LITHIC IN DUS TRY FROM THE ACERAMIC LEV ELS AT …The as sem blage from layer X at Knossos is...

Eur asian Pre his tory, 8 (1–2): 67–87.

LITHIC IN DUS TRY FROM THE ACERAMIC LEV ELSAT KNOSSOS (CRETE, GREECE): AN AL TER NA TIVE

AP PROACH

Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski

In sti tute of Ar chae ol ogy, Jagiellonian Uni ver sity, Go³êbia 11, 31-007 Kraków, Po land;[email protected]

Ab stractThe pa per deals with lithic artefacts from aceramic lev els ex ca vated by J.Ev ans at Knossos (layer X) and of fers an al -

ter na tive in ter pre ta tion to that pro posed by J. Conolly (2008). A se ries of 376 artefacts from the col lec tion of the Brit ishSchool in Ath ens (Strati graphic Mu seum in Knossos) has been an a lyzed in terms of raw ma te ri als, tech nol ogy (no ta bly:re duc tion se quences and their stages car ried out on-site and off-site), also mor pho log i cal struc ture of re touched tools.

The as sem blage from layer X at Knossos is com pared with Mesolithic in dus tries and the Ini tial Neo lithic in thePeloponese (es pe cially phase X in Franchthi Cave), with the Mesolithic of the Aegean is lands and with the Pre-Neo lithicflake in dus tries from Cy prus. More over, the re la tion of the Aceramic as sem blage (Ini tial Neo lithic) to the chipped stonein dus try from Early Neo lithic I from Knossos has been ex am ined and a num ber of com mon fea tures of tech nol ogy andtool mor phol ogy are pointed out.

Key words: Aceramic Neo lithic, Ini tial Neo lithic, Early Neo lithic, East ern Med i ter ra nean, Aegean Mesolithic.

IN TRO DUC TION

The in ves ti ga tions by J. Ev ans at Knossos re -vealed that be low the Ce ramic Neo lithic lay ersthere were Aceramic lay ers which yielded a se ries of lithic artefacts. In the works of J. Ev ans (1964,1968, 1971) these artefacts were cur so rily men -tioned, whereas J. Conolly (2008) pub lished amonographic study of chipped stone artefactsfrom the Aceramic (Ini tial Neo lithic) lay ers. Inthe pres ent work we would like to re-ap praisethese ma te ri als kindly placed at our dis posal by J.Ev ans and the Brit ish School of Ath ens, how everour meth od olog i cal pre mises are some what dif -fer ent than those of J. Conolly.

The chipped stone artefacts in the ce ramiclay ers come from the trenches in the Cen tralCourt of the Pal ace namely: trenches AC, X andZE. The thick ness of the aceramic level is dif fer -ent in the var i ous trenches: in trench AC it is verythin, while in trench X it is very thick. At first, J.

Ev ans thought that the site from the AceramicPhase was the re mains of a short-term camp. Sub -se quently, how ever, re mains were dis cov ered of a struc ture from clay, stones and sundried bricks,which com pelled J. Ev ans to re vise his opin ion.The aceramic set tle ment is sit u ated on the cul mi -na tion of the hill, and in sub se quent ce ramic pha-ses are spread to the north ern slope of the hill.

RAW MA TE RI ALS STRUC TURE

In the in ven tory from layer X – 376 artefactshave been ex am ined. The most im por tant raw ma -te rial is Melian ob sid ian (262 – 69.7%), si li ceousrocks are next (114 – 30.3%) (Fig. 1). Anal y sis oftrace el e ments shows that ob sid ian from the is land of Melos in the col lec tion from J. Ev ans’s in ves ti -ga tions co mes from de posit ar eas near Adamas(Cann and Renfrew, 1965). Re cent anal y sis of the few artefacts from the aceramic layer at Knossos,from the in ves ti ga tions by N. Efstratiou et al.

(2004) has in di cated that some ob sid ians may also come from the de pos its near Demenegaki.

Among the si li ceous rocks there are var i oustypes of radiolarite (red, yel low, green ish, grey),weakly trans par ent, blu ish chal ce dony, blackmenilithic shales, quartz and quartz ite, and sin gleitems of flints: brown ish and yel low-brown ish.The ob sid ian is ob vi ously extralocal, but we wereun able to iden tify the lo ca tion of de posit ar eas ofsi li ceous rocks. Some rocks such as quartzes andradiolarites come from al lu vial de pos its, mostprob a bly in the vi cin ity of the site. It should bestressed, that the site it self is sit u ated on Eocene

sed i ments; to the east and west there are Me so zoic lime stones where one might ex pect to find ra dio-larites or other si li ceous rocks.

THE STRUC TURE OF MA JORTECH NO LOG I CAL GROUPS

The struc ture of ma jor tech no log i cal groupsis given in Fig. 2. The small fre quency of cores ischar ac ter is tic. To gether with the rel a tively low in -dex of flakes 29.0% (cal cu lated with out chips;flakes and splin ters taken to gether – 46.8%) it in -di cates lim ited on-site pro duc tion. It is un cer tainwhether splin ters were in ten tional blanks ormerely waste from uti liz ing splint ered pieces astools. Splint ered pieces (19.1%) are more nu mer -ous than cores. The fre quency of blades, both ob -sid ian (8.0%) and from si li ceous rocks (7.9%), isrel a tively low. If we con sider the pres ence offairly large blade tools, we can as sume that blades were pro duced off-site or that blade tools werebrought to the site from else where.

The struc ture of ma jor tech no log i cal groupsde parts from stan dard of on-site pro duc tion. Thisim plies that ei ther ac cess to raw ma te ri als was dif -fi cult (the ac qui si tion of ob sid ian from Melos was un sys tem atic, while the knowl edge of lo calsources of si li ceous rocks was poor) or – fi nally –that spe cific ac tiv i ties at the site re quired the useof small splint ered pieces and splin ters.

One may pre sume that the group of set tlersar rived at the site with com pleted tools and asmall store of ob sid ian; only a small num ber ofnon-stan dard ized tools was pro duced at the site,and splint ered pieces functioned as tools.

It should be em pha sized that there are no ma -jor dif fer ences in the scat ter pat tern in re la tion tothe fre quency of the types of artefacts in the dif -fer ent zones of the Aceramic set tle ment. Only ob -sid ian in trench X and si li ceous rocks in trenchAC, show a slightly higher pro por tion.

Cor ing tech niquesIn the Aceramic lay ers at Knossos a small

num ber of cores was reg is tered: in trench X – 4spec i mens and one mod i fied into a splint ered piece (all of ob sid ian), in trench ZE – 2 spec i mens (fromradiolarite), and in trench AC – 2 spec i mens (onefrom chal ce dony and one from obsidian). We canas sume that most blanks were pro duced off-site,

68 M. Kaczanowska & J. K. Koz³owski

Fig. 1. Knossos. Raw ma te rial struc ture in aceramiclayer X and Early Neo lithic I

Fig. 2. Knossos. Ma jor tech no log i cal group struc ture in aceramic layer X

whereas debitage prod ucts made on-site were there sult of the splint ered tech nique which wasbroadly ap plied in the Aceramic Neo lithic.

The pres ence of macroblade tech nique hasbeen con firmed by, in fact, only one frag ment ofan ob sid ian core trans formed into a one-sided bi -po lar splint ered piece. On the op po site side of thespec i men there are the prox i mal parts of two large blade scars (2.0–2.2 cm broad) with the axis per -pen dic u lar to the axis of the splint ered piece (Pl.I.1). In his study J. Conolly (2008: fig. 5.3a) in ter -preted this spec i men as a sim ple splint ered piecemiss ing the core stage of its re duc tion.

