# The flaked stone assemblages

Catherine Perlès, Lygeri Papagiannaki

► To cite this version:

Catherine Perlès, Lygeri Papagiannaki. The flaked stone assemblages. Eva Alram-Stern, Kostas Gallis, Giorgos Toufexis. Platia Magoula Zarkou. The Neolithic Period., Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2022, 978-3-7001-9036-3. halshs-03878049

HAL Id: halshs-03878049

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03878049

Submitted on 29 Nov 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
PLATIA MAGOULA ZARKOU
THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD

ENVIRONMENT, STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE,
CHRONOLOGY, TOOLS, FIGURINES AND ORNAMENTS

EVA ALRAM-STERN

KOSTAS GALLIS

GIORGOS TOUFEXIS (EDS.)

AUSTRIAN
ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES
PRESS
AUSTRIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Austrian Archaeological Institute

Department of Prehistory & West Asian/Northeast African Archaeology

Oriental and European Archaeology

Volume 23

Series Editor: Barbara Horejs

Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh
Eva Alram-Stern – Kostas Gallis – Giorgos Toufexis (Eds.)

**Platia Magoula Zarkou**

**The Neolithic Period**

**Environment, Stratigraphy and Architecture, Chronology, Tools, Figurines and Ornaments**

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

AUSTRIAN
ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES
PRESS
Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities
and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences:

Michael Alram, Andre Gingrich, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Renate Pillinger, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Danuta Shanzer, Peter Wiesinger, Waldemar Zacharasiewicz

Printed with the support of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) PUB 920-Z

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Der Wissenschaftsfonds.

and the Holzhausen-Legat of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Open access: Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This publication was subject to international and anonymous peer review.

Peer review is an essential part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press evaluation process. Before any book can be accepted for publication, it is assessed by international specialists and ultimately must be approved by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Publication Committee.

The paper used in this publication is DIN EN ISO 9706 certified
and meets the requirements for permanent archiving of written cultural property.

English language editing: Nicola Wood

Graphics and layout: Andrea Pancheri

Coverdesign: Mario Börner, Angela Schwab

Some rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-3-7001-9036-3

Copyright © Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna 2022

Printing: Prime Rate, Budapest

https://epub.oew.ac.at/9036-3
https://verlag.oew.ac.at

Made in Europe
# Contents

Preface by the Series Editor.................................................................................. 11

Preface.................................................................................................................. 13

## I. Introduction: Chronicle of Excavations and Research 1974–1990

Kostas Gallis

I.1. The History of the Excavations .................................................................... 19

I.2. Pottery Analyses................................................................................................ 21

I.3. The House Model.................................................................................................. 23

I.4. Continuation of the Excavations .................................................................... 26

I.5. Geoarchaeological Investigation in the Area of the Site ................................. 29

I.6. Radiocarbon Dates and Further Research on the Site .................................... 31

I.7. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 31

I.8. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 31

## II. The Environment and its Evolution around the Tell

II.1. The Latest Quaternary Evolution of the Peneiada Valley, Central Greece, and its Effects on Neolithic and Historical Settlement Distribution .................... 35
*Riccardo Caputo – Bruno Helly – Dimitra Rapti – Sotiris Valkaniotis*

II.1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 35

II.1.2. Late Quaternary Peneiada Valley Evolution ........................................ 38

II.1.3. Environmental Changes in the Post-Last Glacial Maximum Period. ........ 47

II.1.4. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................. 54

II.1.5. Appendix: Description of the Peneiada Valley Project-1 Borehole. ..
*Riccardo Caputo – Bruno Helly – Marco Stefani – George Syrides – Sotiris Valkaniotis – Alexandros Bellesis – Giorgos Toufexis*

II.2. Geophysical Investigations ........................................................................ 64
*Apostolos Sarris – Tuna Kalayci – James Donati*

II.2.1. Scope of the Survey and Previous Geological Studies ............................ 64

II.2.2. Geophysical Instrumentation and Methodology .................................... 65

II.2.3. Geophysical Results.................................................................................. 68

II.2.4. Integration of Geophysical Data and Discussion.................................... 77

## III. Stratigraphy and Architecture

Giorgos Toufexis – Christos Batzelas

III.1. The Excavations................................................................................................. 81

III.2. Processing of the Stratigraphy ........................................................................ 84

III.3. Building Phases ................................................................................................. 86

III.3.1. Building Phase I................................................................................................. 86

III.3.2. Building Phase II ................................................................................................. 89
<table><tr><td>III.3.3. Building Phase III</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>III.3.4. Building Phase IV</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>III.3.5. Building Phase V</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>III.3.6. Building Phase VI</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>III.3.7. Building Phase VII</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>III.3.8. Building Phase VIII</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>III.3.9. Building Phase IX</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>III.4. Discussion</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>III.4.1. The Ditch</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>III.4.2. Building Remains</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>III.4.3. Thermal Structures</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>III.4.4. Burnt Pieces of Clay with Decorative Elements</td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>III.4.5. Tell Formation and Use of Domestic Space</td><td>135</td></tr><tr><td>III.5. Epilogue</td><td>137</td></tr></table>

## IV. The Absolute Chronology of the Excavations: Radiocarbon Dating and Stratigraphic Age Modelling

Bernhard Weninger – Giorgos Toufexis – Christos Batzelas

<table><tr><td>IV.1. Introduction</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>IV.2. The <sup>14</sup>C Database</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>IV.3. Data Processing and Calibration Software</td><td>185</td></tr><tr><td>IV.4. Single-Age <sup>14</sup>C Age Calibration</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>IV.4.1. Overview: Dispersion Calibration</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>IV.4.2. Single-Date Age-Depth Model</td><td>189</td></tr><tr><td>IV.5. Gaussian Monte Carlo Wiggle Matching</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>IV.5.1. Methodology</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>IV.5.2. Results of Gaussian Monte Carlo Wiggle Matching Application to Platia Magoula Zarkou-Data</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>IV.6. Discussion</td><td>193</td></tr><tr><td>IV.7. Conclusions</td><td>195</td></tr></table>

## V. The Tools

<table><tr><td>V.1. The Flaked Stone Assemblages</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>Catherine Perlès – Lygeri Papagiannaki</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>V.1.1. Introduction</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.2. An Overview of Raw Materials Exploitation</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.3. Lithic Phase 1 – Building Phases I–V</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.4. Lithic Phase 2 – Building Phase VI</td><td>224</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.5. Lithic Phase 3 – Building Subphase VIIa</td><td>230</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.6. Lithic Phase 4 – Building Subphases VIIb and VIIc</td><td>237</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.7. Lithic Phase 5 – Building Phase VIII</td><td>251</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.8. Discussion</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>V.1.9. Appendix 1: Table of Wear Traces</td><td>275</td></tr><tr><td>Lygeri Papagiannaki – Sylvie Beyries</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>V.1.10. Appendix 2: The Flaked Stone Assemblages – A Brief Note on Agricultural Tools</td><td>289</td></tr><tr><td>Niccolò Mazzucco</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>V.1.11.</td>
      <td>Appendix 3: Geochemical Sourcing of Chipped Stone Tools from Platia Magoula Zarkou.</td>
      <td>291</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>Michael Brandl – Christoph A. Hauzenberger – Peter Filzmoser – Maria M. Martinez</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.</td>
      <td>The Platia Magoula Zarkou Macrolithics: A Thessalian Industry in its Aegean Neolithic Context.</td>
      <td>310</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>Anna Stroulia</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.1.</td>
      <td>Introduction</td>
      <td>310</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.2.</td>
      <td>Grinding and Abrading Tools.</td>
      <td>313</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.3.</td>
      <td>Celts</td>
      <td>324</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.4.</td>
      <td>Percussive Tools.</td>
      <td>332</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.5.</td>
      <td>Specimens with Narrow Grooves.</td>
      <td>336</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.6.</td>
      <td>Miscellanea.</td>
      <td>338</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.2.7.</td>
      <td>Conclusions</td>
      <td>342</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.</td>
      <td>Bone Tools</td>
      <td>345</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>Rozalia Christidou</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.1.</td>
      <td>Introduction</td>
      <td>345</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.2.</td>
      <td>Major Groups and State of Preservation of the Bone Artefacts.</td>
      <td>348</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.3.</td>
      <td>Raw Materials and Tool Blanks</td>
      <td>353</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.4.</td>
      <td>Tool Shaping and Resharpening.</td>
      <td>358</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.5.</td>
      <td>Tool Types and Morphometric Features.</td>
      <td>362</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.6.</td>
      <td>Tool Use.</td>
      <td>365</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.7.</td>
      <td>Summary and Discussion.</td>
      <td>391</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.3.8.</td>
      <td>Appendices/Catalogues</td>
      <td>394</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.4.</td>
      <td>Clay Spinning and Weaving Implements.</td>
      <td>401</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>Christopher Britsch</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.4.1.</td>
      <td>Introduction</td>
      <td>401</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.4.2.</td>
      <td>Artefact Categories.</td>
      <td>402</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.4.3.</td>
      <td>Textile Tools by Phases</td>
      <td>404</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.4.4.</td>
      <td>Characteristics and Development of Neolithic Textile Production at Platia Magoula Zarkou.</td>
      <td>414</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.5.</td>
      <td>Various Clay and Sherd Tools</td>
      <td>423</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>Eva Alram-Stern</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.5.1.</td>
      <td>Sling Bullets.</td>
      <td>423</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.5.2.</td>
      <td>Scrapers – Abrasive Instruments</td>
      <td>427</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.5.3.</td>
      <td>Rounded Sherds</td>
      <td>428</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.5.4.</td>
      <td>Eight-shaped Sherd Tools.</td>
      <td>448</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>V.5.5.</td>
      <td>Sherd Burnishers</td>
      <td>448</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>VI. Figurines, House Model and Ritual Vessels</b></td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td>Eva Alram-Stern</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>VI.1.</td>
      <td>Introduction</td>
      <td>453</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>VI.2.</td>
      <td>Anthropomorphic Figurines.</td>
      <td>453</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>VI.2.1.</td>
      <td>Fabric, Manufacture, Decoration</td>
      <td>453</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>VI.2.2.</td>
      <td>Typology.</td>
      <td>455</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>VI.2.3.</td>
      <td>Towards a Chronology of the Figurines.</td>
      <td>460</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>VI.2.4.</td>
      <td>The Anthropomorphic Figurines: Their Use and Meaning</td>
      <td>462</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tr><td>VI.3. The House Model Assemblage: Context and Deposition, Composition and Meaning.</td><td>468</td></tr><tr><td>VI.3.1. Context and Deposition of the House Model.</td><td>468</td></tr><tr><td>VI.3.2. Form and Decoration of the Model and the Figurines.</td><td>470</td></tr><tr><td>VI.3.3. The House Model as a Social Arena</td><td>475</td></tr><tr><td>VI.3.4. Conclusions</td><td>480</td></tr><tr><td>VI.4. Zoomorphic Figurines or Vessel Protomes</td><td>481</td></tr><tr><td>VI.5. Anthropomorphic Vessels.</td><td>482</td></tr><tr><td>VI.6. Table and Miniature Bowl</td><td>483</td></tr><tr><td>VI.7. Catalogue</td><td>484</td></tr><tr><td>VI.7.1. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines</td><td>484</td></tr><tr><td>VI.7.2. Table and Miniature Bowl</td><td>567</td></tr></table>

## VII. The Ornaments

<table><tr><td>Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>VII.1. Introduction</td><td>571</td></tr><tr><td>VII.2. The Inventory.</td><td>571</td></tr><tr><td>VII.2.1. Shell</td><td>571</td></tr><tr><td>VII.2.2. Bone</td><td>575</td></tr><tr><td>VII.2.3. Stone.</td><td>575</td></tr><tr><td>VII.2.4. Clay</td><td>576</td></tr><tr><td>VII.3. Where in the Deposit – In Space and Time</td><td>577</td></tr><tr><td>VII.4. Discussion – Conclusions: The Ornaments in the Thessalian Framework</td><td>578</td></tr></table>

## VIII. Archaeobotanical and Zooarchaeological Remains – Revisited

<table><tr><td>Paul Halstead</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>VIII.1. Composition of the Archaeobotanical and Zooarchaeological Assemblages in Context.</td><td>583</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.2. Land Use at Platia Magoula Zarkou in Context.</td><td>584</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.3. Cultures of Food Consumption at Platia Magoula Zarkou in Context.</td><td>586</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.4. Conclusions</td><td>587</td></tr></table>

## IX. The Physical and Social Landscape of Neolithic Platia Magoula Zarkou

<table><tr><td>Stella Souvatzi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IX.1. The Physical Landscape and Human Agency</td><td>590</td></tr><tr><td>IX.2. The Constructed Landscape.</td><td>593</td></tr><tr><td>IX.2.1. Around the Mound: Boundaries and Water Management Systems?</td><td>593</td></tr><tr><td>IX.2.2. The Settlement Type and its Significance</td><td>596</td></tr><tr><td>IX.2.3. The Cemetery and the Manipulation of History.</td><td>599</td></tr><tr><td>IX.3. The Wider Social Landscape</td><td>604</td></tr><tr><td>IX.4. Conclusions</td><td>608</td></tr></table>

## X. Platia Magoula Zarkou in Context: Summary and Conclusions

<table><tr><td>Eva Alram-Stern – Giorgos Toufexis</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>X.1. The Area around the Tell</td><td>609</td></tr><tr><td>X.1.1. The Geographical Setting and the Environment of the Tell.</td><td>609</td></tr><tr><td>X.1.2. The Constructed Area around the Tell</td><td>610</td></tr></table>
# V. The Tools

## V.1. The Flaked Stone Assemblages

*Catherine Perlès – Lygeri Papagiannaki*

### V.1.1. Introduction

Despite the abundance of Middle Neolithic sites in Thessaly, the flaked stone tools remain insufficiently documented, especially when compared with the pottery. Several sites yielded very small collections, and aside from Achilleion, the most comprehensive studies have remained unpublished.<fnref n="233" /> Consequently, regional and diachronic variation in characteristic tool types, raw material procurement, techniques and methods of production remain difficult to establish. PMZ will be one of the few assemblages to be fully published<fnref n="234" /> and should constitute an important reference collection to define the characteristics of Middle Neolithic and early Late Neolithic Thessalian flaked stones assemblages.

### *The Potential for Refined Diachronic Approaches*

The several metres-deep Middle Neolithic sequence at PMZ will allow us to define not only the main features of the Middle Neolithic flaked stone assemblages as a whole, but also to investigate for the first time in Thessaly, diachronic variation within the Middle Neolithic. In particular, a late Middle Neolithic phase, called the ‘Zarko phase’, was defined in the original publication on the basis of the pottery assemblages.<fnref n="235" /> Can we document parallel transformations in the flaked stone assemblages and individualise this phase? PMZ is also one of the very few sites where the Middle Neolithic/Late Neolithic transition can be observed, and this was originally presented as an instance of local, gradual transformation. Is the transition to the Late Neolithic also gradual with the lithics, or, as occurs in other regions,<fnref n="236" /> do we witness breaks in raw material procurement, flaking techniques and tool typology? Defining the technological and typological characteristics of the flaked stone assemblages, their transformation throughout the sequence, the lithic phases and their correlation – or absence thereof – with the pottery phases will thus be a major goal of the present analysis.

<footnote n="233">233 Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981; Karimali 1994.</footnote>

<footnote n="234">234 The flaked stone assemblages from PMZ were initially entrusted to Ernestine Elster, who published two short reports (Elster – Duricic 1982; Elster 1994). Catherine Perlès studied the collection at Larissa in 1984–1986 in the framework of the French ‘Mission Néolithique de Thessalie’ with Jean-Paul Demoule (Perlès 1994a). They were later also studied by Evangelia Karimali for her dissertation (Karimali 1994) and referred to in several important papers on lithic trade networks (Karimali 2000; Karimali 2009).</footnote>

<footnote n="235">235 Demoule et al. 1988. The final results of the reanalysis of the pottery by Areti Pentedeka were not available at the time of writing.</footnote>

<footnote n="236">236 At Franchthi, for instance, see Perlès 2004. Antikleia Moundrea-Agrafioti also notes important differences between the Middle and Late Neolithic assemblages in Thessaly, but her sample only included the LN II subphase from Dimini and no early Late Neolithic: Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 159–163.</footnote>
## Phasing the Flaked Stone Assemblages

The samples from each excavation unit being too small for valid comparisons, our unit of analysis has been the ‘building phase’ or ‘building subphase’, as defined by G. Toufexis and C. Batzelas.<fnref n="237" /> The earliest two phases (BPh I and II) refer to the basal ditch and the overlying sediments. The later building phases were defined by the presence of ‘surfaces’ (F33 to F20), usually associated with architectural remains, hearths, postholes or pits. BPh and BSPh III to IX thus consists of a ‘surface’, its associated features and the sediments interstratified between this surface and the overlying one (possibly destruction strata). Ideally, the lithic chronostratigraphy should have been established solely on the basis of the most secure contexts with in situ deposition (‘surfaces’, ‘floors’, ‘pits’). Unfortunately, the number of significant artefacts from these secure contexts is far too small to do this. Consequently, we had to take into consideration all the artefacts from each architectural phase, including those coming from the deposits between two surfaces, and possibly redeposited.

From the base of the excavation on the sterile soil, up to the uppermost Neolithic deposits, we defined five ‘lithic phases’ on the basis of the stratigraphy and intrinsic characters of the flaked stone assemblages: raw materials, products, techniques of production and tool types.

Two important points must be made concerning this phasing:

i) Each lithic phase differs from the others by *statistically* significant variation in the proportion of raw materials, and/or of blades and flakes, and/or of retouched tools. Nevertheless, considering the very small size of each sample, random spatial variation must be expected. Consequently, these variations may not all be *archaeologically* significant, especially when the tool types show no differences. This will lead us to suggest an alternate chronostratigraphic scheme based on tool types only, and restricted to three lithic phases.<fnref n="238" />

ii) The fact that the material from the deposits overlying each ‘surface’ was included in the samples for each building phase may create artificial continuity between the lithic phases. Indeed, most of this material, as we shall argue below, is redeposited rather than in its original use or discard context. Some, at least, of this material may come from earlier contexts. There is therefore a distinct possibility that regular reworking of earlier material and its incorporation into later assemblages create spurious continuity. This point will be discussed in the conclusion, on the basis of the more securely dated subsamples.

## Technology and Traceology: An Integrated Approach

The PMZ assemblages are also the first in Thessaly to be studied simultaneously from a techno-typological perspective (Catherine Perlès = C. P.) and a functional perspective (Lygeri Papagian-naki = L. P.). The initial aim of the technological approach was to reconstruct the major charac-teristics of the *chaînes opératoires*, from the acquisition of the raw material to the discarding of the tools, and to address questions about the techno-economic organisation of raw material acqui-sition and tool production. In particular, we sought to establish whether the raw materials were procured from primary or secondary sources, whether they were obtained through direct procure-ment or exchange, at what stage of exploitation they were introduced into the settlement, which techniques of production were implemented, and the degree of specialisation this required. All the artefacts were individually recorded, sketched and described. Most were also photographed with a Lumix TZ6 camera. Michèle Ballinger produced the publication drawings of the most significant artefacts.

As a complement and prolongation of the technological studies, the functional analyses inves-tigated the nature of the activities involving flaked stone tools at or around PMZ, their relative

<footnote n="237">²³⁷ Toufexis – Batzelas, this volume, chapter III.</footnote>

<footnote n="238">²³⁸ Below, 269.</footnote>
importance, the choice of blanks for specific activities and the conception of the tool as a whole. In this perspective, we hoped that a comparison between tool conception and use in the Middle and Late Neolithic would contribute to the debate on continuity and discontinuities between the two periods.

L. P. examined 45 pieces – roughly half of the retouched tools and some unretouched blanks – in order to specify the mode of hafting of the tools, the materials worked, the gestures, and the life history of each tool.<fnref n="239" /> Systematic macroscopic and microscopic observation of the blunting, removals, polishes, striations and residues<fnref n="240" /> were conducted under a Euromex StereoBlue binocular and an Olympus BH2-Umex microscope, fitted with a Tucson TSview camera. Additionally, Niccolò Mazzucco examined all the sickle inserts within the framework of a large comparative study of Neolithic Mediterranean sickle elements.<fnref n="241" /> His observations will be included in the present study to complement Papagiannaki’s.<fnref n="242" />

Besides insights on the use of flaked stone tools at PMZ, the joint technological and functional approaches will allow us to test the validity of the traditional pseudo-functional typological denominations (e.g. ‘end-scraper’, ‘borer’, ‘point’). It will clearly reveal, in particular, the difficulty for the technologist in differentiating a retouch meant to shape the handhold or hafted part of the tool from a retouch meant to modify the working edge of the tool.

## Spatial Analyses

PMZ is also one of the few sites excavated decades ago where the three-dimensional position of each flaked stone artefact was recorded. This proved essential in order to discriminate between artefacts more securely associated with a stratified surface, and artefacts found in intermediary deposits and potentially redeposited. We also hoped to find a significant association of tools on identified ‘surfaces’ so as to define activity areas. As mentioned above, however, the majority of the artefacts come from the deposits interstratified between the ‘surfaces’, and these analyses turned out to be rather disappointing.

## Platia Magoula Zarkou and Thessalian Lithic Trade Networks

Finally, the position of PMZ on the main axis that links the Western and Eastern Thessalian Plains sets it a priori in an ideal nodal position in exchange networks. Areti Pentedeka has already shown the site to be a ‘source’ for three exchange networks in pottery, in both the Middle Neolithic and the Late Neolithic, and, to a lesser extent, a recipient site in two other networks linking it to eastern Thessaly.<fnref n="243" /> On the other hand, Evangelia Karimali underlined that PMZ was characterised by a massive dominance of ‘chocolate flint’ and a low proportion of obsidian that clearly aligned it with the settlements of the Western Thessalian Plain.<fnref n="244" /> With more detailed technological and functional analyses and a refined chronostratigraphic framework, can we now shed more light on the position of PMZ within these lithic networks and document, as is the case with pottery, diachronic changes in raw material procurement strategies and participation in trade networks?

