STONE AGE SEAFARING in the MEDITERRANEAN: Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete Author(S): Thomas F

Home , Chania, Clactonian, Ikaria (regional unit), Loutro (island)

STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete Author(s): Thomas F. Strasser, Eleni Panagopoulou, Curtis N. Runnels, Priscilla M. Murray, Nicholas Thompson, Panayiotis Karkanas, Floyd W. McCoy and Karl W. Wegmann Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 79, No. 2 (April-June 2010), pp. 145-190 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835484 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 10:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions „BSPBR,.79(îo,o) STO NE AGE SEAFARING ^,,s-,,o IN THE MEDITERRANEAN Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete

ABSTRACT

A surveyin 2008 and 2009 on thesouthwestern coast of Crete in theregion of Plakiasdocumented 28 preceramiclithic sites. Sites were identified with artifactsof Mesolithic type similar to assemblagesfrom the Greek mainland and islands,and somehad evidenceof Lower Palaeolithic occupation dated bygeological context to at least130,000 years ago. The longperiod of sepa- ration(more than 5,000,000 years) of Crete from any landmass implies that the earlyinhabitants of Cretereached the islandusing seacraft capable of - open-seanavigation and multiple journeys a findingthat pushes the history ofseafaring in theMediterranean back by more than 100,000 years and has importantimplications for the dispersal of early humans.

INTRODUCTION

How did earlyhumans (hominins) from Africa reach Europe in thePleis- tocene?Were theyconfined to theNear Easternland corridor,or did they crossthe Mediterranean?When did seafaringin the formof deliberate, directtranspelagic crossings begin? When did earlyhumans first reach Crete,an islandfor some 5,000,000 years that was untilrecently thought to have been inhabitedfor the first time only in the Neolithicperiod? These area fewof the questions posed by recent discoveries in southwesternCrete, wherethe Plakias Survey project has conductedtwo seasons of archaeologi- 1 cal reconnaissance,in 2008 and 2009. The areasurveyed is locatedon the

1. The PlakiasSurvey project was graphicSociety, and ProvidenceCol- also liketo thankNina Kyparissi- conductedunder the auspices of the lege.For help in thefield, we thank Apostolika(director of the Ephoreia AmericanSchool of Classical Studies NatalieCooper, Chad DiGregorio, ofPalaeoanthropology and Speleol- at Athensand theGreek Ministry of Doug Faulmann,Tammie Gerke, ogyof SouthernGreece) and Maria Culture(Ephoreia of Palaeoanthro- HannahJohnson, and Epaminondas Andreadaki-Vlazaki(director of the pologyand Speleologyof Southern Kapranos.The directorof the Ameri- 25thEphoreia of Prehistoric and Greeceand the25th Ephoreia of can Schoolof Classical Studies, Jack ClassicalAntiquities) for their sup- Prehistoricand ClassicalAntiquities). Davis,and staffmembers, in particular port.Finally, we aregrateful to the The projectwas fundedby the Institute Maria Pilali,are to be thankedfor their anonymousHesperia reviewers for forAegean Prehistory, the Loeb Clas- supportof our project and theirassis- theirhelpful suggestions. sicalFoundation, the National Geo- tancein practicalmatters. We would

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 1. Map of Crete showing coastin the Rethymnonnomos, and includesthe area fromPlakias to the areas surveyedby the Plaidas Survey PreveliGorge as well as the area aroundAyios Pavios (Fig. 1). project.E. McClennen Althoughclaims for pre-Neolithic habitation on Cretehave been made formany decades, the Plakias Surveyis the firstproject to identifypre- Neolithiccultural materials in geologicalcontexts that provide approximate agesfor the finds. Our surveyidentified 28 findspotsor sitesassociated with cavesand rockshelters(Fig. 2, Table 1) and collecteda sampleof just over 2,100 lithicartifacts attributable to at leasttwo early prehistoric industries. One industryconsists of microlithicartifacts of Mesolithic type found on 20 sites.The otherindustry (or industries)is of Palaeolithictype and is foundon ninesites. Two findspots(Kourtaliotis 1 and Plakias 1) produced onlyundiagnostic lithics, but theyappear to be pre-Neolithic.Although therewas someoverlap in theuse ofsites in thePalaeolithic and theMeso- lithicat Preveli2, Preveli3, and Preveli8, the artifactsrepresenting the two periodswere for the mostpart found on differentsites. The discoveryof Mesolithic sites was thefocus of our original research, and was not unexpectedin lightof recentdiscoveries of Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithicsites on otherislands, such as Kythnos,Ikaria, Alonni- sos,and Cyprus(see below).The existenceof Lower Palaeolithicartifacts in associationwith datable geological contexts, however, was a complete surprise.Given the presenceof Mesolithicremains on otherislands, it had been assumedthat Mesolithic foragers were seafarers,but untilnow therehas been no certainevidence for Lower Palaeolithicseafaring in the Mediterranean. Figure2 (opposite).Details ofthe In thefollowing pages we presentthe evidence from the Plakias Sur- surveyareas shownin Figure 1, on theartifact and thedetails of their geological vey,focusing assemblages withapproximate locations of sites While therecan be no doubtthat these discoveries will contextand dating. mentionedin the text:(a) western this haveprofound implications for the questions posed above,at prelimi- area aroundPlakias; (b) easternarea We do narystage our researchcannot sustain far-reaching speculations. aroundAyios Pavios. The -100 m not knowprecisely when Lower Palaeolithichominins reached Crete, or isobathmarks the approximate whethertheir occupation of the island was widespread,long-lasting, or extentof the coastalplain at theend continuous.Nor can we saywhat the implications will be of the discovery of the Pleistocene.E. McClennen

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 147

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 148 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY OF THE SITES

Sites Palaeolithic Mesolithic Other

Damnoni1 - x - Damnoni2 - x - Damnoni3 - x - Ammoudi1 - x - Ammoudi3 - x - - - AyiosPavios 1 x - AyiosPavios 2 x x - - AyiosPavios 3 x Schinaria1 - x - Schinaria2 - x - Schinaria3 - x - Schinaria4 - x x Schinaria5 x - - Schinaria6 - x - Preveli1 - x - Preveli2 x x - Preveli3 x x - Preveli6 - x - Preveli7 x - - Preveli8 x x - Kourtaliotis1 - - x - - Kotsiphos1 x Plakias1 - - x Timeos Stavros1 x - - Timeos Stavros2 - x - Timeos Stavros3 - x - Timeos Stavros4 x - x Gianniou1 x - - ofMesolithic inhabitants for our understanding of the arrival of Neolithic settlerson Creteor elsewherein theAegean. The resultswe presenthere arebut a firststep on thepath of research leading to a betterunderstanding of the movementsof earlyprehistoric peoples amongthe Mediterranean islandsand beyond.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Previousresearch concerning the pre-Neolithic periods on Cretehas produced fewconclusive results. There are severalreasons for this, including ambiguousdata and thelack ofscholarly training of archaeologists to recognize Palaeolithicor Mesolithicremains.2 The firstscholar to claim evidencefor pre-Neolithic occupation on Cretewas M. L. Franchet.3Sent to Creteand Egyptin 1912 bythe French of Public Educationand Fine Art in orderto Ministry study"céramique 2. Hutchinson1962, p. 45. and on theRouses both primitive,"he discoveredstone tools atTrypiti Plain; 3. Franchet1917, pp. 63-81. siteswere ca. 3 kmeast of Heraklion and havesince been destroyedor cov- 4. Hutchinson1962, p. 46; Zois eredby recent construction.4 In his surfacecollections, Franchet identified 1973a,pp. 59-60.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 149

two industries:one of obsidian,which he assignedto the Neolithic,and the otherof limestone.Franchet thought the limestoneindustry was sig- nificantbecause it was earlier;the large "pics" and perçoirsseemed to him to be characteristicof the"campiniennes" stages in Franceand Egypt.5It is difficultto knowexactly what date Franchet assigned to thismaterial; he statesonly that it is earlierthan the Neolithicthen known on Crete. Franchet'sresearch was quicklydismissed by Britisharchaeologists workingon Crete.6Robert Bosanquet and ArthurEvans, in particular, challenged his research,claiming that he misinterpretedthe retouch foundregularly on Bronze Age stonetools.7 Nevertheless, after studying the aceramicNeolithic flaked stone industry from stratum X at Knossos, Zois assignedthe unretouched microliths from Trypiti and Rouses to the Mesolithicperiod, and thelarger limestone "tools" to eitherthe Mesolithic or the Palaeolithic.8 At Kastellos,an importantNeolithic and BronzeAge sitein theLasithi Plain,John Pendlebury tentatively identified a red cherttool foundthere in the early20th centuryas Aurignacian.9He based thisattribution on a comparisonwith a similarartifact collected by George Finlayin the 19th centuryand housedin Manchester,England. The lattertool had beeniden- tifiedoriginally by Abbé Breuil.Burkitt and Wilfreddescribed the tool in thepublication by Pendlebury and colleagues,but insufficient comparative artifactsand thepurely Bronze Age contextstrongly suggest that it is not - Aurignacian and Pendleburyhimself doubted such an earlydate.10 In additionto stonetools, some scholars thought that they saw evidence ofpre-Neolithic habitation of Crete in theform of worked bone and antler artifacts.In 1969, S. E. Kuss identifiedtwo pre-Neolithiccultures in the areasof Kalo Chorafiand Grida-Avlaki, located on thenorth coast between Rethymnonand Heraklion.11He dated the "artifacts"from Kalo Chorafi to theRiss glaciation (120,000-100,000 b.p.) and thosefrom Grida- Avlaki to theRiss-Würm interglacial (100,000-60,000 b.p.).To theearlier period he assignedthe label keratische Kultur (the Antler Culture), and to thelater the label osteokeratischeKultur (the Bone and AntlerCulture), reflecting the media of the respectiveartifactual industries. The type-artifactfor the keratischeculture is a deer antler,heavily scratched, and with a wornand zigzag-patternedtip. The osteokeratischeculture is distinguishedby forklike "tools"from deer radii and metatarsals.The radiihave forkson both 5. It shouldbe keptin mindthat ends, ThePalace of Minos I (1921) had not while the metatarsalsare forkedonly on the distalends. The antlersand yetbeen published, so thechronology bonescome froma now-extinctendemic Pleistocene deer, Cervus cretensis. was undeterminedat this point. Althoughno workedstone tools were found,Kuss suggestedthat stone 6. Zois 1973a, 62. p. toolshad to have been used to createthe bone tools,and thatthe residual 7. Bosanquet1918; PMI, p. 32, n.3. striationson thebones supportedthis conclusion. 8. Zois 1973a,p. 62; see also Cherry AntonySutcliffe subsequently questioned Kuss s conclusions.12He 1981,p. 43. observeddeer in the wild and foundthat they frequently gnawed on the 9. Pendlebury,Pendlebury, and bones and antlersof dead deer,perhaps because of a calciumdeficiency.13 Money-Coutts1937-1938, p. 51. Differentcharacteristics could be seen on the bones and antlers: 10. and gnawed Pendlebury,Pendlebury, thebones had forkedends while the antlers Sut- Money-Coutts1937-1938, p. 51. displayedzigzag patterns. 11. Kuss 1969. cliffealso studiedbones and antlerscollected by the palaeontologistPaul - - 12. Sutcliffe1973, 1977. Sondaar who, like Sutcliffe,was also a faunalanalyst and concluded 13. Sutcliffe1977. thatthey were not artifacts.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 150 THOMAS F. STRASSERETAL.

