University of Cincinnati

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

______November 13 , 20 _____03

I,______Yuki Furuya ______, hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of:

______Master of Arts ______in: ______The Department of Classical Studies______It is entitled: ______A Study of Building III at the Neolithic______Acropolis of Halai, ______Greece ______

Approved by: ______Professor Jack L. Davis ______Professor Gisela E. Walberg ______A STUDY OF BUILDING III AT THE NEOLITHIC ACROPOLIS OF HALAI, GREECE

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Classical Studies of the College of Arts and Sciences

2003

by

Yuki Furuya

B.A., Cornell University, Ithaca 2001

Committee Chair: Jack L. Davis ABSTRACT

Building III is a Neolithic architectural remain in the archaeological site of Halai in

Central Greece. It is a small one-room unit of stone and mudbrick construction measuring 2 m x

2.4 m, containing features including a doorway, window, buttress and stone pavements.

Radiocarbon analysis suggests a dating between 5900 and 5700 BC, or the Greek Middle

Neolithic Period. The finds excavated from Building III include obsidian tools and Neolithic

Red-on-White ware, which are both characteristic of the period.

Building III is a special existence among the six Middle Neolithic structures excavated from Halai because it is the best preserved, and also was in use for probably the longest period of time. Building III overlapped in its phase of use with two early structures, Buildings I and II.

After these two structures fell out of use, Building III was left standing while they were built over with three new structures. Major renovations were made to Building III during the course of its use. A buttress was created to fortify a collapsing wall. The doorway and window were sealed in reaction to the construction of the three later buildings in extreme proximity to it. That

Building III was preserved and renovated was a deliberate choice indicating its importance or usefulness.

The evidence extracted from its two successive phases – one before and one after the renovation mentioned above – suggest two different types of activities, possibly caused by the structural alteration. In the early phase of the structure, an abundance of faunal remains, burnt pottery sherds and carbonized material were discovered, suggesting that food processing was done within the building. In its late phase patches of cobble pavements were laid on the floor, suggesting that the structure was used as a storage room. Building III finds are representative of the general lifestyle of the Neolithic settlement at

Halai. The range of domestic and wild faunal and floral remains are indicative of the fact that

Halai was a coastal settlement that apparently took advantage of its location – by hunting, keeping livestock, farming, obtaining seafood and conducting maritime obsidian trade.

PREFACE

My participation in the Cornell Halai East Lokris Project (CHELP), directed by Professor

John E. Coleman, started in the summer of 2000. I was given the opportunity to participate in the 2000 study season at Halai while studying under Professor Coleman for my undergraduate degree at Cornell University. I arrived at my first season as an undergraduate volunteer. My primary responsibilities included assisting the main site conservator, working on the electronic database, and drawing chipped stone tools and other small finds for publication. During the following season in 2001, during which no study permit was granted, participants were restricted to conducting research that did not require data either from the site or the storeroom. It was during this season that Professor Coleman first approached me about working on Building III.

This assignment initially entailed summarizing information concerning Building III obtained in previous excavations in order to enhance our understanding of this structure, which was the best- preserved Neolithic building at Halai. The assignment was in no way complete at the end of that season, due to the short length of the summer seasons, inaccessibility to relevant publications and finds at the project headquarter in Vivos, as well as to my elementary knowledge regarding the

Neolithic period in general.

In the months following that season, I increasingly felt that this building was worthy of a more extensive study than the short summer seasons allowed. In April 2002 during my first year of graduate studies at the University of Cincinnati, I approached Professor Jack Davis and

Professor Gisela Walberg, as well as Professor Coleman, about the possibility of turning my research of Building III into a Master’s thesis. All of them were very receptive to the idea and I resumed working on the project, but this time in much more depth. I returned to Halai in 2002 for ten days in order to examine the finds and to acquire copies of staff reports and field notebooks. I also returned to Halai in 2003 to study other areas within the Neolithic settlement at

Halai. The body of this thesis was written during the 2002-2003 academic year in Cincinnati.

While my thesis initially included only the study of Building III and its finds, it was expanded to include an introduction of the Neolithic Period in Central Greece, as a way to supply comparanda and context. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to my advisors Professor Davis, who was my primary reader of this thesis and advised me on its procedure from beginning to end, and Professor Gisela

Walberg, who gave me the initial advice on the possibility of turning this topic into my Master’s thesis. I am also very grateful to Professor John Coleman, who provided me with this topic and granted me permission to use all of the material related to Building III and Halai that is included in this thesis. Many participants at Halai deserve recognition in this work, because this study could not have been produced without their contribution to CHELP and this project. I would like to thank in particular Allyson McDavid, the chief architect at Halai, who provided the drawings and photographs of Building III, Halai palaeoethnobotanist Amy Bogaard who shared her research of the Neolithic plant remains, and lithics expert Professor Evangelia Karimali who re-examined the Building III chipped stone assemblage at my request. I would also like to thank Professor

Kerill O’Neill, who proofread this work numerous times. My friends and colleagues at the

University of Cincinnati played a crucial role in my completion of this thesis and in providing me with both academic advice and emotional support. All of the errors made in this thesis, however, are of course my own. Lastly I express my gratitude to my parents for their unfailing care and support. It is frustrating to endure many hours of discussion concerning a subject and work in a language that one is completely unfamiliar with; I could not have completed this work without their patience, encouragement and a decade of not losing faith in their daughter on the other side of the globe. TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables 3

List of Figures 4

Introduction 5

Chapter I 9

Neolithic in Central Greece 9 History of Research Regarding Neolithic Greece 9 Neolithic Sites Identified in Thessaly and Central Greece 12 The Aceramic Phase in Thessaly and Central Greece 14 The Tripartite Chronological Scheme in Thessaly and Central Greece 16 Settlements and Environment 24 Architecture 30 Obsidian and Trade 35 Summary 36

Chapter II 38

Halai and Building III 38 Site Location and Overview 38 Overview of the Neolithic Remains at Halai 39 Trench F9 in Area F 43 Building III in Trench F9 45 Overview of Building III’s Surroundings and Their Relationship to the Structure 46 1931 Grace Excavation of Building III 47 1992-2002 CHELP Excavation of Building III 49 Project Methodology 54

Chapter III 56

Building III Architecture and Stratigraphy 56 Architecture 56 Doorway and Window 60 Overview of the Interior of Building III 62 Description of the Lots Excavated by CHELP 64 Floors 66 Paved Surfaces 69

Chapter IV 71

Finds from Building III and Neolithic Halai 71 Pottery 71 Bone and Shells 75 Lithics 77 Botanical Remains 78 Radiocarbon Samples 79

Chapter V 81

Discussion – Building III at Halai in Relation to the Neolithic of Central Greece 81 Neolithic Halai 81 Building III 83

Bibliography 89 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Absolute Dates for the Thessalian Neolithic Period ...... 93

Table 2: Statified Pottery from Building III by EU...... 93

Table 3: Unworked Bone from Building III by EU...... 95

Table 4: Common Botanical Remains at Halai ...... 96

Table 5: Radiocarbon Results from Building III...... 96 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: Building III...... 97

Fig. 2: Location of Halai ...... 98

Fig. 3: Area Plan of Halai ...... 99

Fig. 4: Area F, Halai ...... 100

Fig. 5: Plan Showing the Location of Grace’s 1931 Trenches...... 101

Fig. 6: 1931 Plan...... 102

Fig. 7: MN Architecture...... 103

Fig. 8: LN Architecture...... 104

Fig. 9: Building III Walls and Scarps ...... 105

Fig. 10: Wall BE (Illustration by Allyson McDavid) ...... 106

Fig. 11: Wall BF (Illustration by Allyson McDavid) ...... 107

Fig. 12: Wall BG (Illustration by Allyson McDavid)...... 108

Fig. 13: Wall BH (Illustration by Allyson McDavid)...... 109 INTRODUCTION

Building III is a small one-room unit, which is one of the best-preserved Neolithic structures on the acropolis of Halai in Theologos (Fig. 1). Diagnostic pottery found within it, although in small quantities, suggests a late MN date, possibly extending into the early LN.

Building III appears to be one of the oldest architectural structures of those that have been excavated on the site. The room may have stayed in use for an extended length of time, compared to the others in the settlement. This is indicated by the fact that other structures built in the later periods were constructed around it and not over it, and also by the fact that structural alterations were made possibly in order to keep the building in use after newer ones were constructed. Its multiple occupation levels with signs of a variety of activities could provide a range of information that is chronologically sequential.

The study of Building III may enhance the understanding of the Neolithic settlement at

Halai because of its long period of occupation and its good state of preservation, and knowledge of it could serve as a basis for understanding other less well-documented parts of the settlement.

Building III and its finds are representative of the Neolithic structures in Halai in many aspects, including its method of construction and ceramics. On the other hand, it also bears unique features that have not been identified or well-preserved in other buildings at the site. Some prominent features include a blocked doorway and window, stone platforms and a buttress that may aid in our understanding of the function of the building. Its close proximity to the neighboring structures, and its renovations that seem to have taken place in conjunction with construction of these structures may contribute to the understanding of the living arrangement Neolithic settlers had at Halai. This project examines various elements uncovered during the excavation of Building III that provide evidence to support the above statements.

The Acropolis of Halai is located in the Phthiotis prefecture in Central Greece. It is a coastal settlement of the MN and LN periods. Its architecture and finds have much in common with its neighboring sites in Phthiotis and the rest of Central Greece. As with many sites in

Central Greece, it also exhibits many similarities with Neolithic sites located in Thessaly. The first chapter therefore aims to present a brief introduction to the Neolithic period in Greece, in which the settlement of Halai existed. Special attention will be paid to evidence from Central

Greece and Thessaly. As will be discussed below, Thessaly is an important area for the study of the Neolithic because modern research has been strongly concentrated on Thessalian Neolithic culture, and two of the most well-known and extensive sites, Sesklo and Dimini, are located in that region.1 It neighbors Central Greece geographically, and also shares many cultural similarities.

The second chapter provides an introduction to the site of Halai and the archaeological work conducted there. The site was occupied from the MN period to the Byzantine period, and was excavated by Hetty Goldman and Alice Walker in the first half of the 20th century. The chapter also summarizes the archaeological work conducted on Building III by CHELP, as well as by Virginia Grace. While this work focuses on Building III and its immediate surrounding, the Neolithic settlement at Halai extended much further. Most of its remains are covered by

Greco-Roman and Byzantine habitation, which extend even further. This introduction to Halai aims to supply the archaeological context in which the research on Building III is placed.

1 Halstead 1995, p. 12. The following two chapters concern the study of the architecture, stratigraphy and finds of Building III. The information laid out in these chapters is mostly acquired from the Halai field notebooks and databases. This chapter aims at summarizing and analyzing the evidence obtained from Building III. Since the wider context of the site is integral to understanding a single structure, and also because information concerning Building III is insufficient at times, data from the settlement are incorporated in order to provide a fuller picture. The final chapter entails a discussion of how Neolithic Halai and Building III relate to the Neolithic culture in

Greece, based on the data from the previous two chapters.

The Central Greek mainland, referring in this work specifically to Phthiotis, Phocis and

Boiotia, is a relatively poorly documented region with regards to the Neolithic Period.2 While

Neolithic artefacts continue to be discovered, recorded, and occasionally published from plowed farmland or excavations of later sites in this region, in-depth studies of sites dating to this period are few. Sites in Central Greece where the study of Neolithic settlements are of primary importance include Chaeronea, Elateia and Orchomenos.3 The proximity of this region to

Thessaly, where numerous significant Neolithic sites have been found, overshadows the discoveries made in Central Greece. But despite the proximity, Neolithic culture of Central

Greece does not resemble Thessalian Neolithic culture in every aspect, and even within Central

Greece, variations in architecture, pottery style and other finds are common. It is important that attention be paid to the Central Greek Neolithic culture independently, and not as a rural appendage to Thessalian Neolithic culture. Central Greece has a variety of landscapes that may

2 Pantelidou-Gofa 1996, p. 69.

3 Coleman 1992. have contributed to Neolithic developments dichotomous from Thessaly; Boiotia is surrounded by mountains and has abundant water and fertile land, while Phthiotis and Phocis have lowland tracts in the Sphercheios valley surrounded by high mountains.4

One factor contributing to the paucity of comprehensive research concerning the

Neolithic period in Central Greece is the infrequent discovery of long-term habitations possessing an extensive chronology. Only a few prehistoric sites have been excavated in the

East Lokris region. Prior to the establishment of the 14th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical

Antiquities (EPKA) in 1977, Halai was the only extensively excavated and published archaeological site in the region.5 Halai’s Neolithic period extends from the Thessalian equivalent of the early MN through the first phase of the LN, which in turn can be subdivided into five possible sub-phases.6 A detailed study of the settlement, its architecture, pottery and other finds would enhance our understanding of the Neolithic culture of Central Greece, and provide cultural and chronological comparisons to neighboring sites. Chapter I outlines the

Neolithic culture in Greece and its modern scholarship, in order to provide a backdrop for the environment in which the Neolithic settlement at Halai and Building III flourished.

4 Pantelidou-Gofa 1996, p. 69.

5 Dakoronia 1999, p. 19.

6 Coleman 2000. CHAPTER I

NEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL GREECE

HISTORY OF RESEARCH REGARDING NEOLITHIC GREECE

The existence of the Stone Age has been acknowledged in publications since the 19th century. George Finlay published a paper in 1869 that compared prehistoric artifacts found in

Greece to those from the Swiss Neolithic period.7 Systematic research of the Neolithic period in

Greece has continued for almost a century since Tsountas first published his extensive work on

Sesklo and Dimini, which was a result of his investigation of the Thessalian plain, in his book AiJ proistorikaiv ajkropovlei~ Dimhnivou kaiv Sevsklou. This was followed shortly by Wace and

Thompson in Prehistoric Thessaly on the survey of Neolithic sites in Thessaly and the northern areas of Central Greece.8 These works essentially gave a starting point for the research of the

Greek Neolithic period, which was simply labeled ‘pre-Mycenaean’ at the end of the 19th century.9 Their research established chronological and stylistic frameworks of the Thessalian

Neolithic early in the 20th century, well before they were developed in other regions of Greece. 10

Thessaly continues today to be the most extensively studied region in Greece with regards to the

7 Finlay 1869.

8 Tsountas 1908; Wace and Thompson 1912.

9 Weinberg 1970, p. 573.

10 Theocharis (1993, pp. 30-31) notes 168 sites on the map of Thessaly, which he explains are “oiJ shmantikovteroi gnwstoi; neoliqikoi; sunoikismoi; th`~ (shmerinh`~) Qessaliva~.” Neolithic period. The 20th century also saw the expansion of research in the Neolithic period in other regions of Greece; JH Neoliqikhv jEpochv ejn JEllavdi, a synthetic work concerning research of Neolithic Greece conducted in the 20th century, was published by Mylonas in 1928.11

Heurtley published the results of his pioneering work in Macedonia in 1939, in his monograph

Prehistoric Macedonia.12 Weinberg identified a tripartite scheme for the chronology of Neolithic

Greece, following Evans’ model for the Minoan civilization in 1947 and 1954.13

While many notable studies of the Neolithic period in Greece were conducted prior to the

1960’s, a handful of which are mentioned above, research tended to be overshadowed by those of the better-known Minoan, Mycenaean and Classical periods.14 The Neolithic period had a peripheral position in the field of Classical Archaeology, in which the study of the Classical

Greek past had the spotlight. Study of the Neolithic period saw a much greater intensity only after the 1950’s; but even then, research of the Stone Age in general, from the Palaeolithic to the

Neolithic, still tended to generate a shortage of interest, funding and support.15 Concurrent work by Theocharis and Milojcic starting in the mid 1950’s greatly enhanced the knowledge of prehistoric Thessaly, and brought about a second wave of pioneering research in the period that took place in the 1960’s. 16 Milojcic identified the Palaeolithic period in Thessaly, and also excavated various Neolithic sites such as Argissa, establishing extensive chronological sequences for the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in the region. He was also the first to suggest a

11 Mylonas 1928.

12 Heurtley 1939.

13 Weinberg 1947 and 1954; Gallis 1996, p. 26.

14 Gallis 1996, p. 26.

15 Runnels 2000, p. 225

16 Gallis 1996, p. 26. presence of the ‘Preceramic’ period in Europe.17 Theocharis also identified Palaeolithic sites in the Peneios Valley, and excavated sites such as Achilleion, bringing to our knowledge various phases of the Neolithic period.18 Theocharis also published a synthesis of the available information on the Neolithic period throughout Greece in his work Neolithic Greece, which brings together contributions from various Neolithic scholars.19

Research on Neolithic Greece continues to develop. Revisions to the chronological framework have been made, and various methodological studies have been conducted in the past few decades. 20 A wealth of new evidence and interpretations have emerged since the 1960’s, as well as the introduction of new techniques and tools of research. Recent studies of the Neolithic have contributed to syntheses with greater amounts of information, such as is seen in the publication edited by Papathanassopoulos.21 New types of work have been conducted recently as well, including interpretations of the EN period throughout Greece by Perlès,22 and various extensive surveys. The study of insular Neolithic sites, which has attracted little attention in the past, has greatly increased in the last quarter-century.23 On the other hand, Neolithic sites in

Central Greece, especially those in the northernmost Phthiotis prefecture, are still often studied and mentioned as a part of the Thessalian Neolithic. The conglomerate of the two provinces,

Thessaly and Sterea Ellada (Central Greece), is often termed “Central Greece” as a whole when

17 Milojcic 1962; Milojcic 1965.

18 Gimbutas et al. 1984.

19 Theocharis 1973.

20 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 356.

21 e.g., Papathanassopoulos 1996; Perlès 2000.

22 Perlès 2001.

23 Broodbank 1999, p. 15. classifying Neolithic sites by region.24 The merging of the two regions appears to have become the traditional treatment of Neolithic sites in Central Greece since the publication in 1912 by

Wace and Thompson. Knowledge of the Neolithic culture in Central Greece is also too meager to identify it as an individual entity with its own characteristics that is not a rural variation of the

Thessalian culture. Nonetheless, various cultural elements, such as ceramic styles, show that

Central Greece has features unique to its locale, as well as ones similar to those found in

Thessaly, and future research may reveal a Central Greek Neolithic culture sufficiently independent from Thessaly enough to merit a classification of its own.25

NEOLITHIC SITES IDENTIFIED IN THESSALY AND CENTRAL GREECE

Many recent works concerning the Neolithic Period in Greece have focused on syntheses and surveys. This is especially true in Thessaly, where close to 400 sites have been identified, thereby providing a full picture of cultural trends, similarities and diversification, as well as intersite relations. Halstead’s extensive analysis of settlement patterns in Neolithic Thessaly and

Gallis’ atlas of Neolithic Thessalian sites are a few examples of wide-ranging works that have been published within the last two decades, as well as others already mentioned above.26

Papathanassopoulos edited and authored a comprehensive monograph on Neolithic

Greece entitled Neoliqikov~ Politismov~ sthn Ellavda. He lists in the appendix an extensive

24 Note for example the final publication of a Thessalian site Achilleion by Gimbutas et al. (1989), which was titled Achilleion:

A Neolithic Settlement in Central Greece, 6400- 5600 B.C.

25 See Sealey (2001) on the characteristics of red-on-white ware in Halai and Lokris.

26 Halstead 1984; Perlès 2000; Gallis 1992. catalogue of Neolithic sites identified up to the time of his publication, classified by prefecture and region.27 He lists 372 sites in Thessaly and 187 sites in Central Greece, including 27 in

Phthiotis, three in Aetoloacarnania, one in Phocis and 26 in Boiotia, as well as 29 in Attica and

91 in Evvia. For those sites where any study of the material has been published, their periods of occupation are also listed. 44 of the sites mentioned in the above list lack this piece of information.28 Dakoronia mentions five sites in the Lokris region where Neolithic presence has been identified: Ales (Halai), Proskynas, Skala Atalandis, Kyrtoni and Kynos.29 Halai and

Proskynas are the only sites that have been excavated to the Neolithic levels. She notes that all the above-mentioned sites save Kyrtoni are located near the sea, facilitating trade of goods and information (e.g., obsidian and technology), with coastal and insular sites, especially the

Cyclades.

The disparity between the immense number of Neolithic sites in Thessaly and the surprisingly small number in Central Greece, except for Evvia, is at once apparent. While there is no denying that a large number of Neolithic populations lived in Thessaly, and that the

Thessalian plain provided a suitable living environment, the opposite does not necessarily apply for Central Greece. Phthiotis, Aetoloacarnania, Phocis and Boiotia have been subjected to little attention compared to Thessaly with regards to Neolithic research, and have traditionally been overshadowed by the impressive evidence found in Thessaly. Because Thessaly has dominated the spotlight in terms of Neolithic research, it stands to reason that many sites remain to be

27 Papathanassopoulos 1996. The list includes all types of settlements and signs of Neolithic existence.

28 Papathanassopoulos does not state how the list was compiled, or where the information was obtained. He does not explain the lack of periods for the 44 sites.

29 Dakoronia 1999, p. 26. formally identified. Many Neolithic sites in Central Greece continue to be identified through rescue excavations.30 The occasional magoula can be spotted while driving along Central Greek roads, and fairly substantial quantities of obsidian tools and red-on-white sherds, as well as an occasional figurine, can be found upturned on the surface of ploughed land indicating the presence of an unidentified Neolithic site. But even on excavated sites, the Neolithic levels are not always studied and published extensively. Scholars who study the Neolithic finds of this region must often resort to comparing their evidence against, and attempt to liken their results to, a handful of extensively published Neolithic sites such as Elateia and Chaeronea, or draw upon examples from Thessalian sites.31

THE ACERAMIC PHASE IN THESSALY AND CENTRAL GREECE

The earliest phase of the Neolithic period in Greece is sometimes argued to be Aceramic or Preceramic, as is the case with Cyprus and Anatolia.32 The phase is defined by its existence beneath the earliest EN level rich in ceramics, but does not entirely preclude the use of fired clay.33 Scholars in the past have claimed to found Aceramic Neolithic strata in Greece in

Thessaly, Peloponnese (Franchthi Cave and Dendra) and Crete (Knossos); the certitude of its

30 e.g., Dimaki 1994, p. 91, concerning the survey conducted by the Lamia Ephoreia in Northern Phthiotis.

31 The study of the Neolithic settlement at Halai has looked to Elateia, Chaeronaea and Thessalian sites for comparanda as well.

E.g., Coleman 1999, p. 295, n. 23; Sealey 2001.

32 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 365.

33 These levels all contain a handful of sherds, but pottery was not used extensively as in later periods. Knossos level X is also identified as Aceramic, but a fired clay figurine was discovered from this level (Evans 1964). presence is debated in some or all of the mainland sites.34 Theocharis is reported to have found an Aceramic phase in Achilleion, but subsequent investigations conducted by Gimbutas concluded otherwise, and therefore its existence remains inconclusive at best.35 Gallis states that the existence of the Aceramic period in Thessaly is entirely doubtful since recent research has revealed good quality pottery from the deepest layers of settlements.36 Whether or not there exists a true Aceramic phase in Greece, Perlès finds this ‘initial Neolithic phase’ an important phase that ‘ought to be distinguished from the Early Neolithic proper.” 37 In the catalogue mentioned above, Papathanassopoulos lists five sites where Aceramic Neolithic phases have been reported to exist in Thessaly: Sesklo, Achilleion, Soufli Magoula (Larissa), Gentiki

(Omorphochori) and Argissa (Dendra). He does not identify any sites in Central Greece as having an Aceramic phase. The Argissa Aceramic period is dated to 8130 B.P. ±100 and 7990

B.P. ±95 years (6280-5945 B.C.), the later of which dates is roughly contemporary with

Aceramic dates of Franchthi.38

The Aceramic period, when speculated to exist, is hard to distinguish from the Ceramic

EN because of the similarity in crafts and skills of these periods. Small quantities of pottery were also found from all the Thessalian Aceramic levels of sites mentioned above, making the use of the term “Aceramic” inappropriate. Opinions concerning the significance of these sherds differ;

Theocharis interprets this as evidence for the gradual evolution and shift into a Ceramic

Neolithic; Bloedow, on the other hand, interprets the same evidence as the sign of introduction of

34 Coleman 1992; J. E. Coleman (pers. comm.).

35 Theocharis 1962; Gimbutas 1974, p. 282; Coleman 1992, p. 250.

36 Gallis 1996 I, p. 61.

37 Perlès 2001, p.5.

38 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 365. an exogenous Ceramic Neolithic.39 Other cultural elements of the Aceramic Neolithic are very similar or indistinguishable from the EN period. Architecture from the Aceramic period includes houses made of clay daub such as at Argissa, as well as simple huts such as at Orchomenos.40

Melian obsidian appears in the Upper Mesolithic period and continues throughout the Neolithic period, displaying early evidence of intersite and naval interaction.41 Faunal and floral evidence indicate a fully formed farming economy that is also indistinguishable from Early Neolithic proper.42

THE TRIPARTITE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME IN THESSALY AND CENTRAL

GREECE

The aforementioned tripartite scheme for the Neolithic period, introduced by Weinberg, is largely typological and creates an arbitrary division between the Early, Middle, and Late

Neolithic periods. The Neolithic period is sometimes defined as a quadripartite system with the identification of the Final Neolithic as a separate period, although some scholars argue that it belongs to a later phase of the LN.43 The Aceramic period in Greece is usually classified as an initial phase of the EN period. Developments in culture are generally gradual and continuous in the Neolithic period, which creates difficulty in precisely delineating where a certain period begins or ends based on the excavated material. The transition from the MN to LN is a little

39 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 368; Theocharis 1973; Bloedow 1991.

40 Coleman 1992, p. 250; Wace and Thompson 1912.

41 Coleman 1992, p. 250.

42 Perlès 2001, p. 73.

43 Coleman 1992. more marked, and exhibits some signs of conflagration and relocation of settlements in eastern

Thessaly, albeit only in a few places. The rate of development of a certain cultural element (e.g., pottery style) differs from site to site, and sites outside Thessaly and Greek Macedonia have rarely yielded extensive Neolithic stratigraphy, also creating difficulty in the development of subdivisions that correlate with the chronology of these two regions.44 The chronological scheme of Neolithic Greece differs from that of the rest of the Balkan countries in its subdivisions; the

EN and MN phases correspond to the Balkan EN, Pre-Dimini phases to the Balkan MN and

Dimini phases to the Balkan LN periods.45

An overarching absolute chronological scheme of this type, based on stylistic elements, is difficult to reconcile with absolute dates obtained from the same sites by archaeometric methods.

The beginning and end of each period of settlements, as well as its sub-phases, often differ in terms of absolute dates even when their stylistic elements are found to correspond. Moreover, it is impractical to apply an all-embracing chronology to a culture with a degree of diversification as high as the Greek Neolithic. On the other hand, it is useful and important to create some structured system of sub-division for a period as long as the Greek Neolithic, which is over three millennia long. Using common pottery styles as a basis for relative dating is helpful for comparative studies between two sites that may otherwise appear to have different developmental processes and varying absolute dates. Within Thessaly, as discussed below, this chronological scheme applies well to the settlements that share a significant degree of cultural similarity with Sesklo, around which this scheme was initially introduced. The aforementioned problem arises when sites outside of Thessaly and Macedonia are considered. Few sites outside

44 Gallis 1996, p. 30.

45 Gallis 1996, p. 30. these regions have revealed deep deposits and long stratigraphical sequences, and one must therefore combine chronologies from different sites ‘whose interrelation is not always evident.”46

The approximate absolute dates for the successive Thessalian Neolithic periods are as follows.47 The dates listed in Table 1 are taken from Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic period in Greece is primarily established from radiocarbon dating, and therefore dates may range from one publication to another by as much as two centuries, depending on the results obtained from the sites relevant to that publication. Pantelidou Gofas’ chronology of Central and Southern Greece is lower; her EN and MN dates are 6400-5700 B. C. and 5700-5300 B.C. respectively.48 Perlès proposes a higher EN date that Coleman sees to be more compatible with his MN dating of Halai, which begins at about 5900 B.C.49 From the average of radiocarbon information obtained from various Neolithic sites, Perlès estimates the duration of the EN period to be about 500 years long, between 6540 and 5950 cal B.C.50 Based on the radiocarbon determinations from the Neolithic levels at Halai, Coleman suggests that the beginning dates of the Middle Neolithic period at Halai should be slightly higher than often supposed (such as in the chart below), and closer to that suggested by Perlès.51

The chronological scheme of Neolithic Evvia differs slightly from that of Mainland

Greece. Chronologically, EN I and EN II periods in Evvia correspond roughly to the EN and MN periods in Mainland Greece respectively, LN I to the LN and an early part of the FN, and LN II

46 Above, n. 45.

47 See Table 1. Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 2001, p. 260.

48 Pantelidou Gofas 2000, p. 16.

49 J. E. Coleman (pers. comm.).

50 Perlès 2001, p. 110.

51 Coleman 1999, p. 297. to the rest of the FN period.52 Stylistically, no Neolithic phase in Evvia has been found to correspond precisely to the MN period in mainland Greece.53 Sampson has drawn comparisons of material from Evvia from the EN II with Nea Makri, LN I with the Arapi and Tsangli phases of Thessaly, and FN with the Athenian Agora.54 Influence from Central Greece can be seen in pottery from Evvian sites during the LN I phase (5th millennium), however, it appears to cease in favor of the East and the Aegean islands in the following periods.55 As Sampson describes, EN

Evvia appears to have “a spirit of isolation,” and its cultural elements do not appear to correspond well to those of Mainland Greece except during a short time in the LN period. At

Halai, a few coarse sherds with incised lines and white-filled incised lines have been found in the

LN levels, which have close parallels with those from a cave at Tharounia in Evvia.56 As the following descriptions of the tripartite chronological scheme of Greece aims to introduce cultural aspects relevant to those at Halai, settlements in Evvia only play a marginal role.

The Early Neolithic period, whenever found directly above a level identified by the excavator as an Aceramic stratum, follows immediately without apparent hiatus or abrupt cultural change save a noticeable increase in the amount of pottery. The EN period was initially classified together with the MN as one period by Wace and Thompson due to the lack of EN strata in any of the sites they studied. It was first recognized as a separate period when Weinberg

52 Papathanassopoulos 1996, p. 73.

53 Davis 2001, p. 33.

54 Sampson 1981; Davis 2001, p. 33 n. 53.

55 Sampson 1981, p. 212.

56 Coleman 1992, p. 274. identified the phase in Corinth.57 The EN period, as is the case with all the following Neolithic periods, is defined on the basis of pottery; the period starts with the first signs of abundant pottery production, and ends with the introduction of Middle Neolithic ware (known as Sesklo ware in Thessaly, and Urfirnis ware in the Peloponnese).58 Relative chronology in Central

Greece is based on the Elateia ceramic sequence.59 The outside ranges of dates assigned to the

EN period of Greece in general are 6700 to 5800 B.C.

The Middle Neolithic period in Greece is estimated to have occurred between 5800 and

5400 B.C.60 The beginning of the period in Thessaly, as mentioned above, was traditionally defined by the vast increase – although not the introduction – of the Middle Neolithic ware, as well as finer firing techniques that help achieve the red coloring on this ware. This ceramic style was first identified by Tsountas as the A3β ware. This stylistic dating technique, however, has no real chronological value, although a general evolution in stylistic variation can be observed.61

While this term is the still commonly used, it is referred to as “red-on-white” ware at Halai.62

A3β ware is seen from the earliest levels at Halai. Appearance of the A3β ware became an indicator for the dawn of the MN because scholars, such as Weinberg, suspected that it indicated the appearance of a new population.63 While regional stylistic variation of pottery is already

57 Weinberg 1937.

58 Perlès 2001, p. 98.

59 Theocharis 1973.

60 Above, n. 47

61 Gallis 1994, p. 58.

62 Tsountas 1908.

63 Weinberg 1970, p. 589. seen in the EN, the difference becomes much more evident during this period.64 The level of technical sophistication seen in fine wares from this period suggests the existence of specialized potters.65

Theocharis characterizes the MN period with “change [i.e., expansion] of scale” in

Thessaly and “diversification in the southern regions,” to be viewed as a stage of continued development from the EN period.66 Theocharis’ excavation of Sesklo revealed a smooth transition from the EN to the MN periods.67 Pantelidou Gofas mentions that in Attica, new settlements ‘sprang up’ in the vicinity of old ones, such as in the Brauron and Rhamnous areas.68

In Central Greece, the number of sites identified by Papathanassopoulos almost doubles from 23 in the EN period to 42 in the MN period; in Phthiotis, it increases from 8 to 23.69 The number of sites in Thessaly, however, remains fairly consistent (135 in the EN to 132 in the MN); the

“change of scale” mentioned by Theocharis therefore points not always to the growth in number but also in the development of culture. Because of this diversification of cultural elements found outside the Thessalian region, it is difficult to accurately date and equate various sub-phases within the period throughout Greece unless some shared characteristics with those of Sesklo or similar Thessalian sites are found, on which the dates can be based.70 Theocharis mentions MN

64 Perlès and Vitelli 1999, p. 98.

65 Gallis 1996, p. 34.

66 Theocharis 1973, p. 59.

67 Theocharis 1993, p. 47.x

68 Pantelidou Gofas 2000, p. 32.

69 Papathanassopoulos 1996, pp. 204-205.

70 According to Theocharis (1973, p. 65), the Thessalian koine extends from as far north as Servia (Aliakmon) to as far south as

Lianokladi (Spherichos, Phrhiotis region). Wace and Thompson (1912) included in their publication sites as far south as

Orchomenos. Lianokladi to be an important site in Northern Central Greece that shares cultural elements with

Thessalian Neolithic sites but was also a point of contact with sites in Central Greece.71 Roughly contemporary with the ceramic development are new architectural features (primarily in

Thessaly) such as the earliest attestations of the acropoleis and their fortifications.72 Results from

Elateia, one of the best known Neolithic sites in Central Greece, indicate that its architectural style was similar to that of Thessaly, with stone foundation, mudbrick superstructure and pitched roof.73 Its painted pottery was made in the A3β ware style, which also indicates cultural association with Thessaly, although the motifs employed were locally distinctive.74

The transition from MN to LN is connected with the conflagration and destruction at the acropolis of Sesklo, which was not resettled for half a millennia.75 Tsangli also exhibits signs of fire during this period, but was re-occupied immediately without disruption afterwards.76 In fact, the majority of sites display continuity, many without signs of destruction or abandonment, and the introduction of new ceramic styles is again the primary basis for dating the beginning of this period. Dimini is one of the representative sites of the LN period, but the typological transition occurred centuries before its existence. Matt-painted ware, gray-on-gray ware, black burnished ware and varieties of incised ware on similar fabric are common diagnostic characteristics of this period. Cave dwellings increase during this period in southern Thessaly, and architectural constructions of open-air settlements are often made with less finesse in the early phase of this

71 Theocharis 1993, p. 113.

72 Theocharis 1973, p. 60.

73 Weinberg 1962.

74 Sealey 2001.

75 Theocharis 1973, p. 89.

76 Wace and Thompson 1912; Gallis 1996, p. 36. period.77 While there exists a continuity of pottery style in the eastern Thessalian plain, there is a large shift in settlement patterns; there was a 15% to 30% decrease in the number of settlements in mountainous regions.78

