Lives and Journeys, of Spondylus and People: A Story to Conclude

F. IFantIdIs & M. nIkolaIdou (eds.), SpondyluS In PrehIstory: new data & aPProaches – contrIbutIons to the archaeology oF shell technologIes

C O N C L U D I N G C O M M E N T A R Y

This book can be read as a palimpsest of lives and journeys: a diary and a travel log1. It chronicles, in various stories and nar-ratives, the quest for an alluring natural material, the marine shell of Spondylus geaderopus, and its cultural transformation into an array of artifacts. Throughout the volume’s three thematic sections, the focus shifts back and forth from the live mollusk to its emptied valve, to the valve’s travels and transformations by human craft, to the biographies of the resulting artifacts, and to the people who set out to seek nature’s bounty and materialized it into forms of beauty and meaning. We also have at hand an archaeological record of the chaînes opératoires leading to these transformations, link by link, with missing parts of the chain now restored and others better understood. Finally, this is a documentary about the archaeologists’ journeys into the realm of this prehistoric technology and about the technologies we employ for its study (cf. Nikolaidou & Kokkinidou 2007). It seems fitting to conclude with a composite picture of these adventures, pieced together from the volume’s contributions. The picture I present below emerged from my reading of the book, thus it highlights points that particularly resonate with my interests on the subject (Nikolaidou 1997, 2003, 2007, 2010). Other readers will probably find different areas to focus on. It is indeed one of the book’s strengths that it opens up exciting prospects on a remarkably wide field of exploration regarding prehistoric Spondylus, with enriching data and innovative approaches for their study.

The journeys of Spondylus and people go back as early in time as the Upper Palaeolithic (Arrizabalaga et al., ch. 2), continue throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the expanse of Europe, and reach down to the late pre-contact period in the New World. Diverse trajectories have been admirably outlined by the authors, some of whom have sketched site-specific vignettes while others have offered panoramas across space and through time. If some of the images are still sketchy, incomplete or out-of-focus (cf. Ifantidis, ch. 9), others have nevertheless emerge with sharper contours than before, and still others appear for the first time. Beyond Spondylus, the book aims to contribute to the wider study of ancient shell technologies in their complex cognitive and social associations (Dobres & Hoffman 1994: 211-258; Pfaffenberger 1988: 249, 1992). A significant body of research2 has demonstrated that technology is not only, or even primarily, about the human influence on matter or the physical constraints of materials upon human action. Foremost technology has to do with people’s ideas about the physical world and their purposeful interference with it (Heidegger 1978: 180; Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986, 1992; Lemonnier, ed. 1992). Technological choices are structured selections between valid functional alternatives (Lechtman 1977; Sackett 1977, 1990), wherefrom societies choose to plan, produce, use, repair, and discard material culture (Lemonnier 1992; Lemonnier, ed. 1992). It is through the crafting pro-cess and use that artifacts acquire their meanings (Graves-Brown 1995).

The Spondylus “phenomenon” (cf. Introduction) involves many interrelated technologies of acquisition, travel, working, wear-ing, recycling, disposal. The choices shaping each of these enterprises are illustrated here and provide fascinating clues about the workings of the prehistoric mind –and hand (cf. Schlanger 1995). Borrello & Micheli (ch. 3) rightly call for a collaboration between archaeologists and malacologists as a fundamental first step for further analysis and interpretation. The value of such collaboration is made clear in the paper by Hladilová (ch. 13) who traces the life-cycle of the Spondylus mollusk, those biological and environmental traits that stimulated cultural initiative. From extracting or beachcombing the shell, to transporting it far from its habitats, consuming the succulent flesh, and shaping the rough valve into desirable forms, nature presented possibilities but also limitations. Whether people could reach the mollusk in their neighboring seashores (Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3; 8, 10) or (in the case of inland regions) they had to get it from distant coasts, acts of “domestication” (cf. Elster & Nikolaidou 1995; Ingold 1988) were at play: eating and feasting (Veropoulidou, ch. 14), bringing the raw material home to work, “taming” the organic form into desired shapes by means of learned skills and familiar equipment, giving the artifacts cultural lives.

why Spondylus? is the key question (Theodoropoulou, ch. 7). What moved so many peoples, in different parts of the worlds and over millennia, to feel the “hunger for the white Spondylus”, as John (ch. 4) puts it? The papers reveal a host of psychological, conceptual, and social factors underlying this desire. A key role is played by the natural qualities of the shell: large and sturdy enough to permit experimentation with shapes; hard, light and tight, excellent to work with (more favorable to the crafter than

1 My warm thanks to Fotis Ifantidis, a most meticulous editor, who braved our joint journey with good humor and infinite patience. Ernestine Elster read and offered valuable comments on this story. The shortcomings remain mine.

2 It was the seminal works of Leroi-Gourhan that first drew attention to the cognitive and cultural dimensions of prehistoric technologies (Leroi-Gourhan 1943, 1945, 1964, 1965).

LIVES ANd JOURNEyS, OF SpondyluS ANd PEOPLE:A STORy TO cONcLUdE

marIanna nIkolaIdou

224

SpondyluS In PrehIstory: new data & aPProaches – contrIbutIons to the archaeology oF shell technologIes

white marble, for instance); amenable to interesting plays with color, whether the dominant white or a spectrum of attractive hues that were brought into advantage by special treatment of the surface –sometimes “reversing” the natural white by firing the shell to achieve dark tones (see especially Chapman et al., ch. 10; cf. Gaydarska et al. 2004). These considerations seem to have included other, similarly-colored and textured materials, such as marble and limestone, which were often substituted for Spondylus –or vice versa (Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3; Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5; Ifantidis, ch. 9). It is also possible that emotional and symbolic values were attached to the colors, the smoothness of the finished surface, the play of light on the polished orna-ments, the agreeable coolness in touch with the skin, or other appealing qualities of form and matter (Clark 1986; Miller 1985).

Mystery may also have surrounded the natural habitat of Spondylus (see especially Hladilová, ch. 13), half-hidden underwater on rocky beds so that it takes experienced eyes to single it out and confident movements to pry it intact. Extraction required stamina and dexterity, proper tools and facilities (nets, fishing boats: Shackleton 1988: 45; Tsuneki 1989). Although these tasks would not have been so demanding for experienced fishermen, as Carter (ch. 6) argues about the Pre-Hispanic coastal popula-tions of Peru and Equator, but would have challenged inland groups (if indeed those undertook the extraction themselves) among which mastery of the skills could have been symbolically exalted (Theodoropoulou, ch. 7; cf. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ch. 11). As the authors remind us, the sea itself was for many peoples a distant, almost mythical topos, imagined only but never actually seen (cf. Broodbank 1993; Helms 1993; Trubitt 2003). Bringing the shell from this “exotic” world would have determined largely its subsequent value and lent it a permanent foreign allure. It is not accidental that in the Aegean Neolithic marine shells are consistently preferred as material for ornaments and other symbolic goods, at the expense of locally available freshwater (local) species which, nevertheless were systematically consumed as food (Theodoropoulou, ch. 7, Ifantidis, ch. 9; cf. Sitagroi: Niko-laidou 2003, Shackleton 2003)3. Even if Spondylus valves were collected fossilized on the beach rather than extracted alive, (as, for example, at Arene Candide, Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3) these were put to the same meaningful uses as the freshly-caught ones.

Compelling evidence for a taste and long-distance endeavors for Spondylus dates as early as the Late Mousterian in Europe and is associated with Neanderthals, at the Lezetxiki Cave in the Iberian Peninsula (Arrizabalaga et al., ch. 2). Recovered from a well stratified context and together with other shell species, this find adds significantly to the intriguing picture of the “non-functional” apparatus –and symbolizing capacities– of our cousin species (for example, Mellars 1996; Stringer & Gamble 1993). Admittedly, at Lezetxiki Cave we are dealing only with one piece of Spondylus, and an unworked one at that, therefore the authors’ argu-ment about trade in exotica at such early times perhaps has to be formulated more cautiously. Even so, the Neanderthal finds, interpretable as ornaments, do challenge the view about the “uniqueness” of our species in things symbolic (Zilhão 2007; Zilhão et. al 2010)4.

