The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Home , Andros, Filoti, Saliagos, South Aegean

Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό τόμος 8, 2019

Papyri - Scientific Journal volume 8, 2019

CHRISTINA A. TELEVANTOU, Ph.D. Director of the Excavation of Strofilas

Θεσσαλονίκη 2019 – Thessaloniki 2019 ISSN:2241-5106

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros*

CHRISTINA A. TELEVANTOU, Ph.D. Director of the Excavation of Strofilas

Περίληψη Οι ανασκαφές στο οροπέδιο του Στρόφιλα στην δυτική ακτή της Άνδρου έφεραν στο φως τα ερείπια ενός μεγάλου οχυρωμένου προϊστορικού οικισμού που φαίνεται ότι ιδρύθηκε κατά την Νεώτερη Νεολιθική Ι περίοδο (5000-4500 π.Χ.) και άκμασε κατά την Νεώτερη Νεο- λιθική ΙΙ/Τελική Νεολιθική περίοδο (4500-3200 π.Χ.). Η ανάπτυξή του οφείλεται στην στρατηγική γεωγραφική θέση της Άνδρου κοντά στην Αττική και ειδικότερα τη Λαυρεωτική σε συνδυασμό με την καίρια θέση του στις διαδρομές της νεολιθικής ναυσιπλοΐας που ευνοούσε το εμπόριο (π.χ. διακίνηση μηλιακού οψιανού και μεταλλεύματος –Λαυρεωτική;-) και τη μετάδοση τεχνολογίας και ιδεών ανάμεσα στις Κυκλά- δες, την ηπειρωτική χώρα (π.χ. Αττική), την Εύβοια και το ΒΑ Αιγαίο. Η έναρξη της εκμετάλ- λευσης μεταλλεύματος στην Λαυρεωτική ισχυροποίησαν τον ρόλο του στο Αιγαίο. Σειρά στοιχείων τον καθιστούν, με τα έως τώρα δεδομένα, μοναδικό στις Κυκλάδες και στην εγγύτερη γεωγραφική περιοχή (π.χ. Εύβοια, Αττική). ● Η μεγάλη έκτασή του σε συνδυασμό με τον πυκνό πολεοδομικό ιστό και το ιδιαίτερα μεγάλο μέγεθος των κτιρίων, αψιδωτών και τετράπλευρων. ● Tα έργα συλλογικού χαρακτήρα όπως το Τείχος, το Ιερό, το Μέγαρο, καθώς και η εκτεταμένη χρήση των βραχογραφιών από την κοινότητα σε χώρους κοι- νής χρήσης. ● Η πληθώρα των υψηλής ποιότητας ευρημάτων. ● Η προηγμένη τεχνολογία (π.χ. μεταλλοτεχνία, λιθοτεχνία, ναυπηγική). ● Οι εκτεταμένες βραχογραφίες σε ανασκαμμένο περιβάλλον, με συμβολικά θέματα (π.χ. δακτυλιόσχημο θέμα, πέλματα, κοιλότητες σε διάταξη σπείρας), γραμμικά (π.χ. σπείρα, μαίανδρος), εικονιστικά (ανθρώπινες μορφές, πλοία. ζώα- κατσίκια, ελάφια, τσακάλια, ψάρια, δελφίνια κ.ά.), αφηγηματικές σκηνές (π.χ. πομπή πλοίων, κυνήγι, αγέλες τσακαλιών εναντίον ελαφιών, μητέρα-δελ- φίνι με το μικρό του, ανθρώπινη μορφή ενδεχομένως απεικόνιση θεότη- τας/πότνιας θηρών). Καταδεικνύεται ότι οι νεολιθικοί καλλιτέχνες πολύ πριν την ανάπτυξη της εικονιστικής τέχνης στις Κυκλάδες κατά την Εποχή του Χαλ- κού (π.χ. αγγειογραφία, τοιχογραφία) έθεσαν τις βάσεις του εικονογραφικού λεξιλογίου και της διαχείρισης του χώρου σε σύνθετες παραστάσεις. ● Ο έντονος ναυτικός χαρακτήρας του Στρόφιλα (ναυπηγική / ναυσιπλοΐα / εμπόριο) που τεκμηριώνεται από τις εκατόν και πλέον απεικονίσεις πλοίου στις βραχογραφίες σε κοινόχρηστους χώρους (ιερό, ανοικτός χώρος λατρεία, τείχος) ως το κυρίαρχο σύμβολο του Στρόφιλα. ● Η χρήση ενός αναπτυγμένου και ευρύτατα διαδεδομένου κώδικα επικοινω- νίας με χρήση συστήματος συμβόλων (π.χ. δακτυλιόσχημο θέμα, φαλλός, τρί- γωνα –σύμβολο εφηβαίου. πέλματα, κοιλότητες σε διάταξη σπείρας). Πρόκειται για έναν εύρωστο οικισμό με κυρίαρχο ναυτικό χαρακτήρα και πρώιμες πρωτοαστικές δομές, διαβαθμισμένη κοινωνία με κεντρική εξουσία ενός ή ομάδας ατόμων, η οποία αποφάσιζε για τα μεγάλα κοινωφελή έργα, ασκούσε τη διοίκηση για την επιβολή /

146 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

εφαρμογή κανόνων κοινωνικής οργάνωσης και συντόνιζε όλες τις παραγωγικές δραστηριό- τητες προς όφελος της κοινότητας. Αναμφίβολα ο Στρόφιλας θα διαδραμάτιζε, σε ένα μεγαλύτερο δίκτυο μικρότερων ή / και ανάλογου μεγέθους οικισμών σημαντικό ρόλο κατά την Τελική Νεολιθική περίοδο. Κυ- ρίως αποκαλύπτει μια νέα εικόνα για τον πολιτισμό στο Νεολιθικό Αιγαίο και ιδιαίτερα στις Κυκλάδες την περίοδο αυτή διευρύνοντας τους ορίζοντες της προϊστορίας και εικονογρα- φίας. Καταδεικνύει ότι από την περίοδο αυτή διαμορφώθηκε στο χώρο αυτό ένας υψηλός πολιτισμός με μεγάλες οργανωμένες ναυτικές κοινωνίες και ανάλογους οικισμούς με πρώιμες πρωτοαστικές δομές, η βάση για την μετέπειτα πολιτιστική εξέλιξη της Εποχής του Χαλκού.

Λέξεις κλειδιά: Άνδρος, βραχογραφία, αψιδωτό κτήριο, γονιμότητα, δακτυλιόσχημο θέμα, ιερό, Κυκλάδες, Μητέρα Θεά, ναυπηγική, Νεολιθικό Αιγαίο, πλοίο, πρωτοαστικό, Στρόφιλας, τείχος

Abstract The excavation on the plateau of Strofilas, on the west coast of Andros, have unearthed the ruins of a large prehistoric settlement which seems was founded during Late Neolithic I period (5000-4500 BC) and growth during Late Neolithic II period (4500-3200 BC). Its growth is attributable largely to the strategic location of Andros near Attica, especially the Laureotika, coupled with the fact that it was an important hub and port of call on the Neolithic sea routes for the transport of goods (e.g. Melian obsidian and metal ore) and the transmission of technology and ideas between the Cyclades, the Mainland, Euboea and the northeast Aegean. The beginning of the exploitation of ore in Laureotika strengthened its role in the Aegean. On the evidence available to date, a number of factors make Strofilas unique in the Cyclades and the surrounding geographical region (Euboea, Attica). ● The large area of the settlement, along with its dense layout and large buildings. ● The communal projects, such as the Fortification, the Sanctuary, the Megaron and the extensive rock-art representations. ● The abundance of high-quality finds. ● The advanced technology (e.g. metalwork, stonework). ● The extensive rock art representations in excavated context, with symbolic motifs (ring-idol motif, human soles, cavities in spiral arrangement), linear motifs (spiral, meander), pictorial motifs (ships, animals-goats, deer, jackals-, fish, dolphins, etc.), narrative scenes (flotilla of ships, jackals hunting deer, seabed with dolphin and its calf, probably a human figure or a humanoid 'effigy', 0.45 m. high, possibly representing a deity). It seems that long before the development of pictorial art in the Cyclades, in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (pottery, wall-paintings), the Neolithic artists laid the foundations of the iconographic vocabulary and spatial management in composite scenes. ● The intense maritime character of the settlement (shipbuilding / seafaring / trade), which is documented by more than 100 depictions of ships in the rock art in public places (sanctuary, wall, area north of the wall), as the community’s prevailing symbol.

147 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

● The use of a sophisticated and widespread communication code using a system of symbols (ring-idol motif, human soles, cavities in spiral arrangement). The evidence indicates that this was a thriving proto-urban settlement of maritime character, which undoubtedly played an important role in a wider network of smaller and/or similar-sized settlements during the Late Neolithic period. Strofilas reveals new information on the culture of the Aegean, particularly in the Cyclades, during the Late Neolithic period. It demonstrates that during this period an advanced culture took shape in the Cyclades, with large organized maritime societies and similar settlements with early urban structures, which were the basis for the subsequent cultural developments of the Bronze Age.

Keywords: Andros, apsidal building, boat, Cyclades, Fortification Wall, fertility, megaron, Mother Goddess, proto-urban, ring-idol motif, Neolithic Aegean, rock-Art, sanctuary, ship, shipbuilding, Strofilas

148 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

The excavations on the Strofilas plateau on Andros unearthed a large fortified prehis-

Fig. 1: Strofilas, aerial view (photo Ν. Xenikakis, 2008) Fig. 2: Strofilas’s plateau (photo C. A. Televantou) toric settlement (fig. 1-3) which changed radically until recent archaeological data for the Ne- olithic Aegean.1 Andros, strategically located near mainland Greece, especially At- tica, is a natural bridge, one of man’s first “steps” into the Aegean. It is also an important hub and port of call on the Neolithic sea routes2 for the transport of goods (e.g. Melian obsidian and metal ore) and the transmission of technology and ideas between the Cyclades, the Mainland, Euboea and the northeast Aegean. Its importance grew in the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic period when mining began in the Laureotike (Meren- da, see below) (fig. 4). Furthermore, Andros, the second largest Cycladic island (374 sq. km), has important natural characteristics that are ideal for systematic habitation. Its rich water-table and sufficient arable land favored agricul- ture and animal husbandry, ensuring Fig. 3: Map of Andros marked with the most important survival as well as the improvement archaeological sites.

* Note: The material from Strofilas presented in this article is unpublished. Any use of images requires the approval of the excavator. 1Neolithic Aegean: Dova 1997a. 1977b. Felsch 1988. Efstratiou 2013. Hadjianastasiou 1987. Kakavogianni 2008. Katsarou-Schilardi 2004. 2006. 2008. Kyparissi-Apostolica 2008. Maragou 1990(ed.). 1992. Pantelidou-Gofa 1991. 1995. 1997. Papathanasopoulos 1981. 1996 (ed) with extended bibliography. 2011. Sotirakopoulou 1989. Sampson 2002. 2006a. Zachos 1990. Zachos 1996b. 1996c. 1966d. 2 Papageorgiou 2008.

