Full Ebook of New Approaches To The Archaeology of Beekeeping David Wallace Hare Editor Online PDF All Chapter

New Approaches to the Archaeology of
Beekeeping David Wallace-Hare (Editor)

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/new-approaches-to-the-archaeology-of-beekeeping-d
avid-wallace-hare-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
People in the Mountains Current Approaches to the

Archaeology of Mountainous Landscapes 1st Edition
Andrzej Pelisiak
https://ebookmeta.com/product/people-in-the-mountains-current-
approaches-to-the-archaeology-of-mountainous-landscapes-1st-
edition-andrzej-pelisiak/
From West to East Current Approaches to Medieval

Archaeology 1st Edition Scott D Stull
https://ebookmeta.com/product/from-west-to-east-current-
approaches-to-medieval-archaeology-1st-edition-scott-d-stull/
The Narrative Game The Reading of David Foster Wallace

s Infinite Jest as Play Reading of David Foster Wallace
s Infinite Jest as Play 1st Edition Rainer Holl
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-narrative-game-the-reading-of-
david-foster-wallace-s-infinite-jest-as-play-reading-of-david-
foster-wallace-s-infinite-jest-as-play-1st-edition-rainer-holl/
The History of New York City 2 Greater Gotham A History

of New York City from 1898 to 1919 1st Edition Mike
Wallace
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-history-of-new-york-
city-2-greater-gotham-a-history-of-new-york-city-
from-1898-to-1919-1st-edition-mike-wallace/
Arqueologia y Techne Metodos formales nuevos enfoques
Archaeology and Techne Formal Methods New Approaches
Jordi Perez Gonzalez (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/arqueologia-y-techne-metodos-
formales-nuevos-enfoques-archaeology-and-techne-formal-methods-
new-approaches-jordi-perez-gonzalez-editor/
Electrical Conquest: New Approaches to the History of

Electrification 1st Edition W. Bernard Carlson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/electrical-conquest-new-approaches-
to-the-history-of-electrification-1st-edition-w-bernard-carlson/
Beekeeping For Dummies Blackiston
https://ebookmeta.com/product/beekeeping-for-dummies-blackiston/
The Archaeology of Island Colonization Global

Approaches to Initial Human Settlement 1st Edition
Matthew F Napolitano Jessica H Stone Robert J Dinapoli
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-archaeology-of-island-
colonization-global-approaches-to-initial-human-settlement-1st-
edition-matthew-f-napolitano-jessica-h-stone-robert-j-dinapoli/
The Wealth and Poverty of African States (New

Approaches to Economic and Social History) Morten
Jerven
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-wealth-and-poverty-of-african-
states-new-approaches-to-economic-and-social-history-morten-
jerven/
New Approaches
to the
Archaeology of Beekeeping
Edited by
David Wallace-Hare
New Approaches
to the
Archaeology of Beekeeping
Edited by
David Wallace-Hare
Archaeopress Archaeology
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd
Summertown Pavilion
18-24 Middle Way
Summertown
Oxford OX2 7LG
www.archaeopress.com
ISBN 978-1-78969-993-7
ISBN 978-1-78969-994-4 (e-Pdf)
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.
This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com
Contents
Preface�� iii
Acknowledgements��v
Chapter 1
A New Approach to the Study of Ancient Greek Beekeeping ��1
Georgios Mavrofridis
Chapter 2
Smoke and Bees: From Prehistoric to Traditional Smokers in Greece��19
Sophia Germanidou
Chapter 3
Potters and Beekeepers: Industrial Collaboration in Ancient Greece��30
Jane E. Francis
Chapter 4
Etruscan ‘Honey Pots’: Some Observations on a Specialised Vase Shape��45
Paolo Persano
Chapter 5
Palynological Insights into the Ecology and Economy of Ancient Bee-Products��59
Lorenzo Castellano, Roberta Pini, Cesare Ravazzi, Giulia Furlanetto, Franco Valoti
Chapter 6
La apicultura en el ager de Segóbriga (Cuenca, Spain)��79
Jorge Morín de Pablos, Rui Roberto de Almeida, Isabel Sánchez Ramos
Chapter 7
Beekeeping and Problematic Landscapes: Beekeeping and Mining in Roman Spain and North Africa��112
David Wallace-Hare
Chapter 8
Evidence of Dalmatian Beekeeping in Roman Antiquity��130
Kristina Jelinčić Vučković, Ivana Ožanić Roguljić, Emmanuel Botte, Nicolas Garnier
Chapter 9
Ancient Rock-Cut Apiaries in the Mediterranean Area: Some Case-Studies��146
Roberto Bixio, Andrea Bixio, Andrea De Pascale
Chapter 10
Appiaria vel in civitate vel in villa: Apiculture in the Early Medieval West��159
Javier Martínez Jiménez
Chapter 11
The Production and Trade of Wax in North-Eastern Iberia, XIV-XVI c.: The Case of Catalonia��172
Lluís Sales i Favà, Alexandra Sapoznik
i
Chapter 12
Del panal a la mesa: La miel en la Corona de Aragón (siglos XIV-XV)��186
Pablo José Alcover Cateura
Chapter 13
Honey and Wax in Medieval Tyrol on the Basis of Tyrolean Land Registers (Urbaria) and Books of Accounts��196
Barbara Denicolò
Chapter 14
Early Irish Law on Bee-Keeping, with Particular Reference to Bechbretha ‘Bee-Judgements’��209
Fergus Kelly
Chapter 15
Arqueología de la apicultura en la Asturias preindustrial ��216
Juaco López Álvarez
Chapter 16
Approches de l’Archéologie: L’apiculture insolite du nord de l’Espagne��233
Robert Chevet
Chapter 17
Historical Beekeeping in Northern Portugal: Between Traditional Practices and Innovation in
Movable Frame Hives�� 253
Teresa Soeiro
ii
Preface
Current interest in beekeeping, or apiculture, is growing because of the precipitous decline of bees worldwide and
the disastrous effect it portends for global agriculture. As a result, all aspects of beekeeping in all historical periods
are coming under closer scrutiny. The current volume takes a holistic view of beekeeping archaeology (including
honey and associated products, hive construction, and participants in this trade) in one large interconnected
geographic region, the Mediterranean, central Europe, and the Atlantic Façade.
Increasingly inventive archaeological work focusing on ancient material remains of apiculture in the Mediterranean,
for example, has expanded our knowledge of several areas of seemingly great production intensity, as in the pre-
Roman and Roman Iberian Peninsula, and pre-Roman and Roman Crete and mainland Greece. Further work needs
to be done now to bridge our growing body of ancient archaeological evidence from the Mediterranean with other
areas of ancient Europe in addition to connecting this material to different sorts of evidence from later periods in
these same areas, to say nothing of making similar diachronic connections outside Europe. Other research is forging
entirely new lines of inquiry hitherto inaccessible in the past through the application of exciting new tools such
as organic and pollen residue analysis of surviving hives and apicultural equipment and products from premodern
periods (Louveaux, Maurizio, and Vorwohl 1978; Furness 1994; Garnier et al. 2002; Evershed 2008; Garnier 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2019).
New Approaches to the Archaeology of Beekeeping focuses on novel approaches to historical beekeeping but also
highlights new applications of more established ways of treating apicultural material from the past. The volume
is keenly interested in helping readers navigate the challenges inherent in studying beekeeping historically. For
example, while numerous ceramic beehives from pre-Roman and Roman Spain and ancient Greece speak to the
importance of this industry in the ancient west, such hives tend to disappear in late antiquity, when hives of
biodegradable materials like cork, wicker, or logs seem to have more widely replaced them. In fact, these organic
hives appear to have been the norm for much of antiquity, with ceramic hives appearing only haphazardly, mostly
in cities on the Mediterranean littoral. In temperate and Atlantic Europe, ceramic hives rarely seem to have been
used at all. Extant material evidence for apiculture is disproportionately distributed in the ancient world with far
fewer material remains, surprisingly, found for the medieval or early modern period. Textually, this situation is the
reverse, in that we have an abundance of documentary evidence concerning beekeeping from the medieval and
early modern periods and much less for antiquity. One way the volume has attempted to meet this asymmetric
array of evidence is through its interdisciplinary and diachronic outlook, allowing current researchers and new
voices a chance to see where they can add to the growing conversation on historical beekeeping.
The volume brings together scholars working not only on ancient archaeological evidence of beekeeping but also
medieval, early modern, and ethnographic evidence of it. In this sense, New Approaches to the Archaeology of Beekeeping
is meant to serve as a handbook for current researchers in this field and those who wish to undertake research into
the history and archaeology of beekeeping. The array of case studies within are written in such a way as to balance
publication of specialist material with inclusive explanation of the methodologies employed in each case.
The arrival of Langstroth’s movable frame hive (1852) simultaneously heralded the arrival of modern industrial
beekeeping but also the death knell of traditional beekeeping practices over much of the world. Before that time,
change in hive technology and associated beekeeping equipment moved, as Suzanne Rotroff has put it, at a ‘glacial
pace’ (Rotroff 2006:126). Studying beekeeping diachronically for much of its history is essential for filling in gaps in
any given period. While no standardized beekeeping existed in the premodern world, variation in hive technology
and, for instance, smokers, was not extreme in central or southern Europe, North Africa, or the Near East. Those
who research the field of historical beekeeping, therefore, in some ways must be versatile and open to looking in
other areas and time periods. This specific globalizing approach to historical beekeeping owes itself to the work of
a sorely missed scholar to whom the present volume is dedicated, Dr. Eva Crane (1917-2007).
Dr. Crane was a giant in the study of historical beekeeping. Two among her many works on beekeeping have
definitively shaped the modern field of apicultural history and archaeology: The Archaeology of Beekeeping (1983) and
the magisterial The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting (1999). With the first volume, Crane established
the field of beekeeping archaeology as an international pursuit the holistic study of which could help scholars
understand beekeeping developments on a global scale. If that were not ambitious enough, Crane later followed
up that volume with a tome representing the capstone of her endeavours in the study of apicultural history. Her
iii
1999 volume surveyed textual and archaeological evidence of beekeeping around the world while also paying close
and important attention to a category of evidence long ignored but now quite at home in the historical study of
beekeeping, ethnographic evidence of traditional beekeeping.
To date there have been few direct follow-up volumes to Crane’s 1983 and 1999 works besides Bortolin’s (2008)
Archeologia del miele and Giuman’s (2008) Melissa: archeologia delle api e del miele nella Grecia antica. Both focusing, as
the titles imply, on archaeological material, and in the one case, on Greece alone. In 2018, in collaboration with
the Eva Crane Trust, an edited volume, Beekeeping in the Mediterranean: From Antiquity to the Present (eds. Hatjina,
Mavrofridis, and Jones, hereafter HMJ) followed in Crane’s footsteps more directly. This work was the publication
of the proceedings of a conference held at Syros in 2014. That volume continued Crane’s work in several ways
1) it brought together contributions of a geographically varied nature within the Mediterranean, 2) considered
beekeeping diachronically across time within this macroregion, and 3) considered archaeological, historical, and
ethnographic studies of this subject in this zone equally. These were all the hallmarks of Crane’s method.
Like Crane’s focus, the current volume too takes a combined historical-archaeological approach to the study of the
history of beekeeping. The volume’s name, New Approaches to the Archaeology of Beekeeping, pays homage to Crane’s
1983 volume by sharing its disciplinarily holistic perspective. Taken in conjunction with HMJ, the present volume
is intended to provide a conspectus view of historical beekeeping in the western Mediterranean and Europe. It is
hoped that the conversations engendered by the research within the volume will foster further collaboration and
discourse about historical trends in global beekeeping.
Works Cited
Bortolin, R. 2008. Archeologia del miele. Mantua: SAP. Chromatography and DNA analysis in archaeology: 13–
Crane, E. 1983. The Archaeology of Beekeeping. London: 39. Esposende: Município de Esposende.
Duckworth. Giuman, M. 2008. Melissa: archeologia delle api e del miele
Crane, E. 1999. The World History of Beekeeping and Honey nella Grecia antica. Rome: Bretschneider.
Hunting. London: Duckworth. Hatjina, F., G. Mavrofridis and R. Jones (eds) 2018.
Evershed, R. P. 2008. Organic residue analysis in Beekeeping in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to
archaeology: The archaeological biomarker the Present. Nea Moudania: Division of Apiculture,
revolution. Archaeometry 50(6): 895–924. Hellenic Agricultural Organization ‘Demeter’-
Furness, C. A. 1994. The extraction and identification Greece; Chamber of Cyclades; Eva Crane Trust -
of pollen from a beeswax statue. Grana 33(1): 49-52 UK.
Garnier, N., et al. 2002. Characterization Louveaux, J., A. Maurizio and G. Vorwohl. 1978 Methods
of Archaeological Beeswax by Electron of Melissopalynology. Bee World 59(4): 139-157.
Ionization and Electrospray Ionization Mass Oliveira, C., et al. 2019. Chromatographic analysis
Spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 74: 4868–77. of honey ceramic artefacts. Archaeological and
Garnier, N. 2015. Méthodologies d’analyse chimique Anthropological Sciences 11: 959-971.
organique en archéologie, in C. Oliveira, R. Rotroff, S. I. 2006. Hellenistic Pottery. The Plain Wares.
Morais, and Á. M. Cerdán (eds) ArchaeoAnalytics (Athenian Agora 33). Princeton: University Press.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to a colleague, collaborator, mentor, and above all friend, Rui Morais
(FLUP, Universidade do Porto) for his help and guidance in bringing this volume to fruition. Rui first befriended
me in 2017 when I emailed him about visiting and photographing ceramic beehives in Braga during a short stay in
Portugal. Little did I know that so far from giving me some contact information on whom to get in touch with at the
Museu de Arqueologia D. Diogo de Sousa and Museu Pio XII, Rui gave me a guided archaeological tour of the city and
its museums as only an expert archaeologist and historian of the city could. He has been a dear friend ever since and
this book would not have been possible without him in so many ways.
This book would also not have been possible without the generous support of the Department of Classics and
Humanities at San Diego State University and the Friends of Classics and Barbara Schuch Endowed Fellowship in
Classics and Digital Humanities.
I would also like to thank the many anonymous peer reviewers who strengthened the volume through their close
reading and helpful comments.
v
vi
Chapter 1
A New Approach to the Study of Ancient Greek Beekeeping
University of the Aegean (mavrofridis@geo.aegean.gr)
Summary: In this chapter are examined the ceramic beehives that archaeological investigations in Greece have brought to
light, as well as the beekeeping practices that involved them. The beehives belonged to three and possibly four different types.
It seems that two of these types were unknown in other Mediterranean regions. The beekeeping practices that involved each of
these types are investigated through the scope of: a) the beekeeping practices and methods of the traditional beekeepers that
used the respective beehive-types in the Aegean Islands and b) the practice of experimental beekeeping using copies of ancient
ceramic beehives.
Key Words: ceramic beehives, horizontal hives, moveable-comb hives, beekeeping practices, Greece
Introduction Virgil, Columella, Pliny the Elder and Palladius,

beehives were open at both ends and were made
Ancient Greek literature offers only scarce evidence of various materials, such as woven sticks, wood,
regarding the practice of beekeeping and absolutely planks, fennel stalks, tree barks, clay, dung, and/
no hint about the beehive types that were used. On the
or bricks (see Mavrofridis 2018a: 102-5, citing the
contrary, ancient Latin texts include enough information
about beehives and their use. Archaeological texts of the Roman authors). Beehives resembling
investigations in Greece brought to light types of those described by these Roman authors were
ceramic beehives that are not mentioned by any of the used in regions of the Mediterranean until the
Roman authors. The use of these beehives demanded 20th century (Crane 1983: 52-6; 1994: 120-28,
different beekeeping methods than those described by 133). The most ambiguous type of all was the
the Roman writers. Some of these methods were still beehive made of dung. Several suggestions refer
applied until several decades ago by traditional Greek to the process by which these beehives were
beekeepers who used similar beehive types in their made, yet none of them seems realistic.1 Such
beekeeping practices. Other methods disappeared as dung-beehives were made and used until the
time went by, but they can be explored and understood
mid-20th century in Cappadocia (Bodenheimer
through experimental archaeology. In my opinion,
one would be able to comprehend ancient Greek 1942: 14; Kostakis 1963: 386). I believe that these
beekeeping through a combination of the following: a) ethnographic parallels may serve as precise
the thorough study of the archaeological evidence that examples of the manufacturing process of their
is related to beekeeping; b) the study of any respective ancient ancestors. The process involved in making
information appearing in ancient literature; c) the these was relatively simple and involved shaping
study of traditional beekeeping in Greece, especially fresh dung into bands that were connected to
that involving beehives reminiscent to their ancient each other and drying it out (Mavrofridis 2015c:
counterparts; d) experimental beekeeping using copies 85-6; 2018a: 103-5).
of ancient ceramic beehives. Through this scope, I
will try to re-approach and re-discuss the beekeeping The use of ceramic horizontal beehives open at both
practices of ancient Greece. ends is confirmed by archaeological fieldwork in the
Iberian Peninsula. Such beehives, dating before and
The Beehives during the Roman period, have been discovered at
several sites in the Peninsula (de Almeida and Morín de
It has already been mentioned that the surviving
works of ancient Greek authors do not offer any 1
Frazer (1951: 54-5) maintains that there were no beehives made of
evidence regarding the types of beehives used. dung, but woven beehives that were coated with dung. Crane (1983:
Roman authors for their part provide detailed 51-2 and 1999: 262), discusses the creation of beehives by a mixture of
mud and dung, while Francis (2012: 147, 149) discusses the creation of
information on this matter. According to Varro, beehives by dung-bricks or moulds.
New Approaches to the Archaeology of Beekeeping (Archaeopress 2021): 1–18

