AEGAEUM 37Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

PHYSISL’ENVIRONNEMENT NATUREL

ET LA RELATION HOMME-MILIEUDANS LE MONDE ÉGÉEN PROTOHISTORIQUE

Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale,Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA),

11-14 décembre 2012

Edités par Gilles TOUCHAIS,

Robert LAFFINEUR

et Françoise ROUGEMONT

PEETERSLEUVEN - LIEGE

2014

97631_Aegaeum 37 vwk.indd Sec1197631_Aegaeum 37 vwk.indd Sec11 11/12/14 08:2611/12/14 08:26

SOMMAIRE

Préface 11 A. Cadre naturel : Georgia KOURTESSI-PHILIPPAKIS, Local vs exogène ? L’impact du milieu naturel sur la composition des assemblages lithiques néolithiques en Grèce 15 Georgia STRATOULI, Anaya SARPAKI, Maria NTINOU, Eleni KOTJABOPOULOU, Tatiana THEODOROPOULOU, Vasilios MELFOS, Niels H. ANDREASEN, Panagiotis KARKANAS, Dialogues Between Bioarchaeological, Geoarchaeological and Archaeological Data: Approaches to Understanding the Neolithic Use of Drakaina Cave, Kephalonia Island, Western Greece 23 Erika WEIBERG, Timing, Perception and Response. Human Dimensions of Erosion and Sedimentation in the Greek Bronze Age 33 Evangelia STEFANI, Nikos MEROUSIS, Living on the Edge. People and Physis in Prehistoric Imathia, Macedonia, Greece 41 Mimoza SIDIROPOULOU, Eric FOUACHE, Kosmas PAVLOPOULOS, Maria TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Konstantinos VOUVALIDIS, George SYRIDES,Emanuele GRECO, Geomorphological Evolution and Paleoenvironment Reconstruction in the Northeastern Part of Lemnos Island (North Aegean Sea) 49 Thomas F. STRASSER, Anne P. CHAPIN, Geological Formations in the Flotilla Fresco from Akrotiri 57 B. Ressources naturelles : Katerina ATHANASAKI, A Serpentine Quarry-Scape in Gonies, North-Central Crete 67

Gerald CADOGAN, Water Worries and Water Works in Bronze Age Southern Crete 73 Jonathan M. FLOOD, Jeffrey S. SOLES, Water Management in Neopalatial Crete and the Development of the Mediterranean Dry-Season 79 Nagia SGOURITSA, Eleni SALAVOURA, The Exploitation of Inland Natural Resources on an Island Environment: The Case of the Mycenaean Settlement at Lazarides and the South/Southeast Aegina 85

Thomas G. PALAIMA, Harnessing Phusis: The Ideology of Control and Exploitation of the Natural World as Reflected in Terminology in the Linear B Texts Derived from Indo-European *bheh2u- ‘Grow, Arise, Be’ and *h2eg-ro- “The Uncultivated Wild Field’ and Other Roots Related to the Natural Environs 93

6 SOMMAIRE

C. Paysage et climat : Miriam G. CLINTON, Sarah C. MURRAY, Thomas F. TARTARON, Gis in Action: Analyzing an Early Bronze Age Coastal Landscape on the Saronic Gulf 103 Peter PAVÚK, Magda PIENIĄŻEK, Simone RIEHL, Troy and the Troad in the Second Millennium: Changing Patterns in Landscape Use 111 Fritz BLAKOLMER, Meaningful Landscapes: Minoan “Landscape Rooms” and Peak Sanctuaries 121 Vincenzo AMATO, Fausto LONGO, Maria BREDAKI, Amedeo ROSSI, Matthieu GHILARDI, David PSOMIADIS, Maxime COLLEU, Laetitia SINIBALDI, Doriane DELANGHE-SABATIER, François DEMORY, Christophe PETIT, Geoarchaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Researches in the Area of Ancient Phaistos (Crete, Greece): Preliminary Results 129 Christos DOUMAS, Le paysage côtier de la région d’Akrotiri, Théra, avant l’éruption volcanique du Bronze récent 141 Anne P. CHAPIN, Brent DAVIS , Louise A. HITCHCOCK , Emilia BANOU, The Vapheio Tholos Tomb and the Construction of a Symbolic Landscape in Laconia, Greece 145 Athanasia KRAHTOPOULOU, Rena VEROPOULIDOU, Linking Inland and Coastal Records: Landscape and Human Histories in Pieria, Macedonia, Greece 153 Assaf YASUR-LANDAU, Nurith GOSHEN, The Reformed Mountains: Political and Religious Landscapes in the Aegean and the Levant 159 Georgios FERENTINOS, Maria GKIONI, Maria GERAGA, Georgios PAPATHEODOROU, Neanderthal and Anatomically Modern Human Seafarers in the Aegean Archipelago, Mediterranean Sea 165 D. Iconographie : Fragoula GEORMA, Artemis KARNAVA, Irene NIKOLAKOPOULOU, The Natural World and its Representations: A View from Akrotiri, Thera 175

Andreas VLACHOPOULOS, Lefteris ZORZOS, Physis and Techne on Thera: Reconstructing Bronze Age Environment and Land-Use Based on New Evidence from Phytoliths and the Akrotiri Wall-Paintings 183 Elsa PAPATSAROUCHA, Minoan Landscapes: Plant Communities and their Artistic Representations 199 John G. YOUNGER, The “World of People”: Nature and Narrative in Minoan Art 211 Karen Polinger FOSTER, Fur and Feathers in Aegean Art 217 E. Agriculture : Georgia KOTZAMANI, Alexandra LIVARDA, Plant Resource Availability and Management in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Greece 229

