158 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) Introduction The Neolithic period in Greece was traditionally be- lieved to have begun around 7000 BC based on early absolute dates from the 1960s from a handful of si- tes, including Nea Nikomedia, Argissa, Sesklo, Achil- leion, the Franchthi Cave, and Knossos on Crete (Fig. 1). This early date seemed to support the relative chronology and led to comparisons between the Near East, Anatolia, and southeastern Europe. It also Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects Lily Bonga Institute for Aegean Prehistory, Study Center for East Crete, Pacheia Ammos, GR lilybonga@gmail.com ABSTRACT – Ceramics have always played a central role in defining the Neolithic period in south- eastern Europe. Early Neolithic ceramic assemblages, forming techniques, clay recipes, shapes, decora- tion, and vessel function have been traditionally used to establish the chronology and cultural groups of a region based on a handful of purported type-sites. This paper presents a critical review of the literature on Early Neolithic pottery in Greece, highlighting how preconceptions shaped the research and interpretation of the data of not only the ceramics themselves, but also how those interpretive conclusions were projected into other aspects of Early Neolithic life, such as the gender and status of potters and the socio-functional use of pottery. The recent reevaluation of old and new absolute dates through Bayesian analysis, statistical modelling, and stratigraphic considerations has also helped to pro- vide a more nuanced use of relative pottery chronologies. New archaeological evidence from Northern Greece as well as reevaluations of Knossos and the Franchthi Cave are highlighted. IZVLE∞EK – V jugovzhodni Evropi je imela keramika pri opredeljevanju neolitika vedno osrednjo vlo- go. Na podlagi podatkov, pridobljenih na malo∏tevilnih domnevno tipi≠nih najdi∏≠ih, se je v tej regiji za vzpostavljanje kronologije in kulturnih skupin tradicionalno uporabljalo zgodnje neolitske kerami≠- ne zbire, tehnike oblikovanja, lon≠arske recepte, oblike, okras in namembnost posod. V ≠lanku po- nudimo kriti≠no presojo literature o zgodnje neolitski lon≠enini v Gr≠iji, pri ≠emer izpostavljamo na- ≠ine, kako so pristranski pogledi oblikovali raziskave in interpretacije razli≠ne vrste podatkov, ne samo same keramike, ampak tudi kako so s tak∏nimi zaklju≠ki interpretirali tudi druge vidike zgodnje neo- litskega ∫ivljenja kot sta spol in status lon≠arjev ter dru∫beno-funkcionalna raba lon≠enine. Za bolj raznoliko rabo relativnih kronologij, ki temeljijo na lon≠enini, si lahko pomagamo predvsem z nedavno predstavljenimi novimi ovrednotenji starih in novih absolutnih datumov, ki so bili izvedeni z Bayeso- vo analizo, ter s statisti≠nim modeliranjem in ovrednotenjem stratigrafije. V ≠lanku predstavljamo tudi nove arheolo∏ke podatke iz severne Gr≠ije ter ponovno ovrednotenje podatkov iz Knossosa na Kreti in jame Franchthi na Peloponezu. KEY WORDS – chronology; pottery; Impresso; Knossos; Franchthi; Greek Macedonia KLJU∞NE BESEDE – kronologija; lon≠enina; Impresso; Knossos; Franchthi; gr∏ka Makedonija Zgodnji kerami;ni stili in tehnologije na obmo;ju Egejskega morja in Balkana> pogled nazaj in naprej DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.10 Fig. 1. Neolithic sites menti- oned in the text with absolute dates within 6600–5900 cal BC. Numbers 3, 6, 7 without ab- solute dates. 1 Ulucak Höyük; 2 Çukuriçi Höyük; 3 Pelekita Cave, Crete; 4 Knossos, Crete; 5 Akrotiri, Santorini; 6 Ayia Gala, Chios; 7 Emporio, Chios; 8 Dikili Tash; 9 Giannitsa B; 10 Axios A; 11 Nea Nikomedia; 12 Kolindros- Paliambela; 13 Revenia-Korinos; 14 Servia-Va- rytimidis; 15 Mavropigi-Filo- tsairi; 16 Theopetra Cave; 17 Prodromos; 18 Otzaki Magou- la; 19 Argissa Magoula; 20 Ses- klo; 21 Achilleion; 22 Franch- thi Cave. Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 159 ramikum, a purely monochrome phase, the Proto- Sesklo with developed monochrome pottery and li- mited use of painting, and the Vor-Sesklo (Pre-Ses- klo) in which painted pottery was more common than before. In this traditional scheme, the first painted pottery in Greece was conceived of as red- painted decoration, typically red or reddish or buff- coloured surfaces. Miloj≠i≤ (1960) later argued for the existence of a Pre-Ceramic phase in Greece of chronological sig- nificance in the Balkans based on analogy with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) of the Near East. Late, the ‘Magoulitsa sub-phase’ was added at the end of Vor-Sesklo based on the finds from Otzaki Magoula (Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch 1971; Müller 1988; 1994; Reingruber 2011; 2015). The ‘Magoulitsa phase or culture’ was defined by the use of impressed, in- cised, and finger-pinched decoration, subdivided into an earlier (‘barbotine’) and a later (‘cardium’) phase (Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch 1971.146–148; Rein- gruber et al. 2017.41–42). It was thought to be of Balkan influence (Miloj≠i≤, Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch 1971.82ff) and allowed for correlations between the two regions (Miloj≠i≤ 1959.10–11, 31–32) as this type of decoration was recognized since the begin- ning of the 20 th century as an “independent cultu- ral phenomenon in the northern Balkans” (e.g., ‘nail-decorated horizon’; Childe 1929.75–76, 79; ‘Na- paved the way for pejorative descriptions of the pot- tery as primitive and simple, fitting presumed evo- lutionary paradigms of technological development. This fact is evident in the names (Frühkeramikum, Proto-Sesklo, Vor-Sesklo) and their definitions (early pottery, early painted, developed monochrome) of the first relative chronology for the Early Neolithic period for Thessaly. These sites have served as type- sites for the Early Neolithic period in their respec- tive regions ever since, but can no longer do so, as recent work in Northern Greece, Crete, the Cyclades, and Western Anatolia has expanded and enhanced the dataset. Traditional chronology of the Early Neolithic period in Greece The traditional relative chronology of Neolithic Gre- ece was primarily created in Thessaly due to early excavation and survey work in the area, and was based on surface treatment and decoration (Tsoun- tas 1908; Wace, Thompson 1912). The relative chronology for Thessaly was established by Vladimir Miloj≠i≤ (1959) and it became canonical (Theocharis 1973). Scholars in Central and Southern Greece (e.g., Weinberg 1962; 1970) tried to correlate their cera- mics to those of Thessaly as based on Miloj≠i≤’s sys- tem, but did not make chronological subdivisions based on decorated ceramics. Early Neolithic Greek Macedonia was unknown in Mi- loj≠i≤’s time. Concerning the Early Neolithic, a tripartite system was estab- lished. It consists of the Frühke- Lily Bonga 160 gelgeritzte’; Banner 1929; 1935.122–123; Raczky 2012.9). As the culture-history approach fell out of fashion, the tripartite chronology of Early Neolithic Thes- saly was relabelled under the more neutral divisions of Early Neolithic 1, 2, and 3 (Wijnen 1981). Later, the ‘Preceramic’ was renamed ‘Initial Neolithic’ (Per- lès 2001.43, n. 8). Local regional differences in cera- mics also began to be considered within Thessaly, such as the disappearance of painted pottery by the end of the Proto-Sesklo phase at some sites in and directly around the plain of Larisa, like Sesklo and Argissa Magoula. Yet in the Vor-Sesklo period, paint- ed pottery, “at sites in or around the plain of Kar- ditsa it does not vanish, but coexists with plastic decoration” (Wijnen 1981.36). Lastly, what is significant about the relative chrono- logy of Greece as established by Miloj≠i≤ (1949a; 1949b; 1950/51; 1959) is that his chronology was used as a template of cultural development for the whole of south-eastern Europe in the Neolithic (e.g., Star≠evo in Serbia, Körös in Hungary, Cris in Roma- nia) despite some objections (e.g., Nandris 1970; Schubert 1999; 2005) (Fig. 2). For instance, by analogy with Greece, a hypothetical monochrome phase was proposed for