:
I
u 9 V0
: - :- :: :; : ;
EE
J A N U A R Y-M A R C H 2
0 0 3
-
I
THE
JOURNAL OF
THE
OF
C L A S S I C St L
S T ;t
00-
AMERICAN U D - '
.
I E S
AT VOLUME
SCHOOL AT 72:
H
E N
NUMBER
AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens 2003
S I
TheAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthensis a research and teachinginstitutiondedicated to advanced studyof thearchaeology, art,history,philosophy, language, andliterature of Greeceandthe Greekworld.Established in 1881bya consortium of nineAmerican universities, the Schoolnowservesgraduate studentsandscholars frommorethan150affiliated collegesanduniversities, actingasa baseforresearch andstudyin Greece.The mainbuildingsof the Schoolandits libraryarelocatedin Athens,withadministrative and publications officesin Princeton, NewJersey.As partof its mission, the Schooldirectsongoingexcavations in theAthenianAgoraandat CorinthandsponsorsallotherAmerican-led excavations andsurveys on Greeksoil. It is theofficiallinkbetweenAmericanarchaeologists andclassicists andtheArchaeological Serviceof theGreekMinistry of Cultureand,assuch,is dedicated to thewisemanagement of cultural resources andto thedissemination of knowledge of the classical world.Inquiries aboutmembership in the Schoolorparticipationin the SummerSessionsshouldbe sentto theAmerican Schoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens,6-8 CharltonStreet, Princeton, NewJersey08540-5232. Hesperiais published quarterly bytheAmericanSchoolof Classical
StudiesatAthens.Foundedin 1932anddevotedprimarily to the timelypublication of reportson School-sponsored andSchooldirectedprojects, Hesperiawelcomessubmissions fromallscholars workingin thefieldsof Greekarchaeology, art,epigraphy, history, materials science,ethnography, andliterature, fromearliestprehistoric timesonward. Hesperiais a refereed journal.
VOLUME 72: NUMBER
I
2003
JANUARY-MARCH
I-
I
SCHOOL OFTHEAMERICAN THEJOURNAL STUDIESATATHENS OFCLASSICAL
PUB LI CATI O N S STAFF
ANNASTROULIA Cave:A CloseLook StoneCeltsfromFranchthi Ground
1
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Cox
Kerri EDITOR,
Hesperia Cullen
Tracey EDITOR,
MONOGRAPHS
MANUSCRIPT Carol
31
Fitzgerald
Michael PRODUCTION Sarah
ROBERTL. POUNDERANDNORADIMITROVA Leagueto the GreatGods bytheThessalian Dedication inSamothrace
MANAGER George
Figueira
EDITOR
A. Stein
JACKL. DAVIS,AFRIMHOTI, IRIS POJANI, SHARONR. STOCKER,AAROND. WOLPERT, PHOEBEE. ACHESON,ANDJOHNW. HAYES Archaeological Project: TheDurresRegionalArchaeological in Albania of Epidamnus/Dyrrachium Surveyin theTerritory
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE ThomasG. Palaima(Chairman) Universityof Texasat Austin DariceBirge LoyolaUniversityof Chicago JeremyMcInerney Universityof Pennsylvania Miller Margaret Universityof Toronto JeniferNeils CaseWesternReserveUniversity KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia RhysF.Townsend(ex ofXicio) ClarkUniversity
41
Copyright(C)2003 Submissions:Manuscriptsand communicationsshould be addressedto Dr.TraceyCullen,Editor,Hesperia,AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat The AmericanSchoolof NewJersey08540;tel.609-683-0800; ClassicalStudiesat Athens Athens,6-8CharltonStreet,Princeton, andphotoManuscripts fax609-924-0578;
[email protected]. mustbe submittedin triplicate;originalartworkand Producedat EdwardsBrothers, copiesof illustrations aremadewiththe Inc.,AnnArbor,Michigan. photographs shouldnot be sentunlesspriorarrangements ofthe articleshould Designby EllenMcKie. summarizing themajorconclusions editor.A shortabstract reviewprocessand alsobe included.Articlesaresubmittedto a double-blind Mapof Albania accordingly, withouttheir Coverillustration: authorsarerequestedto preparetheirmanuscripts notes, showingprincipalcentersof Greek preparation, The stylefor manuscript nameor affiliationappearing. canbefoundin theGuide- culture.CourtesyDurresRegional on submissions bibliography, andotherinformation Project,drawing Archaeological orbywritingto linesforAuthorson the School'sWebsite(www.ascsa.edu.gr) at the aboveaddress. ASCSAPublications R.J. Robertson TheAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthenswillnotknowinglyprint the announcement orinitialscholin Hesperiaoranyof its otherpublications December 30,1970, byanymeans after arlypresentation of anyobjectacquired otherthanthroughan officiallysanctionedexcavationor survey,unlessthe existingcollectionorwaslegallyexportedfrom objectwaspartof a previously the countryof origin. price The annualsubscription Subscriptions: Hesperiais publishedquarterly. $110forinstitutions($120, inter($70, international), is $60 forindividuals national),and $35 for students(proofof studentstatusrequired).Payment mustbe in U.S.dollars,drawnon a U.S.bankorby moneyorder,andsentto Services,P.O.Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529; tel. Hesperia,Subscriber (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outsideU.S.)781-828-8450; fax781-828-8915; e-mail of Singleissues(currentandbacknumberswhenavailable)
[email protected]. for $15 eachpluspostagefromthe DavidBrownBook Hesperiaareavailable Company,P.O.Box 511, Oakville,CT 06779; tel. 800-791-9354,860-9459329; fax 860-945-9468; or (outsideNorth America)OxbowBooks,Park End Place,OxfordOX1 1HN, U.K.;tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249; fax +44 (0) 13-17 and19-32 arealsoavailable 1865-794449. IndexII andSupplements fromDavidBrownBooks.Reprintsof IndexI, Supplements1-12 and 18, b.v., andearlyissuesof Hesperiashouldbe orderedfromSwetsandZeitlinger,
[email protected]. P.O.Box 810,2160 SZ Lisse,Netherlands;
postagepaidat Periodicals Princeton,NewJersey,andat additionalmailingoffices. Sendaddresschanges Postmaster: to Hesperia,P.O.Box529, Canton, MA 02021-0529,U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X
HESPERIA
72 (2003)
G
Pages I-30
ROUN F ROM
D
STON
F RANCHTH
E
CE
LTS I
CAVE
A CLOSELOOK
ABSTRACT Thisarticlepresents in detailtheeighty-nine groundstoneceltsdiscovered inNeolithic levelsatFranchthi Cave.Theceltswerefashioned primarily from localmaterials, usingthetechniques of peckingandgrinding. No evidence forcraftspecialization in theirmanufacture hasbeendetected. Onlya small numberof thesetoolsarelargeor sturdyenoughto havebeenusedto Cut downtrees.Someoftheceltscouldhavebeenemployed inlightertasks(e.g., clearing shrubbery, working woodorbone),whileothersmighthaveserved ln a rltuacontext. *
.
The siteof Franchthi Caveis locatedon thecoastof thesouthern Argive peninsula in the northeastern Peloponnese, Greece(Figs.1-2).1Excavationsconducted from1967through1976underthedirectionofThomas W. Jacobsenrevealeda long sequenceof humanoccupationfromthe UpperPalaeolithic throughthe endof the Neolithicperiod(ca.25,0003000B.C.). Evidenceforhumanactivitycamefromtwointegralbutdistinctareas:the cave,a karsticformation150 m long;andthe so-called Paralia, a 15-m-widezoneextending alongthemodernshoreline(Fig.3). DuringtheNeolithic,Paralia waspartof anopensettlement thatis now 1.The studyof the groundstone celtsfromFranchthiCaveis partof a largerresearch projectthatcomprises allthe groundstonetoolsfoundat the site.The materialis storedin the NauplionArchaeological Museum, whereI examinedit in the summers of 1997,1998,and2000.My study wasmadepossibleby a Schrader Postdoctoral Fellowship, a Schrader SummerGrant,anda grantfromthe NationalEndowmentforthe Humanities (awarded to ThomasW.Jacobsen). Preparation of the illustrations was fundedby a Schrader SummerGrant
andthe InstituteforAegeanPrehistory. it withtheirusefulsuggestions, as did The finalresultsof mystudywillbe a thirdanonymous refereeandthe publishedas fascicle17 in theExcavaeditorof Hesperia.Unlessotherwise tionsat FranchthiCave)Greeceseries. noted,allphotographs arecourtesyof I wouldliketo thankThomasW. IndianaUniversity Archives,BloomJacobsenandKarenD. Vitellifor ington.All drawingsarebyAylaAkin. entrustingthe publication of the I amgratefulto Akinfordoingthe Franchthi groundstonetoolsto me. drawings, andto Strezewski forhelping I amalsogratefulto Vitelli,Michael withthe photography andthe editing. Strezewski, AylaAkin,andespecially The followingabbreviations are CatherinePerlesandMihalisFotiadis usedforthephasesof the Neolithic forreadingandcommenting upon period:EN (EarlyNeolithic),MN earlierversionsof thispaper.Curtis (MiddleNeolithic),LN (Late RunnelsandThomasStrasser, as Neolithic),FN (FinalNeolithic). Hesperiareferees, helpedme improve
2
ANNA
STROULIA
Figure1. View of FranchthiCave.