<footnote n="239">²³⁹ The functional analyses were the subject of an M2 thesis at the University of Nice by Lygeri Papagiannaki. The documentation and interpretation of each artefact studied was discussed at the Larissa Museum with Sylvie Beyries, Directeur de Recherches, CEPAM (Cultures et Environnements – Préhistoire, Antiquité, Moyen Âge), CNRS-University of Nice, and supervisor of the master. The interpretation of the traces was based on the reference collection of the CEPAM.</footnote>

<footnote n="240">²⁴⁰ Semenov 1964; Mansur 1982; González Urquijo - Ibáñez Estevez 1994.</footnote>

<footnote n="241">²⁴¹ Project ‘Nea-Innova: The diffusion of Neolithic in the central-west Mediterranean: agriculture, innovations and radiocarbon dating’, PI: J. F. Gibaja (HAR2016-75201-P).</footnote>

<footnote n="242">²⁴² We warmly thank Niccolò Mazzucco for sharing his observations and for fruitful discussions on the material.</footnote>

<footnote n="243">²⁴³ Pentedeka 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="244">²⁴⁴ Karimali 2009.</footnote>
These questions drove our analyses of the material and defined the main axes of enquiry. However, archaeology is not a predictive science, and the study of the material led to some frustration: for the most part, the *chaînes opératoires* are so patchily represented that it is impossible to reconstruct them in their entirety, and often likewise impossible to assess the extent of local manufacturing versus the importation of finished blanks or tools. On the other hand, these analyses also led us to unexpected and interesting results: compared with other sites,<fnref n="245" /> PMZ presents many idiosyncratic features, absent or only rarely documented elsewhere in Thessaly and in southern Greece. For instance, the density of flaked stones is particularly low, the position of PMZ within trade networks appears singular, and several technical choices and tool types are unique.

Significantly, one of the most conspicuous idiosyncratic traits, the scarcity of flaked stone artefacts, holds true in both the Middle Neolithic and the Late Neolithic and has immediate bearing on all subsequent analyses. We shall therefore discuss this problem and the related issue of raw material procurement before embracing a diachronic perspective.

*Why Are There So Few Flaked Stone Tools at Platia Magoula Zarkou?*

A total of 270 artefacts (including debris) were attributed to the Neolithic deposits from Platia Magoula Zarkou for a volume of sediment estimated at 119m³.<fnref n="246" /> The overall ratio is thus 2.3 artefacts per m³. Although it varies somewhat from phase to phase, it always remains low. By comparison, the Neolithic trenches FAN and FAS at Franchthi yielded a total of 1916 artefacts for a volume of ca. 20 m³,<fnref n="247" /> i.e. a ratio of 96 flaked stones per m³.

Obviously, the two sites differ in two major respects. First, the majority of excavation units in the two Franchthi trenches were water-sieved, and the remaining were dry-sieved down to a mesh of 5mm. By contrast, no sieving was undertaken at PMZ. Recovery procedures must therefore have played a role and led to losses at PMZ. There are, however, reasons to argue that this is only part of the problem. The excavation was indeed careful and recovered very small chips of 10mm or less. Even more significantly, obsidian, although the most conspicuous and ‘precious’ raw material for the excavator in view of its exogenous origin, is always scarce.

We could consequently attribute the scarcity of flaked stones to an uneven spatial distribution of flaking remains: the excavation would have concerned sectors where flaking activities rarely took place, and where tools were occasionally utilised, but not produced. Such sampling biases are always possible on large tell settlements that were only very partially excavated, and it must account in part for the very fragmented aspects of the *chaînes opératoires*. However, the nature of the excavated areas and deposits varies through time,<fnref n="248" /> whereas the scarcity of flaked stones is a constant. It thus seems unlikely that excavation at PMZ systematically concerned areas devoid of flaking activities and where there was little use for flaked stone tools.

The second major difference between Franchthi and PMZ is the scarcity of obsidian. Franchthi is a southern coastal site, and clearly had easier access to obsidian exchange networks than did PMZ. Antikleia Moundrea-Agrafioti specifically noted that Thessalian sites with restricted access to obsidian tended to be altogether poor in flaked stone tools.<fnref n="249" /> At PMZ, no locally available raw

<footnote n="245">²⁴⁵ Data on flaked stone assemblages contemporaneous with PMZ are available for the following Thessalian sites: Achilleion, dated to the Early Neolithic/Middle Neolithic transition, MN I and MN III (Elster 1989); Sesklo B, dated to the MN II and III and Magoula Karamourlar (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981); Otzaki (Mottier 1981) and Ag. Petros in the nearby Sporades dated to the MN II (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981). Unfortunately, neither the Middle Neolithic nor the early Late Neolithic at Magoula Visviki yielded any retouched tool (Bergner 2015a). The assemblages from Magoula Koutroulou and Magoula Imvrou Pigadi are currently being studied and little information is available. The attribution of these sites to subphases of the Middle Neolithic is based on Reingruber et al. 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="246">²⁴⁶ Toufexis – Batzelas, this volume, 83.</footnote>

<footnote n="247">²⁴⁷ Farrand 2000.</footnote>

<footnote n="248">²⁴⁸ Souvatzi, this volume, chapter IX; Toufexis – Batzelas, this volume, 137.</footnote>

<footnote n="249">²⁴⁹ Oral communication 7/16.</footnote>
materials could replace obsidian, and our technological and functional analyses suggest that the
settlement had only limited access to regional raw materials, such as radiolarite. The proportion of
retouched tools is indeed unusually high, and the tools, especially in the earlier Middle Neolithic,
show an equally unusual degree of curation. It appears that, if the flaked stone are so scarce at
PMZ, it is mainly because the settlement had no easy access to sources of raw materials. More
generally, and probably for the same reasons, the scarcity of flaked stone tools appears to be char-
acteristic of many Thessalian settlements: Karimali provides even lower figures for Dimini, Ag.
Sophia and Pefkakia.<fnref n="250" />

V.1.2. An Overview of Raw Materials Exploitation

The raw materials from PMZ were initially identified according to criteria commonly used by
lithic technologists, and, in the present case, a lithic technologist of French training: texture, in-
clusions, and translucency. Most were initially identified as radiolarites and diagenetically trans-
formed radiolarites, i.e. ‘jaspers’. Both raw materials are also commonly found in the literature
under the name of ‘chocolate flint’.<fnref n="251" /> The identification of ‘radiolarites’ and derived ‘jaspers’ was
based on comparative samples collected from the Portaikos River and at primary sources in the
Pindos (Koziakas Range), which were identified in the 1980s by the French specialist of radiolar-
ites in Greece, P. de Wever.

For the present publication, raw material determinations within the ‘chert group’ (or silicites) were revised by mineralogist Michael Brandl, according to the recommendations of the 2010 International Mineralogical Association in Budapest.<fnref n="252" /> As shown by Tab. V.1.1 (‘original determination’), this nomenclature differs significantly from the nomenclatures used by flaked stone specialists. In particular, within this new system of classification, jaspers are considered completely unrelated, by their formation, to radiolarites.

The problems, however, are not only terminological. The samples sent to Brandl for petro-
graphic determination and geochemical analyses revealed important discrepancies between the
original, macroscopic identification, and the microscopic identification. On the whole, the identi-
fication of light-coloured translucent raw materials as ‘chert’ was confirmed. By contrast, several
specimens identified as ‘jasper’ or ‘radiolarite’ on the basis of their fine grain, texture and absence
of translucency, contained too few radiolarians to be considered as radiolarite and were therefore
reclassified as cherts (Tab. V.1.1). Their geochemical composition is nevertheless identical to that
of true radiolarites and indicates a similar source area.<fnref n="253" /> Since it was not possible for the entire
collection to be re-examined by a specialist, we shall thus group all the brown-red, non-translu-
cent specimens initially classified as radiolarites or ‘jaspers’ under the heading of ‘radiolarite/
chocolate chert’ (henceforth R/CC).

Another difficulty pertains to the fact that the group of ‘cherts’ now contains both the dark-
coloured, non-translucent material similar to radiolarites, and the light-coloured, translucent ma-
terials, most probably of different origins. In order to distinguish the two varieties, we shall call
the second group ‘translucent chert’, with a special mention for the well-known ‘honey flint’, here
called ‘honey chert’.

*Radiolarites/Chocolate Cherts* are by far the most abundant in the PMZ Neolithic collection (72%), as already noted by Karimali.<fnref n="254" /> They can be divided into very fine-grained ones (51% of total) and the coarser ones (20.6%). Despite the fineness of the grain of the majority of the radiolarites, their flaking qualities are not always optimal: besides the small size of the pebbles,

<footnote n="250">250 Karimali 1994, 291.</footnote>

<footnote n="251">²⁵¹ The Greek ‘chocolate flint’ is completely unrelated to the Polish ‘chocolate flint’ (or ‘chocolate silicites’) from the Holy Cross Mountains: Brandl et al. 2016.</footnote>

<footnote n="252">²⁵² See Brandl 2013/2014; Brandl et al., this volume, 291–292.</footnote>

<footnote n="253">²⁵³ Brandl et al., this volume, 302.</footnote>

<footnote n="254">²⁵⁴ See ‘chocolate flint’ in Karimali 2009.</footnote>
when they were collected as such, they often present inner faults that render the control of flaking hazardous or react to percussion with marked undulations.

Some R/CC are extremely lustrous and evoke heat-treated raw materials, as was also the case at Achilleion.<fnref n="255" /> In some cases small thermal cracks confirmed the presence of heat alteration, but we found no definite evidence for intentional heat treatment, such as lustrous retouch negatives contrasting with the matte original flaked surfaces.<fnref n="256" /> Most pieces must have accidentally come into contact with a fire, but natural processes, such as heating during a metamorphic process, could also be envisioned.

*Obsidian* amounts to 11.4% of the raw materials.<fnref n="257" /> It has not been analysed, but its texture and colour is entirely compatible with a Melian origin.<fnref n="258" />

*Translucent cherts*, of various textures and colours but always somehow translucent, amount to 11.7% of the raw materials. This group is anything but homogeneous and the flaking qualities vary. Included in this category are eight specimens (3% of total) of the diagnostic ‘honey cherts’, here mostly honey or rose in colour, translucent and homogeneous. As with radiolarites, the pink hue made us suspect heat treatment, but this could not be established. Noteworthy is the absence of a green-brown very homogeneous chert, well represented at Achilleion by pressure-flaked blades, imported as finished blanks. This high-quality raw material was seemingly unavailable to the inhabitants of PMZ.

*Quartz* flakes are scarce: eight specimens, or 3% of the total. Some are clearly intentional, non-cortical flakes. Others consist of cortical flakes and debris that may be unrelated to the flaked stone industry and may have been accidentally produced during the percussive use of a quartz pebble.

*Acquisition of the Raw Materials*

The presence of cortical and neocortical flakes demonstrates that some of the R/CC were picked up as river pebbles and not at the original sources. However, according to Riccardo Caputo, the flysch and marble hills on each side of the valley near PMZ do not contain radiolarites and could not have provided local pebbles.<fnref n="259" /> Consequently, all the R/CC derived from the Pindos Mountains, more precisely the Koziakas Range, where these materials are common. It is easy to find large and good-quality pebbles in the Peneios near the foot of the mountains,<fnref n="260" /> but the Peneios could not have had the carrying capacity to transport pebbles down to PMZ through the flat Trikala Basin. The surveys undertaken in the framework of the present project confirmed that R/CC pebbles were virtually absent in the riverbeds a few kilometres from the mountains and that the nearest exploitable sources were located 40km away from the settlement, as the crow flies.<fnref n="261" /> With one exception, the ten Neolithic samples analysed all corresponded to locations sampled along the Portaikos and the Peneios, up to 50km from the site: PMZ 2, 4, 5 and 8. With five specimens identified, location PMZ 8, on the Peneios,<fnref n="262" /> appears to have been favoured, but the sample is small. It is clear, anyway, that R/CC pebbles must be considered as a regional, not a local resource, either collected during specific expeditions, or exchanged with groups living nearer to the mountains.

Most of the pebbles flaked at PMZ were too small to produce the good-quality and often wide R/CC blades and other sources must have been exploited. Some artefacts indeed present a fresh

<footnote n="255">²⁵⁵ Personal observation C. P.</footnote>

<footnote n="256">²⁵⁶ Inizan et al. 1976; Domanski – Webb 2007; Schmidt et al. 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="257">²⁵⁷ The figure given by Karimali (8.4%) was clearly based on a subsample of the collection since she quotes six pieces whereas we have 31 obsidian artefacts for the Neolithic strata: Karimali 2009, fig. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="258">²⁵⁸ With one possible exception: the flake PM0567 in Lithic Phase 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="259">²⁵⁹ Caputo et al., this volume, chapter II.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="260">²⁶⁰ Personal observation 1986.</footnote>

<footnote n="261">²⁶¹ Brandl et al., this volume, 294.</footnote>

<footnote n="262">²⁶² See Brandl et al., this volume, Fig. V.1.21.</footnote>
cortex that indicates a collection of raw material at or near the sources, in the Pindos. One of them was analysed and does correspond, by its geochemical composition, to source PMZ 5, characterised as a primary/residual outcrop. Core-shaping flakes and under-crest bladelets suggest that some of the laminar were produced at the site, either from traded cores or by itinerant specialists. It seems probable, however, that the best-quality blades, each unique as regards the characteristics of its raw material, were imported as already flaked blanks.<fnref n="263" />

This also applies to the honey chert blades: the only honey chert flake found at PMZ is a secondary flake extracted from a blade, and honey chert (or ‘honey flint’) blades always circulate as such in eastern and southern Greece. Their precise origins remain unknown.<fnref n="264" /> Bulgaria can be excluded for the vast majority of honey chert blades south of Macedonia and a western origin, in Greece or Albania, appears the most plausible.

Obsidian was imported from Melos. The assemblage comprises both flakes and bladelets. Some, but not all bladelets were pressure flaked. The presence of rejuvenation flakes and irregular bladelets suggests in situ flaking of already prepared or already partially flaked cores, a usual pattern with obsidian.<fnref n="265" /> However, the low proportion of obsidian and small absolute number of pieces clearly shows that PMZ had limited access to obsidian trade networks.

The only raw material that can be considered potentially local is quartz, but its use at PMZ is anecdotal. While the procurement of R/CC pebbles remains debatable since both direct procurement and exchange can be envisioned, there is no doubt that most of the sources of raw materials, in particular the raw materials related to the production of blades, were too far away for direct procurement at the sources. The PMZ inhabitants were thus largely, or perhaps entirely, dependant on exchange for their flaked stone tools. The dependence upon traded raw materials and blanks is frequent in central and southern Greece during the Neolithic, even when local raw materials were available. What is more unusual is that all the trade networks appear to have provided PMZ with very limited quantities of nodules and blanks.

<table><caption>Tab. V.1.1 Raw materials used at PMZ and results of microscopic and geochemical analyses. Microscopic and geochemical groups, see Brandl et al., this volume (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><th>PMZ number</th><th>Description</th><th>Original determination</th><th>Petrographic determination</th><th>Photograph</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0078<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Helladic)</td><td>Medium-grained, matte, non-translucent, red with dark spots</td><td>Matt red jasper (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Radiolarite (radiolarians)<br>Microscopic group 1<br>Geochemical group 1,<br>Source 8</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="263">²⁶³ Below, e.g. 207.</footnote>

<footnote n="264">²⁶⁴ There are indeed many varieties in the group of ‘honey flints’ and certainly multiple sources: Perlès in preparation.</footnote>

<footnote n="265">²⁶⁵ Perlès 1990; Karimali 2009.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>Description</td><td>Original determination</td><td>Petrographic determination</td><td>Photograph</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0108<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Helladic)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, lustrous, non-translucent, pale chocolate colour</td><td>Lustrous chocolate jasper (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Radiolarite (radiolarians)<br>Pebble<br>Microscopic group 1<br>Geochemical group 1,<br>Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0380<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 5)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, non-translucent, chocolate and beige colour</td><td>Chocolate and beige jasper (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Radiolarite (radiolarians)<br>Microscopic group 1<br>Geochemical group 1,<br>Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0404<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 5)</td><td>Medium-grained, non-translucent, dark brown colour</td><td>Dark-brown radiolarite</td><td>Radiolarite (radiolarians)<br>Microscopic group 2<br>Geochemical group 1,<br>Source 2</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0449<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 5)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, non-translucent, brown to olive-green with blue passes</td><td>Brown-olive-green jasper</td><td>Olive-green radiolarite (dissolved radiolarians)<br>Pebble<br>Microscopic group 3<br>Geochemical group 1,<br>Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0448<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 5)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, non-translucent, chocolate colour with dark pink stain and a translucent band</td><td>Chocolate jasper (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Radiolarite (radiolarians)<br>Slight fire influence<br>Microscopic group 1<br>Geochemical group 1,<br>Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>PMZ number</th><th>Description</th><th>Original determination</th><th>Petrographic determination</th><th>Photograph</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0568<br>Unretouched<br>flake, cortical<br>(Lithic Phase 4)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, non-translucent, brown-red with pink cortex</td><td>Red-brown jasper with cortex (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Radiolarite (dissolved radiolarians) with sub-cortex Microscopic group 1<br>Geochemical group 1, Source 2</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0868<br>Waste<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Very lustrous, brown-red with darker spots, rolled outer surface</td><td>Brown-red jasper, lustrous (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Radiolarite Medium fire influence Gravel<br>Microscopic group 5<br>Geochemical group undetermined</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0884<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Medium-grained olive-green jasper passing to brown</td><td>Medium-grained radiolarite</td><td>Radiolarite (radiolarians)<br>Microscopic group 2<br>Geochemical group 1, Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0461<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 4)</td><td>Fine-grained, slightly translucent on edges, texture of a radiolarite, green with white fresh cortex</td><td>Cortical radiolarite or chert?</td><td>Radiolarite (heavily dissolved radiolarians)<br>Primary source<br>Microscopic group 3<br>Geochemical group 1, Source 2</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0248<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Helladic)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, lustrous, non-translucent, chocolate colour</td><td>Jasper (= chocolate flint)</td><td>Chert (very few radiolarians)<br>Microscopic group 6<br>Geochemical group 1, Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0299<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Helladic)</td><td>Fine-grained, homogeneous, lustrous, non-translucent, chocolate colour</td><td>Very lustrous red jasper</td><td>Chert (very few radiolarians)<br>Microscopic group 6<br>Geochemical group 1, Source 5</td><td>1cm</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>PMZ number</th><th>Description</th><th>Original determination</th><th>Petrographic determination</th><th>Photograph</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0870<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Very lustrous<br>dark-brown<br>flake, with<br>thermal<br>removal on<br>dorsal face and<br>a matter<br>surface, heated</td><td>Lustrous<br>radiolarite,<br>heated (heat-<br>treatment?)</td><td>Chert (very few<br>radiolarians)<br>Burnt<br>Microscopic<br>group 6<br>Geochemical<br>group 1</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0471<br>Primary flake<br>(Lithic Phase 4)</td><td>Fine-grained,<br>homogeneous,<br>non-translucent,<br>red with light<br>spots, white<br>fresh cortex</td><td>Cortical<br>radiolarite from<br>primary source</td><td>Chert (very few<br>radiolarians)<br>Primary source<br>Microscopic<br>group 6<br>Geochemical<br>group 1,<br>Source 5</td><td>1cm<br>Hee zuu</td></tr><tr><td>PM0252<br>Unretouched<br>laminar flake<br>(Helladic)</td><td>Fine-grained,<br>translucent,<br>beige-pink with<br>lighter passes</td><td>Chert (= silex)</td><td>Pelmicritic<br>Chert (peloids)<br>Possibly heated<br>Microscopic<br>group 8<br>Geochemical<br>group 3,<br>Source<br>undetermined</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0580<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 3)</td><td>Fine-grained,<br>translucent,<br>very small<br>white spots</td><td>Chert (flint) or<br>calcedony</td><td>Chert<br>Few intraclasts,<br>some marine<br>detritus<br>Microscopic<br>group 7<br>Geochemical<br>group 2,<br>Source 4</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0811<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Fine-grained,<br>red with grey<br>veins</td><td>Chert (= silex)</td><td>Radiolarite,<br>radiolarians,<br>chalcedony<br>veins<br>Microscopic<br>group 4<br>Geochemical<br>group 1,<br>Source 8</td><td>1cm</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>PMZ number</th><th>Description</th><th>Original determination</th><th>Petrographic determination</th><th>Photograph</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0671<br>Unretouched<br>blade<br>(Lithic Phase 2)</td><td>Medium-grained,<br>very slightly<br>translucent on<br>edges, texture<br>of radiolarite<br>beige-green</td><td>Yellowish<br>radiolarite?<br>Chert?</td><td>Not analysed</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0348<br>Non-intentional<br>blade<br>(Lithic Phase 5)</td><td>Fine-grained,<br>translucent,<br>beige and blue,<br>spotted, white<br>cortex and blue<br>under-cortical<br>zone</td><td>Chert (= silex)</td><td>Not analysed</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0838<br>Reflaked<br>honey-flint<br>blade<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Fine-grained,<br>homogeneous,<br>translucent,<br>dark honey<br>colour</td><td>Honey flint</td><td>Not analysed</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0802<br>Bladelet<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Black, glassy,<br>brilliant,<br>homogeneous</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Not analysed</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0797<br>Unretouched<br>flake<br>(Lithic Phase 1)</td><td>Saccharoid,<br>irregular<br>texture,<br>translucent,<br>yellowish<br>colour</td><td>Quartz</td><td>Not analysed</td><td>1cm</td></tr><tr><td>PM0636<br>(Lithic Phase 3)</td><td>Translucent,<br>glassy, white</td><td>Quartz</td><td>Not analysed</td><td>1cm</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>
## V.1.3. Lithic Phase 1 – Building Phases I–V

### Characterisation

Lithic Phase 1 encompasses BPh I–V (EU 177–206) and constitutes a relatively small but very homogeneous and characteristic assemblage. No differences could be perceived throughout this sequence. Lithic Phase 1 is characterised by an intentional production of flakes, by the scarcity of bladelets, the scarcity of unretouched blades, a high ratio of retouched tools, the predominance of sickle inserts in the toolkit and the predominance of flakes over blades for the latter. Lithic Phase 1 is radiocarbon dated by several samples (Chapter IV) to ca. 5900–5700 calBC (2σ), i.e. mostly to the MN I Thessalian Neolithic.<fnref n="266" />

### Raw Materials

The Lithic Phase 1 assemblage comprises 58 artefacts and 5 debris (Tab. V.1.2). The vast majority of the flaked stones are made in R/CC: 53 pieces out of a total of 63 (88%). Five pieces are made in obsidian, one in quartz, one in honey flint, and one in a light-coloured translucent chert. As explained above, all but perhaps the quartz flake are exogenous.