149 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Fig. 4: Map of Attica, Euboea and Andros.

of living standards. The rich vegetation provided timber - the raw material for the construction of sea-going vessels - an important element for fishing, and more importantly the development of sea trade. Surface finds from north part of the island, e.g. obsidian artifacts, stone tools and pottery, suggest that during Late Neolithic I period (5000-4500BC) there were limited and occa- sional activities such as hunting, fishing, or agricultural work.3 Most important is that recent finds indicate that Strofilas was developed as early as this period also (see below). For the aforementioned reasons, during the next period, the Late Neolithic ΙI/Final Ne- olithic period (4500-3200 BC), Andros experienced great and rapid growth. So far apart Stro- filas two more settlements have been identified, Vryokastro4 and Mikrogiali,5 while it appears that there were smaller installations in other locations - e.g. at Rethi6 and Vryokastro, south of Strofilas.

Strofilas (figs 1-2) 7 In the center of the west coast of Andros, on the Strofilas plateau, in 1992 a large unique fortified neolithic settlement was discovered (fig. 3). Cape Strofilas is a naturally fortified location. Easy access to the settlement is possible only from the inland. In the south of the settlement, there are two natural harbors, while a stream provided drinking water (fig. 5). It controls both the sea routes and the south part of the island, as it is located in an extremely important strategic position and surveys the area from Attica and Euboea to Syros, Paros and Naxos (fig. 6).

3 Koutsoukou 1993. 4 Televantou 2006a: 2-3, Fig. 2. 5 Televantou 2006a: 2-3. 6 Koutsoukou 1993. 7 Televantou 2001. 2006a. 2006b. 2008. 2013. 2016a. 2016b. 2017a. 2018b. 2018a.2018b.

150 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

On the large plateau (approximately 1.8ha/18.000 sqm) on top of the cape, are the ruins of a fairly extensive and densely constructed fortified neolithic settlement (fig. 1, 5). The settlement seems to have been founded at the Late Neolithic I period on the cultural horizon of Ftelia and Saliagos and flour- ished during the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic period (4500-3200 B.C.). Its growth is affiliated with the beginning of mining in the Laureotike (Merenda) 8 as it participated in the transport of ore. Fig. 5: Strofilas, aerial view (photo Ν. Xenikakis, 2008) The extent of Strofilas is estimated at 3-3.5ha/30-35.000 sqm, covering the plateau and an equal sized area to the west and thus is the largest neolithic settlement of the Aegean islands (fig. 7).

Fig. 6: Map of the Aegean marked with the most important neolithic sites

Fig.7: Old aerial view of Strofilas plateau (before the excavations started/1997) marked with the estimated boundaries of the settlement

8 Kakavogianni 2003.

151 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Fortification (figs 2, 5,8). The vulnerable north side of the settlement is protected by an impressive strong defensive Wall -approx. 100m long-9 with three rudimentary curved bastions. Its thickness var- ies between 1.60-2.5m and at the bastions exceeds 5m. It com- prises two parallel walls of large to very large boulders and clay, and is filled with the same materials in between. At the midpoint of the Wall, on the internal face, at a depth of 0.60m, it is 0.50-0.60m wider in the lower part, forming a type of “chemin de ronde,” curved at one end. It probably served the movement of warriors, while ascent to the upper level, using a ladder, cannot be ruled out. At the west end of the Wall there is a Gate, 1.50m wide, with uphill access protected on the west by a bastion. It is preserved to a height of approximately 2m and is estimated to have been at least 4m tall. The image must have been quite impressive, given that the gate area is founded almost 4m above the lowest level of the abrupt configuration of the rocky ground revealed so far. Apart from the settlement the Wall protected the entire promontory and could accommodate for flocks and herds for a long period of time. It also gives an overall picture of the serious risks of attacks from organized groups or population movements in this period in the Aegean. Parallel to the Wall at a lower level, approximately 15m north, runs a wall 0.80m wide, constructed of large roughly Fig. 8: Strofilas, the Fortification Wall. dressed stones, visible for almost its entire length below the In front of it is depicted the guardian modern dry-stone terrace wall. Perhaps it was part of a com- of antiquities Panayiotis Koulouris plex defense system comprising an outwork and a Fortification (photo C. A. Televantou) Wall.10 Most probably it protected the area up to the Wall, where there are many rock-art representations, which was apparently used as a place for worship in the open air (see below). So far, Strofilas’ fortification is the oldest in the Aegean islands.11 It is the only Final Neo- lithic fortification, which suggests that the known Early Cycladic II and III period fortifications (Keros-Syros phase) in the Cyclades, e.g. Kastri on Syros, Panormos on Naxos, Kynthos on Delos, Markiani on Amorgos, and in the wider Aegean region12 have precursory forms in the Neolithic period and it is probably a question of time, research and luck to find evidence doc- umenting their existence in the Early Cycladic I period,13 to the beginning of which Strofilas’ Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic sanctuary probably survives.

9Televantou 2006a: 4-5, fig. 3-4. 2008: 44-5, fig. 6.2-3. 10 Aslanis 1998: 110. 11 Evans & Renfrew 1968: 23, fig. 11, pl. X. Hood 1981: 93 ff, figs 51-2. Aslanis 1998, 111. 12 Tsountas 1899: 116-30. Bossert 1967: 57. Doumas 1964: 411-2. 1977: 32, figs 8-9. MacGillivray 1980: 7. Marangou 1994: 467-8.2002. 2008. Aslanis 1998: 111-2. Walter & Felten 1981: figs 34-35, Bernabo-Brea 1964: 117 ff, fig. 62. Lamb 1936: 12, 15, 209, pls 2, 6-7, Theochari-Parlama 1997: 344-56. Kakavogianni 2008: 96, figs 144-5. 13 Grotta-Pelos Culture, Renfrew 1991: 44-5. Marthari 1997: 369.

152 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Fig. 9: Strofilas, aerial view (photo Ν. Xenikakis, 2008) marked with the initial basic/general spatial planning of the settlement Until now there are not enough data on the form of the settlement during the LNΙ period. Instead there is strong evidence for Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic period during which the architectural planning and the formation of the settlement seems to have generated from an initial basic/general spatial planning as is documented by architectural elements without excluding that this had started earlier (fig. 9). The Fortification Wall, whose location was imposed by defensive reasons, determined the planning of the areas inside and outside the settlement, while in combination with walls it appeared that the different use of the areas was defined. Outside of the settlement is located Area 1, an area of 1200 sqm, defined by the Fortifi- cation Wall (south) and its parallel wall/enclosure (north), most probably an Open-air worship place. The protected area within the settlement was divided into at least two areas; Area 2 and 3; with a strong oblique partition wall (preserved 6 m long) inherent to the Wall and Building Z. The smallest northeast Area 2, seems to have been intended for important and/or public buildings related to religious and/or administrative activities of the community (e.g.

153 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Building Z, Sanctuary, Building B/Megaron, Apsidal 1/2a/2b) and possibly residences of distinguished members of the community (e.g. Building A, H). At the larger Area 3 the rest of the settlement is developed (e.g. Building Γ, Apsidal 3). The two areas would communicate through the partition wall, possibly near an entrance to Building B/Megaron. The settlement tissue is extremely dense and at least some of the buildings, possibly destined for public use, were constructed according to a preconceived plan. This spatial planning and especially the formation of the fortification, determined from the natural outset, also determined the available Wall-protected area and thus defined the formation of a dense urban tissue.

Buildings. The delimited space did not prevent the construction of large buildings, apsidal and rectangular in plan, carefully constructed, mainly with two or more rooms. The thickness of the external walls, usually 0.60-.80 m, suggests the existence of an upper storey, while the thickness of the internal walls ranges between 0.40-0.60 m. The walls are constructed of flat fieldstones and clay. The floors are of packed clay and it seems that the roofs were flat and covered by slabs, as in recent tradi- tional architecture on Andros. The large size Building Z (200 sq.m in area), inherent to the Wall at Fig. 10: Strofilas, Building Z (photo C. A. Televantou) a crucial point in Area 2, may have been related with the defense of the settlement and especially with the protection of the public buildings (figs 9- 10). Building Γ in Area 3 (115 sq.m) has five rooms and may consist of two residences (figs 9-11). So far eight apsidal buildings have been unearthed. Three of them, Apsidal 1, 2a and 2b have joining walls, thus forming the shape of a daisy. The rest and Building B/1st phase of the Μegaron, an extremely large building, appear to have been independent. Apsidal 1, is one of the best preserved. It is divided into two parts by a transverse Fig. 11: Strofilas, Building Γ (photo C. A. Televantou) wall with a door in the centre (fig. 12).

154 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

The apsidal buildings at Strofilas14 are among the earliest not only in the Ae- gean islands but also in northern, central and south- ern Greece. The Neolithic House Q at Rachmani in Thessaly appears to be contemporary.15 Buildings with curved or D-shaped walls from the Neolithic period have been found elsewhere, e.g. at Ftelia,16 at Emporio, Chios,17 at Poliochni and at Myrina on Lemnos,18 and the Dodecanese.19 On the Fig. 12: Strofilas, Apsidal 1, view from west (photo C. A. Televantou) contrary, to date the type of predesigned apsidal buildings was documented in the 3rd millennium BC, mainly in central mainland Greece, in the Early Helladic II and III period,20 while such a building was found on Euboea.21 At the same time, during the Early Cycladic II and III period (Keros-Syros phase group), in the Cyclades there are buildings with circular walls, e.g. Kastri on Syros, Panormos and Korfi t' Aroniou on Naxos, Skarkos on Ios, and in the northeast Aegean at Thermi on Les- bos, mainly for better operation of the outside spaces and more comfortable handling.22 The buildings at Strofilas show the early presence of the apsidal type in the Aegean islands, while its coexistence with the rectangular type may indicate the bridging role of Andros Island with mainland Greece. As far as the chro- nological phases are con- cerned, until now two main phases of the settlement have been documented (fig. 13). Phase Strofilas A (SA) is placed at Late Neolithic I period Fig. 13: Strofilas, the Phases of the settlement. Aerial view of the north part of (5000-4500 BC) and Pha- the plateau (photo Ν. Xenikakis, 2008)

14 Televantou 2006a: 5-6. 2006b: fig. 176. 2008: 45-6, fig. 6.5. 15 Wace-Thompson 1912: 37-40, fig. 17. 16 Sampson 2002: 30-1, figs 12, 14. 2008: 31, figs 4.5-6. 17 Hood 1981: 101-2, pl. 18d. 18 Dova 1997a: 24. 1997b. 19 e.g. Rhodes, Sampson 1987: 79-80, 125, pl. 39a. 20 Demakopoulou 1975: 192. Ioannidou 1973: 395. 21 Sampson 1979: 256, fig. 3. 22 e.g. for animals, Marthari 1997: 370. Lamb 1936: 51.

