Communities, Landscapes,

and Interaction in Neolithic

Greece
Proceedings of the International Conference,
Rethymno 29-30 May, 2015

Edited by
Apostolos Sarris
Evita Kalogiropoulou
Tuna Kalayci
Lia Karimali

International Monographs
in Prehistory

Archaeological Series 20
© 2017 by International Monographs in Prehistory
All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved

Paperback:
ISBN 978-1-879621-47-3
Hard Cover:
ISBN 978-1-879621-48-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Sarris, Apostolos, editor. | Kalogiropoulou, Evita, 1979- editor. |

   Kalayci, Tuna, 1980- editor. | Karimali, Lia, editor.
Title: Communities, landscapes, and interaction in neolithic Greece :
   proceedings of the international conference, Rethymno 29-30 May, 2015 /
   edited by Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropoulou, Tuna Kalayci, Lia
   Karimali.
Description: Ann Arbor, Michigan : International Monographs in Prehistory,
   2017. | Series: Archaeological series ; 20
Identifiers: LCCN 2017045356| ISBN 9781879621480 (hardcover : alk. paper) |
   ISBN 9781879621473 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Neolithic period--Greece. | Social archaeology--Greece. |
   Landscape archaeology--Greece. | Excavations (Archaeology)--Greece. |
   Greece--Antiquities.
Classification: LCC GN776.22.G8 C65 2017 | DDC 938--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045356

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ∞

International Monographs in Prehistory

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1266
U.S.A.
 Table of Contents

List of Contributors.........................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. xxv
Maps............................................................................................................................................ xxvii

Introduction
1 - Evita Kalogiropoulou and Apostolos Sarris
Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction: An Introduction.......................................................1

Part I: Communities, Social Spaces, and Dimensions of Neolithic Lifeways (and

Death)
2 - Agathe Reingruber
The Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a Circum-Aegean Perspective:
Concepts and Narratives...........................................................................................................8
3 - Apostolos Sarris, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Jamieson Donato, Carmen
Cuenca García, Meropi Manataki, Gianluca Cantoro, Ian Moffat, Evita Kalogiropoulou,
Georgia Karampatso, Kayt Armstrong, Nassos Argyriou, Sylviane Dederix, Cristina
Manzetti, Nikos Nikas, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Vasso Rondiri, Polyxeni Arachoviti,
Kalliopi Almatzi, Despina Efstathiou, and Evangelia Stamelou
Opening a New Frontier in the Study of Neolithic Settlement Patterns of Eastern Thessaly,
Greece......................................................................................................................................27
4 - Maria Pappa, Stratos Nanoglou, and Melina Efthymiadou
A Road to Variation: Diversity among Neolithic Settlements in Central Macedonia, Greece....49
5 - Dimitra Malamidou, Maria Ntinou, Soultana-Maria Valamoti, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Haïdo
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, and Pascal Darcque
An Investigation of Neolithic Settlement Pattern and Plant Exploitation at Dikili Tash:
Reconsidering Old and New Data from the late 5th Millennium B.C. Settlement...................60
6 - Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika, Thomas Loughlin, Tristan Carter, James
Cole, Yorgos Facorellis, Stella Katsarou, Aggeliki Kaznesi, Areti Pentedeka, Vasileios
Tsamis, and Nicolas Zorzin
Koutroulou Magoula in Pthiotida, Central Greece: a Middle Neolithic Tell site in Context......81
7 - John E. Coleman, Evangelia Karimali, Lilian Karali, Melanie Fillios, Charlotte Diffey,
Petra Vaiglova, Amy Bogaard, Jayme Joos, Effie Angeli
The Environment and Interactions of Neolithic Halai.................................................................97
8 - William Parkinson, Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael Galaty, Daniel Pullen, Panagiotis
Karkanas, Giorgos Papathanassopoulos
Diros in Context: Alepotrypa Cave and Ksagounaki Promontory in the Neolithic Period.......126
9 - Eva Alram-Stern, Apostolos Sarris, Konstantinos Vouzaxakis, Kalliopi Almatzi, Polyxeni
Arachoviti, Vasso Rondiri, Despina Efstathiou, Evangelia Stamelou, Carmen Cuenca
García, Tuna Kalayci, François-Xavier Simon, Gianluca Cantoro, Jamieson Donati,
Meropi Manataki
Visviki Magoula Revisited: Comparing Past Excavations' Data to Recent Geophysical
Research................................................................................................................................137
10 - Josette Renard and William Cavanagh
Kouphovouno (Laconia): Some Thoughts about the Settlement Pattern at the end of the
Middle Neolithic....................................................................................................................149
11 - Dimitris Kloukinas
Pictures of Home: Regional Perspectives into the Neolithic Building Technology of Northern
Greece....................................................................................................................................167
12 - Tomáš Alušík
Communities Interaction and (intended) Land Use in Neolithic Greece: the Testimony of
the Defensive Architecture.....................................................................................................187
13 - Katerina Psimogiannou
Fluid Landscapes, Bonded People? The Role of Burial Areas as Places for Interaction,
Exchange and Deposition during the Final Neolithic Period in Central and Southern
Greece....................................................................................................................................199

Part IΙ: Landscape Dynamics and Subsistence Strategies

14 - Evita Kalogiropoulou
Islands out of the Mainstream: Landscapes of Action, Settlements and Social Identities in
the Neolithic Aegean..............................................................................................................218
15 - Žarko Tankosić and Markos Katsianis
Cycladic or Mainland? The Prehistoric Landscapes of Southern Euboea................................234
16 - Georgia Stratouli and Odysseas Metaxas
Human – Landscape Interaction in Neolithic Kephalonia, West Greece: the Dynamic Role
of Drakaina Cave within an Insular Environment................................................................247
17 - Julien Beck, Dimitris Sakellariou, and Despina Koutsoumba
Submerged Neolithic Landscapes off Franchthi Cave: the Measurements from the Terra
Submersa Expedition and their Implications .......................................................................261
18 - Georgia Koromila, Panagiotis Karkanas, Georgia Kotzamani, Kerry Harris, Yannis
Hamilakis, and Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika
Humans, Animals, and the Landscape in Neolithic Koutroulou Magoula, Central Greece:
an approach through micromorphology and plant remains in dung.....................................269
19 - William Cavanagh, Josette Renard, Amy Bogaard, Armelle Gardeisen, Jean Cantuel,
Petra Vaiglova, and Charlotte Diffey
Farming Strategies at Kouphovouno, Lakonia, in the MN-LN periods ....................................281

iv
20 - George Kazantzis
Animal Husbandry and the Use of Space in the Greek Sector of the Late Neolithic Settlement
of Promachon-Topolnica.................................................................................................................292

