Content uploaded by Catherine Perlès
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catherine Perlès
Content may be subject to copyright.
cambridge world archaeology
THE EARLY NEOLITHIC
IN GREECE
The first farming communities in
Europe
CATHERINE PERLES
Institut Universitaire de France
Université Paris X
Illustrations by
GERARD MONTHEL
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
‘Préhistoire et Technologie’
published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
cambridge university press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, VIC 3166, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
http://www.cambridge.org
© Catherine Perlès 2001
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2001
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
Typeface Trump Medieval 10/13pt System QuarkXPress™ [se]
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Perlès, Catherine.
The Early Neolithic of Greece: the first farming communities in Europe /
Catherine Perlès; illustrations by Gérard Monthel.
p. cm. – (Cambridge world archaeology)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0 521 80181 8 – ISBN 0 521 00027 0
1. Neolithic period–Greece. 2. Agriculture, Prehistoric–Greece. 3.
Greece–Antiquities. I. Title. II. Series.
GN776.22.G8 P47 2001 338.1'0938–dc21 00–054728
ISBN 0 521 80181 8 hardback
ISBN 0 521 00027 0 paperback
CONTENTS
List of figures page ix
List of tables xii
Acknowledgements xiii
Introduction 1
1 The land and its resources: the geographic context 9
2 The Mesolithic background 20
3 The introduction of farming: local processes, diffusion or
colonization? 38
4 Foreign colonists: where from? 52
5 The earliest Neolithic deposits: ‘aceramic’, ‘pre-pottery’
or ‘ceramic’? 64
6 The spread of the Early Neolithic in Greece: chronological
and geographical aspects 98
7 A case study in Early Neolithic settlement patterns:
eastern Thessaly 121
8 Early Neolithic subsistence economy: the domestic and
the wild 152
9 The Early Neolithic village 173
10 Craft specialization: the contrasting cases of chipped-
stone tools, pottery and ornaments 200
11 A variety of daily crafts 227
12 Ritual interaction? The miniature world of ‘dolls or
deities’ 255
13 Interacting with the dead: from the disposal of the body
to funerary rituals 273
14 Interactions among the living 283
Conclusion 298
Bibliography 306
Index 344
viii contents
FIGURES
1.1 Structural map of Greece page 11
1.2 Geographical map of Greece 12
2.1 Sites and locations discussed in relation with the
Mesolithic 21
2.2 Mesolithic dates from Franchthi and Sidari 29
2.3 Calibrated Mesolithic dates from Franchthi and Sidari 29
2.4 Stone tools from the Upper Mesolithic of Franchthi 32
2.5 Microlithic tools from the Upper Mesolithic of
Franchthi 33
3.1 Lithic tools of Mesolithic tradition, from the Initial
Neolithic at Franchthi 47
3.2 Final Mesolithic transverse arrowheads and Initial
Neolithic trapezes from Franchthi 48
4.1 Near Eastern sites mentioned in the text 53
4.2 Bone hooks from Çatal Hüyük and Soufli Magoula.
Preform of a bone hook from Nea Nikomedeia 55
4.3 Stamps and earstuds from Greece and the Near East 56
4.4 Schematic figurines from Greece and the Near East 57
4.5 ‘Coffee-bean’ eyed figurines from Greece and the Near
East 59
5.1 Sites attributed to the Initial Neolithic 67
5.2 Miscellaneous artefacts from Initial Neolithic contexts 79
5.3 Obsidian and flint tools from the Initial Neolithic
(‘preceramic’) deposits at Argissa 89
5.4 Radiocarbon dates assigned to Initial Neolithic levels
(BP) 91
5.5 Calibrated radiocarbon dates assigned to Initial
Neolithic levels 91
5.6 Projection of the Initial Neolithic calibrated 14C dates
according to fifty-year time intervals 92
5.7 Calibrated radiocarbon dates assigned to Mesolithic and
Initial Neolithic levels 93
5.8 Calibrated radiocarbon dates assigned to Initial and Early
Neolithic levels 94
5.9 Projection of the Initial Neolithic calibrated 14C dates
according to fifty-year time intervals 94
6.1 Radiocarbon dates (BP) assigned to Early Neolithic levels 107
