Food-Processing Ground Stone Tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and

Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age. A synthesis of the published data

Tasos Bekiaris1, Danai Chondrou1, Ismini Ninou1, Soultana-Maria Valamoti1 1 LIRA Laboratory, Department of Archaeology, School of History and Archaeology, University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece & Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI-AUTH), Balkan Center, Buildings A & B, Thessaloniki, 10th km Thessaloniki-Thermi Rd, P.O. Box 8318, 57001 Corresponding author: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Ever since the Paleolithic, the use of stone tools comprises one of the fundamental methods for the processing of plants (domesticated or not) and their transformation into edible substances.1 After many years of neglect, food-processing stone tools, such as grinding slabs and grinders (henceforth grinding tools), mortars and pestles (henceforth pounding tools), usually attributed to the wider technological categories of ‘ground stones’ or ‘macrolithics’, have finally gained a prominent position within the archaeological discipline. Especially during recent decades, several studies have demonstrated the analytical potential of these technological products towards the approach of past technological practices, economic strategies and social relations.2 The interpretive dynamics of prehistoric grinding and pounding tools were further informed by significant developments in the methodological field. Rigorous macroscopic studies, discussing the whole use-lives of these artifacts or aspects of them,3 as well as several microscopic studies, such as petrographic,4 use- wear5 and plant micro-remains analysis (i.e., phytoliths and starches),6 but also experimental and ethnoarchaeological research7 have further highlighted the vital role of these implements for prehistoric societies.

In Greece, recent excavations on several prehistoric sites, most of which were located in the northern parts of the country, have yielded large amounts of ‘fresh’ ground stone data, triggering a broader ‘wave’ of Aegean ground stone studies.8 Most of these studies concern the whole ground stone assemblages of individual archaeological sites, dating, almost exclusively, to the Neolithic period. What is missing, is a bird’s eye view that will focus on particular tool types of the Greek ground stone material, thus facilitating a deeper understanding of how certain ground stone technological groups emerged and developed during prehistory. Moreover, it will allow the recognition of possible similarities and differences in the ways that the prehistoric communities of Greece have perceived, produced and consumed these technological products across different regions and within different time-frames.

1 e.g., Stahl 1989; Wrangham 2009. 2 e.g., Adams 2002; Adams et al. 2009; Dubreil 2001; Risch 2008; Santellier et al. 2002; Wright 1992, 2014. 3 e.g., Baysal and Wright 2005; Tsoraki 2008; Stroulia 2010; Wright et al. 2013. 4 e.g., Melfos et al. 2001; Ninou 2006. 5 e.g., Adams 2013; Bofill 2012; Cristiani and Dalmeri 2011; Dubreuil 2008; Dubreuil and Grosman 2013; Hamon and Plisson 2008; Van Gijn and Verbaas 2009. 6 Buonasera 2013; Fullagar et al. 2008; Liu 2015; Li et al. 2019; Piperno et al. 2009; Portillo et al. 2013. 7 e.g., Alonso et al. 2013, 2014; Hamon and Le Gall 2013; Nixon-Darcus 2014; Procopiou et al. 2013; Robitaille 2016; Searcy 2011. 8 Bekiaris 2007, 2018, forthcoming; Chadou 2011; Chondrou 2011, 2018, forthcoming; Ninou 2006; Tsiolaki 2009; Tsoraki 2008; Stroulia 2010, 2018.

Journal of Greek Archaeology 5 (2020): 135–195 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

This paper seeks to provide an overview of the grinding and pounding stone tools of Greece during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (7th to 2nd millennium BC). Through the comparative examination of the published data, we explore how grinding and pounding technologies and their associated practices have appeared and evolved in this vast geographical area in the course of prehistory. Our goal is to map the technological attributes of the grinding and pounding implements, check their consistency and investigate aspects of their production, consumption and discard patterns through a diachronic perspective. Under the light of the freshly emerged data, we will revisit and reexamine some old, deep-rooted notions regarding the grinding equipment of Prehistoric Greece (e.g., the sizes of the grinding slabs and their supposed expansion from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age), often encountered in the related literature.

2. Materials, methods and constraints

PLANTCULT Project9 explores the plant food cultures of the prehistoric (7th to 1st millennium BC) farming communities of Southeastern Europe, from the Aegean to Central Europe, seeking to detect their evolution and change across space and time.10 The Project focuses on archaeological data, namely charred plant food remains and their associated processing and cooking equipment (i.e., stone tools, pots and cooking facilities), while it is also informed by several experiments, the study of ancient written sources, and the exploration of traditional food preparation practices and plant food ingredients. In the context of PLANTCULT, the study of grinding and pounding technologies is of special interest, since such tools have held a vital part in the processing of plant- foods during prehistory, especially starchy plant foods, such as cereals, with serious advantages in food preparation, cooking, nutrition and digestion.11 Through the combination of archaeological, experimental and ethnographic evidence, the Project seeks to investigate the technology of the prehistoric food processing stone tools and associate it with the dietary cultures of the past.12

Within this scope, a thorough review of the published literature concerning the grinding and pounding toolkits of Prehistoric Greece has been conducted for the first time and forms the basis of this paper. The goal of this endeavor was to gather information regarding the Greek food-processing stone tools and create an analytical tool that will facilitate the organization and management of the collected data. Therefore, a database, the PLANTCULT Archaeogrinding Database13 (henceforth: Archaeogrinding Database), was designed to serve the purposes of this study,14 as well as the wider goals of the PLANTCULT Project (i.e., the combination of the ground stone data with the archaeobotanical and pottery data).15 With the aid of the Archaeogrinding Database we have tried to homogenize and quantify, where possible, a diverse corpus of published data, in order to extract a reliable data-set with representative and comparable evidence, used to obtain results presented here in the form of graphs, tables and maps.

Date BC Phases 6700/6500-5800 Early Neolithic 5800-5400/5300 Middle Neolithic 5400/5300-4800 Late Neolithic I 4800-4600/4500 Late Neolithic II 4600/4500-3300/3100 Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic

9 Project PLANTCULT is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (Consolidator Grant, Grant Agreement No 682529). For more information visit: plantcult.web.auth.gr 10 See Valamoti et al. 2017. 11 See Carmody and Wrangham 2009; Butterwoth et al. 2016. 12 Chondrou et al. 2018b, 2019; Valamoti et al. in press. 13 The Archaeogrinding Database was designed by Panagiotis Tokmakidis and Themistoklis Roustanis. 14 The Archaeogrinding Database was also used for managing the literature regarding the food processing macrolithic tools from other geographical areas studied within the context of PLANTCULT Project, such as Central Europe and the Balkans. 15 See Valamoti et al. 2017.

136 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Date BC Phases 3300/3100-2800 Early Bronze Age I 2800-2300 Early Bronze Age II 2300-2000 Early Bronze Age III 2000-1900 Middle Bronze Age I 1900-1700 Middle Bronze Age II 1700-1550 Middle Bronze Age IΙΙ 1550-1500 Late Bronze Age I 1500-1400 Late Bronze Age IΙ 1400-1300 Late Bronze Age IIIA 1300-1200 Late Bronze Age IIIB 1200-1100 Late Bronze Age IIIC 1100-1000 Submycenean Table 1a. Dates and archaeological phases for the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age.16

Phases Date BC Crete Cyclades Mainland Greece 3000-2900 Early Minoan I Early Cycladic I Early Helladic I 2900-2300 Early Minoan II Early Cycladic I/II Early Helladic II 2300-2000 Early Minoan III Early Helladic III 2000-1900 Middle Minoan IA Early Cycladic III 1900-1800 Middle Minoan IB 1800-1750 Middle Minoan IΙA Middle Helladic 1750-1650 Middle Minoan IΙB/IIIA Middle Cycladic 1650-1600 Middle Minoan IIIB 1600-1500 Late Minoan IA Late Cycladic I Late Helladic I 1500-1450 Late Minoan IB Late Cycladic II Late Helladic II 1450-1350 Late Minoan II/IIIA Late Cycladic III Late Helladic III 1350-1100 Late Minoan IIIA-IIIC Table 1b. Dates and archaeological phases for the Greek Bronze Age in Crete, Cyclades and Mainland Greece.17

The Archaeogrinding Database comprises data deriving from a large dataset of publications on ground stone tools from various archaeological sites across Prehistoric Greece, but also of unpublished archaeological material that has been studied within the context of PLANTCULT Project. Each entry on the Database corresponds to a single grinding or pounding implement. Following a biographical approach, a variety of quantitative and qualitative data reflecting all stages of each tool’s life cycle18 were extracted and incorporated in the Database (Figure 1): from the selection of the raw materials, to manufacturing processes and curation practices, typology, morphometrics, preservation, use sequences, disuse and destruction, contexts of use and deposition, description of the findspots, and correlation with other finds and/or stable features (e.g., ovens, hearths, platforms). It is through the choices made during those stages that objects incorporate various values and meanings and shape their social and cultural contexts.19 Moreover, all the available excavation details (e.g., trench number, find’s catalogue number, layer and unit number), but also the relevant bibliographical references (e.g., author, title, publication date, journal, volume, publisher, pages) accompany each database entry.

16 After Andreou et al. 2001: Table 1; Tsirtsoni 2016: Table 1; Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999: 8. 17 After Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999: 8; Barber 1987: Table 22. 18 See also Valamoti et al. 2017b. 19 cf., Gosden and Marshall 1999; Hodder 2012; Hoskins 1998, 2006; Kopytoff 1986.

137 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Figure 1. Selected sheets and fields from the Archaeogrinding Database. Left: Context Sheet, Top right: Technomorphology Sheet, Bottom Right: Raw Materials Sheet.

Data entry was achieved mostly through drop-down lists with predetermined values, in order to secure uniformity between the different researchers involved in the process (T. Bekiaris, D. Chondrou and I. Ninou). A few fields were necessarily descriptive (e.g., metrics, context description), while others (e.g., individual manufacturing techniques or wear traces) were filled through a presence/ absence (true or false) option.

Numerous limitations and constraints have affected the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data and should be acknowledged here. The majority of these constraints concern the nature of the published data and the great deviations on how these implements have been perceived, studied and presented in publications by various scholars over time. First of all, it should be noted that grinding and pounding tools are rarely published thoroughly. Even on systematically excavated and published sites, the lack of specialized studies on ground stone artifacts is striking. Instead, many publications are confined to simple references on the existence of millstones, pestles and mortars, without providing any detailed information regarding their technological characteristics. Even when a ground stone assemblage is indeed published, each scholar, with notable exceptions,20 approaches the material in a totally different way, focusing on a very limited, and thus not representative, number of tools (usually the intact ones), and discussing only some of their technological attributes (e.g., raw materials, context, morphology). Therefore, some entries in the Archaeogrinding Database may lack important information regarding several stages of the tool’s life-cycles, thus hindering the comparison of their whole biographies. Furthermore, inconsistencies in the classification systems of the ground stone assemblages and diversity in the nomenclature used to describe these artifacts, have certainly posed problems during the process of data collection and managing.

Despite these constraints, numerous entries of individual grinding and pounding tools from various prehistoric Greek sites were finally included in the Archaeogrinding Database (Table 2). These

20 Bekiaris 2007, 2018; Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming; Stroulia 2010, 2018.

138 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

entries usually represent references for grinding and pounding tools harvested from the literature, but also assemblages studied within the course of the PLANTCULT Project. Of the whole corpus of publications reporting grinding or pounding stone tools, thirty eight could not be incorporated in the Archaeogrinding Database, since they do not provide data in the form of a catalogue with references on individual implements. However, they contain valuable information regarding the typology and technology of these implements or their spatial contexts, presented through tables, statistics or descriptive texts.21 Thus, these data were also included in this paper in a qualitative way. Finally, this review also considers -to some extent- the data deriving from various regional surveys (e.g., The Laconia Survey),22 surveys conducted on specific sites (e.g., Iliotopos),23 as well as studies regarding specific artifact types (e.g., Minoan stone vases)24 or specific regions (e.g., The Dodecanese Islands).25 These studies often provide useful comparative information regarding the technomorphology of the artifacts under study, but also the spatiotemporal distribution of certain tool-types.

Archaeogrinding Database entries Other data used in this paper Regional surveys/Site Publications with references Assemblages studied Publications with references surveys/Studies on to individual grinding and within the context of to groups of grinding and specific artifact types pounding tools PLANTCULT Project pounding tools or regions Agios Athanasios Achilleio (Winn and Shimabuku Cycladic stone vessels Agios Kosmas (Mylonas 1959) (Chondrou et al. in 1989) (Getz-Gentle 1996) preparation) Agia Aikaterini, Khania (Evely Ground stone tools Akrotiraki, Siphnos (Rambach Agios Vlasis (Chondrou 2016; Bruun-Lundgren and from the Dodecanese 2000) personal observation) Wiman 2000) (Georgiadis 2017) Akrotiri, Naxos (Rambach Angelochori (Bekiaris and Agios Petros (Efstratiou 1985) Iliotopos (Chadou 2011) 2000) Valamoti forthcoming) Akrotiri, Thera (Moudrea- Archontiko (Bekiaris and Kos-Halasarna Survey Apsalos (Ninou 2006) Agrafioti 2007; Devetzi 2007) Valamoti forthcoming) (Georgiadis 2012) Alepotrypa Cave (Stroulia Dikili Tash (Chondrou Archanes (Sakellarakis and Magoula Pavlina 2018) personal observation) Sakellaraki 1997) (Karimali 2016) Aphrodite’s Kephali (Dierckx Mavropigi-Fillotsairi Minoan stone vases Argissa (Milojčić 1962) 2013) (Ninou et al. forthcoming) (Warren 1969) Argissa (Hanschmann and Southern Argolid EBA Milojčić 1976; Hanschmann Kleitos (Chondrou 2018) Avgi (Bekiaris 2018) Stone Mortars (Runnels 1981) 1988) Southern Argolid Survey Ayia Irini III, House A Ayia Irini V (Davis 1986) (Kardulias and Runnels (Cummer and Schofield 1984) 1995) The Galatas Survey (Buell Ayia Irini I-III (Wilson 1999) Dikili Tash (Séfériadès 1992) 2017) Drakaina Cave (Bekiaris 2010; The Laconia Survey Ayia Irini IV (Overbeck 1989) forthcoming) (Carter and Ydo 1996) The Neolithic Period Ayioryitika (Petrakis 2002) Elateia (Weinberg 1962) at the Dodecanese (Sampson 1987) Bougadha Metochi Hagia Photia (Davaras and (Rethemiotakis and Warren Betancourt 2004) 2014) Kastanas (Aslanis 1985; Chalandriani (Rambach 2000) Hochstetter 1987)

21 e.g., Tsoraki 2008. 22 Carter and Ydo 1996. 23 Chadou 2011. 24 Warren 1969. 25 Georgiadis 2017.

139 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Archaeogrinding Database entries Other data used in this paper Regional surveys/Site Publications with references Assemblages studied Publications with references surveys/Studies on to individual grinding and within the context of to groups of grinding and specific artifact types pounding tools PLANTCULT Project pounding tools or regions Chalasmenos (Dierckx and Kavousi (Dierckx 2016a) Eaby 2018) Cyclops Cave (Sampson Kitsos Cave (Perlès 1981) 2008a) Dhaskalio (Rowan et al. 2013) Knossos (Evans 1964) Dispilio (Ninou 2006) Korakou (Blegen 1921) Emporio (Hood 1982) Koromilia (Bekiaris 2016) Eutresis (Goldman 1931) Koroneia (Almasidou 2019) Franchthi Cave (Stroulia Makri (Bekiaris 2007) 2010) Ftelia (Sampson 2002) Makriyalos (Tsoraki 2008) Gournia (Boyd Hawes et al. Malthi (Blitzer 1991) 1908) Iolkos (Adrimi-Sismani 2014) Manika (Sampson 1988) Kalogerovrysi (Sampson Markiani (Scarre 2006) 1993a) Megalo Nisi Galanis (Stroulia Kommos (Blitzer 1995) 2003; Fotiadis et al. 2019) Lefkandi (Evely 2006) Midea (Walberg 1998) Lerna (Banks 2015) Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke 1993) Limnes Cave (Katsarou and Nichoria (Blitzer 1992) Sampson 1997) Mesimeriani Toumba (Alisøy Olynthus (Robinson and 2002b) Mylonas 1929) Palaikastro (Doherty and Evely Mochlos (Carter 2004) 2002; Evely 2012, 2019) Monastiraki Katalimata Palamari (Agouridis 2015) (Nowicki 2008) Monastiriako Kephali (Evely Paliambela (Siamidou 2017) 2013) Moni Odigitria (Evely 2010) Petras (Dierckx 2012; 2017a) Sitagroi (Elster 2003) Poliochni (Bernabò-Brea 1976) Mycenae (Evely and Runnels Prodromos (Moundrea 1975) 1992) Myrtos (Warren 1972) Prosymna (Blegen 1937) Petras, Siteia I (Dierckx Saliagos (Evans and Renfrew 2016b) 1968) Phourni, Archanes (Papadatos Sesklo (Wijnen 1981) 2005) Phylakopi (Cherry and Davis Sissi (Tsoraki 2012) 2007) Theopetra Cave (Kyparissi- Pseira (Dierckx 1992) Apostolika 2000) Pyrgos, Paros (Rambach 2000) Tiryns (Rahmstorf 2008) Toumba Kremasti (Stroulia and Servia (Mould et al. 2000) Chondrou 2013; Stroulia et al. 2017) Sarakenos Cave (Sampson Zakros (Platon 1971) 2008b) Sosandra (Georgiadou 2015) Stavroupoli (Alisøy 2002a) Toumba Kremasti (Chondrou 2011)

140 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

3. Tool types and nomenclature

Two pairs of ground stone tools are usually, but not exclusively, associated with food-processing tasks: grinding slabs and grinders, and mortars and pestles.26 The former set was usually employed for grinding substances and materials into smaller particles, while the latter for pulverizing and reducing materials through pounding or mixing them through stirring. Both toolkits could have participated in several activities related to the preparation of plant foods (e.g., the dehusking of hulled cereals, splitting pulses, coarsely grinding grain for bulgur making, flour production). However, these were not their only functions. As informed by several archaeological, experimental and ethnographic studies,27 prehistoric grinding and pounding tools could have been used for a variety of tasks, among them the processing of various foodstuffs (i.e., cereals and legumes, wild seeds, spices, meat and fish), but also the pulverization of minerals, pigments, shells, salt and clay, the grinding of barks and roots, the pounding of oily seeds for the extraction of liquids and the shaping of several objects (e.g., ground stone celts, ornaments, bone tools). Some mortars could have also served as containers for foods and liquids, or even as presenters of their contents. Microwear analysis is an essential method that can contribute towards the clarification of the exact functions of these implements. However, only a limited number of grinding and pounding tools from Prehistoric Greece have been subjected to such analyses.28 Despite the lack of microwear studies, the macroscopic characteristics of most toolkits (e.g., size, raw materials, wear), as well as their contexts (e.g., their relation with cooking facilities, storage areas, specialized food-preparation rooms) could be considered as indicative of their implication for food-processing activities.

Grinding toolkits consist of the grinding slab, the lower implement that ‘receives’ the substance under processing and remains static during use, and the grinder, the mobile, handheld component that moves over the lower stone surface and the processed substance. Both tool types function more properly when their contact surfaces (the workfaces) are compatible in size and configuration (i.e., flat grinding slabs and grinders, concave grinding slabs with convex grinders etc.). Several different terms employed from various scholars to describe the grinding implements were encountered in the literature that we have examined. For the grinding slabs the most common terms were millstone, mill, metate, quern or saddle quern, passive abrasive tool, upper grinding/milling stone, meule (in French), Schleifsteine, Reibplatten29 (in German) and μυλόλιθος, μυλόπετρα, μύλη, τριβείο (in Greek). A grinder can be also referred to as handstone, active abrasive tool, mano, rubber, lower grinding/milling stone, molette (in French), τριπτήρας and όνος (in Greek).

26 Adams 2002: 98-150. 27 cf., Adams 2002; Runnels 1981; Wright 1992. 28 e.g., Chondrou et al. 2018b, 2019; Stroulia et al. 2017; Procopiou 1998. 29 The term refers both to passive (e.g., Rahmstorf 2008) and active implements (e.g., Bergner 2015).

141 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Pounding toolsets comprise the mortar, a lower, hollowed stone, acting as the recipient of the processed material, and the pestle, the upper, elongated handstone, that pounds, crushes, rubs or mixes the intermediate substance(s) within the mortar’s cavity. In contrast with grinding slabs and grinders that are usually made out of stone, mortars and pestles can be also made of non-lithic material, such as wood.30 The pounding process may also occur in the interior of small cuttings on the bedrock or in depressions lined with clay encountered in Northern Greece.31 The terminology for the pounding equipment is much more specific with the terms mortar and pestle dominating the English literature and Mörser and Stößel respectively the German publications. In the Greek literature a mortar is usually referred as γουδί or ιγδίον and a pestle as γουδοχέρι or ύπερος.

Publications on Greek Prehistoric sites were thoroughly examined for references to any of the above terms. Additionally to these tool-types, multifunctional implements that have acted either concomitantly or sequentially in an abrasive and percussive manner were also considered, if they have supported grinding or pounding activities during their life-cycles. Implements with pecked or battered ends often referred to in the literature as ‘pounders’ were not included in this research, even though their term indicates their implication to pounding processes. These implements are usually associated with hammering strokes and are often distinguished from pestles.32 However, we cannot exclude the possibility that some of them had processed foodstuffs over passive stone implements, such as grinding slabs and mortars. If such a use is hinted by the scholar who studied the material,33 then the implements have been incorporated into this research. Finally, other stone working surfaces or receptacles, such as stone tables, basins, ‘gournes’, kernoi and stone vases were excluded from our research, since they are usually associated with functions unrelated to plant food processing.

4. The Neolithic material

4.1. The pre-Neolithic food-processing ground stone tools of Greece

Food-processing ground stone tools appear in the archaeological record of Prehistoric Greece as early as the Upper Paleolithic. Pestle-like implements that could have participated in the processing of wild plant foods, such as roots, nuts and acorns, are encountered - although in extremely small quantities - in the pre-Neolithic (Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic) layers of Franchthi Cave,34 while a few handheld grinding tools are also reported from some Greek Mesolithic sites, like Maroulas on Kythnos35 and the Cave of Cyclops on Youra.36 This contrasts with the evidence from the Near East: In the Levant, ever since the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, the manufacture and use of grinding tools increases over the use of pounding implements commonly encountered among the preceding Natufian communities. This significant technological shift was strongly informed by several practicalities and entanglements that had emerged during the transition from foraging to farming, such as the overall change in the dietary practices and the establishment of the sedentary way of living.37 In Greece, the technological conditions of this transition remain vague, due to the limited number of pre-Neolithic ground stone assemblages. However, at the dawn of the Greek Neolithic, the implication of food-processing stone implements in the everyday lives of the early farming communities becomes much more pronounced, as inferred from the increased quantities of grinding tools encountered at most Neolithic sites (Table 3; Figure 2).

30 See Chrysostomou et al. 2015. 31 Kotsakis 2018: 40; Valamoti 2009: 56; Tsartsidou and Kotsakis 2020. 32 Tsoraki 2012: 202-03. 33 e.g., Carter 2004. 34 Stroulia 2010: 13-26. 35 Sampson et al. 2002. 36 Sampson 2008a. 37 Ebeling and Rowan 2004; Hodder 2017; Wright 1993, 1994.

142 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 2. Map with the Greek Neolithic sites mentioned in the text. Legend: 1. Makri, 2. Dikili Tash, 3.Sitagroi, 4. Olynthus, 5. Koroneia, 6. Thermi, 7. Stavroupoli, 8. DETh, 9. Sossandra, 10. Apsalos, 11. Nea Nikomedeia, 12. Paliambela, 13. Makriyalos, 14. Servia, 15. Toumba Kremasti, 16. Megalo Nisi Galanis, 17. Kleitos, 18. Mavropigi-Fillotsairi, 19. Koromilia, 20. Dispilio, 21. Avgi, 22. Theopetra Cave, 23. Prodromos, 24. Argissa, 25. Rachmani, 26. Visviki, 27. Sesklo, 28. Achilleion, 29. Agios Petros, 30. Cyclops Cave, 31. Elateia, 32. Agios Vlasis, 33. Sarakenos Cave, 34. Drakaina Cave, 35. Limnes Cave, 36. Ayioryitika, 37. Lerna, 38. Alepotrypa Cave, 39. Franchthi Cave, 40. Kitsos Cave, 41. Strofilas, 42. Ftelia, 43. Saliagos, 44. Yali, 45. Knossos.

4.2. The typology of the Neolithic food-processing ground stone tools

In terms of typology, three main types of Neolithic grinding toolsets are documented (Figure 3): the most common types are grinding slabs with ‘open’ workfaces (e.g., Figures 4, 6), which are combined (a) either with grinders whose length is equal to or smaller than the width of the lower implement or (b) with grinders whose length exceeds the width of the grinding slab and their manipulation requires the use of both hands. In these two toolsets the grinder performs

143 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the three main types of the Neolithic grinding pairs (drawing: Tasos Bekiaris). reciprocal (back and forth) movements over the passive stone surface. The third type includes grinding slabs with a workface in the form of a circular or elliptical basin/cavity, combined with a small grinder that performs ‘free’/curvilinear moves within the cavity. Grinding slabs with a cavity are encountered rather rarely and only with a few specimens in some sites (Figure 6). Given their limited presence in the archaeological record, no distinguishable spatial or temporal patterns could be observed. However, it seems that the Neolithic communities of Greece had need of both types of grinding slabs, which may have held diverse, but still unexplored functional roles in the context of their food-processing practices.

Stone mortars are rarely encountered in Greek Neolithic sites. They are usually crude, bulky items, characterized by the presence of a single cavity of variable depths (Figure 9) or by multiple smaller and shallower cavities (also known as ‘cup-marks’). In Greece mortars with multiple cavities are so-far only known from the EN site of Mavropigi-Filotsairi38 (Figure 5), but similar implements are common from several Neolithic sites in Anatolia.39 Pestles are usually elongated, cylindrical or conical tools used with their ends for pounding or rubbing (Figure 8). Again, these tools are rarely reported from Greek Neolithic sites and in small quantities (with a few exceptions, e.g., Ayios Vlasis),40 if compared to the grinding toolkits. However, we should note that similar functions may have been also performed by other tooltypes, such as recycled edge-tools (e.g., Servia),41 or grinders used for light percussive tasks with their ends (e.g., Avgi).42 Moreover, these implements could have also been made from perishable, non-lithic materials, such as wood.

4.3. The technology of the Neolithic food-processing ground stone tools

Grinding and pounding tools are reported from several EN Greek sites (see Figure 2; Table 3). Unfortunately, the lack of specialized studies on the vast majority of these assemblages hinders an in- depth investigation of the food-processing ground stone equipment of the early farming communities of Greece. Recent findings from Northern Greece, however, could indicate that early food-processing practices were not performed in the exact same technical manner by all EN communities. For instance, at Mavropigi-Filotsairi pounding seems to be the primary food-processing practice (Figure 5) with the grinding slabs being significantly few.43 Moreover, at Paliambela there is evidence for the

38 Ninou et al. forthcoming. 39 e.g., Nadel and Rosenberg 2013. 40 Chondrou personal observation. 41 Mould et al. 2000. 42 Bekiaris 2018; see Stratrouli et al. this volume. 43 Ninou et al. forthcoming.

144 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 4. Grinding slab from Figure 5. Mortar with multiple cavities from EN Mavropigi-Fillotsairi (photo: Ismini EN Ayios Vlasis (photo: Danai Ninou). Chondrou). pounding of cereals in the interior of small pits, located in the open, communal areas and in close spatial association with individual pit houses.44 In contrast, sites in Northern and Southern Greece such as Knossos, Prodromos, Sesklo, Achilleion, Sosandra and Nea Nikomedeia, have yielded almost exclusively grinding tools, indicating the significance of grinding practice for the daily routines of these EN communities, while in the case of EN Ayios Vlasis the evidence suggest a rich toolkit comprised of both grinding (Figure 4) and pounding implements.45 In terms of technomorphology, the EN grinding and pounding tools are more or less similar to their MN or LN successors, which will be discussed below. Perlès notes that the sizes of the EN millstones are relatively small, with their lengths measuring below 30cm.46 However, a closer look at the published data indicates that larger grinding slabs have co-existed alongside the smaller ones on many EN sites (see Table 8).

Archaeological knowledge about the food-processing ground stone equipment of the Neolithic communities of Greece becomes more profound through the study of the abundant material dating to the later phases of the Neolithic (see Table 3). Over the past years, specialized studies on ground stone implements from Greek ΜΝ and LN sites47 have significantly enriched our comprehension regarding the Neolithic food-processing ground stone implements. The vast majority of these assemblages derive from large-scale excavations conducted in the northern part of the country, mainly the western part of Macedonia. Extended portions of several Neolithic sites (e.g., Avgi, Koromilia, Toumba Kremasti, Makriyalos), and in many cases even the whole site (e.g., Kleitos), have been thoroughly excavated and thousands of grinding and pounding implements with well- documented contextual information were collected, thus allowing us to approach food-processing practices from both a technological and contextual perspective, and investigate how these daily activities were performed and organized through space and time.

44 Kotsakis 2018; Tsartsidou and Kotsakis 2020. 45 Chondrou personal observation. 46 Perlès 2001: 242. 47 e.g., Bekiaris 2007, 2018; Chondrou 2011, 2018, forthcoming; Ninou 2006; Tsoraki 2008; Stroulia 2010, 2018; Stroulia et al. 2017.

145 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Figure 6. Grinding slab with open workface from MN/LN Avgi: ventral face (workface), length section and dorsal face (Bekiaris 2018: Figure 95).

Figure 7. Grinding slab with workface in the form of a cavity from MN/LN Avgi: ventral face (workface), left side, dorsal face and right side (Bekiaris 2018: Figure 104).

Site Date Grinders Grinding slabs Mortars Pestles Reference Achilleion EN + + - + Winn and Shimabuku 1989 Agios Petros MN + + - + Efstratiou 1985 Agios Vlasis EN + + - - Chondrou personal observation Alepotrypa Cave LN-FN + + - + Stroulia 2018 Apsalos MN + + - - Ninou 2006 Argissa EN + + - - Milojčić 1962 Avgi MN-LN + + - + Bekiaris 2018 Ayioryitika MN-FN + + - - Petrakis 2002 Cyclops Cave LN + + - - Sampson 2008a DETh MN + - - - Tsoraki 2008 Dikili Tash LN + + - - Séfériadès 1992; Chondrou personal observation Dispilio LN + + - - Ninou 2006 Drakaina Cave LN-FN + + - - Bekiaris forthcoming Elateia EN-MN + + + + Weinberg 1962

146 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Site Date Grinders Grinding slabs Mortars Pestles Reference Mavropigi-Fillotsairi EN + - + + Ninou et al. forthcoming Franchthi Cave EN-FN + + - - Stroulia 2010 Ftelia LN + + + - Sampson 2002 Kitsos Cave MN-FN + + - - Perlès 1981 Kleitos LN-FN + + + + Chondrou 2018 Knossos EN + - - - Evans 1964; Efstratiou et al. 2013 Koromilia LN + + - + Bekiaris personal observation Koroneia LN + + + + Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN + + - + Chondrou 2011 Lerna MN + + - + Banks 2015 Limnes Cave LN + + - - Katsarou and Sampson 1997 Makri LN + + - + Bekiaris 2007 Makriyalos LN + + + + Tsoraki 2008 Megalo Nisi Galanis LN-FN + + - - Stroulia 2003 Nea Nikomedeia EN + + - + Pyke 1993 Olynthus LN - - + + Robinson and Mylonas 1929 Paliambela EN-ΜN + + + - Siamidou 2017; Kotsakis 2018 Prodromos EN + + - + Moundrea 1975 Saliagos LN + + + + Evans and Renfrew 1968 Sarakenos Cave LN + + + - Sampson 2008b Servia EN-LN + + - + Mould et al. 2000 Sesklo EN-MN + + + + Tsountas 1908; Wijnen 1981 Sitagroi LN-FN + + + + Elster 2003 Sosandra EN + + + - Georgiadou 2015 Stavroupoli MN-LN + + - - Alisøy 2002a Strofilas FN + + - - Televantou 2008 Thermi LN + - - - Tsoraki 2008 Theopetra Cave EN-LN + + - - Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000 Visviki LN + + - - Bergner 2015 Yali FN + + - - Sampson 1988 Table 3. The presence (+) or absence (-) of information regarding the main food-processing ground stone types in Neolithic Greece

The grinding and pounding implements from Neolithic Greece exhibit great variability regarding their technological attributes (i.e., raw materials, manufacture techniques, shapes, sizes), as well as their modes and contexts of use and consumption practices.

Sand- Conglo- Sites Date Schist Gneiss Granite Andesite Tuff Pyroxenite Reference stone merate Agios Petros MN X Efstratiou 1985 Alepotrypa LN/FN X Stroulia 2018 Cave Apsalos MN X Ninou 2006 Argissa EN X Milojčić 1962 Avgi MN/LN X X X Bekiaris 2018 Ayioryitika MN-FN X Petrakis 2002 Cyclops Cave LN X X Sampson 2008a Séfériadès 1992; Chondrou Dikili Tash LN Χ personal observation Dispilio LN X Ninou 2006 Drakaina Bekiaris LN/FN X Cave forthcoming Elateia EN/MN X Weinberg 1962

147 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Sand- Conglo- Sites Date Schist Gneiss Granite Andesite Tuff Pyroxenite Reference stone merate Franchthi EN-FN X Stroulia 2010 Cave Ftelia LN X Sampson 2002 Kitsos Cave MN-FN X Perlès 1981 Kleitos LN X X X X X Chondrou 2018 Bekiaris Koromilia LN X personal observation Koroneia LN X Almasidou 2019 Chondrou 2011; Toumba LN Χ X X X X Stroulia et al. Kremasti 2017 Lerna MN X X Banks 2015 Katsarou and Limnes Cave LN X Sampson 1997 Makri LN X X Bekiaris 2007 Makriyalos LN X Tsoraki 2008 Stroulia 2003; M. Nisi LN/FN X X X Fotiadis et al. Galanis 2019 Evans and Saliagos LN X Renfrew 1968 Sarakenos LN X Sampson 2008b Cave Servia EN-LN X Mould et al. 2000 Sitagroi LN/FN X Dixon 2003 Georgiadou Sosandra EN X 2015 Stavroupoli MN/LN X Alisøy 2002a Yali FN X Sampson 1988 Table 4. The dominant raw materials (marked with an X) used for the manufacture of grinding tools in Neolithic Greece (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

The available data from Neolithic Greece show that the most commonly used raw materials were sandstones, conglomerates, granites, gneisses, schists and andesites (Table 4). Many Neolithic communities seem to have developed preferences towards the exploitation of certain lithic raw materials. In most cases, these were locally available rocks dominating the landscapes on which the Neolithic villages were situated. Sandstone, encountered in different lithological varieties (e.g., arcosic, litharenite, micaceous, feldspathic, calcareous) and textures (i.e., fine to coarse grained) seems to be the dominant material for the production of grinding slabs in most assemblages, while other rocks (e.g., schists, granites, andesites) were also frequently favored. With a few exceptions where grinding tools are manufactured (almost) exclusively out of a single raw material (e.g., Dikili Tash),48 most communities exploited various rock-types for the production of grinding tools, although with certain rocks being predominant and others represented but not with the same frequency (e.g., Avgi,49 Kleitos,50 Makriyalos,51 Makri).52

Various rocks have been used for the production of Neolithic pestles and mortars. In Makriyalos, pestles were made exclusively out of hard, mostly fine-grained igneous rocks,53 indicating a clear

48 Chondrou persοnal observation. 49 Bekiaris 2018. 50 Chondrou 2018. 51 Tsoraki 2008. 52 Bekiaris 2007. 53 Tsoraki 2008: 48.

148 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 8. Pestle made from igneous rock from LN Makri: faces Figure 9. Granite mortar from LN Koroneia: workface and and width section (Bekiaris 2007: Table 72). side (Almasidou 2019: Figure 3.3.16). preference in raw material choices, that could be related to both practical and non-practical (e.g., symbolic, aesthetic) reasons.54 Metamorphic rocks, particularly marble, were chosen for making pestles at Saliagos,55 while at Makri igneous rocks, specifically gabbro, were favored56 (Figure 8). At other Neolithic sites, such as Sitagroi57 and Avgi,58 pestles are fashioned from various igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The few Neolithic mortars are again manufactured of different lithic materials. Sandstone mortars are reported from Ftelia59 and Sarakenos Cave60 and trachyandesite mortars from Sosandra.61 Granite and amphibolite are documented in the mortars from Koroneia62 (Figure 9), schist in the case of Kleitos,63 while marble is attested in specimens from Saliagos64 and Makriyalos.65

The Neolithic communities of Greece have acquired their stone raw materials mainly through collection - a procurement method usually considered as efficient and ‘time-saving’-66 rather than extraction. The rocks were acquired in the form of cobbles or boulders from secondary sources, such as the riverbeds and banks of rivers and their tributaries, or from the coastline, as hinted at

54 Tsoraki 2008: 108. 55 Evans and Renfrew 1968: 71. 56 Bekiaris 2007. 57 Elster 2003. 58 Bekiaris 2018. 59 Sampson 2002: 112. 60 Sampson 2008b: 292. 61 Georgiadou 2015: 72, 79. 62 Almasidou 2019: 113. 63 Chondrou 2018: 235. 64 Evans and Renfrew 1968: 71. 65 Tsoraki 2008: 48. 66 Tsoraki 2011.

149 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

by their curvilinear shapes and the presence of water-rolled surfaces on their unmodified parts.67 Primary outcrops are documented more rarely in the Greek Neolithic ground stone assemblages and only through a few specimens (e.g., Avgi).68 Even in these cases, the rocks were not quarried, since they don’t bear any quarrying marks,69 but probably collected after their natural detachment from the bedrock.

Site Date Raw Material Reference Achilleion EN Vesicular Basalt Winn and Shimabuku 1989: 270–271 Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN Schist Stroulia 2018 Argissa EN Sandstone Perlès 2001: 242 Franchthi Cave EN/FN Andesite Stroulia 2010 Kitsos Cave MN-FN Andesite Runnels and Cohen 1981 Microconglomerate, sandstone, Kleitos LN/FN Chondrou et al. 2018a pyroxenite, gneiss, schist Granite, Microconglomerate, Toumba Kremasti LN Chondrou 2011; Stroulia et al. 2017 sandstone, schist, gneiss Sitagroi LN/FN Sandstone, Limestone Elster 2003; Dixon 2003 Makri LN Granite Melfos et al. 2001 Table 5. The non-local raw materials used for the manufacture of grinding tools in Neolithic Greece.

Systematic petrological, mineralogical and geochemical analyses have rarely been conducted on the Neolithic food-processing stone tools of Greece.70 However, macroscopic studies suggest that their raw materials originate mostly from sources located in the vicinity, or in the wider region, of the Neolithic settlements. Exogenous or non-local materials are also mentioned at some Neolithic sites (Table 5), although in significantly lower frequencies than the local cases. Runnels,71 for example, has argued that some grinding tools from Franchthi were made of non-local varieties of andesite and indicates the Saronic Gulf as the possible source for one of these variations (porphyritic andesite).72 Thin section analysis on grinding slabs of similar raw materials from Kitsos Cave in Attica pointed to the island of Aigina as the source of this distinct type of andesite.73 Other varieties of andesite grinding tools found at Franchthi (i.e., alphanitic andesite) are also of non-local origin, but their sources cannot be traced with accuracy yet.74 Georgiadis75 discusses the circulation and exchange of certain volcanic rocks (i.e., rhyolite, granite/monzonite) within the Dodecanese Islands (e.g., Rhodes, Karpathos, Chalki, Tilos) and beyond (e.g., Patmos), following specific sea-routes.76 Grinding tools made of non-local rocks are also reported from Neolithic sites in northern Greece. We should mention the vesicular basalts from Achilleion77 and the sandstones from Argissa78 in Thessaly, the sandstones from Sitagroi in Drama79 and a granite handstone from Makri80 originating from the island of Samothraki, as petrological analysis has indicated.81 Finally, in the case of the numerous settlements of Kitrini Limni Basin, North-western Greece (e.g., Kleitos,82 Toumba Kremasti,83 Megalo Nisi Galanis),84 the absence of suitable sources of raw material within

67 cf., Bekiaris et al. 2017; Kardulias and Runnels 1995; Stroulia 2010, 2018. 68 Bekiaris et al. 2017: 28; Bekiaris 2018. 69 Bekiaris et al. 2017: 28; see also Runnels 1981: 76; Tsoraki 2008: 69. 70 e.g., Dixon 2003; Melfos et al. 2001; Stergiou et al. forthcoming. 71 Runnels 1981: 60-70. 72 see also Stroulia 2010: 34-35. 73 Runnels and Cohen 1981. 74 Stroulia 2010: 35. 75 Georgiadis 2017. 76 Georgiadis 2017: 26. 77 Winn and Shimabuku 1989: 270–271. 78 Perlès 2001: 242. 79 Dixon 2003; Elster 2003: 187. 80 Bekiaris 2007: 40. 81 Melfos et al. 2001. 82 Chondrou 2018. 83 Stroulia et al. 2017. 84 Stroulia 2003; Fotiadis et al. 2019.

150 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

the limits of the alluvial basin, meant by definition that all materials exploited for the manufacture of grinding tools were of non-local origin, meaning remote from the immediate surroundings of the sites (i.e., distance >10 km).85

Site Date Strategic Expedient Indeterminate Reference Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN 50 - - Stroulia 2018 Avgi MN/LN 75 35 7 Bekiaris 2018 Franchthi Cave EN/FN 85 ~ 30 - Stroulia 2010 Kleitos LN/FN 140 0 - Chondrou 2018 Koroneia MN/LN 9 13 - Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN 8 3 4 Chondrou 2011 Lerna LN 7 1 - Banks 2015 Makri LN 61 48 - Bekiaris 2007 Stavroupoli MN/LN 3 33 3 Alisøy 2002a Table 6. The design of the Greek Neolithic grinding slabs (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

Figure 10. Grinding slab from LN Kleitos with fully pecked workface: ventral face (workface), length section and dorsal face (Chondrou 2018: Figure6.C.3).

The food-processing stone toolkits of Neolithic Greece included both strategically designed and expedient implements. The former items were the outcomes of production sequences that have required the application of specific techniques, the use of certain technical means (i.e., percussion tools) and maybe particular skills and dexterities in order to be created. The latter items have received no modification prior to their use and are also know under the term a posteriori tools.86 Grinding slabs were usually the product of manufacture (Table 6). Most of them were fashioned through the application of two percussive techniques: flaking (sometimes also mentioned as chipping)87 and pecking. The primary goal of these reductive processes was the creation of a broad,

85 Chondrou et al. 2018: 31. 86 Adams 2002: 21; Stroulia 2010: 2. 87 e.g., Stroulia 2010: 35.

151 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

even and rough workface that would be efficient for carrying out the grinding task.88 Flaking was probably employed first, for the rough shaping of the workface. Marks from this manufacturing stage are usually preserved on parts of the grinding tools (i.e., the margins of the workface, the tool’s sides), that were not affected by subsequent modifications (e.g., pecking/resharpening) or use (e.g., Francthi,89 Alepotrypa Cave,90 Makriyalos,91 Avgi).92 In Kleitos, one of the first manufacture steps, both for grinding slabs and grinders, was a peripheral flaking, for the application of which a wide, flattish surface - either an element of the natural configuration of the raw material or otherwise perhaps deliberately shaped - served as a striking platform.93 The workfaces of most Greek Neolithic grinding implements carry evidence of pecking (Figure 10), a technique employed - either subsequently to flaking or directly - in order to give the face the proper configuration (i.e., flat or concave) and the necessary roughness. Pecking was also extensively used for the rejuvenation of the use faces of both the passive and active grinding implements, when they become blunt from use. One additional abrasive technique, polishing, was also recognized on a limited number of Neolithic grinding slabs (e.g., Makriyalos).94 This technique was probably applied after pecking, in order to level the extremities on the topography of the workface.95 At some Greek Neolithic sites (e.g., Ayios Vlasis,96 Franchthi,97 Avgi,98 Kleitos)99 the bases of a few grinding slabs were also submitted to pecking or flaking to increase their stability during use. The other parts of the stable grinding tools (i.e., sides, ends) were rarely subjected to any kind of modification, especially if they were meant to stay unutilized.

Site Date Strategic Expedient Indeterminate Reference Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN 0 17 - Stroulia 2018 Avgi MN/LN 120 341 - Bekiaris 2018 Kleitos LN/FN 226 0 - Chondrou 2018 Koroneia MN/LN 5 15 - Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN 13 3 4 Chondrou 2011 Makri LN 19 21 - Bekiaris 2007 Stavroupoli MN/LN 4 10 - Alisøy 2002a Table 7. The design of the Greek Neolithic grinders (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

Grinders are usually considered to be the products of expedient technologies (a posteriori implements, Table 7).100 Cobbles in proper shapes and sizes were collected and put to use without the need of any alteration. This may be the case for the majority of one-hand grinders, although there are some notable exceptions encountered in the archaeological record. For instance, some specimens exhibit workfaces that have been totally modified through pecking, to acquire the proper configuration and roughness. Other tools bear pecking marks or even abrasion traces on their sides. In these cases, the modifications aimed to edit the tools’ dimensions in order to achieve a proper fit in the user’s hand and facilitate its holding while in use. The need for secure and comfortable handling of the grinders is further attested to by the presence of ‘comfort features’,

88 cf., Runnels 1981. 89 Stroulia 2010. 90 Stroulia 2018. 91 Tsoraki 2008. 92 Bekiaris 2018. 93 Chondrou et al. 2018a; Chondrou forthcoming. 94 Tsoraki 2008: 69. 95 For an experimental case see Risch 2002, 2008. 96 Chondrou personal observation. 97 Stroulia 2010. 98 Bekiaris 2018. 99 Chondrou 2018. 100 Alisøy 2002a.

152 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

such as finger grooves and grips, created on the dorsal faces, sides or ends of the handstones through flaking and/or pecking (e.g., Avgi).101

So far there is no evidence to suggest that the production of grinding implements in the Neolithic of Greece was a specialized craft, practiced solely by specific individuals, nor to indicate the existence of communities oriented to the production and distribution of grinding tools. However, we cannot yet rule out that grinding implements were manufactured and used mainly on a gendered base, as several ethnographic cases suggest.102

Most pestles from Neolithic Greece are strategically designed implements. At Makriyalos pestles are manufactured through the combination of pecking, grinding and polishing, an additional technique that will have added a lustrous, ‘glossy’ appearance to the artifacts.103 A similar pattern is attested on the pestles from Koroneia104 and on some specimens from Ayios Vlasis105 and Avgi.106 At other sites, such as Achilleion107 and Makri,108 pestles are fashioned solely through pecking, carrying no evidence of abrasion or polishing. Expedient pestles are also reported from a few sites.109 The scarce group of Greek Neolithic mortars includes items that were fashioned through grinding and polishing (e.g., Makriyalos),110 or pecking (e.g., Koroneia,111 Avgi)112 or even more complex manufacturing sequences (e.g., a single specimen from Kleitos).113

The morphological attributes of the Neolithic grinding and pounding tools vary greatly. Regarding the grinding implements, both curvilinear (i.e., elliptical, oval and circular/sub-circular) and rectilinear shapes (i.e., rectangular/sub-rectangular, trapezoidal and square) are frequently encountered, while others (i.e., triangular) are represented with a very few specimens. These shapes are very common in many Neolithic sites across the Balkans and SE Europe.114 In most cases, these shapes were not the outcome of strategic production processes. In contrast, they reflect the natural, water-rolled forms of the cobbles and boulders, which served as raw materials for the grinding implements. However, cases of tools with manufacturing traces that have aimed at altering the shapes of the raw material are known from some Greek Neolithic sites (e.g., Alepotrypa Cave),115 suggesting that Neolithic people were willing and technically capable of completely modifying the raw materials if there was such a need (e.g., inconvenient shapes, faults in their parts etc.).

The profile shapes of the grinding implements exhibit even greater variation. Planoconvex, concave/convex and rectangular (flat/flat) longitudinal and transverse sections are usually the norm in the grinding slabs category, with the handheld grinders being often elliptical, circular, planoconvex or rectangular (flat/flat). However, several other shapes and combinations (e.g., wedged, plano/irregular, concave/irregular, trapezoidal, rhomboid, concave/concave) resulting from the complex biographies of the grinding tools (e.g., use-faces number, kinetics, body postures, the position of the tool over the contact surface) do appear in both passive and active implements.

The morphology of the Neolithic pounding implements is much more restricted. Pestles are usually elliptical or sub-rectangular in plan view with rounded/oval transverse sections. Bell-shaped,

101 Bekiaris 2018. 102 Hamon and Le Gall 2013; Robitaille 2016; Searcy 2011. 103 Tsoraki 2008: 70. 104 Almasidou 2019: 116. 105 Chondrou persοnal observation. 106 Bekiaris 2018: 201. 107 Winn and Shimabuku 1989: 272. 108 Bekiaris 2007: 54. 109 e.g., Avgi, Bekiaris 2018: 194; Saliagos, Evans and Renfrew 1968: 71. 110 Tsoraki 2008: 70-71. 111 Almasidou 2019: 111-112. 112 Bekiaris 2018: 200. 113 Chondrou 2018: 236. 114 e.g., Antonović 2003; Spears 1990. 115 Stroulia 2018: 206.

153 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

conical and cylindrical specimens are reported at sites such as Makriyalos,116 Koroneia,117 Ayios Vlasis,118 Toumba Kremasti119 and Elateia.120 Mortars are usually either elliptical or rectangular items with ovate concavities on their surfaces.

Length (in cm) Site Date Reference Min Max Achilleion EN 12 25 Winn and Shimabuku 1989 Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN 31.2 57.5 Stroulia 2018 Apsalos MN 12.4 49 Ninou 2006 Avgi MN/LN 10 50 Bekiaris 2018 DETh* MN - 48.2 Tsoraki 2008 Dikili Tash LN 29 49 Séfériadès 1992 Dispilio LN 10 54 Ninou 2006 Drakaina Cave LN/FN 13.1 45 Bekiaris forthcoming Mavropigi-Fillotsairi EN - 25.5 Ninou et al. forthcoming Franchthi Cave EN/FN 15.7 38.3 Stroulia 2010 Ftelia LN 5.5 27 Sampson 2002 Kleitos LN/FN 25 47 Chondrou 2018 Koroneia LN 28 47 Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN 19.4 43.5 Chondrou 2011 Lerna MN 19.8 29.4 Banks 2015 Makri LN 14 29.5 Bekiaris 2007 Makriyalos LN 19.8 32 Tsoraki 2008 Sarakenos Cave LN 10.5 17.5 Sampson 2008b Servia EN-LN 20 57 Mould et al. 2000 Sesklo EN 11.8 35 Wijnen 1981 Sitagroi LN/FN - 29.1 Elster 2003 Sosandra EN 23 38 Georgiadou 2015 Stavroupoli MN/LN 26 28.7 Alisøy 2002a Thermi* LN - 31.6 Tsoraki 2008 Yali FN 21 38 Sampson 1988 Table 8. The lengths of the Greek Neolithic grinding slabs. With the exception of two cases, marked with an asterisk (*), only the intact specimens were considered (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

As indicated by Table 8, most Greek Neolithic sites have yielded both small-sized (length <30cm) and larger grinding slabs (length >30cm). Sites that have yielded exclusively small grinding slabs do indeed exist in Neolithic Greece (Table 8, Figure 11), but these seem to be in a minority.121 In some of these sites, fragmentation as well as other consumption patterns (i.e., intense use, redesign, recycling), commonly encountered in prehistoric grinding tools, may have affected the recognition of larger implements in the assemblages. In Makri, for instance, most grinding implements survive in an extremely fragmented state (<25% of their original sizes),122 while very often these small fragments were further recycled as abraders, thus making the reconstruction of their original sizes extremely difficult and insecure. Furthermore, we should always keep in mind that at sites that were excavated several years ago (e.g., Achilleion), broken grinding tools may have not been collected, or analyzed and compared to the intact specimens, thus giving a false image regarding their sizes.

116 Tsoraki 2008: 70. 117 Almasidou 2019: 115. 118 Chondrou persοnal observation. 119 Chondrou 2011: 129. 120 Weinberg 1962: 205. 121 cf., Stroulia 2018. 122 Bekiaris 2007: 42.

154 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 11. Small-sized grinding slab from LN Makri: ventral face (workface), dorsal face and length section (Bekiaris 2007: Table 13).

4.4. The use and disuse of Neolithic food-processing ground stone tools

The use of the food-processing ground stone tools of Neolithic Greece have so far been approached mostly through the technological analysis of their workfaces and the macroscopic examination of their use wear. Microwear analyses, as well as other innovative analytical techniques (i.e., starch or phytolith analysis) that could facilitate the identification of the processed substances, have been rarely applied.123 Therefore, their exact uses remain more or less vague for most cases. Several recent studies,124 however, have attempted to approach the whole lives of these implements through a biographical perspective, thus unveiling intriguing complexities in their consumption patterns, as well as in the ways through which these implements have ended their use-lives.

Neolithic grinding tools tend to have either one or two opposite workfaces. Their configurations vary from (length axis/width axis) flat/flat, concave/flat, concave/concave, concave/convex. These configurations are considered to be the outcome of use, developed over initially flattish workfaces which were affected by the morphology of the active or passive implement, the kinetics involved, the user’s body posture, the processed material, the intensity of use and the frequency of maintenance.125 Double workfaces might have been used simultaneously or sequentially for the processing of similar or different materials. These implements may have been originally designed with two workfaces, or the second face may have been employed after the abandonment of the first one.126 A grinding tool with two workfaces from Avgi bears evidence of two different modes of use on each face, a passive and an active one, indicating the flexibility of the grinding equipment to support different tasks.127 On other grinding tools different use episodes occur on the same workface, with the one overlapping the other. For instance, there are cases of grinding slabs which have been used with different grinders, resulting in the formation of various overlapping configurations on the same workface.128

Site Date Single Redesigned Recycled Reused Unused Reference Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN X X X X Stroulia 2018 Avgi MN/LN X X X X X Bekiaris 2018 Drakaina Cave LN/FN X X X Bekiaris forthcoming

123 For some examples see: Chondrou et al. 2018; Stroulia et al. 2017; Procopiou 1998. 124 e.g., Bekiaris 2007, 2018; Chadou 2011; Chondrou 2011, 2018; Stroulia 2010; Tsoraki 2008. 125 cf., Stroulia 2018: 207. 126 cf., Stroulia 2010, 2018. 127 Bekiaris 2018: 256. 128 cf., Bekiaris 2018: 234; Stroulia 2010: 42.

155 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Site Date Single Redesigned Recycled Reused Unused Reference Franchthi Cave EN/FN X X X X X Stroulia 2010 Ftelia LN X Sampson 2002 Kleitos LN/FN X X X X Chondrou 2018 Koroneia LN X Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN X X X Chondrou 2011 Lerna MN X X X Banks 2015 Katsarou and Sampson Limnes Cave LN X 1997 Makri LN X Χ X X Bekiaris 2007 Makriyalos LN X X X X X Tsoraki 2008 Sarakenos Cave LN X X Sampson 2008b Servia MN/LN X X X Mould et al. 2000 Sitagroi LN/FN X X Elster 2003 Sosandra EN X X Georgiadou 2015 Stavroupoli MN/LN X X X Alisøy 2002a Table 9. The use sequences of the Greek Neolithic grinding slabs (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

The workfaces of the grinding implements are usually characterized by the presence of abrasive wear, commonly referred to as ‘smoothing’ in the literature. The macroscopic abrasive use-wear traces include the levelling of the surfaces, the extraction of grains, the development of sheen or polish, encountered at different intensities, as well as linear traces, in the form of subtle striations or scratches.129 The orientation of the linear traces can indicate the kinetics that the tool performed while in use (i.e., reciprocal or rotary movements), while it can contribute towards the passive (linear traces parallel to the length axis) or the active (linear traces transversally to the length axis) use of the grinding implement. 130 Pestles usually preserve traces of abrasion, such as smoothing and polishing and/or traces of percussion, such as pitting or heavier percussion scars (e.g., Makriyalos,131 Koroneia,132 Toumba Kremasti)133 on either one or both their narrow ends. The small group of Neolithic mortars bears usually one concavity which has served as a workface. Α rare double mortar is reported at Makriyalos.134 Use wear within the mortars’ cavities includes both abrasive and light percussive wear that has occurred from pounding or stirring activities (e.g., Koroneia,135 Makriyalos).136

Most Greek Neolithic grinding tools have lived complex (and perhaps long) use-lives, since they were employed within the context of several activities, shifting between different functional roles during their life-cycles. The regular curation of the grinding implements (e.g., the rejuvenation of their blunt workfaces) was indeed the most common intervention that aimed at prolonging the tools’ use-lives. Furthermore, practices of reuse, reshaping and recycling137 are often documented in the grinding equipment of many Neolithic sites both in northern and southern Greece (Table 9). Grinding tools were transformed into new tool types after the completion of their primary function or their destruction. The transformation of grinding slabs into grinders, for instance, is a

129 see Adams et al. 2009. 130 see Adams 2002. 131 Tsoraki 2008: 101. 132 Almasidou 2019: 116-117. 133 Chondrou 2011: 130. 134 Tsoraki 2008: 101. 135 Almasidou 2019: 112. 136 Tsoraki 2008: 101. 137 Grinding tools that have been used with two or multiple surfaces in the exact same manner (e.g., passive or active abrasive mode) are considered to be ‘reused’. Implements that have been used with the same or multiple surfaces but in a different manner, commonly attested to by the presence of different wear (e.g., grinding slabs used as grinders), or implements that have been further consumed in a ‘non-tool’ context (e.g., grinding tools used as grave goods or building material) are considered ‘recycled’. Items that have been remodified before their recycling are considered ‘redesigned’. For the definition of these terms see also Stroulia 2010: 7.

156 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 12. Grinding slab from MN/LN Avgi, redesigned through flaking to be used as a grinder: ventral face (workface), left side, dorsal face and simulation of the tool’s handling (Bekiaris 2018: Figure 143). rather common practice encountered in many Neolithic sites (e.g., Avgi138 (Figure 12), Makriyalos,139 Kleitos,140 Francthi).141 Grinding slabs were also often recycled as abraders, a use that has led to the formation of grooves or depressions over the surfaces of the tool (e.g., Makri).142 Other slabs have served a passive percussive role and were used as anvils (e.g., Drakaina Cave),143 while fewer are the cases of grinding slabs that were recycled as cutting surfaces or even as cooking slabs (e.g., Makriyalos).144 Grinders often served a percussive function with their ends, as pounders, pestles or hammers. Pestles were rarely recycled for active abrasive tasks with their sides (e.g., Makri).145

Another common recycling practice is the incorporation of intact or broken grinding tools in architectural features. In Servia, grinding tools have been used as packing material in postholes and foundation ditches.146 Also, grinding implements have been found incorporated into thermal clay structures, as part of the structure’s floor or its substructure, a pattern detected in northern and southern Greece as well (e.g., Kleitos,147 Franchthi).148 It remains open to debate, whether these varied cases represent cases of simple practical reuse of the tools as construction material, or a practice of certain symbolic significance, or both.149

Preservation Site Date Total Reference Intact Fragmented Indeterminate Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN 45 5 - 50 Stroulia 2018 Avgi MN/LN 18 99 - 117 Bekiaris 2018 Cyclops Cave MN/LN - 2 - 2 Sampson 2008a Dispilio LN 18 197 - 24 Ninou 2006 Drakaina Cave LN/FN 44 37 - 81 Bekiaris forthcoming Franchthi Cave EN/FN 19 86 - 105 Stroulia 2010 Ftelia LN 8 30 - 38 Sampson 2002 Kleitos LN/FN 7 133 - 140 Chondrou 2018

138 Bekiaris 2018. 139 Tsoraki 2008. 140 Chondrou 2018. 141 Stroulia 2010. 142 Bekiaris 2007: 46. 143 Bekiaris forthcoming. 144 Tsoraki 2008: 107. 145 Bekiaris 2007: 55. 146 Mould et al. 2000. 147 Chondrou 2018. 148 Stroulia 2010. 149 Rosenberg 2013.

157 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Preservation Site Date Total Reference Intact Fragmented Indeterminate Koroneia LN 1 21 - 22 Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN 20 580 - 600 Stroulia et al. 2017 Lerna MN 3 5 - 8 Banks 2015 Limnes Cave LN - 5 - 5 Katsarou and Sampson 1997 Makri LN 16 93 - 109 Bekiaris 2007 Megalo Nisi Galanis LN 1 47 - 48 Stroulia 2003 Sarakenos Cave LN 3 18 - 21 Sampson 2008b Servia EN/LN 8 22 - 30 Mould et al. 2000 Sitagroi LN/FN 1 42 36 79 Elster 2003 Sosandra EN 11 7 - 18 Georgiadou 2015 Stavroupoli MN/LN 4 36 1 41 Alisøy 2002a Table 10. The preservation of the Greek Neolithic grinding slabs (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

Preservation Site Date Total Reference Intact Fragmentary Indeterminate Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN 17 - - 17 Stroulia 2018 Avgi MN/LN 210 18 - 228 Bekiaris 2018 Cyclops Cave MN/LN 4 14 - 18 Sampson 2008a Drakaina Cave LN/FN 103 18 - 121 Bekiaris forthcoming Franchthi Cave EN/FN 26 1 4 31 Stroulia 2010 Ftelia LN 51 23 - 74 Sampson 2002 Kleitos LN/FN 11 215 - 226 Chondrou 2018 Koroneia MN/LN 14 6 - 20 Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN 1 30 - 31 Chondrou 2011 Lerna MN 2 1 - 3 Banks 2015 Limnes Cave LN 5 9 - 14 Katsarou and Sampson 1997 Makri LN 30 10 - 40 Bekiaris 2007 Sarakenos Cave LN 4 8 - 12 Sampson 2008b Servia EN/LN - 1 - 1 Mould et al. 2000 Sitagroi LN/FN - 8 10 18 Elster 2003 Sosandra EN 4 2 - 6 Georgiadou 2015 Stavroupoli MN/FN 10 7 - 17 Alisøy 2002a Table 11. The preservation of Greek Neolithic grinders (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

Most Neolithic grinding tools have ended their use-lives because of breakage, as the fragmentary preservation of most specimens indicates (Tables 10 and 11). In many cases the fragmentation cannot be attributed to accidents. The presence of impact points, or the identification of specific breakage patterns indicates deliberate percussive actions. The deliberate decommissioning of grinding slabs through breakage (Figure 13) has been recently recognized as a widespread practice, attested to repeatedly within many Greek Neolithic ground stone assemblages, both in the north and south (e.g., Avgi,150 Kleitos,151 Makriyalos,152 Franchthi,153 Toumba Kremasti,154 Megalo Nisi Galanis).155 The social and symbolic connotations of this practice have been thoroughly discussed

150 Bekiaris 2018. 151 Chondrou 2018. 152 Tsoraki 2008. 153 Stroulia 2010. 154 Stroulia and Chondrou 2013; Stroulia et al. 2017. 155 Stroulia 2003.

158 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 13. Grinding slab broken into several fragments from LN Τoumba Kremasti: ventral face (workface), width section, length section and dorsal face (Chondrou 2011: Figure 87).

in the literature.156 A burning process seems also to be closely related to the decommissioning of grinding tools and it is attested to at some sites (e.g., Makriyalos,157 Kleitos,158 Toumba Kremasti).159

4.5. Contexts of use and deposition in the Neolithic: houses, open areas and pits

Figure 14. Grinding tools from different contexts at LN Avgi. Left: grinding slab on the floor of a LN house, Middle: grinding tools in an open area, indicating the presence of an open-air grinding locale, Right: grinding tool disposed in the interior of a small LN pit along with >60.000 carbonized seeds and architectural fragments (Bekiaris 2018: Figures 9, 11, 20).

In the Greek Neolithic, grinding and pounding implements are usually encountered within the habitation zones of the settlements (Table 12), either in the interior of individual houses or in the adjacent open spaces.160 Most domestic units are equipped with one or two grinding toolsets (e.g., Avgi,161 Dispilio,162 Lerna,163 Paliambela,164 Rakhmani,165 Kleitos).166 The EN house at Sosandra stands out as an intriguing exception, since it has yielded 19 grinding slabs and 6 grinders from a single building.167 At some sites (e.g., Avgi/Figure 14, Kleitos), grinding tools are encountered more frequently in the open areas between the buildings, than in their interior.

Context Site Date Reference Building Open Area Pit Burial Ditch Cave Achilleion EN X X Gimbutas et al. 1989 Alepotrypa Cave LN/FN X X Stroulia 2018 Apsalos MN X Ninou 2006

156 e.g., Adams 2008; Bekiaris 2018: 321-323; Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 157 Τsoraki 2008. 158 Chondrou 2011. 159 Stroulia et al. 2017. 160 cf., Bekiaris in press; Chondrou and Ziota in preparation; Stratouli et al. 2013. 161 Bekiaris 2018: 333-334. 162 Kalogiropoulou 2013: 151. 163 Banks 2015: 184. 164 Siamidou 2017: 14. 165 Wace and Thompson 1912: 43-53. 166 Chondrou 2018, forthcoming. 167 Georgiadou 2015.

159 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Context Site Date Reference Building Open Area Pit Burial Ditch Cave Avgi LN Χ Χ Χ Χ Bekiaris 2018 Ayioryitika MN-FN X X X Petrakis 2002 Cyclops Cave LN X Sampson 2008a Chondrou personal Dikili Tash LN X X X observation Dispilio LN X Ninou 2006 Drakaina Cave LN X Bekiaris forthcoming Elateia EN/MN X Weinberg 1962 Mavropigi- EN X Ninou et al. forthcoming Fillotsairi Franchthi Cave EN-FN X Stroulia 2010 Ftelia LN X Sampson 2002 Kitsos Cave MN-FN X Perlès 1981 Kleitos LN / FN X X X X Chondrou 2018 Koromilia LN X X Bekiaris personal observation Koroneia LN X Almasidou 2019 Toumba Kremasti LN X Chondrou 2011 Lerna MN X Banks 2015 Limnes Cave LN X Katsarou and Sampson 1997 Makri LN X X X Bekiaris 2007 Makriyalos LN Χ Χ Χ Tsoraki 2008 Paliambela EN-MN X X X Kotsakis 2018; Siamidou 2017 Rachmani FN X Wace and Thompson 1912 Saliagos LN/FN Evans and Renfrew 1968 Sarakenos Cave LN X Sampson 2008b Servia MN X X Mould et al. 2000 Skoteini Cave LN X Sampson 1993b Sosandra EN X Georgiadou 2015 Stavroupoli MN-LN X X Alisøy 2002a Theopetra Cave EN-LN X Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000 Table 12. The contexts (marked with an X) of the Greek Neolithic grinding and pounding implements.

Despite their findspots, grinding and pounding were neither fixed nor spatially stable processes. Based on their sizes (see Table 8), most grinding implements are considered to be portable items, which could have been rather easily transported to different areas of the built environment, in order to support various needs. Therefore their contexts may have regularly switched between house interior and exterior, as has already been suggested for several sites (e.g., Makriyalos).168 The reasons for these changes may have varied: weather conditions, the mood of the individual who carries out the task, certain demands of the grinding practice, like the management of the end product, or even grinding for special social occasions, such as gatherings, rituals or feasts.169 Thus we can safely assume that the spatial form of Neolithic grinding and pounding practices is characterized by fluidity and that their findspots do not necessarily reflect the contexts in which these artifacts were regularly employed. A contrast to this spatial fluidity are the rare cases of food- processing installations, where the stone component was fixed, mostly on a clay basin or on a clay base. Such cases are reported from Paliambela,170 Stavroupoli171 and possibly Kleitos172 in northern Greece and Lerna in nouthern Greece,173 while a few others are known from the Balkans.174

168 Tsoraki 2008: 131. 169 see also Baysal and Wright 2005: 315. 170 Kotsakis 2018: 41. 171 Kotsos 2013. 172 Chondrou forthcoming. 173 Banks 2015: 184. 174 e.g., Grbić et al. 1960; Crnobrnja et al. 2009; Nikolov 1989; Fidanoski 2015.

160 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

The contexts of Neolithic grinding and pounding tools are not confined to houses and open areas. Several cases of structured depositions or of other special deposits, occurring within cuttings, such as pits and ditches, have been recently investigated in northern Greece (e.g., Avgi,175 Toumba Kremasti,176 Makriyalos,177 see Table 12). Most of these deposits contained grinding tools (e.g., Avgi,178 Toumba Kremasti,179 Makriyalos),180 amongst other organic and inorganic finds. The biographies of the disposed implements have varied. In some cases the tools were burnt, prior to their disposal, or they were deliberately fractured, with the signs of intended breakages still visible.181 At certain sites (e.g., Toumba Kremasti),182 conjoining fragments of the same grinding implement have been disposed in the same (Figure 13) or different pits, a treatment that highlights the existence of a structure in this practice. Other grinding implements were intact and fully functional when they were disposed of, yet decommissioned through their burial into the features suggested meanings of these depositional practices also vary: from foundation rituals (e.g., Avgi,183 Figure 14), closing rituals (e.g., Kleitos)184 or destruction acts,185 to commemorative practices tied to specific memories, persons and moments, or to feasting events (e.g., Makriyalos).186 Beyond this variation, it is obvious that through such acts of secondary treatment grinding tools acquired special meanings and became the means of forging and displaying identities187 in the social life of the Neolithic communities of Greece.

Finally, there are some rare examples of grinding tools that have been found in association with Neolithic burials (Table 12). In Alepotrypa Cave, a grinding slab was found alongside a female burial,188 while at Makri a pair of grinding tools was disposed along with the deceased.189 These tools were probably placed with the dead as grave goods. In other cases, grinding slabs were put on the neck of the deceased (e.g., Makri)190 or located near their heads (e.g., Ayioryitika),191 indicating that they may have served as ‘pillows’.

4.6. Grinding and pounding beyond the Neolithic built environment: the case of caves

Neolithic food-processing stone tools were also consumed in places away from the built environment and the domestic arena. Excavations at Neolithic cave sites of Greece (see Table 12), yielded several grinding and pounding implements. Their presence within these cavities was certainly integrated into the reasons for which the people visited the caves. The implication of grinding tools in food preparation practices that probably took place in the caves is strongly hinted by the spatial association of the grinding tools with thermal structures (e.g., Franchthi,192 Drakaina Cave),193 but also from the archaeobotanical data. For instance, in Drakaina Cave the presence of already processed seeds (pounded or crushed) in the archaeobotanical assemblage194 suggests that some form of food preparation and consumption might have occurred on the Cave’s grounds.195 Such practices may have aimed at covering the dietary needs of people that for whatever reason had

175 Stratouli et al. 2014. 176 Hondroyianni-Metoki 2009. 177 Pappa et al. 2004. 178 Bekiaris 2018. 179 Stroulia and Chondrou 2013; Stroulia et al. 2017. 180 Tsoraki 2008. 181 e.g., Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 182 Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 183 Bekiaris 2018: 385-390. 184 Chondrou 2018: 406 185 e.g., Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 186 Tsoraki 2008: 143. 187 cf., Graefe et al. 2009. 188 Stroulia 2018: 204 189 Bekiaris 2007: 68. 190 Efstratiou 1998: 28 191 Petrakis 2002: 57. 192 Stroulia 2010: 41. 193 Bekiaris forthcoming. 194 Sarpaki 2009. 195 Stratouli et al. 2017: 190.

161 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

chosen to use the caves as shelters for shorter or longer periods of time (i.e., Theopetra Cave).196 In other cases, the prepared food might have been consumed in the context of periodic visits or social gatherings of a symbolic character (cf. Drakaina Cave).197 It has been suggested that in Alepotrypa Cave the ground stone tools have not been used inside the cavity, but they were brought from the nearby settlements in order to be deposited there. Their deposition might have occurred in the context of ceremonies or rituals that that took place at the Cave, as offerings to the dead, the ancestors, the gods or spirits.198

5. The Bronze Age material

Assembling an overview of the food-processing ground stone equipment of Bronze Age Greece is a rather challenging and difficult endeavor. The challenge lies in the diversity and heterogeneity that characterizes the Greek Bronze Age world both regionally (for instance northern Greece, in comparison to southern Greece, the Cyclades and Crete) and chronologically, in terms of spatial organization, architecture, material culture, political and social structure, economy and religion.199 The difficulty rests in the scarcity of the ground stone data. In contrast with the recent wave of Neolithic ground stone studies, the Bronze Age material has yet to receive a similar attention. Most publications or excavation reports usually mention only a few grinding and pounding implements. Emphasis has been given on the intact and visually more ‘attractive’ artifacts, with the broken implements, that usually comprise the majority of the assemblages, remaining ‘uncatalogued’,200 as several publications make clear,201 and thus unpublished. However, there are some notable exceptions to this rule. Minoan ground stone industries, for instance, are well documented in the literature due to the works of Don Evely,202 Heidi Dierckx203 and Hara Procopiou,204 while Harriet Blitzer’s pioneering work at Kommos205 has contributed towards the establishment of a classification system, still being applied in several studies.206 Antikleia Agrafioti and Anastasia Devetzi have also shed significant light on the ground stone implements from Akrotiri, Thera, which are thoroughly presented in several publications.207 In mainland southern Greece the works of Curtis Runnels,208 Don Evely209 and Harriet Blitzer210 stand out, while regional surveys have provided useful insights into the diachronic presence of ground stone implements in particular geographical areas.211 It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that the picture we gain for the ground stone industries of the Bronze Age Greece concerns mostly the southern parts of the country (Figure 15), particularly Crete and the Peloponnese. The Cyclades and the other Aegean Islands are represented by a few studies,212 while, with the exception of a few cases,213 Bronze Age Macedonia remains more or less a terra incognita regarding ground stone technology. This geographical unevenness is the exact opposite of what was the case for the Neolithic material, where the vast majority of the data has derived from sites located in northern Greece. Despite these constrains, there are some interesting observations that arise from the Bronze Age food-processing ground stone equipment.

196 Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000. 197 Stratouli 2005; Stratouli et al. 2017. 198 Stroulia 2018: 236. 199 cf., Andreou 2010. 200 The emphasis on collecting and studying only the intact, thus ‘prettiest’ and presumably ‘diagnostic’ lithics has been accurately defined by S. Rosen as ‘The Pretty-Piece Syndrome’ (Rosen 1997: 37). 201 e.g., Evely 2006: 271. 202 e.g., Evely 1984, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016. 203 e.g., Dierckx 1992, 2012, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b. 204 e.g., Procopiou 2013. 205 Blitzer 1995. 206 e.g., Carter 2004. 207 e.g., Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007; Devetzi 2007, 2008. 208 e.g., Runnels 1981, 1988. 209 e.g., Evely 2012. 210 e.g., Blitzer 1991, 1992. 211 e.g., Carter and Ydo 1996; Kardulias and Runnels 1995. 212 e.g., Agouridis 2015; Georgiadis 2012, 2017; Rowan et al. 2013. 213 e.g., Agatzioti 2000; Alisøy 2002b; Tsiolaki 2009.

162 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 15. Map with the Greek Bronze Age sites mentioned in the text. Legend: 1. Sitagroi, 2. Mesimeriani Toumba, 3. Toumba Thessalonikis, 4. Agios Athanasios, 5. Kastanas, 6. Archontiko, 7. Angelochori, 8. Kleitos, 9. Servia, 10. Argissa, 11. Iolkos, 12. Lithares, 13. Eutresis, 14. Manika, 15. Kalogerovrysi, 16. Lefkandi, 17. Athenian Acropolis, 18. Spata, 19. Agios Kosmas, 20. Koropi, 21. Palamari, 22. Poliochni, 23. Emporio, 24. Chalandriani, 25. Korakou, 26. Zygouries, 27. Dendra, 28. Mycenae, 29. Tiryns, 30. Asine, 31. Lerna, 32. Ayioryitika, 33. Midea, 34. Prosymna, 35. Malthi, 36. Nichoria, 37. Tzoungiza, 38. Dhokos, 39. Ayia Irini, 40. Phylakopi, 41. Akrotiraki, Siphnos, 42. Pyrgos, Paros, 43. Akrotiri, Naxos, 44. Dhaskalio, 45. Markiani, 46. Akrotiri, Thera, 47. Agia Aikaterini, Khania, 48. Apodoulou, 49. Kommos, 50. Hagia Triada, 51. Moni Odigitria, 52. Poros-Katsambas, 53. Monastiriako Kephali, 54. Knossos, 55. Bougadha Metochi, 56. Archanes, 57. Galatas, 58. Nirou Chani, 59. Khondros-Kephala, 60. Mallia, 61. Sissi, 62. Myrtos, 63. Alatzomouri Cave, 64. Gournia, 65. Aphrodite Kephali, 66. Chalasmenos, 67. Monastiraki Katalimata, 68. Kavousi, 69. Mochlos, 70. Pseira, 71. Petras, Siteia, 72. Hagia Photia, 73. Palaikastro, 74. Zakros.

163 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Site Date Grinder Grinding Mortar Pestle Reference slab Bruun-Lundgren and Winman Agia Aikaterini, Khania LMII-IIIC + + + + 2000; Evely 2016 Agios Athanasios EBA + + - - Chondrou et al. in preparation Agios Kosmas ΕΗ + + + + Mylonas 1959 Alatzomouri Cave EMIII + - - - Dierckx 2017b Akrotiraki, Siphnos ECI-IIB - + - - Rambach 2000 Akrotiri, Naxos EC - - - + Rambach 2000 EBA-LBA + + + + Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007; Devetzi Akrotiri, Thera 2007, 2008 Angelochori LBA + + - - Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming Aphrodite’s Kephali ΕΜΙ - - + - Dierckx 2013 Apodoulou ΜΜΙΙ-ΜΜΙΙΙ + + - - Tzigkounaki 2011 EM-LM + + - - Sakellarakis and Sapouna- Archanes Sakellaraki 1997 Archontiko EBA/LBA + + - - Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming Hanschmann and Milojčić 1976; Argissa EBA-MBA + - - - Hanschmann 1981 Asine MH-LH + + - + Nordquist 1987; Runnels 1981 Ayia Irini I-III EC-MC + + + + Wilson 1999; Overbeck 1989; Davis 1986 Ayioryitika EHI-II + + - - Petrakis 2002 Bougadha Metochi MMIII + + - - Rethemiotakis and Warren 2014 Chalandriani ECI-II + + + + Rambach 2000; Hekman 2003 Chalasmenos LMIIIC + + + + Dierckx and Eaby 2018 Dhaskalio EBA + + + + Rowan et al. 2013 Emporio EBA + + + + Hood 1982 Eutresis EH-LH + + - + Goldman 1931 Galatas MMIB-LMIA + + - + Rethemiotakis 1999 Gournia EM-LM + + + + Boyd Hawes et al. 1908 Hagia Photia EMI-IIA - + - + Davaras and Betancourt 2004 Iolkos LBA + + + + Adrimi-Sismani 2014 Kalogerovrysi ΕΗ-ΜΗ + + - - Sampson 1993a Kastanas EBA-LBA + + - - Aslanis 1985; Hochstetter 1987 Kavousi, Vronda LMIIIC + + + + Dierckx 2016a Kleitos MBA + + - - Chondrou 2018 Knossos LMII + + - + Evely 1984 Kommos ΜΜIII-LMIIIB + + + + Blitzer 1995 Korakou EH-LH + + + + Blegen 1921 Lefkandi LHIIIC + + + + Evely 2006 Lerna MH + + - - Runnels 1981 Lithares EH + + - + Tzavella-Evjen 1984 Mallia ΜΜΙΙ – ΜΜΙΙΙΑ + + + + Procopiou 2013 Malthi MH-LH + + + + Blitzer 1991 Manika EH + + + + Sampson 1988 Markiani EBA + + - + Scarre 2006 Mesimeriani Toumba EBA + + - - Alisøy 2002b Midea MH-LH + + + + Demakopoulou 1998; Walberg 1998 Mochlos MM-LM + + + + Carter 2004

164 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Site Date Grinder Grinding Mortar Pestle Reference slab Monastiraki Katalimata LMIIIC + + - - Nowicki 2008 Monastiriako Kephali LMII-III - + - + Evely 2013 Moni Odigitria EMI-MMII + - - - Evely 2010 Mycenae ΜΗ-LΗ + + + + Evely and Runnels 1992 Myrtos EΜΙΙΑ-ΙΙΒ + + - + Warren 1972 Nichoria ΜΗ-LΗ + + - - Blitzer 1992 Palaikastro MMIIA-LMIIIA2 + + + + Doherty and Evely 2002; Evely 2012, 2019 Palamari ΕΒΑ-ΜΒΑ + + + + Agouridis 2015 Petras Cemetery ΕΜΙ-ΜΜΙΙ + + + + Dierckx 2012; 2017a Petras, Siteia I MM-LM + + + + Dierckx 2016b Phourni, Archanes EMIIA-MMIA - - - + Papadatos 2005 Phylakopi EBA-LBA + + + - Cherry and Davis 2007 Poliochni ΕΒΑ-LBA + + + + Bernabò-Brea 1976 Prosymna LH + - - + Blegen 1937 Pseira ΕΜ-LM + + + + Dierckx 1992 Pyrgos, Paros ECIA-IB + - - - Rambach 2000 Servia EBA ? + + + Mould et al. 2000 Sissi LM + + + + Tsoraki 2012 Sitagroi EBA + + - - Elster 2003 Tiryns LHII-IIIB + + + + Rahmstorf 2008; Runnels 1981 Toumba Thessalonikis MBA/LBA + + - + Tsiolaki 2009 Tsoungiza EΗΙ-ΙΙΙ + + + + Krattenmaker 2011 Zakros MM-LM - - + - Platon 1971 Zygouries EH + + - + Blegen 1928 Table 13. The presence (+) or absence (-) of information regarding the main food-processing ground stone types in Bronze Age Greece.

5.1. The typology and technology of the Bronze Age food-processing ground stone tools

In terms of typology and technomorphology (Table 13) the Bronze Age grinding and pounding tools do not seem to deviate much from their Neolithic predecessors. Elliptical or rectangular grinding slabs with flat and mostly concave workfaces, usually referred to by the term ‘saddles’,214 and handheld grinders of various shapes and workface configurations are common in most Bronze Age assemblages. Akrotiri at Thera forms an intriguing exception, since it yielded some typologically unique grinding slabs, along with the more common types. Elaborately crafted triangular or boat- shaped passive grinding tools with plastic decorations and lugs, but also three-legged specimens (Figure 16) are reported from Akrotiri with the most well-preserved items coming from the so- called ‘West House’.215 Marinatos216 has argued that these unique tools were probably employed in the context of religious cult practices. During the Early Bronze Age, another unique type of passive abrasive ground stone implement appears in the Aegean. Stone palettes (Figure 17) are elaborately fashioned artifacts, commonly made out of marble but also schist. They appear at several Cycladic sites (e.g., Akrotiri at Naxos, Akrotiraki at Siphnos,217 Αyia Irini, Kea,218 Akrotiri, Thera),219 but also on

214 e.g., Wilson 1999: 153. 215 Devetzi 2007 216 Marinatos 1968: 57-58. 217 cf., Getz-Gentle 1996; Rambach 2000. 218 Wilson 1999: 149-150. 219 Devetzi 2008.

165 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Figure 16. Triangular, three-legged andesitic grinding slab from Akrotiri (left & middle) and its findspot within a room in the Western House (Devetzi 2007: 146, Plan 5, and Figure 13 respectively).

Crete and Mainland Greece.220 They are usually rectangular or sub-rectangular in plan view, with raised borders that create a narrow rectangular cavity or trough that serves as a workface.221 Their typology comprises both large and small, probably handheld, objects (lengths between 9.4 – 33cm), as well as specimens with perforations in their four corners and also unperforated items. Palettes were usually found along with grinders or pestles and they have been associated with the processing of coloring agents.222 These objects may have participated in ritual acts, for grinding colors to be consumed in the context of burial rites or for other symbolic acts (e.g., as ‘litters’ for the resting of marble figurines),223 but also served as offerings and grave goods, as suggested by their presence in several burials. However, some specimens could have also been consumed in a domestic context for the grinding of grains.224 Devetzi argues that the presence of discernible wear on the Early Cycladic palettes is indicative of their use within long-term domestic activities Figure 17. Early Cycladic stone palettes, and not exclusively during rituals performed prior to burial perforated (top) and un-perforated (middle acts.225 Both the Cycladic stone palettes and the elaborately and bottom) (drawing: Tasos Bekiaris, after Getz-Gentle 1996: Figures 42, 46). fashioned grinding slabs from Akrotiri, Thera are typological exceptions to assemblages dominated by querns that are typologically identical to the Neolithic implements.

Μore distinct changes are evident in the pounding equipment of the Greek Bronze Age. Ever since the Early Bronze Age226 there is a significant expansion in the use of both stone mortars and pestles (Figure 18). Stone mortars, which were scarce in the Neolithic Period, appear now regularly at

220 Getz-Gentle 1996: 93-96. 221 Getz-Gentle 1996: 82. 222 e.g., Mylonas 1959: 142. 223 see Getz-Gentle 1996: 90. 224 Devetzi 2008: 140, 145; Getz-Gentle 1996: 87; Mylonas 1959: 142. 225 Devetzi 2008: 145. 226 Runnels 1988.

166 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

various Bronze Age sites227 (Table 13). Their typology comprises both stable and portable specimens, although rare, stable mortars are known from some Bronze Age sites. For instance, at Pseira mortars have been carved into the site’s natural limestone bedrock, which was exposed in the interior of some houses,228 while at Gournia, large, probably immobile, mortars were located next to the street doors of many houses, some being sunk into the floor up to their rim.229 Mortars embedded in house floors are also known from Kommos230 and Kavousi.231 Devetzi232 suggests that some mortars from Akrotiri, Thera were probably fixed in benches or other structures, as their external surfaces were left untreated, meaning that they were Figure 18. Stone mortar and pestle from EBA Agios Kosmas (drawing: not visible. Further to the north, at Tasos Bekiaris, after Runnels 1988: Figure 8). Iolkos, Adrimi reports mortars placed on benches or in the floors of rooms.233 Portable mortars tend to have various shapes and forms (i.e., ‘tray-like’, trapezoidal, circular, triangular, boat-shaped), comprising both shallow and deep specimens. Some items remain crude, while others are more elaborate and decorated with reliefs, lugs or legs, like the so-called ‘tripod mortars’.234

Tripod mortars represent a very distinct type of pounding implement (Figure 19).235 They have a rounded body, which rests on three short, mostly rectangular, legs. Some of them have a narrow spout. They have been found at various sites both in mainland Greece and Crete (Table 14), dating mostly to the LBA (e.g., Mochlos,236 Sissi,237 Midea,238 Mycenae,239 Iolkos),240 but intriguingly are absent from others (e.g., Pseira,241 Tsoungiza).242 According to Buchholz243 tripod mortars were Syro-Palestinian imports (e.g., Mochlos, Mycenae, Spata, Athenian Acropolis),244 reflecting connections between the LBA Aegean and the Near East. Subsequent data, however, have indicated the existence of production centers in both Cyprus and the Aegean, specifically in LMIA Akrotiri,

227 At some sites (e.g., Emporio, Phylakopi) mortars are confused with pivot stones, since both artifact groups bear a cavity on their surfaces. In other cases (e.g., Iolkos) tripod mortars have been classified as ‘tripodic grinding tools’, thought to have served a similar function (Adrimi-Sismani 2014: 814-817). 228 Dierckx 1992: 179. 229 Boyd Hawes et al. 1908: 32, left column. 230 Blitzer 1995: 481. 231 Dierckx 2016a: 145. 232 Devetzi 2007: 125-126. 233 Adrimi-Sismani 2014: 818. 234 cf., Runnels 1988: 270. 235 see Warren 1969. 236 Carter 2004. 237 Tsoraki 2012. 238 Demakopoulou 1998. 239 Evely and Runnels 1992. 240 Adrimi-Sismani 2014. 241 Dierckx 1992. 242 Krattenmaker 2011. 243 Buchholz 1963. 244 Evely and Runnels 1992.

167 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Figure 19. Tripod mortars from Akrotiri (Devetzi 2000: Plate 33)

Thera, thus supporting the local origin for many specimens.245 Tripod mortars could have been deployed in both utilitarian (e.g., Mochlos,246 Iolkos)247 and ritual contexts, while some may have been perceived as ‘prestige’ items (e.g., Palaikastro).248 They have been used in various ways, both for grinding and pounding tasks, including the pulverizing of seeds and plants, as well as of oils, scents and pigments. The presence of a spout in some tripodic items, as well as their findspots (e.g., Iolkos)249 associate them with the processing of liquids (e.g., oils, grapes, scents).

Site Date Reference Akrotiri, Thera LMI Devetzi 2007 Athenean Acropolis LHIIIC Evely and Runnels 1992 Dendra LH? Evely and Runnels 1992 Gournia LMI Boyd Hawes et al. 1908 Hagia Triada LM? Warren 1969 Iolkos LBA Adrimi-Sismani 2014 Khondros-Kephala LMIIIA-B Warren 1969 Knossos LMI-IIIC Warren 1969 Lefkandi LBA Evely 2006 Mallia LMI Warren 1969 Midea LHIII Demakopoulou 1998 Mochlos LM Carter 2004 Mycenae LHIIIB-C Evely and Runnels 1992 Nirou Chani LM? Warren 1969 Palaikastro LM? Sackett and Popham 1965 Poros-Katsambas LM? Warren 1969 Sissi LM Tsoraki 2012 Spata LHIII Evely and Runnels 1992 Zakros LM Platon 1971 Τable 14. Greek Bronze Age sites that have yielded tripod mortars.

Pestles are also frequently encountered in the Greek Bronze Age, sometimes in spatial association with mortars,250 and along with other stone implements (e.g., stone tables, e.g. Mochlos).251 Their types and forms vary, with the cylindrical, conical, bell-shaped, spool-shaped (e.g., Akrotiri, Thera)252 and ‘hour-glass’ (Ayia Irini)253 pestles being the most frequent types.

The Bronze Age communities of Greece employed a wide range of rocks, sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic, for the manufacture of their grinding and pounding implements (Table 15).

245 Carter 2004: 77; Demakopoulou 1998: 225; Devetzi 2000. 246 Carter 2004. 247 Adrimi-Sismani 2014: 814. 248 Sackett and Popham 1965. 249 Adrimi-Sismani 2014: 814. 250 e.g., Marinatos 1969: 48. 251 Carter 2004: 65. 252 Devetzi 2008: 141. 253 Wilson 1999: 150.

168 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Site Date Ande- Granite Grano- Indet. Schist Phyllite Quart- Sand- Conglo- Gneiss Reference site diorite volcanic zite stone merate

Bruun-Lundgren and Agia Aikaterini LMII-IIIC X Winman 2000; Agios Chondrou et al. in EBA X X Athanasios preparation Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007; Akrotiri, Thera EBA-LBA X Devetzi 2007 Bekiaris and Valamoti Angelochori LBA X X forthcoming Bekiaris and Valamoti Archontiko EBA/LBA X forthcoming Chalasmenos LMIIIC X Dierckx and Eaby 2018 Dhaskalio EBA X Rowan et al. 2013 Emporio EBA X Hood 1982 Iolkos LBA X Adrimi-Sismani 2014 Kalogerovrysi EH-MH X Sampson 1993a Aslanis 1985; Hochstetter Kastanas EBA-LBA X 1987 Kavousi, LMIIIC X X Dierckx 2016a Vronda Kleitos MBA X Chondrou 2018 Kommos ΜΜIII-LMIIIB X Blitzer 1995 Lerna MH X Runnels 1981 Manika EH X Sampson 1988 Mesimeriani EBA X Alisøy 2002b Toumba Midea MH-LH X X Walberg 1998 Mochlos MM-LM X Carter 2004 Mycenae MH-LH X X Evely and Runnels 1992 Myrtos EMIIA-IIB X Warren 1972 EMIIB- Doherty and Evely 2002; Palaikastro X X LMIIIA2 Evely 2019 Petras, Siteia I MM-LM X Dierckx 2016b Phylakopi EBA-LBA X Cherry and Davis 2007 Pseira EM-LM X Dierckx 1992 Servia EBA X Mould et al. 2000 Sissi LM X Tsoraki 2012 Tiryns LHIII-IIIB X Runnels 1981 Toumba MBA/LBA X Tsiolaki 2009 Thessalοnikis Tsoungiza EHI-III X X Krattenmaker 2011 Table 15. The dominant raw materials (marked with an X) used for the manufacture of grinding tools in Bronze Age Greece only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

Preferences in raw material selection that were observed in the Neolithic, such as the employment of secondary sources (e.g., Kommos),254 and the selection of rocks with specific mechanical properties for the production of certain tool-types, also apply for the Bronze Age food-processing stone implements. However, there are some notable differences in the acquisition strategies. Along with the local resources which the Bronze Age communities had systematically exploited for the procurement of their lithic material (e.g., Akrotiri, Thera,255 Palaikastro)256 there is also a significant increase in the number of ‘non-local’ or exotic rocks, which suggest an indirect method of acquisition, through trade or exchange. Especially in sites located in the Aegean Islands (e.g., Dhaskalio,257 Palamari,258 Pseira)259 non-local raw materials are attested rather frequently, perhaps due to the confined repertoire of rocks that the insular environments had to offer. These rocks would have reached the sites through trade or exchange networks that were fully established and active during that period. For instance, andesite grinding slabs and mortars, originating from different

254 e.g., Blitzer 1995. 255 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007; Devetzi 2007. 256 Doherty and Evely 2002. 257 Rowan et al. 2013. 258 Agouridis 2015. 259 Dierckx 1992; Dierckx and Tsikouras 2007.

169 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

areas of the Saronic Gulf (e.g., Aigina, Methana, Poros), were found in several Greek Bronze Age sites (e.g Ayia Irini, Midea, Tsoungiza, Palamari, Koropi, Mochlos) indicating the existence of such networks.260 The so-called Early Helladic shipwreck at Dhokos261 has yielded, among other objects and commodities (i.e., pottery, stone tools of Melian obsidian), several grinding slabs made mostly of andesite from the Saronic Gulf, suggesting that an organized and systematic circulation of these artifacts by sea (and perhaps land) had occurred during the Bronze Age.

The technology of production for the grinding and pounding implements follows traditions that were established during the Neolithic. Grinding slabs, mortars and pestles were usually the outcome of formalized production sequences that involved the techniques of flaking, pecking and abrading. Handstones were usually the outcome of expedient technologies,262 although strategically designed specimens are also reported (e.g., Akrotiri, Thera).263 The same percussive techniques were also applied for the curation of the tools, such as the rejuvenation of the blunt grinding workfaces via pecking. Bronze Age mortars and pestles were usually strategically designed implements, shaped through pecking, abrading and polishing (e.g., Mochlos,264 Mycenae,265 Kommos).266 Runnels267 mentions that the EBA mortars of Southern Argolid were “carefully manufactured by being pecked to shape with a pointed stone or metal tool, after which the exterior and interior surfaces were finely smoothed by fine pecking, or even polished with a piece of hard stone”. Pestles were also made through pecking and grinding, while many of them were also subjected to polishing, indicating that the need for visually attractive implements was even more stressed during this period.

Length (in cm) Site Date Min Max or Reference Median (*) Akrotiri, Thera EBA-LBA 29 60 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007; Devetzi 2007 Angelochori LBA 32 38 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming Archontiko EBA/LBA 19 50 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming Asine MH-LH - 27* Runnels 1981 Dhaskalio EBA 28 37 Rowan et al. 2013 Emporio EBA 31 34 Hood 1982 Iolkos LBA 23 43 Adrimi-Sismani 2014 Kaloyerovrisi ΕΗ-ΜΗ 15 20 Sampson 1993a Kastanas LBA 30 36 Hochstetter 1987 Kavousi, Vronda LMIIIC 25 33 Dierckx 20016a Kleitos MBA 50.5 57 Chondrou 2018 Knossos LMII 20 40 Evely 1984 Kommos ΜΜIII-LMIIIB 17.7 53 Blitzer 1995 Lefkandi LHIIIC 30 40 Evely 2006 Lerna MH - 31.9* Runnels 1981 Mochlos MM-LΜ 37 43 Carter 2004 Mycenae MH-LH - 37* Runnels 1981 Myrtos EMIIA-IIB 21 44 Warren 1972 Phylakopi EBA-LBA 23 47.8 Cherry and Davis 2007 Pseira EM-LM 15.5 58 Dierckx 1992 Servia EBA - 32 Mould et al. 2000 Sitagroi EBA - 29.2 Elster 2003 Tiryns LHIII-IIIB - 35* Runnels 1981

260 see also Runnels 1981; 1988. 261 Agouridis 1998. 262 cf., Dierckx 1992. 263 Agrafioti 2007: 92, 103. 264 Carter 2004: 76. 265 Evely and Runnels 1992: 12. 266 Blitzer 1995: 481. 267 Runnels 1988: 270.

170 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Length (in cm) Site Date Min Max or Reference Median (*) Toumba Thessalonikis MBA/LBA 20 39 Tsiolaki 2009 Tsoungiza EHI-III 12.3 43 Krattenmaker 2011 Table 16. The lengths of the Greek Bronze Age grinding slabs. Numbers marked with an asterisk (*) refer to the median lengths of the implements (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

Figure 20. Grinding slab from EBA/LBA Archontiko (Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming).

Figure 21. Grinding tool from EBA Archontiko, redesigned peripherally through flaking in order to acquire a geometrical shape (Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming).

Regarding the sizes of the grinding implements, particularly the grinding slabs, there are no distinct differences observed in the Bronze Age material. Both small and larger implements (Figure 20 and 21) seem to have co-existed in all Bronze Age sites (Table 16). However, there are some exceptions. These concern some grinding slabs whose lengths exceed 50cm and could be characterized as ‘oversized’, at least if compared to the regularly sized implements that usually dominate the grinding toolkits. Three implements of exceptionally large size were located in the so-called ‘granary room’ of the West-house at Akrotiri, Thera fixed in a bench (Figure 22).268 Their lengths range between 44 and 58cm. In one case, the length was further enlarged up to 84cm with the addition of a fragmented slab. Grinding slabs of similar sizes are reported from Greek sites dated

268 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007.

171 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

not only to the Bronze Age (e.g., Pseira,269 Archontiko)270 but also to the Neolithic (cf. Tables 8 and 16). These tools were certainly capable of producing larger amounts of ground product (e.g., flour, see Agrafioti 2007), while their big sizes suggest that they were probably immobile equipment that could be associated with certain specialised areas of the domestic environment.

5.2. The use and disuse of the Bronze Age food-processing ground stone tools

The deployment patterns of the food-processing ground stone tools of Bronze Age Greece do not seem to deviate from those observed in the Neolithic. Grinding tools tend to have either one or two workfaces of a flat, concave or convex morphology, while pestles were again used either with a single or both their ends. The Bronze Age mortars, on the other hand, include specimens with single concavities. The use-cycles of these implements could incorporate acts of redesigning and recycling, intended to extend the tools’ biographies. The redesign of certain items, through pecking, flaking or abrasion (Figure 21), in order be deployed in a different functional role, is a practice attested in some assemblages (e.g., Kommos,271 Archontiko,272 Agios Athanasios).273 Cases of recycling are known through the reuse of grinding implements to serve percussive tasks and mostly through the incorporation of ground stone implements in architectural features (e.g., walls) of other structures (e.g., clay ovens, platforms), as will be discussed below. The use of several Bronze Age grinding and pounding implements was pretty intense as documented by the presence of reused and thin grinding slabs (e.g., Sitagroi)274 and of mortars that have progressively became hollow from prolonged use (e.g., Emporio,275 Kommos).276 Besides their use for the support of food-processing tasks, Bronze Age grinding and pounding implements were also consumed in the context of craft activities,277 like clay grinding, shell and bone crushing,278 dye-processing/cloth dying279 or metallurgy, as suggested by their associated finds and their contexts.

The final life stages of the Bronze Age grinding and pounding implements are rarely discussed in the literature. In the EM-MM House Tombs at Petras most of the grinding slabs were found broken, with Dierckx280 suggesting that they have been ‘ritually killed’ prior to their deposition into the graves, thus consisting an integral part of the burial rituals performed at the site. Fragmented grinding implements are also reported from several other sites (e.g., Mesimeriani Toumba,281 Midea,282 Kalogerovrysi,283 Dhaskalio),284 but there is no reference to specific destruction patterns pointing to intentionality behind the breakage.

5.3. Contexts of use and deposition in the Bronze Age: Settlements, mansions, palaces and burials

In the Bronze Age, food-processing becomes - almost exclusively - an indoors activity (Table 17). With the exception of a few cases (e.g., Archontiko-Phase IV,285 Petras, Siteia I Houses I.1 and I.2),286

269 Dierckx 1992. 270 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming. 271 Blitzer 1995: 479. 272 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming. 273 Chondrou et al. in preparation. 274 Elster 2003. 275 Hood 1982: 647. 276 Blitzer 1995: 481. 277 cf., Carter 2004: 74 278 e.g., Tsoraki 2012: 214. 279 e.g., Dierckx 2016b: 192. 280 Dierckx 2012: 175. 281 Alisøy 2002b. 282 Walberg 1998. 283 Sampson 1993a. 284 Rowan et al. 2013. 285 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming. 286 Dierckx 2016b.

172 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 22. Schematic representation of the ‘Granary Room’ in the Western House of Akrotiri, Thera and of the grinding and pounding activities that were hosted there (Agrafioti 2007: Figures 7). grinding and pounding tools are rarely encountered in open areas (cf. Toumba Thessalonikis),287 while they appear systematically in the interior of houses or other buildings (e.g., mansions, palaces), a pattern that may suggest that food-processing had perhaps acquired a more conspicuous individual, and maybe specialized, character during the Bronze Age. At Akrotiri, Thera there are rooms devoted exclusively to food grinding tasks, characterized as ‘granaries’.288 In the so- called ‘Western House’, three oversized grinding slabs were placed in a clay bench, indicating that grinding was a stable task that occurred repetitively inside that room (Figure 22).289 The specialized character of the room is further attested to by the presence of a large, immovable stone mortar and a large clay basin/asamanthos probably also used for food-processing. Rooms of similar function are rather common in many buildings at Akrotiri, but the granary of the Western House is unique, since its equipment would have allowed five persons to work concurrently, perhaps for the production of quantities of grain that were beyond the household’s needs.290 Some earlier examples of specialized rooms or buildings are also known from mainland Greece. At Tsoungiza, Harland excavated nineteen saddle querns and seven handstones/pounders from the floor of a single EHIII house, that he called ‘The House of Querns’,291 while Mylonas has characterized a building at the EH site of Agios Kosmas as ‘The Granary’.292

Open Site Date Building Pit Burial/Tomb Deposit Reference Area Agios Athanasios EBA Χ Χ Chondrou et al. in preparation Agios Kosmas EH X X Mylonas 1959 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007; Devetzi Akrotiri, Thera EBA-LBA X 2007, 2008

287 Tsiolaki 2009: 98. 288 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007. 289 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007: 89. 290 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007: 89. 291 Krattenmaker 2011. 292 Mylonas 1959.

173 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Open Site Date Building Pit Burial/Tomb Deposit Reference Area Bekiaris and Valamoti Angelochori LBA X X forthcoming Bekiaris and Valamoti Archontiko EBA/LBA X X X forthcoming Hanschmann and Milojčić 1976; Argissa EBA-MBA X Hanschmann 1981 Asine MH-LH X Nordquist 1987 Bougadha Metochi MMIII X Rethemiotakis and Warren 2014 Chalandriani ECI-II X Hekman 2003 Chalasmenos LMIIIC X X Dierckx and Eaby 2018 Dhaskalio EBA X Rowan et al. 2013 Emporio EBA X Hood 1982 Eutresis EH-LH X Goldman 1931 Galatas MMIB-LMIA X Rethemiotakis 1999 Gournia EM-LM X Boyd Hawes et al. 1908 Hagia Photia EMI-IIA X Davaras and Betancourt 2004 Iolkos LBA X Χ Adrimi-Sismani 2014 Kavousi LMIIC X Dierckx 2016a Kleitos MBA X Chondrou 2018 Knossos LMII X Evely 1984 MMIII- Kommos X Blitzer 1995 LMIIIB Lefkandi LMIIIC X X Evely 2006 Manika ΕH X Sampson 1988 Mesimeriani EBA X Alisoy 2002b Toumba Midea MH-LH X Walberg 1998 Mochlos MM-LM X Carter 2004 Monastiriako LMII-III X Evely 2013 Kephali Moni Odigitria EMI-MMII X Evely 2010 Myrtos ΕΜΙΙΑ-ΙΙΒ X Warren 1972 Petras Cemetery EMI-MMII X Dierckx 2012; 2017a Petras, Siteia I MM-LM X X X Dierckx 2016b EMIIA- Phourni, Archanes X Papadatos 2005 MMIA MMIIA- Palaikastro X Evely 2012, 2019 LMIIIA2 Prosymna LH X X Blegen 1937 Pseira EM-LM X Dierckx 1992, 1995 Sissi LM X X Tsoraki 2012 Sitagroi EBA X Elster 2003 Toumba MBA-LBA X Agazioti 2000; Tsiolaki 2009 Thessalonikis Tzoungiza EHI-III X Krattenmaker 2011

Table 17: The contexts (marked with an X) of the Greek Bronze Age grinding and pounding impleme.ts (only the assemblages that have provided such information were included in the table).

174 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Figure 23. Grinding and pounding tools at LM Sissi. Left: Large-sized grinding slab placed in the wall or stone platform of Room 3.2, Right: Mortar unearthed in Room 3.1, close to a semi-circular structure (Tsoraki 2012: Figures 10.8 and 10.11).

As stated above, grinding and pounding tools that derive from the open areas of the Greek Bronze Age sites are significantly fewer. EBA Archontiko in Central Macedonia stands out as a noteworthy exception. In the so-called Phase IV of the site,293 intact grinding tools were almost absent from the interior of the dwellings,294 despite the fact that several clay constructions (e.g., oven, hearths, platforms, storage bins), cooking pots and food-remains were retrieved from their deposits, indicating that several activities related to the preparation and consumption of food were hosted within the houses. Such tools were located in the open areas at the periphery of the buildings, suggesting that food processing had occurred outdoors.295 Other examples are known from Minoan Crete. At Petras, Siteia I House I.1 the majority of the ground stone implements was located in open-air and sheltered open areas (e.g., courtyards), indicating that food processing along with other domestic and specialized activities had mostly taken place outdoors.296 At Chalasmenos, on the other hand, grinding slabs were found both inside the rooms of House A2 and in the paved courtyard in front of the building.297

The contexts and associated finds of the grinding and pounding implements provide strong indications of the activities in which they have participated. In some cases, they were found inside kitchen areas, next to cooking installations and pots (e.g., Ayia Irini IV,298 Mesimeriani Toumba,299 Pseira,300 Sissi,301 Sitagroi)302 creating distinct links with the food-processing practice, while at some sites they were associated with storage features (e.g., Toumba Thessalonikis,303 Iolkos).304 In LM Sissi grinding slabs and grinders were found right next to circular stone structures (Figure 23), which were used as pot holders. The grinders were placed in an inclined position, so that the ground product would be spilled directly inside the pot.305 Querns were also placed at an inclined position with the support of smaller rocks in LM Pseira.306 Grinding and pounding implements are

293 cf., Papanthimou and Papadopoulou 2011. 294 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming. 295 Bekiaris and Valamoti forthcoming; Chodrou et al. forthcoming. 296 Dierckx 2016b: 193-194. 297 Dierckx and Eaby 2018: 80. 298 Overbeck 1989. 299 Alisøy 2002b. 300 Dierckx 2012. 301 Tsoraki 2012. 302 Elster 2003. 303 Tsiolaki 2009: 102. 304 Adrimi-Sismani 2014: 209-210. 305 Tsoraki 2012: 216. 306 Dierckx 2012: 177.

175 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

also encountered in ceremonial or ritual sites (e.g., Phylakopi),307 indicating their participation in special events.

The occurrence of implements in secondary deposits, such as pits and other features during the Greek Bronze Age is rather vague. Grinding tools have been deposited along with other objects inside a pit at Sissi,308 while a few grinding implements are also reported from other Minoan deposits, such as Monastiriako Kephali309 and Alatzomouri Cave.310 At Petras, Siteia I, Pits Θ and I contained both fragmentary and intact ground stone implements, among which occurred mortars and grinding slabs, some of which without visible wear traces, suggesting the deliberate deposition of the material311 and perhaps the special significance of the deposit. Further to the north, at the site of Kleitos, grinding tools are found in three MBA pits. One of them exhibits complex stratigraphy and signs of structured deposition, with a high accumulation of intact and broken vessels, a female burial and building debris at various depths. Four large grinding tools along with a massive shaft-hole axe are found in the upper stratum of the infill.312 Practices of recycling are also documented rather frequently in the Bronze Age material. Grinding slabs have been regularly incorporated into the building’s walls as structural material (e.g., Myrtos,313 Kommos,314 Emporio,315 Petras Cemetery),316 while in other cases they have been reused as pot stands or even as seats.317

During the Bronze Age, tools are often associated with funerary contexts. Palettes, grinders and pestles were recovered from the Early Cycladic cemetery at Chalandriani,318 while such implements are encountered rather frequently in Cycladic burials (e.g., Akrotiri, Naxos; Akrotiraki, Siphnos).319 The Early Helladic Cemetery at Agios Kosmas also yielded some grinding and pounding implements. At Agios Kosmas, grinding slabs were often placed as ‘pillows’ under the necks of the deceased.320 Similar examples are also known from Early Cycladic burials,321 but also from Minoan burial contexts, such as the house tombs at Petras.322 At Petras, grinding and pounding implements were deposited in the tombs as offerings, while some of them may have been used in the context of burial rituals.323

6. Discussion

The archaeological evidence presented above was based on a large data-set, deriving from an extensive literature review regarding the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age grinding and pounding implements. Our goal was to investigate the technologies of these artifacts and explore their production, consumption and discard within different spatiotemporal contexts. Due to constraints described in detail at the beginning of this paper, we still lack several important pieces of the puzzle that will help us gain a more concrete and clear image of the food-processing ground stone tools of Prehistoric Greece. This prevents a deeper understanding of how such technologies and their associated practices were manifested by different communities within different geographical, cultural and social contexts. The data presented, however, are adequate enough for a first attempt

307 Cherry and Davis 2007. 308 Tsoraki 2012: 219. 309 Evely 2013. 310 Dierckx 2017b. 311 Dierckx 2016b: 193. 312 Chondrou 2018: 374-375; Ziota 2014: 61. 313 Warren 1972: 225. 314 Blitzer 1995: 479. 315 Hood 1982: 648. 316 Dierckx 2017a: 195. 317 Warren 1972: 225. 318 Hekman 2003: 144-145. 319 cf., Hekman 2003; Rambach 2000. 320 Mylonas 1959: 83, 117-118. 321 e.g., Hekman 2003: 81. 322 Dierckx 2017a. 323 Dierckx 2017a: 200.

176 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

to discuss these implements and allow comparisons between the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods, in terms of typology, technology, raw materials, use, destruction, as well as of the contexts of use and deposition of such tools.

Around the middle of the 7th millennium, grinding and pounding implements appear in the material culture of many farming communities of Early Neolithic Greece.324 In Anatolia such tools were already in use since the Natufian, and even earlier,325 with an evident emphasis on the use of mortars and pestles and the more limited presence of grinding tools. This preference was inverted during the PPNA, with a dramatic increase in the production and consumption of grinding implements over pounding tools.326 As Hodder327 points out, the practicalities of processing plants with the use of ground stone equipment drew humans into pathways resulting in population increase, sedentism and domestication and has progressively led towards Neolithicization. In Greece, the technological conditions of this transition remain vague, due to the limited number of grinding and pounding tools dated to the Mesolithic. Their scarcity may indicate that in Greece such technologies were introduced in the Early Neolithic, thus forming a component of the ‘Neolithic package’.328 Recent evidence from some Early Neolithic Greek sites (e.g., Agios Vlasis, Knossos, Mavropigi-Fillotsairi, Paliambela, Sosandra) indicate some degree of variability in the technological repertoire, suggesting that different social groups chose varied technological pathways for the processing of their plant foods (e.g., grinding and/or pounding with the use of stone implements, pounding in bedrock cuttings).

Despite this technological diversity, so far traceable only in some early farming communities, the basic grinding and pounding tool types appear already formed in the early phases of the Greek Neolithic and continue throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age with no major changes. During the Bronze Age, however, some notable typological differences are evident. First of all, there is a significant expansion of the pounding equipment (mortars and pestles), both in terms of numbers as well as of typology (e.g., stable mortars, spouted, decorated and tripod mortars, spool pestles). Stone pounding tools are rarely encountered in the Greek Neolithic, but in the Bronze Age their manufacture and use intensifies, especially in southern Greece.329 In the same period, more elaborate types of grinding and pounding implements appear, not always with an extensive geographical spread but of a more local character, such as the stone palettes of the early Cyclades,330 the tripod- mortars of the Late Helladic period encountered mostly in southern Greece331 or the unique types of grinding tools (i.e., three-legged grinding slabs, querns with decorational motifs) known only from LBA Akrotiri, Thera.332 In addition to these differentiated types of grinding and pounding tools, the Greek Bronze Age is also characterized by the introduction of new types of ground stone implements, such as stone tables, basins, ‘gournes’, kernoi and stone vases that may be related to the processing, storing, presentation or ritual consumption of either edible or potable materials.333 The new ground stone products could be associated with the processing of new plant species, such as olives or grapes, and are certainly indicative of the broader repertoire of activities in which Bronze Age households were involved. It is interesting that these novelties, both the typological variations of the common grinding and pounding equipment, as well as the new ground stone types, are encountered mostly in southern Greece, the Cyclades and Crete, reaching also some sites in Thessaly (e.g., Iolkos).334 Bronze Age Macedonia seems to remain outside of these changes,

324 cf., Perlès 2001; Stroulia 2010. 325 e.g., Eitam 2009; Nadel and Rosenberg 2013. 326 cf., Wright 1993, 1994; Ebeling and Rowan 2004; Hodder 2017. 327 Hodder 2017. 328 Stroulia et al. 2017: 22. 329 cf., Runnels 1988. 330 cf., Getz-Gentle 1996. 331 e.g., Demakopoulou 1998; Evely and Runnels 1992. 332 Devetzi 2007. 333 see Blitzer 1995; Carter 2004. 334 Adrimi-Sismani 2014.

177 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

carrying on with the technological pathways and typological traditions established during the Neolithic.

The production of grinding and pounding tools necessitated the sourcing of the proper lithic raw materials. Preferences and choices in the exploitation of lithic sources remain pretty much unchanged throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Raw materials, with rough textures, like sandstones, gneisses, schists, granites and andesites were favored for the production of grinding tools in both prehistoric periods, while durable and hard igneous and metamorphic rocks were usually selected for the manufacture of pestles and mortars. The rocks’ mechanical properties, particularly their mineral composition, granularity, grain cementation and cohesion, hardness, durability and workability must have strongly affected the selection of rocks for the production of grinding implements, since all were crucial for the functionality and efficiency of the final products.335 For instance, stones with tightly-cemented grains (e.g., andesite, gneiss, granite, sandstone) that would have produced limited amounts of grit (stone powder), an inevitable contaminant of ground foodstuff, were preferred at many Neolithic sites.336 In addition to this, the selection of rocks with rough and uneven textures, like granite, conglomerate and sandstone, which contain hard quartz and metamorphic inclusions in their matrix, would have been very efficient for the production of grinding tools. Their sharp rock fragments could easily cut through the processed material, thus facilitating the grinding procedure but rendering the end product contaminated with grit.

Many Neolithic communities seem to have developed preferences towards the exploitation of certain lithic raw materials, such as sandstone, which was selected for the making of grinding tools, especially in the Neolithic, or andesite which was widely employed during the Bronze Age in the southern parts of the country.337 Most prehistoric communities, however, exploited a variety of rocks for the production of grinding tools. Rock-type variation, along with other technical choices (i.e., tool size, morphology, manufacturing techniques and use-wear patterns) could be indicative of the tools’ employment in different grinding tasks.338 Food preparation, for instance, could necessitate the use of different rocks (e.g., sandstone varieties, granites, conglomerates) with various textures for making different meals,339 such as foods in powder form, like flour, or coarse- grained meals like ‘groat’ or bulgur340 although such a specialisation is hypothetical and remains to be proven through usewear analysis and experimentation.341

The Neolithic and Bronze Age communities of Greece had acquired their lithic raw materials through different strategies, comprising both the direct exploitation of local or more distant sources, as well as the indirect procurement of materials or finished objects through exchange and/or social networks. Most Neolithic communities exploited resources located in the vicinity of their settlements. The rocks were acquired mainly through collection from secondary sources (i.e., riverbeds, streams), a procurement method usually considered as efficient and ‘time-saving’,342 rather than being directly quarried from the bedrock. As was mentioned, in certain cases ‘non- local’ lithic raw materials are encountered in some Neolithic sites. Cases such as Kleitos,343 Toumba Kremasti,344 Sitagroi345 and Franchthi346 indicate that Neolithic people were willing to procure the

335 Bekiaris et al. 2017; Delgado-Raack and Risch 2009. 336 cf., Tsoraki 2008: 47. 337 cf., Runnels 1981. 338 e.g., Bekiaris 2018; Chondrou et al. 2018a; Runnels 1981; Stroulia 2010; Tsoraki 2008, 2012. 339 e.g., Adams 1999: 479–480; Pappa et al. 2013: 81. 340 Chondrou et al. 2018a; Stroulia 2010: 48–50; Valamoti et al. 2013. 341 cf., Bofill et al. forthcoming. 342 Tsoraki 2011. 343 Chondrou et al. 2018a. 344 Chondrou 2011. 345 Dixon 2003; Elster 2003. 346 Stroulia 2010.

178 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

raw materials required for making these vital implements of their daily lives even from distant sources, if there was such a need (e.g., the lack of proper rocks, or control from other communities over certain resources).347 The limited presence of non-local materials in Neolithic food processing toolkits may be also the material result of travels and social networks, in which the Neolithic communities had participated, facilitating the circulation of people, materials, knowledge and traditions. During the Bronze Age there is evidence for an intensification in the exploitation of non-local sources, and the procurement of grinding and pounding implements through trade routes and exchange networks. Τhe circulation of andesitic grinding slabs originating from sources in the Saronic Gulf on the mainland, the Cyclades and Crete and their documented transportation through ships,348 as well as the distribution of the Theran and Syro-palestinian tripod mortars across the Aegean are indicative of the multiple and complex trade and communication routes that were active during the Bronze Age.

Different technological traditions are documented in the manufacture of the grinding and pounding equipment from Prehistoric Greece. Implements of an expedient technology that have not received any kind of modification before their use, co-exist in most assemblages with tools that are the outcome of formalized and even complex production sequences. The detailed study of the latter, strategically designed specimens could help us reconstruct several steps of their chaînes opératoires and in certain cases recognize local technological traditions (e.g., the peripheral flaking using a natural or deliberately formed surface as a striking platform attested in the grinding implements of LN Kleitos ).349 Reduction techniques, such as flaking and pecking, were employed in the manufacture process of grinding and pounding tools in both Neolithic and Bronze Age periods. The same reduction techniques were also used for the curation of the grinding artifacts or their redesign. Additional techniques, such as abrasion and/or polishing are documented more rarely, usually in some elaborately crafted artifacts, belonging to the Bronze Age (e.g., pestles with lustrous surfaces, mortars with polished exteriors). What we usually lack in the archaeological record of Prehistoric Greece is the unmodified raw material, the waste products and preforms of such artifacts that would have helped us reconstruct their whole manufacture sequence and possibly recognize their loci of production within prehistoric sites, as well as their social context. In the absence of such evidence, it remains unclear whether the production of these implements (including the procurement of raw material) was an activity organized and practiced at a communal scale, or if individual households were responsible for making their own grinding and pounding equipment. It also remains vague, if the whole manufacture process, or some stages of it, occurred within the settlement or outside, in the landscape, near the procurement loci of the raw materials, as suggested by several ethnoarchaeological examples.350 If this was the case, many grinding and pounding implements would have reached the prehistoric sites in a finished (or semi-finished) state, something that could explain the absence of raw materials and waste products.

The technology of production remains more or less unchanged from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, indicating the presence of common technological traditions and notions regarding the manufacture and curation of these implements, resulting in the making of similar products in terms of technomorphology (e.g., raw materials, techniques, shapes).

Of all their technological and morphological attributes, the sizes of the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age grinding slabs have received great attention in the relevant literature.351 Several ethnoarchaeological studies352 refer to the interdependency between the size of the grinding surface

347 see Bekiaris et al. 2017; Stratouli and Melfos 2008 for examples concerning other Neolithic stone artifacts. 348 see Agouridis 1998. 349 Chondrou 2018, forthcoming. 350 e.g., Arthur 2014; Nixon Darcus 2014; Searcy 2011. 351 e.g., Ivanova 2018; Runnels 1981; Stroulia 2010. 352 e.g., Hamon and Le Gall 2013; Horsfall 1987; Nixon-Darcus 2014; Searcy 2011.

179 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

and the efficiency of the tool, particularly its capability to process adequate amounts of foodstuffs in relatively short time periods. The size of the grinding surface and its technological parameters (e.g., raw material, granularity, configuration) could be relevant to the type of processed material (e.g., the processing of cereals, legumes, spices) and the final form of the ground product (e.g., the production of fine flour or coarse groats).353 Curtis Runnels in his pioneering dissertation354 was the first to discuss the sizes of Greek Neolithic grinding implements and question their capacity for the processing of foodstuffs. Runnels355 has argued that these Neolithic grinding slabs and handstones were too small and thus “impractical” to have been efficiently used for grinding cereals into flour.356 Instead, he proposed their multipurpose character, for shaping and processing various objects and substances, among them food products such as pulses, nuts or other plants.357 Runnels also noticed an increase in the sizes of grinding toolkits during the Bronze Age, considering these larger tools more suitable for flour making.358 However, Runnels’ observations were based on a rather limited amount of data that was available 35 years ago, specifically the grinding tools from Franchthi, Lerna and Attica.359

A re-examination of this issue in the light of the recently published ground stone data has indicated that both small (<30cm in length) and large (>30cm in length) grinding slabs have co-existed in the grinding toolkits of most Greek Neolithic communities. A few sites have yielded exclusively small-sized grinding slabs (e.g., Limnes Cave, Makri, Sarakenos Cave, Stavroupoli), but as far as we can tell, there is nothing exceptional about these sites that could imply a differentiation in their subsistence practices or in the dietary habits of their occupants, resulting in the employment of small grinding implements. As experimental work has suggested,360 small grinding slabs could have also been efficiently used for the processing of grain, although in different quantities and with differences in the time spent in order to grind certain amounts of food. The fragmentary state which usually characterizes the preservation of the grinding tools, as well as alterations in their original sizes and attributes due to subsequent curation practices (e.g., reuse, reshaping, recycling) or their exhaustive use, could have hindered the recognition of large-sized grinding implements in these and also in other Neolithic assemblages. Besides these exceptions, most Neolithic communities have employed large grinding implements, along with smaller ones. Again, there is nothing exceptional about these communities that could indicate the need for larger amounts of processed foodstuffs (i.e., densely populated sites, extended households, surplus accumulation). Moving to the Bronze Age, the dimensions of grinding tools do not deviate much from those of their Neolithic predecessors. Therefore, the increase that Runnels noticed in the sizes of the grinding slabs from Bronze Age Southern Greece,361 doesn’t seem to be confirmed by the present data (cf. Tables 8 and 16). There are of course some intriguing exceptions, such as the oversized grinding slabs of LBA Akrotiri, Thera,362 certainly capable of processing larger amounts of plant foods, which may have exceeded the household’s needs.363

The evidence regarding the use ofground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age highlights their versatile and adaptive character. Grinding implements have usually had complex biographies. The few micro-wear studies indicate that the processing of plant foods was indeed among the primary functions of these Neolithic tools.364 Beyond food processing, including the

353 cf., Ivanova 2018: 177 and references therein. 354 Runnels 1981. 355 Runnels 1981: 153. 356 For a similar observation see Stroulia 2010. 357 Runnels 1981: 153. 358 Runnels 1981: 154. 359 see also Stroulia 2018: 204. 360 e.g., Valamoti et al. 2013. 361 Runnels 1981: 154. 362 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007. 363 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007: 89. 364 e.g., Chondrou et al. 2018a, 2018b; Stroulia et al. 2017: 23.

180 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

preparation of food staples, spices, medicines and special ingredients such as oil plants and alcohol, these implements have supported several other activities in their life-span. These would include the preparation of pigments and dyes, the grinding of shells and the making of ornaments or other tools and also the processing of ores.365 In both periods grinding tools were often reused to support different needs (e.g., grinding slabs were regularly redesigned to be used as grinders or reused as abraders, grinders were reused as pounders or hammers), while in some cases they were redesigned before acquiring their new functional roles in order to be compatible with them. Additionally, quite often, recycling practices are identified; the initial functional character of the tool is cancelled and the attribute that defines the new functional role focus on the exploitation of its raw material or its shape (e.g., grinding tools incorporated into building walls, being reused as structural material, in hearths or other constructions) and maybe its meaning or symbolism.366 The practice of recycling does not only serve practical needs; the presence of grinding slabs in graves and pits endues the tools with symbolical meaning (e.g., Akrotiri Naxos, Akrotiraki Siphnos, Alepotrypa, Agios Kosmas, Makriyalos, Makri, Petras). Grinding implements in these cases are associated with practices beyond their initial design and function, connected to rituals, social identities, gender, cosmology and symbolic meaning.367 Curation practices, such as maintenance, reuse, redesign and recycling, often employed in order to prolong the use lives of these implements are indicative of their importance for the societies of Prehistoric Greece.

Acts of deliberate destruction (i.e., deliberate fragmentation and burning) are well documented in the Greek Neolithic,368 but are rarely mentioned in the literature for the Bronze Age material.369 This absence may reflect a gap in the relevant research, perhaps resulting from the fact that most assemblages were studied before such theoretical discussions370 had been introduced to the archaeological science, rather than a differentiated way in which Bronze Age communities had chosen to manage their ground stone material. In the grinding implements of the Greek Neolithic, however, both fragmentation and burning, either individually or combined, seem to have played a rather crucial role in the biographies of these artifacts, through their decommissioning and sealing of their use-lives. The very high fragmentation rates observed in many grinding assemblages especially of northern Greece (e.g., Avgi, 86,18%,371 Kleitos: 97%)372 constitute a rather intriguing aspect related to their post-use management. Prolonged use and exhaustion, intense redesigning and recycling are aspects that certainly had a great impact on those tools, weakening them and thus making them more vulnerable to accidental breaks (i.e., breakage from applied pressure during the grinding process, breaking during re-pecking, breakage from exposure to weather conditions).373 Nonetheless, there are cases that cannot be attributed to accidents. For example, the presence of impact points that illustrate deliberate percussive action, or the identification of specific breakage patterns that do not conform to the schistosity of the raw materials, or to specific points where intense power is exerted during use.374 The burning process seems also to be closely related to grinding tools and their decommissioning. In Kleitos, for instance, the decommissioning of certain grinding tools was closely associated with the deliberate destruction of the houses by fire. The grinding tools were broken and conjoining fragments were removed, while other ground stone categories, such as the edge tools, were deposited complete.375

365 for some examples cf., Bekiaris 2018; Carter 2004; Chondrou 2018; Stroulia 2010; Tsoraki 2008, 2012. 366 e.g., Rosenberg 2013. 367 cf., Lidström Holmberg 1998, 2004; Van Gijn 2014; Watts 2014. 368 cf., Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 369 e.g., Bekiaris forthcoming; Dierckx 2012. 370 e.g., Chapman 2000. 371 Bekiaris 2018. 372 Chondrou 2018. 373 see also Adams 2008. 374 cf., Bekiaris 2018, forthcoming; Chondrou 2018; Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 375 cf., Chondrou 2018.

181 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

The reasons and concepts behind those acts of deliberate destruction of toolkits and their subsequent deposition into houses, communal areas, caves, pits and ditches may have varied. For the time being they are totally invisible to us. Several scholars, however, have discussed the intriguing issue of the deliberate and conspicuous destruction of material culture worldwide, suggesting that such acts may be linked to ancestry, history making, memory manipulation, reproduction and negotiation of social identities, and the creation of social bonds, and may have occurred in the context of death rituals, ceremonies, feasts, significant communal or individual events or rites of passage.376

The introduction of grinding and pounding implements into the lives of Neolithic people and their involvement in several activities and aspects of their daily lives generated various entanglements and relations between the processing tools, hearths and ovens, houses, open areas and plants,377 as well as interactions with other practices (e.g., cooking, storage) and other objects of the Neolithic material culture (e.g., pots, baskets, wooden implements). These associations are well documented in the archaeological record through the spatial contexts within which such implements usually occur and also their co-related finds.

In the Neolithic, the food-processing tasks were performed in direct spatial association with the households, either in the interior of individual houses or in their adjacent open areas. Grinding implements formed without doubt a vital, indispensable part of Neolithic household equipment. Most Neolithic houses were equipped with one or two grinding pairs (e.g., Avgi,378 Dispilio,379 Lerna,380 Paliambela,381 Rakhmani,382 Kleitos),383 a rather modest number that may hint at the domestic, small-scale character of production. The repeated presence of grinding slabs and grinders and sometimes of mortars (e.g., Paliambela)384 within the houses indicates that food- processing activities were organized and practiced by individual households, probably in order to fulfill their own needs.385 Within the houses, grinding tools are usually located in the vicinity of cooking facilities (i.e., ovens, hearths; e.g., Stavroupoli)386 or in relation to agricultural products, either stored crop concentrations or processed seeds, and cooking vessels (e.g., Avgi,387 Lerna),388 suggesting that several steps of the food-preparation process (i.e., grain processing, cooking, storage) could have been carried out in the interior of the Neolithic dwellings. In some cases, (e.g., Sosandra,389 Avgi,390 Kleitos)391 grinding tools are located inside the houses, but without being directly related to kitchen areas. This pattern could reflect certain temporal preferences regarding the spatial organization of the diverse food preparation tasks (i.e., food-processing, cooking) within individual domestic units, or the specific circumstances at the time of the destruction/ abandonment of the house. Grinding and pounding practices often extended beyond the privacy of the buildings’ walls, in the open, highly socialized areas between them. Intriguingly, at some sites (e.g., Avgi), grinding tools are encountered more frequently outdoors, than in the interior of dwellings. In Avgi, small groups of intact grinding tools indicate the presence of outdoor food-

376 cf., Adams 2008; Bekiaris 2018; Brück 2006; Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gaydarksa 2007; Hamilakis 1998; Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 377 see Hodder 2017. 378 Bekiaris 2018: 333-334. 379 Kalogiropoulou 2013: 151. 380 Banks 2015: 184. 381 Siamidou 2017: 14. 382 Wace and Thompson 1912: 43-53. 383 Chondrou 2018. 384 Siamidou 2017. 385 cf., Bekiaris in press; Tsoraki 2008. 386 Alisøy 2002a: 573. 387 Bekiaris 2018: 333-334. 388 Banks 2015: 184. 389 Georgiadou 2015. 390 Bekiaris 2018. 391 Chondrou 2018; Chondrou and Ziota in preparation.

182 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

processing locales,392 situated in the vicinity of open-air kitchen spaces.393 The inhabitants of the nearby houses could have shared these facilities, along with the grinding equipment, carrying out the food-processing and cooking tasks in public sight,394 thus announcing their social character and their significant contribution to the formation of communal social identities.395 However, the portable character of most Neolithic grinding tools allows them to regularly switch between different use contexts and social arenas, in order to support various needs.396 Therefore, their contextual associations may have regularly changed and the spatiality of the food-processing tasks could have been in many cases characterized by fluidity.

During the Bronze Age, there are distinct changes observed in the spatial organization of food- processing practices, at least in some communities, where grinding and pounding activities seem to acquire a more individual and perhaps specialized character. Such tools are repeatedly encountered in the interior of buildings, while at many sites they are associated with rooms devoted to specific practices, like kitchen rooms, storage rooms or even rooms characterized as ‘granaries’ (e.g., Akrotiri, Thera,397 Tsoungiza,398 Agios Kosmas).399 In addition to this, the presence of stable, immovable tools, such as mortars sunk into the floors of houses or grinding slabs fixed on clay benches (e.g., Gournia,400 Pseira,401 Kommos,402 Akrotiri, Thera)403 indicate that food-processing practices are now more clearly linked with specific areas of the household and that the mobility of these tasks was perhaps significantly confined.

In the Greek Neolithic, grinding and pounding tools were often disposed of in the interior of features, such as pits and ditches, alongside other material elements of Neolithic life (e.g., daub fragments, human bones, pottery, tools, seeds, faunal remains etc.). Rarely these implements were associated with burials. In all these cases, implements that may have originated from various contexts (i.e., inside houses, in communal areas), employed in several tasks (i.e., food preparation, bone or pigment processing), and related to different social groups and events (i.e., domestic or individual consumption, communal events), became interconnected in the context of their deposition.404 Often these tools have been subjected to differential treatment prior to their disposal. Intact, broken or burned tools often coexist as a result of the action of various mechanisms. Through their selective disposal inside the pits, alongside other material elements, remnants of various past events, each with its own biography, new material entities were assembled and meanings related to continuity, ancestry and place making were probably generated. Thus, the grinding and pounding implements were involved in commemorative history-making through their deposition into such features.405

Such depositional acts are rarely recognized during the Bronze Age. This scarcity may be attributed to the vague presence of depositional pits in the Greek Bronze Age, at least in comparison with the Neolithic. However, grinding and pounding implements continued to participate in commemorative ritual events, since they are often consumed within the context of burial rites and are more often deposited within graves accompanying the deceased.406 The occurrence of these implements in individual graves may suggest some form of identification, dependency or link between the

392 Bekiaris in press. 393 Kalogiropoulou 2013. 394 Bekiaris 2018: 407. 395 see Kotsakis 2018. 396 Tsoraki 2007. 397 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007. 398 Krattenmaker 2011. 399 Mylonas 1959. 400 Boyd Hawes et al. 1908. 401 Dierckx 1992. 402 Blitzer 1995. 403 Moudrea-Agrafioti 2007. 404 cf., Hondroyianni-Metoki 2009; Stratouli et al. 2014; Stroulia and Chondrou 2013. 405 cf., Hamon 2008; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Tsoraki 2018. 406 Dierckx 2012, 2017a.

183 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

deceased and the disposed item. Thus, notions of ‘ownership’ that may have existed ever since the Neolithic,407 become much more pronounced and archaeologically visible during the Bronze Age.

Through the varied cases of deposition encountered in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, it becomes apparent that grinding and pounding tools, usually perceived as ‘mundane’, ordinary technological products, can acquire special meanings and become the means of forging and displaying identities within the social life of prehistoric communities. Irrespective of their contexts of use, the purposes they have served (i.e., domestic, ritual), the technological pathways that were followed for their production and curation and the use-lives they have experienced (i.e., within the settlements or exclusively in caves), grinding and pounding stone tools constitute integral, dynamic and vital elements, life-giving stones, as they are characterized by modern Mayan people,408 for the economic and social life of the Neolithic and Bronze communities of Greece and beyond.

7. Epilogue

This paper has provided an overview of the archaeological evidence regarding food-processing ground stone tools, specifically the grinding and pounding implements that people produced and consumed in Prehistoric Greece from the 7th to the 1st millennium BC, as presented by different scholars in the literature. This is the first time such a systematic collection of evidence for this material category has been attempted. We have provided an overview of the variability of the archaeological record as regards such tools and have re-examined some older thoughts still prevailing the literature relating to this dataset, as well as new evidence that has emerged in recent years. Our observations regarding the technologies of the grinding and pounding toolkits, particularly their production, typologies, use and curation, destruction, disposal and contexts of consumption, by comparing the Neolithic and Bronze Age data, provide a general interpretive framework and raise research questions for future, more in depth, explorations of this often neglected type of archaeological material. The wealth of new evidence, that has increased considerably over the past twenty years, as well as the development of ground breaking methodologies and analytical techniques to perform functional analyses and thus decipher the specific uses of these tools, open up new avenues of exploration in order to comprehend these vital tools within Prehistoric societies. We hope that this paper will provide the basis for future discussions on the technologies of Prehistoric Greece, and eagerly await new data and studies that complement and challenge the observations presented here.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Antikleia Moundrea-Agrafioti, Eleftheria Almasidou, Anastasia Devetzi, Jan Driessen and Christina Tsoraki for granting permission to reproduce figures from their publications. They would also like to thank Steve Rosen for providing a fruitful review on the paper and for sharing his thoughts on various topics regarding the production and employment of grinding implements. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Panagiotis Tokmakidis and Themistoklis Roustanis for their support with all the technical issues regarding the Archaeogrinding Database and for the preparation of the maps included in this paper. Finally, we are obliged to Anna Stroulia and Anastasia Dimoula for their invaluable help with the literature. This research was conducted within the framework of the ERC Project PLANTCULT (Consolidator Grant, Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Grant Agreement No 682529).

407 cf., Tsoraki 2007. 408 Searcy 2011.

184 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

References 277-309. Thessaloniki: Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece. Adams, J.L. 1999. Refocusing the role of food- Almasidou, E. 2019. Λίθινα τριπτά εργαλεία από τον grinding tools as correlates for subsistence οικισμό Κορώνεια της επαρχίας του Λαγκαδά. strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American MA dissertation, Aristotle University of Antiquity 64(3): 475-498. Thessaloniki. Adams, J.L. 2002. Ground Stone Analysis. A Technological Approach. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Alonso, N., D. Antolín, D. López, F.J. Cantero and Press. G. Prats 2013. The effect of dehusking on Adams, J.L. 2008. Beyond the broken, in Y. Rowan cereals experimentation for archaeobotanical and J. Ebeling (eds) New approaches to old stones: comparison, in P.C. Anderson, C. Cheval, A. Recent studies of ground stone artifacts: 213–229. Durand (eds) Regards croisés sur les outils liés au London: Equinox. travail des végétaux: 155–168. Antibes: Éditions Adams, J.L. 2013. Ground stone use-wear analysis: APCDA. A review of terminology and experimental Alonso N., F.J. Cantero, R. Jornet, D. López, E. Montes, methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 48: 129– G. Prats and S. Valenzuela 2014. Milling wheat 138. and barley with rotary querns: The Ouarten Adams, J., S. Delgado, L. Dubreuil, C. Hamon, H. women (Dahmani, Kef, Tunisia), in L. Selsing Plisson and R. Risch 2009. Functional analysis (ed.) Seen Through a Millstone: 11-30. Stavanger: of macro-lithic Artefacts, in F. Sternke, L. Costa Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger. and L. Eigeland (eds) Non-Flint Raw Material Use Alram-Stern, E., A. Dousougli-Zachos and M. Bergner in Prehistory: Old Prejudices and New Directions, 2015. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Proceedings of the 25th Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde (British Archaeological Reports International und Funde. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Series 1939): 43–66. Oxford: Archaeopress. Andreou, S. 2010. Northern Aegean, in E. Cline (ed.) Adrimi-Sismani, V. 2014. Ιωλκός : η εϋκτιμένη πόλη Oxford Handbook of Bronze Age Aegean: 643-659. του Ομήρου: ένα αστικό κέντρο στον μυχό του Παγασητικού κόλπου : το διοικητικό κέντρο, οι οικίες New York/Oxford. και το νεκροταφείο. Volos: Palmos. Andreou, S., M. Fotiadis and K. Kotsakis 2001. Review Agazioti, S. 2000. Τριπτά λίθινα εργαλεία από of Aegean Prehistory V: the Neolithic and τον οικισμό της Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης. MA Bronze Age of northern Greece, in T. Cullen (ed.) dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Aegean Prehistory: A Review (American Journal of Agouridis, H.S. 1998. Έρευνα Δοκού. Enalia V (1/2). Archaeology, Supplement I): 259-327. Boston: Agouridis, H.S. 2015. Τα εργαλεία λειασμένου λίθου Archaeological Institute of America. από τον οικισμό της Εποχής του Χαλκού στο Antonović, D. 2003. Neolitska Industrija Glačanog Παλαμάρι της Σκύρου. Μελέτη προέλευσης και Kamena u Srbiji (Neolithic Ground Stone Industry in διακίνησης των πρώτων υλών, in L. Parlama, Serbia). Beograd: Archaeological Institute. M.D. Thochari, Ch. Romanou and S. Bonatsos Arthur, J.W. 2014. Culinary crafts and foods in (eds) Ο Oχυρωμένος Προϊστορικός Οικισμός στο southwestern Ethiopia: An ethnoarchaeological Παλαμάρι Σκύρου. Διεπιστημονική Συνάντηση study of Gamo groundstones and pottery. African για το Έργο Έρευνας και Ανάδειξης, Αθήνα, 23- Archaeological Review 31(2): 131–168. 24 Οκτωβρίου 2012: 273-29. Αθήνα: Υπουργείο Aslanis, I. 1985. Kastanas: Ausgrabungen in Πολιτισμού, Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων, Γενική einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze-und Eisenzeit Διεύθυνση Αρχαιοτήτων και Πολιτισμικής Makedoniens 1975-1979: die frühbronzezeitlichen Κληρονομιάς, Διεύθυνση Προϊστορικών και Funde und Befunde. Berlin: V. Spiess. Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων, Επιστημονική Επιτροπή Banks, E.C. 2015. Lerna. Athens: American School of Έργου Παλαμαριού Σκύρου. Alisøy, H.A. 2002a. Consumption of ground stone Classical Studies at Athens. tools at Stavroupoli, in D. Grammenos and S. Barber, R.L.N. 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Kotsos (eds) Σωστικές Ανασκαφές στο Νεολιθικό London: Duckworth. Οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης: 561–608. Baysal, A. and K.I. Wright. 2005 Cooking, crafts Thessaloniki: Publications of the Archaeological and curation: ground stone artefacts from Institute of Northern Greece. Catalhoyuk, 1995-1999, in I. Hodder (ed.) Alisøy, H.A. 2002b. Ground stone tools from Changing Materialities at Catalhoyuk: reports from Mesimeriani, in D. Grammenos and S. Kotsos the 1995-1999 seasons (Catalhoyuk Research (eds) Ανασκαφή στον Προϊστορικό Οικισμό Project Series Volume 5): 307-324. Cambridge: Μεσημεριανή Τούμπα Τριλόφου Ν. Θεσσαλονίκης: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

185 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Bekiaris, T. 2007. Τριπτά εργαλεία από το νεολιθικό missioni italiane in Oriente). Roma: L’erma di οικισμό της Μάκρης Έβρου. MA dissertation, Bretschneider. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Blegen, C.W. 1921. Korakou: A Prehistoric Settlement Bekiaris, T. 2010. Ground stone tools from Drakaina near Corinth. Boston: American School of Classical Cave: An overview. (Online publication - http:// Studies at Athens. www.drakainacave.gr/index.php?option=com_ Blegen, C.W. 1928. Zygouries: A Prehistoric Settlement content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=48&lang= in the Valley of Cleonae. Cambridge: Harvard en). University Press. Bekiaris, T. 2016. Τριπτά αντικείμενα από νεολιθικές Blegen, C.W. 1937. Prosymna: The Helladic settlement κοινότητες της ΠΕ Καστοριάς: Παρατηρήσεις και preceding the Argive Heraeum. Cambridge: The ερωτήματα, in Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στην Άνω University Press. Μακεδονία, Δ΄ Eπιστημονική Συνάντηση, 17-18 Blitzer, H. 1991. Middle to Late Helladic chipped December 2016, Kastoria (oral presentation). stone implements of the Southwest Péloponnèse, Bekiaris, T. 2018. Τεχνολογίες τριπτών στη Νεολιθική Greece, Part I: The evidence from Malthi. Hydra της Βόρειας Ελλάδος: ο νεολιθικός οικισμός της 9: 1-73. Αυγής Καστοριάς. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Blitzer, H. 1992. The chipped stone, ground stone, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. and worked bone industries, in W.A. McDonald Bekiaris, T. in press. Ground stone technology in and N.C. Wilkie (eds) Excavations at Nichoria in context: consumption of grinding tools and Southwest Greece II: The Bronze Age Occupation: 712- social practice at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece, 756. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. in GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS AND SOCIETY: An Blitzer, H. 1995. Minoan implements and industries, international conference on quarrying, production, in J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw (eds) Kommos I. The function and exchange of ground stone artifacts, Kommos region and Houses of the Minoan Town, Part 12th - 15th September 2017, The Johannes Gutenberg I. The Kommos Region Ecology and Minoan Industries: University, Mainz, Germany. Journal of Lithic Studies. 403-535. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bekiaris, T. forthcoming. The Ground Stone Tools Bofill, M. 2012. Quantitative analysis of use-wear from Drakaina Cave. Grounds for Thought, in patterns: a functional approach to the study G. Stratouli (ed.) Drakaina Cave on Kephalonia of grinding stones, in F.B. Tena, M.B. García, Island, Western Greece. A place of social activity A.G. Bach, C.T. Dacasa and O.V. Campos (eds) during the Neolithic. Philadelphia: INSTAP Broadening Horizons 3. Conference of Young Academic Press. Researchers Working in the Ancient Near East: 63-84. Bekiaris, T., Ch. Stergiou and S. Theodoridou Bellaterra (Barcelona): Universitat Autònoma de 2017. Making choices in a Neolithic landscape: Barcelona. raw materials and ground stone technology Bofill, M., D. Chondrou, A. Palomo, H. Procopiou and in Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece, in A. Sarris, E. S.M. Valamoti forthcoming. Processing plants Kalogiropoulou, T. Kalayci and L. Karimali for food: Experimental grinding within the ERC- (eds) Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in project PLANTCULT. Journal of Lithic Studies. Neolithic Greece, Proceedings of the International Boyd Hawes, H., B.A. Williams and R.B. Seager 1908. Conference, Rethymno 29-30 May, 2015: 415- Gournia, Vasiliki and other prehistoric sites on the 433. United States of America: International isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete: Excavations of the Monographs in Prehistory. Wells-Houston-Cramp expeditions, 1901, 1903, 1904. Bekiaris, T. and S.M. Valamoti forthcoming. Grinding Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. technologies in the Bronze Age of Northern Greece: new data from the sites of Archontiko Brück, J. 2006. Fragmentation, personhood and the and Angelochori, in Ground Stone Tools and social construction of technology in Middle and Past Foodways, The 3rd Meeting of the Association Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological for Ground Stone Research, 12th–15th September, Journal 16: 297–315. Copenhagen. Archaeopress. Bruun-Lundgren, M. and I. Wiman 2000. Industrial Bergner, M. 2015. Geschlagene Steingeräte, in E. activities and personal adornments, in E. Alram-Stern and A. Dousougli-Zachos (eds) Hallager and B.P. Hallager (eds) The Greek-Swedish Die deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki- Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square Kastelli, Magula/Velestino: Die Neolithischen Befunde und Khania, 1970-1987. Vol. II. The Late Minoan IIIC Funde: 408-434. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Settlement: 175-183. Stockholm: Astrom Editions. Bernabò-Brea, L. 1976 Poliochni, Città preistorica Bucholz, H.G. 1963. Steinerne Dreifussschalen des nell’isola di Lemnos vol. I & II (Monografie ägäischen Kulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle zum Osten. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 78: 1-77.

186 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Buell, D. 2017. Appendix C.: Ground and chipped Kοιλάδας. MA dissertation, Aristotle University stone artifacts, in W.L. Vance, D.M. Buell, E. of Thessaloniki. Kokinou, P. Soupios, A. Sarris, G. Rethemiōtakēs, Chondrou, D. 2018. Η τριπτή λιθοτεχνία από τους L.A. Turner, S. Gallimore and M.D. Hammond προϊστορικούς οικισμούς Κλείτος Ι και Κλείτος (eds) The Galatas Survey: Socio-economic and ΙΙ της λεκάνης της Κιτρινής λίμνης Κοζάνης. Political Development of a Contested Territory in Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aristotle Central Crete during the Neolithic to Ottoman periods: University of Thessaloniki. 211-218. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Chondrou, D. forthcoming. Daily practices and Buonasera, T. 2013. More than acorns and small special events: exploring grinding technologies seeds: A diachronic analysis of mortuary at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in associated ground stone from the South San Late/Final Neolithic northern Greece. Documenta Francisco Bay area. Journal of Anthropological Prehistorica 47. Archaeology 32: 190-211. Chondrou, D., S.M. Valamoti, H. Procopiou and L. Butterworth, P.J., P.R. Ellis and Μ. Wollstonecroft Papadopoulou 2018a. Grinding cereals and pulses 2016. Why protein is not enough: The roles of in the Neolithic site of Kleitos: an experimental plants and plant processing in delivering the investigation of micro-conglomerate grinding dietary requirements of modern and early equipment, final products and use wear. Journal Homo, in K. Hardy and L. Kubiak-Martens (eds) of Greek Archaeology 3: 23-45. Wild Harvest: Plants in the Hominin and Pre-agrarian Chondrou, D., M. Bofill, A. Palomo, H. Procopiou, Human Worlds: 31–54. Oxford: Oxbow Books. R. Vargiolu, H. Zahouani, I. Ninou and S.M. Carmody, R. and R. Wrangham 2009. The energetic Valamoti 2018b. Grinding plant foods in significance of cooking. Journal of Human prehistory: an integration of experimental and Evolution 57: 379-391. archaeological evidence on use-wear analysis, Carter, T. 2004. The stone implements, in J.S. paper presented in the AWRANA International Soles and C. Davaras (eds) Mochlos IC. Period III. Scientific Conference, Beyond use-wear traces: Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ about tools and people, 29/05- 01/06/18, Nice. Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. Chondrou, D., M. Bofill, H. Procopiou, R. Vargiolu, The Small Finds: 61-107. Philadelphia: INSTAP H. Zahouani, T. Bekiaris, I. Ninou, G. Kasapidou, Academic Press. C. McNamee, G. Tsartsidou and S.M. Valamoti Carter, T. and M. Ydo 1996. The chipped and ground 2019. Grinding practices in prehistoric stone, in W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R.W.V. Catling Northern Greece: integrating archaeological and G. Shipley (eds) Continuity and Change in a and experimental data paper presented in Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Volume the 3rd Meeting of the Association for Ground II: Archaeological Data (The British School at Athens Supplementary Volume 27): 141-148. Stone Research ‘Ground Stone Tools and Past London: British School at Athens. Foodways’, 12th–15th September, Copenhagen. Crnobrnja, A., Z. Simić and M. Janković 2009. Late Chondrou, D., M. Bofill, H. Procopiou, R. Vargiolu, Vinca culture settlement at Crkvine in Stubline. H. Zahouani and S.M. Valamoti in preparation. Starinar LIX: 9-25. Grinding stone tools from the EBA site of Ayios Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: Athanasios, Northern Greece: A technological People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of and functional approach. South-Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. Chondrou, D. and C. Ziota in preparation. Household Chapman, J. and B. Gaydarska 2007. Parts and wholes. activities in Neolithic Kleitos, Northwestern Fragmentation in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Greece: A glimpse through ground stone Books. technology. Chadou, M. 2011. Τα λίθινα τριπτά εργαλεία Chrysostomou, P., T. Jagoulis and A. Maeder 2015. από τον Ηλιότοπο του ανατολικού Λαγκαδά. The ‘Culture of Four Lakes’. Prehistoric lakeside Unpublished MA dissertation, Aristotle settlements (6th - 2nd mill. BC) in the Amindeon University of Thessaloniki. Basin, Western Macedonia, Greece. Archäologie Cherry, J. and J. Davis 2007. The other finds, in C. Schweiz 38.3: 24 – 32. Renfrew, N. Brodie, C. Morris and C. Scarre Cristiani, E. and G. Dalmeri 2011. Functional analysis (eds) Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974-1977, of the decorated ground stone tool from Terlago ΒSA Supplementary Volume 42: 401-464. London: (TN). Preistoria Alpina 45: 185-191. British Scool at Athens. Cummer, W.W., E. Schofield and S. Andreou 1984. Chondrou, D. 2011. Τριπτά εργαλεία από τη Ayia Irini: House A. Mainz on Rhine: Verlag P. von νεολιθική θέση της Τούμπας Kρεμαστής Zabern.

187 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Davaras, K. and P.P. Betancourt 2004. The Hagia Photia Dierckx, H.M.C 2016a. The ground and chipped Cemetery. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. stone implements from the settlement, in L.P. Davis, J.L. 1986. Ayia Irini: Period V. Mainz on Rhine: Day and G.C. Gesell (eds) Kavousi IIC: The Late P. von Zabern. Minoan IIIC Settlement at Vronda: Specialist Reports Delgado-Raack, S. and R. Risch 2009. Towards and Analyses: 137-154. Philadelphia: INSTAP a systematic analysis of grain processing Academic Press. technologies, in M. de Araújo and I. Clemente Dierckx, H.M.C. 2016b. Ground stone Implements, (eds) Recent Functional Studies on Nonflint in M. Tsipopoulou (ed.) Petras, Siteia I. A Minoan Stone Tools: Methodological Improvements and Palatial Settlements in Eastern Crete. Excavation of Archaeological Inferences, Proceedings of the Houses I.1 and I.2: 189-212. Philadelphia: INSTAP Workshop. LAMPEA 23–25 May 2008, Laboratoire Academic Press. Méditerranéen de Préhistoire Europe-Afrique, Dierckx, H.M.C. 2017a. The use of querns and Lisboa. (Online publication – http://www. other ground stone hand tools in Early to workshop-traceologia-lisboa2008.com/). Middle Minoan mortuary practices at Petras, Demakopoulou, K. 1998. Stone vases from Midea, in in M. Tsipopoulou (ed.) Petras, Siteia– 25 Years E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds) The Aegean of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a two-day and the Orient in the Second Millennium: 221–227. conference held at the Danish Institute at Liège: Université de Liège. Athens, 9-10 October 2010: 195-202. Athens: Devetzi, A. 2000. The ‘Imported’ Stone Vases at Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Akrotiri, Thera: A New Approach to the Material. Dierckx, H.M.C. 2017b. Chipped and Ground Stone The Annual of the British School at Athens 95: 121- Tools, in V. Apostolakou, T.M. Brogan and P.P. 139. Betancourt (eds) The Alatzomouri Rock Shelter: An Early Minoan III Deposit in Eastern Crete: 69-80. Devetzi, A. 2007. Λίθινα σκεύη, in C. Doumas (ed.) Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Ακρωτήρι Θήρας, Δυτική οικία: Tράπεζες, Λίθινα, Dierckx, H.M.C. and B. Tsikouras 2007. Petrographic Μετάλλινα, Ποικίλα: 113-160. Athens: The characterization of rocks from the Mirabello Archaeological Society at Athens. Bay region, Crete, and its application to Devetzi, A. 2008. Akrotiri, Thera. Stone vessels Minoan archaeology: the provenance of stone and implements of the Early Bronze Age – a implements from Minoan sites. Bulletin of preliminary report, in N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. the Geological Society of Greece 40 (Proceedings Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds) Horizon. A Colloquium 11th International Congress of the Geological on the Prehistory of the Cyclades: 135-148. Athens: Society of Greece, Athens, Greece, 24-26/5/2007): Stavos Niarchos Foundation. 1768-1780. Dierckx, H.M.C. 1992. Aspects of Minoan technology, Dierckx, H.M.C. and M.S. Eaby 2018. Small finds, in culture and economy: the Bronze Age stone M.S. Eaby (ed.) Chalasmenos I: The Late Minoan IIIC industry of Crete. Unpublished Phd dissertation, Settlement House A.2.: 77-85. Philadelphia: INSTAP University of Pennsylvania, Αnn Arbor. Academic Press. Dierckx, H.M.C., 1995. The ground and chipped Dixon, J. 2003. Lithic petrology, in E.S. Elster and stone tools, in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras C. Renfrew (eds) Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations (eds) Pseira I. The Minoan Buildings on the West in Northeast Greece, 1968–1970. 2. The Final Report: Side of Area Α. 8-10, 21-22, 41-42, 55-56, 64-65, 133– 147. Los Angeles: University of California, 81-82, 96-97, 124-126, 142 (University Museum Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Monograph 90). Philadelphia: University of Doherty, C. and D. Evely 2002. Lithic observations Pennsylvania. from Palaikastro, Crete, in H. Procopiou and R. Dierckx, H.M.C. 2012. Size does matter: the Treuil, R. (eds) Moudre et broyer, Vol. II – Archéologie significance of obsidian microliths and querns et histoire: 81-92. Paris: CTHS. at the Petras cemetery, in M. Tsipopoulou (ed.) Dubreuil, L. 2001. Functional studies of prehistoric Petras, Siteia– 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. grinding stones. Bulletin du Centre de Recherche Acts of a two-day conference held at the Danish Français à Jérusalem 9: 73-87. Institute at Athens, 9-10 October 2010: 171-178. Dubreuil, L. 2008. Mortar versus grinding-slabs Athens: Monographs of the Danish Institute at function in the context of the neolithization Athens. process in the near East, in L. Longo and N. Dierckx, H.M.C. 2013. The chipped and ground stone Skakun (eds) Prehistoric Technology 40 years later: tools, in P. Betancourt (ed.) Aphrodite’s Kephali: An Functional studies and the Russian Legacy (British Early Minoan I Defensive Site in Eastern Crete: 101- Archaeological Reports International Series 108. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 1783): 169-177. Oxford: Archaeopress.

188 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Dubreuil, L. and L. Grosman 2013. The Life History Crete: 171-186. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic of Macrolithic tools at Hilazon Tachtit Cave, in Press. O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds) Natufian Foragers Evely R.D. 2012. Small finds, in C. Knappett, T. in the Levant: 527-543. Ann Arbor: International Cunningham, R.D.G. Evely, P. Westlake and M. Monographs in Prehistory. Bichler (eds) Palaikastro Block M: The Proto- and Ebeling, J. and Y. Rowan 2004. The archaeology of Neopalatial Town: 227-294. London: The British the daily grind: Ground stone tools and food School at Athens. production in the Southern Levant. Near Eastern Evely, R.D. 2013. The stone vases and worked stone, in Archaeology 67: 108. L. Preston, R.D.G. Evely, R. Gowland, V. Isaakidou Efstratiou, N. 1985. Agios Petros - A Neolithic site in and O. Krzyszkowska (eds) Knossos Monastiriako the Northern Sporades. Aegean Relationships during Kephali Tomb and ‘Deposit’ (The British School the Neolithic of the 5th millennium BC (British at Athens Supplement 22): 55-59. London: The Archaeological Reports International Series British School at Athens. 241). Oxford: Archaeopress. Evely, R.D. 2016. Industrial activities, personal Efstratiou, N. 1998. Arrangement and use of space, adornments and belongings, in E. Hallager and in N. Efstratiou, M.P. Fumanal, C. Ferrer, D. Urem B.P. Hallager (eds) The Greek-Swedish Excavations Kotsos, A. Curci, A. Tagliacozzo, G. Stratouli, S.M. at Agia Aikaterini Square Kasteli, Khania 1970-1987, Valamoti, M. Ntinou, E. Badal, M. Madella and 2001, 2005 and 2008, vol. 1, The Late Minoan IIIA:1 K. Skourtopoulou 1998. Excavations at Neolithic and II Settlements: 293-303. Stockholm: Swedish settlement of Makri, Thrace, Greece (1988–1996) – a Institute at Athens. preliminary report. Saguntum 31: 24-29. Evely, R.D. 2019. The stone, terracotta, bone, ivory, Efstratiou, N., A. Karetsou, M. Ntinou and E. Banou faience and metal objects, in J.A. Macgillivray and L.H. Sackett (eds) Palaikastro. Building 1 (The 2013. The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete. British School at Athens Supplement 48): 296- New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete 336. Athens: The British School at Athens. and the Aegean islands. Philadelphia: INSTAP Evely, R.D. and C.N. Runnels 1992. Ground Stone. Academic Press. Oxford, Bloomington: Oxbow Books. Eitam, D. 2009. Late Epipalaeolithic rock-cut Fidanoski, L. 2015. Home sweet home: Neolithic installations and groundstone tools in the architectural remnants from Cerje - Govrlevo, Southern Levant. Methodology and classification Republic of Macedonia. Analele Banatului: system. Paléorient 35(1): 77–104. Arheologie - Istorie 23: 11-44. Elster, E.S. 2003. Grindstones, polished edge-tools Fotiadis, M., A. Hondroyanni-Metoki, A. Kalogirou, Y. and other stone artifacts, in E.S. Elster and C. Maniatis, A. Stroulia and Chr. Ziota 2019. Megalo Renfrew (eds) Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations Nisi Galanis (6300–1800 BC): Constructing a in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970 Volume 2: The final Cultural Sequence for the Neolithic of West report: 175-195. Los Angeles: University of Macedonia, Greece. The Annual of the British California, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. School at Athens 114: 1-40. Evans, J.D. 1964. Excavations in the Neolithic Fullagar, R., J. Field and L. Kealhofer 2008. Grinding settlement of Knossos, 1957-1960 part I. The stones and seeds of change: Starch and phytoliths Annual of the British School at Athens 59: 132-240. as evidence of plant food processing, in Y. Rowan Evans, J.D. and C. Renfrew 1968. Excavations at and J. Ebeling (eds) New Approaches to Old Stones: Saliagos near Antiparos. Athens, London: The Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts: 159–172. British School at Athens. London: Equinox. Evely, R.D.G. 1984. The other finds of stone, clay, Graefe, J., C. Hamon, C. Lidström-Holmberg, C. ivory, faience, lead etc., in M.R. Popham (ed.) Tsoraki and S. Watts 2009. Subsistence, social and The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (The ritual practices: quern deposits in the Neolithic British School at Athens Supplement 17): 223- societies of Europe, in S. Bonnardin, C. Hamon, 259. Oxford: The British School at Athens. M. Lauwers and B. Quilliec (eds) Du Matériel au Evely, R.D. 2006. The small finds, in R.D.G. Evely, Spirituel. Réalités Archéologiques et Historiques J.H. Crouwel and M.R. Popham (eds) Lefkandi des «Dépôts» de la Préhistoire à nos jours XXIXe IV: The Bronze Age: the Late Helladic IIIC settlement Rencontres Internationales dArchéologie et dHistoire at Xeropolis: 265-302. London: British School at dAntibes: 29-38. Antibes: Éditions APDCA. Athens. Grbić, M., M. Mačkić, Š. Nad, D. Simoska and B. Stalio Evely, R.D. 2010. Stone vases and tools, in A. Vasilakis 1960. Porodin. Kasno-neolitsko Naselje na Tumbi kod and K. Branigan (eds) Moni Odigitria: A Prepalatial Bitolja (A Late Neolithic Tell-Settlement near Bitola). Cemetery and its Environs in the Asterousia, Southern Bitola: Nanodni musej.

189 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Georgiadis, M. 2012. Kos in the Neolithic and Early Hekman, J.J. 2003. The Early Bronze Age Cemetery Bronze Age: The Halasarna Finds and the Aegean at Chalandriani on Syros (Cyclades, Greece), Settlement Pattern, Vol. 38. Philadelphia: INSTAP Unpublished PhD disseration. University of Academic Press. Groningen. Georgiadis, M. 2017. A Synthesis of the Neolithic and Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Early Bronze Age Ground Stone Tools from the Relationships Between Humans and Things. Dodecanese. The Archaeological Work in the Aegean Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Islands: 17-30. Mytilene: Hellenic Ministry of Hodder, I. 2017. Things and the slow Neolithic: Culture and Tourism. the Middle Eastern transformation. Journal of Georgiadou, A. 2015. Το Νεολιθικό Σπίτι στη Σωσάνδρα. Archaeological Method and Theory 25(7555): 155– Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. 177. Getz-Gentle, P. 1996. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in Hodder, I. and C. Cessford 2004. Daily practice and the Early Bronze Age. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania social memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity State University Press. 69(1): 17–40. Gimbutas M., S. Winn and D. Shimabuku 1989. Hochstetter, A. 1987. Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Achilleion. A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, Siedlungshügel der Bronze und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 6400-5600 BC (Monumenta Archaeologica 14). Los 1975-1979. Die Kleinfunde (Prähistorische Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of Archäologie in Südosteuropa Band 6). Berlin: California. Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess. Gosden, C. and Υ. Marshall 1999. The cultural Hondroyianni-Metoki, Α. 2009. Μη οικιστικές biography of objects. World Archaeology 31(2): χρήσεις χώρου στους νεολιθικούς οικισμούς. Το 169-178. παράδειγμα της Τούμπας Κρεμαστής Κοιλάδας. Goldman, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aristotle Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University University of Thessaloniki. Press. Hood, S. 1982. Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Hamilakis, Y. 1998. Eating the dead: mortuary Emporio and Ayio Gala II (The British School at feasting and the politics of memory in the Athens Supplement 16). London: The British Aegean bronze age societies, in K. Branigan (ed.) School at Athens. Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age: 115- Horsfall, G.A. 1987. Design theory and grinding 132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. stones, in B. Hayden (ed.) Lithic Studies Among Hamon, C. 2008. The symbolic value of the Contemporary Highland Maya: 332-377. Tucson: grindingstones hoards: technical properties of University of Arizona Press. Neolithic examples, in C. Hamon and B. Quilliec Hoskins. J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell (eds) Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages: the Story of People’s Lives. London: Routledge. Technical and Codified Practices: 19-28. Oxford: Hoskins, J. 2006. Agency, biography and objects, in C. Archaeopress. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands and P. Hamon C. and H. Plisson 2008. Which analytical Spyer (eds) Sage Handbook of Material Culture: 74- framework for the functional analysis of grinding 84. London: Routledge. stones? The blind test contribution, in L. Longo Ivanova, M. 2018. ‘No quern, no food’? Milling and N. Skakun (eds) Prehistoric Technology 40 technology and the spread of farming in south- years later, Functional studies and the Russian legacy east Europe, in M. Ivanova, B. Athanassov, V. (British Archaeological Reports International Petrova, D. Takorova and P. Stockhammer (eds) Series 1783): 29-38. Oxford: Archaeopress. Hamon, C. and V. Le Gall 2013. Millet and sauce: Social Dimensions of Food in the Prehistoric Balkans. The uses and functions of querns among the Oxford: Oxbow books. Minyanka (Mali). Journal of Anthropological Kalogiropoulou, E. 2013. Cooking, space and the Archaeology 32: 109–121. formation of social identities in Neolithic Hanschmann, E. and V. Milojčić 1962. Die deutschen Northern Greece: evidence of thermal structure Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien. assemblages from Avgi and Dispilio in Kastoria. Bonn: R. Habelt. Unpublished PhD.Dissertation, Cardiff Hanschmann, E., and V. Milojčić 1976 Die deutschen University. Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien. Kardulias, P.N. and C. Runnels 1995. The lithic Bonn: R. Habelt. artifacts: Flaked stone and other nonflaked Hanschmann, E. 1981. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen lithics, in C. Runnels, D.J. Pullen and S. Langdon auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien. IV, Die mittlere (eds) Artifact and Assemblage. The Finds from a Bronzezeit. Bonn: R. Habelt. Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece. Vol. 1. The Prehistoric and early Iron Age pottery and

190 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

the lithic artifacts: 74–139. Stanford: Stanford Lidström-Holmberg, C. 2004. Saddle querns and University Press. gendered dynamics of the Early Neolithic in Mid Karimali, E. 2016. Ground stone tools, in C. Wiersma, Central Sweden, in H. Knutsson (ed.) Proceedings D. Agnousiotis, E. Karimali, W. Prummel, H. of the Final Coast to Coast Conference: 199-232. Reinder Reinders (eds) Magoúla Pavlína A Middle Uppsala: Uppsala University. Bronze Age site in the Soúrpi Plain (Thessaly, Greece): Liu, L. 2015. A long process towards agriculture in 129-138. Barkhuis Publishing and University of the middle Yellow River Valley, China: Evidence Groningen Library: Groningen. from macro- and micro-botanical remains. Katsarou, S. and A. Sampson 1997. Λίθινα σκεύη Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology 35. και λοιπά ευρήματα, in A. Sampson (ed.) Το Marinatos, S. 1968. Excavations at Thera: first σπήλαιο των Λιμνών στα Καστριά Καλαβρύτων. Μια preliminary report (1967 season). Athens: The Προϊστορική Θέση στην Ορεινή Πελοπόννησο: 262- Archaeological Society at Athens. 275. Athens: Society of Pelloponesian Studies. Marinatos, S. 1969. Excavations at Thera II (1968 Kotsakis, K. 2018. Eating out: Food and social context season). Athens: The Archaeological Society at in Early Neolithic of Greece, in M. Ivanova, Athens. B. Athanassov, V. Petrova, D. Takorova and P. Melfos, B., G. Stratouli, M. Babelidis and N. Efstratiou Stockhammer (eds) Social Dimensions of Food in the 2001. Προέλευση και διακίνηση των πρώτων Prehistoric Balkans: 31-46. Oxford: Oxbow books. υλών για την κατασκευή των λειασμένων Kotsos, S. 2013. Ο νεολιθικός οικισμός της λίθινων εργαλείων από το Νεολιθικό οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης, in Νέες Μάκρης Έβρο, in I. Basiakos, E. Aloupi and G. ανασκαφικές έρευνες στη Νεολιθική Μακεδονία Facorelis (eds) Αρχαιομετρικές Μελέτες για την (Μέρος Α΄ ), Archaeology & Arts. (Online publication Ελληνική Προϊστορία και Αρχαιότητα: 763-778. - https://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/2013/08/26 Athens: Hellenic Society for Archaeometry. /%CE%BD%CE%AD%CE%B5%CF%82%CE%B1%CE Mould, C.A., Ridley, C. and K.A. Wardle 2000. The %BD%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%86% small finds: stone, in C. Ridley, K.A. Wardle and CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%82%CE%AD%CF%8 C.A. Mould (eds) Servia I. Anglo-Hellenic Rescue 1%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%82%CF Excavations 1971-1973 (The British School at %83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BF% Athens Supplement 32): 112-191. London: The CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%B9/). British School at Athens. Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: Moundrea, A. 1975. Le Site Neolithique Ancien de Commoditization as process, in A. Appadurai Prodromos (Gréce): Outillage Lithique et Osseux. (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Position dans le Contexte Thessalien, Mémoire Cultural Perspective: 64-92. Cambridge: Cambridge de maitrise. Paris: Universite Paris X. University Press. Moundrea-Agrafioti, A. 1981. La Thessalie du Sud- Krattenmaker, K. 2011. The Ground Stone Tools, in Est au Néolithique: Outillage Lithique et Osseux. D.J. Pullen and S.E. Allen (eds) The Εarly Bronze Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Université de Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill: 727-774. Princeton, Paris X. N.J.: American School of Classical Studies at Moudrea-Agrafioti, A. 2007. Λίθινα εργαλεία, in Athens. C. Doumas (ed.) Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Δυτική Οικία: Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 2000. Η Νεολιθική περίοδος Τράπεζες, Λίθινα, Μετάλλινα, Ποικίλα: 71-112. του Σπηλαίου Θεόπετρας, in Ν. Kyparissi- Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens. Apostolika (ed.) Theopetra Cave: Twelve years of Mylonas, G.E. 1959. Aghios Kosmas: An Εarly Bronze Excavations and Archaeological Research 1987-1998, Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica. Princeton, Proccedings of the International Conference, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Trikala, 6-7 November 1998: 180-234. Athens: Nadel, D. and D. Rosenberg 2013. The final Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Institute for Epipaleolithic/PPNA site of Huzuq Musa (Jordan Aegean Prehistory. Valley), in O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla (eds) Li, W., Ch. Tsoraki, W. Lan, Y. Yang, J. Zhang and A. van Natufian Foragers in the Levant: 382–396. Ann Gijn 2019. Cereal processing technique inferred Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. from use-wear analysis at the Neolithic site of Nordquist, G.C. 1987. A Middle Helladic village: Asine Jiahu, Central China. Journal of Archaeological in the Argolid. Uppsala, Stockholm: Academia Science 23: 939-945. Ubsaliensis. Lidström-Holmberg, C. 1998. Prehistoric grinding Nowicki, K. 2008. Monastiraki Katalimata: Excavation tools as metaphorical traces of the past. Current of a Cretan refuge site, 1993-2000. Philadelphia: Swedish Archaeology 6: 123–142. INSTAP Academic Press.

191 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Nikolov, V. 1989, Das frühneolithische Haus Piperno, D.R., A.J. Ranere, I. Holst, J. Iriarte and R. von Sofia-Slatina. Eine Untersuchung zur Dickau 2009. Starch grain and phytolith evidence vorgeschichtlichen Bautechnik. Germania 67: for early ninth millennium B.P. maize from the 1–49. Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proceedings Ninou, I. 2006. Analysis of Grinding Stones from of the National Academy of Sciences 106(13): 5019- Neolithic Sites of Northern Greece: Dispilio 5024. and Apsalos. M.A. Dissertation, University of Platon, Ν. 1971 Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Southampton. Ancient Crete. New York: Scribner. Ninou, I., G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, N. Efstratiou Portillo, M., M. Bofill, M. Molist and R.M. Albert 2013. and S.M. Valamoti forthcoming. Grinding and Phytolith and use-wear functional evidence pounding in Early Neolithic Southeastern for grinding stones from the Near East, in P.C. Europe: culinary preferences and social Anderson, C. Cheval and A. Durand (eds) Regards dimensions of plantfoood processing. Croisés sur les Outils liés au Travail des Végétaux: Nixon-Darcus, L.A. 2014. The Cultural Context An Interdisciplinary Focus on Plant-working Tools, of Food Grinding Equipment in Northern XXXIII rencontres internationales d’archéologie et Ethiopia: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. MA d’histoire d’Antibes: 205-218. Antibes: Éditions dissertation, Simon Fraser University. APDCA. Overbeck, J.C. 1989. Ayia Irini. Mainz on Rhine: P. von Preziosi, D. and L. Hitchcock 1999. Aegean Art and Zabern Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Papanthimou, A. and E. Papadopoulou 2011. Η Procopiou, H. 1998. L’Outillage de Mouture et de ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό του Broyage en Crete Minoenne. Unpublished PhD Αρχοντικού Γιαννιτσών κατά την περίοδο 2008. dissertation, Université de Paris 1 (Panthéon- Το Aρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 22: Sorbonne). 113-118. Procopiou, H. 2013. Les outils lithiques, in J.C. Pappa, M., P. Halstead, K. Kotsakis, A. Bogaard, R. Poursat (ed.) Le Quartier Mu V. Vie Quotidienne et Fraser, V. Isaakidou, I. Mainland, D. Mylona, Techniques au Minoen Moyen II, Etudes Crétoises K. Skourtopoulou, S. Triantaphyllou, Chr. 34: 43-66 and 197-112. Paris: École Française Tsoraki, D. Urem-Kotsou, S.M. Valamoti and d’Athènes. R. Veropoulidou 2013. The Neolithic site of Pyke, G. 1993. The Stratigraphy, Structures and Small Makriyalos, northern Greece: a reconstruction Finds of Nea Nikomedeia, Northern Greece. M.A. of the social and economic structure of the Dissertation, University of Birmingham. settlement through a comparative study of the Rahmstorf, L. 2008. Kleinfunde aus Tiryns: Terrakotta, finds, in S. Voutsaki and S.M. Valamoti (eds) Stein, Bein und Glas, Fayence vornehmlich aus der Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek Spätbronzezeit. Wiesbaden: Reichert. World. Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology Rambach, J. 2000. Kykladen: Die Fruhe Bronzezeit Grab- and Science, Proceedings of the International und Siedlungsbefunde. Bonn: R. Habelt. Conference Held at the Netherlands Institute at Rethemniotakis, G. 1999. Το νέο Μινωικό ανάκτορο Athens on 22-24 March 2010 (Pharos Supplement στο Γαλατά πεδιάδος και το Ιερό Σπήλαιο 1): 77-88. Athens: Peeters, Leuven, Paris and Αρκαλοχωρίου, in A. Karetsou (ed.) Κρήτες Walpole. Θαλασσοδρόμοι: 91-111. Heraklio: Hellenic Papadatos, G. 2005. Tholos Tomb Gamma: A Prepalatial Ministry of Culture. Tholos Tomb at Phourni, Archanes. Philadelphia: Rethemniotakis, G. and P. Warren 2014. Knossos: A INSTAP Academic Press. Middle Minoan III building in Bougadha Metochi Perlès, C. 1981. Les industries lithiques de la (Τhe British School at Athens Studies 23). grotte de Kitsos, in N. Lambert (ed.) La Grotte Oxford: Oxbow. Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique). Missions 1968–1978. Risch, R. 2002. Recursos Naturales, Medios de Producción Vols. I–II. L’Οccupation Νéolithique les Vestiges des y Explotación Social. Un Análisis Económico de la Temps Paléolithiques, de l’Antiquité et d’Histoire Industria Lítica de Fuente Álamo (Almería), 2250- Récente: 129-222. Paris: Erc/Adpf. 1400, Antes de Nuestra Era, Iberia Archaeologica 3. Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge: Risch, R. 2008. Grain processing technologies and Cambridge University Press. economic organization: a case study from the Petrakis, S.L. 2002. Ayioryitika: The 1928 Excavations of south-east of the Iberian Peninsula during the Carl Blegen at a Neolithic to Early Helladic Settlement Copper Age. The Arkeotek Journal 2(2). (Online in Arcadia. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. publication - www.thearkeotekjournal.org).

192 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Robinson, D.M. and G. Mylonas 1929. Excavations at Sampson, Α. 2008b. The Sarakenos Cave at Akraephnion, Olynthus. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Boeotia, Greece: The Neolithic and the Bronze Age: Robitaille, J. 2016. The ground stone industry of the Pottery Analysis, Cave Occupation Patterns and Mursi of Maki, Ethiopia: Ethnoarchaeological Populations Movements in Central and Southern research on milling and crushing equipment Greece. Athens: University of the Aegean. (technique and function). Journal of Lithic Studies. Sampson, A., J.K. Koslowski, M. Kaszanowska and 3: 429-456. Giannouli, B. 2002. The Mesolithic Settlement Rosen, S. 1997. Lithics After the Stone Age. Walnut at Maroulas, Kythnos. Mediterranean Archaeology Creek, London, New Delhi: Altamira Press. and Archaeometry 2(1): 45-67. Rosenberg, D. 2013. Not ‘Just another brick in the Santallier, D., V. Caron, J.L. Gisclon, E. Jautee and S. wall?’ The Symbolism of groundstone tools in Rantsordas 2002. Les qualités mécaniques des Natufian and Early Neolithic Southern Levantine matériaux lithiques utilisés pour la confection constructions. Cambridge Archaeological Journal du matériel de broyage et de mouture. 23(2): 185-201. Réflexions préliminaires, in H. Procopiou and R. Rowan, Y., J. Dixon and R. Dubicz 2013. The Ground Treuil (eds) Moudre et Broyer, Vol. I – Méthodes: 15- stone assemblage from Dhaskalio, in C. Renfrew, 29. Paris: CTHS. O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas and M.l. J. Sarpaki, A. 2009. The archaeobotanical (seed) Boyd (eds) The Settlement at Dhaskalio: 557-596. remains: A preliminary report. (Online Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. Publication http://www.drakainacave.gr/ Runnels, C.N. 1981. A Diachronic Study and index.php?option=com_content&view=article& Economic Analysis of Millstones from the id=55&Itemid=56&lang=en). Argolid, Greece. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Searcy, M.T. 2011. The Life-Giving Stone: Indiana University. Ethnoarchaeology of Maya Metates. Tuscon: Runnels, C. 1988. Early Bronze-Age stone mortars University of Arizona Press. from the Southern Argolid. Hesperia 57: 257-272. Séfériadès, M. 1992. La pierre poli, in R. Treuil (ed.) Runnels, C. and R. Cohen 1981. The source of the Dikili Tash: Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Kitsos millstones, in N. Lambert (ed.) La Grotte orientale, Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961-1975), Préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique). Missions 1968–1978. vol. 1 (Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique Supplement 16): 84-99. Athens: École Française Vols. I–II. L’Occupation Néolithique les Vestiges des d’Athènes. Temps Paléolithiques, de l’Antiquité et d’Histoire Scarre, C. 2006. Stone vessels and implements, Récente: 233-239. Paris: Erc/Adpf. in L. Marangou, R. Renfrew, C. Doumas and G. Sackett, L.H. and M.R. Popham. 1965. Excavations Gavalas (eds) Markiani, Amorgos. An Early Bronze at Palaikastro VI. Annual of the British School at Age fortified settlement. Overview of the 1985-1991 Athens 60: 248-315. investigations: 174-191. London and New York: Sakellarakis, G. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997. British School at Athens. Αρχάνες: Μια Νέα Ματιά στη Μινωική Κρήτη. Siamidou, I.D. 2017. Οικήματα της Μέσης Νεολιθικής Athens: Ammos. στα Παλιάμπελα Κολινδρού (Η κεραμική από Sampson, A. 1985. Μάνικα. Athens: Society of τα οικήματα 20/25). MA dissertation, Aristotle Euboean Studies. University of Thessaloniki. Sampson, A. 1987. Η Νεολιθική Περίοδος στα Spears, C.L. 1990. Macrocrystalline Stone Artefacts, Δωδεκάνησα. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of in R. Tringham and D. Krstić (eds) Selevac. Culture. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia (Monumenta Sampson, A. 1988. Η νεολιθική κατοίκηση στο Γυαλί Archaelogica 15): 495-520. Los Angeles: Institute της Νισύρου. Athens: The Euboean Antiquarian of Archaeology, University of California. Society. Stahl, A. 1989. Plant‐food processing: Implications Sampson, A. 1993a. Καλογερόβρυση: ένας Οικισμός της for dietary quality, in D.R. Harris and G.C. Πρώιμης και Μέσης Χαλκοκρατίας στα Φύλλα της Hillman (eds) Foraging and Farming: the Evolution Εύβοιας. Athens: Morfi. of Plant Exploitation: 171-194. London: Unwin Sampson, A. 1993b. Skoteini Cave at Tharrounia, Hyman. Euboea, Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture. Stergiou, Ch., T. Bekiaris, V. Melfos, St. Theodoridou Sampson, A. 2002. The Νeolithic Settlement at Ftelia, and G. Stratouli forthcoming. Sourcing Mykonos. Rhodes: University of the Aegean, marcrolithics: minerological, geochemical and Department of Mediterranean Studies. provenance investigation on stone artifacts Sampson, Α. 2008a. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic from Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece. and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press

193 Tasos Bekiaris, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou and Soultana-Maria Valamoti

Stratouli, G. 2005. Symbolic behaviour at Stroulia, A., L. Dubreuil, J. Robitaille and K. Nelson places of social activity beyond the Ionian 2017. Salt, sand, and saddles: exploring an Neolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 17: 123-132. intriguing work face configuration among Stratouli, G. and V. Melfos 2008. Exchange networks grinding tools. Ethnoarchaeology 9(2): 119–145. in the Neolithic of Greece: Gabbro and talc Televantou, C.A. 2008. Stroﬁlas: a Neolithic objects from Drakaina cave, Kephalonia Island, settlement on Andros, in: Ν. Brodie, G. Gavalas, J. Western Greece, in Y. Facorellis, N. Zacharias Doole and C. Renfrew (eds) Horizon. A Colloquium and K. Polikreti (eds) Proceedings of the 4th on the Prehistory of the Cyclades: 43-53. Cambridge: Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry. University of Cambridge. National Hellenic Research Foundation (British Tzavella-Evjen, Ch. 1984. Λιθαρές. Athens: Hellenic Archaeological Reports International Series Ministry of Culture. 1746): 381-387. Oxford: Archaopress. Tzigkounaki, A. 2011. Ο παλαιοανακτορικός οικισμός Stratouli, G.N. Katsikaridis, T. Bekiaris and V. Αποδούλου Αμαρίου, in M. Andreadaki-Vlazaki Tzevelekidi 2014. Ενσωματώνοντας το παρελθόν, and E. Papadopoulou (eds) 10th International προσδιορίζοντας το παρόν, νοηματοδοτώντας το Cretological Congress (Khania 1-8/10/ 2006) Vol. A2: μέλλον: Πρακτικές δομημένης (εν-) απόθεσης 493-510. Khania: The Philological Association στο Νεολιθικό Οικισμό Αυγής Καστοριάς, in ‘Chrysostomos’. E. Stefani, N. Merousis and A. Dimoula (eds) Tsartsidou, G. and K. Kotsakis 2020. Grinding in a 1912-2012: Εκατό χρόνια έρευνας στην Προϊστορική hollow? Phytolith evidence for pounding cereals Μακεδονία: 349-357. Proceeding of international in bedrock mortars at Paliambela Kolindros, conference. Thessaloniki: Archaeological an Early Neolithic site in Macedonia, North Museum of Thessaloniki. Greece. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12: 173. Stratouli, G., T. Bekiaris, O. Metaxas and A. Sarpaki Tsiolaki, E. 2009. Τριπτά λίθινα εργαλεία της Μέσης 2017. Πρακτικές κοινωνικής συνοχής στη και Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού από την Τούμπα Νεότερη Νεολιθική του Ιονίου: Αναγνώσεις Θεσσαλονίκης. MA dissertation, Aristotle του αρχαιολογικού υλικού από το Σπήλαιο University of Thessaloniki. Δράκαινα στο Φαράγγι του Πόρου Κεφαλονιάς, Tsirtsoni, Z. 2016. The chronological framework in in Κερκυραϊκά Χρονικά (ΙΑ΄ ), Proceedings of the Greece and Bulgaria between the late 6th and 9th International Panionian Conference, Corfu, the early 3rd millennium BC, and the “Balkans 30 April – 4 May 2014: 185-201. 4000” project, in Z. Tsirtsoni (ed.) The Human Face Stratouli, G., T. Bekiaris, N. Katsikaridis, D. of Radiocarbon Reassessing Chronology in prehistoric Kloukinas, G. Koromila and S. Kyrillidou in press. Greece and Bulgaria, 5000-3000 cal BC. New edition New excavations in Northwestern Greece: the [online]: 15-46. Lyon: MOM Éditions. Neolithic settlement of Avgi, Kastoria. Journal of Tsoraki, C. 2007. Unravelling ground stone life Greek Arcaheology 5. histories: the spatial organization of stone tools Stroulia, A. 2003. Λίθινα τριπτά από την Κίτρινη and human activities at LN Makriyalos, Greece. Λίμνη Κοζάνης: Πρώτη προσέγγιση, πρώτα Documenta Praehistorica 34: 289-297. ερωτήματα. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία Tsoraki, C. 2008. Neolithic society in Northern και Θράκη 17: 571–580. Greece: The evidence of ground stone artefacts. Stroulia, A. 2010. Flexible stones. Ground stone tools from Unpublished PhD dissertation. Sheffield, Franchthi Cave, Excavations at Franchthi Cave University of Sheffield. Greece, Fascicle 14. Indiana: Indiana University Tsoraki, C. 2011. Stone-working traditions in Press. the prehistoric Aegean: the production Stroulia, A. 2018. Macrolithics: Ordinary things in andconsumption of edge tools at Late Neolithic an extraordinary place, in A. Papathanasiou, Makriyalos, in V. Davis and M. Edmonds (eds) W.A. Parkinson, D.J. Pullen, M.L. Galaty and P. Stone Axe Studies III: 231-44. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Karkanas (eds) Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave, in the Tsoraki, C. 2012. Ground stone technologies, in J. Mani, Greece: In Honor of George Papathanassopoulos: Driessen (ed.) Excavations at Sissi III. Preliminary 200-241. Oxford: Oxbow Books. report on the 2011 Campaign: 201-219. Louvain: Stroulia, A. and D. Chondrou 2013. Destroying the Presses Universitaires de Louvain. means of production: The case of ground stone Tsoraki, C. 2018. The ritualisation of daily practice: tools from Kremasti-Kilada, Greece, in J. Driessen exploring the staging of ritual acts at Neolithic (ed.) Destruction: Archaeological, Philological and Çatalhöyük, Turkey, in I. Hodder (ed.) Religion, Historical Perspectives: 109-131. Louvain: Presses History and Place in the Origin of Settled Life: 238- universitaires de Louvain. 262. Colorado: University of Colorado Press.

194 Food-processing ground stone tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age

Tsountas, C. 1908. Αι Προϊστορικαί Ακροπόλεις Watts, S. 2014. The symbolism of querns and Διμηνίου και Σέσκλου. Athens: The Archaeological millstones. AmS-Skrifter 24: 51-64. Society at Athens. Weinberg, S. 1962. Excavations at prehistoric Elateia Valamoti, S.M. 2009. Η Αρχαιοβοτανική Έρευνα της 1959. Hesperia 31: 158-209. Διατροφής στην Προϊστορική Ελλάδα. Thessaloniki: Weiya, L., C. Tsoraki, W. Lan, Y. Yang, J. Zhang and University Studio Press. A. van Gijn 2019. Cereal processing technique Valamoti, S.M., D. Chondrou and L. Papadopoulou inferred from use-wear analysis at the 2013. Plant food processing and ground stone equipment in prehistoric Greece: An Neolithic site of Jiahu, Central China. Journal of experimental investigation using seeds of Archaeological Science, Reports 23: 939-945. einkorn and grass-pea, in P.C. Anderson, C. Cheval Wijnen, M.J.M.N. 1981. The Early Neolithic I Settlement and A. Durand (eds) Regards Croisés sur les Outils at Sesklo: An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Liés au Travail des Végétaux: An Interdisciplinary Greece. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Focus on Plant-working tools, XXXIII Rencontres Wilson, D.E. 1999. Ayia Irini, Periods I-III: The Neolithic Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes: and Early Bronze Age Settlements. Mainz on Rhine: 169-188. Antibes: Éditions APDCA. P. von Zabern. Valamoti, S.M., S. Jacomet, H.P. Stika and A.G. Heiss Winn, S. and D. Shimabuku 1989. Bone and ground 2017. The PLANTCULT Project: identifying the stone tools, in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. plant food cultures of ancient Europe. Antiquity 91 (358). Shimabuku (eds) Achilleion. A Neolithic Settlement Valamoti, S.M., D. Chondrou, T. Bekiaris, I. Ninou, in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC: 259-272. Los N. Alonso, M. Bofill, M. Ivanova, S. Laparidou, G. Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of Prats, H. Procopiou and G. Tsartsidou in press, California. in GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS AND SOCIETY: An Wrangham, R. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made international conference on quarrying, production, Us Human. New York: Basic Books. function and exchange of ground stone artifacts, Wright, K.I. 1992. A classification system for 12th - 15th September 2017, The Johannes Gutenberg ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. University, Mainz, Germany. Journal of Lithic Studies. Paléorient 18(2): 53-81. Van Gijn, A. 2014. The Ritualisation of agricultural Wright, K.I. 1993. Early Holocene ground stone tools during the Neolithic and the Early Bronze assemblages in the Levant. Levant 25(1): 93–111. Age, in A. van Gijn, J.C. Whittaker and P.C. Anderson (eds) Exploring and Explaining Diversity Wright, K.I. 1994. Ground-stone tools and hunter in Agricultural Technology: 311–318. Oxford: gatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: Oxbow. Implications for the transition to farming. Van Gijn A.L. and A. Verbaas 2009. Reconstructing American Antiquity 59(2): 238–263. the life history of querns: the case of the LBK Wright, K.I. 2014. Domestication and inequality? site of Geleen-Janskamperveld (NL), in I. De Households, corporate groups and food Araujo, M. Greja and I. Clemente Conte (eds) processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal Recent Functional Studies on Non Flint Stone Tools: of Anthropological Archaeology 33: 1-33. Methodological Improvements and Archaeological Wright, K.I., C. Tsoraki and R. Siddal 2013. The Inferences, Proceedings of the workshop, 23- ground stone technologies of Çatalhöyük, 1993– 25 May 2008, Lisboa: 1-12. Lisbon: Padrão dos 2008, in I. Hodder (ed.) Substantive Technologies Descobrimentos. Wace, A.J.B. and M.S. Thompson 1912. Prehistoric from Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Thessaly: Being some Account of Recent Excavations Seasons (Çatalhöyük Research Project Series, and Explorations in north-eastern Greece from Lake vol. 9, Monographs of the Cotsen Institute of Kopais to the Borders of Macedonia. Cambridge: Archaeology): 357-48. Los Angeles: University of Cambridge University Press. California at Los Angeles. Walberg, G. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea: Ziota, Ch. 2014. Ο οικισμός του Κλείτου Κοζάνης στο Results of the Greek-Swedish excavations under the ευρύτερο φυσικό και ανθρωπογενές περιβάλλον direction of Katie Demakopoulou and Paul Astrom. της Νεότερης και Τελικής Νεολιθικής Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen. περιόδου, in E. Stefani, N. Merousis and A. Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases. London: Dimoula (eds) 1912-2012: Εκατό χρόνια έρευνας Cambridge University Press. στην Προϊστορική Μακεδονία, Proceeding of Warren, P. 1972. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete. London: Thames and Hudson. international conference: 323-336. Thessaloniki: Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.

195