Books by Stratos Nanoglou
Πρακτικά Ημερίδας στο Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Πέλλας 12 Απριλίου 2016 στο πλαίσιο της περιοδικής έκθ... more Πρακτικά Ημερίδας στο Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Πέλλας 12 Απριλίου 2016 στο πλαίσιο της περιοδικής έκθεσης "Πριν από τη Μεγάλη Πρωτεύουσα".
Proceedings of the One-Day Conference held at the Archaeological Museum of Pella on 12 April 2016 in relation to the temporary exhibition "Before the Great Capital".
2018. ΙSΒN 978-618-81411-3-1
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Stratos Nanoglou
Anatolica, 2021
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Annual of the British School at Athens, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
OIKOS. Archaeological approaches to House Societies in the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by Maria Relaki & Jan Driessen, pp. 275-288, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Antiquity, Project Gallery - http://dx.doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.78, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Πριν από τη Μεγάλη Πρωτεύουσα/Before the Great Capital, 2018
The chapter presents a synopsis of what we know about the inhabitation of the area around Pella d... more The chapter presents a synopsis of what we know about the inhabitation of the area around Pella during the Neolithic (middle 7th to late 4th millennium BC). Since most of the sites that have been discovered and excavated date to the early phases of the period, most of the discussion pertains to the late 7th and the 6th millennium BC. Particular attention is paid to the role of clay in the lives of the inhabitants, for the material was used in buildings, installations, pottery, figurines and other implements, justifying Mirjana Stevanović’s use of the term “age of clay” for the period. A few comments are offered, regarding the use of space in settlements, the use of early pottery and the use of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations. Arguably the picture we have is still patchy, but a first step is made to allow for a new constellation of research questions that will go beyond a dry litany of descriptions.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Anthemous Valley Archaeological Project. A preliminary report, 2016
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Figurines. A microcosmos of clay. Edited by P. Adam-Veleni, A. Koukouvou, O. Palli, E. Stefani, E. Zografou, 2017
Synopsis of what we know about the neolithic figurines from central Macedonia
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Dietz, Søren, Fanis Mavridis, Žarko Tankosić, and Turan Takaoğlu, eds. (2018) Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area during the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Vol. 20, Oxbow, Oxford, 2018
The corpus of figurines securely dated to the Final Neolithic is extremely small and any attempts... more The corpus of figurines securely dated to the Final Neolithic is extremely small and any attempts to pin down traits peculiar to the period tread, to say the least, on risky ground. Nevertheless, there are some types that have been associated with the period, at least in eastern Thessaly and central Macedonia. A significant aspect of these figures is that their head shows a mismatch with the body, either in terms of the material used and the technology employed or in terms of the number of heads that spring out of said body. This comprises a departure from an earlier emphasis on the body and its insignia and an even earlier focus on actions. In a way bodies in the Final Neolithic in this particular area are assembled from a multitude of seemingly disparate members and I will argue that focusing on the practice of assembling members sheds some light on those people’s place in history.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ειδώλιο. Ένας μικρόκοσμος από πηλό. Επιμέλεια: Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη, Η. Ζωγράφου, Α. Κουκουβού, Ο. Πάλλη, Ε. Στεφανή, 2017
Σύνοψη όσων γνωρίζουμε για τα νεολιθικά ειδώλια της κεντρικής Μακεδονίας. Synopsis of what we kno... more Σύνοψη όσων γνωρίζουμε για τα νεολιθικά ειδώλια της κεντρικής Μακεδονίας. Synopsis of what we know about the neolithic figurines from central Macedonia.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
THRAVSMA: Contextualising the Intentional Destruction of Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus. Eds K. Harrell & J. Driessen. AeGIS 9: 49-59. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
From the intro:
To my mind the impetus that brought these papers together is entirely implicit ... more From the intro:
To my mind the impetus that brought these papers together is entirely implicit and yet clear: it has to do with deliberation, with intentionality. This is perfectly resonate with the focus of archaeology on agency and the individual for at least the past thirty years and it makes perfect sense to probe such issues from diverse angles bringing new perspectives on the lives of past people. This paper is an attempt to contribute to a better understanding of the terms employed in the relevant discussions within Aegean prehistory and beyond and to do so I will argue that it is essential to turn to the framework necessary for these notions and associated intentions to exist. I mean that to enunciate such words, like damaged, fragmented, destroyed and so on, in order for these words to be intelligible, and for relevant intentions to be formed, there is need for a certain framework that produces and supports them. My initial question then is: Was there such a framework in the Aegean Bronze Age? To answer that, but most importantly to answer a related and more apposite question, namely what kind of framework was there in place and accordingly what kind of notions and intentions were possible and even sanctioned at the time, I turn in the main part of this paper to the Neolithic to offer a historical background for the Bronze Age, particularly the Early Bronze Age, and only in the final part I explore the possibilities one would have had to capitalise on that background during the third millennium BC.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
