5 Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece Paul Halstead Prior Assumptions: Subsistence and Settlement in Neolithic Greece On available evidence, the inception of food production took place rapidly in the fertile lowlands of eastern Greece in the seventh mil- Iennium Bc, with no evidence from excavated sites to suggest that foraging for wild plants and animals played a significant part in subsis- tence (Halstead 1996). There is some dispute as to whether crop cultivation took the form of dry-land horticulture or flood-water farming (van Andel and Runnells 1995), but the latter strategy will have been impracticable over large parts of the settled Neolithic landscape for simple reasons of topography (Wilkie and Savina 1997; Perlés this volume). Either way, mortality data for sheep, the commonest domestic animal, suggest management accord- ing to a relatively unproductive ‘meat’ strategy and thus imply that cereal and pulse crops tather than livestock were the dietary main- stays (Halstead 1989a). The possibility cannot excluded, however, that herding or foraging, ined small, mobile groups, occupying tlived and hitherto unrecognized sites of archaeological visibility. has been argued that early Neolithic settle- is in Thessaly were not sedentary (i.e. year-round), partly because of the rel- insubstantial nature of some houses, because some early levels are rather thin, | partly because some sites were located in active flood plains (Whittle 1996: 17-20; van Andel, Zangger and Demitrack 1995). All three arguments are open to attack. The insubstantial nature of some Greek Neolithic houses is no more proof of seasonal occupation than is the presence of big houses in central Europe proof of sedentism (Whittle 1997: 18). Thin early lev- els may be a product of the insubstantial nature of early houses: suggested pit-houses or post- frame huts in EN levels at Argissa, Sesklo, Soufli, Pirasos, Prodromos 1-2 and Achilleion in Thessaly (Sinos 1971: 7-10; Theocharis 1959; 1973: 35; Milojcic 19% lourmouziadis 1972; Winn and Shimabuku 1989) and at Dendra in the Peloponnese (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1992) will have contributed less to the build-up of deposits than collapsed mudbrick houses. As for sites on floodplains, it has not yet been demonstrated whether flooding took place annually or at much longer intervals (van Andel, Zangger and Demitrack 1995) and, by the same logic, future archaeologists would be entitled to conclude that many modern European cities were only occupied seasonally. More direct evidence for the degree of seden- tism of these Neolithic communities is sparse, because the rarity of remains of seasonally available wild plants and animals makes it extremely difficult to demonstrate particular seasons of occupation. Domesticates are less useful as seasonal indicators, partly because livestock and stored crops are potentially avail- able year-round and partly because of the rela-78 Paul Halstead tive rarity of very young deaths to which a pre- cise age (and thus season) can be assigned. Caches of cereal or pulse grain are now wide- ly reported from open settlements of all peri- ods of the Neolithic and Bronze Age, including the Thessalian sites of Argissa (EN, EB, MB), Dimini (LN), Marmariani (MB), Pevkakia (FN, MB), Pirasos (LN), Prodromos (EN), Rakhmani (FN), Sesklo (EN, LN, FN), Tsani (MB) and Platia Magoula Zarkou (MN, EB, MB) (cf. Halstead 1994: 204-205 table 1). Unless import- ed from further afield, these finds imply a human presence in early summer for harvest- ing, probably in early winter for sowing (cf. Hillman 1981: 147-8) and possibly through winter and spring to guard and tend the grow- ing crops. Again in Thessaly, a human presence during the late summer-winter half of the year is also implied by sheep or goat mandibles with worn first molar and unworn second molar at EN Prodromos (Halstead and Jones 1980), LN Agia Sofia (von den Driesch and Enderle 1976), LN Dimini (Halstead 1992a), and EB and MB Pevkakia (Jordan 1975; Amberger 1979). Occupation of the same sites during late winter to early summer is implied by less frequent finds of younger sheep/ goats, pigs or cattle. Occupation at least during late winter-early spring is also implied by neonatal sheep/goat remains from MN, LN and EB Platia Magoula Zarkou (Becker 1991), one of the sites reported by van Andel, Zangger and Demitrack (1995) as subject to flooding at that time of year. Though inconclusive, the avail- able evidence is certainly consistent with year round occupation and there is no indication of complementary seasonal occupations at differ- ent sites. Moreover, the broad similarity in fau- nal and floral evidence from EN and later sites is most economically interpreted as a fragmen- tary record of comparable, year-round patterns of occupation. While recognizing that some of these issues may be open to debate, the following discus- sion provisionally assumes that most known Neolithic open settlements in Greece were occupied year-round most of the time and that the subsistence of their inhabitants was based primarily on rain-fed cereal and pulse crops. Neolithic Society: Scales of Analysis The farming populations of Neolithic Greece invite analysis at a number of complementary spatial and social scales, from the world sys- tem to the individual. The world system is reflected in, for example, the appearance of Melian obsidian on inland sites in northern Greece (e.g. Perlés 1990) or the distribution of Spondylus shell bracelets from the Aegean across central Europe (Shackleton and Renfrew 1970). At this scale, both the large distances involved and the often large diver- gences in material culture between ‘donor’ and ‘recipient’ regions suggest that such objects were passed along a chain of exchang- ing parties, ultimately travelling much farther than did any individual human participants in the chain. Over distances of perhaps 50-200 km, more or less coherent regional societies are character- ized by a largely shared material culture (eg. French 1972; Washburn 1983; Cullen 1984; Rondiri 1985). Some of this homogeneity of material culture reflects the physical move~ ment of fine decorated pottery (e.g. Schneider et al. 1991), but stylistic similarities in locally produced pottery perhaps indicate a signifi- cant level of direct social contact between individuals from distant settlements. These regional cultures bear no obvious relationship to the procurement of raw materials, many of which are acquired either very locally or from outside the region (e.g. Perlés 1990, 1992; Skourtopoulou this volume). They may repre- sent intermarrying populations, but in at leastNeighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 79 some cases are spatially far more extensive than necessary for demographic viability (cf. Wobst 1974): for example, a viable breeding population of c. 500 head could have been found among the inhabitants of as few as two to ten village communities, located in the case of EN Thessaly only a few kilometres apart (Perlés this volume). Archaeologically, the local residential commu- nity is often unambiguous. The settlement record of central and northern Greece is char- acterized by discrete ‘sites’, in some cases bounded by a ditch or wall or mortuary area (Kotsakis this volume; Pappa and Besios this volume). Estimates of population size are notoriously hazardous, but it is likely that the inhabitants of compact ‘tell’ villages num- bered between a few score and a few hundred (eg. Halstead 1981) and so were in regular face-to-face contact with each other; in other words they will have constituted a local com- munity in social as well as archaeological terms. The flat-extended settlements pose even greater problems for the demographer of the Neolithic, but arguably represent a com- munity of different form rather than radically different size (Andreou and Kotsakis 1986; Pappa 1990; Pappa and Besios this volume; Kotsakis this volume). In parts of southern Greece, however, settlements are often small, perhaps too small for certain manpower requirements (cf. Broodbank 1989), and the local community may effectively have com- prised a group of neighbouring sites (cf. Branigan this volume). Of the most basic unit, the individual, rela- tively little can be inferred. Human skeletal remains are scarce and, in the large assem- blage from Makriyalos, are often disarticulat- ed and scattered. This latter