Dikili Tash (also known as Dikilitaş) is a prehistoric tell settlement rising 16m above the Drama plain, in Eastern Macedonia, and located about 1.5 km east of ancient Philippi.
The site name means “upright stone” in Turkish (it is also called by the Greek name Ορθόπετρα /Orthopetra which means the same). This refers to the grave stele of C. Vibius Quartus, a Roman officer from the Roman colony of Philippi who was buried in the cemetery which lies beside the Via Egnatia which passes the foot of the tell.
The tell is a major Neolithic and Bronze Age site (c 5000-1200 BC), known since the 19th century, and excavated by the French School at Athens and the Archaeological Society of Athens.
Among the notable discoveries are timber-framed buildings of the Late Neolithic period. One of these was decorated with a bull's skull plastered over with clay in the manner seen in the building model from the contemporary site of Promachonas on the Greek-Bulgarian frontier.
The site of Dikili Tash has been known to archaeologists since the years of the First World War.
Apart from the narratives of travelers and the first pilot research conducted by L. Renaudin in 1920-1922, three major excavation programs have been undertaken :
- excavations 1961 à 1975
- excavations 1986 à 1996
- current excavations launched in 2008.
GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING
The prehistoric site of Dikili Tash (41°00'37'' N, 24°18’30'' E) is located in the south-eastern part of the plain of Drama in Eastern Macedonia, Greece. It lies approximately 2 km from the ruins of the ancient city of Philippi and within the limits of the modern town of Krinides (Municipality of Kavala).
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Until recently, most of the plain was covered by a marsh hat was drained between 1931 and 1940. Its formation dates back to early Prehistory and can be explained by the topography of the plain, which is surrounded on all sides by medium and high mountain ranges (Pangaio, Menoikio, Falakro, Lekani, Symvolo, with altitudes going from 800 to 2000 m). At the foot of these mountains alluvial fans have formed that reach 200 m in height, but in the center of the basin the altitude is only 45 to 80 m above sea level.
While the lower parts of the plain were covered by water, the edges offered many advantages for human settlement : land for cultivation, drinking water, thanks to the numerous springs whose existence is still attested by modern place names (Krinides = small springs, Kefalari = great spring, Vrissoules= little fountains), and access to a variety of environments (marshes, hills, mountains) rich in natural resources of all kinds.
Quite naturally, a series of Neolithic settlements arose along these edges, including Dikili Tash. Dikili Tash had an additional advantage, however: it lies on the only passage around the marsh from the east, which is necessary for communication by land between the northern and southern parts of the plain. The continuity of occupation seems to be directly related to this strategic location: the prehistoric populations were later followed by Greek colonists (Thasians founding the ancient town of Krinides in 360 BC, renamed by Philip II of Macedonia in 356), then by Romans (foundation of the colony of Philippi in 42 BC), Slavs, Ottomans, and finally by modern Greeks in 1923.
Chronology
- 6500 => Early Neolithic
Certified villages of farmers-breeders
First human occupation at Dikili Tash
- 5800 => Middle Neolithic
“Sesklo culture” in Thessaly
Evidence for continuous occupation of the mound
- 5400 =>Late Neolithic I
"Vinča culture” in the Balkans
First habitation layers in Sitagri
First excavated layers at Dikili Tash: houses, structures, artifacts Bucranne
- 4800 => Late Neolithic IΙ (Chalcolithic)
Establishment of a cultural community through the Balkans
Maximum extension of the settlement
- 4000 => Abandonment of the site
A GREAT PREHISTORIC SITE
The archaeological site of Dikili Tash is mainly a prehistoric settlement, dating to the Neolithic period (6400-4000 BC) and the Bronze Age (3000-1100 BC). Remains from Hellenistic and Roman times also exist, however, and a Byzantine tower crowns its top.
The 1986–1996 excavation programme con-centrated on two main sectors: sector V, next to one of the trenches made by Jean De-shayes on the south slope of the tell, and sector VI, including the main trench dug by Dimitrios Theocharis on the eastern slope. Excavated area covered 145 and 565 m2
respectively. Parallel to that, we excavated two small and deep trenches, I and II, hoping to get through the earlier habi-tation levels down to the virgin soil. Unfortu-nately, none of these happened: the earliest level reached in sector I still belongs to the Dikili Tash phase I, that is the beginning of the Late Neolith-ic, dated by thermoluminescence at 5500± 320 B.C. (ROQUE et al. 2002; V ARTANIAN et al. 2001), whereas the virgin soil remains to be found.
The phase I levels
Further phase I levels have been unearthed in the neighbouring sector V. Unfortunately, no complete house layout was preserved, but the fragmentary architectural remains sug-gest a North-West/South-East orientation of the rooms. Each room contained a domestic oven and usually a platform on which utensils in dai-ly use were kept. Walls, ovens and platforms, as well as bins for storing provisions, were made of raw clay.In the earliest level excavated in this sector, the oven was very well preserved, with part of the vault in situ. Behind it, a tripod cooking pot was standing near a biconical pot full of car- bonised barley grains.
14C-dating of the barley grains (4917–4808 cal. BC.)2 and TL-dating of the oven (4920±310 BC.) match together almost perfectly, placing the house’s destruction in the years around 5000 BC. In front of the oven, other ceramic vases and polished stone tools associated with food preparation were found crushed on the ground: vases included a large „plateau“, a cup and a carinated collared pot with painted decoration. Further West, more stone tools (axes, querns), vases (parts of three jars), a stone bowl and a spondylus shell were laying on a sort of low platform.
