Introduction

    [...] Settlements with an agriculture economy appear over the whole of Greece during the same period. The subsistence pattern involves animals and crops which are not endemic. There are several theories which try to explain this sudden appearance.
    The diffusionist hypothesis was first formulated by V. G. Childe during the 1920's and is still widely supported, although no longer communis opinio. It supposes that the entire Neolithic culture, including domestic animals and food plants and the knowledge of pottery manufacture, was introduced to Greece and the Balkans by immigrants from the Near East –e.g. Anatolia, Syria or Lebanon. The settlers are believed to have arrived in Greece with a fully developed farming economy during the late seventh or early sixth millennium B.C. Since the new settlements have produced some material –e.g. transverse arrowheads- which is not typical of the Near East, the possibility of an admixture with indigenous people has also been considered.
    Two important factors have inspired many to defend this theory:
    1. In Greece there is only a scanty record of human occupation from earlier periods.
    2. The wild progenitors of most Neolithic Greek crops seem to be present in the Near East, around the so called Fertile Crescent. Therefore domestication of these species should have taken place in that area. The same applies to sheep.

    Another theory is the Kulturtrift theory of Schachermeyr, which postulates a continuous movement from Asia Minor (Mesopotamia and Cilicia) throughout the entire Early and Middle Neolithic.
    More recently, the idea of indigenous development, postulating that the knowledge of animal and plant husbandry was transmitted through contacts with people from the Near East, has received some support (Theocharis 1973a, p.24).

    In the following chapter, we will investigate to what extent this theorical tangle can be unravelled, using such facts as are available. We will consider the following points:
    1. What do we know of Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery inhabitation in Greece, especially of Mesolithic occupation?
    2. To what extent may the domestication of plants and animals have taken place in Greece?
    3. Would migration from Asia have been the only way to introduce an agricultural economy?
    4. Is there any evidence of such a migration available?

Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery occupation

    The record of human occupation in Greece during the periods preceding the Neolithic is very scanty. This is largely due to the fact that research has been limited interest being largely focussed on the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, as far as prehistory is concerned. [But] it seems highly improbable that these geographically remote sites would have been the only Mesolithic sites in the whole of Greece.
    Pre-Pottery Neolithic is, at many places int he Near East, considered to be the incipient stage of the Neolithic period. In Greece the record is scanty, being restricted to five sites in Thessaly and to three sites elsewhere in the country. It has often been doubted whether the non-pottery bearing strata of the Thessalian magoulas really belonged to a Pre-Pottery phase, as the trenches were rather small. The fact that the Pre-Pottery pits at Argissa contained some small pottery fragments has rather enhanced these doubts. However, Knossos, Kythnos and Franchthi Cave have all yielded a stratum which is void of ceramic vessels and which stretches over a larger extent than at the Thessalian sites. Vessels in an alternative raw material have not been discovered at any of the sites, unlike in Cyprus and the Levant where stone vases were used. Wood and reeds may have been used to construct vessels and these are very perishable materials.
    Evidence that the use of clay was already known –e.g. clay figurines and ill-fired sling bullets- have been discovered at some of the sites. This does not necessarily mean that they had also acquired the knowledge of pottery manufacture.
    The earliest date of the Pre-Pottery phase is 8130 ± 100 and the latest date 7755 ± 97 BP; most of these dates slightly precede those for early Neolithic I.
    It cannot be excluded that a Pre-Pottery Neolithic existed in Greece, even if different from that of Near East and of shorter duration. Comparing the dates of the initial stage of the pottery bearing Neolithic in Greece to those of the Near East, we notice that they run almost in parallel (see table 28). In the context of the migration theory, this would mean that people moved from Asia Minor to Greece when the technique of pottery manufacture was not yet, or only barely, known in the areas of origin.

Domestication of plants and animals

    The theory that the domestication of crops and livestock took place in Asia Minor is generally taken for granted. As far as crops are concerned this is based on what is known of the possible distribution of the wild ancestor of these domesticated and on the fact that nowhere else has evidence of domestication been recovered. The distribution of the wild progenitors –based on the present day pattern- is as follows:
    -The wild ancestor of einkorn (Triticum boeoticum) has a relatively wide distribution: Western Asia and the Southern Balkans including Greece.
    -Wild emmer (Triticum dicoccoïdes) has a more restricted area: Palestine, Southern Syria, Southern Turkey and Northern Iraq.
    -The distribution centre of the wild ancestor of barley (Hordeum spontaneum) lies in the Fertile Crescent Belt –starting in Cyrenaïca (North Africa) and Palestine, stretching to Southern Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan and Southwestern Iran, it occurs further (North)West- in the Aegean region- and further East. Suppsedly it spread to the latter regions as a weed- a consequence of agricultural activity. The same might be true for the peripheral zones in the distribution area of wild einkorn.
    Domestication of einkorn is assumed to have taken place in Southwestern Turkey; that of emmer in the Upper Jordan watershed. Barley domestication could have started at less humid sites in the Fertile Crescent Belt.
    Recent excavation has added some new data. Hordeum spontaneum has been discovered in a late Pleistocene contexte at Franchthi Cave, apparently contradicting the above mentioned theory that it spread only to the peripheral location of the Aegean as a weed. (Dennell thinks it unlikely that the distribution of wild emmer and barley has remained unchanged since the late Pleistocene. Although there is no proof, we may not entirely exclude the possibility that the domestication of some crops was an independent, indigenous achievement. To reach a more conclusive understanding of this matter we need considerably more data from Early Neolithic settlements, in which the use of adequate sampling methods, as well as locational and environmental studies, are an absolute necessity.
    The theory that the domestication of caprovines took place in Asia Minor is based on the fact that no site outside this area shows evidence of local domestication. The earliest appearence of domestic goat has been noticed at Asiab, Kermanshah, Iran, dated between 10000 and 9650 BP.
    Although the wild ancestor of goat was present in Greece during the Palaeolithic -as attested by the bone sample from Franchthi Cave, which is dominated by wild Equus and wild Capra during that phase- it had disappeared before the Mesolithic period. Payne assumes that this happened when open dry conditions gave way to more wooded ones, a change taking place around 10.000-10500 BP. This would be in agreement with the results from pollen analysis elsewhere in Greece. No remains at all of the wild ancestor of sheep have been discovered in Greece.
    The case is different with both pig and dog. Their wild progenitors are present on the Greek mainland during the Mesolithic period. Dog certainly and pig probably were domesticated in Southwest Asia before they first appeared in Southeast Europe, but the domestication of these animals in Greece independently of the developements in the Near East cannot be excluded. There is however no positive evidence.
    The data available indicate that the domestication of cattle has taken place at Argissa as early as 8300 BP -during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. The non-pottery bearing levels at Sesklo contained bone fragments of domesticated cattle too. The earliest occurrence reported in the Near East is at Çatal Hüyük, in stratum VI, dating around 7750 BP, though it may have been present in stratum XII too - somewhere around 8100 BP. This indicates that the domestication of cattle was indigenous on the Greek mainland.

Possible contacts between Southwest Asia and Southeast Europe

    Next we will see in what manner domestic caprovines and crops could have been introduced into the subsistence pattern of the inhabitants of Greece.
    In case of colonisation, the migrants would have taken with them the knowledge of plant and animal husbandry and, possibly, the technique of manufacturing pottery vessels. If there were no migrants, this knowledge must still have come to Greece in some way, together with seeds to sow and (young) animals.
    The colonisation theory postulates that fairly large groups migrated from somewhere in the Near east due to an overpopulation in the donor region. Mellaart gives evidence for Anatolia rather than Syria or the Lebanon. It is possible that we are not dealing with the emigration of a large group directly from Anatolia to Greece, but rather with the gradual migration westwards of small groups in a series of short steps until they eventually reached Greece. In this way they would lose all contact with the mother site.
    There are two routes leading from Asia Minor to the Greek mainland -the first goes by land, the second by sea. The first one involves either going all the way round the Black Sea or crossing the Dardanelles, before reaching Thrace. From Thrace it leads into Macedonia and from there on to Thessaly, Boeotia etc. The dense wood cover of Thrace will, however, not have been an encouragement. So far we have no evidence for the use of this route. The earliest settlements in Thrace date to 6450 BP, already well into the Middle Neolithic.
    The second route would probably involve 'island-hopping' - going by boat from island to island until a site, suitable for founding settlement was discovered. The few island sites recovered to date may be remains of such migratory movement (e.g. Knossos, Kythnos).
    We know that already in the Mesolithic the occupants of Franchthi Cave were seafaring people, not afraid to cover large distances over water. Obsidian appeared here for the first time during the Lower Mesolithic. Analysis showed that it originates from the island of Melos. Almost half of the bone sample recovered from the Upper Mesolithic stratum consisted of large fish vertebrae. Some of these have been identified as being bones of tuna fish - a deep sea and migratory species.
    With this in mind, we think John Bintliffs theory that the "transmerance" of fisherman was very significant in the spread of Neolithic culture and domestic crops and livestock across the Aegean is very attractive. It is very likely that seafaring brought people from the Eastern Aegean coast in contact with those from the Western Aegean shores. That new developments, knowledge of techniques and goods were exchanged in both directions seems plausible. Though we do not have any proof, we can certainly not exclude the possibility that the knowledge of plants and animals husbandry was spread in this way. Therefore the change from Mesolithic to Neolithic society in Greece was not necessarily introduced by migrants from the Near East - another kind of diffusionism, in the form of transmerance by seafaring people may have played an important role in this process.
    The problem which still has to be solved is why this change became necessary. We think that David L. Clarke's model described and discussed in Mesolithic Europe pp. 26-34 provides us with a, for the moment, satisfactory answer. He stresses cultural adaptations to the changing environment -an expanding evergreen ecology and disminishing herds of large herbivores.

Western Anatolia and the western coast of Turkey

    Whether the knowledge of plant and animal husbandry was brought into Greece by migrants or whether it was transferred by contacts with seafaring people, one assumes that Western Anatolia and the Western coast of Turkey would be involved.
    If for some reason people from the Central Anatolian plateau decided to move Westward they would probably follow the river valleys of Gediz, Büyük Menderes and their tributaries. One would expect that seafaring people had contacts with the inhabitants of the neighbouring coasts -i.e. of the Western shore of Turkey.
    Unfortunately little is yet known of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of this regions. David French has conducted a survey, covering the lower stretches of the above mentioned rivers, in which he discovered eight mounds. All except two were built up on an alluvial plain.
    French assumes that most sherds are contemporary with Hacilar IX-VI, belonging to the Late Neolithic of Anatolia, dating around the second half of the sixth millennium B.C. No traces of earlier occupation of the river valleys have yet been discovered, although one would have expected them, since the valleys seem suited to the needs of early agricultural settlement. Of inhabitation of the coastal area we do not have any proof either.

The artefactual data

    Assuming that Greece had been colonised by migrants from the Near East, one would expect some stylistic similarities in architecture, ground and chipped stone tools, bone implements and other objects from the newly founded settlements with those from the donor regions. If -as often stipulated- they brought the knowledge of pottery manufacture, there should also be some similarity in this aspect of material culture.
    Of Pre-Pottery architecture in Greece we know nothing but for the pits and assotiated postholes. The exception is Knossos, where the dwellings were constructed in mudbrick on a stone foundation. Early Neolithic architecture shows constructions erected in wattle and daub on a stone foundation wall or in a wooden framework, according to the material available. During the Middle Neolithic houses were built of mudbrick on stone foundation walls.
    The architecture in the supposed donor region -Anatolia- was already fully developed between 7500 and 6800 BC, involving techniques like mudbrick making, bonding and even the use of terrazzo floors. At Aceramic Hacilar clay platforms have been discovered in which saddle querns and mortars were embedded, constructions as yet unheard of at contemporaneous Greek sites.
    The chipped stone industry of Early Neolithic Greece is a flake/blade industry, in which deliberately retouched blades are almost absent. The Aceramic and ceramic settlements in Anatolia have a far more complicated array of implements, including spearheads, scrapers, notched blades and other deliberately retouched blades and flakes. At Çatal Hüyük chipped stone tools even include facetted spearheads and flint daggers.
    Most of the bone and the ground stone implements are represented on the Anatolian sites too, but the latter have a more extensive repertoire.
    Earstuds are represented in both areas, but the shapes are slightly different. Greek Early Neolithic figurines bear no resemblance to the Anatolian ones.
    Research into stylistic similarities has been restricted to Anatolia. Looking at more remotes areas -Cilicia, Syria, the Levant and the Zagros- the differences are even larger.
    Even accepting the fact that small groups of migrants -having lost all contact with the mother site- may have moved into Greece, we find it difficult to believe that they would not have retained a single aspect of their original material culture, especially where the manufacture of chipped stone tools is concerned.
    It has often been stated that the technique of pottery manufacturing was introduced from the Near East, which in our opinion would presuppose a second wave of immigrants or continuous contacts. Searching for possible resemblances between the pottery of these two areas we have to conclude that it is not very likely that it was introduced by migrants. During the period when ceramic vessels were first manufactured in the Greek region, around 7700-7400 BP, pottery was still a rare phenomenon in Anatolia itself. It was in full use at five sites: Beldibi, Belbasi, Okuzin, Karain and Carkin- which are all situated on or near the Southsouthwestern coast of Turkey. It has been documented in quantity at two open air sites: Mersin and Erbaba. At the other sites -Tarsus, Çatal Hüyük, Baradiz, Kizilkaya and Suberde- it is rare. In some cases -Can Hasan, Cayönü Tepesi- it is totally absent.
    We have not been able to study the pottery of this region ourselves. For the description we have to rely on evidence given by the respective excavators [...].
    On the whole there are many similarities between this rare Anatolian pottery and Greek Early Neolithic pottery, but these similarities seem to exist between all early pottery from the Near Eastern regions. The repertoire of shapes is not very different, but the vessels seem to be deeper than their Thessalian counterparts. Shallow, slightly open bowls do not apparently occur. The ring base was almost unknown, wheras flat and plano-convex bases were very common indeed. Altogether the appearance of the vessels is different.
    The very rare pottery from levels XII and XI at Çatal Hüyük closely resembles in shape the very coarse ware of Early Neolithic I from Sesklo, but the paste is quite different, having a partly vegetable temper. [But] this pottery is contemporaneous with the better made ware and not a predecessor of the Thessalian material.
    A direct influence by migrants seems improbable, so we are left with the possibility that either an indigenous development took place or that there was some exchange of ideas. Fishermen may have seen pottery vessels in the coastal areas, in which case we might say that 'introduction on hearsay evidence' has taken place.
    On the whole we would say that the artefactual data argue in favour of a largely independent development of the Greek Neolithic settlements.

Final Remarks

Summarising our re-evaluation we may conclude the following:
    1. We may have to alter the general idea of a sparse inhabitation of the Greek mainland by Epi-Palaeolithic hunter/gatherers. It is highly improbable that Franchthi Cave was the only area with Mesolithic inhabitation in Greece.
    2. Domestic crops and livestock were at least partly introduced from the Near East. Domestication of cattle is almost certainly an indigenous achievement.
    3. Migration from the Near East is not the only way in which the knowledge of plant and animal husbandry could have been transferred to Greece. Transmerance of fishermen may have played a hitherto largely underrated role in the spread of Neolithic culture.

    For the moment we have no proof that either a land or sea route was used by possible migrants from the Near East. There is no artefactual evidence which clearly relates Greek and Near Eastern settlements.
    The diffusionist hypothesis still retains its original value, in as far it involves contact between the two regions-possibly even including migration of small groups or individuals. Colonisation, in the present meaning of the word -i.e. the migratory of large groups- seems excluded.
    The Kulturtrift is very rigid, postulating only unilateral influence, in the form of migratory groups. It is however by no means impossible that there was bilateral influence. Such movements are not restricted to the Early and Middle Neolithic, but continue to exist thereafter.