Pottery Firing Structures in the Early Mediterranean: Micromorphological Evidence and Archaeological Data from Middle Neolithic Kouphovouno (Southern Greece) Christèle Ballut, Josette Renard, William G. Cavanagh, Raphaël Orgeolet
To cite this version:
Christèle Ballut, Josette Renard, William G. Cavanagh, Raphaël Orgeolet. Pottery Firing Structures in the Early Mediterranean: Micromorphological Evidence and Archaeological Data from Middle Neolithic Kouphovouno (Southern Greece). European Journal of Archaeology, SAGE Publications, 2017, 20 (01), pp.98-119. 10.1017/eaa.2016.4. hal-01472519
HAL Id: hal-01472519 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01472519 Submitted on 25 Feb 2021
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Pottery Firing Structures in the Early Mediterranean: Micromorphological Evidence and Archaeological Data from Middle Neolithic Kouphovouno (Southern Greece)
1 2 3 CHRISTÈLE BALLUT ,JOSETTE RENARD ,WILLIAM G. CAVANAGH 4 AND RAPHAËL ORGEOLET 1CNRS, Universities of Paris I and X, France 2University of Montpellier III, France 3University of Nottingham, UK 4Aix Marseille University, CNRS, Ministry of Culture & Communication, LAMPEA, Aix-en-Provence, France
Excavations at Kouphovouno (Laconia, Greece) have revealed burnt deposits associated with firing structures. The ‘millefeuille’ (vanilla slice) observed was composed of alternating layers of burnt red aggregates and white carbonate. Their description, micromorphological study, and contrast with a more standard structure of the Middle Neolithic allow us to interpret the layers as belonging to a structure for firing pottery: a covered clamp. This study has clarified its method of construction, operation, and use within a domestic context. After heating and cooking, the production of pottery and lime was one of the pyrotechnological activities most consumptive of energy among Neolithic communities, yet direct evidence for firing installations has been elusive. A new approach to the problem of locating pottery firing sites is presented here. The firing of pottery seems the most likely use for this type of structure, though the production of lime is also discussed.
Keywords: Neolithic, Greece, covered clamp, earth construction, micromorphology
INTRODUCTION employed for their investigation has ham- pered informed analysis. Micromorphology, The aim of this article is to alert archaeolo- only rarely employed up to now on the sorts giststotracesthatmightindicateearlyfiring of remains discussed here (see Germain- installations and to theimportance ofmicro- Vallée et al., 2011), offers new perspectives morphology for decoding their remains. for their interpretation; this applies in par- The effects of fire are among the obser- ticular to our example of a find from the vations most commonly made in archaeo- Middle Neolithic (MN hereafter) deposits logical reports, as the use of fire was so at Kouphovouno in Laconia in southern widespread. Its universal presence has led to Greece. a rather casual treatment of the remains left Neolithic firing structures have usually by fire and their confounding one with been classified according to function and another, while the limited methodologies there is a tradition of distinguishing hearths and cooking ovens from other installations, (van As et al., 2004:104–05). For Greece, it among which figure pottery kilns and lime- has been proposed that kilns were present at kilns. Fired pottery has now been traced Imvrou Pigadi in Thessaly (Kyparissi- back to some 15,000–18,000 years ago in Apostolika, 2012; Aidona et al., 2014); China (Boaretto et al., 2009)and12,000 complete and unused vessels were recovered years in Africa (Huysecom et al., 2009), so there within the burnt deposits from the the manufacture of pottery has long lost its kilns and hundreds of clay fragments with primacy in defining Neolithic economies. reed impressions seem to have come from Yet the scale of lime burning and pottery the kilns’ mantle. For the Late Neolithic, a firing in the Neolithic was substantial, if ‘kiln-like’ structure has been noted at second to cooking and heating in the con- Kryoneri (Malamidou, 2007), at the sumption of fuel. The firing of lime, mainly complex S8 in Dimini, and installations at for plaster floors and walls, was significant Stavroupolis and Limenaria have also been in the Near East already by the ninth mil- identified (discussion with references in lennium cal BC (Goren & Goring-Morris, Souvatzi, 2008:181–82). Other kinds of in- 2008), and pottery began to grow in import- stallation are sometimes mentioned, notably ance from the seventh millennium, extend- bonfire and pit-firing (Gimbutas et al., ing into the Aegean by 6500 cal BC and 1989, for Middle Neolithic Achilleion; gradually thereafter into Europe. Further- Yiouni, 1996: 69, for Early Neolithic Nea more, the quality and variety of pottery also Nikomedeia), but none of these cases has increased: in the Levant and Mesopotamia been argued conclusively. Pots may have the rather primitive wares of the seventh been fired away from the settlements at millennium gave way, around 6100–5800 small temporary sites, unrecognized because cal BC, to the fine, elaborately decorated of their small size (Loughlin, 2010:34–35). pottery of the Halaf and Hassuna styles Here, we argue that pottery firing installa- (Moorey, 1994:149–51) and a similar pro- tions are to be found on occupation sites, gression can be recognized in Anatolia (e.g. but have not been recognized as such. Çilingiroğlu, 2012) and Greece (e.g. Perlès, 2001:210–20). The demands of these in- dustries (lime plaster and pottery) in terms THE SITE OF KOUPHOVOUNO of fuel, material, and labour were therefore considerable. The remains of firing installa- The site of Kouphovouno lies on the out- tions for quicklime have been identified at skirts of Sparta in southern Greece one or two sites, possibly at Çatal Höyük (Cavanagh et al., 2004; 2007; Mee et al., (Cessford, 2007) and notably at Kfar 2014)(Figure 1). It extends over some HaHoresh (Goren & Goring-Morris, 4–5 ha and the MN deposits have been 2008). Updraft pottery kilns dating to excavatedtoadepthof3m.Firstexcavated around 6000 cal BC have been found at by Otto Wilhelm von Vacano in 1941 Yarim Tepe in Iraq (Hansen Streily, 2000; (Renard, 1989), it was reopened in 2001, Petrova, 2012) and at a number of other after a survey and study in 1999–2000 Mesopotamian sites—Hansen Streily (Cavanagh et al., 2004). Kouphovouno (2000) has assembled details of eighty-nine was first occupied in the MN (Figure 2), kilns at fifteen sites of the seventh to fifth in the phase equivalent to Franchthi FCP millennia cal BC. It has been suggested ten- 2.3 (Mee et al., 2014). Occupation contin- tatively that features such as the ash-filled ued through the Late Neolithic and pits of Tell Sabi Abyad I in Syria may have during the Early Bronze Age and, more been used to fire the ceramics from the site sporadically, thereafter. Figure 1. Geographical location of Kouphovouno in Laconia, Peloponnese (Jean Cantuel, after Rivals et al., 2011).