Yet, the most impressive finds were laying on the floor in the southern part of the room, un-der a thick mass of debris: three ceramic vessels and a bucranium fallen over a fourth one, all in an remarkable state of preservation (Fig. 2). The three vessels, one bowl and two carinated collared pots, all decorated, still preserved their content: the bowl and one of the pots contained stone and bone tools and a shell bead, where-as physico-chemical analysis revealed that the black residue found inside the other pot was not foodstuff, as originally thought, but powdered iron oxide, that is a colouring material ready for use (M ANIATIS et al. 2001; MANIATIS/T SIRTSONI 2002).
As for the bucranium, it is a real bovine skull with its horns, covered and finished off with a coating of clay depicting the eyes, nos-trils and mouth (Fig. 3). The object had been obviously attached to an even surface, maybe a wall or roof, as shown by its flat posterior sur-face (TREUIL /D ARCQUE 1998).
The following level is represented by at least two habitation units; their East-West junction was unfortunately disturbed by later installa-tion.The westernmost of these units was clearly delimited on one side by the base of a wall. An architectural fragment, no longer in situ, had one worked face with fingerprints: this could be a fragment of the arch framing the entrance of the room, probably situated at the Southwest. In-side the room there was a platform and in front of it, broken on the ground, were two querns and a few complete or well preserved ceramic vases: a large jar, a bowl, a tripod cooking-pot and two decorated carinated collared pots. Although no oven was found, it is almost certain that there had been one beside the platform, in a place that was severely damaged by erosion (see discussion in TREUIL/T SIRTSONI 2000).
The floor itself, pre-served over at least 10 m2 around the platform, was covered with a fine blackish coating consist-ing of carbonised chaff, probably a litter.The house in the eastern part showed a simi-lar ground plan: in the middle of the floor, pre-served over more than 15 m2, were the remains of a domestic oven and around it several frag-mented ceramic vessels, including cups, tripod cooking-pots, bowls, and also stone and bone tools, and ornaments. At the other edge of the room, or maybe outside it, we found two large clay bins containing carbonised grains. Those grains have been dated around 4800 BC.
The more recent of the phase I levels ap-peared very close to the surface in the western part of the sector. It featured a very large oven, with its floor measuring more than one metre in diameter and the first row of the coils form-ing the vault. In front of it there were fragments of a large „plateau“, like the one found in front of the oven of the „house with the bucranium“.
Concerning the relations of the inhabitants of Dikili Tash with neighbouring regions dur-ing the early stages of the Late Neolithic, a few things can be said.First, it is obvious that we have to do with a rather thriving, although not extra-ordinary settlement, which participates fully into the technological advances and ideological trends that are in vogue in this period: details in construction techniques and arrangements, ceram-ic and lithic assemblages, polished stone and shell working, or particular cultural features like the modelling and use of bucrania, all sug-gest contacts over a rather extended area, espe-cially towards the West and North, i.e. central and western Macedonia, and the middle Vard-ar and Strymon valleys.
On the contrary, direct evidence of exchange or influence with re-gions to the South (like Thessaly and Southern Greece) or to the East and North-east (Thrace) are rather scarce: affinities with these regions do exist, of course, but they seem to be far more discrete and distant. A special mention should be made for the Strymon valley.
The study of pottery has shown that, during most of the Late Neolithic, the val-ley and the adjacent plains (Serres, Drama) act like a real „corridor“, a North-South path of communication and diffusion of ideas, styles or uses. The diffusion of carinated collared pots illustrates perfectly this situation: al-though dark-on-light painted wares in general are found over a very large area, including most of Macedonia, but also Thessaly and Southern Greece from one side,this particular kind of elaborate one-handled painted vessels are found nowhere else outside the Strymon valley and the adjacent plains.
Dikili Tash, with its nu-merous complete or almost complete specimens showing a wide variety of technique combina-tions, stands out as a major production centre of such vessels (TSIRTSONI 2000, 34–35, 53).
The phase II levels
Levels of the next Dikili Tash phase II, which is assigned to the end of the Late Neolithic period (or Eneolithic, following the Bul-garian terminology), have been excavated in both sectors V and VI. Also, the remains of a massive stone structure exposed in the small sector II could belong to a sort of wall limiting the settlement on the South, probably in the same period.
The earliest occupational level was found very close to the surface in the eastern part of sector V, immediately above the remains of the next-to-last level of the phase I. No walls were preserved, but only two perpendicular lines of post-holes suggesting the corner of a building. In it, there was a group of severely broken, but almost complete vessels: two globular pots, a large bowl with outverted rim, and the lower part of a jar with mat-impressions on the base.
The next level, found just below the surface in the centre of sector V, has been interpreted as an extensive rubbish area, in the south, associ-ated to a very disturbed habitation area, in the north. No architectural remains were found, but an astonishing quantity of objects of all kinds were more or less well preserved. We will men-tion, among others: an antler pick; a necklace of beads made of both marble and shell, as shown by analysis with the cathodoluminescence meth-od (BECHTEL /GOURDON-PLATEL 2000, 37–38); figurines; and more than one hundred vases or recognisable fragments, including a black-on red painted goblet with lateral sprout, an in-cised goblet, an incised stand, two large bowls with outverted rim and graphite decoration, jars, globular pots, etc.