A chunk of grey chal ce dony with two longscars with blade pro por tions is an ini tial form of acore whose fur ther re duc tion was prac ti cally im -pos si ble. The blade pro por tions of its scars aredue to the shape of the chal ce dony chunk (Pl. I.2).

Mediolithic blade-flake tech nique (2.5–4.5cm) is rep re sented by an ini tial dou ble-plat formcore on a thick flake from red radiolarite; one ofthe plat forms is sin gle-blow and could have ini ti -ated lat eral prep a ra tion (Pl. I.3). This is the onlyspec i men that in J. Conolly’s study is cor rectlyiden ti fied as a core (Conolly, 2008: fig. 5.1b).

Core re duc tion us ing flakes is rep re sented bya small ob sid ian blade-flake sin gle-plat form corere duced per pen dic u larly to the flake axis (Pl. I.4).

An ob sid ian splint ered piece, bi po lar, withpar al lel scars was mis in ter preted by J. Conolly(2008: fig. 5.1a) as a core.

Mediolithic flake tech nique is rep re sented byonly one change-of-ori en ta tion (90 de gree) corein an ad vanced phase of re duc tion. It is fairly flat,with a Clac ton ian notch on one lat eral side (Pl.I.5); made from red radiolarite.

Three ob sid ian, re sid ual cores (all found inspit 24, trench X) were re duced by means ofmicrolithic flake tech nique:

– a flat core on a flake, with an un pre paredplat form (Pl. I.6),

– a sim i lar, flat core in the re sid ual phase ex -ploited as a splint ered piece (Pl. I.7),

– a flake de tached from a flat, sin gle-plat form core re mov ing the en tire flak ing sur face; the plat -form was only par tially pre pared (Pl. I.8).

A small frag ment of a core from grey ra dio-larite also be longs to the Aceramic Phase.

Thus, core re duc tion in layer X com bined thechar ac ter is tic fea tures of blade and of flake tech -

niques. In order to pro duce blanks on-site splint -ered tech nique was the pre vail ing method. Coreson flakes and the use of splint ered tech nique inthe fi nal phase of re duc tion are char ac ter is tic.

Splint ered piecesThe Aceramic Phase lay ers con tained 72

splint ered pieces which is 19.2% of the in ven tory. Most splint ered pieces are ob sid ian spec i mens(56). The pro por tion of ob sid ian in this in ven torygroup is some what higher (77.7%) than the av er -age for the whole as sem blage (70%). Splint eredpieces were pro duced from blades (6 spec i mens –Pl. I.9), flakes (15 spec i mens – Pl. II.1), from core frag ments or cores in the fi nal phase of re duc tion(two spec i mens); how ever, be cause most splint -ered pieces are en tirely cov ered with scars the ini -tial prod ucts could not be rec og nized.

Both among splint ered pieces from si li ceousrocks and those from ob sid ian the most fre quenttypes are bi po lar, two-sided items (Pl. II.1);one-sided splint ered pieces are spo radic (Pl. II.2).Uni po lar spec i mens, usu ally made on blades, areless fre quent. Only one quadripolar spec i men was reg is tered (Pl. II.3).

The splint ered pieces are from 14 to 36 mmlong, and from 6 to 23 mm broad. Ob sid ian spec i -mens are smaller; they are usu ally from 14 to 16mm long and from 12 to 15 mm broad. These di -men sions are con sis tent with the di men sions ofob sid ian splin ters. The di a gram of length of ob -sid ian splint ered pieces and splin ters shows a ten -dency to wards stan dard iza tion (Fig. 3). How ever,the ques tion as to the func tion of the splint eredpieces still re mains an open one. Were they toolsor were they uti lized to ob tain blanks? Only fewsplin ters were mod i fied into re touched tools(three spec i mens). Re sid ual splint ered pieces areof ten pris matic. From the sides of such splint eredpieces – at the fi nal stage – splin ters were de -tached that re sem ble a kind of “pseudo-burinspalls” (Pl. II.4).

FlakesFlakes (to gether with splin ters) ac count for

46.8% of all artefacts. Such a pro por tion and thevery small num ber of cores rule out in ten siveon-site pro duc tion. In all like li hood some flakeswere brought to the site in a com pleted form. Inthe case of ob sid ian the high pro por tion of splin -

Lithic in dus try from the aceramic lev els at Knossos 69

ters points to a ma jor role of splint ered tech niqueap plied on-site – more of ten on ob sid ian than onsi li ceous rocks. A num ber of au thors sug gest thatthe use of this tech nique does not ex press aknapping tra di tion but re sults from dif fi cul ties inraw ma te ri als pro cure ment and the need for theirthrifty ex ploi ta tion. To what ex tent splin ters in the an a lyzed se ries were the goal of pro duc tion (i.e.

blanks sensu stricto) or waste from uti liz ing themas tools can not be es tab lished with cer tainty.

The length of ob sid ian flakes is from 13 to 42mm, but about 60% of in tact flakes are small from 14 to 19 mm long (Fig. 4). The di men sions of ob -sid ian splin ters are sim i lar. In the group of splin -ters there are nu mer ous spec i mens with slen derpro por tions (as much as 70% show the width/


Fig. 3. Knossos. Length (in mm) of splint ered piecesand splinters in aceramic layer X Fig. 4. Knossos. Length (in mm) of ob sid ian and

non-ob sid ian flakes from aceramic layer X

Fig. 5. Knossos. Length: width ra tios of flakes and splin ters from layer X

length in dex: 50–100); in the case of flakes only47% of spec i mens (Fig. 5) Ob sid ian splin ters of -ten have blade pro por tions, es pe cially when theywere de tached from the lat eral side of a splint eredpiece with a po lyg o nal cross-sec tion; they arelong, fairly thick (pseudo-burin spalls).

Among artefacts from the var i ous si li ceousrocks flakes are slightly larger – nearly 40% of the spec i mens are be tween 20 to 30 mm long. Splin -ters from si li ceous rocks are smaller than flakes.

Ob sid ian flakes were de tached from sin -gle-plat form cores. Flakes from early phases ofcore shap ing do not oc cur (only one cor ti cal flakewas re corded), whereas flakes with scars per pen -dic u lar to the flake axis are fairly fre quent (25% –Fig. 6). They ev i dence change of ori en ta tion ofcores in ad vanced phases of re duc tion. In the fi nal phase of re duc tion ob sid ian cores were mod i fiedinto splint ered pieces.

Be tween plat forms most fre quent are sin gleblow plat forms. Less nu mer ous are punctiformplat forms; very rare are un pre pared (par tic u larlybe tween ob sid ian spec i mens) and fac eted plat -forms (Fig. 7).

Cores made from si li ceous rocks werebrought to the site in the early phase of ex ploi ta -

tion. Quartz peb bles that were prob a bly foundnear the site, were also worked. Some radiolaritecon cre tions were ex ploited with out pre lim i naryprep a ra tion which is doc u mented by the pres enceof a cor ti cal flake and a high pro por tion of flakeswith un pre pared butts. The pres ence of flakeswith lat eral cor tex in di cates that in sub se quentphases of re duc tion the flak ing sur face was ex -tended onto the sides of a con cre tion. Sin gle ex -am ples of flakes with dis tal and prox i mal cor texalso oc curred. The pres ence of flakes with an ob -tuse an gle be tween the butt and the ven tral side ofa flake sug gests that in the ini tial phases of re duc -tion of such cores hard ham mer tech nique wasused. When re duc tion was ad vanced a soft ham -mer was prob a bly used. Retrimming, doc u mented by spec i mens with scars per pen dic u lar to theflake axis, or change of the ori en ta tion of coresinto op po site were also used. It seems, that in thecase of si li ceous rocks the func tion of re sid ualcores as splint ered pieces was less com mon thanof ob sid ian spec i mens.