The Late Neolithic period is dated between 5400 and 4700 B.C.79 Two ceramic features attest to the beginning of the LN period in Central Greece: the dominance of certain wares that were introduced during the MN period, and the appearance of the Neolithic Urfirnis ware in

Orchomenos.80 Both these relative dating techniques are unreliable. The former does not provide a clear delineation between the two periods, because of the continued co-existence of old wares and the lack of abrupt transitions in other aspects of culture. The rate of sufficient “increase” to identify the arrival of the LN is also not precisely quantifiable and is arbitrary. The latter dating technique also presents a problem because Neolithic Urfirnis ware is found to exist in other areas of Central Greece. However, it is doubtful that the style was introduced to every site simultaneously. At Halai, the LN period is identified by a large-scale construction of new architectural structures overlying the late MN levels. Characteristic LN wares such as matt- painted ware and Urfirnis ware (referred to as black-burnished ware at Halai) were found at the floor level of the new structures. There is a vast increase in the number of sites in Evvia during the LN I and LN II phases; 66 out of the 91 sites mentioned by Papathanassopoulos belong to one or both of these periods.81 There is also a growth in the number of settlements in Thessaly during this period; the number of sites identified grow from 135 in the EN period and 132 in the

77 Theocharis 1973, p.90.

78 Gallis 1996 I, p. 64.

79 Above, n. 47.

80 Theocharis 1973, p. 77.

81 Papathanassopoulos 1996, p. 205. MN to 195 in the LN period.82 On the other hand, the number of sites ceases to increase in

Central Greece; there are 42 sites during the MN period, and 38 during the LN period.83 The trend is also the same within Phthiotis, where 23 sites are identified for both the MN and the LN periods. Small hamlets and farmsteads appear in less productive land during the LN, possibly due to greater pressure on land.84

The Final Neolithic period is alternately called the Chalcolithic period, Late Neolithic II or Early Bronze Age I and is dated to 4700-3300 B. C.85 As mentioned above, there is disagreement as to whether the FN should be regarded as its own period or as a part of the LN, and scholars term this period differently according to their opinions. Representative features of the culture of this period include a noticeable decline in craftsmanship (pottery and lithics) and the presence of metal artefacts.86

SETTLEMENTS AND ENVIRONMENT

Both caves and open-air settlements were used in the Neolithic period. Caves were used as permanent settlements since the Palaeolithic Age, as well as for seasonal habitation and burials. The earliest cave sites known in Greece include the Petralona Cave in Chalkidiki

(700,000-250,000 B.C.), and later, Asprachaliko (38,000 B.C) and Kastritsa Cave (20,000-

82 Papathanassopoulos 1996, pp. 201-204.

83 Above, n. 27.

84 Halstead 1989.

85 Coleman 1993; Demoule and Perlès 1993.

86 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 402. 10,000 B.C.) in Epirus.87 In Thessaly, excavation of Theopetra Cave has revealed the first

Thessalian example of continuous human presence from the Middle Palaeolithic Age (c. 41,000

B.C.) until the Final Neolithic (3200 B.C.).88 Inland caves were used by communities that had a mixed farming economy, and caves lying over trade routes were preferred.89 In contrast, coastal caves like the Cyclops Cave in Youra Alonnissos were often centers of maritime trade.90

Broodbank states that the Neolithic period is recently found to have been a major period of island colonization.91 These coastal caves may therefore have served as convenient points of Neolithic seafarers.

Long-term open-air settlements began to be established during the EN period. The identification of a Neolithic open-air site often relies on the presence of a tell (also called magoula or toumba), which is a result of the long-term accumulation of earth at a settlement.

The formation of a tell is caused by the degeneration of mudbrick used for architecture, as well as by the construction of a high concentration of structures atop a limited, raised area.92 Halstead calculates the average EN/MN tell settlement size to be 0.5-1 ha, while Demoule and Perlès suggest 2-5.5 ha.93 Settlements were often built on Pleistocene ‘terraces.’94 Some Neolithic settlements did not form tells over time. These sites are called ‘flat settlements,’ and are

87 Papathanassopoulos 1996, p. 39.

88 Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999, p. 142; Kyparissi-Apostolika 1996, pp. 67-68.

89 Above n. 64.

90 Above n. 64.

91 Broodbank 1999, p. 19.

92 Kotsakis 1999, p. 68.

93 Halstead 1995, p. 12; Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 370.

94 Theocharis 1973, p. 40. represented by sites such as Vasilika in Greek Central Macedonia. Grammenos mentions that

‘flat sites’ are the predominant type of Neolithic settlements in northern Greece and the

Balkans.95 Kotsakis points out that there are basic differences in settlement patterns between tell sites and flat sites, where the area of flat sites are ten to 25 times larger than the area of tell sites.

Tell sites often have denser clustering of architecture probably due to the fact that settlers were building on limited land (i.e., the tell), and flat areas lasted for a shorter duration and had fewer phases of reconstruction.96

In either type of settlement, Perlès raises some difficulties in calculating their average sizes, referring especially to EN sites.97 Firstly, a majority of EN settlements are known only through surface surveys, in which case settlement sizes may be overestimated due to the scatter of surface finds through active land use over time. Sizes of EN settlements that have been overlain by later strata are also difficult to determine since they would be exposed on a very limited surface. Site sizes on tell sites may also be underestimated due to the diameter of the tell that remains visible, when buried under sediments.

Sesklo revealed both a tell settlement and a flat settlement, called either Sesklo A and

Sesklo B or the Acropolis and Polis of Sesklo respectively.98 Theocharis notes a difference in the architectural arrangements between Sesklo A and Sesklo B. While structures in Sesklo A are generally free-standing, those in Sesklo B often have flimsier structures with common walls.99

The limitation of space on the acropolis, and the abundance of land on the plains, would logically

95 Grammenos 1996, p. 42.

96 Kotsakis 1999, p. 67-69.

97 Perlès 2001, p. 176.

98 Kotsakis 1994, p. 125.

99 Theocharis 1973. suggest an opposite construction pattern, other things not being considered. The different arrangements seen at Sesklo A and Sesklo B, therefore, suggests that there were other elements, such as social and economic conditions, at play. For very large settlements like Sesklo where different types of buildings are found within one community, Halstead suggests that institutionalized inequality may have been enforced in order to maintain the cohesion of the community despite the presence of the difference in social standing among inhabitants.100

The location of a settlement was dictated by the availability of arable land, abundant water supply and access to diverse microenvironments, the latter of which appear to have been the most important factor.101 Perlès’ study of settlement patterns in Thessaly reveals that a choice of sites appears not to depend on any one geographical or environmental element.102 As mentioned above, Papathanassopoulos lists 27 Neolithic sites in the Phthiotis prefecture, as well as 26 in Boiotia, and one in Phocis. This number is a sharp contrast to the 221 sites listed for the

Larissa prefecture in Thessaly.103 These prefectures, in which much of their terrain was mountainous and inhospitable for habitation, reveal a much smaller number of Neolithic sites than in Larissa, which possessed a better environment for habitation.104 On the other hand, 91 sites are identified in Evvia, where there was easy access to both fertile land and coasts.105 The

100 Halstead 1995, p. 13. Halstead raises parallels from Neolithic Knossos. Kostsakis (1996, 49) disagrees that this settlement pattern consisting of a tell and a flat site indicates social differentiation.

101 Kotsakis 1996, p. 49; Demoule and Perlès 1993.

102 Perlès 1999, p. 51.

103 Above, n.27.

104 Papathanassopoulos 1996, p. 69.

105 Above, n. 27. large number of closely situated settlements in Thessaly at the start of the EN is an exception to the general Neolithic settlement patterns found in Greece. The settlement pattern so far suggested by scholars as a result of surveys, however, may not be a complete one. Efstratiou points out that Neolithic sites identified in Thrace or Macedonia “were either found accidentally or were deliberately looked for in valleys or near cultivated land,” based on certain hypotheses concerning likely settlement patterns.106 Although results of surveys and new excavations have become increasingly numerous since he made this remark, his statement nevertheless still rings true for other regions outside of Thessaly, including Central Greece, where extensive region- wide investigations of Neolithic settlements are still new.

The average distance between neighboring EN or MN Thessalian sites is less than five kilometers, and the topographical distribution of these sites is uneven.107 Perlès points out that the scarcity or lack of water and fertile soil were limiting factors in other sparsely populated regions such as the Peloponnese, creating fewer villages that were more widely dispersed.108

While favorable environment was not the only factor that attracted Neolithic inhabitants, as mentioned above, harsh terrain would certainly have constituted a reason for them not to settle in certain areas. For example, hills and mountains surround as much as 67% of the terrain in the

Lokris region where Halai is located.109 With regards to Thessaly, Perlès also mentions that the dense and homogenous cluster of villages was due to socioeconomic factors, “in an interplay

106 Efstratiou 1990, p. 36.

107 Demoule and Perles 1993, p. 368. Perlès (1999, p. 46) notes that among 105 sites in Eastern Thessaly, the mean distance between a site and its closest neighbor is 2.7 km.

108 Perlès 2001, p. 5.

109 Dakoronia 1999, p. 9. between demography, political regulation, social obligations and agrarian work.”110 The proximity of Thessalian EN and MN sites to each other and their long period of occupation lead

Halstead to speculate that there was peaceful coexistence between communities and a lack of fear of raiding.111 He also notes the stylistic homogeneity of fine wares to be an indicator of peaceful coexistence, since the homogeneity of wares was not a result of being physically transported. The distribution of homogeneous ceramic styles is “far less than those over which lithic raw materials were moved, and far greater than those necessary to secure marriage partners,” and therefore not a result of necessary exchanges of that sort.112 On the other hand,

Keeley suggests that sign of war in prehistoric societies is often ignored or overlooked due to the scarcity of evidence that could be construed in order to compare to the large-scale and socially organized warfare of modern times.113 He raises the close connection between trade and war, where the nature of some may be of a trade-raid linkage, and that an exchange relationship between two communities does not preclude war.

Demoule and Perlès mention that in the earlier Neolithic period, only a few settlements were situated very close to the sea.114 Recent geoarchaeological studies, among many things, have revealed that sea levels have changed in many parts of Greece between the end of the last

Ice Age (c. 8000 B.C.) and today. Distances between settlements and the coast may have increased or decreased, depending on whether the rise in land elevations or rise in sea levels

110 Above, n. 97.

111 Halstead 1995, p. 14. Halstead calculates the average intersite distance in EN and MN Thessaly to be 1-4 km apart.

112 Above, n. 111.

113 Keeley 2001, pp. 331-342.

114 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 368. were higher in that particular area.115 Therefore, some sites that we consider to be “coastal” settlements may have been farther away from the sea in Neolithic times, and their settlers did not intend to build them so close to the sea as it appears today. The reverse may also be true, that the sites considered to be “inland” sites today were originally located closer to the shore. Halai was a coastal settlement during the Neolithic period, as it appears today. The sea level appears to have risen during their occupation; today, the south boundary of the excavated area is only a few meters away from the Theologos beach.116 Halai was a coastal settlement that relied heavily on the sea as its food source and as a means of receiving obsidian even during the Neolithic period.117 Pantelidou Gofas mentions that many EN settlements in Attica are located near the eastern shores.118

ARCHITECTURE

Architectural styles found in Thessaly and Central Greece, as with other regions of

Greece, share elements of both the east and west. Wattle-and-daub construction with timber posts and mudbrick or pisé constructions, commonly used in Neolithic Europe and in the Near

East respectively, are both found at Greek sites.119 The two types of constructions sometimes even coexist in the same settlement, and topographical factors do not always appear to affect their choice. Perlès mentions that mudbrick or pisé constructions may have appeared slightly

115 Gallis 1996, p. 32.

116 See Chapter V on the discussion of Neolithic Halai as a coastal urban settlement.

117 Coleman 1992, p. 295.

118 Pantelidou Gofas 2000, p. 18.

119 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 370. later than post-houses, although the distinction is not clearly marked.120 The sizes, shapes and styles of houses vary greatly even within the same settlement. Halstead suggests that this diversity signals expression of the societal structure of the settlement, rather than just a reflection of available resources; structures contained various functions and were appreciated by the inhabitants.121 He also suggests that houses may have housed a group of individuals mixed with respect to age and gender, as evidenced by the wide assemblage of finds excavated at Tsangli.

Also found during the earliest phases of the Neolithic period are pit-houses. Pit-houses are round or oval-shaped constructions that were apparently used either for habitation or storage.

The structures are partly subterranean, where their floors are dug as deep as 0.50-0.60 m.122 Pit- houses are found mostly in the EN I phase; Perlès suggests ‘a major transformation in architectural traditions during the Early Neolithic’ period from oval to rectilinear buildings in

Greece, as with the Near Eastern Neolithic.123 An example of a pit-house found in Central

Greece is that of Orchomenos.124 These houses varied from 2.1 m to approximately 6 m, and its construction was of small stones and unbaked brick that slopes inwards. No doors were located in these structures. Elliptical huts of similar construction, though not with sunken pits, continue to be found in later periods of the Neolithic. In Attica, excavations at Nea Makri revealed elliptical woven huts, the foundations of which were sunk about 0.30 m into the floor.125

120 Perlès 2001, p. 184.

121 Halstead 1999, p. 79.

122 I.e., the pit-house found in Nea Makri; Theocharis 1956, p. 4.

123 Perlès 2001, p. 184.

124 Wace and Thompson 1912, p. 195.

125 Pantelidou-Gofa 1991, p. 166-171. Doorways have been identified for these buildings, marked by a step.126 While the construction method of these huts drastically differs from that of Building III and they are also known most commonly from the earliest phase of the Greek Neolithic, their similarity in size and the evidence of controlled fire found within these huts are elements shared with Building III. Thus, it is possible that Building III may have served a similar function to that of these early huts.

Common construction in the EN period included huts with timber posts, as was the case at Prodromos. 127 These houses were constructed entirely of tree trunks and branches, without any mudbrick; worked and unworked branches were held together with wooden nails to construct the walls, and planks cut from large tree trunks probably supported the roof. In Central

Greece, traces of similar structures have been found at Elateia, but examples of architectural remains of this type are scarce in Central Greece.128 Early MN houses at Nea Makri employed construction methods using timbers together with stone and mudbrick, where vertical poles were incorporated into walls near openings, where reinforcements were necessary.129

During the MN period there was an increase in structures that were sturdier, made with mudbrick or pisé, and sometimes constructed over stone foundations. Structures found at Halai are built with stone socles and mudbrick; the socles generally measure over 0.50 m high where preserved. Terracotta house models that have been found from some sites suggest that houses may have been two storeys high, and were built in the megaron-style with a front porch.130

These models also show that Neolithic houses had ridged roofs with a chimney-like hole

126 Above, n. 125.

127 Gallis 1996 I, p. 62.

128 Pantelidou-Gofa 1996, p. 69.

129 Pantelidou-Gofa 1991, p. 159-166.

130 Gallis 1996, p. 33. (opaion) in the middle. Excavations at Achilleion have revealed various buildings from both the

EN and MN periods.131 The MN strata revealed a two-roomed house with a bench, built with stone socle and pisé, which the excavator called a ‘house-shrine.’ The majority of Neolithic houses had floors of beaten earth with occasional patches of stone pavements; there are examples from the Athenian Acropolis and Nea Makri where wood was laid on top of stones.132

Excavation at Halai generally reveal the same; Building III exhibited white plaster-like patches of soil scattered on floor levels, which were probably pieces of wall plaster that fell onto the floor after the structure degenerated with disuse. Rebuilding of houses over one another in the exact same location suggests that inhabitants had a concept of property ownership.133

Wace and Thompson identify the architecture at Tsangli, Sesklo, Orchomenos and

Zerelia to be representative of what they termed the First Period (MN and LN periods). 134 Of those, they describe the structures at Tsangli as having “the best evidence for house plans for the

First Period,” and equate their importance with architecture at Sesklo and Dimini, which are two of the best-known Thessalian Neolithic sites today. The Neolithic structures at Halai resemble those at Tsangli in their construction. Four structures, P, Q, R, and T, were discovered at Tsangli dating to the Neolithic period, of which the first three were found lying one above another with T nearby. 135 All of the structures are rectangular, with walls on one axis only slightly narrower than those of the other. The construction is of stone socle as high as c. 0.60 m with a mudbrick superstructure. Structures R and T, dating to the end of the site’s occupation period, were

131 Gimbutas et al., 1989.

132 Pantelidou-Gofa 1996, p. 71.

133 Gallis 1996 I, p. 63.

134 Wace and Thompson 1912, p. 217.

135 Wace and Thompson 1912, p. 115. destroyed by fire. All of the houses have five to eight buttresses, which are presumed to have been supports for roof-beams. In addition, four postholes were found across the middle of the long side of House T, which the excavators suggested were additional roof supports as well as a partition. Cobble pavements were found in patches on the floor of House P, as well as a single row of stones on the floor marking off a corner of House T. Raised platforms consisting of wooden framework and mud coating were found in Houses T and Q, which the excavators suggest may have been beds.

The LN period sees a development of “megaron-style” houses. The oldest attested structure of this style was found at Magoula Visviki, dating to the end of the MN period.136 The

Neolithic megaron-style houses consist of two rooms and a porch, as with Bronze Age structures of the same name. At Halai, a partially excavated structure Building VI, dating to the latest phase of the MN period, appears to be an early example of such megaron-style houses. Perlès suggests that earlier one-room houses with partitions parallel to their long axis foreshadowed these later megaron structures.137 Two late MN structures at Halai, Buildings IV and V, may be examples of such structures, where the structures are almost twice as long as they are wide, and a partition made of the same building material runs through the middle of each house, perpendicular to its long axes. These megaron structures may indicate the superior social standing of their inhabitants, and therefore represent a display of social differentiation, where that household has dominance over a communal unit within a LN settlement that shares a central courtyard.138

136 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 390.

