are considered next. Parallels to the Large Walls Again for parallels one can examine other Neolithic finds in Calabria, material from Sicily and the Stentinello tradition in particular, and finally the evidence

from southern Italy more broadly. Nothing equivalent to these big walls is yet known elsewhere in Calabria. Geology may be a primary reason for this. The work at Acconia, for example, focused on dunes, and there every stone was necessarily carried in by hand; if the builders at that site had attempted such a construction as found at Capo Alfiere, and in similar materials, much more work would have been required. On Sicily, however, there are at least three sites worth considering: Serra del Palco, Piano Vento, and Stentinello itself. In this direction, the net can also be cast a little wider to include the Eolian islands and Malta. The primary example of a structure that may parallel the walls at Capo Alfiere was discovered at Serra del Palco, near Milena in south-central Sicily (La Rosa 1987). Excavations at this site produced a complete circuit of what may have been a similar enclosure and traces of a second adjacent to it. The most wellpreserved enclosure measured 12 m east-west and 20 m north-south. It was apparently built over the remains of a large hut and constructed as the last phase of a series of Neolithic occupations, which are dated to the Middle Neolithic on the basis of both Stentinello and trichrome pottery. The north end of the enclosure was rectilinear in outline, while the south end was apsidal (Fig. 6.14). The longer east and west sides were slightly curved. Construction was of big gypsum blocks with smaller stones as chinking, producing a circuit wall between 1.0 and 1.5 m thick, and 1.6 m high at its best-preserved section. Slabs set vertically demarcated a 2.2 by 3.0 meter sub-enclosure in the northeast corner. The excavators noted no changes in

54

Architectural and Structural Features

building materials between this and earlier features at the site (La Rosa 1987). There was evidence of repair after landslides and modification at the northeastern corner, possibly for a doorway. To the south of this enclosure was part of a second, similar structure, consisting of the northeast corner with two stretches of remaining walling 10 and 6 m long. This structure succeeded earlier occupations and included signs of refacing on the eastern wall. The excavator proposes that the ceramics from these features are equivalent to those from well‑known Stentinello sites around Syracuse (Stentinello, Matrensa, Megara Hyblaea) and those from Lipari (Castellaro Vecchio). The enclosures he suggests date to late in the Middle Neolithic sequence, and equivalent to S. Tinè’s stage IVb–c on the Tavoliere (La Rosa 1987), which is approximately the end of the 5th millennium bc [cal]. The evidence from Piano Vento, located in the same region of Sicily as Serra del Palco, was less well preserved. Again, a series of Middle Neolithic levels are reported. In the top level a line of massive calcareous blocks, associated with a hut, were interpreted as part of a “compound” enclosure (Castellana 1987,797). The presence of a necropolis of Chalcolithic date has made conditions of preservation and interpretation of the uppermost Neolithic levels less than ideal. Nonetheless, given the ceramics and structures, the excavator notes the similarity of the remains at this site to those at Serra del Palco. In reviewing Sicilian evidence, one should also note the walls mentioned by Orsi at Stentinello itself (S. Tinè 1961). Two stretches are marked as being extant at the beginning of the century. S. Tinè infers that the traces of walling marked by Orsi on his site map were suspected as Neolithic, but Orsi was not sure that they were part of a hut (S. Tinè 1961, 116). As these features are now lost, it is now impossible to say, but their existence does present the possibility that these were earlier examples of big walls at a “Stentinello” site. Remains of the Middle Neolithic period, associated with pottery of the Stentinello style, are the earliest recognizable occupations on the islands close to Sicily, Lipari, and Malta. At Castellaro Vecchio, on Lipari, no structural remains were found, and so there is no information.11 Excavations on Malta have pro11

Excavation at Castellaro Vecchio did produce fragments of daub, but none was recovered in any architecturally meaningful context. See note

duced another parallel (Fig. 6.14). A stretch of wall, 11 m long and 60 to 80 cm wide, was found at the earliest level (the Ghar Dalam phase) at the site of Skorba (Trump 1966). The wall’s construction included two faces of stones, “mainly on edge” (Trump 1966, 10), with a rubble fill between. Ghar Dalam is considered equivalent to Stentinello, or even derived therefrom, and dated to the 5th millennium bc. Unfortunately, only one stretch of this wall is known because it ran under a later temple and could not be traced farther directly. The excavator notes that two soundings were possible farther along the assumed line of this feature and that both soundings failed to pick it up again although each was only 2 to 3 m from the last visible piece of the wall. He notes the accumulation of debris predominantly along one side, suggesting concentration of occupation to that side (under the later temple). The debris included burnt daub, but it was not possible to tell what might have come from the collapse of the wall and the nature of its superstructure, or from nearby huts. Thus he could not suggest a firm interpretation “either as a long rectangular dwelling or as an enclosure wall to a group of more lightly constructed buildings” (Trump 1966, 10). If one turns to southeastern Italy, another example comes from the Materano group of sites, 150 km up the coast from Capo Alfiere. At Trasano, the excavators report a substantial wall dividing the site. It was made of large blocks up to 50 cm across. Some 6 or 7 m of exposed length varied in width between 0.85 and 1.30 m (Guilaine and Cremonesi 1987). At present it is difficult to say whether this represents a phenomenon similar to those from the Stentinello zone.12 Associated features such as pits and cobbled surfaces were reported. The associated ceramics included both bichrome painted and Matera scratched varieties, suggesting a Middle Neolithic date. The similarity of the walling at Capo Alfiere to that reported for Sicily and Malta is striking. Both the construction materials and techniques and the overall size seem broadly similar. The dating is also compara9 above also on the hut floor at Rinicedda, Salina. It remains the case that no comparanda for the Capo Alfiere walls have been found on the Lipari Islands. (JR) 12 In 1990, newspaper reports about this site indicated that the wall had been followed to a junction, suggesting a “Y” shape, and that radiocarbon dates for the early 6th millennium bc had been obtained (Ruzzi 1990). The definitive word is eagerly awaited. (Further investigations have corroborated both the form of the wall and its date, as Morter reports them. [JR])

Jon Morter ble. The best-preserved examples are those at Serra del Palco, where an enclosure was found. Consideration of this and suggested reconstruction at Capo Alfiere will be addressed further below. Other Features The two other kinds of feature to be discussed are the linear accumulations of material found in Stratum I and the two pits. Very little length of either of the two linear accumulations noted in the lowest stratum was exposed. The better example was found in the southern extension to the main trench, some 2 m west of the lower pavement. Approximately a meter of it was exposed running southwest to northeast across the corner of the trench. It consisted of an accumulation of daub fragments and small stones with an admixture of bone and sherds. It was not consistent in width or height, being up to 20 cm across and perhaps 10 cm high. It was recognized mainly because of the lack of accumulated material elsewhere. At its discovery, the excavators were attempting to follow a surface marked by sherds and bones, and the feature seemed to protrude from that. It was initially supposed that it was a cut or excavated feature such as a burrow or narrow trench filled with debris. However, given that the material projected up from the approximate level of a surface, it is also plausible that this was debris piled along some now-vanished linear feature such as a wall line. No trace of postholes or anything that might suggest a wall was discovered, however, so that too must remain speculation. The second example was found in the bottom of the small Sounding C cut to the lower level inside the enclosure (Fig. 5.3). Little remained of it, or of its associations, so not much can be said except to note its similarity to the first example. The two pits were cut from fairly high in the Neolithic sequence and probably have no architectural significance. As such they represent only further evidence of Neolithic activity. Both contained ash and charcoal and had obviously been the location of heat sufficient to turn all surrounding earth red or pink. Based on their similarity, these two features have been assumed to be more or less contemporaneous. The northern one certainly postdates the levels of the hut and so was probably not associated. The southern one also appeared to be cut from a point after the accumulation of the rubble covering the hut, but this is less certain because of modern damage. Conversely,

55

the radiocarbon dates suggest that the southern pit and burnt-clay hut floor (IIb) might be almost contemporaneous. One cannot be sure either way, given the time ranges possible for both of these dates. If the hut was still standing when the southern pit was cut, that feature would have been just beyond its southern wall. Beyond their being loci of burning, it is difficult to judge what the function of these pits might have been.13 Similarly, it is impossible to be certain of their precise chronological relationship to the hut, which might give a clearer understanding to their presence at the site. Nonetheless, they do serve to show continued Neolithic activity at the site after the abandonment of the major structural features. Discussion Sufficient architectural evidence survives from this site to be tantalizing, but not enough to allow completely secure reconstructions. The majority of the evidence is from Stratum II, most notably the hut pavement and large walls. The following discussion will, therefore, concentrate on the large walls, and will attempt further elucidation of the situation, given what we know of the information recovered, and similarities to the other sites reviewed. The vestigial building remains from Stratum I are too limited to give much information about the structures involved. The two pavements do show continuity of building techniques between the strata. The very large later walls appear, from what we know, to be an innovation. Several features of the structures from Stratum II were touched upon earlier. The hut survives in one dimension and measures about 4.8 m. It has a central hearth and associated grinding area, suggesting a locus of domestic activity. Given that the hearth is approximately equidistant from the three surviving wall lines, one plausible reconstruction would be to infer an approximately square building with the missing east wall also about 2 m from the hearth. This is quite within the size range known for other Middle Neolithic house structures, both in the Stentinello tradition and beyond, although it should be noted that most are calculated to be rectangular. If the eastern wall did not conform to the pattern of the other three, then it is difficult to say how long the hut might have been eastward, although a total length of more than 7 m seems unlikely. 13

See Note 4 in Chapter 5 for a possible interpretation as earth ovens.

Architectural and Structural Features

56

Definite wall line Suggested wall line Definite hut area Suggested hut area

0

2m

Figure 6.15 Reconstructed plan of Stratum II period dwelling.

On stratigraphic grounds, the massive walls are taken here to be contemporary with the hut structure, at least at some point during their life span, and are also assumed to be associated. Given that ploughing has created a gap of several meters separating the two stretches of the walls—a gap that would have included any corner—one has to use conjecture to reconstruct this feature also. The lines of the two walls suggest that they would have joined to form an enclosure, as with the other examples from Sicily. The surviving boulders of the southwest wall cannot be taken as reliably in situ at its northern end, so two reconstructions of the wall’s continuation northward are possible. One has the wall curving slightly to parallel the western side of the hut at a distance of about a meter, a similar arrangement to that seen for the northern wall and its side of the hut. Conversely, if no curve is assumed, and the boulders suggesting that curve are presumed displaced, then the southwest wall continues to meet the northern some 2 m further west, but with an angle of about 75° between the two. Either alignment is plausible. In the definite Sicilian parallels these walls are part of freestanding enclosures, a possibility also put forward for the Maltese example. In all cases the par-

allels occur late in the Stentinello phase of the site sequence. This is also true at Capo Alfiere. Thus it seems plausible that the Capo Alfiere example was the corner of a similar enclosure. With that assumption, one can also use the likely minimum dimensions of the structure within to suggest the line of the missing parts of the enclosure. A hut of at least 4.8 m along its north side would mean that the northern enclosure wall was, minimally, 1 to 2 m longer to the east (Fig. 6.15). This would make the minimum internal length of the enclosure’s north wall at least 6 m (external length approximately 8 m), assuming that the conjectured line of the southwest wall that ran close to the structure is used. A returning eastern side would then be assumed approximately matching the southwest wall. The evidence for the southwest wall suggests that it was at least 11 m long internally, and probably longer. Thus the enclosure might have been at minimum 8 m by 13 m externally. This can be compared with maximum dimensions of 12 m by 20 m for the better preserved example at Serra del Palco. If the assumption of similarity of shape is correct, these measurements suggest a broadly comparable size. An assessment of the original height or nature of the construction of the enclosure walls is also problematic. Nonetheless, certain points can be made. The largest concentration of sintered daub was against the north face or outside of the northern enclosure wall. Within the enclosure, most of the debris, presumed to be from the structure, was rocky tumble that did not include large boulders in the meter-long range found in the walls. The difficulty is that one does not know to what extent the top of the deposit has been removed by later activity. Especially in the case of substantial stones, both the recent presence nearby of a drystone structure and ploughing probably mean that long-term quarrying and agricultural clearance have removed the evidence. That said, the materials used in the surviving walls and the sheer size of them—a meter or more wide—strongly suggest that a tall structure may be postulated. Again, the Serra del Palco example, with a surviving wall height of 1.5 m and its construction of boulders, seems to bear a close affinity to what might be anticipated at Capo Alfiere. This line of reasoning suggests that the carpet of smaller stones within the enclosure was the result of the collapse of the hut structure and/or the initial decay of the walls, and that the boulders higher in the

Jon Morter

57

seem to argue against this. Placing interior vertical facing stones first would not appear to be a requirement if defense were the primary consideration. The reconstruction suggested by this evidence is a hut structure within a large enclosure wall (Fig. 6.16). The hut was approximately rectangular, probably even roughly square. Its construction was presumably of wattle and daub, with rounded corners, a central hearth, and cobble flooring. This building was set at the back of, or possibly in one corner of, an enclosure wall, which may have been as much as 2 m high and was certainly a meter thick. The interior face of at least the lower part of the wall was faced with undressed slabs, set vertically. Open space within the enclosure would have been in the southern portion and, depending on the precise position of the eastern wall, possibly Figure 6.16 Schematic reconstruction of Stratum II structure, representing on the eastern side too. One cannot be sure minimum size of enclosure; it may have been larger. whether this was the only complex of its type walling that might have fallen over the tumble have in the settlement. At Serra del Palco, two such are been lost. The daub concentrated against the north adjacent and assigned to the same stratum, although wall may have come either from structures outside the one cannot be certain that they were contemperaneenclosure or from plaster on the wall itself. ous. No similar features were noted in any excavations It is difficult to assess the purpose of the slab fac- or standing sections elsewhere at Capo Alfiere, but ings to the enclosure walls. Indeed, the sequence of the rest of the site has been severely damaged, so this construction found argues against their being structur- must remain inconclusive. ally significant. A similar technique of setting slabs on Regardless of whether the walling forms an enedge was reported at both Serra del Palco and Piano closure, as suggested here on the basis of the Sicilian Vento, and at Skorba, although only on Malta is specific examples, one should note the similarities of all the mention made of the wall facings being so constructed reported parallels. They date from late in each Sten(Trump 1966).14 That the vertical pieces on the inside tinello occupation. The sites have roughly equivalent were installed first suggests that they had intrinsic im- geologic conditions (that is, easy supply of building portance and ultimate function. Their positioning prior stone). Given what is known from the varying degrees to the construction of the body of the wall—and on the of preservation, the scale of the constructions seems inside, facing the hut wall—could be as prosaic as, for broadly similar. There does not yet seem to be anyexample, protecting the base of a plastered wall against thing similar from beyond the Stentinello sphere: the damage from livestock. The excavators at both Serra Trasano walling does not seem to be a similar condel Palco (La Rosa 1987) and Piano Vento (Castellana ception. The Capo Alfiere walling appears to be the 1987) have tentatively suggested that these enclosures first known Calabrian example of something occurwere defensive. Again, the peculiar placement of the ring across the Stentinello world in the late Middle facing slabs, and the sequence of construction, would Neolithic. 14 Laura

Maniscalco McConnell, who was a senior member of the excavation team at Serra del Palco, has commented to the present writer on the strong similarity of both the building techniques used and general character of Capo Alfiere to that site.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7 The Ceramic Assemblage

The study of Stentinello-style decorated ceramics has been long neglected.1 The subject warrants a major study effort all to itself, not simply for the Crotone area, but throughout the zone from which these pieces are recovered. Since the first description of this pottery in the late 19th century (Orsi 1890), very little synthetic work has been attempted (Ammerman 1985). Meanwhile, the area of recovery of substantial amounts of this pottery has been broadening to include Malta, Lipari (Bernabò Brea 1957), and a large portion of Calabria (Ammerman 1985a; Costabile 1972; Hodder and Malone 1984; Salvatori 1973). Apparent regional stylistic variation within the decorated corpus is remarked upon frequently (Ammerman 1983, 1985a), and is also the impression of this writer. The subject offers the interesting potential of having an unusual and complex decorative technique that covers a relatively confined geographic area and it seems to be an isolated and ultimately deadend offshoot from the general developmental trends in the region. As Bernabò Brea notes (admittedly from the perspective of an unrepentant diffusionist), the broader trends in southern Italian ceramic during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages—impressed, painted and subsequent—seem to proceed closely along the same lines as ceramic technology and fashion within the European side of the Mediterranean Basin (Bernabò Brea 1980, 673). The Stentinello phenomenon is anomalous, 2 and thus an excellent subject for the consideration of the meanings of decorative style in

archaeologically, as opposed to ethnographically, derived ceramics.3 Previous Studies of Stentinello Ceramics As mentioned earlier, the Stentinello ceramic style was labeled after the type site of Stentinello, near Syracuse on the eastern Sicilian coast, by Paolo Orsi in the 19th century (Orsi 1890). Characteristic are the extremely elaborate impressed designs employed as decoration, frequently over much of a vessel’s surface. This material is a long-recognized horizon marker in Sicily (Bernabò Brea 1957; Tusa 1983), signaling the earliest occupations on Malta (as Ghar Dalam ware) and on the Aeolian islands, at the site of Castellaro Vecchio. It was judged to be a development of simpler impressed decorated pottery, one element of the Early Neolithic agricultural lifestyle spread around the western Mediterranean Basin, and so is generally assigned to the Middle Neolithic period.4 The elaborate impressed decoration of the Stentinello style can be contrasted with a more well known painted decorative tradition of Neolithic pottery— bichrome followed by trichrome—which is particularly well documented in southeastern Italy. Bichrome painted finds frequently co-occur in small quantities in Stentinello assemblages. Trichrome painted material, believed to be of east-central Italian inspiration, appears to have replaced Stentinello ceramics com3 That is, here is a regionally isolated and technologically distinct ceramic

tradition, with an elaborate decorative repertoire. It presents the opportunity to ask why and how it maintained its distinctiveness, despite, as the evidence strongly suggests, contact with neighboring areas, and what happened when the subsequent Diana style came into use throughout the southern part of the peninsula and adjacent islands. There is also subregional variation within the Stentinello sphere itself. Hence the much pondered question: What is a ceramic decorative style or motif signaling? 4 This view must now be revised in the light of the three major Stentinello projects in Calabria (Acconia, Bova Marina, and Capo Alfiere itself). All three have established that elaborate geometric Stentinello wares are in use from at least the second half of the 6th millennium bc and probably several centuries earlier (e.g. Umbro). Hence Stentinello Wares are both Early and Middle Neolithic wares in Calabria. It seems possible that the style came into use earlier in Calabria, and in Sicily was preceded for some time by Impressed Wares at sites such as Grotta dell’Uzzo. (JR)

1

A detailed study of the Capo Alfiere ceramics was Morter’s primary research project at the time of his death. Sixteen years after he wrote this, it remains true that there has been almost no detailed technological or stylistic study of Stentinello pottery, although there is hope that this will change in the near future with the publication of recent excavation at Bova Marina, Vulpiglia and other sites. (JR) 2 This appraisal of Stentinello pottery as anomalous reflects the view, prevalent among scholars of Italian prehistory at the time Morter was writing, that the general development throughout Italy was from impressed to painted wares. It is now clear, and even acknowledged elsewhere in Morter’s discussion, that painted pottery is generally typical of the Neolithic Balkans and eastern Italy but was never common in either western Italy or the western Mediterranean (e.g., southern France and Iberia). (JR)

59

The Ceramic Assemblage

60

a

b

c

Figure 7.1 Examples of Stentinello ceramics from Sicily (from Tusa 1983, courtesy of Sellerio Editore).

pletely on Lipari when settlement moved to a defensive location on the island (Bernabò Brea 1980). That event is dated to around the end of the 5th millennium bc.5 Similar ceramics are also found on Sicily, but in insufficient quantities to determine whether anything more than casual contact is involved. This situation is repeated for the Sicilian distribution of the more elaborate polychrome painted style known as Serra d’Alto, which seems to have been the ultimate manifestation of the trichrome technique. At present it is not certain whether these painted ceramics represent a successor to the Stentinello tradition on Sicily, or they were simply a coexisting element (Holloway 1991).6 Malone (1985) has proposed that some form of ritual exchange network might account for the long-distance movement of painted finewares and their wide distribution. The lack of past work in Calabria introduces a major lacuna in Malone’s database, representing the area between southeastern Italy, a possible source, and Sicily, a possible destination. The interface between the southwestern impressed decorative phenomenon and the complete switch to the use of painted finewares elsewhere in the south of Italy seems to have been in Calabria. No substantial finds of Stentinello material have been reported from the large plain of Sibari in the northeast of Calabria. There, excavations have revealed sites with large quan-

e

d

c

g

5 With

the accumulation of more radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic of the area, it is clear that this single date is much too late; a realistic dating for the shift from Stentinello to trichrome and “ceramica meandrospiralica” wares on Lipari and the associated relocation of settlement from Castellaro Vecchio to the Castello of Lipari would probably fall in the early 5th millennium bc. (JR) 6 The latter seems to be the case; although there are claims of sites with assemblages dominated by painted trichromes in Sicily (e.g., Stretto di Partanna), the general rule is that these wares make up a consistently present but small percentage of assemblages dominated by other forms of pottery. (JR)

b

a

r

i

h

m

n

s

f

o

j

q

p

t

Figure 7.2 Material from Grotta dell’ Uzzo (from Tusa 1983, courtesy of Sellerio Editore).

Jon Morter

61

b

a

d

c 0

10 cm

e

Figure 7.3 Stentinello-style vases from Acconia, western Calabria (from Ammerman 1983).

tities of bichrome and non-Stentinello impressed materials (S. Tinè 1962).7 Probably because of the death of Orsi before the publication of the Stentinello excavations (and others), there has not yet been a comprehensive publication of this type of material from Sicily. Examples of some of the more complete Sicilian pieces are widely known (i.e., Bernabò Brea 1957, Plates 6–14), as is some of the Castellaro Vecchio material. Typically, illustrated pieces are globular jars of varying sizes (Fig.7.1). Those without necks have a closed shape and a simple rim. Necks, where present, frequently narrow from the shoulder, giving a conical appearance (Fig.7.1a–b). Most characteristic of these pots is the dense decorative patterning with which they are commonly 7

Recent excavations have recovered some Stentinello pottery at sites in the Sibari area (V. Tinè, personal communication, 2007), but it remains true that there is generally a fairly clear division between the Stentinello world, extending south of the Sila into central and southern Calabria and Sicily, and the painted world, extending north of the Sila into Basilicata and Puglia. (JR)

covered. Many Sicilian examples have bands of zigzags closely incised, or large concentric diamond patterns (Fig. 7.2). Shaped punches were used to produce linear pattern arrangements, such as lines of small diamonds or circles. Examples of such punches, made of clay and bone, have been found on Sicily (Recami, et al., 1983; Sluga Messina 1988). Most pots exhibit geometric designs, but schematized representative depictions are also known. Usually these are made using arrangements of incised or punched geometric motifs. Realistically incised or stylized eyes, frequently arranged on either side of a lug in place of a nose, are the most commonly recognized subject. Sometimes isolated pairs of diamonds are interpreted as abbreviated versions of this idea, and even the notion of diamond motifs generally as having represented eyes has been suggested (Tusa 1983), as in Figure 7.3e. Some designs look like plant representations, particularly grain. Not originally painted, in many cases this incised pottery was embellished with colored paste,

62

The Ceramic Assemblage

generally white (pigments) or red (ochers), pressed into the impressions, presumably after firing. Ammerman (1985a) noted the high proportion of white pigmented vessels on Sicily, particularly in the Syracuse area, and contrasted that to the red ocher that his project found used at Acconia in western Calabria. Initial description of finds from Calabria has followed the pattern of dividing the corpus into coarsewares and finewares (Salvatori 1973; Ammerman 1985a). Usually the decoration lavished on the fine­ ware pieces was far more elaborate than that applied to larger, coarser items. These two categories are recognized as co-occurring, and are both integral parts of a Stentinello assemblage (Ammerman 1985a).8 The complex and distinct decoration—particularly of the finewares—has immediate appeal for archaeological classifiers.9 However, that very complexity, along with the tendency of patterns to break or change in the course of a circuit around a pot, has made classifying this decoration difficult. Most complex designs involve stamped and incised patterns, frequently interwoven and with several different stamps, punches, and incised patterns used on any one pot (Fig 7.3). Ammerman (1983) has noted that, for the Calabrian material, decoration frequently falls in three bands below the vessel’s rim. The upper two bands of decoration tend to be patterns running parallel to the lip of the pot, except where interrupted by discontinuities in the pattern. The lowest band often consists of short segments of patterns running vertically down the body of the pot toward the base. His analyses have tended to move away from categorizing the pattern per se to identifying the specific tools used for particular motifs, and the placement of motif and tool use within the decoration (Ammerman 1983). 8 The highly diagnostic, complexly decorated pieces are frequently referred to as Stentinello in workaday, if misleading, local archaeological parlance. The simpler impressed decoration on coarseware vessels can co-occur with other finewares and is not in of itself diagnostic, and hence not immediately attributable to type or period if found in isolation. 9 As Morter suggests in the preceding footnote, it is clear that the Impressed/Stentinello distinction is both functional and geographic in nature. Functionally, within an overall assemblage, Impressed decoration is usually found on larger and coarser vessels, which were probably used for storage, cooking, and similar uses; Stentinello decoration is typically found only on small to medium-sized vessels which were probably used in serving and consuming food and drink (e.g., bowls, flasks). In other areas, we see a similar contrast, with smaller serving vessels decorated in local styles of elaborate geometric decoration (e.g., fine impressed wares in Puglia, scratched wares in Matera, painted wares in northern Puglia, and so on). As a result, Impressed vessels tend to be very similar across much of southern Italy and Sicily, while the finer decorated wares are much more diagnostic of specific periods and areas. (JR)

Work by Italian researchers in Calabria, with material derived almost entirely from survey, has largely been confined to illustrating and describing the variation in motifs found (Marino 1983; Nicoletti 1989; Salvatori 1973). Given the lack of information about even the basic ceramic sequence for this area, the concentration has been much more diachronically descriptive than technologically oriented. Because Stentinello decoration is impressed into the surface of the pottery, it is generally assumed to be a stylistic development of simpler impressed designs. Pottery with irregularly spaced impressions of cockle (cardium) shells, finger punctates, as well as stab-anddrag, have been interpreted as representing the earliest intrusion of the Neolithic lifestyle or technology into the western Mediterranean. This can be seen in the seriation scheme of S. Tinè for the Tavoliere (S. Tinè 1983). Whitehouse (1968a, 1986) has noted that simpler impressed pottery frequently co-occurs with bichrome painted wares, and that absolute dates may not fit the proposed seriations properly, thus casting doubt on the concept of pure impressed ware and its necessarily early date. In Sicily, Tusa (1983) has used finds from Grotta dell’Uzzo to propose a pre-Stentinello facies with simpler impressed decorated ceramics, including cardium decoration (Fig. 7.2e–s).10 Approach to the Study of Ceramics at Capo Alfiere The analysis of the ceramics from the University of Texas excavations at Capo Alfiere was approached from the perspective of: 1. Previous published results from the site (Salvatori 1973); 2. Our own surface examination of the site prior to excavation; and 3. Expectations based on other Italian Neolithic sites. With the exception of caves, Italian sites of the Neolithic and later periods do not generally have much preserved stratigraphy, even though they frequently 10

This issue has advanced substantially since Morter wrote, but it remains cloudy. It is clear that in many areas elaborate geometrical decoration in finewares emerged very rapidly after the first appearance of pottery in the area (for instance in Puglia). Hence a simple evolutionary progression from a long stage of coarse impressed wares to finer geometric decoration was not the case. The exception may be Sicily (see note 9 above). However, the initial use of pottery may have involved complex, rapid developments that we are hard pressed to detect archaeologically. For example, in some areas such as Puglia and Northern Calabria, there may have been a rapid phase of purely impressed pottery with disorganised all-over decoration, followed quickly by a phase of syntactically organized impressions (V. Tinè 2004). (JR)

Jon Morter seem to have been occupied for long periods. In this respect, they are more similar to typical preservation in Europe to the north and west than to Greece or the Balkans, where tell accumulations are regarded as normal. The sequence from the acropolis at Lipari, beginning in the later Middle Neolithic and running intermittently through the Medieval Period and beyond, is remarkable because it is so unusual. Neither our own survey nor that of Salvatori led us to expect that Capo Alfiere would be an exception. Nor was knowledge of the ceramics sufficiently refined to be a predictor.11 Presuming to have a variety of wares that would combine into one synchronous assemblage, we approached the categorization of the ceramics expecting a single phase within the Middle Neolithic. The 1987 System Following Salvatori, our initial recording system split the impasto sherds into coarse and fine fabrics and decorated versus undecorated pieces.12 We also had a category for pseudo-figulina material. Given the vagaries of handmade ceramics, the coarse-to-fine distinction cannot be completely hard and fast. Salvatori’s assessment and our own field and laboratory study of these fabrics found that in most cases there is no mineralogical difference between the two. A continuum trend toward larger temper size for the larger and less carefully crafted vessels is the main distinction.13 11

Attributing most Italian prehistoric pottery to a particular period, except for well-known diagnostic styles, is extremely difficult. Much of the handmade pottery recovered from any survey can only be classified as generically “prehistoric” (Cesare D’Annibale, personal communication 1987; see Hunt et al., 1990), making chronological control of unstratified finds from the pre-Classical periods sporadic at best. 12 The vast majority of ceramic material was made by hand with a tempered fabric. This goes by the generic label of “impasto” in this area, derived from the nomenclature of Classical archaeology where a distinction is drawn between fabrics containing temper and finewares, which have almost no tempering and a soapy feel to the surface, and are referred to as figulina. At Capo Alfiere the tempering is overwhelmingly of sand or similar material. Very small amounts of fine (usually slipped and painted) Neolithic sherds with practically no tempering were also recovered; these are commonly known as pseudo-figulina. For the purposes of this discussion of Neolithic material, fineware and coarseware both refer to impasto fabrics. The very fine pieces are referred to as pseudo-figulina. 13 Morter does not explicitly specify here what his criteria for distinguishing “fine” and “coarse” wares are, but they seem to be based upon the amount and size of temper in the fabric, with finewares having little temper and/or small-sized temper and coarsewares having larger and/ or more plentiful temper. His category of pseudo-figulina (which he occasionally refers to elsewhere as figulina) is a particular light buff fine­ ware with almost no temper, which other workers sometimes refer to as figulina or buff finewares; it is the usual fabric for painted vessel and some of his undecorated pseudo-figulina pieces may well be remnants of painted vessels from which all surface decoration has eroded archaeologically. Evidently he used the term “pseudo-figulina” to underline that

63

Within the broad categories of coarse and fine wares, further distinction was made on the basis of surface finish and decoration. For the surface finish, eight categories were used. Five broad types of decoration were noted:14 1. Elaborate “Stentinello” impressed decoration 2. Simpler impressed patterns, usually less carefully executed 3. Rocker decoration produced with the edge of a shell 4. Punctate decoration, generally simple finger punctates or crude stab and drag, not the complicated punched designs included in elaborate designs of the first type 5. Painted To these may be added three categories for undecorated pieces: 1. No finish 2. Burnished, with high polish as opposed to surface smoothing of a completed pot 3. Slipped, where this process could be recognized Each of these divisions was further divided by a general categorization of the vessel part:15 1. Rim sherds of closing, vertical, or open-walled vessels 2. Body sherds 3. Simple flat bases 4. Pedestal bases 5. Lugs 6. Pierced lugs 7. Handles These are the broadest of groupings, aimed at allowing a quick division of the material for entry into the computer. Because almost no material could be removed from Italy, the system was designed for rapid recording so that general information would be available in the United States that autumn. Counts of numbers of classified sherds were recorded, rather than a sherd-by-sherd entry, which would have allowed much these hand-built wares are different from the wheel-thrown wares called figulina in Classical archaeology. (JR) 14 This is similar to the composition of Early and Middle Neolithic assemblages throughout southern Italy, substituting the local elaborately decorated ware for Stentinello wares in other areas. Note that what Morter calls punctate decoration here constitutes what is usually termed impressed decoration. (JR) 15 Again, this range of parts is typical of Neolithic assemblages. Note that many, perhaps most, vessels of all sizes had rounded bases, so that when broken the vessels do not yield identifiable bases. The exceptions are specific kinds of vessels such as footed or pedestaled bowls. (JR)

The Ceramic Assemblage

64

b. Distribution by decoration

a. Distribution by ware Fineware

Coarseware

Figulina

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

1,990

65.6

1,034

34.1

11

0.3

Decorated

Total 3,035

Undecorated

Total

Count

%

Count

%

1,676

55

1,359

45

3,035

c. Distribution by ware and decoration Fineware Count Decorated Undecorated Total

Coarseware %

Count

Figulina

%

Count

Total %

1,107

66.1

568

33.9

1

0.05

1,676

883

65.0

466

34.3

10

0.7

1,359

1,990

1,034 e. Distribution by finish

d. Distribution by shape Count

11

Count

%

3,035

f. Distribution by external surface color %

Count

%

Rim (closing vessel)

44

1.4

Unfinished

965

31.8

Black

1,856

61.6

Rim (vertical sides)

137

4.5

Burnished

150

4.9

Gray

337

11.2

Slipped

243

8.0

Brown

261

8.7

Complex impressed

852

28.1

Beige

190

6.3

1.3

Simple impressed

449

14.8

Orange

78

2.6

14

0.5

Rocker

160

5.3

Red

222

7.4

Lug

15

0.5

Punctate

177

5.8

“Splotched”

35

1.2

Pierced lug

34

1.1

“Archaic” punctate

30

1.0

Yellow/cream

33

1.1

Handle

1

0.03

Painted

1

0.03

Other

4

0.1

Other

8

0.3

Rim (opening vessel)

52

1.7

Body

2,693

88.7

Base

41

Pedestal base

Total

3,035

Total

3,035

Total Sherds with ocher

3,012 101

3.4

Table 7.1 Ceramic distribution by categories. Only one painted sherd occurred, so “decoration” means impressed. Small rims for which it was difficult to judge the vessel orifice were included in the vertical category. Surface-color estimations were possible on 3,012 sherds.

greater detail but at the cost of considerable time. The 1987 season yielded 5,440 sherds for analysis. No attempt was made to categorize sherds by color. This again derived from the expectation of a relatively homogeneous assemblage and from the known variability of what was presumably a domestically produced item. Similarly, the database assembled, while giving rapid access to general numbers and distributions, does not address the compilation of vessel shapes in any detail (impossible from our state of knowledge before the 1987 season), nor does it attempt to classify specific decorative patterns or designs. Only techniques are considered. A brief three-week study season was possible in advance of a separate excavation in 1988. This allowed the beginning of a much more detailed look at the ma-

terial, and a reconsideration of the approach. It rapidly became obvious that as each Neolithic pot seemed to have a fairly unique decorative design, reconstruction of widely scattered pieces was possible in a number of cases. Further, the practice of color selection between those pots with impressed decoration and those without became apparent. That is, elaborately decorated pieces tended to have a gray or black exterior whereas plain vessels tended to be reddish (Morter 1990). Because of time constraints, too little work was done on the coarser end of the fabric spectrum to be able to say much at that point. Implications of the 1990 Season for Ceramic Study With the discovery of preserved and distinct strata at the site in 1990, the approach to the ceramic corpus

65

Stratum

Jon Morter

II other

Black Count

Gray %

Count

Brown %

Count

%

Beige Count

Orange %

Count

%

Red Count

Splotched %

Count

%

(With ocher)

Cream Count

%

Count

%

104

25.5

64

15.7

75

18.4

37

9.1

16

3.9

87

21.3

22

5.4

3

0.7

(4)

(1.0)

13

22.0

9

15.3

6

10.2

6

10.2

3

5.1

15

25.4

3

5.1

4

6.8

(0)

(0)

IIb surface

3

12.5

3

12.5

2

8.3

0

0

10

41.7

3

12.5

3

12.5

0

0

(0)

(0)

IIa fill & surface

30

21.1

19

13.3

17

12.0

7

4.9

9

6.3

44

31.0

3

2.1

13

9.2

(0)

(0)

141

65.9

22

10.3

25

11.7

13

6.1

8

3.7

5

2.3

0

0

0

0

(12)

(5.6)

1,459

83.7

74

4.2

84

4.8

67

3.8

16

1.0

43

2.5

0

0

1

0.1

(78)

(4.4)

IIc pit

Ib fill Ia fill & surface

Table 7.2 Differentiation of sherd exterior color by level (all wares)

was necessarily modified. Two things were obvious during the course of the excavation. First, the two major strata—the lowest (I) and the hut and wall (II) levels—were both producing Stentinello pottery. Secondly, the lowest level also contained pieces decorated in a style reminiscent of supposed Early Neolithic, or pre-Stentinello, impressed material, whereas the Stratum II included a much higher number of undecorated finewares. The possibility therefore existed of differentiating at least two Stentinello assemblages, within a stratified chronological sequence. Given the general lack of knowledge of the Stentinello phenomenon, mentioned earlier, this was felt to be a potentially important result. As there was minimal time to work on analysis while the excavation was in progress, pottery from the most stratigraphically sensitive contexts was examined or reexamined by the present writer during the summer of 1991. Particular emphasis was placed on identifying and recording color and surface finishes in sufficient detail to distinguish the ceramics associated with each stratum. The database structure begun in 1987 was modified to allow compatibility of results; new information on color and decorative type was added. The presence of the particular punctate patterns characterized as Early Neolithic in style was differentiated,16 and far greater attention was paid to the recognition of slipped pieces. Although we cut sharply across the tenets of the hypotheticodeductive method and were at severe risk of finding what we were looking for, some success seems to have 16 These will be referred to here as “archaic” style or “archaic” punctate decoration, as the style is similar to the supposed pre-Stentinello material thought of as Early Neolithic, but one cannot tell whether that found here should be so attributed.

been achieved in differentiating the two strata. In all, 3,035 sherds were recorded during the 1991 session, with a concentration on stratigraphically secure contexts. These form the basis for most of the quantified information that follows. At present, much of the unstratified material from 1990 has not been closely examined.17 Ceramics at Capo Alfiere The following section will present the characterizing features of the assemblages defined to date at the site. This will necessarily be done by level. Some data, such as decoration technique, color, and the general shape categories, are quantified. The diachronic differentiation of patterns of decoration, designs, and whole vessel shapes is more impressionistic. Quantified Differentiation of the Levels The database was used to differentiate the assemblages from the main strata at the site. A preliminary breakdown of the entire sample is presented in Table 7.1. This information was recorded by excavation context and finds batch therein (see Chapter 4). Some records were quite small, and so data first were combined by context, and then into strata of related contexts for comparison. As the site was dug by natural rather than artificial levels where possible, direct comparisons of sherds per amount of earth moved were not easily calculable. Therefore, comparison of relative percentages of material seems a more reliable guide to degree of similarity.

17 Potential therefore exists for much further work on the collection. However, given that one of the major findings of Morter’s study, based on a large and representative stratified sample, was that there are significant stratigraphic differences in the Capo Alfiere ceramics, it may be questionable how much further insight can be gained from examining a larger, unstratified sample. (JR)

66

The Ceramic Assemblage

Figure 7.4 Percentages of sherd color by stratum.

Table 7.2 and Figure 7.4 show the breakdown of material by surface color according to stratum, including all pieces, decorated and undecorated. The trend is immediately obvious: the lower-stratum elements have overwhelmingly large numbers of black sherds and include the vast majority of those with ocher that come from secure contexts. The higher surviving strata have a much more even distribution between colors, but of note is the much larger presence of lighter colors from non-reducing (oxidizing) firings, such as oranges, reds, etc. The “splotch” category is a distinctive three-tone effect with red, beige, and gray mottling, presumably achieved by manipulating the firing process. Table 7.2 does not distinguish other divisions within the collection, such as coarseness or finish. This is presented in Table 7.3, which contrasts the percentage of each color of sherd within the fineware category and coarseware category, again by the most reliable stratigraphic units. As in Table 7.2, it should be noted that the samples from the reuse surface and pit within the hut area in Stratum IIb are too small for reliable inference but are included here to reflect the consistency of the general trends. In passing, one

might note that, as with the sample as a whole, the proportion of fine to coarse classified material stays quite constant at 60% to 70% fineware by count.18 The overall differences between the lower (I) and “hut and walls” (II) strata are presented in Table 7.4. This combines the sub-elements that demonstrate similar trends to contrast the two in grosso modo. This lacks the differentiation of considering all the definable stratigraphic elements, but as was mentioned, the small sample size for several of those makes their reliable inclusion as distinct items problematic. The data in Table 7.4 is presented graphically in Figure 7.5. The conclusion would seem to be that color differentiation between coarse- and finewares is not a major factor relative to the differences between levels. Again, the most dramatic differences between strata appear in the overwhelming quantity of black finish for Stratum I, and in the striking increase of oxidized colors in Stratum II; neither of these seem to vary by ware. The only variation between wares seems to be a tendency for coarseware to be beige and brown in the later levels. This last finding confirms an impression gained during preliminary analysis (Morter 1990), before any quantity of material from the lower strata had been encountered and differentiated. The impression gained during the actual excavation and analysis was that the upper and later levels had a greater amount of fineware material without impressed decoration, and that this tended to be reddish or orange. This was explored by looking at the percentages of recovered sherds without impressed decoration, and checking to see what percentage of these were red or orange. This is presented in Table 7.5, which demonstrates the increase in sherds without impressed decoration from the lower two levels (Ia and Ib) to the upper stratum (II). It also shows the dramatic color shift of those sherds. The proportion of undecorated pieces has increased, and the apparent color preference for this kind of pottery has shifted between the lower (I) and upper (II) strata.19 The attempt to subdivide the collection by vessel elements, rims, bases, lugs, and the like has proved 18 Note that this represents the proportion of sherds, not of actual vessels

in the original pottery assemblage. It may be the case, for example, that fineware vessels break into more pieces than relatively thicker coarsewares, or that coarsewares come from larger vessels, which therefore fragment into more pieces. (JR) 19 This simultaneous trend towards undecorated surfaces and reddish colors may be significant in terms of development of Diana Wares. (JR)

67

Jon Morter

Stratum II other IIc pit IIb surface IIa fill & surface Ib fill & surface Ia fill & surface

% of level

Total (N)

1.2

62

253

1.9

0

38

155

5.0

10.0

68

40

36.8

5.3

0

32

19

0

18.8

0

67

16

12.5

37.5

0

0

33

8

1.0

8.2

31.6

1.0

11.2

69

98

13.6

13.6

2.3

29.5

4.5

4.5

31

44

11.9

10.6

4.0

2.6

0.0

0

0

71

151

54.0

6.3

14.3

11.1

6.3

7.9

0

0

29

63

fine

87.8

3.4

2.5

4.4

0.9

0.9

0

0.1

66

1159

coarse

75.4

6.0

9.4

2.7

0.9

5.6

0

0

34

585

Ware

Black

Gray

Brown

Beige

Orange

Red

Splotched

fine

31.2

14.6

8.7

7.9

4.0

24.9

7.5

coarse

16.1

17.4

34.2

11.0

3.9

15.5

fine

27.5

20.0

7.5

5.0

5.0

20.0

coarse

10.5

5.3

15.8

21.1

5.3

fine

12.5

12.5

0

0

56.3

coarse

12.5

12.5

25.0

0

fine

19.4

16.3

11.2

coarse

25.0

6.8

fine

70.9

coarse

Cream

Table 7.3 Distribution percentages of wares by color and coarseness for main stratigraphic units. Stratum II I

Ware

Black

Gray

Brown

Beige

Orange

Red

fine

27.3

15.5

8.8

5.7

7.1

25.1

coarse

17.2

14.2

28.3

11.9

4.0

fine

85.9

4.4

3.4

4.4

coarse

73.3

6.0

9.9

3.5

Splotched

Cream

Total (n)

6.1

4.4

407

20.8

2.7

0.9

226

1.2

0.8

0

0.1

1310

1.4

5.8

0

0

648

Table 7.4 Distribution percentages of wares by color, combining all elements of main strata.

Stratum

Figure 7.5 Percentages of sherd color by ware and stratum.

Undecorated %

Undecorated red or orange %

Ware

Count

II fine other coarse

253

66.8

34.5

155

52.3

24.7

IIc fine pit coarse

40

77.5

25.8

19

94.7

44.4

IIb fine surface coarse

16

87.5

64.3

8

75.0

50.0

IIa fill fine & surface coarse

98

56.1

56.4

44

65.9

34.5

Ib fill fine & surface coarse

151

41.7

3.2

63

46.0

17.2

Ia fill fine & surface coarse

1,159

35.8

1.4

585

38.1

7.2

Table 7.5 Percent of ceramics without impressed decoration by major stratum and percent with oxidized finish color.

The Ceramic Assemblage

68 Lugs

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Closed

Count

Vertical

%

Open

Count

Flat

%

Pedestal

Other

Count

Solid

Rims (vessel shape)

%

Total Handle Pierced Count

Bodies

Count

Stratum

Bases

II other

417

1

0.2

1

0.2

2

0.5

0

0

17

4.1

358

85.9

5

1.2

24

5.8

9

2.2

0

0

IIc pit

63

0

0

1

1.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

58

92.1

1

1.6

2

3.2

1

1.6

0

0

IIb surface

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

4.2

0

0

22

91.7

0

0

0

0

1

4.2

0

0

Ia fill & surface

147

0

0

0

0

1

0.7

1

0.7

4

2.7

126

85.7

4

2.7

6

4.1

5

3.4

0

0

Ib fill

214

0

0

4

1.9

2

0.9

3

1.4

2

0.9

192

89.7

3

1.4

5

2.3

3

1.4

0

0

Ia fill & surface

1,757

0

0

24

1.4

7

0.4

8

0.5

13

0.7 1,569

89.3

32

1.8

87

5.0

13

0.7

4

0.2

Table 7.6 Distribution of recorded shape elements by level. Lugs %

Bases %

Stratum

Count

II all

651

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.3

I all

1,971

0

1.4

0.5

0.6

Handle

Pierced

Solid

Pedestal

Flat

Bodies %

Rims (Vessel Shape) % Open

3.2

86.6

1.5

4.9

2.5

0

0.8

89.4

1.8

4.7

0.8

0.2

Vertical

Other %

Closed

Table 7.7 Comparison of recorded shape elements for two strata by percentage.

II all coarse

226

1

0.4

2

0.9

3

1.3

2

0.9

I all fine

1,310

0

0

7

0.5

1

0.1

0

0

I all coarse

661

0

0

21

3.2

8

1.2

11

1.7

%

0

Count

0

5

1.2

377

88.7

9

2.1

19

4.5

15

3.5

0

0

16

7.1

187

82.7

1

0.4

13

5.8

1

0.4

0

0

1

0.1

1,189

90.8

28

2.1

71

5.4

13

1

0

0

14

2.1

572

86.5

7

1.1

21

3.2

3

0.5

4

0.6

%

0

Count

0

%

0

Closed

Count

0

Vertical

%

0

Open Count

0

Flat

Other

%

%

425

Rims (Vessel Shape)

Count

Count

II all fine

Bodies

%

%

Pedestal

Count

Solid

%

Pierced Count

Handle %

Total Count

Count

Stratum

Bases Count

Lugs

Table 7.8 Comparison of main strata by ware and shape elements.

disappointing because of the relatively small numbers of diagnostic sherd elements. For every level except the lowest (Ia), the number of diagnostic pieces was too small to be statistically useful. The numbers for the most-sensitive stratigraphic components are presented in Table 7.6 and illustrate this problem. In Table 7.7 the various levels are combined to the two distinct strata and presented. The only differences appear to be a decreasing number of pierced lugs with time, and a switch from major use of pedestal bases to little use thereof. The number of rims may suggest an increase in closed shapes with time.20 Table 7.8 further subdivides material by coarseness, but again the numbers are small. Table 7.9 ex-

20 Pedestal bases seem to be associated in Early Neolithic southern Italy with a particular form, a large, deep open bowl upon a raised foot between 5 and 10 cm tall, often decorated with impressions. (JR)

Stratum II fine

Total Count

Rims (Vessel Shape) % Open

% Vertical

% Closed

43

20.9

44.2

34.9

coarse

15

6.67

86.7

6.67

I fine %

112

25.0

63.4

11.6

31

22.6

67.7

9.68

coarse %

Table 7.9 Rim categories by ware and main strata.

amines a possible trend to closed shapes in finewares and vertical sides in coarsewares by checking differences in rim configuration. The results indicate that, as with color, there is a homogeneity between relative percentages of rim configurations for the lowest stratum (I). Like the color data, the numbers show a possible divergence for the upper level, wherein coarser material (with a very small sample) suggests vertically

69

IIc pit

63

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

7.9

5

IIb surface

1

%

15.1

Count

63

%

1.2

Count

5

94

22.5

4

1.0

160

38.4

2

0.5

7.9

23

36.5

3

4.8

27

42.9

0

0

4.2

16

66.7

0

0

4

16.7

0

0

71 17.0

%

3.6

Count

15

Other

%

Count

0.7

%

3

%

417

II fill

Count

Burnished Unfinished

%

Slipped

Count

Complex

%

Simple

%

Rocker

Count

Stratum

Punctate Count

Archaic Total count

Count

Jon Morter

24

0

0

0

0

1

4.2

2

8.3

IIa fill & surface

147

0

0

8

5.4

2

1.4

15

10.2

37 25.2

44

29.9

6

4.1

34

23.1

1

0.7

Ib fill

214

6

2.8

6

2.8

14

6.5

18

8.4

79 36.9

16

7.5

1

0.5

74

34.6

0

0

1,757

21

1.2

130

7.4

118

6.7

312

17.8

537 30.1

3

0.2

130

7.4

501

28.5

5

0.3

Ia fill &

surface

Table 7.10 Finish categories by stratigraphic units. Stratum

Total Count

Archaic %

Punctate %

Rocker %

Simple %

Complex %

Slipped %

Burnished Unfinished % %

Other %

II

651

0.5

3.5

1.2

13.1

17.5

27.2

2.0

34.6

0.5

I

1,971

1.4

6.9

6.7

16.7

31.3

1.0

6.6

29.2

0.3

Table 7.11 Comparison of surface finishes by main strata.

sided vessels while the finer material has a more even distribution.21 The finer material from Stratum II also contrasts with the lowest level in having a higher proportion of material from closed vessels. Overall, discussion of vessel elements is hampered by the small numbers of distinctive pieces from stratigraphically reliable contexts, and by the recording system itself. Originally designed to give a broad summary of salient elements of a presumed synchronic sample, the recording system is not refined enough for a more detailed analysis. Greater emphasis on details such as specific rim angles will be necessary, and that would also require a far greater expenditure of time. The paucity of rim sherds relative to body sherds is itself interesting, suggesting that the absolute number of vessels in the collection may not ultimately prove that large.22 The last element accessible from the database is an approximate assessment of exterior surface finish. Data for the reliable stratigraphic units are shown in Table 7.10. The consolidated percentages comparing 21

In extrapolating vessel form from rim form, it should be noted that one common Neolithic vessel form was a globular, closed jar with a cylindrical neck; when fragmented, the rim sherds from such vessels would resemble those from smaller, straight-sided open bowls except that they would be somewhat thicker. (JR) 22 As noted above, this may also indicate that most vessels were roundbottomed and that breakage of a single vessel would result in a large number of non diagnostic “body” sherds. (JR)

the two main strata are shown in Table 7.11. As can be seen in both tables, there are distinct differences in surface treatment preferences between the combined main strata. The sample sizes for elements in level IIb are small but still show considerable variation within the stratum as a whole. It is difficult to tell whether this variety is real or a function of the limited sample. In comparing the main strata one may note that the archaic style material is overwhelmingly in the lowest level. This is encouraging, but the quantities are so small within the assemblage as a whole as to be unenlightening much beyond that. Either this represents residual material from an earlier occupation at or near the same spot, or it is a minor element within the lower assemblage. The rocker decorated material also shows a dramatic decline between strata, suggesting that it was more popular earlier on. The highly burnished sherds without impressed decoration in the bottom level may actually be from the undecorated parts of decorated vessels. The fine impressed decorated sherds from the lowest stratum tended to be burnished, but with large areas of surface devoid of design.23 These trends can be refined by comparing coarse and finewares, as presented in Table 7.12. This illus-

23 This is possible, but many Neolithic southern Italian assemblages also have vessels with undecorated dark burnished surfaces, something that is hard to detect in extremely fragmented material. (JR)

The Ceramic Assemblage

70

Stratum

Total Count

Archaic %

Punctate %

Rocker %

Simple %

Complex %

Slipped %

Burnished Unfinished % %

Other %

II fine

425

0

0.7

0.7

7.8

24.0

32.7

2.6

31.0

0.2

II coarse

226

1.3

8.9

2.2

23.0

4.4

17.3

0.9

41.2

0.9

1,310

0.2

3.5

3.0

15.5

41.5

0.8

9.5

25.7

0.2

661

3.8

13.6

14.1

19.2

10.9

1.2

0.9

36.0

0.3

Splotched

Cream

I fine I coarse

7

5.3

7

5.3

20

15.2

46

34.8

20

15.2

14

10.6

II complex imp.

99

50

50.5

16

16.2

9

9.1

5

5.1

0

0

18

18.2

1

1.0

0

0

I slipped

11

2

18.2

0

0

8

72.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

9.1

483

89.4

18

3.3

12

2.2

19

3.5

2

0.4

6

1.1

0

0

0

0

%

12.1

%

%

Count

Count

16

%

1.5

%

%

Red

2

%

Count

Orange

132

540

Count

Beige

II slipped

I complex imp.

Count

Brown

%

Gray Count

Black Count

Stratum

Total Count

Count

Table 7.12 Contrasting surface finishes in main strata by ware by percentage.

Table 7.13 Comparing plain slipped and complex impressed finewares.

trates the preferred application of rocker decoration to coarser vessels, and that a preponderance of it occurs in the earlier material. As might be expected, the cruder impressed and punctate decoration also tends to be concentrated on pieces with coarser fabric, although stratigraphic trends are harder to gauge. For finer wares the obvious change appears to be a shift away from the complex impressed designs to plain slipped finishes. As will be discussed further below, it does not seem that the complex impressed material has been completely abandoned; instead, a second major category is seemingly being used alongside it. The changing trend in fineware finish can be seen by comparing the exterior color of two more distinctive finish styles, that of the complex impressed patterns and that with slip only. Table 7.13 compares the two main stratigraphically distinct levels and illustrates two main points. First, the slipped finewares are an insignificant presence in the lower stratum (I). When the slipped finish is present in the upper stratum (II), the desired finish colors do not appear to be the same as those popular in the earlier period. Second, the color selection for the complex impressed decoration also seems more diverse in the upper level. Black is the overwhelmingly dominant color produced during the earlier period. It accounts for about 50% of the complex impressed pieces by the later period. This change may also be reflected in the use of colored ochers. Presence of such color in the impressions of the designs is much more common in Stratum I. Pre-

sumably, the black finish showed the colors better, but this paleoaesthetic conclusion should not be drawn lightly given the use of white ochers on the typically beige pottery of Stentinello material from Sicily. Indeed, given the predominance of beige for this kind of material at Stentinello itself, and of brown from the Acconia sites (Ammerman 1985a), the apparent preference for black here is somewhat surprising. Discussion of Quantitative Study The preceding section has presented what are essentially descriptive data to illustrate the general trends in the ceramic corpus. More-complex statistics were not tried for two reasons. First, resorting to serious statistics for most of the major changes demonstrated would have been overkill. Trends can mostly be demonstrated unambiguously with a graph or table. Secondly, because of the disturbance of so much of the site, the intact features and levels were quite restricted in extent, and as such produced very small samples in several cases. This, combined with the initially restricted categorization of the database, meant that attempting more specific differentiation of use areas, either synchronically or diachronically, is problematic at this stage, and hence was used the combination of approximately contemporary features or event horizons within a major level to show the long-term changes. When the lower stratum (I) is compared with that of the levels of walls, pavement, and other features,

Jon Morter the quantitative data do delineate some of the major changes within the corpus. 1. For finewares, there is a shift from impressed complex decoration to a mix with both impressed and slipped (but otherwise undecorated) pieces. This is accompanied by a shift in preferred finish color from black—presumably a deliberate result of reduced firing—to more varied colors, with slipped pieces especially having oxidized firing. 2. There are also similar color changes and possibly shape changes for the coarsewares. The small samples and general nature of the database categories make shape trends difficult to detect (Tables 7.8 and 7.9). The large proportion of brown coarsewares in the upper level was noted after the 1987 season (Morter 1990). Given the altogether more heterogeneous color selection in the upper levels, it is difficult to draw further conclusions at this stage. 3. The decreasing proportion of rocker decorated vessels and virtual disappearance of archaicstyle decoration in the upper stratum (II) suggest two further markers of the earlier period’s pieces. One cannot be certain how closely connected the few sherds with archaic decoration were to the occupation represented by the lower stratum. Both these styles of decoration tend to occur on sherds with coarser fabrics. As stated above, the quantitative analysis did not attempt to differentiate the impressed decoration on the basis of designs. Because of the requirements at the time, this was not an objective when the database was set up; nor was it an easy task, given the complexity of the subject matter. Qualitative Discussion of the Corpus The delineation of distinct strata of a chronological sequence within a Stentinello-style assemblage raised the possibility of looking at changes in the style of Stentinello decoration over time, as well as in the composition of a Stentinello assemblage as a whole. Although a quantitative measure of the changes in decorative style and vessel form is not yet available, this question was still addressed. The following sections will present the assemblages from each of the main strata. Examples of the decorative techniques used and vessel shapes will be presented, along with a description of the salient characteristics of the assem-

71

blage from each stratum, pointing out differences not emphasized in the preceding quantitative discussion. The Assemblage from the Lower Strata (Ia and Ib) As noted above, the most striking characteristic of the pottery from the lower stratum is that it is predominantly black. This included the finer material from the earliest level, which is black, rather than gray, and frequently has a burnished surface. Relatively, much more ocher was found on these pieces than on those definitely attributable to the later strata. This may be a product of differential survival, or it may correspond to a different pattern construction (that is, the impressed designs seem to become more complicated over time). But most probably it is a deliberate feature of the decoration at this period. In addition to white pigment, all shades of red, yellow, and orange ochers were found at Capo Alfiere. The black finish apparently desired by the potters would be ideally suited to enhancement with these colors. No complete vessel profiles have yet been reconstructed from the lower stratum. However, some general statements can be made on the basis of the recovered diagnostic elements. Most vessels appear to have been quite simple in conception; closed-mouth jar shapes, without a neck, are popular for both coarser and finer pieces. The size of vessels varies enormously, as might be gathered from the illustrations (Fig. 7.6). Rim diameters range from about 10 cm up to about 35 cm, with vessel wall thickness from about 3 mm to 20 mm or more, although, with handmade ceramics such as these, variation of wall thickness within any one vessel is considerable and so not necessarily a useful guide for assessing the collection. The rims of larger vessels tend to have a coarser fabric, suggesting the use of more and larger tempering material, as might be expected. The lip of each vessel is uniformly simple. There are very few enhancements to the lip shape (such as thickening, or being folded over, for example) from any pieces at the site. Similarly, evidence of necks on any jars is lacking. An exception might be Figure 7.6c, where a curving body profile is turned more vertically upward. This is vaguely reminiscent of the conically necked jars from Sicily, a shape that, to date, has been rare at Capo Alfiere. Both simple and pedestal bases have been found. However, without complete profiles it is difficult to associate these firmly with particular vessel shapes. Sicilian material includes examples of deep open bowls with pedestal foot bases. Lugs,

The Ceramic Assemblage

72

0

2 cm

b [CA 1174-02]

a [CA 0587]

c [CA 1160]

0

2 cm

f [CA 0225-03]

d [CA 1174-03]

g [CA 01174-01]

e [CA 0439]

Figure 7.6 Complex impressed decoration on sherds from Stratum I.

73

Jon Morter particularly pierced lugs, are quite common, and frequently decorated, but again, without more-complete vessel profiles, it is difficult to make firm statements relating these pieces to overall vessel shapes.24 The impressed decoration will be considered in three categories: that with elaborate patterns, that with rocker stamping, and that with shell and finger impressions reminiscent of the Early Neolithic. The latter category is referred to here as archaic. Rocker decoration is generally in a band pattern and made by walking the edge of a shell across the clay surface at some point before firing. The lack of stratified examples of this technique in the later levels, noted earlier, suggests that the technique should be associated with the earlier stratum. Rocker decoration is usually found on coarser ware pieces and generally not at the rim. This last fact makes it difficult to predict the orientation of this decoration relative to the vessel as a whole. It seems likely that once profiles of large coarseware vessels have been reconstructed, this type of decoration will be found commonly alongside other kinds, probably at a lower register (as can be seen on a vessel from Naxos, Sicily, illustrated by Bernabò Brea [1957, Plate 6]).25 As Ammerman (1983) has remarked, the more complex impressed decoration of the Stentinello style tends to be arranged in bands parallel to the vessel rim. This is, however, a very broad generalization. Frequently, recognizable bands of decoration are interrupted (Fig. 7.3e), and the lowest “band” often consists of motifs arranged vertically and descending to the base of the vessel (Fig. 7.3a). In addition, there are well-known examples from Sicily in which the patterns consist of large areas of densely nested diamonds and seemingly randomly arranged clusters of chevrons, that do not conform in any obvious way to the rim line (Fig. 7.1a). The decoration is generally done either with impressed or incised lines, which are normally closely spaced to produce a band or column effect or fill an area within the pattern. Patterns are 24 This description of forms has been borne out by other sites as typical of southern Italian Neolithic wares in general. For instance, there is the simplicity of the form of the rims which are almost always straight or slightly in curving and without plastic elaboration. The only caveat is that there may be fragmented tall-necked jars mixed in with the straight rims. (JR) 25 It should be noted that in most other assemblages, rocker decoration occurs by itself on vessels, without being combined with other techniques. The principal exceptions are some relatively fine bowls in the Matera-Puglia region that feature rocker decoration on the bottom and painting above this. (JR)

Figure 7.7 Stratum I sherd with black surface and complex impressed decoration filled with white ocher. [CA 0973-02] 0

1 cm

also formed with punches in multitudinous shapes. Presumably some were the result of opportunistic use of convenient objects (including plant pieces). Other shaped-clay examples have been found on Sicily (Recami et. al., 1983). Small squares or diamonds and circles are very common motifs (Fig. 7.3c). These are generally carefully executed, tightly spaced, and rarely used singly in any one design.26 The complex decorative patterns of the lower strata were executed on a burnished surface, fired in a reducing atmosphere to a black finish, and most were probably then embellished with color in the form of ocher that was pressed into the depressed portions of the designs (Fig. 7.7). The designs impressed into the clay surface fall into two groups. Category One makes extensive use of columnar strings or bands of closely spaced impressions. Described by Ammerman (1983) and seen on Sicilian examples (Figs. 7.1, 7.3), motifs include chevrons, closely spaced zigzag effects, and punched patterns. Frequently the design has a band just below the rim consisting of multiple rows of punched diamonds or the like, and then a second motif below that consisting of geometric shapes—triangles were favored—filled with an impressed or incised pattern such as netting or hatching (Fig. 7.6a–b). Category Two makes much sparser use of punches: motifs were impressed or incised directly, frequently in chain-like columnar strings of diamonds or sets of parallel wavy lines (Fig. 7.6c–g). The patterns are not closely spaced and, from the various segments of pots recovered, seem to have been spread over much of a vessel’s surface. The uppermost bands seem to con26 Stamps have also been found at sites in Calabria (e.g., Umbro and Pen-

itenzeria) and are not rare on settlement sites. The lack of stamps at Capo Alfiere is interesting and may reflect the function of the parts of the site excavated; possibly pottery making was done elsewhere. (JR)

74

The Ceramic Assemblage

form to the rim by running parallel, but the orientation of the body decoration appears to have been much more free form. There do not appear to have been radical differences in the vessel shapes. Simple bowls and jars without necks, all in various sizes, predominate. The distinction of Category Two is admittedly impressionistic, aided by subtle shifts in decorative preferences between levels. Whereas the use of dense Category One designs continued in the upper strata, the more incised patterns, without punches, were apparently much less frequent. Similarly, the desired surface finish changed so that color became more varied and high burnish less prevalent. This change coincided with an apparent decrease in the use of ochers in the impressed decoration. One can suggest that these trends were interrelated. The elaborate and dense punched patterns would have been easier to see without embellishment with color, while being, at the same time, possibly harder to fill with color effectively. It is the combination of pattern, surface treatment, and color change that is noticeable. Any one element would probably not be distinguishable by itself.27 The presence of material similar to a purported Early Neolithic style—“archaic”—adds an interesting twist to the assemblage from the lowest level. There are two features of the decoration of these pieces that distinguish them. First, although impressed, the decoration tends to be arranged irregularly, with little obvious attempt to use the motifs to create the patterns typical of the developed Stentinello style. Second, some of the motifs are distinctive, particularly the use of the edge of a shell to impress a short squiggly line, sometimes referred to as “cardium” or “a tremolo” decoration (Fig. 7.8). Simple scratches, staband-drag, 28 and cuneiform-like impressions, all irregularly arranged, are also probably part of this group (Fig. 7.9a–h). Ordinarily, retrieval of such pieces from a Stentinello context would be interpreted as an admixture 27

This thoughtful description of pottery style, which relates decoration to the visual effect which potters desired to achieve, should be appreciated as remarkable for the early 1990s, when pottery analysis tended to be entirely typological or done with a relatively mechanical attributeanalysis system. Considering the visual or sensory aspects of material culture, including color and design, has since become more common, and one can only speculate that this is the direction in which Morter would have developed his work. (JR) 28 This term refers to a simple impressing technique in which a stick or stylus is stabbed into the wet clay of the vessel being decorated and then dragged to create a short, rough linear impression. (JR)

[CA 0975-08] 0

2 cm

[CA 0975-01] Figure 7.8 Left, Cardium decoration; right, scratch decoration on sherds from Stratum I.

from an earlier level or occupation.29 At Capo Alfiere these pieces frequently had the black burnished surface finish common in the lower stratum, and little difference of paste was evident. Vessel shapes are insufficiently known to be useful for identification. Two other unusual styles of decoration found in the lowest stratum need to be mentioned before considering the significance of this class of material. The bottom of the lowest stratum also produced two base fragments with what seems to be cord-impressed decoration (Fig.7.9i). This is unusual, but more intriguingly, the impressions were arranged vertically running up the vessels in both cases. Additionally, one piece was a pedestal base, the other flat. Both had a black finish. As we have only the bases, it is impossible to say how the decoration continued and whether it changed towards the rim. One other distinctive sherd is a beige fragment with fingernail impressions arranged in lines of pairs, looking rather like hoof prints (Fig. 7.9f). The material with cardium impressions strongly resembles that ordinarily attributed to the Early Neolithic. It is not normally associated with Stentinellotype assemblages, as for example at Castellaro Vecchio on Lipari or Acconia. Tinè illustrates similar pieces from the Tavoliere, places them in Phase I to III (the Early Neolithic) of his sequence there, and refers to them as “tipo arcaico” when co-occurring with painted and other types of impressed decoration 29

This was the case at the time of writing, but since then it has become clear that such techniques were not restricted to a first phase of Impressed pottery use but subsequently continued to form part of the potter’s repertory for a long time. (JR)

75

Jon Morter

0

2 cm

a [CA 0972]

b [CA 0975-02] 0

c [CA 0975-03]

f [CA 0915-02]

d [CA 0975-05]

g [CA 0975-07]

2 cm

e [CA 0975-01]

h [CA 0975-08] 0

Figure 7.9 Sherds from Stratum I. Figures a–h show examples of decoration in the archaic style; figure i shows an example with cord-impressed decoration.