Part ΙII: Interactions and Material Perspectives

21 - Nikos Efstratiou
Social Interaction in the Farming Communities of Neolithic Greece: Archaeological
Perceptions............................................................................................................................319
22 - Dushka Urem-Kotsou, Anastasia Dimoula, Gazmed Elezi, Trisevgeni Papadakou, Anna
Papaioannou, Niki Saridaki, Ioanna Siamidou, Teresa Silva, Eirini Tzemopoulou, and
Kostas Kotsakis
Patterns in Contemporaneous Ceramic Traditions: Inter-Regional Relations between
Thessaly and Macedonia during the Early and Middle Neolithic.........................................324
23 - Areti Pentedeka
Pottery Exchange Networks under the Microscope: the case of Neolithic Thessaly.................339
24 - Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou
The Discovery of Painted Pottery in Caves: an Interpretation in the Case of Sarakenos
Cave (Kopais, Boeotia).........................................................................................................353
25 - Lily Bonga
Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery from the Central
Origma at Mavropigi-Filotsairi............................................................................................374
26 - David Michael Smith
Emergent Networks and Socio-Cultural Change in Final Neolithic Southern Greece.............388
27 - Eva Alram-Stern
Ritual and Interaction during the Final Neolithic Period: the example of Aegina-Kolonna....399
28 - Tasos Bekiaris, Christos Stergiou, and Stella Theodoridou
Making Choices in a Neolithic Landscape: Raw Materials and Ground Stone Technology
in Neolithic Avgi, Northwest Greece.....................................................................................415
29 - Odysseas Kakavakis
Chipped Stone Aspects of the Interaction among Neolithic Communities of Northern
Greece....................................................................................................................................434
30 - Lilian Dogiama
Casting A Wide Network: Preliminary Results from the Early Neolithic Chipped Stone
Assemblage from Revenia, Pieria (Greece)...........................................................................446

Color Plates..............................................................................................................................465

v
 - 25 -
Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery from
the Central Origma at Mavropigi-Filotsairi
Lily A. Bonga
Abstract
The Early Neolithic settlement of Mavropigi-
Filotsairi in western Macedonia, dated to 6590–6450
to 6200–6010 cal B.C. (2σ), provides a fresh look at
Early Neolithic Greece. Its geographic location on a
natural crossroads between the Balkans and southern
Greece is reflected in the cultural material, which
demonstrates affinities with sites in the surrounding
plains and valleys. These connections offer new infor-
mation on the process of Neolithization in the Balkan
Peninsula by early farming groups via Greece and
are also reflected in the site’s ceramic assemblage.
This paper focuses on the decorated pottery from one
deposit at the site, which challenges the established
chronologies of painted and Impresso pottery in both
Greece and the neighboring regions and has ramifica-
tions regarding the direction and rate of the spread
of the Neolithic into Europe.
Keywords
Early Neolithic, painted pottery, Impresso pottery,
Neolithization, chronology, Balkan Peninsula, western
Macedonia
This paper presents working thoughts on the
preliminary study of the ceramic assemblage from the
Early Neolithic (EN) site of Mavropigi-Filotsairi in
western Macedonia, Greece, in order to highlight the
ways in which the site is positioned to enhance and
refocus our current thinking about the EN period. It
is limited to a small portion of the material from one
deposit, the Central Origma, in which the excavators
discerned three phases, all dating to within the EN
period. It focuses on the decorated pottery as a basis
for a discussion of its chronology and the cultural
relationships between the site and the surrounding
communities.
It is widely known that decorated pottery often
makes up only a fraction of the total ceramic as-
semblage at most Neolithic sites, yet it remains an
indispensable focus of traditional ceramic studies
374
because of its potential to reveal intra- and extra-site
developments and trade relations. Recent approaches
to ceramics, however, are more inclined to include
considerations of the agency of the pots and potters
in shaping their communities at the social, economic,
or religious levels. While this paper does indeed focus
on the decorated pottery, it does this as a means of
engaging in a discussion of the problems in distinguish-
ing chronology and cultural change from the choices
made by potters and pottery users and processes of
deposition. The full publication of this deposit and
the site shall be presented elsewhere.
The decorated pottery of Mavropigi-Filotsairi is
significant due to its early radiocarbon dates, which
push back the beginning of decorated pottery, both
painted and Impresso, and reveal that some stylistic
parallels, traditionally placed toward the end of the
EN and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic, may
in fact begin much earlier. In particular, Impresso is
indicative of the EN in the Adriatic, and both White-
Painted pottery and Impresso are key markers for
the formation of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös cultural
complex in the Balkans and Carpathians.
Overview of the Early Neolithic
Settlement of Mavropigi-Filotsairi and
its Excavation
Mavropigi-Filotsairi is located at a natural geo-
graphic crossroads in the plain of Ptolemaida at an
elevation of 670–750 masl (Figure 1). It is situated
between the Vermio Mountains and Mount Askion,
near the former marshland of Kitrini Limni (also
known as Sarigioli or Sari Göl). Rescue excava-
tions were carried out in 2005 and 2006 by Georgia
Karamitrou-Mentessidi (former Ephor) and the 30th
Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities over
a period of ten months (Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007,
2013; Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2013, 2016).
An area of 4000 m² of the flat-extended settlement
was excavated. Although material dating to the Late
Neolithic, Roman, and Hellenistic periods were found
on the site, the majority of the occupation—and, sub-
sequently, the focus of the excavation—was in the EN
settlement, which dates to ca. 6590/6450–6200/6010
cal B.C. (2σ) (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2013,
2016; Maniatis 2014).
The architectural remains of 10 houses were un-
covered (Figure 2). These consisted of three earlier
pit-dwellings and at least seven later freestanding,
post-framed houses with sunken foundation trenches.
The rectilinear houses ranged in size from 50 m² to 90
m², comparable to the houses at EN Nea Nikomedeia.
Seventeen prehistoric (and one historic) burials of
adults, teenagers, and infants were buried throughout
the site in pits inside and around the houses after the
Figure 1. Map showing the location of Mavropigi-
Filotsairi in relation to other Early Neolithic
sites: (1) Mavropigi-Filotsairi; (2) Pontokomi-
Souloukia; (3) Pontokomi-Vrisi; (4) Pontokomi-
Ksirolimni; (5) Kremastos; (6) Knidi; (7) Gevena-
Xiropotamos; (8) Mavranei-Panagia; (9) Konispol
Cave; (10) Sidari; (11) Vlusha; (12) Vashtëmi;
(13) Podgorie; (14) Velušina; (15) Porodin; (16)
Amzabegovo; (17) Vršnik; (18) Kovačevo; (19)
Dikili Tash; (20) Mikri Volvi; (21) Lete; (22)
Mesimeriani Toumba; (23) Giannitsa B; (24) Axos
A; (25) Paliambela Kolindrou; (26) Nea Nikome-
deia; (27) Roditis-Paliambela; (28) Servia; (29)
Varemenoi-Goules; (30) Nessonis I; (31) Gediki;
(32) Otzaki Magoula; (33) Argissa Magoula; (34)
Prodromos; (35) Magoulitsa; (36) Choirospilio
Cave; (37) Sesklo; (38) Achilleion; (39) Vardali
4; (40) Koutroulou Magoula; (41) Elateia; (42)
Chaeronea; (43) Corinth; (44) Franchthi Cave.
375
houses had been abandoned (Papageorgopoulou 2014;
Papathanasiou and Richards 2011). An abundance
of charred emmer and a new glume wheat type in a
child and juvenile burial (Burials 1 and 2) may be
an indication of a funerary rite (Valamoti 2011); the
only other evidence for grave goods is a collection
of polished, chipped, and bone tools and a stone frog
amulet in Burial 7.
The study of the small finds from Mavropigi-
Filotsairi is ongoing, and only the analyses of the
archaeobotanical materials (Valamoti 2011), chipped
stone (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016), and buri-
als (Papageorgopoulou 2014; Papathanasiou and
Richards 2011) have been completed.
Three main phases (see below) of the EN settle-
ment were identified by the excavators based on the
ca. 2-m deep deposits of a large pit dwelling in the
center of the settlement, dubbed the “Central Origma”
(Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007:524–526, Karamitrou-
Mentessidi et al. 2016:51–53, Figures 7–11). Due to
the longevity of the Central Origma throughout the
settlement’s habitation, it is the only feature at the
settlement that preserves all three phases. Phase I is
only found within the Central Origma. Outside the
Central Origma, Phase II was detected in the Western
Origma and in an ellipsoidal structure (Ellipsoidal
House). Phase III was found in all areas of the settle-
ment (including the Central Origma), and it has at least
two sub-phases (IIIa and IIIb), although it remains to
be determined if these sub-phases represent different
specific tasks and activities performed in the various
zones of the settlement, or if they are of chronological
significance (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:77).
All of the rectilinear houses belong to Phase III, al-
though they were not all contemporary, as some of
their plans overlap. It is hoped that the study of the
finds, in conjunction with the radiocarbon dates, will
help to clarify the situation.
The Central Origma was the first structure built by
the early farmers at the settlement, and it remained in
use throughout the occupation of the site (Karamitrou-
Mentessidi et al. 2016:51, Figures 7, 10). Its size
expanded over time, and the structure evolved from a
semi-subterranean pithouse to an aboveground house
built on gently sloping ground. The deposition of
pottery in the Central Origma appears to have been a
gradual accumulation of material through habitation,
followed by intentional deposition and abandonment.
The Central Origma is interpreted as a dwelling
based on the existence of a series of floors, hearths,
and associated artifacts. The existence of pithouses
in EN Greece continues to be a debated topic, as
many sites with so-called pithouses have been rein-
terpreted as clay digging, rubbish, or work pits (Perlès
Lily A. Bonga

