Neolithic households in Greece: the contribution of ethnoarchaeology Author(s): Nikos Efstratiou Reviewed work(s): Source: British School at Athens

Studies, Vol. 15, BUILDING COMMUNITIES: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (2007), pp. 29-35 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40960571 . Accessed: 22/01/2013 11:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British School at Athens Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in households Greece: Neolithic of thecontribution ethnoarchaeology

NikosEfstratiou
definition any'socialunit' of on imposed theempirical by the use of criteriasuch as 'co-residence','cotale as The aimofthis paperis toserve a cautionary as I that and try operation' 'kinship', suggest onemust to addressaspectsof to the wayarchaeologists might avoid all kinds of research preconceptionsand in definition Neolithic household Greece,usingas a views whichcould lead to normative misconceptions houseof evidence thehane the casestudy ethnographic the (Bender1967,493; Blanton1994).This includes of hold formation the Pomakvillageof Sarakiniin contentof the concept'social unit' as well as the relatedto uplandThrace,Greece. The difficulties are and 'household', in thissensebothof theseterms the spatial description of a 'household' are construction. next viewed as being here under point, My the the stressed, emphasising needtoavoid particularly further on whichI willhavethechanceto elaborate research socio-economic of on imposition archaeological is definition a product as of below, that conceptual any whichderivefrom a characteristics and ideological and a dialectical between archaeology anthroprocess westernclassificatory system;instead the use of will have as its pointnot an 'etic' of and 'ernie'perceptions representations household pology - what we starting 'household' or ideally call approach are formations suggestedas a positivesource for In 'domestic 'ernie' views. group'- butthedifferent reasoning. archaeological enriching it other to words, is notwhatlooks bethebasicunitof socio-economic of a process organisation a community, which easily theresult a misleading can be of evaluation THE PREHISTORIC HOUSEHOLD ofseeming ofspatial, sets economic ideological or social, rules practices, what people the or but the their of community The study howpastsocieties of social organised think as of and life, thewaythiscan be detected archaeologically itself orexperiencesuch.Thiskind distinction thesearch analytical for 'units' which the criteria manifest notonlycomesto dispute use of isolated through has alwaysbeen a challenging such as 'morphology' or 'activity' in a specific spatialrelationships, context household otherwise but to or Attempts identify preconceived processforthe archaeologist. contests context the itself an idealised as 'units' of past spatialorganisation patterns and of of patterning in an apparent ofactivities actions human behaviour archaeology comea longway have set and (Kent 19900). - from meredescription, In other a what terms spatial in and of features seems words, typological analyses distribution finds, the searchformeaningful toconstitute functional of to the ofa 'social unit' components associations thevarious of ofthematerial is notnecessarily considered suchbythemembers as components ofthecommunity. what culture theuseofethnographic, and ethnohistoric and functions a coherent as and So, Kramer pragmatic social 'bond' whichtranscends different (Binford 1; ethnoarchaeological analogies 1982, for the 1982^,663; Bailey1990;Tringham practices gobeyond, instance, confinement 1995,79). More may the relationships of the descriptiveand empiricallevel of spatial recently, archaeologists exploring between social and have of such shells and organisation spatial patterning patterning features as thehabitation movedto thestudy the socialcontext actions, theircontents. of of This in effect makesthe isolation of andmessages, ofwhich their general all find whichcould be used for relations, practices analytical concepts in is as environment'. defining 'socialunits'difficult. expression what known the'built In allthese and the in fieldwork intheory, avoid attempts despite different emphasis Ethnographerstheir can, on its constituents, 'household' is still the oratleasttry avoidthese to Forarchaeologists, placed pitfalls. considered a basic analytical tool for allowing the criteria which however, useofdeterministic spatial into socio-economic behaviour areoften with meaningful insights past charged arbitrary ideological significance for 'socialunits' it makes difficultovercome, to (foran up-to-datediscussionon the subject, see defining Souvatzi letalonetoavoid, application westernised the of values 2000,31). I think necessary thispoint comment it at to I believe it that is in thiscontext briefly (Tringham 1991, 93). on the use of the term'household' in this paper. that and ethnographic ethnoarchaeological observations, I do agree in theory withthe limitations despitetheirexplanatory could help to Although limitations, INTRODUCTION

