Lithics and Landscapes: a Messenian Perspective Author(S): William A

PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT, PART VIII: Lithics and Landscapes: A Messenian Perspective Author(s): William A. Parkinson and John F. Cherry Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January-March 2010), pp. 1-51 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835453 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 10:12

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

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

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ..n.Mni„») PYLOS REGIONAL "*""" ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT, PART VIM Lithics and Landscapes: A Messenian Perspective

ABSTRACT

The authorsdocument and discussthe chipped stone assemblage collected bythe PylosRegional Archaeological Project in Messenia,Greece, during threeseasons of surfaceinvestigations conducted between 1992 and 1994. The articlebegins with a briefdescription of the basic characteristicsof the PRAP chippedstone assemblage. This sectionis followedby a discussionof thediachronic social processes that can be inferredfrom the patterns in the assemblage,from the Middle Palaeolithicthrough historical periods. The ar- ticleconcludes with a comparativeanalysis of how the distribution of chipped stonein the Messenian landscape relates to comparableevidence from survey projectselsewhere in theAegean.

INTRODUCTION

Artifactsmade of chippedor flakedlithic materials comprise one of the mostcommon classes of artifactseverywhere in theworld.1 In manyearly prehistoriccontexts, chipped stone artifacts and animalbones together make up virtuallythe entiretyof materialremains from which the archaeologist can makeobservations about the past. In muchlater periods, chipped stone artifactscontinued to be used alongsidemetals and glasses,supplementing

1. We arevery grateful to Jack Davis studyof its material. Major fundingfor manuscript,as did P. Nick Kardulias and theother codirectors of the Pylos PRAP was providedby the National and twoanonymous Hesperia reviewers. RegionalArchaeological Project Endowmentfor the Humanities, the SuzanneHofstra kindly provided us (PRAP) forthe invitation to studythe NationalGeographic Society, the Insti- withinformation about the distribution chippedstone materials from the tutefor Aegean Prehistory, and many ofchipped stone artifacts at thePalace project.Acknowledgment is due to all otherorganizations and individuals;for ofNestor. We thankall ofthem, and thosefieldwalkers who were, of course, details,see Davis et al. 1997,p. 488. TraceyCullen for her helpful editorial responsiblefor collecting this material We thankCurtis Runnels for his comments.The mapsin thisarticle are in thefirst place. We appreciatethe guidancein thesearch for Pleistocene theproduct of invaluable input from effortsof Xeni Arapoyianni (Director- siteswithin the PRAP studyarea, as SebastianHeath and RosemaryRob- ateof Prehistoric and ClassicalAntiq- wellas forhis expertopinion in evalu- ertson.Jill Seagard is responsiblefor uitiesin Olympia[now in Kalamata]) atingthe materials found. He also pro- thefinal inked versions of pencil draw- in facilitatingthe project and subsequent videdus withhelpful comments on the ingsof the artifacts by John Cherry.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

1. ofthe those with of and that stone Figure Map Péloponnèse technologies qualities durability strength only thelocation of the area can theobvious forsuch artifacts to shed showing provide.2Despite potential light studiedby the Pylos Regional on the andeven ofthe societies economic,political, ideologicalprocesses ArchaeologicalProject. R. J. Robertson thatleft them behind, in the Aegean they have not until relatively recently beenaccorded the attention they deserve. Fortunately,lithic artifacts are now routinelycollected on projects aimedat understandingprehistoric periods in theAegean. More impor- tantly,a number of the surface survey projects carried out in thisregion overthe last 30 yearshave instituted systematic recovery techniques de- signedspecifically to deal withlithics. As we haveattempted to dem- onstrateelsewhere,3 the analysis of lithicartifacts from surface surveys providesus witha valuabletool forexploring past cultural landscapes andhuman land use. In addition,since many of these surface surveys in Greecehave adopted relatively similar, although certainly not identical, collectionmethodologies (several, in fact,were carried out by the same 2. Runnels1982. individuals),it graduallyis becomingpossible to comparethe patterns 3. Cherryand Parkinson2003; exhibitedin differentregions using data collectedby differentsurvey see also Clarkson2008.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES! A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 3

projects.Such comparative, regional information allows us to assess models ofthe past that have been based primarily upon information collected from excavations. In thisarticle we presentand discuss the chipped stone artifacts col- lectedduring the course of surface investigations undertaken by the Pylos RegionalArchaeological Project (PRAP) inMessenia in the southwestern Péloponnèseduring three seasons of fieldwork conducted between 1992 and 1994(Fig. I).4 Sinceseveral articles and reports that describe the objectives, researchdesign, and field methodology ofthe project have been published previouslyinthe pages of this journal5 and elsewhere,6 the discussion here focusesspecifically upon the information that can be gleanedfrom the analysisof the chipped stone artifacts from PRAP, in thecontext of the resultsfrom other survey projects in Greece. In thefollowing section, we discussthe formal characteristics ofthe PRAP chippedstone assemblage. We thenconsider diachronic patterns in theassemblage as theyrelate to regional-scalechipped stone assemblages collectedfrom elsewhere in theAegean.

THE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE

All lithicsencountered during the course of PRAP surveyfieldwork were collected.This includes any definite or possible chipped stone artifacts that werediscovered during intensive fieldwalking, surface collection at sites, and moreextensive field reconnaissance.7 The artifactsthen were segre- gatedfrom any unmodified natural stones and were cleaned, catalogued, andinspected using a 15xhand lens. All artifactswere examined at least onceby each authorand a numberof themwere also studiedby Curtis Runnels.Finally, typological attributes ofthe artifacts were entered into a databasedesigned specifically for the PRAP assemblage;we employeda modifiedversion of the European Palaeolithic typology that is consistent withthat employed on manysurvey projects and excavations elsewhere in theAegean.8

Raw Materials

A totalof 1,104 chipped stone artifacts was collected during the three years ofintensive survey fieldwork.9 Ofthat number, 192 (17%) areof obsidian, twoof quartz or quartzite (< 1%),and the remaining 910 (82%) ofchert or othercrypto- or microcrystalline materials that are mostly available locally

4. Davis et al. 1997. prap/publications.html. a preliminaryaccount of this material 5. Zanggeret al. 1997; Bennet, 7. Foran extensivedescription of (in Davis et al. 1997,p. 414). The dis- Davis,and Zarinebaf-Shahr2000; fieldwalkingtechniques and sitecollec- crepancyis due to theidentification Lee 2001; Stocker2003; Davies 2004; tionstrategies employed by PRAP, see offive artifacts that were mislabeled Alcocketal.2005. Davis et al. 1997,pp. 396-407. duringtheir initial cataloguing. PRAP 6. See, e.g.,Bennet 1995, 2007; 8. See Moviuset al. 1968; Brézil- ranfrom 1991 to 1995,with a scouting Bennetand Shelmerdine2001; lon 1971; Crabtree1972; Perlés1987; seasonin 1991 and a studyseason in Alcock2002; Davis 2004,2008. For Karduliasand Runnels1995. 1995; fieldworkseasons resulting in the a morecomprehensive list of PRAP 9. This numberis slightlyhigher collectionof artifacts took place in publications,see http://classics.uc.edu/ thanthe 1,099 artifacts we reportedin 1992-1994.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

TABLE 1. RAW MATERIALS AND CONTEXTS OF RECOVERY

RecoveryContext Obsidian Chert* Total Sitecollection 86 (16%) 462 (84%) 548 (50%) Surveytract directly associated witha site 46 (47%) 52 (53%) 98 (9%) Surveytract adjacent to a site 10 (15%) 58 (85%) 68 (6%) Surveytract not associated with or adjacentto a site 50 (13%) 340 (87%) 390 (35%) Total 192 (17%) 912 (83%) 1,104 (100%)

*Twopieces of quartz or quartzite are included in thechert category. in thelimestone conglomerate that underlies the survey region (Table 1, Fig.2).10 All ofthe obsidian in thelithic assemblage is gray-black,often with graybanding and sometimestranslucent; it appears from macroscopic analysisto derivefrom the well-known sources on theisland of Melos.11 Onlyone piece (SF 580,from site 14) is homogeneouslyblack and might derivefrom a non-Melianobsidian source. Although recent research has demonstratedthat there may be diachronicvariation in theuse of the differentobsidian outcrops on Melos,12we didnot employ any analytical techniquesthat permit us to discussthis issue with regard to thePRAP assemblage. The vastmajority of the chert artifacts are made from small, highly tectonizednodules of relatively poor quality, variously colored cherts that areavailable in nearlyevery streambed in theregion. These chert nodules appearto haveeroded out of the conglomerate limestone massif that rises abovethe coastal plain and culminates in thesteep Aigaleon ridge. This ridgehas beendescribed as follows:"It consistsprimarily of Mesozoic limestonesand cherts. One ofits main geological units is a thinlybedded black,red, and white chert of a Jurassicto Cenomanianradiolarite series containinglimestone lenses and limestone interstratification."13 Thirteen of thechert artifacts are made of a veryhigh-quality, reddish brown or chocolate-coloredmaterial that may have been imported into the region; it hasalso been noted as presentamong the lithic materials found by survey in thenortheast Péloponnèse undertaken by the Nemea Valley Archaeo- logicalProject (NVAP).14 Threeartifacts are madefrom a high-quality,translucent, honey- coloredmaterial with circular white impurities (termed "vugs") that also occursin significantquantities elsewhere in theAegean and which may derivefrom a sourcelocated somewhere in thecentral Balkans.15 Bulgarian scholarsrefer to this material as "Balkanflint" and other scholars in central

10. Forthe bedrock geology, tec- sourcesat Adamasand Demenagaki, 13. Zanggeret al. 1997,pp. 555- tonics,and geomorphologyof the Ariaset al. (2006) haverecently re- 556. region,see Zanggeret al. 1997, portedthe existence of a thirdMelian 14.The lithicsfrom NVAP have pp. 554-559. sourceat AyiosIoannes, ca. 2.5 km beenstudied and willbe publishedby ll.Torrencel986. northwestof Dhemenagaki, consisting one ofthe present authors (Cherry). 12. See discussionin Carter2008, ofobsidian blocks inside a volcanoclas- 15. Manolakakis1996. p. 225. In additionto thewell-known ticdeposit.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 5

2. The ofthe PRAP Figure geology andeastern referto it as flint"or flint."16 the Europe "honey "yellow-spotted studyarea, showing geomorpho- Perléshas thismaterial derivefrom a sourcein or contextof sites118 (Romanou suggested may Epirus logical southern while and have Rikia) and 128 ( VromoneriVergina Albania,17 Bulgarianarchaeologists geologists sourcedone variant of the material to north-central Rema). AfterZangger et al. 1997,p. 555, successfully Bulgaria.18 fig.4. R. J.Robertson Whereverits origins may prove to be, this material was in use in the Aegean fromthe earliest stages of the Neolithic through the Bronze Age.19

Recovery Contexts

Of the1,104 chipped stone artifacts recovered by PRAP, 390 (35%) are fromoff-site contexts, 548 (50%)were picked up during the surface collectionof sites, 98 (9%)were collected from fieldwalking tracts that comprised partsof areas subsequently defined as sites(or "places of special interest"20), while68 (6%)were collected from fieldwalking tracts that were immediately adjacentto suchsites,21 giving a totalof 714 (65%) artifactsfrom "on-site"

16. See Bonsall2008, p. 271. 20. Forthe rationale behind the use 21. Lithicsdiscovered in tractsadja- 17. Perlés1992, p. 124. ofthe term "place of special interest" centto sitesare included here as partof 18. Maria Gurova(pers. comm.). (POSI) in PRAP's methodology,see theassemblages from these sites. 19. Perlés1990, pp. 9-10. Davis et al. 1997,p. 401, n. 27.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY contexts(Table l).The relativepercentages of chert and obsidian in these differentrecovery contexts mirror that of the assemblage as a whole(obsid- ian17%; chert 83%), with only a slightlyhigher frequency (16%) of obsidian occurringincontexts from site pick-ups than from fieldwalking (13%). In tractsdirectly associated with sites, however, the relative frequencies of obsidianand chert are nearly equal (obsidian 47%; chert 53%). This unusual patternmay be dueto a biastoward the identification (and collection) of obsidianrather than chert during survey when fieldwalkers realize they are in a localewhere relatively high quantities of lithics may be expected.

Assemblage Characteristics

In theanalysis of the PRAP lithicassemblage, an importantobjective was to identifywhich elements of the reductionsequence are exhibitedat differentsites within the region. As a result,we classifiedeach artifact accordingto thoseformal characteristics that can suggest the stage of the reductionsequence at which the basic type (or "blank") would have been removedfrom its parent material. Several blank types can be recognized: flakes,blades, cores, spalls, and natural blanks. The vastmajority of artifacts inthe assemblage are flakes with varying amountsof cortex (a weatheredrind). In ourblank typology, we differenti- atedthree different flake types: primary, secondary, and tertiary (Table 2). The dorsalsurface of primary flakes is completelycovered in a cortex,indi- catingthat they were struck from the exteriorportion of the natural noduleof raw material. Secondary flakes exhibit at leastsome cortex on theirdorsal surface, together with some flake scars, suggesting that they toowere removed from near the surface of the nodule. Tertiary flakes, on theother hand, bear no evidenceof any cortex or weathered rind on their dorsalsurface, which is completelycovered in flakescars, indicating that suchflakes were removed from the interior of the nodule. Leavingaside the numerous category of spalls (which lack the formal characteristicsofblank types), blades comprise the next most common type ofblank in theassemblage. Although a bladeis frequentlydescribed as a flakethat is twiceas longas itis wideand with roughly parallel sides, it is usefulto differentiate blades in this wider sense (here classified as "bladelike flakes")from blades manufactured specifically from prismatic blade cores, whichare very common in Neolithicand Bronze Age lithicassemblages throughoutthe Aegean. It alsois possibleto distinguishdifferent types of bladeson thebasis of whether their cross-sections are triangular or trapezoidal(Table 3). Thisis a distinctionthat permits us to identifyroughly thestage at which the blade was removed during the reduction of the core, sincein generaltrapezoidal blades derive from deeper within the blade core.Several other blade types were also recorded, such as "crestedblades" (lamesà crête)',which mark the initiation of the blade removal sequence. The majorityof blades are made of obsidian (n = 66; 73%),which is not surprisingsince most of the artifacts in thePRAP assemblageappear to havebeen produced during the Neolithic and Bronze Age (onlytwo sites havebeen assigned to thePalaeolithic period). We identifiedinthe assemblage a total of 109 cores from which blades or flakeshad beenstruck (Table 4). Sixty-fiveare flake cores of varying

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE J

TABLE 2. BLANKTYPES BY RAWMATERIAL

BlankType Obsidian Chert* Total Naturalblank 3 (23%) 10 (77%) 13 (1%) Primaryflake 7 (17%) 33 (83%) 40 (4%) Secondaryflake 29 (12%) 217 (88%) 246 (22%) Tertiaryflake 53 (12%) 395 (88%) 448 (41%) Spall 25 (16%) 135 (84%) 160 (14%) Blade 64 (74%) 22 (26%) 86 (8%) Crestedblade 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 (0.3%) Blade core 5 (45%) 6 (55%) 11 (1%) Flake core 3 (3%) 85 (97%) 88 (8%) Core/chopper 0 (0%) 8 (100%) 8 (0.7%) Total 192 (17%) 912 (83%) 1,104(100%) * Twopieces of quartz or quartzite are included in thechert category.

