An elusive Mesolithic: absence of evidence or evidence of absence?

THE EARLY NEOLITHIC IN GREECE

Catherine Perles
Cambridge University Press
2004

- Here, I shall use the term Mesolithic in its chronological sense, to designate early
Holocene hunter-gatherer assemblages. The period under consideration spans between c.
9500 and 8000 BP uncalibrated, or c. 8700 to 7000 BC in calendar years.
- The most salient characteristic of the Mesolithic in Greece is how poorly it is
known, and how few sites are recorded. Diverging opinions about the significance of this
scarcity have led to opposing views on the origins of the Neolithic in Greece. I shall argue
that Mesolithic Greece was indeed sparsely populated, and that this low demography rules
out the hypothesis of a purely indigenous shift to agriculture.
- The few sites known to date concentrate in two main regions: north-east Attica and
the Argolid, in eastern Greece, Corfu, the coastal plains of the Acheron and the Preveza
region in north-western Greece. So far, only four sites have been excavated and published:
* Sidari in Corfu (Sordinas 1967, 1969, 1970)
* Franchthi in the southernArgolid (Hansen 1991; Jacobsen and Farrand
1987; Payne 1975; Perles 1990a; Shackleton 1988; van Andel and Sutton 1987.)
* Zaimis in Attica and Ulbrich also in the Argolid (Markovits 1928,
19323; Tellenbach 1983.) (P. 21)
- The total number of sites currently known thus barely reaches a dozen. Does this
scarcity reflect the actual paucity of human settlements in Mesolithic Greece?
Alternatively, are most of the Mesolithic sites buried or destroyed? Or is this simply the
outcome of insufficient research?
- The demography of the Mesolithic substratum determines in part the potential for
local innovations and the role that local groups could have played in the constitution both
cultural and genetic of the first farming societies (Nandris 1977a: 28). Many authors have
considered the paucity of Mesolithic sites, in contrast to the large number of Early
Neolithic settlements, as good evidence for a demic diffusion of Neolithic groups into
south-eastern Europe (Hansen 1992; Lewthwaite 1986; Perles 1989a; Runnels and van
Andel 1988; van Andel and Runnels 1995).
- Undoubtedly, several factors could have concurred to result in the destruction or
non-visibility of Mesolithic sites in Greece.
A) First, most sites, with the exception of Theopetra, are located close to the sea,
suggesting a preference for coastal locations. Sidari is currently being eroded away by the
sea, and the rise of the sea level during the Holocene (van Andel and Shackleton 1982),
reinforced by local isostatic movements, could have destroyed many more coastal
settlements. Whatever the number of coastal sites destroyed, this factor, however, cannot
account for the quasiabsence of sites inland. (p. 22)

B) Inland sites, on the other hand, could now be buried under several metres of
alluvial sediments. They would thus be difficult to spot from surface surveys. Extensive
alluviation has been demonstrated in several regions, especially in Thrace and Macedonia.
It is thus premature to rule out the possibility that Mesolithic and for that matter, Early
Neolithic sites are now deeply buried in these regions. However, there are grounds to
doubt the importance of this factor in other parts of Greece. The overall stability of the Late
Pleistocene and Early Holocene morphology has been repeatedly documented in other
basins, where erosional phases are late (Middle to Late Neolithic, Bronze Age or even
later), limited in extent, and probably related to agriculture and pastoralism (Allen 1990;
Pope and van Andel 1984; van Andel et al. 1990; Zangger 1991). (p. 23)
- Since the natural factors that can lead to site destruction or burial do not account
for the lack of sites in natural alluvial sections, in caves and rock shelters, or at the base of
Neolithic settlements, I concur with Jacobsen (1993) or Runnels and van Andel (Runnels
1995) to conclude that:
1) Mesolithic sites were mostly located in coastal or near-coastal areas. That sites
remain to be discovered in these areas is beyond doubt, but even the most careful surveys
do not suggest a dense settlement pattern.
2) The quasi-absence of sites inland, in particular within the large and fertile inner
basins, must reflect a real archaeological pattern. On the whole, Mesolithic Greece seems
to have been sparsely populated, and the population concentrated in specific and especially
diversified environments. (p. 23)
- This economic base changed drastically, however, during the Upper Mesolithic
(first half of the ninth millennium BP, c. 79007500 cal BC), when tuna fishing provided a
substantial complement to the diet (Rose, in prep.). The large quantities of fish bones
suggest mass fishing and the possibility of storage of large amounts of fish meat. This, or
the more specialized activities at the site, may explain the concomitant decrease in the
density of seed remains (Hansen 1991). (p. 28)
- But at Franchthi, at least, the opportunities offered by large-scale fishing lasted
only a few centuries perhaps four centuries, according to calibrated dates and rapidly

came to an end. By the end of the ninth millennium BP (c. 71006900 BC) the Final
Mesolithic strata yielded only impoverished floral and faunal remains. Hansen (1991: 138,
1992: 241) suggests the cave was then nearly abandoned. (p. 30)
- The light and cursorily made stone and bone implements of the Greek Mesolithic
are indeed more suggestive of mobile groups than of sedentary hunter-gatherers. At the
same time, they reveal a profound originality that may indicate the relative isolation of
Greece during this whole period. (p. 31)
- Comparisons with the rest of Europe would lead us to predict a further increase of
microliths at the beginning of the Holocene, but the reverse occurs: virtually all microliths
and microburins disappear! During the Early Mesolithic (ninth millenium cal BC , lithic
phase VII), the toolkit consists predominantly of crude end-scrapers, notches, denticulates
and marginally retouched tools, all made on flakes (Perles 1990a). Microliths and
microburins amount to no more than 10 per cent of the industry, as opposed to 75 per cent
in the latest Palaeolithic. Since these are similar to Final Palaeolithic artefacts, it is unclear
whether they should be considered in situ or as mere contaminants (see Martini 1993,
contra Perles 1990a). (p. 31)
- The other categories of artefacts are much rarer, and known only from Franchthi.
The Lower Mesolithic produced a typologically restricted bone tool industry that consists
exclusively of fragments of points of circular section and of asymmetrical points on flat
splinters. By its lack of variety, this industry bears little relation to the elaborate Mesolithic
bone industries of western and northern Europe, or of the Natufian in the Near East.
Interestingly, bone tools virtually disappear during the Upper Mesolithic, when fishing
predominates the subsistence activities. Antler tools are represented only by very rare and
dubious utilized antler tips. Grinding implements are similarly rare, in sharp contrast to
the spectacular development of grinding tools in the contemporaneous Natufian. Besides a
few pebbles used as pounders and pestles, the most interesting pieces include a grooved
stone and a fine andesite millstone from the Saronic Gulf (Runnels 1981, Stroulia in prep.).
Both have their exact equivalent in the Neolithic and were unfortunately recovered during
early excavations, so that their context cannot be considered entirely secure. (p. 34)
-