HESPERIA 78 (2OO9) WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC Pages 165-194 THESSALY

A Case Study

ABSTRACT

Cross-cultural archaeological and ethnographic evidence forwarfare in us farming societies invites to reconsider the traditional picture of theGreek as a Neolithic (ca. 7000-3400 B.C.) period of peaceful coexistence among subsistence farmers.Archaeological correlates of intercommunal conflict in the prehistoricAmerican Southwest and thewidespread evidence forwarfare inNeolithic Europe suggest thatwarfare is also likely to have taken place in Neolithic Greece. The well-known Neolithic record forThessaly reveals evi in dence for warfare defensive structures, weapons, and settlement patterns. Competition for resources such as arable land, grazing rights, and water may have contributed to the causes ofGreek Neolithic warfare.

Did warfare exist inNeolithic Greece?1 The question is difficult to answer because early warfare, apart from Bronze Age warfare, has received rela tively little attention fromAegean prehistorians.2 It is unlikely, however, we thatwarfare began abruptly with the Bronze Age, and believe that it is to reasonable trace the roots ofwarfare back to theNeolithic period. Until was was recently, it thought thatwarfare negligible in prehistoric times, but new on research prehistoric warfare, along with warfare among contempo rary foragers and farmers around theworld, challenges this view.3An ever case a increasing number of studies have created consensus that prehistoric was in warfare widespread the Old World in general, and specifically in Neolithic Europe.4 Indeed, ifwarfare could be shown not to be present in Greek Neolithic society, in light of current research on Neolithic warfare an in Europe, Greece would represent anomalous exception. On the basis

1.We would like to erature on thankPriscilla prehistoric warfare: e.g., theOld World, seeVend 1984;Gat and Eliza their Murray McClennen for Keeley 1996; Carman andHarding 1999,2006; Young 2005; Guilaine and and and also the anon drawings maps, 1999; LeBlanc 1999,2006; Kelly 2000; Zammit 2005; Golitko and Keeley reviewers ymous Hesperia who helped LeBlanc and Register 2003; Christen 2007; and Parkinson andDuffy 2007, us to refine our sen 2004. the con arguments. pp. 114-115, where growing 2. Renfrew Drews 4. For case sensus See, e.g., 1972; studies, see, e.g., Roper among European prehistorians 1993. 1975;Villa et al. 1986; Keeley and for Neolithic warfare is summarized. 3. a There is large and growing lit Cahen 1989; Christensen 2004. For

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens l66 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

of the emerging understanding of prehistoric warfare, and in agreement a with Parkinson and Duffy, who argue for continental-scale, cross-cultural study of this topic, we believe an evaluation of the existence ofwarfare in theGreek Neolithic is both desirable and timely.5 we mean To begin, what do by prehistoric warfare? A number of definitions ofwarfare have been formulated that apply to societies at levels of socioeconomic organization below that of states,which in theAegean our emerge only after theNeolithic. In keeping with objective of dealing we with the less complex, village-based Neolithic agriculturalists, follow in as use Christensen defining warfare "the of organized lethal force by one group against another independent group."6 This definition ismore at succinct than others, and, least when it is applied to early agricultural not ists, avoids the usual, but useful, anthropological distinction between "primitive" and "civilized" warfare.7 This definition of warfare recognizes that force is sanctioned by society and that it is this sanctioning of force as that distinguishes warfare from other categories of human conflict such intragroup conflict, vendetta, and murder. This definition does not confine to use warfare the of physical force in conflict, but embraces the patterned war and recurring events connected with the preparation for in personnel training, themanufacture ofweapons, and the building of fortifications. It also addresses the hierarchical social structure that permits the specializa tion of individuals aswarriors, and the consequences of conflict, such as the or destruction of settlements the displacement of populations. We believe as as that the perceived threat of warfare is important actual combat for a interpreting the archaeological record, because perceived threatmay result in the same material correlates?such as fortificationwalls orweapons?as those resulting fromwarfare. on Research prehistoric warfare is hindered by the inherent difficul ties involved in identifying the specific characteristics of the prehistoric can archaeological record that be connected with conflict. Our approach was s case warfare in theAmeri inspired by LeBlanc study of prehistoric can Southwest,8 where environmental and cultural conditions are similar a to those in Neolithic Greece. LeBlanc identified number of specific serve as or archaeological features that material correlates proxy evidence for the existence ofwarfare. These include, but are not limited to,particular classes of artifacts, skeletal pathologies, sex ratios inmortuary data, specific site locations, internal site structures, fortifications, differential histories of sites within clusters, and regional settlement patterns, particularly those or exhibiting clusters of sites separated by open territories, "no-mans-lands." can in other of the United Many of these features be identified regions States, such as the northwest coast and the eastern United States,9 but it of sites in theAmerican is the quality of the preservation archaeological sort Southwest thatmakes this region ideal for this of study.

5. Parkinson andDuffy 2007. Our 10: "armed combat between political a contribution toward other definitions are dis study is regional communities"; an seems to be a LeBlanc understanding of what cussed by and Register (2003). in 8. LeBlanc 1999. general social phenomenon Europe. 6. Christensen 2004, pp. 129-130. 9. Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 7. See, e.g., Otterbein 2004, pp. 9 1997;Milner 1999. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 167

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON NEOLITHIC WARFARE IN THESSALY

we For this study applied the archaeological correlates forwarfare derived from the study of theAmerican Southwest to theNeolithic in easternThes saly (Fig. 1). The comparison is relevant because of themany similarities between Neolithic Thessaly and theAmerican Southwest: levels of social on complexity based small villages, typically smaller than 4 hectares (ha), with populations probably under 500 individuals; villages with architectural forms consisting of rectangular domestic structures of adobe brick or stone; on a economies based agricultural production using digging sticks; technol on ogy based flaked- and ground-stone implements; and the production use and of handmade pottery.The environmental settings are also similar. are Thessaly and theAmerican Southwest arid regionswhere human settle ment on or is dependent perennial rivers other hydrographically favored to water localities supply for agricultural production. reason at Another for looking Thessaly is the long history of archaeo logical research there.10After more than a century of research, there are more eastern many known sites, than 400 in Thessaly alone.11These sites are low flat mounds or tells high (locally called magoules) widely inter as preted the remains of permanently settled villages of 1-4 ha in size (Fig.2).12 The consensus on history of research reveals that the archaeological the of existence Neolithic warfare has swung back and forth, largely in concert with the popularity of theoretical models of cultural processes. A review of our this research will help place study in its sociological context. At the beginning of the 20th century, the consensus was that Neo was a lithicThessaly peaceful place. As the result of their surveys and test excavations, Wace and Thompson concluded that early in the Neolithic "as far as can yet be known, the first inhabitants ofNorth-Eastern Greece an lived uneventful life free from foreign invasion and more or less at peace themselves."13Wace and among Thompson acknowledged that during the transition in their to from, terminology,Neolithic A Neolithic B, the early of coexistence period peaceful ended. They write: a [the period] ends in great upheaval, many sites are abandoned, new styles of pottery suddenly make their appearance, and Northern Greece no a longer possesses uniform culture extending from end to end.... The at once ware a question arises isDhimini rapid 10. or the result of an inroad See, e.g.,Wace and Thompson indigenous growth [?]... [a] general 1912. to wares resemblance other painted inThrace points to invasion 11. See, e.g.,Theocharis 1973, thewalls of Dhimini the an [and are] mark of invading race,who pp. 33-110; 1974; Papathanassopou came and meant to stay.14 los 1996, pp. 49-68; Halstead 1999b; Perles 2001, pp. 121-151. It is evident that forWace and Thompson Neolithic culture was es 12.Gallis 1992. static and that was sentially change induced by exogenous forces in the 13.Wace andThompson 1912, form of or invasions of new This view of cultural p. 242. migrations peoples. was but in it 14.Wace andThompson 1912, change widespread among European prehistorians, Thessaly 242-243. can be traced in to the use Wace pp. part by and Thompson of the chronology 15. Tsountas 1908. developed by Tsountas.15 Tsountas divided theThessalian Neolithic into l68 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

> ?_^Magoula< \,"r1*F"v' V^.. OtzakU /?\ \ Aegean Sea Plateia c i Ma9oula - . Larisa ?ft J>\ .\ \V Magoula j ? Zarkoutn^^-Ty-' f IV \ ?/l / Thessaly \ * ( /\Hatzimissiotiki\* 2) ,f- X ji ^ A *V. Magoula \ /-^ ^ i* \ / \\ \ iflBBv\

/ Sesklo# J 1 \ \ V Petromagoula'S'^BVoldi x-r~v |KHL\ V Jh i^ppp^ ( )-^_ /JAchiNeionT^) Pefkakia^

^SiLl" 1 j ^/_? +K_i__\ EMcC2008\

i) 1 \ Sitagroi\*^--pso \ Macedonia o _/ ^ \

^ , S ^ Thessaly^

fj r*^~\n

K Argolid _v S7Keos> a? ^3 , f

Melos S & ^I ^tSL *s/ 0 80 Miles a (\ !=F^-' ^ 0 80 Km S\ I

MEDITERRANEAN SEA-^^-^ _EMcC2008

Figure 1.Maps showing the prin cipal Greek sites and locations mentioned in the text. E. McClennen WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 169