Five seasons of excavation between specialized cooking pots were also pro- 2001 and 2006 recovered well-preserved duced (Mee, 2007:201–10). The great MN habitation remains in two areas: Area majority of MN pottery in the C, at the top of the tell, and Area G, on Peloponnese is called ‘Urfirnis’ (from the its southern slope. In both areas, the last German meaning primitive varnish) and phase of MN occupation is well repre- in our MN levels (summarized in Mee sented by habitation remains, some of et al., 2014: fig. 12, contexts C0837– which lay undisturbed by later occupation G2009) between 92 per cent and 100 per immediately below the ploughsoil. The cent of all the recorded pottery consisted contexts of interest here come from Area C of Urfirnis. The ware has a lustrous paint and date to the last MN phase. Based on on the outer and inner surfaces of the AMS radiocarbon dating of seeds from con- pots: monochrome, decorated with geo- temporary stratigraphic units, the contexts metric motifs, or with ‘scribble burnish’. belonging to the latest period of the firing The skill and technical mastery required structure—the focus of this article—range for Urfirnis pottery was of a high order, in date between c. 5640 and 5500 cal BC and the elaborate chaîne opératoire (Mee et al., 2014). required for its manufacture has been The pottery repertoire includes a brought out by Vitelli (1993: 199–204). variety of jars, bowls, and pedestalled She has also argued that at Franchthi bowls, normally painted and generally Cave MN potters used large bottomless large in size (over half with a capacity vessels as a portable, re-usable part of the greater than 1 litre); a number of kiln to fire their pots (Vitelli, 1997: 32). Figure 2. Site map of the archaeological excavations at Kouphovouno (drawing: W. Cavanagh).
FIELD DESCRIPTION OF THE open-air courtyard measuring roughly 6.5 m ‘MILLEFEUILLE’ E–W×4mN–S, between Structures C1 to the north, C2 to the north-west, C3 to the At Kouphovouno, in a sounding in Area west, and C4 to the east—all probably do- C at the top of the tell, within an open-air mestic buildings. The firing area was courtyard set between the remains of bounded to the south by a stone wall, 0.2 m buildings (Figure 3), a series of superim- wide, excavated to a height of 0.3 m and posed stratified contexts was found. It was over a length of 0.6 m; the wall was coated labelled ‘millefeuille’ (vanilla slice) at the with clay and a lime wash on its upper part time of excavation and its interpretation including its top. To the north, it was sepa- was not immediately clear. It consisted of rated from Structure C1 by an accumulation a series of red, purple, or orange layers of layers of pebbles and reddened sediment, measuring 2–7 cm in thickness (contexts set regularly one over another. To the east it 1021 = 1861, 1035, 1036, 1038, 1044, was separated from Structure C4 by contexts 1060 = 1862, 1863, 1067, 1072) between 1056 and 1059, an area covered with sherds, which were interspersed whitish layers fragments of limestone, limestone cobbles 0.5–1 cm thick (contexts 1020, 1028, (some of which were shattered), fragments 1061), except at the bottom of the sound- and slabs of burnt lime plaster, and red- ing, where they reached 4 cm in thickness dened sediment probably dating to the last (contexts 1065, 1069) (Figure 4.1). phase of use of the ‘millefeuille’ area The total extent of this area, oval in (Figure 4.3). To the west, a line of stones shape, measured roughly 2 m E–W×3m running NE–SW was uncovered over about N–S, some 4.7 m2. It was situated in a large 1.5 m starting from the corner of Structure Figure 3. Plan of the building remains of the penultimate MN construction phase in Area C (drawing: R. Orgeolet and J.P. Renard).
C2 and separating the firing area from the required to reveal the different layers as finely western part of the courtyard, which was as possible constrained us to reduce the part probably given over to cooking activities as excavated to 0.6 × 0.4 m (Figure 4.1). By indicated by the presence of ovens/hearths, close of excavation in this sounding it was pottery containers broken in situ,andstone not clear whether we had reached the base tools including some saddle querns. In this of the feature. It was, however, possible to part of Area C the MN deposits were not recognize a significant correspondence disturbed by later occupation. Finally it is between certain layers of the ‘millefeuille’ worth mentioning the presence, to the and floors in the courtyard to the west, for north of Structure 1, of a large rubbish pit example the top of floor 1756 in the (the ‘poubelle’ or rubbish bin) whose use courtyard continued context 1028 of the was evidently contemporary with the forma- ‘millefeuille’, and the top of level 1753/54 tion of the ‘millefeuille’. It contained large abutted context 1020 of the ‘millefeuille’ quantities of animal bones, much Urfirnis (Table 1, Supplementary Data (SD), and pottery, coarse domestic wares including Figure 8). ‘husking trays’ and storage vessels, many In 2006 an extension measuring 0.6 × chipped stone artefacts, some bone and 0.4 m was opened towards the south of stone tools, shell beads, and stone orna- the ‘millefeuille’ down to the uppermost of ments. There were traces of burnt clay and the thick whitish deposits (Figure 4.2). charcoal. The excavated units were much less In 2005, the contexts forming the upper precise than in 2005 and a single context deposits of the firing area were excavated of 2006 often combined several contexts over an area of 1 × 1.5 m, but the time of 2005 (see relationships in Table 1, SD). Figure 4. Photographs of burnt levels in Area C. 4.1: Sampled ‘millefeuille’ excavated in 2005. 4.2: millefeuille, excavations in 2006. 4.3: context 1056, burnt sediment, fragments of limestone, limestone cobbles, fragments and slabs of burnt plaster, and pottery sherds. 4.4: small wall to the south of the ‘millefeuille’, a lime-covered clay rendering and stones. 4.5: sounding located to the south of wall 1710 (excavation ceased at level 1780), and red level sampled (photographs: C. Ballut).