Natural surfaces – cortex or neocortex – are rarely preserved, even on R/CC flakes or blades (n=7). The proportion (13%) is much lower than at Achilleion, where cortex is present on 37% of the ‘red jaspers’ and 11% of the ‘grey-green jaspers’<fnref n="267" /> and closer to the proportions found in eastern Thessaly (ca. 5%),<fnref n="268" /> further away from the Pindos sources. This suggests that at PMZ a fair number of artefacts were obtained by exchange as already flaked blanks.

Different sources were exploited. Two primary flakes show that some of the R/CC were pro- cured, directly or indirectly, as water-rolled river pebbles (Fig. V.1.1a). The geochemical analyses confirmed that two flakes from Lithic Phase 1 corresponded to location PMZ 8, on the Peneios River.<fnref n="269" /> One small flake, from BPh V, bears a relatively fresh cortex, partially removed by ther- mal flakes (Fig. V.1.1c). It must have been collected at or near a source. The only light chert bladelet also preserved some primary, unrolled cortex on the butt, indicating procurement at or near the source (Fig. V.1.1d). The single honey flint blade must have been imported, as usual, as an already flaked blank.

<table><caption>Tab. V.1.2 Composition of the flaked stone assemblage from Lithic Phase 1 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>R/CC</th><th>Chert</th><th>Obsidian</th><th>Honey chert</th><th>Quartz</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Debris</th><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cores</th><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Flakes</th><td>19</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>Blades</th><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Bladelets</th><td>3</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched flakes</th><td>9</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched blades</th><td>13</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched bladelets</th><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>53</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="266">²⁶⁶ Reingruber et al. 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="267">²⁶⁷ Radiolarites at least are locally available at Achilleion (Geological Map of Greece, IGME, Pharsala Sheet): Elster 1989, tab. 10.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="268">²⁶⁸ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 68.</footnote>

<footnote n="269">²⁶⁹ Brandl et al., this volume, 296.</footnote>
Obsidian is conspicuously scarce. It amounts to 8% of the raw materials, as opposed to 28.8% at Achilleion (Phase IV)<fnref n="270" /> and more than 50% at Magoula Koutroulou<fnref n="271" /> in western Thessaly. In eastern Thessaly and at Ag. Petros, the percentages range from 47 to 70%.<fnref n="272" /> Figures as low as that of PMZ Lithic Phase 1 are found only much further inland, in sites such as Theopetra and Magoulitsa.<fnref n="273" /> The obsidian artefacts show no natural surfaces: they were imported as finished pieces, or flaked in situ from already prepared cores.

## *The Production*

The radiolarite/chocolate cherts (R/CC) sample comprises 5 debris, 1 core, 1 undetermined blank, 34 flakes, 1 fine bladelet, 2 possible bladelets and 17 blades, mostly fragmented. The grain varies from coarse to extremely fine (Fig. V.1.1a–c, e–j). Some, at least, of the blocks were locally worked: the relatively high number of debris<fnref n="274" /> of fine-grained chocolate R/CC, fractured along natural clivage facets and without any evidence of water abrasion, is a good indicator of local flaking activities. The exploitation of R/CC aimed at the production of both flakes and blades. There is no evidence of a distinct bladelet production, and the few specimens must have been produced alongside the production of blades.

A flat, centripetal discoid flake core, of dark radiolarite (Figs. V.1.1b, V.1.3i), and several flakes with characteristic bulbs of percussion (cf. Fig. V.1.1e) testify to in situ production of flakes with a hard stone hammer, which accords with the relative abundance of debris in this phase. This unskilled production does not present the characteristics of waste from apprenticeship: there are no multiple misplaced incipient conoids, hinged fractures are not especially abundant, and the blanks are utilised for tools, which is normally not the case when only practice is involved.<fnref n="275" /> Nor does it correspond to the production of specific tool types:<fnref n="276" /> it must therefore be considered as a local response by unskilled knappers to a shortage of more formal blanks. Similarly, the quartz laminar flake (Tab. V.1.1, PM0797) is made in coarse, granular quartz and was probably produced with a hard hammer (the proximal end is broken). This local production explains the relatively high proportion of flakes (58% of the blanks), which sets PMZ Lithic Phase I apart from contemporaneous settlements. In the obsidian-rich assemblages from Ag. Petros, Magoula Karamourlar and Sesklo B, blades represent, respectively, 55%, 68% and 77% of the blanks.<fnref n="277" /> The situation is comparable at Otzaki (Planum 15 and 16), with 70% blades.<fnref n="278" /> At Achilleion, where an exploitation of local raw materials was more important, blades still represent 50% of the blanks in Phase III and 55% in Phase IV.<fnref n="279" /> Even when radiolarite/cherts only are considered at Sesklo B and Magoula Karamourlar, blades are more abundant than flakes.<fnref n="280" />

Other radiolarite/chocolate chert flakes, more regular and thinner, were detached by the more elaborate technique of indirect percussion, as indicated by their wide-angled, flat butt without conoid (Fig. V.1.1f–i). This suggests that they were intended to shape cores for the production of blades rather than as final products per se. All the blades that bear diagnostic criteria were indeed produced by indirect percussion (Fig. V.1.2a–g): large contact zone of the punch, thick butts

<footnote n="270">²⁷⁰ Elster 1989, tab. 10.1 (the figure was calculated without 'missing inf').</footnote>

<footnote n="271">²⁷¹ Hamilakis et al. 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="272">²⁷² Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, tab. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="273">²⁷³ Karimali 2009, tab. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="274">²⁷⁴ See Inizan et al. 1999, 34: "Debris: applies to any shapeless fragment, when the means by which it was fractured cannot be identified."</footnote>

<footnote n="275">²⁷⁵ Klaric 2018.</footnote>

<footnote n="276">²⁷⁶ As is the case, for instance, with the production of drills in the Early Neolithic at Franchthi: Perlès 2004.</footnote>

<footnote n="277">²⁷⁷ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 61, tab. 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="278">²⁷⁸ Personal observation, C. P.</footnote>

<footnote n="279">²⁷⁹ Elster 1989, tab. 10.11.</footnote>

<footnote n="280">²⁸⁰ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, tab. 8. The information is not available for Achilleion.</footnote>
when flat – or even concave – with a characteristic angle of ca. 90°; blades more curved than by pressure, with frequent waves, ripples or irregularities on the ventral surface; arrises less parallel and regular than with pressure.<fnref n="281" /> Of the six blades that preserved their proximal end, all show a flat butt, either prepared or natural. In three cases, the overhang of previous scars had been sup-pressed by short removals on the dorsal face. In the absence of blade cores, of crested blades and of characteristic rejuvenation flakes (*cintrage*<fnref n="282" /> and *carénage*<fnref n="283" /> of blade cores), the volumetric and technical characteristics of the cores cannot be assessed.

The fine R/CC bladelet PM0688 (Figs. V.1.1j, V.1.3j) is unique among the R/CC artefacts. It was detached either by indirect percussion, or possibly by pressure with a short shoulder crutch.<fnref n="284" /> There may be doubt, however, about its chronostratigraphic position: it was found just 2cm below surface F25, and could actually belong to Lithic Phase 2.

Even if a number of flakes suggest in situ blade production, the variation in raw materials makes it impossible to match any of the shaping flakes to any of the blades: they are all differ-ent in the details of the texture and colours. Each piece belongs to a different *chaîne opératoire*, represented by a single element. We are thus dealing with only extremely partial remnants of the *chaînes opératoires* that were implemented, either locally or elsewhere (Tab. V.1.3).

Pressure flaking is only securely attested in this lithic phase on obsidian and honey chert. The obsidian artefacts comprise three pressure-flaked bladelets. One is a fine mesial fragment, very regular (Fig. V.1.1k); the second a small proximal fragment with a retouched notch (Fig. V.1.1l). The butt is punctiform, with preparation of the removal on the dorsal face, a typical Middle Neo-lithic method.<fnref n="285" /> The last obsidian bladelet is a rather irregular distal fragment from a pyramidal core (Fig. V.1.1m). The two other pieces are irregular flakes coming from early phases of the debitage, detached by indirect percussion (Fig. V.1.1n–o). They may indicate in situ debitage of already prepared cores,<fnref n="286" /> but this cannot be ascertained given the small number of artefacts. Trade of second-choice artefacts alongside the bladelets can also be envisioned.

The honey chert blade (Fig. V.1.1p) is a large, sturdy blade with very rectilinear arrises and a straight profile that indicates pressure flaking. Its original width must have exceeded 2.2cm, as for a majority of honey chert blades of the Middle Neolithic, thus requiring the use of a lever to de-tach the blades.<fnref n="287" /> It was reflaked after initial use in order to extract one bladelet, and then crudely reflaked from the other fracture to extract splintered flakes. The bladelet and flakes extracted from this blade have not been recovered in the excavation.

This observation, together with the impossibility of matching the R/CC flakes and blades, confirm that we are mostly dealing with redeposited material and that the waste from local pro-duction is to be found in unexcavated areas of the site. However, with such a fragmented image of the individual *chaînes opératoires*, it is impossible to assess the extent of in situ production, in particular for the blades. The small number of flakes where indirect percussion could be securely identified (n=6), as well as the importance of retouch and curation, suggests that blanks were scarce and that many may have been imported as such, as is the case in most Thessalian Middle Neolithic sites.<fnref n="288" />

<footnote n="281">²⁸¹ Pelegrin 1994.</footnote>

<footnote n="282">²⁸² See Inizan et al. 1999, 136: “Literally ‘centering’ in architecture. The term refers to the transversal convexity of the debitage surfaces of a blade core (perpendicular to the ridges).”</footnote>

<footnote n="283">²⁸³ See Inizan et al. 1999, 136: “The term refers to the longitudinal convexity of the debitage surfaces of a core, which is best represented on cores with a single striking platform.”</footnote>

<footnote n="284">²⁸⁴ Pelegrin 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="285">²⁸⁵ Perlès 2004.</footnote>

<footnote n="286">²⁸⁶ Perlès 1990; ‘Table 5’ after Reingruber et al. 2017, tab. 5</footnote>

<footnote n="287">²⁸⁷ Pelegrin 2004; Pelegrin 2012; Perlès in preparation.</footnote>

<footnote n="288">²⁸⁸ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 74; Karimali 2009.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.1 Lithic Phase 1. a, c–i, n: unretouched flakes, b: flake core, d, j–m: bladelets, o: laterally retouched flake, p–q: reflaked blades (pseudo-burins), r: micro end-scrapers, s: end-scrapers, t–u: laterally retouched blades, v: microfoliate point. All in R/CC except d in light-coloured chert, k–o in obsidian, p in honey chert. a: PM0801, b: PM0846, c: PM0687, d: PM0784, e: PM0849, f: PM0884, g: PM0870, h: PM0872, i: PM0896, j: PM0688, k: PM0738, l: PM0802, m: PM0774, n: PM0820, o: PM0781, p: PM0838, q: PM0855, r: PM0723, s: PM0742, t: PM0840, u: PM0773, v: PM0848 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.3 Relevant dimensions for the Lithic Phase 1 assemblage. When the functional orientation differs from the technological orientation – i.e. according to the direction of the percussion, with proximal end at the bottom – the measurements are given according to the functional orientation (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>Determination</td><td>Dimensions [cm]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0846</td><td>Flake core</td><td>2.7 × 3.6 × 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>PM0735</td><td>Primary R/CC flake</td><td>2.7 × 3.83 × 1.52</td></tr><tr><td>PM0862</td><td>Core preparation R/CC flake</td><td>2.12 × 1.5 × 0.43</td></tr><tr><td>PM0787</td><td>Core preparation R/CC flake</td><td>2.93 × 1.4 × 0.59</td></tr><tr><td>PM0884</td><td>Core preparation R/CC flake</td><td>3.25 × 3.1 × 0.6</td></tr><tr><td>PM0814</td><td>Obsidian rejuvenation flake</td><td>1.8 × 1 × 0.28</td></tr><tr><td>PM0797</td><td>Distal frag. of quartz laminar flake</td><td>2.7 × 1.57 × 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>PM0784</td><td>Proximal frag. of chert bladelet</td><td>2.04 × 1.2 × 0.4</td></tr><tr><td>PM0738</td><td>Mesial frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.78 × 0.9 × 0.19</td></tr><tr><td>PM0774</td><td>Distal frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>3.31 × 1.18 × 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>PM0802</td><td>Proximal frag. of notched obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.64 × 0.79 × 0.3</td></tr><tr><td>PM0852</td><td>Mesial frag. of utilised R/CC blade</td><td>1.6 × 1.55 × 0.31</td></tr><tr><td>PM0773</td><td>Mesial frag. of retouched R/CC blade</td><td>2.7 × 1.14 × 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>PM0840</td><td>Mesial frag. of retouched R/CC blade</td><td>3.03 × 1.7 × 0.42</td></tr><tr><td>PM0855</td><td>Proximal frag. of retouched R/CC blade</td><td>2.24 × 1.55 × 0.37</td></tr><tr><td>PM0871</td><td>Retouched obsidian flake</td><td>1.88 × 2.2 × 0.49</td></tr><tr><td>PM0820</td><td>Retouched obsidian flake</td><td>2.69 × 1.37 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0833</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC blade</td><td>5 × 1.5 × 0.65</td></tr><tr><td>PM0736</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC blade</td><td>3.6 × 1.45 × 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>PM0875</td><td>Sickle insert on mesial frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>3.53 × 1.33 × 0.48</td></tr><tr><td>PM0743</td><td>Sickle insert on mesial frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>2.71 × 1.2 × 0.59</td></tr><tr><td>PM0808</td><td>Sickle insert on proximal frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>2.26 × 1.65 × 0.51</td></tr><tr><td>PM0751</td><td>Sickle insert on proximal frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>2.9 × 1.64 × 0.64</td></tr><tr><td>PM0746</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC blade</td><td>2.88 × 1.77 × 0.55</td></tr><tr><td>PM0764</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC blade</td><td>3.3 × 1.61 × 0.53</td></tr><tr><td>PM0836</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2.7 × 1.7 × 0.62</td></tr><tr><td>PM0734</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2 × 1.3 × 0.34</td></tr><tr><td>PM0867</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2.8 × 1.56 × 0.68</td></tr><tr><td>PM0845</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2.1 × 1 × 0.82</td></tr><tr><td>PM0812</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2.68 × 1.47 × 0.57</td></tr><tr><td>PM0849</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>3.1 × 2 × 0.72</td></tr><tr><td>PM0728</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2.9 × 1.34 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0770</td><td>Sickle insert on R/CC flake</td><td>2.6 × 1.68 × 0.78</td></tr><tr><td>PM0742</td><td>End-scraper on R/CC blade</td><td>3.21 × 2.09 × 0.63</td></tr><tr><td>PM0723</td><td>Frag. of micro end-scraper</td><td>0.9 × 0.7 × 0.23</td></tr><tr><td>PM0848</td><td>Microfoliate R/CC point</td><td>2.06 × 0.98 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0823</td><td>Splintered R/CC flake</td><td>1.13 × 2 × 0.6</td></tr><tr><td>PM0838</td><td>Mesial frag. of retouched honey chert blade</td><td>3.58 × 1.8 × 0.86</td></tr></tbody></table>
The Retouched Toolkit

If one leaves aside the debris and the core, 29 out of a total of 56 pieces are retouched, i.e. more
than half. This ratio is higher than in any Middle Neolithic Thessalian site where the information
is available. At Achilleion Early Neolithic/Middle Neolithic and Middle Neolithic, one obtains a
ratio of 13.7% retouched pieces in Phase III and 13.8% in Phase IV by combining tables 10.4 and
10.3.<fnref n="289" /> At Otzaki<fnref n="290" /> the ratio is 27% for Planum 15 and 16, dated to an early Middle Neolithic. Ag.
Petros, Sesklo B and Magoula Karamourlar show rates of 36.1%, 31.5% and 33.1%, respectively,
for the Middle Neolithic as a whole.<fnref n="291" /> These ratios are comparable to the ratio of retouched pieces
in the Middle Neolithic at Franchthi.<fnref n="292" /> The unusually high ratio at PMZ, together with the use of
informal flakes, confirms that raw materials and available blanks were severely lacking.

From a typological viewpoint, the comparison between the classic technomorphological classi-
fication and the results of the functional analysis reveals interesting discrepancies. Well-developed
cereal gloss had been recognised during the technological analysis, and the artefacts accordingly
classified as sickle inserts on blades or flakes. On several sickle inserts, however, the polish that
started to develop after rejuvenation of the edge was not visible macroscopically, so they had been
considered as sickle inserts transformed into ‘retouched blades’. Similarly, the exact extension of
the polish on the distal edge of the inserts could not always be assessed, leading to misidentifica-
tions: two ‘end-scrapers on sickle blades’, for instance, were functionally complete inserts with an
‘end-scraper front’ to shape the distal end. Another short ‘end-scraper on flake’ was in fact used
to cut cereals with the ‘end-scraper’ front. Microscopic examination was also necessary to detect
minute traces of residues from hafting<fnref n="293" /> and to show that several retouched edges were not sec-
ondary transformations of sickle inserts, but a deliberate shaping of the edge for hafting.

Unless a well-developed cereal gloss covers the working edge(s), the main difficulty for the
technologist is to differentiate a retouch intended to shape the piece for manual prehension or for
hafting from a retouch intended to modify the characteristics of the working edge. Most of the
discrepancies observed between the classical typological classification and the results of the mi-
croscopic studies arose from this difficulty.

Functional analyses also proved decisive for understanding the sickle inserts on flakes. Poorly
developed polish on unusual blanks, such as informal flakes, had not always been recognised
and the artefacts had been classified in a different typological category (see ‘little tranchet’, Tab.
V.1.4). More generally, functional analyses allowed us to make some sense of the whole class of
sickle inserts on flakes, which, when oriented according to a technological orientation – along the
flaking axis – appeared all different: one had to understand that the users of the inserts, contrary to
the technologist, did not care about a strict technological orientation! Traditional typologies and
strict classificatory principles are clearly ill adapted when, as is the case here, the artisans or the
users did not have a strict technomorphological template in mind for their tools.

Tab. V.1.4 lists the retouched pieces from Lithic Phase 1 (by building phase) and underlines,
by means of italics, discrepancies between the original typological determination and the func-
tional determination.

In the following presentation, the tools will be classified according to the results of the func-
tional analysis, when available. The largest group by far consists of flakes and blades bearing ce-
real polish, i.e. sickle inserts (16 out of 28). The other tool types are mostly represented by single
artefacts: end-scraper, micro end-scraper, ‘burin’, notched bladelet, microfoliate, retouched flakes
and blades. The absence of projectile points and geometries should be noted, but this may be due
to the small size of the sample.

<footnote n="289">²⁸⁹ Elster 1989.</footnote>

<footnote n="290">²⁹⁰ Mottier 1981 and personal observation C. P.</footnote>

<footnote n="291">²⁹¹ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, tab. 10.</footnote>

<footnote n="292">²⁹² Perlès 2004, docs. 8.1 and 8.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="293">²⁹³ These residues have not been analysed.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.4 Retouched tools from Lithic Phase 1. Italics denote discrepancies between the technomorphological and functional identifications (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>BPh/ BSPh</td><td>Figure</td><td>Raw material</td><td>Technomorphological classification</td><td>Functional classification</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0875</td><td>II</td><td>V.1.2.c, V.1.4.c</td><td>Burnt R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on sickle blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade, reused for another task</td></tr><tr><td>PM0867</td><td>IIIa</td><td>V.1.2.n, V.1.4.m</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Denticulated sickle insert on flake</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td></tr><tr><td>PM0855</td><td>IIIa</td><td>V.1.1.q</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Pseudo 'burin'</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0849</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.2.m, V.1.4.l</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Denticulated sickle insert on flake</td><td>Denticulated sickle insert on flake</td></tr><tr><td>PM0848</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.1.v, V.1.3.h</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Microfoliate point</td><td>Utilised tool, undetermined use</td></tr><tr><td>PM0852</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.3.e</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Blade with use wear</td><td>Blade used on hard or semi-hard material</td></tr><tr><td>PM0838</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.1.p, V.1.3.d</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Retouched and reflaked blade</td><td>Retouched blade, used on wood, reflaked</td></tr><tr><td>PM0823</td><td>IIIb</td><td>–</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Splintered piece</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0840</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.1.t</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched blade</td><td>Retouched, utilised blade, undetermined use</td></tr><tr><td>PM0845</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.2.o, V.1.4.n</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Secondary flake from sickle blade</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td></tr><tr><td>PM0833</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.2.a, V.1.4.a</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Transformed sickle blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0836</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.2.j, V.1.4.j</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Little tranchet</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td></tr><tr><td>PM0812</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.2.i</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched sickle insert on flake</td><td>Retouched sickle insert on flake</td></tr><tr><td>PM0820</td><td>IIIb</td><td>V.1.1.n, V.1.3.f</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Notched flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0802</td><td>IIIc</td><td>V.1.1.l</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Notched bladelet</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0808</td><td>IIIc</td><td>V.1.2.l, V.1.4.k</td><td>R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on sickle blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0781</td><td>IVa</td><td>V.1.1.o</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0773</td><td>IVb</td><td>V.1.1.u, V.1.3.c</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched blade</td><td>Scraper used on skin</td></tr><tr><td>PM0770</td><td>Va</td><td>V.1.2.h, V.1.4.i</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td></tr><tr><td>PM0764</td><td>Va</td><td>V.1.2.e, V.1.4.e</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0751</td><td>Vb</td><td>V.1.2.f, V.1.4.f</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle blade transformed into denticulated blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0746</td><td>Vb</td><td>V.1.2.d, V.1.4.d</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Transformed sickle blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0742</td><td>Vd</td><td>V.1.1.s, V.1.3.a</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Proximal end-scraper</td><td>End-scraper used on skin or hide</td></tr><tr><td>PM0743</td><td>Vd</td><td>V.1.2.k, V.1.4.h</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle blade transformed into denticulated blade</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0736</td><td>Vd</td><td>V.1.2.b, V.1.4.b</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle blade transformed into denticulated blade</td><td>Sickle blade reused for another task</td></tr><tr><td>PM0734</td><td>Vd</td><td>–</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0728</td><td>Vd</td><td>V.1.2.g, V.1.4.g</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle insert transformed into point</td><td>Sickle insert</td></tr><tr><td>PM0723</td><td>Ve</td><td>V.1.1.r, V.1.3.b</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Micro end-scraper</td><td>Micro end-scraper</td></tr></tbody></table>
Sickle Inserts (n=16)

The rather unusual characteristic of the sickle inserts in Lithic Phase 1 is the variety of blanks utilised. Several groups can be distinguished: sickle inserts on regular blades, sickle inserts on backed flakes, and sickle inserts on informal flakes.

