² Vitelli 1989 and 1993a.

³ Perlès and Vitelli 1999; Perlès 2001, 215; Bailey, D. W., Balkan Prehistory, Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity (London, 2000), 76–93Google Scholar.

⁴ Björk 1995; Yiouni 1996c.

⁵ Vitelli 1993a, 1993b and 1995; Perlès and Vitelli 1999; Perlès 2001; Björk 1995; Bailey (n. 3); Thissen, L., ‘Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: clues to the neolithisation of Greece?’, Documenta Praehistorica, 2 (2000), 141–55Google Scholar.

⁶ Rodden, in his post-excavation work, counted and measured the surface area of the monochrome and decorated sherds from Nea Nikomedeia. The surface area of the pottery from the main excavation grid (squares A1–M8) was calculated to be equal to 1,343,400 cm². It has to be pointed out, however, that he did not record the number of sherds (and their surface area) of all excavation squares from the main excavation grid. In all, the relevant information is available for 83% of the main excavation grid. Therefore, when the main excavation grid is mentioned in the text, only 83% of this is represented. This corresponds to 264 m² from spit 1 and 184 m² from spit 2 (see Yiouni, P., ‘The Pottery from Nea Nikomedeia in its Balkan Context’, unpublished Ph.D. diss. University of London, 1991, fig. 6. 7–8Google Scholar).

⁷ The ceramic material from the site was grouped into six vessel forms: neck-jars, vessels with rim angle > 115°, vessels with rim angle 91°–114°, vessels with rim angle 85°–90°, vessels with rim angle 60°–84° and vessels with a rim angle < 60°.

⁸ Orton, C., Mathematics in Archaeology (Cambridge, 1980), 162Google Scholar.

⁹ This was estimated by the data presented in Vitelli 1993a, Document 1: Frequency Tables.

¹⁰ Orton 1980 (n. 8), 162–4.

¹¹ G. Pyke, ‘Structures and architecture’, in Nea Nikomedeia I, 48 and fig. 2. 2.

¹² Rice 1987, table 9.3.

¹³ For Franchthi see Vitelli 1993a, 41; for Achilleion see Björk 1995, 111.

¹⁴ Nea Nikomedeia I, Appendix A; Thissen, L., ‘A chronological framework for the neolithisation of the Southern Balkans’, in Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds), Karanovo III: Beiträge zum Neolithicum in Südosteuropa (Vienna, 2000), 193–312Google Scholar; ead. (n. 5).

¹⁵ Data presented in Rice 1987, table 9.4. See also Mayor, A., ‘Durées de vie des céramiques africaines: facteurs responsables et implications archéologiques’, Terre cuite et société: la céramique, document technique, économique et culture. Actes des XIV^eme rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes (Juan-les-Pins, 1994), 179–98Google Scholar. Cooking vessels usually have a shorter life-span than the other functional categories. Since cooking pots were not clearly identified among the Early Neolithic ceramics, the estimates on the longevity of clay pots do not take into consideration the data for cooking vessels.

¹⁶ For more discussion see Rice 1987, 298.

¹⁷ The minimum annual production has been estimated to be roughly 25–90 pots per year. Thus for the first and second building periods we can estimate 4.2 to 15 pots per year per structure. Assuming three-year longevity of the vessels, our estimates increase to 13–45 pots per structure. Assuming five year longevity, our estimates increase to 21–75 pots for each structure of the first and second building periods. In Yiouni 1996c, 185, the number of pots estimated in use is considerably smaller, since the data on the life-expectancy of the clay vessels were not taken into consideration.

¹⁸ Vitelli 1989, 21.

¹⁹ Orton, C., Tyers, R. and Vince, A., Pottery in Archaeology (Cambridge, 1993), 168Google Scholar.

²⁰ Vitelli 1993a, 31, 32, 34 n. 8.

²¹ Ibid., 41, 108, 34 n. 13.

²² Vitelli 1995, 60.

²³ Bailey, D. W., ‘The built environment: pit-huts and houses in the Neolithic’, Documenta Praehistorica, 26 (1999), 153–62Google Scholar.

²⁴ Vitelli 1993a, 47.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Thissen (n. 5), 146.

²⁸ The discussion is restricted to the data from Paralia because functional differences in terms of human occupation between the cave and the open settlement could be expected. The horizontally exposed surface area has been estimated from plan 6 in Vitelli 1993a.