Furthermore, a W–E section was cut over MICROMORPHOLOGICAL STUDY a length of 1 m into the upper layers on the south side of the ‘millefeuille’ to trace Methodology the line of the wall towards the east. The boundary marked by the wall continued in Several previous studies have demonstrated this direction, as indicated by a lime- the potential of soil micromorphology ana- covered clay rendering and stones lysis for the investigation and identification (Figure 4.4). In sum, roughly 2 m2 of the of tell sediments. They have considered upper layers of the reddened area were firing structures (Germain-Vallée et al., removed and 0.5 m2 of the lower layers. 2011) or procedures for the preparation of No interpretation of this structure was building materials in Greece (Bookidis, suggested during its excavation. Only in 1999;Karkanas,2006; 2007; Karkanas & the light of the micromorphological ana- Stratouli, 2008; Karkanas & Efstratiou, lyses could the interpretation put forward 2009), Bulgaria (Brochier, 1994), and here be developed. Cyprus (Hourani, 2003). Among the samples taken for micromor- reddish and whitish layers from Area C as phological analysis at Kouphovouno, two described above (Figure 5). The succession burnt areas were targeted. Four samples were and alternation between red and white takenfromthesectioncutthroughtheso- layers were regular. They presented hori- called ‘millefeuille’ in Area C (42 cm). The zontal and parallel boundaries at the four samples overlapped from the base to the macroscopic scale. topsoastobesuretoincludethewhole The reddish sediments (seven main section. Another sample was taken outside layers observed) were the thickest (2–7 the ‘millefeuille’, to the south of wall 1710 cm). Their sedimentary composition con- (Structure C2). This last section consisted of sisted of an accumulation of red, orange, asingleredandburntlayerandacarbonate or black sandy loam aggregates (sand: 20 layer below (Figure 4.5). We could observe per cent). The degrees of firing (masked the sediment in and below the reddish birefringence, sand grains rubified, surface, but not the sediment above, which opacity, cracks) were very different from was destroyed by ploughing. This second one aggregate to another and explain the sample serves for comparison with the ‘mille- differences in colour. The internal struc- feuille’. The aim was to obtain comparable ture of the aggregates was compact and data from the two locations to investigate the homogeneous. In most cases, they were different hypotheses suggested. small (a few mm), rounded, and thorough- Cubes of sediment were extracted with a ly weathered. In thin sections P6 and P5, knife and a trowel. They were reinforced several larger aggregates (2–3 cm) showed with plaster strips to protect them in transit. relict plant shapes (curved phytoliths, 30 The samples were prepared using standard per cent) indicating a kneaded material techniques at the EPOC laboratory (UMR with plant components added as a binder. 5805 CNRS/Bordeaux 1, France). Large- Some presented planar surfaces (evidence format thin sections were obtained (6 × 13 for their fabrication). In the red layers the cm). They were analysed at the ArScAn la- porosity was variable (20–50 per cent) due boratory (UMR 7041, Nanterre, France) fol- to the greater or lesser compaction of the lowing the international standard chart for deposit. Some accumulations of ash and soil thin sections (Bullock et al., 1985; several charcoal fragments were also noted. Courty et al., 1989). They were analysed No other cultural remains were observed with a Leica microscope with 1.6× to 400× inside. These reddish layers were formed magnifications, under plane-polarized (PPL) by an accumulation of building materials and cross-polarized (XPL) light. The micro- that were more or less fragmented and components, the micro-structures, the rela- burnt, with or without plant components. tionships between them in each layer and They always presented the same character- between the different layers were identified, istics, even if the depth of the layer and and hence the form and function of the the size and colour of the aggregates materials, in particular before they were varied. Each corresponded to a single bulk burnt. deposit (Figure 6.1). The whitish sediments did not always present the same characteristics. At the Results bottom of the sounding (P8 and base of P7), the lowermost two white layers (1069 The ‘millefeuille’ and 1065) were thicker (4 cm) than those Four thin sections (from bottom up: at the top (1 cm on average) and exhibited 2005-P8, P7, P6, P5) showed alternating significant differences. These two layers Figure 5. The four thin sections obtained from the ‘millefeuille’ in Area C (photographs: C. Ballut). had two components each, lower (B) and contexts and it is only lime lumps such as higher (A). The lower components these that can prove its presence (1069B, 1065B) were 2 cm thick and con- (Bookidis, 1999; Karkanas, 2007). They sisted of loam and carbonate. They incor- constituted 10 per cent of the level on porated burnt as well as unburnt average. These components were packed calcareous micro-fragments, millimetre- together with a low porosity (10–20 per sized red aggregates, and charcoal. The cent) and presented horizontal voids on burnt calcareous micro-fragments were the same orientation. This structure was grey, isotropic, and sand-sized (Figures particularly clear in the upper of the two 6.2 and 6.3), indicating the presence of deposits and was probably due to tramp- lime. Lime is difficult to distinguish from ling. The upper components of these two natural carbonate sediment in calcareous layers (1069A, 1065A) were also 2 cm Figure 6. Details of the ‘millefeuille’ in Area C. 6.1: close-up of P6. Two red layers (accumulation of building materials more or less fragmented and burnt, with or without plant components) separated by a whitish layer. 6.2 (PPL) & 6.3 (XPL): grey, isotropic, and sand-sized burnt calcareous micro- fragments, lime lump in whitish layer. 6.4 (PPL) & 6.5 (XPL): accretion of carbonate aggregates in a whitish layer due to trampling (photographs: C. Ballut). thick, loamy, and contained carbonates white layer observed higher up. The upper (numerous micritic crystallizations). They components of the two white layers (i.e. incorporated only burnt calcareous micro- 1069A and 1065A) were not compacted. fragments (20–30 per cent), taller red This deposit of lime had not been aggregates (1 cm), and occasional charcoal. trampled. These components were more homoge- Further up, the upper whitish sediments neous than the sediment below, composed (four main layers observed) were 1 cm of carbonates, without organization, and thick on average. The matrix was com- not packed. The porosity was higher (20– posed of fine micritic carbonates and 30 per cent), and the contact with the incorporated some lime lumps. These next red layer above did not form a regular fragments were not numerous (one or two boundary. In this it differed with the per layer) but indicate that lime powder could be a main component. The sedi- were brown-grey and loamy to sandy loam ment also incorporated small reddish and (2–3 mm maximum). Others were red isolated aggregates, and some bone and (burnt) and loamy clay (<1 mm). Porosity charcoal micro-fragments. The regular was low, in residual cavities (10–15 per surfaces of the levels, the packing of the cent). The numerous sub-horizontal voids aggregates (low porosity: 10–20 per cent), inside the layer showed compaction but they the horizontal porosity and, sometimes, did not exhibit a specific organization due the internal stratification indicate tramp- to trampling. This was a constructed surface ling. Locally, some beds and accumula- with the inclusion of lime in notable quan- tions of graded sands showed the effects tities that seems to represent a true cement- of rain on the soil. These layers were ing binder (Karkanas, 2007). This first formed essentially by accretion of carbon- complex corresponds to context 1780 in the ate aggregates due to trampling carried out excavation, which presents the same charac- in an open-air area (Figures 6.4 and 6.5). teristics (Table 1, SD). The top white layer (top of P5) was some- The second complex (Figure 7.1.2)was what different. The sediment was still loamy composed of three layers separated by hori- carbonate, and incorporated red aggregates, zontal and irregular boundaries. The lowest a piece of pottery, and some burnt and layer was a brown-red, sandy loam, carbon- unburnt calcareous micro-fragments. The ate, and oxidized sediment (1 cm). It porosity rose to 30 per cent. There was no included red burnt micro-aggregates a few organization in the sediment due to tramp- millimetres in size and a fragment of hearth ling. It was a new bulk deposit with compo- floor (sandy loam, arcuate channel porosity, nents of various origins. The top of this layer kneaded). An accumulation of ash was was not observed. observed in places. Porosity was low (10 per cent). The next layer (2 mm) presented micro-aggregates similar to the sediment Comparison with the red level near the observed below (50 per cent), fused with south wall of Structure C2 charcoal at a sub-horizontal angle (burnt A separate sample (2006-P2) was taken twigs) and much ash (50 per cent). Finally, from the sediments situated against the a white deposit of wood ash (3–4 mm) was southern outer wall of Structure C2 noted (Figure 7.3). It included accumula- (context 1710). Macroscopic inspection of tions of burnt animal hair (Figure 7.4). this sample indicated a reddened layer Some brown and sandy loam aggregates resting on top of a sediment of carbonate were also incorporated. The three layers of (Figure 4.5). Analysis of the thin section this sequence were mainly formed by accre- revealed the details of this stratigraphy and tion due to trampling around a fireplace showed four stages from bottom to top (packed aggregates, low and horizontal por- (Figure 7.1). They were completely differ- osity). The fragment of hearth floor and the ent in character from the sequence wood ash confirmed the presence of a fire- observed in the ‘millefeuille’. place, probably for cooking. The first complex (3.5 cm; Figure 7.1.1) Two thicker and lighter-coloured layers was composed of a brown, clear, sandy made up the third complex (Figure 7.1.3). loam and carbonate sediment with some The first deposit (1 cm) was composed of iron staining, calcareous gravels, and lime small, rounded aggregates (a few mm). lumps (sand-sized, 20–30 per cent) Most of them were red and sandy loam (Figure 7.2). We also noticed other small (sand: 30–40 per cent). They were burnt, and infrequent aggregates. Some of them fragmented, and difficult to interpret. Figure 7. Thin section 2006-P2. 7.1: thin section 2006-P2 and its four components. The arrow points to a fine sandy line. 7.2: lime lump in a well prepared sediment composed of a brown clear, sandy loam and carbonate sediment with some iron staining and calcareous gravels (component 1 of thin section illustrated in 7.1). 7.3: ashy deposits with horizontal and irregular boundaries and incorp- oration of aggregates by trampling (component 2). 7.4: accumulation of burnt animal hair in an ashy layer. 7.5: burnt pieces of earth constructions, aggregates with horizontal planes and without relict plant shapes (component 3). 7.6: detail of the burnt red kneaded and sandy loam sediment with some relict plant shapes (component 4). 7.7: fine linear layer (1 mm) of beige, carbonate and sandy sediment between two aggregates (component 4) (photographs: C. Ballut).
They were in a brown, loamy to sandy matrix between these components was loam and high carbonate matrix (40 per reduced (10 per cent). cent). A few accumulations of yellow ash The last complex (5 cm; Figure 7.1.4) were also observed. The next layer above was composed of two red and sandy loam was 1–2 cm thick. Larger, red or black, layers or aggregates (sand: 30 per cent). rounded and broken aggregates appeared. They extended over the whole width of They had the same characteristics but the thin section (6 cm) and were bounded were more burnt than the fragments of the by horizontal planes. They presented some previous layer. Some of them showed a relict plant shapes looking like curved phy- horizontal orientation with an internal toliths (30 per cent) indicating a kneaded parallel porosity and seemed to be 3–4 sediment (Figure 7.6). The more marked mm thick (Figure 7.5). A fragment of oxidizations around the voids and the lack charcoal (a few mm) and some ash were of cracks showed that the sediment was also observed. The carbonate and loamy burnt less severely than the fragments Figure 8. Stratigraphic sequence (Harris matrix) (graphics: J. Renard). observed on the top of the third sequence. 1710 of Structure C2, were located in a The two layers were separated by a fine courtyard. They both have in common a horizontal layer (1 mm) of beige carbonate silty clay composition or burnt building and sandy sediment (Figure 7.7). We materials, i.e. a silty clay to which water could not report the depth of the lowest and fillers had been added. The shape layer, but the upper was 3 cm thick. and size of the largest aggregates observed in the sample taken close to wall 1710 suggest that in this location silty clay coils Interpretation were prepared with a plant filler. The fine horizontal layer between the coils is prob- The red deposits of the ‘millefeuille’, just ably the remains of a fine sand sediment like those of the sample taken close to wall accumulating where the coils had been deposited after they were made. However, followed one another in quick succession. not all the elements that were to make up Note that in the ‘millefeuille’ white levels, the red layers examined showed traces of the micritic crystallizations were so numer- phytoliths. Among the samples taken ous that it was often difficult to distin- close to wall 1710, some fragments— guish possible ash from lime powder. almost black, severely burnt, a few mm in The elements forming the sediments height, and with an internal lamination— sampled close to wall 1710 probably could derive from a plaster lacking a belong to the remains of a destroyed oven/ plant filler. In the ‘millefeuille’ too, the hearth set on a prepared floor (complexes aggregates of burnt built material do not 2 and 3 above) and a dome made of clay always include a plant filler. Moreover, coils (complex 4 above). The ‘millefeuille’, the red sediments near the wall were not to judge from its height and the uniform- all deposited on a single occasion, whereas ity of the layers of which it was composed, in the ‘millefeuille’ each red level corre- implies a regular, recurrent activity involv- sponded to a much more homogeneous ing a firing phase, a dismantling phase, deposition. and a trampling phase. The white deposits below the red level beside wall 1710 was a prepared floor (context 1780), a homogeneous combin- DISCUSSION ation of aggregates of different origins, 30 per cent of them lime lumps. It was com- Firing in a covered clamp is a technique of pacted rather than trampled, which indi- firing whereby the load is arranged in a cates that the floor in this area had a stack and covered by an impermanent permanent covering. structure, the ‘mantle’; the latter is com- For their part, the white deposits in the posed either of pottery sherds or lumps of ‘millefeuille’ contained much more carbon- earth, or in the form of wattle and daub, ate. The thinner layers were clearly or sometimes even a combination of these trampled sediments and the lime lumps elements. Animal dung is also sometimes were much less common than in the pre- used to cover the clamp. The firing site is pared floors recognized elsewhere on the generally placed on the ground surface, site (up to 10 per cent aggregates). The sometimes in a slight hollow, and the thicker examples had at the top (1069A, pottery to be fired, previously dried in the 1065A) a second phase that was not open air, can be placed on stones, which trampled or compressed and in which, reduces direct contact with the fuel laid at unlike the prepared floors, there was no the bottom of the structure. Openings in admixture of materials of different origins; the mantle allow air to circulate, and they the lime lumps were more prominent here can, at will, be opened or closed to move (20–30 per cent) and incorporated into a from an oxidizing to a reducing atmos- level which contained only carbonate sedi- phere. While quite similar to a kiln, it ment. Larger calcareous fragments were need not be viewed either as an enhanced also observed macroscopically in these bonfire or as a primitive form of kiln layers (these were not sampled in blocks). (Livingstone-Smith, 2001; Thér, 2004). Hence we conclude that it was pure lime. Once firing is over, the mantle is broken These last phases were immediately up to recover the pottery, and then the covered by debris consisting of burnt fragments of the mantle are scattered over building material that was not trampled, and near the firing site, or simply dumped which suggests that the two deposits or even recycled. These temporary structures leave few or no archaeological indicating that pots were sometimes fired in traces and it would probably be misleading astack(Vitelli,1993: 199–201; 2007: 95; to attempt to compare them with the Loughlin, 2010:109).Thetechniquecan remains of permanent installations, such as be used in bonfires as well as in more elab- that at Imvrou Pigadi, which arise from a orate pottery firing installations. different operation and technology. Our Ethnographic studies from the Mediter- intention here is to discuss whether the ranean area have referred to the use of remains of the ‘millefeuille’ structure bonfires in pottery production or to the described above tally with a covered clamp. use of kilns, but not to firing in covered clamps (e.g. Crane, 1988; London, 1989). Ethnographic parallels clearly show that Compatibility of firing in a covered potters are not subject to fixed rules; clamp with the production of MN rather, each individual applies his or her pottery own expertize at every stage of the process of manufacture, in relation to both the en- Contrary to the standard view, which vironment and the desired outcome (e.g. maintains that only firing in a permanent Kramer, 1985 with references; Costin, structure such as a potter’s kiln allows the 2000 with references). While ethnographic temperature required for high quality comparanda are certainly not to be taken pottery (such as the Urfirnis pottery of the at face value, nonetheless they help clarify MN period) to be achieved, it has been for us the expertize and objectives of clearly demonstrated that, even in open-air potters from another age. fires, high temperatures in excess of 900°C and comparable with those obtained in a kiln can be reached (Gosselain, 1992; The reddened levels of the ‘millefeuille’ Livingstone-Smith, 2001).Sinceweknow that