6.2 Radiocarbon dates (cal BC) assigned to Early Neolithic
levels 107
6.3 Projection of the Early Neolithic 14C dates (cal BC)
according to fifty-year time intervals 110
6.4 Schematic map of Early Neolithic sites known in Greece 114
6.5 Map of Neolithic sites from Greece mentioned in text 115
6.6 Mean summer rainfall in Greece, May–October 117
7.1 Structural map of eastern Thessaly 123
7.2 Regional soil map for eastern Thessaly 124
7.3 Early Neolithic 2 sites and unspecified Early Neolithic
sites from eastern Thessalia 126
7.4 Map of Neolithic sites known in 1937 and indication of
‘Grundmann’s line’ 129
7.5 Early Neolithic 1 and unspecified Early Neolithic sites
from eastern Thessaly 133
7.6 Distribution of the distances between first-order nearest
neighbours 136
7.7 First-order nearest neighbours between EN2 settlements 137
7.8 Theoretical areal territories of EN2 settlements, based on
mean distance between nearest neighbours 138
7.9 Thiessen polygons of EN2 settlements 140
7.10 Early Neolithic 3 sites (dots) and unspecified Early
Neolithic sites (stars) from eastern Thessaly 146
9.1 Plan of the excavations at Nea Nikomedeia, with all
successive building phases 177
9.2 Schematic representation of the successive building phases
at Nea Nikomedeia 179
9.3 Map of the constructions at Otzaki 187
9.4 Reconstitution of a wattle and daub wall 189
9.5 Reconstitution of a mudbrick wall 190
9.6 Hypothetical reconstitution of a mudbrick house, based on
excavation remains and house models 192
9.7 Possible reconstitutions of ovens, based on observations
from Achilleion and Nea Nikomedeia 195
10.1 Franchthi Cave and Paralia: blades and retouched tools of
obsidian and flint 204
10.2 Franchthi Cave and Paralia: glossed elements of flint and
obsidian 206
10.3 Early Neolithic pottery from Sesklo 212
xlist of figures
10.4 Early Neolithic pottery from Achilleion and spouted jar
from Nemea 215
10.5 Shell beads produced at Franchthi, with associated tools 225
11.1 Clay sling bullets from Sesklo and Elateai, and their
location near the hearth on a floor at Elateia 230
11.2 Stone celts ands and chisel from Elateia, Sesklo and
Achilleion 235
11.3 Bone tools from various Thessalian sites 240
11.4 Grinding and pounding tools from Elateia 244
11.5 Disc sherds, spindle whorls, bobbins and mat impressions 245
11.6 Clay stamps from Sesklo and Nea Nikomedeia 253
12.1 Clay feminine figurines and flat-topped marble figurine
from Nea Nikomedeia, Prodromos, Ayios Petros and
Sparta 259
12.2 Seated male figurines from Magoula Karamourlar and
Sesklo 261
12.3 Anthropomorphic vessels from Nea Nikomedeia 265
12.4 Clay vessel with female figurine from Prodromos 266
12.5 Clay pendant and polished stone pendant from Achilleion,
‘frog-like’ or anthropomorphic figurine from Achilleion,
frog figurines from Nea Nikomedeia 268
12.6 Animal heads from Sesklo and Nessonis I . Double animal
figurine from Magoulitsa I 269
12.7 Small clay table from Sesklo 270
13.1 Cremation pit with human ashes and pots from Soufli
Magoula 275
13.2 Male burial in a pit from Nea Nikomedeia, with a pebble
stuck into the mouth 278
14.1 Small marble bowls and schist dish from Magoula
Tourcoyefira, Magoula Mezourlo and Achilleion 286
14.2 Stone earstuds and pins from Soufli, Sesklo, Achilleion
and Nea Nikomedeia 288
14.3 Clay spoon from Achilleion 291
List of figures xi
TABLES
2.1 14C dates attributed to the Mesolithic page 26
5.1 Seed remains from the Initial Neolithic levels 74
5.2 Faunal remains from Initial Neolithic levels 76
5.3 14C dates for the Initial Neolithic levels 86
6.1 14C dates assigned to Early Neolithic levels 100
7.1 Main parameters of the distribution of EN2 sites in
eastern Thessaly 141
7.2 EN2 sites located nearest to ‘Grundmann’s line’ and
facies represented 149
8.1 Seed remains from Early Neolithic contexts 156
8.2 Faunal remains from Early Neolithic strata in number
of rests 168
9.1 Summary of architectural remains from the Early
Neolithic 181
INTRODUCTION
Why a book on the Early Neolithic of Greece? The simplest answer is that a
book on the subject does not exist. Yet, the Early Neolithic of Greece is the