²⁹ Pyke (n. 11), 48.

³⁰ For discussion on the permanency of surface-level structures see Bailey (n. 23)

³¹ Perlès 2001, 180.

³² Perlès and Vitelli 1999; Perlès 2001; Bailey (n. 3).

³³ Winn and Shimabuku 1989.

³⁴ Björk 1995, 128.

³⁵ Ibid., 109.

³⁶ It is also worth mentioning here that Theocharis in his trial excavations of the site in 1961 collected a very large number of sherds from the Early Neolithic strata so that, initially, he was under the impression that he was digging a ceramic-producing area. Theocharis, D. R., “Απὸ τη Νεολιθιχὴ Θεσσαλὶα Ι”, Thessalika, 4 (1962), 63–83Google Scholar.

³⁷ For Gediki and Nessonis I, see Theocharis (n. 36), for Prodromos see Chourmouziadis, G., “῾Ανασχαφαὶ εὶς τον Πρὸδρομον Καρδὶ τσας”, A. Delt. 27 (1971), Chr. 394–6Google Scholar, for Magoulitsa in Papadopoulou, M. G., “Νεολιθιχὸς οὶχισμὸς παρὰ την Καρδὶ τσαν’, Thessalika, 1 (1958), 39–49Google Scholar and Pyrassos in Theocharis, D. R., ‘Πὺρασσος ’, Thessalika, 2 (1959), 29–68Google Scholar.

³⁸ For Servia, see Ridley, C. and Wardle, K. A., ‘Rescue excavations at Servia 1971–1973: a preliminary report’, BSA 74 (1979), 191Google Scholar. At Axos, sherds were plentiful, even in the EN I, monochrome phase of the settlement In fact, the preliminary study indicates that there are no differences in the quantity of pottery from the two occupation phases (EN I to EN II) of this settlement.

For the site of Yiannitsa A and Axos see Chrysostomou, Pavlos and Chrysostomou, Panikos, “Νεολιθιχὲς ὲρευνες στα Γιαννιτσὰ χαι στην περιοΧὴ τους”, AEMTh 4 (Thessaloniki, 1990), 169–86Google Scholar; Chrysostomou, Panikos, “Η νεολιθιχὴ χατοὶχηση στη βὸρεια παρὰχτια ζὼ ὰλλοτε Θερμαϊχοὺ χὸλπου (ΕπαρΧὶα Γιαννιτσὼν)”, AEMTh 10A (Thessaloniki, 1996), 159–72Google Scholar.

³⁹ At Elateia it is reported by Weinberg, S. in ‘Excavations at prehistoric Elateia’, Hesp. 31 (1962), 158–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar, that the three excavation trenches, beginning with ENI material, yielded large amounts of pottery. According to D. R. Theocharis, “῾Ανασχαφὴ νεολιθιχοῦ οὶχισμοῦ ὲν Νὲᾳ Μὰχρη (Αττιχῆσ)”, PAE 1954, 114–22 and Pantelidou-Gofa, M., Η Νεολιϑιχὴ Νὲα Μὰχρη· Η Κεραμειχὴ (Athens, 1995), 153Google Scholar, pottery was also plentiful at Early Neolithic Nea Makri, in Attica. In the Peloponnese, both Weinberg, S., ‘Remains from prehistoric Corinth’, Hesp. 6 (1937), 487–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Blegen, C. W., ‘Neolithic remains at Nemea’, Hesp. 44 (1975), 224–7Google Scholar, comment on the great abundance of the Early Neolithic (and later) ceramic remains found at Corinth and Nemea (the Tsougitsa cave). For Lerna see Caskey, J. L., ‘Excavations at Lerna 1956’, Hesp. 26 (1957), 142–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead., ‘Excavations at Lerna 1957’, Hesp. 27 (1958), 125–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ D. R. Theocharis, “῾Ανασχαφὶ ὲν Σὲσχλφ', PAE 1965, 5–10; Wijnen, M., ‘Early ceramics: local manufacture versus widespread distribution’, in Roodenberg, J. (ed.), Anatolia and the Balkans = Anatolica, 19 (1993), 319–31Google Scholar; ead., ‘Neolithic pottery from Sesklo—technological aspects’, in Decourt, J.-C., Helly, B., and Gallis, K. (eds), La Thessalie. Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975–1990: bilans et perspectives (Athens, 1994) 149–54Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Wijnen 1993 (n. 40), 324. Wijnen's text is rather confusing. While speaking about the characteristics of the Early Neolithic pottery in the area which stretched from Corinth in the South to Servia and Nea Nikomedeia in the North, she suddenly proposes that ‘the quantity of pottery made during the first pottery bearing phase was extremely small; during this period [it] certainly has not been produced on a regular basis’. It is a general statement, which, however, has to be interpreted as referring only to the ENI Sesklo (contrary to Perlès 2001, 214), for the following reasons. The ENI (monochrome phase) is not represented at Nea Nikomedeia and Servia; in any case the quantity of pottery unearthed from these two sites was certainly not small. The same seems to be true for the sites of Elateia and Corinth, referred to by Wijnen (see above). Furthermore, her main topic of research was the Early Neolithic pottery from Sesklo; at p. 323 she states that she studied only a sample of the pottery from the other sites included in her text.