the firing temperature of Urfirnis The layers of reddened sediment led us to pottery is around 800–850°C (Vitelli, 1997), rule out straight away simple bonfire firing it follows that firing in a clamp, a fortiori in because in this type of construction the a covered clamp, is compatible with the pro- charge to be fired, which rests directly on duction of MN pottery, including Urfirnis. the fuel, is covered only by the fuel, One objection against firing in an im- whereas we observed remains of a con- permanent installation such as a covered struction (Rice, 1987; Thér & Gregor, clamp concerns the contact between the 2011). On the other hand, firing using a charge to be fired and the fuel (Vitelli, protected bonfire (Agumba & Abbott, 1997). This objection cannot be sustained, 1996) would be a contender because the given the various procedures available to low wall of clay, which protected and positionachargeinaclamprelatingtothe delimited the base of the clamp, could type of pot (at the base of the clamp, bake during the firing and, once destroyed, towards its interior or exterior, using larger be compacted to form a layer of reddened vessels to hold smaller pots inside the sediment. However, we rejected this hy- clamp), and the various ways to arrange the pothesis because this type of firing, like fuel—below the clamp, around it, inside or the simple bonfire, allows little control of on top of it, according to type (wood, either temperature or firing atmosphere branches, leaves, straw,animaldung,etc.). (oxidizing or reducing), two requirements Note that firing circles have been found at indispensable for producing pottery such Franchthi, Lerna, and Kouphovouno, as Urfirnis. The reddened layers are formed of would allow the introduction of extra fuel burnt deposits essentially made up of con- or ventilation—and a covering ‘roof’ of struction materials, with a very small branches plastered with building clay. The amount of ash and charcoal. We interpret archaeological traces such a structure would them as the remains of a mantle from an leave would appear to be essentially the open-air firing area and we can propose same as those of the first hypothesis. In this three possibilities regarding its form. second scenario the planar surfaces on In the first scenario, the mantle is certain aggregates would have originated formed from a framework made of wood from the bricks or sods of clay. Note, plastered with a clay sediment often however, that no complete brick has been enriched with a filler to make it more mal- found in the Neolithic deposits excavated at leable and better for construction. This Kouphovouno, either in an architectural or hypothesis is corroborated by the archaeo- in a destruction context. On the other logical remains found within the ‘mille- hand, the technique of building a timber feuille’, for example a fragment of burnt structure filled with sods of earth is attested. building clay bearing the impression of a The third hypothesis would envisage the piece of wood in the red context 1021 as wall discovered to the south of the firing well as numerous fragments of red sedi- area as a permanent boundary, onto which ment bearing impressions of cut vegetation one could have constructed the mantle, as in such as straw. The thin sections them- the first hypothesis. The mantle could have selves revealed phytoliths, which indicates rested on the wall to the south and directly that the kneaded clay contained plant on the ground elsewhere (Miller, 1997). matter. A number of thin sections showed In all three scenarios, once the firing of aggregates with planar surfaces which the pottery was complete, the mantle could have arisen from smoothing building would have been broken up to recover the clay plastered onto a wooden framework. fired objects and then the mantle’sfrag- Architectural parallels were found at ments would have been spread across the Kouphovouno; they are consistent with firing area. Each reddened layer corre- this mode of construction combining sponded to a single firing event, as revealed wood and building clay. It must, however, by the thin sections: these do not show any be made clear that the traces of plant filler signs of redeposition, suggesting that they appearing in negative on the fragments of were deposited in a single operation. true clay building material are much more What, then, was done with these burnt abundant than those recognizable in the clay remains after firing? We know from remains of the mantle. This suggests that ethnographic parallels that the area the red deposits in the ‘millefeuille’ did devoted to firing ceramics, particularly not come from the destruction of build- when found within a settlement, for ings as had originally been supposed. In example in a courtyard, is cleaned and this first model, it would be possible to returned to being used as an area where adapt the mantle for specific interventions, people circulated (Arnold, 1990). Note be it at the base or at the top, to add extra that on our site, close to the ‘millefeuille’, fuel or to regulate the firing atmosphere there was a large dump (the ‘rubbish bin’, by opening or closing it. see above) where the remains of these The second hypothesis proposes a cleaning operations could have been mantle formed by a belt of raw clay deposited. We should also bear in mind moulded into bricks or formed into sods that the remains from firing need not have (Roy, 2008)—through which openings been dumped; they could have been adapted to some other use (Angle & sequence, which are roughly 7 cm thick. Dottarelli, 1989). At Kouphovouno the The less thick reddened layers (1863 and excavations have revealed accumulations of 1067, for example, are roughly 3 cm thick) red clay between the houses, part of which found in the lower part of the stratified se- we suggest need not have come from quence suggest either that not all of the buildings destroyed by fire but from the mantle was spread over the firing area demolition of the mantle. Furthermore, after firing, or that the mantle was smaller. the floors, especially outside but also In brief, in the upper part of the stratig- inside the houses, have reddened traces on raphy of the ‘millefeuille’ the remains of their surfaces, and these may have been the mantle correspond to two relatively the remains from spreading the debris of major re-levelling episodes of the court- the mantle. How is it, then, that thick red yard (1021 // 1753/54 and 1035–1060 // layers ended up in the ‘millefeuille’, the 1756); in the lower part the shallower presumed site of the firing area? Let us depth of the reddened layer 1863 seems to consider the stratigraphy of the ‘mille- echo the re-levelling 1774 of the court- feuille’ and that of the courtyard to the yard, some 3 cm thick. west of the firing area, where three new floor levels were added after destruction/ trampling/rebuilding of the circulation The whitish levels of the ‘millefeuille’ level. The contexts corresponding to these operations were of a depth that was com- In the ‘millefeuille’, levels consisting of parable to that of the reddened layers of grey-whitish deposits were found to be in the ‘millefeuille’; they were also at approxi- two forms: shallow layers in the upper levels mately the same absolute height. It is thus and thicker layers in the lower layers. probable that the remains of the mantle The shallow layers (1020, 1028, 