The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  The role of the Mediterranean as the meeting point of two worlds, East and West, is illustrated uniquely in the study of domestic space during the Neolithic. For nineteenth-century northern Europeans, sedentary life, the construction of permanent structures, domestication, agriculture, pottery, and specific lithic technologies described a new, ‘Neolithic’, way of life laying the foundations of society as we know it. The concept of the Neolithic was introduced to eastern Mediterranean archaeology in the early twentieth century as part of diffusionist ideas and investigations into the reasons for the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ and its place of origin (Özdoğan 1995; Thomas 1993; Bar Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1992).

  Archaeology in the Near East soon indicated that the European checklist of attributes was unhelpful for describing the ‘Neolithic phenomenon’ in its initial stage. One significant problem was the weak correlation between sedentary life and domestication, an ‘anomaly’ even more dramatic given the depth of deposits and density of structures, unparalleled in Europe. ‘Anomalies’ of this kind increased over time, and current research in the eastern Mediterranean indicates that sedentary life and the creation of large, socially coherent communities started long before the adoption of agriculture and domestication, which here characterize the end, not the beginning, of the Neolithization process (Watkins 2006, 4–5; Lichter 2005b, 2–7).

  Initial analysis of domestic space aimed at identifying the basic units of production, distribution, and consumption within each community through household studies. The most powerful explanatory model for the transition to the Neolithic in the eastern Mediterranean, still in use, relates directly to the use of domestic space and ‘reads’ the transformation of productive units, from compounds to nuclear families/households and eventually extended households, through the specific form and use of buildings (Flannery 1972, 2002; see discussion in Banning and Chazan 2006). In the western Mediterranean, donestic structures were less conspicuous, and research concentrated on processes of colonization, relations to the Near East, and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition (Price 2000).

  The appearance of the Neolithic in Europe as a ‘package’ of certain characteristics, the restricted number of deep habitational deposits, the clearer distinction between functional and symbolic spaces, and the long tradition of Palaeolithic studies had specific effects on the study of domestic space, directing research towards settlement patterns and artefact distributions rather than examining structured space (Papaconstantinou 2006, 15–27). Hence, discussions revolved around borders and markings in the landscape, activity areas, depositional patterns, the construction of cultural and social identities, and the acquisition of power and authority (Bailey et al. 2005, 2008; Jones 2008; Robb 2007; Souvatzi 2008).

  In recent years, dissatisfaction has often been expressed with the study of Mediterranean Neolithic settlements, targeting both the simplistic models of cultural uniformity and demic diffusion put forward for the Neolithic cultures in Mediterranean Europe and the inability of research in the eastern Mediterranean to identify discernible patterns in the diversity of observed cultural changes (see discussion in Robb 2007, 2; Tringham 2000, 22; Watkins 2008). Emphasis is now placed on the need for multiscalar perspectives incorporating insights from all different archaeological traditions (Robb 2007; Banning and Chazan 2006). The exploration of aspects of temporality and materiality in the archaeological record and the move away from archaeological narratives based on upheavals, revolutions, and universal identities (Gamble 2007) point to the same direction.

  PATTERNS OF CO-RESIDENCE AT A MACROSCOPIC SCALE: AN OVERVIEW OF DOMESTIC SPACE

  The landscapes of Greece and Italy are strongly marked by the formation of the first Neolithic villages. These new patterns of co-residence embody the emergence of new conceptions of group identity and the centrality of the house as a spatial entity around which communities develop and organize their social life.

  Greece

  The Neolithic period in Greece lasted for over two millennia (7000–4500 BC) and is divided into early, middle, and late (Souvatzi 2008, 52-53; Lichter 2005a; Andreou et al. 2001; Perlès 2001, 64–97). The existence of an earlier, pre-pottery phase is still disputed, whilst the transitional period to the Bronze Age, the final Neolithic or Chalcolithic (4500–3300/3100 BC), lasted at least another millennium.

  Regionalism and diversity characterize the Greek Neolithic and it is hard to assess whether they are the result of cultural developments or archaeological practices. Especially with regard to archaeological practices, one should note that for this region they had the additional goal of providing the ‘European link’ to the Near East and were, therefore, primarily concerned with ceramic seriations and cultural continuity (Papaconstantinou 2006, 81–85).