In 1970,YannisTzedakis excavated Gerani Cave 3, located9 kmwest of Rethymnon.14He reportedfinding worked bone tools associated with horns and skullsof deer that J. F. Cherry,in his 1981 studyof the early colonization ofMediterranean islands, presumed were the extinctendemic Pleistocene deerMegaloceros cretensis.15 Tzedakis did not date the tools to the Palaeo- lithic,but only reported that they were found among now extinctfauna.16 AsphendosCave is locatedin southwesternCrete near a villageof the same name.It was discoveredindependently by Paul Faure and Christos Papoutzakis,and thedata were reviewed by Zois.17 Inside arepetroglyphs of abstractsymbols and representationsof animals.Despite the primitive characterof the petroglyphs, and theinterpretation of some ofthe animal scenesas representingthe huntingof wild animals,there are no dates to confirman earlyprehistoric age forthese images. All archaeologicalinves- tigationsin the cave,including one excavation,have foundonly Minoan pottery.18Moreover, should the scimitar-hornedanimals depicted in the petroglyphsrepresent agrimia, Cretan wild goats, they would belong to the Neolithicperiod or laterbecause agrimiaare feralforms of domesticated animalsintroduced during the earlieststages of the Neolithic.19 In the SamariaGorge, also locatedin southwesternCrete, members ofthe SphakiaSurvey project discovered a scatterof brown chert initially thoughtto be Epipalaeolithicor Mesolithic in character.20The teamexca- vatedtwo test trenches. Lithic analysts examined the pieces and determined thatthey were not artifactsbut fragmentsof chertbroken by trampling. Similardoubts are connectedwith the possible Palaeolithic or Mesolithic stonetools associated with now-extinct Pleistocene fauna at Phrangomoura 1 and 2 in easternCrete reported by Norbert Schlager.21 He was uncertain whetheror not the toolswere worked artifacts. Pleistocenehuman remains are unknown on Crete,apart from a single reportedspecimen. Late in the 19thcentury, Vittorio Simonelli discovered humanskeletal remains in a cave nearChania.22 Facchini and Giusbertire- portthat the remains consisted of a craniumand postcranial fragments heavi- 14.Tzedakis 1970. lycemented in a calcareousbreccia.23 They used the Protactinium/Uranium 15. Cherry1981, p. 43. methodto date the breccia to 51,000 ± 12,000b.r, but there is no stratigraphie 16.Tzedakis 1970, pp. 474-476. contextand thebones themselves were not dated. Cherry(1981, p. 43), however,reports thatJarman had studiedthe deer bones Recently,Peder Mortensenreported Palaeolithic limestone artifacts and concludedthat the deposits were fromthe of 30 km west of Plakias.24Members of the region Loutro, mixedduring excavation. Plakias Surveyteam inspected these objects in the Chania Museum,and 17. Faure1972, pp. 406-407; determinedthat the Loutro objects might, despite their suggestive shapes, Papoutzakis1972, p. 107; Zois 1973b. 18. Faure Tzedakis be geofacts.In lightof our discoveriesin thevicinity of the PreveliGorge 1972,p. 412; 1973, 583; Nixonet al. 1990, 216. (see below),however, the area around Loutro should be carefullyexamined p. p. 19. Groves1989, 50-51. in thefuture. in 2006 at the 10thInternational Con- pp. Finally, Cretological 20. Nixon,Moody, and Rackham Matzanas thatartifacts ference,Katerina Kopaka and Christos reported 1988,pp. 171, 173; Nixonet al. 1990, belongingto all phases of the Palaeolithicwere found in a surveyon the pp. 214-215. island of Gavdos, offthe southerncoast of Crete (Fig. 1), and theyre- 21. Schlager1991, pp. 7-10. 22. Simonelli1897. centlypresented some ofthese artifacts online.25 Although the finds from 23. Facchiniand Giusberti1992, Loutro and Gavdos offerpossible corroborative evidence, they await full p. 189. publication.In sum,none of the researchdescribed above yieldedsecure 24. Mortensen2008. - - evidence in a datablegeological context forPalaeolithic or Mesolithic 25. Kopakaand Matzanas2009; occupationof Crete. forthcoming.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Figure3. Generalview of theland- scape nearPlaidas. PhotoN.Thompson THE PLAKIAS SURVEY

Despite the inconclusiveevidence for pre-Neolithic habitation of Crete, it seemedlikely that evidence for the Mesolithicperiod would be found on theisland because it had previouslybeen discoveredon otherislands in theAegean. Discoveries on Alonnisos,Kythnos, and otherAegean islands, as well as on Cyprus,have shownthat an earlymodel that argued that occupationof the islandstook place firstin the Neolithicwas incorrect.26It was reasonedthat if Mesolithic foragers found these islands attractive for subsistence,Crete must also havebeen a desirablehabitat. Crete, however, is a verylarge island, which raised the problemof whereto look forpre- Neolithicremains. A Mesolithicsite-location model developedby researchersworking on theGreek mainland and theislands identified areas likely to haveearly Holocene sites.27These areas are habitatsthat may have been preferred byMesolithic foragers and thatcould also preservetheir artifacts. We ap- pliedthis model to Crete.The coastalarea around Plaidas has characteristic featuressuch as caves, rockshelters,and proximityto coastal wetlands (Fig. 3) thaton theGreek mainland were found to fitthis Mesolithic site- locationmodel. In additionto usingthe model forthe Plakias Survey,it was possibleto involvelithic specialists who werefamiliar with Mesolithic assemblagesfrom the mainlandand who wereexperienced in identifying artifactsof thisperiod.

26. Forthe previous view of the ForMesolithic Alonnisos, see Panago- earliesthabitation of the islands, see poulou,Kotjambopoulou, and Karkanas Cherry1981. Fora currentsummary of 2001,pp. 126-135; forKythnos, see theevidence, see Broodbank2006; for Sampsonet al. 2002. ForMesolithic earlyhumans in theAegean, see occupationon Cyprus,see Simmons Chelidonio2001 and Panagopoulou, 1999. Kotjambopoulou,and Karkanas2001. 27. Runnelset al. 2005.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 152 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

The Plakias Region

The southwesterncoast of Crete is geologicallydynamic.28 The Plakiasre- gion is a tectonicmélange created as a resultof the collisionbetween the Africanand Eurasian plates,and the warpingof the Hellenic forearc.29 The coastis backedby uplifted ranges of limestone mountains and crossed moreor less fromnorth to southby deeplyincising river systems such as the Megas Potamosin the PreveliGorge (Fig. 4:a, b). Today the region is a complicatedmosaic of limestone-flyschthrust sheets (nappes) that recordthe accretionof sedimentaryand volcanic rocks to the Aegean marginduring subduction of the Africanlithosphère; there are younger extensional(normal) faults, and heavilyeroded limestone slopes.30 On the coast are flights(arranged in a steplikefashion) of marineterraces and bedrockerosional planation surfaces (Fig. 4:a) correspondingto intervals ofeustatic sea levelhigh stands in theUpper Pleistocene (130,000-10,000 yearsago), thepreservation of which has been made possibleby continual slowlocal upliftof rock. The underlyinggeology of the Plakias regionaffected our archaeological researchin numerousways. The location and natureof faults, surfacewater, and cave shelterswere factors that we consideredlikely to determineprehistoric site preference (see below),and the activetectonic andgéomorphologie processes that have worked for hundreds of thousands of yearshave servedboth to preservesites in some cases and to destroy themin others.Perhaps the most important of these destructive processes is the ongoingtectonic uplift of the area.This upliftcreates steep slopes thatcan acceleratethe deteriorationof the caves and rocksheltersthat werethe focusof prehistorichuman land use, and the erosionof uncon- solidatedsediments has affectedthe preservation of early prehistoric sites everywhere. Yet otherprocesses, such as the formationof cementedsedimentary beachdeposits (i.e., marineterraces) during sea levelhigh stands and their preservationdue to subsequenteustatic sea levelregression coupled with regionalrock uplift, have helped to preserveevidence of prehistoric human activitywithin them. The stronglycemented and induratedlate Pleisto- cene deposits,especially the sedimentarybeach conglomeratesobserved at Preveli2 (see below), are associatedwith lithic artifacts, for example. In othercases, such as Preveli7 (see below),paleosols (buried and/or fossil soils) containand preserveartifacts of Palaeolithictype.31 Finally, the carbonate-richrunoff from cave and rocksheiterbrows both consolidated and preservedanthropogenic deposits that had been exposedover time by the retreatof the brows,a factorthat has helped to preserveevidence of Mesolithicoccupation.

28. See Thommeretet al. 1981; 31. The alluvialfans in southwestern Greeceby Tjeerd van Andel and his Fassoulasand Nikolakakis2005; Shaw Cretehave been studied extensively students,especially Kevin Pope and et al. 2008; Wegmann2008. (Nemecand Postma1993; Pope et al. EberhardZangger, and thebasic princi- 29. Fassoulas2000; Wegmann2008, 2008). Mediterraneanpaleosols form plesare described in numerouspublica- pp. 94-139. and maturein seasonalwet-dry conditions,including van Andel 1998,Run- 30. Rahl,Fassoulas, and Brandon tions.The use ofpaleosols in Palaeo- nelsand van Andel 2003, and van Andel 2004. lithicarchaeology was pioneeredin and Runnels2005; see n. 51, below.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 153

Figure4. Views of the PreveliGorge from(a) thewest and (b) the south. The marineterraces and levelero- sionalplanation surfaces of Preveli2, locatedat the middleforeground of (a), resemblea staircase.Photos N. Thompson

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 154 THOMAS F. STRASSERETAL.

Figure5. View ofa cave (Damnoni 3), fromthe southeast.Photo N. Thompson

Methods

As notedearlier, our approach was based on a targetedsurvey method suc- cessfullyemployed on theGreek mainland to locateMesolithic sites.32 We investigatedcaves and rocksheltersand theirimmediate environs in coastal zoneswhere early Holocene wetlands (the likely focus of prehistoric activity) onceexisted. The steepcoast of southwestern Crete faces the abyssal depths ofthe Libyan Sea and is close in a horizontalsense to whatwe believewas the positionof the shorelinein the earlyHolocene (11,000-9,000 years ago),when local sea levelswere ca. 35-70 m lowerthan today (Fig. 2:a, b).33 When eustaticsea levelrose rapidly in the earlyHolocene, it would have floodedlow-lying land and backedup rivers,creating wetlands with both freshwater and marineresources. In thePlakias area, the limestone bedrock is pervasivelyfractured and permeableand is subjectto both karsticweathering and tectonicforces. Steeplydipping normal faults in thelimestone have relatively soft walls that are attackedby surficialand groundwaterflows. These flowscreate small caves (see Fig. 5), and the runoffcarves out long overhangsof rock,the shallowerand widerof which are referredto hereas rockshelters(Fig. 6). Moreover,during sea levelhigh stands, wave erosionformed level planation surfaces,algal reefs,sea cliffs,notches, and sea caves,the last being 32. See p. 151 and n. 27, above. smallkarstic cavities at sea level.Sea cliffsand associatednotches 33. See thecoastal reconstructions enlarged forthe in Lambeck1996 and havethe ofrockshelters. Both cavesand rockshelters Aegean usually configuration Lambeckand Purcell2005, and the are browand caused regularlydegraded by ceilingcollapse byweathering, applicationof these data for the erosion,and the same tectonicforces and seismicactivity responsible for reconstructionofearly Holocene the creationof the faultscarps. shorelinesin Runnelset al. 2005.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 155

Figure6. Viewof a rocksheiter (Damnoni2), fromthe west, show- ingthe remains of a collapsedbrow. PhotoN. Thompson

The exactsize, shape, and appearance of caves and rockshelters inthe Pleistoceneand earlyHolocene cannot be ascertainedwithout excava- tionand furthergeomorphological study, but today the caves are rarely morethan 10 m deepand typically no morethan 2-4 m wide.The larg- estcave is thecavern at AyiosPavios 3, butthe evidence of several large karsticwindows and the dense rockfall from the collapsed brow (Fig. 7) aretestimony that it is too unstableto longendure. Large caverns such as thisusually do notremain standing for long. There is evidencein the formof sea notchesand holes burrowed by molluscs {Lithophaga sp.) that thesecaves were altered during periods of highsea leveland thatthey wereundercut and partiallycollapsed during periods of lower sea level. Rocksheltersdiffer from caves in thatthey consist of wide stretches of discontinuous,partly collapsed overhangs of rock (often remnants of for- mersea cliffsand notches) that protect shallow benches of sediments or deposits. We examinedall caves and rockshelters inthe Plakias region found near themouths of freshwater perennial streams and rivers emptying into the LibyanSea andwithin 5 kmof the present coast. To locatethese features we useda combinationof topographic maps at a scaleof 1:5,000, Google Earthimages, and visual inspection of the countryside. We wereable to identifymore caves and rockshelters than could be investigatedby road or byfoot in thetime available. Some features were at elevationssufficiently highto be reachedonly by technical climbing, or in extremely remote and ruggedlandscape, and these were not investigated.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 156 THOMAS F. STRASSERETAL.