1061) were kept and scattered in their totality or had all been trampled. The thicker depos- in part with a view to maintaining the its (1065 and 1069) consisted in fact of floor of the courtyard at the same height two different layers and only the lower one (Figure 8). Assuming that the firing area in each case was trampled. In other words, was used over the whole of its extent (over the whitish trampled levels all rested on about 4 m2) at each firing, and supposing top of the reddened levels which were not that the mantle would have formed a characterized by trampling. We suggest hemisphere about 8 cm thick (wooden that the shallow trampled levels be identi- frame and mud plaster, or earth founda- fied with trodden surfaces, laid over the tion topped by a mantle of mud and firing area when it was no longer in oper- wood), we calculate a volume of 0.5 m3 of ation. The remains of the roughly scat- material. Estimating that the total quantity tered and compacted mantle would then of wood burnt during the firing was a have been covered with lime (dusting) to quarter of that volume, some 0.37 m3 consolidate the floor and make it usable remains to spread over the firing area and (Gourdin & Kingery, 1975; Kingery et al., its vicinity, which corresponds to a depth 1988; Hermann & van Egmond, 1997). It of around 9 cm over a surface of roughly is noteworthy that the trampled surfaces 4m2. This depth corresponds approxi- correspond to the trodden surfaces found mately to the thickest of the reddened elsewhere in the courtyard: context 1020 deposits (1021 and the sequence made up of the ‘millefeuille’ corresponds to the top of 1035, 1036, 1038, 1044, and 1060) in of floor 1753/54, context 1028 with the the upper part of the stratigraphic top of floor 1756; moreover, in the small sounding to the south of wall 1710 of destruction deposits, and on surfaced Structure C2, an extrapolation of the floors such as context 1780. Alternatively, heights would suggest that context 1774 the additional layer of lime 1069A, spread corresponds to context 1061 of the ‘mille- over the trampled floor level 1069B, could feuille’, and floor 1780 with the lower part represent an accumulation of lime brought of context 1061, which shows traces of in from elsewhere and intended to make trampling. But caution must be exercised plaster for nearby structures but left in situ because of the distance separating these and unused immediately before the next contexts and we do not propose this inter- pottery firing attested by the overlying red pretation as more than provisional. deposit (1067). The same procedure could The lowest white layer of the ‘mille- also apply to 1065A and 1065B. feuille’ (1069), separated from 1065 by the reddened deposit 1067 and itself com- posed of two layers (the lower being a CONCLUSION trampled surface), could not be linked with any other context, as the excavation The combined data recovered from excava- of the sounding in the western part of the tion, micromorphological analysis of thin courtyard was discontinued before reach- sections from samples taken from the arch- ing this depth. The composition of the aeological sediments, and a reconstruction upper layers of the two whitish levels 1065 based on recent ethnographic and experi- and 1069 may relate to the (intentional or mental research, have led us to suggest the unintentional) production of lime during presence of an open-air pottery firing area, the firing of pottery. Some larger pieces of a covered clamp capable of producing calcareous material have been observed but Urfirnis pottery at temperatures in the not sampled in block. As suggested above, range of 800–900°C. In summary, the the charge was perhaps separated from the ‘millefeuille’ does not record every firing se- floor by stones or cobbles which served to quence in the area, but only those which support the vessels and to separate them happened just before an episode that from the fuel laid on the floor of the involved raising the level of the courtyard’s courtyard. Even though it is recommended floor. The remains of the mantle were not to use fire-proof stones to avoid their removed on this occasion but were scat- burning up during firing, it is possible that tered in the material used for refurbishing limestone (found in abundance on Mount the level of the courtyard. This burnt clay Taÿgetos and in the bed of the River debris could have been systematically Parori, the stream which bounds the site covered with lime, probably to stabilize the to the north) was used at Kouphovouno. surface and to make it more usable. The temperature needed to reduce lime- Production of lime observed in the lower stone to lime could be achieved at MN part of the ‘millefeuille’ was probably acci- Kouphovouno because it is the same as dental. At each firing, limestone cobbles that required for firing Urfirnis pottery, were placed on the floor to serve as sup- namely 800–850°C. Lime was used in ports for the charge to be fired and the heat construction, as attested, for example, by would have converted them to lime. This, remains of lime plaster on the trampled at least, is what the two lower firing surface of floor 1718 inside Structure C2, sequences of the ‘millefeuille’ suggest. on the outside stone footing of the west Could the remains described here re- wall of Structure C4, on top of the wall present the remains of a structure designed bounding the firing area to the south, in for another purpose? Or could this structure have been used for burning lime changed over time, as could the construc- rather than firing pottery? tion of the mantle and the form of the These possibilities merit careful consid- firing area. The firing episodes took place eration, but there are reasons for rejecting over a long period within the settlement, them. Generally, lime burning was carried between houses and among various do- out at the edge of a site, rather than in mestic installations, within a courtyard courtyards, because of the highly caustic whose floor level was raised from time to nature of quicklime. On the other hand, time, at the same time as new floors were the risk of high temperatures notwith- raised in the houses and nearby. Ideally, it standing, the presence of kilns outside would have been desirable to continue the houses and in courtyards, for example at excavation of Area C to reveal the full Yarim Tepe (Hansen Streily, 2000: 72), dimensions of this firing area and to shows that pottery firing was possible in define even more precisely its extent and conditions such as those we describe at function over time. Unfortunately the Kouphovouno. Furthermore, a thorough archaeological layers are no longer access- archaeological investigation of lime ible and it is impossible at present to burning was carried out at the Pre Pottery return to verify our findings. The tech- Neolithic B (PPNB) site of Kfar nique of firing pottery in a temporary HaHoresh by Goren and Goring-Morris structure has so far not been discussed in (2008). It involved a careful analysis of the context of the Middle Neolithic in the excavated pits, experimental archaeology, Aegean, and this study, based on the exca- and micromorphological analysis. There, vations at Kouphovouno, will have the archaeological remains were very dif- achieved its aim if it opens fresh lines of ferent from those at Kouphovouno: the enquiry within the framework of new residues of the