Introduction: Looking Back on (Almost) 100 Years of Early Stone Age Research

The year 2025 marks almost a century of Early Stone Age research in Greece. It is hard to believe, but our understanding that human origins extended back into the deep past for several millions of years was only truly recognized in the 1850s (Runnels, this issue). The initial enthusiasm and excavations focused on France and western Europe, where many splendid caves could be found, but did not extend to Greece. Despite reports of Paleolithic finds in the late nineteenth century, it took another 60 years before Adalbert Markovits conducted the first pioneering excavations of Greek prehistoric caves in the Argolid and Attica. However, it was only in 1959 when concurrent discoveries of artifacts and human fossils provided firm evidence of the presence of humans across Greece from the Paleolithic period onward; this period marks the true beginning of Stone Age research in Greece (Runnels, this issue). Initially focused on mainland regions and the Upper Paleolithic period, it was only with the beginning of the twenty-first century that research expanded to island sites and to earlier and later periods, enhanced by the inclusion of specialists in survey teams and targeted locations. With such an intensifying research focus, it should come as no surprise that Paleolithic and Mesolithic archaeology in the eastern Mediterranean more generally and in Greece in particular has been one of the most exciting areas of research over the last two decades: new sites have been discovered and published, a plethora of finds have enriched our understanding of past lifeways, and hypotheses and methodologies have been tested and critiqued (Sakellariou and Galanidou 2016: 145–49) and, perhaps most importantly, a new generation of scholars, versed in interdisciplinary approaches, archaeometrical, palynological, and geoarchaeological, is exploring new questions. As a consequence of all these developments, our understanding of the periods in question has much improved, with a steady stream of findings filling in both geographical and temporal gaps, and we have a much fuller appreciation of the multifaceted nature of these periods that have now firmly established themselves as research areas in their own right.The early phases of the Stone Age are now also much more accessible to the public through site visits and museum exhibitions: Theopetra Cave and Franchthi Cave are now heritage sites open to the general public. Ioannina Archaeological Museum has installed the very first permanent exhibition of “Early Prehistoric Antiquities in Greece,” and the Benaki Museum of Greek Culture, Athens, hosted the first temporary exhibition in 2023–2024 on “The Origins of Sculpture: Archaeological Finds from the Old World and Lesbos 2.5 million to 50,000 years before Present.”Following in the footsteps of seminal conferences, roundtables and scholarly syntheses (Bailey et al. 1999; Galanidou and Perlès 2003; Galanidou 2014) that helped establish the importance of (Greek) Paleolithic and Mesolithic archaeology, this special issue of JEMAHS now draws together Stone Age debates and research in relation to the eastern Mediterranean since the early 2010s. The conference “The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean: Data and Debates,” at which most of the the contributions published here were originally presented, was jointly organized by the Manchester Center for Archaeology and Egyptology and the Department of Classics, Ancient History, Archaeology and Egyptology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, and took place May 1–2, 2023 (Fig. 1).Unfortunately, not all speakers who presented at the conference were able to contribute an article to our conference proceedings. Also, to create a better balance between Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods on the one hand and Greek and eastern Mediterranean case studies on the other, we invited additional contributions from scholars, which have enriched the regional and chronological scope of this publication.But what of future challenges and research foci? Many spring to mind, but the following three are at the top of scholars’ wish lists: (1) more excavations, finds and stratified dates, especially from underrepresented periods and regions; (2) a better understanding of hominin dispersal, migration patterns, and adaptation to mainland, coastal, and island environments; (3) appraisal of hominin encounters with the sea, movement across it, and adaptation to it. It is these three themes that are already tackled by scholars in this special issue in different ways and make me hopeful that, a decade from now, our knowledge and understanding will have further deepened, leading us to ask