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30

NIKOS EFSTRATIOU

Fig 4.1. The Pomakvillage ofSarakini.

a formulate more balanced and cautious approach to the issue of past socio-economicorganisation. So, what I will try to show in this short ethnoexerciseare thekindsof misconceptions archaeological to are archaeologists facedwithwhenattempting define past 'social units' by allocatingto themspecificsocioin economic or spatial characteristics the contextof a powerful western classificatory system. Inherent competitiveness,expansionism and moves towards takenas granted are, example, supremacy for ideological of theBalkan prehistoric household,features qualities in whichresult certain (Chapman spatialcharacteristics In similarcases the 'house' is extrapolated 1990, 49). in connotations terms to 'household' withantithetical of social and economic behaviour (Halstead 1999). However,it is not the probable varietyof the many of forms past 'social units'whichis interesting distinct herebut the likelihoodthatsets of practicesand rules with loose structuralcharacteristicsmay transcend differentdomains of social behaviour and 'built contexts', making searchforideal and well-defined any prehistoric 'social units' difficult(Hodder 1990). Indeed, 'household' has prevailed over the years as a term which could withstand the dynamics of this floatingsocial 'reality'. But how flexiblereally is this term in the archaeological literature after years of use and abuse? The issue is complex and I inevitably willonlyhavethespace to touchupon some specificaspects of it.

THE ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL

CASE

The chance was providedby the ethnoarchaeological out workwhichI havecarried in mountainous Rhodope, Greek Thrace, since the 1980s (Efstratiou2002) and excavationin the coastal Neolithic setthe systematic et of Makri, some 60 km away (Efstratiou al. tlement work oftheethnoarchaeological 1998,11). Manyaspects wereformuin thePomakvillageof Sarakini(FIG. 4. 1) lated by specific theoretical and methodological research my questionswhichderivedfrom archaeological experiencein Makri. Pomaksare a Slavic-speaking Muslim minoritygroup living along the Rhodope isolated communities in mountains, smallself-sufficient life(Tsibiridou from modernwayof the untilrecently 2000). These studies, which followedboth a 'direct historic'and a 'generalanalogical' line of application, and werefocusedon issuesofarrangement use ofspace, the study of storage exploitationstrategiesthrough studiesof abandonpracticesand wood consumption, exercises dealing with ment practices,experimental and structures of of matters construction post-framed their ethnoarchaeological processand, finally, decaying relatedto issues of local ceramicproducobservations and 2002). tion,distribution specialisation(Efstratiou The vaguenessand pluralismin the archaeological use of terms such as the 'domestic group' and to 'household'(Souvatzi2000) weretheincentive search theSarakini'social unit'which of forthecharacteristics

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOLITHIC HOUSEHOLDS IN GREECE

31

villagehane Fig. 4.2. A viewoftwotypical in oneoftheneighbourhoods ofSarakiniwith wooden storehouses their kostay corresponding and animalpens.

socialand the constitutes basic'bond'for material, any aimwasbothtodescribe My reproduction. ideological terms tracing 'socialunit'in material thespecific by to and of distribution itsconstituents to try thespatial as within community a the its understand function who with helpofa socialanthropologist was the whole in thevillage. Thus,byavoiding any already working unit' I the 'social to 'etic'approach,tried analyse specific the of thecommunity through use of thevernacular
term se,hane. per

social an and Hane describes affinal consanguineal and to of which refers elements arrangement use group and of space,economicproduction, humanreprouse duction wellas totheideological ofthemeaning as terms. ofcertain vernacular in is focused The hane, terms spatial of arrangement, the residential where unit onthe house (FIG.4.2), village of or live. themembers a nuclear extended family It is lackanygeneric to also interesting notethatPomaks It that term 'nuclear for family'. is characteristic when thevillagers were askedbythesocialanthropologist to

