At the end of the 7th millennium, the Neolithic lifestyle in mainland Greece had already been established for several centuries. The turn from the 7th to 6th millennium roughly corresponds to the Early to Middle Neolithic transition according to the Greek chronology. The now famous “6200 cal BC” climatic event does not appear to have disrupted a continuous development of these farming communities: contrary to the later Middle to Late Neolithic transition, the Early to Middle Neolithic transition is characterized by a marked continuity in most domains, such as subsistence economy, settlement patterns and crafts production. The most visible transformation concerns the production of fine wares: Whereas Early Neolithic wares were mostly monochrome and of similar shape and style all over Greece, Middle Neolithic fine wares display conspicuous decorations and strongly regionalized styles. The stability of the economic base and the emphasis on visual display in pottery suggests that the Early to Middle Neolithic transition in Greece reflects mostly social transformations and different modes of interactions within and between communities. However, there is no indication that these transformations were caused by external factors, whether environmental or human.

The exceptional density of long-term Neolithic settlements in Thessaly was recognized from the beginning of the century. In the decades that followed, successive surveys gradually increased the number of sites identified, bringing the total to more than 300. In 1984, Halstead exploited an already impressive corpus and offered the first thorough analysis of settlement patterns in Thessaly (Halstead 1984). Although the details of his analyses have remained unpublished, the main diachronic and synchronic conclusions can be found in several papers (e.g., Halstead 1977, 1981a, 1989a, 1989b, 1994, 1995). Not much can presently be added to his analyses of western Thessaly, the Karditsa plain. In the meantime, however, Gallis had resumed surveys in eastern Thessaly with his collaborators, leading to the publication of a systematic ‘Atlas of prehistoric settlements in eastern Thessaly’ (the ATAE). This included several newly discovered sites and refined chronological attributions, as well as various statistics on the chronological distribution of sites, the duration of their occupation, their size, etc. (Gallis 1992).

Relying on Gallis' Atlas and recent geomorphological fieldwork (van Andel et al. 1995), van Andel and Runnels published another study that concentrated on the palaeo flood-plains of the Larissa basin. Though more restricted in scope than the previous analyses, its conclusions differed and were the basis of important theoretical developments on the causes and dynamics of the Neolithic expansion (van Andel and Runnels 1995).

According to some recent essays on the Neolithic, the latter should be viewed primarily as a mental, symbolic mutation: a new conception of the supernatural world, a different way of interacting with ‘divinities’ (Cauvin 1997; Hodder 1990). Whether or not this ‘symbolic revolution’ is considered as a driving force, it cannot be denied that the technical, economic and social transformations were sustained by transformations in the symbolic and ritual domains. The latter are often expressed in spectacular ways: the early PPNB monumental buildings such as the ‘Skull building’ at Çayönü (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1990), the ‘temples’ with greater than life-size anthropomorphic pillars at Nevali Çori (Hauptmann 1993), the 8-metre high tower of Jericho (Kenyon 1957). These early collective monuments are echoed, in later contexts, by the equally monumental graves and megalithic buildings of the Atlantic façade. In parallel, the highly structured representations on the house walls at Çatal Hüyük demonstrate that this ‘symbolic revolution’, whatever its exact interpretation (e.g., Cauvin 1997; Forest 1993; Hodder 1990), had also penetrated within the more private, domestic sphere.

Yet, no equivalent of these spectacular symbolic expressions has thus far been found in the Neolithic of Greece. If a spiritual mutation is to be recognized, it can possibly be sought in the profusion of small, ‘non-utilitarian’ objects – miniatures, models, ornaments, precious stone artefacts, incised clay tablets, and so forth – that characterize the Neolithic of Greece and that of its Near Eastern and Balkanic counterparts.

An elusive Mesolithic: absence of evidence or evidence of absence?

Here, I shall use the term Mesolithic in its chronological sense, to designate early Holocene hunter-gatherer assemblages. The period under consideration spans between c. 9500 and 8000 BP uncalibrated, or c. 8700 to 7000 BC in calendar years. Detailed data-oriented presentations have been offered elsewhere (Perlès 1990a, 1995; Runnels 1995), so I shall focus on issues directly relevant to the problem of the origins of the Neolithic.

The most salient characteristic of the Mesolithic in Greece is how poorly it is known, and how few sites are recorded. Diverging opinions about the significance of this scarcity have led to opposing views on the origins of the Neolithic in Greece. I shall argue that Mesolithic Greece was indeed sparsely populated, and that this low demography rules out the hypothesis of a purely indigenous shift to agriculture.

The few sites known to date concentrate in two main regions: north-east Attica and the Argolid, in eastern Greece, Corfu, the coastal plains of the Acheron and the Preveza region in north-western Greece (fig. 2.1). So far, only four sites have been excavated and published: Sidari in Corfu, Franchthi in the southern Argolid, Zaïmis in Attica and Ulbrich also in the Argolid. The important site of Theopetra, in Thessaly, with a sequence spanning the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, is currently under excavation by N. Kyparissi-Apostolika.

Paradoxically, even if the Near Eastern origin of several domesticated species is now well established, the precise origin of the farmers themselves remains as elusive as ever. No satisfactory link has been established with any specific region of the Near or Middle East, and the most obvious candidate, western Turkey, has not yet provided evidence of Neolithic settlements as early as those of Greece.

The ‘random’ parallels between Greece and the Near East

Depending on whether one envisions a rapid or a slow movement of expansion, the reference sites for comparisons differ. According to the model of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, western Anatolia and Greece belong to the same isochron. This would imply a roughly simultaneous expansion of farming groups in the two areas (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984). Given the dates of the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece, the best comparenda should thus belong to the Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) and the Early Pottery Neolithic of the Near East, that is, to phase 5 (6900–6400 cal BC) in the general chronological scheme of Aurenche et al. (1987; see also Cauvin 1985).

Yet, if the spread of farming groups were a slow movement, it would be more appropriate to turn to earlier sites, of the late phase 4 (late PPNB, c. 7600–6900 BC). The Late PPNB was indeed qualified by Cauvin (1989: 19; 1994: 107ff.) as the period of the ‘great exodus’, when Initial Neolithic farming groups started to migrate out of the ‘nuclear zone’ and to colonize the Taurus, central Anatolia, the deserts and the temperate Mediterranean zone.

Why a book on the Early Neolithic of Greece? The simplest answer is that a book on the subject does not exist. Yet, the Early Neolithic of Greece is the oldest in Europe, probably by several centuries. It is also frequently referred to as the source of all further development in Europe, either through the ‘maritime route’, along the Mediterranean coasts, or through the inland, Danubian route. Such broad statements reveal how poorly the Early Neolithic of Greece (or, for that matter, the Neolithic of Greece in general) is known outside of a small circle of specialists: the relations between the Greek Early Neolithic and that of the Adriatic coast, on the one hand, and of Bulgaria on the other, are in fact very problematic. Similarly, I have found that specialists of the Near Eastern Neolithic are sometimes incredulous when they discover, through lectures, some achievements of Greek Neolithic societies. In both cases the Neolithic in Greece has been superficially and rapidly considered as a distant yet familiar parallel to better known areas, without further investigation. Providing access to currently available data concerning this period and region, showing that the Greek Neolithic possesses its own originality can, by itself, justify this book.

Other motives can be found within the ‘small circle of specialists’ itself. Major issues such as the origins of the Neolithic in Greece or the existence of a preceramic phase are still vividly, and sometimes violently debated.

A biased debate

The status of the earliest Neolithic in Greece is still a matter of debate. Is it, as first suggested by Milojčić, an ‘Aceramic’, or ‘Preceramic’ Neolithic? Is it, as claimed by many, a fully ceramic Early Neolithic? Or could it represent a discrete ‘ceramic’ phase that this simple dichotomy has thus far obscured?

Milojčić was the first to suggest that a ‘Preceramic’ Neolithic may have existed in Europe, as it did in the Near East (Milojčić 1952). His subsequent excavations at Argissa in Thessaly seemingly brought the confirmation he sought: the basal levels were conspicuously poorer in sherds than the overlying ceramic Neolithic levels (Milojčić 1955, 1956, 1959b, 1960; Milojčić et al. 1962). Soon after, Evans published the preliminary results of his excavations at Knossos, where he too recognized ‘aceramic’ levels at the base of a long Neolithic sequence (Evans 1964). Meanwhile, Theocharis had undertaken trial excavations at several other Thessalian sites, where he also uncovered levels that he considered ‘Preceramic’ (Sesklo from 1956 on, Soufli in 1958, Achilleion in 1961 and Gediki in 1962). He then published the first synthesis of the ‘Preceramic’ in Greece in his doctoral dissertation ‘The dawn of Thessalian Prehistory’ (Theocharis 1967).

However, as early as 1970, Nandris reviewed the published evidence and firmly concluded, ‘It is now clear that the Greek “PPN” is by no means aceramic’ (Nandris 1970: 193).

The natural features of Greece, its climate, topography, water resources and soils, had decisive effects on the Neolithic economy and settlement patterns. They define several distinct provinces, characterized by different historical dynamics throughout the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, whose roots can be traced within the Early Neolithic.

Topography

Paramount amongst those factors is topography, for its impact on the climate and means of communication. The rugged topography of mainland Greece derives from the Alpine orogenic phase and the subsequent epi-orogenic subsidence accidents (Bintliff 1977; Higgins and Higgins 1996; Jacobshagen 1986). The main topographic features are related to a system of ancient sub-marine ridges and furrows of predominant NW/SE orientation. Pelagic and neritic sediments accumulated during the Mesosoic subsidence phase, until the start of the Alpine orogenic phase during the mid-Cretaceous. The latter took place progressively, in a wave-like progression from east to west, uplifting first the continental Hercynian bedrock – the Rhodopes and part of the Pelagonian Zone, with Mounts Ossa and Mavrovouni – then the massive Mesosoic limestones. Important subsidence basins then formed during the epi-orogenic phase, in direct relation with the NW/SE ridge and furrow structure: the West Macedonian Plain (the old Vardar furrow), the Thessalian Plain, the Saronic Gulf and the Kopaïs Basin (Sub-Pelagonian Intermediate Zone), the lowlands of Elis and Messenia. Other subsidence basins have different directions (compare the Gulf of Corinth) and result from still active tectonic movements in this sensitive area at the junction of the African and European plates.

The definitions of the Early Neolithic in Greece

The Early Neolithic is a phase of long duration, witnessing the expansion of farming over Greece and the multiplication of large sedentary villages. Besides the first widespread presence of pottery, it is characterized by well-built houses, elaborate house equipment, long-distance circulation of goods and abundant evidence of symbolic expression. With the possible exception of its earliest stage, the Early Neolithic is not a ‘transitional’ or ‘formative’ phase. On the contrary, it sets the stage for what will prove to be, in its fundamental structures, a remarkably stable socioeconomic organization throughout the Neolithic.

The Early Neolithic is classically defined on the basis of its pottery, with the predominance of small and medium-sized open bowls, often monochrome and well burnished, more rarely decorated with simple painted patterns or with impressions. Low ring feet are a common feature. The Early Neolithic starts with the first relatively abundant ceramic production (Monochrome phase) and ends with the appearance of characteristic Middle Neolithic (MN) ware, the Urfirnis in the Peloponnese or the Sesklo ware in Thessaly for instance.

Despite marked differences in the ceramic productions, the Early Neolithic was not immediately distinguished from the Middle Neolithic. Tsountas (1908), followed by Wace and Thompson (1912), divided the Thessalian Neolithic into two periods only, corresponding to the present-day Sesklo (MN) and Dimini or Late Neolithic (LN) cultures. Tsountas had, however, already recognized the specificity of the earliest monochrome wares at Sesklo (Tsountas 1908: 159–60).

In Greece, as elsewhere, archaeological traditions have paid little attention to the organization of Neolithic craft productions. The ‘German School’, headed by VI. Milojčić, concentrated on chrono-cultural classifications, based on the shape and decoration of potteries. The ‘British School’, led by E. Higgs and C. Renfrew, took a more resolutely economic orientation. Yet, until Torrence's pioneering study (Torrence 1986), the latter did not include the production of domestic tools and implements. Following Childe's models, the organization of production was assumed to be village-based and simple (Childe 1951a). Few questioned that the technical options could be explained in purely utilitarian terms, disregarding the new demands, new possibilities and new constraints that sedentism and farming set on craft production.

On the whole, artefacts were studied not as the product of an ‘art’, but as ‘finished objects’, from purely formal or aesthetic points of view. The knowledge, skills and technical choices involved in their manufacture were basically ignored, and so were, consequently, the cultural, economic and social choices that underlay the organization of production. Yet, how the artefacts were produced and what they were used for was an integral part of social strategies: ‘the Neolithic is not an “economy” but a mode of human behaviour, in which socially transmitted ideas about what kind of raw materials and what species of plants and animals to exploit, and in what way to do so, are applied both to subsistence and non-utilitarian ends’ (Nandris 1990: 12).

Around 7000 BC, marked changes took place: farmers settled in the previously uninhabited alluvial basins, built permanent villages and introduced domestic plants and animals. Theoretically, several processes could account for this radical shift (Barker 1985: 71): a purely autochthonous process, without external contacts; a local process spurred by the acquisition, through exchanges, of foreign goods and techniques (that is, cultural diffusion); the migration into Greece of foreign groups of farmers and herders, solely responsible for the sedentary Neolithic settlements (that is, demic diffusion); or, finally, a mixed process based on interactions between local hunter-gatherers and incoming farmers.

These various possibilities have each been defended by different – or sometimes the same – scholars. However, few nowadays would support the extreme position of Higgs and Jarman (1969, 1972), who considered possible an entirely indigenous shift to a Neolithic economy, based on the local domestication of animal and plant species. Conversely, none of the advocates of a demic diffusion, such as Childe (1957, 1958) or Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984), denied that some degree of interaction could have taken place between indigenous groups and immigrant farmers. Yet even without calling for extreme models, there remains ample space for widely differing perspectives, depending on the respective roles attributed to local hunter-gatherers or to foreign migrant groups.

Indigenist models and the claims for the local domestication of plants and animals

Autochthonous, or ‘indigenist’ models have progressively gained importance in Greece as in the rest of Europe, in opposition to the purely migrationist views advanced until the end of the 1960s (Weinberg 1970: 570–1).