87
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> 
new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
Tristan Carter 1, Danica D. Mihailović 2, Yiannis Papadatos 3 and Chrysa Sofianou 4
1 McMaster University, Department of Anthropology, CA
stringy@mcmaster.ca 1
2 University of Belgrade, Department of Archaeology, RS
3 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of History and Archaeology, GR
4 Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Lasithi, GR
Introduction
Until recently, the received wisdom was that Crete
(Fig. 1), the fifth largest island in the Mediterranean,
had remained unoccupied until the founding of the
Initial Neolithic (hereafter ‘IN’) village at Knossos by
migrant Anatolian farmers around 7000 BC (Brood-
bank, Strasser 1991; Evans 1994; King et al. 2008).
Crete was thus something of an anomaly, given that
later Palaeolithic populations were known on the
islands of Corsardinia (22 000–18 500 BC), Cyprus
(11th millennium BC), and Sicily some 30 000 years
ago (Broodbank 2006.205–209; dates hereafter gi-
ven as cal BC). Even in the Aegean, pre-Neolithic sites
had begun to be reported by this time on a number
of significantly smaller islands, including Ikaria, Kyth-
nos, Melos, and Youra (Broodbank 2006.204–205,
211; Sampson et al. 2010; 2012), while a DNA study
argued that some modern Cretans embodied traces
of a local Middle Pleistocene population (Martinez
et al. 2007). In 2008, evidence for Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic activity was finally discovered on Crete’s
ABSTRACT – Investigations at Livari (south-eastern Crete) produced a small Mesolithic chipped stone
assemblage, whose techno-typological characteristics situate it within an ‘early Holocene Aegean is-
land lithic tradition’ (9000–7000 cal BC). The material provides antecedent characteristics for the
lithics of Crete’s founder Neolithic population at Knossos (c. 7000–6500/6400 cal BC). The idiosyn-
crasies of the Knossian material can be viewed as a hybrid lithic tradition that emerged from inter-
action between migrant Anatolian farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers. Small quantities of Me-
lian obsidian at Livari attest to early Holocene maritime insular networks, knowledge of which likely
enabled the first farmers’ successful voyage to Crete.
IZVLE∞EK – Raziskave na najdi∏≠u Livari (na jugovzhodu Krete) so pokazale navzo≠nost drobnega
mezolitskega kamnitega inventarja, katerega tehnolo∏ke in tipolo∏ke zna≠ilnosti ga postavljajo v ok-
vir ‘zgodnje holocenske egejske tradicije kamnitih artefaktov’ (9000–7000 cal BC). Ta material pred-
stavlja predhodnike tipov kamnitih orodij, ki so zna≠ilna za kretsko ustanoviteljsko neolitsko popu-
lacijo v Knossosu (ok. 7000–6500/6400 cal BC). Zna≠ilnosti materiala iz Knossosa ka∫ejo na hibrid-
ne tradicije v tipologiji kamnitih artefaktov, ki so se pojavile kot posledica interakcije med migran-
ti – poljedelci iz Anatolije in domorodnimi lovci in nabiralci. Manj∏a koli≠ina obsidiana iz Melosa
na najdi∏≠u Livari pa ka∫e na zgodnje holocensko morsko omre∫je, ki je potekalo med otoki, kar je
omogo≠alo prvim poljedelcem, da so pridobili znanje za uspe∏no plovbo do Krete.
KEY WORDS – Greece; Aegean Islands; Mesolithic; Neolithisation; lithics; Knossos
1 Correspondence to: Tristan Carter, Department of Anthropology, CNH 524, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton,
Ontario, L8S 4L9. Email: stringy@mcmaster.ca
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.3 
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
88
south-west coast, the former da-
ted to at least 110 000–130 000
BP (Strasser et al. 2010; 2011).
These new data force us to con-
front a number of questions. First-
ly, do they imply Crete’s contin-
ual occupation from the Middle
Pleistocene, or are these traces
of intermittent visitations and/
or failed colonisations? Secondly,
when the migrant farmers arrived
at Knossos, did they land on un-
occupied territory, or were they
confronted by an indigenous hun-
ter-gatherer population? If the lat-
ter, what implications does this
have for our understanding of
early Knossos and the origins
and nature of Neolithic society
on Crete? Does the material cul-
ture of IN Knossos attest to interactions between the
two groups? Thirdly, in coming to Crete, did these
Anatolian seafaring farmer-herders paddle into un-
known waters, or were they drawing on ancient ma-
ritime knowledge, taking advantage of pre-existing
routes and interaction networks, with the settlement
at Knossos being the result of prior reconnaissance
trips (cf. Strasser 1996.327–328)?
This paper attempts to answer these questions
through detailing a new Mesolithic chipped stone
assemblage from Livari Skiadi in south-eastern Crete.
The assemblage is contrasted with broadly contem-
porary data sets from the Eastern Mediterranean to
see if Cretan practices can be located within larger
regional traditions. We then reflect on the materi-
al’s relationship to that from IN Knossos. Our work
thus employs lithic technology as a means of con-
tributing to debates on the nature and dynamics in-
volved in the Neolithisation of the larger region (cf.
Cauvin 2000; Kotsakis 2003; Perlès 2001; Pinhasi
et al. 2005).
Livari Skiadi
The existence of a Cretan Mesolithic was first claimed
via the publication of stone tools from surveys at
Moni Kapsa and Plakias on the southern coast (Gala-
nidou 2011.224; Strasser et al. 2010); one of the
latter sites, Damnoni, having since been excavated
(Strasser et al. 2015). Here we report on Livari Skia-
di (hereafter Livari), the second Mesolithic site to
have been dug on Crete (Fig. 1).
Situated on Crete’s south-eastern littoral, Livari today
comprises a small and relatively flat coastal plain
enclosed by low steep hills to the north. It is cut by
several streams, two in quite deep gorges, while a
spring provides a year-round water supply (Fig. 2).
Aeolian and sea erosion has largely removed the Ho-
locene soil deposits, exposing large areas of the na-
tural bedrock, a Miocene conglomerate consisting
of limestone, dolomite and chert (Brandl 2010). In
2008–2010 the Greek Archaeological Service exca-
vated a small Early-Late Bronze Age cemetery at Skia-
di, 50m from the modern seashore (Papadatos, So-
fianou 2015). While the work’s focus was the 3rd–
2nd millennia BC burials in a tholos, rock shelter and
‘house tomb’ (Fig. 3), it subsequently became ap-
parent that there were also traces of Mesolithic oc-
cupation. This is not an insignificant claim, and as
such requires substantiating.