SOMMAIRE 7

Harriet BLITZER, Preliminary Notes on Olive Domestication and Cultivation in the Prehistoric Aegean 239 Orestes DECAVALLAS, Plant Oils from Neolithic Aegean Pottery: Chemical Proof of the Exploitation of Oleaginous Plants and the Question of “Early” Oil Production 245 Leonidas VOKOTOPOULOS, Gerhard PLATH, Floyd W. McCOY, The Yield of the Land: Soil Conservation and the Exploitation of Arable Land at Choiromandres, Zakros in the New Palace Period 251 Robert Angus K. SMITH, Mary K. DABNEY, Georgia KOTZAMANI, Alexandra LIVARDA, Georgia TSARTSIDOU, James C. WRIGHT, Plant Use in Mycenaean Mortuary Practice 265 Evi MARGARITIS, Katie DEMAKOPOULOU, Ann-Louise SCHALLIN, The Archaeobotanical Samples from Midea: Agricultural Choices in the Mycenaean Argolid 271 Evi MARGARITIS, Acts of Destruction and Acts of Preservation: Plants in the Ritual Landscape of Prehistoric Greece 279 Petra VAIGLOVA, Florent RIVALS, Amy BOGAARD, Rebecca FRASER, Armelle GARDEISEN, William CAVANAGH, Christopher MEE, Josette RENARD, Angela LAMB, Interpreting Ancient Crop and Animal Management Strategies at Neolithic Kouphovouno, Southern Greece: Results of Integrating Crop and Animal Stable Isotopes and Dental Micro- And Mesowear 287 Jörg WEILHARTNER, The Influence of Aegean Iconography on the Design of the Linear B Logograms for Animals, Plants and Agricultural Products 297 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU, Ernestine S. ELTER, Hunting, Fishing and Gathering at Sitagroi and Beyond: Strategies of Wild Resource Use in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age 305 F. Ressources animales : Pietro MILITELLO, Wool Production in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean 317 Stavroula APOSTOLAKOU, Philip BETANCOURT, Thomas BROGAN, Dimitra MYLONA, Chrysa SOFIANOU, Tritons Revisited 325 Alexandra KARETSOU, Robert B. KOEHL, The Minoan Mastiffs of Juktas 333 Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA, Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete 341 Anna Lucia D’AGATA, Sara DE ANGELIS, Minoan Beehives. Reconstructing the Practice of Beekeeping in Bronze Age Crete 349 Tatiana THEODOROPOULOU, Excavating the Sea: Recent Advances in Marine Zooarchaeology of the Prehistoric Aegean 359

8 SOMMAIRE

Nancy R. THOMAS, A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age 375 Ruth PALMER, Managing the Wild: Deer and Agrimia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean 391 Cyrille RIEAU, Armelle GARDEISEN, Florent RIVALS, Alimentation des troupeaux durant l’âge du Bronze à travers l’analyse des micro-usures dentaires, les exemples d’Angelohori et Archontiko (Macédoine, Grèce) 401 Aurélien CREUZIEUX, Armelle GARDEISEN, Evangelia STEFANI, L’exploitation du monde animal en Grèce septentrionale durant le Bronze récent : l’exemple d’Angelochori 409 Rena VEROPOULIDOU, Molluscan Exploitation in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Communities at the Former Thermaic Gulf, North Aegean 415 G. Peuplement et population : Pascal DARCQUE, Haïdo KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, Dimitra MALAMIDOU,Zoï TSIRTSONI, Laurent LESPEZ, Cécile GERMAIN-VALLÉE, The Impact of Environmental Changes on the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash (Northern Greece) 425 Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA, Dario PUGLISI, Frédéric BENDALI, Settlement Pattern Dynamics and Natural Resources in MM-LM I Crete: The Case of Malia 431 Gert Jan VAN WIJNGAARDEN, Pavlos AVRAMIDIS, Nikolaos KONTOPOULOS, Dealing with Extreme Dynamics. Prehistoric Landscapes of Zakynthos 441 Michael L. GALATY, William A. PARKINSON, Daniel J. PULLEN, Rebecca M. SEIFRIED, Mycenaean -Scapes: Geography, Political Economy, and the Eastern Mediterranean World-System 449 H. Posters : Marcus J. BAJEMA, Mycenaean Snail-Lovers? 457 Dora CONSTANTINIDIS, Physis and Space: Aegean Bronze Age Depictions and their Architectural Context 459 Janice L. CROWLEY, Images of the Earth in Aegean Art 465 Mary K. DABNEY, Representations of Fig Cultivation in Aegean Art 469 Bryan FEUER, Environmental Aspects of the Northern Mycenaean Border in Thessaly 473 Walter L. FRIEDRICH, Annette HØJEN SØRENSEN, Samson KATSIPIS, Santorini Before the Minoan Eruption: The Ship Fresco from Akrotiri - A Geological and Archaeological Approach 475 Mercourios GEORGIADIS, The Physical Environment and the Beliefs at Leska, a New Peak Sanctuary on Kythera 481

SOMMAIRE 9

Effie GEMI-IORDANOU, The Meaning of Flowers: Symbolism and Interpretation of Flower Iconography in Minoan Art 485 Angelos GKOTSINAS, Angeliki KARATHANOU, Maria-Fotini PAPAKONSTANTINOU,Georgios SYRIDES, Konstantinos VOUVALIDIS, Approaching Human Activity and Interaction with the Natural Environment Through the Archaeobotanical and Zooarchaeological Remains from Middle Helladic Agia Paraskevi, Central Greece 487 Bernice R. JONES, Revisiting the Figures and Landscapes on the Frescoes at Hagia Triada 493 Dimitra KRIGA, Flora and Fauna Iconography on Strainers and Kymbai at Akrotiri: Theran Ceramic Vessels of Special Use and Special Iconography 499 Florence LIARD, Mineral Resources, Potting Techniques and Social Identities in Late Bronze Age Sissi, Crete 505 Stefanos LIGKOVANLIS, The Exploitation of the Thesprotian Wetlands (NW Greece) During the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic; Different Hominins yet ‘Similar’ Strategies? Reflections from the Material World 509 Joanne M.A. MURPHY, The Wealth of Nature and the Nature of Wealth: Aspects of Pylian Ideologies 513 Heleni PALAIOLOGOU, Water Management, Climatic, Social Changes and Agriculture in the Plain of Mycenae during the 13th C. B.C. and Later: The Case of Chania 517 Christina PAPOULIA, Confronting the Sea: Navigation Skills in Pre-Modern Human Societies 521 Vassilis P. PETRAKIS, The Religious Significance of Insects in the Aegean Bronze Age: Three Notes 525 Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Oreste DECAVALLAS,Armelle GARDEISEN, Matthieu GHILARDI, Evi MARGARITIS, Odysseas METAXASSevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Efi TSIOLAKI, Environnement, alimentation, hygiène et mode de vie dans la Grèce mésohelladique : le cas de l’Aspis d’Argos 531 Maria ROUSSAKI, New Evidence in Minoan Pictorial Wall Painting: ‘The Swallows Fresco’ from the Knossos Area 539 Alessandro SANAVIA, How to Improve on Nature: Some Middle Minoan Triton Shells from Phaistos (Crete) 543 Robert SCHON, The Political Ecology of the Pylian State 547 Andrew SHAPLAND, After Naturalism: Human-Animal Relations in LMII-III Crete 555

10 SOMMAIRE

Giorgos VAVOURANAKIS, The Changing Significance of Nature within Minoan Society 559 I. En guise de conclusion ... Thomas G. PALAIMA, The Linear-B-Inscribed Triton PAR Ph 2012 and its Lessons about Phusis 563

HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING AT SITAGROI AND BEYOND: STRATEGIES OF WILD RESOURCE USE IN THE NEOLITHIC

AND EARLY BRONZE AGE*

Introduction

Men, women and children hunt and gather purposefully, their activities involving not only the practical aspect of resource procurement but also cognitive and cultural aspects: perceptions of the natural world, decision making, cooperating, sharing, socializing, learning traditions, creating material culture and surrounding it with symbolic value1. These latter aspects are of additional interest when hunting and gathering is practiced in the context of an agricultural economy wherein there seems to be no primary biological-economic need to pursue these activities.