TABLE 3. VARIABILITY IN BLADE TYPES

BladeType Obsidian Chert* Total

Triangular 17 7 24 Trapezoidal 44 14 58 Crested 3 1 4 Irregular 2 0 2 Plunging 0 11 Secondary 0 11 Total 66 24 90 * Twopieces of quartz or quartzite are included in thechert category.

forms(discoidal, globular, irregular, tabular), mostly made of chert.There are strikinglyfew (11) blade coresin the assemblage,given the numberof blades.Parkinson has previouslynoted that all fiveobsidian blade coresin the PRAP assemblagederive from the large(ca. 38 ha), multicomponent siteof Romanou (14), locatednear the coast at the base of the Englianos Ridge (Fig. 3).22That site,furthermore, is the onlyone thatexhibits all stagesof the reductionsequence forproducing obsidian blades, strongly suggesting(as discussedbelow) thatit was a productioncenter for such artifacts. We also identifiedmany artifacts that are clearlyanthropogenic, but which bear no identifiableformal characteristics that allow them to be allocatedto any of the typesdescribed above. These artifactsmost likely were debrisor "débitage"generated during the flakingprocess, and they are referredto genericallyin our typologyas "spalls."The finalcategory we identifiedconsists of natural blanks (i.e., naturalpieces of raw material) thathave been modified- or "retouched." A totalof 328 artifactsin the assemblagebear signsof retouch,and severalof thesehave been classifiedinto formal tool types(e.g., bee, endscraper;see Table 5). Only 21 of the artifactsin the assemblagebear clear evidenceof use-wear, whether in theform of "sickle-sheen,"macroscopically identifiableuse-polish, or incidentalretouch resulting from use ratherthan 22. Parkinson2007, p. 91. fromintentional modification of the shape of the edge.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

TABLE 4. VARIABILITY IN CORE TYPES

CoreType Obsidian Chert Total Biface 0 2 2 Blade core 2 3 5 Blade core:irregular Oil Blade core:pencil 3 14 Blade core:pyramidal 0 1 1 Core/chopper 0 8 8 Flake core:discoidal 0 7 7 Flake core:globular 1 12 13 Flake core:irregular 1 43 44 Flake core:tabular Oil Flake/core 1 19 20 Levalloiscore Oil Levalloisflake/core 0 2 2 Total 8 101 109

TABLE 5. RETOUCHED TOOL TYPES

ToolType Obsidian Chert Total Retouchedflake 17 116 133 Notch 8 28 36 Bee 3 23 26 Endscraper 1 24 25 Retouchedblade 19 3 22 Sidescraper 0 11 11 Borer 0 7 7 Burin 16 7 Point 15 6 Denticulate 0 6 6 Sickleelement 0 6 6 Convergentscraper 0 5 5 Multipletool 14 5 Crestedblade 3 14 Triangularflake 0 4 4 Levalloisflake 0 3 3 Piècesesquillées 11 2 Biface 0 2 2 Mousterianpoint 0 2 2 Perçoir 0 2 2 Threshingsledge? 0 2 2 Transversesidescraper 0 2 2 Retouchedblade-flake 0 1 1 Core/chopper 0 1 1 Double sidescraper 0 2 2 Gun flint? 0 11 Lunate? 0 11 Scraper 0 1 1 Slug? 0 1 1 Transverseendscraper 0 1 1 Trapeze 0 1 1 Total 55 273 328

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 9

Figure3. Region investigatedby PRAP, showingmajor topographic DIACHRONIC PATTERNING IN THE features,areas intensivelysurveyed, ASSEMBLAGE and sitesdefined. After Davis et al. 1997, p.393, fig. 2. RJ. Robertson The vastmajority of lithic artifacts in thePRAP assemblage,as withmany otherrecent surveys in the Aegean, were clearlycreated and deposited duringthe Neolithicor the Bronze Age. As we have noted elsewhere,23 thisis doubtlessa reflectionboth of the intensityof prehistoricland use, as well as of the researchemphasis for most survey archaeologists on the laterperiods of Greek prehistory. There area fewnotable exceptions where surveyshave been directedexplicitly to searchfor evidence of habitation duringthe Pleistoceneand veryearly Holocene,24 but mostAegean surveyshave focusedprimarily upon culturalperiods of the laterpart of the Holocene, and especiallythe BronzeAge. Yet despitetheir temporal research focus on theselater periods, surface 23. and Parkinson Cherry 2003, surveysare inherently diachronic in natureand tendto generateinformation p. 46. aboutall ofhuman ofa As a result,the 24. Runnels1988, 1994, 2009; periods occupation region. analysis E.g., of stone fromall time acrossa can reveal Runnelsand van Andel 1993; Runnels chipped assemblages periods region et al. 2004; Strasseret al. 2009; forth- patternsof exploitationand land use thatthen can be used to augment coming. patternsderived from excavated contexts. By combininginformation from

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions î"§1 ~ 'S * ¡11li í ï* S 3 É I -s áí ¿ sal °!í¿ S 3 -si s« _ il li ? M 1| 11 sg _ î3 || ?| . i fé i ?. í i ¡1 If I Si 11Si 1 1 MI S 1 1 â 13 II! al1* 35 iIHHLiifi? î i ill? î î;nil mMm m i hh m ¿I îÍ3gSil?I,áS5SíSã*íÉ?*iãílS*S3|S_SS nÈîmHHhir4$mmi4mm If¡i il

«Sift io (N n O h oí r^ ^"^ LOi-HCOON t-It-I CO 00 m H ON 00 MHTfN^OM^fOO CN t fS t M H t X S ^ «^ " tí °î^sS- CNCN i-li-H CNi-HCN COiO^-HrHl>. ^ U")CN +JÖ(üüC3 H -A's ■?a tS C/D

.^"^ Ot-iOi-h O (N ^ ^tOCNT-HTt OOOi-ir^OavioOCN t-Ii-iOOcOvOO &, c m II ö

C/D tí Ü «í •| | ^^R 22 S 22>>> Ri^>^^ IS uS£ R^ ^1-S£| tí •S I 3 S S CD 1 ti " J C/D 2 w OOOO t^io vO OOnOOO vO N vu (N 00 O ^ vOcnOcOCNir)-, ^^cSS". < §^o

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE II

bothtypes of dataseis, it is possibleto generate archaeological models that willallow us tounderstand more precisely how humans engaged with the landscapein thepast, in a varietyof ways.25 Owingto thenature of chipped stone artifact types, which generally tendnot to be unequivocallyassignable to specificchronological periods, accuratedating of lithicmaterials from surface contexts is problematic. Chronologicalclassification ofchipped stone recovered from surface con- textsthus relies heavily upon the formal properties of the assemblage itself (e.g.,artifact types, raw material types, blank types, techniques of production),its co-occurrence with datable ceramic artifacts, and its stratigraphie situationin thelandscape.26 The diachronicpatterning inthe Messenian assemblage derives from - twoprincipal recovery contexts on-site and off-site. The formerinclude artifactsidentified and recovered during site collection, or during the course ofregular fieldwalking intracts that were subsequently classified as directly associatedwith sites. In thediscussion of on-site contexts, we havechosen alsoto include artifacts derived from the fieldwalking oftracts immediately contiguouswith those that later came to be associatedwith sites. Of the62 sitesinvestigated by PRAP (Fig. 3), 28 (45%) produced chippedstone artifacts. The numberof chipped stone artifacts from those sitesranges from one to 124,with an averageof 26 (see Table 6). Only - twosites were identified primarily by lithic scatters 118and 128; all the otherswere identified by both lithic and ceramic scatters.

Pleistocene Patterns

Two locationsproduced groups of chippedstone materials that date to thePleistocene, while intensive and extensivetract-walking produced a furtherhandful of lithic stray finds (i.e., individual off-site artifacts) that fitcomfortably within the Palaeolithic period, based on theirtypological characteristicsand geological contexts.27 As is becomingcommonplace on surfacesurvey projects in theAe- gean,28we attemptedto identifythose geological settings most likely to yieldPleistocene deposits and to supplement regular intensive tract-walking withextensive survey directed explicitly at thesetarget areas. Given the geologicalsetting of the PRAP studyarea,29 it seemedmost productive to focusattention on twomain areas: a seriesof preserved fossil dunes along thepresent-day coastline, and a numberof karstic rock shelters along the Gargalianiescarpment (Figs. 2, 3). We succeededin identifying only two Palaeolithic sites: 118 (Romanou Rikia)and 128 (VromoneriVergina Rema), both located on themodern coastline(Fig. 2).30 Despite exhaustive searching in the karstic areas around

25. As usefullyspelled out in Clark- studiesand Pleistocenesites in Davis severalpossible locations of Palaeolithic son2008, p. 498. et al. 1997,pp. 414-417,pls. 88:b, c. findsin Messenia(including the hill of 26. Foran excellentdiscussion, 28. E.g., Runnels1988; Jameson, ProfitisIlias, northwest of the Bay of see Karduliasand Runnels1995, Runnels,and vanAndel 1994. Navarinoand theBay of Voïdokilia), pp. 85-86. 29. See Zanggeret al. 1997, butnone of them have been confirmed 27. This sectionaugments our pp. 554-559. bysubsequent autopsy. earlierdiscussion of PRAP lithic 30. Korres(1981, p. 456) mentions

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY theGargaliani escarpment, no lithicscatters or strayfinds were identi- fiedthat might suggest exploitation of that area during the Palaeolithic. Not coincidentally,the few stray finds that, based on theirtypological characteristics,appear to belong to thePalaeolithic were also collected on thecoastal plain south of Marathoupolis (see below).It seemsprobable, therefore,that this pattern is notsolely the result of sampling bias, since allobserved lithic items were collected during routine tract- walking; lithic strayfinds do indeedoccur in otherparts of the survey area, but none are oftypical Middle or Upper Palaeolithic types.

Middle Palaeolithic Sites

118(Romanou Rikid) was identified during extensive prospecting along the fossilizedPleistocene dune deposits just northwest ofthe modern town of Romanou.The siteis locatedapproximately 70 m fromthe present coastline.A smallscatter comprised of 59 flakes31was founderoding out of a Pleistocenesoil matrix that had formedon top of a fossilizeddune deposit.While most artifacts derived from directly within or below the erod- ingdeposit, several had beenwashed as faras 15 m downthe collapsed sand-dunetalus. The sitewas collectedusing both grab sampling and a 5 m grid. All ofthe artifacts are made on highlytectonized chert derived from theintermittent streambeds that carry small nodules of chertfrom the limestoneconglomerate formation inthe center of the study region. Several piecesare covered in a milkywhite patina and/or are stained red from the ironoxides in the deposits from which they eroded. All ofthe artifacts are verysmall (<5 cmin length),and only five pieces are retouched. The assemblagecontains 39 flakes(including four lamellar, i.e., bladelike,flakes), eight flake cores, and 12 spallsor other debris (Table 7). The flakesexhibit all stagesof a typicalflake-reduction sequence, with two primaryflakes, 19 secondaryflakes, and 18 tertiaryflakes. The smallcores (<5 cmin length)include two unifacial core/choppers (SF 405 and406), a "bladeletcore" (SF 688),and a discoidalflake core (SF 399) (Fig.4).32 Allof the blanks appear to have been produced by direct percussion applied to verysmall stream-rolled pebbles, probably collected from the nearby SelasRiver itself. The retouchedflakes in theassemblage include pieces withirregular, intermittent, lateral retouch, a single oblique perçoir or bee (SF 401),and two very irregularly backed flakes. Otherthan the complete lack of obsidian in the assemblage, the small amountof material at this site, combined with its overall lack of diagnostic artifact makesit difficultto types, especially assignthe assemblage to a 31. In an earlierdiscussion of this even The bearsno ob- specific(or general)chronological period. assemblage site(in Davis et al. 1997,p. 416),we vioustechnological ortypological resemblance tothe nearby Levallois Mous- reported58 artifacts.One artifacthad teriansite (128), located farther north along the coast and in a verysimilar beenincorrectly entered into the data- geologicalcontext. base and mislabeled. In an to anabsolute date for the 32. Not all artifactsexplicitly men- attempt acquire lithic-bearingdeposits, tioned theirSF numbers ofthe matrixwere collected and submittedfor by (smallfind) samples parent optically areillustrated in thisarticle; their SF stimulatedluminescence (OSL) datingon sandgrains, to providean esti- numbershave been included here to mateof the last time the grains were exposed to ultraviolet radiation. This facilitatestudy by other scholars.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 13

TABLE 7. LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES FROM SITES 118 AND 128

Site118 Site128 BlankType Obsidian Chert Obsidian Chert

Primaryflakes 0 2 0 2 Secondaryflakes 0 19 0 28 Tertiaryflakes 0 18 0 45 Flake cores 0 8 0 13 Blades 0 0 5 3 Spalls 0 12 0 28 Totalblanks 0 59 5 119 Totalretouched pieces 0 4 2 44

SF418 SF419

Figure4. Chipped stoneartifacts from118 (Romanou Rikia). SF 418: secondaryflake, brown chert; SF 419: ^SF401 ^|§^ SF688 tertiaryflake with notch, brown chert;SF 401: oblique perçoiror bee on a secondaryflake, reddish brown chert;SF 688: bipolarbladelet core, yellowchert pebble; SF 399: discoidal flake(pseudo-Levallois), light SF 399 SF 406 brownchert pebble; SF 406: unifacial core/chopper,brown chert pebble. Scale1:2. J. F. Cherry and J. Seagard

processproduced dates of 89,800 ± 15,600b.p. and 110,000 ±56,000 b.p.33 Assumingthe artifacts associated with the sand grains were incorporated - - intothe matrix andwere buried simultaneously,this may suggest an earlierMiddle Palaeolithic date for the assemblage (i.e., 60,000-100,000 yearsago). If thatis indeedthe case, then it would mean that 118 may be earlierthan 128, which exhibits typological and technologicalattributes more of thelater Mousterian in Greece(see below).If, on the 33. OSL wereconducted typical analyses otherhand, the artifacts were intothe matrixafter byYannis Bassiakos (National Center incorporated sandy forScientific Research it had alreadyformed, then the dates provide only a terminuspost quern "Demokritos," - Athens)and GüntherWagner (Max forthe assemblage. In thiscase, site 118 maybe contemporarywith or - PlanckInstitute, Heidelberg). evenlater than site128, but it maybe a differentsite type, perhaps

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

associatedwith specifictasks (e.g., raw materialexploitation, hunting, butchering). Althoughlacking the Levallois technique,the assemblagefrom 118 bearsa resemblanceto someof the assemblages collected in Elis byFrench teams.34The smallbifaces and pebble coresfrom 118 are similarto artifactsfrom several of the sitesin the regionof Amalias,most likely owing to similarorigins of the raw materials,which in both cases erodedfrom limestoneconglomerate in the formof smallriver- rolled chert pebbles. Recentinvestigations in theprefecture of Preveza in Epirushave produced a fewsites with similarassemblages that also date to the Middle Palaeolithic.In theirrecent summary of researchin thatregion, Runnels and van Andel discussedthe Middle Palaeolithicsite of Rodaki at the mouthof the PaliouriasRiver.35 There theyrecorded a lithicassemblage, generallylacking in typicalMiddle Palaeolithictypes, eroding out of a pale- osol capped by a layerof dune or coastal sand. As at 118, the artifacts fromRodaki are smalland are made on river-rolledpebbles of local chert. Typesrepresented include small core/choppers, transverse convex scrapers, lamellarflakes, and rareendscrapers and notchedpieces. Runnels and van Andel relatedthis material to similarassemblages from Vassiliko on the islandof Zakynthos.36Following Mellars,37 they suggested that relatively undiagnosticassemblages of thisnature, which also tend to be made on smallpebbles, may be a variantof theMousterian associated with coastal exploitation.Similar assemblages may occur all alongthe eastern Adriatic coastlineand in Italyas well.38 The expedientnature of the Rikia assemblage,its smallsize, and the relativefrequency of cores(which make up nearly15% of the assemblage) all suggestthat the site was probablya single-useactivity area, possibly associatedwith the exploitation of raw materials in theform of redeposited chertpebbles available near the mouth of the Selas River.Such smalllithic scattershave also been associated with other specialized activities, including animal"kills," hunting camps, and butcheringsites; but thelack of formal tool typesor faunalmaterials and the overallexpedient nature of the as- semblageat 118 precludefurther speculation on theseactivities. The largestassemblage of lithicscollected by PRAP came from128 ( VromoneriVergina Rema), a sitethat was also discoveredduring extensive investigationsalong the fossilized dunes on thepresent-day coast south of Dialiskari.39The site,an extensive(ca. 120 x 40 m) scatterof 124 chipped stoneartifacts, is located4.5 km northof 118,along a dirtfarm road that runsatop a low cliffof Pliocene beach sandstoneadjacent to the Vergina streambed(Fig. 5). Lithicswere found eroding from a thindeflated layer 34. Chavaillon,Chavaillon, and of darkred soil,less than 15 cm thick.The red formedfrom ero- deposit Hours 1967,1969. sion of a Pleistocenebeach fasciathat was partiallyprotected from wave 35. Runnelsand van Andel 2003, erosionby its situationatop the Pliocene sandstonecliff. Some artifacts pp. 108-113. were also recoveredfrom secondary contexts in colluvialdeposits (talus) 36. Sordinas1968. adjacentto the cliff. 37. Mellars1996, pp. 356-365. site all of the artifactsand severalof the 38. Kuhn1995, op. 46-72. During collection, landscape 39. See also thediscussion of this featureswere a totalstation. We had that, piece-plottedusing hoped despite siteby the present authors in Davis the deflation of the artifact-bearingdeposits, the distributionof artifact et al. 1997,pp. 416-417,pls. 88:b, c; typesacross the surfaceof the site mightyield some spatialpatterning Cherryand Parkinson2003, pp. 40-41.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 15

5. The of site128 Figure setting indicativeof differential activity areas; researchers working in otherparts (VromoneriVergina Rema), looking ofGreece have had some success in areason Palaeolithic north.PRAP Archive analyzingactivity sitesfrom surface distributions.40 Unfortunately, ouranalyses revealed no identifiablepatterns in thedistribution ofmaterials at thesite, suggesting eitherthat no such patterns existed, or that any patterns have been obscured bypostdepositional processes of erosion and deflation. Withthe exception of five obsidian blade fragments, which are likely torelate to theEarly Helladic occupation at Nozaina (site 120) just to the south,all ofthe artifacts are made on localchert, probably collected from thecobbles redeposited from the limestone conglomerate in theVergina streambed.Compared to theassemblage from 118, the blanks and cores from128 aregenerally larger and appearto havebeen made from some- whatbigger chert nodules, but even so no artifactexceeds 7 cmin length. Althoughthere is a widerange of variability exhibited in thequality and colorof theraw materials in theassemblage, many of the artifacts were producedon grayand pale brown chert. Like those from 118, many of the artifactsare covered in a thick,milky-white patina and several are stained - withiron oxide from the parent soil matrix bothgood indicators of their considerableantiquity. Despitethe presence of theaforementioned obsidian blades in the assemblage,which most likely date to theBronze Age, we arecomfort- ablein assigning the site to theMiddle Palaeolithic Levallois-Mousterian tradition,based upon several typological and technological characteristics, includingthe presence of several Levallois cores and flakes, a single Leval- lois point,several denticulates and sidescrapers,and a fewbifacial core/ 40. See, e.g.,Runnels, Karimali, and choppers(see Figs. 6-9). As at118, we attemptedto obtainabsolute dates Cullen2003. forthe artifact-bearing deposits at 128using OSL dating.Unfortunately,

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l6 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