137 Perlés 2001, p. 186.

138 Halstead 1995, p. 14. OBSIDIAN AND TRADE

The frequent exchange of goods and information is evidenced by shared cultural elements and the distribution of obsidian over wide distances in Neolithic Greece. Sites in Evvia, most of which had easy access to the sea, exhibited cultural similarities since the EN period with Attica and Central Greece, as well as with islands in the Aegean.139 As discussed below, the Red-on-

White ware at Halai shows stylistic affinities with decorated pottery of both Thessaly and different parts of Central Greece.

Obsidian trade or procurement already existed in Greece during the Mesolithic period.140

The same system of circulation may have existed for chert as well. Obsidian is found at the

Neolithic settlement of Halai in large quantities. As will be discussed below, there was a greater use of obsidian than chert throughout the period. As with many other Neolithic sites in Greece, the raw material derived from Milos. Demoule and Perlès suggest the existence of specialized distribution centers for manufactured or partially manufactured items, for two reasons.141 Firstly it would have been inefficient for people to sail the long distance to Milos in order to acquire only the small quantity of obsidian that is consistently found in excavations of Neolithic settlements. Secondly, the quality of the finished tools, whose production requires a long period of practice and therefore a high degree of specialization, was regionally consistent. The production of lithic tools at a rate of error that was close to none, as evidenced in the

139 Papathanassopoulos 1996, p. 73.

140 Coleman 1992, p. 250. Obsidian has been found in the Mesolithic levels of sites such as the Franchthi and Theopetra Caves.

141 Demoule and Perlès 1993, p. 383. archaeological record, implies a highly specialized group of stone tool manufacturers responsible for distributing finished products over a wide geographical area. Obsidian is never found in its raw material form in mainland Greek sites from the EN and MN periods; obsidian as raw material appears only in the LN.142 Halai conforms to this model.143 By the LN period, obsidian reaches Western and Central Macedonia for the first time, and the emergence of a ‘direct supply zone’ is speculated. ‘A direct supply zone’ would have comprised individuals who obtained obsidian straight from Milos, bypassing the specialized distributers/craftsmen. This new distribution model became possible due to increased seafaring. The supporting evidence is the de-specialization seen in the quality of finished lithic products. Ironically, greater accessibility of obsidian to a larger number of people allowed manufacture of lithic tools by unskilled hands new to the craft.144 Demoule and Perlès suggest the same model of distribution for millstones, celts and chisels, because they are often made out of non-local materials.

SUMMARY

In summary, the Neolithic period was mostly a time of continuous cultural development and homogeneity in Greece, particularly in Thessaly and Central Greece. Gradual evolutions in architecture and crafts are documented throughout the EN and the MN periods. While some individual sites underwent destruction or abandonment at the beginning of the LN period, the overall trend in cultural development remained continuous. Many scholars interpret the

142 Perlès and Vitelli 1999, p. 97.

143 Coleman 1992, p. 274.

144 Above n. 142. Neolithic culture in Greece to have been a peaceful and long-lasting one, focused on cultural expansion, communal interaction and stable life, and not that of instability and a competition for survival. Obvious signs of unrest, such as the occasional destruction seen in the late MN period and the development of fortification in the LN period, may point to its possible shift in the socio- political state, but entire studies devoted to the interpretation of this evidence are few.

Exchange of information and goods were frequent since the EN period; obsidian was imported, the diffusion of pottery styles were widespread, and architectural techniques were shared with areas as remote as the Near East and other parts of Europe. These trends are also witnessed at Halai, where pottery styles share common characteristics with regional styles of

Thessaly and Central Greece, and architectural structures were built with mudbrick and stone.

The introduction of megaron-style structures is also apparent at Halai in Building VI and VII from the late MN and early LN periods respectively.

The following chapters discuss the Neolithic settlement of Halai, which in many ways are representative of the culture introduced in this chapter. Building III, which is the focus of the following chapters, exhibits architectural elements comparable to Thessalian structures such as

Tsangli, as mentioned above. Its finds are also demonstrative of the contemporary finds from the rest of the settlement. Building III and its neighbors, when studied in a wider context, should contribute to a detailed understanding of the social arrangements of a representative Central

Greek Neolithic settlement. CHAPTER II

HALAI AND BUILDING III

SITE LOCATION AND OVERVIEW

The ancient acropolis of Halai is located on the eastern shore of the Bay of Atalandi, within the modern town of Theologos in the East Lokris district of the Phthiotis prefecture (Fig.

2). The town of Theologos, which was once a fishing village, has developed into a weekend beach resort over the last decade. Private houses and farmland surround the fenced-off rectangular area of the site today to the north, east and west, and a modern road built along the shore cuts through the acropolis to the south at a northwest-southeast orientation. Despite the active service industry and nightlife in its neighborhood, the site remains undisturbed by locals or visitors.

The periods of occupation at the acropolis of Halai include the Neolithic, Archaic,

Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine; there is no evidence of Bronze Age occupation.145

During historic times the area of its occupation extended beyond the boundary fences measuring ca. 160 m by ca. 70 m that delineate the archaeological site, 146 but the Neolithic settlement is confined to within them. 147 Due to the rise in sea level since its last date of occupation, a portion

145 Hope Simpson and Dickinson reported the existence of Bronze Age material in Halai, but Coleman and Fossey both note this to be erroneous; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, p. 262, G 69; Coleman 1992, p. 273; Fossey 1990, p. 42.

146 The maximum extent of the settlement during the historic period was as large as 15 ha. Cf. Coleman 1999, p. 286.

147 Coleman has published two preliminary articles on the project. Cf. Coleman 1992, 265-289; Coleman 1999, p. 285-341. beyond the southern boundary is now submerged in the bay and Graeco-Roman remains are still visible underwater. Excavation of the acropolis of Halai has been conducted since 1990 by

CHELP (Cornell Halai East Lokris Project) under the direction of Professor John E. Coleman of

Cornell University. Excavation of the acropolis has become the primary focus of what began as an interdisciplinary survey and excavation project of the East Lokris area in 1986.

Halai was previously excavated by Alice Walker (Kosmopoulos) and Hetty Goldman between the years of 1911 and 1935, consecutively between the years of 1911 and 1914, then subsequently in 1921, 1923, 1931 and 1935. The campaigns undertaken in the first four years were published as preliminary reports and dissertations;148 the following campaigns were published only in the form of articles focusing on certain aspects of the site.149 Of the eight excavation seasons, only one, in 1931, was devoted to the Neolithic strata. This Neolithic campaign was conducted under the direction of Virginia Grace on behalf of Walker and

Goldman, the results of which remain unpublished. The existence of the Neolithic period at

Halai was already known prior to the current project, however, through brief mention in

Goldman and Walker’s work, and therefore was listed on catalogues and indicated on maps of

Neolithic sites in publications published prior to work by CHELP.150

OVERVIEW OF THE NEOLITHIC REMAINS AT HALAI

148 Goldman and Walker 1915, pp. 418-437; Goldman 1916; Walker 1916.

149 Goldman, 1930.

150 E.g., Syriopoulou 1968, p. 24. Neolithic Halai was a coastal settlement occupied during the MN and the LN periods

(Fig. 7, Fig. 8). Its cultural development was gradual and continuous until the abandonment of the site. Based on the amount of seashells and obsidian found, it appears that the inhabitants greatly relied on the sea as its source of food and means of goods exchange.151 There are no signs of catastrophe either during its occupation or during the time of its abandonment. Coleman suggests that the continuous rise of sea level that caused the loss of arable land immediately surrounding the settlement may have been a reason that Neolithic Halai was abandoned.152

Test pits have been dug at various points of the site (Areas A, B, F, G and H) in order to investigate the limits of the Neolithic mound and the presence of Neolithic material. Materials and evidence of activity dating to the Middle and Late Neolithic were found in Areas A, F and H, the westernmost areas of the site (Fig. 3). Excavation results from the first three seasons suggest that the Neolithic settlement may have reached at least sixty meters northwest-southeast, and forty meters northeast-southwest, within Areas A, F and H.153 Bedrock was reached at the southernmost end of Trench F3, where pottery of the earliest Neolithic date in Halai was found

(Fig. 4).154

The Neolithic settlement has been excavated most extensively in Area F.155 The southwestern section of this area includes the trench previously excavated by Grace in 1931 (Fig.

5). Because of Grace’s earlier campaign, the Neolithic levels that are elsewhere found directly

151 Coleman 1999, p. 295.

152 Coleman 1999, p. 275.

153 Coleman 1992, p. 273.

154 Coleman (1992, 273) suggests that they are EN, but Coleman and Ouimet now believe that the earliest pottery found belong to the MN, after studying the material in greater depth during recent study seasons.

155 Grace 1931 (unpublished); Coleman 1992; 1999. underneath later settlements were readily exposed and accessible over a wide area when the present excavation was begun in 1990. There is no mention in Grace’s notebook that she removed later structures that stood over the Neolithic site, but since she noted Greek and

Byzantine intrusions toward the beginning of the excavation, it is evident that some later occupation levels were removed at some stage. Although Grace’s work is unpublished, her original excavation records are preserved at Bryn Mawr College, and the finds are stored at the

National Archaeological Museum in Athens.156 CHELP has excavated and studied Area F in

1992, 1996, 1998 and, on a much smaller scale, 2002 and 2003. 157 The project has devoted much attention in its studies to the Neolithic period.

Coleman currently categorizes the Halai Neolithic architectural features into three broad phases: earlier MN, later MN and LN. Varying elevations of the lowest courses of stone structures built during the two MN periods suggest further sub-phases.158 While the state of preservation of the earliest LN structures is fragmentary, it could be seen that the architectural tradition at Neolithic Halai continued with little change between the MN and the LN.159 The MN levels have been revealed over the largest area in Trench 9 of Area F (F9), where later levels were removed by Grace in 1931. Most of the Neolithic levels excavated by CHELP date to the

LN period, except where soundings have been made through floor levels of LN architecture.

156 Robert Bridges has been studying the Neolithic finds from the earlier excavations.

157 Work done in 2002 consisted mainly of cleaning Area F and digging two small pits within Building III for the purpose of study for this thesis. The most extensive work was carried out in 1996, where all of the 1931 backfill was removed, and the entire interior of Building III was excavated. Work done in 2003 comprised removing fill to relieve pressure from some walls in

F10 that were in danger of collapsing, and also exposing the Northeast corner of Building V to study its walls.

158 Coleman 2000.

159 Coleman 2000. The site was apparently abandoned during or after the early LN (LN I) phase; small, worn sherds found on the latest levels are evidence for a long hiatus after its abandonment. 160 Area F comprises Trenches 1 through 11, Trenches 5-8 of which were later combined and renamed

Trench 101, and is the most extensively excavated Neolithic area of Halai. The MN levels were not exposed in most of these trenches in order to preserve the LN settlement.

The Neolithic settlement revealed in Area F contains various features that suggest an organized societal body. In Trench F2, located to the east of the four architectural structures in

Trench F9 (Buildings III, IV, V and VI), is an open courtyard with hearths and pits. A paved path extending north-south is found in the latest level of F10; also in this area to the north, another oven is located in an earlier stratum. All of these features point to the presence of active communal activity. A western section of a large mound-like formation of stones was excavated in Trench F101 to the northeast of these buildings. It is unknown how far west this structure extends. The construction is built with stones about the same size as those used for building foundations, and measures about 3.5 m wide and at least 0.70 m tall. The structure dates to the latest period of occupation of the Neolithic settlement, Late Neolithic I. The function of this mound is unknown; in the past Coleman raised the possibility that it represents a portion of a boundary wall.161 The location of this structure leads Coleman to suggest that the settlement in its last phase was smaller than the earlier settlements, due to the fact that MN pottery was found from soundings made in Area H. In all periods identified by CHELP, Neolithic inhabitants shared outdoor cooking areas, represented by the ovens in F2 and F10. These ovens are

160 Coleman 1992, pp. 273-274.

161 Coleman 1999, p. 291. indicative of Halstead’s model where cooking facilities and cooked food were thought to be shared by Neolithic communities as a measure of avoiding isolation and therefore aiding in their survival.162

TRENCH F9 IN AREA F

Of the 10 trenches located in Area F, Trench F9 in the southwest corner measures the largest at ca. 8 m by 8 m. Trench F9 was originally opened in order to remove the backfill left by Grace, then expanded further east to reveal more architectural remains. While the area excavated in 1931 were dug down to the MN remains, the newly dug extension exposed overlying LN remains, which were not removed.163 The architectural remains found in Trench F9 date to the MN and LN periods (see Figs. 6, 7). Structures dated to the MN period are subdivided into earlier MN and later MN periods based on ceramic styles, the latter of which is divisible into further sub-phases. Structures dated to the LN period are also subdivided into sub- phases. Deposits dated earlier than the earlier MN buildings are not associated with any architectural structures.

The earliest structures identified in F9 are Building I and II, which are also two of the earliest structures in the entire site. In Trench F10 situated immediately to the northeast of F9 are the other two architectural features dating to the same period, Wall BJ and an oven. Coleman dates Buildings I, II and the oven to the earlier MN period on the basis of their position beneath

162 Halstead 1995, p. 16.

163 Coleman 2000. remains datable to the later MN period. Wall BJ is also dated to this period because it belongs to a similar stratigraphical level as the three earliest identified structures.164

Structures that Coleman dates to the later MN period are Buildings III, IV, V and VI. He dates Building III to an earlier sub-phase than the other structures based on the stratigraphical level on which they are built. Building III is the westernmost structure identified in Trench F9, and its southeast corner lies roughly in the center of the trench. Building IV to the northeast of

Building III, which is partially within Trench F9 and partially within Trench F10, lies over Wall

BJ. Building IV is not excavated entirely because its northwest section lies beneath an Archaic altar. Building V, situated immediately to the east of Building III, lies over Building I. The east half of Building V lies in F10. Building VI, situated immediately to the south of Building III, lies over Building II.

The only architectural structure dated to the LN period in Trench F9 is Building VII, which is a fragmentary structure lying over the eastern wall of Building VI. The surviving section of Building VII is apparently its eastern wall, and can be seen to extend further south and west, thereby covering Building VI and the south portion of Building V if it were preserved completely. Wall BV, also dating to the LN period, overlies the wall associated with Building V in Trench F10. While it is evident that Wall BV belongs to a structure that lay directly over

Building V, no walls dating to the LN period are associated with this wall in F9. Grace does not reveal in her notebook whether she removed any overlying LN structures to attain the MN levels; however, the MN remains were readily exposed by CHELP only where Grace had excavated.

The extensions and surrounding trenches freshly dug by CHELP consistently revealed LN remains. The fact that Buildings V and VI are partially overlain by the fragmentary Building VII

164 All of the information in this paragraph is based on Coleman 2000 and Halai field notebooks 1992-2003. suggests that Grace may have removed a significant area of LN remains in order to investigate

Building III.

BUILDING III IN TRENCH F9

Building III consists of a single rectangular room dating to the MN period with an internal measurement of ca. 2.0 m north-south by ca. 2.4 m east-west.165 Its stone socle rises as high as 1 m in places, and has an average thickness of ca. 0.3 m. This structure contains intriguing features including a buttress, a blocked doorway and window, areas throughout the room where a greater number of finds and traces of burning were found, multiple use-levels constructed variously of pavement and packed earth, and a floor level that slopes in a direction opposite to that of the Neolithic mound. The room was built of rubble masonry and mudbrick, as with the other buildings at the settlement. Mudbrick and finds that continue to appear within the area enclosed by the walls but beneath the level of the stone foundation suggest that another structure stood here prior to the remains of Building III that exists today. Excavations were not extensive enough to reveal whether this possible mudbrick structure represents an early stage of

Building III, whose structure was later renovated with the stone foundations that are exposed today, or an entirely different building. The information obtained from the strata below the stone foundations are included in the data presented below.

Building III is situated at the westernmost part of the trench, and lies immediately to the west of Building I, which is the oldest excavated architectural structure in the trench. Judging

165 The relative MN dates mentioned in this paragraph refer to Coleman, 2000. from the closeness in elevations of the stone foundations of these two structures, Building III must have been built fairly early in the history of the settlement. Its blocked doorway and window also suggest that the structure continued to be in use when neighboring Buildings V and

VI (dating to the late MN after the construction of Building III), were later built over Building I.

Coleman hypothesizes that these openings were blocked in response to the construction of

Buildings V and VI almost touching Building III, since the door and window, which faced the two buildings, would have become useless.166 The structural alteration of the room and its multiple floor levels point to long-term occupation, as well as to probable changes in the function of the room.

OVERVIEW OF BUILDING III’S SURROUNDINGS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO

THE STRUCTURE

Two structures dating to a later period within the MN, Buildings V and VI, were built immediately east and south of Building III, leaving almost no gap in between them. The gap between the eastern wall of Building III and the western wall of Building V measures between

0.1 m and 0.2 m; the gap between the southern wall of Building III and the northern wall of

Building VI measures between 0.3 m and 0.4 m.

As stated above, Building III originally stood next to only one older structure, Building I, which dates to the earlier MN period. The part of Building I that is exposed and visible through the floor of Building V is a square room, about half the size of Building III. The lowest floor level identified within the area bound by the four stone walls is at about 0.60 masl, 0.10 m below

166 J. E. Coleman (pers. comm.). the lowest level inside Building III excavated by CHELP, and about 0.10 m above the “Stereo” level in Building III excavated by Grace. Building I is the deepest excavated architectural structure in Trench F9. A larger structure, Building V, was eventually built over Building I, although Building III remained in use. Building I is situated directly underneath Building V, and its western wall can be seen to protrude further eastward under that of Building V. Building I and III were probably in contemporaneous use at a certain point, possibly toward the end of the occupation of Building I. Radiocarbon dates taken from within Building I and the bottom of

Wall BF in Building III both provide a rough outside range of c. 5900 to c. 5700 B.C.167

Hence during this early stage of use, the wider gap between Building III and Building I would have created a narrow alleyway, whereas after the construction of Buildings V and VI, the much narrower gap between Building III and the new structures would have put the path in disuse. The blocking of these features was probably a reaction to the construction of Buildings V and VI, and will be discussed in detail below. The blocked doorway in Wall BH of Building III would originally have led out to the alleyway. The blocked window in Wall BF would have looked out on the area later occupied by Building VI. The new layout of structures gives the impression that Building III was deliberately incorporated into the complex to be an adjoining room to one or both of these structures.