In this paper we discuss prehistoric agriculturalists in the Northern Aegean who, however, were consistently occupied with gathering and hunting as well. We find shell ornaments and implements, impressions of mat reeds on pot bases, paleo-botanical evidence for collecting wild fruits, nuts, and seeds, remains of wild animal, fish and shellfish in the faunal record, plus tools fashioned of wild animal bone. All of the above constitute material evidence for age-old ways of life and economies that existed long before the Neolithic, grew new roots into the process(es) of Neolithization2 and continued through the Early Bronze Age and beyond.

We focus on Sitagroi in the Drama plain of East Macedonia, a key site ON the map of prehistoric Northern Greece (Pl. LXXXVIIIa). The tell, located close to the Angitis River, was formed over the course of some 3000 years spanning the Middle Neolithic through Early Bronze Age.3 Excavation between 1968 and 1970 was conceived and carried out in the scientific spirit of New Archaeology, which indeed it spearheaded in Aegean prehistory. The key research goal to “further the understanding of relationships between material culture and environment in the plain of Drama and more widely in the Balkans”,4 was materialized in methods of fieldwork, recording and analysis, innovative for the times, and the ensuing synthesis of the data in two

* We are indebted to Dr. Dimitra Malamidou and the Dikili Tash research team, for sharing with us information on their recent finds from the Late Neolithic House 1 at the site.

Abbreviations used are as follows: ΑΕΜΘ = Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη; Cooking up the Past = Ch. MEE and J. RENARD (eds.), Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean (2007); Sitagroi 1 = C. RENFREW, M. GIMBUTAS and E.S. ELSTER (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece Vol. 1, Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Institute of Archaeology, UCLA (1986); Sitagroi 2 = E.S. ELSTER and C. RENFREW (eds.), Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968- 1970 Vol. 2: The Final Report, Monumenta Archaeologica 20. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA(2003); Spondylus in Prehistory = F. IFANTIDIS and M. NIKOLAIDOU (eds.), Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data and Approaches. Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies (2011);1 T. INGOLD, “Notes on the Foraging Mode of Production,” in T. INGOLD, D. RICHLEY and J. WOODBURN

(eds.), Hunters and Gatherers I: History, Evolution and Social Change (1988) 269-285; D. KAUFMAN, “Hunter-Gatherers of the Levantine Epipaleolithic: The Socioeconomic Origins of Sedentism,” JMA 5/2 (1992) 165-201; C. PANTER-BRICH, R.H. LAYTON and P. ROWLEY-CONWY (eds.), Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (1985); T.D. PRICE and J.A. BROWN (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity (1985).

2 See C. PERLÈS, The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe (2001).3 Sitagroi Phases I-V: C. RENFREW, “The Sitagroi Sequence,” in Sitagroi 1, 172, table 7.1 Phase Duration (BC) Period I 5500-5200 Middle Neolithic II 5200-4600 Late Neolithic III 4600-3500 Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic IV 3500-3100 Early Bronze Age Va,Vb 3100-2200 Early Bronze Age4 C. RENFREW, “Development of the Project,” in Sitagroi 1 15.

306 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU and Ernestine S. ELSTER

volumes of publication.5 Many more, important sites have been investigated since Sitagroi was excavated and published, and our re-examination draws upon this wealth of comparanda as well. We are now compelled to reconfigure the Neolithic mode of life; an existence not confined in the traditional archaeological model of sedentary farming and herding, but spreading into a wide network of engagement with both the domesticated and the wild environment.

The ecological world of Sitagroi: tastes for the wild

This was in essence an agricultural world with activities which inform our ideas about the men, women, and children who planted, herded, cooked, built houses, established households, manufactured tools and goods, traded, socialized, nurtured babies. And interspersed with this way of life, time was taken for gathering, collecting, foraging, and hunting. Indeed, some of the most innovative finds from Sitagroi, which then revolutionized prehistoric research in the region, belong to the realm of the “wild”:

1. Early, possibly local domestication of the grape (Early Bronze Age), along with and perhaps even simultaneous use of wild grape since the Middle Neolithic.6 The presence of wild grape in the region has also been confirmed in Late Neolithic levels AT Dimitra and Dikili Tash. 7 The latter site has recently produced remrkable in situ evidence for the early processing of grapes, for wine-pressing or other juice-extraction.8

2. Mat impressions made from reeds and a unique cloth impression from the Middle Neolithic, presumably woven of wild flax.9

3. Fishing for the marine mollusk Spondylus gaederopus, documented since the Middle Neolithic for the manufacture of ornaments which were favored for local use and circulated further north into the Balkans.10 This fascinating evidence for long-distance trade of coveted items in the European Neolithic has been continuously revisited ever since the pioneering sourcing studies of Shackleton and Renfrew in the 1970s indicated the Aegean origin of shell ornaments recovered from Sitagroi and elsewhere.11

5 Sitagroi 1 and Sitagroi 2.6 J.M. RENFREW, “Grains, Seeds, and Fruits from Prehistoric Sitagroi,” in Sitagroi 2, 13-14, figs. 1.3-1.5; 25,

table 1.19. 7 Ibid., 26 table 1.20 8 P. DARCQUE, Ch. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, D. MALAMIDOU, Z. TSIRTSONI, and S.-M.

VALAMOTI, “Στιγμιότυπα από τις ποικίλες δράσεις ενός νεολιθικού νοικοκυριού: Η «Οικία 1» του Ντικιλί Τας,” paper presented at ΑΕΜΘ, 26η Επιστημονική Συνάντηση Θεσσαλονίκη, 20-22 Μαρτίου 2013 (in press).

9 J.M. ADOVASIO and J.S. ILLINGWORTH, “Basketry and Textile Impressions,” in Sitagroi 2, 252-257.10 M.A. MILLER, “Technical Aspects of Ornament Production at Sitagroi,” in ELSTER and RENFREW

(supra n. 5) 369-382; M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Items of Adornment,” in Sitagroi 2, 331-360; N. SHACKLETON, “Preliminary Report on the Molluscan Remains at Sitagroi,” in Sitagroi 2, 361-368.

11 N. SHACKLETON and C. RENFREW, “Neolithic Trade Routes Realigned by Oxygen Isotope Analyses,” Nature 228 (1970) 1062-1065; C. RENFREW, “Trade and Craft Specialisation,” in D. THEOCHARIS (ed.), Neolithic Greece (1973) 179-200.