The evidence for Mesolithic Livari
The evidential basis of Livari’s Mesolithic occupation
is comprised primarily of chipped stone artefacts
(Figs. 4–6). The material derives from thin remnant
Holocene soil deposits that were protected from ero-
sion by the rock shelter and Bronze Age tombs (sug-
gesting that most soil was lost after the 2nd millen-
nium BC). It is important to state that the excava-
tors found no stratigraphic distinctions between
the material we claim to be Mesolithic and Bronze
Age, i.e. these were mixed deposits due to the later
activities associated with the 3rd– 2nd millennium ce-
metery. The total lithic assemblage from the excava-
Fig. 1. Location of main sites and regions mentioned in the text.
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
89
tion comprised 469 pieces, of which 251 are identi-
fied as Mesolithic. This claim is based on an integrat-
ed four-fold approach that considers the role and
nature of chipped stone tools in Cretan Bronze Age
burial practices/contexts, the techno-typological cha-
racteristics of the assemblage, raw material selec-
tion, and intra-site artefact distribution. A further po-
sited 20 Mesolithic artefacts were subsequently col-
lected from the site’s surface within a 20m radius of
the excavation area in 2014.
The Livari chipped stone assemblage is made up of
two techno-typologically distinct components. The
first comprises obsidian pressure-flaked blades of
Bronze Age date (Fig. 4). The second component of
the Livari material consists of a microlithic flake-
based tradition, most of which were produced using
local raw materials (Figs. 5–6); this material, we
argue, is Mesolithic.
The Bronze Age assemblage
Just under half of the Livari chip-
ped stone (n = 218/469) com-
prises fragmentary prismatic
blades (Fig. 4). Most of these im-
plements are made of obsidian
(n = 215/218, 99%), a raw ma-
terial that is exotic to Crete, the
closest sources being located in
the Aegean islands (Carter
2009). These fine, razor-sharp
blades were pressure flaked, as
evidenced by their parallel mar-
gins and dorsal ridges, even lon-
gitudinal thickness, diffuse bulbs
of ‘percussion’, and small or ab-
sent bulbar scars (Carter
2015.114–115; see also Tixier
1984). Their dihedral plat-
forms, lack of lip and over-
hang attests to the use of a
copper-tipped flaking tool (Pe-
legrin 2012.485–490). The
other three pressure blades
were made of chert, one grey-
ish- blue, the other two tan in
colour (Fig. 4.CS10–C11).
The recovery of obsidian pres-
sure blades from a Cretan
Bronze Age cemetery is enti-
rely in keeping with the islan-
ders’ funerary traditions of
the 3rd–2nd millennia cal BC.
This Livari material has numerous parallels. Indeed,
Carter (1998;1999; 2010) has studied/published
over 20 of these data sets from eastern and central
Crete. These obsidian-dominated assemblages are
highly structured, lacking cores or production debris.
The fragmentary state of these implements is like-
ly due to their post-depositional breakage, rather
than deliberate fragmentation. The blades’ freshness
and almost complete lack of use-wear further sug-
gest that they were produced specifically for funer-
ary consumption.
While Crete is known to have small deposits of knap-
pable cherts and other siliceous materials through-
out the island (cf. Blitzer 2004.511; Brandl 2010;
Carter 2007.685–688; inter alia), tools of these raw
materials are rarely documented in these burial as-
semblages. Moreover, such local resources tended to
have been ignored by Cretan/southern Aegean
Bronze Age populations, with obsidian being the
Fig. 2. Map of the Livari plain and early Holocene coastline reconstruction.
Fig. 3. View of Livari rock shelter from the south-west. Tholos tomb to
the right, ‘house tomb’ to the left.
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
90
raw material of choice for both domestic and fune-
rary products (Carter 2009.202– 204).
The Mesolithic assemblage
The remainder of the Livari assemblage is microli-
thic in character (few pieces >2.5cm), dominated by
local chert and radiolarite (Brandl 2010), and de-
rived from flake (dominant, n = 220, 88%) and bla-
delet traditions (n = 31, 12%), with the blanks per-
cussion-knapped from pebble cores (Figs. 5–6). Such
material is completely unknown from the numerous
Cretan Bronze Age assemblages we have studied
(Carter 2015, for references). Nor are the artefacts
believed to be Neolithic, as Cretan assemblages of
this date are almost exclusively obsidian-and blade-
based (e.g., Christopoulou 1989); only at IN Knos-
sos is there a significant component of flake-tools
and bladelets, although here, too, obsidian prevails
(70%; Conolly 2008). The relationship between the
Livari and IN Knossos assemblages is discussed below.
The lithics were recovered carefully, with all soil
sieved through a 300 micron-mesh. While the chip-
ped stone all seems to derive from
secondary contexts intermixed with
Bronze Age burial material (no stra-
tigraphic distinction was noted), we
highlight the fact that the distrib-
ution of the chert percussion flake/
bladelet material does not mirror
that of the obsidian pressure-blades
(Tab. 1). We believe strongly that
this contextual distinction is due to
their chronological differences. For
instance, the deposition of burials
and grave goods (28% of the obsi-
dian blades) deep in the rock shelter
is a well-attested practice in Bronze
Age Crete (Branigan 1988.153–
154), yet such a dark, cramped
space makes little sense for Meso-
lithic activity, thus explaining why
only 3% of the chert artefacts came
from here.
For the flake tradition using local
raw materials, we have the entire
reduction sequence, with nuclei,
cortical debris, and tools. The cores
were reduced multi-directionally
(Fig. 6.1), although there are a few
unipolar cores and three (opposed
platform) pieces esquillèes, a few
being related to on-site percussion
bladelet production (12%, n = 31), with cores, plat-
form rejuvenation tablets, and end-products (Fig.
6.2–3).
A high proportion of the percussion flake and bla-
delet tradition material is modified (n = 110, 44%;
Fig. 6.4–16, 18–22; Tab. 2); this is again quite dif-
ferent to Cretan Bronze Age assemblages, which typ-
ically have <10% retouched pieces (Carter 2015.
116). Most have simple linear modification (Tab. 2),
followed by ‘spines’, i.e. pointed tools used as borer/
perforators or drills (Fig. 6.8–11), notches, dentic-
ulates, composite tools, scrapers (Fig. 6.21–22),
blanks with convergent retouch (broader tips than
‘spines’ (Fig. 6.6–7)), geometrics (Fig. 6.18–20), and
backed pieces. There were two burin spalls, but no
burins per se. Inverse retouch is common, noted on
a third of the modified pieces (n = 34, 33%); this is
a characteristically Mesolithic mode of modification
(cf. Perlès 1990.Doc. II.11), quite distinct from Neo-
lithic or Bronze Age tool-making traditions. Many of
the artefacts also display macroscopic use-wear,
whether retouched or otherwise.
Fig. 4. Bronze Age pressure blades from Livari made of obsidian
and chert (CS 10–11).