  The variety in construction materials and spatial arrangements within and between settlements, as well as habitation density in certain regions or periods—there are ‘more than 300 [settlements] in eastern Thessaly alone’ (Johnson and Perlès 2004, 65)—constitute two of the most significant characteristics of domestic space in Neolithic Greece, and sometimes sharply contrast the cultural uniformity and stability observed in the continuous, long-term habitation of many settlements (Demoule and Perlès 1993, 363; Efstratiou et al. 1998, 58).

  Neolithic houses in Greece can range from oval huts with floors dug into the ground to rectangular or ‘megaron’-type structures (i.e. elongated and fronted by a narrow ‘porch’), from well-defined free-standing entities to more compact spatial arrangements with semi-enclosed areas and courtyards, and can have single or multiple rooms with internal divisions, upper storeys, or basements. Construction materials vary, from wattle and daub walls with stone or trench foundations to mud brick or pisé walls on stone foundations. The floors are usually of beaten earth, or sometimes wooden planks (Aslanis 2010, 39–53, Perlès 2001, 186–91; Andreou et al. 2001). At late Neolithic Dikili Tash, there is evidence for careful re-plastering of the walls, and laboratory analysis indicates the use of different kinds of clay for different constructions (walls, roofs, floors, ovens, and benches) (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1996, 686–88, see also Koukouli-Chryssanthaki and Treuil 2008).

  A similar diversity is observed in the arrangement of domestic activities, as structural features (hearths, cooking and storage facilities, benches, shelves, platforms, and a variety of pits) are present both inside and outside the structures. This diversity is evident regardless of the general organization of the settlements. Thus, two of the most extensively excavated sites in Thessaly are Sesklo (middle NL), a densely built-up tell with an extended settlement spread on the slopes of the surrounding hills, and Dimini (late NL), a settlement with a looser plan and semi-enclosed habitation units. Despite their different layout, both show high variability in the use, production, and distribution of material culture (Souvatzi 2008, 105–6, 150–3; but see Kotsakis 2006 for differences in pottery distribution at Sesklo).

  Habitation sites in Greece fall mostly into two main categories: long-term, permanent villages forming tells (Sesklo, Dimini, Dikili Tash, Makri), and flat, constantly shifting but extensive settlements (Makriyalos, Stavroupolis). Enclosure walls and ditches are common at sites of both categories (Sesklo, Dimini, Makriyalos). There is also evidence of cave occupation (Franchthi, Alepotrypa) and lake villages (Dispilio) (Demoule and Perlès 1993; Papathanassopoulos 1996; Andreou et al. 2001, Grammenos 2010, 31–37).

  The distinction between tells and extended sites has raised discussions about social differentiation and property rights (Kotsakis 1999). Furthermore, the existence of certain types of architecture (megaroid), along with indications of mortuary rituals especially towards the very end of the period, have led to suggestions for emergent élites (Halstead 1984; see discussion in Andreou et al. 2001, 267). In general, however, there are no clear indications of social inequality (Demoule and Perlès 1993, 385). The deceased, mostly found in primary and secondary burials in settlement deposits, at the edges of settlements, or in ditches, are not prominently visi
ble, and central courtyards and larger structures are usually related to storage areas and communal spaces, rather than areas with restricted access occupied by élites (see Makri: Efstratiou et al. 1998, 24–26; Dimini: Souvatzi 2008, 107–160) (Fig. 13.1). This pattern seems to reinforce the central role of the house in social reproduction and emphasizes the greater significance of the community over the individual.

  FIG. 13.1. A post-framed structure typical of the main habitation phase of Makri in Greece (middle of the sixth millennium BC).

  (Image courtesy of N. Efstratiou).

  Although there is evidence for possibly intentionally burnt houses and for ‘ritual’ deposits in domestic contexts, their elusive character and association to utilitarian, residential deposits make the excavators rather reluctant to accept a purely ritual interpretation (cf. Treuil and Tsirtsoni 2000; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2005).