It is from the Neolithic on that we stand on firmer grounds to follow the travels to transport and trade the prized shell. The experimental reproduction of the shell-covered Tula garment (Velázquez et al., ch. 15) sheds a valuable pragmatic light on the many factors involved in material acquisition: distances to be covered, difficulty of extraction, cost of the expedition, com-mensurate prestige of the coveted goods. Douka’s (ch. 12) discussion of isotopic sourcing studies brings to focus the diverse natural environments that fishers and procurers often had to cross from the coast to the place of production; every expedition a prehistoric “Odyssey” (cf. Elster 2007) requiring audacity, forethought, endurance, and perhaps entrusted as a task of honor or as a test to qualify members of a community. The acquisition of raw material involved many levels of perception, not least the “local knowledge” about the shores of origin: for example, what waters were favored by which species, where and when was the colony densest, how easy was it to get to specific shell habitats, where were other people’s collecting areas (Shackleton 1988: 45). Whether groups themselves traveled to obtain the resources or these circulated down the line, it would have been necessary to forge affiliations in the region and further afield (Gaydarska et al. 2004: 30; Perlès 1992: 117), if only to become privy to such crucial information. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ch. 11) comments importantly on such negotiations in Neolithic Thessaly, with trad-ing rights (and manipulation of local knowledge?) exclusive to coastal centers of production, foremost Dimini, and their select partners inland such as Ayia Sofia and Theopetra Cave (cf. Tsuneki 1988, 1989). Such arrangements, she argues, would explain why bracelets are not found in great quantities in all sea-shore settlements where raw material could easily be obtained. Differ-ences in the geographical environment of participating communities may as well have resulted in social and conceptual differen-tiation (cf. Broodbank 1993; Séfériadès 2000), and moving across territories would be best handled via ceremony and symbolism (van Gennep 1960: 98). The whole enterprise of acquisition was possibly surrounded with stories and myths about these distant places, news from friends near and afar, and celebrations of farewell and return bestowing an aura of prestige on those involved: daring travelers, traders, crafters, spiritual and social facilitators (cf. Elster 2007; Helms 1993; Nikolaidou 2007; Trubitt 2003). Kyparissi-Apostolika (ch. 11) interestingly suggests that the occurrence of Spondylus at Theopetra Cave was related to the cave’s ritual significance in the region.

3 The fascination with the distant and the new at the expense of the local and familiar is evident in other categories of Neolithic material culture, particularly stones (Perlès 1992) and metals (Renfrew & Slater 2003; cf. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ch. 11).

4 The symbolic and ornamental use of attractive shell by anatomically modern humans, in evidence since the late Middle Paleolithic (d’Errico et al. 2005), is an important feature of Upper Paleolithic industries and cognition (Taborin 1993; White 1989)

225

MarIanna nIkolaIdou – lIVes and Journeys, oF SpondyluS and PeoPle: a story to conclude

Transformative choices. The authors have variously worked to “trace the metamorphosis” (Theodoropoulou, ch. 7) of Spon-dylus from an attractive natural good into a cultural commodity and personally treasured item. Illuminating are here micro-stratigraphies of the Dimini rings (Chapman et al., ch. 10; cf. Ifantidis, ch. 9; Hladilová, ch. 13), which uncover layer by layer the alterations of the “raw” valve into a perfectly finished artifact. Starting from the original organic element, the options for manufacture are diverse, the crafters’ selections purposeful; a testimony that “not nature but culture is the main constraint of technique” (van der Leeuw 1992: 241). Ornament-making is one of the crafts characterized by firm technical traditions, system-atic output of high symbolic value, and a special role in networks of trade and social interaction, and this book has given special emphasis to ornamentation, not least because most excavated shell artifacts are indeed ornaments. Less well understood, but equally important, are the diverse uses of Spondylus as food and for the manufacture of tools and implements (ch. 3, 6, 7, 8, 14).

The Tula experiment (Velázquez et al., ch. 15) clarifies the many logistics of manufacture: choice of species, the sheer quantities of materials used and difficulty of processing, their cost as calculated against other vital commodities, their commensurate sym-bolic and ideological value. Re-tracing the steps of the craftwork, this study brings to life the crafters themselves: their labors to achieve a beautiful piece, the dialogue with the materials and tools at their disposal, their proficiency in planning and executing. Other studies in the book (ch. 3, 5, 7-11) further illustrate how prehistoric manufacturers of shell consistently focused on select materials, working techniques, artifact forms and functionality, which led to the development of long-standing and culturally distinct styles (cf. Boas 1955; Sackett 1990). Reading through the volume, one gains a sense of respect for those specialists who patiently worked their materials into durable forms of beauty, preserving the technical wisdom of millennia but also taking new steps of their own.

The in-depth examination of assemblages older and new helps correct previous misconceptions and refine generalizations. To begin with, Álvarez-Fernández (ch. 1) offers a useful “cautionary’ tale about the realistic difficulties involved in identifying the Spondylus versus other species and lists a helpful set of criteria for safe archaeological recognition. Ifantidis (ch. 9 and 2006) has worked to distinguish Spondylus from Glycymeris, both popular bivalves in the Neolithic (Dimitrijević & Tripković 2003), as did previously Miller (2003) at Sitagroi5. We must indeed consider Spondylus as only one, and not always the most important, component in a variegated spectrum of materials and crafts of adornment, which can be seen in the richly diverse ornament assemblages from Mediterranean settlements (this volume, ch. 3, 8, 9; Ifantidis 2006; cf. Karali-Yannakopoulou 1991, 1992; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001; Miller 1997; Nikolaidou 2003), and in the lavish burials of the Balkan and Central European cul-tures (John, ch. 4; Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5; cf. Avramova 2002; Todorova & Vajsov 2001): clay, bone, antler, different shells (Glycymeris, Dentalium, Cerastoderma glaucum etc.) various stones, copper and gold; all were used, with shifting preferences over time and across regions. Some of the changes had to do with resource availability: in Moravia, for example, when the de-mand for the precious fresh Spondylus peaked, people substituted imitations of limestone or regionally available fossilized shell for the exotic thing (John, ch. 4; Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5). Other times, the relative prestige of the materials fluctuated: Borrello & Micheli (ch. 3) attribute the striking decline in Spondylus jewelry during the Copper Age to the appearance of new valuable substances that dominated fashion; to illustrate their point, Spondylus artifacts have been tabulated against the impressive bulk of stone jewelry. Likewise, Veropoulidou (ch. 14) links the decline in Spondylus ornamentation during the Aegean Bronze Age to the innovative and prestigious technologies of metallurgy, coupled with decreased access to natural Spondylus beds as a re-sult of the rise in sea levels. Technical expediency was also an important factor to guide decisions: at Sitagroi, for example, the crafters of the Chalcolithic (Phase III) systematically sought large valves of the strong Spondylus for their annulets and larger beads in order to meet the demands of more intensified production at the time, and reserved the more delicate Glycymeris for easier-to-produce ornaments, while previously the two species were used interchangeably (Miller 2003; Nikolaidou 2003). We can only speculate as to the relative evaluations of different materials (and the tasks related to them) in the cosmologies of these people, but we should beware of projecting our own ideas of “value” (cf. Chapman 1998) uncritically. For example, clay is usu-ally taken as an expedient local substitute for imported shell, in times of intensified bead production such as the Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic in the Aegean (for example, Miller 2003). It is during this same phase, however, that clay figures prominently in the symbolic apparatus and architecture (Papathanassopoulos, ed. 1996; Renfrew et al. 1986)6, therefore it could have been invested with conceptual value of its own.

An interesting difference from the Middle to the Late Neolithic, is observed both in the Carpathian cemeteries (Siklósi & Csen-geri, ch. 5) and at the settlement of Dispilio (Ifantidis, ch. 9). In the earlier phases a great variety of materials and ornament types showcases the investment in large quantities of imported Spondylus or marble and experimentation with large, demanding forms (heavy arm rings, belt-hooks, big pendants, massive beads). The Late Neolithic phase, on the other hand, sees a decrease of scope both in materials and elaborate forms. Instead, people focused on a few standardized types, especially Spondylus annulets less bulky than before and small (even miniature) beads of shell and (at Dispilio) steatite/talc, that were produced together in large groups (cf. Miller 2003). The same shifts are attested in many other Aegean sites, such as Dimini, Makriyalos, and during the Chalcolithic at Sitagroi (the latter site also specializing in beads of fired steatite, as was Dispilio –see Miller 2003). These

5 Without proper microscopic examination, these two species were often mistaken for each other in the past (cf. Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5), as well as for stone or bone ornaments of very similar appearance.

6 The Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic in Southeastern Europe has aptly been described as “the age of clay” (Stevanović 1997).

226


later forms obviously demanded less material per piece, and probably also less labor because the shapes were familiar and thus crafted more easily. Such expediency notwithstanding, manufacture needed a greater degree of organized group effort than be-fore, stronger coordination of individual technical styles, work habits and tools to produce uniform results. Add to this the use of pyrotechnology, for the involved manufacture of the “white steatite” beads (Ifantidis, ch. 9; cf. Miller 2003) and to manipulate the color of annulets (at Dimini: Chapman et al., ch. 10). These are all characteristics of specialized, intensified production of a systematic scale (cf. Costin 1991), and many of these artifacts were meant for export rather than local consumption (as implied also by the absence of wear marks on finished ornaments at Makriyalos: Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8; cf. Chapman et al., ch. 10; Kyparissi-Apostolika, ch. 11). Contrary to the accepted view of an overall increased prestige of Spondylus over time, we are rather observing a focus on different qualities in each phase (as Siklósi & Csengeri excellently demonstrate in ch. 5). Each of the earlier, heavier ornaments was not only more involved technologically but also highly visible, thus it would grace the privileged owner (and the expert maker! –cf. Vitelli 1993) in a display of “extravagant” material use and innovative craftsmanship. As pro-duction settled and increased later on, the esoteric prestige of individual pieces probably decreased, to be replaced nevertheless by different aesthetics favoring groups of smaller ornaments, accompanied perhaps by a “collective” value bestowed upon the craft, in expanded contexts of production, trade and ritual affiliation (cf. Chapman 1998; Nikolaidou 2007).