Classical ‘sickle blades’ are surprisingly few in this assemblage. They are made on blades of variable flaking quality, all probably produced by indirect percussion, and characterised by a frequent bilateral use and oblique hafting.

PM0833 (Figs. V.1.2a, V.1.4a) stands out by its dimensions: made in a dark-brown, spotted R/CC, it measures 5cm long for a present width of 1.5cm, despite important lateral rejuvenation. The linear butt is preserved and the distal end was intentionally broken to reduce its length. According to L. P., the insert is functionally complete with cereal polish on the distal fracture and on both edges (see V.1.9. Appendix for a detailed description of the wear traces). It was first used on one edge, then turned over and used on the other edge. Both edges were rejuvenated, by a short denticulated abrupt retouch on the left edge, and a longer, subparallel, ¾ abrupt denticulated retouch on the right edge. Both edges were re-used to cut cereals for a short while after rejuvenation. It would thus belong to the small subset of Thessalian inserts that Moundrea-Agrafioti defined as ‘lames-faucilles’,<fnref n="294" /> as opposed to the more common ‘éléments de faucille’, usually between 2.6 and 3cm long. However, Mazzucco found it too altered to confirm its use.

PM0736 (Figs. V.1.2b, V.1.4b) is made on a regular blade of fine-grained chocolate R/CC with a flat butt and preparation on the dorsal face. It is functionally complete, with cereal polish on the two extremities. The distal end was intentionally broken to reduce it to a module of 3.6cm for a width of 1.45cm. It was inserted obliquely, turned over after the initial use and re-used to cut cereals. The left edge was then denticulated by ¾ abrupt retouch with no polish, while the right edge bears an alternating use retouch due to the re-use of the insert for another task.<fnref n="295" /> The secondary retouch of the left edge may thus be related to the rehafting of the tool when re-used.

PM0875 (Figs. V.1.2c, V.1.4c) was initially classified as an end-scrapers on a sickle blade. Microscopic examination showed that cereal polish extended over the right side of the ‘end-scrapers’ and that the latter was meant to shape the tool to a module of ca. 3.5cm. Similarly shaped sickle inserts are known in other Thessalian sites, but rare.<fnref n="296" /> Like the previous one, PM0875 was inserted obliquely, used on cereals, turned over and re-used. It was then retouched on both edges by a slightly denticulated ¾ abrupt retouch and used for another task.<fnref n="297" />

PM0746 is a mesial fragment of blade that bears cereal polish on both fractures and is therefore functionally complete (Figs. V.1.2d, V.1.4d). The left proximal part was shaped for hafting by a short inverse retouch. The right edge was used to cut cereal, rejuvenated by denticulated ½ abrupt retouch, and used again for the same task. Remains of polish obliterated by thermal fractures are possible on the left edge.<fnref n="298" />

PM0764 (Figs. V.1.2e, V.1.4e) is probably functionally complete, shortened by fracture on the proximal extremity to fit the module of ca. 3.5cm. It was used to cut cereals with the right edge, and bears traces of resin on the hafted left edge. The working edge was extensively rejuvenated and used again for the same task.<fnref n="299" />

The following pieces constitute a second and numerically dominant group of inserts, made on flakes or laminar flakes. As mentioned above, when oriented along the technological axis, this group appeared heterogeneous by the shape of the blanks, the position of the working edge and the characteristics of the opposite edge. Its coherence is revealed when the artefacts are oriented

<footnote n="294">²⁹⁴ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 119.</footnote>

<footnote n="295">²⁹⁵ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>

<footnote n="296">²⁹⁶ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 117.</footnote>

<footnote n="297">²⁹⁷ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>

<footnote n="298">²⁹⁸ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>

<footnote n="299">²⁹⁹ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>
along the longest morphological axis: these inserts are all characterised by small dimensions, by the use of one edge only to cut cereals, by a thick opposite hafted edge, and by an only slightly oblique insertion into the haft.

Like PM0875, PM0751 (Figs. V.1.2f, V.1.4f) was initially classified as an end-scraper. Microscopic examination revealed a functionally complete sickle insert. The left edge bears a short inverse retouch on the proximal end, comparable to that of PM0764, and an irregular direct retouch on the mesial and distal parts. There is no use-wear on this edge and the retouch must have been intended to shape the insert for hafting. The piece was inserted slightly obliquely and used with the right edge. The polish is cut by a short ½ abrupt retouch that bears no traces of cereal polish or of use on another material.

PM0728 (Figs. V.1.2g, V.1.4g), initially classified as a sickle insert reshaped into a pseudo-point, is, in fact, a functionally complete sickle insert that bears cereal polish on the two extremes. It fits within the shorter module of less than 3cm. The left edge was shaped for hafting by inverse ½ abrupt retouch and preserves traces of resin. It was inserted very slightly obliquely into the haft. The right working edge bears an irregular direct abrupt retouch, possibly from its use when cutting cereals.<fnref n="300" /> It is close, morphologically and technically, to PM0770 (Fig. V.1.2h), which is made on a fragmentary flake but probably functionally complete. The right edge was shaped for hafting by ½ abrupt inverse retouch and inserted slightly obliquely into the haft. The left edge was used to cut cereals and bears an inverse discontinuous low-angle retouch that corresponds to light rejuvenation. The insert was not used for long after rejuvenation. PM0812 (Fig. V.1.2i) is morphologically very similar to PM0770 but the ‘backed’ hafted edge to the right is prepared by an oblique inverse abrupt truncation. The poorly developed polish on the mesial part of the left edge was interpreted differently by the two specialists of traceology: L. P. suggests it results from the working of reeds, while Mazzucco considers it as resulting from brief work on cereals. Though slightly different, with its quadrangular morphology, PM0836 also belongs to the group of inserts on backed flakes. The cereal polish was not initially identified and the piece was described as a ‘little tranchet’, or bitruncation (Figs. V.1.2j, V.1.4j). The original proximal end was truncated by direct retouch; the original distal edge bears a continuous ½ direct retouch, while the original right edge is backed by inverse abrupt retouch. The results of the functional analysis demonstrate that it was, in fact, shaped to be a sickle insert, with the left edge hafted, and the right edge used on cereals. The polish extends over the distal truncation and the insertion in the haft appears to have been slightly more oblique than with the previous pieces.

PM0743 has been so intensely rejuvenated that it now presents an unusual elongated and narrow shape. The distal end is broken. The right edge was backed in order to be inserted in the haft, by large, denticulated ½ abrupt direct retouch (Figs. V.1.2k, V.1.4h). Like the previous pieces, it was inserted with a very slight angle into the haft. The left edge was used to cut cereals, rejuvenated – probably several times – and used again for the same task.<fnref n="301" />

PM0808 (Figs. V.1.2l, V.1.4k) was initially interpreted as an end-scraper manufactured on a flake extracted from a sickle blade by bipolar percussion. Only one facet of the original blank is preserved, and it bears a well-developed, macroscopically visible, cereal polish. However, microscopic examination also revealed cereal polish on the ‘end-scraper’ front. This piece is thus another example of a thick-backed sickle insert on an unusual flake blank. Finally, PM0734 shaped on a hinged flake – possibly from bipolar percussion – is the smallest example of inserts on backed flakes. The right edge was backed by short abrupt retouch, the left edge bears a light cereal polish.<fnref n="302" />

The remaining three inserts, also on flakes, have different and very unusual shapes for sickle inserts but they share one characteristic: a very large butt that renders the insert very thick.

<footnote n="300">³⁰⁰ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>

<footnote n="301">³⁰¹ Observation N. Mazzucco and L. P.</footnote>

<footnote n="302">³⁰² This piece had been examined in 1990 by C. P., but was not recovered during the recent studies.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.2 Lithic Phase 1. Sickle inserts on blades and flakes. All in R/CC. a: PM0833, b: PM0736, c: PM0875, d: PM0746, e: PM0764, f: PM0751, g: PM0728, h: PM0770, i: PM0812, j: PM0836, k: PM0743, l: PM0808, m: PM0849, n: PM0867, o: PM0845 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
PM0849 (Figs. V.1.2m, V.1.4l) was awkwardly produced with a hard hammer. Since, functionally speaking, the resulting thick butt constitutes the right edge of the insert, this piece belongs to the group of inserts with a thick hafted back. It differs, however, by its denticulated, convex working edge, shaped on the distal edge by low-angled retouch and bearing a well-developed cereal polish. Despite these unusual characteristics, the polish is absolutely similar to the other inserts, and shows that the flake was used to cut cereals.<fnref n="303" /> PM0867 (Figs. V.1.2n, V.1.4m) was also struck with a hard hammer and used on its left edge. The active edge bears a denticulated low-angled retouch, polished, but the denticulation is less pronounced than on the previous piece. After being used as a sickle insert, the flake was re-used by the distal end to scrape dry skin. The last sickle insert, PM0845, probably presents the most unusual morphology, with its narrow triangular shape and thick triangular section (Figs. V.1.2o, V.1.4n). Like the two previous ones, it presents a very large butt and was struck with a hard hammer. It was inserted diagonally, and the well-developed cereal polish on the right edge extends over the butt. Important striations and soil polish over the cereal polish indicate contact with the ground.<fnref n="304" />

### ‘Burin’ (n=1)

PM0855 (Fig. V.1.1q) is made on a unique light-beige R/CC with brown spots. Before the breakage of the proximal extremity, a strongly hinged bladelet, similar to a burin spall, was extracted on the left edge. Real burins, i.e. tools used on the angle or edge of the spall removal, are virtually non-existent in Greek Middle Neolithic assemblages. By contrast, the reflaking of large blades to obtain smaller blanks is a common practice.<fnref n="305" /> This piece should thus more probably be considered as a burin-like core.

### End-scrapers (n=2)

The only two end-scrapers are morphologically very different from one another and they were used differently. PM0742 (Figs. V.1.1s, V.1.3a) is a proximal end-scraper made on a wide, hinged R/CC blade or laminar flake. Both edges bear a large ¾ direct continuous retouch. The end-scraper front is ½ circular and was shaped by ½ abrupt regular retouch. Microscopic examination confirms that it was used as an end-scraper on hide, held at a high angle, with a transverse movement. PM0723 (Figs. V.1.1r, V.1.3b) is, by contrast, a fragment of a very small micro ‘end-scraper’, made on a bladelet or small flake. A convex front was prepared on the distal part, adjacent to an inverse retouch on the left edge. The tool was not used on the whole scraper front but only on a localised segment of the left distal extremity, with a transversal gesture on vegetal material that could not be identified.

### Laterally Retouched Blades (n=3)

PM0840 (Fig. V.1.1t) is a proximal fragment of an R/CC blade with a punctiform butt, flaked by indirect percussion. It bears a bilateral low-angle retouch and was utilised on the right edge, as shown by the blunting and polish. The material worked could not be identified. PM0773 (Figs. V.1.1u, V.1.3c) is a narrow, dark-brown, matte R/CC mesial fragment of blade. Both edges were backed by a direct ¾ retouch, irregularly denticulate and used with a transversal movement on a semi-hard material, such as fresh skin.

PM0838 is the only artefact made of honey chert in this phase. As stated above, it is a typical blade made by pressure flaking with a lever (Figs. V.1.1p, V.1.3d). Possible remnants of cereal

<footnote n="303">³⁰³ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>

<footnote n="304">³⁰⁴ According to Mazzucco, this volume, 289–290 this could be a threshing sledge insert.</footnote>

<footnote n="305">³⁰⁵ Perlès 2004.</footnote>
polish on the right arris suggest it may have initially been used as a sickle blade, but this has not been confirmed. The left original edge is partly preserved and bears a low-angle direct retouch. It was used with a transverse action on hard or semi-hard material such as wood. A bladelet was then extracted on the right edge from the distal fracture. After the removal of this bladelet, the newly created edge was also used to work wood. Finally, the blade was splintered by bipolar percussion from the proximal extremity (or fracture).

### Utilised Blade (n=1)

PM0852 is a short mesial fragment of a regular R/CC blade with use retouch. Microscopic examination showed that the left edge was used transversally on an undetermined hard or semi-hard material (Fig. V.1.3e).

### Notched Flake and Bladelet (n=2)

The only two notched pieces are both in obsidian. PM0802 (Fig. V.1.1l) is made on the smallest obsidian bladelet. A small notch was retouched on the proximal part of the left edge. PM0820 (Figs. V.1.1n, V.1.3f), flaked on the lateral side of an obsidian core by indirect percussion, was modified by a short ¾ abrupt retouch that created two shallow notches on the right edge.

### Retouched Flakes (n=1)

The second obsidian flake, PM0781 (Fig. V.1.1o), was also flaked by indirect percussion. It bears a regular direct ½ abrupt retouch on the left edge.

### ‘Microfoliate’ (n=1)

PM0848 (Figs. V.1.1v, V.1.3h) is a most unusual tool in a Middle Neolithic context; it has no equivalent that we know of, and constitutes a real ‘typological puzzle’: should it be considered as a microfoliate point or, if one reverses the axis, as a very narrow transverse arrowhead? Made on a R/CC bladelet or flake, PM0848 has been nearly entirely shaped by bilateral, bifacial, low-angle covering retouch. Like on the large Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age foliate points, the bevelled base was shaped by axial retouch. Microscopic examination revealed blunting and polish on the point, but neither the gesture nor the material worked could be identified.

### Splintered Piece (n=1)

PM0823 is a thick R/CC flake that bears two negatives on the ventral face. It may correspond to the very initial phase of use of a splintered blade.

### *The PMZ Lithic Phase 1 in the Thessalian Context*

Apart from the sickle inserts, few formal tool types are represented in this small assemblage. In terms of activities identified, the harvest of cereals is largely predominant. Domestic crafts – woodworking, hide working, bone tool and ornament manufacturing – and food preparation, such as meat cutting, are either absent or conspicuously underrepresented.

The importance of sickle inserts is not specific to PMZ Lithic Phase 1: it holds true in all our Middle Neolithic Thessalian reference collections, Achilleion, Ag. Petros, Sesklo B, Magoula Karamourlar and Otzaki. Their percentage in the toolkits is usually lower than at PMZ, in particular because splintered pieces are abundant, while splintered pieces are conspicuously rare or even absent at PMZ in Phase 1. When splintered pieces are removed, the proportions become comparable, slightly above 50% of the retouched tools. On the other hand, the PMZ assemblage differs
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.3 Lithic Phase 1. a: proximal R/CC end-scraper (PM0742), b: micro R/CC end-scraper (PM0723), c: laterally retouched R/CC blade (PM0773), d: retouched and reflaked honey chert blade (PM0838), e: utilised R/CC blade fragment (PM0852), f: notched obsidian bladelet (PM0820), g: retouched obsidian flake (PM0781), h: R/CC microfoliate point (PM0848), i: R/CC flake core (PM0846), j: R/CC lateral bladelet (PM0688) (C. Perlès, drawings: M. Ballinger)</figcaption></figure>

from all others by the nature of the sickle inserts and the predominance of thick-backed flakes. Sickle inserts on flakes, and in particular on thick-backed flakes, are present in other series, where they constitute a clearly distinct type, but they are a minority: 1 out of 12 at Otzaki<fnref n="306" /> and barely 8% in the Thessalian sites studied by Moundrea-Agrafioti.<fnref n="307" /> At Achilleion (Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic), C. P. counted 16 backed flakes with cereal polish for 67 sickle blades among the blanks that could be identified. In addition, sickle inserts on backed flakes at Achilleion tend to be more regular than at PMZ: they are made on laminar flakes, the functional axis corresponds to the technological axis and they do not have especially thick butts.<fnref n="308" />

Since many of the blades used as sickle inserts in eastern Thessalian sites were imported as already prepared blanks,<fnref n="309" /> as shown by the relative scarcity of flakes, we suggested that the predominance of sickle inserts on flakes at PMZ was due to difficulties in obtaining adequate blades through trade. However, the inserts on flakes are not, or not always, a shorter version of

<footnote n="306">³⁰⁶ See Mottier 1981, pl. 72.3 for an unusually large example.</footnote>

<footnote n="307">³⁰⁷ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1983, 203.</footnote>

<footnote n="308">³⁰⁸ Few are depicted in the publication, but see Elster 1989, fig. 109.4, nos. 6 and 8.</footnote>

<footnote n="309">³⁰⁹ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 102.</footnote>
inserts on blades. The 'sickle blades' were intended to be used on both sides, and both edges were consequently left sharp. Some of the inserts on flakes at Achilleion were used on both edges, and can be considered as a shorter version of the same type.<fnref n="310" /> Conversely, most of the sickle inserts on flakes from PMZ present a thick hafted edge, either natural or intentionally backed, and were used unilaterally. They also seem to have been hafted more parallel in the haft than blades and may thus correspond to two different types of sickles, both used to cut cereals. For functional or traditional reasons, the farmers of PMZ Lithic Phase 1 may have preferred this second type of sickle. It remains possible, nevertheless, that it was 'preferred' at PMZ precisely because regular blades were too scarce.

The few other retouched tools are common tool types in Middle Neolithic assemblages: retouched flakes and blades, end-scrapers, notched pieces. There are two exceptions: the micro end-scraper and the microfoliate point, both unique not only for Thessaly, but, as far as we know, for Greece in general. Altogether, the retouched toolkit from Lithic Phase 1 presents many idiosyncratic features: a predominance of thick-backed sickle inserts on flakes, a quasi-absence of splintered pieces, an absence of borers and geometrics, the presence of unique tool types. None of these features are found in the other Middle Neolithic assemblages published. Nor do they evoke earlier, Early Neolithic characteristics: Thessalian Early Neolithic assemblages are actually very similar to Middle Neolithic ones. They must rather be understood as a temporary answer to local conditions and the scarcity of blades.

## Stratigraphic Distribution and Contexts

The stratigraphic distribution of the flaked stones of Lithic Phase 1 is uneven throughout the sequence. The basal ditch (BPh I) yielded only one R/CC unretouched flake. BPh II comprises the sediments overlying the ditch, where no architectural remains were preserved. They yielded six R/CC pieces, spread over the whole excavation surface (Fig. III.8): two debris, three unretouched flakes and the sickle blade PM0875 (Fig. V.1.2c). Considering its stratigraphic position, this bilaterally retouched sickle blade shaped with an 'end-scraper front' thus defines a type that can securely be considered early Middle Neolithic.

Five R/CC pieces are associated with the level of the collapsed wall W39 (BSPh IIIa, Fig. III.10): two debris, two unretouched flakes, and the sickle insert on denticulated flake PM0867 (Fig. V.1.2n). Even if this insert was incorporated into the wall from earlier sediments, it confirms that sickle inserts on both blades and flakes were in use simultaneously in the earliest phases of occupation. The burin-like blade PM0855 (Fig. V.1.1q) was recovered in the burnt layer directly overlying W39, together with two unretouched flakes.

BSPh IIIb comprises surfaces F33a–d (Fig. III.12), described as intermingled remnants of fires and dissolved clay from building materials.<fnref n="311" /> Despite evidence for repeated firing, only one piece is clearly burnt. It thus appears doubtful that they were deposited on the original surfaces before the firing episodes. Altogether, the three surfaces and interstratified deposits yielded a richer assemblage: 18 pieces, including the first two obsidian elements and the first honey chert blade. The flake core PM0846 (Figs. V.1.1b, V.1.3j) was associated with the lowermost of these surfaces. However, none of the corresponding flakes were recovered, and it cannot be surmised that it was worked there rather than redeposited. Retouched pieces are numerous: four sickle inserts on flakes (PM0812, PM0836, PM0849, PM0845, Figs. V.1.2i–j, m, o, V.1.4i–j, l, n), one sickle insert on blade (PM0833, Figs. V.1.2a, V.1.4a), the honey chert blade PM0838 (Figs. V.1.1p, V.1.3d), a retouched R/CC blade (PM0840, Fig. V.1.1t), one obsidian retouched flake (PM0820, Fig. V.1.1n) and the microfoliate point (PM0848, Figs. V.1.1v, V.1.3h). Again, all can be considered as representative of the lithic tools of the earliest phases of occupation, even if it cannot be proven that they were strictly in situ.

<footnote n="310">³¹⁰ See for instance at Achilleion: Elster 1989, fig. 10.3, no. 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="311">³¹¹ Toufexis – Batzelas, this volume, 92.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.4 Lithic Phase 1. Sickle inserts on blades and flakes. All in in R/CC. a: PM0833, b: PM0736, c: PM0875, d: PM0746, e: PM0764, f: PM0751, g: PM0728, h: PM0743, i: PM0812, j: PM0836, k: PM0808, l: PM0849, m: PM0867; n: PM0845 (C. Perlès, drawings: M. Ballinger)</figcaption></figure>
In terms of technical activities, this represents five tools used to cut cereals, one tool used to scrape wood, and four pieces of indeterminate use. The sickle inserts were clearly not used in situ, but may have been de-hafted around the hearths. The other pieces may, conversely, have been used where they were discarded. If they were, however, their small number and diversity testifies to episodic, short-term technical activities rather than real production workshops.

