Evangelia Kiriatzi

Human Mobility and Technological Transfer in the Prehistoric Mediterranean

In this introduction to the volume we argue that the later prehistory of the Mediterranean has much to contribute to current debates in the humanities on the subject of mobilities. Although often avoided or maligned for its association with migration as an outmoded explanation for culture change, mobility is belatedly finding its way back into archaeological interpretation. We propose that the papers assembled here effectively bring out the range of mobilities in later Mediterranean prehistory, with a particular focus on the circulation of technological knowledge at different scales. The New Mobilities Paradigm With this book we aim to foreground mobility as a fundamental condition of ancient societies. Archaeology identifies instances of mobility in the past as a matter of course; and yet there is a lack of explicit thinking about the range of forms of mobility, and their effects upon society. While our outlook is distinctively archaeological, as we will show, important lessons can be learnt from neighbouring disciplines. Indeed, there is a fresh focus on mobility in the social sciences; it has even been called a new paradigm ( Sheller and Urry 2006 ), or a ‘mobility turn’ ( Cresswell 2011 ). Clifford ( 1997 ) is often cited as the key voice inciting this move, with his call for a focus on ‘routes’ and not just ‘roots’, that is to say, acknowledging movement and mobility as inherent, and not just an adjunct: “cultural centres, discrete regions and territories, do not exist prior to contacts, but are sustained through them, appropriating and disciplining the restless movements of people and things” ( Clifford 1997 , 3). This call has been instrumental in generating an open analysis of globalisation, a necessary reaction to a ‘sedentarist’ perspective that has supposedly afflicted disciplines like geography, sociology and anthropology. With significant input from human geography (and see the new journal Mobilities , for example), the focus is very much on contemporary life, and is innovative as a framework in a number of ways.

From Fabrics to Island Connections: Macroscopic and Microscopic Approaches to the Prehistoric Pottery of Antikythera

An intensive archaeological survey covering the entire extent of the island of Antikythera has recently revealed a sequence of prehistoric activity spanning the later Neolithic to Late Bronze Age, with cultural affiliations that variously link its prehistoric communities with their neighbours to the north, south and east. Here we present and discuss the results of a programme of both macroscopic and petrographie study of the prehistoric ceramics from Antikythera that defines a considerably varied group of fabrics and explores their implications with regard to regional potting traditions, on-island production versus imports, and changing patterns of human activity on the island through time. Μια εντατική επιφανειακή έρευνα που κάλυψε το σύνολο της έκτασης των Aντικυθήρων αποκάλυψε πρόσφατα μια ακολουθία προïστορικής δραστηριότητας που χρονολογείται από την προχωρημένη Nεολιθική μέχρι την ´Yστερη Eποχή του Xαλκού, και αντανακλά ποικίλες πολιτιστικές σχέσεις των προïστορικών κοινοτήτων του νησιού με γειτονικές περιοχές στα βόρεια, νότια καν ανατολικά. Eσώ παρουσιάςουμε και (τυςητάμε τα αποτελέσματα ενός προγράμματος μακροσκοπικής και πετρογραφικής μελέτης της προïστορικής κεραμικής από τα Aντικύθηρα, που προσδιορίςει μια σημαντική ποικνλία κεραμικών υλών και διερευνά τη σημασία τους σε σχέση με τις τοπικές παραδόσενς κεραμικής στην ευρύτερη περιοχή του Aιγαίου, την αντιδιαςτολή εγχώρνας παραγωγής καν ενσαγωγών, και τις δναχρονικές μεταβολές στο χαρακτήρα και την ένταση της ανθρώπινης δραστηριότητας στο νησί.

Mobility and Early Bronze Age Southern Aegean Metal Production

Metal production in the southern Aegean dates back at least to the Final Neolithic (Coleman 1977, 3-4). Present evidence, however, suggests that during the ensuing Early Bronze Age (EBA: c. 3 millennium BC), production of copper, lead, and silver is attested in the Aegean on a large-scale – in the context of this period for the first time, supplying the metal for the majority of artefacts consumed in the region (Gale and Stos-Gale 2002; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003). Interestingly, for copper at least, this local production largely ceases in the following Bronze Age periods, a phenomenon supported both through lead isotope analysis and through archaeometallurgical fieldwork. This paucity of copper production is presently attributed to the limited scale of relevant southern Aegean, particularly Cycladic, mineralisations and their possible exhaustion at the end of the third millennium BC, coupled with availability of metal from elsewhere (Bassiakos and Tselios 2012).