Pablos 2012: 732-41; Bonet and Mata 1997: 35-9; Fuentes probably horizontal, open at both ends; the same type
et al. 2004: 188-194; Morín de Pablos and de Almeida of beehive was used in the Middle Ages (Crane 1999:
2014: 283-301; Quixal and Jardón 2016: 52-6). The vast 212-3; Germanidou 2016: 66-76). It was also used later,
majority of beehives found in the Iberian Peninsula are in the context of traditional beekeeping in south Italy
horizontal, open at both ends. Next to them, a type of and Sicily (Crane 1999: 186-7, 214; Masetti 2004: 469-71;
beehive open at one end, shaped as a truncated cone is 2006: 255-8).
also found (Almeida and Morín de Pablos 2012: 735-6;
Morín de Pablos and de Almeida 2014: 292-3). However, Archaeological fieldwork in Greece has brought to
its closed edge was pierced allowing the bees to enter light ceramic beehives different than those described
and with the beekeepers performing their harvesting by the Roman authors; this difference in shape
and other activities from the open end. implies different beekeeping practices, which are
not mentioned in the Latin texts. The beehives under
In the Italian Peninsula, to date, no ceramic beehives discussion could be divided into three main types,
have been found, or at least, none have been identified according to the beekeeping methods that involved
aside from a beehive-rim from Naxos in Sicily them: a) horizontal, open-at-one-end beehives with
(Blackman et al. 2010: 153-5). This is probably due to quite short extension rings adjusted to their mouth; b)
the use of beehives made of perishable materials rather horizontal open-at-one-end beehives with one or more
than clay. It is worth mentioning, that the Roman holes pierced at the closed edge; c) vertical open-at-top
authors did not appreciate ceramic beehives because beehives. There is, however, some evidence for the use
of their poor insulation properties (Varro, Res Rusticae of horizontal beehives open at both ends; which, if their
3.16.17; Columella, De Re Rustica 9.6.2; Palladius, Opus use were confirmed, would allow us to add a fourth type
Agriculturae, 1.38).2 In Roman Italy the beehives were to the above division.
Figure 1. 4th century BCE horizontal open-at-one-end beehive and a Hellenistic mould for beehive lids bearing the inscription
EMBIOY. Attica, Archaeological Collection of the Athens Airport.
2
On this issue see: Francis 2012: 149-50; Mavrofridis 2011: 266-70;
2015d: 352-4; 2018d: 57-8.
2
Figure 2. Copy of a 4th century BCE horizontal open-at-one end beehive, in use during experimental beekeeping.
The commonest type of beehives in ancient Greece 2018c: 74) (Figure 3). In some cases (e.g. on the island
was without any doubt the horizontal open-at-one- of Paros) there are still beekeepers that use them.
end (Figure 1, 2). The beehives of this type were often
different in terms of length, diameter, and certain Open-at-one-end beehives were regularly found with
morphological features. Beehive fragments that seem short extension rings; two to three and in some cases
to belong to this type were found on Salamis and date only one comb could be attached to these rings. Two
between the late 6th century BCE and the mid-5th types of ceramic, disc-shaped lids were also discovered.
century BCE (Mavrofridis and Chairetakis 2019: 40). The first type includes lids with a crescent-shaped
Numerous such beehives have been discovered in Attica flight hole at their edge, two pairs of holes and often
and other regions (such as the Northwest Peloponnese, one more hole at the centre. In some cases, they would
Boeotia, Euboea, Crete, Ephesus, Chalkidiki, many be decorated with floral motifs or relief concentric
islands of the Cyclades and on Agathonisi); the earliest circles; rarely, they would bear an inscribed name
of them date to the end of the 5th century BCE.3 They (Figure 1) or merely a letter (Bossolino 2016 : 510-2;
were in use at least until the 6th and 7th century Lolos 2000: 126). It is suggested that these lids would be
CE, possibly even until the 10th to 12th century CE.4 adjusted to the beehive with the use of a forked branch,
Traditional beehives, open at one end that were similar which would be tied with a rope to the lid (through
to their ancient counterparts were used in several south the pair of holes) and all around the beehive’s mouth
Aegean islands until some decades ago (Mavrofridis or extension ring (Jones et al. 1973: 410).5 The second
type includes lids pierced by many small holes, through
3
On the finds before 2006, see: Rotroff 2006: 126-7 (past bibliography
which bees entered into the beehives (Giannas 2018: 82;
is included). On more recent finds, see: Bibliodetis 2017: 159, 169-70; Mavrofridis 2018b: 849).
Francis 2012: 150; 2016: 87-99; Giannas 2018: 79-82; Karnava et al.
2015: 120; Kataki 2012: 538, 541; Triantafyllidis 2012: 637-53; Tsigarida
et al. 2013: 386.
4
Germanidou 2016: 87-100. On a ceramic beehive, open at one end,
which is possibly dated to the 10th-12th centuries CE, see pp. 92-3 of 5
However, this suggestion does not explain the central hole that
that work. pierces many of these lids.
3
Figure 3. Traditional ceramic open-at-one-end-beehive from Amorgos Island, Cyclades.
Figure 4. 1st century CE horizontal open-at-one-end beehive

with hole at the closed edge, from Georgioupoli, Crete
(Photograph: Archive of Ephorate of Antiquities of Chania,
courtesy of Michalis Milidakis).
Horizontal open-at-one-end beehives with one or

more holes pierced at the closed edge appeared in the
Hellenistic period, and seem to have been in use –at
least in Crete– into the Roman period as well (Figures
4-5).6 The closed edge of a 3rd century BCE beehive
that was discovered in the Athenian Agora has a small
central hole and may be classified in this group of
beehives (Rotroff 2001: 176-7; 2006: 129). I do not agree
with the opinion that this Athenian beehive was vertical
(Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: 368; Bosolino
2016: 515). In 2008, conducting a test to determine the
verticality or horizontality of this hive, a swarm was
put into a facsimile of a vertical ceramic beehive with a
central entrance hole pierced at its base. It abandoned
the beehive the next day (Mavrofridis 2009a: 120).
Furthermore, there is no evidence attesting the use
of vertical, open-at-top beehives with a central flight
hole at the base. There is one example of a vertical,
open-at-top beehive from 19th century Cythera,
6
About this type of beehive used as burial jars in a Hellenistic
cemetery in Chania, Crete, see: Kataki 2012: 538, 541 (the cemetery is
dated to the second half of the 4th century BCE or the first half of the
3rd century BCE). Concerning similar beehives in Roman Crete, see:
Crane 1999: 191; Francis 2016: 88-9; Hayes 1983: 132, 134.
4
Figure 5. The opening at the closed edge of a 1st century CE horizontal beehive from Georgioupoli, Crete (Photograph: Archive
of Ephorate of Antiquities of Chania, courtesy of Michalis Milidakis).
which has a large central hole at the base. However, believe that it is also probable that this cylinder was
the flight entrance of this beehive was pierced in the the extension ring of an open-at-one-end beehive. The
vertical walls of the hive, while the hole at the base by length of the object is rather small, compared to that
contrast allowed ventilation and prevented humidity of a horizontal, open-at-both-ends beehive. The small
(Mavrofridis, 2017: 320). size of the object (its capacity reaches 28.5 liters) does
not rule out the possibility that it was used as a beehive;
Vertical, open-at-top beehives seem to have appeared however, it is not so common. Ancient, horizontal,
in the Hellenistic period, according to evidence known open-at-both-ends beehives that have come to light (in
thus far. Such beehives have been discovered at Isthmia Spain and Portugal) or similar beehives that were used
(Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: 255-65) (Figures until some decades ago all around the Mediterranean
6, 7) and some fragments found in Attica and on the (in Cyprus, the Dodecanese, Lesbos, Crete, Ios, the
islands of Agathonisi, Chios, and Delos may be ascribed Near East, and Egypt) were much longer and their
to this type.7 These beehives were shaped as reversed capacity was considerably bigger. On Agathonisi,
truncated cones; this means that their side walls ancient beekeepers used extension rings; such objects
converge towards the base. The entrances of the bees are discovered on the island in large quantities,
are pierced at the side walls, close to the base or at the their length varying from 8 to 14cm (Giannas 2018:
circumference of the base itself. 81; Triantafyllidis 2012: 643). Similar, a 30cm long
extension ring that is dated between the 5th and the
Let us now refer to the horizontal beehives, open at 4th century BCE was found in Attica (Jones 1990: 63-5,
both ends. On Agathonisi, a 40cm long cylinder was 70-1); another one, 24cm long that dates to the Roman
found almost complete and it has been interpreted as period was unearthed on Crete (Francis 2016: 88). The
a horizontal, open-at-both-ends beehive (Giannas 2018: length of traditional extension rings, which were used
80). Even though I do not reject this interpretation, I in beehives, open-at-one-end, in the Dodecanese,
the Cyclades, as well as on Malta varied from 37 to
7
Mavrofridis 2018a: 108 including the relevant bibliography. approximately 50cm (Mavrofridis 2018: 107).
However, the lack of entrances for the bees, which is observed in every
fragment so far discovered, does not allow me to accept without any
reservation that these examples indeed belonged to vertical, open-
Besides the cylindrical object that is discussed in the
at-top beehives. previous paragraph and may have served as an open-at-
5
Figure 6. Experimental beekeeping using a copy of the Hellenistic vertical beehive found in Isthmia that bears
the inscription ΟΡΕΣΤΑΔΑ.
Figure 7. The professional beekeeper Isidoros Tsiminis holding moveable-combs, taken from a copy of a vertical
beehive from Isthmia.
6
both-ends beehive, there are some further indications The Practice of Beekeeping
regarding the use of such beehives in certain regions. P.
Triantafyllidis, based on the fact that no closed ended It has already been discussed that three or possibly four
beehives have so far been discovered on Agathonisi, types of beehives were used in ancient Greece. Each of
concluded that at least some of the island’s horizontal these types included several sub-types, differing from
beehives, dating between the late 3rd century BCE and each other in terms of shape, size or certain secondary
the 1st century CE, were probably open at both ends features. Some of these sub-types were merely local
(Triantafyllidis 2010: 40; 2012: 642; 2014: 649).8 Likewise, varieties and it generally seems that they did not
J. Francis, who discusses hive-craft in Chapter 4 of the impose different beekeeping practices. In this chapter,
present volume, expressed a similar thought about the I will not deal with the sub-types of the beehives,
beehives of Roman Crete. She considered that the small as I aim to focus more on the main characteristics of
number of closed ends from broken beehives was due beekeeping practices with each of the main types of
to the wider use of open-at-both-ends beehives (Francis ceramic beehives in ancient Greece.
2016: 88). This suggestion must remain an assumption
as long as no open-at-both-ends beehives are found on 1. Beekeeping with horizontal, open-at-one-end beehives
Crete. I believe that for the time being there is no solid
evidence that would confirm the use of such beehives Horizontal open-at-one-end beehives were the most
in ancient Greece. common type of ceramic beehive in ancient Greece
(Figures 1, 2). Their inner walls were incised, in
There is no doubt that in ancient Greece, not only some cases only at the upper part, for the better and
clay but also other, perishable, materials (such as steadier attachment of the honeycomb. However, it
woven sticks, wood, planks, tree barks and hollowed is probable that some of the ancient Greek beehives
tree trunks) were used to make beehives that are no would not have such incisions. There is an example of
longer preserved. The Roman authors refer to many a horizontal ceramic beehive, dated to the 1st century
such beehives, but some of them were most probably CE, which was found in Georgioupoli in Crete that
not used in ancient Greece. This is the case of beehives remained plain, without any incision.10 Likewise, 18th
made of cork (Quercus suber), a tree that did not grow century horizontal beehives from Syros, and perhaps
in Greece and maybe of those made of fennel stalks from other islands of the Cyclades as well, had similar
(Ferula communis). Beehives made of fennel stalks were incisions on the upper part of their interior (Della Rocca
used until recently by traditional beekeepers in Sicily 1790: II, 16). However, the traditional ceramic beehives,
(Crane 1999: 186-7; Masetti 2004: 469-71) and Morocco which were widely used on many Greek islands, until
(Pechhacker et al. 2001: 101). However, they are never some decades ago, did not have such incisions, save
reported in Greece and generally in the Eastern some rare examples (Mavrofridis 2014: 19-20).11 Hence,
Mediterranean. After all, the fennel is not a very it may be concluded that the existence of incisions on
common plant in modern Greece and likewise, it was the interior of the ceramic horizontal beehives could
probably not very common in antiquity or the medieval be helpful, without being necessary for the steadier
period either. attachment of the honeycombs.
Finally, the existence in ancient Greece of observation In these beehives, the honeycombs, which occupied
hives, which allowed the observation of the bees’ the part extending from the centre to the closed edge
life to a certain extent, is a possibility that cannot be of the hive, were never harvested and as a result, they
excluded; some kinds of these hives are described by were not replaced by the bees. This was a significant
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia 11.26; 11.47). At this disadvantage, because the non harvested honeycombs
point, it would be interesting to add an anecdotal became black and hard over time, affecting the health
story cited by 14th-century Arab writer Al-Damiri al- and longevity of the bee colony. Any beekeeping
Din (c. 1344-1405). According to him Aristotle, in his activity demanding the opening of the beehive took
effort to study the honey production, created a beehive place from the side of the bees’ entrance. This fact
made of glass. However, the bees became annoyed by made harvesting difficult for the beekeeper. According
his indiscreetness and disturbed his observations by to beekeeping expert V. Dermatopoulos, who witnessed
coating the interior of the glass with mud.9 harvesting from ceramic horizontal open-at-one-
end beehives on Naxos in the 1970s, ‘to harvest these
beehives is trouble and torture both to the beekeeper
and the bees’ (Dermatopoulos 1974: 214).
10
The beehive was presented by M. Miliadakis and N. Maragkoudakis
8
Ch. Giannas (2018: 80) believes that all horizontal beehives of in the 5th Meeting for the Archaeological Work in Crete, which was
Agathonisi were open at both ends. carried out in Rethymno (21-24/11/2019).
9
On this story by Al-Damiri al-Din, see Davies and Kathirithamby 11
In some rare cases, instead of incisions, a row of relief bands made
1986: 49. of clay was made on the upper part of the interior.
7
One or more short extension rings were adjusted to called ‘bee space,’ which is the distance left between
the mouth of the horizontal open-at-one-end beehives. honeycombs by bees, during the honeycombs’ creation.
The majority of these extension rings were 6 to 9cm
long; there are some smaller ones, 3cm long versions It is suggested that the short extension rings of ancient
(Sackett 1992: 189),12 and some larger than 10cm long beehives were probably used in the production of the
variants (Francis 2006: 382; 2016: 88; Lüdorf 1998/99: unsmoked honey that is frequently mentioned by
112; Triantafyllidis 2012: 643). Two unique extension ancient authors (Strabo 9.1.23; Pliny, Naturalis Historia
rings reached a length of 24cm (Francis 2016: 88), 11.15; Columella, De Re Rustica 6.33.2; cf. Jones et al.
and 30cm respectively (Jones 1990: 63-5, 70-1). At any 1973: 412). This is the honey which was harvested
rate, these extension rings were not too long. Their without the use of smoke. The extensive use of smoke
use involved the creation by the bees of honeycombs by the beekeeper, during harvest, affects the smell and
running vertical to the axis of the beehive. The use of taste of the harvested honey to such an extent that
extension rings would make no sense if honeycombs these two features depend on the fuel that was burnt
would be created in parallel with- or diagonal to the axis (Tananaki et al. 2009: 142-4). So the suggestion that
of the beehive, while additional difficulties would come these extension rings were used for the production
up during harvesting. In other words, the beekeeper of the unsmoked honey, which would be much more
should be aware of the way to make the bees build their expensive than the usual one, is very interesting; I have
honeycombs vertical to the axis of the beehive, i.e. in offered further supporting arguments in a previous
parallel with its mouth. publication (Mavrofridis 2009b: 203). However, I believe
that experimental beekeeping, using copies of ancient
Eva Crane realised the deep knowledge and expertise horizontal beehives, could answer many questions,
ancient and traditional beekeeping demanded, when namely: how were these extension rings used? Was
she conducted experimental beekeeping, using a copy unsmoked honey indeed taken from them? If so, how
of an ancient ceramic beehive and extension ring from was it taken?13
Vari, Attica. The final outcome was different than what
was initially expected because the bees did not build In some cases, the lids which covered the mouths of
their honeycombs in parallel with the mouth; as a horizontal open-at-one-end beehives were pierced
result, ‘harvesting combs from the extension was a very by numerous small holes that served as entrances
messy business’(Crane 1999: 202). for the bees. The earlier lids of this type are dated to
the Hellenistic period and were discovered on Paros
The method of creating honeycombs running vertical (Mavrofridis 2018b: 849) and Agathonisi (Giannas 2018:
to the axis of the horizontal beehive can be described 82). Two similar lids are found in Attica, dating to the
as follows: the beekeeper took a round piece of comb Roman14 and the Early Byzantine period.15 One more lid
which usually contained brood from a hive and placed was unearthed on Crete and may be dated to the 6th
it in the centre of an empty one with the help of a cross century (Kalokyris 1960: 324-5). The lids were most
made from thin sticks. Then a new swarm was placed probably used to protect the bees from the oriental
into the empty beehive. This method was known to hornet (Vespa orientalis), the greatest enemy of bees in
beekeepers of Syros in the late 18th century (Della south Greece, especially in regions with a warm, dry
Rocca 1790: II, 488-490 and III: 32-6). It was also applied climate. Ceramic lids with small holes -bee entrances-
in the 20th century by traditional beekeepers on Samos were used as covers for horizontal beehives on several
(Bikos 2015a: 27), Ikaria (Bikos 2006b: 96-7), Crete (Bikos islands of the Cyclades and the Dodecanese until
2012: 168; Mavrofridis 2009b: 203; 2019a: 8; Ruttner some decades ago. The small holes did not allow the
1979: 213), and perhaps Rhodes (Vrontis 1938/48: 202). oriental hornet to enter the beehive so that the bees
On many other Aegean islands, the local beekeepers were capable of defending themselves more efficiently
were unaware of this method. (Mavrofridis 2018b: 849-852).
In ancient beehives, this method alone was not enough