What the evidence on standardized Spondylus manufacture does NOT present, however, is a stifling picture of absolute uni-formity. Rather, we detect individual expression within the established technological norms. It is indeed interesting how many elements of “individuality” can be encoded in a shell ornament. To take specifically the case of annulets, perhaps the most techni-cally involved and multivalent of Neolithic shell ornaments, the basic shape and contour is determined by the shape of the natural valves (Shackleton 2003), no two of which are exactly alike7; just as each shell formation is unique in large or small ways, so are shell ornaments hand-crafted with “individualized” variations. As Chapman et al. (ch. 10) demonstrate for the Dimini amulets, there is room for independent decision on the many steps of transformation (from spiny oyster to finished symmetrical object), revelation (of the layered colors and textures), and reduction (to the final perfect form). To borrow from the elegant phrasing of the authors, each ornament is a “very personal statement”, an opportunity for the artisan to develop a sense of identity and achievement; individual and/or site-specific manufacturing details may even hint at an antagonistic spirit (cf. DeBoer 1990). For example, some crafters at Dimini were especially interested in color exploration, burning or exposing hued layers of the shell. The annulet-makers at Makriyalos (Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8) chose distinctive shaping details (cf. Shackleton 2003), as well as concentrated on producing the “extravagant” annulets, each one on a whole valve, largely ignoring the “economic” option of using a valve for many smaller ornaments (see Tsuneki 1989: fig. 7) –they did use both valves for annulets, though, while elsewhere left and right valves were reserved for annulets and beads or buttons, respectively. Such a lavish use of Spondylus for expensive artifacts would not be out of place at the coastal center of Makriyalos, favorably located within easy access to rich habitats of the shell. It could have been meant as a statement of prestige towards neighbors and partners, with the idiosyncratic manufacture carrying additional messages of local pride

A ritual ethos of technology? Deciphering the shapes of the prehistoric shell (cf. Theodoropoulou, ch. 7), thus leads to decipher also (some of) the experiences of crafting; to explore how, in the process of transforming the natural material, the crafters were themselves “acculturated”, socialized, became knowledgeable and skilled members of their communities. I have proposed else-where that technologies of Spondylus could have been empowering undertakings, elevated above the ordinary and thus ritually performed (Nikolaidou 2007, 2010). This would also provide arenas for the distinction of gifted individuals, who would thus be endowed with prestige and prosperity (Perlès & Vitelli 1999; Vitelli 1993; cf. Brumfiel 1991; Nichols 2008). Illuminating here is the burial of a person surrounded with gifts of Spondylus preforms from the Inca centre of Lambayeque (Carter, ch. 6): were these the insignia of his craft?8 Reading through the rich documentations of prehistoric Spondylus adornment I imagine the sense of wisdom felt by those possessing the technical expertise to process this marvelous material; the excitement of the pioneers, who first “discovered” the shell, secured it, tried their hands on it, exercised their creativity (cf. Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5; Ifantidis, ch. 9). I reflect on experiences of liminality and mystique when crafters explore the possibilities of the raw material, at the same time submitting to the test their own abilities9. I am impressed by their display of excellent technique and perfect forms (cf. Boas 1955; Layton 1991). I consider the rhythms and patterns structuring learning and execution (cf. Karlin & Julien 1994; Roux et al. 1995): motor habits, regularly used raw materials, tools and methods of application, taught skills, standardized products. These components echo cyclical concepts of time which could be tied to seasonal rhythms of production and marked by rituals of regeneration (cf. Rowlands 1993). It is indeed worth exploring seasonality and periodicity in shell manufacture, in harmony with the seasonal cycles of shell fishing (for the latter see Shackleton 1983, 1988). Given that freshly caught Spondylus was the first choice as raw material for ornaments, at least at the Aegean sites of production, it is likely that craftwork would be scheduled

7 I would even see shell fishing itself is an “individualized” activity (cf. Claassen 1991; Meehan 1983), dependent on each diver’s skill, social circumstances, personal taste or the preferences of the “customers” he/she has in mind (some wanting large valves, others small; see Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8).

8 Even more famous, the “Pottery Princess” of Khok Phanom Di in Thailand, probably a skilled potter, received a lavish burial furnished with quantities of raw clay, tools of the potter, and shell-covered ceremonial garments (Vincent 2004).

9 Among Inuit carvers, for example, mastery upon the stone, perceived as a strife to release meaning and life in nature, is valued in its own merit more than the resulting sculptures (which are often abandoned: Layton 1991: 31-32).

227

according to the year’s fresh harvest of valves10. An ethos of repetition and renewal is further materialized in the biographies of the portable shell artifacts which condensed personal histories and traditions in their transferability and potential for fragmenta-tion and recycling (cf. Chapman et al. ch. 10; Ifantidis, ch. 9).

The structuring of Spondylus-related behaviors along lines of regularity and collectivity must have bonded those involved over space and time. Widely shared stylistic features indicate a technological and aesthetic koine connecting diverse areas of the Neolithic cultural landscape; possibly an idealized (and ritualized) counter-balance to antagonisms (cf. Bloch 1980) that would unavoidably arise among parties competing over the same resources (Sherratt 1984, 1993). Feelings of community could be especially powerful among the artisans themselves, between mentors and apprentices, probably members of the same family or kin (cf. DeBoer 1990; Nichols 2008). Learning and performing a craft is often circumscribed by initiations, mystic rites, taboos which place -physically and symbolically- the practitioners in a liminal position between the community and forces beyond it (Miller 1985; van Gennep 1960: 101-158). The transformative nature of Spondylus manufacture would lend itself to concepts and rituals of transition, with apprenticeship perhaps starting at an early age (cf. Nichols 2008; Possehl 1981; Roux et al. 1995) and experienced as initiation to a new social and ritual persona (Eliade 2001) The miniature axe-pendant from Dispilio, illus-trated in ch. 9, might have been a didactic charm or token, encapsulating symbolisms and identities related to ornament-making crafts, as may also have been miniature images of ornamented humans (Nikolaidou 2003; cf. Marangou 1991, 1992). The ideas encoded in the productive strategy would in turn determine the importance of the end-products, the most elaborate of which were also most in demand for trade and social affiliations (Séfériadès 2000; Vencl 1959; Willms 1985). It is important to keep in mind that not only finished artifacts but also specialists and the secrets of their technai possibly circulated in such networks (cf. Perlès 1992). At the inland site of Theopetra Cave, Kyparissi-Apostolika (ch. 11) interestingly suggests that certain ornaments might have been on-site, “provincial” imitations of imports (from Dimini), by aspiring local crafters who had been impressed by those exotica but did not possess the expertise to replicate them exactly.

The communal context of craftwork is brought to focus in the case of production workshops identified at Arene Candide (Bor-rello & Micheli, ch. 3) and Makriyalos (Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8), valuable contributions because ornament workshops are notoriously difficult to identify, usually inferred rather than documented. In such production loci we visualize the crafters carving out working space and time, deftly organizing and negotiating their facilities for work, sharing materials and ideas, collaborat-ing and competing (cf. Costin 1991). Social skills would have been critical to negotiate tasks and responsibilities (cf. Dobres & Hoffman 1994; Elster 1997), and spiritual authority might have been necessary, too, as documented ethnographically11. In all cases where workshops have been recognized (including Dimini: Chapman et al., ch. 10, Tsuneki 1989; Sitagroi: Miller 2003), they are located WITHIN the settlement12, therefore must have been linked to other technologies taking place on-site. The tools of the ornament-maker (impressively identified in the Tula project, Velázquez et al., ch. 15; cf. for the Aegean: Tsuneki 1989, Miller 2003) provide such links to chipped and ground stone industries (cutting, drilling and polishing tools), and to ceramics and leatherworking (polishing implements). In addition, abrasive materials and water for lubrication would have been needed (cf. Possehl 1981), as well as fuel for the firing of annulets (see especially Chapman et al., ch. 10). Many of these infrastructural resources might have to be traded for, too (cf. Vitelli 1993), and their supply coordinated with ornament-making. We also need to consider the technologies of other materials that were worked into ornaments, such as bone and stone, and how these overlapped with the work of the shell-carvers (Ifantidis 2006; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001; Miller 2003; Nikolaidou 2003).

Enter here the many other technologies of Spondylus: culinary, tool-making, crafting of distinct artifacts. Non-ornamental uses are often attested in sites rich in ornaments, including Arene Candide, Dimini, Makriyalos, Dispilio, as well as Dikili Tash and Franchthi (ch. 3, 7, 8, 9; Shackleton 1988). In many other cases we find these technologies distinct from adornment, in space and/or time (Veropoulidou, ch. 14). Whereas ornament-making has often been exalted as the principal use of this shell in prehistory, such evidence dates mostly to the Neolithic (for example, Theodoropoulou, ch. 7). In contrast, food and tool uses appear as more important applications in later periods, even with site-specific focus on certain functions as observed in the two case studies by Veropoulidou (ch. 14). Spondylus tools and implements were useful for a variety of tasks: burnishers and scrapers indicate work on pottery, bone, leather (Stratouli 1998); spoons and containers point to the processing, measuring, keeping, serving specialized materials such as pigments13, spices, medicines (cf. Elster & Nikolaidou 2003; Nikolaidou 2003; Tringham & Stevanović 1990); hammers and cutters likewise were handy for cutting and processing fibers, flesh, textiles, leather, soft bone or stone (cf. Elster 2003a; Stratouli 1998); hooks, pendants and a loomweight indicate interest in costume, appearance, emblematic use (Barber 1991; Elster 2003b); a seal suggests notation (cf. Renfrew 2003). What I find fascinating in this assortment is the implied inter-connectedness of crafts and behaviors. When we tabulate and map such diverse categories of artifacts from excavated sites a colorful fabric of life comes back in view, albeit in bits and pieces (cf. Gaydarska et al. 2004; Hendon 1996; Nikolaidou & Elster

10 Seasonal scheduling of various crafts (pottery, basket-making, carving) in harmony with harvest, gathering or trading trips, is well known ethnographically (Boas 1955).