According to pottery styles, this level should be dated to an already advanced stage of the phase II (Dikili Tash IIB or IIC, contemporary to Sitagri IIIB).The level excavated in the main sector VI belongs to an even later stage (Dikili Tash IIC late, contemporary to the Sitagri IIIC phase), that has been dated both by thermolumines-cence and radiocarbon to the years between 4400–4200 BC. It appeared underneath an Early Bronze Age occupation level, dated by radiocarbon around 3000 BC.
Four buildings (1–4) have been put into light: they are built in parallel rows, along a North-East/South-West axis, in a terraced disposition on the eastern slope of the tell. The destruction layer inside the buildings included large number of wattle and daub fragments, which had fallen from the walls and roofs. Areas of grey soil containing sherds and bones that were found between and around the buildings have been identified as outdoor spaces, such as patios or courtyards.
Only the southern half of building 1 has been partly excavated: it contained a lot of vessels and other objects, as well as many carbonised grains. Of special interest are large quantities of grape pips and skins that resemble closely to the remains of wine-pressing. The pips belong to the wild form of vine (Vitis vinifera subsp. syl-vestris), thus suggesting that early wine might have been prepared either from grapes collect-ed from wild vines or from vines that were in an early stage of domestication and had not devel-oped yet the phenotypic characteristics of the domestic subspecies. In any case, the charred remains from Dikili Tash, dated by radiocarbon at 4460–4000 BC., provide the earliest indica-tion for wine making in Europe (M ANGAFA et al, 2002).Building 2 is situated on exactly the same level with building 1, from which it is separat-ed by a wide passage.
The western limit of this building is defined by a clear line of twinned postholes, whereas its total length has not been determined.Buildings 3 and 4, situated in the eastern part of the sector in a somehow lower level (ca 30 cm) than the previous two, are by far the best preserved. They provide a complete picture of households at the end of the Late Neolithic pe-riod (Fig. 5).Building 3 measures 9x5 m and has no trac-es of any internal walls. A hearth occupies the centre of the northern side, in direct contact with the wall.Building 4, with a total preserved length of 11 m and a width of 6 m, is divided by inter-nal walls in three almost equal spaces (A, B and C from North to South), each with its own en-trance, situated on the south-eastern long side. Each space has an oven, situated opposite to the entry and very near to the back wall, with its opening turned towards the entry.
Spaces A and B, which are better preserved (Fig. 6), also contain a rectangular sink-like construc-tion with individual partitions next to the oven, whereas space A included another hemispheri-cal earthen bench in contact with the southern wall. Each space contained also at least three or four big storage bins, made of raw clay temper-ed with vegetal material (straw) and decorated with simple grooves.
The equivalent dimensions of the spaces, the resemblances in their internal structure and equipment, and the fact that they had separate entries with no communication between them, leads to the conclusion that they accomodated three independent households. The relatively small dimensions of the spaces suggest that they were used by a limited number of individuals, very likely a nuclear family. A total of more than sixty ceramic vessels (Fig. 7) and lots of other objets of everyday use – querns, spindle-whorls, bone and stone tools – were found in these spaces. A utensil interpreted as a cooking-stand, with incised decoration, was found near the oven of space A.
Some ornaments were also present, whereas figurines were very rare. Among vessels forms we mention: open bowls with thickened rim, deep bowls with buttons under the rim, askos-like vessels, one-handle cups, and others, that are most usually undecorated or decorated with simple graphite-painted or incised motifs.Evidence from the excavation of different Dikili Tash phase II levels allows to understand better the relative position of the settlement, both in the narrow Drama plain and in the gen-eral Balkan context during this period.
On a regional scale, Dikili Tash obviously remains a major settlement, as indicated by the persistence and density of occupation, the abundance of finds, the variety and quality of artefacts or the innovations in food-consuming procedures (wine-pressing).
On a larger scale, previous trends seem to persist, but there are now some changes in the orientation or the intensity of contacts with sur-rounding regions. Thus, the communication axis along the Struma valley in the North/West and across the central and western Macedonia in the West still functions strongly, as indicated by the diffusion of some typical local ceramic wares, especially the black-on red painted pot-tery, which seem to prolongate both technically and stylistically, the dark-on-light pottery tradi-tions of the previous period (M ALAMIDOUet al., forthcoming).
Contacts with Thessaly or South-ern Greece do not seem to know any further development. On the contrary, contacts with Thrace are now strongly reinforced: this is par-ticularly obvious in pottery, with the generali-sation of graphite-painted and incised wares, typical of the Karanovo V and VI phases in the Bulgarian plain.
Yet, no marking evolution similar to that suggested for the Eneolithic set-tlements of Thrace, in crafts other than pottery (metallurgy, for instance) or in intra-site organ-isation and domestic equipment, is attested at Dikili Tash. The passage from one phase of the Late Neolithic (Dikili Tash I) to the other (Diki-li Tash II) is clearly characterised by continuity rather than by rupture of any kind.
THE TELL OF DIKILI TASH
The site itself is a tell. With an area of approximately 4,5 hectares and a height of 17 m, it is one of the largest tells in the Balkans. Its present shape, which is oval and asymmetrical, results from a combination of the accumulation of prehistoric and historic remains and erosion.
THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE
The roman monument of Caius Vibius and the adjacent spring that mark this spot on the way to Kavala are mentioned by many travelers, beginning with Cyriacus of Ancona who passed through the region between 1426 and 1430.
The first illustrated pottery sherds from Dikili Tash, published by F. WELCH, Annual of the British School at Athens 23 (1918-1919), p. 45, fig. 1.
The nearby mound was identified as a prehistoric site in the years 1917-1918 by C. W. Blegen and F. B. Welch, who collected fragments of pottery and other objects from its surface.
THE MONUMENT OF CAIUS VIBIUS
This monument is a 4 m high monolith dating to the 1st century AD. Two of its four sides bear an inscription, which refers to the career of the Roman officer Caius Vibius Quartus. There is no proof, however, that his grave actually lies underneath.
C(aius) Vibius C(aii) f(ilius)
Cor(nelia) Quartus
mil(es) leg(ionis) V Macedonic(ae)
decur(io) alae Scubulor(um)
praef(ectus) coh(ortis) III Cyreneic(ae)
trib(unus) leg(ionis) II Augustae
praef(ectus) [---] Caius Vibius Quartus, son of Caius,
from the Cornelian tribe,
soldier of the fifth legion of Macedonia,
decurion of the wing of Scubules,
commander of the third regiment of Cyrenaica,
military tribune of the second legion of Augustus, commander...
According to L. Heuzey, “a superstition attaches to the white powder that is obtained by scratching the marble of Dikili Tash the ability to give milk in nursing mothers: it has been devoured by the knives of villagers …; over half of the inscription has been destroyed in this way” (L. Heuzey, H. Daumet, Mission archéologique de Macédoine [1876], p. 45).
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT DIKILI TASH
THE FIRST TRIAL EXCAVATIONS: L. RENAUDIN (1920-1922)
The first investigations were conducted in 1920 by Louis Renaudin, then a member of the French School at Athens. He returned to the field in 1921 and 1922, identified several superimposed occupation layers in the centre of the tell, and collected many objects. Among these, the Neolithic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines were given special attention. Two Roman « heroa » were also identified close to the spring, but these could be instead the foundations of a triumphal arch built at the eastern exit of the city of Philippi. His works are briefly mentioned in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.
THE FIRST RESEARCH PROGRAM (1961-1975)
From 1961 to 1975, Jean Deshayes et Dimitrios Theocharis conducted the first systematic excavations at Dikili Tash under the auspices of the French School at Athens and Archaeological Society at Athens. Their main objective was to determine the stratigraphic and chronological sequence of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the region, which was poorly known until then.
Excavations were carried out near the top and on the southern and eastern slopes of the tell. The Greek team, which was only at the site for two field seasons (1961 and 1967), opened two sectors on the eastern slope, c. 20 meters distant from each other, covering an area of 300m2. The French team made several smaller trenches covering 341m2 in total, grouped in three areas: one at the top and two on the southern slope (middle and lower part). They were present for six campaigns (1961, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1974 and 1975).
None of the sectors reached the natural (virgin) soil and thus none offers a complete stratigraphic sequence, but the correlation of the sequences obtained in various sectors allowed the determination of the general stratigraphic sequence : four major occupation phases, labeled I to IV, represent respectively the beginning and the end of the Late Neolithic period (phases I-II), the Early Bronze Age (phases IIIA-B) and the Late Bronze Age (phase IV). Thanks to a long series of radiocarbon dates, one of the first in the region, it has been possible to determine the age and duration of each period, which cover altogether more than four thousand years (ca. 5400-1100 BC.). The top of the mound also yielded traces of later occupation.
These results proved that the end of the Neolithic in Macedonia, and by extension in most of the Balkans, clearly preceded the beginning of the Aegean Early Bronze Age as it was known from the first settlement at Troy. In addition, they showed that there exists an even earlier stage, equivalent to the Dikili Tash phase ΙΙΙΑ, which represents the actual start of the Bronze Age. This sequence was later confirmed by the excavations at Sitagri (northwestern part of the Drama plain) and Ezero (Bulgaria).
Apart from their historical contribution, the excavations of Theocharis and Deshayes revealed the site’s outstanding wealth and the high quality of the various artifact categories, especially during the Neolithic period (pottery, figurines, jewelry, etc). Many houses that were destroyed by fire still preserve part of their architectural elements in place (e.g., walls and thermal structures).
THE SECOND RESEARCH PROGRAM (1986-1996)
From 1986 until 1996 a second Greek-French research program was conducted under the auspices of the Archaeological Society and the French School at Athens and the direction of Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki and René Treuil. This research was further supported financially by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Greek Ministry of Culture (18th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Kavala), the French National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) and the University of Sorbonne-Paris I.
Since the stratigraphic sequence was already generally known, the main objective of the new research was to reveal the habitation layers as extensively as possible in order to study the building techniques, the spatial organization of the successive settlements, and the way of life of the inhabitants in general.
Alongside that effort, an attempt was made to investigate the earlier occupation layers down to the natural soil and to reconstruct the site’s environment at the time of the first human settlement.