' j^^^-^^^v,..^.. , '>'^aMiWIMililBBBUI

Figure 2. View of the easternThessa two B Photo C.N. Runnels undated Neolithic A (nowMiddle Neolithic) and Neolithic lianplain. phases, (now Late Neolithic), a scenario thatwas later amended to include a Pre a Sesklo culture corresponding to the Early Neolithic and Post-Dimini culture corresponding to the Final Neolithic.16 This initial two-part scheme contributed to the widespread assumption that invasion and migration were to necessary explain cultural change. This broad chronology with to to only two very different cultural phases seemed Wace and Thompson a to an result from complete cultural break fromNeolithic A Neolithic B, abrupt transition that suggested the succession of unrelated archaeological cultures. cen Our review of the literature suggests that archaeologists in the 20th to as tury continued regard Neolithic Thessaly uncomplicated and peace ful, at least as far as internal affairswere concerned. Thus, any evidence for warfare such as weapons, fortifications, or burned settlements that turned or up in the course of excavation could be attributed to invaders immigrants. The tendency to explain cultural change through invasions and migrations? was events as which certainly justified by historical such the folkmigrations or of theHuns Visigoths in antiquity, and by apparently abrupt changes in the archaeological record?persisted throughout the 20th century, and was especially popular in southeast Europe.17 are sources Although invasions and migrations indeed of cultural to change at times, the abrupt changes inmaterial culture evident Tsountas, nature Wace, and Thompson inNeolithic Thessaly reflect the incomplete and the of research. in the ar 16.Weinberg 1970, pp. 572-575. of the archaeological record paucity Gaps 17. Parkinson and were to Duffy (2007, chaeological record taken indicate abrupt and rapid cultural change 114-115) remindus thatmodels pp. because new forms of decorated ceramics or domestic architecture appeared of invasion and remained migration without antecedent forms. Later of eastern suddenly, generations archaeologists popular among central and found the limited scope of early excavations inadequate for identifying the European prehistorians for much of the numerous small and discontinuous that often charac 20th century,even when theyfell out of stratigraphic layers favor elsewhere. terize deeply stratified tells.The problem of interpreting cultural change CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL. 170 was a was not complicated by the lack of reliable chronology. It possible to challenge the invasion/migration model until the 1950s; with the end ofWorld War II and theGreek civilwar, which had prevented research in a new Thessaly, number of excavations began, bringing finer stratigraphic more control and detailed chronologies.18 to Invasion and migration, however, continued be the preferred expla some nations forNeolithic cultural change inThessaly for time.As Tomkins puts it, "theChildean view ofNeolithic societies, as isolated, self-sufficient entities, lacking social stratification and craft specialization and preoccupied own . . . with the production of their subsistence hugely influenced the was standard view."19Weinberg voicing this standard view when he noted a that "the existence of fortifications in few places inThessaly probably some on newcomers indicates apprehension, possibly the part of who felt it necessary to consolidate their position,"20 and argued that "the varieties of cultures present in different parts ofGreece in the latter half of the fourth new millennium B.C.... are indications both of the arrival of peoples from a new east and north and of the beginning of way of life."21 As late as the 1960s, Vermeule continued to subscribe to the invasion/ on migration model, and in her influential textbook Bronze Age Greece A to she explained changes coinciding with the transition fromNeolithic Neolithic B thus:

a Dimeni [sic]mound, neighbor of Sesklo, represents disruptive event inNeolithic history.... After the long promising develop new eastern ments seen at Sesklo, people invaded the valleys of some never fortified Thessaly; of the established villages, which had were a themselves, were burned, and many overlaid by characteristi cally alien though connected culture.22 a It was only after the 1960s that the two-stage model of peaceful as Sesklo culture being supplanted by the invasive Dimini culture changed the result ofmethodological, theoretical, and chronological developments. as of In methodological terms, noted above, the expansion archaeological research inGreece afterWorld War II and theGreek civilwar contributed new evidence.23 Site surveys and excavations throughout Greece, from in to Lerna and Franchthi Cave Argissa, Otzaki, and Pefkakia Thessaly were in 1970s to construct a new based on in theArgolid, used the system 18. See Gallis 1979. Neolithic Middle Neo four phases of Neolithic culture: the Early (EN), 19.Tomkins 2004, p. 39. lithic(MN), Late Neolithic (LN), andFinal Neolithic (FN).24Although 20.Weinberg 1970, p. 600. scheme is now 21.Weinberg 1970, p. 608. further refinements have been suggested, this four-part 22. Vermeule 1964, p. 14. used.25 widely 23. Theocharis 1973,1974; Gallis and In theoretical terms, scholars in theUnited States United Kingdom 1979. were to models the rise of the influenced abandon invasion/migration by 24.Weinberg 1970. a Demoule and Pedes 1993. New Archaeology, movement that combined evolutionary models, positiv 25. the of cultural 26. (1989, pp. 289-328) ism, andMarxian thought, and that favored interpretation Trigger of the New cultural summarizes the goals as the result of the often gradual action of indigenous change seeWatson, LeBlanc, and The embrace of this new theoretical orientation was in some Archaeology; processes.26 Redman (1971) for a contemporary was because the model abandoned of movement. ways unfortunate, invasion/migration expression this a for cultural and without due consideration; it remains plausible explanation 27. See also Andreou, Fotiadis, one Kotsakis 263-266,297. change, and that requires further examination.27 2001, pp. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY IJ1

was Finally, the division of theNeolithic into four cultural phases sup ported by the expansion of Neolithic chronology by radiocarbon dating. as While Tsountas had difficulty pushing the beginning of the Neolithic farback as 3000 B.C., radiocarbon dating has now shown that theNeolithic to inThessaly began close 7000 B.C.28This expanded chronology made it possible to distinguish long-term patterns of development in architecture, pottery, fictile art, and mortuary customs, in linewith the concept favored was no to by theNew Archaeology that there need invoke abrupt cultural was course breaks between phases. Now there adequate time in the of the to long Neolithic period for the working out of local cultural processes we a produce the changes observe in thematerial record. As consequence was to stress of these developments, Theocharis able cultural continuity in theThessalian Neolithic, although he continued to acknowledge evidence for conflict:

A certain amount of cultural differentiation during the second half an of the period indicates atmosphere of disquiet and disturbance, was which eventually to erupt intomore violent manifestations [with site destructions and abandonments] .29

new The model of endogenous cultural processes did not require in as an tercommunal violence explanation, and after the 1970s theNeolithic was landscape widely understood to be characterized by cultural continu ity and the peaceful coexistence of politically egalitarian societies.30 One new on example of the effect of the model the interpretation ofNeolithic can society be seen in the treatment of thewalls and ditches, often in con centric bands, that encircle Neolithic sites likeArgissa, Sesklo, and Dimini. These features had been interpreted as fortifications for half a century,but were reinterpreted as symbolic features intended to serve ritual purposes, as and markers of space and animal enclosures.31 Archaeologists contin to a ued elaborate model of peaceful local change by assuming that social a conditions predominant inNeolithic Thessaly, region where fluctuations in success due to agricultural microclimatic variation make conflict danger ous and unnecessary, enabled cooperation among communities through sharing, delayed-return obligations, negotiation, social reciprocity, and can were alliances.32 It be argued that peaceful relations in fact required the a by instability of climate that created unequal agricultural yields in Thessaly, with its variations in topography, elevation, and microclimates. Such conditions have may rewarded societies that pursued the sharing of resources and themitigation of conflict, and this in turnmay have led to 28. Pedes 98-120. 2001, pp. communal interaction and bad-year economic strategies of subsistence 29. Theocharis 1974, p. 73. and contacts such as 30. Theocharis 1973; Demoule and recovery performed through peaceful intermarriage, and social Perles 1993;Halstead 1999a, pp. 89 trade, partnership.33 90. This model of communal interaction is useful for explaining some 31. Gallis 1996, 65; Kotsakis of the p. aspects archaeological record and leads to interesting conclusions, 1999, p. 71;Andreou, Fotiadis, and but it of course does not out rule the possibility of violence inNeolithic Kotsakis 2001, pp. 265-266,268,294 In eastern for Halstead notes the of 295. society. Thessaly, instance, tendency Neolithic social structure to become and isolated over time in 32. See, e.g., Halstead 1999a. segmented terms of 33. Halstead 1999a, p. 90. physical space.34The structuring of domestic spaces suggests that 34. Halstead 79. familial areas were to 1999a, p. partitioned separate them from communal spaces, 172 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

areas were or a with the result that village subdivided by ditches walls, move he associates with the contemporary segmentation of decorative on moves were motifs pottery.These symbolic calculated to signal the "less inclusive nature of Late Neolithic hospitality."35 In short, the assessment of Neolithic cultural change due to violence in the form of invasions and was was a migrations ultimately abandoned and replaced with model that as stressed cultural change the result of endogenous social processes, largely peaceful in nature.

NEOLITHIC WARFARE IN THESSALY

come We believe that the time has to revisit the question of violence in we are Greek Neolithic culture. As noted in the introduction, guided by previous research into warfare in the prehistoric American Southwest. Strong material correlates in the archaeological record for the presence of warfare include walls and ditches, particularly those with gates suitable for a controlling passage into and within site; skeletal remains with indications of violence; the presence ofweapons; and the separation of groups of sites or no-man's-lands.36 by unoccupied territories,

Walls, Ditches, and Gates

as a at Features interpreted having military function have been identified many European Neolithic sites.37These features include perimeter walls of or stone mud brick, palisades, ditches, baffle gates, flanking buttresses, wall are as in projections, and towers. Such features often described defensive nature, although this explanation is not universally accepted.We acknowl are for edge that there many alternative social and symbolic explanations can some of these features, and only agree with Parkinson and Duffy that ar "themain interpretive conclusion to be drawn from the last 20 years of on is that is chaeological research enclosures and fortifications there none."38 a features is not or Although single explanation for any of these possible, as a indeed necessary, warfare an explanation is still strong possibility, and indeed is now widely accepted by European prehistorians.39 are We argue here thatwalls and ditches inThessaly indeed fortifica tions, but we cannot exclude entirely the possibility of symbolic roles for we are these same features.Nevertheless, persuaded by Parkinson and Duffy, commu 35. Halstead 80. who argue that there are reasons for connecting the appearance of 1999a, p. 36. LeBlanc 1999, 43-91. constructed features likewalls and ditches inNeolithic Europe with pp. nally 37. and Cahen as Keeley 1989; Keeley, the emergence of segmentary social units such descent groups, and their Fontana, andQuick 2007; Parkinson attendant institutions inNeolithic societies?a pattern that they extend andDuffy 2007. across the entire continent of Neolithic from Greece Europe.40 Although 38. Parkinson andDuffy 2007, domes walls and ditches may have servedmany functions, frommundane pp. 112-113. to uses as 39. Parkinson and 2007, tic tasks such as controlling themovement of animals symbolic Duffy and pp. 114-116. representations of boundaries, many archaeologists, anthropologists, 40. Parkinson andDuffy 2007, historians strongly associate them with military defense.41 military pp. 100-105. It ishard to that some were defensive ditches imagine villages building 41. Keeley and Cahen 1989; Saville were same and walls while their contemporaries using these constructions 2002; Tinevez 2002; Keeley,Fontana, we must ask how we know that and 2007. for completely different purposes, and Quick IN WARFARE NEOLITHIC THESSALY 173