2 cm

i [CA 1114]

76

The Ceramic Assemblage

(Tinè 1983: Tav. 67). He dates these phases sequentially within the late 7th and entire 6th millennium bc. As noted earlier, Whitehouse (1986, 41) is critical of the generality of Tinè’s phases, and would not chronologically differentiate Phases II and III, placing both in the 6th millennium bc. To one looking westward, there is the site of Grotta dell’ Uzzo, where Tusa (1983) has proposed a pre-Stentinello facies on Sicily from the results of his work. He illustrates pottery with impressed designs very similar to those at Capo Alfiere (Tusa 1983, Fig. 3.12): cardium, simple scratches, and the double hooflike fingernail impressions (compare Figures 7.2 and 7.9, particularly Figure 7.2q and 7.2e with Figures 7.9h and 7.9f respectively). Tusa (1983, 140) gives a C-14 date of 8130 80 BP. for this level (which would be the 8th millennium bc [cal.]).30 The similarity of both material and association of the Capo Alfiere finds suggests a likely correspondence to the Sicilian situation. However, the extremely early date of the level is highly problematic. The excavation on talus attempted to differentiate a sequence continuing from an existing Mesolithic occupation. It is not certain that one can take the clear definition of a pre-Stentinello level and its dating at face value. Whitehouse pointed out some time ago that most “Early” Neolithic ceramics occur alongside painted material and so might be a functional rather than chronological marker (Whitehouse 1968a 192). Her critique of S. Tinè’s sequence suggests regional rather than functional production explanations for varying mixtures of ceramics, but the gist is similar. Thus, the co-occurrence of “tipo arcaico” material and Stentinello-style impressed pottery, rather than bichrome painted material, need not be surprising. At Capo Alfiere this material is chronologically restricted and thus a horizon marker. However, its presence need not mean absolute exclusion of other impressed decoration in the Stentinello tradition, particularly if what we have is an earlier manifestation of such an assemblage. Further clarification of the Sicilian sequence, its pre-Stentinello facies, and the early dating thereof is required. Still, one can probably conclude that this evidence is pointing to a backward extension of the parallels in the Calabrian and Sicilian sequences for the earlier parts of the Neolithic. 30 As Morter notes in the next paragraph, this date is generally regarded as too high for the early Neolithic of Sicily; other dates suggest an early Neolithic in the first half of the 6th millennium bc. (JR)

To summarize, the lower assemblage is definitely in the Stentinello tradition. At present there has not been a viable sample for absolute dating from the lowest levels (Ia and Ib). Obviously it is earlier than the subsequent hut paving and large walls of Stratum II, which have a C-14 date in the second half of the 5th millennium BC [cal.]. Stentinello sites from Acconia range in date from the second quarter of the 6th millennium bc to the later 5th millennium bc. Thus, even discounting the Sicilian dates for Tusa’s “preStentinello,” this stratum (I) could be considerably earlier than the one above it. It has been suggested here that certain general decorative techniques, and some particular styles within the elaborately decorated pieces, are largely restricted to this stratum and could ultimately prove useful as chronological markers. The Assemblage from the Upper Strata (Hut and Walls: IIa, IIb, and IIc) Both the quantitative analysis and visual inspection suggest that there were changes in the pottery between the lowest stratum (I) and the intact higher stratum (II) with the hut pavement and major walls. These changes are most conspicuous in the appearance of a distinctive class of pottery without impressed decoration, which, unlike the majority of pieces with impressed decoration at this site, was made with a reddish or orange finish, presumably by means of an oxidizing firing. Use of a slip was also frequently obvious on this material. These pieces without impressed decoration occurred alongside finewares with complex impressed designs and the usual coarsewares. It seems unlikely that this decorated material was entirely residual, as some pieces with a red slipped finish and impressed decoration of a simpler but definitely Stentinello-derived form were recovered.31

31

One of the most interesting implications of this observation concerns the genesis of Diana Wares, which succeed Stentinello Wares and other local styles of pottery across southern Italy and Sicily. Although the dating is still imprecise, this likely happened between 4700 bc and 4300 bc, which is not long after the Capo Alfiere upper occupation. The origin of Diana Wares is unknown, and one likely explanation for their homogeneity is that they arose in many places via a process of convergence, as potters chose similar styles. Diana Wares include both fine and coarse wares, typically in colors between red, orange, and brown; they have undecorated surfaces, and finewares are often slipped and reddish in color. The point here is that in the gradual shift at Capo Alfiere towards reddish slipped vessels with undecorated surfaces, we may be seeing the initial stages of the “Diana-ization” of the assemblage. (JR)

77

Jon Morter

a [CA 0179-02]

b [CA 0115-01]

0

2 cm

Figure 7.10 Complex impressed decoration on vessels from Stratum II.

Finewares The pieces with complex decoration from this level are generally more varied in color than those recovered from the earlier level. There is less evidence for the use of colored ochers on the final product, but many examples of elaborate decoration combine a variety of motifs made by the use of different tools. Reconstruction of large sections of several vessels has been possible, and these are illustrated in Figures 7.10–11. As discussed above, the designs usually parallel the line of the rim for one or several bands of decoration, with further lines of pattern or motif then de-

scending vertically towards the base of the pot (Figs. 7.10a–b, 7.11). This dichotomy between the bands of designs arranged horizontally at the rim of the vessel and vertically oriented patterns below is very common for Stentinello-style finewares and can be found on examples from Sicily and Acconia. It is not followed rigidly, however. The other Stentinello practice of interrupting the uppermost design bands for design elements placed at, or descending from, the rim is also known at Capo Alfiere (Figs. 7.12a–b, 7.13a). Patterns are often interrupted to accommodate placement of “eye” motifs (Figs. 7.12a–b, Fig. 13a).

The Ceramic Assemblage

78

[CA 1043] 0

2 cm

Figure 7.11 Complex impressed decoration on vessel from Stratum II suggesting a stylized face.

a [CA 0335-03]

0

2 cm

b [CA 0029] Figure 7.12 Vessels from Stratum II with eye motifs.

All of the stratigraphically attributable eye motifs found at Capo Alfiere are from the upper strata. These are generally not as stylized as some that have been suggested elsewhere. One example of particular interest is shown in Figure 7.11. This vessel was found smashed on the stone paving of the hut (Stratum IIa) and sealed beneath the reuse episode above (Stratum IIb). The placement of two circular impressions on either side of the lug strongly suggests a face. Similar positioning of more-explicit eyes with lugs

for noses can be seen on examples from Sicily. Two other features are of interest on this piece: first is the vessel shape, which is little changed from the simple jar form common throughout at the site and at other Stentinello assemblages; second is the surface finish. The impressed decoration is much simplified—almost too reduced to be diagnostically Stentinello, although the punch use, face, and design arrangement are archetypical—and the surface was slipped and fired to a reddish color.

79

Jon Morter

a [CA 0008-14]

b [CA 0335-01]

c [CA 0229-02]

0

2 cm

d [CA 0326] e [CA 0335-02] f [CA 0335-02]

g [CA 1022-02]

Figure 7.13 Impressed decoration and vessel shapes from Stratum II. Color drawing based on traces of ochre fill.

The Ceramic Assemblage

80

0

a [CA 0227-03]

b [CA 0235-01]

c [CA 0158-01]

d [CA 0158-01]

e [CA 1022-01]

f [CA 0360]

g [CA 0230-02]

h [CA 0909-03]

Figure 7.14 Shapes of undecorated fineware vessels from Stratum II.

2 cm

Jon Morter

0

2 cm

a [CA 0230-04]

b [CA 0219]

Figure 7.15 Color variation from firing among undecorated vessels from Stratum II.

This leads one to the second major class of fine­ ware, that without impressed decoration (Fig. 7.14). Close examination showed that a large proportion of these pieces were slipped. Firing was oxidizing, which generally achieved a reddish or orange preferred finish. However, a “splotchy” red through orange/cream to gray coloring was noticed on a sufficient number of pieces to suggest that this effect was also deliberately sought. Examples of some of these pieces are illustrated in Figure 7.15. Some of this material was very finely made with vessel walls of 4 mm or less. This was all impasto material, however, with paste and tempering similar to that of the rest of the assemblage. Similarly, vessel shapes, as far as can be discerned, do not seem radically distinct. The same simple jars and some open bowls are in evidence. Coarsewares Less can be said about coarseware because the generally larger size of the vessels make reconstruction and estimation of vessel shape from single sherds more difficult. A selection of typical shapes is shown in Figure 7.16. Many pieces seem to derive from simple open bowl shapes. As might be expected, decoration, where present, tends to be less elaborate. Variations on

c [CA 0282-01]

81

82

The Ceramic Assemblage

0

5 cm

a [CA 0008-02]

b [CA 0397]

c [CA 0595-02]

d [CA 0275-01] Figure 7.16 Shapes of coarseware vessels from Stratum II.

punctates and simple bands of chevrons were apparently popular. Rocker decoration with a shell is quantitatively much more common in Stratum I than in II. Rocker decoration is frequently used on the lower segments of a vessel. Figure 7.16d, the base of what was probably a large jar, shows a typical example. Some of the coarseware vessels must have been of considerable size. One large handle found was as big as a fist (Fig. 7.17). Figure 7.16c shows the base of the neck of what must be presumed to have been a large storage jar from Stratum II. The surviving neck contour may indicate that this piece had a typically Stentinello-style conical neck. The quantitative discussion above noted that the increased color variety in Stratum II is found in the coarser as well as finer sherds. As mentioned, from a fabric perspective, there does not seem to have been dramatic differences between wares, except for the few figulina finds. As might be expected, the thicker sides of the vessels allowed larger temper pieces, although the nature of the tempering agents is consistent (see the section on fabric analysis below).

Discussion The finding directly on the stone paving of the smashed vessel (Fig. 7.11), made with the characteristics of both styles, suggests that Stratum II may have a ceramic assemblage representing a transition from the production of impressed decorated finewares to a preferred plain finish.32 The limited amount of pottery from the burnt reuse surface above the hut pavement was predominantly of the undecorated variety, as was material from the fill of a pit that cut both of these surfaces. The C-14 date from the hut floor (Stratum IIa) corrects to the second half of the 5th millennium bc, and that of the reuse episode (Stratum IIb) to the same time or very slightly later. These dates are quite late for a Stentinello assemblage, but comparable with dates from Acconia and thus not unreasonable. In the classic scheme of things, polychrome painted finewares should become ceramic high fashion at this point in the later Middle Neolithic. On pres32

See note 31 on the place of these wares in the transition to Diana pottery. (JR)

83

Jon Morter

other purpose. Nonetheless, it can be put forward as a useful starting point for exploring the ceramic sequence locally, rather than extrapolating from the better-known trends of the Peninsula. Painted Ceramics Reference was made during the Figure 7.18 Painted ware. introduction of this chapter to the occurrence of painted vessels within Stentinello assemblages on Sicily. Generally, painted pieces have a much finer fabric, the socalled figulina or pseudo-figulina; so finding sherds with this fabric can also be an indicator of painted vessels, either from undecorated sections of the vase or where the paint has been lost. To date, Capo Alfiere has yielded a grand total of six painted sherds, plus an additional two dozen figulina pieces from contexts sufficiently secure to ensure that they were Neolithic pieces.34 All but one of the painted examples are bichrome, with red or brown paint on a white or cream ground (Fig. 7.18). The fragments are too small to allow any feel for the pattern used. These pieces appear to be akin to the bande rosse, simple bichrome style reported widely in southern Italy for the Middle Neolithic (Whitehouse 1969) and presumed to be the developmental precursor to the later Middle Neolithic polychromes. S. Tinè puts this material in his Phase IVa2 on the Tavoliere (S. Tinè 1983, Tav. 126). Bernabò Brea and Cavalier (1980) propose that the bichrome material on Lipari derives from Calabria and points east, noting Tinè’s (1962) earlier work in northern Calabria, where bichrome and impressed decorated ceramics were found together in a cave deposit. Both of these approaches would date such material to the early Middle Neolithic. (However, recall Whitehouse’s [1968a] caveats about the frequent co-occurrence of bichrome and “earlier” impressed decoration on pottery, and hence its dating.) The painted material from Capo Alfiere derives from contexts associated with the hut pavement and fill above that. No painted sherds have been found in the earlier stratum (I), which has produced only one enigmatic piece of unusual gray figulina. Both the 0

2 cm

[CA 0484-01]

Figure 7.17 Storage vessel handle, Stratum II [CA 0332].

ent evidence, this does not seem to have occurred at Capo Alfiere. Indeed, finds of pottery attributable to the well-known (and hence easily recognized) Serra d’Alto style are very rare in this area. Subsequently, a burnished red pottery does become popular in the Diana-style of the Late Neolithic in the Crotone area. One solitary probable Diana style rim sherd with the diagnostic “trumpet” handle has been recovered by the surface collection at Capo Alfiere. To date, no diagnostic Diana style vessel shapes or features, such as lugs, have been seen on any of the plain slipped material from Stratum II. Additionally, the two C-14 dates seem rather too early for this to be Diana material as currently understood.33 The conclusion would seem to be that this may represent another divergence of the Calabrian sequence in ceramic styles from that farther east; and this, happily, coincides with a similarly confusing situation for this period on Sicily (Holloway 1991). Obviously this is an interesting result. However, as Whitehouse (1986) has reminded us, we do not yet have a clear understanding of the nature of production and distribution of Neolithic ceramics. The confusing results, to date, from seriation attempts on the Tavoliere should give one pause. It is difficult to say, on the basis of one excavation, how broadly this finding at Capo Alfiere might apply as a horizon marker, or for any

33 At the time Morter was writing, the only available radiocarbon date for Diana Wares was that from Lipari, dating to around 4000 BC. It is now generally acknowledged from work both to the south of Capo Alfiere in Bova Marina and to the north in the Sibari area that this transition may have happened up to half a millennium earlier, making it follow the Capo Alfiere occupation fairly closely. (JR)

34

Only one painted sherd is listed above in Table 7.1 because the quantitative analysis included only selected contexts.

The Ceramic Assemblage

84

[CA 0165-01] 0

1 cm

Figure 7.19 Painted ware.

relatively late date of Stratum II (later 5th millennium bc. [corrected]), and the extreme paucity of this type of material seem strange. One piece of painted pottery has white paint on a reddish impasto fabric (Fig. 7.19). This rim sherd was found on top of the rubble covering the structures, so it is not from a wholly secure context. It is possible that the sherd is not Neolithic, but the shape, lip form, and fabric are not atypical. The closest parallel to this piece would seem to be S. Tinè’s type Passo di Corvo arcaico, which boasts simple white bands on a red fabric. This is seriated as Phase IVa1, or early Middle Neolithic (Tinè 1983, Tav. 126). Given only one piece at Capo Alfiere and its findspot, its presence is mentioned, but no conclusions should be drawn beyond that.35 Pottery Finds from above Stratum II During the excavations within the large walls, there were several indications that activity had occurred at the spot after rubble accumulated in the structure’s perimeter. The severe plough damage makes secure attribution of finds or features at the top of the rubble difficult, but three items need to be mentioned. Fifteen fragments of a distinctive fine red impasto with white slip (either exterior or interior surface but not both) came from the levels at the top of the rubble or from holes in it (Fig. 7.20). This ware does not quite match anything else found. No obvious parallels have yet come to light to suggest a date or origin. The surface find of a Diana-style Late Neolithic sherd has already been mentioned. None of this distinctive material was identified in the actual excavation, and one sherd is not copious evidence. However, 35 The fragments here and below with white slip or paint on a red impasto

fabric are very unusual, but Morter is right to be cautious in interpreting them; Neolithic potters were inventive, and any assemblage contains a few completely unique sherds which were probably local experiments. (JR)

the possibility of continued Neolithic occupation nearby would seem to exist. Beyond that, of interest are the substantial, if shattered, fragments of a large vessel recovered from the top of the rubble and the lower plough zone (Fig. 7.21). This was a jar with a distinctive powdery orange fabric, short neck, and bands of cord decoration running horizontally. Dott. Domenico Marino (personal communication, 1990) has identified it as remarkably like a campaniform (i.e., in the Bell Beaker style), which would date it to the 3rd millennium bc. This is also an extremely remote place to find such a pot.36 Fabric Descriptions and Analysis Both our own and earlier assessments (Salvatori 1973) judged the ceramic fabrics found at Capo Alfiere to be relatively homogeneous. The obvious exception to this would be the distinction between the impasto pieces and the very small number of pseudo-figulina sherds. The impasto pieces are almost invariably sand tempered. The size of tempering varies with the thickness of the vessel walls, with chunks of rock, quartzose in appearance, up to 5 mm or more in diameter, frequently occurring in the larger sherds. Mica is frequently a conspicuous tempering component. In 1988, a small number of sherds were brought to Texas for further analysis. The object was to confirm our impression of the homogeneity of the collection, and to establish that it was locally produced. We also wished to examine figulina and painted pieces to compare their composition, given Malone’s (1985) suggestion that painted finewares may represent a commodity for long-distance exchange.37 It was possible to try three methods of analysis: petrographic thin sections; elemental analysis by scanning electron microscope (SEM/EDS); and mineralogical assessment by X-ray diffraction (XRD). The results of these parallel examinations was gratifyingly similar and complementary. Two separate elements within the ceramic could be examined: the clay itself and the added (or included) tempering agents. XRD is 36 This remains the only Bell Beaker find known in Calabria. As Morter notes, this is an unusual place to find a Beaker. However, there are Beaker finds elsewhere in peninsular Italy and the islands (in western Sicily, in Sardinia, in central Italy, with some recent, still poorly published possible Beaker finds in Puglia). Throughout much of the Beaker range, Beakers tend to be found in far-flung enclaves, often combined with local styles of ceramics; finding a Beaker here is thus perhaps not as odd as it might seem at first glance. (JR) 37 The analysis resulting from this research is an article by Jon Morter and Harry Iceland, republished as Chapter 18. (JR)

85

Jon Morter

[CA 0010-17] 0

2 cm

Figure 7.20 Red impasto with white slip.

[CA 0152-02] 0

5 cm

Figure 7.21 Bell Beaker style vessel from Stratum III, upper disturbed levels.

86

The Ceramic Assemblage

designed to look at clays and can quantify mineral inclusions to some extent. Thin sections can be used for the identification of inclusions, as can SEM/EDS. XRD indicated that twenty of twenty-three sherds examined were made of illite, frequently a marine lain clay. Where recognizable, the same was found for the thin sections and SEM/EDS. The tempering materials were found to be largely quartz with an admixture of feldspars (potassium and plagioclase), and occasionally more complete granitic elements, as well as schist, mica, and magnetite. It is likely that all of these ingredients could be gathered locally. The site sits atop a cliff of marine clay, argilla marnosa, which is many meters thick and is the bedrock for the area. The granitically derived tempering materials probably come ultimately from the Sila massif (Folk, personal communication, 1989). Such material would be available as sand from the beaches beside the site—or, in the Neolithic period, not far from the site—brought down from the mountains by the River Neto and carried a few kilometers down the coast by marine currents. Ideally, one compares the ceramic components with locally collected clays. As these were not available, two samples of daub from the site were substituted. It was assumed that, although finished pots become transportable objects, structural daub probably was not carried farther than absolutely necessary; in this case, it probably came from the immediate vicinity of the site. XRD analysis of the daub, run alongside the sherds, showed the mineralogical composition to be almost the same, except that calcite, rarely found in the sherds, was much in evidence. Thin-section examination of the daub also showed the presence of foraminifera, fossils of small organisms, which would have been burnt out if the daub had been fired to high temperatures. These might account for the strong calcite signature in the daub. The tentative conclusion that can be drawn is that, as expected, most of this pottery is locally produced. There were two sets of anomalies. First, thin sections seemed to show that the two figulina sherds examined—one painted and one not—were similar, and distinct from the rest of the collection, possibly with a distinct clay.38 Examination of the painted sherd by

38

This does not necessarily imply that the figulina sherds were imports, although this remains a possibility. Most clay landscapes of southern Italy provide a range of clays, and if potters wanted to produce a fabric that could be fired successfully without the addition of temper and which fired in oxidizing conditions to a clear, light buff color rather than to a

SEM/EDS suggested illite clay but with a lot of calcite mixed with it. The figulina sherd without paint was examined with XRD, with a much lower illite result than most of the impasto sherds tested, and with a strong presence of dolomite suggested. XRD then registered two pieces as not having peaks for illite clay. These two had a fine red-to-orange paste. The thicker one was similar in texture to the campaniform vessel from the uppermost levels of the site. The other, a thin piece (4 mm thick), was one of the examples from the upper levels with a fine white exterior slip, but without a polished finish. That this fabric produced a signature with anomalies like those of the campaniform vessel suggests that it may be part of the same activity episode at the site. Discussion The mineralogical analyses indicate that the majority of the ceramic raw material at the site was acquired locally. As far as one can tell, there was little differentiation in the selection of kinds of raw material for vessel size. The pieces examined were selected before the discovery of a distinct earlier stratum at the site. No firm conclusions can thus be included regarding fabric changes within the Stentinello-style corpus through time. Those pieces included from unstratified contexts, and stylistically more like the earlier material, do not appear to have distinctive fabric differences. The possible exceptions to this generalization are the figulina pieces and the two anomalous reddish impasto sherds, the latter corresponding to possible later activity. One cannot say, without comparative examples, that these exceptions were imports rather than variations in local production techniques. However, the extreme paucity of examples of both kinds of fabric lends support to that notion, and to the desirability of exploring Malone’s (1985) fineware-exchange idea further. Summary This chapter has attempted to describe, in broad outline, the ceramic assemblage recovered from Capo Alfiere. What is presented are the major elements of the corpus, some of the key lines of evidence defining them, and the implications stemming from this interpretation of the collection as it is now understood. red or orange, it is likely that they would have carefully selected a kind of local clay different from the usual impasto clays. (JR)

Jon Morter In summary, analysis of the assemblage suggests the following conclusions: 1. The major stratigraphic divisions are reflected by clearly delineated changes in the nature of the pottery. Perhaps more important than that is that the assemblages of both main strata, upper and lower, are clearly of the Stentinello tradition. So what is being traced are chronological developments in pottery within what was previously, by default, an almost monolithically defined “culture area,” both in time and in space. 2. The pottery in the lower stratum (I) contains pieces showing clear affinities with material proposed as pre-Stentinello. However, at Capo Alfiere it is difficult to say, as yet, whether these sherds are integral, or added, to the rest of the lower assemblage. Both situations suggest that this assemblage is likely to be early in the development of the Stentinello tradition, and thus worthy of greater scrutiny. 3. The upper stratum (II) has provided material apparently showing a transition in potting practice from the Stentinello tradition, or else inclusion of another practice alongside. It apparently dates to quite late in the usually accepted time range for production in the Stentinello style. Again this has useful implications for establishing chronological markers for the area. Perhaps of even more interest is the possibility of examining the actual transition in a pottery style change. That pottery fashions do change and that this can be placed chronologically is a widely seen and harnessed archaeological phenomenon. Here such a change may have been in process at the time of the occupation of the site. 4. Production of the vast majority of pieces at the site appears to have been local. This is what one would expect in such an early agricultural community. Three questions need to be asked after that supposition. First, why does this pottery (as well as its potters) maintain a stylistic affinity so close to that of such a large geographical area, encompassing much of Calabria, Sicily, and various other islands? Second, why is this

87

style distinct from the equidistant painted traditions to the north? Third, what are the implications of the rare painted and other pieces that seem to be of a “foreign” clay (not to mention style and decorative tradition)? 5. There are traces of an occupation of the locality subsequent to the Middle Neolithic (Stratum III) indicated by the scatter of peculiar sherds from the uppermost level of the Neolithic tumble. It is impossible to tell whether this stratum ever was substantial. Its physical manifestation is now largely contained within the ceramic assemblage. Ultimately, interpretation of these finds will require that one address the thorny topic of the “meaning” of ceramics as cultural indicators. The meaning to archaeologists and to the potters themselves may not coincide. Failure to recognize this can lead to confusing interpretations, as Whitehouse (1986) has noted of S. Tinè’s conclusions. The interesting feature of the Stentinello tradition is that it seems to maintain a discrete distribution distinct from nearby products, yet shows signs of contacts, either through imports or adoption of painted ceramics alongside its own. Looked on as an expression of its producers and users, the elaborate impressed decoration seems then to have potential for research into two “meanings.” First, it signals some form of “material culture co-expression sphere,” frequently assumed by archaeologists to be a material expression of “cultural” identity. Second, the quite common use of anthropomorphic motifs such as eyes suggests that these vessels may sometimes be conspicuously signaling much more social information than is commonly felt to be recoverable from archaeological ceramics—such as the notion of shared belief systems.39 This discussion serves only to point out the potential that the Stentinello corpus as a whole may hold. At this stage the Capo Alfiere ceramics cannot address these larger issues, but can serve to point out the possibilities. 39

As might be expected, Marija Gimbutas (1989) has noticed the clarity of these motifs and plugged them into her own reconstruction of an early prehistoric European pantheon. Whatever one’s opinion of the soundness of her ideas, Gimbutas has opened a subject that most archaeologists scrupulously avoid, or else treat very cursorily. Avoidance of the subject of ideological beliefs must ultimately prove detrimental to a complete understanding of the producers of the objects that survive for study.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

8 Stone Tools

This chapter will consider the three types of worked stone found at Capo Alfiere: chipped stone, polished stone, and ground stone. The nomenclature for the last two categories is somewhat arbitrary, but it serves to separate two functionally distinct types of artifact. In the first instance, all these stone artifacts are considered as tools. Treating objects in this way is undoubtedly a simplification on our part. Later consideration will be given to possible symbolic or value functions that stone objects may have manifested. The long distances traveled by the raw materials used for these pieces makes a consideration of their concurrent social aspects particularly intriguing.

posed to cherts and other siliceous materials. Small quantities of this material have been found in earlier contexts on Sicily.3 There, its use for the manufacture of objects typical of the Mesolithic industry in association with occasional ceramic vessels of an early type led to the suggestion of hunter-gatherer use of pieces derived from the first Neolithic farmers (Bernabò Brea 1957, 37). Ammerman has devoted considerable attention to the mechanics of the subsequent movement of obsidian during the Neolithic, particularly in Calabria (Ammerman 1979, 1985a; Ammerman and Andrefsky 1982). His initial surveys there found that obsidian constituted 90% or more of the chipped stone recovered from the surface of sites with impressed wares on the west coast. In the Crotone region, by contrast, he reported obsidian making up 40% or less of such surface collections (Ammerman 1979). As with the pottery, the discovery of the existence of a stratigraphic sequence at Capo Alfiere required revising assumptions about the complete collection of chipped stone, including that found in the plough soil and in previous recovery from the site surface. Interesting comparisons between levels with a direct investigation of chronological variation could now be attempted. The problem then became one of sample size. Although the quantity of material from the site as a whole is good, with sieving reducing the bias towards larger finds, the severe plough damage meant that the number of pieces recovered from securely stratified contexts was relatively small. This made it more challenging to develop a fine degree of detail and confidence for categorizations. As with the ceramics, the lithic examination begun in 1987 was set up to allow a preliminary analysis to come up with an overall characterization of the assemblage quickly. As the majority of the material must remain in Italy, the necessity of achieving as much as possible while in the field dictated this course of ac-

Chipped Stone After pottery, the chipped-stone or “lithic” industry in the Mediterranean is the second major aspect of the artifactual assemblage from a Neolithic site. For the Middle Neolithic of southern Italy, this is a blade industry, but there does not seem to have been much interest in further modification of the blades beyond breakage into suitable lengths for the task at hand. Hence come comments such as that for the Eolian material, that “Lo stentinelliano classico è caratterizzato da un’industria litica banale” (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980: 659).1 Orsi was equally unimpressed, noting that at Stentinello itself the lithic industry “ è in piena antitesi colla sviluppatissima e veramente eccellente arte ceramica.” (Orsi 1890, 183).2 Thus, one does not generally find much resembling the modified trapezes and other fine retouched work characteristic of the geometric microliths of the preceding Mesolithic period (Bernabò Brea 1957). Tusa (1983) has suggested that in an early Neolithic phase leading into the Stentinello proper, such pieces are found representing a transitional development. The Neolithic does represent the first widespread use of obsidian in the western Mediterranean, as op1 “The classical Stentinellian culture is characterized by a banal lithic industry.” (JR) 2 “Is in full antithesis with the highly developed and truly excellent art of pottery.” (JR)

3 Mesolithic use of obsidian in Sicily is in fact very poorly attested; a few pieces are known from Perriere Sottano near Catania but may potentially be intrusive from Neolithic levels at the site. (JR)

89

Stone Tools

90

Material

Count

% of total

Obsidian

1,405

53.7

Cherts

1,153

44.1

Quartzite

39

1.5

Other

18

0.7

Total

2,615

100

Table 8.1 Distribution of chipped-stone assemblage by material.

tion. The level of analysis attempted was only of the nature of a preliminary breakdown by material type and simple reduction categories. Recognition of formal tools and deliberate modification of debitage was included, as was the distinction of blades, microblades, and elements thereof. Once the more complicated nature of the assemblage was realized, further analysis was planned. In the summer of 1991, Yin Lam of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Alberta spent six weeks doing more detailed work on the material from stratified contexts in particular and the blade work in general.4 The results presented here are the present writer’s interpretation of the preliminary findings to date, with thanks to Yin Lam for supplying most of the more detailed information.5 Debitage To date, the analysis procedures employed have examined 2,615 pieces. This includes all material from securely stratified contexts, and most of that from the other areas. At the time of writing, only some lots from plough soil and some late surface collections remain completely unexamined. Table 8.1 shows a breakdown by material type of the pieces processed. Of these 2,615 pieces, only 63 (2.4%) could be considered formal tools, or exhibited any evidence of retouch or modification. There were 315 blades or fragments thereof (12.0%). The lack of formal tools is striking to someone unfamiliar with this type of assemblage, but as the line from Bernabò Brea and Cavalier quoted at the start of this chapter intimates, Stentinello lithic technology has been considered uninspiring for some time, at least beyond the capacity to produce blades. Orsi commented on the wealth of blades, fragments thereof, and debitage at Stentinello,

4

Dr. Lam is now at the Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria. (JR) 5 The collection was reexamined in 2005 by Helen Farr of the University of Cambridge in the course of her doctoral work on obsidian circulation and maritime travel in Neolithic Italy. While this work is still unpublished, her conclusions about the nature of the assemblage generally parallel those Morter drew from Lam’s data fairly closely. (JR)

Figure 8.1 Comparison of percentages of chipped stone material by stratum. Stratum

% obsidian

% chert

% other*

Stratum I (n=194)

28.1

57.8

14.1

Stratum II (n=216)

64.6

32.0

3.4

Table 8.2 Percentages of chipped stone by stratum (n = 410). *Includes quartzite and miscellaneous pieces.

for example, and on the apparent lack of interest in retouch or further modification (Orsi 1890, 183). A more quantified impression can be gained from the Acconia survey results: in a sample of more than 1,700 pieces, of which around 90% were obsidian, only 56 pieces (about 3.3% of the entire sample) of obsidian exhibited deliberate retouch (Ammerman 1985a: 68).6 The more interesting aspect of the Capo Alfiere assemblage therefore becomes the contrast between the lower and upper strata. The number of items from 6

These characteristics are entirely typical of Neolithic assemblages throughout southern Italy, which include many unmodified flakes (normally called debitage, but possibly used as functional cutting edges), a moderate number of blades and blade segments, and few formal retouched tools and cores. The impression of Neolithic assemblages as deficient in formal tools results from using typological methods devised for Upper Paleolithic assemblages (see Robb 2007 for general discussion). (JR)

91

Jon Morter

Stratum

Obsidian

Chert

Other

Stratum I (n = 194)

0.37

0.99

0.87

Stratum II (n = 216)

0.55

2.02

4.73

Table 8.3 Average weight of fragments by stratum (grams).

% blade

% flake

% other

% within stratum

Stratum I all

12.5

15.7

71.9

100

not obsidian

9.9

14.1

47.9

71.9

obsidian

2.6

1.6

24.0

28.1

Stratum II all

10.6

22.9

67.5

100

not obsidian

1.9

13.6

19.9

35.4

obsidian

8.7

8.3

47.6

64.6

Stratum

Table 8.4 Debitage percentage by type and stratum (n = 410).

reliable contexts that could be included in the sample becomes drastically smaller (n = 410). This problem becomes acute when comparisons between subsets of the sample are attempted. Given the nature of the raw materials, much of which were imported, a comparison of raw-material use between strata was the first obvious approach. Table 8.2 and Figure 8.1 present percentages generated from simple counts of pieces. This comparison shows a dramatic shift in the ratio of obsidian to chert pieces between Strata I and II. A check of this trend using weight is confirmatory although not as strong. The average size of pieces of all types of material seems to increase as well, so that the absolute weight of all materials increases by the higher level (Table 8.3). The trend appears to be towards an increasing use of obsidian over time. One can also look for a change Chert

Blade width

count

in the utilization of raw materials. The average weights in Table 8.3 suggest a shift to bigger pieces, especially for non-obsidian items. The easiest approach to this question was to compare the breakdown of debitage within each stratum. The most amenable distinction within the available data was the one between blades and fragments thereof (both of which might be presumed desired products of the manufacturing process), and other by-products. Flakes were included as a further distinguishable product, although their degree of desirability as a distinct product is unknown. Other less distinct fragments (shatter, chunks, chips) were lumped into the third contrasting category. The results are presented in Table 8.4. Of the twenty-five cores recognized during the analysis, only one chert example could be included stratigraphically (from the lower stratum). Therefore this element of the reduction process is poorly represented in the stratigraphic comparisons. The most conspicuous result is the striking increase in the percentage of the upper-stratum blades and flakes made of obsidian. Within an admittedly small sample, the percentage of obsidian blades changes from 21% in the lower level (n = 24) to 82% in the upper (n = 22). Meanwhile the overall percentage of obsidian shifts from 28% to 65% (as shown in Tables 8.2 and 8.4). There does not seem to be a significant shift in the overall percentage of blades per level. So one might preliminarily surmise that the processes producing the discarded material that was recovered had not changed dramatically. Some distinction can be made between the size of products from different materials. As one might expect from its working properties, obsidian tends to occur in smaller pieces. If a distinction is made between blade widths greater than and less than 10 mm, the production of smaller pieces of obsidian is immediately evident (Table 8.5). Again one might note that this Calabrian material is generally smaller than

Quartzite %

count

Other

%

count

Obsidian %

count

Total %

count

%

Blades 10 mm

64

35.8

6

3.4

7

3.9

102

57.0

179

100

Table 8.5 Size differentiation of materials seen in blade width (cut point 10 mm). (All blades, with percentages within size class, n = 303).

Stone Tools

92

The main conclusion to be drawn to date is the change in raw material utilization between the lower and upper Stratum I chert 48.2 21.4 15.2 3.6 11.6 n = 112 strata. Obsidian becomes much more common. It is difficult to say whether Stratum II chert 43.5 17.4 11.6 8.7 18.8 n = 69 the general increase in the size of piecStratum I obsidian 79.6 13.0 7.4 0 0 n = 54 es between strata is reflecting a more general availability of raw materials of Stratum II obsidian 68.4 22.1 4.4 1.5 3.7 n = 136 all sorts. The somewhat limited breakTable 8.6 Percentages of 0.5 g weight classes by material and stratum. down of the morphology of the debthat from the “classic” east Sicilian Stentinello mate- itage does not show any obvious changes in the aprial (e.g., Orsi 1890, Tav. VI), or the Tavoliere mate- proaches to reduction between the levels at this initial rial (e.g., from Passo di Corvo see S. Tinè 1983, Tav. stage of analysis. Additionally, the handling of cherts 141). In both of these examples, good chert sources at and obsidian appears to be roughly similar in terms of no great distance provided the supply. For Calabria, the products generated, although the dominant raw Ammerman (1985a) remarks that most of the blade material changes over time. Thus, as mentioned, there material collected there from survey (90% obsidian) is nothing to indicate at this stage that the behavioral processes that had been generating the discard patwas between 8 and 15 mm across. The difference between fragment sizes for ma- terns recovered changed, except in the availability of terials and the slight increase of fragment size with raw materials. Detailed use-wear analysis might be time can also be illustrated with weight. Table 8.6 one approach to this question, and has proved possible contrasts the breakdown of chert and obsidian pieces in a limited way elsewhere (Ammerman, et. al., 1988). by half-gram increments. It also compares the upper This is a logical next step given the lack of diagnostic and lower strata. This is graphed in Figure 8.2. As modification to the blades and other pieces after their might be expected, the obsidian pieces fall mostly in initial production. There will be problems though; the smaller size ranges; none in the lower stratum ex- Ammerman et al. report evidence of the use of blades ceeds 1.5 g. A slight increase in artifact size is visible for more than one task so that the “implication . . . for both materials, although the overall shape of the is that a blade could readily serve as a multi-purpose tool” (Ammerman et al. 1988, 134). graphed curves changes little. Stratum

2.0 g

Figure 8.2 Percentages of debitage weights by material and stratum.

93

Jon Morter Because the functional relationship between exposed areas within each of the strata is unknown at present, little to guide expectations can be taken from that. The elaborate nature of the walling associated with the upper stratum could ultimately prove to have something to do with the higher proportion of obsidian found for that level. Again, the lack of intact equivalent strata at any distance from these walls precludes firm conclusions at this stage. Formal and Informal Tools An extremely small number of pieces (n = 63) exhibited evidence of retouch or modification into formal tools. Almost all of these objects were from stratigraphically insecure contexts and so can contribute only to the general characterization of the assemblage, and minimally to the diachronic analysis. A breakdown of these items is given in Table 8.7. The nature of these pieces was for the most part not elaborate. Examples of the type of thing included a small point (in the European sense) made by snapping a microblade diagonally and retouching along the edge (Fig. 8.3a), or a small lunate scraper (Fig 8.3b), again on a blade snapped to shape and retouched into

a Chert point [CA 0174-03]

Tool type

Obsidian

Retouched blades

Chert

3

2

11

12

Bi-facially worked

9

13

Notched

1

0

Scraper

3

9

Other retouched debitage

Table 8.7 Formal and informal tools (n = 63)

a curve. The most formal pieces were two steep-end scrapers, one of obsidian and the other of chert (Fig. 8.3c–d). These were among the largest pieces found. Table 8.7 shows only chert and obsidian pieces, but in addition to the more obvious chipped-stone artifacts, a very small number of possible pebble tools were also collected. There were six of these in all. All but one were of a quartzite cobble. Generally, the pieces consisted of a small, flat cobble, basically unmodi-

b Chert lunate [CA 0116]

c Obsidian scraper [CA 0190]

0

d Chert scraper [CA 0978]

Figure 8.3 Examples of formal chipped-stone tools.

2 cm

Stone Tools

94

fied except for one or two flakes removed along one side to suggest a possible working edge. The working edge could appear somewhat abraded. These tools, if they prove so to be, will represent a new aspect to the assemblage. It is likely that they are underrepresented because they are difficult to recognize. They may well represent an expedient use of cobbles at the site, probably discarded almost immediately. In this regard one should also note Hodder and Malone’s (1984, 145) comments on the possibility of poorly defined, opportunistic tools as part of the Neolithic tool kit in the Stilo region. In that area, quartzite is common while chert is not. Hodder and Malone note that recognition of simple pebble tools in survey conditions can be problematic, particularly when the tools are not expected. Hammerstones Fifteen examples of probable or possible hammerstones were recovered. These were mostly quartzite with occasional examples of the local calcareous material of a finer-grained variety, and some in granitic or basaltic materials. The latter may have been reused from broken polished-stone objects. Generally, the form was an unmodified cobble. Identification was made on the basis of pecking or abrasion at one or both ends. Usually this was very distinct (Fig. 8.4). One cannot tell whether these rocks were used specifically, or exclusively, for the reduction of other lithics. Indeed, given the rocky nature of the site, opportunistic and non-curated use of these incidental pieces is to be expected. Thus, their recognition and the elucidation of a role within the household tool kit, or any other, is difficult. This contrasts with the situation at Acconia, where every stone recovered in the

[CA 00075-07] 0

2 cm

excavations at Piano di Curinga could be assumed to have been carried to the house site for some purpose. Ammerman et al. (1988, 134) distinguish three kinds of “hand-stones” there: small pebbles used for polishing or fine percussion, large cobbles for hammerstones or pounding, and grinding stones used for grinding or sharpening. The majority of such stones would probably be extremely hard to distinguish as tools at Capo Alfiere, where curation or introduction is less obvious. Our sample is likely under-representative of this class of object. Raw-Material Sources For present purposes, three categories of raw materials have been distinguished: obsidian, cherts, and everything else. As the vast majority of the collection from the excavation was obsidian and chert, the third category is not a major element. Essentially, it includes quartzitic material mostly, plus a few incidental items made of rhyolite, diorite, and similar stones that in many cases were probably reworkings of broken polished-stone objects. The obsidian recovered from the site can be assumed as derived from the island of Lipari. Four distinct source areas are known in the western Mediterranean: Pantelleria, an island west of Malta, Lipari and Vulcano in the Eolian islands north of Sicily,7 Palmarola in the Pontine islands just off the west Italian coast, and on Sardinia. As obsidian is a volcanic glass, all these sources are in volcanic formations, some of which are still active. Chemical differentiation of these sources for archaeological purposes began in the early 1960s (e.g., Cann and Renfrew 1964). This work rapidly indicated the predominance of the Lipari and Sardinian sources as prehistoric points of supply for the peninsula and Sicily (Hallam et al. 1976). It also showed that in the Eolians, obsidian was still being formed in historic times, and so not all present sources can be assumed to have been available prehistorically (Hallam et al. 1976). Distinguishing the Sardinian types—SA, SB, and SC—and their precise prehistoric proveniences remains a problem (Tykot 1992). Present evidence indicates that prehistoric supply of obsidian to southern Italy was derived entirely from the Eolian sources. This was first proposed by Hallam, Warren, and Renfrew (1976). Further work for 7

Figure 8.4 Quarzite cobble pecked around one end.

Attributing obsidian sources to Vulcano is in error: the only obsidian flows in the Aeolian islands known to have been exploited during the Neolithic are on Lipari. (JR)

Jon Morter Calabria has corroborated this. To date, all the Acconian samples checked were from Lipari (Crummett and Warren 1985, 109; Polglase 1992). Obsidian from the Acconia survey constitutes 90% or more of the chipped stone recovered (Ammerman 1985a, 60). This material was apparently brought directly from Lipari to the Calabrian coast and was subject to processing there (Ammerman 1985b; Polglase 1992), contrary to the earlier suggestion of arrival in Calabria via a coastal route from northern Sicily, the closest major landmass to Lipari (Hallam et al. 1976).8 It was therefore expected that the obsidian at Capo Alfiere would prove to be from the Lipari sources. To confirm this, ten samples were analyzed by X-ray flourescence by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Although this lab did not have Lipari source samples to confirm provenience, results were comparable for those published for the Lipari material.9 The results were definitely not compatible with any of the other likely sources for which the laboratory held samples. The conclusion then is that the material from Capo Alfiere is likely to be from Lipari (C. Stevenson, personal communication, 198910).11 Unlike at Acconia on the west coast, the supply of chert appears to have been accessible in the Crotone area. As with the obsidian, the generally small size of most of the finds tends to indicate that, while overall quantity was not a problem, the quality of supply was not exceptional. Although neither Bernabò Brea (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980) nor Orsi (1890) found the chipped-stone industry associated with the Stentinello period particularly exciting, large blades of Sicilian cherts were nonetheless conspicuous. These seem comparable in size to the Neolithic materials found on the Tavoliere where the nearby 8 In comparable, more recent work, more than 90% of the lithic assemblage at the Bova Marina sites (Umbro and Penitenzeria), located on the south coast of southernmost Calabria, was of obsidian. It appears to have been circulated in the form of small nodules, prepared cores, and perhaps bladelets (H. Farr, personal communication). (JR) 9 Testing both the archaeological and the source samples on the same equipment is preferred when conducting these analyses. 10 Dr. Christopher M. Stevenson is a director of Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc., Centre Hall, Pennsylvania. 11 Further work has largely confirmed that Lipari is the most probable source for the obsidian found at Capo Alfiere. At Umbro, Bova Marina, fourteen pieces of obsidian that were chemically sourced all came from Lipari (R. Tykot, personal communication). Farther afield, the distribution of Pantelleria obsidian was shown to be confined to Pantelleria, adjacent areas of North Africa, Malta, and Sicily. Palmarola obsidian is more widely distributed than was thought in the first analysis by Colin Renfrew and his colleagues, but has not been found in Calabria. (JR)

95

Gargano sources were being exploited. Around Crotone, the sources do not seem to have been amenable to the manufacture of blades 10 cm in length or longer. Most of the chert material from Capo Alfiere was apparently produced from scraps. Material from the surface of the nearby site of Vrica is similarly small (Marino 1983, 77). The consensus of several researchers in this area is that most of the chert used hereabouts was probably acquired through opportunistic collection from beach and stream beds locally (Marino, personal communication, 1991; Nicoletti, personal communication, 199112). The River Neto, which reaches the sea just north of Crotone, and, to a lesser extent, the River Tacina to the west both drain from the Sila Massif and can be expected to have carried such materials out for redistribution by coastal currents. The mountain of Le Murgie, some 35 km north of Capo Alfiere, is also a potential source. Nodules of cherty material (if infrequently of superior quality) are eroding from its slopes.13 It does not seem necessary to suggest a “long distance” source (such as Rossano farther north or Sicily) for the cherts here, as has been done for the Stilo area, which is about 55 km farther south on this same coast (Hodder and Malone 1984: 145). Similar reasoning can be used to account for the quartzite encountered. Again, there was little in the way of large pieces at the site. Hodder and Malone (1984, 145) noted that quartzite and calcites are readily available near Stilo, but were uncertain of the extent to which such material was recognizable as worked—and thus collected—during their survey. Therefore, these materials were probably underrepresented in the survey results. Given their definite use at Capo Alfiere, sometimes in rather amorphous tools, it seems unlikely that such a convenient nearby resource would have been neglected at Stilo, particularly if the other predominant raw materials were apparently so much more difficult to obtain there. Discussion of Chipped Stone The implications to be drawn from the analysis of the chipped-stone data revolve around three factors: rawmaterial source, utilization, and chronology. Several raw materials were obtainable locally, but there appears to be a distinct increase in the use of imported

12

Dott. Giuseppe Nicoletti is a prehistorian working in the local Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Crotone. 13 I am grateful to Dott. Domenico Marino for a guided tour of this locale.

96

Stone Tools

obsidian over time. Conversely, at this stage in the present study, changes in the manner of utilization of this material, or in the form that the supply came in, are not discernible, except as regards increase in supply. The Acconia work has suggested that by the Late Neolithic Diana-period obsidian was being prepared in a much more standardized manner at a restricted number of the sites on the west coast (Ammerman 1985b; Polglase 1992). Similarly, the Diana period has been suggested as the time of greatest exploitation of the Lipari sources (Ammerman 1979). At Capo Alfiere, the trend towards larger volume of traffic is evident, whereas, as yet, a more uniform reduction and production system, reflected in the nature of the supply received, is not.14 The radically different proportions of raw materials found in the two excavated strata at Capo Alfiere must also give pause in the interpretation of surface collections. A widely varying percentage of obsidian (10% to 35%) was reported in surface collections of sites in the Crotone area (Ammerman 1979). The upper stratum at Capo Alfiere had much more obsidian than was found on the site surface, so a temporal fluctuation must be factored into any consideration of more local intra-site distributional processes. The problem for the interpretation of the Capo Alfiere results stems from uncertainty over the precise context of the finds from either stratum. One cannot be sure that the material in the upper stratum, associated with the large walls, is comparable with that from the restricted sampling of the lower level. In other words, is the high percentage of obsidian associated with the peculiar architecture of Stratum II likely to be typical of the rest of the chronologically equivalent parts of the site? Despite the efforts to expose as much of each level as possible, the patchy survival of the different levels precludes certainty. This will also be a problem when considering comparisons with other sites, either for surface collections or excavations. Preliminary results seem to show that the mechanical constituents of the Capo Alfiere debitage assemblage did not change radically. One might suggest tentatively that the pro-

14 Morter’s inference here, that there is no change in the reduction and production system, may not be entirely sustained by the evidence. Acconia and the Contrada Diana on Lipari have been interpreted as specialist reduction sites, and hence would be expected to show changes in specialist production of blade cores sensitively; Capo Alfiere is farther from the sources and it may be the case that, regardless of whether obsidian was reduced by specialists at the head of the trade route, it nevertheless arrived at Capo Alfiere in an already reduced form. (JR)

Figure 8.5 Cache of axes near northern wall.

duction and discard processes operating also did not change dramatically over time. Future analysis may change this conclusion. Polished-Stone Artifacts After being a subject of some interest in the later 19th century, Italian polished stone ax studies underwent something of a hiatus for around fifty years. In 1973, Daniel Evett published a brief article drawing attention to the potential of this class of material as a probable long-distance exchange item (Evett 1973). He assumed that the exotic stones used throughout Italy in the Neolithic derived from the Alps. Malone (1985, 139) suggested that polished-stone objects might be part of a general exchange network across southern Italy, also involving obsidian and fine pottery. She drew attention to the possibility that the highlands in Calabria might be one of the raw-material sources. Recently, there have been two larger studies of polished-stone axes in southern Italy (O’Hare 1990) and Sicily (Leighton 1989). Both of these articles address the potential raw-material usage and sources with more sophistication than did Evett,15 and point to several potential sourcing areas across southern Italy, and to the difficulty of precise sourcing work at anything less than a general level, given our present geological knowledge (and the neglect of the topic). 15

Evett himself was quite frank about his lack of geological expertise and presented his work more as a hypothesis-testing exercise and an attempt to provoke further research.

97

Jon Morter

a [CA 0081-02]

b [CA 0081-05]

0

c [CA 0081-01]

5 cm

d [CA 0081-04]

The excavations at Capo Alfiere have produced several examples of this type of object. Both the context and nature of these finds are unusual. They can be divided into two groups: the cache of five complete pieces found near the northern wall (Fig. 8.5), and the selection of broken and/or reused fragments recovered from elsewhere in the deposit. The Cache The five cached examples can be divided into three morphological groups (Fig. 8.6). Two examples are large and broad (14.0–15.5 cm x 9.5 cm), one is long and thin (17.1 x 5.9 cm), and two are smaller and squarer (approximately 10.0 x 7.6 cm). The longer, narrower, and rounder example (Fig. 8.6c) is made of andesite, a volcanic rock. The other four appear to

e [CA 0081-03]

Figure 8.6 The five cached axes.

98

Stone Tools

be of various metamorphic materials (Folk, personal communication, 1987), with amphibolitic and serpentinitic constituents.16 Attention needs to be drawn to some other features. The butt end of each of the three larger pieces tends towards being rounded or pointed, while the two small examples are squared off. On all of these objects except the smallest, the angle of the length of the blade is asymmetrical relative to the center line along the plane of the piece. The smallest item (Fig. 8.6d) is also the only one with an adze blade profile, in which the cutting edge is not placed on the central plane of the piece but on one face, so that the blade is largely beveled from one side only. O’Hare (1990) has drawn attention to the tendency for Calabrian polished-stone pieces to terminate with a rounded or pointed butt end (57% of his Calabrian pieces), and to have an asymmetrical cutting edge (40%), while he generally sees a squared-off butt shape as more common in Puglia. This cache strongly reflects the traits suggested by O’Hare as typical of this area. The smallest piece (Fig. 8.6d) is anomalous in also having an adze blade, so its overall shape difference probably should not, at this stage, be taken as a reliable indicator of extra-regional manufacture. Indeed, a functional explanation will probably prove more convincing in this case. Less than fifteen of O’Hare’s ninety examples in the museum at Catanzaro were as large as the three larger examples here. In reviewing the three classes suggested for these objects, three distinctions are most pertinent. The two larger, flat examples are extremely similar: both have a long blade length relative to width, and are made of metamorphics. The long thin piece (Fig. 8.6c) has a much shorter blade length and an almost circular cross section, and it is made from an igneous rock. As noted, the shape and blade profile of the smallest one (Fig. 8.6d) is quite distinct, and it too is made of a metamorphic rock. The other smaller example (Fig. 8.6e) seems to fall between the first group and the smallest. Its size is closest to the smallest, but its shape resembles a downsized version of the bigger pieces. The selection of raw material seems to be determined by the shape of the finished product. It is difficult to say whether this indicates a modification of morphol16 Exact identification of the rock types involved is almost impossible without petrographic thin sections. Naturally, both we and the Superintendency were reluctant to do this to the pristine examples from the cache.

ogy to allow for the raw material’s potentialities with no ultimate functional differences, or to the selection of raw material because of suitability to the necessary function and shape of the tool. Direct evidence for function is equally difficult to assess. As O’Hare notes, when grinding is the manufacturing method, identifying evidence of wear patterns is tricky. Both of the smaller examples of this group had striations on the blade, mostly perpendicular to the cutting edge. However, it must be noted that, since these objects came from some sort of curated context, their state of preservation is exceptional. Given that at least three different morphological classes of tool were found here curated together, an interpretation as a combined tool kit containing pieces of several functions is attractive. However, “function” is a difficult topic for these items, as will be discussed below. The five pieces were found nested together under some daub tumble, close to the north side of the northern large wall. Their positions suggested that they were all originally in a bag or some such container. They were presumably not hafted when deposited. Again, given that these are exceptional specimens, it is difficult to say whether they were unused, or, more simply, not in use when deposited.17 Other Examples Apart from the cache, only eight other fragments of polished-stone work were recovered from the excavations. Of these, three appear to be the scattered elements of one object, reducing the total count to six pieces. Four of these six seem to have been reused as hammerstones after being broken, judging by the concentrated abrasion visible along the edges of the breaks. It is difficult to determine the shape of the original tools from the small fragments remaining, but five of the six appear to be pieces of longer, narrower examples of polished-stone axes, similar to the longest one in the cache. The rock used in these pieces does not seem to be as fine grained as that of the cached pieces. Although expert identification has not 17 As Morter insightfully notes, one of the most unusual characteristics of this find is the context: the vast majority of polished-stone axes known from Neolithic southern Italy are either broken examples found discarded on habitation sites (such as the other examples from Capo Alfiere described below), in caves, or as sporadic surface finds. This find represents a very rare discovery of axes in a constructed context on a non-cave site. Morter’s interpretation that the cache may have been valuables kept out of use and hidden until needed for long-distance exchange seems a plausible interpretation of this remarkable find. (JR)

Jon Morter yet been possible, preliminary examination suggests that these are all igneous pieces in the diorite–granodiorite–andesite–rhyolite continuum. It is interesting to note that our excavations here have not yet produced examples of the smaller ax and adze types in the range of 4 to 6 cm in length (see the discussion of small examples in O’Hare 1990). However, one was found in the first surface collection (Salvatori 1973). Raw Material Sources The Calabro-Peloritanian arch is the mountain chain forming the backbone of the Calabrian peninsula and extending into Sicily. The Sila Massif is that section of this chain lying only a short distance inland from Capo Alfiere. This area has been suggested since the 19th century as a likely raw-materials source for polished-stone tools (O’Hare 1990). Indeed, areas close to Catanzaro have been proposed as sources for such materials as diorite and rhyolite. The source of “greenstones,” which might include serpentinite, jadeite and nephrite, is more difficult to tie down. These are the rarer metamorphic rocks, and more care seems to have been taken in the manufacture of pieces in this material. Their composition tends to vary in a continuum, so that precise attribution to a rock type and then to a source is difficult without petrographic analysis by thin section. J. E. Dixon, discussing examples from central Sicily, concludes that the examples there “are consistent with derivation from a regionally metamorphosed ophiolitic body involved in greenschist and blueschist metamorphism” (Dixon 1989, 153). He goes on to say that such associations are “well known in Calabria,” pointing particularly to the Gimigliano Unit, close to Catanzaro. He also notes that blueschist metamorphism has been identified near Fuscaldo in Calabria. Dixon concludes that it is likely that all the “greenstone” pieces of which he had thin-sections derived from Calabria, although, given the intricacies of the mineralogy and the lack of detailed knowledge of the Peloritani Mountains in northern Sicily, one cannot be completely certain (Dixon 1989, 153). Capo Alfiere is less than 100 km from the sources near Catanzaro. Fuscaldo is less than 30 km away. One might recall from Chapter 3 that the site sits on the coast at a point not far from the eastern end of the Catanzaro trench, where anyone crossing the

99

peninsula would turn up the coast to go north. The immediate area around the site was not a point of formation for these types of rocks. However, “derivation from” could also include pieces transported naturally to the coast and subsequently recovered. The Neto and Tacina Rivers both derive from the nearby Sila range and reach the sea near Capo Alfiere. So it is possible that suitable stone might occasionally have arrived in the vicinity by that route. Without knowing the precise sources and their relation to the water courses, one cannot be sure, so this idea is presented as only a possible alternative explanation for materials at Capo Alfiere itself. The presence of these materials in Sicily indicates that, whatever the precise source in Calabria, once obtained such pieces were widely traded. Parallels As mentioned, O’Hare (1990) has produced a major comparative study of museum collections in southern Italy. However, because all his examples are taken from museums and were collected over the course of the last hundred years, provenience—particularly specific dating and site context—is for the most part problematic. Thus, while he is able to make general estimates of the movement of pieces to and from Calabria, and broad estimation of sources, his data are not closely controlled temporally. As such, his conclusions are necessarily couched as broad suggestions only. He makes some comments on the apparent morphological preferences (pointed butt, asymmetric blade) applied to Calabrian products. He also suggests that, overall, Calabria was an importer of polished stone prior to settlement close to the source areas later in the Neolithic. Locally, a number of polished-stone fragments have been found on the surface of the Neolithic site on the Vrica plateau, overlooking Crotone (Marino 1983). This site is thought to have a Stentinello component. These polished-stone fragments included part of an ax and a hammer. The investigator specifically contrasts the presence of polished stone at Vrica with the lack of similar finds from his surface collection at Capo Alfiere, although noting Salvatori’s find there (Marino 1983, 77, 26). On the west coast, Ammerman (1985a) illustrates a couple of surface finds from around Acconia. These include one small ax specifically described as made of “greenstone” (Ammerman 1985a, 80). This is only

100

Stone Tools

5 cm long, and so is presumably too small to function practically as an ax. Functionally, it might have been a wedge of some sort. Given the depositing of small polished-stone pieces in ritual contexts (O’Hare 1990), it is also possible that this piece might have more ritual significance than practical function.18 Also illustrated is the distal end of a very small piece that may have served as a chisel (Ammerman 1985a, Fig. 5.12). No pieces this small have come from the Capo Alfiere excavations. Indeed, one point of note is that all of the pieces in the cache at Capo Alfiere were larger than the largest illustrated by Ammerman. Discussion of Polished Stone To date all the polished-stone pieces found in the Capo Alfiere excavations occurred in the vicinity of the enclosure structure and are either associated with, or unstratified above, the main upper stratum (II). O’Hare (1990) notes that his research to date has not contradicted earlier suggestions that the exploitation of Calabrian sources of suitable stone became a major factor only after the expansion of settlement into the interior after about 3200 bc (Whitehouse 1968b).19 The argument posits that when most settlement was concentrated along the coast, a majority of polishedstone pieces were imported from Campania. Once colonization of the uplands had begun, exploitation of the sources there became greater. The stratigraphic distribution of polished stone at Capo Alfiere follows this suggested pattern. With the possible exception of a small pendant (to be discussed in the next chapter), there is a complete lack of such material from the earlier levels. The upper stratum (II) is somewhat earlier in date than the model suggests, although it could fit into a general trend of increasing exploitation with time. Further expertise is necessary to identify imported basic-to-intermediate dolorite, basalt, and trachyte of Campanian provenience within the Capo Alfiere corpus (or to confirm their absence). Because the cached pieces were almost certainly made of “local” (that is, central Calabrian) material, it seems logical to assume at this stage that 18

Skeates (1995) has argued that axes of this size, found in ritual contexts on Malta, were the end product created when larger axes were reduced through use, and were used as amulets. (JR) 19 This date, based on uncalibrated dates, would presumably be about 4000 bc [cal.]. There remains little evidence for use of highland areas in pre-Diana periods; however, this does not rule out either short-term expeditions to collect raw materials or the use of nodules washed down in river beds. (JR).

all the other fragments are probably of Calabrian origin. It would be odd to assume that the Calabrian highlands were necessarily terra incognita to coastal populations prior to settlement in the later Neolithic. Much of the discussion of raw materials for chippedstone work, as well as O’Hare’s argument that in the earlier Neolithic, Campanian axes were introduced instead of using local sources focuses on the movement of goods over long distances on a consistent basis. This argument also presumes some ultimate knowledge of the necessity of seeking out raw material, a process that requires braving the elements, as in the crossing to Lipari. The other major question is what the intention behind the cache might have been. The deposit of a collection of different functional types—if that interpretation is correct—might imply temporary curation until needed. Conversely, the pieces were stored without hafting and are in a site located quite close to sources of material known to be traded over long distances. Ritual deposit of similar items (admittedly smaller in size) in caves and, later, graves suggests that some value was attached to them. The possibility exists that this cache may represent temporary curation of valuable exchange items. One scenario might be to assume that these are outgoing pieces, whereas obsidian, for example, represents one commodity that was certainly brought into the area. In an article comparing northern European polished-stone ax distribution and insights from ethnography describing exchange of such objects, Clark comes to the general conclusion that these pieces were of considerable value as “one of the few media for storing wealth” and hence subsequent display (Clark 1965, 19). The great amount of labor invested, particularly in working the very hard jadeite or nephrite examples, was “locking up and symbolizing the consumption of labour and surplus food” (Clark 1965, 19). Attention was paid thereafter to prevent loss or theft of such axes, so the “most important hiding place was a hole in the ground” (Clark 1965, 19). The bestowal of a prestige value on these axes, and even on particular examples, could then lead to their gradual movement over considerable distance regardless of whether a suitable source for further pieces lay in that direction or not. This could lead to a situation, such as that mentioned by Patton (1991) for the Channel Islands, where examples made of “inferior” stone occur in the vicinity of localities known to be sources of stone for

Jon Morter axes. Clark, looking at Melanesia and Australian evidence, documents ethnographic references of stone axes made too large to be functional on a day-to-day basis, but displayed as prestige items on ceremonial occasions (Clark 1965, 19). There are several inferences from this for Capo Alfiere and the Calabrian situation generally. It seems perfectly plausible that the fine examples found stashed in a hole in the ground could have had prestige as well as mere exchange value. These were the pieces made of the best material. This is probably also the kind of item that would be least likely to end up as a broken discard around the site, so our chance finding of a set lost from circulation might give a better idea of their actual manner of circulation, rather than their discard. Generally, a common findspot for the finer pieces, especially those of a smaller size, is in caves (O’Hare 1990), where they were almost certainly ritually deposited. Although they are larger than most of those in O’Hare’s Calabrian sample, we cannot say that the cached examples were of a ceremonially oversized nature as documented by Clark; more axes from secure excavated contexts would be needed for comparison. Given that the ritual deposit of axes is known, the actual findspot of the Capo Alfiere cache beside the oversized walls must also be considered. Interpretation of these pieces as a ritual cache beside an ideologically significant structure is then possible in this case. The possibility of a two-way traffic in polishedstone axes adds another dimension to O’Hare’s suggestion of a diachronic shift in the sources for examples found in Calabria. Campanian examples need not necessarily be the early supply; nor does a late exploitation of Calabrian sources follow. Again, examples from secure contexts, preferably excavated, will be necessary to elaborate on this in the future. Ground Stone and Grinding Stones This site has produced a number of grinding stones. Presumably these were associated primarily with the processing and preparation of plants, particularly for food. They are often taken to be a clear indicator of agricultural activity and a Neolithic way of life. It should also be recognized that while grinding was, presumably, the primary function of such tools, what was ground is less easy to gauge directly, and usage is likely to have been more varied than is generally assumed (Barker 1985). These were saddle querns or variants thereof, consisting of two parts. The lower, fixed stone is generally

101

the larger, with a smaller rock used to form the upper grinding surface. Both stones should exhibit at least one flattened face. This will presumably be the result of both initial shaping and subsequent use. To date, the Capo Alfiere excavations have produced fragments of 30 definite and 15 possible examples of this kind of grinding stone. One more is known, but it was left in the ground as it was reused and built into a pavement. Of these pieces, 25 definite and 6 possible examples seem to be lower elements, and the 14 others appear to be upper stones. This is not a particularly large number of pieces. S. Tinè’s dig at Passo di Corvo yielded 352 examples (Rossi 1983). The small number of upper stones in this assemblage simply indicates that these are harder to distinguish, and some fragmentary examples are quite small. In his study of Tinè’s material, Rossi differentiates two basic types of quern, each with two varieties. The first is concave along its long axis. His type A has no lipped edges, while type A1 curves up to a lip along the long sides, essentially producing a shallow basin shape. Type B has a flat or very slightly convex working surface, and type B1 is generally smaller with a slightly concave surface. All of these appear to be irregularly ovoid or rectangular, and about 35 cm long by 20–30 cm wide. The exception to that would be type B1, which has dimensions in the 15 cm range. For upper stones, Rossi distinguishes between rubbing stones for querns (type A), which are generally smaller than querns with a flat but slightly convex grinding surface, and pestles, presumed to be for mortars (type B). The Capo Alfiere group generally fits within this pattern. Of the 45 examples noted, only 5 were essentially complete, while 14 more were sufficiently intact to allow a reasonable assessment of original shape. By Rossi’s scheme, there were 4 examples of type A (the simple saddle quern), 4 examples of type A1 (basin quern with sides), 7 examples of type B (flat querns), and 2 examples of type B1 (small flat querns). However, at least 2 examples of the flatter kind (types B and B1) were too fragmentary to allow confident distinction from upper (rubber) pieces, of which there is 1 certain example of Rossi’s type A (slightly convex). In addition, Capo Alfiere has produced an example of a mortar, which might be labeled type C (Fig. 8.7). It is a crude stone basin that is quite deep relative to its width. One example of reworked polished stone might be an example of a pestle (Fig. 8.8). As it has

Stone Tools

102

0

8 cm

[CA 1165] Figure 8.7 Type C mortar.

been modified from an ax shape it is difficult to say. It might also have become a hammerstone (or both). The intact dimensions of these objects were recoverable in very few cases. Only five were largely complete. For a simple saddle quern (type A), the one complete example was 40 x 22 cm. The relatively complete type A1 piece (Fig. 8.9) was 44 x 37 cm, This piece had been broken before or during installation into the floor of the hut, so it was originally larger. There is no way of knowing whether this piece was made for use in the particular location where it was eventually abandoned, or if it was reused from elsewhere. Two recovered flat examples (type B) were 30 x 20 cm and 27 x 23 cm. These seem generally similar in overall size and somewhat less elongated than the “A” types. The mortar in Figure 8.7 (type C) was

0

2 cm

Figure 8.8 Possible pestle or hammerstone.

[CA 0126]

33 x 31 cm externally, and it seems that the maker intended to produce a roughly circular object. The bowl-like working surface of this piece was 26 x 23 cm across and about 7 cm deep. These pieces all seem to be a little larger than those documented by Rossi for Passo di Corvo, but given the small number that could be documented, the difference is probably not significant The raw material for all of these pieces is the locally available cemented calcareous conglomerate, which comes in varying degrees of coarseness. The grinding stones found tended to be of finer-grained material, although the final working surface was still usually pitted by substantial pocks and crannies.20 A Greek period quarry is known to lie underwater within a kilometer of Capo Alfiere; others used for blocks and columns are scattered up and down the coast at points with finer stone. So even if the rock in the immediate vicinity of the site was not considered suitable for querns in the Neolithic, a supply of stone later considered suitable for major architecture was not far away. The small number of recognizable forms of quern here limit the direct comparisons that can be made with the Passo di Corvo assemblage. One might note, however, that Rossi’s four types (A, A1, B and B1) occur in the proportions 17%, 8%, 55%, and 20% respectively. At Capo Alfiere a preponderance of flat types (B and B1) is not evident in the small sample 20 This rough texture may actually have been desirable in helping grind grain, as it may have held grain in place to be crushed and have made the surface more abrasive. (JR)

103

Jon Morter

[CA 1164] 0

8 cm

Figure 8.9 Type A1 saddle quern.

size. Three raw materials were used for these objects at Passo di Corvo. Of these, limestones and sandstones, which are found in many spots nearby, account for 93% of all pieces, and 94% of the querns, which are generally the larger pieces in this class of object. The exotic stone was mostly granite, available within 60 km. Thus, it would seem that local raw material was generally used at both sites. Distribution As yet, all recovered examples have come from the upper stratum (II) and the plough soil. This is certainly a recovery bias, since only a limited area of the lower stratum was exposed. One quern fragment was noted, reused as one of the cobble rocks in the lower pavement. This indicates that this technological item was present from the earliest recognized occupation at the site. To date, other examples reliably attributable to that level are lacking, but there are a number of examples from the site surface and plough soil that could have originated in any of the strata. Two examples of these objects were found in situ in the floors of the hut. The installation of the stratigraphically lower example (the large type A1 illustrated in Figure 8.9) is quite interesting. The piece was built into the floor next to the hearth (Stratum IIa). It had been broken, with one fragment used as a wedge during installation. More significantly, the quern itself was only part of the apparatus. A carefully prepared plaster surface extended the working surface of the piece a further 30 cm away from the

hearth (Fig. 6.7). The whole assembly was set below the general floor level, so anything ground in the machine would have remained in it, as one would expect given the basin shape of the object, rather than spilling off the edge, as might happen with a flat quern or saddle quern without sides. The other in situ piece was the mortar (Fig. 6.8). As mentioned in the hut description, it was difficult to tell which floor (IIa or IIb) this was associated with when in use. If it had been part of the original furniture of the lower paving, it would have sat above the floor level. If part of the later, packed-dirt floor, it would have been buried almost up to its lip and so essentially set into the floor. If the latter was the case, it can be assumed that the mortar was held firmly in place.21 One complete saddle quern and three other fragments were found below the upper floor surface in the hut, in the fill that covered the hearth and inset quern. A flat example was found in the rubble generally covering the hut, along with twelve fragments and five possible fragments. The sealed and dumped examples suggest that these objects were not sufficiently scarce or intrinsically valuable to warrant being curated in every instance. This must remain only an impression, as one does not know the rationale there was for cov21

There are few comparanda for these findings, but it is worth recalling that at Piano Vento, Sicily, a quern was found within a hut apparently destroyed relatively suddenly with its contents. While many Neolithic tasks may have been carried out outdoors, grinding grain for daily meals presumably had to be done regularly all year round regardless of inclement weather; this may account for the locations of some querns within huts. (JR)

104

Stone Tools

ering over the inset quern in the first place, or whether the act had a social significance. As mentioned, the inset quern was broken, and so one possibility is that it was reused from another location. To summarize, it appears that the grinding stones follow the typological shapes suggested for Passo di Corvo quite closely. Similarly, local raw materials predominate, which is to be expected given the size and weight of these objects. The addition at Capo Alfiere would be a mortar category, suggested at Passo di Corvo by the pestles found, but with no actual examples recovered there. Discussion The most interesting aspect of the three kinds of material examined here is that two of them were certainly artifactual materials that were moved over long distances by Neolithic societies. Technologically, none of these pieces have yet produced any surprises. The emphasis on a blade industry and the relative lack of subsequent elaboration to the chipped stone have been recognized as typical for Stentinello assemblages. The overall small size of the pieces presumably reflects the difficulty of supply at this site. Chert is available locally, but only in small cobbles, whereas obsidian is brought over considerable distances and thus may arrive in smaller pieces than for points closer to the source. Obsidian may also be subject to more use and reuse before discard. In the Acconia area, by contrast, Ammerman (1985b) has suggested that chert blades, serpentine, and possibly pottery were brought into the area. The obsidian was also brought in from Lipari and was ap-

parently the primary chipped-stone raw material. The western coast of Calabria may have acted as a major distribution point for Lipari obsidian, which was then moved farther afield, particularly in the Late Neolithic (Polglase 1992). Malone (1985) has also discussed the possibility of fine ceramics and axes as exchange items during the Neolithic. The initial impression from the stone industries seen at Capo Alfiere is that obsidian was becoming increasingly common as time passed. The ax finds indicate that fine pieces were in circulation, at least in the later part of the site’s occupation. If the raw material for these objects was found locally, then the immediate conclusion is that these might have been an “exportable” item, exchangeable for obsidian. The cached nature of the ax finds could be interpreted as a further indicator of this. The locally available cherts do not seem to be likely export candidates, but given the lack of such material farther down the coast (Hodder and Malone 1984), and Ammerman’s (1985b) inference that chert was being brought into the Acconia area, this should not be automatically assumed. The stone used for the querns was all local, and so the conclusion must be that, for this site at least, better stone was not felt to be required for these objects. The stone artifacts, along with the ceramics, provide the basis for an examination of the Neolithic exchange system. They apparently include items imported, potentially exported, and also locally acquired. At Capo Alfiere the situation is further complicated by the unusual context of these finds. The traffic network implied by the polished and chipped stone will be discussed further in Chapter 12.