in relations thelevelofthematheir describe kinship but not referred to the family to thehane a-la, they in its which finds expression thekosta 2000). (Tsibiridou term used forboththehouse Kostais thevernacular of The kosta consists andtheroom. basically (a) a main or has multi-room housewhich three four stone rooms, and clothes usedfor working, cooking storing sleeping, functions a as and which andmattresses, thebasement stable forkeepinglarge animals (cattle,calves or a around which garden, a and donkeys), (b) a courtyard and features number woodenstorehouses smaller of areas etc.,are such as hen-coops, open-airworking The hane is not bounded by the space arranged. characteristics kostasince,undercertain of circumwork someofitsmembers temporarily or stances, may or liveina different ofthevillage nearby kosta villages. a Thus, partof thehaneis usually seasonalsite,the whichis situated1 or 2 km awayfrom the kouliba, houseand is used during summer the months village distant fieldsand (Aprilto October)forexploiting sizeable flocks animals. kouliba of The consists keeping

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32

NIKOS EFSTRATIOU

ofSarakini. Fig. 4.3. Theplan ofa seasonalsite(kouliba) in thevicinity

of (a) a poorly constructed, two-room structure, sleepingand working equipped withcompletecooking, and (b) an animal foldwithstorehousesand facilities, cultivatedfields(FIG. 4.3). Some of these koulibaare oftenused all the yearround as special-purposesites out forkeepingsmall numbersof animalsor carrying tasks and storing goods. This limited agricultural the movement somehanemembers, of involves everyday who after and working usuallythefather hisson or wife, thedayreturn thevillagein theevening. to there during It is interesting to notethatin seasonaland specialhere thereare no observableconstructional, purpose sites functional or other differences(i.e. abandonment 2002). Moreover,in the context practices)(Efstratiou exercisewhich was carried of the ethnoarchaeological and studyof theirmaterialremains out, the recording movableobjects) have shownthat structures, (internal to it is verydifficult detectthe numberof occupants, their gender or age, and the duration or season of occupation etc. Going back to the ethnographic evidencefrom Sarakini,not everyvillagehaneowns or and special-purposesites. The families uses seasonal

arrivingfirstin the area were able to cultivatefields the creation close to the village,so not necessitating of a kouliba - but this was not the case for the later arrivals.In the case of the formertheiroverall was greatly limited.If or how such variations mobility in hane space arrangements,which are ultimately historicallyconditioned, can be detected archaeois logically, not easy to say. of characteristics each haneinclude The production floors which and thethreshing thegardens, fields the (a) are situatedwithinthe limitsof the village or around the seasonal site; (b) the grazing rights which the membersof the hane exercisewithinthe limitsof the landofthema-a-la,theterm defined production strictly of and used fortheneighbourhood, (c) theexploitation for forest the sectionsof the surrounding well-defined or of provision firewood branchesand leavesforanimal and The haneis a self-regulating selffoodstuff (tsatal). economicunit,themembersof whichdo not sufficient produce surplus,and do not accumulatestoredgoods systematicallyeven in affluentyears; agricultural are productsnotneeded fortheyear'sconsumption left

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOLITHIC HOUSEHOLDS IN GREECE

33

(met Fig. 4.4. Collaboration zi) ofwomen hane from different in thevillage.

while foodshortages countered are torotin thefields, within relatives neighbours, or bysupplies provided by the network community of bonds. isnota coincidence It that attempt the any during ethnoarchaeological study toestimate much how food typically was and produced consumed thehanein thepastproved by frustrating (Efstratiou 2002). Crisispointor surplus production in cannot objectified terms numbers be of sincethey never to of pose a realthreat theexistence thehane. Relative community and bonds cometofulfil shortany term foodshortage absorb, needed, or if anysurplus And must production. in thissensearchaeologists be cautious when to household trying estimate production crisis thresholdsquantitatively accept interor household autonomyor competitionover food resources. hane activities notrestricted a are to Overall, 'domestic level' encompass but communal work strictly inthe or work neighbourhoodthevillage from repair in thevillagemosque,theconstruction irrigation of channels theprovision, rotation, mealsfor in or of the hotzato theconstruction stonehousesor smaller of storage placesandanimal pensin thema-a-la.