Later studies include, among many others, B. BAJNÓCZI, G. SCHÖLL-BARNA, N. KALICZ, Z. SIKLÓSI, G.H. HOURMOUZIADIS, F. IFANTIDIS, A. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, M. PAPPA, R. VEROPOULIDOU, and Ch. ZIOTA, “Tracing the Source of Late Neolithic Spondylus Shell Ornaments by Stable Isotope Geochemistry and Cathodoluminescence Microscopy,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40/2 (2013) 874-882 ; V. DIMITRIJEVIÇ and B. TRIPKOVIÇ, “Spondylus and Glycymeris Bracelets: Trade Reflections at Neolithic Vinča-Belo Brdo,” Documenta Praehistorica 33 (2006) 237-252; H.J. GREENFIELD, “A Kula Ring in Prehistoric Europe? A Consideration of Local and Interregional Exchange During the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans,” in S. A. GREGG (ed.), Between Bands and States (1991) 287-308; P. HALSTEAD, “Spondylus Shell Ornaments from Late Neolithic Dimini, Greece: Specialized Manufacture or Unequal Accumulation?,” Antiquity 67 (1993) 603-609; Spondylus in Prehistory; M.-L. SÉFÉRIADÈS, “Spondylus Gaederopus: The Earliest European Long Distance Exchange System. A Symbolic and Structural Approach to Neolithic Societies,” Documenta Praehistorica 22 (1995) 238-256; IDEM, “Spondylus and Long-Distance Trade in Prehistoric Europe,” in D. ANTONY and J. CHI (eds.), The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC (2009) 178-191; J. SHACKLETON and H. ELDERFIELD, “Strontium Isotope Dating of the Source of Neolithic European Spondylus Shell Artifacts,” Antiquity 64 (1990) 312-315; C. WILLMS, “Neolithischer Spondylus-Schmuck: Hundert Jahre Forschung,“ Germania 63/2 (1985) 331-343.

HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING AT SITAGROI AND BEYOND 307

The excavated remains of wild resources (Pl. LXXXVII) point to a multitude of natural environments explored, both in the vicinity of the village and further afield. The site was located to exploit many different eco-zones within the Drama plain (Pl. LXXXVIIIb) ranging from mountain forest to rolling hill country, fertile plains, river banks and marshland, and coast, within a radius of a few kilometers up to 25-30 km distant.12 The Sitagroi villagers took full advantage of this situation in what would amount to short walking outings, daytrips, or longer travels that may have lasted days, involving more effort and risk.

Thus, the mountain forests offered timber, fuel, and meaty game such as deer, chamois, badger, the furry brown bear and wolf plus acorns, hazelnuts, and wild cherries. The wetlands, rivers and marshes, were the habitat of the wild swine, fallow deer, beaver, freshwater mollusk and fish,13 and fowl. Also available were reeds for basketry and the flax –valuable not only as fiber but for the medicinal and culinary value of its oily seeds as well.14 Although flax has not been identified at Sitagroi itself, it was found at Middle Neolithic Arkadikos Dramas close by.15 The plain, meadows and rolling hills provided fruit trees (fig, pistachio, almond, and grape) and the habitat of hare, fox, and turtle. The Aegean coast was the locale to fish, dive and/or comb for attractive shells.16 The excavated shells, bone, antler, seeds represent only the preserved portion of this ecological cornucopia. But we can also imagine a whole treasury of other prized resources, including skin, furs, feathers, herbs, honey, wax,17 and others that have perished. And, of course favored meat, fruit, and juices provided by wild species.

In quantitative terms, the nutritional importance of hunted and harvested foods appears peripheral to the villagers’ main diet of domesticated staples. However, we still need to explore further the reasons for consistently, albeit differentially, seeking comestibles from the wild: were they a regular, even if seasonally restricted, dietary supplement? Or did they serve only as an emergency alternative to failed crops or dwindling livestock? People were certainly aware of the nutritional value packed in foods such as acorns18 or molluscs,19 which they systematically sought for millennia all over Northern Greece. Beyond sustenance considerations, were social and symbolic factors involved as well –or predominantly so? For example, the “exotic”

12 D.A. DAVIDSON, “Geomorphological Studies,” in Sitagroi 1, 25-40. Wild fauna: S. BÖKÖNYI, “Faunal Remains,” in Sitagroi 1, 63-132. Wild vegetation: RENFREW (supra n. 6) 1-28. Shells: SHACKLETON (supra n. 10). Fibers, basketry and textiles: ADOVASIO and ILLINGWORTH (supra n. 9) 252-257; E.S. ELSTER, “Tools of the Spinner, Weaver, and Mat Maker,” in Sitagroi 2, 229-251.

13 Quantities of the riverine mollusk Unio pictorum were recovered at Sitagroi (N. SHACKLETON [supra n. 10]). The importance of aquatic zones for prehistoric habitation has been brought into special focus by the ongoing excavations at the lake settlement of Dispilio Kastorias, West Macedonia: T. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ, “Ο άνθρωπος και η λίμνη: Ψαράδες και ψαρέματα στο προϊστορικό Δισπηλιό,” Ανάσκαμμα 2 (2008) 25-45; Ε. ΒΗΚΑ, “Παλαιοδιατροφή: Η ανάλυση των σταθερών ισοτόπων στην αρχαιολογία,” Ανάσκαμμα 6 (2013) 39-48.

14 S.-M. VALAMOTI, “Food Across Borders: A Consideration of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Archaeobotanical Evidence from Northern Greece,” in I. GALANAKI, H. TOMAS, Y. GALANAKIS, and R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference, Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005, Aegaeum 27 (2007) 281-292.

15 RENFREW (supra n. 6) Table 1.1916 SHACKLETON ([supra n. 10] Table 9.1.1) noted minimal interest in the sea during the earliest horizons

of occupation at Sitagroi (phase I), and very few fish bones were recovered among the faunal remains (BÖKÖNYI [supra n. 12]). This scant picture, however, may be partly due to recovery contingencies, namely the partial application of water-sieving in certain excavated units only (C. RENFREW, “The Excavated Areas,” in Sitagroi 1, 175-222). Indeed, those Neolithic layers that were water-sieved proved quite productive in shellfish fragments (SHACKLETON [supra n. 10] 361,Table 9.1.2), among other small residue and artifacts (M. NIKOLAIDOU and E.S. ELSTER, “Contextual Commentary, Phases I-V,” in Sitagroi 2, 453-456). The study of marine fauna has progressed substantially since the investigations at Sitagroi, and the available data now amply document the dietary importance of the sea in prehistoric Macedonia since the Early Neolithic: T. THEODOROPOULOU, L’exploitation des ressources aquatiques en Égée septentrionale aux périodes pré- et protohistoriques (2007); Ρ. ΒΕΡΟΠΟΥΛΙΔΟΥ, Όστρεα από τους οικισμούς του Θερμαϊκού Κόλπου: Ανασυνθέτοντας την κατανάλωση των μαλακίων στη Νεολιθική και την Εποχή Χαλκού (2011).