Figure 7. View of thepartially collapsed cavernat AyiosPavios 3, from the south.Photo N. Thompson

Assumingthat most caves and rocksheltershave retreatedin the last 10,000years as a resultof browcollapse, and thatdeposits resulting from humanoccupation are foundnow outsideof the remainingfeatures, we searchedin frontof each cavity,usually downslope (Fig. 8). Scattersof lithic artifactswere often found around the present-dayopenings of the caves and rocksheltersand on theslopes directly below the openings. We limited the designationof a "site"to findspotswhere lithics were numerous(i.e., 20 or more)and had similartechnological and typologicalcharacteristics; thesewere considered unlikely to havebeen the result of chance artifact loss resultingfrom sporadic visitation over long periods of time.The extentof each artifactscatter was estimatedby a coupleof people walking back and forthacross each findspot,and sitelatitude and longitudewere determined witha handheldGPS unit. When thesetasks were completed, we collecteda sampleof the lithics, includingexamples of all classes of lithicdebitage (i.e., all objects modifiedby flintknapping).Because the project'sgoal was limitedto the determinationof the presenceor absence of assemblagesof Mesolithic typein the area,we decidedthat it was sufficientto makerelatively small collectionsof representative lithics from each site.Most sitesdid nothave greatnumbers of lithics(usually 80-100 artifacts),making it practicalto collectall debitage.But some siteswere much larger(e.g., Schinaria1, consistingof thousandsof artifacts;see Fig. 9), and we were obliged to be selectivein sampling.In orderto ensurethat the samplesin the latter

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 15

Figure8. Searchingfor Mesolithic artifactson thetalus slope in front of thecave at Damnoni 3; viewfrom the north.Photo N. Thompson

Figure9. A Mesolithicartifact scat- terat Schinaria1. The artifactsare ofwhite quartz. Photo N. Thompson

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 158 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL. caseswere small but representative ofthe basic assemblage composition, thecollected material was sorted in thefield. We collectedall technical pieces, tools (such as microliths),and flakes and bladesif theywere complete or nearlycomplete. Duplicate tested pieces(cores with one or two flakes removed to test the quality), cores, core fragments,small pieces of broken flakes without retouch, and other miscel- laneousdebitage were not all collected, although some were photographed inthe field. Because the collection was supervised by lithic specialists, such nonrandomjudgmental grab sampling was deemed sufficient toproduce a reasonablyaccurate representative sample from each assemblage. In several cases,the team returned to sitesto collectadditional samples in orderto ensurethat the collections included representative elements from the as- semblagessufficient to allow for their identification. Withthe exception of a fossilizedtooth from Ayios Pavios 3 andsome unmodifiedseashells from Schinaria 1 andSchinaria 6, only lithic artifacts werecollected. The onlytreatment the lithics received after collection was a briefsoaking in water to remove soil before they were sorted and classified. Becausethe samples were collected from the surface and couldcontain materialsfrom more than one chronological period or occupational com- ponent,statistical treatment ofthese assemblages was not attempted. The classificationofthe assemblage was based on thereduction sequence and theidentification ofretouched tool types in accordance with classification schemeswidely used by European prehistorians and which are based on a typologicalapproach popularized by François Bordes in the1960s.34 The artifactswere sorted by class: for example, core/debitage, flake, blade,or retouched tool (see Table 2, below).Each artifactwas examined underlow magnification to identify retouch or othertechnological characteristics,and reclassifiedas necessary.Once thecollection from a site had beensorted, the raw materials were described and theobjects were measured(typically todetermine the length). Diagnostic pieces were drawn andphotographed.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Context

The spatialdistributions of thelithics were typically small, sometimes no morethan 25 or30 m in extentand rarely more than 100 m fromthe presentopenings of caves and rockshelters.The artifacts had been scattered downslopebelow the cave or rocksheiteropenings after occupation. The largenumbers of artifacts encountered at sitessuch as Schinaria1 suggest thein situweathering of anthropogenic deposits. The followingobserva- tionssupport the notion that on themajority of sites the artifacts had not movedfar from their original depositional contexts. Alllithic artifacts were examined for evidence of water damage such as smoothing,rounding, and polishing, and for the abrasion of edges and ar- rises,which is often assumed to reflect postdepositional modification. Such tracescould be indicationsof the transport of artifacts from their original placeof deposit after they had been discarded in antiquity, but none of the 34. See Debénathand Dibble 1994.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 159

Figure10. Patination on a Meso- lithicquartz artifact, with the older patinateddeliberate retouch cut by a recentunpatinated chip. Photo N.Thompson

artifactscollected show evidence for long-distance high-energy transport. Patinationof the artifactsurfaces was sometimesobserved (see Fig. 10), typically(but not exclusively)on theearlier assemblages, thought to be of Palaeolithicage. Red stainingfrom contact with iron-rich sediments was also presenton some of the Palaeolithicmaterial (Fig. 11). Anotherfeature pointing to thein situ(sensu lato) contexts of the sites is the rangeof size observedamong the lithics.The artifactsare angular and ofgreatly different sizes, ranging from cores of 20 cm or morein their longestdimension down to flakesand fragmentsless than1 cm in length. Artifactsof thesevariable sizes are foundon the same sites,confirming

Figure11. Redsoil adhering to a Palaeolithicquartz artifact from Preveli7, evidence of its former burialin an iron-richpaleosol. PhotoN.Thompson

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l6o THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure 12. View of a probably thatthe specimenshad not been sortedinto size groupsby high-velocity Holocene paleosol withMesolithic runoffor long-distancetransport downslope. Although the rateat which artifactsin situat Preveli2. Photo artifactswere brought to thesurface is unknown,the locations where they N. Thompson werefound are now low-energy domains, although it is fairto assumethat theseslopes have periodically experienced high-energy erosional processes broughtabout by torrential rains and sheeterosion. Such episodesmay have periodically"cleansed" some sitesof at leastthe smaller artifacts, requiring some timefor new materialto be broughtto the surfaceby the continu- ing actionof naturalerosional processes. The unsortednature of our lithic scatters,however, suggests that these eventshave been infrequent,and the deep red color (2.5YR 4/8 red to 10R 3/6 darkred) of the sediments at some sites(e.g., Preveli2 and Schinaria1) suggeststhat the surfacesat thesesites, although rather shallow in depth,were sufficientlystable for 35 soilsto developand oxidize(Fig. 12). Indeed,at some siteslithics may continue to be derivedfrom specific sedimentarydeposits by present-day erosion. At Damnoni 2, forexample, cave earthdeposits are visible among the blocks fromthe fallenbrow, and in situartifacts were observed within these sediments. Elsewhere, for instanceat Preveli1, Schinaria1, and Damnoni 3, red sedimentscan be seen.These occurin outcropsup to 1 m thickor more,below the present cave or rocksheitermouths, and it is probable,but not certain,that some lithicsare erodedfrom these At stillother sites being deposits. (Preveli2, 3, 35. Sedimentsaltered by chemical and 7), artifactswere observed in a varietyof contexts. At Preveli2, artifacts weatheringbecome soils after thou- werefound as clastswithin conglomeratic sedimentary beach deposits.At sandsof years. See n. 51, below.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN l6l

Preveli3, artifactsare eroding from terra rossa soils or alluvial fans on the karsticlimestone plateau, while at Preveli7, theyare visible in an exposed outcropof a paleosol.36

Raw Materials

The principalraw materials used for artifact manufacture are milky quartz and,to a lesserextent, quartzite and various types of chert (Fig. 13). Most ofthe raw materials are seemingly of local origin. Cobbles of various sizes ofquartz and chert are visible in streambedsand on beachesthroughout thearea. Quartz is abundantin thesurvey area (Fig. 14), morereadily availablethan the rare small outcrops of poor-quality chert, and it was usedfor the manufacture ofthe majority of the Mesolithic and Palaeo- lithicartifacts.

Figure 13. Mesolithicartifacts from Damnoni 1, showingtypical raw materialsused formanufacture. The whitematerial is quartz,and thedark is chert.Top row,left to right:denticulate,denticulate, truncation, spine, end scraper.Bottom row, left to right: perçoir(borer), retouched flake, truncatedflake with a notch,microlith,microlith. Photo N.Thompson

In appearancethe quartz ranges from a translucentwhite with a pearly lusterto a ratherdull, opaque material with streaks of brown and a blocky structure.It can be flakedas easilyas chertor other cryptocrystalline materials.Our experimental flintknapping trials showed that the manufacture ofstone tools morphologically similar to theprehistoric artifacts did not requireany particular adjustment of flintknappingmethods. Given the

36. Mediterraneanterra rossa forms erosion,slope wash, and creepthrough karsticdepressions with low-energy on levelsurfaces as theresult of the theaction of wind, water, and gravity. domains.The resultingdeposits may be dissolutionof the limestone or other Once removedfrom their original stableenough to allowpaleosols to substratesover time by the action of placesof formation, the sediments may form(see n. 51, below)unless uplift, rainwaterthat leaches calcium carbon- occurin alluvialfans and in depressions headwardstream erosion, or othertypes ate,leaving behind an insolubleresidue. withoutoutlets or theiruplifted equiv- ofdisturbance breach them and subject Partof the fine silt and clayin terra alents,where they may be subjectedto themto a high-energyregime of ero- rossasare of eolian origin and derived furtherweathering, erosion, or deposi- sion.For a discussionof the association fromthe Sahara Desert (Yaalon 1997, tion.Terra rossas usually have a redor ofartifacts with paleosol horizons, and 2009).The formationprocess of terra yellowishred color from hematite, theformation of paleosols in both rossais measuredin hundredsof goethite,and otherminerals present in primaryand redepositedterra rossas, thousandsof years. Redeposited terra theinsoluble residue of the parent rocks see Runnelsand vanAndel 2003 and rossain southwesternCrete is derived or addedwith the eolian dust. Rede- vanAndel and Runnels2005. fromprimary terra rossa by sheet positedterra rossa collects in tectonicor

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IÓ2 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure 14. Boulder ofunworked structureof the however,it is difficultat timesto blocky quartz, recognize quartznear Preveli 3. Photo conchoidalfractures and theremains of flake removals; in somecases, they N.Thompson werehardly visible, making it necessary to tracethem with our fingers under varyingconditions of rakinglight in orderto drawthem. Chertdoes not appearto havebeen used to manufacturePalaeolithic artifacts,but it does occurin smallquantities in theMesolithic assemblages. It rangesin colorfrom black to greento lightreddish brown, and it varies fromlustrous to dull in appearance,and fromglassy to grainyin quality. The reddishbrown tectonized cherts are probablylocal. Chert mayhave been broughtfrom elsewhere, and a handfulof artifactsof black,white, and greencherts at a fewsites (e.g., Damnoni 1) are notablydifferent. We did notfind unworked pieces of these kinds of chert in thesurvey area, nor did we findany coresof thesematerials on the sites,and theseobserva- tionssuggest a nonlocalorigin of the raw material.Other artifactswere manufacturedfrom quartzite or similarhard metamorphic rocks. Heavy- dutytools made fromthese materials were found on someMesolithic sites (e.g.,Damnoni 2), and quartzitewas also used to manufactureartifacts of Palaeolithictype at Preveli2.