tendency, while severely limiting skeletal insights into gender- or age-related variation in diet and health, is significant in suggesting that the individual was, after death, subsumed within a larger community of ancestors (Triantaphyllou this volume). This paper is devoted to the contentious scale of analysis intermediate between the local residential community and the individ- ual: the household. Emerging Properties: the Greek Neolithic Household Thearchitectural remains of Neolithic open set- tlements in Greece are dominated by rectangu- lar buildings, including both free-standing ‘houses’ and small clusters of adjoining ‘rooms’. Four lines of argument favour the identification of these houses and room clus- ters as household residences. First, Neolithic buildings in Greece vary greatly in both size and method of construction even within single settlements (e.g. Tsountas 1908; Theocharis 1973), implying, that house type is not merely a reflection of locally available building materi- als, but rather an expression of the way in which Neolithic village communities were structured. The existence of house models also suggests that the social significance of these buildings was actively appreciated by their inhabitants (Toufexis 1996). Secondly, although detailed inventories of house contents are rare, two rapidly abandoned free-standing, houses at MN Tsangli in Thessaly contained a broad tool kit (Wace and Thompson 1912), consistent with a social group of mixed age and sex carrying, outa wide range of tasks. Burnt MN houses at Servia were evidently used for crop storage (Ridley and Wardle 1979) and such structures often house food-processing facilities, although these also occur in the open spaces between houses (e.g. Theocharis 1980; Milojeic 1955: 168; Winn and Shimabuku 1989). Thus some free- standing buildings may individually have housed groups of mixed composition and pro- vided a physical focus for storage and, less80 Paul Halstead exclusively, for consumption; such a household unit is arguably represented by the house model apparently placed as a foundation offer- ing at LN Platia Magoula Zarkou (Gallis 1985). Conversely, at MN Sesklo B, where the open yard areas between rooms were cluttered with facilities and small outhouses, it is possible that groups of adjoining rooms comprised a house- hold unit, although no clear functional distinc- tions were apparent in room contents (Theocharis 1971; 1980; Kotsakis 1981; this vol- ume). Thirdly, most free-standing structures range between c. 20 mand c. 70m in floor area (eg, Sinos 1971; Theocharis 1973), suggesting occupation by some sort of family group, rather than by one or two individuals (cf. Flannery 1972). Room clusters might fall with- in the same size range, depending on which rooms are together deemed to comprise a basic residential unit. Fourthly, this interpretation of rectangular houses and room clusters as repre- senting family households is now reinforced by the contrasting evidence from the newly exca- vated, flat-extended settlement at Makriyalos. Here most dwellings took the form of a round hut of floor area less than 20 m:, suggesting the possibility of occupation by only one or two individuals (cf. Flannery 1972), while there are some indications that different huts were devoted to residence and storage (Pappa and Besios this volume). Because of the scarcity of detailed and reli- able data on the spatial and temporal associa- tion between buildings, fixed facilities and portable finds, the size and composition of Neolithic households is open to debate, as is the range of functions assumed by this elusive domestic unit. In particular, the possibility that basic domestic units were sometimes comprised of groups of buildings complicates the tasks of recognizing and interpreting a Neolithic household. It has been argued else- where (Halstead 1995; also Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 1996: 559) that this ambiguity is meaningful and that the architectural isola- tion of the household took place in Greece gradually over the four millennia of the Neolithic: 1. In EN-MN village communities, the walling off of the household within rectan- gular buildings was partly transcended by the widespread location of cooking facili ties in the open spaces between buildings (e.g. EN Achilleion, MN Otzaki). Food preparation seems to have taken place both indoors and outdoors, suggesting that the consumption of cooked food may have been a more public affair than the storage of uncooked food (cf. Sahlins 1974: 125). The cultural value placed on hospi- tality is arguably projected in the invest- ment of time and skill in production of fine ceramic vessels for eating, drinking and perhaps smoking (Vitelli 1989), while the manufacture of such vessels with flat bases, implying that they were literally ‘table ware’ (Sherratt 1991), further emphasizes the formality of some acts of commensality. 2. In LN Thessaly, the subdivision of the vi- lage community by walls or ditches into ‘domestic areas’ or ‘courtyard groups’, con- taining both indoor and outdoor cooking facilities (e.g, LN Dimini [Hourmouziadis 1979), perhaps tended to restrict sharing to immediate neighbours. The shift in deco- rated pottery from continuous design fields to bounded panels mirrors the segmenta- tion of village settlements and, perhaps fan- cifully, might be taken to symbolize the less inclusive nature of LN hospitality. 3. Onsome FN-EB settlements, external cook- ing facilities are enclosed within yard walls (e.g. EB Argissa [Milojeic 1976: pl. E2]; EB Pevkakia [Milojcic 1972: pl. 2]) or ‘kitchen extensions’ (e.g. EB Sitagroi [Renfrew 1970), thus restricting the public pressuresNeighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 81 on sharing between households—perhaps to the modest levels familiar in our own society. Fine decorated table ware is now rare, perhaps indicating that hospitality was less strongly prescribed or was restrict- ed to social contexts in which scarce metal vessels may have been used. ‘The empirical flimsiness of this model was noted forcefully by some Round Table partici- pants, and it must be acknowledged that it represents an impressionistic and optimistic attempt to see pattern in a patchy data set. It should also be stressed that, as with so many aspects of early Greek prehistory, the model is very biased to north Greek, and especially Thessalian, data. Finally, the extent to which this developmental scheme represents an absolute, universal or unidirectional chrono- logical trend should not be exaggerated. For example, LN Makriyalos, with its concentra- tions of small dwelling huts and separate stor- age huts, might logically be placed before stage (1), but laxity with absolute chronology can be defended on the grounds that such flat- extended sites were eventually replaced in central Macedonia by tell villages with rectan- gular houses. The remainder of this paper eschews further consideration of the architectural definition or social composition of the Neolithic household. Instead it focuses on the significance of the emerging household and, more generally, on the potential of ‘practical’ and ‘cultural’ rea- soning (Sahlins 1976) for interpreting this aspect of the Greek Neolithic archaeological record. Practical and Cultural Approaches to the Neolithic Household Architectural evidence broadly similar to that from Neolithic Greece has been interpreted in two fundamentally different ways by Flannery and Hodder, Flannery (1972) noted that rectangular houses, appropriate in size and contents for a family unit, are characteris- tic of early farming settlements in both the Near East and Mesoamerica, despite contrast- ing pre-agricultural patterns of residence. He argued that this convergence reflected the practical advantages, within a delayed return farming economy, of isolating a family group as the basic unit of production and consump- tion: a household workforce consumed its own produce and so had a powerful incentive to increase production. By contrast, in com- munities not subdivided into households, the obligation to share would have been a power- ful disincentive to labour for delayed returns and so a potentially fatal threat to achieving subsistence (see also Ingold 1980: 159). The walling off of the Neolithic household was thus the material expression of an ideology of hoarding, as opposed to sharing. This argu- ment receives support from the cross-cultural