Figure 2. Site plan of Mavropigi-Filotsairi. (After Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:fig. 5)

376
 25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…
2001:184–185, 193–194), although there is concrete
evidence of pithouses in the later Neolithic periods
in Greece, as well as in neighboring Starčevo culture
sites (e.g. Divostin in Serbia, Polyanitsa in Bulgaria,
and Zadubravlje in Croatia).
In the first phase (Phase I), the Central Origma
began as a 2-roomed, semi-subterranean “pithouse,”
25 m2 in size (15 m2 for the western room, and 10 m2 for
the eastern room; Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2007:525),
with hard-packed earthen and clay floors and a built
plaster hearth; no evidence of roofing was found in
this phase (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:51–52,
Figure 8). The depths of the deposits ranged from 40
cm to 60 cm.
In Phase II, the Central Origma doubled in size, and
the amount of small finds of all types (pottery, ground
stone tools, lithics, animal bones) also increased, while
bits of clay and roofing material were recovered, as
was a lime-plaster floor (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al.
2016:51–52, Figure 9). This phase ended in fire, as
indicated by a change in soil color and a concentration
of burnt artifacts. The depths of the deposits ranged
from 20 cm to 70 cm (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al.
2016:51).
In Phase III, the Central Origma became a large
aboveground structure, 100 m2 in size (Karamitrou-
Mentessidi et al. 2016:51, Figure 11). A series of ex-
ternal postholes surrounded the Central Origma, along
with a number of small pits functionally related to it.
In the earlier part of this phase (Phase IIIa), a series
of three clay and lime-plaster floors and a circular
plastered hearth, together with the existence of a stone
mortar, ground stone tools, and cooking pots found on
the floors, indicate that the Central Origma continued
to be used as a dwelling. This notion is reinforced by
the recovery of numerous pieces of daub with branch
impressions form this phase (Karamitrou-Mentessidi
et al. 2016:52). By the end of Phase IIIb, however,
the structure may have fallen out of use, as House 1
infringed upon its boundaries and a deep pit was cut
into the southern part of the floor for the interment of
two child burials. These burials were accompanied
by charred seeds and stone beads (Papageorgopoulou
2014; Papathanasiou and Richards 2011; Valamoti
2011). The depth of the deposits is ca. 80 cm.
Within and around the houses are numerous small
pits that seem to have been primarily used for refuse,
although they may have been used for storage or as
workspaces at different times throughout the duration
of the settlement. The larger pits outside the rectilinear
houses may have been dug initially for mud or clay to
be used in the house construction, and subsequently
used for other purposes (such as workspace, storage,
or refuse). Rows of postholes either in isolation or
377
stemming from houses may have provided semi-
covered or shaded spaces for domestic work.
Mavropigi-Filotsairi’s Contribution
to Traditional Chronologies Based on
Painted Pottery
In absolute terms, the EN in Greece is tradition-
ally dated to 6540/6400–5950 B.C. (Perlès 2001:110).
Recent fieldwork in northern Greece, along with
improvements in the methodology and calibration
accuracy of radiocarbon dates (Maniatis 2014; Per-
lès et al. 2013; Reingruber and Thissen 2005, 2009;
Thissen 2000) reveal that sites in Macedonia are as
old, if not older, than those in Thessaly and western
Anatolia, and that the majority of EN sites in Greece
belong to the end of the period, with only a few sites
toward the beginning.1
In relative terms, the EN period is divided into
three sub-phases, the EN 1–3, on the basis of excava-
tions in Thessaly (Figure 3). These subdivisions are
based primarily on ceramic sequences from early
excavations and remain poorly defined, particularly
the EN 2–3 transition (Wijnen 1981:35). Although the
shortcomings of this old chronology have been known
for some time (e.g. the lack of clearly stratified sites
that span the duration of the EN, and the fact that the
earliest radiocarbon dates come from pits which may
or may not be stratified), Mavropigi-Filotsairi read-
dresses them and also raises new problems. Addition-
ally, the Aceramic period is no longer substantiated
on the mainland (Reingruber 2008), although it may
still apply to Crete.
The EN 1 (ca. 6400–6350/6300 B.C.) is tradi-
tionally conceived as a purely monochrome phase
lacking decorated pottery. Although monochrome
phases have been reported from sites outside of Thes-
saly (e.g. Elateia and Corinth), it is doubtful that this
truly represents a chronological horizon, as the sites
either range in date or the data are limited to small
areas or trial trenches. The same can be said for the
earliest phase at Mavropigi-Filotsairi in the Central
Origma, a 25 m2 area containing only 76 sherds, none
of which were decorated.
These are important considerations because, based
on analogy with Greece, a hypothetical monochrome
phase has been proposed for the definition of Starčevo
Ia (Lazarovici 1979), as well as for sites in Bulgaria
(e.g. Krainitsi I, Koprivets I, and Polyanitsa-Plateau
I). Furthermore, there is no documented monochrome
phase in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM; Naumov 2009:4). This fact argues that the
concept of a monochrome phase as a chronological
horizon is a construct of modern archaeologists rather
Lily A. Bonga
than an accurate representation of the past.
Lastly, it should also be noted that sites closer
to the Adriatic Sea with monochrome phases, such
as Sidari on Corfu, Vlusha and Konispol Cave in
Albania, and Samograd I in Central Dalmatia, have
monochrome layers followed by Impresso rather than
painted pottery (Bunguri 2014).
The EN 2 is defined by the appearance of Red-on-
White painted pottery in Thessaly around 6300–6200
B.C. (Schubert 1999; ca. 6250 B.C. according to Mül-
ler 1988, 1994; and ca. 6350/6300 B.C. according to
Wijnen 1981). Its inverse, White-on-Red ware, begins
shortly after in Greek Macedonia (e.g. Giannitsa B,
Axos A, Nea Nikomedeia, Mesimeriani Toumba),
also around 6300/6200 B.C. (Maniatis 2014). Further
north, White-on-Red painted pottery begins slightly
later, around 6100–6000 B.C. in the central Balkans
(e.g. Gura Baciului, Amzabegovo, Ocna Sibiului,
Donja Branjevina), western Bulgaria (e.g. Kovačevo,
Čavdar, Slatina, and Gălăbnik, but also at Karanovo),
and Aşağı Pınar in Turkish Thrace (Schubert 1999).
These three clusters of White-on-Red painted pot-
Figure 3. The traditional ceramic chronology for the Early Neolithic in the Balkans, based on pottery styles.
378
tery, although generally contemporary, are unrelated
(Pavúk 2007).
Although this distinction between Red-on-White
and White-on-Red has been noted occasionally (Tasić
2007:113, Urem-Kotsou et al. 2014), it is generally
overlooked in the scholarship on early painted pottery,
much of which is focused on whether or not the painted
pottery bears (Tasić 2003, 2007; Naumov 2009, 2010)
or does not bear (Schubert 1999, 2005) a relationship
with Anatolian precedents. Furthermore, the debate
about painted pottery’s origins is further obfuscated
by the potential existence of a monochrome phase of
chronological significance in certain places or times
in Southeastern Europe. The EN 3 traditionally begins
with the appearance of “Magoulitsa-phase” Impresso
in Greece and with the first White-on-Red painted
pottery.
In the Central Origma, no White-on-Red painted
pottery was recovered, although it was present in other
areas of the settlement. Instead, 149 Red-on-White/
Cream sherds were revealed (Figure 4). The Red-on-
White/Cream bears simple large geometric designs
 25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…
and broad bands, similar to that of Nea Nikomedeia
in Thessaly and the Haliakmon Valley (Washburn
1984).
Yet the majority of the painted pottery (290 sherds)
belongs to polychrome painted ware (Figure 5). The
polychrome consists of broad curvilinear and linear
motifs painted with a red slip and outlined with thin
white lines to give contrast with the tan-pink back-
ground. These compositions and motifs are distinct
from the contemporary Red-on-White/Cream. This
type of polychrome pottery is not characteristic of
other known EN sites, in Greece and only one sherd
has been published from Nea Nikomedeia (Yiouni
1996:Figure 5.35 [No. 12]) and from Pontokomi-
Souloukia (Karamitrou-Mentessidi 2014:247, Figure
6 [second sherd from right, bottom row]). This picture
shall surely change when the material from sites in
the immediate vicinity of Mavropigi-Filotsairi is fully
examined.
Until then, the closest parallels for the polychrome
pottery come from the EN sites of Podgorie I in the
Korça Basin in Albania. The relationship between
Thessaly, the Korça Basin, and central Macedonia is
well documented in other periods of Neolithic (Lera
Figure 4. Early Neolithic Red-on-Cream painted pottery from the Central Origma.
379
et al. 2015), particularly in the Late Neolithic in terms
of imported pottery in each region, including “rhyta”
(four-legged vessels with oblique openings and thick
basket handles), Čakran or “straw-impressed” incised
pottery, and brown-on-buff in the Classic Dimini style;
these interactions are now understood to have begun
much earlier.
Recent fieldwork in the Korça Basin (including
re-excavation of Vashtëmi) and radiocarbon dates
from soil cores confirm the antiquity of Podgorie and
Vashtëmi and clarify their relationship, which was
previously unclear and contradictory within vari-
ous excavation reports (Ruzi 2012:4; Andoni 2017).
Furthermore, Podgorie and Vashtëmi were previously
dated to the end of the EN period and the Early Middle
Neolithic (in Greek terms). The dates from Vashtëmi
seem to indicate that it (at 6470–6370 B.C.) is older
than Podgorie I (6070–5970 B.C.) (Allen and Gjipali
2014). This makes “ceramic” sense, as the Podgorie
I White-on-Red and polychrome is of a better qual-
ity (Ruzi 2012) than that of Podgorie IA, and also
because it shares some motifs with later sites such
as Giannitsa B and Axos in central Macedonia and
Kovačevo in Bulgaria—these sites also have similar
Lily A. Bonga
radiocarbon dates (Maniatis 2014; Reingruber and
Thissen 2005).
Impresso Pottery from Mavropigi-
Filotsairi
As with the painted pottery, the finds from
Mavropigi-Filotsairi demonstrate that Impresso pot-
tery begins much earlier than previously thought, ca.
6400 B.C. Generally speaking, it is a slightly later
Impresso B type that was thought to be a localized
phenomenon in northeastern Thessaly (e.g. Nessonis
Figure 5. Early Neolithic polychrome-painted pottery from the Central Origma.
380
I, Gediki, Argissa Magoula, Otzaki Magoula) at the
end of the EN, ca. 6000 B.C. (Müller 1988, 1994; or
6000/5900 B.C. according to Reingruber 2011), but is
now documented throughout Thessaly and is shown to
have continued into the early Middle Neolithic at sites
in southern Thessaly (e.g. Magoulitsa, Prodromos,
Achilleion, Vardali, Koutroulou Magoula). Single
or double nail-marks, elongated “slash” or “dash”
marks, rows of small punctuations (pseudo-Cardium
imitation shell impressions), and arcaded and “fluted”
barbotine decoration characterize this later phase.
Earlier Impresso pottery, similar to that of Mavropigi-
 25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…

