286
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
Grinding tools constitute an important part of pre-
historic technology. Diverse in function, as ethno-
graphic and archaeological research has shown,
these implements have been employed in a wide
range of production activities in relation to both or-
ganic and inorganic substances (see Horsfall 1987;
Schroth 1996 for a summary of available ethnogra-
phic data from North America; Wright 1994.241 for
several references to ethnographic and historical
evidence). Regardless of their being informative on
so many aspects of past societies – subsistence stra-
tegies, dietary habits, processing and craft activities,
to mention but a few – a relevant contextualized ana-
lysis has long been missing from the prehistoric re-
search in Greece and the Balkans in general, with
few notable exceptions (e.g., Moundrea-Agrafioti
2007; Hersh 1981; Procopiou 1998; 2013; Proco-
piou et al. 1998; Poursat et al. 2000; Runnels 1981;
Stroulia 2010; 2017; Tsoraki 2008).
The goal of this article is thus to present an in-depth
examination of one of the largest recovered grind-
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding
technologies at the two neighbouring settlements
of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic northern Greece
Danai Chondrou
Department of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, GR
dachondr@hist.auth.gr
ABSTRACT – The article offers a detailed analysis of the grinding tool assemblage from the two neigh-
bouring, partially contemporary and almost entirely excavated Late/Final Neolithic settlements of
Kleitos, northwestern Greece. The data shed light on various choices regarding the organisation of
the production and management of these implements. According to the evidence, grinding tools
were not only used as part of the daily routine, but were also often used in special events. The lim-
ited rates of exhausted implements, the extreme fragmentation, and special patterns of deposition
indicate the complex manipulation of grinding implements beyond their primary functions.
IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo podrobno analizo zbira ∫rmelj iz dveh sosednjih, delno so≠as-
nih in skoraj v celoti izkopanih naselbin v kraju Kleitos na severozahodu Gr≠ije. Podatki osvetljujejo
razli≠ne mo∫nosti pri organizaciji produkcije in upravljanju teh orodij. Dokazujemo, da ∫rmlje niso
bile le del vsakodnevnih obi≠ajev, ampak so bile pogosto uporabljene pri posebnih dogodkih. Omeje-
ne koli≠ine uporabljenih orodij, izredna fragmentiranost in posebni vzorci odlaganja predmetov ka-
∫ejo na bolj kompleksno obdelavo ∫rmelj, ki presegajo njihovo osnovno namembnost.
KEY WORDS – grinding tools; ground stone technology; Neolithic; macrolithic artefacts; Aegean pre-
history
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – ∫rmlje; tehnologija glajenih orodij; neolitik; makrolitske najdbe; egejska prazgo-
dovina
Vsakodnevni obi;aji in posebni dogodki> raziskava /rmelj na dveh sosednjih
naselbinah v Kleitosu v ;asu poznega\kon;nega neolitika v severni Gr;iji
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.16
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
287
also bearing signs of a possible upper storey (Ziota
et al. 2013a.59, 64). Each of them had one to three
separate building phases, almost all destroyed by
fire. Various thermal and storage clay structures
were found in building interiors, as well as outdoor
areas (Ziota 2014a.323–326).
Less than 100m northeast of Kleitos I lies the second
settlement. According to ceramic finds, the earliest
phase of Kleitos II is partially contemporary with
the first settlement, with the habitation extending to
the late phase of the 4th millennium BC (Ziota et al.
2013a.71–73). Overall, Kleitos II is smaller (0.25ha)
and more densely structured (Fig. 2), with five pre-
served dwellings, two of which are significantly
smaller in dimensions, with limited open spaces in-
between (Hondroyianni-Metoki 2011; Ziota 2011;
2014a; 2014b). Although the relation of the two
neighbouring sites with the differentiated size and
spatial organisation is still vague, the idea of them
being two distinct habitation phases of the same
community has to be rejected (Ziota 2014a.332).
Finally, numerous Bronze Age pits and parts of a
ditch, Roman and Byzantine burials and stray finds,
along with the stone foundations of an elongated
building of unclear dating, all attest to the long-last-
ing post-Neolithic use of the space (Hondroyianni-
ing tool assemblages from prehistoric Greece to
date, originating from two neighbouring Late/Final
Neolithic settlements, Kleitos I and Kleitos II, and to
highlight aspects of the communities that produced
and used them. The detailed examination of the as-
semblage combines a techno-morphological analy-
sis and a biographical approach that focuses on the
separate stages of a tool’s life-cycle. Moreover, the
contextualization of the available data provides a
detailed framework for the evaluation of the spatial
aspects of the production, use and disposal of grind-
ing implements. The analysis reveals a series of pat-
terned choices regarding the manufacture and mani-
pulation of these tools, with various possible econo-
mic, social and cultural connotations.
The site
The Kleitos site is located close to the modern city
of Kozani, northwestern Greece (Fig. 1), and with-
in the limits of the alluvial Kitrini Limni Basin, an
area densely populated during prehistoric times
(Andreou et al. 1996.568–569, 575; Fotiadis 1988;
Fotiadis, Hondroyianni-Metoki 1997.21; Karami-
trou-Mentesidi 1987). Two Late and Final Neolithic
settlements, partially overlapping in terms of chro-
nology and in striking proximity, were discovered
and excavated in almost their entirety, a rare case
in Greece. The Kleitos excavations
were part of a large-scale rescue
programme conducted by the for-
mer 30th Ephorate of Prehistoric
and Classical Antiquities in res-
ponse to the imminent expansion
of the nearby lignite mine of the
Public Electricity Company.
The earliest of the two installa-
tions, Kleitos I, is a flat, ‘extend-
ed’ settlement covering an area
of c. 2ha and bounded by a sys-
tem of ditches and fences (Fig. 2).
According to conventional chro-
nological data, the site belongs
to the early phase of the Late
Neolithic, i.e. late 6th – early 5th
millennium BC (Ziota 2011.215,
227; Ziota et al. 2013a.59). Ten
ground floor, detached buildings
have been preserved. They were
quadrilateral in plan and rather
spacious, judging by the best pre-
served examples, with an estimat-
ed size of up to 100–120m2, some Fig. 1. Map of Greece and prehistoric sites mentioned in the text.
Danai Chondrou
288
Metoki 2011.231, 243; Ziota 2014b.53, 60–62; Zio-
ta et al. 2013b.50–51).
The sample
The Kleitos ground stone tool assemblage was the
subject of a PhD dissertation (Chondrou 2018) in
the context of which around 4000 finds were analy-
tically examined. The current paper focuses exclusi-
vely on the grinding tool category, which comprises
614 items; 554 originating from Kleitos I, 38 from
Kleitos II and 10 from the area between the two set-
tlements (Tab. 1). From this assemblage, a set of 12
finds derive from a different chronological horizon.
They were found inside a series of Middle Bronze
Age pits dug in the Neolithic strata in the area of
Kleitos II and its margins, and will be examined else-
where.
Regarding the aforementioned numbers, a substan-
tial divergence between the assemblages of the two
nearby settlements is attested in all tool categories,
Fig. 2. Aerial photograph of the excavation and plan of the two sites with the areas of building remains
and peripheral ditches highlighted.
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
289
with the Kleitos I finds always more abundant (see
Chondrou 2018). However, the high variance in the
frequency of grinding tools between the two settle-
ments must be – at least partially – attributed to the
high degree of fragmentation. As an example, the
proportion of fragments that represent a portion
smaller or equal to 1/8 of the original grinding im-
plement in Kleitos I is double that of its neighbour-
ing settlement.
Typology
The activity of grinding requires the pairing of a
lower, stationary implement (passive tool i.e. quern)
and an upper mobile one (active tool i.e. hand-
stone). The latter moves on top of the use-surface of
the static implement in order to grind matter be-
tween their surfaces. The use-surfaces of the two
paired implements should fit together perfectly to
ensure their optimal operation, i.e. the highest de-
gree of efficiency (Delgado-Raack, Risch 2009.6;
Menasanch et al. 2002.83). The complementarity of
the grinding tool surfaces is achieved through the
manufacturing process, but also evolves through use,
since the surfaces of the implements that form a
functional pair are worn gradually in a correspond-
ing manner. Therefore, the configuration of the use-
surface of a milling tool is not solely the result of
manufacture. Rather it is a morphological element
with a functional dimension, interrelated with the
morphology and dimensions of the tool’s paired im-
plement, and the kinetics involved in its use (see
Adams 1999; de Beaune 1989; 2004; Delgado-
Raack 2008; Menasanch et al. 2002; Nierlé 1983;
2008; Procopiou 1998; Stroulia et al. 2017; Zim-
mermann 1988). Based on the above, we can dis-
tinguish three main grinding tool types (Fig. 3):
● A more or less elongated quern that functions in
conjunction with a handstone whose length exceeds
the width of the quern (Fig. 3A). This
is the ‘overhanging type’, a term re-
ferring to the fact that the ends of
the handstone protrude beyond the
limits of the quern. The handstone is
used in a linear back-and-forth reci-
procal motion, being held with both
hands, placed either on the tool’s
ends – used in this way as handles –
or on the back of the tool (i.e. dorsal
surface), but again close to the two
ends. As a result, the force is exerted
laterally (Hamon, Le Gall 2013.113).
Through the gradual wear of the
tools, the handstone and quern develop a charac-
teristic, complementary configuration of the profiles
of their use-surfaces. Often the quern acquires a con-
vexity along the width axis of its surface and a con-
cavity along the long axis, while the handstone de-
velops a concavity along its long axis and a conve-
xity along the width axis (Fig. 4). However, interest-
ing divergences have been noted, suggesting that
use-surface morphology is the complex result of var-
ious parameters such as its initial manufacture and
subsequent maintenance, and the gestures applied
during use (see Delgado-Raack, Risch 2009.7–8).
● A quern combined with a shorter handstone, used
in a linear back-and-forth reciprocal motion (Fig. 3B).
In this case the length of the handstone is smaller
than the width of the quern. Therefore, the lateral
zones of the use-surface of the quern develop less
wear than its central part, due to limited contact
with the handstone (or none at all). Thus the use-
surface of the quern gradually becomes concave lon-
gitudinally and concave in width.
● A quern used in conjunction with a small hand-
stone, in a ‘free’, curvilinear motion (Fig. 3C). The
small dimensions of the handstone allow its han-
dling with one hand. The use-surface of the quern
is concave in both axes (i.e. a ‘basin-like’ morpholo-
gy), possibly – but not necessarily – as a result of
both manufacture and use, while the use-surface of
Fig. 3. Three main grinding tool types. Note the way in which the ac-
tive tool – handstone – is held in each case (drawing by the author).
Querns Handstones Indeterminate
KLEITOS I 121 207 226
Area between
the settlements
1 9 0
KLEITOS II 18 10 10
MBA pits 6 5 1
Total 146 231 237
Tab. 1. Distribution and frequency of grinding
tools per main spatial unit and tool type.
Danai Chondrou
290
the handstone is convex (or flat-con-
vex) in both axes.
The presented typology was applied
to the Kleitos grinding tool assem-
blage. It is worth noting though that
due to the extreme degree of frag-
mentation there were cases where
it was not possible to determine the
passive or active function of an im-
plement, nor its typological classifi-
cation. Even in the cases where lin-
ear traces were detected on the use-
surface of a fragment, it was not pos-
sible to correlate the direction of mo-
tion with the overall morphology
of the initial tool, and thus to fully
decode the kinematics involved in
its use.
Preservation
A basic feature of the grinding tool assemblage from
Kleitos is the high rate of fragmentation, which rea-
ches 97%: out of a total of 602 milling tools from
Neolithic strata, only 18 are preserved intact or al-
most intact. The pattern applies to both handstones
and querns, worn-out tools with very low thickness
and thus highly sensitive to accidental breakages, as
well as bulky tools with long remaining use-lives. The
magnitude of the phenomenon cannot be attributed
to post-depositional processes: (a) the percentage
does not include modern breakages that occurred
during the excavation process or post-excavation
manipulation of the material; (b) the vast majority
of the material originates from layers unaffected by
modern ploughing. Therefore, a linkage between
this attribute and the way the implements were used
and manipulated should be sought.