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

In the followingpages, we describethe 28 sitesin the Plakias regionthat we attributeto theMesolithic and Palaeolithicperiods on thebasis of their associatedlithic assemblages and geological contexts. The compositionof the assemblagecollected from each siteis presentedin Table 2. In a fewcases, Mesolithicand Palaeolithicartifacts were found at the same site.An early and late horizoncould be distinguishedat Preveli2: Mesolithicartifacts werefound in a paleosolforming near the summit of the slope and separate fromthe findspots of the Palaeolithic artifacts. At Preveli3 and 8, materials fromthese two periods were mixed by postdepositional processes.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i t- i IKLOlL ^OfNrsjONvOfNcsjvor^T-iT- ivooocNoo^^f,- icnt-hcnco *- cn ^

*W3 | | | | | | - | «N | | rs | | | «o vo c^ ^ ^ | ^ | | | | | | |

*«.fWI I I I I I I I - I I I I I I * k I I I I I I I I I I -

«U»ffNfs.csIIII-H^IIIMrs.ll^ll^llllllll

•-^CNcovOCSicotN^T- im^t^trsl |oo(NcoOON^f|^-| I I co co t- i co -H^^^N ^ II ^ lili /S9Uufs

* I CN I I I I I I I pBtpfWW

™*MPWa H I I I I I I I H I I I I I H I I H I I I H I I I I I I I

SJOOT ^|||co^||cn||||cncn|ili il lili i i1^1 i I I I I I I I uouvuiqiuo^)

CO -H^CN^H Icolll CN lili W /59

sxddvxjQ cococN)T-ivsocNii-ir--iONT-i| iLOT-i^HOrsitnfNOOTj-^i^Huní i vo ^~ >j II ^- < ^- • ^- ' I I I

W CD CD munqomn| | | ¡ | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | I I I I I I I I I I I I <

-I W S32/V1J OO^- icOtoOO^O^rNlcOcN^- i^OcO lo CO I I 00 I CX) vO t- I I IO 00 X T- I H ta O «wsftrIIIIIIIIIIIIIMííl^l10^!^!^!!1'1^ Z O HHH H HH N « "*O | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

O '•^^t^cocoooi^oocoooTfooco^x-icocNONcooorsírsjONOT-iaNrsicNio^l-ON Oh O o ^- I CN CO Tf T~I(NCO -^^ ^ 8888 t-h^cO^^JsJSJIt-hcncotI-iovO ""* 3XIS ^ ¿ -S BBBB^ w c c c "§ ^ I I I .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 .S3 h m es « no N oo .2 o ^ v> & & *> § PQ |||a s -t -t •& -s -s -s -g -s -s £ § ^ è è £ £ ■§ o ! .§.§.§.§. i

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IÓ4 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

The Mesolithic Sites Mesolithicsites are founddirectly in frontof smallcaves or rockshelters, oftendilapidated by the ravagesof time.Most sitesare smallin area and have modestassemblages of lithics,typically fewer than 500 observedin the field,and fewerthan 100 collected.These assemblagesinclude ele- mentssuch as cores,debitage, and a fullsuite of retouchedtool typesthat suggestthat the caves and rockshelterswere used as temporarycamps. The occupants,even if they were not permanently residing in theseplaces, were therelong enough to requirethe production of fresh blanks from cores and to workand reworktheir equipment in the formof finishedtools.

Lithic Industry

A microlithicindustry was foundon 20 sitesin the surveyarea (Table 1). The lithicsshare reduction techniques and morphologicaltypes with the Mesolithicindustry {sensu lato, referring to thatof earlyHolocene hunt- ers,gatherers, and foragers)from excavated Aegean sites such as Sidari (Corfu),Franchthi Cave (Argolid),Klissoura Cave 1 (Argolid),Marou- las (Kythnos),and Theopetra Cave (Thessaly).37Thesmall scale of the Pla- - kiasartifacts theaverage length of cores is ca. 5 cm and thatof retouched - toolsis ca. 1-2 cm justifiesthe termmicrolithic. The flintknappersem- ployeda reductionsequence aimed at removingflakes from small pebble coresby directpercussion. Many flakeblanks were retouched,often on multipleedges with retouch that is bothsmall and discontinuous.Retouch is also seenon somecores and technicalpieces of different sizes, suggesting a somewhatexpedient production of modifiededges that took little regard ofthe original configuration of theblank. The largestcollection was made at Schinaria1 (Table 2), where564 artifactswere selectedfrom several thousand pieces on the surface.The assemblageconsists almost entirely of quartzartifacts but includessome chertpieces (Fig. 15), and is richin cores(Fig. 16:m) and retouchedtools. The latterinclude notches and denticulates,retouched pieces, geometric microliths,spines (piercers and borersof various types), combination tools (see below), truncations,and end scrapers(Fig. 16:a-l, n, p, q). Other Mesolithicsites had lowerdensities of artifacts,and as a consequencethe collectionswere smaller,typically fewer than 100 pieces (Table 2), and confinedto pieces with typologicalor technologicalfeatures permitting classification.Despite thesesize differences,the sites yielded similar types of artifacts,although as the size of the site scatterdecreased, the number oftool typesidentified also diminishedsomewhat, no doubtas a function of samplesize. The Plakias microlithicindustry has affinitieswith both the Lower 37. For see Sordinas1970, and Mesolithicat FranchthiCave (Perlès'slithique phases VII and Sidari, Upper for see FranchthiIII, but it would be to attribute of the sites 2003; Franchthi, VIII) (see below), premature any FranchthiV, and Perlés2001; forKlis- the hazardsare to one specificphase on thebasis of surfacedata. Among soura,see Runnels1996; forMaroulas, the similaritiesof the Plakias Surveysite assemblages to one anotherand see Sampsonet al. 2002; forTheopetra the absence of excavateddata. Anotherproblem is posed by the short Cave,see Kyparissi-Apostolika2003.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 165

Figure 15 (right).Mesolithic geometricmicroliths of chert(left) and quartz(right) from Schinaria 1. PhotoN. Thompson

Figure 16 (below).Mesolithic artifactsfrom Schinaria 1: (a-k) geometricmicroliths; (1) combination tool withburins and an end scraper; (m) core;(n) denticulatedscraper; (o) chopper;(p) retouchedblade with an end scraper;(q) oblique spine on a truncatedflake. All are quartzexcept for(g) and (o), whichare chert. DrawingsN. Cooper,C. DiGregorio, P.Murray, and C. Runnels

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l66 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

chronologicalspan of the Mesolithic.The chronologicalboundaries of theMediterranean Mesolithic are not fixed,varying from perhaps a mil- lenniumto as much as threemillennia moving from east to west,but in Greecethey probably fall within the range of 9,000 to 11,000 yearsago.38 This limitedperiod of occupation,together with the probability that sites mayhave been revisitedor reusedat differenttimes, makes precise dating and phasingvery difficult at thisstage of analysis.39 Notabledifferences can be observedamong the Plakias SurveyMeso- 38. Forthe Mesolithic in theMedi- lithic 15-23) thatmay not be the resultof the collec- assemblages(Figs. terraneanand itsdating, see Pluciennik tion or thechance ofsurface remains. At Schinaria1 strategy preservation 2008; forGreece specifically, see Gala- and Ammoudi3, forexample, the knappersfocused their efforts on the nidouand Perlés2003. reductionof small pebbles by the removal of flakes by direct hard percussion, 39. Perlés2001, pp. 25-30.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN l6j

Figure 17 (opposite).Mesolithic artifactsfrom Ammoudi 3: (a) microlith;(b) oblique spineon a denticulate; (c) spineon a truncatedflake; (d) oblique spineon a denticulate; (e) oblique spineon a retouched truncatedflake; (f ) end scraperwith proximaltruncation; (g) denticulated scraper;(h) bluntedoblique spineon a retouchedflake; (i) end scraperon a truncatedbladelike flake with a notch;(j, k) combinationtools with oblique spineon a truncatedflake and on a denticulatedflake; (1) denticulatedscraper; (m) end scraperon a core.All are quartz,except for ( j), whichis chert.Drawings N. Cooper, C. DiGregorio,P.Murray, and C. Runnels

Figure 18. (right).Mesolithic artifactsfrom Ammoudi 3. Note that thetwo artifactsin theupper right are of differentraw materials but are the same morphologicaltype as the others.Top row,left to right:end oftenworking the coresfrom multiple directions using many platforms, a on a truncatedbladelike flake scraper processthat resulted in exhaustedcores that are globular,amorphous, or witha notch;denticulate; combina- sometimesflat (Fig. 16:m). At othersites, however, such as Damnoni 1, 2, tiontool withan on a oblique spine and 3, the coreswere worked means of a denticulated by bipolarsmashing, technique truncation, quartzflake; that resultedin small in the formof combinationtool on a chertflake. fragments long angularsplintered Bottomrow, left to right:denticulate; pieces (pièces esquillées). These technicaldifferences are and the from denticulate;denticulate with an end minor,however, impression the ofthese is one ofsimilar and scraper.Photo N. Thompson comparativestudy assemblages techniques reductionstrategies at all sites.The cores,for example, fall within a very narrowrange of size as measuredby the greatest dimension (usually in the principalaxis of flaking), from 2 to 7.8 cm,averaging 4-5 cm (no doubtthe size ofthe original pebble selected for reduction), and all coreswere used to produceflakes as blanksfor immediate use or forretouching to maketools. Likewise,almost all coresare of quartz,with a fewsmall (i.e., less than2 cm) chertcores at theDamnoni and AyiosPavios sites. The mostcommon tool typesare end scrapers(Figs. 16:p; 17:f,i, m; 19; 23:i), notches,denticulates (Fig. 22:m), microliths,spines (also known as borersor perforators),truncations, burins (Fig. 16:1),and combination tools thathave severaldifferently retouched edges such as a spine and a denticulateor scraperon the same blank (Figs. 22:1,23 :j). Many of these typesgrade into each otheror overlap(e.g., the oblique rectilineartrun- cations and the spines,and the end scrapersand denticulates),making classificationapproximate at best (Figs. 17, 18). The end scrapersare highlyvariable in morphologybut are typically smalland convex,often with steep to abruptretouch (Fig. 19). They are 40. Typicalexamples resemble those usuallyon flakes,which may or maynot have retouchededges, and they in FranchthiV, p. 39, nos.9-16, fig.7. oftenshow signs of heavy use or resharpening.40Notches and denticulates

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l68 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure 19. Mesolithicquartz end scrapersfrom Damnoni 1. Scale1:1. Photo N.Thompson

Figure20. Two viewsof a Meso- lithicquartz geometric microlith fromSchinaria 3. Scale2:1. Photos N.Thompson

Figure21. Mesolithicgeometric microlithsfrom Damnoni 1. The weremanufactured by retouchingrather than by the removalof a single materialin mostcases is the notch(Clactonian The ofnotches on artifactsfrom quartz; technique).41 presence microlithon thefar left is chert. old surfacescan resultfrom but thatis not the case here. very trampling, Scale1:1. Photo N.Thompson That the notchesare not the resultof tramplingis evidentfrom the fact thatthe retouchforming the notcheshas the same surfaceappearance as the restof the flakesurface. Flake scarscreated by tramplingare likelyto accumulateover time; earlier scars will be morepatinated and laterones lighterin colorand morelight-reflective, making it possibleto distinguish recentaccidental edge damagefrom deliberate prehistoric retouch. Recent edge damageis also indicatedby a moreor less randomdistribution of the flakescars. Using thesecriteria as a guide,trampling damage was easily distinguishedon thePlakias artifacts, and thenotches appear to havebeen deliberatelymanufactured in thepast by retouch. The geometricmicroliths are closely identified with Mesolithic indus- 41. Forsimilar notches and dentic- tries(Figs. 20, 21, 22:a-e,23:a-f ). Geometricmicroliths were also madeand ulatesfrom Franchthi, see FranchthiV, used in theAegean in thefinal Upper Palaeolithic, and again,in verysmall p. 38, fig.6, and p. 39, nos. 1-8, fig.7.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 169

Figure22. Mesolithicartifacts numbers,in theNeolithic and EarlyBronze Age.42 The techniquesused to fromDamnoni 1: (a-e) geometric manufacturethem in theseperiods, however, differ from those used in the microliths;(f ) oblique spineon a Mesolithic,and the microlithsin earlierand later are also associ- truncatedflake; (g) perçoir(borer); periods atedwith other classes of artifacts. The microlithsfound the (h) denticulatedtrapeze; (i) backed during present are variablein but the same was flakeor lunate;(j) core; (k) denticu- survey highly shape, technique employed late; (1) truncationand bluntoblique fortheir manufacture at all sites.The techniqueconsisted of retouching spineon a denticulate(combination or bluntingone or moreedges of smallflakes, flake fragments, or irregular tool); (m) denticulate;(n) spine on a pieces of debitage,sometimes in a veryopportunistic manner. truncatedflake. All are quartzexcept As Perléshas also notedfor the Mesolithicat Franchthi,the Plakias for and whichare chert. (f), (i), (j), microlithswere manufacturednot by the microburintechnique of con- N. C. Drawings Cooper, DiGregorio, trolled of blades into the methodused in the P. Murray,and C. Runnels snapping segments, Upper