ditches and walls were in fact intended for defense. For broad swaths of

Neolithic Europe, the military functions of ditches and walls have been 4 At least 70% of the Neolithic Linearbandkera s. argued convincingly. Early are 100 mik (LBK) sites in central Europe, for instance, enclosed with ditches m m \0 averaging 2.8 inwidth and 1.6 in depth, and 54% of these enclosures as have baffle gates, that is, openings with defensive arrangements such to dogleg shapes designed prevent easy access.42 In addition, Golitko and note or Keeley that the LBK ditches typically have V- Y-shaped sections as more that "are impractical for any domestic purpose, they erode quickly X aremore to an than any other form and difficult dig, but... represent ideal form for purposes of defence against human attack."43Enclosures, whether or ditches, palisades, walls, some combination of these, are certain to be of or military significancewhen theyhave complex gate opening arrangements as or such offsets, doglegs, screens, all of which are identified by military as historians and archaeologists alike "classic defensive features at numerous across sites stretching thousands of years of history."44 or a In Thessaly, walls, ditches, combination of the two encircle many sites, at least partially.Argissa, on the northern bank of the Peneios River, same and SoufliMagoula, Arapi Magoula, and Otzaki, in the general area, on have concentric ditches the outer edges of the settlements similar to those found elsewhere inGreece, for example, at Servia, Nea Nikomedeia, and Makriyalos inMacedonia.45 Two concentric ditches encircle the EN site of Nea Nikomedeia, but the limited excavated area prevents detailed on analysis of their function.46The LN site ofMakriyalos the northern our area two edge of study has ditches that appear to be defensive in na m ture.47The inner ditch (Alpha) averages 4.5 inwidth and is 3.5-4.5 m and the outer narrower J deep, ditch (Beta) is somewhat but is equally deep (Fig. 3). Both ditches have V-shaped sections. The published plan a shows number of openings in the two ditches offset in a way that can be 3. Neolithic ditches atMakri as In was Figure interpreted serving defensive purposes.48 addition, ditch Alpha P.M. after was over yalos. Drawing Murray, Pappa strengthened by adobe and stone walls. Alpha created a number and Besios 1999, p. 115, fig. 7.6 (inset) as a were of years series of deep pits that eventually connected, and itwas also used for were the disposal of the dead.49 Corpses thrown "carelessly into . . . the ditch and left there without any special treatment."50The are fragmentary human skeletons in the ditch represented by scattered disarticulated bones from at least 50-60 individuals?males and females? all causes of ages.51 Although the of death of theMakriyalos dead have not been ascertained, similar accumulations of human bone in ditches are attested inLBK are as widely Europe, where they interpreted particularly convincing evidence forwarfare.52

42. Golitko and 47. and Besios 113 which Keeley 2007, p. 338; Pappa 1999, pp. may have involved competition Fontana, and Quick 2007. 115. between social units in the Keeley, community; 43. Golitko and 48. Besios Keeley 2007, Pappa and 1999, p. 113, they emphasize that the process of cre 337. 7.4. p. fig. ating these ditches could have been as 44. Golitko and 337. 49. and Kotsakis as the finished Keeley 2007, p. Andreou, Fotiadis, significant product. 45. andYiouni Kokkini Pyke 1996; (2001, pp. 294-295) discuss the epi 50. Pappa and Besios 1999, p. 116. dou andNikolaidou sodic natureof at 1999;Andreou, thedigging the site, 51.Triantaphyllou 1999, pp. 129 Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 2001. and, followingHodder (1992, pp. 232 130. 46. andYiouni 39 on Pyke 1996, pp. 233), theyspeculate the symbolic 52. Golitko andKeeley 2007, 3.3. and social 53, fig. functions of such activities, pp. 334-335. CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL. 174

k \ J\ 0 _10

Figure 4. Plan of theNeolithic \ Adefensive walls at Sesklo in the ?;Middle Neolithic. DrawingP. M. _? Murray, afterTheocharis 1973, fig. 177

most The best-known and controversial fortifications inThessaly may stone at be the walls Sesklo and Dimini. At MN Sesklo the acropolis ap pears to be enclosed bywalls, although the site ismuch disturbed by later a on Neolithic construction (Fig. 4). Notable is baffle gate the side of the site not protected by the deep, steep-sided ravine to the east. The walls were was augmented in the Late Neolithic when the acropolis remodeled a was are and large central megaron constructed (Fig. 5). The walls up to m 1.5 thick and equally high.Tsountas, who excavated the Sesklo acropolis more a than century ago, provides few details about the construction of thesewalls orwhether he found any evidence for substantial superstructures or in the form of adobe pise, but he was nevertheless convinced that the a on most walls served defensive purpose.53 Based the available plans, the are noteworthy features of these walls the baffle gate in the earlier phase on and the heavier wall the landward slope (i.e., the part of the acropolis town that faced the lower to the south, rather than the steep-sided ravine on to the east), which served to separate the structures the highest part of the site from the lower town. It is perhaps also significant that the site shows signs of extensive burning.54 a At LN Dimini, the acropolis is ringed with walls that encircle small 53.Theocharis 1973, pp. 65-68, domestic 6). These concentric walls are compound (Fig. ring pierced by fig.177, and passim; andAndreou, narrow entrances or which were means of narrow gateways, negotiated by Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 2001, p. 263. stone-lined to small that access into a 54. Theocharis 5-7. walkways leading openings gave 1973, figs. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY J.75

//jny

'

5. Plan of theNeolithic * Figure \^ x^ ?^ "x defensivewalls at Sesklo in theLate W ?^ Neolithic. Drawing P.M. Murray, after Theocharis1973, fig. 186 I_?

maze of domestic compounds and intramural spaces.55 These openings are could have been intended for defense.56 Particularly notable the baffle at gates that protect the openings in thewalls the northern and southern a ends, and two on the west (perhaps with remains of fifth in the south entrances have been east quadrant). If attacked, these small could easily defended; in addition, theywould have confused outsiders and provided inhabitants with multiple exits. a at but Tsountas proposed defensive function for thewalls Dimini, was this view seriously challenged by the work of Hourmouziadis, who reexcavated the site in the 1970s. Hourmouziadis rejected the defensive on he could find explanation partly the basis of his archaeological findings: no evidence that thewalls had been capped by superstructures of any kind, not out erosion although he could rule the removal of such evidence by 55. For see Theocharis 1973, plans, and Tsountas's excavations. He also his in the context of 176-188. placed findings figs. Marxian that fortifications would a stratified soci 56. See especiallyTheocharis 1973, theory, arguing imply a he because he believed that social fig. 185. ety in theNeolithic, finding rejected 57. Hourmouziadis see also as 1979; stratification was not part of the "Neolithic mode of production," he the inAndreou, English summary called it.57In the years since Hourmouziadis published the results of his Fotiadis, andKotsakis 2001, p. 265, of Dimini, the debate about the function of thewalls has n.34. reinvestigation with scholars either a defensive function 58. For further discussion and continued, embracing military or Hourmouziadis in them as used details, see also Andreou, Fotiadis, for them, following seeing partitions n. no andKotsakis 2001, p. 266, 37. to organize space within the community.58We have hope of settling CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL. 176

' ? ' , ''''

m ^ V NFigure 6. Plan ofthe Neolithic defensivewalls atDimini. ^ Drawing P.M. afterTheocharis 1973, 0_20 Murray, ?fig. 185, and Papathanassopoulos 1996, _-1 p. 56,fig. 11

this issue here, which is at heart one of theoretical perspective, almost a matter of faith, but only urge the necessity of viewing Dimini and its walls within the wider European context of fortifications and enclosures, monumental constructions with both military and symbolic functions that have been linked to the emergence of complex segmentary societies and their emergent institutions.59 Other Thessalian sites have walls with stone foundations and adobe or pise superstructures arranged in complex concentric patterns. Petroma the low goula, for example, has houses surrounded by circuit walls, and a east a mound of Ayia Sophia has mudbrick walls forming gateway of a In large central building and ditch surrounding the magoula.60 addition we or to features noted in publications, have observed unpublished walls ditches at otherThessalian sites, such as an undated stonewall surrounding are no a n. Plateia Magoula Zarkou. Even where there known fortifications, 59. See 4, above. It isworth thatParkinson and still-unstudied aspect of site location inThessaly is the choice of strategic noting Duffy (2007, as on p. 101, fig.6) includeDimini in their defensible settings for sites such Pefkakia, which is situated the rocky discussion of fortifications and of a the Gulf of Volos. slope promontory overlooking in enclosures European prehistory. inmind thatwalls and ditches had uses Bearing undoubtedly many 60. See Andreou, Fotiadis, and some we the that changed through time, of them symbolic, conclude that Kotsakis 2001, pp. 265-266,271,274 preponderance of evidence for their sizes, arrangements, and baffle gates 275, for summary and references. IN THESSALY WARFARE NEOLITHIC IJJ

indicates that theNeolithic walls and ditches inThessaly served at least in part formilitary defense. Perhaps it is safest to conclude, in the absence of a or a a further research, that to build wall to dig ditch is at the very least statement about the abilities and level of preparedness of the community to an trust defend itself, and is also expression of the level of they had in were their neighbors. The walls and ditches perhaps intended by their very as existence to discourage attacks from happening in the firstplace, much as were to they used ward off actual physical confrontation.