SF 1159

^~" SF 1151 V' V

Figure6. Chippedstone artifacts from128 ( VromoneriVergina Rema). SF 1106 SF 1159:sidescraper on secondary blade,gray chert; SF 1143:Levallois flake,faceted platform, gray chert; SF 1151:core/chopper on pebble, graychert; SF 1106:Levallois core, whitechert; SF 1210:Levallois flake, brownchert. Scale 1:2. J. F. Cherry and <^g|P^ SF 1210 J.Seagard theonly sample that successfully produced an estimatewas collectedfrom whatproved to be a redepositedcolluvial debris flow over the edge of the Pliocene sandstonecliff; as such,it onlyprovided a terminusante quern forthe artifactscatter itself (12,200 ± 1,100 b.r). The 119 chertartifacts in theassemblage all fitcomfortably in theMid- dle Palaeolithicand exhibitno typologicalor technologicalcharacteristics typicalof laterperiods. Of course,this does notwholly preclude the pos- sibilitythat some of the chert artifacts, like the obsidian blades, may instead belongto laterperiods. The assemblageyielded 75 flakesthat derive from all stagesof the reductionsequence (two primary, 28 secondary,and 45 tertiaryflakes); these includefive lamellar flakes, and at least threeLevallois flakes(SF 1143, Fig. 6; SF 1210,Fig. 6; SF 1229). The assemblagealso containsthree chert blades,two of whichare sidescrapers(SF 1159, Fig. 6; SF 1212, Fig. 7), and 13 flakecores (e.g., SF 1106, Fig. 6; SF 1173, Fig. 9; SF 1395, Fig. 9). Twenty-eightartifacts are made on naturalblanks or on unidentifiable flakingdébitage (spalls). The flakecores include a Levalloiscore (SF 1106, Fig. 6), severalcore/choppers (SF 1151, Fig. 6; SF 1116, Fig. 7; SF 1395, Fig. 9; SF 1110), and one smallbiface (SF 1195, Fig. 8). The otherflake coresare irregularor discoidalin form. Forty-six artifactsin the collectionare retouched(including two of the later obsidian blade fragments).In addition to the biface and the

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE IJ

Figure7. Chipped stoneartifacts from128 ( VromoneriVergina Rema). i* SF 1192 ' i / '~^ ' / SF 1116: unifacialchopper, gray chertpebble; SF 1225: bee on tertiary flake,brown chert; SF 1192: notch on naturalblank, gray and white chertpebble; SF 1185: sidescraper on bladelikeflake, brown chert; SF 1132: backed notchon SF1132 SF1128 tertiary U^-ítí? flake,gray chert; SF 1128: partially ' ' I backedbee on tertiaryflake, brown chert;SF 1212: sidescraperon trapezoidal blade fragment,gray chert; SF 1157: flakecore, gray and white chert.Scale 1:2. J. F. Cherryand J. Seagard I SF 1157

core/choppers,formal tool typesin the assemblageinclude a pseudo- Levalloispoint (SF 1210,Fig. 6), threebees (SF 1128,Fig. 7; SF 1225, Fig. 7; SF 1190), a denticulate(SF 1208), fourendscrapers on flakes (SF 1105,Fig. 9; SF 1154,Fig. 9; SF 1153;SF 1171),a doublesidescraper on a lamellarflake (SF 1172,Fig. 8), threenotches (SF 1132,Fig. 7; SF 1202,Fig. 9; SF 1192),three sidescrapers onblades (e.g., SF 1159,Fig. 6; SF 1212,Fig. 7), two sidescrapers on flakes (e.g., SF 1185,Fig. 7; SF 1200, Fig.8), and one on a spall(SF 1175).Other retouched tools include a point (SF 1164)on a flake,and 10 pieces with irregular retouch to one or both lateraledges. There are only three pieces that have been retouched distally. The differencesbetween the assemblages from 128 and 118 cannot be overemphasized,especially given their strikingly similar landscape settings. The materialfrom 118 is difficultto classifychronologically owing to its smallsize and its general lack of distinctive technological and typological attributes,but the assemblage from 128 contains several features frequently associatedwith the Mousterian in otherparts of Greece.These features includeLevallois flakes and cores, sidescrapers, lamellar flakes, a biface, and core/choppers.These all suggesta Levallois-Mousterianassociation for theassemblage. Although formal types commonly associated with earlier or laterUpper Palaeolithic assemblages (e.g., carinated endscrapers on blades,or backed blades) are lacking at 128,the few thick chert blades in theassemblage may also indicate an ephemeralUpper Palaeolithic phase at thesite. Since most of thematerial eroded from a deflatedsoil layer, it is certainlypossible that the site was usedmore than once during the

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions l8 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

SF 1195 SF 1215

SF1117 SF1206 yáMffifrk. Figure 8. Chipped stoneartifacts from128 ( VromoneriVergina Rema). SF 1195: bifacialcore, brown chert; SF 1215: tertiaryflake, brown chert; SF 1206: secondaryflake, brown chert;SF 1117: biface,brown chert; SF 1200: sidescraperon secondary SF 1172: double Ti SF1172 flake,gray chert; r; J W^vl sidescraperon bladelikeflake, brown SF 1200 chert.Scale 1:2. J. F. Cherryand J. Seagard

Figure9. Chipped stoneartifacts from128 (VromoneriVergina Rema). SF 1173: flakecore, dark SF 1154 purplechert; SF 1202: shallow notchon tertiaryflake, gray chert; SF 1154: endscraperon spall,gray chert;SF 1105: endscraperon secondaryflake, brown chert; SF 1395: core/chopper,white chert. Scale 1:2. SF 1395 J.F. Cherryand J. Seagard

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE IC

laterPleistocene. 128 also lacks the bifacial,leaf-shaped points that have been identifiedon terminalMousterian sites in northernGreece and in theArgolid,41 suggesting that the site dates to a different,probably earlier, phase of the Mousterian. Absolutedating of Mousterian assemblages in Epirushas definedtwo relativelydistinct facies corresponding to theearlier and laterMousterian.42 The earlierfacies is characterizedby relatively larger artifacts and frequent use ofthe Levallois technique, lamellar flakes, Levallois points, and convex sidescrapers.At Asprochaliko(basal layers16 and 18) thisfacies is dated to ca. 98.5 kyrbp; it belongsto oxygenisotope stage (OIS) 5 (ca. 115- 74 kyrbp), and maycontinue into OIS 4 and 3 (ca. 74-59 kyrbp). The laterfacies of the Mousterian is verysimilar to theearlier one, but exhibits theLevallois technique in muchlower frequency and generallyis associated withrelatively smaller artifacts (termed the "micromousterian"). Although the size differencebetween the two has been overemphasizedin thepast, the laterfacies is characterizedby Mousterianpoints and a wide range of sidescrapers.At Asprochaliko,the later facies, which is associatedwith layer14, is poorlydated by radiocarbonto ca. 40-30 kyrbp. LaterMous- terianassemblages in the southernArgolid and Thessalyhave been dated by radiocarbonand U/Th seriesto ca. 55,000-30,000 yearsago.43 Otherstratified Middle PalaeolithicMousterian assemblages are known fromMavri Myti,Kalamakia, Theopetra, Klissoura, Lakonis, Maara, Ke- phalari,and Franchthi.44The smallsize ofthe Franchthi assemblage45 makes comparisonto thatsite difficult, and theassemblage from 128 does notcon- tainthe retouched Mousterian points common at Theopetraand Klissoura (Cave 1),but this lack may be merelya functionof the small size of the sample from128. The artifactsin the 128 assemblageare generallynot verylarge (all < 7 cm in length).The Levallois techniqueof corepreparation is present, but certainlyriot dominant, with at least as manydiscoidal and irregular cores.In addition,the mostcommon formal tool typein the assemblage is the sidescraper,followed by the endscraperon a flake.These features 41. Gamble1986, pp. 160-179; would suggesta laterMousterian association for the assemblage.But, as Runnels 285. 1988,p. alreadynoted, the assemblagedoes not containthe bifacial"laurel-leaf" 42. and Bailey,Papaconstantinou, associatedwith the terminal Mousterian in thesouthern Balkans,46 1992;Huxtable et al. 1992; points Sturdy associatedwith the Szeletian in and the Runnelsand van Andel 2003, p. 106. roughly Hungary Chatelperronian 43. Pope,Runnels, and Ku 1984; in westernEurope, which is dated to approximately30,000-45,000 years Runnels1988; Runnelsand van Andel ago. Hence, the assemblagefrom 128 appearsto correspondbest with the 1993;2003, p. 106. phase of the laterMousterian documented in excavatedcontexts in layer 44. Darlas (2007) providesan excel- 14 at it lacksretouched Mousterian lentrecent see also Darlas 1995 Asprochaliko,although points.47 review; Given the site'ssituation the streambedand the (MavriMyti); 1999 (Kalamakia);Dar- alongside Vergina factthat all of the reduction are in the as- las and de Lumley2004 (Kalamakia); stages sequence represented Panagopoulou2000 (Theopetra);Kou- semblage,it maybe suggestedthat the site could have servedas a location mouzeliset al. 2001 (Klissoura);Pana- forraw material procurement. In contrastto 118,however, which appears et al. 2002-2004 gopoulou (Lakonis). to have been a single-useactivity area, there are rathermore artifacts at 45. Perlés1987, pp. 85-88. 128, and theyinclude a numberof differentformal tool types,suggesting 46. Runnels1988, p. 285; Runnels andvan Andel 1993. eithermore frequentsite use by differentgroups carrying out different - - 47. Bailey,Papaconstantinou, and tasks,or less likely the singleuse by a largergroup carrying out more Sturdy1992; Huxtableet al. 1992. diversetasks.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2O WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

Middle Palaeolithic: Off-Site Artifacts In additionto theMiddle Palaeolithic artifacts collected at sites118 and 128,both of which were identified in thecourse of targeted searches for Pleistocenesites, routine intensive survey resulted in findsof a fewarti- factsthat typologically and/or technologically can also be assignedto the MiddlePalaeolithic. The findspotsof these artifacts are also restricted to - thecoastal plain west of the Gargaliani escarpment that is, in thesame generalarea as 118and 128. The Middle Palaeolithicstray finds include three Levallois flakes (SF 290,Fig. 10; SF 393; SF 584,Fig. 10), the last of which approaches a Levalloispoint in form.A possibleretouched Mousterian point (SF 614) wasidentified among the lithics collected from site 120, a predominantly EarlyHelladic site located about 300 m southof 128 (see Fig. 3). All of theselithics are heavily patinated and chemicallyaltered, and someare stainedred with iron oxide. Although some other artifacts inthe assemblage (e.g.,SF 230, SF 260) arealso heavily patinated, chemically altered, and stainedred, and maylikewise date to thePleistocene, these lack formal attributesthat allow them to be assignedto specifictraditions within the Palaeolithic.

Figure 10. Middle Palaeolithicstray finds.SF 290: Levallois flake/core, SF290 graychert; SF 584: Levallois flake, S^ÉÉJliì^ whitelimestone. Scale 1:2. F. SF 584 J. Cherry, ^^^ R.J. Robertson, and J. Seagard

Thesefew off-site stray finds generally support the pattern indicated - bysites 118 and 128 namely,that the Middle Palaeolithic exploitation ofMessenia was veryephemeral, probably occurred rather late (perhaps afterca. 60,000years ago), and seems to havebeen restricted to open-air sitesnear the coast.

The Middle Palaeolithic Exploitation of Messenia

The timingand tempo of the Palaeolithic occupation of the Greek pen- insulahas been the subject of much debate. The dataindicate only a very sparsehuman presence in theregion during the Lower Palaeolithic,48 but 48. Runnels(1995) offersa thor- thereexists considerable evidence for much more substantial habitation oughdiscussion of earlier research duringthe Middle Palaeolithic.49 Runnels has argued thatThessaly and the on thistopic; see also Kokkorosand Péloponnèsewere only occupied late in the Middle Palaeolithic, during the Kanellis1960; Higgs 1964; Runnels laterMousterian ca. He attributesthis to a southward 1988; Runnelset al. 1999; Runnelsand (after 50,000b.p.).50 vanAndel 2003. of Palaeolithic intothe "push" earlyUpper (i.e.,Aurignacian) populations 49. Summarizedin Cherryand southernBalkans, a process that would have displaced Middle Palaeolithic Parkinson2003, pp. 39-40. (i.e.,Mousterian) groups. Climatic amelioration also may have reduced the 50. Runnels1995, p. 714.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 21

sizeof the coastal plains in northwestern Greece, thus forcing Mousterian (i.e.,Neanderthal) populations further south. The admittedlylimited data from the PRAP survey,presented above, generallysupport this late model for a substantialexploitation ofthe Pélo- ponnèse:no LowerPalaeolithic artifacts were identified in thestudy area, andthe earliest substantial evidence for exploitation in theregion comes fromsites 118 and 128.This matchesa generalpattern throughout the Péloponnèse,where already in the 1960sMichael Jameson and various Frenchteams had documented significant Middle Palaeolithic habitation inthe Argolid, at KephalariCave (nearArgos), and in the region of Elis.51 As notedabove, stratified Peloponnesian Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian assemblagesare knownfrom caves at Klissoura,Kephalari, Franchthi, Lakonis,and Kalamakia.52Despite our inability to assignthe assemblage from118 to a specificphase, both absolute Chronometrie techniques and weaktechnological and typologicalparallels with assemblages elsewhere suggestthat it dates generally to theMiddle Palaeolithic and that it most likelyis a coastalvariant of the Mousterian. 128 exhibits several elements typicalof the later Mousterian and bears strong formal parallels with later Mousterianopen-air sites both in northernGreece and in theArgolid.53 Open-airMousterian sites are not uncommon in the southern Balkan Mousterian.In fact,recent comparisons of patterns derived from surveys and excavationssuggest that open-air sites tend to be muchmore com- monthan rock-shelter or cavesites in Greece.54Mousterian sites occur in relativelyhigh frequencies compared to sitesof other (both earlier and later)periods of the Palaeolithic in theAegean. In general,they tend to occurin larger numbers in northernGreece (Thessaly and Epirus) and in Albaniathan they do in southernGreece.55 Forexample, in additionto thevery small Mousterian assemblage in thebasal layers at Franchthi Cave,56 the Argolid Exploration Project (AEP) identifiedonly three other sites in thearea that date to theMiddle Pa- laeolithic;all of themare in open-airsettings and one (B85) is located on a coastalplain, like PRAP sites128 and I18.57 Kardulias and Runnels notedthat all ofthe Middle Palaeolithic assemblages in theArgolid are verysimilar, despite their quite varied landscape settings. Interestingly, the homogeneityinsize of the Middle Palaeolithic artifacts in theArgolid as- semblagesextends to thosefrom PRAP: despiteconsiderable differences intheir findspots, raw material availability, and sample size, the length and widthof flakes from 118 and 128 areclosely comparable to thosein the materialfrom the Argolid. Recentresearch in Epirus has expanded our understanding ofthe for- malvariability associated with Mousterian sites. There, based largely upon datacollected during the course of surface survey,58 Runnels and van Andel

51. Servais1961; Bialorand Jame- 54. Runnels1995, p. 710; Cherry Andel2003; Runnelset al. 2004,2009. son 1962; Leroi-Gourhan,Chavaillon, and Parkinson2003, p. 43; Runnelsand 56. Perlés1987, pp. 85-88. and Chavaillon1963; Leroi-Gourhan vanAndel 2003, p. 106. 57. Karduliasand Runnels1995, 1964; Reisch1980, 1982. 55. Runnels1988, 1995; Kardulias pp. 86-87. 52. Forreferences, see n. 44, above. and Runnels1995; Runnelset al. 1999; 58. Papagianni2000; Runnels, 53. Karduliasand Runnels1995, Papagianni2000; Cherryand Parkin- Karimali,and Cullen2003; Runnels pp. 86-87. son 2003,pp. 39-43; Runnelsand van and vanAndel 2003.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 22 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY haveargued that the wide range of variability exhibited by Mousterian sites suggestsa modelof "modified logistical land use."59 In theirview, differ- entlocales in Epirus offered variable types of resources that drew hominids at differenttimes of year. As a result,they adopted a systemof residential mobilitythat incorporated the use of some special-purpose sites (e.g., kill- sites,hunting camps, sites for the exploitation ofraw material), along with longer-term"base camps." The sitesin southernGreece do notexhibit the wide range of vari- abilityin sitesize, artifact numbers, types represented, site location, and temporalduration that is documentedin northwesternGreece, but recent excavationsat stratifiedMiddle Palaeolithic cave sites such as Kalamakia, Lakonis,Klissoura, and Kephalariare helping to fleshout the picture of MiddlePalaeolithic settlement variability inthe Péloponnèse. Although we cannotbe certainof the extent to which our sample has been biased owing toeustatic sea-level rise,60 at leastthree different types of Mousterian sites in southernGreece can now be identified:1) largestratified sites in caves; 2) open-airsites producing 100-500 artifacts; and 3) open-airsites with fewerthan 100 artifacts.The stratifiedcave sites and the larger open-air sites(including PRAP site128 and AEP sitesB27 andF25) tendto have more"typical" Mousterian tool types represented, while the smaller sites (includingPRAP 118 and AEP B85) tendto be morevariable in their typologicalcharacteristics. For example, PRAP site118 contains very few typologicalor technological indicators, while AEP siteB8$ containstwo bifacialfoliates similar to thosewell documentedfurther north.61 This variabilityat smallersites may be due to temporaldifferences, since the siteswith bifacial leafpoints seem to dateto theterminal Mousterian, or it maybe dueto variability in activitiescarried out by different groups at thesites.

Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

Thereis littlethat can be saidabout the Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic periodsin the PRAP studyarea. Our research produced only two relevant strayfinds: two heavily patinated, thick chert blades (Fig. 11), one with steependscraper retouch typical of the early Upper Palaeolithic (SF 329), andthe other, snapped distally, with retouch to bothlateral edges form- inga doublesidescraper (SF 335).Both of these artifacts were found near thecoast. No otherartifacts in theassemblage as a wholeare identifiable as havingtypological or technologicalattributes characteristic ofUpper Palaeolithicor Mesolithic;obvious type fossils such as backedblades, bladelets,or geometric microliths are absent. ThroughoutGreece, there seems to be a tendencyfor Upper Palaeo- lithicand Mesolithic sites to be clusteredinto relatively discrete areas of 59. Runnelsand van Andel 2003, thelandscape.62 It maybe thatthose relatively small areas of Messenia p. 108. intensivelyinvestigated by PRAP simplydid not witness occupation dur- 60. See vanAndel and Shackleton these even human havebeen 1982;van Andel 1989. ing periods, though activitymay takingplace 61. Runnels Karduliasand elsewhere close On theother forthe Mesolithic in 1988; quite by. hand, particular, Runnels1995, p. 87, fig.71:1. "directedsurveys" aimed at environments towhich Mesolithic people would 62. The evidenceis summarizedin havebeen drawn, and which also provide settings suitable for the visible Cherryand Parkinson2003, pp. 43-45.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 23

Figure11. Upper Palaeolithicstray finds.SF 329: endscraperon blade, graychert; SF 335: double sidescraperon proximalblade fragment, I- r sf335 white chert. Scale 1:2.J. F. Cherry,R. J. y v~'' Robertson,and J. Seagard SF329

preservationofartifacts, have over the past decade been notably successful inlocating sites of this period in areasas widelyscattered as coastalAlba- nia,Epirus, the northern Sporades, the Argolid at Kandia,and the south coastof Crete at Plakias.63 Runnels has also recently demonstrated, from a restudyof undated artifact assemblages from the 1979-1983 AEP survey, thatsome Mesolithic sites had been overlooked because the characteristic featuresof their lithic industries were not yet properly understood at the timeof the original survey.64 It is thusquite possible that future directed surveysin Messeniamay bring to lightadditional information about oc- cupationin thelatest Pleistocene and earliest Holocene.

The Neolithic Period

Thereis little evidence for Holocene exploitation of the region until the Bronze Age. Priorto PRAP fieldworkin Messenia,evidence of Neolithic activity withinits survey area came fromexcavations at PetrohoriCave ofNestori PetrohoriVoidokoilia,66 and withinthe town of Hora (Hora Katavothrá).67 PRAP producedscanty ceramic material at severalsites that may probably or possiblybe assignedto the Neolithicperiod (e.g., at GargalianiKana- los[Dl], KoryfasioBeylerbey [II], GargalianiOrdines [Kl], and at Garga- lianiAyia Sotira[K2]); all of thesesites have substantiallater prehistoric - occupations,however, and thisuncertain material a distinctclass of coarse - ware quite possiblybelongs to thoselater periods.68 No lithicsin the assemblagecan be assignedwith absolute certainty to the Neolithic. Although the assemblage does contain a handfulof sickleelements and severaldozen of the obsidian prismaticblades that are so commonin the Neolithicand Bronze Age in the Aegean,in most cases these too derivefrom contexts that are associatedwith substantial amountsof Bronze Age material.This fact,combined with the overall scarcityof evidencefor Neolithic settlement throughout the studyregion, leads us to suspectthat most of theseblades also date to the BronzeAge.

63. ForAlbania, see Runnelset al. pp. 60-61. 2004,2009; Epirus:Runnels and van 66. Korres1990, pp. 1-2; Davis Andel2003; Sporades:Sampson et al. 2008,p. 62. 2002; Argolid:Runnels et al. 2005; 67. Lolos 1994,p. 45; Davis 2008, Crete:Strasser et al. 2009; Strasser p. 59. et al.,forthcoming. 68. This materialis discussedin 64. Runnels2009. detail,with comparanda, in Davis et al. 65. Sampson1980; Davis 2008, 1997,pp. 417, 430, 438-439.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 24 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

Figure12. Strayfinds of possible Neolithicor Early Helladic date. SF 501:"slug"-like steeply retouched flake,brown chert; SF 1279:dentic- SF501 ulateon naturalblank, beige chert. ^¿Uw Scale1:2. J. F. Cherry and J. Seagard

The onlypossible candidate for an artifactdatable to the Neolithicis a thick,retouched blade made on an exhaustedblade core(SF 501, Fig. 12) collectedin tractD-305. The blankis made on veryhomogeneous reddish brownchert that has steepretouch on both lateraledges, creating a tool reminiscentof (but not typologicallyidentical to) the "slugs"common in theNeolithic throughout the region.69 One bifaciallyflaked point fragment fromsite 14 (SF 712, Fig. 15,below) evokesa Middle Neolithictransverse arrowhead,but the diagnostic base is brokenoff, preventing reliable assig- nationto thatperiod. Remnantlayers of Final Neolithicsettlements have been identified underHelladic occupations elsewhere in thePéloponnèse, and itis possible thata similarpattern may have obscuredthe evidencefor Final Neolithic settlementin thePRAP studyarea. But evenif there were small Final Neo- lithicsettlements in theregion, the overall lack of evidence for the habitation of Messenia throughoutthe Neolithicperiod is somewhatanomalous for thePéloponnèse as a whole,70and mayrelate to a continuationof the trend - establishedduring the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic namely,one of clusteredsettlements in specificareas with diverse resources. - Other surveysin the Péloponnèse for example,in the southern - Argolid,the Nemea valley,and the Asea valley,as well as on Methana have documentedplentiful Neolithic sites and off-sitefinds.71 In general, those areas in Greece that have producedNeolithic sites in abundance tendalso to be the same areasthat contain some (albeitnot many)Upper Palaeolithicand Mesolithicsites, for example in theArgolid.72 This pattern maynot be perfectlyconsistent over time, and it does not seem to hold in northernGreece where there is a markedinverse correlation between the frequencyof Neolithicand Mesolithicsites.73 Nevertheless, it is a pattern thatmay help to shedlight on theprocesses associated with the "Neolithi- - zation"of a givenregion processesthat are becomingly increasingly com- plex and dynamicas our detailedunderstanding of themincreases. Justas theprocess of Neolithization is nowunderstood to haveoccurred througha combinationof demie migration and in situacculturation across the European continent,it is equallylikely that both processesoccurred

69. CherryandTorrence 1982, symmetry,but asymmetrical in section. 71. Cherryet al. 1988; Kardulias pp.27-31, fig.3.3:i-k; 1984, p. 14. The bulbarsurface is flatwhile the and Runnels1995; Mee and Forbes The term"slugs" was firstintroduced uppersurface is stronglyconvex and 1997,pp. 46-50; Carter2003. byEvans and Renfrew(1968, pp. 50- heavilyworked" (p. 52). At Saliagos, 72. Karduliasand Runnels1995, 52, figs.16:E, 67:9,67:11), who de- thesetools date to theMiddle to Late pp. 85-92. finedthem as "longnarrow tools with Neolithictransitional period. 73. Perlés2001, pp. 59-60. longitudinalsymmetry, and end-to-end 70. Cavanagh2004.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 25

withinthe Greek peninsula itself. While there is significantevidence for demiemigration in thenorthern part of the peninsula, the hunting and gatheringMesolithic groups in thesouth seem to haveacquired different elementsassociated with the Neolithic only gradually, and probably through processesof acculturation. While early agriculturalists quickly moved into thoseareas that were ideal for raising domesticated crops and animals (e.g., theThessalian plain), broad expanses of thesouthern Greek landscape, suchas Messenia,seem to haveremained largely unoccupied throughout theperiod. This maybe becausethey were as unattractiveto early horti- culruralistsas they were to theirhunting-and-gathering predecessors; on theother hand, Messenia s watersources, rich in comparison with much of theremainder of the Péloponnèse, might be expectedto haveencouraged earlysettlement, despite the current scarcity of evidence for it.

The Early Helladic Period

The evidencefor occupation and exploitation ofthis part of the Messenian landscapeincreases steadily throughout the Bronze Age: a handfulof sites inthe Early Helladic (EH) period,a fewmore in Middle Helladic (MH), andsubstantial growth in theLate Helladic (LH) period.Rather few EH siteswere known in Messeniaprior to PRAP.These includethe burial tumulusat PetrohoriVoidokoilia7A Lepreon Ay ios Dimitrios7S Kalamata Akovitika76and FiliatraS tornio.77 To thisnumber, PRAP has addedat leastone newsite at VromoneriNozaina (120), and possiblyanother at GargalianiKalantina (1) (Ml). In additionto thesesites that are predominantly Early Helladic in date,sparse ceramic materials associated with this horizon were collected at severalsites whose main occupation seems to havebeen in otherperi- ods.Among these finds is a handfulof EH potteryat 128whose fabric is similarto thatat VromoneriNozaina (see below)and a smallamount of diagnosticEH II potteryat RomanouRomanou (14), a sitethat is mainly LH IIIB andlater.78 Possible EH II materialwas also collected at Garga- lianiKanalos (Dl) andGargaliani Ordines (Kl), bothsites predominantly occupiedin the MH, LH, andlater periods. The sitesurrounding the Palace ofNestor (B7), surveyed very intensively byPRAP, has produced minimal signsof settlement prior to 2000 b.c.,the end of the EH phase.79 Davisand his colleagues note that most of the EH materialsin the re- gionderive from sites near the coast of western Messenia.80 This paucity of EH sitesis nottypical of the Péloponnèse as a whole.For example, in the southernArgolid, Kardulias and Runnelsnoted that "the largest single

74. Hope Simpsonand Dickinson remainshave recently come to lightin regularplan. Preliminary reports refer 1979,site D8; Korres1990, pp. 2-5; thevicinity as a resultof rescue excava- to "largequantities of obsidian" in the 1993,p. 234, no. 3. tions(conducted by Jörg Rambach) eastpart of the settlement (Morgan 75. Hope Simpsonand Dickinson necessitatedby construction work for 2008,p. 41). 1979,site D245; Zachos 2008. themassive Costa Navarinoresort 79. Bennet2007, p. 32. Stocker 76. Hope Simpsonand Dickinson complexon thecoast near Romanou. (2003,p. 402) discussesthe distribution 1979,site D151. The settlement,dating to EH II, lies of EH III-MH I findsin thelower 77. Hope Simpsonand Dickinson on thesouth side of the Selas River townof the Palace ofNestor and else- 1979,site D65; Hatzi 1991. and consistsof a numberof houses ori- whereon theEnglianos Ridge. 78. ExtensiveEarly Bronze Age entedalong streets arranged in a rather 80. Davis et al. 1997,pp. 418-419.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions *5^ Nioi^vONOOOOtvÛ^inqq rt^ONvOOOcnvOpcnOCNvO© etì ? b» ÖÖKrH*Hc)0KÖKÖrHCOCOdC5HKÖÖÖKÖ(NÖT-Hl>!'OC ,-S? ,cv rsi OCNíNt-hioínOco Q SO On rH 'O 1-1 rH

.8 ^s in

"S» COOO1- I O 1- l^^t^OONi- I (N r^ 1- IfSjr^^COvûrHrHOiNi- lOCOU"ìOr- 1 r?O 1-1 tHtHCO^-(N tHi-I

"5 ir^i-icoo>i-ii-icooocoi-iONOOOOi-i^^<^ON<^coor^^rq^cOi-i^

^ rH (N O tí

ß l H rH CO XT) -Û r5^^ II o

hr^ COCOrH TfrHrHrH ITI W t ^ CN

|| F?* CNJrHCN^rHr^vOr^rHOOCnr^^trHCNTÎ-OOr^LOCnrH rHrHrHt^sOcncn ^ ^rHrH rHrHrHTj-CO CN^to fe >»rHTj- io 1- l^i- IrHlOLOLOON i- I N ON ^ ON i- I i- I i- I (NCO^t CO J£ "* rH CNJ rH rH CO ^ Co ^3 II Ij^rHrHrH 7-i r-' r-i COCNCNIrH CO f^CQ

ë Q OrHOrHOCN^t^tOCNrHTj-CXJOrHr^OONtnOCNIrHrHOOCOvOOCN >^ En -g g

Q rH 1-I CN rHrHsOr-1

« H s ^ -§1 P9 II 'S «§ •g ÇJ rH CN CO ed C/D *■ tí § l¿ CU >* rHCOrHrHLO Ttt^-IOr^rHrH rHCNONC^- ^ H Tt- g J¿ H CL rHrHCO H M M OCN * "^ Oh CLrH rHrHi- IrHOO j-^ ^^m ^ PQ J3E >. U Oh oo ^ r^ rH rH ON 'S îô tí «:_ _ s § .g ^ PQ É I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I O <

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE ZJ

categoryof sites in the[AEP] surveybelongs to theEarly Bronze Age,"81 and theyidentified 33 siteswith lithics dating to theEH period.Such variabilityinthe distribution ofsites and population throughout the Pélo- ponnèse,however, is nowwell established and maysimply reflect a continuationof trends established much earlier. Since the PRAP EH dataset is so small,it cancontribute relatively little to ourunderstanding oflithic technologyin theEarly Bronze Age ofsouthern Greece, fortunately al- readywell documented at a numberof excavatedsites elsewhere in the Péloponnèse(e.g., at Lerna).82 We limitthe discussion here to the chipped stoneassemblages associated with sites 120 and Ml. VromoneriNozaina (120) is situatedabout 300 m southof 128 on a conglomeratecap that overlies eroding clay deposits. Ceramic material was founddensely concentrated in a verysmall area (0.01 ha) andconsisting ofcoarse to semifinepottery that belongs exclusively to theEH period, witha fewdiagnostic shapes that suggest an EH II date.83The smalllithic assemblageassociated with the site contains nine obsidian and 19 chert artifacts.The formerinclude two tertiary flakes and seven blade fragments; one bladeis triangularand sixare trapezoidal in cross-section;only one bladeis retouched.The chertassemblage contains 11 flakesand eight spallson local chert,most of which is gray;two artifacts are retouched (Table8).84 Ml (GargalianiKalantina [1]) is an inlandsite located on darkred soilssouth of the modern town of Gargaliani. The sitelies on theslope ofa steepvalley that connects the flat coastal plain west of the Gargaliani escarpmentwith the uplands at the foot of Mount Aigaleon. Ceramic ma- terialsimilar in fabricto thatfound at 120was collectedhere, along with a fewpieces diagnostic of EH II.85 The assemblagefrom Ml is associatedwith a densecluster of off-site materialthat occurs throughout the vicinity. The 56 artifactsdirectly as- sociatedand contiguous with Ml includeonly three pieces of obsidian (a primaryflake, an unretouched trapezoidal blade fragment, and a spall)and 53 piecesof chert (43 flakes,two flake cores, and eight spalls, mostly on lightbrown chert similar to that abundant in the surrounding area). In the immediatevicinity, however, another 142 lithicswere collected, of which 27 wereassociated with site M2 (GargalianiKalantina [2]), a sitemainly occupiedafter the end of the Bronze Age. The siteis locatedin an area richwith chert nodules redeposited from the conglomerate eroding out ofthe uplands, and all stagesin thereduction sequence are represented at thesite, suggesting that it was used, at leastin part,to exploitthese chert resources.The 13 retouchedtools in theMl assemblageinclude two bees

81. Karduliasand Runnels1995, obsidianblade fragments that are prob- smalland brokenon theleft proximal p. 93. ablyalso ofEarly Bronze Age date. edge,its formal characteristics suggest 82. Runnels1985; Hartenbergerand 84. The retouchedpieces include a thatit maybe a Mousterianpoint Runnels2001. flakeon heavilypatinateci, red-stained associatedwith nearby site 128. Clearly, 83. As alreadynoted (p. 25) , a few materialthat has a facetedplatform as therehas beensome spatial blurring potsherdswith a similarfabric were wellas partialretouch on bothlateral betweenthe materials from sites 120 collectedat (otherwisePalaeolithic) site marginsthat forms a pointdistally and 128 (see n. 83, above). 128,where they are associated with five (SF 614). Althoughthe piece is quite 85. Davis et al. 1997,p. 418.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 28 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

(SF 1322,SF 1356),two endscrapers (SF 982, SF 1353),a convergent Figure 13 (opposite,top). Location of scraper(SF 1354),a borer(SF 1380),and a notch(SF 1372).The two the nine areas intensivelysurveyed by flakecores are small and irregular. PRAP. Alcocket al. 2005,p. 165,fig. 6. R. J.Robertson A significantamount of material derived from the tracts in and around Ml alsodate to the EH The of stoneartifacts may period. density chipped Figure 14 (opposite,bottom). Distri- in the42 ha areaaround Ml (areaIV) is thehighest of all theanalytical butionof tractswith obsidian or unitsin the region (areas I- IX; Figs.13, 14). It is twiceas highas anyother chertartifacts in thewestern part regionin thePRAP studyarea (2.7 perhectare) and includes 143 pieces of the PRAP studyarea. Areas VIII ofchipped stone, 27 ofwhich are associated with site M2, and fourare and IX, in whichvery few tracts associatedwith M4 (Table8). producedlithic finds, have been Theprimary occupation at M2 seemsto be post- Bronze Age, although omitted. S. Heath and R. J.Robertson a handfulof sherds dating to theMH andLH periodswere found at the site.M4 has no prehistoriccomponent. All butone ofthe lithics associatedwith M2 werefound either in tractscontiguous to thesite itself or in surveytracts that were later directly associated with (i.e., on topof) the site.The smallassemblage includes six pieces of obsidian and 21 ofchert; thereare two obsidian blade fragments. The chertassemblage also containstwo small blade fragments, a tabular flake core, a bifacialflake core, anda singlenotch. Although it is possiblethat the dispersed assemblage at M2 is,in fact,associated with the post-Bronze Age occupationat the site,its situation in an areawith a relativelyhigh lithic density suggests thatthe association of the lithics with the site may be purelycoincidental. This uncertainty,ofcourse, is an inevitableconsequence of dealing with surfaceassemblages of chipped stone, much of which may not in itselfbe chronologicallydiagnostic. The tractfinds from area IV thatare not associated (or contiguous) withsites number 113, including 29 piecesof obsidian, 83 piecesof chert, andone piece of quartz. The off-siteobsidian associated with area IV in- cludesfive blade fragments, 11 flakes, and 13 spallsor natural blanks. The sixretouched obsidian tools include three retouched blade fragments and a notch(SF 1086).The chertassemblage contains 60 flakes,two blades, six flakecores, and 15 spallsor pieces of débitage. The retouchedchert tools includetwo bees (SF 1002,SF 963),a borer(SF 1023),two denticulates (SF 991; SF 1279,Fig. 12,above), two endscrapers (SF 997,SF 1001),a sidescraper(SF 1294),a possiblelunate (SF 1066),a notch,and several pieceswith intermittent retouch. Most of the raw material is brown,and someof it is patinatedand stained from the iron oxides in thesoil, giving it an appearancesimilar to someof thePalaeolithic artifacts recovered fromsite 128. The relativepercentage of obsidian in off-site finds (26%) is higher inarea IV thanit is in anyof the other areas. Area VI hasthe next highest percentageof obsidianin theoff-site assemblage, but that figure (23%) is almostcertainly skewed by the obsidian-rich site of Romanou (14, see below).This high percentage of obsidian in area IV is especiallysurprising, giventhe ubiquity of relatively good-quality chert throughout this part of thesurvey area. While some of the chipped stone artifacts in thearea IV collectionmay date to earlier (possibly even Palaeolithic) contexts, and some mayhave been deposited in post-Bronze Age contexts, the majority of the lithicmaterial in the collection seems to relateto a relativelyhigh-density off-sitelithic scatter associated with the EH (probablyEH II) settlement atMl.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 2Ç