C. Fowler, J. Harding, D. Hofmann (eds), Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 621-637., Apr 2015
This chapter is concerned with the miniature bodies and related objects that populated southeast ... more This chapter is concerned with the miniature bodies and related objects that populated southeast Europe during the Neolithic. It gives an overview of the themes (overwhelmingly humans, animals, and buildings), the forms (freestanding figurines and models, pendants, and vessels), and the materials employed (most usually clay and stone), and pays particular attention to some regional differences within the area. It is argued that, although the region stands out on the grand scale in terms of the use of miniatures, it shows a significant variation in local practices, and in the role of these objects in the lives of Neolithic people. It is argued that the role of miniatures should be considered not just as derivative of other practices, but equally constitutive of the Neolithic world.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Stefani, E., Merousis, N. and Dimoula, A. (eds), A Century of Research in Prehistoric Macedonia: 1912-2012, International Conference Proceedings, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki 22-24 November 2012, pp. 639-644., Dec 2014
The Representation of Humans in Neolithic Macedonia.
The paper attempts to go beyond usual criti... more The Representation of Humans in Neolithic Macedonia.
The paper attempts to go beyond usual criticisms and offer a positive account of what we know about Neolithic figurines from Macedonia. It focuses on figurines as objects used in situated practices under specific historical conditions, rather than transcendental mirrors of society. Despite the rather disparate information, there are certain general trends that can be teased out. A significant point is that apparently there were not that many figurines around in any given community. Furthermore it seems that in the earlier Neolithic they were deposited and probably used as sets of objects rather than individually, while thematically they focus on an active body. The depositional practices change over the course of the Neolithic and we see a focus on materials and a disavowal of action during the later Neolithic. It is argued that this change resonates with the emergence of a concern about the past.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
"The materiality of tradition in earlier Neolithic Thessaly.
This paper concerns the materiality... more "The materiality of tradition in earlier Neolithic Thessaly.
This paper concerns the materiality of the architectural ruins and other features, like graves, and its effects on the way people experience their past and their present. It argues that in the earlier Neolithic of Thessaly the traces of earlier inhabitation were minimal and the materiality of occupational features highlighted the present. In this context the commemoration of the past and its invocation and further utilisation was contingent only upon ephemeral practices, like narrative (whatever the means used to narrate). This, I argue, essentially projected stability as an important structuring principle of their social life."
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Stratos Nanoglou
Proceedings of the One-Day Conference held at the Archaeological Museum of Pella on 12 April 2016 in relation to the temporary exhibition "Before the Great Capital".
2018. ΙSΒN 978-618-81411-3-1
Papers by Stratos Nanoglou
To my mind the impetus that brought these papers together is entirely implicit and yet clear: it has to do with deliberation, with intentionality. This is perfectly resonate with the focus of archaeology on agency and the individual for at least the past thirty years and it makes perfect sense to probe such issues from diverse angles bringing new perspectives on the lives of past people. This paper is an attempt to contribute to a better understanding of the terms employed in the relevant discussions within Aegean prehistory and beyond and to do so I will argue that it is essential to turn to the framework necessary for these notions and associated intentions to exist. I mean that to enunciate such words, like damaged, fragmented, destroyed and so on, in order for these words to be intelligible, and for relevant intentions to be formed, there is need for a certain framework that produces and supports them. My initial question then is: Was there such a framework in the Aegean Bronze Age? To answer that, but most importantly to answer a related and more apposite question, namely what kind of framework was there in place and accordingly what kind of notions and intentions were possible and even sanctioned at the time, I turn in the main part of this paper to the Neolithic to offer a historical background for the Bronze Age, particularly the Early Bronze Age, and only in the final part I explore the possibilities one would have had to capitalise on that background during the third millennium BC.