  Italy

  The Italian Neolithic (sixth to fourth millennium BC) is divided into early and middle (sixth to fifth millennium BC) and late-final phases (late fifth to early fourth millennium BC), with a transition to the Copper Age in the later fourth and early third millennia BC.

  Early and middle Neolithic cultures in peninsular Italy and Sicily, and adjacent areas such as Malta and Dalmatia, are sedentary farmers (Malone 2003; Robb 2007). The most characteristic construction technique was that of wattle-and-daub walls, either with stone foundations or set in postholes within footer trenches, forming circular, oval, or roughly rectangular single-roomed houses. Structural features such as hearths, ovens, and pits of all kinds were found inside and outside the houses, although most activities took place in open areas (many cobbled with small stones or plastered with clay). Evidence of knapping, firing pottery, cooking, butchering, and processing food suggests those must have been communal, shared activities in the villages.

  Agglomerations of houses in the form of villages, often enclosed with a ditch, constitute the most common type of habitation, most characteristically on the Tavoliere in northern Puglia, but also in the south at Matera, in south-eastern Sicily, and along the Adriatic at the southern margins of the Po valley. Other types also exist, such as dispersed settlements (e.g. Acconia in southern Calabria), small upland habitational sites with a mixed wild-domesticated economy, and lake villages (see Menotti, this volume; for a list of sites, see Malone 2003; Tiné 2009). In many Tavoliere villages, the architectural division of space was carried further with smaller ‘c-ditches’ bounding individual house compounds (Robb 2007, 91).

  Ritual life is rather muted (Robb 2007, 260), and houses do not seem an important medium of self-presentation, showing no variation in size, decoration, or architectural elaboration. This indicates a rather structured microenvironment around the house, standing ‘in contrast to the flexible access, movement, perception, and interaction typical of the open, collective areas of the village’ (Robb 2007, 87). The end of a household’s life span is particularly intriguing, with many houses burned intentionally (e.g. Acconia, Balsignano; Robb 2007, 87–90; see also discussion in Tiné 2009). The evidence of on-site burials shows varied practices, such as disarticulation, skull manipulation, or curation, and can probably be understood by considering the role of burial in constructing group identity (Robb 2007, 56-65).

  A significant shift in the role of domestic space takes place in the late Neolithic. Ditched villages are replaced by dispersed settlements, with a less nucleated and delimited habitation space. Cemeteries of individual graves or small collective tombs appear for the first time (Robb 2007, 313–14, Malone 2003, 256–57). This shift of emphasis away from houses as the focal point of the community, and the increasing conceptualization of genealogical relatedness expressed in burials, could suggest a shift from a situation where identity and heterarchy were conceptualized in terms of locality and co-residence (the production of difference), to one increasingly relying on the production of similarities (see Robb 2007, 337).

  Iberia

  Evidence from both ends of the Mediterranean basin, Iberia and north-western Turkey, is less well defined, but in both cases a stronger persistence of Epipalaeolithic hunter-gatherer traditions into the Neolithic seems likely (Price 2000; Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999). In Iberia, secure evidence for a Neolithic culture (pottery production, plant and animal domestication) appears at c. 5500 BC, from Valencia and Catalunya in the east, through western Granada and central and southern Portugal. The Copper Age begins around 3000 BC (Chapman 2003, 113–114; see also Diniz 2008).

  The earliest evidence (mainly from caves in Valencia and Aragón) indicates the simultaneous existence of Epipalaeolithic technological traditions and fully Neolithic hunter-gatherer groups who had adopted technological and economic innovations (pottery, lithics, domesticates; Ribe et al. 1997, 67; Zapata et al. 2004). Excavations at Cuartillas in the lower Aguas valley and at Almazaraque revealed ephemeral circular structures on artificial terraces and storage pits (Chapman 2003, 117), whilst complete sedentarization is suggested for sites like Barranc d’en Fabra, Catalunya, with its oval huts with dry-stone walls, floors, supports, and combustion structures (Bosch et al. 1992). One of the most significant open-air sites is La Draga, an underwater shore site with remains of wooden structures with posts and planks, stone platforms, and numerous hearths and granaries, indicating long habitation (Price 2000, 11; Zilhão 2000, 150; Bosch et al. 2000).