Five pieces were associated with the surface uncovered in BSPh IIIc (Fig. III.15): one obsidian bladelet, one R/CC fragmentary burnt blade and three R/CC flakes, including two which were accidentally burnt. Since no hearths were noted on this surface, the burnt pieces must have been redeposited from elsewhere and this casts doubts for the other pieces as well: they may all derive from earlier contexts. The only retouched piece is the obsidian bladelet (PM0802, Fig. V.1.1l), but its use has not been investigated.

BSPh IVa corresponds to another surface (F32) with remnants of a wall, a thermal structure and possible postholes (Fig. III.17). Despite this architectural richness, it yielded only five flaked stones: an obsidian flake, the quartz laminar flake, a light chert bladelet, a R/CC debris and a R/CC flake. The obsidian flake is retouched (PM0781, Fig. V.1.1o) but its use has not been investigated. These artefacts must be in situ, but are unfortunately not informative in terms of chronotypology or activities.

No flaked stone was directly associated with surface 31 and its architectural features (BSPh IVb, Fig. III.19). This is all the more unfortunate in that F31 is considered to be the internal floor of a house limited by the wall W37. The two pieces attributed to this building phase come from the destruction deposits above the floor: an obsidian bladelet (PM0774, Fig. V.1.1m) and a retouched R/CC blade PM0773 (Figs. V.1.1u, V.1.3c) used to scrape skin, most certainly redeposited here and not used in situ. Similarly, no flaked stone artefacts are associated with surface F30, despite the presence of postholes that suggest a living floor (Fig. III.21). PM0770, a thick-backed sickle insert (Fig. V.1.2h), was found above F30 and just below the next surface, F29, but no data allows us to say whether it was in situ or redeposited. Conversely, PM0764, a sickle insert on blade (Fig. V.1.2e) was uncovered during the excavation of earthen floor F29, and can be presumed to be in situ.

The three artefacts attributed to BSPh Vb were found in the deposits above surface F29 and hearths TS 29–31 (Fig. III.22). They again consist of three R/CC sickle blades (PM0746, PM0751 and PM0745, Figs. V.1.2d, f, o, V.1.4d, f, n). Four more were uncovered in BSPh Vd<fnref n="312" /> (Fig. III.24): PM0728, PM0734 and PM0743, three sickle inserts on flakes, and PM0736, a sickle insert on a blade (Figs. V.1.2b, g, k, V.1.4b, g–h). From the same building phase come the large proximal end-scrapers (PM0742, Figs. V.1.1s, V.1.3a), a utilised bladelet and an unretouched flake. Despite the presence of thermal structure TS 26, no piece is burnt. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether these artefacts were found directly on surface F27 or between F26 and F27.<fnref n="313" /> They suggest, however, that both types of sickle insert as well as end-scrapers on large blades persisted throughout the early Middle Neolithic phases.

Finally, the micro end-scrapers (PM0723, Figs. V.1.1r, V.1.3b) was found on surface F26 in BSPh Ve (Fig. III.25), together with two unretouched R/CC flakes, a retouched one (PM0607) and the bladelet PM0688 (Fig. V.1.1j, V.1.3j) found just below surface F25 from BPh VI. The micro end-scrapers is thus also characteristic of the early Middle Neolithic phases from PMZ.

The concentration in BSPh Va–e of retouched and utilised artefacts, and the quasi-absence of unretouched pieces is puzzling. Surfaces F26, F27 and F28 are described as activity areas with well-built hearths and remnants of walls. We can thus suggest that flaking stone was avoided in this activity area, that a few tools were used for technical tasks and that the sickle inserts, which

<footnote n="312">³¹² There are no flaked artefacts in BSPh Ve.</footnote>

<footnote n="313">³¹³ These pieces are attributed to SU 100–101. SU 100 corresponds to the deposits above surface F28, whereas SU 101 corresponds to surface F27.</footnote>
are dominant, were de-hafted and replaced. None, however, was found in direct spatial associa-
tion with a hearth.

On the whole, very few artefacts from Lithic Phase 1 are directly related to floors, hearths and architectural features. No in situ knapping is firmly evidenced, and there is no proof that the artefacts were used where they were found, especially considering the predominance of sickle inserts. To what extent the typological similarities of the flaked stone assemblages from BPh I to V are due to reworking of earlier material, or reflect an archaeological reality, is difficult to assess. Nevertheless, these deposits appear to have accumulated very quickly,<fnref n="314" /> which reinforces the plausibility of technological and typological homogeneity. In particular, the predominance of sickle inserts and the presence of inserts on both flakes and blades in BSPh Vd and Ve align them with the earlier levels. There is no argument in the lithic assemblage to confirm the break between BSPh Vc and Vd that is observed in the pottery assemblages.<fnref n="315" />

V.1.4. Lithic Phase 2 – Building Phase VI

Characterisation

The small assemblage from Lithic Phase 2 (n=27) (EU 211–234) shows indisputable elements of continuity with Lithic Phase 1, but equally marked changes in the proportions of the different classes of artefacts. Radiolarite/chocolate cherts are less predominant in the raw materials, obsidian correlatively better represented, radiolarite blades become rare and flakes relatively more abundant, and the proportion of retouched pieces is lower. This phase also presents the first instance of percussion with a soft stone hammer. Apart from one aberrant date (MAMS 32122), Lithic Phase 2 was dated to 5837–5681calBC 2σ (MAMS 32123), i.e. within the chronological range of Lithic Phase 1, but with a best fit at 5657 ± 1 (Chapter IV).

Raw Materials

The range of raw materials is identical to Lithic Phase 1: radiolarites/chocolate cherts (n=13), non-chocolate cherts (n=2), obsidian (n=6), honey chert (n=3), undetermined (n=2) and quartz (n=1), but the proportions differ significantly (Tab. V.1.5).<fnref n="316" /> Cortical and neo-cortical pieces are better represented than in Lithic Phase 1 (about ⅛), but the proportion remains much lower than at Achilleion.<fnref n="317" /> The raw materials were mostly procured as water-rolled pebbles: a few flakes were extracted from a core on a R/CC pebble that rapidly split (Figs. V.1.5a, V.1.6a); two primary R/CC flakes, the quartz flake and the large chert blade, were also flaked from water-rolled pebbles (Fig. V.1.5b–d, h). No artefact bears fresh cortex.

The Production

The radiolarite/chocolate chert sample comprises 2 debris, 1 core, 9 flakes and 1 blade. The high proportion of flakes versus blades was already noted as a specificity of PMZ.<fnref n="318" /> This is even more pronounced in Lithic Phase 2, whether one considers the R/CC artefacts only or the whole assemblage (Tab. V.1.5). Again, the procurement of blades, or of raw material adequate to produce blades, appears to have been difficult.

<footnote n="314">³¹⁴ Weninger et al., this volume, Tab. IV. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="315">³¹⁵ Pentedeka in press; Pentedeka in preparation.</footnote>

<footnote n="316">³¹⁶ $\chi^2=10.8, df = 4, p < 0.05.$</footnote>

<footnote n="317">³¹⁷ Elster 1989, tab. 10.15.</footnote>

<footnote n="318">³¹⁸ See above, 209.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.5 Composition of the flaked stone assemblage from Lithic Phase 2 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>R/CC</th><th>Chert</th><th>Obsidian</th><th>Honey chert</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Undetermined</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Debris</th><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cores</th><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Flakes</th><td>6</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>Blades</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>Bladelets</th><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched flakes</th><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched blades</th><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched bladelets</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>13</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

In situ production of R/CC flakes with a hard stone hammer on flat striking platforms is again attested by the core and a few non-matching flakes struck with a hard stone hammer. A few other flakes, produced by indirect percussion, can be attributed to the shaping of blade cores, despite the rarity of blades in the assemblage (Fig. V.1.6d). Yet, one large flake and the only two R/CC blades present the characteristics of soft stone hammer percussion;<fnref n="319" /> a large flat butt with a marked angle towards the ventral face, but a more diffuse bulb of percussion than with a hard stone hammer (Fig. V.1.5e–f). In turn, a large fragmentary blade made on variegated chert with rectilinear arises (Fig. V.1.5h) suggests the use of indirect percussion, but the proximal end is broken and this cannot be ascertained.

Indirect percussion was used to detach two of the three obsidian bladelets (Figs. V.1.5i, k, V.1.6b), whereas the third was produced by pressure flaking (Fig. V.1.5j). The butts are flat or linear, with preparation for the detachment on the dorsal face, a normal Middle Neolithic procedure. The obsidian sample also comprises two lateral core preparation flakes (Fig. V.1.5l), and a very small flake that could correspond to the rejuvenation of a striking platform. The presence of this flake, too small to be used (Tab. V.1.6), suggests that obsidian was at least partially worked on the site.

The two honey chert blades were produced by pressure flaking. Even before rejuvenation, their width must have been under 2cm, so that the use of a lever was not necessary. A long standing-crutch would have nevertheless been required, at least for PM0696 (Figs. V.1.5n, V.1.6c).<fnref n="320" /> The third honey chert artefact is a flake extracted from a retouched blade, a practice already observed in Lithic Phase 1 and current on Middle Neolithic honey cherts blades.<fnref n="321" /> The flaking technique of the quartz flake remains undetermined.

As in Lithic Phase 1, details of raw material show that every piece comes from a different core, and every *chaîne opératoire* is represented by a single piece. While the local production of R/CC flakes can be considered certain and the flaking of obsidian probable, it is impossible to determine whether the few R/CC blades and bladelets were produced in situ or imported as already flaked blanks. As usual, the honey chert blades must have been introduced into the settlement as already flaked blanks.

<footnote n="319">³¹⁹ Pelegrin 2000.</footnote>

<footnote n="320">³²⁰ Pelegrin 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="321">³²¹ Perlès 2004.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.6 Relevant dimensions for the Lithic Phase 2 assemblage (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>Determination</td><td>Dimensions [cm]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0613</td><td>Distal frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.15 × 1.1 × 0.21</td></tr><tr><td>PM0815</td><td>Proximal frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>2.36 × 0.86 × 0.29</td></tr><tr><td>PM0634</td><td>Proximal frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.92 × 0.64 × 0.21</td></tr><tr><td>PM0696</td><td>Sickle insert on blade</td><td>3.7 × 1.38 × 0.62</td></tr><tr><td>PM0652</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td><td>3.06 × 1.86 × 0.51</td></tr><tr><td>PM0644</td><td>Sickle insert on obsidian flake</td><td>2.25 × 1.6 × 0.43</td></tr><tr><td>PM0686</td><td>Retouched honey chert blade</td><td>3.08 × 1.14 × 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>PM0635</td><td>Retouched and blunted blade</td><td>3.3 × 1.18 × 0.52</td></tr><tr><td>PM0642</td><td>Retouched chert flake</td><td>4.1 × 2.33 × 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>PM0649</td><td>Beak</td><td>3.24 × 1.9 × 0.67</td></tr><tr><td>PM0685</td><td>Splintered flake</td><td>2.9 × 2.1 × 0.85</td></tr></tbody></table>

## *The Retouched Toolkit*

The proportion of retouched tools is lower than in Lithic Phase 1: nine pieces out of a total of 24, excluding the core and debris.<fnref n="322" /> This proportion becomes comparable to that of eastern Thessalian sites (and Franchthi) and remains much higher than at Achilleion.<fnref n="323" /> Of the four artefacts that were examined for use-wear traces, one only was misidentified macroscopically: a presumed sickle blade that was actually used to work hides (Tab. V.1.7). Nevertheless, sickle inserts are still the best-represented category of tools, but in a lower proportion than before. As a consequence, they are now less abundant than in our reference assemblages, where they represent ca. 50% of the retouched tools, splintered pieces excepted.<fnref n="324" /> The absence of classical tool types such as end-scrapers cannot be considered significant given the small size of the sample.

### Sickle Inserts (n=3)

Even in this very small sample, the peculiarity of the early Middle Neolithic assemblages at PMZ remains observable: of the three sickle inserts, two are made on flakes. As previously noted,<fnref n="325" /> sickle inserts on flakes usually represent less than 10% of the sickle inserts in Thessaly.<fnref n="326" /> Even more surprising, and apparently unique in Thessalian assemblages, one of them is an obsidian flake.

PM0696 is the only sickle insert on blade, a large, pressure-flaked honey chert blade. It has a long biography: it was first shaped as a long sickle insert with a casually manufactured inverse distal truncation (Figs. V.1.5n, V.1.6c). Both edges were successively used to cut cereals. The proximal part of the blade was then broken, the left edge entirely retouched by ½ abrupt to ¾ abrupt direct retouch, the right edge by subparallel, very regular direct ½ retouch. The tool was then used on the distal edge, left edge and distal half of the right edge on dry hide, with an angle of ca. 75°. A similar re-use of honey chert sickle blades on hide had already been observed in the Middle Neolithic at Franchthi.<fnref n="327" />

<footnote n="322">³²² The difference from Lithic Phase 1 is not statistically significant.</footnote>

<footnote n="323">³²³ See above, 209.</footnote>

<footnote n="324">³²⁴ See above, 209.</footnote>

<footnote n="325">³²⁵ See above, 220.</footnote>

<footnote n="326">³²⁶ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1983, 203.</footnote>

<footnote n="327">³²⁷ Perlès – Vaughan 1983.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.7 Retouched tools from Lithic Phase 2, by architectural subphase. Italics denote discrepancies between the technomorphological and functional identifications (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>BPh/BSPh</td><td>Figure</td><td>Raw material</td><td>Technomorphological classification</td><td>Functional classification</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0679</td><td>VIa</td><td>—</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Flake from a retouched blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0685</td><td>VIa</td><td>—</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Splintered flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0686</td><td>VIa</td><td>V.1.5.p, V.1.6.e</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Sickle blade</td><td>Blade used on skin</td></tr><tr><td>PM0696</td><td>VIa</td><td>V.1.5.n, V.1.6.c</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Transformed sickle blade</td><td>Transformed sickle blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0652</td><td>VIb</td><td>V.1.5.o, V.1.6.d</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched sickle insert on flake</td><td>Sickle insert</td></tr><tr><td>PM0635</td><td>VIb</td><td>V.1.6.g</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched and blunted blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0642</td><td>VIb</td><td>V.1.5.e, V.1.6.i</td><td>Chert, burnt?</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0644</td><td>VIb</td><td>V.1.5.m, V.1.6.f</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Blunted sickle insert</td><td>Sickle insert</td></tr><tr><td>PM0649</td><td>VIb</td><td>V.1.5.h, V.1.6.h</td><td>Chert</td><td>Unretouched beak</td><td>n/a</td></tr></tbody></table>

PM0652 (Figs. V.1.5o, V.1.6d) is a fine example of a sickle insert on a large thick-backed flake. Made on an elongated lateral core preparation flake, it was backed on the right side by ¾ abrupt retouch and inserted slightly obliquely into the haft. The working edge, to the left, was shaped by short inverse retouch and was used to cut cereals.

PM0644 is a smaller insert, also made on a lateral core preparation flake but of obsidian. Whereas obsidian sickle blades are not uncommon in Thessaly where they amount to ca. 15% of all sickle blades,<fnref n="328" /> or in the Peloponnese (25% of the sickle inserts at Franchthi),<fnref n="329" /> this is the first insert on an obsidian flake we have encountered. The piece is functionally intact and both edges show a marked blunting, over an unretouched edge to the right, over an inverse retouch on the left (Figs. V.1.5m, V.1.6f). Microscopic examination shows that it was used as the other sickle inserts, but for a short while.<fnref n="330" />

## Laterally Retouched Blades and Flakes (n=3 + 1)

PM0686, the second honey chert blade, is a mesial fragment with two straight fractures (Figs. V.1.5p, V.1.6e). It was first used on both edges on a semi-hard to hard animal material such as hide, with an open angle. Both edges were then rejuvenated or transformed by regular subparallel ¾ abrupt retouch, but the retouch bears no discernible use-wear traces.

The three other laterally retouched artefacts were not examined microscopically and their function is unknown. PM0635, a R/CC irregular blade, bears a continuous inverse retouch of the right edge, overlaid by a pronounced blunting (Fig. V.1.6g). PM0642 is a large foliate flake of coarse chert (Tab. V.1.6) with a short continuous direct retouch on the right edge (Figs. V.1.5e, V.1.6i). PM0679 is not a retouched flake per se: it is a secondary flake that was extracted from a honey flint blade with bilateral direct retouch. The blade itself has not been recovered.

<footnote n="328">³²⁸ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1983.</footnote>

<footnote n="329">³²⁹ Perlès 2004.</footnote>

<footnote n="330">³³⁰ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.5 Lithic Phase 2. a: flake core, b–f, i–l: unretouched flakes and bladelets, h: unretouched, heavily used borer, g: inversely retouched R/CC bladelet, m: o: sickle inserts on flakes, n: sickle insert on blade, p: bilaterally retouched blade. a–c, e–g, o: R/CC. d: quartz. i–m: obsidian. n, p: honey chert. a: PM0667, b: PM0633, c: PM0673, d: PM0636, e: PM0642, f: PM0671, g: PM0635, h: PM0649, i: PM0615, j: PM0634, k: PM0613, l: PM0672, m: PM0644, n: PM0696, o: PM0652, p: PM0686 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.6 Lithic Phase 2. a: R/CC flake core (PM0667), b: obsidian bladelet (PM0615), c: R/CC sickle insert on blade (PM0696), d: R/CC sickle insert on flake (PM0652), e: retouched honey chert blade (PM0686), f: sickle insert on obsidian flake (PM0644), g: retouched R/CC bladelet (PM0635), h: unretouched R/CC beak (PM0649) (C. Perlès, drawings: M. Ballinger)</figcaption></figure>
### Beak (n=1)

The distal extremity of PM0649 presented a triangular shape due to the convergence of the right edge with an abrupt natural facet on the left edge. This sturdy point, now heavily blunted, was used directly without retouching in a rotary or semi-rotary motion (Figs. V.1.5h, V.1.6h). Although the tool has not been examined under a microscope, its use to bore mending holes on pottery appears plausible.

### Splintered Flake (n=1)

Splintered pieces are again conspicuously rare in this assemblage. PM0685 is a primary R/CC flake reflaked by bipolar percussion, either during use as an intermediate piece or to try and extract a few more very small flakes.

### Contexts and Stratigraphic Distribution

The composition of the Lithic Phase 2 assemblage differed from the Lithic Phase 1 assemblage in several quantitative aspects. Nevertheless, both samples are small: the differences may reflect actual changes, but they may also be due to random spatial variation. Indeed, from a typological and functional viewpoint, this very small assemblage is similar to the retouched toolkit of Lithic Phase 1. The activities identified through microscopic examination are the same, i.e. harvesting cereals and preparing hides, although other tools were probably involved in different activities. The specificity of PMZ within the Thessalian context is confirmed, with two of the three sickle inserts made on flakes and splintered pieces conspicuously rare.

However, what is probably the most striking feature of Lithic Phase 2 is how few artefacts and retouched tools were recovered. BSPh VIa and VIb correspond to two surfaces (F25 and F24, Figs. III.26–27) with remains of walls and hearths. Even if the surface was reduced while excavating phase VIb, the excavation still covered 20m². Yet only eleven artefacts were recovered in phase VIa, none of which can be attributed with certainty to ‘Floor F25’ and associated structures rather than to the overlying deposits. The honey flint blade PM0686 (Figs. V.1.5n, V.1.6c) and the splintered flake PM0687 were found ‘directly above F25’. It is therefore possible that this blade was in situ, confirming the continuous presence of honey chert sickle blades in Lithic Phase 2. Six other artefacts from BSPh VIa, none of which were retouched, were found in the yellowish sandy soil between F25 and F24.

In BSPh VIb, a debris, two R/CC flakes and the flake core PM0667 (Figs. V.1.5a, V.1.6a) were found in the destruction layer just below F24, and are probably not in situ. Conversely, the sickle insert on flake PM0652 (Figs. V.1.5o, V.1.5d) was found during the excavation of Floor F24: it confirms that sickle inserts on flakes were still in use during Lithic Phase 2 and do not come – or do not come solely – from the reworking of older material. All the other artefacts attributed to BSPh VIb (n=11) were found in the overlying deposits, between F24 and F23, so that their precise original context is unknown.

## V.1.5. Lithic Phase 3 – Building Subphase VIIa

### Characterisation

Lithic Phase 3 (EU 231, 233, 236–243) is again a small assemblage (n=44). It is characterised by a statistically significant drop in the proportion of retouched tools, a relative increase of radiolarites/chocolate cherts, the presence of the first arrowheads and the first geometric tool. The only ¹⁴C sample analysed gave an aberrant date (MAMS 32121).
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.8 Composition of the flaked stone assemblage from Lithic Phase 3 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>R/CC</th><th>Chert</th><th>Obsidian</th><th>Honey chert</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Undetermined</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Debris</th><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cores</th><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Flakes</th><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>Blades</th><td>3</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Bladelets</th><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched flakes</th><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched blades</th><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>Retouched bladelets</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>30</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Raw Materials

Raw materials are less diversified than in Lithic Phase 2 since quartz is absent. Radiolarites/ chocolate cherts predominate with 30 artefacts, followed by obsidian (n=6), light-coloured cherts (n=5), honey chert (n=1) and two undetermined raw materials.<fnref n="331" /> Cortical pieces are extremely rare (n=3) and the cortical surfaces are very small. This very low rate of cortical pieces now aligns PMZ with eastern Thessalian sites where few blocks of raw materials were introduced as such in the settlements.<fnref n="332" /> The use of river pebbles remains probable, but a small R/CC cortical flake with a fresh pink cortex indicates procurement at or near the source. The dimension and quality of bladelet PM0576 (Figs. V.1.7f, V.1.8b), as well as the presence of a tiny patch of pink cortex on the distal extremity, seemingly unrolled, similarly points towards procurement at a primary source. As before, we cannot ascertain whether the procurement was direct or indirect, but the very low proportion of cortex suggests indirect procurement of already prepared cores and finished blanks. Among the translucent cherts, the composition of PM0580 (Fig. V.1.7e) matches with location PM 4, high up the Portaikos.

## The Production

The Lithic Phase 3 assemblage comprises 2 cores, 23 flakes, 4 blades, 12 bladelets, 2 undetermined blanks and 1 debris (Tab. V.1.8). Although flakes still predominate, the proportion of laminar blanks is higher than in the two earlier lithic phases and becomes more comparable to other Thessalian assemblages, especially Achilleion (50% in Phase III and 55% in phase IV).<fnref n="333" /> However, the high proportion of small bladelets rather than blades still sets PMZ apart.