105

Jon Morter Catalog of Ground and Polished Stone

Editor’s Note: This catalog was compiled by Morter in uncorrected manuscript and transcribed by

Ax

96

Context

Category

Batch

Robb. It was not included in Morter’s original text. Geological identifications are Morter’s in collaboration with geologist Dr. Robert Folk. As Morter explains above, this corpus includes definite, probable, and possible artifacts. Dimensions refer to the surviving fragment rather than the whole object unless otherwise indicated. In a few cases I have added a brief comment supplying information apparent in Morter’s rough sketch of each artifact, which was presumably intended as a visual note to himself. Trained in Britain, working in the American southwest, Morter appears to have used the terms “quern,” “grinding stone,” and “metate” to refer to the large, stationary flat stone upon which grain and other substances were ground. He uses “rubber,” “mano,” and occasionally “grinding stone” to refer to the smaller upper stone that was moved in the grinding action (JR). Description

Dimensions (cm)

17

Polished-stone ax fragment. Blade end of narrow-bladed polished-stone ax. Not abraded at fracture, so apparently not reused. Wear on blade is symmetrical on both sides, suggesting blunting through use. Material is blue-gray, fine grained crystalline stone, perhaps basaltic. (Sketch shows oval cross section.)

Max. width 4, height 6; width at break 5.5, height 4; width at tip 1.5, height 5.5

Ax

263

18

Ax

292

18

Ax

126

19

Ax

184

20

Ax

239

20

Ax

81

22

Ax

81

22

Ax

81

22

Ax

81

22

Ax

81

22

Ax

222

24

Polished-stone ax fragment. Butt end of polished-stone ax, snapped off diagonally. Butt end is conical and very slightly ovoid in section, and comes to a fairly pronounced, if worn, point. Butt end and sharper edge of fracture are abraded, as if reused as a hammerstone. Stone is mixed pale gray and dark blue crystalline rock with quartz-like veins and gold and brown mottling, overall granitic appearance. Possible polished-stone ax fragment. Long narrow fragment of cobble, possibly fragment of polished-stone ax. Gray with blue-black mottles, possibly granitic. Some traces of polished surface, but surface is mostly lost. No trace of blade; if it is part of an ax, it is one long edge of the body. (May be part of same artifact as fragment from Batch 239, Context 20.) Blade fragment of polished-stone ax; material and finish similar to fragments from Batch 239 Context 20 and Batch 292 Context 18, probably granitic. Fragment includes blade and front part of body, both worn down and pecked, presumably from reuse as a hammer. (Sketch shows oval cross section, and suggests that this fragment represents about the front third of the ax; while similar to them, it cannot form part of the same ax as the two fragments noted above.) Polished-stone ax fragment. Mid-section of ax. Blue-gray fine-grained material, perhaps basalt. Large chip off one side. Not abraded at edges of fractures, suggesting minimal reuse after breakage. (Sketch shows oval cross section.) Polished-stone ax fragment. Fragment includes corner of blade and one side; original surface was polished, pale gray with dark blue speckles, probably granitic. Same material and probably same tool as fragment from Batch 292, Context 18. (Sketch shows that fragment is a long spall including about one-third of the ax from the blade to about twothirds of the ax’s length.) Polished-stone ax 1 from cache. Relatively long and thin, slightly asymmetrical cross section, blade slightly angled. Probably amphibolite. Polished-stone ax 2 from cache. Relatively large and broad, pointed butt. Serpentine with epidotized phenocrysts. Polished-stone ax 3 from cache. Relatively short and broad, square butt; slightly asymmetrical cross section. Fine-grained green andesite. Polished-stone ax 4 from cache. Relatively short and broad, square butt; slightly asymmetrical cross section and beveling of blade may suggest transverse use (adze). Probably ignumbrite without phenocrysts. Polished-stone ax 5 from cache. Relatively large and broad, rounded butt; blade slightly angled. Probably ignumbrite without phenocrysts. Polished-stone ax fragment. Butt end of polished-stone ax. Fine-grained blue-gray stone with small pink mottling, suggesting basalt. Butt end was originally conical and oval in section. One side is now sheared off diagonally. Pecking along the top and the main fracture suggests that ax was reused as a hammerstone, perhaps resulting in diagonal fracture of broken end.

Max. diameter 5 x 4, diameter at point 1.5.

Length 8, cross section 3 x 2 Fragment length 6.5; cross section at rear end of fragment 5 x 4.5, cross section at blade 4 x 2 Height 4, width 3, length fragment 3.5 Length 7.3, height 3, width 3 17.1 x 5.9 15.5 x 9.5 10.0 x 7.6 10.0 x 7.6 15.5 x 9.5 Fragment length 8; max. diameter 5; diameter at butt end 4.5 x 3

Stone Tools

Context

Category

Batch

106

Ax

1096

43

Cobble

211

25

Cobble

325

38

Cobble

982

111

Fire-cracked rock

335

38

Ground stone

694

91

Hammerstone

A

0

Hammerstone

443

2

Hammerstone

8

2

Hammerstone

24

16

Hammerstone

122

17

Hammerstone

162

18

Hammerstone

74

18

Hammerstone

75

18

Hammerstone

204

20

Hammerstone

74

20

Hammerstone

87

21

Hammerstone

347

38

Pebble tool

160

17

Pebble tool

90

17

Pebble tool

162

18

Pebble tool

179

20

Description

Dimensions (cm)

Polished-stone ax fragment. Butt end of ax with pointed butt. Blue-gray crystalline material, mottled, probably granitic. Conical and very slightly ovoid in section. Sides polished; end and edge around fracture are abraded and pecked as if fragment was reused as a hammerstone after breaking. (Sketch shows breakage is fracture straight across midsection of ax.)

Fragment length 5; diameter at front end of fragment 4.5 x 4; diameter at butt end 2.5 x 2.3

Cobble. Blue-gray quartzitic cobble fragment with several edges broken off. May be completely natural. Midsection of blue-gray cobble, showing traces of impact all around; purpose of this unclear. Green water-smoothed cobble. Irregularly ovoid in shape. Slight pecking at both ends suggests that it might have been used as a hammerstone, but this is not convincing. However, of interest for raw material, a dark bluish green to green material that is exogenous and may be raw material for ax manufacture. Chunk of fine-grained gray quartzite, turned red-purple at one end presumably be heat. Several large flakes removed, making irregular shape; it is unclear whether the flakes were removed intentionally or as a result of heating. Ground-stone fragment. Small chunk of fine-grained pinkish sandy conglomerate, worn flat on both faces. Difficult to tell how large originally. At least one side seems to be broken rather than shaped. Vaguely rectangular outline. (Classified generically as “ground stone” as it is impossible to determine if it would have formed part of a quern or a rubber.) Possible hammerstone. Very small discoidal pebble of quartzitic stone, white and yellow. Possibly pecked around circumference. From surface. Probable hammerstone. Vaguely spherical, irregular, tennis ball-sized water-smoothed cobble of local fine sandstonelike conglomerate. Seems to have pecking or hammer damage around one line of circumference. Hammerstone. Heavy cobble of local conglomerate, fine-grained and yellow. One end broken and then heavily abraded around edges. Other end has minor patch of abrasion. Possible hammerstone. Vaguely ovoid cobble of white granitic stone, with yellowish inclusions. Possibly lightly pecked at both ends. Possible hammerstone. Small discoidal pebble in white quartzitic or granitic stone, white and crystalline with yellow inclusions. Possible slight abrasion or pecking at both ends. Hammerstone. Large (fist-sized) ovoid cobble, probably quartzite. Pale gray-white-beige. Banded pecking around one end, some indications of pecking at other end. Possible hammerstone. Small discoidal pebble of veiny metamorphic stone with large nodules of quartzitic material, generally beige-brown and with one corner reddened by heat. Possibly pecking around edges in some parts. Hammerstone. Small reddish-pink quartzite pebble pecked around one end. Hammerstone. Small brown cobble of quartzitic stone with quartz veins. Water worn except for the smaller of the two ends, where it is heavily pecked, revealing blue interior. Possible hammerstone. Half of ovoidal disc of veiny quartzitic stone, pink-white. Broken in two. Possibly pecking on top of end. Possible hammerstone. Vaguely elliptical discoidal cobble of quartzite, beige-brown. Slight pecking on both ends, indicating use as a hammer. Hammerstone. Small, half-discoidal cobble, water-worn on all sides. Blue-purple quartzitic material. One end heavily abraded, presumably from use as a hammerstone. Pebble tool. Egg-shaped flat beige quartzite cobble with two large flakes removed from one side. The other side shows retouch along the sharp edge produced by removing the two large flakes. The edge is worn round on most of one side, but is still extant where it continues around to the other. Weight 180 g. Pebble tool, reused as hammerstone. Small, lentil-shaped quartzite cobble, pale beige. One end sharpened by bi-facial flaking, then dulled from use or pecking. Slight pecking at other end. Weight 101 g. Possible pebble tool on small quartz cobble, white and crystalline. Lentil-shaped (flat and oval) with two opposing flakes removed from one end. Slight pecking visible on other end. Weight 88 g. Pebble tool. Ovoid-shaped discoidal cobble of white granitic or quartzitic stone with cortex. One side and corner was alternately flaked to produce an edge which was then worn dull. Some abrasion on end. Weight 205 g.

5.5 x 4 x 3 4x5x3

Irregular shape

7x4x4

7 x 8, thickness 3.5 4x4x2 Approx. 7 x 8.5 x 6.5 10 x 6 x 5 8 x 5 x 4.5 5x4x2 10.5 x 7 x 5 6.5 x 5.5 x 2 7.5 x 4.5 x 2 6x4x3 6x4x2 8 x 6 x 2.5 6.5 x 4 x 3

9x7x3

8.5 x 4.5 x 1.5

6 x 5 x 2.5

8.5 x 6.5 x 2.5

107

Category

Batch

Context

Jon Morter

Pebble tool

230

20

Pebble tool

210

26

Polisher

263

18

Quern

443

2

Quern

443

2

Quern

454

2

Quern

454

2

Quern

46

16

Quern

206

26

Quern

342

38

Quern

374

38

Quern. Approximately ovoid quern, more or less complete, of yellow coarse conglomerate. Flat face is very slightly convex, with sharp angle at edge. Other face minimally modified.

Quern

765

46

Quern fragment. Large fragment (probably about half of oval quern). Local yellowish conglomerate, coarse texture. One face flat or very slightly concave, although pocked by texture of rock. Other side unmodified. (Sketch shows narrow rim around working face.)

Quern

791

46

Possible fragment of small quern. Fine grained sandstone, pinkish color. Top slightly concave and smooth; bottom natural. Polygonal with one side broken off; irregular form.

Quern

815

52

Quern

841

52

Quern

848

52

Quern

986

52

Quern

986

52

Description Possible pebble tool and/or hammerstone. Quartzitic pebble of blue-gray stone with purple cortex. Both ends broken off. One end has a V-shaped point, showing no further wear or edge damage. The other end was broken off square, with one edge retouched and then abraded as if used as a hammer. Possible pebble tool. Irregularly shaped purple quartzite cobble. Several flakes were removed, and stone was then slightly abraded at one end. Possible polishing tool. Chunk of bluestone crystalline cobble with quartz band. One surface is flattened around edges, possibly from polishing or grinding use. Quern fragment. Small fragment, pinkish local conglomerate. On one side, a flat sharp edge; other side is smooth but quite convex. Shape of surviving fragment approximately rectangular though two sides are formed by curved edges; the other two are broken. (Sketch shows a rim to working surface.) Probable quern fragment, pinkish local conglomerate. One side approximately flat, other unaltered. Flat side pocked because of texture of rock. Outline is approximately a semicircle, with half presumably lost. (Sketch shows a rim to working surface.) Quern fragment. Small quern fragment of fine-grained sandstone like pink local conglomerate. One face is flat with minimal pocking; other face seems unfinished but weathered. One edge is curved, the other snapped off, forming rough diamond shape; presumably most of piece has been lost. Flat surface is very slightly convex. Quern fragment. Piece of larger quern in coarse local pinkish conglomerate. Flat surface heavily pocked by rock texture. Other face unmodified. Surviving piece is trapezoidal, with only one original edge. 90-degree angle break between flat surface and sides. Probable quern fragment. Chunk of flat boulder of local conglomerate, forming half an oval. Flat face is coarse yellow; other face is finer-grained pink. Potential worked surface has suggestions of sharpening at edges, but is deeply pocked from rock texture. Other face is smoother but irregularly flat, not suggesting that it is a working face. Quern. Most of an approximately ovoid flat cobble of local coarse pink conglomerate. One face is particularly flat and has suggestions of sharpening at edges. Face is pocked. (Sketch indicates edge or rim around flattened area.) Quern fragment. Lunate-shaped fragment of coarse local conglomerate, yellow on top with pink patches. Top face is flat and very slightly convex, with fairly sharp edge at most sides. Other side is flat but seems unmodified.

Quern. Flat quern in local yellow conglomerate. Vaguely oval outline. One side flat with sharp break at edge. Possibly slightly concave along long length. Smoothed surface pocked by natural texture of rock. Other side unfinished, apparently. Now broken into two pieces during excavation, but essentially complete. Possible fragment of a very large quern. Chunk of local yellow conglomerate with one vaguely smooth side. No good break at edge; other side very rough. Vaguely rectangular with one side curving. Possible quern fragment. Conglomerate with pinkish sandy inclusions. Surviving piece is semicircular. One face may be artificially flattened, though profile is not very suggestive here. Even working face, fairly deeply pocked by texture of rock. Broken in two, so half presumably lost. (Sketch shows rounded end with rim surrounding working face.) Quern fragment. Small fragment of quern, pinkish local conglomerate. One face is flat and has sharp break at edge. Other face seems unworked. Broken along both length and width. Surviving portion has the form of a right angle with curved side along hypotenuse. Quern fragment. Surviving fragment shaped like cheese wedge. Pinkish sandstone like version of local conglomerate. Two flat sides. One is slightly convex and comes to sharp angle at side. Reverse is not as smooth but may be worn, and is slightly convex.

Dimensions (cm)

7.5 x 5 x 3.5

8.5 x 5.5 x 4 6 x 5 x 4.5 11 x 10, thickness 5 11 x 18, thickness 6; flat area 12 x 10 7 x 10, thickness 3 13 x 10, thickness 4

25 x 20 x 7 Length 26, width 18, height 6 19 x 13 x 6 Length 27, width 20, height 6; flat surface 28 x 18 Length 14, width 17, height 7. Face 15 x 13. Original est. length 30. 14 x 7 x 5, working surface 10 x 14 Length 30, width 20, thickness 5.5 11 x 14 x 8 10 x 12, thickness 4.5; face 8 x 9 Length 13, width 8, height 5. Sides of fragment are 13 x 12 x 15 Max. thickness 3.5

Stone Tools

Category

Batch

Context

108

Quern

870

65

Quern

467

80

Quern

514

80

Quern

490

81

Quern

545

81

Quern

546

81

Quern

609

81

Quern

1056

101

Quern

784

101

Quern

792

101

Quern

797

101

Quern

811

101

Quern

831

101

Quern

1057

104

Quern

1050

115

Description Quern fragment. Local pinkish conglomerate, fairly coarse. “Cheese slice” shape, triangular with curved outer edge. Top face flat and runs close to edge. Lower face may also be flattened, but difficult to tell. Faces pocked because of natural texture of rock. (Sketch shows an edge or rim to smoothed face.) Quern fragment. Small piece of edge of quern; local coarse yellow conglomerate with large quartz inclusions. Top face is ground flat, with sharp break at side. Bottom face is too small to tell. Presumably part of a much larger artifact. (Sketch shows edge or rim around flattened area.) Possible grinding-stone fragment. Fragment of small flat cobble of local conglomerate, white to pinkish color range. Might be artificially smoothed on one surface; profile does not suggest working. Possible quern fragment. Coarse yellow conglomerate. About half of small ovoid boulder with one flat face. Face is heavily pocked and not entirely flat. Other face is natural, irregular, and unmodified. Edges are not sharp but slope gradually at sides to join unmodified face. (Sketch shows rim or edge to flat area.) Possible grinding-stone fragment. Fragment of small cobble of local conglomerate, fairly fine-grained, yellowish beige color. One face quite flat, although profile of edges does not look modified. Other face unmodified. Quern fragment. Finer sandstone-type rock with pinkish tinge, probably local. Thickness indicates that flat surface was originally concave. Fragment is trapezoidal with curve on surviving outer edge of work face. Unclear if reverse side was modified or not. (Sketch indicates distinct rim surrounding working face and edge curving up from base to top Quern. Small ovoid boulder of local coarse yellow conglomerate. Almost complete. Top face is flat, coming to sharp edge at sides. Other face may have been smoothed somewhat, but is not working surface and is fairly coarse. One end is ragged where plane of face did not match outline/shape of rock utilized. Probable quern or quern fragment on chunk of coarse pinkish conglomerate. Vaguely ovoid outline; one face is flat and slightly concave, and heavily pecked; the other side seems unmodified. (Sketch shows rim or border around working face.) Quern. Oval or egg-shaped in outline, more or less intact. Local pink coarse conglomerate. One face is quite flat with sharp edge at sides. Other is vaguely level but not worked much. Worked face is deeply pocked from the natural texture of the stone. Worked face is very slightly convex in all directions, suggesting that this may be a rubber/top piece rather than base. Quern. Roughly square fragment, pinkish local conglomerate, fairly coarse. Both sides apparently ground flat with pocking on them; one seems distinctly concave. Fragment is roughly rectangular; difficult to tell whether this is a corner or three surviving sides. Possible quern fragment. Chunk of coarse pinkish conglomerate that may have formed part of a quern once. One vaguely smooth face tapers from rounded edge, heavily pocked. Other face unmodified. Quern. Half of quern made from local yellowish conglomerate. Forms half of an oval in outline. Both sides smoothed, with pocking from natural texture of rock. One side seems flat; the other seems to be concave perpendicular to length of original long side. Faces form fairly sharp edge to sides in spots. (Sketch shows a rim to working face, and thinner in center than at edge.) Possible quern. Fairly fine-grained chunk of local pinkish sandstone-like conglomerate. Semicircular outline. Both faces irregularly smooth and concave; neither comes to a convincing edge at sides. (Sketch shows an edge or rim surrounding smoothed face.) Probable grinding-stone fragment; may be top or bottom. Local calcareous material. One face is more or less flat with sharply breaking edges suggesting grinding. Other face is unmodified. Shape of fragment is half of an ellipse, split down the long side. Missing probably two thirds or more of artifact. Color yellow-gray beige. (Sketch shows rim around working face, and suggests original was approximately rectangular in form. Rim and Morter’s notes suggest it is more likely to have been a quern than an upper grinding stone.) Quern fragment. Small corner of quern. Cheese-slice shape (triangular, one curved side). One face flat, unnaturally truncating side curve of rock. Worked face deeply pocked by natural texture of rock (local calcareous material?). (Sketch suggests original edge was curved upwards from base to working surface.)

Dimensions (cm)

Sides 8.5 x 9 x 10, thickness 4

5 x 4, thickness 3.5

6x4x2

21 x 20 x 9

9.5 x 5.5 x 2 Sides 12 x 10, edge thickness 4.5, center thickness 3.2. Length 31, width 24, thickness 6. Working face 27 long x 23 wide. Length 24, width 19, thickness 6.5

30 x 23 x 9

16.5 x 14.5, thickness 5 14 x 14 y 7 Original and surviving width 21, surviving length 20, thickness at edge 6 16 x 12, thickness 5.5 Length 20, width 12.5, height 6 cm. Working face 18 x 11 cm.

Sides 6 x 7.5 x 8, surface 5 x 6 x 8

109

Description

Quern

1066

115

Probable quern fragment. Local conglomerate. One face almost completely level, though heavily pitted from natural rock texture. Cheese-slice shape in plan (e.g., triangular with one curved side). Curve on round side suggests it could have been much bigger once. Other face unmodified.

Quern

1052

116

Quern

1089

116

Category

Quern

Batch

Context

Jon Morter

1164

141

Quern

1165

142

Rubber

60

17

Rubber

232

26

Rubber

758

49

Rubber

455

79

Rubber

467

80

Rubber

489

81

Rubber

490

81

Rubber

585

81

Rubber

631

87

Probable quern fragment. Local calcareous conglomerate. Flat surface very slightly concave. One surface flat, the other unmodified. Shape approximately semi-circular. Face flat but pocked by texture of rock. Given shape, original may have been ca. 30 cm long by ca. 20 cm wide. Quern. Local yellowish conglomerate. Smoothed face distinctly dished (concave) across long axis and ovoid in shape. Other side unfinished. Heavy mortar, quite thick relative to surface size compared with others. Ovoid mortar or basin quern, found inset into hut floor. One end snapped off before installation in hut floor (fragment found used as a wedge). Local yellow coarse conglomerate. Basin has two slopes; it slopes more shallowly at edge to form a band of ca. 5 cm around the edge, then slopes down more steeply before reaching a flatter bottom in center. Reverse side is unfinished. Surface is deeply pocked from texture of rock. Mortar. Made on large boulder of crumbly coarse pink conglomerate. Appears to be asymmetrical with one end deep and one side sloping upwards and outwards from deepest point. The rest is very thick beneath this. Deep pocking in worked surfaces for rock texture. Originally probably ovoid in outline. Chunks of rim broken off, some missing and some present. This mortar is unusual in that it was found in situ, presumably originally associated with the reuse surface (Contexts 6, 111); also, no others of this shape have been found at the site. Rubber. Grinding stone made from small, flat cobble of fine pink-red conglomerate. One face is smooth and slightly convex. The other face is flat but unfinished. Broken, with half of cobble remaining and a major chip missing. Possible rubber fragment. Small cobble of pink, fine-grained local conglomerate. Both faces are smooth but not as flat as might be expected, nor is there a sharp break at edges. Grinding stone, probably top half (mano). Local coarse yellow conglomerate. One surface flattened, slightly convex with sharp break at edge. Large pockmarks from natural texture of rock. Reverse side seems unmodified. Broken into two pieces, probably during excavation. Surviving portions describe approximately three-quarters of a rough circle, so one corner lost. Originally probably a small ovoid. Note Context 49 is rubble falling into natural fissure, so this was probably either associated with hut floor or rubble on top of it, and very close to large mortar find. Possible rubber. Small fragment of cobble of fine-grained local conglomerate. One surviving face if flat and possibly ground, presumably indicating a rubber fragment; fragment is too small to tell with certainty. Shape approximately quadrangular. Possible rubber. Fragment of small lenticulate cobble of fine-grained yellow conglomerate. Possibly ground on both sides, perhaps through use as a rubber. Possible rubber fragment on cobble of fine-grained local conglomerate. Possibly artificially smoothed on one face, though edge is not convincing. “Cheese wedge” shape to surviving fragment. Possible rubber. Small fragment of possible rubber (mano). Local pinkish conglomerate with sandy inclusions; rock has fairly rough texture. Curved end of a cobble, snapped off. One face seems artificially smoothed with slightly convex shape to it; only one edge seems shaped appropriately. Grinding stone, probably rubber (mano) rather than quern. Local calcareous rock in shape of substantial cobble, fairly close-grained with pinkish sandy inclusions. One larger surface is worn flatter and smooth. Slightly convex, suggesting a rubber, as does size. Reverse side is ridges with ridge running perpendicular to break in stone, suggesting original may have been twice as long and half is now missing. Possible, but dubious, rubbing stone. Flat oval cobble shape of conglomerate with much sandy gravel in it. Vaguely pinkish gray color. Flat sides are quite smooth but edges don’t seem convincing in profile.

Dimensions (cm) Sides 12 x 12 x 14 (curved side), max. thickness 4.5, edge thickness 1.5–2.5. 17 x 14, thickness 5; face 14 x 9. Length 40, width 22, thickness 16 Length 44 cm, width 37 cm, thickness 13 cm. Max. bowl depth 6, original length ca. 52 Length 33, width 31, height 20; bowl dimensions 26 x 23, bowl depth 7 10 x 6 x 2.5

13 x 11 x 4

21 x 18, thickness 5

5.5 x 4.5 x 1.5 8.5 x 7 x 2 Sides 6 x 6.5 x 4.5; thickness 2

9x6x4

Width 14, surviving length 13, max. thickness 7 11.5 x 6.5 x 3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

9 Miscellaneous Objects

This section documents other small objects recovered from the excavations. Primary categorization has been accomplished by function, where intimated, and/or material type, which is somewhat arbitrary and less than satisfactory. For example, a polished-stone pendant, included here, might also be discussed with other polished-stone work; functionally, however, it seemed to fit better in this chapter. All the materials included in this chapter were found in insufficient numbers to address broader questions of temporal or spatial distribution.

a [CA 0495]

b [CA 0646-15] 0

c [CA 0510]

2 cm

Figure 9.1 Tubular beads.

Small Objects in Bone, Stone, and Shell As was noted by our faunal analyst (Scali 1990), conditions for the preservation of bones in the upper level of the site were not optimal at Capo Alfiere. The clay soil is both very hard and cracks apart when dry, and it is subject to expansion and compression when moist—circumstances that would act destructively on any objects made from bone. Hence arises the fragmentary condition of much of the faunal material. On the other hand, the soil was not destructively acidic, as was the case at Acconia. Thus, while preservation was poor, some material survived. Nonetheless, given the extreme paucity of worked-bone objects recognized so far, it is probably true to say that this class of object is underrepresented for this preindustrial society. As yet we have not received the results of the fau-

a [CA 0295-02] 0

b [CA 0018] 1 cm

Figure 9.2 Circular beads.

nal analysis for material recovered in 1990, so we do not know whether further examples of worked pieces were noted in the much more copious bone finds from the lower strata. Beads and Pendants To date, three varieties of objects that might be interpreted as beads have been identified, plus two probable pendants. Beads can be divided into two sorts: tubular and circular. The tubular class comes in two varieties. First, there are small tubular fluted shells that have been sawn off at their tip.1 On the nine examples found, either the majority of the shell was used, in which case the length ranged up to 3.2 cm (Fig. 9.1a– b), or a segment was sawn out, generally about 0.8 cm long. Small long bones also appear to have been turned into beads (Fig. 9.1c). There were two probable examples, respectively 1.4 and 1.7 cm long. Of the ten examples of circular beads recovered, nine are of bone or shell and one appears to have been in stone. In the latter case the concept and size appear equivalent. These were between 0.5 and 0.8 cm across and 0.1 to 0.2 cm thick (Fig. 9.2a–b). The hole in the center had been drilled out; various examples seemed to have been drilled from one or both sides. There were three probable pendants found. One was a piece of polished bone, approximately rectangular and pierced at one end (Fig. 9.3a). It was 4.2 cm 1

These appear to be made from dentalium shells, which were often used for this purpose at Neolithic sites. (JR)

111

Miscellaneous Objects

112

b [CA 0936]

c [CA 0303-02] a [CA 0947]

0

2 cm

Figure 9.3 Pendants.

long, and had apparently been sawn from a segment of long bone. It was found on the higher floor surface within the hut (IIb). A stone pendant in a sub triangular or teardrop shape came from the upper (possibly disturbed) levels of the lower stratum (Fig. 9.3b). This was 1.8 cm long and seemed to be a piece of polished serpentine. This piece represents the only example of polished-stone work retrieved from the lower levels so far.2 Finally, a shell of a small bivalve pierced near the hinge came from the top of the rubble inside the walls in 1989. It was 2.1 cm across (Fig. 9.3c).3 Given the rarity of these pieces, very little can be concluded. One interesting observation is that one securely stratified example of the tubular shell beads came from Stratum I, while all the other examples were found in the debris above Stratum II and in plough soil. No small circular beads were found in the lower levels, while two were sealed by the modification to Stratum IIa. Both of the tubular bone beads were unstratified. This distributional distinction between the two main classes of bead must be regarded as tentative at present, rather than of any significance. Other Bone Artifacts In addition to the pendant mentioned above, five other examples of worked bone were recovered during the excavations.4 These are a miscellany of fragments, 2

This may be a product from a polished stone ax ending its use life, or at least reused material from a polished-stone tool. (JR) 3 A similar pierced shell was found at Umbro, Bova Marina, in which the long edge had been rounded through abrasion, suggesting that the shell may have been used as a tool for scraping or smoothing. No mention is made here of whether the Capo Alfiere shell shows similar wear. (JR) 4This discussion is supplemented by the more recent, detailed analysis of

to which it is almost impossible to assign a purpose with absolute confidence. A few more worked pieces of bone were identified during the faunal analysis as the collection was cleaned in laboratory conditions (Scali 1990). These objects were with the faunal collection in Rome at the time of writing, and thus are not included in the present discussion. The five pieces include one point,5 plus four that appear shaped, purpose uncertain. The point (Fig. 9.4a) is made from a long bone fragment, and is otherwise unelaborated. One drilled fragment (Fig. 9.4b) might be the eye of a needle, or possibly the suspension point for another bone pendant (too little was found to be sure). The other three pieces were all small, flat segments that had been shaped. Of these, one had been squared off; drilling had started on a second (Fig. 9.4c), and a scalloped edge had been carved onto the third (Fig. 9.4d). All three of these were 2.1 cm or less in their greatest surviving dimension. The complete bone pendant was recovered from the reuse surface (IIb) within the hut. The pierced piece that might be a pendant also came from within the hut, from an approximately equivalent stratigraphic situation. None of the other fragments were found in stratigraphically secure contexts. The minimal numbers preclude momentous conclusions. It must be conceded that this has not yet proved to be one of the more exciting aspects of the artifactual corpus from the site. worked-bone artefacts by Erika Gál, which is based upon worked bone included with the faunal assemblage. Gál’s report is included here as Chapter 17. (JR) 5 Morter here uses “point” to mean a pointed object such as a needle, perforator, or awl, rather than to imply the point of a projectile such as a spear or arrow. (JR)

113

Jon Morter

a [CA 0535]

d [CA 0515]

c [CA 0741]

b [CA 0273-02]

0

2 cm

Figure 9.4 Bone objects.

The low number of worked-bone objects seems somewhat strange given the technological assemblage under discussion. There are two observations that might bear on this. First, the soil conditions at the site are poor for preservation of this kind of object. Second, one can compare the assemblage with that at the recent dig at Passo di Corvo, where a larger excavation, with a faunal collection of 20,239 fragments, yielded 56 worked pieces (Isetti 1983). There, too, the number of bone fragments identifiable to species was small (around 15%), and so soil conditions may be responsible for the pitiful numbers of recognizably worked bone finds. Clay Objects With the exception of pottery vessels, there were remarkably few clay objects from these excavations.6 There were no obvious fragments of figurines, for example, although such pieces are known from Sicilian sites of the Stentinello tradition. One small ceramic piece found might have been the arm of a figurine, or, alternatively, a small unpierced pot lug. It was decorated with a chevron pattern embellished with yellow ocher. The other notable clay pieces were four examples of shaped clay of the kind labeled tokens by Denise Schmandt-Besserat (1982). There were two clear examples here. One was a simple sphere, crudely made and about 1.5 cm in diameter (Fig. 9.5a). The second was of the conical type, slightly pinched at the top, that closely resembles a chess pawn in shape (Fig. 9.5b). It stands 2.3 cm high with a maximum diameter of 1.1 cm. By itself, the sphere would not constitute clear 6

Morter’s report on these four objects—in Chapter 19—goes into more detail on possible comparanda and interpretations. (JR)

evidence that these were tokens, although a second possible spherical example was found on the Crotone survey. The “chess pawn” is a typical example of this kind of object, and its discovery strongly confirms the presence of this class of object. The third piece may be another similar example (Fig. 9.5c). It is conical but broken off at the top. The fourth and most dubious is a fragment of something that was originally pearshaped (Fig. 9.5d). It was made of unbaked clay. Given the presence of the other two pieces, it is likely that this too was a token; alternatively, it might be a fragment of a pendant.

a [CA 0380]

0

c [CA 0715]

Figure 9.5 Clay tokens.

b [CA 0938]

2 cm

d [CA 1041]

114

Miscellaneous Objects

Two of these possible tokens derive from the lower stratum. The third came from within the hut, but from a point where mixing with preceding strata may have occurred. Thus no tokens can be said to be associated with the higher stratum. As with the bone objects, there are too few pieces to draw any firm conclusions. Schmandt-Besserat (1982) has documented objects similar to these from the Middle East at the end of the 9th millennium bc. As such, they occur early in Neolithic contexts, although not necessarily at the inception of the Neolithic. The objects continue to occur until the Uruk period in Mesopotamia, and their disappearance from the archaeological record seems to coincide with the development of the cuneiform writing system. Schmandt-Besserat has made a strong case, based on their recovery in palaces and sealed in contract “bullae,” that by the Mesopotamian Bronze Age these objects were part of a record-keeping system, essentially acting as symbolic counters. Their exact function in Neolithic contexts is less certain, although there too she sees them as part of some sort of counting or recording system (Schmandt-Besserat 1982). It does appear that these objects were part of the earliest Neolithic techno-complex throughout the Middle East, including Anatolia, the Iranian Highlands, and the Indus Valley.7 Clay spheres and cones documented from Neolithic contexts in Yugoslavia have been interpreted as temperature gauges for bread ovens and stoppers for vessels (Tringham and Krstic 1990). However, these 7

These are enigmatic finds and possibly unique in the southern Italian Neolithic. The interpretation of these items as counting “tokens” is intriguing and suggestive, although it remains to be explained why similar objects are lacking in other Neolithic sites in Italy, particularly as counting tokens would presumably be found in sets comprising multiple objects. One would probably have to argue that such items normally were left unfired and hence did not preserve archaeologically, while the ones at Capo Alfiere were fortuitously burnt. An alternative interpretation would be that these represent extremely schematic figurines, which are well-attested at Neolithic sites in the area. While figurines in northern Calabria and Puglia are more representative, ones from southern Calabria (e.g. Penitenzeria) and Sicily are often extremely schematic and stylized (cf. Giannitrapani 2002; Fugazzola Delpino and Tinè 2003). It also seems possible that small, stylized figurines were typical of the early Neolithic across its range from Italy to the Indus Valley, and that subsequently in some areas such as Mesopotamia they evolved into counting tokens. This would account for their formal similarities with counting tokens without necessarily implying that they served a similar use. (JR)

objects are much larger than those thought to be tokens, and larger than those from Capo Alfiere. Tringham notes that possible tokens are reported farther east in Bulgaria (Tringham and Krstic 1990). The digging at Capo Alfiere has not yet produced anything recognizable as an example of a clay or bone punch used in pottery manufacture. The elaborate impressed decoration on the diagnostic Stentinello ceramics was frequently done using prepared tools. Examples of these tools have been found on Sicily (Recami et al. 1983). As yet, none have come to light here. Coin The excavations in the southernmost trench in 1990 recovered a 20 centesimo piece dating to 1940. This silver-colored coin is 2.2 cm across, weighs four g, and has a milled edge. The obverse has a bald, moustachioed male head facing left with the inscription “VITT . EM . III . RE . E . IMP”.8 Below the neck in small type is “G. ROMAGNOLI.” On the reverse is a female head, with hair combed back, facing right. In front of the hair is a fasces with a shield bearing a cross. The inscription by the face is “ITALIA” and behind the head “R XVIII.”9 At the base of the neck was “C. 20” and, in finer print, “1940.” This item was found in the plough soil, and from its position near the end of the headland at Capo Alfiere, is interpreted as being corroborative of reports of an army post, manned by Italian “Alpini,” in existence there during the Second World War. 8 The inscription reads “Vittorio Emanuale III, Re e Imperatore,” or “Victor

Emanuel III, King and Emperor.” “Emperor” is a reference to the Italian annexation of areas of Libya and Ethiopia during the 1930s. (JR) 9 This is a reference to the year 1940, which was dated 18 in the Era Fascista (Fascist Era) reckoning, which dated events from 1922, the Fascist seizure of power. (JR)

10 Organic Remains

This chapter presents the evidence currently available for the nonartifactual organic material, particularly the seeds and animal bones. “Nonartifactual” means the remains of plants and animals not modified for use as tools or ornaments, or for other purposes. Much of this is direct evidence for the economic basis of the Neolithic and subsequent occupation of the site. Here are the remnants of the crops grown and animals utilized, along with evidence of indigenous undomesticated plants and animals existing in the area at that time. The remains of these items may or may not have been deposited at the site as a result of human activity. One must bear in mind that what is being recovered is a discard pattern, subsequently modified by human and natural activity. The better the provenience information available, therefore, the better the possible interpretation. This section was written before the completed analysis of much of the 1990 material and so is incomplete. More stratigraphically interesting data will be forthcoming in the near future. Flora Two lines of botanical evidence have been pursued so far in the work at Capo Alfiere. In what were felt to be undisturbed contexts, water flotation was employed in an attempt to recover seed and plant remains,1 should such survive.2 Additionally, sampling for palynology was done at the site as part of a wider study of the environmental history of the Crotone area.3 Complete results from both aspects were not available at the time of writing. So what is presented must be taken as a preliminary assay of these data. 1

Seed remains are being analyzed by Dott. Lorenzo Costantini of the Laboratorio per Bioarcheologia, Rome. Dott. Costantini has also been advising on the pollen analysis. 2 Costantini’s study is included as Chapter 15, which covers the complete paleobotanical assemblage from both years of excavation. The overall picture from his work does not differ greatly from that available to Morter in 1992, and Morter’s discussion remains valid. (JR) 3 Pollen analysis is being done by Juana Ibáñez, a doctoral student in the Department of Geography at the University of Texas at Austin. (She is currently teaching at the University of New Orleans in Louisiana.) (JR)

Latin name

English name

Count

Hordeum vulgare

barley (6 row)

110

Hordeum sp.

unid. barley

11

Triticum dicoccum

emmer

16

Triticum monococcum

einkorn

10

Triticum sp.

unid. wheat

2

Vicia faba

broad bean

28

Pisum sp.

pea family

61

Lathyrus sp.

vetchling

7

Lens culinaris

lentil

1

Leguminosae unident.

unid. legumes

42

Avena

oats

1

Medicago sp.

alfalfa family*

2

Gramineae unident.

unid. grasses

8

Chenopodium album

fat hen

31

Euphorbia helioscopia

spurge

63

Ajuga sp.

mint family

3

Lithospermum arvense

borage

1

Quercus sp.

oak

1

Vitis vinifera

vine

1

Unidentified

6

Table 10.1 Species list of macrobotanical finds. *Probably fenugreek (Karl Butzer, personal communication, 1992).

Macrobotanical Finds At present, only the results of the identification of the floral finds from flotation in 1987 have been identified. These will allow some idea of the suite of species to be expected at the site. The main stratigraphically intact deposits were reached in 1990, so a more complete understanding of the flora at the site must await the completion of analysis of that material. A breakdown of the species recognized to date is given in Table 10.1.4 This also presents the number of pieces found. This count includes seeds and fragments 4

See also Table 16.6 for the list of species present in the entire assemblage broken down by stratum.

115

116

Organic Remains

of seeds as well as other elements attributable to species, such as rachis fragments. In all, over 400 fragments were recovered, which is a substantial number for a Neolithic site in this part of the world. The first observation, based simply on the species list, is the presence of the expected cereal crops. Two typical forms of early domesticated wheat, emmer and einkorn, were found, as was barley of a kind that is normally regarded as domesticated. Although barley was apparently not as highly regarded as wheat for human consumption (Zohary and Hopf 1988), it was “a universal companion to wheat” (Zohary and Hopf 1988, 52), and it can be grown in drier conditions and poorer soils. So far, it has occurred in much greater quantities than the wheats at this site, as will be addressed further below. Another noteworthy aspect is the strong presence of various legumes and pulses. Peas, beans, and vetches can be rotated with grain crops to help replace nitrogen in the soil, as can alfalfas (Barker 1985, 46). Beans prefer slightly heavier soils than peas, and tend to do well rotated with wheat (Barker 1985, 46). The third major class of plants in this group consists of the weeds. Such things as Chenopodium album (fat hen), Euphorbia elioscopia (spurge), and Lithospermum arvense (borage) can be regarded as weeds typically found with grain crops, or on fallow or abandoned land (Barker 1985, 48; Costantini 1987, 236). There are also a few noteworthy minor elements: one acorn fragment, indicating the presence of oak trees, and one grape pip. There is no evidence to suggest that the vine, Vitis vinifera, was a domesticated variety. This plant is native to the Mediterranean Basin, and wild grapes were probably collected throughout prehistoric times (Barker 1985, 50), as is presumably the case here. A single oat seed (Avena sp.) should likewise probably not be taken by itself as a sure indicator of domestic oats. This plant has a Mediterranean ancestry (Zohary and Hopf 1988, 75), and is likely another crop weed at this stage. These finds are from the 1987 season, and given what is now known of the site’s stratigraphy, only very limited temporal or spatial comparisons can be attempted. These absolute numbers are not directly comparable inasmuch as the amount of soil processed varied. For comparison, the number of samples processed and the average number of seeds per sample for

each considered unit is also given. Data for five potentially differentiable stratigraphic units are presented in Table 10.2. The counts in each unit combine finds from the following related stratigraphic contexts: 1. Material from the top of the rubble inside the enclosure, possibly representing an abandonment of the area, but perhaps also including a mixture of later material 2. Material from the top of Sounding B, equivalent to Stratum II 3. The foundation trench fill to the north wall, attributable to Stratum IIa 4. Material below Stratum II in Sounding A, forming Stratum I, north of the enclosure 5. Material below Stratum II in Sounding B (attributable to Stratum I), inside the enclosure The small numbers of many species recovered preclude profound interpretation at this stage; however, some observations are possible. The strong presence of barley relative to wheats appears to be consistent throughout. The peas, beans, and legumes are concentrated in Strata I and II, and apparently lacking from the material from immediately on top of the rubble in the enclosure. Conversely, the vast majority of the species identified as typical of weedy manifestations come from the top of the site. The one exception to this last is the Euphorbia helioscopia from the foundation trench. These numbers suggest that the interpretation of an abandonment level where the ruin was overgrown is plausible for the uppermost level. For the main levels of Neolithic occupation, there is convincing evidence for legumes of various kinds throughout. It will be interesting to see how further 1990 finds from more stratigraphically secure contexts compare with these preliminary results. The severe ploughing damage to the top of the site precludes absolute confidence in the integrity of the finds from the top of the rubble. However, the similar wheat-to-barley ratios in the lower levels suggest that this may be overly cautious, and that the diagnosis of weedy overgrowth can stand. Parallels Comparative paleobotanic material is not plentiful in southern Italy. Most notable is that from the Grotta dell’Uzzo on Sicily, as well as various finds from sites

117

Jon Morter

Latin name

English name

Top of rubble (III?) count

Hordeum vulgare

barley (6 row)

Hordeum sp.

%

Sounding B (II ) count

%

Foundation trench (IIa) count

%

Sounding A (I) count

%

Sounding B (I) count

%

43

31.9

27

21.8

16

29.6

1

3.8

16

28.1

unid. barley

8

5.9

3

2.4

0

0

0

0

0

0

Triticum dicoccum

emmer

6

4.4

2

1.6

5

9.3

0

0

3

5.3

Triticum monococcum

einkorn

5

3.7

2

1.6

1

1.9

0

0

1

1.8

Triticum sp.

unid. wheat

1

0.7

1

0.8

0

0

0

0

0

0

Vicia faba

broad bean

4

3.0

4

3.2

0

0

18

69.2

2

3.5

Pisum sp.

pea family

1

0.7

48

38.7

0

0

0

0

12

21.1

Lathyrus sp.

vetchling

0

0

7

5.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

Lens culinaris

lentil

0

0

1

0.8

0

0

0

0

0

0

Leguminosae unident.

unid. legumes

0

0

21

16.9

2

3.7

1

3.8

17

29.8

Avena

oats

0

0

0

0

1

1.9

0

0

0

0

Medicago sp.

alfalfa family

1

0.7

0

0

1

1.9

0

0

0

0

Gramineae unident.

unid. grasses

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

11.5

5

8.8

Chenopodium album

fat hen

25

18.5

5

4.0

1

1.9

0

0

0

0

Euphorbia helioscopia

spurge

34

25.2

2

1.6

26

48.1

1

3.8

0

0

Ajuga sp.

mint family

1

0.7

0

0

1

1.9

1

3.8

0

0

Lithospermum arvense

borage

1

0.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quercus sp.

oak

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3.8

0

0

Vitis vinifera

vine

0

0

1

0.8

0

0

0

0

0

0

Unidentified Total

5

3.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1.8

135

100

124

100

54

100

26

100

57

100

Average no. of seeds/sample

11

9

6.2

8.7

5.7

Number of bags

12

6

20

3

10

Table 10.2 1987 Season: plant remains by discernible stratigraphic units (counts and percentages). See Table 16.6 for final list.

in Puglia. Trump also found some carbonized seeds at Skorba on Malta. Costantini (1981) reported 45 seeds from the excavations at Grotta dell’Uzzo, spanning the Mesolithic and Neolithic levels. From what was essentially an early Stentinello context, the finds included both emmer and einkorn wheats (emmer predominating, if 9 seeds can be said to predominate), and also possibly bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) (Costantini 1981, 236). Barley was also present (Hordeum sp.). For the Neolithic levels, lentil and beans were found, while wild grape, olive, and vetch/pea occurred in both Neolithic and Mesolithic levels. Only the oak finds were confined to the pre-Neolithic strata. The finds at Skorba on Malta were also from a stratum (Ghar Dalam) equivalent to Stentinello. Barley and wheat were present, as were lentils. Also

reported were one seed each of field madder and caterpillar (Helbaek 1966). The barley was not distinguishable to subtype. The wheat was reported as emmer where recognizable with a few other grains that might be club wheat (T. aestivum subsp. compactum). Many of these seeds were distorted, so other varieties, such as einkorn, could not be confidently designated as absent (Helbaek 1966, 53). The barley predominated over wheat by 10 to 1 in the sample recovered. These data are from a cache of seeds found near the large Neolithic walling at the site. Reports from various Neolithic sites on the Tavoliere are fairly consistent in the types of plants reported, although the numbers of seeds are frequently very small. Wheats (T. monococcum, T. dicoccum, and T. aestivum) considerably outnumber barley finds. Sargent

118

Organic Remains

(1983, 251) notes the presence of Triticum aestivum and a low amount of barley as typical of reported paleobotanical finds for this area. At Passo di Corvo, Follieri (1983, 158), working within a sample of 34 pieces attributable to subgroup, attempted to further subdivide the T. aestivum, recognizing club wheat (T. aestivum subsp. compactum) and possibly a hulled variety, spelt (T. aestivum subsp. spelta). Follieri at Passo di Corvo notes the presence of some legumes such as beans and vetch in small numbers, as does Sargent (1983) for four other sites. Occasional oat seeds are also reported. These finds are datable to the mid-5th millennium bc or earlier. Considerably more seeds were found at Scamuso, also in Puglia—261 in all (Costantini 1987, 236). In the 5th millennium bc levels at this site, emmer and six-row barley were recognizable, and vetch was present also. Wheat was in the majority. Above this, in the 4th and 3rd millennium bc (Diana) levels, weeds, such as Chenopodium album (fat hen), and Euphorbia helioscopia (spurge), predominate. There are also several grape seeds in this later stratum. Discussion This cursory inspection of the still limited data on paleobotanical remains from the southern Italian Neolithic serves to draw attention to a couple of points. Generally, the species lists occurring at all these sites seem consistent. As might be anticipated, the Neolithic agriculturalists were relying heavily on wheat and barley as staples. Emmer wheats, in various forms, continued as the main variety grown in the Mediterranean until quite recently (Zohary and Hopf 1988). Barker (1975, 46) notes that bread wheats are generally found alongside emmer and einkorn in earlier agricultural sites hereabouts.5 So far Capo Alfiere has not produced recognizable examples of this third kind of wheat, but several of the other cases cited have. Thus, finding this crop at Capo Alfiere at some point should be anticipated. Pulses and leguminous items occur almost universally alongside the cereals. The occasional grape and acorn finds, particularly as these also occur in Mesolithic contexts, are presumably an indication 5

Zohary and Hopf (1988, 44) argue that bread wheat was a result of a cross between emmer and a wild grass after the domestication of the former, and that this probably occurred in the Caspian region. Bread wheat should not then be anticipated from the very earliest agricultural situations. They believe that the first versions of bread wheats probably resembled spelt (Zohary and Hopf 1988, 46).

of continued gathering of convenient fruits and nuts to supplement the diet. Two facets of the Capo Alfiere assemblage warrant further attention: the amount of barley, and the quantities of legumes. With the exception of Skorba, on all the other sites barley was mentioned as the minor cereal grain present. So far this has not proved to be the case at Capo Alfiere; nor was it, interestingly, at another possible Stentinello enclosure at Skorba on Malta. In the very limited stratigraphic comparisons possible to date, no temporal shift in the overall predominance of barley has shown up. Whether this phenomenon is consistent in other parts of the site will be one of the first questions asked of the seed data from the 1990 excavation once the analysis finished. The reason for such a crop preference will then have to be addressed.6 As noted earlier, barley can be preferred for poorer or drier soils. “Barley is also the main cereal used for beer fermentation in the Old World” according to Zohary and Hopf (1988, 52). Because alcohol consumption may be frequently associated with ritual or community events, the presence of grains suitable for fermentation could imply that large structures at Capo Alfiere might have been utilized for such activities, if the analysis of the 1990 seeds substantiates this association. At this stage, however, this must remain tentative, and the association with poorer soils is a more likely explanation. The second point to be noted is the large sample of various legumes recovered so far at Capo Alfiere. Figure 10.1 plots the percentages of groupings of constituent plants within the tentative stratigraphic elements used in Table 10.2. It contrasts barleys, wheats, legumes (beans, peas, vetchling, lentil, and unidentified legumes), probable weeds (fat hen, spurge, borage), and others. Table 10.3 presents the raw numbers and percentages (completely unidentifiable pieces have not been included). One can see that legumes represent over 50% of the finds from three contexts. Cereals (wheat and barley) together constitute a major percentage of finds in four places. Such high percentages of pulses and legumes are not seen in the paleobotanical samples from other Neolithic sites discussed above, and it has been suggested that there will also be a recovery bias against such items and in favor of more compact grains, em6 As

Chapter 16 shows, there is in fact little evident difference in botanical assemblage between Stratum I and Stratum II. (JR)

119

Jon Morter

Figure 10.1 Percentages of plant remains by level.

mer in particular (Halstead 1981, 317). This strong presence of non-cereal crops is particularly interesting in the light of Halstead’s (1981) suggestion that during the early stages of agriculture in the Mediterranean, pulses were probably a major element in the suite of domesticated flora grown. His argument runs that, before the introduction of ploughing (in the Early Bronze Age), intensive gardening with digging sticks or mattocks would have been standard cultivation practice. Whereas ploughing compensates for declining soil fertility and yields by allowing large areas to be worked, field maintenance with hoes is already labor intensive. Thus, keeping up soil fertility by rotating cereals with labor-intensive pulses and

legumes becomes feasible and would also reduce the necessity for other fallowing. By working to maintain field fertility with nitrogen-fixing crops and manuring with animals, overall yield of cereal crops might also be sustained at a higher level, and so, in all, a much smaller field area would be needed for each settlement. Less field area to be cleared might be another advantage, particularly for the earlier Neolithic moving into the heavily forested Mediterranean terrain proposed for that time. Higher proportions of legumes in the diet would also alleviate the necessity of keeping large numbers of animals to maintain protein intake and balance the cereal constituents. In sum, Halstead argues that pulses and legumes should not be regarded as a minor garden supplement to cereal crops, as they become later in the traditional Mediterranean pattern. Given the technological and environmental circumstances in the Neolithic, they were a major constituent to the cropping system, balancing the diet and maintaining soil fertility as part of a controlled package that also included cereals and small herds of animals. He proposes that this pattern can be picked up archaeologically in Greece. The high percentages of such leguminous plants in several of the Capo Alfiere samples to date suggest that a similar pattern of horticulture might be one model to be considered here. Not all the legumes grown were necessarily for human consumption. Spurr (1986, 119) suggests that Lathyrus sp. might have been primarily a forage crop for livestock by Classical times. Figure 10.1 shows that weeds are a major element in two places: the top of the rubble (III?), as discussed earlier, and the foundation trench to the north wall (IIa). Tentatively, the floral evidence from the uppermost rubble surface might be interpreted to indicate an abandonment of the structures, which then beStratum

Flora

Top of rubble (III?) Count

%

Foundation trench (IIa)

Sounding B (II) Count

%

Count

%

Sounding A (I) Count

Sounding B (I)

%

Count

%

Barley

51

39

30

24

16

30

1

3.8

16

29

Wheat

12

9.2

5

4

6

11

0

0

4

7.1

5

3.8

81

65

2

3.7

19

73

31

55

Legumes Weeds

60

46

7

5.6

27

50

1

3.8

0

0

Other

2

1.5

1

0.8

3

5.6

5

19

5

8.9

Total

130

100

124

100

54

100

26

100

56

100

Table 10.3 Grouped flora by stratigraphic context.

120

Organic Remains

came overgrown. As mentioned, the excavation evidence was not discordant with this idea, but given the unknown extent of later plough and occupation damage to this level, one must remain cautious. The weeds in the foundation trench fill are more curious. They might indicate weeds on the site when the big walls were put up. At this stage, this is pure speculation. Pollen The pollen study of the Crotone area is still in progress, and so only a few very preliminary results are mentioned here. Processing of some test samples have mostly shown evidence of weeds (particularly Liguliflorae and Gramineae), although cereal pollens also occur (Ibáñez 1989, personal communication 1992). A sample from the foundation trench to the north wall also includes weeds, reinforcing the findings of the seed study to date. Interestingly, none of the samples run so far have produced much oak pollen. Until some quantified results are available, and corrections for differential dispersal and survival are applied, little more can be ascertained. This study may well prove useful in supplementing the more direct economic evidence of the seeds, with a registry of the weedy plants also present nearby. On a more general level, there is a published study of a pollen profile spanning the Holocene era taken from the highlands of southern Calabria about 115 km southwest of Capo Alfiere (Schneider 1985). Using a result that distant and from a mountainous zone is problematic if one attempts specific observations relevant to Capo Alfiere. Two points, however, are worthy of consideration in future work in the Crotone area. First, Schneider (1985, 279) proposes that major deforestation of the mountainous region near her study site did not begin until approximately 2,000 years ago—that is, during the Roman era. Second, her pollen profile suggests that traces of cereal pollens begin to appear in the record by around the mid-7th millennium bc (her radiocarbon date is 5915±70 bc). Stronger signs are present during the 5th millennium bc (her radiocarbon date is 4210±190 bc; see Schneider 1985, Figure 2). If this cereal presence represents Neolithic activity, then it coincides approximately with the earlier proposed dates for the establishment of the Neolithic in this central Mediterranean region. However, one should not take these indications as a signal of extensive Neolithic activity in the mountains. It will now be interesting to see if

Schneider’s results correspond to a similar exercise closer to Crotone, preferably from a lower elevation, more likely to be affected earlier by farming activity. Fauna At the time of this writing, the results of the analysis of material from the 1990 season had not been received, and only preliminary data were available for the 1987 material (see also the discussion in Scali 1990). These initial findings are presented here with some commentary on the state of the assemblage, its composition, and comparison with other southern Italian data. After the 1987 season, some 3,569 fragments of bone were taken to Rome for analysis.7 Of these pieces, 522 (15%) are reported as identifiable to species (Scali 1990). An identification rate of only 15% seems low, but is actually comparable with that for other sites of this era and area. For example, 18% of the bone fragments from the excavations at Grotto dell’Uzzo were attributable to species (Scali 1990). In Puglia, 12% of the bone finds from the site of Scamuso were identifiable (Scali 1990), and one has a 15.1% identification rate for S. Tinè’s Passo di Corvo work (Sorrentino 1983). For the Capo Alfiere sample, conservation is selective and favors more-compact bones, particularly teeth and extremities (Scali 1990). This also means that larger animals may also be over represented within the identifiable selection. Species Present at Capo Alfiere At this stage, only a simple bone count is available. This information is presented in Table 10.4. The next stage of the analysis will include calculations of minimum numbers of individuals present for each species, and a consideration of the relative meat yields of various types of animals. This can then play into the larger question of the relative importance of various species, and attempt to address the “balance” within a herd that might have been sought by the Neolithic inhabitants of the site. Similarly, one may be able to 7

The fundamental tasks of cleaning, conserving and making an initial identification of the material was done by Dott. Salvatore Scali of Museo Nazionale d’Arte Orientale in Rome, utilizing the reference collections held at the Laboratorio di Bioarcheologia of ISIAO (formerly ISMEO). A preliminary discussion of the corpus is presented in Scali 1990. Dott. Scali is now working on the 1990 finds. (The complete faunal assemblage was studied by Dr. Erika Gál and Zsófia Eszter Kovács, whose reports in Chapters 14 and 15 provide further detail on both excavation seasons. Their results do not differ substantially from the preliminary information available to Morter, and hence his discussion continues to provide valuable insights into the economy at Capo Alfiere.) (JR)

121

Jon Morter get a better feel for the nature of the exploitation of the wild species occurring in the sample. These 1987 data are not stratigraphically separated as yet; the sample shown in Table 10.4 likely includes material from the lower plough zone.8 Given the uncertainties noted earlier about the disturbance to the top of the rubble within the enclosure, and the possibility of Bronze Age material there too, few overall conclusions can be drawn at this stage. During the 1990 season, the identification of the lowest stratum (Ia) was greatly aided by the large amount of bone present at that level. This was apparently lying on an occupation surface, and a number of large pieces were recovered from concentrations in several spots. The 1990 material will also include securely stratified finds within the enclosure area and derived from Stratum II. The 1990 faunal results for both main strata will likely be more representative of the Neolithic occupation, and much more useful for interpretation. The most conspicuous feature of the 1987 collection is the overwhelming predominance of domesticated species within the recognized examples. The combined sheep and goat category and the domestic cattle make up the bulk. Pig is also present, but, so far, as a minor component. This is the suite of domesticates typical of the Italian Neolithic and more or less what one would expect to find. There is very little deer present, which, at this stage of the analysis, can lead one to suggest that hunting of large game animals was not a major element contributing to the diet. Otherwise, the quadrupedal species included in Table 10.4 can be seen as typical of the kind of wild fauna that might be present in the area: small rodents and sundry “vermin.” The degree of palatability of these animals to Neolithic people must remain uncertain, given the low numbers of bones found for each as yet. As Scali (1990) notes, most of them will probably prove ultimately to be occasional finds, some possibly associated with the natural recolonization of the site after its abandonment (also tentatively suggested by the weedy flora in the uppermost stratum [III]). Two other elements of the 1987 collection are worthy of comment. First, there is the apparent lack of fish bones at what is currently a coastal site. This may be partially a result of the smaller size and prob8

Chapter 14 presents the faunal data discussed separately by stratum. One result that emerges from this is that the faunal assemblages from the earlier and later Neolithic occupations are substantially similar, suggesting continuity of economic practice rather than change. (JR)

Category

Species

Fish

Pisces unid.

Shellfish

various

Count 5 15

Reptiles Testudo cfr. hermanni Gmel. tortoise

4

Birds Aves unid.

23

Insectivores Erinaceus europaeus L hedgehog

1

Talpa europaea L. mole

1

Sciurus vulgaris L. squirrel

2

Mus sp. mouse

2

Canis cfr. lupus L. wolf

1

Canis familiaris L. dog

1

Vulpes vulpes L. fox

1

Rodents

Carnivores

Ruminants Sus scrofa domesticus L. pig Cervus elaphus L. red deer

42 6

Bos taurus L. domestic cattle

173

Ovis/capra sheep/goat

259

Homo sapiens s. human

1

Other Total*

537

Table 10.4 Faunal species list with bone fragment count (after Scali 1990). See Tables 14.1 and 15.1 for data on complete assemblage. *Includes shells.

ably poorer survivability of these pieces in this soil. Ultimately, if this lack of marine vertebrates is also seen in the 1990 material, consideration of the suggested change in coastline here since the Neolithic will also need to be included. Scali (1990) is happier about the shell sample, which included limpet, trochus and murex. Nonetheless, given the coastal location, numbers seem low.9 Again, consideration of 9

In Chapter 3 Morter notes that if sea levels had been lower in the Neolithic (as suggested by now-submerged Classical remains in the Crotone area), Capo Alfiere would not have been a coastal site. Nevertheless, it would presumably not have been far from the coast. This general paucity of marine remains is still the case following the full analysis (cf. Chapter 14) and fits into a general lack of use of marine resources in the Neolithic, to judge both from numerous faunal assemblages and a growing body of stable isotope data. Even shellfish are relatively few at Capo Alfiere— comments here and in Chapter 14 notwithstanding—and some shells may have been brought to the site as raw materials for bead-making or other uses, as tools or as ornaments. (JR).

