mezo neo prijelaz u Thepoetra špilji

7/30/2019 mezo neo prijelaz u Thepoetra pilji

1/8

UDK: 903(495)"633/634'Documenta Praehistorica XXVII

The Meso l i th i c /Neo l i th i c T rans i t i on in Greece as Ev iden cedby the Da ta a t Theope t ra Cave in Thessa ly

N i n a K y p a r i s s i - A p o s t o l i k aE phorate of P al eo an thro po log y and S peleology, Ministry of C ulture, Athens , G reece

nkyparissi@ mailbox.gr

ABSTRACT - The Mesolithic period was sparsely docu mented in some littoral sites in Greece until 1992,when it was irst testified in Theopetra Cave, western Thessaly, in central G reece. Excavation data in Theo-petra indicate a very norma l a nd natural transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, which is docu-mented by (a) the presence of unbaked masses of clay in the Mesolithic layers and a few atypical and mo-nochrom e sherds found at the same layers could show the very initial samp les o fpottery technology, (b)The presence of domes ticated sheep and goat in the Mesolithic z oo-archaeo logical material, and a good

percentage of wild fauna in the Neolithic deposit, indicating a rather similar way of life in both periods;(c) the presence of cultivated hulled six-row ba rley and of wild eincorn, both testifying farming as a localdevelopment and not as knowledge that came from the Near East to Greece, (d) The biological homoge-neity which derives from the DNA analysis of human bones of successive periods.IZVLECEK - Vse do leta 1992je bilo mezolitsko obdobje v Grciji redko dokum entirano v nekaj obreznihnajdiscih. Takratpa smo ga prvic dokazali v jarni Theope tra, ki lezi v zahodn i Tesaliji v osrednji Grciji.Izkopavan ja v Theopetri kazejo, da je bilprehod iz mezolitika v neolitik zelo norma len in nara ven. To do-kazujejo: (a) navzocnos t nepecenih kepgline v mezolitskih plas teh in nekaj netipicnih in enobarm ih cre-pinj, ki smo jih nasli v istih plasteh, hi lahko kazalo na prve zacetke izdelovanja keramike; (b) navzoc-nost udom acene ovce in koze v mezolitskem zoo-arheo loskem materialu in precejsen odstotek divje fav-ne v neolitskih plasteh, kar kaze na dokajpodo ben nacin zivljenja v obeli obdobjih; (c) navzocnost kulti-viranega sestvrstneg a jecmena in divjega eincorn zita, kar oboje prica, da seje kmetovanje razvilo loka l-no in da znanje o tern v Grcijo niprislo izBliznjega vzhoda. (d) Bioloska homo genost, ki izhaja iz DNAanaliz cloveskih kosti, iz naslednjih obdobij.KEY WORDS - Theopetra, Th essaly, Mesolithic, transition to farm ing.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

T h e M e s o l i t h i c i s t h e l e a s t i n v e s t i g a t e d a r c h a e o l o g i -c a l p e r i o d i n G r e e c e . T w o c a v e s i t e s w i t h M e s o l i t h i cf i n d s ( Z a i m i s a n d U l b r i c h i n A t t i c a a n d t h e P e l o p o n -n e s e r e s p e c t i v e l y ) w e r e e x c a v a t e d i n 1 9 2 0 b y A .M a r k o v i t s (1933), b u t u n t i l t h e l 9 5 0 ' s t h e N e o l i t h icw a s c o n s i d e r e d a l m o s t t h e b a c k e n d o f P r e h i s t o r y i nG r e e c e , a s t h e t w o a b o v e c a v e s w e r e n e v e r i n c l u d e di n d i s c u s s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e M e s o l i t h i c i n G r e e c e(Galanidou in press).