for the correct function of the short extension rings.
Inside the empty beehive, part of the honeycomb had
to be placed in such a position, so that the bees would
attach the rest of the honeycombs to the extension
rings, not to the junction point of the extension rings 13
In 2019, the author together with the agriculturist of the Institute
and the body of the beehive. This meant that the of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems in Athens, Dr S. Gounari,
started practicing experimental beekeeping using copies of ancient,
beekeepers would have take into consideration the so- Byzantine and traditional ceramic horizontal and vertical beehives.
The results concerning the horizontal beehives will be forthcoming.
14
It is exhibited in the Archaeological Collection of the Acharnes
Municipality, in Attica.
12
A single honeycomb could be attached by the bees to a 3cm long 15
It is exhibited in the Archaeological Collection of the Athens
extension ring. Airport.
8
2. Beekeeping with horizontal open-

at-one-end beehives with one or more
holes pierced at the closed edge
The hole or holes at the closed edge

of these beehives could function as
bee entrances and all beekeeping
activities could be carried out at
the back end. This would facilitate
harvest and other activities of
the beekeeper that involved the
opening of the beehive; this way,
the beekeeper would not be exposed
to the bees that flew in and out of
the beehive. In addition, it would
be possible to smoke through these
holes. Nevertheless, the beekeeper
would be unable to harvest the Figure 8. Traditional ceramic beehive with hole at its closed edge from Ikaria
honeycombs that were situated at the Island (Photograph: Th. Bikos /Melissokomiki Epitheorisi).
first half of the beehive; as a result,
these honeycombs would not be renewed, exactly like 3. Beekeeping with vertical open-at-top beehives
in the case of horizontal open-at-one-end beehives.
The beehives under discussion were used, until some In my opinion, there is no doubt that vertical open-
decades ago, by traditional beekeepers in some Near at-top beehives were used as moveable-comb hives.
Eastern countries (Crane 1999: 176-8; Komeili 1990: Moveable-comb hives use top-bars at their upper
18-20; Robinson 1981: 94-5), Cyprus (Bikos 2013a: 114- part where the bees attach the honeycombs one by
5), Malta (Masetti 2003: 470-1; Walker 2002: 188), and one; these top-bars have a particular width. These
Ethiopia (Kristky 2010: 18-9). hives have sloping walls inclining towards the base;
this shape goes against the tendency of the honey
There is another way to practice beekeeping with bee (Apis mellifera) to attach the honeycombs on the
these beehives. On Ikaria, local beekeepers used –and side walls when their shape is vertical.17 As a result,
some continue using– ceramic beehives with a large the honeycombs that are created are hanging, merely
hole at their back end (Figure 8). These beehives were attached to the top-bars; hence, it is possible to lift and
surrounded by stone slabs leaving an opening at the transfer them when necessary, allowing a number of
front. So the back hole was not used as a bee entrance, tasks in beekeeping that are impossible or difficult to
but served to conduct better ventilation and prohibited be applied when working with fixed-comb hives. These
humidity (Bikos 2006a: 9-10). The bees entered the design features facilitate the easy and full control of the
beehive through the bee entrance at the lid. The beehive’s interior,18 the easier multiplication of the bee
harvest and the rest of the beekeeper’s activities were colonies without hunting swarms,19 the prevention of
undertaken from the front open end. The back hole of swarming20 and the easy harvest.21
the beehives on Ikaria provided better ventilation to
the swarm even during the transfer to new flowerings; Traditional moveable-comb hives are not recorded at
some of the beekeepers of the island transferred their all in any of the regions where Apis mellifera exists, save
beehives either inside the island itself or on the islands in south Greece.22 The 17th-century travellers Jacob
of Fournoi (Bikos 2006b: 96-7). It is probable that at least Spon (Spon 1678: II, 224-5) and George Wheler were the
some of the ancient beehives with one or more holes first to describe these hives, as they saw them in Attica
at the closed edge would be used in the ‘Ikarian way.’ (Wheler 1682: 412-3). In the same century, Zuanne
It is noteworthy that a 1st century CE beehive found in
Georgioupoli in Crete,16 although a bit smaller (Figures 17
The Asian species of bee Apis cerana does not attach its combs to
4, 5), shares many similarities with the traditional the side walls in traditional hives whether they are vertical or sloping.
18
Examine the population, the brood, the food or possible diseases
beehives of Ikaria. and so on.
19
This is achieved by transferring honeycombs with bees and brood
(approximately half of them) from a hive to an empty one.
20
This is achieved by multiplying the bee colonies in spring, during
the swarming period.
21
The beekeeper can simply lift and take the honeycombs that he
16
The beehive was presented by M. Milidakis and N. Maragkoudakis wants.
in the 5th Meeting for the Archaeological Work in Crete (Rethymno, 22
Traditional moveable-comb hives are also recorded in northern
21-24/11/2019) and it will be published in the Proceedings of the Vietnam and southern China used in beekeeping with Apis cerana. See
Meeting. Crane et al. 1993: 76-84; Crane 1999: 402-4.
9
Figure 9. Traditional ceramic moveable-comb beehive from central Crete.
Papadopoli referred to these hives in his handwritten Some of the beehives from Isthmia have incised inner
memoir (Papadopoli, L’Occio 133r-133v). Later, in the walls, while others do not. The incisions on the inner
late 18th century, Della Rocca and John Hawkins also walls of the vertical beehives were of no actual purpose;
described the moveable-comb hives (Della Rocca 1790: it is suggested that they were simply remains of the
II, 466; Cotton 1842: 103a-106b. See also Mavrofridis technique used on the horizontal hives (Anderson-
2012: 401-3; 2017: 311-2). They were made of various Stojanović Jones 2002: 370). This view seems credible
materials, such as clay, woven sticks, planks, stone and I would add some further thoughts. Ceramic
slabs attached to each other and a fragment of porous beehives were manufactured by potters, but they
stone that was carved to obtain the proper shape. were used by beekeepers. Potters were not necessarily
They were in use until some decades ago. Traditional, aware of the beekeeping practices; however, they were
ceramic moveable-comb hives are registered in central probably aware that at least most beekeepers would
Crete (Figure 9) and on the islands of Cythera and Kea prefer beehives with incisions on the inside. Since these
(Figure 10) (Mavrofridis 2017: 300-21). incisions should be created on horizontal beehives,
potters could create them on vertical beehives too,
Ancient vertical beehives discovered in Isthmia – without knowing their exact role and significance. This
four of them are restored– have the same features as feature did not affect the beekeeper’s activity when
the traditional moveable-comb hives: sloping walls using vertical beehives; hence, it would be probable
converging towards the base, bee entrance close to that a beekeeper would buy vertical, open-at-top
the base or the circumference of the base and capacity beehives from a potter, without paying any attention
appropriate for moveable-comb hives (Mavrofridis to the incisions.
2013a: 18-24; 2017: 321). The wooden top-bars that
were placed on their mouth are not preserved, given In the early 1980s, it was suggested that vertical ceramic
the fact that wood is biodegradable and, save in rare moveable-comb hives evolved from the horizontal
archaeological conditions, is infrequently preserved ceramic beehives shaped as truncated cones. This
from the ancient world. evolution took place on Crete during antiquity. Three
10
Figure 10. Traditional moveable-comb hive from Kea Island, Cyclades.
hypothetical intermediate steps of this evolution consequences to the bee colony. The possibility of using
were proposed: the first step included the so-called ‘moveable-nest hives’ should be rejected for two more
‘moveable-nest hives,’ which had a uniform lid, where reasons (cf. Mavrofridis 2013a: 23-5)
bees attached their honeycombs; the second step
included beehives, which had a lid that was divided First, the landscape of Greece often demands the
into two or three compartments and the third step installation of apiaries on steep and sloping grounds,
included the moveable-comb hives (Ifantidis 1983: 81- where it would be difficult to put supports holding
6). Based on this pattern, some researchers considered the nest horizontally, next to each beehive. Second, in
the beehives from Isthmia as ‘moveable-nest hives’ contrast to the moveable-comb hives, the beekeeper
(Crane 1999: 404) or beehives of another intermediate should confront the entire population of the hive,
step (Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: 347, 370-2). dealing with aggressive subspecies of bees (such as
those of Crete, the Aegean Islands, and central and south
In my opinion, it would be possible for a ‘moveable- Greece).23 Lastly, no known examples of the ‘moveable-
nest hive’ to function in the context of an experiment nest hives’ are recorded and in my view, their existence
(Ifantidis 1983: 81-3), but in real-life conditions, it would in the past is to be doubted.
cause the beekeeper many problems that would be
difficult to solve. For example, it is difficult to imagine In an effort to investigate through experimental
how a beekeeper would take every nest (namely all the methods whether the ancient vertical beehives
honeycombs with the entire bee population) out of the from Isthmia were used as moveable-comb hives,
beehives to place them on special supports, harvest, an experiment was conducted using copies of three
and then put them back into the hive. This would be among the four complete beehives, which were
a very difficult and risky task demanding very precise discovered there (Figures 6, 7). This effort proved that
moves (and possibly luck as well). Furthermore, in
such a manipulation there would always be the danger
of an accident for the nest with all the associated
23
Apis mellifera adami in Crete, Apis mellifera cecropia in the other
regions.
11
these beehives could be easily and successfully used as used such beehives did not place extension rings on
moveable-comb hives.24 them. However, there are ethnographic parallels from
the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa supporting
4. Beekeeping with horizontal, open-at-both-ends the use of extension rings on ceramic or other
beehives horizontal, open-at-both-ends beehives. In these cases,
the extension rings were placed exclusively at the back
The most important advantage of practicing beekeeping edge of the hives (Crane 1999: 387-8). In conclusion, if
with horizontal, open-at-both-ends beehives is that extension rings were used on ancient Greek open-at-
harvesting could be achieved alternately from the front both-ends beehives, they were probably placed at the
and the back opening so that the honeycombs would back side of the hives.25
be renewed. Alternately harvesting from both sides
of the open-at-both-ends beehives is mentioned by 5. Characteristics of beekeeping in ancient Greece
Columella (Columella, De Re Rustica 9.15.11), the same
practice was applied by traditional Greek beekeepers It seems that beekeeping in ancient Greece was not
who used horizontal, open-at-both-ends beehives in merely static, but in some cases at least it was migratory.
the 20th century on several islands, such as Ios (Bikos Columella, citing Celsus, mentions that apiaries from
2006c: 222), Kalymnos (Bikos 1999: 76), Rhodes (Vrontis Achaea were transferred to Attica and Euboea and from
1938/48: 205), Samos (Bikos 2015b: 134), Herakleia the Cyclades to Skyros (Columella, De Re Rustica 9.14.19-
(Bikos 2009a: 16), Amorgos (Bikos 2009b: 415), and 20). Even though the beehives, which were used, are
eastern Crete (Mavrofridis 2019a: 8). not defined, it would be possible to carry even ceramic
beehives with great caution. Clay, as a material, does not
The user of a ceramic horizontal beehive, which was seem to impede migratory beekeeping. There are many
manufactured by the potter as open-at-one-end, cut examples of traditional migratory beekeeping with
the closed end and used it as a back lid; this beehive is ceramic beehives. Traditional beekeepers on Ios and
found in Attica and it is dated to the 6th-7th century CE their colleagues on Kea, Amorgos, Ikaria, and eastern
(Gini-Tsofopoulou 2002: 135). It is obvious that its user Crete used to transfer their ceramic beehives until
preferred open at both ends beehives. It is not possible the mid-20th century, looking for new flowerings.26
to confirm whether this happened even at earlier times. The beehives were transferred on beasts of burden, in
Ethnographic parallels do exist. On Amorgos, many boats or even by beekeepers themselves, who carried
beekeepers transformed open-at-one-end beehives into one or two ceramic hives (Bikos 2006b: 97; 2009b: 417;
open-at-both-end types, by carefully breaking their Mavrofridis 2015b: 178-9).
closed end (Bikos 2009b: 415). The same phenomenon
occurred on Herakleia, where this practice was followed Focusing on the examples mentioned by Columella, one
by all the beekeepers of the island (Bikos 2009a: 16). may assume that the beehives from Achaea would be
transferred to Attica towards the end of spring and the
Columella (Columella, De Re Rustica 9.14.13) and Pliny beginning of summer due to the famous Attic honey
(Pliny, Naturalis Historia 21.47) refer to the use of lids, that came from various herbaceous plants, especially
which were moved inside the horizontal open-at-both- thyme (Thymus spp). The apiaries could remain in
ends beehives, reducing their inner space, according Attica even after harvesting the thyme honey in the
to the needs of the bees. However, this practice was summer, taking advantage of the honeydew of the
unknown to the traditional Greek beekeepers that used insect Marchalina hellenica in the Attic pine tree forests
this type of beehive. and take benefit from the flowering of the autumn
heather (Erica manipuliflora) and the strawberry tree
If it will be proven that the horizontal, open-at-both- (Arbutus unedo). The traditional migratory beekeepers
ends beehives were indeed used in ancient Greece, the who acted in Attica until the third decade of the 20th
following question comes to mind: were extension rings century transferred their beehives to these plants
adjusted to their edges? As far as I know, no extension (Typaldos-Xydias 1927: 40-4). Concerning the transfer
ring has been found from the Iberian Peninsula, where from Achaea to Euboea, it should be noted that at present
almost exclusively horizontal, open-at-both-ends the beekeeping flora of southern Euboea consists
beehives were used. Greek traditional beekeepers that mainly of: ironwort (Sideritis spp.), oregano (Origanum
spp), thyme, autumn heather, and strawberry tree; in
24
Mavrofridis 2013a: 26-7; 2013b: 82-4. In 2019, beekeeping was
practiced again by the author and the director of the Laboratory of 25
According to Giannas (2018: 80), extension rings were adjusted at
Beekeeping at the Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems in both edges of the beehives on Agathonisi; this is a view that I do not
Athens, Dr Sofia Gounari. Copies of the ceramic vertical beehives find plausible.
from Isthmia were de novo used. The main purpose of this action was 26
Horizontal beehives, open at both ends on Ios and in eastern Crete;
not to investigate whether these were moveable-comb hives (this was horizontal, open at one end with a hole at the closed end on Ikaria;
taken for granted) but to study the local bee in the environment of horizontal open at one end on Amorgos and vertical top-bar hives
ceramic hives. on Kea.
12
northern Euboea are mainly pine tree forests with their have been a wall with bee boles or a bee enclosure
honeydew (Bikos 2010a: 243; Typaldos-Xydias 1927: 43). (Chairetakis 2018: 324). The traditional, ceramic,
Probably the same plants were exploited by migratory horizontal, open-at-one-end beehives, which were used
beekeepers in antiquity. In the pine forests of north on many Aegean islands until the middle at least of the
Euboea traditional beekeepers from northwest Attica 20th century, were usually placed inside boles (Bikos
and Boeotia transferred their beehives until at least 2008a: 148-9; 2009b: 413-4; 2010b: 322-4; 2013b, 178-9;
the third decade of the 20th century (Typaldos-Xydias 2014, 279-80; Florakis 1971, 129). In some cases, open-
1927: 41-4). at-top hives, were also placed inside boles (Mavrofridis
2015a, 109-10; 2019b, 10). Ceramic, horizontal open-
Regarding the transfer of beehives from the Cyclades at-both-ends beehives that were traditionally used on
to Skyros, it is more probable that the apiaries were Samos (Bikos 2015a, 25-6), on Chios (Bikos 2015c: 251-
transferred at the end of summer, provided that the 3), on Kalymnos (Bikos 1999: 74-8) and in eastern Crete
flora of these islands has remained almost the same (Mavrofridis 2019a: 7-8) were placed on low walls that
since the antiquity. On most islands of the Cyclades, were built for this purpose.
there are no other significant flowerings after the
end of the thyme flowering. On the contrary, in the It is possible that bee enclosures protecting the beehives
northern part of Skyros grow nowadays many pine from thieves and enemies existed in ancient Greece.
trees, which offer rich honeydew, as well as areas with In the area of Sphakia (Crete) many ‘beehive sites’ are
autumn heather (on the beekeeping flora of Skyros see located, where a significant number of beehives and
Bikos 2008b: 224; Liakos 2006: 263-4). the associated pottery, which is dated to the Roman
period are found. Many of them were surrounded by a
In some cases, it seems that beekeeping was practiced in low, stone-built enclosure (Francis 2016: 93-4; Price and
the confines of the settlements, for instance in Athens, Nixon 2005: 675).
where many ceramic beehives were found. Urban
beekeeping in the city probably began in the last quarter In the 1st century CE, Columella described a bee
of the 5th century BCE, during the Peloponnesian War. enclosure with openings on the wall for the bees that
This was a period in which Athenian beekeepers could looked like a row of windows (Columella, De Re Rustica
not find access to the hinterland, due to the Spartan 9.5.3); a similar description is cited in the 10th century
invasion. Then, it perhaps became obvious that Geoponica (15.2.9) by Florentinus, who is considered to
beekeeping in the city was possible and the beekeepers have lived in the 3rd century CE (Germanidou 2016:
continued practicing it even after the end of the war 31). Bee enclosures were used until the last century
(Rottroff 2002: 297; Rotroff 2006: 131). Other settlements in traditional beekeeping of Greece, both in the
of the Greek territory, where urban beekeeping was mainland and on the islands (Mavrofridis 2016: 196-9).27
probably carried out were the following: Salamis on These traditional bee enclosures did not usually have
the island of Salamis and Rahi in Isthmia (Mavrofridis openings on the walls; however, one of them, situated
2018d: 58). Similar examples are recorded in the near the village Gouves in the district of Heraklion
western Mediterranean, in the Iberian settlements, as (Crete), has openings similar to those described by
early as in the 3rd century BCE (Bonet and Mata 1997: Columella and Florentinus. In certain parts, the height
42). The oldest example of urban beekeeping is dated of this particular bee enclosure, which is considered
to the period between the mid-10th until the early- to have been built in the 17th or the 18th century, is
9th century BCE and it comes from Tel Rehov, in Israel over 4m (Anagnostakis 2018: 107; Mavrofridis 2019a: 9;
(Mazar 2018: 46; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007: 210; Mavrofridis and Goutzamani 2019: 413).
Mazar et al. 2008: 636). To avoid problems deriving from
the large number of bees within the ancient cities, the In ancient Greece, the harvest was probably carried out
beehives would be placed in specific locations, such as once a year. However, it seems that it was not a rare
the roofs of the houses, so that the population would phenomenon to harvest twice or even three times a
not be irritated (Mavrofridis 2018d: 57-9). year. Pseudo-Aristotle mentions two seasons when bees
offer their honey: spring and autumn (Pseudo-Aristotle,
In the countryside, beehives were placed either on the Historia Animalium 626b.29-31). Varro and Pliny refer to
ground, in walls inside bee boles, or in rows on low walls. three harvests per year, but it is not clear whether this
A fourth-third-century BCE wall equipped with boles, is something that took place in the Greek territory as
where it is believed that beehives were placed, has been well (Varro, Res Rusticae 3.16.34; Pliny, Naturalis Historia
discovered in Attica (Oikonomakou 1995: 60). Walls, 11.14-15). In Geoponica, Didymus, a writer who lived
inside- or on which beehives were placed, were possibly between the 3rd and the 5th century CE (Mavrofridis
used on Agathonisi as well (Giannas 2018: 79). The lease
of a wall on Salamis is mentioned in an inscription
and could be related to the practice of beekeeping on 27
There is also a notion about the use of bee enclosures on Crete in
the island (SEG 33.167 / IG II2 1590 and 1591); it could the early 15th century (see Nixon and Moody 2017: 490).
13
and Goutzamani 2019: 414), also referred to three to it as blapsigonia, meaning injury of the young. Pseudo-
annual harvests (Geoponica 15.5.1). Aristotle (Historia Animalium 626b.17-19) refers to the
infestation of the honeycombs by the greater wax moth
In my opinion, two or three harvests per year could larvae (Galleria mellonella) not as a ‘hostile attack,’ but as
be carried out in migratory beekeeping. In static a disease by the name of cleros (κλῆρος) (Liakos 2000a:
beekeeping, however, two harvests would be possible in 139). Likewise, Columella refers to this phenomenon as if
some areas. I assume that only very few areas, where it were a disease (Columella, De Re Rustica 9.13.11), known
apiaries would be placed permanently, could offer three to ancient Greeks as phagedaina (φαγέδαινα), while Pliny
annual harvests. In the Greek territory, traditional (Naturalis Historia 11.20) cites the name claros (κλᾶρος)
beekeeping in the migratory way included two or (Liakos 2000b: 332).29
even three harvests, according to the year and region
of activity (Mavrofridis 2015b: 176-9; Typaldos-Xydias Ancient beekeepers had many erroneous perceptions.
1927: 21-3, 35-8, 45). But static beekeeping, in most One of them concerned the gender of the queen bee that
cases, included only one harvest, usually in the middle was thought to be a male.30 This view was fully accepted
of summer. The regions, where local conditions allowed until the end of the 16th century (Crane 1999: 569-70;
a second harvest to static apiaries, were not many: Theodoridés 1968: 23-6). It is interesting to mention that
eastern (Bikos 2012: 168) and central Crete (Papadopoli, even in the 20th century many traditional beekeepers
L’Occio 132v), Samos (Bikos 2015b: 134), Rhodes (Vrontis in Greece, especially on islands, such as Thasos, Syros,
1938/48: 205) and the Athenian territory are some of Naxos, Folegandros, Samos, Ikaria, and Crete, still believed
them (Cotton 1842: 105b). that the queen bee was male (Mavrofridis, forthcoming).
Another wrong idea was that the worker bees carried a
According to pseudo-Aristotle, after the harvest, a small stone to ballast themselves while they were flying
quantity of honey was left for the bees to spend their through the winds for forage. Respective notions are found
winter (Pseudo-Aristotle, Historia Animalium 626a.2-3); in pseudo-Aristotle (Pseudo-Aristotle, Historia Animalium
when the quantity of honey was not sufficient, bees 11.40.626b.24-26) and other writers (Pliny, Naturalis
were fed with figs and sweet foods (Pseudo-Aristotle, Historia 11.10; Dio Chrysostom, Orations 44.7; Plutarch, De
Historia Animalium 626b.7-8). Varro mentions that Sollertia Animalium 967b; Aelian, De Natura Animalium 1.11).
bees were fed with mature figs boiled in water, water Until at least the seventh decade of the 20th century, the
sweetened with honey or a mixture of smashed raisins beekeepers on Anafi Island maintained the same view, as
and dry figs that were macerated in boiled wine (Varro, they thought that the bee carried a small gravel stone,
Res Rusticae 3.16.28). which was left behind when the bee concentrated an
equal amount of nectar (Oikonomidis 1966: 634).
For his part, Columella refers to dried figs that were
macerated in water, raisins sprinkled with water, must or To sum up, beekeeping in ancient Greece was
raisin-wine (Columella, De Re Rustica 9.14.15), while Pliny considerably different than the beekeeping in other
to raisins or crushed dried figs, as well as raisin-wine, regions in antiquity. Based on the archaeological
boiled must or hydromel.28 Finally, in the Geoponica there is finds of ceramic beehives, it was practiced with three
a reference to feeding bees with honey wine and smashed and possibly even four types of beehives, indicating
raisins mixed with some savory (Geoponica 15.4.4-5). It is different methods in various beekeeping activities. Two
interesting that until some decades ago, on Ios and on of these types, namely the horizontal beehives with
Rhodes, the bees were fed with similar foodstuffs, to be short extension rings and the vertical, open-at-top,
more precise they were offered a mixture of figs, boiled are only found in the Greek territory, meaning that the
in sweet wine (Bikos 2006c: 222), or smashed raisins and beekeeping methods related to them were not known
boiled must (Vrontis 1938/48: 204). in other Mediterranean areas.
Regarding the bees’ illnesses, pseudo-Aristotle knows Acknowledgements