lime pits, lying on the edge archaeological investigations. of the site, contained numerous burnt and fire-cracked limestone cobbles of various SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL sizes roughly piled in and around poorly defined shallow depressions. Moreover, To view supplementary material for this the characteristics of the sediments article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ revealed in micromorphological thin sec- eaa.2016.4. tions had nothing in common with those recovered from the ‘millefeuille’. Indeed, firing in open pits is quite satisfactory for ACKNOWLEDGMENTS producing lime; closed structures, such as those evidenced in the red layers of the The excavations at Kouphovouno are a ‘millefeuille’ at Kouphovouno, would be joint project of the British School at superfluous for reducing lime. For these Athens and the École française d’Athènes. reasons we believe that the lime burning They were carried out under the aegis of hypothesis is unconvincing. In any case the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and the construction of a pottery firing instal- Classical Antiquities. We would particu- lation in the middle of a courtyard would larly like to thank the members of the only intermittently serve small groups, in Archaeological Service of the Greek contrast to larger-scale production areas Ministry of Culture who helped the pro- for whole communities. gress of our project over many years: Dr It is possible that the procedure E. Kourinou, Dr A. Mantis, Mrs employed in the various sequences A. Panagiotopoulou, Mrs S. Raftopoulou, Mrs E. Rozaki, Dr Th. Spyropoulos, Mr Charcoal and Bone Collagen Associated N. Themos, Mrs M. Tsouli, Dr with Early Pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, A. Vasiligamvrou, and Mrs E. Zavvou. Hunan Province, China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United We are also most grateful to the staff of States of America, 106(24): 9595–600. the British School at Athens for their as- Bookidis, N., Hansen, J., Snyder, L. & sistance. The work was funded by the Goldberg, P. 1999. Dining in the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, the École Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at – française d’Athènes, The French Ministry Corinth. Hesperia, 68: 1 5. Brochier, J.L. 1994. Etude de la sédimentation of Foreign Affairs, the Centre National de anthropique. La stratégie des ethnofaciès la Recherche Scientifique, and the sédimentaires en milieu de constructions Universities of Liverpool, Nottingham, de terre. Bulletin de Correspondance Bretagne-Sud, and Clermont-Ferrand. Hellénique, 118: 619–45. We also wish to express special thanks to Bullock, P., Féderoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G. & Tursina, T. 1985. Handbook Julia Wattez (INRAP, France), who for Soil Thin Section Description.Wolver- shared her experience of the study of hampton: Waine Research Publications. burnt material in thin section with us, as Cavanagh, W., Mee, C. & Renard, J. 2004. well as to Thomas Loughlin, who exca- Sparta before Sparta: Kouphovouno 1999– vated Area C very carefully in 2005 and 2000: Report on the Intensive Survey. 2006. We are also most grateful to the an- Annual of the British School at Athens, 99: 49–128. onymous referees who suggested a number Cavanagh, W., Mee, C. & Renard, J. 2007. of helpful improvements to the text. Excavations at Kouphovouno, Laconia. Results from the 2001 and 2002 Seasons. Annual of the British School at Athens, 102: REFERENCES 11–101. Cessford, C. 2007. Level Pre-X II.E-A and Agumba, M. & Abbott, V. 1996. How to Levels Xil and Xl, Spaces 181, 199, and Build, Use, and Maintain a Better Bonfire 198. In: I. Hodder, ed. Excavating Çatal- Kiln. Nairobi: Intermediate Technology höyük: South, North, and KOPAL Area Kenya. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons. British Aidona, E., Polymeris, G. & Kyparissi- Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Mono- Apostolika, N. 2014. Middle Neolithic graph. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Period: New Archaeomagnetic and for Archaeological Research, pp. 59–102. Thermoluminescence Data from a Pottery Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2012. The Neolithic Pottery of Kiln at Magoula Imvrou Pigadi, SW Ulucak in Aegean Turkey: Organization of Thessaly, Greece. Paper presented at the Production, Interregional Comparisons, and Castle Meeting, New Trends on Paleo, Relative Chronology. British Archaeological Rock, and Environmental Magnetism, Reports International Series 2426. Oxford: Évora 2014. Archaeopress. Angle, M. & Dottarelli, R. 1989. Ethno- Costin, C.L. 2000. The Use of Ethnoarchae- archaeology at Uslu (Elazig): A Prelimin- ology for the Archaeological Study of ary Report on Contemporary Manufacture Ceramic Production. Journal of Archaeo- in Eastern Anatolia VII. Arastirma Sonu- logical Method and Theory, 7: 377–403. çlari Toplantisi, 2: 467–79. Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P. & MacPhail, R. Arnold, P.J. 1990. The Organization of Refuse 1989. Soils and Micromorphology in Archae- Disposal and Ceramic Production within ology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Contemporary Mexican Houselots. Press. American Anthropologist, 92: 915–32. Crane, H. 1988. Traditional Pottery Making Boaretto, E., Wu, X., Yuan, J., Bar-Yosef, O., in the Sardis Region of Western Turkey. Chu, V., Pan, Y., Liu, K., Cohen, D., Muqarnas,5:9–20. Jiao, T., Li, S., Gu, H., Goldberg, P. & Germain-Vallée, C., Prévost-Dermarkar, S. & Weiner, S. 2009. Radiocarbon Dating of Lespez, L. 2011. Stratégies de prélèvement et de mise en œuvre de la « terre à bâtir » Micromorphology Reveals Cycles of des structures de combustion néolithiques Renovation. Antiquity, 83: 955–67. du site de Dikili Tash (Grèce) à partir Karkanas, P. & Stratouli, G. 2008. Neolithic d’une étude micromorphologique. Lime Plastered Floors in Drakaina Cave. ArcheoSciences, 35: 41–63. Annual of the British School at Athens, 103: Gimbutas, M., Winn, S. & Shimabuku, S. 27–41. 1989. Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Kingery, D., Vandiver, P. & Prickett, M. Central Greece, 6400–5600 BC. Los 1988. The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, Part II: Production and Use of Lime and University of California. Gypsum Plaster in the Near East. Journal Goren, Y. & Goring-Morris, A.N. 2008. of Field Archaeology, 15: 219–44. Early Pyrotechnology in the Near East: Kramer, C. 1985. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Experimental Lime Plaster Production at Annual Review of Anthropology,14:77–102. the PPNB Site of Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 2012. Indications of Geoarchaeology, 23: 779–98. the Presence of Middle Neolithic Pottery Gosselain, O.P. 1992. Bonfire of the Kilns at Magoula Imvrou Pigadi, SW Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Thessaly, Greece. Documenta Praehistorica, Archaeology: What For? Journal of 39: 433–42. Archaeological Science, 19: 243–59. Livingstone-Smith, P.O. 2001. Bonfire II: Gourdin, W.H. & Kingery, W.D. 1975. The The Return of Pottery Firing Tempera- Beginnings of Pyrotechnology: Neolithic tures. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28: and Egyptian Lime Plaster. Journal of 991–1003. Field Archaeology, 2: 133–50. London, G. 1989. Past Present: The Village Hansen Streily, A. 2000. Early Pottery Kilns Potters of Cyprus. The Biblical Archaeolo- in the Middle East. Paleorient, 26: 69–81. gist, 52: 219–29. Hermann, K. & van Egmond, B. 1997. Loughlin, T. 2010. Technological Choice in Stabilisation à la chaux. Bulletin du ciment, Middle Neolithic Ceramics from the 65: 3–11. Peloponnese, Greece. (unpublished PhD Hourani, F. 2003. Les matériaux de construc- dissertation, University of Liverpool). tion en terre à Khirokitia (Chypre): Malamidou, D. 2007. Kryoneri: A Neolithic Origines, techniques de préparation et and Early Bronze Age Settlement in the emplois. In: H. Guillaud, H.C.A. de Lower Strymon Valley. In: H. Todorova, Chazelles & A. Klein, eds. Echanges trans- M. Stefanovich & G. Ivanov, eds. The disciplinaires sur les constructions en terre crue, Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. 1. Table Ronde de Montpellier.Montpellier: Proceedings of the International Symposium Editions de l’Espérou, pp. 161–68. ‘Strymon Praehistoricus’, Kjustendil-Blagoev- Huysecom, E., Rasse, M., Lespez, L., grad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis Neuman, K., Fahmy, A., Ballouche, A., (Greece), 2004. In the Steps of James Harvey Ozainne, S., Maggetti, M., Tribolo, Ch. Gaul, vol. 2. Sofia: Gerda Henkel & Soriano, S. 2009. The Emergence of Stiftung, pp. 297–308. Pottery in Africa during the 10th Mee, C. 2007. The Production and Consump- Millennium cal BC: New Evidence from tion of Pottery in the Neolithic Pelopon- Ounjougou (Mali). Antiquity, 83: 905–17. nese. In: C. Mee & J. Renard, eds. Karkanas, P. 2006. Late Neolithic Household Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Activities in Marginal Areas: The Micro- Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age morphological Evidence from the Kouve- Aegean. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 200– leiki Caves, Peloponnese, Greece. Journal of 24. Archaeological Science, 33: 1628–41. Mee, C., Cavanagh, W. & Renard, J. 2014. Karkanas, P. 2007. Identification of Lime The Middle–Late Neolithic Transition at Plaster in Prehistory Using Petrographic Kouphovouno. Annual of the British School Methods: A Review and Reconsideration of at Athens, 109: 65–95. the Data on the Basis of Experimental and Miller, H. 1997. Pottery Firing Structures Case Studies. Geoarchaeology, 22: 775–96. (Kilns) of the Indus Civilization during Karkanas, P. & Efstratiou, N. 2009. Floor the Third Millenium B.C. In: P. Rice & Sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: D. Kingery, eds. Prehistory and History of Ceramic Kilns. Westerville (OH): The Vitelli, K.D. 1997. Inferring Firing Procedures American Ceramic Society, pp. 41–71. from Sherds: Early Greek Kilns. In: P. Moorey, R. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Rice & D. Kingery, eds. Prehistory and Materials and Industries: The Material History of Ceramic Kilns.Westerville Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (OH): The American Ceramic Society, Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: pp. 21–40. The First Farming Communities in Europe. Vitelli, K.D. 2007. Lerna, a Preclassical Site in Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. the Argolid V: The Neolithic Pottery from Petrova, N.Y. 2012. A Technological Study of Lerna. Princeton: American School of Hassuna Culture Ceramics (Yarim Tepe I Classical Studies at Athens. Settlement). Documenta Praehistorica, 39: Yiouni, P. 1996. The Early Neolithic Pottery. 75–82. In: K. Wardle, ed. Nea Nikomedeia I. Renard, J. 1989. Le site néolithique et helladique London: British School at Athens, pp. ancien de Kouphovouno (Laconie). Fouilles 55–209. de O.-W. von Vacano 1941. Aegaeum 4. Liège: Université de l’Etat à Liège. Rice, P.M. 1987. Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. Los BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Christèle Ballut obtained her PhD in Rivals, F., Gardeisen, A. & Cantuel, J. 2011. Domestic and Wild Ungulate Dietary 2000 at the University of Limoges. She is Traits at Kouphovouno (Sparta, Greece): a researcher at the CNRS-Universities of Implications for Livestock Management Paris I and X, specializing in geoarchaeol- and Palaeoenvironment in the Neolithic. ogy and landscape archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38: 528–37. Roy, C. 2008. Making African Pots. Photo- graph available on Saharan Vibe
Address: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, Raphaël Orgeolet obtained his PhD in 2008 Ministèredelacultureetdelacommunica- at the University of Montpellier. He is As- tion, LAMPEA UMR 7269, 13094, Aix-en- sistant Professor of Mediterranean Bronze Provence, France. [email: [email protected]]
Structures de cuisson de la céramique en Méditerranée ancienne : données micromorphologiques et archéologiques provenant du site Néolithique Moyen de Kouphovouno en Grèce méridionale
Les fouilles du site de Kouphovouno (Laconie, Grèce) ont révélé des dépôts brûlés associés à des structures de combustion. Le ‘millefeuille’ observé était composé d’une alternance de couches rouges brûlées et blanches carbonatées. Sa description archéologique, son analyse micromorphologique et sa comparaison avec une struc- ture plus classique du Néolithique Moyen nous conduisent à l’interpréter comme un dispositif de cuisson de la céramique en meule chapée. Son étude nous a permis de préciser ses modalités constructives, son fonctionne- ment et son utilisation en contexte domestique. Bien que la production de céramique et de chaux ait laissé peu de traces directes, cette activité pyrotechnologique est sans doute celle qui, après le chauffage et la cuisson alimentaire, a consommé le plus d’énergie chez les communautés néolithiques. Nous proposons ici une nouvelle approche pour identifier des structures de cuisson céramique. Mais si la cuisson céramique semble l’usage le plus probable pour le type de structure que nous décrivons, nous discutons également la production de chaux.
Mots-clés: Néolithique, Grèce, four temporaire couvert, construction en terre, micromorphologie
Strukturen zum Brennen der Keramik im frühen Mittelmeerraum: mikromorphologische und archäologische Angaben aus der mittelneolithischen Siedlung von Kouphovouno in Südgriechenland
Ausgrabungen in Kouphovouno in Lakonien (Griechenland) haben verbrannte Schichten in Zusammenhang mit einer Brennstruktur entdeckt. Die Schichten, die wie in einem “Blätterteig” auf- geschichtet waren, waren alternierend rot gebrannte Aggregate und weiße Karbonate. Die Beschreibung ihrer Eigenschaften, mikromorphologische Untersuchung, sowie ein Vergleich mit einer üblicheren Struktur des Mittelneolithikums ermöglicht es, diese Schichten als Teil einer Brennstruktur zu deuten. Es handelt sich um einen Meiler. Unsere Analyse hat seine Bauweise, seinen Betrieb und seinen Gebrauch im Rahmen einer Siedlung verdeutlicht. Neben Heizen und Kochen ist die Herstellung von Keramik und Kalk die pyrotechnische Tätigkeit, die bei den neolithischen Gemeinschaften am meisten Energie verbrauchte. Jedoch gibt es sehr wenige direkte Beweise, dass es solche Einrichtungen gab. Die Frage der Identifizierung von solchen Brennstätten wird hier neu angesprochen. Das Brennen von Keramik ist die wahrscheinlichste Deutung für diesen Typ von Struktur, obschon die Herstellung von Kalk auch in Betracht gezogen wurde. Translation by Madeleine Hummler
Stichworte: Neolithikum, Griechenland, gedeckter Meiler, Erdbau, Mikromorphologie