155 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

se Strofilas B (SB) at the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic (4500-3200 BC). The latest has four successive architectural phases and a thick disaster level, 1m. high, which seems to date at before the last one. This level extends in a large area along the Wall, both internally and ex- ternally. This stratum contains various finds and building material, thrown in haphazardly, as an apothetes. Inside the Fortification Wall there is a large curved wall that seems to set its boundaries to the west. Also it covered part of the Wall “chemin de ronde” and was the level on which the Apsidal 4 was erected. This level is dark grey at its lower point (approx. 0.30 m. thick), probably caused by fire. The finds from the apothetes (pottery, figurine, fragments of stone and marble vases, jewellery, mainly pendants, made of stone or shells, stone tools, obsidian artefacts, animal bones, shells, etc.), are numerous with some valuables among them, e.g. metal objects. A preliminary study shows that the pottery is mostly undecorated mono- chrome brown or dark brown, but also pattern-burnished with linear motifs, placing the contents of the apothetes in the last phase of Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic. This dating is corroborated by a clay figurine (fig. 14) with cylindrical body, backwards-inclined head and triangular face with two mounting holes, obviously a pendant, found in the grey level outside, very close to the Wall.23 Parallels for the triangular face, are two heads from terracotta figurines found in the cemetery at Kephala, which display similarities to EC I figurines,24, and the head of a terracotta figurine from the Athenian Agora.25 The Strofilas figurine, which is the first example of the complete form of this schematic type, confirms its widespread existence in the Aegean.26 The high concentration of objects and the haphazard way in which they are scattered, without any provision for sorting valuable or important items, indicate that the settlement was severely damaged by an Fig. 14: Strofilas, clay figurine unknown (photo C. A. Televantou) cause, with part of it probably burnt. Obviously in order for the settlement to return quickly to its normal state, waste material was hurriedly cleared away and deposited at designated points, thus forming the disaster level. The Sanctuary is located in the center of Area 2 (figs 9,15). It probably was one of the most important community places since Phase SA and the nucleus of the public buildings area during Phase SB.

Fig. 15: Strofilas, aerial views (photo Ν. Xenikakis, 2008) marked with the area of public buildings (e.g. Megaron, Sanctuary)

23 Televantou 2016a: 45-46, fig. 5.14. 24 Coleman 1977a, 68, no. 128, 94 no. 202, 105-6, pl. 26, 73. Zachos 1996d, 156-7, 320, no. 241-2. 25 Immerwahr 1971, 17, 48, pl. 14, no. 220. 26Televantou 2013 d.

156 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

At early phases (SA, SBa-c) initially an area much larger than the last rocky floor of the Sanctuary (approx. 70 sqm, see below) filled with rock-art representations, could be considered as a centerpiece of an open-air worship place, a status which maintained to subsequent architectural elements. Most probably the rock-art engravings, illustrating among other a series of figures with raised arms in gesture of praying and found at east, below Apsidal 1 (east of Apsidal 5-6), was part of it. At Phases SA/SBa -Sanctuary’s 1st phase- the area is defined to the east of the Apsidal Building 5/6, which it may have had direct access to. It appears that the area has remained an open-air sanctuary for a long time until the architectural Phase SBc. During Phase SBb -Sanctu- ary’s 2nd phase- access would be made possible through the central section of the new erected daisy- shaped complex of the Apsidal buildings (1/2a/2b),27 which limited the extent of open-air worship place with rock engravings (approx. 100 sqm). The next Phase SBc -Sanctu- ary’s 3rd phase- marked the beginning of major changes. In the south erected an impressive edifice, the Apsidal Building B/1st phase of Megaron (fig.16). Its central room it would communicate with the open- Fig. 16: Strofilas, ground plan of Apsidal Building B/1st phase of Megaron air worship place. It seems that (photo C. A. Televantou/ design by Maria Bia, topographer/ archive of gradually and relative to the grow- Strofilas’s Excavation) ing prosperity of the settlement, this formation of the area did not satisfy the aesthetic and utilitarian needs of the community as regards the ritual of worship and the exercise of the administration. Thus, during Phase SBd -Sanctuary’s 4th /last phase-, a radical configuration took place. The large Apsidal Building B was transformed into a Megaron and its north wall widened so as to house the Sanctuary, turning it from open air place to a close one (fig. 17). There might have been direct contact through a door in the portico for the exclusive entrance of the megaron's residents, while other Fig. 17: Strofilas, ground plan of 2nd phase of Megaron (design by Maria Bia, topographer/ archive of Strofilas’s Excavation)

27 Televantou 2008: 46, figs 6.7.

157 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

community members would enter through a corridor on the west. The Apsidal Building B (fig. 16), Megaron’s 1st Phase/SBc, approximately 23m long, was set up with an orientation E → W. It consisted of three parallel rooms and appears to have had paved floor at least in the middle one. There were two entrances symmetrically placed to the east. Probably because of the large width of the building -11.20 m- and in correspond- ence to the two entrances, there was a second door on the west wall of the east room. Those entrances permitted the communication of the central with the western apsidal section and perhaps that of the east north section with the open-air worship place. With a door it would communicate the central with the western apsidal section and perhaps the east north with the open- air worship place. Excavation evidence Fig. 18: Strofilas, ground plan of Apsidal Building B. First phase of Megaron (photo C. A. Televantou/ design by Maria Bia, topographer/ suggests that the East room would archive of Strofilas’s Excavation) have two rows of three or four columns (existing column bases K2, K6) and four columns (existing column bases K3, K5) for the opening of the fireplace K4 to be housed (Opeon) (fig. 18). During the Phase SBd the Megaron’s 2nd architectural phase took place. It transformed into a trapezoid building with an opposite orientation, west-east (fig. 17). The access to the Megaron was made through a monumental Portico. It consists of three rooms but in a different arrangement. Hall 3 (8.95mx10.10m) com- municates to the east with Rooms 1 and 2. In the hall, a stone base of a hearth (K4), off-centered towards the western wall, the columns that supported the housing hole in the roof (οπαίον) Fig. 19: Strofilas, Megaron/2nd phase,Hall 3. (existing column bases K3, The mill (photo C. A. Televantou) K5) and at least one column, K2, remained from the previ- ous phase while new columns (existing column bases K1, K8) were added (square or circular beams, with a diameter or side varying between 0.16-0.18m). Also at north wall there is a stable construction of food preparation, an early form of a mill (fig. 19), the oldest so far in Ae- gean. On its southeastern part smoothed red clay floor of excellent quality is preserved with no column to interrupt it and may be isolated with movable leather or fabric elements (fig. 20). Niche on the north side forming a small vestibule with a clay bench along the east wall is

158 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

also present. Because of these special features, it seems that this space was a special room, possibly related to social contacts. About Rooms 1 and 2, the evidence so far suggests that they were two-storeyed (fig. 21). Given the large thickness of the exterior walls and the many pil- lars, the “hall” was probably very high ground floor with the Portico at the same height. If there was a second storey, it had possibly a balcony above the Portico (fig. 48). Strofilas’ Megaron is similar to or larger than the Neolithic megara in Thessaly, Sesklo28 and Dimini. 29 It is also resembles to the lost large ‘megaron” in Ma- goula Vizviki30 with which, apart from the orientation of the en- Fig. 20: Strofilas, Megaron/2nd phase, Hall 3 (photo C. A. Televantou) trance to the west, it is similar in size and shape to the central and western parts. The Megaron’s location (fig. 9), in combination with its size (during its 2nd/ last Phase/SBd:13.45m north x12.50m south, 168.125sqm) and form, suggests that was a communal building with a special role in the settlement. It served probably as the House of the leader of the community, related both to the operation of the sanctuary and the administration of the settlement. Also Ηall 3 could gather community Fig. 21: Strofilas, Megaron/2nd phase, Room 1. Hypothetical reconstruction (Paola members for decision - mak- Kalloniati, Architect Dipl NTUA) with a large pithos (photo C. A. Televantou) ing as there is space for 30-50 people or more if the doors opened up to the portico (total 123sqm).

28 Tsountas 1908, 88-97. Theocharis 1993. Kotsakis 1996: 54, fig. 10. 29 Theocharis 1993: 142, fig.92 . Kotsakis 1996, 55, fig.11. 30 Benecke 1942. Theocharis 1993:141, fig. 91. Gallis 1996: 65, fig. 18).

159 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Fig. 48: Strofilas, reconstruction of Megaron (Paola Kaloniati, Architect Dipl NTUA)

Finds The pottery31 abundant, usually broken and often in good condition, beneath the floors, while in the last architectural Phase SBd the quantity is limited and conveys the im-

Fig.22: Strofilas, closed vessel Fig. 23: Strofilas, enigmatic and unidentified vessel (photo C. A. Televantou) (photo C. A. Televantou) pression that when leaving the settlement the residents took most of their belongings with them. It has parallels in other areas such as Kephala on Kea, Attica, Alepotrypa in Mani, Aria in Argolis, Emporio on Chios and the Zas cave on Naxos. There are large pithoi (fig. 21), ves-

31 Televantou 2008: 50-51, fig. 6.11-15. Televantou 2006a: 9-10, fig. 7a-b.

160 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

sels of standard shapes (fig. 22) or other original and enigmatic vases (fig. 23). Specifically, there are jugs (fig. 24a), bowls, pithoi, large coarse pots with cylindrical necks and horizontal

Fig. 25: Strofilas. Pithoid vessel (photo C. A. Televantou) Fig. 24: Strofilas. a) Jug (photo Helias Heliadis, photographer), b) bawl with pattern-burnished decoration (photo C. A. Televantou) tubular handles, small and large (fig. 25).32 The closest in shape are some vessels from Keph- ala33 and from the Alepotrypa cave in Mani.34 Some have rope-like decoration in zigzag line, similar to the pottery from Kephala.35 The fine pots include a bowl with high-flung perforated strap handle (fig. 26).36 These handles are quite widespread in the early Late Neolithic, e.g. on Sa- liagos,37 and later at Kephala38 and at Emporio on Chios.39 Of particular interest is a small collared jar, 0.05m high,40 found with the bowl (fig. 27). The conical neck with a slightly exerted rim is clearly distinguished from the hemispherical body with a characteristic carination. The four symmetrically placed lugs form Fig. 26: Strofilas. Bowl with high-flung perforated radial ribs and the areas between are decorated with strap handle (photo C. A. Televantou) incised stacked chevrons. Although neolithic in

32 Televantou 2008: fig.6.11. 33 Coleman 1977a: 5, 16, 23, 71, pl. 33, 78, 80. 34 Papathanasopoulos 1972: pl. 192 f. Papathanasopoulos (ed.) 1996: 216 (no. 17). 35 Coleman 1977a: 12-3, pl. 79. 36 Televantou 2008: fig. 6.12. 37 Evans and Renfrew 1968: 39, figs 58.3-10, pl. XXXI,a. 38 Coleman 1977a: 19, pl. 85AD-AV. 39 Hood 1981: 255, no. 112-3, fig. 122, pl. 31. 40 Televantou 2008: fig. 6.12.