oldest in Europe, probably by several centuries. It is also frequently referred to
as the source of all further development in Europe, either through the ‘mari-
time route’, along the Mediterranean coasts, or through the inland, Danubian
route. Such broad statements reveal how poorly the Early Neolithic of Greece
(or, for that matter, the Neolithic of Greece in general) is known outside of a
small circle of specialists: the relations between the Greek Early Neolithic and
that of the Adriatic coast, on the one hand, and of Bulgaria on the other, are in
fact very problematic. Similarly, I have found that specialists of the Near
Eastern Neolithic are sometimes incredulous when they discover, through lec-
tures, some achievements of Greek Neolithic societies. In both cases the
Neolithic in Greece has been superficially and rapidly considered as a distant
yet familiar parallel to better known areas, without further investigation.
Providing access to currently available data concerning this period and region,
showing that the Greek Neolithic possesses its own originality can, by itself,
justify this book.
Other motives can be found within the ‘small circle of specialists’ itself.
Major issues such as the origins of the Neolithic in Greece or the existence of
a preceramic phase are still vividly, and sometimes violently debated. More
often than not the protagonists are unable to present their arguments fully, and
the dialogue resembles a ‘dialogue de sourds’. I hope that a more detailed expo-
sition of the problems, even from a one-sided position (I clearly intend to take
sides in the debates), will allow a better understanding of their archaeological
bases and lead to more fruitful discussions.
However, the main incentive for writing this book lies elsewhere. I am deeply
convinced that the fundamental nature of Neolithic societies has escaped us
because we have always, perforce, used inappropriate models of interpretation
derived from later and structurally different historical contexts. The latter do
not and cannot help us to understand societies that were in the unique position
of ‘inventing’ new solutions to the new problems posed by a life based on a new
productive economy. These Neolithic societies explored a whole array of dif-
ferent and transitory socioeconomic systems, whose very diversity cannot but
be obscured by later historical processes of homogenization. A ‘retour aux
sources’ is necessary, if we are to avoid following our predecessors in using sim-
plistic models that the most obvious data should have contradicted.1Thus, I
conceived this book primarily for myself, to try and investigate the problems
that puzzled me concerning the nature of the Greek Neolithic. It was under-
taken out of frustration, so to speak, after a first synthesis in the limited format
of a journal article2had brought to light, more than solved, the many problems
raised by the singularity of the Greek Neolithic. This holds true, in particular,
for the Early Neolithic: how did early farmers create the bases for a new social
organization when they settled in the vast, unexploited inner basins of Greece?
What did they retain of their past? How did they organize their mutual rela-
tions and their relations to local hunter-gatherers? How did they conceive their
position vis-à-vis the new ‘natural’ world they exploited? Clearly, the Early
Neolithic by itself presented enough problems and challenges to justify a
volume of its own.
This book is indeed deliberately problem-oriented, and to a large extent,
polemic in substance if not, I hope, in tone. I make no pretence of exhaustiv-
ity, nor even of a balanced treatment of all aspects of the Neolithic society.
Neither was this book conceived as a textbook, providing ready access to neatly
ordered categories of data. It is conceived as an interplay between problems and
data, one question leading to another, one field of inquiry shedding light on
another, with the hope of achieving a better understanding of Early Neolithic
societies, their way of life, their economic, social and ideological choices.