42. Forearlier microliths from artifacts,see Hartenbergerand Runnels Franchthi,see FranchthiIII, pp. 141- 2001,pp. 258-259,figs. 2, 3; Galanidou 171. Forexamples of later geometric 2003.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 170 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

23. Mesolithic artifacts Palaeolithic,but by minute nibbling retouch of the edges offtakes or small Figure quartz fromDamnoni 3: (a-f ) geometrie fragmentsof material.43The retouchededges that resulted are oftensinu- microliths;(g) double-backedflake ous truncations,sometimes discontinuous, so thatthe piece does nothave or bladelet;(h) spineon a denticu- a canonicalgeometric shape. The goal of the retouchwas evidentlythe late; (i) end scraper;(j) denticulated minimalmodification of the smallestnumber of in orderto create edges end scraperand spineon a truncated with backs or but not a shapes multiple truncations, necessarily prede- flake(combination tool). Drawings terminedoutline.44 This retouchof multipleedges sometimesresulted in N. Cooper,C. DiGregorio,P. Murray,and C. Runnels truegeometric shapes such as trapezes,but often produced irregular forms thatdefy classification.45 The geometricshapes include trapezes, triangles, lunates,rectangles, and squares.The microlithsare small,many (n = 24) fallingbetween 1 and 1.5 cm in length,and abouthalf that number being somewhatlarger, ca. 1.7-2.1 cm in length.Some pieces resemblesmall projectilepoints made by minute proximal truncation of the base ofa small pointedflake, or alternatively,by an oblique distaltruncation to forma point(e.g., Fig. 16:d).46 The spinesrepresent another common tool type(e.g., Fig. 22:f,1, n). The techniquefor making them is characteristic:first a flakeor a piece of debitagewas distallytruncated by direct retouch, after which a notchwas createdon the truncationby inverseretouch in orderto formthe spine.47 The spinesare typicallyfound at the distal ends of the pieces,often at oblique anglesto the long axes of the flakes.The blankson whichthese toolsare made arevariable in shape and size,ranging from barely 1 cm in lengthto as muchas 3.5 cm. Among the remainingpieces are manyflakes or irregularpieces of debitage;there are also cores with one or more small areas of minute

43. Formicroliths from Franchthi, similarpieces from Upper Mesolithic spines,although they lack the inverse see FranchthiIII, esp.p. 64, fig.16, and Franchthi{Franchthi V, p. 60, no. 9, notches;see FranchthiV, p. 71, nos. 12, p. 68, fig.17. fig.15), and trapezeswith truncations 16,fig. 18. Spinessimilar to thosein 44. Perlés2001, p. 31. {FranchthiV, p. 64, nos.25, 26, fig.16). thePlaidas Survey area are found, how- 45. E.g., as summarizedin Perlés 47. Similarbut not identical spines ever,on themainland, e.g., in Epirus 2001,pp. 31-37. arefound at Franchthi;see FranchthiV, (Runnelsand van Andel 2003, p. 120, 46. The pointwith a retouchedbase p. 41, no. 12,fig. 8. Some ofPerlés s no. 3, fig.3:52) and at Kandia(Runnels fromSchinaria 1 (Fig. 16:d) resembles truncatedpieces seem similar to our et al. 2005,p. 276, no. 38, fig.9).

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN Y]'

retouchon an edge (Fig. 22:j). Other pieces may have a notch or two. This retouch,which in some cases mayhave resulted from use ratherthan intentionalmodification, indicates an expedientapproach to implement use and discardas circumstancesrequired. The unretouchedflakes in these assemblagesmay be as much as 7.4 cm in length,but the averagesize is smaller,about 4 cm, suggestingthat larger cores were reduced until they wereabout 4 cm or less beforethey were exhausted.

Chronology

In theabsence of radiometrie dates and theexcavation of stratified deposits, the age of the Plaidas microlithicindustry is unknown.There are good arguments,however, for assigning it to theMesolithic (9,000-11,000 years ago) in theearly Holocene.The differentsite assemblages appear to belong to a singleindustry on technologicaland morphologicalgrounds, although somemixing of material from earlier and latersubperiods, especially on an artifact-richsite such as Schinaria1, remainsa possibility.Furthermore, as discussedabove, the composition of the assemblages in termsof core types and retouchedtools most closely resembles the Mesolithic industries from the Aegean.48If the industrywere Upper Palaeolithic,one would expect to findevidence of prismaticblade reductionin the formof characteristic cores,crested blades, and coretablets, large numbers of backed blades and bladelets(at Upper PalaeolithicFranchthi, these comprisesome 40% or moreof the assemblage),and othercharacteristic tool types.49 On theother hand, if the industry were mixed with later Neolithic or BronzeAge assemblages,one wouldexpect to findprismatic cores, crested blades, and pressure-struckblades, along with tanged or hollow-based arrowheads,and evidencefor the use of obsidian,all of whichare absent on thesesites.50 The absenceof polishedstone axes, ground stone querns, clayor stonespindle whorls, and characteristicceramic wares of Neolithic or latertype strongly argues against a post-Mesolithicage forthe Pla- kiasmicrolithic industry. Finally, characteristic artifacts of Mesolithic type wereobserved at severalsites (e.g., Schinaria1, Damnoni 3, and Preveli2 [Fig. 12]) in situin paleosolsthat are reddish brown with subangular blocky peds (structure)and thin,but common,clay films,consistent with soil MaturityStages 2 and 3 withan age of 6,000 to 10,000 yearsago.51

48. A fulldescription of all the activelyforming. They are composed of slowly.The time-dependentcharacter- characteristicfeatures of the Aegean distincthorizons from the top A level isticsof a paleosol'smaturity can be Mesolithicis beyondthe scope of the downto theBt horizon(of principal used to estimateits age. The stagesof presentarticle. We referreaders to the concernhere), which is richin iron, maturityrange from Maturity Stage 1, fullaccounts of the Mesolithic given by manganesehydroxides, oxides, and clay. whichis reachedin ca. 2,000 to 4,000 Perlésin herpublications, especially Otherlayers lie belowthe Bt horizon, years,through successive stages until FranchthiV and Perlés2001. downto theC horizonof unaltered thepaleosol reaches maximum maturity 49. See FranchthiIII forUpper rocksubstrate, which in southwestern in MaturityStage 6 in ca. 110,000 PalaeolithicFranchthi. Creteis limestone.The formationand years.The basisfor dating paleosol 50. ForGreek Neolithic industries, maturation(pedogenesis) of a paleosol maturitystages can be foundin van see Démouleand Perlés1993; Perlés requiresthousands of years, and ifthe Andel 1998,pp. 367-370,table 1; 2001,pp. 64-97. sequenceis uninterruptedby erosion, a Zhou,van Andel, and Lang 2000; and 51. Paleosolsare fossil soils either paleosolwill reach a pointwhere vanAndel and Runnels2005, p. 378, buriedwithin sedimentary sequences furthermaturation is imperceptible.In fig.10. or,if they are at thesurface, no longer theMediterranean, paleosols mature

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 172 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure24. Level erosionalplanation surfaceat Preveli2 below marine terraceat 96 masl.View fromthe north.Photo N. Thompson

The Palaeolithic

Lithicartifacts of Palaeolithic type were collected from nine sites (Table 1). The assemblagesrange from a fewspecimens to 300 or so pieces.Palaeo- lithicartifacts are distinguishable from the Mesolithic ones bytheir larger size as well as by technologicaland typologicalcriteria. In addition,five sites(Preveli 2, 3, 7, Timeos Stavros1, and Schinaria5) have geological contextsuseful for assigning at leastapproximate dates.

Sites

One of the mostimportant sites in the Plakias Surveyregion for dating thePalaeolithic is Preveli2 (Figs. 4:a, 24, 25). It is locatedon an uplifted limestoneblock, the seawardface of which has a flightof marineterraces markedby wave-cutcliffs associated with sedimentary beach deposits,a recordof terrace formation that spans Marine Isotope Stages3 to 5 in the UpperPleistocene (see below).52The innershoreline angle of the wave-cut cliffface for the oldestraised beach is at an elevationof ca. 96 masl and is thoughtto belongto Marine Isotope Stage 5. On the slope below this cliffis a thickmantle of sedimentarybeach conglomeratewith clasts that arecompositionally different from the underlying limestone bedrock, and 52. Wegmann2008, pp. 94-139.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 173

Figure25. Sedimentarybeach deposit(marine terrace, 59 masl) at Preveli2. The depositlies between the surveyors.View fromthe west. PhotoN. Thompson

thatcontains numerous artifacts of both quartzand quartzite.Below that is a nearlylevel erosionalplanation surface where artifacts eroded from thebeach deposithave been collected(Fig. 24). This surfaceconsists of a darkred (10R 4/6) paleosol of unknowndepth, but of considerableage.53 At a stilllower elevation, there is a secondwave-cut cliff at ca. 59 masl, below which is a thicklayer of brecciathat overlies another raised sedimentarybeach depositwith incorporated lithic artifacts (Fig. 25). Below this beach, the slope steepensand fallsoff abruptly toward the sea. At ca. 14 masl,another raised Pleistocene beach, the youngest of the series, was observed. Palaeolithicartifacts, both large (ca. 30 cm) and small(ca. 2 cm),were foundin and on thesurface downslope from the wave-cut cliffs and raised beach conglomeratesat 59 and 96 masl.The artifactsappear to be derived fromthese conglomerates (Fig. 26). The gradualerosion of thesedeposits evidentlyreplenishes the supplyof artifactson the slope,or otherwisethe steepnessof the slope,particularly below 59 masl,would havecontributed to thetotal loss ofthese artifacts. The findsare more numerous where they are on theerosional surfacesor belowthe 53. Therewere no visibleoutcrops preserved planation conglomer- hereand thematurity stages of the ates,where they were trapped in pocketsof sedimentamong the outcrops paleosolscould not be estimated. of limestone.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 174 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure26. Palaeolithicquartz artifact (flake)from a marineterrace (59 masl) at Preveli2. PhotoN. Thompson

On thewest flank of the PreveliGorge, a second site,Preveli 3, was discoveredon a smalllimestone plateau. On theseaward face of the plateau are wave-cutcliffs and beach depositsat 14 and 25 masl. On the top of theplateau, patches of terrarossa are preservedthat are possiblyprimary or partof a now heavilyeroded alluvial fan (Fig. 27). This terrarossa was once moreextensively distributed over the plateau, and preservedpatches of it can be seen on the narrowinterfluves between the deeplyincised streamsthat cut down to theMegas PotamosRiver and the sea. The terra rossahas been disturbedby the recentconstruction of roads and a large parkinglot thatoverlooks the mouthof the PreveliGorge. Outcropsof terrarossa visible at theentrance to theparking lot containlithic artifacts to a depthof a meteror morefrom the present surface, and the collection of artifactsfrom Preveli 3 was carriedout on the now-soillesslimestone plateaubelow and to the southof theseoutcrops. One can surmisethat the artifactswere originallypart of the terrarossa depositsand are now erosionalfloat (i.e., lag) on thekarstic surface where they have been caught betweenrocks or in cavities. On thesame plateau another site, Preveli 7, is locatedabout 300 m to the northwestat an elevationof ca. 120 masl (Fig. 28). The siteis on the edge of a smallbasin. On the northedge of thisbasin, a thick(ca. 3 m or more)but narrow(ca. 100 m) remnantof redepositedterra rossa is preserved.A well-preservedpaleosol Bt horizonexhibiting the characteristics of a highlymature soil (MaturityStage 6) withprismatic, platy structure, thickpervasive clay films, and a deep,almost magenta-red color (10R 3/6) cropsout in a roadcut through the section. Artifacts were found cemented