BladesBlades (31 spec i mens) are only 8.1% of the

Aceramic Neo lithic se ries. The pro por tion ofblades in the group of ob sid ian artefacts and in the group from si li ceous rocks is the same. Most ob -sid ian blades are ir reg u lar, and small. Their length


Fig. 6. Knossos. Dor sal pat tern of the flakes fromaceramic layer X: 1 – uni di rec tional scars, 2 – con ver -gent scars, 3 – cen trip e tal scars, 4 – op posed di rec tionscars, 5 – per pen dic u lar scars

Fig. 7. Knossos. Butt types of ob sid ian flakes fromaceramic layer X: 1 – un pre pared, 2 – pre pared by sin -gle blow, 3 – fac eted, 4 – punctiform, 5 – di hed ral

is from 15 to 24 mm, width from 3 to 7 mm. Thespec i mens are fairly ro bust, the edges and theinterscar ridges are ir reg u lar. Ma jor ity of the bla-des have uni di rec tional dorsal pattern.

Blade butts are sin gle-blow or punctiform.The pres ence of tools made from rel a tively reg u -lar blades, more than 24 mm long, al lows to as -sume that they were pro duced off-site and werebrought to the site as com pleted items. Be causethe se ries of blades from si li ceous rocks is small(9) we can not draw over all con clu sions as to themethod of their pro duc tion. Some of these bladesmust have been larger; un for tu nately only frag -ments have been pre served such as, for ex am ple, a radiolarite spec i men (trench X spit 24) lon gerthan 34 mm. A blade with a pre pared butt in di -cates the ex is tence of cores whose preparationwas more advanced.

ToolsTools are, as a rule, mostly made from flakes,

tools from blades, splint ered pieces and splin tersare next in num ber. The blanks used for the pro -duc tion of both blade and flake tools are largerthan blanks com monly found. Blade tools lengthare be tween 21 and 45 mm long; ma jor ity are lon -ger than 21 mm. Di men sions like this sug gest thatthe tools were brought to the site as com pletedprod ucts. Only some flake tools, tools on splin ters and splint ered pieces could have been made at thesite. The pro por tion of ob sid ian in the tool groupis higher than in the en tire inventory (76.1%).

Re touched tools (47 spec i mens) are rep re -sented by the fol low ing techno-mor pho log i calgroups: backed pieces (7), trun ca tions/micro liths(2), a backed piece+end-scraper (1), end-scrap ers(2), re touched blades and frag ments (6), flakesand re touched splin ters (21 – in clud ing spec i mens with notches), re touched splint ered pieces (6),and sickle inserts (2).

Backed piecesIn trench X there were 4 backed pieces, in

trench ZE – 2, and in AC – 1. Four spec i mens aremade from ob sid ian, three from radiolarite. Thebacked pieces were made on blades; in re spect ofthe shape of the blunted back we can dis tin guish:

– mediolithic arched backed pieces, with aslightly con vex blunted back shaped by steep,mar ginal re touch. In two cases the re touch is uni -

di rec tional, ob verse (Pl. II.5, 6), and in one it isob verse/in verse (Pl. II.7). In the last case theretouch cuts the blade up to its max i mum thick-ness.

– the mesial part of a weakly con vex backedpiece on a macroblade; steep, mar ginal re touch.The blade was in ten tion ally short ened by twofrac tures from the dor sal side. Par tial in verse re -touch on the lat eral side (Pl. II.8),

– an arched backed piece on a mediolithic,fairly broad blade; in verse lat eral and dis tal re -touch (Pl. II.9),

– a backed piece with an angulated bluntedback (dos anguleux) shaped by prox i mal, steepin verse re touch and fine, dis tal, semi-steep ob -verse re touch (Pl. III.1). This spec i men could also be in ter preted as an oblique prox i mal truncation,

– an asym met ri cal backed piece ´ dosanguleux with steep lat eral in verse re touch andin verse/ob verse prox i mal re touch (Pl. III.2).

Trun ca tions/micro lithsThey are rep re sented by only two spec i mens: – a microlithic dou ble trun ca tion from ob sid -

ian that can be as cribed to asym met ri cal tra pezes.The trun ca tion is oblique, prox i mal, and dis tal ona transversal break (Pl. III.3).

– a dou ble trun ca tion on a blade fromradiolarite. The trun ca tions were shaped by steepdenticulated re touch. It could be in ter preted as akind of an asym met ri cal tra peze (?) (Pl. III.4).

A backed piece + end-scraperA unique tool is an arched backed piece on an

ob sid ian blade with a kind of end-scraper shapedin the dis tal part. Pos si bly, this had been an arched backed piece whose tip had been dam aged andwhich was trans formed into an end-scraper (Pl.III.5).

End-scrap ersThe only two end-scrap ers are atyp i cal: – a dam aged end-scraper on a large ob sid ian

flake de tached from a dou ble-plat form core. Thefront was bro ken off: only its lat eral frag ment re -mained (Pl. III.6),

– a frag ment of a small end-scraper on a coreor on an ob sid ian splint ered piece. The front islow and nosed (Pl. III.7).


Re touched bladesAll the re touched blades (6) were made from

ob sid ian: – a blade de tached from a dou ble-plat form

core with par tial lat eral, mainly in verse, but alsoob verse, re touch (Pl. III.9),

– a dis tal frag ment of a blade with fine, semi-steep ob verse re touch on one edge (Pl. III.8),

– four small, mesial frag ments of blades withlat eral ob verse re touch of one edge: one spec i men has two frac tures (Pl. IV.1), and the three oth ers afrac ture and a break (Pl. IV.2,3). One of them (ona macroblade) has par tial re touch ex tend ing ontothe dis tal break (pos si bly an end-scraper?).

Flakes and re touched splin tersThe ma jor ity are ob sid ian spec i mens (14),

three from radiolarite, and others from blackmenilithic shale, chal ce dony and quartz one each:

– 6 spec i mens are with lat eral re touch: fine-con tin u ous (pos si bly pseudo-re touch) (Pl. IV.4),fine, lightly notched, dis con tin u ous (Pl. IV.5),prox i mal semi-steep (Pl. IV.6,7), con tin u ous in -verse (Pl. IV.8), or dis con tin u ous, bi lat eral ob -verse/inverse (Pl. IV.9),

– a flake with con cave prox i mal re touch and a thinned base (Pl. IV.10),

– a small flake with fine dis tal re touch(Pl.V.1),

– a dis tal part of a flake with fine, bi lat eralob verse re touch (Pl.V.2),

– a flake with denticulated lat eral-transversalre touch; from black menilithic shale,

– three splin ters with par tial lat eral re touch :fine in verse (Pl.V.3), par tial ob verse (Pl.V.4), and with two flat in verse scars (Pl.V.5),

– three re touched flakes: two flakes with ven -tral re touch of which one is from radiolarite andthe other from ob sid ian; a frag ment with dor salre touch also from ob sid ian,

– four flakes with re touched notches: twowith sin gle notches (one is from chal ce dony, theother from radiolarite), and two with dou blenotches: a radiolarite flake and an ob sid ian flakewhich has not been found in the col lec tion butwhich was pub lished by J. Conolly (2006: fig.17a),

– to this group was also as cribed a flake de -tached from a quartz peb ble with a prox i mal notch (Pl. V.6).

Re touched splint ered piecesThe three re touched splint ered pieces were

made from ob sid ian: – three bi po lar two-sided spec i mens with fine

uni lat eral re touch (Pl. V.7,8),– a small bi po lar, two-sided splint ered piece

with bifacial re touch of one lat eral side (Pl. V.9),– a re sid ual splint ered piece with denticulated

re touch (Pl. V.10), and a frag ment of a sim i larsplint ered piece, also with denticulated re touch(Pl. V.11).