11 In the thriving bead industry of the Indus training begins in childhood and work is rigorously stratified according to endogamous structures, age- and gender-specific labor divisions, and levels of ritual purity (Kenoyer, Vidale & Bahn 1991: 55-59; Possehl 1981).

12 Goods were likely produced in domestic areas and the fine debris swept away afterwards (Miller 2003: 373).13 At Sitagroi, a valve of the freshwater mussel Unio contained remnants of red ochre (Shackleton 2003: pl. 9.1.1).


228


2003; Souvatzi 2008). Spondylus, the coveted and often difficult to acquire fruit of the sea, punctuates and weaves together many strands of this cultural fabric, ranging from handy expedience (sharp-edged multi-purpose valves) to elaborate creations bridging functional and symbolic (costume accessories), every application thoughtfully applied to its own purpose.

Theodoropoulou (ch. 7) sees different functional (and conceptual) priorities encoded in the uses of the shell for ornaments and for distinct implement types, respectively. The former often required more demanding technique but had a wider field of applications (as composite ornaments or on different parts of the body), whereas processing tools or weaving and costume apparatus were reserved for specialized technical functions. On the other hand, she rightly observes a delicate balancing (cf. Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5) between “practical” and “symbolic” in outstanding artifacts, such as the belt hooks. What to us appears “ambiguous” about these items is, I believe, not just a handicap of archaeological recovery but rather a very purposeful fusion of practicality and semantic value14. It is further possible that the intrinsic meaning of the Spondylus shell determined variously the function and symbolism of products, be it expedient tools or elaborate implements. In the case of the former, the artifact could have been valued because of its ready handiness −an easy suitability that may even be evocative as a very direct interaction between human body and nature’s ready form−, but applications could also have been symbolically or ritually prescribed; for example, shell tools would only process certain materials, or be employed in specific occasions, or handled by appropriate persons only (cf. Miller 1985). Other, more involved implements would have embodied value in their select material of manufacture coupled with their very tangible practicality; there are, for example, many seals, spoons and weaving accessories made of easily available clay or bone, but precious few fashioned out of Spondylus! It is worth noting that the belt hooks are mostly known from sites away from the coast, including the impressive assemblage at Dispilio (Ifantidis, ch. 9), almost unique in the Aegean15, and far into the Eu-ropean continent (Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5). Such objects exemplify the pronounced concern for formal (and conceivably also semantic) elaboration of material culture that seems to have been a key structuring principle in Neolithic ways of life (cf. Cauvin 1994; Elster & Nikolaidou 2003; Hodder 1990; Nikolaidou 2007).

The dietary and culinary uses of Spondylus are also incorporated into the nuanced pattern of sustenance, tradition and ceremo-ny: from food procurement to preparation and consumption, the whole technology of the cuisine requires specialist knowledge, and the tasks were possibly circumscribed by taboos and social regulations (for example, Douglas 1966, 1984). Shellfish has been an important dietary component in many societies, although of fluctuating importance seasonally and/or socially (Claassen 1991; Shackleton 1983, 1988: 46-48), and often linked to symbolisms and ideology (cf. Séfériadès 1995), as documented here by Carter’s (ch. 6) ethnographic account of the mullu, special foods (including Spondylus) reserved for leaders and gods. Ritu-ally encoded consumption of Spondylus, in the context of feasting, is reported at the LBA site of Mitrou (Veropoulidou, ch. 14), with Makriyalos another likely candidate for such practices (Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8). Of the sites discussed in the volume, Makriyalos produced the most massive quantities of shell food remains, with several species also systematically used to manu-facture ornaments. Pappa & Veropoulidou reasonably propose that Spondylus was a prized food at this site; I wonder whether it was a renowned local delicacy with export value, too –although preserving the perishable flesh from spoiling would have been a challenge! Transport of Spondylus and other precious seafood is attested in Andean prehistory (Carter, ch. 6) and there is no rea-son why the rich flesh of the mollusk would not appeal to the prehistoric palates across the European regions, along with the high demand for the shell valves. Food-circulating networks must have operated widely in prehistoric Europe (see Sherratt 1993), and a connection with the circulation of Spondylus artifacts has been suggested (Greenfield 1991; Yannouli 1997: 123-125). New light on trade and exchange networks for crafted Spondylus is thrown by evidence on movements unexplored before. Besides the well-documented routes leading from the Mediterranean coasts north and east into Europe, some goods seem to have traveled the opposite directions: in inland Italy Spondylus objects may have arrived not from the coast (the short way) but through larger-distance networks with Central Europe (Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3). Likewise, the sites of Dispilio and Theopetra Cave, in the Aegean interior, turn upside down the accepted scenario about Aegean centers of origin and Balkan “importers”; at these two settlements ornament types unique in the Aegean, seem to have arrived (at least in their finished form) from the Balkan or cul-tures even further north (compare Kyparissi-Apostolika, ch. 11: Fig. 6 with Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5: Fig. 5). Detailed analysis of the ornament corpus at Dispilio further indicates that Spondylus comes in quantities, shapes and patterns of distribution through time that recall Balkan and Central European patterns, and Ifantidis has even proposed the Adriatic rather than the Aegean as the source of the shell. It is far from certain that there were direct links connecting sites so far apart from each other, or rather things were moving down the line or through other mediating agencies (cf. Gaydarska et al. 2004). However the case, these unexpected finds call for re-examination of geographical routes and the patterns of interaction. What to us seem the “obvious” ways, were not necessarily the choices of prehistoric people who had to navigate landscapes quite different from the present ones, and with other means, and also had loyalties and social obligations that would often have dictated meaningful “detours” rather than always

14 The “functional versus symbolic” dichotomy is more tuned to categorizations of modern Western thinking than reflecting the more integrated concepts of technique in non-industrial cultures, where technical knowledge and action are woven into the symbolic fabric of existence (see contributions in Kyriakidis, ed. 2007; Brück 1999).

15 A single example from Diros Cave at the southern coast of Peloponnese was found together with rare exotica, notably a hoard of silver jewelry and Balkan-looking ring-idols (Papathanassopoulos, ed. 1996: 228, fig. 45). Another decorated hook or buckle is reported from Franchthi Cave (Shackleton 1988: 119, FV#429).

229

taking the “economical” shortcut. The other commodities involved in the exchange networks must also come into consideration (Gaydarska et al. 2004; Perlès 1992; Sheratt 1993), as well as the localities of the interested parties. It is worth noting that more trading “surprises” are known from the interior of NW Greece; at the Final Neolithic settlement of Mandalo obsidian was sourced in the Carpathians (Kilikoglou et al.) instead of the Cyclades, as one might have expected (see Renfrew 1973).

Panoramas and close-ups: rethinking uniformities. These unexpected “twists” of the mainstream archaeological stories il-lustrate Douka’s thesis (ch. 12) about the existence of many different Spondylus-related “cultures” in European prehistory, each with distinct strategies of acquisition, management, manipulation. Such a multiplicity, founded on archaeometric data regard-ing Spondylus sourcing and circulation, finds further support in the papers that trace regional and/or temporal differences in excavated assemblages. As the focus of attention zooms in and out from panoramas through space and time to close-ups on individual sites, we are following a complex graph of trajectories that give depth and complexity to the former flat and uniform picture of “A/THE” Spondylus phenomenon. Instead, we see cross-cutting levels of differentiation in terms of geography, time, habitation versus cemeteries, gender, ideology, use and deposition. Interregional comparisons are especially interesting between the “threshold” areas of shell origin in the West and East Mediterranean, with a picture of relative paucity of Spondylus finds west of the Adriatic (see Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3) versus the rich and distinctive output recovered from the Aegean (Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8; Chapman et al., 10; cf. also the cluster of Spondylus-working sites in the NE Aegean: Sitagroi, Dikili Tash, Dimitra: Nikolaidou 2003; Karali-Yannakopoulou 1991, 1992). It seems that the Spondylus extracted from the coasts of Italy was primarily intended for export (cf. Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3) whereas in the Aegean the extraction centers (such as Makri-yalos and Dimini) not only did export but also used the commodity systematically locally and regionally. One question that still remains unresolved concerns the exact origin, Adriatic or Aegean, of Spondylus from different sites (see especially Borrello & Micheli, ch. 3; Ifantidis, ch. 9). It seems, nevertheless, that demand for or access to Spondylus was not a pan-regional given: in Neolithic and Bronze Age Iberia, for example, Álvarez-Fernández (ch. 1) notes a scarcity of (securely identifiable) Spondylus or-naments, which contrasts to the strong preference for this shell elsewhere. Were the prehistoric Iberians crafting their ornaments from other shell species and different materials instead?