one, but without naming it; this illness is characterised by
the reduced will of the bees to work as well as by the bad I would like to express my deepest gratitude to
smell of the hives (Pseudo-Aristotle, Historia Animalium the archaeologists Michalis Milidakis and Nikos
626b.20-21). It is probably a sort of foulbrood (Liakos Maragoudakis (Ephorate of Antiquities of Chania, Crete)
2000b: 330), the European or American foulbrood, that for permitting me to use the photographs of a ceramic
Columella and Pliny also had in mind (Columella, De Re beehive from Georgioupoli. In addition, I am thankful
Rustica 9.13.1; Pliny, Naturalis Historia 11.20). Pliny referred to the editor of the journal Melissokomiki Epitheorisi for
the photograph of the traditional beehives from Ikaria.
28
Pliny, Naturalis Historia 21.48. Both, Columella and Pliny, refer also
to feeding bees with bird or poultry meat. This is impressive because
bees do not eat meat. However this practice that was recorded by the 29
In the Doric dialect cleros (κλῆρος) was claros (κλᾶρος).
above mention authors is attested in the 20th century in the district 30
Aristotle first, in several parts of the Historia Animalium and De
of Florina, Greece. See Anagnostopoulos 2000: 308. Generatione Animalium refers to the king or the governor of the bees.
14
Sources in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Present:

105-118. Nea Moudania: Hellenic Agricultural
Aelian, De Natura Animalium: Αἰλιανὸς, Περὶ ζῴων Organization ‘Demeter.’
ἰδιότητος, Α-Δ. Αθήνα 1996, Κάκτος [Αρχαία Ελληνική Anderson-Stojanović V. R. and J.E. Jones. 2002. Ancient
Γραμματεία ‘Οι Έλληνες’. Beehives from Isthmia. Hesperia 71(4): 345-376.
Aristotle, Historia Animalium: Ἀριστοτέλης, Τῶν περὶ Bibliodetis, B. 2017. Η κεραμική. In Λ. Παλαιοκρασσά-
τὰ ζῷα ἱστοριῶν, Δ-Ι. Αθήνα 1994, Κάκτος [Αρχαία Κόπιτσα (ed) Παλαιόπολη Άνδρου, τριάντα χρόνια
Ελληνική Γραμματεία ‘Οι Έλληνες’]. ανασκαφικής έρευνας: 158-175. Andros, χ.ε.
Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium: Ἀριστοτέλης, Περὶ Bikos, Th. 1999. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
ζῴων γενέσεως Γ-Ε. Αθήνα 1994, Κάκτος [Αρχαία Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 13(2): 72-78.
Ελληνική Γραμματεία ‘Οι Έλληνες’. Bikos, Th. 2006a. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Dio Chrysostom, Orations: Dio Chrysostom, Discourses Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 20(1): 9-13.
37-60 (trans. H. L. Crosby). Cambridge, MA 1946, Bikos, Th. 2006b. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Harvard University Press [The Loeb Classical Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 20(2): 96-100.
Library]. Bikos, Th. 2006c. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Geoponica: Geoponica sive Casiani Bassi scholastici Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 20(4): 220-225.
de re rustica eclogue (ed. H. Bekh). Lipsiae 1895 Bikos, Th. 2008a. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
[Biblioteca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 22(3): 144-149.
Teubneriana]. Bikos, Th. 2008b. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Columella, De Re Rustica: Columelle, De l’agriculture Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 22(4): 223-229.
(ed. J. C. Dumont), Livre IX. Paris 2001 [Les Belles Bikos, Th. 2009a. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Lettres]. Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 23(1): 14-20.
Palladius, Opus Αgriculturae: Palladius, Traité Bikos, Th. 2009b. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
d’agriculture, Livre I et II (ed. R. Martin). Paris 1976 Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 23(6): 412-417.
[Les Belles Lettres]. Bikos, Th. 2010a. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Papadopoli, L’Occio: Zuanne Papadopoli, L’Occio (Time Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 24(4): 242-247.
of Leisure). Memories of seventeenth-century Crete Bikos, Th. 2010b. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
(ed. A. Vincent). Venice 2007, Hellenic Institute of Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 24(5): 322-326.
Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies. Bikos, Th. 2012. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Pliny, Naturalis Historia: Pline l’Ancien, Histoire Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 26(3): 166-171.
naturelle, Livre XI (ed. A. Ernout and R. Périn), Paris Bikos, Th. 2013a. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
1947· Livre XXI (ed. J. André), Paris 1969 [Les Belles Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 27(2): 114-117.
Lettres]. Bikos, Th. 2013b. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Plutarch, De sollertia Animalium: Plutarch, Moralia, Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 27(3): 178-182.
Whether land or sea animals are clever (trans. W. C. Bikos, Th. 2014. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Hembold), Vol. 12. Cambridge, MA 1957, Harvard Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 28(4): 279-283.
University Press [The Loeb Classical Library]. Bikos, Th. 2015a. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Pseudo-Aristotle, Historia Animalium IX: Ἀριστοτέλης, Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 29(239): 24-29.
Τῶν περὶ τὰ ζῷα ἱστοριῶν, H, Θ, I. Αθήνα 1994, Κάκτος Bikos, Th. 2015b. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
[Αρχαία Ελληνική Γραμματεία ‘Οι Έλληνες›]. Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 29(240): 132-137.
Strabo Geographica: Strabo, Geography (Trans. H. L. Bikos, Th. 2015c. Μελισσοκομικές καταγραφές.
Jones), Vol. IV. Cambridge, MA 1927, Harvard Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 29(242): 249-259.
University Press [The Loeb Classical Library]. Blackman, D., et al. 2010. Miscellanea Apicula. In N.
Varro, Res rusticae: Varron, Économie rurale (ed. C. Sekunda (ed) Ergastiria: Works presented to John Ellis
Guiraud), Livre III. Paris 1997 [Les Belles Lettres]. Jones on his 80th birthday: 150-158. Gdansk: Gdansk
University.
Bibliography Bodenheimer, F. S. 1942. Studies on the Honey Bee and
Beekeeping in Turkey. Istanbul: Nümune Matbaasi.
Almeida, R. R. and J. Morín de Pablos. 2012. Colmenas Bonet, H. R. and C.P. Mata. 1997. The Archaeology of Pre-
cerámicas en el territorio de Segobriga. Nuovos datos Roman Iberia. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
para la apicultura en época romana en Hispania, in 10(1): 33-47.
D. Casasola and A. Ribera I Lacomba (eds) Cerámicas Bossolino, I. 2016. ‘<Μέλι> πρωτεύει τὸ Ἀττικὸν καὶ
hispanorromanas II, Productiones regionales: 725-743. τούτου τὸ Ὑμήττιον καλούμενον’ Honey Production
Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. in Attica, an Antique Excellence, in C. Soares and J.
Anagnostakis, I. 2018. Wild and Domestic Honey in Pinheiro (eds) Partimonios alimentares de aquem e alem-
Middle Byzantine Hagiography: Some Issues Relating mar: 499-519. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press.
to its Production, Collection, and Consumption, in F. Chairetakis, Y. 2018. Οικιστική οργάνωση και χωροταξία
Hatjina, G. Mavrofridis and R. Jones (eds) Beekeeping στη Σαλαμίνα από τον 6o έως τον 1o αι. π.Χ/
15
Settlement patterns and spatial planning on Salamis Jones, J. E., A.J. Graham and L.H. Sackett. 1973. An Attic
from the 6th to the 1st century B.C. Unpublished Country House Below the Cave of Pan at Vari. The
PhD dissertation, University of Athens. Annual of the British School at Athens 68: 355-452.
Cotton, W. Ch. 1842. My Bee Book. London: Rivingston. Kalokyris, K. D. 1960. Συμπληρωματική ανασκαφή της
Crane, E. 1983. The Archaeology of Beekeeping. London: εν Πανόρμω Κρήτης παλαιοχριστιανικής βασιλικής.
Duckworth. Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας
Crane. E., van Luyen, V. and V. Mulder. Traditional 1955: 321-326.
Management of Apis cerana Using Movable-Comb Karnava, A., E. Kolia and E. Margaritis. 2015. A
Hives in Vietnam. Bee World 74(2): 75-85. Classical/Hellenistic Oil Pressing Installation in
Crane, E. 1994. Beekeeping in the World of Ancient Foti-Vroskopos, Keos, in A. Diler, K. Şenol and Ü.
Rome. Bee World 75(3): 118-134. Aydinoglu (eds), Olive Oil and Wine Production in
Crane, E. 1999. The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Eastern Mediterranean During Antiquity: 107-123.
Hunting. London : Duckworth. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi.
Della Rocca, Ab. 1790. Traité complet sur les abeilles. Paris: Kataki, E. 2012. Δοκιμαστική ανασκαφική έρευνα στο
De l’Imprimerie de Monsieur. Εθνικό Στάδιο Χανίων, in M. Ανδριανάκης, Π.
Dermatopoulos, V. 1974. Η μελισσοκομία στη Νάξο. Βαρθαλίτου and I. Τζαχίλη (eds) Αρχαιολογικό Έργο
Μελισσοκομική Ελλάς 24(284): 214-215. Κρήτης 2: 537-547. Rethymno: Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης.
Davis, M. and J. Kathirithamby. 1986. Greek Insects. New Komeili, A. B. 1990. Beekeeping in Iran. Bee World 71(1):
York and London: Oxford University Press. 12-24.
Florakis, A. E. 1971. Τήνος. Λαϊκός πολιτισμός. Athens: Kostakis, Th. 1963. Ανακού. Athens: Κέντρο
Ελληνικό βιβλίο. Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών.
Francis, J. E. 2006. Beehives and Beekeeping in Graeco- Kritsky, G. 2010. The Quest for the Perfect Hive. Oxford:
Roman Sphakia, in Proceedings of the 9th International University Press.
Congress of Cretan Studies, A5: 379-390. Heraklion: Liakos, B. 2000a. Αριστοτέλης, ο πρώτος μελισσολόγος
Society of Cretan Historical Studies. ερευνητής. In Η μέλισσα και τα προϊόντα της: 134-142.
Francis, J. E. 2012. Experiments with an Old Ceramic Athens: Πολιτιστικό Τεχνολογικό Ίδρυμα ΕΤΒΑ.
Beehive. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31(2): 143-159. Liakos, B. 2000b. Εχθροί και ασθένειες των μελισσών.
Francis, J. E. 2016. Apiculture in Roman Crete, in J. E. Μαρτυρίες από τα παλιά. In Η μέλισσα και τα προϊόντα
Francis and A. Kouremenos (eds) Roman Crete: New της: 330-336. Athens: Πολιτιστικό Τεχνολογικό
Perspectives: 83-100. Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow Ίδρυμα ΕΤΒΑ.
Books. Liakos, B. 2006. Η μελισσοκομία στη Σκύρο.
Fraser, H. M. 1951. Beekeeping in Antiquity. London, Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 20(5): 260-264.
University of London Press. Lolos, G. 2000. Σαλαμινιακές έρευνες 1998-2000. Δωδώνη
Fuentes, M., T. Hurtado and A. Moreno. 2004. Nuevas 19: 113-165.
aportaciones al estudio de la apicultura en época Lüdorf, G. 1998/99. Leitformen der attischen
ibérica. Recerques del Museu D’Alcoi 13: 181-200. Gebrauchskeramik: Der Bienenkorb. Boreas 21/22:
Germanidou, S. 2016. Βυζαντινός μελίρρυτος πολιτισμός. 41-169.
Athens: Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών. Masetti, N. 2003. Malta, Isle of the Knights, Island of
Giannas, Ch. 2018. Beekeeping Practices in Agathonisi Honey. American Bee Journal 143(6): 468-471.
during Antiquity, in F. Hatjina, G. Mavrofridis Masetti, N. 2004. Legends and Reality of Traditional
and R. Jones (eds) Beekeeping in the Mediterranean Beekeeping in Sicily. American Bee Journal 144(6):
from Antiquity to the Present: 79-84. Nea Moudania: 469-472.
Hellenic Agricultural Organization ‘Demeter.’ Masetti, N. 2006. Stone Hives and Apiaries of Puglia 1
Gini-Tsofopoulou, E. 2002. Πήλινη κυψέλη, in Δ. and 2. American Bee Journal 146(2): 159-163; 146(3):
Παπανικόλα-Μπακιρτζή (ed) Ώρες Βυζαντίου – 255-258.
Έργα και Ημέρες στο Βυζάντιο. Η καθημερινή ζωή στο Mavrofridis, G. 2009a. Μελισσοκομία με αντίγραφα
Βυζάντιο: 135. Athens: Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων αρχαίων κυψελών. Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 23(2):
και Απαλλοτριώσεων. 120.
Hayes, J. W. 1983. The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Mavrofridis, G. 2009b. Το ακάπνιστο μέλι. Μελισσοκομική
Knossos. The Annual of the British School at Athens 78: Επιθεώρηση 23(3): 200-204.
97-169. Mavrofridis, G. 2011. Μελισσοκομία στον ρωμαϊκό
Ifantidis, M. 1983. The Movable-Nest Hive: A Possible κόσμο. Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 25(4): 266-271.
Forerunner to the Movable-Comb Hive. Bee World Mavrofridis, G. 2012. Η μελισσοκομία στην Αττική στα
64(2): 79-87. τέλη του 18ου αιώνα. Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση
Jones, J. E. 1990. Ancient Beehives at Thorikos: Combed 26(6): 400-404.
Pots from the Velatouri. In Thorikos IX, 1977/1982: Mavrofridis, G. 2013a. Κυψέλες κινητής κηρήθρας στην
63-71. Ghent: Comité des Fouilles Belges en Grèce. αρχαία Ελλάδα. Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 152: 15-27.
16
Mavrofridis, G. 2013b. Experimental Archaeology: Morín de Pablos, J. and R. R. de Almeida. 2014. La