Sickle in sertsTwo spec i mens could have been used as

sickle in serts. A small bladelet from radiolaritehad denticulated uti li za tion re touch and obliquesil ica gloss (Pl. V.12). This is prob a bly the onlybladelet in the col lec tion pro duced by pres suretech nique and could be an in tru sion from youn ger lay ers. This bladelet was found in spit 26 trenchAC. An ob sid ian blade could have been uti lized in a sim i lar way; it has flat dor sal re touch and semi-flat ven tral re touch (Pl. V.14). The type of re touch al lows as to as sume that this spec i men is an in tru -sion from the youn ger, Ce ramic Neo lithic lay ers;al though it was found in spit 22 trench X.

DIS CUS SION

The econ omy of the aceramic Neo lithic at

Knossos

The Aceramic Neo lithic set tle ment settled atabout 7000–6700 cal BC (Ev ans, 1994; Efstra-tiou, 2005) com manded a fully-fledged Neo lithicecon omy and ar chi tec ture of clay and stone i.e. afull Neo lithic pack age – ex cept for ce ram ics. Thishas been con firmed by de tailed anal y ses of thelow est lev els (spit 39,38), at a depth of up to 8.5 m,from a trial trench dug by N. Efstratiou in the Cen -tral Court of the Pal ace (Efstratiou et al., 2004;Efstratiou, 2005). The sub sis tence econ omy of thefirst in hab it ants at Knossos re lied on do mes ti cated(else where – not on Crete) live stock (ovicaprids,pigs, cows, dogs) im ported from the Near East andon the cul ti va tion of ce re als (Triticum sp., alsoTriticum aestivum, in ves ti ga tions by J. Ev ans) andof le gumes (Pisium sp.) that, too, had no lo cal an te -ced ents. Al monds (Amygdalus communis) and figs (Ficus carica) were also col lected.


The study of the bo tan i cal re mains re cov eredfrom the sub se quent ex ca va tions di rected by N.Efstratiou shows that the be gin nings of oc cu pa -tion in the Kairatos val ley – where Knossos is lo -cated – took place in the con text of an ev er greenfor est with pine, cy press, ju ni per trees and oak. Italso in cluded some al mond and straw berry trees,as well as some bushes.

In Greece, the pres ence of the Neo lithic eco -nomic pack age in an aceramic con text is quiterare: else where is only well doc u mented in lithicphase X at Franchthi (PerlÀs, 1987). Here one hasto keep in mind that sites go ing back to the EarlyNeo lithic in Thessaly where claims have beenmade for aceramics ac tu ally turn out to con tainsome ce ramic (PerlÀs, 1989, 2001). It will be re -called that the Aceramic Neo lithic lay ers at Fran-chthi are dated to ca. 6780–6580 cal BC and thespe cies of cul ti vated ce re als found there (emmerwheat and two row bar ley) and len til (Lens nigri-cans ssp.) – as in the case of do mes ti cated an i mals were not the con se quence of do mes ti ca tion of lo -cal wild plants (Hansen, 1991).

It should be added that in the Aegean Is lands(Maroulas on Kythnos, Gioura in the North ernSporades) a few com po nents of the Neo lithicpack age are found in con nec tion with what ap -pears to be a sed en tary way of life namely: stonehab i ta tion struc tures on a round plan, pave ments, grind ing equip ment con nected with the in creas -ing im por tance of plant pro cess ing, and semi-do -mes ti cated pigs, as well as pos si bly sheep/goat(if the strati graphic con text of these bones is cor -rectly ob served) (Sampson et al., 2010; Tran-talidou, 2008, 2010). Thus one of the har bin gersof the Neo lithic pack age had al ready made its ap -pear ance on Kythnos as early as 8800–8600 calBC.

The oc cur rence of po ten tial or in cip i ent el e -ments of the Neo lithic subsistance already in theMesolithic of the Aegean Is lands, the full Neo -lithic pack age on Crete and at Franchthi on theGreek main land (with no ev i dence for lo cal do -mes ti ca tion in ei ther case), doc u ment early con -tacts with the Near East and Cy prus. These con -tacts can be placed even be fore the pe riod when in these ter ri to ries the clas si cal model of Neo lithicecon omy in the Pre-ce ramic Phase (PPNB) wasfunc tion ing. The new ex ca va tions in Cyprus ofthe sites Klimonas and Agia Varvara, at trib uted to

the PPNA, con firm the pres ence (sim i larly to theAegean Mesolithic at Maroulas) of the wild boaron a path way to wards its even tual do mes ti ca tion(Vigne et al., 2011),

The aceramic Neo lithic at Knossos and theques tion of Mesolithic oc cu pa tion on Crete

In the 1960s and 1970s when the lower lev elsat Knossos on Crete were dis cov ered and in ves ti -gated no ev i dence for preneolithic sites on Cretehad been rec og nized. It was only the re cent fieldsur vey car ried out in the area near Plakias on theinlands south coast that brought the dis cov ery ofthe first sites at trib uted to the Mesolithic (Strasseret al., 2010). Re gret fully, the sites of Dammoni 1and 3, Ammoudi 3 and Schinaria 1 yielded al most only quartz artefacts, and the pieces, fur ther more,were only sur face-col lected ones. Preveli 2 wasthe sole site where artefacts were strat i fied in claysed i ment that was taken to be as a soil of EarlyHo lo cene age. Thus, there were a short age ofchro no log i cal in di ca tors that would make it pos si -ble to date these finds and to al low them to be in -ter preted as ho mo ge neous as sem blages. For ex -am ple in the in ven tory from Schinaria 1 only onereg u lar blade made from chert was found (Stras-ser et al., 2010: fig. 16g), which co-oc curred witha lau rel leaf shaped ar row head made from quartzwith a flat re touch, a hall mark of a more re centtime; it can not be in ter preted as a “geo met ricmicrolith”. Sim i larly, most of the quartz artefactsthat are claimed to be “geo met ric micro liths”(Strasser et al., 2010: fig. 16 a–j) do not match the au thor’s def i ni tion of a microlith – even if the spe -cific and lim it ing prop er ties of quartz are takeninto ac count. At the same time the artefacts fromAmmoudi 3: flake side-scrap ers, end-scraper-becs from quartz (Strasser et al., 2010: fig. 17)may not be di ag nos tic of the Mesolithic, al thoughtheir at tri bu tion to the flake Mesolithic is pos si -ble. Sim i lar flake tools oc cur at Damoni 1 in as so -ci a tion with the al leged “geo met ric mi crolith”(Strasser et al., 2010: fig. 22a–e). In re al ity, onlytwo artefacts can, pos si bly, be as signed to backedpieces with an arched blunted back (Strasser etal., 2010: fig. 22b) or with an angulated bluntedback (Strasser et al., 2010: fig. 22e) and could beof pre-Neo lithic age.

The in ter pre ta tion of some sites on Crete asMesolithic is based on the as sump tion that sites


with flake tools with denticulated-notched re -touch are di ag nos tic of the Mesolithic. The highpro por tion of quartz at sites on Crete calls for par -tic u lar cau tion when the artefacts from these sitesare interpreted.

In any case, the tech no log i cal and raw ma te ri -als dif fer ences do no al low us to sup port the claim that the “Mesolithic” from south ern Crete shouldbe a pos si ble pre de ces sor of the Aceramic Neo -lithic from Knosos.

The aceramic Neo lithic from Knossos – in ter -re gional re la tions

The pres ence of Melian ob sid ian at Knossosbears wit ness to con tacts with the Aegean Sea Ba -sin (Fig. 8, Ta ble 1), also seen in tech nol ogy andmor phol ogy of lithics. Sea-borne con tacts andcul tural trans mis sion could have ex isted with thePeloponese where the Neo lithic Aceramic Phaseis recorded in the Franchthi Cave, and with theAegean Is lands of Kythnos, Ikaria, Chalkis,Naxos and Giura with the Pre-Neo lithic in dus tries of the “Aegean Mesolithic” (Kaczanowska et al.,2008; Koz³owski and Kaczanowska, 2009).

The aceramic in dus try from Knossosin com par i son with the Mesolithic/Ini tialNeo lithic of the Peloponese

The as sem blage of lithic phase X at Franch-thi, dated to ca. 6500 cal BC, is char ac ter ized bypre dom i nance of flints and lo cal radiolarites andan in creased pro por tion of ob sid ian in com par i -son with pre ced ing Mesolithic as sem blages (up to 9%; PerlÀs, 1990). The use of blade tech nique,too, in creases in phase X to 10% of the debitageprod ucts (and among tools up to 30%). An otherdis tinc tive fea ture of this as sem blage is its reg u lar blades made by means of pres sure tech nique(PerlÀs, 1990: fig. 24.1–9). Blades like this are ab -sent in layer X at Knossos (with one ex cep tion).On the other hand, in the Ini tial Neo lithic at Fran-chthi, splint ered pieces are more nu mer ous thanthey are in the Mesolithic lay ers, and, as in thecase of Knossos, they are made ex clu sively fromob sid ian.

Among the tool types at Franchthi, the mostfre quent ones are denticulated-notched tools fol -lowed by per fo ra tors/becs, trun ca tions and micro -liths. Some of micro liths in clude sym met ri cal


Fig. 8. Map of the sites men tioned in the text

spec i mens (i.e. these are dif fer ent from the micro -liths at Knossos; PerlÀs 1990;fig. 15) as well asflÀches tranchantes (or ar ma tures ´ tranchanttransversal, ac cord ing to PerlÀs, 1990: 104) thatare typ i cal of the Mesolithic in the west ern part ofthe Med i ter ra nean Ba sin. The as sem blage at Fran- chthi com bines the tra di tions of the lo cal Mesoli-thic and of the in flu ence with some el e ments ofLate Mesolithic tra di tion in the west ern part of the Med i ter ra nean Ba sin. We must, there fore, dis -agree with J. Conolly (2008) who claims that “theIN as sem blage from Knossos has much in com -mon with the IN Franchthi Cave as sem blages.”The com mon el e ments in the two as sem blages are sim ply rather ba nal forms (splint ered pieces anddenticulated/notched tools), whereas there aremarked dif fer ences be tween the more di ag nos tictool classes. On the other hand, we can con curwith Conolly’s po si tion that Franchthi and Kno-ssos do not be long to “the same Mesolithic tra di -tion” and that “any Mesolithic el e ments in the as -

sem blage seem un likely to be the prod uct of cul -tural con ti nu ity with main land Aegean indige-neous hunter-gath er ers” (Conolly, 2008: 85).

The Aceramic In dus try at Knossosin Com par i son with the Lithic As sem blages of the “Aegean Mesolithic”

In terms of their raw ma te ri als, the Mesolithic as sem blages oc cur ring at sites on the Aegean Is -lands vary widely from one to the next, they com -monly have a fairly large ex tra-lo cal com po nent(that is, not com ing from a given is land it self). For ex am ple, at Maroulas on Kythnos, Melian ob sid -ian ac counts for 31.1%, im ported white flint(from the Peloponese?) for 10.6% and lo calquartz for the rest (56.0%). At Kerame on Ikaria,Melian ob sid ian com prises 30.0% of the as sem -blage, and this is com ple mented by ob sid ian fromGhiali (15.0%) and white patinated flints (48.8%)of un known or i gin. The avail abil ity of dif fer entraw ma te ri als on dif fer ent is lands called for tech -


Ta ble 1Interegional con text of the Aceramic Neo lithic in Knossos

niques – no ta bly, of chaînes operatoires – thatwere adapted to work ing the var i ous rocks. Inturn, this en hanced the vari abil ity among the is -lands’ Mesolithic as sem blages. It should be added that all of the raw ma te ri als were ac tu ally workedon-site, and the fi nal prod ucts of the full pro duc -tion cy cle were tools that were used at the site. Asin the case of Knossos, one of the dis tinc tive fea -tures of the Maroulas as sem blage is the fair num -ber of tools pro duced by means of the splint eredtech nique. While this is an in di ca tor of thrifty raw ma te rial ex ploi ta tion, it may rep re sent a cul turalor sty lis tic trait as well.

The ma jor tool groups in the Aegean Mesoli-thic in cluded end-scrap ers, per fo ra tors/becs, trun -ca tions, backed im ple ments and denticulated andnotched tools. Their fre quen cies ex hibit only mi -nor vari a tions. At Maroulas, for ex am ple, denti-culated-notched tools com prise the most fre quentones (25.9%), but the pro por tion of end-scrap ers,per fo ra tors/becs, and re touched flakes are allfairly high rang ing be tween 15 and 18%. At Ke-rame, re touched flakes (22.2%) and denticulated/notched tools (19.5%) pre dom i nate, while trun ca -tions, backed pieces, per fo ra tors/becs have values again between 5 and 18%.

In terms of mor phol ogy, the com mon el e -ments of the Aegean Mesolithic and the Ini tialNeo lithic at Knossos are, of course, denticulated-notched tools and re touched flakes as well somespe cific types or vari ants of tools (see Pl. III.7)such as nosed end-scrap ers (com pare Sampson etal., 2010: pl. XIV.1–6), small arched backedpieces from Maroulas (Sampson et al., 2010: pl.XVIII.1–6) and from Kerame (Sampson et al.,2008: fig. 2.2–6). How ever, they are thicker atMaroulas than at Knossos. More over, some tra -pezes/dou ble trun ca tions from Maroulas (Samp-son et al., 2010: pl. XVII.12–14) re sem ble what is found at Knossos (Pl. III.4). At the Aegean sites,the fre quency of blades is low (only 1.9% atMaroulas and 3.2% at Kerame) but some lat er allyre touched blades and bladelets do oc cur at thesetwo sites (Sampson et al., 2010: pl. XX.17–23).

Thus, some of the techno-mor pho log i cal fea -tures of the as sem blage re cov ered from layer X atKnossos share much in com mon with as sem -blages of the Aegean Mesolithic. In short, it is fair to say that, in broad terms, they be long to thesame cul tural tra di tion. Nev er the less, there are

also dif fer ences be tween them, which stem, inpart, from the broader va ri ety of raw ma te ri als inthe Aegean Mesolithic. At the same time, some ofthe vari abil ity may be due to dif fer ent func tionaltool types that were called for in do ing spe cifictasks and ac tiv i ties as so ci ated re spec tively withcoastal for ag ing (the Aegean Mesolithic) and first farm ing (the Aceramic Neolithic at Knossos)

The Aceramic Neo lithic at Knossosin com par i son with the Aceramic Neo lithicon Cy prus

The com mon el e ments of the sub sis tenceecon omy at Aceramic Neo lithic set tle ment on Cy -prus and the “Neo lithic pack age” at Knossos pro -vide a prem ise for com par ing of lithic as sem -blages in the two places. On Cy prus up un til quitere cently, there was a gap of about two thou sandyears be tween the Epipalaeolithic as seen at Aeto- kremnos (Simmons, 1999) with 14C dates in theelev enth mil len nium cal BC and the AceramicNeo lithic (PPNB). To day this gap is smaller withthe PPNA at Klimonas and Agia Varvara (Knapp, 2010; Vigne et al., 2011). The clas si cal PPNBfea tures, as seen at Shillourokambos, goes back to ca 8400–8000 cal BC – Guilaine and Briois, 2008). The PPNB tra di tion than con tin ued to evolve onCy prus, as doc u mented by multi-phase set tle mentssuch as Shillourocambos (phase ancienne B etmoyenne/récente), Miloukhtia (pit 133) and Kala-vassos-Tenta (phases 4–2), as cribed to the time in -ter val of 8000–7000 cal BC. The fi nal phase of this evo lu tion is the Late Aceramic Phase as seen forex am ple at Khirokhitia which is dated to 7000–6200 cal BC (Guilaine and Le Brun, 2003).

The evo lu tion of the PPN on Cy prus wasmarked by strong links with the Syro-Pal es tin ianand East ern-Ana to lian coast. They can be tracedin econ omy and ar chi tec ture, as well as in lithictech nol ogy (the dom i nant macroblade tech niqueem ployed ini tially on a dou ble-plat form naviform cores) and tool mor phol ogy (e.g. pedunculated/tanged points of Byblos and Amuq type). Thelinks be tween the main land and Cy prus ap pear tohave per sisted as late as the Late Aceramic Phase.

Be fore and par al lel to the evo lu tion of thePPN, in the lit to ral zone of Cy prus lithic in dus -tries ap pear with flake tech nol ogy and tools dom i -nated by re touched flakes and side-scrap ers.Backed pieces, per fo ra tors and end-scrap ers also


oc cur. The dat ing of the flake lithic tra di tion onCy prus is based on its strati graphic po si tion in re -la tion to the Late Phase of the PPNB in dus tries atthe site of Nissi Beach (Ammerman et al., 2006,2007, 2008; Ammerman, 2011). But the stra tig ra -phy at Nissi Beach is likely to have been re versedby tsu nami (Ammerman et al., 2007). If such isthe case the flake in dus try dis trib uted on the sur -face of this site would be older than the dates ob -tained on the “blade as sem blage” from the Ho lo -cene soil (dated on shells at of 7750–7100 cal BP;Ammerman et al., 2008). This “blade as sem -blage” tes tify the oc cu pa tion on a sea sonal ba sis.The flake in dus try on the sur face ex hib its a num -ber of sim i lar i ties with the “Aegean Mesolithic”both of tech nol ogy and tool mor phol ogy. Con se -quently, sim i lar i ties can also be es tab lished withthe as sem blage from layer X from Knossos, par -tic u larly of arched backed pieces and re touchedsplint ered pieces. It should be em pha sized, how -ever, that arched backed pieces oc cur also in theyoun ger as sem blages of the PPNB (McCartney,2003: fig. 8, 9) or even in the Ce ramic Neo lithicof Cy prus (Flourentzos et al., 2008: fig. 2.2).

The chro nol ogy of layer X at Knossos cor re -sponds to the tran si tion of the 8th/7th and firstquar ter of the 7th millenium cal BC, thus, in com -par i son with Cy prus, this in dus try could be syn -chro nous with the Late Phase of the Aceramic“Blade as sem blage” and, at the same time (as sum -ing the re ver sal of stra tig ra phy at the site), laterthan the flake in dus try from the Nissi Beach.There fore we sug gest that Crete owes its full Neo -lithic pack age in clud ing econ omy and el e ments of blade tech nique (note the splint ered piece on ablade core; Pl. I.1) to con tacts with the Near Eastvia Cy prus. The blade tech nique can be seen firstof all on blanks for the pro duc tion of most archedbacked pieces (Pls II.5–9, III.1). While layer X atKnossos is youn ger than the sites of the AegeanMesolithic dated at 9th millenium BC (Maroulas,Ikaria – Sampson et al., 2010), yet the tra di tion offlake tech nol ogy as co-oc cur ring with the splint -ered tech nique, is ap par ent at Knossos and in theflake in dus try from Nissi Beach on Cy prus. Onthese grounds we sug gest the pres ence of a com -mon lit to ral tra di tion of the East ern Med i ter ra -nean for ag ing peo ples. El e ments of the Neo lithicpack age were su per im posed on the ba sis of thiscom mon sub stra tum by the el e ments of the full

Neo lithic pack age and the blade tech nol ogy. Sea -far ing prac ticed since the Pre-Neo lithic time, al -lowed for the dif fu sion of this tra di tions and cul -tural in flu ences that is ev i denced by lithic rawma te ri als cir cu la tion, no ta bly the ob sid ian, acrossthe east ern part of the Mediterraean Sea Ba sin. Inthe pres ent state of in ves ti ga tions a par al lel evo lu -tion can not be ruled out wherein coastal for ag ingand early agro-pastoralism would have constitu-ted “alternative and complementary ways of life”– as A. Ammerman (2010) proposes.

The Aceramic ver sus the Early Neo lithic I atKnossos

The blank re duc tion tech nol ogy, the com po -si tion of the raw ma te ri als and the mor phol ogy ofre touched tools all doc u ment con ti nu ity be tweenthe Aceramic Neo lithic and the Early Neo lithic Iat Knossos. The same raw ma te ri als were ex -ploited, al though the fre quency of ob sid ian incre-ases in Early Neo lithic I, whereas that of si li ceousrocks, which now be come less var ied, de clines.

Pro duc tion of ar ti facts in si li ceous rocks(mainly radiolarite) – done on-site – was evensmaller than in the Aceramic Phase (Fig. 1); it isshown by the ab sence of cores and smaller pro -por tion of debitage prod ucts (flakes and chips).Off-site pro duc tion in the case of si li ceous rockswas con cerned mainly with tool pro duc tion. Onthe other hand, ob sid ian was still worked on-siteat Knossos, al though the fre quency of ob sid iancores is lower. How ever, in or der to pro duce ob -sid ian blanks, the splint ered tech nique could have been used – just as in the Aceramic Neo lithic.How ever, chaînes operatoires of ob sid ian pro -cess ing were more ad vanced than in the Aceramic Phase as in di cated by the pres ence of tab letsshow ing the in ten tional ad just ment of core an gledur ing the course of re duc tion. In the Early Neo -lithic I as sem blage, lon ger blades make their ap -pear ance, which may in di cate a more reg u lar orbetter sup ply of raw ma te rial as well as a more ad -vanced chaînes operatoires. From the Early Neo -lithic I, there are only two blades that prob a blyreached the site by means of ex change and thatshow un ques tion ably the use of the pres sure tech -nique. Thus, lon ger blades are the result of theoff-site use of pressure technique.

Al though the same ma jor tool groups wereused in both times, their fre quen cies change mar-


kedly. In the Aceramic Neo lithic, one finds thatflakes, splint ered pieces and denticulated-notchedtools pre dom i nated (Pl. VI.1,2); in the Early Neo -lithic I blades with lat eral re touch (Pl. VI.13–17),which was usu ally dis con tin u ous, be came more im -por tant, and re touched flakes came next (Pl. VI.4,5). In ad di tion, the fre quency of arched backed pieceschanges; they are less com mon in the Early Neo -lithic I (Pl. VI.6,7). Other tool groups – end-scrap ers (Pl. VI.8,9), trun ca tions (Pl. VI.10) and per fo ra tors(Pl. VI.11) – now fall off.

The most sig nif i cant dif fer ence be tween theAceramic Neo lithic and the Early Neo lithic I isthe ap pear ance of tools with sur face re touch: forex am ple, a small tri an gu lar ar row head with a con -vex base (Pl. VI.19), a splint ered piece with sur -face re touch shap ing a segmentoidal tool (usedpos si bly as an in sert; Pl. VI.20) and a sickle in serton a blade with bi lat eral re touch of the edge andthe tip (Pl. VI.21). These artefacts were madefrom radiolarite.