Organic Remains

122

Species

Capo Alfiere Fontana1987 rosa

Santa Tecchia

Mass. Candelaro

Mass. Valente

Passo di Corvo area A

Area B

Pantanello

Domestic cattle

173

6

139

30

22

486

633

153

Sheep/goat

259

27

185

51

174

386

1,108

1,049

Pig

42

6

47

23

36

118

150

88

Dog

1

0

23

2

1

30

98

5

475

39

394

106

233

1,020

1,989

1,295

Aurochs

Domestic subtotal

0

0

7

0

5

0

0

3

Deer*

6

0

0

0

1

11

1

7

Wild swine

0

0

4

1

0

0

0

7

Wild ass

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Wolf

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fox

1

0

0

0

0

8

3

2

Badger

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Otter

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Hare

0

0

0

0

3

2

3

25

Tortoise

4

0

0

0

0

5

2

18

Hedgehog

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mole

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Weasel

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Squirrel

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mouse

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Birds

23

1

1

0

0

5

0

9

Fish

5

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

46

3

14

1

9

32

10

74

521

42

408

107

242

1,052

1,999

1,369

91.2%

92.9%

96.6%

99.1%

96.3%

97.0%

99.5%

94.6%

8.8%

7.1%

3.4%

0.9%

3.7%

3.0%

0.5%

5.4%

Wild subtotal Total count Domestic % of total Wild % of total

Table 10.5 Comparison of Neolithic faunal counts and percentages (from Bökönyi 1983 and 1989b, Scali 1990, and Sorrentino 1983). *This category seems to have included red deer and roe deer. (JR)

changes in the coastal regime hereabouts will need to be factored in once the 1990 results are included. Secondly, one might also note in passing the relatively high number of bird bones within the sample of wild fauna. Again, full consideration must await the 1990 material and provenience information.10 Very little can be surmised from the single human bone fragment found in 1987. More pieces of human skeletal material were pulled from the plough 10 As Chapter 14 suggests, there is an interestingly wide range of birds present at the site, but very few bones of any given species, suggesting perhaps opportunistic consumption, possibly along with sporadic collection for feathers or for other reasons rather than use of birds as a major food resource. (JR)

soil during excavation in 1990, but this is a less than optimal circumstance for interpretive purposes. Other Faunal Data for the Neolithic in Southern Italy One point of immediate interest when examining the Capo Alfiere results is that the predominance of domestic herd animals seems typical of southern Italian Neolithic collections.11 This is certainly true for the noncave sites such as those on the Tavoliere (Bökönyi 1983; Sorrentino 1983) and at Scamuso (Scali 1990), where quantification of the collections has begun. 11

More-recent data from both Umbro and Favella are very similar to Capo Alfiere, particularly in the overwhelming reliance upon domesticated species and the predominance of sheep and goat. (JR)

123

Jon Morter Capo Alfiere Fontana1987 rosa

Santa Tecchia

Mass. Candelaro

Mass. Valente

Passo di Corvo Area A

Pantanello

Area B

Domestic cattle

36.4

15.4

35.3

28.3

9.4

47.6

31.8

11.8

Sheep/goat

54.5

69.2

47.0

48.1

74.7

37.8

55.7

81.0

Pig

8.8

15.4

11.9

21.7

15.4

11.5

7.5

6.8

Dog

0.2

0

5.8

1.9

0.4

2.9

4.9

0.4

Table 10.6 Comparison of domesticated species by percentage (data from Bökönyi 1983 and 1989b, Scali 1990, and Sorrentino 1983). Capo Alfiere Fontana1987 rosa Aurochs

Santa Tecchia

Mass. Candelaro

Mass. Valente

Passo di Corvo Area A

Pantanello

Area B

0

0

50.0

0

55.6

0

0

4.1

13.0

0

7.1

0

11.1

34.4

10.0

9.5

Wild swine

0

0

28.6

100

0

0

0

9.5

Wild ass

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.4

Wolf

2.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fox

2.2

0

0

0

0

25.0

30.0

2.7

Badger

0

0

0

0

0

3.1

0

0

Otter

0

0

0

0

0

0

10.0

0

Hare

0

0

0

0

33.3

6.3

30.0

33.8

Tortoise

8.7

0

0

0

0

15.6

20.0

24.3

Hedgehog

2.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mole

2.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.4

Squirrel

4.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mouse

4.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Birds

50.0

33.3

7.1

0

0

15.6

0

12.2

Fish

10.9

66.7

7.1

0

0

0

0

1.4

Deer*

Weasel

Table 10.7 Comparison of wild species by percentage (data from Bökönyi 1983 and 1989b, Scali 1990, and Sorrentino 1983). *This category seems to have included red deer and roe deer. (JR)

Though unquantified, a similar impression is gained from other, earlier collections both on the Tavoliere (Jones 1987) and from Sicily (Orsi 1915; Tusa 1983). The somewhat later Eneolithic site of Pantanello (Bökönyi 1989b) in Basilicata also follows a similar pattern. This Capo Alfiere data is the first good sample from a noncave site in Calabria. Ammerman (1986: 334) reported conditions unfavorable to bone preservation at Acconia, although he noted surface finds of domestic cattle from Capo Alfiere and Favella. Tables 10.5–7 present faunal data from several sites on the Tavoliere alongside that from Capo Alfiere. The appearance of domesticated species can be seen in the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic as

documented in cave sites. At the Grotta della Madonna on the western Calabrian coast, ovicaprids become the dominant faunal component at the transition to the Neolithic (Ammerman 1986, 334), with earlier levels having produced deer, wild boar, and some ibex. Similarly, at the Grotta dell’Uzzo ovicaprids dominate in the faunal samples from the first Neolithic levels (Scali 1990). The data in Tables 10.5–7 are presented to illustrate the overall similarity of the Capo Alfiere collection to other quantified south Italian data. The vast preponderance of all material is of domesticated species. Obvious game species are poorly represented. Based on the data from four of the sites included

124

Organic Remains

above (Fontanarosa, Santa Tecchia, Masseria Candelaro and Masseria Valente), Bökönyi (1982, 237) states that “animal husbandry had a much greater importance than hunting in covering the protein and raw material need of animal origin of the inhabitants.” This seems a reasonable conclusion. The general conclusions to be drawn from the breakdown of the domesticated fauna present would seem to be that sheep and goats are usually in the majority, with cattle as the next main element. Pigs appear to be a consistent, but minor, presence. Dogs are a second minor presence; they also appear to occur consistently, once the sample is of any size. As the numbers are so low, the wild species listed serve at this time to give only a general impression of the other animals extant in the region at the time. Again one can remark on the number of bird bones from Capo Alfiere, but at this stage, without estimates of minimum numbers of individuals and context information, it remains simply a pointer for further investigation. Discussion of the Organic Materials Ultimately, the objective of the study of this kind of material will be to form a clearer conception of how the fundamental elements of the Neolithic economy were put together and how this might have changed over time, and to assess the impact of this system on the surrounding environment. As was mentioned in Chapter 3, one can be reasonably certain that the landscape encountered by the spreading agricultural population was wooded, probably with an oak forest climax cover in this area. Establishment of agricultural communities must have required some clearance of such woodlands. The question then is, how much clearance, when, and how fast? And from that, what was the overall environmental effect? If the linkage of a severe erosional episode to the effects of early agriculture is correct, then the consequences seem to have been quite dramatic. But again, when, within the Neolithic, might this have begun to occur? Floral and faunal remains can be used to attempt to get at the variety of plants and animals exploited by a community, and, perhaps more crucially, at the balance between species preferred by the site’s occupants. In the case of a sedentary and agricultural society, a large proportion of the daily food and other needs will be derived from domesticated plants and animals, so

that control of the balance of species exploited might be expected to be somewhat less opportunistic than, for example, the availability of meat through hunting. Present evidence for the Middle Neolithic in southern Italy suggests that this might have been particularly true then, as domesticated fauna absolutely dominates most assemblages, and, as far as is recognizable, a preponderance of domesticates is also true for plant exploitation. At present, there are insufficient data from the Capo Alfiere assemblages to address these questions in depth. The analysis of the floral and faunal material is ongoing, however, and a much fuller assessment will eventually be possible, one hopes in the near future. Consideration here is thus limited to the implications of the initial results presented above, within the framework of the questions just posed. The inclusion here of both animal and plant remains in one chapter was deliberate. The two are complementary elements in most preindustrial farming systems in the Old World. In addition to their function as on-the-hoof food storage, domestic stock has an important role in a mixed farming system as a supplier of manure, fertilizer for the arable land (Halstead 1981; Spurr 1986)—a function that has been proposed for Neolithic stock as well (Halstead 1981). At some point, animal traction and by-products such as wool and milk were also included. Crop yields might be maintained by manuring, rotating, or fallowing fields. Different animals prefer different feeding regimes and so might do better or worse in different densities of forest cover. Thus the available technology and exploitative regimes of Neolithic communities might be expected to (a) employ differing combinations of plants and animals and (b) see those combinations change over time with the farming system used. Sherratt (1981) has argued convincingly that the totality of products from animal domesticates evolved over time. This means that the earliest Neolithic agriculturalists were probably not placing primary emphasis on the traction, milk, or wool products of their charges. Integration of these products into the economic system came in the later Neolithic or Bronze Age for this area of the world and form part of a potentially wide-ranging modification to farming societies that Sherratt labels the “Secondary Products Revolution” (Sheratt 1981, 262). The implication of

Jon Morter this idea is that the exploitation of plants and animals for most of the Neolithic was strikingly different than what came later, and two clear behavioral patterns might be detected archaeologically. First, without ploughing, a smaller area of cropland would probably be worked, with the expectation that better soils—from a Neolithic perspective—be chosen. Second, when kept primarily as meat producers, animals would be killed at a younger age, which should be reflected archaeologically in the culling pattern of the herd (Sherratt 1981, 283). Reference has already been made in this chapter to Halstead’s (1981) proposal that different crop mixes might also be expected at the initial stages of agriculture, particular prior to the widespread use of the plough. Spurr (1986, 103) remarks that the “near simultaneity of domestication suggests some physically instinctual understanding of nutritional importance of the combination of cereal and legumes,” wherein cereals provide carbohydrates and legumes provide some protein. Legumes presumably might even reduce the number of animals kept for meat. Of further interest is the possible use of nitrogen-fixing plants, such as legumes, to improve soils after cereals have been grown. Halstead (1981) believes that this function of such plants was understood from the outset and could have been employed, along with manuring, by Neolithic farmers to maintain field fertility and hence require smaller areas of forest to be cleared. Thus, the initial impact of both field clearance and damage to forest, or to any regrowth, might have been relatively small. The question then becomes whether this is correct, both generally and locally. The last caveat is added because, as Spurr notes while discussing much later practices, even in the Roman period no general pattern of crop rotation, fallowing, and stock numbers can be assumed for the entire peninsula (Spurr 1986, 117); indeed, given varying environmental and economic circumstances, wide chronological and spatial variation is to be expected. Capo Alfiere can speak to only part of these ideas at this stage of investigation; however, the lines of inquiry are clear. The crops and animals identified to date seem to indicate, at least by the late Middle Neolithic, a community largely dependent on domesticated species, and not on the foraging of nondomesticates. A detailed breakdown of species and culling practices for the livestock will allow some insight into the animal

125

component of the farming system, and show either change or continuity during the period of Neolithic occupation of the site. The initial stratigraphic division of the plant remains does show the major presence of legumes in several levels. This impression will need to be expanded upon as results from more secure contexts become available. Tentatively, these results suggest that, as Halstead proposes, legumes were a major component of the diet. It is still premature, however, to extrapolate therefrom to the system of restricted gardening, and soilmaintaining rotation, that Halstead proposes would have been environmentally less damaging. There is other evidence from the site to suggest major environmental impact during the Neolithic, presumably ultimately a result of human activity, the most environmentally destabilizing of which would have been agriculture. One must note the preliminary pollen results in which oak was a minor or absent constituent. This is interesting because oak is a moderate pollen producer and should have left a good signature if large stands existed nearby (Ibáñez, personal communication 1992). This is consistent with the generally low representation of pigs in all of the Neolithic assemblages listed in Tables 10.5–6, for which oak woodlands represent a good source of pannage. Halstead’s model argues that large tracts of woodland should coexist with Neolithic farming. There is no evidence of this to date at Capo Alfiere. Indeed, the preliminary pollen finds are indicative of a disturbed environment, and so far consistent with the picture given in the faunal assemblage with its heavy representation of sheep and goats. In summary, the present information from Capo Alfiere suggests a disturbed environment by the later Middle Neolithic in this area. The question of how, and whether, the earlier Neolithic populations produced that environment cannot yet be addressed with confidence; when finished, the floral and faunal data from the lower stratum at the site will be of some importance in this regard. Similarly, at some point the major erosional activity, suggested by James Abbott’s work (personal communication 1992) on the geomorphology as beginning in the Neolithic, will have to be explained. That said, the preliminary results from Capo Alfiere indicate this data has the potential for addressing these issues and contributing knowledge about broader questions.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

11 Local Comparative Material

Some information is available to place the site of Capo Alfiere within its local archaeological context. The excavations were conceived partly in order to refine understanding of data from the University of Texas’s archaeological reconnaissance work in the area south of Crotone. This and previous surveys in Calabria can be examined to try to understand the distribution of sites, and hence the human distribution across the landscape during the Neolithic. The state of knowledge for the Crotone area available for inclusion here was less than satisfying, as will be noted further below. More will be discernible once knowledge from the new information from the excavations has been applied to the survey material. This discussion will serve to illustrate current knowledge of the Neolithic occupation of the area, and the lacunae that remain to be addressed. A further line of evidence is touched upon briefly at the end of the chapter. This is the very puzzling information obtained from a set of aerial photographs of the area. As yet this is still a very tentative line of inquiry. For both this and the surface survey data, further fieldwork and on-ground verification are urgently needed. Institute of Classical Archaeology Site Survey Before starting the excavations at Capo Alfiere, the Institute of Classical Archaeology at the University of Texas conducted four short seasons of surface survey reconnaissance, also known as “field walking,” in the territory of the ancient city of Croton (see D’Annibale 1990).1 This work took place between 1983 and 1986. As far as possible, the autumn months were used because most crops are harvested by then, and initial ploughing and reseeding is then underway; this is thought an optimal time of year for field walking in this part of the world. This survey work is considered to some extent a salvage operation. Repeated coverage of the same ground in different seasons to contrast

1 The University of Texas field survey was directed by Cesare d’Annibale; research and writing are still ongoing, and the survey will be published in the volume describing the Chora of Croton. (JR)

collection conditions and compare site visibility, as has been done by Ammerman (1985a) at Acconia, was not attempted. This was a tactical decision intended to obtain information on the maximum number of sites possible, and over the broadest temporal span, within the fieldwork time available. This approach was taken because of the tremendous rate of destruction of archaeological sites throughout Italy, particularly during the last ten to fifteen years. Officially, 15 sites were known in the study area in 1982. In its first four seasons, the University of Texas survey recorded 457 sites, dating from the Neolithic to late Medieval Periods. Because the study area to be covered was quite large, the survey adopted a stratified random-sampling technique as its first stage, to ensure a dispersed but fairly representative assessment of the site distribution across the landscape (D’Annibale 1990). This involved dividing the study area into large blocks of several kilometers to a side, and then attempting to walk randomly selected kilometer squares within each subarea. In addition, at the request of the Calabrian Superintendent of Antiquities, a total survey of the archaeologically sensitive Capo Colonna peninsula was undertaken. Because of the vagaries of fieldwork, surveyed areas did not always conform exactly to the designated square kilometer targeted. And, by 1986, not all of the target areas in the original sampling design had been covered. The survey study area per se was, and is, in the southern portion of the ancient Crotonese territory. It encompasses the large headland formed as the Ionian coast changes direction from east-west to northsouth, at the capes of Capo Colonna and Capo Rizzuto (Fig. 11.1). Between the coast and more rugged country inland is an area with large expanses of flat terrain, of which the study area included about 225 km 2. By 1987, the survey had covered about 35 km 2 of this, recording, as noted, 457 archaeological sites of all periods. This work did not completely cover all of the area targeted by the original random sample. By

127

128

Local Comparative Material

Stentinello Late Neolithic Neolithic (phase uncertain) Bronze Age Shoreline at -10 m

Figure 11.1 Location of sites with occupations distinguishable to prehistoric periods within ICA field survey areas (indicated in gray). Dotted line shows approximate position of a shoreline 10 m lower than today.

the end of 1986, coverage was concentrated particularly at the edges of the marine terraces, where the interface between the uppermost calcareous and underlying clay geologic substrata is exposed and hence where springs are numerous. At present, much of the flatter area behind the marine terrace edges remains to be adequately sampled. As was anticipated, the locations near water sources produced a high concentration of sites for all periods. One cannot yet be certain whether this high site density extends back onto the flatter areas, although there is evidence to suggest that it does, particularly in later periods.2 2

In 1989, at the behest of the Superintendency, Cesare D’Annibale undertook further survey on the central plateau of the study area, where a new NATO air base was planned. He has indicated to the present writer that a very high density of sites occurs there also, at least for the Classical and subsequent periods. He has suggested that the thin and easily worked calcareous deposits here would have made digging wells fairly simple, and thus make occupation possible without major effort.

Although the overall outlines of the chronology and ceramic sequence are understood for southern Italy, there are still major problems in the refinement of that sequence. One of the objectives of the overreaching program of survey and excavation planned by the University of Texas project was, and is, to refine knowledge of the ceramic sequence, for both the prehistoric and historic periods.3 Indeed, the results of the Capo Alfiere excavations will be a useful contribution to this end. For the prehistorian the prob3

Although the chronological sequencing of Classical Greek and subsequent material is much clearer than with earlier ceramics, the initial reference point for seriation is frequently a distant, but relatively complete, sequence, such as that from the excavations at the Athenian Agora. This generally gives a good overall picture, but the dating of production and disuse of particular ceramic styles was not necessarily consistent with increasing distance (from Greece, for example). Each survey begins with a basic outline, but recognizes that one objective will be to refine the local variations in the overall sequence.

129

Jon Morter lem is particularly serious. Impasto sherds that are not wheel turned are generally taken to indicate prehistoric occupation, particularly when not found in association with later wheel-made ceramics. Chipped- or polished-stone material is another good, but not conclusive, material indicator of prehistoric occupation. For southern Italy, however, very few of these pieces are considered diagnostic to period. Or, to phrase that another way, the number of prehistoric sherds likely to have temporally diagnostic decoration or finish is usually extremely small relative to the overall number picked up. This means that it is not uncommon to find a prehistoric site but then to be unable to be more chronologically specific than pre-Greek and post-Mesolithic. Obviously, this is a somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs. Ultimately, it is hoped that a selective series of excavations will help to illuminate the local sequence. This will greatly assist in refining understanding of the survey results. Neolithic Site Distribution for the Study Area Using the University of Texas results to address the likely site distribution for the Neolithic period, one encounters both of the problems mentioned above: sampling bias from the current stage of the survey and poor temporal definition because only “generic prehistoric” categorization is possible for much of the material. An assessment of the occupation periods at each site was done as data were collected. In 1986, 96 sites were assessed with a prehistoric component.4 However, for 48 of these the amount of material was small (frequently 10 or fewer sherds), and their chronological definition was uncertain. This left 48 others where some assessment of period was possible (although at this stage it should not be taken as completely certain in many instances). Unfortunately, at the time of this writing it had not been possible to reinspect the survey material with the knowledge gained from the 1991 study season at Capo Alfiere in mind.5 The figures presented here, therefore, represent numbers available as of 1986. Table 11.1 shows the discernible breakdown of occupations by period. Chalcolithic material was not distinguished in the survey notes and so has not been separated out in this review. 4

After the second phase of the Crotone survey D’Annibale reported the following additional sites: 7 Bronze Age, 2 Late Neolithic, and 10 undefined prehistoric (JR). 5 The area where the survey material is stored was being remodeled and so access difficult. Considerable resorting of this material will be necessary and is planned in conjunction with restarting of the survey.

Survey designation

Count

Approximate dates

Neolithic–Stentinello

15

6000 to 4000 bc

Neolithic–Late (incl. Diana)

11

4000 to 3500 bc

9

6000 to 3500 bc

Probable Bronze Age

18

2500 to 1000 bc

Other prehistoric

48

6000 to 600 bc

Other probable Neolithic

Total

101

Table 11.1 Prehistoric occupations found during the Texas survey. (Note: multiple occupations will produce a larger total than the absolute number of sites).

Some material of this period, with the type name of “Piano Conte,” has been distinguished in the Crotone area (see Nicoletti 1989), and elsewhere in Calabria (Ammerman 1985a; Hodder and Malone 1984).6 The figures in Table 11.1 illustrate an immediate problem with this survey data. It is to be expected that more than one period will be present at a number of sites. The poor chronological control available makes this difficult to discern. Similarly, the low number of sites attributable to period make spatial distribution changes through time difficult to pick out. Figure 11.1 shows the distribution of sites designated as Stentinello, late Neolithic, or Bronze Age. It also shows the areas covered by the survey to date. The bias of the survey coverage towards the edges of the marine terraces is reflected in the concentration of sites found there in all three periods. Although there is apparently some restriction in the distribution of Late Neolithic sites compared with both Stentinello and Bronze Age distributions, too much weight should not be placed on this as so few sites are involved for each period. The bias towards recovery at terrace edges also influences what can be said about the selection of topographical or soil availability during particular periods. So far, the few prehistoric sites recorded in radically different topographic settings have not been dated with sufficient accuracy to contribute to the data. 6

The representation of different periods in this data is comparable with results from multiperiod surveys elsewhere in Calabria. In the Bova Marina field survey, for instance, Neolithic material can at times be identified by surface decoration, and Bronze Age vessels, usually lacking surface decoration, not infrequently had characteristic handle or rim forms that could be identified in highly fragmented material. The unidentifiable and hence “missing” periods, as here, were the Copper Age and the Iron Age; this circumstance should not be taken as indicating a true absence of occupation for these periods. (JR)

Local Comparative Material

130

Stentinello

Late Neolithic

Other Neolithic

Less than 3,000

7

5

3

11

28

54

3,000–7,499

6

2

3

4

11

26

7,500–11,999

0

3

2

3

7

15

12,000–18,999

1

0

0

0

2

3

More than 19,000

1

1

1

0

0

3

Total sites

15

11

9

18

48

101

Total area

68,150

67,700

110,800

65,100

175,350

487,100

4,543

6,155

12,311

3,617

3,653

4,823

Area (m2)

Average size

Probable Bronze Age

Other prehistoric

Total

Table 11.2a Site size by period (counts of components). Size categorization used was based on gaps occurring in a breakdown of size by 500 m2 increments. Note that the total area for the “other Neolithic” category is distorted by the presence of a large site of 70,000 m2. Without this site the total area is 40,800 m2, with an average size of 5,100 m2. % Stentinello

% Late Neolithic

% Other Neolithic

Less than 3,000

46.6

45.5

33.3

61.1

58.3

53.5

3,000–7,499

40.0

18.2

33.3

22.2

22.9

25.7

0

27.3

22.2

16.7

14.6

14.9

12,000–18,999

6.7

0

0

0

4.1

3.0

Greater than 19,000

6.7

9.1

11.1

0

0

3.0

Area (m2)

7,500–11,999

% Probable Bronze Age

% Other prehistoric

Total %

Table 11.2b Site size by period (percentages).

Some preliminary site size assessments can also be attempted. Based on their surveys elsewhere in Calabria, both Ammerman (1985a, 97) and Hodder and Malone (1984, 139) have suggested that the late Neolithic saw a shift in occupation towards fewer but larger settlements. The figures for the University of Texas Crotone survey are presented in Tables 11.2a–b. This analysis must be treated as preliminary because a detailed, gridded surface collection was not attempted. This means that no distinction can be made between the relative extent of different occupations at one “site” location.7 This is a problem even with a highly controlled surface collection regime, as the deep ploughing sometimes used in this area can mix deposits. Additionally, as Ammerman (1985a, 4) has pointed out, the visibility of a site on the surface will be subject to the vagaries of “geological windows.” 7

The sites included here were selected because prehistoric material was a substantial part of the collection. However, due to the approach adopted, the possibility of later material introducing some distortion into the recorded site size cannot be ruled out.

This means that geomorphological and agricultural circumstances will govern the extent and intensity of surface scatters; and that these windows may change over time, even between the seasons of a single year. These caveats should be borne in mind when considering the data on site size. To recapitulate, one cannot be sure that the size and density of the surface scatter that was found clearly reflects the nature of the site buried below. These numbers do seem to indicate some changes in site size over time. Figure 11.2 presents this information graphically for the three most crucial categories: Stentinello Neolithic; Late Neolithic; and Bronze Age. The trend suggested would seem to be an increase in moderate-sized settlements during the later Neolithic, then a reversion to small settlements during the Bronze Age. This is also reflected, in a broader measure, in the total occupation area and average site area for each period given in Table 11.2a. For the three most closely defined occupation periods, the total area of occupation seems remarkably consis-

Jon Morter

Figure 11.2 Site size in square meters as percentage of period total. ICA Survey data for chora of Crotone.

tent. At the same time, the average site size increases by the Late Neolithic, then appears to decrease again by the Bronze Age. Notice that a few “very large” sites (20,000–30,000 m 2) were recorded for both the principal Neolithic divisions—perhaps two sites for the earlier (Stentinello) period—whereas these have not yet been recognized for the Bronze Age. These numbers do not actually reveal the complete picture, as there is also a single large site, chronologically attributable only as Neolithic that has a recorded area of 70,000 m 2, and so is much bigger than anything else. Given the small sample size, these numbers are provocative rather than conclusive. The number of sites not assignable to period is so large that adding only a few more to any period category could seriously change the distributional and size patterns indicated so far. The presence of a small number of distinctly larger sites is of interest, since it is frequently taken as a possible indicator of settlement hierarchy and hence presumed social hierarchy or increased complexity. Additional agglomeration in the late Neolithic might also suggest that one be on the lookout for social responses, possibly such as evidence of social hierarchy. But then what was happening in the Bronze Age where site size shrinks and no very large sites have yet been identified? The numbers of sites of all periods do suggest that the prehistoric occupation of this area was quite intensive. Given the prior results from both Acconia, in western Calabria, and the Tavoliere, in Puglia, this probably should not be surprising. It is hoped that closer definition of the ceramics, begun at Capo Alfiere, will help in assessing this.

131

The occupation periods differentiated above do not include the “Early Neolithic.” Given the shaky chronological control, one cannot at this point automatically assume that this indicates absence of the earliest farming occupations from the area. In this regard, the few finds of cardium-like pottery from the lowest levels at Capo Alfiere, and the occasional find at Soverito (Nicoletti 1989, 370) are tantalizing evidence for the possibility of a pre-Stentinello Neolithic occupation of the area. But the local change in sea level will probably prove to be a major problem here. In both Greece (Van Andel and Sutton 1987, 44) and southern France (Mills 1983, 134) Neolithic sites have been located beneath the coastal waters; indeed, the French examples seem to be the earlier Neolithic sites for the area. As the sea level situation around Crotone seems analogous, one can expect that an interesting portion of the prehistoric record, plus possibly most of the Early Neolithic evidence, is now inundated and difficult to access. This would presumably include most locales for the primary processing of shellfish, with ramifications for the feasibility of the complete understanding of the preceding Mesolithic economic base as well.8 Other Site Survey Data As mentioned, the other major pieces of survey work for this area are those of Ammerman (1985a), particularly around Acconia on the west coast, and Hodder and Malone (1984) at Stilo some 80 km south of the Crotone area on the Ionian coast. In both cases the area covered by the survey was quite limited, but the focus was entirely on the Neolithic. Work near Crotone by Marino (1983, 1989) and Nicoletti (1989) has not been distributional in nature; it concentrated on deciphering the sequence more fully, on the basis of detailed study of surface collections. Neither the Acconia nor the Stilo survey demonstrates any temporal shift in preferred environmental location for the Neolithic sites. Ammerman’s Acconia survey (1985a) concentrated on a paleodune forma8 Morter’s reasoning about the loss of the earliest Neolithic sites to rising

sea levels and the probable importance of marine resources to Mesolithic populations remains valid. However, as noted in preceding comments, while Morter attributes Stentinello Wares to the Middle Neolithic on the basis of the expectation of a preceding Early Neolithic with Impressed Wares, it is now clear that in Calabria, Stentinello Wares were used, if not from the very beginning of the Neolithic, at least soon after its inception. Hence some of the Stentinello “Middle Neolithic” sites probably date to the Early Neolithic. (JR)

132

Local Comparative Material

tion, while Hodder and Malone’s (1984) work at Stilo covered terraces near the coast. Thus Hodder and Malone were in the best position to examine settlement selection criteria, and they specifically state that there “is no evidence to suggest that sites of different dates are located in particular microenvironments and on particular soils” (Hodder and Malone 1984, 139). One should note, however, that their sample of Stentinello/impressed ware sites is very small (n = 3). Although no microenvironmental distinction is apparent, these researchers have made the suggestion that the transition to the late Neolithic saw an increase in site size (Ammerman 1985a; Hodder and Malone 1984). Whereas both earlier Neolithic and post-Neolithic sites seem to be quite small and concentrated, late Neolithic sites were found to “extend as light, locally dense scatters for considerable distances along the edges of the valleys” (Hodder and Malone 1984, 139). This broadly agrees with the data from the Crotone region presented in Figure 11.2. As yet, there does not seem to be evidence of a distinguishable Neolithic component prior to the Stentinello phase of the Middle Neolithic at either Stilo or Acconia.9 The other set of widely discussed settlement data for the Neolithic of southern Italy is that from the Tavoliere. In a recent reassessment of this material, Brown (1991) has drawn attention to an apparent agglomeration of settlement between the Early and Middle Neolithic. For that area this would be before and after 5500 BC. She draws on the accumulated work for this area to illustrate several examples of five or six smaller sites, dating to the Early Neolithic, which group around a single later, and much larger, settlement. She suggests that the Middle Neolithic there saw a process of nucleation of population. Unfortunately, there seems to be little evidence for Late Neolithic settlement distribution. Of immediate interest here is the date of this switch in settlement pattern; it seems to have occurred as much as a thousand years earlier than the agglomeration that has been suggested for the Stentinello sphere in Calabria.10

Discussion of Site Distribution Data from Surveys Around Crotone the rather coarse nature of the available data restricts grand conclusions at present. Continuation of the survey should allow both a refinement of the chronological attribution of sites and a correction of the sampling imbalance that currently distorts the Crotone data. In general terms one can say that the picture beginning to emerge from survey data in Calabria is of a fairly dense occupation of the landscape (at least of the coastal landscapes where survey has been conducted) during the Middle Neolithic (with Stentinello-style ceramics) and subsequently. The Calabrian data have been used to suggest that some agglomeration of settlement took place by the Late Neolithic (ca. 4000 bc), but this must still be regarded as tentative. Smaller settlements may then have become predominant again by the Bronze Age. The evidence for Neolithic settlement prior to the Stentinello phenomenon is very scanty at present, and so no distributional conclusions can be drawn. A number of hypotheses bear comparison to information from the broader southern Italian picture. The limited evidence suggests that nucleation of population may have occurred much earlier on the Tavoliere than in the Stentinello sphere in southern Calabria. If this ultimately proves to be the case, it will demand an explanation. Of course, one cannot assume that the agglomerated Late Neolithic sites documented, particularly the “light, locally dense scatters” reported by Hodder and Malone (1984, 139), are the evidence for the same phenomenon—the same kind of population nucleation—as the larger, and later, “ditched” settlements found on the Tavoliere. So far, sites with circumference ditches—very familiar both to the east and to the west of Calabria in the Middle Neolithic— have not been documented in Calabria. This is probably a result of the lack of excavation in this part of Italy, but it does represent an important line of future inquiry.11

10

ment became nucleated in areas such as Calabria. (JR) 11 After almost two decades of further data accumulation, it is clear that ditched villages are a settlement form which occurs patchily. In Adriatic Italy, they occur along the coastal strip from the Marche to Bari province; they also occur densely in the Matera area. In western Italy, they are known only from around Siracusa. Elsewhere people appear to have lived in either unditched villages such as Favella or spread-out neighborhoods of small groups of houses such as at Acconia and Bova Marina. (JR)

9 See

note 8. (JR) As Morter correctly notes here and below, settlement agglomeration between the Early and Middle Neolithic on the Tavoliere occurred earlier than the Stentinello-to-Diana transition he discusses here. There seems to have been very distinct regional differences in settlement, particularly between Adriatic Italy and Tyrrhennian Italy, and the Tavoliere is probably best regarded as an exceptional case not comparable to central Calabria. There seems to have been regional variation in shifts in settlement at the Diana transition as well, with the Tavoliere and other ditched village landscapes becoming almost abandoned, while settle-

Jon Morter Features on the Aerial Photographic Coverage Further potential site distribution data is presented on a set of aerial photographs available for the Crotone area. There are numerous enclosure-like features visible on these air photos. These features do not seem to project vertically from the ground, but they closely resemble crop marks (Fig. 11.3). The reason that the features provoke interest is that one of the major finds of Neolithic material in Italy, the extremely dense Neolithic settlement on the Tavoliere, in Puglia, was discovered from features noticed on aerial photographs. The geologic conditions of the Tavoliere were ideal for crop-mark production. The numerous ditches associated with these sites were cut into a soft bedrock and are now filled with soil. The ditch-fill soil retains water much better than the surrounding rock does, so crops growing directly above the ditches ripen later and the color differentiation produced shows clearly from the air. In some places in the Crotone study area, a similar situation may prevail. The flat terrain of the Tavoliere is reproduced in miniature in parts of the Crotone study area. And the Tavoliere data has shown that a very dense concentration of Neolithic

Figure 11.3 Vertical aerial view of Capo Colonna (GAI photo 10144, courtesy of Aerofototeca Nazionale).

133

sites (not necessarily contemporaneous) is possible. The ICA survey data indicates that a high density of archaeological sites also exists at Crotone. The question remains whether some of the features on the air photographs do actually represent archaeological phenomena, and then of what periods. The Crotone aerial photographs are vertical views, taken in 1955. They are in the form of a mosaic with overlapping flight lines and frames to allow use as stereo pairs. The final scale of the copies available to the ICA survey project is about 1:40,000. The scale of these pictures is small, making it difficult to tell whether the enclosure-like features are actual crop marks, presumably representing buried archaeological sites, or a result of some modern agricultural activity. The features mostly range in size from 40 to 150 m on a side. The longest recorded dimension is 300 m. Most are around 100 m across. The majority are quadrilateral, but with distinctly rounded corners. Round or ovoid examples can also be seen. Many of these features exhibit two circumference lines, which, if they are marking buried features of archaeological interest, would represent a double ditch line. Frequently the inner circumference line is thicker, but this is not always the case. Because of the scale of the photographs, it is impossible to pick out features within the enclosures demarcated by the circumference boundary lines. It seems unlikely that all the features on the aerial photographs represent archaeological entities. Preliminary examination indicated that some conform very closely to recent field divisions. In 1990, magnetometer prospection found no trace of a buried anomaly associated with one of these features. One possible explanation for some features might be the ploughing of narrow strips as fire breaks in anticipation of stubble burning in the midsummer. Conversely, large numbers of these features distinctly show two concentric enclosures. This is very reminiscent of buried prehistoric or historic phenomena. Not many of these features fall within the areas so far walked by the survey teams. Before 1992 only one exact match of data had been discovered: a generic prehistoric scatter that corresponds exactly to a small enclosure feature with two possible ditch lines. This is located on the flat terrace just behind Capo Alfiere itself. In the summer of 1992, it was possible to ground check two more of these features, although only to a limited extent because of standing crop coverage. In both cases prehis-

Local Comparative Material

134

Site size (m2)

Crotone crop mark features All

Reliable

Crotone Survey Neolithic sites

Tavoliere sites

Minimum

750

3,200

500

638

Maximum

50,000

45,000

70,000

278,050

Average

7,917

11,495

7,239

28,471

Standard deviation

6,414

8,183

12,243

35,736

167

38

34

185

Count

Table 11.3 Comparative summary statistics for “enclosures” and other sites.

toric material was found on the area within the enclosure on the photographs. The limited ground coverage in each case meant that the precise degree of correspondence of the location of the scatter of prehistoric material to the area of the feature could not be gauged. Nonetheless, these results are encouraging, and they suggest that a buried archaeological phenomenon is illustrated on the photographs. In order to pursue this line of inquiry further, an examination of the features on the photographs was attempted. Their dimensions, shape, and number of potential ditch lines was noted, and a rough, and thoroughly subjective, assessment of the feature’s reliability was made. This last was based on the feature’s conformity to modern features, composition, and clarity. For example, where a feature conformed exactly to the modern field layout and had only one potential ditch line, it was considered less reliable than a multiple ditch enclosure that did not conform to the field pattern. In all, 167 potential candidates were noted within the study area. Of these, 38 were considered sufficiently reliable to warrant further consideration. The majority of the features noted are subrectangular rather than round or ovoid. In this they differ from the Tavoliere Neolithic examples, where subcircular outline is usual, although more rectilinear examples with rounded corners do occur. Many of the Tavoliere examples have double or triple perimeter ditch lines. It is the occurrence of this distinctive crop-mark signature for the Crotonese examples as well that forces serious consideration of the features there. Many Tavoliere sites enclose smaller, horseshoeshaped features, which have been interpreted as “compounds” (e.g., Jones 1987) for smaller subgroups, such as family units, within the settlements. The resolution and scale of the Crotone aerial photographs does not

allow one to distinguish definite features within the outlines of the enclosure as a whole. Of the 38 most reliable examples at Crotone, 29 were subrectangular or square, against 9 more ovoid. This was not a totally reliable distinction, as all quadrilateral examples have rounded corners to a greater or lesser extent. Only 1 of the 38 has a single “ditch” line; 1 large example may have as many as four, while the rest have two. As the survey coverage did not overlap much with the locations of these features, it was difficult to compare distributions. Basically, the features in the photographs were distributed across all the larger, flatter spaces within the study area, particularly the large central plateau north of the town of Isola Capo Rizzuto, an area not yet extensively covered by the survey.12 The distribution included several on the peninsula of Capo Colonna and behind the headland of Capo Rizzuto. Only the flat coastal terrace behind Capo Cimiti (halfway between Capo Colonna and Capo Rizzuto) was relatively devoid of these features; older maps show this point as having been woodland earlier in this century, although how far into the past this was the case one does not know. The easiest way to compare the features with the survey information was felt to be by size. The information for the 38 best cases is presented in Figure 11.4. This is in a format comparable to that of Figure 11.2, with percentages of the total count divided into the same size categories. Comparison of this curve with any of the three for specific periods given in Figure 11.2 does not indicate a strong correspondence. Another available set of comparative data is that for the Neolithic crop mark sites on the Tavoliere, some of which have been tabulated (Jones 1987). Site 12

This is the area proposed in the late 1980s as the site for a NATO air base, subsequently cancelled. See note 2.

Jon Morter area for 185 Tavoliere sites is used (see Jones 1987, Appendix V), data that were not divisible into period within the Neolithic. These are then compared with information for all Neolithic sites found in the survey at Crotone (n = 34) and with the crop mark information (n = 38) in Figure 11.4. Note that size here is divided by hectares. Again the results are less than conclusive. Summary statistics for this comparison are presented in Table 11.3 and Figure 11.5. It is interesting to note that the sizes of the sites identified as Neolithic in the Crotone survey are generally much smaller than those from the Tavoliere, where the size can be calculated from visible boundary features. The crop mark features, while generally larger than the survey sites, are not out of range for Neolithic sites reported on the Tavoliere.13 Additionally, all three of the distributions in Figure 11.5 show one or several outlying sites of much larger size. Based on assessment of labor requirements and abandonment of smaller sites, it has been argued for the Tavoliere that, although these bigger sites are present, they do not represent an indication of radical adjustment in social stratification within the settlements, and that what was occurring in the Middle Neolithic was simply population nucleation into larger sites and abandonment of the smaller sites (Brown 1991). Discussion of the Crop Mark Features14 The reason for the interest in these features is their strong similarity to known, existing examples on the Tavoliere. For Crotone, three examples so far seem to indicate a correspondence between these features and prehistoric sites. Thus the above exercise assumes (1) these entities do actually represent archaeological features in some cases, and, (2) that these features are prehistoric, and probably Neolithic. Neither of these propositions can be conclusively demonstrated at this point. Obviously, one of the first objectives of a resumed survey must be to target the locations of the 13

If these features were indeed prehistoric sites, one reason for the discrepancy in size between the crop mark features and the sites found on the survey could be that the latter are defined by surface sherd scatters, which may not have extended through the entire area enclosed by boundary features. For example, field-walking Tavoliere sites known from ditches seen on aerial photos, one finds that the sherd scatter occurs in patchy areas within the ditched area rather than filling up the entire ditched area evenly. (JR) 14 Unfortunately, no further work on these crop-marked features has been undertaken, and the question of what they actually represent remains open. (JR)

135

Figure 11.4 Crop-mark enclosure size as percentage of total count, based on aerial photos of the chora of Crotone.

Figure 11.5 Comparison of Crotone and Tavoliere site size data.

most promising of the “enclosure” features more extensively and confirm or disprove their archaeological character. Dating would also be helpful; although it has been the working hypothesis here, one cannot assume that they are necessarily prehistoric. Tentative evidence for a thick distribution of sites of all periods on the central part of the study area allows many possibilities. So far, archaeological work in Calabria does not appear to have produced any examples of Neolithic settlements with circumference ditches, although these are known both on Sicily to the west (for example, the site of Stentinello itself) and in Basilicata and Puglia to the east. This seems odd, and it is probable that a lack of work on a scale comparable to nearby areas is the cause. The features on the photographs, should they prove to be archaeological and Neolithic, would thus fill a major lacuna in the Calabrian data. Should circumference ditches prove to be lacking from Neolithic settlements in Calabria, then the situation becomes yet more interesting when one tries to explain that absence.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

12 Conclusions and Future Directions

The Capo Alfiere excavations began with modest objectives that were overtaken by the subsequent unexpected discoveries at the site. The initial intent was to recover sufficient information to begin a reconstruction of the sequence of agricultural economic exploitation of the Crotone area. The large walls were discovered during our attempt to open sufficient site area to allow confident interpretation of the economic data from floral and faunal remains. At the time of this writing, the interpretation of this and other data is still somewhat problematic given the difficulty of deciding the role of the enclosure walls and, with that, the context of the associated finds. The architecture was recognized as a significant discovery during the first season of work. As this also represented a large portion of the surviving area of the site, it became the focus of research. However, the various lines of evidence summarized in the preceding chapters show that the site and its objects have raised a number of questions regarding the present understanding of Calabrian prehistory. These findings have considerable potential for addressing a wide variety of research topics in the future. Interpretation of any one line of evidence in isolation from the rest is restrictive, and a more complete understanding must involve recognition of the covariance of several factors. In this regard, the stratified nature of the site is extremely helpful, inasmuch as it highlights the temporal differences within the Middle Neolithic deposits themselves. The evidence to date from the two significant Neolithic strata shows indications of change. To some extent, then, the circumstances within which the structures in the upper level came to exist can be examined. Interpretation of the Enclosure Understanding of the results of the excavations at Capo Alfiere hinges upon the interpretation of the architectural construction found in the main level (Stratum II)—the large walls around the hut. One is hampered by the lack of adjacent contemporaneous material that

might place these features, the walls and hut, within a broader site context. That said, certain salient points should be considered. The scale of construction seems exaggerated for a purely residential entity. This should be considered in the light of evidence from Piano di Curinga (Ammerman et al. 1988) or Piano Vento (Castellana 1987), where structures that are interpreted as residential have been unearthed. These are much more comparable to the hut traces within the walling at Capo Alfiere than to the walls themselves. The peculiar construction for the walls would seem to argue against their being primarily defensive, as has been suggested for Piano Vento and Serra del Palco (Castellana 1987). If the interpretation of the artifact scatter along the eastern side of the headland of Capo Alfiere is correct, then the original settlement was much larger than just the excavated area and the enclosure; the amount of the site lost to the erosion of the headland by the sea will never be known. Thus, the walled enclosure and hut, as reconstructed in Chapter 6, were presumably within the confines of the Neolithic settlement here. In such circumstances, defense, particularly for the site as a whole, does not seem to be a likely primary consideration, although such a subsidiary use should not be excluded. An enclosure implies a demarcation of space within the settlement. An enclosure can be both inclusive and exclusive. In this case, the substantial nature of the construction of the walling would be more than was necessary for simple exclusionary purposes: a wattle fence, for example, could serve as adequately for some purposes. Both the elaborateness and the massiveness of the end result make a statement about the investment of effort in its construction. The care taken with the interior facade of the walling in the placement of the facing slabs implies an inward, rather than outward, focus to the architecture enclosed. That is, the purpose was not only exclusionary, but it also served to embellish the interior space thus distinguished. Whether or not the final product could have been described as monumental, the investment of effort in

137

138

Conclusions

the elaboration and massiveness of the construction is intriguing. Trigger (1990, 125) has referred to the expenditure of effort on architecture for non-utilitarian (from our perspective) purposes as a demonstration of “political power in the ability to control energy.” This might represent an effort either at personal enhancement, such as a prestige marker of an individual dwelling, or, much more likely in this case, a communal focus such as a shrine. Interpretation as a shrine would suggest communal activity in delineation, and then embellishment, of a sacred space within the settlement. In this regard it is interesting to note that the possible Maltese example of such a Neolithic enclosure, at Skorba, is directly underneath a later megalithic temple. For enclosures within a settlement, another southern Italian comparison is the horseshoe-shaped “compounds” known within the larger-ditched settlements on the Tavoliere. These enclosures within enclosures were marked out by ditches, as was the site perimeter around them. They have been interpreted as delineating compounds for subunits within the settlements, such as family groups. Brown (1991, 22) has suggested that they indicate much continuing autonomy within the larger, ditched settlements dating to the Middle Neolithic on the Tavoliere, settlements that may have been conglomerations of the much smaller “homesteads” seen for the Early Neolithic. Here the limited evidence to date indicates that a major function of the subordinate ditches was space demarcation within the overall community. The large number of these subordinate enclosure ditches does not suggest either a communal or an ideological purpose there. All the examples of walled enclosures from Stentinello contexts noted in Chapter 6 (Capo Alfiere, Serra del Palco, Piano Vento, Skorba) occurred relatively late in their local Stentinello sequence. Capo Alfiere, where three tightly-grouped radiocarbon dates place Stratum II in the later 5th millennium bc—the point in time that is now considered the beginning of the Late Neolithic (Brown 1991; Whitehouse 1986) in southern Italy—is perhaps the clearest demonstration of this. The available evidence indicates that a shift in settlement pattern also occurred at about this time, with sites becoming somewhat fewer but also larger in the Late Neolithic. It is difficult to tell whether the enclosures such as the one at Capo Alfiere are related more to the ag-

glomeration process apparently underway, or to the preceding settlement system. As discussed in Chapter 11, it is not yet clear whether sites with circumference ditches (villaggi trincerati in the Italian nomenclature) existed in Calabria during either the Middle or the Late Neolithic. It is also difficult to say at present whether the settlement pattern discerned, particularly that for the sites with Stentinello material, represents a fairly dense coverage of small, but stable settlements, or if this is a palimpsest of shifting occupation sites. One should note, however, that in several other parts of Europe megalithic or earthwork constructions have been taken to indicate the need for communal focus or territorial identity among early Neolithic groups, particularly where a shifting or ephemeral settlement system is associated. That is, in some areas shrines or burial monuments occur before substantial settlement sites, and can be interpreted as providing social cohesion to an otherwise dispersed farming occupation (Sherratt 1990: 149).1 It is unknown whether the entity at Capo Alfiere might have had a similar role as a multicommunity focus within a dispersed settlement pattern. At present, none of these walled enclosures in the Stentinello sphere appear to derive from earlier entities. As an architectural phenomenon they all seem to appear in the late Middle Neolithic in their respective local sequences. The near contemporaneity of the construction of similar, but geographically separated, features argues for a uniform activity or phenomenon across the Stentinello sphere at that time. The questions then arise whether these structures were (a) a response to a general uniform stimulus, (b) a response to a variety of different situations confronting a relatively uniform cultural background, or (c) an autochthonous development from a relatively uniform cultural identity in this corner of the Italian peninsula and nearby islands. There is just a tinge of unfashionable evolutionary functionalism associated with the explanatory idea of a “response.” Phrased in this way, the question is whether the inclusion of a shrine within a site area was part of a response to social cohesion problems caused by increasing site size and population 1

Morter here anticipates a line of interpretation in European prehistory developed by Richard Bradley and others in the late 1990s, that of applying concepts of monumentality derived from megalithic studies to structures found in “domestic” settings; this is often accompanied by critique of the categories of “ritual” and “domestic.” It seems likely that this would have been one direction in which he would have developed an interpretation of Capo Alfiere. (JR)

Jon Morter agglomeration, which was then presumably underway as part of the transition to the Late Neolithic. This is too simplistic. Recent evidence suggests a suite of changes that coincided with the transition to the Late Neolithic and are reflected in the recovered materialculture components. Many of these have been touched upon in the discussion of material from Capo Alfiere: pottery, chipped stone, polished stone, and settlement pattern. New evidence is coming to light on some aspects of cult practice (Whitehouse 1990). The appearance of intrasite shrines, if that was what these walled enclosures were, seems to have accompanied these developments. In pursuing the idea of the Capo Alfiere structure as a shrine, one must note that the data from southern Italy are not replete with examples of Neolithic communal or ceremonial structures.2 This may be a recovery bias, resulting from the considerable destruction of all but the largest features. A number of cave deposits do seem to have had a ritual character. Some evidence is now emerging for an increase in such activity in the Middle to Late Neolithic. On the basis of some cave paintings, Whitehouse (1990, 21) has argued for the general development of a cave cult across southern Italy and Sicily in the later phases of the Neolithic, with a particular focus on “secret” sites of difficult access, probably for some form of male initiation rite, given the contents of the drawings on the walls. However, this form of activity would seem quite distinct from conspicuous communal constructions, such as the one suggested here for the find at Capo Alfiere. Another approach would be to ask whether the artifacts associated with the structural components might shed some further light on the question of a social role. In this regard the ceramic and chipped-stone data are the most copious, while the data on polished stone are limited, and thus more ambiguous. Ceramic Evidence The study of the ceramics from Capo Alfiere is beginning to provide an expanded understanding that will assist in future interpretations in the area. Several points are worthy of note. First there is tentative evidence of an Early Neolithic horizon. This may be part 2

This observation is accurate: by comparison with landscapes such as those of Neolithic northwestern Europe, the southern Italian Neolithic has relatively few obvious “ritual” sites. For one interpretation that argues social reproduction happened principally through economic activities, see Robb (2007). (JR)

139

of a development of the Stentinello ceramic style that seems to have occurred over the course of the site’s occupation in the Middle Neolithic. Further work is necessary to expand on the preliminary chronological distinctions within the elaborately decorated Stentinello-style pieces. If this can be demonstrated elsewhere in the area, it will be a major contribution to the disentanglement of the prehistoric occupation. More immediately, there is the transition, late in the occupation, between the Stentinello-style material and that with undecorated finewares. This transition seems to have occurred in the levels corresponding to the occupation of the enclosure area. It was tentatively suggested that these slipped and burnished ceramics may represent the beginnings of the Diana style, without an admixture of painted figulina pottery in the Serra d’Alto tradition. This idea further suggests that a general division of the ceramic sequence typified farther north and east by painted Serra d’Alto ceramics may not exist for this area.3 The presence of a limited amount of Serra d’Alto material on other sites in the area would then have to be explained as imported, following Malone’s (1985) suggestion of widespread movement of fine painted vessels at this time. Obviously, this argument is bolstered by the tentative evidence suggesting that the painted and pseudo-figulina material (probably in the pre-Serra d’Alto bande rosse style) from Capo Alfiere was not locally made. It also adds some preliminary support to Malone’s hypothesis from an area where she lacks data, namely Calabria. Essentially, at this stage, this proposed direct transition from late Stentinello to Diana must remain a suggestion and obviously a line for further inquiry. If shown to be a general phenomenon in southern Calabria, this transition will be of great assistance in deciphering the ceramic sequence. If proved correct, these findings corroborate Whitehouse’s (1986) proposal of the likelihood of ceramic traditions varying on a local, or subregional, scale. Furthermore, demonstration of subregional variation would then allow one to address the question of longterm transmission of material patterning. On a level more specific to the structures themselves—that is, the complex including the walls and 3

Both of these inferences continue to seem highly probable in the light of research since 1992 in the Calabrian and southern Italian Neolithic, particularly in the definition of regional differences in the ceramic sequence. (JR)

140

Conclusions

enclosed hut—one should recall that the only reconstructible anthropomorphic vase was found smashed on the cobbles of the hut within the enclosure. The sherds of this, and at least one other vessel, had been sealed by a deliberate re-levelling and relaying of the hut floor that covered and sealed the previous floor features, namely the hearth and quern. The purpose of this construction episode must remain unclear, but it is not discordant with a ritual role for the complex.4 Vases with anthropomorphic features, particularly eyes or design elements interpreted as schematized versions thereof, are a well-known facet of the decorative repertoire of Stentinello ceramics. The significance of such pieces is not understood (e.g., Ammerman 1983). Here one has an example with an excellent context; but, unfortunately, it is not a context that is completely understood. If such vessels do have a ritual significance—a point that has yet to be demonstrated—then the case for such a cult interpretation of the building as a whole is strengthened somewhat. At the same time, one should bear in mind that vessels or paraphernalia of ideological significance can occur in otherwise domestic contexts in many societies, representing ritual activity at the household level. Stone Tool Evidence Malone herself (1985) suggested that a southern Italian sphere of exchange of “prestige” objects would include other materials: she proposed polished stone in addition to fine ceramics. After ceramics, Capo Alfiere presents the opportunity to present two further categories of nonperishable material—chipped stone and polished stone—for consideration as exchange items. These classes of object might throw some light on the role of the enclosure, and use sets of data that have some contextual integrity. Commentators frequently disagree on the terminology applicable to the transfer of goods between farming communities with a comparatively egalitarian social structure. Archaeologists are often faced with a dilemma created by the relative perishability of the goods moved. Ethnographic discussions (e.g., Clark 1965) note that objects such as axes were frequently 4

Again, Morter is here cautiously anticipating a line of interpretation from the late 1990s that had substantial impact upon scholarship on British prehistory, the concept of “structured deposition” as defined by J.D. Hill and Colin Richards. In this view, the deliberate breaking and covering over of a particularly ornate vessel with possible anthropomorphic features would be an intentionally structured deposition, a concrete ritual action. (JR)

exchanged between communities as part of an elaborate system of equivalencies that included perishables and foodstuffs in addition to the objects normally recovered by excavations. All of the goods involved might have varying tangible and “prestige” value (i.e., intangible from the archaeologist’s own present culturally influenced perspective) if an exchange or transfer were involved. The portion of the suite of materials involved that is likely to be preserved for archaeological recovery is necessarily unknowable. In considering the place of stone materials, for example, in a wide-ranging transfer network, one will probably be working with an incomplete set of data. These caveats must be borne in mind when one considers the suggestion made in Chapter 8 that some correspondence might exist between the arrival of obsidian and the relatively local availability of raw materials for polished-stone axes. One does not know what other commodities were available and considered culturally suitable for the encouragement of the transfer of goods. Malone (1985) has suggested pottery. At this point, ceramics do not seem includable for this site. So far there is no evidence to show that the bulk of the fine-quality pottery at Capo Alfiere, that with elaborate impressed decoration, was traded in or out. The idea of objects as “valuable” must also be treated with care. “Value” is a culturally relative concept, particularly where potentially prestigious objects are involved (Patton 1991); this also introduces a concept of understood equivalences, which may not have been the understanding of the prehistoric practitioners. That said, two points are worthy of consideration in the Capo Alfiere case. The first is the change in relative amounts of particular goods over time. The second is what does not change. In the case of chipped stone, it is clear that mechanisms existed to facilitate the movement of obsidian over considerable distances. The same can be surmised for polished stone. The obsidian demonstrates a dramatic increase in its relative frequency within the chipped-stone assemblage by the later occupation period (Stratum II). One can also suggest that polished stone becomes more prevalent as well, although given the dearth of such pieces in the lower levels, and their very low overall numbers, this argument is harder to make. The debitage analysis, on the other hand, does not show indications of a radical shift in the nature of us-

Jon Morter age of the lithic material obtained, as reconstructed from the discarded items. As yet there is no evidence to suggest a shift in the nature of the material being introduced into the system at the Lipari source or western Calabrian distribution axis. Obsidian blades as prestige trade items manufactured in an increasingly standardized format are not yet evident. This draws one back to the nature of the “exchange” system. Although a system—or several of them (PiresFerreira and Flannery 1976)—may have been in existence to produce the transfer of raw or manufactured materials between communities, the data from Capo Alfiere suggest a quantitative, rather than qualitative, change in the transfer of goods. That is, there was relatively more obsidian, suggesting greater availability. However, the discard pattern does not show changes in either the form of the supply (or the source, to the extent that this is understood at the present stage of the research), or the uses to which the material was put. In this regard, note that there is no evidence as yet for the arrival of premanufactured blades of Lipari obsidian, the production of which has been proposed for the western Calabrian seaboard in the Late Neolithic (Ammerman 1985b; Polglase 1992). Given that the form of supply and the nature of discard were not changed, one possible inference is that any intrinsic “value” in the material was not drastically altered. Perhaps more surely, one can argue that this indicates the nature of the transfer itself has not changed by this time, despite the construction of the enclosure. Nor, as far as one can tell given very little in contrasting material from the main stratum (II), does a particular use or discard pattern seem associated with the enclosure structures. In the case of the polished stone, and particularly the ax cache, the data are tantalizing rather than informative. Recent commentators on southern Italian stone axes conclude that Calabria was a source for such pieces (Leighton 1989; O’Hare 1990). Lack of secure context for this type of artifact in most cases elsewhere in Calabria then becomes an obstacle to firm conclusions on the transfer mechanisms and dating. The finds from the cache at Capo Alfiere were top-quality products. The nature of the cache presents two lines of inquiry, which must be considered alongside the potential social significance of the objects. First, they were cached in a hole in precisely the manner that might be expected from Clark’s (1965)

141

ethnographic review of the necessity of hiding such pieces for safekeeping. The second consideration must be the location of the cache beside the major walling; however, it was apparently placed outside the enclosure. The lack of secure contextual data elsewhere in Calabria makes it difficult to interpret the social significance of such pieces. However, one might draw attention to the recent study by Patton (1991) on axes from northwestern France. There, far more contextual data are available, and a case has been made that these objects were of considerable ritual and prestige significance, particularly as male symbols and status markers, epiphallic in some petroglyphs (Patton 1991). Lack of context information elsewhere in Calabria precludes a similar study here at present, but the implication is clear enough. Some social significance was probably attached to such objects, even if direct extrapolation of the French findings is questionable.5 In this regard, there is one interesting parallel to the French situation. O’Hare (1990) documents the movement of polished axes into, as well as out of, Calabria. The same phenomenon is seen in source areas in northern France (Patton 1991). O’Hare, lacking contextual data, concludes that a shift in production centers has occurred over time, with Calabria as an importing and subsequently an exporting area. Patton’s study suggests that other explanations need to be considered. Instead of simply a shift in raw-material sources over time, one can propose that the significance of these objects was such that proximity to the source may not have been of primary significance in their acquisition. Additionally, the mode of acquisition and circulation was such that the objects moved over long distances before eventual discard or loss. For the situation at Capo Alfiere, one must then ask what the deposition of better examples of such stone axes beside the enclosure implies. It seems plausible that one interpretation of the placing of socially significant objects next to the enclosure structure is to bolster the case for its having been a locus with ritual or social significance.6 5

One might note here that several ax caches of Bronze Age date have been reported in the Crotone area (Domenico Marino, personal communication 1992). 6 This cautious and well-reasoned discussion also highlights sharp changes in archaeological interpretation since the early 1990s. With a background in relatively traditional British archaeology and writing in a strongly processual American tradition, Morter followed the principle

142

Conclusions

Implications of the Environmental and Economic Evidence The problems associated with reconstruction of the environment during the Neolithic, and the effects of Neolithic occupation thereon, have been addressed in Chapter 10. As yet, the analysis of the economic data from the site is not complete; nor is the preliminary evidence from the survey of the surrounding area sufficiently coherent to allow a clear understanding of the settlement situation in the Neolithic. Thus any discussion here is necessarily preliminary and likely to be radically revised in the near future. Similarly, as Chapter 11 indicated, present understanding of the development of the Neolithic settlement pattern and its likely environmental effects in Calabria, and in the Crotone study area in particular, is still tentative, although clearer than it was ten years ago. The current evidence for the Stentinello phase could be interpreted either as a shifting occupation of small farmsteads or as a fairly dense occupation of small sites. One hopes that the increased definition of the ceramics resulting from the Capo Alfiere excavations will assist in future interpretation. Tentatively, one might suggest that either of these settlement patterns has the potential to be extremely degrading for the environment by removing forest cover over the long term. Thus, it is difficult to gauge how the structure at Capo Alfiere might have fit into the broader settlement and social structure. Problems start with the understanding of the earliest agricultural exploitation of the area. The minimal evidence for a potential Early Neolithic occupation makes assessment of the date, nature, and environmental impact of the earliest agriculture difficult at this stage. The rise in the sea level over the course of the millennia since then will have radically changed the coastline and the nature of any adjacent terrain available to Neolithic farmers. This is a potential source of considerable distortion to the present understanding of the prehistoric circumstances. Similarly, the floral and faunal data from the site itself are still incomplete. However, one can say that the economic regime of the upper stratum (II) at Capo that one should ascribe a “symbolic” meaning to material culture only after exhausting all practical, economic, or political interpretations. Yet he was also an attentive reader of the archaeological findings, and hence he here very tentatively suggests that a symbolic or social reading could be an important avenue for interpreting Capo Alfiere—a line of argument that he subsequently investigated (Morter 1999) and may have been intending to develop further. (JR)

Alfiere appears to be typical of the Middle Neolithic of southern Italy as currently understood. That is, domesticated plants and animals represent the majority of the species exploited. As was noted, the lack of wild fauna is striking for all sites of this date. Capo Alfiere presents two interesting twists to this. Current evidence indicates a far higher reliance on barley than is found elsewhere, and the major presence of legumes in the sample is also unusual. As noted in Chapter 10, the inclusion of legumes within the Middle Neolithic suite of domesticates is to be expected rather than the reverse. It would be premature, however, to also assume an environmentally benign agricultural colonization such as has been suggested by Halstead (1981, 320). So far, geomorphological evidence indicates considerable erosion, presumably due to severe damage to the previous forest cover, beginning at some point during the Neolithic. Until evidence to the contrary is produced, it is probably better to assume the worst of the Neolithic occupation’s propensity towards deforestation. If the still preliminary evidence for small and shifting cultivation during the Middle Neolithic is correct, then steady depletion of the climax forest cover is to be anticipated. This point is not settled. Further research is needed on the environmental consequences as related to the crops, animals, and exploitative pattern utilized. Other Artifactual Evidence The discovery of the small clay “tokens” discussed in Chapter 9 raises a lot of questions.7 These are artifacts that appear to occur from the beginning of the Neolithic (ca. 8000 BC) in the Middle East. That is, they seem to be part of the initial suite of artifacts in the first Neolithic assemblages there and continue to occur until the Bronze Age. On the basis of their apparent function in protohistoric times, Schmandt-Besserat (1982) believes that they were part of a recording or counting system and therefore have implications for the understanding of the cognitive processes of individuals in these societies. The discovery of this class of objects in an Italian Neolithic site shows that they apparently continued to be part of the Neolithic assemblage as it moved, by whatever mechanism, across the Mediterranean. These objects are difficult to see during excavation, and so their discovery in small numbers should not 7 See

also the detailed article incorporated as Chapter 19.

Jon Morter be taken as a reflection of their significance. As Schmandt-Besserat (personal communication, 1992) notes, finding just one indicates that this class of object is present, and with that goes the implication of what they might signify. It is not possible, given their findspots, to tie the Capo Alfiere examples to either of the two main strata exclusively. They certainly appear to be occurring in the earliest levels (Ia and Ib); however, association with the enclosure walls and Stratum II cannot be ruled out, as the site has produced examples that, because of its disturbed nature, might have been derived from either of the main Neolithic strata. At this stage, the major significance of these finds at Capo Alfiere is their occurrence early in the Neolithic sequence in Italy. Once further finds of this type have been made, the next stage will be to try to understand their usage in early agricultural societies, given that they appear to be a significant counting tool in a somewhat later period in Middle Eastern societies. Outlook Although none of these lines of evidence are, as yet, conclusive either individually or taken together, it does seem striking that several sets of changes are underway at more or less the same time, and coincidentally with the occupation of the large stone enclosure at Capo Alfiere. Similarly, the recovery of both an anthropomorphic vase and a cache of axes in close proximity to the structural complex should make one pause, even if, given our own lack of understanding of the social significance of either the vase designs and such objects as stone “axes,” neither is conclusive evidence as to the ritual nature of the buildings. From the preceding discussion, one can see that if the assumption of social or ritual significance of special vases or axes is made, then the case for the social peculiarity of the enclosure becomes quite strong.8 However, exploration of the social role of various classes of artifacts is a relatively recent phenomenon in European archaeology and almost completely undeveloped in under8

See Morter 1999 for further development of this idea. (JR)

143

explored Calabria. Enigmas such as the structures at Capo Alfiere should provide the perfect stimulus for this kind of research. Certainly, Stentinello ceramics are an ideal subject for it.9 Most intriguing is the confluence of the major Neolithic structure at Capo Alfiere with the proposed date of transition from the Middle to Late Neolithic. Here our lack of knowledge of the subsequent Late Neolithic occupation of the area becomes a major stumbling block. Work is needed in both the survey and excavation areas to assess this transition, and lack of excavation of the occupation areas at a Late Neolithic site in this area is a serious lacuna in our knowledge at present. Nevertheless, one is now looking at evidence for the social mechanics of what has long been recognized as a major horizon in the material record. Caveats on causality notwithstanding, one possible scenario that could be tested archaeologically would be to propose that the shifting cultivation and/or settlement of the Early and Middle Neolithic had, in this area, become dysfunctional by the end of the Middle Neolithic. Settlement agglomeration then took place, reacting to changed environmental circumstances and presumably in conjunction with a modified exploitative system. This hypothetical flow of events postulates, essentially, that the environmental degradation, suggested by the geomorphological record further north and perhaps representing the main episode of destruction of the climax vegetation, was a result of Early to Middle Neolithic activity. The evidence for Calabria is not yet complete enough to be convincing, nor to allow us to see how closely it might reflect the parallel chain of events elsewhere in the western Mediterranean, but the necessary line of research is clear. A fortunate happenstance preserved the buildings at Capo Alfiere that coincide chronologically with this shift and present evidence of the social aspects of changes then underway. 9

Following this marker, Morter’s project at the time of his death was a reappraisal of the Capo Alfiere ceramic assemblage with particular attention to style and meaning. (JR)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13 Geomorphology Robert L. Folk

The Crotone area (Fig. 13.1) has a geologic setting strikingly similar to that of the territory of Metaponto, with a basically similar settlement pattern as well (Folk 1982). Geology is summarized in Figure 13.2 (see also Ogniben 1973; Selli 1977; Nalin et. al., 2007; and Fogli 238 and 243 of the geological map of Italy). Hill-forming, tilted Mid-Pliocene (Tertiary) turbidites are overlain by the Plio-Pleistocene argille azzurre or argilla marnosa (blue clays) with characteristic badland topography. Flat marine terraces (Fig. 13.3–13.4) cut into the argille azzurre during Pleistocene times (as sea level fell and southern Italy was uplifted) are covered by patches and ridges of carbonate-rich sand and gravel. The flat terraces and especially the sand ridges became the sites of settlement during Neolithic and Greek times because of their ready supply of spring

Argilla marnosa Marine terraces, mainly Pleistocene Recent (Holocene) sediments

Crotone

Capo Colonna

Capo Alfiere 0

5 km

0

5 km

Figure 13.2 Simplified geologic map of the Crotone region (after Abbott 1997, Fig. 5.1). White dashed line indicates approximate location of diagrammatic cross section, Figure 13.3.

Figure 13.1. Map of the Crotone region.

water, much like the situation at Metaponto. The difference is that, at Metaponto, the Pleistocene sands are many meters thick, thus covering the flat parts of the terraces like a continuous blanket, whereas around Crotone the sand is much thinner and therefore provides only a patchy cover. This may be because Pleistocene shorelines in the Metaponto countryside were supplied with abundant sandy sediment by the Basento, Bradano, and Cavone rivers, while at Crotone the main terrigenous source was apparently the Neto, a smaller river. 145

146

Geomorphology

0

5 km

Figure 13.4 Topographic profile from Cutro to Capo Colonna. Note the Milazzian terrace (m) from Cutro to Campione, and the Tyrrhenian terrace (t) behind Capo Colonna. Figure 13.3 Diagrammatic cross section (after Selli 1962).

Crotone Basin The peninsular area between Crotone and Le Castella (Fig. 13.1) represents a locally emergent part of a long, narrow sedimentary basin that stretches offshore parallel with the coast almost to the toe of Calabria (Selli 1977). The basin is a downfold formed in front of the Calabria orogenic arc as it is gradually thrust eastward. This basin was filled with ocean-bottom clays accumulating at depths of 500–1,000 m, with shoreline sands bordering it on the flanks of the emergent part of the Calabrian arch (Serra di Sila, etc.). Tertiary Turbidites Tertiary turbidites (Figs. 13.2–3) are of Upper Miocene to Early Pliocene age, roughly 5–15 million years old. They consist of regular alternating beds of hard sandstone and softer clay, which weather out to a distinctive striped pattern in outcrop. The folding and faulting accompanying uplift of the southern Apennines has tilted them eastward up to 20°. Good examples of these sediments can be seen on the SS106 road from the coast to Santa Severina. These beds were deposited by swift, sediment-laden currents (“turbidity currents”) on the ocean floor. They now form a rugged topography with steep cliffs and sharp summits (e.g., the peak upon which the town of Santa Severina sits, Fig. 13.5). Settlement in this terrain would have been very difficult in ancient times. Argille Azzurre or Argilla Marnosa The Crotone basin “bedrock” consists of soft bluish marine clays (Figs. 13.2–3, 13.6). At Metaponto and elsewhere in southern Italy this is known as argilla azzurra,1 but around Crotone it is called “argilla mar1 For physical and technical properties of this clay, see Del Prete and Valentini 1971.

nosa di Cutro” (marly or calcareous clay of Cutro; Roda 1964). Both argille have the same age and characteristics. The argilla marnosa is considered to be of middle Pliocene to early Pleistocene (Calabrian) age, 1–4 million years old (Selli 1962, 1977; Roda 1964; Ogniben 1975). It is divisible into three units in ascending order: the Semaforo, Tripolacea, and Papanice formations (Selli 1977). As at Metaponto, it consists of a uniform mass of clay almost 1,000 m thick that weathers to a uniform pale artichoke-heart color when dry (Munsell 10Y 7.5/0.5) and an artichoke-leaf color when wet (Munsell 10Y 4.5/1). Microfossil data suggest deposition on the ocean floor at depths of 500 m or more. This clay is draped up against the preexisting hilly topography. It formed when southern Italy was submerged by the approximately 200 m high sea level stand during the Pliocene, before Pleistocene glaciation. Good examples can be seen on the road leading inland from Crotone to San Giovanni in Fiori.

Figure 13.5 The hill town of Santa Severina, which sits atop an isolated mass of Tertiary turbidite sandstones. These beds are beautifully exposed along the road up to the town. The white patches in the photo are mainly exposures of the argilla marnosa.

Robert L. Folk

Figure 13.6 Sea-cliff exposure of the argilla marnosa, near Capo Colonna. Tyrrhenian-age limestone beds occur at the water’s edge and at the top of the cliffs in the foreground. The forested slope in the background is the cliffed edge of the next terrace inland, cut by waves when sea level was higher, 100,000–300,000 years ago.

147

Figure 13.7 Badlands developed in the argilla marnosa at the edge of the 150 m Milazzian terrace, near Isola Capo Rizzuto.

As in the Metaponto area, this clay is subject to intense landsliding during wet weather and forms uninhabitable, steep badland slopes over much of its outcrop area (Fig. 13.7). V. Pursell noted that the southdipping slopes tend to be steeper and less vegetated, perhaps because this is the direction from which driving rain comes. Its impermeable nature and slope characteristics would have made it very undesirable to inhabit during Classical times, though modern deep plowing and fertilizers now enable much of it to come under cultivation. Pleistocene Sands and Gravels Pleistocene sediments (0–1 million years old) form sand and gravel deposits on top of the eroded argilla marnosa (Fig. 13.4; see cross section through Isola Capo Rizzuto in Selli 1962, Fig. 4, and sections on Fogli 238 and 243). This sediment contains shallow-water to littoral fauna (Ruggieri 1949, 1953). Sediments at Vrica, 4 km south of Crotone, contain the world’s definitive section of the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary (Selli 1977a, 446; Colalongo et. al., 1981). Some Pleistocene sediments are also draped like garlands around the cliffed edge of argilla marnosa outcrops (Figs. 13.8–9), just as the present-day sand beaches are plastered against the gullied clay shoreline (Fig. 13.6). Other Pleistocene sediments form deposits atop level surfaces on the argilla marnosa; deposits are thickest at the edges (maximum 20 m, Fogli 238 and 243), thin and patchy inland. The level surfaces represent old stillstands of sea level as it dropped intermittently during Pleistocene times (Ruggieri 1949, 1953; Selli

Figure 13.8 Back-reef limestone bed of Tyrrhenian age draped upon the argilla marnosa Capo Rizzuto. This consists of a jumbled mass of various marine fossils, clams, coral sticks, etc.

Figure 13.9 Well-bedded and laminated beach sediments of Tyrrhenian age near Capo Rizzuto.

148

Geomorphology

Figure 13.10 View of two terrace levels from the Temple of Hera. The lower level (Tyrrhenian) was cut 300,000–500,000 years ago; the level on the skyline (Milazzian) 500,000–800,000 years ago. Note the steepness of the scarps at the terraces’ edge, cut by wave action.

