the manipulation of death> a burial area at the neolithic

95

UDK 903.5.23(495)"634">2-5Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII (2010)

The manipulation of death> a burial area at the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi, NW Greece

Georgia Stratouli 1, Sevi Triantaphyllou 2, Tasos Bekiaris 3 and Nikos Katsikaridis3

1 Hellenic Ministry of Culture & Tourism – IZ’ Ephorate for Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Edessa, [email protected]

2 Research Associate, Sheffield Center for Aegean Archaeology, [email protected] 3 Neolithic Avgi Project, Kastoria, Greece, [email protected], [email protected]

Introduction

The disposal of the deceased in Northern Greeceduring the Neolithic period was closely related tothe community of the living. In particular, burials inmany Neolithic sites occur in shallow pits which arelocated in open spaces among houses or underneaththeir floors, while grave goods are few and simple(Hourmouziadis 1973; Demoule and Perlès 1993).Moreover, much of the evidence is consistent with aremarkable diversity in mortuary practices. Indivi-dual and group burials often disposed in a primaryor secondary way were located either within the set-

tlements or in separate cemeteries. In particular, arti-culated inhumations, disarticulated scattered bonesand a few cremations (Triantaphyllou 2008) havebeen found at Early Neolithic sites such as Nea Niko-medeia (Rodden 1962; 1964; 1965; Angel 1973) inMacedonia, Prodromos (Hourmouziadis 1971) andSoufli Magoula in Thessaly (Gallis 1975; 1982), aswell as at many Late Neolithic sites, such as Makri(Agelarakis and Efstratiou 1996) in Aegean Thrace,Makriyalos (Pappa and Bessios 1999; Triantaphyl-lou 1999), Paliambela (Kotsakis and Halstead 2004),

ABSTRACT – In the Neolithic of Northern Greece the disposal of the deceased is strongly related tothe community of the living, and in most cases to the built environment. Burials often occur in closeproximity to, or underneath ‘domestic’ structures. The constant association of dead ancestors withthe living social environment may indicate a particular desire by Neolithic people to negotiate theirpast by incorporating it into their own present. This paper addresses such issues, based on new evi-dence from the Neolithic settlement of Avgi, NW Greece. A group of cremations were recently locatedinside ten small pots buried in an open space in the Neolithic village. The burials consisted of tinyamounts of heavily burnt human bones and, in two cases, were accompanied by carbonized seeds.This paper will discuss the occurrence of the burial pots and the associated cremations as tokens ofmemory and of special links to the past represented by the dead ancestors.

IZVLE∞EK – V zgodnjem neolitiku severne Gr≠ije so umrli ∏e vedno mo≠no povezani s skupnostjo ∫i-vih, v mnogih primerih z gradnjo naselji. Grobovi so pogosto blizu hi∏ ali pod njimi. Stalna poveza-va mrtvih prednikov in ∫ivega socialnega okolja lahko nakazuje ∫eljo neolitskih ljudi povezovatipreteklost in sedanjost. V ≠lanku predstavljamo nove dokaze z neolitskega najdi∏≠a Avgi v severoza-hodni Gr≠iji. Upepeljeni ostanki so bili najdeni v desetih majhnih posodah, pokopanih v neolitskivasi. Drobni ostanki ≠love∏kih kosti so mo≠no o∫gani; v dveh so na∏li karbonizirana semena. Ana-liziramo pojav grobnih posod in upepelitev, simbolov spomina in posebnih vezi s preteklostjo, ki jopredstavljajo mrtvi predniki.

KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Northern Greece; cremations; burial pots; mortuary practices

DOI> 10.4312\dp.37.9

Georgia Stratouli, Sevi Triantaphyllou, Tasos Bekiaris and Nikos Katsikaridis

96

Mandalo (Pilali-Papasteriou and Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou 1989), Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas(Hondrogianni-Metoki 2001) and Dispilio in Cen-tral and Western Macedonia (Petroutsa 2009), andPlatia Magoula Zarkou (Gallis 1982), Ayia Sofia Ma-goula (Miloj≠i≤ 1976), Dimini (Hourmouziadis 1978)and Pefkakia Magoula (Weisshaar 1989) in Thessaly.