⁴² Evans, J. D., ‘Excavations in the Early Neolithic settlement of Knossos 1957–1960’, BSA 59 (1964), 132–240Google Scholar; ead., ‘Sherd weights and sherd counts—a contribution to the problem of quantifying pottery studies’, in Strong, D. E. (ed.), Archaeological Theory and Practice (New York, 1973), 131–49Google Scholar.

⁴³ Evans 1964 (n. 42), 236.

⁴⁴ For Argissa and Sesklo see Bloedow, E. F., ‘The “Aceramic” Neolithic phase in Greece reconsidered’, MA 4 (1991), 1–43Google Scholar. For the site of Franchthi see Vitelli 1993a, 37–40.

⁴⁵ Vitelli 1993a, 39.

⁴⁶ Vitelli 1989, 26; ead. 1993b, 253.

⁴⁷ Perlès 2001, 217.

⁴⁸ Björk 1995.

⁴⁹ Vitelli 1989; ead. 1993a, 214.

⁵⁰ Wijnen 1993 (n. 40).

⁵¹ Björk 1995, 97–102.

⁵² Ibid., 97. At p. 89, however, Björk argues that the percentage of round bases may be not accurate because it is often difficult to ascertain whether a round-contoured sherd is part of a round base or a curved portion of the vessel.

⁵³ Almost 72% of the monochrome pots were made from fabrics rich in calcite and limestone inclusions (Fabrics A and C), and the clay of c. 18% of the pottery contains abundant feldspar and volcanic inclusions (Fabric B). Fabric D, used for the manufacture of 3% of the vessels is characterized by the presence of schist, greywacke, shale, and quartzite fragments whereas serpentine and quartzite fragments are the major inclusions of fabric E. In all fabrics inclusions amount to 25%–30% of the matrix. For more details see Yiouni 1996a, 71–5.

⁵⁴ Yiouni 1996c, 190, mentions the presence of one askoid vessel with firing clouds and a lighter area near the base. These features were originally interpreted as indicating exposure of the pot in hot oxidizing flames. Re-examination of the vessel, however, revealed that the pot was, at places, vitrified. Vitrification should most probably be attributed to an accidental refiring of the pot and not to the original firing or to the use of the vessel. Thus it is probable that the dark and light areas on the vessel's surface should also be attributed to the accidental refiring of the pot.

⁵⁵ The Nea Nikomedeia vessels have rounded profiles and the fireclouds were present mainly on flat bases, so that the use of these vessels for cooking cannot be excluded. From base-sherds it is not possible to infer the exact shape of these pots.

⁵⁶ For discussion on this subject see Z. Tsirtsoni and Yiouni, P., ‘Neolithic cooking vessels from Dikili Tash (Eastern Macedonia, Greece): a technological and functional approach’, in Kilikoglou, V., Hein, A. and Maniatis, Y. (eds), Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics: Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (BAR S1011; Athens, 2002), 103–10Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ For Franchthi see Vitelli 1989, 19; for Achilleion, Björk 1995, 105–7. At Nea Nikomedeia, all types of pottery decoration are found in similar amounts all over the excavation grid, the only exception being the absence of the W/R pottery from the structures in Group 2.

