Human Mobility and Technological Transfer in the Prehistoric Mediterranean

Abstract

The diverse forms of regional connectivity in the ancient world have recently become an important focus for those interested in the deep history of globalisation. This volume represents a significant contribution to this new trend as it engages thematically with a wide range of connectivities in the later prehistory of the Mediterranean, from the later Neolithic of northern Greece to the Levantine Iron Age, and with diverse forms of materiality, from pottery and metal to stone and glass. With theoretical overviews from leading thinkers in prehistoric mobilities, and commentaries from top specialists in neighbouring domains, the volume integrates detailed case studies within a comparative framework. The result is a thorough treatment of many of the key issues of regional interaction and technological diversity facing archaeologists working across diverse places and periods. As this book presents key case studies for human and technological mobility across the eastern Mediterranean in later prehistory, it will be of interest primarily to Mediterranean archaeologists, though also to historians and anthropologists.

Blowin’ in the wind: The beginning of primary metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean

“…While this turn towards space is welcome, there remain fundamental questions regarding smelting technique in the Southern Aegean. Georgakopoulou (2017) has recently documented the variability in furnace remains across the Southern Aegean and notes the presence of perforated furnace fragments at five EBA smelting sites (Crete: Chrysokamino; Kythnos: Paliopyrgos-Aspra Spitia & Sideri; Seriphos: Avessalos & Kephala; & Siphnos: Kasela), approximately 40% of known sites associated with copper metallurgy (Figure 1). In comparing reports of furnace fragments from Paliopyrgos-Aspra Spitia and Sideri (Bassiakos & Philaniotou 2007) and Chrysokamino (Betancourt 2006), it is apparent that these conform to the conical, ceramic, frustum or cone type, yet differ in thickness, with the Cretan examples being much thinner (approximately 20 mm) than those from Kythnos (25-60 mm).…”

“…To date, two campaigns of experimentation have aimed at understanding the function of the perforated frustum furnaces of the Southern Aegean (Catapotis et al 2008;Pryce et al 2007). Both campaigns based their furnace reconstruction on the evidence from Chrysokamino, which was taken as a good proxy for processes (albeit variable) at other sites where perforated furnace remains had been identified (but see Georgakopoulou 2017;Pryce et al 2007).…”

“…Our understanding of EBA copper smelting in the Southern Aegean has improved dramatically over the last two decades, as new fieldwork discoveries have been reported alongside the results of detailed laboratory analyses and experimental reconstructions (Bassiakos & Philaniotou 2007;Betancourt 2006;Catapotis et al 2011;Day & Doonan 2007;Georgakopoulou 2004Georgakopoulou , 2007Georgakopoulou , 2013Georgakopoulou , 2017Papadatos 2008;Pryce et al 2007). Drawn together, this evidence suggests a technical model that centres on a perforated ceramic conical frustum (truncated cone) that acts as a reduction furnace (Figure 2).…”

“…Practice-being the human activity of a process, the habitual way of doing something-determined by peoples' knowledge, experience and place (Barrett 2000). Our focus in this paper is then to characterize the practice of some early instances of primary metallurgy in the Aegean Early Bronze Age (EBA) (Betancourt 2006;Bassiakos & Philaniotou 2007;Georgakopoulou 2017). We anticipate that such an approach is an integral part of understanding how communities shared or withheld metallurgical skills and knowledge and how groups discovered, invented and reinvented metallurgy as increasing numbers of communities expressed a commitment to this novel material.…”

“…This paper used a micro-regional archaeometallurgical approach to consider how copper production was instigated and adopted in the Aegean within the EBA (Betancourt 2006;Catapotis 2007;Georgakopoulou 2017;Hanks & Doonan 2009). As production processes of materials and artefacts are equally seen as opportunities for negotiating social identity, understanding the reasons behind the choices in materials and processes can help us understand why and how methods of technology were adopted (Day & Doonan 2007).…”