Beekeeping with Copies of Ancient Upright Hives. apicultura en la Hispania Romana: Producción,
Bee World 90(4): 82-84. consumo y circulación. Anejos de Archivo Español de
Mavrofridis, G. 2014. Πήλινες κυψέλες και εσωτερικές Arqueologia 65: 279-305.
εγχαράξεις. Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 28(1): 17-21. Nixon, L. and J. Moody. 2017. Cultural Landscapes
Mavrofridis, G. 2015a. Παραδοσιακή μελισσοκομία. and Resources in Sphakia, SW Crete: A Diachronic
Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 29(240): 106-110. Perspective. From Maple to Olive. Publication of the
Mavrofridis, G. 2015b. Η νομαδική μελισσοκομία πριν Canadian Institute in Greece 10: 485-504.
την έλευση της σύγχρονης κυψέλης. Μελισσοκομική Oikonomakou, M. 1995. Λαυρεωτική. Αρχαιολογικόν
Επιθεώρηση 29(241): 176-179. Δελτίον, Χρονικά 50: 60-61.
Mavrofridis, G. 2015c. Dung Made Beehives. Bee World Oikonomidis, D. B. 1966. Η μελισσοκομία εν Νάξω και
92(3): 85-86. εν Ανάφη. Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Κυκλαδικών Μελετών 5:
Mavrofridis, G. 2015d. Πειραματικές έρευνες για την 617-634.
κατανόηση του μελισσοκομικού παρελθόντος. Pechhacker, H., Jochi S. and Chatt, A. 2001. Beekeeping
Μελισσοκομική Επιθεώρηση 29(243): 349-354. Around the World. Bee World 82(2): 99-104.
Mavrofridis, G. 2016. Μελισσομαντριά. Μελισσοκομική Price, S. and L. Nixon. 2005. Ancient Greek Agricultural
Επιθεώρηση 30(247): 196-200. Terraces: Evidence from Texts and Archaeological
Mavrofridis, G. 2017. Οι παραδοσιακές κυψέλες κινητής Survey. American Journal of Archaeology 109(4): 665-694.
κηρήθρας. Πελοποννησιακά Γράμματα 2: 299-334. Quixal, D. S. and P.G. Jardón. 2016. El registro material
Μavrofridis, G. 2018a. Μελισσοκομία στον del colmenar ibérico de la Fonteta Ràquia (Riba-
ελληνορωμαϊκό κόσμο – οι κυψέλες. Αρχαιολογία & Roja, Valencia). Lucentum 25: 43-63.
Τέχνες 127: 100-111. Robinson, W. J. 1981. Beekeeping in Jordan. Bee World
Mavrofridis, G. 2018b. Ελληνιστικά πώματα κυψελών 62(3): 91-97.
για προστασία των μελισσών από τη Vespa orientalis. Rotroff, S. I. 2001. A New Type of Beehive. Hesperia 20(2):
In Πρακτικά Θ΄ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης για την 176-177.
Ελληνιστική Κεραμική: 849-856. Athens: Ταμείο Rotroff, S. I. 2002. Urban Bees. American Journal of
Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων. Archaeology 106(2): 297.
Mavrofridis, G. 2018c. Παραδοσιακή μελισσοκομία. Rotroff, S. I. 2006. The Athenian Agora, Vol. 33, Hellenistic
Αρχαιολογία & Τέχνες 128: 66-79. Pottery: The Plain Ware. Princeton: American School
Mavrofridis, G. 2018d. Urban Beekeeping in Antiquity. of Classical Studies at Athens.
Ethnoentomology 2: 52-61. Ruttner, F. 1979. Minoische und altgriechische
Mavrofridis, G. 2019a. Traditional Beekeeping in Imkertechnik auf Kreta. In Bienenmuseum und
Crete (17th - 20th century). In Proceedings of the Geschichte der Bienenzucht: 209-229. Bucharest:
12th International Congress of Cretan Studies: 1-15. Apimondia.
Heraklion: Society of Cretan Historical Studies. Sackett, L. H. 1992. The Roman Pottery, in L. H. Sackett
Mavrofridis, G. 2019b. Η ελληνική παραδοσιακή (ed.), Knossos from Greek to Roman Colony: Excavation
μελισσοκομία και η συμβολή της στις διεθνείς εξελίξεις. at the Unexplored Mansion II: 147-256. London: British
Athens: Ινστιτούτο Γεωπονικών Επιστημών. School at Athens.
Mavrofridis, G. forthcoming. Παραδοσιακή Spon, J. 1678. Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du
μελισσοκομία στις Νότιες Κυκλάδες. Υλικά, μέθοδοι Levant. Lyon: Antoine Cellier les fils.
και διαχείριση του χώρου. Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Tananaki, C., S. Gounari and A. Thrasyvoulou. 2009. The
Κυκλαδικών Μελετών: forthcoming. Effect of Smoke on the Volatile Characteristics of
Mavrofridis, G. and Y. Chairetakis. 2019. Η μελισσοκομία Honey. Journal of Apicultural Research 48(2): 142-144.
της Σαλαμίνας στη διαχρονία. Μελισσοκομική Theodoridès, J. 1968. Historique des connaissans
Επιθεώρηση 33(263): 40-44. scientifiques sur l’abeille. In Traité de biologie de l’abeille,
Mavrofridis, G. and M. Goutzamani. 2019. Μέλισσα V. 5: 1-34. Paris: Masson et Cie.
και μελισσοκομία στα Γεωπονικά. Μελισσοκομική Triantafyllidis, P. 2010. Το ακριτικό Αγαθονήσι. Athens,
Επιθεώρηση 33(268): 411-415. Νομαρχιακή Αυτοδιοίκηση Δωδεκανήσου.
Mazar, A. 2018. The Iron Age Apiary at Tel Rehov, Israel, Triantafyllidis, P. 2012. Πήλινες κυψέλες από την αρχαία
in F. Hatjina, G. Mavrofridis and R. Jones (eds) Τραγαία (Αγαθονήσι). Δωδεκανησιακά Χρονικά 25:
Beekeeping in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the 535-653.
Present: 40-49. Nea Moudania: Hellenic Agricultural Triantafyllidis, P. 2014. Πήλινες κυψέλες από την αρχαία
Organization ‘Demeter.’ Τραγαία, in Πρακτικά Η΄ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης για
Mazar, A. and N. Panitz-Cohen. 2007. It is the Land of την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική: 635-653. Athens: Ταμείο
the Honey. Near Eastern Archaeology 70(4): 202-219. Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων.
Mazar, A. et al. 2008. Iron Age Beehives at Tel Rehov in Tsigarida, E. M., S. Vasileiou and E. Naoum. 2013. Νέα
the Jordan Valley. Antiquity 82(317): 629-639. στοιχεία για την οργάνωση και την οικονομία της
17
Κασσάνδρας κατά την ελληνιστική και ρωμαϊκή Vrontis, Α. 1938/1948. Η μελισσοκομία και το
περίοδο. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη μαντατόρεμα στη Ρόδο. Λαογραφία 12: 195-230.
Θράκη 23: 377-398. Walker, P. 2002. Traditional Stone Apiaries in Malta. Bee
Typaldos-Xydias, A. 1927. Η νομαδική μελισσοκομία εν World 83(4): 185-189.
Ελλάδι. Athens: Παράρτημα Γεωργικού Δελτίου. Wheler, G. 1682. A Journey into Greece. London: Cademan.
18
Chapter 2
Smoke and Bees: From Prehistoric to Traditional Smokers in Greece
Sophia Germanidou
Marie Curie Research Fellow, Newcastle University (sophiagermanidou@yahoo.gr)
Summary: The smoker was a necessary tool in beekeeping; it was used during the early phase of the wild honey collection, as well
as during beekeeping activities that involved beehives. Many morphological variations of this ceramic object are found in the
Greek territory, dating as early as Prehistoric times. However, there is no published sample dating in the Ancient and Byzantine
periods, save only scarce references and representations. This article deals with the methods and the raw materials which were
used to smoke the bees; it also investigates the typological evolution of smokers in time, taking into account the main textual and
iconographic evidence. Furthermore, the features of smokers used in traditional Greek beekeeping are described, citing relevant
ethnographic parallels.
Keywords: smoke, smokers, Greece, un-/non smoked (akapnisto) honey
The Beginning: The Rock Paintings/ Engravings fibres of a torch. The simple and inexpensive application
Evidence of smoke through torches or bundles of vegetation
continued in traditional beekeeping of modern times
Already since the first interactions between humans along with the survival of wild honey collection. Mainly
and bees, humans realised the importance of keeping plants bundle of selected vegetation were used as fuel:
bees away in order to collect their honey without fungi, leaves, herbs, (dry) grass or, later on, puffball-
problem. In their effort to repel the bees, smoke fungi, sulphur, tobacco – as well as rotten wood, wet
proved to be the most efficient and common agent that straw, and twigs, even old clothes. The flammable
reduced the aggressiveness of the swarm. To be more material that prevailed came from animals (oxen, horses)
precise, smoke repelled the bees, by tranquilising them and it was their dung. Otherwise, in later times, sulphur
through inducing them to gorge on honey; smoke was was burned in the flight hole and bees were killed.
transmitted as a message of fire alert conducting them
to gain fuel for escape. Humans were aware of these It is not known when and under which circumstances
effects on bees since the very early stages of honey the use of a specific pot, the smoker, became necessary
hunting. However, in those early times, no specific pot and was considered exclusively a practice of beekeeping.
was used during the smoking of the bees and it seems What is certain, according to the archaeological evidence
that ‘inventing’ such a tool was not a priority. The from prehistoric Greece, is that its creation did not
numerous prehistoric rock paintings or petroglyphs depend on the discovery and early use of beehives. It is
(engravings) show that in the harvest of wild honey possible that, at a certain moment, incense burners used
the following objects were essential: a leather bag or for various religious, ritual, or other purposes were also
a basket-container for the harvest of the honeycombs, used in beekeeping, since their function was similar to
ladders, sticks and ropes so as to approach the nest that of the smokers. The creation of a specific pot was
when at a height, poles with prongs, and maces and probably driven by various reasons such as a) the need
axes for the removal of hanging honeycombs. Only two to burn the flammable material for a longer time b) the
representations of honey hunting-gathering on rock more accurate direction of the smoke onto the bees and
paintings in India depict the application of smoke using c) the possibility of placing the pot on the ground so that
a leafy branch as a flammable material (Crane 2001: 18). the beekeeper could work undisturbed using both hands.
A rock painting in southern Zimbabwe (Toghwana Dam/
Matopos National Park, c.8000 BCE) (Figure 1) offers a The First Representations
unique image of smoking bees in front of honeycombs
(Pager 1973: 61-68; Pager 1976: 9-10, fig. 1; Crane 1999: The earliest known representation of a smoker is found
58, fig. 8.6a; Crane 2001: 33, fig. 5f.). on a stone bas-relief from the temple of Ne-user-re, in
Abu Ghorab, nowadays kept in the Egyptian Museum in
Despite the rare iconographic evidence, it is thought that Berlin (2400 BCE, Figure 2) (Crane 1999: 164, fig. 20.3a;
smoke was widely used during that remote era, produced Crane 2001: 87, fig. 11a). An ovoid-shaped object, open
through smouldering vegetation in a bundle or through at both sides, it depicts a beekeeper blowing smoke
Sophia Germanidou
Figure 1. Honey hunter smoking honeycombs, rock painting in southern Zimbabwe, Toghwana Dam/Matopos National Park,
8000 BCE? (Pager 1973: 61-68; Pager 1976: 9-10, fig. 1; Crane 1999: 58, fig. 8.6a; Crane 2001: 33, fig. 5f).
(?) through a hole towards the hives.