Rethinking complexities and hierarchies. An instructive example of changing strategies, and ideologies, related to Spondylus is offered by Carter’s panoramic review (ch. 6), spanning millennia and a broad social spectrum in the prehistoric Andes, from early fishing communities to large-scale trade, Moche complex society, Inca imperial expansion. Carter interestingly observes that the use of Spondylus does not progress in direct accordance with increasing sociopolitical complexity, as is usually assumed. Instead, maximum intensity in Spondylus use may have occurred during the complex cultures preceding the Incas, and declined during the Inca imperial expansion −perhaps because of the abundance of other, more exotic substances in the cosmopolitan context of the empire. Along similar lines, Veropoulidou (ch. 14) corrects previous negative evaluations of the limited appearance of Spondylus ornaments in the Aegean Bronze Age, highlighting instead the changing practicalities and social priorities specific to this phase.

Likewise, Chapman et al. (ch. 10) revisit and revise previous archaeological scenarios about Spondylus management at the key site of Dimini. The authors skillfully bridge the gap between two former opposing models, that of egalitarian craft production by individual households (Hourmouziadis 1979) versus controlled circulation and hoarding of Spondylus valuables in the hands of hierarchical “elites” (Halstead 1993). Instead, household analysis by Souvatzi (2008), one of the chapter’s authors (ch. 10), demonstrates that differentiated craft activity was carried out by different households; a good example is provided by concen-trations of annulets and beads/buttons in two different complexes, respectively. At Makriyalos (Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8) clusters of preforms and finished ornaments at different areas of the settlement illustrate loci of manufacture, on the one hand, and the use, storage and trading of products, on the other. Contextual analysis at Sitagroi similarly indicated that more than one groups dealt with Spondylus but in different capacities of production or consumption (Nikolaidou 2003; Nikolaidou & Elster 2003). Depositional patterns at Makriyalos and Dimini lend further support to the picture of collective involvement; at the former settlement large quantities of Spondylus ornaments and other artifacts were recovered from communal areas, while at the latter fragments of matching Spondylus rings were found scattered across habitation units. As Chapman et al. (ch. 10) persuasively argue, the purposeful fragmentation of valuable Spondylus rings at Dimini and circulation of fragments not only within the site and but also beyond it, indeed bespeaks connections, interlinked relationships, transference of goods and values across house-holds and communities. Their rigorous and innovative analysis of the artifacts points away from the hitherto accepted, polarizing models of prehistoric hierarchy involving coercive elites versus submissive parties within sites or regions (Halstead 1993; cf. Kyparissi-Apostolika, ch. 11). Control of access to important knowledge and goods is certainly an important source of power (Bender 1985), but so is also the ability to maintain cohesion and concession; perhaps it was this latter role that privileged groups at Dimini and elsewhere fulfilled within their areas of authority –an authority deriving precisely from their integrative skills.

Prestige, gender, personhood. How such distinguished persons would have materialized their prestige and identity through the selective handling of valuables, is demonstrated in analyses of large burial assemblages that correlate Spondylus artifacts with other grave goods. John (ch. 4) assesses together a whole array of precious gifts from LBK cemeteries to infer gender symbol-isms and ranking associated with each category. He argues for male and female associations of the different materials as well


230


as of different parts of the Spondylus valve –nuances that can rarely be read in the data16. Siklósi & Csengeri (ch. 5) discuss the complex relationship between prestige and gender symbolisms. Whereas a concern with prestige as expressed in burial gifts does remain a social stable in the Moravian Neolithic, it is the relative ranking of materials and artifact types that changed significant-ly over time as well as their respective gender associations. In the Late Neolithic, men appear most associated with new prestige items, such as mace heads, while women and children are buried with the “traditional” Spondylus, a material lavishly used across age and gender in the Middle Neolithic. The authors propose that the costume of the children, especially the girls, may convey the status of the family (in particular the prestige of male leaders) rather than the child’s gender. Considering that the formal cemeteries of the Middle Neolithic were reserved for part of the population only, and even among these burials many did not include grave goods, the hoard of Spondylus in certain graves would be a very prestigious statement indeed. On the other hand, manifestations of ranking and identity in the context of the cemetery should not be uncritically equated with the social realities in the world of the living. We must also remember that childhood and gender are culture-specific concepts and experiences; the persons whose skeletons we identify in the skeletal record as boys or girls might have been ranked according to more significant categorizations of gender and age maturity in their societies (Papadopoulos 2005: 345-407; cf. Baxter 2004; Korbin 2003).

Such cautions notwithstanding, it is significant that Spondylus seems to have been associated with persons of very young age, in the world of the living as well as in the realm of the dead. In the Aegean, both worlds are brought to focus at Makriyalos, where Spondylus has been found in a child burial –a very rare occurrence in the Aegean17– and the small size of many bangles also indicates use by the same age group. Annulets of small diameter are common in other sites both in the Aegean and beyond; and, if indeed worn around the wrist or ankle (and not as pendants or hair ornaments –Marangou 1991), could only have fitted a small limb (Gaydarska et al. 2004: 24; Shackleton 2003; compare Karali-Yannakopoulou 1992: 163); perhaps they were given at a young age to be worn ever after (cf. John, ch. 4). Such finds call attention to the rites of childhood, milestones and learning experiences (Baxter 2004; Rutter 2003): birth, initiation, didactic display, role play, receiving of gifts, protection, affectionate treatment to ideals of beauty and propriety, decorations of mourning and death18.

Envisaging ornate bodies: costume, fashion, visibility. As the reader travels through this volume, images of persons beauti-fully attired in shell come forward, from different directions and under different lights. In Neolithic Europe, a whole array of costume accessories made of Spondylus, covering the body from head down, emerges both from grave goods (John, ch. 4; Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5) and rich settlement records (Ifantidis, ch. 9; Theodoropoulou, ch. 7): belt buckles, combs, buttons, headband, plus the beads, annulets that could have been fastened to garments or headgear19, pendants, appliqués crafted on recycled annulet sections (Ifantidis, ch. 9; Kyparissi-Apostolika, ch. 11), along with further embellishments as tattoo or flowers that have now per-ished (Nikolaidou 2003). These artifacts evoke colorful ornate bodies, charming and alluring to behold, captivating in movement, speaking eloquent messages in the material code of their precious wrappings. Shapes, forms, colors, textures, quantities and placements, all the possible combinations and the modes of application would have performed important sensory and conceptual roles. What has often come down to us as small, “humble” beads or disconnected fragments would have once been elements in spectacular composite creations, highly visible (cf. Barge 1982; Ifantidis 2006; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001; Nikolaidou 2003). Elaborate costumes are further indicated by incised and/or painted designs on figurines and fine pottery which appear to imitate woven prototypes (Barber 1991; Elster 2003b; Gimbutas 1986). Ornaments are often found together with spinning and weaving equipment and with pattern-bearing figurines, thus reinforcing the hypothesis of a special connection between ornament and tex-tile production (Marangou 1997; Nikolaidou & Elster 200320). The observed temporal shift from heavy shell attachments, such as belt hooks or heavy rings to smaller articles put together in composite arrangements (Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5; Ifantidis, ch. 9) may be connected to changing fashions and textile choices (cf. Hochstetter 1987: 74, pl. 14-15, for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages). The reconstructed Tula garment (Velázquez et al., ch. 15: Fig. 5, 31) offers a spectacular picture of what an ornamental garment might have looked like when pieced together from the various small beads and pendants that we usually excavate iso-lated or in small handfuls.

Ornamentation and performance. The decorated human body thus emerges as a powerful symbol in its many layers of cor-poreal and social existence: notions of gender, age, status, mating availability, group affiliation, and family prestige would have been brought to focus (Colburn & Heyn 2008; Knapp & Meskell 1997; Marcus 1993; Nikolaidou 1997). Ifantidis (ch. 9) and John (ch. 4) remind us that, perhaps first of all, ornamentation would have been a sensory experience: the way a bangle fits around the wrist or ankle, the coolness and smoothness of the perfectly finished surface; the colorful necklaces gracing a tunic;

16 Gender-specific associations of particular shell species need to be contextually assessed, in terms of time, occasion, particular application of the shell. In the case of the Tula garment, for example, different shells and parts thereof were put together into a warrior garment, thus connected to mature males.

17 Another recent find comes from the cemetery of Kremasti Koilada, in the NW part of Greece (Chondroyianni-Metoki 2010).18 Age- and gender-related symbolisms and benign functions are incorporated also in the shell bangles from prehistoric Harappan and contemporary traditional

cultures of the Indus valley (Kenoyer 1991: 96-97).19 At Durankulak, heavy Spondylus rings were found next to the skull, perhaps attached to headgear (Avramova 2002); cf. Makriyalos annulets, rather small,

with suspension holes.20 At Sitagroi, the largest and most attractive bead clusters date to the Final Neolithic, exactly at the period when figurine and pottery decorations imply also

the most elaborate garments.