Skeletal Remains with Indications of Violence

Mortuary data would be very useful for assessing Neolithic warfare, par cases are ticularly in where there high rates of trauma evident among the dead, since cross-cultural studies have shown that is not uncommon inmany traditional societies for a quarter of adult males to die inwar.61 traces a Unfortunately, violent deaths leave in the skeletal remains in only cases. a minority of For example, careful study of deaths in battles between Native Americans and U.S. soldiers in the American West showed that a arrow fewer than third of deaths from wounds left recognizable skeletal evidence.62Milner argues that this is probably typical for battle deaths in general, and that the number ofwarfare deaths from all causes was much greater than the proportion that produces skeletal evidence. This may have been the case in the in Neolithic, where the LBK culture of central Europe or the percentage of individuals who suffered traumatic injuries show signs of violent death (e.g., unhealed head wounds from blunt trauma) reaches staggeringly high proportions of 20%, and even more than 30% when the traumaswere not to men confined young of fighting age but included adults and children who had suffered violent deaths.63 Our efforts to to apply these findings the assessment of mortality in the Thessalian Neolithic were unsuccessful because the burial practices, which included cremations, secondary burials, and hard-to-detect extra mural did not cemeteries, produce enough data for analysis.64 Primary interments are too scarce to causes permit the study of the of mortality. There is a circumstantial evidence, however, to suggest that larger skeletal sample would yield interesting evidence for violence, and we include the as an following discussion only illustration of the line that future research to test might take the hypothesis ofNeolithic warfare. Two male crania from the FN site of Kephala on Keos have wounds, one a with shallow depression in the rear area of the skull vault, and the a other with penetration wound. The second skull had healed cuts around the wound "as if to remove a projectile point."65 Angel explained the wounds as the result of "hostile action" rather than accidental injury. In a later of this Fowler 61. LeBlanc and Register 2003, p. 8. study site, describes the unique burial circumstances 62.Milner 2005. of two other adult both ofwhom to males, appear have been dropped into 63. Golitko and 2007, soon after Keeley grave pits death.66 One of the individuals was positioned with pp. 335-336. his legs bent beneath his body, and the other was laid on his chestwith one 64. Gallis 1979,1982; Jacobsen and flexed toward his head. no are visible on these Cullen 1981, pp. 88-96. leg Although pathologies the burial of the which 65.Angel 1977, p. 136. remains, haphazard individuals, Fowler estimates 66. Fowler occurred within 12 hours of is 2004, p. 94. death,67 consistent with the hypothesis that 67. Fowler 94. were 2004, p. they victims of violence. CURTIS N. ET 178 RUNNELS AL.

The skeletal material from LN-FN Alepotrypa Cave in southern Greece also exhibits levels of trauma thatmight be related towarfare.68 The examination of 69 individuals from burial deposits, mostly containing cranial bones, revealed that 13% of the individuals exhibited healed depressed cranial fractures, a percentage not out of line with what is known for the rest of one Europe in this period. For ossuary in the cave, Papathanasiou, Larsen, and Norr note that "all fractures are small, circular, and well-healed at the time of death, and are found in adult males and females and sub-adults."69 Some individuals showmultiple fractures,mosdy nonlethal.The appearance of thewounds suggests that blows had been dealt inmuch the same way sex or regardless of the victim's age, though the evidence for trauma ismore seem us prevalent among males. The size and shape of sling bullets to to so match the fractures, and could have been responsible for this pattern of a trauma.70Also fromAlepotrypa is burial where the victim appears to have a cause suffered from large, unhealed head wound, possibly the of death.71 even Overall, the astonishing range of variability in the small available mortuary sample from Greece makes any interpretation very difficult.72 cases are The cited here not dissimilar to prehistoric assemblages from are comparable times and places where levels of violence correlated with resources stress competition for and population that suggest warfare?for example, in theAmerican Southwest, where evidence for skeletal trauma, though low, is present.73

Weapons

Ifwarfare existed inNeolithic times, one would expect to findweapons in raw the archaeological record. Unfortunately, the forms and materials of can in quotidian implements and military weapons and do overlap size, form, and function, further complicating the identification of military a equipment. An edged blade of copper with evidence of hafting could be or a dagger the head for thrusting spear used inwarfare, but could equally or to have been used for display, hunting, butchery. It is easy imagine the same implement serving both military and nonmilitary functions during its active use life.As a consequence, archaeologists tend to avoid interpret as as ingNeolithic artifacts weapons when alternative explanations such are to hand. For our hunting, butchery, and agricultural functions ready we was to evaluation of the hypothesis of prehistoric warfare, felt it useful in what ask a simple question: ifNeolithic Thessalians engaged warfare, are numerous Neolithic weapons would they have used? There possible bullets of military weapons, including flaked-stone projectile points, sling mace stone and axes and clay and stone, stone heads, polished axes, copper knives, all ofwhich are considered below.74

71. Fowler 75. Unfortu also and 1985 and 68. Papathanasiou 2001, pp. 35-36, 2004, p. Allen,Merbs, Birkby is now and Turner and Turner 1999. 43, 90, fig. 12; also pp. 58-59, table 7. nately, this skull missing and Norr this observation cannot be verified 74. are illustrated 69. Papathanasiou, Larsen, Many examples and described in the in 2000, p. 218. (A. Papathanasiou, pers. comm.). catalogues and 72. and Cullen Theocharis 1973 and 70. Papathanasiou, Larsen, See, e.g., Jacobsen Papathanasso 1996. Norr 2000, p. 220, fig.6; Papathanasiou 1981; Cullen 1995. poulos see 2001, p. 90, fig. 12. 73. LeBlanc 1999, pp. 83-91; WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 179

Figure 7.Neolithic stone projectile pointsfrom Franchthi Cave. Projectile Points Drawing P.M. Murray, after Pedes 2004, stone pp. 94, 111, 125,126, figs. 8.4,10.3,11.5, To judge from the large number of small projectile points with notches 11.6 we assume and tangs for hafting known from Greek Neolithic sites, that arrow was some the bow and known. The large size of projectile points, or were similarly fitted for hafting, suggests that spears javelins also used. Neolithic projectile points of flint, obsidian, quartz, and other materials are a some found in wide variety of types (Fig. 7).75There is chronological to patterning these types, from tranchets in the earlier phases to tanged, shouldered, and triangular forms in later phases. Although the smaller as as typeswould have been used points for arrows, larger examples such the triangular points illustrated here could well have served,when hafted, as or spearheads knife blades. Were any of these points used forwarfare inNeolithic Thessaly? Con text a as is poor guide here, the distribution and association of projectile case points have only rarely been published, and in any the sample sizes are small because of the small soundings made in most Thessalian sites. The archaeological record of all regions of Greece suggests thatNeolithic arrowheads were less common in the earliest Neolithic, but became more common in theMiddle Neolithic and later.76 It is interesting that the production of stone arrowheads inGreece continued, with some modifi cations in form, to the end of the Bronze Age. The apparent continuity use at in the of arrowheads Bronze Age Lerna in theArgolid prompted to so was Runnels ask why thiswould be ifhunting of limited economic as importance, indicated by the low representation ofwild species among at the faunal remains that site.77In Thessaly, during theNeolithic, hunting was or certainly of less importance than in the Palaeolithic Mesolithic, with 75. See, e.g., Diamant 1977; Tor bones fromwild animals typically forming less than 8% of the total faunal rence 1991, 182,183, 7.5, 7.6; pp. figs. assemblage, while at Pefkakia, the size of the largest available prey, red deer, Demoule and Perles 1993, p. 374, fig.6; decreased at the end of theNeolithic, suggesting a less favorable habitat for see also pp. 382-383. wild At the same time, the size and of 76. Demoule and Perles 1993, game.78 variability projectile points increased across and we conclude that these artifactswere not pp. 393-394. Greece,79 77. Runnels 1985, p. 381, n. 29. specialized for hunting. 78.Halstead a are 1999a, pp. 84-85, In similar fashion, large projectile points associated with LBK table 5.1. western a assemblages in Europe, where hunting also shows steady decline 79. See cited in n. examples 75, and the of burial trauma and fortification is above. frequency highest.80 Likewise, inNeolithic are found embedded in human 80.Golitko and Keeley 2007, p. 340. France, projectile points bones, as a 81.Guilaine and Zammit 2005, with unhealed traumas result, and they appear in patterns and frequen pp. 124-157. cies thatmake it likely that thewounds were the result ofwarfare.81 l8o CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

Figure 8.Neolithic sling bullets from Sesklo. Drawing P.M. Murray, afterTheo charis 1973, fig. 274

Sling Bullets

was Another possible Neolithic weapon the sling. Biconical sling bullets stone are common on of both and clay Greek Neolithic sites (Fig. 8).82 Neolithic sling bullets resemble Classical examples in size, weight, and we were shape, and know that Classical sling bullets used inwarfare.83 mass a a The of typical Greek Neolithic sling bullet fallswithin range of ca. 20-45 g.84 This range is similar to that observed by Zangemeister in his survey of Classical sling bullets found at sites in Sicily and Italy, mass a where the of bullet varies from 24 to 47 g.85The finding of caches on of sling bullets Neolithic sites (e.g., 158 at Rakhmani, 110 at Sesklo, were and 130 atTsangli) further supports the likelihood that slings used as weapons.86 Also significant is the shape of the typicalNeolithic sling bullet. Neo lithic bullets are biconical or ovoid, and like the biconical bullets of Clas are raw sical times designed for precision throwing.87The preferred mate was rial for Classical sling bullets lead, while theirNeolithic forerunners were or typically made of sun-dried clay, terracotta, stone.88Despite the similarity of the Neolithic sling bullets to Classical weapons, it has been were suggested that the Neolithic versions used for peaceful, utilitarian purposes rather than forwarfare. Perles argues that clay sling bullets were as used missiles by shepherds to control their flock, basing her argument on chiefly the fragility of sun-baked clay,which she believes is impracti use as a can cal for weapon inwarfare.89 This argument be countered by Korfmanns suggestion that the accuracy of sling bullets in combat was

were 82. See, e.g.,Childe 1951; Foss their manufacture, i.e., clay and stone, width) provided,0.6 of thewidth 1974. For illustrationsof slingbullets at were based on data available from was substituted for "thickness" in the see substitution is Sesklo, Theocharis 1973, fig.274. www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm formula. This supported 83. This function is evident from (accessed 2008). The estimationof by thedata forClassical slingbullets mass mass = x inscribed specimens that say "Your heart assumed that density collectedby Foss (1974): the thickness for Cerberus!" or "Take this!" or even volume/1,000. Volume [V] was calcu of thebullets was found to be typically "Ouch!"; see Korfmann 1973, p. 39. lated forbiconical bulletswith one of 60% of thewidth. 84.We the mass of two on num 85. 141. estimated Neo formulas, depending the Zangemeister 1885, p. on were lithic slingbullets thebasis of their ber of dimensions that given. 86.Tsountas 1908, pp. 327-329, Wace and dimensions, typicallylength and width When threedimensions (length [1], and passim; Thompson 1912, as in were (i.e., diameter), given publications width [w], and thickness[th]) pp. 43, 70-73,125; Pritchett1975, as was such Tsountas 1908, Wace and provided, the formula used pp. 39-42. Thompson 1912, Papathanassopoulos 87. Pritchett 1975, p. 43. 1996, and Pedes 2001. The relative v=n(k^pth) 88. Pritchett1975, p. 43. densities of the raw materials used for When only twodimensions (lengthand 89. Perles 2001, pp. 228-232. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY l8l