As with any anthropological study, this book is laden with theory and theo-
ries. However, writing a theoretical book, or building a theory of the Greek
Neolithic, was not my purpose. Obviously, my very approach to the data and
the interpretative stands defended here are based on theory, and have theoret-
ical implications. They necessarily express personal theoretical positions. But,
this is a book intended to be about the Neolithic of Greece, not about myself
viewing the Neolithic of Greece. Therefore theoretical discussions will be
limited, and the reader will find no statement about my belonging to any of the
theoretical ‘schools’ that are currently fashionable in archaeology. In addition
to my French training in technological studies, this is, above all, a deliberate
epistemological position: I consider scientific research as a cognitivist process
(Giere 1988), which seeks to find, case by case, which amongst the numerous
theories available in the literature seems best to fit the data. And I do not
believe that, given the complexity of human societies and actions, a single
theory can provide answers to all questions.3
2the early neolithic in greece
11The Neolithic flint mines, known since the nineteenth century, constitute a good example.
Their presence did not impend the description, for many decades, of Neolithic economy as autar-
kic and non-specialized. A more current example is provided by the absence of villages or habi-
tations in Western European megalithic areas. After a century of fieldwork, many authors still
argue that the megaliths’ builders were necessarily sedentary and that their villages will even-
tually be found. 12Demoule and Perlès 1993.
13As any manual of sociology will clearly exemplify!
Nevertheless, this very notion of ‘complex’ societies can be viewed as a theo-
retical leitmotif that runs through the whole book. Early Neolithic societies
cannot be deemed as ‘simple’ just because they happen to be the first agro-
pastoral societies in a given region, or worse, because they happen to be the
most ancient societies studied by specialists of the later phases of Prehistory.
There exists an unfortunate tendency to consider anything that is ‘first’ as nec-
essarily ‘simple’, and thus to consider Neolithic society, the ‘first farmers’, as
less complex than later Prehistoric societies, that is, as composed of a few,
small-scale interacting units. But social evolution does not necessarily develop
from the simple to the complex, and the Neolithic of Greece provides good
counterexamples of shifts from more complex to more ‘simple’ levels of organ-
ization (Perlès 1992). In addition, one cannot obliterate the long Palaeolithic
times, during which complex hunter-gatherer societies have been convincingly
brought to light (Price and Brown 1985; Price and Feinman 1995). Nor should
we forget, finally, that Neolithic societies in Europe are, one way or the other,
the outcome of these unique, profoundly original and necessarily complex soci-
eties of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
A second theoretical perspective that was somehow forced on me by the data,
rather than by a personal inclination, is the importance of social and cultural
choices even in the most materialistic aspects of society. Though initially
tempted to consider that all technical and economic options could be explained
in terms of efficiency and rational choices, I finally had to accept that neither
the Neolithic of Greece, nor the Neolithic in general, could be understood in
those terms without distorting the data. Even the basic choice of raw materi-
als for stone tools, for instance, can ultimately be shown to be the result of
social choices, despite all the technical justifications that the respective qual-
ities of the different raw materials can offer.
Finally, my discussions concerning social organization will be strongly ori-
ented by a rather pessimistic view of human (or even, animal) societies, in
which competition and conflicts are seen to be inherent to any group, as are
tendencies towards the control of power by a few individuals or groups. Thus,
despite the postulated simplicity of these earliest farming communities, I shall
not consider it as ‘normal’ to find no evidence of inter-community conflicts,
neither will I find it ‘normal’ to find no sign of institutionalized hierarchy. The
question of how an ‘egalitarian’ organization was maintained throughout cen-
turies or millennia, despite the potential for accumulation and the necessary
differentiation of roles and status, constitutes, for me, as pregnant a problem as
the emergence of hierarchies.