A f t e r M i l o j c i c' s P a l a e o l i t h i c f i n d s i n t h e b a n k s o f t h eP e n e i o s R i v e r i n T h e s s a l y i n t h e s a m e d e c a d e (Miloj-cic et al. 1965), t h e d e m a n d f o r a M e s o l i t h i c b a c k -g r o u n d t h a t w o u l d c o m p l e t e t h e p r e h i s t o r i c c h a i n i nG r e e c e h a d b e c o m e a p e r m a n e n t c l ai m o f t h e i n v e s -

t i g a t i o n s t h a t f o l l o w e d d u r i n g t h e 6 0 ' s a n d t h e 7 0 ' s .T h e d e e p e s t N e o li t h ic l a y e r s , w h e r e s p a r s e s h e r d sw e r e f o u n d , w e r e t h e n n a m e d " a c e r a m i c " i n t h e h o p et h a t t h e s e w o u l d l e a d t o t h e e v e n e a r l i e r p e r i o d ,t h e M e s o l i t h i c , w h i c h w a s e x p e c t e d t o b e f o u n d w i t ht h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a t r a p e z o i d a n d m i c r o l i t h i ct e c h n i q u e k n o w n a l r e a d y f r o m E u r o p e . A t t h e s a m et i m e ( 1 9 6 4 ) , a l i t t o r a l M e s o l i t h i c s it e , S i d a r i , o n t h ei s l a n d o f C o r f u y i e l d e d i n d e e d m i c r o l i t h i c f i n d s (S o r -dims 1969). T h e n , i n t h e 7 0 ' s , a t F r a n c h t h i C a v e ,n e a r t h e e a s t e r n c o a s t o f t h e P e l o p o n n e s e , o n e m o r es i t e w i t h a M e s o l i t h i c d e p o s i t w a s a t t e s t e d (Jacobsen1976), a n d s o t h e p i c t u r e o f t h e p r e h i s t o r i c r e c o r di n G r e e c e l e d t o t h e v i e w t h a t t h e M e s o l i t h i c w a s e n -t i r e l y a m a r i n e s t o r y . T h e s s a l y w a s , o f c o u r s e , e x c l u -


2/8

tied from the map of the Mesolithic (Perles 1988;1989; 1994; Runnels 1988; 1993)When the Mesoli thic was found in Theopetra Caveas an intermediate deposi t between the end of thePalaeolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic, itwas first confronted with scepticism by many scho-lars, as i t suddenly overturned the theory that madeThessaly deserted at the beginning of the Holocene,a model that was reinforced by a recent survey ofThessaly in 1987 carried out by the American Schoolof Classical Studies at Athens under C. Runnels {Run-nels 1988), according to which caves were uninha-bited during the Palaeoli thic in Thessaly, and therewas a gap of some 23 Kyr in the area before the Neo-lithic. The presen ce of th e M esolithic period in Theo-petra confirmed the belief of some Greek prehistori-ans (Theoch aris 1967; Kotsakis 1992), who had laiddown the idea of inseparable continuity between thePleistocene and Holocene in Greece.1 mus t say here that , afte r Theo petra, two or thre emore Mesoli thic si tes were found in Greece, one ina cave on the island of Yioura in Sporades (Samp-son 1996a), one in a cave at the gorge of Klissourain mainland Argolid, the east Peloponnese, not toofar from the coast (.Koum ouzel is et al. 1996), whileone more at the Cycladic island of Kythnos (Samp-

son 1996b) is faced as Me-soli thic by the excavatorwi thout 14C dates yet . TheMesolithic in Yioura wasfound in sequence with theNeolithic but without Pala-

eolithic background, while in Klissoura the Mesoli-thic consists the roof of the Pleistocene deposits. InFranchthi and in Theopetra the Mesoli thic is foundbetween the Upper Palaeoli thic and the Neoli thic,but in Theopetra addit ionally there is a more com-plete Pleistocene sequence including Middle Palaeo-l i thic assemblages, being for the moment the onlysite in Greece with all this sequence of deposits (Ky-parissi-Apostolika 1999a ; 1999b ; in press).