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
91
While our claim for early Holocene activity is consti-
tuted primarily on the quintessentially Mesolithic
character of its chipped stone, Livari also fits the
Aegean Mesolithic site-location model forwarded by
Runnels (2009.60–62) at the “intersection of wood-
land and aquatic habitats”. The site is located in
front of a rock shelter, offering protection from the
strong north winds, with a nearby spring and small
caves in the gorge, with the early Holocene coastline
approx. 1.5km to the south (Fig. 2). This coastal wet-
land plain would have provided a perennial water
supply, and a rich array of animals, plants, and ma-
rine resources for hunter-fisher-gatherer subsistence,
a setting directly comparable to the “foraging coast-
scapes” (Broodbank 2006.211) enjoyed by the well-
documented Mesolithic populations of the southern
Argolid (Runnels 2009).
Dating the Livari material and its relationship
to early Holocene traditions of the Eastern Me-
diterranean
Given the mixed nature of the Livari deposits, the
chert/flake-dominated assemblage can be dated only
through reference to comparanda from elsewhere.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the closest parallels come
from the Plakias sites 180km to the west (Fig. 1),
which are similarly flake-based and microlithic, with
‘spines’, denticulates, geometrics, notched, and back-
ed pieces (Strasser et al. 2010.163–171, Tab. 2).
Preliminary reports of the material from stratified
Mesolithic deposits at Damnoni details a di-
rectly comparable assemblage to the Liva-
ri chert (Strasser et al. 2015.278, Figs. 7–
9), an impression that is further strength-
ened through Danica Mihailovi≤’s first-hand
study of both data sets (Fig. 7). With ab-
solute dates yet to be published from Dam-
noni, we need to consider parallels from
overseas excavated assemblages in order to
offer some thoughts on Livari’s chronolo-
gy, with that from the mainland Franchthi Cave
being particularly informative (Fig. 1).
The Livari material has much to compare with the
Lower-Final Mesolithic assemblages from Franchthi’s
lithic Phases VII–IX (Fig. 6; Tab. 3) that span 8500–
7000 BC (Perlès 2001.Tab. 2.1). These assemblages
are similarly microlithic and dominated by flakes
(95%) struck from small pebble cores, with notches/
denticulates being the most common tools, followed
by flakes with simple linear retouch, scrapers, backed
pieces, and geometrics inter alia (Perlès 1990.23–
93, Figs. 5–8, 13–19, 21–22), although Livari has a
significantly higher proportion of ‘spines’ (Fig. 6).
The Livari material also includes proportionally more
bladelets than at Franchthi VII–IX (12%; v. 4–5%),
and instances of inverse retouch (33%; v. 17%); these
are both features more characteristic of Final Palaeo-
lithic assemblages (Perlès 1987), i.e. the Livari ma-
terial is potentially of earlier Mesolithic date (Phase
VII in Franchthi terms, second half of the 9th millen-
nium BC).
While strong links can be established with the Fran-
chthi lithics, Livari is ultimately better viewed as
part of the ‘early Holocene Aegean Island lithic tra-
dition’ (Figs. 1 and 8; Tab. 3). This tradition was first
defined by Adamantios Sampson et alii (2010.68–
69) through reference to material from Maroulas on
Kythnos in the Cyclades (early-mid 9th millennium
BC), the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra in the Spora-
Fig. 5. Mesolithic artefacts from Livari made of local cherts.
Context
Pressure Pressure Flake\ Flake\
Blade # Blade % Bladelet # Bladet %
Rockshelter 60 28 8 3
House Tomb 51 23 40 15
Tholos Tomb 29 13 143 55
Around the Tholos 78 36 68 24
Tab. 1. Distribution of chipped stone at Livari by context,
raw material and technology.
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
92
des (c. 8600–7800 BC), Kerame 1 on Ikaria in the
Dodecanese (Sampson 2008; Sampson et al. 2010;
2012), plus Stélida and Roos on Naxos (Carter et al.
2013; 2016; Sampson 2015). These assemblages
are also flake-dominated, with denticulates, notches,
perforators, scrapers, and backed pieces, but have
few opposed platform cores compared to mainland
sites (n = 3/11 at Livari). The Cyclops Cave aside,
these assemblages, Livari included, also have notable
quantities of ‘spines’, a further distinction from the
Franchthi material (Fig. 8).
The Livari Mesolithic lithics provide further proof of
overseas connections through the presence of four
pieces of obsidian (n = 4/251, 1.6%) which were cha-
racterised by energy- dispersive x-ray fluorescence
spectroscopy as being products of the Sta Nychia
source on Melos (Fig. 1), 235km away in the Cycla-
des (Carter 2016). These obsidian artefacts can be
distinguished easily from the Bronze Age pressure
blades on the basis of their technology, form, and
size, comprising a retouched bladelet, a ‘spine’ on a
blade-like flake, a retouched part-cortical flake, and
Fig. 6. Mesolithic artefacts from Livari. 1 multidirectional flake core/micro chopper with spine, 2 blade-
let core/pièce esquillèe, 3 core rejuvenation flake, 4–5 unidirectional retouched bladelets, 6–7 flakes with
convergent retouch, 8–11 ‘spines’, 12–16 retouched flakes, 17 flake, 18–20 geometrics with backed ele-
ments, 21–23 short scrapers on flakes (14–17 obsidian, 18–23 survey material).
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
93
a denticulated flake (Fig. 6.14– 17). While we believe
this to be the earliest Melian obsidian on Crete, the
exploitation of these raw materials at distance has
an earlier heritage, having been procured by pop-
ulations from continental Greece during the 11th
millennium BC Upper Palaeolithic (Renfrew, Aspi-
nall 1990). While mainland hunter-gatherers con-
tinued to exploit this material during the early Holo-
cene (9th–8th millennia BC), the primary Mesolithic
consumers of Melian obsidian were insular hunter-
gatherers with ready waterway access to the Cycla-
des (Fig. 1); linear distance from source cannot alone
explain the distribution patterns (Tab. 4). The tiny
quantities of obsidian attested at the Franchthi Cave
and Livari suggests that the inhabitants of the main-
land and southern Crete likely relied on intermedi-
ary exchange to access these Melian resources (Car-
ter 2016.18). The obsidian artefacts at all of these
Mesolithic sites were made in the same way as tools
flaked from local materials, although at Livari there
is no evidence for obsidian being worked on-site.
Turning our attention eastwards and southwards,
how do the Mesolithic assemblages of the Aegean
islands relate to contemporary material from Ana-
tolia, Cyprus, the Levant, or North Africa? Can one
document early Holocene supra-regional lithic tra-
ditions, i.e. common technical practices that devel-
oped through close social interaction, such as the
establishment of exchange and kin partnerships (cf.