231

beaded belts dancing around and on the hips; diadems and ornaments embellishing elaborate hairstyles (cf. Barber 1991; Gim-butas 1986; Marangou 1991). Not only does the body interact with the artifact and ornaments become part of the body and the persona residing in it but more fascinating, parts of the human body itself can become ornaments, as the extraordinary find of a perforated human tooth (pendant?) from Dispilio illustrates (Ifantidis 2010). Visibility, movement, texture and touch would focus attention on the ornate body in diverse contexts of production, consumption, travel, celebration. The recovery of ornaments together with items of utility (tools, pots) and with symbolic products (such as figurines) in many settlements (with outstanding example the rich recovery and deposition patterns at Makriyalos –Pappa & Veropoulidou, ch. 8) indicates that people felt it im-portant to be adorned for both work and ceremony; perhaps they thought, as the Turkana peoples do, that “to be without ornament is to be without identity” (Williams 1987: 34). Both training to the crafts of ornament-making and learning the arts of adornment, knowing how to use properly this “aesthetic toolkit” (Ifantidis 2006), could be an important step toward maturity and the attain-ment of self-awareness (Nikolaidou 2007).

cosmologies, memories, biographies. The construction of self involves also perceptions of one’s place in the world. Artifacts (tools, ornaments, implements) are important vehicles to materialize this cosmological order, the physical and spiritual universe that envelopes us (cf. Wagner 1975). Valuable ethnohistoric testimony as to cosmological values of Spondylus comes from the New World (Carter, ch. 6; Velázquez et al., ch. 15; cf. Séfériadès 1995). Ifantidis (ch. 9) thoughtfully comments on the Old World prehistoric cosmology, as it could be embodied in ornaments and ornamentation –kosmima and kosmisis in Greek, words that significantly share the same root with kosmos, the system of order in nature and in society. Kosmos embraces beauty, structure and propriety; creation and completion that brings shape to the unstructured potentials of chaos; reason and integration of enti-ties, physical and social, of parts and wholes (cf. Geertz 1973). The biographic analyses of ornaments at Dispilio and at Dimini highlight fragmentation and recycling as key metaphors for Neolithic cosmologies: breakage, redistribution, or re-use of such important artifacts enacts life concepts and relationships every time these material elements are incorporated into new cultural contexts. Ifantidis’ evocative illustration of broken and recycled ornaments (ch. 9: Fig. 10) helps us visualize the open-ended dynamic of such metamorphoses, for the prehistoric lives and for our present attempts to re-capture those lives from the frag-ments we recover. Fragmentation cannot be dismissed as merely a contingency of archaeological retrieval; rather, appears as a meaningful prehistoric choice, an ever-renewable opportunity for attachment and creation of meaning.

How variously these opportunities materialized, is illustrated by the comparison of Spondylus ring deposition at the Dimini settlement versus the cemetery sites at Varna and Durankulak (Chapman et al., ch. 10). At Dimini, as also at other Aegean settle-ments, the assemblage is highly and consistently fragmented, scattered across the site and rings come in many different sizes; by contrast, in the prestigious Balkan graves conspicuous consumption of the exotic Spondylus is showcased by the deposition of whole ornaments of massive size and elaborate surface treatment (cf. John, ch. 4; Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5). Cemeteries seem-ingly were prime fields for dedication and remembrance while settlements provided contexts for sharing and communication, but boundaries between such distinctions were fluid. At Makriyalos, for instance, both burials and rich artifact accumulations took place in communal areas whereas habitation loci were also clearly defined. Interestingly, the selective burning of rings at Dimini (sometimes before and sometimes after breakage) indicates, among other things, that the artifacts were cremated, ceremonially “killed”. Perhaps rituals of closure and commemoration, involving destruction and deposition of the valuable Spondylus rings, sealed the life cycles of households (cf. Brück 1999; Stevanović 1996; Tringham 1991).

Memory and continuity is traceable not only in the micro-sratigraphies of artifacts but also, on different levels, in the macro-stratigraphies of sites and cultures. There is ample evidence for long-standing technologies of crafting, using, and cherishing Spondylus objects (see Theodoropoulou, ch. 7; Veropoulidou, ch. 14), many of which must have been precious family heirlooms that were reverently placed in the grave (for example, Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5; Chapman et al., ch. 10). The preservation of inherited wisdom is moreover seen in the adoption of Spondylus-working techniques for the processing of other prestigious materials (Siklósi & Csengeri, ch. 5). Even longer-term links are seen in the Aegean, where Neolithic-looking ornaments and other special artifacts (seals, figurines) were found stratified in Bronze Age contexts of habitation -“exotica” from a site’s remote past rather than from distant lands (cf. Nikolaidou 1997). The performance of crafts in settlements occupied over centuries or millennia bespeaks the power of tradition and of the ancestral place (cf. Chapman 1998; Day & Wilson 2002; Kotsakis 1999).

In her fascinating book “The Oysters of Locmariaquer” Eleanor Clark recorded, half a century ago, the hard-working lives of oyster-growing communities of Brittany. She offers a vivid account of how the oyster, this most coveted delicacy of sea, is the pivot around which turn the lives, the traditions, the ethos, the routines of labor and joy. People in the region are born and grown into the business, and their existence depends on the mollusk. In her words, it is the insider’s “sense of a thousand subtleties” that lies at the core of this remarkable enterprise. It is a multitude of subtleties surrounding prehistoric shell that this volume on Spondylus has tried to recapture: the flavor of the sea and the mystery of its depths, the excitement and fatigue of the journeys, the strife and vision and sweat of the craft, the taste of the feasting, the pride and beauty of adornment, the bonding with one’s intimate possessions, the transformative power of the ritual, the crafting of self and community. The book’s contributors have carefully decoded past lives and journeys from the complex stratigraphies of shell technologies, and offer thoughtful narratives of those to the interested reader.


232


aVraMoVa, M.2002 Der Schmuck aus den Gräbern von Durankulak.

In Durankulak, Band II: Die Prähistorischen Gräberfeldern (Hrsg. H. Todorova): 191-206. Sofia: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Berlin.

barber, e. 1991 Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth

in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

barge, h.1982 Les parures du néolithique ancien au début

de l’âge des métaux en Languedoc. Marseille: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique [Laboratoire d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire des Pays de la Méditerranée Occi-dentale].

baxter, J. e.2004 Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender,

and Material Culture. Walnut Creek, CA: Al-tamira.

bender, b. 1985 Prehistoric developments in the American Mid-

continent and in Brittany, Northwest France. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity (ed. T. D. Price & J. A Brown): 21-57. Orlando: Academic Press.

bloch, M.1980 Ritual and the non-representation of society. In

Symbol as Sense: New Approaches to the Anal-ysis of Meaning (ed. M. LeCron Foster & S. H. Brandes): 93-102. New York: Academic Press.

boas, F.1955 Primitive Art. New York: Dover Publications.broodbank, c.1993 Ulysses without sails: Trade, distance, knowl-

edge, and power in the early Cyclades. World Archaeology 24(3): 315-331.

brück, J.1999 Ritual and rationality: Some problems of inter-

pretation in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3): 313-344.

bruMFIel, e. M.1991 Weaving and cooking: Women’s production in

Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (ed. J. M. Gero & M. W. Conkey): 224-251. Oxford: Blackwell.

cauVIn, J.1994 Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agri-

culture: La révolution des symboles au Néoli-thique. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

chaPMan, J. c.1998 Objectification, embodiment, and the value of

places and things. In The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and the Processes of Valua-

referenCes

tion (ed. D. Bailey): 106-130. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports [International Series, 730].

chondroyIannI-MetokI, a.2010 I kafsi ton nekron sto neolithiko oikismo tis

“Toumpas Kremastis Koiladas” stin Kitrini Limni N. Kozanis. In IRIS: Meletes sti Mnimi tis Kathigitrias Angelikis Pilali-Papasteriou apo tous Mathites tis sto Aristoteleio Panepis-timio Thessalonikis (ed. N. Merousis, L. Stefani & M. Nikolaidou): 213-234. Thessaloniki: Kor-nelia Sfakianaki Editions.

claassen, c. 1991 Gender, shellfishing, and the Shell Mound Ar-

chaic. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (ed. J. M. Gero & M. W. Con-key): 276-300. Oxford: Blackwell.

clark, J. g. d.1986 Symbols of Excellence: Precious Materials as

Expressions of Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

colburn, c. s. & M. k. heyn

2008 Introduction: Bodily adornment and identity. In Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World (ed. C. S. Col-burn & M. K. Heyn): 5-12. Newcastle: Cam-bridge Scholars Publishing.

costIn, c.1991 Craft specialization: Issues in defining, docu-

menting, and explaining the organization of production. In Archaeological Method and The-ory, Vol. 3 (ed. M. B. Schiffer): 1-56. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.

day, P. M. & d. wIlson

2002 Landscapes of memory, craft, and power in Pre-palatial and Protopalatial Knossos. In Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” archaeology (ed. Y. Hamilakis): 143-166. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

deboer, w. r.1990 Interaction, imitation, and communication as

expressed in style: The Ucayali experience. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology (ed. M. W. Conkey & C. Hastorf): 82-104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [New Directions in Archaeology].

d’errIco, F., c. henshIlwood, M. Vanhaeren & k. Van nIekerk

2005 Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blom-bos Cave: Evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evo-lution 48: 3-24.

Dimitrijević, v. & B. tripković

2003 New Spondylus findings at Vinča-Belo Brdo: 1998-2001 campaigns and regional approach to problem. Starinar 52: 47-62.