161 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

shape,41 the pot with the characteristic distinction between neck and body reminds us of the shape of Early Cycladic collared jars.42 With re- gard to open pots there are many bowls in various sizes and shapes: straight or curved, with rolled rim, with a slight carination and with exerted rim. The handles are strap horizontal and cylindrical with perforation. There are also characteristic handles that find parallels on Kea and in the Athenian Agora: the handles with incised decoration,43 double handles44 and “elephant-head” lugs, also known from the Zas cave on Naxos.45 Most of the fine pots are brownish red to black. The decoration, apart from the rope-like already mentioned, is incised, sometimes filled with white paste,46 and very often high quality red pattern burnish (fig. 24b),47 not unlike most of the Late Fig. 27: Strofilas. Small collared jar Neolithic sites, e.g. Kephala and Zas in the Cycla- (photo Helias Heliadis, photographer) des,48 the Athenian Agora,49 Aegina,50 the Skoteini Cave at Tharounia on Euboea,51 Aria in the Argolid.52 It is worth noting that three sherds from Apsidal 1 belong to a cylindrical pyxis with incised linear decoration of the Early Cycladic I type from the Pelos-Lakkoudes group.53 Along with the marble figurine with the triangular head from the same building, which resembles the Plastiras and Lou- ros figurines,54 they are the only finds so far that appear to belong to a very early stage of Fig. 28: Strofilas. Obsidian arrow heads (photo C. A. Televantou) the first phase of the Early

41 Evans and Renfrew 1968: 18, figs 341-2, pl. XVIII, top right. 42 e.g. Coleman 1977b: no. 370-2, 375. 43 Coleman 1977a: 18, 100, pl. 84 AO-AP. Immerwahr 1971: 15, pl. 13 (207). 44 Immerwahr 1971: 6, pl. 1 (no. 1). 45 Coleman 1977a: 18-9, pls 75, 75Y, 77 T-W, 80A. Immerwahr 1971:15, pl 13 (196). Zachos 1987:698, drawing 9 46 Televantou 2008: fig. 6.13. 47 Televantou 2008: fig. 6.14. 48 Coleman 1977a: 11-2, 100, coloured plate, pls 40-3, 86-8. Zachos 1987: 698, drawing 9. 49Immerwahr 1971: 7-9, pl. 4 (35-6). 50 Welter 1937: 20-3. 51 Sampson 1987: 701, pl. 386a. 52 Douzougli 1998. 53 Coleman 1977b: 109, no. 388-91. 54 Renfrew 1977: 63-4, no. 85-6, 88, fig. 35. 1991, 65, fig. 33.

162 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Bronze Age, the Early Cycladic I period (Grotta - Pelos).55 Impressive is the number of stone tools,56 such as mortars and grinders, stone axes, chipped-stone artifacts -mainly of obsidian but also of flint- such as large foliate points with bifacial flaking and ballistic tailed points (fig. 28). Also interesting are the numerous metal objects (fig. 29)57 which provide important information about early metallurgy in the Aegean.58 So far there are thirty bronze objects: six pins, eight awls, seven needles, two tweezers, part of two axes and five dag- gers one hammered with rib.59 These finds, along with three by- products of metal-working, suggest the in situ practice of metallurgy. A gold bead60 of the same shape as the silver bead from the Alepotrypa cave,61 which along with the gold strip from Zas62 and a piece of jewelry from Ftelia,63 are the only Neolithic gold objects in the Cyclades, probably indicating contact with regions such as Varna on the Black Sea. Also impressive are fragments of stone vases and other fine artefacts, indicating the high level of stone carving, as well as a variety of minor objects: bone tools (fig. 30), shell ladles (fig.

Fig. 29: Strofilas. Bronze dagger (photo C. A. Televantou) 30), jewellery made of vari- Fig. 30: Strofilas. Bone tools, shell ladles and spoons ous materials; stone, shells, (photo Helias Heliadis, photographer) fossilized sea-shell, clay, seals and a seal impression. Spindle whorls document the practice of spinning and cloth making, while imprints on the base of vases provide evidence of basketry.64

55 Televantou 2016a: 44-45, figs 5.12, 5.19. 56 Televantou 2006a: 10. 2008: 51, figs 6.17-19. 2017b: no 12, 41, 57 Televantou 2006a: 10-1, fig. 8a. 2008: 51. 2017b, nos 20, 46. 58 Renfrew 1967. Braningan 1974. Doumas 1986-89: 111-16. Zachos 1996a. Zachos- Douzougli 1999. 59 Televantou 2006a: 10, fig. 8a. Zachos 1996a: 142, of comparable size to dagger No. 182a, and in terms of type - but with a rib - it is comparable to no. 44a. 60 Televantou 2017b: no 12, 41. 61 Papathanasopoulos (ed.) 1996: 227, cat. no. 41c. 62 Ζachos 1987: 34. 1996a: 167, 340, cat. no. 304. 63 Sampson 2006b:206, fig.197. 64 Televantou 2006a: 11, fig. 8b-c. 2006b: fig. 182. 2008: 51, fig. 6.20-21.

163 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

In addition, several figurines were found65 made of stone and clay, of various types and categories, some of which indicate that the development of the Cycladic Culture had already started.66 Two pebble and multipartite types figurines, have parallels in the Neolithic Age, but are more common during the Early Bronze Age in the Cyclades, Crete and Northeast Aegean.67 Also important is the marble head with the long neck,68 found in a Late Neolithic level/Phase SB, which appears to be a sophisticated precur- sor of Early Cycladic figurines. Another figurine (fig. 31), also Fig. 31: Strofilas. Marble figurine of marble, of which only the (photo Helias Heliadis, photographer) body from the neck to the waist survives, resembles the Louros type69 and another one is of a “violin type” (fig. 32).70 The study of certain figurines from Strofilas showed that the ideological/religious perception in the Cyclades in the Final Neolithic period continued relatively unchanged during the Early Cycladic period but ex- pressed through the new conception that was animated by abstraction in the expressive means Fig. 32: Strofilas. Marble figurine (photo and concentra- Helias Heliadis, photographer) tion of meanings. It is also evident that Early Cy- cladic figurine production has a long tradition and finds direct ancestors in the Cycladic figurines from the Final Neolithic period, which in turn originate from even earlier figurines of the Late Neolithic I period, in the Cyclades and/or wider Aegean (fig. 33). In particular, types of Early Cy- cladic I figurines, such as pebble, multipartite, violin-like, Plastiras and Louros, preserved neolithic features which developed and continued into the subsequent Early Cycladic II sculpture (backward tilt, long neck, oval and triangular head, face without relief features). Consequently, this art started taking shape as early as Late Neolithic I-II and Fig. 33: The development of Cycladic figurines from FN continued to evolve uninterrupted into the Early to ECI period and Strofilas figurines (modified after Cycladic period.71 Sotirakopoulou P. «Ο Θησαυρός της Κέρου». Μύθος ή πραγματικότητα; Αναζητώντας τα χαμένα κομμάτια ενός αινιγματικού συνόλου. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation. 2005) 65 Televantou 2006a: 11, fig. 8b-c. 2006 b: Fig. 183. 2008, 53, figs 6.20, 6.22. 66 Televantou 2016a. 67 Televantou 2016a: 43, figs 5.8, 5.9. 68 Televantou 2008: fig. 22. Televantou 2016a: 45, fig. 5.13. 69 Televantou 2016a: 44, no. 8, fig. 5.11 70 Televantou 2016a: 44, no. 7, fig. 5.10. 71 Televantou 2016a.

164 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Rock-Art Representations Strofilas opened a large chapter on rock-art, broadening the horizons of iconography in the Prehistoric Aegean. Rock-art representations, usually linear and rarely figurative, many of which may be considered prehistoric, have been found scattered in many parts of Greece, such as Naxos,72 Herakleia,73 Astypalea,74 Crete,75 or the wider Pangaion region,76 in open rocky areas, rock shelters or caves, but not in an excavation context to substantiate their dating. Instead, Strofilas’ rock-art representations, in their majority, are directly linked to specific places and buildings, dating to the Late Neolithic period. This are why the Strofilas’ rock- art representations are so far unique composite samples of this art, dating to the Late Neo- lithic period and directly related to a particular settlement. In some cases, at least two layers of rock-art representations have been identified. The earlier ones, like a ring-idol motif, were already worn when new ones –jackal/human figure- were created proving continues and long use of the same area and motifs (found near the Gate at the Open-air worship place).Probably some of them, such as the Sanctuary’s (Area 2, fig. 9), could be placed on Late Neolithic I (Ph SA)(fig. 16), but it is certain that during the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic (Phase SB), fig. 16) rock-art had reached its peak with a wide-ranging, rich, iconographic vocabulary already formed and consolidated. Pecked or carved are very shallow (fig. 34), barely discernible, depending on the lighting condi- tions In the open air they are made more visible, suddenly and surprisingly, well shortly after sunrise or just before sunset, which may have given them a magic sense. When indoors, visibility would have been made possible by artificial lighting. It is clear that when they were created they would have been Fig. 34: Strofilas. Fortification Wall. The central more visible, while we cannot exclude the use of bastion with rock art representation of a flotilla of pigment, perhaps white, for a more painterly effect. four ships (photo/design by C. A. Televantou) They are located on the façade of the Wall and in the rocky area of the Open-air worship place (Area 1), in the rocky floor of the Sanctuary (Area 2), and in various parts of the settlement have not yet been excavated and therefore, we do not know their relation to a specific area or building (fig. 9).77 It seems that they served two basic needs of the community; the promotion of Strofilas’ naval domination and the religion, which were probably directly related to the administration.

Rock-Art Representations on the façade of the Fortification Wall A series of representations is found on the façade of the Fortification Wall, which was treated as a single surface, in the form of an early frieze.78

72 Bardanis 1988/89. 73 Kanakis 2010. 74 Vlachopoulos 2013: 51-2, figs 2- 3 a,b. 75 Papoutsakis 1972. Zois 1973. Faure 1972. 76 Moutsopoulos 1965. 1969. 77Televantou 2006a: 6. 2008: 46. 78Televantou 2006a: 7. 2008: 47-8. 2018b.

165 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

The main subject is the ship, with more than twenty ships depicted, in a “procession”, in successive rows or alone, moving towards the Gate and may have been ‘sign posts’ for the entrance to the settlement. At the central bastion there is a representation of a flotilla of four ships, two with a flag, a scene that appears to reflect a reality of the time for collective maritime activity, such as fishing and trade (fig. 34). Also on the west side of the Gate there is representation of a boat, most probably sailing and a fish.

Rock-Art Representations in the Area 1 outside the Wall -Open-air worship place- (fig. 9) In an area of approx. 1,200 sqm between the Wall and the so-called “outwork” the downward sloping rock has stepped fronts on most of its surface, many of which were formed by quarrying. It is cracked and most of the fissures were filled in with clay to level the surface. On the flat and smooth surfaces, horizontal or vertical, there are rock-art representations, especially dense near the Gate and the baetyl (see below) (fig. 35). The ship theme also dominates this area, since it is depicted dozens of times in various sizes and categories (fig. 34).

Strofilas’ ships79 The more than 100 ship depictions are significant not only for artistic and symbolic reasons, but also because they give important new infor- Fig. 35: Strofilas. The large sacred stone, probably a mation about the high level of neolithic shipbuilding. baetyl near the Gate (photo C. A. Televantou) The shape of the hull of Strofilas' boats is mainly crescent with up to (15) schematically represented oarsmen; they are 0.08m to 0.30m long, while one ship is half a metre long. They are represented on their own or in groups of up to eight ships in a flotilla. Some ships carry a flag, indicating an or- ganization in their op- erations, while one is laden with two goats, suggesting the transport or trade of animals (Fig. 36). Fig. 36: Strofilas. Rock art representation of a ship laden with two goats and a dog In the wider (photo N. Xenikakis, design by C. A. Televantou) Aegean there are depictions of ships since the Palaeolithic period.80 The subject is encountered in Strofilas for the first time the neolithic iconography of the Cyclades. Neolithic ship models were found at Fte-

79 Televantou 2018b: 50-52, figs 4a, 9a, 10a-b, 11a-b, 12a-b, 13, 14a. 80 Andreou, El. and Andreou, I., 2017: 46, 50 , figs 45, 53.

166 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

lia81 and elsewhere in Greece.82 In Early Cycladic iconography, depictions of ships occur on pottery, mainly frying-pan vessels, on rock-art representations from the Korfi t’ Aroniou on Naxos83 and on a rock-art representation in a quarry on Siphnos,84 while even the scenes on the rock-art representations from Astypalea seem to belong to the sphere of the Early Cy- cladic civilization.85 The Strofilas ships change the perception that only small and very simple ships, that is small dugout boats, existed in the Neolithic Aegean. There is a diversity of ships in terms of size and categories, with smaller or larger crews, a cabin or a type of rudder. Besides, it is rea- sonable to assume that places with abundant timber, such as Andros, would have contributed to the development of shipbuilding and of course to whatever else it entails. Their morpho- logical traits, in conjunction with other architectural characteristics, potentially indicate a more complex type of watercraft than a longboat. Hence, at Strofilas an advanced boatbuilding tradition is attested possibly with fully or partially plank-built spacious, seagoing vessels, able to traverse long distances and withstand rough sea and forces of the external environment.86 Furthermore, the large number of ship representations indicates that it was Strofilas’ special emblem, emphasizing the settlement’s maritime character, to which Strofilas owed its development and power. Between the ships there are numerous motifs, symbolic, linear and some unidentified. Frequent is the ring-idol motif of the known type of Neolithic figurines (fig. 37). It has been considered as a religious symbol, a schematic representation of the human figure, especially the female, or possibly even a symbol of the deity herself.87 It is depicted in various sizes and types, sometimes in clusters. It is considered an amulet; however in a scene from a rock-art representation from Plaka on Andros it is depicted Fig. 37: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock strapped around a wrist.88Also is a symbol of art representations of ring idol type motifs, and a phallus motif (photo C. A. Televantou) the international communication code of the time and is found in the Peloponnese (Alepo- trypa), the Balkans and at Varna on the Black Sea.89 In Greece it was known until recently from the Neolithic pottery from Dimini, as well as from the few stone, clay, silver and gold finds from various regions.90 With the Neolithic treasure of the National Archaeological Mu- seum of unknown origin,91 the number increased. Four such stone ring-idol motifs were found

81 Sampson 2002: 126, fig. 132, pl. 23,3-4. 82Marangou 1992: fig. 937. Papathanasopoulos (ed.) 1996: no. 270. 83Broodbank 2000: 96-101, fig.23. 84 Weisgerber 1985: 107,109, abb: 102. Sotirakopoulou 2000: 81-102. 85 Vlachopoulos 2013. 86 Tzovaras 2018. 87 Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001: 54-56. 88 Televantou 2006a: 12-13. 2016a: 47, figs 5.15-16 . 89 Makkay 1985. 1989. 90 Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001. 91 Demakopoulou 1999.

167 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

at Strofilas,92 until recently unique in the Cyclades. One bronze is found at Ftelia on Myko- nos.93 These mobile finds, combined with the large number of rock-art representations,94 show the deeply-rooted, stable and established relationship between the inhabitants and this symbol. One could question the origin of the symbol, as well as the place of origin of the treasure in the National Archaeological Museum, which may well be Strofilas.95 In the early Bronze Age, apparently as part of the evolution of the religious and worship needs seems to have started, in the Cyclades the schematic representation of the Μother Goddess -ring-idol motif- was transformed into a large movable sacred vessel, the so-called frying pan,96 some of which show evidence of the female gender, such as the pubes/triangle. It seems that the dominant quality of the goddess determined its accompanying symbols. This is suggested by a group of frying-pan vessels which have on their surface the main motifs/symbols interconnected, i.e. the ship, the fish and the spiral. 97 The emphasis on a sea-related deity, protector of maritime activities and seafarer that appears in Strofilas’ rock engravings seems to become dominant in the island region of the Cyclades during the early Bronze Age. The phallus motif, which to date occurs six times, twice together with the ring-idol motif, symbolizes the male presence (figs 37-38).98 The motif is often found in Neolithic jewelry from Thessaly, while there are also models in clay or stone.99 Triangles of various sizes are rendered in outline and full of small depressions, probably indicating the pubes (fig. 38), used in the Neo- lithic era as a female symbol,100 while it appears that they were used similarly in the Early Bronze Age on the Early Cycladic frying- pan vessels.101 There are numerous footprints, usually in pairs or in series of pairs, which probably indicate human presence (fig. 38).102 This subject is found on the Early Cy- cladic rock-art representations of Naxos.103 The small cavities motif, Fig. 38: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall.Wall. RockRock artart representationsrepresentations usually in spiral arrangement, is of triangles, phallus and footprints motifs (photo C. C. A. A. Televantou) Televantou) represented many times in various

92 Televantou 2008: fig. 6.20. 2016a: 39-43, figs 5.1-5.4 93 Sampson 2002. 2006a. Psarros 2017. 94 Televantou 2016a: 40, fig. 5a–b. 95 Demakopoulou1999. Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001: 54-6. 96 Televantou 2006a. 2008: 49, fig. 6.10. 2016a:42-43, fig. 5.7. 97 Otto 1977: 133-7, figs 80, 120.1. Coleman 1985: fig. 5. 98 Televantou 2018b: 48, fig. 3. 99 Kyparissi-Apostolica 2001: 58-9, figs 2-17, 24, 33:14, 15, 24. Demakopoulou 1999: no. 36, 77-80. 100 e.g. Papathanasopoulos 1996 (ed.): no. 223. 101 Renfrew 1972: 420-1, 527-8. Coleman 1977b. 1985. Barber 1994: 92-3. 102 Televantou 2018b: 48, figs 5a-b, 11a-b, 17a-b, 18a-b. 103 Bardanis 1988/89.

168 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

sizes. It may symbolize the sea and is a connecting element of the individual representations.104 It is a common theme of Early Cycladic rock-art representations, e.g. on a rock from Moutsouna on Naxos105 and Herakleia.106 The linear motifs include the open run- ning spiral,107 the spiral108 and the meander (fig. 39).109 The spiral is a common subject in Early Bronze Age rock-art representations, e.g. Naxos,110 Herakleia111 and Astypalea.112 The meander is continuous, in columnar form and is a motif that is found on rock-art representations for the first time. It is found on Neolithic pottery, incised,113 painted,114 as well as on seals.115 This area also has representations with figural motifs and remarkable individual naturalistic scenes of a narrative character. Also represented are deer,116 felines, Fig. 39: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art probably jackals, and marine animals, such as representations of meander motif (photo C. A. Televantou) fish117 and possibly an octopus. A large representation shows a herd of carnivores, probably wolves or jackals, hunting deer (fig.40).118 In total there are nineteen animals.119 A “Large ship” half a metre long with ten oarsmen and a Fig. 40: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art representations of a herd of carnivores, probably wolves or jackals, hunting deer (photo/design by C. A. Televantou) hook-like ram on the

104 Televantou 2018b: 48, figs 2, 10b, 11a-b, 12c, 20a-b. 105 Doumas 1990: 159, no. 164. 106 Filaniotou 2005: fig. 427. Kanakis 2010: figs 10, 14-6, 20-2. 107 Televantou 2018b: 49, fig 1a-b. 108 Televantou 2018b: fig. 7a-b. 109 Televantou 2018b, 49: figs 7a-b, 8. 110 Doumas 1990: 158, no. 164. 111 Kanakis 2010: figs 9, 11-3, 17-9, 21. 112 Vlachopoulos 2013: 51-2, fig. 3a,b. 113e.g.Final Neolithic period: Thessaly, Papathanasopoulos 1996 (ed.): 263-4, no. 116. 114 e.g. Thessaly, Theocharis 1981: fig. 22. 115 Thessaly, Theocharis 1981: 66-7. Onassoglou 1996: 165, no. 283. 116 Televantou 2018b: 48, figs 17a, c, 6-b, 15a-b. 117 Televantou 2018b: 59-60, figs 20a-b. 118 Televantou 2006a: fig. 6a. 2006b: fig. 177. 2018b: 119 Televantou 2018b: 54-59, figs 13, 15a-b,17a-c.

169 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

prow, perhaps associated with fishing, accompanied by smaller ships and vessels, some of which appear to be in the safety of a rocky bay. One rock-art representation appears to depict a human figure. A ring-idol motif near the ship may indicate di- vine protection (fig. 41).120 There is also a ship laden with two goats (fig. 36) and a barking dog present.121 Of particular importance is the depiction of human figures (seven) for the first time, the earliest so far in rock-art representations. Their height ranges between 0,17.5-0.28m. Five of the figures are involved in hunting scenes of wild animals, probably jackals (7), holding a bat. One of them appears to have Fig. 41: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art representations of killed a bovine, as shown by the the “Large Ship” horns, and straddles the prey as (Photo, up/design by C. A. Televantou, photo, dawn N. Xenikakis) if riding (fig. 42). The same view appears to have been used in a scene with two dancers (fig. 43). Most importantly, it is certain that there are earlier rock-art representations, some of which were damaged long before the last rock-art representations were created, proving that the area was used over a long period of time. The new hunting scenes along with the older scenes revealed con- firm that depicted in this particular area of the settlement (covering ± 1,200sq. m) were symbolic and naturalistic motifs associated with the worldview and religious beliefs of the community at Strofilas, e.g. “goddess,” ring-idol motifs, Fig. 42: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art representations of a hunter (photo C. A. Televantou)

120 Televantou 2018b:50, 60, fig. 11a-b. In the printed volume of Paintbrushes (Televantou 2018b) the "Large Ship" of Strofilas erroneously appears as "Longboat". For the corrected version of the article, see Christina Televantou - Academia.edu. 121 Televantou 2018b: 53, fig. 12a-b.

170 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

phallus motifs and triangular motifs, subjects relating to the environment-fauna: e.g. jackals, deer, and to human activities, e.g. maritime trade/hunting. Near the Gate is a representation of human figure or an anthropomorphic ‘effigy’ (0.45m high), possibly representing a deity (Fig. 44a-b). The head and rectangular body are rendered with circular depressions, which may symbolize the sea. The variation in size, depth and arrangement, gives the feeling of a garment’s folds. A wave-like cutting starts from the head like a band. The right hand is rendered as a right angle, and seems to hold something, possibly animals (goats?), in an early form of a Mistress of Animals [Potnia Theron].122

Fig. 43: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art representations of a couple of dancers (photo C. A. Televantou)

Fig. 44a-b: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art representations of human figure or an anthropomorphic “effigy” in an early form of a Mistress of Animals [Potnia Theron] (photo C. A. Televantou, design by Katerina Mavragani, painter)

122 Televantou 2018b: 62.

171 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Also close to the Gate, the ships, ring-idol motifs, human footprints and the cavities are combined with a rendition of the seabed with jellyfish (?) and two dolphins, a large one and a smaller one beneath the first one’s head, in a mother-infant scene (fig. 45).123 Near these dense and highly significant representations, in a conspicuous position at the entrance to the settlement, in a specially designed area, is large boulder (1.22m tall) mounted on a stone structure. It appears to be a sign or marker, probably a baetyl (fig. 35). The large boulder apparently placed in a conspicuous position at the entrance to the settlement and surrounded inter alia by a multitude of symbolic and figurative subjects. The space appears to have been designated for open-air worship, related to nature, the sea, as well as fertility, as indicated by the phallic motifs, the numerous triangles indicating the pubes and Fig. 45: Strofilas, Area 1 outside (north) the Wall. Rock art representation the ring-idol motifs, symbol of a of dolphins in a mother-infant scene (photo C. A. Televantou) female deity. Although the study of rock-art in progress, however we believe that the representations, pictorial and symbolic, suggest that the site was dedicated to a polymorphic female deity, probably the Mother God- dess of fertility, protector of nature as well as community activities on land and particularly at sea. Generally, the initial impression is that the area outside and bordering the defensive wall was important for the settlement. It appears that epitomized here, and especially near the Gate, is the residents’ worldview on important aspects of life, such as religion and fertility, as well as the maritime character of the settlement, depicted with symbolic and naturalistic elements. It is possible that various related events took place in the area. It may also have had an apotropaic function, for the protection of the settlement, and the possibility that part of the west slope of the plateau, where the settlement probably extended to, was equally important cannot be ruled out, as shown by the surface rock-art representations depicting the same subjects (ship, human sole and ring-idol motif). Similar rock-art representations at Vryokas- tro and Plaka on Andros may have played the same role.

123 Televantou 2018b: 60, fig. 21a.

172 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

The large Open-air worship place seems to be destined for religious events attended and/or watched by many people. Such events would be the invocation of the deity, ritual prayer gestures, dance and libations. On the contrary, it seems that the Sanctuary, in Area 2, at least in its last phase, could give access to a very limited number of people.

Sanctuary/Area 2 (fig. 9) The hall of the Sanctuary, 100 sqm, is surrounded on its three sides by important buildings; the Megaron (south), Apsidal Building 1(east) and Building Z (north) and on the fourth (west) side by a corridor. Its interior is divided into two parts and levels. In the south part, which is approximately one third of the room, there is an elevated terraced earthen white floor with large circular stone construction at the centre, 2m in diameter. A stone bench runs along the south side. In the cavity there was a small pebbled figurine, probably an offering. The two lower levels are of red clay. In the remaining space, 70sqm in area, at the level of the bedrock, a monumental rock-art representation lies around a large cutting, the larger and possibly the main/central part of the initial one. The cutting as well as numerous of small cavities that are scattered around probably used for placing offerings. Two themes dominate the representation, the ring- idol motif, symbol of female divinity, depicted more than forty times in various sizes and directions, singly or in groups (fig. 46), and small cavities in spiral arrangement, the symbol of the water element and especially of the sea. Illustration of duck also indicates the aquatic element. The only spiral in this representation, as a symbol of perpetual motion connected to the sea, has a ring-idol theme in the center, surrounded by others. The symbol of sea and a large fish frame the large cutting where the offers lied. The human presence is reflected in the footprint repeated individually or in groups. With four ships, one loaded with an animal, the maritime activities of the community are declared. Fig. 46: Strofilas, Area 2, Sanctuary. Rock art representations of ring A series of important features idol type motifs and a spiral (photo/design by C. A. Televantou) in the large room point towards a structured area used for ceremonial purposes, i.e. the sanctuary of a community. In particular, its special location in the settlement amongst the major structures, its size (±100sqm), its internal arrangement with a cyclical construction, the bench, the large cutting, the small offering cavities and of course the large rock-art representation, which combines pictorial (fish, duck,

173 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

boat) and widespread symbolic motifs (ring-idol motif and human soles, clusters of small cavities).124 There are significant differences between the rock-art representations of the two sanc- tuaries. Here there are no symbols or any other theme apparently related to fertility. There are also no depictions of wildlife, except for a duck, directly related to water. The meander is also absent. Only marine activities are declared. It appears that the sanctuary in question would be dedicated exclusively to the goddess's worship in relation to the sea. The large Open-air worship place, in Area 1, seems to be destined for religious events attended and/or watched by many people. Such events would be the invocation of the deity, ritual prayer gestures, dance and libations. It may also have had an apotropaic function, for the protection of the settlement. Οn the contrary, it seems that the Sanctuary, in Area 2, at least in its last phase, could give access to a very limited number of people (fig. 9).

Rock-art representations of Strofilas The complex rock-art representation of the sanctuary and the others at Strofilas, are the oldest monumental works of art in the Aegean and open new horizons for the study of this form of art, expanding the horizons of Cycladic prehistory and iconography.125 The fact that there are neolithic rock-art representations at the Vryokastro settlement on Andros,126 exe- cuted in the same technique and with the same subjects (e.g. ship, cavities) shows that it was widely used, and similar finds are expected to be uncovered at other sites in the Cyclades. There are extensive rock-art representations in the prehistoric settlement of Plaka on An- dros,127 which based on the evidence so far was abandoned during the early Middle Cycladic period. The technique and subjects -ship, human sole, ring-idol motif-128 show that many are contemporary with Strofilas, whose inhabitants seem to have moved there towards the end of the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic- beginning of Early Bronze Age. The apparently advanced iconography, with the depiction of a human portrait surrounded by Neolithic motifs/symbols attests the continuation and enrichment of this art and by extension of iconography in general.129 There are also strong counterparts (in terms of technique, scale, general aesthetics, individual subjects - ship with animals) with representations on stones from Korfi t’ Aroniou on Naxos, which according to the excavator Christos Doumas date to the Early Cycladic II period, based on the finds from the adjacent apsidal stone-built huts,130 to which they probably be- longed.131However, more recent rock-art representations, such as those from Plaka on An- dros, from Naxos and Astypalea,132 as well as scattered and difficult to date examples in the countryside of Naxos133 and other islands,134 show that this form of art continued during the Early Bronze Age.

124 Televantou 2018b: figs 1a-b, 2a-b, 4a 125 Televantou 2013a. 126 Televantou 2006a. 127 Televantou 2006a. 2018b. 128 Televantou 2016a: 46-48, figs 5.15-18. 129 Televantou 2016a: 6-47, figs 5.15-16. 130 Doumas 1964. 1965. 1990. 131 Sanctuary: Lambrinoudakis 1990. 132 Vlachopoulos 2013. 133 Bardanis 1988/89.

174 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

A rich iconographic vocabulary is used at Strofilas, with symbolic, linear and pictorial motifs, as well as individual narrative scenes, which appear for the first time. Many find parallels in the pictorial art of the Bronze Age, another important element that points to its be- ginnings in Neolithic rock-art representations. Shows that the prehistoric iconography of the Cyclades, regardless of the material (rock, stone, pottery, metal, plaster, etc.) or the related technique of execution (pecking, incising, painting, relief), retains as background basic elements of an iconographic vocabulary that was formed through time in line with cultural, technological and other developments, which are deeply rooted at least in the Final Neolithic period. Show that the Neolithic artists laid the foundations of the iconographic vocabulary and spatial management in composite scenes long before the development of pictorial art in the Cyclades, in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (e.g. pottery, wall-paintings), with symbolic linear and pictorial motifs, and narrative scenes, putting down the roots of pictorial art in prehistoric Cyclades.135

Character and structure of the settlement Taking into consideration the part of Strofilas that has been excavated until now de- tected traces that could define the settlement’s character and structures (figs 9, 47).136 These can be distinguished into two basic categories:

Fig. 47: Strofilas, Hypothetical reconstruction of the settlement (Paola Kaloniati, Architect Dipl NTUA)

a. Direct traces. - Large extent, dense urban area, large buildings.

134 e.g. Herakleia, Filaniotou 2005. Kanakis 2010. 135 Televantou 2018b. 136 Televantou 2016b.

175 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

- Proof of urban planning. Inherent elements attest to a simultaneous construction of the Wall, Building Z, and a strong oblique wall by which it becomes evident that part of the settlement was ab initio defined for public buildings (i.e. apart from Building Z, the Sanctuary, Building B/Megaron, Apsidal 1) and possibly the residences of distinguished members of the community. - Works of collective character for community use: Wall, Sanctuary, Open-air worship place.

b. Indirect traces. - Concentration of population. - Prosperity of the community (e.g. large buildings, objects of high technological standards). - Craft specialization: marine craftsmanship, i.e. shipbuilding/seafaring, fishing, trading, and building technology, as well as rock-art, pottery etc. - Works of collective character demand central planning for a number of individual features -form, decoration- in combination with land -planning- site, extent, and construction/configuration by collective involvement-. - Extensive rock-art, also the works of collective character, demanding central planning (suggesting of their character/function, giving information on various sectors -i.e. religion, economy, activities, nature/animal life- and exercising a type of community propaganda), as well as execution by specialized crafts- men/artists (use of developed, widely-spread code of communication – symbolic, linear, figurative themes-, a rich iconographic vocabulary). - Building B/Megaron: due to its size, form and its proximity to the sanctuary, it may have served as the residence of a leader or/as well as a gathering place for members of the community. -Numerous depictions of ships (in rock-art): suggest significant seafaring / fishing / trading activities and attest to the settlement’s maritime character. Most probably maritime activities constituted its chief source of wealth that made possible the accumulation of goods and the exchanges of various kinds and distinguished Strofilas as a powerful settlement; such activities demanded community control, which adopted the use of the “ship,” as its symbol. Overall, the above mentioned traces, within the frames of the Aegean Final Neolithic, could be characterized as “early proto-urban” features that pre-suppose a model of a hierar- chical society. They attest to a maritime character for the settlement of Strofilas, suggestive of an emergence of early proto-urban structures.

Conclusions A number of factors make Strofilas unique in the Cyclades and the surrounding geographical region. •The large area of the settlement, along with its dense layout and large buildings, as well as the abundance of high-quality finds. •The communal projects, such as the fortification, the Megaron (fig. 48), the Sanctuary, the Open-air worship place and the extensive rock-art representations.

176 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

•The advanced technology in many fields (e.g. construction, stonework, metalwork). •The extensive rock art representations in communal areas where a use of a formulated iconographic vocabulary of pictorial subjects combined with other widespread symbols, i.e. a code of communication for the period, that seems to reflect the worldview of the inhabitants of Strofilas, and the Aegean in general. Moreover, it emphasizes the maritime character by depicting the ship, a symbol of the community, more than a hundred times. Strofilas, a large prehistoric fortified settlement, founded at Late Neolithic I period and had great growth during the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic period. The evidence so far suggests that there was little activity until the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age only in Apsidal 1, perhaps in relation to the neighboring Sanctuary as the ancestral locus Sanctus. It was abandoned at the end of the period, apparently not due to violent causes. It is possible that the inhabitants of Strofilas moved south, to the promontory of Plaka, where a large settlement developed in the Early and Middle Bronze Age.137 The evidence also indicates that Strofilas was a thriving early proto-urban settlement of maritime character, which undoubtedly played an important role in a wider network of smaller and/or similar-sized settlements during the Final Neolithic period. In conclusion Strofilas reveals a new picture about Neolithic Aegean and especially during the Late Neolithic II/Final Neolithic period. It shows that an advanced culture took shape in the Cyclades, with large organized maritime societies and similar settlements with early urban structures, which were the basis for the subsequent cultural developments of the Bronze Age.

137 Τελεβάντου 2006a:12-13, figs 9-10.

177 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Bibliography

Alvanou, M. (ed.). 2013. Νησιωτικές ταυτότητες. Η συμβολή της Γενικής Γραμματείας Αιγαίου και Νησιωτικής Πολιτικής στην έρευνα και ανάδειξη του πολιτισμού του αρχιπελάγους. Mitilini. Andreou, El. and Andreou, I., 2017. Ίμβρος: Ένα μικρό νησί με μεγάλη ιστορία. Athens: Patakis Publication. Aslanis, Ι. 1998. Η πρώτη εμφάνιση οχυρώσεων σε προϊστορικούς οικισμούς του αιγαιακού χώρου in Mendoni, L. G. and Mazarakis Ainian, Α. Ι. (eds), Κέα - Κύθνος: Ιστορία και Αρχαιολογία: 109-17. Athens. Barber, R. 1994. Οι Κυκλάδες στην Εποχή του Χαλκού. Athens. Bardanis, Μ. 1988/89. Στοιχεία από τις αστρονομικές γνώσεις των προϊστορικών Κυκλαδιτών, Απειραθίτικα 3: 434-40. Benecke, J. 1942. Steinzeitdorfer in den Ebenen am Olymp, newspaper Volkischer Beobachter 18-2- 1942: 6. Bernabò-Brea, L. 1964. Poliochni I, 1. Roma. Bossert, Ε. Μ. 1967. Kastri auf Syros, AΔ 22, Μελέται: 53-76. Braningan, Κ. 1974. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Brodie, N., Doole, J., Gavalas, G. and Renfrew, C. (eds.), 2008. Orizon, A colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, Mc Donald Institute Monographs, Stavros Niarchos Foundation. Cambridge. Βroodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge. Coleman, J. E. 1977a. Kephala, a Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery, Keos I. Princeton. Coleman, J. E. 1977b. Early Cycladic Clay Vessels in Thimme and Getz-Preziozi (eds.) 1977: 109-17. Coleman, J. E. 1985. Frying pans” of the Early Bronze Age Aegean, AJA 89: 191-219. Demakopoulou, Κ. 1975. Ειδήσεις από τη Θήβα: Ανεύρεση πρωτοελλαδικού οικοδομήματος, ΑΑΑ VIII, Β΄: 192-9. Demakopoulou, Κ. (ed.).1999. Κοσμήματα της ελληνικής προϊστορίας. Ο Νεολιθικός θησαυρός. Athens. Doumas, Ch. 1964. Νάξος, ΑΔ 19: 411-2. Doumas, Ch. 1965. Κορφή τ’Αρωνιού, ΑΔ 20, Μελέται: 41-64. Doumas, Ch. 1977. Early Cycladic Architecture in Thimme and Getz-Preziosi (eds.): 31-2. Doumas, Ch. 1986-1989. Η πρώιμη μεταλλουργία στο Αιγαίο, Ίδρυμα Ν. Π. Γουλανδρή - Μουσείο Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης, Διαλέξεις: 111-116. Athens. Doumas, Ch. 1990. Λιθοτεχνία – Μαρμαρογλυπτική in Maragou L. (ed.): 158-160. Athens. Doumas N. G. and Rosa V. (eds). 1997. Proceedings of the Congress Η Πολιόχνη και η πρώιμη εποχή του Χαλκού. Athens. Dova, A. 1997a. Μύρινα Λήμνου: Οι αρχαιότερες φάσεις του οικισμού in Doumas αnd La Rosa (eds.): 282-97. Dova, A. 1997b. Η Λήμνος κατά τους προϊστορικούς χρόνους in Mendoni. 1997 (ed.): 23-6. Athens. Douzougli, A. 1998. ΄Αρια Αργολίδος. Χειροποίητη κεραμική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής και της Χαλκολιθικής περιόδου. Athens. Evans, J.D.-Renfrew, C. 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos, Oxford. Faure, P. 1972. Cultes populaires dans la Crète antique, BCH 96: 406-407. Felsch R.C.S. 1988. Das KastroTigani, Die spatneolithische und chalcolitische Sied.lung, Samos II. Efstratiou, Ν. 2013. Η προϊστορική εγκατάσταση του Ούρικου στη Λήμνο. Η ανασκαφή του Α.Π.Θ. σε μια κυνηγετική κατασκήνωση του τέλους της Παλαιολιθικής στο Αιγαίο in Alvanou 2013 (ed.): 18-9. Gallis, K. 1996. Habitation. Thessaly-The northern Sporades in Papathanasopoulos (ed.): 61-6. Immerwahr, S.A. 1971. The Neolithic and the Bronze Ages, The Athenian Agora Vol. XIII. Cluckstadt. Ioannidou, Κ. 1973. Εκ Λιανοκλαδίου Φθιώτιδος, ΑΑΑ VI: 395-401. Hadjianastasiou, O. 1987. A Late Neolithic Settlement at Grotta, Naxos, in E. B. French and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory: 11-20, Bristol. Hood, S. 1981. Prehistoric Emporio and Hagio Gala, BSA Suppl. 15, London.

178 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Katsarou, S. and Schilardi D. A. 2004. Emerging neolithic and Early Cycladic Settlements in Paros: Koukounaries and Sklavouna. BSA 99: 23-48. Katsarou, S. and Schilardi D. A. 2006. Η νεολιθική κατοίκηση στις Κουκουναριές Πάρου in Sampson 2006a (ed.):194-8. Katsarou, S. and Schilardi, D. A. 2008. Some Reflectionsom EC Domestic Space Arising from Observations at Koukounaries, Paros in Brodie, Doole, Gavalas, and Renfrew (eds.): 61-70. Koutsoukou, Α. 1993. Αρχαιολογική επιφανειακή έρευνα στη βορειοδυτική Άνδρο, Ανδριακά Χρονικά 21: 99-104. Kakavogianni, O. (ed.). 2003. Αρχαιολογικές έρευνες στη Μερέντα Μαρκοπούλου, στον χώρο κατασκευής του νέου ιπποδρόμου και του Oλυμπιακού Ιππικού Κέντρου. Athens: Tubis. Kakavogianni, O. 2008. Αττική. Ιστορικό και αρχαιολογικό περίγραμμα. Προϊστορικοί Χρόνοι in Vlachopoulos (ed.) 2008: 94-103. Kanakis, Ch. 2010. Οι επίκρουστες σπείρες της Ηρακλειάς, Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνη, τεύχος 114: 76-82. Kotsakis, K. 1996. The coastal settlements of Thessaly στο Papathanasopoulos (ed.): 49-57. Kyparissi-Apostolica, Α. 2001. Τα προϊστορικά κοσμήματα της Θεσσαλίας, Athens. Kyparissi-Apostolica, Α. 2008. Σπήλαια και σπηλαιοπεριβάλλον. Τα σπήλαια και η χρήση τους από τον άνθρωπο in Vlachopoulos (ed.): 24-41. Lamb, W. 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos, Cambridge. Lambrinoudakis, V. 1990. Θρησκεία in Maragou (ed.): 99-104. MacGillivray, J.A. 1980. Mount Kynthos in Delos. The Early Cycladic Settlement, BCH 104: 3-45. Makkay, J. 1985. Diffussionism, Antidiffussionism and Chronology:Some General Remarks, Acta Archttung 37: 3-12. Makkay, J. 1989. The Tiszaszolos Treausure, Akadimiai Kiado in Puplishing House of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budabest. Maragou, L. (ed.). 1990. Κυκλαδικός Πολιτισμός. Η Νάξος στην 3η π.Χ. χιλιετία. Athens. Marangou, C. 1992. Figurines et miniatures du Neolithique Recent et du Bronze Ancien en Grece, British Archaeological Reports, Inter. Series 57. Oxford. Marangou, L. 1994. Νέες μαρτυρίες για τον Κυκλαδικό Πολιτισμό στην Αμοργό in ΘΗΓΟΣ, Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Σωτήριο Δάκαρη: 467-8. Athens. Marangou, L. 2002. Αμοργός Ι. Η Μινώα. Η πόλις, ο λιμήν και η μείζων περιφέρεια. Athens. Marangou, L. 2008. Markiani on Amorgos: an Early Bronze Age Fortified. Settlement – Overniew of the 1985-91 Invastigations in Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew (eds.): 97-105. Marthari, Μ. 1997. Από τον Σκάρκο στην Πολιόχνη, in Doumas and La Rosa (eds.): 362-81. Mendoni, L. (ed.). 1997. ΠΟΛΙΟΧΝΗ, ΛΗΜΝΩΙ ΕΝ ΑΜΙΧΘΑΛΟΕΣΣΣΥΗΙ. Ένα κέντρο της πρώιμης εποχής του Χαλκού στο βόρειο Αιγαίο. Athens. Moutsopoulos, Ν. 1965. Νεολιθικό ακιδογράφημα στις όχθες της Χειμαδίτιδας λίμνης και το δίδυμο μενχίρ του Πελεκάνου, Αρχαιολογία, τεύχος 56: 39-45. Moutsopoulos, Ν. 1969. Τα ακκιδογραφήματα του Παγγαίου. Athens. Onassoglou. A. 1996. Seals in Papathanassopoulos (ed.): 163-4. Otto, B. 1977. The Ornamental Motifs of the Cycladic Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages in Thimme and Getz-Preziosi (eds.): 129-140. Pantelidou-Gofa, M. 1991. Η Νεολιθική Νέα Μάκρη, Τα οικοδομικά. Athens. Pantelidou-Gofa, M. 1995. Η Νεολιθική Νέα Μάκρη, Η κεραμεική. Athens. Pantelidou-Gofa, Μ. 1997. Η νεολιθική Αττική. Athens. Papageorgiou, D. 2008. Sea Routes in the Prehistoric Cyclades in Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew (eds.): 9-11. Papathanassopoulos, G. A. 1981. Neolithic and Cycladic Civilization. Athens. Papathanassopoulos, G. A. (ed.) 1996. Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens. Paputsakis, C.1972. Οι βραχογραφίες στ’Ασφέντου των Σφακίων, Κρητικά Χρονικά 24:107-39. Philaniotou, O. 2005. Ηρακλειά in A. Vlachopoulos (ed.) 2005, Αρχαιολογία. Νησιά του Αιγαίου, «Μέλισσα» Publcations: 289, figure 427. Athens.