  Around the second half of the fourth millennium BC, caves and shelters are progressively abandoned and open-air settlements spread and increase in size. Evidence from Catalunya (Bòbila Madurell and Ca n’ Isach) indicates post-built rectangular houses and the pursuit of everyday practices near fireplaces and hearths in habitation areas with storage pits (Ribe et al. 1997, 76). At the very end of the Neolithic period, ditches surround habitation areas (e.g. Papa Uvas in the south). In the Copper Age, well fortified settlements become even more common (Martin De La Cruz 1997, 15–24).

  Anatolia

  Neolithic deposits in Anatolia date from the ninth millennium BC and are best known from two very distinct cultural groups: the south-eastern part of the peninsula, close to the Euphrates valley, north Syria and the Levant (Çayönü, Nevali Çori, Göbekli Tepe); and central Anatolia (Asikli Hüyük, Can Hasan III, Çatal Höyük). Despite their differences, these communities share common mechanisms to secure their coherence and social stability: a high standardization in domestic architecture and works of high symbolic content, such as common ceremonial buildings and centralized rituals within settlements, or house interiors with intramural burials, wall-paintings of animals, and bucrania (Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999).

  Neolithic evidence from western Anatolia and its Mediterranean coastline is less well documented, since research in the area only intensified in the past 20 years. So far, deposits reveal mostly cultures with a ceramic tradition (though not fully Neolithic in their subsistence strategies) and are dated from the middle of the seventh to the sixth millennium BC. There are at least three distinct groups: one in the Marmara region to the north-west of the peninsula (Mentese, Illipinar, Fikirtepe, Hoca Çeşme, Aşaği Pinar), one in the Izmir region near the Aegean coastline (Ulucak Höyük), and one in the Lake District to the south (Hacilar, Bademagaci) (Özdoğan 1999, 2003).

  The most striking element in the architectural tradition of Mediterranean Anatolia is the combination of different cultural traits. Construction techniques draw both from central Anatolia (heavy use of mud: mud-slab and mudbrick buildings, often with stone foundations) and the Balkans (wattle and daub), in some cases occurring simultaneously in the same settlement (Mentese: Roodenberg and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008, 11).

  The variety in architectural traditions is even more striking when compared to differences among other types of material culture. In the Fikirtepe culture of the Marmara region, for example, sites share the same pottery and bone tool inventories, but their architecture, subsistence, and lithic industry vary considerably. The sites of Fikirtepe and Pendik consist of round and oval wattle-and-daub huts wi
th semi-subterranean floors and present a lithic tradition and subsistence pattern (mainly hunting and fishing) closely linked to the indigenous Epipalaeolithic Agacli group, whilst Illipinar consists of rectangular mud or mudbrick structures reinforced with wooden posts and draws from the central Anatolian tradition (Özdoğan 1999, 212). Elsewhere in the Marmara region, the relation to Anatolia is even stronger. At Hoca Çeşme, for example, there are substantial circular structures with wooden posts sunk into the bedrock (Özdoğan 1999, 217) and heavy use of mud and re-plastering, marking a clear departure from any European or Epipaleolithic tradition and resembling central Anatolian traditions of treating and maintaining a house. The Anatolian origin of the finds assemblage in Hoca Çeşme makes the presence of circular houses even more puzzling, especially since by this time round buildings had long been abandoned in Anatolia (Özdoğan 1999, 218).

  Regardless of the similarities in construction, however, it is important to stress that spatial arrangements within western Anatolian settlements are in sharp contrast to central Anatolia. Central Anatolia is characterized by an agglomerate architecture of lengthy sequences of cell-like structures densely clustered in blocks, with access often from the roof and activities taking place both there and inside the house. Western Anatolian settlements, on the other hand, have plentiful open spaces. Freestanding one- or two-roomed houses with ground-level entrances are laid out in rows abutting one another or divided by narrow alleys (Schoop 2005, 49). There is abundant evidence (ovens, hearths, rectangular clay bins, platforms) for food storage and processing indoors and in the small outside courtyards usually associated with each building. The large open squares and simple walls of some sites have often been related to a high dependence on and tight control over domestic animals (Roodenberg and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008, 9).