233


dobres, M.-a. & c. r. hoFFMan

1994 Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(3): 211-258.

douglas, M.1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts

of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Penguin Press.

1984 Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

elIade, M.2001 Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries

of Birth and Rebirth [translated by W. R. Trask]. New York: Harper & Row.

elster, e. s.1997 Construction and use of the Early Bronze Age

Burnt House at Sitagroi: Craft and technol-ogy. In TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (éd. R. Laffineur & P. Betancourt): 19-36. Liège & Austin: Annales d’Archéologie Egéenne de l’Université de Liège & University of Texas at Austin [Aegaeum, 16].

2003a Bone tools and other artifacts. In Prehistoric Si-tagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 31-51. Los Angeles: Cotsen Insti-tute of Archaeology, University of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 20].

2003b Tools of the spinner, weaver, and mat maker. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 229-251. Los An-geles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Univer-sity of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 20].

2007 Odysseus before Homer: Trade, travel, and adventure in prehistoric Greece. In EPOS: Re-considering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology (ed. R. Laffineur, K. Lappa-tin & S. P. Morris): 193-202. Liège & Austin: Annales d’Archéologie Egéenne de l’Univer-sité de Liège & University of Texas at Austin [Aegaeum, 28].

elster, e. s. & M. nIkolaIdou

1995 Shell artifacts from Sitagroi, Northeast Greece: Symbolic implications of gathering in an early agricultural society. Paper presented at the con-ference “From the Jomon to Starr Carr: Pre-historic Foragers of Temperate Eurasia”, Cam-bridge and Durham, 5-9 September.

2003 Paralipómena and other plastic forms. In Pre-historic Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 421-442. Los An-geles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Univer-sity of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 20].

gaydarska, b. I., J. c. chaPMan, I. angeloVa, M. guroVa & s. VaneV

2004 Breaking, making and trading: The Omurtag Eneolithic Spondylus hoard. Archaeologia Bul-garica VIII(2): 11-34.

geertZ, c.1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Ba-

sic Books.gIMbutas, M.1986 Mythical imagery of the Sitagroi society. In Ex-

cavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece. Vol. 1 (ed. C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas & E. S. Elster): 225-301. Los Ange-les: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 13].

graVes-brown, P. M.1995 Fearful symmetry. World Archaeology 27(1):

88-99.greenFIeld, h. J.1991 A kula ring in prehistoric Europe? A consider-

ation of local and interregional exchange dur-ing the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans. In Between Bands and States (ed. S. A. Gregg): 287-308. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer-sity [Center for Archaeological Investigation, Occasional Paper 9].

halstead, P.1993 Spondylus shell ornaments from Late Neolithic

Dimini, Greece: Specialized manufacture or un-equal accumulation? Antiquity 67: 603-609.

heIdegger, M.1978 Basic Writings. San Francisco: Harper.helMs, M.1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and

Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.hendon, J. a.1996 Archaeological approaches to the organization

of domestic labor: Household practice and do-mestic relations. Annual Review of Anthropol-ogy 25: 45-61.

hochstetter, a.1987 Kastanas: Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungs-

hügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979: Die Kleinfunde. Berlin: Volker Spies [Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteu-ropa, 6].

hodder, I.1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and

Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Blackwell.

hourMouZIadIs, g. h.1979 To Neolithiko Dimini. Volos: Hetaireia Thessa-

likon Erevnon.IFantIdIs, F.2006 Ta Kosmimata tou Neolithikou Oikismou tou

Dispiliou Kastorias: Paragogi kai Chrisi mias “Aisthitikis Ergaleiothikis”. Thessaloniki: Aris-totle University of Thessaloniki [MA Thesis].

234


2010 Anthropina dontia, “anthropina” kosmimata: Ena simeioma me aformi to K0325 apo to Neo-lithiko Dispilio. In IRIS: Meletes sti Mnimi tis Kathigitrias Angelikis Pilali-Papasteriou apo tous Mathites tis sto Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (ed. N. Merousis, L. Stefani & M. Nikolaidou): 201-211. Thessaloniki: Kornelia Sfakianaki Editions.

Ingold, t.1988 Notes on the foraging mode of production. In

Hunters and Gatherers I: History, Evolution and Social Change (ed. T. Ingold, D. Richley & J. Woodburn): 269-285. Oxford: Berg Publish-ers.

karalI-yannakoPoulou, l. 1991 Parure en coquillage du site de Dimitra en Ma-

cédoine protohistorique. In THALASSA: L’Egée Préhistorique et la Mer (éd. R. Laffineur & L. Basch): 315-322. Liège: Université de Liège [Aegaeum, 7].

1992 Les mollusques au site de Dikili Tash, vil-lage préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale; La parure. In Dikili Tash, village préhisto-rique de Macédoine Orientale, I: Fouilles de Jean Deshayes 1961-1975 (éd. R. Treuil): 112 [outillage]; 153-157 [alimentation]; 159-164 [parure]. Athènes: École Française d’Athènes [Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Suppl. XXIV].

karlIn, c. & M. JulIen

1994 Prehistoric technology: A cognitive science? In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology (ed. C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zu-brow): 152-164. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press [New Directions in Archaeology].

kenoyer, J. M.1991 Ornament styles of the Indus valley tradition:

Evidence from recent excavations at Harappa, Pakistan. Paléorient 17(2): 79-98.

kenoyer, J. M., M. VIdale & k. k. bahn 1991 Contemporary stone bead making in Khamb-

hat, India: Patterns of craft specialization and organization of production as reflected in the ar-chaeological record. World Archaeology 23(1): 44-63.

knaPP, a. b. & l. Meskell

1997 Bodies of evidence on prehistoric Cyprus. Cam-bridge Archaeological Journal 7(2): 73-104.

korbIn, J.2003 Prologue: A perspective form contemporary

childhood studies. In Coming of Age in Ancient Greece: Images of Childhood from the Clas-sical Past (ed. J. Neils & J. H. Oakley): 7-10. New Haven: Yale University Press.

kotsakIs, k.1999 What tells can tell: Social space and settlement

in the Greek Neolithic. In Neolithic Society in Greece (ed. P. Halstead): 66-76. Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press [Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology, 2].

kyrIakIdIs, e. (ed.)2007 The Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles: Cot-

sen Institute of Archaeology, University of Cal-ifornia [Cotsen Advanced Seminar, 3].

kyParIssI-aPostolIka, n.2001 Ta Proistorika Kosmimata tis Thessalias.

Athens: Ministry of Culture, Tameio Archae-ologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon [Dimosieu-mata tou Archaeologikou Deltiou, 76].

layton, r.1991 The Anthropology of Art. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.lechtMan, h.1977 Style in technology: Some early thoughts. In

Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology (ed. H. Lechtman & R. Merrill): 3-20. St. Paul, MN: West Publish-ers [Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society].

leMonnIer, P.1986 The study of material culture today: Toward an

anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147-186.

1992 Introduction. In Technological Choices: Trans-formation in Material Cultures since the Neo-lithic (ed. P. Lemonnier): 1-35. Routledge: Lon-don & New York.

leMonnIer, P. (ed.)1992 Technological Choices: Transformation in Ma-

terial Cultures since the Neolithic. Routledge: London & New York.

leroI-gourhan, a.1943 Évolution et techniques; L’homme et la matière.

Paris: A. Michel.1945 Évolution et techniques; Milieu et techniques.

Paris: A. Michel.1964 Le geste et la parole I: Technique et langage,

Paris: A. Michel1965 Le geste et la parole II: La mémoire et les

rythmes. Paris: A. MichelkIlIkoglou, V., y. bassIakos, a. P. grIManIs, k. souVatZIs, a. PIlalI-PaPasterIou & a. PaPanthIMou-PaPaeFthIMIou 1996 Carpathian obsidian in Macedonia, Greece.

Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 343-349.Marangou, ch.1991 Figurines néolithiques parées de Macédoine

orientale (Néolithique Récent, Grèce du Nord). In Actes du XIIe congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1-7 septembre 1991, Vol. 2 (éd. J. Pavúk): 327-334. Bratislava: Institut Archéo-logique de l’Académie Slovaque des Sciences, Nitra.

1992 Eidolia: Figurines et miniatures du néolithique récent et du bronze ancien en Grèce. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm [British Archaeological Re-ports, International Series, 576].

235


1997 Neolithic micrography: Miniature modeling at Dimitra. In Neolithiki Makedonia (ed. D. V. Grammenos): 227-265. Athens: Ministry of Culture, Tameio Archaeologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon [Dimosieumata tou Archae-ologikou Deltiou, 56].

Marcus, M. I.1993 Incorporating the body: Adornment, gender,

and social identity in ancient Iran. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2): 157-178.

Meehan, b. 1983 A matter of choice? Some thoughts on shell

gathering strategies in Northern Australia. In Animals and Archaeology 2: Shell Middens, Fishes and Birds (ed. C. Grigson &J. Clutton-Brock): 3-17. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports [International Series, 183].

Mellars, P.1996 The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.MIller, d.1985 Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic

Variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

MIller, M.1997 Jewels of Shell and Stone, Clay and Bone: The

Production, Function and Distribution of Ae-gean Stone Age Ornaments. Boston: Boston University [Unpublished PhD Thesis].