However, the features of this object do not
correspond to a smoker, despite what was
initially argued. It is most probable that the
depicted pot was used to induce the queen
by ‘emitting a breath or a little sound,’ a
practice known and applied by Egyptian
beekeepers for centuries.1 This practice
survived in the traditional beekeeping of
the Mediterranean – for instance it was
known in Cyprus and in Greece.2 Support
for this reading is provided by a depiction
of a beekeeper in a beekeeping scene in the
famous tomb of Rekhmire in the West Bank
of Luxor (c. 1450 BCE). Here the beekeeper
holds a smoker shaped like a small deep
bowl (Crane 1999: 165, fig. 20.3b).
1
More details in: Kritsky 2015: 10, 11, 13, figs
2.3, 2.5 with previous bibliography.
2
Rizopoulou-Igoumenidou 2000: 403. Simple
ways of blowing smoke (i.e. using an open tile
with lit dung placed inside) towards the bees
have been recorded in various places of Greece,
for example in Santorini, Skyros, Laconian
Figure 2. Beekeeper probably smoking beehives through an oval object, stone Mani. Information provided by Giorgos
bas-relief from the temple of Ne-user-re, in Abu Ghorab, today in the Egyptian Mavrofridis based on his own research and
Museum in Berlin, 2400 BCE (Crane 1999: 164, fig. 20.3a; Crane 2001: 87, fig. 11a). Thanasis’ Bikos explorations.
20
Figure 3. Graphic depiction of the interior of the prehistoric smoker from Zakros-Crete during experimental beehive smoking
(Tyree et al. 2012: 227, fig. 24.5).
Diachronic Research on Greek Smokers Mavrofridis (2009) dealt with a specific subject
considering the smoke and the ways that it affected
One of the earliest and fundamental contributions the quality of honey. His research revealed the basis
to the archaeology of smokers remains the article for the term akapnisto (ακάπνιστο) (un-/ non smoked
of K. Davaras (1989) who presented the three most honey) that appears in various ancient Greek, Roman
common examples of this form from Minoan Crete; and Byzantine texts (Mavrofridis 2009: 200-4).
two of them were found at Zakros and one at Knossos.
The author cited a list of similar vessels from Faistos, After a vast chronological gap, photographs of
Agia Eirini on Kea and the Ashmolean Museum. He smokers appeared in publications dealing with
also identified as smokers the so-called ‘snake-tubes’ ethnography as well as in articles dealing with modern
from Enkomi in Cyprus and from Crete (Davaras 1989: Greek beekeeping.4 Ceramic smokers of traditional
1-7). An interesting and significant initiative that beekeeping are nowadays part of ethnographic exhibits
Davaras took was the copy of the Minoan smoker or private collections.5 A thorough examination of their
from Zakros (Figure 3) and its use in the practice types in comparison with their ancient counterparts is
of experimental beekeeping (Stamataki et. al. 2009: still anticipated but remains a desideratum with wide
165-170; Tyree et al. 2012: 223-230; Mavrofridis 2015: implications.
349-354). Doumas and Aggelopoulou (1997) grouped
together the open perforated cups as a certain type of
smoker, making this suggestion with reservation citing
relevant bibliographic references. They also referred
to the ‘barrel-shaped’ pots, without identifying 4
See for example Psaropoulou 1986: 43, 71, 73, 250; Vallianos
them as smokers, even though they are (Doumas and and Padouva 1986: 67, fig. 91; Psaropoulou 1990: 55, 57;
Angelopoulou 1997: 543-554). More recently H. Harissis Venetoulias 2004: 48. Sparsely and selectively, in the volume:
(2009, 2018) gathered the most samples of prehistoric The bee and its products…2000; Germanidou 2016; see also the
smokers and suggested a typological division, shedding articles of the late Thanasis Bikos and of Giorgos Mavrofridis
more light on the various aspects of the issue.3 G. in the periodical series Melissokomiki Epitheorisi.
5
For example, in the under preparation Museum of
Beekeeping on the Syggrou Estate, Marousi; in the Centre for
3
Harissis and Harissis 2009: 27-30; Harissis 2017: 26-28, the Study of Modern Pottery (G. Psaropoulos Foundation),
figures 8, 9a, 9b; Harissis 2018b: 81-82. These references the Museum of Greek Folk Art, the Museum of Modern Greek
include respective bibliography and present most of the Culture in Athens, and the Peloponnesian Folklore Foundation
smokers mentioned below. in Nafplion.
21
Sophia Germanidou
Archaeological Evidence Concerning Smokers Every prehistoric smoker was ceramic and made of
Discovered in Greece rather coarse fabric. Metal is a material that would
not have been preferred, due to the high temperatures
Even though ancient Egypt is considered to be the that would occur within the smoker. It is also worth
cradle of beekeeping, since the earliest representations mentioning that many other objects (incense-burners,
of beekeeping are found in Pharaonic funerary sieves, lamp-stands, even pipes) that share some
monuments, no object from Egypt is so far identified similarities with the smokers are erroneously identified
as a smoker. The same observation applies to the entire as such.6
Near East, where beekeeping was also developed since
very early times. Surprisingly, many ceramic objects Brief Review of the Prehistoric Finds7
presenting a remarkable morphological variety are
identified as smokers and are found in Greek territory I. The three earliest examples are similar to each
beyond doubt. They are older or contemporary with other. One is found in Sesklos (Volos in central
those depicted in the Egyptian beekeeping scenes. Greece) and it is dated to the final Neolithic
Some of them were discovered in northern Greek sites, period (4000-3500 ΒCE, Figure 4); the other
but most of them were found in southern Greece and on two are found in northern Greece, at Axiochori
the islands. It is striking that many prehistoric smokers (Kilkis) and at Archontiko (Giannitsa) (2300-1900
are found, despite the fact that beehive fragments or ΒCE); the last one is slightly different from the
beekeeping representations are not yet confirmed in other two, in regard to the form of its body and
the Greek territory (Mavrofridis 2006: 268-272; Harissis its elongated nozzle. They have a spherical body,
– Harissis 2009: 27-30; D’ Agata and De Agelis 2014: 349- only half of which is perforated, one handle and
357; Papageorgiou 2016: 1-26; Harissis 2017:18-35). Even two openings (one for the flammable material
more impressive is the almost complete absence of and the other for the diffusion of smoke).
published identified smokers that date to Classical, Late II. The most known and adequately studied
Antique, and Byzantine times. smokers were found at Zakros, Crete. The first
was found in a cave and the second, which is the
General Features of Prehistoric Smokers in Greece only complete object of this sort, was discovered
in the storeroom of a house (1525/50-1400
According to current published evidence, we can ΒCE); their use in beekeeping is confirmed by
note that most of the smokers used in Prehistoric the practice of experimental beekeeping (see
times were discovered in southern Greece, in the Figure 3).8 They have a cylindrical, almost
Peloponnese and on Crete, as well as in the islands of funnel-shaped body, one or two handles, holes
the Aegean Sea, on Skyros, Lemnos and Lesvos. The at the front side, which appear slightly angled
examples found in northern Greece (at Axiochori in an ovoid-shaped opening at the underside and
Kilkis and Archontiko in Giannitsa) and in central short feet. Two more samples discovered in
Greece (Sesklo in Volos), are more ancient and rarer. houses at Zakros are fragmentary. A particular
They are mainly found in buildings that have been cylindrical and oblong perforated object from
identified as storerooms, as well as in settlements Enkomi in Cyprus represents the so-called ‘snake
and remote caves, which suggests the use of smokers tubes;’ however, it could have served as a smoker
during the collection of wild honey. and therefore, it is included in this group.
ΙΙΙ. This group of smokers includes objects dating
The morphological diversity of these objects is back to the 3rd millennium BCE; they were
remarkable, and it may be interpreted as the result of discovered in various sites within Greek
experimentations. Nevertheless, some features remain territory and beyond: Mandalo at Pella (2300-
the same as they are necessary for the main function of 1900 ΒCE) (Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou and
each smoker, which is to blow smoke onto the beehives; Pilali-Papasteriou 1987: 177, 180, fig. 7), Knossos
these features are a) the spherical or cylindrical, even (nowadays kept in the Ashmolean Museum),
funnel-like, shape, b) a small size, enough to contain Thermi on Lesvos, Poliochni on Lemnos, Troy,
the flammable material and making the object easy to Pelopio in ancient Olympia (2200-2000 ΒCE)
carry, c) a large opening for the flammable material, d) and so on (Dοumas and Aggelopoulou 1997:
a protruding, mouth-shaped, smaller opening for the
diffusion of smoke, and e) a handle that allowed the 6
Example in: Germanidou 2016: 43, note 172.
beekeeper to carry the object and work with it. The 7
For a detailed presentation of most smokers and relevant
most elegant samples are equipped with small feet so bibliography see note 10. Only for the samples that are not
that the object would stand on the ground. Another presented in the above cited references further references
object that served as a smoker was the perforated cup, are included. Approximate chronology is suggested for three
pierced by many small holes around its upper part; significant samples.
these holes allowed for the diffusion of smoke. 8
See note 7.
22
Figure 4. Smoker from Sesklo, Volos-central Greece, 4000-3500 Figure 5. Smoker from Pelopio, Ancient Olympia-
ΒCE (Photographic Archive of the National Archaeological Peloponnese, 2200-2000 ΒCE (Photo: Sophia Germanidou).
Museum, Athens, Greece / Department of the Collections of
Prehistoric, Egyptian, Cypriot and Near Eastern Antiquities
© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological multiple functions. It includes the perforated
Receipts Fund).
cups with or without handles, which were
discovered in Palamari on Skyros (2500-1900
547, figs. 3 and 5). Despite their morphological BCE), Poliochni on Lemnos (2600-2400 BCE),
differences, they all have a common feature: the Ampelofyto (Figure 7), the Palace of Nestor in
absence of holes perforating their bodies. The Chora (Messinia), Lerna in Argolis, Kolona on
smoker from ancient Olympia is impressively Aegina, Heraion on Samos, Aplomata on Naxos
plain in shape, yet incredibly effective in terms and so on (Dοumas and Aggelopoulou 1997: 550,
of function: it is characterised by a circular body fig. 12). The function of these objects has been
with an opening for the flammable material the subject of exhaustive discussions: the holes
and an oblong nozzle for the diffusion of smoke perforating the body of the cups must have
(Figure 5). The smoker from Mandalo at Pella served a certain function; based on these holes
is similar, but more roughly made. This type of they are interpreted as braziers, incense burners,
smoker prevailed and survived in subsequent or strainers draining cheese or honeycombs.
ages. Such an object, for example, is described The morphological features of the perforated
by the Roman author Columella (see below); it is cups, such as the foot-base, the handle and the
suggested and illustrated by the pioneer Greek holes perforating the upper part of their body,
Catholic priest and beekeeper Stefano Della Roca allow one to identify them as smokers. However,
in his book Traité complet sur les Abeilles (1790) their interior is not scorched and no burning
(Crane 1999: 342, fig. 34.2a). It also survived traces are left (Rutter 1995: 326-329). Della Roca,
and predominated in Modern Greek traditional in his book that was published in 1790 not only
beekeeping (Figure 6). describes the usual type of smokers (Group III);
IV. Two more exceptional examples of ‘pitcher-like’ he also provides the valuable information of a
smokers with handles were found at Knossos: second type of smoker ‘with many small holes in
one of them has a perforated body, while the the top part’ and probably with a handle, since it
other one has openings for the flammable would be too hot to be held. Many ethnographic
material and the diffusion of smoke. parallels indeed confirm that this type was used
V. The last and more common type of prehistoric in Mediterranean traditional beekeeping and
smokers has raised doubts about its possible not only in Greece (Crane 1999: 342, fig. 34.2b).
23
Sophia Germanidou
Smoking and Smokers in Ancient Greece and

Rome
According to the textual evidence, the use of smoke

in beekeeping continued in ancient Greece. Aristotle
(384-322 BCE), the first beekeeper-scientist, observed
that ‘bees devoured honey more ravenously’ after
being smoked (Arist. History of Animals 9.40.623b).
An epigram of the orator Zonas from Sardis (c. 80
BCE) refers to a beekeeper in the following terms,
‘smoking with his skilful hand’ (Greek Anthology 9.
226). The Greek author, Apollonius Rhodius (3rd
century BCE), was aware of the fact that bees were
repelled by smoke (Wendel 1953/1974: 135, lines
130-31). Julius Pollux, a Greek scholar (2nd century
CE) referred to the smoking of bees, as a method
for driving them away (Onomasticon I, 15). Despite
the confirmed use of smoke in ancient Greece, no
Classical beekeeping smoker has yet to be identified,
at least as far as we know.
All the Roman authors who referred to beekeeping

mentioned the use of smoke. However, only two
authors describe the object itself (Crane 1994: 118-
134). Varro (1st century BCE) (de Re Rustica 3.16.18)
gave instructions for smoking the hives gently
and lightly not only in harvesting but also when
induced to enter a new hive. Columella (1st century
CE) (de Re Rustica 3.18.31) offered more details
Figure 6. Smoker, 20th century, provenance unknown about the smoker design: ‘earthenware vessel with
(©Peloponnesian Folklore Foundation of Nafplion).
handles, shaped like a narrow pot. The beekeeper
blows the fuel through the one open end and the
smoke emerges from the other, more pointed end.
The fuel was dried dung or a plant resin…smoke
should be applied at the opened back of the hive
so that the bees should move to the front end or
outside’ (R.R. 15.5-6).
The Un-/Non Smoked Honey
Strabo’s Geography (9.1.23) (1st century BCE) offers

the first testimony about the well-known Attic
honey, which he referred to as ‘akapnistos’ (un-/non
smoked). Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) (Natural
History 11.15.45) also mentioned that the best honey
was the unsmoked one, without going into more
details like the other ancient Greek and Roman
authors. The term ‘unsmoked’ is used to designate
honey in the Byzantine period as well; it appears
even in the Lives of Saints, such as that of John the
Almoner (7th century CE), which refers to the high
quality of such quality of honey (Festugère and Rydén
1974: 356-7, lines 557-60). It may be inferred by the
term itself that this honey was extracted without
the use of smoke during harvesting; as a result its
taste and smell were not affected. But this was a
Figure 7. Smoker from Ampelofyto, Messinia- Peloponnese, 1600- very difficult task, even for the most competent and
1200 BCE (photo: Tina Gerolymou). experienced beekeeper.
24
In the past, it was believed that unsmoked honey was contains dung (Geoponica 15, 6. 1-3). No other Byzantine
extracted from honeycombs that were compressed name for this specific object is known; therefore the
inside a basket without being heated in a brazier. A above descriptive term is helpful in an effort to imagine
more recent and plausible suggestion connects the what this object actually looked like: it was probably a
unsmoked honey to the content of the extension rings, small vessel that looked like a cooking-pot and it had
which were applied to the mouth of the horizontal one or two handles so as to be held, carried and used by
beehives. It was not difficult to collect the honeycombs the beekeeper.
from the interior of these rings; this was made possible
thanks to their small length (max. 0. 075 m.). This Representations of such objects in Byzantine and
technological innovation upgraded the quality of the generally in medieval art are rare. The beekeeping
honey in terms of taste and smell and it is considered to scenes that decorate the Exultet rolls – the scrolls that
be one of the most important achievements of ancient include the Latin psalm Laus Apium (The Praise of Bees)
Attic beekeeping (Mavrofridis 2009: 200-4). – show two cases of beekeepers holding a smoker or
using smoke while approaching beehives. The first case
Smoke as a Symbol in Orthodox Patristic Literature (Εxultet Vat. Lat. Barberini 592: 1070-1100) presents
two young assistants of the older and more experienced
The orthodox patristic literature includes allegories beekeepers holding open, ovoid-shaped pots with one
inspired by the use of smoke to repel bees. In most cases, or two handles, probably serving as smokers (Figure
smoke was the main weapon against sin. This allegory is 8). In the second case (Exultet Pisa 2: 1000-1100), a
found in texts of the 4th century bishops, Saint Basil the beekeeper is presented on his knees in order to remove
Great, bishop of Caesarea (Patrologia Greca 36, col. 620, honeycombs from hives. He holds a lit torch using its
lines IA 27-30; Patrologia Greca 37, col. 1102, lines 1064- smoke, obviously as a way of driving away the bees
65), Saint Gregory the Theologian or Gregory Nazianzen, (Figure 9).9
archbishop of Constantinople (Patrologia Greca 32, col.
1197, line 2, col. 1328, 5C). Likewise, in the texts of The most important representation of a smoker is found
Saint John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, in folio 145v of the Book of Job in the Par. gr. 135 (1361/2)
smoke is used for the ‘purification’ of the Christian Byzantine illuminated manuscript. This manuscript
entity (Patrologia Greca 62, col. 105). The representation is rather special, due to the western influences on its
of Saint Antony on Byzantine wall-paintings offers an iconography. The miniature in question has been the
interesting detail: an eloquent epigram written on the subject of study, as it includes agricultural scenes such
Saint’s scroll mentioning that ‘as the smoke drifts away as a woman milking an animal, a man shearing a sheep,
the bees, in such a way psalms drive away the wasps (i.e. as well as beehives made of tree trunks.10 Next to one of
the evil spirit)’( Germanidou 2016: 27). these hives, a small, light blue object is barely visible; it
has an impressive protruding nozzle, with wide mouth
Next to the allegories, certain texts include descriptions and narrow neck; the object is depicted standing on the
of the use of smoke against bees; such references are ground and smoke is blown through its top (Figure 10).
given by Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica in This iconographic detail is extremely important for two
the 12th century (Koukoules 1950: 275. Ο, 291, 41), or
the lexical encyclopaedia Etymologicum magnum (11th
century), citing that smoke was a basic substance in the
beekeeper’s activity (Lassere and Livadaras 1992: B 178).
An interesting and accurate allegory is provided by the
Byzantine government official and historian, Nicetas
Choniates (12th century), who mentioned that the
Byzantines drove out the Persians, like smoke repels
the bees (van Dieten 1972: 136, ll. 25-35).
Testimonies and Representations of Smokers in

Byzantine Times
The most important reference concerning the use of

beekeeping smokers in the Byzantine period is found in
the Geoponica. It is a 10th century treatise, a compilation
of earlier (6th century) works about agricultural issues. Figure 8. Lit torch used as a smoker, Εxultet Vat. Lat.
The chapter about beekeeping includes a citation Barberini 592, 1070-1100 (Germanidou 2019: fig. 6).
concerning the use of smoke when approaching the
beehive, as well as the name of the smoker, which 9
Germanidou 2019: 4-5, for comments and past bibliography.
is called there a chytridion (small cooking-pot) and 10
Germanidou 2016: 65, for comments and past bibliography.
25
Sophia Germanidou
Figure 9. Smoker in the probable shape of a ‘chytridion’, Exultet Pisa 2, 1000-1100 (Germanidou 2019: fig. 5).
reasons: it is the only unequivocal

Byzantine/ medieval depiction of
a smoker and it differs from the
image of the ‘chytridion’ given by
Geoponica.
The Smokers of Traditional

Greek Beekeeping
The smoker became a necessary

tool for Greek beekeeping
in modern times (19th-20th
century), especially before
the importation of the so-
called American ‘hot blast’ –
made of metal–invented in the
United States in 1873. Studies
both detailed and general
of these objects are lacking.
Notwithstanding, one may
make two main observations: a)
their morphological variety is
remarkable, so that it is often
difficult to identify them (Figure
11); and b) their resemblance to
their prehistoric and medieval
Figure 10. Byzantine smoker, History of Job, Par. Gr. 135, folio 145v, 1361/2 ancestors (Figures 12a,b) is
(©Bibliothèque nationale de France, Department of Image and Digital Services). impressive, so that one could
26
infer that they are the continuation of a very long

tradition. The flammable material that was used was
cow dung, in certain cases mixed with some pine
needles. Occasionally, pulverised asphodel was used
to disinfect the pot (Spees 2003: 93-4). The use of plain
torches survived as well.
Future Research Trends
New valuable information as to the use of smoke in

beekeeping and its influence on the produced honey,
missing from other fields, is now being undertaken. In
particular, gas chromatographic and organic residue
analyses carried out on honey pots and beehives
in Portugal, have detected levoglucosan (a biomass
Figure 11. Clay object with open holes in its oval surface burning tracer) which has been connected with the
probably wrongly identified as smoker (©Peloponnesian process of fumigation to calm the bees. This finding may
Folklore Foundation of Nafplion). result in the secure identification of pots as smokers
Figure 12a. A female beekeeper posing proudly next to beehives holding a smoker, resembling the Byzantine
one depicted in figure 10 (©Spata Educational Association).
27
Sophia Germanidou
le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14 Rencontre

ègéenne international: 349-357. Leuven-Liege: Peeters.
Davaras, K. 1989. Μινωικά μελισσουργικά σκεύη. In
Φίλια Ἒπη εἰς Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν διά τά 60 ἔτη
τοῦ ανασκαφικοῦ τοῦ ἔργου, III: 1-7. Athens: The
Archaeological Society at Athens.
Doumas, C. and A. Aggelopoulou. 1997. The Basic
Pottery Types at Poliochni and Their Diffusion in
the Aegean, in C. Doumas and V. La Rosa (eds) Η
Πολιόχνη και η πρώιμη εποχή του Χαλκού στο Βόρειο
Αιγαίο / Poliochni e l’antica età del Bronzo nell’Egeo
settentrionale: 543-554. Athens: Scuola Archeologica
Italiana.
Festugère, A. J. and L. Rydén. 1974. Léontios de Néapolis
Vie de Syméon le Fou et Vie de Jean de Chypre. Paris: P.
Geuthner.
Figure 12b. Smoker from the island of Sifnos, 20th century, Germanidou, S. 2016. Byzantine Honey Culture. Athens:
resembling the prehistoric smoker from Pelopio-Ancient National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Olympia in figure 5 (Photo: Υorgos Kyriakopoulos). Germanidou, S. 2019. Medieval Beekeepers: Style,
Clothing, Implements (Mid-11th–Mid-15th
and of the material used to produce smoke (Oliveira and Century). Ethnoentomology 3: 1-15.
Morais and Araújo 2015: 193-212). Harissis, H. and A. Harissis. 2009. Apiculture in the
Prehistoric Aegean. Minoan and Mycenaen Symbols
Summing up, clay smokers represent a fascinating vessel Revisited. Oxford: BAR International Series 1958.
shape that is coming to be examined more thoroughly Harissis, Η. 2017. Beekeeping in Prehistoric Greece, in F.
from historical, ethnographic, archaeological, and Hatjina et al. (eds) Beekeeping in the Mediterranean from
archaeometric angles. These humble, yet functional Antiquity to the Present. International Symposium: 14–35.
objects are rarely exhibited or stored in local museums. Nea Moudania: Hellenic Agricultural Organization
Their continued study is sure to add further evidence ‘Demeter’; Chamber of Cyclades; Eva Crane Trust.
regarding the sophisticated and influential past of Harissis, Η. 2018. Προϊστορικοί μελισσοκόμοι.
Greek beekeeping. Αrchaeology and Arts 126: 78-91.
Koukoules, F. 1950. Θεσσαλονίκης Εὐσταθίου. Τά
Acknowledgements Λαογραφικά. Athens: Society for Macedonian Studies.
Kritsky, G. 2015. The Tears of Re: Beekeeping in Ancient
I owe a great deal of the present study to the broad Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
beekeeping knowledge of Giorgios Mavrofridis and Lassere, F. and N. Livadaras. 1992. Etymologicum magnum
his willingness to share his valuable experience and genuinum. Symeonis etymologicum una cum magna
information with me. Roberto Bixio, a vivid, tireless grammatica. Etymologicum magnum auctum, v. 2.
scholar and in-situ researcher of Byzantine apicultural Athens: Φιλολογικός Σύνδεσμος Παρνασσός.
sites, has also been a source of inspiration and guidance. Mavrofridis, G. 2015. Πειραματικές έρευνες για την
Alexandra Konstantinidou has been a helpful ear for κατανόηση του μελισσοκομικού παρελθόντος.
questions of translation but also a helpful collaborator. Melissokomiki Epitheorisi 29/243: 349-354.
This chapter could not have been completed without Mavrofridis, G. 2009. To ακάπνιστο μέλι. Melissokomiki
their keen and thorough review, for which I am thankful. Epitheorisi 23/3: 200-204.
Mavrofridis, G. 2006. H μελισσοκομία στον μινωικό –
Bibliography μυκηναϊκό κόσμο. Melissokomiki Epitheorisi 20/5:
268-272.
Crane, E. 1994. Beekeeping in the World of Ancient Oliveira, C., R. Morais and A. Araújo. 2015. Application
Rome. Bee World 75/3: 118-134. of Gas Chromatography Coupled with Mass
Crane, Ε. 1999. The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Spectrometry to the Analysis of Ceramic containers
Hunting. London: Duckworth. of Roman Period: Evidence from the Peninsular
Crane, E. 2001. The Rock Art of Honey Hunters. Monmouth, Northwest, in C. Oliveira, R. Morais and A. Morillo
UK: International Bee Research Association. Cerdán (eds) ArchaeoAnalytics: Chromatography and
D’ Agata, A. L. and S. De Angelis. 2014: Minoan Beehives. DNA analysis in Archaeology:193-212. Munícipio de
Reconstructing the Practice of Beekeeping in Esposende: Esposende.
Bronze Age Crete. in G. Touchais et al. (eds) Physis. L’ Pager, H. 1973. Rock Paintings in Southern Africa
environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans Showing Bees and Honey Hunting. Bee World 54/2:
28
Pager, H. 1976. Cave Paintings Suggest Honey Hunting Speis, G. 2003. Beekeeping on the Island of Andros. An
Activities in Ice Age Times. Bee World 57/1: 9-14. Ethnographic Approach. Andros: Kaireios Library-Eva
Papageorgiou, I. 2016. Truth Lies in the Details: Crane Trust.
Identifying an Apiary in the Miniature Wall Painting Stamataki, P. et. al., 2009. Πειραματική αρχαιολογία
from Akrotiri, Thera. The Annual of the British School χρησιμοποιώντας ένα μινωικό μελισσοκομικό
at Athens 111:1-26. καπνιστήρι. Μελισσοκομική επιθεώρηση 23/3: 165-170.
Psaropoulou, B. 1986. Οι τελευταίοι τσουκαλάδες του Tyree, L. et al. 2012. Minoan Bee Smokers: An Experimental
ανατολικού Αιγαίου. Napflio: The Centre for the Approach. In Mantzourani, E. and Betancourt, P. (eds)
Study of Modern Pottery – G. Psaropoulos. Philistor: Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras: 223-232.
Psaropoulou, B. 1990. Η κεραμική του χθες στα Κύθηρα Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.
και στην Κύθνο. Athens: The Centre for the Study of Vallianou, C. and M. Padouva. 1986. Τα Κρητικά αγγεία
Modern Pottery – G. Psaropoulos. του 19ου – 20ου αιώνα. Athens: Museum of Cretan
Rizopoulou-Igoumenidou, E. 2000. H παραδοσιακή Ethnology.
μελισσοκομία στην Κύπρο και τα προϊόντα της (μέλι και Van Dieten, J. 1972. Nicetae Choniatae orationes et epistulae.
κερί) κατά τους νεότερους χρόνους. H μέλισσα και τα Berlin: De Gruyter.
προϊόντα της. Αthens: Piraeus Bank Group Cultural Venetoulias, G. 2004. Tα κεραμικά της Κύθνου. Athens: En
Foundation. Plo editions.
Rutter, J. 1995. The Pottery of Lerna IV, v. III. Princeton: Wendel, Κ. 1953/1974. Scholia in Apollonium, Berlin:
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Weidmann.
29
Chapter 3
Potters and Beekeepers: Industrial Collaboration in Ancient Greece
Jane E. Francis
Concordia University (jane.francis@concordia.ca)
Summary: This chapter surveys the history and physical characteristics of ceramic beekeeping equipment and explores the role
of the potter in the invention and manufacture of these containers. As specialized objects used by a small number of consumers,
beehives may not have been a frequent product of ceramic workshops and were probably made infrequently and commissioned
by beekeepers; these shapes were not part of a potter’s usual repertoire. These beehives display significant technological overlap
with transport amphorae, and workshops and potters making the latter may also have produced the former. An examination of
the relationship between potter and beekeeper may also elucidate the origins of ceramic hives, and explain both their unusually
static morphological development and the wide array of variations in small details of rims, sizes, and bases/floors.
Keywords: potters; beekeepers; ancient Greece; industry; ceramic hives; vessel morphology
Introduction their requirements innately, and he understands what

is popular or will sell at any given moment. At the same
The study of ancient ceramics utilises multiple time, morphological developments like the trefoil rim
analytical approaches and methodologies to identify on a jug, the vertical handle on a hydria, or a higher
vessel shapes, functions, and chronologies. Fabric or lower pedestal stem on a drinking cup may be
analysis, now regularly integrated into pottery initiated by a potter looking to better his products and
research, can help to connect ceramics with specific thus his sales, but they may also have been instigated
workshops or clay sources and to separate these from by collaboration with — or at least suggestions by —
imitations made elsewhere. Distribution studies follow the consumer, who finds an existing shape less than
vessels as they travel around the ancient world, often satisfactory. Shifts in decorative schemes and themes
ending up far from their centres of production, and can may have been similarly encouraged. On the other
reveal transport routes and trends in consumption. hand, shapes not part of a potter’s daily life or ceramic
repertoire may have required a different type of input
Considerations of the role of the potter, about in their manufacture: the production of a transport
which little is known, are generally lacking in the amphora, for instance, at some point had to entail
scholarship on ancient ceramics.1 Excavations of a discussion between a potter and trader about the
ceramic workshops do not elucidate the social status most efficient shape for maximizing shipboard space,
of these artisans, the set-up of their establishments, facilitating transport, and minimizing breakage.
their interactions with traders or local consumers —
i.e., the market — or even the economic value of their A ceramic shape that must have required such
products (Hasaki and Raptis 2016). The process of collaboration between potter and consumer is the
making pottery, however, is well known, and was even beehive and its related accessories, all of which were
illustrated on Greek painted plaques and vessels.2 made from terracotta starting in the late 5th century
Many kiln sites have been studied and published, BCE. Research on ancient apiculture with such
but an area that has not been properly studied is the containers is relatively new, dating back to the early
collaboration between the potter and the consumer 1970s with the excavation and study of pottery from
of the object. In many cases, this may have been the Vari House in Attica and the scientific confirmation
negligible: a potter can easily develop a particular cup that a specific type of vessel was used as a beehive
shape because, in his own life, he uses cups, knows (Jones et al. 1973). Since this time, various aspects
of these beehives and their use have been explored.
Examples have been identified in far more areas
1
An exception may be research on Bronze Age ceramics, where
fabric analysis and experimental reconstructions have provided some from both survey projects and excavations (Rotroff
insights into choices made by the potter, but these do not address 2006: 127 map 2), which are normally published as
collaboration between potter and consumer. See, e.g., Moody et al. evidence for apiculture as an agricultural undertaking
2012.
2
For instance, the Penteskouphia plaques and various black-figure in reconstructions of the ancient landscape (e.g.,
vessels; for a discussion of this evidence, see Hasaki 2002: 31–50. Jameson et al. 1994: 289–90). Regional studies that
include beekeeping often rely substantially on later The Archaeological Evidence

ethnographic parallels and practices (e.g., Mavrofridis
2009c; 2017b; 2017c; 2019). A typology, at least for Ceramic Beekeeping Equipment
Attic evidence, has been attempted (Lüdorf 1998–99).
Fabric analysis on ceramic has been rare and focused Scholars have identified two types of ancient ceramic
on specific areas (e.g., Karatasios et al. 2013; Moody beehives: long tubes set horizontally, and vertically
et al. 2003: 89–90). Distribution studies continue to positioned vat-like tubs, which are sometimes referred
provide an ever-widening circle of findspots and thus to as kalathos beehives (e.g., Bonet Rosado and Mata
use and possible manufacture (Rotroff 2006: 127 map Parreño 1997). This chapter is concerned only with the
2). Experimental reconstructions have confirmed the first type, as the second is somewhat controversial and
viability of these vessels for beekeeping (Mavrofridis the manner of their use not entirely clear (Rotroff 2006:
2008; Francis 2012; Kalogirou and Papachristoforou 128–30).3
2018).
Beekeeping with ceramic hives can employ three
Also emerging from this research are several key facts separate parts that can be used together in varying
about ceramic beehives that cannot be explained by combinations: the hive; short, open-ended sleeves
traditional methodologies employed for the study of called extension rings; and circular, discoid lids. The
other classes of vessels. First, these containers vary in hives and rings both display some type of grooves
details from region to region, all the while adhering to or scoring on at least part of the interior surface, a
consistent standards and general morphology. Second, feature that has been key in their identification during
their morphological changes are nearly negligible and fieldwork. Lids can have ridges and holes but lack the
can remain the same, repeated in production after interior treatment.
production for centuries; they are thus impervious to
standard norms for chronological assessment and have The beehives are fashioned as long cylinders with a
also thwarted attempts at clear typologies. Third, there convex wall, in some degree; some are slightly more
is nothing particularly specific about the clays from bulbous than others, but these distinctions are difficult
which they are made, unlike, for instance, cooking to assess, as the majority of examples are fragments
pots; they do not seem to require special mixtures (Figure 1).4 These tubes taper from a smaller base at
or tempers, at least on available evidence. Fourth, all one end to a wider open mouth at the other. Complete
these prior factors mean that their distribution was examples are rare, but lengths can be derived from, for
very likely to have been local or regional, and it is instance, 6th century CE hives from Isthmia, at 0.55 to
unfortunate that so few beehives have received fabric 0.64 m (Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: 348, 351–
analysis of any sort, especially within the context of 54). Attic hives are of a similar length, which offers a
other, locally manufactured ceramics. None have been general average.5
recovered from shipwrecks to indicate that they were
part of maritime trade. Rims are variously shaped, but normally project in a
rolled, everted, or thickened profile.6 Bases also differ,
Beehives also have no natural ceramic antecedents,
and their specific, physical characteristics do not
appear on other vessels; their function, and thus their 3
These vessels were either laid on their sides, thus functioning as
horizontal hives, or they are ancient versions of post-antique top-bar
appearance, is entirely unique and very much tied to hives, the existence of which is attested in Greece only in the 17th
their functionality. Their use does not accommodate a century. Experimental reconstructions that converted these vessels
large group of individuals: the beekeeper who installs into a facsimile of an ancient top-bar hive only prove that a swarm
will establish itself inside such a container, not that this occurred in
the hives in the landscape, and the potter who creates antiquity. The author will address this issue in subsequent research;
the container. The following investigation focuses on for existing discussion, see Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: esp.
the role of this craftsman, and in what ways he may 349–51; also Mavrofridis 2008; 2009b; 2017a.
4
Compare, for instance, straighter-sided hives from Isthmia
have contributed to the development of the beehive (Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: 348 fig. 4) and Athens (Lüdorf
shape, which was repeated without significant change 1998–99: B8 fig. 18) with those with slightly more bulbous walls, also
for so many centuries. from Athens (Lüdorf 1998–99: B16 fig. 21, B23 fig. 26; Sparkes and
Talcott 1970: 217–18, 366 no. 1853 pl. 88).
5
For example, Lüdorf 1998–99: 84 no. B5 at 0.46 m; Jones 1990: 66, at
Much of the ensuing research is based on the ceramic 0.959–0.600 m. The lengths of beehives from pre-Roman Spain are
beehives collected by the Sphakia Survey Project in within the same range; see Bonet Rosado and Mata Parreño 1997: 36
table 1.
Crete and studied by the author. As part of this work, 6
Beehives from the Athenian Agora excavations furnish good
I have been able to examine whole and fragmentary examples of all these rim shapes, which continue through the Roman
hives from many other sites on the island dating from period: rolled rim (Rotroff 2006: no. 362 fig. 58); everted rim (Rotroff
2006: no. 365 fig. 59); thickened rim (Rotroff 2006: no. 360 fig. 58). The
the Hellenistic through early Byzantine periods, and examples from Spain provide a similar range of rim forms: Bonet
these are introduced as comparanda where applicable. Rosado and Mata Parreño 1997: 38 fig. 6.
31
Jane E. Francis
Figure 1. Horizontal, tubular beehive, from Athenian Agora

(after Rotroff 2006: fig. 59 no. 365) (drawing by D. M. Buell).
and their configuration seems to be regionally distinct: in mainland

Greece (Attica, Isthmia), they are solid and run from flat to convex
and bulbous, but in all cases formed as part of the vessel.7 In Crete and
pre-Roman Spain, tubular hives have both ends open with similar
rim shapes on each.8 In these cases, the hives would have been closed
with lids of organic materials, like wood or stone, like schist.
Scoring is present on part of all these containers, in the interior surface

normally interpreted as the ceiling of the hive and placed upwards Figure 2. Bell-shaped beehive, from
in order to facilitate the bees’ attachment of honeycombs (Broneer Eleutherna, Crete (after Yangaki 2005: fig. 61a)
1959: 337, citing D. Pallas). This feature has proven problematic in (drawing by D. M. Buell).
the identification of beehives: only the scored fragments of a hive are
recognized as such, and many unscored pieces of these containers
have undoubtedly escaped detection. The number of recovered hives
may thus be much larger than suspected.
These beehives were laid horizontally, and bolstered on one or both

sides by buildings, trees, or rocks to prevent rolling (e.g., Crane 1983:
46 fig. 24, 47 fig. 27). They could be arranged in rows and stacked.
There is no evidence in Greece that these hives were set on racks or
bases, nor do they seem to have been plastered into walls, as in the
early Iron Age apiary at Tel Rehov, in Israel (Mavrofridis 2010; Mazar
2018; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007; Mazar et al. 2008), or in later
Mediterranean apiculture, as in Cyprus (Mavrofridis 2009c: fig 2). Figure 3. Beehive with ring base, from
Knossos, Crete (after Hayes 1983: fig. 15 no.
Several morphological variations have been identified on Crete and 177) (drawing by D. M. Buell).
tentatively elsewhere, but in very small numbers. One of these hive
types is a shorter, rounded, bell-shaped beehive with a flaring rim
and a flattened ‘button’ in the centre of the closed, domed base. Their relationship to the longer, tubular
These occur in late-Roman contexts at Eleutherna (Yangaki 2005: 48 beehive is unknown and will be explored
no. 61 fig. 61a) and Gortyn (Di Vita 1988–89: 449 fig. 34a, b) but are below. The second variation is a shorter
not common (Figure 2).9 cylinder with a solid, convex floor
surrounded by a ring base (Figure 3).
These have been identified at Gortyn (Di
Vita 1988–89: 449 fig. 33a, b), Phalasarna
7
The ‘Type 1’ complete beehives excavated at Isthmia display the range of base (Francis 2011), and Knossos (Hayes 1983:
shapes, from nearly flat to convex (Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002: 348 fig. 4). 132 no. 177 fig. 14), where the ring is
8
At present, complete, open-ended hives are securely known only from pre-Roman
Spain (Bonet Rosado and Mata Parreño 1997: 35–36 figs 1, 2). Crete, which preserves
pierced, perhaps for suspension; no
many thousands of beehive fragments, has not yet revealed evidence for a solid base examples of this type are complete. Dates
on this type of beehive and it is, at present, concluded that these hives were also open- for this type of hive range from the late-
ended.
9
This shape also occurs in post-antique Andros, where it is termed ‘rare’ (Bikos and
Classical/Hellenistic through the 2nd or
Rammou 2002: 6–7 fig. 3; Mavrofridis 2015b: fig 7). even the early 3rd century CE.
32
Extension rings remain a puzzling part of the Beehives need to be enclosed containers to prevent the
ceramic beekeeping suite due to the lack of any clear entry of predators and disruption to the swarm, yet
antecedents. These open-ended sleeves seem to have had to be easily removable by the beekeeper. Hives with
been attached to the mouths of hives in order to expand solid floors of any configuration only need a closure
the size and thus the capacity of the honeycombs and for their mouths, while open-ended hives require lids
eventual yield of honey and wax; similarities can be at both ends. Round ceramic discs are found alongside
drawn with post-antique, wicker ekes (Jones 1990: 69– beehives at sites in mainland Greece, especially in Attica
71). A further benefit of these rings is that they could (Jones et al. 1973: pl. 77; Lüdorf 1998–99: figs 43–48).
be removed individually without unduly disturbing the These feature raised bosses or ridges for affixing them
swarm inside, thus allowing more efficient harvesting to a projecting beehive or extension ring rim and seem
and without recourse to smoking (Jones 1990: 69–71; to allow for the attachment of a stick as a handle (Crane
Mavrofridis 2009a: 202–203). Diameters of these rings 1983: 46 figs 24–25). Holes pierced through the surfaces
are consistent with those of the hive mouths, although facilitate bee access. Some ceramic lids also feature
their lengths vary. These smaller, but thick-walled (at embossed or stamped decoration on their top surfaces
least 1 cm wall thickness), densely made objects have (e.g., Lüdorf 1998–99: fig. 49). The use of these lids seems
a much higher rate of preservation than the hives, to be regional: they are very common in Attica, but rare
and many survive with both rims intact. These can at Isthmia, where ceramic hives are otherwise frequent
be quite long, as an example from Thorikos at ca 30 (Anderson- Stojanović and Jones 2002: 364 no. 34 fig. 5).
cm demonstrates (Jones 1990: 64), although most are They do not occur, so far, on the Greek islands where
shorter; Rotroff cites the rings from Vari and Trachones hives and extension rings have been found; the example
as between 6.5 and 9 cm in length (Rotroff 2006: 128). from Gortyn is a rare instance on Crete (Rendini 1988:
Extension rings from Crete are also within this range (Di 246 no. 236 fig. 208). Where such manmade lids are not
Vita 1988–1989: 446), although some are considerably employed, beekeepers would have employed discs of
shorter (Figure 4). stone like schist (Bikos and Rammou 2002: 6).
Jones estimates that a 10.2 cm ring, excavated at Regional distinctions can also be observed in the scoring
Thorikos, could hold three honeycombs (Jones 1990: 70). on the interior surfaces of beehives and extension rings.
The rims of these objects are variously shaped. Many Complete hives show these deliberate grooves made
slope downwards towards the interior and have a flat top with a sharp stick or comb with multiple teeth on only
surface (e.g., Martin 1997: pl. 116 nos 4, 7; Vogt 2000: 195 part of the interior diameter (Lüdorf 1998–99: 84 B4 fig.
nos 3–5, 197 no. 2), while others are flat and horizontal 14). In some cases, this feature stops well before the rim
(Martin 1997: pl. 116 nos 5, 6; Vogt 2000: 197 nos. 1, 3), of the open mouth, but it can also be continued closer
thickened (Vogt 2000: 197 no. 4) or projecting (Lüdorf to the rim (e.g., Papanikola-Bakirtzi 2002: fig. 157).
1998–99: fig. 42; Triantafyllidis 2010: 42 fig. 51; Vogt 2000: Attic beehives show the use of multi-toothed combs
197 no. 5). The latter two types may have facilitated the drawn across the clay in neat, often cross-hatched
attachment to the beehive — or another ring — with patterns (e.g., Lüdorf 1998–99: B5 fig. 15; Rotroff 2006:
rope, as in the reconstruction by Jones et al. (1973: 447 fig. no. 353 fig. 58); but also in individual straight groups
19). In other cases, these rings could have been attached (Triantafyllidis et al. 2010: fig. 49). On Crete and other
with mud, clay, or even beeswax or propolis. islands (e.g., Vogt 2000: 197 nos 1–5 fig. 48), but also
in Attica (e.g., Jones 1990: figs 57, 60), scoring was
executed in individual lines that are mostly horizontal
(i.e., parallel to the rim) but in varying thicknesses,
spacing, and depths. In Dalmatia, fragments are scored
regularly, with a more corrugated appearance (Kristina
Jelinčić, pers. corr.). The scoring on extension rings is
usually dense and horizontal (e.g., Lüdorf 1998–99: E9
fig. 38), but the comb can also be observed in Attica
rings, occasionally in a cross-hatched pattern (e.g.,
Lüdorf 1998–99: E3, E6 fig. 38).
Graeco-Roman ceramic beekeeping equipment has

a wide distribution across Greece, the islands, and
western Asia Minor, but these finds are unevenly
spread. At present, this material is attested in mainland
Greece throughout Attica (compiled in Lüdorf 1998–
1999; also Rotroff 2006: 124–131, 283–285), at Isthmia
Figure 4. Beehive extension ring, from the Sphakia Survey, (Anderson-Stojanović and Jones 2002), the Corinth
Crete (drawing by Anne Bowtell). area (Gregory 1985: 428, 1986: 297), Methana (Mee
33
Jane E. Francis
and Forbes 1997: 121), the Argolid (Jameson et al. 1994: References to these commodities in ancient literature,
289–289, 445, 447); Megara (Francis 2009), and Boeotia as well as observations on bee behaviour, only confirm
(Vroom 2003: 91, 95–96, 107, 109, 111). On the islands, an interest in bees and their products, not that these
beekeeping equipment is known from Eretria (Metzger were domesticated with manmade hives.12 However,
1993: 112, 116, 1998: 189, 197, 201), Chios (Anderson the date at which Greeks began to manufacture and
1954: 137, 142; Boardman 1956: 51–53), Lemnos (Massa use ceramic beekeeping equipment is unknown, as is
1992: 227–228), Samos (Tölle-Kastenbein 1974: 120 fig. whether all three known pieces were contemporary
198D), Agathonisi (Karatasios et al. 2013), Kea (Sutton in their inception. The earliest, securely identified
1991: 260–263), Paros (Hasaki 2003), Delos (Bruneau Greek examples come from the late-5th century
1970: 260–261; Siebert 1988: 763; Peignard-Giros 2012: BCE, but beekeeping could have been practiced with
245), and Siphnos (Brock and Young 1949: 87 no. 25 manmade hives in organic materials much earlier and
pl. 30.3; Ashton 1991: 126). In Ionia, examples come survived alongside the clay examples. The harvesting
from Ephesos (Gassner 1997: 104 no. 375). Beekeeping of honey and wax from wild honeycombs should also
equipment on Crete has been identified at excavations be considered.
at Knossos (Hayes 1983: 110, 132, 134 no. 177; Callaghan
1992: 93 no. 9; Sackett 1992: 176–77), Gortyn (E.g., Early examples of tubular, horizontally placed beehives
Martin 1997: 339–41; Albertocchi 2011: 211), Eleutherna can be found outside Greece, in ancient Egypt, where
(Vogt 2000: 95; Yangaki 2005: 48 no. 61, 82 no. 437a, paintings in several tombs portray beekeepers at
345 nos. 344–45), Aghia Galini (Vogt 1993–1995: 70–71), apiaries with multiple stacks of hives (Crane 1999:
Chania (Kataki 2012: 546 pl. 3), Syvrita (Karamaliki 2011: 163 table 20.3A; Kritsky 2015). The open mouths face
296), and in the survey areas of Sphakia (Francis 2001; the workers, who are shown variously extracting
Francis et al. 2000: 442; Moody et al. 2003: 89–90), Moni honeycombs, smoking the bees, and decanting honey
Odigitria (Francis 2010, 42–4), the Akrotiri peninsula into containers. The detail with which the artists often
(Raab 2001: e.g., 160), Gournia (Hayes and Kossyva rendered both the equipment in use and illustrated
2012:168), Mesara (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou the processes of apiculture indicates sufficiently
2004: 322), Galatas (Gallimore 2017: 96), and Kommos widespread beekeeping knowledge in Egyptian society
(Callaghan 1995: 388). The same type of containers was that even tomb artists could represent the practice
employed in pre-Roman Spain, in the 3rd century BCE accurately.
(Bonet Rosado and Mata Parreño 1997) and examples
have also been attested in Roman Dalmatia.10 Oddly, The earliest of these images is a relief in the Sun
few beehives are confirmed from Italy, despite Roman Temple of Neuserre at Abu Ghorab of the 5th Dynasty
authors producing sometimes-extensive discussions (2465–2323 BCE), which shows a stack of tubular hives
on contemporary apicultural practices. This lacuna (Crane 1999: 164 fig. 20.3a; Kritsky 2015: figs 2.3, 2.4,
can perhaps be explained by a general opposition 2.5). In front, a beekeeper wields an object identified as
to ceramic — or clay, as they are termed — hives, a smoker (Crane 1999: 164; Kritsky 2007: 64; 2015: 10).
which Roman writers derided as lacking appropriate Elsewhere in this relief, men pour honey into a large
temperature control: too hot in the summer and too container, while a bee flies in the background. The 18th
cold in the winter. This perception has been debunked Dynasty (1550–1307 BCE) Tomb at Rekhmire at Thebes
(Francis 2012; Kalogirou and Papachristoforou 2018) (TT100) depicts a similar scene: cylindrical beehives
but may have been sufficient to encourage beekeepers with rounded bases are stacked vertically on the right,
to use hives of other materials such as wicker and wood, set on top of a rectangular platform. Bees are being
which have not survived. smoked, and beekeepers extract honeycombs (Crane
1999: 165, fig. 20.3b; Kritsky 2007: 66; 2015: figs 4.3, 4.4,
Pre-Classical Ceramic Hives in the Mediterranean 4.5, 4.6, 4.10). The poorly preserved Tomb of Amenhotep
I at Thebes in the same dynasty (TT73) shows the same
The need for large amounts of honey, the only type of apiary and smoking process (Crane 1999: 165
sweetener of antiquity that did not require processing, fig. 20.3c; Kritsky 2007: 65; 2015: fig. 4.1). Much later, in
and wax, used for numerous artistic enterprises and the 26th Dynasty (664–525 BCE), the Tomb of Pabasa at
activities of daily life, was constant throughout Greek Luxor (TT279), a painted relief depicts stacked, bullet-
and Roman cultures, and these may have been obtained shaped hives with rounded ends and a honey-gathering
through wild honey hunting, either sporadically or scene (Crane 1999, 167, fig. 20.4a; Kritsky 2007: 66–68;
as a supplement to apiculture with organic hives11. 2015: figs 5.5, 5.6, 5.7). A contemporary, ill-preserved
relief in the Tomb of Ankhhor (TT414) is similar, with
10
A perforated vessel from Fishbourne, in Roman Britain, does not smaller hives (Kritsky 2007: 68–69; 2015: figs 5.12, 5.13).
belong to this class of vessels (Cunliffe 1971: 210–11).
11
Other known sweeteners include grape must juice, dates, figs, and
barley, but these must be boiled up and processed, as opposed to
honey, which can be obtained directly from the honeycomb; see e.g., 12
The ancient sources on bees and bee behaviour are presented and
Dalby 1996: 47. discussed in Giuman 2008.
34
Absent from the Egyptian archaeological record are the with dung or clay (Papageorgiou 2016: 104). Similarly
hives themselves. Nineteenth-century excavations at shaped objects represented in Minoan art, such as the
Kahun revealed cylindrical clay objects with one closed Master Impression Seal from Chania (Papageorgiou
end that are tentatively identified as beehives (Flinders 2016: 103 n. 10), are also proposed as beehives. Yet none
Petrie 1890: 25 pl. XIV). Gas liquid chromatography of these images specifically shows beekeeping or bees
found beeswax inside them, but they have a very small — unlike the Egyptian paintings —, nor are apiaries
diameter (7.8 cm). Crane (1999: 164) interpreted these of this, or any type, confirmed from other prehistoric
as model beehives, while Kritsky (2015: 25) suggests evidence. Residue analysis on the interior of Minoan
that they may have been used for collecting honey. No pottery from Mochlos (Evershed et al. 1997) and Pseira
other real hives are known, despite the prevalence of (Beck et al. 2008: 62) has revealed beeswax and the use
apiculture in tomb art. of these vessels as candles, but the source of these
products is not known and, like the earlier evidence,
Two important points may be derived from this may have been obtained and observed through wild
Egyptian evidence. First, the artistic renderings depict honey hunting (Mavrofridis 2016). Physical evidence
the same type of beehives positioned in the same for beehives is also lacking. Bronze Age Crete (MMII
manner for nearly 2000 years. This shows a consistency through LM IB) saw the production of ceramic, vat-like
in equipment that must reflect reality. Second, the lack containers not unlike the ambiguous, vertical beehives
of physical remains for ceramic hives over the very of the Graeco-Roman era. The identification of these
long period represented by the artistic record strongly vessels as beehives is entirely due to their interior
signifies that the tomb images may refer to — and surfaces, which bear wide grooves on at least a portion
beekeeping in Egyptian society may have employed — of the height as well as the floors, where they are often
unfired clay hives. This interpretation is supported by executed in a spiral pattern. This feature has been
the discovery of a 10th–9th century apiary at Tel Rehov equated with the scoring on later hives, despite their
in Israel, where tubular hives made out of unfired clay completely different patterns, thicknesses, and widths.
mixed with straw and animal dung were stacked in None of these containers have been scientifically tested
three tiers; the excavators estimate approximately 100 to confirm that they held beeswax or honey, even when
hives (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2007: 206, 207, 211).13 they are claimed as hives by excavations that tested
The accidental preservation of these unfired hives was other classes of artifacts.15 These ‘beehives’ have been
due to the fire that destroyed the apiary complex. found at Bronze Age and early Iron Age sites, both
from excavated contexts and survey projects: Chania
The evidence for beekeeping in prehistoric Greece is far (Hallager 2003: 242–43); Nerokourou (Melas 1999: 487);
more elusive. Wax in ceramic containers is attested as Kommos (Watrous 1992: 25 no. 439 fig. 22); Mochlos
early as the Neolithic era, in fragments of perforated (Brogan and Barnard 2003: 56); Chrysokamino (Ferrence
pottery from Limenaria on Thasos and Dikili Tash in and Shank 2006); Gournia survey area (Watrous 2012:
Macedonia (Decavallas 2007), but these containers 118–19 site 60); Kavousi (Day 2012: 5); Kato Syme (Melas
cannot be confirmed as beehives and may simply have 1999: 487–88); Zakro (Chrysoulaki 2000: 585 fig 3ζ.16
been containers for wax.
The Egyptian evidence discussed above also argues
The presumption of beekeeping with ceramic hives against the use of ceramic hives in prehistoric Greece.
in Minoan Crete has been extensively addressed (e.g., The long, horizontal beehive consistently represented
Mavrofridis 2006; Harissis and Harissis 2009), but for centuries is not found in the Greek world, despite
without conclusions satisfactory to all researchers. ongoing contact between the Minoans and Egypt,
Honey and wax — and perhaps, even the bee — were with cultural and artistic influence from the east. A
of enormous importance in Minoan society and ritual. symbol in Minoan hieroglyphics identified as the ‘bee
Many artistic renderings, such as the famous Malia bee sign’ and present on five seals is derived from Eyptian
pendant (e.g., Bloedow and Björk 1989), and Linear B hieroglyphics (Evans 1921–36 I: 281). The Egyptian town
ideograms for honey and wax are accepted by many of Kahun, which has furnished the putative beehive
scholars as proof of organised apiculture with manmade models, preserves Minoan pottery (Fitton et al 1998).
hives.14 A structure with rows of dark triangles depicted The Tomb of Rekhmire, along with its beekeeping
in the miniature fresco from Room 5, West House at
Akrotiri has been interpreted as an apiary with ‘upright 15
This was the case at Chrysokamino, where fragments were
pointed baskets’ — a type of wicker skeps hive coated identified as ‘beehives’ without scientific study, despite residue
analysis performed on other types of pottery from the same
excavation; see Ferrence and Shank 2006, but also Day’s review (2008:
13
Gas chromatography identified beeswax in the walls of these 768).
containers as well as remains of burnt honeycombs and many body 16
Melas (1999: 487) cites 18 sites with these types of vessels. D’Agata
parts of honeybees (Mazar et al. 2008). and De Angelis (2014: 353 n.27) state that they have identified 237
14
For example, the Linear B ideogram *179 may depict a triangular examples, at their date of publication. They cite a further 10 of these
skeps hive (Papageorgiou 2016: fig. 11); ideogram *168 is interpreted ‘beehives’ dating after the LMIB period (D’Agata and De Angelis 2014:
as a cylindrical, ceramic beehive (Davaras 1986). 355).
35
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

Full Ebook of New Approaches To The Archaeology of Beekeeping David Wallace Hare Editor Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of New Approaches To The Archaeology of Beekeeping David Wallace Hare Editor Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of New Approaches To The Archaeology of Beekeeping David Wallace Hare Editor Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Approaches to the Archaeology of

Beekeeping David Wallace-Hare (Editor)

People in the Mountains Current Approaches to the

From West to East Current Approaches to Medieval

The Narrative Game The Reading of David Foster Wallace

The History of New York City 2 Greater Gotham A History

Electrical Conquest: New Approaches to the History of

Beekeeping For Dummies Blackiston

The Archaeology of Island Colonization Global

The Wealth and Poverty of African States (New

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2022

A New Approach to the Study of Ancient Greek Beekeeping

Introduction Virgil, Columella, Pliny the Elder and Palladius,

New Approaches to the Archaeology of Beekeeping (Archaeopress 2021): 1–18

Figure 3. Traditional ceramic open-at-one-end-beehive from Amorgos Island, Cyclades.

Figure 4. 1st century CE horizontal open-at-one-end beehive

Horizontal open-at-one-end beehives with one or

In ancient beehives, this method alone was not enough

2. Beekeeping with horizontal open-

The hole or holes at the closed edge

Figure 9. Traditional ceramic moveable-comb beehive from central Crete.

Figure 10. Traditional moveable-comb hive from Kea Island, Cyclades.

Regarding the bees’ illnesses, pseudo-Aristotle knows Acknowledgements

Sources in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Present:

Mavrofridis, G. 2013b. Experimental Archaeology: Morín de Pablos, J. and R. R. de Almeida. 2014. La

Smoke and Bees: From Prehistoric to Traditional Smokers in Greece

Keywords: smoke, smokers, Greece, un-/non smoked (akapnisto) honey

(?) through a hole towards the hives.

Smoking and Smokers in Ancient Greece and

According to the textual evidence, the use of smoke

All the Roman authors who referred to beekeeping

The Un-/Non Smoked Honey

Strabo’s Geography (9.1.23) (1st century BCE) offers

Testimonies and Representations of Smokers in

The most important reference concerning the use of

reasons: it is the only unequivocal

The Smokers of Traditional

The smoker became a necessary

infer that they are the continuation of a very long

Future Research Trends

New valuable information as to the use of smoke in

le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14 Rencontre

Potters and Beekeepers: Industrial Collaboration in Ancient Greece

Introduction their requirements innately, and he understands what

include beekeeping often rely substantially on later The Archaeological Evidence

Figure 1. Horizontal, tubular beehive, from Athenian Agora

and their configuration seems to be regionally distinct: in mainland

Scoring is present on part of all these containers, in the interior surface

These beehives were laid horizontally, and bolstered on one or both

Graeco-Roman ceramic beekeeping equipment has

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project