1931 GRACE EXCAVATION OF BUILDING III

Virginia Grace directed the Neolithic excavations at Halai between June and July 1931 on behalf of Walker and Goldman. Building III, which she named House C, was first found and

167 Coleman 2000. excavated during this season. Her 308-page notebook preserved at Bryn Mawr contains daily accounts of the excavation and description of finds. 108 pages are dedicated to the excavation, and are summarized as follows. This summary was made using a photocopy of the unpublished notebook that is kept at the CHELP project headquarters.

The project apparently began as four trenches (Fig. 6). Trenches III and IV were located in what she referred to as the Plateia area (the present Trench F9). Grace did not record where

Trenches I and II were in her notebook, and none of the maps or plans label their location. An abundance of artefacts dating to the Byzantine period was recovered from Trenches I and II suggest that these two trenches were at a relatively high elevation. The fact that CHELP could locate no trenches that could be identified as these may mean that they were closed at a very early stage in the excavation. Special focus was given late in the season to these two adjacent trenches III and IV, due to the abundance of archaeological features and finds they yielded.

Trench III included the northeast corner of Building III (which Grace named Wall C; hence

“House C”), and Trench IV, which was located directly to the south of Trench III, included the southeast corner of Building III.

About midway through the season, Grace rightly observed that Wall C might be a part of a substantial architectural structure. As her renewed heading “Plateia Dig – Trench III, IV, C” in her notebook indicates, she combined and extended Trenches III and IV westward ultimately to include the entire Building III. Once she finished expanding the trenches, again with a new heading “House C Stereo Dig,” she spent the end of the season trying to reach virgin soil in the interior of the room. This process involved removing most of the soil from the central area, while leaving some soil unexcavated against the interior face of the four walls lest the stone walls collapse. The resulting Neolithic soil left inside the room, which was excavated by CHELP, formed a layer of mud lining the interior of the walls; this layer was interrupted only where Grace dug through to explore the wall. The soil was thicker over two areas where stone pavements were left unexcavated against the north and south walls. The areas lined with stone pavements served as the highest preserved floor level in Building III that was identified by the

CHELP excavations. The lowest elevation reached by Grace was 0.82 m below the northeast corner of the walls, roughly equivalent to 0.45 masl, 0.15 m deeper than the elevation at which

CHELP had to stop due to the intrusion of seawater into the trench.

In addition to the 108 pages of excavation records, Grace dedicated 200 pages of her notebook to the study of pottery found during the 1931 season. The first part of this section comprises an overview of its typology, and the following sections comprise illustrations and descriptions, which include the number of sherds collected in each “round” – apparently the amount that could be carted off by wheelbarrows – and the type of ware. The sherds are not categorized or recorded in terms of stratigraphy or exact find location. They often cannot be incorporated for detailed study as with those that were found by CHELP, although many diagnostic pieces have been recorded.

1992-2002 CHELP EXCAVATION OF BUILDING III

CHELP excavated Building III during four seasons: 1992, 1996, 1998 and 2002. The general aim of the first three seasons was to excavate the Neolithic levels in Areas A, F and H.

During each of these seasons the excavation of Building III was given a significant degree of attention because its architectural structure was well preserved, and it could be studied in isolation. It was also the only architectural structure that Grace recorded in detail, and thus, it had a more extensive excavation record than other features in her trenches. Although Grace had removed the soil in the center of the room, stratified soil was left untouched against the interior surface of the walls in various thicknesses (see above). The CHELP excavations of Building III focused first on removing the backfill left by Grace and then excavating the remaining stratified soil (Fig. 9).

The first part of the 1992 season consisted of removing the 1931 backfill.168 The backfilled trench was found as a large depression in the northwest part of Area F. Once re- exposed, the architectural remains were reconciled with Grace’s plans. The stone walls of

Building III were exposed and the stone pavement that appeared at the southeast corner of the room was found to match the feature noted by Grace. Following the removal of backfill, work concentrated primarily on the excavation of Building III, which was Grace’s best-preserved and best-documented structure. Since the soil underneath the pavement, which CHELP labeled ‘SE scarp,’ represented the largest volume of unexcavated stratified earth in Building III, the excavation concentrated on its removal and analysis. This section of soil was taken down to 0.96 masl; excavation was stopped after the bottom of Wall BF was reached. A patch of earth that represented tumbled mudbrick against the interior face of Wall BG was also excavated during this season.

CHELP’s most extensive excavation of Building III took place in 1996, where the majority of the Neolithic soil left by Grace was excavated to varying depths.169 The removal of backfill also continued down to 0.57 masl, but because seawater started to enter the trench, excavation was stopped. Grace had apparently dug deeper, since the top surface of an Archaic

168 1992 excavation records from Halai 1992; fieldnotes by Melanie Pomeroy.

169 1996 excavation records from Halai 1996; fieldnotes by Jason Haas, Susan Allen and Wendy Richards. architectural fragment was found buried in the fill at this depth. When the fragment was pulled out, the lowest point at which the fragment lay was 0.50 masl. The ‘SE scarp’ was studied closely and excavated down to 0.70 masl, which was the lowest stratified level inside Building

III documented by CHELP. A semicircular scarp against Wall BE, that CHELP called the ‘Half- moon area,’ was excavated down to 1.02 masl. The top surface of this scarp consisted of a semicircular stone pavement. The lowest course of Wall BE was reached at this level.

Excavation also proceeded in a scarp against Wall BH, which CHELP called the ‘Bench’ area, because of the stone formation that lay on top of the stratified soil. A blocked doorway was found in the center of Wall BH during this season, and the soil there was consequently excavated down to 0.92 masl in an effort to find the bottom of the wall and the blocked doorway. The bottom of Wall BH was not located in 1996, but the doorway was found to be blocked down to

1.38 masl. The scarp between Wall BE and the buttress against Wall BG was named the ‘North

Corner’ by CHELP. This scarp was taken down to 1.11 masl. This area was re-labeled

‘Cupboard’ by Coleman in 2002 because of the large amount of bones and sherds that were found in the soil.

The 1998 excavation of Building III aimed to find the bottom of Wall BH and to further explore the ‘Half-moon area.’ 170 The ‘Bench’ area against Wall BH was excavated down to 0.78 masl, and the bottom of Wall BH was found at 0.84 masl. The ‘Half-moon’ area was explored down to 0.88 masl. The interior of Building III was backfilled to 1.02 masl after this season, and one L-shaped scarp was left exposed at 1.38 masl in the southwest corner. This scarp was left unexcavated due to the existence of protruding stones in Wall BG that appeared to rest partly on top of the scarp, which seemed too fragile to investigate. Coleman suggested that these stones

170 1998 excavation records from Halai 1998; fieldnotes by Melanie Fillios. could be remnants of a shelf-like fixture against the wall, although it was impossible to tell without excavating it. He therefore named this section of soil the ‘Shelf Area.’ Also, Walls BG and BF seemed to form a small hollow space where they met at the southwest corner, unlike the other three corners. Coleman suggested that this small hole might have been used as a cooking area.

2002 was a study season and not officially a field season. 171 The Ephoreia at Lamia, however, permitted CHELP to do some small-scale digging that would aid in the conservation of the site, as well as in answering some lingering questions. The first part of the season consisted of wall cleaning, to investigate whether or not the buttress was incorporated into Wall BG. The buttress was found to be an addition to the building because the stones it comprised were not woven into the walls. The stones that comprised the hypothetical ‘shelf’ in the ‘Shelf Area’ were also investigated. They appeared to be tumble from the wall rather than a feature connected to

Wall BG. Two small pits were then dug within the ‘Bench’ area and the ‘Cupboard.’ The

‘Bench’ area was excavated in order to obtain more data concerning the blocked doorway and

Wall BH, which was not recorded in detail in 1998. The ‘Cupboard’ area was excavated to 0.92 masl. The 2002 excavation of the ‘Cupboard’ was conducted initially in order to remove backfill and to reestablish the elevations of the bottom of Walls BE and BG since these were not noted clearly in earlier notebooks. Instead, its focus shifted to further excavating stratified soil, when a large amount of bones, charcoal and pottery emerged after the backfill was entirely removed. A large stone was found beneath all the finds at 1.00 masl in the northwest corner, which did not seem to belong to either Wall BG or BE. Coleman suggested that it might belong to a structure that stood beneath Building III prior to its construction. Excavation did not continue further,

171 2002 excavation records from Halai 2002; fieldnotes by Boga Petruska. however, owing to both a lack of time and the fact that this stone appeared unrelated to Building

III. After the excavation was stopped, heavy rain and flooding occurred in Theologos that did significant damage to the trench scarps and threatened to destabilize the walls of Building III.

The structure was backfilled to the highest level of the walls in order to prevent further damage.

In summary, the four seasons completed by CHELP in Building III identified the bottom elevations of the four walls and excavated stratified soil to as low as 0.70 masl. Signs of occupation that continued to appear to this low elevation revealed the early date in which

Building III (or its predecessor) began to be used. These excavations complemented the work done by Grace in removing most of the stratified soil untouched by her campaign and in obtaining the additional data that was lacking in her work, such as detailed stratigraphical data, elevations and finds such as carbon samples. Human activity was noted most heavily along the western wall of the building, on the opposite side from the blocked doorway. The scarps were excavated as much as 0.30 m deeper than the bottom elevation of the stone walls, and they continued to produce signs of human activity. CHELP had not reached the virgin soil noted by

Grace when the excavations had to stop at 0.70 masl. The above-mentioned scarps were treated very much in isolation; while similar features that occurred in different scarps were noted by excavators, no active investigation was made during these seasons to relate the stratigraphy of one scarp to another. Coleman was generally concerned about the fragility of the walls throughout these seasons, as well as the amount of destruction his excavations caused. As preservation measures, soil that seemed to comprise integral support for any stone structure was left unexcavated and the rate and extensiveness of the excavations were at times compromised for the sake of better preservation. PROJECT METHODOLOGY

Because the excavation of Building III took place before my participation with CHELP, most of the information referred to in this study was based on field notebooks, reports, publications and other records kept by previous CHELP participants. Primary materials consulted for information regarding Building III were the field notebook kept by Grace in1931 and those kept by CHELP in 1992, 1996, 1998 and 2002, as well as individual staff and volunteer reports from those years. I examined and photographed the building and its artefacts during the 2002 season. The artefacts excavated by CHELP are currently stored at a storeroom in

Tragana. The finds from the 1931 excavation at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens were not examined. It is questionable whether studying these 1931 finds might lead to an enhanced understanding of Building III, since they are not precisely provenanced as mentioned above. Many of the finds excavated by Grace cannot be located to Building III; of any given find from her excavation, we can only know on which day it was found, and that they came from within one of her four trenches.

Reconciling the 1931 records and the CHELP records is a crucial task for obtaining a full understanding of the room. One difficulty is matching the stratigraphical data and heights noted in Grace’s notebook with those in the CHELP notebooks. The exact datum point that Grace used to measure the depths of the features in Building III was never specified in her notes. She makes frequent mention of the “northeast corner stone,” which was apparently one of the stones in the wall of the northeast corner of the building, and all the measurements in the room were taken relative to that stone. The 1992 excavations began by removing the 1931 backfill, and it is possible that the same stone was still in place, but no attempt was made to locate the datum point that she used in 1931. 172 Subsequent deterioration of the walls in general due to natural phenomena in the last decade, when the room was not backfilled, has caused the heights of the stone foundations at Halai to change significantly, so that most measurements taken now would probably no longer match the 1931 or the 1992 elevations. Some of the most distinct features of the room that were recorded in 1931 can, however, still be matched approximately with those in the CHELP notebooks. Grace’s measurements mentioned in terms of masl (meters above sea level) throughout this work are calculated as precisely as possible using features that were commonly noted by the two projects. A stone platform was recorded both by Grace and by

CHELP, which CHELP measured to be at 1.38 masl. Grace recorded this elevation as “10 cm above northeast corner stone;” the “northeast corner stone” is therefore determined as 1.28 masl, and other measurements in her notebook are calculated relative to this figure. This is done for the sake of consistency between the two excavations. My recalculations of Grace’s figures, however, may only be approximate at times since conversions and estimations were necessary to obtain elevations for every feature. Furthermore, while Grace made some practical and illustrative diagrams of certain features she thought notable, she omitted others that would also have been useful.

172 The measurement taken in roughly the same position as indicated by Grace was 1.17 masl. CHAPTER III

BUILDING III ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY

ARCHITECTURE

The Neolithic architectural structures identified at Halai have stone walls as their foundations (Fig. 10-13). The upper courses of these walls would have been made of mudbrick, since reddish mudbrick has been found associated with them, and floor-levels seem to have risen rapidly.173 The four walls of Building III are roughly oriented to the directions of the compass, and are labeled BE (North; Fig. 10), BF (South; Fig. 11), BG (West; Fig. 12) and BH (East; Fig.

13). The north and south walls have an internal measurement of 2.4 m, and the east and west walls 2.0 m. The bottom courses of walls BE, BF and BG are built at ca. 1.02~1.05 masl, therefore indicating construction contemporary with each other. The bottom course of Wall BH stands at 0.84 masl. Although the lower depth of Wall BH makes it seem that it was constructed earlier than the other walls, the floors that slant down steeply toward BH suggests that all four walls may have been built contemporaneously atop a sloping surface. The walls all have an average thickness of 0.3 m. Their full height cannot be determined because the mudbrick that was layered above the stone foundations was not preserved in situ; the tallest preserved point of the stone walls measured 0.95 m in the southeast corner in 1992, when the 1931 backfill was first removed. The top courses of all the walls have since fallen off, reducing the preserved height.

173 Coleman 2000. Deterioration of the walls caused in antiquity is most visible on the northeast corner, as well as in

Wall BE in general, possibly because of the lack of shelter immediately to the north that might have protected it from exposure to elements. The better-preserved section of the walls is the south side, where the room is protected by the presence of Buildings V and VI, as well as by the band of fill between them.

Neither Grace’s notebook nor the CHELP notebooks identify wall plaster inside Building

III, although this is a common feature of Neolithic structures with mudbrick and stone construction. The 1996 CHELP notebook, however, mentions “clumps” of plaster that were found adhered to Wall BG at a height of approximately 1.15 masl. This was the only place where plaster was found on the wall. The excavators do not speculate whether the plaster originally seemed to belong to the wall or the floor. Similar material is found on all floor levels in patches, which may represent disintegrated wall plaster that had fallen during the course of habitation. On the other hand, it may be that the clump of plaster found on BG originally was not a part of the wall but instead a part of the floor. It may have been moved or swept there while the room was in use. Likewise, the plaster found on the floors could represent disintegrated floor levels.

Grace’s site drawings reveal signs of dilapidation in the walls of Building III, so we can be confident that this degradation of the walls antedates her excavation. Wall BE leans slightly outward, and the curve is more pronounced in its western half. The eastern half of this wall is crude in its stone construction; there is a larger quantity of mud mixed with rocks than in the western half or in other walls. Coleman raises the possibility that there used to be a doorway in this section, but no obvious vertical alignment of stones exists to indicate that a former aperture has been sealed, as seen in two other walls of the room (see below). 174 While Wall BE as a whole conveys the impression that it has deteriorated more than the other walls, there are no indications of large-scale renovation.

Wall BG, on the other hand, exhibits signs of restoration; this wall on the western side of

Building III tilts outward. A mass of large stones ca. 0.50 m in length lies adjacent to its exterior face and a buttress was constructed to support its interior face. Areas to the west and north outside of Building III were excavated by Grace, but were not given much attention.175 Due to the lack of information, it is difficult to determine whether or not this mass of stones, many of them larger than those used for the construction of the wall, has tumbled from the western wall, or constitutes an extra outer layer used to support the original wall, or is entirely unrelated to the wall. If these stones represent the top course of a wall or buttress, combined with Wall BG, it would measure up to four times the thickness of the other walls. Due to time constraints and concern for the stability of wall BG, however, it was not possible for CHELP to excavate these stones.

A small interior buttress, 0.37 m in width and protruding as far as 0.3 m, was built in the middle of Wall BG. The bottom of the buttress is 0.09 m higher than the bottom course of the walls, and there is a clean demarcation where it touches the wall, indicating that it was a later addition to Wall BG. This buttress does not extend far enough to have served as a partition to the room. Furthermore, since the room is only 4.2 m2 in area, a .37 m thick partition through the

174 J. E. Coleman (pers. comm.).

175 CHELP’s only purpose of exploring the western exterior of Building III was to see whether the earth was stratified or fill.

Excavation in this area was halted when unstratified deposits were found. Grace provides little detail on the western half of

Building III and the area outside it, since she was pressed for time. The primary objective of her excavation was to reach stereo within the building. middle of the room would constitute an inefficient use of space. The buttress may have served the purpose of supporting the wall and/or the roof, as is argued to be the case with the buttresses found in structures at Tsangli.176 The buttress in Building III created niches on either sides of it against Wall BG. The 2002 excavation found a large quantity of charcoal, as well as large quantities of burnt pottery and bone, in the northwest corner of the room, which is one of the niches created by the buttress. The buttress may have created closed off areas either to conduct specific activities, such as to provide a cooking/firing space.