ever new and interesting questions.Our understanding of the pre-Neolithic period of Türkiye, a large and diverse country, has been hampered greatly by a lack of excavated sites. While more work is still needed, much progress has been made over the last ten years with important excavations allowing ever more nuanced glimpses into the past. Recent excavations at Ballik Cave (Erbil et al., this issue) have brought to light a near-coastal site dated to 11,860 and 10,805 cal BC and used intermittently by small hunter-gatherer groups until it was abandoned following a period of sudden climate deterioration. Its chipped stone assemblage has affinities with the Ouriakos settlement on Lemnos, and Bozburun and Karaburun, located in Türkiye along the western/southwestern Anatolian coast. Eight seasons of field survey at the Karaburun peninsula have identified 196 points of interest, including sites dated from the Lower Paleolithic to the Neolithic (Çilingiroğlu, this issue), indicative of forager groups who occupied and utilized this region. The coastal location of these Epipaleolithic settlements, distant from high and cold mountain ranges, may reflect the milder climate that prevailed in these coastal regions.Another important recent discovery in Türkiye is Girmeler Cave (Erdoğu, Korkut, and Takaoğlu, this issue), an Early Holocene site (12,000–7600 cal. BC), which, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, was inhabited by semisedentary hunter groups who lived in wattle-and-daub huts with lime-plastered floors and hearths, hunted locally available wild animals (e.g., sheep/goat, boar, hare), gathered wild plant species (e.g., legumes, grasses), and occasionally fished (e.g., tuna). The presence of glume wheats, a sickle blade, and grinding stones hints at early domestication. Three burials, accompanied by grave goods, also came to light.In Greece, the Stelida Naxos Archaeological Project (SNAP) has revealed Middle Paleolithic early-stage knapping activity at the popular Naxian chert source of Stelida, which saw prehistoric populations returning “from at least 200,000 to 9,000 years ago” (Carter et al., this issue). Combining field survey and excavation, the project has provided a large collection of lithic artifacts as well as a sequence of firm dates for artifact-bearing strata. The authors argue that the popularity of the chert source may have had its reason in the proximity to a water source and a rock shelter. An equally important site is Kalamakia Cave on the Mani Peninsula, southern Greece (Karkazi et al., this issue). The deposits are dated between ca. 100,000 and >39,000 years BP. During the Middle Paleolithic, different varieties of chert, andesite, calcite, quartzite, quartz, and crystalline limestone were exploited. Interestingly, the choice of lithic raw materials appears to have been governed by the quality of the stone rather than proximity to the site. The two most common lithic types, chert and andesite, were transported from 12 km and 30–40 km respectively, providing clues about the decisions made by these Neanderthal groups as well as their mobility and range. The composition of the lithic assemblage and the density of the remains suggest only temporary use, perhaps as a hunting base or residential camp.Dating to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (ca. 50–35 kyr BP) is Kolominitsa Cave, southern Peloponnese (Ligkovanlis and Darlas, this issue). The period is characteristic for “the massive dispersal of anatomically modern humans [. . .] across Europe and their gradual dominance over preexisting populations, such as Neanderthals.” This upheaval is made visible in “transitional” lithic industries. At Kolominitsa and at Klissoura Cave 1, the authors demonstrate the existence of an Uluzzian-type transitional industry positioned between Aurignacian and Middle Paleolithic layers. Originally considered a Neanderthal-made industry, the Uluzzian is now linked to anatomically modern humans in Italy. However, whether the directionality of dispersal was from west to east or vice versa cannot (yet) be determined. What is clear, though, is that the Uluzzian can no longer be considered an exclusively Italian tradition.One important question to explore further is how the dispersal of hominins took place and, in particular, what terrestrial environmental features were attractive. Peny Tsakanikou and co-authors (this issue) face this question head-on by employing an affordance-based GIS approach that allows them to build predictive models that can be tested through future fieldwork. The two key parameters considered are the ease with which a landscape can be traversed and the attractiveness of natural resources available (e.g., water resources for survival, volcanic rocks for