Another characteristic is the very strong presence of
fire in at least 1/3 of the assemblage. Fire exposure
is more frequently encountered in fragmented spe-
cimens, suggesting a relation between high fragmen-
tation and burning. The impact of fire varies. Some
of the tools have sustained significant damage, while
others do not exhibit macroscopically visible altera-
tions, although their recovery contexts suggest their
exposure to fire (e.g., within a building destruction
layer). This may be related to the different condi-
tions of exposure to fire, but also to the different
reactions of lithic materials to high temperatures
(e.g., Deal 2012; Ryan 2010). Therefore, it should
be considered almost certain that the percentage of
tools exposed to fire was actually much higher than
the figure given.
Manufacture: raw materials
In the alluvial plain of Kitrini Limni, where Kleitos
is situated, appropriate lithic sources are absent (Fo-
tiadis 1988.45, 49). None of the selected rock types
were readily accessible or within a short distance –
of less than 10km – from the settlement. As such,
the procurement of various materials from areas be-
yond the borders of the plain was required. Over-
all, a quite limited range of raw materials selected
for the manufacture of grinding tools has been
identified in both Kleitos settlements, suggesting
their systematic, non-random exploitation. However,
the representation rates differ significantly between
the two sites. Two sedimentary rocks, sandstone and
microconglomerate1, are the most common rock
types in Kleitos I, while pyroxenite, gneiss, and schist
have a more limited presence. In Kleitos II, sand-
stone remains the most commonly found raw mate-
rial, although there is a sharp increase in the tools
1 Conglomerate is a sedimentary rock of highly varied mineralogical composition, comprised of coarse grains with a diameter
larger than 2mm in a finer clay or calcitic matrix. Strictly based on geological vocabulary, the term ‘microconglomerate’ is
invalid. It is adopted here, nevertheless, since the author considers it important to be able to differentiate raw materials of sig-
nificantly different granulometry, all labelled under the term ‘conglomerate’. There are conglomerates composed of pebbles and
cobbles, and others of granules. In the case of Kleitos the coarse grains are larger than 2mm but smaller than 1cm. Whenever
bigger particles are present, they represent no more than 5–10% of the complete rock mass of each artefact.
Fig. 4. Main type of grinding tool pair in Kleitos (type 1). The ac-
tive surfaces of the quern and handstone are complementary, con-
cave along the one axis, convex along the other. The most com-
monly occurring transverse sections of handstones are plano-
convex, wedge-shaped, rectangular (drawing by the author).
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
291
made from gneiss, while significant declines in those
made from microconglomerate and pyroxenite (Fig.
5). It is also worth noting that there is some varia-
tion within distinct lithological groups (e.g., differ-
ent types of sandstone and microconglomerate). This
diversity, more pronounced in Kleitos I, is associated
with various properties that would affect the grind-
ing process and the characteristics of the resulting
product (see Chondrou et al. 2018.30; Delgado-
Raack et al. 2009).
Extensive inspection of the areas surrounding Kleitos
led to the conclusion that the inhabitants acquired
raw materials from multiple sources, including one
almost 25km to the south. The basic procurement
strategy was the exploitation of secondary sources,
such as stream and river beds or surface concentra-
tions of rolled material. Kleitos grinding implements
quite often retain parts of the naturally smoothen-
ed surfaces of the original boulders used for their
production, due to the limited extent of manufacture
traces along their body. No signs of quarrying have
been identified, an observation that is in accor-
dance with the data obtained from other Aegean
grinding tool assemblages (e.g., Middle/Late Neoli-
thic Stavroupoli, Alisøy 2002a.565–566; Late Neoli-
thic Makri, Bekiaris 2007.43; Late Neolithic Toumba
Kremasti, Chondrou 2011.80; various prehistoric
sites in the Argolid, Runnels 1981.75–76; Neolithic
Alepotrypa Cave, Stroulia 2018.234; Late Neolithic
Makriyalos, Tsoraki 2008.69).
Manufacture: techniques
As far as the production sequence is concerned, the
general tendency in the Kleitos assemblage was the
low work investment in the manufacture of grinding
implements. Consequently, the size and shape of the
pieces of raw material would have been an impor-
tant selection criterion in order to keep the produc-
tion sequence short. In other words, there must
have been a hunt for boulders that would already –
in their natural form – approach the desired mor-
phometrical traits of the final artefacts.
The almost complete absence of rough-outs, manu-
facture debris, as well as suitable unmodified raw
material pieces does not support in situ manufac-
ture. One must assume that the production of these
implements – or at least the execution of the initial
production stages – was carried out outside the set-
tlement grounds and that the tools arrived at the
site either fully formed or as semi-finished artefacts.
This practice has some advantages, as highlighted by
other researchers (e.g., Hayden 1987.26; Runnels
1981.105), since it limits the volume of objects to
be transported and helps avoid significant losses in
time and energy in the case of manufacturing acci-
dents. However, the few unmodified boulders (Fig.
6) and rough-outs at a very early stage of manufac-
ture found on-site indicate that there were some pos-
sible deviations from this norm.
Kleitos grinding implements usually retain the gen-
eral shape of the initial piece of raw material used,
since manufacturing was mostly limited to the for-
mation of the tool’s use-surface and its periphery,
only rarely extending throughout the body of the
tool. The techniques applied were flaking, pecking
and, in very few cases, abrasion.
Flaking was in many cases the initial technique ap-
plied. A wide, flattish surface, an element of the na-
tural configuration of the initial piece of raw mate-
rial, served as a striking platform for the application
of peripheral blows. In the absence of such a surface,
it is likely that one would have been formed through
flaking or pecking. Traces of this technique are pre-
served in the periphery of a number of finds, con-
firming that it was a common stage of the manufac-
ture sequence for both querns and handstones. The
peripheral flaking had a continuous or discontinu-
ous application, most commonly with a top-to-bot-
tom orientation of impact (i.e. from the ventral sur-
face towards the dorsal). In several cases, however,
a combination of opposite-oriented strokes is en-
countered (Fig. 7). Bidirectional flaking on the peri-
pheral zone of the tool was applied only when the
natural shape of the boulder was appropriate (i.e. it
had sides with abrupt convexity); this would allow
blows from both the top and lower part of the sides.
Fig. 5. Relative percentages of different raw mate-
rials used for the manufacture of grinding tools
in Kleitos I (inner circle) and Kleitos II settlement
(outer circle).
Danai Chondrou
292
A certain degree of technical knowledge would have
been necessary to achieve this. As a rule, the appli-
cation of peripheral flaking was limited in extent,
aiming at a slight adjustment of the natural config-
uration of the initial piece of raw material. In con-
trast, the removal of large flakes for a radical mor-
phological change was rare. In a few cases, a combi-
nation of coarser and finer flaking is evident. The lat-
ter was secondarily applied, even more selectively
and locally, in order to correct specific points of the
design.
Flaking was usually applied to the immediate peri-
phery of the use-surface and rarely to a larger part
of the sides; in these instances, it was only applied
sporadically. There are also limited cases where
the dorsal side (i.e. base) of the querns was formed
by flaking, in part or in whole or its periphery exclu-
sively. In the case of handstones, the application of
flaking to the dorsal side is rare and never on the
whole. In total, 31% of Kleitos I querns and 26% of
the handstones have traces of flaking, compared to
56% and 30% respectively in Kleitos II. Despite a
stronger presence of this technique in Kleitos II ma-
terial, its application was generally similar: targeted
application focusing on the shaping of the periph-
ery of the tool’s use-surface and, in some cases, its
dorsal side. It is indicative that flaking is wholly ap-
plied in just one tool in the full assemblage studied.
Pecking, as opposed to flaking, was a technique of
limited mass removal. It was applied either as a ‘se-
quential’ step to flaking, to smoothen out anomalies,
or – more often – independently. Especially in the
case of handstones, pecking had a highly autono-
mous role in the manufacturing sequence, since only
3% of the tools with flaking also had pecking applied
to the same parts of their bo-
dies. Generally speaking, the
percentage of handstones with
pecking on their non-active sur-
faces (32% in Kleitos I and 50%
in Kleitos II) indicates that this
technique was clearly applied
more extensively than flaking.
In the case of querns, pecking
on their non-active surfaces
(36% of Kleitos I querns and
44% in Kleitos II) presents a
different distribution pattern
when comparing the two sites.
In Kleitos I pecking often ex-
tends to the sides of the quern,
while in Kleitos II it mainly covers the tool’s base
(87% of the cases), partially or wholly, or is limited
to its periphery. This divergence in manufacturing
design may represent a different intended purpose.
In Kleitos I the technique seems to have been aimed
at the attribution of the final contour and normali-
zation of natural anomalies on the non-active sur-
faces of the artefacts. On the other hand, in Kleitos
II it was probably aimed at creating a mildly rough
surface that would enhance the adhesion between
the tool and bearing surface.
Beyond the shaping of the non-active surfaces of a
grinding implement, pecking was also necessary for
the formation of its use-surface, which was proba-
bly the final stage of the manufacturing sequence.
The systematic, dense pecking was a highly time-
consuming process (Schneider 1996.306). It may
also have been combined with (limited) abrasion,
since it is necessary for an active surface to have a
rough texture but also a uniform development. The
abrasion could be performed either with an abra-
sive tool or with the tool that it was intended to be
paired with, i.e. the corresponding handstone (for
two ethnographic examples, see Gast 1968.350;
Teklu 2012.65). A combined examination of the two
implements of a functional pair was also important
in order to ensure their optimal complementarity
(Bofill 2014.443). The necessary ‘matching’ of the
use-surfaces of the two implements may have had
a decisive influence on the organisation of the ma-
nufacturing process by imposing their contemporary
manufacture. This is, for example, supported by the
ethnographic example from Mali, where each quern
was manufactured together with its coupled hand-
stone and usually an extra as a spare (Hamon, Le
Gall 2013.112).
Fig. 6. A sandstone boulder most probably collected to be formed into a
handstone, with its natural configuration very close to the morphomet-
rical traits of the intended artefact.
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
293
A comparison, where possible, between different
parts of the same artefact revealed a clear differen-
tiation between pecking marks on non-active and
active surfaces. Pecking marks on the non-active
surfaces of the querns are typically medium- to large-
sized (≥5mm diameter), quite shallow and sparse in
distribution, as opposed to traces on the use-surfaces
which are generally smaller and denser. This prob-
ably reflects a difference in the mode of percussion,
but also the use of hammers of different morpholo-
gies for the shaping of the two types of surfaces. In
a single case, differentiated pecking traces were iden-
tified in the non-active surfaces of the same tool:
on the lateral sides, the ‘typical’ medium-sized, circu-
lar pits with a U-shaped section, and on the dorsal
side more elongated and semi-circular traces sug-
gesting strokes given at an acute angle.
Finally, the application of abrasion, in order to smo-
othen the surfaces of a tool at the end of the manu-
facturing process, is extremely rare. Only seven
querns and 10 handstones show traces of smooth-
ing on their non-active surfaces, after receiving par-
tial pecking of their bodies.
No expedient grinding tools were found in Kleitos,
in contrast to many other Greek Neolithic assembla-
ges (e.g., Middle/Late Neolithic Stavroupoli, Alisøy
2002a.567; Late Neolithic Makri, Bekiaris 2007.43;
Middle/Late Neolithic Avgi, Bekiaris 2020; Late Neo-
lithic Megalo Nisi Galanis, Stroulia 2005.576; Neoli-
thic Franchthi, Stroulia 2010.35; Neolithic Alepotry-
pa, Stroulia 2018.209; Late Neolithic Makriyalos,
Tsoraki 2008.69). Instead, all Kleitos
specimens present some degree of
work investment, even though usu-
ally low. Their manufacture reveals
the existence of a strategic design be-
hind their sequence of production,
regarding both the shaping techni-
ques applied and their execution that
took into account the optimal utiliza-
tion of the original piece of raw ma-
terial.
Overall, despite the generally low de-
gree of investment in Kleitos grind-
ing tool manufacture, various modes
of application of individual techni-
ques have been detected in terms
of execution (e.g., uni-/bidirectional
flaking) and extent of tool coverage.
This variation does not seem related
to the raw materials used (for a sim-
ilar observation on the assemblage from Neolithic
Stavroupoli see Alisøy 2002a.567), but rather to
personal choices and the morphology of the boul-
ders used (see further below). Undoubtedly, there
are norms regarding the manufacturing process, but
their inhomogeneous application seems to indicate
the existence of many manufacturers who shaped
their equipment as they pleased. The criteria appear
to be more practical than aesthetic, but they may
also reflect varied degrees of technical skill. For
example, flaking of raw materials with a highly in-
homogeneous structure, such as microconglomer-
ates, or with intense schistosity, such as schist-gneiss,
involves high technical risk and requires experience
(see Procopiou 2013.47). Regarding the divergen-
ces in production detected between Kleitos I and
Kleitos II, these also appear unrelated to the raw
materials, as the rock types and natural boulders
used are the same.
Morphometrical traits
In the assemblage of both Kleitos I and Kleitos II,
querns paired with ‘overhanging’ handstones oper-
ated in a back and forth reciprocal motion (i.e. type
1 grinding tools) are predominant. The handstones
have use-surfaces concave along the length axis and
slightly convex along the width axis (Fig. 8.A–C).
The latter coincides with the direction of the tool’s
motion, as testified also by the linear traces visible
at low magnification, more rarely also macroscopi-
cally. The querns have use-surfaces concave along
the length axis, slightly convex along the width axis
Fig. 7. Different stages and versions of flaking: A unmodified
curvilinear boulder with a flattish surface that will serve as an
impact platform; B unidirectional and discontinuous peripheral
flaking; C bidirectional and continuously-applied peripheral flak-
ing (drawing by the author).
Danai Chondrou
294
(Fig. 8.D–F). Clusters of linear traces have a com-
mon orientation, parallel to the length axis of the
tool. In contrast, the other two tool types (type 2
and type 3) have a much more limited representa-
tion. Only 26 out of 140 querns in the entire assem-
blage have a use-surface concave in both axes, indi-
cating pairing with a smaller handstone used in a
rectilinear or ‘free’ curvilinear motion, a type identi-
fied in 48 out of 226 handstones (Fig. 9). Overall,
type 2 and 3 tools represent 21% of Kleitos I grind-
ing implements and almost 11% of Kleitos II – with
indeterminate pieces being excluded from this count.
The precise determination of the ratio of these two
types is hindered by the very high degree of frag-
mentation and poor preservation due to fire expo-
sure, erosion or the extensive presence of sediment.
Notwithstanding the above limitations, it can be safe-
ly said that type 3 tools constitute the least repre-
sented group of grinding equipment in Kleitos.
Tool type 1 morphology has been recently deemed
“unexpected and counter-intuitive” (Stroulia et al.
2017.4). In reality, nevertheless,
what is truly impressive about it
is its late identification in the ar-
chaeological research. Although
the idea of tools resembling small
querns but functioning as hand-
stones has been suggested by re-
searchers for decades, and the
existence of different morpholo-
gical types of grinding tools has
been noted (e.g., Hersh 1981;
Nierlé 1983; Plassart 1928.25–
26; Zimmermann 1988), these
typological clarifications have
rarely or partially been taken in-
to account in the succeeding
work, at least in southeastern Eu-
rope. This is exactly the main
obstacle to the analytical exam-
ination of the spatial and chro-
nological distribution of type 1
and type 2 implements and their
interrelation. However, it is cer-
tain that, contrary to earlier esti-
mations according to which the
Neolithic handstones were shor-
ter than the Bronze Age ones
(Runnels 1981.147), tool type 1
had a strong and steady pres-
ence throughout the Greek Neo-
lithic, ever since its early phases
(e.g., Early Neolithic site of Ayios
Vlasis, Chondrou pers. obs.), and continuing through-
out the Bronze Age era (e.g., Early Bronze Age Ayios
Athanasios, Chondrou et al. 2019; Late Bronze Age
West House in Akrotiti, Moundrea-Agrafioti 2007.
103). Instead, type 3 tools generally seem to repre-
sent a rarity (see Stroulia 2010.56; Valamoti et al.
2013.182). Whenever present in Greek assemblages,
either Neolithic or Bronze Age, they are always lim-
ited in numbers (e.g., Middle/Late Neolithic Stavrou-
poli, Alisøy 2002a; Late Neolithic Toumba Kremasti,
Chondrou 2011.95–96; Neolithic Franchthi, Strou-
lia 2010.54–56; Bronze Age Mesimeriani Toumba,
Alisøy 2002b; Late Bronze Age West House in Akro-
tiri, Moundrea-Agrafioti 2007.78).
In both Kleitos settlements grinding implements
have a predominantly curvilinear outline. This mor-
phological trait appears to be mostly associated with
the initial form of the exploited raw materials (i.e.
cobbles and boulders), and to a lesser extent with
deliberate manufacture. The overwhelming majority
of both querns and handstones have a single use-
Fig. 8. Type 1 handstones (A–C) and querns (D–F).
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
295
surface. Interestingly enough, at least four out of the
six exceptions of querns with two use-surfaces in
Kleitos I share as a common feature the concave in
both axes profile of their active surfaces, suggesting
pairing with small-sized handstones in a linear or
curvilinear motion (i.e. tool types 2 and 3). In Klei-
tos II, the percentage of querns with two use-surfaces
is higher (22% compared to nearly 5% in Kleitos I),
but with no association to specific tool types. Hand-
stones with two use-surfaces are also exceptions to
the rule, reaching nearly 13% in Kleitos I and 10%
in Kleitos II.
A key element of the morphology of the querns, ir-
respective of their contour, is that their shape is op-
timized for the maximum possible use-surface. On
the other hand, the bottom surface that rarely re-
ceives extensive shaping maintains the usually con-
vex or flattish natural morphology of the original
boulder. This is important, since the stability of a
quern is necessary during the grinding activity. In
the case of many Kleitos implements this would be
ensured thanks to the morphology of their bases.
There are, however, also cases with a highly irregu-
lar, convex or angular bottom surface, for which one
should assume the use of additional supports (e.g.,
rocks, pieces of wood) or their partial immersion in
the soil, with or without some inclination.
Handstones exhibit a variety of transverse sections:
wedge-shaped/lopsided sections (47%) and flat-con-
vex ones (31%) dominate, while the elongated qua-
drilaterals, curvilinear (elliptical and oval) and trian-
gular sections present much smaller percentages
(Fig. 4). In an overall examination, this variety ap-
pears to be largely the result of both the morphol-
ogy of the original pieces of raw material, as well as
the manufacturing choices. Surfaces with an angular
morphology, often asymmetrical, were systematical-
ly selected to form the dorsal side of the handstone.
This practice, mostly associated with type 1 hand-
stones, resulted in a wedged transversal configura-
tion of the tool, where the maximum thickness was
not in the middle but closer to one side. There are
also cases where the desirable morphology was se-
cured through the application of manufacturing tech-
niques, possibly because of the inconvenient shape
of the initial piece of raw material. This observa-
tion is of particular interest, since the wedge-shaped
transverse cross-section of the handstones has been
previously considered a feature resulting solely from
the tool’s use, i.e. kinematics, pattern and degree
of resulting wear (Adams 2002a.112–113 and Fig.
5.12). In the case of Kleitos, the most commonly en-
countered wedge-shaped cross-section of the hand-
stones has been shown to be a desirable characte-
ristic associated with the tools’ manufacture – al-
though it would certainly have been enhanced later
on through use and subsequent wear – and most
probably aiming at facilitating the handling of the
tool (see Moundrea-Agrafioti 2007.80 for a similar
observation on another archaeological assemblage).
The fragmentary state of Kleitos grinding imple-
ments does not allow a full assessment of their met-
rical traits. In Kleitos I all the intact querns exceed
30cm in length, with average
dimensions of 34.4cm x
20.92cm x 7.28cm. On the
other hand, fragmented tools
that represent a sufficient part
of the initial (i.e. intact) im-
plement testify to the exis-
tence of a metrical range, in
fact giving the impression of
the prevalence of small-sized
tools with a length of £30cm.
Thus the length of querns
ranged significantly up to a
maximum of 35.7cm. In Klei-
tos II, the sole almost intact
quern, with a total length of
more than 47cm, is exceptio-
nally large, while a fragment-
ed one that retains 3/4 of its
total volume would not ex-
ceed 35cm in its intact form.Fig. 9. Type 2 and 3 fragmented handstones (A, B) and querns (C–E).
Danai Chondrou
296
Together the two clearly depict the coexistence of
grinding tools of different dimensions. Regarding
metrical attributes in relation to different tool types,
both type 1 and type 2 tools present size variation.
Type 3 implements, on the other hand, are too frag-
mented for safe assessments of their metrical range.
What can be said with some certainty is that they all
had rather small initial proportions.
The average dimensions of the handstones in Klei-
tos I are 24.61cm x 12.05cm x 6.02cm, based exclu-
sively on the intact samples. If we take into account
both the intact specimens and the fragmented ones
that retain intact the respective axis of measurement,
the resulting metrical range is significantly wide: 9.2
to 37.2cm length, 8.4 to 16.8cm width and 3.4 to
8.6cm thickness. From the intact and almost intact
samples (n=11), two present marginal dimensions:
a small handstone with a length of less than 10cm
and an asymmetrical oval outline, and a strongly
elongated (3.1:1 length/width ratio), elliptical one
that is almost 40cm long (Fig. 8.C). Between the two
marginal cases there are tools 20 to 33cm long,
which are difficult to group because of their varying
proportions and limited number. Their weight also
presents a strong variation: 546 to 5500g. What is
clear, nevertheless, is a trend for elongated shapes:
most of the handstones are very narrow, as evidenc-
ed by the high values of the length/width ratio (all
but one ≥1.5, and more than half ≥2). With regard
to Kleitos II, the length range cannot be ascertained
due to fragmentation, yet there are samples that
clearly suggest metric variation.
The aforementioned variations, largely due to the
characteristics of the exploited boulders, may also
indicate the more opportunistic exploitation of the
available raw materials, where the pursuit of unifor-
mity in the collected rocks is not a (primary) concern.
Aspects of use
Regarding the materials processed, grinding tools
have been traditionally associated with the process-
ing of cereals and other edible plant species. Recent
functional studies, including use-wear and residue
analyses (e.g., Adams 1988; 2002b; Albert, Portillo
2005; Bofill et al. 2014; Delgado-Raack 2008; Del
Pilar Babot, Apella 2003; Dubreuil 2002; 2004;
2009; Hamon 2008a; Hamon et al. 2011; Liu et al.
2010; Procopiou et al. 1998; 2002; Veth et al. 1997),
combined with a variety of ethnographic data (e.g.,
Arthur 2014; Gould 1968; Horsfall 1987.336; Roux
1985), shed new light into the functional dynamics
of these tools. Grinding implements could in fact be
actively involved in a wide range of activities, be-
sides cereal grinding, such as the processing of le-
gumes, tubers, roots and bulbs, nuts, fresh and dried
fruits, herbs and spices, acorns, meat, bones, wood,
tobacco, minerals, clay, pigments, salt, etc.
The forthcoming use-wear analysis of Kleitos mate-
rial is expected to shed light onto various aspects of
function. What can be said at the moment is that the
morphometrical and typological variety identified in
the Kleitos assemblage could be a possible indicator
for the existence of a range of diversified milling
activities. For example, and as noted above, type 1
grinding tools dominate the Kleitos assemblage, in
sharp contrast to type 3 implements. Out of the four
highly fragmented querns that can be safely attrib-
uted to the latter type, two do not bear any indica-
tion of pecking on their use-surfaces. This differen-
tiation could be related to the uses of the tools. For
example, Laurie Nixon-Darcus and Catherine D’An-
drea (2017) identified the preference for grinding
surfaces of different textures for the treatment of
different products, with rough surfaces being exclu-
sively reserved for grinding large seeds (e.g., sorg-
hum, wheat, barley), while those with finer textures
were utilized for the processing of small-sized plant
species (e.g., millet). Similarly, in Nepal the querns
used for spice processing were of fine materials
and without pecking (Baudais, Lundström-Baudais
2002.170). Moreover, the identification of one of
the few type 3 querns in a house interior along with
other type 1 grinding tools offers evidence of tech-
nological diversification at the household level. The
co-existence of different tool types in the same func-
tional context is attested elsewhere, for example in
the unique Late Bronze Age milling workshop in
Room 3a of West House in Akrotiri, equipped with
permanently installed grinding tools able to support
the systematic, massive production of flour (Moun-
drea-Agrafioti 2007.82, 102–103). These cases rein-
force the idea that typological diversity may be a fea-
ture of functional significance.
Several experiments highlight differences in the
functionality of the various tool types depending on
the material to be ground. Montserrat Menasanch et
al. (2002.95) have shown an advantage of type 1
tools for the processing of hulled grains, since the
morphology facilitates the separation, during milling,
of the ground product and the hard but also lighter
grain husks. The same tool type in other experiments
has proven to be particularly effective for grinding
dry or slightly roasted cereal grains (Lidström-Holm-
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
297
berg 2004.205–206). Furthermore, Caroline Hamon
(2008b.202, 206–207) detected a change in the
grinding technology of northwestern Europe at the
end of the Neolithic period, with type 1 tools being
abandoned in favour of type 2 implements. She em-
phasizes the possible association of this change with
the replacement of hulled barley by the naked vari-
ety, and thus the interrelation of dietary, cultural
and economic choices. The latter case supports the
idea of a functional specialization of specific tool
types, with tool type 1 better suited for dehusking
and then grinding of cereals. On the other hand, in
different regions of Mali (Dogon and Minyanka coun-
try), where the use of type 1 and 2 grinding tools
continues until today, the choice between the two is
purely dependent upon cultural choices, irrespective
of the edible materials to be processed (Hamon, Le
Gall 2013).
Function-related aspects might also be involved in
the metrical variation of the technical equipment
attested in the Kleitos assemblage, among others at
the household level. The relation between the met-
rics and function of grinding tools is an issue that
has received a lot of discussion. Small-sized querns
with a length of £30cm are quite often encountered
in Greek Neolithic assemblages, and some resear-
chers have shown support for their inefficiency, at
least for the systematic production of flour (Runnels
1981.250–251; Stroulia 2010.37, 39, 48). Instead
they proposed a multifunctional role for these im-
plements for the treatment of various organic and
inorganic substances (Runnels 1981.153; Stroulia
2010.50–51; Tsoraki 2008.100). Experimentally,
however, it has been possible to demonstrate that
small grinding tools can be used for the production
of flour along with coarser derivatives (e.g., ‘bulgur’,
groats) and that various pre-treatments of the grain
may significantly enhance the efficiency of the pro-
cess (e.g., Bofill et al. 2020; Chondrou et al. 2018;
Hersh 1981.434–462; Valamoti et al. 2013). Thus,
the limited size of grinding tools does not necessa-
rily preclude certain functions. This is also support-
ed by the ethnographic record that attests to the exi-
stence of a variety of technological choices. There
are cases of a strong correlation between tool size
and use, and others with no such distinctions. In Ti-
chitt, Mauritania, there are four types of grinding
tools according to metrical and functional criteria
(Roux 1985.41), while in north Cameroon, tool pairs
reserved for spices differ in size from those employ-
ed in cereal processing (Gelbert 2005.324). On the
other hand, in some nomadic groups of northern Sa-
hara the difference between coarse and fine flour
production is the number of strokes of the hand-
stone over the generally limited working length of
the quern used indistinctively for grinding activities
(Gast 1968.348–349). Furthermore, no one can ex-
clude the possibility that the predominance of small-
sized tools in Kleitos and elsewhere was related to
the production scales rather than specific uses, re-
flecting small production and consumption units, as
suggested, for example, for the Late Neolithic Makri-
yalos assemblage (Tsoraki 2007.293). Finally, tools
of limited size could even be associated with mobil-
ity and site-occupation patterns (e.g., Nelson, Lipp-
meier 1993; Schlanger 1991).
Therefore, the meaning of typological and metrical
variation detected within assemblages is not straight-
forward, and definitely calls for further investigation
through context-specific studies combined with fun-
ctional analyses. It is important to bear in mind
that the range of functions of these tools, as clearly
documented ethnographically, can be determined by
a variety of parameters, some of which, such as cul-
tural and socio-economic factors, are very difficult or
even impossible to detect archaeologically. For exam-
ple, in the village of Sibou, northwest Kenya, speci-
fic taboos are in play concerning the highly specia-
lized use of certain grinding tools for the production
of castor oil exclusively by elderly women (e.g., Shoe-
maker et al. 2017.424–425). On the other hand, in
Ethiopia grinding tools proved to be an ideal indica-
tor of social differences and nutritional fluctuations
within the strictly stratified society of the Gabo tribe
(e.g., Arthur 2014). Even the personal preferences
of the users can determine the way these implements
are employed (e.g., Horsfall 1987.358).
The raw material of the implements that together
make up a grinding pair is certainly of some inter-
est. In the ethnographic record there are cases where
the paired implements are made of the same raw
material (e.g., the Mursi people in Maki, Ethiopia,
Robitaille 2016.432, or the craftsmen of traditional
stone grinding tools in North America that formed
the coupled implements out of the same piece of
rock, Aschmann 1949.685), but also cases of paired
tools made of different raw materials and with dif-
ferent granulometry. The aim was to ensure the de-
sired quality of the obtained product. For example,
the nomads of Sahel, north Sudan, have for each
grinding slab two matching handstones made from
different raw materials for the two stages of grind-
ing, a coarser one and a finer one that transforms
the meal into flour (Schön, Holter 1988.159). In Su-
kur, Africa, successive grinding with a transition from
Danai Chondrou
298
a coarse to a finer handstone was the way to ob-
tain fine flour for women who had only one quern
(David 1998.23). Finally, in Marakwet, Kenya, the
process of producing sorghum and corn flour is con-
ducted in two distinct stages, with the employment
of handstones of different textures and weights, all
part of the same toolkit (Shoemaker et al. 2017.
423–424). In the case of Kleitos a major limitation
is the inability to restore the grinding tool pairs,
i.e. to identify the coupled implements, due to the
high degree of fragmentation and the scattered dis-
tribution of the finds. Only in three isolated cases,
found within buildings of Kleitos II, is it highly pro-
bable that the tools found belong to the same pair.
In all of these cases, the associated quern and hand-
stone are made of the same raw material (gneiss in
two cases, sandstone in the third). However, it is
possible that grinding pairs of different raw materi-
als and textures were employed either at separate
stages of the same grinding process or independent-
ly for a different quality of product. For example,
milling experiments with tools made of microcon-
glomerate – a popular choice, especially in Kleitos I
– have shown that the particular type of material
does not allow control over the quality of the prod-
uct obtained (Chondrou et al. 2018). In contrast,
sandstone tools permit regulation of the granulo-
metry of the material produced (Procopiou 2013.
46–47 and Tab. 2.1). It is therefore a possibility that
the raw material variability detected in Kleitos can
be associated with different intended production
yields. Tools made of highly heterogeneous, coarse-
grained microconglomerate could have been utilized
mainly for the production of coarse products, whe-
reas tools with a more homogeneous structure and
a finer texture could have aimed at more refined de-
rivatives (see below).
Moreover, there are certain use-related morphologi-
cal traits worth mentioning. A few handstones in our
sample exhibit a thin, elongated facet along one side
of the use-surface of the tool, perpendicular to its
movement axis. This characteristic feature is espe-
cially interesting, since it points to a particular ges-
ture during the grinding process: in the rectilinear
reciprocal movement on the surface of the quern, a
light tilting of the handstone (i.e. the raising of the
bottom part of the tool at an angle) during its up-
ward stroke that brings the tool back to its original
position, close to the operator (Fig. 10). This would
serve to ‘re-capture’ the grain dispersed over the
surface of the quern, in order to grind it again with
another stroke of the handstone. Simultaneously it
would lead to the wearing down of the farthest from
the operator elongated edge of the use-surface of
the handstone and the formation of a thin facet,
with its long axis perpendicular to the direction of
motion of the handstone. An ethnographic reference
to this distinct kinematic during the grinding pro-
cess originates from Maki, Ethiopia (Robitaille 2016.
433). This move differs from holding the handstone
completely parallel to the surface of the quern or
from striking it back-and-forth during the recipro-
cal motion, which would result in different config-
urations of the use-surfaces of the tools, the first in
a fairly flat surface, the second in the formation of
two facets parallel to each other (Adams 2002a.103–
106; and for ethnographic observations, David 1998.
35; Bartlett 1933.15–19). The detection of this fea-
ture in some specimens of our sample, along with
its absence in many other cases, indicates variability
in the kinetics applicable within the same technical
process (i.e. grinding). We should nevertheless also
bear in mind that the visibility of such facets de-
pends not only on the kinetics applied, but also on
the treatment that these tools receive during their
life-cycle. Thus, for example, dense re-pecking of the
use-surface for the maintenance of its roughness or
peripheral flaking for the reshaping of its contour
might completely remove the related traces.
A group of querns whose use-surface is tilted on one
side, resulting in the wedge-shaped configuration
of their transversal section, deserves special men-
tion. In contrast to the wedge-shaped cross-section
of the handstones (see above), this lop-sidedness of
KLEITOS I KLEITOS II
Building A B C D E F G H I J 1 2 3 4
Building phase A B C A B A B A B A B A B A B A B C A B C
Quern 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1
Handstone 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Indeterminate 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1
Total number
of grinding tools
1 4 2 1 4 2 10 3 6 2 5 1 1 2 3 2 3 3
Tab. 2. Distribution of grinding tools originating from building interiors in Kleitos I and Kleitos II set-
tlements presented per generic type and building phase.
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
299
querns seems less likely related to manufacture and
more linked to the way the tools were used. Perhaps
it is the result of the tools’ tilted mounting during
use. Nicholas David (1998.38) likewise interpreted
the asymmetric growth of the milling cavities formed
on bedrocks as a result of the natural tilting of their
support. It could also be associated with the opera-
tor applying uneven pressure on the two sides of the
handstone during grinding (David 1998.38 rejects
this version, but its plausibility is certified experi-
mentally, see Stroulia et al. 2017.17–18).
Finally, as noted above, specimens (handstones and
querns) with two opposite use-surfaces are rare in
Kleitos. It has been argued that the formation of
multiple use-surfaces on a tool is a practice aimed at
extending its use-life, since it increases the number
of usable surfaces on the same object (Adams 1993.
336). Different possible accounts exist for the shap-
ing of these tools: they were either manufactured
from the beginning with two different active sur-
faces, or the second surface was the result of later
shaping. In the case of handstones with two use-sur-
faces, if this configuration was part of the initial de-
sign aimed at parallel use in combination with the
same passive tool, frequent switching between the
two surfaces would be necessary, so that both re-
main compatible with the quern, following the chan-
ges of its profile morphology caused by the progres-
sive use-wear (Adams 2002a.114). In Kleitos, how-
ever, many of the handstones with two use-surfaces
are not consistent with this practice, since their use-
surfaces do not coincide morphologically, meaning
that their profile differs: one surface is concave on
the longitudinal axis and the other convex (for simi-
lar observations regarding other assemblages see
Tsoraki 2008.91 for Makriyalos, and Stroulia 2018.
209 for Alepotrypa). This could indicate pairing of
the tool with different passive implements from
each side, or even an active function of the tool with
the one use-surface and a passive function with the
other. Unfortunately, the latter cannot be clarified
due to the fragmented state of the available sam-
ples. The temporal dimension of the function of the
two use-surfaces of a single tool is also open to que-
stion: they could represent parallel uses of the tool
or successive stages of the artefact’s life-cycle. Ano-
ther observation is that in some cases different use-
surfaces of the same tool present different use-wear:
one surface is smooth and polished, while the other
one is lacking polish and has a rougher texture (see
Tsoraki 2008.91 and Stroulia 2010.41 for similar
notes on the Makriyalos and Franchthi assemblages,
respectively). This could suggest their use in relation
to different materials or even the same one, but at
different stages of its processing (see Stewart 1942,
as referenced in Schroth 1996.58, and for a similar
proposition for the material from Sitagroi, Biskow-
ski as cited in Elster 2003.186).
Management practices
Like many other types of implements, grinding tools
may undergo a series of maintenance activities to
enhance their functionality, such as re-pecking of
their use-surface. Despite a reduction in the tool’s
life-duration through this process, the tool gains a
renewed abrasive texture, increasing its efficiency
(Bartlett 1933.4; Hersh 1981.470; Wright 1993.
352). This was definitely a process that was per-
Fig. 10. Handstone used in a rectilinear, reciprocal motion (drawing on the right). In the upward
movement, due to a mild tilting of the tool, only the lateral distal part of its use-surface is in contact
with the surface of the quern, resulting in the formation of an elongated facet along its one long side,
visible in plan view (right). On the left, fragment of a handstone from Kleitos I with this distinct char-
acteristic (drawing and photographs by the author).
Danai Chondrou
300
formed periodically in Kleitos, as evidenced by the
numerous grinding implements with traces of peck-
ing on their use-surfaces, more or less obliterated by
subsequent use-wear. In the Iron Age site Almizara-
que, in the Iberian Peninsula (Risch 2008.14–15), it
has been observed that the renewal of the rough-
ness of the use-surface through percussion would
only be performed on querns, while the handstones
would still be used even after the elimination of their
irregularities through the gradual smoothing and
levelling caused by the cumulative use-wear. How-
ever, this is definitely not the case in Kleitos. Not
only do all handstones have signs of pecking, but
there is also a unique example of a handstone with
an incomplete rejuvenation of its use-surface (Fig.
11) offering a clear indication of the in situ perfor-
mance of such activities. Ethnographic examples
show that surface rejuvenation can be a time-con-
suming process (see Hamon, Le Gall 2013.112–
113). The frequency of application could vary from
a few days to several weeks (e.g., Robitaille 2016.
443, seven to ten days; Shoemaker et al. 2017.426,
one to three weeks), depending on a number of fac-
tors, such as the hardness and durability of the raw
material of grinding tools, frequency and mode of
use (Shoemaker et al. 2017.426).
As noted above, due to the location of the Kleitos
settlements inside the alluvial basin of Kitrini Limni,
all the necessary pieces of raw material would have
to be sought and transferred (as complete or incom-
plete artefacts) from areas outside its boundaries, at
a distance greater (possibly by far) than 10km. One
would expect that the lack of
directly accessible sources of
material would lead to: (a)
the application of wear-man-
agement strategies; (b) syste-
matic practices for prolonging
the tools’ functionality; (c)
high rates of worn-out tools
due to their extensive use.
However, the overall picture
does not meet expectations.
With the exception of rejuve-
nation, there are very low ra-
tes of post-manufacture tech-
nical treatment of grinding
equipment, either in relation
to their initial function or be-
yond that. There are, for exam-
ple, cases of fragmented que-
rns that have been reshaped
into handstones or of broken
handstones subjected to limited reshaping (usually
at the edges of the fractured surfaces) in order to
continue to be functional. However, such cases of
re-designing grinding tools with the aim of reusing
them in the same or different context are extremely
limited (less than 2% in Kleitos I and completely ab-
sent from Kleitos II), and certainly do not represent
the norm in the management practices of grinding
equipment in the Neolithic Kleitos.
Moreover, there is an impressively limited presence
of exhausted tools: only 5% of the milling tools per
site can be described as (nearly) exhausted (handsto-
nes and querns almost equally represented), while
no such find was detected in the area between the
two settlements. Judging from our data, there is no
visible correlation between the degree of use of the
tools and the degree of work invested in their manu-
facture. However, there seems to be a link with the
raw material of the tools, since those made of micro-
conglomerate and gneiss have an average thickness
smaller than the tools made of other raw materials,
which could support their more extensive or inten-
sive use, if not related to the dimensions of the ori-
ginal raw material pieces used. Could the relative
absence of worn-out grinding tools be attributed to
different treatments, such as different discard pat-
terns? The available evidence does not support such
a hypothesis. First of all, the full-scale archaeological
research in Kleitos allows clear visibility throughout
the extent of the residential area. Secondly, the same
absence is noted in both settlements, a fact that re-
inforces the validity of the observation. After all,
Fig. 11. A type 2 handstone from Kleitos I with unfinished rejuvenation.
More than a quarter of its use-surface (area marked in red frame) re-
mains slightly elevated without having received dense re-pecking like the
rest.
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
301
there is no evidence for the massive extraction of
anthropogenic material beyond the limits of the two
sites, and the archaeological material in the exposed
area between them is particularly limited.
It should be stressed that grinding tools, and in par-
ticular querns, have potentially long life spans that
can reach up to several decades, as evidenced by the
ethnographic record (see Horsfall 1987.342–343;
David 1998.55; Nixon-Darcus 2014.97, 105). In the
case of Kleitos, it seems that the maximization of
the exploitation of grinding tools was not a primary
consideration of the inhabitants who had the ten-
dency not to use their grinding tools until the point
of exhaustion.
Spatial analysis
As previously mentioned, Kleitos I yielded the largest
amount of grinding implements among the three
spatial units, i.e. the two settlements and the area
between them (Tab. 1), an observation consistent
with the general distribution of the whole ground
stone tool assemblage (Chondrou 2018). The over-
all distribution of the findings covers the entire re-
sidential area of the two settlements, with the over-
whelming majority (84%) linked to external areas.
This wide dispersal is the result of a palimpsest of
successive and superimposed production and dis-
card activities, and factors resulting in a random ma-
terial displacement. No differentiation is detected
according to the degree of work invested in the tool
manufacture or according to different tool-types. The
small group of type 2 and 3 tools follows the distri-
bution of the type 1 majority. On the other hand,
the material from the area between the two settle-
ments is minimal, and based on its state of preser-
vation resembles mostly refuse deposits.
Only 55 grinding tools (47 in Kleitos I and eight in
Kleitos II) are associated with the interior of built
domestic space (Tab. 2). Their distribution in Klei-
tos I is highly inhomogeneous, ranging from zero to
ten specimens per dwelling. In Kleitos II it appears
more uniform, although grinding tools are present
in only 1/3 of the building phases (i.e. three out of
nine). All grinding tools originating from building
interiors are in a fragmented state of preservation,
a fact that significantly hinders the complete asses-
sment of domestic grinding equipment and the in-
vestigation of possible patterns in morphometric dif-
ferentiation. However, it can be easily observed that
almost all of the querns are quite thick (7.25cm ave-
rage thickness), and thus have long remaining use-
lives. Comparing the grinding implements from Klei-
tos I and Kleitos II buildings (taking into account
passive, active and indeterminate ones), a divergence
is detected. As a general pattern, Kleitos I dwellings
tend to have at least two grinding pairs in their in-
teriors (the inventories from five building phases
meet this condition), while Kleitos II dwellings one
quern and one or two handstones. Based on ethno-
graphic examples that demonstrate the relationship
between the number of querns and number of hou-
sehold members preparing the meals (e.g., David
1998.23), it would be tempting to see these quanti-
tative variations in household equipment as a reflec-
tion of differences in the size of household groups
of Kleitos I and Kleitos II. This assumption may be
supported by the fact that the majority of Kleitos II
dwellings are significantly smaller in size compared
to their counterparts in Kleitos I. There are never-
theless several other ethnographic studies that illu-
strate differences in household grinding tools for
other reasons, such as economic, social, personal,
etc. (e.g., Arthur 2014; Robitaille 2016). Interest-
ingly, the grinding pairs found in Kleitos II houses
consist of tools made of the same rock type, while
the third implement – when present – is of different
material. Similarly, in all but one Kleitos I dwellings
with more than two grinding tools, two or even
three different rock types are represented. In a few
cases different tool types or tools of different metri-
cal groups are present. This diversity suggests a pos-
sible complementary role for at least some of these
tools, being reserved for different stages of the same
grinding process (e.g., coarse/fine grinding) or for
the processing of different products.
So far no stable features associated with grinding ac-
tivities have been identified: no fixed equipment, no
clay ‘bins’ that could function as specialized places
for grinding. Although rectangular clay constructions
have been found in the interior of some dwellings,
resembling clay features with rims delimiting milling
areas found elsewhere in Eastern Europe (e.g., Bur-
do et al. 2013.101, 103; Kalchev 2013), there were
no associations with grinding implements and the
analysed archaeobotanical data do not support a re-
levant use (Stylianakou, pers. com.). However, in
two cases, one in an open area in Kleitos I and the
other inside or directly outside a dwelling in Kleitos
II, grinding tools were found associated with clay
structures in such a way that they might initially
have been located inside or on top of them.
In the absence of significant indications of the exis-
tence of stable grinding tools, one can imagine the
Danai Chondrou
302
grinding implements of Kleitos, generally limited in
size and weight, to have been carried easily from
one place to another, or even from interior to exte-
rior areas, domestic or communal. Seasonal or other
types of changes in workspaces would therefore be
possible by moving the necessary equipment and
changing its context of function, when required,
from private to more open (for ethnographic exam-
ples, see Roux 1985; Cutting 2006; Hamon, Le Gall
2013). Nevertheless, there are clear indications that
grinding activities were closely connected to the do-
mestic space. Nowhere in Kleitos do we come across
concentrations of grinding tools in external areas
lacking an association with specific buildings. In-
stead, the findspots of grinding implements that
seem to reflect contexts of use rather than contexts
of disposal activities are located inside dwellings or
outside, but in their immediate periphery. The latter,
according to the spatial analysis of all ground stone
categories, represents an extension of the built space
of the household, able to accommodate a variety of
activities. Grinding was certainly one of these, as il-
lustrated by the frequent finding of milling tools out-
side but near the built boundaries of the dwellings,
in a few cases in places with additional formations,
such as fence-partitions and plastered floors.
Interestingly there is a general lack of proximity be-
tween grinding stones and thermal/cooking structu-
res, both in exterior and interior areas. In fact, build-
ing interior zones associated with clay structures –
systematically located in Kleitos I dwellings along
the northern wall, rarely along part of the western
one as well – are often (almost) empty of grinding
implements and other types of ground stone tools.
Instead, in a few secure cases, the grinding imple-
ments were found in very close association with ves-
sels. If not a reflection of equipment in storage, this
could suggest grinding in direct association with the
storage locus of the material to be ground or of the
resulting product of the grind-
ing activity. The evidence from
Kleitos is in high contrast to
the general pattern of domes-
tic activities clustered around
the hearth or oven observed in
numerous Neolithic sites in the
Balkan area (Hodder 1990.59;
Souvatzi 2013.55, and for va-
rious examples see also Bailey
2000; Todorova 1978.52; Trin-
gham 1971.112–113; Trin-
gham et al. 1985.431). There-
fore, it is quite likely that, in
the case of Kleitos, grinding activity involving food-
stuff was, as a rule, spatially – perhaps also tempo-
rally – separated from cooking.
Deposition practices
Grinding tools, among other artefacts, that resem-
ble refuse can be detected all over the settlement
grounds, with higher frequencies mostly, but not ex-
clusively, in areas in the peripheral unstructured
zone of the settlement, around the built nucleus (es-
pecially in Kleitos I). These artefacts, secondarily dis-
posed of in these marginal areas, bear signs of diffe-
rent pre-depositional processes, such as burning or
multi-fracturing, that suggest varied origins. They
could be the remains of maintenance activities exe-
cuted in the domestic areas of the settlement, but
possibly of other kinds of activities as well.
In Kleitos I, where the tool assemblage is more abun-
dant and allows for a better analysis, neither the di-
tches surrounding the settlement, nor the pits on
settlement grounds appear to be primarily contexts
of refuse disposal. In fact, variations in their con-
tents and patterns in their filling have been identi-
fied that point to deliberate and selective actions of
deposition. Grinding tools constitute the predomi-
nant ground stone tool component of Kleitos I pits,
and the second most common – after edge tools (i.e.
axes, adzes, chisels) – in ditches. A closer look sug-
gests a strong association of querns with pit infills.
With one exception all grinding tools inside pits in
Kleitos I are querns (Fig. 12). The same does not
apply in the case of ditches, where querns and hand-
stones appear in equal numbers. Moreover, grinding
tools are further associated with specific types of pits:
in Kleitos I, where the practice of opening pits with-
in area of the destroyed debris of buildings is recur-
rent, whenever these pits contain ground stone tools,
grinding tools are a constant find. Finally, looking
Fig. 12. Two examples of querns intentionally deposited in pits (both
cases from Kleitos I).
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
303
exclusively at the finds disposed of intact in such
contexts (pits and ditches), although only four in
number, they are all querns. Owing to their volume
these artefacts would have long remaining use-lives
and would probably be considered valuable. Besides,
given the fact that large pieces of raw material were
not readily available, but brought into the settlement
from further away, the manufactured items incorpo-
rated, by definition, a remarkable amount of labour
for their production.
Aside from the few intact specimens, the rule seems
to be that grinding implements are deposited frag-
mented, in both pits and ditches. Some examples
raise suspicions of deliberate destruction, either due
to irregular breakage patterns or due to visible per-
cussion marks that are not related to any kind of
maintenance episode, i.e. reshaping or repair of the
implement (Chondrou 2018).
The above observations suggest a patterned behav-
iour regarding the ways ditches and pits were filled.
There seems to be not only a separation of the two
complementary members of the grinding pair at the
time of deposition (passive/quern and active/hand-
stone), but also a selective disposal of a specific tool
type in a particular context. Thus, the presence of
only one of the two members of the grinding pair in
the context of deliberate disposal/deposition does
not appear in the case of Kleitos to reflect a pars pro
toto signification mechanism, as it has been argued
for other European Neolithic assemblages (see Graefe
2009.75), where cases of intentional deposition of
grinding tools, often as hoards, are well document-
ed (see Hamon 2008b; 2008c; Bene∏ et al. 2015).
The choice to include only one of the two coupled
implements in specific deposits reveals their differ-
entiated significance rather than a ‘connotative’ use
of either one. Ethnographic data support such a sym-
bolic ‘autonomy’ of the members of the grinding
pair and the active relationship between them (e.g.,
Corbeil 1985 and Parsons 1970, as cited in Lidström
Holmberg 1998.125; moreover, in several Minyanka
villages in Mali the handstone symbolizes the child
and the quern the woman, Hamon, Le Gall 2011.27).
Examining the state of preservation in relation to
the context indicates another pattern: grinding tools
originating from domestic areas in both settlements
are completely fragmented, often showing signs of
multiple breakages, which cannot be attributed to
damage from the destruction of the building or to
intense burning and erosion. And while in a few
cases conjoining fragments are found, no grinding
implement could be fully restored (Chondrou 2018.
395–397). In contrast, the edge-tools from domestic
contexts are systematically found intact. This obser-
vation should be put in the general context of burn-
ed houses. All but one separate building phase in
Kleitos I and several in Kleitos II were destroyed by
fire. The houses were not all contemporaneous and
there are no indications of a generalized fire that de-
stroyed all or part of the settlement at once (Ziota
2014a.326). Instead, the dwellings seem to have
been destroyed by fire in separate events. Regarding
the house inventories, although all separate catego-
ries of finds have not yet been studied, there is the
general impression of a low frequency of small finds
that contrasts with the significant size of the houses
themselves. This could be an indication of a syste-
matic, at least partial, evacuation and abandonment
of houses prior to their destruction by fire. Few ex-
ceptions are detected. One of them, the earliest of
the three phases of Building 3 in Kleitos II, stands
out from the rest for its state of preservation, its rich
inventory and the presence of a significant amount
of stored products, evidence that suggest it was de-
stroyed by fire in the context of an accident, without
the inhabitants having the opportunity to remove
the building’s contents (Ziota 2014b.59–60).
Two cases of grinding implements buried under ther-
mal structures may constitute a special type of depo-
sition. Examples of tools incorporated in built fea-
tures in such a way that they form part of the struc-
ture’s floor or its substructure are known from other
Greek Neolithic sites (e.g., Middle Neolithic hearth
in Servia site, Mould et al. 2000.146). In Kleitos,
however, the tools are buried underneath the clay
features, with no visible structural correlation. In
one of the cases a handstone was broken (intentio-
nally?) into at least five pieces, three of which were
buried close to each other and underneath a clay
structure. A similar find is reported from the Neoli-
thic stratum in Franchthi cave: the pieces of an inten-
tionally broken quern were buried underneath a
‘built fireplace’ (Stroulia 2010.51–52).
To sum up, intact and broken grinding tools are
systematically detected in contexts unrelated to
their original function (e.g., pits and ditches). Even
those found in domestic contexts exhibit a state of
preservation that cannot be explained in functional
terms. The detection of recurrent patterns points to
the existence of complex processes and actions that
have influenced the formation of the archaeological
archive. Breakage and fire seem to play an active
role in these practices, in the context of which every-
Danai Chondrou
304
day objects such as millstones are used, among other
things, in ways that convey meaning. The intentio-
nal breakage of tools is certainly not a new concept.
The deliberate destruction of stone tools has been
supported in other cases as well: in Late Neolithic
Toumba Kremasti, a site in close proximity to Kleitos
(Chondrou 2011; Stroulia, Chondrou 2013; Strou-
lia 2014) where huge quantities of anthropogenic
material were found discarded in pits around the set-
tlement, in the also neighbouring Late Neolithic site
of Megalo Nisi Galanis (Stroulia 2005.576), in Late
Neolithic Makriyalos (Tsoraki 2008.106–108, 122–
125), in Middle/Late Neolithic Avgi (Bekiaris 2020)
and in Late Neolithic Dispilio (Ninou 2006.106), to
name but a few examples regarding sites located in
northern Greece. In the Balkans, John Chapman
(2000a; 2000b) reports numerous cases where ar-
chaeological data seem to imply the practice of deli-
berate destruction. Interestingly enough he, too, ob-
serves a differentiated treatment of grinding tools
and edge tools (Chapman 2000c.93–94).
Discussion
The analysis of the grinding tool assemblages from
Kleitos I and Kleitos II allowed a detailed examina-
tion of these artefacts’ life-cycles and a glimpse into
various social, economic, cultural as well as symbol-
ic aspects of technology in the two nearby Neolithic
settlements.
Kleitos grinding tools were the outcome of a non-
standardized production based on the exploitation
of selected not readily accessible raw material sour-
ces, and on generally low rates of work investment.
In both settlements the overall morphometrical va-
riability and diverse manufacturing sequences ob-
served seem to be the combined result of the varied
morphology of the original boulders and of person-
al choices. The evidence suggests the off-site produ-
ction of tools, but on-site maintenance and use.
As far as the marked discrepancy in the exploitation
of specific raw materials for the manufacture of
grinding implements between the two sites, there
are various possible interpretations. One is that the
two settlements applied a differentiated model of
exploitation of the surrounding sources. An over-
view of the raw material acquisition for all Kleitos
ground stone tool categories reveals a general pat-
tern of divergence: some raw materials frequently
found in one settlement are limited or completely
absent in the other. The overall picture shows that
the two settlements were to some extent exploiting
different areas of their landscape (Chondrou 2018).
This change in the selected raw materials may, in
fact, attest to a diversified socio-economic mecha-
nism employed in the utilization of the natural sphere
and the production of the material culture.
On the other hand, the change in the lithic materi-
al could reflect function-related parameters (see Pro-
copiou 2014.239 for a similar proposition for the
change in the raw material used for grinding tools
in Neopalatial Crete). It has been shown experimen-
tally that microconglomerate material is an unsuit-
able choice for a ‘fine-flour oriented’ production
(Chondrou et al. 2018), thus a change to gneiss
might relate to the different desired characteristics
of the ground product.
In Kleitos, grinding was one of the activities orga-
nized at the household level rather than a commu-
nal one. Even though the portable nature of the
grinding equipment would permit a shift in their
context of action, the analysis showed a close con-
nection with the domestic space. Yet, there seems to
be a clear spatial separation of grinding and cooking
activities: grinding tools are mostly located in zones
of the built and non-built domestic space lacking
thermal structures.
As an integral and valuable part of the means of
production of Kleitos society, the grinding imple-
ments do not seem to receive the expected manip-
ulation. Being artefacts with potentially long use-
lives, made of raw materials with an off-site prove-
nance, one would anticipate extensive curation. Yet
the rates of redesigned, reused and recycled tools
are low, the same as the rates of exhausted imple-
ments. Instead, there are high fragmentation rates
of bulky artefacts with breakage patterns that do not
relate to extensive use or accidental wear. In the
intra-household inventories, broken grinding imple-
ments repeatedly missing their conjoining parts con-
trast to the presence of complete edge-tools, adding
to the idea of deliberate destruction of the dwellings
and a process of selective and intentional decommis-
sioning of their means of production. Perhaps it is
the close association of grinding tools to the entity
of the ‘house’ and their importance to the survival
and reproduction of the ‘household’ and, by exten-
sion, of the whole community, that strengthens their
symbolic value and dictates their special treatment
in the context of out of the ordinary events. As Ka-
therine I. Wright (2014) notes, such acts of delibe-
rate destruction of valuable household property
might well attest to the existence of cultural norms
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
305
prohibiting the transmission of wealth from one ge-
neration to the next, thus contributing to the reinfor-
cement of collective/communal identities.
Thus, the Kleitos grinding tool assemblage consti-
tutes an example of how intrinsic and extrinsic val-
ues may be manifested in the material culture. The
grinding tools made from raw materials that are a
product of systematic collection and transport, em-
powered through their integral role in time-consum-
ing daily practices at the heart of the domestic life
(see Brück 2001; 2006a; 2006b), are variously mani-
pulated. They rarely reach the end of their use-lives
through long-term usage, and instead they are often
employed in coded actions with multiple possible
symbolic connotations. Although the borderline be-
tween secular and ritual contexts is not always clear,
grinding implements certainly seem to be function-
ing in both.
This research was part of my PhD thesis funded by the Onassis Foundation, the Leventis Foundation and the Ari-
stotle University of Thessaloniki. Also, part of the work published here has been conducted in the context of the
PLANTCULT project funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020
Research and Innovation Program (Grant Agreement No 682529). I am grateful to my supervisor Professor S. M.
Valamoti, as well as Professors H. Procopiou and L. Papadopoulou, for their help and support. I would also like
to thank the excavators of the site Christina Ziota and Areti Hondroyianni-Metoki for generously granting me
permission to study the Kleitos ground stone tool assemblage. Special gratitude goes to Haris Megas for his as-
sistance with the editing of the text and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an
earlier version of this manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Adams J. L. 1988. Use-wear analyses on manos and hide-
processing stones. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3):
307–315. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346988791974394
1993. Toward understanding the technological develop-
ment of manos and metates. KIVA 58(3): 331–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00231940.1993.11758213
1999. Refocusing the role of food-grinding tools as cor-
relates for subsistence strategies in the U.S. Southwest.
American Antiquity 64: 475–498.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2694147
2002a. Ground stone analysis: A technological ap-
proach. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.
2002b. Mechanisms of wear on ground stone surfaces.
In H. Procopiou, R. Treuil (eds.), Moudre et broyer:
L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mou-
ture et de broyage dans la Préhistoire et l’Antiquité.
I. Méthodes. Actes de la table ronde internationale,
Clermont-Ferrand. 30 nov. – 2 déc. 1995. Editions du
CTHS. Paris: 57–68.
Albert R. M., Portillo M. 2005. Plant uses in different
Bronze and Iron Age settlements from the Nuoro pro-
vince (Sardinia). The results of phytolith analyses from
several ceramic fragments and grinding stones. Anejos
de Complutum 10: 109–119. https://revistas.ucm.es/in
dex.php/CMPL/article/view/CMPL0505220109A
Alisøy H. A. 2002a. Consumption of ground stone tools at
Stavroupoli. In D. Grammenos, S. Kotsos (eds.), Sostikes
anaskafes sto Neolithiko oikismo Stavroupolis Thessalo-
nikis. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of north-
ern Greece. Thessaloniki: 561–608.
2002b. Ground stone tools from Mesimeriani Toumba.
In D. Grammenos, S. Kotsos (eds.), Anaskafi ston Pro-
istoriko oikismo »Mesimeriani Toumba« Trilofou N.
Thessalonikis. Anaskafikes periodoi 1992, 1994–1996,
2000, 2001. Publications of the Archaeological Institute
of northern Greece. Thessaloniki: 277–314.
Andreou S., Fotiadis M., and Kotsakis K. 1996. Review of
Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of
northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100
(3): 537–597. https://www.jstor.org/stable/507028
Arthur J. W. 2014. Culinary crafts and foods in southwest-
ern Ethiopia: An ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo
groundstones and pottery. African Archaeological Re-
view 31(2): 131–168.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43916695
References
∴
Danai Chondrou
306
Aschmann H. 1949. A metate maker of Baja, California.
American Anthropologist, New Series 51(4): 682–686.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1949.51.4.02a00350
Bailey D. W. 2000. Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, incor-
poration and identity. Routledge. London.
Bartlett K. 1933. Pueblo milling stones of the Flagstaff
Region and their relation to others in the Southwest.
Museum of northern Arizona Bulletin No.3. Museum of
northern Arizona. Flagstaff.
Baudais D., Lundström-Baudais K. 2002. Enquête ethno-
archéologique dans un village du nord-ouest du Népal:
Les instruments de mouture et de broyage. In H. Proco-
piou, R. Treuil (eds.), Moudre et broyer: L’interprétation
fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mouture et de broyage
dans la Préhistoire et l’Antiquité. I. Méthodes. Actes de
la table ronde internationale, Clermont-Ferrand. 30
nov. – 2 déc. 1995. Editions du CTHS. Paris: 155–180.
de Beaune S. A. 1989. Essai d’une classification typolo-
gique des galets et plaquettes utilisés au Paléolithique.
Gallia Préhistoire 31: 27–64.
https://doi.org/10.3406/galip.1989.2264
2004. The invention of technology-prehistory and cog-
nition. Current Anthropology 45(2): 139–162.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/381045
Bekiaris T. 2007. Tripta ergaleia apo to Neolithiko oik-
ismo tis Makris Evrou. MA thesis. Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki. (in Greek)
2020. Ground stone technology in context: consumption
of grinding tools and social practice at Neolithic Avgi,
Northwestern Greece. Journal of Lithic Studies 7: 1–24.
(On line edition) https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.3078
Bene∏ J., Vondrovský V., πída P., Divi∏ová M., Kova≠iková
L., Kovárník J., and Vavre≠ka P. 2015. The rare deposition
of Neolithic (SBK) grinding tools and Longhouse 8 from
Hrdlovka (Czech Republic): Analysis and 3D virtual recon-
struction. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica – Natural
Sciences in Archaeology IANSA 6(2): 161–179.
Bofill M. 2014. Inicio y consolidación de las prácticas
agrícolas durante el neolítico en el levante mediterrá-
neo (septentrional y central): el proceso de molienda y
trituración a partir del análisis funcional del instrumen-
tal macrolítico. PhD dissertation. Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona. Barcelona.
Bofill M., Portillo M., Molist, M., and Albert R. M. 2014.
Processing activities during the Levantine Neolithic and
Early Bronze Ages using phytolith and use-wear analyses
of grinding stone tools. In P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski,
R. Koliński, D. Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak, and Z. Wygnańska
(eds.), Proceedings of the VIII International Conferen-
ce on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 Ap-
ril – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw. Vol. 2. Harrasso-
witz Verlag. Wiesbaden: 657–666.
Bofill M., Chondrou D., Palomo A., Procopiou H., and Va-
lamoti S. M. 2020. Processing plants for food: Experimen-
tal grinding within the ERC-project PLANTCULT. Journal
of Lithic Studies 7: 1–26. (On line edition)
https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.3079 
Brück J. 2001. Houses, bodies, pots, quern stones: mean-
ing and metaphor in the English Later Bronze Age. In D.
Gheorghiu (ed.), Material, virtual and temporal compo-
sitions: on the relationship between objects. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 953. Archaeopress. Oxford.
2006a. Fragmentation, personhood and the social con-
struction of technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age
Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(2): 297–
315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774306000187
2006b. Death, exchange and reproduction in the British
Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1):
73–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957107077707
Burdo N., Videiko M., Chapman J., and Gaydarska B.
2013. Houses in the Archaeology of the Tripillia-Cucuteni
Groups. In D. Hofmann, J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the
Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism, Architecture and
Practice. Springer. New York: 95–115.
Chapman J. C. 2000a. Pit-digging and structured deposi-
tion in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 66: 61–87.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00001778
2000b. “Rubbish-dumps” or “places of deposition”? Neo-
lithic and Copper Age settlements in Central and East-
ern Europe. In A. Richie (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its
European context. McDonald Institute Monographs.
Cambridge: 347–362.
2000c. Fragmentation in archaeology: People, pla-
ces, and broken objects in the prehistory of South-
Eastern Europe. Routledge. London and New York.
Chondrou D. 2011. Tripta ergaleia apo ti Neolithiki the-
si tis Toumbas Kremastis Kiladas. MA thesis. Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki. (in Greek)
2018. I tripti lithotehnia apo tous proistorikous oik-
ismous Kleitos I kai Kleitos II tis lekanis tis Kitrinis
Limnis Kozanis. PhD dissertation, Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki. (in Greek)
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
307
Chondrou D., Valamoti S. M., Procopiou H., and Papado-
poulou L. 2018. Grinding cereals and pulses in the Neo-
lithic site of Kleitos: an experimental investigation of mi-
croconglomerate grinding equipment, final products and
use wear. Journal of Greek Archaeology 3: 23–45.
Chondrou D., Bofill M., Procopiou H., Vargiolu R., Zahou-
ani H., Bekiaris T., Ninou I., Kasapidou G., McNamee C.,
Tsartsidou G., and Valamoti S. M. 2019. Grinding practi-
ces in prehistoric Northern Greece: integrating archaeo-
logical and experimental data. Paper presented at the
3rd AGSTR Conference. Copenhagen.
Cutting M. 2006. More than one way to study a building:
Approaches to prehistoric household and settlement
space. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(3): 225–246.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2006.00259.x
David N. 1998. The ethnoarchaeology of grinding at Su-
kur, Adamawa state, Nigeria. African review 15(1): 13–
63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022270208256.
Deal K. 2012. Fire effects on flaked stone, ground stone,
and other stone artifacts. In K. C. Ryan, A. T. Jones, C. L.
Koerner, and K. M. Lee (eds.), Wildland fire in ecosys-
tems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archae-
ology. Rainbow Series, USDA Forest Service. Rocky Moun-
tain Research Station. Fort Collins: 97–111.
Delgado-Raack S. 2008. Prácticas económicas y gestión
social de recursos (macro)líticos en la Prehistoria re-
ciente (III–I milenios AC) del Mediterráneo Occiden-
tal. PhD dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Barcelona.
Delgado-Raack S., Risch R. 2009. Towards a systematic
analysis of grain processing technologies. In M. de Araú-
jo Igreja, I. Clemente Conte (eds.), Recent functional stu-
dies on non-flint stone tools: Methodological improve-
ments and archaeological inferences. Proceedings of the
Workshop. LAMPEA 23–25 May 2008, Laboratoire Médi-
terranéen de Préhistoire Europe-Afrique. Lisboa.
http://www.workshop-traceologia-lisboa2008.com
Delgado-Raack S., Gómez-Gras D., and Risch R. 2009. The
mechanical properties of macrolithic artifacts: A methodo-
logical background for functional analysis. Journal of
Archaeological Science 36(9): 1823–1831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.03.033
Del Pilar Babot M., Apella M. C. 2003. Maize and bone.
Residues of grinding in northwestern Argentina. Archaeo-
metry 45: 121–132.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4754.00099
Dubreuil L. 2002. Etude fonctionnelle des outils de bro-
yage natoufiens: nouvelles perspectives sur l’emergence
de l’agriculture au Proche-Orient. PhD dissertation. Uni-
versité de Bordeaux 1. Bordeaux.
2004. Long-term trends in natufian subsistence: A use-
wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archa-
eological Science 31: 1613–1629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.04.003
2009. Functional analysis of grinding tools from the
natufian site of Mallaha: Toward an understanding of
assemblage evolution in the Levant. The Arkeotek Jour-
nal 3(1). http://www.thearkeotekjournal.org/tdm/Ar
keotek/fr/archives/2009/1Dubreuil.xml
Elster E. S. 2003. Grindstones, polished edge-tools, and
other stone artifacts. In E. S. Elster, C. Renfrew (eds.),
Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in northeast Greece,
1968–1970, vol. 2: The Final Report (Monumenta Archa-
eologica 20). Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. Los
Angeles: 175–195.
Fotiadis M. 1988. Kitrini Limni, Nomou Kozanis, 1987.
Proïstoriki Erevna. To Archaeologiko Ergo sti Makedonia
kai Thraki 1: 51–61. (in Greek)
Fotiadis M., Hondroyianni-Metoki A. 1997. Kitrini Limni:
Diachroniki sinopsi, radiochronologiseis, kai i anaskafi
tou 1993. To Archaeologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai
Thraki 7: 19–31. (in Greek)
Gast M. 1968. Alimentation des populations de l’Ahaggar:
étude ethnographique. Arts et métiers graphiques. Paris.
Gelbert A. 2005. Evolution du matériel de broyage des Dii
de Djaba (Nord-Cameroun) durant les deux derniers siè-
cles. Etudes ethno-archéologique et archéologique. In C.
Raimond, E. Garine, and O. Langlois (eds.), Ressources
vivrières et choix alimentaires dans le bassin du lac
Tchad. IRD-Prodig, coll. Colloques et séminaires. Paris:
319–347.
Gould R. 1968. Living Archaeology: the Ngaratatjara of
Western Australia. Southwestern Journal of Anthropo-
logy 24(2): 101–122. www.jstor.org/stable/3629417
Graefe J. 2009. Mahlsteine: Funktion, Fertigung und Ver-
breitung. Archäologische Informationen 32(1–2): 75–
81. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-ai-102573
Hamon C. 2008a. Functional analysis of stone grinding
and polishing tools from the earliest Neolithic of north-
western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 35
(6): 1502–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.10.017
2008b. Meules rubanées, meules blicquiennes: nouvel-
les réflexions sur les dépôts du Hainaut (Belgique). In
L. Burnez-Lanotte, M. Ilett, and P. Allard (eds.), Fin des
Danai Chondrou
308
traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bas-
sin parisien et de la Belgique (5100–4700 av. J.C.).
Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin. Société
Préhistorique française. Paris: 197–208.
2008c. The symbolic value of grindingstones hoards:
Technical properties of Neolithic examples. In C. Ham-
on, B. Quilliec (eds.), Hoards from the Neolithic to the
Metal Ages. Technical and codified practices. British
Archaeological Reports IS 1758. Archaeopress. Oxford:
19–28.
Hamon C., Le Gall V. 2011. Les meules en pays Minyanka
(Mali): étude des carrières et techniques de production
actuelles. In D. Williams, D. Peacock (eds.), Bread for
the people. The archaeology of mills and milling. Proce-
edings of a colloquium held in the British School at
Rome 4th – 7th November 2009. British Archaeological
Reports IS 2274. Archaeopress. Oxford: 19–28.
2013. Millet and sauce: The uses and functions of querns
among the Minyanka (Mali). Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 32(1): 109–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.12.002
Hamon C., Emery-Barbier A., and Messager E. 2011. Quel-
le fonction pour les meules du Néolithique ancien de la
moitié Nord de la France? Apports et limites de l’analyse
phytolithique. Revue archéologique de Picardie 28: 515–
521. https://doi.org/10.3406/pica.2011.3355
Hayden B. 1987. Traditional metate manufacturing in
Guatemala using chipped stone tools. In B. Hayden (ed.),
Lithic studies among the contemporary Highland Maya.
University of Arizona Press. Tucson: 9–119.
Hersh T. 1981. Grinding stones and food processing
techniques of the Neolithic societies of Turkey and Gre-
ece. PhD dissertation. Columbia University. New York.
Hodder I. 1990. The domestication of Europe: Structure
and contingency in neolithic societies. Blackwell. Ox-
ford, UK.
Hondroyianni-Metoki A. 2011. Kleitos 2009. I anaskafi sta
anatolika oria tou Neolithikou oikismou »Kleitos 1« kai
ston oikismo »Kleitos 2«. To Archaeologiko Ergo stin Ano
Makedonía 1(2009): 231–244. (in Greek)
Horsfall G. A. 1987. Design Theory and Grinding Stones.
In B. Hayden (ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contempo-
rary Highland Maya. The University of Arizona Press. Tu-
cson: 332–377.
Kalchev P. 2013. An early Neolithic two-level building
at Tell Okrazhna bolnitsa in Stara Zagora. Municipality
of Stara Zagora. Stara Zagora.
Karamitrou-Mentesidi G. 1987. Proistorikoi oikismoi Kitri-
nis Limnis (Saringiol) Kozanis. In S. Drougou, C. Saatso-
glou-Paliadeli, and M. Tiverios (eds.), Amitos. Timitikos
tomos yia ton kathiyiti Manoli Androniko, vol. 1. Thes-
saloniki: 391–416. (in Greek)
Lidström Holmberg C. 2004. Saddle querns and gendered
dynamics of the Early Neolithic in Mid Central Sweden.
In H. Knutsson (ed.), Coast to Coast, arrival: Results and
reflections. Proceedings of the final Coast to Coast Con-
ference 1–5. Uppsala Universitet. Uppsala: 199–231.
Liu L., Field J., Fullagar R., Bestel S., Chen X., and Ma X.
2010. What did grinding stones grind? New light on early
Neolithic subsistence economy in the Middle Yellow River
Valley, China. Antiquity 84(325): 816–833.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00100249
Menasanch M., Risch R., and Soldevilla J. A. 2002. Las tec-
nologias del procesado de cereal en el sudeste de la pen-
insula iberica durante el III y el II milenio A. N.E. In H.
Procopiou, R. Treuil (eds.), Moudre et broyer: L’interpré-
tation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mouture et de bro-
yage dans la Préhistoire et l’Antiquité. I. Méthodes. Actes
de la table ronde internationale, Clermont-Ferrand. 30
nov. – 2 déc. 1995. Editions du CTHS. Paris: 81–110.
Mould C. A., Ridley C., and Wardle K. A. 2000. The small
finds: Stone. In C. Ridley, K. A. Wardle, and C. A. Mould
(eds.), Servia I: Anglo-Hellenic Rescue Excavations
1971–1973 (BSA Supplement 32). The British School at
Athens. London: 112–190.
Moundrea-Agrafioti A. 2007. Líthina ergalía. In C. Doumas
(ed.), Akrotíri Thíras Ditikí Ikía: trápezes, líthina, me-
tállina, pikíla. Athens Archaeological Society. Athens: 73–
112.
Nelson M. C., Lippmeier H. 1993. Grinding-tool design as
conditioned by land-use pattern. American Antiquity 58
(2): 286–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/281971
Nierlé M. C. 1983. Mureybet et Cheik Hassan (Syrie): Outil-
lage de mouture et de broyage (9e et 8e millénaires). Ca-
hiers de l’Euphrate 3: 177–216.
2008. L’outillage de mouture et de broyage. In J. J. Ibá-
ñez (ed.), Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie
du Nord) vol. II. British Archaeological Reports IS 1843.
Oxford: 539–568.
Ninou I. 2006. Analysis of grinding stones from Neoli-
thic sites of northern Greece: Dispilio and Apsalos. MA
thesis, University of Southampton.
Nixon-Darcus L. 2014. The cultural context of food grind-
ing equipment in northern Ethiopia: An ethnoarchaeo-
Daily practices and special events> exploring grinding technologies at the two neighbouring settlements of Kleitos in Late\Final Neolithic...
309
logical approach. MA thesis. Simon Fraser University.
Vancouver.
Nixon-Darcus L., D’Andrea A. C. 2017. Necessary for life:
Studies of ancient and modern grinding stones in High-
land Ethiopia. African Archaeological Review 34: 193–
223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-017-9252-4
Plassart A. P. 1928. Les Sanctuaires et les Cultes du Mont
Cynthe. Exploration Archéologique de Délos. Fascicule XI.
E. de Boccard. Paris.
Poursat J. C., Procopiou H., and R. Treuil. 2000. Oi oikia-
kes drastiriotites sto Quartier Mu. I alesi kai i iphantiki. In
Pepragmena tou H’ Diethnous Kritoloyikou Sinedriou,
Heraklion 9-14 Septemvriou 1996, vol. A3: Proistoriki
kai Archaia Elliniki Periodos. Heraklion: 99–114. (in
Greek)
Procopiou H. 1998. L’outillage de mouture et de broy-
age en Crete Minoenne. PhD dissertation. Université de
Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne). Paris.
2013. Les outils lithiques. In J. C. Poursat (ed.), Vie
quotidienne et techniques au Minoen Moyen II: fouil-
les exécutées à Malia: le quartier Mu. Études Crétoi-
ses 34. École Française d’Athènes. Athens: 43–66.
2014. Barley meal processing in the Aegean world: A
look at diversity. In P. C. Anderson, A. van Gijn, and J.
Whittaker (eds.), Early Agricultural Remnants and
Technical Heritage (EARTH): 8,000 Years of Resilience
and Innovation, vol. 2. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 243–246.
Procopiou H., Jautee E., Vargiolu R., and Zahouani H.
1998. Petrographic and use-wear analysis of a quern from
Syvritos Kephala. In F. Facchini, A. Palma Di Cesnola, M.
Piperno, and C. Peretto (eds.), Actes du XIIème Congrès
de l’UISPP, Forli, 8–14 Septembre 1996. Workshop 17:
Analyse fonctionelle des Pieces Lithiques: Situation ac-
tuelle de la recherche, Tome II. A.B.A.C.O Edizioni. Forli:
1183–1192.
Procopiou H., Anderson P., Formenti F., and Jordi J. T.
2002. Étude des matières transformées sur les outils de
mouture: Identification des résidus et des traces d’usure
par analyse chimique et par observation en microscopie
optique et électronique. In H. Procopiou, R. Treuil (eds.),
Moudre et broyer: L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’ou-
tillage de mouture et de broyage dans la Préhistoire et
l’Antiquité. I. Méthodes. Actes de la table ronde interna-
tionale, Clermont-Ferrand. 30 nov. – 2 déc. 1995. Editi-
ons du CTHS. Paris: 111–127.
Risch R. 2008. Grain processing technologies and econo-
mic organisation: A case study from the South-East of the
Iberian Peninsula during the Copper Age. The Arkeotek
Journal 2(2): 1–3. http://www.thearkeotekjournal.org/
tdm/Arkeotek/fr/archives/2008/2Risch.xml
Robitaille J. 2016. The ground stone industry of the Mur-
si of Maki, Ethiopia: Ethnoarchaeological research on mil-
ling and crushing equipment techniques and functions.
Journal of Lithic Studies 3(3): 429–456.
https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i3.1680
Roux V. 1985. Le matériel de broyage. Étude ethnoarché-
ologique à Tichitt (R.I) Mauritanie. Mémoire no 58. Edi-
tion Recherches sur les civilisations. Paris.
Runnels C. 1981. A diachronic study and economic ana-
lysis of millstones from the Argolid. PhD dissertation. In-
diana University. Indianapolis.
Ryan K. C. 2010. Effects of fire on cultural resources. In
D. X. Viegas (ed.), Proceedings of the VI International
Conference on Forest Fire Research, 15–18 November
2010, Coimbra, Portugal. University of Coimbra. Coim-
bra.
Schlanger S. H. 1991. On manos, metates and the history
of site occupations. American Antiquity 56(3): 460–474.
https://doi.org/10.2307/280895
Schneider J. S. 1996 Quarrying and production of milling
implements at Antelope Hill, Arizona. Journal of Field
Archaeology 23(3): 299–311.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/530484
Schön W., Holter U. 1988. Zum Gebrauch von Reib- und
Mahlsteinen in der Ostsahara. Archäologische Informa-
tionen 11: 156–160.
Schroth A. B. 1996. An Ethnographic Review of Grinding,
Pounding, Pulverizing, and Smoothing with Stones. Paci-
fic Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 32(4): 55 –75.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adella_Schroth2/
publication/265480727
Shoemaker A. C., Davies M. I. J., and Moore H. L. 2017.
Back to the grindstone? The archaeological potential of
grinding-stone studies in Africa with reference to con-
temporary grinding practices in Marakwet, northwest
Kenya. African Archaeological Review 34: 415–435.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-017-9264-0
Souvatzi S. 2013. Diversity, uniformity and the transfor-
mative properties of the house in Neolithic Greece. In D.
Hofmann, J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic house
in Europe: Sedentism, Architecture and Practice. Sprin-
ger. New York: 45–64.
Stroulia A. 2005. Lithina tripta apo tin Kitrini Limni Ko-
zanis: proti prosengisi, prota erotimata. To Archaeologi-
Danai Chondrou
310
ko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 17 (2003): 571–580.
(in Greek)
2010. Flexible stones: Ground stone tools from Fran-
chthi Cave. Fascicle 14, Excavations at Franchthi Cave,
Greece. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, India-
napolis.
2014. Ergalia me kopsi apo tin Kremasti Kilada, nomou
Kozanis: Viographikes paratiriseis. To Archaeologiko
Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 24 (2010): 63–71. (in
Greek)
2018. Macrolithics: ordinary things in an extraordinary
place. In A. Papathanasiou, W. A. Parkinson, D. J. Pul-
len, M. L. Galaty, and P. Karkanas (eds.), Neolithic Ale-
potrypa Cave in the Mani, Greece. In honor of George
Papathanassopoulos. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 201–241.
Stroulia A., Chondrou D. 2013. Destroying the means of
production: The Case of Ground Stone Tools from Kre-
masti-Kilada, Greece. In J. Driessen (ed.), Destruction.
Archaeological, Philological and Historical Perspectives.
Presses universitaires de Louvain. Louvain: 109–131.
Stroulia A., Dubreuil, L., Robitaille, J., and Nelson K. 2017.
Salt, sand, and saddles: Exploring an intriguing work face
configuration among grinding tools. Ethnoarchaeology
9(2): 119–145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19442890.2017.1364053
Teklu G. 2012. Ethnoarchaeological study of grind stones
at Lakia’a in Adwa, Tigray Regional state, Ethiopia. MA
thesis. Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa.
Todorova H. 1978. The Eneolithic period in Bulgaria in
the fifth millennium BC. British Archaeological Reports
IS 49. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Tringham R. 1971. Hunters, fishers and farmers of east-
ern Europe, 6000–3000 BC. Hutchinson. London.
Tringham R., Bruckner B., and Voytek B. 1985. The Opovo
project: a study of socioeconomic change in the Balkan
Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 425–444.
https://doi.org/10.1179/009346985791169832
Tsoraki C. 2007. Unravelling ground stone life histories:
the spatial organization of stone tools and human activi-
ties at LN Makriyalos, Greece. Documenta Praehistorica
34: 289–97. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.34.22
2008. Neolithic society in northern Greece: The evi-
dence of ground stone artefacts. PhD dissertation.
University of Sheffield. Sheffield.
Valamoti S. M., Chondrou D., and Papadopoulou L. 2013.
Plant food processing and ground stone equipment in
prehistoric Greece: An experimental investigation using
seeds of einkorn and grass-pea. In P. C. Anderson, C. Che-
val, and A. Durand (eds.), Regards croisés sur les outils
liés au travail des végétaux. XXXIIIe rencontres inter-
nationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. APDCA.
Antibes: 169–187.
Veth P., Fullagar R., and Gould R. 1997. Residue and use-
wear analysis of grinding implements from Puntutjarpa
Rockshelter in the Western Desert: Current and proposed
research. Australian Archaeology 44: 23–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.1997.11681590
Wright M. K. 1993. Simulated use of experimental maize
grinding tools from southwestern Colorado. KIVA 58(3):
345–355.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00231940.1993.11758214
Wright K. I. 1994. Ground-stone tools and hunter-gathe-
rer subsistence in southwest Asia: Implications for the
transition to farming. American Antiquity 59(2): 238–
263. https://doi.org/10.2307/281929
2014. Domestication and inequality? Households, cor-
porate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic
Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
33: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.09.007
Zimmermann A. 1988. Steine. In U. Boelicke (ed.), Der
Bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8, Rheini-
sche Ausgrabungen 28. Rheinland Verlag. Köln: 569–787.
Ziota C. 2011. O neolithikos oikismos »Kleitos 1« kai ta
neotera dedomena yia tin proistoriki erevna. To Archaeo-
logiko Ergo stin Ano Makedonia 1(2009): 211–230. (in
Greek)
2014a. O oikismos tou Kleitou Kozanis sto evritero phi-
siko kai anthropoyenes perivallon tis Neoteris kai Te-
likis Neolithikis periodou. In E. Stefani, N. Merousis,
and A. Dimoula (eds.), Praktika Diethnous Sinedriou
»1912– 2012: Ekato chronia erevnas stin proistoriki
Makedonia«, Archaeologiko Mouseio Thessalonikis,
22–24 Noemvriou 2012. Archaeological Museum of
Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki: 323–336. (in Greek)
2014b. I anaskafi ston Kleito Kozanis to 2010. To Ar-
chaeologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 24(2010):
53–62. (in Greek)
Ziota C., Hondroyianni-Metoki A., and Maggouretsiou E.
2013a. Recent prehistoric research in the Kitrini Limni
area of the Kozani prefecture. To Archaeologiko Ergo stin
Ano Makedonia 2(2011): 57–82.
2013b. I archaeologiki erevna ston Kleito Kozanis to
2009. To Archaeologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thra-
ki 23(2009): 37–52. (in Greek)