Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Prehistoric Survey of Thessaly New Light On The Greek Middle Paleolithic
A Prehistoric Survey of Thessaly New Light On The Greek Middle Paleolithic
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Boston University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
277
CurtisRunnels
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts
a productof Neanderthals who were in contactwith numberof tools, but little information was availableto
anatomically-modern humansbetween43-32 KYA, but placethe industries in timeor to assesstheirsignificance
thisis onlya hypothesis. The Szeletianandrelatedindus- foranunderstanding of Thessalianprehistory (Theocharis
triescouldalso be the productsof anatomical moderns, 1967).Milojcicandhis colleagues(Milojcicet al. 1965)
who areattestedin the Balkansas earlyas 38 KYA (Smith believedthatthe faunalremainsfoundwith the tools in
1982).The evidencefromGreece,however,canbe used the riverindicateda last interglacial age (ca. 125-118
to argueagainstthe latterhypothesis. TheMiddlePaleo- KYA) for the MiddlePaleolithic industry,but it was also
lithicLevallois-Mousterian hasa differentdistributionin clearthatelementswerepresentcharacteristic of the Up-
GreecethanlaterPleistoceneindustriesof Gravettian or per Paleolithicor even laterperiods.No otherfindsof
Epigravettian type, whichbelongprincipally to the last Paleolithic stonetoolsin the PeneiosRiveror otherparts
glacialmaximum andafter,ca.20-13 KYA. TheLevallois- of the Thessalian plainwerereported,andthe pictureof
Mousterian, abundantin lowlandareasnearthe present Paleolithic Thessalyremained incomplete.
shoreline,disappears(on presentevidence)by 30 KYA. Thesurveyin theLarisadistrictwasundertaken in order
LaterPleistocene industriesof UpperPaleolithic typeare to obtaina betteridea of the natureand date of the
rareand areverypatchyin theirdistribution. Theyare Paleolithicin Greece(FIG.1). The purposeof the survey
foundmainlyin Epirus,often at high elevationsin the was to systematically searchthe banksof the Peneios
uplandvalleys(Baileyet al. 1984),in Bocotia,andin the River,theterraces alongtheriver,andotherselectedareas
Argolid(Perles1987).Someareas,suchasThessaly, have in Thessalycontainingdepositsof late Quaternary age
producedno evidellceof laterPleistocene industries. (FIG. 2). The precisesurveyareaswere identified from
In this paper,it is arguedthat the GreekLevallois- geologicalmapspreparedby Demitrack(1986) in the
Mousterian industrymayrepresent a relativelylatemove- courseof hergeologicalinvestigation of thePeneiosRiver
mentof archaicHoznosapiens,presumably Neanderthals, system.In additionto the PeneiosRiver,elevenother
fromCentralandSE Europeinto Greeceafterthe begin- areaswith relictalluvialpaleosols(alluvialfansthathad
ningof the lastglacial.The presenceof bifacialleafpoints not beendestroyedor obscuredby post-Pleistocene ero-
connectstheGreekLevallois-Mousterian withtheBalkan, sionor alluviation) weresearched.
andevenSE European,industries.UpperPaleolithicin- The surveywas carriedout with a fieldtearnof four
dustriesin Greecearelater,andareof a completelydif- personsandemployedmethodsdevelopedfor the semi-
ferentcharacter thanthe Levallois-Mousterian. Thislast aridMediterranean region(RunnelsandvanAndel1987).
factis consistentwith the hypothesisthatthe Levallois- In a fieldseasonof one month,32 findspotswereidenti-
Mousterian wasproducedbyNeanderthals andtheUpper fied (FIG. 2), eachconsistingof a concentration of flints
Paleolithicindustriesby anatomical moderns.The disap- (the principalrawmaterialusedfor tools in Thessalyis
pearanceof the GreekLevallois-Mousterian wouldbe a jasper).A collectionof 211 lithicartifacts wasmade.The
consequence of the disappearanceof the Neanderthals. numberof artifacts is smallbecauseflintsarerareon the
Neanderthals and anatomical modernsmayhavebeen surfacein Thessaly. Thisreportis basedon the analysis of
in Greeceat the sarnetime,butif so theyoccupieddiffer- theseartifacts,andthe analysisof another33 flintsin a
ent territoriesand had differentexploitationstrategies. privatecollectionin Larisathatwasmadebetween1967
GreekMiddlePaleolithic sitesarepredominantly open-air and 1987. Another100 (of 664 flints)from previous
andarefoundat low elevations(FIG. 1). Lateglacialsites, collections(Milojcicet al. 1965; Theocharis1967) and
however,areoftenfoundat higherelevations,almostal- storedin theVolosarchaeological museum(Freund1971)
waysassociatedwith cavesor rockshelters(Baileyet al. wereexamined. Theanalysis of theflintsgivesa reasonably
1983). clearpictureof thenatureof theThessalian industry. The
majorityof the flintscollectedfromthe banksof the Pe-
neiosRiveror fromthe terracesthatborderthe riverare
New Paleolithic Finds in Thessaly Middleor UpperPaleolithictype$.Surfaceflintswere
A reassessmentof the date and characteristics
of the foundin 1987 in otherpartsof the Larisadistrictbut it
GreekLevallois-Mousterianwasthe objectiveof a survey is not certainthattheyareprehistoric.
in Thessalyin 1987. Nothingwasknownaboutthe Pa- The numberof artifactsrecoveredis too smallfor a
leolithicinhabitants
of Thessalyuntilstonetoolsof Paleo- statisticalanalysis.Sincethe tools arefromsurfacesites,
lithictype were discoveredby chancein 1958 eroding the computation of typologicalindices,e.g. the Levallois
fromthe banksof the PeneiosRivernearLarisa(Milojcic index,would not be meaningful.It is best to relyfor
et al. 1965). Chancefindsin the 1960s addedto the interpretation uponthepresence or absenceof typefossils.
15, 1988 279
JournollofFieldArcholeoloflylVol.
'<
w ln
X - t (J
DJUSg
9L
2 == wxM-1
-
-
_ bi X ss FS4&;0
FS3 M II j2)
.
fS32 (iM-3 /
0 2.5
l
KM
eI VE R
-
<-
WoL
of bifacialleafpointsin Greece.
Table1. Distribution
Re,gion Site No. References
Macedonia Palaiokastro 1 Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964
Epirus Kokkinopilos 8 Higgs and Vita-Finzi1966
Morfi 1 Higgs andVita-Finzi1966
Corfu Site 18 1 Sordinas1969
Elis Amalias# 17 1(?) Chavaillon,Chavaillon,and
Hours 1967
Vasilaki 1 Reisch 1982
Southern
Argolid B85 2 Pope, Runnels,and Ku 1984
Thessaly
(Larisa) Peneiosriver 7 Theocharis1967
Greece.
Table2. Relevantdatesfor Paleolithic
Samplenumber A,ge (KIA) Site Reference