Carter et al. 2013)? More specifically, if we can de-
fine hunter-gatherer networks linking Cretan popu-
lations with their eastern contemporaries, then we
conceivably have evidence for the bodies of knowl-
edge through which outsider migrant farmers came
to know of particular Aegean destinations and the
routes with which to reach them.
If we focus on well-dated excavated assemblages,
then the Aegean material bears little resemblance
to most Anatolian, Levantine and North African tra-
ditions of the 9th–8th millennia BC (Fig. 9). Hunter-
gatherer (Epi-Palaeolithic) assemblages of Mediter-
ranean and central Anatolia are bladelet based with
geometrics (Kartal 2009; Baird et al. 2012.194–
195), while the early farmers of Pre-Pottery Neoli-
thic (PPN) south-eastern Turkey and the Levant had
skilled blade industries (Shea 2013.213–260). In
turn, the lithic traditions of the Western desert and
Nile Valley (Quarunian) are bladelet/ geometric in
character (Midant-Reynes 2000.72–74, 77–82), while
those of the Typical Capsian assemblages of North
CHERT Linear ‘Spine’ Notch Scraper Denticulate Composite Convergent Backed Geometric
Flake 18 12 12 8 8 10 6 3
Blade-like flake 4 8 1 1 2 2
Bladelet 1 1 1 1 1 2
Core 3 1
Core-tablet 1
OBSIDIAN
Flake 2
Bladelet 1
TOTAL (n=110) 25 (23%) 22 (20%) 14 (13%) 13 (12%) 12 (11%) 11 (10%) 6 (5%) 4 (4%) 3 (3%)
Tab. 2. Modified tools from the Livari excavation by raw material and blank type.
Tab. 3. Comparing basic blank types (relative proportion) and the retouched component of the Livari
percussion flake and bladelet assemblage with late Pleistocene-early Holocene material from the main-
land and Aegean Islands (UP = Upper Palaeolithic; L/U/FM = Lower/Upper/Final Mesolithic; Dent. = den-
ticulate; Geom. = geometric; data from Perles 1990; Sampson 2008; Sampson et al. 2010; 2012).
Site Date Flake Blade(let) Retouch Linear ‘Spine’
Notch\ Compo-
Scraper Backed Geom. Other
Dent. site
Livari |M 88% 12% 44% 23% 20% 24% 10% 12% 4% 3% 6%
Franchthi VI UP 91% 9% n.d. 9% – 8% – 7% 40% 28% 7%
Franchthi VII LM 97% 3% n.d. 34% 3% 33% 4% 11% 8% 2% 6%
Franchthi VIII UM 95% 5% 7% 34% 4% 41% 5% 10% – – 6%
Franchthi IX FM n.d. n.d. n.d. 28% 3% 46% 12% 3% 1% 3% 2%
Kerame 1 LM 97% 3% n.d. 22% 19% 20% – 22% 11% 1% 7%
Maroulas LM 97% 3% 11% 19% 16% 26% – 24% 3% 4% 8%
Cyclops Cave L\UM 93% 7% 25% 20% 2% 11% 9% 11% 2% 7% 33%
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
94
Africa are blade/bladelet-based with geometrics (Rah-
mani 2004.70–75).
One possible connection to the Cretan/Aegean Me-
solithic material is Cypriot. While Cyprus of 9000–
7000 BC formed part of the PPN world with its fine
blade traditions (Knapp 2013.74–119), a survey at
Nissi Beach (south-east Cyprus) collected material
(n = 2225) that allegedly resembles Aegean early
Holocene assemblages. The lithics are ‘microflake’-
based (from pebble cores), with scrapers, backed
pieces, and spines, the material purportedly repre-
senting the tool-kits of foragers who were either
occupying the island during the late Epi-Palaeoli-
thic, or early contemporaries of the earliest Cypriot
farmers (Kaczanowska, Kozlowski 2014.52–55,
Fig. 27). While a tantalising potential link to Meso-
lithic Aegean populations, knowledge of which may
have later been used by migrant farmers venturing
westwards from Cyprus (as attested genetically; King
et al. 2008), the current evidential basis is insubstan-
tial given the lack of absolute dates.
Finally, there is tantalising evidence for comparable
material emerging from archaeological work in
south-western and western Anatolia, i.e. the obvi-
ous continental landfall en route from Cyprus, and/
or point of departure for anyone paddling to Crete
from Anatolia (Kartal 2009.Fig. 15; Horejs et al.
2015.Fig. 15). The excavation of late 9th/ early 8th
millennia BC deposits from the Girmeler Cave in SW
Turkey (Fig. 1) produced a ‘flint’ percussion-knap-
ped flake-based assemblage – with some bladelets –
including multidirectional cores and modified forms
such as scrapers and perforators, but no classic mi-
crolithic types (Takaoglu et al. 2014.112–113, Fig.
6). The excavators note the materials’ distinction
from central Anatolian and Antalya region lithic
traditions of the period, while also drawing tenta-
tive parallels with Aegean Island Mesolithic assem-
blages (Takaoglu et al. 2014.114). The second as-
semblage comes from a survey of the Karaburun
Peninsula on western Anatolia, opposite the eastern
Aegean island of Chios (Fig. 1). The 116 artefacts of
‘white patinated flint’ were the products of a non-
Fig. 7. Mesolithic quartz artefacts from Damnoni. 1 multidirectional flake core, 2 pièce esquillée, 3–5
flakes with linear retouch, 9–10 endscrapers, 11–13 ‘spines’, 14 notch, 15 pseudo-trapeze, 16 denticulate.
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
95
standardised flake-based tradition (only three blades
recorded), with the few retouched pieces (approx.
10%) including scrapers and notches (Çilingiroglu
et al. 2016.3–5, Figs. 4–5). The survey team clearly
contrasts this material with the bladelet- and blade-
based traditions of the Epipalaeolithic and Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic Eastern Mediterranean, instead draw-
ing comparisons with Aegean Mesolithic assemblages
(Çilingiroglu et al. 2016.5–6).
The relationship of Crete’s indigenous Mesoli-
thic traditions to Initial Neolithic Knossos
So what impact has the new Cretan Mesolithic finds
on how we view IN Knossos? Firstly, we need to be
clear about what these data do not change. For in-
stance, we still lack solid evidence for an indigenous
hunter-gatherer population inhabiting Crete when
the migrant farmers arrived around 7000 BC. With
elements of the Livari and the Plakias region sites
finding their best parallels from Franchthi Phase VIII
of the earlier 8th millennium BC (Strasser et al.
2010.164), there could conceivably be a lacuna in
Cretan occupation of at least 500 years until Knos-
sos was founded (Perlès 1990.46–47). Moreover,
even if the island was inhabited by local hunter-
gatherers, it does not change the newcomers’ impact
on Crete’s subsistence economy, as it remains that
their agro-pastoral basis was a package of foreign
domesticated and proto-domestic plants and animals
that they brought with them (Broodbank, Strasser
1991.236–237; Horwitz 2013; Isaakidou 2008; al-
though Sampson 2008.210, 225 argues for some in-
dependent Aegean Island domestication processes).
Where the discovery of a Cretan Mesolithic does
change the debate concerns how we view the ear-
liest material culture at Knossos. The first detailed
study of Knossian IN chipped stone was undertak-
en by James Conolly (2008), part of whose work
was dedicated to finding the best overseas parallels
in order to locate the settlers’ homeland(s) and
chart their migration routes. The assemblage com-
prised 394 artefacts, 70% of which were made from
obsidian (in stark contrast to Livari’s 1.6%), plus a
wide variety of local raw materials. The assemblage
was flake based (approx. 80%), with the blanks
having been percussion-knapped on-site from multi-
platform and bipolar cores/pièces esquillées (Co-
nolly 2008.76–77, Fig. 5.1–5.2). There was also a
small blade component (11 percussion, two possi-
ble pressure), but no associated manufacturing de-
bris. A quarter of the assemblage was modified (n =
100), mostly in the form of non-standardised re-
Fig. 8. Composition of lithic assemblages from the
main excavated Aegean Mesolithic sites discussed
in the text.
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
96
touched flakes. For Conolly, the as-
semblage’s closest parallel came
from IN Franchthi Cave (phase X),
material of perhaps only slightly
later date (Perlès 1990.84–85, Tab.
5.3, Fig. 5.5; Perlès et al. 2013).
Both were flake-dominated and in-
cluded small proportions of more
technically advanced blade tools (2%
at Knossos and 10% at Franchthi).
However, while Perlès (1990.115–
118) viewed Franchthi’s flake com-
ponent as representing continuity
from Mesolithic technical traditions
(with the IN the result of ‘accultura-
tion’ by local (ex-)hunter-gatherers;
Perlès et al. 2013.1012), Connolly
(2008.85) rejected such an implica-
tion for the IN Knossian flake mate-
rial based on the belief that Crete
had no indigenous hunter-gatherer
population, i.e. the entire assemblage had to be the
product of a foreign tradition. The assemblages’ si-
milarity was instead viewed as the result of the com-
munities’ comparable environments, which led to the
independent development of functionally analogous
tool-kits.
Conolly’s interpretations have recently been chal-
lenged by Malgorzata Kaczanowksa and Janusz K.
Kozłowski (2011), whose own study of the Knossian
IN material led them to downplay the similarities
with IN Franchthi and instead locate Knossos with-
in their early Holocene Aegean Island tradition. In
the light of the Livari material, we agree broadly
with this position. Ultimately, we believe that the
chipped stone from IN Knossos is culturally hybrid.
It embodies technical and raw material choices de-
rived from migrant farmer and local hunter-gatherer
traditions, which we argue resulted from close pop-
ulation interaction, conceivably through inter-mar-
riage, as allegedly evidenced in the Argolid at Kli-
soura Cave 1 (Koumouzelis et al. 2003.117–118;
although, see Hofmanova et al. 2016; Kılınç et al.
2016 for recent aDNA studies that seemingly argue
against forager-farmer admixture). The Livari and
Plakias region assemblages now provide the IN Knos-
sos flake-based material, not least the notched/den-
ticulated component, with good Cretan Mesolithic
antecedents, while the minority blade component,
specifically the pressure blades, provide links to east-
ern Neolithic traditions. More specifically we sug-
gest that Aceramic Neolithic Çatalhöyük in central
Anatolia (Fig. 1) provides not only good parallels
for some of the IN Knossian material, but also a con-
ceptual analogy for the site’s foundation.
Çatalhöyük’s basal levels are dated c. 7100 BC (Bay-
liss et al. 2015), with the population’s subsistence
based on a range of non-local domestic and proto-
domestic animals and cereals that members of this
community likely brought with them from the east,
possibly Cappadocia, where agro-pastoralism and se-
dentism was already established (Hodder 2006.82–
84). The material culture provides further links to
this region, with elements of Çatalhöyük’s earliest
chipped stone forming the westernmost edge of
Near Eastern PPNB lithic traditions (Carter 2011.
12). At the same time, the fauna includes significant
quantities of wild taxa (Russell, Martin 2005.44–
46, Fig. 2.3, Tabs. 2.5–2.7), while the chipped stone
contains hallmarks of local Epi-Palaeolithic hunter-
gatherer knapping practices with its bladelet techno-
logies, and geometric tool-types (Carter 2011.11).
Çatalhöyük’s earliest material can thus be concep-
tualised in terms of cultural hybridity (cf. Bhabha
1995) due to interaction between indigenous hun-
ter-gatherers and non-local farmers; a century later,
we seem to witness a similar situation at IN Knossos.
In terms of actual links between IN Knossos and late
8th millennium BC central Anatolian lithic traditions,
both Çatalhöyük and nearby Canhasan III (Figs. 1
and 8) produced numerous exhausted bipolar cores
or pièces esquillées, plus small quantities of blades,
a few of which were pressure flaked (Ataman 1988;
Carter et al. 2005.492–495, Fig. 11.8a–8b; Conolly
Fig. 9. Lithic traditions of the 9th–8th millennium BC Eastern Medi-
terranean.
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
97
2008; Kaczanowksa, Kozłowski 2011). In making
these comparisons, one is wary of literalism, as Çatal-
höyük is the only well-published central Anatolian
site of this date, and differences do exist between
their chipped stone assemblages (e.g., the lack of
geometrics from Crete); at Knossos this may be part-
ly due to indigenous Cretan influences on migrant
Anatolian traditions. To claim Knossian links with
central Anatolia is not new, with Arthur Evans (1994.
5) positing parallels in mud-brick construction and
aspects of the economy, while part of the modern
Cretan population’s DNA can be traced back to cen-
tral and Mediterranean Anatolia through the J2a hap-
lotype, whose appearance on Crete is linked to the
spread of farming and Knossos’ foundation (King et
al. 2008).
The state of play
While our understanding of the Cretan Mesolithic re-
mains in its infancy, it still forces us to rethink long-
held views concerning the foundation of Neolithic
Crete. Through reference to Livari and other Aegean
island Mesolithic data, one no longer has to invoke
the founder principle to explain the idiosyncrasies
of Knossian IN material culture, i.e. cultural drift
from ‘homeland’ practices due to the colonists’ isola-
tion (Cherry 1985.26–27). For us, the Knossian ma-
terial represents a hybrid product of farmer and
hunter-gatherer traditions, conceivably via group
interaction on Crete itself (or through forager-farmer
contacts in western Anatolia). Moreover, the pres-
ence of Melian obsidian on Mesolithic Crete attests
to pre-Neolithic maritime networks connecting Cre-
tans with other islanders (Carter 2016), the ances-
tral knowledge of which may have then been em-
ployed by those early seaborne farmers as they
aimed for the island’s north coast (cf. Broodbank,
Strasser 1991.238–239). The fact we have still to
find Early Neolithic sites on the intervening islands
between Anatolia and Crete continue to bolster the
argument that this was not only a targeted migra-
tion, but also a long-range process (Horejs et al.
2015.Fig. 15). In turn, John Cherry’s original (1981)
claim for a 2000-year gap between the establishment
of farming on Crete and the Neolithisation of the
smaller Aegean Islands remains largely true (an ex-
ception being Ugurlu on Gökçeada/Imbros; Erdogu
2013). This suggests that the Cretan-Anatolian dual
cereal-livestock subsistence basis was incompatible
with smaller Aegean landmasses, which tend to lack
sizeable tracts of land suitable for arable develop-
ment (<10–15° slope). Indeed, the Late Neolithic/5th
millennium BC farming economy that eventually suc-
ceeded in the Cyclades was underpinned by sheep/
goat herding and fishing, having filtered out the ce-
real and cattle component seen on Crete (Brood-
bank 2000.76–85, Tab. 1).
Other lacunae need to be highlighted. The lack of
Mesolithic sites in the southern Dodecanese arguably
hampers our claim that Anatolian migrant farmers
could have tapped into deep-time knowledge of the
sea- and landscapes they were about to encounter via
intermediary islanders (though alleged Mesolithic
surface finds are documented from Chalki; Samp-
son 2010.139). That said, with the recent discoveries
of late Pleistocene-early Holocene insular sites fur-
ther to the north on Ikaria and Lemnos (Sampson
et al. 2012; Efstratiou et al. 2013), together with the
new south-west and western Anatolian evidence (Çi-
lingiroglu et al. 2016; Takaoglu et al. 2014), it is
arguably only a matter of time before Mesolithic ac-
tivity is documented on the islands of Rhodes, Kar-
pathos and Kasos (Fig. 1). Another data lacuna we
take more seriously is that of later Palaeolithic is-
land occupation. While Livari has some features that
might be viewed as transitional Final Palaeolithic-
Lower Mesolithic (proportion of bladelets and in-
verse retouch), it remains that Crete lacks a well-do-
cumented Upper Palaeolithic. This was perhaps to be
expected, as most Aegean sites were apparently aban-
Tab. 4. Mesolithic Aegean sites with obsidian: date, proportion of assemblage, linear distance from source.
Site Region Period
Date Obsidian Km to
(cal BC) % Melos
Livari Crete Mesolithic n.d. 1.5 235
Franchthi Cave (VII) Argolid Lower Mesolithic 8500 – 8000 0.2 135
Franchthi Cave (VIII) Argolid Upper Mesolithic 8000 – 7500 2.8 135
Franchthi Cave (IX) Argolid Final Mesolithic 7200 – 7000 0.2 135
Schisto Cave Attica Upper Palaeolithic – Lower Mesolithic 10 000 – 9300 0.8 150
Cyclops Cave, Youra Sporades Lower – Upper Mesolithic 8600 – 7000 8.4 295
Maroulas, Kythnos Cyclades Lower Mesolithic 8800 – 8600 31.1 75
Kerame 1, Ikaria Dodecanese Lower Mesolithic n.d. 26 170
Ataman K. 1988. The chipped stone assemblage from
Can Hasan III: A study in typology, technology and
function. Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Archaeo-
logy. University College London. London.
Bayliss A., Brock F., Farid S., Hodder I., Southon J. and
Taylor R. E. 2015. Getting to the bottom of it all: A Baye-
sian approach to dating the start of Çatalhöyük. Journal
of World Prehistory 28: 1–26.
Baird D., Fairbairn A., Martin L. and Middleton C. 2012.
The Boncuklu Project: The origins of sedentism, cultiva-
tion and herding in Central Anatolia. In M. Özdogan, N.
Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey
3. New excavations and new research: Central Turkey.
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 219–244.
Bhabha H. K. 1995. Location of Culture. Routledge.
London.
Blitzer H. 2004. Appendix C. The chipped stone and
ground stone: Raw material sources, production sites, and
finds. In L. V. Watrous, D. Hadzi-Vallianou and H. Blitzer
(eds.), The plain of Phaistos. Cycles of social complex-
ity in the Mesara region of Crete. Monumenta Archaeo-
logica 23. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Publications.
Los Angeles: 509–524.
Brandl M. 2010. Chert source areas and provenance
studies of chipped stone artifacts in Southeastern Crete.
Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Insti-
tutes in Wien 79: 324–341.
Branigan K. 1988. Pre-palatial. The foundations of pala-
tial Crete. A survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age.
Adolf M. Hakkert. Amsterdam.
Broodbank C. 2000. An island archaeology of the Early
Cyclades. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
2006. The origins and early development of Mediter-
ranean maritime activity. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 19(2): 199–230.
Broodbank C., Strasser T. 1991. Migrant farmers and the
Neolithic colonisation of Crete. Antiquity 65: 233–245.
Carter T. 1998. Reverberations of the “International Spi-
rit”: thoughts upon “Cycladica” in the Mesara. In K. Bra-
nigan (ed.), Cemetery and society in the Aegean Bronze
Age. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1. Sheffield
Academic Press. Sheffield: 59–77.
1999. Through a glass darkly: Obsidian and society in
the Southern Aegean Early Bronze Age. Unpublished
PhD thesis. Institute of Archaeology. University College
London. London.
2007. The chipped stone. In D. C. Haggis, M. S. Mook,
T. Carter and L. M. Snyder (eds.), Excavations at Azo-
ria, 2003–2004, Part 2: The Final Neolithic, Late Pre-
palatial, and Early Iron Age occupation. Hesperia
76(4): 665–716.
2009. L’obsidienne égéenne: caractérisation, utilisation
et culture. In M.-H. Moncel, F. Fröhlich (eds.), L’homme
et le precieux. Matières minérales précieuses de la
préhistoire à aujourd’hui’. British Archaeological Re-
ports IS S1934. Archaeopress. Oxford: 199–212.
2010. Of blades and burials, flakes and funerals: The
chipped stone from Moni Odigitria. In A. Vasilakis, K.
Branigan (eds.), Moni Odigitria: A Prepalatial Ceme-
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
98
doned during the late Pleistocene-early Holocene
transition (Runnels 1995.719, 726–727). Crete’s ear-
lier prehistory might thus be viewed as a series of
visitations and/or failed colonisations, rather than a
continuous occupation from the Middle Pleistocene.