in fact improved by the choice of sun-baked clay, rather than terracotta or as raw use stone, a material.90 Korfmann argued that the of sun-baked clay aided in the standardization of the bullets' weight and shape, allow ing the slinger to keep his throw consistent. He proposed thatNeolithic were clay bullets sun-baked without temper or chaff in order tomaximize as their density and hardness, fired claywould crack upon impactwith hard a was objects; Korfmann also held that the preference for biconical shape to intended improve accuracy, distance, and velocity.91 are In the Neolithic Near East, sling bullet assemblages sufficiently common to in contexts of destruction and sieges that archaeologists point as use these assemblages evidence for themilitary of slings.92 Sling bullets are as often found in large caches, such those at Umm Dabaghiyah93 and at over Tel Sabi Abyad, where "along the court wall opposite the entrance a thousand slingmissiles of unbaked claywere found, all stored in narrow, near rounded containers sunk into the floor,"94 suggesting their storage use defensive walls in preparation for their against military attack.While the numbers of sling bullets inNear Eastern caches are greater than those seems found inNeolithic Thessaly, the function of the caches similar.Chap man on also argues for the defensive function of stockpiles of sling bullets Neolithic Balkan sites.95 In the are as subsequent Early Bronze Age, sling bullet assemblages at some sociated with destruction horizons Greek sites, including Korphi on t'Aroniou and Panermos Naxos, suggesting that slings continued to be into used post-Neolithic times.96We assume, following Vutiropulos, that the form of theNeolithic sling bullet endured because itwas the ideal form to deliver a destructive effect.97 we In sum,when compare the size and shape ofGreek Neolithic clay sling bullets with later examples, and consider the seems were relatively large caches inwhich they occur, it likely that they not as war. in fact used primarily, if exclusively, weapons of

Axes and Mace Heads

are Other potential Neolithic weapons that await detailed analysis ground stone axes mace and polished (celts) and perforated heads. It is undeniable that if as celts, hafted, would have been effective battle-axes (Fig. 9:a). It is hard to demonstrate the use of celts as weapons in the absence of detailed use studies of context, hafting, and wear, but there is circumstantial evidence for the use stone axes as of weapons inNeolithic Europe, deduced from the numbers of to large unhealed traumas, particularly blows the skull, in 90. Korfmann 38-39. 1973, pp. the LBK.98 91. Korfmann 1973, p. 39. The other and stone is the 92. Pritchett 1975, p. 43; Korfmann potential ground polished weapon perforated stone sometimes as a mace 1986. sphere identified head (Fig. 10). One cannot 93. Kirkbride 1982. an alternative use for these a easily suggest objects (although digging-stick 94. Akkermans 1993, p. 63. is one because are numerous weight possibility), there examples made from 95. Chapman 1999. exotic and colorful stones atNeolithic Knossos) that a 96. 282. (e.g., suggest special Vutiropulos 1991, p. value and purpose.99 It is difficult to know how many mace heads occur in 97. Vutiropulos 1991, p. 282. Neolithic because of the of 98. Golitko and Keeley 2007, p. 339. deposits incomplete publication excavations, 99. Evans but occur from Cave in the to 1964, pp. 229-231, they widely, Alepotrypa Mani Thessaly, 52. where more than a dozen of fig. them have been reported fromDimini, Sesklo, l82 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

stone fl / | Figure9. Neolithic (a) ground \ ./ I ax,and (b) copperax (weight714 g), : V both from Sesklo. DrawingsP. M. Murray, V I and J after(a) Theocharis 1973, fig. 267, b Vi/ _ I (b)Papathanassopoulos 1996, p. 290, fig.184

/^^^^ Figure 10.Neolithic ground stone to I mace heads from (left right) I ^. :i I Sesklo,Dimini, and ' xj \ Alepotrypa V. . . >' - - V 4 Cave. Drawing P.M. Murray, after Papa V ^ ... .; .y \. y/ | thanassopoulos1996, pp. 226,240, figs.40,

and Marmariani.100The known maces average about 6-7 cm in diameter, and the use of attractive stones for their manufacture does not rule out use as or their symbols of power rank.The vast numbers of stone objects that have been found by chance in recent years on the Neolithic mounds inThessaly and turned into the Archaeological Museum have yet to be we more mace examined, and predict that many heads will be identified once these collections are studied. 100. See Tsountas 1908, pp. 322 323; and entries in Copper Knives or Daggers catalogue Papatha nassopoulos 1996, pp. 226-221\ no. 40 and we occurrence on axes (G. Papathanassopoulos), p. 240, Finally, also note the Thessalian sites of and daggers no. 65:a-c (A. and of cast with forms similar to Bronze from Moundrea-Agrafioti copper typical Age weapons Z. Malakassioti). theworld Neolithic axes and throughout (Figs. 9:b, ll).101 copper daggers 101. See Renfrew 1972, pp. 308 are not for Bronze numerous, but Zachos lists 17 examples, including specimens from 332, Age examples. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 183

Figure11.Neolithic blades ofcopper /\ / I \ fromAlepotrypa Cave. Drawing P.M. / 'J k\ Murray,after Papathanassopoulos 1996, v^.^??-$0. c> J | p. 228, fig.44 I

our Pefkakia and Sesklo in study area.102 It is probable that many others were melted down. Zachos suggests that theAegean Bronze Age daggers a developed from Neolithic predecessor in an unbroken sequence, an argu ment on based the difference in shape between theGreek specimens and those known from neighboring regions.103

Settlement Patterns and No-Man's-Lands

In the study of prehistoric warfare in the American Southwest, one of most was the persuasive indicators of sustained violence the separation of groups of sites by empty territory,or no-man's-lands.104 No-man's-lands were zones necessary buffer separating groups of settlements that were more or experiencing high levels of less continuous raiding and warfare. zones some The buffer provided protection because they exposed anyone crossing themwithout authorization to detection and provided the defend ers an to opportunity prepare for attack. They also provided places outside to the community for combat take place. Other examples of prehistoric no-mans-lands, voids, empty zdnes, or buffer zones, are known from the Maori, theNew Guinea highlands, Mesoamerica, and the eastern United States.105This pattern, particularly well attested in theAmerican South west, has been found to correlate with endemic warfare in all cases where it has been investigated. We expected, therefore, that groups of sites inNeoUthic Thessaly would be separated by no-mans-lands if the threat ofwarfare was a factor influ settlement An of 102. Zachos 1996, p. 141, fig.40; encing patterns. inspection previously published maps see also catalogue entries in Papatha of the distribution of Neolithic sites inThessaly shows that voids?areas 1996, p. 290, nos. 182-184 are causes?are nassopoulos of landscape that empty due to unexplained present in the (K. L. Zachos), with illustrations. settlement Ifwarfare is not the for these voids, 103. Zachos 1996. pattern.106 explanation why are there?We must with a number of For instance, 104. LeBlanc 1999, pp. 69-73; they begin assumptions. we assume that each individual Neolithic a 2006, pp. 441-449; Adams andDuff magoula represents single village 2004. of closely related individuals.We also assume that the social relations that 105. For these different examples, may have existed between individual Neolithic villages, especially relations see, e.g.,Allen 2006; Heider 1979; based on while among that Marcus and Milner kinship, they encouraged cooperation villages Flannery 1996; were as physically close together,would become weaker the distances be 1999;Dye 2006. tween sites increased.We further assume that for 106. See van Andel and Runnels competition land,water, and would not be as within a 1995, pp. 492-493, figs.9,10; and grazing rights strong among villages group Perles 2.5. are were to 1999, p. 49, fig. of settlements that in close proximity,where kinship ties likely 184 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

over be direct and reasonably strong, but that conflict resources would be more to occur likely between groups of sites separated by open land. us These assumptions permit to conclude that theThessalian empty areas were or in reality buffer zones, no-mans-lands, designed to separate groups of settlements where the ties of kinship were weakest, and social cooperation gave way to conflict.This interpretation of the landscape voids, derived from the study of theAmerican Southwest, is not universally ac a case cepted. InThessaly, for instance,Halstead makes good that the voids or were in the landscape between groups clusters ofNeolithic villages filled as with signs of habitation?such cultivation and evidence of deforestation areas and herding?that anyone entering these open would encounter.107 to These signs, he argues, could have served reinforce kinship bonds and con reciprocal social relationships among villages having direct kinship nections. In Halstead's view, the unoccupied land between site clusters also served to reinforce territorial limits, but he explicitly rejects warfare as an explanation for these open areas.108 It is certainly possible, though, areas that cultivated fields and hunting and grazing could also have served as effective buffer zones. areas To evaluate the different possible explanations for the open of we con landscape inNeolithic Thessaly (see Figs. 12-14, below), must on sider previous work the area's settlement patterns, which have been the subject of study since the time ofTsountas.109 The EN settlement pattern, for example, has recently been studied in detail in connection with the were question of whether the earliest Neolithic farmers inThessaly in or were digenous foragers who developed into farmers, immigrants from outside Greece.110 Van Andel and Runnels concluded that the firstfarmers a who settled inThessaly found the region largely uninhabited, conclusion a supported by the results of survey of the region that targeted sites of pre Neolithic age and found numerous Palaeolithic sites but no trace ofmajor Mesolithic habitation.111 They argued further that the earliest farmers on were free to establish their settlements the most productive lands for a access towater in agriculture, and exhibited preference for the form of on the springs, lakes, and riversbecause their technology depended digging stick for cultivation of relatively small fieldswith mixed crops.With few access to near the competitors?at least initially?for the best soils water, water sources earliest settlers selected locations close to perennial for their settlements. In or other sources ofwater were few, Thessaly, springs point 107. Halstead 1999a, p. 87. were the lowlands around the Peneios which could and the best lands River, 108. Halstead 1999a, p. 89. summer. be relied upon to receive floodwaters from late winter into the 109. See, e.g., Gallis 1979,1992; its water vanAndel and Runnels 1995;Halstead Secondarily, the shorelines of Lake Karla, with fluctuating level, Perles fertile land on a more or less annual basis and attracted settlers. 1999a; 1999,2001. exposed 110.The model: use was EN indigenous Kypa The of river tested by augering below hypothesis floodplain rissi-Apostolika2006; thediffusionist and the results sites to determine the nature of the underlying sediments, model: vanAndel and Runnels 1995; to therewas a for Perles 38-63. appeared confirm that preference floodplain settings.112 2001, pp. from eastern Perles 111.This is in In her analysis of EN settlement data Thessaly, survey reported Runnels vanAndel and Runnels arrived at a somewhat different conclusion. She carried out a nearest 1988; one 1995. of the distribution of from phase within neighbor analysis magoules 112. See van Andel, Gallis, and or she found that the are the EN (Proto-Sesklo, EN 2).113While magoules Toufexis 1994. most is often not one but several closely spaced, "what is characteristic that 113. Perles 1999; 2001, pp. 121 are at same from a 151. nearest neighbours located roughly the distance site, IN WARFARE NEOLITHIC THESSALY 185