However, any given social organization is the outcome of historical pro-
cesses. Thus, before we can address this question, several other problematic
issues must be raised. One of the most controversial concerns the very origins
of the Neolithic in Greece. The quasi-absence of data on the Mesolithic, in par-
ticular in the regions that will be most densely settled during the Early
Introduction 3
Neolithic, is a crucial element in the debate. It can always be claimed, indeed,
that ‘the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence’ and that future field-
work will eventually reveal a rich Mesolithic that can be deemed a cultural and
economic precursor to the Greek Neolithic. However, I shall argue that the
scarcity of Mesolithic sites must be taken at face value, that is, as a reflection
of a sparse population that mostly exploited dispersed resources of low ener-
getic yield. Since recent syntheses of the context of emergence of a productive
economy show the latter to be linked with opposite conditions (Gebauer and
Price 1992), the Mesolithic in Greece does not appear conducive to an autoch-
thonous process of Neolithization. In addition, claims for a local process of
Neolithization rely on controversial botanical data and on what I consider to
be a misinterpretation of the data from Franchthi and Sidari. Despite a debat-
able ‘continuity’ in occupation at these two sites, best interpreted as a sign of
contacts, there is a radical break in technical and economic behaviours all over
Greece at the dawn of the Neolithic. The simultaneous appearance of radically
new techniques and of domesticated species implies the acquisition of a quasi-
encyclopedic knowledge which is thoroughly underestimated. I consider that
this knowledge, and the relevant know-how, could only be implemented by
groups already familiar with farming and building techniques, with stone pol-
ishing, pressure-flaking, spinning, that is, by farming groups coming from the
Near East.
However, a recurrent argument against the hypothesis of migrant groups is
the impossibility of defining precisely their possible origin. That most domes-
ticated species come from the Near East cannot be questioned. But the asso-
ciated material, despite punctual and varied analogies, does not resemble that
of any specific region of the Near East. Here again, I suggest that we take the
data at face value, and instead change our model of interpretation. Rather than
postulating strong cultural links and looking for a single origin, as with the
Danubian ‘wave of advance’, I propose that we consider the colonization of
Greece according to an ‘insular model’, that is as a maritime process imple-
mented by small pioneer groups, ultimately deriving from different parts of the
Levant and Anatolia.
Whether these groups brought pottery with them remains difficult to estab-
lish. A long and especially detailed chapter will be devoted to the problem of
the ‘Initial Neolithic’. Discussions about the presence or absence of pottery in
the earliest Neolithic of Greece have been going on for more than thirty years,
and a thorough evaluation of the presently available data does not lead to con-
clusive answers regarding the so-called ‘Preceramic Neolithic’. Nevertheless,
it can be shown that these levels do represent a very early phase of the Neolithic
in Greece. The sherds they contain may be intrusive or correspond to a phase
of limited and ‘intermittent’ production of pottery, as occurs in the Late Pre-
Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. In both cases, however, these deposits
reflect a different attitude towards pottery production and use than during the
4the early neolithic in greece
later phases of the Early Neolithic. Whether or not ‘pre-pottery’, this phase
ought to be distinguished from the Early Neolithic proper.
Marked regional contrasts in the density and nature of settlements charac-
terize the spread of the farming economy over Greece.4At the level of resolu-
tion given by 14C dates, no regular ‘wave of advance’ can be brought to light.
To the contrary, it can be shown that, already by the Early Neolithic, the very
different socioeconomic pathways that characterize the development of
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age societies in northern and southern Greece are
rooted in opposite social conditions. On a broad level, Early Neolithic settle-
ment is restricted to the dryer part of Greece, whose climate was closer to that
of the Near East. However, whereas access to water was clearly not a limiting
factor in Thessaly, the foundation of villages in the Peloponnese seems to have
been constrained by the availability of well-watered, fertile soils near springs,
lakes or marshes. As a result, villages were few and far between, creating social
conditions opposite to that of the densely settled Thessaly.
In this respect Thessaly, whose settlement patterns will be studied in more
detail, must be seen as the exception rather than the rule. Various environmen-
tal factors, such as the possibility of flood-farming or access to various micro-
environments, have been invoked to explain the location of settlements over
this vast alluvial plain. The results of the present analyses, conducted on
eastern Thessaly, contradict these models. Early Neolithic settlement patterns
are characterized by an extremely dense and homogeneous network of villages,
spreading in all directions, independently of topographic, hydrologic or pedo-
logic factors. They must be seen instead as the result of socioeconomic factors,
in an interplay between demography, political regulation, social obligations
and agrarian work.