1962, 1977; Vezzani 1967, 1975; Ogniben 1975; Nalin et al. 2007). Two levels are predominant (Figs. 13.67, 13.10). One level is at a present elevation of about 25–35 m and dates to interglacial Tyrrhenian times, 300,000–500,000 years ago, equivalent to the “Pizzica level” at Metaponto (Folk 1982). A much more widespread level (Fig. 13.7) is now at about 150-200 m in elevation (where Santa Anna is located: Ruggieri 1949, p. 46), and this is dated to Milazzian interglacial times, about 500,000-800,000 years ago (Ruggieri 1949, 1953; Selli 1977). It is equivalent to the level of Lago del Lupo at Metaponto. The highest level of this terrace is at 242 m, west of Cutro. Landward of Capo Colonna there is a steep scarp between these two terrace levels (Fig. 13.10). Pleistocene sediments consist of a mixture of siliceous and carbonate debris. The carbonates, locally called panchina (Ruggieri 1949; Selli 1962, 405), consist mostly of abraded shell fragments and sand-size brown weathered limestone fragments. Carbonate

sediments tend to be well sorted and laminated (Fig. 13.9). The siliceous component consists of quartzfeldspar sand with pebbles of quartz, biotite granite, and biotite gneiss derived from the Sila Massif inland from Crotone and carried down to the sea by way of the Neto River, then drifted alongshore to the south. Both sand types are highly porous and ideal reservoirs to hold water for wells. At the shoreline of Capo Colonna and Le Castella occur thick sections of Tyrrhenian-age carbonate sediments of reef and back-reef origin (see Selli 1977 for detailed sections). Figure 13.8 shows these sediments to be very resistant, consisting of abundant quantities of clams, corals, red algae, and so on, lying in a matrix of carbonate mud or micrite (Folk 1959). This thick and resistant Pleistocene limestone defends the projecting points of the east Calabrian coast (Capo Colonna, Le Castella, Capo Rizzuto). Settlement Pattern The geologic influence on settlement patterns is virtually the same as at Metaponto. Early peoples avoided settling on the argilla marnosa and concentrated where springs were abundant, i.e., at the contact between the overlying Pleistocene sand and the impermeable clay. Sand ridges (old dunes and beaches) trend parallel to shore, and thus settlement patterns tend to be strung out along these ridges. Remote hilltop outposts such as Strongoli (Fig. 13.11) are situated on Late Pliocene to Early Pleistocene sandy, shelly beach gravels (Roda 1964) that cap the clays, so again water supply is the key to settlement location. The siting of Strongoli is analogous to that of Pisticci in the Metaponto area.

Figure 13.11. Hill town of Strongoli, perched upon a cap of Pleistocene shoreline sands, which in turn rest upon an eroded hill of Pliocene argilla marnosa.

14 Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance Erika Gál

The animal bone remains from the Middle Neolithic site of Capo Alfiere come from excavations carried out in the summers of 1987 and 1990. The finds from the earlier excavation were studied and published by Salvatore Scali of the Laboratorio di Bioarcheologia in Rome (Scali 1990). In the summer of 2007, I was invited to examine the complete animal bone assemblage recovered from both excavations.1 My analysis concentrated on the remains of terrestrial animals. Almost 9,000 remains have been identified, including domestic residues and bone artifacts alike from three stratigraphic units.2 This is the largest known Neolithic animal bone assemblage collected in this area of Italy. This study seeks to illuminate the economic and cultural life of the people who inhabited the settlement of Capo Alfiere in the Middle Neolithic, as reflected by their hunting, animal husbandry, and craft activities. The results may also fill in the gap between archaeozoological studies on the Early Neolithic period in southern Italy (e.g., Bökönyi 1977–1982; Tagliacozzo 2005–2006) and the Bronze Age (e.g., Bökönyi and Siracusano 1987; Tagliacozzo 1994). The Capo Alfiere material was found in a fragmented condition, which resulted in a considerable loss of information. Only part of the remains from each context had a number of identifiable specimens (NISP). The fragmentation of bones was similar in all three strata. More than 50% of the fragments measured less than 25 mm. The size of fragments was inversely proportional to the number of remains. The largest fragments, measuring above 100 mm, were the fewest (Fig. 14.1). This indicates how carefully the bones were collected by hand, since only a part of the material was water-sieved. The application of the latter technique resulted in the recovery of tiny and fragile bone finds from birds, bats, and rodents.

The smaller remains from the latter two groups were studied by Zsófia Eszter Kovács (Chapter 15). Stratigraphical and Taxonomic Distribution and Taphonomic Characteristics In total, 8,924 animal bone remains from the fieldwork of 1987 and 1990 were found in 95 contexts (Context 2 to Context 143). An additional 394 bones could not be associated with contexts. A majority of animal bone fragments with contexts (5,213 = 58.4%) was found in Stratum III, which includes superficial levels damaged by ploughing as well as postholes and natural fissures (Table 14.1). This mixed material comes from 30 contexts. Context 81 was outstanding, yielding 1,469 remains, while the other contexts

1

I am grateful to Professor Joseph C. Carter for inviting me to identify the faunal remains. 2 I thank Dr. John Robb for providing information concerning the stratigraphy of the site.

Figure 14.1 Size of remains: distribution by stratum.

149

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

150

Species

Stratum III NISP

%

Stratum II NISP

%

Stratum I NISP

%

Bos taurus L. (cattle)

953

34.54

359

23.11

156

25.74

Ovis aries L. (sheep)

19

0.68

5

0.32

6

0.99

1

0.03

1.606

58.20

1.111

71.53

411

67.82

56

2.02

45

2.89

15

2.47

4

0.14

1

0.06

2

0.33

2,639

95.63

1,521

97.92

590

97.35

13

0.50

8

0.51

10

1.65

Cervus elaphus L. (red deer)

6

0.21

1

0.06

1

0.16

Capreolus capreolus L. (roe deer)

2

0.07

1

0.06

Sus scrofa L. (wild boar)

1

0.03

1

0.06

1

0.16

1

0.16

Capra hircus L. (goat) Caprinae (sheep and goat) Sus domesticus Erxl. (pig) Canis familiaris L. (dog) Domestic mammals total Bos primigenius Boj. (aurochs)

Canis lupus L. (wolf) Vulpes vulpes L. (fox)

1

0.03

1

0.06

Lepus europaeus Pall. (hare)

4

0.14

2

0.12

2

0.33

27

0.98

14

0.87

15

2.46

4

0.14

4

0.25

73

2.64

1

0.16

Coturnix coturnix L. (quail)

1

0.03

Galliformes sp. indet.

1

0.03

606

100

Wild mammals total Chiroptera indet. Rodentia indet.

Charadriiformes sp. indet.

1

0.06

Passeriformes sp. indet (type Sturnus/Turdus)

1

0.06

Passeriformes sp. indet (small sized)

6

0.39

Athene noctua Scop. (little owl)

2

0.06

Aves indet.

1

0.03

1

0.06

Birds total

5

0.15

9

0.57

Selachimorpha sp. indet.

1

0.03

Pisces

10

0.36

5

0.32

Fish total

11

0.39

5

0.32

2,759

100

1,553

100

Total NISP Unidentified mammal, size cattle/deer

650

283

229

Unidentified mammal, size sheep/pig

712

615

208

Unidentified mammal

1,092

159

58

Total n

5,213

2,610

1,101

Table 14.1 Distribution of species and number of remains by stratum.

151

Erika Gál

0

10 mm

Figure 14.2 Shellfish and snail remains from Stratum III. 0 0

10 mm

10 mm

Figure 14.3 Snail remains from Stratum II.

yielded 3 to 440 fragments. The number of identifiable specimens (NISP) ranges between 50% and 60% of the collection. Stratum II represents the late phase of the Middle Neolithic occupation, which is associated with the structure and pavement. This phase yielded 2,610 bone fragments (29.2%) from 41 contexts in all. The number of remains by context ranges from 1 to 261. The majority (663 = 75%) from this stratum came from levels IIb, IIc, and IId which represents the upper part of the section. Stratum I, representing the earlier phase of the Middle Neolithic occupation, yielded 1,101 animal bone remains found in 23 contexts; the number of remains by context ranges from 1 to 311. Of 8,928 bone remains 4,634 (52%) could be identified to at least the level of subfamily. The rest of the bones could not be identified owing to the aforementioned high degree of fragmentation and consequent loss of morphological features. Nevertheless, estimates regarding the size category of animals could be made. Most of the unidentifiable bones have been ranked among the gross groups of “cattle/deer sized” and “sheep/pig sized” mammals (Table 14.1). An overwhelming majority of animal remains found at the site of Capo Alfiere in all three stratigraphic units belong to mammals. Domestic animals dominated in all collections and the usual Neolithic species could be identified: cattle, sheep and goat, pig and dog. Most of the bones in the entire assemblage belonged to sheep and goat. The anatomical distribution of bone remains by species, represented meat category, and stratum is presented in Table 14.2.

Figure 14.4 Snail remains from Stratum I.

The taxonomic representation of wild mammals is similar to that of domesticates: five to six species could be identified in each stratum. The number of remains from these animals, however, is extremely underrepresented, as only 0.6%–1.4% of the mammalian bones came from wild mammals. The remains of birds, fish and molluscs show that in addition to hunting mammals, the settlement’s inhabitants practiced fowling, fishing, and gathering. Avian and fish remains were also underrepresented, with a total of each being 14 and 16 bones respectively. The entire assemblage yielded shells from a wide range of shellfish and snail species (Figs. 14.2–4). Since the animal remains from the three assemblages represent distinct periods (Chapter 5), their presentation is given below by stratum, beginning with the earliest level of occupation. Animal Remains from Stratum I The contexts found in Stratum I, representing the earlier Middle Neolithic occupation, yielded 1,101 animal bones, which represent 12.3% of the whole assemblage. Of these, 606 (55%) could be identified. Domestic animals—cattle, sheep, goat, pig, and dog— made up most of the identifiable remains (97.35%). The rest of the identifiable bones belonged to wild animals: aurochs (10), red deer (1), wild boar (1), wolf (1), and hare (2). These species indicate that forested and open terrains alike must have been present around the settlement. Red deer and wolf live in dense forest, while the forest-steppe is habitat for aurochs; hare lives chiefly in the steppe. Wild boar may be found in dense forests and bushy strips along water flows.

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

152

Skeletal part Stratum

Cattle III

II

Sheep and goat I

III

II

I

1

Pig III

Atlas

2

Axis

2

Vert. cervicalis

4

2

4

4

9

4

1

Vert. thoracalis

5

2

2

14

16

10

2

Vert. lumbalis

5

3

7

8

4

1

2

1

1

2

II

Dog I

III II

Aurochs I

III

II

I

Red Roe deer deer Wild boar Wolf Fox III I III II III II

I

I

Hare

III II III II

I

1

1

2

4

2

Os sacrum Vert. caudalis

3

Sternum Scapula

40

23

12

18

18

11

1

Humerus

54

19

12

101

60

27

7 10

Pelvis

11

6

2

15

5

5

1

Femur Category A Total Frontale Neurocranium

1

47

18

5

82

59

17

173

73

38

244

180

78

3

21

9

3

3

8

5

3

2

17 12

6

3

2

17

17

2

24

22

9

1

1

Costa

93

59

20

60

31

20

3

2

Radius

55

11

12

54

25

11

1

1

5

2

3

4

5

3

1

Mandibula

1 1

1

2

1

3

4 1

1

1

1

1

1 2

Linguale

Ulna Patella

4 1 1

1 1

1 2

Tibia

97

30

16

206

94

63

8

4

1

1 1

1

1

1

Fibula

1

Category B Total Horn core/antler

294 131

58

1

Viscerocranium

351

185 111

17 13

4

5

3

2

2

1 2

4

41

6

8

1

1

1

Maxilla

8

2

3

3

4

Dentes

79

29

12

236

94

1

1

2

1

19

12

211

112

54

1

Carpalia

3

Metacarpalia

57

5

1 1

2 1

2 5 1

1

1

3

1

1

1 1

Ph. proximalis

7

1

2

19

19

4

4

3

2

9

3

2

19

20

3

1

3

2

Ph. distalis

10

2

5

5

Sesamoideum

1

1

Calcaneus

3

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

3

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

6

5

3

7

2

2 47

Astragalus

8

2

Centrotarsale

2

1

1

4

Metatarsalia

67

22

14

199

131

3

1

1 1

255

86

53

710

398 157

Long-bone fragment 144

49

7

271

230

Flat-bone fragment

87

19

46

123

28

231

68

7

317

353

71

Nonidentifiable

4 1

1

Ph. media

Category C Total

2 2

1

43

Total NISP (A+B+C) 953 358 156 1,626 1,116 417

1 18 20

1 7 4 1 2

1 7 5

6 5 1

1

2

1

2 1

1 1

1

1 1 2 1

4

56 45 15 4 1 2 13 8 10 6 1

1

1 1 1 4 2 2

Table 14.2 Anatomical distribution of bone remains by species, represented meat category, and stratum.

153

Erika Gál

0

10 mm

Figure 14.5 Wolf tooth (UP4), Stratum I.

Both red deer and wolf were identified by their teeth. The size of the upper premolar (UP4) from a wolf (Fig. 14.5) was compared with those of recent dogs and wolves in order to find its taxonomic position. The size variation of 12 wolf and 14 domestic dog teeth (Tassi 2002) indicates that the tooth found at Capo Alfiere belonged to a wolf. Both the t- and pvalues obtained from the Student t-test indicate that wolf teeth are significantly larger than those of dogs. The greater values of standard deviations in the latter species, on the other hand, may be explained by the greater variability of domestic animals (Table 14.3). Aurochs is represented by fragments of the mandible, teeth, and the bones of the distal leg segment and feet. Of these, only three phalanges could be measured (Table 14.4). Wild boar was identified from Species

the distal epiphysis of a humerus. Hare yielded proximal fragments of the ulna and metacarpus. The degree of ossification suggests that all the identified wild animals were old when killed. Caprinae (sheep and goats) dominated the bone assemblage at 68.71% of the total (Table 14.1). Owing to the high degree of fragmentation, only 6 specimens could be unambiguously assigned to sheep. Neither horn cores nor complete skeletal parts suitable for the estimation of type or withers height were found. A few complete bones could be measured: a sheep atlas and astragalus, along with two calcanei, a phalanx, and a molar from sheep or goat (Table 14.4). Cattle made up 25.74% of the bone assemblage. Similarly to the two aforementioned species, cattle yielded neither horn cores nor complete long bones. The distal fragment of a tibia, a second phalanx, and an os centrotarsale could be measured. Among the few pig bones (2.47% of the assemblage), a distal fragment of a tibia was the best-preserved skeletal part. The fifth domestic animal, dog, was identified from a tooth and a phalanx. The age distribution of identifiable remains indicates that cattle and swine were slaughtered when they reached adult age. Only a few nonossified epiphyses point to the exploitation of these species at an immature age. The distribution of age categories is more variable in the case of sheep and goat, but the remains of adult individuals dominate among their identifiable bones (Table 14.5). This suggests that animals were kept until maturity and must have been exploited for secondary products: draught power (cattle), milk (cattle, sheep and goat), and wool (sheep). Still, aging was possible only in the case of a few remains with epiphyses, and so prevents the possibility of making any far-reaching conclusions. This is largely because of the

Length (mm)

Greatest breadth (mm)

Min.

Max.

Mean

Sd

Min.

Max.

Mean

Modern wolf (n = 12)

20.7

26.2

23.6

Modern dog (n = 14)

15.1

22.7

19.4

t-value

6.800

4.218

p-value

0

0

Tooth from Capo Alfiere

23.5

14.1

Sd

1.5

9.5

13.4

12.3

1.3

2.4

6.0

12.4

10.6

1.7

Table 14.3 Size comparison of wolf tooth from Capo Alfiere to data from recent wolves and dogs.

Context

Side

Skeletal part

Species

72.0

17

25.7

22.8

Humerus

r.

81

28.4

50.0

61.5

SD

r.

25

SC

Humerus

Atlas

Bd

Dd

Bd

SD

SC

Dd

106

Bd

l.

45.6

Bp

Tibia

67.1

GL

2

Bd

r.

Bp

Metacarpus

GL

Side

Skeletal part

Species

Context

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

154

Phalanx 1

19

68.8

Phalanx 1

19

70.6

33.2

27.1

30.0

Humerus

r.

25

29.6

Phalanx 2

25

46.4

31.7

24.5

25.5

Humerus

l.

87

30.2

Phalanx 2

107

48.2

36.1

30.7

29.2

Humerus

l.

81

30.4

Phalanx 2

81

48.3

33.6

28.0

28.2

Humerus

r.

2

31.2

Phalanx 2

25

49.8

37.0

31.5

33.3

Radius

l.

2

Bos primigenius

LM3

r.

19

38.7

15.8

Radius

l.

89

LM3

r.

16

38.7

16.3

Metacarpus

l.

2

LM3

r.

87

43.8

16.2

Tibia

l.

Tibia

28.3

26.0

15.1 27.4

28.5

25.6

17.1

21

23.8

18.8

l.

107

25.2

19.0

16.0

17.4

13.9

13.9

133.0

14.1

10.4

Ovis aries Metacarpus

l.

19

46.9

Metacarpus

l.

84

57.6

33.2

Calcaneus

l.

101

60.1

19.1

Metacarpus

r.

27

62.5

33.6

Astragalus

r.

50

27.2

15.3

Tibia

l.

25

60.6

47.0

Astragalus

l.

81

27.8

16.5

Tibia

l.

84

61.2

47.4

Astragalus

l.

82

28.8

16.3

16.4

18.5

Tibia

l.

2

47.5

Astragalus

l.

45

29.0

16.6

16.5

19.2

14.2

Astragalus

r.

21

67.2

33.0

Astragalus

l.

84

30.0

16.0

16.1

17.1

15.0

Calcaneus

r.

28

132.5

39.7

Astragalus

r.

36

30.1

16.6

17.9

19.2

15.0

44

48.2

Astragalus

l.

23

30.5

17.4

17.7

19.6

14.4

17

56.7

Centrotarsale

l.

2

22.6 20.1

38.4

Bos taurus

Os centrotarsale Os centrotarsale

l.

Phalanx 2

85

39.3

29.2

24.0

24.8

Metatarsus

l.

2

Phalanx 2

106

39.5

26.2

22.4

22.7

LM3

r.

21

22.5

8.3

Phalanx 2

81

41.4

29.4

24.7

24.8

LM3

r.

133

23.2

9.0

Phalanx 2

81

43.3

27.5

22.2

23.0

LM3

r.

81

23.4

9.3

Phalanx 2

16

43.9

31.3

24.4

25.3

LM3

r.

81

23.7

9.1

21.0

10.9

10.5

Caprinae Phalanx 3

31

65.0

49.7

24.5

LM3

r.

34

23.3

9.0

Phalanx 3

17

67.6

53.4

20.7

LM3

r.

94

25.1

8.9

UM3

l.

84

19.4

11.9

Humerus

r.

80

Table 14.4 Measurements of domestic and wild species at Capo Alfiere.

25.7

SD

23.4

11.5

8.4

9.1

18.1

Phalanx 2

80

23.7

12.8

9.0

9.5

21.4

16.0

Phalanx 2

16

24.0

13.4

10.4

22.8

17.8

Phalanx 2

80

26.6

14.8

13.0

r.

83

Radius

l.

84

31.7

Metacarpus

r.

16

Metacarpus

l.

38

26.3

Phalanx 1

2

23.7

12.2

13.1

8.7

9.7

9.4

11.5

Phalanx 2

2

Phalanx 1

18

24.2

12.0

12.4

8.1

8.0

7.4

9.8

Phalanx 3

34

26.9

Phalanx 1

103

24.2

13.4

9.1

10.3

Phalanx 3

84

28.2

26.6

9.8

Phalanx 1

24

25.3

12.6

10.4

9.9

Phalanx 3

30

29.2

22.9

6.6

Bd

33

Humerus

SC

Bp

Phalanx 2

31.1

Bd

GL

Context

Side

Skeletal part

Species

Dd

9.8

Bd

9.9

SD

13.2

2

SC

23.2

l.

Bd

79

Bp

GL

Context

Side

Skeletal part

Species

Phalanx 2

Humerus

Dd

155

Erika Gál

12.8 10.0

8.7

Caprinae 10.2

10.2

Tibia

r.

50

23.4

9.3

10.4

Tibia

r.

55

23.6

17.9

10.3

11.6

Tibia

r.

84

24.0

17.9

Tibia

r.

2

26.1

20.0

10.8

Astragalus

l.

80

26.7

9.0

10.8

Calcaneus

l.

25

55.1

18.9

11.5

8.6

11.1

Calcaneus

l.

25

55.6

19.2

38.4

12.1

10.0

11.6

Centrotarsale

r.

80

23.5

93

38.7

13.0

9.8

11.6

Centrotarsale

r.

80

Phalanx 1

46

38.9

12.6

10.6

12.4

Humerus

l.

19

41.1

46.2

Phalanx 1

30

39.3

12.4

Humerus

l.

37

42.0

Phalanx 1

85

39.8

13.7

Tibia

r.

32

31.6

Phalanx 1

88

Phalanx 2

83

20.0

10.3

7.6

8.1

Phalanx 2

80

21.9

11.3

8.3

8.8

Phalanx 2

81

22.1

11.6

9.1

9.4

Phalanx 2

38

22.2

10.9

8.3

8.7

Phalanx 2

34

22.8

11.4

8.4

8.5

Phalanx 2

87

23.0

12.1

8.7

9.0

Phalanx 2

34

23.1

12.4

9.0

9.6

Phalanx 2

92

23.1

11.7

7.9

8.6

Phalanx 1

81

27.2

13.3

Phalanx 1

21

32.2

Phalanx 1

84

34.5

13.2

Phalanx 1

19

35.5

11.5

Phalanx 1

81

38.0

12.4

Phalanx 1

20

38.2

11.9

Phalanx 1

20

38.2

Phalanx 1

34

Phalanx 1

13.7

9.5

8.1

9.7

11.4

9.4

Caprinae

14.8

10.5 10.7

9.2

12.0

10.8 Sus domesticu

11.7 10.4

9.0

20.2

Phalanx 1

81

37.9

18.7

Phalanx 3

42

32.1

30.4

38

28.0

20.4

18

32.5

10.4

23.5

14.1

Patella

l.

14.3

25.6

16.2

12.6

Capreolus capreolus Phalanx 1

Canis lupus

Vulpes vulpes

Athene noctua

UP4

r.

45

Ulna

l.

84

Calcaneus

r.

20

25.7

10.7

Carpometacarpus

l.

16

28.2

6.4

Tarsometatarsus

r.

17

31.4

6.8

11.4

13.1

8.0

8.0

9.8

8.4

4.0

4.5

2.6

3.1

6.6

4.9

12.7

4.1

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

156

Cattle

Early Middle Neolithic

Late Middle Neolithic

Mixed levels

Embryo Neonatus

Adult

Pig 1

1

Juvenile Subadult

Sheep/goat

9 10

22

24

4

7

7

3

Mature

105

184

9

Unknown

821

1,390

40

Embryo

1

5

Neonatus

2

18

8

Juvenile

7

39

2

Subadult

5

4

37

76

Adult Mature Unknown

11

1 309

973

24

Embryo

1

Neonatus

4

1

4

14

1

26

42

5

355

8

Juvenile Subadult Adult Mature Unknown

1 1 126

Table 14.5 Age distribution of species most commonly exploited.

unusually poor preservation of the find material. The porous bones of younger individuals may have disintegrated at a higher rate than the surviving remains of adult animals. To estimate the meat value from the most widely exploited animals, the distribution of skeletal parts was studied according to Uerpmann’s method (Uerpmann 1973). Meat of the highest value (Category A), associated with the vertebral column, the upper leg bones, and the bones of the shoulder and pelvic girdles, was relatively underrepresented (Fig. 14.6). Bone remains indicative of medium-value meat (Category B) ranked second among sheep, goat, and pig. These remains slightly exceeded the fragments representing the lowest-value meat in the cattle bone assemblage. This may be explained by the high degree of fragmentation of distal long bones such as the radius and tibia. The lowest-value meat (Category C), represented by face bones, tail, and feet, dominated the bone assemblages from sheep, goat, and pig (Table 14.2). A possi-

Figure 14.6 Different meat categories, with distribution of remains by species and stratum.

157

Erika Gál ble interpretation of this pattern is that distal extremities of bulkier, large-bodied cattle may have been removed outside the habitation area because they had little food value. The weight of these same body parts, however, made little difference in the case of less bulky small ruminants or swine, and so they were more likely to remain within the settlement. 0 10 mm None of the remains showed butchery marks, a phenomFigure 14.7 Fox enon that may be attributed calcaneus, Stratum II. in part to the fragmented condition of the bones. On the other hand, seven remains showed traces of burning and one bone was calcined. These marks suggest human action on the carcasses in the form of cooking, but we may not exclude the possibility that these bones accidentally came in contact with fire, perhaps during rubbish disposal. The most evident human activity on the animal remains was the creation of bone tools: two artifacts were found in the earlier Middle Neolithic assemblage of Stratum I, both of which are fragments of points made from caprine metapodials (see Chapter 17 and Catalog Numbers 1 and 2). Animal Remains from Stratum II Contexts representing the later Middle Neolithic occupation (Stratum II) yielded twice as many animal bones as the earlier period. Of 2,610 fragments, 1,553 (59.5%) were identifiable. As in the Stratum I material, the majority of mammalian remains (97.9%) belonged to domestic animals. The identified wild species included aurochs, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, fox, and hare. In addition to the mammalian remains, fish and bird bones were also found (Table 14.1). In comparison with the wild animals identified in the Stratum I assemblage, the Stratum II assemblage yielded two more species. The first, roe deer, belongs to the animals living in the forest-steppe; the second, fox, prefers dense woodlands. The bird remains, although impossible to identify to the level of species or genera, indicate aquatic fowl and perching birds. The latter live mostly in forest environments. One of the bird remains belonged to a goose-sized species.

Aurochs was identified by the remains of teeth, by fragments of the scapula, radius, tibia, and bones of the feet, although only the phalanges could be measured. A small antler fragment indicated red deer. Roe deer was identified from a patella that could be measured (Table 14.4). Fox was identified from a complete calcaneus (Fig. 14.7). As in the Stratum I assemblage, wild boar yielded a distal fragment of a humerus, while hare was identified from a metapodium fragment and a phalanx. A small wading bird from the order of Charadriiformes provided a tarsometatarsus fragment. A larger perching bird resembling a thrush (Turdus sp. indet.) or a starling (Sturnus vulgaris L.) was identified from the same skeletal part. The partial skeleton of small songbird was also found in this assemblage. All fish remains consisted of vertebrae. Again, as in the Stratum I occupation (earlier phase of the Middle Neolithic), sheep and goat dominated the assemblage with 71.86% of the total (Table 14.1). Five remains could be attributed to sheep. Two astragali and a calcaneus were sufficiently complete to be measured (Table 14.4). Cattle yielded 23.24% of the remains, including the following complete bones: a lower molar (LM3), a calcaneus (Fig. 14.8), a tarsal

0

Figure 14.8 Cattle calcaneus, Stratum III.

20 mm

158

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

bone, and a number of phalanges. Pig remains made up only 2.89% of the assemblage. Two distal fragments from humeri (Fig. 14.9) and a distal phalanx could be measured. Only one of the remains, a tooth fragment, could be assigned to dog. Most wild animals were hunted at an adult stage. In the case of a number of bones, the age of the individuals could not be established owing to the 0 20 mm poor preservation of remains. The wild boar Figure 14.9. Distal fragment of a was not fully developed pig humerus, Stratum II. when it was killed. Age distributions of the most frequent domestic animals, caprines and cattle, are variable, with both young and older animals slaughtered. The remains from adult individuals were the most common among the bones of identifiable age, but the number of bones from lambs is notable. The remains of newborns from cattle, sheep and goat would indicate abortion or perinatal mortality of the offspring. Pigs were also killed at both younger and older ages (Table 14.5). The distribution of meat categories is similar to that of the earlier occupation level, Stratum I. Remains representing medium-value meat (Category B) were the most frequent in cattle, but the small difference shown against the other two categories may be due only to the high fragmentation of long bones ranked into this group. The lowest meat value (Category C), represented by the remains of the face (e.g., teeth) and feet, greatly exceeded the other body parts in sheep and goat (Table 14.2). This trend may also be taphonomically explained: the small and compact skeletal parts from small-sized animals have a better chance to survive pre- and postdepositional damage. The small number of pig bones seem equally distributed among the three categories, but the small sample size does not permit any conclusion (Fig. 14.6).

A diaphysis fragment from a cattle metapodium showed traces of a fracture that healed with callus formation. Butchery marks could not be observed on the remains from this level either. Thirty-one fragments (including the goose-sized 0 10 mm bird bone) showed traces of burning, while two bones Figure 14.10. Fox ulna fragment, Stratum III. were carbonized. In addition, the distal end of a cattle radius had been gnawed. Four artifacts made from caprine metapodia were also described from this assemblage. Stratum III Remains: The Mixed Levels Most of the animal bones recovered from the site of Capo Alfiere were found in the mixed levels of Stratum III. Thirty contexts yielded 5,213 remains. Of these, 2,759 (52.92%) could be identified. The majority of remains (2,639 bones; 95.63%) belonged to domestic animals. Wild mammals contributed only 27 bones (Table 14.1), with species including aurochs, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, fox (Fig. 14.10), and hare. As in the Strata I and II assemblages, aurochs yielded most of the remains among wild animals. The bones identified represented all body parts. A third lower molar (LM3) from Context 87, a proximal fragment of metacarpus and a second phalanx from Context 2 could be measured (Table 14.4).

0

10 mm

Figure 14.11. Wing and leg bones from the little owl, Stratum III.

0

10 mm

Figure 14.12. Shark tooth, Stratum III.

159

Erika Gál

0

0

20 mm

Figure 14.15. Ossified elbow ligament in sheep humerus, Stratum III.

20 mm

Figure 14.13. Fish vertebrae, Stratum III.

Birds and fish, like the wild mammals, also yielded only a few remains. Quail, a larger galliform bird, and little owl were identified (Fig. 14.11). The first two taxa indicate a steppe environment. The little owl lives in mixed habitats, avoiding dense woodlands and preferring farmlands, where it nests in hollow trees. In the southern regions this species feeds mainly on insects, while farther north small mammals, such as rodents and bats, make up an increasing share of its diet (Andrews 1990, 193–194). Shark was identified from a tooth (Fig. 14.12). The rest of the fish bones were vertebrae. To judge from their size, large fish also were caught (Fig. 14.13). The remains of caprines dominate the domestic animal assemblage with 58.93%. Nineteen bones, including a cranium fragment with horn core (Fig. 14.14), could be assigned to sheep. A number of bones could be measured (Table 14.4). According to Teichert’s method (1975), the withers height could be estimated from a single complete long bone found in Context 2. This metacarpus, measuring 133.0 mm,

Figure 14.14. Sheep cranium fragment with horn core, Stratum III.

0

10 mm

0

20 mm

Figure 14.16. Necrotic pig calcaneus, Stratum III.

indicated that the withers height of the sheep was 644 mm. A sheep bone also showed a pathological condition. The ossification of the elbow ligament could be noted on the distal fragment of a humerus from Context 2 (Fig. 14.15). Goat was identified from a humerus fragment found in Context 81. Cattle, the second most frequent animal, was better represented in this assemblage (34.54%) than in Strata I and II. The bones, however, were fragmented: only an LM3 and some skeletal parts from the feet could be measured. Pig bones constituted a mere 2.02% of this assemblage. A proximal phalanx from the anterior foot was the only measurable bone. A left calcaneus from Context 84 showed symptoms of necrosis (Fig. 14.16). The age distribution of domestic species showed that mostly adult individuals were slaughtered, further suggesting the secondary exploitation of animals. The relatively small proportion of juvenile and subadult individuals indicates the periodic killing of young animals. Some bones from lambs and kids were

160

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

found, as well as a bone from a newborn calf. These remains may point to unsuccessful gestation and calving difficulties in these species (Table 14.5). The distribution of remains by meat value showed proportions similar to those in the previously discussed assemblages of Strata I and II. Bones representing medium-value meat (Category B) were the most frequent in cattle, while most remains from caprines represent low meat value (Fig. 14.6). A number of remains showed traces of human and animal intervention. Evidence of burning appeared on 25 fragments, while 12 fragments were carbonized. A cattle radius and a pelvis fragment from a large mammal showed butchery marks. Six artifacts were made from the skeletal parts of sheep and goat (Chapter 17, Catalog, Numbers 9–13). A cattle long bone was used as the raw material for an implement. A rib from a large mammal had a punctured surface, and 4 remains were gnawed. Discussion Prehistoric hunting, gathering, and animal husbandry in southern Italy are known from a number of archaeozoological investigations published over the last four decades (Whitehouse 1968a, 1968b, 1971; Bökönyi 1977–1982; Bökönyi and Siracusano 1987; Wilkens 1989–1990; Tagliacozzo 1994, 2005–2006). Most of these, however, concern the Early Neolithic period characterized by the “(archaic) Impressed Ware” (Whitehouse 1968, 1971; Wilkens 1989–1990; Tagliacozzo 1994, 431, Appendix). Previous publications on the Early Neolithic in southern Italy have contended that two economic groups existed during this period (Whitehouse 1968a, 1968b). A larger group, practicing mixed farming, pursued both agriculture and animal husbandry. The economy of a peripheral, smaller group was based on hunting and gathering, sometimes accompanied by livestock herding (Whitehouse 1971). The analysis of three cave sites and one open-air site from southeast Italy yielded evidence of a four-stage economic and cultural development during the Neolithic, shifting gradually from exclusive shell-collecting (Coppa Nevigata) and hunting-gathering activities (Grotta delle Mura) to agriculture and animal keeping (Grotta delle Prazziche and Grotta del Fico). Hunting and shellfish collecting decreased in importance through time. Sheep and goat dominated among the domestic

animals from the latter two sites, although there was a decrease from 100% in the Early Neolithic to 60% in the Late Neolithic–Early Copper Age (Whitehouse 1971, 241–246, Fig. 4). The remains of domestic animals (cattle, sheep, goat, pig and dog) dominated the animal bone assemblages with 88.1%–98.8% at the open-air sites of Rendina Lake 3 (phase I), Rendina, Scamuso, Torre Sabea, and Favella. Skeletal parts from caprines were the most frequent in these assemblages. Cattle and pig were the second best represented domestic species at three and two sites, respectively. Dogs usually yielded fewer than 1% of the remains. The identified wild species from these settlements were rather diverse. Fifteen wild mammals were described, of which aurochs, red deer and roe deer, fox, and hedgehog were noted from at least three sites. The proportion of skeletal parts from wild species, however, was consistently rather low. Except for the bones of red deer and aurochs at the sites of Rendina Lake 3, Rendina, and Torre Sabea, fewer than 1% of the identified remains belonged to wild animals. The results from Grotta del’Uzzo in Sicily differed in species distributions from the southern Italian open-air settlements. The majority of remains (58.1%) from this cave site belonged to wild animals. Red-deer remains were especially frequent at 39.9%, but the proportion of fox bones (10.7%) is also notable. Pig was the most exploited species at 26.1% among the domestic animals, followed by caprines (12%) and cattle (3.5%) (Tagliacozzo 2005–2006, 437, Table 6). The high frequency of sheep and goat bones has been noted not only at Early Neolithic Italian sites in the Mediterranean region—an overwhelming dominance of remains from caprines was also described at coeval settlements in southern France and the Balkans as well (Bökönyi 1977–1982, 347; 1985). In spite of the humid and cool environment of the often flooded plains in the Carpathian Basin, sheep and goat were the most preferred animals kept at the beginning of the Neolithic (Bartosiewicz 2005, Table 1; 2007a, Table 6). The dominance of these small ruminants in the bone assemblages from the major part of Europe is indicative of a strong agricultural tradition of southeastern roots practiced by the people during the 7th millennium. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of identified animal bones from the Middle Neolithic

Erika Gál occupations at Capo Alfiere belonged to sheep and goat as well. The keeping of these species must already have had an Early Neolithic tradition in this region. Unfortunately, the highly fragmented remains did not provide much information concerning the type of these small ruminants. The fragment of a sheep cranium with horn core found in Stratum III (Fig. 14.14) is too small for providing valid morphological information. Furthermore, the dating of finds uncovered from this context is uncertain. Nevertheless, if hornless sheep were already present in this region, this specimen confirms the occurrence of sheep with horn cores as well. The only complete long bone found in the mixed levels of Stratum III indicates that sheep had a withers height of around 644 mm at Capo Alfiere. This value goes slightly beyond the upper limit (640 mm) of Late Neolithic sheep described from Pantanello (Bökönyi and Gál 2008). These data suggest that the withers height of Neolithic sheep in Italy exceeded the average statures of 549 mm, 572 mm, and 602 mm calculated on the basis of numerous complete long bones from the Early Neolithic (Körös culture) sites of Ecsegfalva 23, Endrőd 119, and Röszke-Lúdvár, all located in the Great Hungarian Plain (Bökönyi 1974, 506511; Bartosiewicz 2007, 293). It is significantly higher than the average withers heights of 532 mm, 546 mm, and 566 mm from the Middle Neolithic (Linear Pottery culture) sites of Borsod-Derekegyházidűlő, Tiszavasvári-Deákhalmi-dűlő and Győr–Pápai vám in Hungary (Bökönyi 1974, 506-511; Vörös 1994: 171). The Late Neolithic (Tisza culture) site of Dévaványa-Sártó yielded a sheep metacarpus that indicated a taller specimen (588 mm). Bartosiewicz (2007, 294, Fig. 14.8) compared the standard scores of various sheep bone measurements from early neolithic Ecsegfalva 23 and Endrőd 119 in Hungary. The basis of his calculations was the pool of skeletal measurements from 26 present-day adult Shetland ewes published by Davis (1996, 596, Table 2). The mean values and standard deviations calculated for the full set of bone measurements of this unimproved breed served as a backdrop against which any individual measurement taken on Neolithic bone fragments could be plotted within the same diagram. A set of more than 1,000 early Neolithic sheep bone measurements (220 from Ecsegfalva, 23 and 876 from Endrőd, 119 in Hungary) showed a slightly asymmet-

161

ric bimodal distribution (Figure 14.17, top), indicative of sexual dimorphism in bone measurements. The standard scores for these archaeological specimens were calculated from the mean values and standard deviations of the respective bone measurements in Shetland ewes. Entering the sporadically occurring sheep bone measurements from Capo Alfiere into the same model (Table 14.4) allowed the comparison of sheep bone sizes from this site (Fig. 14.17, bottom) with those of Early Neolithic sheep in Hungary (Fig. 14.17, top) against the parameters of Shetland ewes (gray zone in Fig. 14.17). The illustration shows that most of the 19 measurements from Capo Alfiere tend to slightly exceed the mean size of recent Shetland ewes (continuous vertical line), and correspond to the higher size range of Early Neolithic remains from Hungary, tentatively identified as ewes (Fig. 14.17, top left). The two very large measurements from Capo Alfiere falling within the intervals of 1.51–2.00 and 4.51–5.00 standard scores—far outside the gray zone of Shetland ewes—most likely represent rams in light of the bimodal distribution of Neolithic sheep bone measurements from Hungary (Fig. 14.17, top right). This analysis, however, does not imply any direct relationship between prehistoric and present-day Shetland sheep. The mean values and standard deviations from the latter were used only to define a referential framework for comparisons between the sizes of Neolithic finds from Hungary and Italy. The size of sheep from Capo Alfiere can be more meaningfully appraised within this known context. The estimated age at death for sheep and goats suggests that the inhabitants of Capo Alfiere killed young and adult animals alike (Table 14.5). Bones from a number of juvenile and subadult lambs indicate that these ruminants were slaughtered for meat. The adult females could be milked for some months after having eliminated the lambs and kids. The dominance of remains from older individuals, however, points to the importance of secondary exploitation of these animals. Adult sheep and goats provided milk and wool and represented the core of the population. The overwhelming dominance of skeletal parts from the head and feet—the body parts of least meat value—indicate in all three assemblages that butchering took place within the territory of the settlement.

162

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

Figure 14.17 Distribution of sheep bone measurements by standard scores, shown against parameters of recent Shetland ewes (gray zone).

The dominance of cattle bones over pig remains in all three strata at Capo Alfiere indicates the clear preference for cattle as the second most important domestic species. Favoring cattle husbandry may have had a number of reasons. First, extended grassland areas must have existed around the settlement, as suggested by the presence of wild species such as aurochs, roe deer, hare, and galliform birds. This idea

is also supported by the overwhelming dominance of sheep and goat remains. All three ruminants could be kept together in grassland habitats. On average, cattle are considered ten times as large as sheep (Bartosiewicz 2003) and five times as large as pigs (Horn 1976, 19). Although cattle reproduce less rapidly than pigs, cattle are suited for secondary exploitation, while pigs provide meat and fat only.

Erika Gál Archaeobotanical evidence for wheat, barley, and a number of legumes (Chapters 10 and 16) shows the agricultural activity of the inhabitants. To judge from the age of killed animals, draught cattle must have been used in ploughing and other work in the field. Cows, like small ruminants, could be milked while they nursed their calves and when gestating. The occasional butchering of adult cattle could provide meat for some days or for a number of people if the animals were consumed on a special occasion such as a feast. Lacking horn core remains and complete long bones, the assemblages provide no information about the type and stature of this large ruminant. The few measurements that could be taken on the bone fragments (Table 14.4) indicate that the size of cattle from Capo Alfiere was similar to the size of cattle identified from Ecsegfalva 23 in the Great Hungarian Plain. The withers height of 1,224 mm indicated by the latter individual fell below the mean value of 1,263 mm calculated for twelve individuals from Endrőd 119, located in the same region (Bartosiewicz 2007, 292). The only complete metacarpus from the Late Neolithic site of Pantanello originated from an individual 1,266 mm tall (Bökönyi and Gál 2008). This value, as well as a number of measurements from the distal tibia, would indicate that Middle Neolithic cattle at Capo Alfiere were of small stature. This hypothesis has been verified by plotting the measurements of proximal and medium phalanges from Early and Middle Neolithic cattle and aurochs from the aforementioned Hungarian sites. In the case of the proximal phalanx, the greatest length of the phalanx was plotted against the width of the distal epiphysis, as there is no difference between the anterior and posterior phalanges in the latter parameter (Bartosiewicz 1993). The size of the only proximal phalanx from Capo Alfiere stands out among the cattle measurements from the Early Neolithic site of Ecsegfalva 23 (Bartosiewicz 2007) and the Middle Neolithic site of Tiszavasvári-Deákhalmidűlő (Vörös 1994, 170). Its length reaches the smallest aurochs measurements from Ecsegfalva 23, but it is more slender than the others (Fig. 14.18, top). The sizes of the medium phalanx do not show major differences between the three sites. The length of cattle phalanges from Capo Alfiere falls among the cattle sizes from Hungary, showing, however, a slightly more slender form. In contrast to the proximal

163

Figure 14.18 Size variation in the proximal and medium phalanges of aurochs and domestic cattle.

phalanx, the aurochs phalanges from Capo Alfiere all exceed those from Ecsegfalva 23 (Fig. 14.18, bottom). Few pig and wild-boar remains were found in the whole assemblage. The scarcity of finds from these species, which prefer marshy environments, suggests that this kind of habitat did not exist nearby during the periods when the settlement was inhabited, and that people possibly did not cover long distances for hunting. Piglets and older individuals were slaugh-

164

Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance

tered alike (Table 14.5), as is shown by the low degree of ossification on several bones. According to the sizes of the few pig bones found at Tiszavasvári–Deákhalmi-dűlő in Hungary, Neolithic pigs were small, with a withers height of 680 mm (Vörös 1994, 171). The measurements of distal epiphyses of humeri from that assemblage (34.0–36.0 mm) were smaller than the same measurements from Capo Alfiere (41.1–42.0 mm). Dogs, the fifth domestic species in the “Neolithic package,” yielded the fewest remains. Dogs are commonly underrepresented in archaeological assemblages. Although this species was often consumed, it never formed the basis of human economy. The contribution of dog bones is under 1%, not only at Capo Alfiere, but also at the Early Neolithic sites in southern Italy (Tagliacozzo 2005–2006, 437, Table 6). Because only fragments of teeth and phalanges were identified in the assemblage under study, no information is available concerning the age and stature of individuals or the role of this species in the community. Gnawing marks attributable to dogs also occur rarely in the material. The small number of bones point to the possible role dogs played in guarding and herding, rather than to their consumption. To judge from the scarcity versus the diversity of remains from wild species, hunting did not play an important role in the economic life of the settlement. Since the environmental requirements of the hunted mammals and birds met those of the domesticated small and large ruminants, this activity must have taken place in the vicinity of the settlement. The frequency of aurochs remains in comparison with the skeletal parts from other wild species, as well as the quantity of meat provided by this species, suggests that aurochs was the most important hunted mammal. The other wild animals—including the red deer and roe deer, which usually are well represented among wild animals in the Early Neolithic (Tagliacozzo 2005–2006, 437, Table 6)—are underrepresented in the assemblage. Interestingly enough, even shed-antler gathering seems to have been ignored by people at Capo Alfiere. Except for an antler beam fragment from the red deer found in Context 37 (Stratum II), there is no evidence for the use of this valuable raw material. In contrast with so many prehistoric—and especially Neolithic—find assemblages, antler was not involved in producing artifacts at Capo Alfiere (see Chapter

17). The hare also yielded more remains than roe deer and wild boar. Like the red deer, other woodland species such as the wolf and fox were underrepresented. These two carnivores could be hunted for their fur, but also they were killed to protect livestock. The poor representation of species living in dense forests may be a result of the thinning of woodland during the Neolithic. As Whitehouse pointed out, the predominant evergreen forests in southern Italy could have been cleared from large areas when farming and grazing developed in that period (Whitehouse 1968b, 340). Like hunting and fowling, fishing was also of secondary importance for people living at Capo Alfiere. In spite of the site’s location near the sea, only a few fish vertebrae were found (Table 14.1). This may be, however, partly because the material was mostly collected by hand, precluding the recovery of bones from smaller fish species. One of the tool fragments identified from this site shows some similarities to the Körös culture’s hooklike artifacts, but its fragmentary condition does not permit direct comparison. Nevertheless, the shark tooth represents a rather uncommon find in archaeological assemblages. A similar find was reported from the Early Neolithic site of La Marmotta near Rome (Tagliacozzo 2005–2006, 432). Contrary to other seasonal activities practiced opportunistically, such as hunting, fowling, and fishing, shellfish gathering must have been an important activity, as is shown by the large shell assemblage. The great number and variety of molluscs (Figs. 14.2–4) show the frequency and economic importance of exploiting this marine resource. Sheep and goat remained the most important animals kept in southern Italy during the later ages, too. The remains from these small ruminants predominate in the Bronze Age settlement of Coppa Nevigata (Bökönyi and Siracusano 1987), and in the Late Bronze bone assemblages from Termitito (Bökönyi and Gál 2008) and Broglio di Trebisacce (Tagliacozzo 1994, 589, Table 1). Cattle remains were the second most frequent species at Coppa Nevigata and Termitito, while data from Broglio di Trebisacce would indicate that pigs gained importance relative to cattle. Sheep and goat remains (followed by pig bones) were also most frequent in the assemblage found at the 8th–4th century bc site at Incoronata, but cattle

Erika Gál dominated in the later bone collections in the chora of Metaponto. Caprines proved to be the most important domestic animals at the 3rd–4th century ad site of San Biagio in this region (Bökönyi and Gál 2008). Conclusions The excavations carried out at Capo Alfiere in 1987 and 1990 yielded the largest Neolithic animal bone assemblage known so far in southern Italy. The archaeozoological analysis of remains shows that meat provision was based upon animal husbandry. Following the agricultural traditions of Early Neolithic people in the region, sheep and goat were the preferred species among kept animals. According to the age characteristics of the remains, both lambs and adult individuals were killed for meat, but secondary products may also have been exploited. The only complete sheep bone, a metacarpus, indicates that the withers height of that animal was around 644 mm. This value points to larger sheep than previously known from Early or Late Neolithic settlements in southern Italy. The comparison of pooled standard scores of various bone measurements from Capo Alfiere sheep to recent Shetland and Early Neolithic Hungarian specimens also suggests that sheep at this site during the Middle Neolithic would have been relatively large by European standards. One may speculate whether this was the result of the warm and dry climate in southern Italy being favorable to this domestic animal of Near Eastern origins. Cattle, in turn, seem to have been of small stature. The bones from this species were less frequent than the remains of caprines but still indicate a preference for ruminants. The idea of this preference is reinforced by bone evidence for the aurochs, the most frequently hunted wild animal. The latter species lived and thrived in the same habitat as cattle, sheep, and goats. Both the ecological requirements of the mentioned domestic animals and the natural environment

165

in which most of the hunted mammals and birds live indicate that extended grasslands spotted with sparse forests surrounded the settlement. The lack of marshlands or major river valleys hindered pig keeping (pig bones represented less than 3% of the identified total) as well as fishing and the hunting of wild boar and waterfowl. Given the proximity of the Ionian Sea to the site, the latter activity could be more often practiced than indicated by the few fish remains, which included a shark tooth. The marine environment was certainly exploited for gathering an abundant and rich assemblage of easily obtainable shellfish and molluscs. After animal husbandry, this activity likely represented an important source of animal protein for the inhabitants. Wild animals such as aurochs, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, wolf, fox, and hare contributed to the resources of meat, fat, fur, and possibly bone. The small number of red-deer remains—both antler and other skeletal parts—raises questions about the habitat, population size, and exploitation of this mammal in southern Italy during the Middle Neolithic. Advanced deforestation due to clearings and pasturing in the development of agriculture may be one of the reasons for the under representation of this closed-forest species. Similarly, fowling did not play an important role in the life of the settlement’s inhabitants. To judge from the small number of remains, it must have been an opportunistic activity. Eggs may have been collected without killing any birds, although archaeological evidence for perishable eggshell is missing from the poorly preserved find material. The identified species also belonged to small birds with low economic value. The gentle nature and special characteristics of creatures such as quail, songbirds, and little owls— the night cry of the little owl is almost part of the landscape in southern Italy—raise the possibility that these animals were kept as pets or played other roles in people’s spiritual lives.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15 Faunal Analysis: Small Mammalian Bones Zsófia Eszter Kovács

 Sum

Unidentified micromammal

Unidentified rodent

cf. Black rat (Rattus sp.)

Black rat (Rattus rattus)

Woodmouse (Apodemus sp.)

Fat dormouse (Glis glis)

Bat (Chiroptera)

the anatomical elements by the number of identifiable specimens (NISP), the minimum number of individuals (MNI) was calculated according to the number of right and left anatomical elements, and measurements were taken for specific bones according to Wolff et al. (1980) and Armitage et al. (1984). The condition of the bone fragments was recorded by a subjective assessment using three parameters

Bat (Vespertilionidae)

Description

Stratum

Batch

Context

The identification of small mammalian bones is based on published data (Niethammer and Krapp 1978; Vigne 1995; Ujhelyi 1994). Most small mammalian species can be identified from teeth, mandibles and skulls. Postcranial elements—limbs, vertebra and ribs—are more difficult to identify. Therefore ribs and vertebrae were determined on higher taxonomic levels (ordo/familia). In addition to the determination of

16

112

III

Upper plough soil

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

17

77

III

Continued plough soil

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

18

197

III

Plough soil

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

3

21

72

III

Plough soil

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

33

298 13

IIc

Fill (floors?), Middle Neolithic occupation

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

38

356

IIb

Arbitrary level in fill below 33

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

8

11 (2)

Ib

Feature/pit, Neolithic

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

87

 

Top of plough soil, Trench 5

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

677

Fill of a fissure, Trench 5

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

3

678

Fill of a fissure, Trench 5

 

 

 

 

3

 

 1

 

4

680

Fill of a fissure, Trench 5

 

 

 

 

4

 

 1

 

5

694

Fill of a fissure, Trench 5

 

 

 

1

22

 

18

 

41

681

Fill of a fissure, Trench 5

 

 

 

 

2

1

 

 

3

Uncertain context

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

3

1

6

1

1

40

1

20

1

71

89

91

 91/88 Sum 

685  

IIc

Table 15.1 Number of identifiable specimens (NISP) in different samples.

167

168

Faunal Analysis: Small Mammalian Bones

defined by O’Connor (1991): preservation, fragment angularity, and color. A five point scale—excellent, fair, good, mediocre, and bad—was used to assess the degree of surface porosity and exfoliation, as well as the transition from the waxy gloss of fresh bone to the chalky appearance caused by loss of mineral or organic components of the bone tissue. Angularity described whether bone fragments had a rolled appearance (an indication of secondary transport within the sediment) or retained sharply angular margins. A four point scale was used to estimate this parameter: spiky, battered, rounded, variable. Color determination completed the assessment. These three variables were then combined to determine different kinds of taphonomic conditions among the various strata. Species composition is an indicator of the habitats in the settlement’s environment, since various rodents and insectivores suggest different types of vegetation and thus different kinds of environmental conditions. With the presence of anthropophilic species (commensal rodents) more information could be obtained about the use of various settlement features, such as cereal storage facilities, rubbish pits, etc. Species composition The samples were composed of 71 small mammalian fragments, of which 50 were suitable for exact identification on different taxonomic levels (Table 15.1). The minimum number of individuals (MNI) was 18 (Table 15.2). There were six taxa representing two mammalian orders: bats (Chiroptera) and rodents (Rodentia). The most frequent species was the black rat (Rattus rattus L.), with 40 fragments belonging to 9 individuals (Fig. 15.1). The remains included skulls and mandibles (Fig. 15.2–4), and eleven measurements were recorded on these (Wolff et al. 1980; Armitage et al. 1984). All identified specimens corresponded to modern European black rats in reference collections. As shown in Figure 15.5, the m1 (lower first molar) dimensions (length: 2.63–2.92 mean: 2.77; breadth: 1.68–1.82; mean: 1.72; N=8) corresponded to those observed in recent black rats from Hungary (length: 2.59–2.97 mean: 2.78; breadth: 1.52–1.81 mean:1.67; N=17), and were smaller than for brown rats (Rattus norvegicus L.) from Hungary (length: 2.66–3.37 mean: 3.01; breadth: 1.48–2.08 mean:1.85; N=23). The mandible’s diastema index and the height of mandible showed similar results (Fig. 15.6). The measurements

of modern black rat can be clearly separated from the modern brown rat and the subfossil specimens from Capo Alfiere fall into the range of modern black rat. The origin of this rodent can be traced to Southeast Asia (Niethammer 1975) and its occurrence in Europe is a result of westward expansion. The mechanism and timing of this westward spread have not yet been clarified. According to published data, the main issue is whether the wild population (independent of humans) was able to extend the species area westward from the central core of the distribution at the beginning of the Holocene, or if it was the commensal population that was able to conquer the western areas by accompanying humans. According to Tchernov (1984) the earliest black rat remains come from Israeli caves (9500–7000 BC) and represent a commensal type of this species. But these finds should be revised in order to clarify the accurate stratigraphy of the sites (Armitage 1994). The most reliable finds of commensal black rat come from urban or almost urban settlements in Mesopotamia (2500 BC) and India (3000 BC) (Ervynck 2002). The important question from our point of view is, when did the black rat reach European areas? There is no conclusive evidence of black rats in pre-Holocene Europe (Ervynck 2002). To date, the earliest black rat remains in Europe come from Switzerland (de Rougin and Studer 1991) and Slovenia (Toškan and Kryštufek 2006), and are dated to the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age (1053– 1030 BC and 1100–800 BC). According to Armitage (1994), maritime trade was the main agent of black rat dispersion in the Near East and the European Mediterranean. Reliable finds of black rat are quite rare in the Italian region (Massetti 1995). There are finds dated to 393–151 BC from Corsica from the cave site of Monte di Tuda (Vigne 1994). In addition, there is an earlier find from the Iron Age site (10th–6th century BC) of Fortelezza at Teramo in central Italy. Unfortunately, it is only one mandible fragment without molars that was referred to as Rattus sp. (Kotsakis and Ruschioni 1984). There are doubtful remains of the species in the Late Neolithic levels (4th millennium BC) of the Su Guano Cave of Oliena from Sardinia (Sanges and Alcover 1980). If the remains of black rats from Capo Alfiere came from the Neolithic layers, they could be the earliest evidence of the species in the Mediterranean part of Europe, representing the earliest population which

169

Zsófia Eszter Kovács

Figure 15.1 Distribution of small mammal bones in the whole sample (based on NISP and MNI).

colonized the coastal region as they reached this part of Europe by means of the maritime trade. It would mean that this subtropical species found suitable habitats for colonizing this part of Europe. Because of its origin, the black rat needs warm and dry environmental circumstances. In addition, this species is mostly arboreal and avoids open areas. Therefore it prefers protection by buildings—especially in cooler parts of Europe—and it tends to inhabit the upper part of dwellings. Wild-dwelling populations, however, exist in the Mediterranean and Southeast Asia. These populations would be descendants of commensal animals who began living away from human habitats in a secondary manner (Ervynck 2002). Black rats are omnivorous, capable of eating a wide range of plant and animal foods, and so can eat everything in a human settlement, be it stored food or rubbish. But there is another scenario also possible at the site of Capo Alfiere: these rat bones may be intrusive specimens and therefore their remains could originate from more recent periods. Despite the fact that this species is not a typically burrowing rodent (it is an arboreal species), the bones of this species are probably intrusive in this sample. Ewer (1971) saw black rats in the wild digging burrows a few times. As the list of the identified bones shows (Table 15.3), there were some markedly related skeletal elements in the samples from Contexts 89 and 91. The first one contained a smaller portion of three black rats, but the second contained at least four more complete black rat skeletons. Moreover, there were several ribs and vertebrae in this sample identified as rodent bones.

Context

Species

NISP

MNI

16

Bat (Vespertilionidae)

1

1

17

Black rat (Rattus rattus)

2

1

18

Bat (Chiroptera)

2

1

Unidentified micromammal (Micromammalia indet.)

1

1

21

Bat (Chiroptera)

1

1

33

Bat (Chiroptera)

2

1

38

Bat (Chiroptera)

1

1

8

Fat dormouse (Glis glis)

1

1

87

Black rat (Rattus rattus)

1

1

89

Black rat (Rattus rattus)

6

3

Unidentified rodent (Rodentia indet.)

1

Woodmouse (Apodemus sp.)

1

1 4

 

91  

Black rat (Rattus rattus)

31

 

cf. Black rat (Rattus sp.)

1

Sum

Unidentified rodent (Rodentia indet.)

19

1

 

71

18

Table 15.2 Species list identified in samples with the values of Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI).

Faunal Analysis: Small Mammalian Bones

170

0

10 mm

Figure 15.2 Black rat (Rattus rattus) skull, Stratum mixed.

0

10 mm

Figure 15.3 Black rat (Rattus rattus) skull, Stratum mixed.

0

10 mm

Figure 15.4 Black rat (Rattus rattus) mandibles, Stratum mixed.

Although there are no species determination keys for these anatomical elements, it is quite possible that they are related to the articulated rat skeletons as well. Usually the more-or-less complete skeletons of fossorial small mammals are considered intrusive finds in archaeological deposits, originating from individuals that died in their burrows. There were, however, several rodents which were eaten or skinned by humans (Shaffer 1992; Bartosiewicz 2003), so that their remains result from human predation. There was no evidence of human action (cut-marks or burning) on the black rat bones from Capo Alfiere. The articulated skeletal elements came from the fill of a fissure, so it is possible that the hole was created by burrowing rats that died inside. While the date remains uncertain, the remains indicate the existence of an agricultural habitat with human dwellings where rats could find enough food and protection from the weather conditions. This taphonomic scenario was also supported by studying the preservation of these remains. The condition of bone fragments was similar in each stratum: the preservation was mediocre, the angularity was battered, and the color mid-brown. Each of them could be described by the same degree of variables, which means that they might have been deposited among similar taphonomic circumstances. Aside from the remains of black rat, there was one dormouse mandible (Fig. 15.7; 15.9) in the material, determined as fat dormouse (Glis glis L.). This fragment came from the Early Middle Neolithic level (possible feature/pit). The first evidence for fat dormice is known from the Middle to Late Pleistocene on the Italian peninsula (in Toringian fauna) and this species still lives there (Kotsakis 2003). It prefers deciduous and mixed woodland and also lives in shrubby rocky areas along the Mediterranean coast. The dormouse frequents human habitats, as long as there is a sufficiently developed shrub or tree cover. The presence of this specimen at this site may be the result of human activity—meat consumption—or natural causes, wherein the archaeological feature became a natural trap where the animal died. Eating dormice is not as strange as it may sound: according to several classical sources, Romans regularly fattened them in small pots or kennels (gliraria) with a special diet before cooking (Vehling 1977: 205). There is not, however, enough evidence to clarify the exact origin of this Neolithic find.

Zsófia Eszter Kovács

Lm1= length of lower first molar Bm1= breadth of lower first molar

Figure 15.5 Variation in size of lower first molar of modern black (Rattus rattus) and brown rats (R. norvegicus) from Hungary vs. specimens from Capo Alfiere.

H=Height of mandible in front of m1 Diastema index: Dh / Dl *100= height of diastema / length of diastema *100

Figure 15.6 Variation in size/shape of diastema in mandibles of modern black (Rattus rattus) and brown rats (R. norvegicus) in Hungary vs. Capo Alfiere specimens.

171

Sum

Unident. micromammal (Micromammalia indet.)

Unident.rodent (Rodentia indet.)

cf. Black rat (Rattus sp.)

Black rat (Rattus rattus)

Woodmouse (Apodemus sp.)

Fat dormouse (Glis glis)

Bat (Chiroptera)

Side

Bones

Context

Bat (Vespertilionidae)

Faunal Analysis: Small Mammalian Bones

172

16

mandible

right

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

17

mandible

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

18

radius

 

 

 

1

1

ulna

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

metatarsus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

21

radius

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

33

humerus

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

ulna

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

38

ulna

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

8

mandible

left

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

87

femur

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

89

mandible

left + right

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

humerus

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

91

1

1

pelvis

right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

vertebra lumbalis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

skull + mandible

left + right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

maxilla.

left + right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

mandible

right

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

2

 

scapula

left + right

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

humerus

left + right

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

ulna

right

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

3

 

pelvis

left + right

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

     

femur  

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1 4

left + right

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

right

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

tibia

left + right

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

right

 

 

 

 

2

 

1

 

3

left

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

metatarsus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

calcaneus

left

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

vertebra lumbalis +os sacrum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

3

vertebra lumbalis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

3

   

 

vertebra caudalis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

costae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

10

Sum

 

 

1

6

1

1

40

1

20

1

71

Table 15.3 Distribution of articulated skeletal elements in different contexts.

Zsófia Eszter Kovács

0

173

10 mm

Figure 15.7 Fat dormouse (Glis glis) mandible from Capo Alfiere, Context 8.

0

10 mm

Figure 15.8 Woodmouse mandible (Apodemus sp.) from Capo Alfiere, Context 91.

Figure 15.9 Rodent species identified at the site (after Fábián 1973).

Finally there was one woodmouse (Apodemus sp.) mandible fragment found in Context 91 (Stratum I) among the black rat bones (Fig. 15.8–9). This rodent is a very adaptable species and occurs in different kinds of forests, shrubland and agricultural biotopes. Like the dormouse, this mouse indicates bushy vegetation. But because this specimen came from the same natural fissure like the related rat skeletal elements, it may be an intrusive specimen too. In addition to the rodent remains, there were several bat (Chiroptera) bones in the samples (7 fragments from 5 individuals). Four fragments came from the upper plough zone (Stratum I) and 3 fragments came from the Middle Neolithic level (Strata IIc and IIb). These elements were not sufficiently preserved for identifying the species exactly. Because these specimens (3 fragments) came from the latest surface within the walls of the building it is possible that bats lived inside the prehistoric building when it was abandoned. It is unlikely that they would have co-habited the settlement with humans.

Summary There were 71 microfaunal bone fragments in 14 samples from Capo Alfiere. Each of them belonged to mammals: rodents (63), bats (7) and a non-identifiable small mammal (1). Because this bone assemblage is quite small, there is no way to assess the population size of these mammals. The condition of bones was similar in each stratum. According to the species composition the surrounding environment of this site could be mosaiclike: mostly shrubs and woodland with suitable habitats for dormice and woodmice, as well as a home to insects favored by bats. The presence and even dominance of black rat obviously refers to a human habitat that provided suitable microenvironments for this commensal rodent. Unfortunately, since each rat bone came from the fill of a natural fissure within Stratum I, where they were probably intrusive, the dating cannot be verified. Although the species level identification of bat remains was not possible, these animals may have inhabited the standing walls of the Neolithic structures once they had been abandoned.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

16 Archaeobotany Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini

In 1987, the Institute of Classical Archaeology conducted a program of archaeobotanical research along with its first campaign of archaeological excavations at Capo Alfiere. This project was also continued in the second excavation campaign during the summer of 1990 (Morter 1990, 1992, 1994; Morter and Iceland 1995). The archaeobotanical component was designed to identify the main crops of the agrarian economy of the Neolithic community via the recovery of charred botanical macroremains. Prior to this study, the data on the prehistoric agriculture of Calabria was limited to a few grains of barley and indeterminate cereals collected at the Neolithic site of Piana di Curinga, which revealed little or nothing about the ancient crops (Ammerman et al., 1976). However, as Tinè (2004) emphasized in his survey of the Calabrian Neolithic, the archaeological research begun in the early 1970s in the central and southern areas of the region was limited to surface surveys that covered large swathes of territory around Acconia, Crotone, and Stilo. The excavation at Capo Alfiere therefore offered a unique opportunity to obtain precious data on the agriculture practiced by the populations that occupied the Ionian side of central Calabria between the Middle Neolithic (Stentinello facies) and the Later Neolithic (Diana facies). Two concerns—the well-known problem of conserving botanical remains from Neolithic deposits in southern Italy, and the considerable disturbance of the archaeological deposits by intensive agricultural activity in the post-war period—dictated a procedure that allowed the archaeobotanical project to proceed alongside the archaeological excavation. Previous experiences at Pizzica Pantanello (Costantini and Costantini Biasini 2003) and at Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997) had demonstrated that the results (in terms of the number of macroremains recovered) were closely linked not only to the sampling strategy and the method of soil processing, but also to a direct and immediate comparison between the preliminary

results and observations made during the flotation of the soil samples and the archaeological evidence from the contexts from which the samples had been drawn. Materials and Methods The archaeobotanical project at Capo Alfiere was developed in three main phases: first, the establishment of a washing-area equipped with a flotation device; second, the preliminary testing of the washing system using soil samples taken from the upper levels of the archaeological deposit, in order to fine-tune the system and select the operational sieves; and third, the washing of the soil samples and initial sorting of the botanical remains. The extraction of the samples was designed to provide total representativity. A standard sampling unit of 5 liters of soil was established to make comparable the results from the various periods (levels) of the site’s occupation. Furthermore, because of the numerous stones present in the archaeological deposit in variable concentrations, the sampling strategy was intentionally made flexible to follow the evolution of the excavations: the number of samples taken from each context was determined by the nature of the deposit, the relative proportion of charred material visible, and the quantity of archaeological material recovered. All of the samples were treated with the same method (flotation), which employed three sieves with meshes of 2.5, 1.2, and 0.5 mm. In the course of the 1987 excavation campaign, 37 contexts were sampled for a total of 132 samples, equivalent to ca. 600 liters of soil. During the 1990 campaign, 72 samples were taken from 35 different contexts for a total of ca. 360 liters of soil. Combined, 204 samples were examined from 72 contexts, half of all of the contexts excavated in the two campaigns (144). This represents a total of more than 1 ton of soil washed with the flotation device (Table 16.1). Only 83 samples (40.69% of the total) contained charred botanical remains, while the remaining 121 samples were in effect archaeologically sterile (Table 16.2).

175

Archaeobotany

176

Year of Samples Sterile Samples Samples w/ Finds Excavation Examined Count % Count %

Year of Excavation

Contexts Sampled

Samples Examined

Volume (Liters)

1987

37

132

660

1987

132

66

50.00

66

50.00

1990

35

72

360

1990

72

55

76.39

17

23.61

TOTAL

72

204

1020

TOTAL

204

121

59.31

83

40.69

Table 16.1 Number of contexts and samples examined.

Table 16.2 Number and proportion of samples with and without finds.

The continuous adaptation of the sampling method to the demands of the excavations and to the variable nature of the contexts as they were unearthed created an imbalance in the number of samples taken from the various levels (Table 16.3). The largest number of samples, 95 (46.57% of the total), was taken from Level IIb, but of these only 37 contained charred botanical remains; in the remaining 58 samples no archaeobotanical materials were encountered. In the other levels the quantity of samples varied from a minimum of seven, taken from the plowzone, to a maximum of 32, taken from Level IIa. In general, roughly half of these were devoid of botanical remains. The distribution of the samples by context (Table 16.4) shows that 31 of the 72 contexts sampled (ca. 43% of the total) were devoid of archaeobotanical evidence. Table 16.4 moreover reveals that more Samples 1987

than half of the contexts pertain to the central phase of the site’s occupation (i.e., between Levels IIa and IIb), but only little more than half contained botanical remains. In general, the results reported in Tables 16.3 and 16.4 demonstrate that Levels Ia, IIa, and IIb were sampled with particular attention, in terms of both the number of samples taken and the number of contexts sampled. Results The 204 samples taken at Capo Alfiere yielded 505 archaeobotanical finds, all charred, from 41 contexts, including materials from a sample of the plowzone and a sample of uncertain provenience (Table 16.5). The majority of the finds came from the samples taken from Levels IIb (153) and III (131), and the archaeobotanical evidence from Levels Ia, Ib, and IIa was also sufficient; only in Level IIc was the number

Samples 1990

Samples 1987–1990

W/out Finds

With Finds

Total

W/out Finds

With Finds

Total

Count

Count

Count

Count

Count

Count Count

Ia

4

10

14

9

6

15

Ib

1

3

4

6

1

IIa

7

9

16

12

IIb

39

32

71

IIc

4

2

III

8

Plowzone

Level

W/out Finds

Volume

With Finds

Total

%

Count

%

Count

%

Liters

13

10.74

16

19.28

29

14.22

145

7

7

5.79

4

4.82

11

5.39

55

4

16

19

15.71

13

15.66

32

15.69

160

19

5

24

58

47.93

37

44.58

95

46.57

475

6

4

1

5

8

6.61

3

3.62

11

5.39

55

8

16

-

-

-

8

6.61

8

9.64

16

7.84

80

3

1

4

3

-

3

6

4.96

1

1.20

7

3.43

35

Uncertain

-

1

1

2

-

2

2

1.65

1

1.20

3

1.47

15

TOTAL

66

66

132

55

17

72

121

100.00

83

100.00

204

100.00

1020

Table 16.3 Number and proportion of samples taken from the archaeological deposit, by level.