The Greek team continued research on the eastern side of the mound: a new sector (VI), measuring 565m2, was opened around one of the older sectors of Theocharis where excavation had brought to light well-preserved ruins from the Late Neolithic II and the Early Bronze Age. The French team settled on the south slope of the mound, with a new sector (V, 145m2) next to Deshayes’ sector B1, which had yielded several successive layers of the Late Neolithic I period. Excavations in sectors V and VI revealed, for the first time in the region, a substantial number of Late Neolithic house units.
The two teams also undertook further excavation in a small part of sector Β2 (a deep trench in the West of square AA 28), now defined as sector Ι. Its bottom represented the deepest point reached so far by excavation (57,25 m above sea level) and thus could serve as a starting point for the exploration of earlier layers. However, the excavation did not go beyond 56,80 m, due to the narrowness of the trench, and the only layer that was excavated also dates to the Late Neolithic I.
Finally, a new stratigraphic trench was opened (sector ΙΙ, 14m2) at the southern foot of the tell, but no earlier layers were recovered. This seems reasonable today, especially in light of the results of the geomorphologic research. This research established that the deposits at the periphery of the mound were formed by the erosion of its upper layers; therefore, the dimensions of the initial settlement were smaller than the present mound’s surface. The excavation revealed a strong stone structure in the centre and south of the trench, which might correspond to one edge of the settlement.
A series of geomorphological research was conducted between 1986 and 1994. This program included two small trenches created using heavy machinery on the periphery of the mound (sectors III and IV) and several core-samples in and around the mound. Both provided valuable information about the nature of the geological substrate and the evolution of the landscape.
After eight field seasons (1986, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996), excavation stopped in order to facilitate the preparation of the publication.
In many cases, the studies conducted at Dikili Tash served as the basis for or were integrated into broader research projects of multidisciplinary or international character: for example, the program regarding the storage and cooking facilities in the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Northern Greece (a Greek-French cooperation program “Plato”, between the laboratory UMR 7041 of Nanterre and the University of Thessaloniki, 2002-2003); the program about the black-on-red painted Neolithic pottery (CNRS-French School at Athens, 2000-2004); and the research into clay and fire in the prehistoric Aegean (ACI Prosodie of the French Ministry of Research, 2004-2007). Finally, the project has invested in the study of various materials and techniques using the experimental approach.
THE THIRD RESEARCH PROGRAM (2008-2011
In 2008 a new Greek-French research program was initiated at Dikili Tash, carried out, like the previous two, under the auspices of the the Archaeological Society and the French School at Athens and the direction of Pascal Darcque, Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou and Zoï Tsirtsoni. It is supported on an annual basis by the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and the Institute of Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP). It has received additional funding from the National Geographic Society (the investigation on Neolithic wine conducted by Tania Valamoti) and the French National Research Agency (ANR program “Balkans 4000”, coordinated by Zoï Tsirtsoni). The French National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), the 18th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Kavala, and the Municipality of Philippi (until 2010) also support this work.
The overall aim of the new program is to reconstruct the entire history of the site by investigating the spatial and temporal continuities and discontinuities from the first human occupation to modern times.
Four excavation campaigns have been completed already (2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013) Investigations were carried in three sectors (2, 6 and 7) and we also took a series of new core-samples in the mound.
The new core-samples allowed us to establish more accurately the character of the pleistocene and holocene. The C14 dates made on selected charcoal samples from the lowest parts of the cores place the date of the first human settlement in the second half of the 7th millennium BC.
In sector 2, we are at the southern limit of the Late Neolithic II settlement. Its remains were covered by successive layers of colluvia, two of which contain substantial quantities of stones. These stones probably come from structures whose collapse dates to the end of the Neolithic period and the beginning of the Bronze Age.
n the western part of sector 6, the remains of the Early Bronze Age (3300-3000 BC.), mainly storage pits, are dug directly in the destruction layer of the Late Neolithic II (4300-4200 BC.). The excavation of House 1 has not yet been completed, but has already revealed an assemblage of great wealth: architectural fragments, numerous artifacts, and large quantities of botanical remains, including grape seeds.
Finally, in sector 7, the excavation showed the chronological and historical depth of the Late Bronze Age settlement and brought to light the first material evidence of contact with the Mycenaean world. This research has also confirmed the close relations of Dikili Tash with the neighboring city of Philippi, since its foundation in the 4th century BC until its historical ending after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSES
A series of analyses of architectural fragments that were conducted at the Geophen Laboratory in Caen, confirmed what had already been suggested by macroscopic observation and experiments : specific strategies existed for the sampling, mixing, and use of building clay. These strategies concerned the choice of clay, the preparation of the mixture by means of purification or addition of non-plastic materials, and the shaping and arrangement of the different construction elements. It became clear that the operational sequence was not only complex but also relatively standardised, especially for combustion structures, as early as the Late Neolithic period.
ORGANIC RESIDUE ANALYSIS
Organic residues may either be preserved as a crust on a ceramic surface or through impregnation of porous vessel walls. They are usually amorphous. Residues preserve in very small quantities and are often highly degraded, identifiable only in how they correspond to complex molecular compositions. A range of physicochemical analytical techniques are used for their characterization, such as Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Gas Chromatography combined with Mass Spectrometry. Taking into account the properties of the identified materials (e.g., subcutaneous animal fat, dairy products, vegetal oils, wax, or adhesives), one can create inferences regarding the use of vessels..