17 O. DECAVALLAS, “Beeswax in Neolithic Perforated Sherds from the Northern Aegean: New Economic and Functional Implications,” in Ch. MEE and J. RENARD (eds.), Cooking up the Past, 148-157.

18 RENFREW (supra n. 6) 619 ΒΕΡΟΠΟΥΛΙΔΟΥ (supra n. 16)

308 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU and Ernestine S. ELSTER

flavor of a rare delicacy? The pride of the hunter bringing back prized game fit for a feast? The prestige attached to a substance because of its limited availability and/or difficulty of processing? The established value of local specialties, traditionally consumed for generations and thus forming part of people’s identity and link to their place? The special power attached to medicinal and/or unfamiliar ingredients, in the hands of a knowledgeable cook, healer, or crafter? Pioneering research at Sitagroi already hinted at such possibilities which have since been increasingly brought into focus through more systematicwork on paleo-environment, diet and cuisine.20

Within and beyond the Drama plain, the settlers must have conducted a thriving trade in wild resources and other perishable goods. Perhaps each settlement specialized in certain goods --consumable,21 material and/or spiritual, all exchangeable for other desirable commodities from around the Aegean and the Balkans.22 The most evident archaeologically at Sitagroi are lithics, graphite, shell and metals,23 but ideas, skills (such as the special firing of graphite painted pottery), partners, would all play a role.24 Some offerings now lost to us would have included textiles, “wild” raw materials and foods--all exotic , desirable, difficult to obtain and/or process, and perhaps circulating under special conditions, for example as bridal wealth.25

The networks of communication spread in many directions, with villagers participating by both giving and receiving during transactions for procurement, affiliation and knowledge. Technical “specialists” of ceramics, grape cultivation and metallurgy would interact with other crafters, traders, explorers and prospectors, engaging in negotiation, display, teaching and learning.26 Mythical and ritual goods (such as figurines or specially decorated ceramics27) reflect other actors --healers, shamans, social leaders-, and activities including socializing, ceremony, spiritual interaction.28

20 Cooking up the Past; P. HALSTEAD and J . BARRETT (eds), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5 (2004)

21 E. Yannouli has proposed the trading of meat for other goods, such as shell ornaments, between Dimitra and neighboring communities in the Drama plain: E. YANNOULI, “Dimitra, a Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in Northern Greece: The Faunal Remains,” in D. GRAMMENOS (ed.), Νεολιθική Μακεδονία, Μέρος Ι. Δήμητρα: Προϊστορικός οικισμός κοντά στις Σέρρες. Η ανασκαφή των ετών 1978, 1979, 1980 (1997) 101-127.

22 C. PERLÈS, “Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece,” JMA 5/2 (1992) 115–164.

23 Lithics: S. DIMITRIADIS and K. SKOURTOPOULOU, “Petrographic Examination of Chipped Stone Materials,” in Sitagroi 2, 127-132; “J. DIXON, “Lithic Petrology,” in Sitagroi 2, 346-380; R.TRINGHAM, “Flaked Stone,” in Sitagroi 2, 222-327. Graphite: E. GARDNER, “Graphite-Painted Pottery,” in Sitagroi 2, 794-798; C. RENFREW, “Note on the Occurrence of Graphite-Painted Surface Decoration,” in Sitagroi 2, 799-801. Shell: NIKOLAIDOU (supra n. 10). Metals: C. RENFREW and E. SLATER, “Metal Objects,” in Sitagroi 2, 850-861; Z.A. STOS, “Origin of Metals from Sitagroi as Determined by Lead-Isotope Analysis,” in Sitagroi 2, 869-884.

24 Cf. C. PERLÈS and K.D. VITELLI , “ Craft Specialisation in the Neolithic of Greece,” in P. HALSTEAD (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (1999) 96- 107.

25 M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Ornament Production and Use at Sitagroi, Northeast Greece: Symbolic and Social Implications of an Early Bronze Age Technology,” in R. LAFFINEUR and P.P. BETANCOURT (eds.), TECHNE. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference/6e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16 (1997) 177–196; VALAMOTI (supra n.14) 288-289.

26 E.S. ELSTER, “Odysseys Before Homer: Trade, Travel , and Adventure in Prehistoric Greece,” in S. MORRIS and R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), EPOS. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Aegaeum 28 (2007) 193-201; A. SHERRATT, “ Social Evolution: Europe in the Later Neolithic and Copper Ages,” in J. BINTLIFF (ed.), European Social Evolution: Archaeological Perspectives (1984) 123-134; IDEM, “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 (1993) 1-57.

27 E.S. ELSTER, “Tripods, Plastic Vessels, and Stands: A Fragmentary Collection of Social Ceramics,” in Sitagroi 1, 304-334; M. GIMBUTAS, “Mythical Imagery of the Sitagroi Society,” in Sitagroi 1, 225-301.

28 Cf. M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Ritualised Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic? The Crafts of Adornment,” in. E. KYRIAKIDIS (ed.), The Archaeology of Ritual (2007)183-208.

HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING AT SITAGROI AND BEYOND 309

Materials of choice: shell and bone

Among the hunted and collected animal materials, two stand out for their strong presence among archaeological artifacts: shell and bone, shaped and worked into ornaments, tools and implements. In these we observe interesting behavioral choices of form and functionality, across space and time.

Ornamental Shell

The inhabitants at Sitagroi have not left behind evidence for strong interest in the abundance of seafood available at the Aegean coast, about 25 kms away;29 on the contrary, they were purposefully seeking certain species for their ornamental value as beads, pendants, bangles/anulets, and plaques. The marine shells of choice were, interestingly, those more difficult to obtain: Spondylus gaederopus, which has to be pried live from rocks deep underwater and large Glycymeris that lives buried deep in sandy beds.30 Although both species boast a tasty flesh, this aspect was apparently ignored, not only at Sitagroi but in most other Neolithic sites. Empty, unworked valves do occur at times and could represent food remains, however tangible evidence for culinary consumption of Spondylus comes principally from the Bronze Age and further south in the Aegean.31

The predilection for the ornamental use of these two species, despite differences in their respective treatment, is indeed a defining feature of the Neolithic technologies of adornment both within the Drama plain and all over Northern Greece.32 Not only was acquisition of marine bivalves an involved procedure but the profound transformation of the thick Spondylus shell into bangles/anulets and beads also required technical expertise, patience and hard work.33 The labour invested in procurement and crafting, coupled with the attractive, exotic qualities of the shell, undoubtedly account for its remarkable popularity as an ornament of choice in the Aegean and European Neolithic.34 Workshops have been documented and inferred at Sitagroi,35 Dimitra,36 Dikili Tash,37 Paradeisos,38 Makrygialos,39 Dispilio,40 Dimini,41 all important centres of manufacture and regional/interregional circulation. In the Middle

29 Or, perhaps, even closer in prehistoric times, the present distance resulting from later alluvial deposition in the plain (L. KARALI, “Parure en coquillage du site de Dimitra en Macédoine protohistorique,” in R. LAFFINEUR and L. BASCH [eds.], THALASSA. L’ Égée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième rencontre égéenne internationale de l’ Université de Liège, 23–25 avril 1990, Aegaeum 7 [1991] 321).