⁵⁸ Deal, M., ‘Pottery Ethnoarchaeology among the Tzeltal, Maya’ (Ph.D. diss. Fraser University, 1983), 167Google Scholar. For an apparently similar practice at Dikili Tash see Tsirtsoni, Z., ‘Les poteries du début de néolithique récent en Macédoine. II’, BCH 125 (2001), 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Fontana, B. L., Robinson, W. J., Cormack, C. W. and Leavitt, E. E. Jr., Papago Indian Pottery (Seattle, 1962), 80Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Yiouni 1996b, fig. 5. 25–33.

⁶¹ Yiouni 1996c, 192.

⁶² Perlès 2001, 228.

⁶³ See table B.11 in Winn and Shimabuku 1989.

⁶⁴ Björk 1995, 115.

⁶⁵ Lipids and proteins are identified by chemical analysis of organic remains from three sherds from Achilleion. For more information see Björk 1995, 83–7, 123–4.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 101.

⁶⁷ In contrast to Winn and Shimabuku, who used rimdiameter as an estimator of the vessel's size, Björk followed Nordström's system of estimating vessels' size: Björk 1995, 95–6.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 128.

⁶⁹ Bowls have openings that approximate the maximum diameter, jars have narrow, restricted openings and cups are open, small-sized vessels. The range of rimdiameters shown in TABLE 4 has been estimated from the drawings presented in figs. 1–13, in Vitelli 1993a.

⁷⁰ Vitelli 1993a, 99, 184–5.

⁷¹ Ibid., 216.

⁷² At any given time within the Earlier Neolithic, the potters were making from 3–5 different wares. The limegritted ware dominates every deposit, accounting for as much as 80–90% of the total: Vitelli 1989, 19.

⁷³ Perlès 2001, 217–18; Björk 1995, 135.

⁷⁴ For Achilleion see Björk 1995, table IV.6, for Franchthi see Vitelli 1993, 96–7, and for Nea Nikomedeia Yiouni 1996b, 84 and fig. 5. 1.

⁷⁵ Balfet, H., ‘Ethnographical observations in North Africa and archaeological interpretation: the pottery of the Mahgreb’, in Matson, F. R. (ed.), Ceramics and Man (Chicago, 1965), 161–77Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Perlès 2001, 200–10.

⁷⁷ Miller, D., Artifacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India (Cambridge, 1985Google Scholar); Schiffer, M. B. and Skibo, J. M., ‘The explanation of artifact variability’, Am. Antiq. 62 (1997), 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁸ Rice 1987, 355.

⁷⁹ Björk 1995, 111, 129. At Early Neolithic Achilleion 68 roundels were found; two of them have holes. On the basis of clay figurines from Achilleion Björk proposes that clay discs with a central hole might have been pendants.

⁸⁰ Rice 1987, table 9. 3.

⁸¹ Ibid., 293–9.

⁸² Ibid., 296.

⁸³ Ibid., 295. Estimates for cooking vessels range from 26% to 87% of the ceramic assemblages.

⁸⁴ Vitelli 1993a, 253, cf. Perlès and Vitelli 1999, 104.

⁸⁵ Technologically, the vessels are not of inferior quality. Instead, pots were very carefully manufactured.

⁸⁶ Vitelli 1993a, 101.

⁸⁷ Since most of the neck jars from Nea Nikomedeia were slipped, it seems that the vases were not used for storing or carrying water. Liquid and semi-liquid substances such as fat, honey, or alcoholic beverages are the commodities that most probably were stored in these vessels.

⁸⁸ At Nea Nikomedeia decorated pottery amounts to 4% of the ceramic material. The great majority of them bear painted patterns (88% of the decorated vessels). At Achilleion the ceramic sample of 12,528 sherds included 12 painted body sherds. At Franchthi, decorated pots amount to c. 4% of the ceramic assemblage.

⁸⁹ Gallis, K., Καὺσεις Νεχρὼν απὸ τη Νεολιϑιχὴ ΕποΧὴ στη Θεσσαλἱα (Athens, 1982)Google Scholar. According to Chourmouziadis (n. 37), sherds and flint blades are also accompanying the secondary burials at Prodromos, in Thessaly.

⁹⁰ Of the remaining vessels, eight are small-sized with slightly closed walls, carefully made and burnished (one of them perhaps was painted). Two of the larger vessels have also slightly closed walls although one of them is ovaloid; the third is a ‘fruitstand’.

⁹¹ In Gallis (n. 89), 58, animal bones are reported from cremation no. 14.

⁹² Ibid., 36.