177

Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini

Contexts, 1987 Level

Contexts, 1990

Contexts, 1987–1990

Without With Without With Remains Remains Remains Remains

Without Remains

With Remains

Total

Count

Count

Count

Count

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Ia

-

5

1

5

1

3.23

10

24.39

11

15.28

Ib

-

2

1

1

1

3.23

3

7.32

4

5.56

IIa

3

5

8

3

11

35.48

8

19.51

19

26.39

IIb

2

8

5

4

7

22.58

12

29.26

19

26.39

IIc

2

2

-

1

2

6.45

3

7.32

5

6.94

III

2

3

-

-

2

6.45

3

7.32

5

6.94

Plowzone

2

1

3

-

5

16.13

1

2.44

6

8.33

Uncertain

-

-

2

1

2

6.45

1

2.44

3

4.17

TOTAL

11

26

20

15

31

100.00

41

100.00

72

100.00

Table 16.4 Distribution of the sampled contexts, by level.

of finds limited to four. The spatial and stratigraphic distribution of the botanical remains is mostly homogeneous, demonstrating no significant variations in the contexts from the various levels. The average number of charred remains per context in Levels Ia, Ib, IIa, and IIb was 10–12, while in the three contexts of Level III the counts of botanical remains recovered were 21, 57, and 53, respectively, although in these last contexts the number of seeds from spontaneous and wild plants was very high. No single context yielded a concentration of seeds or other botanical remains, or even an unusual presence of these materials, such as to suggest for that context the function of a storage or processing area. Only one context of Level IIb (no. 33), a probable floor deposit/fill according to the excavators, can perhaps be described as a “domestic” context because of both the number of finds recovered there (81) and the presence in it of 13 of the 22 total species identified at the site. The presence of the main cereals and legumes and several internodes, as well as the limited number of seeds from spontaneous and wild plants (2), make this context the best starting-point for reconstruction of the agricultural regimen at Capo Alfiere. The mostly fragmentary state of the finds is possibly the consequence of the poor protection offered

by the shallow and stony deposit, which also contains large quantities of wattle-and-daub, ceramics, and lithics. Table 16.6 lists the identified species and the number of remains found in the various levels, excludContexts Level

Total

With Finds

Samples Total

With Finds

Botanical Finds

Count Count Count Count Count

%

Ia

11

10

29

16

84

16.63

IB

4

3

11

4

47

9.31

IIa

19

8

32

13

84

16.63

IIb

19

12

95

37

153

30.30

IIc

5

3

11

3

4

0.79

III

5

3

16

8

131

25.94

Plowzone

6

1

7

1

1

0.20

Uncertain

3

1

3

1

1

0.20

TOTAL

72

41

204

83

505

100.00

Table 16.5 Number and proportion of the botanical remains recovered in the archaeological deposit, by level.

Archaeobotany

178

Level SPECIES Ia

Ib

IIa

IIb

IIc

III

TOTAL

Triticum monococcum

1

-

-

-

1

7

9

Triticum monococcum/dicoccum

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

Triticum monococcum/dicoccum forks

-

-

1

1

-

2

4

Triticum dicoccum

2

-

2

-

-

-

4

Triticum aestivum/compactum

4

-

1

1

-

-

6

Triticum aestivum/compactum internodes

-

-

1

-

-

2

3

Triticum compactum

1

-

1

4

-

1

7

Triticum cf. spelta forks

-

-

-

2

-

-

2

Triticum sp.

1

-

-

2

-

-

3

Hordeum vulgare

7

6

22

13

-

61

109

Hordeum vulgare internodes

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

Hordeum sp.

9

4

2

15

-

-

30

Triticum/Hordeum indeterminate fragments

16

2

12

3

1

5

39

Lens sp.

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

Pisum sp.

1

-

-

2

-

-

3

Vicia faba minor

17

28

6

36

-

3

90

Quercus sp. acorns

-

2

-

1

-

-

3

Vitis sp.

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

Chenopodium album

-

-

5

1

-

25

31

Euphorbia elioscopia

-

-

25

2

-

25

52

Lathyrus aphaca

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

Vicia/Lathyrus

4

-

2

42

-

-

48

Vicia tetrasperma

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

Indeterminate legumes

19

-

1

20

2

-

42

Indeterminate

1

4

-

6

-

-

11

TOTAL

84

47

84

153

4

131

503

Table 16.6 Species identified and distribution of the finds by level.

Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini

179

ing the two fragments found in the plowzone layer and in the sample of uncertain provenience. The corpus of botanical finds (Fig. 16.1) has been classified as follows: 219 fragments of cereals (43.54% of the total), 94 seeds of clearly identifiable legumes (18.69%), 42 fragmentary seeds generically attributable to legumes (8.35%), four fragments of fruits (0.79%), 133 seeds of spontaneous and wild plants (26.44%), and 11 indeterminate fragments (2.19%). Cereals The cereal corpus from Capo Alfiere consists of 169 grains in various states of preservation, 11 fragmentary spikelets, and 39 fragmentary grains that, being impossible to identify clearly, were classified generically as Hordeum/Triticum. Despite the incomplete condition of the materials, three different species of glume wheat (Triticum monococcum, Triticum dicoccum, and Triticum cf. spelta), one species of free-threshing wheat (Triticum cf. compactum), and one species of barley (Hordeum vulgare) were identified. Figure 16.2 shows the proportions of the species of wheat derived from the absolute values recorded in Table 16.6.

Figure 16.1 Number and proportion of cereals, legumes, fruits, spontaneous and wild species, and indeterminate species.

Figure 16.2 Number and proportion of cereal species.

Archaeobotany

180

0

2 mm

Figure 16.3 Grain of einkorn (Triticum monococcum).

Einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum) Nine grains of einkorn wheat (Fig. 16.3) were identified in all. Seven of these had the squat form, inwardcurved dorsal surface, and narrow and flat base attributable to the form of einkorn which has spikelets bearing two seeds. The remaining two grains had a similar shape, but with a convex ventral surface, so that they were identified as the most common form of einkorn, which has a single seed for each spikelet. The sizes of the well-preserved grains are reported in Table 16.7. Einkorn has not been found at any of the three Neolithic sites in Calabria which have yielded botanical remains (Curinga, Favella, and Umbro), but the presence of einkorn in Neolithic southern Italy is attested at various sites in Puglia and Basilicata beginning in the Early Neolithic (Evett and Renfrew 1971; Costantini and Stancanelli 1994; Costantini 2002; Rottoli 2002). Emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) Four grains in total were attributed to emmer wheat (Fig. 16.4) based on their elongated form, flat ventral surface, clearly visible ventral groove, and barely pronounced dorsal surface. This species of glume tetraploid wheat is encountered more frequently than einkorn at nearly all of the Neolithic sites of southern Italy which have produced archaeobotanical material, beginning in the Early Neolithic (Evett and Renfrew 1971; Costantini and Stancanelli 1994; Costantini 2002). In Calabria, seeds of Triticum dicoccum have been found in the Early–Middle Neolithic levels at Umbro (Reggio Calabria) (Robb 2004) and in the levels containing impressed Early Neolithic pottery at Favella (Cosenza) (Coubray 2004).

Figure 16.4 Grains of emmer (Triticum dicoccum).

Einkorn/emmer wheat (Triticum monococcum/dicoccum) One grain and four spikelets (incomplete forks) that could not be identified clearly due to their partial state were classified generically as einkorn/emmer. Spelt (Triticum cf. spelta) Two forks from Context 33 were identified as the glume hexaploid wheat (Triticum spelta) rather than the tetraploid species (Triticum dicoccum), because at the point of attachment between two internodes were preserved the remains of the lower 0 2 mm edge of the internode immediately above (Fig. 16.5). This identification Figure 16.5 Spikelet fork of must remain hypothetical, spelt (Triticum cf. spelta). however, as it lacks confirmation from the few recovered grains of hulled wheat. The presence of spelt in Italy has been demonstrated with relative certainty, on the evidence of spikelets and grains, at several sites in the northern regions beginning in the Middle Bronze Age (Jones and Rowley-Conwy 1984; Nisbet 1994, 1996; Oeggl 1994; Oeggl and Swidrak 1998), while the few remains of spelt recovered in Neolithic contexts have always been identified hypothetically, at sites in both northern Italy (Castelletti and Rottoli 1999) and southern Italy, such as Coppa Nevigata (Sargent 1987) and Passo di Corvo (Follieri 1973, 1983).

181

Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini

Species

Context

Level

Length

Width

Thickness

Triticum monococcum

42

IIc

5.26

2.85

2.83

24

III

4.32

2.31

2.67

24

III

4.62

2.11

2.73

24

III

4.58

2.83

2.95

63

Ib

5.20

3.22

2.46

63

Ib

5.37

2.81

2.08

7

IIa

7.05

3.94

2.98

33

IIb

5.48

3.20

2.86

32

Ib

5.04

4.73

-

32

Ib

5.31

4.49

-

32

Ib

5.45

4.31

-

63

Ib

5.10

4.40

4.03

25

IIa

8.20

7.43

-

Hordeum vulgare

Vicia faba

Table 16.7 Dimensions of whole seeds of einkorn, barley, and horse bean.

Bread wheat, club wheat (Triticum aestivum-compatum, Triticum compactum) Assigned to this species of free-threshing hexaploid wheat were 13 fragments of squared, short grains with a flat ventral surface and wide ventral crease wellmarked by rounded margins, along with a segment of rachis bearing two internodes. Grains of free-threshing wheat have been found at many Neolithic sites in central and southern Italy, beginning in the Early Neolithic. At certain sites, however, such as San Marco di Gubbio (Costantini and Giorgi 1992), La Marmotta (Rottoli 1993), Ripa Tetta (Costantini and Tozzi 1987), Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997), Fontanelle (Coppola and Costantini 1987), Torre Sabea (Costantini et al. 2003; Marinval 2003), Rendina (Follieri 1977-1982, 1987), and Masseria Fontanarosa (Sargent 1983), studies have raised the possibility that the grains may have belonged to a free-threshing tetraploid/hexaploid wheat, identified as Triticum durum-aestivum. More reliable identifications have been made at Coppa Nevigata (Sargent 1987), Site 3 at Lago di Rendina (Costantini and Stancanelli 1994), Terragne (Accorsi et al. 1998), Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997), Passo di Corvo (Foll-

ieri 1973, 1983), Grotta di Cala Scizzo, and Madonna delle Grazie (Costantini 1984). In Calabria, the cultivation of naked wheat has been documented also at the Umbro site, but in this case the materials have been identified as the hexaploid species (Robb 2004). Wheat (Triticum sp.) Three fragmentary grains were identified generically as wheat. Barley (Hordeum vulgare, Hordeum sp.) Two internodes and 109 grains of barley were recovered, many damaged, but all possessing the features of hulled seeds (Fig. 16.6–8); some, moreover, were longitudinally asymmetric and slightly creased on one side. These characteristics excluded the possibility of two-row barley and suggested instead identification as common (six-row) barley. Another 30 particularly fragmentary grains were classified generically as Hordeum sp. Therefore the total number of barley grains recovered was 141, approximately 28.03% of the total botanical remains and 64.38% of all cereal remains. In southern Italy, the cultivation of barley in the Early Neolithic has been documented by charred

Archaeobotany

182

0

2 mm

Figure 16.6 Fragments of barley grains (Hordeum vulgare).

grains and imprints at sites in Puglia and Basilicata (Costantini and Stancanelli 1994; Costantini 2002; Costantini et al. 2003; Marinval 2003). The evidence from Curinga (Acconia C, Ammerman et al. 1976), Favella (Coubray 2004), and Umbro (Robb 2004) demonstrates that in Calabria the cultivation of barley also began in the earliest phases of the Neolithic. Indeterminate fragments (Triticum/Hordeum) The mainly fragmentary grains of cereals that could not be securely identified account for approximately 7.75% of all botanical remains from the site, and 17.81% of all cereal remains. Although this number is small in absolute terms (39 fragments) and therefore does not represent a significant portion of the corpus of botanical remains, it is nevertheless indicative of their poor state of preservation.

0

Figure 16.7 Grain of barley (Hordeum vulgare).

2 mm

Legumes A total of 186 whole, damaged, and fragmentary seeds were classified as legumes. Only 94 seeds (18.69% of the total botanical remains, 50.54% of the total leguminous remains) belonged to cultivated legumes such as horse bean, pea, and lentil. Of the remaining damaged and fragmentary seeds (92), 25.81% were classified as Vicia/Lathyrus, 22.58% as indeterminate legumes, and only two other single seeds as Lathyrus aphaca and Vicia tetrasperma (Fig. 16.9). This second group could indicate that the inhabitants at Capo Alfiere harvested spontaneous legumes at the same time as they cultivated broad bean, lentil, and pea. Among these also could be counted the two seeds attributed to two species (Lathyrus aphaca and Vicia tetrasperma) that currently grow spontaneously in cereal fields and in the hedges that line cultivated fields.

0

Figure 16.8 SEM micrograph of a barley grain.

2 mm

Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini

183

Pea (Pisum sp.) A spherical seed partially lacking the epidermis was classified as Pisum sp. because its features were not sufficiently preserved to permit secure identification. Seeds identified as Pisum sp. have been found at Neolithic sites such as San Marco di Gubbio (Costantini and Giorgi 1992), Lagnano da Piede (Jones 19841987), Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997), and Villa Comunale (Nisbet 1977-1982). This evidence, even if limited to single seeds, suggests that Pisum was part of the Neolithic diet in central and southern Italy.

Figure 16.9 Number and proportion of legume species.

Lentil (Lens sp.) A single spherical, slightly flattened seed was found in a sample (Context 33, Level IIb) with other legume seeds. A seed from Favella (Coubray 2004) and this specimen from Capo Alfiere are the only evidence for cultivation of the lentil in Neolithic Calabria. Otherwise, the lentil in prehistoric Italy is known from the meager finds from La Marmotta (Rottoli 1993), Lagnano da Piede (Jones 1984-1987), Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997), Torre Canne (Evett and Renfrew 1971; Coppola and Costantini 1987), Rendina (Follieri 1977-1982, 1987), and Olivento di Lavello (Coccolini 1992; Costantini and Stancanelli 1994).

0

Horse bean (Vicia faba) The horse bean (Fig. 16.10–13) is the best-attested of the legumes in terms of the number of finds, accounting for approximately 18% of the total botanical remains and more than 48% of the legume seeds, including whole seeds (5), damaged seeds (24), and fragmentary seeds (61). The sizes of the few whole and well-preserved seeds, which are between 5.10 and 8.20 mm in length (see Table 16.7), are comparable to seeds of Vicia faba minor, one of the three varieties of the species Vicia faba, which is distinguished by relatively small and rounded seeds. According to Zohary and Hopf (1988: 103), the archaeological materials recovered beginning in the Neolithic and continuing through the end of the Roman period all belong to the minor variety. Among the materials recovered in two separate contexts of Levels Ib and IIa, three finds in particular displayed the characteristic signs of predatory action by field pests, probably larvae of Bruchus rufimanus that burrowed inside the seeds. The adults of this species winter in the stored seeds, and in the spring the

2 mm

Figure 16.10 Horse bean (Vicia faba).

Archaeobotany

184

0 0

2 mm

Figure 16.11 Horse bean (Vicia faba).

0

2 mm

Figure 16.12 SEM micrograph of horse bean.

females deposit their eggs on the immature pods of the green plant. Once the eggs hatch, the resulting larvae enter the seeds and feed until maturity, and in the process bore tunnels as they develop and create a new generation. Charred remains of Vicia faba have been recovered in southern Italy in the Early Neolithic levels of Torre Sabea (Costantini et al. 2003) and Rendina (Follieri 1977-1982, 1987), in the Middle Neolithic levels of Passo di Corvo (Follieri 1973, 1983) and Olivento di Lavello (Coccolini 1992; Costantini and Stancanelli 1994), and in the Later Neolithic levels of Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997). No traces of infested seeds were discovered among these few Neolithic attestations of the broad bean, but evidence of insect damage appears in Italy beginning in the Bronze Age in the deposits of Grotte di Belverde (Oliva 1939), Grotta Misa (Tongiorgi 1947), Grotta del Mezzogiorno (Tongiorgi 1956), Grotta dello Sventatoio, and Grotta Vittorio Vecchi (Costantini and Costantini Biasini 2007). The finds at Capo Alfiere are therefore the earliest evidence known to date for the presence in Italy of insects that damage crops and consequently reduce their yields. According to Kislev and Melamed (2000), evidence of infested legume seeds has been found at several sites in Europe and the Near East. If the finds from Beidha (Jordan)—seeds of Pisum arvensis from the 7th millennium BC attacked by Bruchus sp.—are excluded from their proposed list (Kislev and Melamed 2000: 218 Table App. 3.12), the seeds from Capo Alfiere become the earliest archaeological documentation of horse bean seeds infested by Bruchus.

2 mm

Figure 16.13 SEM micrograph of a horse bean fragment damaged by pest (Brucus rufimanus).

Fruits The fruits recovered at Capo Alfiere comprise three acorn fragments and a single grape seed fragment. Despite their scarcity, these finds can be interpreted as evidence for the gathering of spontaneous fruits alongside the cultivation of cereals and legumes, a situation documented at several Neolithic sites in central and southern Italy. Quercus sp. As is commonly the case, charred fragments of acorns were recovered from the site (Fig. 16.14–15). They were found in context with other botanical remains— particularly broad-bean seeds—in samples taken from Levels Ib and IIb. These fragments should thus be included as dietary evidence with the seeds and fruits, both spontaneous and cultivated, adopted by the Neolithic human communities of Capo Alfiere. The gathering of acorns and other spontaneous fruit has been documented at La Marmotta (Rottoli 1993); acorns, hazelnuts, and cherries have been found at Consuma 1 (Castelletti et al. 1992), and acorns have been found associated with hazelnuts and grape seeds at Podere Casanova (Cellai Ciuffi and Paoli 1984; Mori Secci 1991). Vitis sp. A small, charred fragment is the only evidence for the presence of grapes at Capo Alfiere (Fig 16.16). The find preserves a portion of the ventral surface of the body, including a ventral crease and a small portion of the side. Like the acorn fragments, the grape seed was found with barley grains and broad-bean seeds in a sample taken from Context 63 of Level Ib. Seeds of

Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini

0

2 mm

0

2 mm

Figure 16.14 Fragment of acorn (Quercus sp.).

Figure 16.15 SEM micrograph of acorn fragment (Quercus sp.).

wild grape have been recovered at several Neolithic sites in central and southern Italy beginning in the Early Neolithic (Costantini and Costantini Biasini 1999), but the specimen from Capo Alfiere is the earliest evidence for the presence/knowledge of the vine in Calabria in the Middle and Later Neolithic.

the materials recovered from the first two phases of occupation consist of substantially the same species of cereals, legumes, and fruits, the paucity or absence of any one species in any phase cannot be considered meaningful in the wider context. Among the identified cereals, barley is attested by the largest number of finds. A similar collection of cereals, less einkorn, was documented at Umbro (Robb 2004), while only emmer and barley were found at Favella (Coubray 2004). There is a precise parallel for the cereal documentation from Capo Alfiere in both the Middle Neolithic and Later Neolithic phases outside of Calabria, at Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997). In general, emmer and barley are believed to have been the two main crops anchoring the Neolithic economy, but it is also possible that the species with naked grains (free-threshing tetraploid and/or hexaploid wheat), too, may have played a considerable role. The recovery of grains of free-threshing wheat at various Neolithic sites of central and southern Italy, however,

Spontaneous and Wild Plants Four species of spontaneous and wild plants were identified: Chenopodium album, Euphorbia elioscopia, Lathyrus aphaca, and Vicia tetrasperma. Combined, they contribute a total of 85 seeds. This group also comprises the damaged seeds or individual cotyledons that could not be securely identified, which therefore were attributed generically to Vicia/Lathyrus. Considerations In contrast to the materials from Curinga, Umbro, and Favella (Ammerman et al. 1976; Coubray 2004; Robb 2004), which pertain to the Early and Middle Neolithic, the botanical remains from Capo Alfiere belong to two phases of the Calabrian Neolithic for which no data was previously available (Table 16.8). Despite the high degree of fragmentation, the material recovered at Capo Alfiere permits the formulation of an initial list of the cultivated and spontaneous plants employed in the diet of the Neolithic communities, and a preliminary model of the agricultural regime present on the Ionian coast of prehistoric Calabria. The archaeobotanical documentation from Capo Alfiere is most significant for the earliest phases of the site—Levels I and II—from which the majority of the finds come. In the upper level, only a little more than 60% of the botanical remains could be attributed to cultivated plants, the majority being barley. Since

0

2 mm

Figure 16.16 Left, fragment of a grape seed (Vitis sp.); middle and left, SEM micrograph of fresh grape seed and charred fragment.

185

Archaeobotany

186

NEOLITHIC PHASE

SPECIES

SITE

Early

Early and Middle

Middle and Later

Curinga

Favella

Umbro

Capo Alfiere

Triticum monococcum

-

-

-

X

Triticum monococcum/dicoccum

-

-

-

X

Triticum dicoccum

-

-

X

X

Triticum cf. dicoccum

-

X

-

-

Triticum aestivum/compactum

-

-

X

X

Triticum compactum

-

-

-

X

Triticum cf. spelta

-

-

-

X

Triticum sp.

-

X

-

X

Hordeum vulgare

X

-

X

X

Hordeum cf. vulgare

-

X

-

-

Hordeum sp.

-

X

-

X

Triticum/Hordeum indeterminate fragments

-

-

-

X

Lens sp.

-

X

-

X

Pisum sp.

-

-

-

X

Vicia faba minor

-

-

-

X

Quercus sp.

-

-

-

X

Vitis sp.

-

-

-

X

Chenopodium album

-

-

-

X

Euphorbia elioscopia

-

-

-

X

Lathyrus aphaca

-

-

-

X

Lathyrus sativus/cicera

-

-

X

-

Lolium temulentum/remotum

-

X

-

-

Vicia/Lathyrus

-

-

-

X

Vicia tetrasperma

-

-

-

X

Indeterminate legumes

-

-

-

X

Indeterminate

-

-

-

X

Table 16.8 Comparison of archaeobotanical evidence from Curinga, Favella, Umbro, and Capo Alfiere.

Lorenzo Costantini and Loredana Costantini Biasini especially in Middle and Later Neolithic levels, suggests that towards the end of the Neolithic the wheat species with naked grains (which did not need threshing) became specialized and prominent cultivations. Evidence to this effect comes from the Later Neolithic deposit at Grotta del Leone, which yielded a large quantity of Triticum compactum and Triticum sphaerococcum grains (D’Amato Avanzi 1953). The presence of einkorn grains may have a different meaning: given that this type produces the least among all the species of wheat, and emmer and the free-threshing wheats were already cultivated, consequently it becomes difficult to explain the decision to cultivate it. Einkorn has the same qualities and needs as emmer, but it yields less because the ears are shorter, the grains are smaller, and for every internode there is a single seed, rarely two. The presence of einkorn in emmer fields is more reasonably explained as a secondary element, a legacy of the mixing of seeds produced by the cultivation of hulled wheats which remained practically unchanged for many centuries, save for local adaptations that nevertheless did not change the composition of the cultivated fields. The preference for emmer is easily understood: its productivity is much higher in the same environmental conditions, for the same quantities of sown and the same investment of labor. The presence of broad bean, lentil, and pea—particularly strong in the samples from Levels I and II—suggests that these three legumes were cultivated in Calabria between the Middle and Later Neolithic. The lentil is attested by a single seed, but among the indeterminate remains of legumes there are damaged cotyledons which compare in shape and size with lentil cotyledons. Considering as well the finds from Favella and the other prehistoric sites of central and southern Italy, it is reasonable to propose the cultivation of the legume at Capo Alfiere. The documentation of the pea at Capo Alfiere is no more compelling, but, as for the lentil, there were indeterminate cotyledons lacking the tegument that compare with Pisum cotyledons. The archaeobotanical documentation of this legume in the Neolithic deposits of central and southern Italy is limited to a few specimens identified only at the genus level. In the absence of features that distinguish the wild and cultivated species, there is no basis to suggest that the pea was actually cultivated. Nevertheless, the Neolithic communities occupying the site almost certainly included it in their diet.

187

More numerous and better preserved are the remains of broad bean, which in total comprise more than 18% of all botanical remains recovered. As the first and earliest documentation for all of Calabria, the remains of broad bean from Capo Alfiere are important new evidence for the general picture of the Neolithic in central and southern Italy, supplementing the evidence from Torre Sabea (Costantini et al. 2003), Rendina (Follieri 1977–1982, 1987), Passo di Corvo (Follieri 1973, 1983), Olivento di Lavello (Coccolini 1992; Costantini and Stancanelli 1994), and Scamuso (Costantini et al. 1997). The seeds which show the typical signs of Bruchus, the parasite that passes part of its life-cycle inside the seeds, are the earliest evidence for infestation of the cultivated broad bean by this parasite in all of Italy. The broad bean was probably a very prominent element in the agricultural regime of Capo Alfiere, as the broad bean provides the largest supply of protein among the legumes. Several fragments of acorns and a fragment of grape seed, finally, indicate that the Neolithic populations of Ionian Calabria gathered spontaneous fruits. Although limited in number, these materials should nevertheless be considered, alongside the remains of the cereals and legumes, as fundamental elements of Neolithic food-production systems in Calabria. Conclusions Capo Alfiere is one of the few Neolithic sites in Italy where the archaeological excavation was accompanied by an archaeobotanical research program designed to reconstruct the settlement’s environment and economy. This systematic methodology allowed for unusually rich documentation, both in the quantity of finds and the variety of identified species. The carefully planned and linked work-flows in the field, moreover, maintained precise chronological and cultural controls that facilitated reconstruction of the occupational contexts for the botanical remains. There are four absolute dates available for Capo Alfiere that fix the boundaries of the site’s occupation between the end of the 5th and the first half of the 4th millennium BC with absolute values, and between the end of the 6th and the middle of the 5th millennium BC with calibrated values (Morter 1992: 62–75, 1994: 118–119) (Table 5.2). The evidence recovered demonstrates that farming at Capo Alfiere was already well developed and followed two principal activities: the cultivation of

188

Archaeobotany

cereals, which was carried out in the wide, flat spaces, and the cultivation of legumes, which probably occupied the fields closest to the settlement in as much as these were easier to reach—a necessary consideration for the daily labors associated with horse bean, pea, and lentil. Cereal cultivation included emmer, bread wheat, and barley. These three cereals possess different qualities and environmental needs, but provide temporally staggered harvests in fields with varying soil types, aspect, and moisture content. Emmer is, in fact, the typical hulled wheat which adapts well to the relatively unproductive soils of a technologically poor agriculture, particularly on the hilly slopes where the limited moisture does not permit the cultivation of other types of cereals. Emmer has a strong capacity for bunching which allows it to achieve a high density of cultivation, within certain limits; it is also very competitive with spontaneous and wild plants, as well as resistant to the main diseases affecting cereals. Einkorn and (probably) spelt could grow in emmer fields, but the archaeobotanical evidence currently available for the Italian Neolithic indicates that these were only accessory presences, rather than true dedicated cultivations. Bread wheat, in turn, is better suited for the heavy, well-drained soils of the plains and hills, as it fares

poorly in concentrated moisture and matures faster than emmer under identical conditions. Cultivation requires preparation of the soil: if the soil does not drain well naturally, ditches must be excavated around the perimeter of fields to remove excess water. Barley was the other staple cereal of the Neolithic diet. It could be cultivated in loose, well-drained soils with a high degree of salinity that rendered them unsuitable for wheat. Among cereals, barley is the most resistant to dry soil and environmental conditions, due to its early maturity, relatively modest moisture consumption, and tolerance of high temperatures. The wide geographic diffusion of barley—present at all Italian Neolithic sites so far investigated—shows its central role in prehistoric agriculture. The numerous seeds of legumes, recovered in different contexts, are further proof of the advanced level of development reached by the farmers of Capo Alfiere, who were able to control both the “full-field” crops such as the cereals and the “garden” crops represented by the three species of legumes identified. The archaeobotanical research at Capo Alfiere depicts a well-organized Neolithic agricultural community that exploited its territory both spatially and temporally to satisfy its dietary needs, supplemented by seasonal wild fruits.

17 Bone Artifacts Erika Gál

Bone, antler, and teeth are the hardest tissues and raw materials provided by vertebrates.1 The skeletal system provides mechanical support and contributes to the movement of live animals. The primary role of teeth is the mastication of hard food, but—especially canine teeth—are also important weapons in mating fights between males among pigs and horses. The various forms and sizes of antlers are characteristic of male cervids, with the exception of reindeer, whose females also grow antlers. Like tusks in pigs, antlers play an important role in the behaviour of deer in terms of self-defense, the status of the animal within a group, and rivalry among males. Among these raw materials, however, only antler can be obtained from live animals. This opportunity occurs when stags lose their antlers at the end of the mating season at the close of each winter. Collecting shed antler was likely an important spring activity in ancient times, and could be carried out safely and easily by women and even children. In contrast, acquisition of teeth and bone required killing the animals. Evidence of these different wild animal remains at a site can suggest whether hunting was practiced in smaller or larger groups, and most probably by men. In terms of producing tools and ornaments, bone, antler, and teeth have always been raw materials of great significance. Antler was particularly appreciated for the flexibility and the aesthetic quality of the material. Boar tusk, a much more rigid material, makes manufacturing rather difficult, but it was preferred for the production of sharp knives and retouchers. Pendants made from this skeletal part and other teeth displayed the social status and hunting skills of its owner. Bones, however, are the osseous skeletal parts most frequently manufactured into tools and most commonly found during excavations. Since every hunted or slaughtered animal provided numerous bones, they could be shared within a family or group, 1

This chapter with its catalog of artifacts complements the descriptions in Chapter 9. Evidently items identified as worked bone during the excavation were retained in Calabria rather than sent to Rome for study with the faunal collections. (JR)

along with the meat, fat and skin (MacGregor 2001; Bartosiewicz 2006). There is a substantial amount of scholarship on Neolithic bone artifacts from more northerly locales, ranging geographically from the Balkan region (e.g. Russel 1990; Sidéra 1996) through Eastern and Central Europe (e.g. Makkay 1990; Beldiman 2002; Christidou 2005; Choyke 2007) to Western Europe (e.g. Poplin 1975; Schibler 1980 and 1981; Bartosiewicz and Choyke 1997; Maggi et al. 1997; Sidéra 2000 and 2001). Little, however, is known about bone tools from Southern Italy. A few short papers on scanty assemblages (e.g. Giomi 1996) or brief notes in papers dealing with faunal analyses (e.g. Tagliacozzo 2005–2006) have mentioned—sometimes without illustrations—bone implements. Therefore, in spite of the modest representation and poor preservation of bone artifacts from Capo Alfiere, the present study brings important new data to the field of archaeoosteology in this region with detailed description and illustration of manufactured specimens. Material and Method As mentioned in the general archaeozoological discussion in Chapter 14, the animal remains from Capo Alfiere derive from three stratigraphic units. Stratum I and Stratum II were deposited during the earlier and the later phase of the Middle Neolithic, respectively, while Stratum III included mixed layers. Among the 8,924 animal bones, of which 5,213 were identifiable, the assemblage from Capo Alfiere yielded 17 bone tools. Nine artifacts originated from the mixed layers; the earlier and later Middle Neolithic occupations yielded three and five artifacts respectively. Following the protocol employed in the archaeozoological analysis of the bone assemblage, the artifacts are listed below according to their stratigraphic position. As in the case of the general animal bone assemblage, the extremely poor presevation made zoological identification of the artifacts difficult. All of them were damaged by fragmentation. Sometimes mid-

189

Bone Artifacts

190

sections of points, broken at both ends, were found. The erosion of bone surfaces and exogenic calcareous concretions made studying the manufacturing and use wear of these rare artifacts further challenging. Despite this information loss, a fairly good picture could be drawn using a standardized system of description. The most complete work about Neolithic implements, including both the osteological (Schibler 1980) and typological (Schibler 1981) study of artifacts, was carried out in Switzerland by Jörg Schibler. The abundant and well-preserved bone assemblage found at the lake dwellings of Twann offered a chance for the systematic grouping of various utensils. The typology he presented became an international standard, and this was followed in the analysis of bone tools from Capo Alfiere. His categories of tip shapes and cross-sections (Schibler 1981: 16–18, Figs. 3–7) were also applied, referring to these traits as “Form.” In addition to raw materials and the manufacture techniques, the degree of planning—namely the selection of raw materials, the steps of execution, curation, etc.—was also considered in light of A. M. Choyke’s

divisions of planned vs. opportunistic characteristics (Choyke 1997). Class I tools are identified by their planning and selection from particular species and skeletal parts. This consciousness is typical during the whole process of manufacture and use of these tools. Such ornaments and utensils would reflect the social and economic importance of the task they were used for in the society, and therefore their working life often was prolonged by successive curation. Class tools II—including ad hoc fragments, often used only for a single occasion—are made from a greater variety of skeletal parts and species, reflecting the opportunistic character of the tasks. Consequently, not much energy and care was invested in their manufacture and they were often abandoned after completing the job for which they had been created. The majority of worked animal remains fall within a continuum defined by the extremes of Class I and II tools. The study of this manufacturing continuum, therefore, allows us to interpret people’s attitudes towards bone as raw material, and the social and economic importance of tasks completed by using bone implements.

Tools from Stratum I, Earlier Middle Neolithic Occupation

0

10 mm

1. Point-fragment (Context 110) The tool-fragment, in its present form, represents a small point without articular end (Type 1/7), but it most probably belonged to a point carved out from a caprine (sheep or goat) metapodium, corresponding to Type 1/1, characteristic Class I form made from the distal end of split small ruminant metapodia. The base

0 a

2a and 2b. Burnt Point-fragments (Context 139) It is likely these two burnt fragments also belonged to caprine metapodial points (Type 1/1, Class I). In the longer fragment (2a, left) both ends are

of this tool, probably made on the distal epiphysis of the bone, is missing; the tip is also broken. Nevertheless, the distal section of the point indicates a sharp point with Form 3/1 (symmetric shape and round cross-section). The length of the fragment is 40.0 mm, the greatest breadth is 7.2 mm, and the greatest depth is 4.5 mm.

10 mm b

broken. Rough manufacturing wear may be observed on the proximal part of the flat surface. The lateral sides are smooth. The length of the fragment is 18.6 mm and the greatest breadth is 6.3 mm.

191

Erika Gál The shorter fragment (2b, right) comes from the middle section of the point. Its flat surface shows fine polish. Rough polish can be seen on the lateral side.

The shape of the broken tip could not be identified. The length of the fragment is 12.0 mm, while the greatest breadth is 3.5 mm.

Tools from Stratum II, Later Middle Neolithic Occupation

0

3. Point-fragment (Context 19) The fragment belonged to a narrow caprine metapodial point (Type 1/1, Class I). Both ends of the point are missing. Neither marks of manufacturing nor

10 mm

working could be observed due to the poor preservation of the object. The length of the fragment is 62.0 mm, the greatest breadth is 7.4 mm, and the greatest depth is 4.5 mm.

4. Handle of a point-fragment (Context 20) The object represents the handle of a caprine metapodial point (Type 1/1, Class I). It was carved out of the halved distal part of a metapodium split along its long axis. According to the degree of fusion of the distal epiphysis, this skeletal part belonged to an animal that was at least 1.5 years old. The object was carved and polished to a rectangular shape. This fragment is 19.6 mm long, 13.0 mm wide, and 8.1 mm deep. 5. Point-fragment (Context 20) The fragment represents the tip of a caprine metapodial point (Type 1/1, Class I). According to the spongious tissue in the proximal part of the object, only the handle of the point is missing. The tip was curated; it is slightly curved, and relatively well preserved. It belongs to Form 4/7 (symmetric shape and half-rounded cross-section). The fragment is 37.7 mm 6. Point-fragment (Context 26) This object also represents the tip of a caprine metapodial point (Type 1/1, Class I). The distal end of the metapodium that formed the base is missing here as well. The small size and intensive use wear in the form of high polish indicate that the tool was used for a long time and the tip has been curated since it is clearly sharpened. It belongs to Form 7/1 (asymmetric shape and rounded cross-section). The length of the fragment is 33.3 mm; the greatest breadth is 6.5 mm.

0

0

10 mm

10 mm

long, the greatest width is 6.2 mm, and the greatest depth is 4.8 mm. The width 5 mm below the tip is 3 mm, the working tip is 11.0 mm long.

0

10 mm

Its width 5 mm below the tip is 2.7 mm, the length of the working tip is 11.0 mm.

192

Bone Artifacts

7. Tool-fragment (Context 88 ) This burnt fragment was carved out of the long bone diaphysis of a large mammal. Owing to its small size, it cannot be surely assigned to a type. Rough cross marks can be observed on one of its surfaces; the other surface is smooth. The lateral side shows marks of polishing. Because these marks indicate the energy invested into its manufacture and possibly long term use during its working life, it is supposed to have belonged to a Class I tool. The fragment measures 19.0 mm in length, 4.9 mm in width and 4.2 mm in depth.

0

10 mm

Tools from Stratum III, Mixed Levels 8. Rib anvil-fragment (Context 2) The rib-fragment, displaying several small, shallow depressions, belonged to a large ruminant, most likely cattle or aurochs. According to the flat shape of the bone as well as the characteristics of punctures, it most probably was used as a blunter in drilling or as an anvil. Its opportunistic character suggests it is an ad hoc artifact and grouped with Class II tools. The length of the fragment is 23.4 mm, the greatest breadth measures 13.6 mm, the depth is 3.6 mm.

0

9. Tool-fragment (Context 18) Carved from the diaphysis of a long bone, this hookshaped object came from a large mammal, such as cattle or aurochs. According to the curved and thick compacta of the bone, the raw material was most probably a tibia or a radius. The object was found in two

0

10 mm

10 mm

pieces. Even glued together it represents a fragment with one complete end only, which was rounded. No use wear or other marks could be seen on the toolfragment. If it was a massive hook, then it belongs to Class I artifacts. The fragment measures 62.0 mm in length, 7.4 mm in width and 4.5 mm in depth.

193

Erika Gál

0

a

10a and 10b. Point-fragments (Context 24) The two burnt pieces are fragments of middle-sized points, Type 1/8, Class I. They were likely carved out of the straight metapodium diaphyses of large ruminants, red deer or cattle. The longer and darker colored fragment (left) was found broken in two pieces. It represents the middle part of a point; both the base and top are missing. Marks of polishing were observed

10 mm

on the edge of the fragment. Its length is 33.5 mm; greatest width is 9.4 mm, greatest depth is 4.5mm. The longitudinally broken, shorter fragment (right) represents the tip of a point. Heavy marks of polishing can be observed on this object, too. The length of the fragment is 21.2 mm, the width is 5.5 mm. Due to the erosion of the bone surface, the working tip of the point could not be measured.

11. Bevel-ended tool-fragment (Context 25) This fragment represents the tip of a bevel-ended tool made from the diaphysis of a long bone from a large mammal. The flat surfaces show cross polishing marks. The Class II tool was longitudinally broken; the base is also missing. The length of the fragment a is 32.7 mm, the width is 8.0 mm and the depth is 4.6 mm. The working tip measures 3.3 mm.

a

0

12a and 12b. Point-fragments (Context 80) Both fragments found in this context belonged to a caprine metapodial point (Type 1/1, Class I). The longer fragment (Fig. 12, left) represents the middle part of a point. Its length is 29.0 mm, the greatest width is 8.3 mm and the depth is 4.1 mm. The shorter fragment (Fig. 12, right), carved out

a

0

13a and b. Point-fragments (Context 81) The two fragments, representing middle sections of tools, come from caprine metapodial points, Type 1/1, i.e. Class I. The longer fragment measures 31.3 mm,

b

0

10 mm

10 mm

b

from a metacarpus, represents the top half of a point. The width did not correspond with the fragment on the left, so it belonged to another specimen. The point was likely curated. The tip is broken, but indicates a rather sharp tool with an at least 10.8 mm long working tip. The length of the fragment is 28.0 mm, greatest width is 10.0 mm, and depth is 5.2 mm.

10 mm

b

its greatest width is 7.5 mm, and depth is 3.7 mm. The length of the shorter fragment is 19.3 mm, the greatest width is 6.5 mm, and depth is 3.9 mm.

194

Bone Artifacts

Significance of the Capo Alfiere Worked Bones The use of bone tools from the very beginning is well documented in Italy: the earliest produced implements in the Plio-Pleistocene and Lower Paleolithic period were carved out from the skeletal parts of elephants (Anzidei 2001; Biddittu and Celletti 2001). The Neolithic bone industry is even better known due to a number of artifacts recovered from various parts of Italy. They range from simple tool fragments— points and spatulae (Giomi 1996)—to decorated crafts and fish-hooks (Malone 2003: 288). Most of the tools come from domestic refuse, but some artifacts were found in cultic contexts, e.g. cave galleries and burials (Malone 2003: 297). Scanning electron microscope analysis of the sediment from the spongy bone of two cow rib tools from Grotta dei Piccioni in Abruzzo showed their use in harvesting. These finds, together with discoveries from the Middle East and the Balkans, yielded additional evidence concerning the importance of bone manufacturing in the first stage of agriculture (d’Errico et al. 1995). The use of bone tools was overshadowed only by the increasing distribution of metal awls, as iron became commonly available. Despite this amount of evidence, there is a dearth of illustrated technological descriptions in the literature. Even with the limited number of artifacts, the Capo Alfiere materials contribute new data to the understanding of Neolithic bone manufacture in Italy. It is signifcant that all 17 implements were made of bone and represent 0.2% of the entire bone assemblage. Red deer antler was found only in the later Middle Neolithic occupation (Context 37), but the small piece did not show any human activity. The paucity of antler material, together with the small number of remains from wild animals, show that neither hunting nor antler gathering was important at this settlement. Taphonomy and Taxonomic Composition The bone artifacts, like the bones representing food remains, were poorly preserved. Both pre- and postdepositional fragmentation could be observed on the finds, which means that a part of them had been damaged or discarded already during the Middle Neolithic. Moreover, a number of tool fragments (Figs. 2, 7 and 10) showed traces of burning which would indicate that certain features were damaged by fire. The faunal composition of the domestic waste and artifacts are likewise similar. Animal husbandry was

based on ruminants, especially sheep and goat, as indicated by the overwhelming dominance of remains from caprines in both bone assemblages. Sheep and goat predominated in the food refuse from each level (68.8%, 71.8% and 58.9%). Of the 17 artifacts, 11 (64.7%) were carved from the skeletal parts of sheep and goat. Bones of large sized mammals (likely cattle or aurochs) were used as raw materials for producing the six remaining implements (Numbers 7–11). Typological Considerations The most characteristic Neolithic artifact made from the skeletal parts of caprines is the metapodial point (Schibler Type 1/1), as suggested by assemblages from Central and East-Central Europe (Schibler 1981; Makkay 1990; Choyke 2007). Given the origins of the raw material and the character of the fragments in the Capo Alfiere assemblage, it is likely that they also represent Type 1/1 distal metapodial points, made using the “groove and split” technique (Camps-Fabre and D’Anna 1977). In this process, the fused 3rd and 4th metapodial bones of ruminants are separated lengthwise with a stone blade and split using a wedge. The resulting fragments are then sharpened into points, with the distal articular condyles of the bone retained as “handles.” This technique is universal on ruminant bones in the prehistory of the Old World. A particular form of these metapodial tools has been noted at several Neolithic sites in Europe. Its special feature is that the distal articular end—used as the handle of the point—is ground flat. The assemblage from Capo Alfiere yielded the fragment of such a handle (Number 4), which brought new evidence from southern Italy to the geographical and cultural distribution of flat handled Type 1/1 points. The appearance of such perforators at Early Neolithic sites in Hungary—Endrőd 35 (Makkay 1990: 36, Plate 10, Fig. 13), Endrőd 119 (Makkay 1990: 36, Plate 10, Fig. 8) and Ecsegfalva 23 (Choyke 2007: 648–649, Fig. 29.5–6)—suggests this technique was strongly associated with the early Neolithic Körös culture, which later disappeared in the Great Hungarian Plain (Choyke 2007: 648). It may be that the distal epiphysis (and sometimes part of the diaphysis) was ground flat to make the points more aesthetically attractive. A new study, however, focusing on the continuity and discontinuity of techniques and morphology, showed from examples from France and Switzerland that a great variety of flat perforators exists, and that

Erika Gál their production and interpretation may be more complex (Sidéra 2005: 85–87, Fig. 8). The tool remains from Capo Alfiere are too poorly preserved for a similarly detailed classification of techniques. Still, the flat ground handle (Number 4) and the rough abrasion on the lateral side of a shaft fragment (Number 2b) indicate that grinding was not limited to making the handle more special, but was also applied during the manufacture of the entire tool. The chronological distribution of flat headed Type 1/1 points also indicates their continuous production over a long time span. In addition to the Körös and Criş culture specimens from Hungary (Makkay 1990; Choyke 2007), the recently studied bone tool assemblage from the Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture site of Karancsság in North Hungary (Gál 2007) shows that this type must have survived at least until the later phases of the Neolithic. Similar conclusions may be drawn from the specimens outside of Hungary (Fig. 17.1). Evidence for the dispersion of this type in the Early and Middle Neolithic comes from: Şeuşa, Romania (Beldiman 2002); the Vinča culture site at Selevac, Serbia (Russell 1990: 524); the Impressed Ware culture site of Favella di Corte in Italy (Giomi 1996); the Cardial culture site

195

of La Draga in Spain (Bosch y Lloret et al. 2000); and several Linear Pottery culture sites in France (Poplin 1975: 190, Fig. 13; Sidéra 2001: 229, Fig. 4.7; Sidéra 2005: 82–87, Figs. 7–8). The flat handled caprine metapodial point was also produced during the Late Neolithic as shown by the specimens from the Cortaillod culture site of Muntelier in Switzerland (Sidéra 2000: 148, Fig. 275), the Lagozza culture site of Arene Candide in North Italy (Maggi et al. 1997), and the site of Dikili Tash in Greece (Christidou 2005: 98, Fig. 12). A sample of related tools identified from the Karanovo VI culture site of Drama–“Merdžumekja” in Bulgaria (Sidéra 1996: 123, Plate 7, Fig. 4) indicates that the manufacture of this type continued at least until the beginning of the Chalcolithic. In addition to the caprine metapodial points, a few tools were made from the skeletal parts of large ruminants, most probably cattle or aurochs, e.g., the fragment of a utensil carved out from a radius or tibia (Number 9). The form resembles the massive Early Neolithic hooks from the Carpathian Basin (Starčevo –Körös–Criş cultural phase). They were illustrated from six Körös culture sites in Hungary (Makkay 1990: 40, Plate 13, Figs. 1–12; Choyke 2007: 655– 656, Fig. 29.19). Although those hooks were found

Figure 17.1. Geographical distribution of small ruminant metapodial points with flat-ground distal epiphysis.

196

Bone Artifacts

broken, there was still evidence of high polish and the indentation (Choyke 2007). The Capo Alfiere specimen did not display similar marks. Nevertheless, the technique used in its processing must have been similar: a ring-like section was sawn from the diaphysis and worked in a certain degree. Owing to the fragmentation and surface damage, further curation of the piece could not be noted, but only its possible role assumed. The bevel-ended tool-fragment (Number 11) was also carved from the long bone diaphysis of a large mammal. Judging from the shape and the transversal marks on the surface, this tool was carefully manufactured. The high polish on the working edge suggests long term contact with a soft tissue such as leather. The third specimen (Number 8) likely represents a rib anvil. The punctures on its surface outline a semicircle design, but it seems that the holes would have been finished to a higher degree if they were simply decorative. The uneven perforations suggest that this piece served as an anvil when different materials (e.g. textile, leather) were pierced. Three other fragments made from the skeletal parts of large sized mammals represent point-fragments. The preserved section of the medullary cavity suggests two of them (Number 10) were metapodial points. A shorter fragment (Number 7) was ranked in this category due to the rough cross marks characteristic of the manufacturing of metapodial points. In terms of the manufacturing continuum, the overwhelming majority (15 out of 17) of utilitarian bone objects from Capo Alfiere may be considered Class I tools. Fourteen fragments represent metapodial points, carved out from the metapodia of either small or large ruminants. The hook-fragment also signifies raw material selection, certain planned steps of manufacture and continuous use. The production of the bevel-ended tool (Number 11) did not require special raw material selection, since it could be carved from the compact tissue of a number of long bones in a relatively short time. The rib-anvil (Number 8) represents an ad hoc tool in this classification since no particular raw material selection or manufacture seems to have been invested prior to its involvement in a certain task, most possibly drilling. The better representation of Class I tools in comparison with Class II osseous artifacts was noted in the Neolithic tool assemblages in Hungary as well. When

comparing the quality of implements from prehistoric deposits, it turned out that making specific bone tools was especially characteristic of the Neolithic, while their proportion declined considerably by the Middle of the Chalcolithic. Most bone objects were probably made by specialists and usually in workshop environments in later periods (Choyke and Schibler 2007: 57–58, Fig. 8). This predominance of planned and carefully executed artifacts in the Neolithic is not surprising. Firmly established animal husbandry continuously provided raw material for producing various bone objects right at the settlement, without involving the complexity of finding and killing wild animals or the transport of skeletal parts. The emergence of metallurgy, however, shifted interest toward the great morphological, technical, and aesthetical possibilities in bone manufacturing, but diminished the need for painstakingly crafted bone tools of limited potential. Conclusions The characteristics of the identified bone artifacts from Capo Alfiere are congruent with the refuse bone assemblage, both in terms of faunal composition and taphonomic preservation. Sheep and goat yielded the raw material for the majority of tools, while three objects were derived from cattle or aurochs. Antler or tusk artifacts were completely absent. Judging from the scarce representation of wild animals both in the food refuse and tool assemblages, neither hunting nor antler gathering played a significant role in the life of Middle Neolithic inhabitants at Capo Alfiere. From a typological and manufacturing standpoint, metapodial points predominated in the assemblage in tools made from the bones of both small and large ruminants. Since creating such utensils involves several planned steps, beginning with the selection of species and skeletal parts through diverse manufacturing techniques to finishing and curation, they represent Class I tools. The skills and energy invested in the production of these implements makes it likely that they were involved in successive works and served various members of the community rather than the activity of a single person. In spite of the small size of this assemblage, an example of a caprine metapodial point with flat distal epiphyses was found, which offers additional evidence concerning the distribution of this type both in the Middle Neolithic of Italy and in Europe.

18 Thin Sections

(Notes on an Eastern Calabrian Assemblage in the Stentinello Tradition) Jon Morter and Harry Iceland Recent excavations (1987, 1990) at the site of Capo Alfiere on the eastern seaboard of Calabria, Italy, have brought to light a stratified deposit of Middle Neolithic date (5th millennium BC).1 Petrographic analysis by thin-section and XRD mineralogical analysis have been used to discern and contrast local production of impressed finewares in the Stentinello tradition with painted finewares using a “pseudo-figulina” paste which appear to have been imported to the site. In addition, changes in the style of impressed Stentinello-style decoration at the site seem to have been accompanied by minor modifications to paste treatment in local products over time. Introduction This paper looks at the ceramics from excavations at the Neolithic site of Capo Alfiere. This is on the eastern seaboard of Calabria, just south of the harbour town of Crotone. Excavations in 1987 and 1990 by a team from the University of Texas at Austin have revealed a Neolithic site with preserved stratification and ceramics in the Middle Neolithic, Stentinello, tradition. This is the first large sample of such pottery from an excavated context in this part of Calabria. Being a stratified deposit, with a series of radiocarbon dates, one can begin a preliminary distinction of the development of the local Stentinello style decoration over the course of the site’s occupation in the 5th millennium; and this can include consideration of technological as well as stylistic differences. Identification and technological distinction of pottery types that might be exotic or imported to the site has also been attempted. Stentinello-style Ceramics Stentinello-style Neolithic ceramics were first distinguished by Orsi following excavations at the type site 1This

chapter is republished from Morter and Iceland 1995, by kind permission of Techna Monographs in Materials and Society and Dr. Harry Iceland. (JR)

at the close of the last century.2 Distribution of these ceramics is restricted to Sicily, Malta, the Eolian Islands and the southern half of Calabria.3 The distinctive feature of this Middle Neolithic or 5th millennium pottery is that the decoration on the finer vessels is in the form of elaborate impressed and incised designs. This contrasts with the (now) more well documented finewares of most of the rest of the southern part of the Italian peninsula where painted decoration is the norm, and any impressed decoration is more crudely done. As such, the Stentinello sphere represents an interestingly bounded area of distribution, and there has been some discussion over the extent to which painted ceramics co-occurring at sites with Stentinello style pottery are local products or imports,which if resolved has interesting implications for the ways in which dramatically different styles of finewares might have been produced and circulated across Neolithic communities.4 The recognition of Stentinello material in Calabria has been a relatively recent phenomenon.5 To date, the most extensive work has been that of Ammerman, concentrated particularly in west-central Calabria, who has documented extensive Stentinello activity in that area. The site at Capo Alfiere was first recorded in 1973 by Salvatori after it was revealed by agricultural work. The excavations there by a team from Texas were stimulated by the likelihood of preserved stratified deposits and the problems of site erosion stimulated by nearby agriculture and tourism. These excavations represent the first major work at a site of this period in this area of Calabria.6 2

Orsi 1890. See most recently Ammerman 1983, 29; Marino, 1983. 4 Malone 1985; Holloway 1991. 5 Ammerman 1985; Costabile 1972, 5; Hodder and Malone 1984, 121; Marino 1983; Salvatori 1973, 29. 6 The excavations were directed by Morter, while the overall director of the ICA project is Professor Joseph C. Carter. Considerable gratitude is owed to the Superintendent of Antiquities for Calabria, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, and the Ispettore for the Crotone area, Dottore Roberto Spadea, for their encouragement and support of the work. 3

197

198

Thin Sections

The Site of Capo Alfiere Capo Alfiere is a coastal promontory about eight kilometers south of Crotone on the eastern coast of Calabria. It is on the south side of the major headland of Capo Colonna. The Neolithic site sits on the tip of the promontory; it and the cliff below have been subject to active erosion for an indeterminate length of time. To date, the excavations have opened about 100 square meters, mostly in one contiguous area. After the 1990 season, two strata with Stentinello pottery, each with several phases, had been defined.7 The upper stratum (II) has been exposed more extensively. Architectural features at that level include a cobbled hut floor with sections of a massive stone wall around it—apparently some form of compound. Several radiocarbon dates, taken from a series of floors in the hut and associated features, cluster in the first half of the 4th millennium BC (uncalibrated), which is about the third quarter of the 5th millennium BC when calibrated. This dating is fairly late for Stentinello material. The limited extent of the lower stratum (I) explored includes a portion of another cobble floor, and dates to the beginning of the 5th millennium BC in calibrated radiocarbon terms (on the basis of one date, run, unfortunately, on animal bone, the only available material). Ceramics from Capo Alfiere Preliminary visual analysis of the pottery resulted in a number of lines of inquiry for further investigation. These include: 1. Stylistically distinguishing the elaborately decorated finewares from the two strata; possibly distinguishing a ceramic style successive to Stentinello in the upper stratum; 2. Recognizing that the quantity of painted ceramics and formerly painted sherds on the particularly fine, pseudo-figulina, fabric is extremely limited, which suggests that these might be imports. All of the Stentinello style finewares with impressed decoration use an impasto, or tempered, fabric. In the earlier levels, the preferred surface treatment was apparently black and burnished.8 Designs were incised or impressed into the surface and then 7

Morter 1992. The general trends in color and pattern changes between strata can be approximately quantified on the basis of some 3000 sherds visually analyzed in the field in the summer of 1991. 8

filled with colored pastes (so far, red, yellow, and orange ochres, as well as white, probably calcium carbonate, have been found at this site). The finewares of the upper stratum also employ impressed or incised decoration.9 If anything the later patterns were even more elaborate and, from a purely subjective perspective, the designs were expertly done. Unlike the lower stratum the later finewares were not as consistently fired to obtain a black surface color; grey, brown or even red being common. A high burnish was not as common, and colored compounds were not apparently used to fill the designs. Another kind of fineware was recovered in very limited quantity from the final flooring episode in the upper stratum. This aimed at a plain, burnished finish in variegated reddish colors. It could be taken as akin to the Late Neolithic Diana style, except that the date appears rather too early. A large segment of a pot with impressed decoration in a simplified Stentinello style with a similar variegate reddish surface finish was found sealed on the cobble flooring in stratum II. This piece, in particular, suggests that in this phase of occupation at the site one is looking at a transition between a developed Stentinello style and a succeeding plainer variety. It has been possible to cut petrographic thin sections and perform limited mineralogical analyses on a small number of sherds from the site in order to investigate these questions further. Fabric Descriptions and Analysis Both our own, and earlier, assessments judged the ceramic fabrics found at Capo Alfiere to be relatively homogenous.10 The obvious exception to this would be the distinction between the impasto pieces and the very small number of pseudo-figulina sherds. The impasto pieces are almost invariably sand tempered. The size of tempering varies with the thickness of the vessel walls, with chunks of rock, quartzitic in appearance, up to 5 millimeters or more in diameter, frequently occurring in the larger sherds. Mica is frequently a conspicuous tempering component. In 1988 and 1991, small numbers of sherds were taken for further analysis. The initial object was to confirm our impression of the homogeneity of the 9

Punches for impressing repeated patterns have been found in Sicily (Recami et al. 1983, 45), and see the analysis of Ammerman (1983, 29) for western Calabrian Stentinello pottery. 10 Salvatori 1973, 29.

Jon Morter and Harry Iceland bulk of collection, and to establish that it was locally produced. After the clearer definition of the site’s stratigraphy in 1990, our secondary purpose was to check for differences between the material from the two main strata. We also wished to examine figulina and painted pieces to compare their composition given Malone’s suggestion that painted finewares may represent a commodity for long distance exchange.11 The most satisfactory methods of analysis to date have been petrographic analysis of ceramic thin sections, and mineralogical assessment by X-ray diffraction (XRD). The results of these parallel examinations proved gratifyingly similar and complementary. Together they enable us to characterize both the clay and the coarse mineral fractions present in the ceramic. XRD analysis is focused on the mineral composition of the clay fabrics, while petrographic analysis permitted the identification and quantification of nonplastic mineral inclusions, both naturally occurring and added as temper.12 XRD indicated that 20 of 23 sherds examined by that technique were made of illite, frequently a marine lain clay. Where recognizable, the same was found for the thin sections.13 The non-plastic inclusions were found to be largely quartz with an admixture of feldspars (potassium and plagioclase), and in some cases significant amounts of metamorphic rock fragments, including schists, granites and sandstones. It is likely that all of these ingredients could be gathered locally. The site sits atop a cliff of marine clay, argilla marnosa, which is many meters thick and is the bedrock for the area. The granitically derived tempering materials probably come ultimately from the Sila massif.14 Such material would be available as sand from the beaches beside the site (or, in the Neolithic Period, not far from the site), brought down from the mountains by the nearby River Neto and carried a few kilometers down the coast by marine currents. The quartz inclusions appear impressionistically to be predominantly angular and subangular in most samples. Some samples, however, appear to exhibit larger proportions of rounded quartz and other aplastic inclusions. This may indicate the use of beach sand, 11

Malone 1985. 1987. 13 While clays are difficult to identify petrographically, the orange birefingence (under crossed-polars) exhibited by a majority of samples is consistent with this conclusion (Folk 1994, personal communication). 14 Folk 1989, personal communication. 12 Rice

199

virtually identical material but from a higher energy environment. Tempering material, or naturally tempered clays, may have been collected primarily from nearby streams, with the use of beach sand as a secondary source of temper. Ideally, one compares the ceramic components with locally collected clays. As these were not available, two samples of daub from the site were substituted. It was assumed that, although finished pots become transportable objects, structural daub probably was not carried further than absolutely necessary; in this case, probably from the immediate vicinity of the site. XRD analysis of the daub, run alongside the sherds, showed the mineralogical composition to be almost the same, except that calcite, rarely found in the sherds, was much in evidence. Thin section examination of the daub indicated a calcareous clay matrix and the presence of forminifera, fossils of small organisms, which would have been burnt out if the daub had been fired to high temperatures. These would have contributed to the calcite signature in the daub. If similar clays were used for the pottery, as appears quite possible, then it seems likely that virtually all of the coarse non-plastic inclusions observed petrographically were added as temper by the potters (or, alternatively, nearby clays bearing these inclusions naturally as a result of localized sedimentary processes were sought out). The tentative conclusion that can be drawn is that, as expected, most of this pottery is locally produced. There were two sets of anomalies. Firstly, thin sections seemed to show that the two definite Neolithic pseudo-figulina sherds examined, one painted and one not, were similar, and distinct from the rest of the collection, possibly with a distinct clay. The figulina sherd without paint was examined with XRD, with a much lower illite result than most of the impasto sherds tested, and with a strong presence of dolomite suggested. Petrographic Analysis Distinction between the impasto, or tempered, material from the two strata was more difficult, as one might expect given that, for the most part, a similar suite of clays and tempering constituents was used throughout. Quantification of tempering and inclusions visible in the thin sections has, however, been attempted to follow up on preliminary impressions that some variation of constituents might exist. Petro-

Thin Sections

200

Point Count Constituents 1.

Fine Quartz (monocrystalline, .25mm)

3.

Feldspars (predominantly orthoclase, but also plagioclase and some microcline)

4.

Pisolites (ferruginous inclusions, usually rounded with sharp boundaries)

5.

Micas (biotite and muscovite)

6.

Rock fragments (typically metamorphics such as granites, schists and sandstones)

7.

Matrix

8.

Voids (air spaces developed during clay preparation or firing)

9.

Other (these included small amounts of opaques, heavy minerals, foramins and other micritic inclusions, and chert)

Table 18.1 Point count constituents in petrographic analysis..

graphic analysis was carried out with a polarizing microscope using a 10X objective.15 One hundred gridded points were counted on each of 42 thin sections. All occurrences of inclusions, voids or pores, and clay matrix at these points were tabulated, while six categories of inclusions were identified (Table 18.1). In most cases individual inclusions were further categorized as to size and shape. This approach provides quantifiable data with which to attempt differentiation of the samples, although given the very limited number of thin sections available no statistical results can be considered particularly reliable. The most obvious result of the point counts was the distinction of the daub and figulina pastes. As one might expect, these contained dramatically fewer inclusions—less than 10% fine angular quartz and not much else. Several of these and some of the finer impasto sherds contained micrite, again suggesting forminifera or their vestiges after the firing process. There is some dispute as to the temperature at which calcite (of forminifera) volatizes in the firing process; certainly by about 870°C, but possibly as low as 650 to 750°C.16 The Dolomite noted in the XRD signature can also expect to have been burned out at between 500 and 800°C. Two results suggest that the firing temperature of the figulina pieces was quite low and may not have exceeded 750°C. 15 16

Petrographic analysis was done by Iceland. Rice 1987.

Given the overall similarity of the tempering materials, differences between the impasto material in the two major strata were difficult to discern. The pseudo-figulina was practically non-existent in the lower level so that its introduction was easy to observe stratigraphically. Preliminary (given the very small sample size, n=42) attempts at cluster and discriminant analysis gave results that essentially supported initial unquantified examination of the sections. When a discrimination between material of the two levels was tried, the consistently greater presence of pisolites in the material from the lower stratum and the greater visibility of micas in the upper material proved the best discriminating variables. The slightly different tempering mixes might be a result of either slightly different tempering sources or firing processes. The hematite of the pisolites, in particular, might be expected to have been burned out, if temperatures topped 800°C or so. If the later materials were typically fired hotter, this might be the result of a slightly different firing sequence. Despite the remarkably similar basic ingredients, the earlier and later potters managed to produce, as noted, strikingly different vessels, while still operating within the overall Stentinello style. Obviously, they were capable of considerable control over the final appearance of their products. This is particularly evident in the almost uniformly darker finish achieved, and so apparently preferred, by the earlier artisans. The dark to black finish color might have been the result of a reduced firing; but given the likely bonfire firing conditions was probably more likely to have been produced by smudging. This is done by covering the fire and pots with powdered manure, or sawdust or some such material, just after its hottest point.17 This technique encourages carbon absorption into the pores of the pot, producing blackening. This technique, if it was indeed what was done, was not apparently as commonly used by the later potters, which might have resulted in a slightly different typical heating and cooling gradient, and hence possibly different typical changes in the constituents in the ceramic. All this is, however, rather speculative, given the small number of samples available for close examination, and the likely irregularities between bonfire firings. The point count data and cluster analyses also pinpointed the presence of one sherd which lacked most 17

Rice 1987.

Jon Morter and Harry Iceland of the quartz which was a major tempering agent in most other sherds. This sherd was a sample of a distinctive coarse, beige fabric with unusually large inclusions. Several large sherds of this fabric have been recovered, and possibly all derive from a single vessel. It was noted during the excavation that the impressed design on them is strikingly similar to published material from eastern Sicily.18 However, the other nonplastic constituents in the temper lack the volcanic elements that might be expected in an eastern Sicilian piece, and are consistent with a derivation from the central Calabrian Sila massif.19 It seems therefore that this is a Calabrian product, but probably not a local manufacture given the consistency of the nonplastics in other coarsewares at the site. Presumably it came from elsewhere in Calabria, and in that regard the similarity of the decorative elements to those on Sicilian material is very interesting. Discussion The mineralogical analyses indicate that the majority of the ceramic raw material at the site was available locally. Although this was not discussed here, as far as one can tell, there was little differentiation in the selection of kinds of raw material for vessel size, except that tempering could be larger in thicker sided vessels. The figulina sherds, which were all probably originally painted, and the identification of a possible import from elsewhere in Calabria, have wider implications that will bear further research. The figulina material was either imported to the site, or a specific, non-local clay source was used for its manufacture. Either case is worthy of comment, particularly given Malone’s observation that a high proportion of the painted fineware from elsewhere in southern Italy was found in potentially ritual or ceremonial contexts (caves, graves), and her suggestion that figulina and other fine painted pottery may have been produced 18 19

Bernabó Brea 1957. Folk 1994, personal communication.

201

principally in Puglia and exchanged over very long distances.20 Thus, the almost complete lack of figulina material from the lower stratum at Capo Alfiere is interesting, as is its subsequent appearance in the upper stratum, although it is relatively rare there also. It seems most likely that this material is an import. It remains to be seen whether it derives, as Malone proposes, from further north and east in what is now Puglia and Basilicata, where most painted Neolithic ceramic traditions have been defined. This increase in figulina pottery corresponds to the evidence from the lithic materials from the site indicating long distance exchange with points to the west. Obsidian from Lipari in particular shows a dramatic increase in relative proportion within the chipped stone assemblage over the course of the occupation of the site.21 The possible Calabrian import tentatively identified might also go along with this. These ceramics thus allow the potential for future exploration of two topics in particular: the local evolution of the Stentinello style of decoration over the course of the 5th millennium, and the circulation of exotic ceramics that might be evidence of a long distance exchange system. The evidence presented here must be taken as just a first step in the exploration of the ceramic ecology of the Neolithic of this area. Consideration of both the maintenance of a local ceramic tradition, and the mechanism and rationale for the circulation of exotic materials alongside that tradition, should be possible. Acknowledgments The writers would like to thank Dr. Robert Folk, Professor Emeritus in the Geology Department at the University of Texas at Austin, for his help and advice during the analysis of this material. Our thanks also go to Derin Warren and Oryx Energy Company for the XRD analysis. 20 Malone 21 Morter

1985. 1992.

Matrix color

Fine quartz

Other quartz

Pisolite

Micas

Rock frags.