30 Supra n. 10.31 R. VEROPOULIDOU, “Spondylus Gaederopus Tools and Meals in Central Greece from the 3rd to the early 1st

millennium BCE,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 191-208.32 F. IFANTIDIS , “Cosmos in Fragments: Spondylus and Glycymeris Adornment at Neolithic Dispilio, Greece,”

in Spondylus in Prehistory, 123-137; T. THEODOROPOULOU, “Spondylus Gaederopus in Aegean Prehistory: Deciphering Shapes from Northern Greece,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 93-104; ΒΕΡΟΠΟΥΛΙΔΟΥ (supra n. 16).

33 MILLER (supra n. 10); A.TSUNEKI, “The Manufacture of Spondylus Shell Objects at Neolithic Dimini, Greece,” Orient XXV (1989) 1-21.

34 J.C. CHAPMAN, B.I. GAYDARSKA, E. SKAFIDA, and S. SOUVATZI, “Personhood and the Life Cycle of Spondylus Rings: An Example from Late Neolithic, Greece,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 139-160; M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Lives and Journeys, of Spondylus and People: A Story to Conclude,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 223-237.

35 MILLER (supra n. 10) Table 9.2.1.36 L. KARALI-YANNACOPOULOS, “Dimitra, matériel malacologique,” in GRAMMENOS (supra n. 21) 200-

211.37 EADEM, “La parure,” In R. TREUIL (ed.), Dikili Tash: Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I (1992)

159–164.38 D. REESE, “Marine and Fresh-Water Mollusks,” in P. HELLSTRÖM (ed.), Paradeisos: A Late Neolithic Settlement

in Aegean Thrace (1987) 9-39. 39 M. PAPPA and R. VEROPOULIDOU, “The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Evidence

from the Spondylus Gaederopus Artifacts,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 105-121.40 Φ. ΥΦΑΝΤΙΔΗΣ, Τα Κοσμήματα του Νεολιθικού οικισμού του Δισπηλιού Καστοριάς: Παραγωγή και xρήση μίας

“αισθητικής εργαλειοθήκης” (2006)41 TSUNEKI (supra n. 33).

310 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU and Ernestine S. ELSTER

and Late Neolithic Phases I, II Spondylus and Glycymeris were used interchangeably at Sitagroi for the technically demanding bangles/anulets, whereas in the Final Neolithic (Phase III) the stronger, chromatically appealing Spondylus is the shell of choice for this ornament,42 with smaller Glycymeris preferred for simple perforated pendants and beads.43 Beads were also conveniently made of Dentalia, a popular shell with a long, hollow shape lending itself ideally to effortless stringing.44

Among the repertoire of shell pendants, most were simply perforated natural forms or even pieces with handy, naturally-caused holes.45 A few, more intricate shapes include Murex rings,46 and large perforated discs cut from thick Spondylus;47 these latter rather more useful as garment fasteners -perhaps a larger version of the well-known “buttons”48. Indeed, we know a variety of Spondylus artifacts that were possibly used as costume accessories in the Aegean and further north: heavy or elaborately-shaped beads, many buttons, and belt buckles: attractive attachments but also powerful signifiers of value and, likely, prestige.49

On the contrary, utilitarian items made of Spondylus feature less frequently, although in a wide range of forms including containers (“spoons” or “plates”), tools (scrapers, burnishers, percussion implements), spools, and possibly a perforated seal.50

Shell form and functionality in space and time Of the “functional” shell, useful for food and implements, Unio pictorum is the dominant

edible species, indeed the only shellfish whose consumption is attested at Sitagroi.51 This freshwater mollusk, abundant in the Angitis river close to the settlement, was ignored for ornaments but was occasionally worked around the edges,52 and in one case it became a convenient container for red ochre, a pigment decorating figurines and presumably also useful for body or textile painting.53

Mytilus, the Mediterranean mussel with its natural triangular form, offered an ideal basic shape for triangular sharp tools (Pl. LXXXIXa), which may have been used, among other things, as little palettes or knives to decorate ceramics.54 Interestingly, most of these worked triangles date from phase II, the repertoire of which features incised pots, figurines, and the distinctive small tripods or stands55.

Along the temporal dimension, it is worth noting the increased quantities of Unio among the residue of phase IV, the very same period that sees dramatic increase in the quantities of acorns and, among the faunal remains, taxa from wild game. The culinary tastes of the times may perhaps be sensed in the remains of a “soup” containing acorns, cockle shells56 and

42 MILLER (supra n. 10) Table 9.2.243 M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Catalog of Items of Adornment,” in Sitagroi 2, 383-401. 44 NIKOLAIDOU (supra n. 10) Tables 9.4, 9.5, Plate 9.13.45 Ibid. Table 9.246 Ibid. Plate 9.2347 Ibid. Plate 9.2448 N. ΚΥΠΑΡΙΣΣΗ-ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΙΚΑ, Τα Προϊστορικά Κοσμήματα της Θεσσαλίας (2001).49 N. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, “Spondylus Objects from Theopetra Cave, Greece: Imported or Local

Production?,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 161-167; S. SIKLÓSI and P. CSENGERI, “Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin,” in Spondylus in Prehistory, 47-62; THEODOROPOULOU (supra n. 32) 98-99.

50 Comparanda and references: THEODOROPOULOU (supra n. 32); VEROPOULIDOU (supra n. 31).51 SHACKLETON (supra n. 10)52 N. SHACKLETON, “Catalog of Worked Shell,” in Sitagroi 2, 366-368. Compare Dispilio: Ρ. ΒΕΡΟΠΟΥΛΙΔΟΥ

and Φ. ΥΦΑΝΤΙΔΗΣ, “Unio pictorum vs. Spondylus gaederopus: Όστρεα και οστρέινα κοσμήματα από το Δισπηλιό,” ΑΕΜΘ 18 (2004) 669-686.