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 3O WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

Middle and Late Helladic: On-Site Distributions

The numberof sites in theregion increased significantly during the MH period,86including more substantial evidence of settlement atB7 (Palaceof Nestor),Dl (GargalianiKana/os), II (KoryfasioBeylerbey), and Kl (Gar- galianiOrdines), and at twosites beyond the ridge of Mt. Aigaleon:A2 (MetaxadaKalopsand) and LI (MaryeliKoutsouveri). MH ceramicsalso werecollected at several smaller sites, including C3 (TraganaVorou/ia), K2 (GargalianiAyia Sotira), and K3 ( ValtaKastrakt). All ofthe sites that were occupiedduring MH continuedto be occupiedwell into the LH period. Newsites established either very late in MH orduring the LH periodin- cludeD2 (GargalianiMegas Kambos [1]), G3 ( VromoneriPigadia), 13 (Kory- fasioPortes), and 121 (Ambelofyto Lagou). 14 (RomanouRomanou) ya site thatproduced some material dated to EH butno clearly datable MH finds, grewsubstantially during the LH period. PRAP explored22 sitesthat date to MH and/orLH; ofthese, 15 sites (A2,B7, Cl, Dl, D2, D3, G3, II, 12,13, 14, Kl, K2,K3, and M2) yielded lithicfinds (Tables 6, 8). Theyinclude both small sites with modest as- semblagescomprising only a handfulof flaked-stoneartifacts (e.g., A2, K2),and larger settlements with over 100 artifacts(e.g., 14). M2 hasonly evanescenttraces of MH andLH, andis primarilya historical site. The 373lithic items associated with these 15 MH andLH sitesinclude - 121(32%) pieces of obsidian and 252 (68%)pieces of chert a considerably higherpercentage of obsidian when compared both to thetotal percentage in thePRAP lithicassemblage overall (17%), and to thepercentage ofobsidian collected from the two EH sitesdiscussed above (14%). This couldsignal a generalincrease of obsidian in circulation inwestern Messenia duringthe MH andLH periods;more likely, however, itis a reflectionof thehigh frequency of obsidian at a singlesite (Romanou Romanou [14]), whichalone accounts for almost two-thirds of all theobsidian associated withthe MH and LH sitesin theregion, and makesup 40% of all the obsidianin thePRAP assemblage(see Table 8). The quantityof chipped stone artifacts on eachof these sites is very variable(from one to 114),but most sites with chipped stone assemblages arerestricted to thecoastal plain in thewesternmost portion of the study area.Several of the sites with only a fewchipped stone artifacts actually exhibita lowerdensity of chipped stone artifacts than the "background" densityof lithics throughout the region, suggesting that the association of chippedstone artifacts with these sites is coincidentalrather than a reflectionofmeaningful cultural patterns. Over the ca. 630 ha intensively surveyedby PRAP, the average density of flaked stone material is about 0.6 perhectare. This providesa roughestimate of the "background" frequencyof chipped stone artifacts across the landscape that can be usedas a baselinefor comparing the relative densities of chipped stone artifacts on sites.As Table8 reveals,the density at differentsites throughout the regionvaries from 0.44 perhectare (e.g., at D3) to 620 and 908 lithics perhectare at thetwo Palaeolithic sites discussed above. It is important to rememberthat these are general numbers generated from a varietyof 86. Davis et al. 1997,p. 419.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 3I

differentsampling methods, including total "vacuum" pick-up of some sites, andvarious sampling methodologies at others(as indicatedin Table 6). As such,these numbers provide only the roughest of measures for gauging relativedensities at differentsites in thestudy area. The sitesthat predate MH andLH generallyhave high densities of lithics.Both Palaeolithic sites exhibit densities that exceed 600 lithicsper hectare,while the two Early Bronze Age sitesvary from 1,120 per hectare at 120,to 107 perhectare at Ml (Table8). This highdensity of chipped stonematerials decreases markedly during the later Bronze Age. Siteswith MH andLH materialshave densities of chipped stone that varyfrom 0.44 perhectare (at D3) to 50 perhectare (at K2). Not sur- prisingly,most of those sites that exhibit the denser concentrations were collectedusing total pick-up methods, or arethemselves very small, with correspondinglysmall lithic assemblages. But even when only those sites thatwere completely collected and that have more than 15 pieces of chipped stoneare considered, the chipped stone densities are extremely variable. Somesites have as fewas 1.67 itemsper hectare (B7) whileothers have morethan 10 timesas much(Kl). Interestingly,theLower Town around thePalace of Nestor (B7), a sitethat was totally "vacuum" collected, exhibits one ofthe lower densities, whereas other, presumably secondary centers in theregion (e.g., Kl),87 have significantly higher densities. Similarly, - RomanouRomanou (14) whichproduced more obsidian than any other - PRAP site was onlysampled (rather than "vacuum" collected), and it coversa hugearea (38 ha) largelyassociated with a post-BronzeAge occupation;88lithic density there is neverthelessnearly twice as highas it is in thetracts around the palace. The scarcityof flaked stone from survey units around the Palace of - - Nestor just 30 pieces is itselfstriking, given both the intensity with whichthe collectionthere was conducted,and the relativeabundance of lithicsat othersites that presumably served as secondarycenters or tertiarysettlements as the Mycenaean state began to extendits authority throughoutthe region.89 The siteof RomanouRomanou (14) standsout fromall theothers since it has produced nearly four times as muchlithic material(n = 114),68% ofwhich is obsidian.Even other sites with more modestassemblages (such as at Kl, n = 82) havemuch higher lithic densi- tiesthan the area around the palace. A furtherintriguing observation is thedifferential distribution ofobsidian and chert at various MH andLH sitesthroughout the region. For example, the area around the Palace of Nestor(B7) producedonly one pieceof obsidian(3%) and 29 piecesof chert(97%); at 14, near the coast, the ratio is 68%obsidian and 32% chert; whereasat Kl, locatedfarther to thenorth along the coastal plain, it is 15%obsidian and 85% chert.

87. Forthe site of Gargaliani Ordines within20 x 20 m gridsquares over an as a second-orderplace within the Py- areaof 18 ha; see Davis et al. 1997, los polity,see Davis 2008,p. 135. It is p. 429, fig.12; Bennet2007, p. 32, aboutone-sixth the size ofthe palace fig.3:3. Forfurther discussion of the settlement(Bennet 2007, p. 37, fig.3:7). processof expansion of the Pylian state, 88. Bennet2007, p. 38, figs.3:8, 3:9. see Bennet2007; Davis 2008,pp. 134- 89. Totalcollection of B7 tookplace 138.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

SF457

Figure 15. Chipped stoneartifacts CU A ÍLQ from14 (Romanou Romanou). SF 453: bipolarreduced bladelet core,obsidian; SF 457: plunging blade fragment,yellow chert; SF 468: globularcore, obsidian; SF 672: irregularflake core, black or l'Jy chert;SF 603: bladeletcore fragment,obsidian; SF 709: retouched notchon flake,obsidian; SF 698: multipleretouched tool, primary flake,obsidian; SF 712: bifacially retouchedpoint, obsidian. Scale 1:2. SF 698 SF 712 J.F. Cherryand J. Seagard

Parkinsonhas argued,based on the reductionstages represented at varioussites throughout the studyarea, that almost all the evidencefor obsidianblade production in thePRAP assemblagecomes from Romanou Romanou(14), the single site where every stage of the obsidian-blade reduction sequenceis represented(Fig. 15).90The onlyobsidian blade cores(a totalof five) collected by the survey are from Romanou, as are two crested blades (lamesà crête),indicating that blades were indeed produced on-site. This number,while certainlynot at all indicativeof an "industrial"level ofproduction, is particularlystriking with reference to the distributionof blade coresat excavatedsites in the region(see below).The occurrenceof primary,secondary, and tertiaryflakes in theRomanou assemblage indicates thatobsidian core preparationalso occurredat the site and suggeststhat the raw materialprobably arrived there from the island of Melos in the formof roughed-outnodules. In contrast,obsidian blades regularly comprise between 20% and 100% ofthe entire obsidian assemblage at otherMH-LH sitesin thestudy area, but none of those sitesexhibit any elementscommonly associated with blade production,suggesting that blades were producedelsewhere, pos- siblyat Romanouor siteslike it, and werecirculated as finishedproducts. Othersites, such as Kl, do provideevidence for the on-siteproduction of 90. Parkinson2007, pp. 90-96.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 33

chertflakes and blades,but the production of obsidianblades seems to have occurredonly at specificsites (see Table 8). This patternholds up evenwhen the PRAP surveydistribution is compared to data fromthree relevant excavated contexts in the region.91At Nichoria,ca. 20 km east of the Palace of Nestor,the modestsample of 202 obsidianartifacts can generallybe datedto theMH and LH periods.92 The assemblageincludes 93 blades (46% of the total recoveredobsid- ian) and a singleexhausted blade core,found in a mixeddeposit93 of MH, LH I- II, and Dark Age II pottery;the core,along with a singlecrested blade, constitutesthe only evidenceat this site forblade production.A similarpattern obtains at Malthi,some 25 km northeastof the Palace of Nestor.94The siteproduced an assemblageof 161 chippedstone artifacts (59 obsidian,102 chert)from contexts dated to theMH and LH periods; the38 bladesmake up 64% ofthe total obsidian sample and, as at Nichoria, a singleobsidian blade corewas found.The relativepercentage of blades in theassemblages at bothof these sites is quitesimilar to thatrepresented at MH and LH sitesin the PRAP studyarea, and the generaldearth of evidencefor blade productionstrongly suggests that these sites too were receivingblades fromelsewhere. The most importantexcavated Bronze Age site in the regionis, of course,the Palace of Nestoritself. Although the chippedstone collected duringBlegen's excavations has been studied,this material has neverbeen fullypublished.95 The followingsummary of thelithics from the palace is thusbased upon two primarysources: first, the room-by-room summaries providedby Biegen and Rawson in their1966 publicationof the artifacts discoveredduring the initialexcavation of the palace and its immediate vicinity;and, second,Suzanne Hofstra'scatalogue, compiled for her dis- sertationresearch,96 of the excavated small finds from Biegens excavations, now storedin the Chora Museum (Table 9). By Hofstras count,the lithic materials recovered from the palace and itsimmediate vicinity comprise 495 chippedstone artifacts, including 158 pieces of obsidian (32%) and 337 of chert(68%); these percentagesare likelyto be only approximate,since distinguishingthe local black chert fromobsidian can presentdifficulties for the untrainedeye. The obsidian assemblageincludes 39 blade fragments(25% of the totalobsidian) and - - sevencores, but frustratinglyit is unclearwhether any of thesecores are actuallyblade cores;the fiveexamples illustrated in Biegen and Raw- sons platesare all smallflake cores, the two remainingunillustrated cores beingof unknowntype.97 The mostcommon retouched artifact types are arrowheadsand "dentates"(probably what are morecommonly referred to as "sickleelements").98

91. Parkinson2007, pp. 93-96. 93. L23, We, level4, lot 4038/3. no. 11 (room27); fig.306, no. 14 92. This informationis derived from 94.Blitzerl991. (room92); fig.308, no. 6 (room97); Blitzer's(1992) preliminaryanalysis 95. Biegenand Rawson1966; and fig.319, no. 1 (room100). The two ofthe chipped stone from the site, Blitzerl991,p.39. unillustratedobsidian cores are from currentlythe only published informa- 96. Hofstra2000. room50 and hall65. tionavailable; see also Parkinson2007, 97. Biegenand Rawson1966, 98. "Dentate"is theterm used in Bie- pp. 93-94,fig. 9:5. fig.282, no. 6 (room49); fig.283, genand Rawson1966 and Hofstra2000.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions * ^,|il* ^ VO tH rH g O (Ç a

!S 5on O O Oi-i (NOOOOOthOOOOOOt-iOt-hOO ^ OO g ES « IIÇJ i«^ ___^______^_^ ^_^ ^^______

^ -So ^ O *- IO (NOt-It- iOOOOOOOtHOOcOt- i CN t-h coO E? s; Pá X o ^ X CO H C/D tí Z fa O

tí T- I rH r-i Ü (^ < i O aí

s Q tí

tí O rH Z O OO COOrHi- iXrHrHOOOOCOOOOvOOXCOtOO H ^OOCOOO C/D Q c tí CL.

PC O Ov tí kJ P5 rH _^ _^ OrHCNCO^vOr^OOONOrHCNCO^-tOVOr^OOON S << rHCNCO^tn vOl^ OOONrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 *» fco ^

CO T- I 1- I 1- I 1- I ^

^ CsjONNOOrOT-iOíNT-iirirsiroascoaNOvOsO^-irsifSiOT-ioOOOT-í^ csjOOO ^

^ R

ioOOcOOOO^OOOcOCOt- it^O^rHíN^-HOOT- iO^- tOOOOCNCN T- i O O O

CO T- i ^-1 CO r- I

X X CO XX

1- I 1-1 1-1 7- 1

1-1 1-1

X XcOOOTfTtOOrHi-ii-iCNrNcO XOi-i XrHOi-iOi-iOOOOO X CNCNOO r-i

XT) i-i

X CO Tf CN X CO

i- i 1-1 CN i-i i-i

i-i

i-i i-i

XvOcOVoO^OOO^fcOi- ICNOCOOCO XOi- i^Ot-hOOOOO X i- i O O O

1 1 1 1 1 I I 4 4 I ttI 1111? lijlii III ¡L i s 11 6 II II s e 61 ^ 1 1 1 ^ II s 1 1 e I s g e lii ^1 1 oooo-Sooooooocuôgî&HOooooOoooo^rtPQSo^ ^^^^^^^L^^L^L^L^L^-^.^LÊ.^-^-^-^L^-^-^-^- - - - ^-- *L H- ®.

OrHCNCO^mvOl^-CXJONOTHrNCO^VOvOt^OOONOrHCNCO^lOvOt^OO OOi- ICN cocococococococococo^^^^^^^^^^v^vovovototnioiotn tnvovOsO

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i -HI 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I lili II

|S «So ^h OOOOOO (N OOOOOO O OíNrHO m N vu

£ ^ 2 n_ Ili ■ö ■§

"Su-i o i-ioothoocvi o o

° coOO^-HOOrHOrsJOOXOOOO I2 ^rO° X O^-iOO vOXX x x ^i ^ S; x

I^ < ^ vo X

» : R

'-i ,"*3 QQ CO 1*:iz:::::::::::::::iz:::i:i

CS i-iOOt-iOOi-iOt-iOOOOOOO X OOOO 'r) r-' X ^CO

^2 c § bO bß ^ bß 00 .S .tn rt R • «>» Ss» =d ^ M 3 S t5 « tt ? PQ pq o O "oJ ¿ 1 ^S »3 Ì I S . I l?l

ON w

^5co ^- tnvor^ooaNOT-HCsjco^tovot^cxjaNO cn coooono i-i es co

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i- I CN r- 1 CO i- I

<£| - - i I -^f- 't I (N *<*■ 1> n I t^^ocoocNOi-iaNCNi-i o m r^ £•> i-H CO UT) ^t . .g

3 O"1 CN CO CO i- i CO On xj 2. 4 T-H cN O O y-i ^ c2 O^^-tt^CNONOlO^^-i OCOOO » 1~-j Ö XX ^3 £ lo xxx x 2 g I | H T-l On -2 C

X - I qH

inXXCNXCNCNCN OOOXOcOtO --h CO H^l H .^

^-h x x x m *

^ XX X X O ^ 'S

c^ ¿Í rH e« ^1 CO iO ¿

^^ rH CO ^1 ^ gè" oQ ^ O ü i-i T-i t^ cm -a oí J3 ¿HJ2

CN X XCNi-ii-iT-icOi-iOOOOOcor^ hS S

|.|

s 111 g S| 1 SS 1" J 1 I I I I I 8 I SSI i 1 .1 .§ g," m-c , e« -r ai ^ cj 13 « 5 Oí- lCNcOCOCOCO"^Vy-)+-» Hví -° ^lOOt^OOONOOOOOOOOOr2 ■ 3 OnOnOnCnONQni- lili- lili- li- irHr- ItH£- O^ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I an