observation that farmers and storing foragers live in less crowded settlements than sharing foragers, presumably because distance facili- tates hoarding while proximity aids ‘scroung- ing’ (Fletcher 1981; Whitelaw 1983). In this context, it should be noted that, in suggesting that the ‘domestic mode of production’ (roughly equivalent to the Neolithic house- hold economy) is underproductive, Sahlins (1974) was drawing a contrast with societies in which leaders can increase household pro- ductivity, and not with societies subject to an ideology of sharing. A rather different, cultural approach to essentially the same archaeological evidence (in this case, from the Near East, Balkans and central Europe) is provided by Hodder’s (1990) argument that Neolithic material cul- ture, with its emphasis on houses, hearths and female figurines, represents a structured way of thinking about the world, with roots in the82 Paul Halstead preceding Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods. This domus principle, which was opposed to the agrios with its outdoor associa- tions (male, hunting, exchange, etc.), served as a metaphor for the domestication of both nature (the taming of crops and livestock) and society (sedentism and the appearance of vil- lage communities). One advantage of the domus model, over Flannery’s practical rea- soning, is that it focuses attention on the house, which is materially evident in the archaeological record, rather than the house- hold, which is a social unit inferred with some difficulty and controversy. Hodder’s model also has the appeal of apparently accounting for more of Neolithic material culture—fig- urines, decorated pottery, miniature chairs and tables, as well as houses, hearths, cooking, facilities and storage pits—than does Flan- nery’s more narrowly focused model. On the debit side, while many of the oppositions in Hodder’s model (male-female, inside-out- side, wild-tame) are plausible enough as structuring principles underpinning aspects of Neolithic material culture, their integration into an overarching domus ideology is not jus- tified either theoretically or by convincing empirical demonstration of recurrent associa- tion. For example, in the context of Greek Neolithic material culture, there is no demon- strable symbolic linkage between indoors and female: figurines seem to lack clear contextual associations (Hourmouziadis 1973) and the iconography of figurines seated in chairs sug- gests, if anything, that males were linked to house interiors rather than to the uneven sur- faces of the great outdoors (Marangou 1992, 1996). Moreover, the linkage between the domus concept and the domestication of crops and livestock is, as Hodder himself acknowl- edges, no more than a pun, which would evaporate if the Greek term oikos were used in place of the Latin domus (Hodder 1990: 275). Finally, counter to the argument that social domestication subjects the individual to the collective will of the wider social group, the symbolic emphasis on the house arguably defines a household unit that shelters the indi- vidual from the wider village community. At worst, the domus model imposes on surviving Neolithic material culture a highly general- ized structure, which has no heuristic value for exploring temporal or spatial differences in how this structure is expressed. Whilst accepting Hodder’s basic con- tentions that the material culture of the Neolithic is meaningfully structured and that it symbolically expresses important concems in Neolithic social life, it is proposed that this symbolism must be interpreted in a more com textualized fashion. To this end, the focus now returns to the Greek Neolithic and attempts 10 combine the practical and cultural reasoning of Flannery and Hodder (an’approach advor cated, if not practised, in Hodder’s [1998] reconsideration of the domus model). The Greek Neolithic House(hold) in Co Flannery’s argument that Neolithic house wall off a basic family unit of production an consumption is consistent with the enigma traces of Greek Neolithic architecture with the sparse evidence for crop st Such domestic segmentation is likely to hat household and between the hot the wider community. First, in a delayed return and storing omy, household heads will have control both the labour of other ho members and, as the source of future lal the reproductive potential of adult members (Barnard and Woodburn 19 19). These concerns are perhaps mé through the apparent emphasis in urines on female fertility and nutritiNeighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 83 being (Marangou 1996). The intramural burial of human infants in LN houses at Dimini (Hourmouziadis 1978; Halstead 1992a) also perhaps emphasizes the role of house walls in defining household membership (cf Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 1996: 548) as well as in marking out intramurally stored produce as private property. The decoration evident on some house models perhaps reflects the role of these walls as not merely physical, but also symbolic, boundaries and barriers. Secondly, the walling off of the family household will have isolated a unit too small to be economically or socially viable. At cer- tain points in the domestic cycle, and in times of illness or premature death, individual households will certainly have lacked key members of the labour force—perhaps an adult woman for digging or a young boy for herding or someone ritually suitable for slaughtering an animal. As in modern Greek villages (Petropoulos 1943-44), mutual assis- tance between neighbours and kin doubtless mitigated such problems, and it is likely that hospitality played an important role both in defining those with an obligation to assist and in appropriately rewarding those who did (cf. Richards 1939). In delayed-return societies (including, our own), the tension between the right and need to store and the obligation to offer hospitality is eased by the convention that uncooked food is private property, while cooked food is subject to greater obligations to share. That this same opposition prevailed in Neolithic Greek villages is suggested by the extramural location, discussed above, of many cooking facilities, while the formality of at least some such hospitality was apparently underlined by the use of fine, decorated table ware. Such vessels, if interpreted here correct- ly, represented the transfer of food resources from domestic storage into a public arena of consumption. The significance of this trans- formation may have been symbolized in the identical decorative schemes shared by some house models and fine vessels (Theocharis 1973: pls. 8, 11, 33; Toufexis 1996: 161). Ingold has argued that domestication is less an issue of animal and plant management techniques than of property relations (Ingold 1980: 86-87, 158-65), established through incorporation of domestic animals as members of human households (Ingold 1980: 82; 1996: 21). In this context, it is perhaps significant that animals, for the most part interpreted as domestic (Toufexis 1994), are commonly rep- resented in Greek Neolithic figurines—along- side human figures, house models and furn ture. Unlike their wild counterparts, domesti- cates belong to someone (Ingold 1986: 113) and, as such, are subject to much more restricted and context-specific obligations of sharing (Ingold 1980: 172-76). This raises the possibility that the suggested Neolithic dialec- tics between public/cooked and private/raw might also have been played out in the differ- ential use of wild and domestic resources. Certainly, in modern Greece, where groups of men hunt together primarily for reasons of male bonding rather than because of a practi- cal need for cooperative action, the catch is far more likely to be shared or consumed collec- tively than is the product of collaborative agri- cultural labour. If likewise, in Neolithic Greece, wild ani- mals and plants were more subject to an oblig- ation of sharing than their domestic counter- parts, this might have discouraged hunting and gathering, or at any rate the bringing of hunted and gathered food back to the village for consumption. In immediate-return hunt- ing societies, the disincentive of obligatory, generalized sharing is offset by the according of prestige to the successful hunter (Ingold 1980: 158-61), but storage upsets this balance and, among delayed-return hunters, sharing tends to follow kinship links and to incur84 