Mudbrick was found in many areas and depths within Building III. It was most concentrated at three levels, and these provide the most information about the construction of the building. The highest level of collapsed mudbrick was found against the interior face of Wall

BG, to the south of the buttress. According to the diagrams in the 1992 notebook, loose stones covered the mudbrick, and finds were discovered mixed with the stone and mudbrick in very small quantities. The highest elevation of the mudbrick was 1.41 masl, and the bottom level that it reached was 1.18 masl, 0.07 m above the bottom of the buttress and 0.15 m above the bottom courses of the walls. A high concentration of mudbrick was also found under loose stones at

1.19 masl in the southeast corner. This layer of mudbrick was found in a less concentrated form, and was mixed with stratified soil.

The deepest level where the mudbrick was found was at 0.75 masl at the south side of the room. This is an interesting find because the depth is about 0.25 m below the lowest course of three of the walls, Walls BE, BF and BG, and about 0.10 m below the lowest course of Wall BH; sherds, charcoal and other finds were also found at this level. Mudbrick was found mixed with specks of white soil. This white soil is also described as “plaster” in the CHELP notebooks, and

176 Wace and Thompson 1912; Theocharis 1973, p. 66. it is probably identical material with the “plaster” found adhered to Wall BG as described above.

This white substance is found throughout the soil within Building III and most often in floor levels. The discovery of mudbrick at a much lower level than that of the stone foundations suggests that an earlier construction stood here prior to the structure that is exposed today. As mentioned above, the floor level of the neighboring Building I is at 0.60 masl, 0.15 m lower than the appearance of the lowest mudbrick inside Building III, which would place the period of construction of this earlier mudbrick structure closer to that of Building I. There is no indication that this mudbrick structure used stone foundations, as did Building III. While a single large stone was located directly beneath the level of Building III’s stone foundation n 2002, the excavators concluded that it did not belong to an architectural feature since no other stones were found that suggested a wall.

DOORWAY AND WINDOW

There are two apertures in the walls of Building III that were filled in to make uninterrupted walls sometime during its course of use. A blocked opening resembling a doorway can be found in the center of Wall BH (Fig. 13). It is 0.66 m in width, which constitutes approximately a third of the wall. It extends to the top of the preserved height of the wall, so that its full height cannot be determined. The bottom elevation of the doorway is equal to the bottom of Wall BH. In Wall BF, there is a smaller blocked opening, most likely a window (Fig. 11). Its bottom begins approximately 0.4 m above the lowest course of the wall, and extends also to the top of the preserved height of Wall BF, the window’s preserved height averaging 0.4 m. Its width, measuring 0.51 m, is narrower than that of the “doorway”. The outlines of both the doorway and the window are very straight and orthogonal. The spaces were packed tightly with the same type of stones and mud as the surrounding walls to create the impression of a plain wall.

While the window is sealed completely, the doorway is filled edge-to-edge with stones only above 1.37 masl, which is 0.36 m above the bottom of Walls BE, BF and BG, and 0.51 m above the bottom of Wall BH. The lowest part of the doorway is filled with packed earth. The threshold of this doorway is worn concave towards the middle, indicating active use before it was blocked off. The central area of the aperture is filled deeper with two additional courses of flat stones. The elevation at which the doorway becomes sealed completely with stone is the same as that of paved floor level found in the southeast corner of the room, along Wall BF. We may infer that the installation of the pavement was contemporaneous with the blocking of the doorway. It is not possible to determine whether the blocking of the window took place at the same time as well.

As mentioned above, Coleman suggests that the doorway and window were blocked as a reaction to the construction of Buildings V and VI. It is evident that Buildings V and VI were constructed after Building IV because they were constructed on a much higher elevation than

Building IV. Before the construction of these two larger structures, the area surrounding

Building IV was less crowded. To the east, Building I stood a little less than a meter away from

Building IV, leaving a narrow passageway in between. Building II stood to the south of Building

I, and to the southeast of Building III, leaving about the same amount of space between the structures. A very small room, Room 23, possibly may have been built already, and it stood to the south of Room III. Room 23 is only partially excavated, because Building VI lies atop its eastern half. All of these early structures would have been built with enough space between them so that an individual could pass through. The doorway to Building III, on Wall BH, would have provided an entrance to the structure from the east, from the alleyway between Buildings III and I. Originally the window would have provided a southward view and may have looked out to the Bay of Atalandi at an early stage, but was soon blocked by Room 23 a meter away.

The construction of Building V over Building I and the construction of Building VI over

Building II changed the layout of the neighborhood. These larger and thick-walled buildings were built almost touching each other and the east and south faces of Building III, which would have rendered its doorway and window useless. The doorway and window were therefore sealed. The length of time the doorway was in use until the renovations took place could be observed in the degree of wear in the threshold; Building III appears to have been reconstructed long after it was initially occupied. If the doorway and window were indeed filled in because of the change in architectural arrangements, the change in construction of the room might have triggered a change in its function, or at least an opportunity for renovation elsewhere in the room.

The stone pavements found against three walls could have been built under such circumstances, when the room was converted to hold another function that did not require the use of a window or doorway. If Building III was used as a living space, and therefore required a doorway and window at first, it appears to be the case that the inhabitants abandoned it for another structure.

This structure might have been Building IV, V or VI.

OVERVIEW OF THE INTERIOR OF BUILDING III

That the different sections of Building III were excavated under two projects makes it difficult to match the stratigraphy of different sections of Building III. As mentioned above, Grace removed much of the soil from the center of the room to roughly 0.46 masl. This was done in order to locate the stereo level. The northeast and southwest corners of the room were also excavated to study the relationship between floor levels and the structure. Even the areas that were not excavated to the lowest elevations were taken down to 1.38 masl, the level of the stone platform in the southeast corner. Grace’s notebook records elevations as high as 1.57 masl in the southwest and east sections at early stages of her excavation;177 therefore, at least 20 cm worth of stratigraphy was entirely removed before CHELP began its excavations. While Grace’s notes are generally well kept, her habit of recording elevations was unfortunately rather erratic.

The uninformed reader often has to guess the location and level of a certain mentioned feature by searching for elevations of other features most closely associated with it. Furthermore, her campaign seems to have proceeded at a quite furious pace, and so stratigraphical details were not always kept unless there was a notable quality about them. The 1931 campaign ultimately left the interior of Building III with four disconnected strips and patches of stratified soil against the interior of its four walls.

Most of the stratigraphical information mentioned in this section derives from the

CHELP notebooks. While Grace kept records of the features she encountered during the excavation of Building III, they often lack three kinds of information. Firstly, it is difficult to obtain enough knowledge concerning the successive development of a certain feature within the room, because she treated the entire surface within Building III as one large stratigraphical unit, and did not always focus her attention on every section of the room during various stages of progress. Secondly, because she did not observe the natural features she encountered in the soil and instead excavated in arbitrary depths, she did not identify clear stratigraphy throughout the

177 Noted as, “.285 above Northeast Corner Stone.” room, creating difficulty in obtaining stratigraphical information for the finds she records.

Finally, as mentioned above, her records of elevations are incomplete and imprecise. She used various base points that were sometimes approximate (“below the top of West Wall,” “1.40 below level of walls of House C around it”), and the stratigraphical relationships between features are unclear because their elevations are not always mentioned.

The Neolithic soil found within Building III is generally reddish-brown and consistent with that which is found throughout the site. Dark brown (10YR 4/3), reddish brown (2.5YR

4/6, 7.5YR 4/4), grey brown (5YR 4/2) and white are the most often noted colors, with frequent ash deposits (10YR 6/1). Where excavators identified possible habitation levels, reddish soil was often mixed with ash and charcoal deposits, speckled with lumps of what they refer to as white “plaster” or clay.

DESCRIPTION OF THE LOTS EXCAVATED BY CHELP

The first season in which CHELP excavated Building III was 1992, which was spent mainly on the removal of the 1931 backfill throughout the trench, and on matching the architectural features that were uncovered with the records kept by Grace. Stratified soil was excavated in the southeast corner of the room during this season, where a stone pavement against

Wall BF was found to correlate to that mentioned in the 1931 notebook. Overall excavation of the room’s stratified soil was carried out in 1996. A more modest excavation in 1998 entailed the removal of soil attached to Wall BE that had been left untouched. The 2002 campaign included the cleaning of walls for better observation and drawings as well as the removal of 1998 backfill to reconfirm the height of the bottom of two walls. The rise in sea level since Neolithic times has caused the intrusion of seawater into Building III during both projects, prompting difficulty in excavating the lower occupation levels; this intrusion of seawater was apparently a greater problem during the CHELP seasons, which could not remove the Grace backfill entirely.

Nevertheless, levels below the stone foundations were reached in all seasons.

When the 1992 CHELP excavation removed the backfill left by Grace, it identified five disjointed sections of stratified soil against the walls inside Building III. They were each labeled according to the most prominent features identified in them (Fig. 9). The largest volume of earth preserved inside Building III was the Southeast Scarp, alternately called the Hearth Area, which stretched about 1.35 m along the eastern half of Wall BF, and having .40 m in thickness. Grace left this area untouched because of the stone pavement that lined its top surface at 1.37 masl.

The Bench Area, extending .80 m along the center of Wall BH, was preserved for the purpose of supporting the wall, but also revealed a similar layer of stones at 1.20 masl. The Half-moon

Area was a semi-circular platform against the eastern half of Wall BE, protruding as far as 0.50 m from the wall, where another stone platform was left in situ at 1.25 masl. The Cupboard Area was an uneven thickness of soil lining the northwestern corner of Building III, from western half of Wall BE to the buttress on Wall BG, which was left at 1.30 masl for no apparent reason.

Grace seems to have abandoned this area after exposing the stone walls to an arbitrary depth.

This section was named the Cupboard because the buttress and Wall BE created a closed-off area against Wall BG. The Shelf Area was an irregularly shaped tumble of small stones against Wall

BG to the south of the buttress. After the removal of mudbrick in 1992, about a dozen flat rocks protruding from the wall, supported by soil still adhered to the wall, became visible. These rocks resembled a shelf-like structure. This section was initially preserved at about the same height as the Southeast Scarp, and yielded tumbled mudbrick and stones. FLOORS

While three of the walls were built roughly at the same level (around 1.02 masl), Wall

BH was founded significantly deeper at 0.84 masl. Either Wall BH was built prior to the others, or Building III stood on a sloping floor. Coleman supports the latter hypothesis, having noted that this condition would be consistent with the evidence given by the floors.178 During the excavation, a given floor feature would consistently appear first toward the northwest corner of the unit being excavated, and then toward the southeast as digging continued. For example, while the excavation of a scarp in the southeast corner of the room was in progress, the lowest east elevation of a particular unit was as much as 0.16 masl deeper than the lowest west elevation.

The floor levels in Building III are difficult to distinguish. This is partially due to the fact that CHELP had very little stratified soil to excavate and that Grace’s notes did not provide sufficient details to supplement the information collected by CHELP. Also, no drastic changes in style (in terms of finds or activities) could be observed throughout the levels. There are no obvious signs of temporary or permanent abandonment. There may have been a brief hiatus or major reconstruction between the third and fourth phases (mentioned below), since mudbrick was found and stone pavements were made along three walls of the building. The door and window of Building III was also sealed contemporaneously with these constructions. At least six separate habitation levels can be discerned from the excavations, based on the change in soil quality and the fluctuation in the quantity recovered finds. Identifiable floor levels inside the

178 J. E. Coleman (pers. comm.). area enclosed by the stone socles of Building III begins at a much deeper elevation than their lowest course, and therefore antedates the construction of Building III. These early levels, which are the first two levels discussed below, are also included.

The lowest level securely identified by CHELP is indicated by the presence of fallen mudbrick at 0.74 masl in the Southeast Corner, below which would logically exist a floor level.

This level and the next antedate the construction of Building III’s stone foundation. CHELP could not excavate deeper than this elevation due to the intrusion of seawater into the structure.

This level is approximately 0.30 m lower than the elevation of the bottom courses of Walls BE,

BF and BG, and approximately .10 m lower than Wall BH. Grace continued to see signs of habitation down to about 0.46 masl, at which point she claimed to have reached stereo.179 She briefly mentions finding “bricks” as low as 0.59 masl, which may either be the same level as the above-mentioned level identified by CHELP, or yet another level below it. In her notebook entry the day before attaining “stereo” and the bricks at 0.59 masl, she notes “lots of small flattish stones” in the southwest corner of the room, where the soil was harder than the other areas. Also with this entry she notes “two layers of black” that extend along most of the west half of the floor, which “curve in such ways to avoid parts of the floor at N center.”180 It cannot be known from the entry whether or not these features were associated with each other and were found at the same depth. She does not state the elevation of these features, and we cannot determine whether these features belong to the level above the mudbrick she encountered, or below it.

179 Grace 1931, field notebook. Entry 7/18.

180 Grace 1931, field notebook. Entry 7/17. The second level is at 0.80 masl, 0.05 m above the mudbrick layer, where firecracked rocks were found interspersed with mudbrick and burnt matting-like charcoal in the same place.

At about this height, a feature noted by various CHELP excavators alternately as “white packed clay” or “plaster” could be found throughout the soil. This layer, which CHELP notebooks term the “white layer,” consists of lumps of brittle white substance of various sizes interspersed with reddish-brown soil, as well as occasional mudbrick and charcoal. This second level rises to about the height of the bottom of Wall BH at 0.84 masl.

Thirdly, at 0.90 masl in the Bench area, there was a large quantity of pottery found. Just above 1.00 masl is also the level where CHELP observed the greatest evidence of activity: much bone and charcoal was collected along Wall BG in the niche between the buttress and Wall BE, and there were similar finds elsewhere at about the same level. It is uncertain whether or not these two elevations, at 0.90 masl and 1.00 masl, should be treated as the same level because they appear to be disjointed, however, given the fact that the floor levels tend to slope down to the southeast, they should probably be considered to be within a contemporary span of time.

This level is contiguous with the lowest courses of Walls BE, BF and BG, and therefore probably contemporary with their construction. It is also uncertain as to whether this level should only be regarded as an accumulation of the previous level, since the elevations at which the walls were constructed vary between these two heights, and as mentioned above, the floors slope down significantly to allow for the elevation difference. There are, however, two separate charcoal layers found over each other in the Half-moon (along Wall BE) and Adjacent to BH areas that could support the fact that the levels should be regarded as two distinct levels.

The fourth level is contemporary with the construction of the buttress, whose lowest course is found at 1.13 masl. The bottom of this level is demarcated by another “white layer” which is more substantial than the one found in the third level, measuring as thick as 0.10 m in areas. The bottom of collapsed mudbrick on the southern half of Wall BG begins at this elevation and extends up to 1.41 masl; stone platforms associated with this level are found at

1.20 masl, and 1.25 masl (see below). It is possible that the varying heights of the platforms each represent different stages of occupation, each one built successively after its predecessor fell out of use. Further sub-phases (i.e., habitation levels) that may be suggested from the ranging heights of the three platforms, however, cannot be determined from the information in the notebooks.

1.41 masl was the top of the fifth level and the highest elevation recorded by CHELP.

This elevation was the top of a formation of collapsed mudbrick against the south half of Wall

BG. At 1.37 masl, another paved surface is found along Wall BF. This was the pavement in the

“SE Corner” that constituted the highest elevation of stratified deposit that CHELP excavated.

Soil above this elevation was entirely removed by Grace. She observed carbon and other signs of activity above this level. She notes “large stone with brick underneath,” “earth full of life,” and blackened sherds near carbonized material.181 None of these features are supplied with elevations; the highest elevation recorded at the beginning of the entry was at around 1.57 masl.

Again, information in sufficient detail cannot be obtained from her notebook in order to investigate whether this level could be further subdivided into separate periods of occupation.

However, since signs of habitation could be understood from her notebook, this could be labeled as the sixth and the highest level.

PAVED SURFACES

181 Grace 1931. Field Notebook entry, 6/29. Flat, uniform layers of stones have been found in three spots within Building III. CHELP notebooks refer to them as a “pavement,” “half-moon hearth,” and “bench,” and they were all constructed with smooth stones between 3 and 10 centimeters in diameter. The “pavement” was a pavement of small stones that lined the top surface of the Southeast Scarp at 1.37 masl. The

“half-moon hearth” was a semi-circular paved platform lining the Half-moon area at 1.25 masl.

The “bench” pavement was found along the middle section of Wall BH at 1.20 masl.

All of these paved surfaces found in Building III date to a later phase of the structure’s use; these are from stages four and five mentioned above. This fact is consistent with the observation made by Coleman that paved floors appear during the latest phase of the Neolithic settlement, and therefore may help understand the time span in which Building III was in use with further study.182

182 Coleman 1999, p. 290. CHAPTER IV

FINDS FROM BUILDING III AND NEOLITHIC HALAI

The following section on finds is based on artefacts excavated by CHELP between 1992 and 2002. Because only a handful of small finds were found inside Building III, information that could be obtained from them is compared to those from other parts of the Neolithic settlement at

Halai, in an effort to provide a fuller picture of the types of artefacts that could be associated with Building III. The finds from Building III discussed below follow the trends seen in finds from Neolithic Halai in general. While Grace records a greater number of finds, some of which are more notable and diagnostic than any that were recovered from Building III by CHELP, they are not included in the numbers mentioned below because she did not keep a good record of their provenance.

POTTERY

The pottery excavated by CHELP is temporarily stored in a storeroom at Tragana, separated according to the 28 excavation units in which they were found. The pottery discovered in 1931 is stored in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, and is being studied by

Robert Bridges. Pottery excavated by Grace is not described here because Grace collected it in what she described as ‘rounds,’ apparently equal to the amount that could be carted off by one wheelbarrow. This system does not allow us to identify the precise find spot of sherds and to equate the provenance in terms of CHELP’s EU (excavation unit) system; we can often not even tell if the sherds were found inside or outside Building III. Some finds that she felt were notable were illustrated and recorded individually within her site report, but none were pottery.