For instance, at Early Neolithic Prodromos, in west-ern Thessaly, successive layers of disarticulated skullsand long bones were found under a house floor(Hourmouziadis 1971; Perlès 2001), while at LateNeolithic Dimini, in south-eastern Thessaly, a seriesof cremations were found both underneath housefloors, and inside clay pots placed next to hearthswithin the houses (Hourmouziadis 1978). On theother hand, at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, in centralMacedonia, one of the two concentric ditches wasused for primary and secondary burials (Trianta-phyllou 1999). Cemeteries at some distance fromthe settlement also occur, such as the Early Neolithiccemetery at Soufli Magoula (Gallis 1975; 1982) andthe Late Neolithic cemetery at Platia Magoula Zarkou(Gallis 1982) in eastern Thessaly, where cremationburials were placed inside pots and deposited thenin shallow pits. Despite the great variety of burialcustoms, a common feature in the mortuary treat-ment of the deceased during the Neolithic period inNorthern Greece is the domestic character of the bu-rials, which is expressed through the incorporationof some of the deceased into the built environmentof the living community.

Nevertheless, altogether these burials comprise a ra-ther small number compared to the number of peo-ple considered to have lived in Neolithic villages.The scarcity of Neolithic burials can-not be attributed only to deficienciesin archaeological research (Trianta-phyllou 1999.128). It is possible thata number of Neolithic burials havegone unrecognized, while other waysof manipulating the deceased, whichleft scarce, if any, traces in the archa-eological record, should also be con-sidered.

Recent excavations at the Neolithicsettlement of Avgi, in Kastoria (Stra-touli in press) (Fig. 1) shed light onaspects of mortuary treatment in theNeolithic of Northern Greece. A

group of cremations was found inside ten small pots,buried at an open area of the Neolithic village (Fig.7). Archaeological work at the site of Avgi providesenough evidence to support an interesting discus-sion with regard to Neolithic funerary behavior, andthe association of the burial area with the built en-vironment of the living community.

The site

The Neolithic site of Avgi1 (Stratouli 2004; 2005; inpress) is located in hilly terrain, rich in clay depo-sits, in the Kastoria region, NW Greece (Figs. 1 and2). The site forms an ‘extended’ settlement (Fig. 3),a well-known type in the Balkan Neolithic and nowwidely recognized in the Neolithic of Northern Gre-ece. The known size of the site is about 5ha of whichsome 2000m2 were investigated during excavations(Fig. 4) carried out from 2002 to 2008 by the 17th

Fig. 1. Map indicating the location of the site.

Fig. 2. The site at Neolithic Avgi.

1 For further information, visit the web site http://www.neolithicavgi.gr/

The manipulation of death> A burial area at the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi, NW Greece

97

Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities ofthe Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism underthe direction of Georgia Stratouli and the collabora-tion of an interdisciplinary team of researchers. Ba-sed on radiocarbon dating, the Neolithic settlementdates to the Middle Neolithic (c. 5700–5300) andthe Late Neolithic I and II (c. 5300–4500, most pro-bably later on, too), with the earliest use of the sitedating to c. 5650 calBC. Two distinct phases of occu-pation are evident: AVGI I, dating mostly to the sec-ond half of the 6th millennium (Middle Neolithic andLate Neolithic I), and AVGI II, dating to the 5th mil-lennium (Late Neolithic II).

The earliest phase of occupation (AVGI I) is repre-sented by the structural remains of at least six free-standing rectangular buildings, which were burntand collapsed in situ, leaving intact remnants of clayand wood construction materials, mud bricks, wallplasters and post holes (Fig. 5). The building compo-nents comprise large open areas, facilities for thestorage of agricultural and other products, thermalstructures, including hearths and ovens for heatingand cooking, and numerous implements used in avariety of daily tasks, such as food preparation, con-sumption and tool-making.