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

Thus,while it is possible,if not likely, that flake production and someof thefinal steps associated with arrowhead production occurred at thePalace of Nestorand at sitessuch as Malthi and Nichoria,there is littleevidence thatblades were produced at anyof theselocations in significantquantity. Even if the two obsidiancores of unknowntype from the palace werein factblade cores,they would stillrepresent only a verysmall number con- sideringthe total amount of earthexcavated there, thus making the seven cores(five blade coresand two flakecores) recovered from purely surface contextsat Romanou all the moreimpressive. As noted above,evidence forthe productionof obsidianblades withinthe studyarea is restricted largelyto thatone site,suggesting that it, and probablyothers like it, were responsiblefor obsidian blade productionduring MH and LH times.So whilethe production of obsidian was, to some extent,"centralized" within the region,it is importantto recognizethat it was notcentralized at the - primarycenter in the region namely,the Palace of Nestor. The centralizedproduction of obsidianblades is evidentlya pattern commonthroughout the Bronze Age in theAegean." Accessto theobsidian sourceson Melos appearsto havebeen relatively unrestricted throughout thelater Neolithic and BronzeAge,100 but several different surface surveys have identifiedsimilar patterns of centralizedblade productionin various - partsof the Péloponnèse fromthe Argolid to Laconia.101The patternof a singlesite generating most, if not all, of the evidence for blade production in a regionseems to havebegun sometime near the end ofthe Neolithic,102 and maybe a distinctivecentral and southernGreek craft activity.103 It has recentlybeen suggestedthat obsidian blade production,like the productionof coarsewarepottery, probably occurred beyond the scope of palatialcontrol.104 Both activitiesoccurred in an organizedfashion (i.e., at specificsites) and are not documentedin eitherthe excavatedfinds from the palace itselfor in the Linear B tablets.Considering the tendencyof the palatial administratorsto relocatespecialist industries to the palace proper,and giventhe apparentcomplete absence of mentionof obsidian in the LinearB tabletsthemselves, it appearsthe local eliteeither did not wish,or did not need,to exercisecontrol over the productionof obsidian blades.Galaty has made a similarargument for the production of ceramic coarsewares.105While thereis evidencefor the palatial elite attempting to overseethe productionof sòme ceramictypes (such as kylikes)related to specificallypalatial activities, the evidencefor palatial management of moretraditional craft activities that developed from domestic contexts in the Neolithicis generallylacking. The absenceof evidencefor palatial control over these types of craft activitieshas led Galaty and Parkinson106to questionthe predominant model of the Mycenaeaneconomic system, which posits a high degree of redistributionand controlover most aspectsof local productionand

99. See Karabatsoli1997; Carter pp. 106-108; Carterand Ydo 1996; pp. 274-278. 2008. Carter2003. 104. Parkinson2007. lOO.Torrence1979, 1986; Kar- 102. Cherryand Parkinson2003, 105. Galaty2007. duliasand Runnels1995; Kardulias p. 51. 106. See Galatyand Parkinson 2007. 103. Karduliasand Runnels1995; 2007b. 101. Karduliasand Runnels1995, Hartenbergerand Runnels2001,

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 39

distribution.107They suggest that a modelbased on wealth finance (as op- posedto staplefinance) better describes the operation of the Mycenaean economicsystem, which seemed to emphasize the production and distributionof prestige goods to enticeparticipation through alliance-building.108 Killenhas criticized this argument, correctly pointing out that several industries(e.g., textile production) documented in theLinear B tabletsin- cludeprocessing steps that do notoccur at the palace proper.109 But precisely thefact that such industries are documented - in considerabledetail - in thetablets indicates significant interest on thepart of the elite in organiz- ingand wielding control over them. What distinguishes traditional craft activitiessuch as obsidianblade production and the production of coarse potteryis thatnot only did they not take place at the palace proper, but they alsohave no recordin theLinear B tablets.Such autonomous traditional craftactivities have a longhistory in theregion and most likely were fully operationallong before the establishment ofcentralized economic control duringthe later Bronze Age.110

The Middle and Late Helladic Periods: Off-Site Distributions

The distributionofoff-site lithic finds in the study area seems to have been influencedprimarily by the expansion and establishmentof settlements duringthe Middle and Late Helladicperiods. As notedearlier, PRAP recorded714 lithicartifacts from on-site contexts. By ourbest estimate, roughlyhalf (n = 346) ofthese are associated with sites occupied primarily in MH andLH. We havesuggested that the majority of finds in areaIV areprobably to be connectedto an EH occupationnear site Ml, andthat a handfulof the finds elsewhere may be attributabletothe Palaeolithic; but thevast majority of lithics from off-site contexts seem to be associatedwith theMH andLH periodsand thus can be usedto augmentthe site-based patternsdiscussed above. The off-sitelithic material parallels the coastal bias seen in the distributionof sites along the coast, with a clearfalloff in densityand number fartherinland. If thematerial in areaIV is,as suggested,predominantly EH andearlier, then this pattern would be evenmore exaggerated during MH andLH: discountingthe 113 strayfinds from area IV, 93% (258 of 107. ContraBendali 2003, 2007. 276) ofthe remaining material is derivedfrom the survey areas that lie di- Halstead(2007) providesan excellent rectlyalong the coast (I, II, III, V,and VI; seeFigs. 13, 14, above). It is in discussionof Mycenaean economies; thosesame areas that the only appreciable spatial clustering of lithics is see alsovarious contributions to Galaty alsoseen. and Parkinson2007a. Othershave noted a coastalbias in lithicassem- 108.The is thatof comparable regional terminology whichseems to be associatednot withthe distribution ofsettle- D'Altroyand Earle 1985. blages, only 109. Killen2007; see also Bendali mentsin a region,but also with the processes of obsidian acquisition and 2007. distribution.For example, of the 1,247 fragments ofchipped stone (1,122 110. Formore detailed discussions, piecesof obsidian, 125 piecesof chert) recovered by the Methana survey, see Parkinson2007; forthcoming. 95.5% camefrom the limited lowland zone.111 Like the 111.Mee and Forbes 47. PRAP, Argolid 1997,p. identifieda sitenear the coast the"Fournoi 112. Karduliasand Runnels1995, ExplorationProject single (F32, in lithic pp. 106-108,fig. 93; Cherryand Par- Focus")that produced 49% ofall theobsidian the assemblage.112 kinson2003, p. 50. The CentralLaconia Survey also identified one site(E48/80), albeit not

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4O WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

on the coast,that produced a largeproportion (33%) of the 1,575 pieces of obsidianin the surveyassemblage overall.113 As withPRAP site 14 in Messenia,the sites in theseother regions also seemto containmost of the evidencefor blade productionin the surveyarea. Unpublisheddata frominland surveys such as the Nemea ValleyAr- chaeologicalProject (NVAP) suggestthat a similarpattern also holds for the distributionof obsidianfrom the coast into the interiorof the Pélo- ponnèse.For example, NVAP reportedonly 45% obsidian,and theBerbati- Limnes Survey,for the Neolithicand Bronze Age findspots,found that - only two-thirdsof the lithicswere obsidian a significantfalloff from thosesurveys in coastalregions, which often boast upward of 90% obsidian in theirassemblages.114 In theAsea ValleySurvey, set in the mountainous interiorof Arcadia, as littleas 33% (n = 334) of all chippedstone collected was obsidian;it was, furthermore,concentrated among only a few sites, and 60% of the total came froma singlesite (S 60, Asea Palaiokastro). Carterhas suggestedthat, in thisinstance, obsidian may have reached the Asea valleyfrom intermediaries such as Lerna or FranchthiCave on the Argivecoast, and thatthere occurred a secondarystage of redistribution fromregional centers (such as S 60) to sitesin theirhinterlands.115 Assumingunrestricted access to theobsidian quarries themselves, we have suggestedelsewhere that these patterns may be explainedin terms of a direct(or, sometimes, indirect) geographic falloff with distance from the sourceson Melos, or by temporaldifferences between the various assemblages,or byboth.116 The situationhere is reminiscentofthat docu- mentedby Albert Ammerman in NeolithicCalabria (southern Italy), where obsidianfrom the Lipari sourceappears to have been distributedthrough "emporia"or "break of bulk" sites on thewest coast; lithic assemblages there arecomposed almost entirely of obsidian, whereas those from sites further inlandhave considerablymore chert.117 This uniformityin the reductionand distributionof obsidianin dif- ferentparts of the Péloponnèseis replicatedin a technologicalsimilarity in the assemblagesthemselves. Kardulias and Runnelshave assessedthe degreeof uniformitywithin obsidian blade assemblagesin theAegean by analyzingthe degreeof variabilityexhibited in formalcharacteristics of blades (widthand thickness),118and we includethe PRAP data herefor comparison(Table 10). In theirdiscussion of the Argolid assemblage, they attributethe widespread uniformity in obsidianblade assemblagesin the Aegeanto commonproduction techniques and to pragmaticconsiderations regardingefficiency of raw materialuse.119 The relativelysmall PRAP sampleof 66 obsidianblades exhibitsslightly less variationin widththan

113. Carterand Ydo 1996,pp. 141- LimnesSurvey is muchlower, perhaps byCarter (2003, p. 130,fig. 99). 142,ill. 18:1. Site E48/80produced around17%, since over 1,000 Meso- 115. Carter2003, pp. 131, 152. 520 chippedstone artifacts, of which lithicand an unspecifiednumber of 116. Cherryand Parkinson2003, 514 wereobsidian; only 63 (3.8%) of Middle and UpperPalaeolithic flint p. 51. the1,638 lithics from the Laconia artifactswere recorded (Wells and 117. Ammerman1979. Surveyare not obsidian. Runnels1996, pp. 23-35). Quantities 118. Karduliasand Runnels1995, 114.Wells and Runnels1996, ofobsidian found in variousinterior p. 98, table5.15. pp. 42, 71, fig.44. The overallpercent- and coastalsurveys in thesouthern 119. Karduliasand Runnels1995, age ofobsidian from the Berbati- Greekmainland are usefully tabulated p. 97.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES! A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 4I

TABLE 10. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR BLADES IN AEGEAN ASSEMBLAGES Width Thickness Assemblage N x SD CV x SD CV

PRAP (totalsample) 66 98.7 24.9 25.22 30.7 10.8 35.01 SouthernArgolid (Neolithic) 35 104 29 27.9 28 8 28.6 SouthernArgolid (Bronze Age) 308 86 24 27.9 26 8 30.8 AyiosStefanos 120 93 29 31.2 26 9 34.6 LernaIII 318 96 24 25 26 7 26.9 LernaIV 462 98 29 29.6 27 8 29.6 LernaV 189 99 28 28.3 29 9 31 Kephala 128 144 37 29.8 39 16 41 Phylakopi(total sample) 1,542 104 31 29.8 31 13 41.9 Phylakopi(obsidian deposit) 409 93 31 33.3 30 17 56.7 Ayialrini 960 96 25 26 29 9 31 Source:Kardulias and Runnels 1995, p. 98,table 5.15. All measurementsin mm. Abbreviations:x = mean;SD = standarddeviation; CV = coefficientofvariation.

mostof theother assemblages, but slightly more variation in thickness. Thesedata indicate a general positive correlation between distance from the sourceand standardization in blade morphology, with only the excavated materialsfrom the EH II levelsof Lerna III indicatingmore standardization inblade width. This distribution most likely can be attributedtoincreased standardization(and thus increased efficiency) as the raw material becomes rarerand more valuable farther from the source.120

LiTHics After the Bronze Age

Althoughit is nowwell established that the production and use ofstone toolsdid notwholly cease at theend ofthe Bronze Age,121 many func- tionsthat previously had beencarried out withchipped stone artifacts werenow performed instead with the use of metal tools. In Messenia,this technologicalreplacement also coincided with a considerabledecrease in thenumber of sites in theregion. Nearly14% (98) of theon-site lithic assemblage derives from nine sites-A4, A5, El, Gl, G2, K4, K5, M2, and M4- thathave primary occupationsonly after the end of theBronze Age (Table 6). However, twoof these sites (A4, Gl), bothvery large, exhibit lithic densities that fallbelow the background average for the region as a whole,suggesting thatthe chipped stone artifacts associated with them are at leastpartly coincidental.The remainingseven sites include M2, discussedabove (p.28), which is partof a largeroff-site concentration oflithics associated withEH occupationaround site Ml. Thisleaves a totalof 12 lithicitems fromjust four other post-Bronze Age sites.Thus, while acknowledging thatthe situation is differentin other parts of the Aegean, and allowing thatcareful stratified excavations in historicallevels at sitesin Messenia 120. Fordiscussion of this general moresecure evidence than these datacan in relationto obsid- mayyet yield survey provide, argument Aegean we thaton evidencethe use of stonewas nota ian assemblages,see Torrence 1979, suggest present chipped 1986. significantpart of the technology and material culture of Messenia after 121. Runnels1982. theend of the Bronze Age.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 42 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

MESSENIAN LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

A flurryof publications has appeared in recent years that discuss how best tointerpret patterns of prehistoric materials, including lithics, collected in thecourse of intensive regional surveys.122 There is alsogrowing attention to theproblems involved in thecomparative utilization of disparate data fromsurveys conducted using different field methodologies and with dif- ferentaims in mind.123 Nonetheless, the variability within the PRAP lithic assemblage,and the differences between PRAP andother survey projects, arein ourview unequivocally related to variationsin patternsof human behavior.Although the archaeological signatures of thosepatterns have ofcourse been modified by natural and cultural processes that necessarily affecttheir interpretation, theMessenian case study elucidates several pat- ternsthat recur in differentregions throughout the Greek mainland, and it also demonstratesvarious ways in whichthis particular landscape and itsprehistoric utilization differ from other parts of Greece.We contend - - thatit is morefruitful and muchmore interesting to concentrateon theinterpretation ofthese patterns, rather than to argueabout whether theyare "hidden" or meaningful at all.To thatend, we focusdiscussion in thisconcluding section on thegeneral trends indicated by the PRAP as- semblageand attempt to place the Messenian patterns into a comparative regionalframework. The PRAP chippedstone differs significantly from assemblages collectedby other regional survey projects, with respect both to thesize of thesample and the relative frequencies ofMelian obsidian and local cherts represented.124Forpurposes of comparison, Table 11 listssummary statis- ticsof lithic assemblages from seven other regional survey projects in the Aegean.The sizeof these different groups of material varies widely, from 526 (NVAP) to 6,553(AEP). Thisvariation correlates with variations in densitiesper square kilometer intensively surveyed, suggesting that the dis- paritiesin thesize of theassemblages is a "real"pattern that cannot be attributedto samplingerror, but which must be explainedin termsof patternedhuman behavior. We proposethree factors that may account for themajority of this variation: 1) theintensity of prehistoric habitation in a givenregion during different time periods; 2) thedistance from Melos; and3) thedistance from the coast. These factors are not mutually exclusive, butare interrelated. For example,the largest lithic survey assemblage comes from the southernArgolid (AEP survey),an areaof the Greek mainland that was intensivelyoccupied from the Middle Palaeolithic through the Bronze Age andlater. This is indicated not only by the higher number of prehistoric sites inthe region, but also by the size of the lithic assemblages associated with

122. Bintliffand Snodgrass1985; Davis 2004; Clarkson2008. BintlifF1999,2000; Bintliff,Howard, 123. Alcockand Cherry2004. and Snodgrass1999, 2000; Bintliff 124. Cherryand Parkinson2003. et al. 2002; Cherryand Parkinson2003;

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 43

TABLE 11. LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES FROM REGIONAL SURVEYS IN THE AEGEAN

Chert Obsidian Total Chert Obsidian Density AreaIntensively Distance to Survey (n) (n) Lithics (%) (%) (n/km2) Surveyed(km2) Melos(km) Meios n/a n/a n/a 1.00 99.00 n/a 151 0 Kea 6 1,005 1,011 0.59 99.41 56.17 18 105 SouthernArgolid 2,294 4,259 6,553 35.01 64.99 148.93 44 120 Methana 125 1,122 1,247 10.02 89.98 24.94 50 130 Laconia 63 1,575 1,638 3.85 96.15 n/a n/a 160 Berbati 755 1,510 2,265 33.33 66.67 90.60 25 175 Nemea 288 238 526 54.75 45.25 10.52 50 195 PRAP 912 192 1,104 82.61 17.39 27.60 40 240 Total/Avg Total4,443 Total9,901 Total 14,344 Avg27.65 Avg 72.36 Avg59.79

Sources:Melos: Cherry andTorrence 1982; Kea: Cherry et al. 1991;Southern Argolid: Kardulias and Runnels 1995; Methana: Mee and Forbes1997; Laconia: Carter and Ydo 1996;Berbati: Wells and Runnels 1996; Nemea: unpublished analysis by J. F. Cherry.

them(Table 12). Such a patternsuggests that the southernArgolid was moreintensively inhabited than Messenia, in everyprehistoric period. While intensityof occupation can helpexplain the number of sites and the size of the lithicassemblages represented at them,it does not account forthe significantvariation exhibited in the relativeamounts of obsidian and chertin these differentsurvey lithic dataseis. The percentageof obsidianin theMessenian assemblage overall is less than18%, whereas in all the otherassemblages it variesfrom 45% to 99%. Althoughthe obsidian sourceson the island of Melos were exploitedas earlyas the Meso- lithicperiod,125 most obsidian in surveyassemblages is associatedwith sitesoccupied predominantly during the Neolithicand BronzeAge. As a result,the abundanceof obsidianand chertin thelithic assemblages from surveysis heavilyinfluenced by the relative intensity of occupation during thoseperiods. Conversely,because the obsidiansources on Melos werenot used ex- tensivelyuntil the Holocene, regionsthat were more intensively exploited duringthe Pleistocene exhibit significantly higher frequencies of chert than thoseregions that experienced more intensive occupation during the Holo- cene.This is a samplingbias thatresults from having a fewlarge Palaeolithic siteswithout obsidian in a region,which inflates the relativeamounts of chert,compared to obsidian.For example,obsidian comprises 65% of the chippedstone assemblage collected in the AEP, but when the chert-rich Pleistocenesites are excludedand onlysites that date to theNeolithic and BronzeAge are included,the frequencyof obsidianrises to 86%. 125. Perlés1979. In additionto thediachronic intensity of occupation, the distance from 126.This correspondsto what Melos also makes a powerfuldifference in the compositionof lithicas- Renfrew(1972, pp. 465-471,fig. 20.9) semblages.On Melos itself,unsurprisingly, obsidian constitutes virtually referred andTorrence(1986, pp. 13-15) 100% ofthe lithic raw material on sitesof all periods.Survey regions located to as the"contact zone" or the "supply withinca. 150 kmof Melos also haveyielded very high relative proportions zone,"the area within which the per- of obsidian(85%-100%).126 (One is the AEP lithicas- centageof obsidian in thetotal chipped exception survey relativeamounts of due stoneindustry decreases only very grad- semblage,which, as just noted,has lower obsidian, ually. to its Palaeolithicsites.) The Berbati-Limnesand NVAP surveyregions