The importance of cereal cultivation and domesticated plants in the diet has,
however, been challenged recently. Yet, various calculations show that, even
within the very small territories reconstructed in Thessaly, recourse to wild
plants or animals as a complement to the diet would not have been necessary.
In addition, while taphonomic biases can always cast doubt on the importance
of wild plant food, the scarcity of wild animals in the faunal remains demon-
strates that wild resources were not only under-exploited, but deliberately
neglected. Only strong symbolic oppositions between the wild and the domes-
tic, and the will to assert one’s domestication of space, can explain the neglect
of wild food resources, but also of local lithic resources and such natural habi-
tats as caves and rock shelters.
It is indeed characteristic of the Early Neolithic that caves, previously
favoured and abundantly reoccupied in the Late and Final Neolithic, are almost
deserted. The habitat is man-made, clustered, and permanently occupied over
Introduction 5
14Greece will be considered here within its present political borders. With few exceptions, the
latter correspond to natural boundaries (mountains or seas).
many generations. If the general pattern of these tell-like villages is very stable,
the details of the houses and building techniques are, to the contrary, extremely
variable. In contrast to what occurs in the Early Neolithic of Danubian tradi-
tion, house style is not used in the definition of a group’s identity. I suggest that
this may be related to the very permanence of the village itself. By its antiquity
and conspicuous visibility, the village materializes the links to the past, the
continuity of the community and its ancestral rights over its territory. In this
context, individuality and the will to assert one’s difference could thus be
expressed without endangering the collectivity.
Within these small territories, located in fertile alluvial plains, most villages
would not have had direct access to the raw materials needed for the daily used
tools and equipment. This simple observation should, by itself, cast doubts
on the presumed self-sufficiency of these Neolithic societies. More specific
arguments indicate that, in the case of Greece, various forms of specialized
production were already occurring by the Early Neolithic. Part-time craft
specialization was a basis of socioeconomic organization long before the emer-
gence of centralized political powers. Indirect procurement through exchange
from specialized groups can be suggested, for instance, for chipped stone tools,
in particular for obsidian and honey-flint blades. However, the differences
brought to light between the procurement, production and use of pottery,
chipped stone tools and ornament, suggest that craft specialization corre-
sponded to a multicentric economy, where specialization and exchange
answered social and possibly ritual functions as well as economic needs. The
production of pottery, in particular, goes against familiar assessments and dem-
onstrates the importance of social choices over ‘utilitarian’ ones: Early
Neolithic pottery was, probably consciously, kept out of the domestic func-
tions of cooking and storing food. It was deemed more useful as a means of
social display or for rituals, which probably explains, incidently, why hearths
and ovens were so elaborately constructed.
The other crafts practised within the villages are less well documented.
Understanding the role of bone tools, the function and status of polished stone
tools, the ambiguous evidence pertaining to spinning and weaving, and the pos-
sible function of several common but enigmatic objects, remains a challenge.
The same can be said about the numerous figurines, predominantly feminine.
Most plausibly, they served several functions, including mundane ones. Yet,
the new social and economic constraints induced by a sedentary, farming life
were bound to have consequences on beliefs and rituals. Denying the figurines
all ritual function appears, on the whole, a more costly hypothesis than the
reverse. One argument that sustains an interpretation of ritual use is the strong
correlation between the presence of figurines and the density of settlement.
Figurines were needed where interaction was at the highest between neigh-
bouring communities. It is thus probable that they were used in various rituals
that ultimately served as a means of integration within a more complex society.
6the early neolithic in greece
Whatever the case, figurines were related to the world of the living. Perhaps
even to the very notion of life itself, but never, during the Early Neolithic, were
they related to the realm of the dead. Funerary rituals have been commonly
described as especially ‘simple’: the dead casually buried in pits, in between the
houses, without grave goods. I shall argue, to the contrary, that the majority of
the burials that we can observe, the intramuros pit burials, are actually the
exceptions. That they correspond to individuals who were denied ‘normal’
funerary rituals (sensu stricto), the latter being exemplified by the small crema-
tion burial ground from Soufli Magoula. This reversal of perspective leads to
the conclusion that funerary rituals, far from been ‘simple’, were in fact highly
invested and demanding in terms of labour, time and energy.