Ultimately, Crete’s Mesolithic culture can be viewed
as the product of yet another migration and part of
a broader wave of supra-regional early Holocene
maritime activity that Cyprian Broodbank (2006.
208) refers to as the true “birth of Mediterranean
seafaring”.
The excavation was carried out by Sofianou and Papadatos for the Greek Archaeological Service and Hellenic
Ministry of Culture and Sports, with funding also provided by the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) and
the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. INSTAP-East Crete hosted the lithic study, Deanna Aubert and
Sean Doyle produced the photographs, Kyle Freund the maps, and Daniel Contreras the graph. Thanks to Deanna
Aubert, Çiler Çilingiroglu, Fanis Mavridis, Marina Mili≤, Catherine Perlès, Curtis Runnels, Tom Strasser for feed-
back, the latter also providing permission to reproduce Mihailovi≤’s illustrations of the Damnoni material. We also
acknowledge the input of the journal’s referees, which helped improve some of the arguments. Carter’s work was
funded by a Standard Research Grant of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
99
tery and its environs in the Asterousia, Southern
Crete. Prehistory Monographs 30. Institute for Aegean
Prehistory Academic Press. Philadelphia: 151–169.
2011. A true gift of mother earth: The use and signifi-
cance of obsidian at Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies 61:
1–19.
2015. The chipped stone. In Y. Papadatos, C. Sofianou
(eds.), Livari Skiadi. A Minoan Cemetery in Southeast
Crete. I. Excavation and finds. Institute for Aegean Pre-
history Academic Press. Philadelphia: 113–126.
2016. Obsidian consumption in the Late Pleistocene –
Early Holocene Aegean: Contextualising new data from
Mesolithic Crete. Annual of the British School at
Athens 111: 1–22.
Carter T., Conolly J., Spasojevi≤ A. 2005. The chipped
stone. In I. Hodder (ed.), Changing materialities at Ça-
talhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 seasons. McDo-
nald Institute Monographs and BIAA. Cambridge: 221–83;
467–533.
Carter T., Contreras D. A., Doyle S., Mihailovi≤ D. D., Mou-
tsiou T. and Skarpelis N. 2014. The Stélida Naxos Archa-
eological Project: New data on the Mesolithic and Middle
Palaeolithic Cyclades. Antiquity Project Gallery 88(341)
http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/carter 341
Carter T., Contreras D. A., Doyle S., Mihailovi≤ D. D. and
Skarpelis N. 2016. Early Holocene interaction in the Ae-
gean Islands: Mesolithic chert exploitation at Stélida (Na-
xos, Greece) in context. In M. Ghilardi (ed.), Géoarchéo-
logie des îles de Méditerrané. Centre National de la Re-
cherche Scientifique éditions. Paris: 275–286.
Carter T., Grant S., Kartal M., Coskun A. and Özkaya V.
2013. Networks and Neolithisation: Sourcing obsidian
from Körtik Tepe (SE Anatolia). Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 40(1): 556–569.
Cauvin J. 2000. The birth of the gods and the origin of
agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Cherry J. F. 1981. Pattern and process in the earliest
colonisation of the Mediterranean islands. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 47: 41–68.
1985. Islands out of the stream: Isolation and interac-
tion in early East Mediterranean insular prehistory. In
A. B. Knapp, T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric production and
exchange. Univesity of California, Los Angeles, Institute
of Archaeology. Monograph 25. Los Angeles: 12–29.
Christopoulou A. 1989. The stone tools. In L. Vagnetti, A.
Christopoulou and Y. Tzedakis (eds.), Scavi a Nerokou-
rou, Kydonias. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Rome:
75–85.
Çilingiroglu Ç., Dinçer B., Uhri A., Gürbıyık C., Baykara
İ., Çakırlar C. 2016. New Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites
in the eastern Aegean: the Karaburun Archaeological Sur-
vey Project. Antiquity (Project Gallery: http://www. anti
quity.ac.uk/projgall/cilingiroglu353).
Conolly J. 2008. The knapped stone technology of the
first occupants at Knossos. In V. Isaakidou, P. D. Tom-
kins (eds.), Escaping the labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic
in context. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 73–89.
Efstratiou N. 2013. Knossos and the beginning of the Neo-
lithic in Greece and the Aegean islands. In N. Efstratiou,
A. Karetsou and M. Ntinou (eds.), The Neolithic settle-
ment of Knossos in Crete. New evidence for the early
occupation of Crete and the Aegean islands. Institute for
Aegean Prehistory. Academic Press. Philadelphia: 201–
211.
Efstratiou N., Biagi P., Karkanas P. and Starnini E. 2013.
A Late Palaeolithic site at Ouriakos (Limnos, Greece) in
the Northeastern Aegean. Antiquity 87(335) (Project Gal-
lery: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/efstratiou335/).
Erdogu B. 2013. Uyyyurlu, a Neolithic settlement on the
Aegean island of Gökçeada. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen
and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey 5. New
excavations and new research: Northwestern Turkey
and Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 1–33.
Evans J. D. 1994. The early millennia: Continuity and
change in a farming settlement. In D. Evely, H. Hughes-
Brock and N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos a labyrinth of
history: Papers presented in honour of Sinclair Hood.
British School at Athens. London: 1–20.
Galanidou N. 2011. Mesolithic cave use in Greece and
the mosaic of human communities. Journal of Mediterra-
nean Archaeology 24(2): 219–242.
Hodder I. 2006. Çatalhöyük: the leopard’s tale, reveal-
ing the mysteries of Turkey’s ancient ‘town’. Thames
and Hudson. London.
Hofmanová Z. and 37 co-authors. 2016. Early farmers
from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic
Aegeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences USA 113(25): 6886–6891.
Horejs B., Mili≤ B., Ostmann F., Thanheiser U., Weninger B.
and Galik A. 2015. The Aegean in the early 7th Millen-
nium BC: Maritime networks and colonization. Journal
of World Prehistory 28: 289–330.
Horwitz L. K. 2013. The earliest settlement on Crete: An
archaeozoological perspective. In N. Efstratiou, A. Kare-
tsou and M. Ntinou (eds.), The Neolithic settlement of
Knossos in Crete. New evidence for the early occupa-
Tristan Carter, Danica D. Mihailović , Yiannis Papadatos and Chrysa Sofianou
100
tion of Crete and the Aegean islands. Institute for Ae-
gean Prehistory Academic Press. Philadelphia: 171–192.
Isaakidou V. 2008. The fauna and economy of Neolithic
Knossos’ revisited. In V. Isaakidou, P. D. Tomkins (eds.),
Escaping the labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in context.
Oxbow Books. Oxford: 90–114.
Kaczanowksa M., Kozłowski J. K. 2011. Lithic industry
from the Aceramic levels at Knossos (Crete, Greece): An
alternative approach. Eurasian Prehistory 8(1–2): 67–87.
2014. The Aegean Mesolithic: Material culture, chrono-
logy and networks of contact. Eurasian Prehistory
11(1–2): 31–61.
Kartal M. 2009. Konar göçerlikten yerlesik yasama ge-
çis Epi-Paleolitik dönem: Türkiye’de son avcı-toplayıcı-
lar. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul.
Kılınç G. M. and 26 co-authors. 2016. The demographic
development of the first farmers in Anatolia. Current Bio-
logy 26: 1–8.
King R., Özcan S., Carter T., Kalfoglu E., Atasoy S., Trian-
tiphyllidis K., Kouvatsi A., Lin A., Chow C., Zhivotovsky L.,
Tsopanomichalou M. and Underhill P. 2008. Differential
Y-Chromosome Anatolian influences on the Greek and
Cretan Neolithic. Annals of Human Genetics 72: 205–
214.
Knapp A. B. 2013. The archaeology of Cyprus from ear-
liest prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. Cambridge.
Kotsakis K. 2003. From the Neolithic side: The Mesoli-
thic/Neolithic interface in Greece. In N. Galanidou, C. Per-
lès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and perspec-
tives. British School at Athens Studies 10. London: 217–
221.
Koumouzelis M., Kozłowski J. K. and Ginter B. 2003. Me-
solithic finds from Cave 1 in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid.
In N. Galanidou, C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic.
Problems and perspectives. British School at Athens Stu-
dies 10. Nottingham: 113–122.
Martinez L., Underhill P. A., Zhivotovsky L. A., Gayden T.,
Moschonas N. K., Chow C.-E. T., Conti S., Mamolini E., Ca-
valli-Sforza L. L. and Herrera R. J. 2007. Paleolithic Y-ha-
plogroup heritage predominates in a Cretan highland pla-
teau. European Journal of Human Genetics 15: 1–9.
Midant-Reynes B. 2000. The prehistory of Egypt. Black-
well. Oxford.
Papadatos Y., Sofianou C. 2015. Livari Skiadi. A Minoan
cemetery in Southeast Crete. I. Excavation and finds. In-
stitute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press. Philadelphia.
Perlès C. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillées de Fran-
chthi (Argolide, Grèce) I. Présentation générale et in-
dustries Paléolithiques. Excavations at the Franchthi
Cave, Fascicle 3. Indiana University Press. Bloomington,
Indianapolis.
1990. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi
(Argolide, Grèce) II. Les industries du Mésolithique et
du Néolithique Initial. Excavations at the Franchthi
Cave, Fascicle 5. Indiana University Press. Blooming-
ton, Indianapolis.
2001. The early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. Cambridge.
Perlès C., Quiles A. and Valladas H. 2013. Early seventh
millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial
Neolithic at Franchthi Cave. Antiquity 87: 1001–1015.
Pinhasi R., Fort J. and Ammerman A. J. 2005. Tracing the
origin and spread of agriculture in Europe. Public Library
of Science Biology 3(12): 2220–2228.
Rahmani N. 2004. Technological and cultural change
amongst the last hunter-gatherers of the Mahgreb: The
Capsian (10,000–6000 BP). Journal of World Prehistory
18(1): 57–105.
Renfrew C., Aspinall A. 1990. Aegean obsidian and Fran-
chthi Cave. In T. W. Jacobsen (ed.), Excavations at Fran-
chthi Cave, Greece. Fascicle 5. Indiana University Press.
Bloomington: 257–279.
Runnels C. 1995. Review of Aegean prehistory IV: The
stone age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the advent of
the Neolithic. American Journal of Archaeology 99(4):
699–728.
Runnels C. N. 2009. Mesolithic sites and surveys in Greece:
A case study from the Southern Argolid. Journal of Medi-
terranean Archaeology 22(1): 57–73.
Russell N., Martin L. 2005. The Çatalhöyük mammal re-
mains. In I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Re-
ports from the 1995–1999 seasons. McDonald Institute
Monographs and BIAA. Cambridge: 33–98.
Sampson A. 2008. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and
Neolithic networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. In-
stitute for Aegean Prehistory. Academic Press. Philadelphia.
2010. Mesolithic Greece. Ion. Athens.
2015. An extended Mesolithic settlement in Naxos. Me-
diterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 16(1):
269–271.
Sampson A., Kaczanowksa M. and Kozłowski J. K. 2010.
The prehistory of the island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Gre-
The Cretan Mesolithic in context> new data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete)
101
ece) and the Mesolithic settlement at Maroulas. The Po-
lish Academy of Arts and Sciences. The University of the
Aegean. Kraków.
2012. Mesolithic occupations and environments on the
island of Ikaria, Aegean, Greece. Folia Quaternaria 80:
5–40.
Shea J. J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neo-
lithic of the Near East: A guide. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
Strasser T. 1996. Soils and settlements on Neolithic Crete.
In D. Reese (ed.), The Pleistocene and Holocene fauna
of Crete and its first settlers. Monographs in World Ar-
chaeology No. 28. Prehistory Press. Madison: 317–336.
Strasser T., Panagopoulou E., Runnels C., Murray P., Thom-
pson N., Karkanas P., McCoy F. and Wegmann K. 2010.
Stone Age seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from
the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
habitation of Crete. Hesperia 79: 145–190.
Strasser T. F., Runnels C., Wegmann K., Panagopoulou E.,
McCoy F., DiGregorio C., Karkanas, P. and Thompson N.
2011. Dating Palaeolithic sites in Southwestern Crete,
Greece. Journal of Quaternary Science 26(5): 553–560.
Strasser T. Panagopoulou E., Karkanas P., DiGregorio C.,
Clinton M., Thompson N., Kapranos E. and Murray S. 2015.
The excavation at Mesolithic Damnoni in the Agios Vas-
silios region: A new chronological / cultural period on
Crete. In P. Karanastasi, A. Tzigounaki and C. Tsigonaki
(eds.), Archaeological work in Crete 3. Philosophical
School of the University of Crete and the Archaeological
Ephoreia of Rethymnon. Rethymnon: 271–80.
Tixier J. 1984. Le Débitage par Pression. Préhistoire de
la pierre taillée 2: Economie du débitage laminare:
Technologie et expérimentation. Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique. Paris.
Takaoglu T., Korkut T., Erdogu B. and Isın G. 2014. Archa-
eological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girme-
ler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey. Documenta Praehisto-
rica 41: 111–118.
.