Paul Halstead debts of reciprocation (Barnard and Woodburn 1991: 18). In Neolithic Greece, therefore, if households were seeking to hoard resources either for domestic consumption or for acts of hospitality that created a reciprocal debt (below), a generalized obligation to share wild resources, albeit rewarded by temporary prestige, would have been a disincentive to bring wild resources into the public arena of the village. Moreover, this disincentive would have been greater for the relatively ‘perme- able’ households with cooking facilities set in open courtyards, which are characteristic of EN-MN villages, than for the more thorough- ly isolated households enclosed within pri- vate yards, which are found in some FN and EB villages. Proportions of wild and domestic fauna are not directly comparable between archaeologi- cal sites, partly because of differences in local habitat (and hence in the opportunities for both hunting and herding) and partly because of differences in standards of bone retrieval during excavation and in post-excavation methods of faunal identification and quantifi- cation. These problems can be minimized, however, by comparing assemblages of differ- ent date within multi-period sites, thus hold- ing local habitat and archaeological methodol- ogy relatively constant. Table 5.1 explores the relative abundance of domestic and wild ani- mals in multi-period, Neolithic and Bronze Age open settlements from mainland Greece (excluding birds, fish, reptiles and molluscs, because these are particularly vulnerable to partial retrieval). To minimize problems of statistical reliability, only site-period assem- blages of at least 500 identified specimens (cf. van der Veen and Fieller 1982) are included in Table 5.1. Comparison of the Thessalian assemblages from EN and EB Argissa, LN and EB Platia Magoula Zarkou, and FN and EB Pevkakia demonstrates the marked increase in wild fauna, previously noted between the Neolithic and Bronze Age in this region by von den Driesch (1987). The available evi- dence is too sparse and patchy to determine whether the relative importance of hunting was already increasing in the Late Neolithic. Outside Thessaly, a gradual increase in wild fauna is apparent from the MN to LB at Lerna, in southern Greece, and from the LN to EB at Sitagroi, in northern Greece. The multi-period sites of EN-MN Achilleion, in Thessaly, and MB-LB Kastanas, in northern Greece, do not span the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition, but include appropriately low and high propor- tions, respectively, of wild fauna. This general increase in the relative impor- tance of hunting might be interpreted in a number of ways. First, it might be argued that it reflects growing availability of game, if clear- ance by farmers had created a richer mosaic of open grazing land and wooded refuges. It has been claimed that LN-EB landscape degrada- tion is widely apparent in the geoarchaeologi- cal record (van Andel, Zangger and Demi- track 1990), but there is no clear palynological evidence of clearance until the later Bronze Age (Bottema 1982), and anyway, given regional differences in both climate and settle- ment history, it seems likely that the pace and scale of clearance would have been variable. Moreover, for red deer (Cerous elaphus), the wild animal most abundant in the faunal assemblages, a more open landscape would have favoured larger herds (Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1988). Larger groups would in turn have led to intensified competition between rutting males and so, other things being equal, should have led to increasing body size, as mating was dominated by the larger males. At Pevkakia on the coast of Thessaly, however, the size of red deer declined between the end of the Neolithic and beginning of the Bronze Age, suggesting that, if anything, its habitat worsened through time (Amberger 1979; von den Driesch 1987: 17-19).Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 85 Table 5.1. The contribution of wild animals to mammalian faunal assemblages from multi-period open settlements in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece.* No. of identified specimens Assemblage Domestic Wild % Wild Achilleion EN 2282 162 66 MN 5094 185 35 Platia Magoula Zarkou MN 874 39 45 LN 1070 56 50 EB 3528 405 103 Argissa EN 2182 4 15 EB 522 131 20.1 MB 2040 312 133 Pevkakia LN 505 19 36 FN 5253 413 73 EB 7070 1049 29 MB 10731 2814 208 LB 1553 207 118 Lemna a MN 563 19 33 (HI) EB 4769 261 52 (Vv) MB 4474 359 74 (EVID LB 1082 ” 82 Sitagroi ID LN 7574 351 44 (a) EN 12018 939 72 (VV) EB 12090 u72 88 Kastanas (2.21) MB 44 9% 185 (19-11) LB 6405 4938 BS ‘Sources: Achilleion—Bokényi 1989; Argissa, Pevkakia—von den Driesch 1987; Platia Magoula Zarkou—Becker 1991; Lerna—Gejvall 1969; Sitagroi—Bokonyi 1986; Kastanas—Becker 1986, * Only individual site-period assemblages of at least 500 identified specimens (excluding remains of fish, birds, rep- tiles and molluscs) are tabulated. Secondly, the introduction of the horse dur- ing the Bronze Age may have improved the effectiveness of hunting and also made it eas- ier for hunters to transport large carcases to the village, but this would not account for the increasing frequency of wild animal bones at some sites (Lerna, Pevkakia) during the later Neolithic. Moreover, red deer is represented by a wide range of body parts at LN Dimini (Halstead 1992a: 34, table 1a), EB Platia Magoula Zarkou (Becker 1991: 56-57, table 2), EB and MB Argissa (Boessneck 1962: 65-70, tables 8-13), EB and MB Pevkakia (Amberger 1979: 106-107, table 24) and EB, MB and LB Lerna (Gejvall 1969: 44, table 30), The number of bones of wild animals from earlier assem-86 Paul Halstead blages is too few for detailed anatomical analysis, but there is no evidence that red deer were more likely to be transported as whole carcases after the introduction of the horse. Finally, although both faunal and architec- tural evidence is too sparse to allow direct comparison of the two data sets, the increased frequency of wild animals in EB assemblages may be related to the relative isolation of the Bronze Age household compared to its Neolithic predecessor. By contrast, according to the domus model, the proportion of wild animals should arguably have been lowest in MN or LN, when domestic symbolism was most elaborated, and relatively high in both EN and EB. Following the household isolation model, wild animals could either have been avoided by earlier Neolithic farmers or have been hunted and consumed off-site. The latter interpretation might be favoured if antler and skins with attached foot bones were removed from kills and brought back to the settlement as raw materials, but, as noted above, the ear- lier assemblages contain too few bones of wild animals to sustain such anatomical analysis. The evidence for wild plant use is more dif- ficult to quantify meaningfully, and, in forag- ing societies, gathered plant foods and small animals are less subject to sharing than large animals (Whitelaw 1983). Archaeobotanical finds on open settlements of caches of fruits and nuts, however, represent plant foods brought back to the village, not for immediate consumption but to be stored for later use. The frequency of fruits and nuts relative to similar finds of cereal and pulse crops increas- es through time in much the same way as do the remains of hunted larger animals (Halstead 1994: 204-205, table 1), but the sam- ple size is small. Moreover, there is ambiguity as to when, where and if various of these fruit and nut species were domesticated (e.g. Smith and Jones 1990; Mangafa and Kotsakis 1996), but textual evidence indicates cultivation of vine and fig, at least, by the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Palmer 1994). Nonetheless, it is intrigu- ing to note that caches of acorns, which are usually regarded as gathered rather than cul- tivated, are so far reported only from Bronze Age contexts. Thus the oppositions between private and public, indoors and outdoors, uncooked and cooked, domestic and wild can all be compre- hended in terms of the progressive physical and symbolic isolation of the household and the concomitant erosion of obligations to share in favour of rights to store. The suggested link- age between these symbolic oppositions is strengthened by the changes that take place at the end of the Neolithic: yard or kitchen walls enclose cooking facilities; decorated table