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 175

Figure27. View ofterra rossa above in theBt horizon 29). Stillother artifacts of the same werefound parkinglot in themiddle ground at (Fig. type on the surfaceof the Bt horizonand are derivedfrom it Preveli3. PhotoN. Thompson eroding clearly by recenterosion, as can be seen fromthe red stainsand the soil material thatsometimes adheres to the artifacts(see Fig. 11, above). Anotherdeep profilehere, ca. 4 m highand exposedby modern build- ingconstruction, opens a windowinto the dynamic history of this deposit. Therewere periods of alternating sedimentation and pedogenesis.At times smalldebris flows or flood deposits testify to relativelyhigh-energy regimes, while at othertimes the paleosol formedduring long periodsof stability. At the northernlimit of thebasin, about 50 m fromthe paleosol outcrop just described,and at a higherelevation (ca. 130 masl), is an outcropof limestonewith remnants of small caves. We observedtravertines and tufas therethat point to the existenceof fossilsprings that once would have flowedinto the basin. Severalsites were foundbetween Preveli and Schinariato the west (Fig. 2:a). Gianniou 1, ca. 1 km northwestof Preveli 7, yieldeda scatterof stonetools, chiefly flakes and scrapers,on theeroded remnants of a narrow saddle westof MesokorphaPeak. Large quartzboulders were discovered there,some with evidencefor the removalof large flakesfor stone tool production.Although the sitewas inspectedonly briefly, it appearsthat the lithicsare lag or floatexposed by the removalof sedimentsthrough erosion.It was perhapsoriginally a flintknappingatelier. Continuingto thewest for about a kilometerat ca. 200 masl,two other Palaeolithicsites were identified on the slopesof theTimeos Stavroshill. Timeos Stavros1 is in an outcropof an alluvialfan exposedby modern

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN VJJ

Figure28 (opposite,top). View of roadworkand soil extraction.The outcropis up to 2 m thickin somespot Preveli7 basin fromthe northwest. (Fig. 30). The same area has limestonefault scarps with caves and springs Paleosol shownin 29 outcrop Figure bothfossil and stillfunctioning. The artifactswere collected from the out is to the ofthe vehicles in the right cropand fromthe surfaceof the fan.They show signsof weathering an< center.Photo N. Thompson transportand itis presumedthat they have been moving downslope as uplif has continuedto the on the southface ofTimeos Stavroi Figure29 (opposite,bottom). Paleosol steepen slope In the same Timeos Stavros4 to be a debrisflow outcropat Preveli7. The locationof area, appears preserve* in a largePalaeolithic flake embedded in a fieldbelow a limestonefault scarp. There, an area of approximate! in thepaleosol is indicated.Photo 40 x 90 m, a largeconcentration of stonetools was foundmingled wit] N.Thompson angularpieces of limestoneand travertine,suggesting a derivationfron the caves and rocksheltersupslope. Approximatelya kilometer west of theTimeos Stavrossites, at Schi naria5, a modernroad cuts through an alluvialfan with outcrops of paleo sols ca. 2 m below the modernsurface. The paleosolscontaining artifact are exposedon the northand southsides of the road in outcropscreatei by a streamthat is incisingthe fan as it cuts down to Schinariabead (Fig. 31). The elevationranges from ca. 85 to 96 masl.The paleosolsar highlydeveloped with abundant thick clay films and a Bt colorof 10R 4/< redto 3/5dark red, as is thecase at Preveli3, Preveli7, andTimeos Stavros1 and it be of a similar Marine 6. 30 View ofTimeos may age, Isotope Stage Figure (below). All but one of the Palaeolithicsites in the area was foum Stavros1 fromthe west, with an survey betweenPreveli and Schinaria.The one is 1, wher outcropbeside and in theroad where exception Kotsiphos Palaeolithicartifacts were found. stonetools are being eroded from a verythick, unconsolidated debris flo' PhotoN. Thompson fanat the southeasternend of the KotsiphosGorge. The stonetools ar

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 178 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure31. Paleosoloutcrop at Schi- foundfrom the upper slopes to thebottom of the gorge. Although out of naria5, with embedded white quartz context,the artifacts are morphologically similar to those from the Preveli Palaeolithicartifacts visible in the Palaeolithicsites and we surmisethat they are being derived from a site foreground.Photo T. F. Strasser thatis nowdestroyed, suggesting that more Palaeolithic sites may yet be foundin thearea.

LiTHic Industries

The lithicartifacts may belong to morethan one Palaeolithicindustry, includingin traditionalterms the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. These industriesemployed a reductionstrategy using direct hard percussion to removelarge flakes and, rarely, thick blades, from minimally prepared coresthat were often worked bifacially (Figs. 32, 33). Bothpebbles and cobblesof quartz were selected for core reduction. The resultingcores range insize from ca. 5 to20 cmor more in their greatest dimension. The result- ingflakes range from ca. 8 to 15 cmin lengthand have plain or dihedral platformsthat are thick and up to 4 cmwide. Considerablevariability can be observedin themorphological tool types,suggesting opportunism in theselection of flake blanks and edges forretouch. Many blanks have only one edgeretouched, often partially and discontinuously,and frequentlybifacially. It wouldappear that raw

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 179

32. Palaeolithicartifacts from Figure materialwas plentifuland thatthere was much expediencyin the use of Preveli2: (a) tip of a biface;(b) biface blanksas well as a tendencyto discardtools afteronly shortperiods of cleaver;(c) bifacecleaver; (d) cleaver; use. As noted above,the chiefraw materialutilized was quartz,often of (e) biface;(f ) blade core; (g) biface; poorerquality than the quartzused in Mesolithictimes. The materialis (h) core;(i) biface.All are quartz dull,and in contrastto the and fine- except(a), whichis quartzite. opaque, blocky, translucent,lustrous, DrawingsN. Cooper,C. DiGregorio, grainedquartz preferred by the Mesolithicflintknappers. Some artifacts P. Murray,and C. Runnels weremade on a reddishbrown or bluishgray quartzite, and theuse ofthis raw materialseems to have been reservedfor large heavy-duty tools such as bifacesand cleavers. The toolsinclude bifaces (handaxes) of triangular,subtriangular, cor- diform,ovate, and biface à gibbosité form(Figs. 32:i; 33, right;34), cleavers(Figs. 32:d,35), scrapers,and othermorphological forms (Fig. 36).

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l8o THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure33 (left).Palaeolithic quartz core(left) and biface (right) from Preveli2, alsoshown in Figure 32:h, i. PhotoN. Thompson

Figure34 (center).Four views of an ovatePalaeolithic quartz biface (handaxe)from Preveli 2, alsoshown in Figures32 :i and33 (right).Found on theterrace at 59 masl.Photo N.Thompson

Figure35 (bottom).Four views of a Palaeolithicquartz cleaver from Preveli2, alsoshown in Figure 32 :d. Foundon theterrace at 96 masl. PhotoN. Thompson

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN l8l

36. Palaeolithic arti- Figure quartz The bifacesaverage ca. 13 cmin lengthand they are sometimes difficult factsfrom Preveli 3: (a-d, h) scrapers; to As discussedabove, the were double biface classifyby shape. flintknappers working (e) truncation;(f ) tip; witha rawmaterial that had often double denticulate. unpredictableflaking qualities, being (g) convergent and in texture.As a had to be DrawingsN. Cooper,C. DiGregorio, blocky rough consequence,compromises P. Murray,and C. Runnels made.The blanksfor the bifaces are side- struck or corner-struck flakes withwide, thick, and plain or dihedral platforms. The retouchis invasive, shallow,irregular, discontinuous, and opportunistic.There are usually signsof an attemptto thinthe butts by partially removing the bulb of percussion. Apartfrom the bifaces, the morphological tool types most commonly foundare scrapers (e.g., Figs. 36:c, 37) andretouched pointed flakes. The scrapersinclude single scrapers, with convex, straight, or transverseforms, and doubleconvergent types. Pointed flakes were numerous at Preveli2 andPreveli 3. Theseflakes sometimes have scrapers on an edge,and still othershave notches made by theClactonian technique. Some of these pointedtypes are double convergent denticulates (such as Tayacpoints) (Figs.36:g, 38). - Manytools from the Palaeolithic sites are bifacially flaked, and often - likethe handaxes showattempts to thinthe butts by flaking away the

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l82 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure37 (top).Palaeolithic quartz scraperfrom Preveli 3, alsoshown in Figure36:c. Photo N. Thompson

Figure38 (center).Palaeolithic quartz doubleconvergent denticulates from Preveli3. The exampleon theright is alsoshown in Figure36:g. Photo N.Thompson

Figure39 (bottom).Three views of a Palaeolithicquartz biface (handaxe) fromPreveli 7, also shown in Figure40:b. Photo N. Thompson

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 183

Figure40. Palaeolithicquartz artifactsfrom Preveli 7: (a, b) bifaces; platformsand the bulbsof percussionand partsof the surfaces(Figs. 39; (c) blade. DrawingsC. DiGregorio, 40:a, b; 41:b, c). The formsare somewhatatypical and expedient,as one P. Murray,and C. Runnels would expectfrom the use of the unpredictablequartz as a raw material, butbifacial scrapers with an emphasison multiplerows of inverse retouch areincluded. Often only part of an edgewas retouchedand evenquite large blankswere discarded after only minimal retouch and modification. The affinitiesof the Plakias Palaeolithic industry (or industries) are difficultto determinefrom the limitedsamples and the few comparisons one can draw fromneighboring regions. Bifaces are rarein Palaeolithic

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 184 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Figure41. Palaeolithicquartz artifactsfrom Timeos Stavros1: (a) scraper;(b, c) bifacialscrapers or smallbifaces; (d) blade. Drawings C. DiGregorio,P. Murray,and C. Runnels assemblageson theGreek mainland, but they do occurin Epirusand on the Aliakmonassites in westernMacedonia, where they are made on reduced cobblesrather than on flakeblanks as in the Plakias region.54 The Palaeolithicmaterials resemble the Acheulean sensu lato that con- sistsof "large flakes [used] to configurebig tools,[with a diversity]of mor- photypesof smallretouched tools, and [standardized]knapping methods, amongwhich the bifacial centripetal technique [of core reduction] stands out."55The Acheuleanis describedas havinga "highfrequency of large- sizedflakes as blanksfor the production of bifaces, the use ofside-struck or corner-struckflakes, the of presence techniquesinvolving predetermination 54. Fora generaloverview, see to thinthe bifaces in the area ('approximateLevallois patterns'), attempts Harvati,Panagopoulou, and Runnels ofthe bulb of percussion, and a minimalinvestment in bifacialretouch."56 2009; forEpirus, see Tourloukis 2009; These descriptionscan also be applied to the artifactsfrom the Plakias forThessaly and Epirus,see Runnels andvan Andel 2003. Forbifaces and Some cores, and blades (Figs. 40:c, 41 :d, 42), however, region. scrapers, bifacialtools in western see resembleMiddle Palaeolithicartifacts in termsof Macedonia, preparationtechnique, Harvatiet al. 2008. or retouch.These are fewin and similarforms are form, pieces number, SS. Carboneilet al. 2008,p. 209. also foundin theLower Palaeolithic,but it is possiblethat we are dealing 56. Goren-Inbarand Saragusti withmore than one Palaeolithicindustry or facieshere. 1996,p. 27.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 185

Figure42. Palaeolithicquartz artifactsfrom Timeos Stavros4: (a) truncatedretouched blade with a proximalnotch; (b) scraper; (c) Levallois core. DrawingsC. DiGre- gorio,P. Murray, and C. Runnels

