Neolithic exchange systems are currently approached either from the standpoint of production and distribution of a specific trade item, or by an overview of all goods known to circulate in a given archaeological context. I argue that neither approach is sufficient,and that one must ultimately analyse and compare systematically all parameters of the production, site consumption and regional distribution of each category of goods. In the context of the Greek Neolithic, this clearly reveals the co-existence of three distinct systems of production and distribution, which can be interpreted in different socioeconomic terms. The first system is mainly economic in purpose and concerns utilitarian goods, widely distributed geographically and socially. The second corresponds mainly to inter-group alliances and involves goods of high stylistic visibility and social function; it has a much more restricted geographic scope. The third is the well known trade in 'prestige goods', which is wide ranging but limited in terms of social access. The results shed new light on the socio-economic organization of Greek Neolithic societies, but also on their regional contrasts, since it can be shown that each main region participates deferentially in each production and exchange system.

Abstract:When, and by what route, did farming first reach Europe? A terrestrial model might envisage a gradual advance around the northern fringes of the Aegean, reaching Thrace and Macedonia before continuing southwards to Thessaly and the Peloponnese. New dates from Franchthi Cave in southern Greece, reported here, cast doubt on such a model, indicating that cereal cultivation, involvingnewlyintroducedcropspecies,began during the first half of the seventh millennium BC. This is earlier than in northern Greece and several centuries earlier than in Bulgaria, and suggests that farming spread to southeasternEuropebyanumberofdifferentroutes, including potentially a maritime, island-hopping connection across the Aegean Sea. The results also illustrate the continuing importance of key sites such as Franchthi to our understanding of the European Neolithic transition, and the additional insights that can emerge from the application of new dating projects to these sites.

No abstract

Despite the recent renewal of indigenous models for the Neolithisation of Greece, this paper will go back to more old-fashioned models, and argue in favour of colonisation processes by small, maritime, pioneer groups that later interacted with local populations. This argumentation rests first on an analysis of the presently available data on the Mesolithic, which shows that none of the prerequisites of a local process is met. Second, it rests on the consideration of often-neglected aspects, such as the theoretical and practical knowledge implied by the adoption of agriculture together with the adoption of new crafts and architectural techniques. Third, it rests in the need to explain the random, but strong parallels between the Near-Eastern and Greek Neolithic.