The settlement layout and construction techniquesappear to have changed radically at AVGI II. The re-mains of at least five rectangular buildings, rangingin size between 70 to 85m2, and one of ellipticalshape belong to that phase. Some of the buildingsare separated by narrow trenches. The clay walls ofthe buildings located at the western and, to date, thebetter excavated part of the settlement, were firmlyplaced inside foundation trenches, a building tech-

nique well documented at many Neolithic settle-ments across the Balkans (Fig. 6). Several storage,refuse and borrow pits also belong to the same phase.

The burial area

The burial area at the Neolithic settlement at Avgi islocated at the center of the site, covering a rathersmall area of about 3.0m2 (Fig. 7). Based on stratigra-

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of peripheral ditches.

Fig. 4. Western part of the excavations.


98

phic observations – while radiocar-bon dating is still pending – the bu-rial area dates to the fifth millenni-um, probably an early phase of AVGIII. We should note here that little isknown about this phase regardingthe settlement layout and buildingconstruction. However, much of theevidence indicates a variety of every-day activities occurring at the site atthis period – for instance, the pres-ence of thermal structures, such ashearths and ovens, as well as a largeamount of tools and other artifacts.

Ten small pots containing tinyamounts of burnt human remainswere excavated at this area (Fig. 8–14). The burial ritual involved cremation of the dead,which probably occurred at another place, awayfrom the domestic environment. In two cases, burntseeds were also placed in the burial pots (Fig. 14).At a later stage, the pots were disposed in this speci-fic area, and each was covered with two or three la-yers of large pottery fragments (Fig. 9–11); the lar-ger of these sherds were smashed intentionally atsome stage during the burial ritual. The small burialpots were most probably buried in pairs (Fig. 10),while stratigraphic evidence would reflect more thanone episode of depositions to have taken place, in-dicating that this particular ritual continued for a ra-ther long period.

The upper layers of the burial area were significant-ly disturbed by the later Neolithic occupation and

modern ploughing, so both its original form andcontents may have been affected. It is a matter offurther research to explore whether the small potswere buried within a pit or placed in an open or anencircled area of the settlement, or whether the areawas covered and marked by a tumulus or any otherconstruction. The good preservation of both the potsand their covering sherds indicates that they werenot exposed for a long period after their disposal,but again there are no indications in the excavatedpart to suggest the opening of a large burial pit inorder to include the small group of urns. These is-sues are unresolved to some extent by the fact thatthe excavation in that particular area of the settle-ment is still in progress, and therefore the limits ofthe burial area remain under investigation.

The burial pots

The ten small burial pots are characteri-zed by a remarkable variability, particu-larly with regard to their height, whichranges from 3.0cm (i.e. a miniature hole-mouth jar, Fig. 12) to 13.0cm (i.e. a smallnecked jar).

Furthermore, differences in both theshape and surface treatment of the potscan be observed. They seem to imitateclosed vessels, such as hole-mouth andnecked jars, which are well known formsamong the pottery inventory of the site.Also, the color of the exterior surfacesof the vessels range from light brown(four pots) and reddish brown (fourpots) to red (one pot), while in one case

Fig. 5. Architectural remains dated to the second half of the 6th mil-lennium (AVGI I).

Fig. 6. Foundation ditches, post holes and pits dated to the 5th

millennium (AVGI II).


99

a small ‘black-topped’ spherical necked jar, possiblymissing a handle, is present. The surface treatmentof the burial pots also varies: four pots show smo-othed exterior surfaces, while six are burnished.Moreover, two distinct techniques can be detected inthe manufacturing process of the burial pots: mostwere manufactured with the ‘coiling’ technique, inwhich coils of clay are used to build up the pot (She-pard 1968.75). The remainder and the smaller potswere crafted using the ‘pinching’ technique, in whicha single lump of clay is transformedinto a pot by pressure of the potter’shands (Rice 1987.125).