Lucie-Catherine Ouimet studied the Halai Neolithic pottery between 1998 and 2000. The materials used for her study were primarily from Trenches F2, F4 and F10, which presented the most solid stratigraphical sequence. She also briefly analyzed pottery from Trench F9, including sherds from Building III. Pottery discovered by CHELP in the interior of Building III is mostly undiagnostic. Most of the sherds found within Building III are very small (less than 3 cm by 3 cm), and the often very worn. Her work centered on sorting the Neolithic pottery excavated in 1996 and 1998, and analyzing them macroscopically. Her study showed that there was no pottery in Halai that could be dated to the earliest stages of the Elateia sequence, or to the

EN in Thessaly. Ouimet also created a combined list of radiocarbon results and Neolithic pottery recovered from stratified deposits that could be associated with architectural features. The results from Building III are listed in the section dealing with radiocarbon finds below.

All Red-on-White sherds (RW) found in Building III were decorated with linear motifs, comparable to those found in the rest of the settlement. RW sherds were found in almost every stratum inside the structure, although only in small quantities (1-4 sherds). Gwen Sealey studied the Halai RW pottery from Trenches F2, F4 and F10 for her Master’s thesis.183 Her work included studies of inclusions and design. She also made a comparison of RW wares found in

Halai to neighboring sites in order to provide a chronological link between them and to show similarities between the painted wares found from sites in Central Greek and Thessalian

Neolithic sites.

183 Sealey 2001. The only patterns that do not appear within Building III but appear elsewhere in Neolithic

Halai are solid ovals and semicircles. The observations that could be made on RW sherds from

Building III generally correspond to Sealey’s study of the RW sherds from Area F. Sealey’s results reinforce Coleman’s dating of the Neolithic settlement at Halai, beginning in the early

MN period and ending in the LN period. She mentions that his dating is reasonable because RW wares could be seen in the lowest strata, while RW wares start appear in Orchomenos and Elateia during the MN period. She also mentions that the combined observations of the sharp decline of wavy lines, increase in fishnet patterns, appearance of Black Burnished ware and Matt Painted ware support LN dates for the upper strata at Halai. Finally, Sealey provided a comparison to

RW ware in other sites. She saw similarities in Halai RW sherds to Thessalian RW ware, where the entire body of the vessel was covered with painted decoration as opposed to only the rim, as seen in the Peloponnese. However, the motifs were more closely related to those found regionally. Notable observations relevant to the Red-on-White sherds from Building III made by

Sealey include the following:

1. Solid triangles/sawtooth designs are often the first motifs present among RW wares in

sites from Thessaly to the Peloponnese. Sawtooth designs are seen most commonly

in the earlier MN period. This motif occurs on a small rim sherd (1cm in width) from

about 1.1 masl in the northwest corner in Building III.

2. Fishnet patterns are predominant throughout Neolithic Halai, but increase slightly

during the LN period. Fishnet patterns are found in all levels in Building III.

3. Wavy lines virtually disappear in the LN. 81% of the occurrence of wavy lines are on

closed vessels, which Sealey suggests were used for pouring liquid. Wavy lines are

found on two sherds from about .90 masl in the Bench and Half-moon areas. 4. Finer lines and brighter white paint are characteristic of the later MN and LN periods.

The upper strata of the Southeast Scarp, between 1.37 and 1.20 masl, are the only

excavation units that yielded RW sherds with bright white paint. Finer and thinner

fishnet patterns and parallel lines start to appear above 1.00 masl.

5. Parallel lines are most commonly seen in the early MN period. While Parallel line

motifs are seen in most levels within Building III, they occur at a higher rate below

1.10 masl.

If the chronological observations made by Sealey are correct, the period of occupation of

Building III would appear to extend from the early MN period possibly to the LN period. The fact that parallel lines occur most commonly in the early MN period, that solid triangles are one of the first motifs found among RW wares, that bright white paint appear in later MN to LN periods, and that fishnet patterns increase in the LN period seem to indicate that Building III was used for a very long time.

Table 2 lists the stratified pottery collected from Building III.184 The description is taken from notes made by Ouimet when she looked at the sherds in 2000. Each entry represents a bag of pottery removed from an arbitrary excavation unit (EU). CHELP uses an alphanumeric system to label its excavation units. The first two letters of the EU name indicates Trench F9, the third the year in which the lot was excavated (c=1992, g=1996, j=1998, n=2002) and the numerals in parentheses the lot number. Four bags could not be located in the storeroom when the data were gathered. Of these EU’s, F9g (65), (68) and (69) comprised a small exploratory

184 See Table 2. cut through the western edge of F9g (61) that was made to see the stratigraphy better. The pottery might not have been retained or perhaps was combined with that of F9g (61), since they were cuts made through the lot. Therefore, F9c (30) is the only bag that is not located that constitutes an entire EU. A bag labeled F9g (48) was found, which is not listed below. This bag contained a RW sherd of distinctly different quality where the white paint was of a yellowish hue instead of pink as with those from the other EU’s. All of the sherds were also in a much better state of preservation than those from the other bags. It was concluded that this bag was most likely mislabeled, and therefore not included in the list.

Ouimet organized a chart for standardizing the terms, abbreviations and classifications of

Halai Neolithic Pottery in 1996, which summarized the field-sorting system of Halai Neolithic pottery devised in 1992. The abbreviations employed in the list below follows these guidelines.

The surface finishes identified on Neolithic pottery at Halai are Red Burnished (RB), Black

Burnished (BB), Pattern Burnished (PB), other Burnished (OB: those which are not easily identified as black or red; includes brown, grey, black/red mottled), Slipped, Matte-Painted, Red- on-White (RW), Plain and Black Burnished with added white paint (BB White Paint).

BONE AND SHELLS

Wendy Yielding studied the Halai Neolithic bone assemblage until 2000, and Erol

Kavountis continued her work in 2002 and 2003. Her study included bone found in Building III.

Bone and shell were found concentrated in certain areas within the structure. Certain features support the association of bone found in Building III to cooking. Bone was generally found in larger quantities where charcoal and ash were encountered. Instances of bone finds also coincided with the occurrence of larger quantities of pottery. While signs of burning were identified on some of the pottery (e.g., F9n (178)), burning was not identified on the bones. In one instance the rib bone of an animal was found adhering to the inside of a thick red burnished vessel sherd. The species to which the bone belonged could not be identified because the bone and the inside surface of the sherd were encrusted with minerals.

Bone found inside Building III was categorized into four types of domesticated animals by Yielding: Pig, (Sus scofa L.), Sheep and Goat (Ovis/Capra), Sheep (Ovis aries L.) and Rabbit

(Lepus europaeus Pall.).185 Aside from the above types of bone identified by Yielding, the

CHELP electronic database also records cuttlefish fiber, found in F9g (50). Table 3 lists the bone material analyzed from Building III, which were excavated in 1992, 1996 and 1998.186

Kavountis did not examine the bone found in Building III in 2002. These pieces do not comprise the entire assemblage of bone from Building III; one or more bags of bone are recorded from the majority of the excavation units by CHELP, however, detailed records exist only for those listed below. Shells were found throughout the excavation in an unlocalized manner.

Ovicaprids have the highest occurrence by far; rabbit and Sus (domestic pig) occur in only one instance each. Domestic cattle did not appear in the assemblage, as with the rest of the site as with Building III. Yielding states that “the Halai assemblage as a whole appears to be derived from food preparation and cooking waste.” 187 She adds that domestic taxa make up a majority (93%) of the total number of identified specimens, sheep/goat and pig being the first

185 Yielding, unpublished.

186 See Table 3.

187 Yielding 1999. and second most common; wild animals were only occasionally consumed. A bone tool was found from F9g (68), which is not included in the list of unworked bone below.

LITHICS

Chipped stone was recovered from Building III only in small quantities. 17 pieces of chipped stone tools, 14 obsidian and 3 chert, found in stratified context from Building III by

CHELP were recorded in the project database.188 The Halai Neolithic chipped stone assemblage is currently being studied by Evangelia Karimali. Karimali examined the chipped stone assemblage from Building III, but did not produce any observations differing from the rest of the

Neolithic Halai assemblage, due to their small quantity.

A ‘representative selection of 506 pieces’ of the assemblage from Trenches F2 and F4, which present the longest secure Neolithic stratigraphical sequence in Halai, has been studied by

Kerill O’Neill and published as an appendix to Coleman’s 1999 preliminary report.189 In this report, O’Neill identified some general characteristics of the assemblage, using the tripartite chronological scheme that was tentatively assigned for the Neolithic stratigraphical sequence at

188 The summary is based on the Halai objects electronic database, updated 2000. Finds were bagged by excavation units (lots), and entered in the database by bags. The entries are often incomplete with respect to individual pieces within the bags. For example, fields containing quantities or type are often left empty for the finds which analysis has not been made by a specialist.

189 Coleman et al. 1999. Appendix 1. O’Neill, “Neolithic Chipped Stone Artifacts,” pp. 325-9. that time. 190 He found that obsidian was the preferred material over chert, and that the percentage of chert drops significantly between stratum 2 and 3.191 He also found that blades were dominant among the earliest stratum and differentiation of type in tool production is seen only in the two later strata.192 While the number of chipped stone tools found within Building III is too small to provide such definite conclusions, the assemblage generally appears to follow the same trends as the assemblage from the rest of the site. For example, the percentage of chert tools in the Building III assemblage equals 18%, which is comparable to the material percentages published by O’Neill. Although no type was recorded for four of the Building III obsidian tools from the database on which this summary is based, the remaining pieces consist of 6 blades

(54%), 5 flakes (one chert) and 2 cores (both chert).

BOTANICAL REMAINS

Amy Bogaard studied the botanical samples from Halai, 13 of which came from Building

III.193 All of these samples were excavated by CHELP in 1996. The results from the flotation carried out on these 13 samples correlate well with the results from Halai in general. Charred

190 For detailed explanation of these three strata, see Coleman et al. 1999. The scheme was tentatively assigned by Assistant

Director Mary Eliot for Trenches F2 and F4, since precise absolute or relative chronologies was still under determination at the time of publication. This scheme is not applicable to all of Area F, where the stratigraphical sequence is not as extensive as F2 or

F4. The construction of Building III would fall into the beginning of the second phase.

191 The percentage of chert for the three strata are 33%, 29%, and 14% respectively, averaging 24% (O’Neill 1999). The mean of the two later strata, corresponding to when Building III was in use, is 21%

192 The percentage of blades for the three strata are 67%, 65%, and 36% respectively, averaging 54% (O’Neill 1999). The mean of the two later strata, corresponding to when Building III was in use, is 51%

193 Bogaard (pers. comm.). plant remains occur at very low densities at Halai and probably resulted from being thrown or spilled into wood-burning fires, because there is a large correlation between the number of crops and the pieces of charcoal over 2 mm that were recovered together. 194 Bogaard attributes the low incidence of plant remains at Halai to two reasons: the lack of destruction levels and the lack of use of animal dung as fuel, both instances in which the largest amount of plant remains are often found. Table 4 lists a summary of the most common botanical remains at Halai studied by

Bogaard.195 These remains are common throughout Neolithic settlements in Greece.

RADIOCARBON SAMPLES

Three radiocarbon samples from Building III were sent to two laboratories, the

Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Arizona (AA below) and Beta Analytic

Inc (Beta below). All samples were excavated in 1996 and analyzed in 1997. The results are listed in Table 5.196 The B.C. dates are calibrated with 1-sigma and 2-sigma ranges, and the extreme dates are given here, rounded to the nearest decade. The result obtained from the F9g

(88) sample is most likely less accurate than the other two, given that it dates approximately 200 years earlier than F9g (97) and F9g (65), which were both found below it. The two samples, F9g

(97) and F9g (65), yielded results that are very close to each other, which also corresponded well with other samples obtained from other parts of Area F.197 All three samples, however, fit within

194 Bogaard, unpublished.

195 See Table 4.

196 See Table 5.

197 Coleman 1999, p. 297. 15 samples from F2, F10 and F101 were submitted in 1992, 11 of which were deemed accurate. Other samples were collected in 1996 from F2, F4 and F10; 20 of the 26 samples of this group were deemed accurate. the general dates deemed accurate for other Neolithic samples sent from other areas at Halai. 26 samples were tested from the Neolithic level at Halai in total, and 20 were considered accurate by Coleman.198 The dates deemed reasonable among the samples colleted in 1992 and published in 1999 ranged from 7530±200 (1-σ 6540-6070 B.C., 2-σ 6990-5950 B.C.) to 6550±70 (1-σ

5570-5380 B.C., 2-σ 5580-5330 B.C.).

All three samples were collected from what would probably have been the earliest floor level of the stone structure Building III, and not from the mudbrick structure that is found beneath it. From these samples, the stone structure was built and occupied by c. 5700 B. C. The result obtained from the first sample appears to be too high compared to the dates mentioned by either Perlès or Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis as mentioned above. Perlès dates the beginning of the MN period to 5950 B.C., which is a century and a half earlier than that given by Andreou,

Fotiadis and Kotsakis. Compared to the samples from Trenches F2 and F10 collected by

CHELP, the second and third samples fall at about the right range for an MN date.199

If the highest dates given by these samples were to be employed, all of the three dates provided by radiocarbon analysis point to an earlier construction date of Building III than suggested by the red-on-white wares found in it. Red-on-white sherds were found in F9g (61), which was the earliest level achieved by CHELP at 0.70 masl. This level was 0.16 m lower than the lowest elevations of the stone foundations of Building III. This indicates that the construction of the structure took place during an early phase of the MN.

198 J. E. Coleman (pers. comm.).

199 Above, n.197. CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION – BUILDING III AT HALAI IN RELATION TO THE

NEOLITHIC OF CENTRAL GREECE

NEOLITHIC HALAI

Although extensive investigation of the Neolithic strata has been carried out in Areas F and H at Halai, the excavation did not aim to expose the entire settlement, or to investigate its precise outer limits. As mentioned above, the soundings made in various sections of the site revealed Neolithic occupation in Areas A, F and H, leading Coleman to conclude that the

Neolithic settlement of Halai covered at least sixty by forty meters (0.24 ha).200 If the wall-like stone structure in F101 is indeed an indication of the northern boundary of the LN settlement, the settlement would have grown smaller during this period.201 Although the entire Neolithic settlement cannot be excavated due to the existence of Greco-Roman and Byzentine remains, the site may very possibly extend further than 0.24 ha. As mentioned above, the average Neolithic settlement size calculated by Halstead is 0.5-1 ha, and by Demoule and Perlès is 2-5.5 ha.202

Demoule and Perlès’ data suggests that the settlement may have extended much further in areas

200 Coleman 1992, p. 273.

201 There also exist at least two incomplete walls, DK and CT, that are located to the north of BL, indicating that not all architectural structures were contained within the possible boundary wall.

202 Above, n.93. not investigated by CHELP. The site could not have extended very far south because of the presence of the sea. It is possible that the site extended further towards the north, east and west.

The dense clustering pattern of later MN structures in Area F9, comprising Buildings III,

IV, V and VI may indicate that of a town rather than a rural settlement.203 Investigations of the

Neolithic levels at Halai over a wider area have not happened due to overlying Greco-Roman and Byzantine levels. If further excavation in other areas of the site were to be possible, perhaps a substantial community implied by such a building pattern might be revealed. This idea depends on the assumption that the four MN structures in Trench F9 (Buildings III, IV, V and

VI) comprise multiple household units. If these four buildings are close together because they belonged to the same household, and they were treated as various outhouses for separate functions, the above model does not hold since the structures do not reflect a crowded, urban settlement. This question is probably too difficult to answer for the MN levels at Halai, since only a small section of its settlement (Trench F9) is readily exposed. On the other hand, there is a more concrete indication of an urban settlement in the LN period. The building arrangement of a dense cluster of free-standing structures corresponds well to that of the Akropolis of Sesklo

(Sesklo A).204 Two structures, Building VII and an incomplete set of walls to the east, are separated by an open courtyard indicating a deliberate close arrangement of buildings. The two buildings, however, are not situated closely enough to be parts of a single unit, as Buildings III,

IV, V and VI might appear.

The idea that Neolithic Halai might have been an urban coastal settlement is not unreasonable. The Bay of Atalandi encroaches upon the site today; the sea level has risen due to

203 Theocharis 1973, p. 65.

204 Above, n. 99. seismic activity in the past millennia.205 CHELP has not investigated the exact coastline of the area in Neolithic times; however, vertical shifting of land due to tectonic activity is well documented by scholars.206 A clear fault line in the hills of Tragana, further west along the bay, serves as a visual reminder of the seismic activity in this area. While the sea did not come as close to the settlement in Neolithic times, the settlement would have been easily visible from the sea – Evvia across the gulf is visible from the beach on a clear day. Halai would therefore have been a coastal settlement during the Neolithic period as well. Despite the harsh landscape of

Lokris that would likely have provided an obstacle for intersite communication within the region, proximity to the sea would have enabled active communication with populations that arrived by sea. Abundance of obsidian and shared ceramic characteristics with Thessalian pottery would support such a model.

BUILDING III

Building III has the same stone socle and mudbrick construction as many of the architectural structures excavated in Thessaly and Central Greece from the same period, but

Building III is very small in comparison to many of them. The area of Building III (c. 4.4 m2) better corresponds to the average size of small huts (5-15 m2) as suggested by Flannery, as well as that of early pit-houses mentioned above.207 Perlès discusses some examples of structures described as ‘small’ houses dating to the EN period, but even those houses range from 6 m by 8

205 The rise in sea level can be evidenced by the submerged Greco-Roman settlement.

206 E.g., Stiros and Papageorgiou 1994.

207 Flannery 1972, p. 23-53. m to as large as 11.8 m by 13.6 m.208 The construction of Building III is similar to those found at

Tsangli, with an almost quadrilateral form, a buttress and stone platforms. The size of the houses at Tsangli, however, all measure about 7 m by 7 m; all the houses have one or two buttresses on each wall. House T at Tsangli also had four post-holes along the middle of the room, which may have been roof supports; it is difficult to tell whether something similar existed in Building III.

Grace, who excavated the central area of the structure, does not note a presence of post-holes.

Despite the similarities found between the Tsangli houses and Building III, Building III probably should not be seen as a ‘house’ on its own, but rather as an annex to a larger structure, at least in its later stage of use. Even during its early phase of occupation, when the building had a door and window to provide light and convenient entry, the charcoal, sherds and bone scattered throughout the building, in an unlocalized manner with no indication of cleared spaces, suggests that activities such as sleeping did not take place within the building.

The function of Building III is difficult to interpret, given the fact that different parts of the room’s interior have been excavated by two projects, and that the inconsistent descriptions provided by each are hard to reconcile. The frequency of controlled burning evidenced by the abundance of charcoal, ash and burnt pottery, as well as the variety of bone that was found, point to food processing.209 Halstead suggests that a building should not be assumed either to serve as a complete house or conversely to have just one function. 210 He raises the concept of a cluster of annexes serving as a single residential unit that together offer about the same amount of space as a freestanding house, in which all household activities could be conducted. This model could

208 Perlès 2001, p. 186.

209 Petruska 2002, unpublished. Halai F9n field notebook.

210 Halstead 1999, p. 80. very well apply to the cluster of buildings in F9 of Halai, of which Building III is a part. In its last phase of use after the doorway and window were blocked, the structure no longer resembled a living space similar to that rendered by Neolithic house models, all of which have windows or doorways. It is likely that Building III came to serve one or more functions that did not require frequent entrance, ventilation, or an abundance of light, and that the people who used it had their living quarters elsewhere.

The structures adjacent to Building III (Buildings IV, V and VI) measure at least twice its size in terms of area (Fig. 7). Buildings IV, V and VI have buttress-like partitions projecting out of one of the long sides, creating two-room buildings. All are comparable to the two-room construction of House 11-12 in Sesklo, although they are somewhat smaller and their partitions are not as long.211 The doorways for Buildings IV and V have not been located; excavation of both the buildings is incomplete, and the eastern wall of Building V has partially collapsed. The doorway of Building V may be located in its eastern wall, where excavation is incomplete. On the side where the doorway is located in Building VI, two walls project beyond the doorway, creating a porch-like space in front of the entrance. Furthermore, Building VI has two partition walls perpendicular to each other that separate off roughly a quarter of the total area in the back.

All of the above features appear to provide a more amenable living space than Building III. It is possible that Building III came to be a type of appendage to one or more of the buildings neighboring it. If this was the case, Building III would most likely have been associated with

Building VI, where an entrance is located on its western face, directly to the south of Building

III.

211 Theocharis 1973, fig. 184 While scholars have often interpreted paved surfaces as having the function of either benches or ovens, their locations in Building III do not always overlap with the find spots of burnt material. In the earlier levels, charcoal and ash were found in multiple places along the walls; localized burnt material was generally not found at the levels where paved surfaces exist.

The elevations at which the platforms are constructed and charcoal disappears, together with the construction of the buttress and the blocking of the doorway and window, suggest a change in function of Building III during the course of its use. Pantelidou Gofas mentions that paved surfaces were made in wattle huts used as storerooms for the purpose of providing drainage.212

The mudbrick found at ca. 0.60 masl, and a floor level over it with burnt material found between ca. 0.80 masl and ca. 1.00 masl, suggest that Building III was built over another structure. It cannot be said whether this previous building was deliberately leveled down to make way for Building III, or had collapsed on its own after abandonment. On the other hand, the fact that there appears to be no layer of soil between the mudbrick layer and the floor level suggests that Building III was built not long after the previous structure went into disuse. It cannot be ascertained whether or not this structure had stone socles like Building III because its foundation was never excavated.

Building III, after it was built on top of the previous mudbrick structure, appears to have had continuous occupation between 0.85 masl and 1.20 masl, which is evidenced by a steady accumulation of soil without any distinct signs of hiatus. This floor level of Building III rose from roughly 0.85 m to 1.20 m as far as CHELP could identify. The presence of mudbrick scattered between the elevations of 1.20 to 1.37 indicates the only possible hiatus or renovation during the lifetime of the building. The presence of the stone platform at 1.37 masl suggests the

212 Pantelidou Gofas 2000, p. 45. reoccupation of Building III after some mudbrick had collapsed. The doorway is blocked down completely only to 1.38 masl, and this elevation suggests that the construction of the platform and the blocking of the door were contemporaneous. Grace notes that she found an area “full of life” at around 1.57 masl near the blocked doorway. Therefore it appears that Building III possibly was occupied continuously until the soil had accumulated to that level. This second phase of occupation was contemporary with the construction of Buildings IV, V and VI, is it is probably right in assuming that the blocking of the window and doorway (mentioned above) was a reaction to the construction of nearby structures.

The stone and mudbrick structure Building III, then, appears to have had two phases. In the first phase, it was a structure with a door and window, with some signs of controlled fire but no platform. It was built directly over a previously standing mudbrick structure, as is often the case with Neolithic structures found in tell sites in Greece. This was also the phase in which an internal buttress was added at a late stage (at 1.13 masl). This structure was a modest freestanding unit, neighboring a mudbrick structure Building I. Toward the end of this phase, stone pavements started to be constructed. In the second phase, the openings were blocked and new buildings were constructed around it, as if it had been incorporated into them to be a part of a multi-room structure.

The possible change in function of Building III over these two phases is difficult to interpret due to the scarcity of information recorded by Grace and the little stratified soil that was left for CHELP to excavate. It could be speculated, however, that the above-mentioned renovations were made to accommodate for the new function required of Building III. It appears that during the early phases of its use, Building III was used for food-processing and even cooking. The window and the doorway indicate that the room had, and required, abundant ventilation and frequent entrance; charcoal and other burnt material has been found scattered throughout the floor. In its second phase, Building III could have been turned into a storeroom like that of Nea Makri, where a structure without openings was suitable due to its infrequent entrance and for protecting its contents.213 Despite its small size and the frequent new constructions at the settlement, the Neolithic inhabitants of Halai saw fit to occupy Building III for an extended period of time. Multiple renovations were made to the structure in order to prevent it from collapsing or from becoming useless. Although it is difficult to determine what this structure was used for, it is clear that it served a very useful purpose in Neolithic Halai.

213 Above, n. 212. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andreou, S., Fotiadis, M., and Kotsakis, K. 2001. “The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece.” (AJA Supplement 1) pp. 259-328.

Bloedow, E. 1991. “The ‘Aceramic’ Neolithic Phase in Greece Reconsidered,” Mediterranean Archaeology 4, pp. 1-43.

Broodbank, Cyprian. 1999. “Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean.” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 15-41.

Coleman, J. E. 1992. “Greece, the Aegean and Cyprus,” in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, pp. 247-288.

Coleman, J. E. 1992. “Excavations at Halai, 1990-1991,” Hesperia 61, pp. 265-289.

Coleman, J. E. et al. 1999. “Halai: The 1992-1994 Field Seasons,” Hesperia 68, pp. 285-341.

Coleman, J. E. 2000. “The Neolithic Architectural and Cultural Sequence at Halai,” (unpublished).

Davis, J. L. 2001. “The Islands of the Aegean,” (AJA Supplement 1) pp. 19-94.

Dakoronia, F., Kotoulas, D., Balta, E., Sythiakaki, B., and Tolias, G. 1999. Lokrivda. Istoriva kaiv Politismov~, Athens.

Demoule, J.-P., and Perlès, C. 1993. “The Greek Neolithic: A New Review,” JWP 7, pp. 355- 416.

Dimaki, S. 1994. “Proi>storikoiv oivkismoi sth Bovreia Fqiwvtida,” in Thessalia Dekapende Chronia I, Athens, pp. 91-102.

Finlay, G. 1869. “Parathrhvsei~ ejpi; th`~ ejn JElbetiva /kai JEllavdi proistorikh`~ ajrcaiologiva~,” Athens.

Flannery, K. V. 1972. “The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East,” in Man, Settlement and Urbanism (Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University), P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, eds., London, pp. 23-53.

Fossey, J. 1990. The Ancient Topography of Opuntian Lokris, Amsterdam. Gallis, K. 1992. vAtla~ proistorikwvn oikismwvn th~ anatolikhv~ qessalkihv~ pediavda~, Larissa.

Gallis, K. 1994. “Results of Recent Excavations and Topographical Work in Neolithic Thessaly.” in Thessalia Dekapende Chronia I, Athens, pp. 57-60.

Gallis, K. 1996. “The Neolithic World,” in Neolithic Culture in Greece, G. A. Papathanassopoulos, ed., A. Doumas, trans., Athens, pp. 23-38.

Gallis, K. 1996 I. “Central and Western Thessaly,” in Neolithic Culture in Greece, G. A. Papathanassopoulos, ed., A. Doumas, trans., Athens, pp. 61-66.

Gimbutas, Maria et al. 1989. Achilleion. A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece. 6400-5600 BC, Los Angeles.

Goldman, H., and Walker, A. L. 1915. “Report on Excavations at Halae of Lokris,” AJA 19, pp. 418-437.

Goldman, H. 1916. “The Terracottas from the Necropolis of Halae,” (diss. Radcliffe College, Cambridge).

Grammenos, D. V. 1996. “Neolithic Settlements in Macedonia and Thrace,” in Neolithic Culture in Greece, G. A. Papathanassopoulos, ed., A. Doumas, trans., Athens, pp. 41-45.

Halstead, P. 1989. “The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece,” in Bad Year Economics. Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, P. Halstead, and J. O’Shea, eds., Cambridge, pp. 68-80.

Halstead, P. 1995. “The Neolithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society?” (Aegaeum 12) pp. 11-22.

Halstead, P. 1999. “Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 77-95.

Heurtley, W. A. 1939. Prehistoric Macedonia: an archaeological reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (west of the Struma) in the neolithic, bronze, and early iron ages, Cambridge.

Hope Simpson, R., and Dickinson, O. T. P. K. 1979. A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilization in the Bronze Age. I. The Mainland and Islands. (SIMA vol. 52).

Keeley, L. H. 2001. “Giving War a Chance,” in Deadly Landscapes. Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, G. E. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc, eds., Salt Lake City, pp. 331-342.

Kotsakis, K. 1994. “The Use of Habitational Space in Neolithic Sesklo,” in Thessalia Dekapende Chronia I, Athens, pp. 125-130. Kotsakis, K. 1996. “Thessaly – The Northern Sporades,” in Neolithic Culture in Greece, G. A. Papathanassopoulos, ed., A. Doumas, trans., Athens, pp. 49-57.

Kotsakis, K. 1999. “What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 77-86.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 1999. “The Neolithic Use of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 142-152.

Milojcic, V. 1962. Die Deutschen Ausgraben auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien, Bonn.

Milojcic, V. 1965. Paläolithikum um Larissa in Thessalien, Bonn.

Mylonas, G. 1928. JH Neoliqikhv jEpochv ejn JEllavdi, Athens.

O’Neill, K. 1999. “Appendix 1: Neolithic Chipped Stone Artefacts,” Hesperia 68, pp. 325-329.

Pantelidou Gofa, M. 1991. H Neoliqikhv Neva Mavkrh. Ta Oikodovmika. Biblioqhvkh th~ en Aqhvnai~ Arcaiolovgikh~ 119, Athens.

Pantelidou Gofa, M. 1996. “Central Greece,” in Neolithic Culture in Greece, G. A. Papathanassopoulos, ed., A. Doumas, trans., Athens, pp. 69-72.

Pantelidou Gofas, Maria. 2000. Neolithic Attica, W. W. Phelps, trans., Athens.

Papathanassopoulos, G. A. ed. 1996. Neolithic Culture in Greece, A. Doumas, trans., Athens.

Perlès, C. 1999. “The Distribution of Magoules in Eastern Thessaly.” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 42-56.

Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge.

Perlès, C., and Vitelli, Karen D. 1999. “Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, P. Halstead, ed., Sheffield, pp. 96-107.

Runnels, Curtis 2000. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of the Neolithic,” (AJA Supplement 1) pp. 225-258.

Sampson, A. 1981. H Neoliqikhv kai h Prwtoelladikhv I sthn Euvboia, Athens.

Sealey, G. R. 2001. Red-on-White Painted Pottery from Neolithic Halai, Greece, diss. Boston University, unpublished.

Stiros, S., and Papageorgiou, S. 1994. “Post Mesolithic Evolution of the Thessalian Landscape.” in Thessalia Dekapende Chronia I, Athens, pp. 29-36.

Syriopoulou, K. Th. 1968. H Proistoriva th~ Stevrea~ vEllado~, Athens. Theocharis, D. R. 1956. “Eine grosse neolithische Siedlung in der Nähe von Marathon,” in Mitteilungen der Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 71, pp. 1-29.

Theocharis, D. 1973. Neolithic Greece, Athens.

Theocharis, D. R. [1981] 1993. Neoliqikov~ Politismov~. Suvntomh ejpikovphsh th`~ Neoliqikh`~ sto;n eJlladiko; cw`ro, Athens.

Tsountas, C. 1908. AiJ proiistorikaiv ajkropovlei~ Dimhnivou kaiv Sevsklou, Athens.

Wace, A. J. B. and Thompson, M. S. 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge.

Walker, A. L. 1916. “The Pottery of the Necropolis of Halae,” (diss. University of California, Berkeley).

Weinberg, S. S. [1965] 1970. “The Stone Age in the Aegean,” CAH, 3rd ed., Cambridge, pp. 557-617.

Yielding, W. 1999. “Appendix 2: Neolithic Animal Bones,” Hesperia 68, pp. 330-334. Table 1: Absolute Dates for the Thessalian Neolithic Period

Early Neolithic 6700-5800

Middle Neolithic 5800-5400

Late Neolithic 5400-4700

Final Neolithic 4700-3300

Table 2: Statified Pottery from Building III by EU

Lot Quantity Notes on Wares

Southeast Scarp

F9c (27) 27 3 RW, mostly RB and light burnished

F9c (28) 25 1 RW, mostly light burnished

F9c (29) 22 2 RW, mostly OB

F9c (30) -

F9c (31) 57 All monochrome. 6 Large RB pieces

F9g (61) 48 4 RW, 50% monochrome slipped, burnished, or plain

F9g (65) -

F9g (68) -

F9g (69) -

Adjacent to BH

F9g (88) 32 Monochrome RB predominate; grey burnished F9g (91) 17 All monochrome burnished

F9g (97) 32 2 RW, dominated by light-faced burnished

F9g (100) 25 2 RW

Half-moon

F9g (45) 20 Very worn, but 3 identifiable PB sherd

F9g (48) -

F9g (50) 37 1RW, predominantly monochrome burnished and slipped

F9j (164) 72 1 RW, 2 BB sherds with dot appliqué

F9j (165) 27 All monochrome burnished. Mostly RB and light burnished

F9j (166) 65 7 RW, 1 BB sherd with dot appliqué, mostly light burnished

Cupboard

F9g (102) 19

F9n (177) 6 1 RW. Burnt monochrome burnished

F9n (178) 46 7 RW. Monochrome burnished. Some burnt

Shelf

F9c (25) 11 All monochrome burnished. Table 3: Unworked Bone from Building III by EU

Lot Species Bone Part

F9c (29) Rabbit 1 upper tooth

Sheep 2 unidentified

F9c (30) Sheep 1 rib

F9g (50) Ovis/Capra 1 upper tooth

Cuttlefish fiber 1 unidentified

F9g (61) Sus 1 Ulna

Ovis/Capra 1 upper tooth

F9g (88) Sheep 1 unidentified

F9g (91) Ovis/Capra 1 upper tooth

Sheep 1 unidentified

F9g (97) Ovis/Capra 1 Pelvic bone

Sheep 1 unidentified

F9g (100) Ovis/Capra 1 upper tooth, 1 lower tooth

Sheep 2 spine, 1 rib, 2 unidentified

F9g (102) Sheep 1 unidentified

F9j (165) Ovis/Capra 1 upper tooth Table 4: Common Botanical Remains at Halai

CEREALS cultivated barley Hordeum sativum 84% einkorn Triticum monococcum 52% emmer Triticum dicoccum 21%

PULSES lentil Lens culinaris 56% common pea Pisum sativum 34%

OTHER CROPS fig Ficus carica 89% pistachio Pistacia 16% grapes (wild or domestic) Vitis sp. 15%

Table 5: Radiocarbon Results from Building III

Lot Area Lab Elevation Uncal. B.P. cal. 1-σ B.C. cal. 2-σ B.C.

F9g (88) Bench area, Beta 1.09 masl 7230±55 6120-5980 6170-5970

above bench

F9g (97) Bench area, AA 0.88 masl 7010±50 5940-5780 5950-5740

below bench

F9g (65) SE Scarp, Beta 0.88 masl 6950±50 5830-5720 5940-5690

against BF Fig. 1: Building III Fig. 2: Location of Halai Fig. 3: Area Plan of Halai Fig. 4: Area F, Halai Fig. 5: Plan Showing the Location of Grace’s 1931 Trenches Fig. 6: 1931 Plan Fig. 7: MN Architecture Fig. 8: LN Architecture Fig. 9: Building III Walls and Scarps Fig. 10: Wall BE (Illustration by Allyson McDavid) Fig. 11: Wall BF (Illustration by Allyson McDavid) Fig. 12: Wall BG (Illustration by Allyson McDavid) Fig. 13: Wall BH (Illustration by Allyson McDavid)