53 NIKOLAIDOU (supra n. 10) 360, note 15; SHACKLETON (supra n. 10) 357 and Plate 9.1.1.54 SHACKLETON (supra n. 10), Tables 9.1.1- 9.1.3; IDEM (supra n. 52).55 ELSTER and GIMBUTAS (supra n. 27); J.M. KEIGHLEY, “The Pottery of Phases I and II,” in Sitagroi 1, 345-

392.56 Cockles (Cerastoderma C. edule) have been identified as the principal marine shellfood in prehistoric

Macedonia: ΒΕΡΟΠΟΥΛΙΔΟΥ (supra n. 16).

HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING AT SITAGROI AND BEYOND 311

Polygonum seeds, all found together in a pot from a house of Phase IV.57 Two other pots were recovered with large samples of grains still identifiable within, close to a cluster of acorns in a depression.58

The culinary apparatus: food, tools, containers

Changes in dietary preferences over time, documented in the paleobotanical record,59 are indeed reflected in novelties of the cuisine apparatus in the Early Bronze Age: new, standardised types of querns,60 elaborate cooking installations,61 specialized implements such as the “oven stoppers”,62 and a whole new repertoire of ceramics63 dominated by coarse wares appropriate for storage, transport, cooking, and serving: large jars, deep pots suitable for holding sizable quantities of food, deep handled bowls, ladles, jugs, plus individual-sized cups. These forms range from dry- and liquid-goods containers of large capacity to medium- and small-sized vessels suited to the serving and consumption of liquids and drinks: stews, wine, fruit juices, blood, medicinal brews, and of course milk from the domesticated woolly sheep. On the other hand, we see a marked decrease of finely decorated ceramics from the onset of the Early Bronze Age onwards.

Looking back at the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, with their predominance of small to medium-sized pots, high percentage of fine wares, and open shapes best suited for presentation, display, or group tasting -along with cooking and food-preparing vessels,64 we can perhaps appreciate the fact that the few mat/basket impressions at Sitagroi come from exactly these horizons of occupation. Basketry and cordage, devices already in use since the “string revolution”65 of the Paleolithic, possibly fulfilled many of Neolithic folks’ needs for transportation, storage, cooking, and handling of large quantities of food. Lugs and holes prepared for strings or cords appear on pots during the entire Sitagroi sequence.

The complementarity of pottery and basketry is well illustrated by the impressive finds of the Late Neolithic House 1 at Dikili Tash:66 among the plethora of materials recovered in situ on the preserved floor and shelving, clusters of wild pears were stored in what appears to have been a basket and in a large jar. Other pots included high concentrations of grape seeds, acorns, and grains.

57 A. SHERRATT, “The Pottery of Phases IV and V: The Early Bronze Age,” in Sitagroi 1, 429-476, fig. 13.25:7,12; NIKOLAIDOU and ELSTER (supra n. 16) 462.

58 RENFREW (supra n. 16) 210-212.59 Sitagroi and comparanda: RENFREW (supra n. 6); VALAMOTI (supra n. 14); EADEM, “Traditional Foods

and Culinary Novelties in Neolithic and Bronze Age Northern Greece: an Overview of the Archaeobotanical Evidence,” in Cooking up the Past, 89-108.

60 M. BISKOWSKI, “Supplementary Report on the Sitagroi Groundstone Tools,” in ELSTER and RENFREW (supra n. 5) 480-507.

61 Sitagroi: E.S. ELSTER, “Construction and Use of the Early Bronze Age Burnt House at Sitagroi: Craft and Technology,” in LAFFINEUR and BETANCOURT (supra n. 25) 19–36; Archontiko: A. PAPAEFTHYMIOU, A. PILALI, and E. PAPADOPOULOU, “Les installations culinaires dans un village du Bronze Ancien en Grèce du nord : Archontiko Giannitson,” in MEE and RENARD (supra n. 17) 136-147.

62 E.S. ELSTER and M. NIKOLAIDOU, “Paralipomena and Other Plastic Forms,” in Sitagroi 2, 421, 449, Plates 11.7-11.8.

63 SHERRATT (supra n. 57) 448-510. Compare M. NIKOLAIDOU, N. MEROUSIS, A. PAPAEFTHYMIOU, and A. PAPASTERIOU, “From Measure to Context in Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Mandalon, Northwest Greece: The Example of Ceramics,” in K.P. FOSTER and R. LAFINEUR (eds) METRON. Measuring the Aegaean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 24 (2003) 317-326; Σ. ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ, Η μετάβαση από τη Νεολιθική στην Εποχή του Χαλκού στην Ανατολική Μακεδονία. Η κεραμική διαφοροποίηση (2002).

64 R.K. EVANS, “The Pottery of Phase III,” in RENFREW et al. (supra n. 3) 393-428; KEIGHLEY (supra n. 55). Compare A. KALOGIROU, Production and Consumption of Pottery in Kitrini Limni, West Macedonia, Greece, 4500 B.C.-3500 B.C (1994); M. NIKOLAIDOU, N. MEROUSIS, A. PAPAEFTHYMIOU, and A. PAPASTERIOU, “From Measure to Context in Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Mandalon, Northwest Greece: The Example of Ceramics,” in K. P. FOSTER and R. LAFINEUR (eds) METRON. Measuring the Aegaean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 24 (2003) 317-326; Ντ. ΟΥΡΕΜ-ΚΩΤΣΟΥ, Νεολιθική Κεραμική του Μακρυγιάλου: Διατροφικές Συνήθειες και Κοινωνικές Διαστάσεις της Κεραμικής (2006).

65 E. BARBER, Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years (1994).66 DARCQUE et al. (supra n. 8).

312 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU and Ernestine S. ELSTER

Worked bone and antler

Despite the changing ratios of wild to domestic fauna in the archaeozoological record of Sitagroi,67 there is consistent choice of antler for tools throughout the sequence.68 Antler, valued for the sturdy and workable qualities that lend themselves to a wide range of tool forms, would most easily be collected in the forest after it was shed.69 However, the morphology of many tools at Sitagroi indicates that the material came from the hunted animal, presumably carried back as prized trophy. The repertoire of worked antler points to a variety of crafting and processing tasks with materials as diverse as hide, fiber, wool, wood, soft stone and more. Of particular interest are the shaft –holed types, described as mattocks or other digging or hammering implements (Pl. LXXXIXb). Among the antler tools these are perhaps the most demanding to manufacture and form into part of a composite artifact. There are not many such utensils at Sitagroi, but they do cluster around the Neolithic and Chalcolithic,70 a phenomenon which calls for further exploration.

Neolithic specialties also include a few other elaborately carved pieces of antler and bone from phases I and II.71 Some of these probably represent the shaft or handles of pans and other similar utensils, in which case they can be compared to the involved shapes and decorations characteristic of contemporary ceramic vessels.72 Indeed, all these extraordinary pieces harmonize with the pervasive preference for formal (and probably also semantic) elaboration that distinguishes the material culture of the Neolithic.73

Materials in Context

We end on a contextual note, with two assemblages rich in both wild and “domesticated” material representing, respectively, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age life-ways.