the definition of Proto-Star- ≠evo phase (Srejovi≤ 1973) and Star≠evo Ia (Laza- rovici 1979). Miloj≠i≤’s four-stage relative chronolo- gy for the Neolithic period was also subsequently modified in its application in other regions (e.g., Arandjelovi≤-Gara∏anin 1954; Grbi≤ 1957; Dimitri- jevi≤ 1969; 1974; Srejovi≤ 1971; Makkay 1965; 1969; 1987). Aspects related to the Impresso-style Impressed, incised, and finger-pinched decora- tion of the ‘Magoulitsa phase’ is today refer- red to in the literature of Neolithization of Eu- rope under the umbrel- la term of ‘impresso’, which encompasses all types of plastic surface decoration irrespective of the fabric, vessel shape, method of sur- face manipulation (fin- ger or tool), stylistic differences (dense vs. sparse, organized into motifs vs. random), or precise chronological correlations (Vukovi≤ 2013.661–666), and is cited as evidence of connectivity and mobility between vast geogra- phic areas (e.g., Adriatic, Balkans, Anatolia, North Africa, the Near East, and the Black Sea) (Çilingirog- lu 2010; 2016; Gaskevych 2010; 2011; Güldogan 2010). The term ‘impresso’ was originally used to describe pottery decorated with incisions made with point- ed tools and impressions of cockle shells (formerly classed as Cardium edulis but now classified as Ce- rastoderma edule) in the Early Neolithic period of the Adriatic; impressions of fingernails, fingertips, and finger-pinches were rarely used in this region. Conversely, in the Balkans, cockle shells were ne- ver used for impressions (Coleman 1992.254); in- stead ‘pseudo-impresso’ or ‘comb-impressed’ was used to describe impressions and incisions made with tools or fingers (Vukovi≤ 2013.658). The cera- mic tradition in the central Balkans also remained distinct from that of the Adriatic coastline (both style and manufacturing techniques) (Spataro 2009). The subcategory of ‘barbotine’ (barbotin) was thou- ght to be a chronological marker for the Early Neo- lithic Balkan-Anatolian complex in the Central Bal- kans (e.g., proto-Star≠evo) (Vukovi≤ 2013.671). Bar- botine was defined as an additive decorative style in which wet clay slurry is added to create a lumpy, irregular surface, sometimes with ridges or rows in ornamental compositions (stepped, channelled, ar- caded) (Aran∂elovi≤-Gara∏anin 1954); pseudo-bar- Fig. 2. Traditional chronology of Early Neolithic Greece, as based on Thessaly and in reference to the Balkans. Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 161 botine is defined as a slurry surface and small clay granules (Vukovi≤ 2013.662). Several other descrip- tive terms or phrase have been applied (e.g., ‘wheat- grain’: Dimitrijevic 1974.67; Sekere∏ 1974.192; ‘fir branches’: Benac 1979.380; “an endless flock of birds in flight”: Vetni≤ 1974.130). The distinction between ‘impresso’ and ‘barbotine’ found in the lite- rature was believed to have chronological meaning, but this is no longer the case (Vukovi≤ 2013.660). Complicating the picture is the fact that the terms ‘impresso’ and ‘barbotine’ are used differently in Gre- ece from the rest of the Balkans. In Greece, the ‘impresso’ pottery associated with the ‘Magoulitsa phase or culture’ of the Vor-Seklo period was subdivided into an early ‘barbotine’ phase con- sisting of finger pinches and nail impressions and a later ‘cardium’ phase, in which tools were used to create the impressions, excluding the use of cockle shells (Reingruber et al. 2017.41–42). These sub- phases were based on Otzaki Magoula (Müller 1988; 1994; Reingruber 2011) but were not grounded on stratigraphic reality (Reingruber et al. 2017.42), nor does the small amount of highly curated published material add much to support to this claim (Tsitrsto- ni 2009.45). Furthermore, the ceramic sequence of the ‘Magouli- tsa phase’ as found at Otzaki was not confirmed at Sesklo, where painted pottery disappeared before the end of the period, when parts of the settlement were destroyed by fire (Andreou et al. 1996.540; Wijnen 1981.11) and perhaps followed by a hiatus during Vor-Sesklo period (Wijnen 1981). It has also been suggested that the absence of the ‘Magoulitsa phase’ at Sesklo or other sites in eastern Thessaly is not chronological, but rather geographical, as im- pressed, incised, and finger-pinched pottery is doc- umented in Thessaly both at the end of the Early Neolithic (e.g., Nessonis I, Gediki, Argissa Magoula, Otzaki Magoula) and in the beginning of the Middle Neolithic (e.g., Magoulitsa, Achilleion, Bardali, Kou- troulou Magoula). Therefore, any distribution maps of Early Neolithic sites based on Gallis’ Atlas (Gallis 1992) should be seriously questioned because they were constructed using relatively dated sites based on the presence or absence of monochrome, painted, or impresso decoration of surface sherds (Reingru- ber 2011.297). A greater degree of ceramic variability is now rec- ognized both at the intra site and regional levels (Kotsakis 1983; 2008) within the same chronologi- cal period (Gallis 1987; Coleman 1992), which sug- gests that comparative conclusions from excavation sequences presumed to be typical (e.g., as Mottier 1981 does with Otzaki) should not be taken as rep- resentative of the wider region (Andreou et al. 1996. 542). Current chronology of the Early Neolithic pe- riod in Greece The main weakness in Miloj≠i≤’s relative chronology was its complete lack of absolute dates, which were also absent from the rest of south-eastern Europe. Current absolute dates from Thessaly and Macedo- nia date the Early Neolithic period to c. 6500–5900 BC (Reingruber et al. 2017; Tsirtsoni 2016; Mania- tis 2014; Perlès et al. 2013; Lespez et al. 2013; Dou- ka et al. 2017; Perlès 2001.109–110), although some sites may begin as early as c. 6600 BC. These dates are comparable to new data from western Turkey (Anatolia). Current absolute dating of the Pre-Ceramic phase prevents its definition of being contemporary with the PPN Pre-pottery Neolithic of the Near East of Cy- prus (Reingruber 2015.153–154). This phase also remains to be securely documented anywhere in Greece, as its definition was primarily based on small areas of exposure in thin strata just above bedrock, or sterile soil and often with ‘intrusive’ sherds or other ceramic material such as figurines (Nandris 1970.196–201; Reingruber 2008; 2011; 2015; Rein- gruber, Thissen 2009; Bloedow 1992–1993; Nowi- cki 2014.48–60). Similarly, neither a Pre-Ceramic nor an Early Mono- chrome (ger. Frühkeramikum) phase is found else- where in areas to the north (e.g., Republic of North- ern Macedonia: Stojanovski et al. 2014; Naumov 2009.4); Albania (e.g., Vlush, Konispol Cave: perso- nal comm.; Adoni 2018); Bulgaria (e.g., Krainitsi I, Koprivets I and Polyanitsa-platato I: Krauß et al. 2014.52; Stefanova 1996; Krauß 2006.161–162; 2008.119–121; 2011); and probably Hungary and Romania (Biagi, Spataro 2005). The existence of an Early Monochrome (Frühkerami- kum) phase can also be questioned on the same con- tentious criteria as the Pre-ceramic deposits (e.g., li- mited exposure, thin deposits, small sample). Given the supposed rarity of early painted pottery in the Vor-Sesklo phase in general, and the fact that this early painted decoration was often applied only on a small part of the vessel (e.g., near rims), it cannot be convincingly argued that painted pottery was not Lily Bonga 162 in use. A more accurate statement would be that painted pottery was not found in the lowest levels of small horizontal exposure, often in secondary re- fuse pits. Yet the use of painted pottery cannot be ruled out due to these small sample sizes and con- texts (e.g., in pits). Giving these individual site phases/levels chronolo- gical meaning beyond the site level by making them into regional phases of long temporal duration may be an artificial construction by modern archaeolo- gists. For instance, Karen D. Vitelli (1993b.46, n. 18) has pointed out how excavation methodology affects the data; without the sherds recovered from siev- ing, the earliest levels at the Franchthi Cave were monochrome and the ceramic development appear- ed to conform to the Thessalian sequence, but when she added the sherds recovered from sieving, this development was invalidated. In contrast to the ex- cavation procedures of the Franchthi Cave, where dry and wet sieving were employed, the material from Sesklo was not even dry sieved (Wijnen 1981. 