Figure 6. Early Neolithic Devollite-style Impresso pottery from the Central Origma.

381
Lily A. Bonga
Filotsairi, is also documented elsewhere in western
and central Macedonia (e.g. Paliambela Kolindrou,
Giannitsa B, Mavranei-Panagia, Varemenoi-Goules).
A distinctive feature of the early Impresso from
Mavropigi-Filotsairi is characterized more by the
use of tools than fingers, whereas shell impressions
are absent (Figure 6). Interestingly, it again finds its
closest parallels in the Korça Basin at Podgorie I and
also at Vashtëmi, particularly what is known in the
Albanian literature as the Devollite type, in which
various tools (including reeds, bone tools, and sticks)
are used to create impressions and rough surfaces,
including barbotine decoration (Korkuti 1982, 1995,
Figure 7. Early Neolithic nail-pinched, fingertip-impressed, or nail-impressed Impresso pottery from the
Central Origma.
382
2007; Prendi and Andrea 1981). Nails, finger pinches,
and fingertips are also common (Figure 7). Several
techniques may also be combined on the same pot.
The choice for the simultaneous use of these two
decorative systems (and also different painted styles)
may stem from sensatory/symbolic experience of pot-
ting—painting is done when the vase is hard and dry,
while impression and pinching must be performed on
a moist pot. Similarly, the choice of temper (mineral
and often micaceous for painted pottery but generally
more chaff for Impresso) may also have symbolic or
tactile meaning aside from functional aspects.
While chaff tempering may seem “crude,” es-
 25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…
pecially when used for pots decorated in the easiest
way possible (and perhaps also unaesthetic to some
modern eyes), it surely contrasts with the high level of
potting knowledge necessary to create a polychrome
pot, which required the knowledge of particular clay
and mineral sources as well as firing techniques.2 Thus,
the contemporaneous use of Impresso and painted
pottery—and of two different stylistic traditions—
demonstrates a cultural preference and intentional
choice to employ divergent technologies and decora-
tive systems.
The data from Mavropigi-Filotsairi also suggests
that the skill or tradition of polychrome painted pottery
was lost by the end of the EN period and demonstrates
that pottery technology did not develop in a linear
fashion in terms of technological or stylistic achieve-
ment. It remains to be determined, however, whether
the abandonment of polychrome painted pottery was
the result of a deliberate cultural choice (e.g. switching
to easier technologies to produce decorated pottery,
or if polychrome pottery no longer served a social/
symbol function), or if its disappearance was due to
regional and/or chronological differences with other
sites.
Lastly, particular parallels in plastic decoration
(e.g. a monochrome pot with a an added plastic
spiral) with sites further north in the Iron Gates with
similar radiocarbon dates (e.g. Lepenski Vir [Borić
2011:Figure 13] and Banja [Srejović 1988:Cover im-
age]) may reflect adventurous pioneers, but are more
likely coincidental rather than reflections of actual
contacts; this highlights the problems raised when
comparing relatively similar ceramics over broad
geographical distances.
Mavropigi-Filotsairi’s Relationship
with Surrounding Early Neolithic
Communities
In addition to the parallels in decorated pottery to
the east, west, and south, other aspects of the material
culture reinforce the relationships between sites like
Mavropigi-Filotsairi, Vashtëmi, Podgorie, and Nea
Nikomedeia. Each of these sites may be representa-
tive of other settlements in their respective basins.
For example, frog amulets; face pots; vessels with
small, low feet; rhyta; Impresso; Red-on-White pot-
tery; and stamp seals are found at Nea Nikomedeia,
Mavropigi-Filotsairi, and Ksirolimni-Portes, as well
as Vashtëmi and Podgorie. Yet triangular altars and
spoons seem to be found at either Vashtëmi or Pod-
gorie. Polychrome is found in the Korça Basin only
at Podgorie, and while rare at Mavropigi-Filotsairi,
White-on-Red painted pottery is common at Nea
383
Nikomedeia, Axos A, Giannitsa B, and at Vashtëmi
and Podgorie. White-on-Red painted pottery is rare
at Mavropigi-Filotsairi, but not at Nea Nikomedeia,
Axos A, and Giannitsa B, or at Vashtëmi and Podgorie.
Similarly, choices of imported material in the
chipped stone also hint at these east-west connec-
tions between basins. Imported “honey” flint (silex
blond) most likely arrived at the settlement from
southwestern Albania (not Bulgaria), likely through
sites like Vashtëmi and Podgorie in the Korça Basin
(Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:72). Imported
Melian obsidian may have circulated from Nea Niko-
medeia itself or from other sites near the Thermaic
Gulf, or alternatively from EN communities in Thes-
saly (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016:57) via sites
like Nea Nikomedeia and Servia.
These variations between basins probably arose
from cultural, social, and economic interactions of the
EN communities. The plains and basins in western
and central Macedonia were important centers not
only during the EN, but also throughout antiquity,
because of their position as inland routes, which
often followed river courses despite the fact that the
rivers themselves were not navigable. These plains
are still invaluable resources, although they are now
being reshaped and exploited for the production of
electricity through strip mining and the creating of
artificial lakes, such as Polyfytos Lake on the course
of the Aliakmonas River (Karamitrou-Mentessidi
2007).
These locations were chosen first to meet certain
natural requirements of Neolithic people, plants, and
animals, such as alluvial soils for crops, land for
pasture, fresh water, and a salt source (Biagi et al
2005; Tasić 2000), and secondarily to provide security
against crop failure (van Andel and Runnels 1995; for
an opposing opinion, see Wilkie and Savina 1997) by
having secondary resources readily available (e.g. the
marshy Kitrini Limni Lake), even if they were not
otherwise exploited. Each of these basins developed
its own peculiarities in terms of material culture,
architecture, settlement layout, and ceramic identity,
and may confirm the “leap-frogging” (Spataro 2010;
Zilhão 1997) from one micro-environment to the next.
Paleo-landscapes also may have dictated the
communication routes. For instance, interaction to
the north, either in Pelagonia (FYROM) or beyond,
seems limited, and most of the known sites in Pela-
gonia itself are of later date (e.g. Velušina and Poro-
din)—perhaps due to the presence of swampland in
the earlier part of the EN (Naumov 2009:26). Instead,
the plains and basins of FYROM appear to have been
accessed through the Axos/Vardar River plains, based
both on similarities in material culture (including pot-
Lily A. Bonga
tery and white-painted decoration) between sites like
Nea Nikomedeia, Giannitsa B, and Amzabegovo and
Vršnik in the Ovče Pole, Polog, and Skopje regions
(Naumov 2009:26) as well as on radiocarbon dates
(contra Perlès 2001:60).
Our understanding of EN Greek Macedonia (and
particularly western Macedonia) is rapidly changing
and will continue to evolve and expand. While the
EN settlement of Nea Nikomedeia has remained the
best-known EN site in Macedonia since its excavation
in the 1960s, in the past 20 years surveys and excava-
tions conducted by the University of Thessaloniki,
local ephorates, and foreign projects have enhanced
the dataset.
Within the Grevena and Kozani prefectures alone,
44 EN sites are now known (23 and 21, Karamitrou-
Mentessidi 2014; respectively; Wilkie and Savina
1997), although only two have been subject to ex-
tensive rescue excavation (Mavropigi-Filotsairi and
Ksirolimni-Portes). The rest are known only from
either surface material or small trial trenches (e.g.
Pontokomi-Vrisi, Knidi, Pontokomi-Souloukia,
Roditis-Paliambela, Varemenoi-Goules, Kremastos).
The picture will continue to fill in with recent fieldwork
in the Amindeon Basin (Chrysostomou et al. 2015)
and full publication of the Kitrini Limni and Grevena
surveys.
As the analysis of cultural material from Mav-
ropigi-Filotsairi moves forward, it is clear that it will
contribute actively to the debate and understanding
of EN Greece and the process of Neolithization, as
well as regional variability and cultural choice within
the early farming communities of Southeastern Eu-
rope. Determining which of the cultural differences
are chronological or regional variations and to what
extent they reflect the choice and agency of pottery
and potters remains to be determined.
Notes
1
The 2010 soil cores from Dikili Tash also confirm
the early habitation of eastern Macedonia, which
until now had remained problematic (Lespez et al.
2013). It should also be noted that specialists are not
in complete agreement regarding the interpretations
of radiocarbon dates, some of whom argue that the
dates in Greece that are earlier than those from west-
ern Anatolia should be rejected, since the “Neolithic
package” was introduced from Anatolia.
2
From macroscopic inspection, it seems that the
polychrome pots were produced by “painting” or
selectively slipping the areas desired to be red with
a ferruginous slip and then outlining it with a thin
384
white paint (either a kaolin or marl slip) to heighten
the contrast between the natural, self-slip (mechanical
slip) of the pot and the area painted red. The pot was
then lightly burnished to ensure that the paint would
adhere and then fired in a oxidized or weakly reduced
atmosphere, which kept the iron-based pigments red
and left the background a light buff color.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the conference organiz-
ers and sponsors, Apostolos Sarris, Evita Kalogiropou-
lou, Tuna Kalayci, and Evagelia Karimali, the staff at
the Archaeological Museum of Aiani Museum, and the
30th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities,
the Institute for Aegean Prehistory Study Center for
East Crete, and especially Dr. Nikos Efstratiou and Dr.
Georgia Karamitrou-Mentessidi for their permission
to study the material, and Stephania Michalopoulou
for her all her indispensable help.
References Cited
Andoni, Edlira
2017 Investigating Ceramic Differences During
the Early Neolithic in the South-eastern of
Albania: The Settlements of Podgori and
Pogradec. Anglisticum Journal 6(2):20–
28.
Allen, Susan, and Ilirjan Gjipali
2014 New Light on the Early Neolithic Period in
Albania: The Southern Albania Neolithic
Archaeological Project (SANAP), 2006–
2013. In Proceedings of the International
Congress of Albanian Archaeological Stud-
ies. 65th Anniversary of Albanian Archae-
ology, 21–22 November, Tirana 2013, pp.
107–119. Center for Albanian Studies and
Institute of Archaeology, Botimet Alban-
ologjike, Tirana.
Biagi, Paolo, Stephen Shennan, and Michela
Spataro
2005 Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for
the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan
Peninsula. In Prehistoric Archaeology and
Anthropological Theory and Education, ed-
ited by Lolita Nikolova, John Fritz, and Jude
Higgins, pp. 43–51. Reports of Prehistoric
Research Projects, 6–7. Wiley-Blackwell,
Salt Lake City.
Borić, Dusan
2011 Adaptations and Transformations of the
Danube Gorges Foragers (c. 13.000–5500
 25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…
BC): An Overview. In Beginnings – New
Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic
between Northwest Anatolia and the Car-
pathian Basin, Papers of the International
Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul,
edited by Raiko Krauß, pp. 157–203. Marie
Leidorf, Rahden/Westf.
Bunguri, Adem
2014 Different Models for the Neolithisation
of Albania. Documenta Praehistorica
41:79–94.
Chrysostomou, Panicos, Tryfon Jagoulis, and
Andreas Mäder
2015 The “Culture of Four Lakes”. Prehistoric
Lakeside Settlements (6th–2nd mill. BC) in
the Amindeon Basin, Western Macedonia,
Greece. Archéologie Suisse 38(3):24–32.
Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia
2007 Μαυροπηγή 2005: Λιγνιτωρυχεία και
Αρχαιότητες. In The Archaeological Work
of Macedonia and Thrace 19(2005):511–
540.
2013 Εορδαία 2009: Η Έρευνα στην Αναρράχη
και στη Μαυροπηγή. In The Archaeo-
logical Work of Macedonia and Thrace
23(2009):275–300.
2014 Περί Προϊστορικών Θέσεων στη Δυτική
Μακεδονία: Νομοί Κοζάνης και Γρεβενών.
In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in
Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the
International Conference, Archaeological
Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November
2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos
Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp.
233–250. Archaeological Museum of Thes-
saloniki, Thessaloniki.
Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou,
Janusz K. Kozłowski, Małgorzata Kaczanowska,
Yiannis Maniatis, Antonio Curci, Stephania
Michalopoulou, Anastasia Papathanasiou, and
Soultana Maria Valamoti
2013 New Evidence on the Beginning of Farm-
ing in Greece: The Early Neolithic Settle-
ment of Mavropigi in Western Macedonia
(Greece). Antiquity 87:336. Electronic
document, http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/
projgall/mentessidi336/,accessed May 3,
2015.
Karamitrou-Mentessidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou,
Małgorzata Kaczanowska, and Janusz K.
Kozłowski
2016 Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi
in Western Greek Macedonia. Eurasian
Prehistory 12(1–2):47–116.
385
Korkuti, Muzafer
1982 Vashtemia, një Vendbanim i Neolitit të
Hershëm. Illiria 2:91–146.
1995 Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Al-
banien, Internationale Interakademische
Kommission für die Erforschung der
Vorgeschichte des Balkans, Vol. 4. Philipp
von Zabern, Darmstadt.
2007 The Early Neolithic of Albanian in a Bal-
kan Perspective. In A Short Walk through
the Balkans: The First Farmers of the
Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions,
edited by Michela Spataro and Paolo Biagi,
pp. 113–118. Società per la Preistoria e
Protostoria della Regione Griuli-Venezia
Giulia, Trieste.
Lazarovici, Gheorghe
1979 Neoliticul Banatului. Biblioteca Musei
Napocensis 4. Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Lera, Petrika, Stavros Oikonomidis, Aris
Papyiannis, and Akis Tsonos.
2015 Βαλκανικές Γεωγραφικές Αντιστοιχίες:
Ενδεικτικές Σχέσεις μεταξύ της ΝΑ
Αλβανίας και της Θεσσαλίας μέσα από
τη Νεολιθική Κεραμική. In Πρακτικά
Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Βόλος 15.3–
18.3.2012: I. Θεσσαλία, edited by Alex-
andros Mazarakis Ainian and Alexandra
Alexandridou, pp. 17–28. Archaeological
Meeting of Thessaly and Central Greece
4. Ministry of Culture, Education, and
Religious Affairs and the University of
Thessaly, Volos.
Lespez, Laurent, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Pascal Darcque,
Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra
Malamidou, René Treuil, Robert Davidson, Georgia
Kourtessi-Philippakis, and Christine Oberlin
2013 The Lowest Levels at Dikili Tash, North-
ern Greece: A Missing Link in the Early
Neolithic of Europe. Antiquity 87:30–45.
Maniatis, Yiannis
2014 Χρονολόγηση με Άνθρακα-14 των Με­
γάλων Πολιτισμικών Αλλαγών στην
Προϊστορική Μακεδονία, Πρόσφατες
Εξελίξεις. In 1912–2012: A Century of
Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference,
Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki,
22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia
Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia
Dimoula, pp. 205–222. Archaeological
Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki.
Müller, Johannes
1988 Cultural Definition of the Early Neolithic
Lily A. Bonga
and its Interaction in the Eastern Adriatic.
Berytus 36:101–125.
1994 Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die
Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung
des Adriaraumes. Prähistorische Archäolo-
gie in Südosteuropa 9. Volker Spiess, Berlin.
Naumov, Goce
2009 Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic Visual
Culture from the Republic of Macedonia.
BAR International Series 1910. British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
2010 Symmetry Analysis of Neolithic Painted
Pottery from the Republic of Macedonia.
Archaeoligia e Calcolatori 21:255–274.
Papageorgopoulou, Christina
2014 Αρχαίο DNA: Εφαρμογές, Προοπτικές,
Περιορισμοί. In 1912–2012: A Century of
Research in Prehistoric Macedonia. Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference,
Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki,
22–24 November 2012, edited by Evangelia
Stefani, Nikos Merousis, and Anastasia
Dimoula, pp. 477–488. Archaeological
Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki.
Papathanasiou, Anastasia, and Michael P. Richards
2011 Ανθρωπολογικά Κατάλοιπα από τις Πρώι­
μες Θέσεις Μαυροπηγής, Ξηρολίμνης και
Ποντοκώμης της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής
στη Δυτική Μακεδονία. Archaeological
Work in Upper Macedonia 1(2009):257–
274.
Pavúk, Juraj
2007 Enstehung und Gliederung der Neolith-
ischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan:
Fallbeispiel Gălăbnik. In The Struma/
Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium
Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil-Blago-
evgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres-Amphipolis
(Greece), edited by Henrieta Todorova,
Mark Stefanovich, and Georgi Ivanov, pp.
164–174. Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia.
Perlès, Catherine
2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First
Farming Communities in Europe. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Perlès, Catherine, Anita Quiles, and Hélène Valladas
2013 Early Seventh-Millennium AMS Dates
from Domestic Seeds in the Initial Neo-
lithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece).
Antiquity 87:1001–1015.
Prendi, Frano, and Zhaneta Andrea
1981 Të Dhëna të Rëja mbi Neolitin në Shqipëri.
Iliria 11(2):15–40.
386
Reingruber, Agathe
2008 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Ar-
gissa-Magula in Thessalien: 2. Das Frühe
und das Beginnende Mittlere Neolithikum
im Lichte Transägäischer Beziehungen.
Beiträge zur ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen
Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes
Vol. 35. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.
2011 Early Neolithic Settlement Patterns and
Exchange Networks in the Aegean. Docu-
menta Praehistorica 38:291–305.
Reingruber, Agathe, and Laurens Thissen
2005 CANeW 14C Databases and 14C Charts:
Aegean Catchment (Eastern Greece,
Southern Balkans, and Western Turkey),
10,000–5500 cal BC. Electronic document,
http://www.canew.org/files/CANeW%20
Aegean %20C14%20dbase%20, accessed
May 5, 2015.
2009 Depending on 14C Data: Chronological
Frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalco-
lithic of Southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon
51(2):751–770.
Ruzi, Eugene
2012 Investigating Compositional Variability
among Early Neolithic Ceramics from
Korça Region, Albania. Chronika 3:1–15.
Schubert, Holger
1999 Die Bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums
in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien.
International Archaeology 47. Marie Lei-
dorf, Rahden/Westf.
2005 Everyone’s Black Box – Where does the
European Ornamentation Come From?
In How Did Farming Reach Europe?
Anatolian-European Relations from the
Second Half of the Seventh through the
First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC,
International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22
May 2004, edited by Clemens Lichter, pp.
239–254. BYZAS 2. Zero Produksiyon,
Ankara.
Spataro, Michela
2010 The Neolithisation of the Central Balkans:
Leapfrogging Diffusion and Cultural Trans-
mission. In The Spread of the Neolithic to
Central Europe, International Symposium,
Mainz 24 June–26 June 2005, edited by Jörg
Petrasch, pp. 95–105. RGZM-Tagungen 4.
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums,
Mainz.
Srejović, Dragoslav (editor)
1988 The Neolithic of Serbia: Archaeological
Research 1948–1988. The University of
 25 - Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery…
Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Center
for Archaeological Research, Belgrade.
Tasić, Nenad N.
2000 Salt Use in the Early and Middle Neolithic
of the Balkan Peninsula. In Technology,
Style and Society: Contributions to the
Innovations between the Alps and the
Black Sea in Prehistory, edited by Lolita
Nikolova, pp. 35–40. BAR International
Series 854. British Archaeological Reports,
Oxford.
2003 The White Painted Ornament of the Early
and Middle Neolithic of the Central Bal-
kans. In Early Symbolic Systems for Com-
munication in Southeast Europe, edited
by Lolita Nikolova, p. 181–191. British
Archaeological Report International Series
1139. Archaeopress, Oxford.
2007 Tell-Tale Squares. In A Short Walk through
the Balkans: The First Farmers of the
Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions,
edited by Michela Sparato and Paolo Bi-
agi, pp. 103–11. Società per la Preistoria
e Protostoria della Regione Griuli-Venezia
Giulia, Trieste.
Thissen, Laurens
2000 A Chronological Framework for the Neo-
lithisation of the Southern Balkans. In
Karanovo: III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum
in Südosteuropa, edited by Stefan Hiller
and Vassil Nikolov, pp. 193–212. Phoibos,
Vienna.
Urem-Kotsou, Dushka, Anna Papaoionnaou,
Trisevgeni Papadakou, Niki Saridaki, and Zoi Intze
2014 Pottery and Stylistic Boundaries: Early and
Middle Neolithic Pottery in Macedonia.
In 1912–2012: A Century of Research in
Prehistoric Macedonia. Proceedings of the
International Conference, Archaeological
Museum of Thessaloniki, 22–24 November
387
2012, edited by Evangelia Stefani, Nikos
Merousis, and Anastasia Dimoula, pp.
505–517. Archaeological Museum of Thes-
saloniki, Thessaloniki.
van Andel, Tjeerd H., and Curtis N. Runnels
1995 The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity
69:481–500.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria
2011 Σπόροι για τους Νεκρούς; Αρχαιοβοτανικά
Δεδομένα από τη Μαυροπηγή Κοζάνης,
Θέση Φυλλοτσαϊρι. Archaeological Work
in Upper Macedonia 1(2009):245–256.
Washburn, Dorothy K.
1984 A Study of the Red on Cream and Cream on
Red Designs on Early Neolithic Ceramics
from Nea Nikomedeia. American Journal
of Archaeology 8(3):305–324.
Wijnen, Mies
1981 The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo:
An Early Farming Community in Thessaly,
Greece. Analecta Praehistoric Leinesia 14.
Leiden University Press, Leiden.
Wilkie, Nancy C., and Mary E. Savina
1997 The Earliest Farmers in Macedonia. Antiq-
uity 71:201–207.
Yiouni, Paraskevi
1996 The Excavation and the Ceramic As-
semblage. In Nea Nikomedeia: I. The
Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village
in Northern Greece 1961–1964, Directed
by R. J. Rodden: 1. The Excavation and the
Ceramic Assemblage, edited by Kenneth
A. Wardle, pp. 55–193. The Annual of the
British School at Athens Supplement 25.
The British School at Athens, London.
Zilhão, João
1997 Maritime Pioneer Colonisation in the
Early Neolithic of the West Mediterranean.
Testing the Model against the Evidence.
Documenta Praehistorica 24:19–42.