a in reticulated, multidirectional pattern."114While noting that the small distances between sites indicate a pattern of dense settlement, her statisti cal tests suggest that EN 2 sites, at least, are neither randomly distributed nor strongly clustered.115 It is important to note, however, that she did not include the "voids," or open areas, between groups of settlements in her was case to test analysis (which in any intended the association of magoules or as with certain types of soil other geographic features such floodplains). was a She concluded from her analysis that there regularity in the distribu tional pattern within the settled areas, but despite widespread archaeological seems survey it that "fundamentally, Early Neolithic 2 settlements avoided some reasons as to a areas, for yet unexplained, but spread according regular c. grid of 2.3 km in all directions around and between these areas."116Perles's distribution maps for the EN 2 show clearly the tendency for groups of the to a magoules be separated by large empty areas, pattern that can be seen also on van themaps provided by Andel and Runnels in their earlier study.117 were Empty spaces settled only gradually in later phases of theNeolithic, at as if all, site numbers, and presumably population, increased through we some time. As shall see, of the voids remained unsettled throughout as the Neolithic for "reasons yet unexplained." Previous studies ofThessalian Neolithic settlement patterns have not considered the effects of warfare on the distribution of sites.To do so, it to a is useful begin with reconsideration of Sahlins's pithy dictum that "maximum dispersion is the settlement pattern of the state of nature."118 This in a suggests that, theory, large, relatively uniform, plain like the east ern a more or Thessalian basin should have less evenly distributed pattern of as as were no settlements, long there physiographic, cultural, social, or to economic barriers "maximum dispersion." Indeed, within the areas of EN 2 this is to settlement, exactlywhat Perles appears have found through her nearest-neighbor analysis, with the average area of separation between ca. magoules being 2.3 km. In the Sahlins model, kinship and social coopera 114. Perles 1999, p. 46; the empha tion are attractants that bind settlements in sis is in the original. together mutually supportive In warfare could reinforce this 115. Perles 1999, p. 46. groups. theory, tendency. Archaeological 116. Perles 51. site distributions in the on 1999, p. American Southwest the Colorado plateau, 117. Perles 1999, pp. 49-50, for show local distributions of sites example, many along the river valleys figs.2.5,2.6; 2001, pp. 121-151; that drain the plateau, and these groups of sites are as van Andel and Runnels 492 interpreted resulting 1995, pp. the from effect of kinship and cooperation. But here, too, the groups of 493, figs. 9,10. even where the internal distribution is rather are 118. Sahlinsl974, p. 97. sites, uniform, separated areas or as 119. LeBlanc 1999, pp. 200-218. by empty unoccupied no-man's-lands that served both territo 120. In our to create a GIS rial sense attempts markers (in the used by Halstead) and as defensive buffer zones model of site distribution through time between clusters of sites were a that in state of hostility.119 in the we used site coordi Neolithic, to a of Turning Thessaly, comparison the distribution of sites plotted nates providedby Gallis inhis Atlas in 12-14 shows that areas between zones of dense settlement (1992).However, the lackof precision Figures open in the coordinates are not ex are evident from the of settlement in the and (they beginning Early Neolithic, to the minute and led some remain theNeolithic are pressed second) unoccupied throughout period.120How large to sites in close proximity sorted these areas or voids? If the ca. being empty average spacing of magoules is 2.3 km, into short linear strings by the software we can assume an that open space between settlements greater than this program, exaggerating the linear align would constitute an area. Based on the ment. It is still unoccupied available data possible, however, to see (e.g., the visible in our or that considerable areas were devoid of spacing Figure 12 in Perless maps, cited above), we sites and remained that of 4 km or more empty throughout propose spaces without settlements represent areas the were or period. that unoccupied void. l86 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

Figure 12.Approximate distribution Before we can attribute these empty areas to warfare, we must con of Early Neolithic sites in eastern sider alternative for the existence of areas. Is the explanations unoccupied Based on coordinates in Thessaly. given absence of sites the result of a lack of research in these areas, or are sites Gallis 1992 not are detectable in these places by pedestrian survey?These possibilities, but Galliss review of the history of exploration and his detailed catalogue of finds by survey and chance suggest that these empty areas are not due to a are lack of research, but real.121Is the explanation environmental? The relief shown in Figures 12-14 makes it clear that some of the empty areas do coincide with low hills, particularly in the southwestern portion of the are plain, but it is equally clear that other voids located in the level plain. The environmental factor is difficult to evaluate in the absence of detailed

palaeoenvironmental reconstructions, and while there is documented evidence for soil erosion and afterNeolithic times that have during might 121.Gallis 1979; 1992, pp. 13-22. served to remove or mask these were not in extent and van sites, episodes large 122. See Andel, Zangger, and are unconvincing as explanations for the empty areas.122Wetlands on the Demitrack 1990. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 187

Figure 13.Approximate distribution southeastern of the such as Lake Karla (see 1) have been ofMiddle Neolithic sites in eastern edge plain Fig. drained in recent but their locations are on systematically years, past known, Based coordinates given in Thessaly. are Gallis 1992 and again they unlikely to be the only explanation for the empty zones.123 Of course, some zones could have been unattractive toNeolithic farmers a who relied upon relatively simple agricultural technology of digging sticks or or and hoes, theymay have lacked water, perhaps had poor soil. a cre Environmental factors certainly must have played role in the ation or maintenance of empty zones, but this argument can also be used were zones. to support the hypothesis that they buffer Poor soil, scrubby or a grazing land, wetlands exploited for fish and game could have caused area as a zone particular to be chosen buffer between communities when conflict was a factor.The Peneios River, for instance, might have served as a as both a resource of water and food, well as being useful buffer zone. The Peneios bisects the plain from the southwest to the northeast, 123.Gallis 1992, pp. 23-32. and sites on either bank would be about 2.5 km apart. The riverwould l88 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

Figure 14. distribution nevertheless have served as an effective environmental barrier. its na Approximate By of Late and Final Neolithic sites in a river cannot be and is an defined ture, "occupied" by settlement, easily eastern Based on coordinates Thessaly. the inhabitants of different settlements to be in feature, allowing specific given Gallis 1992 about the limits of their territories, ensuring that anyone encountered on as a the "wrong" side of the riverwould be considered making hostile act and therefore subject to attack. or were If the voids, no-mans-lands, barriers separating different groups of settlements in circumstances of chronic conflict, itwould be reasonable to expect other indicators of warfare to emerge once more information from extensive stratified excavations of mounds within the individual site clusters becomes available. LeBlanc's American Southwest are model predicts that smaller, fortified sites likely to be located near the more edges of no-mans-lands, and that larger, densely occupied villages would be located closer to the centers of clusters.124At present, we do not to test have enough data this hypothesis inThessaly. 124. LeBlanc 1999, pp. 69-73. WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 189

can If correctly identified, the voids be seen to fall between four or areas five of settlement in the Early Neolithic (Fig. 12). In theMiddle are Neolithic, the patterns somewhat different (Fig. 13). The number of sites has increased, and at least one of the voids appears to have been partially filled. Is itpossible that competition for territory increased along with population growth, leading to the merging of two of the groups in the region, and thus allowing the no-mans-land to be filled in? Finally, in the Late and Final Neolithic (Fig. 14), the number of sites decreases, and some of the no-mans-lands appear to have grown larger.This trendmay we not have continued after theNeolithic period. Although have produced a to van map show the Bronze Age distribution, maps published earlier by Andel and Runnels show that these no-man's-lands are also a salient feature

of the Early Bronze Age settlement pattern inThessaly.125

CONCLUSIONS

We have based our assessment of Neolithic warfare on a combination of seen features in the archaeological record, including the no-man's-lands separating groups of settlements, the common occurrence of stone walls with baffle gates, ditches with V-shaped sections, evidence for fortifica occurrence on tions, and the many sites of potential weapons such as copper stone knives, axes, arrowheads, sling bullets, and mace heads. While no one class or can to of artifact feature be used individually determine the existence of prehistoric warfare, the combined evidence from these different to classes of data points violent conflict.We readily acknowledge, however, that each class of data is also subject to alternative explanations: the empty spaces could have resulted from the avoidance of poor-quality farmland, or common simply been grazing lands; the ditches and walls could have servedmany peaceful purposes, ifnot purely symbolic ones; and the knives, axes, arrowheads, sling bullets, and mace heads could have been tools used in craft items of status or work, and display, hunting weapons. Scholarly opinion on these matters will remain divided for some time to come, and we cannot dismiss the lightly possibility of alternative, peaceful explana tions for these features of the Neolithic inThessaly. But when viewed as a sum a whole, the of evidence provides strong circumstantial case for the at presence ofwarfare, and the very least the possibility ofwarfare cannot be dismissed without further investigations. is too It perhaps early to speculate about causes ofNeolithic warfare in Greece. One area for furtherresearch would be to investigate the individual site clusters. LeBlanc has argued that under conditions of chronic warfare one would expect that outlying sites nearest to the no-man's-land would be abandoned and the remaining populations would move away from the borders of to more enemy territory settle in larger, readily defensible vil lages protected by extensive no-mans-lands.126 This may be what we see 125. See vanAndel and Runnels in the Bronze in were Early Age Thessaly, where smaller sites seemingly 1995, pp. 492-493, figs.9,10. abandoned and the sites were more In the 126. LeBlanc 1999, pp. 54-74. remaining grouped tightly.127 Halstead documents the 127. See van Andel and Runnels Neolithic, building up of tells tomake them taller, which he thinks was to 1995, p. 493, fig.10. done achieve monumentality as the result of the 128. Halstead 1999a, pp. 87-88. competition among households within the settlement.128We believe that 190 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

as this interesting hypothesis could be explored further, the possibility of a such social competition could have been catalyst forwarfare, with the more as on higher, visible tells serving "footprints" occupied land to sym to bolize corporate rights defined territories.This building up of higher tells would certainly lend itself to the creation of intervisibility among siteswithin a site cluster, a feature associated with warfare in theAmeri can use as Southwest.129 Although Halstead thinks that the of these tells to or grand communal expressions meant evoke awe, fear, grudging respect ones an among neighbors is unlikely motivation for their construction,130 we are not ready to rule out that possibility. Halstead also argues for the over tendency forNeolithic social structure time to become segmented and isolated in terms of physical space within villages; domestic structures in were Thessaly suggest that familial spaces partitioned off from communal area or spaces.131He interprets the subdivision of the village by ditches as moves walls symbolic calculated to signal the "less inclusive nature of was LN hospitality."132The culmination of this trend the emergence of more the socially stratified and territorially divisive cultures of the Early Bronze Age. Clearly, the evaluation of the role of warfare in this process is essential. area Another promising for research is the study of human remains. note one LeBlanc and Register in theirworld survey of earlywarfare that rates men could expect high mortality among young where warfare is pres was ent,with the figure approaching 20%-25% where warfare endemic.133 test a are The data needed to such hypothesis forNeolithic Greece simply nonexistent today. Ifwarfare existed inNeolithic Greece, what were its causes? Archae once ologists assumed that early foragers and village-based agriculturalists were able to control social conflict and prevent outbreaks of inter- and in s s tracommunal violence, although Keeley and LeBlanc and Register global on surveys of ethnographic and archaeological evidence have thrown doubt this comfortable assumption.134 It is evident that competition for territory, to water, and grazing rights often led warfare among prehistoric foragers and farmers, and that warfare or the threat of intercommunal violence may have characterized much ifnot all of human prehistory.A significant of the causes ofwarfare in the problem connected with the understanding to past is that ethnographic research points the social control of violence norms resources inmany contexts where social and cultural dictate what and are considered worth fighting over.135 If it is agreed that subsistence are we can avoid de economic values at least partly culturally construed, as an or its terminism explanation forwarfare absence. 129. LeBlanc 1999, pp. 72-73. to the ofNeolithic war in is Equally significant recognition Thessaly 130. Halstead 1999a, p. 88. warfare to have been from the be the likelihood that appears present very 131. Halstead 1999a, p. 79. can thatwarfare was the re 132. Halstead 80. ginning of the period. We speculate perhaps 1999a, p. water the 8200 cal b.p. 133. LeBlanc and 2003, sult of competition for arable land and triggered by Register This p. 8. climatic event that caused rapid emigration fromAnatolia.136 event, 134. Keeley 1996; LeBlanc and a ofmuch colder and arid conditions lasting for about 200 years, is period Register 2003. and his to have forced farmers to move thought byWeninger colleagues 135. LeBlanc and Register 2003, to seek favorable condi westward from southeastern and central Turkey pp. 55-76. mass fromAnatolia could 136. etal. 2006. tions for agriculture. An episode of emigration Weninger WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 191

a have had major impact by accelerating the pace of demic diffusion of as Neolithic farmers fromAnatolia to theAegean, migrants searched for reliable water sources and arable land.137 While we await the results of future research, can we prove the exis tence of prehistoric warfare inThessaly? We do not assert that ithas been we proven, but believe that it is highly likely. It is in this spirit that offer our not as a final on the existence of Neolithic 137. See Ammerman and Cavalli study: judgment warfare, but as a call for further research to understand the Greek Neolithic in its Sforza 1984, pp. 50-62;Weninger et al. 2006. context. European

REFERENCES

E. and A. I. eds. and in Adams, C, Duff, Eastern Europe," Carman 2004. The Protohistoric Pueblo World, andHarding 1999, pp. 101-142. ad. 1275-1600, Tucson. Childe, V. G. 1951. "The Significance P. M. M. 1993. Akkermans, G. Villages of the Sling forGreek Prehistory," in the Steppe: Later Neolithic Settle in Studies Presented toDavid Moore ment and Subsistence in the Balikh Robinson onHis Seventieth Birth Ann Valley, Northern Syria, Arbor. day 1, ed. G. Mylonas, St. Louis, Allen, M. W. 2006. "Transformations pp. 1-5. inMaori Warfare: Toa, Pa, and Pu," Christensen, J. 2004. "Warfare in the in Arkush andAllen 2006, pp. 184 European Neolithic," ActaArch 75, 213. pp. 129-156. W. C. F. and W. H. Allen, H, Merbs, Cullen,T. 1995. "Mesolithic Mortuary Birkby. 1985. "Evidence for Prehis Ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece," at toric Scalping Nuvakwewtaga Antiquity 69, pp. 270-289. and (Chavez Pass) Grasshopper Demoule, J.-R, and C. Perles. 1993. Ruin, Arizona," inHealth and "The Greek Neolithic: A New Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest World Review," Journal of Prehistory (Anthropological Research Papers 7, pp. 355-416. 34), ed. C. F. Merbs and R.J. Miller, Diamant, S. 1977. "A Barbed and 23-42. Tempe, pp. Tanged Obsidian Point from Mara Ammerman, A. J., and L. L. CavalH thon,"//^ 4, pp. 381-386. Sforza. 1984. The Neolithic Transi R. 1993. The End Drews, of the Bronze tion and the in Genetics ofPopulations Age: Changes inWarfare and the Princeton. ca. 1200 Europe, Catastrophe B.C., Princeton. M. and K. Kotsa Andreou, S., Fotiadis, Dye, D. H. 2006. "The Transformation kis. 2001. "The Neolithic and Bronze of in Mississippian Warfare," Ar of Northern m Age Greece," Aegean kush andAllen 2006, pp. 101-147. Prehistory: A Review, ed. T. Cullen, Evans, J. 1964. "Excavations in the Boston, pp. 259-327. Neolithic Settlement of Knossos, L. 1977. 5: Angel, J. "Appendix Human 1957-1960: Parti," BSA59, in Skeletons," J. E. Coleman, Ke pp. 132-240. Neolithic Settlement C. 1974. phala:ALate Foss, "Greek Sling Bullets in and Cemetery {Keos I), Princeton, Oxford,"^ 21, pp. 40-44. 133-156. K. D. 2004. Neolithic pp. Fowler, Mortuary Arkush, E. N., and M. W. Allen, eds. Practices inGreece {BAR-IS 1314), 2006. TheArchaeology of Warfare: Oxford. Prehistories and ofRaiding Conquest, Gallis, C. 1979. "A ShortChronicle Gainesville. of Greek Archaeological Investiga and A. F. eds. Carman, J., Harding, tions inThessaly from1881 until 1999. Ancient the Warfare: Archaeological Present Day," in La Thessalie. Stroud. Actes Perspectives, de la table-ronde, 21-24 juillet 1999. "The of ed. B. Chapman, J. Origins 1975, Lyon, Helly, Lyons, Warfare in the Prehistory of Central pp. 1-30. 192 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