Phase II Layer ZA 52, all water sieved, exposed postholes of a house floor.74 Flotation provided a sample of more than 900 seeds representing cereals (most important), pulses, and a few wild fruit (cherry, pistachio, almonds, grapes) ; faunal recovery included skeletal parts of caprovids (6), cattle (3), and pig (4). An impressive number of small artifacts were retrieved such as shell and stone ornaments, worked shell (Mytilus, Unio), chipped stone, figurines and models, small counters, as was also high-quality pottery, axes and stone grinders, and worked bone. Many categories of evidence seem interlinked.75 The processing stone tools and (sickle?) blades partner with the rich botanical record. Faunal remains and items of worked bone belong to the same species; bone items of various forms might have been used in the working of hides and processing of other parts from those same killed animals. Stone and bone implements with sharp points (including a Mytilus triangle), relatively well represented, may have produced the perforated ornaments and incised figurines, social ceramics, and plaque-handle. Scrapers, borers, querns and rubbers may also have been tools for ornament manufacture, in addition to their use as food processors.

The Bin Complex of phase Vb76 features a rich exposure of large clay plastered bins associated with patchy remains of flooring, postholes, hearth, a processing platform, and pits. Although domestic in nature, this area was not clearly associated with a single structure; rather, the various bins possibly belonged to several now-perished houses. Thus, our focus shifts from

67 BÖKÖNYI (supra n. 12).68 E.S. ELSTER, “Artifacts and Tools of Bone,” in Sitagroi 2, 67-124.69 A.M. CHOYKE, “Bronze Age Red Deer: Case Studies from the Great Hungarian Plain,” in P. ANREITER,

L. BARTOSIEWICZ, E. JEREM, and W. MEID (eds.), Man and the Animal World: Studies in Archaeozoology , Archaeology, Anthropology, and Palaeolinguistics, in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi (1998) 157-178.

70 E. S. ELSTER, “Worked Bone Catalog,” in Sitagroi 2, 125-221.71 ELSTER (supra n. 68) figs. 2.7, 2.18, Plates 2.5, 2.15, 2.16.72 KEIGHLEY (supra n. 55) 347,375: fig. 11.6.73 Cf. I. HODDER, The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in the Neolithic (1990).74 RENFREW (supra n. 16) 178, fig..2.75 NIKOLAIDOU and ELSTER (supra n. 16) 455.76 RENFREW (supra n. 16) 187-188, 192, 194, figs. 8.5, 8.8.

HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING AT SITAGROI AND BEYOND 313

the individual household to the neighborhood and village community. The bins and hearths suggest practices of food storage, preparation, production and consumption encompassing more than one household; communal meals and feasting are attractive possibilities. This idea seems supported by the large numbers of organic remains, including 175 elements of domestic and wild fauna and more than twenty botanical samples many of which consist of hundreds or thousands of seeds, acorns and fruit pips. Indicative are also the groupings of artifacts associated with the above activities: bowls, drinking cups, jars or urns with big lids, chipped stone blades, axes and various ground stone processors. Recorded artifacts number 245 and illuminate multiple aspects of life: farming, food processing, tool-making, crafts (notably weaving and metallurgy), trade (axes made of likely non-local raw materials in PO 7, 8; QO 8, 9; QN 7,8), adornment and fashion (a mace head), and hospitality (reflected in the cups and a decorated jar ). If more than one family participated in the facilities of the Bin Complex (as is implied by the structural features) it would be interesting to consider the elements of visibility, collaboration, or competition involved in the performance of activities.

Concluding Thoughts

The material value of certain “wild” species in trade and exchange, and the enjoyment of hunting and collecting expeditions partly account for the consistent engagement of prehistoric farmers with the undomesticated environment, as outlined in this paper. But parallel to such obvious motivations, reasons for hunting and gathering in the agricultural communities of the prehistoric Northern Aegean may also be fruitfully sought in the social and symbolic spheres. Research has progressed dramatically in this region since Sitagroi, our focal site, was first investigated;77 recent finds, new mrthods of analysis and innovative models of thinking have added considerable time depth78 and breath of interpretative scope; indeed they call for a redefinition of what is understood as the “Neolithic mode of life”.

During the last decade alone, archaeological work in Macedonia compels us to re-write the prehistory of the area, in narratives more complex and nuanced than ever imagined before. In this rapid course we keep returning to the engagement of prehistoric cultures with their physis; an engagement charmingly evoked by the animal figures79 of the Sitagroi past, and dynamically recalled by the archaeological advances of the present.

Marianna NIKOLAIDOUErnestine S. ELSTER

77 S. ANDREOU, M. FOTIADIS, and K. KOTSAKIS, “The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece,” in T. CULLEN (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review (2001); Contributions in 1912-2012: A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia, International Conference, Thessaloniki, 22-24 November 2012 (in press).

78 Recent coring at Dikili Tash indicates occupation already in the Early Neolithic, a find unprecedented in East Macedonia: L. LESPEZ, Z. TSIRTSONI, P. DARCQUE, Ch. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, D. MALAMIDOU, R. TREUIL, R. DAVIDSON, G. KOURTESSI-PHILIPPAKIS, and Ch. OBERLIN, “The Lowest Levels at DikiliTash, Northern Greece: A Missing Link in the Early Neolithic of Europe,” Antiquity 87 (2013) 30-45.

79 An Early Bronze Age stone mace head in the form of lion head: E.S. ELSTER, “Grindstones, Polished Edge Tools, and Other Stone Artifacts,” in Sitagroi 2, Plate 5.42); and the many clay animal figurines; GIMBUTAS (supra n. 27) 261,figs. 9.75-78, 284-289, pl. XXV.

314 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU and Ernestine S. ELSTER

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pl. LXXXVII Wild plants and animals excavated at Sitagroi. Compiled after BÖKÖNYI, in Sitagroi 1; RENFREW, MILLER and SHACKLETON in Sitagroi 2.

Pl. LXXXVIIIa Map of Northern Greece with Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites, including those mentioned in the text. Adapted from THEODOROPOULOU (supra n. 32) 94, Fig. 1. Pl. LXXXVIIIb Ecological map of the Drama Plain with prehistoric sites in the region, Sitagroi and

Dikili Tash highlighted. Adapted from DAVIDSON, in Sitagroi 1, 27, Fig. 3.2).Pl. LXXXIXa Worked Mytilus valves. Phase I-III. Reproduced from SHACKLETON, in Sitagroi 2,

Plate 9.1.4.Pl. LXXXIXb Shaft-holed antler tool; red deer, fork segment. Phase III. Reproduced from ELSTER, in Sitagroi 2, 49, Fig. 2.17, Plate 2.14.

LXXXVII

LXXXVIII

b

a

LXXXIX

b

a