Chronology

The datingof the Palaeolithicin the Plakias regionpresents a consider- able challenge,not leastbecause of the long periodof timethat may have elapsed sincethe occupationof the earliestsites, during which postdepo- sitionalnatural processes may have obscuredthe archaeologicalrecord. Additionallycomplicating the issue are the small number of sites,the lack of excavation,and the impactof moderndevelopment on the area,which has destroyedmany sites. Severalapproaches to datingwere attempted, and ourresearch on this topiccontinues. At Preveli2, eastof the Preveli Gorge, Palaeolithic artifacts areassociated with a flightof marine terraces resulting from relatively high sea levelsin thePleistocene that were preserved by subsequentrock uplift. The lowestlate Pleistocenemarine terraces resulting from high stands of the sea at Preveli(14 ±1 masl) and Schinaria(21 ±1 masl) have 2-sigma calibratedradiocarbon ages of45,400 ± 1,600 and 49,120±2,890 yearsb.r, respectively,and arecorrelated with Marine Isotope Stages 3.3 and 3.4,both eustatichigh stands.57 The higherterraces, at 59 and 96 masl,are unques- tionablyolder. How mucholder? Assuming similar rates of rock uplift (1.4 ± 0.1 m/kyr)determined from the age-elevation relationships of the dated ter- 57. Wegmann2008, p. 123,table 3-3. racesat 14 and 21 masl,it is possibleto estimatethe approximate ages of the

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l86 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

terracesassociated with artifacts.58 This correlationprovides an approximate age forthe lithic artifacts. The higherterrace, at 96 masl,may belong to Ma- rineIsotope Stage5, possiblyearly 5e, ca. 110,000 b.p.Artifacts associated withthe terraceat 59 masl could correlatewith Marine Isotope Stage 5a, ca. 70,000 b.p.It shouldbe stressedthat these are roughapproximations and theseages are probablyminima that represent a terminusante quern. If the upliftrate is changed,the terracesand the artifactsassociated with themcould be mucholder. At Preveli3, Preveli7, Timeos Stavros1, and Schinaria5, Palaeolithic artifactswere found in outcropsof paleosols that exhibit the characteristics ofthe oldest maturity stage for such features, that is, Maturity Stage 6, or in geologicalterms, Marine Isotope Stage 6. Togetherthese observations sug- gestan age of ca. 190,000-130,000b.p. and serveas a terminusante quern forthe artifacts embedded within them. The stonetools were incorporated in thepaleosols as partof a processdescribed by Runnelsand van Andel in Epirus:"the top of theBt horizonitself would move gradually upward as a resultof slow deposition, so engulfingany artifacts laid downon formerland surfacesabove it."59 In otherwords, the Bt horizon,especially as muchof the claycomes from eolian sources, will increase in thickness through time, slowly engulfingclasts, such as stonetools, that were formerly in theA horizon. In sum,the dating of the Palaeolithic sites is based on geologicaldata derivedfrom the studyof marineterraces on the southwesterncoast of Creteand ouridentification of paleosols, and thesedata place thePalaeo- lithiclithic artifacts firmly in the Pleistocene,ca. 130,000 b.p. or earlier. The chronologycan be furtherrefined, however, and a datingprogram currentlyin progressmay provide data fordoing so.

CONCLUSIONS

The purposeof the Plakias Surveywas to demonstratethat foragers were exploitingthe coastal resources of Cretein theearly Holocene, ca. 9,000- 11,000years ago, and thisgoal has been achieved.The additionaldiscovery of Lower Palaeolithicsites points to an earlyperiod of seafaringin the Mediterranean,beginning at least 130,000 yearsago, if not considerably earlier,with important implications for the colonizingof Europe byearly Africanhominins. - - Based on theavailable data and we stressthat research is ongoing the mostparsimonious hypothesis is thatthe exploitationof coastal and estuarinewetland resources of the Plakias regiontook place in both the Pleistoceneand earlyHolocene, and thattwo separatehuman groups left tracesof their existence in thisregion, one in theMiddle to UpperPleisto- cene(ca. 130,000b.p. or earlier),and theother in thelate Pleistocene-early Holocene (ca. 11,000-9000 b.p.). A minimumof 20 Mesolithicsites are preservedin the area between Preveliand Damnoniwhere they are associated with caves and rockshelters. 58. The follows tracesof Mesolithic were foundaround Ayios Pavios.The dating Wegmann Only activity 2008. Mesolithiclithic is similarin and termsto industry typological technological 59. Runnelsand vanAndel 2003, Mesolithicindustries found elsewhere in Greece.The sitesin the area survey pp. 93-94. Fora summaryof the early arecurrently unexcavated and undated, and we cannotyet determine whether Palaeolithicin theAegean area, see theywere occupied for all or onlypart of thischronological span. Runnels2001 and 2003.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 187

The sitesnear Plakias aregenerally small, and theirprobable function in the landscape may have been as logisticalcamps or local extraction sites.Schinaria 1 is a candidatefor a repeatedlyvisited site or a residen- tial base because the assemblageis richin coresand displaysa varietyof tool types.Given the manyother sites of thisperiod in the surveyarea, it seems likelythat we are looking at the exploitationof this regionby Mesolithicforagers who utilizeda logisticalcollecting strategy similar to thatrecognized in the Argolidon the mainland.60The concentrationof sites aroundthe coastal wetlandsis also consistentwith the hypothesis thatearly foragers focused their subsistence efforts on the exploitation of coastalwetlands. But did theyinvestigate, or settle,the highereleva- tionsof the rugged mountainous interior? Were theMesolithic maritime foragersseasonal visitorsor permanentinhabitants? Did theyhave an impacton endemicflora and fauna?At present,we cannotanswer these questions. The LowerPalaeolithic sites are found between Preveli and Schinariaat elevationsbetween 40 and 200 maslwhere they are associated with marine terraces,paleosols, and debrisflow fans. Although found in thevicinity of caves and rockshelters,none of the knownsites remain undisturbed and littlecan be said abouttheir original contexts. Periods of uplift and marine transgressionaffected the coast throughout the Upper Pleistocene and may have interferedwith the preservationof such materials. Where did the Plakias Palaeolithicoriginate? On the presentscanty evidence,an Africanor Near Easternorigin is as likelyas an Anatolianor mainlandGreek one. Whereverit originated,the Plakias Palaeolithichas implicationsfor our understanding of hominin dispersals. It has longbeen thoughtthat the Acheulean reachedEurope via the Near East, passing throughAnatolia, and throughthe Iberian peninsula directly from Africa, perhapscarried by Homoerectus or Homoheidelbergensis populations.61 In thiscontext, Palaeolithic archaeological sites and a newlydiscovered fossil Homoerectus calvaría in Turkeycan be citedas support.62This viewof the peoplingof Europe exclusivelyby land clearlyneeds to be rethoughtin lightof the Cretan evidencepresented here. While earlyhominins may have reachedAnatolia via the Near Easterncorridor, it is apparentthat therecould have been sea routescrossed and recrossedby long-distance seafarersmoving at will throughoutthe Mediterranean.63 Once earlyhominins reached Crete, was theirexploitation of the region continuousor intermittent?Did earlyhominins find their way into the interior,or did theyremain confined to the coast?What effectdid theyhave on the endemicflora and fauna?As withthe Mesolithic,these questionsmust remain for the moment unanswered, and it is evidentfrom the richnessof the findsand the limitedsurvey area exploredto date that a greatdeal moreresearch must be done on the island.Many areasrich in 60. Runnels2009. wetlandresources in the Pleistoceneand earlyHolocene existedon Crete 61. Runnelsand Özdogan2001; and thereare areaswhere extensive Pleistocene paleosols can be seen,for Roebroeks2006; Carbonellet al. 2008, example,west of Chania. Crete is a largeisland with rugged relief, and much 215-216. pp. fieldworkis necessaryto understandthe extentof the prehistoricrecord 62. Bar-Yosef2006, pp. 484-486; and to gaugeproperly the impact of human there.The new Kappelmanet al. 2008. ForPalaeolithic early presence discoveries above us to considerthe full and researchin Turkey, see also Kuhn2002; presented compel significance Runnels2003; and Slimaket al. 2008. potentialimpact of earlyseafaring on the peoplingof theMediterranean, 63. See Baileyand Flemming2008. Europe,and thewider world.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l88 THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

REFERENCES

Bailey,G. N., and N. C. Flemming. Faure,P. 1972."Cultes populaires dans Harvati,K., E. Panagopoulou,and 2008. "Archaeologyof the Con- la Crèteantique," BCH 96, pp. 389- C. N. Runnels.2009. "The Paleoan- tinentalShelf: Marine Resources, 426. thropologyof Greece," Evolutionary SubmergedLandscapes, and Under- Franchet,M. L. 1917.Rapport sur une Anthropology18, pp. 131-143. waterArchaeology," Quaternary missionen Crèteet en Egypte(1912- Hutchinson,R.W. 1962.Prehistoric ScienceReviews 27, pp. 2153-2165. 1913) (Nouvellesarchives des Crete,Baltimore. Bar-Yosef,O. 2006. "The Knownand missionsscientifiques 22.1), Paris. Kappelman,J., M. C. Alçiçek,N. Ka- theUnknown about the Acheu- Franchthi= Excavations at Franchthi zanci,M. Schultz,M. Özkul,and lian," in Axe Age:Acheulian Tool- Cave,Greece, Bloomington S. Sen. 2008. "BriefCommunica- = makingfrom Quarry to Discard, III C. Perlés,Les industries tion:First Homo erectus from Turkey ed. N. Goren-Inbarand G. Sharon, lithiquestaillées de Franchthi(Argo- and Implicationsfor Migrations London,pp. 479-494. lide, Grèce)1 : Présentationgénérale intoTemperate Eurasia," American Bosanquet,R. 1918. Rev.of Franchet et industriespaléolithiques, 1987. Journalof Physical Anthropology 135, 1917,in JHS 38, pp. 203-204. V = C. Perlés,Les industries pp. 110-116. Broodbank,C. 2006. "The Originsand lithiquestaillées de Franchthi(Argo- Kopaka,K., and C. Matzanas.2009. EarlyDevelopment of Mediter- lide, Grèce)2: Les industriesdu méso- "PalaeolithicIndustries from the raneanMaritime Activity," JAM 19, lithiqueet du néolithiqueinitial, 1990. Islandof Gavdos, Near Neighbour pp. 199-230. Galanidou,N. 2003. "Reassessingthe to Cretein Greece,"Antiquity Proj- Carbonell,E., M. Mosquera,X. P. Rod- GreekMesolithic: The Pertinence ectGallery 83:321, http://antiquity. ríguez,J. M. Bermúdezde Castro, ofthe Markovits Collections," ac.uk/projgall/kopaka32I/index, F. Burjachs,J. Roseli, R. Sala, and in Galanidouand Perlés2003, html(accessed December 29, 2009).