In the Early Neo lithic I, there is now the pres -ence of a dou ble trun ca tion (or a ro bust tra peze)on an ob sid ian macroblade, and a sickle in sertwith a thick, con cave dis tal trun ca tion, also fromradiolarite. In the Aceramic Neo lithic, such toolsare ab sent, al though dou ble trun ca tions – both fine(Pl. III.3) and ro bust (Pl. III.4) – are ob served.

CON CLU SIONS

On Crete so far, no lo cal Aceramic Neo lithicpre de ces sor to Knossos has been dis cov ered onthe is land. Nor is there at the pres ent time a welldoc u mented site that is con tem po rary with theAceramic Neo lithic at Knossos. In our view, theques tion of Mesolithic sites re mains an open one.In any case, the ar ti facts col lected from the sur -face of sites near Plakias are al most all in quartzand they in volve dif fer ent lithic re duc tion tech -nol ogy, so they can not be in ter preted as giv ingrise to what is found in the Aceramic Neo lithic atKnossos. The se quence of oc cu pa tions com pris -ing layer X at Knossos is, in all like li hood, thesum of rel a tively brief so journs by groups withfarm ing-stock breed ing econ omy, who vis itedCrete as part of “causal sea-move ments in theAegean” (Efstratiou, 2005: 83).

These groups be longed to a sys tem atic net -work of sea-goers who since the time of the Me-

solithic em braced the en tire Aegean Sea Ba sin to -gether with Cy prus. This was a re gion where sev -eral dif fer ent cul tural tra di tions met and in ter -acted with one another:

– the tra di tion known as the “Aegean Meso-lithic,” which de rived from the east ern Med i ter ra -nean Epigravettian and de vel oped si mul ta neously with the first post-gla cial fre quent ing and even -tual set tling of the Aegean Is lands (Cyclades,Dodecanese, Sporades). The for ma tion of this tra -di tion co in cided with in ten si fi ca tion over time inthe ex ploi ta tion of obsidian on Melos and Ghiali;

– We can put for ward the hy poth e sis that thefor ma tion of the “Aegean Mesolithic” brought asa re sult mar i time ex pan sion to the east – prob a blyalong the coasts of Anatolia – as far as Cy pruswhere a spe cific vari a tion of this cul tural tra di tion evolved, rep re sented by the flake in dus try fromNissi Beach (Ammerman, 2008). The con tacts be -tween the Aegean Is lands and the east ern ba sin ofthe Med i ter ra nean Sea – where food pro duc ingecon omy ap peared at the very be gin ning of theHo lo cene – had born fruit in the form of pre misesof Neolithization in the Aegean Sea Ba sin: among oth ers sta bil ity of set tle ment, first semi-do mes ti -cated an i mals, stone ar chi tec ture. None the less,these phe nom ena took place in the con di tions ofpre vail ing coastal for ag ing econ omy. There isnow also the PPNA on Cy prus (first half of the 9th

millenium cal BC and co eval with Maroulas) butthere is no evidence for it in the Aegean so far.

– the ar rival of the PPNB on Cy prus with itsvery close par al lels (over a full range of dif fer entcul tural and then eco nomic do mains and not just a few se lected ones) to the PPNB in the Near Eastand its long and steady evo lu tion over time(8500–6200 cal BC). This de vel op ment was fa cil -i tated by the on-go ing “growth” of early sea far ing as re flected by cir cu la tion of ob sid ian now seenon Cy prus (for the first time) and by the new an i -mals now reach ing the is land, as now doc u mented by Vigne et al. (2011). This eco nomic pack agewas adapted by the lo cal for ag ers. The abovemen tioned cul tural tra di tions that emerged fromthe mul ti di rec tional sea-born con tacts con trib uted to the emer gence of a unique Aceramic Neo lithicculture units represented in layer X at Knossos.

In this pro cess, the dom i nant role was playedthe cross ing tra di tions of the Aegean and Cy prus.On the other hand, the rather unique Aceramic


Neo lithic at Franchthi in the Peloponese arosefrom the tra di tions of the Epigravettian Mesolithicand the sty lis tic in flu ence of the Late West ernMed i ter ra nean Mesolithic (that is, el e ments of theCastelnovian tech nol ogy and flÀches tranchantes;PerlÀs, 1987: fig. 24.1–8, 26.7,8) upon which theNear East Neo lithic pack age was su per im posed.Whether Crete played a role in the trans mis sion ofthis pack age re mains an open ques tion.

The hy poth e sis put for ward here finds sup -port in the re sults of ge netic re search – no ta bly onchro mo some Y. On Crete, the haplogroup J2b-M410 is dom i nant, com mon with Anatolia,whereas, in the Peloponese, just as in the Bal kans, the dom i nant group is J2a-M12. How ever, thepos si bil ity can not be ex cluded that some ear lierre la tions ex isted be tween Crete and the Argolide,where haplogroup E3ba-VI 13 dom i nates (Kinget al., 2008).

Ac knowl edg ments

The au thors wish to thank Prof. Al bert Ammerman and Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef for com ments on early draftsof this pa per.

REF ER ENCES

AMMERMAN A. 2010. The frst Ar go nauts: to wardsthe study of he ear li est sea far ing in the Med i ter ra -nean. In: A. An der son, J. Barrett, K. Boyle (eds)Global or i gins and de vel op ment of sea far ing. TheMc Don ald In sti tute for Ar chae o log i cal Re search,Cam bridge, 81–92.

AMMERMAN A. 2011. The par a dox of early voy ag -ing in the Med i ter ra nean and the slow ness of theNeo lithic tran si tion be tween Cy prus and It aly. In:G. Vavouranaki (ed.) The sea scape in Aegean Pre -his tory. Mono graphs of the Dan ish In sti tute at Ath -ens 14, Ath ens, 31–50.

AMMERMAN A., FLOURENTZOS P., McCART-NEY C., NOLLER J., SORABJI D. 2006. Two newsites on Cy prus. Re port of the De part ment of Anti-quities, Cy prus, 1–22.

AMMERMAN A., FLOURENTZOS P., GABRIELLIR., McCARTNEY C., NOLLER J., PELOSO D.,SORABJI D. 2007. More on the new early sites onCy prus. Re port of the De part ment of An tiq ui ties,Cy prus, 1–26.

AMMERMAN A., FLOURENTZOS P., GABRIELLIR., HIGHAM T., McCARTNEY C., TURNBULLT. 2008. Third re port on early sites on Cy prus. Re -port of the De part ment of An tiq ui ties, Cy prus, 1–32.

CANN J., RENFREW C. 1964. The source of the ob -sid ian from the Neo lithic lev els at Knossos. In: J.Ev ans (ed.) Ex ca va tions in the Neo lithic set tle mentof Knossos I. Brit ish School at Ath ens, Ath ens, 29.

CONOLLY J. 2008. The knapped stone tech nol ogy ofthe first oc cu pants at Knossos. In: V. Isaakidou, P.Tomkins (eds) Es cap ing the Lab y rinth: The CretanNeo lithic in Con text. Shef field Stud ies in AegeanAr chae ol ogy, Shef field.

EFSTRATIOU N., KARESTOU A., NANOU E.,MORGOMENOU D. 2004. The Neo lithic set tle -ment of Knossos: new light on an old pic ture. In: G.Codogan, E. Hatzaki, A. Vasiliakis (eds) Knossos,pal ace, city, state. Pro ceed ings of the Con fer ence in Heraklion and the 23rd Ephoreia of Pre his toric andClas si cal An tiq ui ties of Heraklion, No vem ber 2000.The Brit ish School at Ath ens Sup ple ments 12, Lon -don, 39–49.

EFSTRATIOU N. 2005. Trac ing the story of the firstfarm ers in Greece – a long and wid en ing road. In: C. Lichter, R. Meric (eds) How did farm ing reach Eu -rope. Ana to lian-Eu ro pean re la tions from the sec ond half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th

millenium cal BC. Pro ceed ings of the In ter na tionalWork shop Is tan bul, 20-22 May 2004. BYZAS 2,Veröfentlichung des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts Is tan bul, Is tan bul, 143–155.

EV ANS J. 1964. Ex ca va tions in the Neo lithic set tle -ment of Knossos 1957–1960, Part I. Brit ish Schoolat Ath ens 59, 132–230.

EV ANS J. 1968. Knossos Neo lithic, Part II: Sum maryand Con clu sions. Brit ish School at Ath ens 63, 239–276.

EV ANS J. 1971. Neo lithic Knossos: the growth of aset tle ment. Pro ceed ings of the Pre his toric So ci ety37, 95–117.

EV ANS J. 1994. The early millenia: con ti nu ity andchange in a farm ing set tle ment. In: D. Evely, H.Hughes-Brock, N. Momigliano (eds) Knossos. ALab y rinth of His tory, Brit ish School at Ath ens, Lon -don, 1–20.

FLOURENTZOS P., McCARTNEY C., CROFT P.W., REESE D.S. 2008. The Neo lithic set tle ment ofParalimni. De part ment of An tiq ui ties, Lefkosia.

GUILAINE J., Le BRUN F. 2003. Le Néolithique enChypre. Actes du Colloque In ter na tional Organisépar le Départment des Antiquités de Chypre etl´École Française d´AthÀnes, Nicosie 17-19 Mai2003. École Française d´AthÀne, Ath ens.

GUILAINE J., BRIOIS F. 2008. Shillourokambos andthe Neolithization of Cy prus: some re flec tions. Eur -asian Pre his tory 4(1-2), 159–175.

HANSEN J.M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Fran-chthi Cave. Ex ca va tions in Franchthi Cave, Greece,Fas ci cle 7. In di ana Uni ver sity Press, Indianopolis.


KACZANOWSKA M., KOZ£OWSKI J.K., SAMP-SON A. 2008. Le Mésolithique du bassin egéen.Etudes Balkaniques 15, 81–99.

KING R.J., OZCAN S.S., CARTER T., KALFOGLUE., ATASOY S., TRIANTAPHYLLIDIS C., KOU-VATSI A., LIN A., CHOW C., ZHIVOTOVSKYL., MICHALODIMIRTRAKIS M., UNDERHILLP.A. 2008. Dif fer en tial Y-chro mo some Ana to lianin flu ences on the Greek and Cretan Neo lithic. An -nals of Hu man Ge net ics 72, 205–214.

KNAPP A.B. 2010. Cy prus’s ear li est pre his tory: sea -far ers, for ag ers and set tlers. Jour nal of World Pre -his tory 23, 79–120.

KOZ£OWSKI J.K., KACZANOWSKA M. 2009. TheMesolithic of the Aegean ba sin: how to in ter pret thePre-Neo lithic set tle ment of the Aegean is lands andits role in the Neolithization of south-east ern Eu -rope. In: J. Shea, D. Liberman (eds) Tran si tions inPre his tory. Es says in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Ox -bow Books, Ox ford, 357–384.

McCARTNEY C.J. 2003. The Mylouthkia and Tentachipped stone in dus tries and their in ter pre ta tionwithin a re de fined Cyp riot Neo lithic. In: A. Gui-laine, A. Le Brun (eds) Le Néolithique de Chypre.Actes du Colloque In ter na tional Organisé par leDépartment des Antiquités de Chypre et l´ÉcoleFrançaise d´AthÀnes, Nicosie 17-19 Mai 2003.École Française d´AthÀne, Ath ens, 135–146.

PERLêS C. 1987. Les in dus tries lithiques taillées deFranchthi (Argolide, GrÀce) vol. 1. Ex ca va tions inFranchthi Cave, Fas ci cle 3. In di ana Uni ver sityPress, Indianopolis.

PERLêS C. 1989. La Néolithisation en GrÀce. In : O.Aurenche, J. Cauvin (eds) Néolithisations: Procheet Moyen Ori ent, Mediterranée Orienale, Nord del’Afrique, Eu rope meridionale, Chine. BAR In ter -na tional Se ries 516. Archaeopress, Ox ford, 109–127.

PERLêS C. 1990. Les in dus tries lithiques taillées deFranchthi (Argolide, GrÀce) vol. 2. Ex ca va tions inFranchthi Cave, Fas ci cle 5. In di ana Uni ver sityPress, Indianopolis.

PERLêS C. 2001. The Early Neo lithic in Greece. Cam -bridge Uni ver sity Press, Cam bridge.

SAMPSON A., KACZANOWSKA M., KOZ£OWSKI J.K. 2008. The first Mesolithic site in the east ernpart of the Aegean ba sin: ex ca va tions into the siteKerame I on the is land of Ikaria in 2008. RocznikPolskiej Akademii Umiejêtnoœci 2007/2008, 321–329.

SAMPSON A., KACZANOWSKA M., KOZ£OWSKI J.K. 2010. The Pre his tory of the is land of Kythnos(Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic set tle ment atMaroulas. Pol ish Acad emy of Arts and Sci ences,Kraków.

SIMMONS A.H. 1999. Fau nal ex tinc tion in an is landso ci ety: pigmy hip po pot a mus hunt ers in Cy prus.Kluwer Ac a demic Press, Dordrecht.

STRASSER T.F., PANAGOPOLOU E., RUN NELSC., MURRAY P., THOMP SON P., KARKANASP., Mc COY F., WEGMAN K. 2010. Stone age sea -far ing in the Med i ter ra nean. Ev i dence from the Pla-kias re gion for Lower Palaeo lithic and Mesolithichab i ta tion of Crete. Hesperia 79, 145–190.

TRANTALIDOU K. 2008. Glimpses of Aegean is landcom mu ni ties dur ing the Mesolithic and Neo lithicpe ri ods: the zooarchaeological point of view. In: N.Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, C. Renfrew (eds) Ho -ri zon. A col lo quium on the pre his tory of Cyclades.Mc Don ald In sti tute for Ar chae o log i cal Re search,Uni ver sity of Cam bridge, Cam bridge, 19–27.

TRANTALIDOU K. 2010. Di etary ad ap ta tions ofcoastal peo ple in the Aegean ar chi pel ago dur ing theMesolithic pe riod: the macrofauna as sem blages ofMaroulas on Kythnos. In: A. Sampson, M. Kacza-nowska, J.K. Koz³owski (eds) The Pre his tory of theis land of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Meso- lithic set tle ment at Maroulas. Pol ish Acad emy ofArts and Sci ences, Kraków, 163–178.

VIGNE J.D., BRIOIS F., ZAZZO A., CARRIERE I.,DAUJAT J., GUILAINE J. 2011. A new Early Pre-Pot tery site in Cy prus: Ayios Tychonas – Klimonas(ca. 8700 cal BC). Neo-Lithics 1, 3–17.



Pl. I. Knossos, Ini tial Neo lithic: 1–8 – cores, 9 – splint ered piece


Pl. II. Knossos, Ini tial Neo lithic: 1–4 splint ered pieces, 5–9 – tools


Pl. III Knossos, Ini tial Neo lithic: 1–9 – tools


Pl. IV. Knossos. Ini tial Neo lithic. 1–10 – tools


Pl. V. Knossos. Ini tial Neo lithic. 1–13 – tools


Pl. VI. Knossos, Early Neo lithic I: 1–21 – tools

LITHIC IN DUS TRY FROM THE ACERAMIC LEV ELS AT …The as sem blage from layer X at Knossos is...

Documents

Transcript of LITHIC IN DUS TRY FROM THE ACERAMIC LEV ELS AT …The as sem blage from layer X at Knossos is...