Dissertation committee:
Ιουλία Καραλή, ομότιμη καθηγήτρια, ΕΚΠΑ
Ιωάννης Παπαδάτος, αναπληρωτής καθηγητής, ΕΚΠΑ
Αφροδίτη Χασιακού, λέκτορας, ΕΚΠΑ
Γεώργιος Βαβουρανάκης, αναπληρωτής καθηγητής, ΕΚΠΑ
Κωνσταντίνος Κοπανιάς, αναπληρωτής καθηγητής, ΕΚΠΑ
Ελευθέριος Πλάτων, αναπληρωτής καθηγητής, ΕΚΠΑ
Ευγενία Γιαννούλη, αναπληρώτρια καθηγήτρια Τμήματος Ιστορίας, Αρχαιολογίας
και Διαχείρισης Πολιτισμικών Αγαθών, Πανεπιστήμιο Πελοποννήσου
Summary:
Bones and shells are two basic raw materials for making objects in prehistory. By comparing the use of the two materials, which is influenced by the natural environment and human activities, we can illustrate in detail some aspects of human life, the way of adaptation and the way of exploiting the natural environment.
The study aims to understand the reasons for the selection of bone or shell as a raw material for the production of objects in Neolithic Greece. Emphasis is given to the reasons for the choice of bone or shell by the craftsman before “processing” objects for a specific use. Although the morphological character of these objects is associated with a distinct function, this does not limit the range of use by the person who used them. What we can safely recognize is the craftsman’s original “aim” of processing the raw materials. The finds from the Neolithic site “Halai” in Locris were selected as study material.
From the analysis of the worked bones, it was found that the differentiation in the choice of a specific anatomical part of bone for the production of sharp point tools is related to the estimated size of the holes to make, large, medium or small. In the Middle Neolithic, the possible aim was to make any point tool, whereas in the Late Neolithic the aim was to create point tools for different hole sizes.
The analysis of the worked shells showed that their processing was carried out with the aim of forming them to the same size as well as exploiting their natural beauty. The biggest difference compared to bone is observed in the choice of raw material.
The “density” measurement was applied as a new method of identifying the raw material for the analysis of small beads. It was found that their processing was not based on a specific raw material, but on the basis of color, therefore different materials were selected according to the environmental and social conditions. Given the common techniques used for the processing of similar objects made of bone, shell and stone, it is obvious that craftsmen of beads would also be involved in the processing of other materials. The spatial distribution of the objects also shows that the processing of different objects out of bone and shell, including beads, was carried out in the same open space. Therefore, in the Late Neolithic, craftsmen begun to make objects after evaluating various effective factors for processing.
To better understand the reasons for the long-term processing activity, the “inverse system theory” is proposed, which defines the following key factors: “supplier”, “technical” and “social” factors. The elements that ensure the “bundle” of these factors are considered as a “safety net”.
In the case of bones, the re-use of metapodial bone and the differentiation of material according to the objects are considered as safety nets in the supplier factor. These apparently supported the stable supply of bone material. As far as the technical factor is concerned, there appears to be a persistent safety net, as a variety of diachronically common techniques applied for the processing of bones. This also applies to the case of shell objects and beads. The social factor is also found in sharp tools. The establishment of drilling tools for different hole sizes can be considered as the result of feedback, as a tool-set would be typologically established in response to the user’s demand.
In the case of shells, no safety nets were observed in the supplier factor. The Spondylus shell was present in abundance in Atalanti Bay. The easy access to the raw material would obviously be a more important factor in its use. As for the social factor, a rule in the thickness of the shell rings was observed, which did not change throughout the Late Neolithic. This was probably caused by a lack of direct response from “users”, as the shell rings were transferred to other settlements as objects of value. On the other hand, in the perforated biconical gastropods we observed the use of different materials. This might be indicative of the response to demand, as there was no problem in supplying the Columbella shell. The geographical distance between craftsmen and users would be an important factor for explaining the subtle difference in the objects.
The mechanism of “safety nets” may explain the reasons for differentiation in products. In cases of shortage of suitable raw material, the production can be continued by using alternative materials. In other cases, the activity is discontinued and the products are replaced by substitutes.
In order to discuss this topic, the finds from Leontari Cave on Hymettus, a typical site of mountainous seasonal habitation, were chosen as an archaeological parallel. To better evaluate the value of shell artifacts as exchange items, an ethnographic parallel from the Okinawa islands in Japan, is discussed.
Finally, the Braudel’s approach is applied to interpret the reasons for the use of bones and shells as raw materials in a broader historical-archaeological context. Braudel’s analysis parameters are assimilated with the factors defined above. The physical environment influences not only the human choice for a specific processing method, but also the cultural phases. The ways of processing, types and quantity of similar objects are influenced by the economic and cultural development.
The insight provided by the above study could be the trigger for a similar approach to the study of bones and shells from the various excavations, so that the life of prehistoric Greece could be depicted more vividly.
Keywords:
bone, shell, beads, Neolithic, Greece, Halai