Nevertheless, one element of the previous interpretations still holds true.
Judging from the composition of the cremated population and the grave goods,
no sign of ‘inequality’ can be brought to light. There is indeed no evidence of
permanent, transmitted hierarchical status, but various indirect evidence points
to an heterarchical organization, with well-differentiated roles and status. The
reciprocal interdependence created by such a social organization, together with
kinship ties and obligations, would have been instrumental in limiting conflict
within the village community. A similar mechanism may have existed between
communities. The density of villages in Thessaly was bound to create frequent
occasions for potential conflict. Yet, there is no indication of widespread hostil-
ity between the various villages. The above-mentioned relation between fig-
urines as well as other objects of special value, and the density of settlement
already suggests that rituals participated in mechanisms of social interaction
and integration. In addition, given the reliance on trade and exchange even when
it was not strictly necessary, I suggest that ‘arbitrary specialization’ may also
have been at play to regulate interactions between the different communities.
The latter hypotheses are, at most, plausible guesses. I do not claim to have
solved the many problems that initially motivated this work. Even many factual
queries remain unsettled by lack of fieldwork or proper analytical studies. No
synthesis can go beyond the present state of the research, and the history of
Neolithic research in Greece has not led to a very propitious situation.
Early in the century, the pioneering work of G. Tsountas at Sesklo and
Dimini (Tsountas 1908), followed by the syntheses of Wace and Thompson on
Thessaly (Wace and Thompson 1912) and Heurtley on Macedonia (Heurtley
1932), had already revealed how rich and often spectacular was the Neolithic
in Greece. Despite this early interest and the quality of the work, the organiza-
tion of archaeological research in Greece, which was geared towards the explo-
ration of the prestigious Classical past, as well as a tendency to consider the
Greek Neolithic as a poorer offshoot of the Near Eastern or Balkanic Neolithic,
led to a long period of dormancy. Active research programmes were resumed in
the 1960s under two distinct influences: in the north, the Germanic ‘historico-
cultural’ tradition focused exclusively on chronological frameworks and
Introduction 7
‘cultures’, with very little anthropological perspective; in the south, the Anglo-
Saxon school emphasized economic and environmental reconstructions, focus-
ing on individual sites or discrete ‘styles’, and neglected supraregional
frameworks. In all cases, excavations were mostly limited to small parts of the
sites. The Greek scholar D. Theocharis stood out as an exception, with his
broad interests, in-depth knowledge of the Greek Neolithic as a whole, and
extensive excavations at Sesklo. Unfortunately, his premature death still
deprives us of a synthesis of his work on this major settlement. Elsewhere,
most excavations consisted of small test soundings, often determined and
limited by rescue work.
More recently, the Greek Neolithic has again become an active and pioneer-
ing field of research. Its strength and interest lie less in the number or scale of
the excavations proper, than in the number and variety of innovative method-
ological studies. Most aspects of the archaeological research have been
renewed: systematic field surveys, site definition, regional analysis, faunal
analysis, ceramic technology, ethno-archaeological fieldwork, and so forth.
These have been admirably reported in a recent publication by E. Alram-Stern
(1996) and illustrated by a major exhibit (Papathanassopoulos (ed.) 1996), while
several important syntheses, both regional and general, have recently updated
the chronocultural frameworks and the remaining problems (Andreou et al.
1996; Coleman 1992; Davis 1992; Grammenos 1997).
But even older and more traditional publications can yield important infor-
mation, when suitably interrogated. Renewed research lies as much in new
questions and a new way of looking at the data as in new fieldwork. More fun-
damentally, I believe it is time we go beyond a simple statement of facts to
investigate the deeper structure of these unique, pioneering societies. However
important the lacunae, I consider it our duty to try and make sense of what is
available at a given moment. Even though all my conclusions must be consid-
ered provisional, they should renew the on-going discussions and indicate fruit-
ful perspectives for further research.
8the early neolithic in greece