ware largely disappears; the consumption of game increases; and the widespread adoption of pit storage suggests that surpluses were increas- ingly hoarded for future consumption or exchange rather than dissipated through hos- pitality (Halstead 1995). Undoubtedly, this nar- rative is based on rather circumstantial evi- dence, but its logical and empirical coherence, both synchronically and diachronically, is encouraging. Moreover, its situation within the practical reasoning of Flannery offers a more contextually sensitive interpretation of Neo- lithic material culture than would imposition of Hodder’s cross-cultural domus model. Playing with Bricks: Households and Tells The Neolithic archaeological record of Greece and the Balkans contrasts strikingly with that of north-west Europe: the former is rich in set- tlements, while the latter is dominated by monuments of a funerary or other ceremonial character. The ditch encircling the flat-extend- ed site at Makriyalos is strongly reminiscent of the causewayed enclosure monuments of England, but in other respects this siteNeighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 87 appears to have been an alternative form of settlement to the better known tells rather than a regional gathering place (Pappa and Besios this volume; Kotsakis this volume). It is hard to resist Sherratt’s argument that the absence of ceremonial monuments in Neo- lithic Greece is causally related to the abun- dance of ‘monumental’ tell settlements (Sherratt 1990; also Chapman 1991). The formation of tells is partly a product of the use of mudbrick in house construction and it is tempting to regard the widespread use of mudbrick in the Near East and south-east Europe as a response to the challenge of scarce timber and the opportunity of a dry climate. Mudbrick also has excellent insulating, prop- erties, but it was used alongside other post- frame building techniques on Greek Neolithic sites (Gallis 1996a) and today mudbrick can be seen in standing buildings in southern England. In the Neolithic, therefore, it was neither necessary to use mudbrick in south- east Europe, nor impracticable to use it in north-west Europe—rather its use was a mat- ter of choice. A second requirement for tell for- mation is that new houses should be built on top of their predecessors rather than being relocated horizontally, as evidently occurred at flat-extended settlements like Makriyalos (Pappa and Besios this volume; Kotsakis this volume). The location of house building is also a matter of choice, whether by the future inhabitants alone or by the wider community. If the two preconditions for tell formation, use of mudbrick and in situ rebuilding, were both matters of human choice, it is tempting to suggest that these monumental settlements were built up deliberately. This was actually suggested over a century ago by Lolling, who saw tells as habitations deliberately raised up to avoid risk of flooding (1884: 101), but this interpretation is invalid for many tells for the same topographic reasons as van Andel’s floodwater farming hypothesis (Isountas 1908: 21). More recently, Chapman has argued that such settlements in both Greece and the Balkans mark a shift from space- to place-cen- tred perceptions of the social world that accom- panied the shift from mobile foraging to seden- tary farming (Chapman 1994; Kotsakis this vol- ume). It might be questioned, however, how an initially modest tell mound would have con- tributed to the structuring of space on a region- al scale. In Thessaly, where tell settlements are densely scattered from a very early stage of the Neolithic (Perlés this volume), a traveller would have moved through a highly encultur- ated landscape. It is unlikely, on present evi- dence, that lowland deforestation had proceed- ed to the point that the view from one settle- ment would afford an uninterrupted line of sight to all its neighbours (Bottema 1979, 1982; also Willis and Bennett 1994) just a few kilome- tres away, but smoke from cooking fires was probably visible at appropriate times of day and in appropriate seasons. Moreover, anyone walking along the paths between settlements would have seen increasingly unambiguous signs of nearby habitation—trees with signs of past lopping, for fodder or firewood, clearings where domestic animals had suppressed the regrowth of trees, the droppings and tracks of livestock, and then plots of cultivated ground or growing crops. The observant and knowl- edgeable traveller would have formed a fairly accurate impression of the location and perma- nence of the next village well before it was apparent that its houses stood above the plain. More attractive is the suggestion that the Neolithic observer would have understood that tells were formed through successive rebuilding and so would have read a tall mound as an indication of lengthy occupation. Thus tells may have been built up deliberately to project a sense not only of place but also of time or ancestry (cf. Chapman 1991: 155; Kotsakis this volume). The abundance of tells in Thessaly might be taken as an indication that88 Paul Halstead raised settlements, with their implicit claim to long antecedents, were particularly favoured in a region of unusually dense Neolithic habita- tion—tells would bea way of staking a claim to scarce space in a crowded landscape. On the other hand, tells are more easily detected by extensive reconnaissance than are flat-extend- ed sites, so this relationship between tell for- mation and dense regional habitation may be an artefact of archaeological methodology. Anyway, as noted above, it is questionable whether the height of early tells would have been appreciable from a distance. Some Bronze Age tells have yielded unam- biguous evidence of collective construction work: for example, the substantial banks encircling Toumba Thessalonikis and Assiros Toumba in Central Macedonia (Kotsakis and Andreou 1988; Wardle 1980) or the apparently site-wide changes in the colour of mudbricks used in each phase of occupation at the latter site. At some Neolithic tells, there is evidence of burials (Gallis 1996b) on the edge of the set- tlement (Soufli) or a few hundred metres away (Platia Magoula Zarkou), perhaps reflecting a concern to promote a collective body of village ancestors, but this practice is much more clearly exemplified at the flat- extended settlement of Makriyalos, where most human remains were found in a disartic- ulated state (Triantaphyllou this volume). Moreover, in phase 1 at Makriyalos, most of the human remains were recovered from Ditch Alpha. Although of a communal nature, in the sense that it apparently enclosed the settlement area, this ditch was initially dug as a series of pits of very variable depth, sug- gesting the possibility of competitive labour by different segments of the community (Pappa and Besios this volume; Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 1996: 573). Thus there is no compelling reason to interpret tells as com- munal constructions raised to impress neigh- bouring villages. Within a settlement, however, the relative height of each individual house would have been readily apparent, and, intriguingly, there does appear to be a relationship between in situ rebuilding (the second precondition for tell formation) and architectural emphasis on the household (Kotsakis this volume). At flat- extended LN Makriyalos, the dominant form of dwelling was the pit-hut, perhaps housing only one or two individuals rather than a fam- ily group. At MN Sesklo, the flat-extended set- tlement area B, with horizontally drifting occupation, was characterized by room clus- ters of relatively slight construction, while the compact tell settlement of Sesklo A consisted of sturdily built, free-standing houses. That this was a contrast of social significance is indicated both by the artificial segregation of the tell site from Sesklo B with a ditch and wall and by the greater quantities of painted pottery found on the tell site (Theocharis 1973; Kotsakis 1982). There may also be a related association of painted pottery with mudbrick houses and of plain pottery with wattle and daub huts at EN Otzaki (Milojeic 1955, 1971). The association between tell formation and free-standing rectangular houses might partly be regarded as a by-product of the use of thick mudbrick walls in household definition, but this does not account for the tendency to in situ rather than horizontally drifting house reconstruction. Thus there are grounds for concluding that tells formed as a result of two mutually reinforcing strategies pursued at a household level: the use of mudbrick to emphasize the unity and importance of the household in the present; and rebuilding in situ to emphasize the deep ancestry of the household (cf. Kotsakis this volume). The implication that Neolithic tell settlements were built up piecemeal through competition between households is amenable to future archaeological investigation.Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 89 Household, Village Community and Regional Society: Cooperation and Competition The suggestion that tell settlements formed through competition between households is, at first sight, counter-intuitive, given that the exis- tence of long-lived tells also attests very dra- matically to the continuity of many Neolithic communities. Such continuity implies that ten- dencies towards fission were effectively con- trolled. The key to this apparent contradiction may again be sought through consideration of the practical problems likely to have faced Neolithic households. As Sahlins has so effectively demonstrated, the internal contradiction within the domestic mode of production is the inviability of the isolated family household over the medium and long term (Sahlins 1974). For example, over the span of a human generation, small domestic units tend to move through phases of labour scarcity and labour abundance, as growing children first swell the number of consumers, then contribute to the workforce, and finally leave to set up an independent household (also Bernbeck 1995). The domestic economy might be further destabilized if a worker died or was incapacitated at a critical point in this domestic cycle. It was argued above that this inherent weakness was medi- ated through cooperative exchanges of labour or food between neighbouring households, mobilizing obligations established in times of plenty by formal hospitality, of which there are abundant archaeological indications. Such mutual interdependence, and the hospitality that provided its ideological underpinning, counteracted the tendency towards fission promoted by competition between house- holds. Over and above the difficulties posed by an unstable labour force, Neolithic households also faced uncertainty in food supply occa- sioned by the year-to-year fluctuations inher- ent to the climate of Greece (e.g. Forbes 1982). The likely solutions to these risks, discussed at length elsewhere (Halstead 1989, 1993), included both household and supra-house- hold measures (cf. Forbes 1989). Most house- holds must have produced some surplus grain in most years (Forbes 1982; Halstead 1989b), and unwanted surplus will variously have been used to lay on hospitality, to reward labour services or to fatten livestock that could subsequently be slaughtered for similar purposes. In bad years, households might attempt to mobilize obligations of mutual help from close kin or might seek to exchange labour or livestock with neighbours, but the more serious climatically induced crop fail- ures are likely to have afflicted whole village communities or even whole districts, particu- larly in the major lowlands of north and cen- tral Greece, where Neolithic settlement appears to have been densest. In such situa- tions, households would have had to seek help from further afield, perhaps by sending some family members to live and work with kin or exchange partners in distant villages. This last suggestion receives circumstantial support from several different aspects of the archaeological record. First, especially in east- ern Thessaly, the longevity and close spacing of Neolithic settlements together strongly imply that inter-village raiding, endemic in recent ‘Neolithic’ village communities in New Guinea and South America, was effectively avoided. In the absence of any hint of overar- ching regional authority capable of suppress- ing local conflict, it is suggested that regional societies were held together by a rich fabric of marriage alliances, visiting relationships, exchange partnerships and the like. Secondly, consideration of the relative proportions of livestock suggests that viable breeding popu- lations of at least the less common domestic animals will have been beyond the labour90 Paul Halstead capacity of individual households and per- haps of single villages (Halstead 1992b). The implication is that domestic animals as well as people moved between households and settle- ments, with exchanges of livestock perhaps mirroring human kinship (cf. Dahl 1979). Thirdly, as noted above, some at least of the regional societies implied by ceramic style zones far exceed the scale necessary for a viable human breeding population, suggest- ing that strategies of alliance were at least partly driven by other considerations. As a result of the inherent weakness of the domestic mode of production, therefore, it is suggested that neighbouring households were brought into competition for two related rea- sons. First, because neighbours would to some extent tend to face their biggest surpluses and deficits in the same years, they would in- evitably compete for opportunities to ‘bank’ surplus with, or recoup surplus from, other households. Secondly, households would com- pete to establish marriage alliances or exchange and visiting relationships with distant or par- ticularly successful households. In this respect, the behaviour of Neolithic households may have been driven by a concept of ‘limited good’ in much the same way, and for much the same reasons, as recent Mediterranean peasant households (cf. Silverman 1968). In each case, the time depth of a household, as projected through the elevation of the house, might have been regarded as important. Perhaps the heads of old families played a pre-eminent role in mediating with the collective body of ances- tors, and so in assuring the fertility of people, livestock and crops, or perhaps they exercised influence over marriage alliances. Perhaps ostensibly long-established households were perceived as enjoying genealogical seniority within their own community and, for this rea- son, were particularly attractive to outsiders as targets for alliance formation. Whatever the cultural value of an elevated house, it is surely significant that the emergence of institutional- ized, community-level authority, at Dimini and other Thessalian LN settlements, was projected through the construction of a megaron in a large central courtyard raised above the rest of the village. Conclusion: Domestic Bliss For contemporary archacologists, the Greek Neolithic household poses problems of recog- nition and definition, caused partly by the poor resolution of the archaeological record and by the heterogeneity in time and space of Greek Neolithic societies. These problems mirror the contentious nature of the household for Neolithic communities, which was projected in the elaboration of material culture relating to houses, human and animal members of the household, and the vessels in which household food resources were presented for consump- tion in a wider social arena. Arguably, our con- temporary problems of recognition and defini- tion also partly arise because the independent household was subject to negotiation and, throughout the Neolithic, was in a state of becoming. The progressive isolation of the household can be observed over three to four millennia in architectural form, in the monu- mentality of building materials, in the location of cooking facilities, in the symbolic elabora- tion of table ware and in the changing impor- tance of wild animal resources. Attention to material symbolism has been productive in revealing areas of contention within Greek Neolithic social life, but these Neolithic concerns can only be understood in terms of the practical benefits and stresses aris- ing from the development of the household. The isolation of a household group of produc- ers/consumers resolved the contradictions between an ideology of sharing and a delayed-return, seasonal economy, but was aNetgnbours from Mell! fhe Household m Neolithic Greece 91 source of contention both because it entailed a radical realignment of cultural rules of owner- ship and because the inviability of the isolated household required that household resources were conditionally subject to wider obliga- tions. The boundary between private and public had shifted but remained subject to negotiation and contention. Moreover, collab- oration between neighbours now revolved less around reciprocity than around the cre- ation and recouping of debts, bringing house- holds into competition over opportunities to create alliances and bank surpluses as debts. This competition between households lies behind the formation of monumental tell vil- lages, with their ostentatious emphasis on household antecedents, and the maintenance of regional societies with a shared material culture expressed particularly in those ele- ments that symbolized the household and extra-household hospitality. The household was a central concern— social, economic, cultural and ideological—of early Greek farmers. Viewed with a combina- tion of cultural and practical reasoning, the household is a useful analytical unit with the potential to illuminate our understanding of Greek Neolithic society at all social scales. Acknowledgments Since the Round Table, aspects of this paper have been elaborated in Cardiff, Cincinnati, Thessaloniki and Sheffield, at the invitation of Doug Bailey, Jack Davis, Giorgos Hourm- ouziadis and Mel Giles, respectively. The argument presented has been influenced by years of commensality with Kostas Kotsakis and Marek Zvelebil, while the final version of the paper has benefited from the critical com- ments of Glynis Jones and Amy Bogaard. Bibliography Amberger, K-P. 1979 Neue Tierknochenfunude aus der Magula Peokakia in Thessalien, 2: Die Wiederkituer. Dissertation, Fachbereich Tiermedizin, University of Munich. Andel, T. van, K. Gallis and G. Toufexis 1995. Early neolithic farming in a Thessalian river landscape, Greece. In J. Lewin, M.G. Macklin and J.C. Woodward (eds.), Mediterranean Quaternary River Environments, 131-43. Rotterdam: Balkema Andel, T. van and C. Runnels 1995 The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69: 481-500. Andel, T. van, E, Zangger and A. Demitrack 1990 Land use and soil erosion in prehistoric and his- torical Greece. journal of Field Archaeology 17: 379-96. Andreou, S,, M. Fotiadis and K. Kotsakis 1996 Review of Aegean prehistory 5: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece. ATA 100: 537-97. Andreou, S. and K. Kotsakis 1986 Diastasis tou khorou stin kentriki Makedonia: apotiposi tis endokoinotikis kai diakoinotikis Khoroorganosis. In Amitos (Festschrift M Andronikos), 57-88. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Barnard, A. and J. Woodburn 1991 Property, power and ideology in hunting and gathering societies: an introduction. In T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds.), Hunters and Gatherers, 2: Property, Power and Ideology, 4-31 Oxford: Berg. Becker, C. 1986 Kaslanas: Die Tierknochenfunde. Berlin: Volker Spiess. 1991 Die Tierknochenfunde von der Platia Magoula Zarkou—neue Untersuchungen zu Haustier- haltung, Jagd und Rohstoffverwendung im neolithisch-bronzezeitlichen Thessalien. Pratis- torische Zeitschrift 66: 14-78 Bernbeck, R 1995 Lasting, alliances and emerging competition’ economic developments in early Mesopotamia, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 1-25. Boessneck, J. 1962 Die Tierreste aus der Argissa-Magula vom priik- eramischen Neolithikum bis zur Mittleren Bronzezeit. In V. Milojcic, J. Boessneck and M. Hopf, Argissa-Magula 1: Das prikeramische Neolithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste (BAM 2), 27-99, Bonn: Rudolf Habelt92 Pau! Halstead Bokinyi, S. 1986 Faunal remains, In C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas and E, Elster (eds,), Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, 1, 63-132. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. 1989 Animal remains. In M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (eds.), Ackilleion: a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, 315- 32. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Bottema, S. 1979 Pollen analytical investigations in Thessaly (Greece). Palaeohistoria 21: 19-40, 1982 Palynological investigations in Greece with spe- cial reference to pollen as an indicator of human activity. Palaeohistoria 24: 257-89. Broodbank, C. 1989 The longboat and society in the Cyclades in the Keros-Syros culture. AJA 93: 319-37. Chapman, J. 1991 The creation of social arenas in the Neolithic and Copper Age of SE Europe: the case of Varna. In PJ. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Toms (eds.), Sacred and Profane (QUCA Monograph 32), 152-71. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. The origins of farming in south east Europe. Préhistoire Européenne 6: 133-56. Cullen, T. 1984 Social implications of ceramic style in the neolithic Peloponnese. In W.D. Kingery (ed), Ancient Teclmology to Modern Science, 1, 77-100. Columbus: American Ceramic Society. Dahl, G. 1979 1994 Ecology and equality: the Boran case. In Pastoral Production and Society, 261-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Driesch, A. von den 1987 Haus- und Jagdtiere im vorgeschichtlichen Thessalien, Prithistorische Zeitschrift 62: 1-21. Driesch, A. von den and K. Enderle 1976 Dic Tierreste aus der Agia Sofia-Magoula in Thessalien. In V. Milojcic, A. von den Driesch, K Enderle, J. Milojcic-v. Zumbuseh and K. Kilian, Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf Magulen um Larisa in Thessalien, 1966 (BAM 15), 15-54, Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Flannery, KV. 1972 The origins of the village asa settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: a comparative study. In PJ. Ucko, R. Tringham and G.W, Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism, 2353. London: Duckworth, Fletcher, R. 1981 People and space: a case study on material behav- jour. In L Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond. (eds.), Pattern ofthe Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, 97-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forbes, H. 1982 Strategies and Soils: Technology, Production and Environment in the Peninsula of Methana, Greece. PAD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (Of grandfathers and grand theories: the hierar chised ordering of responses to hazard in a Greek rural community. In P. Halstead and J. O'Shea (eds), Bad Year Economics, 87-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. French, DH. 1972 Notes en Prehistoric Pottery Groups from Central Greece. Athens: D.H. French. Gallis, K. 1985 A late neolithic foundation offering from Thessaly. Antiquity 59: 20-4 1996a Habitation: central and western Thessaly. In G.A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 61-66, Athens: Goulandris Foundation. 1996b Burial customs. In G.A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 171-74. Athens: 1989 Goulandris Foundation. Gejvall, NG. 1969 Lerna 1, the Fauna. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Halstead, P. 1981 Counting sheep in neolithic and bronze age Greece. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, 307-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989a__Like rising damp? An ecological approach to the sptead of farming in southeast and central Europe. In A. Milles, D. Williams and N, Gardner (eds.), The Beginnings of Agriculture (BAR Int. Ser. 496), 23-53. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1989 The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece. In P. Halstead and J. O ‘Shea (eds), Bad Year Economics, 68-80, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dhimini and the ‘DMP’ faunal remains and ani- mal exploitation in late neolithic Thessaly. BSA 87:29-59, 1992b From reciprocity to redistribution: modelling the exchange of livestock in neolithic Greece. In A, Grant (ed.), Animals and their Products in 1992aNeighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 93 Trade and Exchange. Anthropozoologica 16: 19- 30. Banking on livestock: indirect storage in Greek agriculture. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7: 63-75. ‘The North-South divide: regional paths to com- plexity in prehistoric Greece. In C. Mathers and S. Stoddart (eds.), Development and Decline in the ‘Mediterranean Bronze Age, 195-219. Sheffield: JR. Collis. From sharing to hoarding: the neolithic founda- tions of Aegean bronze age society? In R. Laffineur and W-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegacum 12), 11-20. Liége: University of Liege. ‘The development of agriculture and pastoral- ism in Greece: when, how, who and what? In DR. Harris (ed), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, 296-309. London: UCL Press. Halstead, P. and G. Jones 1980 Early neolithic economy in Thessaly—some evi- dence from excavations at Prodromos. Anthro- pologika 1: 93-117. Hillman, G. 1981 Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In R. Mercer (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory, 123-62. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hodder, I. 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. 1998 The domus: some problems reconsidered. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.), Understand- ing the Neolithic of North-Western Europe, 84-101. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. Hourmouziadis, G. 1972 Anaskafai Prodromou Karditsis, ADelt 27, B2: 394-6. Ta Neolithika Idolia tis Thessalias. Volos: Society for Thessalian Studies. Isagogi stis ideologies tis ellinikis proistorias. Politis 17: 30-51. ‘To Neolithiko Dimtini. Volos: Society for Thessalian Studies. Ingold, T. 1980 Hunters, Pastoralists and Ranchers: Reindeer Economies and their Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. Manchester: Man- chester University Press, Growing plants and raising animals: an anthro- pological perspective on domestication. In D.R. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1973 1978 1979 1986 1996 Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, 12-24. London: UCL Press. Jordan, B. 1975. Tierknochenfunde aus der Magula Pevkakia in ‘Thessalien. Dissertation. Fachbereich Tiermedizin, University of Munich, Kotsakis, K. 1981 Tria oikimata tou oikismou tou Sesklou: anaskafiki erevna. Anilropologika 2: 87-108. 1982 Recent research at Sesklo. Symposia Thracica 1982 A: 265-69. Kotsakis, K. and S. Andreou 1988 Prokatarktikes paratirisis gia tin organosi tou Khorou stin proistoriki Toumba Thessalonikis, AEMTIt 1: 223-34, Legge, AJ. and PA. Rowley-Conwy 1988 Star Carr Revisited. London: Dept. of Extramural Studies, Birkbeck College, University of London, Lolling, H.G. 1884 Mittheilungen aus Thessalien. AM 9: 97-116. Mangafa, M. and K. Kotsakis 1996 Anew method for the identification of wild and cultivated charred grape seeds. JAS 23: 409-18. Marangou, C. 1992 Idolia: Figurines et Miniatures du Néolithique Récent et du Bronze Ancien en Gréce (BAR Int. Ser. 576). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Figurines and models. In G.A. Papatha- nassopoulos (ed.), Neolititic Culture in Greece, 146- 51. Athens: Goulandris Foundation. Milojcic, V. 1955 Vorbericht iiber die Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula 1954, Archdologischer Anzeiger 157-82 Hauptergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1953-58. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Die Lage und der Erhaltungszustand der Otzaki- Magula, Grabungsmethoden, Stratigraphie und Bauten der Fliche Il. In J. Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and V. Milojcic, Die deutschen Ausgrabingen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien, 1: Das frie ‘Neolitiikum (BAM 10), 5-17. Bonn: Rudolf Habel. Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen in Demetrias/ ‘Thessalien, 1967-72. Jahrbuch der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 61-74. Die Baubefunde. In E. Hanschmann and V. Milojcic, Argissa-Magula 3: Die frithe und begin- nende mittlere Bronzezeit (BAM 13), 12-19. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Palmer, R. 1994 Wine in the Mycenaean Palace Economy (Aegacum 10). Lidge: University of Lidge. 1996 1960, 1971 1972 197694 Paul Halstead Pappa, M. 1990 Oi anaskafikes tomes and Stoikheia organosis tou khorou. In D. Grammenos, M. Pappa, D. Ourem-Kotsos, K. Skourtopoulou, E. Gian- nouli and B. Tsigarida, Anaskafi neolithikou oik- ismou Thermis, anaskafiki periodos 1987. Make- donika 27: 229-43, Perl's, C. 1990 Loutillage de pierre taillée néolithique en Gréce: approvisionnement et exploitation des matidres premires. BCH 114: 1-42, Systems of exchange and organisation of pro- duction in neolithic Greece. MA 5: 115-64. Petropoulos, D.A. 1943-44 Ethima sinergasias kai alllilovoithias tou Ellinikou laou. Epetiris Laografikow Arkhiow: 59- 85. Protonolariou-Deilaki, E 1992 Paratirisis stin Prokeramiki (apo ti Thessalia sta Dendra tis Argolidos). In Diethnes Sinedrio gia tin Arkhaia Thessalia: sti Mnimi tow DR Theokhari, 97-119, Athens: Ministry of Culture. Renfrew, C. 1970 The burnt house at Sitagroi. Antiquity 44: 131-34, Richards, A.L 1939 Land, Labour and Diet in Nortitern Rhodesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press Ridley, C. and K.A. Wardle 1979 Rescue excavations at Servia 1971-1973: a pre- liminary report, BSA 74: 185-230. Rondiri, V. 1985 Epifaniaki keramiki neolithikon theseon tis ‘Thessalias: katanomi sto khoro. Anthropologika 8: 53-74. Sahlins, M. 1974 Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock Publica- tions. 1976 Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University Press. Schneider, G., H. Knoll, C.J. Gallis and JP. Demoule 1991 Production and distribution of coarse and fine pottery in neolithic Thessaly, Greece. In E. Pernicka and G.A. Wagner (eds.), Arcliaeometry 90, 513-22. Basel: Birkhaiiser. Shackleton, N. and C. Renfrew 1970 Neolithic trade routes realigned by oxygen iso- 1992 Thicago 1990 The genesis of megaliths: monumentality, eth- nicity and social complexity in neolithic north- west Burope. World Archaeology 22: 147-67. Palaeoethnobotany: from crops to cuisine. In F Queiroga and A.P. Dinis (eds), Paleoecologia e 1991 Arqueologia 2, 221-36. Vila Nova de Famalicao: Centro de Estudios Arqueolégicos Famalicenses. Silverman, SF. 1968 Agricultural organization, social structure, and values in Italy: amoral familism reconsidered. American Anthropologist 70: 1-20. Sinos, S. 1971 Die vorklassische Hausformen in der Agais. Mainz: von Zabern. Smith, H. and G. Jones 1990 Experiments on the effects of charring on culti- vated grape seeds. JAS 17: 317-27. Theocharis, DR. 1959 Pirasos. Thessalika 2: 29-68. 1971 Sesklon (oikismos), Ergon: 21-27. 1973 Neolithic Greece. Athens: National Bank of Greece. 1980 To neolithiko spiti. Anthropologika 1: 12-14. Toufexis, G 1994 Neolithic animal figurines from Thessaly. In La Thessalie: Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975-1990, 163-68. Ather Ministry of Culture. 1996 House models. In G.A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 161-62. Athens: Goulandris Foundation. ‘Tsountas, Kh, 1908 Ai Proistorikai Akropolis Diminiow kai Sesklou. Athens: Arkhaiologiki Btairia Veen, M. van der and N. Fieller 1982 Sampling seeds. JAS 9: 287-98. Vitelli, K.D. 1989 Were pots first made for food? Doubts from Franchthi. World Archaeology 21: 18-29. Wace, AJ.B. and M.S. Thompson 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Wardle, KA, 1980 Excavations at Assiros, 1975-9. A settlement site in central Macedonia and its significance for the prehistory of SE Europe. BSA 75: 229-67. Washburn, D.K. 1983 Symmetry analysis of ceramic design: two tests of the method on neolithic material from Greece and the Aegean. In D.K. Washburn (ed.), Structure and Cognition in Ari, 198-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitelaw, TM. 1983 People and space in hunter-gatherer camps: a generalising approach in ethnoarchacology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 2: 48-66. Whittle, A. 1996 Houses in context: buildings as process. In T.Darvill and J. Thomas (eds.), Neolithic Houses inNeighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece 95 Nortirwest Europeand Beyond (Oxbow Monograph 57), 13-26. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1997 Moving on and moving around: neolithic settle- ment mobility. In P. Topping (ed.) Neolithic Landscapes (Oxbow Monograph 86), 15-22. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Wilkie, N.C. and MB, Savina 1997 The earliest farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity 71: 201-207. Willis, KJ. and K.D. Bennett 1994 The neolithic transition fact or fiction? Palaeo- ecological evidence from the Balkans. The Holocene 4: 326-30. Winn, S. and D. Shimabuku 1989 Architecture and sequence of building remains. In M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (cds.), Achilleion, 32-68. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Wobst, HM. 1974 Boundary conditions for palaeolithic social sys- tems: a simulation approach. American Antiquity 39: 147-78.