2003 Technical aspects of ornament production at Si-tagroi. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 369-382. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Monumenta Archaeo-logica, 20].

nIchols, d. l.2008 Artisans, markets, and merchants. In The Aztec

World (ed. E. M. Brumfiel & G. M. Feinman): 105-120. New York: Abrams.

nIkolaIdou, M.1997 Ornament production and use at Sitagroi,

Northeast Greece: Symbolic and social im-plications of an Early Bronze Age technol-ogy. In TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (éd. R. Laffineur & P. Betancourt): 177-190. Liège & Austin: Annales d’Archéologie Egéenne de l’Université de Liège & University of Texas at Austin [Aegaeum, 16].

2003 Items of adornment. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Ex-cavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Ren-frew): 331-360. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Mon-umenta Archaeologica, 20].

2007 Ritualized technologies in the Aegean Neolith-ic? The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeol-ogy of Ritual (ed. E. Kyriakidis): 183-208. Los

Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity of California [Cotsen Advanced Semi-nar, 3].

2010 Kosmimata sti Neolithiki Makedonia: Prosopa kai teletourgies mias proistorikis technologias. In IRIS: Meletes sti Mnimi tis Kathigitrias An-gelikis Pilali-Papasteriou apo tous Mathites tis sto Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (ed. N. Merousis, L. Stefani & M. Nikolaidou): 137-158. Thessaloniki: Kornelia Sfakianaki Edi-tions.

nIkolaIdou, M. & e. s. elster

2003 Contextual commentary, Phases I-V. In Pre-historic Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 361-368. Los An-geles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Univer-sity of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 20].

nIkolaIdou, M. & d. kokkInIdou

2007 Epos, history, metahistory in Aegean Bronze Age studies. In EPOS: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology (ed. R. Laffineur, K. Lappatin & S. P. Morris): 35-48. Liège & Austin: Annales d’Archéologie Egéenne de l’Université de Liège & University of Texas at Austin [Aegaeum, 28].

PaPadoPoulos, J. k.2005 The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone. Vol. 1:

Text. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeol-ogy, University of California [Monumenta Ar-chaeologica, 24].

PaPathanassoPoulos, g. a. (ed.)1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Athens: N. P. Gou-

landris Foundation & Museum of Cycladic Art. Perlès, c.1992 Systems of exchange and organization of pro-

duction in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Medi-terranean Archaeology 5(2): 115-164.

Perlès, c. & k. d. VItellI

1999 Craft specialization in the Neolithic of Greece. In Neolithic Society in Greece (ed. P. Halstead): 96-107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press [Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology, 2].

PFaFFenberger, b.1988 Fetishised objects and humanised nature: To-

wards an anthropology of technology. Man (N.S) 23: 236-252.

1995 Social anthropology of technology. Annual Re-view of Anthropology 21: 491-516.

Possehl, g. l.1981 Cambay bead making: An ancient craft in mod-

ern India. Expedition 23(4): 39-47.renFrew, c.1973 Trade and craft specialisation. In Neolithic

Greece (ed. D. R. Theocharis): 179-200. Ath-ens: Cultural Foundation of National Bank of Greece.

236


2003 Special clay objects: Cylinders, stamp seals, counters, biconoids, and spheres. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 403-419. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 20].

renFrew, c., M. gIMbutas & e. s. elster (eds.)1986 Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village

in Northeast Greece. Vol. 1. Los Angeles: Cot-sen Institute of Archaeology, University of Cal-ifornia [Monumenta Archaeologica, 13].

renFrew, c. & e. slater

2003 Metal artifacts and metallurgy. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 301-322. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Monumenta Archaeologica, 20].

roux, V., b. brIll & g. dIetrIch

1995 Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone-knapping: the case of stone-bead knap-ping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology 27(1): 63-87.

rowlands, M.1993 The role of memory in the transmission of cul-

ture. World Archaeology 25(2): 141-151.rutter, J.2003 Children in Aegean prehistory. In Coming of

Age in Ancient Greece: Images of Childhood from the Classical Past (ed. J. Neils & J. H. Oakley): 30-57. New Haven: Yale University Press.

sackett, J. r.1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: A general

model. American Antiquity 42(3): 369-80.1990 Style and ethnicity in archaeology: The case for

isochrestism. In The Uses of Style in Archaeol-ogy (ed. M. W. Conkey & C. Hastorf): 32-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [New Directions in Archaeology].

schlanger, n.1994 Mindful technology: Unleashing the chaîne

opératoire for an archaeology of mind. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeol-ogy (ed. C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zubrow): 143-151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [New Directions in Archaeology].

séFérIadès, M. l.1995 Le commerce des spondyles de la Mer Égée à la

Manche. Archéologia 309: 42-50.2000 Spondylus Gaederopus: Some observations on

the earliest European long distance exchange system. In Karanovo, Band III: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Hrsg. S. Hiller & V. Nikolov): 423-437. Wien: Phoibos Verlag.

shackleton, J. c.1983 An approach to determining prehistoric shell-

fish collecting patterns. In Animals and Archae-

ology 2: Shell Middens, Fishes and Birds (ed. C. Grigson & J. Clutton-Brock): 77-85. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports [International Series, 183].

1988 Marine Molluscan Remains from Franchthi Cave. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana Uni-versity Press [Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece Series, Fascicle 4].

shackleton, n. J.2003 Preliminary report on the molluscan remains at

Sitagroi. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. Elster & C. Renfrew): 361-368. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Monumenta Archaeo-logica, 20].

sherratt, a.1984 Social evolution: Europe in the Later Neo-

lithic and Copper Ages. In European Social Evolution: Archaeological Perspectives (ed. J. Bintliff): 123-134. Bradford: University of Bradford.

1993 What would a Bronze Age world-system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1(2): 1-57.

souVatZI, s.2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neo-

lithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

stevanović, m.1996 The age of clay: The social dynamics of house

construction. Journal of Anthropological Ar-chaeology 16: 334-395.

stratoulI, g.1998 Knochenartefakte aus dem Neolithikum und

Chalkolithikum Nordgriechenlands. Bonn: Ha-belt [Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes, 32].

strInger, c. & c. gaMble (eds.)1993 In Search of the Neanderthals. London: Thames

& Hudson. taborIn, y.1993 La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique. Paris:

Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique [Gallia Préhistoire Supplément XXIX].

todoroVa, h. & I. VaJsoV

2001 Der kupferzeitlichen Schmuck Bulgariens. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag [Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung XX, Band 6].

trInghaM, r.1991 Households with faces: The challenge of gen-

der in prehistoric architectural remains. In En-gendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (ed. J. M. Gero & M. W. Conkey): 93-131. Ox-ford: Blackwell.

237


tringham, r. & m. stevanović

1990 The nonceramic uses of clay. In Selevac: A Neo-lithic Village in Yugoslavia (ed. R. Tringham & D. Krstić): 323-396. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California [Monu-menta Archaeologica, 15].

trubItt, M. b. d.2003 The production and exchange of marine shell

prestige goods. Journal of Archaeological Re-search 11(3): 243-277.

tsunekI, a.1988 Spondylus shell objects of Neolithic Greece -

Based on the material from Dimini. Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 31(1): 87-115.

1989 The manufacture of Spondylus shell objects at Neolithic Dimini, Greece. Orient 25: 1-21.

Van der leeuw, s.1992 Giving the potter a choice: Conceptual as-

pects of pottery techniques. In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic (ed. P. Lemonnier): 238-288. Routledge: London & New York.

Van genneP, a.1960 The Rites of Passage [translated by M. B. Vize-

dom & G. L. Caffee]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vencl, s.1959 Spondylové šperky v podunajském neolitu. Ar-

cheologické rozhledy XI: 699-742.VIncent, b.2004 The Excavation of Khok Phanom Di. Vol. 6:

The Pottery. London: Society of Antiquaries of London [Research Report, 70].

VItellI, k. d.1993 Power to the potters: Comment on Perlès’ “Sys-

tems of exchange and organization of produc-tion in Neolithic Greece” [JMA 5: 115-164]. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6: 247-257.

wagner, r.1975 The Invention of Culture. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice Hall.whIte, r.1989 Production, complexity and standardization in

Early Aurignacian bead and pendant manufac-ture: Evolutionary implications. In The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Per-spectives (ed. P. Mellars & C. Stringer): 366-390. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

wIllIaMs, s. 1987 An “archae-logy” of Turkana beads. In The

Archaeology of Contextual Meanings (ed. Ian Hodder): 31-38. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

wIllMs, c.1985 Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck: Hundert Jah-

re Forschung. Germania 65(2): 331-343.

yannoulI, e.1997 Dimitra, a Neolithic and Early Bronze Age site

in Northern Greece: The faunal remains. In Neolithiki Makedonia (ed. D. V. Grammenos): 101-127. Athens: Ministry of Culture, Tameio Archaeologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon [Di-mosieumata tou Archaeologikou Deltiou, 56].

ZIlhão, J.2007 The emergence of ornaments and art: An ar-

chaeological perspective on the origins of be-havioral modernity. Journal of Archaeological Research 15(1): 1-54.

ZIlhão, J. et. al.2010 Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral

pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(3): 1023-1028.

Lives and Journeys, of Spondylus and People: A Story to Conclude

Documents

Transcript of Lives and Journeys, of Spondylus and People: A Story to Conclude