17), which may have impacted its interpretation. New evidence from Greek Macedonia New data from Northern Greece highlights the need to carefully integrate excavation stratigraphy with ceramics and absolute dates, as well as identify re- gional differences with the same period. For instance at Mavropigi-Filotsairi in Western Macedonia, the ex- cavators identified three phases belonging to the Early Neolithic period; these phases seem supported by absolute date. These phases were primarily based on the stratigraphy of a central feature of the site (the central origma), which was interpreted as a semi-subterranean house that eventually became a ground-level structure (Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2016.51–53). On its own, a simple presentation of the stratigraphy and ceramics from the central origma would also ap- pear to follow the Thessalian sequence, with the lowest levels above sterile soil devoid of ceramics but containing other cultural remains, followed by thin levels with monochrome pottery, and later le- vels that included painted, impressed, and incised pottery (Bonga 2017). Yet upon close inspection of the sherds (e.g., a few joins between Phase I and the first passes of Phase II and the nature of the sherds themselves: small, abraded, reused, use of red-slip), the lack of complete vessels, and the rarity of com- plete profiles suggests that these pieces were dis- carded material that may or may not date to one temporal moment. Similar depositional practices were suggested at the Franchthi Cave, where most deposits were determined to be secondary and sug- gestive of periodic cleaning of areas rather than containing material from a specific activity (Vitelli 1993b.31). When other deposits at Mavropigi-Filotsairi are taken into account, other complications arise. The use of red-painted pottery on a white slip made of a calca- reous material, though rare, is documented in the Vor-Sesklo phase both at Paliambela (Saridaki et al. 2019) and at Mavropigi-Filotsairi (Bonga 2017.378); this type of decoration is characteristic of the Middle Neolithic in Thessaly. The distinction between the use of painted decoration on a slip, white slip, or unburnished surface may be related to regional dif- ferences and/or chronological ones. 1 1 For example, white-on-red painted pottery in the traditional rel- ative chronology was characteristic of the Middle Neolithic in Thessaly. Yet this type of decoration in the Vor-Sesklo period appears in Central Macedonia at Nea Nikomedia (Yiouni 1996), Axos A (Chrysosto- mou 1996), and Yiannitsa B (Chrysostomou 1997), together with impresso. These sites date to c. 6300/ 6200 BC (Maniatis 2014.Fig. 2; Maniatis et al. 2015. Fig. 4). White-on-red painted pottery from Mavropigi-Filotsa- iri was found in pit 106 and assigned to Phase II by the excavators. The precise date of the appearance of this type of pottery is unclear as the pit was used over time, but the absolute date c. 6200 BC based on charred seeds (OxA-31863, 6222±83 BC) may be an indicator. The central orgima in Phase II did not contain white-painted pottery. What is interesting at Mavropigi-Filotsairi is the fact that the technology (red slip, white paint) to produce white-on-red deco- ration was known since the Proto-Sesklo phase, as the characteristic pottery of Mavropigi-Filotsairi in- cludes polychrome-painted pottery consisting of broad areas of motifs painted in red on a tan back- 1 Creating a distinction on the use of slips in general and as a background for painted pottery requires more investigation thanis possible based on small assemblages or applying one site (e.g., Sesklo) as a paradigm, even within a region. While a limited use of slips is documented at Sesklo in all phases and areas of the settlement, slips of various composition were used at sites in the plain of Larisa (e.g., Argissa, Otzaki, Soufli, and Melissochori Magoula) and slips were regularly used at Achilleion (Dimoula 2017. 211, 213, 215). A similar variability in the use of slips is seen in Central Macedonia at Revenia, where slips were rare while at Pa- laiambela slips were common, including the use of white slip (calcareous material) (Saridaki et al. 2019). 2 The interpretive situation at Palaimbela is based on absolute dates from burned animal bones (unspecified species) found in two Early Neolithic pits (629, 631) that have been interpreted as semi-subterranean pit-dwellings (Maniatis et al. 2015.151). Pit 629 yielded one date (DEM-2462/MAMS-12513) of c. 6400–6200 BC (another date DEM-2461/MAMS-12512) is listed as coming from over rather than within the pit itself). Pit 629 was 2.48 x 2.10m in size (Maniatis et al. 2015.151) and contained 8.12 kilograms of pottery, consisting of 439 sherds, only one of which was red-painted without the use of a white slip (Papadakou 2011.93). Pit 629 does not seem to be a totally closed deposit, however, as historical pit 606 cuts into its southern part and because the two dates (DEM-2464/MAMS-12515, DEM-2465/MAMS12516) from pit 627 antedate pit 629, even though pit 629 is depicted on the plan (Maniatis et al. 2015.Fig. 1; Papadakou 2011.237, Fig. 2) as later than pit 627 (pit 627 is also cut into by historical pit 607 in the northern part). Pit 630 yielded three dates (DEM-2458/MAMS-12509, DEM-2459/MAMS12510, DEM-2460/ MAMS12511) falling around 6600–6400 BC (Maniatis et al. 2015.Fig. 1). The pit was approx. 1.7 x 1.07m in size and contained 1.32 kilos of pottery, consisting of 187 sherds, six of which were decorated with finger and nail pinching (Papadakou 2011.90). 3 Other gaps in the stratigraphy are also confirmed by the absolute dates, such as before Franchthi Ceramic Phase 4 (c. 5200 BC) in the beginning of the Late Neolithic (Reingruber 2008.23, Tab. 1.6; 2017; Reingruber, Thissen 2016). 4 Similar reevaluations of key Neolithic sites in later periods throughout Greece (e.g., Skoteini, Sarakenos, Cyclops, and Franchthi Caves, Dikili Tash, Sitagroi, and Servia) have also demonstrated that previous observations about the continuity of stratigraphy and ceramics cannot be substantiated (Coleman 2011.17–19; Coleman, Facorellis 2018; Nowicki 2014; Tsitrsoni 2016; 2017; Reingruber, Thissen 2009). Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 163 ground and outlined in white paint (Fig. 3). Polychrome and red-pained pottery was prefer- red over white-on-red. The impressed, incised, and finger-pinched pottery at Mav- ropigi-Filotsairi dates 100–200 years earlier than that of ‘Ma- goulitsa phase’ c. 6400/6300 BC (e.g., pit A, DEM-1680; west- ern origma DEM-2697/MAMS- 21104; burial 3, in the central origma, OxA-V02365-54/S-EVA 10096). Many different types of surface treatments were used (Fig. 4) and this type of decoration was used alongside monochrome and painted pottery. Similarly, while few in number within a small area and sample size, decorated pot- tery consisting of both red-painted and finger-pinch- ed decoration was documented in two pits (629, 630) with early dates at Paliambela (Papadakou 2011; Papadakou et al. 2015). 2 2 These sites show the development of decorated pottery at some sites in Central and Macedonia does not match the tradi- tional Thessalian sequence in terms of development or date. Recent re-evaluations of the Franchthi Cave in the Argolid (Peloponnese) At the Franchthi Cave, Vitelli (1993a.37) defined de- posits below pottery-bearing levels as Ceramic Phase Zero and the Ceramic Interphase 0/1 as units in each sequence located between lower deposits that con- tained no pottery (FCP 0) and upper deposits that contained all of the Franchthi Ceramic Phase 1 va- rieties. Ceramic Phase Zero is called Initial Neolithic by other scholars who conducted secondary research, but not primary analysis of the ceramic assemblage itself (e.g., Perlès 2001; Perlès et al. 2013; Reingru- ber, Thissen 2009; 2016). An examination of the absolute dates and contexts from the Franchthi Cave revealed the Final Mesoli- thic layers (Franchthi Lithic Phase X) overlap with the dates for Initial Neolithic layers (c. 6700–6400 BC; Reingruber, Thissen 2016; Perlès et al. 2013), and this was followed by a gap in dates of at least 500 years (up to 700 years; Reingruber, Thissen 2009.758) when the cave was re-occupied around or after 5900 BC based on these dates and ceramic pa- rallels. 3 3 These gaps were perceptible in the ceramics, but were dismissed by Vitelli (1993b.26). 4 4 It is also worth noting that the Franchthi Cave is per- haps better described as rock shelter or abri with a small open-air site adjacent (Paralia). It is not a dark, damp, cavernous cave like those used in later peri- ods of the Neolithic (e.g., Skoteino, Alepotrypa, Ayia Triada); nor is it an open-air settlement, and these differences of context must be taken into account. The Franchthi Cave is also located on the coast, un- Fig. 3. Early Neolithic polychrome, white-on-red, and red-on-white paint- ed pottery from Phase II, pit 106 at Mavropigi-Filotsairi. Lily Bonga 164 like most caves, and this location (also next to fresh- water springs) is probably related to the function of the cave. Yet like other caves in Greece, it was ne- ver used for permanent habitation but rather for short stays for various reasons (e.g., illness, ritual, herding, and refuge from inclement weather). These facts change how Franchthi Cave was tradi- tionally interpreted in terms not only of its date, use, and duration, but also affect the interpretation of the artefacts, such as the ceramics. For instance, it was interpreted that only a limited amount of pot- tery (c. 12 or 13 pots a year) was produced (Vitelli 1993b.210) by female specialists, and was thus high- ly valuable and used in symbolic rituals rather than for daily food-related activities (e.g., storage, proces- sing, cooking) (Vitelli 1993a.254–255; 1999.188, 191–192, 196). These hypotheses were turned into theory by a series of archaeometric studies of sites in Thessaly (e.g., Wijnen 1981; Bjork 1995; Gardner 1978) and Central Macedonia (e.g., Yiouni 1996), and subsequently accepted as fact (e.g., Perlès 2009). Some of these statements, however, are not applica- ble to other sites because of the dissonance between them either due to differences in dating or type of site (cave vs. open air settlement). For instance, a higher rate of vessel production was proposed at Nea Nikomedia (c. 25 to 90 per year) using a diffe- rent methodology (Yiouni 2004.4; 1996.186), which is more in line with the quantity of ceramic produc- tion and use at open-air Early Neolithic sites (Yiouni 2004.10, nn. 38, 39). Similarly, the technological simplicity (e.g., use of temper, surface treatment, method of firing) of past interpretations must be questioned as new evidence from the early Middle Neolithic period (e.g., Magoula Imvrou Pigadi (Kypa- rissi-Apostolika 2012), Magoula Rizava (Krahtopou- lou et al. 2018), and Kouphovouno (Ballut et al. 2017) suggests that kiln use was well established and probably began in the Early Neolithic period. Crete: traditional chronology and terminology Crete is often left out discussions of Neolithic Greece in general due to its peculiar traditional chronology and terminology. The relative chronology was almost exclusively defined in a small area within the Cen- tral Court of the Palace of Minos at Knossos excavat- ed in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Evans 1964), and by another team in 1997 (Efstratiou et al. 2013); other areas were excavated or explored in soundings and used to fill-in or check the Central Court se- quence. The chronology of Knossos was established by Fur- ness (1953) and built upon by John D. Evans (1964). This relative sequence used its own periodization terminology that did not match that of mainland Greece (or Anatolia), despite the existence of abso- lute dates from Evan’s excavations since the late 1950s to help do so (nor did his subsequent experi- ence in the Cyclades at Saliagos change his views). As a result, the levels and material labelled as Early Fig. 4. Early Neolithic impressed, incised, and finger-pinched pottery from Phase II in the central origma at Mavropigi-Filotsairi. Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 165 Neolithic in fact correspond with the Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic periods on the mainland in terms of absolute dates (Evans 1964). The lowest level at Knossos was labelled ‘Aceramic’ as a parallel to the Near East and mainland Greece. The ceramics used to create the relative chronology (Furness 1953; Evans 1964; Tomkins 2007) was based primarily on deco- rated sherds, as undiagonstic and undecorated sherds were discarded. Much of the material was also iden- tified as secondary refuse from exterior spaces or dumped from levelling the surface of the site. The ce- ramics from 1997 excavation remain unpublished. The incongruous terminology and periodization was partially rectified by Peter D. Tomkins (2007.12; 2008), who tried to correlate the pottery groups from Knossos “on the basis of imports, exports, sty- listic parallels and, wherever possible, radiocarbon dates to other Neolithic assemblages from else- where in Crete” to be more in line with dates and assemblages from mainland Greece, the Aegean is- lands and the Anatolian-Aegean coast. It should be noted that Tomkins himself did not apply his chro- nology and phases in his doctoral dissertation (Tom- kins 2001) or any of his publications before 2007 (Tomkins, Day 2001; Tomkins et al. 2004), and that any articles that refer to these phases are outdated. Similarly, the Early Neolithic Houses of Sir Arthur Evans (Evans 1921) in the Central Court in fact real- ly date to the Early Minoan period. Furthermore, this new phasing and dating has not been universally adopted. Even as a co-editor of the volume on Neolithic Crete, which includes Tomkins’ (2008) detailing of the historiography of ceramic stu- dies at Knossos and the reasoning for his (2007) changes, few of the articles in the volume actually adopted his changes; others adhered to the old chro- nology (e.g., Galanidou, Manteli 2008, Strasser 2008; and the other co-editor, Isaakidou 2008) or followed their own systems (e.g., Todaro, Di Tonto 2008, Nowicki 2008). This failure of acceptance by other scholars is perhaps in part due to the fact that Tomkins (2007) did not publish any new material and even reused Evan’s 1964 illustrations. Lastly, some of the parallels made by Tomkins (2007) are not all correctly dated, a fact which he may address in the future, as indicated in a footnote in which the Neolithic phase-names are changed and/or combi- ned, and different absolute dates given but without further explanation (Tomkins 2018.129, n. 1). 5 5 The Early Neolithic on Crete revised: Knossos central court strata X, IX and levels 38, 39 The reevaluation of absolute dates, stratigraphy, and ceramics at Knossos mirrors that of the Franchthi Cave. First, what initially appeared to be early dates of c. 7000 BC for Stratum X (Reingruber 2015.151; Reingruber, Thissen 2016b) are likely mistaken be- cause the first occupation of Knossos should date closer to 6610 BC (Reingruber, Thissen 2009.758– 760; Douka et al. 2017), which is in accordance with dates from site both the southern Aegean (e.g., Franchthi, Çukuriçi Höyük, and Ulucak) and north- ern Greece (e.g., Paliambela, Mavropigi-Filotsairi), and integrates Knossos into the earliest stage of the Early Neolithic in the wider Aegean. 6 6 Second, there are neither dates for Stratum IX, which was previously believed to date to the Early Neolithic period, nor dates from the Middle Neolithic period. The next group of absolute dates from Knos- sos occur after 5300 BC (Reingruber, Thissen 2016; Douka et al. 2017.315) “an estimate that is not in conflict with the material culture of the surroun- ding areas”, in terms of shapes and ornaments, par- ticularly the Aegean islands (e.g., Tigani on Samos, Agia Gala on Chios, Akrotiri on Santorini) and west- ern Anatolia (Reingruber, Thissen 2009.760–761). 7 7 5 On numerous occasions Tomkins promises future clarification of such statements in publications which remain to appear, includ- ing (2008.27) a “completed re-evaluation of spatial (and thus demographic) development at Knossos (Tomkins in prep. with no further information)” and full publication “of Neolithic material from the British School excavations (e.g., ceramics, chipped stone, ground stone axes, faunal remains)” using with new chronology (e.g., Tomkins, in preparation as “Neolithic Knossos: Early, Middle and Late Ceramics and Stratigraphy” and “Neolithic Knossos: Final Neolithic I-IV Ceramics and Stratigraphy”). (Tomkins 2007.12). A “new typology of EN forms” to be presented elsewhere (Tomkins et al. 2004.57 with no further informa- tion) and a “new set of RC dates from Knossos in preparation (personal communication Peter Tomkins, 30 May 2015)” (Rein- gruber 2015.151) also awaits publication. 6 The Theopetra Cave could be another similar case in which early Neolithic absolute dates are followed by a gap of occupation fol- lowed by reuse of the cave within the middle of the Early Neolithic period) and in which the Mesolithic-Neolithic is not a con- tiguous transition, although the cave stratigraphy is known to be disturbed by both natural and anthropogenic processes and full publication of the stratigraphy and pottery is not yet available (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000a; 2000b;2012; Facorellis, Maniatis 2000; Facorellis et al. 2001). 7 Recent re-excavation of the Pelekita Cave near Katos Zakros, Crete as also yielded similar Late Neolithic pottery, which according to Knossos would be dated to the Early and Middle Neolithic based on Tomkins’ (2007) chronology (Bonga 2019). Lily Bonga 166 Due to the fact that Knossos was abandoned for 1000–1500 years (Douka et al. 2017.317; Reingru- ber et al. 2017.150; Reingruber 2015.154), conti- nuing to use the 7000 BC date (or limit?) for Stra- tum X (e.g., 7000–6600 BC: Tomkins 2007; 7000– 6500/6400 BC: Tomkins 2014; 7000–6500: Tom- kins 2018; 7030–6780 BC: Facorellis, Maniatis 2013.199) is in error (Reingruber, Thissen 2016), as is maintaining that “from the IN [Initial Neoli- thic] onwards habitation at Knossos seems to have been continuous and permanent” with “no obvious breaks in the stratigraphical and cultural sequen- ces” (Tomkins 2008.21, 30; Tomkins 2007.9, 21; following Evans 1968.275). Once again, “the rela- tive chronological system of Knossos has to be re- evaluated in a general Aegean perspective” (Rein- gruber, Thissen 2016). Regarding the often discussed nature of the lowest levels (Stratum X, Levels 38 and 39) at Knossos (es- pecially Reingruber 2011; 2015; Reingruber, This- sen 2009; 2016; Evans 1964; 1971; Efstratiou et al. 2013; Tomkins 2007; Winder 1991; Bloedow 1991; Nowicki 2014), it seems increasingly unlikely that these levels represent an ‘Aceramic’ phase, as mud- brick and ceramic figurines were found in these le- vels and based on analogies with sites on the main- land formerly considered to as Aceramic or Pre-cera- mic pre-ceramic as based on parallels with the PPN Pre-pottery period of the Near East or Cyprus. Conclusion Absolute dates from Western and Central Macedonia have pushed back the beginning of ‘impresso’ and painted pottery. In Southern Greece new dates on old samples and the application of Bayesian statis- tical analysis have demonstrated the lack of Early Neolithic occupation at both the Franchthi Cave and Knossos, aside from brief visitations at the very be- ginning of the period. Gaps in occupation at sites are also increasingly being recognized based on these refined dates, re-examination of stratigraphy, and ceramic analysis. Current studies of early ceramics are also beginning to overturn the old simplistic narratives of decora- tive and technological evolution. It is now demon- strated that early ceramics were a fully developed technology, although not standardized as in later pe- riods of the Neolithic (e.g., Dimoula 2017; Pentede- ka, Dimoula 2009). More complex and nuanced ap- proaches to understanding depositional processes and cultural choice are necessary in approaching the dating and nature of Early Neolithic Greece as a so- cially embedded process located in a particular place and time within a certain social space (Kotsakis 2003). The recent work on re-evaluating absolute dates through Bayesian statistical analysis and modelling is a useful way to move forward on refining chrono- logies at the region level and enables the accurate comparison of sites across wider geographical re- gions, within and outside of modern Greece. By fo- cusing on smaller regions, perhaps patterns within these smaller areas can be better understood, with the individual site stratigraphy more accurately cor- related with contemporaneous neighbouring sites. Of course, the excavation of broader areas of hori- zontal exposure of early sites and larger sample si- zes are also necessary before constructing arguments or plugging-in data to fit preconceived expectations. Site and regional schemes, however, must take cau- tion to not falsely be integrated into the wider world of Neolithic Greece (e.g., Franchthi Cave) or isolated from it (e.g., Knossos and Crete). Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 167 Andreou S., Fotiadis M., and Kotsakis K. 1996. Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. In T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review. American Journal of Archaeology Monographs. Archaeological Institute of America. Boston: 259–327. Aran∂elovi≤-Gara∏anin D. 1954. Star≠eva≠ka kultura. Uni- verza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Ballut C., Renard J., Cavanagh W. G., and Orgeolet R. 2017. Pottery Firing Structures in the Early Mediterranean: Mi- cromorphological Evidence and Archaeological Data from Middle Neolithic Kouphovouno (Southern Greece). Euro- pean Journal of Archaeology 20: 98–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2016.4 Banner J. 1929. Adatok a körömmel díszített edények kro- nológiájához. Beiträge zur Chronologie der Nagelgeritzten Gefässe. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 43: 23–34, 322–323. 1935. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton. Aus- grabungen zu Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgo- zatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 11: 97–125. Benac A. 1979. Prelazna zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Praisto- rija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Akademija nauka i umjet- nosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Sarajevo: 363–470. Björk C. 1995. Early Pottery in Greece. A Technological and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleion, Thessaly (SIMA 116). P. Åström Forlag. Stock- holm. Bloedow E. F.1991. The “Aceramic” Neolithic Phase in Gre- ece Reconsidered. Mediterranean Archaeology 4: 1–43. Bonga L. 2017. Thoughts on the Preliminary Study of Early Neolithic Decorated Pottery from the Central Orig- ma at Mavropigi-Filotsairi. In A. Sarris, E. Kalogiropoulou, T. Kalayci, and L. Karimali (eds.), Proceedings from the International Conference, Communities, Landscapes and Interaction in Neolithic Greece. Institute for Medi- terranean Studies, Rethymno, Crete, 29–30 May 2015. Ar- chaeological Series 20. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 371–384. 2019. Neolithikē Keramikē apo to Spēlaio Pelekēta, Ka- tō Zakro, Krētē. Proceedings of 12 th International Congress of Cretan Studies, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 21–25, 2016: 1–11. https://12iccs.proceedi ngs.gr/el/proceedings/category/38/32/834 (in Greek) Chrysostomou P. 1996. Ē neolithikē katoikisē stēn voreia paraktia zōnē tou allote Thermaïkou Kolpou (eparchia Giannitsōn). To Archaiologiko Ergo stē Makedonia kai Thrakē 10: 159–172. (in Greek) 1997. Nea stoixeia apo tē neolithikē ereuva stēn epar- chia Giannitsōn. Mia agnostē morphē proistorikēs gra- phēs. To Archaiologiko Ergo stē Makedonia kai Thra- kē 15(2001): 489–500. (in Greek) Childe V. G. 1929. The Dawn of European Civilization. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. London. Çilingiroglu C. 2010. The Appearance of Impressed pot- tery in the Neolithic Aegean and Its Implications for Ma- ritime Networks in the Eastern Mediterranean. Türkiye Bi- limler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi. Türkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 13: 9–22. 2016. Impressed Pottery as a Proxy for Connectivity in the Neolithic Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. In B. P. C. Molly (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities. Scales and Modes of Interaction between Prehistoric Aegean So- cieties and Their Neighbours. Sheffield Studies in Ae- gean Archaeology. Philadelphia: 75–96. Coleman J. E. 1992. Greece, the Aegean, and Cyprus: Part 1. In R. W. Enrich, (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Ar- chaeology. University of Chicago Press. Chicago and Lon- don: 203–221, 247–278. 2011. The Petromagoula-Doliana Group and the Begin- ning of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. In D. Katsonopou- lou (ed.), Helike IV. Ancient Helike and Aigialeia. Pro- tohelladika: The Southern and Central Greek Main- land. The Helike Society. Athens: 13–44. Coleman, J. E., Facorellis Y. 2018. The Shadowy “Proto- Early Bronze Age” in the Aegean. In S. Dietz, F. Mavridis, Z. Tankosi≤, and T. Takaoglu (eds.), Communities in Tran- sition: The Circum-Aegean Area in the 5 th and 4 th Mil- lennia BC. Danish Institute at Athens, 7–9/6 2013. Mono- graphs of the Danish Institute at Athens 20. Oxbow. Ox- ford: 33–66. Dimitrijevi≤ S. 1969. Star≠eva≠ja kultura u Slavonsko-Sri- jemskom prostoru i problem prijelaza starijeg u srednji neolit u Srpskom i Hrvatskom Podunavlju. In D. πvagelj, A. Dorn (eds.), Neolit i Eneolit u Slavoniji. Gradski mu- zej. Vukovar: 9–96. 1974. Problem stupnjevanja Star≠eva≠ke Kulture s po- sebnim obzirom na doprinos Ju∫nopanonskih nalazi∏ta re∏avanju ovih problema. Materijali 40: 59–122. Dimoula A. 2017. Early Pottery Mobility: The Case of Early Neolithic Thessaly, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Sci- ence 12: 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.008 References Lily Bonga 168 Douka K., Efstratiou N., Hald M. M., Henriksen P. S., and Karetsou A. 2017. Dating Knossos and the Arrival of the Earliest Neolithic in the Southern Aegean. Antiquity 91 (356): 304–321. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.29 Efstratiou, N., Karetsou A. and Ntinou M. (eds.). 2013. The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete. New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands. Institute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press. Philadelphia. Evans A. 1921. The Palace of Minos. A Comparative Ac- count of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civi- lization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vo- lume 2. The Neolithic and Early Middle Minoan Ages. Mac- millan. London. Evans, J. D. 1964. Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos 1957–1960, Part I. The Annual of the British School at Athens 59: 132–240. 1968. Neolithic Knossos, Part II. Summary and Conclu- sions. British School at Athens Annual 63: 267–276. 1971. Neolithic Knossos: The Growth of a Settlement. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37: 95–117. Facorellis Y., Maniatis Y. 2000. Evidence for 50 000 Years of Human Activity in the Cave of Theopetra by 14 C. In N. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 November 1998. Greek Ministry of Culture. Athens: 53–68. 2013. Radiocarbon Dates from the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos: An Overview. In N. Efstratiou, A. Karetsou, and M. Ntinou (eds.), The Neolithic Settlement of Knos- sos in Crete. New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands. Institute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press. Philadelphia: 193–200. Facorellis Y. Kyparissi-Apostolika N., and Maniatis Y. 2001. The Cave of Theopetra, Kalambaka: Radiocarbon Evidence for 50,000 Years of Human Presence. In I. Carmi, E. Boa- retto (eds.), Proceedings of the 17 th International 14 C Con- ference. Radiocarbon 43(28): 1029–1048. Furness A. 1953. The Neolithic Pottery of Knossos. The Annual of the British School at Athens 48: 94–134. Galanidou N., Manteli K. 2008. Neolithic Katsambas Re- visited: The Evidence from the House. In V. Issakidou, P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neo- lithic in Context. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Oxbow. Oxford: 172–183. Gallis K. 1987. Die stratigraphische Einordnung der La- risa Kulture: eine Richtigstellung. Prähistorische Zeit- schrift 62: 147–163. 1992. Atlas proïstorikon oikismōn tēs anatolikē Thes- salikē pedias. Society of Thessalian Historical Studies. Larisa. (in Greek) Gara∏anin M. V. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. In A. Be- nac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja II. Neolit- sko doba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego- vine. Sarajevo: 79–212. 1982. The Stone Age in the Central Balkan Area. In I. E. S., Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History III (1). Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Cambridge: 75–162. Gardner E. J. 1978. The Pottery Technology of the Neoli- thic Period in Southeastern Europe. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California. Los Angeles. Gaskevych D. 2010. Severo-pontiyskoe impresso: prois- khozhdenie neoliticheskoy keramiki s grebenchatim orna- mentom na yuge Vostochnoy Yevropy. Stratum plus. Ar- chaeology and Cultural Anthropology 2: 213–251. (in Russian with English summary) 2011. A New Approach to the Problem of the Neolithi- sation of the North-Pontic Area: Is there a North-eastern Kind of Mediterranean Impresso Pottery? Documenta Praehistorica 38: 275–290. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.22 Grbi≤ M 1957. Preclassical Pottery in the Central Balkans. Connections and Parallels with Agea, the Central Danube and Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology 61: 137– 149. Güldogan E. 2008. An Experimental Study of the Decora- tive Techniques in Comb-impressed “Impresso” Ware Group Mezraa-Teleilat. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arke- oloji Dergisi 11: 155–166. (in Turkish with English sum- mary) Isaakidou V. 2008. The Fauna and Economy of Neolithic Knossos’ Revisited. In V. Issakidou, P. Tomkins (eds.), Es- caping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Oxbow. Ox- ford: 90–114. Karamitrou-Mentessidi G., Efstratiou N., Kaczanowska M., and Kozłowski J. K. 2016. Early Neolithic Settlement of Mavropigi in Western Greek Macedonia. Eurasian Prehi- story 1–2: 47–116. Krahtopoulou A., Dimoula A., Livarda A., and Saridaki N. 2018. The Discovery of the Earliest Specialised Middle Neolithic Pottery Workshop in Western Thessaly, Central Greece. Antiquity 92(362): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.54 Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 169 Kotsakis K. 1983. Keramikē technologia kai keramikē dia- moropoisē. Problēmata tēs graptēs keramikēs tēs mesēs neolithikēs epoxēs tou Sesklou. Unpublished PhD disser- tation. Aristotle University. Thessaloniki. (in Greek) 2003. From the Neolithic Side: The Mesolithic/Neolithic Interface in Greece. In N. Galanidou, C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives. Bri- tish School at Athens Studies 10. British School at At- hens. London: 217–221. 2008. A Sea of Agency: Crete in the Context of the Ear- liest Neolithic in Greece. In V. Issakidou, P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Oxbow. Oxford: 49–72. Krauß R. 2006. Die prähistorische Besiedlung am Unter- lauf der Jantra vor dem Hintergrund der Kulturgeschi- chte Nordbulgariens. Prähistorische Archäologie in Süd- osteuropa 20. Marie Leidorf. Rahden. 2008. Karanovo und das südosteuropäische Chronolo- giesystem aus heutiger Sicht. Eurasia Antiqua 14: 115– 147. 2011. On the “Monochrome” Neolithic in Southeast Eu- rope. In R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the In- ternational Workshop 8 th –9 th April 2009, Istanbul. Organized by D. Ciobotaru, B. Horejs and R. Krauss. Menschen-Kulturen-Traditionen 1. Studien aus den For- schungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti- tuts. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/ Westfalen: 109–125. Krauß R., Elenski N., Weninger B., Clare L., Çakırlar C., and Zidarov P. 2014. Beginnings of the Neolithic in Southeast Europe. The Early Neolithic Sequence and Absolute Dates from D∫uljunica-Sma ˘rde∏ (Bulgaria). Documenta Praehi- storica 41: 51–77. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.3 Kyparissi-Apostolika N. 2000a. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Greece as indicated by the data in Theopetra Cave. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 133–140. https://www. dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-TFBNG4ZO/1a515145- fd38-4ab1-8e75-b3c371739463/PDF 2000b. The Neolithic Period in Theopetra Cave. In N. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987–1998. Proce- edings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6–7 No- vember 1998. Greek Ministry of Culture. Athens: 181– 234. 2012. Indications of the Presence of Middle Neolithic Pottery Kilns at Magoula Imvrou Pigadi, SW Thessaly, Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 39: 433–442. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.39.31 Lazarovici G. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Biblioteca Mu- sei Napocensis 4. Cluj-Napoca. Romania. Lespez L., Tsirtsoni Z., Darcque P., and Koukouli-Chryssan- thaki H. 2013. The Lowest Levels at Dikili Tash, Northern Greece: A Missing Link in the Early Neolithic of Europe. Antiquity 87: 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00048602 Makkay J. 1965. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Star- ≠evo-Periode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8: 3–18. 1969. Zur Geschichte der Erforschung der Körös-Star≠e- vo-Kultur und einiger ihrer wichtigsten Probleme. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21: 13–31. 1987. Kontakte zwischen der Körös-Star≠evo-Kultur und der Linienbandkeramik. Communicationes Archaeolo- gicae Hungariae: 15–24. Maniatis Y. 2014. Chronologisē me anthraka-14 tōn me- galōvn politismikōn allagōn stēn proïstorikē Makedonia prosfates exelixeis. In E. Stephani, N. Merousis, and A. Di- moula (eds.), 1912–2012: Ekato chronia eruenas stēn proïstorikē Makedonia. Praktika Diethnous Sunedriou Archaeiologiko Mouseio Thessalonikēs, 22–24 Noemvriou 2012. Ekdosē Archaiologikou Mouseiou Thessalonikēs 22. Thessaloniki: 205–222. (in Greek) Maniatis Y., Kotsakis K., and Halstead P. 2015. Paliambela Kolindrou. Nees chronologēseis tēs archaēoteris Neolithi- kēs. To Archaiologiko Ergo stē Makedonia kai Thrakē 25: 149–156. (in Greek) Miloj≠i≤ V. 1949a. Chronologie der Jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel-und Südosteuropas. Verlag Gebr. Mann. Berlin. 1949b. South-Eastern Elements in the Prehistoric Civi- lization of Serbia. The Annual of the British School at Athens 44: 258–306. 1950/51. Zur Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Grie- chenlands. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 65/66: 1–90. 1959. Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thes- salien, 1952–1958. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani- scher Zentralmuseums Mainz 6: 1–56. 1960. Präkeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalb- insel. Germania 38: 320–335. Lily Bonga 170 Miloj≠i≤ V., Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch J. (eds.), Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschi- chtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 10– 11. Habelt. Bonn. Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch J. 1971. Vorlage der Funde. In V. Miloj≠i≤, J. Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch (eds.), Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neolithikum. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschicht- lichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 10–11. Habelt. Bonn: 19–152. Mottier Y. 1981. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki Magula in Thessalien II: Das mittlere Neolithi- kum. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäolo- gie des Mittelmeer- Kulturraumes 22. Rudolf Habelt. Bonn. Müller J. 1988. Cultural Definition of the Early Neolithic and its Interaction in the Eastern Adriatic. Berytus 36: 101–125. 1994. Das Ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Im- presso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriarau- mes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9. Berlin. Nandris J. 1970. Ground Water as a Factor in the First Temperate Neolithic Settlement of the Körös Region. Zbor- nik Narodnog Muzeja 6: 59–71. Naumov G. 2009. Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic Visual Culture from the Republic of Macedonia. British Archaeological Reports IS 1910. Archaeopress. Oxford. Nowicki K. 2008. The Final Neolithic (Late Chalcolithic) to Early Bronze Age Transition in Crerte and the South- East Aegean Islands: Changes in Settlement Patterns and Pottery. In V. Isaakidou, P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Oxbow. Oxford: 22–48. 2014. Final Neolithic Crete and the Southeast Aegean. De Gruyter. Berlin. Papadakou T. A. 2011. Ē keramikē tēs Archaioterēs Neo- lithikēs apo tē thesē Paliambela Kolindrou. Thesis. Ari- stotle University. Thessaloniki. (in Greek) Papdakou T., Ourem-Kotsou D., and Kotsakis K. 2015. Ke- ramikē tēs Archaioterēs Neolithikēs apo ta Paliambela Ko- lindrou. To Archaiologiko Ergo stē Makedonia kai Thra- kē 25: 157–162. (in Greek) Pentedeka A., Dimoula A. 2009. Early Pottery Technology and the Formation of a Technological Tradition: The Case of Theopetra Cave, Thessaly, Greece. In P. Quinn (ed.), In- terpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Archaeopress. Oxford: 121– 137. Perlès C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge World Ar- chaeology. Cambridge. 2009. De la technologie céramique à la néolithisation de la Grèce. In L. Astruc, A. Gaulon, and L. Salanova (eds.), Méthodes d’approche des premières produc- tions céramiques: étude de cas dans les Balkans et au Levant. Table-ronde de la Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie (Nanterre, France) 28 février 2006. Inter- nationale Archäologie: Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress Bd. 12. Leidorf: 51–62. Perlès C., Quiles A., and Valladas H. 2013. Early Seventh- Millennium AMS Date from Domestic Seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece). Antiquity 87: 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00049826 Raczky P. 2012. Körös culture research history. In A. An- ders, Z. Siklósi (eds.), The First Neolithic Sites in Cen- tral/South-East European Transect. Volume III The Kö- rös Culture in Eastern Hungary. British Archaeological Reports IS 2334. Archaeopress. Oxford: 9–38. Reingruber A. 2008. Die Argissa Magula: Das frühe und das beginnende Neolithikum im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Ar- gissa Magula II. Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeerraums 35. Habelt. Bonn. 2011. Early Neolithic Settlement Patterns and Exchange Networks in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 291–305. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.23 2015. Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The radio- carbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 147–158. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.9 Reingruber A., Thissen L. 2009. Depending on 14 C Data: Chronological Frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcoli- thic of Southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 21(2): 751– 770. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.51.3531 2016. The 14SEA Project. A 14 C Database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC). Analysis. Subregion IIb – Southern Aegean. The Neolithic period in the Southern Aegean Region. Franchthi, Knossos, Kouphovouno, General Assement. http://www.14sea. org/3_IIb.html#site2, http://www.14sea.org/3_IIb.html, last updated 1–31–2017 Early ceramic styles and technologies in the Aegean and the Balkans> retrospect and prospects 171 Reingruber A., Toufexis G., Kyparissi-Apostolika N., Ane- takis M., Maniatis Y., and Facorellis Y. 2017. Neolithic Thes- saly. Radiocarbon Dated Periods and Phases. Documenta Praehistorica 44: 34–53. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.3 Saridaki N., Kotsakis K., Urem Kotsou D., Papadakou T., and Papaioannou A. 2019. Production Practices during the Neolithic in Pieria, Macedonia (Northern Greece). In S. Amicone, P. Quinn, M. Radivojevi≤, M. Mari≤, and N. Mir- kovi≤ (eds.), Tracing Pottery Making Recipes in the Bal- kans, 6 th –4 th Millennium BC. International Workshop Belgrade, 19–20 September 2014. Archaeopress. Oxford. Schubert H. 1999. Die Bemalte Keramik des Frühneoli- thikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien. In- ternational Archaeology 47. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf. 2005. Everyone’s Black Box – Where does the European Ornamentation Come From? In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Re- lations from the Second Half of the Seventh through the First Half of the Sixth Millennium cal BC. Interna- tional Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004. BYZAS 2. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung. Istanbul: 239–254. Spataro M. 2009. Cultural Diversities: The Early Neolithic in the Adriatic Region and Central Balkans. A Pottery Per- spective. In D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late For- agers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pot- tery in the Near East and Europe. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cambridge: 63–86. Sekere∏ L. 1974. Neki aspekti istra∫ivanja ranog neolita u severoisto≠noj Ba≠koj. Materijali 50: 189–196. Srejovi≤ D. 1971. Die Lepenski Vir-Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der mittleren Donau. In H. Schwabe- dissen (ed.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Fundamenta A/3. Böhlau. Köln: 1–19. Strasser T. 2008. Stones of Contention: Regional Axe Pro- duction and Hidden Landscapes on Neolithic Crete. In V. Issakidou, P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Oxford. Oxbow: 155–164. Stefanova T. 1996. A Comparative Analysis of Pottery from the “Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon” and “Ka- ranovo I Horizon” and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neoliti- ka in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 1–38. Stojanovski D., Nacev T., and Arzarello M. 2014. Pottery Typology and the Monochrome Neolithic Phase in the Re- public of Macedonia. In W. Schier, F. Drasovean (eds.), The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe: New Approaches to Dating and Cultural Dynamics in the 6 th to 4 th Millennium BC. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 28. Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf: 9–27. Theocharis D. R. (ed.) 1973. Neolithic Greece. National Bank of Greece. Athens. Todaro S., Di Tonto S. 2008. The Neolithic Settlement of Phaistos Revisited: Evidence for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age. In V. Issakidou, P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8. Ox- bow. Oxford: 177–190. Tomkins P. 2001. The Production, Circulation and Con- sumption of Ceramic Vessels at Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Shef- field. Sheffield. 2007. Neolithic. Strata IX–VIII, VII–VIB, VIA–V, IV, IIIB, IIIA, IIB, IIA and IC Groups. In N. Momigliano (ed.), Knossos Pottery Handbook Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan). British School at Athens Studies 14. British School at Athens. London: 9–48. 2008. Time, Space and the Reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic. In V. Isaakidou, P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escap- ing the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Oxbow. Oxford: 22–48. 2014. Tracing Complexity in “the Missing Millennium.” An Overview of Recent Research into the Final Neoli- thic Period on Crete. In B. Horejs, M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation in the 4 th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the Internatio- nal Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November 2012. Oriental and European Archaeology 1. Austrian Academy of Sci- ences Press. Vienna: 345–364. 2018. Palimpsests and Proxies. A Reconsideration of Neolithic Settlement in the Mesara Before Phaistos. In G. Baldacci, I. Caloi (eds.), Rhadamanthys: Studi di ar- cheologia minoica in onore di Filippo Carinci per il suo 70º compleanno. Studies in Minoan Archaeology in Honour of Filippo Carinci on the Occasion of His 70 th Birthday. British Archaeological Reports IS 2884. Archaeopress. Oxford: 129–136. Tomkins P., Day P. M. 2001. Production and Exchange of the Earliest Ceramic Vessels in the Aegean: A View from Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete. Antiquity 75: 259–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0006083X Tomkins P., Day P. M., and Kilikoglou V. 2004. Knossos and the Early Neolithic Landscape of the Herakleion Ba- sin. In G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Lily Bonga 172 Knossos: Palace, City, State. British School at Athens. London: 51–59. Tsirtsoni Z. (ed.) 2016. The Human Face of Radiocar- bon. Reassessing Chronology in Prehistoric Greece and Bulgaria, 5000–3000 cal BC. (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 69). Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditer- ranée-Jean Pouilloux. Lyon. 2017. Let’s Stop Speaking ‘Cultures’! Alternative Means to Assess Historical Developments in the Prehistoric Balkans. In M. Gori, M. Ivanova (eds.), Balkan Dialo- gues. Negotiating Identity between Prehistory and the Present. Routledge. New York: 64–85. Tsountas C. 1908. Hai proïstorikai akropoleis Dimēniou kai Sesklou. Vivliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 43. Sakellarios. Athens. (in Greek) Vitelli K. D. 1993a. Power to the Potters. Comment on Perlès’ “Systems of Exchange and Organization of Produc- tion in Neolithic Greece.” Journal of Mediterranean Ar- chaeology 6: 247–257. 1993b. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery I: Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2 Excavations at Franch- thi Cave, Greece (Fascicle 8). Bloomington. Indiana. 1999. Looking Up at Early Ceramics in Greece. In J. Ski- bo, G. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City, Utah: 184– 198. Vukovi≤ J. 2006. Funkcionalna analiza neolitske grn≠a- rije centralnog Balkana – metodi, tehnike i primena. PhD thesis. University of Belgrade. Belgrade. 2013. Deskripcija nasuprot interpretaciji: Odnos tradi- cionalne i savremene arheologije prema problemu im- preso-barbotin ranog neolita. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 8(3): 657–679. Wace A. J. B., Thompson M. S. 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly. Being some Account of Recent Excavations and Explo- rations in North-eastern Greece from Lake Kopais to the Borders of Macedonia. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Weinberg S. S. 1962. Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959. Hesperia 31(2): 158–209. 1970. The Stone Age in the Aegean. In Cambridge An- cient History I, Part 1. Cambridge University Press, Re- vised Edition. Cambridge: 557–618, 664–72. Winder N. P. 1991. Interpreting a Site: The Case for a Re- assessment of the Knossos Neolithic. Archaeological Re- view from Cambridge 10(1): 37–52. Wijnen M. 1981. The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Ses- klo: An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece. Analecta Praehistoric Leinesia 14. Leiden. Yiouni P. 1996. The Early Neolithic Pottery: Technology. Analysis and Comparison with other Neolithic Ceramic Materials. In R. J. Rodden, K. A. Wardle (eds.), Nea Niko- medeia I. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1981–1964. The Annual of the British School at Athens Supp. 25. London: 55–193. 2004. Counting Pots in Early Neolithic Greece. The An- nual of the British School at Athens 99: 1–22.