The paper attempts to go beyond usual criticisms and offer a positive account of what we know about Neolithic figurines from Macedonia. It focuses on figurines as objects used in situated practices under specific historical conditions, rather than transcendental mirrors of society. Despite the rather disparate information, there are certain general trends that can be teased out. A significant point is that apparently there were not that many figurines around in any given community. Furthermore it seems that in the earlier Neolithic they were deposited and probably used as sets of objects rather than individually, while thematically they focus on an active body. The depositional practices change over the course of the Neolithic and we see a focus on materials and a disavowal of action during the later Neolithic. It is argued that this change resonates with the emergence of a concern about the past.
This paper concerns the materiality of the architectural ruins and other features, like graves, and its effects on the way people experience their past and their present. It argues that in the earlier Neolithic of Thessaly the traces of earlier inhabitation were minimal and the materiality of occupational features highlighted the present. In this context the commemoration of the past and its invocation and further utilisation was contingent only upon ephemeral practices, like narrative (whatever the means used to narrate). This, I argue, essentially projected stability as an important structuring principle of their social life."
Proceedings of the One-Day Conference held at the Archaeological Museum of Pella on 12 April 2016 in relation to the temporary exhibition "Before the Great Capital".
2018. ΙSΒN 978-618-81411-3-1
To my mind the impetus that brought these papers together is entirely implicit and yet clear: it has to do with deliberation, with intentionality. This is perfectly resonate with the focus of archaeology on agency and the individual for at least the past thirty years and it makes perfect sense to probe such issues from diverse angles bringing new perspectives on the lives of past people. This paper is an attempt to contribute to a better understanding of the terms employed in the relevant discussions within Aegean prehistory and beyond and to do so I will argue that it is essential to turn to the framework necessary for these notions and associated intentions to exist. I mean that to enunciate such words, like damaged, fragmented, destroyed and so on, in order for these words to be intelligible, and for relevant intentions to be formed, there is need for a certain framework that produces and supports them. My initial question then is: Was there such a framework in the Aegean Bronze Age? To answer that, but most importantly to answer a related and more apposite question, namely what kind of framework was there in place and accordingly what kind of notions and intentions were possible and even sanctioned at the time, I turn in the main part of this paper to the Neolithic to offer a historical background for the Bronze Age, particularly the Early Bronze Age, and only in the final part I explore the possibilities one would have had to capitalise on that background during the third millennium BC.
The paper attempts to go beyond usual criticisms and offer a positive account of what we know about Neolithic figurines from Macedonia. It focuses on figurines as objects used in situated practices under specific historical conditions, rather than transcendental mirrors of society. Despite the rather disparate information, there are certain general trends that can be teased out. A significant point is that apparently there were not that many figurines around in any given community. Furthermore it seems that in the earlier Neolithic they were deposited and probably used as sets of objects rather than individually, while thematically they focus on an active body. The depositional practices change over the course of the Neolithic and we see a focus on materials and a disavowal of action during the later Neolithic. It is argued that this change resonates with the emergence of a concern about the past.
This paper concerns the materiality of the architectural ruins and other features, like graves, and its effects on the way people experience their past and their present. It argues that in the earlier Neolithic of Thessaly the traces of earlier inhabitation were minimal and the materiality of occupational features highlighted the present. In this context the commemoration of the past and its invocation and further utilisation was contingent only upon ephemeral practices, like narrative (whatever the means used to narrate). This, I argue, essentially projected stability as an important structuring principle of their social life."
Archaeology and Its Discontents: Why Archaeology Matters, by John C. Barrett. Themes in Archaeology. London: Routledge 2021. Pp. x + 169. $36. ISBN 978-0-367-55645-7 (paper).
Far from Equilibrium: An Archaeology of Energy, Life and Humanity. A Response to the Archaeology of John C. Barrett, edited by Michael J. Boyd and Roger C.P. Doonan. Oxford: Oxbow 2021. Pp. xiii + 337. $67.50. ISBN 978-1-78925-603-1 (cloth).