Also, some pots show wear markson the exterior surface of their base.This feature would suggest that theseparticular pots prior to their deposi-tion in the burial ground were usedin some other activity in the contextof Neolithic daily life, and thereforethe ‘circle of their life’ ended alongwith the life of an individual. Insharp contrast, there are pots thatexhibit more ‘hasty’ manufacture cha-racteristics (Fig. 13), in terms of sha-ping, forming and even firing, indi-cating that they were made for useonly as funerary urns.

To sum up, no single burial pot is identical to anyother. On the contrary, all urns from the small bur-ial assemblage of Neolithic Avgi were placed at thesame central area of the settlement and were cove-red with large sherds from large vessels, creatingpossibly a small tumulus (Fig. 10), although it is im-possible to know whether or not this feature was vi-sible to the living community after the burial ritualstook place. It is also probable that these larger ves-sels were deliberately destroyed during the funer-

Fig. 7. Location of the burial area within the settlement.

Fig. 8. Burial pot with associated skeletal remains.


100

ary rituals, once their ‘cultural biography’, carryinga number of meanings through their use in differentsocial and cultural contexts, was completed.

The overall similarity of the funerary rituals at Neo-lithic Avgi contributes towards an emphasis to com-munal versus individual identity, although the uniquemanufacture characteristics of each burial pot markat the same time the particular identity of the decea-sed. It is worth mentioning that the shapes of theburial pots were inspired by vessels usually associa-ted by archaeologists with storage and/or collectiveconsumption of food.

The skeletal remains

The study of cremated bone material involves, asidefrom the thorough recording of biological parameters(e.g. age, sex, pathological conditions), the carefulexamination of variables related to the process of cre-mation, such as the color, fragmenta-tion and several modifications, likefracturing and warpage, which can beobserved on the bone due to its ex-posure to burning conditions. More-over, fragmentation and the repre-sentation of skeletal elements can berelated to a series of acts taking placethrough human interference, suchas the deliberate mixing of bonesduring the process of firing in orderto provide more oxygen and, there-fore, adequate cremation of the cada-ver, and the mode of collecting thecremated remains – either completeor selective after the extinction of thepyre (McKinley 1994; 2000; Ubela-ker and Rife 2007; Schmidt andSymes 2008).

At Neolithic Avgi, the small quantity of bone foundin pot burials limits the analysis with regard to in-formation which can be provided from crematedbones. The majority of the cremated fragments reco-vered from the site exhibit patterns of calcination,coloring, fragmentation, fissures, transverse and lon-gitudinal fracturing and warping to be consistentwith burning as fresh bone with the flesh still atta-ched, as opposed to burning dry bone, without flesh.With regard to burning temperature and duration,the evidence from calcined bones shows that pyretemperatures reached at least 700°C at the level ofthe body, while exposure to high temperatures wasprobably a lengthy procedure. High fragmentationmay have been caused due to the continuous addi-tion of fuel during the burning process and the con-sequent mixing of pyre debris with long sticks. Themorphology, size and structure of the bone indicatethat six out of ten burials belong to adults, and onlyone to an infant, but there were no features preser-

Fig. 9. The stages of excavating and ‘revealing’ a burial pot.

Fig. 10. A pair of burial pots: in one case, the pot is still coveredwith sherd fragments.


101

ved allowing sex determination and an accurate esti-mate of age at death. All the bones were in tiny frag-ments (Fig. 13), and only in two out of ten crema-tion burials were some bone fragments identifiable.In general, there is no preferential selection betweencranial and post-cranial skeletal elements.

The weight, however, of the cremated material isworth discussing here. It is generally accepted in therelated bibliography that the weight of bone recove-red from an adult cremation varies between about1000 to 3600grms (McKinley 2000.404). At Neoli-thic Avgi, the tiny quantity of the cremated bone ma-terial, less than 10grms in each case in the majorityof burials, may be consistent with secondary treat-ment of the deceased. It is worth noting the presenceof three out of the six adult burials which show lar-ger quantities of bone material, ranging from 90 to165grms, which again, however, are not consistentwith what would be expected in a careful and thor-ough collection of all cremated bone remains. It istherefore possible that after the pyre was comple-ted, the cremated remnants of the deceased werecollected in a very selective way.

Discussion

The cremations at Neolithic Avgi are not unique inNeolithic Northern Greece. Similar burial evidencewas recently discovered at the nearby lake settle-ment of Dispilio, approx. 10km north-east of Avgi(Petroutsa 2009), and Toumba Kremastis-Koiladasin Kozani, approx. 65km to the south-east of Avgi(Hondrogianni-Metoki 2001). At Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas, however, the burial ground was not asso-ciated with a particular settlement, but was part of aseparate cemetery (Hondrogianni-Metoki 2001), si-

milar to cemeteries such as EarlyNeolithic Soufli Magoula and LateNeolithic Platia Magoula Zarkou inThessaly (Gallis 1975; 1982). AtAvgi, the grouping of cremations atan area inside the domestic environ-ment together with the complexityof the funerary ritual, as has beensuggested by the burial pots and thecovering sherds and the results ofthe osteological analysis, raise anumber of issues which require fur-ther interpretation.

Firstly, only a small group of peoplewas chosen to be buried in this par-ticular part of the settlement. There

is no doubt that these individuals were buried inthis specific area of the settlement in an exceptionalway, while most members of the community wereprobably treated differently. What were the criteriawhich determined this selection? Were the individu-als buried in that area selected randomly, or werethey related by some close ties, which were distinctto the Neolithic community, but totally inaccessibleto us? Ethnographic studies would suggest that suchties could be related to lineage, social identity andage, or even to a violent and abrupt cause of death(Parker Pearson 1999). Whether or not other mem-bers of the Neolithic community of Avgi received asimilar or different type of manipulation after theirdeath remains unknown, since there is no other re-lated evidence in the excavated area. The occurrenceof another burial area within the settlement or inclose proximity to it may be possible. In any case, itis remarkable that a group of people was disposedat a distinct area within the domestic environment,which was visible and accessible to the members ofthe living community only. Moreover, the complexfunerary ritual, which was probably a lengthy and

Fig. 11. Large sherd fragments covering a burial pot.

Fig. 12. A miniature hole-mouth jar with associ-ated skeletal remains.


102

public event, created an opportunity for the villagersto establish new relations in the living communitythrough their participation in the same ceremony.

Death was probably an event which affected andconcerned the Neolithic community as a whole, andthe funerary ceremonies could be interpreted as afield for the negotiation of the new social roles whichwere emerging for the living, kinsfolk or otherwise,of the deceased (Whittle 2003.126). Through themanipulation of death the community of the ance-stors affected the community of the living (for anethnographic example, see Kopytoff 1971) by repro-ducing and establishing new relations and socialidentities among the living, or by reaffirming and re-forming the given ones (Parker Pearson 1999).Thus, it was of the utmost importance that the me-mory of the ancestors would survive for future gene-rations; that ancestry and the past would take a ma-terial form in order to be preserved, not only as anabstract event, but as a tangible memory, a token ofthe memorable individuals. The case study of Neoli-thic Avgi would suggest that the burial pots and theassociated cremations could be interpreted as tokensof memory. Together with their use in funerarypractices, these tokens may have also participated inother acts of commemoration. For instance, theymay have been held and displayed during specialgatherings, such as feasts or other ceremonies of so-cial or symbolic character (see Edmonds 1999.59),long before their final disposal in the burial ground.The lack of grave goods or other finds related to theburial pots is also of interest. Only two pots hadsmall quantities of carbonized seeds inside them,probably emphasising the link between the memo-rable ancestors and fertility, or even farming activi-

ties, which had an important role in the daily roundof the Neolithic community. From another point ofview, the seeds can be viewed as representing theagricultural cycle (Bradley 2005). In contrast withmost things that have a finite life – including people,animals, houses, villages and objects – a seed is partof an unending cycle, since it produces more seedsif planted again. Putting together humans and seedsmay be interpreted as an attempt to transcend theeffects of life and death and embrace permanence(Williams 2003). Besides, the disposal of these to-kens of memory in the domestic environment of aliving community had a special meaning. Incorpo-ration of the ancestors into the living world wouldreflect a strong desire by the community not only tothe preceding generation, but also to the particularcentral area of the settlement. Although building re-mains from the early phase of AVGI II to which theburials are probably contemporary are scarce, thereis enough evidence of a variety of everyday tasksoccurring in the proximity to the burial area, indica-

ting that this was unquestionablypart of a domestic environment.

The close association of a group ofdeceased (ancestors) with the livingsocial environment may indicate thedesire of Neolithic people to nego-tiate their own past by weaving itinto their own present. Such prac-tices of materializing and managingthe past could be considered as actsof remembering and, according toarchaeological and anthropologicaltheory, constitute important compo-nents in the formation of social iden-tities and the construction of socialrelations (van Dyke and Alcock2003).

Fig. 13. Burial pot containing tiny amounts of ske-letal remains.

Fig. 14. Burial pot containing skeletal remains and carbonizedseeds.


103

REFERENCES

AGELARAKIS A., EFSTRATIOU N. 1996. Skeletal re-mains from the Neolithic site of Makri. In Proce-edings of the 2nd Symposium of the Hellenic Archa-eometrical Society (26–28 March 1993): 11–21.

ANGEL J. 1973. Early Neolithic people of Nea Nikome-deia. In I. Schwidetzky (ed.), Die Anfänge des Neoli-thikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Institut für Ur-und Frühgeschichte, Universität Köln, Köln: 103–112.

BRADLEY R. 2005. Ritual and domestic life in Pre-historic Europe. Routledge. London.

DEMOULE J. P., PERLÈS C. 1993. The Greek Neolithic:a new review. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 355–416.

van DYKE R., ALCOCK S. E. 2003. Archaeologies ofmemory: an introduction. In R. van Dyke and S. E.Alcock (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory. Blackwell,Massachusetts & Oxford: 1–13.

EDMONDS M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of theNeolithic. Routledge. London.

GALLIS K. 1975. Kafseis nekron apo tin archaioteranneolithikin epochin eis tin Thessalian. Athens Annalsof Archaeology 8 (2): 241–258.

1982. Kafseis Nekron apo ti Neolithiki Epochisti Thessalia. TAPA. Athens.

HONDROGIANNI-METOKI A. 2001. Egnatia Odos,Anaskafi stin proistoriki thesi ‘Toumba Kremastis-Koiladas’, Nomou Kozanis. Archeologiko Ergo stiMakedonia kai Thraki 13: 399–413.

HOURMOUZIADIS G. 1971. Dyo neai engatastaseistis archaioteras neolithikis periodou eis tin Thessa-lian (Two New Early Neolithic Sites in Western Thes-saly). Athens Annals of Archaeology 4: 164–175.

1973. Tafika ethima. In D. R. Theocharis (ed.),Neolithiki Ellas. National Bank of Greece, Athens:201–212.

1978. Eisagogi stis ideologies tis ellinikis proisto-rias. Politis 17: 30–51.

1979. To Neolithiko Dimini. Etaireia ThessalikonErevnon. Athens.

KOPYTOFF I. 1971. Ancestors as elders in Africa. Af-rica 41: 129–142.

KOTSAKIS K., HALSTEAD P. 2004. Anaskafi sta Neo-lithika Paliambela Kolindrou. Archeologiko Ergo stiMakedonia kai Thraki 16: 407–415.

McKINLEY J. 1994. Bone fragment size in British cre-mation burials and its implications for pyre techno-logy and ritual. Journal of Archaeological Science21: 339–342.

2000. The analysis of cremated bone. In M. Coxand S. Mays (eds.), Human Osteology in Archaeo-logy and Forensic Science. Greenwich MedicalMedia Ltd, London: 403–421.

MILOJ∞I≥ V. 1976. Die Grabungen auf der Agia Sofia-Magoula. In V. Miloj≠i≤, A. von den Driesch, K. Ender-le, J. Miloj≠i≤-von Zumbusch and K. Kilian (eds.), Ma-gulen um Larissa in Thessalien, 1966. Agia Sofia,Karagyos Magoula, Bunar Baschi. BAM 15. Habelt,Bonn: 4–14.

PAPPA M., BESSIOS M. 1999. The Neolithic Settle-ment at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: preliminaryreport on the 1993–1995 excavations. Journal ofField Archaeology 26: 177–195.

PARKER PEARSON M. 1999. The archaeology ofdeath and burial. Sutton Publishing. Phoenix Mill.

PERLÈS C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece.Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

PETROUTSA E. I. 2009. Human skeletal remains fromNeolithic Dispilio, Kastoria. Anaskamma 3: 37–43.

PILALI-PAPASTERIOU A., PAPAEFTHIMIOU-PAPANTHI-MOU A. 1989. Nees anaskafikes erevnes sto Mandalodytikis Makedonias, 1985–1986. Egnatia 1: 15–28.

RICE P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook.University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

RODDEN R. J. 1962. Excavations at the Early Neoli-thic site at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961season). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28:267–288.

1964. A European Link with Chatal Huyuk: The 7th

Millennium Settlement of Nea Nikomedeia in Ma-


104

cedonia. Part II – Burials and Shrine, The Illustra-ted London News, April 18: 604–607.

1965. An Early Neolithic village in Greece. Scien-tific American 212 (4): 83–91.

SCHMIDT C. W., SYMES S. A. (eds.) 2008. The Ana-lysis of Burned Human Remains. Academic Press,London.

SHEPARD A. O. 1968. Ceramics for the Archaeolo-gist. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Washington.

STRATOULI G. 2004. Neolithic Avgi, Kastoria, 2003–2004. A new research programme. ArcheologikoErgo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 18: 661–668.

2005. Amidst clay, bricks, and posts, magnetic sig-nals, and archaeological questions: Boundary andfoundation trenches in the Neolithic settlementat Avgi, Kastoria Prefecture. Archeologiko Ergo stiMakedonia kai Thraki 19: 595–606.

in press. Neolithikos oikismos Avgis Kastorias2006–2007: Choro-organotikes praktikes ektis kaipemptis chilietias. Archeologiko Ergo sti Makedo-nia kai Thraki 21.

TRIANTAPHYLLOU S. 1999. Prehistoric Makriyalos:a story from the fragments. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neo-

lithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Academic Press,Sheffield. 128–135.

2008. Living with the Dead: a Re-Consideration ofMortuary Practices in the Greek Neolithic. In V.Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the La-byrinth: The Cretan Neolithic In Context. Shef-field Studies in Aegean Archaeology. OxbowBooks, Oxford: 139–157.

UBELAKER D., RIFE J. L. 2007. The practice of crema-tion in the Roman era cemetery at Kenchreai, Gre-ece: the perspective from archaeology and forensicscience. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 1: 35–57.

WEISSHAAR H.-J. 1989. Die deutschen Ausgrabun-gen auf der Pefkakia-Magoula in Thessalien I: Dasspäte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. BAM28. Habelt. Bonn.

WHITTLE A. 2003. The Archaeology of People. Di-mensions of Neolithic Life. Routledge. London.

WILLIAMS M. 2003. Growing metaphors: the agricul-tural cycle as a metaphor in the later prehistoric pe-riod of Britain and North-Western Europe. Journal ofSocial Archaeology 3: 223–55.

the manipulation of death> a burial area at the neolithic

Documents