J.Vallverdu. 2008. "EurasianGates: pp. 99-112. . Forthcoming."npeinuxx öoctaxG- The EarliestHuman Dispersals," Galanidou,N., and C. Perlés,eds. Gia xa^íÔia oto AvyaíoKai tt|v Journalof Anthropological Research 2003. The GreekMesolithic: Problems Kpf|ir|:Iicéyeiç ue oc(popur|tic epya- 64, pp. 195-228. and Perspectives(BSA Studies 10), XeioxexvíeçarcoKpououevoi) XíOou Chelidonio,G. 2001. "Manufattilitici London. anó TT|vr|oo FaúÔo," in Flenpayiiéva su ciottoloda Milos (isolecicladi): Goren-Inbar,N., and I. Saragusti. toy K' AieOvovçKprjTOÀoyiKOv Nota preliminare,"Pegaso: Rivista 1996."An Acheulian Biface Assem- IvveSpiovAl, Chania. annuale di culturamediterranea 1, blagefrom Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Kuhn,S. 2002. "PaleolithicArcheology pp. 117-144. Israel:Indications of African Affini- inTurkey," Evolutionary Anthropol- Cherry,J. E 1981. Patternand Process ties"//^ 23, pp. 15-30. ogy11, pp. 198-210. in theEarliest Colonization of the Groves,C. 1989."Feral Mammals of Kuss,S. E. 1969."Die paläolithische MediterraneanIslands," PPS 47, theMediterranean: Documents of osteokeratische'Kultur' der Insel pp.41-68. EarlyDomestication," in TheWalk- Kreta(Griechenland)," Berichte Debénath,A., and H. L. Dibble. 1994. ingLarder: Patterns of Domestica- derNaturforschenden Gesellschaft Handbookof Paleolithic Typology, tion,Pastoralism, and Prédation (Freiburgim Breisgau) 59, pp. 137- Philadelphia. (One WorldArchaeology 2), 168. Demoule,J.-P, and C. Perlés.1993. ed.J. Clutton-Brock, London, Kyparissi-Apostolika,N. 2003. "The "The GreekNeolithic: A New Re- pp. 46-58. Mesolithicin Theopetra Cave: New view" Journalof WorldPrehistory 7, Hartenberger,B., and C. N. Runnels. Data on a DebatedPeriod of Greek pp. 355-416. 2001. "The Organizationof Flaked Prehistory,"in Galanidou and Perlés Facchini,F., and G. Giusberti.1992. StoneProduction at BronzeAge 2003,pp. 189-198. "Homo sapienssapiens Remains from Lerna,"Hesperia 70, pp.255-283. Lambeck,K. 1996."Sea-Level Change theIsland of Crete," in Continuityor Harvati,K., E. Panagopoulou,P. Kar- and Shore-LineEvolution in Ae- Replacement:Controversies in Homo kanas,A. Athanassiou,and S. Frost. geanGreece since Upper Palaeo- SapiensEvolution, ed. G. Bräuer and 2008. "PreliminaryResults of the lithicTime," Antiquity 70, pp. 588- F. H. Smith,Rotterdam, pp. 189- AliakmonPalaeolithic/Palaeoan- 611. 208. thropologicalSurvey, Greece, Lambeck,K., and A. Purcell.2005. Fassoulas,C. 2000. FieldGuide to the 2004-2005," in The Palaeolithicof "Sea-LevelChange in theMediter- Geologyof Crete, Heraklion. theBalkans. Proceedingsof the XV raneanSea sincethe LGM: Model Fassoulas,C, and M. Nikolakakis. WorldCongress of the International Predictionsfor Tectonically Stable 2005. "LandscapeResponse to the Unionfor Prehistoricand Protohistoric Areas," QuaternaryScience Reviews TectonicUplift of Crete, Greece," Sciences,Lisbon, 4-9 September2006 24, pp. 1969-1988. Bulletinof the Geological Society of (BAR-IS 1819),ed. A. Darlas and Mortensen,P. 2008. "Lowerto Middle Greece37, pp.201-207. D. Mihailovic,Oxford, pp. 15-20. PalaeolithicArtefacts from Loutró

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STONE AGE SEAFARING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN 189

on theSouth Coast ofCrete," Crete,Greece: A FieldGuide. 32nd Schlager,N. 1991.Archäologische AntiquityProject Gallery 82:317, InternationalGeological Congress, GeländeprospektionSüdostkreta: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ ItalianAgency for the Environmen- ErsteErgebnisse (Österreichisches mortensen317/index.html (accessed talProtection and TechnicalServices ArchäeologischesInstitut, Berichte December29, 2009). (APAT),Rome. undMaterialien 2), Vienna. Nemec,W., and G. Postma.1993. Roebroeks,W. 2006. "The Human Shaw,B., N. N. Ambraseys,P. C. Eng- "QuaternaryAlluvial Fans in South- Colonisationof Europe: Where Are land,M. A. Floyd,G. J.Gorman, westernCrete: Sedimentation Pro- We?"Journal of 'Quaternary Science T. F. G. Higham,J. A. Jackson, cessesand GeomorphicEvolution," 21, pp. 425-435. J.-M.Nocquet, C. C. Pain,and inAlluvial Sedimentation (Special Runnels,C. N. 1996."The Palaeolithic M. D. Piggott.2008. "Eastern Publicationof the International and MesolithicRemains," in The MediterraneanTectonics and Tsu- Associationof Sedimentologists17), Berbati-LimnesArchaeological namiHazard Inferredfrom the a.d. ed. M. Marzo and C. Puigdefáber- Survey,1988-1990 {SkrAth4°, 44), 365 Earthquake,"Nature Geoscience gas,Oxford, pp. 235-276. ed. B. Wellsand C. N. Runnels, 1, pp. 268-276. Nixon,L., J.Moody, V. Ninou-Kindeli, Stockholm,pp. 23-35. Simmons,A. H. 1999.Faunal Extinc-

S. Price,and O. Rackham.1990. . 2001. "Reviewof Aegean tionin an IslandSociety: Pygmy "ArchaeologicalSurvey in Sphakia, PrehistoryIV: The StoneAge of HippopotamusHunters of Cyprus Crete,"EchCl 34, pp. 213-220. Greecefrom the Palaeolithic to (InterdisciplinaryContributions to Nixon,L., J.Moody, and O. Rackham. theAdvent of the Neolithic" and Archaeology),New York. 1988."Archaeological Survey in "Addendum:1995-1999," in Aegean Simonelli,V, 1897. Cândia:Ricordi di Sphakia,Crete," EchCl 32, pp. 159- Prehistory:A Review {AJA Suppl. 1), escursione,Parma. 173. ed. T. Cullen,Boston, pp. 225-254, Slimak,L., S. L. Kuhn,H. Roche, Panagopoulou,E., E. Kotjambopoulou, 255-258. D. Mouralis,H. Buitenhuis,N. Bal-

and P. Karkanas.2001. 'Tecoccpxaio- . 2003. "The LowerPalaeo- kan-Adi, D. Binder,C. Kuzucuoglu, ta>yiKT|ép£i)va axrjv AÀ,óvvt|go: Néa lithicof Greece and NW Turkey," and H. Guillou.2008. "Kaletepe Gioitelayia xr|vIlaÀaioA,i9iKT| Kai inArchaeological Essays in Honour Deresi3 (Turkey):Archaeological xr|MeaoAiöiKTi axov Aryaiaicó xœpo," ofHomo amatus: Güven Arsebük, Evidencefor Early Human Settle- in H apxoLioXoyiKT)épevva onç ed. M. Özbasaran,O. Tanindi, mentin CentralAnatolia," Journal BópeieçiKopáôeç, éd. A. Samp- and A. Boratav,Istanbul, pp. 195- ofHuman Evolution 54, pp. 99-111. son,Municipality of Alonnisos, 202. Sordinas,A. 1970. StoneImplements

pp. 121-151. . 2009. "MesolithicSites and fromNorthwestern Corfu, Greece Papoutzakis,C. 1972."Oi ßpaxoypoc- Surveysin Greece:A Case Study (MemphisState University, Anthro- cpíeçgì' AG(pévôo')tow IcpaKÍcov," fromthe Southern Argolid,"/7kW pologicalResearch Center, Occa- CretChron24, pp. 107-139. 22, pp. 57-73. sionalPapers 4), Memphis.

Pendlebury,H. W., J.D. S. Pendlebury, Runnels,C. N., and M. Ozdogan. . 2003. "The 'Sidarian:Mari- and M. B. Money-Coutts.1937- 2001. "The Palaeolithicof the Bos- timeMesolithic Non-Geometric 1938."Excavations in thePlain of phorusRegion, NW Turkey,"//^ Microlithsin WesternGreece," LasithiII," BSA 38, pp. 1-56. 28, pp. 69-92. in Galanidouand Perlés2003, Perlés,C. 2001. TheEarly Neolithic in Runnels,C, E. Panagopoulou,P. Mur- pp. 89-97. Greece:The First Farming Communi- ray,G. Tsartsidou,S. Allen,K. Mul- Sutcliffe,A. J.1973. "Similarity of tiesin Europe, Cambridge. len,and E. Tourloukis.2005. "A Bones and AntlersGnawed by Deer Pluciennik,M. 2008. "The Coastal MesolithicLandscape in Greece: to HumanArtefacts," Nature 246, Mesolithicof the European Medi- Testinga Site-LocationModel in pp. 428-430.

terranean,"in MesolithicEurope, theArgolid at Kandia,"/M¿418, . 1977."Further Notes on Bones éd. G. N. Baileyand P. Spikins, pp. 259-285. and AntlersChewed by Deer and Cambridge,pp. 328-356. Runnels,C. N., andT. H. vanAndel. OtherUngulates," Deer 4:2, Pope,R., K. Wilkinson,E. Skourtsos, 2003. "The EarlyStone Age ofthe pp. 73-82. M. Triantaphyllou,and G. Ferrier. Nomosof Preveza: Landscape and Thommeret,Y., J. Thommeret, J. Labo- 2008. "ClarifyingStages of Alluvial Settlement,"in LandscapeArchae- rei,L. F. Montaggioni,P. A. Piraz- Fan Evolutionalong the Sfakian ologyin SouthernEpirus, Greece I zoli,and R. W. Fairbridge.1981. Piedmont,Southern Crete: New {HesperiaSuppl. 32), ed.J. Wiseman "Late Holocene ShorelineChanges Evidencefrom Analysis of Post- and K. Zachos,pp. 47-134. and Seismo-TectonicDisplace- IncisiveSoils and OSL Dating," Sampson,A., J.K. Koslowski,M. Kas- mentsin WesternCrete (Greece)," Geomorphology94, pp. 206-225. zanowska,and B. Giannouli.2002. Zeitschriftfür Geomorphologie 40, Rahl,J. M., C. Fassoulas,and M. T. "The MesolithicSettlement at pp. 127-149. Brandon,eds. 2004. Exhumationof Maroulas,Kythnos," Mediterranean Tourloukis,E. 2009. "New Bifacesfrom High-PressureMetamorphic Rocks Archaeologyand Archaeometry 2, thePalaeolithic Site of Kokkinopi- withinan ActiveConvergent Margin, pp. 45-67. los,Greece, and Their Stratigraphie

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions IÇO THOMAS F. STRASSER ET AL.

Significance,"Antiquity Project vanAndel, T. H., and C. N. Runnels. Red MediterraneanSoils," Catena Gallery83:320, http://antiquity.ac.uk/ 2005. "KarsticWetland Dwellers 76, p. 224. projgall/tourloukis320/index.html ofMiddle PalaeolithicEpirus, Zhou,L. P.,T. H. vanAndel, and (accessedAugust 7, 2009). Greece,"/^ 30, pp. 367-384. A. Lang.2000. "A Luminescence Tzedakis, Y. 1970. "Ap^aióirixeçKai Wegmann,K. 2008. "TectonicGeo- DatingStudy of Open-Air Palaeo- fivrifieíaAutiktiç Kprixrjç," ArchDelt morphologyabove Mediterranean lithicSites in WesternEpirus, 25, B'2, pp.465-478. SubductionZones: Northeastern Greece? JAS27, pp. 609-620.

. 1973. "Ap%aiÓTr|T£çKai 'ivr'- Apenninesof Italy and Crete, Zois, A. 1973a. Kpr'xr':EnoxA tov jxeía AdxiktiçKprixriç," ArchDelt 28 Greece"(diss. Lehigh Univ.). AiOov(Athens Center of Ekistics, B'2, pp. 581-583. Yaalon,D. H. 1997."Soils in theMedi- Publication18), Athens. vanAndel, T. H. 1998."Paleosols, Red terraneanRegion: What Makes . 1973b."A proposdes gravures Sediments,and theOld StoneAge Them Different?"Catena 28, rupestresd'Asfendou (Crète)," BCH in Greece," Geoarchaeology13, pp. 157-169. 97, pp. 23-30.

pp. 361-390. . 2009. "BriefComments on

ThomasF. Strasser NicholasThompson Providence College PAPAKOSTOPOULOU I department of art and art history 211 OO NAUPLION i cunningham square GREECE providence, rhode island o2o,l8 [email protected] [email protected] PanayiotisKarkanas Eleni Panagopoulou Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece Speleology of Southern Greece ARDITTOU 34B ARDITTOU 34B 116 36 ATHENS Il6 36 ATHENS GREECE GREECE [email protected] [email protected] FloydW. McCoy CurtisN. Runnels University of Hawaii Boston University department of natural sciences department of archaeology 45-720 kea'ahala road 675 commonwealth avenue, suite 347 KANEOHE,HAWAII 96744 boston, massachusetts o2215 [email protected] [email protected] Karl W.Wegmann PriscillaM. Murray North Carolina State University Boston University department of marine, earth, and department of archaeology ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES 675 commonwealth avenue, suite 347 CAMPUS BOX 2808 boston, massachusetts o2215 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27695 [email protected] karl_wegman [email protected]

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:13:58 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions