SCUOLA ARCHEOLOGICA ITALIANA DI ATENE TIANEIIIZTHMIO AQHNQN TOMEAZ APXAIOAOTIAS KAI ISTOPIAE THE TEXNHE H MOAIOXNH KAI H TPQIMH EINOXH TOY XAAKOY =TO BOPEIO AITAIO POLIOCHNI E L’ANTICA ETA DEL BRONZO NELL’EGEO SETTENTRIONALE Atebvég Zvvédqio AOtiva, 22-25 Amgthiov 1996 Convegno Internazionale Atene, 22-25 Aprile 1996 Exuéheva » A cura di Chr. G. Doumas - V. La Rosa A@riva +1997+ AteneDIMITRA MALAMIDOU EASTERN MACEDONIA DURING THE EARLY BRONZE AGE the Early Bronze Age period in Eastern Macedonia has two phases. The establishment of reli- able stratigraphic sequences for the region was made possible through the excavations of D. Theocharis! and J. Deshayes? at Dikili-Tash, of C. Renfrew at Sitagroi? and of D. Grammenos at Pentapolist (fig. 1). The first phase of the EBA is represented by phase IIIA at Dikili-Tash and phase IV at Sitagroi, or by phase I at Pentapolis; it corresponds to phases Ezero A, Kum Tepe 1A- TB and is pre-Trojan. The second phase is contemporary to Troy I and is represented by phase IIIB at Dikili-Tash, phase V at Sitagroi and phase II at Pentapolis. It is contemporary to phase Ezero B. The earliest radiocarbon dates for the Early Bronze Age that we posses for Eastern Macedonia up to this point, are set to the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third millennium BCS. Settlement patterns In Eastern Macedonia, Early Bronze Age occupation takes place either in Neolithic sites, possibly succeeding a period of abandonment (Sitagroi, Dikili-Tash), or in entirely new locations (Pentapolis). Surface finds confirm the existence of this period in 17 settlements (fig. 1), only two of which are inhabited for the first time, the rest being already occupied during the Neolithic period®. Although archaeological research offers no clear indications regarding the changes that take place by the end of the Neolithic period in Eastern Macedonia, the picture that we can draw from the data so far known, is that the number of sites seems to diminish’: many Neolithic settlements, like the one at Polystylon which is not far from Dikili-Tash, are abandoned definitely. On the other hand, the size of the sites that are now re-inhabited or settled for the first time seems to be mod- erate by comparison to the size of Neolithic settlements. These phenomena have been thought to indicate a shrinking in population numbers, but there is space for other interpretations having to do with the model of intra-site organization in the wider area of Macedonia during the Bronze Age’, which we ignore to a great extent because of the limited research that has so far taken place 1. Koukoul-Chrysanthaki - Rhomiopoulou 1992. {6 Grammenos - Fotiads 1980, 15. 2. Treull 1992. 7, Theacharis 1971, 10-11; Grammenos 1980, 238-239. 3. Renfrew eta 1986. 8. Andreou - Korsakis 1986, 84-85. 4. Grammenos 1981. 5. Treull 1983, 121-125, 133-134, 137; Malamidow -Treuil 1995 (in press).330 D. Malamidou Fig. 1. Early Bronze Age sites in Eastern Macedonia; excavated sites: 1. Dikili Tash, 2. Sitagroi, 3. Pentapolis. in the region. Any environmental changes such as the increase in humidity or the rise of the water horizon and the consequent increase of marshy soil could have possibly affected the lives of pre- historic populations. On the other hand, changes in farming procedures and in land-use may have oceurred?, but these are difficult to detect, given the scantiness of available data. The recent dis- covery of traces of occupation or of cave use at the feet of mount Pangaion' in Eastern Macedonia, during the Early Bronze Age, reveals an other aspect of this complex issue; possible changes in the orientations of pastoralism may change the settlement patterns!'. It is, however * considered certain that the settlements in Eastern Macedonia do not appear to have the “early urban” traits that characterize the EBA in Southern Greece and the Aegean islands!2, The Neolithic way of life seems here to remain quasi-unchanged and the self-sufficient agro-pastoral economy of the communities does not favor nucleation within the system of settlements/villages. 9, The cultivation of grains decrease in profit of pulses, _ADelt 36, 1981, B2, 44, and one other near Ano Messolakia, while the more systematic cultivation of grapes and olives See ADelF 1954, causes major changes In the economy of the Aegean sett. 11, For the discussion see Halstead 1987, 77-87; Halstead ‘ments. See Renfrew ef al, 1986, 138; see also Halstead 1954, 1981, 330; Gamble 198, 161 1 13, Konsola 1984; Halstead 1894, 196, 10. The cave named “Arkoudotrypa” near Galepsos, seeEastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age 331 Fig. 2. Topographic plan of Dikili Tash with the excavated sectors Habitation patterns We have very limited information concerning the habitation patterns within these small commun- ities. The few we know comes basically from the excavations in two sites, Dikili-Tash and Sitagroi ‘The restricted area that has been excavated at Pentapolis has not displayed any satisfactory image of architectural finds. At Dikili-Tash (fig. 2), the Early Bronze Age settlement is restricted on the hilltop, where five different habitation layers have been detected, and in few areas of the slopes down to the foothill!3, Layers of the first phase of the Early Bronze Age were unearthed only in section A2"* on the hill- top. The layer thickness of this phase reaches 1,5 m. and the excavated area is 40 m?, The second phase is detected in two locations: a. on the hilltop, in section A215 where the fill extents to 1,70-1,80 m, in depth and the excavation has covered an area of 100 m2. b. on the East slope of the hill , in section 116, where the layers of the EBA are 1,5 m. thick and have been exca- vated in an area of about 100 me. It is possible that the upmost stratum, 0,50-0,70 m. in thickness, that is being excavated recently in Dikili-Tash'”, as part of the new excavation season, also belongs 13, Treull 1992, 49. 16, Koukouli-Chrysanthaki - Rhomiopoulou 1992, 235. 14, 0, 1992, 28, 17 Prakt 1993 (in press), Prakt 1994 (in pres). 15. a0, id332 D. Malamidou to the Early Bronze Age, but we cannot, for the time being, assign it with a great degree of cer- tainty to a specific phase. This layer can be better distinguished on the West section of area VI, that is towards the hilltop, between sectors A2 and 1 The Early Bronze Age at Sitagroi (fig. 3) was detected in 14 out of a total of 23 excavation sectors, also located towards the hilltop!8. Layers of the section ZA!9 are assigned to the first phase of the Early Bronze Age. The excavation at the main area has not proceeded beyond the very important architectural remains of the second phase of the EBA which include the “Long house” and the “Burnt house”. This area covers a surface of 306 m?, The only architectural remains of the first phase of the Early Bronze Age in Dikili-Tash are isolated floor scraps and parts of hearths?!. A clay platform, a small hearth, a network of fallen carbonized beams, probably from a ceiling, part of a wall and traces of floors were discovered in the excavated layers of this phase in Sitagroi22, The second phase of the Early Bronze Age offers a more complete picture of the shape of the houses and their spatial distribution, Parts of two buildings and a street or passage between them were unearthed in Dikili-Tash. Two phases of repair were detected on the street level, while one of the two buildings had, accord- ing to the excavator, three phases of construction, a fact indicating the existence of a permanent occupation plan in the Early Bronze Age settlement?3 (fig. 4). There is no clear evidence for the existence of streets in Sitagroi, but the two fully excavated houses, which belong to the second phase of Early Bronze Age (fig. 6a and 6b), give the impres- sion that they stand isolated in space and that there would be open areas between them and any surrounding buildings®4, ‘This image contrasts with the situation in Southern Greece and the Aegean where the occupation plans are often more complex, resulting from the agglutinating con- struction patterns?, No indication for the existence of defense constructions of any sort has been so far detected in the Early Bronze Age settlements of Eastern Macedonia, as is the case in Ezero, Bulgaria?®, in Kastanas?? of Central Macedonia or in sites further South in the Aegean?®, Houses The existence of posthouses is testified in Dikili Tash, in the excavation area on the hilltop (sector A2), in layers attributed to the second phase of the Early Bronze Age?9. The best preserved building, though, is unearthed in sector 1 (fig. 4). It is an oblong construction at the East side of the road. According to the excavator, three building phases can be distinguished30, In its earliest form (fig. 5a), the building had timber walls as shown by a row of postholes in it’s West side and by some postholes in the South and North side which must have had a slightly curv- ing course. Its length is approximately 11 m. A stone wall foundation delimiting an internal space at its Norther part could be attributed to this phase. An oven existed in this space and part of a hearth was detected in the Southern end of the building. 18. Renlrew et al. 1986, fi. 22 and Table 7. 19.40, 177. 20, a0, 194-203, 21. Treull 1992, 28. 22, Renirew et al, 1986, 177. 23, Koukouli-Chrysanthaki : Rhomiopoulou 1992, 236. 24, In Central Macedonia the apsidal house of layer 23b at ‘Kastanas is considered aso isolated in space: Aslanis 1985, fig. 13, 14; however, the houses A and B of layer 24 atthe same site appear to share a wal: 20,52, ie. 24. 25. For example Poliochn, Lemnos: Bemabd Brea 1964, and Thermi, Lesbos: Lamb 1936, Further south, see Aghios Kosmas, Attica: Mylonas 1959, fig 1, and Askitario: Theo- chars 195354, 63, fig. 4; See also Polychronopoulou 1990, 483 26, Georgiev eta 1979, 121 27. Astars 1985, 49, fig. 23-24, 28, See Troy: Blegen etal. 1950, fg. 417; Katr-Syros: Barber 1987, 54, fig. 41; Aghia Irini, Kea: a. o., 53, fig. 40; Lema: Caskey 1958, 128, 1 99. Tre 1992 30. 30, Koukou-Cirysamtaki - Rhomiopoulou 1992, 236- 20s 4, 4,5 and.Fig, 3. Axonometric view of the excavation area at Sitagroi; trenches where EBA was located are underlined (Renfrew er al. 1986). Fig. 4. Dikili Tash, sector 1 (Prakt 1967).334 D. Malamidou During the second building phase (fig, 5b), the house was divided in approximately three internal rooms of equal size by two walls resting on stone bases. A stone bench or bed, built with small flag- stones and a layer of clay, was discovered in the middle room. The West wall of the building must have been timber-framed. Groups of rocks were preserved in the West side of the building of the third phase; these may ‘come from a wall-base along the road axle. The building was divided into three rooms. A hearth, attributed to this last phase, found at the South part of the building, in short distance from the hearth of the first phase, verifies the existence of the same building plan. Parts of storage pots and grinders found near the hearths and the oven offer evidence on the function of the rooms, indicating that the areas at the edges of the building were destined for food preparation and storage. Concerning the space in the middle, where the stone bench was dis- covered, the excavator noted characteristically that “it did not exhibit any traces of cooking or of any other parallel use"3!. As we shall see, the arrangement of household constructions in the “Burnt house” of Sitagroi is analogous. ‘One thing we should underline here, is the gradual change of building material as we move from one construction phase of this house to the other and the combination of the timber frame tech- nique with stones for the wall-bases and for the construction of the bench?2, In sector VI, the first habitation layer under the surface stratum, which, as we have already said, is to be assigned to the Early Bronze Age, is characterized by the existence of groups of rocks in regular, almost circular arrangement which are usually interpreted as wedges in postholes but offer no clues as to the reconstruction of the building plans, {At Sitagroi we have a comparable type of building which presents a complete plan. Both, the “Long house” (attributed to phase Vb) (fig. 6b) and the “Burnt House”S5 (attributed to phase Va) (fig. 6a) were timber frame structures with wattle and daub walls. One narrow side is apsidal. Their width reaches beyond 5 m. while their length extends to 15,5 for the first (long house) and 8 m. for the second (burnt house). The “Long house” appears to be single-roomed with only a hearth ridge and the bins as recognised interior features. The “Burnt house” is divided into two rooms, the apsidal one including a hearth, two ovens and other features related to food preparation (grinding stones, storage vessels, clay-coated storage pits). Some characteristics of the construction methods we should point out here are: the absence of stones in the construction of the walls, the narrow ditches along the walls of the “Long house” and the apse of the “Burnt house"6, possibly related to the first stage of the wall construction, and the plaster faces of walls on the inside of the main room of the “Burnt house”. This type of building is also attested in Central Macedonia, together with quadrilateral single- roomed houses. The excavation at Kastanas offered evidence for both, quadrilateral and apsidal posthouses with wattle and daub walls and roof%7, Further North, at Ezero, Bulgaria, where we have complete house plans, the quadrilateral building with curving walls at the narrow sides seems to be the dominant type, at least during some phases?5. Clay seems to be the dominant material there. ‘The situation is different in Thasos, where the architectural remains indicate the use of stone in the walls and where the architectural forms show greater similarities with the aegean Early Bronze ‘Age architecture39. However, the established use of stone on the bases of the walls and in the con- ‘struction of the bench in the central area of the house in section 1 of Dikili-Tash (fig. 5b), remind 31, Prakt 1961, 84 36, See Aslanis 1990, 164 for analogies in Kastanas. 321 Koukoull-Chrysanthaki - Rhomiopoulou 1992, 242-243, 37, Alanis 1985, 32, figs. 13-14; 20., 1990, 170. 33. ErgArohEt 1993, 69 74; Prakt 1993; Prakt 1994, 38. Georgiev et al. 1979, 103-121, fig. 61 34. Renfrew et al, 1986, 189, fig. 8.9, pls. XXVI, XXIV. 30, See Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, paper atthe Congress. 435, a0, 190, fig. 810, 8.11, pls. XXVI, XXVILEastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age 335 Fig. Sa Fig. sb Fig. 5. Dikili Tash, sector 1: a. First phase of the house, b. Second phase of the house (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki - Rhomopioulou 1992). features of the buildings 605 and 832 of the black phase at Poliochni*©. The use of stones for house construction is in general considered as feature of the aegean tradition, Eastern Macedonia being assigned, up to now, rather to the Balkan tradition of clay structures. Nonetheless, it is possible that future research may offer more evidence that will allow as to complete our knowledge about Early Bronze Age architecture in the area. Other Constructions We can form a clear enough picture on the ovens and the hearths, which are in general easily ident- ified constructions and which follow the Neolithic tradition, These have a clay layer resting on stones or sherds, their shape is round or seldom quadrilateral. The structures from the “Burt house” at Sitagroi are typical‘!. A type of what most probably is an ellipsoid oven with a line of stones on the base of its walls, is also known from Dikili-Tash*2, It is not always clear if these structures lie inside or outside the houses. In Sitagroi, however, they are in the interior and especially in a room with a domestic function (fig. 6a). Related to the domestic activity must have been the clay coated storage pits. The “Bin Complex” at Sitagroi (fig. 6c), which can be dated to the end of the Early Bronze Age, presents a large concentration of similar structures*3, The remains of carbonized seeds testify to their storage function. The lack of other architectural features such as walls etc. which is due to the fact that this 40, Bemabd Brea 1964, 537, fig. 48. 42. Séfériadés 1983, 657, fig 42; Treull 1992, 5051 and 41. Renfrew et al. 1986, 191, fg. 8.12, pls. XXVI, XXVII_ footnote 64. and fig. 8.13, pl. XXX2. 43. Renfiew etal. 1986, 187, fig. 85, fig. 88, pls. XX, XXLhouse”, c. The “Bin complex” (Renfrew et al, 1986). Fig. 6, Sitagroi: a. The “Burnt house”, b. TheEastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age 337 Fig. 7. Dikili Tash, Sector 1, the bench in the central room of the house. layer was too close to the soil surface, does not contribute to the identification of the spaces with- in which these pits were contained. Similar structures, however, can be found in a previous phase, in the interior of the “Burnt House” (fig. 6a). A similar structural compound including a garbage pit in close proximity to a hearth fraction, was unearthed in Pentapolis. Garbage pits are reported next to ovens or hearths in sector A2 on the hilltop of Dikili-Tash*S. In the Western part of section VI, circular garbage pits containing ash, carbonized fruit, seed and a large amount of pottery, are frequent features. These pits interrupt the underlying habitation layer which is securely defined and dated to the end of the Early Neolithic*®, Technology ~ The technology of the Early Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia continues the Neolithic tradition but also partakes to the new technological advances of the era, In the area of metallurgy, the smelting of copper occurred sporadically in older phases47. Alloying in the copper metallurgy first appears in Macedonia in the Early Bronze Age. The pres- ence, however, of objects made of bronze or copper continues to be rare during the Early Bronze Age. At Dikili Tash, a pin*8 and two knives of copper have been found in Early Bronze Age IT strata’9, The knives belong to types typical for the North-East Aegean‘? as well as for the Balkans5!, where finds associated to the fabrication of metal objects such as moulds and kilns are 44, Grammenos 1981, 94, pl. KZ6-r 48. CI, Branigan 1974, 36, pls. 18-19. 45. Treull 1992, 52; Prakt 1993, Prakt 1994; Prakr 1995, 49. Treuil 1992, 116, pls. i46c, de, 199, h 46. ErgArchEt 1993, 69, 74; Prakt 1993; Prakt 1994 50, Lamb 1936, pl. XXVi92 11; Bemabs Brea 1964, 659, 47, During the Middle and Late Neolithic at Dikili Tash: tav, CLXXIa,c, CLXXIVd. Treull 1992, 115, ps. 46a, b,199e, ‘51. Georgiev etal, 1979, fig, 108b.338, D. Malamidou also present52. At Sitagroi, the presence of copper rust in a domestic oven suggests that the inhabitants possessed the knowledge for metal working. The rare occurrence of metal objects is Possibly not unconnected to the fact that generally Macedonia is geologically poor in copper®3. However, the echoe of metal objects that are not attested archaeologicaly may be felt in some vessel shapes such as the cups with high strap handles of the first Early Bronze Age phase, Stone and bone technology, following the neolithic tradition, are therefore basic for the fabri- cation of jewels, weapons and tools. The stone shaft-hole ax from the “Long House” at Sitagroi with the animal-like decoration offers an interesting example’. ‘The change is more apparent in the pottery of Eastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age. The various categories of painted decoration disappear by the end of the Neolithic. The dec- orated vases bear now channeled or incised/impressed motifs filled with white paste. Important change can be also observed both in the shapes of the vessels and in their technology of manufac- tureS6, The fabrics are now dark in color and generally coarse. At Dikili Tash, namely, the earth used includes high proportion of greasy clays, rich in lignite, extracted from the lignite deposit of Philippi5’. Another difference in the technique is that, the white filling paste, that was also used in the neolithic incised decoration, is now made of calcium phosphate of animal origin, unlike the one of the neolithic period that was made of limestone calcium’, Much discussion has been made on the reasons of the pottery change. Theories about popula- tion movements? or of cultural diffusion® have been formed. The archaeological research of the last decades, though, made clear that much attention should be stressed on the intra-settlement factors leading to the differentiation of each aspect of cultural expression®l During the early phase of the Early Bronze Age we have a marked homogeneity of pottery types, the open bowls (conical, with incurved rim and with sinuous profile) of generally small size being the dominant type, while storage pots are less frequent. Simple, wide-spaced motifs of incised and impressed decoration with white paste filling cover a small part of the vessel surface. The small round bottomed cups equipped with one tall looped handle (fig. 8) and the bow! with sinuous pro- file and channeled decoration on the shoulder (fig. 9) have a dark, more or less polished surface. The relations of Eastern Macedonia to the Balkans®” and further North to the Baden culture of Central Europe® can be detected through these shapes but this does not preclude a direct dependency from a particular cultural group. On the contrary, it establishes the presence of autonomous cultural groups in the Balkans, which are able to shape common features through their reciprocal interaction during the Early Bronze Age as they did during the Neolithic period. Similar interaction can be sub- stantiated by the analogies of these shapes with parallels from the North-East Aegean and Central Greece®. During the second phase of the Early Bronze Age, the pottery is a continuation and development. of the forms of the first phase which includes an enrichment of the shape repertory and a tendency towards more elaborate motifs in decoration, the technique remaining unchanged. Channeled dec- oration is less frequent in favor of incised and impressed motifs that are often combined on the same vessel (fig. 10). Conical bowls are favored while bowls with incurved rims are also frequent. 52. Georgiev 1979, fig. 109, 1, m,n; Blegen ef al. 1950, 43, fig. 221, 38-100, Bemabo Brea 1964, tav. LXXXV, CUXXXVIT, 13, 53, MoGecan Lyris 1982; Marat - Andronopouls 1966. 54, Sherratt 1986, 448, 9. Retey oa 1996, fg 84, LXV. 37; Courts 1985, 100. 58. a0, 102. 59, Gimbutas 1965, 21; Holmberg 1978, 5-6. (60. Childe 1957, 70; Kalicz 1963, 61. Renfrew 1969; Papadopoulos 1992; 1997. ©. Alexandrov 1995, 256, ig. 2, no 4 63, Banner 1956, pls XXIXi2, LXIX9, (64, Bernabo Brea 1964, 65, tv. Xe, f and e, 65. Hanschman - Milojéé 1973, pl. Ti, 2 ands, pl. 8:13.Eastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age 339 Fig. 8. Cup with tall looped handle, Dikili Tash ILA. Fig. 9. Bowls with sinuous profile and channeled dec- oration, Dikili Tash IIIA. Fig. 10. Sherds with incised and impressed decoration, Dikili Tash I11B. Fig. 11. Globular “pyxis” with corded decoration, Dikili Tash IIIB. Fig. 12. Oblique-cut necked jug, Dikili Tash IIIB. Fig, 13, Storage vessel, Dikili Tash IIIB.340 D. Malamidou Some new shapes like the globular “pyxis” (fig. 11), the oblique-cut necked jug and a variety of large storage vessels (fig. 13) make their appearance. ‘The relations to the continental Balkans (the cultures of Kostolac and Vucedol®) are visible mainly in the Drama plain, on vases with impressed, incised and corded decoration filled with white paste. The motifs become all the more elaborate and tend to take over larger surfaces on the vessels. ‘The conical bowls from Dikili Tash decorated in the interior (fig. 14) or the small sinuous bowls with ‘omphalos bases from the “Burnt house” at Sitagroi are representative examples (fig. 15). Pentapolis®, in the Serres basin is represented by smaller quantities of decorated pottery which may rather show an orientation towards Central Macedonia, representative of which is the pottery from Kastanas®®, The two-handled “kantharoi” and the one-handled cups, like the ones that come from the “Bin Complex” of the last phase at Sitagroi (fig. 16), are shapes typical in the Eastern Aegean and Southern Greece®? as well as in the rest of Macedonia”. The same is for the jug with the horizon- tal or oblique-cut spout”! (fig. 12). The conical bowl with a rim decorated in the interior (fig. 17) is an Early Bronze Age shape common not only in the Balkans” but also in the East Aegean coast73 during the Early Bronze Age. The bowl with the incurved rim, a shape deriving from the Neolithic tradition and being very common during theEarly Bronze Age, has often tunnel or tubular lugs (fig. 18). Occasionally, it is equipped with a spout (fig. 19) and is reminiscent of ‘Aegean shapes” without being absent from the Balkans’. Towards the end of the Early Bronze ‘Age large vessels destined for storage (fig. 13) are more frequent at Dikili Tash and Sitagroi. They are decorated with finger impressed cordons and “pie crust” rims with finger impressions which are common features of European Bronze Age assemblages. Society ‘The settlement patterns and the house plans do not show any kind of inter- or intra-site hierarchi- sation in Eastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age. Regrettably, our information on the burial customs of this phase is very limited. The five burials of small children unearthed in Sitagroi7® had no grave goods. They are attributed to the level of the “Long House” and were found outside the limits of the building, most probably in an open space or street””. Burials in settle- ments, chiefly of children, occurred in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace during the Neolithic period”, while the few indications for cremations in funerary urns that have been detected in the area East of the estuary of the river Strymon”®, consist a new element for the Early Bronze Age in the areaS®, The available archaeological evidence suggest the family household as the basic social unit dur- ing the Early Bronze Age in Macedonia, the subsistence of which is based on the agropastoral economy that follows the Neolithic tradition. Nonetheless, some changes are detected in the sub- sistence practices, evidenced in animal and plant remains$!. The percentages of pig and deer are higher, while sheep bone analysis suggest exploitation for secondary products. Changes in the pro- (66, Banner 1956. (67, Grammenos 1981 (68. Asians 1990, 69, Blegen ef a. 1950, ig. 129, A44; Bemnab Brea 1964, pl XL; Sampson 1985, ig 60. 70. Aslanis 1985, pl 57:14 and 75:9. 71, Blegen et al, 1950, ig. 23a, type BIS, fig, 228; Aslanis 1985, ph. 132,5-6 "Th, Georgiev etal, 1979, 279, fig. 153; Alexandrov 1995, 264 fi. 8,nos 110, 112,113; Demouie - Licharéus-Iten 1994, fig. 8.1 Ti. legen eral. 1950, fi, 23a type A6, figs. 234, 254-257. ‘7, Blegen eta. 1950, fig, 130, B11; Hanschman - Milos 1973, pl. 5B, 14. 75. Tonceva 1981, fig. 15, n0 1-7 76, Renfrew etal 1986, 189, ig. 8.9. ‘7, Burials in setlements ate common for the EBA in Bulgaria, see Nikolova 1995, 271 and in NW Aegean, sec legen et al. 1950, 4-95, fig 426, ies. 146-151 and 130 fig. 177 75, Efstratiou 1993, 38; Malamidou - Papadopoulos 1993, 564,fie 13. “70. Cremations disturbed from an hellenistic building excavated in the site named “Tsardakia”, see ADelt 36 (1981), B2, 344-345. '80, In the Balkans cremation burials are frequent and relat edo the Cotofen! III culture, see Nikolova 1995, 274. 81, Sherratt 1986, 441; BokGnyi 1986, 79; Treuil 1992, 151-152,Eastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age a Fig. 14. Fig. 17, Fig. 18. Fig. 16. Fig, 19. Fig. 14, Sherds from conical bowls decorated in the interior, Dikili Tash IIIB, Fig. 15. Small sinuous bowls with incised/impressed decoration, Sitagroi Va (“Bumt house”), (Renfrew et al 1986). Fig 16, Two-handled “kantharos” and one-handled cup, Sitagroi Vb (Bin complex), (Renfrew etal, 1986). Fig. 17, Sherds from conical bowls decorated on the rim, Dikili Tash IIIB. Fig 18. Bow! with incurved rim and tubular lug, Dikili Tash IIIB. Fig 19. Bowl with incurved rim and a spout, Dikili Tash IIIB.342 D. Malamidou portion of cultivated species may show a certain reorientation of agricultural activity (see note 10). Changes in pottery technology may reflect a restandardisation of the community priorities and possibly the re-evaluation of the materials in the network of exchange activity. The ‘appearence of metal items may have played a certain role in this direction. Likewise, the complete absence of figurines from Eastern Macedonia during this phase is probably not unconnected to these phenomena, especially if we compare it to their abundance during the Neolithic period’?. The appearence of large number of clay bins at Sitagroi (the “Bin complex”) and of storage vessels at Dikili Tash may suggest different storage patterns by the end of the Early Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia. These changes may have caused the onset of social transformations that would not be felt in Macedonia before the later phases of the Bronze Age’. 82. The few examples come from Mandalo in Westem road: Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou - Pilai-Papasteriou Macedonia and belong to aneikonic types reminiscent of 1987, fig. 5 similar ones from the islands of the NE Aegean and the 83. Andreou-Kotsakis 1986, 85, Bibliography ALEXANDROV S. 1995, The Early Bronze Age in Western Bulgaria: Periodisation and Cultural Definition, in D.W. Bailey - 1. Panayotov (eds,), Prehistoric Bulgaria (Monographs in World Archaeology 22). ANDREOU S. - Korsakis K, 1986, Autotdoetg tov yagov omy Kevtous Maxedovia, Anoriamon ts evdoxowvoruntic Hatt Sucxowvortxtis KwQo-Ogyavwons, in AunNTds, TwunTuxds TOuos yea Tov xaOny NTH (Mz Avdgovixo, Thessaloniki, 57-86. /AsLANis I. 1985, Kastanas, Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshugel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979, Die friihbronzezeitlichen Funde und Befunde, Berlin. ASLANIS I. 1990, L"habitat au Bronze Ancien en Macedoine centrale. L’exemple de Kastanas, in P. Darque -R. Treuil, L ‘habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale, Athenes, 23-25 juin 1987 (BCH Suppl. XIX), 163-171, Banner J., 1956, Die Peceler Kultur. BraniGaN K. 1974, Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford BOKOnyI S. 1986, Faunal Remains, in Renfrew C. et al. (eds.) 1986, Excavations at Sitagroi, A Prehistoric Village in Northern Greece, vol. 1, 63-96. Caskey JL. 1958, Excavations at Lemna, Hesperia 27, 125-144, CHILDE V.G. 1957, The Dawn of European Civilisation, London. ‘Courtois L.C. 1985, Dikili Tash: La ceramique de "age du Bron? Balkans, Recueil Jean Deshayes, Paris, 99-105. Erstratiou N. 1993, New prehistoric Finds from Western Thrace, Greece, Anatolica XIX, 33-41 GamaLe C. 1982, Animal Husbandry, Population and Urbanisation, in C. Renfrew - J.M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos, Cambridge. Geoxciey G. - MeRpexr N. - KanINéagov R. - DistrRov D. 1979, Ezero, Early Bronze Age Habitation (in bulgarian, abstract in german). Grwputas M. 1965, Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, Mouton. GraMMENOs D. 1975, Am6 Tous AQOLTOQLKOTS OLXLOLOUS THC AvaTOALUnts Maxedovias, ADelt 30, 193-234. GRAMMENOS D, 1980, ZyumeQdopata ard TH pekéTH THV MEOLGTOQIAdVY OLALOWdV THS AvaTOALES Maxedoviac, in H Kapdda xau n cequoxy ts, A’ Tomixd Zypsdov, 235-247. GRAMMENOS D. 1981, Avaoxag oe ovxiapLe THg Exogyig tov XaAxow (locus) omy Mevedatohy tou Nowov Zeoodv, AEphem, 91-153. Grammenos D. - FoTiabis M. 1980, Am6 tous mgotoTogiMots oMALopovs THS Avatohuais Maxedovias, AvOgumohoyixd 1, 15-53. percu technologique, in De "Indus auxEastern Macedonia during the Early Bronze Age 343 Hatsteap P. 1981, Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece, in Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of D. Clarke, Cambridge. Hatsteap P. 1987, Traditional and Ancient Rural Economy in Mediterranean Europe: Plus ga Change?, JS (1987), 77-87. HANSCHMAN B. - MiLov®ié V. 1976, Argissa-Magoula ITI: Die Friihe und beginnende Mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn. Heurtley W.A. 1939, Prehistoric Macedonia. Homers EJ. 1978, Some Notes on the Immigration of Indoeuropean into Greece during the Early Bronze Age, OpAth XII, 1 Katicz N. 1963, Die Peceler (Badener) Kultur und Anatolien, Budapest. Konsota D. 1984, H ocuen aotixomoinan oToUus moCToELAadixovs oxtopors, SvoTmertixy avdvon, Tw xagaxtnouTixdy TOUS, Athens. KOUKOULL-CHRYSANTHAKI H. - RHOMIOPOULOU K. 1992, Ot avaouayés oTov eXAnvU%6 toyed TOU RQoioTOQUOH oLALWOY NewAIAl Tas (1961-1967), in AteBvés Zvvédo1o wa tv Agyaa @cooadla. ‘Mvrjun AP. Gcozdgn, 226-248. MaLaMiDou D. - PAPADOPOULOS S. 1993, AvaoKaGUx| EQeUVE TOV TOOLTTOQUAS OLKLONS AyLevagicY @Kioov, AETgoMac 7, 559-572 MaLamiibou D. - TREUILR. 1995, L’habitat du Bronze Ancien a Dikili Tash (Macedoine Orientale), in Early Broze Age Habitation in the Balkans, International Symposium in Karlovo (Bulgaria, (in press). Matawapou D. (forthcoming), Les recipients en ceramique: formes et decors du B.A., in Treuil R. (cir.), Dikili Tash, village prekistorique de Macedoine Orientale, I Fouilles de J. Deshayes (1961-1975), 3. MARLATOS G. - ANDRONOPOULOS V. 1966, O opvatds mhovTOs tng Maxebovias xau THs Opdxns, Athens. McGeeHan-Lynrrzis V. 1982, The Relationship between Metalwork, Copper Sources and the Evidence for Settlement in the Greek Late Neolithic and Ealry Bronze Age, OxtIA 2, 148-180 MyLoNas G. 1959, Aghios Kosmas: an Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica, Princeton. NikoLovA L. 1995, Burials in Settlements and Flat Necropolises during the Early Bronze Age in Bulgaria, in D.W. Bailey - I. Panayotov (eds), Prehistoric Bulgaria (Monographs in World Archaeology 22). PapaporouLos S. 1992, Amd m™ Nedtegn Neok.Ovey omy Hodkun Exoxr tov Xakxov orov oueous tov Nnnihé Tac: 10 xQ6Phnwar THe xegajELArs BuaGogaMoinENE, in ALOvés Zvvédg10 ya THY Agxatc @ecoahia. Mvrun A.P. Ocoxdgn, 249-256. PaPaDoPOULos S. 1997, H Nedtepn NeohiGve xau n Hocoytn Exo tov Xahxov omy Avaronue) Maxebovia. H perapots tis xeqau.eve, Ph. Diss., AITO, Thessaloniki PAPAEFTHIMIOU-PAPANTHIMOU A. - PILAL-PAPASTERIOU A. 1987, Avagxampés oto Mavéaho, AETgoMac 1, 173-171. PoLycuronoPoutou O. 1990, Existe-t-il des Villes au Bronze Ancien et au Bronze Moyen en Gréce conti- nentale?, in P, Darque - R. Treuil, L “habitat égéen préhistorique, Actes de la Table Ronde internationale. Athenes, 23-25 juin 1987 (BCH Suppl. XIX), 473-484. RenrREW C. 1969, The Autonomy of the South-East European Copper Age, PPS'35, 12-47. Rewrrew C. 1970, The Burt House at Sitagroi, Antiquity 44, 131ff. RENFREW C. et al. (eds.) 1986, Excavations at Sitagroi, A Prehistoric Village in Northern Greece, Vol. 1. Samson A. 1985, Mévexa, wwe Toctoedhadixs) n6An orm Xadxiba, Athens. SEFERIADES M. 1983, Dikili Tash: Introduction & la Préhistoire de la Macédoine Orientale, BCH 107, 635-677. SHERRATT A. 1986, The Pottery of Phases IV and V: The Early Bronze Age, in Renfrew C. et al. (eds), Excavations at Sitagroi, A Prehistoric Village in Northern Greece, vol. 1. ‘THEOCHARIS D.R. 1953/54, “AounTagus, Tqwtoehhadvet &xodmtohic mgt tiv Pacpriva, AEphem, 59-76. ‘TueocHaRis D.R. 1971, Prehistory of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (Ancient Greek Cities 9), Athens ‘TrEUIL R. (dir.) 1992, Dikili Tash, village préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale, I Fouilles de J. Deshayes 1961-1975 (BCH Suppl. XXIV).