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Excavation of the prehistoric levels has unearthed a considerable quantity of charred plant remains, including wood charcoal used as building material or fuel, and grains and fruits brought to the site for food or for other purposes (e.g. medicines, fuel, building, or weaving material). More or less systematic collection of plant remains has been on-going since 1989, and today intensive total sampling is employed in certain parts of the excavation, as is the case of House 1. Charcoal and other plant macroremains provide a precious source of information on the past environment surrounding the site, agricultural practices, diet, and building practices (as when plants were added to the building clay). At the same time, these remains provide excellent samples for radiocarbon dating : at present, more than forty dates have been obtained from such remains just in the Neolithic. Some of these dates, obtained from grains found in situ inside the houses, reach a precision of ± 20 years, dating the destruction of the houses to within a few decades.
The anthracological study shows a rich variety within the forest canopy near the site and reveals, among other things, an intensive use of fruit trees (e.g. apples, pears, plums, and figs) by the site’s inhabitants already during the Neolithic. The archaeobotanical study confirms that most of these trees were exploited for their fruits, which could have been consumed on their own or included as meal ingredients. The primary plant foods during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age were cereals and legumes, as is the case throughout the Aegean during these periods. Different wheat species, barley, lentils, peas, and bitter vetch are the main crops attested at Dikili Tash.
They are often found as pure concentrations, unmixed with other species stored in vases or bins located inside the houses or in the yard outside. Other plant species also appear in the Neolithic period, two of which go on to an illustrious future : flax and grape vine.
THE FIELD TEAMS
1961
Greek team : Dimitrios Théocharis, Maria Théochari, Katérina Rhomiopoulou
Archaeologists-Students :Haïdo Koukouli, Kalliopi Nikolaïdou
Student in architecture : Despina Aïvazoglou
Technicians : Anastasios Aggelidis, Démétrios Doukas, Nikolaos Tricaliotis, Pavlos Tzitzifakis, Nikolaos Xatzoulas
French team : Jean Deshayes
Archaeologists : Philippe Bruneau, Fernande Ducat, Jean Ducat, Milutin Garasanin, Vladimir Popovic, Claude Vatin
Student in architecture : Eleutherios Emmanouilidis
View of sector A2 during excavation (1961), towards the West.
1967
Greek team : Dimitrios Théocharis, Maria Théochari, Katérina Rhomiopoulou
Archaeologists : Haïdo Koukouli, Athanasios Tzaphalias
Technician : Markos Nikolarakis
French team : Jean Deshayes
Archaeologists : Jean-Pierre Michaud, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Michel Séfériadès, René Treuil
Architect : Jean Blécon
Technician : R. Moulet
Conservator : G. Faure
1969
French team : Jean Deshayes
Archaeologists : Serge Cleuziou, Jean-Paul Demoule, L. Demoule, Martine Fourmont, Cl. Herrenschmidt, Cl. Malécot, C. Marmoz, Michel Séfériadès, René Treuil, E. Vergnolle
Architect : Jean Blécon
Illustrator : Marie-Christine Poussineau
Conservators : G. Faure, S. Maras
Part of the 1969 team: from left to right L. Demoule, S. Cleuziou, J.-P. Demoule, C. Marmoz, J. Deshayes.
1972
French team : Jean Deshayes
Archaeologists : Rémy Boucharlat, Sylvestre Dupré, Michel Séfériadès, René Treuil
Pottery specialist : Liliane Courtois
Architect : Jean Blécon
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
Conservator : G. Faure
1974
French team : Jean Deshayes
Archaeologists : Yves Calvet, Michel Séfériadès, Gilles Touchais
Architect : Jean Blécon
Illustrators : J. Chevalier, Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
1975
French team : Jean Deshayes
Archaeologists : Sylvestre Dupré, Anna Philippa, Gilles Touchais
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
1986
Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, René Treuil
Field supervisors : Alexandra Christopoulou, Pascal Darcque
Archaeologists and students : Jean-Paul Demoule, Alexandre Farnoux, Irini Gavrilaki, Marie-Hélène Georgiadou, L. Houdaverdoglou, Katérina Rhomiopoulou. Katérina Péristéri, Josette Renard, Angeliki Koukouvou, Dimitra Malamidou, Christina Marangou, Sylvie Müller, Stratis Papadopoulos, T. Papanikolaou
Geomorphologist : Lucien Faugères
Topographe : Etienne Richard
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
Part of the 1986 team: from left to right V. Anagnostopoulos, M.-H. Georgiadou, O. Picard (director of the French School), I. Gavrilaki, E. Richard, P. Darcque, R. Treuil, K. Romiopoulou.
1987
Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, René Treuil
Field supervisors : Alexandra Christopoulou, Pascal Darcque
Archaeologists and students : Alexandre Farnoux, Marie-Hélène Georgiadou, Eléni Gérondakou, Vaïa Ikonomidou, Liliane Karali-Yannacopoulos, Angéliki Koukouvou, Georgia Kourtessi-Philippaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Christina Marangou, Katérina Péristéri, Stratis Papadopoulos, Olga Polychronopoulou, Josette Renard, Iphigénia Tournavitou
Geomorphologist : Lucien Faugères
Topographers : Etienne Richard, Jean-Philippe Guyon
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
Photographer : Philippe Collet
Part of the 1987 team: from left to right P. Darcque, D. Malamidou, A. Koukouvou, R. Treuil.