tool production, soil quality and soil nutrients for flora and fauna). Based on their environmental resource criteria, the authors identify four particularly suitable regions: (1) the North Aegean Shelf, (2) the southern Cycladic Plateau and its westward extension, (3) the eastern Aegean islands (including Lesbos), (4) the Sperchios Basin and the North Euboean Gulf. Applying this theoretical framework to their Rodafnidia (Lesbos) case study demonstrates a good match between the large size and great variability of the Acheulean assemblage, indicative of repeat visits, and the presence of a good freshwater supply, volcanic rocks, hot springs, vantage points for hunting, and soils rich in nutrients.Likewise, Tristan Carter and his co-authors (this issue) have argued that the attractiveness of Stelida, Naxos, derives from its high-quality chert-knapping source near a convenient local water source and rock shelter which led hominins to taking up temporary residence nearby and returning over and over again through time. A similar argument has been made by Elli Karkazi and colleagues in relation to lithic raw material sources in the Mani Peninsula (this issue). If proven successful, the environmentally informed approach pioneered by Tsakanikou and co-authors can be an invaluable help in identifying further research areas and sites—not just during the Paleolithic but also in later periods and across all regions. As Çiler Çilingiroğlu rightly points out in relation to pre-Neolithic research undertaken in Türkiye, interpreting this large landmass with multiple climatic zones and topographic profiles as a single environmental entity will make it impossible to appreciate the subtleties of decisions made by humans through time.It is generally accepted that humans crossed smaller and larger stretches of the Mediterranean Sea from the Upper Paleolithic onward, but scholarship has been hotly debating the evidence for water crossing preceding this period with maximalist, minimalist, and intermediate positions taken. Several articles in this publication address this question: Carter and his co-authors describe the results from their excavations and surface survey of Stelida on Naxos, which has been dated to the Middle Paleolithic period. Based on recent work by Ferentinos et al. (2023), Naxos, which was part of the Cycladean island, is likely to have been a true island over the last 424,000 years. While open-water crossings were likely to have been small, stretching to no more than a few kilometers, this nevertheless required hominins to have the cognitive ability and motor skills to conceptualize and execute such a journey. However, Leppard and Cherry (this issue) also highlight an alternative scenario, namely an “earlier, terrestrial dispersal . . . followed by insularization.”Revisiting the debate surrounding water crossings prior to the Upper Paleolithic, Leppard and Cherry have pulled together the best data and dates. While recognizing the importance of Stelida on Naxos and Triadon Bay on Melos, both assemblages suffer from the disadvantage of being part of or very close to the Cycladean plateau which, depending on the exact time period, and hence sea level, may or may not have been attached to the Greek mainland. Thus, despite the good quality of finds, both the precision of our dating and our understanding of sea level changes is not sufficiently secure to allow a definite answer. The situation is more straightforward for the Ionian islands, as summarized by Leppard and Cherry (this issue): Zakynthos, Kefalonia, and Ithaka formed one conjoined island that had been separate from other islands and the mainland since at least 140 kya; artifacts from Zakynthos and little Atokos provide convincing evidence of short sea crossing. Core to resolving this debate for good is evidence from Crete, a true island for at least five million years. However, the existing evidence is still being debated and will require direct dating and firm stratigraphic associations before all scholars will be convinced of the ancestry of long-distance sea crossings to Crete. Thus, for the time being, short-distance island hopping can be evidenced from the Middle Pleistocene onward while the ancestry of true sea travel will have to await unambiguous finds from true islands. But who were these pioneering explorers? ask Leppard and Cherry. The traditional answer would have been Neanderthals, for whom we now have increasing evidence of relevant techno-cognitive and motor skills, an ability to work together as groups for the purpose of hunting, and a utilization of marine resources. However, work by Harvati et al. (2019) has shown that it may indeed have been anatomically modern humans who had made their home in southern Greece already by 210 kya.