Matrix count

Void

Other

1

A 826.1

[105]

orange biref

16

5

6

8

0

3

56

3

3

2

B 826.6

[105]

dark red biref

18

5

17

0

0

7

45

7

1

3

C 1003.1

[67]

red-black bire

20

4

1

0

0

1

66

5

3

4

D 826.7

[105]

orange-br bire

28

6

4

4

0

2

47

5

4

5

E 841.2

[52]

orange biref

21

1

4

1

0

1

67

4

1

6

F 1003.4

[6]

brown-or biref

17

1

6

1

2

4

56

8

5

7

G 1024.5

[110]

brown-or biref

19

5

9

2

0

0

59

2

4

8

H 826.8

[105]

orange biref

22

13

10

4

0

1

41

8

1

9

I 1024.2

[110]

red-orange bir

11

0

4

5

0

12

59

6

3

10

J 1024.3

[110]

orange biref

32

3

7

0

2

3

43

9

1

11

K 1003.3

[6]

or-rd-br biref

17

7

2

2

0

3

58

10

1

12

L 826.5

[105]

red biref

12

3

6

1

0

15

47

13

3

13

M 1004.12

[52]

red-orange bir

11

3

6

0

2

15

53

5

5

14

Brian 203.

[20]

black xbiref

15

0

14

1

3

14

45

5

3

15

Rapuns 183

[20]

dark rd-or bir

1

0

13

0

1

20

57

6

2

16

1-204.2

[20]

orange biref

Brown Stentinello

23

2

10

0

0

2

59

2

2

17

2-183.2

[20]

orange biref

Black Stentinello

10

9

5

1

0

12

53

6

4

18

3-010.5

[2]

orange biref

Red Stentinello

23

3

0

8

0

17

40

8

1

19

4-195.1

[20]

red/br biref

Black Stentinello

16

3

5

1

1

6

62

4

2

20

5-183.3

[20]

brown xbiref?

Brown Stentinello

15

1

8

1

0

3

59

13

0

21

6-014.4

[2]

orange biref

Brown/ black rocker

19

5

10

4

0

4

48

9

1

22

7-221.4

[20]

orange biref

Brown Stentinello

23

6

3

4

2

9

44

6

3

23

8-204.5

[20]

br/ye xbiref?

Brown/ grey Impressed

24

3

6

1

0

5

45

13

3

24

9-195.4

[20]

orange biref

Orange/ black Impressed

21

2

7

0

0

7

56

3

4

25

10-325.2

[38]

black?

Red with cream slip/paint

15

0

10

0

0

3

69

2

1

26

11-335.1

[38]

black

Grey/ cream with brown paint

12

0

1

0

1

0

76

0

10

27

12-335.2

[38]

black

Black/ grey Stentinello

16

0

11

0

2

2

60

9

0

28

13-325.1

[38]

dark brown xbi

Cream figulina

9

0

3

0

1

0

82

0

5

29

14-183.5

[20]

black

Orange undecorated

8

1

15

0

1

3

60

11

1

30

15-005.8

[2]

orange biref

Black undecorated

21

1

8

2

0

4

57

4

3

31

16-005.12

[2]

orange biref

Red/ orange undecorated

11

3

6

11

0

4

55

7

3

32

17-221.6

[20]

rd-or-br biref

Red undecorated

6

10

7

0

0

7

51

12

7

33

18-005.10

[2]

black

Grey/ bichrome undecorated

9

2

11

0

0

12

48

12

6

34

19-005.11

[2]

orange biref

Coarse red undecoration

12

7

6

1

4

12

45

12

1

35

20-014.6

[2]

br/or biref

Coarse bichrome undecorated

6

3

2

2

2

11

51

10

13

36

21-204.7

[20]

orange biref

Brown undecorated

24

2

6

0

0

1

54

11

2

37

22-204.9

[20]

dark rd/br xbi

Red undecorated

10

2

8

0

2

9

67

2

0

38

23-204.10

[20]

black

Grey/ bichrome undecorated

11

0

2

0

0

0

81

1

5

39

24-010.10

[2]

dark rd/br xbi

Orange figulina

5

0

0

0

0

0

86

8

1

40

25-204.11

[20]

dark rd/br xbi

Pink/ orange figulina

9

0

0

0

1

0

82

5

3

41

26-402

brown, iron st

Daub

2

0

0

0

0

0

90

4

4

42

27-216

or-red, iron s

daub

1

0

1

0

1

2

89

0

6

Sample

Context

Feldspars

Thin Sections

202

Inventory

Vessel

Bell Beaker

Table 18.2 Data on thin section samples.

19 Tokens

(Four Pieces of Clay: “Tokens” from Capo Alfiere, Calabria) Jon Morter For some years, Professor Denise Schmandt-Besserat has been documenting the presence of small geometric clay artifacts, that she labels ‘tokens’, at Middle Eastern sites of all periods from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (see most recently Schmandt-Besserat 1992). This article1 presents some finds from excavations at a Neolithic site in southern Italy that suggest that the distribution of such objects may not have been confined to the eastern Mediterranean, during the earlier stages of Mediterranean prehistory. Background on ‘tokens’ Schmandt-Besserat’s ‘tokens’ are unprepossessing subjects. Typically they are very small clay objects, perhaps 1 to 5 cm in size, in a variety of geometric shapes. Spheres, discs, cones and cylinders are typical forms. These are enigmatic pieces at best, and not the kind of object that sets the average Near Eastern specialist’s heart on fire. By tracking the chronological and geographic distribution of such objects, SchmandtBesserat has been able to show that they have a wide distribution all across southwest Asia, from Turkey to Pakistan. They first appear as part of the earliest Neolithic assemblages at a series of sites in northern Syria and Iran at about 8000 BC or slightly later (SchmandtBesserat 1992: 36), so that the “…beginning of tokens coincides with food production” (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 99), as opposed to the preceding hunter-gatherer economies. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated at Tell Mureybet in Syria, where the transition to crop use at around 8000 BC exactly corresponds to the appearance of ‘tokens’ (Schmandt-Besserat 1991). Tokens disappear from the Near Eastern archaeological record only in the Bronze Age, typically around 2500 BC, but perhaps as late as 1500 BC in some areas (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 9). They seem to have undergone considerable elaboration in the Uruk period after about 3500 bc, with many new or modified types. Schmandt-Besserat differentiates between simpler ‘plain’ tokens, found from the earliest point 1

This article is reprinted from Morter 1994, by kind permission of the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and Equinox Publishers. (JR)

of usage, and ‘complex’ tokens appearing in the Uruk period (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 24), although the exact criteria defining this distinction are somewhat vague (Zimansky 1993: 515). Schmandt-Besserat has put forth a fairly plausible scenario to explain the function of these objects by the Uruk era. She notes that: 1. By the Bronze Age, small groups of tokens are found enclosed in clay envelopes, or fastened on string loops fastened closed by clay bullae (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 108–110); 2. Sometimes impressions of equal numbers of equivalently shaped tokens are found on the outside of the envelopes along with seal impressions, the latter presumably indicating a contractual arrangement (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 127); and, 3.  The earliest signs for numbers used on Mespotamian clay tablets were the same as the impressions on the clay envelopes representing tokens enclosed. Her argument therefore runs that individual ‘tokens’ were representative of both a quantity (e.g. 1, 2, 10) and a quality (type of goods—e.g., grain, sheep); indeed, that they were token representatives of concrete numbers (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 162). She interprets their enclosure in envelopes with sealings on the outside as a contractual usage. The proliferation of types in the Uruk period is seen as a response to the demands of greater specificity in recording and could well coincide with the demands of a burgeoning bureaucracy (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 92). Bureaucratic demand might then have led to the transfer of token shapes to symbols on clay tablets and the development of the cuneiform writing system (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 137). Critiques of this rather too neat evolutionary scheme point out that the relative timing of the enclosure of tokens in envelopes and the appearance of early cuneiform is none too clear, and that the correspondences claimed between ‘token’ shapes and early

203

204

Tokens

signs are questionable in a number of cases (see Michalowski 1993; Zimansky 1993). However, even critics have noted the likely use of clay and stone ‘calculi’ alongside early cuneiform (as well as later) (Lieberman 1980), so these ‘tokens’ (or at least some of the objects so claimed) may be those ‘calculi’. Can one extrapolate back and pronounce all preBronze Age ‘tokens’ as evidence of accounting systems? Schmandt-Besserat is prepared to suggest that this was the case and that ‘…the need for counting and accounting was related to agriculture and the demographic and sociopolitical changes it implies’ (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 99); or more explicitly that ‘…the excavations at Tell Mureybet indicate that reckoning coincides with the cultivation of cereals’ (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 99). In the Chalcolithic period in Mesopotamia, objects that Schmandt-Besserat identifies as stone replicas of tokens are also found.2 These sometimes occur in graves, and apparently quite selectively (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 101–106). Exactly what this indicated is unclear, but if these were intended as representations of clay or stone counters, their placement in graves presumably indicates intrinsic meaning, possibly prestigious, for the people involved. Critics strongly question the projection of this accounting system, as a unitary entity, back thousands of years and across a very large geographic area (Lieberman 1980: 353; Michalowski 1993: 997). Were these small clay things always all ‘tokens’ (Zimansky 1993: 515)? Nevertheless, Schmandt-Besserat has demonstrated the presence of very similar objects, occurring alongside the introduction of agriculture, and over a wide geographic area. Capo Alfiere Capo Alfiere is on the eastern coast of Calabria in southern Italy (see Introduction, Chapter 1). This small headland juts from the south side of a larger peninsula, called Capo Colonna, just south of the harbour town of Crotone. The Neolithic site occupies the clifftop on the eastern edge of the smaller headland. As all of this stretch of coast is subject to active marine erosion, indeterminate amounts of the cliff and the Neolithic site hereon have been lost since the time of its occupation. Excavations by a team from the University of Texas, which I directed, took place in 1987 and 1990. This work was part of a larger study of 2

Possibly also from the Chalcolithic of Cyprus (Diane Bolger 1992, personal communication).

the rural landscape and Holocene environment in the area of Crotone, still ongoing, directed by Professor J.C. Carter of the University of Texas at Austin.3 The Capo Alfiere ‘tokens’ The Capo Alfiere excavations have yielded two clear and two possible examples of the type of object referred to further east as ‘tokens’. The better two are examples of two varieties. One is a simple sphere, crudely made and about 15 mm in diameter (Fig. 19.1a). The second is of the conical type, slightly pinched at the top, closely resembling a chess pawn in shape (Fig. 19.1b). It stands 23 mm high with a maximum diameter of 11 mm. By itself, the sphere would not constitute clear evidence that these were ‘tokens’. The ‘chess-pawn’ or cone is a typical example of this kind of object, and resembles types that Schmandt-Besserat has categorized as ‘cones’ or ‘pinched-cones’ (see SchmandtBesserat 1992: Fig. 24). Its presence in combination with a very typical, but less obviously diagnostic example, the sphere, is strongly confirmatory of this class of object. Of the other two such finds, the third example may be another similar piece (Fig. 19.1c); it is conical but broken off at the top. The fourth, and most dubious, example is a fragment of something that was originally pear-shaped (Fig. 19.1d). Given the presence of the other two pieces it is likely that this too was a ‘token’; alternatively, it might be a fragment of a pendant. Schmandt-Besserat, in discussing the earliest finds of ‘tokens’ from Middle Eastern sites, notes that typical dimensions are in the one to three cm range (Schmandt-Besserat 1992: 17). She also notes some less commonly occurring sub-types in the three to five cm size range, and that some site assemblages can be in the larger or smaller range. It may seem that these four pieces alone offer somewhat tenuous evidence for the existence of this class of object here. However, these pieces are so distinctive, and so small, that finding just a few should be strongly suggestive of their presence. The Context of the Finds Essentially, two surviving strata of Neolithic date have been traced by the excavations at Capo Alfiere. The ceramics of both strata are of the Middle Neolithic, 3

This project has been strongly encouraged by the Calabrian Superintendency of Antiquities, and we are very grateful to the Superintendent, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, and the Inspector for the Crotone area, Dottor Roberto Spadea, for their support.

205

Jon Morter

2:1

2:1 0

0

2 cm

a. CA 0380

2 cm

b. CA 0938

2:1

2:1 0

c. CA 0715

0

2 cm

d. CA 1041

Figure 19.1 Tokens from Capo Alfiere (drawings actual scale, photos at 2:1).

2 cm

206

Tokens

Stentinello style. This type of pottery was first defined by Paolo Orsi (1890) at the type site of Stentinello, near Syracuse on the eastern coast of Sicily. The finer pottery is characteristically decorated with impressed patterns involving elaborate designs and often executed with considerable care. This material is recognized as a fairly distinctive horizon marker in Sicily, and derivatives of it appear to represent the first settlement horizon on both Lipari (Bernabò Brea 1957) and Malta. Over the last 20 years or so, material in this style has been recognized at various points across the southern half of Calabria (Ammerman 1983; 1985; Costabile 1972; Hodder and Malone 1984; Marino 1983; Salvatori 1973). Broadly speaking, a date range in the fifth millennium BC is considered typical for Stentinello material. At Capo Alfiere, sufficient area of the upper stratum was exposed to reveal architectural features, whereas only a small portion of surviving parts of the lower stratum was reached and so less is known. In the upper stratum, a large segment of the cobble floor of a hut structure was cleared. Around this, at a distance of a meter or more, were portions of a large stone wall. This walling was a meter or more thick, built of large boulders, with vertical facing slabs on one or both sides. The enclosed cobble floor had been at least partially resurfaced at some point. The subsequent packed earth flooring, itself singed by burning, sealed a hearth built into the cobbling below. These circumstances permitted radio-carbon assessments of the age of the two floor surfaces in the upper stratum, which could be compared with a date from bone from the lower stratum. The hearth sealed with the cobble floor has been dated at 5650 more or less 70 bp (TX7043; this is an uncalibrated date which calibrates to 4681–4358 BC at 0.99 probability using 2 sigma). The floor sealing this hearth yielded 5450 more or less 60 bp (TX7042; calibrating to 4459–4222 BC, probability 0.91), and the nearby pit fill, unfortunately stratigraphically decapitated, gave 5410 more or less 80 bp (TX5785; calibrating to 4369–4040 BC at 0.95). The lower stratum at the site yielded no burnt matter whatsoever, so recourse was made to dating using a portion of the animal bone recovered. This gave a result of 5950 more or less 100 bp (TX7767; calibrated to 5210–4710 BC at 1.0). This suite of dates, although not as numerous as one might

wish, is satisfyingly internally consistent, and gives a broad idea of the time depth encountered so far in the Neolithic levels of the site. Although both are in the Stentinello tradition, there are differences between the two strata in the composition and decorative styles of the ceramics. By the top level of the upper stratum, admixture with plainer material suggests a transition to another potting style, possibly related to the Diana/Bellavista style typical of the Late Neolithic across southern Italy. The radiocarbon dates for the upper stratum are commensurate with this idea, although it must be regarded as tentative at this stage until further supporting evidence comes to light. As I have suggested elsewhere (Morter 1992), two sites on Sicily may have produced parallels for the large, walled structure found in the upper stratum. These are Serra del Palco (La Rosa 1987) and Piano Vento (Castellana 1987). In both cases the relevant features date to quite late in the Stentinello horizon. A rather peculiar wall in the Stentinello equivalent stratum at the site of Skorba on Malta (Trump 1966) might possibly also be something similar. The original function of these structures is uncertain (Morter 1992). A very limited area of the lower stratum was exposed. A small portion of a cobble surface very similar to that higher up was uncovered. Unfortunately, the surviving area of cobbling indicated that most of the structure whose position it indicated had been in an area now definitively occupied by a modern ditch. Of the four possible ‘tokens’, three were recovered from stratified contexts. Of these, two, including the ‘chess pawn’ example, came from the lower stratum. The sphere was found within the area demarcated by the paving in the upper stratum. However, it was from a point where, at some point in the past, disturbance of the paving had occurred; so one cannot say with certainty that it was not derived from the earlier stratum. Therefore, at this stage association of this class of object with the peculiar structures of the upper stratum is inconclusive at best (although, given the very few examples found, this cannot be ruled out). It seems more likely that these pieces should be attributed to the earlier stratum at the site, and thus dated 5210–4710 BC [cal]–that is, essentially to the Middle Neolithic of the earlier fifth millennium BC.

Jon Morter Other finds near Crotone An object that appears to be another example of the spherical type of ‘token’ has been recovered by the University of Texas survey of the countryside nearby.4 This is again a very small clay ball, apparently lightly fired. It was found at a Neolithic site. The ceramics from the site appear to be of both the Middle Neolithic (Stentinello) and Late Neolithic (Diana) traditions,5 as was the case at Capo Alfiere. As a surface find, it is impossible at this stage to be more chronologically or contextually precise. Parallels I do not, at present, know of other examples of this class of object reported in Italy or nearby for the Neolithic. A similar class of object has been suggested in the Italian Bronze Age (Mammina et al. 1990) and this will be discussed below. On Malta, ‘slingbolts’ are reported from the later Neolithic (Grey Skorba) levels at the site of Skorba (Trump 1966; Fig. 40a) and also as finds from the site of Ghar Dalam (Trump 1966: 30) (the Ghar Dalam phase is approximately equivalent to Stentinello). These ovoid shaped objects are, however, made of stone, much larger (5–7.5 cm) and biconical, so the likelihood is that they were slingbolts, given the material, shape and size. Clay spheres and cones documented from Neolithic contexts in Yugoslavia have been interpreted as temperature gauges for bread ovens and stoppers for vessels (Tringham and Stevanović 1990: 336). These objects include both spheres and cones. At the site of Selevac, the spheres are mostly from two to five cm in diameter (but range up to 13 cm) (Tringham and Stevanović 1990: 338). The cones include very small examples (Tringham and Stevanović 1990: fig. 10.17, b–d) like those classified as ‘tokens’ by SchmandtBesserat, and also much larger pieces, interpreted as plugs or lids (Tringham and Stevanović 1990: 341). At Selevac, Tringham and Stevanović suggest that most of the spheres and cones served some form of temperature control function, much like the ceramic cones used in modern kilns. 4

The survey was directed by Cesare D’Annibale, now of Parks Canada, between 1983 and 1986. 5 Initial review of the pottery by Cesare D’Annibale. I am also grateful to Dottor Domenico Marino of the Università di Roma for his assessment of these ceramics.

207

Given the potential for different size classes in tokens described by Schmandt-Besserat (1992: 17), it seems possible that some of the smaller examples might have been ‘tokens’. However, with the large differences in size, a range of uses is probably to be anticipated at the site. It seems clear though that items that might have been tokens have been found in the Neolithic of the western Balkans, and, for Selevac at least, dating to approximately the same period as the lower stratum at Capo Alfiere. From a much later Italian context, Mammina et al. (1990) have recently proposed that pottery vessel fragments may have had a computational function similar to that proposed by Schmandt-Besserat for Bronze Age ‘tokens’ in the Middle East. The sherds have been shaped into circular and semi-circular outlines, and fragments thereof; such objects are conventionally referred to as ‘rondelle’ in Italian Bronze Age studies. Their case study is the second millennium BC occupation on the island of Vivara in the Gulf of Naples. They note that this island was apparently part of a trading network that extended from (or to) the Aegean, and that similar rondelle have been documented from comparable sites around the Adriatic. They suggest that the ubiquity and standardized shapes encountered might be explained by positing their functioning within a counting or recording system similar to that laid out by Schmandt-Besserat for the Uruk period in Mesopotamia. They do not link the derivation of rondelle to any pre-existing ‘token’ system in the area, and given the different raw materials (moulded clay versus reworked pot sherds), a direct local genealogy does not seem likely. Discussion I wish to draw attention to these finds from Capo Alfiere partly because I do not believe that these can be the only examples of this class of object from this region, and partly to consider what their presence in this context might indicate. It would be very useful to know if similar objects, that I have overlooked, have been recovered from other sites in the western Mediterranean. The implications of these finds are more interesting. It seems highly unlikely that these miniature and unelaborated clay objects were trade items that traversed the length of the Mediterranean at the be-

208

Tokens

ginning of the fifth millennium BC. Nothing else recovered as yet from Capo Alfiere suggests any longdistance exchange beyond the area of the southern Italian peninsula, Sicily and adjacent islands. Rather, I draw attention to the fact that in the cradlelands of the European Neolithic, namely the Fertile Crescent, these objects occur widely from the very earliest, sedentary, fully Neolithic levels. That is, whatever their precise function may have been, they were apparently an integral part of the artifactual assemblage of the Neolithic way of life. They then remained in use there for five thousand years. It seems not implausible that such objects could also initially have been part of any spread of the Neolithic into the Mediterranean basin. Their occurrence in a relatively early context at Capo Alfiere on the southern Italian coast would tend to suggest that this was indeed the case. The nature of the spread of Neolithic traits, either as a package or more disconnectedly, around the western Mediterranean Basin has been a topic of some interest in the last few years (see most recently Zilhão 1993). There are increasing indications that the loss of desirable sea-front property to rising sea levels since the Early Neolithic has skewed the picture of the earliest spread of farming by removing from view the likely sites of the ‘colonizing’ villages (e.g., Zilhāo [1993] notes report of Guilaine et al. [1984]), if the Neolithic was arriving essentially as a packet. Instead the partial evidence of early Neolithic assemblages coming from caves and more ephemeral occupations, places that would then have been a little farther inland than at present, might be interpreted as enculturation and partial adaptation of Neolithic traits by resident Mesolithic folk over a long period, rather than evidence of complete settlements somewhere not too far away (for example, see in this light Tusa [1983] for Sicily). In southern Italy it has been argued that the permanent encroachment of agriculturally focused communities was largely confined to the less rugged, more easily accessible terrain nearer the coast of the peninsula until the Late Neolithic

(i.e., after ca. 4200 BC) (Whitehouse 1968). So loss of such flatter coastal areas is likely to have seriously distorted our evidence. In an indirect way, the recovery of ‘tokens’ from the Middle Neolithic of southern Italy tends to argue for the idea of the Neolithic spreading as a fairly complete package, rather than as discrete traits. From a purely functional standpoint such objects do not now seem economically or socially essential. Their inclusion would make more sense if they functioned within a cultural or subsistence system that was being diffused as a relatively complete entity, not as a collection of loosely combined artifactual and economic traits. If their use did not continue into the later Middle Neolithic and beyond (as might be the case if their confinement to the lower stratum of Capo Alfiere is correct), then in their disuse one might be looking at the local divergence of the Neolithic of this part of the world, or its adaptation to its own particular circumstances. As noted, the exact original purpose of the earliest tokens is unknown. They have been proposed as having later been part of a recording or accounting system, which function might derive from earliest use. As yet, to the best of my knowledge, the Capo Alfiere examples are geographic isolates. The degree to which this isolation within the archaeological record continues will necessarily dictate our understanding of their role at the site. As I have tried to point out in this note, their presence poses a number of significant questions. How did they get where they are? What does this tell us about the spread of the Neolithic way of life? And, what are the implications of their possible roles within a community? For example, if their earliest use as an element in the Neolithic assemblage does prove to be as a recording or counting system, this will obviously have considerable impact on our understanding of how these communities worked. It may also suggest that the spread of the Neolithic lifestyle in the Mediterranean Basin involved more than a shared economic package of tools and domesticates.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Introduction Because of the special circumstances of this publication, this catalog was compiled in a somewhat unconventional way. Ordinarily, finds are illustrated following a systematic review of a collection, in which pieces to illustrate are selected either according to a set rule—such as including all pieces that are decorated or indicative of vessel form—or according to the excavator’s sense of the typical finds and the important range of variation among them. Neither was possible in this case. Although the finds had been cogently discussed and illustrated in Morter’s PhD dissertation and an extensive range of finds had been drawn and/or photographed, the collection as a whole had never been the subject of complete illustration. While there is a sizable corpus of drawings and photographs available from Capo Alfiere, we cannot know with certainly how far this body of documentation reflects what Morter’s ultimate assessment of the important aspects of the finds from the site would have been. Given this situation, we decided to compile all the available drawings and photographs of Capo Alfiere finds from the site archives, and selected from this a series of illustrations that displayed with moderate comprehensiveness (as far as we can tell) the site’s typical finds, exceptional finds, and range of variation. It should be noted that the finds have been ordered and annotated from archive pictures, without the ability to check them against the original finds. Inevitably, the resulting catalog has a few lacunae: for example, there are not as many depictions as one might desire of lithics, daub, and polished stone other than the cache

of axes. Similarly, it was not always possible to obtain measurements on the pieces illustrated, but estimates of rim diameters and bases have been included, along with any dimensions written on drawings, in lab records, or in field documentation. For comparative purposes, most drawings are at a scale of 1:3 and photos at 1:2; for intricately detailed or very large pieces, the scale was adjusted accordingly. The finds are divided first by material and then by strata; the ceramics are further sorted by vessel part and style. One note on the style categorizations: In Morter’s original decorative categories for pottery (see Chapter 7), “Stentinello decoration” connoted elaborate geometric designs, and “punctate” connoted simpler designs made from less elaborately arranged impressions. These correspond closely to the distinction other analysts have often observed between Stentinello Wares and Impressed Wares, and we have accordingly equated them with these terms. Morter’s other categories, such as “rocker,” “painted,” and “undecorated,” are straightforward. It should be noted, however, that certain ambiguities remain, mostly in how individual pieces are categorized—for instance, one common design at Capo Alfiere used finger markings, normally a feature of Impressed Ware, within a Stentinello geometric syntax typical of Stentinello wares. In the end, such ambiguities suggest not that our typological categories should be defined in some other way but that Neolithic potters simply did not work in rigidly applied typological categories. John Robb Deena Berg

209

210

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum Ia Ceramics: Rims 1:3

CA 0225-02 (Stratum Ia, Context 025) Impressed rim and body

Description: Bowl, upper body with array of finger markings. Est. rim dia. 28.0. 1:3

Description: Bowl, body with array of short arrow-shaped impressions. Est. rim dia. 24.8 cm.

CA 0972 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Impressed rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, body with array of slanting lines. Est. rim dia. 30.2 cm.

CA 0975-02 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Impressed rim

1:3

1:2

CA 0337 (Stratum Ia, Context 041) Stentinello rim CA 0373 (Stratum Ia, Context 045) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, rim with band of scalloped vertical hatching below. Est. rim dia. 16.3 cm.

Description: Bowl, rim with row of diamonds. Est. rim dia. 14.3 cm. 1:3

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

211 1:3

CA 1160 (Stratum Ia, Context 137) Stentinello rim

Description: Jar, wavy lines at rim, inset diamonds below. Est. rim dia. 14.7 cm. no scale

CA 0826-01 (Stratum Ia, Context 105) Stentinello rim Description: Line of rounded diamonds at rim, band of zigzags below.

no scale

CA 0826-03 (Stratum Ia, Context 105) Stentinello rim Description: Parallel lines below rim.

1:2

CA 0973-02 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Stentinello rim Description: Band of crosshatching at rim, vertical line of diamonds below, white paste in impressions. 1:2

CA 1002 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Stentinello rim Description: Closed, globular jar, with ticked lines descending vertically from rim.

1:2

CA 1077-02 (Stratum Ia, Context 117) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, rim band of scalloped lines with decorative band below, yellow ocher in impressions.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

212

Stratum Ia Ceramics: Handles and Bodies 1:1

CA 1129 (Stratum Ia, Context 132) Stentinello handle

Description: Probable fragment of a handle decorated with stamped chevrons. 1:3

CA 0224 (Stratum Ia, Context 025) Undecorated base Description: Flat with steep upturn.

1:3

CA 1114 (Stratum Ia, Context 126) Impressed base

Description: Curved with dense array of cord markings. 1:3

CA 0975-01, 03, 08 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Impressed body sherds

Description: Array of short line segments; 08 has linear impressions from wavy instrument, probably shell edge. no scale

CA 1024 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Rocker body Description: Decoration covering surface so densely as to form textured surface.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

213 1:2

CA 0225-03 (Stratum Ia, Context 025) Stentinello body

Description: Nested zigzags and vertical line of diamonds. 1:2

CA 0266 (Stratum Ia, Context 032) Stentinello body

Description: Probable junction of body and neck of tallnecked flask, band of gridded diamonds with vertical wavy lines below. 1:1

CA 0296 (Stratum Ia, Context 035) Stentinello body

Description: Line of elliptical impressions. 1:2

CA 1092 (Stratum Ia, Context 117) Stentinello body CA 1122 (Stratum Ia, Context 126) Stentinello body Description: Intersecting horizontal and vertical lines of diamonds, yellow-white ocher infill.

Description: Large design of nested zigzags; perforated horizontal loop handle. 1:2

214

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum Ib Ceramics: Rims, Bases, Handles, and Bodies 1:2

CA 1174-05 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Impressed rim Description: Bowl or jar, array of short linear impressions.

1:2

CA 1174-06 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Impressed rim Description: Bowl or jar, two rows of square impressions, diagonal lines below.

1:3

1:2

Description: Bowl, rim band of chevrons with hatched band, diagonal line below. Est. rim dia. 24.2 cm.

CA 0776-01 (Stratum Ib, Context 092) Stentinello rim

1:2

Description: Bowl, rim band of dotted nested diamonds, decorated band below. Est. rim dia. 24.6 cm.

CA 1174-02 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Stentinello rim 1:2

CA 1174-04 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Stentinello rim

1:3

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim with diamonds above wavy lines. Est. rim dia. 29.9 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

215 1:2

CA 0915-01 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Undecorated base

1:2

CA 1174-01 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Stentinello base

Description: Flat base of bowl or jar, zigzags and diamond on side of vessel. Note tick marks on base. 1:2

CA 1174-03 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Stentinello handle

Description: Array of crescents across top, zigzags and crescents in adjacent areas.

1:2

CA 0915-02 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Impressed body

Description: Array of paired crescents.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

216

Stratum IIa and IIb Ceramics: Rims, Handles, Bases, and Bodies 1:3

1:4

CA 0397 (Stratum IIa, Context 053) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, band of diamonds. Est. rim dia. 42.8 cm. 1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band of double circles, vertical bands of circles. Paired circles with vertical lug may represent face. Est. rim dia. 11.7 cm.

CA 1043 (Stratum IIa, Context 116) Stentinello rim, lug, body

1:3

1:2

Description: Bowl, rim with hatched zigzags. Est. rim dia. 12.5 cm.

CA 1022-02 (Stratum IIb, Context 006) Stentinello rim

1:3

1:2

CA 1022-01 (Stratum IIb, Context 006) Undecorated rim

Description: Bowl. Est. rim dia. 11.8 cm. 1:2

CA 0358 (Stratum IIa, Context 044) Undecorated handle Description: Perforated lug with modeled end.

1:2

CA 0359 (Stratum IIa Context 044) Painted body

217

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum II rubble Ceramics 1:2

CA 0909-04 (Stratum II rubble, Context 030) Impressed rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, array of vertical linear impressions. Est. rim dia. 18.3 cm. 1:1

CA 0334 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Rocker rim CA 1027-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 094) Rocker rim Description: Bowl or jar, row of finger markings at rim, band of rocker decoration below.

Description: Bowl or jar, rocker decoration. no scale

1:2

CA 0191 (Stratum II rubble Context 023) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, rim band of crescents, vertical bands of crescents. 1:3

CA 0382-03 (Stratum II rubble, Context 048) Stentinello rim 1:1

CA 0347-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, row of finger markings at rim with diagonal hatching below. Est. rim dia. 34.1 cm. 1:3

Description: Bowl, band of hatched diamonds below rim. Est. rim dia. 30.1 cm.

218

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0335-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds with vertical hatching below. Est. rim dia. 12.2 cm. 1:3

1:2

Description: Bowl, rim band with grid of diamonds below. Est. rim dia. 18.4 cm.

CA 0326 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Stentinello rim

1:3

1:2

Description: Bowl or jar, vertical band with possible eye motif. Est. rim dia. 10.1 cm.

CA 0335-03 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Stentinello rim 1:2

1:3

Description: Bowl, line of circles. Est. rim dia. 16.4 cm.

CA 0342-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Stentinello rim

1:3

1:2

CA 0909-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 030) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, row of finger markings at rim, diagonal parallel lines below. Est. rim dia. 20.8 cm. 1:1

CA 0909-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 030) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, circle impressions with diagonal hatching below.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

219 1:3

CA 0401 (Stratum II rubble, Context 036) Undecorated rim

Description: Bowl with hole drilled after firing. Est. rim dia. 22.2 cm. 1:3

CA 0360 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Undecorated rim, body

Description: Bowl or jar. Est. rim dia. 12.5 cm. 1:3

CA 0909-03 (Stratum II rubble, Context 030) Undecorated rim

Description: Bowl or jar. 1:3

CA 0310 (Stratum II rubble, Context 033) Undecorated rim, lug

Description: Bowl or jar, rim with lug. 1:4

CA 0332 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Rocker handle

Description: Impressed decoration, rocker decoration on inside of vessel. 1:2

CA 0382-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 048) Stentinello handle Description: Nested angles, perhaps diamonds.

220

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0444-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 002) Stentinello lug Description: Impressed row of diamonds on top. 1:3

CA 0342-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Undecorated handle 1:3

CA 0356 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Undecorated handle 1:3

CA 0275-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 033) Impressed base Description: Irregular slashed lines radiating from base. Est. base dia. 10.5 cm.

1:3

CA 0739 (Stratum II rubble, Context 094) Undecorated vessel stand Description: Shallow double-sided stand for holding round-based vessels.

1:2

CA 0325-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Stentinello body

Description: Array of wavy lines.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

221 1:2

CA 0924 (Stratum II rubble, Context 030) Stentinello body

Description: Zigzags or hatched diamonds. 1:2

CA 0382-01 (Stratum II rubble, Context 048) Stentinello body Description: V-shaped impressions and bands of diamonds. 1:2

CA 0309 (Stratum II rubble, Context 033) Stentinello body

Description: Vertical ticked lines. no scale

CA 0377 (Stratum II rubble, Context 048) Stentinello body Description: Broad band of zigzags.

1:1

CA 0335-04 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Painted body

Description: Buff figulina fabric with brown paint. 1:2

CA 0325-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 038) Undecorated body Description: Mend hole drilled after firing.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

222

Stratum III Ceramics: Impressed Rims

CA 0008-01 (Stratum III, Context 002) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, black burnished surface with finger or tool impressions.

1:2

CA 0010-16 (Stratum III, Context 002) Impressed rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, finger markings in haphazard array. Est. rim dia. 33.3 cm. 1:4

1:2

CA 0014-03 (Stratum III, Context 002) Impressed rim

1:2

Description: Bowl, rim band with heart-shaped impressions. Est. rim dia. 43.6 cm. 1:3

CA 0027 (Stratum III, Context 016) Impressed rim Description: Bowl, rim band of crescent impressions with grid band below. Est. rim dia. 30.6 cm. 1:2

CA 0072-07 (Stratum III, Context 021) Impressed rim

Description: Diagonal ticks. 1:3

1:2

CA 0115-02 (Stratum III, Context 018) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, band of finger markings below rim. Est. rim dia. 13.6 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

223 1:3

CA 0140 (Stratum III, Context 019) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, bands of linear and dot impressions. Est. rim dia. 26.3 cm. 1:2

CA 0154 (Stratum III, Context 018) Impressed rim Description: Array of linear impressions. 1:3

1:2

CA 0178-01 (Stratum III, Context 019) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, row of finger markings. Est. rim dia. 26.2 cm. 1:3

1:2

CA 0186 (Stratum III, Context 019 Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, grid of linear impressions, scalloped rim. Est. rim dia. 34.3 cm. 1:3

1:2

CA 0223-02 (Stratum III, Context 020)

Impressed rim Description: Bowl, grid of linear impressions. Est. rim dia. 30.6 cm. 1:3

1:2

CA 0230-03 (Stratum III, Context 020 Impressed rim

Description: Bowl or jar, vertical ticks on rim edge with another row of vertical ticks below. Est. rim dia. 19.0 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

224

1:3

CA 0248-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, horizontal rows of square impressions. Est. rim dia. 32.9 cm. 1:3

CA 0263-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, row of finger markings below rim. Est. rim dia. 26.5 cm. 1:2

CA 0489-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

Description: Row of finger markings at rim, array of linear marks below. 1:3

CA 0492-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

Description: Short ticks on rim edge. 1:3

1:2

CA 0509 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, double line of crescent impressions at rim, array of crescents below. Est. rim dia. 28.9 cm. 1:3

CA 0526 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, double row of finger markings with incised triangle below. Est. rim dia. 24.2 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0555-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

225 1:3

Description: Jar, row of crowfoot-like impressions. Est. rim dia. 14.1 cm. 1:2

CA 0555-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

Description: Double row of finger markings with diagonal lines below. 1:2

CA 0565-05 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed rim

Description: Array of crescents. 1:2

CA 0610 (Stratum III, Context 084) Impressed rim

Description: Irregular horizontal tick marks. 1:3

CA 0005-04 (Stratum III, Context 002) Rocker rim

Description: Jar, tick marks along rim with horizontal band of rocker marks below. Est. rim dia. 18.1 cm. 1:3

CA 0204-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Rocker rim

Description: Bowl, faint vertical band of rocker marks. Est. rim dia. 12.3 cm.

226

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum III Ceramics: Stentinello Rims

1:3

CA 0005-02 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, parallel wavy impressions below rim. Est. rim dia. 30.0 cm. 1:2

1:3

Description: Bowl, band of grid impressions below rim, second band below. Est. rim dia. 16.0 cm.

CA 0005-03 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim 1:2

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band and vertical band of complex ticked impressions. Est. rim dia. 18.4 cm.

CA 0005-05 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

1:2

CA 0005-07 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim Description: Crosshatched rim band, grid of diamond impressions below. Note unusual scalloped rim.

1:3

Description: Jar, densely nested vertical zigzags. Est. rim dia. 24.3 cm.

CA 0008-02 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim, body 1:4

CA 0008-14 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim, body

1:3

Description: Tall-necked jar, vertical band of nested zigzags alternating with vertical bands of tick marks, eye motif near top. White and red ocher in impressions. Est. rim dia. 21.8 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

227 1:3

CA 0010-01 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim 1:2

CA 0010-05 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, black burnished surface, rim band with parallel zigzags, body with horizontal zigzags and diagonal strokes, white ocher paste. Est. rim dia. 26.6 cm. 1:3

Description: Bowl, nested zigzags and diamonds, white paste in impressions. Est. rim dia. 12.8 cm. 1:3

CA 0010-10 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, rim band of finger markings with parallel diagonal lines below. Est. rim dia. 35.2 cm. 1:3

1:2

CA 0010-11 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Jar, double band of impressions at rim with vertical line of tick marks below. Est. rim dia. 25.6 cm. 1:2

CA 0010-12 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Hatched diamonds, possibly made with ticked stamp or cord marking. 1:3

1:2

a

b

CA 0010-14 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Shallow bowl with unusual decoration on internal surface (a) as well as on external surface (b). Est. rim dia. 22.0 cm.

228

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0012-01 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of nested zigzags with hatched diamonds or zigzags below, white paste in impressions. 12

CA 0012-04 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Possible tall-necked jar. Row of circular stamps. 1:2

CA 0012-05 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of impressions with parallel diagonal lines below. 1:2

CA 0012-06 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of diamonds with nested zigzags or diamonds below, white paste possibly in impressions. 1:2

CA 0012-08 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Nested wavy lines and diamonds below rim, yellow ocher paste in impressions. 1:1

CA 0012-11 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim

Description: Double rim band of diamonds with diagonal lines of tick marks below.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

229 1:3

Description: Rim band of grid impressions, band of diamonds, vertical bands below.

CA 0014-01 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello rim 1:2

1:3

Description: Bowl, Stentinello eye motif. Est. rim dia. 13 cm.

CA 0029 (Stratum III, Context 016) Stentinello rim 1:2

CA 0048 (Stratum III, Context 016) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band of triangles, vertical band of wavy lines, fill of parallel ticks. Est. rim dia. 18.5 cm. 1:1

Description: Double rim band of V’s with wavy hatching below.

CA 0062-02 (Stratum III, Context 017 Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds, hatching of ticked zigzags or diamonds below. Est. rim dia. 20.0 cm.

CA 0072-03 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello rim 1:2

CA 0072-04 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds in grid, hatched band below. Est. rim dia. 19.7 cm.

230

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0086 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, diagonal hatching below rim. Est. rim dia. 13.2 cm. 1:2

CA 0087-02 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band, impressions, vertical hatching, possible eye motif. Est. rim dia. 22.5 cm. 1:3

CA 0107-01 (Stratum III, Context 017) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, rim band of wavy lines. Est. rim dia. 20.4 cm. 1:3

CA 0107-02 (Stratum III, Context 017) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, row of ticks along rim, parallel diagonal lines below. Est. rim dia. 25.6 cm. 1:3

CA 0115-01 (Stratum III, Context 018 Stentinello rim, body

Description: Bowl, rim band of dense wavy lines, broad band of densely nested hatching fringed at bottom with tick marks. Est. rim dia. 15.7 cm. 1:3

CA 0121 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds with vertical wavy lines. Est. rim dia. 9.1 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

231 1:1

CA 0144-01 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of impressions with grid of diamonds below. 1:1

CA 0148 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of three rows of impressions, vertical band of zigzags below. 1:2

CA 0152-01 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of finger markings with diagonal hatching below. 1:3

CA 0170 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, zigzag decoration of overlapping impressions. Est. rim dia. 35.8 cm. 1:3

1:2

CA 0174-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, rim bands of zigzags and waves, diamonds and crosshatching below. Est. rim dia. 14.1 cm.

232

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:3

CA 0179-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim, base, body

Description: Bowl, rim band, zigzag, and vertical bands, all of densely nested impressions. Est. rim dia. 15.6 cm. 1:1

CA 0184-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of circular impressions, indistinct decoration below. 1:1

CA 0227-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim

Description: Diamond crosshatched inset surrounded by crosshatch background. 1:3

CA 0229-02 (Stratum III, Context 027) Stentinello rim

Description: Jar, band of impressions at rim with impressed zigzags below. Est. rim dia. 16.2 cm. 1:3

CA 0230-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed rim

Description: Bowl, triangles filled with array of short linear impressions. Est. rim dia. 12.2 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

233 1:3

CA 0255-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, rim band of vertical lines with zones of diagonal hatching below. Est. rim dia. 21.0 cm. 1:1

CA 0255-03 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim

Description: Elaborately impressed rim bands.

1:2

CA 0262 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim

1:4

Description: Bowl, rim band of finger markings, vertical zigzags below. Est. rim dia. 46.7 cm. 1:2

CA 0263-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello rim Description: Rim band of diamonds, hatched band with inset diamond below.

CA 0274-01 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, diamonds with diagonal ticked lines below. Est. rim dia. 16.1 cm. 1:2

CA 0303-01 (Stratum III, Context 037) Stentinello rim CA 0317-01 (Stratum III, Context 037) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, rim band of finger markings with impressed diagonal lines below. Est. rim dia. 16.5 cm.

1:3

1:3

Description: Wide shallow bowl, double-sided rim decoration, with crosshatched zigzag. Est. rim dia. 34.4 cm. 1:3

234

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:3

Description: Bowl, top bands encasing a wavy line, with parallel vertical zigzags below. Est. rim dia. 34.4 cm.

CA 0331 (Stratum III, Context 037) Stentinello rim

1:3

1:1

Description: Bowl, double line of circles at rim. Est. rim dia. 10.2 cm.

CA 0335-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Double rim band of crescent impressions with diagonal hatching below.

CA 0457 (Stratum III, Context 079) Stentinello rim

1:2

CA 0459 (Stratum III, Context 079) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds, band of larger diamonds alternating with crosshatching below. 1:3

1:2

CA 0481 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, rim band of gridded diamonds, row of diamonds and possible vertical bands of diamonds below. Est. rim dia. 16.2 cm. 1:2

CA 0489-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim Description: Bowl, wavy lines at rim, band of hatched zigzags below. 1:2

CA 0498-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl or jar, rim band of nested diamonds.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

235 1:2

Description: Bowl, double line of diamonds.

CA 0498-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

1:2

CA 0511 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds and wavy lines, hatched motif below, red paste in impressions. 1:2

CA 0518-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, wavy lines filled with white paste. 1:2

Description: Wavy lines at rim with hatched band below, yellow paste in impressions.

CA 0540-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

1:2

Description: Rim with slightly upraised pierced lug. Hatched vertical zigzags, white paste in impressions.

CA 0573 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim 1:2

CA 0585, CA 587 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim

1:3

Description: Bowl, rim band of diamonds, decorated band of diamonds set into hatched space below, white paste in rim band impressions. Est. rim dia. 26.6 cm.

236

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

1:1

CA 0595-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello rim Description: Rim line of diamonds with zigzag in hatched space below.

1:1

CA 0646-03 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello rim

Description: Rim band of hatched zigzag with vertical hatching below. 1:1

CA 0646-05 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello rim Description: Two wavy lines at rim with vertical wavy line below. 1:1

CA 0646-08 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello rim

Description: Row of ovals at rim, vertical bands of diamonds and ticked lines. 1:3

CA 0646-14 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello rim

Description: Bowl, wavy lines at rim with other impressions below, white paste in impressions. Est. rim dia. 30.1.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

237

Stratum III Ceramics: Undecorated Rims

1:3

CA 0008-06 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim 1:3

CA 0008-07 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim

1:3

CA 0008-08 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim 1:2

1:3

CA 0008-12 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim 1:3

CA 0008-18 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim Description: Bowl. Est. rim dia. 9.9 cm.

1:3

CA 0010-17 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim

Description: Bowl, red impasto fabric with white or buff slip. Est. rim dia. 22.3 cm. 1:3

CA 0012-09 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated rim Description: Jar. Est. rim dia. 13.2 cm. 1:3

CA 0026-01 (Stratum III, Context 016) Undecorated rim Description: Bowl or jar. Est. rim dia. 11.0 cm.

238

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:3

1:2

Description: Jar. Est. rim dia. 18.2 cm.

CA 0063 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated rim

1:3

1:2

CA 0066-01 (Stratum III, Context 019) Undecorated rim

Description: Jar. Est. rim dia. 10.2 cm. 1:2

CA 0075-01 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated rim

Description: Bowl, hole drilled after firing. no scale

Description: Shallow plate, fragment extending from rim to base.

CA 0106 (Stratum III, Context 019) Undecorated rim, base

1:3

1:2

CA 0158-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim

Description: Bowl. Est. rim dia. 19.4 cm. 1:3

CA 0184-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim

1:3

CA 0204-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim Description: Jar. Est. rim dia. 14.4 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

239

1:1

CA 0227-03 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim

1:3

Description: Wide, shallow bowl. Est. rim dia. 22.5 cm. 1:3

1:2

CA 0230-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim

Description: Jar. Est. rim dia. 16.1 cm. 1:3

CA 0230-04 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim, body, base

Description: Large shallow bowl. Height. 7.5 cm; est. rim dia. 26.0 cm. 1:3

CA 0235-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated rim Description: Large closed jar. Est. rim dia. 22.1 cm. 1:3

CA 0274-03 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated rim, base Description: Fragment of wide shallow bowl extending from rim to base. Est. rim dia. 18.3 cm. 1:3

CA 0453-01 (Stratum III, Context 079) Undecorated rim

240

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum III Ceramics: Painted Rims, Bell Beaker 1:3

CA 0010-13 (Stratum III, Context 002) Painted rim Description: Jar, possible remnants of paint. Est. rim dia. 16.0 cm. 1:1

CA 0165-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Painted rim

1:3

Description: Jar, band of white paint below rim. Est. rim dia. 14.2 cm.

1:3

CA 0152-02 (Stratum III, Context 018) Bell Beaker rim, body, base

Description: At least four discrete bands of cord-marked decoration. Est. height 34.4 cm; est. rim dia. 22.5 cm; est. base dia. 9.8 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

241

Stratum III Ceramics: Handles and Bases

CA 0540-03 (Stratum III, Context 081) Rocker handle

1:2

Description: Rocker decoration on inside surface of vessel. 1:2

CA 0010-02 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello handle

Description: Thickening for handle attachment on both inside and outside, crosshatched diamonds or zigzags. 1:2

CA 0010-07 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello handle Description: Circular vertical lug with diamond motifs on adjacent body. 1:2

CA 0087-01 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello handle

Description: Small vertical lug with hatching adjacent. 1:2

CA 0099 (Stratum III, Context 017) Stentinello handle

Description: Bowl or jar, with pierced lug. 1:2

CA 0128 (Stratum III, Context 017) Stentinello handle

Description: Vertical lug with dense hatching around it.

242

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0292-02 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello handle

Description: Vertical lug with hatching in adjacent areas. 1:2

CA 0444-03 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello handle Description: Hatched decoration above handle. 1:2

CA 0572-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello handle Description: Band of chevrons across top of handle, yellow paste in impressions.

1:2

CA 0619-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello handle

Description: Wavy lines and lines of diamonds. 1:2

CA 0642-01 (Stratum III, Context 084) Stentinello handle Description: Body with lug, chevron or diamond of dense impressions, crosshatched triangle.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

243 1:2

CA 0077 (Stratum III, Context 017) Undecorated handle 1:2

CA 0085 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated handle 1:1

CA 0089 (Stratum III, Context 017) Undecorated handle

Description: Double lug arranged vertically. 1:2

CA 0352 (Stratum III, Context 042) Undecorated handle 1:2

CA 0565-07 (Stratum III, Context 081) Undecorated handle

1:2

CA 0209 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated handle

244

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0194-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed base

Description: Footed bowl. 1:2

CA 0053 (Stratum III, Context 017) Stentinello base

Description: Footed bowl or jar; decoration of hatched triangles. Est. base dia. 8.8 cm. 1:2

CA 0551-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello base Description: Zigzag on hatched background, band of hatching on base also. 1:2

CA 0010-06 (Stratum III, Context 002) Undecorated base

Description: Footed jar or bowl. Est. base dia. 8.2 cm.

1:2

CA 0074-01 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated base

Description: Footed bowl. Est. base dia. 8.6 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

245 1:2

CA 0075-06 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated base

Description: Footed bowl. Est. base dia. 10.3 cm. 1:2

CA 0144-02 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated base

Description: Footed bowl. Est. base dia. 6.4 cm.

1:2

CA 0282-01 (Stratum III, Context 034) Undecorated base, lug

Description: Small, thick bowl with perforated lugs. Height 9.35 cm; est. greatest dia. without handle 13.1 cm; est. base dia. 6.15 cm.

246

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum III Ceramics: Impressed and Rocker Bodies 1:2

CA 0156 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed body Description: Array of short lines. 1:1

CA 0174-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed body

Description: Grid of dots with band of zigzags below. 1:2

CA 0192 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed body

Description: Crosshatching of lines. 1:3

CA 0223-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed body

Description: Triangle filled with array of point impressions. 1:2

CA 0255-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Impressed body Description: Grid of irregular point impressions.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

247 1:2

CA 0572-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed body

Description: Triangles with triangular impressions. 1:3

CA 0583 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed body

Description: Crossed lines, roughly impressed. 1:2

CA 0619-03 (Stratum III, Context 081) Impressed body

Description: Area of chaotic linear impressions demarcated from area of point impressions. 1:2

CA 0626-01 (Stratum III, Context 084) Impressed body Description: Array of line segments. 1:2

CA 0068 (Stratum III, Context 019) Rocker body

248

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0229-01 (Stratum III, Context 027) Rocker body

Description: Junction between body and neck on closed jar, intersecting bands of rocker. 1:2

CA 0265 (Stratum III, Context 020) Rocker body Description: Parallel horizontal bands of zigzags.

1:2

CA 0282-02 (Stratum III, Context 034) Rocker body

Description: Rocker stamp, white paste in impressions. 1:2

CA 0565-06 (Stratum III, Context 081) Rocker body

Description: Faint band of rocker design.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

249

Stratum III Ceramics: Stentinello Bodies 1:2

CA 0005-08 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello body Description: Crosshatched diamonds or zigzags, dark burnished surface, white paste in impressions. 1:1

CA 0007 (Stratum III, Context 005) Stentinello body

Description: Bands of diamonds, circle impression. 1:2

CA 0010-03 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello body

Description: Crosshatched diagonal bands, white paste in impressions. 1:2

CA 0010-08 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello body

Description: Hatched diamond motif fringed with lines. 1:2

CA 0012-02 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello body

Description: Rows of impressions, yellow ocher paste in impressions.

250

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0012-10 (Stratum III, Context 002) Stentinello body Description: Intersecting areas of diagonal hatching.

1:2

CA 0042-02 (Stratum III, Context 016) Stentinello body

Description: Parallel lines of diamond impressions. 1:2

CA 0072-01 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello body

Description: Parallel zigzags. 1:2

CA 0072-02 (Stratum III, Context 021) Stentinello body

Description: Grid and hatched band, white paste in impressions. 1:2

CA 0075-03 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello body

Description: Horizontal and vertical bands of wavy lines.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

251 1:1

CA 0083 (Stratum III, Context 019) Stentinello body

Description: Nested rows of zigzags and cross-shaped punches. 1:1

Description: Wavy lines with red ocher paste.

CA 0129-01 (Stratum III, Context 20) Stentinello body

1:2

CA 0183-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello body

Description: Band of densely nested zigzags. 1:2

Description: Triangular motif with infill of lines.

CA 0223-03 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello body

1:1

2:1

CA 0230-05 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello body

Description: Band of diagonal lines, red ocher paste in impressions.

252

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0248-02 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stentinello body

Description: Zigzag bands, hatched. 1:2

CA 0274-02 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello body Description: Upper body and neck of closed vessel, with horizontal lines. 1:2

CA 0289 (Stratum III, Context 018) Stentinello body

Description: Diamonds with crosshatching. 1:2

CA 0317-04 (Stratum III, Context 037) Stentinello body

Description: Nested diamonds with crosshatching. 1:2

CA 0452-01 (Stratum III, Context 079) Stentinello body

Description: Wavy lines with vertical bands of impressions. 1:2

CA 0460-02 (Stratum III, Context 079) Stentinello body

Description: Zigzags on both inside and outside of vessel. 1:2

CA 0469 (Stratum III, Context 079) Stentinello body

Description: Decoration on both inside and outside of vessel.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

253 1:2

CA 0477-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello body

Description: Band of zigzag in crosshatched space, hatched diamonds above. 1:2

CA 0484-02 (Stratum III, Context 082) Stentinello body

Description: Raised circle (possible lug?) covered with dense hatching. 1:2

CA 0518-01 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello body

Description: Decorated on both sides, exterior with row of diamonds and lines, interior with zigzags and lines. 1:2

CA 0540-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello body

Description: Parallel lines with white paste in impressions, decoration on both internal and external surfaces. 1:2

CA 0565-03 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello body

Description: Wavy lines. 1:2

CA 0565-04 (Stratum III, Context 081) Stentinello body

Description: Crosshatched band and zigzag set into hatched space.

254

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0642-02 (Stratum III, Context 084) Stentinello body

Description: Nested diamonds, red ocher in impressions. 1:2

CA 0642-03 (Stratum III, Context 084) Stentinello body

Description: Nested diamonds, zigzags and other linear impressions. 1:2

CA 0642-04 (Stratum III, Context 084) Stentinello body

Description: Dense hatching of ticked lines. 1:2

CA 0646-02 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello body

Description: Ticked lines with red ocher paste. 1:2

CA 0646-09 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello body

Description: Row of inset diamonds, white paste in impressions. 1:2

CA 0646-10 (Stratum III, Context 087) Stentinello body

Description: Band of straight and wavy lines.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum III Ceramics: Undecorated Bodies

CA 0153-01 (Stratum III, Context 020) Undecorated body

255 1:2

Description: carinated vessel. 1:2

Description: Closed vessel. Note marked carination.

CA 0219 (Stratum III, Context 018) Undecorated body

1:1

CA 0494-01 (Stratum III, Context 082) Undecorated body

Description: Fragment of colander or strainer. 1.1

CA 0494-02 (Stratum III, Context 082) Undecorated body

Description: Fragment of colander or strainer. no scale

CA 0595-02 (Stratum III, Context 081) Undecorated body

1:3

Description: Upper body of large closed vessel.

256

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stratum III Ceramics: Painted Bodies 1:1

CA 0239 (Stratum III, Context 020) Painted body

1:1

CA 0348 (Stratum III, Context 042) Painted body Description: Brown paint.

1:1

CA 0484-01 (Stratum III, Context 082) Painted body

Description: Brownish paint on buff fabric.

Ceramic Implements 1:1

CA 0072-05 (Stratum III, Context 021) Clay implement

Description: smoothed into rounded form through persistent abrasion after breakage, probably used as smoother or abrader for working organic materials or making pottery. Color: brown to red-beige Max. height 3.5 cm; max. width 3.4 cm; max. thickness 0.6 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

257

Other Ceramic Small Finds 2:1

1:1

Description: Fragment of pawn-shaped token, unusual amount of sand and vegetable inclusions. Color: gray. Max. dia. 1.7 cm; max. height 1.7 cm.

CA 1041 (Stratum Ia, Context 117) Clay token 2:1

1:1

Description: Pawn-shaped token. Max. dia. 1.2 cm; max. height 1.7 cm.

CA 0715 (Stratum Ib, Context 092) Clay token

1:1

2:1

CA 0938 (Stratum Ib, Context 106) Clay token

Description: Pawn-shaped token. Point is very slightly pinched, which could suggest a nose but is probably accidental. Max. dia. 1.8 cm; max. height 1.2 cm. 2:1

CA 0380-01 (Stratum IIa, Context 044) Clay token

1:1

Description: Spherical token, apparently fired, no temper apparent, crudely made, not well finished or rounded. Max. dia. 1.5 cm

258

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Lithics 1:3

CA 0081-01 (Stratum IIa, Context 022) Polished stone

Description: Ax from cache. Max. length 17.1 cm; max. width 5.9 cm. 1:3

CA 0081-02 (Stratum IIa, Context 022) Polished stone

Description: Ax from cache. Max. length 13.9 cm; max. width 9.3 cm. 1:3

CA 0081-03 (Stratum IIa, Context 022) Polished stone

Description: Ax from cache. Note slightly asymmetrical form (adze). Max. length 10.1 cm; max. width 6.2 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

259 1:3

CA 0081-04 (Stratum IIa, Context 022) Polished stone

Description: Ax from cache. Max. length 10.4 cm; max. width 7.7 cm. 1:3

CA 0081-05 (Stratum IIa, Context 022) Polished stone

Description: Ax from cache. Note slight asymmetry (adze form). Max. length 15.5 cm; max. width 9.5 cm. 1:2

CA 0075-07 (Stratum III, Context 018) Polished stone

Description: Ax, with damage on end from possible reuse as hammerstone. Max. length 7.8 cm; max. width 4.7 cm.

260

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:2

CA 0126 (Stratum III, Context 019) Polished stone

Description: Broken ax, probably reused as hammerstone or pestle. Max. length 6.5 cm; max. width 5.3 cm. 1:8

CA 1164 (Stratum IIa, Context 141) Ground stone Description: Oval mortar. Max. length 48.3 cm; max. width 37.7 cm; max. height 13.7 cm. 1:8

CA 1165 (Stratum IIb, Context 142) Ground stone Description: Round mortar. Max. length 32.0 cm.; max. width 30.8 cm; max. height 19.4 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

261 1:1

CA 0190 (Stratum II rubble, Context 023) Chipped stone

Description: Unifacial scraper of black obsidian with white inclusions, conspicuous minor retouch/edge damage from use along edge and distal end. Other edge of distal surface has small amount of cortex remaining. Singlefacet platform, but concave and with lip typical of biface thinning flake. Max. length 5.3 cm; max. width 3.1 cm; max. thickness 1.4 cm. 1:1

CA 0978 (Stratum II rubble, Context 052) Chipped stone

Description: Chert scraper. Max. length 4.1 cm; max. width 2.8 cm; max. thickness 1.8 cm.

262

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 2:1

CA 0116 (Stratum III, Context 017) Chipped stone

Description: Chert lunate, unifacial with retouch on curved edge, forms point at one end. Color: beige color, translucent in places. Max. length 1.9 cm; max. width 0.7 cm; max. thickness 0.2 cm. 2:1

CA 0174-03 (Stratum III, Context 020) Chipped stone

Description: Point made on micro-blade segment, probably a drill, retouch on opposing ventral and dorsal edges, tip worn dull and now rounded. Color: purple-grey coarse chert. Max. length 1.6 cm; max. width 0.9 cm; max. thickness 0.4 cm. 1:1

CA 0442 (Stratum III, Context 002) Chipped stone Description: Flake. Max. length 1.9 cm; max. width 1.2 cm; max. thickness 0.8 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

263 1:1

Chert blades and flakes, ventral view

Chert blades and flakes, dorsal view 1:1

Obsidian blades and flakes, ventral view

Obsidian blades and flakes, dorsal view

264

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Stone Ornaments CA 0088 (Stratum III, Context 020) Stone ornament

Disk-shaped bead, probably stone. Color: brown. Max. dia. 0.6 cm; inner dia. 0.3 cm; max. thickness 0.2 cm. No illustration. 4:1

CA 0295-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 033) Stone ornament

2:1

CA 0936 (Stratum Ib, Context 107) Stone ornament

2:1

Description: Bead, steatite or a similar material, one side flat, other side rounded, probably drilled from concave side. Color: dark gray. Max. dia. 0.8 cm; inner dia. 0.2 cm; max. thickness 0.2 cm

1:1

Description: Triangular stone pendant, polished with rounded corners, drilled at top from both sides, section of drill hole snapped off. Material is probably serpentine mixed with green marble and possibly ignimbrite. Max. length 1.9 cm; max. width 1.4 cm; inner dia. 0.2 cm. (Additional note: this may be a reworked remnant of polished-stone ax or replica of one. [JR])

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Bone

CA 0741 (Stratum Ib, Context 092) Bone ornament

265 2:1

Description: Pendant fragment, polished thin strip of bone with holes drilled and notches incised along edges, holes drilled from both sides, ends lost. Max. length 1.1 cm; max. width 1.1 cm; max. thickness 0.3 cm. 1:1

CA 0947 (Stratum IIb, Context 111) Bone ornament

Description: Pendant, polished, slightly tapering towards top, flat on one side, slightly convex on the other, one long edge is more flattened than the other, hole drilled from both sides. No obvious meaningful incisions, facets suggest sawing off at base, presumably made from long bone of a relatively large animal. Color: beige to brown. Max. length 4.2 cm; max. width 1.5 cm; max. thickness 0.6 cm; hole dia. 0.4 cm. 2:1

CA 0273-02 (Stratum II rubble, Context 033) Bone ornament

Description: Perforated pendant or needle, broken, hole drilled from both sides. Max. length 1.6 cm; max. width 0.5 cm; max. thickness 0.5 cm.

266

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 4:1

CA 0505 (Stratum III, Context 081) Bone ornament

2:1

Description: Bead cut from section of small bone, one side polished as if sawn off. Color: yellow. Max. dia. 0.5 cm; inner dia. 0.3 cm; max. thickness 0.1 cm. 2:1

CA 0510 (Stratum III, Context 081) Bone ornament

Description: Bone bead similar in form to dentalium shell beads, but made from thin bone cut and smoothed. Sawn or cut off at narrower end, slight curve due to shape of bone. Color: white. Max. length 1.7 cm; max. dia. 0.6 cm; min. dia. 0.3 cm.

2:1

CA 0515 (Stratum III, Context 080) Bone plaque

1:1

Description: Bone, probably rib, modified into flat plaque, slightly curved, interior on convex side slightly polished, concave surface polished. One long edge scalloped, the other broken. Color: natural bone. Max. length 2.1 cm; max. width 1.4 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

267 1:1

Description: Long bone fragment with edges sharpened to point (by polishing?), proximal end snapped off. Color: bone to white. Max. length 3.9 cm; maximum width 0.9 cm.

CA 0535 (Stratum III, Context 081) Bone point

3:1

CA 0605 (Stratum III, Context 081) Worked bone

CA 0619-04 (Stratum III, Context 084) Bone ornament Description: Bead made from hollowed long bone (bird?), similar in form to dentalium shell bead but made from thin bone with ends cut and smoothed. Tubular, tapering with slight curve, apparently sawn off at narrower end. Color: white. Max. length 1.4 cm; max. dia. 0.4 cm; min. dia. 0.2 cm.

2:1

Description: Fragment of squared worked bone, use unknown. Max. length 0.9 cm; max. width 0.4 cm; max. thickness 0.4 cm.

2:1

268

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Shell CA 1026 (Stratum Ia, Context 110) Shell bead

CA 0766 (Stratum Ib, Context 094) Shell bead Description: Ring bead, carved, probably drilled from both sides and polished. Color: pale gray with dark lines. Max. dia. 0.7 cm; max. thickness 0.2 cm; inner dia. 0.4 cm. CA 1058 (Stratum IIa, Context 116) Shell bead Ring bead, one side flat and polished, with grain of shell visible running across it. Other side less smooth, with hole possibly drilled from this side. Color: white with beige streaks. Max. dia. 0.8 cm; inner dia. 0.4 cm; thickness less than 0.2 cm. CA 1118 (Stratum IIa, Context 131) Shell implement

CA 1028 (Stratum IIb, Context 006) Shell bead Description: Disk with pierced center, slightly damaged on one side, slightly flattened on one edge, hole possibly drilled from one side only. Max. dia. 0.8 cm; inner dia. 0.3 cm; max. thickness 0.2 cm.

Description: Segment of tubular bead made of shell or fossil shell, probably dentalium. Narrow end sawn and polished, other end snapped off. External surface fluted, apparently worn. Color: white. Max. length 1.0 cm; max. dia. 0.5 cm; min. dia. 0.4 cm. No illustration. 2:1

2:1

Description: Fossil shell of large bivalve with conglomerate adhering to it, evidently extracted from local conglomerate formation. Contains a small amount of a pale, creamy colored paste inside, which may be natural conglomerate of a slightly different consistency or indicate use as a palette. Max. length 10.5 cm; max. width 6.0 cm; max. height 5.0 cm. No illustration. 2:1

2:1

CA 0647 (Stratum II rubble, Context 085) Shell bead Description: Dentalium shell, larger end sawn off, narrower end may be sawn or snapped, external surface fluted naturally. Color: beige-white. Max. length 0.8 cm; max. dia. 0.5 cm.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

269 1:1

CA 0986 (Stratum II rubble, Context 052) Shell bead Description: Dentalium shell, cut and smoothed ends, tubular, tapering with external fluting. Certainly sawn off at narrower end and possibly at wide end, but that end is more ragged. Color: beige-white. Max. length 2.0 cm; max. dia. 1.0 cm; min. dia. 0.8 cm.

2:1

CA 0018 (Stratum III, Context 016) Shell bead

Description: Disk with pierced center, uneven thickness. Color: pale cream-white. Max. dia. 0.7 cm; inner dia. 0.4 cm; max. thickness .1 to .2 cm.

CA 0072-08 (Stratum III, Context 021) Shell implement

Description: Possible scraper. Fragment of large bivalve shell, appears to have been sawn and polished to produce a smoothed edge. Max. length 4.8 cm; max. width 3.7 cm; max. width 1.0 cm. No illustration. 1:1

CA 0107-03 (Stratum III, Context 017 Shell disk Description: Ovoid fragment of shell, corrugated on one surface, apparently worn into this shape. Perhaps used as abrader or blank for manufacturing beads. Max. length 2.8 cm; max. width 2.1 cm. CA 0174-04 (Stratum III, Context 020) Shell bead

Description: Tubular segment of tapering, ridged shell, probably dentalium. No obvious signs of working on ends. Max. length 3.4 cm; max. dia. 0 .8 cm. No illustration.

CA 0227 (Stratum III, Context 020) Shell Ornament

Description: Small shell from bivalve, pierced near hinge, probably bead or pendant. Max. length 2.1 cm; max. width 2.0 cm; max. thickness 0.7 cm. No illustration. 1:1

CA 0292-01 (Stratum III, Context 018) Shell bead Description: Dentalium shell with cut and smoothed ends. Max. length 2.5 cm; max. dia. 1.0 cm.

270

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds 1:1

CA 0303-02 (Stratum III, Context 037) Shell ornament

Description: Marine shell with perforation near hinge. Max. length 2.2 cm; max. width 2.2 cm. 2:1

CA 0440-01 (Stratum III, Context 002) Shell bead

CA 0446 (Stratum III, Context 002) Shell bead

Description: Ring bead with center drilled from both sides. Color: white. Max. dia. 0.8 cm; inner dia. .3 cm; max. thickness 0.3 cm.

Description: Tubular dentalium shell or fossil shell with ends broken off, either partially sawn or otherwise deliberately truncated. Shell tapers, slightly curved, and naturally fluted exterior surface. Max. length 3.2 cm; max. dia. 0.9 cm. No illustration. 2:1

CA 0465 (Stratum III, Context 079) Shell bead Description: Tubular dentalium shell or fossil shell. Apparently sawn off at both ends. Slightly curved, naturally fluted exterior surface. Color: beige-white. Max. length 1.7 cm; max. ext. dia. 0.5 cm.

CA 0498-03 (Stratum III, Context 081) Shell bead

Description: Dentalium or fossil shell, tubular, tapering, narrower end sawn off and larger end probably sawn off with final snap fracture. Naturally fluted exterior surface. Color: beige-white. Max. length 1.8 cm; max. dia. 0.9 cm. No illustration.

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

271 1:1

CA 0495 (Stratum III, Context 000) Shell bead

Description: Tubular dentalium shell or fossil shell with cut and smoothed ends, slightly curved. Outer surface slightly fluted. Color: beige-white. Max. length 2.9 cm; max. dia. 0.7 cm.