1989
Greek team : Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki
Field supervisors : Aggeliki Koukouvou, Dimitra Malamidou
Archaeologists and students : Natassa Baltatzi, Efi Doulgeri, Heleni Gerondakou, Anastasia Michailidou
Illustrator : Kyriaki Papadopoulou
Technicians : Georgios Anderadis, Vasilis Elbasidis, Michalis Papadopoulos
French team :René Treuil, Pascal Darcque
Archaeologists and students : Jean-François Croz , Cécile Froment , Alexandra Kalogirou, Christina Marangou, Olga Polychronopoulou, Georgia Poursoulis , Gilles Touchais, Laurence Rebillard , Zoï Tsirtsoni, Eleuthéria Vlachou,
Archaeobotanist : Isabelle Erard-Cerceau
Geographer : Lucien Faugères
Conservators : Dimitrios Karolidis, Aristophanis Konstantatos, Polytimi Loukopoulou
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
Part of the 1989 team: from left to right, first row, P. Loukopoulou, R. Treuil, G. Touchais ; 2nd row, A. Konstantatos, Z. Tsirtsoni, J.-Fr. Croz, G. Poursoulis, L. Rebillard, E. Vlachou, M.-Fr. Treuil, C. Froment, O. Polychronopoulou, V. Anagnostopoulos, J.-P. Demoule, P. Darcque.
1991
French team : René Treuil, Pascal Darcque, Josette Renard, Gilles Touchais
Archaeologists and students :Catherine Besson, Laure Boulineau, Christophe Fernandez, Cécile Froment, Frédéric Herbaut, Désirée Neisius, Laurent Pesqueur, Olga Polychronopoulou, Sophie Pornet, Sandra Prévost, Mathilde Renard, Zoï Tsirtsoni
Archaeobotanist : George Willcox
Archaezoologist : Daniel Helmer
Conservators : Aristophanis Konstandatos, Polytimi Loukopoulou
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
1993
Greek team : Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki
Field supervisor : Dimitra Malamidou
Archaeologists and students : Κonstantia Amoiridou, Anastasia Ioannidou, Alexandra Pyrsou, Αnne Sandars, Paraskevi Yiouni
Illustrator : Kyriaki Papadopoulou
Conservator : Panagiotis Tzanetakis
Technicians : Vasilis Elbasidis, Michalis Papadopoulos
French team : René Treuil, Pascal Darcque, Gilles Touchais
Archaeologists and students : Laure Boulineau, Alain Dandrau, Véronique Frgacic, Cécile Froment, Ioulia Gavriilidou, Nathalie Godfroi, Frédéric Herbaut, Petrika Lera , Sylvia Martinez, Désirée Neisius, Eléni Nodarou, Lissina Prendi, Sandra Prévost, Zoï Tsirtsoni, Panayotis Vouzas
Geomorphologist : Rémi Dalongeville
Archaeobotanist : George Willcox
Palynologist : Claudine Schutz
Sociobotanist : Frédéric Bendali
Conservators : Aristophanis Konstandatos, Polytimi Loukopoulou
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
Excavation of Sector V in 1993.
1994
Greek team : Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki
Field supervisor : Dimitra Malamidou
Archaeologists and students : Konstantia Amoiridou, Lucy Douglas de Finzi, Eliza Kavaraki, David Leigh, Kelen Mattews, Alexandra Pyrsou, Anne Sandars, Maria Stabouloglou, Sevi Triantaphyllou,
Archaeobotanists : Soutana Valamoti, Maria Magafa, Maria Gianelou
Architect : Nikos Lianos
Illustrators : Anastasia Karakatsani, Anna Konstantara, Kyriaki Papadopoulou,
Conservator : Panagiotis Tzanetakis
Technicians : Vasilis Elbasidis, Michalis Papadopoulos
1995
Greek team : Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki
Field supervisor : Dimitra Malamidou
Archaeologists and students : Konstantia Amoiridou, Maria Gianelou, Eudocia Phaneromenou
Architect : Charalambos Romanidis
Illustrator : Kyriaki Papadopoulou
Conservator : Panagiotis Tzanetakis
Technicians : Vasilis Elbasidis, Heleni Tzenetaki
French team : René Treuil, Pascal Darcque, Nathalie Godfroi
Archaeologists and students : Laure Boulineau, Alain Dandrau, Cécile Froment, Ioulia Gavriilidou, Sylvia Martinez , Désirée Neisius , Sandra Prévost , E. Stamatatou, Zoï Tsirtsoni
Archaezoologist : D. Helmer
Archaeobotanist : George Willcox
Conservators : Aristophanis Konstandatos, Vanessa Papageorgiou
Illustrator : Vélissarios Anagnostopoulos
1996
Greek team : Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki
Field supervisor : Dimitra Malamidou
Archaeologists : Konstantia Amoiridou, Αrchontoula Mavridou, Ν. Τzeli
Students : Bllanca Fayas, Μaria Kaiafa, Maria Paipeti, Μaria Psarou
Architect : Charalampos Romanidis
Illustrator : Αnna Kostandara
Conservators : Panagiotis Tzanetakis, Dimitris Siabanopoulos
2008
Pascal Darcque,Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Zoï Tsirtsoni
Trench supervisors : Cécile Oberweiler, Sandra Prévost-Dermarkar, Tatiana Théodoropoulou
Archaeobotanist : Tania Valamoti
Topographers : Frédéric Bernard (INRAP), Lionel Fadin (EFA), Vincent Dargery (stagiaire)
Coordinator of graphic production : Frédéric Bourguignon (NOVA CELLA agency)
Illustrators : Samuel Monnet, Charalambos Romanidis
Geomorphologist : Cécile Germain-Vallée
Conservators : Panayotis Tzanetakis, Sophie-Jeanne Vidal
Site manager: Michalis Karavélidis
Photographers : Christophe Gaston, Maia Pomadère
Archaeologists and students : Marion Bernard, Céline Choquenet, Eutychia Daskalopoulou, Nicolas Doutau, Maud Goldscheider, Stathis Iliadis, Angeliki Karathanou, Georgia Katsiti, Maria-Niki Koutsoukou, Maria-Sophia Marinaki, Frédéric Mercier, Maria Palaiologou, Anna Panagiotou, Thomas Raptis, Tania Siopi, Nathalie Thomas, Fani Toti, Anna-Wilma Xylaki
Workmen : Kyriazis Archontoglou, Tafil Bicaco (« Spyros »), Vassilis Giannakidis, Kostas Karavasiliadis, Iannis Koumridis, Stéphan Larakou, Georgios Patsatzis et Savvas Raptis.