in Household activities Sarakini involve also ceramic which be considered a as cannot, however, production, classicexample craft of A specialisation. hand-made a two-part vesselnamedponitse, typeof pottery clay wellknown theBalkan in and peninsula usedfor baking bread cooking or was manufactured meat, until recently of the bythewomen eachhaneand circulated among families the villagealong kin or neighbour of lines was (Efstratiou 1992,311).The production casualand but collaboration women random, itdidrequire among from different for households, mainly carrying large of distant sources. The making of quantities clayfrom thevesseldid notinvolve presence a workshop the of ora firing-kilneachhane in thus (sun-dried ceramics), its detection a specialised as making archaeological household and of activity problematic theimplications this kind 'hidden' of household worth activity exploring. The humanreproduction the haneis achieved of inheritance rulesand practices, transmission through rules property, of residence behaviour and post-marital collaboration. Becauseofthepatrivirilocal post-marital of pattern residencewhichis the rule in Sarakini,

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34

NIKOS EFSTRATIOU
or symmetry/asymmetry to constructedoppositions such as domus/ agrios(Hodder 1990; Tringham 1995, is whatlookstobe an arbitrary 79). The result eventually use of genericwesternised termssuch as 'household', and 'domesticgroup' and 'family'based on binarisms The issue forarchaeology how thiskind is oppositions. of 'de-construction' process could lead to a methodocautiousapproachforthearchaeological study logically of past social systems.Although I am aware of the analogy applicationofethnoarchaeological problematic in archaeological explanation, I believe that ethnolikethese,could be used as a test graphicobservations of cautious approach which is necessary forthe kind Neolithic'social units'. foranyattempt reconstruct to of The Neolithicsettlement Makriin AegeanThrace could be used here as a test case although the archaeological study of its 'household' is far from complete.However,some general remarksstemming fromthe ethnographicevidence of Sarakini will be Dated to themiddleofthesixthmillennium attempted. BC, Makri has revealed a varied but persistent architectural plan of over300 m2of excavatedremains (Efstratiouet al 1998). This 'built environment'of Makri is dominated by a set of well-definedspatial 'communalarea' and features such as thevillagecentral a number of different posttypes of well-preserved framed,wattle-and-dauband mud-brickstructures which usually include 'activityareas' of a domestic character manufacture; cooking,craft (storage,refuse, FIG. 4.5). Terms like 'houses', 'buildings'and 'rooms' have already been used for describing this spatial certain of patterning arrangement thesite,highlighting and indirectly suggestingthe presence of 'household units' on the village level. However,how easy is it in hane thecase ofNeolithicMakrito detecta hypothetical withall itssocio-economic kindofhouseholdformation wherethe extentof the and ideologicalcharacteristics totalexcavatedarea is verylimitedand the houses and of roomsrepresent onlya fraction a kostaarrangement, letalone theabsenceoftheelusiveseasonaland specialand activities purposesites{kouliba)or pottery-making Or theiressentialrolein householdreproduction? how such as burial sound is it to relyon othersetsof criteria habitation floors, open spaces and grounds,segmental 'personal' possessions of all kinds for identifying 'household units', since they occur randomly in a varietyof contextsall over the site? As a result,the and objects of proximalspatial patterning structures 'social to seemsto correspond onlypartially identifiable units' in the settlement. This kind of intra-site which undoubtedlycomplicatesthe spatial variability of definition any'social unit',is notuncommonamong Greek Neolithic sites, as Souvatzi has shown in her in studyof householdformation places like systematic Dimini and Sesklo in Thessaly,and Nea Nikomedeia Greece (2000; and thisvolume). in northern The ethnographic example of the hane household in formation arrangement Sarakiniwarnsus againstany