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 44 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

TABLE 12. LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES FROM THE SOUTHERN ARGOLID AND PRAP SURVEYS

SouthernArgolid PRAP Period Chert Obsidian Sites(n) Chert Obsidian Sites(n) Palaeolithic/Mesolithic892 67 5 178 5 2 Neolithic/BronzeAge 569 3,361 40 666 182 17 Post-BronzeAge 379 290 36 68 5 9 Total 1,840 3,718 81 912 192 28

Sourcefor Southern Argolid data: Kardulias and Runnels 1995. The SouthernArgolid assemblagealso included 995 lithicartifacts not attributable to any specific period.

arelocated 150-200 kmfrom Melos, and have 45%-67% obsidian.In the Asea valleyin Arcadia,more remote still, the percentage of obsidian drops to 33%.127Messenia,more than 200 kmfrom Melos, has only17% obsidian in its chippedstone assemblage.128 We suggestthat this falloff is a resultof the patternof access to the Melian sources,as well as the organizationof local systemsof obsidian productionand distributionthroughout the Aegean duringthe Neolithic and Bronze Age.129Although access to the obsidian sourceson Melos seemsnot to havebeen restrictedat the sourceitself,130 the relative lack of - obsidianin Messeniarepresents an interestingpattern that might readily - perhapstoo readily be attributedto itsdistant location in thesouthwestern Péloponnèse.But, via Kythera(and notwithstandingthe perilsof round- ing Cape Malea), thispart of the Péloponnèseis readilyconnected to the Cycladicisland group, and thusto Melos. The structureof the PRAP lithic assemblagesuggests that, perhaps for cultural reasons, the inhabitantsof Messenia did not interactwith the islandsof the Cyclades in the same manneras those located in certainother parts of the Aegean. A similar patternis apparentin the low frequencyof "exotic"items created outside theAegean in Late BronzeAge Messenia,implying that during both the Neolithicand theBronze Age, Messenia was not fullyintegrated into the sametrade networks as theArgolid, which throughout these periods main- tainedvery strong trade contacts with the Cycladesand beyond. Despite thisvariation in the relativeamounts of obsidianin different surveyassemblages, which we attributeto differentialparticipation in trade networks,the way obsidian was worked, once it was transportedfrom Melos, is remarkablysimilar in differentregions. In thosesurvey regions located near the coast,a singlesite in severalcases accountsfor the majorityof the obsidianin the surveyassemblage. This is certainlyso in Laconia, the Argolid,and Messenia.Although the Laconian sitein question(E48/80) is not on the coast,those in the Argolid(F32, the "FournoiFocus") and Messenia (14) arewithin 1 or 2 km of the presentcoastline. In each case,

127. Carter2003, p. 130,fig. 99. 129.The falloffis graphedin porateinformation about acquisition, 128. In Cherryand Parkinson2003, Cherryand Parkinson2003, p. 49, production,and distribution. p. 49, thepercentage of obsidian in the fig.4:7. See Karimali2001 foran 130. As arguedin greatdetail PRAP assemblageis erroneouslygiven excellentdiscussion of the problems throughoutTorrence 1986; see Barber as 29%. offalloff models that do notincor- 1987,pp. 117-119,for a contraryview.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 45

theobsidian from these individual sites accounts for 31% (Laconia),49% (Argolid),and 40% (Messenia)of all theobsidian in thesurvey assemblages.In thecases of Messenia and the Argolid, these sites seem to have beenthe primary (if not in factthe only) site involved in obsidianblade productionin theentire region; it is lessclear whether this is alsothe case forsite E48/80 in Laconia.We attributethis pattern to theestablishment ofproduction centers that functioned as "suppliers" ofobsidian blades, and perhapsalso roughed-out cores for flake tools, at theend of the Neolithic andthroughout the Bronze Age. Despitethe similarity exhibited in theorganization of obsidian blade productionin thesedifferent parts of the Péloponnèse, the individual re- gionalsystems of obsidian production and exchange emerged at different pointsin time.The Laconiansite (E48/80) dates to theFinal Neolithic; theFournoi sites in theArgolid date primarily to theEarly Bronze Age; andthe Messenian site (Romanou Romanou) dates primarily to theLate BronzeAge. In someareas, such as Messenia,this system of organization persistedthroughout the later Bronze Age, even as politicallyand eco- nomicallycomplex Mycenaean palatial systems developed around them. The productionof pressure-flaked obsidian blades requires specific skills thatprobably were carried out by part-time specialists,131 butthe palatial authoritieshad little interest in bringingthem under centralized control. Thispattern is likelyto haveoccurred with other skilled and semispecial- ized craftsand activitiestoo, such as theproduction of certaintypes of pottery,and it providesan importantinsight into the development and organizationof the Mycenaean palatial system.132 It is unclearwhether similar patterns of obsidian blade production oc- curredon Crete.A centralquestion is whetherthe production of obsidian bladeswas organizedsimilarly to othercrafts on Crete,such as thepro- ductionof specialized ceramic wares, which Day andWilson have argued wasdecentralized from an early date.133 Carter argued that obsidian blades wereused during funerary ceremonies in theEarly Cycladic period, and thattheir production was incorporatedinto the performances associated withsuch rituals.134 It follows, therefore, that we canexpect the pattern of obsidianblade production and exchange in the islands and on Crete to differ fromthe mainland pattern. Torrence reported obsidian production areas at Knossosand Mallia, suggesting that palatial centers may have been the locusof specialized production,135 butthe published excavation and survey datafrom Crete lack critical information about reduction sequences, which arenecessary for such an assessment.Kardulias noted that a centralized patternof blade production might occur in northeastern Crete, where cores andblades were identified at Mochlos,but only blades were identified at Deblaand Myrtos.136 In northwestern Crete, Moody noted a generalfalloff in thenumber of obsidian finds with distance from the coast,137 but she didnot provide a descriptionof the reduction sequences.

131. Based on thelevel of standard- 2007b;Parkinson and Galaty2007; and 134. Carter2007. ization,as arguedby Torrence (1986) Parkinson,forthcoming, for detailed 135.Torrence 1979, pp. 77-79. and Runnels(1995). discussions. 136. Kardulias2007, p. 107. 132. See Galatyand Parkinson 133. Day andWilson 1998. 137. Moody 1987,p. 202.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 46 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

CONCLUSION

This articlerepresents the eighth contribution to Hesperiaby members of thePylos Regional Archaeological Project reporting on differentaspects of the surveyand its results.Chipped stonemay not be the mostglamorous of archaeologicalmaterials, and the quantitiesencountered by the PRAP surveyare farfrom overwhelming. Nonetheless, in presentinga detailed analysisof the lithicassemblage from this survey,we have attemptedto demonstratesome of the typesof informationthat can be gleaned from theintensive, systematic study of thisimportant class of material.It is the chippedstone evidence that has, forexample, made it possibleto extend the historyof human activityin Messenia much furtherback into the Pleistocenethan was previouslyknown, and to shed usefullight on the structureof the obsidian-knapping industry in thecontext of a Mycenaean palatialeconomy. More generally,well overa hundredregional survey projects of very differentsorts have been conductedin the Aegean over the past three decades,138yet relatively few of them have yet published detailed informa- 138.Cherry 2003, pp. 138-143; Alcockand 1-4.The tionabout their lithic assemblages. This is whywe also have attemptedto Cherry2004, pp. bothof these are delineatepatterns and informationfrom the PRAP that tistics.in PaPers * iprovide survey• . sf out or a fact can be1 built1 M otherscholars il- interested i-iin the 1 alreadysignificantly date, upon by comparativeanalysis thatig itself testimony tothe ^^ of of long-termpatterns landscapeuse, as seenthrough the lens of chipped ousstate of survey archaeology inthe stoneindustries. Aegean.

REFERENCES

Alcock,S. E. 2002. "A SimpleCase of andNuclear Chemistry 268, pp. 371- Statein theAegean Bronze Age. Exploitation,"in Money,Labour, and 386. Proceedingsofthe 5th International Land:Approaches tothe Economies Bailey,G., V. Papaconstantinou,and AegeanConference, University of ofAncient Greece, ed. P. Cartledge, D. Sturdy.1992. "Asprochaliko and Heidelberg,Archäologisches Institut, E. E. Cohen,and L. Foxhall,Lon- Kokkinopilos:TL Datingand Rein- 10-13April 1994 {Aegaeum12), don,pp. 185-199. terpretationof Middle Palaeolithic ed. R. Laffineurand W.-D. Nie- Alcock,S. E., A. M. Berlin,A. B. Har- Sitesin Epirus,Northwest Greece," meier,Liège, pp. 587-602.

rison,S. Heath,N. Spencer,and CAJ2,pp. 136-144. . 2007. "Pylos:The Expansion D. L. Stone.2005. "PylosRegional Barber,R. L. N. 1987. TheCyclades in ofa MycenaeanPalatial Center," in ArchaeologicalProject, Part VII: theBronze Age, London. Galatyand Parkinson2007a, HistoricalMessenia, Geometric Bendali,L. M. 2003. "A Reconsidera- pp.29-39. throughLate Roman,"Hesperia 74, tionof the Northeastern Building Bennet,J., J. L Davis,and F. Zarinebaf- pp. 147-209. at Pylos:Evidence for a Mycenaean Shahr.2000. "PylosRegional Ar- Alcock,S. E., andJ. F. Cherry,eds. RedistributiveCenter," AJA 107, chaeologicalProject, Part III: 2004. Side-by-SideSurvey: Compar- pp. 181-231. SirWilliam Gell's Itinerary in the

ativeRegional Studies in theMedi- . 2007. Economicsof Religion Pyliaand RegionalLandscapes terraneanWorld, Oxford. in theMycenaean World: Resources in theMorea in theSecond Otto- Ammerman,A. 1979."A Studyof Ob- Dedicatedto Religion in theMyce- manPeriod," Hesperia 69, pp. 343- sidianExchange Networks in Cala- naeanPalace Economy (Oxford 380. bria,"WorldArch 11, pp. 95-110. UniversitySchool of Archaeology Bennet,J., and C. Shelmerdine.2001. Arias,A., M. Oddone,G. Bigazzi, Monograph67), Oxford. "Not thePalace ofNestor: The A. Di Muro,C. Principe,and Bennet,J.1995. "Space throughTime: Developmentof the 'Lower Town' P. Norelli.2006. "New Data for DiachroniePerspectives on the and OtherNon-Palatial Settlements theCharacterization of Milos Ob- SpatialOrganization of the Pylian in LBA Messenia,"in Urbanismin û&'2Xl%Journal of Radioanaly tical State,"in POLITELA: Societyand theAegean Bronze Age (Sheffield

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 47

Studiesin AegeanArchaeology 4), Europe,ed. G. Baileyand P. Spikins, (CotsenAdvanced Seminars 1), ed. K. Branigan,London, pp. 135- Cambridge,pp. 238-279. ed.J. K. Papadopoulosand R. M. 140. Brézillon,M. N. 1971.La dénomination Leventhal,Los Angeles,pp. 137- Bialor,P., and M. H.Jameson.1962. desobjets de pierre taillée: Matériaux 159. "Palaeolithicin theAigo]id"AJA pourun vocabulaire des préhistoriens Cherry,J. F., J. L. Davis,A. Demitrack, 66, pp. 181-182. delangue française (GalliaPrHist E. Mantzourani,T. F. Strasser,and Bintliff,J.1999. "Pattern and Process Suppl.4), Paris. L. E. Talalay.1988. "Archaeological in theCity Landscapes of Boeotia Carter,T. 2003. "The Chippedand Surveyin an Artifact-Rich Land- fromGeometric to Late Roman GroundStone," in TheAsea Valley scape:A Middle NeolithicExample Times,"in Territoiresdes cités Survey:An Arcadian Mountain fromNemea, Greece," AJA 92, grecques.Actes de la tableronde Valleyfrom the Palaeolithic Period pp. 159-176. internationaleorganisée par l'Ecole untilModern Times (SkrAth 4°, 51), Cherry,J. F., J. L. Davis,and E. Man- françaised'Athènes, 31 octobre- ed.J. Forsén and B. Forsén,Stock- tzourani.1991. Landscape Archaeol- 3 novembre1991 (£C//Suppl.34), holm,pp. 129-157. ogyas Long-TermHistory: Northern

éd. M. Brunei,Paris, pp. 15-33. . 2007. "The Theatricsof Tech- Keosin theCycladic Islands, from Ear-

. 2000. "BeyondDots on the nology:Consuming Obsidian in liestSettlement until Modern Times Map: FutureDirections for Surface theEarly Cycladic Burial Arena," (MonumentaArchaeologica 16), ArtefactSurvey in Greece,"in The in RethinkingCraft Specialization Los Angeles. Futureof Surface Artefact Survey in in ComplexSocieties: Archeological Cherry,J. F, andW. A. Parkinson. Europe(Sheffield Archaeological Analysesof the Social Meaning of Pro- 2003. "LithicArtifacts from Sur- Monographs13), ed.J. Bintliff, duction(Archeological Papers of the veys:A ComparativeEvaluation M. Kuna,and N. Venclová,Shef- AmericanAnthropological Associa- of RecentEvidence from the field,pp. 3-20. tion17), ed. Z. X. Hrubyand R. K. SouthernAegean," in Writtenin Bintliff,J., E. Farinetti,P. Howard, Fiad,Arlington, pp. 88-107. Stone:The Multiple Dimensions of

K. S arri,and K. Sbonias.2002. . 2008. "The Consumptionof LithicAnalysis, ed. P. N. Kardulias "ClassicalFarms, Hidden Pre- Obsidianin theEarly Bronze Age and R. W. Yerkes,Lanham, Md., historicLandscapes, and Greek Cyclades,"in Horizon:A Colloquium pp. 35-57. RuralSurvey: A Responseand an onthe Prehistory ofthe Cyclades Cherry,J. F, and R.Torrence.1982. Update/'/Ak/15, pp. 259-265. (McDonald InstituteMonographs), "The EarliestPrehistory of Melos," Bintliff,J., P. Howard,and A. M. ed. N. Brodie,J. Doole, G. Gavalas, inAn IslandPolity: The Archaeology Snodgrass.1999. "The Hidden and C. Renfrew,Cambridge, ofExploitation in Melos, ed. C. Ren- Landscapeof Prehistoric Greece," pp. 225-235. frewand M. Wagstaff,Cambridge, JMA12, pp. 139-168. Carter,T, and M. Ydo. 1996."The pp. 24-34.

. 2000. "Rejoinder/'/M/tf13, Chippedand GroundStone," in . 1984."The Typologyand pp. 116-120. TheLaconia Survey: Continuity Chronologyof Chipped Stone Bintliff,J., and A. M. Snodgrass.1985. and Changein a GreekRural Land- Assemblagesin thePrehistoric "The BoiotiaSurvey: A Preliminary scapeII: ArchaeologicalData (BSA Cyclades,"in ThePrehistoric Cycla- Report.The FirstFour Years,"/i^ Suppl.27), ed. W. G. Cavanagh, des:Contributions toa Workshopon 12,pp. 123-161. J.Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling,and CycladicChronology, ed.J. A. Mac- Biegen,C. W., and M. Rawson.1966. G. Shipley,London, pp. 141-182. Gillivrayand R. L. N. Barber, ThePalace of Nestor in WesternMes- Cavanagh,W. 2004. "WYSIWYG: Edinburgh,pp. 12-25. seniaI: TheBuildings and TheirCon- Settlementand Territoriality in Clarkson,C. 2008. "Lithicsand Land- tents,Princeton. SouthernGreece during the Early scapeArchaeology," in Handbook Blitzer,H. 1991."Middle to Late Hel- and Middle NeolithicPeriods," ofLandscape Archaeology (World ladicChipped Stone Implements of JMA17, pp. 165-189. ArchaeologicalCongress, Research theSouthwest Péloponnèse, Greece, Chavaillon,J., N. Chavaillon,and Handbooksin Archaeology1), PartI: The Evidencefrom Malthi," F. Hours.1967. "Industries paléo- ed. B. David andJ. Thomas, Walnut Hydra% pp. 1-73. lithiquesd'Elide, I: Régiond 'Ama- Creek,pp. 490-501.

. 1992."The ChippedStone, lias,"5C# 91, pp. 151-201. Crabtree,D. E. 1972.An Introductionto

GroundStone, and Worked Bone . 1969. Industriespaléo- Flintworking(Occasional Papers of Industries,"in Excavationsat Nicho- lithiquesd'Elide, II: Régionde theIdaho StateUniversity Museum ria in SouthwestGreece II: The Kastron,"BCH 93, pp. 97-151. 28), Pocatello. BronzeAge Occupation, ed. W. A. Cherry,J. F. 2003. "Archaeologybeyond D'Altroy,T,andT. K. Earle.1985. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie, theSite: Regional Archaeology and "StapleFinance, Wealth Finance, Minneapolis,pp. 712-756. Its Future,"in Theoryand Practice and Storagein theInka Political Bonsall,C. 2008. "The Mesolithic inMediterranean Archaeology: Old Economy,"CurrAnthr 26, pp. 187- ofthe Iron Gates," in Mesolithic Worldand New WorldPerspectives 206.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 48 WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

Darlas,A. 1995."L'industrie du Paléo- Galaty,M. L., andW. A. Parkinson. lithiqueMoyen de MavriMyti 2007b."Introduction: Mycenaean (Lakkopetra,Grèce)," BSPF 92, PalacesRethought," in Galatyand pp. 390-398. Parkinson2007a, pp. 1-17. . 1999. H nccÀccioÀiOucrjMavrj: Gamble,C. 1986. ThePalaeolithic H avaoKotçfiata KaÀafiáicia, SettlementofEurope (Cambridge Athens. WorldArchaeology), Cambridge. . 2007. "Le Moustériende Halstead,P. 2007. "Towarda Model of Grèceà la lumièredes récentes MycenaeanPalatial Mobilization," recherches,"L'Anthropologie 111, in Galatyand Parkinson2007a, pp. 346-366. pp. 66-73. Darlas,A., and H. de Lumley.2004. Hartenberger,B., and C. N. Runnels. "La Grottede Kalamakia(Areo- 2001. "The Organizationof Flaked polis,Grèce): Sa contributionà StoneProduction at BronzeAge la connaissancedu Paléolithique Lerna,"Hesperia 70, pp. 255-283. Moyende Grèce,"in XIVe Congrès Hatzi, G. 1991. "AoKiuaaxiicfiava- UISPP,Liège, 2-8 septembre2001. GKoc(pT|aio 2/cóuiovOiÀiocTpcov," Actesde la 5eSection: Le Paléolithique in npccKTiKáF' ToniKovIvveÔpiov Moyen(BAR-IS 1239),Oxford, MeaarfviaKOvZnovöcov, 24-26 pp. 225-233. Noeßßpiov1989, Athens, pp. 81- Davies,S. 2004. "PylosRegional 87. ArchaeologicalProject, Part VI: Higgs,E. 1964."A Hand Axe from Administrationand Settlementin Greece,"Antiquity 38, pp. 54-55. VenetianNavarino," Hesperia 73, Hofstra,S. 2000. "SmallThings Con- pp. 59-120. sidered:The Findsfrom LH IIIB Davis,J. L. 2004. "Arethe Landscapes Pylosin Context"(diss. Univ. of ofGreek Prehistory Hidden? A Texasat Austin). ComparativeApproach," in Alcock Hope Simpson,R., and O. T. P. K. and Cherry2004, pp. 22-35. Dickinson.1979. A Gazetteerof

, ed. 2008. Sandy Pylos:An AegeanCivilisation in theBronze ArchaeologicalHistory from Nestor to Age1: TheMainland and Islands Navarino,2nd ed.,Princeton. {SIMA 52), Göteborg. Davis,J. L., S. E. Alcock,J. Bennet, Huxtable,J. A., J.Gowlett, G. N. Y. G. Lolos, and C. W. Shelmer- Bailey,P. L. Carter,and V. Papacon- dine.1997. "The PylosRegional stantinou.1992. "Thermolumines- ArchaeologicalProject, Part I: cenceDates and a New Analysis Overviewand theArchaeologi- ofthe Early Mousterian from cal Survey,"Hesperia 66, pp. 391- Asprochaliko,"CurrAnthr 33, 494. pp. 109-114. Day,P., and D. E. Wilson.1998. "Con- Jameson,M. H., C. N. Runnels,and sumingPower: Kamares Ware in T. H. vanAndel. 1994. A Greek ProtopalatialKnossos," Antiquity Countryside:The Southern Argolid 72,pp. 350-358. fromPrehistory tothe Present Day, Evans,J. D., and C. Renfrew.1968. Stanford. Excavationsat SaliagosnearAnti- Karabatsoli,A. 1997."La productionde paros(BSA Suppl.5), London. l'industrielithique taillée en Grèce Galaty,M. L. 2007. "WealthCeram- centralependant le BronzeAncien ics,Staple Ceramics: Pots and the (Litharès,Manika, Nemée, Pefka- MycenaeanPalaces," in Galatyand kia)"(diss. Univ. de ParisX). Parkinson2007a, pp. 74-86. Kardulias,P. N. 2007. "FlakedStone Galaty,M. L., andW. A. Parkinson, and theRole ofthe Palaces in eds.2007a. RethinkingMycenaean theMycenaean World System," PalacesII: Revisedand Expanded in Galatyand Parkinson2007a, SecondEdition (Cotsen Institute of pp. 102-113. Archaeology,University of Califor- Kardulias,P. N., and C. Runnels.1995. nia,Los Angeles,Monograph 60), "The LithicArtifacts," in Artifact Los Angeles. andAssemblage: The Finds from a

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 49

RegionalSurvey of the Southern Argo- Changeand theHuman Landscape vati,and M. Ntinou.2002-2004. lid,Greece 1: ThePrehistoric and in a ModernGreek Village in Mes- "Late PleistoceneArchaeological EarlyIron Age Pottery and the Lithic senia,"Hesperia 70, pp. 49-98. and FossilHuman Evidencefrom Artifacts,ed. C. N. Runnels,DJ. Leroi-Gourhan,A. 1964."Découvertes LaconisCave, SouthernGreece," Pullen,and S. Langdon,Stanford, paléolithiquesen Elide,"BCH SS, JFA29, pp. 323-349. pp. 74-139. pp. 1-8. Papagianni,D. 2000. MiddlePalaeo- Karimali,E. 2001. "Redefiningthe Leroi-Gourhan,A., J.Chavaillon, and lithicOccupation and Technologyin Variablesof Material Abundance N. Chavaillon.1963. "Paléolithique NorthwesternGreece: The Evidence and Distancein theFall-Off du Péloponnèse,"BSPF 60, pp. 249- fromOpen-Air Sites (BAR-IS 882), Models:The Case ofNeolithic 265. Oxford. Thessaly,"in Apxaio/ierpiKeçjueÀé- Lolos,Y. 1994. H KpcoTEVovaarov Parkinson,W. A. 2007. "Chipping xeçyicc ttjv eÀÀrjviKrj npoïoxopia NéaropoçKm r] yvpœ nepioxA: Awayat a MycenaeanEconomy: Kai apxcciorrfra,ed. Y. Bassiakos, ffvÀoçryuaOóeiÇy Athens. ObsidianExchange, Linear B, and E. Aloupi,and Y. Facorellis,Athens, Manolakakis,L. 1996."Production 'PalatialControl' in Late Bronze pp. 753-761. lithiqueet émergencede la hiér- Age Messenia,"in Galatyand Par- Killen,J. T. 2007. "Critique:A View archiesociale: L'industrie lithique de kinson2007a, pp. 87-101.

fromthe Tablets," in Galatyand l'Énéolithiqueen Bulgarie(première . Forthcoming."Beyond the Parkinson2007a, pp. 114-117. moitiédu IVe millénaire),"BSPF Peer:Social Interactionand Polit- Kokkoros,P., and A. Kanellis.1960. 93, pp. 119-123. ical Evolutionin theBronze Age "Découverted'un crâne d'homme Mee, C. B, and H. Forbes,eds. 1997. Aegean,"in PoliticalEconomies of paléolithiquedans la péninsulechal- A Roughand Rocky Place: The Land- theAegean Bronze Age. Papers from cidique,"LAnthropologie 64, scapeand SettlementHistory of the theLangford Conference, Florida pp.438-446. MethanaPeninsula, Greece: Results StateUniversity, Tallahassee, 22-24 Korres,G. S. 1981."Mecarivioc," in ofthe Methana Survey Project, February2007, ed. D. J.Pullen, MeyáÀrjloßierucrj EjKVKXonaídeia Sponsoredby the British School at Oxford. 21, pp. 453-456. Athensand the University ofLiver- Parkinson,W. A., and M. L. Galaty.

. 1990."Excavations in the pool(Liverpool Monographs in 2007. "SecondaryStates in Perspec- Regionof Pylos," in Eumousia: Archaeologyand OrientalStudies), tive:An IntegratedApproach to Ceramicand Iconographie Studies in Liverpool. StateFormation in thePrehistoric Honourof Alexander Cambitoglou Mellars,P. 1996. TheNeanderthal Aegean,"American Anthropologist (MeditArchSuppl. 1), ed.J.-R Legacy:An Archaeological Perspective 109,pp. 113-129. Descoeudres,Sydney, pp. 1-11. fromWestern Europe, Princeton. Perles,C. 1979."Des navigateurs . 1993."Messenia and Its Moody,J. A., 1987."The Environ- méditerranéensil y a 10,000ans," CommercialConnections in the mentaland CulturalPrehistory of La Recherche10:96 (January), BronzeAge," in Proceedingsof theKhania Region of West Crete: pp. 82-83.

theInternational Conference, Wace Neolithicthrough Late MinoanIII" . 1987.Les industrieslithiques andBiegen: Pottery as Evidencefor (diss.Univ. of Minnesota). tailléesde Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) 1: Tradein theAegean Bronze Age, Morgan,C. 2008. Archaeologyin Présentationgénérale et industries 1939-1989,Held at theAmerican Greece,2007-2008," AR 54, paléolithiques(Franchthi 3), Schoolof Classical Studies at Athens, pp. 1-113. Bloomington.

Athens,December 2-3, 1989, Movius,H. L., N. David,H. Bricker, . 1990."L'outillage de pierre ed. C. W. Zerner,P. C. Zerner,and and R. B. Clay.1968. TheAnalysis tailléenéolithique en Grèce:Appro- J.Winder, Amsterdam, pp. 231- ofCertain Major Classesof Upper visionnementet exploitationdes 248. PalaeolithicTools (Peabody Museum matièrespremières," BCHWA, Koumouzelis,M., K.J.Kozlowski, Bulletin26), Cambridge,Mass. pp. 1-42.

M. Nowak,K. Sobczyk,M. Kacza- Panagopoulou,E. 2000. "The Middle . 1992."Systems of Exchange nowska,M. Pawlikowski,and A. Paz- PalaeolithicAssemblages of Theo- and Organizationof Production in dur.2001. "La findu Paléolithique petraCave: Technological Evolu- NeolithicGreece/'/M^ 5, pp. 115- Moyenet le débutdu Paléolithique tionin theUpper Pleistocene," in 164.

Supérieuren Grèce:La séquencede TheopetraCave: Twelve Years of . 2001. TheEarly Neolithic in la Grotte1 de Klissoura,"LAnthro- Excavationand Research, 1987- Greece:The First Farming Communi- pologie105, pp. 469-504. 1998. Proceedingsofthe International tiesin Europe (Cambridge World Kuhn,S. L. 1995.Mousterian Lithic Conference,Trikala, 6-7 November Archaeology),Cambridge. Technology:An EcologicalPerspective, 1998,ed. N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, Pope,K. O., C. Runnels,and T. L. Ku. Princeton. Athens,pp. 139-161. 1984."Dating Middle Palaeolithic Lee, W. E. 2001. "PylosRegional Panagopoulou,E., P. Karkanas,G. Tsar- Red Beds in SouthernGreece," ArchaeologicalProject, Part IV: tsidou,E. Kotjabopoulou,K. Har- Nature312, pp. 264-266.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 5O WILLIAM A. PARKINSON AND JOHN F. CHERRY

Reisch,L. 1980."Pleistozän und Fier Regionof Albania, JMA 22, Urgeschichteder Peloponnes" pp. 151-182. (diss.Friedrich- Alexander Univ.). Runnels,C. N., M. Korkuti,M. L.

. 1982."The Transitionto Galaty,M. E. Timpson,J. C. Whit- Middle Palaeolithicin Greece taker,S. R. Stocker,J. L. Davis, and theSouthern Balkans," in The L. Bejko,and S. Muçaj. 2004. Transitionfrom Lower to Middle "The Palaeolithicand Mesolithic Palaeolithicand theOrigins of Mod- ofAlbania: Survey and Excavation ernMan. InternationalSymposium to at theSite of KryegjataB (Fier Commemoratethe50th Anniversary District),"/M/f17, pp. 3-29. ofExcavations in theMount Carmel Runnels,C. N., E. Panagopoulou, Cavesby D. A. E. Garrod,Univer- P. Murray,G. Tsartsidou,S. Allen, sityof Haifa, 6-14 October1980 K. Mullen,and E. Tourloukis.2005. (BAR-IS 151),ed. A. Ronen, "A MesolithicLandscape in Greece: Oxford,pp. 223-231. Testinga Site-LocationModel in Renfrew,C. 1972. TheEmergence of theArgolid at Kandia,"/M¿18, Civilisation:The Cyclades and the pp. 259-285. Aegeanin theThird Millennium b.c., Runnels,C. N., andT. H. vanAndel. London. 1993."The Lowerand Middle Runnels,C. N. 1982."Flaked-Stone Palaeolithicof Thessaly, Greece," Artifactsin Greeceduring the JFA20, pp. 299-317.

HistoricalPeriod,"/^ 9, pp. 363- . 2003. "The EarlyStone Age 373. ofthe Nomos ofPreveza: Land-

. 1985."The BronzeAge scapeand Settlement,"in Land- Flaked-StoneIndustries from Lerna: scapeArchaeology in Southern Epirus, A PreliminaryReport," Hesperia 54, GreeceI (HesperiaSuppl. 32), pp. 357-391. ed.J. Wiseman and K. Zachos,

. 1988."A PrehistoricSurvey of Princeton,pp. 47-134. Thessaly:New Lighton theGreek Runnels,C. N., T. H. vanAndel, Middle Paleolithic,"/^ 15, K. Zachos,and P. Paschos.1999. pp.277-290. "HumanSettlement and Landscape

. 1994."Pleistocene and Early in thePreveza Region (Epirus) in HoloceneArchaeological Sites in thePleistocene and EarlyHolo- SouthernEpirus, Greece," AJA 98, cene,"in ThePalaeolithic Archaeology pp. 315-316 (abstract). ofGreece and Adjacent Areas. Pro-

. 1995."Review of Aegean ceedingsof the ICOPAG Conference, PrehistoryIV: The StoneAge of Ioannina,September 1994 (British Greecefrom the Palaeolithic to the Schoolat AthensStudies 3), Adventof the Neolithic," AJA 99, ed. G. Bailey,E. Adam,E. Pana- pp. 699-728. gopoulou,C. Perlés,and K. Zachos,

. 2009. "MesolithicSites and London,pp. 120-129. Surveysin Greece:A Case Study Sampson,A. 1980."Infialo xo') fromthe Southern AxgoYià" JMA Néaxopoç,"Prakt 1980, pp. 175-187. 22, pp. 57-73. bampson,A., J.Koslowski, M. Kacza- Runnels,C. N., E. Karimali,and nowska,and B. Giannouli.2002. B. Cullen.2003. "EarlyUpper "The MesolithicSettlement at PalaeolithicSpilaion: An Artifact- Maroulas,Kythnos," Mediterranean RichSurface Site," in Landscape Archaeologyand Archaeometry 2, Archaeologyin Southern Epirus, pp. 45-67. GreeceI (HesperiaSuppl. 32), Servais,J. 1961. "Outils paléolithiques ed.J. Wiseman and K. Zachos, d'Elide,"BCH 85,pp. 1-9. Princeton,pp. 135-156. Sordinas,A. 1968."The Prehistoryof Runnels,C. N., M. Korkuti,M. L. theIonian Islands: The Flintsand Galaty,M. E. Timpson,S. R. Pottery"(diss. Harvard Univ.). Stocker,J. L. Davis,L. Bejko,and Stocker,S. R. 2003. "PylosRegional S. Muçaj. 2009. "EarlyPrehistoric ArchaeologicalProject, Part V: Landscapeand Landusein the DeriziotisAloni: A SmallBronze

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LITHICS AND LANDSCAPES: A MESSENIAN PERSPECTIVE 51

Age Sitein Messenia,"Hesperia 72, Palaeolithicand Mesolithic lithicCoastlines of Greeceand the pp. 341-404. Habitationof Crete," Hesperia 79. Aegean,"//^9, pp. 445-454. Strasser,T.R, P. Murray,E. Panagopou- Torrence,R. 1979."A Technological Wells,B., and C. Runnels,eds. 1996. lou,C. Runnels,and N. Thompson. Approachto CycladicBlade Indus- TheBerbati-Limnes Archaeological 2009. "The Resultsof the Plakias tries,"in Papersin CycladicPrehis- Survey,1988-1990 (SkrAth4°, 44), MesolithicSurvey on Crete,2008," tory(UCLAMon 14), ed.J. L. Davis Jonsered. ArchaeologicalInstitute of America, andJ. R Cherry,Los Angeles, Zachos,K. 2008.Ayios Dhimitrios, a 110thAnnual Meeting, January pp. 66-86. PrehistoricSettlement in theSouth-

8-11,2009, Philadelphia: Abstracts . 1986. Productionand Exchange westernPéloponnèse: The Neolithic 32, p. 40. ofStone Tools: Prehistoric Obsidian in andEarly Helladic Periods (BAR-IS Strasser,T.R, E. Panagopoulou,C. N. theAegean (New Studiesin Archae- 1770),Oxford. Runnels,P. Murray,N. Thompson, oloev),Cambridge. Zangger,E., M. E. Timpson,S. B. P. Karkanas,R W. McCoy,and vanAndel, T. H. 1989."Late Quaternary Yazvenko,R Kuhnke,and J. Knauss. K. W. Wegmann.Forthcoming. Sea Level Changesand Archaeol- 1997."The PylosRegional Archae- "StoneAge Seafaringin the ogy,"Antiquity 63, pp. 733-745. ologicalProject, Part II: Landscape Mediterranean:Evidence from vanAndel, T. H., andJ. Shackleton. Evolutionand Site Preservation," thePlakias Region for Lower 1982."Late Palaeolithicand Meso- Hesperia66, pp. 549-641.

WilliamA. Parkinson The Field Museum of Natural History department of anthropology I4OO SOUTH LAKE SHORE DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605 [email protected]

JohnE Cherry Brown University joukowsky institute for archaeology and the ancient world BOX 1837 60 GEORGE STREET

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 020,12 [email protected]

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:12:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions