Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Chapter 7.Indd

Chapter 7.Indd

This pdf of your paper inThe Dynamics of Neolithisation belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three from publication (September 2014), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books ([email protected]). An offprint from

The Dynamics of Neolithisation in

Studies in honour of Andrew Sherratt

Edited by

Angelos Hadjikoumis, Erick Robinson and Sarah Viner

© OXBOW BOOKS 2011 ISBN 978-1-84217-999-4 Contents

Acknowledgements...... vii Contributors...... ix Foreword...... xi John O’Shea Introduction: the dynamics of neolithisation in Europe...... 1 Erick Robinson, Angelos Hadjikoumis, and Sarah Viner

1. Grand narratives and shorter stories...... 10 Alasdair Whittle 2. In constant motion? Recent advances in mathematical modelling and radiocarbon chronology of the neolithisation of Europe...... 25 Marc Vander Linden 3. Time is on my side…...... 46 João Zilhão 4. The : an ecological perspective...... 66 John C. Barrett 5. Farming regimes in : gardening with cows and other models...... 90 Valasia Isaakidou 6. Interpretation of Scirpus from early farming sites in and Europe: a cutting sedge of archaeobotanical research?...... 113 Michael Charles 7. Farming, material , and : repackaging the Neolithic of (and Europe)...... 131 Paul Halstead 8. Enchantment and enchainment in later Balkan : towards an aesthetic of precision and geometric order...... 152 John Chapman 9. Clutching at : the Early Neolithic and the dispersal of ...... 176 Anthony J. Legge and Andrew M. T. Moore 10. ‘-menting’ the Spanish Neolithic...... 196 Angelos Hadjikoumis 11. The [environ-]mental contexts of earliest Neolithic settlement and in western Hungary...... 231 Eszter Bánffy and Pál Sümegi 12. Farming practice and in the central European Neolithic and : an archaeobotanical response to the secondary products revolution model...... 266 Amy Bogaard 13. Technological traditions and ‘the dialectic of expansion’: contact, transmission, and neolithisation along the northwestern fringes of the LBK...... 284 Erick Robinson 14. and pig husbandry in the British Neolithic...... 313 Sarah Viner 15. Tracing the in the past: the introduction of the Neolithic in eastern Scania – tracking change in a local perspective...... 353 Anna-Karin Andersson 16. Early farming and the creation of community: the case of northern Europe...... 364 Magdalena S. Midgley 7 Farming, material culture and ideology: repackaging the Neolithic of Greece (and Europe) Paul Halstead

Introduction Th at we are still concerned with a problem (neolithisation) created by 19th century scholars is partly due to the changing connotations of the term ‘Neolithic’. Initially referring to a toolkit including polished and and then , it expanded to encompass farming and sedentary (Rowley-Conwy 2004, 83). Moreover, these co-occurring traits were functionally linked: polished stone cleared and tilled land; farming permitted ; and sedentism enabled use of ceramics (Cole 1965). According to Childe (1957), this way of life, the ideology that underpinned it, and the culture traits that represented them reached Europe from southwest Asia with colonising . One focus of subsequent debate has been the contribution to neolithisation of immigrant farmers (e.g. Ammermann and Cavalli-Sforza 1973; 1984; Bellwood 2005; Renfrew 2002) and indigenous foragers (e.g. Dennell 1983; Zvelebil 1986; 2005). A second has been whether neolithisation was essentially an economic shift from foraging to farming (e.g. Jarman et al. 1982) or an ideological transformation in perceptions of society, landscape, fauna and fl ora (e.g. Hodder 1990; Th omas 1999; Whittle 1996a; Zvelebil 1996). Ideology, though integral to Childe’s colonist model, is now emphasised over economy mainly by those attributing neolithisation to indigenous foragers. Entangled in both debates is dispute as to whether ceramics, farming and sedentism comprised a co-occurring and perhaps systemically related ‘package’ or a suite of traits that were often adopted piecemeal. Th e latter position is now mainly held by those promoting indigenous agents and ideology (Rowley-Conwy 2004, 83–84), but was previously favoured by palaeoeconomists who argued that local environment shaped choices between foraging, cultivation and herding (e.g. Barker 1975; Jarman et al. 1982). In principle, this argument can be resolved empirically. For example, several claims of pre-Neolithic domesticates are results of misidentifi cation (e.g. Rowley-Conwy 1995) or stratigraphic mixing (e.g. Zilhão 2001). Likewise, Early Neolithic preference for in the Carpathian basin (Bökönyi 1971) and selective adoption of domesticates in the west Mediterranean (Lewthwaite 1986) have evaporated in face of larger samples (Bartosiewicz 2005; Rowley-Conwy 2000). On the other hand, ceramics appear before 132 Paul Halstead farming in parts of northwest Europe but after farming on Crete, while evidence for substantial houses and settlements is regionally variable (Sherratt 1990). Future excavations will doubtless undermine other claims for a piecemeal Neolithic, but also identify new cases. Both sides in the debate will claim vindication, not least because there is no agreement on the appropriate scale of analysis. For those concerned with origins of potting or cultivation, co-occurrence in terminal or earliest Neolithic levels may be crucial and, on the short time scale of agency, the Neolithic is not a take-it-or-leave-it package. Th e fi rst few centuries of the Neolithic, however, over most of Europe, are characterised by a shift from foraging to farming, beginning or elaboration of ceramic production, and radically more monumental arenas for the living and/or dead. At this broader scale, the Neolithic ‘package’ is strikingly coherent. Using the Neolithic of Greece as a case study, it is argued that this coherence should be understood in terms of systemic integration rather than shared (exotic) origins, but that this need not imply dominance of economy over ideology nor preclude a dynamic role for indigenous foragers.

Th e Neolithic of Greece Th anks to large-scale excavations at and (Tsountas 1908; Figure 7.1), Th essaly in the central mainland shaped the image of the Neolithic of Greece in early syntheses. Th e Early Neolithic ‘Sesklo’ culture, with long-lived , rectangular houses, painted pottery and female fi gurines, recalled Anatolian and east Mediterranean assemblages and so favoured introduction by oriental colonists (e.g. Childe 1957; Weinberg 1965). Further excavations, however, demonstrated that the Sesklo culture (now labelled Middle Neolithic) was preceded by several centuries of Early Neolithic material culture that less strikingly resembled eastern prototypes (Milojcic 1960; Th eocharis 1967), so bringing the colonist model into question (e.g. Kotsakis 2001; cf. Perlès 2005). Th e choice of modern Greece as an analytical unit is arbitrary; diff erent regions have distinctive, if related, Neolithic culture histories (e.g. Papathanassopoullos 1996), while Crete developed in comparative isolation. Regional diversity is useful, however, for exploring whether the Neolithic appeared as a package or piecemeal. Th e same chronological labels are used here for mainland Greece and Crete (Andreou et al. 1996; Tomkins 2008): Early Neolithic (EN) – seventh to early–sixth BC; Middle Neolithic (MN) – mid–sixth millennium BC; (LN) – late–sixth to mid–fi fth millennium BC; Final Neolithic (FN) – mid–fi fth to fourth millennium BC. 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 133

Figure 7.1: Map of Greece showing location of archaeological sites mentioned. 1. , 2. Franchthi, 3. Dendra, 4. Dimini, 5. Sesklo, 6. Tsangli, 7. Soufl i, 8. Argissa, 9. Platia Magoula Zarkou, 10. Th eopetra, 11. Servia, 12. Toumba Kremastis Koiladas, 13. Revenia-Korinou, 14. Makriyalos, 15. Paliambela-Kolindrou, 16. Giannitsa B, 17. Stavroupoli, 18. Sitagroi, 19. Cyclops .

Th e beginnings of farming Excavated EN–MN sites routinely yield charred seeds of domesticated and pulses (Halstead 1994, 204–5, table 1) and bones of domestic , , and cattle (Halstead 1996, 28–29, table 1). Caches of grain indicate harvesting in bulk of einkorn, , naked , , , grass pea and bitter vetch. Most or all of these were exotic to Greece (Zohary and Hopf 2000) and this, coupled with large grain size, suggests cultivation. Systematic recovery is scarce, so patchy occurrence of particular crops at individual sites should be attributed to preservation and sampling rather than selective adoption. Where remains of sheep and are distinguished systematically, all four principal species are almost invariably represented, 134 Paul Halstead even in earliest Aceramic levels at Knossos on Crete (Isaakidou 2008, 95, fi g. 6.2). A possible exception is in the southern mainland, where cattle are absent in the Aceramic Neolithic, but this may be fortuitous as cattle are generally rare in assemblages from and earliest Neolithic open sites (Halstead 1996). Sheep and goat were not indigenous to Greece and shed teeth, indicating corralling of live animals, confi rm close human control at Aceramic Franchthi (Payne 1985). Although and boar were indigenous to mainland Greece, domestic cattle and pigs were probably introduced (Edwards et al. 2007; Larson et al. 2007) and decrease in size through the Neolithic (von den Driesch 1987), implying relative reproductive isolation from their larger wild relatives and hence close human control. How rapidly this recurrent package of domesticates was adopted is obscured by the scarcity of Mesolithic assemblages. Sheep and goats are reported from Mesolithic levels at Th eopetra Cave in Th essaly (Newton 2003) and, together with pigs smaller than mainland boar, at Cyclops Cave on the island of Youra (Trantalidou 2008), but contamination from overlying Neolithic deposits is likely at the former (also Kyparissi- Apostolika and Kotzamani 2005) and not yet excluded at the latter. Th e sequence is more fully reported at Franchthi, where the latest Mesolithic deposits, with wild animals (including red deer and boar – Payne 1985) and (including small-seeded cereals and pulses – Hansen 1991), are followed by the earliest Neolithic with domesticates, albeit with a stratigraphic hiatus of a few centuries during which domesticates might have appeared piecemeal. Foraging might also have continued into the later Neolithic in regions (e.g. western mainland Greece) where Early Neolithic sites seem rare. At known EN and MN sites, however, domestic plants and animals are ubiquitous and remains of wild plants and animals extremely scarce (e.g. Halstead 1999; see below; von den Driesch 1987), suggesting wholesale and rapid adoption of domesticates. Consideration of how these domesticates were exploited in Greece reinforces the case for viewing them as a ‘package’. Neolithic mortality patterns for sheep, goat and cattle do not suggest intensive dairying (e.g. Isaakidou 2006), while reproductive isolation of domestic from wild cattle and pigs (implied by biometric data) and the diffi culty of detecting early farming in the pollen record (Bottema 1982; Willis and Bennett 1994) suggest modest numbers of livestock. Compared to grain crops, therefore, domestic animals made a minor contribution to human diet – a conclusion supported by skeletal evidence for human health (Papathanasiou 2005; Triantaphyllou 2001). Given initially fertile soils and settlements of modest size, grain crops were probably grown on a small scale, compatible with the palynological invisibility of early farming. In ‘traditional’ Mediterranean farming, unequal land ownership and production of surplus for urban centres encouraged extensive husbandry with low area yields (Halstead 2000). Th e projected scale of Neolithic cultivation would have enabled intensive methods (- pulse rotation, manuring, weeding) for which there is EN archaeobotanical evidence in the and (Bogaard 2005), but not Greece where assemblages are inadequate for exploring this issue (Valamoti 2004). Domestic livestock 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 135 were probably integral to crop husbandry. First, in a relatively wooded landscape, the high-quality pasture created by tillage will have attracted livestock, while farmers surely appreciated the benefi ts of and manuring stubble and fallow plots. Th e dominance of EN assemblages by sheep (the early domesticate least suited to woodland) and close herding of pigs and cattle (implied by their reproductive isolation from wild relatives) are consistent with confi nement of livestock to arable land. Secondly, intensive husbandry (with manuring by enclosed livestock) on naturally fertile soils would have encouraged vigorous early growth of cereals with risk of ‘lodging’ (stem collapse) and reduced harvest. Recent farmers across the Mediterranean let sheep graze excessively vigorous crops to retard growth and avoid lodging (Halstead 2006a). Th irdly, cows were used for traction at EN Knossos (Isaakidou 2006) and perhaps elsewhere in Greece, with important implications for the intensity of tillage and the production and distribution of (Isaakidou 2008; this volume). Domestic plants and animals on EN sites in Greece thus arguably represented a ‘package’ not merely in their regular co-occurrence, but in their close integration in an intensive mixed farming regime.

Permanent or monumental settlement? For Childe (1957, 60), the Neolithic ‘tell’ of Greece indicated permanent settlement, while thinner layers in the north Balkans indicated less permanent habitation. Th e deep stratigraphy of tells clearly suggests long-term human activity, but does not demonstrate uninterrupted presence on any time scale. Whittle (1996b) regarded the EN population of Th essaly as somewhat mobile because houses were fl imsy and occupation layers thin, while late winter/early spring fl ooding enforced seasonal abandonment of Platia Magoula Zarkou and other low-lying sites. Flimsy houses no more indicate mobility, however, than monumental buildings indicate uninterrupted residence (Whittle 1997). For example, within living memory in the of Paliambela-Kolindrou, residents lacking the resources for or stone built fl imsy -and-daub houses. Moreover, there is no evidence that Platia Magoula Zarkou was fl ooded annually rather than once in several centuries (van Andel et al. 1995), and remains of newborn lambs/kids that probably died in late winter/early spring imply the settlement was not abandoned every (Becker 1999). Th e ages at death, and hence seasons of slaughter, of young domestic animals suggest that Neolithic sites in Greece – tells and fl at-extended settlements (below) – were occupied by at least some residents in all or most seasons of the year (Halstead 2005; Isaakidou 2004). Assessment of age is subject to error and season of birth varies somewhat (Milner 2005), but only special pleading could accommodate available evidence to seasonal slaughter, and allowance for sowing and harvesting of grain crops strengthens the case for year-round occupation. If their inhabitants moved seasonally, diff erent sites should yield complementary evidence, but they diff er only in the strength of evidence for year-round slaughter and this seems to be a product of sample size and the resolution of available data (Halstead 2005). Animals could have been slaughtered 136 Paul Halstead in winter of one year, spring of another, and so on, so year-round occupation of sites cannot be demonstrated, but it remains the most parsimonious interpretation of available evidence. Whatever tells represent in permanence of residence, they resulted from repeated investment over centuries or millennia in substantial dwellings. Th e nature of this investment – symbolic as as practical (Sherratt 1990; Andreou and Kotsakis 1986) – is highlighted by comparison with another type of settlement only recently recognised in large numbers in Greece (Kotsakis 1999). Whereas Neolithic tells are usually less than two hectares (often < 1 ha) in extent and form a visible mound, ‘fl at- extended’ sites may cover 50 ha or more and are largely preserved in sub-surface pits and ditches. Whereas tells are often occupied in successive periods (e.g. EN, MN, LN and FN at Sesklo A), fl at-extended sites often date to a single sub-period (e.g. early LN at Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas – Hondrogianni-Metoki 2001). Whereas houses on tell sites are rebuilt above their predecessors, habitation on fl at-extended sites shifts laterally over time (e.g. phases I and II at LN Makriyalos barely overlap – Pappa and Besios 1999). Finally, whereas houses on tells tend to be relatively substantial, free-standing, rectangular structures of mudbrick or pisé, sometimes with stone foundations (Kotsakis 2006), those on fl at-extended sites are oval pit-, as at Revenia-Korinou (Besios and Adaktylou 2006), semi-subterranean round huts, as at Makriyalos (Pappa 2008), or clusters of rectangular rooms with party walls, as at Sesklo B (Kotsakis 1982). Circuit walls or ditches often enclosed both types of settlement, although those around fl at- extended sites inevitably involved substantially more labour. Tells provided fi xed places (Chapman 1994) in the new cultural landscape created by farming and by patterns of residence that – ‘sedentary’ or otherwise – were surely constrained by cultivated plots and stored crops to a degree atypical of Mesolithic . Tells accumulated gradually, however, so the creation of fi xed places was a consequence rather than cause of their formation. Anyway, fl at-extended settlements with massive circuit ditches would have created more visible fi xed places. Tells were the unintended product of repeated investment in individual houses (Halstead 1999) and there is growing evidence for variability in house form and construction (e.g. Kotsos and Urem-Kotsou 2006; Pappa 2008). Investment in domestic architecture tends not only to be greater on tells than fl at-extended sites, but also to increase through the Neolithic. Oval ‘pit-huts’, some at least too small for more than one or two individuals, have been found at EN Paliambela-Kolindrou (Halstead and Kotsakis in prep.) and Revenia-Korinou (Besios and Adaktylou 2006) in northern Greece, at Argissa, Sesklo and Soufl i in Th essaly (Th eocharis 1973) and at Dendra in the southern mainland (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1992). Round semi-subterranean huts, with clearer evidence of roof supports and sometimes large enough to accommodate a family, have been found at EN Giannitsa B (Chrysostomou 1994), LN Makriyalos (Pappa and Besios 1999) and LN Stavroupoli (Grammenos and Kotsos 2004). Overall, sub-surface structures are mainly of earlier Neolithic date (Pappa 2008, 53). Above- 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 137 ground rectangular houses of ‘family’ size are known throughout the Neolithic (Sinos 1971; Th eocharis 1973) and MN burnt destructions suggest that each sheltered a ‘household’, in the sense of a small social group sharing residential space, tools (Tsangli – Wace and Th ompson 1912), stored food (Servia – Ridley and Wardle 1979) and food preparation facilities (MN Sesklo A – Andreou et al. 1996, 540–41). A broad temporal trend may again be discerned in the extent to which households walled themselves off from their neighbours (Halstead 1995; 2006b). EN and MN are variously located within houses or in the open spaces between (see Nanoglou 2008), the latter implying a willingness to share cooked food with neighbours (cf. Sahlins 1974, 125). At LN Dimini (Hourmouziadis 1979) and other sites excavated on a smaller scale, the walling off of groups of buildings perhaps limited sharing of cooked food to close neighbours. Finally, FN and Early Bronze Age facilities may be hidden within ‘kitchen extensions’ or domestic yards (e.g. Sitagroi – Renfrew 1970). Th e strength of this temporal trend should not be overstated, but ‘households’ insulated themselves from neighbours and advertised their ability to mobilise labour increasingly through the Neolithic. Tell formation was thus partly a product of increasing household independence and, consistent with this, over time fl at-extended sites were replaced by, and sometimes developed into, compact tell settlements (Andreou and Kotsakis 1986; Grammenos 2006). Th ese trends identify tension between collective and domestic solidarity as a defi ning of Neolithic society in Greece (Halstead 2006b; Kotsakis 2006). While ‘domestic’ architecture to varying degrees promoted the household, human remains are normally disarticulated and scattered, suggesting emphasis in death on collective identity (Triantaphyllou 2008). Th e latter pattern, which contrasts sharply with widespread Bronze Age burial in graves containing individual inhumations or few partly disarticulated skeletons (Nakou 1995), is clearer on fl at-extended than tell sites, although this may be fortuitous (Triantaphyllou 2008). Th e labour investment in collective enclosures at fl at-extended sites, however, overshadows that in domestic architecture to a degree not matched at tell sites.

Elaboration of the ceramic repertoire Th e earliest phase of the Neolithic settlement at Knossos was Aceramic (Evans 1968). Pottery was also absent or very rare in the earliest Neolithic levels at mainland Argissa, Sesklo and Franchthi (e.g. Perlès 2001). At Knossos, the density of sherds per unit of deposit (Evans 1973) indicates a steady increase through the Neolithic in rate of discard, and so presumably production, of pottery. Estimated numbers of vessels produced per year at Franchthi (Vitelli 1989) and Knossos (Tomkins 2007) tell the same story. Increased production partly refl ects an expanding range of functions, with more use for cooking and storage in the later Neolithic (e.g. Cullen and Keller 1990; Tomkins 2007, 184; Vitelli 1989), but also a dramatic growth from EN to MN and LN in the range of tableware forms (e.g. Papathanassopoullos 1996, 110–11, fi g. 36). 138 Paul Halstead

Th e expanding range of uses for pottery is of considerable interest, given that cooking (demonstrably) and storage (inevitably) were practised from the beginning of the Neolithic. Belated use of pottery for bulk storage may partly have been dictated by practical concerns; such vessels are secure containers, but diffi cult to make – even for experienced potters. On the other hand, their adoption parallels growing evidence for household independence and so their value was perhaps also symbolic – in drawing attention to private stored produce (Andreou et al. 1996, 559; Christakis 2008, 123–24; cf. Cullen and Keller 1990, 200). Cooking pots allow food to be prepared in diverse ways and, at early LN Makriyalos, a range of shapes implies diff erent cooking methods (Urem-Kotsou 2006) perhaps appropriate to particular social contexts. Much of the ceramic repertoire, however, and most of the EN–MN range, was intended for serving or consuming food and (Mee 2007; Vitelli 1989). Flat bases identify some of this repertoire literally as ‘tableware’ and so perhaps intended for occasions of some formality (Sherratt 1991; also Tomkins 2007, 182). Decoration likewise implies that vessels, and their contents, were intended to impress – presumably in acts of hospitality rather than domestic dining. By early LN, if not before, the range of shapes in northern Greece includes something like a set of elaborately fi nished and highly valued (frequently repaired) black-burnished tableware, again suggesting use in particular formal contexts (Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis in press). Similar vessel forms and decorative styles over quite long distances (e.g. Cullen 1984; Rondiri 1985; Washburn 1983) suggest that similar norms of commensality (Tomkins 2007, 181), if not networks of reciprocal hospitality, played a part in forging some common identity on a regional scale. On the other hand, tableware volumes suggest use by individuals or small groups (of say nuclear or stem family size), although a few MN vessels are larger (e.g. Mee 2007; Tsirtsoni 2001; Urem-Kotsou 2006). Formal hospitality, therefore, was apparently conferred on individuals and/or took the form of inclusion within the household. Tableware and commensality signalled inclusion and exclusion at several diff erent social scales. For example, in Pit 212 at LN Makriyalos (Pappa et al. 2004; Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis 2007), butchered remains of several hundred animals, deposited rapidly, suggest provision and consumption of meat by the entire local community, if not a regional gathering. Standardised cooking and serving vessels emphasised communal solidarity, but their volumes imply preparation for and serving to groups of household size. At the same time, hundreds of small cups, each unique in construction and appearance, highlighted individual identity. Tableware and formal commensality thus played a role in mediating social relationships, inter alia, at and between the contentious levels of the household and local community. Other forms of material culture were similarly implicated. Childe highlighted human fi gurines with strongly female anatomical features, but there are also a few ‘male’ fi gurines, some with both female and male features, and many without obvious indications of biological sex (Mina 2008; Nanoglou 2005). Many of the latter share formal or stylistic features with ‘female’ fi gurines, suggesting that most Neolithic human 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 139

fi gurines in Greece represent females, but distinguish between mature and immature categories (Mina 2008). Likewise, there is growing skeletal evidence that mortuary treatment distinguished between adults and juveniles and sometimes between male and female adults (Triantaphyllou 2008). Th e association of ‘female’ fi gurines with particular forms of body ornamentation (Mina 2008) makes clear that these artefacts projected distinctions of gender, not biological sex. Age classes, and rites of passage that presumably marked transition between them, will have promoted cohesion of these early farming populations at the level of the local community and, judging from preferred forms of posture and gesture in fi gurines (Nanoglou 2006), at a regional scale. Intriguingly, from the earlier to later Neolithic, decreasing emphasis on posture/gesture (Nanoglou 2005) and a trend in female fi gurines, from body ornamentation (by painting, tattooing or scarring) to distinctions signalled by clothing or , imply greater opportunities for unequal social diff erentiation (Mina 2008, 123–25; Nanoglou 2005) that may be linked to increasing household independence. Th e dramatic increase during the Greek Neolithic in volume and variety of durable material culture, Hodder’s (2004) ‘Neo-thingness’, is thus related in large measure to negotiation of social relationships and mediation of tensions implicit in the architectural and settlement record. Th at most of this material culture was of fi red clay may not be solely an artefact of preservation biases. Methods of constructing and fi nishing pots, some vessel forms and many decorative styles, follow wooden or basketry prototypes (Childe 1957; Tomkins 2007, 186–87), posing the question why ceramic skeuomorphs of organic containers assumed such importance. Th e making of ceramics, like the cooking of food, involved use of fi re and the distinction between cooked and raw food is of widespread cultural importance, signalling the diff erence between human and animal consumers (Lévi-Strauss 1970; Wrangham et al. 1999) or between food to be shared and that which is hoarded (Sahlins 1974, 125). Th e signifi cance of this distinction for Neolithic society and material culture is explored below.

Neolithic political economy Prior to FN marginal colonisation by smaller ‘hamlets’, the Neolithic population of Greece lived in ‘villages’ comprised of several ‘households’. Investment in collective enclosures, especially on fl at-extended sites, and in ‘domestic’ architecture, especially on tells, suggests a tension between village and household that was mediated through various social institutions and associated material culture, but especially through commensality. Over the four millennia of the Neolithic, individual households can be discerned archaeologically with increasing confi dence, arguably refl ecting a long-term trend from collective to domestic control. Critics perceive the same trend, but emphasise communal organisation in the earlier Neolithic (Nanoglou 2008; Tomkins 2004; 2007). Dispute as to whether households can be discerned in the earlier Neolithic is partly due to ambiguity of evidence. For example, tableware affi rmed solidarity at several scales, just as the enclosure ditch at Makriyalos, dug as a series of pits, probably represented 140 Paul Halstead domestic as well as collective labour (Pappa and Besios 1999). Th is ambiguity enabled Neolithic agents to assert both domestic and collective allegiance, despite the inherent contradiction between these. Indeed, the heavy investment in material assertions of collective and domestic solidarity arguably refl ects the contested nature of both and, for this reason, homogeneity and conservatism in tableware at EN Knossos cannot (pace Tomkins 2004, 46–49) be taken as evidence of shared organisation of farming or ownership of produce. Th e tension between domestic and collective means that neither label can be applied without qualifi cation to any period of the Neolithic and poses the daunting task of defi ning archaeologically the extent of domestic and collective authority. To begin with the latter, the longevity of settlements (especially tells) indicates institutions or mechanisms that could override tendencies to fi ssion. In addition to age/gender categories and associated rites of passage, collective participation in mortuary rites is suggested by secondary scattering of skeletal parts and, at Makriyalos I, by preferential use of the enclosure ditch for primary burial (Triantaphyllou 2008). Th e FN shift to smaller hamlets, after three or four millennia of village life, arguably refl ects loosening of such collective control over social (Halstead 2008). Village settlement will have facilitated cooperation in fi eld clearance and protection of crops and perhaps livestock from predators (cf. Fleming 1985). In LN, the ditch enclosing fl at-extended Makriyalos I arguably fulfi lled the latter role (below), while the cemetery (with hints of secondary mortuary treatment – Triantaphyllou 2008) 200–300 m north of Platia Magoula Zarkou (Gallis 1982) conceivably marked the outer limits of cultivation around that tell settlement. Protection of crops was perhaps especially crucial in EN when ‘islands’ of cultivation, like sparse arable plots today in the Mediterranean mountains, will have been a magnet for boar and the like. Enclosure of arable land excluded not only wild animals, but also ‘outsiders’ and their livestock. Whether the earliest farmers were of immigrant or indigenous origin, their enclosure of land previously open to foragers may sometimes have been contentious. As in highland , the village community probably took collective responsibility for ‘ownership’ (and if necessary defence) of cleared and cultivated land and, to this end, the Makriyalos ‘feast(s)’ may simultaneously have cemented alliances within the regional population and advertised the productivity (and hence manpower) of the local community. Th e contentious issue, for contemporary scholars and Neolithic farmers, is rights to individual plots of land and the produce thereof. Dependence on labour-intensive crops with delayed returns would arguably be unstable under collectively organised production and consumption, especially if (as in Greece) sowing and harvest were limited to seasonal ‘windows’. Household organisation, directly linking the labour and fruits of cultivation, would favour greater and more reliable production (Flannery 1972; Halstead 1995). Conversely, Tomkins proposes that EN food production and storage were controlled collectively (2007, 189) and land ‘held and worked in common 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 141 or distributed to households on an annual basis’ (2007, 192), while Nanoglou (2008, 152) suggests collective ownership of (LN) livestock. Elsewhere in Europe, well-preserved house destructions (e.g. Jones and Rowley- Conwy 2007; Maier 1999; Marinova 2007) consistently suggest Neolithic crop storage at a domestic level. Evidence from Greece is scant and ambiguous: that cited above in favour of the household model is not incompatible with Tomkins’ suggestion of the periodic distribution of food from communal stores; conversely, the grain at Aceramic Knossos underpinning Tomkins’ claim of ‘bulk storage of surplus at a communal level’ (2007, 189; 2004, 43) was recycled refuse rather than an in situ store (Helbaek unpublished) and anyway was enough for only a single meal for one person. Th ere is indirect evidence for ownership of livestock. First, hints that only some households consumed dairy fats at LN Stavroupoli are more compatible with household than communal control (Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis 2007, 239). Secondly, raw materials for bone tools at LN Makriyalos avoided large wild animals, betraying a conceptual distinction between wild and domestic (Isaakidou 2003) that perhaps the opposition between collective and private ownership (cf. Ingold 1986, 113). Th is distinction may lie behind the rarity on EN–MN sites of large game, especially red deer and boar that are abundant at Mesolithic Franchthi and in some later Neolithic and Bronze Age assemblages (von den Driesch 1987). Th ere is no ecological reason for these species to have disappeared during the earlier Neolithic, and EN assemblages from Paliambela-Kolindrou and Revenia-Korinou include modest numbers of small (e.g. fox, hare), reptiles, birds and fi sh that preclude avoidance of the wild. Among foragers, the obligation to share carcasses usually applies to large game but not small (Barnard and Woodburn 1991). Large game may be rare on earlier Neolithic settlements, therefore, because they were shared out and consumed where they were killed. Small wild animals and domesticates were consumed on settlements, perhaps because both were ‘private’ that did not carry obligations to share. Contrasts in land ownership arguably underlie variability in settlement form. At fl at-extended Makriyalos, the early LN circuit ditch enclosed 28 ha (Pappa and Besios 1999). A wall on its outer edge suggests the ditch literally enclosed people or livestock, although a shallow outer ditch could have held a palisade that excluded people or animals. Th e enclosure was only patchily inhabited, so the ditch did not primarily defi ne residential space. Likewise, as an overnight pen, 28 ha suitably subdivided could have held perhaps 100,000 sheep, goats, pigs and cattle – an improbably large number for the apparently small human population. As enclosed pasture, 28 ha might have sustained a few dozen sheep year-round (Le Houerou 1977) or a hundred for, say, three months; the seasonal alternative is consistent with archaeobotanical evidence from charred animal dung (Valamoti 2007), but not supported by faunal evidence for year-round slaughter (Halstead 2005). Either way, the low number of animals supported off ers an unconvincing rationale for the labour of enclosure. Finally, as arable plots cultivated intensively, 28 ha might have produced in excess of 28 tons of grain per year and so 142 Paul Halstead enough to sustain something like 100 persons – a credible fi gure for the inhabitants of Makriyalos I. Th e enclosure of arable plots (probably used periodically as pens and pasture) is plausible (also Andreou and Kotsakis 1994) and easiest to reconcile with the labour invested. It would also imply that arable land was under collective control at this fl at-extended site; any ‘private’ rights to individual plots were suffi ciently short- term not to prevent horizontal displacement of habitation. In contemporary highland New Guinea (Brown 1978, 78–81), however, collective clearance, defence and control of land are compatible with domestic rights to cultivate and consume the produce of individual plots. Such domestic rights would be much more advantageous in , where soils would sustain and perhaps benefi t from continuous cultivation. For the same reason, the intensive regime of crop husbandry suggested above would have encouraged households to seek long-term rights to individual plots (Bogaard 2004). Tells developed from repeated construction on the same spot and individual houses were sometimes rebuilt exactly over their predecessors, suggesting transmission over generations of rights or claims to particular plots (Kotsakis 1999; 2006). Horizontally stable habitation would have enabled (and was perhaps reinforced by) long-term ‘private’ rights to individual plots of cultivable land and, although there is no direct evidence that continuity in building plots was matched by rights to arable land (or scarce infi eld plots – Isaakidou 2008), the latter would provide a plausible rationale for labour-intensive claims to ‘ancestral’ house plots. Some collective control must also have existed: with unrestricted and heritable ‘private’ ownership, accidents of demography would have resulted in households without land, land without owners and an early end to tell formation (Isaakidou 2008). Tell and fl at-extended settlements, however, represent opposing ends of an ideological spectrum between private/domestic and public/collective ownership of land (Kotsakis 1999). If ‘domestic’ architecture does represent a trend towards household control of crops, livestock and land, with incentives and opportunities for greater productivity, single households will have been too small for biological or social reproduction and vulnerable to periodic economic failure (Sahlins 1974). Increasing household independence was only viable, therefore, if mechanisms existed to override this in case of need. Arguably, this was achieved in two ways. First, stylistic homogeneity in tableware suggests that commensality served to promote communal solidarity and cultivate distant social contacts. Faunal remains show most animals were slaughtered at a size too large for domestic consumption, while seasons of slaughter and intensive processing of carcasses argue against storage or waste on a signifi cant scale (Halstead 2007). Carcasses seem to have been distributed widely for consumption (and not merely scattered after discard) because of the dispersal, at Neolithic Knossos and EN Paliambela-Kolindrou, of articulating skeletal parts other than those not normally separated in butchery (Halstead 2006b; Isaakidou 2004). Th is did not undermine the principle of household storage, because the scarcity of butchery marks implies distribution of cooked rather than raw meat (a distinction perhaps reinforced by presentation in fi r e d clay vessels). Th e giving 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 143 of food was also restricted to specifi c social contexts, marked by increasingly elaborate tableware and the serving of luxury beverages (Urem-Kotsou and Kotsakis in press) as well as meat. Such context-specifi c and conditional commensality is fundamentally diff erent from the generalised obligation to share among immediate-return foragers, not least in imposing an obligation to reciprocate (Barnard and Woodburn 1991). For the same reasons, such commensality could cement relations of solidarity but could not provide bulk subsistence relief to failed households. Secondly, staple food could have been provided in bulk, without undermining household storage, if reciprocated by labour (eff ectively incorporating recipients within the donor household) or by an obligation of future re-payment (probably over shorter social distances). Both forms of support are plausible, because the survival of these early farming communities presupposes that most households produced a ‘normal surplus’ (Allan 1965), some of which will have compensated for subsequent household underproduction. Surplus food has a fi nite ‘shelf life’, however, and may be used to make beer or fatten animals (the latter compatible with dental microwear at LN Makriyalos – Mainland and Halstead 2005) for a party that might earn political capital or mobilise labour (Allan 1965). Alternatively, it might provide rations for additional labourers (e.g. Richards 1939); in a highly seasonal environment with labour a major constraint on production, use of normal surplus to recruit workers must have been attractive. In this context, the apparent concern of Neolithic fi gurines with female rites of passage may be related to control by men of women’s labour (cf. Barnard and Woodburn 1991) and, more specifi cally, to household control of the labour of its female members. Th ough partly speculative, this model accounts plausibly and parsimoniously for the wealth of Neolithic material culture in Greece (with its focus on settlements, houses, tableware, female fi gurines) and for its increasing elaboration through the Neolithic. It also accounts for the ‘noisiness’ of the trend in domestic architecture. Th e severity and frequency of subsistence failure will have varied between settlements, households (especially if rights to cultivated plots were long-term) and generations, while individual farmers will have varied in , agronomic judgement and altruism. Accordingly, the balance between collective and domestic organisation surely varied between contemporary villages and the long-term trend to household independence was sometimes reversed. Th e tension between communal and domestic solidarity and control provides the dynamic behind progressive elaboration of domestic architecture and portable material culture.

Neolithisation Th e Neolithic archaeological record of Greece, both settlement/architectural remains and portable material culture, reveals a society in fl ux, actively negotiating tensions between individual, regional and especially household and village scales of identity. Th e household and village were social units unknown in the preceding Mesolithic and 144 Paul Halstead these issues of identity were contentious because they embodied rights to exploit, and obligations to share, land, food and labour. Th ese rights and obligations were in turn intimately bound up with the practicalities of a farming way of life and, in this sense, Neolithic culture in Greece was a tightly integrated package of domesticates, agronomic knowledge, residential practices, social norms and beliefs. Th e model of a domestic ideology driving the inception of farming (Hodder 1990) is not supported empirically in Greece, where domesticates were adopted wholesale and rapidly, while the material culture suggesting domestic ideology was elaborated over many subsequent centuries. It is unwise, however, to insist that farming preceded and drove the development of a Neolithic ideology. Early farming, let alone the early agricultural , was much more than a suite of domestic plants and animals. Th is was a dynamic package, even if changes in material culture and social organisation are more obvious than changes in crop or , and the crucial ideological tensions over rights to resources were surely under active negotiation from the inception of farming. Th e Neolithic archaeological record from Greece is very similar to that from the north Balkans and has quite close parallels in that from southeast . At a more general level, the Neolithic package was shared across much of the continent: several crop and livestock species usually appear together and are often associated with, or followed by, dramatically increased investment in ‘places’ (residential, ceremonial or mortuary) in the landscape and portable material culture, while much of the latter is plainly geared to negotiation of social relationships and, particularly, to use of food and drink to this end. Th e form of the package, however, and its diachronic development, display considerable regional variability, suggesting that the cohesion of the package should be understood in terms not of common origins, but of similar responses to inherent and widely encountered tensions in the early farming mode of production. Understanding of European neolithisation has been hampered by polarisation between paradigms (Robb and Miracle 2007) and groundless fear that a Neolithic ‘package’ represents victory for economy and colonisation over ideology and adoption. Acknowledgement that Neolithic traits often appear as a package, however, permits a more contextualised and holistic understanding of the Neolithic archaeological record and trajectories of neolithisation.

Acknowledgements I have drawn heavily on work in collaboration with, and unpublished work by, Valasia Isaakidou, Kostas Kotsakis and Duska Urem-Kotsou. Laszlo Bartosiewicz, Kostas Christakis, Tracey Cullen, Chris Mee, Stratos Nanoglou, Maria Pappa, Peter Rowley- Conwy, Katerina Trantalidou and Tania Valamoti kindly provided papers. Amy Bogaard, Valasia Isaakidou, Peter Tomkins and Duska Urem-Kotsou off ered encouraging and critical comments (in varying proportions) on a draft of the paper. Last but not least, I am indebted to the inspiring teaching of Andrew Sherratt. 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 145

Bibliography Allan, W. (1965) Th e African husbandman. Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd. Ammerman, A. J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. (1973) A population model for the diff usion of early farming in Europe. In C. Renfrew (ed.) Th e explanation of culture change, 343–57. London, Duckworth. Ammerman, A. J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. (1984) Th e Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press. van Andel, T., Gallis, K. and Toufexis, G. (1995) Early neolithic farming in a Th essalian river landscape, Greece. In J. Lewin, M. G. Macklin and J. C. Woodward (eds.) Mediterranean Quaternary river environments, 131–43. Rotterdam, Balkema. Andreou, S. and Kotsakis, K. (1986) Diastasis tou khorou stin kendriki Makedonia: apotiposi tis endokoinotikis kai diakoinotikis khoroorganosis. In Amitos (Festschrift to M. Andronikos), 57–88. Th essaloniki, University of Th essaloniki. Andreou, S. and Kotsakis, K. (1994) Prehistoric rural communities in perspective: the Langadas survey project. In P. Doukellis and L. Mendoni (eds.) Structures rurales et sociétés antiques, 17–25. Paris, Université de Besançon. Andreou, S., Fotiadis, M. and Kotsakis, K. (1996) Review of Aegean prehistory 5: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100, 537–97. Barker, G. (1975) Early neolithic land use in Yugoslavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41, 85–104. Barnard, A. and Woodburn, J. (1991) Property, power and ideology in hunting and gathering : an introduction. In T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds.) Hunters and gatherers, 2: property, power and ideology, 4–31. Oxford, Berg. Bartosiewicz, L. (2005) Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic, 51–63. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Becker, C. (1999) Th e Middle Neolithic and the Platia Magoula Zarkou – a review of current archaeozoological research in Th essaly (Greece). Anthropozoologica 30, 3–22. Bellwood, P. (2005) First farmers. Oxford, Blackwell. Besios, M. and Adaktylou, F. (2006) Neolithikos oikismos sta ‘Revenia’ Korinou. To Arkhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Th raki 18, 357–66. Bogaard, A. (2004) Neolithic farming in central Europe: an archaeobotanical study of crop husbandry practices. London, Routledge. Bogaard, A. (2005) ‘Garden agriculture’ and the nature of early farming in Europe and the . World Archaeology 37, 177–96. Bottema, S. (1982) Palynological investigations in Greece with special reference to pollen as an indicator of human activity. Palaeohistoria 24, 257–89. Bökönyi, S. (1971) Th e development and history of domestic animals in Hungary: the Neolithic through to . American Anthropologist 73, 640–74. Brown, P. (1978) Highland peoples of New Guinea. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapman, J. (1994) Th e origins of farming in south east Europe. Préhistoire Européenne 6, 133–56. Childe, V. G. (1957) Th e dawn of European civilisation. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Christakis, K. S. (2008) Th e politics of storage: storage and sociopolitical complexity in Neopalatial Crete. Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press. Chrysostomou, P. (1994) Oi neolithikes erevnes stin poli kai tin eparkhia Giannitson kata to 1991. To Arkhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Th raki 5, 111–25. 146 Paul Halstead

Cole, S. M. (1965) Th e . London, British Museum of Natural History. Cullen, T. (1984) Social implications of ceramic style in the Neolithic Peloponnese. In W. D. Kingery (ed.) Ancient to modern science, volume 1, 77–100. Columbus, American Ceramic Society. Cullen, T. and Keller, D. R. (1990) Th e Greek pithos through time: multiple functions and diverse imagery. In W. D. Kingery (ed.) Th e changing roles of ceramics in society: 26,000 b.p. to the present, 183–209. Westerville, Th e American Ceramic Society. Dennell, R. W. (1983) European economic prehistory. London, Academic Press. von den Driesch, A. (1987) Haus- und Jagdtiere im vorgeschichtlichen Th essalien. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 62,1–21. Edwards, C. J., Bollongino, R., Scheu, A., Chamberlain, A., Tresset, A., Vigne, J.-D., Baird, J. F., Larson, G., Ho, S. Y. W., Heupink, T. H., Shapiro, B., Freeman, A. R., Th omas, M. G., Arbogast, R.-M., Arndt, B., Bartosiewicz, L., Benecke, N., Budja, M., Chaix, L., Choyke, A. M., Coqueugniot, E., Döhle, H.-J., Göldner, H., Hartz, S., Helmer, D., Herzig, B., Hongo, H., Mashkour, M., Özdogan, M., Pucher, E., Roth, G., Schade-Lindig, S., Schmölcke, U., Schulting, R. J., Stephan, E., Uerpmann, H.-P., Vörös, I., Voytek, B., Bradley, D. G. and Burger, J. (2007) Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows a Near Eastern Neolithic origin for domestic cattle and no indication of of European aurochs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274, 1377–85. Evans, J. D. (1968) Knossos Neolithic, part II, summary and conclusions. Annual of the British School at 63, 267–76. Evans, J. D. (1973) Sherd weights and sherd counts – a contribution to the problem of quantifying pottery studies. In D. E. Strong (ed.) and practice, 131–49. New York, Seminar Press. Flannery, K. V. (1972) Th e origins of the village as a settlement type in and the Near East: a comparative study. In P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.) Man, settlement and urbanism, 23–53. London, Duckworth. Fleming, A. (1985) Land tenure, productivity, and fi eld systems. In G. Barker and C. Gamble (eds.) Beyond domestication in , 129–46. London, Academic Press. Gallis, K. (1982) Kausis nekron apo ti Neolithiki epokhi sti Th essalia. Athens, Ipourgio Politismou kai Epistimon. Grammenos, D. (2006) Conclusions from the rescue excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Stavroupoli, Th essaloniki. Analele Banatului 14(1), 113–28. Grammenos, D. B. and Kotsos, S. (2004) Sostikes anaskafes sto Neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalonikis, meros II (1998–2003). Thessaloniki, Arkhaiologiko Instituto Voreias Elladas. Halstead, P. (1994) Th e north-south divide: regional paths to complexity in prehistoric Greece. In C. Mathers and S. Stoddart (eds.) Development and decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, 195–219. Sheffi eld, J. R. Collis. Halstead, P. (1995) From sharing to hoarding: the neolithic foundations of Aegean Bronze Age society? In R. Laffi neur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.) Politeia: society and state in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Aegaeum 12), 11–20. Liège, University of Liège. Halstead, P. (1996) Pastoralism or household herding? Problems of scale and specialisation in early Greek animal husbandry, World Archaeology 28, 20–42. Halstead, P. (1999) Neighbours from hell: the household in Neolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.) Neolithic society in Greece, 77–95. Sheffi eld, Sheffi eld Academic Press. Halstead, P. (2000) Land use in postglacial Greece: cultural causes and environmental eff ects. In P. Halstead and C. Frederick (eds.) Landscape and land use in postglacial Greece, 110–128. Sheffi eld, Sheffi eld Academic Press. 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 147

Halstead, P. (2005) Resettling the Neolithic: faunal evidence for seasons of consumption and residence at Neolithic sites in Greece. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic, 38–50. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Halstead, P. (2006a) Sheep in the garden: the integration of crop and livestock husbandry in early farming regimes of Greece and southern Europe, in D. Serjeantson and D. Field (eds.) Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, 42–55. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Halstead, P. (2006b) What’s ours is mine? Village and household in early farming society in Greece. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. Halstead, P. (2007) Carcasses and commensality: investigating the social context of meat consumption in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Greece. In C. Mee and J. Renard (eds.) Cooking up the past: food and culinary practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, 25–48. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Halstead, P. (2008) Between a rock and a hard place: coping with marginal colonisation in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age of Crete and the Aegean. In V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.) Escaping the labyrinth: the Cretan Neolithic in context, 229–57. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Hansen, J. M. (1991) Th e palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave. Volume 7. Bloomington/ Indianapolis, Indiana University Press. Hodder, I. (1990) Th e domestication of Europe. Oxford, Blackwell. Hodder, I. (2004) Neo-thingness. In J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan (eds.) Explaining social change: studies in honour of , 45–52. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Hondrogianni-Metoki, A. (2001) Egnatia odos, anaskafi stin proistoriki thesi ‘Toumba Kremastis- Koiladas’, Nomou Kozanis. To Arkhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Th raki 13, 399–413. Hourmouziadis, G. (1979) To Neolithiko Dimini. , Society for Th essalian Studies. Ingold, T. (1986) Th e appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and social relations. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Isaakidou, V. (2003) Worked and utilised bone and antler: practical and cultural rationales for the selection of raw materials. In E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble and P. Elefanti (eds.) Zooarchaeology in Greece: recent advances, 233–38. London, British School at Athens. Isaakidou, V. (2004) Bones from the labyrinth: faunal evidence for the management and consumption of animals at Neolithic and Bronze Age Knossos, Crete. PhD thesis, Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Isaakidou, V. (2006) Ploughing with cows: Knossos and the ‘secondary products revolution’. In D. Serjeantson and D. Field (eds.) Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, 95–112. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Isaakidou, V. (2008) Th e fauna and economy of Neolithic Knossos revisited. In V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.) Escaping the labyrinth: the Cretan Neolithic in context, 90–114. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Jarman, M. R., Bailey, G. N. and Jarman, H. N. (eds.) (1982) Early European agriculture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Jones, G. and Rowley-Conwy, P. (2007) On the importance of cereal cultivation in the British Neolithic. In S. Colledge and J. Conolly (eds.) Th e origins and spread of domestic plants in southwest Asia and Europe, 391–419. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Kotsakis, K. (1982) Recent research at Sesklo. In Symposia Th racica 1982, A, 265–69. Xanthi, International Demokritos Foundation. 148 Paul Halstead

Kotsakis, K. (1999) What tells can tell: social space and settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In P. Halstead (ed.) Neolithic society in Greece, 66–76. Sheffi eld, Sheffi eld Academic Press. Kotsakis, K. (2001) Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece. Continuity, discontinuity or change of course? Documenta Praehistorica 28, 63–73. Kotsakis, K. (2006) Settlement of discord: Sesklo and the emerging household. In N. Tasic and C. Grozdanov (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garašanin, 207–20. Belgrade, Serbian Academy of Sciences and , Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Kotsos, S., and Urem-Kotsou, D. (2006) Filling in the Neolithic landscape. In N. Tasic and C. Grozdanov (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garašanin, 193–207. Belgrade, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and Kotzamani, G. (2005) Worlds in transition: Mesolithic/Neolithic lifestyles at the cave of Th eopetra, Th essaly/Greece. In C. Lichter (ed.) How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the fi rst half of the 6th millennium cal. BC., 173–82. , Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul. Larson, G., Albarella, U., Dobney, K., Rowley-Conwy, P., Schibler, J., Tresset, A., Vigne, J.-D., Edwards, C. J., Schlumbaum, A., Dinu, A., Bălăçsescu, A., Dolman, G., Tagliacozzo, A., Manaseryan, N., Miracle, P., Van Wijngaarden-Bakker, L., Masseti, M., Bradley D. G. and Cooper A. (2007) Ancient DNA, pig domestication, and the spread of the Neolithic into Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104, 15276–81. Le Houerou, H. N. (1977) sociology and ecology applied to grazing lands research, survey and management in the . In W. Krause (ed.) Handbook of vegetation science 13: application of vegetation science to grassland husbandry, 211–74. Th e Hague, Junk. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1970) Introduction to a science of mythology, 1: the raw and the cooked. London, Cape. Lewthwaite, J. G. (1986) Th e transition to food production: a Mediterranean perspective. In M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in transition, 53–66. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Maier, U. (1999) Agricultural activities and land use in a neolithic village around 3900 BC: Hornstaad Hörnle 1A, Lake Constance, . Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8, 87–94. Mainland, I. L. and P. Halstead (2005) Th e diet and management of domestic sheep and goats at Neolithic Makriyalos. In J. Davies, M. Fabis, I. Mainland, M. Richards and R. Th omas (eds.) Diet and health in past animal populations: current research and future directions, 104–12. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Marinova, E. (2007) Archaeobotanical data from the early Neolithic of . In S. Colledge and J. Conolly (eds.) Th e origins and spread of domestic plants in southwest Asia and Europe, 93–109. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. Mee, C. (2007) Th e production and consumption of pottery in the Neolithic Peloponnese. In C. Mee and J. Renard (eds.) Cooking up the past: food and culinary practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, 201–24. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Milner, N. (2005) Can seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the past? In D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic, 32–37. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Milojcic, V. (1960) Hauptergebnisse der Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Th essalien 1953–58. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Mina, M. (2008) Figurin’ out Cretan Neolithic society: anthropomorphic fi gurines, symbolism and gender dialectics. In V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.) Escaping the labyrinth: the Cretan Neolithic in context. 115–35. Oxford, Oxbow Books. 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 149

Nakou, G. (1995) Th e cutting edge: a new look at early Aegean . Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8, 1–32. Nanoglou, S. (2005) Subjectivity and material culture in Th essaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15, 141–56. Nanoglou, S. (2006) Regional perspectives on the Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery of northern Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19(2), 155–76. Nanoglou, S. (2008) Building biographies and households: aspects of community life in Neolithic northern Greece. Journal of Social Archaeology 8(1), 139–160. Newton, S. (2003) Th e Mesolithic fauna from Th eopetra Cave. In N. Galanidou and C. Perlès (eds.) Th e Greek Mesolithic: problems and perspectives, 199–205. London, British School at Athens. Papathanasiou, A. (2005) Health status of the Neolithic population of Alepotrypa, Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126(4), 377–90. Papathanassopoullos, G. A. (ed.) (1996) Neolithic culture in Greece. Athens, N. P. Goulandris Foundation. Pappa, M. (2008) Organosi tou khorou kai oikistika stoikhia stous Neolithikous oikismous tis kentrikis Makedonias: D. E. Th .-Th ermi-Makriyalos. Doctoral thesis, Aristotle University of Th essaloniki. Pappa, M. and Besios, M. (1999) Th e Neolithic settlement at Makriyalos, northern Greece: preliminary report on the 1993–1995 excavations. Journal of Field Archaeology 26, 177– 95. Pappa, M., Halstead, P., Kotsakis, K. and Urem-Kotsou, D. (2004) Evidence for large-scale feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, N Greece. In P. Halstead and J. Barrett (eds.) Food, cuisine and society in prehistoric Greece, 16–44. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Payne, S. (1985) Zoo-archaeology in Greece: a reader’s guide. In N. C. Wilkie and W. D. E. Coulson (eds.) Studies in honor of William A. McDonald, 211–44. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Perlès, C. (2001) Th e Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Perlès, C. (2005) From the Near East to Greece: let’s reverse the focus – cultural elements that didn’t transfer. In C. Lichter (ed.) How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the fi rst half of the 6th millennium cal. BC., 275–90. Istanbul, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul. Protonotariou-Deïlaki, E. (1992) Paratirisis stin Prokeramiki (apo ti Th essalia sta Dendra tis Argolidos). In Diethnes sinedrio gia tin arkhaia Th essalia: sti mnimi tou D. R. Th eokhari, 97–119. Athens, Ministry of Culture. Renfrew, C. (1970) Th e burnt house at Sitagroi. Antiquity 44, 131–34. Renfrew, C. (2002) Th e emerging synthesis: the of farming/language dispersals and other spread zones. In P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds.) Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, 3–17. Cambridge, McDonald Institute. Richards, A. I. (1939) Land, labour and diet in northern Rhodesia. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ridley, C. and Wardle, K. A. (1979) Rescue excavations at Servia 1971–1973: a preliminary report. Annual of the British School at Athens 74, 185–230. Robb, J. and Miracle, P. (2007) Beyond ‘migration’ versus ‘acculturation’; new models for the spread of agriculture, Proceedings of the British Academy 144, 99–115. Rondiri, V. (1985) Epifaniaki keramiki neolithikon theseon tis Th essalias: katanomi sto khoro. Anthropologika 8, 53–74. Rowley-Conwy, P. (1995) Wild or domestic? On the evidence for the earliest domestic cattle and pigs in south Scandinavia and Iberia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5, 115–26. 150 Paul Halstead

Rowley-Conwy, P. (2000) Milking caprines, hunting pigs: the Neolithic economy of Arene Candide in its west Mediterranean context. In P. Rowley-Conwy (ed.) Animal bones, human societies, 124–32. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Rowley-Conwy, P. (2004) How the west was lost: a reconsideration of agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45: S83–S113. Sahlins, M. (1974) economics. London, Tavistock Publications. Sherratt, A. (1990) Th e genesis of : monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in neolithic north-west Europe. World Archaeology 22, 147–67. Sherratt, A. (1991) Palaeoethnobotany: from crops to cuisine. In F. Queiroga and A.P. Dinis (eds.) Paleoecologia e Arqueologia 2, 221–36. Vila Nova de Famalicao. Sinos, S. (1971) Die Vorklassische Hausformen in der Ägäis. Mainz, Von Zabern. Th eocharis, D. R. (1967) I avgi tis Th essalikis proistorias: arkhi kai proimi exelixi tis Neolithikis. Volos, Filarkhaios Etairia. Th eocharis, D. R. (1973) Neolithic Greece. Athens, National Bank of Greece. Th omas, J. (1999) Understanding the Neolithic. London, Routledge. Tomkins, P. (2004) Filling in the ‘neolithic background’: social life and social transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age. In J. Barrett and P. Halstead (eds.) Th e emergence of civilisation revisited, 38–63. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Tomkins, P. (2007) Communality and competition. Th e social life of food and containers at Aceramic and Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete. In C. Mee and J. Renard (eds.) Cooking up the past: food and culinary practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, 174–99. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Tomkins, P. (2008) Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic. In V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.) Escaping the labyrinth: the Cretan Neolithic in context, 21–48. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Trantalidou, K. (2008) Glimpses of Aegean island communities during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods: the zooarchaeological point of view. In N. J. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds.) Horizon: a colloquium on the prehistory of the Cyclades, 19–27. Cambridge, McDonald Institute. Triantaphyllou, S. (2001) A bioarchaeological approach to prehistoric cemetery populations from central and western Greek (BAR international Series 976). Oxford, British Archaeological Reports. Triantaphyllou, S. (2008) Living with the dead: a re-consideration of mortuary practices in the Greek Neolithic. In V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.) Escaping the labyrinth: the Cretan Neolithic in context, 136–54. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Tsirtsoni, Z. (2001) Les poteries du début du Néolithique Récent en Macédoine, 2. Les fonctions des recipients. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 125, 1–39. Tsountas, Kh. (1908) Ai proïstorikai akropolis Diminiou kai Sesklou. Athens, Arkhaiologiki Etairia. Urem-Kotsou, D. (2006) Neolithiki keramiki tou Makrigialou: diatrofi kes sunithies kai oi koinonikes diastasis tis keramikis. PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Th essaloniki. Urem-Kotsou, D. and Kotsakis, K. (2007) Pottery, cuisine and community in the Neolithic of north Greece. In C. Mee and J. Renard (eds.) Cooking up the past: food and culinary practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean, 225–46. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Urem-Kotsou, D. and Kotsakis, K. (in press) Cups of conversion: drinking sets in social context in Late Neolithic northern Greece. In E. Margaritis, J. Renfrew and M. Jones (eds.) Wine confessions: production, and social signifi cance of wine in ancient Greece and (Hesperia, Occasional Wiener Laboratory Series). Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 7. Farming, material culture and ideology 151

Valamoti, S. M. (2004) Plants and people in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age northern Greece: an archaeobotanical investigation. Oxford, Archaeopress. Valamoti, S. M. (2007) Detecting seasonal movement from animal dung: an investigation in Neolithic northern Greece. Antiquity 81, 1053–64. Vitelli, K. D. (1989) Were pots fi rst made for food? Doubts from Franchthi. World Archaeology 21, 17–29. Wace, A. J. B. and Th ompson, M. S. (1912) Prehistoric Th essaly. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Washburn, D. K. (1983) Symmetry analysis of ceramic design: two tests of the method on neolithic material from Greece and the Aegean. In D. K. Washburn (ed.) Structure and cognition in , 138–64. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Weinberg, S. S. (1965) Cambridge , fascicle 36: the Stone Age in the Aegean. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Whittle, A. (1996a) Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Whittle, A. (1996b) Houses in context: buildings as process. In T. Darvill and J. Th omas (eds.) Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond, 13–26. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Whittle, A. (1997) Moving on and moving around: neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.) Neolithic landscapes, 15–22. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Willis, K. J. and Bennett, K. D. (1994) Th e neolithic transition fact or fi ction? Palaeoecological evidence from the Balkans. Th e 4, 326–30. Wrangham, R. W., Holland Jones, J., Laden, G., Pilbeam, D. and Conklin-Brittain, N-L. (1999) Th e raw and the stolen: cooking and the ecology of human origins. Current Anthropology 40, 567–94. Zilhão, J. (2001) Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98(24), 14180–85. Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. (2000) Domestication of plants in the Old World. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Zvelebil, M. (1986) Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in transition, 167–88. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Zvelebil, M. (1996) Ideology, economy and society: the Mesolithic communities of temperate and northern Europe. Origini 20, 39–70. Zvelebil, M. (2005) Looking back at the Neolithic transition in Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 8(2), 183–90.

Top View