largelyunderwater.Theevidencesuggeststhatin thecourseof theUpper Palaeolithic andMesolithic periods various groupsofhunter-gatherers used thecaveasa basecamporasa habitation siteatleaston a seasonal basis. Theintroduction of domesticated plantandanimalspecies(wheat,barley, sheep,goats)andthe appearance of potterymarkthe beginningof the Neolithic,ca.6000B.C. Thesechangescoincidewiththeestablishment of thesettlement onParalia. Thepresence of stonestructures in thatareahas beeninterpreted asa signof a moresedentary wayof lifeandyear-round occupation thatcontinuedatleastuntiltheendof theMiddleNeolithic, ca.4500s.c.2 The excavations produceda plethoraof culturalandenvironmental remains (e.g.,pottery, tools,figurines, ornaments, humanskeletalremains, faunalandbotanical material) thatshedlightonthevariousaspectsof life anddeathof thepeoplewhousedFranchthi at different periods.In this articleI providea detailedanalysis of thegroundstoneceltsin anattempt to unravelandexplaintherangeof choicesmadebythepeoplewhoproduced,used,anddiscarded them.A thorough presentation of thematerial is necessary to helpfill the considerable gapin the literature regarding prehistoric Aegeangroundstoneceltsandgroundstonetoolsin general. Celtsaretoolsusedto cut,chop,scrape,incise,ordigworkedmaterialssuchaswood,bone,skin,meat,orsoil.Thediagnostic traitof aground stoneceltis anacutegroundedgelocatedon oneof thetwoends.Always aresultof manufacture, thisedgerepresents a conscious choiceof theproducersof thesetools.Duringuse,a celtactsthrough(director indirect) percussion orpressure of theworkingedgeon theworkedmaterial. The celtcanhaveaperpendicular orobliqueorientation inrelation totheworked material, whereas itsworkingedgecanmovelongitudinally ortransversely throughit.Mostof theceltsfromFranchthi represent onlythestoneportionsof originalcompositetoolsthatalsoincludedhaftingdevicesmade of (primarily) woodenshafts,aswellasperhaps somebindingoradhesive 2. SeeFranchthi1-10, 12;Jacobsen 1976,1981. material.
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI CAVE
Figure2. Franchthi Cavein the southern Argolid.AfterFranchthi 1, p. 3, fig. 1. CourtesyIndianaUniversity Press.
Figure3. Planof Franchthi Caveand Paraliashowingexcavated trenches. AfterFranchthi 7, p. 8, fig.5. Courtesy IndianaUniversity Press.
3
4
ANNA
STROULIA
THE SAMPLE Theassemblage of celtsfromFranchthi consistsof eighty-nine items:seventy-ninecompleteandfragmentary toolsthatexhibitanacuteedge,and ten toolswithoutan acuteedge(Table1).The lattertoolsfallinto two groups:thosethatwereleft in a roughed-out form,the shapingof their edgehavingnevertakenplace;andthosewhoseedgewasobliterated at somepointin theiruselifewhentheywererecycledto servesomefunctionnotusuallyassociated withcelts.Inaddition to theseeighty-nine celts, the excavations uncovered fourteenfragments whoserawmaterialand overallshapepointto the likelihoodthattheyoncewerepartsof celts.3 Finally,fourserpentinite specimens havebeenfoundthatmayrepresent earlystagesof themanufacturing process: onecompleteunworked cobble, which,as suggested by Catherine Perles,4 mighthavebeencollectedas a celtblankbypeopleatFranchthi; andthreecobblefragments thatdisplay evidenceof pecking,andperhapsconstitute theremainsof accidents that occurred duringceltmanufacture. Fifty-nineof thecelts(66%)areconsidered complete,sincetheyare eitherintactor missinga parttoo smallto significantly affectthereconstruction oftheiroriginalshapeanddimensions.Twenty-eight celts(31%) arefragmentary. The percentage of celtsrepresented byfragments is low compared to thatforotherFranchthi groundstoneartifacts, suchasmillstones.5 This difference canat leastto somedegreebe attributed to the small,closed,convex,andthuslessvulnerable celtforms.The remaining two itemslistedin Table1 (1 and4) areceltpreforms andthusneither completenorfragmentary. Celtswerefoundin varioustrenches, bothin thecaveandon Paralia. Sixty-two(70%)wererecovered frominsidethecave,twenty-seven (30%) on Paralia(Table1).Thesepercentages areroughlyproportionate to the volumeof sedimentremoved fromNeolithiclevelsin eacharea(76%from thecave,24%fromtheParalia).6 TheParalia deposits,however, produced a somewhathigherpercentage of fragmentary celts:44%of the celtsrecoveredtherearefragmentary compared to 25%of thosefoundinsidethe cave.If notaccidental, therelatively highpercentage of fragmentary celts excavated on Paraliamightindicatea possiblepreference fordiscarding brokenceltsin this partof the site.Giventhe natureof occupation on Paraliaduringcertainphasesof the Neolithic,however, it is equallypossiblethatsomefragmentary celtsmighthavebeendepositedthereas fill (e.g.,floorings) orassecondary discard.7 No celtswerefoundin pre-Neolithic depositsandthereis no indication thatthe pre-Neolithic peopleof Franchthi producedor usedsuch tools.All theceltswerefoundin undisturbed ormixedNeolithicdeposits. Association withdatedceramics8 allowedtheassignment to specificNeolithicphasesof onlythirty-seven of thecelts(42%).Twenty-two of these datesarerelatively certain,the remaining fifteenprobable.9 The chronologicaldistribution ofthethirty-seven datedceltsshowsahighconcentrationin MN deposits(seeTable1).Thisconcentration cannotbe consideredtheresultof excavation biases,10 andmayreflecta moreintensiveuse (andsubsequent discard) of celtsduringthisparticular period.
3. All references to celtsbelow, however,areto the eighty-ninetools only.Thesetoolsareorganizedin Table1 according to preservation, with completeceltsfollowedby fragmentary examples. 4. Pers.comm.,July1997. 5. Morethan75%of the Franchthi millstonesarefragmentary (Franchthi 17, in prep.). 6. Franchthi12,pp.28-29;William R. Farrand, pers.comm.,January 1998. 7. E.g.,duringthe EN phase.See Franchthi8, pp.45-47. 8. SeeFranchthi8, pp.37-87; Franchthi10,pp.7-21. 9. InTable1 the probabledatesare glvenln parentzeses. 10.Accordingto Perles(Franchthi 15,in press),the largestvolumeof excavated Neolithicsedimentsderives fromEN levels,withsedimentsof MN datefollowingcloselybehind. .
.
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI CAVE
s
of thedatedceltsin thetwoportionsof the A lookatthedistribution yieldedsixteenof thesecelts,disParalia patterns. siterevealsinteresting evenlyamongtheEN,MN, andFN periods.llIf thisdistribution tributed of celtson it suggeststhatthereis noMN concentration is representative, cave come the inside from recovered celts dated twenty-one The Paralia. comingfromMN.The fromMN, LN, andFN levels,withthemajority largenumberof MN celtsfoundwithinthecavemaysuggestthatduring this periodthe activitiesinvolvingceltstendedto takeplaceinsidethe fromthecavepredates cave.Thefact,ontheotherhand,thatnospecimen the MN period(Table1) is a possibleindicationthatpriorto thistime of Thisdistribution tookplaceoutsidethecaveon Paralia. theseactivities of the datedmillthe distribution the datedceltsby andlargeparallels thatthe theimpression reinforces Thissimilarity stonesfromFranchthi.l2 of the behavior represent ratherthanbeingaccidental, twodistributions, the tools. discarded and used, thepeoplewhoproduced, meaninganychronologically to distinguish It hasprovenimpossible This groupswithinthe celtassemblage. or functional ful morphological conservato the or dates available of number the limited mightbe dueto is itself.If thelatteris true,thenthisassemblage tivenatureof thematerial which,as not differentfromotherAegeanNeolithiccelt assemblages, pointedout by Perles,showlittle significantvariationthroughtime.l3 are allitemsin theceltassemblage Whateverthecase,in thispresentation two nevertheless, of theirdate.I distinguish, treatedtogetherregardless (length, ofthethreebasicdimensions analysis groupsonthebasisofacluster ingroup first The celts. complete of thefifty-nine width,andthickness) cludesthirty-ninesmallspecimens(length< 4.6 cm),whilethe second (length>4.6 cm).I willreferbelowto twentylargerspecimens comprises themembersof thefirstgroupas"smallcelts"andto thoseof thesecond celts,"butthereis noevidencethatthissimpledistinction groupas"larger to anyemicclassifications. corresponds RAW MATERIAL AND MANUFACTURE 11.No traceof LN activityhasbeen 10,p. 18). foundon Paralia(Franchthi 17. 12.Franchthi 13.Perles1992,p. 141;2001, see p.236. Forspecificassemblages, andGnardellis Moundrea-Agrafioti 1994,p. 197;Perles1981,p. 199; Warren1968,p.239, n. 1. 14.As recordedin the Franchthi Caveinventorynotebooks. forserpentinite 15.The preference Serpentiis notlimitedto Franchthi. nite(andgreenstonein general)has beenwidelyusedforthe manufacture of AegeanNeolithiccelts(seeMoun1996,p. 104;Perles drea-Agrafioti 2001,p.232).
analyAccordingto severalgeologistswho haveconductedmacroscopic usedin the manuis by farthe dominantrawmaterial ses,l4serpentinite It (sixty-sixcases,or 74%of the sample).l5 factureof celtsat Franchthi diaand basalt, Peridotite, gray. and of green tones of a variety in appears each,whilesteatiteis reprebyfourorfivespecimens basearerepresented felsite (andesite, A varietyof otherrawmaterials sentedbytwospecimens. arerepreandsandstone) limestone, diorite,magnetite, argillite, porphyry, sentedbyonespecimeneach(Table1).Apartfromthe medium-grained Theygenerally peridotiteof 1 and2, allthe stonesusedarefine-grained. scale,althoughthreeexno morethan4 on theMohshardness measure of thediabaseusedin 3 is 7, whilethatof the ceptionsexist:thehardness of 2 is 5.The softnessof therawmaterial andesiteof 4 andtheperidotite in easyto shapebutquitevulnerable suggeststhattheceltswererelatively It should orpercussion. thecontextof anyusethatinvolvedhighpressure tougher, be noted,though,thatmostof theotherstonesusedaregenerally
ANNA
6
STROULIA
TABLE 1. CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI CAVE Cat.Nro.Ins. Nro. Pros.
Pres.
Material
FS 227 FS 185 FS589 FS 755 FS 116 FS 117 FS 118 FS 1 FS33 FS 600 FS 212 FS 23 FS201 FS 11 FS 289 FS363 FS21 FS 826 FS 153 FS 159 FS 837 FS 893 FS 884 FS226 FS37 FS 902 FS 221 FS52 FS 899 FS 44 FS 680 FS 157 FS 779 FS398 FS 505 FS 883 FS278 FS24 FS 222 FS 12 FS 207 FS 219 FS 428 FS 22 FS 229
c c c c
peridotite diabase steatite diabase
c
serpentlnlte
c c c
serpentinite serpentinite diabase
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentinite
c
serpentlnlte
2
3 5 6 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 51
C C P P C C C C C P C C C C C P C C C C C P P C C P C C P C P C P C C P C C C C C C C C C
.
.
.
.
Date
FN EN (MN)
(MN) FN
.
.
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentinite
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentinite
c
serpentlnite
c
serpentlnlte
c c
serpentinite serpentinite
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentlnlte
c
basalt
c
serpentlnlte
c c c
argillite steatite MN felsiteporphyry FN
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentinite
c
serpentlnite
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentinite
c
serpentlnlte
c
serpentlnlte
c c
serpentinite serpentinite
c
serpentlnlte
c
diabase
c
serpentlnlte
c c
serpentinite serpentinite
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(FN) .
(MN)
.
.
.
.
.
.
EN/MN EN/MN
.
.
MN
.
.
.
.
serpentlnlte
basalt serpentinite serpentlnlte
(MN) MN
.
c
c
(MN) MN (MN)
.
c c
.
6.9 5.5 4.6 4.4 9.6 7.6 5.9 6.9 6.5 7.0 6.2 6.1 2.5 2.2 3.2 2.4 5.8 6.1 4.5 7.1
.
(MN)
W
Th
L/W
W/Th
4.0
2.8
3.5
2.3
1.72 1.57 2.09 1.22 2.13 1.58 1.55 1.64 1.58 1.66 1.55 1.52 2.50 2.00 1.18
1.42 1.52 2.00 1.56 1.66 1.92 2.11 1.50 1.36 1.44 1.29 2.00 1.42 1.57 2.45 2.44 1.81 2.15 1.54 1.45 1.88 2.05 2.75 1.56 2.22 2.41 2.45 1.78 1.78 2.88 1.87 1.66 2.07
2.2
1.1
3.6 4.5
2.3
4.8
2.5
2.7
3.8
1.8
4.2
2.8
4.1
3.0
4.2 4.0
2.9 3.1
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.7
1.1
0.7
2.7
1.1
2.2
0.9
1.09
4.0
2.2
4.3
2.0
3.7 4.5
2.4
9.1
4.9
4.0 3.3 7.4 4.0 3.1 3.2 4.6 3.9 2.0 2.4 2.2 4.0 2.6
3.7
2.6 1.8
1.45 1.41 1.21 1.57 1.85 1.08 3.00 1.57 2.00 1.06 1.18 1.35 1.14 0.76 1.60 1.46 1.37 1.13 1.30 2.70 1.47 1.29 1.53 1.26 1.20 1.78 1.31 1.12 1.71
.
.
.
L
3.9 2.7 3.4 3.1 4.3 3.8 2.9 4.1 4.2 2.8 8.4
3.1
1.1
0.4
4.7
3.0
2.0
0.9
2.9
1.2
2.7
1.1
3.4
1.9
3.4
1.9
2.6 1.5
0.9
1.5
0.9
2.9
1.4
2.3
1.2
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.6 1.4
2.3
0.8
2.4
1.3
2.8
0.9
3.0
1.2
2.4
1.1
2.3 3.2
1.2 1.3
2.5 4.9
3.7
1.0
1.91
2.00 1.66 1.64 1.84 3.11 2.50 2.18 1.91
2.56 2.50 1.32
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI CAVE
7
TABLE 1-Continued Cat.No. Inv.No. 57 59 67 68 71 72 73 79 81 83 84 85 86 89 31 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 70 74 75 76 77 78 80 82 87 88 1
4
Prov.
FS210 FS 374 FS 142 FS 149 FS239 FS32 FS34 FS 693 FS726 FS 885 FS90 FS93 FS94 Q5S:91/19 FS 751 FS 767 FS 789 FS 178 FS98 FS 430 FS 112 FS 160 FS 6 FS38 FS 737 FS 715 FS 838 FS577 FAWB:28 FAN:129 FF1:29 FS 180 S57 FS385 FS 425 FS 436 FS 617 FS 666 FS 714 FS 772 H:17(A) 05:84 FS311 FS36
C C C C C C C P P P C C C P P P P C C P C C C C P P C P C C C C C C C P P C P P C P C C
Pres.
Material .
.
c
serpentnlte
c c
serpentinite basalt
c
serpentnlte
c c
serpentinite diabase
c
serpentlnlte
c
c .lorlte
c c
serpentinite basalt
c
serpentnlte
c c c f f
serpentinite serpenumte magneate basalt serpenanlte
.
.
.
Date
.
.
MN MN
FN
.
.
(MN) FN
.
.
.
.
EN/MN
.
r
t
serpentnlte
f
serpentinite
(MN)
t
serpentlnlte
f f
peridotite serpentinite
(MN) EN
L 5.3 7.1 2.8 3.0 2.2 4.5 7.3 6.6 2.2 4.1 2.9 3.0 3.5 2.8 5.1 1.8 2.0 2.2
r
3.5 7.2 7.1
r
t
(MN)
serpentnlte
r
t
serpentnlte
f f f f
serpentinite sandstone serpenanlte serpentinite
t
serpentnlte
.
(MN) FN
.
.
.
r
t
serpentnlte
f
serpentinite
t
serpentnlte
.
.
r
MN
t
serpentnlte
f
serpentinite
r
t
serpentmlte
r
t
serpentlnlte
f f f f
serpentinite peridotite limestone serpentinite
t
serpentnlte
.
MN
LN MN (EN)
.
r
t
f n/a n/a
serpentnlte
serpentinite peridotite andesite
(EN) FN
4.5 3.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.3 1.6 3.2 1.2 3.5 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.6 1.3 3.3 3.1 1.2 6.3 1.7 7.0 7.4
W
Th
L/W
W/Th
1.30 1.65 1.64
2.22 1.43 2.12 2.45 2.20 2.05 1.31 1.60 1.14 1.37 1.45 2.33 1.85 3.20 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
4.0
1.8
4.3
3.0
1.7
0.8
2.7
1.1
1.11
1.1
0.5
3.7
1.8
4.2
3.2
3.7
2.3
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.8
2.00 1.21 1.73 1.78 2.75 3.70
2.9
2.0
1.00
2.8
1.2
1.3
0.7
1.07 2.69 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
3.2 3.7 2.5 1.4 1.8
1.0
2.5 1.3 9.0
1.7
6.0 4.8
3.3
4.2 4.7
3.2
4.3
2.3
5.7
2.2
5.2
0.6
3.3 2.1
5.2
1.5
5.0
2.0
1.4
0.8
1.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
3.3
0.7
0.8
0.6
3.2
1.8
2.0 3.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.3
2.5
0.6
3.8
0.8
1.1
0.6
3.9 1.2
2.2
4.5
3.2
4.1
2.5
0.4
All measurements arein centimeters. Abbreviations: Prov.= provenience, Pres.= preservation, L = length,W = width, Th = thickness,LMI = length/widthratio,W/Th = widthXthickness ratio,C-= cave,P = Paraliac = complete,f = fragmentary. Datesin parentheses aretentative.
8
A N N A ST ROU LI A
andthuslessbrittle,thanserpentinite. The thirteencompletetoolsmade of materialotherthanserpentinite represent bothsmallandlargercelts; no particular concentration is detectable in eithergroup. The mainrocksusedin the manufacture of celts(serpentinite, diabase,basalt, peridotite) arefoundintheophiolitecomplex oftheFranchthiErmioniregionaswellasin volcanicbodiesin theDiscouriahills,southwestof Ermioni,andat Vourlia, northwest of theFranchthi embayment. Theserocks,however, areeverywhere deeplyweathered andthe acquisitionof largepiecesof freshmaterial fromoutcropsmusthavebeenvery difficult.Streampebblesor cobblesconcentrated in the floatby natural processes area morelikelysource.l6 Suchpebblesandcobblescouldalso havebeenobtained atthebeachlocatednearthesiteduringtheNeolithic.l7 Thehypothesis thatwaterworn pebblesandcobbleswereusedasraw material forthemanufacture of celtsis reinforced bythemainlycurvilinearappearance ofthetools.Theproblem withthishypothesis, asvanAndel andVitaliano havepointedout,is thatsoundpebblesandcobblesarenow rareinthestreambeds around Franchthi.l8The ancientbeach,ontheother hand,is todayunderwaterandthusdifficultto explore.One canargue, however, followingPerles,thatpebblesorcobblessuitableforthe manufactureof celtsmighthavebeenmoreabundant in thepast,havingbeen subsequently depleted byhumanexploitation.l9 Thisideaseemsto besupportedby the findingsof the ArgolidExploration Project(AEP).The projectcovereda muchlargerareathanthatcoveredby the Franchthi geologicalsurveyandlocatedin thebedsof seasonalstreamscobblesthat appearmacroscopically to be of thesamerawmaterial asthatusedforthe Franchthi celts.20 If suchstreamcobblesoccurtodayin thewiderregion, theirscarcity in the areaof Franchthi mightverywellbe the outcomeof intensiveexploitation bydifferent groupsovera fewmillennia. Moreover, thecobbleslocatedbyAEPweresmall,matchingthegenerally smalldimensionsof theceltsfromFranchthi. If theinhabitants of Franchthi collectedrawmaterials locally,it is reasonable to assumethatthesematerials wereadequate forthepurposes forwhichthetoolswereintended. Therearetwocelts,however, forwhichtheuseof nonlocalrawmaterialseemslikely.The firstis 4, a tool madeof nonporphyritic andesite. Thismaterial, usedalsoto maketwomillstones atFranchthi, is notfound in theFranchthi areaand,asarguedbyRunnels, musthavebeenimported fromsourcesoutsidetheregion,probably in the SaronicGulf.2lInterestinglyenough,4 lacksa workingedge,havingbeenleft in a roughed-out state.If therawmaterial of 4 indeedhasanexogenous origin,it is possible thattheearlystagesof shaping(consisting of peckingandsomegrinding) tookplaceat the sourceareaawayfromthe site.The resultingpreform 16. SeevanAndelandVitaliano mighthavebeentakento the siteforthe restof the manufacturing pro- 1987,p.20;Vitaliano1987,pp.13-14. cess,whichforsomereasonneveroccurred. It is significant that,asmen17.Vitalianon.d.,p. ll. 18. SeevanAndelandVitaliano tionedearlier, theandesiteof 4 is harder(Mohsscale,5) andtougherthan the rawmaterialusedfor the majorityof celts.Theseareprobably the 1987,p.20. 19. Perles,citedin vanAndeland qualitiesthatcreatedtheincentives forimporting andesiteto thesite. Vitaliano1987,p.20. The secondexampleof a celtof nonlocalrawmaterialis 5 (Fig.6, 20. Kardulias andRunnels1995, below),whosematerial is macroscopically similarto thatusedforthelarge p. 111. 21. Runnels1981,p.104. numberof LN andFN opaquewhitebeadsdiscovered atFranchthi. The
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
22. Miller1998. 23. Miller1998. supportof 24. Forethnographic see,forexample,the thishypothesis, accountof stoneceltmanufacture amongthe HetaIndiansof southern Brazil(Kozak1972,p. 18). 25.Thesetwo techniqueshavebeen of commonlyusedin the manufacture AegeanNeolithiccelts(MoundreaAgrafioti1996,p. 104;Perles2001, p. 233). 26. Celtsat Franchthiarenot atypicalof AegeanNeolithicceltassemblagesin thisaspecteither;flakedcelts haverarelybeendetectedin Aegean Neolithicsamples(Perles2001,p. 233).
CAVE
9
to usedforthesebeads(andI assumealsofor5) is,according rawmaterial Oneof thereasonsthetechnique MicheleMiller,steatitethatwasfired.22 thesteatite's wasto increase sheargues, offiringmighthavebeenemployed, Millerbelievesthatthe firedsteatitebeadswereimportedto hardness. It is likelythat5 wasimported distance.23 froma considerable Franchthi plan. givenits FN dateanduniqueangular to thesitetoo,especially fromwaterworn thatmostceltsweremanufactured evidence Additional pebblesor cobblescomesfromexamplesretainingroundedwaterworn area(e.g.,6).The cortexwasretainedasthisarea cortexin theirproximal with the intendedshapeof the tool. not interfering wasleft untreated, insidethe caveuncovered as mentionedearlier,excavation Furthermore, cobble,whichmighthave serpentinite water-rolled one smallunworked if intoa celt.Finally, beencollectedandbroughtto thesitetobeconverted cobbleswithtracesof peckingindeed of serpentinite thethreefragments duringthe celtmanufacturthatoccurred remainsof accidents represent ing process,theymayalsoconstituteevidenceforthe use of waterworn cobblesasceltblanks. ofparticularpebbles theselection musthaveinformed concerns Several orcobblesasceltblanks,themostcrucialofwhichwasto findstoneswith Probably fortheintendedfinishedproducts. adequate physicalproperties closeto anotherconcernwasto use stoneswith shapesanddimensions thoseof thedesiredtools a rationalchoicethatcouldsavetimeandenIt is alsolikelythatsomeeffortwasputinto ergyduringmanufacture.24 wouldacquirea glossyappearfindingblanksthatduringmanufacture celtsreof the Franchthi appearance in the ance.The lackof uniformity butalsotheuniqueness variation, flectsnotonlyawiderangeoffunctional it suggeststhatthe toolswere of eachpebbleor cobbleused.Moreover, andthatstrictnormsasto howtheceltsshould byspecialists notproduced lookdidnotexist. intotools(orat leasttheir The pebblesor cobblesweretransformed pecking techniques: bytheuseof twomanufacturing stonecomponents) of evidence shows 4), no celt of 7 (Fig. Withtheexception andgrinding.25 flaking.Celt7, thelongesttoolin thegroup,hasa flakescarononefacein forthecretheareaof theworkingedge.Lightflakingis alsoresponsible partof the tool,a uniquetraitin ationof a kindof waistin theproximal mightbe signsof an this collection.Thesedeviationsfromthe "norm" exogenousorigin,although,it mustbe stressed,the rawmaterialof this asmostother andhardness withthesameappearance toolis serpentinite was a technique flaking possible that it is celts.Theoretically, Franchthi andthatflakescars of celtsatFranchthi in themanufacture usedregularly of thesurfaceof thesetools. treatment bythesubsequent wereobliterated giventhatthe rawmaterial however, unlikely, I considerthishypothesis its softnessmakes useddoesnot lenditselfeasilyto flaking.Moreover, flakingunnecessary.26 The initialshapingof celtsthusinvolvedpecking,forwhichhamthatpeckingwasnot however, musthavebeenused.It appears, merstones forpeckingonmostsmallcelts, lackofevidence universally.The employed grinding,most by subsequent ratherthanbeingthe resultof obliteration likelyreflectstheomissionof a peckingstage.Sucha choicecanbe easily
IO
ANNA
STROULIA
explained: grindingalonewouldhavebeensufficientto givethe desired size andshapeto the small,softpebblesusedfor smallcelts.Moreover, peckingsmallpebblesmusthavebeeninconvenient, sincetheywouldhave beenhardto holdandstrikewithhammerstones largerthanthemselves. Unlikethesmallcelts,mostof thelargerceltswerepeckedintoshape, a technique to beexpected giventhatgrindingalonewouldhavebeenvery time-consuming in shapinga largerpebbleora cobble.A combination of peckingandgrindingwouldhaveoffereda labor-saving advantage. The extentof theevideneeforpeckingon thesurfaceof thelargerceltsvaries. In a smallnumberof celtsthe peckingmarksarealmostundetectable, havingbeenlargelyeliminated by the subsequent treatment of the tools' surface(see,e.g.,Fig.4:8).In onecelt,7 (Fig.4),pecki-ng tracesrelatedto the originalmanufacturing processcoveralmostallof oneface.The majorityof thelargercelts,however, exhibitpeckingmarksmainlyon their proximal areaortheirsides(e.g.,Fig.4:9, 10,ll).The presence ofpecking markson theproximal partorthesideshasto dowiththefactthatthese areaswereoftenleft onlypartially groundor unground. The differential treatment of the distalandproximal partsof the largerceltssavedtime withoutjeopardizing the tools'efficacy, sinceit wasonlythe areaof the workingedgethathadto begroundin orderto reducefrictionagainstthe workedmaterial.27 Moreover, themakersof thesetoolsmaywellhavedecidednot to grindanareathatwouldbe insertedintoa handleandthus invisible, a decisionthatwouldnotdiminishtheaestheticappealof these objects.Finally,thistreatment mayhavehada specifictechnicalpurpose: to leavea roughorsemirough surfacethatwouldallowa moresecureattachment of thestonebladeto itshandle.28 Onewonders, though,whythe proximal partwasleftin a roughorsemirough statein sometoolsbutnot in others.Did this differential treatment haveto do withtimepressure, personal preference,29 orthekindof haftingdeviceused? Grinding-was the secondmanufacturing stagefor the largercelts thoughthesolemethodusedforthevastmajority of thesmallones.This processservedto createan acuteedgeat one endof the celtaswellas a smoothandoftenglossybodytexture.As experimental workandethnographicresearch suggest,30 grindingmusthavetakenplacewiththehelp ofwateronpassiveabrasive surfaces. Thewateris essentialin thisprocess: on theonehand,it washesawaythedetritusformedduringgrindingand, on the other,it preventsoverheating thatcancause-edgechippingand flaking.3l At Franchthi, passiveabrasive surfaces couldhavebeenprovided by millstones,a substantial numberof whichwereexcavated. As I have
27. SeeDickson1981, pp.33,99; O'Hare1990, p.130. 28. SeeDickson1981, p.32; Kozak1972, p.21; O'Hare1990, p.130. C£ Ricq-deBouardandBuret (1987, pp.178-180), who,on the basis of theirstudyof celtsfromMediterraneanFrance,arguethatthe presence of"residual" peckingprobably hasmore
to do withthe rawmaterialusedeach timethanwithhafting. 29. Accordingto Blackwood (1950, p.16), the differences in the extentof grindingof"adzes" amongthe Kukukukuof New Guinea"appear to be due moreto thepersonalequationrather thanto the kindof stoneused." 30. E.g.,Blackwood 1950, p.15;
Dickson1972, p.208; 1981, pp.42-44, 151-156; Hampton1999, pp.93-97; Nami1984, p.104; Petrequinand Petrequin1993, pp.181-194; Toth, Clark,andLigabue1992, p.91; Townsend1969, p.200; ViM 1940-1941, p. 159. 31. Dickson1981, p.41; Nami 1984, p.104.
w
..
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
v
. ....
.
e
....
s
.
s
z
. ..
CAVE
II
A /e:v h-::0 ?'
,
'
:',, s
'
¢
.'
* ', ,
.
.
%'
'
'.
?.
',
.
.
* ':
.:
'
'.",e'' ',' ',
'
¢,'
...
:.
,-J
,
.
.:
,
I
7
8
-n V-,
v
c;) 9
cX,
10
ll
Figure4. Largecelts7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Scale 1:2
millstones seemsinadequate thesizeof theFranchthi arguedelsewhere,32 cereals,butis suitableforgrindingstonetoolsandother forprocessing pointsto thepossiMoreover, theusewearon certainmillstones artifacts. of a spatialassociaOnlyoneexample bilityoftheiruseingrindingcelts.33 andevenin thatcase tionbetweena celtandmillstoneis known,however, grooves No bedrock association betweenthetwois doubtful.34 afunctional thatmightbe linkedwithgrindingceltshavebeenidentior"cupmarks" fiedatFranchthi.3s 32. Stroulia1999. SeealsoRunnels 1981, pp. 148-154; 1985, pp. 33-34. 33. SeeRunnels1981, pp. 148-154; 1985, pp. 33-34. 34. C£ Runnels(1981, p. 149), who between findsa functionalassociation the twolikely.
35. Suchcupmarksorgrooves areoftenmentionedin theliterature (seeAnderson1890,p. 74;Dickson 1972,pp.208-209;1981,pp.42-44; Hampton1999,pp.69, 93-97).At circular cupmarkswere Franchthi, foundon a naturalboulderat the
to mouthof the cavebut,according CurtisRunnels,who examined them(pers.comm.,April2002), thesefeaturesarenot suitablefor of or resharpening the manufacture celts.
:
ANNA
STROULIA
I2
e
-
@> s:
-
.
J
::?g::@-
:eX
c)
12
13
Ifweleaveasidetheangular-looking and exogenous 5,grinding ingeneralcreatedroundedfacesthatmeet possibly thesidesof theceltssmoothly (seeFigs.4-5: 10, 12, 13).In a fewcases, it formedlightfacets (asin Fig.4: 8) or strongerfacets(asin however, Fig.5: 14).In particular, strong faceting is evidenton someof the smallestcelts (seeFig.6: 15, 16).The faceting in thesetoolsprobably hasto dowiththeirsmallsize:onlya small surface couldat anyonetimebe exposedfor grinding. Giventhe glossinessthatcharacterizes mostof the celts,it is likely that thelaststageofgrindinginvolveda fine abrasive: fine,soft clay, orocher.36 In fact,oneof thesetools,17,hasa subtle sandstone, reddishcoloration on its body,whichmayrepresent tracesof clayorocherusedin this last stage.37 Themakersof thesetoolsmighthavealso rubbedthemwitha piece of leatherto achievethesameeffect.38 Apartfromservingasanindispensable stagein theceltmanufacturing process, grindingalsoservedto rejuvenate a dulledgeaftera toolhad been utilized.Grindingin thiscaseresultedin unifacial orbifacialbeveling nextto the edge the diagnostic traitof resharpening (seeFig.6:5, 15, 16, 18).It is alsopossible,if untraceable, forthewholetool to have been reground in thecourseof resharpening the if there was a needto redefinethetool'sproportions. edges,especially Peckingwasalsosometimesusedafter grinding(andutilization) of the celthadalready takenplace.It is possibleto distinguish two cases of this secondary pecking.In the firstcase,peckingremovedthe smooth ground surfacein anareabeginningat theproximal end of the tool and reaching upto themiddleof thebodyorevenhigher (see Figs. 7, 9: 19, 20, 21, 22).This kindof peckingmighthavebeen intended to redefine the shape orproportions of a toolthatforonereasonoranother hadbecome dysfunctional or to makeit fit a particular handle.39 In the secondand rarer case,peckingroughened up the smoothgroundsurfaceof onlythe sides of the celt,perhapsagainaspartof an effortto facilitateits secure adjustment to thehandle(seeFigs.5, 8:14,23). In a singlecase,24 (Fig.9), thegrinding of of a workingedgewerefollowedbyan thetoolandthecreation sharp intentional unifacial retouch that formed a serrated edge.Theretouchwasmostlikely accomplished by pressure ratherthanpercussion.
14
Figure 5. Largecelts 12, 13,14. Scale 1:2
36.Forsandstone, seeDickson 1981, p. 156. My ownexperiments
indicate thatclayis a quitegood polishing agent.Foranethnographic example of clayusedin thiscontext, see also Kozak1972, p. 20. 37.Redpigment,though,couldalso have been usedforstrictlydecorative purposes (seeHampton1999,p. 87). 38. Seeexperiments byM'Guire (1892, p. 169) andNami(1984, p. 104). 39. SeealsoMoundrea-Agrafioti 1981, p. 183.
\e \o
*
l |
*i
l
F
4
I3
CAVE
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
I
-X
PtS b
-. * l
o
c) -
l
//
16
15
5
Figure 6. Small celts 5, 15, 16, 18. Scale 1:1
18
'
Figure7. Largecelts 19, 20, 22. Scale 1:2
,4
,
cX,
19
20
22
I4
ANNA
STROULIA
The processof makinga celt musthavebeencompletedwith the manufacture of a haftandtheadjustment of the stonebladeintoit. Four antlersleevesconstitutethe onlydirectevidenceof haftingrecovered at Franchthi.40 Threeof them,however, arenotpreserved wellenoughto be usefulin thisdiscussion. Thefourthindeedhasa socket,butit is toosmall to fit eventhesmallestceltandmustthenhavebeenusedforotherkinds oftools(e.g.,chippedstoneorbonetools).Thescarcity of antlersleevesin the archaeological recordat Franchthi indicatesthatthishaftingdevice wasnotcommonly usedatthissite,andbyextensionthatthehaftsof the celts(andothertools)weremostoftenmadeof wood.The stoneblades couldhavebeenadjustedto the haftsdirectlyor with the aid of some bindingmaterial (e.g.,leather, vinestrips)oradhesive substance (e.g.,resin, beeswax), allperishable materials andthuspresently inaccessible.41 Forreasonsexplained above,thefollowingconfigurations canbeconsideredindirectevidencefor haftinglargercelts:an ungroundor semigroundsurfacein the proximal area(seeFig.4: 10, 11);or,in the same Figure8. Largecelt 23. Scale 1:2 area,a groundsurfaceroughened by secondary pecking(seeFigs.5, 7-9: 14,19,20, 21, 22,23).42We do notknowthemodeof haftingbutwe can assumethatthehandlewasplacedin thelongaxisof thestonehead,parallelorperpendicular to it. If therawmaterial forceltswasindeedfoundlocally,I wouldsuggest 40.This numberrefersto the inventhatthe manufacture of smallcelts requiring, withthreeorfourexceptoried specimensonly. tions,onlythegrindingof a smallpebble-tookplaceonthesite;thelarge 41. Forarchaeological, experimental, numberof millstones discovered andtheavailability of waterresources at andethnographic information about Franchthi makethisalikelyscenario.43 Thehypothesis is irther supported differentcelt-haftingtechniques,see by evidenceof a particular kindof celtgrinding resharpeninwhich, Becker1945;Blackwood1950,pp.21as a toolmaintenance technique, hadto havetakenplaceon the site.For 22;Carneiro1974,pp.110-111;1979, the samereasons,the grindingof largerceltsalsoprobably occurred lo- pp.24-27;Dickson1981,pp.158-167; cally,a likelihoodstrengthened bythediscovery of twopreforms (1 and4) GodelierandGaranger1973,pp.198200;Hampton1999,pp.72-88;Heider thatwereprobably intendedto go througha grindingstageon the site. 1967,p.56; Hellweg1984,p. 98; Butwherewasthepeckingof largerceltstakingplace?Peckingof celt Kozak1972,pp.21-22;Malinowski blankscouldhavebeendoneon the site,as indicatedby hammerstones 1934,p. 191;Moundrea-Agrafioti discovered duringthe excavations.44 The one complete,unworkedser- 1987;Muller-Beck1965,pp.13-49; pentinitecobble,if it is a celtblank,maysuggestthatcobblesweretaken PetrequinandPetrequin1993,pp.43to the siteto be transformed intocelts.If the threefragments of pecked 59;Pond1930,pp.93-94;Schoen 1969,p. 18;Sillitoe1988,pp.43-50; serpentinite cobbles(see above)areremainsof accidentsthat occurred Steensberg1980,pp.5-24;Toth,Clark, duringthe peckingstage,they too maysupportthe hypothesisthat andLigabue1992,p. 92;Tsountas peckingwas carriedout at Franchthi. Finally,the evidenceof second- 1908,pp.316-322. 42. Accordingto Ricq-deBouard arypecking(which,likeresharpening, musthavetakenplaceat the site), and Buret(1987,p. 181),of the two suggeststhatpeckingwasprobably a manufacturing stagethatoccurred treatments onlythe oneinvolving on site. secondary peckingis relatedto hafting. The discovery of onlyonecompleteunworked cobbleperhaps attests 43.The watercouldhavebeen to a tendencyto collectcelt blanksonlywhenneeded,andthusto an suppliedby eitherthe smallpoolat the expedienttechnology. Otherwiseonewouldexpectto finda numberof rearof the caveorthe now-submerged pebblesorcobbleswaitingto be converted intocelts.Thereis, of course, springsat the Franchthishore (Franchthi 7, p.5; vanAndeland thepossibility thata specialized celtproduction areaexistedat Franchthi Vitaliano 1987,p.18) andthatthe excavations didnotuncoverit. The lackof morphologically 44.Thesetools,however,arelikely homogeneous groupsandstandardization in thecontextof theceltindus- to haveserveda varietyof percussive try,however, arguesagainstthishypothesis. purposes.
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
I5
CAVE
25
21
Figure 9. Small celts 21, 24, 25. Scale 1:1
45. SeePetrequinandPetrequin 1993,pp.78-81;Sillitoe1988,p. 43.
{
X
24
onthesitedoesnotnecTheabsenceof evidencefora celtworkshop oruse bygenderin themanufacture essarily implya lackof specialization in manyconis knownethnographically of thesetools;suchspecialization though, forFranchthi, Suchahypothesis NewGuineagroups.45 temporary possiblethattheFranchthi It is, moreover, is forthemomentuntestable. of celtswerealsoinvolvedin peoplewhowereinvolvedin theproduction tools, andotherserpentinite ornaments of serpentinite the manufacture althoughagainevidencefor or againstsucha hypothesishas not been identified. Finally,the two toolsmadeof nonlocalrawmaterialdeservecomimportedto the sitein a finished ment:5, of firedsteatite,wasprobably whitebeads inwhichtheopaque throughthesamenetworks state,perhaps Thissuggeststhata smallnumberof celtsentered notedabovecirculated. thesitein a thesitein a finishedform.A fewothersseemto havereached madefroma nonlocal, by4, aceltpreform form,asissuggested roughed-out andesite. The initialshapingof 4 couldhavebeencomnonporphyritic orbypeoplewho of Franchthi pletedat theandesiticsourcebyresidents werein directorindirectcontactwiththem.Thistoolcouldhavecometo made millstones asthetwoFranchthi thesametrajectories thesitethrough tencanonlyremain suggestion, however, andesite.This ofnonporphyritic and4 arecontemporary. if thesetwomillstones tative,sinceit is unknown
I6
ANNA
STROULIA
TECHNOMORPHOLOGICAL ASPECTS The fifty-ninecompleteceltsfromFranchthi rangein lengthfrom2.0 to 9.6 cm.Sixty-sixpercentfallintothe 2.0-4.6cmrange,29%arebetween 5.3 and7.6 cmlong,and5%fallbetween 8.4and9.6 cm.Theheavyconcentration of toolsin the shortestrangeis reflected in the average length of4.54cm(s = 1.95)(Fig.10:a).Theabove distribution indicates that the celtsfromFranchthi areonthewholeshorter thanotherAegeanNeolithic celtassemblages.46 Thereare,nevertheless, twofragments thatmayhave beenpartof completeceltsmeasuring 10.0cm longor longer,47 leaving openthepossibility thata fewceltslongerthanthoserepresented among thecompletetoolswereatsomepointusedat Franchthi. A comparison of thelengthsof the completeceltsrecovered insidethe cavewiththoseof celtsfoundon Paraliashowsa high concentration of longerceltsin the cave; 90%of celtslongerthan4.6 cmwere excavated there(Table1).This distribution mightreflectdifferential useof the caveandParaliain relation to thesetools. The completeceltsrangein widthfrom0.8 to 4.9 cm.The majority (59%) fallintothe2.2-4.0 cmrange.Of the 46. Moundrea-Agrafioti remaining celts,halfarebe(1981, tween 0.8 and2.0 cmwideandtheotherhalfare pp. 199-200)notesthat63%of the between 4.1 and 4.9 cm wide. The average Thessalian celtsstudiedhavea length widthof the completeceltsis 3.01cm (s = 1.15),less between 4.0 and8.0 cm,while13%of than thatof otherceltsin AegeanNeolithiccelt assemblages48 (Fig. the samplearelongerthan8.0 cm.Of Five fragmentary celtsarewiderthananyof thecompletecelts,49 10:b). the forty-five however, completeceltsreported which suggeststhatthewidthsof thecompletecelts from Neolithic might Knossos(Evans1964), not be representative. Only6%of the completeceltsfoundon only a third are equalto orlessthan Paralia are widerthan 4.0 cm,incontrast 4.6 to25%ofthosefoundinsidethecave.In cm in length.Of the sixty-fivecelts general, smaller listed tools fromOlynthus,only11%are appearto havebeenusedon Paralia. 4.6 cm orlesslong,the restrangingin The completeceltsfromFranchthi rangein thicknessfrom0.4 to length from4.9 to 13.0cm (Mylonas 3.7 cm.Sixty-four percentarebetween0.4and1.5cmthick.The 1929, pp.71-72). Of the forty-four rest have athickness rangingfrom1.8 to 3.7 cm.The average celts listedfromDikiliTash,43%have thicknessis 1.67cm (s0.85) = (Fig.10:c).Theceltsfrom a length equalto orlessthan4.6 cm Franchthi areingeneralthinnerthan other AegeanNeolithiccelts.50 (Seferiades 1992,pp.87, 93).The averHalfof thecompleteceltsfoundinsidethe age lengthof the seventy-twocomplete cave havea thickness of 1.5cmorlessversustwo-thirds of thosefoundon or almost completeceltsfromServiais Paralia. over 7.5 cm (Mould,Ridley,andWarHowcanthesmallsize asexpressed dle 2000,pp.129-136).See,however, especiallyin length of a large number of theceltsbe explained? the eightceltsfromKitsos,sevenof Thistrendseemsevenodderin lightof the tools'generally which arebetween2.8 and3.8 cm in goodconditionandsharpworkingedges, features that length imply thattheceltsenteredthearchaeological (Perles1981,p. 198). recordwhentheywerestill 47. I amreferring hereto 53 and54 functional. It is temptingto seethesmallsizeof these tools as a (Fig. result 15). of repeated resharpening, whichseemsto besuggested bytheirgenerally 48.Forexample,the averagewidth low length/width ratio(average of length/width the ratio:1.59(s =0.55)(Fig.10:d). Thessalianceltsstudiedby There are,however,at leastthreeproblemswith Moundrea-Agrafioti is ca.4.0-4.5 cm this hypothesis. First, there arehighlysignificant 1981,pp.200correlations amongthethreebasicdimensions 201).(Moundrea-Agrafioti (length, width,thickness) of thecompletecelts(Table2), suggesting that 49.I amreferring hereto 52, 58 resharpening wasnotpracticed intensively enoughto havea dramatic (Fig.15), 60, 61, and62. impact ontheproportions ofthesetools.Second,thecorrelation 50. Forexample,only41%of the betweenthe length andlength/width ratiois notsignificant Thessalian celtsexaminedbyMoun(Table 2), which explains why somerelatively long celts(e.g.,Fig. 7: 22) havea verylow drea-Agrafioti havea thicknessof length/ 1.5orcm width ratiowhilesomeveryshortcelts(e.g.,Fig.9: less(Moundrea-Agrafioti 25) havea veryhigh 1981, pp.201-202).
-
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
I7
CAVE
-
12
12
b 10
10
2.00
3.00 2.50
4.00 3.50
5.00 4.50
6.00 5.50
7.00 6.50
8.00 7.50
9.00
1.00
8.50
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
9.50
Width (cm)
Length(cm) 14
16
d
c 14
12
12 10
10 8' 8' 6' 6' 4' 4'
.50
1.00 .75
1.50 1.25
2.00 1.75
2.50 2.25
Thickness (cm) Figure10. Frequencydistributions of completecelts (n = 59) by (a) length (s 1.95, mean4.54); (b) width (a 1.15, mean3.01); (c) thickness (s 0.85, mean 1.67);and(d) length/ widthratio(s 0.55, mean 1.59)
-
3.00 2.75
.75
3.50 3.25
3.75
1.25 1.00
1.75 1.50
2.25 2.00
2.75 2.50
3.25 3.00
3.75 3.50
Length/widthratio
length/width ratio(Table1).Third,andmostimportant, theresharpened toolsaccountforonlyabouthalfof thethirty-nine smallceltsandthereis no difference in the averagelength/width ratiobetweenthosethatwere resharpened andthosethatwerenot. Amongthesmallcelts,theresharpened toolsareasa ruletheshortest (average lengthof resharpened smallcelts:2.9 cm;average lengthofthose not resharpened: 3.7 cm).Thoughit mightthusbe arguedthatthevery shortlengthis theresultof resharpening, theproportionately smallwidth andthicknessmakeit unlikelythatthesespecimens wereinitiallymuch longer.It is,therefore, morereasonable to assumethatthesizeof thesmall celtsis primarily a manufacturing choice,presumably determined by the
ANNA
I8
STROULIA
TABLE 2. PEARSON CORRELATIONS OF DIMENSIONS OF COMPLETE CELTS Length
Length
PearsonCorrelation Sig.(2-tailed) N
Width
PearsonCorrelation Sig.(2-tailed) N Thickness PearsonCorrelation Sig.(2-tailed) N LMt Ratio PearsonCorrelation Sig.(2-tailed) N W/Th RatioPearsonCorrelation Sig.(2-tailed) N
Width
1
59
Thickness
0.845*
0.877*
0.000
0.000
59
59
0.845*
0.896*
0.000
0.000
59
59
W/ThRafio
0.085 0.522 59
-0.418*
-0.424* 0.001
0.001
59 -0.186 0.158 59
59
59
59
59
-0.184 0.164 59
59
-0.424*
-0. 184
0.877*
0.896*
0.000
0.000
59
L/WRafio
-0.557* 0.000
59
59
59
59
-0.371* 0.004 59
-0.418*
-0. 186
-0.557*
0.001
0.158
0.000
-0.371* 0.004 59
59
0.085 0.522
59
0.001
59
0.164
59
* Correlation is significantat (atleast)the 0.01 level(2-tailed).
is thescarcity of waysin whichthesetoolswereused.Equallyinteresting thelargercelts,whichsuggeststhatthesetools evidenceforresharpening It alsosuggests enoughto require resharpening. werenotusedintensively thatthesmallceltsarenotthelaststagein thehistoryof useoflargercelts; betweenlargerandsmallcelts. in otherwords,thereis no continuity It is possibleto constructsmallgroupsof toolswith similarshapes significance canbe atandsizes,althoughat presentno chronological shapein planviewforthe celtsis tachedto thesegroups.The preferred (sub)triangular, withthirty-twoinstancesamongthe fifty-ninecomplete widthcoincidesmoreorlesswith celts(54%).Inthesetoolsthemaximum the workingedge.Celtsof all sizesweremadein this shape(see,e.g., Figs.5, 8, 12,13:14,23,26,33).Thenextmostpopularshapeamongthe withsixteeninstances(27%)(see, completespecimens is (sub)rectangular, shape e.g.,Fig.13:27). Sixcompletecelts(10%)havea (sub)trapezoidal (e.g.,28),whereasfive(8%)haveanovoidshape(see,e.g.,Fig.5: 12).A shape,atleastasfarasthelargerceltsare preference fora (sub)triangular by the factthatduringusea taperedstone concerned, maybe explained intothe handle bladewedgesitselfmoretightly,andthusmoresecurely, thatthisis It mustbe noted,however, thanstonebladesof othershapes.51 nottrueforallhaftingdevices.52 ratioof the completeceltsrangesfrom1.14to The width/thickness 3.20withan averageof 1.93 (s - 0.47) (Table1, Fig. 11).The majority ratiobetween1.84 and of completecelts(56%)havea width/thickness completeceltshavea ratioof 3.20,andthusareflattish.The remaining Mostof thesmallceltsareflattish(e.g., 1.81orless,andthusaremassive. Fig.13:27,29),whilemostof thelargerceltsaremassive(e.g.,Fig.5:12). profiles havestronglyasymmetrical OnlysevenceltsfromFranchthi (see,e.g.,Figs.5-6, 12-13:5, 14, 15, 30, 31).Fiveof theseare,or come
51. See Dickson 1981, p. 60. 52. C. Perles (pers.comm., Septem ber 2000).
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
CAVE
I9
10
8'
6'
4'
-
-
1.13
Figure11. Frequencydistribution of completecelts (n = 59) bywidth/ thicknessratio(s 0.47, mean1.93)
-
-
1.38
1.25
-
-
1.63
1.50
-
-
1.88
1.75
-
-
2.13
2.00
-
-
2.38
2.25
-
-
2.63
2.50
-
-
2.88
2.75
-
-
3.13
3.00
3.25
Width/thickness ratio
,n,
'a, Figure12. Largecelts26, 31. Scale 1:2
53. Accordingto thisdefinition,an
axehasa symmetrical profileanda haft fixedparallelto its workingedge,while anadzehasanasymmetrical profileand a haftfixedperpendicularly to its edge. On the inadequacy of thisdefinition, see accountsof modernNew Guinea groupswhohafttheirstoneblades indiscriminately as adzesor axes, dependingon whatis neededat the timeorin sucha waythattheycanbe rotatedwithinthe handle(Heider 1967, p. 56; Malinowski 1934, p. 191; Sillitoe1988, pp. 43-44). 54. Dickson1972, p. 209; 1981, pp. 45, 102.
(
X
26
31
from,largercelts.On theotherhand,onlythreeceltshaveanabsolutely symmetrical profile:11 (Fig.4), 12 (Fig.5), and32 (Fig.13).Mostcelts areindeedslightlyasymmetrical in profile(see,e.g.,Fig.4: 9). Veryfew celts,therefore, fitperfectly theclassicdefinition of"axe" and"adze."53 On thisbasis,I wouldassumethatmostof thetimetherewasno greatconcernwithceltprofilesymmetry on thepartof theFranchthi people. The majority of celtshavea convexworkingedgein planview(e.g., Figs.4-5, 8-9:8, 14,21,23).Thepredominance of thisedgeshapecanbe tracedtotherawmaterial itself:aconvexedgefollowsthecurvilinear shape of the pebblesor cobblesthatservedas celtblanks.Moreimportantly, however, the convexedgeoffereda significant technicaladvantage, since an angularconnection of theworkingedgeto the sidesof the celtcould havecreatedfatalpointsof stressduringuse.54 A fewceltshavea straight edgein planview.All of thembelongto the groupof smallcelts(e.g.,
-
ANNA
20
. *
*
STROULIA
X
*. v
*ZebRtS
d
n \6:^ C p:*
i;is *-.sU w
,
34
27
29
I
c
D
32
30
-
-
I / Ws;
\ @*@ }
-
O\
/
, I
c
)
33
35
l
C
9
36
CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI CAVE
Figure13 (opposite). Small celts 27, 29, 30,32,33, 34,35,36. Scale 1:1
Figs.6, 13:16, 29, 33, 35). Finally,fourceltshavean edgethatis lopof sidedin planview (Figs.4, 6, 13:10, 18, 34, 36). The lopsidedness as the resultof resharpenin the literature edgeshas beeninterpreted applies Thisinterpretation ing partof the edgeafterlocalizeddamage.55 one to at leastone of thesetools,34 (Fig.13),butnot to at least other, 36 (Fig.13). haveedgesthatarestraight All butfiveof the celtsfromFranchthi alllargerceltsedges of the five exceptions frontally. The whenviewed areconvex(seeFigs.4, 5, 8, 12:8, 9, 14,23,31).Theseedgesaresharpand choice,ratherthantheproda manufacturing thusbeyonddoubtrepresent Toolswitha uctof usewiththefaces(forperhapspolishingorscraping). stronglyconvexedgein frontviewalsotendto havemoreasymmetrical profilesthanothertools.56 US E WEAR ANALYSI S SMALLCELTS
55. Spenneman1987,p.22; see also Semenov1964,pp.129-130. 56. A few celtswiththisparticular havebeenreported edgeconfiguration fromNeolithicThessaliansites(Moun1981,p. 186)andfrom drea-Agrafioti 1992,pp.88DikiliTash(Seferiades 90,94). I haveseenmanysuchceltsin fromthevicinity Neolithicassemblages of KozaniandKastoria. 57.The samplesizebecomeseven largerif the fourteenfragmentsof small celtsarealsotakeninto account. 58. Fora similarsituation,see Perles 1981,p.199, on the celtsfromKitsos; andSugaya1993,p. 443,on the smallestceltsfromTharrounia.
largenumberof smallcelts(39) above,thereis a surprisingly As discussed glossyappearance The smallsizecoupledwitha generally at Franchthi.57 makesonewonderwhethertheseceltsweremadenotto be usedastools objectsof status,articlesof personalatbutratherto serveasminiatures, is hardto promoteforthese however, tire,oreventoys.Sucha hypothesis, visibleon evidenceof usewearorresharpening celts,giventheabundant All butone of the celtsexhibitusewear,andabouthalfof theiredges.58 on oneorbothof theirfaces(e.g.,Fig.6:5, 15);a themwereresharpened twiceon the sameface. few (e.g.,Fig.6: 16, 18) havebeenresharpened andusewearinsomeofthesmallevidence ofresharpening Thecombined and est celtsindicatesthattheywereusedaftertheywereresharpened whentheyhadaveryshortlength(e.g.,Fig.13:33,35).Thereis no doubt thenthatthe smallceltswereused.Howtheywereusedis a muchmore analysis use-wear especially in theabsenceof microscopic complexmatter, asI discusstheuse studies.I willoffersomesuggestions or experimental wearof thesmallceltsbelow. exerthroughpressure The edgeof a celtenterstheworkedmaterial Given cisedon the tool'shaftor through(director indirect)percussion. was I assumepercussion the smallsizeof the toolsin question,however, visibleon the rarely. Fourkindsof useweararemacroscopically practiced of chippingandscoring;a a combination edgesof smallcelts:chipping; with or without andflattening, of chippingandrounding; combination .
.
c. :llpplng.
whileothersshowbifacial edgechipping, Sometoolsexhibitunifacial locationof thechipscarsmighthaveto do Thedifferential edgechipping. witha specificuseorhaftingtechniquethatexposedoneorbothfacesof In the caseof of theworkedmaterial. theworkingedgeto theresistance thetwofacesmighthavebeenexposedto theresisbifacialedgechipping, or alternately. The presence tanceof theworkedmaterialsimultaneously profilesandedgeshapes of bifacialedgechippingon toolswithdifferent exists (see,e.g., 35 [Fig. 13], 37, 38) suggeststhatno clearcorrelation
2I
ANNA
22
STROULIA
betweenthisparticular usewearanda certainsetof technomorphological .
c. zaracterlstlcs
.
.
Unifacial edgechipping occursmorerarelyamongthesmallcelts(e.g., 39 [Fig.14],40,41).The appearance of thiskindof usewearimpliesthat primarily one facewasmeetingthe resistance of theworkedmaterial. It hasbeenimpossible to detectanypatternconnecting the unifacialchippingto specifictechnomorphological features. Celt42 (Fig.14),a small tool exhibitingunifacialedgechipping,shouldbe mentionedseparately. Herethe chipscarsextendin differentdirections, suggesting thatdifferentpartsof the edgewereat differenttimesexposedto the resistance of theworkedmaterial. Thiskindof usewearis expected, if notexclusively, in thecaseof anindirectpercussive function. Thishypothesis is reinforced bypercussion scarsvisibleon the proximal endof the tool.The factthat percussion wasusedindicates thattheworkedmaterial wasrelatively hard, perhaps woodorbone.Celt24 (Fig.9), a sturdy, stubbytool,shouldalso be mentioned in relationto unifacial edgechipping. It is uniquein thatit has a serrated edgeproduced by unifacialretouch.The chippingof the edgein thiscaserepresents a manufacturing choiceratherthananunintendedresultof use.A toolwith sucha workingedgecouldhavebeen usedforcuttingskinsormeat. In a secondkindof usewearrepresented bythreetools,29 (Fig.13), 43, and44, the chippingis accompanied byveryfine,short(about1 mm long)scoringmarks. Thisscoringis perpendicular to theedgeandvisible withorwithoutlowmagnification on oneorbothfaces.The shortlength anddirectionof thescoringmarkssuggestthattheyaredueto userather thanmanufacture or resharpening, sinceit is veryhardto grindthe edge transversely foronlya millimeter withoutriskingflatteningit out.Given thesmallsizeof toolsshowingthisscoringandthegenerally goodconditionof theiredges,it is likelythatthescoringoccurred frompressure exercisedtransversely on theworkedmaterial. No specificpatternconnecting thisformof usewearwithspecifictechnomorphological characteristics is detectable in thiscaseeither.On29 and44,however, thechippingappears ononefaceof theedge,andthescoringontheother,raisingthepossibility thatthetwokindsof useweararetheresultof differentuses. In athirdkindof usewear,represented by6 and46 (Fig.14),chipping appears ononefaceof abluntorrounded edge.Arethedullnessandchippingof theworkingedgetheresultsof thesameuseordothetwokindsof usewearreflectdifferent uses?I tendto believethattheyaretheresultof the sameuse.The dulledgein bothtoolsmightbe theresultof dressing hidesor perhapsscrapingor burnishing the interiorof ceramicvessels. Interestingly, thechipscarson 6 areconsistently angledobliquely in relationto theedge.Thispatternpointsto atransverse andobliquemovement of theedgeovertheworkedmaterial. The last andmostunexpected kindof use wearthatI was ableto identifymacroscopically on smallceltsis a verynarrow flatzonecovering the entireedgeor a partof it.Threetoolsdisplaythisuse-wearpattern. On twoof them(Figs.6, 14:18,47),chippingfollowedtheformation of theflatzoneandis alsoapparent on theedge.59 59. SeealsoO'Hare1990,p. 131, Celt 16 (Fig.6), one of the smallestexamples, shouldalsobe men- fortwo examplesof flat-edgedcelts tionedhere.The edgeof thistoolhasbeensharpened twiceon oneface fromNeolithicsouthernItaly.
/n 11 CELTS FROM FRANCHTHI
celts39,42,46,47. l4. Smllll Figure
y
,,,c,,---"'^'''X$',B24i'''
.
''\x1 i
'
\
.
X
B234,
B242
\
'.'/'
'
'-
FiFre15:a.Tracts andsitesinthe
>- - \ S ----
\
>
ZONE2 Gardens, oliveorchards, andfruitgroveslie attheeasternendsof thelow ridges(77masland93 masl)thatdefinezone2 onthenorthandsouth.A springin tractB293supplies waterto residents of themoredenselypopulatedzone1.Theflat,scrub-covered bottomland slopesgentlyfromwest to eastandis usedforgrazing.Higherslopeson the southernridgeare mostlyterraced, withsomeoliveandfigtrees;terraces arelargelycovered bygrassandsomebrushgrowsontheirfaces.Thenorthern ridgehasfew trees,lesswell definedterraces, andmorescrubbrush.This sideof the
R.J.Robertson
fE \\\ ) ....... 352 tt A552 B3550/ B356; -B357 /[S ......A26 ')K....;B155 .2 1BS)) A561 . .. E..BR -A24 A ........ A111 ............................................. - A°63 \ B079 B194 B1618162; a ......................................................... i4A112 ,', &_. Bt X)51 ,iB,S: ZA27B3199; '/, \ ,/1 ' ='................ }1iH 'A164 .\ o A183 ,°F/A279 A272 S:.AOS9 B107 A165 A29 *--E ' B130 A158 ..... , -;. .B18a 9/647 CAOZ3 A284W . E A156 ..... ........... A°1SO /AO48 AOS2 - A267. AO27 AO14 : A1<WU AO49 ........ .< :'. S AO51 -A223 AO13 A(i) [. .A218: .
DURRES
REGIONAL
a
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
57
l
)\!!-
\
RS;fefN0¢f;w>:gHEWd>:;:0f0\ff00A
\\Da:f: X X .
\;
; B064
A560
.
g
\
A562
A549
0
;
-.
0 .B358
A248X.:
YW;X S.
B088
AV9
//
3, A1OO
A°79
{
0
B348
B359
i3347
(
A129
-
|
-
--
i
B3610
A147
AO80
092
A105:
A104
A570
-
v
1
BU8
B197,
AO66
AO84
0.
"A113'
::
,
.-
A119 ,-
'
2
B184;'
t
B1B8
B191 ............................................... ,
. A231:
X
AO61
A128)-'
89
A166 A160
A129,--
,X
i? 0 ?6i;?: ;,
i
E
i;0:; i ?BE '? iXii? 2 ,5.iz.;; p,. i?i2???,'0g' ';?.?: gE?
i,?i