-. 1982. ano Kavoeiq veKpcov inNortheastern Belgium: A Prelim t7] VEoXlOlKlj eko'xf] (jttj QeOOCtXia, inary Report,"/^ 16, pp. 157-176. Athens. L. Keeley, H., M. Fontana, and R. Quick. -. 1992. ArXag KpoicropiKcov 2007. "Baffles and Bastions: The oiKicrjucbv rng avaxoXiKr)q OeocaXi Universal Features of Fortifications," Athens. Krjg nediddag, Journal ofArchaeological Research 15, -. 1996. "Neolithic Habitation pp. 55-95. in Central Western and Thessaly," Kelly, R. C. 2000. Warless Societies and in Papathanassopoulos 1996, theOrigin ofWar, Ann Arbor. 61-66. D. pp. Kirkbride, 1982. "Umm Dabaghi 1999. in Years Gat, A. "The Pattern of Fighting yah," Fifty ofMesopotamian in Prestate Simple, Small-Scale, Discovery:The Work ofthe British in 1932 Societies," Journal ofAnthropological Schoolof Archaeology Iraq, Research 55, pp. 563-583. 1982, ed. J. Curtis, London, -. 2006. War inHuman Civiliza pp. 11-21. tion, Oxford. Kokkinidou, D., and M. Nikolaidou. in Golitko, M., and L. H. Keeley. 2007. 1999. "Neolithic Enclosures into and "Beating Ploughshares Back Greek Macedonia: Violent in Swords: Warfare the Linearband Nonviolent Aspects of Territorial keramik" 332 in Carman and Antiquity 81, pp. Demarcation," 342. Harding 1999, pp. 89-100. as a Guilaine, J., and J. Zammit. 2005. The Korfmann, M. 1973. "The Sling War: Violence in American Origins of Prehistory, Weapon," Scientific 229', trans. 34-42. M. Hersey, Oxford. pp. P. -. 1986. "Die Waffe Davids: Ein Halstead, 1999a. "Neighbors from zur Hell? The Household inNeolithic Beitrag Geschichte der Fern zu Greece," inHalstead 1999b, pp. 77 waffen und den Anfangen orga 95. nisierten kriegerischen Verhaltens," in Saeculum 129-149. -, ed. 1999b. Neolithic Society 37, pp. Greece (SheffieldStudies inAegean Kotsakis, K. 1999. "What Tells Can Archaeology 2), Sheffield. Tell: Social Space and Settlement in Dani: the Greek in Halstead Heider, K. G. 1979. Grand Valley Neolithic," New York. 66-76. Peaceful Warriors, 1999b, pp. N. 2006. "The Hodder, 1.1992. "The Haddenham Kyparissi-Apostolika, in Causewayed Enclosure: A Herme Beginning of theNeolithic Thes in and Practice in Black Sea: neutic Circle," Theory saly," Aegean, Marmara, I. Lon The Present State Research on the inArchaeology, ed. Hodder, of the don, pp. 213-240. Early Neolithic. Proceedings of Hourmouziadis, G. 1979. To veoXiOiko Session Held at theEAA 8th Annual at 28th Ai/irjvi: npooTtctdeia yid fiia via Meeting Thessaloniki, Sep Kpooeyyiar] rov veoXiOwov vXikov, tember 2002, ed. I Gatsov and Volos. H. Schwarzberg, Langenweissbach, Jacobsen, T. W., and T. Cullen. 1981. pp. 59-67. S. A. 1999. Prehistoric "A Consideration ofMortuary Prac LeBlanc, Warfare tices in Neolithic Greece: Burials in theAmerican Southwest, Salt Lake in from Franchthi Cave," Mortality City. -. and Immortality:The Anthropology 2006. "Warfare and the Devel Death. of Social Some and Archaeology of Proceedings opment Complexity: a theResearch Seminar and Environmental of Meeting of Demographic and Related inArkush and Allen inArchaeology Subjects Factors," 2006, Held at theInstitute of Archaeology, pp. 437-468. in S. and K. E. London University, June 1980, LeBlanc, A., Register. H. 2003. Constant Battles: We ed. S. C. Humphreys and King, Why New York. London, pp. 79-101. Fight, L. H. 1996. War Civiliza and K. V. 1996. Keeley, before Marcus, J., Flannery. Civilization: How Urban tion, New York. Zapotec L. and D. Cahen. 1989. Evolved inMexico's Oaxaca Keeley, H, Society New York. "EarlyNeolithic Forts andVillages Valley, WARFARE IN NEOLITHIC THESSALY 193

H. L. Maschner, D. G., and K. Reedy CeramicAssemblage (BSA Suppl. 25), ed. J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and Maschner. 1997. ed. K. A. London. E. "Raid, Retreat, Wardle, Mantzourani, Los Angeles, A. C. 1972. Defend (Repeat):The Archaeology Renfrew, The Emergence pp. 173-198. and ofWarfare on the Civilisation: and Ethnohistory of The Cyclades the Triantaphyllou, S. 1999. "Prehistoric in the Third Millennium the North PacificRim," JAnthArch 17, Aegean B.C., Makriyalos: A Story from Frag pp. 19-51. London. ments," inHalstead 1999b, pp. 128 1999. in Pre Milner, G. R. "Warfare Roper, M. K. 1975. "Evidence forWar 135. historic and Early Historic Eastern fare in the Near East from 10,000 Trigger,B. G. 1989.A History of North Archaeo 4300 in Its Causes and America, "Journal of B.C.," War, Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. Research 105-151. Correlates logical 7, pp. (World Archaeology), Tsountas, C. 1908. Ai npo'ioxopiKai -. 2005. ed. M. A. R. D. koci "Nineteenth-Century Nettleship, Givens, dxponoXeiq Aijurjvwv ZeokXov, Arrow Wounds and of and A. The Perceptions Nettleship, Hague, Athens. AmerAnt Prehistoric Warfare," 70, pp. 299-344. Turner, C. G., II, and J.A. Turner. 144-156. C. pp. Runnels, 1985. "The Bronze-Age 1999. Man Corn: Cannibalism and F. 2004. Otterbein, K. How War Began, Flaked-Stone Industries from Violence in the Prehistoric American Tex. Lerna: A College Station, Preliminary Report," Southwest, Salt Lake City. A. 2001. A Bioarchaeo van Papathanasiou, Hesperia 54, pp. 357-391. Andel, T. H., K. Gallis, and Neolithic -. 1988. "A Prehistoric logicalAnalysis of Alepo Survey G. Toufexis. 1994. "Early Neolithic Greece on a trypaCave, (BAR-IS 961), ofThessaly: New Light the Farming in Thessalian River Oxford. Greek Middle Paleolithic,"/^ 15, Landscape, Greece," inMediterra C. S. and 277-290. nean River Papathanasiou, A., Larsen, pp. Quaternary Environ L. Norr. 2000. M. 1974. Stone "Bioarchaeological Sahlins, Age Economics, ments, ed. J. Lewin, M. G. Macklin, Inferences from a Neolithic New Ossuary York. and J. C. Woodward, Rotterdam, from Alepotrypa Cave, Diros, Saville, A. 2002. "Lithic Artefacts from pp. 131-143. International Neolithic van Greece," Journal of Causewayed Enclosures: Andel, T. H., and C. N. Runnels. 210-228. Osteoarchaeology 10, pp. Character and Meaning," in Enclo 1995. "The Earliest Farmers in G. ed. 1996. sures in on Papathanassopoulos, A., Neolithic Europe: Essays Europe,"Antiquity 69, pp. 481 Neolithic Culture in Athens. and Greece, Causewayed Non-Causewayed 500. and M. Besios. 1999. "The ed. G. Varndell and P. van T. E. Pappa, M., Sites, Top Andel, H., Zangger, and Rescue Makriyalos Project: Excava ping, Oxford, pp. 91-105. A. Demitrack. 1990. "Land Use and tions at the Neolithic Site ofMakri Theocharis, D. R. 1973. Neolithic Soil Erosion in Prehistoric and Northern Athens. yalos, Pieria, Greece," Greece, Historical Greece,"//^ 17, pp. 379 inHalstead -. 1974. 1999b, pp. 108-120. "The Stone Age in 396. W. and P. R. in and Parkinson, A., Duffy. Greece," Prehistory Protohis Vend, S. 1984. "War andWarfare in 2007. "Fortifications and Enclosures of the tory(History HellenicWorld), Archaeology," JAnthArch 3, pp. 116 in A Cross ed. G. European Prehistory: A. Christopoulos, Athens, 132. Cultural Perspective," Journal pp. 40-88. Vermeule, E. 1964. Greece in the Bronze Research 2002. "The Late Neo ofArchaeological 15, Tinevez, J.-Y. Age, Chicago. 97-141. lithic Settlement of pp. La Hersonnais, Villa, P., C. Bouville, J. Courtin, C. 1999. "The Distribution of in Perles, Plechatel Its Regional Context," D. Helmer, and E. A. Mathieu. in Eastern in in Enclosures inNeolithic Magoules Thessaly," Europe: 1986. "Cannibalism in the Neo Halstead 42-56. on and Non 1999b, pp. Essays Causewayed lithic," Science 233, pp. 431-437. -. 2001. The Neolithic in Early Causewayed Sites, ed. G. Varndell Vutiropulos,N. 1991. "The Sling in the Greece: The First Communi and P. 37 Bronze Farming Topping, Oxford, pp. Aegean Age," Antiquity 65, ties in World 50. Europe (Cambridge pp. 279-286. P. 2004. in the 'Neo and M. S. Archaeology), Cambridge. Tomkins, "Filling Wace, A.J. B., Thompson. -. 2004. Les industries lithic Social Life and 1912. Prehistoric lithiques Background': Thessaly: Being taillees de Franchthi Social Transformation in the Ae Some Account (Argolide, Grece) ofRecent Excavations 3: Du ancien au neoli before the Bronze in and neolithique gean Age," Explorations inNorth-Eastern (Franchthi Bloom The Civilisation Greece Lake to thiquefinal 13), Emergenceof from Kopais the Borders Revisited, ed. C. Barrett and ington. J. ofMacedonia, Cambridge. Pritchett, W. 1975. The Greek State at P. 38-63. Halstead, Oxford, pp. Watson, P. J., S. A. LeBlanc, and War 5, R. 1991. "The C. L. Redman. 1971. Berkeley. Torrence, Chipped Explanation G, and P.Yiouni. 1996.Nea Stone," in in An Pyke, Landscape Archaeology Archeology: ExplicitlyScientific Nikomedeia: The Excavation an as Northern Keos of Long-Term History: Approach, New York. Neolithic inNorthern in the Islands Earliest Early Village Cycladic from Weinberg, S. 1970. "The StoneAge Greece, 1961-1964, Directed R. Settlement untilModern Times in by J the Aegean," in CAW 1.1, Rodden 1: The Excavation and the (Monumenta archaeologica 16), Cambridge, pp. 557-672. 194 CURTIS N. RUNNELS ET AL.

E. E. Neolithic Sites in the Eastern Med K. L. 1996. in Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, Bauer, Zachos, "Metallurgy," L. U. O. Research Clare, Danzeglocke, Joris, iterranean," Quaternary 66, Papathanassopoulos 1996, pp. 140 C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. To pp. 401-420. 143. and T. van Andel. 2006. P. ed. 2005. The dorova, Young, A., Archaeology Zangemeister, K. 1885. "Glandes "Climate Due to the 8200 War: Human since the Plumbae Latine Forcing of Conflict Inscriptae," cal b.p. Event Observed at Dawn yr Early of Civilization, Boston. EphEp6y pp. 1-143.

Curtis N. Runnels Chantel White

Boston University Boston University

department of archaeology department of archaeology

commonwealth avenue commonwealth avenue 675 675

boston, massachusetts 02215 boston, massachusetts o2215

[email protected] [email protected]

Claire Payne Nicholas P. Wolff

Boston University Boston University

department of archaeology department of archaeology

commonwealth avenue commonwealth avenue 675 675

boston, massachusetts 02215 boston, massachusetts o2215

[email protected] [email protected]

Noam V.Rifkind Steven A. LeBlanc

Boston University Harvard University

department of archaeology peabody museum of archaeology

commonwealth avenue and ethnology 675 boston, massachusetts 02215 ii divinity street

cambridge, massachusetts 02138 [email protected]

[email protected]