The proportion of flakes nevertheless remains high, and this is due to a local production of flakes. The R/CC flake core testifies again to unskilled hard hammer percussion (Fig. V.1.7a). Local flaking is also exemplified by two ‘handfuls’ of flakes in the western part of the trench, many of which are too small to be used and therefore unlikely to have been traded.

Struck in a concave facet of a ‘flat’ or dihedral butt with a lip on the ventral surface, three larger R/CC flakes were detached by indirect percussion and would instead correspond to crest preparation for blade cores (Fig. V.1.7b-c). Neither the cores nor the corresponding blades/bladelets have been recovered. Yet, the assemblage comprises several very regular bladelets on homogeneous,

<footnote n="331">³³¹ Compared with Lithic Phase 2, the difference is not significant at p < 0.05.</footnote>

<footnote n="332">³³² Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 68.</footnote>

<footnote n="333">³³³ See Elster 1989, tab. 10.11.</footnote>
fine-grained R/CC. The exceptionally long PM0576 presents a dihedral butt with concave facets, a marked lip as well as undulations on the ventral face and the arrises, which indicate that it was detached by very well-mastered indirect percussion (Figs. V.1.7f, V.1.8b). The much smaller PM0594 was detached by indirect percussion on a concave flat butt with removal of the overhang on the dorsal face (Fig. V.1.7g). Both indirect percussion and pressure flaking are possible for the small mesial fragment PM0612 (Fig. V.1.7i) and for two even smaller bladelets (Tab. V.1.9; Figs. V.1.7h, V.1.8d).

The three obsidian bladelets, one of them transformed into a trapeze, show the characteristic straight profile and rectilinear arrises of pressure flaking (Fig. V.1.7j-k). The other three obsidian artefacts are very small flakes. One of them is less than 1cm long, showing the high standard of recovery during excavation, and again suggesting local flaking of obsidian.

Some translucent cherts were probably also worked in situ, since two preparation flakes by indirect percussion have been recovered. Both PM0630, in a brown chert with translucent veins (Fig. V.1.7d) and PM0580 (Figs. V.1.7e, V.1.8a) in a light translucent chert, have a facetted butt characteristic of bilateral crests in the shaping of blade or bladelet cores.

The honey flint blade was pressure flaked (PM0623, Figs. V.1.7o, V.1.8e). Its original width, before reduction by retouch, can be estimated at around 2cm, therefore around the limit between standing pressure flaking and lever pressure flaking.<fnref n="334" />

The situation is thus comparable to the previous lithic phases: a local production of flakes is assured, some local working of obsidian, radiolarite/cherts and translucent chert is probable, but, given the patchiness of the *chaînes opératoires*, it cannot be ascertained whether all the blanks were locally produced or whether some were imported.

## *The Retouched Toolkit*

The low proportion of retouched pieces (n=6) is the most striking characteristic of Lithic Phase 3. Compared with Lithic Phase 2, the difference is statistically significant.<fnref n="335" /> The proportion is now close to the figure calculated for Achilleion (ca. 13%) but much lower than in eastern Thessalian sites, where retouched pieces reach around 30%.<fnref n="336" />

Despite their small number, four of the retouched pieces represent new types in the PMZ assemblages: a truncated blade, a trapeze and two transverse arrowheads. Given their absence in the richer retouched toolkits from Lithic Phases 1 and 2, their presence here constitutes a significant novelty. Would these types appear in Thessaly only in a relatively late phase of the Middle Neolithic, rather than at its beginning? The answer to this question cannot be provided by Thessalian lithic assemblages, which either lack these types or have not been subphased within the Middle Neolithic. Franchthi, however, does give some support to the hypothesis of a later introduction of transverse arrowheads in Middle Neolithic assemblages,<fnref n="337" /> but not of trapezes and truncations.<fnref n="338" />

PM0575 is a small trapeze on a pressure-flaked obsidian bladelet (Figs. V.1.7k, V.1.8g).<fnref n="339" /> The oblique proximal truncation is direct and abrupt, the distal one ¾ abrupt and less oblique. The left lateral edge is broken. Trapezes are seemingly very rare in Thessaly: they are not mentioned or illustrated at Achilleion and Otzaki,<fnref n="340" /> and Moundrea-Agrafioti only found Middle Neolithic trapezes at Ag. Petros in the Sporades – one of them in obsidian – and none in eastern Thessaly.

<footnote n="334">³³⁴ Pelegrin 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="335">³³⁵ $\chi^2 = 3.9, p < 0.05, df = 1$.</footnote>

<footnote n="336">³³⁶ See above, 213.</footnote>

<footnote n="337">³³⁷ Perlès 2004, Doc. 4.47.</footnote>

<footnote n="338">³³⁸ Perlès 2004, Docs. 4.46 and 4.71.</footnote>

<footnote n="339">³³⁹ The exact stratigraphic position of this piece has long remained uncertain and it may belong to BSPh VIIb. The marked typological similarity between Lithic Phases 3 and 4 does not allow us to discriminate on this basis.</footnote>

<footnote n="340">³⁴⁰ Elster 1989; Mottier 1981.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.9 Relevant dimensions for Lithic Phase 3 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>Determination</td><td>Dimensions [cm]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0593</td><td>R/CC flake core</td><td>2.9 × 2.1 × 1.3</td></tr><tr><td>PM0580</td><td>Light chert crest preparation flake</td><td>2.46 × 2.16 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0605</td><td>Proximal frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>1.48 × 1.5 × 0.41</td></tr><tr><td>PM0576</td><td>R/CC bladelet</td><td>5.09 × 1.01 × 0.28</td></tr><tr><td>PM0594</td><td>R/CC bladelet</td><td>2.68 × 1.2 × 2.02</td></tr><tr><td>PM0609</td><td>Mesial frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>1.16 × 1.17 × 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>PM0611</td><td>Distal frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>1.4 × 1.1 × 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>PM0612</td><td>Mesial frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>1.52 × 0.97 × 0.27</td></tr><tr><td>PM0569</td><td>Proximal frag. of light chert (?) bladelet</td><td>1.3 × 1 × 1.19</td></tr><tr><td>PM0585</td><td>R/CC microbladelet</td><td>1.38 × 0.51 × 0.19</td></tr><tr><td>PM0610</td><td>R/CC microbladelet</td><td>1.5 × 1.3 × 0.17</td></tr><tr><td>PM0588</td><td>Obsidian rejuvenation flake</td><td>0.59 × 0.9 × 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>PM0587</td><td>Mesial frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.18 × 0.7 × 0.16</td></tr><tr><td>PM0595</td><td>Mesial frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.4 × 0.9 × 0.24</td></tr><tr><td>PM0627</td><td>Mesial frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.76 × 0.81 × 1.75</td></tr><tr><td>PM0623</td><td>Honey chert sickle blade</td><td>4 × 1.62 × 0.52</td></tr><tr><td>PM0592</td><td>End-scraper on glossed R/CC flake</td><td>4.4 × 2.6 × 0.68</td></tr><tr><td>PM0622</td><td>Truncated R/CC blade</td><td>3.64 × 1.5 × 0.63</td></tr><tr><td>PM0616</td><td>R/CC transverse arrowhead</td><td>1.75 × 1.86 × 0.41</td></tr><tr><td>PM0626</td><td>R/CC transverse arrowhead</td><td>1.64 × 1.31 × 0.31</td></tr><tr><td>PM0575</td><td>Trapeze on obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.07 × 1.18 × 0.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tab. V.1.10 Retouched tools from Lithic Phase 3 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>BPh/ BSPh</td><td>Figure</td><td>Raw material</td><td>Technomorphological classification</td><td>Functional classification</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0575</td><td>VIIa</td><td>V.1.7.k, V.1.8.g</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Trapeze</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0592</td><td>VIIa</td><td>V.1.7.p, V.1.8.f</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0616</td><td>VIIa</td><td>V.1.7.l, V.1.8.h</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Transverse arrowhead</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0626</td><td>VIIa</td><td>V.1.7.m, V.1.8.i</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Transverse arrowhead</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0622</td><td>VIIa</td><td>V.1.7.n</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Truncated blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0623</td><td>VIIa</td><td>V.1.7.o, V.1.8.e</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Sickle blade</td><td>Sickle blade, re-used</td></tr></tbody></table>
³⁴¹ Some, however, were recovered in earlier assemblages (Sesklo C), but trapezes have a long chronological distribution: the presence of this trapeze at PMZ in Lithic Phase 3 cannot be taken as evidence for an Early Neolithic occupation.

Trapezes are usually considered as a type of transverse arrowheads<fnref n="342" /> despite the occurrence of the two types in the same assemblages.<fnref n="343" /> The two following artefacts can actually be considered as technically intermediate between typical bitruncated trapezes and axial transverse arrowheads. Morphologically, PM0616 is an axial transverse arrowhead of small size, in radiolarite/chocolate chert (Fig. V.1.7l, V.1.8h). Technically, it is an interesting intermediate between a trapeze and an axial transverse arrowhead. It is manufactured on a flake, probably struck from a river pebble. It was shaped by ½ abrupt proximal and distal direct truncations,<fnref n="344" /> but also bears a direct subparallel retouch of low angle on the left edge, more characteristic of true transverse arrowheads. The left angle is broken by a deep impact fracture. PM0626 is another intermediate between the two types: it was shaped by bitruncating a very regular R/CC blade, as for trapezes, but by bifacial ½ abrupt retouch, a technique characteristic of transverse arrowheads (Figs. V.1.7m, V.1.8i). These two pieces, are, to our knowledge, the first transverse arrowheads published from Thessalian collections.<fnref n="345" /> They are abundant further south at Franchthi, where they are clearly associated with the Middle Neolithic, and with the Middle Neolithic only.<fnref n="346" /> To the west, conversely, bifacially worked transverse arrowheads, of a shape different from ours, are present in small numbers in Late Neolithic contexts at Drakaina Cave.<fnref n="347" />

The truncated blade PM0622 also constitutes a novelty in the assemblage. Made on a very regular R/CC blade, flaked by expert indirect percussion or possibly pressure, it bears a short, direct, abrupt truncation on the distal end (Fig. V.1.7n). Despite a proximal fracture, it is sufficiently well preserved to ascertain that it is not a fragmentary geometric microlith or a sickle insert.

The last two retouched artefacts, conversely, establish a typological and functional link with the previous lithic phases. PM0623 is another illustration of the long use life of many honey chert sickle blades (Figs. V.1.7o, V.1.8e). It was reduced to a module of 4cm by two fractures – the proximal one with traces of cereal polish – and hafted by the right edge, which preserved microscopic residues of resin. It was used to cut cereals with the left edge, and rejuvenated several times until the edge was so abrupt it could no longer function. The right edge was then used in turn, on a semi-hard/hard vegetal material, and also briefly, with an oblique gesture, on a hard, possibly osseous material. Finally, the distal fracture shows a rugged polish and traces of a colouring matter, and may have been used to process a mineral matter such as ochre.

PM0592 appears to be a sickle insert on a large flake, but the piece has not been examined microscopically and the nature of the polish, limited to the mesial segment of the left edge and of marginal extension, has not been verified. This large flake (Figs. V.1.7p, V.1.8f) is badly burnt and broken in two. The distal end bears an end-scrapers made by direct ¾ abrupt retouch. We do not know whether the end-scrapers were functional, or whether it was meant to shape the tool.

## *A Small but Original Assemblage*

The Lithic Phase 3 assemblage differs from the preceding ones by the higher proportion of bladelets as a whole, and the quality of the R/CC bladelets. Compared with other Thessalian sites, it alternately aligns with eastern and western Thessalian sites, depending on whether one considers the ratio of cortical pieces or the ratio of retouched pieces. However, the assemblage

<footnote n="341">³⁴¹ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 155.</footnote>

<footnote n="342">³⁴² Rozoy 1978. But see Gurova 2017 for other uses as well.</footnote>

<footnote n="343">³⁴³ Perlès 2004, Docs. 4.46 and 4.47.</footnote>

<footnote n="344">³⁴⁴ Which appear as the right and left edges on the illustration due to a functional orientation of the piece.</footnote>

<footnote n="345">³⁴⁵ Nevertheless, they occur in Thessaly: C. P. has seen transverse arrowheads in unpublished surface collections.</footnote>

<footnote n="346">³⁴⁶ Perlès 2004.</footnote>

<footnote n="347">³⁴⁷ Stratouli – Metaxas 2009.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.7 Lithic Phase 3. a–j: unretouched flakes and bladelets, k–m: trapezes/transverse arrowheads, n: truncated blade, o: sickle insert on blade, p: sickle insert on flake. a–c, f–i, n: R/CC, d–e, p: light-coloured cherts, j–k: obsidian, o: honey chert. a: PM0593, b: PM0598, c: PM0596, d: PM0630, e: PM0580, f: PM0576, g: PM0594, h: PM0585, i: PM0612, j: PM0627, k: PM0575, l: PM0616, m: PM0626, n: PM0622, o: PM0623, p: PM0592 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.8 Lithic Phase 3. a: crest preparation flake, translucent chert (PM0580), b: R/CC bladelet (PM0576), c: proximal fragment of R/CC blade (PM0605), d: R/CC bladelet (PM0585), e: honey chert sickle blade (PM0623), f: burnt R/CC flake with gloss (PM0592), g: obsidian trapeze (PM0852), h–i: R/CC transverse arrowheads (PM0616 and PM0626) (C. Perlès, drawings: M. Ballinger)</figcaption></figure>

is very small and the figures are to be treated with caution. Conversely, the very small size of the retouched assemblage makes the presence of new types, which constitute two-thirds of the retouched tools, all the more significant. Lithic Phase 3 indeed differs from almost all other Thessalian assemblages by the presence of a trapeze and two transverse arrowheads, unknown in almost all other sites. For the same reasons, it differs from the preceding phases, where these types were absent despite larger toolkits. In spite of the indisputable element of continuity introduced by the honey chert blade PM0623 (Fig. V.1.7o), if a break had to be established within the Middle Neolithic sequence on the basis of the flaked tools, it would be with Lithic Phase 3.
### Contexts

The distribution of flaked stone artefacts in Lithic Phase 3 differs from the preceding ones. This phase corresponds to BSPh VIIa (Fig. III.29), which comprises the surface F23 and few struc- tures: two postholes, a thermal structure (TS 20) and probably a second one (TS 36) as well as a pit (SU 130). Only two artefacts are directly associated with Surface F23: a small splinter and a flake heavily covered with concretions, both in radiolarite/chocolate chert. No flaked stone was associated with the other structures and all the remaining ones come from the deposits above Sur- face F23. Nevertheless, two concentrations of flaked stones were uncovered in the western half of the trench, in the deposits immediately overlying F23 (SU 132). The smallest one consisted of a small fragment of R/CC flake, barely 1cm long, the microbladelet PM0585 (Figs. V.1.7h, V.1.8d) and a small fragmentary obsidian flake. The largest concentration numbered ten artefacts, all in radiolarite/chocolate chert: four flakes or fragments of flakes, three fragmentary blades, one bladelet and two undetermined fragmentary blanks. Their size ranges from 1.2 to 2.5cm. None are retouched. What these concentrations represent is unclear: the raw materials differ in nature or texture, thus they cannot be the remnants of the flaking of a core or two; several artefacts appear too small to be used, so that caches of blanks appear unlikely; yet they were dropped or depos- ited together, in between two recognised surfaces. The only interpretation we can suggest is that a living floor or work area was cleared, and handfuls of waste discarded further away, where no activity was taking place.

Above the deposits immediately overlying F23 (SU 132) a thin fire-destruction stratum in- tervened between surfaces F23 and F22 (SU 133–134). The clay house model<fnref n="348" /> was uncovered in this stratum, which also yielded nine lithic artefacts: the transverse arrowhead PM0616 (Fig. V.1.7l), five flakes and three bladelets, all unretouched but two of which were burnt. The deposi- tion of exceptional flaked tools in or near hearths has been identified in sites such as Kitsos or Tharrounia<fnref n="349" /> and it was tempting to hypothesise that this could also be the case at PMZ. Unfortu- nately, these artefacts were found neither near the house model nor grouped together, but instead widely dispersed over the southern and western parts of the trench. Additionally, none can be considered ‘exceptional’. There is no argument to suggest intentional deposition, even less ritual deposition.

## V.1.6. Lithic Phase 4 – Building Subphases VIIb and VIIc

### Characterisation

Lithic Phase 4 encompasses BSPh VIIb and VIIc (EU 244, 246a, 247, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256). The assemblages from these two phases showed absolutely no technological, typological or sta- tistical differences, and were consequently grouped together as Lithic Phase 4. This similarity is surprising since the dates of these two subphases hardly overlap: 5629–5531 calBC 2σ (MAMS- 32120, BSPh VIIb) and 5545–5472 calBC 2σ (MAMS-32119, BSPh VIIc).<fnref n="350" />

Once again, the contrasts between Lithic Phases 3 and 4 pertain less to the typology of the tools than to a statistically significant difference in the proportion of flakes, blades and bladelets, and a highly significant difference in the ratio of retouched tools. If flakes remain predominant,

<footnote n="348">³⁴⁸ Alram-Stern, this volume, chapter VI.3; Toufexis – Batzelas, this volume, 113.</footnote>

<footnote n="349">³⁴⁹ Perlès 1981; Perlès 1994b.</footnote>

<footnote n="350">³⁵⁰ However, when calibrated with IntCal20 rather than CalPal (V.2019.5) as used here, there is substantial overlap be- tween the two dates: respectively 5630–5485 and 5611–5412 calBC. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out and resolving the apparent discrepancy.</footnote>
blades are now twice as abundant as bladelets<fnref n="351" /> and retouched tools again represent a third of the assemblage.<fnref n="352" />

## Raw Materials

The assemblage is larger than in the preceding phases (n=79), but the raw materials do not differ qualitatively or quantitatively from Lithic Phase 3. Radiolarite/chocolate cherts still predominate with 57 specimens. The proportion of cortical or neo-cortical pieces is slightly higher than in the preceding phase, but remains low (8.8%) and again suggests the introduction of already prepared cores or finished blanks. A primary flake with rolled neo-cortex shows that river pebbles were still exploited. However, most of the seven cortical pieces show a rather fresh cortex that indicates procurement at or near the source (Figs. V.1.9a–b, r, V.1.11a). A shift in procurement strategies can be suspected, with a higher incidence of exchange with groups located nearer to the sources. The results of the geochemical analyses on PM0471 (Fig. V.1.9b) confirm this hypothesis, since it corresponds to location PM 5, a primary source along the Portaikos. Obsidian is represented by eleven pieces, none of which bears any cortex, as usual. Similarly, none of the eight translucent cherts, nor the two honey chert blades, bear any cortical facet. Importation as finished blades is the most likely for the last two blades, as in all Neolithic sites from Greece.

## The Production

The Lithic Phase 4 assemblage altogether comprises 3 debris, 47 flakes, 14 blades, 11 bladelets, 1 core and 3 undetermined blanks (Tab. V.1.11). The high proportion of flakes, a characteristic of the PMZ assemblages,<fnref n="353" /> still holds true in the later Middle Neolithic. The intentional production of R/CC flakes by hard hammer percussion is still documented (Fig. V.1.9d-e), but most of the diagnostic R/CC flakes were now produced by indirect percussion and correspond to the shaping (Figs. V.1.9c, f-g, V.1.11b-d) and rejuvenation (Fig. V.1.9h-i) of blade cores. As usual, we do not have the corresponding cores and blades of precisely the same variety of R/CC, but the relatively high number of shaping and rejuvenation flakes suggests that some, at least, of the blades were produced locally.

The R/CC blades are, on the whole, wide (1.5–2cm), relatively flat, very regular, with butts at an angle of about 90° (Tab. V.1.12). They testify to skilled craftsmanship in the use of indirect percussion (see Fig. V.1.10a–b, g). The production of such blades required high-quality, homogeneous raw materials and this correlates with the suspected shift in raw material procurement towards primary sources. The cores were prepared with crests, as shown by a fragmentary blade that removed part of an anterior crest (Fig. V.1.9j); secondary crests were occasionally manufactured to restore the axial convexity ('carénage') of the core, as shown by PM0534 (Figs. V.1.9k, V.1.12e).

The large module of the blades contrasts with the module of the R/CC bladelets, often under a centimetre wide (Tab. V.1.12). Bladelets were a distinct objective of the production and show more varied modes of production than blades. Some of the larger ones were produced by indirect percussion and probably correspond to the final stage of blade cores exploitation. This applies to PM0499, which, despite its extreme thinness, shows ripples on the ventral surface hardly compatible with pressure flaking (Fig. V.1.9m, V.1.11g). It is also the case for the already mentioned secondary crested blade PM0534 (Fig. V.1.9k).

Interestingly this same blade, with several – hardly successful – attempts at extracting micro-bladelets from the distal extremity, illustrates a second method of production, on pseudo-burins.

<footnote n="351">³⁵¹ The difference in the distribution of flakes, blades and bladelets is significant at p <0.05 ($\chi^2$= 6.8, df = 2).</footnote>

<footnote n="352">³⁵² The difference in the ratio of retouched tools is significant at p < 0.02 ($\chi^2$ = 6.3, df = 1).</footnote>

<footnote n="353">³⁵³ See above, 209, 225.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.11 Composition of the flaked stone assemblage from Lithic Phase 4 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>R/CC</th><th>Chert</th><th>Obsidian</th><th>Honey chert</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Undetermined</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Debris</th><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>Cores</th><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Flakes</th><td>33</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Blades</th><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Bladelets</th><td>5</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Undetermined</th><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched flakes</th><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched blades</th><td>6</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Retouched bladelets</th><td>3</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Undetermined retouched</th><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td>57</td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

This method was also implemented on PM0531, a larger blade that bears the negatives of three bladelets, the last one strongly hinged (Fig. V.1.9l).