179 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilization: the Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London. Psarros, M. 2017. Entrie no. 1, in D. Athanassoulis (s. ed.) Vanity. Exhibition Catalogue. Athens, 36. Renfrew, C.1967. Cycladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age, AJA 71: 1-20. Renfrew, C. 1977. The Typology and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Sculpture, in Thimme and Getz-Preziosi (eds.): 69-71. Renfrew, C. 1991. Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces from the Nicholas Goulandris Collection. New York. Sampson, A.1979. ΠΕ2 οικισμοί στη Μουρτερή Κύμης, ΑΑΑ ΧΙ: 245-56. Sampson, A. 1987. Η Νεολιθική περίοδος στα Δωδεκάνησα. Athens. Sampson, A. 2002. The Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos, University of the Aegean, Department of Mediterranean Studies. Rhodes. Sampson, A. 2006a (ed.). Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου. Παλαιολιθική - Μεσολιθική – Νεολιθική. Atrapos. Athens. Sampson, A. 2006b. Νεολιθική περίοδος. Κυκλάδες. Ο οικισμός της Φτελιάς Μυκόνου in Sampson 2006a (ed.): 173-84. Sampson, A. 2008. The Architectural Phases of the Neolithic Settlement of Ftelia on Mykonos in Brodie, Doole, Gavalas, and Renfrew (eds.): 29-35. Sotirakopoulou, P. 1989. The Earliest History of Akrotiri: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Phases,in D.A.Hardy with C.G.Doumas, J.A.Sakellarakis, P.M. Warren( eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international congress “Thera and the Aegean World III” 3-9 September 1989, III, Volume One: Archaeology, Santorini, Greece, 41-7. Sotirakopoulou, P. 1998b. Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Η Νεολιθική και η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού επι τη βάσει της κεραμεικής. Athens. Sotirakopoulou, P., 2000. Η Σίφνος κατά την πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού. Πρακτικά Α΄ Διεθνούς Σιφναϊκού Συμποσίου, Σίφνος 25-28 Ιουνίου 1998, Τόμος Α΄, Αρχαίοι Χρόνοι. / Proceedings of the First International Sifnean Symposium, Sifnos 25-28 June 1998, Volume 1, Antiuqity. Athens: Society for Sifnean Studies, pp. 81-102 Televantou, C.H. 2001. Στρόφιλας. Ένας νεολιθικός οικισμός στην Άνδρο, ΑΓΚΥΡΑ 1: 203-11.Andros. Televantou, C.H. 2006a. Προϊστορική Άνδρος in N. Stampolidis (ed.), Γεννέθλιον, Ιδρυμα Ν.Π. Γουλανδρή. Μουσείο Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης: 1-16. Athens. Televantou, C.H. 2006b. Ο οικισμός του Στρόφιλα στην Άνδρο in Sampson (ed.): 185-94. Televantou, C.A. 2008. Strofilas - A Neolithic Settlement on Andros in Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew (eds.): 43-53. Televantou, C.A. 2013. The Neolithic settlement at Strofilas, Andros: Expanding the horizons of Cycladic prehistory and iconography in M. Marthari (ed.), Cycladic Seminar, Archaeological Society of Athens (under publication). Televantou, C.A. 2016a. Figurines from Strofilas on Andros in M. Marthari, C. Renfrew and M. Boynde (eds.) Early Cycladic sculpture in context, Oxbow Books, UK: 39-52. Televantou, C.A. 2016b. Ο νεολιθικός οικισμός Στρόφιλα Άνδρου (4500-3200π.Χ.). Ανίχνευση στοιχείων για τον χαρακτήρα και τη δομή του, in the Proceedings of the 3rd Cycladic Symposium (25-29 May 2016, under publication.) Televantou, C.A. 2017a. Ο νεολιθικός οικισμός του Στρόφιλα στην Άνδρο in P. Triantafillidis Το αρχαιολογικόo έργο στα νησιά του Αιγαiου, διεθνές επιστημονικό συνέδριο, Τόμος Β, Ρόδος, 27 Νοεμβρίου - 1 Δεκεμβρίου 2013, Μυτιλήνη:263-272. Televantou, C.A. 2017b. Entries no. 2, p.36, no. 4, p.38, no 12, p. 41, no 13, p. 42, no16, p. 44, no 20, p. 45, no 40, p. 57, no 189, p.144, no 190, p. 145 in D. Athanassoulis (s. ed.) Vanity. Exhibition Catalogue. Athens. Televantou, C.A. 2018a. Strofilas, Andros. New perspectives on the Neolithic Aegean in Soren Dietz (ed), Fanis mavridis(ed) and Turan Takaoglu the proceedings of the National Symposium Communities in Transition. The Circum-Aegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia BC, Oxbow Books, UK : 389- 396.

180 ISSN: 2241-5106 Πάπυροι - Επιστημονικό Περιοδικό Papyri - Scientific Journal τόμος 8, 2019 volume 8, 2019 www.academy.edu.gr [email protected] The Neolithic Settlement at Strofilas, Andros

Televantou, C.A. 2018b. The Roots of Pictorial Art in the Cyclades. From Strophilas to Akrotiri , in A. Vlachopoulos (ed.) CHROSTERES - Paintbrushes: Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the Second Millennium BC in Dialogue, University of Ioannina / Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Athens, 43-65. Theochari, M. and Parlama L. 1997. Παλαμάρι Σκύρου: η οχυρωματική πόλη της Πρώιμης Χαλκοκρατίας, in Doumas and La Rosa (eds.): 344-56. Theocharis D. R, 1981, Νεολιθικός Πολιτισμός, Athens. Theocharis, D. R. 1993. Νεολιθικός πολιτισμός. Σύντομη επισκόπηση της Νεολιθικής στον ελλαδικό χώρο. Athens. Thimme J. and Getz-Preziosi P (eds.). 1977. Art and Culture of the Cyclade. Karlsruhe. Tsountas, C. 1908. Αι προϊστορικαί ακροπόλεις Διμηνίου και Σέσκλου, Library of Archaeological Society no 14. Athens. Tsountas, C. 1899. Κυκλαδικά ΙΙ, ΑΕ: 116-30. Tzovaras, P. 2018, (forthcoming) Before ‘thalassocracies’: reconstructing the ‘longboat’ and rethinking its use and social implications in the 4th and 3rd millennium South Aegean. Ιn R. Naseem and C. Cabrera (eds.), Ships, Boats, Ports, Trade, and War in the Mediterranean and Beyond: Proceedings of the Maritime Archaeology Graduate Symposium 2018. Oxford: BAR. Vlachopoulos (ed.)2005. Αρχαιολογία. Νησιά του Αιγαίου, «Μέλισσα» Publcations Athens. Vlachopoulos, A. (ed.) 2008. Αρχαιολογία. Εύβοια και Στερεά Ελλάδα. Melissa publications. Athens. Vlachopoulos, Α. 2013. Αρχαιολογικές έρευνες πεδίου στο Βαθύ Αστυπάλαιας, In Alvanou 2013 (ed.): 1-52. Wace, A. J. B. and Thompson, M. S. 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge. Walter, Η. and Felten, Μ. 1981. Alt-Ägina III, 1. Mainz. Weisgerber, G., 1985. Bemerkungen zur prihistorischen und antiken Bergbautechnik. In: G. A. Wagner, and G. Weisgerber, eds. Silber, Gold Blei und Gold auf Sifnos: Prdihistorische und antike Metallproduction (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 3). Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, pp. 86-112. Welter, G. 1937. Aiginetischen Keramik, Arch. Anz.: 20-3. Zachos, K. 1987. Σπήλαιο Ζα, ΑΔ 42, Χρονικά: 694-700. Zachos, K. 1990. Η Νεολιθική Εποχή στη Νάξο, in Maragou (ed.): 29-38. Zachos, K. 1992. Αρχαιολογικές έρευνες στο σπήλαιο του Ζα Νάξου, in I. K. Promponas and S.E. Psaras (eds.), Πρακτικά του 1ου Πανελλήνιου Συνεδρίου Φιλώτι «Η Νάξος διαμέσου των αιώνων», Filoti, 3-6 September 1992: Athens (Koinotita Filotiou): 99-103. Zachos, K. 1996a. Metal Jewellery in Papathanassopoulos (ed.): 166-7. Zachos, K. 1996b. Pottery. The Cyclades in Papathanassopoulos (ed.): 129-30. Zachos, K. 1996c.The Cyclades and the Northeastern Aegean Islands in Papathanassopoulos (ed.): 85- 7. Zachos, Κ. 1996d. Figurines and Models. The Aegean Islands in Papathanassopoulos (ed.): 156-7. Zachos, K. and Douzougli A.1999. Aegean Metallurgy: How Early and How Independent? in P.P.Betancourt , V. Karageorghis , R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeoligy presented. to Malcolm H. Wiieher as He Enters His 65th Year, Aegaeum 20,III: 959-67. Liege.

181 ISSN: 2241-5106