Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:47:39.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Monopoly or direct access? Industrial organization at the Melos obsidian quarries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Get access

Summary

Quarry-production analysis can profitably be applied to the study of prehistoric exchange. By adopting a systems perspective, hypotheses about the nature of past human behavior at a quarry site can be derived from theories of raw material exchange and then tested against the data collected from the site. Using this innovative approach to study the obsidian quarries at Sta Nychia and Demenegaki on the island of Melos, Greece, the monopolization of source areas and/or the use of a highly organized, efficient, and specialized production technology were predicted in conjunction with commercial, market exchange of obsidian in the Aegean area. Detailed site survey and sampling strategies combined with analyses of the tools and techniques involved in quarrying obsidian and the manufacture of preform blade cores did not confirm the hypotheses. In contrast, the actual reconstruction of obsidian procurement on Melos as inefficient, unsystematic, and undertaken for short periods by nonspecialist laborers supports the opposing theory for direct access to the sources.

Introduction

The study of prehistoric obsidian exchange in the Aegean basin has been greatly facilitated by the application of a wide range of physicochemical techniques to a very substantial series of samples. These analyses have demonstrated that for all practical purposes the outcrops on the Cycladic island of Melos were the sole sources of the obsidian found in varying quantities on sites, dating from about 12,000 to 3,000 years B.P., which are distributed over the whole of the Greek peninsula and throughout the Aegean islands (Cann & Renfrew 1964; Renfrew, Cann & Dixon 1965; Dixon, Cann & Renfrew 1968; Dixon 1976; Shelford et al. 1982; Aspinall, Feather & Renfrew 1972; Durrani et al. 1971; McDougall 1978; Perlès 1979).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×