The 2008 team..
2010
Pascal Darcque,Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Zoï Tsirtsoni
Trench supervisors : Nicolas Doutau, Michalis Lychounas, Maria Palaiologou, Sandra Prévost-Dermarkar, Tania Siopi
Archaeobotanist : Tania Valamoti
Topographers : Lionel Fadin (EFA), Simon Budin et Alexandre Masalski (stagiaires)
Coordinator of graphic production : Frédéric Bourguignon (NOVA CELLA agency)
Illustrator : Samuel Monnet
Conservator : Marion Bernard
Geomorphologists : Cécile Germain-Vallée, Laurent Lespez, Robert Davidson
Site manager : Michalis Karavélidis
Archaeologists and students : Evgenia Achimastou, Elefthéria Almasidou, Magali Benet, , Anaïs Boucher, Céline Choquenet, Christina Evangelidou, Argyris Fassoulas, Angeliki Karathanou, Ria Kiorpé, Martha Kokkidou, Tobias Krapf, Ange Lotode, Hariklia Mourtarakou, Chrysa Pétridou, Eléni Télioridou, Efthimia Tsiolaki, Evangelia Vliora, César Watroba, Stavros Zachariadis
Workmen : Kyriazis Archontoglou, Christos Arnaoutoglou, Tafil Bicaco (« Spyros »), Vassilis Karavasiliadis, Stéphan Larakou, Jordanis Mengidis
Web site : Julien Mahoudeau (ALTEARCH-MEDIATION agency)
The 2010 field team.
2012
Pascal Darcque,Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Zoï Tsirtsoni
Trench supervisors : Céline Choquenet, Sandra Prévost-Dermarkar
Archaeobotanist : Tania Valamoti
Topographers : Lionel Fadin, Soufiane Laqbayli, Kévin Guadagnini
Coordinator of graphic production : Frédéric Bourguignon (NOVA CELLA agency)
Illustrator : Rozenn Douaud, Samuel Monnet, Pauline Ramis
Conservator : Marion Bernard, Eleni Nikolouzou
Geomorphologists : Laurent Lespez, Robert Davidson
Site manager : Michalis Karavélidis
Archaeologists and students : Eleftheria Almasidou, Nektaria Bolou, Anaïs Boucher, Zoé Cahier-Proust, Aurélien Creuzieux, Christina Evangelidou, Sylvain Grosfilley, Katerina Karatasaki, Martha Kokkidou, Dialegmenos Mengidis, Eudoxia Mintzaridou, Bérengère Pérello, Chrysi Petridou, Zina Stratiadou, Eleni Télioridou, César Watroba
Workmen : Kyriazis Archontoglou, Vassilis Karavelidis, Stéphan Larakou, Archontia Mylonidou, Johny Topalli
Web site : Julien Mahoudeau (ALTEARCH-MEDIATION agency)
L’équipe Dikili Tash 2010.
2013
Pascal Darcque,Haïdo Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Dimitra Malamidou, Zoï Tsirtsoni
Trench supervisors : Sandra Prévost-Dermarkar
Archaeobotanist : Tania Valamoti
Topographers : Lionel Fadin, Vincent Depond, Olivier Gannat
Coordinator of graphic production : Frédéric Bourguignon (NOVA CELLA agency)
Illustrator : Rozenn Douaud, Samuel Monnet
Conservator : Marion Bernard, Olga Simitsi, Georgia Velivasaki
Geomorphologists : Laurent Lespez, Robert Davidson, Arthur Glais
Micromorphologist : Cécile Germain-Vallée
Material scientist, expert in XRF analysis : Sariel Shalev
Chemist, expert in organic residue analysis : Nicolas Garnier
Site manager : Michalis Karavélidis
Archaeologists and students : Anaïs Boucher, Céline Choquenet, Argyris Fassoulas, Sylvain Grosfilley, Katerina Karatasaki, Martha Kokkidou, Menia Papadopoulou, Clémence Pagnoux, Bérengère Pérello, Chrysi Petridou, Eleni Télioridou
Workmen : Kyriazis Archontoglou, Vassilis Karavelidis, Stephan Larakou, Archonti Mylonidou
