Cardiff University School of History, Archaeology and Religion Department of Archaeology and Conservation Neolithic building technology and the social context of construction practices: the case of northern Greece Dimitrios Kloukinas Student No: 0949346 Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2014 i Note for the reader: Several figures have been removed from the uploaded digital version of the thesis due to copyright issues. ii Abstract This thesis addresses building technology and the social implications of house construction contributing to the understanding of past societies. The spatiotemporal context of the study is the Neolithic period (ca. 6600/6500–3300/3200 cal BC) in northern Greece (Macedonia and Thrace). All available evidence from various excavations in the region is assembled and synthesised. The principal house types (semi-subterranean structures and above-ground dwellings) and their technological characteristics in terms of materials and techniques are discussed. In addition, the building remains from the late Middle/Late Neolithic settlement of Avgi (Kastoria, Greece) are thoroughly examined. Their study highlights the potentials of a detailed, micro-scale investigation and puts forth a methodology for the technological analysis of house rubble in the form of fire-hardened daub. The data deriving from both the survey of dwelling remains in northern Greece and the case study are examined within their wider sociocultural context. The technological repertoire of the region, although indicating the sharing of a common ‘architectural vocabulary’, reveals alternative chaînes opératoires and variability in different stages of the building process. Variability and patterning are more pronounced during the later stages of the Neolithic. The distribution of architectural choices does not suggest the existence of established and region-wide shared architectural traditions. However, the circulation of specific techniques and conceptions points to the operation of overlapping networks of technological and social interaction. At the site-specific scale, sameness and standardisation in building technology are the prominent themes. Nevertheless, different trends towards standardisation or variability are observed and are approached in terms of social interaction and intra-community dynamics. What is more, domestic architecture is not necessarily static in the long term. Change occurs and is often associated with the transformation of these dynamics. Occasional evidence of intra-site variability in building techniques and the more pronounced anchoring into space during the later stages of the Neolithic period are considered as a result of the changing relationship between social units and the community. The appearance of stone and mud(brick) architecture in Late Neolithic central Macedonia is approached in these terms. i ii Acknowledgments The present PhD thesis has been a long-lasting effort filled with various challenges and moments of enthusiasm. During its course, I had the opportunity to expand my horizons both intellectually and socially. Many people have contributed to this effort through their advices and practical help, as well as through their support, encouragement and friendship. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors, Alasdair Whittle and Anthony James Whitley for the encouragement and inspiration throughout this project. Their guidance was invaluable for the organisation, the shaping and the completion of the present study. My interest in the archaeology of northern Greece and Neolithic houses stemmed from my involvement in the excavations of the Neolithic settlement of Avgi since 2006. I am grateful to Dr Georgia Stratouli, director of the Avgi excavations, not only for trusting me in taking part in the project but also for encouraging me and giving me the permission to study the material from Avgi and to access the excavation archives. I would also like to thank Professor Nikos Efstratiou of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki for offering me the opportunity to visit the Neolithic site of Makri and to access comparative material, as well as to examine the experimental hut at the village of Sarakini. The colleagues and friends that I met during the Avgi project have significantly contributed to my endeavour through our endless discussions and by facilitating my stay at Kastoria in various ways. I would like to thank Dr Niels Andreassen, Tassos Bekiaris, Elisavet Douka, Dr Evanthia (Evita) Kalogiropoulou, Nikos Katsikaridis, Chrysa Kolliga, Georgia Koromila, Odysseas Metaxas, Stella Papadopoulou, Dr Katerina Papayiannis and Elli Tzani. I am particularly grateful to Dr Ioannis Voskos for our conversations and his friendship. I owe many thanks to Styliani (Stella) Kyrillidou for her hospitality at Reading and for her invaluable help with the microscopic and macroscopic analysis of the material. From my colleagues and friends in Cardiff I would like to thank Dr Chris Millington, Dr Angelo Silvestri and Susan Stratton. I especially thank Ioannis Smyrnaios for his significant help in the microscopic analysis. Dr Panayiota (Yiota) Manti has always been supportive by advising me in different parts of the project and by resolving practical problems related to the study of the material at the Microscopy Laboratory of Cardiff University. I owe many thanks to the staff of the Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens. I am particularly grateful to Dr Evangelia Kiriatzi, director of the Fitch Laboratory, for her iii useful advice and for helping me to resolve practical problems in terms of thin section preparation and analysis. I also thank Dr Areti Pentedeka for her valuable help during this stage of my research. This PhD was financially supported by the I.K.Y. Foundation (State Scholarship Foundation, Greece). I owe many thanks to I.K.Y for offering me a full three and a half years scholarship that allowed this project to evolve during harsh financial times for the Greek State. I would also like to thank a number of people that I met during this journey (even if their names are not mentioned here) for creating a friendly environment, both in Greece and in Wales. I express my gratitude to Dr Christina Hatzimichael-Whitley, Theodoros Georgopoulos, Eleni Poulakida, Alex Millington, Anna Dunthorne, Marc Hare, Nikos Konstantopoulos, Manos Katsipatakis, Dr Konstantinos Kyritsis, Venia Mavropoulou, Georgia Kafatou and Georgia Alexandri. I would also like to thank Paraskevi Varlami as every endeavour has its beginning. Above all, I am deeply grateful to my parents, Ioannis and Athina, and my brother, Charis, for supporting me, both emotionally and financially, through thick and thin. Without their patience and support this thesis would not have been possible. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... ix List of tables ..................................................................................................................................... xx 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Aims and objectives ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Organisation of the thesis ............................................................................................... 4 1.3 Limitations of the research .............................................................................................. 6 2. Domestic architecture: theoretical perspectives .................................................................. 9 2.1 Architecture, the built environment and the use of space .......................................... 9 2.1.1 Architecture as an evolving phenomenon ............................................................ 9 2.1.2 Architecture as the ‘representation’ of social organisation .............................. 10 2.1.3 The ‘symbolically loaded’ built environment ..................................................... 12 2.1.4 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 17 2.2 The social aspects of domestic architecture ............................................................... 17 2.2.1 The creation of Neolithic worldviews and lifestyles ......................................... 17 2.2.2 The possibilities of domestic architecture .......................................................... 20 2.2.3 House-societies and the notion of the ‘social house’ ........................................ 22 2.3 Technology and house construction ............................................................................ 27 2.3.1 Technology and society ......................................................................................... 28 2.3.2 Buildings as technological products .................................................................... 30 2.3.3 Variability