Other R/CC bladelets were produced by pressure flaking, and a fragmentary core shows that some, at least, of this production was local. This microcore was conical or cylindrical, and was rejuvenated by a platform tablet at least once (Figs. V.1.9n, V.1.11h). While none of the bladelets recovered comes from this core, several confirm the use of pressure flaking for small modules, a technique already suspected in Lithic Phase 3 (Figs. V.1.9o, V.1.10r, V.1.11i-j). Given the width of the bladelets, pressure with the hand or a shoulder crutch (modes 1 and 2) would have sufficed.<fnref n="354" />

The rather heterogeneous set of obsidian artefacts also shows varied techniques of production. The proximal part is only preserved on one of the seven flakes,<fnref n="355" /> which was flaked by indirect percussion (Fig. V.1.9p). Of the two blades, one was flaked by indirect percussion (Figs. V.1.10l, V.1.12b), the other, as well as two bladelets, by pressure flaking (Figs. V.1.9q, V.1.10p). These blades and bladelets are larger than the R/CC pressure-flaked ones, and would have required a short crutch in a sitting position (mode 3). The pressure-flaked bladelet that preserved its proximal part shows the characteristics of a Middle Neolithic method of preparation, with suppression of the overhang on the dorsal and a small linear butt.

Among the six artefacts attributed to the category of light or translucent cherts, four artefacts suggest local chert workmanship: a platform rejuvenation flake (Figs. V.1.9s), a retouched proximal fragment of a large anterior crested blade with a large flat butt (Figs. V.1.10j, V.1.12d), a very small flake, too small to have been traded, and an undetermined fragment. The other artefacts comprise two fragmentary retouched blades in very different cherts, one of which is of high craftsmanship (Figs. V.1.10o, V.1.12m). Their flaking technique cannot be identified.

The technique of flaking of the honey chert blade PM0489, a distal fragment, cannot be determined (Figs. V.1.10i, V.1.12g). The second blade, PM0495 (Figs. V.1.10e, V.1.11l), a long and well-preserved mesial fragment, presents wavy arrises on the dorsal surface and ripples on the

<footnote n="354">³⁵⁴ Pelegrin 2012.</footnote>

<footnote n="355">³⁵⁵ One of these obsidian flakes (PM0567) is on a very black, very glossy obsidian, somehow more ‘plastic’ than ‘glassy’, which does not look typically Melian.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.9 Lithic Phase 4. a–j, m, p–s: unretouched flakes and bladelets, k–l: reflaked blades, n: pressure-flaked microcore, o: pressure-flaked bladelet. a: PM0568, b: PM0471, c: PM0520, d: PM0460, e: PM0558; f: PM0463, g: PM0473, h: PM0477, i: PM0557, j: PM0462, k: PM0534, l: PM0531; m: PM0499, n: PM0487, o: PM0536, p: PM0497, q: PM0470, r: PM0461, s: PM0511 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.12 Relevant dimensions for Lithic Phase 4 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>Determination</td><td>Dimensions [cm]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0487</td><td>R/CC bladelet microcore frag.</td><td>1 × 1.11 × 0.77</td></tr><tr><td>PM0463</td><td>Large crest preparation R/CC flake</td><td>3.41 × 2.7 × 0.45</td></tr><tr><td>PM0473</td><td>R/CC core preparation flake</td><td>2.1 × 1.5 × 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>PM0500</td><td>Platform rejuvenation flake</td><td>1.06 × 1.63 × 0.18</td></tr><tr><td>PM0477</td><td>Platform rejuvenation flake</td><td>1.84 × 2.4 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0499</td><td>Distal frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>2.34 × 0.96 × 0.17</td></tr><tr><td>PM0465</td><td>Platform rejuvenation R/CC flake</td><td>1.61 × 2.39 × 0.47</td></tr><tr><td>PM0560</td><td>Mesial frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>0.8 × 0.6 × 0.11</td></tr><tr><td>PM0488</td><td>Distal frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>1.3 × 0.7 × 0.32</td></tr><tr><td>PM0560</td><td>Mesial frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>0.8 × 0.6 × 0.11</td></tr><tr><td>PM0470</td><td>Mesial frag. of obsidian bladelet</td><td>1.8 × 1.18 × 0.32</td></tr><tr><td>PM0531</td><td>Reflaked R/CC blade frag.</td><td>2.2 × 1.5 × 0.63</td></tr><tr><td>PM0526</td><td>R/CC utilised bladelet</td><td>1.8 × 0.78 × 0.28</td></tr><tr><td>PM0462</td><td>Mesial frag. of R/CC crested blade</td><td>1.8 × 1.4 × 0.46</td></tr><tr><td>PM0541</td><td>Proximal frag. of chert blade</td><td>2.5 × 1.87 × 0.86</td></tr><tr><td>PM0472</td><td>Distal frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>3.5 × 1.4 × 0.54</td></tr><tr><td>PM0529</td><td>R/CC blade</td><td>3.27 × 1.6 × 0.41</td></tr><tr><td>PM0497</td><td>Retouched obsidian flake</td><td>1.9 × 2.4 × 0.39</td></tr><tr><td>PM0469</td><td>Retouched chert flake</td><td>2.28 × 2.13 × 0.63</td></tr><tr><td>PM0523</td><td>Retouched R/CC laminar flake</td><td>3.7 × 1.96 × 0.72</td></tr><tr><td>PM0556</td><td>Truncated R/CC flake</td><td>2.7 × 1.6 × 0.37</td></tr><tr><td>PM0457</td><td>Obsidian splintered piece</td><td>2.3 × 2.6 × 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>PM0515</td><td>Chert retouched crested blade</td><td>3.26 × 2.1 × 1.15</td></tr><tr><td>PM0534</td><td>Reflaked retouched R/CC crested blade</td><td>3.47 × 0.96 × 0.67</td></tr><tr><td>PM0549</td><td>Proximal frag. of retouched obsidian bladelet</td><td>2.2 × 1.16 × 0.38</td></tr><tr><td>PM0476</td><td>Frag. obsidian transverse arrowhead</td><td>1.17 × 1.42 × 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>PM0512</td><td>R/CC transverse arrowhead</td><td>1.75 × 1.8 × 0.47</td></tr><tr><td>PM0502</td><td>Distal frag. truncated chert blade</td><td>1.4 × 2.35 × 0.33</td></tr><tr><td>PM0527</td><td>Distal frag. of truncated obsidian blade</td><td>1.7 × 1.26 × 0.24</td></tr><tr><td>PM0505</td><td>End-scraper on obsidian blade</td><td>5 × 1.36 × 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>PM0514</td><td>R/CC end-scraper</td><td>2.51 × 1.81 × 0.45</td></tr><tr><td>PM0495</td><td>Honey chert sickle blade</td><td>5.5 × 1.4 × 0.6</td></tr><tr><td>PM0489</td><td>Frag. of honey flint sickle blade</td><td>2.05 × 1.15 × 0.46</td></tr><tr><td>PM0503</td><td>R/CC Sickle blade/end-scraper</td><td>2.8 × 1.93 × 0.41</td></tr><tr><td>PM0530</td><td>Distal frag. of R/CC sickle blade</td><td>0.91 × 1.3 × 0.42</td></tr><tr><td>PM0453</td><td>Frag. R/CC sickle blade</td><td>2.37 × 1.8 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0498</td><td>Frag. of R/CC sickle bladelet</td><td>2.77 × 1.16 × 0.65</td></tr></tbody></table>
ventral face that exclude pressure flaking. It constitutes a rare example of the use of indirect per-
cussion on typical honey chert.

With a larger proportion of wide and regular blades, the Lithic Phase 4 assemblage differs from the preceding phases and undoubtedly resembles more the ‘classic’ Thessalian Middle Neolithic assemblages from Achilleion, Sesklo B, Ag. Petros, Otzaki and Magoula Karamourlar. Nevertheless, the local production of flakes and their overall abundance continue to set PMZ apart, and to suggest that blades, or their raw material, were still too scarce to answer all the needs of the community.

The Retouched Toolkit

Retouched tools again become proportionally abundant: debris and core apart, they represent 24 artefacts out of a total of 75, i.e. one third. This ratio again aligns PMZ with the eastern Thessalian sites, where all the raw materials had to be imported, in contrast to Achilleion located near radiolarite sources and where the ratio is much lower.<fnref n="356" /> Despite the long-term trend of a decrease in the proportion of sickle inserts in general, and of sickle inserts on flakes in particular, clear elements of continuity with the preceding phases can be perceived within the toolkit. However, sickle inserts being less abundant, the toolkit is more diversified than in most preceding phases.

The confrontation between the technomorphological typology and the results of the wear-trace
analyses again brought some surprises (Tab. V.1.13). In two cases, the end-scrapers on sickle
blades were not a secondary transformation but part of the shaping of the sickle insert, although
in another case the end-scraper may indeed have been used to scrape hides. Another end-scraper
was not used to work skin or hides, but on a mineral material. One of the presumed sickle blades
was not used to cut cereals, but an undetermined material. Finally, two retouched tools showed
no wear traces. As previously, the classification of the tools will follow the results of the use-wear
analysis when available.

Sickle Inserts (n=5)

The progressive diminution of the proportion of sickle inserts in the toolkit since Lithic Phase 1 is confirmed in Lithic Phase 4, even if sickle inserts remain the best-represented tool type. Significantly, all are now made on blades, thus corresponding better to the usual standards in Thessalian (and Greek) Middle Neolithic assemblages. Their modules, however, are surprisingly different.

PM0503 (Figs. V.1.10a., V.1.11m) had a long and diversified use-life. It was manufactured on a wide R/CC blade of the highest quality. The butt is long and narrow, with a lip on the ventral face. It was probably detached by indirect percussion. Both edges were first used extensively to cut cereals and rejuvenated for the same task, with an insertion parallel to the haft for the right edge and slightly more oblique for the left. The sickle blade was then transformed: an end-scraper was manufactured on the distal end and used on hide, while the two edges, modified by bilateral ¾ abrupt retouch, were used on an undetermined material.<fnref n="357" />

The similar-looking PM0453 (Figs. V.1.10b, V.1.11n) was also manufactured on fine, homo-
geneous R/CC and on a large regular blade. Despite the technomorphological resemblance, its
biography is very different. Like PM0503 it bears an ‘end-scraper’ on the distal edge, but traces of
cereal polish extend over the retouch: the end-scraper was therefore part of the initial shaping of
the insert. The insert was not used for long – possibly because the proximal end broke – and only
on the left edge. The polish is too limited to determine how the insert was hafted.

PM0498 (Figs. V.1.10d, V.1.11o), also on chocolate R/CC, is of a much smaller module, pos-
sibly pressure flaked. The proximal extremity bears what was initially interpreted as an oblique

<footnote n="356">³⁵⁶ See above, 213.</footnote>

<footnote n="357">³⁵⁷ Observation L. P. and N. Mazzucco.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.13 Retouched tools from Lithic Phase 4. Italics denote discrepancies between the technomorphological and functional identifications (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>BPh/ BSPh</td><td>Figure</td><td>Raw material</td><td>Technomorphological classification</td><td>Functional classification</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0556</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.q, 4.1.12.m</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Obliquely truncated flake</td><td>Flake used on fresh skin by the unretouched edge</td></tr><tr><td>PM0549</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.l</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Denticulated blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0541</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.k, 4.1.12.g</td><td>Burnt translucent chert</td><td>Retouched blade</td><td>Not utilised</td></tr><tr><td>PM0536</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.9.o, 4.1.11.i</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched bladelet</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0534</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.9.k, 4.1.12.e</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Retouched and reflaked bladelet</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0531</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.9.l</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Reflaked blade ('burin')</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0530</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.c</td><td>R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on sickle blade</td><td>Sickle blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0527</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.p</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Truncated blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0523</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.h, 4.1.12.c</td><td>R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on laminar flake</td><td>Edge used on mineral material</td></tr><tr><td>PM0515</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.j, 4.1.12.d</td><td>Light chert</td><td>Retouched crested blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0514</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.g 4.1.12.a</td><td>R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on blade</td><td>End-scraper (hide)</td></tr><tr><td>PM0512</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.m, 4.1.12.k</td><td>Burnt R/CC</td><td>Transverse arrowhead</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0510</td><td>VIIb</td><td>—</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Splintered flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0505</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.f, 4.1.12.b</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>End-scraper on retouched blade</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0503</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.a, 4.1.11.m</td><td>R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on sickle blade</td><td>End-scraper on sickle blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0502</td><td>VIIb</td><td>4.1.10.o, 4.1.12.l</td><td>Light variegated chert</td><td>Truncated blade</td><td>Not utilised</td></tr><tr><td>PM0498</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.d, 4.1.11.o</td><td>R/CC</td><td>End-scraper on sickle bladelet</td><td>Sickle insert</td></tr><tr><td>PM0497</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.9.p, 4.1.12.i</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0495</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.e, 4.1.11.l</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Transformed sickle blade</td><td>Transformed (?) sickle blade</td></tr><tr><td>PM0490</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.r, 4.1.12.n</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Arched backed bladelet</td><td>Utilised point</td></tr><tr><td>PM0489</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.i, 4.1.12.f</td><td>Honey chert</td><td>Sickle blade</td><td>Used, not on cereals</td></tr><tr><td>PM0476</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.n, 4.1.12.j</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Frag. of transverse arrowhead</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0469</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.12.h</td><td>Light chert</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0457</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.s</td><td>Obsidian</td><td>Splintered flake</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>PM0453</td><td>VIIc</td><td>4.1.10.b, 4.1.11.n</td><td>R/CC</td><td>Proximal end-scraper on sickle</td><td>Sickle blade</td></tr></tbody></table>
abrupt ‘end-scraper’, but it showed no traces of use and must again be part of the shaping of the insert.<fnref n="358" /> The tool was inserted parallel to the haft, and the left edge bears a well-developed cereal polish, rejuvenated by inverse scalariform retouch, partially polished. This insert constitutes the first instance of deliberate rejuvenation on the ventral face, rather than the dorsal face.

PM0530 (Fig. V.1.10c) is a very small distal fragment of a sickle insert on an R/CC blade of medium width, which also bears an abrupt end-scraper front. The blade was inserted parallel to the haft by the right edge. The left edge bears a well-developed cereal polish and was rejuvenated, but not used for long afterwards since the retouch scars show only limited polish. A distal ‘end-scraper’ was then manufactured, but it bears no traces of use and its significance is unclear.

PM0495, a honey chert blade, presents a pinkish hue that may indicate that the chert has been heated (Figs. V.1.10e, V.1.11). The blade was extracted from the side of the core and the left edge is almost abrupt. This edge was consequently not used and bears wear and possible residues related to hafting. The distribution of the cereal polish on the right edge, extensive on the proximal end and absent on the distal end, suggests an oblique hafting. This sickle blade was used extensively and rejuvenated several times by ¾ direct abrupt retouch until it was no longer functional. The left edge was subsequently modified by a low-angle retouch, and used on a different material, possibly hide.

## End-scrapers

From a classical typological viewpoint, seven artefacts would have been classified as end-scrapers, and they would have constituted the best-represented typological group. However, four were manufactured on sickle blades (see above, 242, 244) and their actual use as an end-scraper was only confirmed for one of them (PM0503, above, 242).

Of the three remaining potential candidates, one only, PM0514, has been confirmed as a classic end-scraper used to work hide (Figs. V.1.10g, V.1.12a). It is a short end-scraper on a regular blade produced by indirect percussion. It was certainly rejuvenated several times, given its present length. The working front is wide and bears a regular subparallel direct retouch. Wear traces indicate a transversal movement on hide.

Typologically, PM0505 is a narrow end-scraper on a retouched, irregular obsidian blade flaked by indirect percussion on a facetted platform. It bears a very short ½ abrupt direct retouch on the right edge and a narrow direct end-scraper. It has not been examined microscopically and its use cannot be confirmed (Figs. V.1.10f, V.1.12b). Finally, PM0523 was utilised not by its distal, retouched front, but by the lateral edges and will therefore be classified as a side-scraper.

## Side-scraper (n=1)

PM0523 was manufactured on a laminar R/CC flake produced during the lateral shaping of a core (Figs. V.1.10h, V.1.12c). As mentioned above, the distal ‘end-scraper’ is part of the shaping of the tool, as the wear traces extend slightly on its left side. The left edge was regularised by ½ abrupt retouch and the tool used by its left distal part on a mineral matter.

## Laterally Retouched Blades and Bladelets (n=6)

The retouched blades and bladelets constitute a heterogeneous group, differing by their dimensions, the location and nature of the retouch. The most unusual tool is PM0515, the fragment of the large, crested blade in blue-grey chert with white spots (Figs. V.1.10j, V.1.12d). The left edge bears a large and regular low-angle inverse retouch and is completely blunted, indicating use on hard material. A few discontinuous direct retouch scars on the right edge suggest that it was also

<footnote n="358">³⁵⁸ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.10 Lithic Phase 4. a: sickle insert with an end-scraper, b–e: sickle inserts on blades, f–g: end-scraper on blades, h: side-scraper, i: bitruncated blade, j: inversely retouched crested blade, k: inversely retouched flake, l: bilaterally retouched blade, m–n: transverse arrowheads, o–p: truncated blades, q: obliquely truncated flake, r: arched backed bladelet, s: splintered piece. a–d, g–h, m, p–r: R/CC. e, i: honey chert. f, k, o: light-coloured cherts. l, n, p: obsidian. a: PM0503, b: PM0453, c: PM0530, d: PM0498, e: PM0495, f: PM0505, g: PM0514, h: PM0523, i: PM0489, j: PM0515, k: PM0490, l: PM0549, m: PM0512, n: PM0476, o: PM0502, p: PM0527, q: PM0556, r: PM0490, s: PM0457 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
utilised. Of a very different module, PM0536 (Figs. V.1.9o, V.1.11i), a pressure-flaked bladelet on good quality R/CC, shows a short ½ abrupt retouch on the left edge, adjacent to the fracture. This retouch is possibly accidental. PM0534 (Figs. V.1.9k, V.1.12e), already mentioned as a reflaked secondary crested blade, was retouched on the proximal half of the right edge by direct low-angle retouch on a ½ abrupt edge.

The small honey chert blade PM0489 (Figs. V.1.10i, V.1.12f) was initially identified as a sickle insert because some polish could be observed on the right edge. The tool was cursorily truncated at both extremities and lightly retouched on the dorsal face of both edges. Some microscopic residues and blunting on the left edge must be related to the hafting of the tool. It was then used with a bidirectional movement, for cutting or sawing wood, not for cutting cereals.

PM0541, a proximal fragment on burnt translucent chert, was retouched on the left edge by large ½ abrupt retouch. On the ventral face, a large, splintered retouch scar is visible next to a thermal scar (Figs. V.1.10k, V.1.12g). This piece was examined microscopically but bore no wear traces.

The single retouched obsidian bladelet, PM0549 (Fig. V.1.10l) was modified on both edges by short abrupt retouch. The right edge is denticulated, the left one rectilinear. There are no use-wear data for this tool.

### Retouched Flakes (n=2)

PM0469 (Fig. V.1.12h), made on a coarse-grained, dark-pink chert with black spots, presented an abrupt distal edge that bears a direct low-angle retouch. It was examined microscopically, but showed no wear traces. The second retouched flake, PM0497, on obsidian, shows a short, direct, ½ abrupt retouch on the proximal half of the right edge (Figs. V.1.9p, V.1.12i).

### Transverse Arrowheads (n=2)

PM0512 (Figs. V.1.10m, V.1.12k), on burnt R/CC, is morphologically very similar to the first transverse arrowheads encountered in Lithic Phase 3 and of similar – small – dimensions (Fig. V.1.7l). The four sides of the arrowhead were shaped by various combinations of retouch: large bifacial low-angle retouch on the distal edge, inverse low-angle retouch on the left and right edges, and a direct abrupt truncation on the proximal edge.

The typological determination of the second piece is more uncertain since part of the base and left edge are broken. PM0476 (Figs. V.1.10n, V.1.12j) is manufactured on a small obsidian flake and of roughly quadrangular shape. The distal end was inversely truncated, then retouched on the dorsal face by regular ½ abrupt subparallel retouch. The small part of the proximal end that is preserved shows an inverse low-angle retouch. As stated earlier, the presence of radiolarite and obsidian transverse arrowheads in the same assemblages is frequent.

### Truncated Blades (n=2)

PM0502, made on a very unusual, fine-grained, beige and red translucent chert, is unfortunately preserved only by its distal section (Figs. V.1.10o, V.1.12l). The blade was wide and flat, with regular arrises, possibly pressure flaked. The distal extremity is truncated by regular direct sub-parallel retouch. Microscopic examination revealed no wear traces. The second truncated blade, PM0527, is made on obsidian, and shows a similar direct truncation but was not examined for wear traces (Fig. V.1.10p).

We mentioned that truncated blades, as individual tools, are very rare in the Thessalian Middle Neolithic,<fnref n="359" /> but truncations are used to calibrate sickle inserts and, more rarely, to manufacture

<footnote n="359">³⁵⁹ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, 148.</footnote>
trapezes. PM0502 could thus possibly be a distal fragment of a sickle blade. PM0527 is better preserved and this use can be excluded. It is also too long to be a fragmentary trapeze and can thus be considered as a true truncated blade, comparable to the blade found in Lithic Phase 3.<fnref n="360" />

### Obliquely Truncated Flake (n=1)

Manufactured on good quality R/CC the elongated flake PM0556 was probably extracted, by indirect percussion, at the end of a phase of blade production. The right edge was then obliquely truncated by short direct abrupt retouch. Despite the pointed shape created by this retouch, the point was not used and the retouch was probably intended to facilitate hafting. The left edge was used unretouched with a wide angle on fresh hide (Figs. V.1.10q, V.1.12m).

### Arched Backed Bladelet (n=1)

PM0490 represents an unusual type in a Greek Middle Neolithic assemblage. This R/CC pressure-flaked bladelet was backed and obliquely truncated by a short abrupt retouch on the distal half of the right edge and shaped into a narrow point (Figs. V.1.10r, V.1.12n). In contrast to the previous truncated flake, the point was the active zone on PM0490, but the material worked could not be determined.

### Splintered Pieces (n=2)

Splintered pieces are still surprisingly rare, if not absent at PMZ in the late Middle Neolithic. The two artefacts presented here do not correspond to the usual standards of splintered pieces. PM0457 is made on a thick flake or fragment of obsidian core (Fig. V.1.10s) awkwardly flaked by bipolar percussion and partly split. Was it a last attempt to extract a few obsidian flakes, or a beginner's practice? Similarly, PM0510, a thick flake on mediocre-quality R/CC, was splintered by bipolar percussion on the ventral face. It may have been used briefly as a wedge.

### ‘Burin’ (n=1)

Typologically, PM0531 should be called a burin, with several bladelets extracted from a proximal fracture (Fig. V.1.9l). We have already presented it as a burin-like core rather than a tool: true burins are indeed absent from Greek Middle Neolithic assemblages, whereas the reflaking of blades is a common practice.<fnref n="361" />

### Contexts and Chronological Attribution

BSPh VIIb comprises Surface F22, a fragmentary floor that overlaid the fire destruction stratum where the house model was deposited (Fig. III.32). It was only preserved around the Early Bronze Age pit in the eastern half of the trench. A large hearth (TS 19) and two postholes were associated with F22. The four artefacts found directly on Surface F22, a burnt debris, two R/CC and an obsidian flake, were dispersed in the southern part of the trench and were not associated with any recognised structure. A ‘handful’ of flaked stones, similar to those from BSPh VIIa, was uncovered precisely at the limit between these BSPh VIIa and VIIb (SU 135), again in the western half of the trench. It consists of a microbladelet of red R/CC with white and green spots, the crest preparation flake PM0557, the obliquely truncated flake PM0556 in homogeneous chocolate R/CC (Fig. V.1.10q), the small flake PM0558 in a darker R/CC (Fig. V.1.9e) and a small R/CC

<footnote n="360">³⁶⁰ See above, 234.</footnote>

<footnote n="361">³⁶¹ Perlès 2004.</footnote>
splinter. Like the earlier ones, this small group does not correspond to a flaking sequence, cannot be considered as a cache of blanks, includes at least one piece that we would not call ‘waste’ and remains unexplained.

Surface F21 (BSPh VIIc, Fig. III.34) included a compacted yellowish clayish soil (SU 144) at a depth of 4.94 to 4.95m. This floor was recognised as small patches over the whole trench, the Early Bronze Age pit excepted. The only flaked stone directly associated with the floor was the small sickle insert PM0498 (Figs. V.1.10d, V.1.11o). A quadrangular pit, 0.62 × 0.38m, unconnected with the remnants of the floor, was uncovered in the northwest area of the trench, filled with black burnt soil (see Fig. III.34, area A). This context can thus be considered a secure, ‘closed context’. It contained ten flaked stone artefacts: the small bladelet microcore PM0584 (Figs. V.1.9n, V.1.11h), five fragmentary R/CC flakes, a fragmentary R/CC bladelet, a R/CC splinter, but also the honey chert blade PM0495 (Figs. V.1.10e, V.1.11l) and the arched bladelet PM0490 (Figs. V.1.10r, V.1.12n). This group of artefacts is even more puzzling than the above-mentioned one: most are broken, half of them are heated or burnt but not the others; several are too small to be of any use, with a maximum length under 1.5cm. And yet, they are associated with two perfectly preserved tools.

Fifteen other flaked artefacts were found dispersed over the entire Surface F21, outside the floor patches. None was heated or burnt. Besides fragmentary R/CC flakes, they include six retouched tools: the obsidian end-scraper on blade (PM0505, Figs. V.1.10f, V.1.12b), the obsidian transverse arrowhead (PM0476, Fig. V.1.12j), the retouched obsidian flake (PM0497, Figs. V.1.9p, V.1.12l), the fragment of chert truncated blade (PM0502, Figs. V.1.10o, V.1.12m), and two sickle inserts (PM0503 and PM0498, Figs. V.1.10a, d, V.1.11m, o). Even though they are not associated with the yellow clay soil, there is no indication that these artefacts were redeposited. Finally, fourteen other pieces were found in the deposits – destruction layer – between surfaces F21 and F20, also spread over the entire preserved Neolithic surface of the trench. Their original context and date is more uncertain.

The tool types from BSPh VIIb and VIIc present striking similarities. It was previously thought that Surface F22 (BSPh VIIb) was the last Middle Neolithic surface, and Surface F21 (BSPh VIIc) the first Late Neolithic surface. However, several tools found on F21, in particular the long honey flint sickle blade PM0495 (Fig. V.1.10e), the small insert PM0498 (Fig. V.1.10c) and the transverse arrowhead PM0476 (Fig. V.1.12j), have their exact correspondence in earlier phases. Since there is no indication that these artefacts were redeposited from earlier contexts, in terms of flaked stone assemblages, both the assemblages from BSPh VIIb and VIIc belong to the Middle Neolithic and show close correspondences with Lithic Phase 3.

The activities represented by these tools are the same as before – harvesting cereals and working hide – with one exception: PM0523 (Figs. V.1.10h, V.1.12c) that worked a mineral matter. With sickle inserts as the predominant tool type, and with all sickle inserts made on blades, the assemblage from Lithic Phase 4 presents clear analogies with other Thessalian Middle Neolithic assemblages. Nevertheless, the proportion of sickle inserts – one fifth of the retouched tools – is now clearly lower than in other sites, where sickle inserts represent about 50% of the toolkit, splintered pieces excepted. The Lithic Phase 4 assemblage also differs from the assemblages from Achilleion, Sesklo B, Magoula Karamourlar or Ag. Petros in the importance of flakes in the debitage, the quasi-absence of splintered blades and the presence of tool types rare or absent elsewhere: truncated blades and transverse arrowheads.
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.11 Lithic Phase 4. a–f: trimming and preparation flakes, g, i–k: bladelets (i with proximal retouch), h: pressure-flaked microcore, l: sickle blade, m: end-scrapers on sickle blade, n: sickle insert on blade, o: sickle insert on bladelet. All in R/CC except l in honey chert. a: PM0568, b: PM0463, c: PM0473, d: PM0511, e: PM0477, f: PM0465, g: PM0499, h: PM0487, i: PM0536, j: PM0556, k: PM0470, l: PM0495, m: PM0503, n: PM0453, o: PM0498</figcaption></figure>

(C. Perlès, drawings: M. Ballinger)
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.12 Lithic Phase 4. a–b: end-scrapers on blades, c: side-scrapers on flakes, d: inversely retouched crested blade, e: reflaked secondary crested blade, f: bitruncated blade, g: retouched blade, h–i: retouched flakes, j–k: transverse arrowheads, l: truncated blade, m: obliquely truncated flake, n: arched backed bladelet. a, c, e, k, m–n in R/CC, b, i–j in obsidian, d, g–h, l in translucent cherts, f in honey chert. a: PM0514, b: PM0505, c: PM0523, d: PM0515, e: PM0534, f: PM0489, g: PM0541, h: PM0468, i: PM0497, j: PM0476, k: PM0512, l: PM0502, m: PM0556, n: PM0556 (C. Perlès, drawings: M. Ballinger)</figcaption></figure>
V.1.7. Lithic Phase 5 – Building Phase VIII<fnref n="362" />

*Characterisation*

Contrary to what occurred with the previous lithic phases, Lithic Phase 5 (EU 258–260, 264–265, 278–279, 281–283, 285–286) differs from the preceding ones less by quantitative criteria than by qualitative criteria: a more systematic choice of high-quality R/CC, the appearance of pressure-flaked R/CC blades, and new tool types, in particular perforating tools (‘mèches’). Conversely, the heavily retouched sickle blades, present in all phases up to now, are now absent. Some quantitative changes can nevertheless be observed: a higher proportion of unretouched bladelets, and, especially, a significant drop in the proportion of obsidian. The microscopic examination also reveals an increase of activities related to plant processing and of versatile tools used on several different materials.

*Raw Materials*

Of a total of 58 artefacts, R/CC amount to 45 specimens, obsidian 2, translucent cherts 4, quartz 3, and honey chert 1. Three specimens were not identified.<fnref n="363" /> Many of the R/CC are of a high, homogeneous quality, and bear very well their usual denomination of ‘chocolate flint’ or ‘chocolate jasper’. Of special interest is an irregular flake that shows that both light-red matte and dark, lustrous chocolate radiolarite/chert can be found in the same block of raw material (Fig. V.1.13a). Many other R/CC pieces have a lustrous surface, but associated with evidence of thermal alteration. As before, we suspected heat treatment, but found no definite evidence. The pink hue of the honey chert blade fragment PM0384 (Fig. V.1.13s) is also probably due to heating. The fact that the fracture is more lustrous than the surfaces again suggests intentional heat treatment, but this cannot be ascertained on such a small fragment.

Among the R/CC, several bear surfaces corresponding to cleavage planes, but only three show true cortex or neo-cortex: As in the earlier phases, they attest to both procurement in the river and at or near the source (Figs. V.1.13b, n). The results of the geochemical analyses confirm the exploitation of secondary sources both on the Peneios (PM 8) and the Portaikos (PM 2).

With only two pieces, obsidian is rarer in this Lithic Phase V than it has ever been and, since none of them comes from a secure context,<fnref n="364" /> the possibility of redeposition from earlier contexts cannot be ruled out. Whichever the case, the scarcity or absence of obsidian is unexpected. There are no Thessalian flaked stone assemblages of the earliest Late Neolithic to compare PMZ with,<fnref n="365" /> but, at Ag. Petros in the Sporades, the early Late Neolithic assemblage comprised 70% obsidian.<fnref n="366" /> At Tharrounia and Sarakenos Cave (LN Ia) obsidian reached 95%,<fnref n="367" /> and it constituted 63% of the assemblage in Lithic Phase III at Franchthi.<fnref n="368" /> Later Late Neolithic eastern Thessalian

<footnote n="362">³⁶² BPh IX should belong to this lithic phase, but it yielded no flaked stones.</footnote>

<footnote n="363">³⁶³ Compared with Lithic Phase 4, the difference in distribution of raw materials is significant at p = 0.56.</footnote>

<footnote n="364">³⁶⁴ Below, 260, 262.</footnote>

<footnote n="365">³⁶⁵ Visviki Magoula and Arapi are the only other published sites from Thessaly with Tsangli-Larissa occupations. Unfortunately, the Tsangli-Larissa deposits from Magoula Visviki, found at the bottom of Trench B, yielded no retouched artefacts (Bergner 2015a, 385) and the lithics from Arapi have not been published (Hauptmann – Milojčić 1969). Orgozinos, in western Thessaly, with only 3% obsidian (Karimali 2009) compares well with PMZ in this respect, but we do not know which phase of the Late Neolithic is represented. Potential elements of comparison will therefore have to be sought either further away (Ag. Petros in the Sporades, the Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia, Tharrounia in Euboea, Kitsos in Attica, Franchthi in the Argolid) or in later Thessalian Late Neolithic sites (Ag. Sophia, Dimini).</footnote>

<footnote n="366">³⁶⁶ Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, tab. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="367">³⁶⁷ Perlès 1994b, tab. 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="368">³⁶⁸ Perlès 2004, tab. 5.1.</footnote>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.14 Composition of the flaked stone assemblage from Lithic Phase 5 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>R/CC</th><th>Chert</th><th>Obsidian</th><th>Honey chert</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Undetermined</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Debris</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cores</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Flakes</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Blades</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bladelets</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retouched flakes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Retouched blades</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retouched bladelets</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>45</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

assemblages yielded up to 85% obsidian. PMZ always had limited access to obsidian trade networks, but the situation seems to have worsened in the Tsangli-Larissa phase.

Finally, three pieces are made on quartz. One was lost and could not be examined. The other two consist of a cortical flake and a debris and may have been produced during the use of a quartz pebble as a percussive tool (Tab. V.1.14).

## *The Production*

One cortical and two non-cortical flakes struck with a hard hammer suggest that an independent production of flakes was still taking place, but probably on a modest scale (Figs. V.1.13c–d, V.1.14c). Most of the flakes were produced by indirect percussion and probably correspond to the shaping of blade or bladelet cores (Fig. V.1.13e–g). PM0831, for instance, removed the side or the back of a core shaped with two crests (Fig. V.1.13g). Crest preparation is also attested by two bladelets that bear traces of antero-lateral crests (Figs. V.1.13i–j, V.1.15b–c). However, the volumetric conception of the cores, in particular the initial number of crests, remains undetermined: the only blade or bladelet core is residual, with a few flakes removed by indirect percussion at the end of the exploitation (Figs. V.1.13h, V.1.15a).

Most of the R/CC blades and bladelets were flaked by indirect percussion (e.g. Fig. V.1.13k–l), with a linear butt and suppression of the overhang. This was also the technique used on the translucent chert blade PM0382 (Figs. V.1.13m, V.1.15i). However, a remarkable feature of Lithic Phase 5 is the presence of several unretouched R/CC pressure-flaked blades and bladelets (Figs. V.1.13n–r and possibly j, V.1.15d–g). Assuming that the R/CC react as chert,<fnref n="369" /> the R/CC bladelets securely identified as pressure-flaked in the previous phase were small enough to be produced by ‘mode 2’, with a shoulder crutch, while the bladelets from Lithic Phase 5 would have required at least a ‘mode 3’ flaking, with a short crutch held while seated.<fnref n="370" /> In turn, PM0391, nearly 1.4cm wide would have required ‘mode 4’, with a long crutch held while standing (Figs. V.1.13o, V.1.15g). PM0342 was possibly also pressure flaked and would have required the same device (Figs. V.1.14a, V.1.16a). Of the three bladelets that preserved their proximal part, two present a facetted butt, the third a linear butt, without removal of the overhang on the dorsal face (Figs. V.1.13n, q–r, V.1.15d–f). The differences in flaking techniques and modes of preparation of the detachment of the bladelets suggest they were produced by knappers with different technical traditions or abilities.

<footnote n="369">³⁶⁹ Which seems to be the case, according to the experiment conducted by J. Pelegrin on a R/CC pebble collected in the Peneios by C. P.</footnote>

<footnote n="370">³⁷⁰ Pelegrin 2012, fig. 18.12.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Fig. V.1.13 Lithic Phase 5. a–g: unretouched flakes, h: bladelet core, i–j: secondary crested bladelets, k–s: u: unretouched blades and bladelets, t: core rejuvenation flake. a–l, n, r: R/CC. m, p–q: light coloured cherts. s: honey chert. t–u: obsidian. a: PM0384, b: PM0390, c: PM0449, d: PM0380, e: PM0448, f: PM0389, g: PM0381, h: PM0378, i: PM0440, j: PM0397, k: PM0351, l: PM0448, m: PM0382, n: PM0363, o: PM0391, p: PM0422, q: PM0385, r: PM0357, s: PM0384, t: PM0405, u: PM0334 (C. Perlès)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. V.1.15 Relevant dimensions for Lithic Phase 5 (C. Perlès)</caption><thead><tr><td>PMZ number</td><td>Determination</td><td>Dimensions [cm]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PM0378</td><td>R/CC residual core</td><td>2.71 × 2.82 × 2.04</td></tr><tr><td>PM0380</td><td>R/CC hard hammer flake</td><td>3.1 × 4.56 × 1.23</td></tr><tr><td>PM0449</td><td>R/CC hard hammer flake</td><td>3.23 × 3.8 × 1.03</td></tr><tr><td>PM0381</td><td>R/CC core shaping flake</td><td>3.23 × 2.35 × 0.51</td></tr><tr><td>PM0389</td><td>R/CC core shaping flake</td><td>3.8 × 1.8 × 0.42</td></tr><tr><td>PM0397</td><td>R/CC under-crest bladelet (frag.)</td><td>2.33 × 1.13 × 0.3</td></tr><tr><td>PM0440</td><td>R/CC under-crest bladelet (frag.)</td><td>2.1 × 1.04 × 0.48</td></tr><tr><td>PM0363</td><td>R/CC bladelet</td><td>2.9 × 1.14 × 0.33</td></tr><tr><td>PM0385</td><td>R/CC utilised bladelet</td><td>3.14 × 0.71 × 0.13</td></tr><tr><td>PM0350</td><td>Distal frag. of R/CC bladelet</td><td>1.69 × 0.99 × 0.25</td></tr><tr><td>PM0391</td><td>Mesial frag. of utilised R/CC blade</td><td>2.76 × 1.35 × 0.27</td></tr><tr><td>PM0392</td><td>Proximal frag. of R/CC blade</td><td>1.73 × 1.9 × 0.35</td></tr><tr><td>PM0339</td><td>Proximal frag. of obsidian blade</td><td>1.44 × 1.30 × 0.22</td></tr><tr><td>PM0405</td><td>Obsidian rejuvenation flake</td><td>1.9 × 0.9 × 0.31</td></tr><tr><td>PM0384</td><td>Proximal frag. of honey chert blade</td><td>1.7 × 1.8 × 0.39</td></tr><tr><td>PM0382</td><td>Translucent chert bladelet</td><td>4.83 × 1.19 × 0.24</td></tr><tr><td>PM0422</td><td>Translucent chert bladelet</td><td>4 × 0.91 × 0.27</td></tr><tr><td>PM0342</td><td>Sickle insert on blade (frag.)</td><td>2.2 × 1.45 × 0.55</td></tr><tr><td>PM0351</td><td>Sickle insert on bladelet (frag.)</td><td>1.32 × 1 × 0.26</td></tr><tr><td>PM0441</td><td>Sickle insert on flake</td><td>3.4 × 1.8 × 0.66</td></tr><tr><td>PM0399</td><td>Beak</td><td>2.20 × 1.04 × 0.33</td></tr><tr><td>PM0366</td><td>Beak/borer</td><td>3 × 1.16 × 0.45</td></tr><tr><td>PM0334</td><td>Beak/borer</td><td>2.41 × 0.65 × 0.38</td></tr><tr><td>PM0340</td><td>Borer</td><td>1.92 × 0.9 × 0.4</td></tr><tr><td>PM0338</td><td>End-scraper on frag. blade</td><td>1.7 × 1.7 × 0.39</td></tr><tr><td>PM0386</td><td>Bitruncated triangle</td><td>1.06 × 2.02 × 0.3</td></tr><tr><td>PM0358</td><td>Retouched R/CC blade (frag.)</td><td>1.9 × 1.61 × 0.54</td></tr><tr><td>PM0452</td><td>Retouched R/CC blade (frag.)</td><td>2.7 × 1.51 × 0.33</td></tr><tr><td>PM0421</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>2.4 × 2.23 × 1.02</td></tr><tr><td>PM0364</td><td>Retouched flake</td><td>1.5 × 1.6</td></tr><tr><td>PM0404</td><td>Splintered piece?</td><td>1.72 × 1.9 × 0.47</td></tr><tr><td>PM0337</td><td>Splintered piece</td><td>3.03 × 2.06 × 0.77</td></tr><tr><td>PM0341</td><td>Utilised laminar flake</td><td>2.79 × 1.02 × 0.56</td></tr><tr><td>PM0451</td><td>Utilised laminar flake</td><td>3 × 1.88 × 0.7</td></tr></tbody></table>
The two obsidian artefacts consist of one small rejuvenation flake (Fig. V.1.13t) and a single fragmentary obsidian blade (Fig. V.1.13u). The latter presents a linear butt with suppression of the overhang on the dorsal face, a typical Middle Neolithic method of preparation for the detachment;<fnref n="371" /> this is a further argument to suspect a redeposition from an earlier context.

Whichever the raw material, blades and bladelets still constitute two distinct objectives in the production: the width of the bladelets varies from 0.7 to 1.19cm, while the width of the blades ranges from 1.3 to 1.8cm, with a majority over 1.45cm (Tab. V.1.15). Like in the previous phases, however, the extent of local production versus imported blanks is difficult to assess. If the very small obsidian rejuvenation flake actually belongs to this phase, it would testify that obsidian, as in the preceding phases, was at least partially worked in situ. The presence of two R/CC under-crest bladelets, of a possible core pyramidion, and, even more significant, of a platform rejuvenation R/CC flake, suggests a local production of blades and bladelets. This, however, does not preclude the importation, in parallel, of already flaked blanks.

## Utilised and Retouched Tools

With only 16 specimens from a total of 58, the retouched toolkit is proportionally slightly smaller than in the preceding phase.<fnref n="372" /> This renders the presence of three retouched perforating tools, the first in the PMZ assemblages, all the more significant. In addition, at least four bladelets and flakes were utilised and, in one case at least, hafted without retouch. This may possibly be a new feature,<fnref n="373" /> related to the lighter module of the blades and bladelets, which could not undergo important retouching.

Among the retouched tools examined under microscope, one or two were misidentified: PM0399, identified as a beak/borer (with a broken point) was actually used bilaterally on the proximal half. However, since the point is broken, the former use cannot be entirely excluded. PM0351 was classified as a sickle insert transformed into a small end-scraper: once again, microscopic examination revealed it was not a transformation but part of the original shaping of the insert.

## Sickle Inserts (n=3)

Already rare in the previous phase, sickle inserts remain few in number and constitute a thoroughly heterogeneous group.

PM0342 is a sickle insert made on a pressure-flaked R/CC blade, broken after use on both extremities (Figs. V.1.14a, V.1.16a). It was inserted parallel to the haft without any modification of the hafted edge, and used on its right edge only. This edge was damaged – possibly by a pick during excavation – but was otherwise left unretouched, with a few use-scars creating a very small denticulation. Unretouched but slightly denticulated working edges may be characteristic of the Late Neolithic since several instances were recorded at Ag. Sophia.<fnref n="374" />

PM0351 is a very small and narrow insert on a R/CC bladelet (Figs. V.1.14b, V.1.16b). It was shaped before use by an 'end-scraper front', inserted into the haft by the right edge and used to cut cereals with the left edge. The edge was rejuvenated by short abrupt retouch and the piece re-used for the same task. A very short final retouch – from use? – removed the blunting of the edge.<fnref n="375" /> Several sickle inserts shaped for hafting with an 'end-scraper' front were present in the

<footnote n="371">³⁷¹ Perlès 2004; Kourtessi-Philippakis et al. 2008.</footnote>

<footnote n="372">³⁷² The difference is not statistically significant.</footnote>

<footnote n="373">³⁷³ Unretouched blades and bladelets have not been systematically examined for wear traces.</footnote>

<footnote n="374">³⁷⁴ Observation C. P.</footnote>

<footnote n="375">³⁷⁵ Observation N. Mazzucco.</footnote>