2:1

CA 0577 (Stratum III, Context 002) Shell bead Description: Pierced shell or bone disk, one side flat, other slightly concave then pierced. Broken with two-thirds of circumference surviving. Max dia. 0.8 cm; inner dia. 0.3 cm; max. thickness 0.2 cm. or less.

1:1

CA 0646-15 (Stratum III, Context 087) Shell bead

Description: Dentalium shell or fossil shell with cut and smoothed ends, possibly sawn off. Narrower end truncated neatly, wider end more uneven though quite smooth. Naturally fluted exterior surface. Inside smooth. Color: beige-white. Max. length 2.4 cm; max. dia. 1.2 cm.

272

Catalog of Ceramic, Lithic, and Other Finds

Daub and Plaster CA 0807 (Stratum IIc, Context 104) Daub

Description: Highly burned piece of clay with sand temper, probably daub, layer of finer paler clay plaster adhering to one face with possible vegetable tempering. Firing possibly accidental as found in pit fill. Color: Daub fired to reddish brown, plaster light gray. Max. length 2.0 cm; max. width 2.0 cm; max. thickness 0.6 cm. Plaster 0.3 cm thick. No illustration. 1:2

CA 0428 (Stratum II rubble, Context 052) Daub Description: Note smoothed side. 1:4

No catalog number Daub Description: Note crossing wattle impressions.

References

Chapters 1–12 Ammerman, A. J. 1979. A Study of Obsidian Exchange Networks in Calabria. World Archaeology 11 (1): 95–110. ——— 1983. Early Italian Pottery: Five Vessels from a Neolithic Household in Calabria. Expe-dition 25 (2): 25–49. ———, ed. 1985a. The Acconia Survey: Neolithic Settlement and the Obsidian Trade, Occasional Publication 10. Institute of Archaeology, London. ——— 1985b. Anthropology and the Study of Neolithic Exchange Systems in Calabria. Dialoghi di archeologia 1: 25–33. ——— 1987. Ricenti contributi sul neolitico della Calabria. In Atti della XXVI riunione scientifica: Il neolitico in Italia, 333–49. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Ammerman, A. J., and W. Andrefsky. 1982. Reduction Sequences and the Exchange of Obsidian in Neolithic Calabria. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, ed. J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle, 149–72. Academic Press, New York. Ammerman, A. J., and S. Bonardi. 1986. Ceramica stentinelliana da una struttura a Piana di Curinga (Catanzaro). Rivista di Scienze preistoriche 40 (1–2): 201–24. Ammerman, A. J., and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of the Populations of Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ammerman, A., G. D. Shaffer, and N. Hartman. 1988. A Neolithic Household at Piano di Curinga, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 121–40. Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bernabò Brea, L. 1957. Sicily Before the Greeks. Praeger, New York. Bernabò Brea, L., and M. Cavalier. 1960. Meligunìs Lipára, vol. 1, La stazione preistorica della contrada Diana e la necropoli preistorica di Lipari. Pubblicazioni del Museo Eoliano di Lipari. S. F. Flaccovio, Palermo.

——— 1980. Meligunìs Lipára, vol. 4, L’Acropoli di Lipari nella Preistoria. Pubblicazioni del Museo Eoliano di Lipari. S.F. Flaccovio, Palermo. ——— 1995. Meligunìs Lipára, vol. 8, Salina (ricerche archeologiche 1989–1993). Pubblicazioni del Museo Eoliano di Lipari. S.F. Flaccovio, Palermo. Bogucki, P. 2003. Neolithic Dispersals in Riverine Interior Central Europe. In The Widening Harvest: The Neolithic Transition in Europe; Looking Back, Looking Forward, ed. A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi, 249–72. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. Bökönyi, S. 1983. Animal Bones from Test Excavations of Early Neolithic Ditched Villages on the Tavoliere. In Studi sul neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia: Indagine territoriale in un’area-campione, BAR International Series 160, ed. S. M. Cassano and A. Manfredini, 237–49. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. ——— 1989a. Take-over and Local Domestication: The Double-Faced Nature of Early Animal Husbandry in South Italy. Origini 14: 371–86. ——— 1989b. Animal Husbandry and Hunting in the Metaponto Area from the Late Neolithic through the Imperial Roman Period. Unpublished report, Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Bradford, J. S. P. 1949. Buried Landscapes in Southern Italy. Antiquity 23: 58–72. Brasacchio, G. 1950. Nuovi orizzonti dell’agricoltura crotonese. Catanzaro. Brown, K. 1991. Settlement Distribution and Social Organisation in the Neolithic of the Tavoliere, Apulia. In Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology, vol. 1, The Archaeology of Power, pt. 1, ed. E. Herring, R. Whitehouse, and J. Wilkins, 9–26. Accordia Research Centre, London. Brückner, H. 1986. Man’s Impact on the Evolution of the Physical Environment in the Mediterranean Region in Historical Times. GeoJournal 13 (1): 7–17. Cann, J. R., and C. Renfrew. 1964. The Characterisa-

273

274

References

tion of Obsidian and Its Application in the Mediterranean Region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 111–33. Cardini, L. 1970. Praia a Mare: Relazione degli scavi 1957–1970. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 79: 31. Carter, J. C., and C. D’Annibale. 1985. Metaponto and Croton. In Archaeological Field Survey in Britain and Abroad. Occasional Papers of the Society of Antiquaries of London, n.s. 6, ed. S. Macready and F. H. Thompson, 146–57. Society of Antiquaries, London. Cassano, S. M., and A. Manfredini, eds. 1983. Studi sul neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia: Indagine territoriale in un’area-campione. BAR International Series 160. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Cassano, S., A. Cazzella, A. Manfredini, and M. Moscoloni, eds. 1987. Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio: Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennio a.C. Edizioni Quasar, Rome. Castellana, G. 1987. Il villaggio neolitico di Piano Vento nel territorio di Palma di Montechiaro (Agrigento). Atti della XXVI riunione scientifica: Il neolitico in Italia, 794–99. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ——— 1990. Un decennio di ricerche preistoriche e protostoriche nel territorio Agrigentino. Museo archeologico regionale, Agrigento. Champion, T., C. Gamble, S. Shennan, and A. Whittle. 1984. Prehistoric Europe. Academic Press, London. Clark, G. 1965. Traffic in Stone Axe and Adze Blades. Economic History Review 18: 1–28. Clutton-Brock, J. 1987. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. University of Texas Press, Austin. Costabile, F. 1972. La stazione neolitica di Prestarona in comune di Canolo. Klearchos 14: 5–27. Costantini, L. 1981. Semi e carboni del mesolitico e neolitico della Grotta dell’Uzzo, Trapani. Quaternaria 23: 233–47. ——— 1988. Indagini paleoetnobotaniche nel sito di Scamuso, Bari: Nota preliminare. In Atti della XXV riunione scientifica: Preistoria e Protostoria della Puglia Centrale, 235–38. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Cremonesi, G. 1988. Osservazioni su alcune strutture in abitati neolitici dell’Italia meridionale. Origini 14 (1) (1988–89): 83–99.

Crummett, S. E., and J. G. Warren. 1985. Chemical Analysis of Calabrian Obsidian. In The Acconia Survey: Neolithic Settlement and the Obsidian Trade, Occasional Publication 10, ed. A. J. Ammerman, 107–14. Institute of Archaeology, London. D’Annibale, C. 1990. Survey in the Territory of Croton (with Special Emphasis on the Greek Period) 1983–Present. In The Chora of Croton 1983–1989, ed. J. C. Carter. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Delano Smith, C. 1979. Western Mediterranean Europe: A Historical Geography of Italy, Spain and Southern France since the Neolithic. Academic Press, London. ——— 1983. Il clima durante il neolitico. In Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere, ed. S. Tinè, 19–21. Sagep, Genoa. ——— 1987. The Neolithic Environment of the Tavoliere. In Apulia, vol. 1, The Neolithic Settlement of the Tavoliere, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 44, ed. G. D. B. Jones, 1–26. London. Dixon, J. E. 1989. Appendix 2: A Petrographic Description of Non–basaltic Implements from Serra Orlando (Morgantina). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55: 152. Evett, D. 1973. A Preliminary Note on the Typology, Functional Variability, and Trade of Italian Neolithic Ground Stone Axes. Origini 7: 35–55. Farr, R. H. 2008. Navigating the Neolithic: The Circulation of Obsidian and Maritime Travel in the Central Mediterranean. PhD diss., Cambridge University. Flannery, K. V. 1972. The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, ed. P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby, 25–53. Duckworth, London. Folk, R. L. 1987. Crotone and Environs. Unpublished report, Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Follieri, M. 1983. Resti di piante alimentari: cereali e leguminose. In Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere, ed. S. Tinè, 158–160. Sagep, Genoa. Fugazzola Delpino, M. A., and V. Tinè. 2003. Le statuine fittili femminili del neolitico italiano: Iconografia e contesto culturale. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 93–95: 19–51.

References Giannitrapani, M. 2002. Coroplastica neolitica antropomorfa d’Italia: Simboli ed iconografie dell’arte mobiliare quaternaria post-glaciale, BAR International Series 1020. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Gimbutas, M. A. 1989. The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. Harper and Row, San Francisco. Guilaine, J. 1979. The Earliest Neolithic in the Mediterranean: A New Appraisal. Antiquity 53: 22–30. Guilaine, J., J. Coularou, A. Freises, and R. Montjardin, eds. 1984. Leucate-Corrège: Habitat noyé du Néolithique cardial. Centre d’anthropologie des sociétés rurales. Musée Paul Valéry, Toulouse/Sète. Guilaine, J., and G. Cremonesi. 1987. L’habitat néolithique de Trasano (Matera, Basilicate): Premiers résultats. In Atti della XXVI riunione scientifica: Il neolitico in Italia, 707–19. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ———, eds. 2003. Torre Sabea: Un établissement du Néolithique ancien en Salento. École française de Rome. Rome. Hallam, B. R., S. E. Warren, and C. Renfrew. 1976. Obsidian in the Western Mediterranean: Characterisation by Neutron Activation Analysis and Optical Emission Spectroscopy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42: 85–110. Halstead, P. 1981. Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, ed. I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, 307–339. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Harris, E. C. 1979. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London. Helbaek, H. 1966. Appendix IV. Report on the Carbonized Grain from AF5 (GHD. Phase). In Skorba: Excavations Carried out on Behalf of the National Museum of Malta, 1961–1963, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 22, by D. H. Trump, 53. London and Malta. Hodder, I., and C. Malone. 1984. Intensive Survey of Prehistoric Sites in the Stilo Region, Calabria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 121–150. Holloway, R. Ross 1991. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily. Routledge, London. Hunt, C., C. Malone, J. Sevink, and S. Stoddart. 1990. Environment, Soils and Early Agriculture in Apennine Central Italy. World Archaeology 22 (1): 34–44.

275

Ibáñez, J. 1989. Preliminary Results, Summer 1989: The Capo Alfiere Samples. Unpublished report, Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Isetti, E. 1983. Industria su osso. In Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere, ed. S. Tinè, 130–32. Sagep, Genoa. Jones, G. D. B., ed. 1987. Apulia, vol. I, Neolithic Settlement in the Tavoliere. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries 44. London. Jones, G. D. B., and K. Maude. 1987. Neolithic Economy and Society in the Tavoliere. In Apulia. vol. I, Neolithic Settlement in the Tavoliere, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries 44, ed. G. D. B. Jones, 173–177. London. La Rosa, V. 1987. Un nuovo insediamento neolitico a Serra del Palco di Milena (CL). In Atti della XXVI riunione scientifica: Il neolitico in Italia, 801–8. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Leighton, R. 1989. Ground Stone Tools from Serra Orlando (Morgantina) and Stone Axe Studies in Sicily and Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55: 135–59. Lewthwaite, J. 1981. Ambiguous First Impressions: A Survey of Recent Work on the Early Neolithic of the West Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology 1 (2): 292–307. Lieberman, S.J. 1980. Of Clay Pebbles, Hollow Clay Balls, and Writing: A Sumerian View. American Journal of Archaeology 84: 339–58. Lo Porto, F. G. 1989. L’insediamento neolitico di Serra d’Alto nel Materano. Monumenti Antichi Serie Monografica 3. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome. Malone, C. 1985. Pots, Prestige and Ritual in Neolithic Southern Italy. In Papers in Italian Archaeology, vol. 4, The Cambridge Conference, pt. 2, Prehistory, ed. C. Malone and S. Stoddart, 118–51. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Mammina, G., M. Marazzi, and S. Tusa. 1990. Espedienti di computo: Il caso Vivara. Dialoghi di archeologia 8 (2): 5–48. Marino, D. 1983. Ricerche preistoriche nel territorio di Crotone: Tre stazioni stentinelliane. BA thesis, Università degli studi di Bari. ——— 1989. Ricerche preistoriche nel territorio di Crotone: Il sito neolitico di Capo Alfiere. Annali

276

References

della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia, Università degli studi di Bari 32: 59–83. Michalowski, P. 1993. Tokenism. American Anthropologist 95: 996–99. Mills, N. 1983. The Neolithic of Southern France. In Ancient France: Neolithic Societies and their Landscapes, 6000–2000 bc, ed. Chris Scarre, 91–145. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Morter, J. 1990. The Excavations at Capo Alfiere 1987–Present. In The Chora of Croton 1983–1989, ed. J. C. Carter. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. ——— 1992. Capo Alfiere and the Middle Neolithic Period in Eastern Calabria, Southern Italy. PhD diss., The University of Texas at Austin. ——— 1994. Four Pieces of Clay: “Tokens” from Capo Alfiere, Calabria, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7 (1) 1994: 115–23. ——— 1999. A “Social” Structure and “Social Structure”: Recent Architectural Finds from the Middle Neolithic Site at Capo Alfiere, Calabria. In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, ed. R. H. Tykot, J. Morter, and J. E. Robb, 83–96. Accordia Research Institute, London. Morter, J., and H. Iceland 1995. Notes on an Eastern Calabrian Assemblage in the Stentinello Tradition. In The Ceramics Cultural Heritage: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Ceramics Heritage,” Techna Monographs in Materials and Society 2, ed. P. Vincenzini, 241–49. Faenza. Nicoletti, Giuseppi 1989. I siti contigui di Casa Soverito e Corazzo (Comune di Isola Capo Rizzuto): Distribuzione spazio-temporale delle testimonianze paletnologiche. BA thesis, Università degli studi di Bari. O’Hare, G. 1990. Polished Stone Artefacts from Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 123–52. Orsi, P. 1890. Stazione neolitica di Stentinello. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 16: 177–200. ——— 1911. Villaggio neolitico di Stentinello. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 36: 66–67. ——— 1915. Stentinello. Notizie degli scavi 12: 209. ———1924. Villaggio trincerato dell’eta della pietra scoperto a Megara Hyblea. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 44: 214–20.

Patton, M. A. 1991. Axes, Men and Women: Symbolic Dimensions of Neolithic Exchange in Armorica (Northwest France). In Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monographs 32, ed. P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates, and J. Toms, 65–79. Oxford. Piperno, M. 1985. Some 14C Dates for the Palaeoeconomic Evidence from the Holocene Levels of Uzzo Cave, Sicily. In Papers in Italian Archaeology, vol. 4, The Cambridge Conference, pt. 2, Prehistory, ed. C. Malone and S. Stoddart, 83–86. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Pires–Ferreira, J. W., and K. V. Flannery. 1976. Ethnographic Models for Formative Exchange. In The Early Mesoamerica Village, ed. K. V. Flannery, 286– 91. Academic Press, New York. Polglase, C. 1992. The Transformation of Obsidian Production and Exchange in Southern Italy during the Neolithic. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh. Rackham, O. 1982. Land-Use and the Native Vegetation of Greece. In Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology, ed. M. Bell and S. Limbrey, 177–98. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Recami, E., C. Mignosa, and L. R. Baldini. 1983. Nuovo contributo sulla preistoria della Sicilia. Sicilia Archeologia 52–53: 45–82. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Robb, J. E. 2004. Il Neolitico dell’Aspromonte. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica: Preistoria e protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 175–88. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ——— 2007. The Early Mediterranean Village: Agency, Material Culture and Social Change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rossi, G. 1983. Altre industrie su pietra. In Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere, ed. S. Tinè, 124–30. Sagep, Genoa. Ruzzi, E. 1990. Il villaggio di Murgia Trasano segno del neolitico lucano. Rivista di Matera, 27 June 1990. Salvatori, S. 1973. Materiali preistorici di tipo stentinelliano da Capo Alfiere (Catanzaro). Klearchos 15: 29–40.

References Sargent, A. 1983. Neolithic Plant Remains. In Studi sul neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia: Indagine territoriale in un’area-campione, BAR International Series 160, ed. S. M.Cassano and A. Manfredini, 250–52. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. ——— 1985. The Carbon-14 Chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic of Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 31–40. Scali, S. 1990. The Faunal Remains from the Neolithic Site of Capo Alfiere. In The Chora of Croton 1983–1989, ed. J. C. Carter. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Scarre, C. 1983. A Survey of the French Neolithic. In Ancient France: Neolithic Societies and their Landscapes, 6000–2000 bc, ed. C. Scarre, 324–43. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Schmandt–Besserat, D. 1982. The Emergence of Recording. American Anthropologist 84: 871–78. ——— 1992. Before Writing. University of Texas Press, Austin. Schneider, R. 1985. Analyse palynologique dans l’Aspromonte en Calabre (Italie meridionale). Cahiers ligures de préhistoire et de protohistoire 2: 279–88. Shaffer, G. D. 1983. Neolithic Building technology in Calabria, Italy. PhD diss., State University of New York at Binghamton. Sherratt, A. 1981. Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, ed. I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ——— 1990. The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe. World Archaeology 22 (2): 147–67. Skeates, R. 1994. Towards an Absolute Chronology for the Neolithic in Central Italy. In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, ed. R. Skeates and R. Whitehouse, 61–72. Accordia Research Centre and the British School at Rome, London. ——— 1995. Animate objects: A Biography of Prehistoric “Axe-Amulets” in the Central Mediterranean Region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 279–301. ——— 2002. The Social Dynamics of Enclosure in the Neolithic of the Tavoliere, South–East Italy. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 155–88.

277

——— 2003. Radiocarbon Dating and Interpretations of the Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition in Italy. In The Widening Harvest: The Neolithic Transition in Europe; Looking Back, Looking Forward, ed. A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi, 157–87. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston. Skeates, R., and R. Whitehouse, eds. 1994. Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory. Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy. Accordia Research Centre and the British School at Rome, London. Sluga Messina, G. 1988. Villasmundo (Siracusa): Tomba neolitica presso villaggio preistorico del Petaro. Sicilia archeologica 66–68: 81–86. Sorrentino, C. 1983. La fauna. In Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere, ed. S. Tinè, 149–157, Genoa. Spurr, M. S. 1986. Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy, c. 200 B.C.–c. A.D. 100. Journal of Roman Studies Mongraphs 3. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London. Tinè, S. 1961. Notizie preliminari su recenti scavi nel villaggio neolitico di Stentinello. Archivo storico siracusano 7: 113–17. ——— 1962. Successione delle culture preistoriche in Calabria alla luce dei recenti scavi in provincia di Cosenza. Klearchos 4: 38–43. ———, ed. 1983. Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere. Sagep, Genoa. Tinè, V. 2004. Il neolitico in Calabria. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 115–44. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. ——— Forthcoming. Favella: Un villaggio neolitico della Sibaritide. Studi di paletnologia 2. Museo Pigorini, Rome. Trigger, B. 1990. Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 22 (2): 119–32. Tringham, R., and D. Krstić , eds. 1990. Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 15. Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles. Tringham, R., and M. Stevanović. 1990. Nonceramic Uses of Clay. In Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 15, ed. R. Tringlan and D. Krsti´c, 323–98. Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles.

278

References

Trump, D. H. 1966. Skorba: Excavations Carried out on Behalf of the National Museum of Malta, 1961– 1963. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 22. London and Malta. ——— 1980. The Prehistory of the Mediterranean. Yale University Press, New Haven. Tusa, S. 1983. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Sellerio, Palermo. ——— 1985. The beginning of farming communities in Sicily: The evidence of Uzzo Cave. In Papers in Italian Archaeology, vol. 4, The Cambridge Conference, pt. 2, Prehistory, ed. C. Malone and S. Stoddart, 61– 82. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Tykot, R. 1992. Regional Interaction in the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean: Chronological Variation as Evidenced by Obsidian Exchange. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh. Van Andel, T. H., and S. B. Sutton. 1987. Landscape and People of the Franchthi Region (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, fasc. 2). Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Walker, D. S. 1958. A Geography of Italy. Methuen, London. Whitehouse, R. 1968a. The Early Neolithic of Southern Italy. Antiquity 42: 188–93. ——— 1968b. Settlement and Economy in Southern Italy in the Neothermal Period. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 332–67. ——— 1969. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: 267–310. ———1984. Social Organization in the Neolithic of Southeastern Italy. In The Deya Conference of Prehistory. Early Settlement in the Western Mediterranean Islands and their Peripheral Areas, ed. W. H. Waldren, R. Chapman, J. Lewthwaite, and R.-C. Kennard, 1109–38. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. ——— 1986. Siticulosa Apulia Revisited. Antiquity 60: 36–44. ——— 1987. Il neolitico antico: Cronologia assoluta. In Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio: Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennio a.C., ed. S. Cassano, A. Cazzella, A. Manfredini, and M. Moscoloni., 95–97. Quasar, Rome. ——— 1990. Caves and Cult in Neolithic Southern Italy. Accordia Research Papers 1: 19–38.

Zilhão, J. 1993. The Spread of Agro-Pastoral Economics across Mediterranean Europe: A View from the Far West. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6: 5–63. ——— 2003. The Neolithic Transition in Portugal and the Role of Demic Diffusion in the Spread of Agriculture across West Mediterranean Europe. In The Widening Harvest: The Neolithic Transition in Europe; Looking Back, Looking Forward, ed. A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi, 207–26. American Institute of Archaeology, Boston. Zimansky, P. 1993. Review of D. Schmandt-Besserat, Before Writing (University of Texas Press, Austin, 1992). Journal of Field Archaeology 20 (4): 513–17. Zohary, D., and M. Hopf 1988. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chapter 13. Geomorphology Abbott, J. T. 1997. Late Quaternary Alluviation and Soil Erosion in Southern Italy. PhD diss., The University of Texas at Austin. Abbot, J. T., and S. J. Valastro. 1995. The Holocene: Metapontum. In Mediterranean Quaternary River Environments, ed. J. Lewin, M. G. Macklin, and J. C. Woodward. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Colalungo, M.L., G. Pasini, and S. Sartoni. 1981. Remarks on the Neogene/Quaternary Boundary and the Vrica Section (Calabria, Italy). Bollettino della Società paleontologica italiana 20: 99–120. Del Prete, M., and G. Valentini 1971. Le caratteristiche geotechniche delle argille azzurre dell’Italia sud-orientale in relazione alle differenti situazioni stratigrafiche e tettoniche. Geologia applicata e idrogeologia 6: 197–215. Folk, R. L. 1959. Practical Petrographic Classification of Limestones. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 43: 1–38. ——— 1982. Geologic Controls on Aspects of the Archaeology of Metaponto, Basilicata, Southern Italy. Unpublished report, Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Nalin, R., F. Massari, and M. Zecchin. 2007. Superimposed Cycles of Composite Marine Terraces: The Example of Cutro Terrace (Calabria, Southern Italy). Journal of Sedimentary Research 77: 340–54.

References Ogniben, L. 1973. Schema geologico della Calabria in base ai dati odierni. Geologia romana 12: 243– 585. ——— 1975. Lithostratigraphic Complexes and Evidence for Tectonic Phases in Sicily and Calabria. In Structural Model of Italy, ed. L. Ogniben, M. Parotto, and A. Praturlon, 365–408. Consiglio Nazionale della Ricerche, Rome. Roda, C. 1964. Distribuzione e facies dei sedimenti neogenici nel bacino crotonese. Geologia Romana 3: 319–66. Ruggieri, G. 1949, Il terrazzo marino presiciliano della penisola di Crotone. Giornale di geologia 2nd ser., 20: 39–62. ——— 1953. Età e faune di un terrazzo marino sulla costa ionica della Calabria. Giornale di geologia, 2nd ser., 23: 19–62. Selli, R. 1962. Le quaternaire marin du versant adriatique-ionian de la peninsula italienne. Quaternaria 6: 391–413. ——— 1977a. Excursion in Calabria: General Geologic Setting of the Crotone-Catanzaro Area. Giornale di geologia, 2nd ser., 41: 410–458. ——— 1977b. The Neogene/Quaternary Boundary in the Italian Marine Formations. Giornale di geologia, 2nd ser., 41: 81–105. Vezzani, L. 1965. Lithostratigraphic Complexes and Evidence of Tectonic Phases in the Molise– Puglia–Lucania Apennines. In Structural Model of Italy, ed. L. Ogniben, M. Parotto, and A. Praturlon, 329–363. Consiglio Nazionale della Ricerche, Rome. ——— 1967. I depositi plio-pleistocenici del litorale ionico della Lucania. Atti Accad. Gioenia di Sci. Nat. Catania, 6th ser., 18: 159–180. Chapter 14. Faunal Analysis: Bones from Animals of Economic Importance Andrews, P. 1990. Owls, Caves and Fossils. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bartosiewicz, L. 1993. The Anatomical Position and Metric Traits of Phalanges in Cattle. Revue de paléobiologie 12 (2): 21–43. ——— 2003. A Millennium of Migrations: Protohistoric Mobile Pastoralism in Hungary. In Zooarchaeology: Papers to Honor Elizabeth S. Wing, ed. F. W. King and C. M. Porter, Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44, 101–30.

279

——— 2005. Plain Talk: Animals, Environment and Culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas. In (Un)settling the Neolithic, ed. D. Bailey and A. Whittle, 51–63. Oxbow Books. Oxford. ——— 2007. Mammalian Bone. In The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecseg falva 23, County Békés. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21, ed. A. Whittle, 287–325. Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Bökönyi, S. 1977–1982. The Early Neolithic Fauna of Rendina: A Preliminary Report. Origini 11: 345–50. ——— 1985. A Comparison of the Early Neolithic Domestic and Wild Faunas of the Balkans, Italy and South France. Cahiers ligures de préhistoire et de protohistoire 2: 181–92. Bökönyi, S., and E. Gál. Forthcoming. The Chora of Metaponto: Archaeozoology at Pantanello and Five Other Sites in the Chora. University of Texas Press, Austin. Bökönyi, S., and G. Siracusano. 1987. Reperti faunistici dell’età del Bronzo del sito di Coppa Nevigata: Un commento preliminare. In Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio: Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennio a C., ed. S. M. Cassano, E. Cazzella, A. Manfredini, and M. Moscoloni, 205–210. Quasar, Rome. Davis, S. 1996. Measurements of a Group of Adult Female Shetland Sheep Skeletons from a Single Flock: A Baseline for Zooarchaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 593–612. Driesch, A. von den. 1976. A Guide to the Measurements of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Horn, A. 1976. A szarvasmarha eredete és domesztikációja (The origins and domestication of cattle). In Állattenyésztés (Animal breeding) 2, ed. A. Horn, 13–22. Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest. Morter, J. 1990. Organic Remains: The Seeds. In The Chora of Croton 1983–1989, ed. J. C. Carter. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. Scali, S. 1990. The Faunal Remains from the Neolithic Site of Capo Alfiere. In The Chora of Croton 1983–1989, ed. J. C. Carter. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin.

280

References

Tagliacozzo, A. 1994. I dati archeozoologici: Economia di allevamento e caccia a Broglio di Trebisacce. In Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide, ed. R. Peroni and F. Trucco, 587–652. Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto. ——— 2005–6. Animal Exploitation in the Early Neolithic in Central-Southern Italy. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 57: 429–39. Tassi, M. 2002. Kutyák a középkori Magyarországon (Dogs in Medieval Hungary). Diploma thesis, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Teichert, M. 1975. Ostometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widerristhöhe bei Schafen. In Archaeozoological Studies, ed. A. T. Clason, 51–69. North Holland and American Elsevier, Amsterdam and New York. Uerpmann, H.-P. 1973. Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology: A Critical Study of “Osteo-archaeological” Method. World Archaeology 4/3: 307–22. Whitehouse, R. D. 1968a. The Early Neolithic of Southern Italy. Antiquity 42: 188–93. ——— 1968b. Settlement and Economy in Southern Italy in the Neothermal Period. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 332–67. ——— 1971. The Last Hunter-Gatherers in Southern Italy. World Archaeology 2/3: 239–54. Chapter 15. Faunal Analysis: Bones from Small Mammals Armitage, P. L. 1994. Unwelcome Companions: Ancient Rats Reviewed. Antiquity 68: 231–40. Armitage, P. L., B. West, and K. Steedman. 1984. New Evidence of Black Rat in Roman London. The London Archaeologist 4: 375–83. Bartosiewicz, L. 2003. A Millennium of Migrations: Protohistoric Mobile Pastoralism in Hungary. In Zooarchaeology: Papers to Honor Elizabeth S. Wing, ed. F. W. King and C. M. Porter, Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44, 101–30. Ervynck, A. 2002. Sedentism or Urbanism? On the Origin of the Commensal Black Rat (Rattus rattus). In Bones and the Man, ed. K. Dobney and T. O’Connor, 95–109. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Ewer, R.F. 1971. The Biology and Behaviour of a Free-Living Population of Black Rats (Rattus rattus). Animal Behaviour Monographs 4 (3): 127–71. Fábián Gy. 1973. Állattan (Zoology). Mezõgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest.

Kotsakis, T. 2003. Fossil Glirids of Italy: The State of the Art. Coloquios de paleontología, vol. ext. 1, 335–43. Kotsakis, T., and E. Ruschioni. 1984. I microvertebrati di un insediamento dell’età del Ferro presso Tortoreto (Teramo, Italia centrale). RAL Classe di Sc. Fisiche, matematiche e naturali, 8th series, 76 (LXXVI), 5: 295–304. Masseti, M. 1995. Current Knowledge about the Early Occurrence of the Black Rat, Rattus rattus L., 1758 (Muridae, Rodentia), on the Italian Mainland and Islands. Padusa Quaderni: Collana di studi monografici 1: 349–57. Niethammer, J. 1975. Zur Taxonomie und Ausbreitungsgeschichte der Hausratte (Rattus rattus). Zoologische Anzeiger 194: 405–15. Niethammer, J., and F. Krapp. 1978. Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas, vol. 1, Rodentia I. Akademische Verlagsgesulschaft, Wiesbaden. O’Connor, T. P. 1991. Bones from 46-54 Fishergate, fasc. 4 of The Archaeology of York, vol. 15, The Animal Bones, ed. P. V. Addyman. York Archaeological Trust and Council for British Archaeology, London. Roguin, L. de, and J. Studer. 1991. Le rat noir à l’Age du Bronze final. Revue de paléobiologie 10 (1): 79–83. Sanges, M., and J. Alcover. 1980. Noticia sobre la microfauna vertebrada holocenica de la grotta Su Guano o Gonagosula (Oliena, Sardenya). Endis 7: 57–62. Shaffer, B. S. 1992. Interpretation of Gopher Remains from Southwestern Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 57 (4): 683–91. Tchernov, E. 1984. Commensal Animals and Human Sedentism in the Middle East. In Animals and Archaeology, vol. 3, Early Herders and their Flocks, BAR International Series 202, ed. J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, 91–115. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Toškan, B., and B. Kryštufek. 2006. Noteworthy Rodent Records from the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene of Slovenia. Mammalia 2006: 98–105. Ujhelyi, P. 1994. A magyarországi vadonélő emlősállatok határozója. Az MME könyvtára, Budapest. Vehling J. D., ed. and trans. 1936. Cookery and Dining in Imperial Rome (De re Coquinaria), by Apicius. Repr. Dover, New York, 1977.

References Vigne, J. D. 1994. Les transferts anciens de mammiféres en Europe occidentale: Histoire, mécanismes et implications dans les sciences de l’homme et les sciences de la vie. Colloques d’histoire des conaissances zoologiques 5: 15–37. Vigne, J. D. 1995. Détermination ostéologique des principaux éléments du squelette appendiculaire d’Arvicola, d’Eliomys, de Glis et de Rattus. In Fiches d’ostéologie animale pour l’archéologie. Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris. Wolff, V. P., B. Herzig–Straschil, and K. Bauer. 1980. Rattus rattus (Linné 1758) und Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout 1769) in Österreich und deren Unterscheidung an Schädel und postcranialem Skelett. Mitt. Abt. Zool. Landesmus. Joanneum 9: 141–88. Chapter 16. Archaeobotany Accorsi, C. A., M. Bandini Mazzanti, G. Fiorentino, A. M. Gorgoglione, and A. M. Mercuri. 1997. Archaeological and Archaeobotanical Data on the Mesolithic/Ancient-Medium Neolithic Site of Terragne (Taranto, Southern Italy, 96 m.a.s.l., 40° 24’ N 17° 38’ E). Proceedings of the First International Congress: Science and Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin (November 27–December 2, 1995, Catania, Siracusa, Italy), 1521–27. Ammerman, A., S. Bonari, and M. Carrara. 1976. Nota preliminare sugli scavi neolitici a Piana di Curinga (Catanzaro). Origini 10: 109–33. Castelletti, L., and M. Rottoli. 1999. L’agricoltura neolitica italiana: Una sintesi delle conoscenze attuali. In Settemila anni fa il primo pane: Ambienti e culture delle società neolitiche; Comune di Udine, Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, dicembre 1998– maggio 1999, Catalogo della Mostra, ed. A. Pessina and G. Muscio, 15–24. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine. Castelletti, L., M. C. Martinelli, A. E. Maspero, and A. Moroni. 1992. Il sito neolitico della Consuma 1 (Pieve S. Stefano, Arezzo). Rivista di scienze preistoriche 44: 43–114. Cellai Ciuffi, G., and P. Paoli. 1984. Indagine paleobotanica sul materiale rinvenuto negli scavi di Pontedera. Rivista di scienze preistoriche 39: 319–20. Coccolini, G. B. L. 1992. Floral Remains from Lavello, a Bronze Age Site in Northern Basilicata, S-Italy. Ninth Symposium I.W.G.P. Kiel. 32.

281

Coppola, D., and L. Costantini. 1987. Le Néolithique ancien littoral et la diffusion des céréales dans les Pouilles durant le VIe millenaire: Les sites de Fontanelle, Torre Canne et le Macchie. In Premières communautés paysannes en Méditerranée occidentale: Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Montpellier 1983, 249–55. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Costantini, L. 1984. Cereali carbonizzati e impronte del Neolitico pugliese. In Atti del 3° convegno sulla preistoria-protostoria e storia della Daunia, San Severo, 27, 28, 29 novembre 1981, Dotoli, 107–111, plates 28–31. San Severo. ——— 2002. Aspetti bioarcheologici: Italia centromeridionale. In Storia dell’agricoltura italiana, vol. 1.1, L’età antica: Preistoria, ed. G. Forni and A. Marcone, 221–34. Accademia dei Georgofili, Florence. Costantini, L., and L. Costantini Biasini. 1999. La viticoltura dalla Grecia alla Magna Grecia: La documentazione archeobotanica. In Alle radici della civiltà del vino in Sicilia: Mito archeologia e storia, ed. O. Failla and G. Forni, 169–91. Cantine Settesoli, Menfi (Agrigento). ——— 2003. Agriculture and Diet in the Chora of Metaponto: The Paleobotanical Evidence from Pantanello. In Living off the Chora: Diet and Nutrition at Metaponto, ed. J. C. Carter, 3–12. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin. ——— 2007. Economia agricola del Lazio a sud del Tevere tra Bronzo antico e Bronzo medio. In Atti della XL riunione scientifica: Strategie di insediamento fra Lazio e Campania in età preistorica e protostorica, vol. 2, 787–801. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Costantini, L., and J. A. Giorgi. 1992. Botanical Remains. In The Neolithic Site of San Marco, Gubbio (Perugia), Umbria: Survey and Excavation 1985–7, Papers of the British School at Rome 60, ed. C. Malone and S. Stoddart, 43–52. Costantini, L., and M. Stancanelli. 1994. La preistoria agricola dell’Italia centro-meridionale: Il contributo delle indagini archeobotaniche. Origini 18: 149–244. Costantini, L., and C. Tozzi. 1987. Un gisement e céramique imprimée dans le subapennin de la Daunia (Lucera, Foggia): Le village de Ripa Tetta.

282

References

Économie et culture matérielle. In Premières communautés paysannes en Méditerranée occidentale: Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Montpellier 1983, 387–94. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Costantini, L., L. Costantini Biasini, and A. Lentini. 1997. Agricoltura e note sull’ambiente dell’abitato neolitico di Scamuso. In Scamuso per la storia delle comunità umane tra il VI ed il III millennio nel basso Adriatico, ed. F. Biancofiore and D. Coppola, 199– 210. Università di Roma, Rome. ——— 2003. Indagini archeobotaniche sugli intonaci neolitici di Torre Sabea. In Torre Sabea: Un établissement du Néolitique Ancien en Salento, ed. J. Guilaine and G. Cremonesi, 234–246. École Française de Rome, Rome. Coubray, S. 2004. Il villlaggio neolitico di Favella (Cosenza): Nuove evidenze archeobotaniche. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica: Preistoria e protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, vol. 2, 717–720. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. D’Amato Avanzi, M. G. 1953. Il grano della popolazione con civiltà tipo Lagozza della grotta di Agnano (Pisa). L’agricoltura italiana 53 (n.s. 8): 1–9. Evett, D., and J. Renfrew. 1971. L’agricoltura neolitica italiana: Una nota sui cereali. Rivista di scienze preistoriche 26: 403–7. Follieri, M. 1973. Cereali del villaggio neolitico di Passo di Corvo (Foggia). Annuali di botanica 32: 49–59. ——— 1977–82. Le più antiche testimonianze dell’agricoltura neolitica in Italia meridionale. Origini 11: 337–44. ——— 1983. Resti di piante alimentari: Cereali e leguminose. In Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica del Tavoliere, ed. S. Tinè, 158–60. Sagep, Genoa. ——— 1987. L’agriculture des plus anciennes communautés rurales d’Italie. In Premières communautés paysannes en Méditerranée occidentale: Actes du Colloque International du CNRS, Montpellier 1983, 243–247. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Jones, G. 1984–87. Botanical Remains. In Lagnano da Piede I: An Early Neolithic Village in the Tavoliere, ed. J. P. Mallory. Origini 13: 270. Jones, G. and P. Rowley-Conwy. 1984. Plant Remains from the North Italian Lake Dwellings of

Fiavè (1400–1200 b.c.). In Scavi archeologici nella zona palafitticola di Fiavè-Carera, pt. 1, Campagne 1969–1976: Situazione dei depositi e dei resti strutturali, Patrimonio storico-artistico del Trentino 8, ed. R. Perini, 323–355. Servizio Beni Culturali della Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Trento. Kislev, M. and Y. Melamed. 2000. Ancient Infested Wheat and Horsebean at Horvat Rosh Zait. In Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8, ed. Z. Gál and Y. Alexandre, 206–20. Jerusalem. Marinval, P. 2003. Les paléo–semences carbonisées de Torre Sabea: Méthodologie et résultats. In Torre Sabea: Un établissement du Néolitique ancien en Salento, ed. J. Guilaine and G. Cremonesi, 228–33. École Française de Rome, Rome. Mori Secci, M. 1991. Analisi dei semi e dei frutti rinvenuti negli scavi di Podere Casanuova. Rivista di scienze preistoriche 43: 229–34. Morter, J. 1990. The Excavations at Capo Alfiere, 1987–Present. In The Chora of Croton, 1983–1989, ed. J. C. Carter. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin: 12–26. ——— 1992. Capo Alfiere and the Middle Neolithic Period in Eastern Calabria, Southern Italy. PhD diss., The University of Texas at Austin. ——— 1994. Four Pieces of Clay: “Tokens” from Capo Alfiere, Calabria. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7 (1): 115–23. Morter, J., and H. Iceland. 1995. Notes on an Eastern Calabrian Assemblage in the Stentinello Tradition. In The Ceramics Cultural Heritage: Proceedings of the International Symposium “The Ceramics Heritage,” Techna Monographs in Materials and Society 2, ed. P. Vincenzini, 241–49. Faenza. Nisbet, R. 1977–1982. Le analisi archeobotaniche del villagio neolitico della Villa Comunale (Foggia). Origini 11: 175–80. ——— 1994. Alcuni aspetti dell’ambiente umano nelle Alpi Cozie fra quinto e quarto millennio bp. In Highland Zone Exploitation in Southern Europe, Monografie di Natura Bresciana 20, ed. P. Biagi and J. Nandris, 259–71. ——— 1996. I cereali, le leguminose e i problemi della loro conservazione nell’Italia nord–occidentale dalla preistoria al XIII secolo. In Il seme, l’aratro, la messe. Società per gli studi storici, archeologici e artistici della provincia di Cuneo e Centro studi storico-etno-

References grafici Augusto Doro, ed. R. Comba and F. Panero, 13–22. Rocca dei Baldi, Cuneo. Oeggl, K. 1994. Cereali della preistoria e della protostoria nelle Alpi Centrali. In Il grano e le macine: La macinazione di cereali in Alto Adige dall’antichità al Medioevo, ed. G. Ciurletti, 37–50. Museo Provinciale di Castel Tirolo, Tirolo. Oeggl, K., and I. Swidrak. 1998. Paläoethnobotanische Untersuchungen von Bodenproben aus der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Sotciastel. In Sotciastel: Un abitato fortificato dell’età del bronzo in Val Badia, ed. U. Tecchiati, 335–46. Istitut Cultural Ladin Micurà de Rü, Soprintendenza Provinciale ai Beni Culturali di Bolzano-Alto Adige. Oliva, A. 1939. I frumenti, le leguminose da granella e gli altri semi repertati a Belverde. Studi etruschi 13: 343–349. Robb, J. 2004. Il neolitico dell’Aspomonte. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica: Preistoria e protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 175–188. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Rottoli, M. 1993. “La Marmotta,” Anguillara Sabazia (RM): Scavi 1989, Analisi paletnobotaniche: Prime risultanze. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 84: 305–15. ——— 2002. Aspetti bioarcheologici: Italia settentrionale. In Storia dell’agricoltura italiana, vol. 1.1. L’età antica: Preistoria, ed. G. Forni and A. Marcone, 235–246. Accademia dei Georgofili, Florence. Salvatori, S. 1973. Materiali preistorici di tipo stentinelliano da Capo Alfiere (Catanzaro). Klearchos 15: 29–40. Sargent, A. 1983. Neolithic Plant Remains from the Tavoliere of Apulia. In Studi sul neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia: Indagine territoriale in un’areacampione, ed. S. M. Cassano and A. Manfredini, 250–52. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. ——— 1987. Relazione sui resti paleobotanici di Coppa Nevigata. In Atti della XXVI riunione scientifica: Il neolitico in Italia, 761–64. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Tinè, V. 2004. Il neolitico in Calabria. In Atti della XXXVII riunione scientifica: Preistoria e protostoria della Calabria; Scalea, Papasidero, Praia a Mare, Tortora, 115–43. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence.

283

Tongiorgi, E. 1947. Grano, miglio e fave in un focolare rituale dell’età del Bronzo a Grotta Misa (bassa valle della Fiora). Nuovo giornale Botanico italiano 54: 804–6. ——— 1956. Osservazioni paleontologiche nella Grotta del Mezzogiorno. Bullettino di paletnologia italiana 65: 535–40. Zohary, D., and M. Hopf. 1988. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Chapter 17. Bone Artifacts Anzidei, A. P. 2001. Tools from elephant bones at La Polledrara di Cecanibbio and Rebibbia–Casa de’Pazzi. In The World of Elephants: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress, 16th –20th October 2001, ed. G. Cavarretta, 415–18. Consiglio Nazionale della Ricerche, Rome. Bartosiewicz, L. 2006. Régenvolt háziállatok (Ancient domestic animals). L’Harmattan, Budapest. Bartosiewicz, L., and A. M. Choyke. 1997. Osteological Analysis of Bone Tools: A Preliminary Case Study from the Swiss Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49: 227–59. Beldiman, C. 2002. Sur la typologie des outils en materières dures animales du Néolithique ancien de Roumanie: Le poinçon sur demi-métapode perforé. In Ateliers et techniques artisanales: Contributions archéologiques, Série Historica 6, ed. C. Gaiu, 14–31. Cluj–Napoca: Musée Départemental BistriţaNăsăud. Bibliotheca Musei Bistriţa. Biddittu, I. and P. Celletti. 2001. Plio–Pleistocene Proboscidea and Lower Palaeolithic Bone Industry of Southern Latium. In The World of Elephants: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress, 16th –20th October 2001, ed. G. Cavarretta, 91–96. Consiglio Nazionale della Ricerche, Rome. Bosch i Lloret, A., J. Chinchilla Sanchez, and J. Tarrús i Galter. 2000. El poblat lacustre neolitic de la Draga: Excavations de 1990 a 1998. In Monografies del CASC 2, ed. A. Bosch i Lloret, J. Chinchilla Sanchez, and J. Tarrús i Galter, 185–197. Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya–Centre d’Arqueologia Subaquàtica de Catalunya, Girona. Camps-Fabrer, H., and A. D’Anna. 1977. Fabrication expérimentale d’outils partir métapodes de mouton et tibias de lapin. In Méthodologie appliquée a l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Colloques Internationaux du CNRS 568, ed. H. Camps–Fabrer,

284

References

311–23. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Choyke, A. M. 1997. The Manufacturing Continuum. Anthropozoologica 25–26: 65–72. ——— 2007. Objects for a Lifetime—Tools for a Season: The Bone Tools from Ecsegfalva 23. In The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21, ed. A. Whittle, 641–666. Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Choyke, A. M., and J. Schibler. 2007. Prehistoric Bone Tools and the Archaeozoological Perspective: Research in Central Europe. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, BAR International Series 1622, ed. C. Gates St. Pierre and R. B. Walker, 51–65. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Christidou, R. 2005. Aspects of Bone Exploitation in the Neolithic Sites of Eastern Macedonia, Greece. In From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Muinasaja teadus 15, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey, and L. Lõugas, 91–104. University of Tartu, Tallinn. Errico, F. d’, G. Giacobini, J. Hather, A. H. PowersJones, and A. M. Radmilli. 1995. Possible Bone Threshing Tools from the Neolithic Levels of the Grotta dei Piccioni (Abruzzo, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 537–49. Gál, E. 2007. Middle Neolithic Bone Artefacts from Northern-Hungary. Abstract. 6th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group. Paris (France), 27–31 August 2007, abstract vol.: 10–11. Giomi, F. 1996. Favella, industria in osso. In Forme e tempi della neolitizzazione in Italia meridionale e in Sicilia, Atti del seminario internazionale de Rossano, 29 aprile–2 maggio 1994, IRACEB, ed. V. Tiné, vol. 1, 361–63. Istituto Regionale per le Antichitá Classiche e Bizantine, Soveria Mannelli. MacGregor, A. 2001. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. Croom Helm, London and Sydney. Malone, C. 2003. The Italian Neolithic: A Synthesis of Research. Journal of World Prehistory 17 (3): 235–312. Maggi, R., E. Starnini, and B. Voytec. 1997. The Bone Tools from Arene Candide: Bernabó Brea

Excavations. In Arene Candide: A Functional and Environmental Assessment of the Holocene Sequence (Excavations Bernabó Brea–Cardini 1940–50), ed. R. Maggi, 513–59. Il Calamo, Rome. Makkay, J. 1990. Knochen–, Geweih– und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolitischen Körös– Kultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1990: 23–58. Poplin, F. 1975. La faune danubienne d’Armeau (Yvonne, France): Ses données sur l’activité humaine. In Archaeozoological Studies: Papers of the Archaeozoological Conference 1974, Held at the Biologisch–Archaeologisch Instituut of the State University of Groningen, ed. A. T. Clason, 179–92. NorthHolland Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Oxford. Russell, N. 1990. The Bone Tools. In Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, Monumenta Archaeologica 15, ed. R. Tringham and D. Krstić, 521–548. Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles. Schibler, J. 1980. Osteologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte: Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag, Bern. ——— 1981. Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte: Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag, Bern. Sidéra, I. 1996. Rapport d’étude de l’assemblage osseux de Drama (Bulgarie). Berichte der RömischGermanischen Kommission 77: 120–29. ——— 2000. Les matières dures animals. In Muntelier/Fischergässli, Archéologie fribourgeoise 15, ed. D. Ramsayer, 118–56. Editions Universitaires, Fribourg. ——— 2001. Domestic and Funerary Bone, Antler and Tooth Objects in the Neolithic of Western Europe: A Comparison. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, BAR International Series 937, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 221–29. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. ——— 2005. Technical Data, Typological Data: A Comparison. In From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Muinasaja teadus 15, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey, and L. Lõugas, 81–90. University of Tartu, Tallinn.

285

References Tagliacozzo, A. 2005–6. Animal Exploitation in the Early Neolithic in Central-Southern Italy. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 57: 429–39.

Chapter 18. Thin Sections (See references for Chapters 1–12) Chapter 19. Tokens (See references for Chapters 1–12)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Index

Abbott, James, 125 Acconia, xviii, 4n5, 12, 59n4, 74, 104, 123, 127, 131–132, 132n11, 175; architecture of site, 12–13, 47; ceramics of, 61 fig. 7.3, 62, 70, 77; chipped stone at, 90, 94–95, 96; polished stone at, 99–100; soil type of, 111 Aeolian islands. See Eolian Islands AGIP soil, 24, 27, 31 Ammerman, A. J., 4, 4n5, 12–13, 62, 73, 89, 92, 99–100, 104, 123, 127, 131, 197 archaeobotany, 175–188, 186 table 16.18; and stratigraphy, 176–179, 176–178 tables 16.3–16.6 argilla marnosa di Cutro, 16–17, 86, 145, 146–148, 146– 147 figs. 13.5–13.8, 148 fig. 13.11, 199 argille azzurre, 16, 145, 146–147. See also argilla marnosa di Cutro ash lens, 40 Atlantic climatic phase, 19, 20 bande rosse non marginate (red-painted fineware), 9, 9n11, 10, 12, 83, 139 Barker, G., 118 Bartosiewicz, László, 161 Basilicata, 135 bead artifacts, 111–112, 111 figs. 9.1–9.2 Bell-Beaker type vessel, xxii, 40, 84, 84n36, 85 fig. 7.21 Bökönyi, Sándor, 124 bone artifacts, 111, 112–113, 113 fig. 9.4, 189–196; Class I tools, 190, 196; Class II tools, 190, 196; metapodial tools, 194–195; raw materials, 189–190 bone remains, xvii, 120, 149–165; of birds, 122, 122n10, 124; of domestic vs. wild animals, 151, 154–155 table 14.4, 157, 158, 160, 164–165; of food sources, 153, 156–157, 156 table 14.5, 156 fig. 14.6, 158–161, 165; fragmentation of, 149, 149 fig. 14.1, 151; of marine vertebrates, 121, 121n9; small mammalian, 167–173; and stratigraphy, 150 table 14.1, 152 table 14.2. See also fauna, Neolithic Boreal climatic period, 19–20 Bova Marina, xviii, xx, 4n5, 13n25, 48n7, 59n4, 83n33, 95n8, 95n11, 112n3, 129n6, 132n11 Brea, Bernabó, xviii, 59, 83 Bronze Age, 40, 53, 121, 129–131, 132, 142, 149, 203– 204, 207; ceramic trends during, 3, 59; Early, 119; Mesopotamian, 114 Brückner, H., 20 Calabria, 1, 9, 11–12, 15 fig. 3.1; chronological outline of, 5–7; description of, 15; Neolithic excavations in, xix table I; Stentinello-style ceramics in, 59

campaniform vessel, 40, 84, 86 Capo Alfiere, xvi, xviii, 1–5, 1n1, 1 fig. 1.1, 2 fig. 1.3, 3 fig. 1.4, 12, 198, 204; architectural and structural features of, xxi, 43–57, 137–138; ceramics at, 59–87, 59n1, 59n4, 64 table 7.1; climate of, 17–18, 19–21; environmental changes in, 18–19; erosion of, 3–4; excavation of, 23–31, 34 table 5.1, 127–129; evidence of belief systems at, 87, 87n39, 138, 138n1, 139; flora and fauna of, 18, 20, 137, 161, 162 fig. 14.17, 163, 163 fig. 14.18; food production at, 23, 175; human effect on, 3–4, 20; modern status of, 31n6; prior research at, xvi, 23–24; site plans of, 25 figs. 4.4–4.5; soil of, 17; soundings at, 27 fig. 4.8; timeline of, xxi table II, xxii, xxiii table III; topography of, 16–17, 124 Capo Cimiti, 134 Capo Colonna, xvi, 16, 17, 17 fig. 3.3, 23, 127, 134, 148, 198, 204 Capo Rizzuto, 16, 17, 127, 134, 147 figs. 13.7–13.9, 148 Carter, Joseph Coleman, xvii, 204 Castellaro Vecchio, 9, 11, 11n20, 54, 54n11, 59, 60n5, 61, 74 Catanzaro, 1–2, 99 Catello di Bova, xviii Cavalier, xviii, 83 ceramic fabrics, 84; analysis of, 84–86; figulina, 9n12, 48, 53, 63nn12–13, 82–84, 86, 86n38, 139, 199, 201; impasto, 63, 63n12, 84, 85 fig. 7.20, 86, 129, 198–200; pseudo-figulina, 63, 63nn12–13, 83–84, 139, 197–200 ceramics, 9–10, 11, 24, 69, 139–140, 177, 197–201, 202 table 18.2; burnished, 6; cardial impressed, 9; ceramica meandrospiralica, 60n5; colors of, 66, 66–67 figs. 7.4–7.5; eye and face motifs, 77–78; impressed (ceramica impressa), simple, xviii, xx, 5, 6n5, 7, 9, 12, 62n9, 63; impressed, archaic, xvi, 12n24, 71, 73, 74, 74 fig. 7.8, 76, 160; impressed, complex, 63, 63n14, 71, 73–74, 73n25, 77, 77 fig. 7.10, 82; impressed, evolved, 12n24; microlithic, 7, 11; painted, xx, 6, 6n5, 9, 12n24, 59, 63, 83–84, 83–84 figs. 7.18–7.19, 197, 199; painted bichrome, xviii, 12, 54, 59, 62, 83; painted polychrome, xviii, 9, 59–60, 82–83; Ripoli trichrome, 6; scratched (graffito), 5–6; shape of, 68 tables 7.6–7.9; and stratigraphy, 198–199; surface finishes of, 69–70 tables 7.10–7.13; types by site and date, 6 tables 2.1–2.3. See also bande rosse non marginate; Diana-style wares; Matera scratched ceramics; Serra d’Alto ware; Stentinello-style wares ceramic sequence, 128, 128n3. See also ceramics cereals. See under flora, Neolithic chert, 89, 91–93, 95, 104

287

288

Index

chipped stone (lithic) artifacts, xvii, xx, 10, 24, 89–96, 104, 129, 139, 140, 177; debitage, 90–93, 91 tables 8.3–8.4, 92 fig. 8.2, 96, 140; hammerstones, 94; pebble tools, 93–94, 94 fig. 8.4; raw-material sources, 89–91, 90 tables 8.1–8.2, 91 table 8.5, 94–95; and stratigraphy, 89, 90 fig. 8.1, 90 table 8.2, 90–91, 92 table 8.6, 96; tools, 93–94, 93 fig. 8.3, 93 table 8.7 clay artifacts, xxi, 113–114, 113 fig. 9.5, 114n7, 142, 203– 208, 205 fig. 19.1 climate change, xvii, 19–21; human-induced, 19n7 coarsewares, 12, 62, 63n13, 69, 71, 73, 81–82, 82 fig. 7.16. See also ceramics coin artifacts, 114, 114n8 Constantini, 117 Coppa Nevigata, 8, 8n9 Copper Age, 129n6 Croton, 2 fig. 1.2, 12. See also Crotone Crotone, 1, 1n2, 2, 3n4, 4, 4n6, 12, 16, 59, 175; aerial photographs of crop marks in, 133–135, 133 fig. 11.3, 134 table 11.3, 135 fig. 11.4; geology of, 145–148, 145 figs. 13.1–13.2; settlement patterns, 148; site distribution, 128 fig. 11.1, 129–130, 129 table 11.1, 132; site sizes, 130–132, 130 tables 11.2a–11.2b, 131 fig. 11.2, 135, 135 fig. 11.5, 138; topography of, 146 fig. 13.4 Curinga, 185 Diana period, xxii, 96, 118, 132n10, 175 Diana-style wares, xviii, xx, 6, 6n5, 9, 9n13, 11n20, 59n3, 66n19, 76n31, 83, 83n33, 84, 139; Diana-Bellavista, 6, 6n5, 206–207 discard pattern, 115 ditched-village settlements, 9, 10, 11n21, 132, 132n11; villaggi trincerati, 11, 138 Dixon, J. E., 99 domestic architecture, 49, 49n10 domestication of flora/fauna, 7–8, 8n8, 11, 142. See also fauna, Neolithic; flora, Neolithic Eolian Islands, 4, 9, 12, 53, 59, 94, 94n7, 197 Evett, Daniel, 96, 96n15 fauna, Neolithic, 121 table 10.4; domesticated species of, 121, 122, 122 table 10.5, 123, 123 table 10.6, 124, 125, 151, 154–155 table 14.4, 157, 158, 160, 164–165; wild species of, 121, 122 table 10.5, 123 table 10.7, 124, 142, 151, 154–155 table 14.4, 157, 158, 160, 164–165 Favella, xviii, xxi, 4n5, 9, 9n10, 12, 48n6, 122n11, 123, 132n11, 160, 185 field walking, 127–129, 127n1, 128 fig. 11.1 figulina. See under ceramic fabrics fineware, 62, 63n13, 69–70, 71, 77–81, 139; exchange of, 84, 86. See also ceramics flora, Neolithic, 162–163, 179 fig. 16.1, 185; barley, 142, 175, 181–182, 185, 188; cereals, 116, 118–119, 175, 179–182, 179–182 figs. 16.2–16.8, 185–188; fruits, 179, 184–185, 185 figs. 16.14–16.16, 187–188; legumes, 116, 118–119, 142, 179, 182–184, 183–184

figs. 16.9–16.13, 187–188; macrobotanical evidence of, 115–116, 115 table 10.1; pollen, 120, 125; stratigraphic contexts of, 116, 117 table 10.2, 119 fig. 10.1, 119 table 10.3; weeds, 116, 119 Follieri, M., 118 funeral rituals, 8 Fuscaldo, 99 Gál, Erika, 120n7 geomorphology, of Crotone, 145–148, 146 fig. 13.3 Ghar Dalam phase, 9, 11, 117, 207 Gisira, 49 Grotta dei Piccioni, 194 Grotta della Madonna, xvi, xviii, 7, 9, 11, 12 Grotta del Leone, 187 Grotta dell’Uzzo, 7, 8, 11, 59n4, 60 fig. 7.2, 62, 76, 116, 120, 123, 160; simple impressed pottery at, 8 Grotta Sant’Angelo, xviii, 9, 9n12, 12 ground stone artifacts, 89, 101–104; catalog of, 105–109; raw-material sources of, 102; stratigraphic distribution of, 103–104; types of, 101, 102, 102–103 figs. 8.7–8.9, 104; usage of, 101, 102n20. See also hearth and quern Halstead, P., 119, 125, 142 hearth and quern, 37, 38, 38 fig. 5.8, 45–47 figs. 6.5–6.8, 46, 46n5, 55 Hodder, I., 12, 94, 131–132 Holocene era, 7, 120, 168 hunting and gathering, 7, 8, 11, 89, 160 Ibáñez, Juana, 45n3 Ice Age. See Palaeolithic impasto. See under ceramic fabrics Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICA), xvii, 4, 4n5, 12, 16, 23, 31, 127–129, 133, 175 Iron Age, 129n6 Kovács, Zsófia Eszter, 120n7 Lam, Yin, 24, 24n2, 90, 90n4 Lattanzi, Elena, 23 Le Castella, xvii, 16, 17, 148 linienbandkeramik (LBK) phenomenon, 8 Lipari, xviii, xx, xxii, 11, 12, 13, 15, 49, 74, 100; Neolithic occupation of, 63; obsidian from, xvii, xx, 95, 95n11, 104, 141, 201; Stentinello-style ceramics at, 23, 59, 60, 60n5, 83, 206 macchia, 18, 18n2 Malone, C., 12, 94, 96, 131–132 Malta, 9, 11, 54, 57, 197, 206, 207; Stentinello-style ceramics in, 59 Mammina, G., 207 Marino, Domenico, 3, 3n4, 12, 23, 84, 131 Materano site group, 54 Matera scratched ceramics, xxii, 5–6, 6n5, 54, 62n9, 132n11 Medieval period, 63

Index Mesolithic, xvi, 7, 8, 11, 89, 117, 131, 208; transition to Neolithic from, 123 Metaponto, 145–148 Ministero dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali, 23 Museo archeologico di Crotone, 23 Neolithic period, 1, 3–4, 5 fig. 2.1; ceramic trends during, 59; chronology of, 5–9; defining traits of, 7–9; Early, xviii, xx, 5, 6, 6n5, 8, 11, 13n26, 59, 65, 68, 74, 131, 132, 138, 142, 149, 160–161, 165, 185, 208; Late, xviii, xxii, 6, 6n5, 9, 11n20, 83, 84, 96, 129–132, 138, 141, 143, 161, 165, 175, 187, 206, 208; Middle, xviii, xx, xxii, 3, 5, 6n5, 8, 9, 11–12, 13n26, 53, 54, 57, 132, 138, 142, 149, 161, 165, 175, 185, 187, 189, 197, 207, 208; seriation of, 5–6 Neolithic Revolution, 7 Neto River, xviii, 95, 99, 145, 148, 199 Nicoletti, Giuseppi, 12, 131 1987 excavation season, xvii, 24–29, 37 fig. 5.6, 50, 116, 117 table 10.2, 120–121, 175; ceramics study during, 63–64; and chipped stone, 89–90 1990 excavation season, xvii, 26 fig. 4.6, 29–31, 36, 120, 121, 129, 175; ceramics study during, 64–65 nonartifactual finds, 115–125 northern wall, 27, 28, 39, 52 fig. 6.12, 56 obsidian, xvii, 4, 5 fig. 2.1, 11, 12, 89–93, 140–141, 201; increased use of, 13, 13n25, 91, 92; movement of, 13, 89, 96n14, 104; sources of, 15 fig. 3.1 O’Hare, G., 98, 99 organic remains, 115–125; fauna, 120–125; flora, 115– 120, 119 fig. 10.1. See also bone remains; fauna, Neolithic; flora, Neolithic Orsi, P., 11, 54, 89, 197 Paleolithic, 7, 194; Epipaleolithic, xvi paleobotanical remains, 118. See also flora, Neolithic panchina, 148 Pantanello, 123, 161 Passo di Corvo, 49, 92, 102–104, 113, 118, 120 pendant artifacts, 111–112, 112 fig. 9.3 Penitenzeria, xviii, xxi Piano Conte, 129 Piano di Curinga, xviii, 47, 50, 94, 137, 175 Piano Vento, xvii, 11, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 103n21, 137, 138, 206 Pizzica Pantanello, 175 Pleistocene, xvi, 16, 17, 145–146, 194; sands and gravels, 147–148 Pliocene, 16, 145–148 plough damage, 29–30, 30 fig. 4.11, 36, 50, 51–54, 56, 84 point-provenience, 26, 95 polished stone artifacts, 37, 89, 96–101, 112n2, 129, 139– 141; ax cache, xvii, xxi, 97–98, 97 fig. 8.6, 98n17, 140, 141, 143; catalog of, 105–109; function of, 98, 100, 100n18; raw-material sources, 96, 99, 100; as ritual or prestige items, 100–101, 140 pottery, Neolithic. See ceramics

289

pottery: Greek and Roman, 3; prehistoric, 63n11 pseudo-figulina. See under ceramic fabrics Puglia, 62n9, 98, 116, 120, 135, 201 radiocarbon dating, xxiii, xxiv fig. I; Bayesian calibration, xxii-xxiii, xxiii table III, 5, 6–7, 37n3, 40, 41 table 5.2, 83 random-sampling technique, 127 recovery bias, 139 Rendina, 160 ritual context, 100, 143 saggio, 28 Salvatori, S., 12, 63, 99, 197 Santa Severina, 146 fig. 13.5 Sargent, A., 117–118 Scali, Salvatore, 120n7, 121, 149 Scamuso (Puglia), 118, 122, 160, 175 Schmandt-Besserat, Denise, 142–143, 203–204, 207 Schneider, R., 120 scirocco, 17 sea level, changing, xvii, 19, 19n7, 131, 131n8, 142 sedentism, 8, 11 Serra d’Alto ware (painted trichrome), xviii, 6, 6n5, 9, 9n13, 10, 60, 83, 139 Serra del Palco, xvii, 11, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56–57, 137, 138, 206 Sherratt, A., 124–125 Sibari, xviii, 61n7, 83n33 Sicily, 123, 135, 197 Sila Massif, xvi, xviii, 15, 16, 17, 86, 95, 99, 148, 201 Siracusa, 132n11 Skorba (Malta), 57, 117, 138, 206 Smith, Delano, 20 Soprintendenza archeologica della Calabria, 23 Sounding A, 35, 116 Sounding B, 38, 116 Sounding C, 35, 36, 39, 39 fig. 5.9, 55 Sounding D, 35 Sounding E, 43 fig. 6.1 southwest wall, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 51 fig. 6.11, 56 Soverito, 131 Spurr, M. S., 125 Stentinello, 4, 9, 10–11, 12, 23, 48, 50, 53, 129–131, 142, 175; architectural tradition of, 55; chipped stone at, 90; type site of, 9–10, 59. See also under ceramics Stentinello-style wares, 3, 3n3, 5, 6n5, 9, 9 fig. 2.2, 9n13, 10, 11, 12, 12n24, 13, 13n26, 23, 40, 53, 59–62, 59n2, 60 fig. 7.1, 61 fig. 7.3, 62nn8–9, 71, 76, 86, 131n8, 132, 197, 206–207 Stevanović, 207 Stilo, 95, 131, 132, 175 Stone Age, 10 stone tools, 140–141; trade of 140–141; prestige value of, 140–141. See also chipped stone (lithic) artifacts; polished stone artifacts stratigraphy, xvii, xxii, 33–41, 33 fig. 5.1, 35 figs. 5.2–5.3, 62, 87; and ceramics, 65 table 7.2, 67 tables 7.3–7.5;

290

Index

and chipped stone, 89. See also Stratum I (lower); Stratum II (upper); Stratum III (rubble) Stratum I (lower), xxiii, 31, 35–36, 40, 47, 55, 70–71, 87, 91, 112, 114, 151–157, 173, 185, 187, 189, 198, 206; ceramics of, 65, 66, 71–76, 72–73 figs. 7.6–7.7, 74–75 figs. 7.8–7.9, 83; phase Ia, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 43 fig. 6.2, 50 fig. 6.10, 68, 143, 175, 177; phase Ib, 35, 37, 40, 143, 175, 177; tools from, 190–191 Stratum II (upper), xxiii, 31, 36–39, 40, 47, 55, 56 figs. 6.15–6.16, 69, 70, 71, 84, 87, 91, 112, 114, 116, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 151, 157–158, 185, 187, 189, 198, 206; ceramics in, 65, 66, 76–82, 78–81 figs. 7.11–7.15, 83 fig. 7.17; grinding stones in, 103; phase IIa, 37, 39, 40, 44, 51 fig. 6.11, 78, 82, 103, 112, 116, 119, 121, 175, 177; phase IIb, xxiii, 37, 38, 39, 40, 55, 69, 78, 82, 103, 112, 151, 175, 177; phase IIc, xxiii, 37, 39, 39n4, 40, 151, 175; polished stone in, 100; tools from, 191–192 Stratum III (rubble), 20, 28, 33, 38 fig. 5.7, 39–40, 84, 87, 119, 121, 158–160, 161, 175, 177, 189; tools from, 192–193 Strongoli, 148, 148 fig. 13.11 Sutton, 19

Tavoliere plain, xxii, 10, 10n16, 49, 62, 74, 83, 92, 95, 117 tertiary turbidites, 145, 146, 146 fig. 13.5 Tiné, Santo, xviii, 48, 48n6, 62, 74–76, 83, 84, 120, 175 Tiné, V., 4n5 Torre Sabea, 160 Trench 1, 27, 27 fig. 4.7, 29, 33 fig. 5.1; Extension, 35 Trench 2, 24 Trench 3, 28 Trench 4, 29 Trench 5, 29, 30 Trench 6, 29 Tringham, R., 207 Tusa, 62, 76 Umbro, xviii, 122n11, 185 Van Andel, T. H., 19 Vrica, xvii, 95, 99, 147 walls, assembly of, 52 fig. 6.13 wattle and daub, xvii, 12, 44, 44n2, 45, 45n3, 46, 47–48, 49n10, 50, 53, 57, 177 Whitehouse, Ruth, xviii, 10, 11, 18, 49, 50, 62, 76, 83