T H E C AS E O F T H E O P E T R ALoca tion of the siteThe cave of Theopetra is located on the north sideof a l imestone formation on the right of the roadleading from Trikala to Kalambaka (Prefecture ofTrikala, west Thessaly) and 3 km outside the lat ter(Figs. 1, 2). Its altitude is about 60 m above the plainand 300 m above the sea level . It l ies between theedge of the Thessalian plain and the foothil ls of theeast Pindus Mountains, being the natural border be-tween Thessaly and Epirus. It has a roughly quadri-lateral shape and measures somewhat less than500 m 2. The entrance is large (17x3 m) and arched,oriented towards to the Byzantine monasteries ofMeteora in Kalambaka. It is the westernmost prehi-storic sett lement of Thessaly (Papathanassopoulos1996.Map 9, No. 406).The excavation dataThe Mesolithic deposit in Theopetra is recognised asa dist inct yellowish-brown (Munsell 10YR 3/4-4/4)humid sediment, interrupted part ly by fire remains,

and it possibly reflects a ra therhumid climate. This depositwas not found in al l the areaof the cave and was absentfrom the cent ral area, wherelarge-scale erosion took placedue to the invasion of largevolumes of water from carst icaquifers which repeatedly fil-led the cave, eroding a hugeamount of the autochthonoussediment. The above describedyellowish-brown sediment liesat the surface of a consolida-ted sediment reflecting the lastglaciat ion, and contains theend of the Palaeoli thic afterthe last glaciation at its deep-est deposit ion, and the Meso-

Fig. 1. Relief map of Thessaly with the site of Theo petra indicated. lithic at the rest, that is to say,


3/8

the end of the Pleistocene and thebeginning of the Holocene1. At firstglance, this sediment seems homoge-neous, reflecting a normal cl imaticsequence. However, i t was interrup-ted by a harsh cl imatic episode, theso-called younger Dryas, which af-fected a burnt layer dated to 11 500BP. After this episode, the Mesolithicin Theopetra begins ( Karka nas 2000;Karkanas in press).A good nu mbe r of 14C dates so far fallinto the Mesolithic period, with theoldest boundary touching the 9721390 BP (DEM 142) and the youngestthe 7995+73 BP (DEM 360) (9940-85 50 /70 60 -67 80 BC) (Fig. 3) , cove- F J f J d V i e wr ing about 1700-2000 years (Faco-rellis and Maniatis in press).Among them there is the date of a Mesolithic skele-ton da t ed f rom the bones to 8070+60BP (7050-7010 BC) (CAMS 21773, Fig. 3) being a clear UpperMesoli thic date. The skeleton belongs to a youngwoman, 18-20 years old, buried in a semiflexed po-sition in a shallow pit (Fig. 4). The head lookedstraight in front and was at a higher level than thebody, which was turned to the right of the dead,looking at the entrance of the cave. No morpholo-gical indications of pathological al terations werefound macroscopically, while from the cranial radio-graphy arose mild porotic hyperostosis, possibly asa result of iron depletion, but no acute anaemia,which could lead to death. The dental examinationshows a healthy individual ( Stra vop od i etal. 1999).Four fl int implements were found beside the skele-ton, but it is difficult to assess whether they were in-tentionally placed with the body or were coinciden-tally part of the infill of the pit. Charcoal selectedfrom the immediate vicinity of the skeleton gavetw o 14C dates , 9274+75 and 934884 BP (8610-8340 and 8740-8470 BC) (DEM 315,316), whi lethe dating of the bones already mentioned puts theburied individual about 13 centuries later, so the se-lected charcoal obviously belongs to the infill of thepit, which w as dug into an old er Mesoli thic dep osit .The finds of the Mesolithic deposit in Theopetra (li-thic industry, bones, carbon) are dense compared tothose from the last glaciat ion deposit , but sparsecompared to the overlying Neoli thic finds.

of the limestone balk wh ere the cave of Theop etra is

The lithic industry relied heavily on the locally avail-able radiolari te, while local materials were also em-ployed. There are large numbers of flakes, retouchedforms including truncations, notches and flakes withalternate retouch, but no bladelets, no backed bla-delets, no geometric microliths and possibly no prac-t ice of the microburin technique (Adam 1999). Itmust be stressed here that the analysis of the Meso-lithic industry is in progress, the case though doesn'tseem to be that of a typical Mesolithic one as it isknown from Europe. It appears to be closer to thelithic phase VII of Franchthi (Perles 1990; 1999),showing dissimilarities from phase VIII (the reappea-rance of backed and truncated elements) (Adam1999).From the study of the Neolithic industry (Skonrto-

poulou in press) there arises a clear continuity withthe Mesolithic: (a) in the use of the same raw mate-rial, chocolate thessalic rad iolarian fl int, i ts sourcesfound in the Pindus Mountains or as a secondarymaterial (pebbles) found in al luvial deposits; (b) inthe technology of the implements - the Neoli thic isto a high degree a flake industry, as is the Mesolithic,and the cores show similari t ies. The technologicalcontinuity is also observed in the types of imple-ments (a high percentage of notches and denticu-lates worked in flakes in dimensions bigger than theusual). Despite the aforementioned disturbance anderosion of the deposit in Theopetra, which does notallow any observations th at derive usually from nor-mal strat igraphy, i t is obvious that elements known

1 In Theopetra and in the neighbouring Pindus Mountains is the southernmost point of Europe where the last glaciation is attestedwith characteristics of such severe climatic conditions (Bailey and Gamble 1991; Karkanas 2000).


4/8

Fig. 3 list of radiocarbon dates concerning the Meso lithic and the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition.

L a b c o d e Pi t D e p t h A g e C a l e n d a r S t a n d a r d(yr BP) age d e v i a t i o n

DEM--918 A8, P ass 4, Brown layer 0.24 -0.37 m 790129 6818 -6663 BC7028-6649 BC

1a2c

DEM--360 H6, P ass 10, Layer B 1.15-1.23 m 799573 7060 -6780 BC7080-6660 BC 1a2aDEM--583 111, P ass 3, W estern

region Neolithic-Mesolithic boundary

0.57 m 801449 7060 -6829 BC7073-6706 BC

1a2a

DEM--576 111, P ass 3 Neolithic-Mesolithic boundary

0.77 m 806032 7078-6866 BC7137-6829 BC

1a2a

C A M S -2173 3 H6, Human skeleton, 0.30 m 807060 7180 -6830 BC 1aburial in situ 7300-6770 BC 2a

DEM--120 110 E astern region 1.04-1.17 m 852457 7590-7540 BC7650-7480 BC

1a2 a

DEM--578 111, P ass 8,South-eastern region

1.37 m 854771 7650 -7520 BC7750-7480 BC

1a2a

DEM--587 111, Layer 1,Central region

0.60-0.71 m 855837 7599-754 9 BC7641-7529 BC

1a2a

DEM--125 110, Western region 1.56 m 867376 7780-7590 BC7950-7580 BC

1a2 a

DEM--589 111, P ass 6 1.18 m 8863119 8210 -7830 BC8270-7650 BC

1a2a

DEM--207 T9 2.13 m 9093550 9120-7590 BC10130-6820 BC

1a2 a

DEM--590 111, P ass 7 1.27 m 9150112 8530-8270 BC8720-7970 BC

1a2 a

DEM--586 111, Layer 2 0.80 m 918886 8520-8290 BC8620-8250 BC

1a2a

DEM--315 H6, Layer B,On human skeleton

0.73 m 927475 8610 -8340 BC8720-8290 BC

1a2 a

DEM--316 H6, Layer B,On human skeleton

0.73 m 934884 8740-8470 BC9090-8300 BC

1a2a

DEM--577 111 1.37 m 937093 8780-8470 BC9110-8300 BC

1a2a

DEM--588 111 1.23 m 9461129 9120-8610 BC9220-8350 BC

1a2a

DEM--142 110, E astern region 1.17 m 9721390 9940-8550 BC10690-8210 BC

1a2a

from earl ier industries are present in the Neoli thicmaterial in general .One of the most important finds of the Mesoli thicdeposit in Theopetra is the presence of some un-baked clay masses, as well as of some monochromeatypical sherds within them. Their technological cha-racteristics (the shaping and finishing of the surface)are primitive com pared to the Early Neolithic exam-ples, while in some cases they are sl ightly baked.At the beginning, we regarded as intrusive from theoverlying Neolithic deposit, but as they continued tobe found down to 45 cm below the Neoli thic depo-sit , in parallel with unbaked masses of clay, and

given the fact that the chromatic and component se-dimentation of the Mesoli thic deposit is absolutelydistinct from that of the Neolithic, any intrusionfrom the one deposit to the other could be safelyperceptible. My assessment is that they represent avery early pottery at the bou ndary of the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition (Kyparissi-Apostolika in press).Additionally, the presence in the Neolithic deposit ofpottery characterized in the bibliography ( Theocha-ris 1967.127-143) as "primitive painted pottery"belonging to the initial Early Neolihic before Sesklo,reinforces the possibil i ty that we have here the verybeginning of pottery technology in Greece. TL dat-ing wou ld clarify the period to which the se sherds


5/8

petra (drawn by M. Deilaki).belong. The presence of unbaked clay is also noticedin the late Upper Palaeoli thic deposits of Theopetra,while some cylindrical clay objects up to 7-8 cmlong and 2 - 3 cm thick are also observed in the samelayers, coming though from Mesolithic layers whicherod ed the Palaeoli thic ones (Kypar iss i -Apos to l ika1999 in press and Karkanas in press). The pres-ence of clay, ei ther in unbaked condit ion or assherds, is referred to also from other Pre-Neoli thicsites in Greece (Theocharis 1958; Perles 1999; Vitel-li 1993) and in Europe (Baku 1978; Vandiver etal,1990), and so the beginning of pottery technologymust be re-examined for its starting bound aries.The archaeo-botanical material of Theopetra cave,the oldest ever recovered from excavations in Greece,plays a key role in the study of the Mesolithic, as wellas in arguments concerning the Neoli thization ofGreece. The pre senc e of cultivated Hordeum vidgaressp. exastichum (hulled six-row barley) and of Tri-ticum boeticum (wild eincorn), as well as of somewild legumes such as Lens sp. (lentil), Vicia erviliaand so on in the Mesolithic material of Theopetra isdefinite proof that farming must have started here.The same plants are found as cult ivated species inthe Neoli thic material among other kinds of cropsand fruits. The absence of the above p lants from the

Greek data in the past was one of the strongest ar-guments in the discussion that sought to regard far-ming as the result of Near Eastern popu lation move-ments. Of course, we would not deny that peoplewho were familiar with farming could have comefrom the Near East and possibly spread this knowl-edge to some population on Greek terri tory as well ,but this terri tory, after Theopetra's finds, does notseem to be Thessaly.According to palynological investigations ( B o t t e m a1979), at the beginning of the Mesolithic the steppevegetation was replaced by forest vegetation. Thisfi ts with the find s of the a nthracological analysis inTheopet ra (Ntinou in press) (the palynological ana-lysis is not ready to give information yet), accordingto which deciduous species l ike litmus sp., Prunussp., Quercus and Fraxinus sp. are present in the Me-soli thic material , probably related to the develop-ment of forests in the early Holocene.The picture fi ts also with the fauna species presentin the Mesoli thic of Theopetra, which are woodlandspecies (wild boar and wild cat - Felis sylvestris)(Rowley-Conwy and Neivton in press). The largecarnivores that were present in the Palaeoli thicstrata disappear in the Mesolithic. The Mesolithic as-semblage, however, is dominated up to 40% bysmall ovi-caprids, indist inguishable from domesti-cated sheep and goat, and i t is possible that earlyHolocene hunter-gatherers acquired domest icatedovi-caprids from neighbou ring group s with herd ani-mals (Ne wt on in press and forthcoming). The samequestion arises with the fauna of the Mesolithic stra-ta in Yioura Cave, where ovi-caprids also seem to bedomest icated (Tra nta lido u in press). A rathe r highpercentage, around 11% of the Neolithic material inTheopetra belongs to the wild fauna, and some ofthe species (wild cat , red deer, wild boar and hare)feature also in the Mesolithic. This perhaps indicatesa certain continuity of habitat type between the twoperiods. From the domesticated fauna of the Neoli-thic material, over 70% are ovicaprids, of which 70%are sheep, while pig and bovids are present with 8%each (Hamilakis in press).Last, but not least, I would like to emphasize the bio-logical homogeneity which derives from the DNAanalysis of the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithichuman bones of Theopetra, and hence the possibi-lity that the genetic gradient in Europe may not haveoriginated from the Near East with the spread offarming, but may have been in place as early as theUpper Palaeolithic at least (Ev iso n et al, in press).


6/8

C O N C L U S I O NTheopetra Cave, at the western end of the Thessa-l ian plain and equidistant from the Pindus Moun-tains and the plain, is a hidden site not accidentallyperceptible by travelers, as could be maintained forlittoral cave-sites like Franchthi or the cave of Cy-clope in Yioura. Hence, the hypothesis that it couldbe used for a while and then be abandoned for somethousand years and again be found by chance laterand so on, in my opinion, must be excluded. Withinthis perspective, it is likely possible that once it wasdiscovered, i t was used by the same population andtheir descendants, who either used i t as a perma-nent base or periodically, the kind of use changingaccording to the reasons that ruled the one or theother way.As no vegetation changes that could reflect climaticchanges are referred to in the palynoligical investi-gations (Bottema 1979) for the end of the Mesoli-thic and the beginning of the Neolithic, the transi-t ion from the one period to the other should beseen (a) in the establishment of pottery technology,(b) in farming knowledge, (c) in the faunal and flo-ral sequence and, (d) in the biological continuity ordiscontinuity of the population.As we have seen from the data of Theopetra Cave, allthe above parameters lead to the hypothesis thatthey are the result of long-term attempts start ingfrom the Palaeol i thic onwards, and not knowledgethat was taught to the population of Thessaly bypeople from the Near East . If we did yet not haveproofs that Thessaly was populated before the Neo-

lithic, as was estimated in previous decades, the mo-del of exogenous new experience would work well .However, with the new data from Theopetra Cave i twould be beyond any common sense to accept thatthe Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic people who livedin Theopet ra Cave and exploi ted the envi ronmentfor their survival had not observed nature and thepropert ies which plants and soil and all other natu-ral elements have, namely the same observat ionsthat led the population of the Near East to knowledgeof farming. And it is possible that this is why, inwestern Thessaly (where Theopetra is located), thereare the oldest Early Neolithic settlements, such asProdromos and Magouli tsa ( Chourmouz iadi s 1971;1972; Papad opoulou 1958, respectively), while du-ring later periods they spread to eastern Thessaly,closer to the coasts of the Aegean (i.e. Dimini, Pev-kakia) (Halstead 1980). These first set t lements w ereprobably established by the descendants of Theope-tra's population, and some of these people contin-ued to l ive in Theopetra during the Neoli thic also.In my opinion, the poor presence of the Mesoli thicin the Greek peninsula is the result of wrongly di-rected research, as i t has been oriented to Europeanand Anatolian models for the sett lement pattern andthe lithic industry typology. It is now time to turn todi fferent models harmonised to the Greek envi ron-mental and climatic conditions of that period, which,I believe, will lead us to more Mesolithic installa-t ions. I believe that further research on the materialof Theopetra, as well as new excavations that wil lfollow, will prove definitively a model of indigenousNeolithic civilisation in Thessaly, a picture that de-rives from the excavation in Theopetra Cave.

R E F E R E N C E SADAM E. 1999- Prelim inary pre se nta tion of the Up-per Palaeoli thic and Mesoli thic stone industries ofTheopetra Cave, western Thessaly. In G. Bailey, E.Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perles and K. Zachos(eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece andAdjacent Areas, Proceedings of the ICOPAG Confe-rence, British Schoo l at Athens Studies 3:266-270 .BAHN P. 1978. Palaeolithic pottery - the history ofan anomaly. Anthropos V. 5: 98-110.BAILEY G. and GAMBLE C. 1991- The Balkans at18000 BP: the view from Epirus. In C. Gamble and0. Soffer (eds.), The world at 18000 B. P.: 148-167.

BOTTEMA S. 1979- Pollen analytical investigationsin Thessaly (Greece). Palaeohistoria 21: 19-40.CHOURMOUZIADIS G. 1971. Dio neai egatastassis tisArchaioteras Neolithikis is tin ditikin Thessalian. Ar-chaiologika Analekta ex Athinon 4: 164-174.

1972. Anaskafi is ton Prodromon Karditsis. Ar-chaiologikon D eltion 27.8: 394-396 .

EVISON M., KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA N., STRAVOPODIE., FIELLER N. and SMILLIE D. in press. An ancientHLA type from a Palaeolithic sk eleton f rom Theopetracave, Greece. In N. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Pro-


7/8

ceedings of the Conference "Theopetra Cave: Twelveyears of Excava tion and Research" T rikala, 6-7 No-vember 1998.FACORELLIS Y. and MANIATIS Y. in press. Evidencefor 50000 years of Human activity in the cave ofTheopet ra by 14C (English abstract). In N. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Proceed ings of the Conferen ce"Theopetra Cave: Twelve years of excavation andResearch", Trikala 6-7November 1998.GALANIDOU N. in press. Reassessing the Greek Me-solithic: the pertinence of the Markovits collection.In N. Galanidou and C. Perles (eds.), The Greek Me-solithic-Problems and Perspectives. British Schoo lat Athens Studies.HALSTEAD P. and JONES G. 1980. Early neolithiceconomy in Thessaly - some evidence from excava-t ions at Prodromos. Anthropologika 1: 93-117.HAMILAKIS Y. in press. Zooarchaeology of NeolithicTheopetra (English abstract). In N. Kyparissi-Aposto-lika (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference "Theope-tra Cave: Twelve years of excavation and Re-search", Trikala 6-7November 1998.JACOBSEN T. W. 1976. 17000 years of Greek Prehi-story. Scientific American 234: 76-87.KARKANAS P. 2000. Theopetra: Ena spileo dini pli-rofories gia tin exelixi tou klimatos. National Geo-graphic (Greek edition) Vol. 4, No. 4: 136-139 .KARKANAS P. in press. Lithostratigraphy and Diage-nesis of Theopetra cave deposits, Kalambaka (En-glish abstract). In N. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Pro-ceedings of the Conferenc e "Theop etra Cave: twelveyears of excavation and Research", Trikala 6-7 No-vember 1998.KOTSAKIS K. 1992. 0 Neolithikos tropos paragogis:ithagenis i apikos? Praktika Diethnous Synedriougia tin arhaia Thessalia sti mnim i D. R. Theocha-ri, Volos 1987: 120-134 .KOUMOUZELIS M, KOZtOWSKIJ, NOWAK M., SOB-CZYK K., KAZCANOWSKA M PAWLIKOWSKI M.,PAAZDUR A. 1996. Prehistoric settlement in the Kli-ssoura gorge, Argolid, Greece (excavations 1993-1994). Prehistoire Europeenne 8:143-173.KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA N. 1999a. The Palaeolithicdeposits of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly. In G. Bailey

E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perles and K. Zachos(eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece andAdjacent Areas. Proceedings of the ICOPAG Confe-rence: 232-239.

1999b. The Neoli thic Use of Theopetra Cave inThessaly. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Societyin Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegea n Archaeo -logy 2: 142-152.in press a. The Neolithic period of Theop etra Cave(English abstract). In N.Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.),Proceed ings of the International Conferenc e"Theop etra Cave: Tivelve years of Excav ationand Research", Trikala 6-7 November 1998: Ch.14 .in press b. The Mesolithic of Theopetra Cave: newdata for a debated period of Greek Prehistory. InN. Galanidou and C. Perles (eds.), The Greek Meso-lithic-Problem s an d Perspectives. British Schoo lat Athens Studies.

MARKOVITS A. 1933. Die Zaimis-Hohle (Kaki Skala,Megaris, Griechenland), Spelaologisches fahrbuch13/14 (1932-33): 133-146.MILOJCIC V, BOESSNECK J., JUNG D. and SCHNEI-DER H. 1965. Palaeolithikum urn Larissa in Thes-salien. Bonn.NEWTON S. in press. The Mesolithic Fauna fromTheopetra. In N. Galanidou and C. Perles (eds.), TheGreek Mesolithic-Problems and Perspectives. Bri-tish Schoo l at Athens Studies.

forthcoming. Theopetra cave and the Palaeolithic-Mesoli thic transit ion in Southern Europe. In G.Gam ble, P. Halstead, Y. Ham ilakis a nd E. Kotzam-bopoulou (eds.), Zooarchaeology in Greece: re-cent Advan ces. Londo n, British Schoo l at AthensStudies.

NTINOU M. in press. Preliminary results of the an-thracological analysis from Theopetra Cave. In N.Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Proceedings of the Con-

ference "Theopetra Cave: Twelve years o f Excava-tion and Research". Trikala 6-7November 1998.PAPADOPOULOU M. 1958. Magoulitsa, neolithikossynikismos para t in Karditsan, Thessalika A: 39-49.PAPATHANASSOPOULOS G. (ed.) 1996. NeolithikosPolitismos stin Ellada. Athens: Goulandris Founda-tion.


8/8

PERLES C. 1988. Chipped stone assemblages as an in-dex of cultural discontinuity in early Greek prehi-story. In E. French and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems inGreek prehistory. Bristol: Classical Press: 477-488 .

1989. La Neolithisation de la Grece. In 0. Auren-ce and J. Cauvin (eds.), Neolithisations. Proche etMoyen Orient, mediterranee orientate, Nord de/' Afrique, Europ e meridiona le, Chine, Ame riquedu Sud, Oxford, British Archa eological Repo rts516:110-127.1990. Les industries lithiques de Franc hthi (Ar-golide, G rece), Tome II, Les industries du Meso-lithique et de Neolithique initial, Excavations atFranchthi Cave, Greece, Fascicule 5, Bloomingtonand Indianapolis: Indiana Universi ty Press.1994. Les debuts du Neolithique en Grece. La Re-cherche 266, V. 25: 642-649.1999. Long-term perspectives on the occupationof the Franchthi Cave: continuity and discontinu-ity. In G. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C.Perles and K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Ar-chaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas. Proce-edings of the ICOPAG Conference, British Schoolat Athens S tudies 3- 311-318 .

ROWLEY-CONWY P. and S. NEWTON in press. LatePalaeolithic and Mesolithic animal bones from Theo-petra cave. Preliminary report. In N. Kyparissi-Apo-stolika (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference "Theo-petra Cave: Twelve years of Excavation and Re-search", Trikala 6-7 November 1998.

RUNNELS C. 1988. A pre histo ric surv ey of Thessa ly:new light on the Greek Middle Palaeolithic Journalof Field Archaeology 15: 277-290.

1993. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Thes-saly, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:299-317.

SAMPSON A. 1996 a. La grotte du Cyclope. Un abride pecheurs prehistoriques? Archeologia No 328:55-59.

1996 b. New evidence of the Mesolithic in theGreek Area. Archa iologia (Athens) v. 61: 46 -51.in press. The Mesolithic of the Aegean islands:Subsistence Strategies and Contact networks. InN. Galanidou and C. Perles (eds.), The Greek Me-

solithic-Problems and Perspec tives. BritishSchool at Athens Studies.

SKOURTOPOULOU K. in press. Chipped stone pro-duction in Theopetra cave during the Neoli thic (En-glish abstra ct). In N. Kyparissi-Apostolika (ed.), Pro-ceedings of the Conference "Theopetra Cave: Twelveyears of Excavation and Research", Trikala 6-7November 1998.SORDINAS A. 1969. Inve stigations of the pre histo ryof Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies 10:393-424.STRAVOPODI E, MANOLIS S. and KYPARISSI-APO-STOLIKA N. 1999- Palaeoanthropological findingsfrom Theopetra Cave in Thessaly: a preliminary re-po rt. In G. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panag opo ulou , C. Per-les and K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Archae o-logy of Greece and Adjacent Areas. Proceedings ofthe ICOPAG Conference: 271-281.THEOCHARIS D. 1958. Ek tis prokeramikis Thessa-l ias - Prossorini anaskafiki ekthessis. Thessalika A:70-86.

1 9 6 7 .1 avgi tis Thess alikis Prohistorias. Thessa-lika Meletimata No 1, Volos.

TRANTALIDOU K. in press. Faunal Remains from theEarliest Strata of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra, Alon-nessos. In N. Galanidou and C. Perles (eds.), Th eGreek Meso lithic-Problem s and Perspec tives. Bri-tish Schoo l at Athens Studies.VANDIVER P., SOFFER 0., KLIMA B. and SVOBODA J.1990. Venuses and Wolverines: the origins of cera-mic tech nolo gy, ca. 26 00 0 B. P. In W. D. Kingery(ed.), The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society:26000 B. P. to the Present.VITELLI K. D. 1993- Franchthi Neolithic Pottery.Vol. II: Classification and phases 1&2 . Excavationsat Franch thi Cave, fascicule 9, Bloom ington, Indiana-polis: Indiana universi ty Press.

Documents

mezo neo prijelaz u Thepoetra špilji