women never acquire property rightsand aftertheir move to a different hane, eithera new marriagethey one or their husband's. The eldest son, single or married,staysin his parents'kostauntilthe youngest son gets married; then he moves to another place a starting new hane,being given part of the parental son landas thecustomdictates. The younger stayswith whichmay lead eitherto a rehis parents, something of arrangement the existinglivingspaces of the house additionof new rooms.Collaboration(metzi)in or the activities amongthemembersof different agricultural kin-related haneis a widespreadpracticeand itinvolves co-residenceof a numberof its members temporary womenand often morethanone) in places like (mostly the kostaor the kouliba.Young women, forinstance, to from different butbelonging a wide kin-related hane group travelto koulibato participatefortwo to three days in tobacco cultivationwork (FIG. 4.4). In other cases,olderwomenhelp in thesowingofpotatoeswhile men take part in mostly heavy work (collection of and Metzi is alwaysseen animal foodstuffs firewood). as a pay-back obligation by members of another kindsof favours, 'household' fordifferent personalor family.Quite often marriage arrangementstend to fulfilagriculturalneeds, leading to more permanent changes in the household synthesiswith the arrival of new membersin the hane; this is the case of the haneand settlein youngwomenwho leave theirfamily theirhusband's kosta. the So whatepitomises basic 'bond' foranymaterial, social and ideological reproductionof the Sarakini of 'social unit',is a number conceptssuch as hane,kosta each havingits own and koulibawhich worktogether, And what and discursive dynamics. spatial,ideological seems to be at stake here is the singularityof any spatiallyconfined area which exclusivelydefines or of or movements practices thehane housesthepresence, and This multi-locality membership members. fluidity statements ofthehaneallowsus - despitesome strong to thecontrary to go beyonda numberof stillrigid forms westernised derivedfrom spatialmisconceptions the vis--vis 'household', 'domesticunit', of taxonomy 'house' etc., and to test their apparent implications in the archaeological record (Flannery 1976). That is not to say that the 'house' is spatially irrelevant to the 'household' but, as in the case of the Pomak hane and kosta, it can only be used as an idealised withonlyindicative of form householdrepresentation or otherattributes, therefore, misrepresenting, spatial household features such as social, production or ritualactivities. hereis that WhatI am suggesting ethnoarchaeological such as these could lead us to a similar paradigms ideological principleof 'deconstruction':the deconstructionof formallines of archaeological thinking the in acknowledging procedural which, although theory character of the 'household', in practice resorts to ideologically charged empirical binarisms such as

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOLITHIC HOUSEHOLDS IN GREECE

35

'house' or 'room'or 'structure' Neolithic in Makri. post-framed Fig, 4,5. A typical

Neolithic households. Spatial easyclaimto identify in a widerange contexts, of as distributions appearing unscheduled random and human a result continuous, of movements the do throughout community space, relate to habitation setsof economic activities and patterns, socialspaces,buttheydo nothelpto isolatespecific 'social units'; in other words,the 'domestic' or of residential character a context onlyin principle associates with 'household'. it a Thingsareevenmore with manifestations socialisation of complicated andideological both which seem behaviour, of practices to obscure strict contextual evidence. The active role theneighbourhood thevillage and in community play tiesandalliances seems easetensions thelongrun to in thedifferent with in hane, among consequences their notthat suchtensions notexist, do spatial arrangement; butthey extremely are difficult detect thematerial to in record the'evileye').Overall, word the hane never (e.g. hasthemeaning a confined of socialspaceoreconomic unit itnever and creates divisions the among members of thecommunity. how plausible it to suggest is So,

that the widely distributed'regularities' in the contextual evidence Neolithic of Makri indicate exactly thiskindofoverlapping? CONCLUSIONS In conclusion,want stress following points, I to the two one generaland one specific.First,thatthe term 'household' still conveyscertaindescriptiveand inarchaeological interpretational misconceptions theory and practice a result many as of of a years use within western and 'etic' perceptions. classificatory system This is especially evident in the case where the household formation unconditionally is viewedas a coherent and dynamicunit whichitselfgenerates in effects the ideologicalcodes withfar-reaching as which is community a whole, something obviously notalways case.Andsecond, theacceptance the that of the notion multi-locality of ofhousehold members poses to to great problems anyarchaeological attempt define a 'household' unitspatially.

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:47:10 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions