Crete in Transition: Pottery Styles and Island History in the Archaic and Classical Periods 0876615450, 9780876615454

Citation preview

crete in transition

Hesperia Su p p l e me nt 45

crete in transition pottery styles and island history in the archaic and classical periods

Erickson

Brice L. Erickson A m e r ic a n S chool of Cl a ssic a l S t u d ie s a t A the n s 2010

C RE TE in transi t io n

He sp er ia S upplements The Hesperia Supplement series (ISSN 1064-1173) presents book-length studies in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, language, and history. Founded in 1937, the series was originally designed to accommodate extended essays too long for inclusion in the journal Hesperia. Since that date the Supplements have established a strong identity of their own, featuring single-author monographs, excavation reports, and edited collections on topics of interest to researchers in classics, archaeology, art history, and Hellenic studies. Hesperia Supplements are electronically archived in JSTOR (www.jstor.org), where all but the most recent titles may be found. For order information and a complete list of titles, see the ASCSA website (www.ascsa.edu.gr).

Hesperia Supplement 45

CRETE in transition Pottery Styles and Island History in the Archaic and Classical Periods

Br ic e L . E r i c k son

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2010

Copyright © 2010 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey All rights reserved.

Cover illustration: Classical Cretan lekythos found at Ierapytna, 5th century, Ierapetra Archaeological Museum 645. Courtesy of the Ierapetra Archaeological Museum

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Erickson, Brice L.   Crete in transition : pottery styles and island history in the archaic and classical periods / by Brice L. Erickson.    p.  cm. — (Hesperia supplement ; 45)   Includes bibliographical references and index.   ISBN 978-0-87661-545-4 (alk. paper)   1. Pottery, Greek—Greece—Crete. 2. Black pottery—Greece—Crete. 3. Pottery—Greece—Crete—Analysis. 4. Crete (Greece)—Antiquities. 5. Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece—Crete. 6. Crete (Greece)—History, Local. 7. Citystates—Greece—Crete—History. 8. Crete (Greece)—History—To 67 B.C. 9. Crete (Greece)—Social life and customs. I. Title. NK3840.E75 2010 939΄.18—dc22 2010044651

To Nikolaos Stampolidis, mentor and friend

P REFAC E

1. All dates are b.c. unless otherwise indicated. The only exceptions appear in my account of modern research agendas from the 19th century to the present.

This book presents a classification system and absolute chronology for Cretan black-gloss (b.g.) wares in order to establish local and regional ceramic sequences for the island ca. 600–400.1 Pottery is the benchmark by which archaeologists date almost all other material found on excavation or survey, and therefore it is essential that the pots themselves be classified, dated, and understood. In the absence of local ceramic sequences, Cretan archaeology of the 6th and 5th centuries has lagged behind the study of most other regions of Greece. Other periods of Cretan history have benefited from a rich archaeological perspective; most notably, fascination with Bronze Age palatial culture has led to extensive artifact chronologies pertaining to prehistoric developments. In contrast, Crete in the 6th and 5th centuries has been virtually terra incognita. As the first comprehensive examination of material largely ignored by earlier scholars, this work lays a foundation for integrating future discoveries. The typologies I present here will assist others in referencing similar material and provide a common language for discussing the pottery’s chronology and function. With this chronological framework in place, pottery can then serve as a primary source for reconstructing an enigmatic chapter in Cretan history, the period of transition from Near Eastern influence in the 7th century to the traditional political configuration of Classical Greek city-states. The title of this work incorporates the period designations “Archaic” and “Classical,” although these standard divisions of mainland Greek history require modification for use on Crete. “Archaic” is often used synonymously with “Orientalizing” to designate the 7th century, but this must be avoided. An Archaic period spanning two centuries (the 7th and 6th) might make sense for survey archaeologists and longue durée historians, but such a broad definition can be criticized for creating a static picture and masking important changes in the early 6th century. “Archaic” will be applied here specifically to the 6th century, and “Orientalizing,” a term coined by art historians to describe local styles of Near Eastern inspiration, will be employed in this volume as a period designation for the 7th century. As on mainland Greece, “Late Archaic” refers to the decades roughly 500–480, immediately preceding the the Classical period. “Classical,” which on the

viii

p r e fa c e

mainland ends with the death of Alexander the Great in 323, ends in my schema for Cretan history at about 400. Archaeological considerations rather than historical events make this an appropriate terminus for my study. In the 4th century the archaeological landscape of Crete becomes richer than before and artifact chronologies become more dense and less skeletal, making this the first century of light after a long period of darkness.2 In brief, my system yields four discrete periods: Orientalizing (700–600), Archaic (600–500), Late Archaic (500–480), and Classical (480–400). Despite recent advances in source attribution and chronology for coarse wares from Bronze Age Crete, b.g. exhibits more obvious changes in vessel form over the period of roughly 600–400 and therefore offers a better starting point for formulating ancient chronology.3 Decorated pottery offers greater scope for stylistic experimentation and would have better suited my purpose, but the great Orientalizing traditions of pot painting on Crete died out in the 6th century.4 My focus on glazed fine wares should not be seen as endorsing a traditional art-historical approach to Classical archaeology. Cretan b.g. is unappealing to modern artistic sensibilities but indispensable as a historical resource. Imported pottery is included as well because it plays a crucial role in establishing chronology. Lamps, whether glazed or not, reveal a perceptible evolution of forms and therefore also fall within the scope of my study. Most valuable would be the publication of pottery from the excavation of contextual units—the comprehensive documentation of deposits with the entire range of their contents. This would provide a clearer picture of the role of b.g. and other wares in a social, economic, and political setting. A contextual approach, however, is generally not yet feasible on Crete because of the near lack of stratified Archaic and Classical deposits. For example, the mixed character of post-Minoan levels at Kato Symi means that pottery can be identified only stylistically and that separate typologies for the coarse and cooking wares will be needed to identify fragments in these mixed deposits. At Knossos, the record of habitation deposits fails us completely around 590–525, and any pottery produced during this period will have to be identified as a survivor in later contexts. At sites excavated in the early part of the 20th century, plain pottery was not always saved for later study. Recent excavations at Priniatikos Pyrgos, Azoria, and Itanos may soon permit a more rigorous contextual approach to Cretan archaeology of the Archaic and Classical periods. Since such an approach is not feasible at other sites, establishing chronologies for the b.g. sequences can provide a basis for dating the more plentiful fine plain, coarse, and cooking wares. As part of my field research from 1998 to 2000, and then intermittently from 2001 to 2006, I examined large quantities of unpublished pottery from sites all over the island and also reexamined material first unearthed as early as 1900. While providing a relatively balanced geographic perspective on ceramic developments, this approach has limitations. Excavators unfamiliar with Archaic and Classical pottery frequently did not process, identify, and label relevant material. Most excavations did not keep inventory cards, profile drawings, or photographs for this “undiagnostic” material. Simply selecting and documenting the material for study took

2. Archaeologists at Knossos have made significant progress on fine-ware chronologies for the 4th century. The list of stratified groups in Coldstream and Eiring 2001, p. 89, contains more entries for the 4th than for the 6th and 5th centuries combined, and it does not convey the wealth of evidence in most 4th-century deposits. The publication record is less complete for sites other than Knossos, but excavation reports in various journals give the impression of an increase in evidence dated to the 4th century. Not until the 4th century do most Cretan poleis begin minting; see Le Rider 1966. It is also at this time that we see a dramatic increase in the number and variety of clay figurines found at many Cretan sanctuaries. 3. For a fuller explanation, see Chap. 2, pp. 23–25. 4. The island boasts a single identifiable black-figure workshop, probably located at Aphrati and known almost entirely through exports found at Cyrene and Tocra (Chap. 3, p. 75), and a small collection of red-figure lekythoi, apparently produced by a single West Cretan production center (Chap. 9, p. 230). In addition, a 6th-century black-figure plate found at Praisos seems to be a local product (Chap. 8, p. 200).

p r e fa c e

5. Unless otherwise indicated, all drawings and photographs are mine. By the end of my study, profile drawings numbered in the thousands, a selection of which appears here. Only objects illustrated with a drawing or photograph received a catalogue number. The catalogues comprise 549 entries, with brief descriptions of other examples and their findspots appearing in the catalogue entries of comparable objects. Any additional examples of an entire class of material are cited in footnotes to the main text. It must be noted that the fragmentary condition of the material meant that handles were rarely preserved. Furthermore, I have made extensive use of composite drawings of different bodies and bases, catalogued separately, as in the case of 138/146, for example. This does not mean that they are from the same pot, or even from the same site.

ix

much effort.5 Storerooms had to be searched box by box. The examination of so much material by myself made it difficult for me to take advantage of the most sophisticated techniques of analysis. In contrast, members of an excavation team responsible for publishing pottery at a single site become intimately familiar with its recording system, have more time to conduct their work, and have access to more sophisticated equipment and procedures, including scientific means of evaluating fabrics—all of which raises analysis to a higher level. In this study, analysis was limited to shape studies and macroscopic observations of gloss and fabric in an attempt to build a foundation for further work. Much work remains. The chronological sequences proposed here need to be tested and refined, optimally by excavation of stratified deposits from settlement and sanctuary contexts. Ceramic petrography and chemical analysis of clays are lines of future research capable of providing a more secure foundation for source attributions for Archaic and Classical pottery. The fabric descriptions and catalogue entries are extremely brief, and appear especially so now, given the greater facility I have acquired in the macroscopic examination of fabrics and inclusions since beginning this project. In the main text of this work I describe fabric color in terms of the Munsell soil color charts and note inclusion colors and sizes. The catalogue entries usually do not repeat this information, and consist of the following sequence of elements: (1) the type of vessel and what is preserved; (2) the publication record, if any; (3) the findspot or provenience; (4) dimensions, description of glazing characteristics and color, description of fabric; (5) references to similar objects or types; (6) the date of the object and/or its context. Close scrutiny of Crete’s archaeological record has much potential to elucidate what many modern scholars have described as a Cretan recession in the Archaic and Classical periods. Pottery sequences offer a chronological structure by locality and region. In addition, quantities of local and imported wares can indicate a stable population. At Eleutherna, a sequence of local shapes spans the 6th century, and Praisos offers relatively rich collections of Archaic material. The typologies presented here also provide a general framework for incorporating new discoveries at Kydonia, Priniatikos Pyrgos, and Itanos. At Knossos, however, the results of my study reinforce the impression of a hiatus during the period of roughly 600–525, suggesting that the population recovered after suffering a serious but temporary recession. Now that the abundant evidence from Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Aphrati can supplement the existing typologies for Knossian wares, the 5th century poses fewer problems for the ceramic researcher. My results argue against the existence of a widespread and deepreaching recession from the 6th to the 4th century and rule out several theories that have been advanced to explain the perceived archaeological lacunae. Furthermore, they document some previously unsuspected connections and interactions between the island and mainland Greece that have significant consequences for our understanding of mainstream Greek history. The Archaic and Classical periods heralded important changes in Cretan society, reflected most notably in the reorganization of burial

x

p r e fa c e

grounds, the pattern of dedication at sanctuaries, and the circulation of elite exotica. By positing connections between the island and the famously conservative and austere society of Classical Sparta, I place Crete at the forefront of developments both in ancient Greek society during a crucial period and in modern research agendas. In addition, the island’s import record leads to surprising conclusions regarding the economic dimensions of the Athenian empire. In short, this study not only deals with the identification, sequencing, and dating of island pottery but also delves into broader historical aspects of Cretan society and its artistic, political, and economic development. These two distinct but complementary aims are pursued in different parts of the book. Field archaeologists and readers primarily interested in the pottery classifications will profit most from Chapters 2–9. Chapter 2 describes the study’s methodology, and Chapters 3–8 present the pottery from Eleutherna, Knossos, Gortyn, Vrokastro and Gournia, and Praisos, with a pronounced chronological focus. Imports, even domestic Cretan examples, are presented with material from the site at which they were found, not the place of manufacture. Local imitations of imports appear side by side with genuine articles in the discussion and catalogues, followed by a list of the local wares. A separate chapter on lamps incorporates material from Eleutherna and Knossos. Although most of these chapters conform to a geographic arrangement from west to east, no claim is made that there is a distinct West, Central, or East Cretan style. The goal is to provide a view of ceramic development at the local level, noting connections between sites and regions as they come up in the discussion. Chapter 9 presents a final overview of the Cretan ceramic repertoires, with a particular emphasis on regional distinctions and overseas influences. Those concerned with the historical dimensions of the archaeological evidence may prefer to concentrate on Chapter 1, where I address the putative recession on Crete in the Archaic and Classical periods, and on Chapters 10–12. Chapter 10 discusses changes in Cretan society, including settlement developments, burial customs, and cult practices. At Cretan sanctuaries there is a profound shift from lavish aristocratic dedications to plain mass-produced objects that may reflect wider participation among an egalitarian group. In other areas of life, functional simplicity replaces ostentatious display. Chapters 11 and 12 evaluate the effects of overseas commercial contacts and consider Crete in the context of Greek archaeology and history. A new and pervasive cultural paradigm of Cretan austerity is comprehensible in light of an emerging warrior culture, a prototype of the militaristic and austere culture of the Spartans, who made almost no distinction among themselves. The ancient tradition that the Spartans modeled their famous way of life after Cretan institutions may have some basis in fact. Close contacts between Crete and Sparta arguably played a vital role during the formative period between the 9th and 5th centuries, when distinctively “Dorian” social, political, and legal institutions emerged and the Spartan polis took its peculiar shape, with an emphasis on the military training of the young, collective dining in mess halls, and the subjugation of dependent populations.

p r e fa c e

xi

As classicists begin to look beyond Athens and Sparta for models, what have previously been regarded as peripheral areas such as Crete promise to transform our understanding of mainstream Greek history. Since these so-called marginal areas are poorly served by the literary sources, historical reconstruction needs to proceed anew, beginning with the physical remains. By harnessing archaeological sources to serve historical aims, we can advance both disciplines. Cretan archaeology has advanced since this manuscript was accepted for publication in 2007. In light of the contributions made by recent field projects and publications of Early Iron Age and Archaic material, it can no longer be said that the traditional Bronze Age focus of Cretan archaeology overshadows interest in the historical periods. I have been able to incorporate references to new material and publications in the footnotes, but I could not undertake a radical revision of this work before it went to press.

ACK N OW LED G MEN TS

This book grew out of my Ph.D. dissertation, and I am indebted to the members of my advisory committee: Paula Perlman, Nicolas Coldstream, Jack Kroll, Lisa Kallet, and Cynthia Shelmerdine. Paula Perlman’s 1995 seminar at the University of Texas at Austin on Greek social history sparked my interest in post-Minoan Crete. Publications then gave an impression that almost no discoveries had been made at Knossos (or other Cretan sites) dated to the Archaic and Classical periods (ca. 600–400), a mystery with intriguing historical ramifications. Paula encouraged me to look past the blank publication slate and find out for myself whether this archaeological picture was accurate or a result of something having been overlooked in the ceramic record. My previous experience as a member of a survey team at Metaponto in southern Italy and as a student of Joseph Carter made me receptive to the idea that detailed local chronologies and artifact studies might contribute to the grand historical narratives of Archaic Greece. My study took more concrete form at the end of my year at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) in 1997–1998. Discussions with Ronald Stroud, Guy Sanders, and James Muhly paved the way for what proved to be an exciting second year of field research in Greece. The financial support of a Bert Hodge Hill Fellowship and a grant from the 1984 Foundation made possible my research in 1998–1999. I spent most of this time on Crete, but the American School in Athens provided an ideal base for digesting what I had seen after each long visit to the island. It is hard to imagine writing such a book without the resources of the Blegen Library. I owe a great debt to the American School as an institution, but the human dimension is what made it such a transformative experience. I profited from many discussions with members of the School, resident scholars, and excavators. The list is very long, but those subjected to more than a reasonable dose of Cretan archaeology include Nancy Bookidis, John Camp, Cathy Keesling, John Morgan, John Oakley, David Scahill, Peter Schultz, Stephen Tracy, and Charles K. Williams II. Maria Pilali deserves special mention for her invaluable assistance with permit applications. My field program would have been impossible without the cooperation of American, Belgian, British, French, Greek, and Italian archaeologists who graciously made available for study the pottery from their respective

xiv

acknowledgments

excavations and surveys. For my study of Knossian pottery, I am indebted to Peter Callaghan, Nicolas Coldstream, Colin Macdonald, and Peter Warren. Former directors of the British School at Athens, David Blackman and James Whitley, each took an interest in my work and provided invaluable assistance. Cretan archaeology was the basis for new and lasting friendships, and I enjoyed the opportunity to become better acquainted with James Whitley at Palaikastro while studying pottery from the Praisos survey. At Eleutherna, Nikolaos Stampolidis opened my eyes to a new world of Early Iron Age Cretan archaeology while helping me in every conceivable way. In addition, Antonis Kotsonas and Stavroula Oikonomou discussed matters of Eleuthernian archaeology and history, and I learned much from them. While I worked at Rethymnon in 1998, Yannis Tzifopoulos welcomed me to the University of Crete and its library’s excellent collection of Cretan materials and breathtaking view of the Venetian port. At Gortyn, Antonino di Vita invited me to publish the historical Greek pottery from his excavations at the Odeion. His kindness did not end there: he also arranged room and board for me with the Italian excavators. Thanks also go to Vincenco La Rosa, Chaira Portale, and Giovanni Rizza for sharing the latest results of their excavations and studies at Praisos and Prinias. By fortunate coincidence, a new base for American research on Crete was established at Pacheia Ammos just as my field research began. Tom Brogan, the director of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, and Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan supported my activities in many ways and I am grateful to them both. The encouragement and support of other American scholars, including Barbara Hayden, Gerry Gesell, and Vance Watrous, had a profound impact on my work. All were generous with material and encouraged me to think outside the box (an appropriate phrase for a ceramic specialist) in addressing historical questions. I also gratefully acknowledge my debt to the directors of other field projects: Maria Andreadaki-Vlasaki, Athanasia Kanta, Eurydike Kephalidou, Angeliki Lebessi, Polly Muhly, Yannis Tzedakis, and Didier Viviers. This work has developed significantly from its beginnings as a dissertation. It now employs more sophisticated techniques of ceramic analysis and sourcing better known to prehistorians, enabling me to build a convincing case for where pots were manufactured, how they were circulated, and how they were used. A deeper appreciation of site histories and archaeological context has led to many new observations. In addition, excavations at Eleutherna and Itanos have uncovered new material since 1999, my last full year of research on Crete. Shorter visits in subsequent years allowed me to consider new evidence as I pondered old problems; I am grateful for the financial support of a Regents’ Junior Faculty Research Award from the University of California, which made these visits possible. Perhaps the book’s greatest improvement over the dissertation is in its historical perspective. Not only is there more emphasis on the historical dimensions of the evidence (pottery and other finds)—in fact, this book devotes more pages to history than to pottery—but also my experience with ethnographic, art-historical, and other approaches has encouraged me to link different strands of evidence and engage in historical debates beyond the scope of a traditional ceramic researcher. I would not have

acknowledgments

xv

moved in these directions had it not been for the reaction of friends and colleagues to two articles, “Aphrati and Kato Syme: Pottery, Continuity, and Cult in Late Archaic and Classical Crete,” published in Hesperia in 2002, and “Archaeology of Empire: Athens and Crete in the Fifth Century b.c.,” published in the American Journal of Archaeology in 2005. I do not recapitulate the evidence from Aphrati and Kato Symi here, but parts of the second article appear in revised form in Chapter 11. I am grateful to Ian Morris and Jerry Rutter for insights on the historical aspects of my work. In addition, I have profited from discussions with Mark Lawall, Milena Melfi, Jennifer Moody, Yannis Sakellarakis, and Saro Wallace. This book also reflects the results of a fundamental shift in emphasis as my thinking evolved from a model centered on Knossos (in the dissertation) to one focused on local and regional variations. One of the most important additions to our knowledge of Archaic Crete in the new millennium has come from Donald Haggis and Peggy Mook’s excavations at Azoria, which are revealing a well-preserved 6th-century settlement, a first for Cretan archaeology. The finds will take years of study and receive only brief treatment here, but the excavators kindly permitted me to examine material from the site, and our discussions about its historical significance have influenced the historical picture presented in Chapter 12. My work complements theirs, providing a macroscopic view of Cretan developments and a framework for more detailed studies of specific sites and regions. Others read earlier drafts of this manuscript with a critical eye, and for their invaluable assistance I thank Apostolos Athanassakis, Paul Christensen, Ralph Gallucci, Brenda Johnson-Grau of Perpetua Press, John W. I. Lee, Elizabeth Meyer, Robert Morstein-Marx, Gerry Schaus, and the anonymous Hesperia Supplement reviewers. In addition, Peter Warren read Chapter 4 before the book went to press and kindly provided me with cross-references to his forthcoming publication of the pottery from the Stratigraphical Museum Excavations. The staff of the Publications Office of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens saw the work develop from book proposal to finished product and guided me every step of the way. My dear wife, Jobeth, made it a joy to finish this book. Finally, I am grateful to my parents, Susan and Tom, for everything they have done over the years to encourage and support me.

Contents

List of Illustrations List of Tables List of Abbreviations

xix xxv xxvii

Chapter 1 Ar c h ai c an d C l assi c al C r e te: Th e “ P er i od of S i l en c e ”

1

Chapter 2 M e thods of C erami c A naly si s

23

Chapter 3 E leu th er na

43

Chapter 4 K no sso s

115

Chapter 5 La mp s: E l eu th er na an d Kn o sso s

165

Chapter 6 Gort y n

177

Chapter 7 I sth mu s of Ierap y t na

189

Chapter 8 P ra i so s an d I ts Ter r i tory

199

Chapter 9 Pot tery S t y l e s an d I n f l u en c e s

221

Chapter 10 I nter nal Tran sf or mat i on s

235

Chapter 11 O v er seas Trade an d C r e tan S o c i e t y

273

xviii

Chapter 12 A r c hai c Cre tan Auster it y and t he S partan Connec t ion

contents

309

References 347 Index 369

I llustrations

1.1.

Map of Crete, showing major sites mentioned in the text

2

1.2.

Archaic bronze cauldrons from the Sanctuary of Apollo at Ayia Pelayia

7

Archaic terracotta bust of a female deity with a low polos from the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos

8

1.3. 2.1. 2.2.

Sample clay surfaces of Classical Cretan production centers Lyktos and Aphrati

35

Movement of island b.g. pottery from Lyktos, ca. 600–400

36

3.1.

Plan of the Early Iron Age cemetery at Orthi Petra, Eleutherna 44

3.2.

Orientalizing and Archaic Corinthian imports at Eleutherna 54

3.3.

Orientalizing and Archaic Corinthian imports at Eleutherna 55

3.4.

Archaic Lakonian imports at Eleutherna

58

3.5.

Archaic Lakonian imports at Eleutherna

59

3.6.

Archaic Argive(?) import at Eleutherna and local imitation 63

3.7.

Archaic Attic imports at Eleutherna

64

3.8.

Archaic Attic lekanis at Eleutherna

65

3.9.

Archaic Attic imports at Eleutherna

65

3.10. Late Archaic and Classical Attic imports at Eleutherna

70

3.11. Late Archaic Attic imports at Eleutherna

71

3.12. Classical Attic red-figure imports and local imitation at Eleutherna 73

xx

i l l u s t r at i o n s

3.13. Fourth-century Attic imports at Eleutherna

74

3.14. Fourth-century Attic imports at Eleutherna

75

3.15. Late Archaic and Classical Knossian imports at Eleutherna 77 3.16. Late Archaic and Classical Kydonian(?) imports at Eleutherna 78 3.17. Late Archaic and Classical Kydonian(?) imports at Eleutherna 79 3.18. Archaic black-figure import at Eleutherna, from a Cretan workshop at Aphrati(?)

80

3.19. Archaic and Classical Gortynian imports at Eleutherna and local imitations

82

3.20. Archaic and Classical Gortynian imports at Eleutherna

83

3.21. Archaic and Classical Gortynian imports at Eleutherna and local imitations

83

3.22. Archaic high-necked cups, Eleutherna

90

3.23. Archaic Cretan high-necked cup found at Tocra

91

3.24. Orientalizing and Archaic high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna 92 3.25. Archaic and Hellenistic high-necked cups, Eleutherna

93

3.26. Late Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic high-necked cups, Eleutherna

97

3.27. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna 98 3.28. Archaic high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna

99

3.29. Fourth-century and Hellenistic high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna 103 3.30. Orientalizing and Archaic low-necked cups, Eleutherna and Itanos

106

3.31. Archaic low-necked cups, Eleutherna

107

3.32. Archaic deep cup with offset rim, Eleutherna

109

3.33. Archaic small hemispherical cup, Eleutherna

109

3.34. Orientalizing and Archaic kraters, Eleutherna

110

3.35. Archaic krater, Eleutherna

110

3.36. Orientalizing and Archaic trays, Eleutherna

113

3.37. Archaic and Classical bowls and “skyphos,” Eleutherna

114

4.1.

Map of Knossos area, showing locations of major Archaic and Classical deposits

117

i l l u s t r at i o n s

xxi

4.2.

Archaic Corinthian and Lakonian imports at Knossos and local imitations 123

4.3.

Early cup bases, Knossos

124

4.4.

Archaic deep cup with offset rim, Knossos

126

4.5.

Archaic Cretan cup found at Tocra

127

4.6.

Archaic small hemispherical cup, Knossos

128

4.7.

Archaic cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Knossos 130

4.8.

Archaic jug bases, Knossos

132

4.9.

Archaic miscellaneous cup bases, Knossos

133

4.10. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cups, Knossos

136

4.11. Classical high-necked cups, Knossos

137

4.12. Classical high-necked cup found at Amnisos

137

4.13. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Knossos 138 4.14. Variant Classical high-necked cup bases, Knossos

139

4.15. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, showing glazing characteristics on underfoot, Knossos

140

4.16. Fourth-century high-necked cup bases, Knossos

146

4.17. Fourth-century high-necked cups, Knossos

147

4.18. Late Archaic and Classical low-necked cups, Knossos

150

4.19. Classical kantharoi, Knossos

154

4.20. Classical tulip cups, Knossos

156

4.21. Classical tulip cup, Knossos

157

4.22. Late Archaic and Classical “bellied” cups, Knossos

159

4.23. Late Archaic and Classical “skyphoi,” Knossos

160

4.24. Late Archaic and Classical lekanai, Knossos

161

4.25. Late Archaic and Classical jug nozzles, Knossos

163

5.1.

Archaic lamps, Knossos

168

5.2.

Archaic lamps, Eleutherna

169

5.3.

Archaic and Classical lamp fragments, Eleutherna

170

5.4.

Classical lamps, Knossos

172

5.5.

Classical lamps, Eleutherna

173

5.6.

Fourth-century lamps, Eleutherna

175

xxii

i l l u s t r at i o n s

6.1.

Archaic cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Gortyn 179

6.2.

Archaic cup bases, Gortyn

180

6.3.

Archaic small hemispherical cup, Gortyn

180

6.4.

Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Gortyn

181

6.5.

Classical high-necked cup bases, showing glazing characteristics on underfoot, Gortyn

182

6.6.

Archaic high-necked cup found at Kommos

183

6.7.

Classical jug nozzle, Gortyn

184

6.8.

Movement of island b.g. pottery from Gortyn, ca. 600–400

185

Late Archaic and Classical Attic imports at Gortyn and local imitations

186

6.10. Late Archaic and Classical Attic imports at Gortyn and local imitations

187

7.1.

Classical Cretan lekythos, found at Ierapytna

190

7.2.

Archaic cup bases, Gournia Survey site 106 (Larisa?)

193

7.3.

Classical jug bases, Gournia and Vrokastro survey sites

195

7.4.

Movement of island b.g. pottery to Gournia Survey site 106 (Larisa?), ca. 600–400

197

8.1.

Orientalizing clay plaque, Praisos

200

8.2.

Plan of Praisos Survey site 14

202

8.3.

Kiln wasters at Praisos Survey site 14

203

8.4.

Archaic jug bases, Praisos Survey sites

206

8.5.

Archaic high-necked cup, Praisos Survey site 14

207

8.6.

Archaic high-necked cup bases with a broad, low disk foot and rounded edge, Praisos Survey site 14

209

Archaic high-necked cup bases with a ring foot and thick floor, Praisos Survey site 14

210

Archaic high-necked cup bases with a broad, low disk foot and beveled edge, Praisos Survey site 14

211

Archaic high-necked cup bases with a broad, low ring foot, Praisos Survey site 14

212

8.10. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Praisos Survey site 14

213

8.11. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Praisos Survey site 14

214

6.9.

8.7. 8.8. 8.9.

i l l u s t r at i o n s

xxiii

8.12. Archaic high-necked cup bases with beveled outer edge, Praisos Survey site 14

214

8.13. Archaic high-necked cup bases, Praisos Survey site 14

215

8.14. Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Praisos Survey sites

217

8.15. Classical and Hellenistic cup bases, Praisos Survey sites

218

8.16. Atticizing saltcellar and lamps, Praisos Survey sites

220

9.1.

Ratio of shoulder width to total height for Archaic and Classical high-necked cups at select sites

223

Movement of island b.g. pottery to and from Knossos, ca. 600–400

226

Movement of island b.g. pottery to and from Eleutherna, ca. 600–400

227

9.4.

Archaic aryballos from a Kydonian tomb

229

9.5.

Red-figure lekythos from an unknown West Cretan production center, dated to ca. 425–400

230

9.6.

Movement of island b.g. pottery to Itanos, ca. 600–400

232

9.7.

One-handled cups made at Itanos, after an Attic prototype dated to ca. 450 233

9.2. 9.3.

10.1. Didrachma coin of Phaistos and drachma coin of Gortyn, both dated to the 5th century

240

10.2. Terracotta figurines from the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, dated to the 5th century

244

10.3. Attic black-figure krater found at Knossos, dated to ca. 500–480

245

10.4. Archaic pithos burial, Phalasarna

252

10.5. Orientalizing votive assemblage, Palaikastro

258

10.6. Fragment of a 7th-century oinochoe from Gortyn

262

10.7. Archaic terracotta figurines from the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos

263

10.8. Classical lamps, Roussa Ekklesia

265

11.1. Archaic Lakonian kraters found at Tocra, North Africa

283

11.2. Map of the eastern Mediterranean, showing the proposed Peloponnesian trade routes of the Archaic and Classical periods 284 11.3. Archaic Cretan imports found at Tocra, North Africa

285

11.4. Attic red-figure lekythos found at Kydonia, dated to ca. the 470s

293

xxiv

i l l u s t r at i o n s

11.5. Archaic lekane with embossed decoration found at Azoria 301 12.1. Orientalizing hearth buildings at Kommos

316

12.2. State plan of the South Acropolis, Azoria, 2006

318

12.3. Archaic Cretan black-figure fragments found at Cyrene, Libya 324 12.4.

Cretan sites with legal inscriptions, ca. 600–400

332

Tables

2.1.

Occurrence of ware groups in Late Archaic and Classical deposits at Knossos and Kommos

25

Occurrence of fine-ware shapes in Late Archaic and Classical deposits at Knossos and Kommos

26

Occurrence of fine-ware shapes in Orientalizing deposits at Knossos and Kommos

27

2.4.

Sites and periods attested in fine-ware pottery sequences

42

3.1.

Occurrence of fine-ware shapes in the Early Iron Age cemetery at Orthi Petra

47

2.2. 2.3.

3.2.

Occurrence of fine-ware shapes in Archaic and Classical tomb clusters at Orthi Petra, excluding Corinthian imports 47

3.3.

Pottery from Archaic and Classical tomb clusters at Orthi Petra

3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 4.1. 4.2.

48–49

Occurrence of Corinthian shapes in Archaic tomb clusters at Orthi Petra

52

Occurrence of Attic shapes in Archaic and Classical tomb clusters at Orthi Petra

52

Dimensions and proportions of Archaic and Classical high-necked cups at Eleutherna

87

Dimensions and proportions of Archaic and Classical low-necked cups at Eleutherna

104

Ranges of dimensions and proportions of Late Archaic and Classical cup varieties at Knossos

134

Dimensions and proportions of Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cups at Knossos

135

xxvi

4.3.

ta b l e s

Dimensions and proportions of Late Archaic and Classical low-necked cups at Knossos

149

4.4.

Dimensions and proportions of Classical kantharoi at Knossos 153

10.1.

Ceramic vessels in tombs at Kastello Varypetrou

251

11.1.

Overseas imports at Eleutherna, ca. 650–450

275

11.2. Attic imports at Cretan sites in the 5th century

296

A BB REVI AT ION S

The following abbreviations for findspots and terms are employed: KDS KNC KKG KRS KW RR:H SWH SX UM

Knossos Demeter Sanctuary Knossos North Cemetery Knossos Kiln Group “Shrine of Glaukos,” Knossos Venizeleion Hospital Excavations, Knossos Royal Road, Well H, Knossos Southwest Houses, Knossos Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, Knossos Unexplored Mansion, Knossos

b.g. EM LM MM

black gloss Early Minoan Late Minoan Middle Minoan

c hap ter 1

A r c h ai c an d C l as s i c al C r e te: Th e “ P e r i od of S i l e n c e ”

1. Stampolidis 1990, p. 400; S. Morris 1992, p. 157; Coldstream and Catling 1996, p. 722; Prent 1996–1997, p. 35. See also Johnston 1993, p. 382; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 297, 303.

Against the backdrop of Orientalizing wealth, most observers have seen the Archaic and Classical periods on Crete as an age of artistic, cultural, and demographic impoverishment. Historians have described the 6th and 5th centuries as a “period of silence,” “the inevitable Cretan terminus,” or even more pessimistically as a true “Dark Age.”1 Others, however, have raised questions about the nature of the decline and its chronological and geographic extent. In recent years, a new position has emerged: this recession may itself be a mirage caused by inadequate literary documentation, cultural activities with a low archaeological profile, postdepositional forces, modern research biases, or other perceptual problems. Which of these interpretations is more accurate? Since Crete receives but passing notice in ancient literary sources, a comprehensive study of the archaeological material is the only way to achieve a better understanding of the history of its various city-states. Progress toward such an understanding has, however, been slow because few excavations have focused on recovering Archaic and Classical remains. Most of the evidence pertinent to these periods has surfaced accidentally through rescue operations or has come from excavations with different chronological emphases. Because the dating of survey sites, settlement deposits, and occupation horizons depends largely on the evidence of pottery, it is essential to establish reliable ceramic sequences. Although occasional finds of sculpture, bronzework, and inscriptions can be dated independent of ceramics on stylistic criteria, such evidence is usually insufficient to document continuity of settlement. A central problem, then, for archaeologists has been an islandwide absence of identifiable local and imported pottery dating to ca. 600–400. Because specialists have been unable to determine accurately the date of the relevant pottery or, in extreme cases, even to recognize it, these uncertainties present a serious challenge. This so-called gap of ca. 600–400 is most evident at Knossos, a city with an illustrious history not only as the foremost Minoan palace but also as one of the most powerful Classical and Hellenistic poleis (Fig. 1.1). Although Early Iron Age cemeteries document continuous habitation from the 12th century through most of the 7th, published evidence from the

Lera Cave Arkoudia Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Kydonia Polichna (?) Aptera Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

White Mountains

Axos

Eleutherna

Tylissos

Lappa Sybrita

Tarrha

Amnisos Knossos

Dreros Mt. Ida

Lyktos

Archanes Eltynia

Idaian Cave

Lasithi

Prinias Phaistos Gortyn Kommos

Mesara

10

20

30

40

50 km

Aphrati

Mt. Dikti

Itanos

Olous Priniatikos Pyrgos

Psychro Cave

Vrokastro

Kato Symi Myrtos

Kamilari

0

Chersonessos

Siteia Tholos Azoria Larisa (?)

Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 1.1. Map of Crete, showing major sites mentioned in the text. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

archaic and classical crete

3

cemeteries, sanctuaries, and settlements points to a sharp recession, if not a complete abandonment, of the site for a good portion of the 6th century. Although Knossos seems to have made a slight recovery in the Classical period, the 5th century is still a dark chapter in the city’s history. By extrapolating from Knossos, historians have posited an islandwide demographic, economic, or cultural decline in the 6th century, albeit without evidence of such breaks elsewhere. Knossos also stands apart as virtually the only historical Cretan site where archaeologists have attempted to formulate a sequence of shapes.2 Elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean, it is rare to encounter such gaps in our knowledge of the local pottery sequence, let alone to find an entire region that is bereft of ceramic chronologies, but the neglect of Crete is attributable to the historical circumstances surrounding the practice of archaeology in the early 20th century. Sir Arthur Evans’s excavations at Knossos and the spectacular nature of his discoveries made Crete, in effect, the land of the Minoans, while the later periods of the island’s history—the Greek, Roman, and Venetian eras—were relegated to obscurity.3 As part of a comprehensive program of research into the Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman periods of Knossian history, a later generation of British archaeologists took the lead in examining the 6th-century problem.4 Although admirably inclusive in chronological scope by the standards of Minoan archaeology, their emphasis on Knossos has come at the expense of a regional perspective. Investigation and research at other sites has lagged, and a number of promising candidates for excavation remain virtually unexplored. For example, one of the premier poleis of Classical Crete, Lyktos, figures prominently in Aristotle’s discussion of the Greek political constitutions, but despite its historical importance, Lyktos has never been systematically excavated.5 2. According to Kanta (1991, p. 500), Archaic and Classical Cretan pottery “has not been published or studied and is virtually unknown.” Kommos joins Knossos as another site of exceptional interest and study, although published reports indicate a gap there too in the 6th century; see Johnston 1993, p. 340, n. 6; Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 299; Johnston 2005, p. 390. 3. As Sanders (1982, p. 1) characterizes the problem, the history and archaeology of post-Minoan Crete have been treated only superficially in works devoted to other periods. According to Alcock (2002, p. 99), Evans’s discoveries “set Cretan archaeology on a prehistoric path.” To appreciate the direction of Cretan archaeology prior to Evans, one need only consult the works of early travelers. Pashley (1837) and Spratt

(1865) focus on the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman remains. Their works presage the current and growing interest in post-Minoan Crete and deserve a wider audience. 4. Knossos is the only GrecoRoman site on Crete accorded a book-length treatment of its ceramic record (Coldstream, Eiring, and Forster 2001). The history of British archaeology at Knossos needs a monographic account, although Huxley 2000, a collection of essays, provides valuable insight. See also Momigliano’s (1999) account of Mackenzie’s role at Knossos. 5. Excavations have been limited in scope. A series of campaigns undertaken by the Greek Archaeological Service has revealed Hellenistic phases of occupation and a destruction deposit dated to the 3rd century, perhaps connected with the documented destruction of Lyktos

at the conclusion of the Lyktian War in 220. For preliminary reports of these excavations, see Platon 1952, p. 480; 1953, p. 490; 1957, p. 336; 1958, pp. 479–480; Alexiou 1969, p. 539. In addition, Lebessi (1971, pp. 494–496, pls. 512, 513) discovered Archaic pithoi in a Hellenistic destruction level. The contents of this Hellenistic deposit also include imported b.g. cups with bases comparable in profile to the supports found on Knossian cups (such as Callaghan 1992, p. 100, deposit H12, nos. 5–10, pl. 80). From the necropolis of Lyktos come local and Attic pottery dated to the second half of the 4th century; see Lebessi 1979, p. 886, pl. 661. The impression of a gap in the archaeological record of Lyktos in ca. 600–400 is somewhat misleading, since the 7th-century material derives from a reuse context in the Hellenistic period.

4

chapter 1

This situation is gradually changing, thanks in great part to the work of the Greek Archaeological Service and the University of Crete at Rethymnon. Greek excavations at Eleutherna, begun in the early 1980s, now make it possible to assess 6th-century developments there.6 Moreover, interest in the Late Archaic gap encouraged Didier Viviers, a codirector of a French-Belgian team, to resume excavations at Itanos after a long hiatus.7 These ongoing excavations promise to transform our notions of intra-island trade and overseas exchange during the Archaic period.8 In addition, fresh discoveries at Azoria are providing the clearest glimpse yet of life in a 6th-century settlement.9 In short, international collaboration has begun to balance the long-standing Knossian bias in the practice of Cretan prehistoric and post-Minoan archaeology. Insensitivity to the history of archaeological work on the island and to the hazards of Knossos as a type site, at least in the 6th century, has reinforced an erroneous depiction of Crete as a political and cultural monolith.10 Local explanations are most convincing, however, when attention is confined to a single polis or region. John Boardman, for example, concludes that a “military fracas cannot provide the whole explanation” for the supposed depopulation of the entire island.11 In contrast, I. Morris considers the recession largely a Central Cretan phenomenon, with less pronounced manifestations at the western and eastern extremities of the island. James Whitley’s study of Eteocretan material highlights idiosyncrasies in pottery decoration and terracotta production, undermining unitary conceptions of Cretan archaeology and history.12 As Knossos emerges from this study as one of the few places where the previously suspected islandwide gap holds true, its exceptional status will require a local explanation. Archaeologists have investigated other suspected Archaic and Classical sites, but the pottery from these excavations has remained until very recently largely unpublished. A comparison of ceramic evidence from 6. Among the reasons Stampolidis (2004b, p. 25) gives for choosing Eleutherna for excavation is the need to learn more about areas outside the major palace centers in the historical era of the polis. 7. For Itanos, see Greco et al. 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002. 8. Preliminary reports from these sites have not yet changed opinions much, but important evidence has come to light in the most recent excavation seasons and awaits study. In another sign of growing interest, recent conferences have included an unprecedented number of papers on Archaic and Classical Cretan topics. Examples of such conferences include “Mylopotamos from Antiquity to the Present,” held at Panormo, Crete, in 2003 (published in 2006); a session devoted

to Archaic Crete and the Aegean at the 105th Annual Meeting of the AIA in 2004; “STEGA: The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete,” held at Ierapetra in 2005; and “Crete in the Geometric and Archaic Periods,” held at Athens in 2006. In the published proceedings of the conference “Knossos: Palace, City State,” held in 2000, 10 papers concern postMinoan archaeology and history. Before these high-profile conferences, papers in various Cretological conferences and brief notices in archaeological reports touched on Archaic and Classical subjects, but these Greek contributions have not received the attention they deserve in the Englishspeaking world. 9. Haggis et al. (2004, 2007) present preliminary reports of the 2002–2004

seasons, and detailed interim reports of subsequent work have been posted online (www.azoria.org/). 10. For this reason, Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 298) limit their discussion to Knossos and sites within its territory. Regional surveys must divide the Greek world into constituent parts to promote meaningful analysis. As Morris (1998a, p. 32) observes, sensible divisions involve arbitrary choices, although the geographic rationale for treating Crete as a separate region reinforces questionable assumptions. The problem becomes more acute as we move from large-scale to intra-island divisions; see Perlman 1992, p. 196. 11. Boardman 1982, p. 230. 12. Morris 1998a, pp. 65–68; Whitley 1998, pp. 32–38.

archaic and classical crete

5

excavated sites across the island can contribute to increasingly refined typologies, enabling meaningful comparisons within Crete. During the Minoan and Early Iron Age, a regional or even site-specific approach to ceramic analysis has proven necessary to accommodate the pronounced geographic variation in potting design and decorative motifs.13 The Archaic and Classical periods show no sign of a significantly different pattern, nor, until the Roman conquest, do the later periods.14 A regional perspective also facilitates comparisons between geographically distinct areas and political boundaries, revealing differences in commercial outlook and bringing into sharper relief the thornier topic of ethnicity. Although the conventional division of the island into West, Central, and East Crete has some justification in geography—the White Mountains in the west and the Diktaian Mountains in the east define three major zones—such a tripartite division would overlook smaller geographic features of possibly greater cultural significance, such as the Mesara plain, the upland plateau of Lasithi, and inland and coastal locations.15 Crete was not a single geographic entity or a cultural or political monolith, although the number of historical Cretan poleis is difficult to estimate. Homeric tradition records 100 (Il. 2.649) or 90 (Od. 19.174) cities,16 while numismatic or epigraphic evidence attests 40 or so poleis in the Classical and Hellenistic periods.17 Even the lowest estimate places Crete in a vastly different category than that of the smaller Cycladic islands controlled by a single polis or the medium-size Kean tetrapolis. Ancient authorities describe a threefold division of Crete, with Kydonian occupation in the west, Eteocretan occupation in the east (or the south, according to an alternative tradition), and Dorian control of the center, but these cultural spheres do not coincide exactly with the conventional geographic divisions.18 13. Betancourt (1985) examines the issue of ceramic regionalism during the Bronze Age, and Coldstream (1968, pp. 232–265) adopts a regional approach to the Geometric pottery sequences of West, Central, and East Crete. Only the lack of evidence prevents Coldstream from treating the local styles of individual sites in greater detail. Still, these works have not completely dispelled the notion of Knossos as a type site; see Hamilakis 2002b, p. 182. Recent approaches to intra-Cretan regionalism in the Bronze and Early Iron ages stress divergence from Knossos; see Hallager 2000, pp. 171–174; 2003, pp. 261–265; Knappett and Cunningham 2003, pp. 172– 173; Smith 2004, p. 309; Haggis 2007, p. 750; Kotsonas 2008b, pp. 35–39. The Knossian paradigm has created particular problems in the east, where American and British excavations have demonstrated extremes of regional

variation in ceramic design, but study of this “provincial” material has lagged behind publication and subsequent republication of the rich deposits at Knossos. 14. For instance, Cretan regionalism is a noteworthy feature of the epigraphic record and extends to minor differences in the script used in different parts of the island; see Jeffery 1990, p. 310. According to Arafat and Morgan (1994, p. 108), pottery has potential to clarify these issues, since this class of evidence reinforces “regional boundaries, whilst others, such as architecture, sculpture or metalwork, cross them.” Pottery production was presumably of a different order from architectural, sculptural, or metal work, providing stable employment for a skilled workforce of resident potters, as opposed to traveling artisans in pursuit of commission work. See also Morgan 1990, pp. 85–89; Morgan and Whitelaw

1991; Morgan 2003, pp. 165–167. 15. According to Cherry (1999, p. 19), natural features delineate different spheres of influence on the island. Sjögren (2003, p. 5; 2008, pp. 21–23) argues that the tripartite division of Crete can be further sub­divided into eight geographic units. 16. Van Wees (2003, p. 60) addresses this discrepancy in the Homeric testimony. See also Sjögren (2003, pp. 2, 97). 17. For this estimate, see Sanders 1982, p. 11; Perlman 1992, p. 193; 2004a, pp. 1144–1145. 18. Hall (1997, pp. 177–179), S. Morris (1992, pp. 173–174), Whitley (1998, pp. 28–32; 2007, pp. 58–61; 2008), Wallace (2003, pp. 271–272), Prent (2005, pp. 219–220, 546–549), and Duhoux (2007) discuss the particular problems raised by the sources and the general issue of Eteocretan ethnicity.

6

chapter 1

ART IST IC AND DEM O GRAP H IC DE C LI N E Recent regional studies of Archaic Greece either pass over Crete entirely or dwell on the 6th-century gap only long enough to express bewilderment and dissatisfaction with proposed explanations.19 How has such a bleak assessment come about, and does current evidence justify this impression of historical discontinuity? John Pendlebury and Ernst Kirsten were the first to comment on this Cretan recession, but Pierre Demargne, in a postscript to a study of the Orientalizing renaissance, was the first to frame the problem as a decline in artistic standards.20 In the 7th century, Crete stood, according to Demargne, at the forefront of experimentation, reclaiming a place in the history of Greek art not held since the collapse of the Bronze Age palace centers. Spectacular discoveries such as the bronze shields from the Idaian Cave, monumental sculpture in the so-called Daedalic style, figural pot-painting traditions, and the production of relief pithoi all point to a substantial revival. Demargne connected this artistic resurgence to renewed contacts with the Near East, hence the term “Orientalizing” as an artistic and historical marker. In the standard accounts of Greek art, Crete served as a physical and cultural stepping-stone between the Aegean and the Levant, an intermediary between the Greek mainland and Egypt, Syria, and Cyprus.21 Some modern historians of mainland Greece have turned to 8thcentury Crete as a possible source of alphabetic writing, given the island’s reputation as an intermediary between Greece and Phoenicia.22 The immense interest in this resurgence has overshadowed one of its most puzzling features. After this brief florescence, Cretan art seems to have fallen into a precipitous decline: the Geometric and Orientalizing traditions of stone sculpture, bronzes, vase painting, monumental pithoi, and terracottas all supposedly died out in the early 6th century. This apparent decline, as conceived by Demargne, served as a foil to the achievements of the Orientalizing artists, with contrasting extremes of wealth and poverty.23 Has this assessment withstood subsequent scrutiny? Recent studies largely confirm a 6th-century decline in the production of bronze armor, votive plaques, and vessels. For instance, Boardman 19. For instance, Morris (1998a, p. 68) laments the lack of interest in Archaic Crete, and another proponent of historical Cretan studies, Whitley (2001, p. 243), observes that the island lies outside the “standard narrative of Archaic Greece.” See also Hoffman 1997, p. 256; Prent 2005, p. 218. An example of Crete’s falling outside the mainstream discourse in classical archaeology is Osborne’s (2004) omission of the island in his survey of advances in the discipline. 20. Pendlebury 1939, p. 339; Kirsten 1942, pp. 21–24. Demargne (1947, pp. 348–353) describes the material poverty of 6th-century Crete as a problem of singular importance for Greek archaeologists. 21. The presence of foreign

craftsmen may have facilitated the Cretan reception of Oriental styles, as Dunbabin (1957, p. 40) suggests based on stylistic details of the Idaian bronze shields. Hoffman’s (1997, pp. 1–17, 160–165) revisionist account of the Orientalizing phenomenon accepts the central premise of earlier scholarship that Near Eastern inspiration underlies Cretan achievements. Even if, as Ridgway (1993, p. 30) and Stewart (1990, p. 107) independently argue, 7th-century Cretan sculpture becomes a dead end from the standpoint of mainland Greek development, this detracts little from the achievements of Orientalizing artists and the intrinsic charm of their works. 22. Guarducci was among the first to propose a Cretan origin for the

Greek alphabet. Jeffery (1990, p. 9), Burkert (1992, p. 27), Powell (1991, p. 13), and Stampolidis (2003, pp. 61– 62) review the arguments for Cretan alphabetic priority. 23. Demargne 1947, p. 348. According to Boardman (1961, p. 148), the concept of 6th-century artistic recession arose in part from the exaggerated importance of the Cretan Orientalizing phenomenon. See also Robertson (1975, p. 30) for a classic statement of the Cretan artistic decline. This apparent recession is all the more remarkable because it seems to undercut an early start in polis development in the late 8th and 7th centuries. According to Camp (2000, pp. 48–49), polis institutions arose on Crete earlier than elsewhere in the Greek world.

archaic and classical crete

7

Figure 1.2. Archaic bronze cauldrons from the Sanctuary of Apollo at Ayia Pelayia. Karetsou 1978, pl. 181. Courtesy

concludes that the series of Geometric and Orientalizing bronze shields from the Idaian Cave died out by the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century.24 In addition, the latest examples of votive bronze armor from Cretan sanctuaries date to ca. 575.25 Similarly, Angeliki Lebessi points to a steep reduction in the dedication of bronze figural cutout plaques at the Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Kato Symi in the 6th century.26 Other classes of evidence show Archaic Cretan bronzeworkers in a somewhat better light, and Boardman notes a slight recovery of the industry as it converted to the production of vessels and handle attachments of Peloponnesian type (Fig. 1.2).27 All the same, the record of Cretan bronzework is meager during this period, making it difficult to escape the conclusion that the local industry fell into decline or changed its priorities. Monumental stone sculpture of ca. 600–400 is also almost unknown. The island has produced only four fragmentary kouroi datable to the 6th century, while a small collection of over life-size limestone birds from the coastal Sanctuary of Zeus Thenatos in the territory of Knossos adds to the number of Archaic sculptures.28 In addition, an Atticizing grave stele from

24. Boardman 1961, pp. 138–139. 25. Hoffmann 1972, pp. 41–46. 26. Lebessi 1985b, p. 222. Bronze dedications continued in the 6th century on a substantially reduced scale at the coastal Sanctuary of Zeus at Amnisos in the territory of Knossos; see Stürmer in Schäfer 1992, p. 250; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 299–301. 27. Boardman 1961, p. 148. In addition, Pendlebury (1939, p. 339) describes Archaic Cretan bronze works as “poor relations of the products of the Peloponnesian School.” The discovery of two 6th-century bronze cauldrons at Ayia Pelayia in 1976 supports the claim that native bronzeworkers turned to Peloponnesian models, since these vessels appear to be local products

inspired by Peloponnesian types; see Karetsou 1978, pl. 181. 28. A limestone head from Axos exhibits features of hair and ornament that suggest a date of ca. 600–575. Its original function is disputed. Alexiou (1952, p. 16) argues that it served as a grave marker, whereas Adams (1978, p. 84) identifies the piece as architectural decoration from the “Temple of Aphrodite.” In addition, a fragmentary pelvis from Gortyn exhibits stylistic traits suggestive of Archaic developments; see Richter 1970, p. 143, no. 177, figs. 525, 526; Ridgway 1993, p. 50, n. 2.27. This example, however, evinces peculiarities of style, technique (rasping), and material (Pentelic marble) seemingly incompatible with an Archaic date. M. Sturgeon (pers.

A. Karetsou

comm.) wonders if it might be a product of Roman archaizing sculptors. As for the third example, Stampolidis (1990, pp. 398–401, fig. 25) provisionally dates a leg fragment from a kouros found at Eleutherna to ca. 600–575. The fourth example, a fragmentary kouros dated stylistically to ca. 550, came to light at Knossos in the 2003 field season. Since this statue was found in a much later context, it may have been brought to Knossos at a later date. Adams (1978, p. 96), Stürmer (in Schäfer 1992, p. 233, nos. D.1.d2, D.1.d3, pls. 82–85), and Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 299) discuss the dating of the Amnisos birds. Proposals range from the second half of the 6th to the middle of the 5th century.

8

chapter 1

Figure 1.3. Archaic terracotta bust of a female deity with a low polos from the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos. Rizza 1967–1968, fig. 19.

Reproduced with permission of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene

Eleutherna (Rethymnon Archaeological Museum L 458) depicting a striding warrior in profile requires, on stylistic grounds, a 6th-century date.29 To the 5th century belong two more Atticizing grave stelai, one from Stavromenos, a port town of Eleutherna, and the other from Achlada near Ayia Pelayia (unless a date in the first half of the 4th century is favored).30 Cretan manufacture of terracottas and other minor crafts follows a similar pattern. In the 6th century, clay plaques of mainland type succeeded the rich series of Daedalic figurines and votive bronzes from sanctuaries at Gortyn, Lato, Praisos, and Siteia.31 Although the life-size terracotta busts from Praisos and Axos attain a high artistic standard (Fig. 1.3), these are 29. Lebessi (1976b, pl. 42:a) illustrates this stele, which corresponds to Richter’s (1961, pp. 2–3) type I. Kotsonas (2005, p. 35) dates it to ca. 500. On stylistic grounds, I think it must be earlier. In addition, a sculpted grave stele found at Kounavi near Archanes (ancient Eltynia) evinces stylistic characteristics indicative of a mid-6th-century date; see Lebessi 1976b, p. 176, pl. 42:b; Sjögren 2003, p. 139. 30. Kirsten (1942, pp. 22–24) and Bowsky (1997, p. 199, n. 10) discuss the

group of Atticizing grave stelai from Crete. If, as Benton (1937, p. 42) states, the marble of these last two is Parian rather than Cretan, the foreign origin of the marble suggests long-distance trade, although not necessarily of the finished product 31. For the terracottas from Praisos, see Forster 1901–1902, pp. 274–277; 1904–1905, pp. 249–251. Ducrey and Picard (1969, pp. 815–817) illustrate a handful of 6th-century terracottas from Lato. For the Archaic coroplast tradition at Gortyn, see Rizza and

Scrinari 1968, p. 272. Rizza (1967– 1968, pp. 296–299) detects mainland influence in the style of 6th-century terracottas from Axos. For the figurines from Siteia, see Papadakis 1980. In addition, votive deposits at Roussa Ekklesia, an open-air sanctuary on the slopes of the east Siteia mountain range, contained only five fragmentary plaques stylistically datable to the 6th century (nos. 147–151), compared to 147 Orientalizing plaque fragments; see Erickson 2009, pp. 357–374.

archaic and classical crete

9

anomalies in a 6th-century field dominated by small, mundane objects.32 The terracottas from Axos (ca. 600–400) present a striking exception to the normal Cretan pattern as the sole known continuous series. More typical is the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, which has yielded only a handful of 6th-century terracottas. As for larger-scale work, Archaic Cretans did fashion monumental pithoi, although production at most sites wanes after ca. 575 and decoration is restricted to a stock repertoire of simplified linear motifs. At Kastello Varypetrou, Orientalizing pithoi with elaborate figural decoration give way around 500–480 to a restricted palette of decorative ornaments arranged in continuous friezes.33 These pithoi served as funerary containers, and so the imported fine-ware contents provide a secure date for the vessels. The survival of relief decoration is itself noteworthy, since the conventional view of Cretan artistic decline posits the disappearance of relief pithoi in the early 6th century.34 Also attesting the monumental scale of Archaic products and the persistence of figural relief decoration, recent excavations at Azoria have brought to light large pithoi, lekanai, and fenestrated stands, some bearing stamped decoration along the rim and shoulder.35 Stratified contexts indicate a 6th- or 5th-century date for these examples. Their use as storage jars in domestic contexts of possibly elite display points to a significant and unexpected element of continuity from the Orientalizing culture of the 7th century.36 Nearly every other facet of the craft and artistic production examined here points to a decline or changed priorities in the 6th century, with the exceptions not contradicting the general pattern. Demargne argues that the root cause of the Cretan recession lay in the island’s relations with the Near East (the source of its former brilliance in the Orientalizing period), in its political failures, or in internal malaise.37 The allegedly unstable political climate of 6th-century Crete limited the opportunities of its citizens, with the most gifted leaving the island to seek better fortunes abroad. Thus, we hear of celebrated Cretan artists, architects, and seers who emigrated from Crete or devoted their talents to foreign projects.38

32. The life-size terracottas from Praisos include a bust of a youth; see Forster 1904–1905, pp. 249–251. 33. This simplified Late Archaic decoration consists of rows of stamped motifs (including examples of the running spiral, guilloche, rosette, and cymation) placed at various points along the base, body, and neck of the vessel. A description of the contents of these tombs appears in Chap. 10 (pp. 250–251, Table 10.1). 34. Schäfer (1957, p. 23) dates the terminal Cretan stage to ca. 590–570 on stylistic grounds. 35. Haggis et al. 2004, p. 356, figs. 9–11, p. 362, fig. 17:5, p. 376, fig. 29, p. 377, fig. 33; 2007, p. 251, fig. 6:9, p. 282, fig. 29:8–10. The decorative palette includes heraldic

birds, foliate bands, rosettes, guilloches, interlocking spirals, and shield bosses. I discuss these examples in Chap. 11 (pp. 300–301). 36. Ebbinghaus’s (2005, pp. 52–58) interpretation of Archaic relief pithoi as a form of conspicuous storage in houses rather than a craft inspired by funerary or votive needs has implications for the Azoria finds. 37. Demargne (1947, p. 353) favors a combination of the latter two explanations, ascribing Cretan difficulties in the 6th century to “la faiblesse politique” and “un mal intérieur.” See also van Effenterre 1948, p. 34. 38. Demargne’s (1947, p. 349) list of émigrés includes Dipoinos and Skyllis, both pupils of Daedalos (Paus. 2.15.1);

Chersiphron and Metagenes, architects of the Archaic Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (Vitr. 10.2.12; Plin. HN 7.125); and Epimenides, the seer who purified Athens in the time of Solon ([Ath. Pol.] 1; Diog. Laert. 1.10.110). S. Morris (1992, pp. 169–170) echoes this thesis and compiles a more extensive list of Cretan expatriates. The expanded version includes the mythical Cretan Daktyls who established the Altar of Zeus at Olympia (Paus. 2.31.10) and the Cretan sailors who became the first priests of Apollo at Delphi (Hymn. Hom. Ap. 388–544). It is difficult to see, however, what bearing mythical émigrés have on the question of historical Cretan decline. The historicity of Dipoinos, Skyllis, and Epimenides is also open to question.

10

chapter 1

Tom Dunbabin, in an influential review of Demargne’s work, rightly criticizes these interpretations for their vagueness and their inability to explain why internal discord or economic collapse became a decisive factor in Cretan history only at the end of the 7th century.39 Attributing, as Demargne does, the Cretan recession to a loss of Near Eastern trade contacts caused by military upheaval in the Near East, specifically Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of the Assyrian empire and the diversion of trade to other channels, is also problematic.40 Dismissing the suggestion that isolation from foreign markets led to the island’s economic collapse, Dunbabin finds no evidence at Al Mina or elsewhere of Cretan commercial contacts with Syria in the 7th century and notes that the important date, the capture of Tyre in 573, falls a half century too late to explain Cretan troubles.41 It is difficult to see how a disruption of overseas trade could have hurt the local economies of the various Cretan poleis to the extent implied by the gaps in settlement.42 A disruption of overseas traffic may have caused the abandonment of port towns whose livelihood depended on seaborne trade, but not all sectors of the local economy would have relied so heavily on foreign markets. Dunbabin’s contribution marked the beginning of a new trend in historical analysis: examining settlement history and demographics rather than conjecturing about artistic or cultural failures. Evidence from excavated cemeteries allows us to quantify Cretan decline. Between 630 and 575, all known cemeteries on the island were apparently abandoned.43 Doro Levi’s excavation of the Geometric and Orientalizing necropolis at Aphrati in the 1920s first revealed the absence of Archaic and Classical burials, and a similar gap has been reported at Knossos, Prinias, and Eleutherna, cities whose rich Orientalizing cemeteries were apparently deserted in the final quarter of the 7th or first quarter of the 6th century.44 The handful of documented exceptions—later tombs dated between ca. 600 and 400—derive either from new cemeteries established in the 6th century or from isolated burial plots, with the result that we cannot document continuity with the preceding period.45 This pattern may, however, have nothing to do with settlement dynamics and may instead result from changes in funerary practices with respect to grave goods, tomb types, or burial location. 39. Dunbabin 1952, p. 196. 40. Demargne 1947, p. 352. 41. Dunbabin 1952, pp. 195–196. S. Morris (1992, pp. 170–172) attempts to overcome Dunbabin’s chronological objection by positing a disruption of Cretan trade as a result of earlier conquests in the Near East, beginning with fall of Nineveh in 604. This reincarnation and chronological repositioning of earlier economic explanations brings the perceived settlement discontinuity in line with the decline in artistic standards. In her view, Cretan artists traveled abroad because the depressed local economy could no longer sustain their activities. Johnston (1993, p. 377) also attributes

the putative decline to isolation from foreign markets. 42. Figueira’s (1981, p. 279) proposed commercial explanation links the Cretan recession to the decline of Aigina in the 5th century. His thesis faces a substantial chronological objection insofar as all archaeological indicators point to a 6th-century Cretan recession followed by a 4th-century recovery. 43. For a summary of the evidence from Cretan cemeteries, see Perlman 1992, p. 203; Morris 1998a, pp. 59–61. 44. Levi 1927–1929; 1945, p. 18. See also Viviers (1994, pp. 241–244), who summarizes the results of excavations at Aphrati. For Knossian

cemeteries, see Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 27; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 289–292. In explaining this pattern, Brock (1957, p. 219) in his publication of the Fortetsa cemetery views the mortuary record of Knossos as a direct reflection of population levels. Rizza (1991, pp. 331–337) dates the abandonment of the Geometric and Orientalizing cemetery at Prinias to ca. 600. In addition, published material from the Eleuthernian cemetery at Orthi Petra gives the impression of a terminus ca. 575; see Stampolidis 1990, pp. 400–402. 45. Full references for these cemeteries appear in Chap. 10 (pp. 249– 257).

archaic and classical crete

11

Domestic deposits are also sparse in the 6th century, reinforcing the impression of a catastrophic decline in population, substantial cultural discontinuity, or some other phenomenon. None of the Cretan poleis mentioned earlier have yielded domestic architecture or settlement debris datable to the first three quarters of the 6th century, and the situation improves little in the 5th century.46 Rare exceptions to the reported absence of domestic architecture at other sites include a 6th-century courtyard house at Krousonas Maleviziou; Ayia Pelayia house II, a structure firmly dated, based on ceramic imports, to the first half of the 5th century; a probable house of 5th-century date at Aphrati; two 6th-century houses at Azoria; and a farmstead of Archaic and Classical date at Aloides Mylopotamo.47 Finally, the number of urban centers with documented occupation for any portion of the 6th and 5th centuries shows a dramatic decrease in comparison with earlier and later figures. This evidence for a decline in population is not conclusive, given that the relative size of the settlements involved in these calculations is unknown.48 Although one could argue that the Cretan population moved from cities to the countryside during these periods, survey evidence has yet to detect a significant rural presence. The tentative picture emerging from the preliminary reports of the various island surveys suggests the almost complete desertion of the countryside in the 6th century.49 For instance, Vance Watrous infers from survey results that the Lasithi plateau in East Crete was largely abandoned during the Archaic and Classical periods.50 Surveys conducted farther east, in the areas around Kavousi and Gournia, have identified only a single 6th-century site. Although Barbara Hayden’s study of settlements in the Meseleroi valley, East Crete, points to a dispersed regional pattern, ambiguous ceramic evidence makes it difficult to distin46. Houses from a 7th-century village at Onythe Goulediana were abandoned ca. 600–575; for a summary of these excavations see Morris 1998a, p. 64. 47. For Krousonas, see DemopoulouRethemiotaki 1983. Alexiou (1973, pp. 559–560, pl. 521:b) illustrates a 5thcentury Attic skyphos from the house at Ayia Pelayia. For Aphrati, Lebessi (1970, pp. 459, fig. 2) provides a plan of the presumably domestic building. A collection of drinking cups and other vessels came to light in a large room connected to the rest of the building through a partially excavated anteroom. Based on the building plan and small finds, the identification of this room as a private andron makes sense, although dining rooms in 5th-century houses did not take a distinct form; see Nevett 1999, pp. 82–83, 124. For Azoria, see n. 9 in this chapter. For Aloides, see Tzedakis 1973, p. 583; Andreadaki-Vlasaki 2004, p. 41. Westgate’s study (2007) of Classical and Hellenistic houses on Crete includes some 5th-century material.

48. Sjögren (2003, pp. 23, 30, 66; 2008, p. 53), however, contends that the 6th century witnessed no discernible drop in the number of settlements and cult centers compared to the 8th and 7th centuries. Her division of time into century-length blocks does not provide sufficient precision to address the issue of Cretan demographic decline. For instance, a site dated to the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century by its excavators would appear on totals for both centuries in Sjögren’s lists. Even if the site in question were abandoned in the first decade of the 6th century, by this reasoning it would still qualify as a 6th-century occupation. For example, despite the lacuna of ca. 590–525, Knossos still appears on her list as a 6th-century occupation, as does Prinias, where there is no evidence after ca. 575. Another problem is that we cannot accept as fact “Archaic” habitation reported by early excavators, especially when the illustrated finds do not conform to any modern typologies for 6th-century artifacts.

49. Whitley (2001, pp. 247, 387–388) summarizes the results of surface surveys on Crete. 50. Watrous 1982, p. 22. Possible exceptions to this impression of abandonment include one habitation site (Pinakiano: Donades) with a Late Archaic lekanis base and another settlement (Lagou: Kolonna) with a Late Archaic cup base; see Watrous 1982, pp. 40–41, 82, no. 70, fig. 12; Sjögren 2003, pp. 20, 156. In addition, five other sites (Ayios Yioryios: Augousti, Ayios Yioryios: Ammoudoplaka, Lagou: Kerasa, Lagou: Kephali, and Ayios Konstantinos: Moni Kroustellenia) appear to be Archaic tomb scatters, although this date cannot be confirmed by pottery types or any other means. See also Sjögren 2003, pp. 174, 180. The more recent survey Watrous has conducted in the area around the Minoan palace at Galatas, west of Lasithi, has also revealed very little 6th- or 5th-century material. I will be responsible for publishing the Early Iron Age pottery from this survey.

12

chapter 1

guish among Orientalizing, Archaic, and Classical settlements.51 The 13 or so “Orientalizing to Archaic” habitations initially reported from survey of the western Mesara may also denote a more settled landscape, unless imprecise artifact chronologies again mask a 6th-century decline, a possibility the survey directors later acknowledged.52 This near absence of rural evidence suggests a general pattern of nucleated settlement. The scarcity of identified urban centers, however, stands in the way of this conclusion. The apparent desertion of Orientalizing sanctuaries may also signal a decline in population, although this evidence faces similar difficulties of interpretation. For instance, the venerable cult of the goddess worshipped on the acropolis of Gortyn all but died out by the end of the 7th century; her altar fell into disrepair and votives were reduced to a mere trickle of vases and terracottas.53 Elsewhere, the renowned sacred caves at Psychro and Mt. Ida show little sign of activity in the 6th century or later.54 In addition, a lean interval during the Archaic and Classical periods at rural sanctuaries at Kato Symi and Kommos is interpreted as the result of economic collapse in the surrounding areas, although another explanation attributes the decline of Kommos and other sites in the Mesara to Gortynian territorial consolidation.55 Unlike their Orientalizing predecessors, Archaic and Classical Cretans showed little enthusiasm for monumental temple building. Only a handful of constructions, including the “Temple of Aphrodite” at Axos, the Temple of Zeus at Palaikastro, the temple on the first acropolis hill at Praisos, and the “Temple of Rhea” at Phaistos (unless a 7th-century date is preferred), attest such activity in the 6th century.56 The record of Cretan 51. In a preliminary report, Hayden (1997, pp. 124–125) discusses the local pottery chronology in general terms and is specific (p. 112) about a possible 6th-century date for only one site, Schinavria 11. A more recent publication of the Vrokastro Survey mentions 6th-century occupation at two other sites, Oleros and Koraphia 4; see Hayden 2004, pp. 178, 183. These dates depend on rim fragments from relief-decorated storage jars. The sites in question are Orientalizing settlements with at most only a thin Archaic component dated no later than the first quarter of the 6th century. There follows an apparent gap in the settlement record, with faint signs of reoccupation in the 5th century. 52. Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 1993, pp. 229–230; Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004a, p. 318. 53. Rizza and Scrinari (1968, pp. 191–193, nos. 305–323, pls. 42, 43) and Johannowsky (2002, pp. 103–107, nos. 604–607, 624, 625, 639–642, pls. 48–50) catalogue a few Archaic and Classical figurines and pots from the sanctuary. D’Acunto (2002, pp. 212–

214), however, argues that this impression of inactivity at the sanctuary is an illusion attributable to a change in depositional practice, with votives no longer being left in the terraced area on the southeastern slope of the acropolis, instead being left on the eroded summit of the acropolis, where conditions are not favorable for survival. 54. For the finds from the cave of Zeus on Mt. Ida, see Boardman 1961, pp. 132–140. Watrous (1982, p. 12; 1996, p. 111) and Boardman (1961, p. 2) infer an abandonment of Psychro at the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century. 55. Lebessi (1985b, p. 222) and Viviers (1994, p. 256) propose a downturn in the local economy to explain the sharp diminution of bronze offerings at Kato Symi after ca. 575. An alternative explanation for the decline of Kommos is discussed in Chap. 10 (pp. 240–241). 56. In most cases, associated artifacts, including architectural terracottas and sculpture, help determine the date of the building. For example, Adams (1978, pp. 80–85) assigns the “Temple of Aphrodite” a

6th-century construction date based on a stone head found nearby that presumably served as architectural decoration. Similarly, architectural terracottas provide a 6th-century date for the Temple of Zeus at Palaikastro; see Bosanquet 1939–1940, pp. 66–68. The same class of evidence suggests a 6th-century date for the construction of a shrine on the first acropolis, Praisos; see Bosanquet 1901–1902, pp. 235–237. As summarized by La Rosa (1997), the evidence for Archaic temples at Phaistos includes a deposit of bronzes and clay cups (ca. 600) associated with the construction of the “Temple of Rhea” and limestone architectural fragments plausibly attributed to a small 6th-century temple on the acropolis. Excavations at Azoria in 2003 and 2004 identified another possible Archaic shrine, although a religious function for this building rests largely on the evidence of a single terracotta figurine; see Haggis et al. 2007, pp. 269–273. A more convincing candidate for a shrine is building D900, discovered in 2006, as it has an altar, a hearth, and yielded 14 figurines.

archaic and classical crete

13

religious buildings in the 5th century is even less impressive. Only two structures—the shrine on the third acropolis at Praisos and Demeter’s small temple at Knossos—testify to building activity on a substantial scale.57 Even so, the general absence of religious architecture does not offer a conclusive argument for a decline in population. The opening chapters of Thucydides’ history (1.10) deliver a stern warning against inferring political or material prosperity on the basis of monumental architecture. Compared to the Athenian model, Spartan political power found little visible expression in monumental religious buildings. Similarly, 6th-century worshippers on Crete may have invested their energies in areas not currently represented in the publication record of sanctuaries. If the demographic implications of the 6th-century lacuna are taken at face value, the island suffered an environmental, economic, or military catastrophe on a scale almost unprecedented in ancient Greek history.58 Because conditions on Crete are not favorable to the preservation of seeds and other botanical remains with a direct bearing on climate, an environmental catastrophe is hard to prove.59 A passage from Herodotos (4.151) records that the Therans suffered a major drought around 630, prompting their colonization of Libya. The Theran drought, however, is a poor model for Crete. Environmental fluctuations might devastate small islands such as Thera, given their limited agricultural potential and inherent vulnerability to variable rainfall. Crete, though, is much larger and more ecologically diverse. Climatic change might account for the temporary abandonment of a single Cretan polis, region, or environ­

57. The construction of a small temple on the third acropolis at Praisos sealed a layer of debris underneath, thereby providing a clue to the date of the building; see Whitley 1992, p. 257. Coldstream (1973a, pp. 6, 14) establishes a late-5th-century construction date for the Temple of Demeter at Knossos based on pottery from a foundation trench and the style of a column capital. Minor constructions at Cretan sanctuaries include Building F at Kato Symi, a small altar at Kommos dated to ca. 500, and an altar from the Sanctuary of Apollo at Ayia Pelayia dated, based on Attic imports, to ca. 500–480; for a summary of the evidence, see Morris 1998a, p. 62. There is also a new construction at Amnisos from ca. 500; see Sjögren 2003, p. 54. Inscribed wall blocks from monumental civic or religious buildings cannot provide conclusive evidence for 6th-century construction dates, since these inscriptions may have been later additions to earlier structures; see Gagarin 2008, pp. 50, 76, 80. 58. Dunbabin (1952, p. 197) regards

Knossos as a victim of aggression, whereas Coldstream and Huxley (1999, pp. 303–304) survey a wide range of historical explanations, military and environmental, all of which share a conception of the Knossian decline as a sudden contraction of population, if not an outright abandonment of the city. These explanations have much in common with the scholarship concerning the demographic decline of mainland Greek centers during the so-called Dark Age, ca. 1100–800; see Morris 2000, pp. 196–198. This formulation of the Cretan problem has, in turn, won support from art historians because it provides a convenient explanation for the artistic recession as a function of population dynamics; see Stewart 1990, p. 107. 59. Rackham and Moody (1996, p. 123) conclude that conditions favorable for pollen preservation are rarely encountered on Crete. There are no preserved pollen samples dating to the Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic periods. As an illustration of the historical potential of such evidence,

Rackham and Moody (p. 136) argue that an increase in tree pollen relative to that of cultivated plants at Así Goniá toward the end of the Venetian period was a sign of attested plagues and famines in the 16th century a.d. Conditions are more favorable for the preservation of faunal remains; see Snyder and Klippel 2000. In the absence of direct evidence of a Cretan drought, historians have sought parallels with Athens. Camp’s (1979) theory of a catastrophic Athenian drought is discussed by Morris (1987, pp. 158–162) and Osborne (1989). Carter (1985, p. 36) describes the consequences of such a drought in language reminiscent of the debated Cretan decline: “A drought, bringing depopulation and poverty, would have constricted pottery manufacture, curtailed trade, and precipitated the Athenian economic recession.” As Whitley (2001, pp. 255–265) observes, however, the inferred Athenian drought in the 7th century is itself too contentious to provide a good parallel for the Cretan situation.

14

chapter 1

mental zone, but it cannot account for a hypothesized abandonment of the entire island.60 Other explanations also raise troubling questions. If Knossos was destroyed, who did it and where are the remains of the defeated population? If the inhabitants of Knossos and other Cretan communities simply died off, where are their burials (or was there no one left to bury them)? To explain the presumed demographic recession, S. Morris asserts that native merchants and manufacturers emigrated.61 Similarly, the attested Cretan involvement (Hdt. 4.151–153, 161) in the recolonization of Cyrene, Libya, in the second generation after its foundation (ca. 580) raises the possibility that large numbers left the island as colonists.62 Although the record of Cretan participation in colonial ventures is minimal, modern accounts often offer colonization as an explanation for the presumed exodus. Others maintain that service as mercenaries and pirates reduced the adult male population of the island to a negligible level. Cretan mercenary soldiers make their first appearance in accounts of the later stages of the Peloponnesian War, and the untrustworthy Cretan pirate is a fixture of Hellenistic literature.63 It is doubtful, however, whether piracy or mercenary service ever existed on a scale sufficient to deprive the island of a significant portion of its population.64 Outsiders, as Paula Perlman emphasizes, probably exaggerated stories of Cretan piracy to justify military action against the island during the later wars of the Hellenistic and Roman periods.65 Watrous and Viviers independently argue that gaps in the settlement and sanctuary record reflect the abandonment or economic decline of smaller sites as stronger neighbors consolidated power.66 According to this scenario, the expansion of some states at the expense of others led to the creation of larger urban centers and the selective abandonment of smaller sites. This process allegedly occurred throughout the island. As a case study, Viviers offers the expansion of Lyktian territory to the south coast of Crete, an event he dates to the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century. This thesis conveniently explains the demographic implications of the gaps as the slaughter of the losing side in war or the migration of subjugated people to larger population centers. There is, however, little evidence for territorial expansion at this early date and a particular lack of substan60. Upland plateaus may have been particularly susceptible to climatic fluctuations. For example, Watrous (1982, p. 22) cites Theophrastos’s testimony in support of a drought causing the abandonment of the Lasithi plateau in the Archaic and Classical periods. 61. S. Morris 1992, pp. 170–171. 62. Boardman (1982, pp. 223–225), S. Morris (1992, p. 170), van Effenterre (1991, p. 203), and Treister and Shelov-Kovedyayev (1989, pp. 293– 296) discuss the evidence for Cretan participation in colonial ventures. For Cretan colonists in Sicily, see

Perlman 2002a. 63. The earliest appearance of Cretan mercenaries in the Peloponnesian War occurs in 416/5 (Thuc. 6.25.2). They turn up elsewhere in Thucydides (6.43, 7.57.9), and later in the Anabasis of Xenophon (1.2.9, 3.7, 3.15, 4.2.28, 5.2.29); see Kirsten 1942, pp. 19–20, 61–62, 68; Morrow 1960, p. 26; Bowsky 1997, p. 201. Brulé (1978) examines the institution of Cretan piracy in general. 64. Another area known for its mercenaries in the 5th century was Arkadia, with an estimated 8% of its adult male population away from home;

see Roy 1999, p. 348. This comparison is revealing. Despite a possible gender imbalance, Arkadian cities and sanctuaries were thriving in the 5th century, with no archaeological lacuna as on Crete. 65. See Perlman (1999) for the historiographic issues and ethnic stereotyping in the case of Cretan pirates. Chaniotis (2005, p. 98), however, regards Cretan piracy in the Hellenistic period as a reality not exaggerated by the sources. 66. Watrous 1982, pp. 25–26; Viviers 1994. See also van Effenterre 1991; van Effenterre and Gondicas 1999, p. 136.

archaic and classical crete

15

tiation from the putatively growing population centers. These are no better attested archaeologically than the smaller sites they supposedly supplanted.67 The Cretan archaeological record for ca. 600–400, then, has confounded observers and defied explanation. In addition to the apparent decline in artistic standards, there is a surprising lack of evidence from settlement, sanctuary, and funerary contexts. Apparent extremes of Orientalizing wealth and Archaic poverty set the island apart from other places in the Greek world. At Athens and sites in its territory, burial and settlement evidence decreases substantially in the 7th century, although, as Robin Osborne notes, faint signs of activity from several hilltop sanctuaries suggest that the people of Attica shifted their attention to cult activities outside settlements.68 Later studies, including Marja Vink’s, place Athens in a wider context of mainland Greek poleis, including Eretria, Corinth, and Argos, whose material remains of the 7th and 6th centuries pale in comparison to the voluminous record of the Geometric and Classical periods.69 In each case, it is the 7th century that heralds the change to a lower archaeological profile. Vink, who contends that it is the vast increase in evidence at the end of the 8th century that stands most in need of explanation, views the 7th-century archaeological crisis as a sign of political consolidation.70 The decline in quantity and quality of archaeological evidence is not universal: the Cyclades follow a different pattern, and even in mainland Greece there are important exceptions, such as Sparta, where evidence is relatively abundant in the 7th century.71 Since Crete constitutes another exception to the general crisis of the 7th century, explanations for its lower archaeological profile in the 6th century should be grounded in the exceptional nature of local religious and political institutions.

LI TERARY TES T IMON Y AN D CRE TAN I S OLAT I ON The conventional view of Cretan history posits cultural, political, and commercial isolation from mainland Greece. According to Glenn Morrow, the island withdrew from the rest of the Greek world and contributed

67. Moreover, we need not assume that the expansion of territory entailed the destruction and abandonment of neighboring communities. Regarding Classical and Hellenistic developments, Callaghan (1992, p. 134) concludes that political control was predicated on alliances and the subjugation of weaker states to tributary status. 68. Osborne 1989, pp. 307–309. 69. Vink 1996–1997. See also van der Vliet (1996–1997, pp. 25–27), who gives a historical perspective on the 7th-century crisis, describing this

century (p. 26) as “hollow” from the standpoint of literary sources. 70. Vink (1996–1997, pp. 6–16) considers other explanations as well; she (p. 14) views faulty pottery chronologies as only a partial solution because any downdating of Geometric pottery into the 7th century, while smoothing out the 8th-century crest and subsequent steep decline, would still have difficulty accounting for the much later paucity of evidence in the 6th century. Snodgrass (1980, pp. 52–54), Osborne (1996a, pp. 167–174, 207), and Morris (1998a,

p. 26) emphasize cultural explanations, such as a shift in elite display from private to public contexts, for the disappearance of metals and other exotic objects from graves. 71. Osborne (1996a, pp. 200–201) and Catling (2002, pp. 156–157) survey the Panhellenic scene. Elsewhere, Osborne (1996–1997, pp. 21–24) views the Spartan exception as a reaction to internal and external pressures, with the development of an innovative social system to maintain group identity under difficult conditions.

16

chapter 1

little to cultural movements elsewhere.72 Other observers believe that the conservative and provincial Dorian aristocracy inhibited market production, trade, and external political relations.73 According to this view, the Cretan poleis practiced a subsistence economy, with a stress on agriculture, animal husbandry, and hunting.74 There was virtually no surplus production, and economic contacts with the outside world entailed little more than the income derived from mercenary service and piracy.75 When closely scrutinized, the scarce and ambiguous testimony from ancient literature provides no direct support for Crete’s cultural or commercial isolation. For instance, Aristotle in the Politics (1272b17–23) describes political isolation, claiming that its geographic position served to insulate the island from foreign interference: “it is saved by its locality . . . for the Cretans take no part in foreign empire, and also the island has only lately been invaded by warfare from abroad.”76 Aristotle’s mention of a recent invasion probably refers to the Spartan expedition in support of the Lyktians in 343/2. In his description of the legendary sea empire of King Minos, however, Aristotle (Pol. 1271b34–35) contradicts his own equation of geographic seclusion with political isolation, stating that Crete’s central position furthered its imperial ambitions. Statements as explicit as Aristotle’s rarely appear in the sources. Instead, the conventional picture of isolation derives from indirect evidence, such as the general omission of reference. On the rare occasions when the island figures in ancient literature, the testimony is ambiguous or conflicting. Later authors emphasize the conservative character of Cretan society, but the connection between the conservative society presented in the literature and the archaeologically inferred decline is unclear. In a passage in Plato’s Laws (680b–c), the Knossian Kleinias responds to an Athenian visitor’s recitation of verses from the Odyssey with praise for the poetry and the poet but adds that the Cretans know little of Homer or other Greek poets.77 Whitley accepts this passage as a reflection of genuine cultural 72. Morrow 1960, p. 17. See also Cadogan 1992, p. 39; Morris 1998a, p. 68. 73. Willetts (1955), Link (1994), and Chaniotis (1999b) espouse the traditional view of Cretan politics. The image of serfs working the land to provide for citizen mess tables is indebted to the Late Classical and Hellenistic literary tradition. 74. Willetts (1955, pp. 40–44) and Chaniotis (1999b, pp. 182–186) discuss the economic dimensions of the traditional Cretan constitution. Although Chaniotis (1999b, p. 207) concedes that some Cretans engaged in specialized production to satisfy local needs, he discounts the possibility of substantial surplus production for intra-island or overseas markets. Viviers (1999, p. 231) and Perlman (2004b, pp. 95–98), however, are willing to

envision a role for specialized production and exports in the economy of some Cretan poleis. 75. The fundamental study of Cretan amphoras traces local production back only to the Late Hellenistic period; see Marangou-Lerat 1995, pp. 61–64; Marangou 1999, p. 270. Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou (2004), however, adduce new evidence for East Cretan production earlier than previously thought, in the late 3rd century. Yet this is not early enough to make a case for an export economy in the Classical period. In addition, scattered references to Cretan merchandise and other anecdotal evidence in the 5th century have not compelled a major revision of current thinking. Such references include the Attic playwright Hermippos, who in the Phormophoroi (early 420s) lists Cretan

timber in his mock-epic catalogue of the commercial goods Athens accrued as a result of its extensive imperial holdings and the role of the city as market center of the Mediterranean (PCG v fr. 63; Ath. 1.27e–28a). See Miller 1997, pp. 63–64, for a discussion of this passage in the light of Athenian imperial ambitions. In addition, Aristophanes (Thesm. 730) refers to Cretan wool. Other references point to exports of Cretan timber; see Meiggs 1982, pp. 200–201. For Cretan exports in the literary sources, see Morrow 1960, p. 26. 76. Kirsten 1942, pp. 63–67; Perlman 1992, pp. 203–204. 77. For discussions of this passage in the context of Cretan conservatism, see Morrow 1960, p. 17; Perlman 1992, pp. 203–204; Huxley 1994, p. 131; Whitley 1997, p. 660.

archaic and classical crete

17

isolation and connects it with indications of Cretan conservatism in the archaeological record.78 Yet, his underlying assumption—that Plato’s testimony indicates conservatism in the 4th century—bears questioning.79 Even if this passage does reflect a conservative society in the 4th century, the main period of cultural and commercial isolation—as inferred from archaeological sources—falls earlier, ca. 600–400, which illustrates the difficulties of using a Platonic dialogue as a source for Archaic Cretan history. Another much-discussed piece of evidence in the context of Cretan isolation is Pindar’s victory ode (Ol. 12) praising the Knossian athlete Ergoteles.80 Political unrest forced Ergoteles into exile, whereupon he settled in Himera on the north coast of Sicily before going on to win two victories in the dolichos contest at Olympia in 472 and 460. In the ode, Pindar remarks on Ergoteles’ good fortune to have emigrated from Knossos. Staying on Crete, according to Pindar (12–16), would have deprived him of the chance to become a celebrated Panhellenic runner: “Son of Philanor, truly would the honor of your feet / like a local fighting cock by its native hearth / have dropped its leaves ingloriously / had not hostile faction (στάσις ἀντιάνειρα) deprived you of your homeland, Knossos.” Commentators have often taken this passage to mean that citizens from Knossos and other Cretan poleis did not regularly participate in the Olympic games or the other festivals of the mainland circuit. Other victorious Cretan athletes, however, appear on the Olympic victor lists in the 5th century.81 Cretan cultural isolation does not necessarily follow from the rather dubious claim that athletes from the island did not compete successfully in the Olympic games. The record of Spartan victors raises similar questions. Kirsten observed that Lakonian victors are absent from the lists after ca. 550, a time when Lakonia dominated the Peloponnese politically and militarily.82 Additional evidence suggests that Pindar’s address to Ergoteles conformed to a stock formula regarding non-Athenian origin. Plutarch (Them. 18.2) preserves a quotation attributed to Themistokles that expresses a similar sentiment. Responding to a critic from Seriphos, Themistokles concedes that Athenian citizenship made possible his illustrious career: “Had I come from Seriphos I should not have been famous.”83 The similar phrasing suggests that the Pindaric passage employs an oratorical topos and therefore should not be used as evidence for Cretan political conditions. 78. Whitley 1997, p. 660; 2001, pp. 251–252. 79. Perlman (1992, pp. 203–204) contemplates a humorous reading of this passage but ultimately decides on a literal interpretation after examining additional passages in the Laws to the effect that Crete was cut off from the intellectual mainstream. 80. See, for instance, Kirsten 1942, p. 12; van Effenterre 1948, pp. 31–32; Huxley 1994, p. 130; and Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295. Barrett (1973, pp. 23–35) discusses the evidence for the date of Ergoteles’ two Olympic victories. Remarkably, a bronze plaque

in honor of Ergoteles survives at Olympia; see Ebert 1972, pp. 79–82. 81. These include Diognetos, a boxer who won in 488 (Moretti 1957, p. 84, no. 181); Aigeidas, a Cretan who won the dolichos in 448 (Moretti 1957, p. 101, no. 296); and [---]onios, winner of the dolichos in 400 (Moretti 1957, p. 113, no. 367:b). Moretti (1957, p. 98, no. 274) lists a fifth possible candidate, Ikadion, who won the boy’s stadium race in 456, but the Cretan origin of this last victor is not certain. Bowsky (1997, p. 206, n. 44) expands the list to include Cretans at Delphi and Epidauros in the 5th and 4th

centuries. See also Scanlon (2002, pp. 76–77), who considers various explanations for the lack of Cretan participation. For the decline in the number of Spartan victories after ca. 550, see Hodkinson 1999; Christesen 2007, pp. 159–160. 82. Kirsten 1942, p. 18. 83. For a discussion of the political significance of this passage, see Craik 1980, p. 64. The proverbial poverty and insignificance of Seriphos figures in Classical Athenian writings infused with an imperialist agenda; see Constantakopoulou 2007, pp. 103–106.

18

chapter 1

These general considerations set the tone for interpreting specific political and military events in the 5th century. From what the predominantly Athenian literary sources recount, Crete played a negligible role in the great conflicts of the 5th century, notably refusing to participate in the Persian Wars and appearing only once during the Peloponnesian War.84 Herodotos (7.169–170) records that the Greek allies sent embassies to Argos, Syracuse, Kerkyra, and Crete in hopes of obtaining assistance against the Persians.85 In response, the Cretans sent messengers to Delphi to seek the Pythia’s advice. The priestess advised the Cretans not to take part in the war, justifying inaction by reminding them of the failure of the Greeks to avenge the death of Minos at Camicus despite the earlier assistance provided by the Cretans in the Trojan War. Although questions have been raised about the veracity of Herodotos’s account,86 Crete’s alleged refusal to join the fight against the Persians may not have a bearing on the question of cultural isolation. The very fact that the Cretans were asked to participate, as Morrow emphasizes, “shows that [Crete] was regarded as part of the Hellenic world.”87 Moreover, by sending messengers to Delphi, the Cretans responded to the crisis in a way expected of mainland Greeks.88 Further evidence is needed to clarify Crete’s role on the stage of 5thcentury Greek politics. Whether any Cretan polis allied itself with Athens or Sparta is unclear. None of the Cretan cities appears with certainty on surviving fragments of the Athenian tribute quota lists.89 Although the famous 5th-century Argive arbitration between Knossos and Tylissos suggests a relationship between these two island poleis and a one-time Peloponnesian ally of Athens, it does not necessarily follow that Knossos and Tylissos fought on the same side as Athens in the Peloponnesian War.90 84. Huxley (1971, p. 509) mentions a piece of evidence contrary to the picture of Cretan political isolation at the time of the Persian Wars: Diodorus (4.79.4) reports that Theron, tyrant of Akragas, gave the bones of Minos to the Cretans. Huxley (1994, p. 129) suggests that Theron did so in the hope that the Cretans would return the favor by providing assistance against the Carthaginians. 85. Kirsten (1942, pp. 10–11), van Effenterre (1948, pp. 35–36), Bauslaugh (1991, pp. 96–97), and Viviers (1995) all discuss this passage. 86. Cretan mercenaries reportedly did fight at Salamis, although this has been explained as a later Cretan fabrication in an attempt to save face after the decisive Greek victory; see Huxley 1969, p. 239; Spyridakis 1976; Perlman 1992, p. 194. Even if this later tradition is genuine, the employment of Cretan mercenaries need not involve the active participation of the home poleis. Another potential difficulty is that the Herodotean account implies the existence of a Cretan koinon capable of

undertaking united military action, an organization not definitely attested until the Hellenistic period. For the question of Cretan unity in the Classical period, see van Effenterre 1948, pp. 26–28; Huxley 1971, p. 508; Perlman 1992, p. 201; Chaniotis 1996, pp. 6–7. 87. Morrow 1960, p. 25. 88. This episode may explain the marginal political status of the island later in the 5th century. According to van Effenterre (1948, p. 36), the island became a backwater as a result of the Cretan decision to distance itself from the Greek cause. Viviers (1995, pp. 268–269) expands on this argument by adding that the victorious Greeks held Crete accountable after the war and permitted its economic and political interests to suffer. He attributes the Cretan decision to an unsuccessful bid to preserve favorable trade relations with both sides of the Greco-Persian conflict. Yet it remains far from certain that mainland Greeks did seek, or could have sought, to isolate Crete as a result of its conduct during the Persian War. 89. Although three of the East

Cretan poleis have been restored in a fragment of the lists for the reassessment period in 425/4, [Δρέρος]//[Ὄλος, Μίλ]ατος/[ἐν Κρέτε]ι, the authors of The Athenian Tribute Lists acknowledge the possibility of other reconstructions of the text and offer as an alternative [Κομίστρ]ατος//[ἐν Λυκία]ι; Meritt, Wade-Gary, and McGregor 1939, pp. 206–207. 90. Graham (1964, pp. 154–165) regards Argos as the legendary mother city of Knossos and Tylissos. Also worth noting here is a fragmentary 5th‑century treaty between Lyktos, a Cretan polis, and Lindos, Rhodes; see Perlman 1992, p. 202. Because Lindos was a member of the Athenian alliance at the time of the treaty (before 411), this document could perhaps be viewed as evidence of pro-Athenian sympathies on the part of Lyktos. The traditional Spartan affiliation of Lyktos, however, argues against this position. Agreements between Cretan poleis and Athenian allies, we must surely conclude, did not require Athenian approval and do not imply reciprocal relations with Athens.

archaic and classical crete

19

Thucydides (2.9.4) implies that Crete fell outside the Athenian empire, for he includes the Cycladic islands lying between the Peloponnese and Crete among Athens’s allies in the Peloponnesian War.91 The Cretan Sea reportedly provided unsafe waters for Athenian naval vessels, raising the question of the island’s political sympathies.92 Still, this need not imply a formal political alliance. Sparta may have numbered Crete or certain Cretan cities among its allies. More to the point, Thucydides recounts an Athenian expedition launched against the Kydonians in 429 in alliance with the Polichnians, Kydonia’s neighbors (Thuc. 2.85.5–6). At the behest of Nikias, a Gortynian who was the proxenos of the Athenians (no relation to the famous Athenian strategist), the Athenians sent 20 ships to Crete.93 Along with the Polichnians, the Athenians then ravaged the Kydonian countryside. The passage has puzzled modern commentators, who find it difficult to discern Athenian motives.94 Despite the dismissive tone of his account, Thucydides never questions the strategic importance of Kydonia to the Peloponnesians, only the timing of the Athenian mission given the urgent need for supplies elsewhere. Faced with scant textual evidence during the Archaic and Classical periods, historians have posited Cretan isolation from the commercial, intellectual, political, and military developments on the Greek mainland. Close scrutiny of the Classical and later sources reveals a more nuanced picture. Though often ambiguous, the testimony does not contain a direct dismissal of Cretan foreign connections. Since the literature preserves only the reaction of outsiders to the island, the possibility of deliberate or unconscious bias must be taken into account. Cretans appear in this context as paradigmatic conservatives. For instance, Aristotle considers Crete, a prototype for later Greek legal systems, the most primitive example available to 4th-century political thinkers, while Athens lies at the opposite extreme—an agenda that may have colored his estimation of contemporary Cretan foreign relations. Reconstructing Archaic Cretan history from later testimony is clearly fraught with difficulty.95 91. Thuc. 2.9.4: νῆσοι ὅσαι ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ Κρήτης πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα, πᾶσαι αἱ Κυκλάδες πλὴν Μήλου καὶ Θήρας. For a discussion of

this passage, see Hornblower 1991, pp. 247–248. 92. Kirsten (1942, p. 61) compiles the relevant literary testimony for the hostile reception of Athenian ships in Cretan waters. 93. No relation unless the text is emended to make this Nikias the famous Athenian general and a proxenos of the Gortynians. Hornblower (1991, p. 366) is rightfully skeptical of this proposal. 94. As Kagan (1974, p. 111) asks, “Why should the Athenians have sent a fleet at all, and particularly at such a time, merely in the hope of taking an unimportant town?” Gomme (1956,

p. 221) finds no valid reason for the Athenian expedition apart from a desire to curb Cretan piracy, and tentatively lays the blame for the folly on the Athenian demos in the absence of Perikles’ leadership. According to Henderson (1927, pp. 103–104), the “imbecility of this order . . . is almost beyond belief.” See also Huxley 1969; Meiggs 1972, p. 217. 95. Willetts (1955) implicitly endorses the main lines of Aristotle’s evolutionary scheme by dividing Greek legal history into three stages of increasing sophistication, represented by Sparta, Crete, and Athens. Morris (1990, p. 243) questions this paradigm, and Bowsky (1997, p. 204) concludes that the literature presents a partial and ideal image of Crete. Perlman (2005, pp. 282–319) examines the literary

tradition of Creatan exceptionalism in detail and concludes that it is an Athenian construct dating to the 4th century. Sjögren (2008, pp. 14, 103, 112) also detects Athenian bias in these etic descriptions of Crete, but goes too far in the wholesale rejection of the literary tradition as untrustworthy. The ancient view of Crete as an insular society, shut off from its neighbors and somehow different, finds parallels in the contemporary historiography of other island cultures. Broodbank (2000, p. 19), however, questions the validity of such approaches on general grounds and notes in the case of Classical Crete the existence of possible alternatives from different periods of the island’s history, including the Minoan and Venetian eras, when Crete prospered within the wider currents of the Aegean.

20

chapter 1

NEW DIRECT IONS Some researchers have begun to question how accurately the gaps from Cretan cemeteries, sanctuaries, and settlements reflect historical realities.96 Although the vagaries of deposition and excavation will inevitably shape our view of the past, it is clear that the demographic implications of the 6th-century lacuna are improbable.97 Taking the absence of evidence at face value, as I. Morris observes, raises the unlikely scenario of massive depopulation, with traumatic effects on landholding, inheritance, marriage, and the political system.98 These gaps may therefore be largely a mirage. In fact, one category of evidence, inscriptions, does continue, implying a stable population. Ancient authors allude to a venerable tradition of Cretan lawgivers, and archaeology bears this out in spectacular fashion, for many of the supposedly abandoned poleis have produced a rich series of monumental stone inscriptions dated internally based on letter forms to ca. 600–400.99 Mindful of this evidence, Morris concludes, “our question has to be not where all the people went, but why the only way they made a serious physical impact on the world for two centuries was through the inscribed word.”100 The value of inscriptions as a source for ancient Greek legal and social history has long been recognized. For example, R. F. Willetts’s study of the terms of the Great Code at Gortyn has spawned extensive discussion of Cretan law and society. His classic work, Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, advocates a formalistic analysis of political and social structures based on epigraphic sources.101 Willetts’s approach holds implications for the field archaeologist, suggesting, for instance, the prominence of the andreion, prytaneion, and other building types in the fabric of civic life. All the same, inscriptional evidence has its limitations, making it impossible to use the inscribed word to resolve the question of Cretan decline. First, dating Archaic Cretan inscriptions is difficult, since the letter forms are products of conservative local traditions and external evidence—inscribed vases or sculpture—is rare.102 Second, the lack of a secure archaeological context renders inscriptions useless as a foundation for dating other classes of evidence, which uniformly register a blank. For these reasons, Willetts and 96. Rizza (1967–1968, p. 298) anticipates current thinking about the problem of the 6th-century gap. Regarding local terracotta workshops, he concludes that the apparent decline in production may be a result of “la nostra conoscenza dei materiali.” Tzedakis (1973, p. 583) characterizes the 6th and 5th centuries as a littleknown part of the island’s history, and Perlman (2000, p. 60) attributes this situation to scholarly neglect. 97. Morris’s effort (1987, pp. 57–69, 156–167; 2000, p. 208) to unravel the complex determinants surrounding burial in Iron Age Athens reminds students of Greek history that fluctuations in the number of excavated burials over time need not always have

direct demographic implications. For the scholarly reaction, see Lemos 2002, p. 151, n. 4. 98. Morris 1998a, p. 68. 99. Gagarin (1986, pp. 60, 68, 81– 86) surveys the literary and epigraphic evidence pertaining to Cretan lawgivers. He (pp. 126–128) regards the Cretan tradition as a development independent of Near Eastern models and questions whether Crete served as a guide for the introduction of laws in mainland Greece. 100. Morris 1998a, p. 66. 101. Willetts 1955. 102. As Jeffery (1990, p. 312) cautions, conservative letter forms may be giving a misleading impression of early date, resulting in disproportion-

ately few securely dated 6th-century inscriptions. A datable form of molding on the Great Law Code provides the only independent evidence for dating Gortynian inscriptions during the periods under consideration. Another limitation of inscriptions as a source for Cretan history lies in the fragmentary condition of the material. Unlike Gortyn, with its voluminous epigraphical record and remarkably complete examples of Archaic and Classical laws—none better known than the Great Law Code—Eleutherna, Axos, Phaistos, Lyktos, Prinias, Knossos, Dreros, and Eltynia each possess a mere handful of fragmentary Archaic inscriptions; see Whitley 1997, pp. 652–655; Perlman 2004c, p. 181.

archaic and classical crete

21

his intellectual heirs have tended to gloss over the discrepancy, preferring to reconstruct a world from the inscribed word independent of all other categories of archaeological evidence.103 This comes at a heavy price, since a true chronological framework for questions of state formation and political development is lacking. As I. Morris observed, the Great Law Code at Gortyn “must be studied as an ideal system, working at a single point in time.”104 The epigraphic record actually points the way to a cultural explanation for the perceived Cretan decline. What are the implications, I. Morris and Whitley ask, for a society that produces monumental inscriptions but leaves precious few other traces of its existence?105 Whitley regards the appearance of monumental inscriptions and the simultaneous decline of most other categories of evidence as part of a new civic ideology coming at the expense of ostentatious aristocratic display. Accordingly, the inability or unwillingness of an entrenched aristocracy to sponsor enduring monuments is responsible for the 6th-century pattern. Whitley’s argument rests on the evidence from inscriptions, literary testimony, and the disappearance of representational imagery from the native bronze and ceramic industries.106 It holds that elites toned down display in response to the masses or a “middling” ideology. Gaps in the current archaeological record may support the notion of elite self-regulation, but the almost total absence of evidence makes any explanation inconclusive. For instance, Nikolaos Kontoleon attributes the apparent decline of Crete to a conservative Archaic society that prevented the emergence of a true polis founded on a citizen hoplite army.107 Antonis Kotsonas, however, sees the emergence of polis institutions in the peculiarities of the archaeological record.108 Haggis and his colleagues also view the 6th century as a formative period for state development, with a new threshold of power relationships on the island.109 Uncertainties about ceramic identification have compounded this confusion. Establishing local sequences makes it possible to plot the chronological dimension of settlement.110 The survival of island communities can be discerned through pottery consumption, for the ancient Greeks regarded fine tableware as a necessity every bit as important as the enshrined customs of drinking wine, reciting poetry, and honoring guests. Local products may be difficult to date and may not conform to mainland tastes in decoration or shape, but ceramic analysis offers the best hope for resolving the question of settlement continuity. 103. Link’s (1994) study of Archaic and Classical social institutions draws heavily on a formalistic analysis of the island’s epigraphic record, supplemented by the testimony of 4thcentury and later authors. It is a worthy descendant of the approach pioneered by Willetts. 104. Morris 1990, p. 243. The work of Perlman (1996, 2000) and Bowsky (1997) represents a notable exception in this regard. Their approach combines close scrutiny of the epigraphic record

with a keen appreciation of the wider archaeological context. 105. Morris 2000, p. 59; Whitley 1997; 2001, pp. 250–252. 106. Whitley (1997, p. 659) observes that the Cretan epigraphic record is weighted heavily toward monumental public inscriptions, interpreted as testaments to civic ideology, while signs of personal literacy, measured in terms of graffiti, epitaphs, and dedicatory inscriptions, are all but absent. For a contrary view,

see Perlman 2002b, p. 197. 107. Kontoleon 1970, pp. 86–87. 108. Kotsonas (2002, p. 62) focuses on the rise of the polis in Central Crete. 109. Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 346, 393. 110. Only in the unlikely scenario that the Cretans resorted to using vessels of wood or some other perishable material would all traces of their activity have disappeared.

22

chapter 1

There have long been compelling reasons for thinking that the lacunae in the ceramic sequence for the period ca. 600–400 are a matter of perception only. The dating of local Orientalizing pottery has traditionally depended on associations with securely dated imported pottery from the Greek mainland; these imports, however, become scarce on Crete just as the gap begins. Elsewhere, problems of ceramic identification have created a skewed impression of demographic decline, as in the case of Archaic Latium, where the 6th century seems to disappear against the background of Orientalizing wealth as a result of scarce imports and inattention to plain local pottery.111 Peter Callaghan first entertained the possibility that the Cretan gap reflects the difficulty of distinguishing Archaic ceramic styles from those of their Orientalizing counterparts in the absence of Corinthian and Attic imports.112 Such warnings must be taken seriously. If pottery of this period were for some reason to escape detection, the 6th century would in effect disappear against the background of the next earliest datable deposits. Building on this suggestion, Mieke Prent proposes the hypothesis of lingering styles to explain the apparent absence of 6th-century pottery both at Knossos and in the wider island context.113 She suggests that plain local pottery of this date exists, but archaeologists have confused it with pottery of earlier periods because of the inherent conservatism of local shapes. As will become apparent, there is no need to invoke such special explanations, for pottery assemblages outside Knossos exhibit a plausible evolution of vessel forms with individual stages that can be plotted over time. Furthermore, at other sites, notably Eleutherna, local pots appear in association with datable mainland Greek imports. A paucity of textual evidence has contributed to the modern concept of Cretan isolation during the Archaic and Classical periods. Archaeological evidence can confirm or correct this impression, but a dearth of securely dated finds also characterizes these periods in the published record. Historians first conceived of this decline as an artistic or cultural failure. Investigation and study of the material from Cretan settlements and burial grounds led later researchers to posit a demographic recession caused by war, famine, or economic collapse. Taking the funerary and settlement evidence at face value, however, entails the highly improbable conclusion of a general abandonment of the island. The presence of monumental inscriptions is difficult to reconcile with an apparent archaeological desert. Archaic and Classical Crete therefore confronts us with a seemingly intractable puzzle, at the heart of which lies a problematic relationship between archaeology and history. The research presented in this volume aims to address this unresolved problem.

111. Cornell (1995, pp. 105–108) examines the Latium example. In discussing the evidence from the Esquiline burial ground in Rome, Holloway (1994, p. 23) attributes the apparent recession to a problem of identifying artifacts of this period. Burials were probably made without grave goods of any kind, and published marble ash urns have only recently been attributed to the 5th century. According to Bouma and van ‘t Lindenhout (1996–1997, p. 92), fieldwork in the 1990s has begun to correct this impression of a catastrophic demographic and cultural decline. 112. Callaghan 1992, p. 133. 113. Prent 1996–1997. Palermo (1992, p. 99) anticipates this argument, positing little or no change in ceramic types in the 6th and 5th centuries. Morris (1998a, p. 67) holds a contrary view, doubting that the same types were in use from the early 7th century to the 5th.

c hap ter 2

M e t hod s of C e ram i c A naly sis

Since b.g. constitutes only a fraction of the typical excavated ceramic assemblage, the attention it receives in this work requires comment.1 An often unstated premise of earlier ceramic studies has been that decorated fine wares permit the establishment of a typology and sequence of shapes better than cooking and coarse pottery, which have been seen as unpromising candidates for morphological analysis because they belong to a conservative tradition in which function reigns supreme.2 This assumption, however, is undergoing reassessment. Advances in coarse-ware chronologies from Bronze Age Aegean contexts have implications for archaeologists of Archaic and Classical Greece. For instance, Donald Haggis and Margaret Mook conclude from macroscopic study of coarse-ware fabrics of prehistoric pottery recovered on the Kavousi survey in East Crete that this plain pottery in some cases provides a better indication of the range in occupation dates than decorated fine ware does.3 Also, Jennifer Moody’s coarse-ware typology for the Chania region in West Crete makes it possible to date rural Bronze Age sites in the absence of any fine wares.4 Publication of coarse and cooking wares from Archaic and Classical 1. Whether an estimated 90% (Riley 1984, p. 59) or 50%–70% (Haggis and Mook 1993, p. 265, n. 1; Moody et al. 2003, p. 40) of a typical pottery assemblage, coarse wares clearly outnumber any other category in Bronze and Early Iron Age Mediterranean contexts. For some sites, the percentage of various wares for each period is a matter of published record. At Kommos, for example, the fabric composition of a wide range of deposits from MM IB to LM IIB is reported in Kommos II and Kommos III, making it possible to distinguish between coarse red, fine buff, and tempered buff fabric groups by number and weight. Rutter and Van de Moortel (2006) distinguish between fine, medium-coarse, and cooking

fabrics, with different categories for painted and unpainted fine wares. The absence of plain fine, coarse, and cooking wares from my study of the Cretan repertoires says nothing about the actual amount of such pottery at the sites under investigation. 2. According to Haggis and Mook (1993, p. 266, n. 4), in the early 1990s many still considered coarse ware an unreliable indicator of chronology. 3. With regard to the Kavousi survey, Haggis and Mook (1993, pp. 289–291) conclude that coarse wares provide better representation of the full range of occupation dates in half the cases. See also Haggis 2005, pp. 43–45, 48–57. 4. Moody 1985; Moody et al. 2003.

24

chapter 2

deposits, however, has been slow in coming, and few have attempted a chronological sequence of such shapes.5 Studying the entire range of ceramic production would allow us to extract all possible chronological information from each category of evidence. Yet, there are good reasons for starting with decorated fine wares. As Moody emphasizes, since fashion is particularly concerned with appearances, the more visual aspects of a vessel are likely to change rapidly over time.6 Fine-ware vessels, with their elaborate shapes and detailed surface treatment, are therefore ideal for such morphological analysis. Typologies based on fabric generally have wide chronological parameters. For instance, Haggis and Mook dated nearly half of their type fossils broadly to the EM I–II or MM I–II periods.7 Until Cretan cooking and coarse wares of the Archaic and Classical periods have been systematically examined, we will not know how rapidly these forms evolved. Initial study of such pottery at Knossos reveals only minor changes; the best attempts to date coarse pottery at this site cannot distinguish among Orientalizing, Archaic, and Classical products.8 Although a useful source for long-term approaches to cultural change, a pot dated to the Orientalizing or Archaic period, with no distinction between the 7th and 6th centuries, contributes little to elucidating the historical problems surrounding Archaic Crete. Coarse-ware typologies derived from survey evidence are most effective when the fabric composition of pottery assemblages changes over time because different producers used different materials. From the standpoint of raw materials, East Crete is a diverse region. Different production centers came to prominence in the Bronze Age, with their products being widely distributed throughout the countryside.9 Such typologies are not 5. Publication of cooking wares from Classical Greek contexts has lagged far behind that of figural pottery, although Agora XII is an exception. Also, cooking pots from the Pantanello Necropolis, Metaponto, are included in the final publication of that site; see Toxey and Carter 1998, pp. 726–728. In Corinth XVIII.1 (pp. 66–75, 183– 188), Pemberton reports shape studies and presents an inventory of kitchen coarse-ware and cooking-ware vessels from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth. Petrographic and chemical analysis of coarse wares from Archaic and Classical sites has also been slow in coming. At Thorikos, such tests helped distinguish ware groups but not places of origin; see Jones 1986, pp. 724–727. In addition, most publications of Archaic and Classical material exclude undecorated fine wares. An exception is Papadopoulos’s (2003) catalogue of unpainted fine wares, loomweights, figurines, and

coarse kiln supports associated with ceramic production in the Athenian Agora. 6. Moody 1985, p. 54. 7. Haggis and Mook 1993, pp. 279– 292. It is the rare exception, such as Moody’s (1985, p. 55) dating of orange coarse pottery with a green core to the EM I period, when a coarse-ware chronology approaches the precision of fine-ware typologies. 8. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, p. 87) note only minor changes in the rim of the local chytra from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period. In addition, they (p. 87) observe virtually no change in the shape of the baking tray. Technological innovations may account for changes in the chemical composition of the clay, temper, or inclusions, but preliminary study has yielded only crude chronological distinctions. Shape studies have yielded somewhat better results for banded and plain fine wares. According to Coldstream and Mac-

Donald (1997, p. 241), the Knossian lekane seems to develop an overhanging rim and different body proportions in the 5th century. Their observations mark the first step toward a chronological sequence of undecorated Cretan wares. To take another example, Knossian hydriai develop a rolled rim and more conical body proportions in the 5th century; see Coldstream and Eiring 2001, p. 85. 9. Haggis and Mook (1993, p. 292) allude to this fact in their discussion of the Kavousi coarse-ware chronologies, which benefited from a wide range of production centers in the area. As they point out (p. 292), this diversity may be a function of a wider cultural phenomenon, with the decentralization of palatial power and increased competition in the Neopalatial period. For a summary of recent work on the coarse-ware fabrics of East Crete, see Day et al. 2006, p. 144.

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

25

TA B LE 2.1. O ccurrence of WARE GROU PS IN LATE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL DEPOSI TS AT KNOSSOS AND KOMMOS Fine Deposit

Gloss

Pattern

RR:H

94 (61%)

6 (4%)

6 (4%)

SWH:K

20 (29%)

2 (3%)

UM:H1–H5

19 (38%)

KDS:B, C Kommos, building F and altar H

Banded

Dipped

Plain

Coarse

Cooking

Total

37 (24%)

6 (4%)

2 (1%)

3 (2%)

154 (100%)

11 (16%)

17 (24%)

17 (24%)

3 (4%)

0 (0%)

70 (100%)

3 (6%)

0 (0%)

14 (28%)

11 (22%)

0 (0%)

3 (6%)

50 (100%)

5 (17%)

6 (20%)

2 (7%)

4 (13%)

13 (43%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

30 (100%)

12 (60%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (20%)

3 (15%)

1 (5%)

0 (0%)

20 (100%)

as well suited for pottery manufactured at a single location over a long period, for in these cases a conservative tendency to draw on the same local resources often results in a fairly static fabric.10 Coarse-ware typologies are certainly no substitute for fine-ware chronologies. In fact, the coarse-ware typologies developed for the Kavousi survey depend on the association of coarse wares with decorated pottery in stratified contexts. Without existing fine-ware typologies, these coarse-ware fabrics found on survey would lack a chronological anchor. For these reasons, b.g. is the focus of this study. Fully coated pottery was just one component of a typical tableware assemblage. In published Late Archaic and Classical deposits at Knossos and Kommos, b.g. constitutes by number between 29% and 61% of local wares (except at the Sanctuary of Demeter), with partially dipped and plain fine pottery appearing in smaller concentrations, followed by pattern and banded wares in even smaller numbers (Table 2.1).11 Pattern-decorated and banded wares are not as well represented as these other categories. These figures probably reflect decisions on what to save and publish, obscuring ancient patterns of use and disposal. The virtual absence of coarse and cooking wares from these lists certainly gives the impression of extreme selectivity. Therefore these totals must be viewed with caution; they can serve as a rough guide to the ware composition of deposits but do not tell the whole story. The partial publication record for Knossos and Kommos gives a sense of the representation of each shape in Late Archaic and Classical votive 10. A point made by Moody (1985, p. 54). See also Day, Joyner, and Relaki (2003, p. 13), who temper Haggis and Mook’s conclusions about dating by coarse-ware fabrics. They emphasize continuity in the acquisition of the raw materials involved in pottery production. 11. Publication references for these deposits appear in Chaps. 4 (pp. 116– 119) and 6 (p. 181). I have applied my

own terms for all shapes and substituted “high-necked” for the excavators’ “low-necked” for two cups from Kommos. My method of distinguishing these varieties is presented in Chap. 3 (pp. 86–87). These totals invite comparison with the Early Iron Age cemetery at Orthi Petra, Eleutherna. According to Kotsonas (2005, p. 270; 2008b, pp. 306–308), coarse and cooking wares make up 3% of catalogued

pottery, with plain fine ware (11%) and painted pottery (86%) appearing in larger numbers. The small Classical votive deposits at the Sanctuary of Demeter (Knossos) have exceptional concentrations of pattern-decorated pots, plain votive miniatures, and lamps. Indeed, these are the only published Classical assemblages with greater totals for banded and fine plain wares than for b.g. and dipped.

26

chapter 2

TA B LE 2.2. O CC URRENCE OF FINE-WARE SHAP ES IN LATE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL DEPOSI TS AT KNOSSOS AND KOMMOS Deposit

Hydria

Krater

Bowl

Jug

Cup

Lamp

Other

Total

RR:H

8 (6%)

4 (3%)

15 (10%)

9 (6%)

80 high-necked (55%) 7 bellied (5%) 8 type unknown (6%)

5 (3%)

9 (6%)

145 (100%)

17 (31%)

7 (13%)

11 (20%)

4 (7%)

11 high-necked (20%)

2 (4%)

3 (5%)

55 (100%)

UM:H1–H5

5 (12%)

2 (5%)

3 (7%)

10 (25%)

14 high-necked (34%) 2 bellied (5%)

3 (7%)

2 (5%)

41 (100%)

KRS

0 (0%)

9 (33%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3 high-necked 6 low-necked 4 tulip 3 kantharoi 2 bellied

(11%) (22%) (15%) (11%) (8%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

27 (100%)

KDS, deposits B, C

1 (3%)

1 (3%)

4 (13%)

0 (0%)

4 high-necked (13%) 1 bellied (3%) 1 kantharos (3%)

9 (29%)

10 (33%)

31 (100%)

Kommos, Building F, Altar H

2 (8%)

0 (0%)

2 (8%)

3 (13%)

9 high-necked (38%) 3 low-necked (13%) 1 skyphos (4%) 1 bellied (4%)

1 (4%)

2 (8%)

24 (100%)

SWH:K

and domestic contexts, providing a baseline for comparing different deposits elsewhere on the island (Table 2.2). In published deposits, highnecked cups constitute as much as half of the fine-ware assemblage. These figures are in accord with my observations on domestic, funerary, and sanctuary assemblages elsewhere on Crete, although the composition of each deposit can vary depending on date, pattern of disposal, and use context. Orientalizing tombs and other published deposits of this date invite comparison with Archaic and Classical assemblages (Table 2.3).12 Orientalizing deposits often contain a more extensive range of shapes and different varieties of each shape, with no single cup type predominating. What is listed as the standard cup encompasses numerous variations and is accompanied by deep skyphoi, kotylai, and cups with a tall rim, a forerunner of the high-necked cup. In the various Cretan b.g. repertoires of ca. 600–400, a drinking cup with a high rim and single vertical handle holds pride of place. Termed a “high-necked cup,” this vessel served as a wine container. Other drinking shapes supplement the high-necked cup, although none competes in number. In addition, the development of the high-necked cup influenced other shapes, indicating its central position in the local traditions. For example, a version with a shorter rim, termed a “low-necked cup,” appears in small quantities at a select number of sites, most of them in Central Crete. The design of local kantharoi at Knossos and Gortyn also reveals a debt to the principal high-necked cup line, although the kantharos is a

12. Imports have been excluded from my lists. To facilitate comparisons to the Archaic and Classical repertoires, I have excluded lids and relegated fine pithoi to the “other” category. For the North Cemetery, see Moignard’s (1996) analysis of Orientalizing shapes. For Orientalizing well VW from the Royal Road excavations, see Coldstream 1973a, pp. 36–42. For deposits F–J from the area of the Southwest Houses, see Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 213–222. For the Orientalizing deposit from Kommos (no. 26) associated with Building F and Altar H, see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, pp. 245–248. For Fortetsa, see Brock 1957, pp. 142–167. Pottery from the Early Iron Age cemetery at Orthi Petra provides another point of comparison; see Chap. 3, p. 47, Table 3.1.

TA B LE 2.3. O CC URRENCE OF FINE-WARE SHAP ES IN ORIENTALIZING DEPOSI TS AT KNOSSOS AND KOMMOS Deposit

Amphora

Hydria

KNC, Early Orientalizing tombs

5 (2%)

KNC, Middle Orientalizing tombs KNC, Late Orientalizing tombs Fortetsa cemetery

Krater

Bowl

Tray

Jug

Oil Jug

11 (6%)

0 (0%)

6 (3%)

0 (0%)

2 (4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.5%)

Cup

Pyxis

Other

Total

2 (1%)

23 (13%)

71 (40%)

14 skyphoi 10 kotylai 20 standard 2 tall-rim 3 mugs

(8%) (6%) (12%) (1%) (2%)

8 (4%)

3 (2%)

178 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

8 (19%)

10 (23%)

9 skyphoi (21%) 3 kotylai (7%) 11 standard (26%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

43 (100%)

5 (3%)

5 (3%)

8 (5%)

52 (32%)

46 (28%)

6 skyphoi 9 kotylai 13 standard 9 tall-rim

(4%) (5%) (8%) (5%)

10 (6%)

1 (0.5%)

165 (100%)

48 skyphoi (6%) 11 kotylai (1%) 111 standard (13%)

26 (3%)

83 (10%)

865 (100%)

(5%) (8%) (2%)

1 (1%)

5 (5%)

93 (100%)

36 (4%)

15 (2%)

56 (6%)

37 (4%)

10 (1%)

181 (21%)

251 (29%)

RR, Well VW

2 (2%)

7 (8%)

6 (7%)

19 (20%)

6 (7%)

20 (22%)

12 (13%)

SWH, deposits F–J

3 (2%)

16 (14%)

21 (19%)

13 (12%)

1 (1%)

4 (3%)

1 (1%)

8 skyphoi (7%) 36 standard (32%) (2%) 2 tall-rim

2 (2%)

6 (5%)

113 (100%)

Kommos, Temple B (End)

1 (4%)

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

6 (22%)

0 (0%)

1 (4%)

3 (10%)

1 skyphos 11 standard 2 tall-rim 1 kantharos

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

27 (100%)

5 kotylai 8 standard 2 tall-rim

(4%) (41%) (7%) (4%)

28

chapter 2

deeper vessel. Only rarely does a shallow cup such as a kylix appear in the Cretan repertoires. Compared to the Orientalizing cup repertoire at Knossos, the Archaic and Classical periods saw a narrowing of the field, with production focusing on just one or two shapes. Other b.g. vessels include jugs, small bowls, and lekythoi. Lamps and bellied drinking cups typically did not receive a full coat of gloss, but they are included in my study nonetheless. Jugs, kraters, and bowls make up a large share of the banded, dipped, and plain fine wares. Publication of the Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman makes it possible to trace the development of these shapes at Knossos from the Orientalizing to the Hellenistic period, albeit with an interruption in the 6th century.13 Since Knossian production of partially decorated and plain fine pottery is comparable to other sites, these tablewares receive less attention here. Most of the pattern-decorated pottery at Knossos consists of Classical plates and bowls, with the Sanctuary of Demeter providing many of the known examples. Plates seem to be uncommon in other contexts, perhaps because they had a votive purpose or played a special role in sanctuary dining.14 In contrast, the range of b.g., dipped, banded, and plain fine shapes has a strong sympotic character. High-necked cups and other b.g. shapes also frequently appear at sanctuaries, presumably as service for ritual drinking.15

CHRO NOLO GY On Crete, the rarity of stratified deposits requires almost total dependence on seriation and observed stylistic development for formulating ancient chronology. Morphological analysis provides a starting point for the study of undecorated ceramics, particularly for their classification into types and the assignment of types to chronological periods.16 Archaeologists generally assume a pattern according to which a class of objects is introduced 13. The most relevant chapters for my study are Coldstream 2001 and Coldstream and Eiring 2001. By presenting the ceramic history of a site in the longue durée tradition, their work provides fresh insight on the character of local production, inviting comparisons between different periods. It is not, however, the final word on fabrics and manufacturing techniques; see Francis 2002. As Moody et al. (2003, p. 40, n. 12) observe, recent studies of Knossian material have omitted rudimentary observations about fabric such as Munsell readings. My work is certainly not the final word on fabrics and technology, either. 14. As Coldstream (2001, p. 59) notes, plates are extremely rare in the

Geometric and Orientalizing repertoire of Knossos and other Greek sites. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, p. 82) discuss the limited evidence from Classical (ca. 425–400) and later Knossos. For the rarity of plates from Late Archaic Azoria, see Haggis et al. 2007, p. 278. 15. Wine consumption was not exclusively an affair for decorated fine wares. Pithoi and plain amphoras facilitated the transport of water and neat wine. Cooking vessels may have functioned also as serving bowls, and undecorated jugs, bowls, and plates perhaps found uses as well. Still, a high proportion of sympotic shapes bear decoration in b.g. 16. Rice (1987, pp. 283–285) and

Adams and Adams (1991, pp. 18–26) address the various epistemological issues raised by taxonomic distinctions. Chief among them is the question of whether types represent real distinctions inherent in the data or are analytical constructs of the researcher. There is no need to delve too deeply into this debate, since, as Adams and Adams (1991, p. 8) emphasize, as long as typologies work, they require no abstract justification. Orton, Tyers, and Vince (1993, p. 24) link the unduly rigid developmental sequences formulated in the 19th and early 20th centuries to beliefs in progress. They (pp. 24–25) invoke counterexamples from the field of Roman fine-ware production that illustrate a trend of declining standards.

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

29

slowly into society, gradually increases in popularity, and then declines in use before it disappears altogether.17 Consideration of archaeological context permits verification of relative chronologies inferred from style, with stratification providing the most reliable means of relative dating given the obvious chronological relationship between pottery from superimposed levels.18 Unfortunately, stratified deposits are rare on the island during the period ca. 600–400. An exception from Knossos is deposit UM:H3, a 5th-century pit that lies directly over a possible 6th-century deposit, UM:H1A.19 The burial ground of the Eleuthernians at Orthi Petra also preserves faint traces of original stratification, although later building activity has largely disturbed 6th-century levels.20 Excavations at Azoria have recently brought to light stratified deposits from a 6th-century settlement, with superimposed floor levels providing an independent basis for chronology.21 Much of the Archaic pottery from this site, however, comes from a destruction level dated to the early 5th century. In the absence of secure stratigraphic relationships, archaeologists must rely on other dating methods. One such method, seriation, has proven to be particularly useful in determining the chronological arrangement of material from separate deposits.22 Flinders Petrie developed the technique as a way of ordering grave groups based on the presence or absence of certain artifact types, although problems can arise if deposits contain a mixture of earlier and later material. Unfortunately, the evidence from Crete derives predominantly from refuse pits whose contents seem to have accumulated over a long time before their eventual closure. Well RR:H at Knossos is a notable exception, for its uniform assemblage appears to have been removed from circulation at a single point in time.23 Another exception is a 5th-century domestic deposit from Aphrati that contains intact cups of apparently the same period of manufacture, apart from the

17. There has been considerable debate concerning the rate of stylistic innovation in ancient societies. Prehistorians tend to view stylistic development as a slow process, whereas classical archaeologists favor sudden changes precipitated by historical events; see Sinopoli 1991, pp. 74–76; Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, p. 25; Agora XII, p. 10. In a study of Lakonian kraters, Stibbe (1989, pp. 45–46) detects a general rule of experimentation at the beginning and end of a shape’s history—punctuated changes with slow growth in the middle. For the moldmade bowl in Hellenistic Athens, Rotroff (2006, pp. 373–375) draws on innovation theory to posit a considerable lag (40 years or more) between the introduction of the shape and its period of widespread accep-

tance. Red figure also took time to become a popular alternative to black figure in the early 5th century. These two examples involve radical new techniques, not simply evolution of established shapes. Conservative and progressive ceramic forms may certainly overlap. But what if older pottery styles did not gradually disappear but continued in production because of conservative potters? 18. Sinopoli 1991, p. 74; Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, pp. 187–189. 19. Callaghan 1992, pp. 90–91. 20. Chap. 3, pp. 45–51. 21. A presumed destruction horizon at Azoria of about 500–475 means that much of the material from the site comes from abandonment contexts. Superimposed floors from some buildings make it possible to differen-

tiate phases of occupation in the 6th century, with faint signs of activity in the early 5th century. Also, on architectural grounds, houses B300 and B100 show signs of remodeling; see Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 355, 357– 360. 22. Petrie 1899. Rice (1987, pp. 436–437), Sinopoli (1991, pp. 74–75), Adams and Adams (1991, pp. 210– 213), and Orton, Tyers, and Vince (1993, pp. 189–194) all discuss the theoretical underpinnings of seriation and the application of the technique since Petrie’s day. Archaeologists have developed computer techniques to assist in the analysis of large data sets from tomb groups or other contexts where discrete deposits are preserved in considerable numbers. 23. Chap. 4, pp. 119–120.

30

chapter 2

survival of two slightly earlier examples.24 In most other cases, it seems that the same deposit preserves material of earlier and later date.25 What appear to be stylistically the most progressive forms in a deposit may be the latest, and may provide the chronological clues to the deposit’s closure. To test this proposition, the ratio of progressive and conservative forms can be compared for separate deposits, and the introduction of entirely new shapes can help determine the order of deposits. Although deposits of comparable date and use context exhibit much overlap in forms, the small percentage of material that differs can reveal chronological priority. An example is my ordering of deposits at Knossos from ca. 500–450 (RR:H, SWH:K and UM:H2, SX:J/JN7) based on the presence or absence of particular shapes and the most progressive forms in each category.26 Moreover, if independently dated artifacts such as ceramic imports, lamps, coins, and figurines appear in more than one deposit, they can provide fixed points for absolute chronology and frame the relative sequence of deposits. This lays a foundation for measuring different stages of morphological development, including how long each ceramic phase lasted and which phase came first. When there are not enough closed deposits to undertake seriation in a rigorous or statistically reliable way, this procedure involves much guesswork. Faced with such obstacles, we must often fall back on subjective stylistic criteria for dating. An extreme example is the dating of surface survey collections in the absence of any contextual evidence or external means of comparison such as parallels from controlled excavations. As a result, most of the chronological sequences proposed in this work are tentative. Since archaeological context is crucial for assessing these proposed sequences, each of the pottery chapters that follow begins with a discussion of the local circumstances of excavation. The basis for absolute dates in Cretan archaeology of ca. 600–400 also requires comment. Imported pottery of established date found in association with local pottery of unknown date provides the secure pegs on which the absolute chronology hangs.27 For instance, 6th-century Corinthian and Lakonian pottery found in the company of local cups at Eleutherna allows us to assign absolute dates to particular morphological stages of ceramic development.28 The date of the latest imports provides a terminus post quem for the deposit as a whole, although complications arise from a possible lag in time between the production of a mainland pot and its eventual discard on Crete, precluding a strict approximation of the timing of these two events. Copies of mainland types serve an analogous function, although the dates of the mainland and Cretan products may lie even further apart.29 This dating technique also raises basic questions about the process of imitation and the nature of power relationships implied by 24. For this collection, see Erickson 2002, pp. 58–65. 25. This situation is hardly surprising. In fact, there are parallels elsewhere for vast chronological disparities between most of the material in a deposit and the latest pieces. For instance, at the Silen Gate area of Thasos, Grandjean (1988, pp. 445–447)

documents 4th-century pottery in fills in which the bulk of the material dates to the 5th century. At Lappa, much Geometric pottery came to light in fill deposited in the Hellenistic period; see Sjögren 2003, p. 147 (Argiroupolis). 26. Chap. 4, pp. 119–121. 27. Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, pp. 185–188.

28. Chap. 3, pp. 46–49, 86, 88. 29. For example, while island lamp makers borrowed ideas from mainland centers, mainland types seem to have stayed in circulation longer on Crete than at Athens or Corinth. As a result, the date of the Athenian lamp does not directly transfer to the Cretan context; see Chap. 5, p. 165.

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

31

sources and influence.30 In addition, failure to identify imported heirlooms can lead to more substantial chronological discrepancies, although an obvious case will usually attract attention. These inherent uncertainties explain my reluctance to assign a date of manufacture with greater precision than 25-year increments.31

P ROD U C T I ON AN D CON S UMP T I ON Although temporal distinctions are a paramount concern of this study, another cause of stylistic variation in ceramic design is geography.32 It was once taken for granted that pottery was produced at the site of its maximum concentration, an assumption that allowed archaeologists to relate homogeneous ware groups defined by shape, decoration, surface treatment, and fabric to geographic centers of production, even in the absence of kilns, tools, or other direct evidence for manufacture.33 Over the past several decades, however, archaeologists studying the Bronze Age on Crete and elsewhere have called these assumptions into question. Such work provides a valuable comparative perspective, and classical archaeologists can gain much from it. Recent decades have witnessed two significant trends in ceramic analysis: a reappraisal of the relationship between consumption and production on theoretical grounds, and scientific studies of fabric that have yielded a solid new basis for source provenience. One major implication of this new approach is that pottery itself provides only indirect evidence for production and distribution. Producers do not simply respond to natural constraints in their selection of raw materials. Rather, craft production, even at the mundane level of plain pottery, involves cultural choices, and this activity is deeply imbedded in social, political, and economic realities.34 This conceptual divide between pottery production and consumption is especially relevant in the case of pots found in secondary contexts, where their function must be inferred from shape, decoration, and other intrinsic factors. Control over pottery production may have enhanced the standing of elite groups, and the prestige value of certain wares undoubtedly influenced their distribution pattern outside the place of manufacture.35 Moreover, cultural factors play a role in the disposal of pottery and ultimately determine what enters the archaeological record. 30. According to Papadopoulos (1997, p. 449), originals and derivates have traditionally led to notions of power relationships, with the assumption of style radiating from core to periphery. Much of the literature on this topic is concerned with copies of Attic imports. For instance, Miller (1997, pp. 67–68, 71) interprets imitations of 5th-century Attic pottery in the region of Phoenicia as luxury goods. Attic pottery may have acquired a prestige value in some local economies given the great distances involved in its distribution. 31. Orton, Tyers, and Vince (1993, p. 25) conclude from study of the docu-

mented life spans of modern pottery and the uncertainty about the date of manufacture of ancient examples that “a margin of error of twenty to thirty years must be attached to any one pot.” See also Morris 2000, p. 6. 32. Classical archaeologists have been slow to address the causes of stylistic variation in ceramic design; see Plog 1980, p. 84. Consequently, much of the following discussion is based on the works of prehistoric archaeologists and cultural anthropologists. 33. Moody (1985, p. 53) and Riley (1984, pp. 58–59) present the traditional view without endorsing it. 34. As Knappett (2002, pp. 168–

171) and Van de Moortel (2002, p. 191) stress, production, consumption, and distribution are activities informed and guided by social structures. The very acts of eating and drinking are also socially constructed activities. Hamilakis (2000, pp. 57–60), in a review of food studies in Aegean archaeology, criticizes earlier ecological approaches for their focus on procurement and production rather than consumption. 35. Day and Wilson (2002, p. 144) emphasize this point in their study of the social uses of EM pottery at Knossos. See also Wilson and Day 1999, pp. 42–43.

32

chapter 2

Another watershed in the study of Bronze Age ceramics has been the application of scientific techniques of fabric analysis to determine the source of clay and mineral inclusions. These techniques vary in complexity from the macroscopic examination of fabrics under low magnification to petrographic thin section of the rock and mineral inclusions, which can establish the provenience of these raw materials after additional fieldwork and laboratory study.36 Even more complex forms of analysis such as scanning electron microscopy and neutron activation have appeared in recent publications of Cretan Bronze Age pottery.37 These techniques can help determine the source of the raw materials used in the production of a wide range of fabrics, whereas most previous estimates of production locale depended on visual inspection of fabric. Based on petrographic and other scientific analysis of clays, we now know that utilitarian wares moved beyond their place of manufacture on a significant scale.38 A striking example comes from a destruction deposit of EM IIB date at Myrtos, Fournou Korifi. Fabric analysis revealed that roughly half of the plain pottery from this deposit was produced approximately 25 km from the site at two separate production centers on the Isthmus of Ierapetra.39 This unexpected discovery has profound implications for craft specialization on EM Crete, revealing a complex system of exchange normally associated with the advent of palatial administration in the MM period.40 It also reinforces the importance of consumption-oriented approaches to ceramic studies, for as Todd Whitelaw and his collaborators have emphasized, “we are monitoring ceramic consumption decisions, not simply production patterns.”41 Elsewhere, Wilson and Day’s identification of imports from the Mesara in a sample of EM pottery at Knossos gives a nuanced picture of ceramic regionalism even within Central Crete, pointing to the prestige value of certain shapes as an explanation for their distribution outside the Mesara.42 Classical archaeologists can learn much from these successful provenience results and their clear historical relevance. Petrographic and/or chemical analysis has been conducted on Archaic Cretan pottery only once to determine the source of an anomalous group of vessels found at Tocra, Libya. In this case, scientific study suggested a Central Cretan origin.43 36. Jones (1986, pp. 54–56), Haggis and Mook (1993, pp. 270–271), Haggis (2005, pp. 44–45), and Day et al. (2006, pp. 137–139) provide summaries of previous work. 37. Examples include Betancourt’s (1984) study of East Cretan WhiteOn-Dark Ware and Barnard and Brogan’s (2003) publication of Neopalatial material from Mochlos. 38. Riley 1984, p. 59; Wilson and Day 1994, 1999; Day and Wilson 2002. 39. Whitelaw et al. (1997, pp. 267– 268) modify the conclusions of the original excavator of the site, who viewed the differences in the pottery assemblage as a function of different clay beds, not geologically distinct regions.

40. The historical implications of this and other scientific studies of Cretan Bronze Age fabrics are spelled out in Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1997, pp. 280–284. 41. Whitelaw et al. 1997, p. 269. 42. Wilson and Day 1994, p. 84. 43. Boardman and Hayes (1973, p. 73) and Jones (1986, p. 705) discuss the test results. Boardman and Hayes (1966, p. 240) describe the fabric of the pottery from Tocra as “cream, light orange or light brown, not unlike that of Corinthian, but generally looser and more powdery in texture.” Gortyn is a possible source, as noted by Coldstream (1973b, p. 47, n. 23). My examination of Classical pottery at Gortyn reveals another distinguishing feature of the

local fabric, an uncommon hardness that is presumably the result of firing at high temperatures, which seems incompatible with the “powdery” texture of the exports found at Tocra. The 6thcentury Cretan exports at Cyrene, Libya, exhibit a fabric similar to that of the Cretan material at Tocra; see Schaus 1985, p. 10 (7.5YR 7/4–10YR 8/4 to 2.5YR 8/4). These descriptions of the exported fabric match my observations on 5th-century pottery from Aphrati; see Erickson 2002, pp. 46–47. Stylistic links in decoration also imply a relationship between Aphrati and the pottery at Tocra. Based on current evidence, Aphrati is the most likely source for the exports to Tocra and Cyrene. See also Johnston 2005, p. 391.

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

33

Geometric and Orientalizing pottery from Knossos has received similar attention, and efforts are under way to create a more systematic description of the coarse, cooking, and fine fabrics of these periods.44 Recent studies of Early Iron Age pottery and terracottas from Eleutherna, Sybrita, and Kato Symi have included petrographic analysis and have the potential to give a regional perspective on production techniques.45 Pottery specialists working on the island have noted that for other periods ceramics vary considerably even between neighboring sites. Perhaps the natural diversity of the Cretan landscape is responsible for higher than expected variation between nearby clay and inclusion sources.46 In the case of different fabrics at a single site, however, archaeologists have made little headway in proposing sources. The question has been raised, for instance, whether the pale red fabric at Hellenistic Gortyn is a property of Gortyn alone or of the entire Mesara valley.47 Scientific studies of this complexity were not practical in this initial attempt to identify, classify, and date pottery of the 6th and 5th centuries. Without surveys of historical Cretan clay sources, fabric studies lack a broader context. In addition, other direct evidence for production has been slow in coming. For instance, no excavated kiln dates to within the period ca. 600–400, although the discovery at Knossos of two examples on either side of this chronological range provides useful information.48 Moreover, project supervisors had to consider the expense associated with petrographic and chemical analysis before sending a few fragments of suspected Archaic and Classical date to outside labs. Even with permission for such destructive tests, large samples are required to obtain meaningful results, to which end it would have been difficult to select samples in the field, since the fundamental task of identifying pottery of this date required extensive study of shape development. Reassuringly, most observers agree that the simplest methods of analysis should come first, with macroscopic descriptions of fabric preceding petrographic and chemical 44. These efforts, however, have only just begun; see Chap. 4, p. 121. Preliminary work has already yielded unexpected conclusions. For example, chemical analysis of the standard micaceous red cooking-ware fabric at Knossos indicates a nonlocal origin. Coldstream (2001, p. 61) describes the cooking-ware fabric of the early historical Greek periods as “metamorphic brick-red clay, highly micaceous, and also containing a variety of small white and brown inclusions.” See also Liddy 1996, p. 479. The Knossians may have imported this clay in bulk or obtained finished products from another center. The Mirabello region is a possible source for the clay. Another possibility is Lyktian production. As discussed on pp. 34–35, micaceous red fabric is a hallmark of Lyktian fine wares, and Lyktian potters probably relied on local clay beds with these distinctive

properties. Thrapsano, a modern village in close proximity to ancient Lyktos, to this day produces cooking-ware pottery of a similar quality. In the 19th and 20th centuries, potters from Thrapsano engaged in itinerant seasonal production; see Jones 1986, pp. 864–867. 45. For Eleutherna, see Nodarou 2008. For Sybrita, see the works cited by Kotsonas (2008b, p. 29). Ceramic petrography on figurines from Kato Symi (pre-650) are also relevant to this discussion; see Nodarou and Rathossi 2008. 46. For general environmental conditions, see Rackham and Moody 1996, pp. 14–15, 17–19. Jones (1986, pp. 256–258) summarizes the results of extensive scientific clay analysis on Crete. From the perspective of clays and inclusions, the tripartite division of the island is an appropriate geological division. Most studies have focused on

clay beds and pottery wares of the Bronze Age, with the exception of historical Greek Knossos. Unfortunately, the limited evidence for Classical Knossian fabrics points to significant variations from Bronze Age clay beds and preparation techniques, making the data for Minoan Crete suspect as a source for historical practices. 47. Papadopoulou 1988, p. 170. 48. For the Classical kiln, see Jones 1986, p. 236. Hasaki (2002, pp. 360– 361) identifies from the confusing structural remains two contemporary kilns. An Orientalizing kiln has more recently come to light; see Hasaki 2002, p. 338; Chap. 4, p. 121, n. 128. In addition, a site discovered in the territory of Praisos may be a defunct 6th-century kiln associated with a sanctuary, as discussed in Chap. 8 (pp. 201–205).

34

chapter 2

studies.49 My work lays a necessary foundation for scientific studies of greater complexity. Consideration of fabric texture, hardness, inclusions, slip, gloss, and other variables helped determine fabric and ware groups.50 Under a hand magnification lens (10x), I inspected the surface, slip, and core of the pottery selected for study, noting clay color in addition to inclusion size, color, and hardness. Munsell readings provided an objective measure of color. Unless inclusions could be identified with reasonable certainty (as with silver and gold mica, chert, and quartz), I did not speculate about the nature of the rock or minerals.51 On the whole, however, inclusions were rarely visible under low magnification and therefore played only a minor role in my attempt to differentiate ware groups and estimate sources. As one might expect in a study dealing almost exclusively with fine decorated pottery, the fabrics were generally well levigated and free of impurities and visible inclusions. For this reason, the nature and frequency of inclusions was largely ignored. Notable exceptions include the distinctive silver mica of fine-ware pottery attributed here to a Lyktian source and the subangular white inclusions typical of the Eleuthernian tradition. Unlike inclusions, fabric color did play a major role in distinguishing ware groups and attributing undecorated pottery to its source. The color of the fabric may vary as a result of the utilization of different clay sources, differences in the preparation and firing of the clay, or a combination of these factors.52 Since postdepositional conditions can influence fabric color, however, other factors need to be considered when making attributions. By situating the Archaic and Classical pottery from a site in a long tradition of distinctive styles and shapes, a strong case might be made for origin, but all attributions are tentative pending a better understanding of the clay beds and mineral resources. My identification of Lyktos as the source of a distinctive local fabric characterized by silver mica and a dark reddish-brown hue (2.5YR 5/6–5YR 5/4) exemplifies the challenges posed by macroscopic techniques of fabric analysis and sourcing. The extreme coarseness of this fabric, which was evidently incapable of taking a fine colored slip, makes it a rarity among the Cretan fabrics employed in the production of drinking cups and other fine-ware shapes (Fig. 2.1). As a general rule, gritty fabric is more typical of cooking and coarse wares.53 Regarding its origin, a fabric of apparently the same characteristics seems to distinguish Lyktos from all other Classical Cretan production centers. Based on a study of Hellenistic material from Lyktos, Callaghan remarks, “the vast majority of its ‘black-glazed’ shapes are made of a red gritty clay and are covered with a thin dull wash. Some shapes, which would have been glazed at Knossos, are left plain.”54 After examining this Hellenistic material from Lyktos, I have concluded that similar gritty red pottery from a 5th-century deposit at Aphrati and from the sanctuary at Kato Symi issues from the same idiosyncratic production tradition as the later Lyktian wares.55 If, as suspected, pottery from Lyktos reached Aphrati in small quantities in the 5th century, there may be earlier imports of Lyktian pottery to Aphrati among the finds from the Geometric and Orientalizing cemetery. In support of this claim, a few funerary urns in an uncharacteristic gritty

49. A point made by Haggis and Mook (1993, p. 271) and Matson (1984, p. 53). In addition, Moody et al. (2003, pp. 38–44) advocate macroscopic analysis of fabric as an important first step in any research program. 50. In a similar vein, Morgan (1990, pp. 54–56) traces 8th-century pottery at Olympia to its source on the basis of fabric, and Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, p. 84) rely on fabric color to distinguish among individual production centers in the Argive plain. 51. Matson (1984, p. 53) cautions against such speculative identifications. 52. Jones (1986, pp. 757–760) discusses the various factors influencing clay color. 53. A multiplicity of fabrics at a single site can be interpreted in various ways. A hierarchy of fabrics is to be expected of a production center with a range of coarse, cooking, and fine wares; see Stissi 1999, p. 87. According to Plog (1980, pp. 86–88), ethnographic evidence supports the conclusion that people choose different clays or tempering materials for vessels of different purposes. Yet pottery of suspected Lyktian origin is universally gritty and coarse, with no indication that functional categories played a role in determining the character of the fabric. 54. Callaghan and Jones 1985, pp. 14–15. 55. Erickson 2002, pp. 47–48.

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

Figure 2.1. Sample clay surfaces of Classical Cretan production centers Lyktos and Aphrati. Left: Lyktos, exported cup found at Gournia site 106 (Larisa?); right: Aphrati, exported jug found at Itanos. Magnification ca. 3x

56. Levi (1927–1929, pp. 101– 102, fig. 76:a–c, p. 105, fig. 80, p. 126, fig. 108, p. 130, fig. 114, p. 215, fig. 239, p. 403, fig. 519) illustrates six such funerary urns in a gritty red fabric.

35

red, silver micaceous fabric differ in shape and decoration from the pale brown pottery typical of the cemetery (10YR 8/3).56 A later example of this pale brown pottery tradition is shown in Figure 2.1. In contrast to the careful outline polychrome painting of the pale brown urns, the figures on these gritty red pots survive as ghost impressions, revealing a different technique presumably necessitated by the rough fabric. These urns may derive from a Lyktian workshop. The difficulty of assigning fabric and ware groups to a production center based on visual inspection alone is acute in this case, since the Geometric and later repertoires of this site are so poorly understood.57 Classical pottery of suspected Lyktian origin turns up in other parts of Crete (Fig. 2.2), as for example at a survey site in the vicinity of Ierapetra, identified as ancient Larisa. In addition, a small Cretan cup with a low offset rim and hemispherical bowl, exported to Knossos and subsequently discarded in a 5th-century well, exhibits the same coarse, silver micaceous, reddish-brown fabric attributed to Lyktian production.58 This cup is clearly an antecedent of Callaghan’s “glazed cup with everted rim,” a type otherwise known to exist at Lyktos and Knossos only in a Hellenistic manifestation.59 Thus, on the sole basis of Lyktian exports, an otherwise unattested history of local production in the 5th and 4th centuries can now be surmised. The resulting distribution pattern is consistent with a limited trade in Classical Lyktian pots no farther than the territories of its neighbors to the west (Knossos), south (Aphrati and Kato Symi), and southeast (Gournia site 106: Larisa?). In the Hellenistic period, by contrast, 57. See Chap. 1 (p. 3). 58. This cup comes from SX:J/JN7 (level 4982), a deposit dated to ca. 450–425. 59. Callaghan 1978, p. 18, nos. 56, 57. An unpublished cup of almost

identical size and form but a different fabric from the Archaic and Classical cemetery at Kastello Varypetrou (Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1) suggests Kydonian production of the type.

Lera Cave Arkoudia Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Kydonia Polichna (?) Aptera Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

White Mountains

Lappa

Sybrita

Tarrha

Axos

Eleutherna

Tylissos

Mt. Ida

Amnisos

Kommos

Mesara

0

10

20

30

40

50 km

Siteia

Psychro Cave Aphrati

Tholos

Mt. Dikti

Azoria

Kato Symi Myrtos

Kamilari

Itanos

Olous

Lasithi

Prinias Phaistos Gortyn

Dreros

Lyktos

Archanes Eltynia

Idaian Cave

Chersonessos

Knossos

Larisa (?) Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 2.2. Movement of island b.g. pottery from Lyktos, ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

37

bowls of apparent Lyktian manufacture reached the more distant site of Ayia Pelayia.60 The identification of mainland Greek imports poses similar problems. Since classical archaeologists have rarely tested their identification of Attic, Corinthian, Lakonian, and other imports by scientific means, we cannot be certain that suspected imports are not instead local versions of the same shapes made at some other production center.61 For instance, recent studies emphasize the difficulty of distinguishing genuine Attic products from local Atticizing wares. Andrea Berlin and Kathleen Lynch stress that Atticizing pots found in Asia Minor are almost indistinguishable from Attic models in shape, decoration, and surface treatment. Suspected local versions, however, differ in several minor respects: the local fabric tends to break in an irregular jagged edge unlike the smooth breaks of Attic pottery; local copies usually lack the elaborate and delicate finishing touches typical of Attic pots; local gloss never approaches the fine sheen and deep luster of Attic pots; and local potters have difficulty applying gloss in fine gradations and leaving areas in reserve.62 Macroscopic techniques to observe differences such as these can be used to distinguish copies of Corinthian, Lakonian, and Attic shapes in the Cretan repertoires.

LO CAL AN D RE G I ONAL S T Y LES Archaic Greece is known for pronounced local and regional artistic styles, and this expectation of extreme variation should make it easier to differentiate the products of one Cretan production center from the next.63 Although pottery production cannot be directly tied to polis institutions, the new political realities of the 7th and 6th centuries seem to have promoted greater stylistic variation among major centers and a distinctive style common to each. As Elizabeth Pemberton suggests, “just as independent cities had different coin types, letter-forms, building traditions, and so forth, so may it have been with the pottery.”64 It is generally assumed that each polis produced its own fine wares and developed an individual style, 60. Four lekanai—two from Kato Symi, one of which is published by Lebessi (1985a, p. 268, pl. 127:e) and dated erroneously to the LM IIIC or the Protogeometric period, and two unpublished specimens from Ayia Pelayia—make up the total. 61. For instance, it has often been assumed that Corinthian-style pottery found at Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily was produced at Corinth. Morgan (1999, pp. 228–231), however, questions whether much of the so-called Corinthian pottery found in the West was not in fact produced on Ithaca or Kerkyra. Other producers

may have deliberately faked Corinthian wares. Instances of scientific testing deserve mention. Attempts to distinguish between Attic and Euboian black figure have benefited from chemical and petrographic analysis, and suspected Attic imports have undergone scientific analysis at Locri and Metaponto; see Jones 1986, pp. 632– 635, 689–690. As Jones (1986, pp. 644–652) notes, scientific analysis of the pottery in the Rhenia pit, Delos, has helped differentiate Cycladic Orientalizing wares. 62. Berlin and Lynch 2002, pp. 168–171. See also Pemberton

(2003) for Atticizing production at Corinth. 63. Relatively recent surveys of Archaic Greek archaeology, such as Osborne 1996a, pp. 243–285; Morris 1998a, pp. 10–13; and Whitley 2001, pp. 231–265, emphasize local and regional diversity in all aspects of life. See also Snodgrass 1980, pp. 123–159. Jones (1986, p. 627) discusses the phenomenon from a ceramic point of view, and Morgan (1999, p. 214) surveys the literature on ceramic styles as political markers in ancient Greece. 64. Pemberton 2003, p. 177.

38

chapter 2

with the best-known examples being the distinctive shape and decorative range of Attic and Corinthian workshops. Excavated kilns at other Greek poleis suggest that local production was a general rule, although this cannot be confirmed in every case.65 In contrast, the larger political organization of mainland Greece under Macedonian rule in the Hellenistic period may have resulted in a weakening of individual identity, spurring a common stylistic idiom in pottery.66 Although the Archaic period was a time of pronounced local variation in artistic styles, regional patterns also emerged then in different parts of the Greek world. These similarities can sometimes be grouped according to known or suspected geographic, political, cultural, or ethnic boundaries. In addition to stylistic differences, the presence or absence of certain shapes in the Cretan inventories may expose regional fault lines. For example, certain idiosyncratic shapes, such as the kantharos and tulip cup, are found mainly at sites in Central Crete. Even widely disseminated shapes can reveal geographic patterns. Knossos, Gortyn, and Kommos share a common conception of the high-necked cup as a deep vessel of consistent proportions with a substantial base, either a ring foot or a pedestal support. These similarities signify a regional phenomenon, although the products of each local school can still be distinguished on technical grounds, including fabric and gloss characteristics, especially the treatment underneath the base. Another factor that seems to vary according to geographic divisions is the receptivity of local potters to foreign styles in the 5th century.67 Implicit in this view of Archaic and Classical ceramic production is a workforce of specialized craftsmen whose products conform to local traditions and can contribute to polis and regional identities. Industrial production, even if taking place in a house rather than an establishment devoted to this purpose, requires an economy beyond a subsistence level. An industrial model also has implications for the division of labor between men and women, with ethnographic evidence suggesting that men enter the labor pool as the work becomes more specialized and the opportunities for profit increase.68 Workshops can provide access to resources unavailable to households, allowing potters to experiment with designs and more efficient techniques; they may also devote their skills to particular shapes or 65. Indeed, far from it. Hasaki’s (2002, pp. 226, 230) survey of kilns in the ancient Greek world identifies only 22 Orientalizing and Archaic examples and 57 Classical kilns, half of which were found in Athens or its territory. 66. Pemberton (2003, p. 178) notes influences from many and varied sources in the Corinthian ceramic repertoire. 67. A topic addressed in Chap. 9 (pp. 228–233). 68. Arnold (1985, pp. 100–101, 106–107, 225–229, 230), Jones (1986,

pp. 873–874), Costin (1991, p. 6), and Crielaard (1999, pp. 52–58) present a hierarchy of production models attested in the ethnographic literature, from household to workshop configurations. This hierarchy builds on the work of Peacock (1982, pp. 7–9). In Arnold’s framework (1985, p. 227), societies crossed a critical threshold when the population reached 1,000 or more and the demand for pottery permitted household industry. An archaeological picture of the ceramic industries of ancient Crete, however, is beyond current evidence. At Athens,

sizable workshops existed where pupils learned the crafts of potting and vase painting from master craftsmen. Noble (1965, pp. xiii–xiv) discusses the probable organization of Athenian ceramic workshops, and Cook (1959), Johnston (1979, pp. 50–51), and Oakley (1992, pp. 199–200) estimate the scale of the industry at around 500 workers. It is doubtful that an organization of similar complexity existed at any Cretan polis, given the much smaller estimated populations (see Chap. 10, p. 248).

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

39

consignments for special occasions.69 The technical competency of the Cretan b.g. repertoires and the degree of specialization evident in the standard line of drinking cups at most sites make sense from the perspective of workshop production, but in the absence of direct evidence we cannot be certain about the organization of labor.70 Household production might be expected to create a different pattern in the archaeological record, with diverging styles both within settlements and between regions. These two modes of production—workshop and household—can exist side by side, perhaps in a scenario in which households produce their own tiles and utilitarian vessels while leaving decorated tablewares to professional potters.71 Pottery styles often spread through the exchange of finished products, but the Cretan evidence does not generally support this model of stylistic diffusion.72 In most cases, the number of imports at any given site is exceedingly small, rarely exceeding one or two possible examples from other island producers. Still, even a modest number of imports can influence the style of a neighboring center, contributing to regional similarity in ceramic design. In addition, Paul Martin and Fred Plog stress the role of individual potters as observers and learners, enabling the spread of styles in the absence of finished products.73 Stylistic uniformity between two areas might also occur through the movement of potters themselves.74 As one might suspect, the activities of 69. Kotsonas (2008b, pp. 60–65) points to decorative flaws and gross fabric impurities in the Early Iron Age repertoire of Eleutherna as signs of part-time production. For the relevance of these factors to productions modes, see Costin 1991, pp. 33–43; Costin and Hagstrum 1995, p. 624. Kotsonas (2008b, p. 61) also identifies possible cases of workshop specialization and commissions, suggesting a partial industrial base. See also Hasaki’s (2002, pp. 264–276) comments on the number of kilns per site and the size of kilns as a measure of workshop production. According to Sjögren (2003, p. 77), the kilns and architectural complex at Mandra di Gipari near the 7th-century settlement at Prinias qualify as workshops and signal intensive, full-time production of fine wares and decorated pithoi. 70. My assessment takes into consideration fabric and glazing characteristics as well as subjective estimates of labor investment and shape standardization. More sophisticated techniques of fabric analysis can reveal more about production technology and result in a stronger argument for

standardization. Quantification of fabric and shape differences in assemblages is another approach; see Costin and Hagstrum 1995, pp. 630–635. 71. Arnold (1985, p. 237) notes examples from ethnographic sources of overlapping household and workshop production. For Early Iron Age Eleu­therna, Kotsonas (2008b, pp. 61–63) concludes from the moderate labor investment and diverse shapes of storage and pouring vessels from Orthi Petra that household production satisfied these needs, with workshops specializing in other wares. The limited physical evidence of Archaic and Classical Cretan kilns, discussed elsewhere, reveals little about the organization of labor, such as whether kilns were associated with houses or stood apart in a different section of town. Some Hellenistic houses at Eleutherna were equipped with small kilns, suggesting household production in a community with an estimated population of 300; see Kalpaxis 2004, p. 108. These kilns may have supplied the households with tiles and coarse storage vessels. 72. Exchange of finished products

may come about through trade in pottery itself or through trade in wine, foodstuffs, fuel, or other materials in ceramic containers. Alternatively, people may exchange pieces of pottery as gifts or transport them as souvenirs; see Sinopoli 1991, p. 104; Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, p. 26. 73. Martin and Plog 1973, p. 259. See also Plog 1980, pp. 5–12. Archaeologists generally agree that interaction predisposes potters from different areas to produce pottery of similar style, although they reject a direct correlation between the degree of stylistic similarity and the intensity of social interaction. Rice (1987, p. 254) lists contrary examples of observed stylistic similarity between sites where different languages, religious customs, and social patterns prevailed. In addition, there are documented cases of stylistic isolation in areas with easy communication and movement across boundaries. 74. There are ethnographically attested examples of itinerant potters who make their living by traveling from place to place at different times of the year; see Arnold 1985, p. 91; Jones 1986, p. 874.

40

chapter 2

itinerant potters are difficult to identify by archaeological means. Despite this difficulty, John Papadopoulos stresses the role of itinerant potters and artisans who relocated as overlooked factors in the dissemination of pottery styles in Aegean prehistory.75 As an illustration of this point, according to K. D. Vitelli and Tracey Cullen, the production of similar wares at a number of neighboring sites in Middle Neolithic Greece may reflect the movement of potters, as daughters learned the craft from their mothers before marrying into nearby villages.76 In addition, optical emission spectrography indicates the local origins of Minoanizing pottery at Ayios Stephanos in Lakonia, suggesting that Minoan potters may have worked on mainland Greece.77 Another possible case of potters moving involves a special class of kraters found at the Fusco cemetery at Syracuse that bear Subgeometric decoration in the Argive tradition. These Fusco kraters seem to be local products and can be explained by the migration of Argive potters to Syracuse in the first half of the 7th century.78 In the Archaic and Classical periods, the movement of potters is well attested, the best-known example being the emigration of potters from Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War.79 Possible examples from Crete deserve mention. The occasional appearance at Knossos of a variant cup base, grooved and glazed underneath, a type characteristic of Aphrati, raises the possibility of resident potters from Aphrati at Knossos, since the fabric is Knossian.80 The alternative explanation that a Knossian potter copied the style of this nearby production center seems unlikely, as pottery from Aphrati is not known to have circulated at Knossos.81 Thus, a temporary or permanent relocation of potters may have contributed to regional uniformity in ceramic design. The widespread distribution of cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot at Eleutherna, Knossos, Gortyn, Aphrati, and Praisos raises an issue regarding chronology and the spread of styles. Evidence from Knossos dates the advent of this type of base to the final quarter of the 6th century.82 Did Knossos (or some other site) establish a trend subsequently followed by the rest of the island or did the various Cretan poleis advance the new style simultaneously? Unfortunately, the process by which innovations disseminated from conjectured production centers to the rest of the island remains obscure. Although evidence from Eleutherna points to the introduction of a similar base (164, Fig. 3.24) in the local repertoire at roughly the same time as at Knossos, this observation is compatible with either an independent development of the base or the swift dissemination of styles from a single center, whether the innovation spread from Knossos or Eleutherna. Elsewhere, stylistic parallels must often serve as the basis for dating, on the assumption that Crete possessed the means of communication necessary to ensure the swift and steady promulgation of new styles, at least among major production centers. Not all parts of the island responded to stylistic developments with equal enthusiasm. Distance and geography presumably impeded the diffusion of new ceramic styles into remote areas; in extreme cases developments may have completely bypassed conservative communities. Moreover, good communications do not ensure that a community is receptive to the stylistic innovations of its neighbors. Eleutherna provides an excellent

75. Papadopoulos 1997, p. 450. 76. Vitelli 1977; Cullen 1985, pp. 349–351. 77. Jones and Rutter 1977. 78. Coldstream 1968, p. 147; Foley 1988, pp. 49–50, 70. 79. MacDonald 1981; Papadopoulos 1997, p. 454. Another example identified by clay analysis is that of Attic painters trained in the blackfigure technique who worked in Boiotia; see Jones 1986, p. 641. 80. Chap. 4, p. 141. 81. This is in contrast with Eleutherna, where copies of Gortynian products appear side by side with actual Gortynian imports, signaling the movement of finished goods as the most likely explanation for stylistic uniformity; see Chap. 3, pp. 80–86. 82. Chap. 4, pp. 128–132.

m e t h o d s o f c e r a m i c a n a ly s i s

41

example of deliberate Cretan conservatism. It maintained extensive intraisland and overseas contacts throughout the 6th and 5th centuries, but its conservative local style displays little in the way of influence from these quarters.83 Eleuthernian fine wares develop along purely local lines. J. N. Hill stresses the role of individual potters and differences in motor coordination as a primary source of variation for attributes susceptible to individual touch, such as the angle at which painted designs intersect, the relative height or length of design elements, and the width and distances between lines.84 These differing attributes can be used to isolate the products of individual craftsmen on Crete, although this procedure is less useful for undecorated wares. Even so, the close correspondence in style between several Cretan cup bases from a survey site in the territory of Praisos suggests individual traits as an explanation for the recurring manufacturing detail of a central medallion of uniform size (±1 mm) underneath the base.85 Likewise, a groove of uniform diameter underneath the bases of contemporary cups from Aphrati and Kato Symi raises the possibility that the same workshop, and perhaps even the same potter, produced both groups.86

CRE TAN C ERAMI C S E Q U EN C ES 83. The best example of Eleuthernian conservatism is the Classical and Hellenistic high-necked cup; see Chap. 3, pp. 96–103. 84. Hill 1977, p. 100, discussed by Plog (1980, p. 117) and Rice (1987, p. 183). See also Zeimbeki’s (2004, p. 354) attempt to distinguish workshop groups among the figurines from Cretan peak sanctuaries based on differences in motor coordination. 85. Chap. 8, p. 204. 86. Erickson 2002, p. 59. 87. We do not know the number of Cretan production centers during the periods under consideration. If each city had its own fine-ware tradition, the estimated number Cretan poleis in the Classical period would suggest between 40 and 60 producers. The actual number of producers may have been smaller than the number of attested poleis. It is also possible that smaller-order sites, such as villages and rural sanctuaries, produced their own pottery, adding to the total number of workshops. 88. This table incorporates the results of a prior study of Archaic and Classical pottery from Aphrati and Kato Symi, for which a production center at Aphrati has been suggested; see Erickson 2002. The present volume does not recapitulate this evidence.

The macroscopic techniques described earlier permit the identification and sequencing of 10 local styles of b.g. pottery manufacture.87 Possible production centers treated in this work include Kydonia, Eleutherna, Gortyn, Knossos, Aphrati, Lyktos, Praisos, the Vrokastro region, and Itanos. Wellinvestigated sites generally provide a richer body of evidence on which to base conclusions. Knossos is the principal exception, at least for the period ca. 590–525. Although it is the most thoroughly investigated post-Minoan site, Knossos has produced nothing datable to this part of the 6th century. No Cretan site provides evidence from all three major spheres of activity (domestic, religious, and funerary); this deficit presents a serious obstacle, for the various contexts express a different functional and decorative range for pottery. As the material from Eleutherna derives exclusively from tombs, it may not be directly comparable to other sites. Eleutherna aside, the rarity of tombs is notable in the Cretan archaeological record. Table 2.4 summarizes the results for most sites included in this study.88 Compared with the 6th century, the 5th century presents on the whole fewer problems of ceramic identification and chronology. Lyktos stands apart on this list as the only site without significant representation in the 5th century. Since Lyktian production is inferred almost entirely from the city’s exports elsewhere, the extensive lacuna in the local ceramic sequence is not surprising in view of the thin evidence. Praisos offers a more complete sequence, although remaining difficulties of identification hamper efforts to document continuity of settlement throughout the 5th century. Still, the fact that gaps in the sequence at Praisos and its territory are confined to quarter-century increments suggests that the patchwork pattern is a function of limited evidence rather than a manifestation of alternate

42

chapter 2

TABLE 2.4. Sites and periods attested in fine-ware pottery sequences Date

Eleutherna

Knossos

600–575

x

–

575–550

x

–

550–525

x

–

525–500

x

500–475

x

475–450

Gortyn

Aphrati

Lyktos

Vrokastro

?

?

–

–

?

–

x

–

–

x

?

?

–

–

x

x

x

x

–

x

x

x

x

x

–

x

?

x

x

x

x

–

x

x

450–425

x

x

x

x

x

x

?

425–400

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

periods of production and remission. For the 6th century, Eleutherna, Aphrati, and Praisos provide complete or nearly complete local sequences. Surface survey provides our chief evidence for Praisos, making it all the more remarkable that a relatively rich record exists, whereas the Vrokastro region exhibits a consistent absence of 6th-century ceramics. The following chapters address the various local ceramic traditions, beginning at Eleutherna, a West Cretan polis. The discovery of an Early Iron Age cemetery there provides crucial new evidence for island ceramic development, and a sequence of local shapes can be plotted across much of the 6th and 5th centuries, establishing Eleutherna as a provisional type site for West Crete.

Praisos

c hap ter 3

El e u t h e r na

Eleutherna ranks among the foremost city-states of Archaic and Classical Crete.1 The ruins of the ancient city lie inland at the northwest base of Mt. Ida, where the jagged foothills of the mountain intersect the broad coastal plain of Rethymnon (Fig. 1.1). The site became a favorite stopping point for early travelers to Crete, who came to see an intact Hellenistic bridge and a pair of monumental underground cisterns.2 Humphrey Payne began modern exploration of the site in the 1920s with two campaigns of excavation.3 Following Payne’s pioneering work, Eleutherna was almost neglected for more than a half century, until Greek archaeologists who returned to the site in the 1980s discovered an ancient cemetery (Fig. 3.1) and portions of the Hellenistic domestic quarters.4

ARC H AE OLO G ICAL CON TEXT The ruins extend across two parallel ridges that form the twin acropoleis of the community, in a common Cretan configuration repeated at Axos, Dreros, Lato, Azoria, and Itanos.5 This layout may reflect the coalescence of different villages to form the early urban centers.6 Of the two ridges at Eleutherna, the eastern one, known as Pyrgi, probably marks the site of 1. For the epigraphic and literary evidence, see Guarducci 1939, pp. 141– 146. Le Rider (1966, p. 197) describes the coins of Eleutherna. 2. Spratt (1865, vol. 1, p. 94) argues convincingly that Pashley (1837, vol. 1, pp. 145–146), who mentions the modern village of Eleutherna, did not actually visit the ancient site. Nakassis’s (2000, pp. 360–363) study of the ancient bridges at Eleutherna presents an overview of travelers’ descriptions and early excavations at the site. See also Kotsonas 2008a. 3. Payne 1928–1929, pp. 267–268. 4. Themelis (1992) and Perlman

(2004a, pp. 1158–1160) present brief overviews of archaeological discoveries at Eleutherna. For a geographical, archaeological, and historical survey, see Stampolidis 1993, pp. 21–52; 1994, pp. 142–155, and pp. 25–32 for the necropolis. 5. Van Effenterre et al. (1991, pp. 11–15); Stampolidis (1993, pp. 21– 31; 1996, pp. 19–34); and Kalpaxis, Furtwängler, and Schnapp (1994, pp. 17–27) provide topographical descriptions. 6. As Stampolidis (2004c, pp. 116– 117) observes, the location of the Archaic cemetery at Orthi Petra in the

valley between the two ridges suggests separate settlements on each hill, with this cemetery serving the community on the eastern ridge. Themelis (2004, p. 49) and Kalpaxis (2004, pp. 109–110) advocate an Aristotelian model of political development for Eleutherna, with a shift from dispersed villages (kata komas) to urban nucleation in the Archaic or Classical period. Stampolidis (2004d, p. 85) further speculates that each kome had its own burial ground. Perhaps Early Iron Age burials associated with the settlement on the western ridge, Nisi, will be found on the slopes of the valley opposite Orthi Petra.

44

chapter 3

the earliest settlement. A Hellenistic fortification wall surrounds this ridge, encompassing the grounds of two probable sanctuaries and a Hellenistic settlement on the northern tip. A prominent landmark on the southern part of the ridge, a crumbling Frankish tower, reminded the early travelers of a famous episode in Eleuthernian history, the successful siege of the city by the Roman conqueror Metellus Creticus in 68 b.c. and his use of a vinegar solution to undermine a brick tower in the defensive circuit.7 On the opposite western ridge the second acropolis, known as Nisi, housed another major Hellenistic domestic quarter and a third sanctuary enclosed by a monumental temenos wall. The earliest handmade figurines from this sanctuary date to the Geometric period.8 7. Cassius Dio 36.18.2, a passage discussed by Guarducci (1939, p. 145). 8. The finds from this sanctuary remain unpublished, but to my knowl-

edge there is no 6th- or 5th-century pottery from the sanctuary or its environs. Architectural elements of a substantial Doric building belong to a

Figure 3.1. Plan of the Early Iron Age cemetery at Orthi Petra, Eleutherna. After Stampolidis 2004b,

p. 119, fig. 3. Courtesy N. C. Stampolidis

later phase, dated by Kalpaxis (2004, p. 109) to ca. 400. See also Sporn 2002, pp. 241–242.

eleutherna

45

More informative from the standpoint of the early history of the city is the discovery of a rich Geometric and Orientalizing cemetery in a saddle of land between the two acropolis ridges on the lower western slopes of Pyrgi hill at a place known as Orthi Petra.9 Elaborate multiplecremation burials made at this site required the cost of the timber used to fuel the pyres as well as stone for the rectangular enclosures housing the ashes, ivory and stone sculpture, hundreds of pots (many of them mainland Greek and Eastern Aegean imports), and embossed bronze cauldrons. There are various types of grave markers, including stone pillars, a 7thcentury figural relief similar to examples from Prinias, and a Daedalic freestanding female figure.10 A possible instance of ritual vengeance points to a sinister side of this magnificent funerary display, the evidence for which consists of a headless corpse placed in another man’s tomb, apparently with the intention of keeping him company in the underworld.11 Eleutherna has featured prominently in recent discussions of the apparent 6th-century Cretan recession. Based on preliminary reports, the cemetery seems to have gone into decline after ca. 575.12 These results are in accord with other sites on Crete (Knossos, Aphrati, and Prinias), where Orientalizing cemeteries pass out of use at roughly the same time. In the case of Eleutherna, however, subsequent study of finds from Nikolaos Stampolidis’s excavations at Orthi Petra reveals a substantial amount of Archaic and Classical pottery, enabling a sequence of shapes to be plotted across much of the period ca. 600–400. Most of the pottery under consideration here derives from clusters in the upper levels of the cemetery that may mark the positions of disturbed tombs.13 At least this is one explanation for the pottery scatters.14 Kotsonas has attributed these clusters to funerary banquets, whether as part of the funerary ritual or the ancestor cult long after burial.15 His objections must be taken seriously. If banquets took place at the time of the funeral near the tomb, the connection I posit between pottery clusters, tomb locations, and dates could be maintained. What would sever these links is if the pottery scatters were generated by people venerating ancestors for a hundred years or more after the last burials (ca. 575), leaving a lacuna in the Archaic funerary record. Against this interpretation, no case of ancestor worship is known at Orthi Petra. Although some of the Geometric and Orientalizing tombs received burials over many generations, such reuse is not comparable to ancestor worship. Nor has any example of this practice come to light at another Archaic and Hellenistic Cretan cemetery.16 Moreover, the coarse pithoi associated with the fine-ware clusters at Eleutherna 9. Stampolidis (1990; 1993, pp. 36– 52; 1994, pp. 25–32; 1996, pp. 24–43; 1998; 2004c, pp. 117–138) has published frequent updates of his ongoing excavations at Orthi Petra. 10. Stampolidis 1990, pp. 395–403; 1993, pp. 73–77; 1994, p. 65, pl. 1. 11. Stampolidis 1996, pp. 134–148. The victim’s fate was perhaps sealed by the desire to exact retribution from an enemy. 12. In the initial report of his excavations at Orthi Petra, Stampolidis (1990,

p. 375) points to continuous use of the cemetery from the 9th to the 6th century. Among the latest evidence to which he refers is a limestone kouros provisionally dated to the first quarter of the 6th century (p. 399) and finds of Early Corinthian pottery. 13. For example, a small group of globular aryballoi form a definite cluster around the position of a destroyed 6th-century tomb in cluster A. 14. As I have proposed elsewhere (Erickson 2004, pp. 200–201).

15. Kotsonas’s (2002, pp. 42–43, n. 71; 2005, pp. 31–32, 301–303) review of the evidence from Orthi Petra raises another objection to my tomb hypothesis that this material may be residue from the Pyrgi settlement. Against this interpretation, settlement debris would probably not appear in such regular clusters with such a high percentage of cups and kraters. 16. As Sjögren (2008, pp. 165, 186–188) observes, examples of ancestor worship or tomb cult are also rare on Crete in the 8th and 7th centuries.

46

chapter 3

make no sense except as burial containers or tomb markers. Although they did not contain human bones as one would expect with containers, it seems unlikely that these pithoi served as tomb markers, for the use of any pot as a marker has no parallel at the cemetery. Funerary banquets, however, cannot be excluded as a source of the fine wares.17 Unfortunately, since nothing was preserved in situ, it is impossible to distinguish by context between tomb offerings and funerary meals. Although largely supposition, the identification of these clusters as disturbed tombs makes sense from the standpoint of their contents, as pottery from them resembles the funerary equipment of earlier times; kraters and cups mark a continuation of the earlier custom of equipping the dead of Eleutherna with the accoutrements of the symposium. Moreover, Corinthian aryballoi and alabastra in these collections recall the Cypriot lekythoi and Protocorinthian aryballoi in the graves of Geometric and Orientalizing ancestors.18 Most of these oil containers date to ca. 600–575, a period with the strongest links to earlier funerary practices. Later unguent shapes such as the almost intact Corinthian exaleiptron (17) would be hard to interpret as anything but tomb offerings. Not every Geometric and Orientalizing shape corresponds to an Archaic example, and some shapes become more popular at the expense of others. For example, kraters are so rare that only seven appear in Kotsonas’s catalogue of the Early Iron Age pottery from the cemetery, although other grave goods of this period, including amphoras and hydriai, suggest wine consumption in a manner similar to the Archaic and Classical symposium (Table 3.1).19 The disappearance of fine pithoi and amphoras can be explained in part by changing attitudes toward the disposal of the dead, as ash urns gave way to simple cist graves and pithos containers. Kraters became more popular in the 6th century, and not just after ca. 575, as attested by a series of Corinthian, Lakonian, and Attic examples. We are assured of a funerary role for kraters at another Cretan burial ground, Kastello Varypetrou, where mourners placed kraters in Late Archaic tombs.20 Table 3.2 excludes Corinthian imports to reveal consumption patterns during the period ca. 575–400, although the inclusion of local 17. As Sjögren (2003, pp. 73–74) observes, Eleutherna is one of the few Early Iron sites on Age Crete with evidence for dining at the grave. It would not be surprising if funerary feasts continued into the 6th century. 18. Stampolidis (1996, pp. 47–51, nos. 9–17, pp. 65–69, nos. 47–56) illustrates a selection of lekythoi from 8th- and 7th-century tombs. 19. Kotsonas’s (2005, pp. 82–688) catalogue of local pottery at Orthi Petra forms the basis of Table 3.1. As he (pp. 270–271) observes, the context of the kraters raises questions about their role in drinking ceremonies. They were not found in association with drinking cups, and one was used as a cover of a

pithos burial. At Aphrati, kraters and dinoi also served as urns or lids of cremation burials. Was the krater a centerpiece of drinking sets? It is problematic drawing a line between functional and symbolic meanings of grave goods. A vessel can serve as a lid and symbolize a social role. Others have been more willing to accept drinking sets on Early Iron Age Crete. For example, Morgan (1999, p. 236) refers to symposium sets at Geometric Knossos without clarifying the role of kraters. For Coldstream (2001, pp. 21, 46–47, 51), the occasional appearance of kraters and cups in Knossian tombs symbolizes funerary meals, with the crockery acquiring a secondary

meaning as grave goods. Kraters were much more common in settlement contexts. The trays found in Knossian tombs may provide an analogy to the kraters. Coldstream (2001, p. 59) suggests that trays were used at funerary feasts in sets and left as grave goods as symbols of the event. 20. See Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1. To judge from Stibbe’s (1989, pp. 91– 127) catalogue, most Lakonian kraters from funerary contexts were placed inside tombs. Kraters occasionally served as tomb markers. For example, at Halieis a krater with a perforated bottom stood above a 6th-century tomb and probably played a role in libation ceremonies; see Rafn 1991, p. 67.

TABLE 3.1. OCCURRENCE OF FINE-WARE SHAP ES IN THE EARLY IRON AGE CEMETERY AT ORTH I PETRA Pithos

Amphora

Hydria

Krater

Bowl

Tray

Jug

Oil Jug

Cup

Pyxis

Other

Total

140 (19%)

28 (4%)

22 (3%)

7 (1%)

69 (10%)

9 (1%)

55 (8%)

88 (12%)

56 skyphoi (8%) 1 kotyle (1%) 180 standard (25%) 22 tall-rim (3%)

25 (3%)

14 (2%)

716 (100%)

TABLE 3.2. OCCURRENCE OF FINE-WARE SHAP ES IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL TOMB CLUSTERS AT ORTH I P ETRA, EXCLUDING CORINTH IAN IMPORTS Krater 29 (13%)

Bowl

Tray

Jug

Oil Jug

Cup

Lamp

Total

10 (4%)

6 (3%)

1 (1%)

2 (1%)

15 skyphoi (7%) 11 standard (5%) 100 high-necked (46%) (6%) 13 low-necked 2 mugs (1%) 1 small hemispherical (1%)

26 (12%)

216 (100%)

48

chapter 3

TA BLE 3.3. POT TERY FROM ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL TOM B CLUSTERS AT ORTH I P E TRA Cluster

Field Notation

Imported Pottery

Local Pottery

Date

Intrusions

A

1986.AA.3501–3511, 1986.AA–BB.3501

Corinthian aryballoi (3, 4, 12, 14, 1 uncatalogued), Corinthian black figure (16), Corinthian exaleiptron (17), Attic cup (52), Attic lekythos (57)

high-necked cups (135, 136, 138, 149, 152, 160, 3 uncatalogued), low-necked cup (215), bowl (236)

ca. 575–500

B

1987.4K.4102, 1988.4K.4102

Attic lekanis (48)

bowl (231), lamp (396)

ca. 575–500

C

1986.LL.3701

high-necked cups (151, 1 uncatalogued), tray (230), lamps (389, 1 uncatalogued)

ca. 575–500

D

1990.A1

Corinthian aryballos (13), Lakonian kraters (24, 26, 27, 39, 42)

low-necked cup (214), lamp (391)

ca. 575–550

high-necked cup (205)

E

1991.3M.4232, 1992.3M.4231

Corinthian kotylai (20, 21), high-necked cup (173) Lakonian krater (28), Attic cup (53), Attic skyphos (75)

ca. 575–500

Attic skyphos (78)

F

1987.3K.3801–3802

Attic lekanis (48), Attic cup (49), Gortynian cup (uncatalogued)

high-necked cups (141, 164), ca. 575–500 tray (uncatalogued), “skyphos” (238), lamp (386)

G

1989.MM.3701–3708

Lakonian kraters (29, 38, 40, 44), Attic krater (56), Attic lekythos (58), Attic black figure (61), Attic mugs (66, 70)

high-necked cups (144, 146, 154, 155, 162, 174, 182, 184, 2 uncatalogued), lamps (378, 380, 400, 402)

ca. 525–480

Attic red figure (92), Attic krater (101), lamp (401)

H

1988.LL.3801–3802, 1989.LL.3801–3802

Lakonian krater (35), Attic cup (50) Attic black figure (60), Attic dish (63), Kydonian(?) cup (111), lamp (385)

Attic-type skyphos (uncatalogued), highnecked cup (166), krater (224), tray (226), lamps (390, 399)

ca. 525–480

Attic skyphos (uncatalogued)

I

1986.BB.3401–3405, 1987.BB.3407

Lakonian kraters (30, 31, 36), Attic dishes (64, 65), Attic skyphos (uncatalogued), Gortynian cups (114, 115, 1 uncatalogued)

Lakonian-type skyphos (45), high-necked cups (153, 169, 177, 180), low-necked cups (211, 212), krater (225), bowl (237), lamp (388)

ca. 525–480

Gortynian cup (121)

J

1986.K.3101–3110

Corinthian aryballoi (7, 8, 2 uncatalogued)

Argive(?)-type skyphos (47), high-necked cups (142, 143, 159, 1 uncatalogued), low-necked cups (206– 210, 216, 1 uncatalogued)

6th century

Attic red figure (93)

K

1990.5G.4401

Lakonian krater (37), Attic cup (68), Attic krater (81), Knossian cup (107), Kydonian(?) cup (110), Gortynian cup (113)

high-necked cups (150, 167, 183), lamp (395)

ca. 500–450

Attic red figure (96), high-necked cup uncatalogued)

high-necked cup (172), lamp (403)

eleutherna

49

TA B LE 3.3—Continued Cluster

Field Notation

Imported Pottery

Local Pottery

Date

L

1986.KK.3601

Attic skyphos (77)

M

1992.3X.1102

Corinthian kotyle (19), Lakonian krater (41), Attic skyphos (uncatalogued), Knossian cup (108), Kydonian(?) cup (109)

N

1989.NN.3601

Lakonian krater (25), Attic skyphos (85)

Gortynian-type cup (130), lamps (379, 382)

ca. 400–375

O

1992.3N.4331–4332

Attic skyphoi (72, 86), Gortynian cups (116, 117, 120)

high-necked cups (139, 140, 145, 147, 193, 200, 2 uncatalogued), lownecked cup (uncatalogued), deep cups (219, 220), small hemispherical cup (221), krater (uncatalogued)

ca. 575–500, ca. 400–350

P

1988.4B.4202, 1989.4B–5B.4202

Lakonian krater (32), Attic skyphos (84), Knossian cup (uncatalogued), Gortynian cup (119)

Attic-type skyphos (79), Gortynian-type cup (126), tray (227), bowl (232)

ca. 525–480, ca. 400–375

Intrusions

5th century

high-necked cups (157, 171)

ca. 425–400

pots from ca. 600–575 may be giving a false impression of continuity. Trays, bowls, and lekythoi no longer appear with the same frequency as before, but their presence provides a link to Early Iron Age tomb groups. Lamps appear only after ca. 600, as is to be expected with a recently invented shape.21 They make appropriate tomb offerings, at least at mainland Greek cemeteries, although not usually until the Classical period.22 Nothing prepares us, however, for the popularity of the high-necked cup, which constitutes 46% of catalogued Archaic and Classical fine wares. A list of the datable contents from these putative tomb clusters appears in Table 3.3. Hellenistic and later disturbances swept away much of the material in these superficial layers, but isolated pockets of homogeneous 6th-century material occasionally survive. In cases of greater damage, there is a mixture of 6th-century pottery and Hellenistic material. Intrusions from above may have crushed the ceramic tomb containers, spreading their contents in a thin scatter around the original location of the burial. These 21. Although lamp making began on the mainland by the early 7th century (see Agora IV, p. 7), lamps did not appear in the Cretan repertoires until the Archaic period; see Chap. 5. 22. At Corinth, for example, mourners began placing lamps in tombs in the second half of the 5th century.

Kurtz and Boardman (1971, p. 211) speculate on the role of lamps in funerary ritual. They may have been included in tombs as symbolic lighting for the dead to find their way over the river Styx. Or they may have functioned as lighting for the funeral, in which case their inclusion in tombs may

reflect the needs of funerary participants. As Carter (1998b, pp. 229–230) emphasizes for Greek colonies in southern Italy, the popularity of lamps as grave goods varies from place to place and even from one cemetery to the next.

50

chapter 3

scatters may also have incorporated the debris from funerary meals. Perhaps the disproportionately slight survival of 6th-century burials can be attributed to a discrepancy between the architecturally elaborate funerary monuments of the Geometric and Orientalizing periods and the flimsy tomb construction of their descendants. If so, the three intact 6th-century tombs recovered by excavation may represent only a small fraction of the actual total.23 Of particular importance are a number of 6th-century clusters (A–J) without an additional Classical or Hellenistic component. Homogeneous deposits of this date are a rarity on the island, where the 6th century remains a poorly attested part of the ceramic tradition and, indeed, Cretan history as a whole. In these collections, local pots appear in association with datable imports, providing chronological reference points for the local sequence. Still, this material has definite limitations as a source for dating. First, the structural integrity of these deposits is questionable in the absence of tomb structures or other clear divisions in the stratigraphic record.24 Second, although the imports allow us to distinguish broadly among the Orientalizing, Archaic, and Early Classical periods, it is often difficult to draw finer distinctions within the 6th and 5th centuries. For these reasons, the dates offered for these contexts are expressed in broad increments, with half-century or even wider chronological brackets. Finally, the contents of each cluster are meager, with at most only five local pots per group. The local ceramic sequences proposed later in this chapter must be viewed with these limitations in mind. The field notations refer to the year of excavation, the nearest Geometric and Orientalizing tomb structures (e.g., AA, 4K) as illustrated in Fig. 3.1, and the zembil numbers. Despite their limitations, these putative tomb clusters provide tentative clues to the dating of the local sequence. In contrast, the pottery from all later deposits at Orthi Petra can be dated only on stylistic grounds. Although such material has been included in this study in cases of suspected survivors from earlier periods, any attempt to date these Late Classical and Hellenistic layers will require separate consideration of the later ceramic tradition of Eleutherna. Even the nature of these later contexts has puzzled excavators, and it will take years of study to determine whether they signify burials, settlement debris, or later building activities.25 Until then, we can only speculate about the use of the area in the Late Classical, Hellenistic, and later periods. By the second half of the 5th 23. The recent discovery of a cluster of cist tombs without grave goods may signal a later burial plot on the western perimeter of the cemetery. Stampolidis (2004c, p. 132) suspects that at least one of these tombs was considerably later than its Geometric and Orientalizing neighbors. 24. The fact that at least one intrusive pot (identified by its date, substantially later than that of the rest

of the group) appears in each of eight clusters is a troubling sign of the disturbed stratigraphy in the upper levels of the cemetery. 25. Excavations in the summer of 2000 brought to light a large rubbish deposit of early Hellenistic date above the Orientalizing cemetery, suggesting that the area no longer served as a burial ground after ca. 325–300. The cemetery may have gone out of use

much earlier. According to Stampolidis (2004c, p. 142), Orthi Petra seems to have dwindled in importance as a burial ground in the Late Classical period. Perhaps as the city grew, a new cemetery was established in a location far removed from habitation. If so, Orthi Petra may have been preserved as an open space within the later city.

eleutherna

51

century, we may see a change in the composition of the material from Orthi Petra. Not only is the pottery of this period less plentiful than that in the Archaic tomb clusters, the functional categories do not form coherent sets. Among the last recognizable assemblages, clusters L–N contain cups and nothing more, the only exception being Lakonian krater fragments in the latter two groups (almost certainly survivors). In the absence of pithoi and other signs of burial, such fragmentary and worn Classical cups may have reached the cemetery by erosion from the settlement or through earth-moving operations. Perhaps the early-4th-century pots in clusters O and P have nothing to do with burial either. By this reasoning, cluster K (ca. 500–450) is the last distinct tomb cluster, suggesting abandonment of the cemetery as a place of burial in the second half of the 5th century.

IM PORTED P OT TERY

26. Stampolidis (1996, p. 49, nos. 13, 14) presents several 7thcentury Corinthian examples, and Kotsonas (2008b, pp. 262–263) compares the Late Orientalizing and Archaic repertoire of Corinthian pottery at Eleutherna to other Cretan sites, including Knossos and Aphrati. Unguent containers are popular elsewhere, as are kotylai and pouring vessels (olpai). Corinthian aryballoi at Kato Symi also point to a sanctuary role; see Erickson 2002, p. 74, nos. 107, 108, fig. 27. 27. Stampolidis 1996, p. 45, no. 4. This alabastron was found with other pots near a row of stones in an area of cist graves. The absolute chronology of Corinthian pottery is discussed by Amyx (1988, vol. 2, pp. 397–433). 28. Payne 1931, p. 291, no. 638. In addition to the catalogued aryballoi, there are four other rims (from cluster A, cluster J [two], and 1987.BB.3518) from Corinthian aryballoi, although not necessarily of the “football” type.

Eleutherna possesses the richest and most varied import record known from any Cretan polis that can be dated to the 6th century. Corinthian, Lakonian, and Attic pottery arrived at the cemetery in three successive waves (Corinthian, ca. 600–575; Lakonian, ca. 575–525; Attic, ca. 500– 480), with minimal overlap between these crests. Apart from a brief period in the second half of the 5th century when imports of every kind apparently stopped, imported pottery documents overseas contacts throughout the Archaic and Classical periods—an interval of time of approximately 300 years (ca. 600–300).

Cor i n th i an Corinthian pottery is the most abundant category of import at Orthi Petra in the early 6th century (Figs. 3.2, 3.3), marking a continuation of a flourishing trade in Corinthian products at the end of the Orientalizing period.26 Among the latest pots from the cemetery illustrated in earlier publications is an Early Corinthian alabastron with a black-figure depiction of a rooster. According to the commonly accepted chronology of Early Corinthian pottery, a range in date for this jar of ca. 620–590 brings us to the upper chronological limits of this study.27 A restricted range of special funerary shapes appears in the early 6th century, as in the 7th (Table 3.4). The repertoire of Corinthian imports includes cups, a krater, and various containers for perfumed oil, among them globular aryballoi and alabastra. Most globular aryballoi follow a common decorative scheme composed of a series of vertical incised lines on a glazed rim and body, Payne’s category of “football” aryballos, which he dated in the Early Corinthian period, at the turn of the 7th and 6th centuries (3, 4).28 The preserved fragments permit a reconstruction of approximately six vases, and they appear to come from a single disturbed tomb. A dozen or so fragmentary Early and Middle Corinthian pots occur sporadically in later deposits of uncertain date and use context. A few of

52

chapter 3 TA B LE 3.4. O CC URRENCE OF CORINTH IAN SHAP ES IN ARCHAIC TOMB CLU STERS AT ORTH I P E TRA Krater 1 (4.5%)

Alabastron

Aryballos

Exaleiptron

Kotyle

Total

1 (4.5%)

15 (68%)

2 (9%)

3 (14%)

22 (100%)

TA B LE 3.5. O CC URRENCE OF AT T IC SHAP ES IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL TOMB CLU STERS AT ORTH I P E TRA Krater

Bowl

Tray

Jug

Oil Jug

Cup

Lamp

Total

2 (6%)

4 (12%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (6%)

12 skyphoi (34%) 8 Class of Athens 1104 (24%) 3 type C (9%) 3 one-handler (9%)

0 (0%)

34 (100%)

these fragmentary vessels, which consist mainly of aryballoi, alabastra, and kotylai, bear representations of animals in a black-figure style, but the majority are simply glazed black (2, 14–16). One of the aryballoi deserves special mention. It is a well-preserved Middle Corinthian globular aryballos distinguished from earlier varieties by the addition of a raised foot (5). This vessel and the exaleiptron discussed below are among the few Corinthian imports at Eleutherna of definite 6th-century date. After a modest showing at the end of the 7th and first quarter of the 6th century, the quantity of Corinthian imports dwindles substantially after ca. 575. With this decline in Corinthian imports comes a rise in the number of Lakonian and Attic products at Eleutherna. These Lakonian and Attic imports herald a new focus on open kraters and cups in place of small closed shapes such as oil containers (Table 3.5). A change in commercial relations or an evolution of local taste may have precipitated this shift in focus of ca. 575. Or, if the material from Orthi Petra after ca. 575 came from funerary banquets rather than tombs, we might expect differences in composition. But, regarding the trade in Corinthian pottery, Eleutherna conforms to a wider pattern in the Greek world, where the reasons for the decline of Corinthian exports involve questions of Corinthian craft production and overseas commerce that do not directly concern us here.29 Late Corinthian pottery, however, is not entirely absent at Eleutherna. In fact, the best-preserved example from the site is an intact exaleiptron, presumably from a destroyed tomb, whose system of decoration in the “White Style” consists of a band of double dots flanked by lines around the rim, which dates the pot to the middle or second half of the 6th century (17).30 Because it is one of the few representatives of Late Corinthian contact, the exaleiptron carries limited weight as a barometer of historical trends. But this evidence cannot be entirely dismissed, for in addition to the imported pot there appears a copy of the same shape in the local fabric (18). Another Corinthian exaleiptron from Payne’s excavations at Eleutherna and a second example in Kotsonas’s

29. According to Salmon (1984, pp. 109–111), Corinthian exports went into decline as a result of the growing popularity of Attic figural style. Arafat and Morgan (1989) and Shanks (1999, p. 46) question the assumption of market forces and craft specialization implicit in such theories. See also Benson 1985. Aside from these problematic assumptions, not all mainland Greek sites saw such a reduction in Corinthian imports. For example, Corinthian imports appear in large numbers in Archaic and Classical burials at Halieis, and even in the 5th century they do not succumb to competing Athenian shapes; see Rafn 1991, p. 64. 30. For parallels, see Boardman and Hayes 1966, pp. 24, 34, nos. 249–263. Similar examples have been found in the Archaic and Classical Macedonian cemetery at Sindos; see Vokotopoulou et al. 1985, p. 135, no. 216, pp. 252– 254, no. 412. From Ayia Pelayia comes an exaleiptron similar to the example at Eleutherna; see Alexiou 1972, pp. 236– 237, pl. 8. Adding to the number are two examples from a domestic context at Knossos; see Chap. 4, p. 122. In East Crete, exaleiptra have been found in tombs at Praisos; see Chap. 8, p. 200. In addition, Greco et al. (1999, p. 526) refer to exaleiptra from recent excavations at Itanos.

eleutherna

53

catalogue of Early Iron Age pottery should be added to this list.31 It seems that the Eleuthernians maintained more than a passing interest in later Corinthian shapes.32 These vessels also suggest a funerary context for the pottery scatters after ca. 575. 1  Corinthian krater, body fragment

Fig. 3.3

1985.B.3202 Max. p.dim. 3.8 cm. 6th century. Context Hellenistic mixed with 6th-century component. 2  Corinthian alabastron, body fragment

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

1987.B1.3251 Max. p.dim. 5.7 cm. Black figure. Transitional style. Ca. 640–625 3  Corinthian aryballos, almost intact (neck and rim missing)

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

Cluster A Diam. 7.9 cm. Brown gloss. “Football” type. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 4  Corinthian aryballos, almost intact (neck, rim, and handle missing)

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

Cluster A Diam. 7.2 cm. Brown gloss. “Football” type. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 5  Corinthian aryballos, base and body

Fig. 3.2

1987.B1.3251 Diam. 8.0 cm, of base 4.8 cm. Brown gloss. Middle Corinthian. Ca. 600–575 6  Corinthian aryballos, rim

31. The examples mentioned by Hartley (1930–1931, p. 111) and Kotsonas (2008b, pp. 263) bring the total to three Corinthian exaleiptra and one local copy. 32. Cretan copies of 6th-century Corinthian shapes are otherwise limited to a handful of unpublished globular aryballoi from West Cretan tombs at Kydonia and Phalasarna, housed in the Chania Archaeological Museum. The raised base of one of these aryballoi shows the influence of a Middle Corinthian prototype; see Chap. 9, p. 229, Fig. 9.4.

Fig. 3.2, 3.3

1992.37.4433A Diam. of rim 4.2 cm. Brown gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575. Context ca. 600. 7  Corinthian aryballos, rim

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

Cluster J Diam. of rim 4.2 cm. Brown gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 8  Corinthian aryballos, rim Cluster J Diam. of rim 4.4 cm. Black gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

54

chapter 3

2

3

17

4

7 6

8

5

18

19

9

10

9  Corinthian aryballos, rim

21

20 Figs. 3.2, 3.3

1987.B1.3254 Diam. of rim 4.3 cm. Brown gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 10  Corinthian aryballos, rim

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

1987.K1. 3151 Diam. of rim 4.7 cm. Black gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 11  Corinthian aryballos, rim

Fig. 3.3

1992.A1 Diam. of rim 5.2 cm. Brown gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 12  Corinthian aryballos, rim

Fig. 3.3

Cluster A Diam. of rim 4.9 cm. Brown gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575 13  Corinthian aryballos, rim Cluster D Diam. of rim 4.8 cm. Black gloss. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575

Fig. 3.3

Figure 3.2. Orientalizing and Archaic Corinthian imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

eleutherna

1

2

6

11

3

7

12

55

4

8

13

18

14

19

10

9

15

20

16

21

Figure 3.3. Orientalizing and Archaic Corinthian imports at Eleutherna. Scale 3:5

14  Corinthian aryballos, body fragments Cluster A Max. p.dim. 3.8 cm. Black figure. Early Corinthian. Ca. 625–575

Fig. 3.3

56

chapter 3

15  Corinthian closed vessel, body fragment

Fig.3.3

1985.B.3202 Max. p.dim. 2.4 cm. Black-figure filler ornament (incised rosette). Middle or Late Corinthian. Ca. 600–550. Context Hellenistic mixed with 6th-century component. 16  Corinthian closed vessel, body fragment

Fig. 3.3

Cluster A Max. p.dim. 3.7 cm. Black figure. Middle or Late Corinthian. Ca. 600–550 17  Corinthian exaleiptron, intact

Fig. 3.2

Cluster A H. 6.0 cm; Diam. 14.9 cm, of rim 7.6 cm, of base 8.3 cm. Single plain horizontal handle. Decorated in “White Style” with double row of dots along outer rim, banded decoration inside rim. As Amyx 1988, vol. 2, pp. 764–765, type 2. Black gloss lower half. Ca. 550–525 18  Eleuthernian exaleiptron, intact profile

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

1987.A1.3051 H. 5.5 cm; Diam. 13.2 cm, of rim 7.4 cm, of base 7.4 cm. Poor brown gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Corinthian type. Ca. 550–525. Fourth-century or Early Hellenistic context. 19  Corinthian kotyle, base

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

Cluster M Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss with lower body reserved with rays. Early or Middle Corinthian. 6th century 20  Corinthian kotyle, base

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

Cluster E Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss with lower body reserved with rays and concentric circles on underfoot. Early or Middle Corinthian. 6th century 21  Corinthian kotyle, base

Figs. 3.2, 3.3

Cluster E Diam. of base 4.6 cm. Black gloss. Early or Middle Corinthian. 6th century

Lakoni an Eleutherna offers the most evidence on the island for 6th-century Lakonian imports (Figs. 3.4, 3.5). Lakonian stirrup kraters are the most popular imported shapes.33 Payne’s excavations at Eleutherna in the 1920s brought

33. As a precedent for these imports, 7th-century Lakonian table and transport amphoras are attested at Kommos; see Johnston 1993, pp. 351, 359–362. Lakonian pottery at Kommos is comprehensible in the light of the sanctuary’s probable role as a trading station.

eleutherna

57

to light a single fragmentary Lakonian krater, the first discovery of its kind reported from Crete.34 Recent excavations at Orthi Petra add substantially to the number of Lakonian kraters on the island and raise the attested total from the site to 21 examples, representing a minimum of 12 complete vessels and probably more.35 Most of these finds (20 of 21 catalogued examples) are fully coated black Lakonian kraters dated in general terms to the 6th century.36 Rims are the most common part of the krater to survive (13 examples), with a smaller group of bases (three examples) and handles (seven examples). The fragmentary condition of the material in most cases forbids closer dating of the kraters based on style. One fragmentary rim (22), however, can be more precisely dated. It belongs to an experimental group of early-6th-century kraters with decoration in a pattern of thick sigmas framed by a row of dots in a reserved zone along the rim. This scheme combines earlier principles of decoration under more restrictive rules of employment (confined to a single zone of an otherwise black vessel), suggesting a date for the krater of ca. 600–575.37 The other rims are fully coated and probably date after ca. 575.38 Two bases (42, 43) can be dated with greater precision in the 6th century. C. M. Stibbe assigns kraters with broad and low feet, such as 42, to the second quarter of the 6th century, whereas bases with a foot narrowing toward the top in a steep angle, such as 43, do not appear until the third quarter of the 6th century.39 There is no parallel for 44. A few other fragments hint at a specific date. If 27 belonged to a special class of small krater, it must date to either the early 6th or the 5th century, the only times such kraters were produced.40 The upright rim makes an earlier date more likely. If they were not so fragmentary, rims 28–33 with their outward slant would suggest a development of the shape after ca. 525.41 The contexts in which Lakonian kraters appear at Eleutherna generally substantiate a date for the group within the broad chronological brackets of the 6th century. In this respect, Eleutherna is comparable to 34. Payne 1928–1929, p. 268. Boardman (1961, p. 154) calls attention to this find in the context of possible Peloponnesian influence on 6th-century Cretan bronzework. 35. The total number of kraters represented by the finds cannot easily be judged. The minimum estimate of 12 kraters is based on the number of different rim fragments. Although many body sherds from Lakonian kraters survive from various deposits at Eleutherna, this material has been excluded from my study. 36. These all-black kraters conform to Stibbe’s (1989, pp. 37–43) category F. As Catling (1996, p. 38) observes, the typology Stibbe formulated to trace the development of the shape from the late 7th to the early 5th century cannot easily be applied to plain black frag-

ments. See also Williams 1993, p. 590. Despite these chronological uncertainties, the shape of the best-preserved fragments from Eleutherna points to a date before ca. 525. Also, many of the fragments from Eleutherna appear in contexts dated by their other contents to no later than ca. 500–480. 37. Stibbe 1989, p. 34 (category E, experimental group). The pattern of decoration of this rim (22) corresponds with type 20 in his catalogue of rim ornaments (pp. 128–132). In all probability, this rim derives from the same vessel recovered in fragments by Payne in his campaign of 1928–1929. Although Payne (p. 268) does not illustrate this krater, there is a reportedly close parallel with an intact example from Etruria now in the Louvre; see CVA, Louvre 1 [France 1], pl. 2

[III.D.c]:7. The Louvre krater is one of only seven known examples with this decorative scheme (Stibbe 1989, pp. 34, 98, nos. E1–E7, figs. 25, 26, pl. 6:2). Stibbe’s list, however, does not include the example from Payne’s excavations. Lakonian kraters from Cyrene exhibit the same decorative scheme; see Schaus 1985, p. 28, nos. 115, 116, pl. 7. 38. Although the earliest fully coated kraters in Stibbe’s (1989, p. 38, nos. F3–F7, figs. 43–45, pl. 9:2, 3) catalogue date to the first quarter of the 6th century, none of the rims from Eleutherna parallels this rare early form. 39. Stibbe (1989, pp. 39–40) traces the development of the base in the 6th century. 40. Stibbe 1989, p. 45–47. 41. For the inclination of the rim, see Stibbe 1989, p. 40.

58

chapter 3

22

23

26

24

25

31

28

33

30

27

29

32

34

37 39

35

41

36

38

40

42

45

43

44

Figure 3.4. Archaic Lakonian imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

other Aegean sites with documented Lakonian imports. For example, at the Sanctuary of Demeter at Cyrene, Lakonian imports first appear ca. 620–590, with the greatest concentration apparently coming in the middle and third quarter of the 6th century.42 Cups and kraters are well represented in the Cyrene inventory. Other sites with Lakonian imports are discussed in Chapter 11. At Eleutherna, it must be noted that the early base (42) and upright rims of suspected early date (24, 27) appear together in cluster D with a Corinthian aryballos (13) and a low-necked cup (214) dated to the late 7th or first half of the 6th century. Rims exhibiting a later morphology (after ca. 525) appear only in clusters with Late Archaic Attic pottery or in much later deposits. Thus, morphology and context lead to the same conclusion. Some Lakonian kraters probably reached Eleutherna in the first quarter of the 5th century, well after the eclipse of their popularity as an export in other parts of the Greek world.

42. Schaus 1985, p. 16.

eleutherna

22

25

59

23

26

27

24

31

30

34

39

Figure 3.5. Archaic Lakonian imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

29

28

33

32

35

36

40

37

42

41

43

44

60

chapter 3

This trade in Lakonian kraters inspired a local copy of the shape (34) as identified by its poor gloss and the distinctly Eleuthernian orange-yellow fabric (5YR 6/8–7/8), which is easily distinguished from the fine light brown clay (7.5YR 6/4) of genuine Lakonian products. The finds from Eleutherna include another copy of a Lakonian krater (23) in an apparently different Cretan fabric. It probably derives from a Knossian workshop, judging from its hard orange core. Its rim, like that of the Lakonian import 22, bears a reserved panel in a system of decoration that helps assign a date for the piece at the beginning of the 6th century.43 Lakonian inspiration may also lie behind the production of a peculiar form of Eleuthernian drinking cup (45), whose depressed proportions, twin horizontal handles, and everted rim recall the form of a 6th-century Lakonian skyphos, although the local version exhibits a more rounded body. Together with the evidence of Eleuthernian copies of Lakonian kraters, it marks a definite, albeit limited, influence of Lakonian style on local production. 22  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

1985.B.3204 Max. p.dim. 11.4 cm. Black gloss. Rim decorated with thick sigma pattern framed by rows of dots. As Stibbe 1989, p. 34, no. E2, fig. 25, no. E3, fig. 26. Ca. 600–575. Context Hellenistic mixed with 6th-century component. 23  Knossian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

1991.EL.4132 Max. p.dim. 8.5 cm. Hard, red, Knossian fabric (2.5YR 6/8). Rim decorated with blotches of gloss framed by parallel lines. Lakonian type comparable to Stibbe 1989, p. 36, category E, variants. Ca. 600–575. Context ca. 600. 24  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster D Max. p.dim. 4.2 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 575–550 25  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster N Max. p.dim. 7.2 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 26  Lakonian krater, rim fragment

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster D Max. p.dim. 2.9 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 27  Lakonian krater, rim, handle, and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster D Max. p.dim. 4.0 cm. Black gloss. Possibly a small krater like Stibbe 1989, pp. 45–47, category H. Early 6th or 5th century

43. Also in favor of the identification of this example as Cretan, and not a genuine Lakonian product, is the fact that the simplified decoration on the rim finds no exact parallel in the Lakonian repertoire. For the phenomenon of copying Lakonian kraters, see Stibbe 1989, pp. 51–57.

eleutherna 28  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

61 Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster E Max. p.dim. 5.3 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–475 29  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–475 30  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster I Max. p.dim. 9.8 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–475 31  Lakonian krater, rim, handle, and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster I Max. p.dim. 8.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–475 32  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster P Max. p.dim. 4.8 cm. Black gloss. Brown fabric 5YR 6/6. Ca. 525–475 33  Lakonian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

1990.3X.1102 Max. p.dim. 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–475. Hellenistic context. 34  Eleuthernian krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

1992.A1.17.83 Max. p.dim. 10.4 cm. Flaking, dull black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8–7/8, white inclusions). Lakonian type. 6th century. Hellenistic context. 35  Lakonian krater, handle

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster H Max. p.dim. 11.9 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 36  Lakonian krater, handle

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster I Max. p.dim. 11.4 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 37  Lakonian krater, handle Cluster K Max. p.dim. 5.9 cm. Black gloss. 6th century

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

62

chapter 3

38  Lakonian krater, handle

Fig. 3.4

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 7.2 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 39  Lakonian krater, handle

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster D Max. p.dim. 8.1 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 40  Lakonian krater, handle

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 5.7 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 41  Lakonian krater, handle

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster M Max. p.dim. 7.6 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 42  Lakonian krater, base

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster D Diam. of base 15.8 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). As Stibbe 1989, p. 39, no. F11, fig. 48, no. F14, fig. 50. Ca. 575–550 43  Lakonian krater, base

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

1989.3G.4303 Diam. of base 15.9 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). As Stibbe 1989, p. 40, no. F40, fig. 67. Ca. 550–475 44  Lakonian krater, base

Figs. 3.4, 3.5

Cluster G Diam. of base 12.6 cm. Black gloss. 6th or 5th century 45  Eleuthernian skyphos, rim, shoulder, handle, and lower body

Fig. 3.4

Cluster I Diam. 11.0 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8). Lakonian type comparable to Stibbe 1994, pp. 64–66, no. D18, fig. 215, no. D21, fig. 218. 6th century

A r g i v e (? ) Another drinking cup, distinguished by an unusual profile with a strongly inset concave rim, gives every indication of being an Argive import (46).44 A simple pattern of decoration in the form of a row of dots along the shoulder in a reserved field framed by horizontal bands enlivens the cup’s appearance (Fig. 3.6). A resemblance to Lakonian and Argive cup profiles and

44. Argive “red ware” pottery is attested in the 8th-century import record at Eleutherna (N. Stampolidis, pers. comm.). In addition, Kotsonas (2005, pp. 694–695, no. I-AM.5, pl. 35) catalogues a Late Geometric Argive amphora at Orthi Petra. Thus, there is a precedent for the import of Argive pottery in the 6th century. Another precedent for these imports comes from Kydonia in the form of Late Geometric Argive kraters; see Andreadaki-Vlasaki 1997, p. 239.

eleutherna

63

46

Figure 3.6. Archaic Argive(?) import at Eleutherna and local imitation. Scale 1:2

47

decorative schemes suggests the general region where this peculiar Subgeometric cup was made.45 The closest parallels are found among the still imperfectly understood Argive repertoire of 6th-century cups. This example, a presumed Argive import, had an appreciable impact on local production, as evidenced by a copy of the shape in the Eleuthernian fabric (47). 46  Argive(?) skyphos, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.6

1987.A1.3056. Diam. 14.4 cm, of rim 13.6 cm. Banded decoration and a row of dots along the shoulder. Black gloss. Imported fabric (7.5YR 6/4). 6th century 47  Eleuthernian skyphos, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.6

Cluster J Diam. 16.0 cm, of rim 14.4 cm. Poor brown gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8, white inclusions). Lakonian type. 6th century

At t i c

45. Archaic Argive pottery from Mycenae provides the best parallel for the Cretan examples; see Cook 1953, p. 45, no. B17, fig. 19. Even so, a Lakonian source for the cup cannot be entirely excluded, since Stibbe (1994, pp. 176–177, nos. E15–28, figs. 234–246) illustrates Lakonian cups resembling the imported example from Eleutherna. 46. For example, the earliest Attic imports at Tocra date to ca. 580, with Attic becoming more common later in the series of Archaic deposits; see Boardman and Hayes 1966, pp. 96–97, 105–107.

An influx of Attic imports to Eleutherna at the turn of the 6th to 5th centuries signals a new chapter in the history of this community’s external relations (Figs. 3.7–3.14), heralding a marked preference for Attic at the expense of Corinthian and Lakonian imports. By the second quarter of the 5th century, Attic imports held an unrivaled position as the sole representatives of overseas trade at Eleutherna, as at most other Cretan sites. Given the readily identifiable nature of the material and the existence of an established sequence of shapes, Attic imports most clearly document the history of settlement at Eleutherna from the late 6th to the 4th century. They also testify to sustained foreign contacts, apart from a temporary lull in the second half of the 5th century, when overseas imports of any kind become remarkably scarce at Eleutherna. Cups figure prominently in the Archaic and Classical repertoire of Attic imports, with kraters, bowls (a lekanis and stemmed dishes), and lekythoi appearing in smaller numbers. Attic imports first arrive at Eleutherna in ca. 580, as at several other Greek sites.46

64

chapter 3

48

52

50

51

53

55

54

57

56

59

60

61

62

Figure 3.7. Archaic Attic imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

Ar c haic A black-figure lekanis constitutes the earliest evidence of a 6th-century trade in Attic products at Eleutherna (48).47 This lekanis conforms to group B3c of Lioutas’s classification of the shape.48 It preserves part of a striding sphinx, including the animal’s wings and torso, and one of the scene’s filler ornaments. In the opposite direction faced a second sphinx, now lost apart from a fragmentary wing and the upper portion of a looping tail. The anatomical details of the wing, the animal’s stylized elongated body, and the mannerism of the looping tail suggest a work by the Polos Painter, one of the chief early painters of Athenian black-figure lekanides, active ca. 580.49 47. It consists of two joining frag­ments from clusters B and F, scat­ters found near neighboring funerary structures 3K and 4K. This join is not enough to convince me that clusters B and F are of the same tomb group. 48. According to Lioutas (1987, pp. 37–40), this type is distinguished by a shallow body with a carinated side wall.

Here and elsewhere I distinguish between the lekanis, a small shallow bowl used as a receptacle for food or spices, and the lekane, a larger utility basin used in a variety of domestic contexts. Lekanides have the same fine fabric of other tablewares and are often intricately decorated, whereas lekanai have a coarser fabric and simpler banded decoration or

no painted decoration at all. 49. See Lioutas 1987, pp. 37, no. Le 55, pl. 14:2, p. 38, no. Le 62, pl. 15, pp. 38–39, no. Le 63, pl. 17. This attribution is strengthened by a consideration of the profile of the vessel, a shallow carinated shape (type 3) that was a particular favorite of the Polos Painter’s workshop.

eleutherna

Figure 3.8. Archaic Attic lekanis at Eleutherna. Scale 3:4

65

48

49

51

54

56

57

59 Figure 3.9. Archaic Attic imports at Eleutherna. Scale 4:5

50. Documented instances of mid-6th-century Attic imports on Crete remain remarkably few. A Band cup of Attic manufacture dated to ca. 550–525 from Knossos (see Coldstream 1973b, p. 63, no. M17, pl. 26) has little company. An unpublished

60

61

58

62

The rarity of documented early Attic black-figure imports on Crete enhances the value of this particular find. Attic imports to Eleutherna continue to be scarce in the second and third quarters of the 6th century and consist almost entirely of bases from banded cups of a variety termed the Class of Athens 1104 (50–55).50 The bases are glazed except underneath. In one case (51), a small raised nipple cup (Class of Athens 1104) from the ancient necropolis of Tarrha is on display in the Chania Archaeological Museum (3358). Also from Tarrha comes a Cretan copy of the same shape (Chania Archaeological Museum 2936), presumably manufac-

tured at Kydonia, to judge from the fabric (7.5YR 6/6–6/8 to 10YR 5/6–6/6). Finally, there is an unpublished Attic Band cup from recent excavations at Itanos (1997.6250.01– 09).

66

chapter 3

at the center underneath the base, highlighted by gloss, results in a close parallel to Agora XII, no. 379. Otherwise, exact parallels to published examples from the Athenian Agora are lacking, as is to be expected given the variety in the size and shape of the cup. These finds, although scarce, form a crucial step in an apparently unbroken series of 6th-century Attic imports at Eleutherna.51 Attic imports in the last quarter of the 6th century include a column krater (56), lekythoi (57, 58), and three black-figure fragments (60–62) from small open vessels, probably cups. 48  Attic lekanis, rim, handle, shoulder, and upper body

Figs. 3.7, 3.8

Clusters B and F (two joining fragments) Diam. 11.9 cm, of rim 12.9 cm. Black-figure decoration consisting of a pair of striding sphinxes facing opposite directions. Attic fabric (7.5YR 5/6–7/4). Probably a work of the Polos Painter. See Lioutas 1987, p. 37. Ca. 580 49  Attic cup, body fragment

Fig. 3.9

Cluster F Max. p.dim. 4.4 cm. Banded. Lustrous gloss. Class of Athens 1104. Ca. 550–500 50  Attic cup, base

Fig. 3.7

Cluster H Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Lustrous black gloss (reserved underfoot). Class of Athens 1104. Ca. 575–525 51  Attic cup, base

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

Uncertain context Diam. of base 5.1 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Class of Athens 1104. As Agora XII, no. 379. Ca. 575–525 52  Attic cup, base

Fig. 3.7

Cluster A Diam. of base 4.4 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Class of Athens 1104. Ca. 575–525 53  Attic cup, base

Fig. 3.7

Cluster E Diam. of base 3.0 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Class of Athens 1104. Ca. 575–525 54  Attic cup, base 1999.T4–T5.451 Diam. of base 4.5 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Class of Athens 1104. Ca. 575–525

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

51. A number of fragmentary body sherds from Eleutherna belong, if not to cups of the Class of Athens 1104, then to a similar category of Archaic banded ware (e.g., 49). The reservations expressed about the dating of these cups in Agora XII, p. 89, apply only to divisions of time within the 6th century. Most published examples belong to the second quarter of the 6th century or just after, although a less carefully executed cup from the Athenian Agora has been dated to ca. 525–500. None of the cups from Eleutherna resemble this later example.

eleutherna

67

55  Attic cup, base

Fig. 3.7

1991.3M.4239 Diam. of base 4.5 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Class of Athens 1104. There is a similar base from 1985.B.3209. Ca. 575–525 56  Attic column krater, rim and neck

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 13.2 cm. Overhanging rim, slightly convex above, concave on outer surface, deeply undercut below. Decoration on rim consists above of crosslinked lotus buds, on outer surface double row of dots. Ca. 525–500 57  Attic lekythos, base and lower body

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

Cluster A Max. p.dim. 3.9 cm. Black figure. As Agora XII, no. 1119. Ca. 525–500 58  Attic lekythos, body fragment

Fig. 3.9

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 3.0 cm. Black figure (rays). Shoulder decoration similar to Agora XXIII, nos. 929–1096 (Class of Athens 581, ii). Ca. 500 59  Attic closed vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

1991.4L.4146 Max. p.dim. 4.8 cm. Black-figure tongues in upper register and palmette in lower register. Ca. 525–480 60  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

Cluster H Max. p.dim. 2.8 cm. Black-figure lotus and palmette. Ca. 525–500 61  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 3.3 cm. Black figure. Ca. 525–500 62  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.7, 3.9

1992B.3Z.4432 Max. p.dim. 1.9 cm. Black-figure depiction of a wreathed flutist. Ca. 525–500. Hellenistic context.

Lat e A r c h a ic a n d Cl assic a l The flow of Attic imports to Eleutherna increases substantially ca. 500–480. Attic pottery in this period was imported in larger numbers

68

chapter 3

and in a greater variety of shapes than either Corinthian or Lakonian wares. Attic cups, stemmed dishes of the convex and large class, and a one-handler(?) make up the total (63–76). A notable feature of the collection is the variety of b.g. drinking cups, including examples of the type C cup, the skyphos, and a one-handled mug. Although the black skyphoi and type C drinking cups commonly occur on the island ca. 500–480, other shapes found at Eleutherna, such as the stemmed dishes, made only minor inroads in the Cretan market.52 Attic style exerts an occasional influence on local production, as in the case of a one-handled mug manufactured at Eleutherna (71) after an apparent Attic prototype such as 70. After this period of robust trade in Attic pottery, a gap of ca. 470–400 interrupts the import record of Eleutherna. The latest datable imports before the gap include Attic b.g. skyphoi and a one-handled mug. In addition, the broad bases and heavy torus feet of the cup fragments 72–75 belong to Attic-type skyphoi at an early stage of development, ca. 500–480, and the record of Attic figural pottery largely confirms this date for the cutoff.53 A single fragment of Early Classical red figure (ca. 475–450) provides the only definite example within the period of the gap (81). Confirming the impression of a break, the characteristic Attic drinking cups in the middle and third quarter of the 5th century—the Vicup, Acrocup, Rheneia cup, and bolsal—do not appear at the site.54 Even so, Eleuthernian potters occasionally tried to copy subsequent 5th-century Attic cup shapes in the local medium. This evidence consists of fragmentary horseshoe-shaped handles from local cups approximating the form of an Attictype skyphos (79, 80). The shape of the handle is chronologically significant, since in the Attic repertoire there is a general progression in the 5th century from an early U-shaped handle to a mid-5th-century horseshoe-shaped handle, followed by a triangular form in which the roots of the handle draw closer together. Whether the 5th-century gap can be construed as a total cessation of imports depends largely on the significance accorded these sporadic copies of later Attic cup forms. Do they imply access to imported cups ca. 450?55 52. To my knowledge, the Attic stemmed dish appears nowhere else on Crete apart from Kydonia and the Late Archaic–Classical cemetery at Kastello Varypetrou. For Kydonia, see Hahn 1997, p. 210, no. 77-P 0096, pls. 63, 87:f.9 (incorrectly identified as the base of a cup). For Kastello, see Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1. From Kydonia also comes a b.g. lekythos, a presumably local copy of an Attic original like the one found at Eleutherna; see Hahn 1997, p. 210, no. 77-P 0413, pls. 62, 96:d.6. 53. The fact that Attic b.g. and red-figure pottery both disappear at Eleutherna in the second half of the 5th century is significant. As Miller

(1997, p. 67) notes, red figure alone is not a reliable indicator of trade in Attic pottery, since communities might import b.g. or other Attic fine wares without developing a taste for figural pottery. Indeed, McPhee (1997, p. 76, charts 1, 2) explains the declining imports of Attic b.g. to Cyrene in the second half of the 5th century as a corollary to the increase in Attic red figure. 54. For a detailed picture of ceramic consumption in mid-5th-century Athens, see Boulter 1953. 55. Sparkes and Talcott (Agora XII, p. 85) trace the development of the Attic skyphos handle, including the appearance of delicate horseshoe-

shaped handles that are comparable to the Eleuthernian examples dated between 460 and ca. 420 (Agora XII, nos. 343–346). Horseshoe-shaped handles imply contact with a mainland source, although not necessarily Attic (and not necessarily imported cups). Even if the same progression in the shape of the handle is also evident at Olynthus, Corinth, and other centers, we cannot assume that Athens set the style. With respect to handles, Athens may have followed the lead of some other production center, or developments may have spread down the line through intermediaries, as Pemberton (2003, p. 168) proposes for Corinthian workshops.

eleutherna 63  Attic stemmed dish, base

69 Figs. 3.10, 3.11

Cluster H Diam. of base 9.6 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, no. 959. Ca. 500–480 64  Attic stemmed dish, base

Figs. 3.10, 3.11

Cluster I Diam. of base 8.1 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, no. 959. Ca. 500–480 65  Attic stemmed dish, base

Fig. 3.10

Cluster I Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, no. 960. Ca. 500–480 66  Attic one-handler(?), base

Figs. 3.10, 3.11

Cluster G Diam. of base 4.9 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, nos. 725, 747. Ca. 500–480 67  Attic type C cup, base

Figs. 3.10, 3.11

1988.4B.4202 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss (reserved outer face of foot, resting surface, and center of stem inside). Groove at junction of stem and foot; top of foot slopes. As Agora XII, no. 409. Ca. 500–480 68  Attic type C cup, base

Fig. 3.10

Cluster K Diam. 8.1 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, no. 410. Ca. 500–480 69  Attic cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.10

1987.4A.4001 Diam. of rim 15.1 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 500–480 70  Attic one-handled mug, rim and handle

Figs. 3.10, 3.11

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 4.1 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, no. 832. Ca. 500–480 71  Eleuthernian one-handled mug, rim, handle, upper body

Fig. 3.10

1987G.B1.3254 Diam. rim 9.1 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–6/8, white inclusions). Attic type. Ca. 500–480

70

chapter 3 63

66

64

67

65

68

70

71

72

69

75 77

73

74

78

76

79

72  Attic skyphos, base

80

Figure 3.10. Late Archaic and Classical Attic imports at Eleutherna.

81

Scale 1:3

Fig. 3.10

Cluster O Diam. of base 10.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 500–480 73  Attic skyphos, base

Fig. 3.10

1985.A.3001 Diam. of base 8.8 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 500–480. Fourth-century context. 74  Attic skyphos, base 1991.B1 Diam. of base 7.9 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, nos. 342–348. Ca. 500–480

Fig. 3.10

eleutherna

63

Figure 3.11. Late Archaic Attic imports at Eleutherna. Scale 3:5

71

67

66 75  Attic skyphos, base

64

70 Fig. 3.10

Cluster E Diam. 10.5 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, nos. 335–341. There is a similar base from cluster M. Ca. 500–480. 76  Attic skyphos, handle

Fig. 3.10

1987.3A–3B.395 Max. p.dim. 6.4 cm. Black gloss. U-shaped. There is a similar handle from cluster I. Ca. 500–480 77  Attic skyphos, rim and handle

Fig. 3.10

Cluster L Diam. of rim 15.9 cm. Black gloss. 5th century 78  Attic skyphos, rim and handle

Fig. 3.10

Cluster E Diam. of rim 11.0 cm. Black gloss. 5th century 79  Eleuthernian skyphos, rim and handle

Fig. 3.10

Cluster P Max. p.dim. 3.3 cm. Brown gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–6/8, white inclusions). Attic-type horseshoe-shaped handle. There is a similar rim and handle fragment from cluster H. Ca. 475–400

72

chapter 3

80  Eleuthernian skyphos, handle

Fig. 3.10

1994.P1.6022 Max. p.dim. 4.1 cm. Black-red gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–6/8, white inclusions). Attic-type horseshoe-shaped handle comparable to Agora XII, nos. 338– 343. Ca. 475–400 81  Attic krater, body fragment

Figs. 3.10, 3.12

Cluster K Max. p.dim. 5.0 cm. Red-figure depiction of a wing of a sphinx rendered in Early Classical free style. Ca. 475–450

Fourth C ent ury After this interruption of imports in the 5th century, the next securely dated Attic products consist of five fragmentary skyphoi, including two rims and three bases, whose forms in each case point to a date in the first quarter of the 4th century (82–86). A red-figure cup, whose decoration is confined to a single panel on the body (84), and three other figural pieces (92, 94, 95), each from a separate vase—one of which, a fragment from the tondo of a cup, depicts a female face in profile with a melon coiffure— represent the work of Athenian pot painters from ca. 400–375. An unbroken series of Attic skyphoi documents a resurgence of Attic imports at Eleutherna in the 4th century. A complete sequence of 4thcentury Attic drinking cups can be assembled from the imports at Orthi Petra, a collection that includes numerous cup bases dated to ca. 400–350 (84–88), later ones dated to ca. 350–325 (89, 90), and a smaller group of bases dated to the end of the 4th century (e.g., 91).56 Moreover, the second half of the 4th century heralds a greater variety of imported Attic shapes, with small bowls and kraters making up a greater share of imported pottery (100–105). Plentiful finds of 4th-century Attic red figure bolster the impression of a sustained revival of Eleuthernian overseas contacts. A single red-figure fragment from Eleutherna differs from its numerous imported Attic counterparts by virtue of its distinctive orange-brown fabric with white inclusions (5YR 6/6), a fabric characteristic of Eleuthernian production (99). Its floral decoration points to a date in the second half of the 4th century for this sole known example of local figural production. 82  Attic skyphos, rim, handle, and upper body

Figs. 3.13, 3.14

1992.DT.9916 Diam. of rim 14.2 cm. Black gloss. Handle with triangular roots. As Agora XII, no. 349. Ca. 400–375 83  Attic skyphos, rim 1987.B1.3251 Diam. of rim 14.8 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar rim from cluster H. Ca. 400–375. Hellenistic context.

Fig. 3.13 56. There is a possibility that this type of cup was still being produced in the 3rd century; see Miller 1974, p. 203; Agora XXIX, p. 94.

eleutherna

73

81

94

92

95

Figure 3.12. Classical Attic redfigure imports and local imitation at Eleutherna. Scale 2:3

96

98

99

84  Attic skyphos, base and lower body

Figs. 3.13, 3.14

Cluster P Diam. of base 10.6 cm. Black gloss with red-figure panel. Dilute red gloss underneath base. As Agora XII, no. 349. Ca. 400–375 85  Attic skyphos, base and lower body

Figs. 3.13, 3.14

Cluster N Diam. of base 9.7 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). As Agora XII, no. 349. Ca. 400–375 86  Attic skyphos, base

Figs. 3.13, 3.14

Cluster O Diam. of base 10.0 cm. Black gloss. Dilute red gloss underneath base. As Agora XII, no. 348. Ca. 400–375 87  Attic skyphos, base 1987.K1.3152 Diam. of base 8.5 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). First half of 4th century. Fourth-century context.

Figs. 3.13, 3.14

74

chapter 3

82

84

85

83

86

87 92

93

94

88

95

96

97

89 90 91

100

102

104

103

105

88  Attic skyphos, base and lower body

Fig. 3.13

1988.A1.3052 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Middle of 4th century 89  Attic skyphos, base 1987.4A.4001 Diam. of base 6.8 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Ca. 350–325

Fig. 3.13

Figure 3.13. Fourth-century Attic imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

eleutherna

75

84

82

Figure 3.14. Fourth-century Attic imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

86

87

85

91

101

90  Attic skyphos, base

Fig. 3.13

1987.A1.3052 Diam. of base 5.1 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). There is a similar base from 1989.GA.6002. Ca. 350–325 91  Attic skyphos, base

Figs. 3.13, 3.14

1988.G1.3301 Diam. of base 3.2 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot and decorated with concentric circle). As Agora XII, nos. 353, 354. Ca. 320–310. Context ca. 325–300. 92  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.12, 3.13

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 4.2 cm. Red-figure depiction of a female head in profile. Ca. 400–375 93  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Fig. 3.13

Cluster J Max. p.dim. 4.2 cm. Red-figure depiction of a draped figure. 4th century 94  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.12, 3.13

1990.L.3131 Max. p.dim. 3.8 cm. Red-figure depiction of an arm gripping a staff. Ca. 400–375

76

chapter 3

95  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.12, 3.13

1990.Psi.1001 Max. p.dim. 5.1 cm. Red-figure depiction of a female head in profile with outstretched hand. Ca. 400–375 96  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 3.12, 3.13

Cluster K Max. p.dim. 3.5 cm. Red-figure drapery. 4th century 97  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Fig. 3.13

1988.4A.4010 Max. p.dim. 2.9 cm. Red figure. 4th century 98  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Fig. 3.12

1988.4A.4002 Max. p.dim. 4.2 cm. Red-figure feline with tail. 4th century 99  Eleuthernian open vessel, body fragment

Fig. 3.12

1999.7M.707 Max. p.dim. 5.8 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6, white inclusions). Redfigure floral decoration. Second half of 4th century 100  Attic krater, base

Fig. 3.13

1987.K1.3151 Diam. of base 13.2 cm. Black gloss. Second half of 4th century 101  Attic bell-krater, rim fragment

Fig. 3.14

Cluster G Max. p.dim. 9.4 cm. Red figure. 4th century 102  Attic saltcellar, intact profile

Fig. 3.13

1985.A.3001 H. 3.3 cm; Diam. 7.4 cm, of rim 6.8. As Agora XII, nos. 943–945; Agora XXIX, nos. 1075–1077. 4th century. Fourth-century context. 103  Attic small bowl, rim

Fig. 3.13

1986.KK.3603 Diam. of rim 7.0 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 104  Attic small bowl, rim 1992.K1.5 Diam. of rim 9.2 cm. Black gloss. As Agora XII, no. 888. 4th century. Context ca. 325–300.

Fig. 3.13

eleutherna

77

107

106

Figure 3.15. Late Archaic and Classical Knossian imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

108

105  Attic small bowl, rim

Fig. 3.13

1988.G1.3301 Diam. of rim 9.0 cm. Black gloss. 4th century. Context ca. 325–300.

Cre tan I mp orts Imported pottery from four other Cretan production centers appears among the finds from Eleutherna (see Figs. 3.15–3.21, below).57 The identification of these imports and the determination of their provenience rest on considerations of fabric and style. Fortunately, the Eleuthernian clay is visually distinctive, making it relatively easy to distinguish locals from imports. The identification of the various sources of these imports, however, ranges in difficulty according to the distinctiveness of each tradition.

Kn ossi an Knossos probably supplied Eleutherna with at least five attested imports, including the previously mentioned copy of a Lakonian krater (23, ca. 600–575), a cup base with a ring foot (106, ca. 525–500), another base with a stepped-profile underfoot (from cluster P, ca. 525–500), a rim from a high-necked cup (107) dated by reference to examples from deposit RR:H to ca. 500–480 (type III), and a high conical foot (108) from a type of Knossian cup dated to ca. 425–400 (type VI) (Fig. 3.15). The chronological distribution of Knossian imports at Eleutherna is consistent with the observation of an islandwide absence of Knossian products in the period ca. 590–525. This phenomenon, and its historical relevance for Knossos, will be discussed elsewhere. 106  Knossian cup or jug, ring foot 57. Imported lamps also reveal a possible connection between Eleutherna and Olous in the 6th century; see Chap. 5, p. 166.

Fig. 3.15

1987.AA.3511 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Rich lustrous red gloss. Orange brown fabric (7.5YR 6/3–7/4). Ca. 525–500

78

chapter 3

109

110

Figure 3.16. Late Archaic and Classical Kydonian(?) imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

111 107  Knossian high-necked cup, rim

Fig. 3.15

Cluster K H. of rim 3.3 cm; Diam. of rim 10.4 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Ca. 500–480 108  Knossian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.15

Cluster M Diam. of base 4.8 cm. Dull gloss. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Ca. 425–400

Kyd on i a n(?) The next group, distinguished by its common brown fabric, forms another unit of Cretan production (Figs. 3.16, 3.17). Examples include a highnecked cup characterized by an everted rim and a narrow shoulder (109), the base of a large cup or jug with a low “cushion”-shaped support (110), and a smaller cup base of identical construction (111). A similar “cushion”shaped support characterizes a cup base of identical light brown fabric from an unpublished 5th-century deposit at Knossos (SX), suggesting that this base is also an import from the same source as the examples found at Eleutherna.58 A lustrous gloss typifies the entire collection. As for the source, a hard light brown (7.5YR 6/4–10YR 6/3) fabric with small amounts of mica and quartz inclusions may be a feature of Kydonian production. The sacred cave of Lera in the territory of Kydonia has produced cups of a light brown fabric, whose forms imitate Late Archaic Attic drinking cups. Moreover, a cup base with a “cushion”-shaped support from the probable acropolis of Kydonia furnishes a direct stylistic link with the Cretan exports at Eleutherna and Knossos.59 An identical base from a tomb at Kastello Varypetrou near Kydonia further points to a West Cretan origin for the type.60 On this admittedly weak basis, a Kydonian origin can be suggested for the exports at Eleutherna and Knossos. Bases with a “cushion”-shaped support can be dated by context to the Archaic or Early Classical period. 111 comes from a grave cluster at Eleutherna dated to ca. 525–480, while the Classical well

58. SX:J/JN7 (level 4988). Base; diameter 10.0 cm; b.g.; gray fabric; context ca. 450–425. 59. For Attic-type cups at Lera, see Chap. 11, p. 293, n. 119. For the local base at Kydonia, see Hahn 1997, p. 211, no. 70-P 1354, pls. 62, 68:a.8. Hallager and Hahn (1997, p. 202) refer to a “light orange to brown, hard and fine” fabric at Kydonia; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki (1976, p. 219) add that “l’argile de la céramique locale se caractérise par son aspect légèrement micacé” (the clay of the local ceramics is characterized by a slightly micaceous aspect). Raab’s (2001, pp. 70–71) description of the fine-ware fabrics encountered on the Akrotiri Survey, West Crete, from Classical and Hellenistic sites is relevant to this discussion, since much of the pottery from these rural locations arguably came from Kydonian workshops. The b.g. pottery from this survey fell into two categories: a hard light olive-gray (5Y 6/1) fabric and a medium-gray (10YR 5/1) fabric of medium hardness with mica and quartz inclusions (density 2%–4%) and calcareous grits (0.1 mm, occasionally 0.25 mm). 60. For the tomb contents and a description of the local fabric, see Chap. 10 (p. 251, Table 10.1). Perlman (1996, p. 243) identifies Kastello Varypetrou as ancient Lachania (a kome of Kydonia).

eleutherna

Figure 3.17. Late Archaic and Classical Kydonian(?) imports at Eleutherna. Scale 1:1

109

79

110

from Knossos (mentioned earlier in connection with another base, uncatalogued) dates to the third quarter of the 5th century, making it roughly contemporary with the findspot of 110 (cluster K, ca. 500–450). 109  Kydonian(?) high-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Figs. 3.16, 3.17

Cluster M H. of rim 1.7 cm; Diam. 8.9 cm, of rim 8.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Light brown fabric (10YR 6/3). 5th century 110  Kydonian(?) jug or cup, base

Figs. 3.16, 3.17

Cluster K Diam. of base 8.7 cm. Lustrous black gloss (reserved underfoot). Light brown fabric (7.5YR 6/4–6/6). Ca. 500–450 111  Kydonian(?) high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.16

Cluster H Diam. of base 4.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Light brown fabric (7.5YR 6/4). Ca. 525–480

Aph rati ( ?)

61. For the Cretan exports at Cyrene, see Schaus 1985, pp. 11–12, nos. 20–22, pl. 2. These arguments are described in greater detail in Chap. 2, p. 32. 62. For a description of the fabric at Aphrati, see Erickson 2002, p. 46. 63. Schaus (1985, p. 10) offers a date of ca. 590–540 for the Cretan material from Cyrene based on parallels with exported Cretan pottery from 6th-century deposits at Tocra. For the dating of the Cretan pottery at Tocra, see Johnston 2005, pp. 390–391.

A black-figure fragment from Eleutherna, 112, has the distinction of being the first discovery of Cretan figural pottery on the island that can be dated to the 6th century (Fig. 3.18). This body fragment came from a large closed vessel, perhaps an amphora, hydria, or jug. My attribution of this example to a Cretan workshop is based on the resemblance of the fabric and figural style to that of exported Cretan black figure found at Cyrene (Fig. 12.3).61 Aphrati is the most likely production center, since chemical and petrographic analysis has confirmed a Central Cretan origin for similar finds from Tocra, while the pale brown fabric common to all (10YR 8/4) invites comparison to a series of Archaic and Classical pots found at Aphrati and the nearby sanctuary of Kato Symi (the surface of a jug base probably made at Aphrati is shown in Fig. 2.1).62 Yet, on the basis of fabric, Gortyn cannot be excluded as a possible source. The figural style of the example from Eleutherna consists of simplified silhouette renderings with restrained use of incision for the anatomical details. Battle groups, whether human contests or mythological subjects, appear among the three better-preserved fragments from Cyrene. The example from Eleutherna depicts the outstretched arm of one figure and the stiffly bent elbow of a companion, with the rendering and stiff poses recalling the Cyrene examples and therefore suggesting a comparable date of ca. 590–540.63

80

chapter 3

Figure 3.18. Archaic black-figure import at Eleutherna, from a Cretan workshop at Aphrati(?). Scale 1:1

112

112  Aphrati(?) closed vessel, body fragment

Fig. 3.18

1993.3Z.4437B. Max. p.dim. 4.3 cm. Black figure. Pale brown fabric (10YR 8/4). Ca. 590–540

G ort y n i a n A collection of Cretan imports more impressive in their number, chronological range, and influence on Eleuthernian potters probably came from the Mesara (113–122). The distinctive pale brown to pale red fabric, a characteristic of Gortynian production, and an exact correspondence of forms with attested Gortynian examples, establish Gortyn as the likely source of this pottery.64 One example (116), a cup base with a ring foot and thick bottom wall, belongs to a special category of 6th-century cup, with other examples attested at Gortyn and site 14 in the territory of Praisos (482–487, Fig. 8.7). Another cup base, characterized by a disk foot with a stepped-profile underfoot, dates to the final quarter of the 6th century (114). Also in the 6th century, Gortynian potters introduced a new broader ring foot to complement their line of cups. Although there is only one imported example of this type at Eleutherna (117), faithful copies reveal its influence on local production (124, 125). Gortynian exports to Eleutherna, after sporadic examples in the 6th century, become increasingly abundant during the period ca. 475–400, a time when Eleuthernian potters also devote more attention to copying Gortynian designs. Indeed, the series of imported Gortynian cup bases provides the only reliable guide for tracking the history of settlement at Eleutherna in the middle and second half of the 5th century, when chronological assistance provided by Attic or other overseas imports is not available. Although production of Eleuthernian b.g. presumably continues during this period, the conservative character of the local style obscures chronology during much of the 5th century.65 Three imported Gortynian cup bases at Eleutherna document successive stages in the development of a 5th-century Central Cretan style (118–120). To judge from the chronological evidence provided by deposits at Gortyn and Knossos discussed in Chapter 6, the development of a broad, low disk foot with an extended outer edge belongs to the first or second quarter of the 5th century. An import to Eleutherna illustrates this development (118). It can be compared to cup bases from Gortyn (423–426, Fig. 6.4) and Knossos (303–305, Figs. 4.13, 4.14). In the second or third

64. For the ceramic tradition at Gortyn, see Erickson 2001 and Chap. 6. 65. The standard Eleuthernian cup, discussed on pp. 86–103, undergoes remarkably little change during the 5th century. Eleuthernian copies of Attic-type skyphoi (79, 80), however, can be dated based on the shape of the handle.

eleutherna

66. The differences between these two bases are very minor and probably have no chronological significance. 67. Miller (1997, pp. 136, 141) distinguishes between local “imitations” of Attic pottery and “adaptations” in terms of the intention of the local potters, that is, whether they deliberately “copied” Attic shapes or merely responded to subconscious stylistic influences. Figural production of Corinthian style outside Corinth raises similar issues; see Chap. 2, p. 37.

81

quarter of the 5th century, a base with a higher flaring foot and more extended edges gains currency at Gortyn and Knossos (306–314, Figs. 4.13, 4.14), with an imported Gortynian example of this type at Eleutherna (119). This tendency culminates at the end of the 5th century in the formation of a high conical support, as shown by an example from Gortyn among the finds at Eleutherna (120). High conical supports from Gortyn (429–434, Fig. 6.4) and Knossos (300–302, 316–320, Figs. 4.13, 4.14) offer the closest comparisons. The Gortynian bases 121 and 122 illustrate a further stage of development characterized by a smaller base with a spreading foot and narrow point of attachment to the belly, a later formulation dated to the first half of the 4th century. Gortynian (436, Fig. 6.4) and Knossian (326, Fig. 4.16) cups document this stage of development. This influx of Gortynian pottery to Eleutherna ca. 475–375 is accompanied by a sustained interest on the part of Eleuthernian potters in reproducing Gortynian shapes in their own technically inferior fabric. Eleuthernian creations are readily distinguished from the superb Gortynian models by the orange color of the fabric, its soft chalky consistency, its coarser complexion (pitted by white inclusions), and the poor dilute gloss. Copies of Gortynian cups at Eleutherna include bases with a broad, low ring foot (126, 127), a type at Gortyn dated to ca. 500–450; bases with an extended foot dated to ca. 475–425 (128, 129); and a base with high conical support (130) dated by reference to Gortynian cups to ca. 425–400. A more advanced form of pedestal support (131) in Eleuthernian fabric resembles a later stage of Gortynian development in the first quarter of the 4th century. In each case, the correspondence in form between the Eleuthernian cup base and the Gortynian model is remarkably exact, as underscored by comparing 118 (Gortynian) and 127 (Eleuthernian), or the close approximation of the pedestal support 130, an Eleuthernian copy, with an actual Gortynian product, 120. The last two are identical in every respect except for the slightly more conical profile of the Eleuthernian version and the accordingly more narrow junction with the belly.66 Removing all doubt that these bases were intended to be faithful copies of Gortynian products, and are not merely the by-products of a subconscious stylistic influence,67 is the fact that the Eleuthernian versions duplicate intricate details of Gortynian base construction, especially elements foreign to the Eleuthernian cup tradition, such as the consistently flat resting surface favored by Gortynian potters, the employment of a fillet marking the junction with the belly (130), and the frequent application of a full coat of gloss underneath the base. These copies stand in stark contrast with the local line of cups, where signs of Central Cretan stylistic influence otherwise remain negligible. Except when copying Gortynian shapes, the Eleuthernians evidently preferred a cup with a simple form of base, a broad, low disk foot. 113  Gortynian high-necked cup, base Cluster K Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Gortynian fabric (5YR 5/6). There is a similar base from cluster I. 7th century

Fig. 3.19

82

chapter 3

113

114 123 116 124 117 125

126

118

127

128 119 129

120

130

131 121

122

Figure 3.19. Archaic and Classical Gortynian imports at Eleutherna and local imitations. Scale 1:2

eleutherna

114

Figure 3.20. Archaic and Classical Gortynian imports at Eleutherna.

83

115

121

Scale 1:2

122

118

126

Figure 3.21. Archaic and Classical Gortynian imports at Eleutherna and local imitations. Scale 1:2

117

116

120

127

130

128

131

84

chapter 3

114  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.20

Cluster I Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Gortynian fabric (10YR 6/6). There is a similar base from cluster F. Ca. 525–500 115  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.20

Cluster I Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Black to brown gloss. Gortynian fabric (5YR 5/6). 6th century 116  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.20

Cluster O Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Ring foot. Dull black gloss. Gortynian fabric (5YR 5/6). 6th century 117  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.20

Cluster O Diam. of base 5.0 cm. Dull black gloss. Gortynian fabric (5YR 5/6). 6th century 118  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.21

1988.3B.3904 Diam. of base 7.4 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Gortynian fabric (7.5YR 6/6, core 5YR 6/6). Ca. 500–450. Fourth-century context. 119  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.19

Cluster P Diam. of base 8.6 cm. Red gloss. Gortynian fabric (10YR 7/4–7/6). There is a similar base, but with red fabric (2.5YR 6/6), from 1987.K1.3152. Ca. 475–425 120  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.21

Cluster O Diam. of base 6.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Gortynian fabric (7.5YR 6/6–7/6). Ca. 425–400 121  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.20

Cluster I Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss (worn underneath). Gortynian fabric (5YR 6/6–6/8). Ca. 400–350 122  Gortynian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.20

1994.T.1006 Diam. of base 5.2 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Gortynian fabric (2.5YR 6/8).

eleutherna

85

There is a similar base from 1986.MM.3801. Ca. 400–350 123  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.19

1991.A1.31 Diam. of base 4.5 cm. Ring foot. Dull black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8–7/8, white inclusions). Gortynian type. 6th century 124  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.19

1988.A1.3052 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8–7/8, white inclusions). Gortynian type. 6th century. Fourth-century context. 125  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.19

1986.NN.3901 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8–7/8, white inclusions). Gortynian type. 6th century 126  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base and lower body

Figs. 3.19, 3.21

Cluster P Diam. of base 7.4 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/8–7/8, white inclusions). Gortynian type. Ca. 500–450 127  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.21

1986.NN.3901 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 5/6–6/6, white inclusions). Gortynian type. Ca. 500–450 128  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.21

1991.4L.4146 Diam. of base 7.0 cm. Lustrous red gloss (reserved underfoot). Eleuthernian fabric (2.5YR 6/8–5YR 6/8, white inclusions). Gortynian type. Ca. 475–425 129  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.19

1991.A1.31 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Dull black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (7.5YR 6/4, white inclusions). Gortynian type. Ca. 475–425

86 130  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

chapter 3 Figs. 3.19, 3.21

Cluster N Diam. of base 7.1 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 5/6–6/6, white inclusions). Gortynian type. Ca. 425–400 131  Eleuthernian high-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.19, 3.21

1992A.3Z.4433 Diam. of base 6.5 cm. Black gloss. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 5/6–6/6, white inclusions). Gortynian type. Ca. 400–375. Hellenistic context.

LO CA L P OT TERY Hi g h-Ne c ked Cup Perhaps the most important benefit to emerge from this study of imported pottery at Eleutherna, both overseas and Cretan products, is the light it sheds on local chronology. Indigenous 6th-century pottery is notoriously difficult to identify, let alone date accurately. At Eleutherna, however, imports found with local pots in clusters marking the position of destroyed tombs permit a chronological arrangement of material. When this information is combined with morphological study of the local wares, one can plot a chronological sequence at Eleutherna. It is hoped that future discoveries will contribute by adding more material from better chronological contexts. The high-necked cup sequence presented here can at least provide a starting point for dating other Cretan shapes, spurring research to clarify Archaic developments. The most common shape at Eleutherna in the Archaic period is a one-handled cup, glazed throughout black or red, characterized by an inset rim of variable height, a shallow to deep bowl, a single handle attached vertically at the rim, and a simple base in the form of a low disk foot (see Figs. 3.22–3.29, below). This cup is a lineal descendant of a Late Orientalizing version with a tall rim, examples of which appear in the local repertoire at numerous places on the island, Eleutherna prominent among them.68 At Knossos, the term “high-necked cup” is reserved for the principal drinking vessel of Classical times to distinguish it from a related type with a low rim and hemispherical proportions, termed the “low-necked cup.” The Classical Knossian and Archaic Eleuthernian cups are similar enough to warrant the term “high-necked” for both. At Eleutherna as well, this nomenclature distinguishes the major line of cup production from a less popular variety characterized by a shallow bowl and low rim. At Eleutherna, the rim of high-necked cups measures between 1.9 and 2.9 cm (Table 3.6), with the exception of 133 (1.6 cm) and 165 (3.5 cm); for low-necked cups, it ranges between 1.2 and 1.6 cm. This method of distinction works for fragments, but more information can be gleaned from better-preserved cups. In these cases, bodily proportions can be compared

68. Callaghan (1978, pp. 6–8) presents the evidence for 7th-century cup production on Crete, and Stampolidis (1990, pp. 388) briefly discusses the Orientalizing tradition of pottery manufacture at Eleutherna. In another publication, Stampolidis (1996, pp. 61– 64, nos. 38–44, figs. 117–122) illustrates 7th-century cups from Orthi Petra.

eleutherna

87

TA B LE 3.6. DIMENSIONS AND PROPORT IONS OF ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL H IGH-NECKED CU PS AT ELE U TH ERNA Shoulder Diam.: Rim Diam.

Shoulder Diam.: Total H.

Shoulder Diam.: Body H.

Rim H.: Total H.

11.3

1.14

–

–

–

7.8

6.8

1.15

–

–

–

–

12.6

11.1

1.14

–

–

–

–

–

10.6

9.0

1.17

–

–

–

–

–

–

10.0

8.8

1.14

–

–

–

–

–

–

13.4

12.5

1.07

–

–

–

2.8

0.3

6.5

13.2

11.9

1.11

1.38

2.03

0.29

139

1.9

–

–

14.2

12.9

1.10

–

–

–

140/147

2.3

0.4

8.4

14.1

13.3

1.06

1.27

1.68

0.21

–

–

–

10.9

–

–

–

–

–

142/159

2.6

0.3

9.7

13.6

12.3

1.11

1.08

1.40

0.21

165

3.5

–

–

–

13.4

12.9

1.04

–

–

–

166

–

–

–

–

12.9

–

–

–

–

–

167

–

–

–

–

13.0

–

–

–

–

–

168

2.2

–

–

–

12.5

12.4

1.01

–

–

–

169

–

–

–

–

10.8

–

–

–

–

–

170

2.5

–

–

–

11.8

11.4

1.04

–

–

–

171

2.0

–

–

–

11.2

10.9

1.03

–

–

–

172

2.4

–

–

–

–

10.8

–

–

–

–

Rim H. (cm)

Base H. (cm)

Body H. (cm)

Total H. (cm)

Shoulder Diam. (cm)

132

2.9

–

–

–

12.9

133

1.6

–

–

–

134

2.7

–

–

135

2.1

–

136

2.0

137

2.3

138/146

Cat. No.

141

69. Kotsonas’s (2008b, p. 54) macroscopic description of Eleuthernian fabrics in the Early Iron Age closely conforms to my description of Archaic and Classical fabrics from the site. He observes (p. 55) that even the fine-ware clays are not well levigated and identifies the white inclusions as quartz, not calcite as I have erroneously suggested in earlier works. According to Gouin and Vogt (2000, p. 202), the main potter’s quarter of the ancient town was located at Margarites, 2 km from Eleutherna. Ethnographic parallels for modern production at this village and its access to water and timber sources make Margarites a strong candidate. It is not the only location in the area suitable for pottery production, however, and we should not retroject the modern fame of this potter’s village into antiquity.

9.6 – 11.1 – 12.6

Rim Diam. (cm)

as a ratio of shoulder width (maximum diameter) to total height (actual or reconstructed), with a lower number indicating a taller shape. By this measure, the three sufficiently preserved Archaic high-necked cups rate 1.08, 1.27, and 1.38, whereas the only qualifying low-necked cup scores 1.60. Complications may arise when considering evolving proportions within a long line of cups, as at Knossos, or vessels with high bases. Classification issues will be revisited in Chapters 4 and 9. The characteristic fabric of Eleutherna in the 6th and 5th centuries is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Geometric and Orientalizing periods. A bright orange-red clay (5YR 6/8–7/8) of chalky consistency with subangular white inclusions distinguishes Eleutherna from other known Cretan production centers (Figs. 3.21, and 3.25, below). Perhaps the soft texture of this fabric reflects low kiln temperatures. Inclusions range in size from 0.5 to 1.25 mm, with a rating of medium hardness. The largest inclusions occasionally cause spalling on the surface. In addition, the characteristic fine-ware fabric contains small red or brown-black mineral grits (0.25 mm), with mica usually absent. Without chemical analysis, neither the clay nor the inclusions can be attributed to a specific source, but local production seems assured given the prevalence of this fabric at Eleutherna and its rarity elsewhere.69

88

chapter 3

Archaic The contents of Eleuthernian tomb clusters document subtle changes to the traditional cup shape in the early 6th century. The shape of the highnecked cup at this time conforms closely to its immediate precursors, with a tall upright rim forming a smooth transition with a deep voluminous body (132). Item 133 comes from a pithos burial and may be a regarded as a miniature version of the shape appropriate for the funeral. As yet there is no true base: a simple flat resting surface suffices before the advent of an articulated disk foot (143). Signs of change are evident elsewhere in the cup’s design, however. For instance, the rim of the cup, though never deeply inset on the body, begins to exhibit a sharp junction where it meets the shoulder, a transition marked by a prominent inset notch (134–136). This peculiar treatment of the shoulder becomes a hallmark of 6th-century production, a consistent property of cups and larger vessels alike. Only in the 5th century do some Eleuthernian potters give it up in favor of a smooth transition at the shoulder, until a seamless junction between the rim and body again becomes typical of cup production in the 4th century. Little uniformity in the height of the rim is evident in the Archaic period. Items 135 and 136 come from cluster A, dated by its contents to ca. 575–500. Sixth-century cups are occasionally distinguishable from 7th-century examples by a different quality of gloss. Whereas a rich coat with a lustrous metallic sheen typifies 7th-century production, standards decline in the 6th century, with a dull red or black gloss, prone to flaking and often unevenly applied, substituting for the former rich and lustrous gloss (Fig. 3.25). Another tendency is for the walls of 6th-century cups to become thicker and coarser. Yet these differences are minor, and they yield no universal criteria of 6th-century date. Finer chronological distinctions within the 6th century can be suggested based on the cup’s morphology and the discovery of high-necked cups at Orthi Petra in the company of Early and Middle Corinthian pottery (ca. 600–575) or, in the case of clearly later cups, Attic imports dated to ca. 500–480. From what can be gleaned of the cup’s early development from contexts such as cluster A, the compact form and deep bowl of the Late Orientalizing variety gives way in the first or second quarter of the 6th century to a new form of cup, characterized by a broad capacious bowl (of diameter approximately 14 cm) of shallow hemispherical proportions (137–139), with a width-to-height ratio of 1.38 (138/146). The only comparably squat high-necked cup known to me is a 6th-century example from the Praisos Survey, discussed in Chapter 8 (469/470, Fig. 8.5). The initial squat shape at the start of the 6th century may be contrasted with the cup’s later development. For the rest of the 6th century, a progressive deepening of the bowl combined with a consistent narrowing of the shoulder marks a complete reversal of the initial appearance of the cup. Equally noteworthy is the advent of a true base—a primitive form of disk foot with minimal extension of the outer edge (146–163). One measure of the conservatism of Eleuthernian potters is their refusal to part with this simple form of base later in the cup’s history. Even in the 5th and

eleutherna

70. Boardman and Hayes (1966, p. 34, no. 264, fig. 17) list the cup as Corinthian, an attribution they later correct; see Boardman and Hayes 1973, p. 37. 71. For this change at Knossos, see Callaghan 1978, pp. 6, 8, 10; and Chap. 4, p. 141.

89

4th centuries, long after the potters at Knossos and Gortyn had begun experimenting with an extensive line of progressive high conical pedestal supports, the Eleuthernians refused to follow, maintaining a robust independence from Central Cretan innovations. Another standard Cretan cup base, characterized by a low disk foot with a stepped-profile underfoot, is attested only once in the Eleuthernian repertoire (164). The conservative character of Eleuthernian cup production makes it exceedingly difficult to ascertain a cup’s date on the evidence of fragmentary supports alone. Items 140/147, stylistically dated to ca. 575–525, were found in cluster O with a mixture of Archaic and Classical material. Even without a clear context, the two pieces seem to illustrate a further step in the cup’s development. A deep bowl with a narrower (less convex) shoulder begins to supplant the earlier hemispherical proportions of the cup. For cups with relatively upright rims—in which the rim diameter is equivalent to the diameter at the transition between rim and shoulder—the curvature of the upper-body profile can be measured as a ratio of maximum shoulder diameter to rim diameter. This ratio for 140/147 is 1.06, indicating a less convex shoulder profile. The ratio of width to height is now 1.27, a figure comparable to that of the lowest known 6th-century cups from Azoria. Enough is preserved of 141 to reveal a similar profile, and its findspot in cluster F points to a date in the 6th century. Only the base is left untouched by this succeeding generation of 6th-century potters. We might consider the profile of 140/147 in comparison with an exported Cretan cup from Tocra, dated by context to the first half of the 6th century (Fig. 3.23).70 This cup is missing its base, but a reconstructed height of 9.2 cm is probable, giving a width-to-height ratio of 1.30. The comparison with the cup from Eleutherna is not exact, since the two cups belong to two separate Cretan potting traditions. Yet, despite their different pedigrees, a clear similarity exists between the two in the deep conical proportions of the body and the narrow shoulder, suggesting a roughly contemporaneous date. A subsequent stage in the high-necked cup’s development is represented by an example from an Archaic findspot (cluster J) at Eleutherna (142/159). The proportions of the preserved upper body of this cup recommend reconstructing it as a deep shape, and its thick walls give it a massive appearance. Its convex profile at the shoulder makes a transition to an upper body with only a slight taper, and the ratio of width to estimated height is 1.08, the lowest figure (indicating the tallest proportions) for any Archaic Eleuthernian cup. The longer strap handle differs from the high looping handles of earlier cups; it now attaches farther down the wall of the vase, as one would expect with a deeper shape in which the maximum diameter occurs lower down the body. This handle is thicker and rounder than the handles of earlier cups, but it is difficult to determine from so few examples whether thicker handles are chronologically significant. What seems clear is that Eleuthernian potters preferred to attach the handle at the top of the cup outside the rim rather than inside. At Knossos, potters switched from attaching the handle outside the rim to inside in the Late Archaic period.71 At Eleutherna, the only cups with handle attachments inside the rim date to the Archaic period (209, 216), whereas most

90

chapter 3

138 132

146

133 139

134

140 147 135

141

136

142 137 159 Figure 3.22. Archaic high-necked cups, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

eleutherna

Figure 3.23. Archaic Cretan highnecked cup (no. 264) found at Tocra.

Scale 1:3. Boardman and Hayes 1966, p. 34, no. 264, fig. 17. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

91

low-necked cups and all high-necked cups, even in the Hellenistic period (197), had their handles attached outside the rim. We might expect consistency on such a trivial point of construction in cases of high-volume workshop production. It would be surprising, however, if every Cretan production center adopted the same procedure. At Azoria, both ways of attaching the handle are evident in the 6th century, although outside the rim seems to be more common. At Aphrati, a group of high-necked cups dated to ca. 425 all have their handles attached outside the rim.72 132  High-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 3.22

1988.5A.5002 H. of rim 2.9 cm; Diam. 12.9 cm, of rim 11.3 cm. Metallic black gloss. Ca. 600 133  High-necked cup, rim, handle, and shoulder

Fig. 3.22

1995.3X.1112 (pithos burial) H. of rim 1.6 cm; Diam. 7.8 cm, of rim 6.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 600–575. Context ca. 600–575. 134  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.22

1992.3N.4331A H. of rim 2.7 cm; Diam. 12.6 cm, of rim 11.1 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 600–575. Fourth-century context. 135  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 3.22

Cluster A H. of rim 2.1 cm; Diam. 10.6 cm, of rim 9.0 cm. Dipped brown gloss. Ca. 600–575 136  High-necked cup, rim, handle, and shoulder

Fig. 3.22

Cluster A H. of rim 2.0 cm; Diam. 10.0 cm, of rim 8.8 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from 1988.2X, a pithos burial. Ca. 600–575 137  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and upper body

Figs. 3.22, 3.25

1985.A.3011 H. of rim 2.3 cm; Diam. 13.4 cm, of rim 12.5 cm. Black-brown gloss. Ca. 600–550 138  High-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and upper body Figs. 3.22, 3.25 Cluster A H. of rim 2.8 cm; Diam. 13.2 cm, of rim 11.9 cm. Dull black gloss. There is a similar shoulder and lower body fragment from cluster C. Ca. 575–550 139  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and upper body

72. As I have noted previously (Erickson 2002, p. 59).

Cluster O H. of rim 1.9 cm; Diam. 14.2 cm, of rim 12.9 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from cluster A. Ca. 600–550

Fig. 3.22

92

chapter 3

155 143 156 144

145

157

148

158

149

150

151

160

161

162

152 163 153 164 154 140  High-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and upper body

Fig. 3.22

Cluster O H. of rim 2.3 cm; Diam. 14.1 cm, of rim 13.3 cm. Red-brown gloss. Ca. 600–550 141  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder Cluster F Diam. 10.9 cm. Black gloss. 6th century

Fig. 3.22

Figure 3.24. Orientalizing and Archaic high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

eleutherna

137

Figure 3.25. Archaic and Hellenistic high-necked cups, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

142

93

138

197

142  High-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and upper body Figs. 3.22, 3.25 Cluster J H. of rim 2.6 cm; Diam. 13.6 cm, of rim 12.3 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 550–500 143  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 3.24

Cluster J Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. 7th century 144  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster G Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 145  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster O Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 600–550 146  High-necked cup, base Cluster G Diam. of base 6.8 cm. Red gloss. 6th century

Fig. 3.22

94

chapter 3

147  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.22

Cluster O Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Red-brown gloss. Ca. 600–550 148  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.24, 3.28

1986.MM.3801 Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 149  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.24, 3.28

Cluster A Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Metallic gloss. 6th century 150  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.24, 3.28

Cluster K Diam. of base 5.8 cm. 6th century 151  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.24, 3.28

Cluster C Diam. of base 5.2 cm. Black gloss exterior, red interior. There is a similar base from cluster A. 6th century 152  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.24, 3.28

Cluster A Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 153  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster I Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Black gloss exterior, red interior. There is a similar base from 1986.MM.3801. 6th century 154  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster G Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Red gloss. 6th century 155  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster G Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Unglazed. 6th century 156  High-necked cup, base 1986.PP.3401 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss exterior, red inside. 6th century

Fig. 3.24

eleutherna 157  High-necked cup, base

95 Fig. 3.24

Cluster L Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 158  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

1988.4K.4102 Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 159  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.22

Cluster J Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Metallic black gloss. There are two similar bases, one from cluster A and one from cluster J. 6th century 160  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster A Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 161  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

1989.3B.3902 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 162  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster G Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 163  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

1992.3M.4231 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Red gloss exterior. 6th century 164  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.24

Cluster F Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Brown fabric (overfire). Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500

L ate Ar c hai c and Cl assi c al Further experimentation in the 5th century produced a cup of appreciably different form, characterized by narrow and deep proportions, a maximum diameter of the shoulder (11–12 cm) smaller than earlier examples, and the replacement of the notched shoulder, a mainstay of 6th-century production, with a smooth junction. An outturned rim of medium height becomes another standard feature of 5th-century cups (168–171). The fragmentary cup 167, dated to ca. 500–450 by the other material in the

96

chapter 3

tomb cluster, would hardly be out of place in the contemporaneous Knossian setting of Late Archaic deposit RR:H (288, Fig. 4.10). This parallel is not close enough, however, to suggest that they are contemporaries. In the first half of the 5th century, Eleuthernian potters maintain the broad bowl of earlier high-necked cups (167), but a narrower version appears in the 5th century (168–171). The offset rim and flush shoulder of these 5th-century Eleuthernian cups result in an attenuated profile comparable to contemporary cups from Knossos (types III–IV, 288, 289, 292–298, Figs. 4.10, 4.11). In comparison to the Knossian high-necked cup, however, the Classical Eleuthernian version possesses a uniformly lower rim (2.0–2.4 cm). The standard 5th-century base exhibits only minor differences from its predecessors, a low conical foot becoming the standard means of support (184–192).73 165 is difficult to place in the Eleuthernian sequence. It bears a trace of the Archaic notched shoulder, but the transition is not as abrupt. Its tall, flaring rim is unparalleled at Eleutherna. A slight adjustment of the width of the base is necessitated by the contraction of the bottom half of the vessel, a development accompanied by the introduction of a new type of base, another conservative form characterized by minimal articulation of a disk foot with a beveled outer edge (173, 175–177, 181). Deposits at Eleutherna and Knossos substantiate a date of ca. 525–480 for the appearance of this common Cretan variety of base. The practice of smearing the underside of the base with irregular strokes of dilute gloss—the standard decorative scheme of Knossian potters in the 5th century—found no takers at Eleutherna, where instead the underside is either left in reserve or treated with a uniform coat of gloss (Fig. 3.28).74 On the whole, the conservatism of Eleuthernian potters resulted in only minor changes in the design and decoration of cup bases in the 6th and 5th centuries. 165  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and upper body

Fig. 3.26

1993.4L H. of rim 3.5 cm; Diam. 13.4 cm, of rim 12.9 cm. Black gloss outside, red inside. Ca. 525–480 166  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

Cluster H Diam. 12.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–480 167  High-necked cup, shoulder and upper body

Fig. 3.26

Cluster K Diam. 13.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 500–450 168  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder 1987.A1.3058 H. of rim 2.2 cm; Diam. 12.5 cm, of rim 12.4 cm. 5th century. Hellenistic context.

Fig. 3.26

73. A similar base with a wedgeshaped outer edge is characteristic of 5th-century low-necked cups at Knossos; see Chap. 4, p. 147. 74. For the Knossian decorative practice, see Chap. 4, p. 134.

eleutherna

165

166

167

97

193

194

195

168 196

169

197 170

171

198 172 Figure 3.26. Late Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic high-necked cups, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

98

chapter 3

173

174

175

182

183

184

176 185 177 186 178

179

187

180

188

181

189

190

191

192 169  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

Cluster I Diam. 10.8 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–480 170  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and upper body 1985.Z.3802 H. of rim 2.5 cm; Diam. 11.8 cm, of rim 11.4 cm. Black gloss. 5th century

Fig. 3.26

Figure 3.27. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

eleutherna

148

99

149

151

Figure 3.28. Archaic high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

150

152

178

179

177

180

171  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

Cluster L H. of rim 2.0 cm; Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 10.9 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from cluster O. 5th century 172  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

Cluster A H. of rim 2.4 cm; Diam. of rim 10.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. 5th or 4th century 173  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

Cluster E Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–480 174  High-necked cup, base Cluster G Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Red gloss. Ca. 525–480

Fig. 3.27

100

chapter 3

175  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1987.AA.4006 Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss exterior. Ca. 525–480 176  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1991.B1 Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–480 177  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.27, 3.28

Cluster I Diam. of base 5.2 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–480 178  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.27, 3.28

1985.Z.3804 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–480. Hellenistic context. 179  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.27, 3.28

1992.3X.1113 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Red gloss. Ca. 525–480 180  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 3.27, 3.28

Cluster I Diam. of base 5.0 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar base from 1985.G1.3202. Ca. 525–480 181  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1989.3B.3902 Diam. of base 5.2 cm. Black gloss. Brown fabric. There is a similar base from cluster I. Ca. 525–480 182  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

Cluster G Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar base in this same cluster. Ca. 500–480 183  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

Cluster K Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 500–450 184  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

Cluster G Diam. 6.1 cm. Red gloss. There are two similar bases, one from cluster G and one from cluster O. Ca. 500–480

eleutherna 185  High-necked cup, base

101 Fig. 3.27

1988.A1.3052 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Unglazed. 5th century. Fourth-century context. 186  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1987.3A–3B.3701 Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Gloss exterior. 5th century 187  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1992.A2.32.00–18.80 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. 5th century 188  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1992.LK1.17.82 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Unglazed. 5th century 189  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1987.4A.4001 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss exterior. 5th century 190  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1987.4A.4001 Diam. of base 7.6 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). 5th century 191  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1992.3X.1113 Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Black gloss. There are three similar bases, from 1987.3A.3701–3702, 1987.3A–3B.3701, and 1986.BB.3404. 5th century 192  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.27

1987.4A.4001 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. 5th century

Fo urth-Century and Hel leni sti c The 4th-century and Hellenistic development of the high-necked cup at Eleutherna lies outside the scope of this study, but it is worth briefly considering the cup’s later history in the light of its continued resistance to change in later periods. In the 4th century, the proportions of the cup become more streamlined, with a smooth transition at the junction of rim and shoulder (e.g., 193). Fourth-century cup bases are distinguished from their 6th- and 5th-century predecessors by thinner walls and a hard, fine

102

chapter 3

fabric, but the design of the base remains essentially unchanged (200–205). Conservative traditions die hard. Even in the Early Hellenistic period (ca. 325–250), the Eleuthernian potters con­tinued to produce the same primitive disk foot with a broad and low profile, by now completely out of step with Central Cretan fashions.75 The base of the Early Hellenistic cup 198 is almost indistinguishable from its 6th-century antecedents. Its sharp vertically inset underfoot bears a curious resemblance to the stepped profile of some 6th-century bases. A closer comparison is to bases from Kato Symi with a vertical inset in reverse of the stepped profile.76 Another Hellenistic base from Eleutherna, 201, has a less sharp underfoot inset and is not directly comparable to earlier types. The ovoid upper-body profile of 198 vividly displays the conservative character, or perhaps even deliberate traditionalism, of Eleuthernian potters. Its ratio of width to height is 1.01, making it the tallest preserved cup from the necropolis area. But compared to Classical high-necked cups from Knossos and Aphrati, 198 is a squat shape (Fig. 9.1). 193  High-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and upper body

Fig. 3.26

Cluster O H. of rim 2.9 cm; Diam. 10.1 cm, of rim 8.8 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 400–350 194  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

1989.3B.3907 H. of rim 2.7 cm; Diam. 11.4, of rim 10.4 cm. Black gloss. Decoration along the rim in fugitive white paint. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from 1986.KK.3604. Late Classical or Hellenistic. Early Hellenistic context. 195  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

1989.3B.3907 Diam. 11.9 cm. Black gloss. Fugitive white paint along rim. Late Classical or Early Hellenistic. Early Hellenistic context. 196  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.26

1985.B.3204 H. of rim 2.6 cm; Diam. 10.5 cm, of rim 9.3 cm. Unglazed. There are two similar rim and shoulder fragments, from 1992.3N.4332 and 1992.XDB.9408. Early Hellenistic. Early Hellenistic context. 197  High-necked cup, rim, handle, and shoulder

Figs. 3.25, 3.26

1985.B.3204 H. of rim 2.6 cm; Diam. 10.4 cm, of rim 9.2 cm. Early Hellenistic. Early Hellenistic context. 198  High-necked cup, partial rim, shoulder, lower body, and base 1985.B.3204 H. 12.2 cm; Diam. 12.3 cm, of base 5.8 cm. Unglazed. Early Hellenistic. Early Hellenistic context.

Fig. 3.26

75. There are surprisingly few high-necked cups attested among the finds from the Hellenistic domestic quarters on Nisi hill. For the exceptional examples, see Kalpaxis, Furtwängler, and Schnapp 1994, pp. 83–84, nos. K39–K42, pl. 8 (dated to ca. 300–275). The increased popularity of the local kantharos perhaps came at the expense of the high-necked cup. 76. Compare the base of 198 to Archaic cup bases from Kato Symi in Erickson 2002, pp. 51–52, nos. 9–18, fig. 4.

eleutherna

103

199 203 200 204 201 Figure 3.29. Fourth-century and Hellenistic high-necked cup bases, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

205 202 199  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.29

1985.A.3017 Diam. of base 3.6 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Hellenistic 200  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.29

Cluster O Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 400–350 201  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.29

1991.B Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Black gloss. Hellenistic 202  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.29

1991.B1 Diam. of base 3.5 cm. Black gloss. Hellenistic 203  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.29

1993.3Z.4437B Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Hellenistic. Hellenistic context. 204  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 3.29

1986.MM.3801 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Red gloss. Early Hellenistic. Hellenistic context. 205  High-necked cup, base Cluster D Diam. of base 3.7 cm. Lustrous black gloss. There is a similar base from cluster K. Hellenistic

Fig. 3.29

104

chapter 3

TA B LE 3.7. DIMENSIONS AND PROPORT IONS OF ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL LOW-NECKED CUPS AT ELE U TH ERNA Rim H. (cm)

Base H. (cm)

Body H. (cm)

Total H. (cm)

Shoulder Diam. (cm)

Rim Diam. (cm)

Shoulder Diam.: Rim Diam.

Shoulder Diam.: Total H.

Shoulder Diam.: Body H.

Rim H.: Total H.

206

1.2

0

5.7

6.9

11.0

10.9

1.01

1.60

1.93

0.17

207

1.3

–

–

–

11.6

10.9

1.06

–

–

–

208

1.4

–

–

–

12.6

10.8

1.17

–

–

–

209

1.1

–

–

–

12.6

11.8

1.07

–

–

–

210

1.5

–

–

–

11.8

11.1

1.06

–

–

–

211

1.6

–

–

–

12.5

11.7

1.07

–

–

–

212

1.4

–

–

–

13.9

13.5

1.03

–

–

–

213

1.4

–

–

–

12.4

11.3

1.10

–

–

–

214

1.4

–

–

–

10.8

9.9

1.10

–

–

–

215

1.4

–

–

–

12.3

10.9

1.13

–

–

–

216

1.3

–

–

–

10.4

10.4

1.00

–

–

–

217

1.5

–

–

–

12.0

12.1

0.99

–

–

–

218

2.3

0

8.5

10.8

12.9

11.9

1.08

1.19

1.52

0.21

Cat. No.

Low - Ne c ked Cup As at Knossos, where production of a Classical low-necked cup accompanied its high-necked counterpart, a low-necked version similarly complements the main line of cup production at Eleutherna in the Archaic period (see Figs. 3.30, 3.31, below).77 The lower height of the rim (1.2–1.5 cm) and the depressed hemispherical proportions of the body distinguish the low-necked from the high-necked cup (Table 3.7, cf. Table 3.6).78 In the Late Orientalizing period, the vessel is characteristically small, with a shallow bowl and a strongly outturned low rim (206, 207). A single vertical handle attaches at the rim, and a simple flat resting surface serves as the means of support before the development of an articulated base. By the beginning of the 6th century, the low-necked cup had become a popular alternative to the standard high-necked shape, but its initial popularity was not destined to last. For the rest of the Archaic and Classical periods, the low-necked cup appears infrequently. At Eleutherna, most low-necked cups date to the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century. The following combination of features may be indicative of a 6thcentury date: a less strongly everted rim, a sharp junction between the inset rim and shoulder creating a prominent notch at the joining of the two in the manner of 6th-century high-necked cups, and an adjustment of the proportions as a hemispherical body with a slightly higher center of gravity replaces the formerly sagging profile. Based on these criteria, 208–213 fall within the early 6th century. Similar cups in a different Cretan fabric appear at Kato Symi.79 Moreover, a smaller version of the same shape is known at Knossos (260, Fig. 4.6).

77. For the distinction at Knossos, see Callaghan 1978, pp. 6–8; Chap. 4, pp. 133–134, 147. 78. Antecedents of the shape at Eleutherna include Kotsonas’s (2005, pp. 604–621, nos. CU.101–CU.159, pls. 29, 30; 2008b, pp. 197–215) category of small, bellied cup with an offset rim known from Geometric and Orientalizing funerary contexts. 79. As illustrated by Erickson (2002, p. 50, nos. 7, 8, fig. 3).

eleutherna

105

In the first or second quarter of the 6th century, a definite progression of the low-necked cup takes place at Eleutherna, a change documented by 214. It combines an upright flaring rim with a deep body and a less convex upper-body profile, which may together signify a later stage of development. By then the profile of the low-necked cup closely approximates on a smaller scale examples from the contemporary repertoire of high-necked cups, as seen by comparing the complementary high- and low-necked cups 138 and 214. These two cups were, in fact, found in nearby tomb clusters, both dated independently to the 6th century. The low-necked cup 214 comes from cluster D, dated with unusual precision based on early Lakonian krater forms to ca. 600–550. Item 215 comes from another tomb group that produced an early form of high-necked cup (138) as well as many Corinthian and Attic imports. On morphological grounds, 215 can be compared to high-necked cups with a less convex upper-body profile (140–142); its deep shape suggests a later date than 214, perhaps in the middle of the 6th century. Item 216 exhibits an almost flush shoulder, and its context points to a date in the 6th century. A deep body is characteristic of the mature 6th-century lownecked cup. It is doubtful whether the attachment of the handle inside the rim has any bearing on the cup’s chronology, unlike at Knossos, where the method of attaching the handle holds chronological significance. Instead, the two methods of attaching the handle, either inside or outside the rim, occur side by side at Eleutherna. An exported low-necked cup found at Itanos (217), attributed to an Eleuthernian workshop based on fabric, adds to the number of 6th-century products. It is included here because the material from Itanos does not receive separate treatment in this book. As for the position of this cup in the chronological sequence, a date either shortly before or after 210–215 agrees with the evidence of the morphology and the Late Archaic context of the cup. Item 218 differs from the other cups in this section. This intact cup possesses a relatively high rim (2.3 cm) comparable to Classical high-necked cups, but the plain base and low, hemispherical proportions (width-to-height ratio of 1.19) seem out of place in the high-necked repertoire. At least the latest sufficiently preserved high-necked cup is a taller shape (142, widthto-height-ratio of 0.92), and Classical examples hint at even more attenuated proportions. The date of 218 is problematic. It has a smooth transition from shoulder to rim, unlike the notched shoulder of 6th-century cups, and its lustrous coat of b.g. points to a date in the 5th century or later. Unfortunately, its context does not provide an indication of date. If Classical, 218 would be the latest low-necked cup from the necropolis excavations. At Knossos, the development of low- and high-necked cups begins to converge in the late 5th century, when it becomes difficult to separate the two lines. Perhaps a similar amalgamation of the types occurred at Eleutherna. 206  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 3.30

Cluster J H. 6.9 cm, of rim 1.2 cm; Diam. 11.0 cm, of rim 10.9 cm, of base 5.1 cm. Red-brown gloss. 7th or 6th century

106

chapter 3

206

207

213

214

208

215 209

216

210

217

211

212 218 Figure 3.30. Orientalizing and Archaic low-necked cups, Eleutherna and Itanos. Scale 1:3

eleutherna

Figure 3.31. Archaic low-necked cups, Eleutherna. Scale 2:3

210

107

214

207  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and bowl

Fig. 3.30

Cluster J H. of rim 1.3 cm; Diam. 11.6 cm, of rim 10.9 cm. Metallic black gloss. 7th or 6th century 208  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and bowl

Fig. 3.30

Cluster J H. of rim 1.4 cm; Diam. 12.6 cm, of rim 10.8 cm. Red-brown gloss. 7th or 6th century 209  Low-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and bowl

Fig. 3.30

Cluster J H. of rim 1.1 cm; Diam. 12.6 cm, of rim 11.8 cm. Black gloss. 7th or 6th century 210  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Figs. 3.30, 3.31

Cluster J H. of rim 1.5 cm; Diam. 11.8 cm, of rim 11.1 cm. Brown gloss. 7th or 6th century 211  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and upper body

Fig. 3.30

Cluster I H. of rim 1.6 cm; Diam. 12.5 cm, of rim 11.7 cm. Brown gloss. 7th or 6th century 212  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 3.30

Cluster I H. of rim 1.4 cm; Diam. 13.9 cm, of rim 13.5 cm. Black gloss. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from cluster O. 7th or 6th century 213  Low-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and bowl

Fig. 3.30

1987.K.3109 H. of rim 1.4 cm; Diam. 12.4 cm, of rim 11.3 cm. Black gloss. Early 6th century 214  Low-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and lower body

Figs. 3.30, 3.31

Cluster D H. of rim 1.4 cm; Diam. 10.8 cm, of rim 9.9 cm. Dull black gloss. Ca. 600–550

108

chapter 3

215  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 3.30

Cluster A H. of rim 1.4 cm; Diam. 12.3 cm, of rim 10.9 cm. Red-brown gloss. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from 1985.B.3211. Middle of the 6th century 216  Low-necked cup, rim, handle, and shoulder

Fig. 3.30

Cluster J H. of rim 1.3 cm; Diam. 10.4 cm, of rim 10.4 cm. Black gloss. There are two similar rim and shoulder fragments from cluster J. 6th century 217  Low-necked cup, rim, and shoulder

Fig. 3.30

Itanos 1997.6163.01–02 H. of rim 1.5 cm; Diam. 12.0 cm, of rim 12.1 cm. Black to brown gloss. 6th century. Late Archaic context. 218  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 3.30

1987.BB.3514 H. 10.8 cm, of rim 2.3 cm; Diam. 12.9 cm, of rim 11.9 cm. Black gloss. 5th century

De e p Cu p with O ff s e t Rim Item 219 is a peculiar cup with a single vertical handle attached at the rim in the manner of high- and low-necked cups, but the shape fits neither category (Fig. 3.32). Its offset rim and squat proportions are reminiscent of the low-necked repertoire; however, the rim (1.7 cm) is higher than any low-necked cup’s, and the maximum diameter at the shoulder (14 cm) places it outside the range of most low-necked cups. Some high-necked cups (159–163) have the same shoulder diameter, but the resemblance of 219 to these cups ends with size. The sharply carinated shoulder is its distinctive feature. For convenience, I have classified this unique vessel with the deep cups known at Knossos. Item 220, from the same tomb cluster as 219, is a more typical example of this type. Potters at Knossos and Eleutherna may not have deviated from the standard cup repertoire enough to produce a series of such cups. The date of 219 is difficult to determine. It lacks the notched shoulder of Archaic Eleuthernian cups, but its findspot in cluster O, and the fact that nothing like it is known at Geometric and Orientalizing Knossos and Eleutherna, makes a 6thcentury date probable.80 219  Deep cup, rim, shoulder, handle, and lower body

Fig. 3.32

Cluster O H. of rim 1.7 cm; Diam. 14.0 cm, of rim 12.1 cm. Black gloss. 6th century 220  Deep cup, rim, shoulder, handle, and lower body Cluster O H. of rim 1.9 cm; Diam. 11.0 cm, of rim 9.9 cm. Black gloss. 6th century

Fig. 3.32

80. Only slightly similar is a carinated cup from Kommos dated to the late 6th century; see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 251, no. 396, pl. 4:19.

eleutherna

219 Figure 3.32. Archaic deep cup with offset rim, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

109

220

S ma l l H emi sp h er i c al C u p Another type of drinking cup from cluster O is characterized by a shallow hemispherical body topped by a low, slightly flaring rim (Fig. 3.33). Its smaller size distinguishes 221 from all other 6th-century varieties. In shape, it resembles a low-necked cup. Potters at Knossos and Gortyn produced cups of roughly the same dimensions and shape. Dating by context places this example in the 6th century, a date in accord with evidence from Knossos and Gortyn. A fuller discussion of the type appears in Chapter 4.

221 Figure 3.33. Archaic small hemispherical cup, Eleutherna.

221  Small hemispherical cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 3.33

Cluster O H. of rim 1.1 cm; Diam. 9.2 cm, of rim 7.8 cm. Black gloss. 6th century

Scale 1:2

K rater

81. Kotsonas 2008b, pp. 183–187, fig. 44. 82. For a cup at Praisos of shape similar to that of the Eleuthernian krater, see Palermo 1992, p. 70, fig. 13, pl. 21. 83. Kotsonas 2005, p. 543, no. KR.6, pls. 25, 73. 84. See Coldstream 1973b, pp. 51– 53, no. 24, fig. 7, pl. 19.

Eleuthernian potters made numerous changes to their form of krater during the Geometric and Orientalizing periods. Kotsonas distinguishes at least two varieties in his study of the Early Iron Age material from the cemetery.81 In addition, the fragmentary rims presented here (222, 223) may have belonged to Late Orientalizing kraters, adding to the number of known types. These fragments came from large open vessels with rims characterized by an overhanging lip that forms a convex top with a concave outer surface frequently punctuated by a prominent ridge farther down the neck (Fig. 3.34). If this was the standard form of krater in the second half of the 7th century, a rethinking of the shape occurs at the beginning of the 6th century, when the local potters replaced it with what is essentially a giant approximation of the contemporary high-necked cup (224, 225).82 Archaic potters may have drawn on a much earlier krater in redesigning the Late Orientalizing shape, for an intact krater similar to the Archaic examples appears at the Early Iron Age cemetery.83 For the Archaic shape, an upright rim with a tiny projecting ledge at the lip meets a voluminous shoulder at a sharply inset angle of attachment, resulting in a prominent notch at the junction of the two in a fashion similar to the contemporary cup repertoire (Figs. 3.34, 3.35). In addition, the krater’s vertical handle attaches at its rim and shoulder in an arrangement reminiscent of the cups, although the thick looping handle of the krater attaches higher on the shoulder. At Knossos, the local high-necked cup similarly inspired the production of such a krater in ca. 500–480 (RR:H), although the narrower shoulder and overhanging rim of the Knossian example reveal its later date.84 The Eleuthernian kraters probably date to the first half of the 6th century,

110

chapter 3

222

223

225

224

as suggested by the findspots of two examples (cluster H, cluster I). Confirmation of a 6th-century date rests on a comparison between the form of the krater and that of high- and low-necked cups dated to ca. 600–550. A Cretan krater fragment found at Cyrene, perhaps made at Aphrati, is smaller and has a finer fabric, but the shape is much the same.85 Judging from the small number of finds at Eleutherna, the production of kraters did not find a large market at home. Perhaps the Eleuthernians had little enthusiasm for the manufacture of this shape when they could rely on a steady supply of Lakonian products to complement their sets of local drinking cups. Local potters also made at least one close copy of a Lakonian krater (34), production of which is known also at Knossos. At Azoria, a Cretan black krater has come to light that can best be described as a loose quotation of Lakonian—the rim lacks the articulation of standard Lakonian kraters, and the local example has a completely different handle.86 222  Krater, rim fragment

Fig. 3.34

1987.4A.4001 Max. p.dim. 5.8 cm. Dilute black gloss. 7th century

Figure 3.34. Orientalizing and Archaic kraters, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

224 Figure 3.35. Archaic krater, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

223  Krater, rim fragment

Fig. 3.34

1992.3M.4231 Max. p.dim. 6.4 cm. Dilute black gloss. 7th century 224  Krater, rim, handle, shoulder, and upper body

Figs. 3.34, 3.35

Cluster H Diam. 34.35 cm, of rim 25.8 cm. Dilute red gloss. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from cluster O. 600–550

85. Schaus 1985, pp. 13–14, no. 41, pl. 3. 86. Haggis et al. 2007, p. 285, fig. 31:5.

eleutherna 225  Krater, rim, handle, and shoulder

111 Fig. 3.34

Cluster I Max. p.dim. 8.1 cm; H. of rim 7.5 cm. Dilute red gloss. 600–550

Tray, Bowl , an d “ S k y p ho s”

87. Tomb 2X was furnished with a one-handled drinking cup not unlike 136 (Fig. 3.22). 88. For Knossos, see Coldstream 1973b, pp. 39–40, nos. 43–48, fig. 2, pl. 13. A similar version of tray was still in production in the Early Hellenistic period; see Callaghan 1992, p. 101, deposit UM:H12, no. 54, pl. 84. For the exported Cretan trays at Tocra, see Boardman and Hayes 1973, p. 38, nos. 2106–2108, fig. 16, pl. 20. 89. It is often difficult to distinguish among grave goods, tomb markers, and pottery used in the ritual meal. Hall (1998, pp. 582–590) discusses the difficulties of interpretation in the context of southern Italian funerary rites. At Knossos, Coldstream (2001, p. 59) interprets trays in Geometric and Orientalizing tombs as sets for funerary feasts. 90. Stampolidis 1993, p. 64, no. 20. 91. A published context from Eleutherna contains one of these bowls in the company of an Early Corinthian alabastron, supplying a secure date of ca. 620–590 for the other contents; see Stampolidis 1996, p. 45, no. 5, fig. 84.

As the material under consideration derives from a burial ground, only a limited range of b.g. shapes and a few coarse or cooking vessels appear— what the Eleuthernians deemed worthy to include in their burials, not a representative cross-section of local production. The people of Eleutherna chose to bury their dead with b.g. products of fine quality, with the notable exception of coarse trays (see Fig. 3.36, below). The large size of these trays (of a diameter often exceeding 60 cm), coarse fabric, and poor dilute red gloss distinguish them from other tomb furnishings (226–229). Such trays appear in the tombs by the Late Orientalizing period, as evidenced by an unpublished pithos burial (ca. 625–600) furnished with cups and a tray.87 Similar trays number among the tomb offerings elsewhere on Crete, at Knossos and Aphrati, and 6th-century trays appear among the exported Cretan finds from Tocra.88 A funerary significance for the shape is apparent at Eleutherna, although the function of the tray in the funerary rites cannot be determined. Perhaps trays served as containers for food in the eternal banquets of the underworld. Alternatively, mourners may have used the trays in the service of the ritual meal at the time of burial.89 The trays listed here survive in fragmentary condition. In all likelihood they derive either from disturbed tombs of roughly the same date as the unpublished intact tomb equipped with a like tray (ca. 625–600), or from somewhat later tombs dated to the first half of the 6th century. The simplicity of the tray’s design and its lack of decoration make it difficult to document a progression of the form. It is a large and circular shape, with either twin knobs or horizontal strap handles on each side. A flat bottom and a vertical or slanted side wall form the salient features of this class, with the optional elaboration of an overhanging rim. The fabric is extremely coarse, characterized by uneven firing and large white and other mineral inclusions. An uneven application of dilute red gloss to the rim and side typifies the group. Dating of these trays depends almost entirely on context, which includes tomb clusters of apparent 6th-century date. The smallest of these trays (230) resembles bowls of an almost identical form consisting of a flat bottom, a straight side wall, and a variety of handle types, including a lug or strap handle, vertically or horizontally attached (235, 236). This type of bowl, a close cousin of the trays, has been termed an “incense burner,” and among the elaborate Orientalizing examples at Eleutherna one of superb quality with plastic decoration in the form of a Daedalic human head has received special comment.90 The bowls included here are uniformly plain, with decoration confined to an uneven application of dull red or black gloss (see Fig. 3.37, below). Consequently, a date for these bowls at the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century depends, like that of the trays, on their findspots.91

112

chapter 3

Another category of small bowl includes just two surviving examples (231, 232), one of which fortunately preserves a complete profile (231). The size and shape of this bowl, with its low everted rim and carinated side wall, corresponds to a popular Cretan form of Archaic lamp, local examples of which are shown in Fig. 5.2 (386–391). A series of parallel grooves on the upper shoulder enlivens the appearance of these bowls. Both examples were found in tomb clusters of suspected 6th-century date.92 In addition, a third category of bowl is represented by two examples of equivalent size with a maximum diameter (ca. 12 cm) appreciably larger than the previous two examples (233, 234). A shallow body with a flat resting surface characterizes this class. The profile of one such bowl (233) defines a continuous curve, with the maximum diameter of the vessel reached just below the rim. The dating of this type is problematic. A similar bowl appears in the Attic repertoire in the first half of the 4th century, but there may be no real chronological relationship between the two.93 The other bowl possesses a short inset concave rim (234), inviting a comparison with an Archaic Attic drinking cup, type C.94 Here again, the comparison between the Attic and Cretan forms may be misleading. Finally, excavations at Eleutherna yielded a single “skyphos” (238), a small Cretan bowl encountered elsewhere on the island in datable contexts at Knossos (RR:H, ca. 500–480, 360, Fig. 4.23). The example from Eleutherna is probably a near contemporary of the Knossian bowl, as suggested by its 6th-century findspot. As in the case of the Knossian bowls, the decoration of the Eleuthernian “skyphos” consists of an irregular pattern of gloss around the rim, a result of the process of dipping. The Eleuthernian “skyphos” likewise possesses a pair of horizontal strap handles attached at the rim on opposite sides, while a carinated side wall recalls the profile of the Knossian bowl. The Eleuthernian product, lacking the elaboration of an overhanging collared rim, is a simplified version of the Knossian shape. 226  Tray, rim, side, and bottom

Fig. 3.36

Cluster H Max. p.dim. 9.5 cm. Red gloss on rim. Coarse fabric. 7th or 6th century 227  Tray, rim, side, and bottom

Fig. 3.36

Cluster P Max. p.dim. 9.8 cm. Red gloss. Coarse fabric. 7th or 6th century 228  Tray, rim, side, and bottom

Fig. 3.36

1988.2X (pithos burial) Max. p.dim. 9.3 cm. Red gloss. 7th or 6th century 229  Tray, rim, side, and bottom 1993.3Z, level 4437B Max. p.dim. 8.0 cm. Red gloss. 7th or 6th century

Fig. 3.36

92. The profile of these small bowls and the shallow grooves decorating the shoulder recall a larger lekane from a 5th-century context (deposit B) at Knossos; see Coldstream 1973a, pp. 22, 24, no. 6, fig. 14, pl. 11. 93. As Agora XII, nos. 830–832, dated to ca. 350–325. 94. As Agora XII, nos. 398–413, dated to ca. 525–480.

eleutherna

226

228

Figure 3.36. Orientalizing and Archaic trays, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

113

227

229

230

230  Tray, intact profile

Fig. 3.36

Cluster C H. 3.0 cm; Diam. of rim 17.0 cm. Red gloss. There is a similar rim, side, handle, and bottom fragment from cluster F. 6th century 231  Bowl, intact profile

Fig. 3.37

Cluster B H. 2.6 cm; Diam. 9.1 cm, of rim 8.8 cm, of base 6.9 cm. Red gloss interior. 6th century 232  Bowl, rim and shoulder

Fig. 3.37

Cluster P Diam. 8.9 cm, of rim 8.8 cm. Red gloss. 6th century 233  Bowl, rim and body

Fig. 3.37

1991.A1 Diam. 10.7 cm, of rim 11.1 cm. Red gloss. 6th or 5th century 234  Bowl, intact

Fig. 3.37

1987.3A.3701 H. 4.7 cm; Diam. 9.9 cm, of rim 9.8 cm, of base 5.7 cm. Red gloss. 6th century 235  Bowl, intact profile

Fig. 3.37

1987.3A.3701, 37802, 3951 H. 3.9 cm; Diam. 10.2 cm, rim 10.8 cm. Red fabric. “Incense burner” type. Lug handle. 7th or 6th century

114

chapter 3

231

235

232

236 233

237

234

238 236  Bowl, intact

Fig. 3.37

Cluster A H. 2.7 cm; Diam. of rim 6.3 cm. Unglazed. Horizontal strap handle. “Incense burner” type. 6th century 237  Bowl, intact profile

Fig. 3.37

Cluster I H. 2.7 cm; Diam. of rim 6.3 cm. Unglazed. Vertical strap handle. “Incense burner” type. 7th or 6th century 238  “Skyphos,” rim, handle, and shoulder

Fig. 3.37

Cluster F Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 11.0 cm. Irregular black-brown gloss along rim. Ca. 500–480

Figure 3.37. Archaic and Classical bowls and “skyphos,” Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

c hap ter 4

Kn os s os

1. Evans’s discoveries are documented in the monumental series of publications The Palace of Minos (1921–1935). This work was immediately recognized by his contemporaries as a cornerstone of Minoan archaeology; see Pendlebury 1939, p. 18. Papadopoulos (2005) credits Evans with a role in forming modern European identity. 2. Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 298) and Hood and Smyth (1981, p. 1) reach much the same conclusion. 3. As reported by Young (1937, pp. 137–138). For a brief summary of Dunbabin’s results, see Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 294. 4. Evans’s investigation of the Minoan palace produced only scant traces of Archaic and Classical occupation. Hood and Smyth’s (1981) survey of the Knossos region provides an invaluable supplement on topographical matters. 5. The few literary sources for historical Greek Knossos have been exhaustively examined by Callaghan (1992, pp. 89–94) and Huxley (1994, pp. 123–132).

Evans’s discovery of the Minoan palace at Knossos in the early 20th century ranks among the most remarkable finds in the archaeology of the ancient Aegean.1 His sensational discovery of a Cretan Bronze Age palace with vast domestic quarters, extensive administrative facilities, and grand ritual centers, lavishly adorned with wall paintings and other rich accoutrements, created a new field of study of the island’s prehistory. In the process, it ensured a place of lasting importance for Knossos as the symbolic epicenter of Minoan culture in the minds of the public and the scholarly community alike. The splendor of Minoan Knossos, however, has had the unfortunate side effect of overshadowing the subsequent phases of the site’s occupation. This is a pity, since during the Classical and Hellenistic periods Knossos was one of the most important and powerful of the island’s poleis. Naturally, there are exceptions to this scholarly neglect of the later history of the city, for example, the extensive exploration of its Early Iron Age cemeteries and, more recently, the attention paid to its history as a Roman colony.2 Yet, in the 100-year history of modern excavations at Knossos, only three campaigns have deliberately targeted vestiges of the Archaic or Classical city. In two cases, the sites excavated were small sanctuaries situated at the edge of town, outside what appear to have been the urban limits. The third excavation, Dunbabin’s abortive “Archaic dig,” failed to meet expectations, producing instead material of Protogeometric and Geometric date.3 An archaeological perspective on Knossos in the Archaic and Classical periods otherwise depends on material from domestic pits and wells excavated as part of the later sequence during investigations of the Minoan palace and its dependencies.4 Literary testimony is not much help either. Although incidental information is preserved about the lives of several famous citizens, including the architects Chersiphron and Metagenes and the victorious athlete Ergoteles, almost nothing directly historical survives.5 In the absence of inscriptions and monumental architecture, there is little apart from the pottery and assorted small finds on which to base a reconstruction of Knossos during the 6th and 5th centuries. Fortunately, pottery of this date comes

116

chapter 4

from numerous deposits and a variety of use contexts, with an ample supply of imports to ensure a reliable chronological framework. Still, the strange fact remains that the evidence for occupation seems to dry up completely during the period ca. 590–525, a gap restricted as far as we know to Knossos, its territory, and Kommos. Historical explanations for the apparent Knossian recession are offered in Chapter 10.

ARCHAEOLO GICAL CONTEXT R oyal R oad, Wel l H Excavations in the area of the Minoan Royal Road led to the incidental discovery of one of the city’s richest deposits of Archaic pottery in the fill of well H (Fig. 4.1, RR:H).6 A date for this deposit at the end of the Archaic period (ca. 500–480) rests on abundant Attic imports. In addition, a range of intact shapes from the well provides an as yet unparalleled glimpse of the character of local production. Most of this pottery consists of b.g. drinking cups and other sympotic furniture. Because of the size of this deposit, the fine preservation of its contents, and the good evidence of date provided by Attic imports, RR:H can serve as a chronological benchmark for Cretan archaeology in the early 5th century.

U ne xpl ored M a ns ion Archaic and Classical material from the excavations of the Unexplored Mansion (Fig. 4.1, UM ) comes from pits cut into the upper levels of fill above the Minoan complex.7 The deposits labeled UM:H2–H4 contain cups, jugs, lamps, and Attic imports contemporary with the contents of RR:H and SWH:K (discussed later). UM:H1, however, differs from the rest: it exhibits a restricted range of local shapes, including cup bases of a presumably earlier form with a stepped-profile underfoot. Callaghan offered a conjectural date of ca. 525 for the contents of UM:H1.

S t rat i g ra phic a l M us eum Exc avat i on s Excavations conducted in the area immediately adjacent to the Stratigraphical Museum (Fig. 4.1, SX) brought to light two relevant deposits: a small Classical pit (SX:U6) with three intact local pots and a Classical well (SX:J/JN7) with an extensive array of local shapes, including cups, hydriai, lekanai, small bowls, and lamps.8 Attic and Corinthian imports in the well provide a date after ca. 500–475 for the deposit, and the local pots document a later stage of development after RR:H, if my proposed date of ca. 450–425 based on internal typology is valid.9

Sanct uary of Dem e ter Situated on the lower slopes of Gypsades hill overlooking the site of the palace from the south across a narrow ravine, the Sanctuary of Demeter

6. Coldstream 1973b, pp. 45–63. 7. Callaghan 1992, pp. 89–103. 8. Warren (1984–1985) presents a preliminary report of his excavations and a brief description of the postMinoan finds. The contents of SX:U6 include a tulip cup (349), a “skyphos” (362), and a proto-Hadra hydria (P321) not illustrated here. P. Warren (pers. comm.) informs me of a similar hydria from J/JN7 (P2094). 9. Warren (1984–1985, p. 127) dates the deposit to ca. 450. There does not seem to be a lower stratum of use at the bottom of this well. At least, joins between levels at the bottom (zembils 4985 and 4987) rule out the possibility of each level corresponding to a distinct chronological horizon.

knossos

Figure 4.1. Map of Knossos area, showing locations of major Archaic and Classical deposits. After Hood and

Smyth 1981, foldout map

117

118

chapter 4

commands a dominant position at the southern edge of the excavated town (Fig. 4.1, KDS). A series of campaigns beginning in 1957 brought to light a small sanctuary complex equipped with a shrine, a series of votive pits, and a temenos wall marking the perimeter of the sacred grounds.10 The discovery of two inscribed silver rings demonstrates that the sanctuary belonged to Demeter, and this identification is in keeping with the character of the other finds, which include terracotta figurines, many of the “enthroned goddess” type, jewelry, loomweights, and lamps.11 The earliest stratified material, apart from a small collection of Late Geometric and Early Orientalizing votives, comes from a foundation trench (KDS:B) associated with the construction of a simple shrine toward the end of the 5th century.12 A peribolos wall was erected at about the same time, followed by the earliest in a series of massive votive dumps (KDS:C).

“ S hr i ne of Gl aukos ” Another sanctuary, a Classical hero shrine, occupied the sloping ground east of the acropolis hill, a short distance from the palace, over the ruins of a 7th-century house (Fig. 4.1, KRS).13 The rudimentary accommodations of this shrine consist of a small rectangular room and an adjoining courtyard. A stone table stood in the middle of the room, against which was placed a cupboard filled with carefully stacked vessels. In addition to the pottery, the finds include a large collection of terracotta figurines depicting a rider and snake, both appropriate offerings to a hero. Callaghan connects the physical evidence suggestive of fertility ritual and initiation ceremony with the worship of Glaukos, a local hero associated with the young and rites of passage.14 From the cupboard came drinking cups and other vessels used in the consumption of wine. This cupboard was destroyed with its contents ca. 275. Callaghan’s typological study of the pottery from the sanctuary (ca. 500–275) was the first of its kind for Classical Crete.15

A re a of the S outhwe st H ous e s Immediately southwest of the Minoan palace, in an area occupied by buildings termed by Evans the Southwest House and the House Northwest of the South House (Fig. 4.1), archaeologists who returned expecting to find more Minoan remains were presented instead with successive later stages of settlement history at Knossos, from the Protogeometric to the Hellenistic period.16 As in the Minoan era, in the 7th century this area seems to have been given over to houses, and the discovery of a kiln of the Orientalizing period suggests that this was a residential district on the outskirts of town. Directly cut into a 7th-century deposit was a large Late Archaic pit (SWH:K), whose contents include local b.g. shapes with Attic and Corinthian imports. Four smaller deposits (SWH:L–O), from what their discoverers interpret as superimposed pathways above the Late Archaic pit, provide valuable points of reference for the development of local wares in the middle of the 5th century.

10. Coldstream 1973a, pp. 6–23. 11. Coldstream 1973a, p. 133, no. 16, fig. 29, pl. 84, p. 134, no. 25, fig. 29, pl. 85 (dated to the 3rd century). In addition, a third silver ring (pp. 131– 133, no. 14) bears a dedicatory inscription in honor of Demeter, as emended by van Effenterre (1976). This ring can be dated, based on letter forms, to the end of the 5th century. 12. Coldstream 1973a, pp. 12–13. 13. Finds from this house include lekanai, fragments from a small pithos, and a louterion on a fenestrated stand; see Callaghan 1978, p. 3, pl. 1:c. None of this material seems to date, as the initial publication suggests, to the 6th century. See also Sjögren 2003, p. 20. 14. Callaghan’s (1978, pp. 24–26) identification is based on the character of the finds, which include terracotta plaques appropriate for a hero and clay spinning tops suggestive of initiation ritual. 15. Callaghan 1978. 16. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 191–202.

knossos

119

K W ( Wel l s) The designation KW refers to a group of wells discovered approximately 1 km north of the palace near the Venizeleion Hospital. The material from these wells, published by Coldstream, includes three homogeneous 4thcentury deposits, KW:Wells 1, 3, and 7, in addition to several mixed deposits.17 One of these mixed deposits, KW:Well 2, contains much Late Archaic pottery, including local shapes comparable to those found in deposits RR:H and UM:H1–H4, and another find, as yet unique at Knossos, of a 6th-century Lakonian krater, published here (239).18 This concentration of Late Archaic material so far north of the palace hints at an area of Greek habitation in a new location beyond the present limits of investigation.

Chr on ol o gi c al I mp l i c at i on s of I mp orts

17. Coldstream 1999. 18. In addition, a local copy of a Lakonian krater is included among the finds from RR:H; see Coldstream 1973b, p. 51, no. 23, fig. 7, pl. 19. 19. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 242. 20. For instance, Attic pottery of mid-5th-century date appears in a Hellenistic context from the Sanctuary of Demeter; see Coldstream 1973a, pp. 40–41, nos. H33–H37, pl. 22. 21. In this deposit, imports constitute 19% of the catalogued pots, a far greater percentage than in any other deposit at Knossos large enough for statistical analysis. Although a few smaller deposits at Knossos, such as SWH:L, contain a higher percentage of imports, this is owing to the small sample size, which permits one or two sherds to skew the overall results. 22. For the exaleiptron, see Coldstream 1973b, p. 48, no. L1, fig. 4, pl. 18. No actual imported example of this Attic shape has yet turned up on Crete, unless the example from Azoria illustrated by Haggis et al. (2007, p. 282, fig. 30:4) is an Attic import and not a local product. The local cupskyphos is described on p. 135. 23. Coldstream 1973b, p. 46.

The dating of Cretan b.g. has traditionally depended on the association of local pottery with securely dated imports, mainly Attic and Corinthian pottery during the periods under consideration. In the absence of established local sequences, imports were taken as the sole basis for dating almost all published deposits at Knossos, and this has resulted in an apparent concentration of virtually every excavated deposit and its contents within a single narrow period, ca. 500–480. The list of published deposits dated by their discoverers to the first quarter of the 5th century, or, in the case of unpublished deposits, those that would be similarly dated by the same criteria, include RR:H, UM:H2–H4, SWH:K, and SWH:L, M. In contrast, only two meager deposits (SWH:N, O) contain Attic imports dated to the second or third quarter of the 5th century.19 The situation changes in the final quarter of the 5th century, when deposits with datable imports return, with KDS:B, C and UM:H5 leading the way to an unprecedented number of 4th-century deposits. Thus, only a handful of imports occupies the chronological middle ground between these two spikes (ca. 500–475 and 425–400). Even if we include residual finds from later deposits, these numbers reflect an approximately 40-fold reduction in the quantity of imports.20 Well RR:H forms an obvious starting point for discussion, since its contents surpass all other collections in the quantity, quality, and variety of imports.21 The principal Attic b.g. and black-figure shapes represented in the well consist of column kraters, oinochoai, cups, and lekythoi. Attic style also had a discernible influence on local production, as demonstrated by Knossian imitations of an Attic-type exaleiptron and cup-skyphos.22 The contents of RR:H give the impression of having been discarded soon after the pottery’s manufacture and use. One reason for thinking so is the pristine condition of the material. In addition, most of the Attic pottery was found dumped together in a single batch near the bottom of the well, a tidy pattern suggesting the disposal of material not long after breakage.23 As the Attic imports consist of communal shapes (kraters, jugs, etc.) absent or rare in the local repertoire, where production focused on drinking cups, the imports and local shapes complement one another to form a single

120

chapter 4

functional unit. Thus, the entire assemblage from well RR:H may have formed a single, large set of sympotic furniture, or several smaller sets disposed of at roughly the same time. The concentration of imports in ca. 500–480 in well RR:H is not a freak occurrence at Knossos. The same chronological pattern is repeated in a number of smaller deposits, although the contents of these others are more fragmentary, with fewer imports. For instance, Attic and Corinthian pottery occurs in SWH:K in less than one-half the observed concentration of RR:H.24 Otherwise, the composition of imports remains much the same, with Attic b.g. and black-figure pottery (ca. 500–480) again predominating. Well SX:J/JN7 duplicates this pattern on an even smaller scale. Its contents include a 6th-century Corinthian pyxis (243), an Attic bowl (as Agora XII, nos. 848–849), an Attic skyphos (as Agora XII, no. 340), an Attic cup-skyphos (as Agora XII, nos. 567–578), and an Attic black-figure fragment (P1066)—all Late Archaic or Early Classical examples.25 This group is not homogeneous, and these fragmentary imports show signs of wear, suggesting a long period of time before their discard and the eventual closure of the well. Until now it has gone unchallenged that the date of the latest imports should determine the date of the deposit as a whole and its local contents.26 A later deposit should receive later imports, unless imports disappear from circulation. If Attic pots no longer reached Knossos after 475, there may be Classical deposits without the most recent imports, in which case the presence of older examples may be giving a false impression of an early date for the closure of the deposit. Does this proposition stand up to scrutiny? As Callaghan noted in his publication of the votive material from the “Shrine of Glaukos,” the strange fact remains that, despite the ostensibly wide chronological range of the deposit as a whole as gleaned from morphological analysis of local pottery (ca. 500–275), imports were restricted to only part of that period (ca. 400–300). Although the absence of Hellenistic imports at the sanctuary matches the results obtained elsewhere at Knossos, Callaghan could find no reason to explain the absence of imports in the 5th century (ca. 500–400).27 The typology of local b.g. pottery established here requires a reassessment of the date for most 5th-century deposits at Knossos. The local wares and their extraordinary variation and development conflict with the compressed dating of imports and deposits. Substantial development of local forms and the introduction of entirely new shapes took place between deposits otherwise dated, based on imported pottery alone, to the same period. SX:U6, SWH:K, and UM:H2, for instance, reveal substantial developments over the Late Archaic deposit RR:H, including the advent of a new type of both high- and low-necked cup and the introduction of an entirely new shape, the kantharos, in the local repertoire. Some time must have elapsed between the two sets of deposits. SX:J/JN7 shows even greater advances, including a subsequent version of the high-necked cup, whose form closely resembles examples from securely dated deposits at the end of the century, a later type of kantharos dated on stylistic grounds to the middle of the 5th century, and a later form of bowl. The original date offered for RR:H of ca. 500–480 still stands, but based on these criteria, a

24. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227. 25. Imports in deposit SX:J/JN7 make up roughly 5% of the total number of b.g. and other fine wares. A similar concentration of Attic imports from ca. 500–480 characterizes the smaller deposits UM:H1–H4; see Callaghan 1992, pp. 94–102. 26. This assumption is made explicit by Coldstream and Macdonald (1997, p. 240): “All the stratified deposits, including ours, contain a steady flow of fine Attic imports.” This statement is correct insofar as all deposits at Knossos contain imports, but it is a different question whether these imports always give an accurate reflection of the contemporary time frame or are in some cases residuals. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, p. 77) endorse the argument in my dissertation for a 5th-century lull in Attic imports. 27. Callaghan 1978, pp. 4–5. The 4th-century imports consist entirely of Attic skyphoi and bolsals.

knossos

121

revised date of ca. 475–450 for deposits SWH:K and UM:H2–H4 is offered, while SX:J/JN7 requires a date later still, ca. 450–425—although Attic imports disappear from each of these deposits at approximately the same time, after ca. 500–480. In the absence of stratigraphy, however, these stylistic judgments regarding local shape development are open to question, and my revised dates for these deposits may need to be adjusted with new evidence. If we accept these revisions, the result is a more equitable chronological distribution of deposits at Knossos in the 5th century. Local production of many b.g. shapes continues, while Attic imports largely disappear from circulation. The fact that imports decline in number at roughly the same time from both sanctuary and domestic contexts argues against changing fashions or the flow of imports from one sphere of activity to another underrepresented context as a way to explain the decline. Still, the possibility remains that the Knossians buried their dead with imported pottery during the period under consideration. As it is, the second and third quarters of the 5th century remain poorly represented in the occupational history of Knossos, even with the revised dating offered here.

ARC H AI C P OT TERY

28. For a discussion of the local fabric at Knossos, see Coldstream 1973b, pp. 46–47. Analysis by neutron activation of a sample of pottery taken from a 7th-century kiln at Knossos indicates a close correspondence in the chemical composition of the fabric with tested Minoan wares and Classical– Hellenistic Knossian wares; see Tomlinson and Kilikoglou 1998, p. 386. Callaghan and Jones (1985, pp. 3–10), however, prefer not to distinguish between Central Cretan and Knossian fabric based on chemical analysis alone. See also Jones 1986, pp. 734–737. Since Liddy’s (1996, pp. 471–489) petrographic and chemical analysis of decorated Early Iron Age pottery from the North Cemetery focuses on overseas imports to Knossos, it contributes little to defining the characteristics of local production.

As imports are scarce in the 6th century, pottery of presumed Knossian origin will take precedence in the discussion. Such pottery is distinguished by a consideration of shape, gloss, and a characteristic pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4), long a hallmark of the Knossian ceramic tradition.28 Although the material permits an intelligible organization into basic categories of like forms, appreciation of the interrelations between these various groups and a chronological arrangement of material within each category remain problematic. Another difficult question is the relationship between the lacunose 6th-century ceramic record and the fuller series of drinking cups at the beginning of the 5th century. By far the most difficult aspect of this study is the fact that, since no deposit dates within the critically lean period of ca. 590–525, any understanding of local production must depend on residual material surviving in later contexts. Stylistic criteria played a major role in identification, and dating these pots hinges on correlations with deposits elsewhere on Crete, particularly at Eleutherna, where comparable local shapes appear side by side with datable imports, or from areas further afield, as at Tocra, where exported Cretan pottery has been found in secure contexts. It is apparent that the ceramic record of Knossos, whether measured in terms of the scale of local production or the quantity of imports, markedly declines after ca. 600 and remains at depressed levels for much of the 6th century. The number of finds, even if we include the more numerous pots of merely suspected 6th-century date, is a tiny fraction of the total in the 5th century, a mere one-hundredth of the later figure. Moreover, in nearly every case where chronological precision is available, local and imported pottery clusters at either the beginning or the end of the 6th century with few, if any, pieces occupying the ground in between. Although

122

chapter 4

this redated and largely unpublished material does not fill the gap in the archaeological record at Knossos, it has led to some chronological refinements, especially for the last quarter of the 6th century.

I mp orts and I mitat ions During the lean period of ca. 600–525, Lakonian, Corinthian, and Attic constitute the three main categories of imports at Knossos (Fig. 4.2). A single Lakonian stirrup krater from KW:Well 2 is the only attested Lakonian product (239), and, as a fully coated black example, it probably dates to the 6th century. Its presence at Knossos helps to explain an acknowledged phenomenon there of copying Lakonian shapes in the local fabric. Examples of this practice include a copy of a Lakonian krater (240) and unglazed cups modeled after a Lakonian black original (241, 242), all from the same deposit (RR:H).29 The Knossian version of the Peloponnesian kylix (241, 242) is a broad capacious vessel with an offset rim and two opposing horizontal handles attached high along the shoulder. Local production never occupies an important place in the Knossian repertoire, and Eleutherna is the only other Cretan site known to have produced such a shape (45, Fig. 3.4).30 Corinthian imports are also scarce at Knossos during the period under consideration. Two Corinthian exaleiptra, one from RR:H and the other from a mixed deposit, along with a plain Corinthian pyxis of a recognizable type characterized by convex sides and horizontal handles from SX:J/JN7 (243), are the only examples at Knossos in the middle and third quarter of the 6th century.31 In addition to these Corinthian imports, there is an observed stylistic influence on local production, as shown by a copy of an Early Corinthian kotyle whose inferred prototype dates to the beginning of the 6th century (244). Another instance of borrowing is implied by a local cup base whose stepped-profile underfoot approximates a common Corinthian design, examples of which are discussed later. Sixth-century Attic pottery barely registers at all in the archaeological record of Knossos ca. 600–525. An Attic Band cup datable to the third quarter of the 6th century and an unpublished Attic black-figure fragment depicting a lion in a ripe Archaic style are the two principal examples.32 Other notable imports include two “Ionic” cups manufactured in the early 6th century at an unspecified eastern Greek center.33 The rarity of Attic and other 6th-century imports sets Knossos apart from other Cretan centers, especially Eleutherna with its record of Attic b.g. cups, lekythoi, and figural examples. 239  Lakonian krater, rim and handle

Fig. 4.2

KW:Well 2 Max. p.dim. 8.2 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Brown fabric. 6th century 240  Knossian krater, rim and upper body Coldstream 1973b, p. 51, no. L23, fig. 7, pl. 19. RR:H Max. p.dim. 11.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Lakonian type. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480.

Fig. 4.2

29. In addition, Coldstream (1992, p. 75, no. 7, pls. 57, 67) illustrates another copy of a Lakonian krater from a deposit (UM:GG) tentatively dated to ca. 590. 30. Azoria should perhaps be added to this list because Haggis et al. (2004, p. 362, fig. 17:1) illustrate a skyphos similar to our examples. 31. The exaleiptra from RR:H do not appear in my catalogue. Instead, see Coldstream 1973b, p. 60, no. L109, pl. 24, p. 62, no. M11, pl. 26. For the pyxis, there are close parallels in Payne 1931, p. 308, no. 920; Corinth XV.3, p. 319, nos. 1814–1817, pl. 69. Other Corinthian imports to Knossos include several cup bases or rims in KW:Well 2 and SWH:K. 32. For the Band cup, see Coldstream 1973b, p. 63, no. M17, pl. 26. The black-figure piece is listed as SX:J/ JN7 (zembil 4988), P1066. 33. See Coldstream 1973b, p. 62, nos. M12, M13, fig. 14, pl. 26. A third “Ionic” cup from the North Cemetery probably dates to the end of the 7th century; see Coldstream and Catling 1996, p. 73, tomb 24, no. 1, fig. 77.

knossos

123

244

239 240 243

Figure 4.2. Archaic Corinthian and Lakonian imports at Knossos and local imitations. Scale 1:3

242

241

241  Knossian skyphos, rim, handle, and shoulder

Fig. 4.2

RR:H Diam. 8.5 cm, of rim 8.0 cm. Red gloss. Pale orange fabric. Lakonian type. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480. 242  Knossian skyphos, rim, handle, and lower body

Fig. 4.2

Coldstream 1973b, p. 54, no. L45, fig. 9, pl. 20. RR:H H. of rim 1.5 cm; Diam. 13.9 cm, of rim 13.9 cm. Brown gloss. Pale orange fabric. Lakonian type. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480. 243  Corinthian pyxis, almost intact (rim missing)

Fig. 4.2

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987), P2092 Diam. 10.7 cm, of base 5.8 cm. Black gloss. Pale brown fabric. 6th century. Context ca. 450–425. 244  Knossian kotyle, intact

Fig. 4.2

RR:H Diam. of rim 8.6 cm, of base 5.0 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Corinthian type. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480.

E ar ly C u p Base s Two cup bases from a single deposit (UM:GG) tentatively dated to the beginning of the 6th century (ca. 590) are similar in size and width at the junction of the base and the belly, although the basic structure of the two supports varies; 245 has a flaring foot with a widely extended outer edge and a hollow-concave underfoot, whereas 246 has a complicated

124

chapter 4

245

247

246

248

Figure 4.3. Early cup bases, Knossos. Scale 1:2

arrangement of a pedestal platform stepped in two degrees. The resemblance of these bases to examples from a later series of Classical high-necked cups (e.g., compare 246 with 318) is fortuitous, as demonstrated by the early6th-century context of these bases and their correspondence in form with cup bases of suspected 6th-century date from Eleutherna (144, 145, Fig. 3.24). One of the bases from Knossos, decorated with a smear of dilute gloss underneath the foot, anticipates the practice of smearing, the standard decorative scheme of Classical Knossian potters.34 More commonly, 6thcentury cup bases receive a full coat of gloss underneath the foot. The rich red gloss common to both examples is a hallmark of Knossian production in the Archaic period. A low base with a thick bottom, minimal articulation of the foot, and a thick rounded edge constitute the salient features of the other two examples (247, 248). They have a solid and massive appearance. A date for them in the first half of the 6th century depends on two criteria: the minimal splay of the foot, in which respect they resemble Late Orientalizing bases, and a coat of rich red gloss typical of 6th-century production. It seems likely that these bases date before the advent of delicate vessels with thin walls at the end of the 6th century. 245  Cup, base

Fig. 4.3

Coldstream 1992, p. 75, no. 15, pl. 57. UM:GG Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Rich red gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 590. Context ca. 590. 246  Cup, base

Fig. 4.3

Coldstream 1992, p. 75, no. 16, pl. 57. UM:GG Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Red gloss. Orange brown fabric. Ca. 590. Context ca. 590. 247  Cup, base

Fig. 4.3

UM:H4 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Orange-brown fabric. There is a similar base from SWH:K. 6th century. Context ca. 475–450. 248  Cup, base KDS:H Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Rich orange-red gloss. Pale orange fabric. 6th century. Hellenistic context.

Fig. 4.3

34. As discussed on p. 134.

knossos

125

Deep C u p wi th O f f se t Ri m This category of drinking cup possesses a deep body and a short offset rim (Fig. 4.4). It is grasped by means of a single vertical handle attached at the rim and shoulder. Unlike the thin strap handles characteristic of late-5th-century cups, its handle is thicker and more rounded in section. To judge from comparative Cretan material from unstratified contexts at Tocra, this type of deep cup progresses in the first half of the 6th century from a full-bodied shape, with a hemispherical body and a high rim, to a cup of narrower dimensions, with a cylindrical shoulder and a shorter rim.35 In these respects, the fragmentary cup from SX:J/JN7 (249), with its almost vertical shoulder, represents a slight advance over the latest examples from Tocra. The inset rim results in a notched shoulder profile that is characteristic of Archaic cups at Eleutherna; it is also found on a cup from Tocra (Fig. 4.5). 249 goes with a base of identical firing characteristics from the same level in the well (250). Characteristic of this base is a low disk foot with a concave-profile underfoot and a beveled outer edge, with a molding marking the junction between the base and belly. There are a number of such bases at Knossos, which probably belong to a similar form of cup. Most of these bases receive a full coat of gloss underneath, although smearing occasionally occurs. Expert potting and a rich red gloss typify the group. Additional Cretan parallels for this type of cup occur at Kato Symi, where a production source at Aphrati is inferred.36 Another closely related shape at Knossos, a one-handled mug characterized by a short offset rim and a bulbous body, is attested in deposit RR:H (256). 249  Deep cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.4

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) Diam. 11.5 cm. Rich orange-red gloss. Orange-brown fabric with pale orange slip. 6th century. Context ca. 450–425. 250  Deep cup, base

Fig. 4.4

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Rich orange-red gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orangebrown fabric with pale orange slip. Ridge at the junction of foot and body. 6th century. Context ca. 450–425. 35. For the Tocra comparanda, see Boardman and Hayes 1966, pp. 79–80, no. 927, fig. 39; 1973, p. 37, no. 2104, fig. 16. Although Callaghan (1978, p. 6) lists these 6th-century cups from Tocra as the predecessors of the Knossian low-necked cup, the Late Archaic high-necked cup from Knossos was the more likely source of inspiration for the low-necked cup. The deep cups listed here have low rims, but in shape they bear little resemblance to low-necked cups. 36. Erickson 2002, pp. 49–50, nos. 2–6, fig. 3.

251  Deep cup, base

Fig. 4.4

Callaghan 1992, p. 91, no. 4, pl. 75. UM:H3 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Rich red gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orange-brown fabric. There is a similar base from RR:H. 6th century. Context ca. 475–450. 252  Deep cup, base and lower body Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. 50, fig. 18, pl. 45. SWH:K Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Orange-brown gloss. Pale orange fabric. 6th century. Context ca. 475–450.

Fig. 4.4

126

chapter 4

249

256 250

251

252

253

254

255 253  Deep cup, base

Fig. 4.4

KDS:C Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Orange-red gloss. Brown-gray fabric. 6th century. Context ca. 400. 254  Deep cup, base

Fig. 4.4

KDS:SMP1170 (miscellaneous) Diam. of base 5.5 cm. Orange-brown gloss. Red-brown fabric. 6th century. Fourth-century context. 255  Deep cup, base and lower body KW:Well 2 Diam. 10.9 cm, ofbase 5.6 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. 6th century

Fig. 4.4

Figure 4.4. Archaic deep cup with offset rim, Knossos. Scale 1:2

knossos

127

Figure 4.5. Archaic Cretan cup (no. 2104) found at Tocra. Scale 1:2.

Boardman and Hayes 1973, p. 37, fig. 16. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

256  Deep cup, rim to lower body with handle

Fig. 4.4

RR:H H. of rim 1.8; Diam. 10.3 cm, of rim 10.4 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480.

S ma l l H emi sp h er i c al C u p Another type of drinking cup represented in deposit RR:H is characterized by a shallow hemispherical body topped by a low rim, either offset or flaring (257, 260). The consistently smaller size of these cups distinguishes them from all other 6th-century varieties (Fig. 4.6). Study of the shape yields little or no discernible pattern of development, and glazing characteristics vary. A variant of the cup from the same deposit (RR:H) adds a substantially taller flaring rim to the conventional hemispherical body (258, 259), and this type seems to be a precursor, in a substantially smaller format, of the Classical high-necked cup; its existence in a closely dated Late Archaic deposit provides an important clue to the date of 330, the earliest extant high-necked cup as determined by morphological analysis. Other examples from Eleutherna (221, Fig. 3.33) and Gortyn (421, Fig. 6.3) justify including these sites among the island centers known to have produced the version with a low rim. Finally, a third type survives in a single example at Knossos (261). It is distinguished by a deep, rounded body and an inset flaring rim thickened at the lip to form an overhanging projection. Possible antecedents of the shape include Late Orientalizing cups from Prinias and Kommos (ca. 625–600).37 These earlier versions differ in having a taller rim, a strongly articulated collar in the form of a disk-shaped opening at the mouth, and a hemispherical bowl. 257  Small hemispherical cup, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.6

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L66, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. of rim 1.3 cm; Diam. 8.8 cm, of rim 7.9 cm. Rich maroon gloss. Pale orange fabric. End of 6th century. Context ca. 500–480. 258  Small hemispherical cup, rim to lower body 37. For Prinias, see Palermo 1992, p. 70, no. 179, fig. 13, pl. 21. For Kommos, see Johnston 1993, p. 343, no. 3, fig. 2.

Fig. 4.6

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L67, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. of rim 3.2 cm; Diam. 7.7 cm, of rim 8.0 cm. Unglazed. Pale orange fabric. End of 6th century. Context ca. 500–480.

128

chapter 4

257

258

260

261

259

259  Small hemispherical cup, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.6

Figure 4.6. Archaic small hemispherical cup, Knossos. Scale 1:3

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4984) H. of rim 2.7 cm; Diam. 8.0 cm, of rim 7.5 cm. Maroon gloss. Pale orange fabric. End of 6th century. Context ca. 450–425. 260  Small hemispherical cup, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.6

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4990) H. of rim 1.3 cm; Diam. 9.3 cm, of rim 9.1 cm. Gray gloss. Gray fabric. End of 6th century. Context ca. 450–425. 261  Small hemispherical cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.6

RR:H H. of rim 1.7 cm; Diam. 10.2 cm, of rim 7.9 cm. Black gloss. Orange-red fabric. End of 6th century. Context ca. 500–480.

Cu p Base with a S tepp ed-P r ofi l e U n der f o ot A special type of cup base, produced both at Knossos and at a number of other Cretan centers, is characterized by a disk foot with a stepped profile in which the root of the extended foot meets a projecting concentric disk or medallion below (Fig. 4.7). This base is one of the most important types for chronology, since it is the only one found in a secure 6th-century context (UM:H1A). From the stratigraphic relationship between UM:H1A and succeeding Late Archaic and Classical deposits, Callaghan inferred a chronological priority of the stepped profile and placed this group of bases in the 6th century.38 As he noted, a prototype with a stepped-profile underfoot is found among the Late Orientalizing material from Knossos and the 6th-century Cretan cups from Tocra.39 The bases from UM:H1, 2, however, possess an articulated foot with an extended outer edge. A date of ca. 525–500 is suggested for the advent of an articulated disk foot with a stepped profile underneath. Production of this type was already on the wane by the early 5th century, and rare examples in later deposits can best be explained as residuals made at an earlier date.40 The exact type or types of cup to which these bases belong remains unclear. Borrowing from a Corinthian source is a possibility, a supposition

38. Callaghan 1992, p. 92. 39. Other Late Orientalizing bases with a stepped-profile underfoot include examples from Kommos ( Johnston [1993, p. 343] characterizes the distinctive feature as a “tooled disk on the center of the underside”) and Prinias (Palermo 1992, p. 70, no. 185, pl. 21, p. 71, no. 197, pl. 21). 40. In addition to the items catalogued, there are similar bases from UM:HB (four), UM:H (two), RR:H (two), and KDS:H (two).

knossos

129

reinforced by the discovery at Kato Symi of a Cretan imitation of a Corinthian kotyle whose base exhibits an almost identical stepped profile underneath.41 Perhaps these bases reflect Cretan production of kotylai rather than high-necked cups or other local forms. 276, however, may have belonged to a jug. A full coat of black gloss is standard, but smearing underneath the foot also occurs at Knossos, suggesting overlap in production with the earliest high-necked cups. Knossian cups with this type of base were exported to the Sanctuary of Apollo at Ayia Pelayia, where they constitute the earliest sign of activity after a long hiatus in the 6th century. A number of other Cretan centers, notably Gortyn, Aphrati, and Praisos, produced a comparable form of base, presumably also of 6thcentury date. Unfortunately, parallels with Knossos must suffice as dating evidence elsewhere in the absence of secure archaeological contexts. 262  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

Callaghan 1992, p. 91, no. 5, pl. 74. UM:H1B Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Dull black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 263  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

UM:H1B Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Red gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 264  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

Callaghan 1992, p. 91, no. 7, pl. 74. UM:H1B Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orange-brown fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 265  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

Callaghan 1992, p. 91, no. 12, pl. 74. UM:H1C Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Red-brown fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 266  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

UM:H2 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Metallic black gloss. Red-brown fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 500–475. Context ca. 475–450. 267  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

UM:H2 Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 475–450. 41. Erickson 2002, pp. 51–52, no. 9, figs. 4, 5.

268  Cup, base UM:H2

Fig. 4.7

130

chapter 4

262 271 263 272

264

265

273

274

275

266

267

268

269

270

276

277

278

279

Diam. of base 5.0 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 475–450. 269  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

UM:H2 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Maroon red gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orangebrown fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot.

Figure 4.7. Archaic cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Knossos. Scale 1:3

knossos

131

Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 475–450. 270  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

UM:H2 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Metallic black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 475–450. 271  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

RR:H Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Dull black gloss. Orange-red fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 272  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

RR:H Diam. of base 6.4. Dull, flaking black gloss. Orange-red fabric with small inclusions. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 273  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

RR:H Diam. of base 5.0 cm. Dull black gloss. Brown-red fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 500–480. 274  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

KW:Well 2 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 275  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. 63, fig. 18, pl. 45. SWH:K Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Orange-brown fabric. Steppedprofile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 475–450. 276  Cup or jug, base

Fig. 4.7

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4988) Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. There is a similar base from UM:H3. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 450–425. 277  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4989) Diam. of base 5.1 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. There are 10 similar bases, from UM:H1B (four), UM:H2 (two), RR:H (two), and KDS:H (two). Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 450–425. 278  Cup, base KDS:SMP1170 (miscellaneous)

Fig. 4.7

132

chapter 4

280

Figure 4.8. Archaic jug bases, Knossos. Scale 1:2

281 Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Hellenistic context. 279  Cup, base

Fig. 4.7

SX:J/JN7 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 450–425.

J ug Base with a Ring Fo ot Another type of base, distinguished by a broad, low ring foot, fully glazed underneath, survives in just three examples in deposit RR:H (two are catalogued here as 280 and 281, Fig. 4.8). As it shows no obvious affinities with any line of cup production,42 this base probably served as the support of a jug, bowl, or another early shape. Identical bases have been found in an unhelpful archaeological context on the probable acropolis of Kydonia.43 Parallels with the Knossian examples, which come from more revealing contexts, suggest a 6th-century date for these bases, previously suspected in the light of general parallels with datable material from Tocra. Moreover, similar bases from a survey site in the territory of Praisos (503–509, Fig. 8.9), whose collection of material consists almost entirely of 6th-century forms, confirms this impression of a 6th-century date. 280  Jug, base

Fig. 4.8

RR:H Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Dull black gloss. Orange-brown fabric. Ring foot. There is a similar base from RR:H. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480. 281  Jug, base

Fig. 4.8

RR:H Diam. of base 11.5 cm. Dull black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ring foot. 6th century. Context ca. 500–480.

Mi sce l l aneous Cup Bas e s The last two bases differ from one another in form but share the common features of a full coat of rich red gloss and a particularly fine compact fabric (Fig. 4.9). These shared properties suggest a workshop connection.

42. With the possible exception of the tulip cup, a 5th-century shape with a ring foot. 43. Hahn (1997, pp. 210–211, no. 70-P 1351, pls. 62, 96:a.6, no. 70-P 1355, pls. 62, 96:a.7, no. 70-P 1356, pls. 62, 90:e.1) entertains a 6th-century date for the examples from Kydonia.

knossos

133

282 Figure 4.9. Archaic miscellaneous cup bases, Knossos. Scale 1:2

283

Another example, a definite Knossian product found at Eleutherna (106, Fig. 3.15), constitutes rare evidence for the export of local wares in the 6th century. This category includes a platform base, a low disk foot with a widely extended outer edge, and a low ring foot. All are intricate designs that employ delicate walls and a complex articulation of the parts. Possible inspiration from metal prototypes for local production, perhaps within a single workshop, may explain the rarity of these bases and their shared features. 282  Cup, base with widely spreading foot

Fig. 4.9

UM:H2 Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Rich lustrous red gloss. Orange-brown fabric. 6th century. Context ca. 475–450. 283  Cup, platform base

Fig. 4.9

SWH:K Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Rich lustrous red gloss. Orange-brown fabric. 6th century. Context ca. 475–450.

LAT E ARC H AIC AN D C LAS S I CAL P OT TERY H ig h -Nec k ed C u p

44. Coldstream (1973b, pp. 55–56) and Callaghan (1978, pp. 8–9) offer key starting points for study of the shape. 45. The Classical Cretan highnecked cup, or a version of it, was also produced at Eleutherna, Gortyn, Aphrati, Lyktos, Priniatikos Pyrgos, and Praisos.

The high-necked cup is the standard drinking cup at Classical Knossos (Figs. 4.10–4.17).44 The type appears in virtually every deposit and in greater numbers than any other competing b.g. shape, with the quantity and quality of the evidence permitting the development of the shape to be plotted with uncommon precision. This factor, coupled with the widespread production of the cup among the local centers, makes the vessel a cornerstone of Cretan chronology in the 5th century.45 The high-necked cup takes its name from the high inset vertical rim. Other distinguishing features of the shape include a single vertical handle attached at the rim; a sharp transition between the shoulder and rim, at times articulated by a shallow groove; and a deep body with narrow shoulders. The base takes a number of different forms, ranging from a high pedestal to a low disk foot, always sufficiently weighty to counterbalance the inward taper of the lower body. A number of related shapes were also produced at Knossos. One of these, a lower-necked cousin, shares several features with the standard cup shape, including a single vertical handle attached at the rim and a comparable form of foot. The low-necked cup, however, exhibits different proportions (Table 4.1). It is a smaller vessel, with a hemispherical bowl, a shorter rim, and a greater diameter of the body in proportion to the total height of

134

chapter 4

TA B LE 4.1. RANGES OF DIMENSIONS AND PROPORT IONS OF LATE ARCHAI C AND CLASSICAL CUP VARIE T IES AT KNOSSOS Cup Variety

Rim H. (cm)

Total H. (cm)

Shoulder Diam. (cm)

Shoulder Diam.: Total H.

Rim H.: Total H.

High-necked Low-necked Kantharos

3.2–4.5 1.7–2.5 3.9–5.7

11.8–13.9 9.3–12.0 13.4–17.0

9.7–12.1 10.5–11.9 10.1–11.8

0.75–0.97 0.88–1.13 0.59–0.88

0.25–0.35 0.16–0.25 0.30–0.34

Note: Excluded from these calculations are an exceptionally small high-necked cup (295), an imported low-necked cup from Aphrati (337), and an oversize kantharos (347).

the vessel.46 Another shape, the local kantharos, bears a closer resemblance to the standard high-necked drinking cup, but it has two vertical handles and a complicated beveled molding that joins the rim and shoulder. The one-handled drinking cup had a respectable pedigree at Knossos. Among the distant forerunners of the high-necked cup may be included Late Orientalizing mugs from both funerary and domestic contexts.47 One cannot, however, plot a line of development that links the earlier Orientalizing shape with the later series of high-necked cups. For all intents and purposes, the high-necked cup appears to have been a new creation of the Knossian potters ca. 500. Decoration and potting techniques can sometimes help determine the date of a local product. High-necked cups at Knossos typically received a full coat of gloss with the sole exception of the area underneath the foot, which was generally left in reserve or enlivened with a few strokes of dilute gloss (Fig. 4.15). This method of swiping the underside of the base with dilute gloss, a practice referred to as smearing, becomes a decorative scheme typical of the whole period ca. 480–400, whereas in the 4th century smearing gave way to a uniform coat of b.g.48 The practice of smearing distinguishes Knossos from other Cretan production centers, where a full coat of gloss underneath the base is more common.49 Glazing characteristics can also provide chronological clues. Black gloss won out over an earlier alternative of red sometime after ca. 500 or 480, although brown appears sporadically as a result of poor firing. Of special interest from the standpoint of glazing is a small group of vessels coated with a distinctive greenish metallic gloss resembling oxidized copper (four 46. Callaghan (1978, pp. 6–8) distinguishes between high-necked and what he terms “short-necked” cups based on rim height. This factor alone can occasionally be misleading. J. N. Coldstream (pers. comm.) advocates distinguishing between the two according to a consistent mathematical formula by measuring the diameter of the rim as a proportion of the total height of the vessel. See also Coldstream and Eiring 2001, p. 78. By this measure, 5th-century high-necked cups range between 1.0 (squat, early) and 0.72 (tall, late). Low-necked cups range between 1.0 and 0.76. A clearer distinction is

obtained by comparing the maximum diameter of the body at the shoulder relative to the total height of the vessel. 47. Callaghan (1978, p. 6, n. 5) lists Orientalizing prototypes of the high-necked cup at Knossos. 48. Coldstream (1973b, p. 48) describes this decorative technique. Smearing may appear provincial in comparison with the exacting decoration of Attic cup bases, but the Cretan practice has its charms, and magnificent examples of the technique, lavishly done in rich gloss, appear later in the 5th century. Allowances must be made for the fact that the Cretan cup, unlike

most Attic pots, was not designed to be hung on the wall, and so the bottom of the vase had less scope for display. Smearing occurs in the Attic repertoire, but only once among the published examples (Agora XII, no. 745), a one-handled cup dated to ca. 490 or 480 and thus roughly contemporary with the earliest Cretan examples. Perhaps the Knossians borrowed from an Attic source unpopular at home. Total glazing of the Cretan foot after ca. 400 may also have been inspired by Attic practice. 49. As is the case at Eleutherna, Gortyn, and Aphrati; see Chap. 9, p.  223.

knossos

135

TA B LE 4.2. DIMENSIONS AND PROPORT IONS OF LATE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL H IGH-NECKED CUPS AT KNOSSOS

Cat. No.

Rim H. (cm)

Base H. (cm)

Body H. (cm)

Total H. (cm)

Shoulder Diam. (cm)

Rim Diam. (cm)

Shoulder Diam.: Rim Diam.

Shoulder Diam.: Total H.

Shoulder Diam.: Body H.

Rim H.: Total H.

284 285 286 287 288 289 292 293 294 295 296/302 297 298 299/320 301

4.5 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.2 1.9 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.2 –

1.5 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.6 – – 0.7 1.1 – 1.1 – – 1.1 1.3

6.9 7.9 7.8 8.2 9.2 – – 7.8 8.7 – 8.7 – – 8.6 8.4

12.9 12.4 12.3 12.9 13.8 – – 11.8 13.0 – 13.8 – – 13.9 –

10.8 12.0 11.5 11.2 11.4 11.2 12.1 10.3 11.3 7.8 10.3 9.7 12.0 10.9 10.9

10.6 12.6 11.6 11.5 10.6 11.5 11.9 10.2 9.3 7.3 9.9 9.5 11.0 10.2 –

1.02 0.95 0.99 0.97 1.08 0.97 1.02 1.01 1.22 1.07 1.04 1.02 1.09 1.07 –

0.84 0.97 0.93 0.87 0.83 – – 0.87 0.87 – 0.75 – – 0.78 –

1.57 1.52 1.47 1.37 1.24 – – 1.32 1.30 – 1.18 – – 1.27 1.30

0.35 0.27 0.28 0.32 0.29 – – 0.28 0.25 – 0.29 – – 0.30 –

50. This cup-skyphos does not appear in the publication. The local version differs from the Attic prototype in several minor respects. First, the local shape is deeper, with less substantial handles relative to its size, and the concavity of the lip barely registers. Second, there are differences in decoration. The Attic cup has areas left in reserve, including the outer edge of the foot and underneath, where there are concentric circles and a central dot. In contrast, the Knossian potter glazed these areas. The distinctive coppery quality of the gloss and the textured surface with fine potting lines exposed to view place this Atticizing cup in select company. For a technical discussion of the surface treatment of Greek vases, see Schreiber 1999, pp. 39–52. 51. For the significance of fabric color and consistency as a reflection of different kiln practices, see Rye 1981, pp. 24–25, 98–104; Gosselain 1992. 52. The context of 284 is not helpful for dating purposes. On morphological grounds, Callaghan (1978, p. 8) dates it after the cups from RR:H. In contrast, I see it as an earlier version, prior to the deeper bodies and lower feet of the cups from the well.

high-necked cups from RR:H and one kantharos from SWH:K). A workshop connection plausibly links this group, which includes a local copy of a datable form of Attic cup-skyphos (ca. 490–480). It provides a chronological point of reference for the rest.50 Although the finest specimens of Classical glazing fall well short of the Attic standard, some cups attain a surprisingly high quality of gloss in the middle and third quarter of the 5th century, before a progressive deterioration in quality sets in, leading to uniformly duller and often more carelessly applied gloss by the turn of the century. The potting of the local workshops achieves a high standard in the 5th century. A tendency arises, as the potters gain greater confidence in the shape, to subject it to increasingly difficult technical demands, resulting in light, thin-walled, and elegant forms by the middle of the 5th century. Toward the century’s close, however, Knossian potters returned to thicker and stronger walls better suited to meet the technical requirements of the larger vessels and attenuated forms then in fashion. Occasionally the core displays a mottled appearance of orange blended with gray. The existence of these mottled cores probably reflects the introduction of a new manufacturing practice that altered the earlier oxidizing-reducing ratios of the kiln. Perhaps the change involved the way vessels were stacked in the kiln.51 Mottled cores become common by the middle and second half of the 5th century, and a clear correlation exists between vessels with mottled cores and those with thin walls and highly competent glazing. Perhaps these factors reflect the maturity of the local industry and intensified production.

Lat e A r c h a ic The high-necked cup made its debut (type I, 284) ca. 500 as a tall, deep vessel with a high rim and a body in the shape of a capacious bowl perched atop a high pedestal foot.52 The ratio of width to height is 0.84 (Table 4.2).

136

chapter 4

284

288

289

285 292

286 293

287

294

knossos

137

Figure 4.10 (opposite). Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cups, Knossos. Scale 1:3. 284, 294 after Callaghan 1978, p. 7, fig. 5

295

Figure 4.11 (right). Classical highnecked cups, Knossos. Scale 1:3

299 320

296

302 300

297

298

Figure 4.12. Classical high-necked cup found at Amnisos. Scale 1:3. Drawing by W. Meyer/V. Stürmer in Schäfer 1992, pl. 98:8. Courtesy the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens

301

At no other point in the history of the shape is the proportion of the rim to the total height of the vessel (35%) so great. The upright rim stands deeply inset on the shoulder, resulting in a sharp junction between the two. Variations in the treatment of the foot, the quality of the gloss, and the potting of the next group (type II, 285–287), all of which derive from a single, rich well deposit (RR:H), can largely be explained as activity of at least two contemporary workshops. Chronological development of the shape, as opposed to simply workshop variation, also took place, even within the brief span of time accorded to the contents of the well. The foot, for example, generally evolves from a high pedestal base, a feature inherited from type I, toward a lower center of gravity; this results in a low disk foot by the end of the Archaic period. A progressive deepening of the body combined with a broadening of the lower half reduces the inward taper of the wall. The cup is outfitted with a high (3.4–4.1 cm) outturned rim. The glaze varies from a red to a dark maroon color.

138

chapter 4

284

285

286

291

305

306

308

309

302

316

318

319

287 310

320

288 312 293

303

294

314

315

The latest cups from well RR:H represent the emergence of a distinct new type at the end of the Archaic period, ca. 480 (type III, 288, 289). The canonical form and standard proportions of the high-necked cup now became firmly established, and these it retained, apart from minor alterations, during the Classical period. In conjunction with a further streamlining of the overall proportions of the vessel, the potters imparted smoother transitions to the three basic components—the rim, neck, and body. A deeper shape with more rounded contours results. The rim now stands vertically, rather than at an angle, resulting in a less severe angle at the join between rim and shoulder. Potters at this time equipped the cup with a low disk foot. Even with the low base, the ratio of shoulder width to total height of 288 (0.83) is comparable to that of 284, indicating tall bodily proportions. Finally, a black coat now becomes standard decoration, and remains so for the rest of the century.53

300

301

Figure 4.13. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Knossos. Scale 1:2

53. Some type III cups receive a superb gloss of a distinctive greenish metallic quality also found on an Atticizing product dated to ca. 490–480 (see pp. 134–135). It is also worth noting that a small number of type III cups bear incised decoration in a zigzag pattern along the rim; see Chap. 12, p. 328. In addition to the items catalogued, there are two intact Archaic high-necked cups from RR:H; eight rim and shoulder fragments (RR:H [five]), KW:Well 2 [one], UM:H1B [one], UM:H4 [one]); and five bases (RR:H [four], RR:SMP 7064 [one]).

knossos

303

304

294

311

139

305

308

313 317

307

322 321 Figure 4.14. Variant Classical highnecked cup bases, Knossos. Scale 1:2

284  High-necked cup, nearly intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13

Callaghan 1978, p. 8, no. 17, fig. 5, pl. 2. KRS H. 12.9 cm, of rim 4.5 cm; Diam. 10.8 cm, of rim 10.6 cm, of base 6.4 cm. Orange-red gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 500. Context ca. 275. 285  High-necked cup, intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L56, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 12.4 cm, of rim 3.4 cm; Diam. 12.0 cm, of rim 12.6 cm, of base 5.8 cm. Red gloss. Buff-orange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 286  High-necked cup, intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13, 4.15

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L57, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 12.3 cm, of rim 3.5 cm; Diam. 11.5 cm, of rim 11.6 cm, of base 5.4 cm. Maroon gloss (light smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 287  High-necked cup, nearly intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L55, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 12.9 cm, of rim 4.1 cm; Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 11.5 cm, of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Buff-orange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 288  High-necked cup, intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L54, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 13.8 cm, of rim 4.0 cm; Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim 10.6 cm, of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 480. Context ca. 500–480.

140

chapter 4

286

290

302

Figure 4.15. Late Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, showing glazing characteristics on underfoot, Knossos. Scale 2:3

307

289  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.10

RR:H H. of rim 3.7 cm; Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 11.5 cm. Black gloss. Buff-orange fabric. Ca. 480. Context ca. 500–480. 290  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.15

RR:H Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Red gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 291  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 4.13

RR:H (1858b) Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Maroon gloss (light smearing on underfoot). Bufforange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480.

Cl as s ic al After ca. 480, the discernible progression of the shape took place at a slower rate and involved less drastic changes. Both factors complicate an appraisal of the exact chronology of the sequence. The increasingly fragmentary nature of the evidence and the paucity of deposits dated to ca. 480–425 further compound the problem. Another difficulty is that in the second half of the 5th century the local sequence seems to enter a tunnel devoid of illumination from Attic imports. Consequently, any absolute chronology derived from internal typology remains tentative, since there is always the possibility of variation at the same time between progressive and conservative potters.

knossos

54. The chronological significance of this detail was first noted by Callaghan (1978, pp. 6, 8, 10). It seems to apply only to Knossos. 55. Callaghan (1978, p. 8) proposes an earlier date for 294, before the contents of well RR:H. New evidence, however, requires a reassessment. This type of base occurs in several 5thcentury deposits, all demonstrably later than well RR:H. The presence of a groove underfoot, which Callaghan regarded as a primitive feature, occurs on Knossian cups as late as ca. 400 (e.g., 321) and is a hallmark of 5th-century production at Aphrati. A “rolled” edge and a “dropped” floor are also characteristics of the Aphrati tradition. The occasional appearance of these variant cup bases in the Knossian fabric may reflect stylistic influence from Aphrati or itinerant potters from Aphrati. The handle of 294 can be compared to that of the earliest cup in a 5th-century deposit at Aphrati; see Erickson 2002, p. 61, no. 58, fig. 14.

141

From these deposits it can be deduced that the generation of cups succeeding well RR:H entailed an additional narrowing and deepening of the shape. Type IV (292–295) examples also tend to be smaller than their predecessors. The rim, now reduced in size, assumes a vertical stance almost flush with a slightly convex shoulder. The maximum diameter of the vase occurs higher up along the shoulder, translating into a higher center of gravity for the cup overall and transforming the body into a deep cone. Also, there is a new base characterized by a narrower point of attachment with the belly, a thicker bottom wall, and a greater extension of the foot. Important variations on this theme include a base grooved on its outer edge (305, 308, 317), a platform base sectioned in two degrees (303, 311, 313, 322), and another category of exceptionally massive base, grooved underneath and glazed below, which displays a distinctive “rolled” outer edge and “dropped floor” inside (294, 307, 321). Finally, the method of attaching the handle may have chronological significance. Knossian potters initially seem to favor a point of attachment on the exterior wall of the rim but reverse the practice around 475–450, when they begin attaching the handle on the inside.54 Cups 293 and 294 are the last examples with handles attached outside the rim. 294 is hard to place in the Knossian sequence. It has an unusual handle, thicker and more ovoid in section, and a broad upper-body profile and deeply inset shoulder that further distinguish it from other cups of this period. Its variant base, a fully coated example with a “dropped” floor and a groove underfoot, links 294 to a tradition of cups at Aphrati.55 Further rethinking of the cup’s design occurred sporadically in the middle and third quarter of the 5th century, with an evident tendency to streamline the shape (type V, 296–298). As a sign of narrow proportions, the ratio of shoulder width to total height of 296/302 is 0.75. Finer chronological distinctions within this period rest on a consideration of the bases, which seem to undergo a steady progression during the period ca. 475–400 (Fig. 4.13). The base gradually develops from a low, broad flaring foot into a higher and more conical pedestal form with a narrower point of attachment to the belly. In profile, the bottom of the base forms a hollow concavity. As production of type V draws to a close, bases dated to ca. 425 acquire a flat resting surface, thereby marking a return to a true pedestal form. The latest examples exhibit one further refinement: a recessed concentric medallion under the center of the base, an elaboration that leads the way to more intricate designs of the underfoot typical by the end of the 5th century. Production of the same types of variant bases continues in the newer fashions. The cups of the last quarter of the 5th century (type VI, 299–301) are taller than their forerunners and just as narrow, especially in their lower halves, where the increasingly slender lower body meets a splayed pedestal base at an even narrower point of attachment. In addition, a fillet occasionally marks the transition between base and belly. A closer examination of these bases reveals another significant detail, which, judging from a range of local shapes, is symptomatic of the period: the bottom wall often dips down below to form a central dimple underneath the base. Finally, a high and massive upright rim becomes standard. This detail, along with a predilection for a strongly offset shoulder similar to the beveled shoulder of the kantharos, suggests a possible reciprocal influence of the kantharos on its parent shape. Datable deposits place type VI within the final quarter of

142

chapter 4

the 5th century. An intact cup from Amnisos, probably of local manufacture, fits well within the Knossian sequence at this point (Fig. 4.12).56 292  High-necked cup, rim and upper body

Fig. 4.10

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. 55, fig. 18, pl. 45. SWH:K H. of rim 3.7 cm; Diam. 12.1 cm, of rim 11.9 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 293  High-necked cup, intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13

SX:J/JN7, P2090 H. 11.8 cm, of rim 3.3 cm; Diam. 10.3 cm, of rim 10.2 cm, of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 294  High-necked cup, intact

Figs. 4.10, 4.13, 4.14

Callaghan 1978, p. 8, no. 16, fig. 5, pl. 2. KRS H. 13.0 cm, of rim 3.2 cm; Diam. 11.3 cm, of rim 9.3 cm, of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 275. 295  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 4.11

UM:H3 H. of rim 1.9 cm; Diam. 7.8 cm, of rim 7.3 cm. Unglazed. Pale orange fabric. There is a similar rim fragment from UM:H3. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 296  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.11

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) H. of rim 4.0 cm; Diam. 10.3 cm, of rim 9.9 cm. Brown to black gloss. Brown-orange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 297  High-necked cup, rim and upper body

Fig. 4.11

SX:J/JN/7 (zembil 4987) H. of rim 3.5 cm; Diam. 9.7 cm, of rim 9.5 cm. Brown to black gloss. Brownorange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 298  High-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.11

KRS:1976.TR11.W.Ext.4 H. of rim 3.5 cm; Diam. 12.0 cm, of rim 11.0 cm. Brown to red gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Third-century context. 299  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 4.11

KRS:1976.SMP408 H. of rim 4.2 cm; Diam. 10.9 cm, of rim 10.2 cm. Dark red gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 425–400. Hellenistic context.

56. This cup from Amnisos was originally assigned by its excavator to the early 5th century based on general parallels with material from Knossos, RR :H; see Schäfer 1992, p. 239, pl. 98:8. It has a widely splaying base characteristic of late-5th-century cups, and its width-to-height ratio of 0.75 indicates tall and narrow proportions comparable to 296 and later cups. In addition to 292–311, there are 17 similar bases (from UM:H2, UM:H3, RR:miscellaneous [two], SX:J/JN7 [two], SWH:K, SWH:L, KW:Well 8, KW:Well 10, KDS:C [four], KDS:SMP1170 [two], KDS:H). In addition to 312–317, there are four similar bases (from SX:J/JN7, KW:Well 10 [two], KDS:B).

knossos 300  High-necked cup, base and lower body

143 Figs. 4.11, 4.13

UM:TR12.42 Diam. 10.0 cm, of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Fillet at junction. Ca. 425–400. Fourth-century context. 301  High-necked cup, base, lower body, and shoulder

Figs. 4.11, 4.13

Coldstream 1999, p. 325, no. O8, fig. 2, pl. 25. KW:Well 7 Diam. 10.9 cm, of base 6.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 375–350. 302  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 4.11, 4.13, 4.15

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4982) Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Rich lustrous black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 303  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 4.13, 4.14

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Brown to black gloss. Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 450–425. 304  High-necked cup or jug, base

Fig. 4.14

SWH:K Diam. of base 8.8 cm. Dark brown gloss. Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 305  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 4.13, 4.14

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. 65, fig. 18, pl. 45. SWH:K Diam. of base 6.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 306  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.13

UM:H4 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss (rich smearing on underfoot). Compact orange-brown fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 307  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 4.14, 4.15

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4982) Diam. of base 7.2 cm. Brown to black gloss. Brown-orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 450–425. 308  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 4.13, 4.14

RR:miscellaneous Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Lustrous black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450

144 309  High-necked cup, base

chapter 4 Fig. 4.13

RR:miscellaneous Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Lustrous black to brown gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 475–450 310  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 4.13

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. 60, fig. 18, pl. 45. SWH:K Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Rich black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 311  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 4.14

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 228, no. 10, fig. 19, pl. 46. SWH:N Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Rich lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 450. 312  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 4.13

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Orange-brown fabric with gray core. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 313  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.14

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4983) Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Rich lustrous black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 314  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 4.13

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. 64, fig. 18, pl. 45. SWH:K Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Rich black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 450. Context ca. 475–450. 315  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.13

KW:Well 1 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Rich lustrous black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 350. 316  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.13

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4893) Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Rich lustrous black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 317  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.14

knossos

145

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4893) Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Dark brown to red gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orange-brown fabric. Conical support. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 318  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.13

KW:Well 8 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Rich black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 425–400. Fourth-century context. 319  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.13

Coldstream 1973a, p. 25, no. 17, fig. 14, pl. 11. KDS:B Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 425–400. 320  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 4.11, 4.13

KDS:SMP1170 (miscellaneous) Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Lustrous gloss (smearing on underfoot). Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 425–400 321  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.14

UM:TR12.42 Diam. of base 5.6 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 425–400. Fourth-century context. 322  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.14

UM:TR12.42 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Red to black gloss. Pale orange fabric. There is a similar base from KDS:B. Ca. 425–400. Fourth-century context.

Fo urt h Cen t u ry

57. Examples include a rich series of Late Classical and Hellenistic deposits from UM (Callaghan 1992, pp. 94–98, deposits H6–H11, pp. 101–138, deposits H12–H38) and stratified votive pits from KDS (Coldstream 1973a, pp. 25–38, deposits C–G).

The last cups under consideration lie strictly outside the chronological scope of the study, but they bring to completion many of the developments begun earlier and therefore merit attention. One cup, dated early in the first quarter of the 4th century (323), exhibits a vertical shoulder profile and an inset rim almost flush with the shoulder. A slightly later example (324), manufactured around 375, appropriates a truly massive form of platform pedestal base from the contemporary repertoire of Attic kantharoi. It has narrower proportions than any of the 5th-century high-necked cups, with a width-to-height ratio of 0.64. In addition, the first half of the 4th century is distinguished by a greater variety of bases, with a representative selection of the types shown in Figure 4.16. The subsequent history of the high-necked cup remains, on the whole, better understood thanks to the meticulous publication and illustration of 4th-century and Hellenistic deposits.57

146

chapter 4

325

328 326

327 323  High-necked cup, rim and upper body

Figure 4.16. Fourth-century highnecked cup bases, Knossos. Scale 1:2

329 Fig. 4.17

Callaghan 1992, p. 93, no. 3, pls. 76, 105. UM:H5 H. of rim 3.1 cm; Diam. 7.6 cm, of rim 7.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 400–390. Fourth-century context. 324  High-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.17

Callaghan 1992, p. 93, no. 2, pls. 76, 105. UM:H5 H. 13.2 cm, of rim 3.2 cm; Diam. 8.5 cm, of rim 8.0 cm, of base 5.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 375. Fourth-century context. 325  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.16

KKG Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 400–375. Context ca. 400–375. 326  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.16

K67:1971 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 400–375. Fourth-century context. 327  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.16

K67:1971 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 400–375. Fourth-century context. 328  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.16

SX:J/JN6 Diam. of base 5.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 400–375. Fourth-century context.

knossos

Figure 4.17. Fourth-century highnecked cups, Knossos. Scale 1:2. 324

147

323 324

after Callaghan 1992, p. 93, pl. 76

329  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.16

K67:1971 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 400–375. Fourth-century context.

Low - N ec k ed C u p

58. For Aphrati, see Erickson 2002, p. 65, no. 81, fig. 18. For Gortyn, see Chap. 6, p. 184. Another low-necked cup from Kommos exhibits a red fabric (2.5YR 6/6) and therefore may be a Gortynian product. Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 251, no. 401, pl. 4:19) date it by context to the early 5th century. This low-necked cup (rim height 1.9 cm) is a squat shape with a greater width-to-height ratio (1.38) than that of any high-necked cup from Kommos; see Chap. 9, p. 223, Fig. 9.1. Its handle attaches inside the rim and the base is plain. For the low-necked cups at Azoria, see Haggis et al. 2007, p. 253. 59. For the “bellied” cup, see pp. 158–160.

The low-necked cup encompasses a series of variations, within a restricted range, on the standard form of drinking cup at Knossos, the high-necked cup (Fig. 4.18). These two categories share a common basic design: a body whose walls define a continuous curve from a low foot to an inset rim, with a single vertical handle attached at the rim and shoulder. The low-necked cup is distinguished by a rim that is shorter both in absolute (1.7–2.5 cm) and proportional terms (16%–25%), and a different set of bodily proportions (Table 4.1). The low-necked cup retains a stout form for most of the 5th century. Even at the end of the century, when a fashion for attenuated proportions exerts a strong influence on the cup’s development, there is a squat version of the shape (340). Finally, the low-necked cup possesses a distinctive base, a broad, low disk foot with a steeply graded edge. Although the high-necked cup is by far the more popular of the two shapes at Knossos, the low-necked cup appears in greater number at the “Shrine of Glaukos,” suggesting a special ritual significance for the shape. Outside Knossos, the low-necked cup was produced at Gortyn, Aphrati, Priniatikos, Pyrgos, Azoria, and Roussa Ekklesia.58 To a greater extent than any other shape at Knossos, with the possible exception of the “bellied” cup, the low-necked cup most closely resembles the canonical Cretan drinking vessel of earlier times, the one-handled cup of the late 8th and 7th centuries.59 This physical resemblance alone, however, does not indicate a direct line of descent, and a later origin for the low-necked cup is likely. New evidence suggests an origin for the cup at least a quarter century before the earliest previously known examples from the “Shrine of Glaukos.”

148

chapter 4

Type I (330/331) possesses a high (2.3 cm) flaring rim set atop a shallow hemispherical body with a width-to-height ratio of 1.13 (Table 4.3). The form of the cup is clearly derived from the repertoire of high-necked cups at an early stage in the development of that shape (type II, ca. 500–480). The borrowing involved minor alterations to the received shape, the most notable being a reduction in the overall size of the vessel combined with a proportional decrease in the height of the rim. Progress toward a canonical low rim, a hallmark of the low-necked cup, had evidently already begun. The base takes the form of a low conical disk foot with a steeply graded wedge-shaped edge. Archaeological context makes it clear that the lownecked cup began its life at Knossos in the first quarter of the 5th century, probably as an offshoot of the standard high-necked drinking cup.60 The next cups in the series link the earliest examples to a later group of cups from the “Shrine of Glaukos.” Type II (332/333) marks a further reduction of the height (1.8 cm) and concavity of the rim. Unlike the flaring rim of earlier examples, the rim of the type II cup either projects at a straight angle or assumes a true vertical stance similar to the later examples from the “Shrine of Glaukos.” There is little discernible change in the design of the base. Relevant deposits yield a date for this type in the second quarter of the 5th century.61 The next three cups from the “Shrine of Glaukos” illustrate the development of the mature Classical shape in the middle of the 5th century (type III, 334–336). All three examples possess a low (1.7–1.8 cm) upright rim inset on a stout hemispherical body (width-to-height ratio 1.01–1.06), widest at the top and gradually narrowing toward the bottom. The exact proportions of the cups vary, but their basic similarities in rim size, glazing, and potting characteristics suggest a workshop connection and a roughly contemporaneous date. To judge from the primitive appearance of its base— a low, broad disk foot similar to that of types I and II—334 may be somewhat earlier than the others. In contrast, the bases of the other two cups possess a taller foot that meets the belly at a narrower point of attachment. Callaghan places these three cups on stylistic grounds between ca. 475 and 425, a broad range in date capable of further refinement.62 The existence of forerunners of these cups in earlier deposits now recommends a date for type III after ca. 450. Callaghan’s proposed lower limit of ca. 425 seems correct, based on the need to accommodate a succeeding 5th-century variety. An imported cup, probably from Aphrati, can be compared to the previous three examples. As Callaghan observes, a pale brown fabric distinguishes 337 from Knossian fine wares and points to a production center west or south of Knossos.63 Pottery of the same pale brown fabric has been found at Aphrati and Kato Symi, and Aphrati is the probable source.64 The base of this cup has a groove underfoot, a characteristic of Classical drinking cups at Aphrati. Its wide shoulders and low body result in a width-toheight ratio of 1.15, indicating a squat shape just outside the range of Knossian low-neck cups. 337 can be dated to the second or third quarter of the 5th century. A slightly earlier low-necked cup from Aphrati, dated to ca. 475–425, has a lower base with minimum extension; the convex upper-body profile of this fragmentary cup suggests a hemispherical shape at an earlier stage of development.65 In the final quarter of the 5th

60. In addition to 330 and 331, there is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from UM:H1B, and four similar bases from RR :H (three) and KW:Well 2. 61. In addition to 332 and 333, there is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from SWH:K, and a base from SWH:K. 62. According to Callaghan (1978, p. 6), an upper limit of ca. 475 applies to these cups, since the handle uniformly attaches on the inside wall of the vase, unlike the earlier method of attaching the handle outside at the time of deposit RR:H (ca. 500–480). The longer handle of 334, which Callaghan (1978, pp. 6–7) understands to be an earlier feature, is an idiosyncratic detail of potting. His lower limit of ca. 425, like mine, is based on a successor (338) whose parallels with cups in KDS:B suggest a date at the end of the 5th century. 63. Callaghan 1978, p. 7. 64. Chap. 2, p. 32. 65. Erickson 2002, pp. 64–65, no. 82, fig. 18.

knossos

149

TA B LE 4.3. DIMENSIONS AND PROPORT IONS OF LATE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL LOW-NECKED CUPS AT KNOSSOS Rim Diam. (cm)

Shoulder Diam.: Rim Diam.

Shoulder Diam.: Total H.

Shoulder Diam.: Body H.

Rim H.: Total H.

10.5

9.9

1.06

1.13

1.62

0.25

11.0

10.3

1.07

1.10

1.45

0.18

10.6

11.2

9.4

1.19

1.06

1.38

0.16

7.9

10.5

11.0

9.2

1.20

1.05

1.39

0.16

1.0

8.5

11.3

11.4

9.6

1.19

1.01

1.34

0.16

0.8

7.7

10.4

12.0

10.4

1.15

1.15

1.56

0.18

2.4

–

–

–

11.3

9.6

1.18

–

–

–

339

2.5

1.3

8.2

12.0

10.5

9.2

1.14

0.88

1.28

0.21

340

2.2

0.9

7.4

10.5

11.9

10.3

1.16

1.13

1.61

0.21

Total H. (cm)

Shoulder Diam. (cm)

6.5

9.3

7.6

10.0

0.8

8.1

1.7

0.9

336

1.8

337

1.9

338

Cat. No.

Rim H. (cm)

Base H. (cm)

Body H. (cm)

330/331

2.3

0.5

332/333

1.8

0.6

334

1.7

335

66. It is often difficult to distinguish between the high- and low-necked cups toward the end of the 5th century, as the development of the two shapes seems to converge. One difference is that the low-necked cup still has a lower rim (2.5 cm) than high-necked cups of this date (3.5–4.2 cm). Moreover, the rim of the high-necked cup tends to be outturned, while the rim of the low-necked cup stands vertical or is even inturning. 67. As Callaghan (1978, p. 6) notes. 68. Coldstream (1999, p. 330, no. Q22, fig. 2, pl. 27) publishes a second example from a 4th-century deposit (H. 11.7 cm, rim 2.4 cm; Diam. 13.1 cm, rim 11.1 cm; width-to-height ratio 1.12).

century, potters from Aphrati adjusted the base of the low-necked cup to create a high pedestal foot with a widely extended outer edge. 337 must date before the advent of such a base. The last quarter of the 5th century witnessed a thorough reappraisal of the Knossian shape. A transformation of the low-necked cup resulted in a taller vessel with a higher center of gravity (type IV, 339). Its ratio of width to height is 0.88, within the range of earlier high-necked cups. The deep body terminates in a narrow belly that meets a tall, spreading pedestal foot at an increasingly narrow point of attachment. The rim undergoes a complementary increase in height (2.5 cm), as if to keep pace with the body and base, marking a complete reversal of its prior tendency to shorten. These changes in concert produce a tall vessel of attenuated proportions. The form of the cup now closely approximates the high-necked cup at a comparable point in its history (type VI), and this amalgamation of types results in an interchangeable form of base.66 What may be regarded as an earlier example of the shape, a previously unpublished cup from the “Shrine of Glaukos” (338), occupies an intermediary position in this typological sequence; it possesses the new high rim (2.4 cm) but retains an older set of stout proportions. Archaeological context and glazing characteristics substantiate a date for type IV in the final quarter of the 5th century. As Callaghan observes, the lustrous b.g. of the cups from the “Shrine of Glaukos” eventually gives way by the century’s close to a duller, less uniform black. Also, at the start of the 4th century the potters begin to abandon the practice of smearing in place of a full coat of gloss underneath the foot, with type IV cups documenting the first stage of this process.67 Around this time, a maverick type of low-necked cup appears, characterized by a squat profile (width-to-height ratio 1.13) and a special base with a broad ring foot (340).68 Its depressed profile is strikingly out of place in the contemporaneous climate of attenuated forms and probably reflects a streak of studied conservatism rather than a continuous independent tradition.

150

chapter 4

330

338 331

335

333

336

339

334

337

340

332

330  Low-necked cup, rim, handle, shoulder, and lower body

Fig. 4.18

RR:H H. of rim 2.3 cm; Diam. 10.5 cm, of rim 9.9 cm. Unglazed. Tan slip. Brownred fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 331  Low-necked cup, base

Fig. 4.18

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. 5, fig. 19, pl. 46. SWH:N Diam. of base 4.6 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 450. 332  Low-necked cup, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.18

UM:H1B H. of rim 1.8 cm; Diam. 11.0, of rim 10.3 cm. Black gloss. Red-brown fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450.

Figure 4.18. Late Archaic and Classical low-necked cups, Knossos. Scale 1:3. 334–337, 339 after Callaghan 1978, p. 7, fig. 5

knossos 333  Low-necked cup, base

151 Fig. 4.18

SWH:K Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Unglazed. Buff slip. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 334  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.18

Callaghan 1978, p. 6–7, no. 10, fig. 5, pl. 2 KRS H. 10.6 cm, of rim 1.7 cm; Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 9.4 cm, of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 275. 335  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.18

Callaghan 1978, pp. 6–7, no. 11, fig. 5, pl. 2. KRS H. 10.5 cm, of rim 1.7 cm; Diam. 11.0 cm, of rim 9.2 cm, of base 5.5 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 275. 336  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.18

Callaghan 1978, pp. 6–7, no. 12, fig. 5, pl. 2. KRS H. 11.3 cm, of rim 1.8 cm; Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim 9.6 cm, of base 5.4 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 275. 337  Aphrati low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.18

Callaghan 1978, p. 7, no. 15, fig. 5. KRS H. 10.4 cm, of rim 1.9 cm; Diam. 12.0 cm, of rim 10.4, of base 7.0 cm. Black gloss. Pale brown fabric (10YR 8.3). Ca. 475–425. Context ca. 275. 338  Low-necked cup, rim, shoulder, handle, and lower body

Fig. 4.18

KRS:SMP408 H. of rim 2.4 cm; Diam. 11.3 cm, of rim 9.6 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 275. 339  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.18

Callaghan 1978, pp. 6–7, no. 13, fig. 5, pl. 2. KRS H. 12.0 cm, of rim 2.5 cm; Diam. 10.5 cm, of rim 9.2 cm, of base 6.1 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Red-orange fabric. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from KKG, and there are two similar bases, from UM:TR12.42 and KRS:SMP408. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 275. 340  Low-necked cup, intact

Fig. 4.18

KRS:SMP411 (balk 1) H. 10.5 cm, of rim 2.2 cm; Diam. 11.9 cm, of rim 10.3 cm, of foot 6.5 cm. Black gloss (smearing on underfoot). Pale orange fabric with red core. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 275.

152

chapter 4

Kant har os The kantharos is a mainland type rarely imitated by Classical Cretan potters. Apart from Knossos, only Gortyn is known to have produced a version of the shape in the 5th century.69 In the 4th century, the kantharos firmly established itself in the local line at Knossos and Gortyn and became one of the leading Cretan shapes in the Hellenistic period. The distinguishing features of the Classical Cretan kantharos include two vertical handles, a bell-shaped body, a tall upright rim (3.9–5.7 cm), a beveled shoulder molding, and a base with a high conical foot (Fig. 4.19).70 The production of kantharoi at Knossos probably fell under the direction of the same workshops that made high-necked cups, and the development of the two shapes entailed much cross-fertilization. Unlike the high- and low-necked cups, whose inspiration can be traced back to the 8th or 7th century, the inception of the Cretan kantharos took place at a much later point, in the first half of the 5th century. Callaghan posits an Attic shape, the sessile kantharos, as the ultimate source for the Knossian version, an observation that, if correct, would place the origin of the local shape in relation to an Athenian model manufactured ca. 450.71 It now seems, however, that the invention of the local kantharos took place at least a generation earlier, between ca. 475 and 450, based on the earliest datable deposits (SWH:K, UM:H4).72 An origin before ca. 475 is unlikely, as the rich Late Archaic deposit RR:H notably lacks the shape, and in the case of all surviving examples the handle of the cup attaches inside the rim, suggesting a date after ca. 475. The local kantharos develops in the 5th century from a stout vessel with a hemispherical body (width-to-height 0.88) into a more graceful shape with narrower dimensions (width-to-height 0.70), increased height, and a bell-shaped body (Table 4.4). Despite these changes, rim height as a ratio of total height of 5th- and early-4th-century kantharoi varies little (30%–33%), a sign of highly standardized production. When it first appears (type I, 341/342), the kantharos has a tall, slightly flaring rim and a broad hemispherical bowl with a wide opening at the mouth. These features are reminiscent of high-necked cups dated to ca. 480 (type III). Unlike the Attic kantharos with its distinctive high-swung handles, the Cretan version borrows the form of its handle from the line of high-necked cups, and these points of contact suggest that the kantharos began its life as an offshoot of the standard high-necked vessel at Knossos.73 Next in the development of the kantharos (type II, 343, 344) come a number of subtle changes, including a substitution of a tall vertical rim in place of the formerly flaring one, a sharp angle at the joining of the inset rim and shoulder (resulting in a consistent beveled molding), and streamlined proportions as the bell-shaped body replaces the hemispherical bowl of the earlier type. The base becomes a taller cone, with a narrower point of attachment to the belly. Its walls thicken, and a “dropped floor” forms a hollow cavity inside the bottom of the base. A tentative date for type II in the third quarter of the 5th century depends on the findspot of 344 (SX:J/JN7, ca. 450–425).74 Type III (345, 346) sees a reappraisal of the vessel’s form destined to have a lasting impact on the development of the shape. 345 is taller and

69. For the Classical Gortynian examples, see Chap. 6, p.184. There are no known 6th-century kantharoi in the Cretan repertoires. Although an exported Archaic Cretan fragment found at Cyrene has a beveled shoulder molding and a tall rim comparable to 5th-century kantharoi, Schaus (1985, pp. 13–14, no. 41, pl. 3) attributes it to a krater. 70. The kantharos appears at Knossos in a wide variety of domestic and religious contexts. 71. Callaghan 1978, p. 24. 72. A fragmentary kantharos from SWH:K bears a semilustrous gloss with a slight greenish tint resembling a copper patina. This type of gloss occurs on a limited number of vessels at Knossos, which all appear to belong to a narrow period, ca. 500–475; see p. 134–135. 73. Callaghan (1978, pp. 24–25) restores high-swung handles where none are preserved. In addition to 341 and 342, there are five similar rim and shoulder fragments from SWH:K, and a similar base from UM:H4. 74. On stylistic grounds, a mid-5thcentury date for the earliest examples of this type seems likely, for this stage marks an advance over a precursor dated to ca. 475–450. The uniformly high standard of potting, high quality of the gloss, and the mottled fabric of type II examples also point to a date in the middle or second half of the 5th century.

knossos

153

TABLE 4.4. DIMENSIONS AND PROPORTIONS OF CLASSICAL KANTHAROI AT KNOSSOS

Cat. No.

Rim H. (cm)

Base H. (cm)

Body H. (cm)

Total H. (cm)

Shoulder Diam. (cm)

Rim Diam. (cm)

Shoulder Diam.: Rim Diam.

Shoulder Diam.: Total H.

Shoulder Diam.: Body H.

Rim H.: Total H.

341/342

4.0

1.5

7.9

13.4

11.8

11.9

0.99

0.88

1.49

0.30

343

4.7

2.2

7.2

14.1

11.7

11.0

1.06

0.83

1.63

0.33

344

4.7

–

7.9

–

11.4

10.3

1.11

–

1.44

–

345

4.8

1.4

8.5

14.7

10.3

9.7

1.06

0.70

1.21

0.33

346

3.9

–

–

–

10.6

10.0

1.06

–

–

–

347

–

–

–

–

13.5

–

–

–

–

–

348

5.7

2.6

8.7

17.0

10.1

11.0

0.92

0.59

1.16

0.34

narrower than its precursors, and the potter matched a deep cylindrical body with a high rim and a tall pedestal support, with the base acting as a counterweight to the progressive attenuation of the upper body. Moreover, the upper body exhibits a beveled molding that is sharply “pinching out” from the slightly tapering shoulder. Subsequent experimentation leads to more graceful ways of handling the transition at the shoulder, including a form of overhanging rim (346), before the local potters move to dispense with the beveled shoulder altogether at the end of the 5th century. The thicker walls of type III examples anticipate later developments. Further, the quality of gloss may have chronological significance, with dull and streaky black eventually replacing the high lustrous sheen of earlier examples. 346, a representative of the type, is from a deposit dated by its Attic contents to ca. 425–400.75 Type IV includes two varieties, the first of which represents a direct continuation of earlier trends. A greater attenuation of the cup’s proportions, a taller rim (5.7 cm for 348), and a broader, more massive pedestal base mark a later stage of development. The elaborate pedestal support of 348 manifests direct Attic influence on local production at the beginning of the 4th century, and the high-swung handles of this cup constitutes another nod in the direction of the Attic line.76 An alternative course of development is hinted at by fragmentary kantharoi from a late-5thcentury deposit (KDS:B, e.g., 347). This group of cups features thick walls, a deeply inset rim, and a broad shoulder whose maximum diameter far surpasses that of any previous type. This type paves the way for a truly colossal form of Hellenistic kantharos as seen in KDS:H. 341  Kantharos, rim and shoulder 75. In addition, a reciprocal influence of type III kantharoi on the development of the high-necked cup, its parent shape, occurs at a comparable point of the high-necked cup’s history (type VI; ca. 425–400). 76. A possible source of inspiration is to be found in the 4th-century repertoire of Attic kantharoi (as Agora XII, nos. 652–663).

Fig. 4.19

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) H. of rim 4.0 cm; Diam. 11.8 cm, of rim 11.9 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Redbrown fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 450–425. 342  Kantharos, base

Fig. 4.19

SWH:K Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Brown to black gloss (reserved underfoot). Orangebrown fabric with gray core. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450.

154

chapter 4

341

342

345

346

343

347

344 348 343  Kantharos, nearly intact (missing handle)

Fig. 4.19

Callaghan 1978, p. 11, no. 24, fig. 7. KRS H. 14.1 cm, of rim 4.7 cm; Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim 10.3 cm, of base 5.9 cm. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 275.

Figure 4.19. Classical kantharoi, Knossos. Scale 1:3. 343, 345, 348 after Callaghan 1978, p. 11, fig. 7

knossos 344  Kantharos, nearly intact (missing foot)

155 Fig. 4.19

SX:J/JN7 (zembils 4984, 4985), P2089 H. of rim 4.7 cm; Diam. 11.5 cm, of rim 10.4 cm. Rich lustrous gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 345  Kantharos, nearly intact (missing handle)

Fig. 4.19

Callaghan 1978, p. 11, no. 25, fig. 7. KRS H. 14.7 cm, of rim 4.8 cm; Diam. 10.3 cm, of rim 9.7 cm, of base 6.5 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric mottled with gray. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 275. 346  Kantharos, rim, shoulder, and upper body

Fig. 4.19

Coldstream 1973a, p. 25, no. 16, fig. 14, pl. 11. KDS:B H. of rim 3.9 cm; Diam. 10.6 cm, of rim 10.0 cm. Dull black gloss. Orangered fabric. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from KDS:B. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 425–400. 347  Kantharos, rim and shoulder

Fig. 4.19

KDS:B Diam. 13.5 cm. Dull streaky gloss. Orange-brown fabric. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from KDS:B. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 425–400. 348  Kantharos, intact

77. The conventional name for the cup is derived from the resemblance of the form to the blossom of a tulip flower. 78. For forerunners of the shape, see Brock 1957, p. 13, no. 57, pl. 6, p. 48, no. 471, pl. 35, p. 112, no. 1305, pl. 103. As Callaghan (1978, p. 9, n. 17) observes, Geometric versions are rare. This type of cup may have been a Central Cretan specialty (Knossos and Gortyn); at least nothing like it appears at Eleutherna or Aphrati. Unpublished tulip cups (ca. 400–375) from a sanctuary at Kamilari in the Mesara exhibit the distinctive fabric and gloss characteristic of Gortynian production. 79. Unlike the low-necked cup and kantharos, the tulip cup developed independent of the standard line of high-necked vessels.

Fig. 4.19

Callaghan 1978, p. 11, no. 26, fig. 7, pl. 4. KRS H. 17.0 cm, of rim 5.7 cm; Diam. 10.1 cm, of rim 11.0 cm, of base 8.2 cm. Orange red gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 400–475. Context ca. 275.

Tulip C u p The tulip cup is a deep, cylindrical shape whose profile is characterized by a simple convex-concave S-curve that runs from base to rim without interruption (Figs. 4.20, 4.21).77 The maximum diameter of the body often falls below the midsection, resulting in a baggy appearance. A broad ring foot is a staple of the class. In addition, the cup possesses a single high-swung vertical handle, generally placed high up along the wall of the vase above the point of maximum diameter. The tulip cup had a respectable pedigree at Knossos, and distant forerunners of the shape can be distinguished among the Protogeometric, Geometric, and Orientalizing material from Fortetsa.78 But this type of cup disappears after ca. 600, leaving no discernible successors in the 6th century. Based on current evidence, the tulip cup is either a revival of an old shape or an entirely new creation of the 5thcentury potters.79

156

chapter 4

349

352

350 353

351

Figure 4.20. Classical tulip cups, Knossos. Scale 1:3. 351–354 after Cal-

354

The tulip cup first appears in the first half of the 5th century as a full-bodied vessel with a gradually curving profile and a broad, low ring foot. The S-curve gradually intensifies, resulting in the strongly flaring lip of most later examples. In the middle or third quarter of the 5th century the dimensions change, resulting in a cup of appreciably smaller size. During this period, the base develops from a broad, low ring foot to a high pedestal support with a narrower point of attachment to the belly. 349 stands at the head of the sequence at Knossos (type I). It possesses an early form of base consisting of a broad, low ring foot with a full coat of gloss underneath. Smearing never occurs on the bases of tulip cups. Given that both examples of type I (349, 350) are large vessels (349: H. 12.3 cm, Diam. of shoulder 11.3 cm), large size may be a sign of early date. The other contents of the deposit provide a date of ca. 475–450 for 349,

laghan 1978, p. 10, fig. 6

knossos

349 Figure 4.21. Classical tulip cup, Knossos. Scale 1:3. Courtesy P. Warren

157

and the method of attaching the handle inside the rim is consistent with an Early Classical construction.80 A tulip cup from Azoria is roughly the same size as 349 but has a widely splaying base unlike the broad, low feet of the earliest Knossian examples.81 Type II (351) is an intermediate stage between the tulip cup’s original conception and its substantially altered form in the late 5th century. Although this large cup is approximately the same size as its predecessors, it evinces subtle changes. The base has become taller and exhibits a more spreading profile. Also, the attachment of the handle occurs fully inside the rim, implying a date for this cup after ca. 475. Since the differences with respect to the preceding type are relatively minor, a date for 351 shortly after 349, ca. 475–450, is defensible.82 There are no definite examples of the tulip cup in the second half of the 5th century, and this break in the sequence obscures developments.83 By the beginning of the 4th century, when the tulip cup returns in deposits, a substantial modification of its original appearance has taken place (type III, 352, 353). The cup is now substantially smaller than earlier examples, with a more emphatic double S-curve profile (354). The new form of base—a high pedestal support with a widely spreading stand and a narrow point of attachment to the belly—is another sign of its later date. This new form suggests an advance over the latest cup bases from deposit KDS:B, themselves dated to ca. 425–400.84 By analogy with the bases from the fuller sequence of Classical high-necked cups, a date for type III of ca. 400, or shortly thereafter, seems plausible. The high, spreading base and attenuated proportions (tall shape and narrow lower-body profile) of 354 place it well into the first quarter of the 4th century. 349  Tulip cup, intact

Figs. 4.20, 4.21

SX:U6 (zembil 2514), P321 H. 12.3 cm; Diam. 11.3 cm, of rim 10.8 cm, of base 6.7 cm. Dull brown-black gloss. Pale orange fabric. Irregular shape (misfire). Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 350  Tulip cup, rim, handle, and upper half of body

Fig. 4.20

KRS:SMP408 (T12g.50) Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim 11.8 cm. Black gloss. Pale orange fabric with gray core. Ca. 475–450. Hellenistic context. 80. According to the evidence available to him at the time, Callaghan (1978, p. 12) argued that the handle of the tulip cup developed in the 5th century from a long to a short form, with a high-swung form later becoming common. The short, high-swung handle of the earliest tulip cup (349) contradicts this hypothesis. 81. Haggis et al. (2004, p. 383, n. 92, p. 385, fig. 41:1) date this example to the early 5th century. It is impossible to

determine from the preliminary report whether this cup is a local product or an import from Central Crete. There is also a tulip cup from a deposit at Priniatikos Pyrgos dated to ca. 475– 450; see Erickson 2010b. 82. The high standard of potting and the rich lustrous gloss also point to a date around 450. Callaghan’s original dating of this cup to ca. 475–450 can, therefore, be retained. 83. Coldstream and Macdonald

(1997, p. 241) suggest that a special category of 5th-century base (e.g., 311) with a stepped platform belonged to a tulip cup. If so, this would help bridge a gap in the 5th-century sequence. Because this base is unlike all definite examples of the tulip cup’s support, however, it probably belonged instead to a variant of the high-necked cup. 84. As noted by Callaghan (1978, p. 9).

158 351  Tulip cup, intact

chapter 4 Fig. 4.20

Callaghan 1978, p. 9, no. 19, fig. 6, pl. 2. KRS H. 12.3 cm; Diam. 11.3 cm, of rim 11.1 cm, of base 6.8 cm. Lustrous brownishblack gloss. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 275. 352  Tulip cup, intact

Fig. 4.20

Callaghan 1978, p. 9, no. 20, fig. 6, pl. 2. KRS H. 11.1 cm; Diam. 9.0 cm, of rim 9.5 cm, of base 6.0 cm. Dull black gloss. Fabric misfired gray. Early 4th century. Context ca. 275. 353  Tulip cup, intact

Fig. 4.20

Callaghan 1978, p. 9, no. 21, fig. 6, pl. 2. KRS H. 11.3 cm; Diam. 9.6 cm, of rim 9.4 cm, of base 5.8 cm. Dull black gloss. Fabric misfired gray. Early 4th century. Context ca. 275. 354  Tulip cup, intact

Fig. 4.20

Homann-Wedeking 1950, pl. 13:a, b KKG H. 13.2 cm; Diam. 10.3 cm, of rim 9.1 cm, of base 7.7 cm. Black gloss. Buff fabric. Ca. 400–375. Context ca. 400–375.

“ B e l li e d” Cup, “ Sk y phos,” Leka n e, and Ho u s ehold K rater The common surface treatment and glazing characteristics justify grouping together the “bellied” cup, the “skyphos,” the lekane, and the “household” krater (Figs. 4.22–4.24). Hallmarks of this class include expert potting, a fine buff slip, and an irregular pattern of gloss restricted to the rim and shoulder, a result of dipping.

“ Bel lied” C up The shape of the “bellied” cup undergoes little change from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period (Fig. 4.22). Its elegant profile is composed of a flat resting surface (the type lacks a true foot) and a curving side wall surmounted by an offset rim, with a single vertical handle attached at the rim. The “bellied” cup is a relatively small drinking vessel whose height rarely exceeds 8 cm. Its diminutive size and the concentration of examples in sanctuary contexts, both at Knossos and elsewhere on Crete, make one suspect that it was a special sanctuary shape.85 Prior to ca. 300, the cup exhibits stout proportions, a vertical rim, and a body less sharply carinated than later examples.86 The body proportions of 356, 357, and 359 (width:height 1.26–1.30) recall low-necked cups, as does their value for rim height as a percentage of the total (21%–22%). A possible forerunner of the shape in the 6th century is the small hemispherical cup of similar dimensions discussed earlier

85. Callaghan (1978, pp. 18–19) describes these as “carinated” cups. J. N. Coldstream (pers. comm.) prefers the term “bellied” cup for the Classical version, as carination is almost entirely lacking until the Hellenistic period. The votive deposit at Olous contains scores of local cups similar to the Knossian “bellied” cup. Also present in this deposit were Attic versions of a comparable shape (as Agora XII, no. 1392), albeit without an articulated base. In addition, Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 251, no. 401, pl. 4:19) publish an example from Kommos dated to ca. 500. 86. For the later examples, see Callaghan 1978, pp. 18–19, nos. 62–69, fig. 10, pl. 5.

knossos

355

356 Figure 4.22. Late Archaic and Classical “bellied” cups, Knossos. Scale 1:3. 356, 357 after Callaghan 1978, p. 17, fig. 10

357

159

359

358

(257–260). The attachment of the handle outside the rim in 355–357 may be a sign of early date. In contrast, the handle of 359, a cup from a deposit dated to ca. 425–400, attaches inside the rim; this vessel’s fine fabric and thin walls also suggest a later date. The otherwise static nature of the cup’s development ca. 525–300 presumably reflects the derivative nature of production in relation to the standard high-necked cups. The vessel’s apparent resistance to change may also be a function of religious conservatism.87 355  “Bellied” cup, intact

Fig. 4.22

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L63, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 8.6 cm, of rim 2.3 cm; Diam. 9.6 cm, of rim 9.3 cm, of base 5.4 cm. Unglazed. Orange fabric. Cream slip. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 356  “Bellied” cup, intact

Fig. 4.22

Callaghan 1978, p. 19, no. 60, fig. 10, pl. 5. KRS H. 7.6 cm, of rim 1.7 cm; Diam. 9.9 cm, of rim 8.8 cm, of base 5.0 cm. Dilute brown gloss along shoulder. Buff fabric. Cream slip. Missing handle. Ca. 500–450. Context ca. 275. 357  “Bellied” cup, intact

Fig. 4.22

Callaghan 1978, p. 19, no. 61, fig. 10, pl. 5. KRS H. 7.3 cm, of rim 1.6 cm; Diam. 9.2 cm, of rim 8.0 cm, of base 4.6 cm. Dilute brown gloss along shoulder. Pink-buff fabric. Cream slip. Ca. 500–450. Context ca. 275. 87. Religious conservatism is not an entirely satisfactory explanation for its lack of development. After all, another presumed sanctuary shape, the low-necked cup, undergoes substantial changes in the 5th century.

358  “Bellied” cup, intact

Fig. 4.22

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L64. RR:H H. 6.8 cm, of rim 1.5 cm; Diam. 7.8 cm, of rim 6.8 cm, of base 4.4 cm. Unglazed. Orange fabric. Cream slip. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480.

160

chapter 4

362

360 361 359  “Bellied” cup, intact

Fig. 4.22

Figure 4.23. Late Archaic and Classical “skyphoi,” Knossos. Scale 1:3

Coldstream 1973a, p. 25, no. 19, fig. 14, pl. 11. KDS:B H. 7.2 cm, of rim 1.5 cm; Diam. 9.1 cm, of rim 8.0 cm, of base 3.9 cm. One side of shoulder dipped in gloss. Pale orange fabric. Buff slip. Ca. 425–400. Context ca. 425–400.

“ Sky phos ” and Lekane The term “skyphos” applies to a special category of fine-ware bowl with two horizontal handles placed high on the shoulder in an arrangement reminiscent of the Classical Athenian drinking cup, hence the borrowing of the term (Fig. 4.23). A shallow body, occasionally carinated at the midpoint, together with a collared rim and a plain base, form the salient features of this class. 361 is the only example with a deep body. The exact function of the Cretan “skyphos” remains unclear. As the interior of the vessel is never glazed, the function of the “skyphos” probably differed from its Athenian namesake. The rarity of plates and bowls in the Cretan repertoires encourages me to accept the “skyphoi” as substitutes.88 These vessels resemble a category of larger Cretan bowl, identical save only for their smaller size and finer fabric and surface treatment appropriate for use at the symposium. Production of the shape was confined to the first half of the 5th century, as is indicated by the deposits in which “skyphoi” appear: RR:H (ca. 500–480) and SX:U6 (ca. 475–450). Manufacture of the shape is attested at Eleutherna by a single example in the local fabric (238, Fig. 3.37). Another “skyphos” from a survey site in the vicinity of Kommos is probably a Gortynian product, to judge from the reddish-yellow color of the fabric.89 A closely related form of bowl at Knossos, termed the lekane, appears in two formats, both distinguishable from the skyphos (Fig. 4.24). The first type is a large bowl, broad and shallow, with an articulated disk foot (363–365). The width-to-height ratio of 363 (2.42) is greater than that of the “skyphos” 360 (1.58), indicating a broader, lower shape. The rim either projects out to form a collar or is folded down. The contents of Late Archaic and Classical deposits at Knossos include other lekanai of larger size, but details of fabric and surface treatment place these larger lekanai in a different category with no relation to the skyphos, and I have left them out of my study. 365 is slightly smaller than the other two examples in its class, but it has the same shallow profile. Unlike the skyphoi, these lekanai continued in production through the 5th and 4th centuries.90 The second type of lekane with a resemblance to the skyphos is distinguished by its smaller size, a carinated profile, and greater articulation of the rim (366–370).

88. For Knossos, see Coldstream 2001, p. 59; Coldstream and Eiring 2001, p. 80. At Azoria, Haggis et al. (2007, p. 278) interpret skyphoi found with high-necked cups not as wine vessels but as containers for food. 89. As described in Chap. 6, p. 186. 90. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, pp. 80–81, fig. 2.2) present a selection of lekanai.

knossos

161

367

363

368

364

369

365

370 366 Figure 4.24. Late Archaic and Classical lekanai, Knossos. Scale 1:3. 363, 366 after Coldstream 1973b, p. 53, fig. 8; 364, 365 after Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, fig. 19

It first appears in deposit RR:H, but most examples date to the middle or second half of the 5th century (SWH:N, ca. 475–450; SX:J/JN7, ca. 450– 425). One of the earliest examples (366) is slightly larger than the rest. This type of lekane apparently does not survive the 5th century. 360  “Skyphos,” intact

Fig. 4.23

Coldstream 1973b, p. 54, no. L44, fig. 9, pl. 20. RR:H H. 7.4 cm; Diam. 11.7 cm, of rim 12.6 cm, of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss along rim. Orange-brown fabric. Context ca. 500–480 361  “Skyphos,” rim to lower body

Fig. 4.23

Coldstream 1973b, p. 54, no. L47, fig. 9, pl. 20. RR:H Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 12.4 cm. Black gloss along rim. Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 362  “Skyphos,” rim, upper body, and handle

Fig. 4.23

SX:U6 (zembil 2515), P435 Diam. 11.9 cm, of rim 12.9 cm. Dilute brown gloss along rim. Buff slip. Reddish-brown fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450.

162 363  Lekane, intact

chapter 4 Fig. 4.24

Coldstream 1973b, pp. 53–54, no. L39, fig. 8, pl. 20. RR:H H. 6.5; Diam. 15.7 cm, of rim 16.1 cm, of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss along rim. Buff slip. Orange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 364  Lekane, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.24

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. 6, fig. 19, pl. 46. SWH:N Diam. 14.4 cm, of rim 15.6 cm. Black gloss along rim. Buff slip. Orange fabric. Ca. 450. Context ca. 450. 365  Lekane, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.24

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. 9, fig. 19, pl. 46. SWH:N Diam. 12.5 cm, of rim 13.3 cm. Black gloss along rim. Buff slip. Orange fabric. Ca. 450. Context ca. 450. 366  Lekane, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.24

Coldstream 1973b, pp. 53–54, no. L43, fig. 8, pl. 20. RR:H H. 6.5; Diam. 12.4 cm, of rim 13.0 cm. Black gloss along rim. Buff slip. Orange fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 367  Lekane, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.24

KW:Well 2 Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim 12.0 cm. Dilute red gloss along rim. Buff slip. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 500–480 368  Lekane, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.24

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) Diam. 9.8 cm, of rim 10.6 cm. Dilute brown gloss along rim. Buff slip. Pale orange fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 369  Lekane, rim, shoulder, and handle

Fig. 4.24

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4988) Diam. 11.3 cm, of rim 11.7 cm. Black gloss along rim. Buff slip. Orange brown fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 370  Lekane, rim to lower body

Fig. 4.24

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4982) Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim 12.0 cm. Dilute red gloss along rim. Buff slip. Orange brown fabric. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425.

knossos

163

Ho u sehol d K rat er Callaghan coined the term “household” krater to distinguish between the all-black wine mixers used at the symposium and a related shape of presumably different function.91 The household krater lacks a coat of gloss on the interior; it seems unlikely that it served as a wine dispenser. Although the Knossian shape bears a resemblance to a small 5th-century krater found at Aphrati in a definite sympotic context, the similarities between the two shapes may be fortuitous. Callaghan attempted a chronological arrangement of household kraters from an unstratified context at the “Shrine of Glaukos” by comparing the krater’s foot with the smaller supports found in the better-dated series of drinking cups. Unfortunately, the absence of stratified deposits means that there is no way of confirming the proposed morphological development. For this reason, and because the comparison between the foot of the kraters and cups is weak, no attempt is made here to impose finer chronological distinctions.

J ug N o z z l e s

371

372

373 Figure 4.25. Late Archaic and Classical jug nozzles, Knossos. Scale 1:2

91. Callaghan 1978, pp. 11–15. See also Haggis et al. 2007, p. 253. 92. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228. 93. Erickson 2010a, p. 233, no. 93, fig. 14. 94. For 4th-century production of olpai, see Homann-Wedeking 1950, pp. 169–170, fig. 3, pl. 12:a.

Three nozzles of roughly comparable size and shape in all likelihood originate from a common form of vessel, although the fragmentary condition of these nozzles makes an exact determination of the shape difficult (Fig. 4.25). Coldstream and Macdonald, in their publication of one of the nozzles from deposit SWH:M, suggest a lekythos as the possible source.92 The only reasonable alternative, given the size and shape of the nozzles, is a small jug. The fragmentary handle attachment at the rim of one of the examples published here (372) is compatible with either identification. A reason for ascribing these nozzles to lekythoi and not jugs is the small aperture of the mouth, which at first glance seems overly constrictive for a jug. Yet the discovery of an intact jug from a votive deposit at Roussa Ekklesia in East Crete, whose nozzle closely resembles these 5th-century examples from Knossos, leaves little doubt that the Knossian nozzles indicate production of a comparable form of small local jug.93 The first nozzle, found in well RR:H and consequently dated to ca. 500–480, possesses a wide neck and a rim of minimal articulation (371). The next nozzle, from SX:J/JN7 (ca. 450–425, 372), has a profile with substantially greater concavity of the neck and shoulder. At its narrowest point, the neck is roughly one-third the size of the earlier example, and an overhanging rim forms a disk-shaped aperture. The next example, from SWH:L, a deposit dated to ca. 450, marks a subtle progression by having a collared rim with substantially greater overhang, resulting in a wide diskshaped aperture (373). Later olpai from a 4th-century kiln deposit at Knossos exhibit this wide disk-shaped aperture.94 371  Jug, nozzle, neck, and shoulder

Fig. 4.25

RR:H Diam. of rim 4.8 cm. Black gloss (rim dipped). Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480.

164

chapter 4

372  Jug, nozzle, neck, and shoulder with handle attachment

Fig. 4.25

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4983) Diam. of rim 4.2 cm. Red gloss (rim dipped). Pale orange fabric. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 450–425. 373  Jug, nozzle and neck Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. 1, fig. 19, pl. 46. SWH:M Diam. of rim 5.4 cm. Brownish-black gloss. Orange-brown fabric. Ca. 450. Context ca. 450.

Fig. 4.25

c hap ter 5

L am p s : E l e u t h e r na a n d K n os s os

1. For Athenian lamps, see Agora IV. For Corinthian lamps, see Corinth IV.2. 2. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, p. 87) conclude that Knossian lamps kept pace with Athenian and Corinthian developments, with the local versions differing from the fully coated mainland lamps in having only their nozzles dipped in gloss. 3. As discussed in Chap. 11 (p. 306), the 6th century also heralds Peloponnesian or mainland Greek influence on other types of sanctuary equipment, including terracotta figurines.

Lamps are valuable tools for reconstructing ancient chronology. Because lamp forms change frequently over time and lamps have been the object of intensive study, established sequences with clearly defined chronologies exist for mainland Greek types.1 In addition, mainland lamps can supply chronological points of reference for production elsewhere in the Greek world, as on Crete, where excavations at Knossos and Eleutherna have produced the most complete Archaic and Classical series (Figs. 5.1–5.6). The 6th-century lamps from Eleutherna represent a far greater number of types than those from Knossos, with earlier types seen only at Eleutherna. Because the lamps from Eleutherna often come from late contexts, however, these examples can be dated only by stylistic reference to mainland or East Greek forms. The observed similarities between Cretan and mainland varieties are close and extend to minor details of typology and construction, which justifies this approach to dating. At Knossos, the narrower range of later types at least has the benefit of coming from contexts dated to the end of the 6th century.2 Accordingly, the lamps from Eleutherna are best studied in conjunction with the better-dated group from Knossos by interleaving the Knossian examples at the appropriate points in the series. Absolute chronology derives from the mainland series, although a lag in time may occur between the advent of a mainland type and the introduction of the same lamp on Crete. In short, evidentiary problems compel one to make fundamentally different assumptions about lamps than about cups and other pottery. First, a chronology of Eleuthernian lamps assumes a foreign, largely Attic model and a chronology pegged to the Attic series. A second assumption is that West and Central Cretan lamp makers followed a common developmental scheme, in contrast to the strong local and regional variations seen in most other island ceramic industries. The lamps from Eleutherna and Knossos line up in an intelligible series only if these assumptions are made. Moreover, this picture of Cretan lamp production is not so different from that in other parts of the Greek world, where strong indigenous ceramic traditions exist side by side with lamps of Attic or Corinthian inspiration. Considering the quantity of lamps in religious contexts, one suspects that sanctuary needs encouraged mass production on the island and a greater standardization of types in the 6th and 5th centuries.3

166

chapter 5

­ roduction sites in East Crete probably supplied sanctuaries at Olous and P Roussa Ekklesia with lamps. Eventual publication of these finds may make it possible to define an East Cretan tradition of lamp making.4

ARCHAIC T Y P ES The earliest 6th-century lamps from Eleutherna, and indeed the earliest known Cretan lamps, are characterized by a flat bottom and a curving side wall topped by a narrow flat rim that terminates in an irregular ledge (381–384). As is commonly the case with Cretan lamps, gloss is confined to splotches along the rim, evidence of applying gloss by dipping the rim. This type of local lamp conforms in general terms to Howland’s type 9 or 10, a comparison that suggests a date for the Cretan lamp, by extension, in the first half of the 6th century.5 An imported lamp found at Eleutherna, whose hard light brown fabric finds no exact parallels in the published literature, resembles no other lamp type known on the island (385). It possesses a flat bottom, a curving side wall, and a flat rim with a ridge around the filling hole.6 Its handle, a protruding conical stump, is another distinctive feature. An exact dating of the type is impossible, given the absence of parallels, but since the same fabric occurs in another undoubtedly 6th-century lamp at Eleutherna (379), it is reasonable to date both to the 6th century. Also of 6th-century date is a local lamp from Eleutherna distinguished by a flat bottom, a high curving side wall, and a narrow, slightly convex rim, set off from the wall and overhanging the interior (389). The closest parallel is Howland’s type 13.7 This Cretan lamp is transitional and leads the way to a popular group of Archaic lamps (discussed below) characterized by a prominent overhanging rim and a carinated side wall—a Cretan version of Howland’s type 12A. A commonly imported 6th-century lamp on Crete is represented among the finds from Eleutherna (379). Its carinated side wall, flat overhanging rim, and central tube are features of Howland’s type 12A.8 All known examples on Crete, whose number include intact lamps from the votive deposit at Olous, derive from a common foreign source distinguished by its hard, light brown, silver micaceous fabric.9 Olous may have been the chief transfer point for island trade in this imported lamp, whose distinctive fabric all but excludes Athens as a possible source. A close Cretan copy of the type, which substitutes a closed central omphalos in place of the open tube of the imported examples, appears both at Eleutherna (378) and at Knossos.10 Evidence from outside Crete points to the production of this lamp during the period ca. 575–500.11 One measure of the extraordinary poverty of 6th-century finds at Knossos is the complete absence of lamps demonstrably earlier than this Cretan equivalent of Howland’s 12A.12 This gap in the archaeological record of Knossos throws correspondingly greater emphasis on the finds from Eleutherna, since the lamps from this site remain our principal source for tracking developments in the first half of the 6th century. The next group of lamps belongs to the most abundant category on the island in the 6th century (374–377, 386–388, 390, 391). The type

4. For the Late Archaic and Classical lamps from Roussa Ekklesia, see Erickson 2010a. 5. As Agora IV, no. 62. 6. Stampolidis, Kotsonas, and Oikonomou (2004, p. 244, no. 270) present another example of this type from Eleutherna. 7. As Agora IV, no. 82. 8. As Agora IV, nos. 71–75. 9. Knossos has also yielded several Attic lamps of the same type; see Catling and Catling 1992, p. 260, nos. 1, 2, 5, pl. 246. From outside Crete, Boardman and Hayes (1966, p. 140, nos. 1431–1437, fig. 68) publish examples of a similar type of lamp distinguished by its “brownish fabric (possibly more than one ware).” An East Greek or Rhodian origin is likely. 10. The examples (both local) from Knossos come from a disturbed deposit unhelpful for dating purposes; see Catling and Catling 1992, p. 260, nos. 3, 4, pl. 246. 11. Boardman and Hayes (1966, p. 140, nos. 1431–1437, fig. 68) date similar examples from Tocra to the middle of the 6th century. 12. Only two examples from Knossos may date to as early as the second or third quarter of the 6th century. Most lamps from Knossos require a date of ca. 525–500 or later.

Lamps: Eleutherna and Knossos

167

appears to be a local offshoot of Howland’s type 12A. The local version possesses a curved or carinated side wall and a flat overhanging rim, features closely associating it with the Athenian model, but the Cretan lamp substitutes a flat bottom in place of the Athenian raised cone. In fact, a flat bottom distinguishes island lamp production from Attic for most of the 6th century. Evidence from closed deposits at Knossos suggests that the production of this lamp was concentrated in the final quarter of the 6th century.13 As the type had already been superseded by this time in other parts of the Greek world, Cretan conservatism in the field of lamp production may be responsible for its later survival. An inferred stylistic progression within the period ca. 525–480 sees the lamp becoming smaller, with the replacement of the formerly baggy profile with a sharply carinated side (391). This class of Archaic lamp is a lineal descendant of an earlier Cretan type, known from a single example from Eleutherna (389), whose curving side wall and overhanging rim may presage future developments. 374  Knossian lamp, intact

Fig. 5.1

Callaghan 1992, p. 90, no. 4, pl. 74. UM:H1A H. 2.6 cm; Diam. 9.1 cm, of rim 9.8 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. Ca. 525–500. Context ca. 525–500. 375  Knossian lamp, intact

Fig. 5.1

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L71, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 3.1 cm; Diam. 10.3 cm, of rim 10.2 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. There is a similar example (base and lower body fragment) from SX:J/JN7. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 376  Knossian lamp, intact

Fig. 5.1

Coldstream 1973b, p. 55, no. L72, fig. 10, pl. 21. RR:H H. 3.2 cm; Diam. 8.8 cm, of rim 8.9 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 377  Knossian lamp, rim to lower body 13. Coldstream 1973b, pp. 55–57, nos. 71–75, fig. 10; Callaghan 1992, p. 90, deposit H1A, no. 4, pl. 74. Another unpublished lamp from SX:J/ JN7 should be added to this list. This type of lamp does not generally appear on Crete after ca. 480 except as a survivor in later deposits. There is also a fragmentary lamp of similar design from Azoria; see Haggis et al. 2007, p. 258, fig. 11:1.

Fig. 5.1

RR:H Diam. 8.8 cm, of rim 9.8 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. Ca. 500–480. Context ca. 500–480. 378  Eleuthernian lamp, base and lower body

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

Cluster G Diam. 8.5 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). 6th century

168

chapter 5

374

376

375

377 Figure 5.1. Archaic lamps, Knossos.

379  Imported lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.2

Cluster N (10.060) H. 2.3 cm; Diam. 10.0 cm, of rim 9.7 cm. Gloss inside. Imported light brown, silver micaceous fabric. There is a similar lamp from 1988.4A.4002. 6th century 380  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.2

Cluster G H. 2.2 cm; Diam. 8.3 cm, of rim 8.2 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). 6th century 381  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

1989.G.3315 H. 2.8 cm; Diam. 9.8 cm, of rim 8.7 cm. Black gloss. Fine slip. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 62. 6th century. Fourth-century context. 382  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.3

Cluster N H. 2.7 cm; Diam. 9.6 cm, of rim 8.6 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). As 381. Comparable to Agora IV, no. 62. 6th century 383  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

1988.5A.5001 H. 2.3 cm; Diam. 9.0 cm, of rim 8.5 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 62. 6th century 384  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

1989.G.3315 H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 9.5 cm, of rim 9.5 cm. Black gloss. Buff slip. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 62. 6th century. Late Classical or Early Hellenistic context.

Scale 1:2. 374 after Callaghan 1992, p. 90, pl. 74

Lamps: Eleutherna and Knossos

169

381

378 383

379 384

380

385

386

388

390 Figure 5.2. Archaic lamps, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

387

389

391 385  Imported lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.2

Cluster H H. 2.7 cm; Diam. 9.5 cm, of rim 6.5 cm. Gloss on rim. Imported light brown, silver micaceous fabric (white inclusions). 6th century 386  Eleuthernian lamp, rim to lower body

Fig. 5.2

Cluster F Diam. 9.5 cm, of rim 9.2 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. 6th century

170

chapter 5

378

383

390

381

384

395

387  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

382

388

398

389

Figure 5.3. Archaic and Classical lamp fragments, Eleutherna. Scale 1:3

402 Fig. 5.2

1988.4K.4103 H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 9.7 cm, of rim 9.3 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. 6th century 388  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

Cluster I H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 9.7 cm, of rim 9.7 cm. Black gloss along nozzle and rim. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. 6th century 389  Eleuthernian lamp, rim to lower body

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

Cluster C Diam. 10.7 cm, of rim 10.6 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 82. 6th century 390  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.2, 5.3

Cluster H H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 9.0 cm, of rim 8.8 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. 6th century

Lamps: Eleutherna and Knossos 391  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

171 Fig. 5.2

Cluster D H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 7.7 cm, of rim 8.3 cm. Black gloss exterior, red interior. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 72. Ca. 525–500

CLAS S I CAL T Y P ES

14. As Agora IV, nos. 76–78, 147. 15. The lamp from SX:J/JN7 resembles Howland’s type 12B (as Agora IV, no. 78), dated to ca. 480. 16. Agora IV, nos. 149–155. The Attic lamp dates to the first half of the 5th century (down to ca. 460). 17. The lamps from this deposit are described in Erickson 2002, pp. 68–69, nos. 85–88, figs. 21, 22. 18. As Agora IV, nos. 156–183. 19. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, deposit K, no. 77, fig. 18; Callaghan 1992, p. 92, no. 8, pl. 75. Other examples at Knossos include two lamps from a 5th-century deposit at the Sanctuary of Demeter (Coldstream 1973a, pp. 24–25, deposit B, nos. 10, 11, fig. 14, pl. 11) and two lamps from a mixed deposit unhelpful for dating purposes (Catling and Catling 1992, p. 260, nos. 6, 7, pls. 224, 246).

Production of Classical varieties of lamps may have partially overlapped with the Archaic group. The next type of lamp is distinguished by a flat overhanging rim, a straight side wall, and either a plain or raised base. It corresponds in general terms with Howland’s type 12B or 19 (ca. 525–480), with the exception that the local variety lacks a central raised cone (392, 395, 396).14 As in the case of earlier varieties, Cretan conservatism may have resulted in a longer life for the local lamp than expected based on parallels with mainland examples. A representative of the type from Knossos (deposit SX:J/JN7) can be dated to ca. 450–425 (392), and a second example from Eleutherna (395) comes from cluster K (ca. 500–450).15 According to the dating of these two examples, it seems that the Cretan version continued in production after the extinction of its mainland counterpart. Conformity with mainland trends also characterizes later generations of Cretan lamps. The next major type, known from four examples from Eleutherna (397–399), conforms closely with Howland’s type 20.16 It has a curved side wall and a ridge around the filling hole, features associating it with an Attic predecessor of the standard 5th-century type. As Howland notes in the case of the Attic lamp, there is a tendency to enclose a greater proportion of the upper body of the lamp to create a central filling hole. At Athens, production of this lamp commences in the first half of the 5th century, and before long the prototype is superseded by the standard 5thcentury variety. To judge from the evidence of a 5th-century deposit (ca. 425–400) at Aphrati, the Cretan version of Howland’s type 20 stayed in production longer.17 The Cretan successor, an equivalent of Howland’s type 21, has a profile defined by a continuous curve with a curved side wall joined seamlessly to a curving rim (394).18 Another notable feature of these Cretan lamps is a flat bottom with a plain or raised base. This type was popular among island production centers in the middle and second half of the 5th century. The earliest examples from datable contexts at Knossos (SWH:K, UM:H4) suggest a date of ca. 475 for the lamp’s introduction on Crete.19 The island lacks internal evidence for tracking the subsequent development of this type, but Attic parallels suggest a progression from a lamp with a plain bottom in the early years of the 5th century to a lamp with an articulated raised base, a development at Athens placed shortly after ca. 480. The development of this type culminates in a version with a raised base and nozzle both longer and broader than its predecessor’s, a combination of features that first appears at Athens in the final quarter of the 5th

172

chapter 5

392

393

394 Figure 5.4. Classical lamps, Knossos.

­century. Production on Crete continues well into the 4th century, as evidenced by a Knossian example of the type from a deposit (UM:H9) dated to ca. 320–300.21 A selection of lamps from Eleutherna documents each stage of development in the 5th century (400, 401). This type of lamp gains favor at Cretan sanctuaries in the 4th century, when elaborate specimens with multiple nozzles occur, as is the case at the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, a votive deposit at Roussa Ekklesia, the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Gortyn, and the votive deposit at Olous.22 20

392  Knossian lamp, rim to lower body

Scale 1:2. 394 after Callaghan 1992, p. 92, pl. 75

Fig. 5.4

SX:J/JN7 (zembil 4987) Diam. 8.3 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 78. Ca. 450–425. Context ca. 450–425. 393  Knossian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.4

Coldstream and Macdonald 1997 p. 227, no. 77, fig. 18. SWH:K H. 1.9 cm; Diam. 8.5 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Fine slip. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 78. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 394  Knossian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.4

Callaghan 1992, p. 92, no. 8, pl. 75. UM:H4 H. 2.8 cm; Diam. 8.8. Black gloss along nozzle. Fine slip. Pale orange fabric (7.5YR 7/4). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 163. Ca. 475–450. Context ca. 475–450. 395  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.3, 5.5

Cluster K H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 9.5 cm, of base 6.7 cm. Unglazed. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Raised base. Comparable to Agora IV, no. 147. There is a similar lamp from 1990.3X.1101. Ca. 500–450 396  Imported lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.5

Cluster B H. 2.6 cm; Diam. 9.3 cm, of base 6.7 cm. Imported hard brown fabric (white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 78. Ca. 500

20. Howland (Agora IV, pp. 46, 48) is reluctant to interpret slight variations in nozzle breadth and length as indicators of date within the 5th century, but maintains that pronounced nozzle elongation was a distinguishing feature of lamps after the late 5th and early 4th century. He (p. 50) concludes that nozzle development is a reliable chronological index for Attic and Corinthian lamps in the 4th century. Nozzles in both series become even longer and narrower in the middle of the 4th century, and bodies become higher in proportion to their diameters; see Corinth IV.2, pp. 33, 40, 43; Agora IV, p. 59. Eiring (2001, p. 127) dates the advent of even longer nozzles in the Knossian sequence to the second half of the 4th century, but differences between 5th- and 4th-century lamps have not be established based on stratified deposits at any Cretan site. 21. Callaghan 1992, p. 96, no. 7, pl. 78. 22. The earliest of these lamps with multiple nozzles at the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos dates to the 5th century; see Coldstream 1973a, p. 24, deposit B, no. 9, fig. 14, pl. 11.

Lamps: Eleutherna and Knossos

395

173

396

397

398

399

400

401 Figure 5.5. Classical lamps, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

397  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.5

1987.4A.4001 H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 8.7 cm, of rim 7.7 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 152. There is a similar rim and shoulder fragment from cluster C. Ca. 500–450 398  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Figs. 5.3, 5.5

1987.3A–3B.395 H. 2.7 cm; Diam. 9.1 cm, of rim 6.5 cm. Black gloss along rim. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 152. Ca. 480–450 399  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.5

Cluster H H. 2.8 cm; Diam. 9.1 cm, of rim 7.3 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 152. Ca. 525–450 400  Eleuthernian lamp, base to upper body

Fig. 5.5

Cluster G Diam. 9.0 cm, of base 7.7 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 163. 5th century

174 401  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

chapter 5 Fig. 5.5

Cluster G H. 2.5 cm; Diam. 7.3 cm, of rim 5.0 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Comparable to Agora IV, no. 182. 5th century 402  Eleuthernian lamp, base and lower body

Fig. 5.3

Cluster G Diam. of base 5.0 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). Raised base. 5th century

FO U RTH -CENT U RY T Y P ES This final section is devoted to bridging a gap in our knowledge of the Eleuthernian lamp industry in the period between the previously published Hellenistic lamps from the site and the 5th-century material examined here.23 Among the 4th-century lamps from Eleutherna is an example characterized by a curved side wall and a poorly defined rim, whose large opening at the mouth gives the lamp the appearance of a small bowl (403). Another lamp from Eleutherna has a more complicated design consisting of a flat bottom and a curved side wall interrupted by a convex middle section (404). Both lamps probably date to the middle or second half of the 4th century. Of roughly the same date is 405, whose distinctive profile consists of a sharply carinated side wall with a flat overhanging rim. This type corresponds with published 4th-century examples from Knossos.24 These lamps are almost always smaller than their Archaic and Early Classical counterparts and exhibit a taller side wall, thinner walls, and nozzles both longer and wider than earlier examples. The lamp makers at Eleutherna introduced a new type in the second half of the 4th or first half of the 3rd century, characterized by a flat bottom, a tall vertical side wall, and a flat overhanging rim enclosing the top to form a central filling hole (406, 407). These lamps adhere closely to Howland’s type 23D, termed an “inkwell” lamp.25 The Eleuthernian version, in comparison to the Attic variety, tends to be less narrow and exhibits a less substantial rim that results in a wider filling hole. On the Greek mainland, inkwell lamps require a date in the second half of the 4th century based on their absence from Olynthus, which was destroyed in 348. To sum up, a chronological sequence of Cretan lamps can be reconstructed based on the evidence from Eleutherna and Knossos. Sixthcentury examples from Eleutherna add to our knowledge of Cretan lamp production in a dark chapter of the island’s history, whereas the first three quarters of the 6th century at Knossos are devoid of lamps or other datable artifacts. Based on current evidence, lamp production on Crete remained largely derivative of mainland and East Greek centers, and the debt of almost every local type to foreign models extends to minute typological details. This stands in striking contrast to the conservatism of the Cretan potters, who went their own way in the production of high-necked cups

23. Kalpaxis, Furtwängler, and Schnapp (1994, pp. 107–108, nos. K270–K303, pls. 33–36) publish examples from the Late Hellenistic settlement on the neighboring acropolis west of Orthi Petra. 24. Examples of this type at Knossos include a lamp from a 4th-century cistern (see Homann-Wedeking 1950, p. 190, no. 4.1, fig. 32:1) and a second example from the Sanctuary of Demeter (see Coldstream 1973a, p. 44, no. 106, fig. 14). 25. As Agora IV, nos. 236–240. An Eleuthernian version of this lamp is attested among the finds from the Hellenistic domestic quarters on Nisi; see Kalpaxis, Furtwängler, and Schnapp 1994, p. 156, no. K281, pl. 34.

Lamps: Eleutherna and Knossos

403

405

Figure 5.6. Fourth-century lamps, Eleutherna. Scale 1:2

175

404

406

407

and other distinctly local shapes. Although Cretan lamp makers followed the major trends at overseas centers, there is often a significant lag in time from the advent of a mainland type to its introduction on the island, and this delay frequently complicates the dating of local varieties. 403  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.6

Cluster A H. 2.9 cm; Diam. 8.7 cm, of rim 8.0 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). 4th century 404  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.6

1986.MM.3801 (no. 10.055) H. 3.0 cm; Diam. 8.1 cm, of rim 6.3 cm. Unglazed. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). 4th century 405  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.6

1988.A1.3052 H. 2.8 cm; Diam. 7.3 cm, of rim 6.3 cm, of base 4.7 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). 4th century 406  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.6

1987.K1.3152 H. 2.9 cm; Diam. 7.2 cm. Black gloss along nozzle. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). “Inkwell” type comparable to Agora IV, nos. 236–240. There is a similar lamp from 1988.A1.3052. 4th century. Fourth-century context. 407  Eleuthernian lamp, intact profile

Fig. 5.6

1987.K1.3152 H. 2.8 cm; Diam. 7.2 cm, of rim 6.8 cm. Eleuthernian fabric (5YR 6/6–7/6, white inclusions). “Inkwell” type comparable to Agora IV, nos. 236–240. 4th century. Fourth-century context.

c hap ter 6

Gort y n

1. Finds of b.g. pottery at Gortyn are occasionally mentioned in earlier excavation reports, but it is impossible to determine from these descriptions whether the pottery is Classical or Hellenistic, local or Attic. Pernier (1925–1926, p. 9) remarks on the obscurity of the 5th and 4th centuries in the ceramic record of Gortyn. 2. Rizza and Scrinari 1968, p. 145. 3. Papadopoulou 1988, p. 170. 4. As Papadopoulou (1988, p. 170) notes, this pale red fabric may be a characteristic of the entire Mesara in the Hellenistic period. As an alternative, perhaps Gortyn was the chief supplier of pottery to the Mesara in the 6th and 5th centuries.

Gortyn lies southwest of Knossos below the eastern foothills of the Psiloritis mountain range in the northwest corner of the fertile Mesara valley (Fig. 1.1). In this case, geographical proximity seems to have fostered a common style: Gortynians and Knossians manufactured b.g. pottery of similar characteristics, perhaps signaling a regional distinction. This chapter presents a selection of pottery and lamps from excavations in the area of the Odeion at Gortyn. Since this pottery survives as residual material in later archaeological contexts, there is no independent evidence for its dating. Yet most examples can be provisionally assigned to the Archaic or Classical period on stylistic grounds, and connections with Knossos enable this scanty record of Gortynian production to be pegged to an established relative and absolute sequence. This new evidence from the area of the Odeion allows us to plot the development of local ceramic forms during otherwise unattested periods in the city’s history.1 Our first task is to establish the characteristics of local production. Since pottery of suspected Gortynian origin has never undergone petrographic or chemical analysis, visual observation of the fabric provides the only available means of identification. This procedure has limitations, but fortunately the finds from Gortyn belong to a distinctive ware group defined by fabric and vessel morphology. Gortynian fabric in the Geometric and Orientalizing periods has been alternatively described as a “colore rosa” (pink color) or “un colore più pallido, tendente piuttosto al verdino” (a very pale color, tending somewhat to pale green).2 Jeanette Papadopoulou describes a Gortynian fabric of the Hellenistic period: “ben depurata, leggermente micacea, di colore beige o beige rosato” (well levigated, slightly micaceous, of a brown to reddish-brown color).3 My examination of the pottery from Gortyn suggests that the Archaic and Classical potters used the same clay sources and produced a similar fabric. The consistency of Gortynian fine-ware fabric is universally clean and hard, while the color varies between the three extremes of pale brown (10YR 8/2), pale red (2.5YR 6/8), and orange-brown (5YR 6/8–7.5YR 6/8). When pale brown, the fabric overlaps in color with the products of Aphrati; when orangebrown, it resembles Knossian wares. The occasional pale red fabric (like that of an exported cup at Eleutherna, 122, Fig. 3.21), however, seems to distinguish Gortyn from all other Classical Cretan production centers.4 In

178

chapter 6

addition, an uncommonly fine b.g. with a high lustrous sheen is a hallmark of Gortynian production in the 5th and 4th centuries. At its best, this Cretan gloss is comparable with Attic, and no other island center made a gloss of this consistently fine character. Like their Knossian counterparts, Gortynian cup makers in the middle and second half of the 5th century produced hard-fired, thin-walled vessels. A rich epigraphical record provides an independent basis for historical reconstruction during these periods, although the previous absence of documented pottery at Gortyn points to a glaring inconsistency in the archaeological record.5 As an explanation for this discrepancy, the complicated building history of Gortyn makes one suspect damage to Archaic and Classical structures, which might account for the disproportionately slight survival of material from these periods. For example, it has long been supposed that the civic building on whose walls the Great Code was originally inscribed in the 5th century occupied the same site as the later Odeion, the building into which the Classical inscriptions were later incorporated. Unfortunately, the deep foundations of the Late Hellenistic Odeion obliterated all but the deepest levels of the Geometric period. Without Classical foundations, it has been impossible to locate inscriptions in this area securely, although the Great Code can independently be dated to the second half of the 5th century based on letter forms and the profile of an associated molding.6 Discoveries in the area of the Odeion include much residual pottery dated to the second half of the 5th century, suggesting an intensification of activity in what may have been the location of the Archaic and Classical agora. By the same token, an earlier concentration of pottery from ca. 525–500 from the Odeion excavations may mark another milestone in the development of a Gortynian civic center.7 It is significant that this inferred activity at the end of the Archaic period corresponds in date with the known beginning of cult at the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” on the outskirts of town (ca. 525). It is tempting to link these strands of evidence together and interpret the presumed activity at both places as signs of the increasing effort to define the center and periphery of the city. This physical relationship between civic center and suburban cult site is repeated at Knossos, where an attested sanctuary of Demeter occupied the rising ground south of the presumed civic center. In this respect, Gortyn and Knossos appear to embody a wider Cretan pattern.

ARCHAIC C U P S Some aspects of 6th-century pottery at Gortyn find a valuable point of reference in datable parallels from Knossos. Among the finds from the area of the Odeion are cup bases with an articulated disk foot and a steppedprofile underfoot (408–413). In these respects, the Gortynian examples closely resemble 6th-century Knossian cup bases in deposits above the Unexplored Mansion.8 Additional bases characterized by a plain disk foot point to the existence of a contemporary alternative at Gortyn that lacks

5. Struck by the discrepancy between the impressive epigraphic record at Gortyn and the paucity of datable pottery, Rizza (1967–1968, pp. 297–299) suggests that the problem may be one of archaeological perception. Uneven preservation is almost certainly part of the problem, and error in the dating of inscriptions may be another factor. 6. The date of the Great Code is a matter of dispute. Guarducci (1950, p. 126) proposes a date of ca. 480–460 based on letter forms, whereas Shoe (1936, p. 18, pl. 8:5) relies instead on the profile of a molding to date the inscription to the second half of the 5th century. Jeffery (1990, p. 313) apparently accepts Shoe’s downdating of the Great Code. 7. Perlman’s (2000, p. 78) argument for structural changes at this time, based on epigraphical evidence, now finds support in the ceramic record. From the Odeion excavations there are 20 cup bases (408–420, 422) and one cup (421) dated to the 6th century. This number compares favorably with the 17 documented cup fragments (425–434, 442) in the 5th century. By contrast, there are only four identifiable pieces datable to the 4th century (435, 436, 443, 444). 8. Callaghan 1992, pp. 90–91, deposits H1:A–C. In addition to 408–413, there are five similar bases, from Odeion 1996.A.28.3, Odeion 1996.A.2b.4, Odeion 1996.A.12.6, Odeion 1996.A.26.4, and Odeion 1996.B.9.41.

gort yn

408

409 410

411 412 413 Figure 6.1. Archaic cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Gortyn. Scale 1:2

179

the elaboration of the stepped-profile underfoot (414–420). According to Callaghan and Johnston, the raised-disk underfoot is a characteristic also of 6th-century cups at Kommos.9 For both types at Gortyn, a date in the final quarter of the 6th century is plausible given the similarity of these diagnostic features to examples from stratified contexts at Knossos. A third type of cup characterized by a low everted rim and a small hemispherical bowl was discovered in the area of the Odeion (421). The distinguishing feature of this cup is its smaller size. Cups of similar size and shape have appeared in a Late Archaic context at Knossos (257, 260), a parallel that suggests a date of manufacture no later than the first quarter of the 5th century for the Gortynian example. My reasons for dating these cups slightly before ca. 500 are presented in Chapter 4. Indeed, the Gortynian and Knossian cups raise the possibility of a common class of Archaic cup. It is noteworthy that a Gortynian export of the same shape is included among the finds from the nearby sanctuary at Kato Symi.10 408  Cup, base

Fig. 6.1

Odeion 1997.F.U.S.O. Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 409  Cup, base

Fig. 6.1

Odeion 1996.B.9.31 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 410  Cup, base

Fig. 6.1

Odeion 1996.D.9.9 Diam. of base 7.0 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 411  Cup, base

Fig. 6.1

Odeion 1996.A.8a.9 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 412  Cup, base

Fig. 6.1

Odeion 1996.B.9.38 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 413  Cup, base 9. Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 251, no. 397, pl. 4:19. 10. For the example found at Kato Symi, see Erickson 2002, p. 74, no. 110, fig. 27. The distinctive clean red fabric (2.5YR 6/8) of this cup suggests a Gortynian origin.

Fig. 6.1

Odeion 1996.B.6.25 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 414  Cup, base Odeion 1996.E.4.1 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500

Fig. 6.2

180

chapter 6

415  Cup, base

Fig. 6.2

Odeion 1996.A.0.19 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 416  Cup, base

Fig. 6.2

Odeion 1996.A.1.2 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 417  Cup, base

Fig. 6.2

417

Fig. 6.2

Odeion 1996.A.16.3 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 419  Cup, base

418 419

Fig. 6.2

Odeion 1996.B.6.31 Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 420  Cup, base

415

416

Odeion 1996.A.1.2 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 418  Cup, base

414

420

Fig. 6.2

Figure 6.2. Archaic cup bases, Gortyn. Scale 1:2

Odeion 1996.A.81.4 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. There is similar base from Odeion 1996.A.2b.2. Ca. 525–500 421  Small hemispherical cup, rim to lower body

Fig. 6.3

Odeion 1996.E.2.10 Diam. 9.1 cm, of rim 9.3 cm. Black gloss. End of 6th century

421 Figure 6.3. Archaic small hemispherical cup, Gortyn. Scale 1:3

H IGH- NE CK ED C UP S The dating of Gortynian b.g. pottery in the 5th century depends largely on the internal evidence of a sequence of cups (ca. 525–300) in an unpublished votive deposit from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” near the outer limits of the excavated town.11 The chronology of this series of drinking cups may be plotted by comparison with examples from securely dated contexts at Knossos, with the exception of the stylistically earliest cups from the Gortynian sanctuary, which appear to represent a stage of development for which there is no evidence from Knossos (ca. 590–525). Both the quantity and quality of the evidence at Knossos and Gortyn make the vessel a cornerstone of Cretan chronology in the 5th century. As at Knossos, the high-necked cup at Gortyn is the standard drinking vessel. Distinguishing features of the shape include a tall inset vertical

11. Di Vita (1985, p. 40) mentions the discovery of a large votive deposit marking the position of this sanctuary (see also Sporn 2002, p. 163–165). Its contents include hundreds of cup bases, terracotta figurines and plaques, and lamps.

gort yn

429

422

423

430

424

431

432

425

426

427

428 Figure 6.4. Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Gortyn. Scale 1:2

12. In addition to 422–434, there are two rim and shoulder fragments, from Odeion 1996.A.Box 3 and Odeion 1996.B.9.51. 13. The development of the base culminates in the final quarter of the 4th century with a pedestal stand in a configuration similar to published Knossian bases, for which see Callaghan 1992, p. 100, deposit H12, nos. 5–10, pls. 80, 107. Similar bases are included among the latest finds from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Gortyn. For cups and bases dated to the early 4th century from Kommos, see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 261, nos. 485–488, pl. 4:21, and p. 262, nos. 504–511, pl. 4:22.

181

433

434

435

436

rim; a single vertical handle; a sharp transition between the shoulder and rim, at times articulated by a shallow groove; and a deep body with a narrow shoulder.12 The base of the Classical Gortynian cup takes a number of different forms, ranging from a low disk foot to a high pedestal support, always sufficiently weighty to counterbalance the inward taper of the lower body. Over the 5th century, the rim becomes taller, the shoulder less convex, and the profile of the cup more streamlined. Finer chronological distinctions rest on a consideration of the bases, which seem to undergo a steady progression during the period ca. 525–350 (Figs. 6.4, 6.5). The base gradually develops from a broad, low disk foot (ca. 525–500, 422) to an extended foot (ca. 475–425, 423–426), eventually leading to a higher and more conical pedestal support with a narrower point of attachment to the belly (ca. 425–400, 427–434). In the first half of the 4th century, the base becomes higher still, in conjunction with the development of a widely spreading foot (435, 436).13 Excavations at the Greek sanctuary at Kommos bring new evidence to bear on the common regional or possibly local Gortynian style, for high-necked cups from this site fall within a set range of fabric colors consistent with Gortynian production, and they exhibit close points of

182

chapter 6

429

430

433

432

Figure 6.5. Classical high-necked cup bases, showing glazing characteristics on underfoot, Gortyn.

436

Scale 2:3

contact with Gortynian cups, including minute details of potting and decorative treatment. These cups are probably Gortynian products, but local production at the sanctuary cannot be dismissed as a possibility. Particularly helpful for chronology is a collection of cups from a floor deposit at Kommos sealed at the end of the 6th century, a generation before well RR:H at Knossos. One of the bases from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Gortyn is a virtual twin of the support found on a nearly intact high-necked cup found at Kommos (Fig. 6.6).14 In addition, the almost vertical shoulders of this cup from Kommos resemble those of a fragmentary example from Knossos (249, Fig. 4.4). A second well-preserved cup from Kommos possesses a broad, low ring foot characteristic of the typologically earliest bases at the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore,” although the profile of the body bears a closer resemblance to the later cups from well RR:H at Knossos.15 These cups from Kommos provide valuable glimpses of the intact shape. Although Gortynian and Knossian cups generally agree in the overall design of the vessel and the profile of the base, minor differences distinguish the two related potting traditions. For example, a consistent application of gloss underneath the base distinguishes Gortynian cups from their Knossian counterparts (Fig. 6.5), whereas at Knossos the practice of smearing the area underneath the foot with irregular strokes of dilute gloss was popular in the 5th century (Fig. 4.15). In addition, the Gortynian potters throughout the cup’s history preferred a foot with a consistently flat resting surface marked in profile by a raised-disk underfoot, whereas at Knossos a true pedestal support with a flat resting surface became a popular alternative to a simple concave-profile underfoot only by the end of the 5th century. The widely splaying foot of Gortynian cups dated to the late 5th or 4th century appears in a low, cushion-shaped version rarely encountered at Knossos, and a pronounced conical underfoot with omphalos is typical of Gortynian cup bases. 422  High-necked cup, base Odeion 1996.A.9.1 Diam. of base 7.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 525–500

Fig. 6.4

14. For the cup from Kommos, see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 253, no. 415, pl. 4.19. 15. Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 253, no. 419, pl. 4:20) publish this cup from Kommos.

gort yn 423  High-necked cup, base

183 Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.D.1.17 Diam. of base 7.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 424  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.D.1.19 Diam. of base 7.6 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 Figure 6.6. Archaic high-necked cup found at Kommos. Scale 1:3. Kommos

IV, pl. 4:19, no. 415. Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press

425  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.A.8a.60 Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 426  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.A.15.14 Diam. of base 7.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 427  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.D.9.11 Diam. of base 7.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 425–400 428  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.A.9b.1 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 425–400 429  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 6.4, 6.5

Odeion 1996.A.8.17 Diam. of base 7.1 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–400 430  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 6.4, 6.5

Odeion 1996.A.0.16 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–400 431  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.A.15.14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–400 432  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 6.4, 6.5

Odeion 1996.B.9.39 = 1996.B.9.44 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–400 433  High-necked cup, base Odeion 1997.F.U.S.7 Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–400

Figs. 6.4, 6.5

184

chapter 6

434  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.C.U.S.1 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 425–400 435  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 6.4

Odeion 1996.D.9.11 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 400–350 436  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 6.4, 6.5

Odeion 1997.F.2a.122 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 400–350

O T H ER SH AP ES Other b.g. shapes produced at Gortyn in the Classical period include a variant low-necked cup, a local kantharos (not included among the finds from the Odeion),16 a tulip cup, and a small jug or lekythos (the reconstruction of the shape is uncertain) with a nozzle whose overhanging rim forms a wide disk-shaped aperture (437).17 A jug with an identical form of nozzle (373, Fig. 4.25) from a deposit at Knossos dated to the middle of the 5th century recommends a like date for the Gortynian examples. Two other nozzles belong to Archaic or Classical lamps.18 437  Jug, nozzle, rim, neck, shoulder, and handle attachment

437 Figure 6.7. Classical jug nozzle, Gortyn. Scale 1:2

Fig. 6.7

Odeion 1996.B.8.7 Diam. of rim 4.1 cm. Unglazed. Red fabric (2.5YR 7/8). There is a similar nozzle and rim fragment from Odeion 1997.F.5.5. Ca. 450

IMPO RTS AND EXP ORTS Gortynian fine ware was exported elsewhere on Crete during the 5th century (Fig. 6.8), as seen in an extensive series of cup bases at Eleutherna spanning the period from the 7th to the 4th century (113–122, Figs. 3.19– 3.21) and a single base at Kato Symi dated to ca. 425–400.19 These sites lie in the general vicinity of Gortyn, suggesting that trade in Gortynian pottery was confined to neighboring areas. My identification of these cups as Gortynian products rests on considerations of fabric, gloss, and morphology. Of these criteria, the pale red fabric (2.5YR 6/6) gives the strongest indication of Gortynian production, since this color does not appear at neighboring centers except in cups of suspected Gortynian shape and manufacture. Other possible Gortynian exports include a fragmentary Cretan cup from the survey of the lower catchment of the Ayios Farango valley, Mesara.20 The piece in question, a 4th-century cup base from site E5, exhibits the same hard pale red fabric (2.5YR 4/6–6/6) and lustrous gloss typical of Classical Gortynian products. Based on the same criteria,

16. Classical Gortynian kantharoi are present in the votive deposit from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore.” 17. As the nozzles exhibit a similar profile and comparable method of attaching the handle, one can posit a common workshop for them. 18. An exact dating of these lamps is impossible given the fragmentary condition of the material. The short nozzles suggest a 6th- or 5th-century lamp, insofar as the 4th century marks the development in the Attic repertoire of lamps with longer and broader nozzles, as Agora IV, p. 48, type 21C. 19. The plentiful Gortynian imports to Eleutherna are treated in Chap. 3, pp. 80–85. For the import at Kato Symi, see Erickson 2002, p. 74, no. 109, fig. 27. 20. Blackman and Branigan (1977, p. 32) discuss the survey results but do not illustrate this cup.

Lera Cave Arkoudia Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Kydonia Polichna (?) Aptera Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

White Mountains

Lappa

Sybrita

Tarrha

Axos

Eleutherna

Tylissos

Mt. Ida

Amnisos

Lasithi

Prinias Gortyn

20

30

40

50 km

Mt. Dikti

Myrtos

Kamilari

10

Aphrati

Itanos

Olous Priniatikos Pyrgos Tholos Vrokastro

Kato Symi

Kommos

0

Dreros

Lyktos

Archanes Eltynia

Idaian Cave

Chersonessos

Knossos

Azoria Larisa (?)

Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 6.8. Movement of island b.g. pottery from Gortyn, ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

Siteia

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

186

chapter 6

438

441

439

443

a Gortynian origin can be inferred for a collection of unpublished highnecked and tulip cups from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Kamilari, a cult established inside a defunct Minoan tholos tomb. The earliest cups from Kamilari date to the first quarter of the 4th century, although stylistic dating of other finds from the sanctuary, including lamps and terracotta figurines, pushes the origin of the cult back to the beginning of the 5th century.21 In addition, a small bowl (“skyphos”) from the survey of the Kommos area exhibits a fine, reddish-yellow fabric (5YR 7/6) and lustrous gloss suggestive of either Gortynian or Knossian production.22 Recent excavations at Priniatikos Pyrgos have produced a high-necked cup and fine bowls with banded decoration made in what appears to be a Gortynian fabric.23 Imports to Gortyn, whether from other Cretan centers or overseas, are rare during the historical Greek periods. There are no identifiable imports from other parts of the island in the collection of finds from the area of the Odeion. The absence of Knossian imports is particularly surprising in the light of the close correspondence in style between Classical Knossian and Gortynian cups, since the easiest way for ceramic styles to pass is through the exchange of products. This correspondence of style in the absence of demonstrable exchange would suggest that the potters of Knossos and Gortyn worked independently of each other in pursuit of a similar end within a common regional tradition, as unlikely as that may sound. An alternative explanation is that Gortynian potters intentionally copied Knossian designs, or vice versa, but for some reason the imported models have not survived. Perhaps potters from Knossos and Gortyn maintained contact through visual inspection of each other’s wares. Overseas imports are also rare but become slightly more plentiful at the end of the 6th century, with two examples of Attic black figure. These consist of a fragment from the wall of a Late Archaic hydria or other large 21. For the material from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Kamilari, see Platon 1957, p. 335; Daux 1958, pp. 794–796, figs. 29–32. 22. Callaghan (in Hope Simpson 1995, p. 386, nos. K66–69, pl. 7:38a, b) dates this “skyphos” to the first half of 6th century. The profile of this bowl matches that of a Knossian example (362, Fig. 4.23) from a deposit dated to

ca. 475–450, with the form of decoration in both cases consisting of trickles of gloss along the rim. Based on this parallel, the example from the Kommos survey probably dates to the first half of the 5th century. A Gortynian origin is more likely than Knossian given the vessel’s findspot. In addition, Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 251, no. 403, pl. 4:19) publish a lekane from

440

444 Figure 6.9. Late Archaic and Classical Attic imports at Gortyn and local imitations. Scale 1:3

Kommos, dated to ca. 500. 23. The cups and bowls come from deposits dated to ca. 475–450; see Erickson 2010b. In addition, Apostolakou et al. (2004–2005, p. 994) report Gortynian imports at Itanos, but their description is too brief to assess the types of imports or their dates. This importation is therefore not indicated in Fig. 6.8.

gort yn

Figure 6.10. Late Archaic and Classical Attic imports at Gortyn and local imitations. Scale 1:2

24. Johannowsky 1955–1956, pp. 46–48, figs. 1–3; 2002, p. 107, no. 639, pl. 50. 25. The possibility that these red-figure fragments are local Gortynian products cannot be entirely dismissed, although local production of red figure at Gortyn is not otherwise attested. Arguments based on fabric alone are not decisive, since Gortynian wares often closely approximate Attic. 26. Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 301. 27. This copy can be dated before the advent in the Attic repertoire of the outturned rim, which occurs at the end of the 5th century (as Agora XII, nos. 345–348). This skyphos is the earliest attested copy at Gortyn, but if Atticizing skyphoi from 5th-century deposits at Priniatikos Pyrgos have been correctly identified as Gortynian (Erickson 2010b), this derivative production of Attic cups at Gortyn may have begun earlier, by ca. 475–450. 28. A third Atticizing skyphos from the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Gortyn compares favorably with Agora XII, no. 352, dated to ca. 330. The Gortynian copy is decorated underneath the base with less carefully executed concentric circles.

187

438

439

442

443

440

441

444

closed vessel decorated with a series of rays (438) and the base of a Late Archaic jug (439). In addition, a spectacular example of early Attic black figure—a dinos by the painter Sophilos—was found on the acropolis of Gortyn.24 In the 5th and 4th centuries, the only overseas imports found in the area of the Odeion are two fragments of Attic red figure (440, 441).25 This dearth of imports may be part of a regional pattern. Callaghan and Johnston concluded in their publication of the pottery from the sanctuary at Kommos that Attic imports to Gortyn and the Mesara are extremely scarce in the 5th century.26 Imitations of Attic b.g. shapes in the local fabric, however, suggest access to Attic models and perhaps more imports than currently documented. This practice of copying Attic shapes seems to have begun at Gortyn in the final quarter of the 5th or first quarter of the 4th century. The earliest example is a rim from an Atticizing skyphos, dated by reference to an Attic prototype to ca. 425–400 (442).27 In addition, two cup bases modeled after later Attic-type skyphoi indicate that copying continued at Gortyn well into the 4th century (443, 444).28 The duplication of intricate details of the Attic prototypes gives a clear indication that these cups were intended to be faithful copies of Attic products, and not merely the by-products of a subconscious stylistic influence. These details include an obvious concession to Attic decorative practice in leaving the area underneath the base in reserve or confining decoration to concentric circles in a reserved field underneath. This typical Attic treatment is otherwise absent from the Gortynian repertoire, where potters preferred a full coat of gloss underneath.On the strength of this evidence, it seems that Gortyn had limited access to markets of Athenian pottery throughout the 4th century. In contrast to this presumed trickle of 4th-century imports or the sporadic earlier examples in the 6th century, a complete absence of imports characterizes the Gortynian series for most of the 5th century. Since the flow of Attic pots to Knossos and other Cretan sites also diminishes in the second half of the 5th century, there is no need for a local explanation. Yet, just as a Gortynian relationship with Knossos has been invoked to explain the stylistic similarities in the local ceramic inventories, one can envision a scenario in which overseas imports reached Gortyn after first passing through Knossian intermediaries. If so, the dearth of 5th-century imports at Gortyn may be secondary to a more general problem in obtaining imports at Knossos.

188

chapter 6

438  Attic closed vessel, body fragment

Figs. 6.9, 6.10

Odeion 1996.C.U.S.7 Max. p.dim. 6.5 cm. Attic fabric. Black-figure rays. Late Archaic 439  Attic jug, base

Figs. 6.9, 6.10

Odeion 1996.A.8a.7 Diam. of base 17.2 cm. Attic fabric. Black figure. Late Archaic 440  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 6.9, 6.10

Odeion 1996.A.U.S.1a.2/7 Max. p.dim. 3.2 cm. Attic fabric. Red figure. 5th century 441  Attic open vessel, body fragment

Figs. 6.9, 6.10

Odeion 1996.A.U.S.1a.2/7 Max. p.dim. 4.0 cm. Attic fabric. Red figure. 5th century 442  Gortynian skyphos, rim

Fig. 6.10

Odeion 1996.B.Box 5 Max. p.dim. 5.8 cm. Gortynian fabric (2.5YR 6/8). Lustrous black gloss. Attic type comparable to Agora XII, nos. 345–348. Ca. 425–400 443  Gortynian skyphos, base

Figs. 6.9, 6.10

Odeion 1997.F.5.22 Diam. of base 11.5 cm. Gortynian fabric (5YR 6/6). Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Attic type comparable to Agora XII, nos. 348, 349. Ca. 400–375 444  Gortynian skyphos, base

Figs. 6.9, 6.10

Odeion 1996.A.15.1 Diam. of base 5.1 cm. Gortynian fabric (2.5YR 6/6). Black gloss (reserved underfoot). Attic type comparable to Agora XII, nos. 350, 351. Ca. 375–350

c hap ter 7

I st h mu s of I e rap y t na

1. Vogeikoff (2000, p. 70) characterizes the ceramic sequence for East Crete as terra incognita in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, and the same holds true for the Archaic and Classical sequence. Her description (pp. 70–71) of the fabric of Hellenistic East Cretan cream ware as a soft, silty yellow to pale green (2.5YR 8/2) bears little resemblance to the Classical Vrokastro/Gournia fabric described later in this chapter. 2. The discoveries of the Greek Archaeological Service are nowhere conveniently summarized. For the 5th-century Attic red-figure amphora and the circumstances of its discovery, see Davaras 1972, p. 647, pl. 602:a–c; Papadakis 1986, p. 80, no. 522. Its reported findspot is the Manolianá area of town. 3. The earliest known inscriptions from Ierapytna date to the second half of the 3rd century; see Guarducci 1942, pp. 24–42. Le Rider (1966, pp. 90, 98) places the earliest silver coins of Ierapytna between ca. 330 and 270. 4. Strabo 10.472. Guarducci (1942, p. 111) and Guizzi (2001, pp. 275–284) discuss the ancient literary tradition. 5. Spyridakis (1990, p. 38) and Hayden (2004, p. 192) posit a foundation date in the 4th century. Perlman (2004a, p. 1166) advocates a date in the 5th century at the earliest.

As most of the pottery treated in this chapter derives from surface surveys, stylistic criteria provide the only reliable means of ascertaining date. Making the task more difficult is the fact that East Cretan pottery of historical date itself remains poorly understood, and without established ceramic sequences from excavated sites there is no basis on which to formulate a comparison with the pottery recovered from survey.1 Therefore we are forced to rely on stylistic comparisons with pottery from other island production centers, even in cases in which the dating of these other sequences is doubtful. Recent excavations at Azoria and Priniatikos Pyrgos promise to redress this imbalance and bring to bear on East Cretan styles new evidence from stratified contexts. Initial study of the finds from Azoria points to a significant phase of 6th-century activity, but the pottery will require years of study and is not included here.

IERAP Y T NA The foremost Classical and Hellenistic polis in east-central Crete, Ierapytna (see Fig. 1.1), remains largely unexplored, although excavations beneath parts of the modern town (Ierapetra) have unearthed Roman architectural and sculptural works along with a small scattering of earlier material, including a noteworthy 5th-century Attic red-figure amphora (ca. 460–440) from a tomb.2 The epigraphic record, however, does not begin until the 3rd century, and the earliest coins struck by the city date to no earlier than the final quarter of the 4th century.3 Although the literary tradition suggests greater antiquity for the city, the accounts are questionable insofar as they feature Cyrbas, the purported founder of Ierapytna and a companion of the Curetes.4 Cyrbas is almost certainly a mythological figure. Thus, only the pottery and small finds are capable of shedding light on the history of Ierapytna in the Classical and possibly earlier periods. A date in the middle or second half of the 5th century seems likely for the foundation of the polis.5 In addition to the Attic redfigure amphora mentioned earlier, a 5th-century Cretan lekythos, attributed here to a Knossian source, is among the earliest finds from Ierapytna

190

chapter 7

or its environs. These pots stand at the beginning of a long series of imported tomb furnishings, with 4th-century Attic red-figure decoration attesting to the quality of later examples.6

Cl assi c al Lek y thos An intact lekythos (445), presumably from a tomb in the area of Ierapetra, gives every indication of being a Knossian import (Fig. 7.1). Its fabric is a distinctive pale orange color (5YR 7/4), a hallmark of Knossian production, and its foot bears a close resemblance to the high conical support found on Knossian high-necked cups of type VI, ca. 425–400.7 In comparison with 4th-century lekythoi from Knossos, the example from Ierapetra exhibits a stouter profile and a more clearly defined shoulder.8 This lekythos bears a closer resemblance to the standard cylindrical Attic shape than its 4th-century Cretan counterparts, although the high narrow neck of the example from Ierapetra is disproportionate to the rest of the body, presenting a curiously provincial appearance.9 What is truly striking about this 5th-century lekythos is its system of linear dark-on-light decoration, confined to three separate panels on the body, shoulder, and neck. The decorative motifs consist of a running S-pattern, zigzags with arrows filling the interstices, and a framed row of dots. One of these motifs, the running S-pattern, had a long history at Knossos and appears on a fragment from an unpublished deposit (SX:J/JN7) dated to about 450–425.10 The makers of 4th-century lekythoi simplified this decorative scheme; they retained a double band to mark the shoulder and added complementary bands on the lower body, leaving the rest of the body in reserve. 445  Lekythos, intact

445 Figure 7.1. Classical Cretan lekythos found at Ierapytna (Ierapetra Archaeological Museum 645). Scale 1:2. Courtesy the Ierapetra Archaeological Museum

Fig. 7.1

Ierapetra Archaeological Museum 645 H. 18.5 cm; Diam. 7.9 cm, of foot 6.4 cm. Pale orange fabric (5YR 7/4). Reddish-brown gloss. Pattern decoration. Ca. 425–400

VRO KA STRO AND GO URNIA While Ierapytna’s early history remains obscure as a result of the limited scope of archaeological exploration and the scant literary testimony, even less is known about Ierapytna’s three neighboring poleis—Oleros, Istron, and Larisa—in the Archaic and Classical periods. None of these sites has been properly excavated, although intensive surveys around Gournia, Kavousi, and the Vrokastro valley (see Fig. 1.1) partially compensate by making this sector of eastern Crete one of the best-explored rural landscapes 6. Papadakis (1986, pp. 78–79, nos. 322, 523, 526, 527) catalogues four Attic red-figure pelikai in the collection of the Ierapetra Archaeological Museum. 7. Because the Classical Gortynian fabric occasionally borders on a pale orange color, Gortyn cannot be ruled

out as a possible source for the lekythos. 8. Homann-Wedeking (1950, p. 170, no. 2, pl. 12:b) presents a selection of 4th-century lekythoi from Knossos; aee also Coldstream and Eiring 2001, p. 87. 9. A Knossian parallel for the length of the neck occurs in the case of a Hellenistic long-necked bottle; see

Homann-Wedeking 1950, p. 183, no. 14, fig. 23:b. 10. In addition, small bowls and plates from the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos include notable examples of 5th-century pattern decoration; see Coldstream 1973a, pp. 22–27, deposit B, nos. 4–7, pl. 11.

isthmus of ierap ytna

191

in the ancient Greek world.11 The pottery collected from these surveys occasionally includes an item datable to the 6th or 5th century. Similarity between the pottery from sites within the Gournia and Vrokastro survey transects suggests that these two areas are part of a single regional tradition of b.g. manufacture with a common fabric and distinctive shapes.12 This local fabric ranges from a pale brown (10YR 7/4) to a reddish-yellow color (7.5YR 7/6), with a core that is somewhat redder (5YR 6/6). It is the core that distinguishes this fabric from a comparable one found at Aphrati in the neighboring region to the west. Another important distinction lies in the compact hard fabric from the Vrokastro and Gournia survey areas; it never approaches the soft, chalky consistency of the fabric typical of Aphrati. Still, these two fabrics are similar in color and consistency. Close stylistic affinities with the pottery from a neighboring production center to the west, whose products have been found at Aphrati and Kato Symi, suggest a modest degree of contact between the potters of these two areas. Unfortunately, attempts to refine the dating of pottery collected on survey through connections with the known history of the ancient sites where the pottery was found have achieved mixed results. For example, because epigraphic and literary testimony suggests that Ierapytna won control over Oleros or at least began to participate in the administration of the cult of Athena Oleria by the 3rd or 2nd century, it seems reasonable to infer a decline of an independent Oleros at this time.13 That is why a large Classical and Hellenistic settlement encountered on survey and plausibly identified as the site of ancient Oleros offered such initial promise for clarifying ancient chronology.14 One might expect a decline of this site in the 3rd or 2nd century to result in a decrease or absence of material after this date. This turned out not to be the case, as pottery from later periods is also present at the site, with no discernible change in the quantity or quality of the evidence. Consequently, this collection of material neither confirms nor rules out the chronology suggested by the historical and epigraphic evidence. 11. For a preliminary report of the results of the Vrokastro survey, see Hayden, Moody, and Rackham 1992. Hayden (2004, pp. 167–168) discusses Istron and Oleros in the final publication dealing with settlement patterns. According to Haggis (1996a, p. 415), there were no Archaic or Classical sites within the area of the Kavousi survey. For the Gournia survey, see Watrous and Blitzer 1995. Raab (2001, pp. 24– 26) reviews the survey results for this part of the island. Our reliance on survey material may soon end, at least for the Vrokastro region. Excavations conducted at Priniatikos Pyrgos, a harbor town attached to Istron, in 2005 and 2006 under the direction of Hayden and M. Tsipopoulou, yielded local and imported pottery of Late Archaic and

Classical date, which I will be responsible for publishing. For the first installment, see Erickson 2010b. Hayden (2004, p. 63) offers a preliminary assessment of the site. These excavations at Priniatikos Pyrgos are leading to a reevaluation of the ceramic tradition in the Vrokastro survey area and may require revision of the conclusions offered here and in Hayden 2005. 12. This impression of uniform fine-ware fabrics from the Archaic and Classical survey sites may need to be revised once petrographic and chemical analyses have been brought to bear on the question of producers. At least for Bronze Age coarse wares, the Isthmus of Ierapytna is known for differences in raw materials and technological traditions, with granitic/dioritic and

phyllite-quartzite wares being the most common but by no means the only products of the area; see Day et al. 2006, p. 144. 13. Willetts (1955, p. 144; 1962, pp. 281, 284, 286) and Chaniotis (1996, pp. 241–245) discuss the political implications of Ierapytna’s involvement in the celebration of the local festival of Athena Oleria. According to Sanders (1982, p. 11), Istron also may have fallen under Ierapytna’s control in the Hellenistic period. 14. Hayden, Moody, and Rackham (1992, pp. 296–299) discuss the epigraphical and historical sources that illuminate the identification and floruit of the three major sites—Minoa, Istron, and Oleros—that probably fell within the area of the survey zone.

192

chapter 7

More helpful from the standpoint of chronology is the ancient site at Profitis Ilias (Gournia Survey site 106) in the hinterland of Ierapytna, tentatively identified by Watrous and Blitzer as the site of ancient Larisa (see Fig. 1.1).15 According to Strabo (9.5.19), Larisa was destroyed by the Ierapytnians at an unspecified date, and a demonstrable break in settlement occurs at Profitis Ilias in the 4th century. The latest imports—Attic, Knossian, and Lyktian products—date to no later than the third quarter of the 4th century, with the local pottery sequence pointing to the same date for the abandonment of the site.16 Yet this anonymous survey site may not be Larisa after all; Azoria has recently emerged as another candidate (see Fig. 1.1).17 There, a destruction level at the end of the Archaic period marks an apparent break in occupation, although cups of 5th-century date (perhaps Early Classical) appear in several locations at the site. Ultimately, it matters little whether we identify Azoria, Profitis Ilias, or some other site as Larisa, because the literary sources do not specify when Larisa was abandoned. In any case, this topographical and chronological uncertainty with respect to Larisa does not make the abandonment of Profitis Ilias and Azoria any less relevant for dating the pottery from each site. It is worth stressing the rarity of evidence for 6th-century occupation within the entire area of the Vrokastro and Gournia survey transects. With the exception of Azoria, only site 106 of the Gournia Survey shows any sign of activity in the 6th century. It seems that all other sites either are later foundations or were refounded after a long hiatus lasting much of the 6th and 5th centuries. Although the survey evidence could be partially responsible for giving a false impression of discontinuity, excavations at Ierapytna have revealed the same pattern of 5th-century development, and in the 4th century the evidence for development begins to increase. The negative and positive indicators, taken together, suggest that Ierapytna and other poleis were creations of the 5th century or later.18 Moreover, if Ierapytna is indeed responsible for the eclipse of the ancient settlement at Profitis Ilias (identified as ancient Larisa) about 325, this implies that territorial consolidation was a later process, insofar as Ierapytna was apparently willing to leave a neighbor in an entrenched hilltop position only 10 km away until the end of the Classical period. Ierapytna may have begun to expand its territory by conquest only in the second half of the 4th century, and its development into a major political power presumably took place later still. Perhaps the defeat of a rival on Profitis Ilias hill is one indicator of this development. The apparent destruction of Azoria in the early 5th century raises interesting questions about territorial conflict and the political control of territory. If this destruction can be associated with Ierapytnian aggression, it would imply that Ierapytnian power developed earlier than proposed here.

A r c hai c C up Bas e s Three local cup bases (446–448) from Gournia site 106 can be dated on morphological grounds to the 6th or first quarter of the 5th century (Fig. 7.2). The first of these (446), a base comprising a broad, low disk foot with an extended edge, resembles examples from the 6th-century cup repertoire at Gortyn (422, Fig. 6.4) and Praisos (471, Fig. 8.6). It perhaps dates to

15. Watrous and Blitzer 1995. 16. According to Hayden (2004, p. 188), however, Larisa was abandoned in the 5th century. Haggis (2005, p. 86) considers a possible connection between the abandonment of Azoria in the early 5th century and an increase in population at the site identified as Larisa. Surface survey, however, gives the impression of a reduced role for this site from its Geometric and Orientalizing peak. There was little material at Gournia Survey site 106 datable to the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries. 17. Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 390–391. 18. Perlman (1999, pp. 143–144) views the 4th-century development of Ierapytna in the wider context of Cretan settlement patterns. She includes Ierapytna among a small number of new foundations along the southern coast of Crete at the end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th century. In her view, the southern coast of Crete may have become a more lucrative outlet for trade at this time as a result of the dissolution of the Athenian empire. See also Hayden 2004, p. 188.

isthmus of ierap ytna

446

447

448 Figure 7.2. Archaic cup bases, Gournia Survey site 106 (Larisa?). Scale 1:2

193

about 575–525, although the dating of the parallels (on which the chronology of the local variety rests) is conjectural. A second cup base from the same site (447) is characterized by an articulated disk foot with a beveled outer edge. It finds a parallel in a Late Archaic context at Knossos (RR:H, uncatalogued base like 251, Fig. 4.4), and the same type of base is found elsewhere on Crete in the local fabrics of Gortyn (414–420, Fig. 6.2) and Praisos (488–502, Fig. 8.8). The third base possesses a distinctly local appearance (448). It exhibits a wedge-shaped support that makes a smooth transition with the belly. It cannot now be dated with any precision. 446  Cup, base

Fig. 7.2

Gournia site 106.I Diam. of base 7.2 cm. Dull gray gloss. Ca. 575–525 447  Cup, base

Fig. 7.2

Gournia site 106.D Diam. of base 6.5 cm. Dull gray gloss. Ca. 525–475 448  Cup, base

Fig. 7.2

Gournia site 106.F Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Dull gray gloss. Ca. 525–475

J ug Base s

19. Erickson 2002, p. 57, no. 37, fig. 9. In addition, Haggis et al. (2007, p. 258, fig. 11:12) publish a jug base with a similar form from a context at Azoria dated to ca. 500–480.

Local production of b.g. pottery in the 5th and 4th centuries focused on a larger vessel whose base consistently measures between 8 and 9 cm in diameter, representing an approximately 30% increase in size over that of the standard cup base. Because no intact examples of this vessel survive, identification of the shape is difficult. Two possible reconstructions include a large cup or jug. The inner surface of these bases is too worn to determine whether it received a coat of gloss, a detail compatible with an open shape such as a cup. Despite this uncertainty, a jug is the preferable reconstruction, given the discovery at Aphrati of an intact 5th-century jug with a base of similar size and form.19 The question must remain open pending documentation of the shape within the area encompassed by the Vrokastro and Gournia survey transects. The bases shown in Figure 7.3 constitute a composite picture of development based on the evidence gleaned from sites OL1, NP1, and SK1 of the Vrokastro Survey, and sites 9 and 106 of the Gournia Survey. The salient feature of this group (449–463), and the main factor setting it apart from a related series of vessels manufactured at Aphrati, is the manner in which the wedge-shaped stand is attached to the base. A gentle transition is effected by means of a hollow concavity at the junction between the stand and bottom of the base. In contrast, at Kato Symi and Aphrati this junction is achieved by means of a sharp, angular recession. The chronological arrangement of material suggested here presupposes a linear path of development comparable to that suggested by the jugs from Aphrati

194

chapter 7

and Kato Symi, in which the base becomes less broad over time and the foot becomes higher with a narrower junction with the belly.20 According to these criteria, the bases from the Vrokastro and Gournia survey transects (Fig. 7.3) may be subdivided into three groups: early examples with a broad, low foot (449–455); intermediate examples with a broad foot and a slightly higher stand (456–459); and later examples with a narrower foot and a high conical stand (460–463). Determining absolute dates for this sequence is difficult given the lack of archaeological context and the absence of stylistic parallels elsewhere on Crete (with the sole exception of the series of large bases from Kato Symi, themselves of uncertain date). An important indication of date is provided by the presence or absence of various types of base at Gournia site 106. An inferred abandonment of this site in the second half of the 4th century furnishes a terminus ante quem of about 350–325 for the surface pottery. This site yielded nine large bases, including representatives of almost every stage of development seen in this survey material, except for the latest (463). Therefore, the latest bases in the series should date to about 350–325 or shortly thereafter. This date accords well with the evidence from Kato Symi, as the latest bases from site 106 of the Gournia Survey seem typologically more advanced than the last in the series of bases in pale brown fabric at Kato Symi, dated to about 400.21 Conversely, the earliest bases from the Vrokastro and Gournia survey transects probably date to no earlier than the first half of the 5th century. At least the rich, lustrous gloss of the earliest examples in the series would seem to rule out a 6th-century date, because the cup bases of this date from site 106 (446–448), discussed earlier, exhibit a dull gray gloss of an appreciably different quality. 449  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106.D Diam. of base 8.5 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 475–425 450  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 9 Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 475–425 451  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Vrokastro site OL1.A2 Diam. of base 9.3 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 475–425 452  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Vrokastro site NP1.A12 Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 475–425 453  Jug, base Gournia site 106.X

Fig. 7.3

20. The reasoning behind this proposed relative sequence is given by Erickson (2002, pp. 55–56). 21. For the latest base at Kato Symi, see Erickson 2002, p. 57, no. 38, fig. 9.

isthmus of ierap ytna

195

456

449

457 450 458

451 452

459

453 460 454 461 455 462

463 Figure 7.3. Classical jug bases, Gournia and Vrokastro survey sites. Scale 1:2

Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 454  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106.G Diam. of base 8.9 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 475–425 455  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106.B Diam. of base 8.8 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 456  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106.G1 Diam. of base 8.9 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–375 457  Jug, base Vrokastro site NP1.PC7 Diam. of base 9.2 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–375

Fig. 7.3

196

chapter 7

458  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Vrokastro site NP1.B6 Diam. of base 8.9 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–375 459  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106 Diam. of base 8.4 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 425–375 460  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106.J Diam. of base 7.8 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 375–325 461  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106.I Diam. of base 8.0 cm. Lustrous black gloss. There is a similar base from Vrokastro site SK1.30. Ca. 375–325 462  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Gournia site 106 Diam. of base 8.4 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 375–325 463  Jug, base

Fig. 7.3

Vrokastro site SK1.61 Diam. of base 7.6 cm. Lustrous black gloss. Ca. 375–325

Im p orts In the 5th and 4th centuries, both overseas and Cretan ceramic imports to the area were confined to four of the five places where locally produced pottery of this date has been found: Ierapytna, Gournia site 106 (Larisa), Vrokastro OL3 (Oleros), and Vrokastro NP1 (Istron). All four sites are large settlements. Indeed, almost all of the small sites found on survey— what their discoverers interpret as small farmsteads or rural hamlets— belong to the Hellenistic period or later and are devoid of imported pottery. The only exception to this pattern of nucleated settlement in the Classical period is Vrokastro SK1, a small rural settlement that has produced minimal evidence for Classical occupation, a single sherd dated to the end of the Classical period (ca. 350–325). The imports found during the 2002–2004 seasons of excavations at Azoria are discussed in Chapter 11.22 Imports to the area from other parts of the island consist of (Fig. 7.4), from Knossos, two cup bases at Gournia site 106 (dated to ca. 425–400 and ca. 400–375), and a lekythos (445) at Ierapytna (ca. 425–400); from Lyktos, two cup bases at Gournia site 106 (ca. 375–350 and ca. 375–325); and from Aphrati, a cup rim at Gournia site 106 (ca. 425–400). Based on

22. See Chap. 11, pp. 286, 294.

Lera Cave Arkoudia Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Kydonia Polichna (?) Aptera Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

White Mountains

Lappa

Sybrita

Tarrha

Axos

Eleutherna

Tylissos

Mt. Ida

Amnisos Knossos

Kommos

Mesara

0

10

20

30

40

50 km

Siteia

Psychro Cave

Tholos Azoria

Aphrati Kato Symi Myrtos

Kamilari

Itanos

Olous

Lasithi

Prinias Phaistos Gortyn

Dreros

Lyktos

Archanes Eltynia

Idaian Cave

Chersonessos

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

Larisa (?) Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 7.4. Movement of island b.g. pottery to Gournia Survey site 106 (Larisa?), ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

198

chapter 7

current evidence, Attic or other overseas imports are absent in the 6th and 5th centuries and still rare in the 4th century, although a molded base from an imported kantharos from Gournia site 106 finds a close parallel in Agora XII, no. 713 (ca. 350–325). Copies of Attic skyphoi appear occasionally in the local fabric, as in an example from Vrokastro site NP1. A12, modeled after an Attic prototype dated to the first half of the 4th century, and in another example from Vrokastro site OL3.A11 (no. 2143), whose resemblance to Agora XII, no. 352 (ca. 320) extends to minor details of decoration, including the application of concentric circles in a reserved field under the base, a practice otherwise unattested in the local repertoire.

c hap ter 8

P rai s os an d I ts Te r r i tory

Praisos lies at the eastern end of Crete, inland on the Siteian peninsula (Fig. 1.1). According to Strabo (10.4.6, 10.4.12), the Praisians were descended from the autochthonous Eteocretans, and the discovery of Archaic inscriptions at Praisos in the indecipherable Eteocretan language, the earliest of which seems to date to the 6th century (earlier, at any rate, than the first known Greek inscriptions at the site), supports this tradition.1 Archaeological exploration at Praisos in the early 20th century revealed that the city extended across three hills, of which the summits of the first and third acropoleis accommodated a Geometric–Hellenistic temple and a ­Classical–Hellenistic shrine, respectively. The civic center may have occupied the saddle of land between the first and second acropoleis, if the identification of a prominent structure in this location as an andreion is correct. Two other Archaic shrines were situated on the outskirts of town, within 1 km of the civic center, and a cemetery lay on the south and east sides of the first and third acropolis hills.2 Architectural terracottas and votive figurines from the sanctuaries attest specialized craft production at Praisos in the 6th century—assuming that types common at Praisos and found nowhere else signify local manufacture. Frederico Halbherr and Edward Forster identify 17 varieties of terracotta figurines and plaques and place them in a stylistic sequence spanning the Orientalizing, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods (Fig. 8.1).3 Sixth-century plaques include representations of men, women, youths, and lions. The fabric of these plaques is variously described in the imprecise terminology of the early excavators as “dark red,” “red,” or “the light-red clay of the district.”4 Stylistic parallels with Orientalizing plaques from Siteia, Palaikastro, Roussa Ekklesia, and other eastern sites raise the possibility of a common regional coroplast tradition, although 1. The inscriptions from Praisos were collected by Guarducci (1942, pp. 138–155). For the question of Eteocretan ethnic identity, see Chap. 1 (p. 5). 2. For a summary of previous research, see Whitley, O’Conor, and Mason 1995, pp. 405–407.

3. Halbherr (1901, pp. 385–390) and Forster (1901–1902) discuss the Archaic figurines from Praisos, with Forster (1904–1905) offering a more detailed sketch of developments. 4. Forster (1904–1905, p. 243) describes the fabric of the figurines as

the “light-red clay of the district.” Elsewhere he (1901–1902, p. 272) refers to the fabric of a plaque as a “dark brickred colour,” and Marshall (1905–1906, p. 63) points to the “red” or “pale red clay” of the “common-ware” vessels from tombs.

200

chapter 8

close scrutiny of the fabric has yet to confirm these suggested links.5 Other notable finds of 6th-century date at Praisos include a black-figure pinax decorated with a scene of horse and rider on one side and a representation of Herakles wrestling a serpent on the other.6 There are also Attic imports, including a black-figure kylix from the sanctuary on the third acropolis hill and many black- and red-figure “toilet” vases from tombs.7 Three tombs contained Corinthian pottery, including an Archaic aryballos and a local imitation of the same shape. In addition, excavations by the Greek Archaeological Service in the 1950s brought to light four exaleiptra, reportedly from 6th-century tombs.8 An example of “degenerate red figure” from what is perhaps a 4th-century tomb is among the latest pieces in the early excavation reports.9 The architectural fragments and terracottas from Praisos have historical implications. Based on the discoveries at Praisos, some have posited a milder demographic recession in East Crete compared to the more severe consequences deduced from the almost total lack of evidence from Knossos. Boardman contends that the 6th-century decline is restricted to Central Cretan sites.10 Although Praisos may have fared better than other parts of the island in the 6th century, archaeologists have been slow to exploit the potential of this relatively rich site. Without attention to the pottery from Praisos, other East Cretan poleis lack a possible guide for ceramic developments in the 6th and 5th centuries. The reluctance of earlier excavators to publish material of marginal art-historical interest or to save intrinsically less valuable finds may have contributed to the impression of a gap in the ceramic sequence at Praisos. The early reports allude to local production of fine-ware pottery but do not describe or illustrate a single example. It would certainly be difficult to date objects from votive dumps without relying on established stylistic sequences. It is surprising, however, that R. C. Bosanquet did not publish in full the grave goods from the “Hellenic” cemeteries, since tombs qualify as a good archaeological context. An intensive survey of the town of Praisos and its rural hinterland conducted in the 1990s by a team from the University of Wales, Cardiff, has produced relevant surface scatters of Archaic and Classical ceramics.11 All of the pottery presented here comes from this collection of survey material, which will receive final publication in a separate study. Coldstream 5. Stylistic influence may account for a few similarities among the figurines from this part of the island, but it is also evident that figurines from the same mold circulated in East Crete; see Whitley 1998, pp. 32–36; Erickson 2009, pp. 380–385. Moreover, Winter (1993, p. 268) calls attention to another example of stylistic interaction, a Gorgoneion antefix from Praisos with an almost identical counterpart at Palaikastro. 6. It is not known where this plate was made. Cycladic, mainland Greek, and Cretan origins all have been

entertained; see Schaus 1985, p. 12. The date of the plate is another matter of contention, with Boardman (1961, p. 146) favoring a 6th-century date. 7. Marshall (1905–1906, pp. 63–64) briefly describes the contents of 22 tombs of the historical Greek period from the cemetery at Praisos. Blackfigure pots (Attic?) were found in six of these tombs. 8. Tsipopoulou 1988, pp. 272–273, 275; 2005, p. 443, pl. 148. It is not certain whether these are Corinthian products or local copies. Whitley (1998, p. 32, n. 4) summarizes the contribu-

Figure 8.1. Orientalizing clay plaque, Praisos. Scale 2:3. Boardman 1961, pl. 39. By permission of Oxford University Press

tions of Greek archaeologists at Praisos. 9. Marshall 1905–1906, p. 64, tomb 28. 10. Boardman 1982, p. 230. 11. Summary reports of the results of the 1992, 1993, and 1994 survey seasons appear in Whitley, O’Conor, and Mason 1995; and Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999. According to Whitely, Prent, and Thorne (1999, p. 253), b.g. pottery was encountered on survey, but this material “could belong to any date from the Archaic to the Hellenistic.”

praisos and its territory

201

has taken the preliminary step of describing the East Cretan pictorial style in the Late Geometric period, but developments in the succeeding historical Greek periods at Praisos have not received much attention.12 Nevertheless, the following considerations provide chronological clues to the development of local pottery styles in the area. Ancient authorities attributed Praisos’s abandonment throughout the Roman period to its destruction by its traditional enemy Ierapytna in the 140s.13 If the destruction of Praisos was indeed as complete as the ancient tradition suggests, any pottery picked up from the site should date before ca. 140. Moreover, survey of the surrounding countryside gives a uniform picture of abandonment in the Hellenistic period. According to the accepted chronology of Hellenistic pottery from Central Crete, which remains the best guide for dating pottery from Praisos in the absence of established local sequences, neither Praisos nor (virtually without exception) any site in its territory has yielded pottery of demonstrably later date than the 2nd century.14 A homogeneous collection of b.g. pottery from site 14 (Profitis Ilias), identified here as the residue of a short-lived 6th-century kiln, also helps in matters of chronology (Fig. 8.2). The discoverers of the site interpreted this pottery as coming from a votive context.15 T. A. B. Spratt, who visited Profitis Ilias in the mid-19th century while investigating candidates for the Temple of Diktaian Zeus, stated: “Upon the crest of one of the crags over Praesos, called both Agios Elias and Agios Stavro, from a chapel upon it dedicated to both the Holy Prophet and the Cross, I found the foundations of some Hellenic building, which in all probability was an early temple of the city.”16 Spratt’s identification of the church of Profitis Ilias as the successor of an ancient sanctuary drew on the physical evidence of ancient worked blocks and an implicit assumption of continuity of cult practice from ancient to early modern times.17 Accordingly, the church of 12. Coldstream 1968, pp. 257– 261. Whitley (1998, p. 36) questions Coldstream’s efforts to define a specific Eteocretan style of pottery. Other factors may be responsible for the spread of this East Cretan style. For example, Tsipopoulou (1992, pp. 154– 155) identifies Late Geometric pottery from the necropolis at Ayios Yioryios, a village south of Siteia, as products of the same 8th-century workshop responsible for the pottery at Praisos, suggesting the circulation of individual potters or their finished products. Orientalizing pottery from Praisos is discussed by Whitley (1998, pp. 36– 37), Whitley, Prent, and Thorne (1999, pp. 249–252), and Tsipopoulou (2005, pp. 235–294). Boardman (1961, p. 146) detects Cycladic influence in the style of outline drawing characteristic of several Orientalizing sherds from Praisos.

13. E.g., Strabo 10.4.12. For the epigraphic evidence, see Guarducci 1942, p. 136; Whitley, O’Conor, and Mason 1995, p. 405. Bosanquet (1939– 1940, p. 65) states that the sanctuary on the Third Acropolis was “deliberately razed to the ground” in the 140s. 14. According to Whitley, Prent, and Thorne (1999, p. 256), no Roman fine ware was found in the territory of Praisos during the 1993 and 1994 survey seasons. Two small surface scatters (sites 17, 33), however, did produce Roman coarse wares, suggesting a small-scale Roman reoccupation of the territory. Another site found on survey (site 13) may have been occupied from the Late Hellenistic into the Roman period. Branigan (1998, p. 88) suggests that some of the surviving population of Praisos dispersed to the Ziros plateau, which seems to have been resettled in the 3rd or 2nd century.

15. Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999, p. 249. 16. Spratt 1865, vol. 1, pp. 166–167. 17. Elsewhere, Spratt (1865, vol. 1, p. 82) made such assumptions explicit: “Places of religious sanctity, of any time and people, always retain a certain special interest attached to them; and thus it is natural that the superstition of one creed should in some degree become absorbed in the superstitions of another that succeeds it.” He added, “So also the worship of Zeus and other deities has frequently been changed, in those localities, to that of the prophets or saints of the Greek church.” Nixon (2006, pp. 5, 27, 93–95, 113–114), however, makes a compelling case for viewing such apparent continuity with outlying churches as an expression of a different religious system and sacred landscape.

202

chapter 8

Profitis Ilias may have replaced an earlier cult of the ancient sky god (Zeus).18 Spratt’s interpretation of the church of Profitis Ilias as the successor to an ancient sanctuary is not supported by the ceramic evidence collected from site 14, however. As previously noted, b.g. cups figure prominently among the collection. Although Cretans in the Archaic period occasionally dedicated cups at their sanctuaries and used them in the ritual consumption of wine, the finds from site 14 do not fulfill other requirements necessary for an identification of cult.19 At other sanctuaries, cups and other sympotic vessels appear with an even greater number of lamps and terracottas, objects of unequivocal cultic significance.20 Indeed, the presence 18. Spratt (1865, vol. 1, p. 167), followed by Bosanquet (1939–1940, p. 64), is not sufficiently impressed by these remains to identify Profitis Ilias with one of the temples of Diktaian Zeus said by Strabo (10.4.12) to have been in Praisian territory. For a discussion of this topographical issue, see Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999, p. 249; Prent 2005, pp. 349–350. 19. The cups from the “Shrine of Glaukos” are discussed by Callaghan (1978, pp. 3–11). For the 5th-century

drinking vessels from the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, see Coldstream 1973a, pp. 3–22. 20. There is no complete catalogue of the terracottas from the “Shrine of Glaukos” at Knossos. Callaghan (1978, p. 21) states only that they were a “popular offering in the shrine.” Higgins (in Coldstream 1973a, p. 56) estimates the total to be in the neighborhood of 2,000 to 3,000 examples. His catalogue includes 273 examples. By comparison,

Figure 8.2. Plan of Praisos Survey site 14. Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999,

fig. 15. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

there are 434 catalogued pots and lamps from the Sanctuary of Demeter. For lamps at other Cretan sanctuaries, see Sporn 2002, p. 356, table 19. As lamps are occasionally found in 6th-century funerary contexts on Crete (as at Eleutherna), they do not unequivocally attest cult. In addition, a small lamp was found in a 5thcentury domestic deposit at Aphrati; see Erickson 2002, p. 69, no. 85, figs. 21, 22.

praisos and its territory

203

Figure 8.3. Kiln wasters at Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 2:3

of lamps, plaques, and figurines is the chief criterion for distinguishing votive contexts from other uses of cups on Crete. Site 14 yielded only a single lamp (549), a miniature version of a type dated at Knossos and Eleutherna to ca. 500–425 (392, 393, 395, 396, Figs. 5.4, 5.5). Furthermore, there are no miniature vases or other obvious votive offerings and only two fragmentary plaques from site 14.21 One of these plaques belongs to a small concentration (approximately 10% of the total) of Late Classical or Hellenistic material from the site, which seems to indicate a later phase of activity. Later cups from site 14 include 537, 543, and 545. As the single lamp and two plaques from site 14 are vastly outnumbered by the 150 drinking cups and jugs, there is little to suggest that the collection of material from site 14 possessed a special votive or ritual character. Instead, the discovery of three kiln wasters at the site provides a compelling reason for identifying this collection as the residue from a kiln. Kiln wasters are produced accidentally in the normal operation of a kiln.22 One of the wasters is composed of an amorphous conglomeration of the base and handle of two separate cups fused to the back of a tile, suggesting an accident in the final stage of firing (Fig. 8.3). Although an accidental fire might have produced the requisite temperature to fuse pots to tile, the wasters from site 14 are composed of unfinished vessels. The presence of a fused tile as part of a waster from a kiln specializing in the production of fine-ware vessels is not surprising, since tiles frequently formed the inner linings of ancient kilns.23 In addition to the kiln wasters, the pottery itself—the approximately 140 fragmentary b.g. cups and a half-dozen jugs—provides further evidence for interpreting the site as a defunct kiln (catalogued examples include 466–528). The limited range of shapes and similarities in fabric and decorative treatment point to a common workshop. The fabric (Fig. 8.13) is invariably light reddish-brown (7.5YR 6/6–7/6 to 10YR 6/4) except in clear cases of misfire, in which the fabric ranges from a hard gray to green color (2.5Y 6/4–5Y 6/3). Equally characteristic is a uniform fine red slip (2.5YR 5/6–6/6) that serves as a base for an uneven coat of dull brown or brownish-red gloss. Fine white mineral inclusions in the fabric further

21. Whitley, Prent, and Thorne (1999, p. 249) mention these two plaques and note (p. 251) that part of a bronze pin was discovered on the steep north slope of the hill just below

the church. 22. Sinopoli 1991, pp. 33, 39. Modern potters often employ wasters from previous firings as devices to separate and support pottery in later

firings. See also Rice 1987, pp. 90– 93; Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, p. 126. 23. Sinopoli 1991, p. 33.

204

chapter 8

distinguish this collection of cups.24 A comparable light red fabric is also character­istic of the finds from the town of Praisos, where there is greater variety both in the color of the fabric (7.5YR 5/3–10YR 6/4) and the quality of the gloss, suggesting either a more diverse group of urban workshops, production over a longer time, or a combination of both factors. Similarities in the potting of cups from site 14, including minor details such as the size of the central “medallion” (within 1 mm tolerance) of the bases with a stepped-profile underfoot (521–524) and the closely comparable profiles of the ring feet 482–487, reinforce the conclusion that the cups from this site were produced by a single workshop and perhaps even a single potter. Moreover, this collection of cups gives little indication of internal stylistic development, suggesting that they all date to roughly the same period. If this pottery is the residue from a kiln, a narrow range in date is likely, since ancient kilns typically had short lives. Such a kiln might wear out after a generation or two (25–50 years), whereupon it would be abandoned, dismantled, or superseded by the construction of a new kiln.25 Although there are different types of bases at site 14, no given type is obviously much earlier or later than the rest. Given the persuasive evidence of a kiln provided by the wasters, it seems likely that these drinking cups and jugs were the products of an Archaic kiln specializing in the production of small fine-ware vessels. This interpretation of the pottery from site 14 is compatible with the suggestion that a sanctuary stood nearby, as Spratt and later surveyors speculated. Indeed, the presence of a nearby sanctuary would furnish a convenient explanation for the remote location of the kiln, which becomes more understandable if the kiln served a rural sanctuary.26 In addition, the main concentration of surface pottery comes from one location at the edges of the level hilltop—the presumed boundary of the sanctuary, just where one would expect a kiln to be located under these circumstances (Fig. 8.2). Such an arrangement is attested at other Greek sanctuaries, both on Crete and elsewhere in the Greek world, with examples at Prinias, Lato,Olympia, 24. J. Moody (pers. comm.) examined the fabric and inclusions of the material from site 14 and concluded that there were two different clay sources, one with a probable coastal location. The raw material used at this kiln may therefore have been transported a considerable distance. Although Jones (1986, pp. 53, 872) acknowledges that ancient clay and tempering material may have occasionally moved great distances, Cretan ethnographic evidence suggests that potters typically obtained clay within a radius of 2 km from the workshop. Exceptions include the Thrapsano potters, who are known to have brought clay by mule 15 km from preferred clay beds; see Jones 1986, p. 866. An

alternative way to view this evidence from the Praisos Survey is to assume that the pots were produced elsewhere and brought to this location. Those who identify site 14 as a sanctuary without a kiln will undoubtedly favor this interpretation, but for reasons given earlier, I find a kiln explanation compelling for the surface collection. 25. Rice (1987, p. 162) discusses ancient kiln designs of various types, all of which require frequent maintenance and repair. 26. Although proximity to raw materials, including clay beds and sources of fuel and temper, presumably influenced the decision of where to build kilns, there were obvious advantages in locating a kiln near the

suburbs of a major settlement where its products could be marketed. Jones (1986, p. 875) and Shanks (1999, pp. 43–44) discuss the factors involved in the location of ancient kilns. One reason for locating a kiln far from a settlement is to be near fuel. Another factor is proximity to clay sources; see van der Leeuw 1984, p. 59. A location on a hillside is not surprising, since building one end of a kiln directly into a hill reduced the cost of con­ struction and allowed workers to take advantage of strong winds when stoking the fire. Still, the location of a kiln near the summit of a hill, as is implied by the scatter of finds from site 14, is unusual.

praisos and its territory

205

Eretria, and Chalkis.27 The discovery of three Orientalizing kilns at Lato in close proximity to an ancient sanctuary on the summit of Mt. Phylakas provides a good parallel for the proposed kiln on Profitis Ilias near Praisos, although the example at Lato is an urban sanctuary easily accessible from the city center.28

E ARLY J U G The earliest datable example from the survey of Praisos (the town) and its surrounding territory is a jug base from site 506.3 (464) whose underfoot profile marks a curious reversal of the standard 6th-century stepped profile. In this detail of potting, the base from Praisos resembles a group of cup and jug bases from Kato Symi, dated to ca. 575–525.29 464  Jug, base

Fig. 8.4

Praisos site 506.3 (1994) Diam. of base 9.3 cm. Black gloss Ca. 575–525

ARC H AI C J U G S AN D H I G H -N E C KED C U P S , SU RVEY S I TE 1 4 As a result of the extraordinary number of finds from site 14, the 6th century is currently better represented in the ceramic record of Praisos than any earlier or subsequent period. The high-necked cup was apparently the chief product of this rural workshop. The fragmentary examples from this site suggest the reconstruction of a vessel with a broad, low foot and a squat carinated bowl topped by an outturned rim (469, 470). A vertical handle attaches at the rim and shoulder, and the handle is thick and rounded in section. The squat proportions of the restored shape (width-to-height ratio 1.40) impart a curiously conservative appearance. Presumably contemporary high-necked cups from Eleutherna (137–140, Fig. 3.22) exhibit similarly squat proportions, although not to this degree. Perhaps a hemispherical or carinated bowl is a hallmark of the Cretan high-necked cup at an early stage of development in the 6th century. Four principal foot variants of the Praisian cup can be identified: a broad, low disk foot 27. The 7th-century kiln at Prinias lies a short distance from Patela, on the lower slopes of the ridge opposite the Orientalizing sanctuaries; see Rizza 1992, pp. 15–18. For the 7th-century kilns in the sanctuary at Lato, see Ducrey and Picard 1969, pp. 792–807. For the Hellenistic kiln in the Sanctuary of Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria, see Konstantinou 1955, pp. 127–130; 1956. At Olympia, a 4th-century kiln under the Byzantine church (outside

the ancient temenos wall) attests the manufacture of pottery and tiles at the sanctuary; see Olympia IV, pp. 25–31, fig. 13, pl. 11. Hasaki (2002, pp. 289–291) stresses the role kilns played at sanctuaries in supplying building materials, particularly roof tiles and antefixes. Although kilns may have been located near rural sanctuaries for practical reasons, religious scruples may have influenced the decision to drink from cups fashioned at the site.

28. Hasaki (2002, pp. 291, 339–340) notes that the construction of a Hellenistic temple destroyed one of these kilns, suggesting that they belonged to an earlier phase of the sanctuary. Among the products of these kilns were plaques and figurines, appropriate offerings for an Orientalizing sanctuary. See also Sjögren 2003, pp. 76, 87. 29. Erickson 2002, pp. 51–52, nos. 9–18, figs. 4, 5.

206

chapter 8

464

465

467

468

466

(470–481, 488–502, 525–528), a broad, low ring foot (503–509), a ring foot with a thick floor (482–487), and a base with a stepped-profile underfoot (510–524). The first of these categories may be further subdivided into bases with an articulated (extended) foot and rounded outer edge (470–481), bases with an articulated foot and beveled outer edge (488–502), and nearly flat bases with a beveled outer edge (525–528). The dating of these various types depends on parallels with material from more secure contexts elsewhere on Crete.30 The base with a steppedprofile underfoot is known from a 6th-century deposit at Knossos (UM:H1, ca. 525–500). Most examples of this type from site 14 (510–520) are indistinguishable in appearance from the Knossian cup bases. Four of the bases from Praisos, however, differ by having a uniformly smaller central “medallion” underfoot (521–524). They should date to the same period as the standard bases with a stepped-profile underfoot (ca. 525–500). In addition, ring feet comparable to 503–509 also appear at Knossos in the Late Archaic deposit RR:H (280, 281, Fig 4.8), and this is the earliest type in a series of Gortynian cups from the “Demeter and Kore” deposit. Other parallels include ring feet from an Archaic deposit at Kommos, and excavations at Azoria have produced similar ring feet from stratified contexts dated to the 6th century.31 Another type of base at site 14 probably also dates to the final quarter of the 6th century, for the same deposit at Knossos (RR:H) yielded bases with an extended foot and beveled outer edge (250–255, Fig. 4.4) comparable to 525–528.32 This type finds another close comparison at Gortyn in the unpublished contents of the “Demeter and Kore” deposit and in 422 (Fig. 6.4). I offered a date of ca. 525–500 for the beginning of this series of Gortynian cups based on internal typology.33 The available evidence, then, points to a date of ca. 525–500 for the cup bases from site 14. An even earlier date may make sense for the unparalleled types of pottery at the site (470–502), on the assumption that they fall within the obscure period of island ceramic development in the 6th century. It is unlikely that these unparalleled types date to much after ca. 525–500, since abundant evidence then becomes available from other Cretan sites for tracking developments in the 5th century, and the types seen at site 14 do not appear at other places. How early might production of these unparalleled types have begun? As noted earlier, ancient kilns typically had short lives, remaining in use no longer than a generation or two, with a maximum production span of 25–50 years. If this kiln was out

Figure 8.4. Archaic jug bases, Praisos Survey sites. Scale 1:2

30. Whitley, Prent, and Thorne (1999, p. 253) overlook parallels with 6th-century Knossian material and conclude that “pottery shapes quite distinct from Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Knossian types occur” at Praisos. 31. For Kommos, see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 253, no. 398, pl. 4:20. For Azoria, see Haggis et al. 2004, p. 362, fig. 17:1, p. 381, fig. 39:1. Kydonia may also have produced cups with similar ring feet; see Chap. 4, p. 132. 32. See also the comparable bases from unstratified contexts from Gortyn (414, 415, Fig. 6.2) and site 106 of the Gournia Survey (447, Fig. 7.2). Evidence from Eleutherna (175–177, Figs. 3.27, 3.28) confirms a 6th-century date for the base with an extended foot and beveled edge. 33. Chap. 6, pp. 180–182. In addition, Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 253, no. 419, pl. 4:20) publish an intact 6th-century cup from Kommos with a foot similar to 525–528.

praisos and its territory

207

469 Figure 8.5. Archaic high-necked cup, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

470

of use by the last quarter of the 6th century, it must have begun operation by ca. 575–550. Thus, circumstances suggest a plausible upper limit of ca. 575–550, and the absence of parallels with Orientalizing cups from other production centers confirms a date no earlier than the 6th century. 465  Jug, base

Fig. 8.4

Praisos site 506.3 (1994) Diam. of base 7.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 466  Jug, base

Fig. 8.4

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 9.1 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 575–525 467  Jug, base

Fig. 8.4

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 9.3 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 575–525 468  Jug, base

Fig. 8.4

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 9.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 575–525 469  High-necked cup, rim, shoulder, and handle

Fig. 8.5

Praisos site 14 Diam. 12.0 cm, of rim 12.1 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 575–525 470  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.5, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 471  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525

Figs. 8.6, 8.13

208

chapter 8

472  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 473  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.6, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 474  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 475  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 476  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.5 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 477  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 478  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 479  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 480  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.6, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 481  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.6

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 482  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 14

Fig. 8.7

praisos and its territory

209

471 477 472 478 473 479 474 480 475 Figure 8.6. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a broad, low disk foot and rounded edge, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

481 476

Diam. of base 5.8 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot with thick floor. Ca. 575–525 483  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.7

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot with thick floor. Ca. 575–525 484  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.7

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot with thick floor. Ca. 575–525 485  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.7

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot with thick floor. Ca. 575–525 486  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.7, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot with thick floor. Ca. 575–525 487  High-necked cup, base and lower body Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.9 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot with thick floor. Ca. 575–525

Fig. 8.7

210

chapter 8

482

485

483

486

484

Figure 8.7. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a ring foot and thick floor, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

487

488  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.8, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 489  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 490  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 491  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 492  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 493  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.8, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 494  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 495  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525

Figs. 8.8, 8.13

praisos and its territory

211

488

496

489

497

490

498

491 499 492 500 493 501 494 Figure 8.8. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a broad, low disk foot and beveled edge, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

502 495 496  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 497  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 498  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 499  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 5.4 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 500  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525

Fig. 8.8

212

chapter 8

507 503 504

505

508

509

506 501  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.9 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 502  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.8

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.1 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 575–525 503  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Figs. 8.9, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.8 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 504  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.9

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.0 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 505  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.9

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 506  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Figs. 8.9, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.9 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 507  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Figs. 8.9, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.2 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 508  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 14

Fig. 8.9

Figure 8.9. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a broad, low ring foot, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

praisos and its territory

510

511

512

514

213

518

515 519 516 520

513 Figure 8.10. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

517

Diam. of base 8.1 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 509  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.9

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.8 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot. Ca. 525–500 510  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.2 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 511  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 512  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.10

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 513  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 514  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 515  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.3 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500

214

chapter 8

516  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.10

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 7.3 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 517  High-necked cup, base

521 Fig. 8.10

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 8.2 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 518  High-necked cup, base

522

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 519  High-necked cup, base

524 Fig. 8.10

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.7 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 520  High-necked cup, base

523

Figure 8.11. Archaic high-necked cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

Figs. 8.10, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 521  High-necked cup, base and lower body

Figs. 8.11, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 522  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.11

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 523  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.11

525

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 524  High-necked cup, base

Figs. 8.11, 8.13

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 5.7 cm. Black gloss. Stepped-profile underfoot. Ca. 525–500 525  High-necked cup, base and lower body

527 Fig. 8.12

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 526  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 14

526

528 Fig. 8.12

Figure 8.12. Archaic high-necked cup bases with beveled outer edge, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

praisos and its territory

470

471

486

488

473

480

493

506

215

495

507 510

503

511

518 Figure 8.13. Archaic high-necked cup bases, Praisos Survey site 14. Scale 1:2

513

520

514

521

515

524

216

chapter 8 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500

527  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.12

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500 528  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.12

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Disk foot. Ca. 525–500

ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL H IGH-NECKED CUPS It is difficult to trace the subsequent development of the local high-necked cup in any detail, given the fragmentary condition of the material and the lack of solid evidence for its date. Again, we are forced to rely on cup bases from survey sites without clearly defined occupational phases (Fig. 8.14). One base from site 538.2 (529) and another similar example from site 534.2 compare in profile, fabric, and decoration to a type of base with a ring foot from site 14 (503–509), suggesting a comparable date (ca. 525–500). In the 5th century, the Praisian high-necked cup dispenses with a broad, low ring foot in favor of a higher and more conical support with a narrower point of attachment to the belly. Fifth-century cup bases from site 514.2 (532) and site 529.1 (533) resemble the small conical supports found on Knossian high-necked cup types IV and VI (ca. 450–400, 300–302, 316–320, Figs. 4.13, 4.14), whereas another base from site 529.1 (534) exhibits the presumably later development of an even higher conical stand (ca. 400–350). The spreading profile of 535 would hardly be out of place in the company of 4th-century Knossian cups, save only for the unusually large size of the Praisian example. Given this inferred development from a broad, low disk foot in the 6th century to a high conical support by the end of the 5th century, it seems reasonable to place 530 and 531 at an intermediate point in the 5th-century sequence (ca. 475–425). 529  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.14

Praisos site 538.2 (1994) Diam. of base 7.4 cm. Black gloss. Ring foot.There is a similar base from Praisos site 534.2 (1994). Ca. 525–500 530  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.14

Praisos site 511.1 (1994) Diam. of base 7.3 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 531  High-necked cup, base Praisos site 578.3 (1994)

Fig. 8.14

praisos and its territory

217

529

532

533

530

534

531 Figure 8.14. Archaic and Classical high-necked cup bases, Praisos Survey sites. Scale 1:2

535 Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 475–425 532  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.14

Praisos site 514.2 (1994) Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 450–400 533  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.14

Praisos site 529.1 (1994) Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 450–400 534  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.14

Praisos site 529.1 (1994) Diam. of base 6.6 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 400–350 535  High-necked cup, base

Fig. 8.14

Praisos site 545.2 (1994) Diam. of base 8.9 cm. Black gloss. Ca. 400–350

H ELLEN IS T IC C U P S Further development of the local cup and other fine-ware shapes in the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries is known only in broad outline (Fig. 8.15). Two different categories of base, including two examples of a small base characterized by a spreading profile and a narrow point of attachment to the belly (536, 537) and three other specimens with a spreading stemmed foot (538–540), are suggestive of 4th-century developments, although the

218

chapter 8

536

537

541

542

538

543

539

544

540

545

Figure 8.15. Classical and Hellenistic cup bases, Praisos Survey sites.

546

Scale 1:2

dating remains conjectural in the absence of close parallels from stratified deposits elsewhere on the island. 541 and 542 find no comparison in the published literature either. This brings us to a final group of bases characterized by a high pedestal stand (543–546). The profile of one (543) resembles that of a 4th-century cup base from Knossos (329, Fig. 4.16), but the rest exhibit a taller pedestal stand unparalleled in the Classical Knossian or indeed the Cretan repertoire. A series of rouletted vertical grooves decorates the stand of another example (544). Rouletting apparently becomes a popular decorative technique of the Praisian potters in the Hellenistic period, employed on cup bases and bowls. If an attested destruction of Praisos in the 140s can be equated with the end of the local ceramic industry, this provides at least some guide for dating these bases. But in the absence of definite parallels, it is impossible to determine whether a date in the 3rd, 2nd, or even the 4th century is more likely.34 Pottery of demonstrably Middle or Late Hellenistic date, whether local products or popular imported wares such as “Megarian” bowls, is absent from Praisos and the surrounding countryside. 536  Cup, base Praisos site 951 (1998)

Fig. 8.15

34. The discovery of similar bases in a rich unpublished Early Hellenistic deposit at Eleutherna (2000.L1.4112) suggests a 3rd-century or later date for the examples from Praisos. The rouletting is particular to Praisos. In addition to 544, there are four similar bases, from Praisos site 14, Praisos site 548.3 (1994), Praisos site 558.2 (1994), and Praisos site 561.4 (1994). Whitley (2006, p. 610) interprets this unusual decorative treatment as a rare expression of Praisian identity in the ceramic repertoire.

praisos and its territory

219

Diam. of base 5.9 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 537  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 538  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 513.2 (1994) Diam. of base 7.4 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 539  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 545.2 (1994) Diam. of base 7.9 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 540  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 561.2 (1994) Diam. of base 8.1 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 541  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 538 (1994) Diam. of base 8.6 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 542  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 535.2 (1994) Diam. of base 6.5 cm. Black gloss. 4th century 543  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.5 cm. Black gloss. 4th, 3rd, or 2nd century 544  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 561.3 (1994) Diam. of base 6.1 cm. Black gloss. Rouletting. 4th, 3rd, or 2nd century 545  Cup, base

Fig. 8.15

Praisos site 14 Diam. of base 6.0 cm. Black gloss. 4th, 3rd, or 2nd century 546  Cup, base Praisos site 515.1 (1994) Diam. of base 6.4 cm. Black gloss. 4th, 3rd, or 2nd century

Fig. 8.15

220

chapter 8

AT T ICIZING EXAM P LES We come to a final group of pottery from Praisos or from sites within its territory notable because they copy Attic forms (Fig. 8.16). The local imitations are distinguishable from Attic originals by their non-Attic fabric and idiosyncratic details of decoration. These copies can be dated by reference to Attic prototypes. One cup base from site 951 (1998) and another similar example from site 523.1 (1994) clearly copy the heavy torus foot of Attic-type skyphoi dated to the first half of the 4th century (as Agora XII, nos. 349, 350), and a third cup base from site 538 (1994) models a later form of Attic-type skyphos (as Agora XII, no. 353) dated to ca. 320. A rare 5th-century example of this practice of copying Attic forms is a local saltcellar (547) dated by reference to an Attic model (Agora XII, no. 903) to ca. 475.35 Finally, two lamps from the Praisos Survey area (548, 549), although not strictly Atticizing examples, closely approximate mainland Greek designs; for this reason they are listed here. They can be dated to ca. 500–425. Thus, evidence of Attic influence on local production is limited to overt copies of Attic forms; there is no indication that Praisian potters incorporated ideas from the Attic repertoire into the local line.36 In addition, 4th-century copies of Attic-type skyphoi occur elsewhere on Crete, both at Gortyn (443, 444, Figs. 6.9, 6.10) and in the Vrokastro– Gournia region; Attic style seems to have exerted a more pronounced influence on the East Cretan repertoires at this time, leading to greater uniformity in ceramic design. 547  Saltcellar, intact profile

Fig. 8.16

Praisos site 582.1 (1994) Diam. 8.9 cm, of rim 6.7 cm. Light brown fabric (10YR 7/4). Black gloss. Comparable to Agora IV, no. 78. Ca. 500–425 549  Lamp, rim to lower body Praisos site 14 Diam. 5.0 cm. Black gloss. Comparable to Agora IV, no. 78. Ca. 500–425

548

549 Figure 8.16. Atticizing saltcellar and lamps, Praisos Survey sites. Scale 1:2

Fig. 8.16

Praisos site 514.2 (1994) H. 2.9 cm; Diam. 5.0 cm, of rim 4.6 cm, of base 3.5 cm. Light brown fabric (7.5YR 6/4–10YR 6/4). Black gloss. Attic type comparable to Agora XII, no. 903. Ca. 475 548  Lamp, rim to lower body

547

Fig. 8.16

35. Based on current evidence, the copying of early-5th-century Attic forms in the local fabric occurs elsewhere on Crete only at Knossos (see Coldstream 1973b, p. 48, no. 1, fig. 4, pl. 18) and Eleutherna (see Chap. 3, p. 68). 36. According to Hopkinson (1903–1904, p. 150), “little foreign influence makes itself felt in the pottery of the island until the incoming of the black-figured and red-figured vases from Attica.” Even in the Classical period, the potters of Praisos took little notice of Attic models.

c hap ter 9

Pot t e ry S t y l e s and Influences

In addition to laying a foundation for bridging some gaps in the Cretan ceramic record of ca. 600–400, this book also aims to extend our knowledge of local craft production and the spread of styles in ancient Greece. This chapter surveys both local styles and developments at large, for a balance can be discerned between regionalism in detail and a general progression common to the island as a whole. Stylistic zones overlap with geographic boundaries and natural corridors of communication. In addition, the extent to which local potters responded to foreign influences varies over time and from one part of the island to another. Sixth-century potters remained content merely to copy mainland shapes in the local fabric. By contrast, Central Cretan workshops in the 5th century engaged in a dynamic process of amalgamation by incorporating some foreign elements into the traditional stock.

1. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, p. 78) relate the Knossian high-necked cup to a Peloponnesian model, a Lakonian drinking vessel, although they regard the Cretan cup as a distant relation. Cretan high-necked cups also resemble deep kantharoi of Lakonian manufacture (for which, see Boardman and Hayes 1966, pp. 91–92, fig. 44, pl. 68), suggesting another source of influence. Outside the cup repertoire, there are other signs of subtle Pelo­ ponnesian influence. For example, Boardman and Hayes (1966, p. 79) attribute the red and white linear decoration on Cretan hydriai found at Tocra to a Corinthian or Lakonian source. Notwithstanding these vague parallels with Peloponnesian cups and jugs, the Cretan cup evolved within established local traditions, as Haggis et al. (2007, p. 250) stress.

LO CAL S T Y LES Eleutherna, Knossos, Gortyn, Aphrati, Lyktos, Vrokastro, and Praisos furnish the main evidence on which this survey of the local and regional pottery styles of the Archaic and Classical periods is based. A number of other sites, however, also provide evidence of 6th- and/or 5th-century activity. Often scanty and derived from insecure or nonexistent archaeological contexts, the material from these other sites nonetheless deserves a place in the present study. Pottery and lamps from Kydonia, Roussa Ekklesia, and Itanos, for example, reveal both the idiosyncrasies of local potters and a shared common style. Crete boasts of a common tradition of b.g. pottery manufacture distinct from all other parts of Greece in the Archaic and Classical periods. The high-necked cup holds pride of place in all local repertoires. This standard Cretan drinking cup is a relative of the Peloponnesian mug, although island potters provided it with an independent evolution and identity.1 Much of the evidence for its production belongs to the 5th century. The 6thcentury predecessor of the high-necked cup at Eleutherna and Praisos exhibits clear differences from the Classical form, such as a deep bowl,

222

chapter 9

hemispherical proportions, and a wide, low base with little articulation of the foot. The proportions of the cup vary somewhat, with the relative height of the rim differing from site to site. Throughout the periods under consideration, the Eleuthernians prefer a relatively low rim (1.9–2.9 cm) compared to the Classical Knossian version (3.2–4.5 cm), whereas at Azoria and other eastern sites a higher rim (more than 5 cm in some cases) than the later Knossian gains currency in the 6th century.2 Classical cups from Aphrati have a rim as high (3.9–6.7 cm) as 38% of the total height of the vessel.3 Bodily proportions compared as a ratio of maximum width at the shoulder to total height reveal minor differences between sites and a general trend from squat to tall vessels over the period ca. 600–400 (Fig. 9.1).4 The range from each site may be a function of date. For example, one cup from the late-5th-century deposit at Aphrati differs from the rest by having morphologically earlier features, including lower proportions and a width-to-height ratio of 0.77, compared to 0.60–0.71 for the others. To take another example, Knossian cups from Late Archaic deposits are not as tall and narrow as their Classical successors. At Kommos, cups dated to the first half of the 4th century tend to have taller proportions (0.64–0.97) than Archaic and Classical examples (0.81–1.17).5 Stylistic affinities at most sites associate the Archaic version of the high-necked cup with Orientalizing prototypes, suggesting a continuous evolution of local forms along with a standardization of shape in the 6th century. Peloponnesian influence perhaps explains the different proportions of the Archaic Cretan cup from its Orientalizing predecessor. In addition, the debate concerning the influence of metalwork on Athenian potters may have relevance in the Cretan context.6 Given the accomplishments of the Orientalizing bronzesmiths, it would not be surprising if bronze prototypes lay behind the production of some 7th-century ceramic vessels. The only evidence for bronze prototypes in the Orientalizing period, however, is an exported bronze cup of possible Cretan manufacture found at Perachora.7 The Cretan high-necked cup apparently arose from an indigenous ceramic tradition under the influence of Peloponnesian styles. 2. For 6th-century cups with intact profiles from Azoria, see Haggis et al. 2004, p. 362, fig. 17:1, 2, p. 381, fig. 39:1. Cups from the 2004 and 2005 excavations add to this number; see Haggis et al. 2007, p. 251, fig. 6:1–3, p. 279, fig. 26:6, 7. With the exception of one cup with a low rim (2.0 cm), rim height ranges from 3.0 to 5.8 cm. 3. For the cup with the highest rim and the greatest width-to-height ratio, see Erickson 2002, p. 61, no. 59, figs. 14, 15. 4. There seems to be a greater range of proportions in the 6th century, with greater differences between sites and less significance attached to the precise width-to-height ratio. For example, two high-necked cups from Prinias, dated

to the early 6th century (see Palermo 1992, pp. 68–70, nos. 176, 177, fig. 13, pl. 21), both have ratios of 1.12, within the range of 6th-century cups but on the tall side for such early examples. The tendency for cups to become taller over time is certainly no hard-and-fast rule. 5. For Archaic and Classical cups with intact profiles from Kommos, see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 251, no. 397, pl. 4:19, p. 251, no. 398, pl. 4:19, p. 252, no. 415, pl. 4:19, p. 252, no. 416, pl. 4:20, p. 253, no. 419, pl. 4:20, p. 264, no. 525, pl. 4:23. Cups dated to ca. 400–340 include those published by Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 257, no. 456, pls. 4:21, 4:51, p. 261, no. 487, pl. 4:21, p. 261, no. 488,

pl. 4:21, p. 265, no. 542, pl. 4:23). 6. Vickers and Gill (1994, pp. 105– 153) present a thorough account of their theory of metal prototypes, including a discussion of the critical reaction. Neer (2002, pp. 186–205) musters strong counterarguments, advocating the traditional position that pottery workshops were largely independent of metalworkers. 7. Payne (in Perachora I, pp. 157– 158, pl. 58:1) lists the cup as a Pelo­ ponnesian product. Another possible bronze prototype for the Cretan cup comes from an unexpected source. A type of bronze vessel found in Etruscan tombs resembles the Classical highnecked cup, but this resemblance may be fortuitous.

pottery styles and influences

Figure 9.1. Ratio of shoulder width to total height for Archaic and Classical high-necked cups at select sites

223

No less than in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, regional variation is a hallmark of Cretan ceramic styles during the 6th and 5th centuries. Although the products of each conjectural production center are not always readily identifiable, a number of places developed highly distinctive techniques and decorative practices that distinguish them from their neighbors. Differences in fabric, temper, and decoration distinguish the pottery found at Eleutherna, Knossos, Gortyn, Aphrati, Lyktos, and Praisos. One notable difference lies in the manner of decoration underneath the base. Classical Knossian potters show a fondness for smearing the area underneath the base with irregular strokes of dilute gloss (Fig. 4.15), whereas at Gortyn this part of the base consistently receives a lustrous all-black coat (Fig. 6.5). The Eleuthernians either leave the bottom of the base entirely without gloss or coat it all black (Fig. 3.28). Like the Gortynians, the Praisians consistently coat this area, although the quality of gloss easily distinguishes Praisian cups from the more accomplished products of Gortyn (Fig. 8.13). Fifth-century cups found at Aphrati exhibit a groove underneath the foot, and other distinguishing features of this group include the unusually high “neck” of the standard Classical drinking cup and a predilection for bases with a “dropped” floor inside. Lyktian fine-ware production is distinguished by a micaceous and gritty red fabric. Low-necked cups accompany the standard drinking vessels at Eleutherna, Knossos, Gortyn, Aphrati, Priniatikos Pyrgos, and Azoria. At Knossos, the low-necked cup has a shorter rim, a deeper shape, and a different form of base, although overlap in the form of the two types obviates fine distinctions (Fig. 4.18). The Eleuthernian low-necked cup likewise possesses a shorter rim than its high-necked cousin, but in both cases the rim is shorter than that of the Knossian version, and thus the use of the terms is relative in the context (Fig. 3.26). At these sites, the low-necked cup made only minor inroads in the local repertoires. Another shape, the

224

chapter 9

tulip cup, supplements the cup inventory at Knossos and Gortyn (Fig. 4.20). This shape may be characteristic of the central area, although other examples have recently come to light at Priniatikos Pyrgos and Azoria.8 The kantharos is a shape that seems to be confined to Central Crete. Another idiosyncratic shape, the small bell-krater attested at Knossos and Aphrati, perhaps also has a Central Cretan association.9

REGIO NAL ST Y LES To what extent do the Cretan styles differ from one region to the next, how are these differences expressed, and what are the possible reasons for variation? The 10 production centers postulated here each possessed a distinctive local style, but regional similarities are also apparent. Mountain chains delineate separate spheres of stylistic influence, dividing the island into western, central, and eastern zones. Central Crete presents the strongest case for a regionally distinct pottery style. In contrast, the eastern zone encompasses a series of variations and diverse local styles. Less is known about West Crete, where the state of the evidence necessitates the use of Eleutherna as a type site. Comparative material from other western sites, including Kydonia and Kastello Varypetrou, receives tangential treatment in the following chapters, but such ancillary evidence has not yet brought a truly balanced perspective. Until more evidence is available from western sites, it is best to avoid sweeping generalizations about the stylistic characteristics of this region. In Central Crete, potters at Knossos and Gortyn pursued a common path of development whose respective products are almost indistinguishable. Cups with tall bases and attenuated forms, although encountered elsewhere, find their greatest expression in the Central Cretan repertoire, and the same style characterizes pottery from Kommos and other sites in the Mesara. This progressive style also exerted an influence on outlying areas, as at Aphrati and Lyktos, but only sporadically, at least until the 4th century. The similarities between Knossos and Gortyn extend to the manufacture of rare shapes, including the tulip cup and the Cretan kantharos, types generally not encountered elsewhere on the island. In contrast to the relative uniformity of the central zone, East Crete (the largest area under consideration) exhibits pronounced internal distinctions, making it difficult to identify regional developments in the face of numerous local styles. Indeed, East Crete serves as a case study of island regionalism, with Lyktos, Aphrati, Praisos, and Itanos each developing its own local style. Conservatism is a hallmark of Lyktian production in the 5th century, and manufacture of a small cup with an everted rim continues in a form essentially unchanged through the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Although Aphrati and sites within the Vrokastro–Gournia Survey transects share common ground in the production of what is probably a trefoil-mouthed jug (the evidence is fragmentary), otherwise the two areas follow different traditions. At Aphrati, the Orientalizing school of pot painting survives well into the 6th and 5th centuries in works of black

8. See Chap. 4, p. 157. 9. The example from Aphrati is too small to have served as a wine mixer; see Erickson 2002, p. 66, no. 82, fig. 19. Similar kraters from Argos on display in the Argos Archaeological Museum closely resemble the Cretan vessel in size, shape, and decoration. The smallest of these probably functioned as communal drinking cups.

pottery styles and influences

225

figure and pattern decoration in a debased style.10 Potters from Aphrati kept pace with 5th-century developments at Knossos and Gortyn, and perhaps even led the way with the introduction of a high conical support into the cup repertoire, although curiously outmoded forms occasionally also appear at Aphrati. These include a bell-krater, whose closest parallels in shape belong to the Protogeometric period. Despite these conservative tendencies, the pottery of this and most other East Cretan poleis can nonetheless be dated according to an internal typology. The size of the area under consideration and the difficulty of communication between sites may have fostered the development of numerous independent traditions in the eastern part of the island. Analysis of overland trade patterns based on the distribution of pottery between sites largely supports the conclusion of East Cretan provincialism and eclecticism: Aphrati, Lyktos (Fig. 2.2), Kato Symi, and the large urban nucleus in the Ierapetra valley identified by Watrous and Blitzer as ancient Larisa (Fig. 7.4) all exhibit a pattern of limited trade with their immediate neighbors or, at most, exchange restricted to other East Cretan poleis. Recent excavations at Azoria confirm this pattern of eastern provincialism, since most of the pottery from the site appears to be of local manufacture. I have only begun sorting the Classical pottery from Priniatikos Pyrgos, but nothing has struck me as coming from outside the Mirabello region, except a few Gortynian cups and bowls. In contrast, Knossos (Fig. 9.2) and Eleutherna (Fig. 9.3) display extensive intra-island contacts during the period ca. 600–400. Not all sites fit conveniently within these three geographic divisions. For instance, Aphrati shares the Central Cretan penchant for attenuated shapes and widely splaying bases, yet it produced a jug form whose closest parallels are found at sites farther east. Aphrati’s location may explain these stylistic connections, for it lies near the boundary between the central and eastern zones. Perhaps stylistic variation correlates with smallscale geographic boundaries. It seems reasonable to assume that the Kydonian plain, the western foothills of Mt. Ida, the Mesara, the Pediada, the Mirabello region, and the Siteian peninsula encouraged the development of autonomous styles, but the limited amount of archaeological exploration prevents us from testing these hypothetical divisions against hard evidence. 10. Although this school of pottery manufacture, exemplified by the finds from Geometric and Orientalizing tombs at Aphrati, was once thought to have come to an end in the 6th century, it is now understood to have included a small Archaic and Classical component. In his seminal study of the Orientalizing ceramic and bronze-working traditions at Aphrati, Levi (1945, p. 18) wistfully and poetically concludes that in the second half of the 7th century,

“we see the last flight of the imagination of the old civilization of Crete before it settles into the darkness of its exhausted, lethargic sleep.” On the contrary, however, 6th-century material from a building southeast of the acropolis points to later activity. Lebessi (1969, fig. 1, pls. 425, 426), who identifies this large, quadrangular building as a shrine, discovered Geometric and Orientalizing pottery and a thin scatter of 6th-century material. If the pots from what is

probably a 5th-century house at Aphrati are representatives of the same tradition, they suggest much later production than previously realized, with implications for settlement history; see Erickson 2002, p. 44. The later style draws on a restricted repertoire of Orientalizing motifs (now limited to stacked triangles, rows of dots, tongue patterns, and lobes) accompanied by simplified execution and arrangement of the motifs.

Lera Cave Arkoudia Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Kydonia Polichna (?) Aptera Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

White Mountains

Lappa

Sybrita

Tarrha

Chersonessos

Amnisos

Axos

Eleutherna

Knossos

Mt. Ida

Archanes

Idaian Cave

Dreros Lyktos

Prinias Phaistos Gortyn Kommos

Mesara

10

20

30

40

50 km

Psychro Cave Aphrati

Priniatikos Pyrgos

Mt. Dikti

Siteia Tholos Azoria

Kato Symi Myrtos

Kamilari

0

Lasithi

Itanos

Olous

Larisa (?) Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 9.2. Movement of island b.g. pottery to and from Knossos, ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

Lera Cave Arkoudia Kydonia

Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Polichna (?) Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

Eleutherna

White Mountains

Axos

Tylissos

Chersonessos

Amnisos Knossos

Lappa Sybrita

Tarrha

Eltynia

Lasithi

Priniatikos Pyrgos

Psychro Cave Phaistos Kommos

Gortyn

Mesara

10

20

30

40

50 km

Aphrati

Mt. Dikti

Vrokastro

Kato Symi Myrtos

Kamilari

0

Itanos

Olous Lyktos

Siteia Tholos Azoria

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

Larisa (?) Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 9.3. Movement of island b.g. pottery to and from Eleutherna, ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

228

chapter 9

Proximity to intra-island channels of communication may also have influenced stylistic developments. In the west, for instance, Eleutherna’s conservative ceramic style may be a product of geographic isolation from Central Crete, considering its inland position on the opposite slope of Mt. Ida, whereas the port town of Kydonia evinces closer ties to mainland Greek ceramic styles, following a different path of development even from that of the progressive potters of Knossos and Gortyn. The diversity of East Cretan styles and the conservatism of this area may be products of the mountainous environment and the difficulty of communication between sites.11 Even so, the mountains could also function as permeable boundaries across which stylistic influence occasionally passed. For instance, potters at Aphrati and within the Vrokastro–Gournia Survey zone, although separated by the Diktaian Mountains, produced an almost identical class of large cup or jug. Also, the profusion of cup bases with a stepped-profile underfoot throughout the island in the Archaic period argues against stylistic uniformity as a consequence of direct geographic proximity. In addition, stylistic variation possesses a chronological component. Strong local traditions take hold in the period ca. 600–525, making it difficult to relate stylistic developments at one site to the next, even when the two sites lie in close proximity. This is especially true in the eastern part of the island. In the late 6th and early 5th century, however, Cretan potters maintained closer ties with their neighbors, as deduced from the nearly simultaneous introduction of the Classical form of high-necked cup at Eleutherna, Knossos, Gortyn, and Aphrati. After the diffusion of this shape, local potters exhibit slightly greater independence in the 5th century. Eventually this trend reverses, and a veritable stylistic koine emerges in island ceramic design in the early 4th century.

OVER SEAS INF LUENCE Regionalism is more pronounced in terms of foreign influence on pottery styles. As Callaghan stated in his publication of Archaic and Classical pottery from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, “Knossian pottery during the periods under discussion was a complex amalgam of local traditions descended from the early Iron Age and selective borrowings from Attic and other styles. To follow the process of assimilation and adaptation, some might say perversion, of the borrowed elements was one of the most exciting and interesting aspects of this study.”12 The expanded scope of this work brings welcome confirmation of these conclusions and an appreciation of the various ways Cretan potters incorporated foreign influences into the local repertoires. First, we must attempt to distinguish mere copies of foreign products from the active integration and accommodation of foreign elements into the local repertoire. Faithful copies may suggest nothing more than casual acquaintance with overseas imports, whereas integration and accommodation illustrate a dynamic process in which potters borrowed from foreign stock and integrated these elements into a traditional inventory. In this respect, a line can be drawn between Archaic and Classical practices. Sixth-

11. Sjögren (2008) compares the fragmented cultural landscape of the Mirabello region to the more spatially unified Mesara plain. 12. Callaghan 1992, p. 90.

pottery styles and influences

Figure 9.4. Archaic aryballos from a Kydonian tomb (Chania Archaeological Museum 1175). Scale 1:1. Cour-

tesy the Chania Archaeological Museum

13. At Praisos, Marshall (1905– 1906, p. 63) discovered what appears to be a local copy of a Corinthian aryballos. According to M. AndreadakiVlasaki (pers. comm.), unpublished aryballoi from Kydonian tombs on display in the Chania Archaeological Museum may be local imitations. 14. Callaghan (1978, p. 10) downplays this debt to the high-necked cup. 15. Homann-Wedeking 1950, p. 170, no. 2, pl. 12:b.

229

century Cretan potters show little propensity to incorporate foreign elements into the native repertoires, notwithstanding their demonstrable awareness of mainland products. Imports of Lakonian kraters in the 6th century inspired direct translations of the shape at Kydonia, Eleutherna (34, Figs. 3.4, 3.5), and Knossos (240, Fig. 4.2). The last two sites also yielded copies of Lakonian skyphoi (45, Fig. 3.4, 241, 242, Fig. 4.2). In addition, potters at Knossos and Aphrati produced faithful copies of the Corinthian kotyle, a shape easily distinguished from the standard Cretan cup by its twin horizontal handles. A copy of a Corinthian exaleiptron appears in the local fabric at Eleutherna (18, Figs. 3.2, 3.3), while the Kydonians and Praisians placed local imitations of Corinthian aryballoi in their tombs (Fig. 9.4).13 The local ceramic repertoires, however, show little influence from these quarters: development springs from a distinctly native tradition. In the 5th century, island potters exhibit less restraint in the face of increasing foreign influence, although their response varies, with areas of greater or lesser enthusiasm for the fusion of foreign and native elements in the production of hybrids. Those places less receptive to foreign influence generally diverge from other island production centers as well, for both factors relate to the receptivity of the community to outside influence. This geographic pattern generally follows the tripartite division of the island noted earlier, although there are important exceptions. We begin with Central Crete. Unlike such exact copies of foreign shapes produced at Knossos in the Late Archaic period as the Attic-type exaleiptron and cup-skyphos, the Classical kantharos (Fig. 4.19) signals a different process, bridging foreign and local traditions. Indeed, Knossos and Gortyn share common ground in the production of this vessel. Although an Attic prototype, as Callaghan observed, serves as a source of inspiration for the Cretan kantharos, the tall, slightly flaring rim and broad hemispherical bowl of the local version reveal a debt to the Knossian high-necked cup.14 Moreover, the Knossian kantharos borrows the form of its handle from the local cup repertoire, a factor setting it apart from the Attic kantharos with its distinctive high-swung handles. Moreover, if the fabric of a lekythos from a tomb at Ierapetra correctly reveals a Knossian or Gortynian source, it also illustrates Central Cretan tendencies (445, Fig. 7.1). The standard Attic 5th-century cylindrical lekythos provides a clear precedent for the shape (Fig. 11.4). More typical of Central Cretan production, to judge by the finds from an early 4th-century kiln deposit at Knossos, is a baggy vessel that lacks a true neck and whose foot is insubstantial.15 The example from Ierapetra bears little resemblance to these, but it is not a direct copy of the Attic shape. First, the foot owes little to the thick disk-shaped support of the Attic prototype; rather, what we have here is a substitution for the Attic support of a flaring conical foot expropriated from the high-necked cup repertoire. Second, the Cretan potter has eschewed the large nozzle of the Attic original. Third, although the local creation expresses the influence of the Attic decorative scheme, the Cretan potter has simplified the shoulder ornament and, somewhat surprisingly, added a vertical row of dots along the neck. The result is a charming, albeit provincial, product—as judged from the standpoint of Athenian proportions and sensibilities.

230

chapter 9

The propensity of Classical Knossian and Gortynian potters to incorporate foreign elements into the local repertoire stands in sharp contrast to the continued West Cretan practice of wholesale copying and the absence at Kydonia and Phalasarna of a strong local tradition in the 5th century. A red-figure lekythos of local manufacture from a tomb at Phalasarna illustrates the debt of West Cretan potters to Attic models (Fig. 9.5).16 Although the shape and the decorative scheme of the Cretan lekythos derive closely from the Attic series, minor details of potting and decoration allow the local product to be distinguished from Attic prototypes. Out of all 5th-century production centers, a single workshop in West Crete copied Attic figural style, suggesting that the potters from this area drew special inspiration from Attic models. Evidence from Kydonia supplements our picture of Atticizing trends in the western part of the island. A pale brown fabric distinguishes local products from Attic originals of almost identical type.17 Presumed copies of Attic b.g. shapes include a type C drinking cup from the cave of Arkoudia on the Akrotiri peninsula and a lekythos from the probable acropolis of Kydonia.18 It is questionable whether Phalasarna and Kydonia engaged in much b.g. production of their own, save for such faithful copies of mainland Greek shapes. The published 5th-century finds from Lera and Kydonia consist entirely of Attic imports; fine-ware pottery of identifiable local style is absent. In addition, Attic imports make up all reported grave goods from a 5th-century burial ground at Phalasarna.19 Granted, the publication record falls short of comprehensive representation, but there is little reason to think that 5th-century pottery of local manufacture is consistently being overlooked, since the publications also illustrate representatives of the more elusive 6th-century Cretan style.20 At Kastello Varypetrou, Cretan cups begin appearing in the tombs at the end of the 5th century; grave goods during the period ca. 500–475 consist almost entirely of Attic and Lakonian imports (or faithful copies of imported shapes).21 Moreover, well debris and other domestic deposits at Kydonia have not revealed a single cup of local style. By the end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th century, Kydonia, Tarrha, and Rokka all produced a highnecked cup fashioned along familiar lines, marking the beginning of a discernible local style.22 The attested Samian and Aiginetan interest in Kydonia ca. 524–519 suggests one reason why imports flourish and why foreign styles exert such a strong influence on West Cretan production to 16. Cook 1990, p. 70. 17. For a discussion of Kydonian fabric based on exported pots found at Eleutherna and Knossos, see Chap. 3, p. 78. 18. Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki (1976, p. 241, no. O30, fig. 10) illustrate the cup from Arkoudia. For the lekythos from Kydonia, see Hallager and Hahn 1997, p. 202, no. 77-P 0413, pls. 62, 96:d.6. A b.g. cup from the same excavations gives every indication of being a Cretan copy

of an Attic shape dated to ca. 480; see Hallager and Hahn 1997, p. 202, no. 77-P 0411, pls. 63, 96:d.1. 19. Tzedakis 1969, pl. 441. Gondicas’s (1988, pp. 109–110) later examination of these finds does not mention pottery of possible local origin. 20. As, for instance, the bases with ring feet illustrated by Hahn (1997, pp. 210–211, no. 70-P 1351, pl. 62; no. 70-P 1354, pl. 62; no. 70-P 1356, pl. 62).

Figure 9.5. Red-figure lekythos from an unknown West Cretan production center, dated to ca. 425–400 (Rethymnon Archaeological Museum 709). Cook 1990, pl. 9:c. Repro-

duced with permission of the British School at Athens

21. The only local pots at Kastello Varypetrou from the 5th century are a “cup with everted rim” and three small jugs (Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1). 22. Weinberg (1960, p. 107, no. 72, pl. 29:h) discovered a high-necked cup at Tarrha. A date for this cup in the first quarter of the 4th century is in accord with the morphology of the vessel and its archaeological context (a disturbed burial of the first half of the 4th century was found in close proximity).

pottery styles and influences

23. For Samian and Aiginetan commercial interests in West Crete, see Chap. 11, pp. 291–294. 24. The scant traces of this peripteral building consist of architectural members, including Doric column drums, discovered in the vicinity of Plateia 1866. Because column drums are imprecise dating tools, they make it difficult to determine whether it is an Archaic or a Classical construction. 25. Overseas imports are absent from the 5th-century domestic deposit from Aphrati, and Erickson (2002, p. 74, nos. 107, 108, fig. 27) documents only two overseas imports, both Corinthian aryballoi, at Kato Symi from ca. 600–400. 26. The findspot of one of the cups is listed in the excavation notebooks as Itanos 1997.6282.01–02 (max. p.Diam. 9.7 cm, rim 9.0 cm). A purple fabric characterizes these cups. This suggests local production, because a 4th-century cup base of definite Cretan manufacture from the site exhibits the same purple fabric. Also from the cemetery comes an Attic one-handled cup (Itanos 1997.6178.02–09) dated to ca. 500–480. For an overview of imports at Itanos, see Apostolakou et al. 2004–2005.

231

the neglect of identifiable local traditions.23 Indeed, mainland Greek influence may extend to other artistic endeavors. The possible construction of a peripteral Doric temple at Kydonia in the Archaic or Classical period, the minting of pseudo-Aiginetan staters, and the production of Atticizing red-figure pottery in the area set Kydonia apart during this period from the other poleis studied here.24 These examples imparted a strong mainland Greek flavor to local production. Thriving trade connections inundated Kydonia with mainland Greek fashions and perhaps discouraged the development of distinct local styles. Yet Cretan poleis were capable of varied responses to the same historical process. For example, Eleutherna also benefited from this trade relationship while maintaining a conservative ceramic tradition. Perhaps Kydonia’s exceptional receptivity to foreign styles was a function of its colonial history. In contrast to both the Atticizing practice of West Crete and the amalgamation of foreign and native elements typical of Knossian and Gortynian workshops, East Cretan potters remained largely free of Attic and all other foreign influences in the 5th century. Overseas imports to Aphrati and Kato Symi are scarce at this time, and sites within the Vrokastro–Gournia Survey zone exhibit the same narrow outlook.25 Although East Crete was not entirely cut off from the outside world, as indicated by a trickle of Attic imports at Olous, Praisos, Ierapytna, and Itanos, this potential source of influence leaves scarcely a trace in the various local styles. For instance, at Praisos direct copies of Attic-type lamps (548, 549, Fig. 8.16) and an Attic saltcellar (547, Fig. 8.16) reveal a familiarity with Attic products, but local potters made no attempt to promote foreign elements in the traditional stock. Cycladic imports at Olous, Azoria, and Itanos point to a regional pattern of trade with the Cyclades in the 6th century, although the volume of this overseas traffic pales in comparison to the extensive Peloponnesian circuit associated with West Crete. Itanos stands apart as an exception to this general East Cretan pattern. Although the site occupies a remote location at the extreme eastern end of the island, foreign trade apparently flourished. Itanos imported b.g. pottery from other island production centers long distances from Aphrati and Eleutherna, resulting in a circulation pattern unusual for an eastern site (Fig. 9.6). This pattern bears a closer resemblance to Eleutherna, Knossos, and other well-connected places. Moreover, Corinthian, Attic, and Cycladic pots found at the cemetery of Itanos and the suburban sanctuary at Vamies document extensive overseas contacts by the end of the 6th century. In addition, local potters apparently drew inspiration from this foreign stock. For example, production of one-handled cups (or bowls) from what was probably a single workshop marks the beginning of a discernible local tradition (Fig. 9.7).26 Attic one-handlers served as the inspiration for these cups, but the Itanian version is not a direct translation insofar as it substitutes a concave inset rim for the plain Attic one. If it is valid to extrapolate from the chronology of the Attic series, the horseshoeshaped handles of the local products suggest a date in the middle of the 5th century. This amalgamation of native and foreign styles is more typical of Central Cretan practice.

Lera Cave Arkoudia Phalasarna Polyrrhenia

Kydonia Polichna (?) Aptera Kastello Varypetrou Ayia Pelayia

White Mountains

Lappa

Sybrita

Tarrha

Axos

Eleutherna

Tylissos

Mt. Ida

Amnisos

Kommos

Mesara

0

10

20

30

40

50 km

Siteia Tholos Vrokastro

Aphrati

Kato Symi Myrtos

Kamilari

Itanos

Olous

Lasithi

Prinias Phaistos Gortyn

Dreros

Lyktos

Archanes Eltynia

Idaian Cave

Chersonessos

Knossos

Azoria Larisa (?)

Ierapytna

Ayios Farango

Figure 9.6. Movement of island b.g. pottery to Itanos, ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

Palaikastro

Roussa Ekklesia Praisos

pottery styles and influences

233

Figure 9.7. One-handled cups made at Itanos, after an Attic prototype dated to ca. 450. Scale 2:3. Courtesy

D. Viviers

27. For contacts between East Crete and the Cyclades, see Chap. 11, pp. 294–295. 28. This passage has received considerable attention in the light of possible Cretan participation in the colonization of Cyrene and other North African colonies; see Chap. 1, p. 14. With literary sources giving the impression of friendly relations between Crete and Thera, S. Morris (1992, p. 137) finds it surprising that Cretan exports to Thera cease abruptly around 600.

Itanian potters probably became familiar with Attic shapes through the intermediary of a Cycladic trade network. Because Archaic Cycladic pottery is present at Itanos, and the one-handler was a particular favorite of Cycladic workshops, Itanos may have functioned as a Cretan port of call for Cycladic trade, an understandable role given Itanos’s location more or less opposite the southernmost Cycladic island.27 Moreover, the literary tradition preserves a faint echo of 7th-century relations between Itanos and one of the Cyclades, for Herodotos (4.154) records that a fisherman from Itanos, Korobios, agreed to serve as a guide for the Therans in the foundation of Cyrene.28 Presumably the fisherman’s knowledge of the area and friendly relations between the two islands factored into the Theran decision to employ a Cretan guide. This wider context helps explain the exceptional nature of Itanos as the only investigated East Cretan polis having extensive connections to the rest of the island and the outside world. This survey of the Cretan ceramic repertoires stresses the tripartite division of the island as an important factor in the development of local styles and the receptivity of these divisions to foreign influence. The potters of Central Crete display a similar style and share common ground in the production of specialty shapes, whereas Kydonian influence in the west led to a different pattern characterized by abundant imports and a pronounced overseas influence on local production. In East Crete, the mountainous environment and difficulty of communications prevented a common style from developing, although stylistic connections between neighboring sites suggest at least some interaction. Most eastern sites give the impression of a conservative and isolationist stance, Itanos notwithstanding. These geographic boundaries also impose limitations on cultural interaction and have a bearing on the historical conclusions presented in the final chapters.

c hap ter 10

I nt e r nal Tran s f or m at i on s

Since indigenous writings have not survived and foreign authors took little notice of Crete, no coherent narrative exists for events of the 6th and 5th centuries. Inscriptions provide some insight, but most of the epigraphic evidence comes from Gortyn and a handful of other sites. Also, monumental sculpture, architecture, and other finds useful for developing chronologies register a blank during these periods, leaving only plain pottery and other fragmentary evidence. Moreover, the concept of decline— whether defined as political, artistic, or demographic—has characterized these periods in most historical accounts. Traditionally, the gaps in the archaeological record of ca. 600–400 have been interpreted as signs of political isolation and internal collapse. Ceramic sequences frame the problem in different terms, since the occupational histories of most Cretan settlements show no sign of massive fluctuations. A major exception, Knossos, may have been the victim of war; elsewhere, the lower but not absent archaeological profile and the decline of monumental art forms favor an economic or cultural explanation.

TH E KN OS S IAN RE C ES S I ON By establishing a timeline for Cretan developments in the absence of written records, the formulation of local ceramic sequences can help to evaluate theories of demographic and cultural decline. The long span of these documented ceramic traditions does not support the idea of widespread depopulation. Knossos may have suffered a contraction of population or an abandonment during the period ca. 600–525, but its case is exceptional. Knossos does merit considerable attention, because after 100 years of excavation every category of archaeological information registers a near blank in the 6th century. As a consequence, it bears chief responsibility for the current impression of an islandwide economic, demographic, or cultural decline. Possible signs of a contraction in population occur in all areas that have been excavated. Direct evidence for occupation in the form of architecture with associated pottery is particularly meager at Knossos from the 7th to the 4th century. Yet the situation becomes far more acute in the 6th

236

chapter 10

century, which is characterized by an almost complete absence of architectural or other evidence for the period ca. 600–525.1 A single well deposit (UM:GG) dated to ca. 590 has emerged as the only unambiguous trace of domestic activity. In the final quarter of the 6th century, however, abundant evidence from well deposits and refuse pits again permits us to track the history of the settlement. Exhaustive study of earlier pottery from later contexts reveals no definite sign of activity in the critical lean period of ca. 590–525. In the stratigraphic record, Late Archaic deposits in the area of the Southwest Houses and above the Unexplored Mansion were found superimposed immediately above Late Orientalizing strata, suggesting a break in activity.2 Furthermore, the sanctuaries at Knossos give the impression of declining activity. All are either foundations subsequent to the gap or, in the case of earlier cults, show an appreciable drop in the number of offerings during the 6th century. The Sanctuary of Demeter on the slopes of Gypsades hill (Fig. 4.1) is the main example of the latter type. A single terracotta figurine out of 1,000 catalogued specimens from the sanctuary emerges as the only item dated to ca. 600–525, in contrast to a rich collection of Late Geometric and Early Orientalizing votives.3 These earlier finds include terracotta figurines, molded Daedalic busts, and jewelry (beads, pins, and fibulae).4 In addition, Archaic pottery is almost entirely absent from the sanctuary. A similar pattern of declining activity is evident in the case of the “Temple of Rhea” on the site of the Minoan palace. After a purported phase of 8th-century worship, the evidence for which consists of an animal figurine and a small collection of Geometric pottery, there follows a long gap in the record during the 7th and 6th centuries. A cache of Aiginetan coins and a collection of terracotta krateriskoi perhaps mark a modest resurgence in the 5th century.5 A third sanctuary, the “Shrine of Glaukos,” gives every indication of being a new foundation at the beginning of the 5th century. Thus, evidence from domestic and religious contexts gives a uniform impression of declining activity in, if not an outright abandonment of, Knossos during the period ca. 590–525.6 Attention paid by archaeologists to the Minoan palace and its dependencies has skewed the evidence in favor of Bronze Age occupation and to the neglect of the Archaic and Classical periods. If the Archaic civic 1. Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 292) summarize the evidence from the settlement. 2. For instance, a Late Archaic pit (SWH:K) was cut directly into the ruins of a 7th-century house; see Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 199–202. In addition, the “Shrine of Glaukos” occupies the grounds of an abandoned 7th-century house, with no substantial trace of intervening activity; see Callaghan 1978, pp. 3–5. 3. Higgins (in Coldstream 1973a, p. 59, no. 11) dates this fragmentary figurine to the middle of the 6th century, squarely in the midst of the

archaeological desert of ca. 590–525. 4. Coldstream 1973a, p. 186; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 296–297. 5. Evans (1921–1935, vol. 2, pp. 5–7, 346, 349) identifies the building as the Sanctuary of Rhea known from literary sources. Palmer (1969, pp. 71–83), however, challenges Evans’s historical date for the building. He identifies the structure as a Bronze Age megaron, although the votive terra­cottas would seem to rule out this interpretation. Callaghan (in Popham 1978, pp. 185–187, pl. 27:b) dates the earliest krateriskoi to the first half of

the 5th century based on parallels with the feet of high-necked cups. My examination of this material suggests instead that the earliest krateriskoi in the deposit are contemporaries of later high-necked cups, type VI, dated to ca. 425–400. A date late in the 5th century for the revival of Rhea’s cult also seems likely based on the Aiginetan coins. Coldstream (2000, pp. 287, 296) dates this deposit of coins to no earlier than the middle of the 5th century. 6. Callaghan 1978, pp. 4–7; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 297.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

237

center lies outside the present limits of excavation, it would be that much more difficult to identify artifacts from the 6th century. Coldstream, among others, has assumed that post-Minoan Knossos occupied more or less the same ground as the earlier Bronze Age center.7 This level of continuity, however, does not preclude a slight change in the location of the urban nucleus. Two Late Archaic inscriptions found near the Roman Basilica may mark the position of a public building north of the palace and, by implication, the location of the Archaic civic center (Fig. 4.1).8 The environs of the palace seem to have been given over in the historical Greek periods to residential buildings interspersed with suburban sanctuaries, lending further support to the idea of the city center lying elsewhere. A shift in the location of the civic center might explain the small concentration of 6th-century finds, but it cannot account for their almost complete absence from the edges of the city (those that have been investigated so far) and suburban sanctuaries alike. Archaeological surveys in the ancient Mediterranean have demonstrated that even the smallest settlements—rural farmsteads or hamlets—commonly leave scatters of residual pottery in wide concentric rings around the center of habitation.9 A sizable community—a large village or polis—would leave extensive traces in the form of secondary material spread out into areas far removed from the heart of the settlement.10 So, the absence of such evidence from anywhere at Knossos argues against a conjectured relocation of the civic center as the sole explanation for the 6th-century gap. The absence of Knossian exports to other parts of Crete ca. 600–525 also makes it seem unlikely that a sizable community existed at Knossos. Based on form and fabric, Knossian pottery is readily identifiable, but none of this date has been identified at other sites. The absence of Knossian exports is particularly significant at Eleutherna and Ayia Pelayia, where an interruption of imports occurs against the backdrop of slight trade in Knossian pottery both immediately before and after the gap.11 The coastal Sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas at Amnisos in the territory of Knossos also exhibits a substantial break in activity ca. 600–525.12 Ayia Pelayia and Amnisos follow the same chronological pattern as Knossos, indicating that the gap is not simply a perceptual problem stemming from the building 7. Coldstream (1991, pp. 297– 299; 2000, p. 297) proposes that the Knossians, unlike other Early Iron Age communities that were thought to have fragmented into smaller village units, never gave up the idea of nucleated settlement. For the spatial organization of other Cretan poleis, see Prent 2005, pp. 220–226. 8. Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 18; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 298; Coldstream 2000, p. 298. For the inscriptions, see Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 42, no. 112, p. 43, no. 118. 9. Bintliff and Snodgrass (1988) consider various explanations for off-site scatters of pottery encountered

on survey. 10. For instance, as Snodgrass (1990, pp. 122–124) observes, an extensive scatter of residual pottery marks the site of ancient Askra near Thebes. This scatter extends into areas far removed from the putative center of the city. At other sites, traces of habitation may appear in secondary contexts such as floor or well deposits. 11. For Knossian imports to Eleutherna, see Chap. 3, pp. 77–78. My study of unpublished pottery from Ayia Pelayia suggests that a handful of Knossian cups, identified by their style and pale orange fabric (5YR 7/6),

reached the sanctuary in the 7th century. There follows a gap in the 6th century. A cup base with a steppedprofile underfoot (Knossos Stratigraphical Museum, Ayia Pelayia; dated to ca. 525–500) may be the first sign of a recovery. 12. Schäfer (1992, pp. 181, 183) dates several bronzes and faience from Amnisos to the 6th century. Webb (in Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 301), however, proposes a 7th-century date for the faience. According to Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 299, n. 78), the reported gap of ca. 480–400 at Amnisos may be an illusion.

238

chapter 10

history at Knossos and the vagaries of excavation. Perhaps Knossian products did not circulate because local production stopped or was curtailed. Taken at face value, the evidence points to a substantial reduction, if not a complete break, in fine-ware production at Knossos and a definite gap in the import record ca. 600–525. Not a single scrap of pottery can be dated within the lean period of ca. 590–525, and all other categories of evidence pertaining to the city go into remission.13 For instance, after five inscribed 7th-century pots, there are no inscriptions at Knossos until the final quarter of the 6th century.14 A typical Greek polis engages in local production or consumption of fine-ware pottery, and so this gap in the artifact sequences is troubling. In short, negative evidence from the most thoroughly investigated Archaic settlement on Crete strongly suggests internal transformations. Past attempts to explain this apparent recession have inclined toward cataclysmic events, whether the specific trigger was environmental or human. One popular explanation connects Knossian troubles with the Theran drought, which, according to Herodotos (4.151), compelled the Therans, around 630, to found the colony of Cyrene in Libya.15 Although there is no direct evidence for a drought on Crete in the Archaic period, the coincidence in timing between the Theran drought and the break in the series of Knossian burials has encouraged archaeologists to link the two events and posit a catastrophic drought the effects of which were felt on both islands. Would a drought or famine, no matter how devastating, be sufficient to cause the abandonment of one of Crete’s foremost cities for two or three generations? No positive evidence of any kind—the digging of deeper wells or the filling of them in response—supports such an environmental catastrophe.16 Still, climate change may have been one of several interrelated causes of the apparent Knossian recession. For example, localized droughts may have exacerbating interpolis hostilities. Another explanation attributes the apparent decline of Knossos to human agency. The traditional enemy of Knossos in the 4th century was Lyktos, which was a Spartan colony, according to ancient writers. Pausanias (2.31.3) relates that Sparta and Knossos went to war in the time of the Cretan seer Epimenides, whose traditional date lies at the end of the 7th century. Sparta, according to its enemies, captured Epimenides and put him to death for pronouncing unfavorable oracles against them. Perhaps this war drew in Lyktos on the side of Sparta in a combined force against Knossos. A military connection between Sparta and Lyktos in the 7th century depends, however, on late and suspect testimony, the recorded employment of Lyktian archers by the Spartans in the conflicts of the Second Messenian War.17 The evidence for such a war between Knossos 13. The only exception is a recently discovered kouros of Archaic style, discussed in Chap. 1 (p. 7, n. 28). 14. Coldstream, Callaghan, and Musgrave (1981, p. 151, no. 117, fig. 5) date a graffito scrap from a tomb on Gypsades hill to the 7th century. Johnston (1996) discusses a 7th-century inscription cut on the shoulder of a Late Orientalizing aryballos. The other

published graffiti consist of two examples from a Late Orientalizing deposit (UM:Well 12); see Coldstream and Sackett 1978, p. 56, nos. 46, 47, fig. 10. In addition, an unpublished graffito from a Late Orientalizing cup of presumed Knossian fabric (5YR 7/4) from the sanctuary at Ayia Pelayia bears an inscription along the rim: (retrograde) iota, rho, kappa, or omikron; eta;

sigma; pi, gamma, or lambda. 15. Huxley (1994, p. 129) and Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 301) discuss this evidence. 16. As noted by Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 301). 17. Paus. 3.12.11. Perlman (1992, p. 200; 2000, p. 68) questions the sources on this score. See also Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 302.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

239

and Lyktos is weak, given that there is no contemporary record of a conflict between Sparta and Knossos, and Epimenides may not even be a historical figure. Moreover, the Spartans denied that this war took place, and Pausanias was in no position to judge between the conflicting oral accounts of Sparta and its enemies. Even if Lyktos had been a colony of Sparta, there is little reason to think that a colony felt obliged to side with the mother city in the event of every war or performed this obligation even if it existed, whether formally or not.18 Archaeological evidence indicates that Lyktos may have gained control over the geographically proximate Lasithi plateau as early as ca. 600, but this need not imply a concerted military campaign in the direction of Knossos. Watrous, whose study of settlement patterns on Lasithi documents an extinction of small hamlets and rural sanctuaries at the end of the 7th century, interprets this wave of abandonment as devastation caused by Lyktos in a bid to expand its territory.19 Because most of the material collected on survey is plain pottery without reliable chronologies, it is difficult to accept this picture of rural abandonment. In fact, there is no verifiable way of knowing how far Lyktos may have advanced at this early date, for its precise territorial limits do not become apparent until the Hellenistic period.20 No positive evidence unequivocally supports a substantial expansion of Lyktos in the 6th century. Antony Raubitschek once argued that a cache of inscribed bronze armor, allegedly found at Aphrati, was originally set up by Lyktians as spoils of war in newly acquired territory.21 Yet the sole basis of this intriguing suggestion, an inscribed omega with a double circle attributed to a Lyktian hand, is an orthographic detail that, as Raubitschek himself rightly cautioned, may well be a regional characteristic of Archaic Cretan scripts, not a hallmark of Lyktos alone.22 Given these uncertainties about Archaic Cretan scripts, it is equally possible that the bronze armor found at Aphrati was inscribed there and commemorated one of the city’s own victories over a neighbor. Not until the end of the 5th century does it seem plausible that Lyktos won control over territory on the south coast.23 18. Although Lyktos claimed Lakonian origin, Graham (1964, pp. 73, 135) regards the obligations of a colony to mother city in time of war as less than absolute. Greek history is replete with examples of colonies acting against the wishes of their mother cities, as most famously illustrated by Kerkyra’s opposition to Corinth on the eve of the Peloponnesian War. Perlman (2005, pp. 318–319) suggests that the tradition that Lyktos was a colony of Sparta was a 5th-century invention springing from the political circumstances of the First Peloponnesian War. 19. Watrous 1982, pp. 84–86. Hayden (2004, p. 188) and Haggis (2005, p. 85) endorse his conclusions. Sites on the Lasithi plateau may not have been the only victims of Lyktian expansion. Seneca (Q Nat. 3.2.5) preserves Theophrastos’s account of the

destruction of Arkades. See also Guarducci 1935, p. 6. 20. Pendlebury (1939, p. 10) traces the main routes of communication down from the Lasithi plateau. The principal western route from Lasithi passes Lyktos. Watrous (1982, p. 23) acknowledges the difficulty of determining the territorial limits of Lyktos in the Archaic and Classical periods. 21. Raubitschek’s (in Hoffmann 1972, pp. 15–16) proposed Lyktian origin for the armor is followed by Boardman (1982, p. 227) and Huxley (1994). See also Marginesu 2005, p. 91. 22. If the Archaic script of Aphrati were shown to employ another form of omega, the case of the armor’s origins would be decided in favor of Lyktos. As it is, there exist no other Archaic inscriptions from Aphrati on which to base a decision. The Spensithios decree,

which records a possible decision of the Dattaleis, presumably the citizens of one of the Cretan poleis in the area (although other interpretations are possible), employs an identical form of omega. Whether, as Viviers (1994, pp. 240–241) argues, Dattalla should be identified with the site of Aphrati, or, if Dattalla was a city at all, it occupied a different location, it stands to reason that the use of a double omega in another document outside Lyktos favors an interpretation of the letter form as a regional characteristic of Cretan script. 23. According to Erickson (2002, pp. 75, 81), followed by Kotsonas (2002, p. 60, n. 284), Lyktos may have conquered towns on the south coast and won control over the rural sanctuary at Kato Symi ca. 400.

240

chapter 10

Figure 10.1. Left: Didrachma coin of Phaistos depicting Europa on the bull on the obverse and a lion’s head on the reverse, dated to the 5th century. Right: Drachma coin of Gortyn depicting Europa on the bull on the obverse and a lion’s head on the reverse, dated to the 5th century. Scale 3:2. After Kraay 1976, pl. 7:142, 141

A stronger case can be made for the regional consolidation of Gortyn, whose territorial ambitions may have posed a particular threat to Knossos.24 Evidence is found throughout the Mesara. For instance, the shared coin types of Gortyn and Phaistos (ca. 450–425), with the obverse depicting Europa seated on a bull (Fig. 10.1), raise the possibility that these two cities had formed a political bond by the third quarter of the 5th century, a bond that ensured the token independence of both communities while presumably granting privileges to the more powerful partner, Gortyn.25 In addition, the terms of a 5th-century inscription (IC IV 80) recording a decree of Gortyn concerning Rhitten may reflect a similar relationship of political inequality in Gortyn’s favor. In her analysis of its terms, Perlman concludes that Rhitten possessed its own laws and courts (autonomoi and autodikoi), but was a dependency of Gortyn required under exceptional circumstances to bow to the will of Gortynian courts.26 Perlman examines the political status of eight other communities on the perimeter of the Mesara valley and concludes that a hierarchical pattern of settlement existed by the 5th century, one premised on Gortynian control over politically dependent poleis. 27 She leaves open the possibility of earlier Gortynian expansion in the Mesara. According to Nicola Cucuzza, the extension of Gortynian power in the western Mesara led to further changes in the pattern of rural settlement in the Archaic period. Both the trading depot at Kommos and the larger village at Ayia Triada, he proposes, were abandoned at the end of the 7th century, perhaps as a result of Gortynian pressure.28 After a long hiatus, expressions of Gortynian sovereignty follow in the first half of the 5th century with the establishment of cults in the territory of defeated rivals; these arguably include a Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” in the ruins of a Minoan tholos tomb at Kamilari (whose earliest finds date to the first half of the 5th century) and a Sanctuary of Artemis at Amyklaion, a cult 24. Dunbabin (1952, pp. 196–197), who suggests that Knossos was destroyed by its neighbors, observes that the center of power on Crete moved elsewhere in the 6th century. He suggests that Gortyn was the beneficiary of Knossos’s decline, but does not

explicitly connect the troubles at Knossos with Gortynian aggression. 25. See Kirsten 1942, pp. 28–30; Le Rider 1966, p. 162; Cucuzza 1997, p. 77. 26. Perlman 1996, pp. 264–266, 269.

27. Perlman (1996, p. 270) lists Rhitten and Aulon as political dependencies of Gortyn in the 5th century. Evidence for the political status of the rest belongs to the Hellenistic period. 28. Cucuzza 1997, p. 80.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

241

mentioned in the Great Law Code of the 5th century.29 Moreover, from archaeological survey around Phaistos and Kommos, we can surmise that conditions more favorable to rural settlement emerged in the Classical period when a number of new sites were established, presumably under the watchful eye of Gortyn.30 Knossos may have fallen victim to a Gortynian act of aggression in about 600, especially if the incursion did not involve a permanent occupation of Knossos or a legal bond of political dependence, which would presumably have left a clear mark in the archaeological or epigraphic record. Since the area subject to Gortynian control in the 5th century—as determined by the evidence of decrees and coin types—was restricted to the Mesara valley and the territories of Gortyn’s immediate neighbors, we should not expect a site as distant as Knossos to have become a formal dependency at this early date, even if Gortyn had won a military victory over it. Another sign of conflict comes from just outside the Mesara: the break in occupation at Knossos coincides with the presumptive abandonment of Prinias, the only other compelling case of settlement discontinuity among the major sites (Fig. 1.1). The desertion of the Orientalizing cemetery at Prinias corresponds closely in time with a break in activity observed in the city’s domestic quarters, shrines, and a local pottery workshop.31 The absence of identifiable pottery at the site from the period ca. 575–400 is another sign of abandonment, with the absence of 5th-century pottery particularly revealing. Although the 6th-century gap might simply be a function of the special difficulty in recognizing ceramics of this date, Classical pottery poses no such problem of identification.32 Unless something is seriously wrong with the pottery chronologies, and barring a drastic shift in settlement location, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Prinias was abandoned. Moreover, Rizza found destruction debris at Prinias dated to the early 6th century, suggesting that the Archaic community came to a violent end.33 If Prinias was destroyed by enemy action, the source of contemporary Knossian troubles may have lain on a direct line farther south, in the direction of the Mesara plain. Indeed, the suggested destruction of Prinias could fit well into a context of hostilities between Knossos and Gortyn. Prinias occupies a strategic 29. Cucuzza (1997, pp. 64–72) identifies the ancient town of Amyklaion with the remains at Kommos, which permits him to locate the Sanctuary of Artemis near modern Kalamaki, approximately 2 km north of Kommos. As Cucuzza admits, this reconstruction is disputable at virtually every turn. If the Gortynian Amyklaion was instead located at Kommos, within the territory of Gortyn, why was the site deserted as Gortynian power increased in the 5th century? One would expect Kommos to prosper under Gortynian control. Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou (2004a, pp. 324–325) call into question another peg of this

reconstruction by arguing that the sanctuary at Kamilari lay within the territory of Classical Phaistos; it therefore could not have served as an expression of Gortynian sovereignty. 30. Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer (1993, p. 230) report a doubling of rural sites in the vicinity of Phaistos in the Classical period; Hope Simpson (in Kommos I.1, p. 398) concludes that the resettlement of the countryside around Kommos began in the 4th century. 31. Rizza 1991, pp. 331–337. The only sign contrary to this impression of a nearly contemporaneous abandonment of Prinias and Knossos ca. 600–

575 is a reference in the preliminary reports to a house on the acropolis of Prinias abandoned somewhat later in the 6th century. Although Rizza (1983), followed by Carter (1997, p. 89), assigns a floor deposit from this house to ca. 550, the pottery I have seen does not support such a late date. 32. Two mid-4th-century cup bases raise the possibility of a modest reoccupation of the site prior to the installation of a Hellenistic garrison at Prinias. These bases are apparently of local or Gortynian manufacture and should be dated, based on parallels with Knossian cups, to ca. 375–325. 33. Rizza 1985, p. 148.

242

chapter 10

position on a spur of Mt. Ida overlooking the main route connecting Gortyn with the northern end of the island. The strategic significance of the site becomes conspicuous in the Hellenistic period, when Prinias was reoccupied as a fortified outpost in the buffer zone between the two chief rivals of Central Crete, Gortyn and Knossos. War frequently broke out between Gortyn and Knossos in the Hellenistic period as each sought to control the rest of the island.34 Although it is not known to which side it belonged in the Hellenistic period, the significance of Prinias in the context of these struggles is unmistakable.35 It is therefore tempting to ascribe the abandonment of Prinias in the early 6th century and the contemporary decline of Knossos to a successful encroachment by Gortyn. The destruction of Prinias is comprehensible in the context of a Knossian defeat if we assume that Prinias fought on the side of Knossos against Gortyn. Perhaps Prinias was an outpost of Knossos, connected to it by treaty obligations or less formal ties of friendship, and both were defeated and depopulated by Gortyn at the same time. After this conflict, the border between Gortyn and Knossos may have shifted to a new line north of Prinias. Knossos eventually recovered, but Prinias was not so fortunate. Although this confrontation would have set back the process of polis formation at Knossos, it did not irrevocably impede it: Knossos became one of the leading cities of Hellenistic Crete. If the survivors dispersed and left Knossos desolate in the aftermath of defeat, strong local traditions, the historical importance of the site, and its natural advantages must have exerted a strong hold on the original inhabitants, beckoning them to return.36 As Emily Mackil emphasizes, the abandonment of Archaic and Classical Greek poleis can rarely be attributed to a single cause; documented cases highlight complex human reactions to disaster and the decision whether to stay and rebuild or leave.37 If people did return to Knossos around 590–525, their activities show no sign in the record of fine-ware pottery production or consumption. Knossos was apparently reduced to a village existence or an even lower-order settlement that did not engage in craft production in the ways expected of a polis. As long as Gortyn remained a menace on the horizon, Knossos probably had difficulty putting the disaster of ca. 600 behind it. The literary tradition preserves only the faintest echo of trouble at Knossos, for a passage in Strabo (10.481) mentions devastation of the city followed by a recovery in the historical Greek period. Were it not for the 6th-century archaeological lacuna at Knossos—the only real gap in the 34. The historical background of these struggles is summarized by Chaniotis (1996, pp. 36–49). 35. Prinias’s role as intermediary between Gortyn and Knossos features in a novel interpretation of IC IV 80. Van Effenterre (1993) contends that the defeat of Rhitten by Gortyn in a 5th-century war with Knossos occasioned the inscription. Unable to press their victory farther north in the

direction of Knossos, the Gortynians retired after establishing a military district in the vicinity of Prinias to guard the northern passage into the Mesara. His identification of Prinias with ancient Rhitten no longer seems plausible when set against the apparent abandonment of the site ca. 600–575. See also Perlman 1996, p. 263; Sjögren 2003, p. 105. 36. Demand (1990, pp. 7–8),

however, disputes the notion that a polis was tied to a particular place. 37. According to Mackil (2004, pp. 505–512), relations between communities made it easier than expected for cities that faced disaster to recover. Military disasters need not put an end to habitation, for the population of a defeated city could disperse into the countryside or find new homes in nearby villages and poleis.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

38. This passage is discussed in Chap. 12 (p. 331). 39. According to Polybios (4.54.1– 6), the destruction of Lyktos did not lead to the extermination of the Lyktian population. The survivors moved to Lappa and probably maintained their political institutions, resettling Lyktos a few years later. For a possible dispersion of population following a destruction of Praisos in the Hellenistic period, see Chap. 8, p. 201, n. 14. 40. Guarducci 1950, pp. 261–262. 41. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 193. Terracotta figurines from the Sanctuary of Demeter dated on stylistic grounds to ca. 450–400 provide another indication of activity. Moreover, Callaghan (1978, pp. 5–14) distinguishes pottery of 5th-century date in a Hellenistic context at the “Shrine of Glaukos.”

243

site’s history—this passage of a late author using unspecified sources would merit little attention.38 Prinias, however, vanishes completely from the later literary and epigraphic record. The destruction of important towns was an occasional occurrence in the better-attested conflicts of the Hellenistic period, as with the elimination of Lyktos in 220.39 A more relevant comparison may be the defeat of Rhaukos in a mid-2nd-century war against Gortyn and Knossos and the absorption of its territory following the defeat, as this episode provides a good parallel for the hypothesized 6th-century elimination of Prinias, a weaker neighbor on the border between two traditional rivals.40 Polybios (30.23.1) mentions the destruction of Rhaukos in a war between Gortyn and Knossos dated by Margherita Guarducci to ca. 165–161, and IC IV 182 describes the new border between Gortyn and Knossos as passing through the former town of Rhaukos. Thus, the town was fought over, destroyed, and its territory divided up—just as we suspect occurred to Prinias. If so, the traditional animosity between Gortyn and Knossos can be dated back to the early 6th century. Border conflicts are a commonplace of Greek history, although they probably rarely led to the destruction and abandonment, however temporary, of a rival. The proposed destruction of Knossos and Prinias may well have been an isolated occurrence, the result of a single severe and destructive episode of interpolis rivalry, but it had drastic consequences for the ceramic record of Central Crete. As a type site for the island, Knossos has generated a picture of a pervasive recession in the 6th century. Gortyn might have compensated for this deficit in the ceramic record, but extensive rebuilding of the site in the Roman period took a toll on Archaic and Classical levels, resulting in the lower archaeological profile of these periods. Knossos eventually recovered from whatever setback it faced, and its renewal registers clearly in the archaeological remains through abundant Late Archaic deposits, the contents of which include local pottery and Attic imports. Yet a 5th-century revival poses problems of an equally puzzling nature, if of less historical consequence, than those raised by the 6th-century lacuna. As it has been previously understood, the recovery from a ceramic standpoint gives the impression of being a false start, a sudden increase in activity ca. 500–475 subsequently undercut by another precipitous decline in the middle of the 5th century (ca. 475–425). Abundant deposits dated to ca. 500–475 (RR:H; SWH:K; UM:H1–H4) leave virtually no successor in the second or third quarter of the 5th century apart from two scrappy deposits, SWH:N, O, which their discoverers interpret as successive layers of a single stretch of road.41 Accordingly, a sustained recovery cannot be demonstrated until the final quarter of the 5th century, when the life of the Greek city can be traced without further interruption for the rest of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. This picture of a false start is incorrect, to judge from the evidence. The local b.g. pottery establishes that Knossos did not experience a second setback during the period ca. 475–425. Because imports became less plentiful during this period, it is more difficult to identify local activity. The establishment of an apparently new sanctuary by the Knossians, a small shrine ascribed by its excavator to the hero Glaukos, is the clearest evidence of the recovery. Changes can also be detected in the kinds of pots left at

244

chapter 10

the sanctuary. The most numerous type of drinking vessel was an offshoot of the standard high-necked cup termed a low-necked cup, which was distinguished by its hemispherical proportions and lower rim. These cups are accompanied by kantharoi and tulip cups—special shapes whose popularity at the “Shrine of Glaukos” comes at the expense of the lownecked cup after ca. 475–450. Activity at another sanctuary at Knossos, securely identified as Demeter’s, evidently began in the 8th century, but the early 5th century witnesses a fundamental change in the quantity and quality of offerings. A tremendous increase in offerings, particularly terracotta plaques and figurines, is accompanied, as Coldstream and Huxley point out, by a standardization of given types (Fig. 10.2).42 Local pottery from later deposits pinpoints the beginning of this resurgence to the final quarter of the 6th century, and this revival leads to an unbroken record of 5th-century activity, culminating at the end of the century in the construction of a small temple and the first in a series of votive pits loaded with Attic imports.43 The renewal of Knossian fortunes is also expressed in other ways. The fill of a Late Archaic well from the Royal Road excavations (RR:H) offers abundant testimony of local ceramic production and imports of Attic figural and b.g. pottery. This fill probably came from a nearby house.44 Imports and local shapes complement one another to form a single assemblage of banqueting furniture. Attic imports include oinochoai, lekythoi, and column kraters (Fig. 10.3), all shapes rare if not absent in the local fine-ware repertoire, which concentrated instead on the production of drinking cups.45 Attic pottery was reserved for the communal service, the

Figure 10.2. Terracotta figurines from the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, dated to the 5th century.

Coldstream 1973a, pl. 33. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

42. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 296. 43. The ceramic evidence dovetails nicely with the earliest terracotta figurines after the gap, dated on stylistic grounds to the first quarter of the 5th century (with one exception). Coldstream (1973a, pp. 25–27) dates the first of these votive pits, deposit C, to the final years of the 5th century, if not the beginning of the 4th, based on Attic imports. 44. Sjögren (2003, p. 22) presents detailed arguments for viewing Knossian wells in this area as signs of domestic habitation. 45. Two oinochoai from well RR:H were made in a single Attic workshop, suggesting that they arrived on Crete as part of a single shipment; see Coldstream 1973b, p. 58, nos. 81, 82, shape 2, Class of Vatican G 47.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

245

Figure 10.3. Attic black-figure krater found at Knossos, dated to ca. 500–480. Scale ca. 1:5. Coldstream 1973b, pl. 22. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

46. It is difficult to estimate the total number of imports from surviving examples. In the case of Panathenaic amphoras, inscriptions recording the number of vases produced can be compared to excavated examples, suggesting that what survives is a mere fraction, less than 1%, of total production; see Johnston 1991a, p. 208; Shear 2003, p. 102. By analogous reasoning, the documented Attic imports at Knossos in the Late Archaic period (about 65 pieces) may represent a total of approximately 6,500 to 25,000 intact pots, a cargo capable of being carried by 12 or so vessels (this is a minimum estimate). 47. A technical description of Eleuthernian fabric appears in Chap. 3 (p. 87). 48. The Eleuthernians also exhibit a conservative streak in the production of other minor arts, including that of coin design; see Kirsten 1942, p. 18. Lamps are an exception, for Eleuthernian producers followed overseas fashions; see Chap. 5 (p. 165).

pottery on display before all the banqueters, while locally made cups, supplemented by a small number of Attic imports, served the needs of individual drinkers. In every deposit at Knossos (ca. 500–480), the proportion of Attic imports in comparison with local products is relatively minor, constituting no more than 20% of the total number of catalogued pots. The rarity of Attic pottery and its decidedly sympotic character raise the possibility that it circulated at Knossos as a luxury good.46

DEM O G RAP H I C VARIA B LES Settlement discontinuity at Knossos and Prinias makes them exceptions to the general rule; other Cretan settlements under review here show signs of life in the 6th century. Consumption of fine-ware pottery preserves a record of activity both at Eleutherna and Aphrati during much of the 6th and 5th centuries. Indeed, stylistic analysis of pottery from burials at Eleutherna provides strong support for continuous occupation at the site by the same population. The local fabric provides an important clue: from the Geometric to the Hellenistic period Eleuthernian potters fashioned vessels from a distinctive clay. Although the exact location remains uncertain, the clay beds probably lay in close proximity to the ancient town.47 One notable characteristic of the local style is its extreme conservatism.48 For example, the shape of the favorite local drinking vessel, the high-necked cup, undergoes remarkably few changes in the course of the late 7th, 6th, and 5th centuries. Even in the 4th century, Eleuthernian potters did not follow the progressive island fashions set at Gortyn and Knossos. High conical bases and attenuated cup forms found no takers there in the 5th century. Eleutherna followed a conservative path of ceramic development

246

chapter 10

by choice. Although it had access to other Cretan wares and its potters occasionally copied Classical Gortynian cups in the local fabric, the local style expresses little influence from these quarters. In short, the slow steady development of shapes at Eleutherna suggests an uninterrupted transmission of the craft from one generation of potters to the next. Gortyn and Praisos offer a less complete sequence than Eleutherna, which probably reflects the vagaries of excavation and inadequacies of survey evidence rather than a genuine break in occupation.49 Indeed, Gortyn boasts the largest number of Archaic and Classical inscriptions on the island, and pottery from the area of the later Odeion hints at some activity ca. 600–400. Praisos is another site that shows definite signs of life. Surprisingly, the 6th century is the best-represented period from survey around Praisos owing to the large number of cups recovered from site 14, while architectural terracottas from the acropolis sanctuaries and other parts of town help fill gaps in the occupational history of Praisos itself. Nevertheless, the process of urban development at Praisos remains poorly understood. At Phaistos, there is a significant reduction in the number of finds in the 6th century but no break in occupation; stray architectural elements and inscriptions vouch for the existence of the city.50 Strangely, the ceramic sequence barely hints at this later activity. The paucity of Archaic and Classical sites within the Gournia–Vrokastro survey areas raises the possibility that the Isthmus of Ierapytna witnessed either retarded development or extreme nucleation.51 Ierapytna itself appears to be a new foundation established in the middle or second half of the 5th century.52 Major change in settlement patterns perhaps explains this perceived break in occupation elsewhere on the isthmus. At Azoria, the population appears to have grown in the 6th century at the expense of nearby Early Iron Age villages such as Vronda and Kavousi, which were abandoned at a slightly earlier date.53 Without this new evidence from Azoria, we would have been forced to conclude that life on the isthmus took a turn for the worse. Perhaps the conventional picture of abandonment in this area misinterprets a wider historical process of nucleation and population movement to newly established 6th-century settlements.54 Elsewhere on the island, occupational histories follow a more predictable course, although in a few cases there does seem to be a slight shift in location. At Gortyn, several hilltops villages were abandoned in ca. 700 in favor of settlement in the plain. According to Perlman, this population shift was accompanied by urban constructions and the foundation of new cults in the plain, including that of Apollo. Perhaps the slightly earlier construction of a temple on Ayios Ioannis in the second quarter of the 7th century is “evidence of a new political apparatus capable of marshaling and deploying resources on behalf of the community.”55 In addition, Despoina Hadzi-Vallianou interprets Smari as the site of Homeric Lyktos, a site abandoned in the 7th century perhaps as a result of population movement to the larger settlement identified as Classical Lyktos.56 According to Saro Wallace, these examples signal a wider process of state formation, with the occasional transformation of older communities into cult venues and feast sites for new settlements in more accessible locations.57 In this way, the older sites served as visible reminders of the past.

49. These sites are discussed extensively in Chaps. 6 and 8. 50. The discoveries include architectural fragments, a votive capital, and inscriptions; see La Rosa 1997, pp. 72–80; Cucuzza 1997, pp. 75–76. 51. The evidence from this survey is presented in Chap. 7. 52. I discuss the earliest evidence from Ierapytna in Chap. 7 (pp. 189– 190). 53. Haggis 1996a, p. 415; 2005, pp. 84–86. 54. Hayden (1997, p. 136; 2004, p. 188), however, cautions against inferring a wider trend from the abandonment of Kavousi. Indeed, even other parts of East Crete seem to have experienced a more continuous record of settlement. 55. Perlman 2000, p. 72. 56. Hadzi-Vallianou 2001. See also van Effenterre and Gondicas 1999, pp. 132–134. 57. Although Wallace (2003, p. 256–268) mentions a few hilltop sites that were abandoned in the 7th century, most of her examples date to the 10th and 9th centuries and suggest an earlier stage of community development.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

247

Smaller-order sites, including isolated farmsteads, hamlets, and harbor towns, have received less attention from archaeologists, making it premature to identify settlement patterns in rural areas. If the Cretan countryside experienced alternate periods of boom and recession, individual cases of abandonment or regional patterns may be best explained by several interrelated causes. Gortynian pressure, for example, may have played a role in the abandonment of smaller sites in the Mesara, including the harbor sanctuary at Kommos. Environmental change may have made subsistence more difficult in the Mesara during the 6th century. In the absence of direct archaeological evidence, speculation about territorial expansion and its possible impact on rural settlement should proceed cautiously. The gaps in the Cretan archaeological record have parallels, and lacunae elsewhere in the ancient world are similarly difficult to interpret. For instance, a gap in the Lakonian archaeological record in ca. 1100–900 may reflect a substantial break in settlement precipitated by the Dorian invasion, although recent work has called into question both the validity of the reported break and the premise of Dorian conquest.58 The poor understanding of the local pottery sequence on Cyprus has also obscured the history of the island in the Archaic and Classical periods: the survival of Subgeometric styles there until well into the 4th century has made it difficult to establish a typological sequence.59 The possibility of abandonment should be considered only in cases where reliable typologies for a variety of artifact types provide firm chronological control. In the light of the documented ceramic sequences available from this study, the hypothesis of wholesale abandonment on Crete can now be dismissed. Archaeological visibility is nonetheless an acute problem of the 6th century. In its most extreme form, low visibility may be responsible for the reported breaks in the settlement sequence at poorly investigated sites.60 Without documentary evidence, estimates of Archaic and Classical population sizes must depend entirely on archaeological sources. Unfortunately, these provide a notoriously unreliable measure of population fluctuations.61 One practical method for estimating population is to calculate the total excavated area of the urban center, using ethnographic 58. Hall (1997, p. 119) discusses the supposed gap between Late Helladic IIIC and Protogeometric in Lakonia. His critique (pp. 121–128) of the Dorian invasion hypothesis emphasizes the weakness of traditional explanations. Lemos (2002, p. 194), however, interprets this gap as a genuine break. 59. Miller (1997, p. 24) laments the inattention to Classical Cyprus, attributing the currently murky picture of Cypriot and Athenian relations in the 5th century to Thucydides’ silence and the absence of a local archaeological sequence. Maier (1985, pp. 37–38), however, emphasizes that Attic imports continued to reach Cyprus in the 5th century, providing a slight corrective to

this picture of isolation. 60. A prime example is Lyktos, as discussed in Chap. 1 (p. 3). Survey archaeologists first called attention to the problem of archaeological visibility of the various periods in regional settlement histories; see Alcock 1993, pp. 49–55. This concept has also figured prominently in archaeological accounts of Early Iron Age Greece; see Morris 1987, pp. 246–249; Whitley 1994, pp. 55–65. 61. It is not until the 4th century that inscriptions provide even a crude measure of population size on the island. The earliest example, an inscription dated to roughly the 320s (SEG IX 2), records gifts of grain from

Cyrene to a select number of Cretan cities after a famine. It has been assumed that the variable size of the gifts corresponds to the population of each polis. Epigraphic evidence from other sites enables better estimates of settlement size. Based on 3rd-century epigraphic testimony (IC I ix 1, lines 10–14), the 180 agelai at Dreros who swore the civic oath suggest a citizen population of 7,000; see Marinatos 1936. For Hellenistic Eleutherna, the size of the residential district on Nisi hill and the number of private cisterns indicate 50 households; see Schnapp 1994, pp. 22–23; Guy and Matheron 1994, p. 36.

248

chapter 10

parallels to infer population density.62 This procedure usually involves a large margin of error, since it is difficult to address such key variables as existence of second and third stories in houses, distance between houses, portion of the site reserved as open space, family size, and cultural norms of privacy. Knossos, the most thoroughly investigated historical Cretan polis, exemplifies these problems. Although Early Iron Age cemeteries outline the maximum extent of the settlement, it is unclear whether habitation took the form of a collection of villages or a compact urban center. There is no basis for drawing more refined chronological conclusions about population levels across the 7th and 6th centuries. Inadequate investigation of other Archaic settlements has created additional uncertainty about the island population. At Kydonia, Late Archaic tombs and a scattering of wells on the acropolis hill offer the only evidence for habitation. At Gortyn, the disputed location of the Archaic civic center and the absence of tombs hinders efforts to define the occupation zone. Praisos occupies somewhat more suggestive terrain. The sanctuaries crowning two of its three acropolis hills and “Hellenic” cemeteries outline the general urban contours, although further investigation of the domestic quarters is needed to estimate population density and exploit the demographic potential of this evidence. Estimated sizes of Archaic Cretan settlements range from 11 to 50 hectares, indicating medium-size towns with approximately 5,000 to 15,000 inhabitants.63 The estimated size of Azoria, 15 hectares, places this site in the category of small urban settlement, although there is no evidence that it was a polis. Other means of estimating population are even more uncertain. Fluctuations in the number of excavated deposits from each period can provide a crude reflection of demographic trends, although the pattern indicated by simple quantification may be an illusion resulting from unforeseen circumstances such as the concentration of population in unexplored parts of the site, complex building history involving the selective destruction of material from a given period, or site-formation processes that systematically obscure the period in question. It is difficult to control for these variables. Hellenistic and Roman reoccupation apparently took a disproportionately heavy toll on underlying Archaic and Classical deposits, but it is not clear why slightly deeper Orientalizing levels avoided this fate and survive in reasonable numbers.64 Perhaps the building history of sites is skewing the picture in more subtle ways. For instance, both Azoria and Itanos underwent a major new phase of 6th-century construction, in both cases followed by a destruction horizon in the early 5th century.65 As an explanation for the perceived gaps in occupation, stratigraphic realities and building histories may occasionally outweigh problems of ceramic identification, but extrapolating from the stratigraphic record of two East Cretan sites to the island as a whole raises concerns. Other factors may be responsible for the low visibility of 6th-century activity at other sites, and regional differences require explanation. These uncertainties limit the potential of archaeological testimony to argue for a population decline in the 6th century. Besides, demographic explanations have difficulty accounting for other aspects of the record, such

62. Prehistoric Aegean archaeologists have used this technique to estimate the population of Neolithic and Bronze Age citadels. In these cases, sloping ground, fortification walls, or other features delineate the urban limits. For a critical assessment of this technique, see Fletcher 1981. De Angelis (2003, pp. 40–45, 146–149) employs similar methods to estimate the urban populations of two Greek colonies in Archaic Sicily. 63. Sjögren (2003) estimates the size of the principal Archaic Cretan poleis: Knossos, 35 hectares (p. 31); Prinias, 11.5 hectares (p. 33); Phaistos, 13 hectares (p. 33); Gortyn, 50 hectares (p. 34); Dreros, 28 hectares (p. 36); Praisos, 18 hectares (pp. 36–37). 64. Alcock (2002, pp. 109–117) hints at a pattern of Hellenistic resettlement following a long hiatus during the Archaic and Classical periods. 65. As Haggis et al. (2004, p. 345) observe.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

249

as the almost complete absence of monumental art. Bronzework and stone sculpture virtually disappear ca. 600–575, marking a mysterious and abrupt end to the Orientalizing renaissance. In sum, the 6th century seems to demonstrate a major departure from earlier periods in the inherited forms and structures of the archaeological record. There is not only a quantitative decline but also qualitative differences that may themselves signal a profound cultural change.66 In order to address the economic and social implications of these changes, we need to weigh the evidence of burial customs and religious practices.

BU RI AL S The presumed abandonment of the Orientalizing cemeteries at Aphrati and Knossos initially raised the question of a widespread break in occupation in the 6th century. The evidence from Knossos is particularly suggestive. After ca. 630, burials in the Iron Age cemeteries from all parts of the excavated town seem to come to an abrupt end.67 In view of the documented continuity provided by the earlier series of tombs, the apparent desertion of the Orientalizing cemeteries is surprising. Settlement history and burial customs follow an unbroken pattern during an otherwise tumultuous period of transition following the collapse of the Bronze Age palace, and for more than 300 years these cemeteries served as the sole known repositories of the Knossian dead. Burials do not return in any number at Knossos until a much later point in history, long after the 5thcentury recovery had taken effect. The two documented 6th-century burials include a rare instance of the reuse of an Orientalizing chamber tomb.68 The date of both burials in the final quarter of the 6th century does little to counteract the impression of a pronounced gap. The negative evidence from Knossos and Aphrati has cast a long shadow over Cretan funerary studies, precluding meaningful analysis of 66. The difficulty lies in relating artistic style and archaeological behavior to economic and social structures. Crete presents special difficulties in this regard. Given the size of the island and its politically diverse background, any model of social development needs to accommodate local variations. Spencer’s (2000, p. 68) investigation of Archaic Lesbian social and political institutions emphasizes variation within a single region, in this case a relatively small island compared to Crete. Cretan archaeologists would do well to heed this example and avoid misleading simplifications. This is not to say, however, that fruitful generalizations cannot be made in the face of local variations, as Rhodes (1997, p. 6) emphasizes.

67. Coldstream and Huxley (1999, pp. 289–292) rehearse the evidence from the four Iron Age cemeteries of the Knossians. These consist of the main cemetery north of the palace published by Coldstream and Catling (1996), a row of tombs west of the palace at Fortetsa published by Brock (1957), sporadic tombs on the southern hill of Gypsades mentioned by Hood and Smyth (1981, p. 58, no. 323, p. 59, nos. 325, 328), and tombs on the slope of the eastern Ailias hill at Mavro Spelio mentioned by Hood and Smyth (1981, p. 54, no. 257). 68. Brock (1957, pp. 26–27, no. 238, pl. 17) publishes an Attic black-figure cup-skyphos from a pithos burial in the area of Fortetsa tomb V. Four Late Archaic pots from the same cemetery,

including an Attic stemmed exaleiptron, were apparently incorporated into Hellenistic pit graves; see Brock 1957, p. 29, pl. 21. Elsewhere at Knossos, Boardman (1962) identifies a bronze exaleiptron found with black-figure pottery beside the main road between Ayios Ioannis and Tekke as the contents of a disturbed 6th-century tomb. For Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 294, n. 30), the discovery of Attic black figure from the North Cemetery in the fill above tombs 24, 26, 30, 106, and 208 reflects the activities of tomb robbers, but the black-figure fragments may point instead to disturbed tombs, funerary meals, or the practice of ritual drinking at the tombs of ancestors.

250

chapter 10

the change from an Orientalizing to a Classical pattern. Only five burial groups of this transitional period (ca. 600–480) have been excavated: a scattering of tombs at Phalasarna, an important port town and independent polis on the northwest coast of Crete; a small burial plot in the hinterland of Kydonia at Kastello Varypetrou; the Eleuthernian cemetery at Orthi Petra; the “Hellenic” cemeteries at Praisos; and a recently excavated cemetery at Itanos.69 Material from Praisos is no longer available for study, burials from Phalasarna are few in number before ca. 480, and responsibility for publishing the graves goods from Itanos lies with the excavation team. Eleutherna and Kastello Varypetrou must therefore be the focus in this study. The list of the finds from Kastello Varypetrou in Table 10.1 is based on personal examination and will facilitate discussion pending final publication by the excavator. The plot consists of six Late Archaic pithos burials, one Classical pithos burial, four Late Archaic graves (taphoi), and five Classical graves. As for the geographic contours of this pattern, the western and eastern regions of the island have yielded most of the funerary evidence, with a veritable desert in the center. At Orthi Petra, a rich collection of bronzes, ivories, and sculpture from a series of monumental tombs paints a picture of lavish funerary expense for the early inhabitants of Eleutherna in the 9th, 8th, and 7th centuries. In contrast, the history of the cemetery in the 6th century has remained obscure. Burials were thought to have decreased substantially in number after ca. 600, before ceasing altogether by the second quarter of the 6th century. The analysis of pottery presented in this volume, however, demonstrates that there was no prolonged abandonment of this cemetery in the 6th century or the first half of the 5th. These pottery scatters are probably the remains of disturbed tombs, although funerary meals cannot be excluded as a possible source. The earliest clusters with Corinthian oil containers almost certainly came from tombs, and a few partially disturbed tombs make it clear that Orthi Petra was still a place of burial in the 570s. The Archaic burial ground of the Eleuthernians at Orthi Petra occupies the same location as the Geometric and Orientalizing cemetery, indicating a higher degree of continuity than documented at any other Cretan site. Continuity of place does not preclude changes in funerary customs. Sixthcentury burials at Eleutherna become harder to recognize because of the less durable means of commemoration and the poverty of grave goods, which are almost invisible in archaeological terms. Were it not for the excavator’s painstaking attention to the distribution pattern of 6th-century material in the fill above the Orientalizing cemetery, it would be impossible to estimate the position of disturbed tombs. The latest intact tombs document a change in burial customs in ca. 600–575. In contrast to the rich Geometric and Orientalizing burials equipped with resplendent offerings, including bronzes, ivories, and dozens if not hundreds of clay vases, the 6th century saw an end to lavish funerary display. Mourners equipped tombs with a few clay vases—b.g. cups, small bowls or trays, and an occasional imported krater. Metal and ivory offerings disappear from Eleuthernian burials. This overall pattern stands in sharp contrast to the earlier wealth of tomb furnishings and variety of materials, although the first signs of a new outlook appear as early as ca. 650. As a precedent for later restraint, funerary urns become

69. For the Archaic–Hellenistic cemetery at Itanos, see Greco et al. 1996, pp. 944–946; 1997, pp. 814–818; 2000; 2002, pp. 581–582. Tzedakis (1970, p. 468) reports the discovery of Late Archaic pithos burials at Kastello. I have excluded from this list tomb scatters of possible Archaic date found on survey of the Lasithi plateau and the Vrokastro region. For references, see Chap. 1, pp. 11–12. The dates of these survey sites are uncertain, and the material is too limited and fragmentary (or unavailable for study) to contribute much to the overall picture. Kounavi (ancient Eltynia) is the site of another possible 6th-century burial ground, but the only find of this date is the sculpted funerary relief mentioned in Chap. 1 (p. 8, n. 29).

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

251

TA B LE 10.1. CERAMIC VESSELS IN TOM BS AT KASTELLO VARYP E TRO U Tomb

Imported Pottery

Local Pottery

Other

Date

Pithos I

Attic lekythos

ca. 500–480

Pithos B

Attic krater, Attic skyphos, Attic lekthyos

ca. 500–480

Pithos II

2 Attic lekythoi, Attic skyphos

ca. 500–480

Pithos N

Attic black-figure lekythos

ca. 500–480

Pithos E

Attic lekythos

Pithos A1

2 Attic lekythoi, Attic skyphos

Pithos V

Attic lekythos, Attic skyphos, Attic stemmed dish

cup or jug base

Taphos II

Attic lekythos, Attic skyphos

Lakonian krater (copy)

Taphos III

Attic krater

table amphora

Taphos BA

2 Attic lekythoi

ca. 500–480

Taphos Psi

6 Attic lekythoi (4 black-figure)

ca. 500–480

Taphos IV

Attic lekythos

jug base

Taphos V Taphos VII

ca. 500–480

Taphos X

ca. 400–350 bronze nozzle

ca. 500–480 ca. 500–480

olpe

5th century

olpe

5th century

Attic skyphos, Attic one-handler

Taphos J

ca. 500–480

ca. 350 lekythos

4th century 4th century

Note: Another grave, taphos XII, could not be precisely dated. The findspots of a local cup with everted rim, four table amphoras, and a Lakonian krater are not recorded. The disturbed fill above the tombs yielded a base with a “cushion”-shaped support (see Chap. 3, pp. 78–79); a base of a local high-necked cup dated to ca. 425–400 (like Knossos type VI); a base of a high-necked cup dated to ca. 400– 375 (like 131, Figs. 3.19, 3.21); an example of Attic red figure dated to ca. 500–475; an Attic red-figure pelike dated to ca. 400; and an Attic skyphos dated to ca. 500–480. There are also pithos stoppers. What is presumed to be local pottery from these tombs is characterized by an orange-brown fabric (7.5YR 6/6–6/8 to 10YR 5/6–6/6).

70. Kotsonas (2008b, pp. 334, 341) tracks periods of greater or lesser restraint in the funerary record at Orthi Petra, but notes that the situation after ca. 650 was unlike anything that preceded it. 71. Stampolidis 2004c, p. 130; Kotsonas 2005, p. 31.

more uniform in shape, with decoration less frequent, in the second half of the 7th century.70 These changes suggest restraint, but nothing as comprehensive or austere as the Archaic pattern. The poverty of tomb contents from Kastello Varypetrou and Itanos points to the same conclusion. The switch from monumental rock-cut or stone-built tombs to simple graves at Eleutherna also contributes to the lower archaeological profile of 6th-century funerals. This development entailed a replacement of earlier methods of burial in the 8th and 7th centuries, including multiple pyre, trench, and pithos cremations, with the more limited options of individual cremation or inhumation in a plain ceramic container ca. 600–575. Pithos burials occur only intermittently before ca. 600 and seem at first to be restricted to the graves of children and adolescents, with the exception of a few older adults (at least 55–60 years old) interred without any grave goods.71 These pithos burials are more common around the edges of the excavated cemetery, suggesting a population of lower-status individuals compared to those buried in the monumental collective tombs of the central area. In sum, lavish stone funerary monuments, sumptuous grave goods, and abundant Near Eastern imports gave way in the 6th century to

252

chapter 10

Figure 10.4. Archaic pithos burial, Phalasarna. Tzedakis 1969, pl. 440:b. Courtesy Y. Tzedakis

an era of funerary restraint or financial insolvency, with the whole panoply of Orientalizing culture at Eleutherna effectively coming to an end. In substituting plain pithos containers for elaborate stone funerary monuments, Eleutherna appears to conform to a wider Cretan pattern, although the evidence from other parts of the island is less complete. Sixthcentury burials from Phalasarna universally employ pithos containers (Fig. 10.4).72 In addition, a number of Late Archaic burials from Kastello Varypetrou take this form, and the only excavated burial at Knossos dated within this time frame utilizes a pithos container.73 At Aphrati, Levi discovered 15 Archaic pithos tombs on the slopes of the hill below the main Geometric and Orientalizing burial ground, and excavations at Axos yielded two Archaic pit tombs with cremation pithoi.74 A 6th-century sarcophagus burial from Aphrati would seem to contradict this pattern, but the proposed date rests on the ceramic contents, which include a trefoilmouthed jug, a shape in production at Aphrati down to the end of the 5th century.75 Therefore, this burial may date to the Classical period, when new methods of interment gained currency. The relationship between excavated burials and ancient demographics is a complicated one elsewhere on the island. In contrast to Orthi Petra, where a 7th-century burial ground continued to function through the 6th century, other excavated Orientalizing cemeteries, including those at Knossos, Aphrati, and Prinias, apparently went out of use at the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century. The desertion of these Orientalizing burial grounds along with the absence of Archaic or Classical burials at the same sites raises the specter of a severe depopulation or an outright abandonment of the settlements. Nevertheless, since the Orientalizing cemeteries of Knossos pass out of use ca. 630—at least a generation before the supposed decline of the town—their disappearance may have no direct bearing on the issue of settlement continuity there. Similarly, a 5thcentury domestic deposit from Aphrati signals continued habitation long after the desertion of the excavated Orientalizing cemetery ca. 600. Aphrati presents a stronger case for the lacuna in the burial sequence being a problem of archaeological perception, since pottery of arguably local origin at Kato Symi independently suggests continuity of settlement throughout the period of ca. 600–400.76

72. Gondicas (1988, p. 116) made this point in her summary of the burial evidence. See also Tzedakis (1969, p. 433, pl. 440), who illustrates a pithos burial from Phalasarna and its contents. 73. At Kastello, pithoi are a popular alternative to simple earthen cists. For Knossos, see Brock 1957, pp. 26–27, no. 238, pl. 17. Pithos burials at Knossos may have been more common than this one intact example suggests, for Coldstream and Catling (1996, p. 722) note the presence of fragmentary coarse Archaic pithoi covering much of the site of the North Cemetery, one of the chief Early Iron Age burial grounds of the Knossians. It is conceivable that these pots are the remains of 6th-century funerary containers, although the publishers further observe that these pithoi are not “associated with any bones” and they “have the look of being not in situ, but dumped from elsewhere.” 74. Levi 1927–1929, pp. 381–387. See also Sjögren 2003, p. 141 (Sto Seli, Aphrati). For Axos, see Sjögren 2003, p. 154. 75. Lebessi 1975b, pp. 341–342; Orlandos 1975, pp. 196–197. Erickson (2002, pp. 54–56) dates the latest such jugs in the series from Kato Symi to ca. 400. 76. As argued by Erickson (2002, pp. 79–80).

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

253

If the Cretans never stopped disposing of their dead in an archaeologically retrievable manner, Archaic and Classical burials must exist elsewhere at Aphrati (and at Knossos ca. 630–600 and 525–400, allowing for a possible abandonment of the site in the early 6th century) in unexcavated parts of the town awaiting discovery.77 It is difficult to prove that the communities of Knossos and Aphrati shifted their burial grounds to new locations at the end of the 7th century, and in the process let older Orientalizing cemeteries fall out of use, since it is an argument based on silence. Yet positive evidence in support of the occasional movement of Cretan burial grounds to new locations is coming to light at Itanos. The establishment of an apparently new cemetery by the Itanians in the final quarter of the 6th century in an area of former Orientalizing habitation might mirror the hypothesized abandonment of Orientalizing cemeteries at Aphrati and Knossos in favor of new burial grounds elsewhere.78 Furthermore, excavations at the port town of Phalasarna in West Crete document a later shift in cemetery location, for the 4th-century burial ground at Phalasarna lies in a different spot from its Archaic and Classical predecessor.79 It is reasonable to assume that the abandonment of Orientalizing cemeteries and the establishment of new burial grounds in the Archaic and Classical periods reflect two stages of a single process. Current evidence, however, can document only the first part of this process at Aphrati and Knossos. Thus, the spatial organization of Cretan burial grounds presents a complex picture. A shift in the location of the principal cemeteries of the communities at Knossos and Aphrati apparently took place in ca. 630 and ca. 600, respectively. Similarly, the Itanians established a new burial ground in ca. 525–500 in an area of 7th-century habitation. At Prinias, however, the community had just begun to switch from group burials to individual pithos cremations when the site was abandoned.80 Eleutherna seems to follow an entirely different pattern. Although burial customs changed in the course of the 6th century, and the evidence becomes appreciably poorer, there is no question about the survival of the community; inhabitants probably continued to use the same burial ground at Orthi Petra through the 6th century. In all cases of continued habitation, Archaic burials are harder to detect than their Orientalizing predecessors because of the extreme simplicity of tomb structure and the poverty of offerings. The Cretan funerary pattern stands in sharp contrast to both the much fuller record from Aegean and eastern mainland Greek cemeteries and other poor areas where a low archaeological profile does not signify the total absence of grave goods and identifiable tombs.81 Indeed, the almost 77. Brock (1957, p. 219, n. 2) anticipates this argument by suggesting that the Orientalizing cemeteries of Knossos became overcrowded, forcing the inhabitants to establish new cemeteries in eroded or unexplored areas. At Knossos, the general absence of Archaic and Classical burials cannot be entirely a function of population dynamics, since burials remain

unattested even after the recovery of the settlement in the 5th century. 78. Greco et al. (2000, pp. 551–555) discovered the foundations of an Orientalizing house in the area of the later cemetery. 79. Gondicas (1988, pp. 109–116) presents an archaeological summary. 80. Rizza and Scrinari 1968, p. 234; Rizza 1985, p. 152; Kotsonas 2002,

p. 42. 81. In his regional study of the funerary record, Morris (1998a, p. 73) identifies six areas in western mainland Greece where Archaic funerary evidence is particularly scarce: Achaia, Aitolia, Arkadia, Elis, Lakonia, and Messenia. The Spartan example is discussed in Chap. 12 (pp. 339–340).

254

chapter 10

complete absence of evidence places Crete in a distinctly different category. This pattern may reflect reduced economic circumstances, although blanket economic explanations for tomb wealth have fallen out of favor as the link between funerary expense and economic factors is being questioned.82 According to Ian Hodder, funerary customs do not mechanically reflect economic interactions, making it almost impossible to infer social roles exclusively from mortuary evidence. Complicating matters, expressions of individual and group identity in the material world do not follow a universal symbolic code; they can vary widely and are subject to different impulses. Hodder’s influential book Symbols in Action advocates an integrated approach to studying funerary behavior, in which overarching social concepts, symbolic principles, and ideologies inferred from other contexts provide a rich field for interpretation.83 On Crete, economic impoverishment can explain the disappearance of expensive materials, including ivory and bronze. To the extent that the availability of imports depended on access to overseas markets, the presence or absence of imported grave goods may have an economic significance. In addition, monumental tomb buildings must have been extraordinarily expensive, even though the fieldstones used in their construction came from local quarries. Although these elaborate tomb structures presumably have a bearing on local prosperity, it is not necessary to view the movement of Cretan cemeteries to new locations as a response to diminished economic circumstances, nor does the switch from group burial to individual interment seem to reflect direct financial calculations. The 6th-century funerary pattern signals a change in character as much as in quality. A cultural explanation should be considered for these aspects of the Cretan funerary record. If 6th-century inhabitants preferred to be buried on their estates rather than in formal cemeteries, it would be difficult to identify such informal burials. In addition, informal burial grounds may imply different concepts of family organization, for Hodder distinguished between “organized and bound” and “scattered and diffuse” cemeteries, associating the former type with lineal descent groups that stressed links with common ancestors.84 What little evidence we possess from the Cretan countryside, however, seems to contradict this theory of informal rural cemeteries in a “scattered and diffuse” manner. No tombs came to light during excavations of a farmstead in the territory of Eleutherna.85 In addition, an early 5th-century inscription from Gortyn (IC IV 46B) refers to burial provisions in what may be the countryside: “if there is no public road, the corpse can be carried over another person’s land. A fine of ten staters is imposed for obstructing this provision. If, however, a road does exist and the relatives of the deceased carry the corpse over another’s land, they are liable to a fine.”86 If the inhabitants of the Gortynian countryside buried on their estates, they would not have needed to cross a neighbor’s land to convey the corpse to a public road. Thus, the state’s role in guaranteeing access to public roads implies the existence of formal burial grounds. Perhaps Cretan communities ran out of room and needed to establish new burial plots. Although this might account for the shift in location at a single site, it seems unlikely that most investigated Early Iron Age

82. Morris (1987, pp. 29–36) surveys the secondary literature, for which Lemos (2002, p. 151) provides a brief update. Historians of Late Geometric and Early Orientalizing Greece associate the disappearance of mortuary display on the mainland with an increase in sanctuary offerings, severing the link between funerary investment and absolute wealth; see Osborne 1996a, pp. 84–88, 101; Morris 1998b. 83. Hodder’s (1982, pp. 195–201) conclusions about funerary behavior have particular relevance here. See also Wright (2004, p. 135), who summarizes Hodder’s views in a discussion of the Mycenaean feast. 84. Hodder 1982, p. 196. 85. For a preliminary report of the excavations, see Tzedakis 1973, p. 583. 86. Willetts (1955, p. 217) quotes the relevant section of this inscription. See also van Effenterre and Ruzé 1995, p. 311; Marginesu 2005, p. 68, nn. 24, 25. Kotsonas (2002, p. 54) draws the opposite conclusion from this testimony, that it refers to small burial plots not located on public ground. I do not see how its provisions can support this interpretation. On other grounds, Sjögren (2003, p. 74) also regards cemeteries as bound in the 6th century.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

255

c­ emeteries filled up at roughly the same time. There must be some other explanation for the low visibility of Archaic burial grounds. As an alternative, the extreme poverty of these burials may reflect deliberate restraint. Archaic and Classical Greek history offers numerous examples of externally sanctioned legislation or self-imposed curbs on aristocratic display.87 The hypothesized movement of burial grounds at Knossos and Aphrati may also have implications for family organization and the definition of community.88 Changes in the location of cemeteries elsewhere in the Greek world have been attributed to developing political institutions and a different sense of family roles in the early polis.89 Perhaps the Cretan evidence reflects something similar. In addition, the switch from group to individual tomb types in ca. 600–575 may have circumscribed symbolic links to the past and family privilege.90 Group burial is a distinguishing characteristic of Early Iron Age Cretan society, an expression of continuity and social stability from the Minoan era.91 As P. K. Wason noted, such communal burial rites serve to mark groups and reinforce membership claims.92 Perhaps on Crete in the Archaic period aristocratic families and clans began to regard themselves as part of a wider community, with family affiliation no longer playing a decisive role in burial.93 Expressions of high rank through lavish grave goods disappear at roughly the same time, ­perhaps 87. Garland’s (1985) survey of Greek burial customs is sprinkled with references to funerary legislation. See also Hodkinson 2000, pp. 245–247. Cornell (1995, p. 106), however, stresses that attested funerary legislation in the Greco-Roman world does not concern itself with grave goods, and he doubts the efficacy of government legislation. Indeed, legislation is not necessary to explain the Archaic Cretan pattern. 88. Morris (1990; 1998a, p. 68) touches on Cretan principles of kinship and descent. 89. At Athens, Argos, and Corinth, the Late Geometric period heralded a change in the location of cemeteries and a decline in grave goods; see Kotsonas 2002, p. 53. In Central Italy, where funerary evidence disappears in ca. 580, Cornell (1995, p. 108) favors a cultural explanation, with an elite devoting their resources from private consumption to public expenditure. The decline in funerary evidence from Argos in the 7th century resembles the 6th-century Cretan pattern and may have similar causes. At Argos, diverse and elaborate tomb types gave way around 700 to a simple form of burial in a krater or pithos. Grave goods are absent from 7th-century burials (until ca. 630), making it difficult to identify

them except through stratigraphic relationships with 8th-century tombs; see Foley 1988, pp. 47–49. 90. It is generally assumed that the family was the organizing principle of Early Iron Age Cretan burial grounds. Indeed, Kurtz and Boardman (1971, pp. 25–28) regard family burial as a defining feature of ancient Greek civilization. Houby-Nielsen (1995, pp. 159–164), however, proposes an alternative to family burial, symposiastic clubs, for Archaic tombs in the Kerameikos at Athens. Whitley (2001, p. 264) once endorsed this theory and suggested something similar for Early Iron Age chamber tombs at Knossos. Forensic evidence, however, establishes family descent in at least one such tomb; see Coldstream and Catling 1996, p. 245; Whitley 2004, p. 437; Kotsonas 2006, p. 150, n. 3. Even if family descent was not always the motive for collective burial in Early Iron Age Crete, the argument offered here for the switch to individual graves may still stand: as membership in the community at large became the dominant ideology, private associations (military groups, drinking clubs, and so on) mattered less in funerary ritual. 91. The theme of continuity with the Minoan past looms large in studies of Early Iron Age Crete. The conserva-

tive ceramic traditions of Iron Age settlements exhibit clear links to the Late Bronze Age, and Crete maintains trade connections with the Near East through much of the so-called Dark Age. The reuse of Minoan chamber tombs in the historical era can also be interpreted as an expropriation of the Minoan past. Wallace (2003, p. 271) interprets such burial practices as an attempt to equate family members with a generic and possibly invented ancestral group of great antiquity. On a broader level, Alcock (2002, pp. 108–121) and Sjögren (2008, pp. 158–194) document the revival of Minoan cult sites, artistic forms, and memories in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, although this activity does not strictly constitute a survival of earlier practices. 92. Wason 1994, p. 90. 93. Sjögren (2003, pp. 69–70; 2008, pp. 153–154) touches on this theme, characterizing individual pithos and pit tombs of the 6th century as expressions of an “individualistic,” “highly personal,” and “private” mind-set, especially with regard to the afterlife. Because this interpretation enters into the subjective realm of personal belief and eschatological views, it would be difficult to substantiate.

256

chapter 10

denoting a complementary effort to tone down ostentatious display, as a result of external sanctions or elite self-regulation. Early Minoan Crete seems to offer a parallel for the assimilation of individual identity at death in a corporate group other than the nuclear family. Once the bodies of those buried in tholos tombs in the southern Mesara had decomposed, they were indiscriminately swept aside to make room for new burials, subsuming the dead in a collective descent group. As these Minoan tholoi contained too many burials to have served as family repositories, they must have involved a different organizational principle, possibly a system based on clans. 94 Perhaps another way of downplaying the nuclear family at death in the 6th century was though individual tombs with no obvious trace of a familial relationship between them. Archaic Crete, however, lacks the contextual background for inferring principles of family organization through a range of domestic and other deposits. Mourners in the 6th century may have marked family associations in ways, such as the organization of individual burials in family plots or other above-ground arrangements, no longer apparent to us.95 Whether as a result of economic hardship, intentional restraint, or a combination of these and other factors, the shift from Orientalizing wealth to Archaic poverty was not entirely uniform across the island, and in some places it did not occur at all. The abandonment of the Orientalizing cemeteries at Knossos around 630 marks the first stage in this process, with Aphrati following suit in the early 6th century. At both sites, the change appears to have been drastic, involving the relocation of cemeteries and the virtual disappearance of later burials from the archaeological record. At Knossos, the rich chamber tombs of the Geometric and Orientalizing periods drop completely from the record. The fact that Archaic and Classical burials have consistently escaped detection perhaps reflects the extreme poverty of their contents and ephemeral tomb structure. Central Crete is austere by any standard. Eleutherna provides an important counterexample, since its shift to funerary restraint occurs more gradually, coming to a head two or three generations after the first signs of the process at Knossos, and takes a less pronounced form, as burials are still visible in archaeological terms.96 In contrast, West Cretan port towns followed mainland Greek styles in memorializing the dead after ca. 525. At Kydonia, Corinthian and Attic perfume bottles and inscribed stone tomb markers testify to mainland Greek influence in the late 6th century, while at Phalasarna, the early 5th century heralds a considerable increase in the number of excavated tombs with relatively rich ceramic offerings.97 These West Cretan cemeteries cannot be described as restrained, at least after ca. 525. N. V. Sekunda regards it as certain “that the establishment of a colony at Kydonia led to a rise in Aiginetan influence throughout the island.”98 This perhaps goes beyond current evidence, although Aiginetan influence would explain the regional pattern. Itanos, another port town exposed to outside influences, evinces a similar pattern of relatively rich tombs with plentiful imports ca. 525–500. Praisos presents another interesting case, for burials and architectural terracottas there make the 6th century highly visible from an archaeological

94. Branigan (1970, pp. 127–130; 1993, pp. 81–95) surveys the range of opinion on the social implications of these tombs. 95. Parker (2005, pp. 24–27) emphasizes that even with clearly defined family enclosures such as the Classical peribolos tombs of Athens and its territory, familial relationships among the deceased are not always apparent. 96. In addition, a sculpted grave stele of Archaic date from Eleutherna (Chap. 1, pp. 7–8) hints at greater scope for elite display. 97. For Phalasarna, see Chap. 11 (pp. 295–296). According to Morris’s (1998a, p. 73) survey of the Panhellenic scene, most Archaic cemeteries in central Greece and the Aegean exhibit a phase of slightly richer offerings at the end of the 6th century. 98. Sekunda 2000, p. 333.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

257

standpoint.99 Praisos figures prominently in the ancient tradition and modern scholarship as an Eteocretan foundation with a notable local heritage, and its idiosyncratic styles of pottery show little sign of foreign inspiration.100 Thus, these two East Cretan poleis hint at a modest funerary pattern in contrast to the almost nonexistent archaeological footprint in the central zone.

SANC T UARI ES The concept of archaeological visibility also has profound implications for understanding Cretan religious practices. It has been argued that many of the most important Orientalizing cult centers, including the Idaian and Diktaian caves, were abandoned in the early 6th century, with little or nothing else taking their place.101 But were they abandoned, or did the pattern of dedication change to more obscure rites? Arguably in the case of Cretan sanctuaries too, the Orientalizing pattern of elite competition gave way in the 6th century to uniform group participation associated with the corporate values of the emerging polis. Compared with other regions of Greece, this stage of political development on Crete may have taken a far less conspicuous form in religious rites. Lavish use of bronze brings attention to dedications of the Orientalizing period. A characteristic assemblage found at many sites on the island consists of miniature bronze armor, especially shields and votive axes. Discoveries at the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos, the acropolis sanctuary at Gortyn, the Delphinion at Dreros, and the Sanctuary of Zeus at Palaikastro document the wide diffusion of these characteristic Cretan votive types (Fig. 10.5).102 This cult equipment presumably reflects male initiation ceremonies and the warrior mentality of Orientalizing Crete.103 At the rustic Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Kato Symi, bronze cutout plaques depicting human figures bearing animals for sacrifice express a local preference for an unusual votive type, although from a stylistic standpoint these plaques conform to Orientalizing precepts.104 Ivory and terracottas also figure prominently as dedications at 7thcentury Cretan sanctuaries. Boardman’s seminal publication of the Cretan 99. A fuller discussion of this evidence appears in Chap. 8. 100. For recent opinions with regard to Eteocretan identity, see Chap. 1 (p. 5). 101. For the apparent abandonment of Orientalizing cult centers, see Chap. 1 (pp. 12–13). 102. Full-size armor occasionally accompanies these votive miniatures. For an overview of the evidence, see Prent 2005, pp. 383–395; Erickson 2009, pp. 385–387; Perlman 2010, pp. 101–102. The appearance of these votives at so many Orientalizing

sanctuaries makes one think that they are a hallmark of Cretan cult practice. An illustration of the strongly perceived Cretan association of these finds is the identification of a similar collection of artifacts at Bassai in the Peloponnese as dedications by Cretan mercenaries; see Snodgrass (1974, pp. 198–200), who situates these dedications in the historical circumstances of the Second Messenian War. See also Voyatzis 1990, pp. 218–220. Perlman (2000, p. 67), however, explains them with reference to an Arkadian role in the settlement of Crete.

103. The iconography of the Idaian shields has provoked much discussion regarding local cult practices. For a summary of then-current opinion, see Watrous 1996, pp. 89–90, 107. See also the more recent discussion in Prent 2005, pp. 565–604 104. The Kato Symi plaques have figured prominently in recent discussions of Orientalizing art; see S. Morris 1992, p. 165. They are an idiosyncrasy of Kato Symi, found virtually nowhere else apart from Aphrati, the presumed source.

258

chapter 10

Figure 10.5. Orientalizing votive assemblage, Palaikastro. After Benton

1939–1940, pls. 27, 31. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

259

Collection at Oxford illustrates ivory dedications from the Diktaian Cave, and Ida has produced an even richer trove of ivories.105 As for terracottas, it has been suggested that the inspiration for the nude goddess represented by the most characteristic type of Cretan figurine was the Near Eastern goddess Astarte.106 In addition, imported pottery from the Greek East appears in Cretan votive contexts.107 The preference for small closed vessels suggests that these pots served as containers for perfumed oil, an appropriately lavish offering, although pottery played a negligible role in comparison to the numerous works of bronze and ivory at the Sanctuary of Zeus at Palaikastro.108 Catherine Morgan’s study of dedicatory practices at Early Iron Age Olympia and other sanctuaries of Zeus points to a special aspect of his worship involving a preference for bronze and other rich offerings over pottery.109 Although bronze objects outnumber pottery at some 7th-century Cretan sanctuaries, even those consecrated to other deities, cult sites elsewhere on the island show a preference for clay plaques and figurines, hinting at a more complex pattern. Prent distinguished between rich sanctuaries that served as meeting places for elite worshippers and a second category characterized by humbler clay offerings, which she identified as civic cults of local significance, where the concepts of social integration and community participation played a greater ceremonial role.110 The disappearance of bronze votives from nearly every investigated Cretan sanctuary in the first quarter of the 6th century may mark a substantial change in religious practices. A few case studies will be presented here to illustrate the general trend. At Kato Symi, bronze cutout plaques decline in number by a factor of 10 after ca. 600–575.111 Following this precipitous decline, bronze offerings disappear from the sanctuary altogether by the 5th century. In addition, the votive deposits from the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos document a massive decline of bronze offerings after ca. 600–575, with only two examples dating after this period.112 Although not strictly a votive deposit, the cache of bronze armor allegedly 105. Boardman (1961, pp. 67–68), who illustrates ivory finds from the sanctuary, refers to a 7th-century ivory figurine from the Diktaian Cave of possible Syro-Phoenician origin. For Ida, see Kunze (1935–1936), whose catalogue has been updated by Hoffman (1997, pp. 53–65). The excavations at Ida under the direction of Sakellarakis (1992, p. 113) have raised the number of ivories previously known from the cave from 34 to 1,034. 106. According to Boardman (1961, p. 109) and Böhm (1990, pp. 125–126), the characteristic Cretan female goddess figurine derived from Near Eastern models. 107. Pottery from Rhodes and other eastern Greek centers is included among the finds from the cave. In addition, a bronze head vase of

probable Cypriot origin served as an unguent container; see Boardman 1961, pp. 80–84. 108. Hutchinson (1939–1940, pl. 16) attributes most of the catalogued pots and lamps from the sanctuary at Palaikastro to the Geometric and Hellenistic periods and was unable to date any examples to the 5th or 4th century. See also Boardman (1961, p. 56), who notes the paucity of Classical pottery from the Diktaian Cave. 109. Morgan 1990, p. 28. Zeus may have played a special role on Crete in other ways. According to Watrous (1996, p. 111), Zeus oversaw interactions between Cretan poleis. In addition, the tradition (Diog. Laert. 8.3) connecting the lawgiver Epimenides with a sojourn at Ida alludes to

the political aspect of Zeus; see Burkert 1992, p. 63. 110. Prent (2005, pp. 357–358, 406–407, 478) observes that many clay figurines and plaques at these civic cults were stamped from the same mold over a long time, resulting in a fairly homogeneous collection of offerings. If elites participated in these ceremonies, they may have toned down display, perhaps in an effort to conform to community standards. 111. Sixty-seven plaques can be dated on stylistic grounds to the 7th or first quarter of the 6th century; thereafter only six examples appear at the sanctuary; see Lebessi 1985b, p. 222. 112. The two later bronzes, a spearhead and a tripod base, are unlike earlier finds; see Levi 1930–1931.

260

chapter 10

found at Aphrati has produced nothing datable on stylistic grounds after ca. 575.113 In addition, two rich series of bronze offerings at the Diktaian and Idaian caves come to an abrupt end in the early years of the 6th century.114 Elsewhere on the island, the record of 6th-century bronzework is so meager that it has discouraged intensive study. Since the chronology of Orientalizing art depends in the absence of stratified deposits largely on style, the concept of lingering styles as an explanation for the perceived absence of 6th-century bronzes cannot be entirely dismissed. Indeed, Brunilde Ridgway hypothesized lingering Daedalic styles to explain the apparent artistic recession.115 Yet the protracted gaps in the stylistic sequence of bronze votives extend for more than two centuries, and even a radically revised chronology of Orientalizing art cannot fill this void. The foundation of new sanctuaries in the final quarter of the 6th century, discussed later, is associated with different types of offerings, providing positive evidence for the disappearance of Orientalizing bronze votives by ca. 525. Moreover, the symbolic vocabulary of Cretan religion undergoes a significant change in the Archaic period: pottery substitutes for bronze. The priorities of modern researchers who concentrate on lavish objects of bronze and ivory or terracotta votives of intrinsic artistic interest have made it harder to detect later activity. Plain pottery from Cretan sanctuaries has not received much attention, obscuring periods of activity with a predominantly ceramic component. At Kato Symi, positive evidence for the transition from rich bronze offerings to plain ceramic equipment has emerged from careful study of sacrificial debris.116 Clay drinking cups become the most conspicuous find at the sanctuary following the disappearance of bronze offerings in the early 6th century. Although a few of the unpublished inscribed cups from Kato Symi appear to be dedications, most apparently served a utilitarian function and were presumably left behind after acquiring a secondary importance as symbols of the festivities. If so, the switch from bronze to pottery reflects an evolving emphasis from symbolic offerings to utilitarian equipment.117 The overwhelming preponderance 113. Hoffmann 1972, pp. 41–46. If the bronze mitra inscribed with the Spensithios decree belonged to this same hoard, it would be the only example of late-6th-century date. S. Morris (1992, p. 160) assumes that the mitra was an heirloom later reused as a field for the inscription. In addition, epigraphic dating of the armor in the Aphrati hoard has often conflicted with the dates determined by the style of figural motifs; see Bile 1988, pp. 35–40; Prent 2005, p. 386, n. 951. 114. Exceptions are few. Boardman (1961, p. 148) mentions an unpublished 6th-century bronze exaleiptron from the Idaian Cave. In addition, Sakellarakis (1988, p. 211) discovered a 6thcentury shield from Ida. Even Benton (1939–1940, p. 55), who was willing to downdate the latest bronzes from Ida,

did not entertain a date after ca. 550. Also, a handful of bronze figurines from Amnisos and Kato Symi suggest that bronze offerings at other Cretan sanctuaries did not completely disappear. From Kato Symi comes a 6th-century inscribed bronze handle (Lebessi 1973, p. 191, pl. 193:c), a 6th-century bronze figurine of a goat (Lebessi 1975a, p. 325, pl. 256:b), a bronze figurine of a youth with an inscribed base dated to the second quarter of the 5th century (Lebessi 1985a, p. 276, pls. 133:b, 134:a), a 5th-century bronze plaque (Lebessi 1972, p. 197, pl. 185:a), and a 5thcentury terracotta plaque (Lebessi 1975a, p. 325, pl. 257:c). 115. Ridgway (1993, pp. 26, 30) frames the question of Cretan artistic decline as a disinclination toward the

new Archaic style. 116. Erickson 2002, pp. 77–79. 117. The interpretation of ceramic function at Greek sanctuaries is not, however, straightforward. Other studies stress the difficulty of drawing a line between a votive function and the use of pottery in drinking ceremonies. Morgan (1990, pp. 28–29) examines this problem in general terms. See also Langdon (1997a, pp. 120–121), who concludes that ceramics found at the Early Iron Age Sanctuary of Zeus at Hymettos represented offerings, not tableware for ritual drinking. At Kato Symi, fine drinking cups and jugs appear with table, cooking, and coarse wares, and so were used more likely as containers for food and drink than as dedications in their own right.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

261

of drinking cups at Kato Symi is exceptional even among contemporary Cretan sanctuaries, where a greater variety of ceramic offerings and cult equipment, including terracotta figurines and lamps, commonly occurs.118 Another factor distinguishing Archaic from Orientalizing activity is an apparent shift from a restrictive pattern of symbolic offerings to wider group participation. The construction of new terraces in the Archaic period enabled the sanctuary at Kato Symi to accommodate a larger group of worshippers than was previously possible.119 Thick layers of ash and a mass of broken drinking cups throughout the sanctuary suggest a broad level of participation in religious feasts by worshippers in the 6th century. From a site in the territory of Praisos comes evidence for the extensive use of ceramic equipment at Cretan sanctuaries during the period ca. 575–525, on the assumption that the debris is from a kiln associated with a rural sanctuary.120 This kiln specialized in the production of high-necked cups and jugs indistinguishable in shape and decoration from pottery found in settlement areas, and its construction ensured a supply of plain utilitarian pottery presumably earmarked for the sanctuary. In contrast, the Orientalizing pattern of worship at Praisos emphasized votive offerings, including bronzes, terracotta plaques, and figurines.121 By and large, the limited evidence from Praisos and its territory suggests a 7th-century focus on symbolic dedications, whereas in the 6th century the use of cheaper pottery allowed, and implies, broader participation in local drinking ceremonies. Religious drinking groups defined along such lines may have fostered a new definition of community, with the participants occasionally being male initiates in rite-of-passage ceremonies. At Kato Symi, a terracotta figurine of late 7th-century date depicts a young man with a drinking cup in hand.122 This rare depiction of a high-necked cup in Cretan art recalls Strabo’s (10.483) account of Cretan initiation ceremonies in which young men returning to the city after a stay in the countryside were provided with a cloak, a sacrificial cow, and a drinking cup. Maria Shaw published a similar depiction on a 7th-century Gortynian oinochoe of a youth holding in one hand a two-handled cup and in the other a sacrificial victim (Fig. 10.6).123 Epigraphic evidence sheds further light on the role of ritual drinking in forming a sense of community among the exclusive male citizenry of the developing polis. An Archaic inscription from Eleutherna (SEG XLI 739, lines 2–3), which refers to drinking practices at Dion Akron 118. As is the case at the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Gortyn, the votive deposit at Olous, and the suburban sanctuary at Itanos. For references, see p. 268, n. 146. 119. Lebessi (1985b, p. 222) refers to a contraction in the size of the sanctuary in the Archaic period based on building phases. Although monumental constructions do play a lesser role, the construction of terrace walls in the 6th or 5th century would have accommodated scores of visitors. Ritual

drinking may have also taken place outside the excavated area in the open air. Sjögren (2003, p. 54) makes a similar case for Kommos, stressing that that the total area of the sanctuary (ca. 3,700 m2) permitted large public gatherings. 120. This uncertain identification of the site as a kiln is discussed in Chap. 8 (pp. 201–205). 121. Bronze votives from an Archaic sanctuary at Praisos hint at relatively lavish display, although the contemporary terracotta figurines and plaques

reflect dedications of a humbler sort; see Forster 1901–1902, pp. 274–277; 1904–1905, pp. 249–251. 122. Iraklion Archaeological Museum 20026. A predecessor in bronze at Kato Symi may signal the importance of ritual drinking in male rite-of-passage ceremonies in the Geometric period; see Prent 2005, p. 578. The antiquity of the ceremony described by Strabo is much debated; see Erickson 2009, pp. 373–374. 123. Shaw 1983, p. 450, fig. 4.

262

chapter 10

(a coastal sanctuary), stipulates that the dromeis be permitted to drink together at the sanctuary and places restrictions on their behavior. At Kato Symi and Dion Akron, communal drinking probably played a role in riteof-passage ceremonies, although such was not necessarily the case at other Cretan sanctuaries. Formal state involvement in religious ceremonies as attested epigraphically at Dion Akron may be a new development of the 6th century, with the homogeneous character of drinking cups found elsewhere reflecting less formal means of regulating religious feasts. At the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos, terracotta figurines of mainland Greek type gained prominence in the early years of the 6th century (Fig. 10.7). A rich assortment of Orientalizing bronze and terracotta votives died out ca. 600–575, leaving in their wake two major classes of offering: moldmade figurines and plaques. Life-size terracotta busts were also found at the sanctuary (Fig. 1.3), demonstrating that not all the later terracottas were produced en masse, although the busts are similar in style to the smaller terracotta figurines.124 These busts raise the possibility that at least some worshippers made a token effort to distinguish themselves from the pack, although the absence of truly expensive ivory and bronze dedications stresses the overall egalitarian tone of the sanctuary in the 6th and 5th centuries. Evidence from the territory of Axos supplements this picture of a thriving coroplast tradition, for unpublished terracottas made from the same fabric and mold as examples from Axos have been found at a small open-air sanctuary at Pharatsi next to the Geropotamos River.125 This collection includes large terracottas of Archaic and Classical date, with the bodies of the largest fragments indicating works of almost monumental character. Daedalic clay figurines provide a precedent for these later terracottas, although the disappearance of the characteristic Orientalizing assemblage of bronze armor at Axos points to an overall change in dedicatory practices. Even so, symbolic dedications like the busts continued to play an important role at the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos, unlike Kato Symi and Praisos. Thus, at Axos, the Archaic period witnessed a substantial change in dedicatory practices, with a greater standardization of types and a narrower range of offerings, combined with a significant level of continuity. The Archaic sanctuary at Kommos evinces a more subtle pattern. Since this site almost never attracted lavish bronze dedications, there is no clear chronological divide between bronze and ceramic equipment.126 Yet the 6th century witnessed important changes in ritual behavior, as demonstrated 124. For the terracottas from Axos, see Rizza 1967–1968, pp. 214–269. 125. For the sanctuary at Pharatsi, see Andreadaki-Vlasaki 2004, p. 42. Another find from this site, a cup base (Rethymnon Archaeological Museum 23741) with a ring foot and articulated outer edge, should be dated, based on comparisons with cups from site 14 of the Praisos Survey (503–509, Fig. 8.9), to ca. 575–525. The fabric of this cup is similar to that of the terracottas and suggests a local production center at or

near Axos. Another shrine in the vicinity of Axos at Drosia has produced Archaic and Classical terracottas; see Andreadaki-Vlasaki 2004, p. 41. 126. J. Shaw (2000, p. 693) stresses that Kommos was poor in relation to Cretan cave sanctuaries. Prent (2005, p. 475), however, infers from what she regards as costly metal votives at Kommos that it was a meeting place for elites from surrounding areas rather than a sanctuary serving a single community. Yet the only truly monu-

Figure 10.6. Fragment of a 7thcentury oinochoe from Gortyn depicting a youth with cup and sacrificial victim. Scale 2:3. After

Shaw 1983, p. 450, fig. 4. Courtesy the Archaeological Institute of America

mental bronze dedication from Kommos is a bronze statue of likely Classical or Hellenistic date whose sole surviving fragments are eyelashes; see M. Shaw 2000, pp. 196–197, pl. 3:41. For Wallace (2003, p. 264), the coastal location of Kommos and evidence of commercial contacts means that it served as a link between the Mesara and the outside world, implying a role as a regional meeting place. See also Prent 2005, p. 525.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

Figure 10.7. Archaic terracotta figurines from the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos. After Rizza 1967–1968,

fig. 17. Reproduced with permission of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene

263

264

chapter 10

by Maria Shaw’s study of the votive figurines. In the early phases of the historical Greek sanctuary, internal hearth altars and benches functioned as the principal places of worship. Cult activities took place inside temple structures, and personal dedications of what is interpreted as an elite warrior class dominate 7th-century and earlier assemblages, with bronze and clay figurines of chariots, horses, and bulls prominently on display.127 In the 5th or 4th century, a standard line of clay bulls replaced these personal dedications. Shaw posits a shift in the Classical period to open-air sacrifices, and she characterizes later worshippers as “members of a more egalitarian community, their offerings stressing worship in a communal fashion through sacrifice rituals, instead of their own status and the protection of private property.”128 The excavators tentatively dated the beginning of this process to the 6th century, since the abandonment of Temple B ca. 600 and the construction of Altar H ca. 550–500 seem to reflect a new focus. At Knossos, Coldstream documents mass production of terracottas at the Sanctuary of Demeter in the early 5th century.129 The finds from this sanctuary also include drinking cups and lamps. Although the clay figurines served as symbolic offerings, the signs of burning on numerous lamp holes and the preference for plain, serviceable drinking cups point to an overall emphasis on functionality. Classical cult practice here and elsewhere emphasized group participation over elite display. At Amnisos, pottery begins to appear only after ca. 500, heralding a replacement of earlier personal votives in lavish materials with plain equipment suggesting communal activities.130 The profusion of lamps at Classical Cretan sanctuaries perhaps also has a bearing on ritual participation.131 Eva Parisinou’s study of the use of lamps in Greek religious contexts interprets their frequent appearance at sanctuaries of Demeter, Artemis, and Athena as remnants of the nocturnal feasts described by later literary sources.132 This all-night vigil, the pannuchis, included dances, songs, a sacrifice, and a meal. Lamps may have also acquired a quasi-dedicatory function as symbols of the event. A distinctive feature of the pannuchis was the participation of women, which would explain the correlation between lamps and cults of female g­ oddesses, 127. M. Shaw 2000, p. 174; Prent 2005, p. 475. 128. In the case of the later offerings, M. Shaw (2000, pp. 174–175) notes a standardization of fabric and the absence of bronze and other materials. Haggis (2003), in a review of the publication, agrees that “the emphasis is clearly on public cult, if not egalitarian sacrificial ritual.” 129. Coldstream 1973a, pp. 183– 185; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 296. 130. Sjögren (2003, p. 54) reaches a similar conclusion for Amnisos. 131. This interpretation does not

preclude overlapping factors and a specific role for lamps at certain cult sites. At the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, for example, Coldstream (1973a, p. 186) plausibly connects the lamps with the nocturnal ceremonies held in honor of Demeter mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (5.77.3). And, as Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki (1976) point out, an obvious practical use comes to mind in the case of lamps from a cave consecrated in the 5th century to Pan and the Nymphs at Lera in the territory of Kydonia. In addition, Callaghan (1978, p. 23) attributes a symbolic significance to lamps at the

“Shrine of Glaukos” in the context of hero cult as “a container for the purifying element of fire.” 132. Parisinou 2000, pp. 158–161. Indeed, Simon (1986, pp. 410–420) brings gender to the center of the discussion by emphasizing the needs and status of the dedicants as the most important issues involved in the types of votive offerings left. See also Hodkinson’s (2000, pp. 289–290) discussion of gender patterns at Spartan sanctuaries. For pannuchides at state festivals in Athens and its territory, see Parker 2005, p. 166.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

Figure 10.8. Classical lamps, Roussa Ekklesia. Scale 1:4. Photo by C. Papanikolopoulos

133. Erickson 2010a. This sanctuary is notably poor by Orientalizing standards and lacks metal offerings. It seems to have attracted a small local following, unlike the larger regional cult centers of the Orientalizing period known elsewhere on Crete. Thus, the

265

particularly Demeter. Once again, the record of Late Archaic Cretan religious activity emphasizes widespread participation in ceremonies in which cheap, functional equipment could have been used and then dedicated as an offering. In addition, at Roussa Ekklesia, a rural sanctuary site in East Crete, the Orientalizing pattern of symbolic dedications characterized by terracotta plaques and figurines gave way in the 5th century to a profusion of lamps, perhaps remnants of the pannuchis (Fig. 10.8).133 These changes on Crete are unexpected from the perspective of Snodgrass’s hypothesized switch from raw to converted offerings. Snodgrass has argued that the substantial decline in the quantity of small bronzes at Greek sanctuaries reflects fundamental changes in the nature and role of votives.134 He defines a raw offering as an unmodified object of secular use, and a converted offering as a conversion of wealth into a symbolic item made specifically for dedication, such as a figurine. A key point of Snodgrass’s argument is that raw offerings register more clearly in the archaeological record. The dedication of ordinary items leaves rich votive deposits strewn with material, whereas symbolic offerings, because after ca. 500 they often take the form of monumental state dedications, are less likely to survive as a result of their high intrinsic value and the potential shift from Orientalizing dedications to utilitarian objects in this case does not involve an extreme discrepancy between rich and poor finds. 134. Snodgrass 1989–1990; and discussed by Hodkinson (2000, pp. 286–287) as well as Whitley (2001,

pp. 311–312). In a similar vein, Mattusch’s (1988) study of monumental bronze statuary points to a greater role overall for state commissions by the end of the 6th or beginning of the 5th century.

266

chapter 10

of the material for reuse. Small ordinary bronze objects disappeared from Greek sanctuaries in the 6th and 5th centuries supposedly as a result of this switch from raw to converted offerings, although the timing of this pattern varies from place to place.135 In contrast, every investigated Cretan sanctuary documents a steep decline, if not a complete cessation, in bronze votives. Furthermore, the decline on Crete begins earlier than elsewhere in the Greek world, making it difficult to explain local votive practices on the basis of general trends.136 The Cretan evidence also seems to reflect a different evolution, from rich symbolic objects worthy of display to plain utilitarian equipment associated with group participation. Raw offerings replace converted ones. Another aspect of the arguably profound structural changes in Cretan religious practice of the 6th century is the new emphasis on civic cults at the expense of the regional cult centers of the Orientalizing period. The historical evolution of the Idaian Cave provides an excellent case in point. This site ranks among the richest Early Iron Age sanctuaries, its modern reputation resting on the splendid series of bronze shields with figural decoration. The mythological associations of the cave as the birthplace of Zeus undoubtedly attracted a pan-Cretan assembly of worshippers. Moreover, the Idaian Cave probably lay outside the territory of neighboring poleis, and the markedly rich Geometric and Orientalizing votives emphasize the cave’s probable status as one of the premier sanctuaries for elite display.137 Various attempts to trace the dedications to a single area of production have met with limited success. Since the offerings find parallels in grave goods at Eleutherna and votive deposits at Axos, Prinias, and Gortyn, not to mention sites further afield, the sanctuary must have been visited by worshippers from various areas or cities, which accords with later epigraphic testimony.138 The Idaian Cave did not fare well—judged from an archaeological standpoint—during the transition between the Orientalizing period and 135. At the Kabeirion in Boiotia, stylistic dating of bronze and lead animal figurines points to a significant drop in these offerings at the end of the Archaic period; see Schmaltz 1980, pp. 113, 164; Schachter 2003, pp. 126–128. At the extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene (Warden 1990, pp. 12–14, 40), a decline in small votives occurs somewhat later in the Classical period, whereas at Olympia, the decline is largely a phenomenon of the early 5th century. At Olympia, helmet and jewelry dedications were on the wane in the early 5th century (Olympia XIII, pp. 8–10, with references to earlier scholarship), but other categories of bronze votives continued until ca. 450 (Olympia XXI, p. 169; cf. Rolley 1993, pp. 394–395). Even in the case of Samos, a much smaller island than

Crete, there is a chronologically divergent pattern. At the Sanctuary of Artemis on Samos, votives peak in number in the third quarter of the 6th century and exhibit a slow decline thereafter. In contrast, the decline in votives at the Samian Heraion does not begin until the 5th century; see Kyrieleis 1993, p. 129. Only one other Greek sanctuary has produced a chronological pattern similar to that of Crete. At the harbor sanctuary at Emporio on Chios, most bronze votives come to an end ca. 600; see Boardman 1967, pp. xii, 205–209, 257. 136. Based on the available evidence, Snodgrass (1989–1990, p. 291) dates the general shift from raw to converted offerings to the end of the Archaic period, a century after the disappearance of bronzes from Cretan sanctuaries. Hodkinson (2000, p. 287),

however, stresses the chronological discrepancies in the pattern from site to site. 137. The resplendent offerings at Ida convince Sakellarakis (1988, p. 210) that the cave attracted elite visitors in the Geometric and Orientalizing periods. For the Idaian cave as a regional or interregional meeting place, see Chaniotis 2006, pp. 202–203. 138. S. Morris (1992, p. 165) and Prent (2005, pp. 568–569) summarize the evidence. Stampolidis (1998; 2003, p. 59) cites specific parallels between the bronzes from the Idaian Cave and recently discovered examples from the Geometric cemetery at Eleutherna, suggesting a common workshop. Watrous (1996, p. 103) lists Axos, Eleutherna, Knossos, Tylissos, Phaistos, and Gortyn among the poleis with a religious connection to Ida.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

267

the 6th century. Votives appear to dry up completely, suggesting an ­abandonment of this venerable cult center. A 5th-century inscription (IC IV 80), however, mentions a religious procession to the cave organized by Gortyn and its political dependencies.139 The cave also figures prominently in the mainland Greek literary tradition as a place of religious veneration in the Classical period, although this later worship has left hardly a trace in the artifacts from the site.140 Thus, the epigraphic testimony suggests group participation in ceremonial processions rather than ostentatious dedications. Perhaps a large portion of the community with its political dependencies participated in a procession followed by a sacrifice. At any rate, epigraphic evidence counters the suggestion that cult activity ceased altogether following the disappearance of rich Orientalizing votives and points instead to the evolution of the site’s use to civic rituals that stressed group participation. The Diktaian Cave and the Sanctuary of Zeus at Palaikastro, two other important Orientalizing cult centers, undergo a similar evolution of dedicatory practices. Watrous regarded the Diktaian Cave as a regional cult center, although the literary tradition implies that the cave technically lay in the territory of Lyktos.141 His study of the finds demonstrates that Orientalizing bronze and ivory dedications ceased ca. 600 but were followed by a scattering of Archaic and Classical ceramics, which signals not a cessation but a transformation of cult practices.142 At Palaikastro, the Orientalizing pattern of rich votives was superceded in the Archaic and Classical periods by a meager collection of terracotta figurines and pots, although the construction of a monumental temple in the 6th century clearly sets Palaikastro apart from the sacred caves at Ida and Dikti.143 This construction reflects group investment, whether financed by aristocrats alone or a wider section of the community or several communities active at the sanctuary.144 Palaikastro managed to adjust to the changing social climate of the Archaic period in an archaeologically impressive manner. By the Hellenistic period, it functioned as a frontier sanctuary on the territorial margins of several important East Cretan poleis. The shift from 139. This inscription requires perioikic subjects of Gortyn to provide 350 staters’ worth of victims in a trieteric festival of Zeus on Ida; see Willetts 1962, pp. 242–243. According to Perlman (2010, pp. 92–98), an interstate agreement required participants to perform sacrifices to Idaian Zeus in the late 6th century. This new text depends on a proposed join between two previously unassociated Archaic inscriptions (IC II v 5 and IC II v 6) from Axos. 140. Euripides refers to the cult in a passage (Cretans fr. 472) discussed by Willetts (1962, pp. 239–240). In addition, Plato’s Laws takes place along the road from Knossos to the Sanctuary of Idaian Zeus. Another sign of activity is archaeological. Y. A. Sakellarakis

(pers. comm.) informs me that his excavations at the Idaian Cave have yielded imported black-figure pottery of 6th-century date. 141. Watrous 1996, p. 103. Prent (2005, p. 502, n. 1448), however, prefers to view the Diktaian Cave as a civic sanctuary attracting local worshippers from the chief settlement on the Lasithi plateau. 142. For instance, Watrous (1996, p. 44) dates no. 140 in his catalogue to the 6th century. 143. The date of the Palaikastro sima frieze is a matter of dispute. Mertens-Horn (1992, pp. 85–88), following the conventional chronology, dates it to the end of the 7th century. Winter (1993, pp. 258–259), however, places it much later, around 480. On a

related note, the Palaikastro frieze hints at a Cretan connection with Magna Graecia because another example from the same mold was reportedly found in southern Italy; see Kenfield 1994. 144. According to Prent (2005, p. 538), Palaikastro may have fallen under the control of Praisos in the 6th century. By analogy, she (p. 575) regards building activities at Kato Symi as a sign of a single community’s oversight of a sanctuary. The strongest indication of a connection between Palaikastro and Praisos is the fact that a number of the terracotta antefixes from Palaikastro came from the same mold as examples from a sanctuary at Praisos; see Dawkins, Hawes, and Bosanquet 1904–1905, pp. 303–305, figs. 20–22; Whitley 2008.

268

chapter 10

Orientalizing display to communal worship in the 6th century can be seen as an important stage in a long process of development.145 In contrast to the predominant Orientalizing pattern of regional cult centers as venues for elite display, the Late Archaic period saw the growth of suburban and rural sanctuaries closely linked to civic ideology. The revival of Demeter’s sanctuary at Knossos, mentioned earlier, and the foundation of a “Shrine of Glaukos” ca. 500–480 conform to a broader pattern. A number of other Cretan poleis witness a resumption of cult activity and the introduction of a new panoply of cult equipment at roughly the same time. B.g. drinking cups, terracotta figurines (including examples of the enthroned goddess type popular on the Greek mainland), and scores of lamps—among them elaborate specimens with multiple decks and nozzles—find favor at new or revitalized sanctuaries at Kydonia, Polichna, Eleutherna, Axos, Gortyn, Kamilari (Mesara), Archanes, Olous, Praisos, Roussa Ekklesia, and Itanos.146 The period ca. 500–480 may mark an important stage in the spatial and religious organization of these poleis.147 A brief examination of two of these sanctuaries, at Gortyn and Itanos, will illustrate a few of the wider trends. Excavations at Gortyn in the vicinity of Kamarakia on the lower slopes of Profitis Ilias brought to light an enormous votive deposit of figurines, lamps, and drinking vessels, with high-necked cups appearing in greater quantity than any other fine-ware shape. These cups document more or less continuous activity throughout the period of ca. 525–325.148 At Itanos, a sanctuary was reestablished ca. 525–500, after a long hiatus in the 6th century, on the slopes of a hill at a place called Vamies overlooking the city from the southwest. It exhibits a similar range of offerings.149 Indeed, the consistent combination of drinking cups, figurines, and lamps becomes a hallmark of Classical Cretan cult. The location of new “Demeter” cults, the participatory rituals staged at these sanctuaries, and the adoption of mainland votive types may signal 145. The hymn to Zeus and the ephebic oaths displayed at the sanctuary emphasize the importance of Palaikastro in Hellenistic rite-ofpassage ceremonies; see Perlman 1995. 146. The finds from most of these sanctuaries remain unpublished. The sacred cave of Lera in the territory of Kydonia (Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976), the sanctuary at Polichna (Mortzos 1985), and Roussa Ekklesia (Erickson 2010a) are exceptions. For the rest, see preliminary reports of the excavations, including those for the Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore” at Gortyn (Di Vita 1985, p. 40); Kamilari (Platon 1957, p. 335; Daux 1958, pp. 794–796, figs. 29–32); Archanes (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1997, pp. 41–42); Itanos (Greco et al. 1997, pp. 819–822); Olous (Platon 1960, p. 259; Platon and Davaris 1960,

p. 512); and Praisos (survey site 918). Sporn (2002, pp. 238–239) and Kotsonas (2008b, p. 29) discuss the lamps from the Archaic through Roman sanctuary at Eleutherna. A preliminary report of Euanthia Tegou’s study of the Late Archaic and Classical material from the “Demeter” sanctuary at Axos has appeared in the Mylopotamos conference proceedings (Tegou 2006). 147. D’Agata (1998, p. 24), however, proposes a different explanation for the rise of urban sanctuaries at Phaistos in the Archaic and Classical periods. In her view, tensions in the countryside between Phaistos and its rival Gortyn led to a stress on sanctuaries in the settlements. See also Wallace 2003, p. 263. This explanation overlooks the evidence for rural sanctuaries in the contested frontier, for which see p. 270. It also contradicts much current

thinking about rural sanctuaries as symbolic markers of territory. Poleis could not afford to back down from confrontation. Indeed, one would expect a greater role for rural sanctuaries during a period of territorial disputes. 148. This chronology is based on the dating of the earliest pottery as described in Chap. 6 (pp. 180–182). The latest cup bases from this deposit correspond in profile to the supports found on Knossian cups in UM:H10 (ca. 325–300), for which see Chap. 4, p. 145. 149. Greco et al. (1997, pp. 819– 822) place the sanctuary’s revival in the first half of the 5th century based on the style of the earliest Classical figurine. Unpublished Attic pottery from the sanctuary, however, indicates an earlier date for the resumption of activity: the final quarter of the 6th century.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

269

a new emphasis on civic functions in contrast to the earlier focus on ­aristocratic display at regional cult centers in the Orientalizing period. Most of these new sanctuaries lie at the urban periphery and have clear civic associations, with their location suggesting a role in rite-of-passage ceremonies that involved a temporary seclusion of some of the citizen body from the urban center. Demeter is an eminently appropriate choice to preside over the urban limits given what we know about the location of her sanctuaries elsewhere in the Greek world, but only at Knossos is her cult unequivocally attested by inscriptions.150 In all other cases, the subjects of the terracotta figurines at least suggest a female divinity. The clay hydrophoroi from Gortyn associate the sanctuary with Demeter, and the terracotta pigs at Olous and Kamilari point in the same direction.151 Whether the deity worshipped was Demeter in every case or occasionally some other goddess, the almost identical range of offerings and cult equipment suggest comparable civic functions. At Knossos, sanctuaries in the early 5th century contain a greater proportion of local pottery than contemporary domestic deposits do, signaling the importance of locally made equipment in rituals associated with civic identity.152 These sanctuaries with civic associations were not entirely without precedent, for the 7th century saw the rise of cults in inconspicuous locations in the countryside with a restricted range of humble offerings, including clay figurines and plaques, cylindrical figurines, and kernoi. Such sanctuaries are often located near springs, and Prent connects them with women’s fertility rites. 153 These cult sites, however, are not exactly 150. For the factors involved in the location of sanctuaries to Demeter, see Cole 1994, pp. 204–205. Langdon (2008, pp. 83–87) presents a poststructuralist critique of rite-of-passage ceremonies. The traditional formula of separation, liminality, and integration is problematic for girls, whose journey may correspond better to a sequence of enclosure, metamorphosis, and emergence. 151. The enthroned goddess often depicted by the figurines from these sanctuaries is compatible with an interpretation of Demeter or some other goddess. At Olous, a single figurine of Artemis appears among the countless generic representations, enough to suggest that the cult belonged to her or a close Cretan equivalent, Britomartis. For the cult of Britomartis at Olous, see Willetts 1962, p. 180. The unpublished figurine, on display at the Ayios Nikolaos Archaeological Museum, may, however, be an import from Corinth, in which case it need not have a bearing on the local cult. It resembles a widely exported Corinthian type (Higgins 1967, pp. 81–

82, pl. 35:d). The worship of Artemis at Olous, however, would not be incompatible with a sanctuary of Demeter. For example, Merker (in Corinth XVIII.4, p. 328) notes that terracottas of other deities appeared at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth. In addition, Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellarakis (1997, p. 42) infer from an inscribed Hellenistic tile that a Sanctuary of Athena existed in the area of Archanes. The proposed Classical date for the sanctuary depends on the uncertain association of the tile (from Tzami) with a Classical and Hellenistic votive deposit discovered underneath the “Agora” of Archanes. 152. Despite the popularity of Attic black and figural pottery in Late Archaic settlement deposits at Knossos, the Sanctuary of Demeter has yielded only a few fragments; see Coldstream 1973a, pp. 40–41, nos. 33–37, pl. 22, p. 53, nos. 7, 8, pl. 31. After ca. 425, however, imports become more plentiful at the sanctuary. At the “Shrine of Glaukos,” imports begin appearing only after ca. 400, a century after the earliest local pots. Thus, the Knossians evi-

dently preferred to drink from cups of local manufacture at their sanctuaries ca. 500–425, reserving imported pottery for domestic occasions or for consignment in their tombs. This apparent restraint on the religious stage marks a departure from normal Greek practice. According to Morgan (1990, p. 54), a higher percentage of decorated and imported fine-ware pottery is commonly found at Greek sanctuaries than in domestic contexts. Indeed, Attic and Corinthian imports figure prominently at other Cretan sanctuaries ca. 500– 480, including the Sanctuary of Apollo at Ayia Pelayia, the votive deposit at Olous, and the suburban sanctuary at Itanos. Why the Knossians should differ from their neighbors in this respect is difficult to say. At Archaic and Classical Corinth, Pemberton (2003, p. 171) concludes that different sanctuaries had different attitudes toward imports, but there is no overriding pattern as there is at Knossos. 153. Prent (2005, p. 417) compiles a brief list of such sanctuaries. Roussa Ekklesia is another excellent example.

270

chapter 10

c­ omparable to the Late Archaic and Classical sanctuaries, for symbolic dedications still played a prominent role in 7th-century ceremonies, in contrast to the later practice of leaving objects of practical use. Also, these fertility cults occupy a small niche in the Orientalizing religious framework, whereas in the 6th century such rituals become the main expression of the corporate values of the polis, with this new emphasis on participation coming at the expense of earlier venues for aristocratic display. A few sanctuaries in the countryside during the period ca. 600–400 probably also had civic associations. For instance, Kato Symi seems to have functioned as a frontier sanctuary for the community at Aphrati until the end of the 5th century. Visitors from Aphrati asserted a link in archaeologically visible terms, through the use of local pottery in drinking ceremonies at the sanctuary. As I have argued elsewhere, these local affiliations made Kato Symi a pawn in a territorial struggle with Lyktos.154 In the Hellenistic period, Kato Symi attracted a wider group of visitors, to judge from the ceramic and epigraphic testimony, as it became a regional cult center.155 This Hellenistic pattern contrasts with the local associations of the cult in the Archaic and Classical periods and bears a curious resemblance to the role of Orientalizing sanctuaries, albeit without the lavish dedications. Some rural sanctuaries elsewhere on the island seem well situated for a symbolic function as territorial markers. The Itanians established a Sanctuary of Athena Samonia on the tip of Cape Sidero at a natural terminus where a bluff overlooks the sea. The finds include 6th-century rupestral inscriptions and a temple of possible Archaic or Classical date, with a road linking the polis to this border sanctuary.156 Its location presents an interesting twist to François de Polignac’s hypothesized role for rural sanctuaries as territorial markers at contested frontiers, for Athena Samonia presides over a secure natural boundary, not a territorial dividing line, and is a purely symbolic marker.157 Also, in the territory of Kydonia, rural sanctuaries established at the tips of the Akrotiri (Lera) and Rodopou (Diktynnaian) peninsulas may represent an effort to legitimize colonial conquests and mark the limits of Kydonian territory.158 The civic associations of these cults are apparent, even though these peninsular sanctuaries derive from atypical poleis distinguished by their unusual receptivity to overseas influence and a less austere archaeological pattern. On the whole, the 6th century sees a preference for civic cults and mass production of equipment in place of regional cult centers and ostentatious votives, but this general framework leaves considerable room for 154. Erickson 2002, pp. 82–85. 155. The evidence is primarily epigraphic and consists of ethnic designations of visitors to Kato Symi. The Hellenistic and Roman pattern resembles the wider scope of elite patronage in the Orientalizing period. According to Bowsky (1994, p. 38), prominent Cretans from Ierapytna, Gortyn, and Lyktos formed “a supra-civic elite” under Roman rule.

See also Alcock 2002, p. 105. 156. Willetts (1962, pp. 281–282) and Sporn (2002, p. 40) discuss the remains from the sanctuary and along the road connecting it to Itanos. 157. De Polignac (1995, p. 36) had difficulty explaining such peninsular sanctuaries in mainland Greece. For post-structuralist critiques of de Polignac’s model and its relevance to Cretan sanctuaries, see Erickson 2009,

pp. 378–379. 158. Unlike the Sanctuary of Athena Samonia on Cape Sidero, a site firmly under the control of Itanos, the Diktynnaion probably changed hands as a result of a later territorial dispute between Kydonia and its western neighbor, Polyrrhenia. Willetts (1962, p. 192) cites the relevant epigraphic testimony.

i n t e r n a l t r a n s f o r m at i o n s

271

local practices and regional variations.159 As we have seen, the most visible face of this new pattern is the substitution of utilitarian ceramic objects for Orientalizing bronze votives. Pottery at Archaic sanctuaries arguably reflects group participation, whereas the earlier bronze votives belonged to the realm of aristocratic display. This emerging picture of material restraint ties in nicely with the evidence from Cretan cemeteries, for there display gave way ca. 600–575 to a small number of plain grave gifts, simple containers, and individual burials, heralding a different symbolic repertoire from the Early Iron Age with its rich and architecturally elaborate tombs of elite families.

159. Cretans worshipped at urban sanctuaries in the 7th century also, so the proposed emphasis on civic cults in the Archaic period does not mark an absolute break with the past. For example, the “Sanctuary of Aphrodite” at Axos and the acropolis sanctuary at Gortyn are both civic cults and rank among the most important Orientalizing sanctuaries on the island. Watrous (1996, p. 111) concludes that the expropriation of cult functions by Archaic poleis came at the expense of extraurban sanctuaries. 160. For a discussion of the archaeological crisis of mainland Greece in the 7th century, see Chap. 1 (p. 15). 161. Morris (1998b, pp. 60–69, 81–83) deals with domestic and funerary contexts. Although Archaic Crete parallels the material restraint of Classical Athens, few would argue that Crete saw the rise of a radical middling ideology almost a century before Athens.

Although the consolidation of polis institutions elsewhere in Greece has been associated with changes in settlement patterns, dedicatory practices, burial location, and funerary rites, the archaeological invisibility of Archaic Crete places it in a different category. Crete does not follow the mainland Greek trajectory, where the 7th century confronts us with an archaeological void.160 Instead, the more drastic changes in the island’s archaeological record come in the first quarter of the 6th century at most sites and seem to reflect a later stage of polis development. Crete also bears little resemblance to the Classical Athenian paradigm. According to I. Morris, austerity characterizes the whole range of Athenian material culture in the 5th century, and this shift to a middling ideology may be part of a Panhellenic phenomenon.161 On Crete, however, the 5th century is richer than the preceding period. Blanket explanations for the rise of the polis and its material indications risk glossing over significant differences in the Greek world, and these distinctions are important for understanding later variations on polis institutions and social customs of the ripe Archaic and Classical periods. Moving beyond the initial characterization of the pattern to explanatory models, the next chapter considers the evolution of Cretan society against the backdrop of foreign trade and cultural connections. As we shall see, changes in the structure of overseas trade seem to have drawn Crete more fully into a Peloponnesian cultural sphere, with intriguing implications for the development of archaeologically austere communities on Crete and at Sparta.

c hap ter 1 1

O v e rs e as Trade a n d C r e tan So c i e t y

1. For a discussion of the literary tradition, see Chap. 1 (pp. 15–19). 2. As discussed in Chap. 3 (p. 51). 3. These containers were designed as perfume bottles and presumably served the same function in the context of the Eleuthernian funeral. According to Shanks (1999, pp. 180–181), Corinthian pots passed directly from potter to consumer. Gill (1994, p. 104), however, doubts that figural pots always served as containers of wine and oil. According to Hoffman (1997, pp. 181– 183), who dealt with imitations of Phoenician juglets on Crete, such containers may have been transported for their own sake and not simply for their contents.

Cretan foreign relations have long puzzled historians of ancient Greece. In conventional accounts of 7th-century Aegean history, Crete stood at an important crossroads between east and west, and served as a filter for the spread of Near Eastern artistic and cultural influences to mainland Greece. By contrast, in historical accounts of the 5th century, the island seems to fall outside the political, cultural, and economic fold of mainland Greece and notably refused to participate in the war against the Persians.1 This impression of commercial decline, inferred mainly from literary sources, has withstood challenge from revisionist archaeologists, who have had to contend with pronounced gaps in the artifact sequences of the period ca. 600–400. Important new evidence from Eleutherna and other West Cretan sites, however, now supports a major reassessment of the island’s foreign relations during the Archaic period. Discoveries of imported pottery— principally Corinthian, Lakonian, and Attic products—document overseas contacts. Based on these discoveries, a more persuasive conclusion holds that the 6th century marks a fundamental reorientation of West Cretan commercial relations. The collapse of Near Eastern trade routes leads to a Peloponnesian focus. Artistic impoverishment, changing overseas trade relations, and aristocratic restraint combine to produce the stark pattern of the archaeological record for Archaic Crete. Evidence from elsewhere in the Greek world can also provide a perspective from which to assess these Cretan developments and their social implications.

OV ERS E AS IMP ORTS AT ELE U TH ERNA Recent excavations at Eleutherna bring new evidence to bear on the extent and character of Cretan overseas relations. Three waves of imported mainland Greek pottery reached Orthi Petra in the Archaic period, and these correspond to three regional groups (Table 11.1).2 The first group consists almost entirely of Early and Middle Corinthian pottery dated to ca. 625–575, including a krater, cups, and various containers for perfumed oil.3 Corinthian imports largely disappeared (as they did in most other parts of the Greek world) after ca. 575, when Lakonian pottery succeeded Corinthian at Eleutherna. Most examples are fully coated black kraters dated to

274

chapter 11

the prime period of Lakonian export (ca. 600–500). These large, open vessels must have been transported to Eleutherna for their intrinsic value, rather than as containers for other commodities or a cheap form of ballast.4 An influx of Attic imports at the beginning of the 5th century followed sporadic earlier examples at various points in the 6th century, when Attic and Lakonian imports probably overlapped.5 After Lakonian pottery disappeared from circulation in ca. 500–480, Attic became the sole overseas import at Eleutherna. The Classical Attic repertoire includes cups, bowls, dishes, kraters, and lekythoi. In the absence of settlement and other deposits as a basis for comparison, the social dimensions of this import pattern are difficult to fathom. Eleuthernians began marking the tombs or burying their dead with imported kraters ca. 600, and probably for this reason Lakonian kraters became the most popular category of ceramic imports at Orthi Petra in the 6th century.6 This predilection for imported kraters outlived the vogue for Lakonian pottery, as demonstrated by an Attic black-figure specimen dated to the final quarter of the 6th century. Cups accompany the kraters in the funerary assemblages, with a few Attic (Class of Athens 1104) and Argive cups supplementing the more numerous examples of local manufacture. Small bowls, plates, local and imported lamps, and an Attic lekanis also appeared in small concentrations. The Eleuthernians used some pottery of a clearly sympotic character at Orthi Petra. Since the link between the symposium and the underworld is a well-established facet of Greek burial customs, the connection in the Cretan context should not be surprising.7 What is unusual, however, is how deliberately the Eleuthernians tailored local production to complement imports in forming a single assemblage of sympotic furniture, for they seldom included imported cups in their tombs in the period ca. 600–525, relying instead on local workshop(s) to supply drinking cups. To judge from the catalogued finds, no more than 18% of the cups at Orthi Petra at this time were imports. Conversely, kraters were almost all imports. Although a 6th-century krater is attested in the local repertoire, it remains one of the rarest of Eleuthernian shapes. This consistent combination of imported kraters and local cups reveals an intention to create a single functional set.8 The Eleuthernians thereby combined an appreciation for 4. Lakonian kraters constitute 50% of catalogued imports at Eleutherna in the 6th century. Merchants relied on another shape, the amphora, to transport neat wine onboard ship; see Kanowski 1984, pp. 19–24. 5. For Attic imports at Eleutherna, see Chap. 3 (pp. 63–77). 6. Funerary feasts could also explain the concentration of kraters at Orthi Petra; see Chap. 3, pp. 45–46. Lakonian imports at Eleutherna may hint at something more than commercial relations. According to Nafissi (1999, p. 250), the popularity of Lakonian mixing kraters abroad reflects local admiration for the common messes. He

makes a strong case for Taras, a Spartan colony, although elsewhere kraters may have lost their original association with Spartan drinking customs in the new social context. 7. Kurtz and Boardman (1971, p. 209) touch on the sympotic asso­cia­ tions of mainland Greek funerary sets. Whitley’s (2001, pp. 251–252) objection that sympotic drinking was not the rule on 6th-century Crete is discussed in Chap. 12, pp. 326–329. 8. Small (1994, pp. 41–43) examines the concept, ancient and modern, of the term “set” and its relevance to ancient commercial practice. As used here, it does not imply a comprehensive service

of pottery; nor, in the case of imported sets, were imports necessarily purchased together en suite, packed in a single batch, or shipped together in a single cargo. An 8th-century Greek example may be relevant here; Morgan (1999, p. 237) characterizes Attic imports into the Corinthia of large open shapes such as kraters as forming functional sets with local cups and jugs. For drinking sets on Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age, see Steel 2004, p. 292. Further, Kotsonas (2008b, pp. 316–317) identifies skyphoi and kraters as the main components of drinking sets at Early Iron Age Eleutherna. Some of his proposed sets were found actually packed inside kraters.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

275

TA B LE 11.1. OVERSEAS IMPORTS AT ELE U TH ERNA, CA. 650–450 Date

650–625

625–600

600–575

575–550

550–525

525–500

500–475

475–450

Corinthian

x

x

x

–

x

–

–

–

Lakonian

–

–

x

x

x

x

x

–

Attic

–

–

x

x

x

x

x

x

local simplicity with a flair for foreign extravagance.9 The influx of Attic drinking cups in the first quarter of the 5th century, however, suggests that the preference for local cups began to weaken at the end of the Archaic period. By this time, Attic skyphoi—a deep shape and an ideal substitute for the standard variety of Cretan drinking cup—contend in popularity with Eleuthernian high-necked cups. Imported cups make up 40% of the total in the period ca. 525–480, a considerable increase. Establishing a link between the composition of pottery at the cemetery and the drinking practices of the living poses nearly insurmountable problems. If the kraters at Orthi Petra served as tomb markers, one might expect a greater role for imports in this context of display than is typical of domestic deposits, where greater representation of local kraters and other shapes might be expected. The cemetery assemblages may have little or no relation to actual drinking practices—perhaps representing an ideal never achieved in life. If we assume that death does mirror life in this case, then the proportion of kraters relative to cups at Orthi Petra implies that Eleuthernian hosts used Lakonian vessels as the centerpiece of their drinking parties and the individual drinkers owned cups made by local potters in conformity with conservative principles of potting and decoration.10 In the absence of domestic deposits, however, it is difficult to decide between these alternatives.

E CON OMI C MODEL S Determining whether fluctuations in the origin of imports over time reflect changing local taste only at the cemetery or at the site overall, an evolving overseas relationship (particularly in the case of Lakonian pottery after ca. 525), or a combination of these and other factors is also difficult. The disagreement between the formalist and substantivist schools of thought on the ancient economy can help frame the discussion. Unlike the more neutral terms “exchange” and “contact,” “trade” implies a voluntary process of private transactions with the aim of making a profit.11 According to the 9. Elsewhere in the Greek world, cups figure prominently among the exported Lakonian shapes; see Board­man 1980, p. 123. For instance, at Cyrene, where Lakonian imports appear in considerable number, skyphoi outnumber all other Lakonian shapes; see Schaus 1985, p. 24. 10. The Knossians may have similarly accorded imported Attic kraters a prominent position at the

symposium while equipping individual drinkers with cups of local manufacture, to judge from the contents of RR:H; see Chap. 4 (pp. 119–120). Admittedly, the same deposit also yielded kraters of local manufacture. This combination of plain drinking cups and elaborate kraters may be widespread in the Greek world. For instance, an imported Attic figural krater formed part of a drinking set with plain b.g. cups at colonial

Morgantina, Sicily; see Holloway 1991, p. 93. For other periods and cultures, kraters may have served as symbolic and decorative centerpieces at feasts; see Steel 2004, pp. 293–294, for examples from prehistoric Cyprus. 11. Watrous (in Kommos III, p. 169) and Kolb (2004, p. 581) prefer the term “exchange” to “trade” in describing contacts inferred from the movement of pottery.

276

chapter 11

formalist position, competitive procedures and the categories of modern economic analysis can be applied to ancient economies.12 In opposition to this view, the works of Karl Polányi and his followers, known as the substantivists, envision a three-tiered hierarchy of economic complexity: a reciprocal system of gift exchange in tribal societies, redistribution mechanisms characteristic of chiefdoms and early states, and commercial exchange in later periods.13 Commercial exchange embraces two categories: treaty trade administered by chiefs or states with set prices and no clear notion of economic gain, and a true market economy obeying the rules of supply and demand. According to Maria Aubet, the merchants in a system of treaty trade “are more like state officials receiving commission than independent traders risking capital and seeking profits.”14 Much of the debate has revolved around the character of trade in the Aegean Bronze Age. For instance, Frank Kolb discounts the notion that there was an effective market system or any real trade cities.15 Rather, the palace systems of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Hittite Anatolia, Minoan Crete, and Mycenaean Greece “realized their income from booty, tribute, taxes, and reciprocal gifts.”16 Passive trade of this sort was aimed at supplying the palaces and the elites with raw materials and prestige goods, with a small volume of goods moving between core areas.17 As a way to measure the volume, composition, and character of overseas trade, archaeologists have developed quantification methods of artifact analysis. According to Kolb, statistical counts have registered approximately 1,000 imports into the Aegean between 1700 and 1100, with pottery accounting for more than one-third of the total.18 This number pales in comparison with the hundreds or thousands of ceramic imports found at individual Classical sites, where imports often make up more than 5% of the total. To take an extreme example, 15,000 Corinthian pots were found at the Corinthian colony of Megara Hyblaea in Sicily.19 Overseas trade apparently played a greater role in the economy of this Classical polis. Because documentary evidence is scarce and ambiguous for the Archaic and Classical periods of Greece,20 the Roman world has emerged in recent scholarship as a counterpoint to Bronze Age economic models. 12. According to Kallet (1998, p. 43, n. 1), the debate between primitivists and modernists has evolved into a disagreement between substantivists and formalists. As Reed (2003, pp. 62–63) observes, the two sides have yet to find common ground. Sherratt and Sherratt (1991, p. 376) once sided with the formalists, but Kolb (2004, p. 581) notes a later tendency of these writers to vacillate between a formalist and a substantivist position. For the formalists, characteristics of a market economy that apply to antiquity include private enterprise, risk, profits and earnings, impersonal transactions, and fluctuations following changes in supply and demand. 13. Finley 1957; Polányi, Arensbert,

and Pearson 1957; Polányi 1963; Snodgrass 1991. Smith (1987, pp. 54– 58) and Aubet (2001, pp. 98–105) provide overviews of the substantivist position. According to Polányi and his followers, market trade did not appear before the 4th century. 14. Aubet 2001, p. 102. 15. Kolb 2004, pp. 579–586. Others hold that some degree of independent trade for profit took place in the Bronze Age; see Cline 1994, pp. 85, 86; Knapp and Cherry 1994. 16. Kolb 2004, p. 580. 17. According to Kolb (2004, p. 582), despite the importance of conspicuous consumption to palatial elites, the marginal role of private initiative and a limited market system

prevented overseas income from occupying more than a small niche in the local economy. 18. Kolb 2004, p. 583. 19. Jones (2000, p. 67) invokes this example of high-volume overseas exchange, and Kolb (2004, p. 585) furnishes additional examples from Greco-Roman antiquity. This does not mean that Megara Hyblaea was a trade city with no place for agriculture; see De Angelis 2002. 20. As is the case with Hesiod’s Works and Days, which only obliquely alludes to private initiative and risk as elements of exchange; see Kolb 2004, pp. 580–581. The political and economic collapse of palatial systems at the end of the Bronze Age probably

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

277

Studies of the Roman economy can draw on documentary evidence with some indication of population numbers, taxes, and state budgets.21 In addition, quantitative studies have shed much light on Roman trade in grain and wine. For instance, by comparing the ratio of imports to local ceramics between sites, Roberta Tomber traces peripheral markets along the line of the state-administered annona system.22 Imports constitute up to 20% of the total at some Roman centers, suggesting a substantial volume of overseas traffic. Even in the Roman world, however, an apparently robust sector of private trade coexisted with the annona system necessary for feeding Rome with Egyptian grain. This system qualifies as redistributive according to the substantivist model.23 Furthermore, the supplying of military bases could not be left to the whim of market forces. Reciprocal gift exchange also took place at the height of the Roman empire.24 From these examples, we can conclude that a developed market economy did not supplant, but rather supplemented, private and state redistributive systems. What lessons do these examples of the Bronze Age and Roman economies have for Archaic Crete? The substantivist position has pointed to noncommercial mechanisms for the flow of goods, forcing us to distinguish gift exchange, pirate booty and mercenary wages, personal travel, religious pilgrimages, itinerant craftsmen, and colonization from true market trade.25 How are these payments and spoils distinguished from ordinary items of commercial exchange? According to Donald Jones, metal objects of high value stand a better chance than pottery or other mundane objects of being mercenary payments.26 From this perspective, a collection of Archaic Aiginetan staters found in a single hoard at Matala reduced the total volume of seaborne traffic. According to Sherratt and Sherratt (1991, pp. 373–375) and Hoffman (1997, p. 6, n. 1), the character of overseas contacts changed in the Early Iron Age, although S. Morris (1992, pp. 118–122, 131–141, 169–171) advocates a relatively continuous flow of goods from the Near East. In a documented case, Phoenician trade seems to have recovered somewhat in the 11th or 10th century under the protection of the palace. Later, according to Aubet (2001, pp. 116–118), a substantial private element enters the Phoenician exchange system in the 9th or 8th century. The situation in Early Iron Age Greece has stimulated much discussion. Snodgrass (1980, pp. 132–143) downplays the importance of international commerce in Archaic Greece, at least until the second half of the 6th century. Osborne (1996b, pp. 34–38), however, points to the production of Athenian black figure for particular markets in a system of directional trade. See also Jones 2000, pp. 50–59. De Angelis (2002, pp. 304–305) characterizes this

debate as a split between those who believe that overseas trade began in the 8th century and those who favor a 6th-century start date. 21. According to Peacock and Williams (1986, p. 55) and Kolb (2004, p. 581), the Roman empire faced few impediments to market trade. Roads, a state currency, moderate tolls, and the elimination of piracy all worked to increase the total volume of traffic. 22. Tomber 1993. In addition, Fulford’s (1987) study of Roman trade patterns at Cyrenaica and Tipolitania seamlessly integrates the results of ceramic quantification with textual evidence and the distribution pattern of coins and decorative stones, yielding a coherent picture of this region’s place in Mediterranean trade circuits. 23. For the annona systems, see Rickman 1980. As Peacock and Williams (1986, pp. 55–62) stress, Roman exchange encompassed various categories, including private trade, gift exchange, and state-controlled redistribution systems. 24. Peacock and Williams (1986,

p. 57) refer to correspondence between landowners that mentions gifts of oil and other rare luxuries. 25. Jones (2000, pp. 63–66) examines each of these categories as possible mechanisms for the flow of goods to Crete in the Early Iron Age. As alternatives to market trade, pirate booty and mercenary payments figure prominently in Chaniotis’s (1999b, pp. 183–185) account of the Classical and Hellenistic Cretan economy. Cretans were not avid colonizers, nor have itinerant craftsmen been proposed for the Archaic and Classical periods; see Perlman 2004b, p. 117. As for personal and religious travel, although Cretan objects found their way to mainland Greek sanctuaries, there is no sign of reciprocal visits of mainland Greeks to island religious centers; see Jones 2000, pp. 131–132; Perlman 2004a, p. 128. According to Morgan (1990, pp. 142–146), these Cretan artifacts at mainland sanctuaries were not carried there by Cretans. 26. Jones 2000, p. 63.

278

chapter 11

makes sense as a mercenary payment.27 Moreover, a Persian bridle ornament dedicated at the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos lends itself to an interpretation as a Cretan soldier’s booty from the Persian Wars.28 Gift exchange is another mechanism for the movement of valuable goods among elite circles. In Homeric epic, silver vessels of Near Eastern manufacture pass from one owner to the next as prizes and gifts, along the way acquiring their own biographies and symbolic significance in prestige economies. This closed system of exchange was restricted to the top echelons of society, with metal kraters, cauldrons, and tripods standing as symbols of aristocratic hospitality and reciprocal friendship.29 Actual examples may include a Greek helmet found in Spain and the Vix krater deposited in a noble’s tomb in Burgundy.30 Both are expensive bronze objects found outside their normal areas of distribution. Precious material does not, however, figure among the criteria Coldstream uses to identify as gifts some large, mainly open clay vessels in 8th-century tombs.31 Examples include an elaborately decorated belly-handled Attic amphora from the Knossos North Cemetery, and a set of Athenian Middle Geometric drinking vessels from a Cypriot tomb.32 Recent work has broken down the sharp conceptual divide between gift exchange and market trade, blurring the line between substantivist and formalist definitions of the ancient economy.33 For instance, Aubet’s study of Phoenician trade in the Punic West emphasizes the role of gifts as inducements for local elites who controlled routes of communication and mineral resources. She suggests that Phoenician traders bestowed valuable presents as part of a strategy to gain free transit of merchandise through the territory of indigenous chiefs or princes.34 As Jones concludes, gift 27. Stefanakis (1999, pp. 250–251) describes this hoard (IGCH 1). As Trundle (2004, pp. 82–85, 114–117) notes, coins were a common form of payment to mercenaries. The 70 Aiginetan staters found in the Matala coin hoard, however, make an impressive sum, perhaps exceeding the savings of a typical mercenary. 28. Coldstream 1973a, p. 157, no. 221, pl. 93. Cretan mercenaries reportedly fought at Salamis, although this has been explained as a later Cretan fabrication in an attempt to save face after the decisive Greek victory; see Huxley 1969, p. 239; Spyridakis 1976; Perlman 1992, p. 194. 29. Aubet (2001, pp. 130–134) emphasizes the role of Phoenician silver vessels and the great distances they traveled as sources of prestige. See also Snodgrass 1980, pp. 132–133; Jones 2000, pp. 59–66; Whitley 2002, p. 221. 30. Snodgrass 1980, p. 140; Coldstream 1983, p. 206. 31. Whitley (2002, p. 221) excludes clay as an appropriate material for gift

exchange in Homeric epic. Coldstream (1983, p. 206) explains the apparent discrepancy of aristocratic gifts of cheap clay in terms of the general absence of rich bronzes from Geometric tombs. He (p. 206) views these elaborately decorated ceramic kraters as counterparts to the large bronze vessels that presumably passed as gifts in the Archaic period. Morgan (1988, pp. 329–338) makes a good case for viewing exotic fine wares as prestige goods; Peacock and Williams (1986, pp. 56–57) raise the possibility of even humbler gifts, if the Roman practice of bestowing oil on friends can be discerned in finds of unusual amphoras. 32. This interpretation, however, has not won universal acceptance; see Morgan 1999, p. 236; Jones 2000, p. 63. Gift exchange implies a reciprocal relationship, the exchange of objects of equal value, whereas Homeric epic seems to describe a more fluid situation of unequal exchanges; see Fox 2009, p. 62. 33. Whitley (2002, p, 220) musters

ethnographic evidence to argue that “primitive” economies did not revolve around gift exchange. Moreover, when such exchanges occurred, they were not devoid of economic calculation. In both ancient and modern economies, gift exchange, sentimental value, and market price overlap. Wickham (2005, pp. 695– 696) makes a similar point about exchange in the Early Middle Ages. 34. In what Aubet (2001, p. 288) describes as an unequal trade relationship or a colonial system, presents to local chiefs paved the way for a broader commercial relationship. The bulk of Phoenician trade consisted of manufactured items such as oils and cosmetics packaged in small containers that were exchanged for native metals, grain, salt, hides, and slaves. In a similar vein, Coldstream (1983, p. 206) interprets the Vix krater as a gift to a powerful local chief who controlled the tin route from Britain to the Mediterranean. For an imaginative, but strikingly apt, portrayal of this process in fiction, see Holt 2000.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

279

exchange does not exclude the idea of profit.35 In addition, items with great cultural prestige or artistic influence cannot be measured in purely economic terms. According to Mary Helms, objects from distant lands conveyed extraordinary power to their owners, even if the ethnographically attested reasons for the journey included profit.36 Foreign contact can bring about substantial changes in society, even without the operation of a full market system.

CRE TE AS TRAN S S H I P MEN T P OI N T Crete’s role as a transshipment point in Orientalizing and Roman trade circuits suggests something similar for the Archaic period, for which documentation is more fragmentary. In the Orientalizing period, its geographic position ensured the island’s importance in a great east–west trade artery that linked Phoenicia to its western colonies. According to Aubet, the primary northern route from Phoenicia to Gadir followed a general counterclockwise motion through the Mediterranean.37 Phoenician ships traveled west through the Ionian Sea, with a probable stop on Crete. As Watrous notes, this important east–west artery ran directly across the north coast of the island.38 There may also have been a second parallel route along the south coast, less direct but preferable under certain wind conditions. The next step after Crete was the south coast of Sicily and Sardinia, stopping points along the route to Spain. The return voyage skirted the coast of North Africa and bypassed Crete. Through a system of colonies and way stations, Phoenicians in the 9th century closed the Straits of Gibraltar to Greek competition and established a virtual monopoly of trade west of Carthage.39 Crete does not seem to have figured in these plans as prominently as Cyprus, western Sicily, Sardinia, or other stopping points in the western Mediterranean did. Although there are no signs of a Phoenician colony or port of call on Crete, the presence of Phoenician craftsmen has been suggested based on the style and technical expertise of certain ivory and metal works;40 in addition, burial customs at Aphrati and a tripillar shrine at Kommos hint at an immigrant presence, although Gail Hoffman’s reassessment of this evidence undermines the usual supposition of Phoenicians on Crete.41 The standard view of the Orientalizing phenomenon regards Crete as a passive beneficiary of Near Eastern trade.42 In the absence of local

35. Jones 2000, p. 63. 36. Helms 1988, pp. 114–123. 37. Aubet 2001, pp. 185–191. 38. Kommos III, p. 180. See also Stampolidis 2003, pp. 43–44. 39. Aubet 2001, p. 193. 40. Crete does not even appear in Aubet’s (2001) study of Phoenician trade patterns. For objects of Near Eastern style on Crete, see Hoffman 1997, pp. 153–172. Reassessments since then include Kotsonas 2008b, pp. 69–

70; Fox 2009, pp. 156–157. 41. Hoffman 1997, pp. 173–176. Stampolidis (2003, pp. 57) has brought new evidence to bear on the question of resident Phoenician craftsmen from the cemetery of Orthi Petra at Eleutherna. Also relevant in this context is Kotsonas’s (2006) reassessment of the Knossos Tekke tomb treasure. 42. Coldstream 1977, p. 290; Sherratt and Sherratt 1993, pp. 364, 366–367; Stampolidis 2003, p. 54; Prent

2005, p. 231. It is questionable whether Phoenician contact had a more direct impact on the local Cretan economy, with market trade or the transfer of technologies leading to a rise in living standards, increased local production, or other signs of economic vitality; see Jones 2000, p. 167. Quantification methods of artifact analysis face a serious hurdle, since excavation of Early Iron Age Cretan sites has produced no more than a few hundred imports.

280

chapter 11

initiative, the island was not a valuable trade partner but a geographically advantageous supply base for outsiders. A single stop or a series of stops on the north coast allowed Phoenician traders to obtain fresh provisions and find shelter during periods of inclement weather.43 According to Whitley, Cretans in the Early Iron Age did not engage in their own trading ventures overseas, nor did they colonize.44 In the balance sheet of exports, the sparse record of Cretan products abroad reinforces this picture of local inertia.45 From an artistic standpoint, however, Cretan potters did adapt Near Eastern motifs to their own sensibilities.46 The island received large and valuable imports, including bronze and ivory works that found their way into such presumably elite venues of display as tombs and sanctuaries, which suggests that local initiative played a part in the import pattern.47 Moreover, if Crete was nothing more than a Phoenician way station, how are we to explain the import record at Kommos, where a variety of mainland Greek products and graffiti point to a role in a north– south route?48 Other sites have produced indirect evidence for the production of dyed woolens, leather goods, and perfumes. 49 Although this activity was presumably intended to cover household needs, one suspects that islanders took advantage of new opportunities and sold some of their own products to Phoenician visitors.50 This murky situation with respect to the importance of overseas trade in the local economy clears up considerably in the Roman period, with abundant literary and archaeological evidence suggesting an expansion of overseas commerce and greater local involvement in trade with the outside world. Crete served as an important transshipment point along the grain route from Alexandria to Rome. Haggis focuses on the possible role of Tholos, a site on the northeastern coast of Crete, as a way station for grain shipments (Fig. 1). Wind patterns and sea currents suggest that cargoes of Egyptian grain left Alexandria on a journey north, rounded the coasts of Cilicia and Lycia, and then made from Rhodes to southeastern Crete.51 Although the preferred route passed along the southern side of the island, Tholos’s position on the north coast suggests that it served as a contingency harbor for vessels blown off course by unpredictable winds.52 From 43. Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, particularly along the Andalusian coast of Spain, the Phoenicians established way stations in close proximity to one another, in some cases only a few kilometers apart; see Aubet 2001, pp. 307– 311. This seemingly redundant string of harbors may have assisted vessels that strayed from their intended course, although a simple commercial explanation for this dense settlement pattern does not suffice. 44. Whitley 2001, p. 121. 45. Hoffman 1997, p. 258; Jones 2000, pp. 122–136. 46. Whitley 2001, p. 121. 47. Cherry (1999, p. 21) rejects models that depict Crete as a peripheral outpost of Near Eastern core hegemony.

48. Hoffman (1997, p. 258) poses this very question. Imports at Kommos include transport amphoras from Attica, the Northeastern Aegean islands, and East Greece; see Jones 2000, p. 181. Callaghan and Johnston (2000, p. 300) comment on the Boiotian and Attic graffiti. 49. Jones (2000, p. 181) and Viviers (1999, p. 222) examine the suggestive evidence for the production of purple dye at Kommos and Palaikastro. Chaniotis (1999b, p. 206), however, takes a more skeptical view of this evidence. 50. Perhaps Knossos took advantage of the commercial opportunities presented by Phoenician visitors by selling oil. Faithful copies of Phoeni-

cian perfume bottles at Knossos originally suggested to Coldstream (1969) that Phoenician merchants set up an unguent factory on Knossian soil. This theory, however, is not in accord with the Phoenician system of monopolizing the source of production of specialty items and controlling their distribution. Another explanation for this evidence holds that local producers supplied Phoenician visitors with oil; see Frankenstein 1979, p. 276; Hoffman 1997, pp. 176–185. 51. Haggis 1996b, p. 205. 52. Rickman (1980, p. 129) traces the broad contours of this route, and Haggis (1996b, pp. 203–204) delves into the particular wind and current conditions around Crete.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

281

this point cargoes could be unloaded and brought to Ierapytna on the south, where a string of ports facilitated periodic landfalls and refueling stops. With the extinction of piracy under Roman rule, Crete was poised to take advantage of its central position in a unified eastern Mediterranean world.53 Analysis of surviving wine jars points to a substantial overseas market for Cretan wine in the Roman period.54 Crete’s cities grew and the countryside was organized for production and sale, with agricultural villas and pottery workshops signifying an intensification of production.55 In the wake of the imperial annona system, an export economy came to Crete. These examples from the Orientalizing and Roman eras outline possibilities and constraints for economic models of the island in other periods. Although one might expect basic similarities between the Orientalizing and Archaic patterns, Phoenician control of eastern trade routes apparently broke down in the early 6th century, with possibly severe repercussions for Crete. Manifestations of a general crisis include the abandonment of some of Tyre’s western trade stations and colonies. In addition, other areas show signs of a change in the structure of overseas trade. According to Aubet, the collapse of the Assyrian empire set off widespread political and military upheaval in the Near East, with Tyre succumbing after a protracted siege in 573, for all intents and purposes destroying the Phoenician commercial empire.56 Carthage stepped in to fill the void in the western half of the Mediterranean, but this westward shift probably left Crete at a loss. The conquests of Nebuchadnezzar may therefore have precipitated a major reconfiguration of Near Eastern routes, diverting Cretan trade to other channels.

CRE TE AN D P ELOP ON N ES IAN TRADE What different role might Crete have played in the wider context of 6thcentury Aegean commerce? Given its virtual indestructibility, pottery has often loomed large in reconstructing ancient trade routes in areas where literary documentation is scarce. This class of evidence, however, raises special problems. The long-held tenet that the ancient Greeks transported pottery as a commodity prized in its own right—as, in the words of J. B. Salmon, the “Wedgwood” of its day—has fallen under scrutiny as scholars reconsider assumptions about the cost of ancient pottery and its carriage.57 Trademarks recording the prices of painted Greek vases suggest that pottery was relatively cheap and unlikely to have been traded for its 53. Sanders (1982, pp. 32–35), Harrison (1988, pp. 152–153), Bowsky (1994, p. 9), and Chaniotis (1995, p. 76) all enumerate the economic advantages Roman rule brought to Crete. According to Tomber (1993, p. 144), the annona system influenced the movement of goods on a broader scale. 54. Marangou-Lerat 1995, pp. 156– 160. According to Abadie-Reynal (2005, p. 43), Cretan wine jars constitute between 25% and 40% of all

amphoras at Roman Argos from the middle of the 1st century a.d., suggesting a large volume of trade in Cretan wine with the Peloponnese. 55. Chaniotis (1999b, p. 211), who is skeptical that overseas commerce played a substantial role in the economy of Classical and Hellenistic Crete, concedes the exceptional nature of Roman conditions. See also Raab 2001, pp. 10–14. 56. Aubet 2001, pp. 343–345.

57. Salmon 1984, pp. 106, 110, 113. Furthermore, Vickers and Gill (1994, pp. 33–54) dispute the premise that pots commanded a high price in antiquity. Arafat and Morgan (1989, p. 336), however, conclude that “much pottery was traded as a commodity in its own right, and not for its contents.” Lawall (1998, p. 75) and Oakley (2009, p. 612) rehearse the arguments on both sides.

282

chapter 11

own sake.58 In an attempt to calculate the relative cost of carriage and the profit from the sale of pottery in relation to the overall cargo of ancient trading vessels, Boardman concludes that pottery was a profitable commodity only when there was extra space in the hold and a dependable market.59 He argues that pottery circulated in the ancient world as a byproduct of trade in other commodities. Accordingly, the prevalence of pottery in the archaeological record is simply a function of its durability.60 The relationship between the place of manufacture and the identity of the carriers presents another fundamental difficulty. Kirsten, in his pioneering study of the 5th-century Cretan archaeological record, interprets finds of Attic vases and Atticizing sculpture as statements of Athenian political connections.61 In fact, the relationship between the place of manufacture and the identity of the carriers is far more complex. This issue has arisen in recent discussions of finds of Greek pottery in Magna Graecia before the foundation of the colonial settlements.62 Does such pottery reflect the activities of Greek traders or Phoenician middlemen? Greek pottery at Al Mina in the Near East poses a similar problem of interpretation.63 In an attempt to refine the relationship between the origin of ancient cargoes and the identity of the carriers, R. M. Cook emphasizes that “the universally admired wares may often have been traded indirectly.”64 According to this formulation, Attic and Corinthian exports reveal little about the origin of the traders. Conversely, rarely exported Lakonian and Argive pottery more often came directly from the source, since such merchandise had less opportunity to circulate through indirect channels of trade.65 Peloponnesian trade with Libya and Egypt has been credited with a profusion of exported Lakonian and Corinthian pottery at Cyrene, Tocra, and Naukratis, with grain presumably attracting Peloponnesian merchants to this area.66 Lakonian plain and figural pottery begins to arrive in North 58. See Johnston 1979, pp. 32–35; 1991b; Gill 1994, pp. 103–104. These inscriptions frequently record the name of the pot shape, the price, and the number of pots included in a consignment. The recorded prices for individual painted pots range from approximately one obol to a maximum of three drach­mas. Questions of interpretation also arise, such as whether the prices marked on the vase were actually paid by consumers. In contrast to the low prices recorded for fine wares, plain pithoi at Olynthus cost as much (31–53 drachmas) as a house in a neighboring town; see Cahill 2002, p. 228. Ebbinghaus (2005, p. 57) stresses the social and economic dimensions of Archaic relief pithoi. 59. Boardman 1988. 60. Other evidence bears on this issue. Special ceramic shapes were produced at commercial centers, such as Athens, with a specific export market in mind. For instance, a group of Niko­s-

thenic amphoras produced at Athens were apparently designed to appeal to the Etruscan market. Eisman (1974, pp. 52–53) and Boardman (1980, p. 202) argue that such vases were made to order. Arafat and Morgan (1994, p. 109) and Miller (1997, p. 69) conclude that Attic potters occasionally targeted products for a specific foreign market; see also Oakley 2009, p. 613. Even plain b.g. occasionally exhibits a commercial aspect. Sparkes and Talcott (Agora XII, p. 138, n. 1) invoke the Attic stemmed dish as an example of a plain shape designed for foreign markets. As for the evidence from shipwrecks, the Datillo site reportedly carried a cargo “almost exclusively of BG tableware”; see Wilson 1987–1988, p. 125. 61. Kirsten 1942, pp. 20–21. Bowsky (1997, p. 203) relies on a wider set of criteria to infer trade between Athens and Crete. Her list includes both imports of Attic pots, Attic or Atticizing grave reliefs, and coins to Crete and

the presence of Cretans in Athens. 62. See Gill 1994, pp. 105–106, for an examination of this issue. 63. Boardman 1959; 1980, p. 40; 2005. See also Luke 2003, pp. 1–3, 27–28; Fox 2009, pp. 97–113. 64. Cook 1997, p. 264; see also 1959, pp. 117, 123. Graham (1990, pp. 50, 58–59) deals with the problem of identifying carriers in the context of Etruscan trade. 65. Cartledge (1982, p. 254) lists Lakonian as a minor school whose products were rarely traded indirectly. 66. For a discussion of the Egyptian grain trade, see Roebuck 1959; Schaus 1980; Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 211. As Reed (2003, p. 69) cautions, the widely accepted premise that grain markets attracted Greek traders to Egypt is conjectural. By a process of elimination, however, grain is the most likely candidate. There is also little or no direct evidence pertaining to the origin of these Greek traders.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

283

Figure 11.1. Archaic Lakonian kraters found at Tocra, North Africa.

Africa by the end of the 7th century, shortly after the attested foundations of the Greek trading station at Naukratis and the Greek colony at Cyrene (Fig. 11.1). Massimo Nafissi, in a seminal study of the geographic and chronological distribution of exported Lakonian pottery, proposes the existence of a more extensive 6th-century trade route linking Laconia with Cyrenaica, Egypt, and Samos.67 Most exported Archaic Lakonian pottery is confined to these three areas.68 Even without this archaeological documentation, many scholars have been willing to grant the Spartans a major role in this trade network.69 Reassuringly, literary and numismatic evidence confirms the broad outlines of this picture of trade between Greece and North Africa. Herodotos (4.198–199) draws attention to Cyrenaica as a source of grain; he (2.154) also credits Psammetichos I (ca. 620–610) for encouraging Greek merchants to form the first permanent settlement of foreign traders in Egypt at a place called Strotopeda. In addition, Naukratis figures in the ancient tradition as a major Greek emporium on Egyptian soil.70 The composition and distribution pattern of Archaic coin hoards in Egypt suggest that Greek merchants at Naukratis paid for Egyptian grain using large-denomination silver coinage from the Thraco-Macedonian region.71

67. Nafissi (1989, p. 71) argues convincingly that the presence of Lakonian kraters outside Lakonia should be interpreted as a result of mercantile activity. Cartledge (1982, p. 253) and Pipili (2001, p. 99, n. 147) reach the same conclusion for Lakonian pottery on Samos, and Shipley (1987, p. 86) regards this pattern as certain evidence of “close contacts and a continual exchange of wealth” between Lakonia and Samos. In a dissenting view, Snodgrass (1980, p. 133) believes that Spartan soldiers and religious visitors brought pottery with them to Samos. 68. By Cartledge’s (1982, p. 252) calculation, Samos alone is responsible

for 28% of the 360 catalogued pieces in the standard compilation of Lakonian wares. Samian commercial involvement at Naukratis is also indicated by the establishment of a Samian shrine at the trading station (Hdt. 2.178). A smaller number of Lakonian vases were exported to Etruria, Latium, and Campania. This suggests a separate trade network linking Lakonia with the West; see Nafissi 1989, pp. 71–72. Torelli’s (1982, p. 318) inferred family connection between the Aiginetan Sostratos active at Gravisca and an earlier individual of the same name at Naukratis has come under question by Möller (2000, pp. 56–57). But even without this personal connection,

Scale ca. 1:5. Boardman and Hayes 1966, pl. 66:973, 974. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

commercial links among Aigina, North Africa, and Italy can be maintained. 69. Holladay 1977, pp. 112–113; Shipley 1987, p. 86; Dickins (1912, p. 18). 70. Boardman (1980, pp. 121–125) briefly summarizes the archaeological and literary evidence pertaining to Greek colonization of North Africa. See also Salmon 1965, pp. 6–12; Fulford 1989, p. 173; Bowden 1996, pp. 17–37. Möller (2000) reexamines the whole question of overseas trade and the origin of Greek traders at Naukratis. 71. From this evidence, Roebuck (1950, pp. 236–237) attempts to distinguish the Greek carriers of Thracian and Macedonian silver.

284

chapter 11

This hypothesized regional pattern of trade would have followed a different course than the Phoenician and Roman arteries that passed the northern and southern shores of Crete on longer voyages west. Currents and prevailing winds favor a counterclockwise journey from the southern tip of mainland Greece to Cyrenaica and Egypt, with a stopover on the northwestern end of Crete (Fig. 11.2).72 Vessels could then pause and refuel at several points along the north coast before rounding the western tip of the island and proceeding south.73 From Crete it is a straight shot to Cyrene, a base for travel farther east. Trade winds and currents favored a return voyage to Greece in a counterclockwise direction along the coast of Asia Minor or through the Cyclades. In the light of the wider geographical context and specific literary and archaeological evidence, the question of Cretan participation in this route deserves attention. Not only does Crete lie between North Africa and the Peloponnese on a direct sea route, literary testimony suggests that the western end of the island served as a stopping point along a Peloponnesian 72. A discussion of winds and currents in the eastern Mediterranean appears in Fulford 1989, pp. 169–172; Horden and Purcell 2000, pp. 137–143; Fox 2009, pp. 65–66. During the summer months of sailing, winds generally blow from the northwest, facilitating a southern route. Watrous (in Kommos III, pp. 176–177), however,

emphasizes seasonal variability in wind direction. Pseudo-Skylax states that the port of Phalasarna lies only a day’s sail away from the Greek mainland. Based on this and later testimony, van Effenterre (1948, p. 40) infers the existence of “la route Péloponnèse– Égypte par Cyrène.” According to Morrow (1960, p. 26), the strategic

Figure 11.2. Map of the eastern Mediterranean, showing the proposed Peloponnesian trade routes of the Archaic and Classical periods

importance of the island could not be ignored by Athenians and Spartans. 73. Unlike the inhospitable south coast, with mountains that plunge sharply into the sea and block communications with the hinterland, the north shore facilitated trade and commerce; see Spyridakis 1970, p. 2.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

Figure 11.3. Archaic Cretan imports found at Tocra, North Africa. Scale ca. 1:5. Boardman and Hayes 1966, pl. 55:921, 922. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens

74. Thuc. 4.53.3: ἦν γὰρ αὐτοῖς τῶν τε ἀπ᾿ Αἰγύπτου καὶ Λιβύης ὁλκάδων προσβολή.

75. For the Cretan pottery at Tocra, see Boardman and Hayes 1966, pp. 79– 85; 1973, pp. 39–41, adding to the list no. 264, fig. 17 (previously listed as Corinthian). For Cretan exports to Cyrene, see Schaus 1985, pp. 10–11. 76. Coldstream and Huxley (1972,

285

trade artery. Thucydides (4.53.3), in a discussion of the strategic importance of Kythera to the Peloponnesian side during the Peloponnesian War, hints at a trade network that linked Egypt and Libya with the southern coast of the Peloponnese, although he does not mention Cretan participation.74 Small quantities of exported 6th-century Cretan pottery found at Tocra and Cyrene tentatively support the conclusion that Crete did participate, thereby confirming a role earlier inferred from geography alone. This evidence takes the form of approximately 20 exported Cretan pots and fragments—a modest collection that includes plain jugs, bowls, cups, and black-figure specimens (Fig. 11.3).75 The discovery of 7th-century Cretan pottery at Kythera also testifies to a relationship—possibly commercial in nature—between the two islands.76 At Eleutherna, the recent discovery of 21 fragmentary Lakonian kraters and two Cretan copies of the same shape—one of local manufacture, the other presumably a Knossian import—provides crucial new evidence for establishing Crete’s role in the proposed Peloponnesian trade network. Most of these kraters are plain black specimens datable in general terms to the 6th century. Although the number of Lakonian pots found at Eleutherna pales in comparison to the totals from Tocra or Cyrene, it is exceptional for Crete and represents an impressive total for this shape for any Aegean site.77 The discovery of identical Lakonian kraters in North p. 267, no. Q 5, pl. 86, p. 268, no. Q 9, pl. 87) catalogue two certain 7th-century Cretan imports at Kythera. They (p. 202, no. 311, pl. 58) leave open the possibility of local origin for another suspected Cretan piece dated to the second half of the 7th century. Futher, a black-figure askos in the form of a siren might be Cretan; see Coldstream and Huxley 1972, p. 270, no. R 2, pl. 88.

77. Boardman and Hayes (1966, pp. 81–95, nos. 932–1023, pls. 57–69; 1973, nos. 2109–2124, pl. 21) catalogue 108 Archaic Lakonian black-figure and b.g. imports at Tocra. Most are mugs and cups. The finds include four kraters and one krater fragment. Schaus (1985, pp. 24–28, nos. 84–124, pls. 6–8) lists 40 Lakonian krater fragments preserved at Cyrene.

286

chapter 11

­ frica strengthens the argument for a Peloponnesian trade tie with Crete. A In addition to Eleutherna, other Cretan sites have produced Lakonian kraters in much smaller quantities. Until excavations in 2005, such finds had been confined to Central and West Crete at Kydonia, Kastello Varypetrou, Lappa, Eleutherna, and Knossos.78 Now two East Cretan sites should be added to the list: Priniatikos Pyrgos has yielded a few Lakonian kraters, and Azoria has yielded a single example.79 Perhaps as fieldwork in East Crete intensifies, more examples will come to light. Still, these finds do not overturn the impression of a pronounced West Cretan focus to the distribution of Lakonian kraters; a few examples may have reached the eastern part of the island through overland routes from the west or direct contact with overseas merchants. Since the western end of the island lies only a short distance from the Peloponnese, it is conceivable that Peloponnesian traders supplied the Cretan market with these Peloponnesian goods.80 The discovery of Lakonian pottery does not, by itself, require this interpretation, for these pots may have reached Crete by way of other known or suspected carriers. A minor component of this trade, Argive cups found in the company of Lakonian kraters at three of the same places on Crete (Kydonia, Eleutherna, and Knossos), however, tips the scale in favor of a direct commercial link between the Peloponnese and Crete. Argive pottery was rarely exported overseas, so the possibility of a third-party trader bringing Argive products to Crete is exceedingly remote.81 The regional distribution of these kraters allows us to trace the geographical contours of the hypothesized trade route. It probably ran by the southern tip of mainland Greece and Kythera before passing the harbors 78. A single Lakonian krater and two local copies have turned up at Knossos; see Chap. 4, pp. 122–123; Coldstream 1973b, p. 51, no. 23, fig. 7, pl. 19 (imitation); Coldstream 1992, p. 75, no. 7 (imitation). From Kydonia, there are three more published kraters and a local copy; see Hallager and Hahn 1997, p. 203, no. 77-P 1849, pls. 62, 96:d.5; Hahn 1997, p. 209, no. 71-P 1375 (imitation), pl. 62, p. 209, no. 77-P 1860, pls. 63, 68:d.11, p. 211, no. 82-P 0091/0112, pls. 63, 83:d.1. In addition, several fragmentary pots from excavations at the presumed acropolis at Kydonia, catalogued as Geometric, are in reality Archaic, including a Lakonian krater; see Tzedakis and Kanta 1978, p. 38, no. 68, fig. 41. An unpublished Lakonian krater and a local copy of the same shape from Kastello Varypetrou should be added to the list (Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1). Moreover, I discovered the rim of a Lakonian krater on a visit to Lappa in 1999. It is a fully coated example in the characteristic Lakonian fabric (7.5YR 4/6–5/6).

79. For an overview of the excavations at Priniatikos Pyrgos, see Chap. 7, p. 191, n. 11. This brings the grand total excluding Eleutherna to 11 Lakonian kraters and four local copies. Another example from Kommos should perhaps be added to this list. Johnston (1993, p. 340, n. 6) mentions an all-black krater from the site, for which he elsewhere (2005, p. 374, no. 241, fig. 33) suggests a Classical date. 80. In addition, an example of early Attic black figure at Eleutherna, a lekanis attributed to the Polos Painter, supports a commercial interpretation of trade between mainland Greece and North Africa. Curry (2000, pp. 86–87) examines the distribution of vases by the Polos Painter in the Greek world; she notes (p. 86) that Attica and North Africa (Tocra and Cyrene) received the vast majority of his works, with this workshop apparently gearing production to North African markets. According to Boardman (1974, p. 19), the Polos Painter was an “artist of some individuality but no merit,” whose

works were “well distributed to less discriminating buyers of the Greek world.” Boardman (1971, p. 91) depicts Tocra as a terminal point in a trade circuit with limited access to mainland shapes, including works by the Polos Painter. 81. For Argive pottery at Eleutherna, see Chap. 3, pp. 62–63. For Knossos, see Coldstream 1973a, p. 53, nos. K5, K6, pl. 31. For Kydonia, see Hahn 1997, p. 210, no. 71-P 1283, pls. 62, 70:e.7. The Argive repertoire of 6th-century cups was apparently not popular outside the Argolid. For example, Boardman and Hayes (1966, p. 95, no. 1024, fig. 46) document only one 6th-century Argive import at Tocra. For the reasons discussed on pp. 281–282, Argive pottery should provide a good indication of the carriers of trade, although this does not mean that Argive merchants were directly involved in a Peloponnesian trade route. Argive pottery was also seldom exported in the 8th and 7th centuries; see Foley 1988, pp. 68, 75–76.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

287

of northwestern Crete on a journey to Libya and Egypt. The fact that Cretan pottery generally moves in a southerly direction along this line, apart from a few 7th-century pieces found at Kythera, may reflect the direction of traffic. Perhaps Peloponnesian traders picked up a few Cretan pots along the way and unloaded them with the bulk of their cargoes in North Africa. Quantification studies might be expected to confirm the assumption here: that market trade was the mechanism by which ceramic imports traveled to the island. Unfortunately, the spotty excavation record for postMinoan Crete, inadequate publication of excavated material, and the difficulty of comparing finds from different contexts limit the usefulness of such forms of analysis. With such small samples, rough counts—small, medium, or large, or just small or large—are the best we can do.82 Based on present evidence, Eleutherna has the largest number of Lakonian imports, but this result may simply be a function of the intensive excavations by the University of Crete at Orthi Petra. According to Stampolidis, Orthi Petra was an elite burial ground in the Geometric and Orientalizing periods.83 If this elite association continued into the Archaic period, aristocratic display may have been a prime factor in the high concentration of Lakonian kraters.84 Since the scrappy finds from Knossos come from secondary settlement deposits, they are not directly comparable to the finds from Eleutherna. We cannot exclude the possibility that Lakonian kraters arrived by way of gift exchange, since these large, open vessels may have acquired a prestige value among local aristocrats. Going against the idea that Lakonian kraters were gifts, however, is the fact that there is no sign in the literature or anywhere else that prominent Cretans sought to establish social ties with mainland Greek families to enhance their own prestige. If Lakonian kraters were gifts, why did so many Eleuthernians receive the same present? This regular pattern suggests instead the conscious selection of desirable objects out of a larger cargo of foreign wares.85 If gift exchange was part of this system, presents could have served to reward local leaders for hosting visits undertaken primarily for financial gain. Eleutherna may well have been a principal hub for overseas trade. Its geographical situation would explain why it became an important crossroads linking the western and eastern parts of the island with the rest of the Greek world.86 The settlement overlooks the coastal plain of Rethymnon, 82. According to Jones (2000, p. 167), imports from the Fortetsa cemetery at Knossos constitute 3.5% of catalogued Early Iron Age finds, with a comparable ratio of imports to local products from the more recent excavations of the North Cemetery. For the early 5th century, imports from a well deposit at Knossos (see Coldstream 1973a) make up 19% of the total. 83. Stampolidis (1996, pp. 157–161) points to an emphasis on extended groups in the burial community as a sign of elite status.

84. Local potters also produced imitations of Lakonian kraters, strengthening the argument that these pots circulated at Eleutherna as luxury items. 85. An example from the Bronze Age Cyclades may have relevance here. According to Broodbank (2000, p. 236), the specific range of shapes seen among imports at KaskaleioKavos on Keros points to a conscious selection of imports from larger cargoes. This regular pattern is more compatible with trade than gift exchange or

other mechanisms of exchange. 86. Nearby ports probably enabled this inland city to become an emporium for overseas commerce. One port, Pantomatrion, is mentioned by ancient geographers, although its exact location and the date of its foundation remain points of dispute; see Guarducci 1939, p. 142; Sanders 1982, p. 162. Evidence from the modern village of Stavromenos hints at the existence of a coastal settlement by the 5th century; see Kirsten 1942, pp. 21–23; Bowsky 1997, p. 199, n. 10; Kotsonas 2008b, p. 29.

288

chapter 11

one of the main east–west arteries of communication, where it meets the northern outlet of the Amari valley connecting the fertile Mesara to the northern end of the island.87 Phalasarna and Kydonia also could have functioned as ports of call, and possibly even transfer points for the sale of foreign cargoes to other Cretan sites, for they undoubtedly attracted a fair share of this overseas trade owing to their proximity to the western tip of the Peloponnese.88 Phalasarna, the only safe natural harbor along the west coast, makes an ideal last port of call for vessels rounding the northern side of the island on a voyage south. In addition to its favorable location, Eleutherna may have benefited from other competitive advantages over some of its less commercially inclined neighbors. Perlman’s study of Archaic epigraphic and literary evidence brings attention to several signs of an emerging market economy at Eleutherna. For instance, the polis assessed fines and payments in staters and triobols, suggesting a partial monetization of the economy.89 Although no Cretan polis minted its own coins at this early date, Aiginetan staters circulated on the island by the second half of the 6th century.90 There are other signs of a market economy at Eleutherna. Contrary to the notion of a pure subsistence economy, inscriptions from Eleutherna mention specialist craftsmen who worked with animal hides.91 In addition, a local perfume industry may have supplied local elites with oil for their banquets and tombs.92 Yet, without concrete evidence that these suspected surpluses were directed outside the community to overseas channels, epigraphic testimony cannot entirely overcome the impression of economic self-sufficiency in the Archaic and Classical periods. Nor do scattered references to Cretan merchandise abroad compel a major revision of current thinking. One suspects that overseas imports on Crete tell us more about the trade relations of foreign states and less about what the islanders themselves were doing. Perhaps outside attention had a peripheral effect on the economy, stimulating local markets and increasing internal trade. Based on present evidence, Eleutherna boasts the richest record of imported pottery manufactured at other island centers (Fig. 9.3). Unlike the meager number of such finds at most other sites, the catalogues document 22 presumed Cretan imports at Eleutherna, and these imports span most of the period 87. Pendlebury (1939, p. 18) describes the network of overland communications in the hinterland of Eleutherna. See also Bowsky (1997, pp. 199–204), who discusses Classical and Hellenistic trade patterns and routes of communication. According to Stampolidis (1993, p. 134), Eleutherna stood to profit from its favorable location and its control over island trade routes. 88. The identification of transfer points poses problems of archaeological interpretation. Perreault (1986, pp. 148–150) argues from extensive finds of Attic pottery at Al Mina and the scatter of Attic pottery at inland sites up the Orontes River that Al

Mina served as a transfer point in the context of overseas trade with the Levant. See also Miller 1997, p. 68. 89. As Perlman (2004b, pp. 104–105, 106, 108) acknowledges, these terms may refer to silver bullion or standard units of weight. 90. Stefanakis 1999, p. 253. With the discovery at Azoria in 2004 of two silver Argive tetraobols on the street outside room B2400, we now have direct evidence for the circulation of foreign coins at a Cretan settlement in the late 4th or early 3rd century; see Stefanakis 2007. 91. Perlman 2004b, p. 104. Chaniotis (1999b, p. 207), however, regards this epigraphic testimony for

leather workers as a sign of state control over resources with special military applications. 92. Perlman (2004b, p. 123) collects numismatic and literary evidence to suggest that Archaic Eleuthernians engaged in the production and sale of perfumed oil derived from the resin of styrax, a deciduous shrub common to the area. This argument rests in part on the discovery of local unguent containers in tombs at Orthi Petra (Stampolidis 1996, pp. 110–111), on the assumption that local pots signal an indigenous product. Hoffman (1997, p. 179), however, considers the possibility that small containers were traded empty for their own sake.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

289

under consideration. This collection includes pottery from Gortyn, Knossos, Kydonia(?), and Aphrati(?). In addition, a small group of imported 6th-century lamps arrived at the site by way of a possible island distribution center at Olous.93 Proximity to overland trade routes may have given Eleutherna a distinct advantage as a transfer point for overseas cargos. Here and elsewhere, the Classical settlement pattern characterized by a ring of coastal towns under the control of larger inland political centers at least makes sense as a response to intra-island or overseas exchange.94 In the wake of outside commercial interests, limited markets may have developed on the island. Aside from pottery, what products circulated between the Peloponnese and Crete during the Archaic and Classical periods? Trade in Peloponnesian bronze vessels perhaps accompanied the traffic in their clay counterparts.95 An illustration of this point is the discovery at Azoria of a small bronze stand of probable Corinthian manufacture.96 At the Idaian Cave, Archaic bronze krater and cauldron fragments from Peloponnesian, and possibly Lakonian, workshops have recently come to light.97 Moreover, contact came not only through imported ceramic and bronze vessels. Crete was famous in antiquity for its timber, especially fine cypress woods used in the construction of the doors and the roofs of temples. The Athenians may have employed Cretan cedar in their grandest 5th-century building, the Parthenon.98 Also, a 4th-century temple account from Epidauros (IG 2 IV 1.102) records a certain Tychamenes, a Cretan, who won the contract to supply cedar for the construction of the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros.99 Ancient epigraphic and literary sources emphasize ornamental or luxury goods at the expense of mundane but undoubtedly more widely traded commodities: trade in grapes, grains, and olives generally escapes notice unless a crisis brings a shortage to attention.100 Still, the available evidence demonstrates a more than passing interest in and from the outside world. Finally, an inscribed conical clay 93. These lamps are discussed in Chap. 5 (p. 161). 94. According to Sherratt and Sherratt (1993) and Haggis (1996b, p. 201), coastal towns emerged in the Mediterranean in the second half of the first millennium in response to the poor agricultural resources of their hinterlands. This does not mean that every new coastal foundation engaged in maritime trade. Other topographical considerations may have a bearing on this question. As Viviers (1999, p. 226) observes, the expansion of Praisian territory to the north and south coast by the 4th century points to overseas trade as a possible motive for growth. 95. See Boardman 1961, pp. 148, 154. A discussion of Cretan bronzework appears in Chap. 1 (pp. 6–7). 96. Haggis et al. 2007, pp. 291–293, fig. 38. Although pottery distributions suggest that West Crete was the main focus for this trade in Peloponnesian

goods, individual items of prestige value such as this bronze stand may have traveled a greater distance. 97. Hartmut Matthäus presented these unpublished finds at a conference (Convegno di Studi Identità culturale, etnicità, processi di trasformazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaismo) held at the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene in 2006. 98. Evidence for this consists of the Parthenon accounts (IG 2 I 388), which mention cedar wood in an uncertain context, coupled with a reference from a lost comedy (Hermippos, PCG v fr. 63; Ath. 1.27e–28a), produced at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, to Athenian imports of Cretan cedar earmarked for religious purposes. This combination of evidence convinces Meiggs (1982, pp. 200–201) that the Athenians employed Cretan cedar for the main weight-bearing timbers of the Parthenon.

99. For a discussion of the text, see Burford 1969, p. 112. Perlman (1999, p. 146) infers from the fact that his name was common in West Crete that Tychamenes came from this area. According to Chaniotis (1999b, p. 209), these sporadic references are not enough to claim that timber exports played a major role in the Cretan economy. 100. Not surprisingly, Pliny (HN 15.11) lists quince (Cydonia) among the specialty products of Crete. Kydonian coin types from the 4th century refer obliquely to trade in wine by depicting grapes or other emblems relating to wine. Such evidence presents an obvious problem of interpretation. In addition, Perlman (1996, p. 243) discusses a 4th-century text concerning vineyards in the territory of Kydonia. It is not clear, however, whether this evidence alludes to domestic or foreign consumption.

290

chapter 11

object, dated to ca. 550–525, from the Greek colony of Hermonassa on the Black Sea records what is presumably the name of an Eleuthernian potter (SEG XXXIX 698).101 This evidence indicates surprisingly diverse contacts, albeit not necessarily all of a commercial nature.102 This web of commercial and other relations helps explain the historically attested Cretan and Peloponnesian role in the colonization of Cyrene, aside from the possible cultural ties between Dorian Cyrene and its mother city Thera, itself purportedly founded by Sparta. Herodotos reports (4.162) that the Cyreneans invited a contingent of new colonists from the Peloponnese and Crete in the second generation after the colony’s foundation, an invitation to be dated to ca. 580 or shortly thereafter. According to S. Morris, Cretan pottery found in North Africa represents the personal belongings of Cretan colonists in search of new opportunities abroad.103 Yet the earliest Lakonian pottery at Cyrene dates to the end of the 7th century, before the historically attested involvement of Peloponnesian settlers, and therefore probably reflects something else: established trade connections. As we have seen, a commercial interpretation also best suits Cretan products at Cyrene and Tocra, which appear with Lakonian pots and other likely trade goods. This trade connection may have engendered closer ties and been a factor in the decision to invite Peloponnesian and Cretan colonists. Furthermore, the chronological pattern of Lakonian products in the Aegean provides clues to the structure of Cretan overseas exchange and the identity of the carriers. The prime period of Lakonian export in the eastern Mediterranean occurs ca. 600–550, but soon thereafter many parts of the Greek world witness a substantial reduction in the number of Lakonian exports, if not a full stop.104 Lakonian exports to Naukratis cease in ca. 525, and Samos experiences a reduction in number at roughly the same time.105 In contrast to the general decline of Lakonian b.g. as an export in ca. 525, the flow of Lakonian pottery to Cyrene actually increases in the final quarter of the 6th century. Cyrene apparently benefited from the lost commercial opportunities of Naukratis and Samos, providing an outlet for Lakonian pottery until the beginning of the 5th century.106 Crete should be added to this list of later emporia, for Lakonian kraters appear at Eleutherna in datable deposits as late as ca. 500–480.107 The declining number of Lakonian exports to Samos in ca. 550–525 invites historical explanations. Herodotos’s account (3.44–59) of Samian 101. The letter forms are distinctively Eleuthernian; see Treister and Shelov-Kovedyayev (1989), who conclude that the object under consideration is a nozzle used in ceramic production. The inscription was probably cut at the site. For the identification of the conical object as a kitchen utensil unrelated to pottery production, see Kotsonas 2008b, p. 77. 102. Numismatic evidence raises the possibility of a long-standing commercial tie between Eleutherna and the Hellespont. N. Stampolidis (pers. comm.) interprets the discovery at

Eleutherna of unpublished 5th-century coins from Tenedos as a reflection of trade between Eleutherna and the Hellespont. These coins, however, could have come back with Cretan mercenaries or moved through other channels. 103. S. Morris 1992, p. 170. See also Johnston 1993, pp. 376–377. 104. Nafissi (1989, pp. 71–73) discusses the chronological pattern of the trade in Lakonian pottery. Hodkinson (1998, p. 100) argues that the underrepresentation of plain b.g. in the publications available to Nafissi

weighted his conclusions too heavily against later production and trade after ca. 500. 105. Nafissi 1989, p. 73; Hodkinson 1998, p. 100; Stibbe 1997, pp. 41–47; Pipili 2001, pp. 18, 96–97. 106. Boardman 1980, p. 121–125. 107. For the context of Lakonian kraters at Eleutherna, see Chap. 3 (pp. 57–58). In addition, a Lakonian krater from taphos II at Kastello Varypetrou appears in the company of an Attic lekythos and an Attic skyphos, both dated to ca. 500–480 (Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1).

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

291

acts of piracy against Sparta reveals a deterioration in the political relations between Sparta and Samos, culminating in the attempted overthrow of Polykrates by a joint Spartan and Corinthian force in 524. Historians have often concluded from Herodotos’s testimony that political disagreements between the two poleis contributed to the decline of Lakonian exports to Samos.108 Paul Cartledge, however, emphasizes the purely commercial aspect of the ceramic pattern. Although Herodotos frames his discussion about deteriorating relations in terms of Samian piracy and the theft of a prestige item (a figural bronze krater), the archaeological record hints at a wider economic base for competitive relations between Sparta and Samos.

Kyd on i a an d P el op on n e si an Trade Foreign commercial interests and rivalries combine in a fascinating story of colonization on Crete, emphasizing the importance of the island as a base to outsiders. Reporting that a group of Samian exiles established a colony at Kydonia in 524, Herodotos (3.59) writes: “They themselves (the Samian exiles) settled at Kydonia in Crete, though their voyage had been made with no such intent, but rather to drive Zacynthians out of the island. Here they stayed and prospered for five years; indeed, the temples now at Kydonia and the shrine of Diktyna are the Samians’s work; but in the sixth year [519] the Aiginetans and Cretans overcame them in a seafight and made slaves of them.”109 In the light of the service of Samian merchants as carriers of Lakonian pottery and the inferred importance of West Crete as a stopping point for the distribution of Lakonian wares to North Africa, the Samian foundation at Kydonia may be interpreted as an effort to secure a foothold for Samian traders in this Peloponnesian trade circuit.110 The Samians failed to maintain a permanent station on Crete, as evidenced by Herodotos’s account (3.59) of the successful Aiginetan bid five years later, in 519, to replace the Samians at Kydonia. On the basis of archaeological and literary evidence, it seems that the Samians came under pressure first from Sparta and later from Aigina as these commercial rivals compelled the Samians to relinquish their stake in the Peloponnesian trade

108. Cartledge (1982, pp. 243–256) devotes extensive discussion to the special relationship forged between Sparta and Samos in the Archaic period and its commercial implications. Rolley (1977, pp. 136–137), however, perhaps anachronistically ascribes the decline of Lakonian exports to a formal measure to ban Samian merchants from Lakonian ports after the political rupture between the two states. 109. According to Herodotos (3.57–59), the Samians responsible for inviting the Spartan army to take action against Polykrates were compelled to leave their homes after the Lakonians abandoned their siege of Samos. The

Samian exiles campaigned against Siphnos (3.57) and Hydra (3.59) before arriving on Crete. Figueira (1978, p. 163) characterizes the Samian exiles as pirates and interprets their establishment of a base on Crete as an attempt to harass the western of the two traditional trade routes that linked mainland Greece and Egypt. Stefanakis (1999, pp. 254–255) examines the Aiginetan colony at Kydonia in terms of hypothesized trade rivalries, anticipating the evidence and arguments presented here. See also Williams 1993, p. 595; Prent 1996– 1997, p. 42; Raab 2001, p. 56. 110. The Samians may have been attracted to Kydonia by virtue of its

excellent port and its long-standing participation in overseas trade. Andreadaki-Vlasaki (1991, pp. 415– 423; 1997, pp. 239–240) documents commercial relations between Kydonia and the Greek mainland in the Geometric period through finds of imported pottery. A trickle of 6thcentury imports from later levels at Kastelli Chania include a Rhodian cup dated to ca. 575, an Attic Band cup of roughly the same date, and an Archaic Corinthian cup; see Hahn 1997, p. 210, no. 70-P 1023 (Rhodian), pls. 62, 68:a.1, p. 210, no. 82-P 1764b (Attic), pls. 62, 88:d.7, p. 210, no. 73-P 0586 (Corinthian), pls. 62, 68:a.7.

292

chapter 11

circuit with North Africa. Kydonia attracted considerable foreign attention from all parties because of its importance as a base for Peloponnesian trade. Archaeological evidence in the form of inscriptions, coins, ceramic imports, and rural cult activity confirms the tradition in Herodotos and sheds additional light on the commercial foundation of the Aiginetan settlement. Three inscribed tombstones from Kydonia share a comparable formula of commemoration: Αὐτομέ//δεός ἐμι (IC II x 7), Καλλι//δίκα (IC II x 10), and Σᾶμα Μελισσί//δος ἐμί (IC II x 13). Epigrams of this sort are commonplace on mainland Greece, but inscribed tombstones of any kind remain a rarity in Archaic Crete.111 The alphabet is definitely not Cretan, and Guarducci argues for Aiginetan script.112 These tombstones date to roughly the same period as the attested Aiginetan colonial foundation, the end of the 6th or beginning of the 5th century.113 This evidence supports the conclusion that the Aiginetans settled at Kydonia, and lived and died there, as implied but not explicitly stated by Herodotos’s testimony. Indeed, the fact that one of the epigrams commemorates a deceased woman strengthens the hypothesis of Aiginetan residents. Another sign of Aiginetan activity in West Crete comes in the discovery of large numbers of Aiginetan coins. Silver Aiginetan coins with turtles on the obverse traveled widely throughout the Peloponnese and the southern Aegean, and they are commonly interpreted as markers of trade in general, even if not specifically in Aiginetan hands. The sheer quantity of the Aiginetan coinage, and the fact that it so completely outnumbers any other non-Cretan issues in the Late Archaic period, suggested independently to Boardman and Figueira that there must have been a special Aiginetan commercial involvement in the area.114 The widespread distribution of Aiginetan coins, however, decreases their value as a token of a special commercial relationship with Crete, let alone evidence of Aiginetan settlers at Kydonia. Confirmation of the Herodotean tradition must therefore be sought elsewhere in the archaeological record. An influx of Attic pottery further suggests an Aiginetan commercial connection with Crete, since archaeologists have associated Aiginetan trade elsewhere in the Greek world, in particular Magna Graecia and North Africa, with an increase in imported Attic pottery.115 Attic imports now 111. In fact, apart from a single epigram found at Chersonessos, the three inscriptions from Kydonia make up the sum total of Archaic gravestones known from Crete; see Whitley 1997, pp. 649–660; Perlman 2002b, p. 197. 112. Guarducci 1939, pp. 120–123. Her conclusion regarding the Aiginetan character of the alphabet is seconded by Jeffery (1990, pp. 112, 314). See also Johnston (1989), who cites another example of the Kydoniate alphabet on Crete, a dedicatory inscription cut along the rim of a bronze cauldron from Ayia Pelayia. 113. Guarducci (1939, pp. 120–123) bases the date of these three inscriptions on letter forms.

114. Boardman 1980, p. 121. Aiginetan staters make up the bulk of nearly every Archaic coin hoard found on Crete. Even in later Hellenistic coin hoards, Archaic Aiginetan staters continue to make a strong showing. Figueira (1981, p. 133; 1998, p. 255, n. 98) argues that Aiginetan coins circulated as legal tender on Crete in the Late Archaic period. The fact that the earliest Cretan mints struck on the Aiginetan standard highlights the importance of Aiginetan coinage in the local economy. For a survey of the numismatic evidence, see Stefanakis 1999, pp. 250–251. 115. Boardman (1980, p. 121) associates Aiginetan trade in Egypt

with a profusion of imported Attic pottery and Aiginetan coins. See also Roebuck 1959, p. 238. Aigina’s attested role as one of the founders of the Greek colony of Naukratis (Hdt. 2.178) indicates a commercial connection; see Holloway 1971, pp. 14–15. The fact that imports of Attic pottery to Egypt waned with the eclipse of Aiginetan commercial fortunes in the middle of the 5th century may substantiate a correlation between Attic pottery and Aiginetan merchants. Johnston (1979, p. 53) infers from pot marks that Aiginetan traders, among others, carried Attic pottery to the Greek west.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

Figure 11.4. Attic red-figure lekythos found at Kydonia, dated to ca. the 470s (Chania Archaeological Museum 1094). Scale 2:5. Courtesy the

Chania Archaeological Museum

116. Attic b.g. pottery dated to ca. 500–480 has been reported on Crete at Knossos (Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 241–242, with references to earlier discoveries); Phalasarna (Gondicas 1988, pp. 108– 116); Olous (Platon and Davaris 1960, p. 512); Ayia Pelayia (Alexiou 1973, pp. 559–560, pl. 521:b; 1975, p. 337); Kydonia; Kastello Varypetrou (Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1); and Lera (Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976). More recent excavations at the necropolis of Itanos have also yielded abundant Attic cups dated to ca. 500– 480 (e.g., Itanos 1997.6201.02, 03, 1997.6287.01–04). Priniatikos Pyrgos and Azoria should also be added to the list of sites with Late Archaic Attic imports. 117. Nafissi 1989, pp. 73–74.

293

appear in greater abundance throughout the island, implying a change in the scale and structure of overseas trade.116 The Aiginetans may also have served as carriers of Lakonian pottery to Crete in the final quarter of the 6th century, after the expulsion of the Samians from Kydonia in 519. Nafissi grants the Aiginetans a modest share in the conduct of this later Aegean trade in Lakonian pottery but excludes the possibility that the Aiginetans usurped the former role of the Samians as the predominant carriers of Lakonian pottery in the Greek world.117 Fifth-century Aiginetan merchants evidently preferred to carry Attic pottery instead. Attic b.g. and figural pottery begins to appear at Kydonia in substantial quantities after ca. 500 and soon establishes itself as the leading import in funerary, domestic, and sanctuary contexts. Attic imports to Kydonia include whiteground pattern lekythoi, pyxides, drinking cups, and pelikai. A few examples of Attic painting rise to a high standard, including two black-figure lekythoi and a red-figure lekythos listed by J. D. Beazley among the works of the Tithonos Painter, a contemporary of the Berlin Painter (Fig. 11.4).118 From the probable site of the Kydonian acropolis, a well sealed at the transition between the Archaic and Classical periods contained numerous Attic b.g. shapes along with close local copies.119 At Kastello Varypetrou, inhabitants richly furnished the earliest in a series of Late Archaic and Classical tombs with Attic b.g. and figural lekythoi, kraters, and cups.120 At many Cretan sites, the influx of Attic pottery in the early 5th century marks the first appearance of imports in the archaeological record. Not only do Attic pots emerge in greater volume at a larger number of sites, but also the import repertoire exhibits a broader range in shape than seen earlier.121 A final category of information, the evidence from rural sanctuaries, further substantiates the proposed link between ceramic imports and Aiginetan traders. In the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the cave of Lera, on the northwest extremity of the Akrotiri peninsula (Fig. 1.1), became the seat of a cult of Pan and the Nymphs.122 The identification of Williams (1993, p. 595), however, contends that Aiginetan merchants did replace the Samians as the main distributors of Lakonian pottery to the western Mediterranean after the middle of the 6th century. 118. Beazley 1964, p. 310. 119. Hallager and Hahn (1997, p. 202, no. 77-P 0413, pls. 62, 96:d.6) identify an Attic-type lekythos as a local product based on visual inspection of the fabric. In addition, GuestPapamanoli and Lambraki (1976, p. 219, no. C1, fig. 10) illustrate an Atticizing b.g. cup from the cave of Lera modeled after the shape of an Attic skyphos (type C, ca. 500–480), an imported example of which appears at another sacred cave on Akrotiri, Arkoudia; see Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, p. 241, no. O30.

120. A description of the contents of these tombs appears in Chap. 10, p. 251. 121. This conclusion is based on the author’s study of unpublished ceramic deposits at sites across the island. It will need to be confirmed by intensive study and publication of the deposits in question. 122. For the excavations at Lera, see Faure 1961–1962; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, pp. 178–237. Tyree (1975, pp. 146–160) provides a summary of archaeological work and a history of the cave. The Athenians were the first to link the worship of Pan to that of the Nymphs in the aftermath of the Persian Wars, and their combined cult spread to many parts of mainland Greece in the 5th century; see Parker 1996, p. 165.

294

chapter 11

the deities rests on a series of dedications inscribed on pots. The worship of Pan and the Nymphs at Lera unequivocally dates back to the end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th century, to judge from the earliest of the inscribed dedications, but it was apparently preceded by a slightly earlier cult.123 Archaic Corinthian pots, both at Lera and another cave sanctuary on the peninsula at Arkoudia, push back the first signs of religious activity to the final quarter of the 6th century, suggesting a connection between the foundation of rural cults with the arrival of colonial settlers in 519.124 The fact that this activity conforms to a wider pattern of newly established or revived cult centers during the period ca. 525–500 sounds a cautionary note, however, unless indirect Aiginetan or mainland Greek influence inspired this whole revival.125 To sum up thus far, imported pottery at Eleutherna and Kydonia adds significantly to our knowledge of West Cretan commercial relations in the Archaic and Classical periods. The long-accepted picture of Cretan isolation maintained that the island fell out of contact with the rest of the Greek world in the first quarter of the 6th century, thereby turning its back on mainstream Greek culture and history. This hypothesis rested on the dubious testimony of 4th-century authors and the perceived absence of archaeological evidence for overseas contacts in the period ca. 600–400. New evidence from Eleutherna and other West Cretan poleis requires a modification of this view. The western end of the island found itself at a strategic point along a major trade artery linking the southern portion of mainland Greece to North African grain markets. A new opportunity arose for Crete as eastern Mediterranean markets faded away. The picture of Peloponnesian trade emerging from this study, faint as it is, stands in sharp contrast with the pattern of commercial relations in East Crete, where traffic in Archaic Cycladic pottery is indicated by unpublished finds at Olous, Azoria, and Itanos.126 Thus, the long east–west axis of the island apparently encouraged the development of two distinct trade networks, 123. The earliest inscription bearing an explicit reference to Pan and the Nymphs appears on an Attic skyphos dated to ca. 400–375; see GuestPapamanoli and Lambraki 1976, p. 218, no. N1, figs. 10, 13, pl. 46 (comparable to Agora XII, no. 348). Johnston (in Jeffery 1990, p. 413) proposes a date of ca. 500–450 for the earliest inscribed dedication (no. IN7) from Lera, but this fragmentary inscription does not explicitly refer to the cult of Pan and the Nymphs. Attic pottery from Lera includes skyphoi, kotylai, olpai, kraters, and lekythoi. Classical finds also include clay figurines depicting an enthroned goddess. Finally, lamps begin to appear at Lera by the end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th century. 124. At Lera, this evidence takes the form of two Corinthian pots, an aryballos and a kotyle; see Guest-

Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, p. 215, nos. A9, A10, fig. 10, pl. 45. The Corinthian pottery from Arkoudia consists of a single kotyle; see GuestPapamanoli and Lambraki 1976, p. 240, no. O2. Also from Arkoudia comes a terracotta plaque depicting Apollo Kitharadotis and Artemis, which is dated on stylistic grounds by Daux (1961, p. 897, figs. 6, 7) and Higgins (1967, p. 69) to ca. 460. As evidence that Aiginetan settlers frequented the cave at Lera, a dedication from the cave bears an inscription (no. IN7) written in the Aiginetan alphabet, as identified by the presence of a sigma—a character otherwise absent from Archaic Cretan scripts. The cave of Lera lies on the northern tip of the Akrotiri peninsula and occupies a position analogous to that of the Diktynnaion on the opposite peninsula.

Both sanctuaries may have played a role in marking Kydonian territory. 125. The apparent revival of Cretan cult centers at the end of the Archaic period is discussed in Chap. 10 (pp. 268–270). 126. Discoveries of Subgeometric pottery of Cycladic manufacture from the votive deposit at Olous attest overseas connections in the second half of the 6th century. The evidence consists of skyphoi with decoration on the shoulder in the form of concentric circles framed by vertical strokes (Platon 1960, p. 259; Platon and Davaris 1960, p. 512). Another skyphos of the same type from the Late Archaic cemetery at Itanos points to a wider profusion of Cycladic pottery in East Crete (Greco et al. 1999, pp. 525–526). The exact provenience of these cups is open to question. Possible production

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

295

one in the west with a Peloponnesian focus and the other in the east with a Cycladic orientation.127 Surprisingly, this emergence of a new overseas trade pattern proved to be a false start, for an unprecedented disruption of overseas imports followed in the island’s archaeological record. A pronounced gap around ca. 460–400 characterizes the record of overseas imports at Kydonia and sites in its territory, with a similar pattern of declining imports, if not a complete cessation, observed at a number of other places on the island.128 At Phalasarna, a handful of 6th-century burials, followed without interruption in the first quarter of the 5th century by a group of burials loaded with Attic pottery, comes to an end around 470–450.129 This lacuna persists until the end of the 5th century, when burials at Phalasarna suddenly return in far greater numbers than before.130 This break in the import record at Phalasarna is accompanied by a comareas include Paros, Naxos, and Thasos. Blondé, Perreault, and Péristéri (1992, pp. 18–25) and Perreault (1999, p. 292) propose a date in the second half of the 6th century for similar, if not identical, cups from a kiln site at Thasos. For examples from Naxos, see S. Morris 1997, p. 68, fig. 4. See also the Subgeometric Cycladic pottery from Late Archaic levels at Tocra published by Boardman and Hayes (1966, pp. 74–75, nos. 918–920, fig. 38, pl. 54). A row of dots along the shoulder characterizes a related group of Cycladic cups at Olous. These dot-band skyphoi resemble Lakonian cups and may have been incorrectly identified as Lakonian in earlier publications. Robert Sutton (pers. comm.) informs me that similar dot-band skyphoi have been found at Despotiko, Paros; see also Kourayos 2005, p. 123, fig. 14, top right. The Olous votive deposit contains examples of a third type of Cycladic cup, a mug similar to the published examples from Kea, for which see Butt 1977, pp. 306–307, nos. 23, 24, fig. 2, pl. 68. Also from this deposit come local copies of 5th-century Rhodian figurine types, including close derivatives of large female head protomes; see Higgins 1967, p. 59; Price 1978, pp. 88, 155. At other Cretan sites, a Cycladic model may lie behind the production of a presumably local black-figure pinax from Praisos, and recent excavations at Azoria have added two other Cycladic imports, a Subgeometric skyphos and a black-figure plate, to the inventory of such overseas items in East Crete. For the skyphos, see Haggis et al. 2007,

p. 261, fig. 14:5. 127. The same east–west commercial division of the island prevailed during earlier periods of Cretan history, from the Minoan to the Early Iron Age. For example, the EM settlement at Siteia shows abundant Cycladic connections. Betancourt (1985, p. 26) points to Cycladic influence on East Cretan pottery designs, and Coldstream (1968) pursues the question for the Early Iron Age pottery of East Crete. According to Andreadaki-Vlasaki (1997, p. 239, n. 130), West Crete enjoyed closer ties than other parts of the island with mainland Greece in the Late Bronze Age. 128. Finds of Attic red-figure pottery from tombs help establish the precise upper and lower limits of the break. Two unpublished Early Classical lekythoi, one painted in the 470s (mentioned earlier) and another dated to the 460s (a lekythos that depicts a woman at a fountain, attributed to the Bowdoin Painter by Beazley 1964, p. 682) stand at the threshold of the gap. They are the last known burial offerings for approximately another 60 years at Kydonia. The next burial on the other side of the divide dates toward the end of the 5th century, judging from its Attic contents. These consist of a pair of terracotta pyxides and a white-ground lekythos dated to ca. 425–400; see Papapostolou 1973–1974, pp. 921–925, pls. 690–692. The Attic pyxides belong to the powder pyxis type, as Agora XII, nos. 1294– 1297. This tomb heralds the beginning of a continuous series of 4th-century burials at Kydonia, richly furnished, as before, with Attic imports; see Polo-

giorgi 1985. Ceramic evidence from Chania and from the sacred caves at Lera and Arkoudia points to a similar lapse in imports; see Hahn 1997, pp. 210–211 (Kastelli Chania); GuestPapamanoli and Lambraki 1976, pp. 215–221, 240 (Lera). At Lera, the 4th century witnessed an increase in the number of Attic plain black and figural examples; see Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, pp. 216–217, nos. RG2–RG12, pl. 45, p. 218, nos. N1, N12, N13, N31, N33, fig. 13, pl. 46. 129. Gondicas (1988, pp. 109– 110) summarizes the evidence from Phalasarna. Tomb furnishings include Corinthian exaleiptra and aryballoi dated to ca. 575–550, and skyphoi of late-6th-century date produced under heavy Ionian influence. Attic pottery becomes the most popular grave offering in the 5th century. See also Stefanankis 2006, p. 44. Gondicas (1988, p. 110) assigns Attic black-figure and white-ground pattern lekythoi from Phalasarna to three distinct workshops active ca. 480–470, 470–460, and 470–450, respectively. In addition, red-figure lekythoi appear with b.g. skyphoi and saltcellars in lesser concentrations ca. 500–475. 130. Savignoni (1901, pp. 375–382, figs. 66–68) illustrates a selection of red-figure vases and other finds from the Classical and Hellenistic cemetery at Phalasarna. Attic saltcellars, lamps, and a red-figure lekythos dated to ca. 410–400 place the recovery toward the end of the 5th century; see Gondicas 1988, pp. 109–111.

296

chapter 11

TA B LE 11.2. AT T IC IMPORTS AT CRE TAN SI TES IN TH E 5TH CENT U RY Phalasarna

Kydonia

Kastello

Eleutherna

Knossos

Olous

Priniatikos Pyrgos

Itanos

500–475

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

475–450

x

x

–

x

–

x

x

x

450–425

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

425–400

–

–

–

–

x

–

–

x

400–375

x

x

x

x

x

x

–

x

Date

parable absence of local pottery. Kastello Varypetrou follows a similar pattern. There, a rich collection of Attic and Lakonian grave gifts dries up after ca. 500–480, resulting in a scarcity of 5th-century offerings. In this case, however, mourners made do in the interim with a small number of grave goods of local manufacture, such as the olpai from several tombs. Attic imports return at the beginning of the 4th century, although they never again appear with the same frequency. The same gap characterizes the import record at other investigated Cretan sites, including Eleutherna and Knossos (Table 11.2). At Eleutherna this temporary hiatus is particularly noticeable because at no other time in their long history (ca. 850–250) do the Eleuthernians stop importing. How might this absence of imports be explained? According to one scenario, the decline in imports was the result of a Cretan ban on Athenian goods, an expression of anti-Athenian sentiment.131 The Dorian background of many Cretan cities may have predisposed them to Peloponnesian sympathies. Attic pottery did not have a special Athenian connotation on the island, however, since merchants carried first Lakonian and then Attic pots in the context of a long-standing Peloponnesian trade tie. In addition, it is hard to believe that every investigated Cretan city and sanctuary enacted a ban against Attic imports at roughly the same time. Another explanation holds that the island deliberately sealed itself off from the outside world and adopted a general isolationist stance, but it is highly unlikely that independent Cretan cities would find common cause in foreign policy.132 Instead, the archaeological evidence points to outside interference for the temporary lapse in overseas trade. Because the period ca. 460–400 saw the rise and fall of Athenian naval supremacy in the Aegean, the disruption of trade patterns on Crete may be connected to the economy of the Athenian empire.133 The downfall of Aigina in 457 and incorporation of the island as a tributary member of the Athenian empire presumably dealt a serious blow to the extensive 131. The idea of an embargo against Athenian goods as an expression of anti-Athenian sentiment pervades early scholarship. Critics of this view include Dunbabin 1936–1937, p. 84; Figueira 1978, p. 218; MacDonald 1982, p. 120; Miller 1997, p. 67. For a fuller discussion of the Cretan import pattern and possible historical implications, see

Erickson 2005. 132. Morris (1998a, p. 67) entertains this suggestion of an isolationist policy. 133. On a related note, Perlman (1999, pp. 144, 150) raises the possibility of economic advantages for Crete as a result of the dissolution of the Athenian empire after 404.

Demargne (1947, p. 352), Figueira (1981, p. 279), and Viviers (1995, pp. 268–269) speculate that the major political events of the 5th century, including the Persian Wars and the decline of Aigina in the face of Athenian pressure, affected the Cretan economy.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

297

Aiginetan trade network described earlier. The defeat of Aigina may have set the wheels of Athenian commercial expansion in motion, but it alone cannot explain the recession of this major Peloponnesian trade artery for the next 60 years. If the eclipse of Aiginetan commercial power were the sole issue at stake, other trading states would have filled the vacuum left by the removal of Aiginetan merchants. Continued Athenian pressure provides a more compelling explanation for the duration of the apparent Cretan trade slump. It can be inferred from Thucydides that the Athenians took actions intended to disrupt this trade network by the middle of the 5th century. Thucydides (4.53.3), in a passage discussed earlier, refers to a trade artery that originated in Egypt and Libya and stopped on Kythera before reaching the mainland. Given Aegean geography and the historical context of 6th-century commercial relations, the Cretans must have participated in this route. Moreover, the Athenians took pains to neutralize Kythera by occupying the island on two separate occasions; the first in 456 under Tolmides’ command and a second, longer occupation, which involved, as Huxley inferred, the installation of an Athenian garrison throughout the 420s and 410s (Thuc. 4.53–54).134 The Athenian expedition against Egypt in 454 can also be interpreted as an attempt to disrupt Peloponnesian trade by applying pressure at the source of the grain, although Athenian motivations undoubtedly included a host of other political and military factors.135 The application of Athenian military pressure at either end of this attested Peloponnesian trade artery would have indirectly suppressed Cretan trade. In addition, an Athenian foray against Kydonia in 429 (Thuc. 2.85.5) may have had an objective of menacing a base for Peloponnesian traffic, regardless of other motives for the expedition.136 The upper and lower limits of the Cretan import gap correlate then with a more aggressive Athenian stance toward Peloponnesian trade with North Africa during the First and Second Peloponnesian Wars. In response to this disruption of overseas trade, the Eleuthernians seem to have taken countermeasures. They compensated by developing new trade channels with other island communities, forging, for example, a special trade relationship with Gortyn in the Classical period, as indicated by numerous imports of b.g. drinking cups and imitations in the local 134. See Huxley 1972, pp. 37–38. Hopper (1979, pp. 78–79) suggests that Athens had as one of its aims in occupying Kythera the “prevention of the importation of corn into the Peloponnesus.” Elsewhere he (p. 54) describes Kythera as “a station on the route from Egypt, Cyprus and Crete to the Peloponnesus.” 135. Green (1970, p. 33) perhaps overstates the case: “It is the Egyptian campaign of 460–459 which confirms Athens’ grain shortage beyond all possible doubt. . . . There is one reason, and one only why foreign powers invaded Egypt during antiquity: to secure control of its immense grain supply.” Similarly, according to Austin

and Vidal-Naquet (1977, p. 115), Athenian interests in securing a supply of grain to the city led to military adventurism in Egypt in the 450s. French (1964, p. 110), however, asserts that the Egyptian expedition “can be explained on purely strategic grounds.” 136. Crete may have been involved in Athenian calculations. According to Bowsky (1997, p. 203), the attack against Kydonia makes sense in the context of Peloponnesian trade with Egypt. Van Effenterre, Liesenfelt, and Papaoikonomou (1983, p. 416) examine possible Athenian interests in West Crete. Yet scholarly opinion is increasingly divided on the role of economic planning under the Athenian

empire. The vast literature on this subject includes noteworthy contributions by Meiggs (1972, p. 272), Austin and Vidal-Naquet (1977, p. 6), Finley (1981, p. 54), MacDonald (1982, pp. 118–119), Bauslaugh (1991, p. 24, n. 4), Kallet-Marx (1993, pp. 1–3), and Osborne (1999, p. 329). In addition, Moreno (2007, pp. 126–140) has compiled new archaeological evidence for the grain trade being a central concern of Athens in its relations with Euboia throughout much of the 5th century. Other recent contributions to our understanding of the economic dimensions of the Athenian empire include Kroll 2009; Ma 2009; Morris 2009.

298

chapter 11

fabric.137 Gortynian cups exhibit a high standard of potting and fine lustrous gloss, making them worthy substitutes for imported Attic examples.138 Cups are probably the visible trace of more substantial traffic in other commodities, including perhaps grain from the Mesara. This Cretan enterprise can be viewed as a response to a decline in overseas trade. In addition, the Kydonians may also have adjusted in response to this disruption of overseas trade. For instance, Kydonia begins striking its earliest pseudo-Aiginetan coins around 460, arguably with the intention of supplementing the discontinued supply of Aiginetan issues.139 Compensating for a shortfall in imports with local production may also lie behind the adoption of a local red-figure pottery style at a still-unidentified center in West Crete, whose works include a small group of lekythoi, painted by the same hand, from tombs at Phalasarna and from another uncertain context in the west.140 All date to the end of the 5th century, within the period of the import gap. To be sure, not all Cretan poleis managed to cope as successfully with the proposed break in overseas traffic as Eleutherna and Kydonia. At Phalasarna, a port town more reliant on seaborne trade, the interruption of burials in the 5th century may correspond to a disruption in the life of the town, if not its outright abandonment.141 At most other sites, the local pottery sequences document continuity of settlement during the 5th century. These examples of a possible lapse in overseas contacts emphasize the vulnerability of the island to fluctuations in foreign markets and political changes in the Mediterranean. An earlier disruption of Near Eastern trade routes ca. 600 arguably had more profound repercussions for Crete, leading to sweeping changes in artistic styles, burial customs, religious practices, and the political economy. These developments may have heralded the emergence of an unusual Cretan variation on the standard Greek polis.

OVER SEAS TRADE AND O RIENTALIZING SO CIE T Y Past attempts to explain the disappearance of bronze and other lavish votives from Cretan sanctuaries in the early 6th century have regarded precious 137. This evidence takes the form of 12 imported Gortynian cups and nine local copies at Eleutherna; see Chap. 3 (pp. 80–86). Given the high quality of Gortynian b.g., it comes as a surprise that documented Gortynian exports circulated no farther than Priniatikos Pyrgos to the east and Eleutherna to the west in the period ca. 600–400 (Fig. 6.8). 138. For a technical description of Gortynian fabric and gloss, see Chap. 6 (pp. 177–178). 139. Robinson (1928) first proposed a Kydonian origin for the pseudoAiginetan coinage found on Crete. Triobols constitute the bulk of Cretan

production, whereas Aiginetan mints produced coins predominantly of larger denominations. Figueira (1981, p. 123) suggests that the Kydonian mint was a colonial branch and coordinated its activities with Aigina. On the contrary, a local need for small-denomination currency is sufficient reason for Kydonian production. The traditionally advocated date of ca. 500 for the earliest Kydonian issues has attracted recent scrutiny. Stefanakis’s (1999, pp. 258–260) study of the coin dies indicates a slightly later date of ca. 470 to 460. Figueira (1998, p. 122) advances an even later date for the majority of Kydonian coins, after 431. The Ky-

donians were still able to obtain silver from overseas sources, an indication that their isolation was not absolute. 140. Cook 1990. 141. The 5th-century gap in the series of burials at Phalasarna gives every indication of being a real decline. Nothing else on the literary or archaeological front requires a date in the second half of the 5th century. Gondicas (1988, pp. 115–116) assigns a 5th-century date to the city walls; it is equally plausible that they are products of early-4th-century innovations in artillery design (Hadjidaki 1988, p. 10).

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

299

material as a direct symbol of economic prosperity, its absence signaling an impoverishment of local resources and a possible abandonment of Orientalizing cult centers. Changes in the structure of overseas trade may have isolated Crete from sources of copper and tin, for the island’s supply of these raw materials probably depended on trade connections with the Near East, through contact with Cyprus, Syria-Palestine, or the western coast of Anatolia.142 Perhaps the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar in Syria precipitated a major reconfiguration of Near Eastern routes, as successive military campaigns, from the attested destruction of Nineveh in 604 to the capture of Phoenician Tyre in 573, strained Aegean sea routes and had a cumulative effect on overseas trade. If these conquests had such dire consequences, a gradual reconfiguration of Near Eastern trade routes in the period ca. 610–580 may have been a factor in the disappearance of bronze and Orientalizing exotica from Cretan sanctuaries. This scenario also helps explain the parallel and contemporary dearth of bronze from tombs.143 But we must bear in mind that sanctuaries and graves are not the whole story; prestige items can move almost imperceptibly from one sphere of activity to another. It is difficult to imagine an isolation as pervasive as the Cretan archaeological record on its face suggests. Since much of the evidence is filtered through a ritual lens of burial and sanctuary activity, it is almost impossible to recover basic economic structures by archaeological means, and an exclusively economic argument ignores the social processes of consumption. Although bronze is largely absent from funerary and religious contexts, it may have been put to use in settlements. If so, it is understandable why so little has survived: few settlements have been excavated, and the tendency to reuse bronze in above-ground contexts renders it all but invisible to the archaeologist.144 With overseas trade probably occupying only a small niche in the local economies, it seems unlikely that a collapse of overseas markets ruined the economic base of the island. The traffic in prestige goods such as ivories, bronzes, and perfumes registers most clearly in funerary and religious contexts, and these vulnerable sectors of the Cretan economy may well have suffered from a disruption of Near Eastern routes. The bronze shields and ivory works from cave sanctuaries certainly give the impression of elite dedications, given the expensive raw 142. Cretan Orientalizing art expresses a manifest debt to Near Eastern styles. The dominant sources of influence stem from the Levant, although Egyptian styles and imports occupy an important niche. According to Watrous (1998, p. 75), Crete established direct ties with Egypt by the end of the 7th century, eliminating the need for Near Eastern intermediaries. Demargne (1947, pp. 214–225), Dunbabin (1952, p. 195), S. Morris (1992, pp. 170–172), Erickson (2002, pp. 78–79), and Perlman (2004b, p. 120) all consider a disruption of Near Eastern trade routes as a catalyst for the

presumed Cretan artistic and economic recession. J. Shaw (2000, p. 693, n. 28), however, doubts that foreign events had such a drastic effect on the local economy. Haggis et al. (2007, p. 303) are also skeptical about this trade thesis. In addition, there are exceptions to the decline of bronze dedications at sanctuaries; see Chap. 10, p. 260, n. 114. Guralnick (2004, pp. 218–219) suggests that the collapse of the Assyrian empire brought about increased trade in scrap metal at the end of the 7th century. Depressed markets for Near Eastern bronze may have followed a temporary spike in exports as plunder reached

Greek consumers. 143. None of the Archaic tomb clusters at Eleutherna produced even the slightest trace of bronze. Bronze was also absent from tombs of this date at Phalasarna and Praisos. The only documented bronze object from a Late Archaic tomb is a small nozzle from taphos II at Kastello Varypetrou (Chap. 10, p. 251, Table 10.1). 144. Azoria is already raising the possibility that bronze remained in circulation in domestic contexts; see Chap. 12 (p. 322, n. 56). Once enough settlements have been excavated, new evidence may reveal a different pattern.

300

chapter 11

materials, expert craftsmanship, and conspicuous consumption involved in the removal of these objects from everyday use.145 In addition, many of these bronzes were made explicitly for dedication. At Aphrati, the rich hoard of bronze armor contains inscribed examples with named individuals acting as winners of spolia, emphasizing personal glory as a factor in the decision to commit valuable resources outside the domestic sphere.146 This presumably elite activity does not provide a representative cross section of local economic conditions. Rather, a disruption of overseas trade networks would have impinged most visibly on the habits of a relatively narrow circle of people. Indeed, the circulation theory in its purest form has difficulty accounting for the continued flow of bronze to mainland Greece in the 6th century. If the problem was exclusively access, other outlets for overseas luxury goods would have presented themselves to Cretan elites. Why did they not seek Egyptian sources of bronze or tap into alternative supplies indirectly through entrepots in mainland Greece? If the Cretans lacked initiative in matters of trade, it might explain why their supply of overseas goods did not simply move to other channels with the hypothesized collapse of Near Eastern routes. Unlike the chain of small Cycladic islands with their limited agricultural potential, where proximity to other islands and the mainland encouraged trade, Cretan prosperity probably did not depend on maintaining overseas channels.147 They could afford to fall back on their own island and its natural resources, even if it meant less contact with the outside world. This was arguably not an option for the smaller Cycladic islands. Cretans were ready to profit from outside interest in their island as a base, but they apparently resisted undertaking voyages on their own to open new markets. In the absence of local initiative, Crete may have suffered more than most from the reconfiguration of trade routes in the 6th century. If the low archaeological profile of the Archaic period were simply a function of economic impoverishment, we would expect islanders to obtain what they could from overseas sources or produce copies of Orientalizing items using locally available materials. In addition to imported bronze and ivory, however, locally available iron also disappears from tombs and sanctuaries. Moreover, terracotta plaques and figurines eschew Orientalizing motifs at this time, and none of the fine-ware pottery made in the 6th century qualifies as Orientalizing by shape, decoration, or other standards. Haggis and his colleagues refer to lingering Orientalizing styles at 6thcentury Azoria, but the evidence consists almost entirely of motifs on clay stands and pithoi (Fig. 11.5).148 Since these later Orientalizing motifs differ from 7th-century examples and mark a process of simplification, this production does not strictly constitute a survival or signify artistic continuity. 145. Watrous (1996, p. 103) alludes to the social implications of lavish dedications at Cretan caves. In general terms, Herman (1987) characterizes visitors to such sanctuaries as members of a rich international culture in opposition to the local interests of their home states.

146. Since, as Whitley (1997, pp. 650–651) observes, these inscriptions do not conform to the standard dedicatory formula, this inscribed armor may have been displayed in a public building rather than a sanctuary; see Chap. 12, p. 317. 147. Broodbank (2000, pp. 74–106)

outlines the constraints of size, economic resources, demography, and communications in shaping subsistence strategies in the Early Bronze Age Cyclades. Much of his analysis has implications for the region in later periods. 148. Haggis et al. 2004, p. 355.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

301

Figure 11.5. Archaic lekane with embossed decoration found at Azoria. Scale 1:6. Haggis et al. 2004,

fig. 9. Drawing by R. Docsan. Courtesy the Azoria Project

It is preferable to view this industry as spirited invention rather than the retention of older styles. Unlike their Orientalizing predecessors, the grandest Archaic pithoi from Azoria are covered from top to bottom with narrow zones of embossed decoration in simple linear, foliate, and figural patterns, creating a cumulative effect best described as baroque abundance. Indeed, these monumental creations, with their bosses and other derivations of metal prototypes, make a striking impression. Although large pots with a substantial field for decoration are more likely to receive decoration of some sort, even if only simple bands of gloss, this principle can hardly explain the lengths potters were willing to go in this case.149 It is difficult, however, to generalize from these examples to the rest of the island, for no other Cretan site has produced anything directly comparable to the pithoi and stands from Azoria. The nearest parallels are the decorated burial containers from Kastello Varypetrou, but they show nothing of the design complexity or exuberance of the Azoria examples.150 Instead, these pithoi and stands give the impression of a peculiar local style. If Orientalizing elements do not completely disappear from Cretan art in the first quarter of the 6th century, they become a far less significant aspect of display. A disruption of Near Eastern markets may, in part, explain the artistic decline in almost every sphere of craft production during the Archaic period, from bronzes, ivories, and stone sculpture to ceramic cups, but the 149. Perhaps for this reason, Cretan amphoras occasionally receive bands of gloss marking the principal divisions of the vase. In addition, swirls of gloss on the shoulder characterize a special class of proto-Hadra hydria, ancestor of the popular Hellenistic shape best known from exports to Egypt. Callaghan and Jones (1985, p. 11, n. 47) trace the ancestry of the type at Knossos back to the Late Archaic period. Knossos and Phaistos have yielded evidence for the production of the shape in the early 5th century, and both sites later became centers for the manufacture of Cretan Hadra hydriai in the Hellenistic period.

For Knossos, see Coldstream 1973b, pp. 49–50, nos. L6–L11, fig. 5, pl. 18; Callaghan 1978, p. 15, no. 42, pl. 4 (dated to the 4th century). More recently, a proto-Hadra hydria has come to light in a Classical pit (SX:U6) from a context dated to ca. 475–450. For the hydria from Phaistos, Chiara Portale (pers. comm.) informed me of an example from the area of Chalara (Phaistos Archaeological Museum 4475). It is a surface find dated to the 5th century based on Knossian parallels. Three other sites have produced evidence for a comparably early form: the discovery of a 5th-cen-

tury example from Aphrati (Lebessi 1970, p. 460, pl. 402:b) demonstrates local ancestry of the type and raises the question of a Hellenistic production center at Aphrati, and Late Archaic forerunners of the Hadra hydria are now known at Priniatikos Pyrgos and Azoria. 150. Chap. 1, p. 9. Also comparable are unpublished pithos fragments from the Galatas survey decorated with running spirals, rosettes, spiral volutes, circles, bosses, and tongues. Animal motifs are rare but include a winged creature (griffin or sphinx).

302

chapter 11

Cretan reaction is too strong to be understood in simple economic terms. In a dramatic turnaround from the rich artistic traditions of the Orientalizing period, numerous Cretan poleis become almost invisible in archaeological terms as they enter a new phase of cultural development. Two contrasting models—class struggle and elite consensus—have potential for explaining the social dimensions of this shift. For instance, Morris states, “The Orientalizing movement was a class phenomenon. This is not the only important thing about it, but an art history that neglects the movement’s sociology cannot begin to explain it.”151 In his view, Orientalizing exotica evoked the dedicator’s privileged links to the Near East. As such, this artistic movement reflects an oppositional elitist value system that transcended the ideology of the polis.152 A counterreaction then forced elites to tone down and conform. A variation of this thesis distinguishes between middling and elitist ideologies in Archaic Greece. The middling ideology emphasizes restraint and membership in a community of equals, whereas the elitist ideology represents “the creation of a coherent alternative belief system” with an emphasis on Near Eastern luxury.153 The middling ideology is an elite response to social pressures from below. This paradigm of class struggle stresses the symbolic meaning of ­artifacts as markers of status: lavish bronze and ivory votives were the mainstays of the Orientalizing elites, whereas decorated pots served as foot soldiers in the class war.154 Whether elites controlled access to this symbolic vocabulary by preventing Orientalizing imports and their imitations from trickling down the social scale is open to question. In the case of 7th-century Athenian ceramics, Whitley contends that elites rationed style by restricting access to Orientalizing iconography, preventing the dissemination of token symbols beyond aristocratic circles.155 We must be careful, however, not to exaggerate the social importance of pottery, despite its prominent role in archaeological research. At best, pottery may indirectly reflect status distinctions achieved by other means. For instance, 151. I. Morris 1997, p. 37. In addition, the efforts of Redfield, Spencer, and other scholars to illuminate the relationship between overseas trade and political instability in Archaic Greece may shed light on the collapse of Cretan Orientalizing culture. Spencer (2000, p. 80) stresses the danger for elites who bound themselves to overseas exchange networks as a way of enhancing their position in society through the display of exotica. He characterizes the reaction of Archaic poets to market forces as “something to be feared; [they] could subvert the usual order of society, making agathoi poor and kakoi rich.” 152. This framework assumes the existence of coherent ideologies and class identities in Archaic Greece and posits agency from below as the group

asserted its prerogatives over elites. Morris’s (1987, pp. 173–177) study of Early Iron Age mortuary variability frames the issue as a contest between the agathoi and the kakoi. According to this view, the kakoi are essentially serfs, while the agathoi are citizens accorded formal burial. I. Morris (1992, p. 152) also interprets austere Spartan dress as a means of social control. 153. I. Morris 1997, p. 37. 154. For instance, Stewart (1993, p. xxxiv) regards works of art as “active ingredients of the social matrix, they are socially formative products in their own right, making statements that can both change perceptions and mold ideas.” In a similar vein, Neer (2002, p. 25) describes how “an object might in itself be a political act.” 155. Whitley (1994) interprets the

Protoattic pot painting style as an elite prerogative largely restricted to funerary and sanctuary contexts. In addition, Morris (1987, pp. 163–167) and Whitley (2001, pp. 236–241) suggest that the plain character of settlement pottery has impeded efforts to identify non-elite activity. According to Whitley (p. 241), a lingering Subgeometric style explains the perceived absence of 7th-century settlement evidence from Athens and its territory. A similar argument could be made for problematic areas outside Attica, as archaeologists have begun to grapple with partial gaps in the pottery sequence of the Argolid and elsewhere in the Archaic and Classical periods; see Foley 1995, pp. 79–82; Vink 1996– 1997, pp. 2–7; Ratinaud-Lachkar 2004, pp. 82–86.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

303

if ceramic oil containers had elite associations, the expensive contents probably counted more than the painted decoration. Orientalizing cremation urns perhaps also belonged to an elite sphere, since the consignment of these large and intricately decorated vessels to family chamber tombs represented a significant expenditure on what could be only a momentary impression at the funeral. Although there is no evidence that decorated urns on Crete were restricted to a richer or more ostentatious group than those using undecorated urns, elite commission work probably stimulated the industry by giving potters a chance to hone their skills and experiment with elaborate decorative schemes. In this restricted sense, decorated pottery may have a bearing on the tastes of an elite class. S. Morris takes issue with the concept of stylistic rationing in the field of ceramic decoration, and her objections point to a different conception of social agency on Crete.156 Against the theory of rationing, Orientalizing motifs are a pervasive feature of 7th-century Cretan art from the cheapest terracottas and trinkets to monumental stone sculpture. For example, clay plaques of the Astarte type appear at sanctuaries across the island by the hundreds in the 7th century. Impressed by these numbers and the wider variety of materials, Prent distinguishes the 7th-century pattern from earlier uses of Orientalizing art in the 9th and 8th centuries, when such objects appeared less frequently and only in the form of portable luxury items in metal, ivory, and faience. Instead of this change in the 7th century reflecting a trickle-down effect caused by the lower orders copying prestigious designs in humbler materials, the greater range in the sources and uses of Near Eastern styles points to independent transmission. Popular new varieties such as the Astarte plaques have no iconographic precedent in the earlier bronze and ivory repertoires.157 Orientalizing motifs must have lost whatever elite associations they once had in the Early Iron Age. Moreover, there is no distinct oppositional style in the 7th century, whether a plain or an alternative mode of expression. In his attempt to distinguish oppositional groups at 7th-century Knossos through burials using a linear and polychrome style, Whitley admitted that what he defined as linear is just as Orientalizing as the ornate style, leading him to downplay receptivity to Near Eastern art as a point of distinction.158 Even the 156. S. Morris (1997, p. 64) deplores what she terms “ceramic sociologies” of early Greece for their methodological uncertainties. Indeed, the concept of stylistic rationing raises fundamental questions for ceramic studies. How did elites bar other classes from obtaining such symbols, and were they regulated at the market or in the course of production? Whitley (1991b, pp. 192–193) invokes an ethnographic analogy from a contemporary tribal society in Nuristan to argue for stylistic rationing in ancient Greece. In Nuristan, iconographic messages embedded in geometric designs on

clothing, wooden panels displayed at the entrance of houses, and wooden bowls and measures testify to a strict regulation of symbols according to achieved rank. Whether this analogy provides a valid parallel for the small-scale world of decorated Greek ceramics is open to question. 157. Prent (2005, p. 366) draws on the iconographic studies of Böhm (1990, pp. 69, 87) and others to argue for the introduction of Astarte plaques on the island in the 7th century through stylistic channels of different geographic origin from those responsible for the Orientalizing bronzes of

the 9th and 8th centuries. 158. According to Whitley’s (2004, p. 438) calculations, burial urns in the linear style are associated with fewer metal goods than burials provisioned with ornately decorated urns. Since these urns come from chambers with multiple interments, these tomb groups must be taken into account, whether they reflect family groups or some other association. Indeed, family standing may have outweighed individual roles. Whitley’s study, however, deals with burials without regard for tomb groups. See also Kotsonas’s (2006, p. 160) critical assessment.

304

chapter 11

staunchest advocates of a sociological approach to Orientalizing art ­acknowledge the exceptional nature of Crete. For instance, I. Morris notes the pervasive Orientalizing tradition on the island and concludes that Cretan Orientalizing art “spoke a language of continuity,” which suggests that it lacks the social significance seen elsewhere in the Greek world, at least in the 7th century.159 The symbolic message of Near Eastern exotica and the social roles of such objects were probably not related to class conflict. The prestige of Orientalizing items therefore depended more on expensive materials and personal associations than decorative style, since the wide dissemination of Near Eastern elements in Cretan art minimized the impact of ornamental patterns.160 Lavish bronze and ivory dedications undoubtedly made an impression on sanctuary visitors, but fellow aristocrats were presumably the intended audience, since they were best equipped to understand the symbolic vocabulary of Orientalizing motifs. Thus, competition took place within elite ranks, not between elites and the lower orders. In addition, the concept of stylistic rationing makes a fundamentally flawed assumption about the social impact of pottery and small finds. Huge architectural monuments with elaborate sculptural programs might shape, for instance, an Athenian’s sense of identity in the 5th century; pottery motifs probably did not have the same effect. Deprived of Near Eastern exotica, elites would surely assert themselves in other ways. The artistic impoverishment of the 6th century is pervasive enough to discount the possibility of an elite group controlling access to style because such a social model leads to the improbable conclusion that Cretan elites rationed themselves almost out of existence. This is not to say that there were no class distinctions. Inscriptions point to highly stratified communities on Crete with legally defined categories of slaves, citizens, and various shades of free dependency. The citizen body was by definition an elite group, and attested tribal names at Gortyn and other poleis allude to competitive divisions within this elite class.161 There may also be some truth to Aristotle’s statement (Pol. 1272a) that the chief officials of the ideal Cretan constitution, the kosmoi, were drawn from certain tribes and held office in rotation. These privileged clans can be equated with the startoi in literature and inscriptions. In addition to public office, hereditary cult associations may have opened up another path to advancement and unleashed competitive pressures within the upper tiers. These elites, 159. I. Morris 1997, p. 42. According to Davidson (1997, p. 236) and Foxhall (1998), the consumption of Near Eastern exotica and other luxury goods was widespread in the Greek world and lacked special significance. Thus “exotica” is a problematic term; see Gunter 2009, pp. 50–70. By analogy, Miller’s (1985, pp. 184–196) study of ceramic variability in central India traces the dissemination of pottery motifs through simple

emulation. For a critical assessment of class struggle as a social model for Archaic Greece, see Hammer 2004, pp. 480–484. 160. As Whitley (1991a, p. 361) suggests, proximity to Phoenician trade routes would have made it difficult for Cretan elites to control the flow of exotica or to ration Near Eastern styles. Prent (2005, p. 366) agrees that the influx of new Orientalizing motifs in the 7th century probably reflects a loss

of elite connotations. 161. These subdivisions are generally regarded as Early Iron Age or Archaic developments, although the late date of the epigraphic testimony introduces complications. At Gortyn, these tribal names point to an ethnically diverse citizen population, a potential source of friction; see Perlman 2000, pp. 64–65; Marginesu 2005, pp. 79–81.

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

305

however, would probably not have felt the need to enforce divisions between themselves and other segments of the population. At least there are no apparent class distinctions at civic sanctuaries, where one assumes a broad level of participation.162 Perhaps non-elite activity was more ephemeral than can be currently documented, or even completely invisible in archaeological terms. Any thought that the low profile of 6th-century Crete can be attributed to elites toning down in response to the masses should probably be dismissed. Monumental law codes, for which the island is famed, need not reflect egalitarian tendencies or a leveling concept between different classes. Although scholars have traditionally regarded early Greek law codes as a democratizing influence on society, recent critics point out that codification of legal procedures can equally serve as a justification for aristocratic rule, since the rise of political institutions need not represent a threat to the elite classes who held the important offices, served as religious administrators, and controlled the economic resources of the community.163 Another explanation suggests that material distinctions arise in communities where status is subjected to constant dispute or reinterpretation. At places like Archaic Athens, where citizenship extended to a relatively broad portion of the population, tensions—between rich and poor, aristocrats and commoners—created a fluid environment for competitive display.164 In addition, religious gatherings of nobles beyond the confines of their home poleis fostered conspicuous consumption. In contrast, closed hierarchical societies, with clearly defined legal distinctions and a narrowly defined elite, had less to gain from showy behavior. Cretan citizens did not need to compete with serfs and slaves. The fact that tyranny never took hold on the island suggests that the narrowly defined citizen body either felt secure in its position or found effective ways to manage class conflict. Accordingly, the suppression of distinctions within elite ranks effectively curtailed display throughout society, since only those at the top 162. Perlman (2000, p. 89, n. 138) reaches the same conclusion about the absence of apparent class distinctions at Archaic Gortynian sanctuaries. Her case rests in part on the homogeneous character of offerings at the acropolis sanctuary. Although in theory monumental temples can reflect civic values, the rare cases on Crete can be reconciled with aristocratic interests. At Gortyn, Perlman (2000, pp. 74–76) associates the abandonment of the acropolis sanctuary in favor of a new Temple of Apollo in the plain at the end of the 7th century with aristocratic rivalries and distinctions based on hereditary cult associations. 163. Gagarin 1986, pp. 121–126. Perlman (2002b, p. 212) stresses the

role of traditional religion as a sanction for Archaic and Classical Gortynian laws. In the case of the earliest Cretan law from Dreros, which forbade the chief political official from holding office more than once every 10 years, the emphasis seems to be on restricting competition between aristocratic families and limiting abuses while in office; see Whitley 1997, p. 660; Papakonstantinou 2002, p. 135. Kotsonas (2002, p. 55) also interprets Cretan law codes as instruments of elite power. In contrast, Ehrenberg (1965, p. 104) regards the law from Dreros as evidence of elites being “subordinated to the Polis, to its claims as well as its formal constitution.” Gagarin (2008, pp. 72–89) stresses the role of non-

elites and the community as a whole in enacting and displaying early Greek laws, but does not conclude that written laws had a democratic effect. Although Whitley (1997, p. 660) compares the Gortyn Law Code to the Parthenon as a representative of community values, the ideological message of Archaic Cretan laws differed considerably from the democratic ideals of Classical Athens. 164. Christesen (2001) draws on the works of Donlan (1980) and Kurke (1999) to conclude that conspicuous consumption in Archaic Greece reflected divisions within the larger citizen body. Citizens had no reason to compete with disenfranchised members of the community.

306

chapter 11

of the social pyramid would compete. Given this framework, changes in the archaeological record should reflect a new dynamic of elite competition. Influence from mainland Greece adds further perspective to the evolution of Cretan artistic forms and religious practices in the early 6th century. As West Crete found itself at a strategic point along a major trade artery, it developed an independent market for Peloponnesian goods and embraced mainland stylistic influences in the manufacture of bronze vessels and stone funerary sculpture, ending the long-dominant Orientalizing artistic tradition. This new artistic canon encompassed small-scale works as well, as seen at Cretan sanctuaries, where plaques and figurines of mainland type, including enthroned goddesses, water carriers, and religious personnel, replace the characteristic standing nude goddess of Near Eastern style.165 Peloponnesian influence is also evident in the design of the standard Cretan ceramic drinking vessel. East Crete becomes more Cycladic in commercial orientation in the 6th century, with mainland influence probably arriving by way of Cycladic or Cretan intermediaries. The pulse of overseas trade quickened in the western and eastern ends of the island at the beginning of the 5th century. At this time, ceramic imports appeared in greater number and in a wider variety of contexts, suggesting that competition revived more visibly. In its extreme manifestation, Cretan material restraint was a geographically distinct and transient phenomenon. At Kastello Varypetrou, early 5th-century burials include numerous Lakonian and Attic grave offerings. One burial from Kastello (taphos Psi) contained six Attic imports dated to ca. 500–480, setting a record for a Late Archaic Cretan tomb. At Phalasarna, the number of tombs with datable Attic imports increases at the end of the 6th century, and their number grows at an exponential rate into the first quarter of the 5th century. Eleutherna is no different: plentiful imports in ca. 500–480, predominantly Attic pottery by this period, enhance the visibility of early-5th-century tombs. Central Cretan cemeteries, however, may not have fully shared in this revival of overseas trade and related change in consumption patterns. Although a few Knossians at this time (ca. 500–480) resumed burial, perhaps as a way of expressing a connection to aristocratic ancestors, in Orientalizing plots at Fortetsa and the North Cemetery after a long hiatus, these burials contain almost no Attic imports or other noteworthy finds.166 Outside Knossos there is no sustained recovery in the central zone, and burials at Gortyn, Aphrati, and Lyktos remain invisible in archaeological terms. Cretan sanctuaries follow a similar pattern. The Archaic and Classical votive deposit at Olous documents a vast increase in the number of Attic imports after ca. 500.167 Also, the Sanctuary of Apollo at Ayia Pelayia witnesses a burst of activity ca. 500 distinguished by abundant Corinthian and Attic pottery.168 In addition, stone sculpture enters back into the Cretan archaeological record. At Amnisos, a coastal sanctuary in the territory of Knossos, a series of monumental limestone birds testifies to display on a scale not seen since the Orientalizing period.169 Although Attic pottery was not deemed appropriate for sanctuary contexts at Knossos, well d ­ eposits

165. For the Classical plaque of mainland style from Arkoudia, see p. 294, n. 124. For Archaic material, see Rizza 1967–1968, pp. 296–299; Rizza and Scrinari 1968, p. 272. 166. Brock (1957, p. 26) illustrates an exception, an Attic black-figure cup-skyphos. 167. A 10-fold rise distinguishes the period ca. 500–475 from the earlier trickle of overseas imports. 168. Alexiou (1972, pp. 236–237, pl. 8) illustrates a selection of imports from the sanctuary. 169. A discussion of these statues appears in Chap. 1 (p. 7).

o v e r s e a s t r a d e a n d c r e ta n s o c i e t y

170. Scanlon (2002, p. 74) suggests that the Cretans adjusted social institutions such as the agoge in the 7th or 6th century in an effort to increase military efficiency. This idea needs support. 171. As proposed in Chap. 10 (pp. 240–243). An intensification of conflict may explain the reference to the return of émigrés in a Late Archaic decree of Lyktos; see Jeffery 1990, p. 468, no. F. 172. Sjögren (2003, pp. 27–28), who discusses the controversial evidence for dating wall phases of defensive circuits, adds (p. 80) that the fortifications of Prinias were strengthened in the early 6th century. 173. Perlman 2010. 174. As Sjögren (2003, p. 97) observes, the Homeric tradition of 100 poleis implies a high settlement density for Early Iron Age Crete.

307

of a presumably domestic character point to an increasing role for Attic imports in the settlement ca. 500–475. A reorientation of overseas trade routes may be part of the explanation for the overall material poverty of the island in the 6th century, for the Peloponnesian trade circuit does not appear to have been as lucrative as the Orientalizing one, and its benefits did not reach all parts of the island. Indeed, the western and eastern ends reveal a different arrangement than the central zone. Lacking direct exposure to overseas trade channels, Central Crete may have suffered the brunt of the hypothesized disruption of Orientalizing trade. Conditions improved somewhat in the 5th century, as imports reached the central interior from west and east through capillary action. In addition, most parts of the island responded to new opportunities in the early 5th century as Aiginetan merchants took advantage of an underdeveloped market, with the result that ceramic imports are more plentiful and widely disseminated at this time. Thus, evolving overseas trade relations and economic adversity may have prompted artistic and craft impoverishment but does not completely explain the complex Cretan reaction. Island communities perhaps institutionalized external pressures and dealt with economic hardship on their own terms. Austerity is not intrinsically attractive as a philosophy, but as a coping strategy to deal with economic uncertainties it serves a function. The ritual system emphasized collective identity at the expense of individual display, while family connections became less conspicuous in memorializing the dead: lavish bronzes, monumental stone sculpture, and other ostentatious forms of aristocratic display effectively disappeared. Indeed, the very survival of Archaic Cretan communities may have depended on elites redirecting their competitive energies away from lavish display toward the defense of the community.170 In support of this thesis, archaeological sources tentatively suggest that internal warfare became more destructive in the 6th century. Lyktian aggression against communities on the Lasithi plateau may date to the early 6th century, and Prinias was abandoned at this time, perhaps as a result of a Gortynian war against Knossos.171 The archaeological record calls attention to one more possible victim of war, for excavations at Azoria have revealed a widespread destruction level in the early 5th century. There are also tenuous archaeological grounds for seeing increased fortification building in the 6th century, as if Cretan communities recognized a greater need to defend themselves.172 Moreover, epigraphic evidence suggests state involvement in the distribution of war booty and the dedication of armor and weapons at sanctuaries by the end of the 6th century.173 In addition, literary sources refer to the destruction of Arkades and Larisa in conflicts of unknown date. In short, the Hellenistic political rivalries and border conflicts known from epigraphic and literary sources may have had their roots in the Archaic period. Perhaps what distinguished Archaic Crete from other parts of the Greek world was an unusually crowded and competitive environment too small and environmentally poor to sustain its many poleis and their compact territories.174 Inter-polis hostilities may have intensified in the 6th century, heralding a Darwinistic fight for survival as the crowded landscape

308

chapter 11

was reduced to a few large poleis of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Under economic compulsion and faced with increasingly militarism, successful elite bands may have survived by redirecting internal competition outside the community toward military efficiency and success on the battlefield. Bronze and iron weapons probably had a greater chance of staying in circulation at this time, since their practical value outweighed symbolic or religious considerations. The interplay between economic and military pressures on ideology and institutions is the topic to which we now turn.

c hap ter 12

A r c h ai c C r e tan Au st e r i t y a n d t h e S partan C on n e c t i on

In most reconstructions of Archaic Cretan society, the literary tradition has played a prominent role, although the focus of the ancient authors on formal institutions, in particular public feasting, can obscure a broader view of Cretan society and informal practices.1 A famous passage from Athenaeus, quoting the Late Classical or Early Hellenistic historian Dosiadas, has been thought to provide a revealing insight into Cretan institutions, specifically the syssition. Of historiographic interest as a key peg in the ancient and modern construct of the ideal Cretan constitution, the wealth of detail contained in this passage may never have found an exact counterpart in reality. Nevertheless, if we bear in mind the limitations of the written sources, they can serve as a guide in formulating questions and restricting our interpretation of the material record. From specific literary descriptions we may be able to distill basic principles of social organization and ideology pertaining to at least a few Cretan poleis. On the syssition, Dosiadas writes:

1. There are skeptics for whom even a modified acceptance of the literary sources, as proposed here, goes too far. Perlman’s (1992) contribution is a good example of a much-needed dose of skepticism in dealing with the ancient sources.

The Lyttians [Lyktians] pool their goods from the common mess in this way: every man contributes a tithe of his crops to his club, as well as the income from the state which the magistrates of the city divide among the households of all the citizens. But all slaves pay one Aeginetan stater per caput. The citizens are distributed in clubs which are called andreia (“halls of men”). The mess is in [the] charge of a woman who has assistants, three or four men chosen from the common people. Each of them is attended by two servants who bring in the fire-wood; these are called faggot-bearers. Everywhere throughout Crete there are two houses for the public messes; one of these is called [the] andreion, the other, in which they entertain strangers, is called [the] koimeterion (“resting place”). In the house intended for the mess there are set out, first of all, two tables, called “guest-tables,” at which sit in honor any strangers who are in town; next come the tables for the others. An equal portion of the food on hand is served to each person, but only a half-portion of meat is given to the younger men, and they get nothing of the other food. Then on each table is placed a cup filled with wine much diluted; this is shared by all who are at the same table, and a second cup is

310

chapter 12

served after they have finished the meal. For the boys a mixing-bowl is prepared which they share in common, but permission is given the older men to drink more if they desire. The woman in charge of the mess takes from the table in the sight of all the best of everything that is served, and sets it before the men who have distinguished themselves in war or in wisdom. After dinner they are in the habit first of deliberating on public affairs; from that subject they proceed to call up deeds of prowess in war and to praise the men of proved bravery, in order to encourage the younger men in the pursuit of virtue. (FGrH 458 F2; Ath. 4.143, trans. C.B. Gullick, London, 1928) As an accurate description of 6th-century drinking customs, Dosiadas’s testimony has substantial problems. The institution of the syssition raises the possibility of a state redistribution mechanism, assuming that the rich contributed to the cost of feeding the poor, but this passage gives the impression that the state intervened heavily in the affairs of its citizens to foster a leveling concept.2 Following the testimony of Dosiadas and other authors, it is generally assumed that all citizens, rich and poor, participated in the Cretan messes and that each polis possessed a single andreion building, just as each city possessed a single prytaneion and bouleuterion. But Dosiadas is ambiguous on this point. Elsewhere he states that all Cretan poleis were divided into hetairia groups, suggesting smaller and more intimate messes. Perhaps each hetairia had its own hall.3 Another passage (Strabo 10.483–484) also hints at a polis having more than one andreion, for it states that an adult member may select a handsome youth and invite him to join his mess, implying multiple andreia organized along hetairia lines. Favoring this interpretation, it would be hard to imagine a single structure large enough to accommodate the entire citizen body of a typical Archaic polis, unless Cretan banqueters dined in rotation or employed makeshift structures.4 If each clan or hetairia group had its own feasting building or if formal civic structures were reserved for elites and lesser citizens dined in temporary structures or houses, it might be possible to accommodate these smaller groups in a single building of reasonable size, but this is not the system described by Dosiadas.5 None of the literary sources is explicit about how often members gathered in the andreion for the feast. Did they take every meal there or meet only on special occasions? Perhaps 2. In addition, Aristotle (Pol. 1272a16–21) states that part of the agricultural produce of the state was set aside for religious and civic services and another portion was reserved for the common meals. Regarding the financing of the andreion, see Lavrencic 1988; Guizzi 1997; Chaniotis 1999b, p. 194. 3. In an attempt to reconcile the perceived tradition of a single mess hall with the attested hetairia divisions, however, Link (1994, p. 18, n. 36) contends that these different hetairia groups dined in the same hall. See also Prent 2005, pp. 451–452. Beattie (1975,

pp. 44–45) also regards the andreion as a central hall, a prototype of the Hellenistic prytaneion. 4. Literary sources, mentioned on p. 343, suggest that the entire free population, including women and children, participated. If we take the more limited view that only adult male citizens dined in the andreion, the structure would still need to accommodate hundreds, if not thousands, of banqueters at a large polis like Knossos or Gortyn. In contrast, excavated hearth buildings identified as possible andreia are small structures, on the order of 80 m2. By way of comparison,

we know that the Athenian tholos, a circular structure approximately 18 m in diameter, housed 50 people. The physical context of the Spartan syssition has raised similar difficulties; see Hodkinson 2000, p. 217. 5. There are anthropologically and archaeologically documented examples of the use of elaborate specialized structures for feasting high-ranking administrators of lineages, clans, and communities, with women, children, and low-ranking members of these groups eating their meals outside; see Hayden 2001, pp. 53–54.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

311

the distinction between public syssitia and private feasts was less absolute than scholars assume, defined only by an element of state regulation. No ancient author claims that the corporate values of the polis were pervasive enough to eliminate all private drinking associations such as the symposia. This exercise exemplifies the difficulties of using the later literary tradition as a source for Archaic Cretan society. It is not clear from such testimony whether every Cretan polis had an andreion or even whether the andreion had a common architectural form. There may be another, more fundamental problem with the written word as a record of political organization, for Perlman’s examination of 4th-century and later sources, including Aristotle’s discussion of the Cretan constitution, suggests that ancient authors derived much of their information from a single polis, Lyktos, and glossed over regional variations and local customs.6 If so, detailed descriptions of Cretan customs are unlikely to find exact counterparts across a wide expanse of time and place.7 Lyktos may have been singled out in the predominantly Athenian accounts as a social and political archetype, acquiring a reputation for exceptional conservatism that it maintained throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods.8 Perhaps this polis wished to present itself to the outside world as a bastion of traditional social values. Such an effort of deliberate image making would call into question the literature as a source for earlier customs. At the very least, the andreion may not have existed at every Cretan polis.

F E AS T I N G AN D C RE TAN I N S T I T U T I ON S The Archaic syssition was not a complete creation of later commentators, for epigraphic testimony, besides confirming its existence, suggests state control at an early date. The word andreion in an inscription from Gortyn dated to the end of the 7th century (IC IV 4) constitutes our earliest epigraphic evidence, although it is unclear whether the reference is to a particular building or an institution.9 More informative is the Spensithios decree (SEG XXVII 631), dated to ca. 500, which refers to contributions made by the community for maintaining a scribe and his descendants at the andreion. Spensithios is to receive an annuity of 50 jugs of wine and other provisions, while his specified obligations to the andreion include a 6. Perlman 1992, pp. 198, 201; 2005, pp. 286–287. Morrow (1960, p. 25) contends that Attic authors lacked firsthand information about Cretan political institutions. 7. Where archaeology provides a check on the literary tradition, it alludes to a more complicated pattern; see Perlman (1992, pp. 193–198). To cite another example, a passage from a 4th-century author preserved in Athenaeus (9.375f–376a) states that the Cretans abstained from eating pork in sacrificial meals; see Willetts 1962, p. 218. Regarding the origin of this

prohibition, S. Morris (1992, p. 262) perceives Semitic influence. But, contrary to the literary testimony, the archaeological record indicates that Cretans did occasionally eat pork at sacred meals at Kommos and the Sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos; see J. Shaw 2000, p. 685. Pigs also appear in a reference to transhumance in a Late Archaic inscription from Lyktos (SEG XXXV 991B). Thus, the literary tradition presumably reflects a local ban or regional preference. Smith (2003, pp. 44–46) reaches a similar conclusion for such bans in the Near East.

8. According to Guizzi (1999, pp. 277–284), the Lyktians preserved much of the character of the Archaic syssition into the Roman Imperial period. 9. For a discussion of the Gortynian evidence, see Marginesu 2005, pp. 45– 48. It is interesting to note that Gortyn has produced the earliest epigraphic testimony for the andreion, given the indications elsewhere in the archaeological record, discussed on pp. 331– 334, for a more austere pattern in Central Crete. Poleis in this area arguably stood at the forefront of developments.

312

chapter 12

quantity of dressed meat comparable to the yearly consumption of a Classical Athenian demesman.10 Assuming each member of his mess group contributed a roughly equal share, their meals in the andreion must have been a regular, if not daily, occurrence. A fragmentary early law from Axos (IC II v 1) also provided a group of citizens or foreign workers with sustenance at the andreion. In addition, an andreion in a Late Archaic inscription from Eltynia hints at a building (IC I x 2), and a 5th-century inscription from Gortyn (IC IV 75B) mentions a public official, the arkos, in charge of the contents of an andreion. These examples demonstrate an element of state control, but not a comprehensive redistribution program as described by later authors. Lilian Jeffery and Anna Morpurgo-Davies hold that members of an andreion originally made their contributions directly to their mess, whereas the system described in the 4th-century literary tradition specifies public taxation and funds from state lands as part of a redistributive plan to support the citizen population.11 Classical and Hellenistic inscriptions, however, do not confirm this degree of state control, and there may be significant variations from place to place in the involvement of central authority. By the 5th century, Gortyn appears to have imposed a levy on its citizens, enforced by state officials termed karpodaistai, suggesting that a private association formerly responsible for supporting the syssition now ceded control to the polis (IC IV 77).12 Elsewhere, clans or hetairia groups may have retained more discretionary power in administering public feasts during the Classical and even later periods. Other aspects of the traditional Cretan constitution rest on an equally suspect foundation, with only limited epigraphic confirmation. Three components figure prominently in ancient and modern discussions of the ideal system: a conservative political structure, a military system centered on citizen commensality in mess groups, and an economic foundation of dependent citizens, serfs, and slaves.13 Inscriptions provide slim corroboration. For example, the chief magistracy of the Cretan poleis, the kosmotate, is a fixture of the 4th-century literary tradition, and epigraphical evidence confirms the existence of this office as early as the 7th century, although its functions probably varied from place to place, and the number of kosmoi attested by inscriptions ranges from four to 10, contrary to the ancient claim that each polis possessed 10.14 Inscriptional evidence of Archaic and 10. The inscription fixes his contribution of prepared meat by an arcane weight standard (10 axes) with an equivalent value of between one and one and a half talents (60–90 pounds). Sacrificial calendars from Attic demes suggest a similar figure for an individual’s annual consumption of meat; see Rosivach 1994, pp. 2–3; Jameson 1988, pp. 88–97. As a basis for comparison, see Hodkinson (2000, pp. 193–196) for the size of Spartan mess rations. 11. Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970, p. 151. 12. Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970, p. 151; Willetts 1955, p. 193.

13. The vast bibliography on this subject includes notable works by Willetts (1955), Perlman (1992), Link (1994), and Gehrke (1997). See also Perlman’s (2002b, pp. 206–212) discussion of Archaic Gortynian society based on epigraphic testimony. 14. The following discussion owes much to Perlman (1992, pp. 193–201), whose fundamental study of the literary and epigraphic evidence stresses the variety of Cretan political arrangements, undermining the suspect ancient conception of a single Cretan constitution. The kosmos is attested at the following poleis in ca. 650–500:

Eleutherna, Axos, Gortyn, Eltynia, Lyktos, and Dreros. Willetts (1955, p. 167), a staunch proponent of a Cretan political uniformity, nonetheless remarks that “it would be surprising if there were ever ten kosmoi in all the cities of Crete at any one time.” A further sign of the diversity of the political landscape of Archaic Crete is the allusion to a basileus in a fragmentary 6th-century inscription from Lappa (IC II xvi 1); see Guarducci 1939, p. 195. If this reconstruction of the text is accepted, the political structure at Axos differed markedly from the literary construct.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

15. The fundamental studies of the Cretan syssition include Jeanmaire 1939, pp. 421–427; van Effenterre 1948, pp. 87–91; Willetts 1955, pp. 18–27, 138–140; Atkinson [1949] 1971, pp. 205–247; Talamo 1987. See also the more problem-oriented approaches of Guizzi (1997), Link (1999), and Chaniotis (1999b, pp. 193–194). 16. Hodkinson’s (2000, pp. 216– 218) discussion of public feasting at Sparta deals with many of the same issues. 17. A point made by Perlman (1992, p. 194), who cites the relevant epigraphic testimony. Another potential problem involves extrapolation from details present in only a single source— such as Strabo’s (10.484) comment that young men were obliged to marry en masse on graduation from the agelai— to infer a pan-Cretan custom. 18. This passage is discussed by Huxley (1971, pp. 505–507), Watrous (1982, p. 22), and Perlman (1992). 19. Perlman (1992, pp. 199–201) and van Wees (2003, pp. 58–61) examine the Cretan institution. 20. This weak evidentiary foundation makes it difficult to accept Sallares’s (1991, p. 172) argument for a reinstitutionalization of Cretan society in the 7th century to control the serf population.

313

Classical date (ca. 625–325) is available only from the central part of the island, from Eleutherna in the west to Dreros in the east. As a consequence, we know little about the political arrangements of communities in the western and eastern sections of the island. Another recurring feature of the literary tradition is its emphasis on a militaristic system that defines male citizenship through commensality in mess groups (syssitia) and an organization of youths into age classes (agelai) devoted to civic and military training.15 Once invited to join a mess group, one remained a member for life, since citizenship depended on membership in the syssition.16 This institution stands in sharp contrast to the symposium, a voluntary association of aristocratic banqueters assembled by private invitation. In addition, ancient authors stress the equality of provisions at the Cretan syssition. Aristotle states that members of the mess group pooled their resources and allotted each an equal share of food and drink (Pol. 1272a16–21). The organization of the young into agelai is closely tied to the concept of civic messes, as the training of youths for adult responsibilities included a role at the syssition. Like the syssition, the agela served to create a closed group of male citizens defined by military training and civic commensality. This institution finds confirmation in the epigraphic record of the Archaic and Classical periods in terms such as agelastoi or dromeis, although the exact terminology of attested Cretan agelai varies, suggesting variations in practice and warning against a monolithic conception of society.17 Once again, the epigraphic testimony for these institutions comes from the central part of the island. Plato, Aristotle, Ephoros, and other authors refer to one last feature of the ideal Cretan system: its dependence on an agricultural labor force of serfs and slaves from a pre-Dorian substratum of the population. Aristotle (Pol. 1271b20–1272b22) records that the island, based presumably on the example of Lyktos, evolved a unique social and political system premised on the control of a dependent population (perioikoi) of agricultural workers responsible for supplying the public mess tables.18 They served as the economic backbone of a system of elite privilege and martial training.19 These serfs, however, have a shadowy existence outside the literary sources. Inscriptions use various designations for slaves (douloi, woikeis, katakeimenoi) but shed little light on serfs or the agricultural contribution of dependent populations.20

TH E ELUS I VE AN DREI ON This discussion of the ideal Cretan constitution has focused on the syssition as a galvanizing force in a system of military training. Its goal was to forge a strong sense of group identity and equality among peers. Since public feasts of a civic or quasi-religious nature have a long history on Crete, extending back to the Bronze Age, they must have played a prominent role almost from the beginning in defining the community and negotiating status among its members. As such, the polis could ill afford to leave public feasts outside the scope of its regulatory powers. We might expect changes in the ways Cretans feasted over time to provide an index of early political institutions and their subsequent development. How might archaeology contribute to this picture?

314

chapter 12

Elsewhere, specialized structures for feasting mark the first appearance of monumental public architecture.21 The remains of community solidarity feasts can include specialized architectural features, drinking and dining equipment, and the display of nonedible portions of the sacrificial meal.22 Given the attested social importance of feasting, it is not surprising that some historians place the advent of the Cretan andreion back in the Late Bronze Age and consider it an example of conservative island traditions.23 For example, according to Robert Koehl, a suite of rooms at Ayia Triada perhaps functioned as a proto-andreion, with a dining hall lined with benches capable of accommodating around 17 people, a pantry, and a kitchen.24 Koehl’s case for an institution like the andreion in the Bronze Age rests on his interpretation of the Chieftain Cup as an illustration of a rite-of-passage ceremony similar to that described in Strabo (10.483–484), in which a youth receives a cloak, a cup, and a cow for sacrifice. Although the connection between the andreion and agoge is central to the later Cretan political system, the notion that these interlocking institutions survived the Early Iron Age transition virtually intact—a necessary condition for using the passage from Strabo as direct evidence for earlier practices— strains credulity. The only link offered for this premise comes from the historical sanctuary at Kato Symi and takes the form of a supposedly continuous initiation ceremony that involved a pederastic relationship.25 Iconographic evidence for such a relationship, however, dates to no earlier than the 7th century, and this custom may represent a change in ritual practice. In a more subtle argument for evolving practices, Elisabetta Borgna traces a history of communal feasting at Phaistos from LM IIIC to the Geometric period, culminating in the construction of a hearth building, identified as a possible proto-andreion, in a central location of the settlement.26 Since other buildings of the Geometric period may have also been used to stage feasts at Phaistos, we cannot determine whether a social model of aristocratic clans, big men or chiefs, or early state administration best fits the evidence. Without a clear indication that aristocratic families recognized a greater authority at this early date, only a weak sense of community can be inferred. Another interesting case of Early Iron Age feasting 21. Hayden (2001, pp. 53–54) discusses the role of permanent structures in feasting rituals. Mesoamerica provides well-known examples of feasting buildings in the context of emerging state institutions. For instance, Marcus and Flannery (1996, pp. 87–88, 90–91) examine public buildings possibly used for staging feasts both in the valley of Oaxaca and on the Chiapas coast. Based on ethnographic parallels with village societies in New Guinea, they argue (p. 77) that access to such buildings, termed “Men’s Houses,” was restricted to high-ranking male initiates distinguished by their achievements. 22. Ethnographic accounts refer to animal horns and bones displayed after

feasts as symbols of community prosperity. Clarke (2001, pp. 160–161) cites examples of water-buffalo horns set up after feasts outside the houses of sponsoring individuals at an Akha village and Torajan communities in Sulawesi. See also Hayden 2001, p. 56. In the Early Iron Age temple at Dreros, goat horns were found in a box along with other signs of feasting; see Sjögren 2003, p. 161. In addition, Prent (2005, p. 280) interprets agrimi horns found in a 7th-century building at Aphrati as hunting trophies. 23. Koehl 1997, pp. 138–143; Borgna 2004, p. 271. 24. Koehl 1986, p. 109. 25. For the social implications of the

bronze plaques, see Lebessi 1985b, pp. 188–198. The Early Iron Age presents the greatest hurdle for continuity arguments. Koehl (1986, p. 109; 1997, p. 138) points to a figurine from Kato Symi that depicts a young man with a cup as a link between the Chieftain Cup and the later series of plaques at the sanctuary. Yet, since Lebessi (2002, pp. 81–86, 321, 337–338, no. 17, pl. 16) dates this figurine on stylistic grounds to the Geometric period, Koehl’s argument still faces a gap from the end of the Bronze Age to the 8th century. See also Prent 2005, pp. 579–580; Muhly 2008, pp. 155–164; Lebessi 2009, pp. 532–538. 26. Borgna 2004, pp. 270–271.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

27. D’Agata 2001. See also Wallace 2003, p. 266; Prent 2005, p. 130. 28. According to Block (1988), Jessop (1990), Tilly (1992), and Steinmetz (1999, pp. 8–9), state formation is a slow structural change rather than an all-or-nothing transition. See also Watrous and HadziVallianou 2004b, pp. 339–341; Marginesu 2005, p. 29, n. 1. For Wallace (2003, p. 257), the Protogeometric period is a turning point on Crete, the beginning of a long process of settlement nucleation and political development leading to the Archaic poleis. 29. Carter 1997, pp. 76–78. While acknowledging the potential difficulties of the late testimony, she (p. 74) accepts that “the customs that these sources describe were very old.” 30. Lavrencic (1988, p. 152) and Prent (2005, pp. 454–456) favor an Archaic date for the institution of the andreion based on the earliest epigraphical references.

315

has recently come to light at Thronos, where Anna Lucia D’Agata has reported the discovery of a building associated with at least 54 pits containing the remains of ritual meals from LM IIIC to the Protogeometric period.27 The prominent setting of these feasts, near the top of what later became the acropolis of Sybrita, signifies their importance to the community, but nothing has come to light concerning who organized these feasts, let alone evidence for central authority or a state apparatus. Since it is difficult to see how the system described by the literary sources could have existed outside the framework of the Greek polis, this raises the question of when state institutions emerged on Crete. Scholars in the 1980s envisioned a discrete moment of transition from simple prestate structures to a polis configuration, a turning point for mainland Greece usually placed in the 8th century, but more recent approaches see the transition as an ongoing process.28 According to this gradualist construct, the andreion did not suddenly spring into being with the rise of the polis. Instead, the long tradition of public feasting on the island played a formative role, with the state gradually expropriating older practices and reshaping them to serve new political and economic realities. If formal state regulation of activities is the only way to distinguish the andreion from earlier forms of public feasting, then the earliest epigraphic references to the andreion may reflect something more than meticulous recordkeeping. These inscriptions may themselves be a product of the polis extending its authority over the lives of its citizens, part of what defines the andreion as an institution. Furthermore, the Classical andreion promoted the principle of extreme equality among its members, an ideal hard to attain without strict legal enforcement by the community. Earlier epigraphically attested regulations probably had similar aims. With the earliest known Cretan laws come specific regulations concerning the messes, suggesting that the second half of the 7th century marks an important stage in a long history of public feasting. Jane Carter notes striking parallels between the Cretan syssition and the institution of the marzeah in Syria and Palestine. Although these resemblances do not allow her to infer a process of direct influence, Carter thinks it probable that Cretan andreia existed as early as the Geometric and Orientalizing periods.29 If so, the Cretan syssition could itself be regarded as a sign of Near Eastern influence. Her picture of island institutions relies heavily on the later literary tradition and general arguments of continuity. Even so, there is no reason why Orientalizing elements could not have entered into Cretan feasting before the andreion existed as a formal institution, nor does her argument exclude Near Eastern influence at the end of the 7th century, just as the polis was taking the first tentative steps toward regulating public feasts.30 Archaeologists have traditionally sought to identify the andreion on architectural grounds, and they point to a number of Orientalizing, ­Archaic, and Classical buildings that seem to fit Dosiadas’s description of a mess hall. Candidates at Ayia Pelayia, Kommos (Fig. 12.1), Prinias, Aphrati, Smari, Dreros, and Praisos are equipped with benches on one or more sides and a central hearth. Unfortunately, movable contents rarely survive, and it is difficult to distinguish these structures on architectural grounds from temples and other civic buildings with hearths such as the

316

chapter 12

Figure 12.1. Orientalizing hearth buildings at Kommos. After Viviers

1994, fig. 4

prytaneion at Lato.31 At Prinias, the floor of one such candidate, a building conventionally known as Temple A and dated to the second half of the 7th century, produced signs of feasting, including cups, kraters, pithoi, and animal bones. Other nearby structures on the acropolis of Prinias resemble hearth buildings and face open areas. Perhaps these are all andreia. Yet, since feasting is a well-attested aspect of Greek religion, we should not reject out of hand an identification of these structures as temples, especially Temple A with its monumental architecture, elaborate decoration, and religious iconography. At other sites, controversial reconstructions of hearth buildings as halls in more extensive complexes seem tailor-made to fit the literary description of an andreion possessing cooking and storage facilities and a possible physical connection with the koimeterion, where the younger members slept before marriage.32 Alexander Mazarakis Ainian’s argument that the monumental Greek temple form derives from the houses of earlier rulers, in which the first public feasts were probably staged, has fostered a more flexible definition of the andreion. Perhaps temple and andreion were one and the same ­building, with no clear distinction between religious and civic functions.33 31. Mazarakis Ainian’s (1997, pp. 224–231) study of Early Iron Age architecture provides a starting point for the analysis of Greek hearth buildings. Viviers (1994, pp. 244–249), J. Shaw (2000, pp. 680–681), Sjögren (2003, pp. 61–64), Haggis et al. (2004, pp. 387–390), and Prent (2005, pp. 450–467) survey the evidence from

Crete. Another possible andreion building with 6th-century architectural phases has recently come to light at Itanos; see Greco et al. 2002, pp. 581– 582. Sjögren (2003, pp. 61) questions the existence of formal distinctions between civic and sanctuary dining on Crete. For the identification of the prytaneion at Lato, see Miller 1978,

pp. 85–86. 32. Koehl’s (1997) reidentification of many hearth temples as andreia strikes me as forced and overly reliant on the suspect literary tradition. 33. Koehl (1997, p. 143) and Carter (1997, pp. 86–95) lean toward this interpretation.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

317

Proponents of the traditional identification counter that andreia were separate constructions that possessed a quasi-religious function, which would explain their resemblance to contemporary temples. Following this line of reasoning, Viviers argues that a collection of inscribed bronze armor allegedly found at Aphrati was originally displayed on the walls of a 7thcentury hearth building at the site.34 His reconstruction of this armor as spolia hanging on the walls of this building evokes Dosiadas’s testimony of the andreion as the setting for stories of military valor. The unpublished portable finds from this building, however, are almost entirely cultic in nature and include terracotta figurines of an enthroned goddess with no plausible connection to the andreion. Although it is reasonable to assume that some rituals took place in the andreion, the idea of indistinguishable ritual and dining functions finds little support in the literary or epigraphic testimony.35 Excavations at Azoria in 2002 brought to light a monumental building complex possibly used to stage public feasts, a promising candidate for an andreion. This identification rests on a host of interrelated factors, since the architectural plan of the building is not distinctive. Haggis and his colleagues identified the core buildings (A800 and A2000) as dining rooms in a large complex with documented storage areas and kitchens, with botanical evidence pointing to the storage of wine and grain in pithoi (Fig. 12.2).36 Since the storage capacity of this building exceeds any reasonable estimate for household consumption, it is tempting to view the main halls and storerooms as evidence of community involvement in local feasts. Fenestrated stands found scattered around a column base on the floor of A800 hint at the consumption of wine, although kraters are absent from this room and cups appear in small concentrations.37 Fragments of cups and two more fenestrated stands were found on a porch outside A2000 in a secondary context with no clear relation to the main room. The excavators’ provisional date for these structures attests the institution of communal drinking practices by the early 6th century. By calling this complex an andreion, the excavators have evoked a particular mode of public feasting known from the later literary tradition. Does the evidence from Azoria warrant this claim? Reassuringly, this candidate sits near the top of the hill in an area where one might expect civic buildings to be located.38 Moreover, whatever purpose the enormous clay stands served, they are not a common find at the site, supporting the identification of A800 as a civic building with a special function. These stands are of unusual shape and uncertain function, with nothing directly comparable in Toni Cross’s study of tripod stands in the eastern 34. Viviers 1994, p. 248. In a similar vein, Haggis et al. (2004, p. 389) interpret a fragmentary bronze helmet crest in a room adjacent to a possible andreion at Azoria as confirmation of the link between military valor and Cretan communal drinking. 35. These sources make no mention of cult in the andreion, with the possible

exception of the Spensithios decree, which may refer to a mess contribution of sacred offerings. Haggis et al. (2004, p. 387) cite this inscription as evidence of a religious aspect to the andreion, but the text is fragmentary at this point (side B, lines 12–14) and the religious offering may have nothing to do with the specified mess contributions. Prent

(2005, pp. 454–455) downplays the role of religion at the andreion. 36. Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 387–390; 2007, pp. 253–265. 37. Perhaps most of the drinking equipment was stored elsewhere. 38. According to Prent (2005, p. 467), this is a likely location for an andreion.

318

chapter 12

Figure 12.2. State plan of the South Acropolis, Azoria, 2006. Haggis et al. 2007, p. 244, fig. 1. Map by R. D. Fitzsimons and G. Damaskanakis. Courtesy the Azoria Project

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

319

­Mediterranean.39 When considered against the excavators’ suggestion that the stands from Azoria served as krater supports, it seems strange that the site has not produced suitable clay kraters.40 Perhaps they were made of bronze or other precious material and were removed when the site was abandoned. It would be odd (and is unparalleled), however, for bronze kraters or cauldrons to stand atop terracotta supports. Thus, without specific parallels, it is difficult to say what function these stands served. Architectural considerations also cast doubt on the proposed identification. Unlike other proposed andreia, the dining halls at Azoria lack the usual architectural features of benches and hearth. These halls do not clearly connect with the kitchens or storerooms, making the term “complex” seem inappropriate. Perhaps excavations in the near future will resolve this question by elucidating the connections between the various rooms. There are other objections to the proposed identification. The banquet hall of an andreion should be spacious, yet the best candidate at Azoria (A800) is roughly one-half the size of the largest room of a nearby house (B300). On the assumption that the larger structure A2000 was part of the same complex and functioned as a dining room, more people could have taken part in communal meals, but probably not a substantial portion of the adult male population at one time.41 Moreover, nothing in the plan or construction technique of this building complex gives the impression of civic monumentality.42 In the end, the absence of a clear architectural distinction between andreia and other secular and religious buildings places undue weight on the suspect literary tradition. If a system of taxes and food redistribution was in place by the early 6th century, a vast storeroom might make sense as an adjunct to an andreion, but the principal excavated storeroom at Azoria with its four pithoi seems too small to have played such a role. Despite these objections, the building at Azoria is 39. Cross (1974, pp. 180–184) discusses ceramic imitations of metal krater stands from Greece, including the well-known Protoattic examples from the Kerameikos cemetery at Athens. Although the Protoattic stands are fenestrated like the examples from Azoria, the mainland stands are smaller and far more conical in shape, with a less pronounced torus molding marking the various sections. Also, the long line of mainland Greek stands comes to an end ca. 650, whereas the stands from Azoria almost certainly date to the 6th or early 5th century. Unlike the general Near Eastern associations of such stands elsewhere in the Greek world, the examples from Azoria seem to reflect idiosyncrasies of the local style discussed earlier with respect to pithoi. A cylindrical stand from A1200 displays contiguous bands of Suborientalizing decoration, whereas another stand from A800 resembles nothing so much as the profile of a giant high-

necked cup in its upper half. Its decoration, in the form of lines, triangles, and circles (a scheme in which fenestrated slots and holes contribute), shows no sign of Orientalizing influence. Nor can the morphology of these stands be traced back to a local Orientalizing tradition in East Crete. Instead, these stands seem to enter into the local repertoire without precedent and with only vague and indirect connections to foreign models. The best Cretan parallels are fenestrated stands from the acropolis sanctuary at Gortyn; see Johannowsky 2002, p. 27, no. 164, pl. 11, pp. 27–28, no. 170, pl. 12, p. 28, no. 172, pl. 12, p. 35, no. 245, pl. 19, p. 40, no. 281, pl. 24, p. 42, nos. 285–287, pl. 26. 40. Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 380, 382. 41. In their preliminary report for the 2004 season (www.azoria.org), the excavators suggest that A2000 served as a dining hall for the general population, while the less accessible A800 with its

monumental stands had a special ritual function. Alternatively, A800 may have functioned as a meeting place or drinking hall for elites. 42. Haggis et al. (2004, pp. 349– 352) point to the thick spine wall incorporated in the plan of the feasting complex as evidence of architectural monumentality. Although the spine walls at the site imply some degree of civic planning, they seem to have functioned much like retaining walls, with the steep slope of the site requiring massive construction to hold it together. Their monumental appearance may stem from necessity. A more monumental setting for feasts came to light in the 2003–2004 excavations in D500 (“Monumental Civic Building”); see Haggis et al. 2007, pp. 295–301. Whether the type of feasting in this building differed from that of the putative andreion has yet to be determined.

320

chapter 12

probably the most compelling case we have for an andreion, and my doubts stem from the difficulty of identifying state control in the absence of epigraphic testimony. Recent fieldwork stresses the economic dimensions of Cretan institutions and their impact on settlement patterns. In their publication of the Phaistos survey, Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou rely on archaeological evidence to infer a process of state-formation in the Mesara in the final quarter of the 7th century. They note that by ca. 625, Phaistos and Gortyn each possessed a fortified settlement center, monumental urban temples, a place of assembly (agora), a central mess hall, a storage facility for agricultural surplus, rural estates, and its own surrounding territory (chora).43 Production of pithoi figures prominently among their economic criteria for the rise of distinctively Cretan political institutions in the Mesara. Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou also note the foundation of small farms in a ring a short distance from the urban center of Phaistos dating to ca. 625–550, which they interpret as allotments to citizen farmers. Accordingly, the polis co-opted voluntary mess contributions to the phratry, transforming earlier voluntary associations into a centralized, state-organized drinking group. State involvement necessitated public storage facilities and monumental architectural structures. Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou date the first stage of this process to ca. 625, which accords with my proposed formulation of the earliest austere culture in Central Crete. Their analysis of the economic foundation of Cretan social institutions complements my study of burial evidence and votive practices.

FRO M INST I T U T IONS TO IDEOLO G Y Ancient authorities provide a formalistic analysis of political and social institutions, but the burial and ritual side of the equation belong to the conceptual realm of ideology and self-representation.44 Although practices whose austerity leaves little in the archaeological record cannot be directly linked to the development of formal institutions, these two may reflect common principles. The problem for archaeologists is distinguishing between social organization (how relations are actually organized) and social structure (the ideal). As Whitley observes, a fine “symmetry between style and culture is rarely evident.”45 Presumably, Cretan institutions developed gradually and differed in detail from place to place. If the syssition and agoge existed in some form by the first quarter of the 6th century, it is possible that the official ideology encouraged uniformity in the private domain.46 This restraint may reflect a broader cultural philosophy of ­extreme equality at drinking ceremonies, spare ornamentation, and subdued burial practices. Informal social pressure may have been enough to keep richer and more ostentatious aristocrats in line. Sumptuary legislation is not attested on Crete at this time, although the literary tradition records the careers of prominent lawgivers such as Thaletas and Epimenides, the latter of whom claimed divine authority for his legal reform program.47 Communal feasts and religious practices could have also emphasized group solidarity.

43. Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004b, pp. 342–344. The existence of an agora, inferred from epigraphical evidence, is not certain. As Sjögren (2003, pp. 29, 98–99) notes, Archaic inscriptions do not specify whether the agora was a place or an assembly. 44. Hammer (2004, pp. 482–483) defines ideology as a set of beliefs about an ideal organization of society or expressions of this ideal. 45. Whitley 2004, p. 434. 46. Regarding the instrument of change, whether formal restrictions or general social pressure, it is highly doubtful that sumptuary laws would concern themselves with ceramic iconography. Rather, fine-ware production should be viewed as a voluntary response to a more restrictive social climate. 47. Whitley (1997, p. 649) discusses the venerable Cretan tradition of lawgivers.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

48. Lendon 1997, pp. 109–117. 49. Lendon 1997, pp. 117–123. This is not to say that the system was totally effective, only that it had much power. According to Holladay (1977, p. 119), the circulation of Spartan aristocrats in international elite circles contradicted official ideology. 50. Lendon 1997, p. 114. 51. Neer 2001, p. 286. 52. In support of his thesis, Neer (2001, p. 285) cites only two specific Spartan offerings: the bronze lion dedicated by Eumnastos at the Samian Heraion ca. 550 and the dedication of Alkibiades at Delphi at the end of the 6th century. 53. Hodkinson 2000, pp. 432–440. 54. Hayden 2001, p. 30. D’Agata (2001, p. 57) associates feasting with wealth, status, and social-political complexity. According to Hamilakis (2000, pp. 58–59), who stresses the social dimensions of eating and drinking, feasts often enhanced the prestige of their organizers.

321

The example of Classical Sparta provides a window on how such a system might have worked on Crete. According to J. E. Lendon’s study of Spartan competitive values, the Spartan definition of honor straddled a fine line between fierce competition and personal restraint.48 Spartan warriors embraced a Homeric ideal of military excellence and individual achievement, yet their code famously controlled competition and minimized internal discord, subsuming individual contributions to the collective good. Lendon’s analysis of this system helps resolve the apparent contradiction of an extreme love of honor existing in a stable political union. At Sparta, competition did not lead to destructive conflict within the citizen body. Rather, respect for the laws prevented harmful competition, and Spartans gloried in being humble and engaging in elaborate displays of respect to their magistrates and laws.49 In short, self-control and humility became points of competition. In the small, face-to-face world of Classical Sparta, public shame and disgrace kept violators in line and reinforced community values at all levels, from the training of youths and the behavior of warriors on the battlefield to the reactions of parents and the elderly. With the suppression of most luxuries and material refinements, modest rewards such as an extra portion of meat at the mess table would have made a powerful impression on one’s peers.50 In Richard Neer’s view, however, Spartan warriors presented a Homeric face to the outside world, whereas at home they implemented the ultimate middling regime. In what he described as an almost schizophrenic society, “so long as no one violated the principles of Spartiate equality within the community of Homoioi, it was entirely in the interests of the state for them to indulge in conspicuous display outside it,” particularly at sanctuaries outside their territory.51 Clearly, the Spartans wanted to project a formidable military reputation to outsiders, but conspicuous display at international sanctuaries is another matter. The record of Spartan dedications as private citizens is not particularly impressive, and it is difficult to see how display outside the polis could have been managed without leading to destructive rivalries at home.52 How else are we to explain the story of King Pausanias at Delphi and the outrage he incurred at Sparta for affixing his name to the Plataian trophy? Spartan attitudes to private wealth and consumption arguably changed by the end of the Peloponnesian War; therefore later cases of conspicuous consumption need not concern us.53 If the Cretan evidence can be interpreted in the context of elite selfregulation and consensus after a change in the competitive framework ca. 600–575, this restraint need not imply an absolute lack of social distinctions. Although wealth largely disappears from archaeological contexts across the island, less visible outlets may have arisen for elite expenditure; they did not necessarily stop spending. Perhaps aristocrats funded civic processions and communal feasts. Cretan sanctuaries attest wine drinking on a vast scale, and local aristocrats may have assumed a leadership role in funding these ceremonies. According to Brian Hayden, “establishing desirable social relationships constitutes the bottom line for many feasts,” a definition that includes the creation of social debts and other reciprocal relationships.54 Age and prowess in war may have distinguished certain

322

chapter 12

members of the community from others, according them either different portions of meat or other forms of attention. Dance and song present other possible outlets for personal excellence, and young men and women who excelled in athletic competition and choral dances in rite-of-passage ceremonies may have distinguished themselves from the pack.55 For example, according to Strabo (10.484), youths singled out for the honor of ritual abduction by an older admirer received the designation parastathentes and were entitled to wear distinctive dress later in life. Festivals and parades presumably had a marginal impact on the material world, and dress and personal ornament constitute another aspect of display that would not be apparent in the archaeological record if the habits of the living were not reflected in burial or dedicatory practices. Perhaps any bronze still in circulation in the 6th century stayed above ground in settlement contexts.56 Inscriptions mention public storage of weapons and agricultural implements, and some legal penalties were assessed in cauldrons and tripods.57 Owning a set of bronze armor may have been one way for wealthier soldiers to distinguish themselves from the rank and file.58 If properly maintained, such armor could have been handed down within families, with its prestige increasing with succeeding generations. Communal bronze equipment may also have been put to use in civic or religious drinking ceremonies. Inscriptions from elsewhere in the Greek world make it clear that sanctuaries occasionally kept inventories of bronze utensils presumably designated as public property, although 55. Sparta provides a possible parallel. Herodotos (8.134.2) alludes to distinctions based on birth and wealth, contrary to the myth of Spartan equality. Hodkinson (1999, p. 152) and Holladay (1977, p. 118) stress the agonistic nature of Spartan society without suggesting that it contradicts the tradition of austerity, and Finley (1975, p. 165) pictures relative inequality in the Spartan system as stemming from unequal performance in the agoge, games, hunting, and war. In the Cretan context, Scanlon (2002, p. 75) invokes Ephoros (Strabo 10.4.20–21) to stress pederastic initiation as an occasion for honors at choral dances and races. 56. Ongoing excavations at Azoria are shedding new light on the supply of bronze at a 6th-century settlement. Haggis et al. (2004, p. 375, fig. 26) refer to discoveries of sheet bronze and a helmet fragment. A few more bronzes, including two bronze fishing hooks and a fine stand from the kitchen B1500, have recently come to light; see Haggis et al. 2007, p. 257, fig. 10, p. 286,

fig. 32, p. 291, fig. 38. In addition, Haggis et al. (2004, p. 375) report iron slag and implements, including a spear butt, and this may have a bearing on the circulation model discussed in Chap. 11 (pp. 298–302). Did islanders make greater use of native iron in the face of a bronze shortage? Azoria may eventually provide an important test case for commercial explanations. We must bear in mind, however, that many of the iron objects at Azoria belong to classes expected in this metal, given the general conversion to iron technology in the eastern Mediterranean. By the latest count at the end of the 2005 excavation season, bronze constitutes by number 26% of metal finds and iron 72%, with gold and silver making up the rest. These numbers give the impression that bronze is not entirely uncommon, although a more precise estimate including the weights of the various implements might present a different picture, even more unbalanced in iron’s favor. Also, some of the bronzes on this list may date to the 7th century (such as the helmet fragment,

which finds a close parallel in an example of Orientalizing date). Another bronze object, the Corinthian stand discussed in Chap. 11 (p. 289), cannot be taken as a sign of contact with Near Eastern copper sources. 57. An Archaic inscription (a proposed join between IC II v 5 and IC II v 6) mentions bronze arrowheads and spearheads; see Chap. 10, p. 267, n. 139. Perlman (2002b, pp. 202–204) interprets references to cauldrons in legal inscriptions as signifying a weight standard, presumably calculated in bronze. 58. Van Wees (2004, p. 52) characterizes a complete bronze panoply as a “status symbol” beyond the means of ordinary soldiers. According to Jarva (1995, pp. 148–157), the various components of hoplite armor were so expensive that only the top tier could have afforded a full set. Judging from the numerous mitrai at sanctuaries in the 7th century, the standard Cretan set of armor may have differed from the mainland Greek panoply.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

323

sanctuary personnel or other prominent individuals might have reserved the right to use them on occasions for public display such as feasts, leaving other worshippers to make do with clay cups, jugs, and other vessels.59 Although austerity in the archaeological record need not imply the wholesale elimination of distinctions among elite members, the Cretan pattern is unusual compared to those of other Greek states. Ceramic styles may have played a minor but, from the standpoint of modern research, a highly visible role in this new symbolic vocabulary. At least in theory, pottery designs can be connected to other aspects of life, but in practice the relationship between craft production and social ideals is difficult to establish. Although ethnographic studies have repeatedly emphasized the importance of ceramic decoration in symbolic expressions of identity and status, most research deals with positive evidence for style, including elaborately decorated pots, textiles, and metal objects.60 The secondary literature is less helpful when the subject is plain pottery of a limited range in shapes. Such pottery is not devoid of stylistic content in the broadest sense; intricate designs have, however, attracted more attention and their social roles are better understood. Although there may be a cultural dimension to the functional simplicity of the Cretan ceramic repertoires, some aspects of this craft are more susceptible to an economic explanation instead. For instance, technical lapses distinguish 6th-century pots from their Orientalizing predecessors, suggesting less commission work and a smaller number of workshops. In addition, a monotonous coat of dull gray replaces the metallic sheen occasionally found on earlier vessels, and the paint is often carelessly applied and survives only as a fugitive impression on numerous examples.61 Perhaps under economic compulsion, potters resorted to firing kilns at lower temperatures, resulting in softer fabrics and declining standards. Bronze Age Crete seems to offer a parallel for this decline in standards, as poor workmanship distinguishes MM III pottery from the fine Kamares ware vessels of the preceding period. According to Aleydis Van de Moortel, MM III potters invested less labor in preparing the clay, finishing the surface, attaching appendages, and applying decoration.62 She attributes these measures to competition from other potters, although consumer demand leading to mass production also provides a satisfactory explanation.63 If fine pottery no longer figured in the accepted venues of display, this might explain the decline of the 6th-century potter’s craft. 59. Jordan (1979, pp. 39–40, 42, 47–48) lists references to bronze vessels in the Hekatompedon Decrees from the Archaic Athenian Acropolis. The treasury lists from the Acropolis in the Classical period frequently refer to cups, jugs, and phialai in precious metals; see Harris 1995, pp. 66–77, 99–102, 155–179, 211–215. 60. For summaries of more recent work, see Hodder 1982, pp. 204–207; Wright 2004, p. 135. An example from

Bronze Age Crete is the attention paid to richly decorated MM Kamares ware as a possible symbol of palatial prestige; see Walberg 2001, p. 14. 61. The technical description of 5th-century Knossian wares given earlier (Chap. 4, pp. 134–135) serves as an introduction to the problem. See also my comments regarding Eleuthernian high-necked cups (Chap. 3, p. 88). Regarding 6th-century pottery from Kommos, Callaghan and Johnston

(2000, p. 250) comment on “the generally poor quality of fabric and paint.” 62. As Van de Moortel (2002, pp. 192–195) observes, the entire range of products, fine and plain wares alike, exhibits a decline in standards. 63. Van de Moortel (2002, pp. 197–199) regards increased standardization as another sign of cost-cutting efforts.

324

chapter 12

Other aspects of the Cretan ceramic record are not easily explained in economic terms. For instance, the absence of figural decoration, not only black figure but also indigenous forms of incised decoration, defies purely commercial explanations.64 Whereas Geometric and Orientalizing decorative traditions flourished across the island, these all, with the exception noted later, come to an end in the first quarter of the 6th century.65 Financial hardship could not have eradicated even the most basic forms of artistic experimentation, preventing local potters from painting rudimentary linear or figural patterns. Cretan black figure is restricted at this time to a small group of exported fragments found almost exclusively at Cyrene in North Africa (Fig. 12.3); this distribution pattern points to limited production of an export ware, probably based at Aphrati.66 Otherwise, black figure is entirely absent from the native ceramic repertoires. Even pattern decoration is uncommon in the 6th century, with Aphrati again providing the best evidence for a Suborientalizing style. In addition, banded wares, a staple of local production elsewhere in the Greek world, rarely appear on Crete in datable Archaic contexts.67 The virtual disappearance of a figural tradition sets Crete apart from other well-documented regions. Athens aside, a number of Greek centers (the Cycladic islands, East Greece, Boiotia, the Corinthia, and Lakonia) produced black-figure works.68 Moreover, imports to the island are as plain as local products. Figural pottery, whether Corinthian, Lakonian, or Attic, is exceedingly scarce.69 Instead, imported pottery consists almost

Figure 12.3. Archaic Cretan blackfigure fragments found at Cyrene, Libya. Scale 3:4. Schaus 1985, pl. 2. Cour-

Fig. 3.18) is the only example from Crete. 67. Banded wares seem plentiful within the broad chronological brackets of the Archaic and Classical periods, but precise dating is not yet feasible for much of this material. It may not have been until the 5th century that production of banded wares such as proto-Hadra hydriai began; see Chap. 11, p. 301, n. 149. 68. In the standard survey of Greek painted pottery styles, Cook (1997, pp. 41–46) identifies eight major

Archaic production centers. According to Hodkinson (1998, p. 99), local production cannot be regarded as an unequivocal sign of economic or political vitality. As illustration of this point, Sparta may have possessed only a single black-figure workshop during much of the 6th century. 69. For instance, only two examples of Attic black figure from ca. 600–550 are known from the entire island, a dinos from Gortyn (Chap. 6, p. 187) and a lekanis from Eleutherna (48, Figs. 3.7, 3.8).

64. Regarding this indigenous decorative tradition, some Cretan cups in the Orientalizing period are decorated with incised motifs or figural scenes. Shaw (1983, pp. 443–446, figs. 1–5, pls. 61, 62) illustrates two superb examples from Kommos. 65. For a discussion of the 7th-century tradition of Cretan figural vase painting, see Boardman 1961, pp. 144– 146; 1998, p. 112; Cook 1997, pp. 135– 138; Schaus 1985, p. 11. 66. As described in Chap. 2 (p. 32). A fragment found at Eleutherna (112,

tesy G. Schaus

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

325

entirely of b.g. products, such as the Lakonian kraters at Eleutherna, which are invariably monotone black examples. Cretan b.g. does not compare favorably in technical terms with other documented local wares either.70 An economic explanation also does not account for the limited range of shapes in the local b.g. repertoires. Unlike the extensive Athenian inventory of deep and shallow cups and specialty shapes, Cretan banqueters made do with a single basic drinking vessel, the high-necked cup, a hallmark of domestic, sanctuary, and funerary contexts. Other Cretan types, such as the low-necked and tulip cups, are a distinct minority.71 This restricted range of shapes probably has a bearing on local drinking customs, suggesting an emphasis on plain consumption and functional equivalency. Borgna’s study of Minoan feasting addresses the question of social meaning in the absence of stylistic elaboration. She distinguished between competitive feasts as occasions for conspicuous display, with individual reciprocity a key concern, and communal ceremonies characterized by unrestricted attendance, whose chief objective was group affiliation through anonymous membership.72 Communal feasts were often held outdoors and accommodated large numbers of people, whether elites and their retainers or the entire community, and the debris from such events typically includes hundreds of cups. According to Borgna, these communal feasts can be identified even in the absence of large quantities of pottery by the “form, manufacturing technique, and surface treatment of the conical cups— extremely simple and highly standardized.” In her view, these technical aspects of ceramic production “seem to underplay individual identity in favor of group affiliation, and to promote social solidarity and a sense of community.”73 With a prevailing ideology that emphasized the community rather than individuality, plain equipment had the effect of “reducing members to anonymous, faceless participants,” creating a perception of equal status.74 This framework paves the way for an interpretation of plain pottery in other periods. Ritual meals at Cretan sanctuaries in the 6th century seem to reflect most closely the leveling concept associated with the large communal feasts of the Bronze Age. Consumption in the Archaic period, however, may have differed in several important respects. First, pattern or figural decoration is almost nonexistent, suggesting an intensification of 70. This may reflect the general lack of interest in undecorated pottery and inadequate publication of low-quality wares elsewhere in Greece, a situation attributable to the traditional art-historical focus of classical archaeology. Important exceptions include studies of b.g. production at Athens, Corinth, and Sparta; see Cook 1997, p. 201. 71. All are deep shapes. The conventional distinction between deep and shallow cups may reflect different

drinking practices. According to Davidson (1997, p. 63), shallow cups preceded deeper varieties in the early stages of the typical Greek symposium. Regional distinctions may also be relevant. The Cretans evidently preferred deep cups with large capacity. 72. Borgna 2004, pp. 248, 255. As she (p. 263) acknowledges, this distinction is not absolute, for elites may have found ways to emphasize personal roles on occasions of communal

consumption. 73. Borgna 2004, p. 262. 74. Borgna 2004, p. 265. According to Hamilakis (2002b, p. 196), simple pottery in such contexts may have been intended to “signify and evoke a shared corporate identity.” This situation is not directly comparable to Archaic Crete, for factional competition is connected with other signs of conspicuous consumption and display.

326

chapter 12

communal principles. Although Whitley pointed to a Cretan penchant for plain cups in the Early Iron Age as a precedent for the restraint of the 6th century, in the 6th century plain decoration extended to every shape, including kraters, jugs, and other large vessels used in common.75 The 6th century seems to mark an intensification of communal principles in other ways. Although there was a strong preference for communal feasts in the Bronze Age, competitive occasions also took place. In contrast, there was no alternative to communal feasts in the Archaic period. In another point of comparison, Borgna’s classification of competitive and communal feasts assumes the participation of different social orders, with retainers, commoners, and the public at large attending communal banquets, whereas competitive occasions were restricted to an elite class. This social model does not transfer easily into the political context of Archaic Crete, however. Communal feasts in the 6th century encompassed everything from religious gatherings attended by a presumably large segment of the population to smaller elite parties. In short, the design principles of simplicity, utility, and homogeneity pervade every aspect of Cretan pottery production. Whitley’s phrase “ostentatiously plain” truly hits the mark.76 This comprehensively austere style seems to have reinforced social ideals, but more evidence is needed to make a definitive case. Borgna’s attention to the locales of feasting in the Bronze Age—with distinctions between interior and exterior, and centralized and dispersed consumption—added an important dimension to her study, but this contextual evidence is generally not available for the Archaic period, as most of the pottery comes from secondary contexts. If plain drinking cups and kraters were used at 6th-century symposia, restraint pervaded the traditional bastions of aristocratic display and private commensality as well. Mention of symposia raises an important issue. The literary tradition of public mess halls (andreia) and the syssition has promoted a view of Cretan drinking customs as aberrant from normal Greek practice, with a state monopoly of feasts preventing private symposia from being held. The lack of figural decoration and the alleged absence of kraters in the Cretan context has been taken as evidence that islanders used plain utilitarian cups at civic mess halls rather than symposia, but these claims have little foundation.77 First, the use of plain pottery need not entail a significant deviation from normal Greek drinking practices, although the absence of 75. Whitley (2004, pp. 438–441) distinguishes between plain cups and decorated kraters at Early Iron Age Knossos. Borgna (2004, p. 270) notices a similar distinction in the Middle Protogeometric period between plain minor vessels used for individual consumption and kraters with elaborate decoration. She equates these sets with communal feasts in a stable society, with elites no longer needing to compete to attract followers. Such

feasts seem to have taken place at different locations within a single settlement, implying, according to Borgna (p. 271), a “multicentered pattern of political authority.” 76. Whitley 2004, p. 434. 77. Whitley (2001, p. 205) remarks that the institution of the symposium was well established in the Archaic period at Athens, Corinth, Boiotia, much of Ionia, Sparta, and many western colonies, whereas “Crete

produced almost no symposium pottery” (pp. 251–252). The quintessential symposium shapes supposedly absent in the Cretan context are kraters and dinoi. In addition, literary testimony implies a different range of shapes on Crete, for Dosiadas (FGrH 458 F2; Ath. 4.143) states that the adult banqueters from each table drank from a single cup, while the boys collectively shared a wine mixer.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

327

iconographic evidence certainly hampers efforts to demonstrate a specifically Cretan form of symposium.78 For instance, there is no clear sign that Cretan banqueters reclined—a defining characteristic of the mainland institution.79 The functional range of the various b.g. repertoires, complete with kraters, points to sympotic drinking. Moreover, some of this pottery comes from verifiably domestic contexts. Although the bell-krater from Aphrati is problematic because of its size, the number (a dozen or so) of drinking cups recovered from the same 5th-century house conforms to the number of banqueters at the typical Athenian symposium.80 In addition, imported kraters at Eleutherna and Knossos bring local drinking customs more in line with mainland Greek practices, at least in the range of shapes.81 Local production of kraters supplements imports at both sites, and if the “household” kraters dedicated at the “Shrine of Glaukos” at Knossos served as wine mixers, the earlier publication record may underestimate the extent of local production.82 At Azoria, Archaic house B100 (Fig. 12.2) yielded extensive signs of food preparation and consumption, including a built hearth, a paved storeroom, fragmentary cooking pots, and an impressive collection of b.g. tableware.83 From this deposit we can infer that private eating and drinking took place in a manner archaeologically indistinguishable from the mainland symposium, save for the possible remains of klinai. Indirect signs of the symposium also appear at other sites. Musical entertainment was an indispensable part of such feasts, and the only preserved example of Archaic Cretan literature, the 6th-century song of Hybrias (Ath. 15.695f–696b), gives every indication of being a skolion, a 78. Although Athenian sources amply attest the connection between figural pottery and the symposium, this model need not hold true for other parts of Greece. It may not even apply to all segments of the Athenian population, if some families held symposia of a humbler sort in which b.g. substituted for figural pottery. Lynch’s (1999) analysis of a Late Archaic deposit from the environs of the Agora documents figural pottery in a sympotic context at a modest Athenian home. More work needs to be done to determine whether this house and its contents are typical of Athenian practice writ large. Excavations of public dining debris in the Athenian Agora demonstrate that officials of the democracy fed at public expense used a high proportion of b.g.; see Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 41–46, and the general discussion of Whitley 2001, pp. 361–363. Kraters make up the lion’s share of the figural pottery from one such deposit,

presumably reflecting the higher display value of large communal shapes. 79. Schmitt Pantel (1992, pp. 46– 48) traces the origin of communal male dining institutions to the 7th century, whereas Murray (1983) cites Homer to argue for an origin in the 8th century. These positions provide historical context for the rise of specifically Cretan drinking customs in the Archaic period. Whitley (2004, p. 438) emphasizes reclined banqueting as a defining characteristic of the symposium, an institution he dates to ca. 650. Literary testimony to the effect that Cretans took their meals while seated (Ath. 4.143), presumably on public occasions, hints at a substantial difference from mainland practice. 80. For Aphrati, see Erickson 2002, pp. 58–64, nos. 58–68, 70, 71, figs. 14– 16. As a basis for comparison, private dining rooms at Olynthus accommodated between four and 11 banqueters, with an average of seven guests; see

Cahill 2002, pp. 180–188. 81. For example, well RR:H at Knossos yielded at least one set of sympotic equipment, including a magnificent Attic black-figure krater and a collection of imported b.g. jugs used in conjunction with local cups. The most likely explanation is that this material came from a nearby house; see Chap. 4 (pp. 119–120). 82. Callaghan (1978, pp. 12–16) identifies these kraters as “household” products based on the absence of interior gloss, removing them from the sphere of the symposium. They are, however, the appropriate size for wine mixers. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, pp. 82–83) devote a section of their chapter in the Knossos Pottery Handbook to Late Archaic and Classical kraters. 83. Haggis et al. (2004, p. 359, fig. 13) illustrate fragments of local cups from B100 amounting to at least eight vessels, as well as several jug bases and an Attic kantharos.

328

chapter 12

sympotic drinking song.84 At Eleutherna, the literary and epigraphic sources paint a relatively rich picture of perfume, music, and wine in the context of aristocratic drinking parties.85 This luxurious setting may have been unusual for Archaic Crete, although the ceramic record also draws attention to at least two other examples of elaborate local customs. The perpetuation of Orientalizing techniques of linear decoration at Aphrati geared production to ornate vessels suitable for display.86 Also, at the end of the Archaic period, several Knossian drinkers enlivened the appearance of their cups by incising linear patterns along the rim.87 This ad hoc decoration, however rudimentary, distinguishes these vessels from the mass of otherwise monotonously plain vessels. At the opposite extreme, drinking cups of Lyktian manufacture eschew decoration of any sort, even gloss, and conform to a conservative tradition of shapes. In the Classical and Hellenistic periods, Lyktos chose to import fine pottery from other island production centers.88 Its adherence to crudely fashioned but functional local cups in the 6th century may have a cultural significance; this pottery sends a message of functional simplicity, and its style should perhaps be regarded as intentional. Thus, the institution of public messes by no means rules out the possibility of private parties organized along the lines of the mainland Greek symposium, and current evidence on Crete may derive from houses. The possibility of regional or even site-specific drinking customs should also be considered. A similar bias has affected our understanding of Spartan drinking customs. As Stephen Hodkinson emphasizes, “neither in the Homeric epics nor in historical times was there ever a single, archetypal mode of commensality, but rather a variety of practices operating in different contexts.”89 If the symposium was a focal point for aristocratic opposition to the polis, as many assume, what role did private drinking play in the Cretan and Spartan world of personal restraint? This assumption may be wrong and the question it spawned moot. Dean Hammer has made a strong case for rejecting the binary oppositions of polis/antipolis implicit in such views of the mainland symposium. According to Hammer, differences in wealth 84. Willetts (1962, p. 317) gives the text of this poem and discusses its historical significance. Its classification as a skolion was disputed in antiquity. It may be a marching song. For a discussion of the poem in the context of 6th-century Cretan isolation, see Morris 1998a, pp. 65–66; Whitley 1997, p. 652. This poem resonates with local aristocratic concerns, including wine consumption, warfare, and the subjugation of serfs, eminently appropriate themes for the Cretan symposium. Van Wees (2003, p. 61) identifies it without hesitation as a drinking song. 85. Perlman 2004b. 86. Or perhaps these potters were

responding to an export market; see p. 339, n. 140. Such an argument could not even be contemplated for other Cretan production centers. 87. Coldstream (1973b, p. 55, no. 53, pl. 21) illustrates one such cup from deposit RR:H, dated to ca. 500– 480. The decoration takes the form of zigzags incised along the rim. In another indication that the rim of the Cretan high-necked cup was deemed suitable for decoration, a 7th-century example from Ayia Pelayia bears an inscription along the rim. 88. According to Callaghan and Jones (1985, pp. 14–15), fine b.g. pottery was imported to Lyktos in the 4th century, with at least one example

from Knossos decorated by the Aliki Painter. For Hellenistic imports at Lyktos, see Englezou 2000. 89. Hodkinson 1997, pp. 90–91. Private symposia and civic drinking practices may have evolved separately or existed side by side in the 6th century. Xenophon (Mem. 1.2.61) states that private feasting was permitted during the festival of the Gymnopaidiai, implying a restriction on private commensality in the developed Classical polis. Following his lead, Bowie (1990, p. 225, n. 16) proposes a historical progression from aristocratic symposia to the Spartan mess halls of the 6th century.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

329

and attitudes concerning display do not easily break down along political fault lines.90 Although the Cretan elite, as defined by noble birth, military prowess, and membership in politically privileged hetairia groups, may not have wanted to mix with non-elite citizens, this exclusionary impulse would not have required luxurious surroundings. Perhaps associating with equals in war and the hunt increased a member’s standing in the community more than luxurious display. Competition may have arisen over the frugality of meals and accoutrements as a way to emphasize the personal qualities and accomplishments that mattered most in Archaic Cretan society. Such a pecking order of private banqueting groups, far from conflicting with the ideals of the polis, would have been an understandable consequence of a competitive system geared for the defense of the community. This line of argument has relevance for conceptualizing aristocratic competition in the public domain as well. Perhaps rivalries formerly seen at sanctuaries and funerals were in the 6th century brought within settlement contexts and enacted on public feasting occasions, with no fundamental change in the dynamics of the competitive system. According to this scenario, aristocrats continued to compete much as they did before, albeit in a new environment, as wealth migrated from tombs and sanctuaries to settlements. Conspicuous consumption and stylistic rationing would still be the engines of artistic innovation.91 Status distinctions may have developed among the members of the andreion, with some using more lavish cups, kraters, and so on. Haggis and his colleagues interpreted the survival of Suborientalizing decoration on pithoi and clay stands in a context of elite self-identification.92 At Azoria, however, decorated pithoi came to light in the storage room of a building complex probably used for communal feasts, and it is hard to see how the prestige value of storage vessels would enhance the standing of any particular member of the group. The monumental clay stands found in one of the dining rooms may have supported large kraters, but these were probably communal property as well. In contrast to these pithoi and stands, the cups, jugs, kraters, and other fine-ware vessels from Azoria are almost without exception either plain black or bear simple pattern decoration, with no hint of latent Orientalizing tendencies.93 It seems that no one in this putative andreion group received preferential treatment. As an alternative, elaborate communal equipment and the displayed remains of impressive feasts may have enhanced the standing of the andreion members as a whole with respect to other lineage or peer groups. 90. Hammer 2004, pp. 493–499. 91. Archaeologists of Archaic Greece have tended to view stylistic innovation through the lens of aristocratic competition, in which, according to Spencer (2000, p. 73), elites distinguish themselves from the lower orders by conspicuous display of wealth. Conspicuous consumption eventually creates a redundancy effect in the display of wealth as the lower

rungs of the social ladder begin to compete; see Miller 1985, pp. 184–205, fig. 53. In effect, the system sets limits for itself and prevents unbridled competition from leading to an unsustainable expenditure of wealth. Cannon (1989, p. 447) coins the phrase “expressive redundancy” to describe this pattern. This framework may explain alternating periods of display and restraint in the Archaic and Classical

Athenian funerary record; see Morris 1987, pp. 16–17. 92. Haggis et al. 2004, p. 355. 93. The exceptions are from the most recent excavation seasons and include an Attic lekythos decorated in Six’s technique and Attic black-figure skyphoi; see Haggis et al. 2007, p. 262, fig. 15, p. 283, p. 284, fig. 30:1, p. 285, fig. 31:1–3.

330

chapter 12

A model of aristocratic competition based on factionalism might make better sense in this context.94 Clan or hetairia dining assemblies may have competed with other peer dining groups (each with its own building and corporate values of display). In such a society, the elites may have enforced a separation between those admitted to the dining building and those excluded. If there was only one andreion building in a community, it would complicate understanding of the competitive framework. For whom was such display intended? Perhaps elites in neighboring communities were the intended audience. Whatever its precise mechanism, aristocratic competition in the 6th century did not take as conspicuous a form as the personal display of wealth in the Orientalizing period. Strong communal values kept aristocrats in line. The kind of austere society envisioned here is not unique to antiquity. American Shaker communities provide intriguing insight into the possible operation of collective institutions, with particular relevance to the relationship between cultural austerity and craft traditions. The Shaker sect was founded on the principle of religious asceticism, a withdrawal from society and renunciation of family, financial, and other worldly ties.95 Shaker asceticism was enforced through regulations, including a ban on fancy articles superficially finished, trimmed, or ornamented, among which numbered sundry gold and silver items, “knife handles with writing or picturing upon them,” and “flowery painted clocks.” Even fanciful architecture, including “beadings, mouldings, and cornices” fell under the scope of legislative restrictions. Shaker furniture has been taken as the supreme representative of community ideals.96 Purity, simplicity, and utility directed Shaker furniture makers toward a studied avoidance of complexity and ornateness.97 This example is meant to be illustrative and does not imply a common genesis or derivation from antiquity. Official regulations may have played a more significant role in countermovements such as Shakerism that went against prevailing standards, for participants needed strict protocols to serve as reminders of their mission.98 In ancient Greece, the constitutional reforms of Demetrios of Phaleron at Athens constitute another example of a rigid, top-to-bottom effort to restrict private display at ­funerals 94. Hamilakis’s (2002b, pp. 186–187) interpretation of Minoan palatial culture as a product of factionalism stresses vertical competition between informal groups with similar belief systems and symbolic vocabularies. According to Hamilakis (p. 186), factional competition leads to “the intensification of production, consumption and conspicuous display of material culture.” Another way to view Cretan competition is through the lens of heterarchy. Small’s (1995, pp. 77–79) stress on external economies as a factor in the growth of independent power blocks within Greek communities (heterarchically opposed groups), however, may not be relevant

for Archaic Crete, since his model relies heavily on the commercial and banking world of 4th-century Athens. Haggis (2002, pp. 122–125, 131–137) challenges the assumption of hierarchy in understanding the role of Minoan palaces, favoring a more complex situation with counterpoised forces of integration and heterarchical power bases. 95. Andrews and Andrews 1937, p. 18. 96. Andrews and Andrews 1937, p. 18. According to Andrews and Andrews (p. 44), Shaker craftsmen generally obeyed the prohibition against writing or printing one’s name on articles of manufacture.

97. Andrews and Andrews 1937, pp. 16–17. For a critical assessment of their interpretation of Quaker craftsmanship, see Stein 1992, pp. 373–384, 424–425. 98. Shaker asceticism resembled the reaction of many Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian communities in the early American republic. Injunctions against fancy clothes and lavish entertainments required strict enforcement; see Appleby 2000, p. 145. New England society as a whole tended to eschew elaborate clothes and accoutrements in favor of a simple and light dress compatible with the austere values of the early republic.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

331

and feasts.99 Although such formal restrictions may have played a small part in the Cretan system, communitarian principles seem to have permeated all walks of life, creating the impression of an established natural order. Regulations concerning conspicuous consumption may not have been needed, since those who transgressed the rules or expectations of such a society could expect jeers, blows, or worse. Archaeologists who study ancient Greece usually have a harder time reconciling private actions with a formal state ideology, since central authority was relatively weak in most poleis and faced opposition from alternative values associated with regional, familial, and other subdivisions of the population. In contrast, the most austere Cretan poleis were probably small, face-to-face societies, with community control extending deeply into the lives of their citizens.

CENTRAL C RE TAN AU S TERI T Y Archaeological distinctions furnish a more nuanced and geographically diverse picture of Cretan austerity than the literary accounts dominated by Lyktos. Given the geographic and political diversity of the Cretan landscape, it is unclear how widely Lyktian influence could have spread.100 A passage from Ephoros, as reported by Strabo (10.481), supports the notion of an austere central corridor of traditional Cretan poleis. After an unspecified devastation of Knossos, it relates that conservative institutions continued in use at Lyktos, Gortyn, and other smaller states to a greater extent than among the revived Knossians. Thus, although ancient authorities regarded Lyktos as the prototype for Spartan institutions, other Central Cretan poleis figure in the tradition.101 Moreover, epigraphic references to commonly accepted elements of the traditional Cretan constitution such as the kosmoi, andreia, and agelai are restricted in the 6th and 5th centuries to the central part of the island, at Eleutherna, Axos, Phaistos, Gortyn, Prinias, Knossos, Eltynia, Aphrati (Dattalla), Lyktos, and Dreros (Fig. 12.4). Law codes are not found farther west or east of these sites, with the exception of Eteocretan inscriptions from Praisos, whose presumed legal content cannot be demonstrated. On archaeological grounds, Azoria seems to fit a pattern of material restraint and communal social ­organization,

99. As Williams (1997, pp. 335– 336) points out, the regulations concerning funerals and tombs seem to have precipitated a decline in carving standards and stonework. Other stipulations of Demetrios’s reform package may have had an impact on feasts. Robertson (1992, pp. 290–291) views the cessation of Attic red figure at the end of the 4th century as connected with these sumptuary laws, albeit not a direct consequence. 100. By analogy, different parts of the island reacted differently to Attic imports and stylistic influence in the

Middle Geometric II period. According to Prent (2005, pp. 239–240), Central Crete adopted Attic styles, whose influence reached from Eleutherna in the west to the Mirabello region in the east, while the western and eastern extremities of the island stuck to more conservative fashions. Interestingly, this regional pattern overlaps with the divisions proposed here for the Archaic and Classical periods, except that the central corridor is later seen as more conservative. 101. Dunbabin (1952, pp. 196–197),

Prent (1996–1997, p. 45), and Kotsonas (2002, p. 59) all touch on this passage in discussions of the Knossian archaeological gap. Ephoros dates the destruction of Knossos after Thaletas, a 7th-century lawgiver. This destruction probably occurred before the middle of the 4th century, and the only candidate in the archaeological record for a destruction of Knossos is in the 6th century. Van Effenterre (1948, pp. 237– 239), however, places this episode much later, ca. 400–150. See also Perlman 2005, p. 303.

Eleutherna

Axos

Knossos Lyktos

Dreros

Eltyna Prinias Phaistos Gortyn

0

10

20

30

40

Aphrati

50 km

Figure 12.4. Cretan sites with legal inscriptions, ca. 600–400. B. L. Erickson, after an original provided by K. T. Glowacki

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

102. Perlman 2004b. 103. The epigraphic evidence from Lappa is discussed on p. 312. In addition, King Etearchos of Axos plays a prominent part in a story of colonization set in the 7th century (Hdt. 4.154– 155). 104. Whitley (1997, pp. 649–651) argues for a decline in the number of private inscriptions in the period ca. 600–400. Perlman (2002b, p. 196), however, notes that the evidence for both public and private writing on Crete increases in the 6th century, suggesting that “literacy was not the exclusive possession of a narrow scribal class.” See also Gagarin 2008, pp. 68– 69. 105. I base my discussion on Perlman’s (2002b, pp. 218–225) catalogue of private inscriptions, which includes two graffiti sherds at Phaistos in the Aiginetan alphabet, which were presumably written by Kydonians. 106. Gortyn is an excellent example of a polis rich in monumental legal texts but poor in private inscriptions. There are only three private inscriptions from Gortyn in the period ca. 600–400 (Perlman 2002b, p. 222, no. 24, p. 224, nos. 35, 36), and they are neither dedications nor otherwise suitable for display.

333

making it the easternmost site where anything resembling the ideal Cretan constitution has come to light. This regional pattern requires explanation. Central Crete was the area most affected by the loss of Orientalizing trade, since alternative routes in the 6th century essentially bypassed the central corridor. Peloponnesian trade most directly benefited West Cretan poleis, whereas Cycladic traffic was concentrated farther east. As a result of these differences in commercial outlook, we might expect the poorer and more isolated central zone to formulate different ideological and political responses. Perhaps this is what happened, although strangely one of the sites still exposed to overseas trade, Eleutherna, numbers among the traditional communities as defined by the presence of monumental law codes and attested elements of the ideal constitution. Yet Eleutherna has not produced evidence of the syssition, and Perlman demonstrated the aristocratic tone of Eleuthernian society.102 In addition, if Lappa had a basileus, it also differed in at least one respect from the Lyktian model of political organization.103 There may also have been significant variations between poleis even in the core area from Phaistos to Dreros, where strong traditions apparently flourished. Furthermore, the Lyktian model of social and political development probably has little if any relevance for West Cretan poleis. Kydonia bears no resemblance to the austere archaeological communities outlined earlier in this chapter, and other western sites exhibit wealthier tombs and plentiful Attic imports. Aiginetan trade and cultural influence perhaps contributed to the different archaeological pattern in the west, with Kydonia the major counterpoint to Cretan material restraint. From an epigraphic standpoint also, Kydonia is unusual. Whitley pointed to the scarcity of private inscriptions on 6th-century Crete—dedications, tombstones, and the like—as evidence of a restrained aristocracy, but Kydonia does not conform to this general pattern.104 Almost 30% of the private inscriptions from Crete dating to ca. 525–400 are Kydonian.105 Kydonians also inscribed objects found at other sites, including a bronze cauldron from Ayia Pelayia, one of the principal exceptions to the otherwise poor record of island bronzework in the 6th century. Another dedication, an unpublished 5th-century statue base found in a secondary context at Kydonia (Chania Archaeological Museum E 163), takes the form of a monumental pillar with the name of the dedicant. It belies the suggestion that Kydonian worshippers toned down or avoided occasions for display. Despite the wealth of epigraphical evidence from Kydonia, monumental law codes are conspicuously absent from the site. There may be a correlation between monumental legal inscriptions and archaeologically austere communities, with laws perhaps serving in the Central Cretan context to limit conspicuous display and destructive aristocratic rivalries.106 Alternatively, they may be a by-product of communities that sought to limit aristocratic competition by other means. East Crete also exhibits an archaeological pattern richer than that of the central area, suggesting a more prosperous economy and robust aristocratic competition. Praisos ranks among the richest Archaic sites on the island in terms of architectural decoration, the coroplast tradition, and overseas imports. Moreover, Itanos was connected to Cycladic trade routes

334

chapter 12

and flourished at this time. Abundant private inscriptions from Itanos and its territory do not find a counterpart in monumental law codes, and other signs of the traditional Cretan constitution are absent at Itanos, Praisos, and other eastern sites.

CENTRA L CRE TE, SPARTA, AN D ARCHAEOLO GICAL AU STERI T Y Comparative evidence is needed to situate Lyktos and other traditional island communities in a cultural and historical framework. Sparta is also an archaeologically austere culture, and the similarities between the traditional Central Cretan poleis and Sparta raise the possibility of parallel development or even direct influence. In the literary tradition, Sparta is the quintessential example of a militaristic system in which citizenship extended to a group of equals who trained in war from an early age and who practiced daily commensality in mess groups. As with Crete, the syssition is a notable feature of Classical Spartan society, and this institution may date back to the Archaic period.107 Hellenistic and Roman authors dwell on the agoge, the ritual upbringing of the Spartan youth.108 According to Nigel Kennell, the remodeling of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and the construction of a new temple in the early 6th century point to the institution of a primitive version of the agoge.109 Even if this was not a discrete institution in the Archaic period, such training was an integral part of the Spartan way of life. Finally, Spartan conquests of Messenia supplied the state with an agricultural workforce of helots, formalized in a type of indentured servitude much commented on by ancient authors.110 These conquests traditionally occurred in the 7th century, if not the end of the 8th, although this assumed early date has elicited some skepticism.111 The similarities between the ideal Spartan and Cretan system have perplexed ancient and modern authorities. According to the traditional view of Spartan state formation, conservative institutions developed in a 107. For modern historiography on the Spartan syssition, see Schmitt Pantel 1992; Lévy 1997; Lupi 2000, 2002; Nafissi 1991. Singor (1999) regards it as fundamental to the Spartan way of life, integral to the militaristic order. 108. Kennell’s (1995, pp. 136–137) argument that the agoge, as traditionally understood, was a post-Classical creation does not mean that age grades and military training had no place in Archaic Sparta. On the contrary, Finley (1975, p. 175) regards the agoge as the “pivotal organizing mechanism.” According to Holladay (1977, pp. 124– 126), this defining feature of Classical Spartan society is responsible for the austere archaeological pattern. 109. Kennell 1995, pp. 136–137.

Lead hoplite figurines and grotesque masks from the early 6th-century sanctuary may reflect rite-of-passage ceremonies associated with an early form of agoge. 110. Modern scholarship revolves around two central questions: whether the institution of helotage was a direct result of the Dorian conquest and whether it involved the aboriginal population. Oliva (1954), Birgalias (2002), Luraghi (2002; 2008, pp. 202– 204), and van Wees (2003, pp. 48– 53) summarize the evidence. See also Figueira (1999, pp. 225–232), who challenges the idea of helots as a proto-Dorian native population. 111. As Luraghi (2002, p. 234) observes, many have been reluctant to

question the early date of helotry, even in the current revisionist climate. For instance, Clauss (1983, p. 110), who questions the concept of Spartan artistic decline and austerity, regards helotage as an ancient institution dating back to the Dorian conquest. By downdating the emergence of helotry, Luraghi (2002, p. 235) is able to connect it to other manifestations of the so-called Spartan revolution. He (p. 239) suggests that helotry was formalized at some point in the first half of the 6th century, although later revolts contributed to a stronger sense of group consciousness in the 5th century. Van Wees (2003, p. 37) endorses Luraghi’s position.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

335

vacuum of cultural isolation.112 Sparta emerges in the literary accounts of the 5th century as the supreme example of a closed society, with its primitivism ascribed to cultural insularity. Its isolation from the outside world becomes a famous conceit of Classical authors.113 Most modern historians have assumed a process of purely local development, with the Spartan syssition evolving from native symposia in the 6th century.114 Sparta was supposedly the first Greek state to develop these institutions. The stakes are indeed high, for as Cartledge emphasizes, Sparta stands alone as “the ultimate model and fountainhead of the entire western utopian tradition.”115 By the same token, Cretan interaction with mainland Greece has been difficult to accept, given the prevailing view of islands as self-contained political and cultural forms. Historians tend to regard island shores as impermeable cultural barriers, and this ethnographic conceit pervades the historiography of Crete.116 For instance, I. Morris draws a parallel between Cretan isolationism and the closed society of Tokugawa Japan.117 According to the conventional view, Tokugawa Japan shut itself off completely from the outside world and enforced its closed society by imposing restrictive trade measures and bans against resident aliens. Recent work, however, disputes the notion that trade between China and Korea and Japan came to an end during the Tokugawa period, although contacts between Japan and the West took a definite turn for the worse. Marius Jansen concludes, “Japan’s seclusion was thus aimed principally at the West. It is Western ethnocentrism to think that a country that chooses to cut itself off from Westerners has cut itself off from the world.” 118 By analogy, the ancient tradition preserves predominantly Athenian attitudes toward Crete. Even if the Athenians regarded Crete as isolated, it does not necessarily follow that Crete, Sparta, and other Peloponnesian states lost contact with one another. This paradigm of Cretan and Spartan insularity has given rise to the concept of a primitive tribal past to explain the similar institutions. Common place-names, the worship of the same gods, and shared Dorian tribal names suggest an early connection among Sparta, Argos, and Crete. According to Jonathan Hall, “it is not in principle unthinkable that traditions tracing the origins of certain Kretan communities back to Laconia were already in circulation by the time of the Odyssey.”119 Most have viewed 112. Most have been reluctant to pursue the possibility of Cretan influence on Spartan institutions, despite the ancient tradition. Singor (1999) characterizes past efforts to compare Spartan and Cretan messes as vague formulations similar to ethnographic parallels. A skeptic, Finley (1975, p. 162) discounts Cretan influence on Sparta as “a few largely irrelevant Cretan parallels” and “misleading constructs of fourthcentury theories or propaganda.” See also Nafissi 1983–1984; Malkin 1994,

pp. 77–83; Cuniberti 2000. 113. Flower (2002, pp. 204–206), however, challenges the assumed early date for the Spartan prohibition against foreigners, suggesting that it arose later as a response to tensions during the Peloponnesian War. Moreover, the iconography of Spartan black figure reflects a surprisingly open society. For example, according to Cartledge (2002, p. 179), the Arkesilas Painter’s name vase “ betrays an interest in foreign relations and connections beyond anything that could have been inferred

from the introverted, xenophobic, austerity-laden Sparta of the mirage.” 114. Bowie 1990, p. 225; Hodkinson 2000, p. 217. 115. Cartledge 1987, pp. 415–416. 116. Huxley 1994, p. 132. Morris (1990, p. 253), in a discussion of Gortynian family organization, challenges this picture of “primitive, tribal Dorians setting the clock back millennia in Crete and Sparta.” 117. Morris 1998a, p. 68. 118. Jansen 2000, p. 87. 119. Hall 2002, p. 85.

336

chapter 12

these Dorian elements as fossilized institutions dating back to the dawn of political development and discounted the possibility of later commercial, political, or artistic contacts between Crete and the Peloponnese.120 Recent approaches to Greek ethnicity, however, stress the dynamic process of selfidentification and the historical evolution of ethnic claims as societies confront new problems. Despite the facade of archaic survivals, these socalled conservative societies responded to changing historical circumstances and redefined themselves in the process. According to Michael Flower, even in the 5th century the Spartans were reinventing their past.121 From this perspective, primitive tribal origins do not explain the comparable institutions of Sparta and Crete. According to an alternative model of peer polity interaction, emulation of one’s neighbors stimulated developments within a common cultural sphere, with mutual influence and interaction leading to similar social institutions and archaeological patterns.122 A possible commercial relationship between the Peloponnese and Crete in the Geometric and Orientalizing periods may have presented an early opportunity for an exchange of ideas and the development of similar cultural forms. Trade between Argos and Kydonia perhaps dates back to the Geometric period, if finds of Argive kraters at this site represent direct contact with the source.123 Seventh-century Lakonian amphoras found at Kommos also raise the possibility of an early trade connection with the Peloponnese.124 At Sparta, two finds—a pyxis and terracotta head both of likely Cretan manufacture—point to a connection with Crete at the end of the 7th century.125 In addition, Kotsonas interpreted an ivory plaque from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, with close parallels in shape to Cretan mitrai, as an example of Cretan influence on local ivory workers.126 In contrast to this picture of sporadic contact, S. Morris proposes a rich and pervasive relationship between Early Iron Age Crete and the Peloponnese. She notes that place-names such as the Amykleion, common to Gortyn and Sparta, probably derive from the Near East, making Crete an intermediary in the transmission of eastern influences to mainland Greece.127 Cultural borrowing in some fashion may date back to the Bronze Age, although it is difficult to determine from this evidence if Crete and Sparta maintained close ties throughout the Early Iron Age. Even if we allow for modest contacts in the Geometric and Orientalizing periods, interaction between Sparta and Crete seems to have intensified in the 6th century, paving the way for a common path of social and 120. For example, Forrest (1968, p. 53) attributes the similar customs to a common tribal past. 121. Flower 2002, p. 192. 122. Renfrew (1986, p. 1) outlines the basic tenets of this concept. Its application to ancient Greece has spawned an extensive bibliography. For a general starting point, see Snodgrass 1986. Archaic Crete and Sparta satisfy many of the criteria for peer polity interaction, including the existence of contact prior to the change in question; see Renfrew 1986, p. 7.

123. Andreadaki-Vlasaki (1997, p. 239) takes these imported kraters as a sign of traditional connections between West Crete and the Peloponnese in the Late Bronze Age and Geometric period. 124. Johnston 1993, pp. 351, 359– 362; Callaghan and Johnston 2000, p. 299. According to J. Shaw (2000, p. 710), Lakonian amphoras at Kommos signify a close connection with Sparta. See also Perlman 2000, p. 70, n. 96. Against a commercial explanation, it is difficult to situate these sporadic imports in the wider context of Aegean trade.

125. According to Jones (2000, pp. 128–129), these finds reveal a relationship, albeit not necessarily commercial. 126. Kotsonas 2002, pp. 60–61. Moreover, Lebessi (2002, pp. 353–357) traces connections between Cretan metalwork and Peloponnesian styles at mainland Greek sanctuaries. 127. S. Morris 1992, p. 113. Her argument rests on traditional characters like Thaletas, who migrated to Sparta with a dance form and other customs of Near Eastern origin.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

337

political development. In the aftermath of the Orientalizing commercial collapse, Crete fell back on its perceived Peloponnesian cultural roots and the tangible commercial benefits of trade with the mainland. As we have seen, Spartan merchants may have taken part in this trade network between Crete and North Africa. Moreover, it may have seemed natural for the Cretans to strengthen ties to the Peloponnese given the traditional cultural connections. Phalasarna, Polyrrhenia, Aptera, Axos, Gortyn, and Lyktos numbered among the supposed Spartan colonial foundations.128 Lyktos is a special case in that it figures in the literary tradition as a source for Spartan laws. Pausanias (3.12.11) also records that Lyktian archers served on the Spartan side during the Messenian wars. The accuracy of these traditions is questionable, although the purported Spartan heritage may have acquired symbolic significance and factored in the decisions of some Cretan polities. In the 5th century, for example, Knossos and Tylissos invoked cultural ties to Argos as a means to settle a territorial dispute.129 On a broader level, Cretan elites regarded themselves as Dorians. Thus, contacts between Crete and Sparta—whether commercial, religious, or political—opened a channel for the spread of other, less tangible forms of influence. Perhaps through such interaction, Sparta and several Central Cretan poleis developed an austere cultural framework in the Archaic period. As evidence for this view, restrained drinking practices, burials, and sanctuary activity distinguish Sparta and these Cretan communities from other parts of the Greek world. Although poleis elsewhere witnessed changes in the mortuary and sympotic spheres, these developments were gradual, piecemeal, and never as extreme as those of Central Crete or Sparta. It is not the polis per se but the exceptional nature of Cretan and Spartan practices that concerns us.130 As we shall see, chronological considerations suggest that Sparta followed Crete’s lead in the development of a radical vision of worldly restraint, with the most extreme Cretan poleis having a claim equal to Sparta’s to stand at the forefront of the “western utopian tradition.” Until recently, most observers regarded Spartan material poverty as a sign that the distinctive social and political institutions of the Classical state originated in the 6th century. For instance, the British excavators of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, impressed by the literary image of Spartan austerity and the poverty of post-Archaic levels, referred to a complete abandonment of artistic endeavors in the second half of the 6th century.131 128. Malkin (1994, pp. 77–83) summarizes the evidence for Spartan colonizing ventures on Crete. The tradition of Spartan colonization often has been questioned against the evidence of the closed society depicted in literature. Perlman (2000, pp. 67–68) examines the tradition of Spartan colonization in the case of Gortyn. 129. For the role of Argos as a mediator between Knossos and Tylissos, see Graham 1964, pp. 154– 165. A herald’s staff reportedly found at Polyrrhenia bears an inscription in

Argive script and dates to ca. 475–450; see Jeffery 1990, p. 443, no. 26a. Perhaps it reflects a political relationship between Polyrrhenia and Argos, although Polyrrhenia was traditionally a Spartan colony. Perlman (2005, pp. 318–319) tentatively links the Argive arbitration and alliance with Knossos with the wider Aegean scene and political developments during the First Peloponnesian War. 130. A detailed view of Greek votive practices appears in Chap. 10 (pp. 265– 266). Morris (1998a) surveys votive,

funerary, and settlement contexts. 131. Droop (1929, p. 113) comments on the remarkable absence of imports in the votive deposits from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia after the Early Protocorinthian period. Dickins (1912, pp. 17–19, 22–23), who undertook a more extensive survey of the archaeological and historical evidence, proposes a sudden and pervasive move to austerity in the middle of the 6th century. He links this development to Chilon’s reform package.

338

chapter 12

In contrast, the late 7th and early 6th century witnessed the flowering of Spartan arts, including stone sculpture, ivory carving, vase painting, relief pithoi, and the production of large bronze vessels.132 British archaeologists connected these extremes of artistic brilliance and creative bankruptcy to the growth of an austere, closed society with official restrictions on the use of wealth. This concept of material self-repression, however, has fallen under scrutiny as a later generation, especially Hodkinson, has reassessed the accuracy of the literary tradition.133 Despite a cautious attitude toward the literary accounts, a modified concept of austerity still stands in Hodkinson’s work, and for good reason. Archaeology documents a subtle cultural shift in the second half of the 6th century, with rich decorative traditions giving way to functional simplicity. In the case of Spartan figural pottery, Hodkinson notes a substantial decline in black-figure production ca. 525–500.134 The fact that much of this pottery was exported may mean that markets simply changed or competition from Attic workshops curtailed local initiative.135 R. M. Cook also takes issue with the premise of cultural austerity on the grounds that figural production does not directly relate to Spartan social and economic arrangements, since the Spartans themselves were not directly responsible for this industry.136 He stresses that Spartan black figure was Lakonian production situated at various locations within the region. His argument, however, rests on a suspect foundation of later literary testimony, according to which the state consigned craft production and manual labor to noncitizens (perioikoi). Even if this tradition is accurate, a different system may have pertained in the 6th century, for which we have no contemporary written records. Anton Powell’s arguments for regarding the themes of Lakonian figural pottery as complementing aristocratic social customs in the first half of the 6th century are convincing. Some of these pots were found at Sparta itself and depict the leisured life of elite citizens, making them suitable for the symposium. They depict a world far removed from the literary image of Spartan austerity.137 In addition, the poems of Alkman 132. According to Dickins (1912, p. 12), the development of the Spartan constitution does not take an unusual course until ca. 550. There was no (p. 12) “puritan reaction” with the introduction of the Lykourgan system. According to Förtsch (1998, p. 49) and Hodkinson (1998, pp. 107–113), Spartan material austerity came later. 133. Hodkinson 1998, 2000. A modified view of Spartan austerity also appears in the works of Blakeway (1935), Starr (1965), Finley (1975, pp. 162–163), Holladay (1977, pp. 124– 126), Cartledge (2001, pp. 169–183; 2002, pp. 117–135), and Nafissi (1991, pp. 11, 13, 24, 99). Cook (1962), however, finds no reason to posit a decline

in Spartan arts and questions the assumed link between artistic production and the austere culture presented by the literature. Holladay (1977, pp. 115–117) rebuts many of Cook’s key points. 134. Hodkinson (1998, pp. 97–102) adds that this industry came to an end in ca. 510. Sparta also offers a parallel for the decline in Cretan b.g. production, since Lakonian products are exceedingly plain. 135. Hodkinson (1998, p. 110) regards economic competition from Athens as a stimulus for the decline of Spartan black-figure workshops. Holladay (1977, p. 117), however, notes that Sparta did not import other figural

pottery after its own production declined, which implies something more than economic competition. 136. Cook 1962, p. 156. 137. As Powell (1998) demonstrates, a notable aspect of Lakonian black-figure iconography is its emphasis on the symposium, the komos, pederasty, and musical entertainment. Cups and kraters are popular shapes, suggesting their use on sympotic occasions. The Spartan iconographic repertoire, however, is not entirely comparable to those of other Greek production centers. According to Powell (1998, pp. 135–138), the scarcity of athletic scenes may reflect the rise of a militaristic mind-set.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

339

and other Archaic Spartan lyric poets refer to private conviviality at the symposium, giving the impression of aristocratic opulence on par with other Greek states. The demise of the figural industry in the final quarter of the 6th century, not only of export wares but also of local consumption, may correspond to the development of radical collectivist thinking. It may also imply a different context for fine-ware pottery in the public mess halls.138 There is a slight resumption of figural production at the end of the 5th century, with a local red-figure style based on Attic models used for open shapes—kraters, mugs, and plates—suitable for dining.139 Since this pottery is found only at Sparta, it probably served local needs, perhaps at a time of diminished restraint at messes or symposia. The Cretan pattern is in many respects more straightforward: figural pottery disappears on a regional scale, while an export market for Cretan pottery did not exist at this time.140 Here if anywhere, local pottery design can be expected to relate closely to social practices. Only West Crete shows a slightly different pattern, with local production of red-figure lekythoi at the end of the 5th century. Spartan funerary evidence also demonstrates structural similarities to Crete’s. If the usual identification of the 20 or so Archaic relief amphoras from Sparta and its environs as tomb containers is correct, Spartan funerary customs parallel the Cretan practice of pithos burial in the early 6th century. The chronological limits for the production of Spartan relief pithoi range between ca. 625 and 550.141 Yet Spartan funerary evidence dries up completely after 550, and Hodkinson connects this new era of funerary restraint to an attested prohibition against grave goods.142 A fragment from Xenophon (Lac. 11.2) insists that Spartan graves were both modest in character and the same for all, and another source suggests that Spartan restrictions on lamentation went further than those of most other poleis (Plut. Lyc. 27.1–2). Of particular relevance here, the limitation of grave goods to perishable items in attested funerary legislation offers one explanation for the apparent invisibility of Spartan burials in the period ca. 550–200, an invisibility that places Sparta in a class by itself.143 Without grave goods, archaeologists have difficulty dating burials encountered on excavation, and burials lacking diagnostic pottery are generally given scant attention in site publications. Aristotle’s comment (Pol. 1294b21–27) that Spartan society possessed certain democratic features—such as uniformity between rich and poor in the upbringing of youth, the mess halls, and 138. Holladay (1977, p. 124) proposes a similar explanation for the decline of Spartan figural pottery, suggesting that social conditions, in particular stricter enforcement of the agoge, provided “little scope for fine pottery and the adornment of life.” If figural pottery served as the equipment of public mess halls, this implies an enormous dissonance between lavish artistic production and the official ideology of restraint. Perhaps sympotic imagery functioned in public messes as

conventional decoration or expressed a wish for sumptuous display. For example, Holladay (p. 121) regards the komoi and banqueters populating Lakonian vases as signs of Corinthian influence, with no direct relation to Lakonian social practices. 139. McPhee (1986, p. 158) dates this production to ca. 415–390. 140. With the sole exception of Aphrati, whose products appear in North Africa; see p. 324. 141. Hodkinson (2000, pp. 238–

245) summarizes the evidence from Spartan funerary contexts. 142. Hodkinson 2000, p. 244. The locus classicus for Spartan funerary legislation appears in the Hellenistic Instituta Laconia (no. 18 = Plut. Mor. 238d). 143. Apart from Crete, the only other comparable area is central Italy; see Cornell 1995, p. 107. In this case, burials disappear on a regional scale at roughly the same time, ca. 580–400.

340

chapter 12

dress—invites a social explanation for the absence or extreme poverty of grave goods.144 Perhaps this leveling concept extended to the realm of funerary ideology, whether or not we accept as genuine the formal ban on grave goods mentioned by ancient authors.145 The gap in the sequence of burials at many Cretan poleis parallels the low archaeological profile of Spartan cemeteries. Moreover, Cretan funerary restraint is a regional phenomenon, although it varies in degree from place to place. An important difference, however, is that Crete and Sparta do not follow the same timetable. At Knossos, the disappearance of grave goods and the switch to simple tomb structure occur in the final quarter of the 7th century, with Aphrati following in the early 6th century, whereas at Sparta the period of exceptional restraint falls one or two generations later, in the middle of the 6th century. Thus, a few poleis in Central Crete reached a critical threshold of funerary restraint with a pronounced impact on the archaeological record some 50 years or so before Sparta. Spartan sanctuaries provide further evidence for the development of civic ideology, although the interpretation of votive patterns is not as obvious as once thought. Archaeologists formerly dated the decline of bronze offerings to ca. 550, bringing Spartan dedicatory practices in line with the artistic impoverishment of local pottery workshops and the disappearance of grave goods from datable tombs. Hodkinson’s meticulous study of Spartan votive practices, however, points to a more complicated pattern.146 As Hodkinson emphasizes, the “theory of a sudden cultural break has now generally been abandoned as distinctions have been drawn between the varying timetables of the decline of different types of artifact.”147 For instance, ivory dedications come to an end in the final quarter of the 7th century, well before the decline in bronze artifacts. Various explanations for the eclipse of this formerly thriving Orientalizing industry make no mention of cultural austerity.148 Although bronze offerings decline markedly after ca. 550 at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and the Meneleion, this decline is not universal. The acropolis sanctuary at Sparta instead sees an increase in bronze votives at this time, and bronze dedications continue into the first quarter of the 5th century. The goddess worshipped on the acropolis, Athena of the Bronze House, has a suggestive name that may explain the persistence at her sanctuary of bronze dedications. At the Amykleion, the smaller n ­ umber 144. Thucydides (1.6) presents a similar picture: “in general those who had great possessions adopted a lifestyle that was as much as possible like that of the many.” Drawing on such testimony, Kurke (1992, p. 102) and Cartledge (2001, pp. 72–74) compare the Lykourgan system to democratic Athens. Hammer (2004, p. 496), however, inveighs against this equation of a frugal lifestyle with political enfranchisement. 145. Hodkinson 2000, pp. 244–249. The Spartan literary tradition also

refers to funerary prohibitions dealing with the location of burials. Lykourgan reforms permitted burial within the city walls, even in close proximity to sanctuaries, locations normally taboo in ancient Greece. The intent of these provisions may have been to weaken aristocratic prerogatives and link burial grounds to the civic and sacred institutions of the polis. 146. Hodkinson 2000, pp. 276–279, 281–286. See also Boardman 1963, pp. 5–6. 147. Hodkinson 1998, p. 110.

148. Marangou’s (1969) seminal study of Lakonian ivory carving forms a point of departure for later interpretations. Cartledge (2002, p. 117) connects the decline of Spartan ivory carving to a reconfiguration of Near Eastern trade routes with a detrimental impact on the supply of ivory tusks to the Greek mainland. Carter (1985, p. 290), however, entertains the possibility that Spartan artists found lucrative employment elsewhere, leading to an abandonment of the local workshops.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

341

of finds also points to a slightly enhanced role for bronze votives in the second half of the 6th century, although a decline sets in by ca. 500–475.149 By the middle of the 5th century, however, bronzes had disappeared from every Spartan sanctuary, suggesting a gradual transformation of dedicatory practices. How do votive practices on Crete compare to trends at Sparta? The consistent decline of bronze and other rich votives in the first quarter of the 6th century is a noteworthy aspect of the record, not to mention the geographic uniformity of the pattern across such a vast area. A number of Cretan sanctuaries anticipate Spartan developments by 50 years or more, depending on the measure of cultural austerity. Moreover, unlike Sparta, Cretan sanctuaries follow the same timetable as the pottery workshops and cemeteries, giving the impression of a thorough reorientation of social values connected with material expenditure. According to the literary tradition, Cretan economic structures closely resembled Sparta’s, increasing the likelihood of similar monetary policies. Spartan policy as traditionally understood concerns a Lykourgan provision banning gold and silver currency. In point of fact, Sparta did without its own precious metal coinage until the 260s or 250s, but, in this respect, Sparta was far from unusual. Ruschensbusch estimates that at least half of the Greek poleis never minted coins.150 Indeed, in addition to access to silver, Greek cities normally needed strong incentives to begin minting, since coinage was linked to the emergence of liturgies and the public expenditures of tyrants and wealthy citizens for purposes such as military expenditures and payments to officials.151 From this perspective, Sparta’s abstention is hardly surprising, since it meets many of Hodkinson’s criteria for nonminters, including a landed agrarian elite, an indigenous servile population, a largely nonmonetary system of taxation, and access to the widespread Aiginetan coinage.152 The earliest Cretan polis to mint did so long after the inception of coinage elsewhere in Greece. Kydonia issued its first pseudo-Aiginetan staters in ca. 460, and Gortyn and Phaistos followed with their own distinctive coin types in the second half of the 5th century.153 Yet, for most Classical Cretan poleis, Aiginetan staters continued to circulate as legal tender.154 The late introduction of coinage on Crete has been viewed as a sign of its cultural backwardness and artistic decline.155 As an alternative, it is tempting to regard the late date as a sign of traditional social and political institutions. In this one respect, Sparta seems to have taken more radical action than most Cretan poleis by not minting its 149. A greater preference for lead figurines perhaps explains the decline of bronze dedications; see Cavanagh and Laxton 1984. At the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, lead figurines increase in number during the period ca. 580– 500, a time when bronzes were on the wane. 150. Ruschenbusch 1978, p. 6. See the more comprehensive list of minters in Hansen 2004, pp. 144–149. 151. See Hodkinson 2000, pp. 158–

160. Even when these conditions were met, minting was not a foregone conclusion. As Hodkinson (p. 159) observes, most poleis in the Athenian empire did not mint coins, although this may have been the result of Athenian policy. 152. Hodkinson 2000, p. 160. Contributions to the Spartan syssition were in kind. 153. For Kydonia, see Stefanakis 1999, pp. 257–260. Le Rider (1966,

pp. 51–54) describes the issues of Gortyn and Phaistos. 154. Figueira 1981, p. 133; 1998, p. 255, n. 98. It is worth pointing out that Dosiadas’s testimony concerning the Cretan syssition refers to a slave contribution of an Aiginetan stater. 155. Willetts (1965, p. 54), in his explanation for the late introduction of coinage on Crete, emphasizes the resistance of a conservative Dorian elite to commercial interests.

342

chapter 12

own coins, although this criterion is among the weakest arguments for cultural austerity.156 Thus, several Cretan poleis resemble Sparta in pottery production, funerary and dedicatory practices, and their abstention from minting, and these factors may reflect underlying similarities in social structure. Cretan austerity becomes a paramount issue in the early 6th century, whereas at Sparta a comparable archaeological pattern develops sometime later, ca. 550–475, and even then the principle is not as pervasive. Crete presents an extreme example of the same process, having a pronounced impact across various spheres of activity—sanctuary, cemetery, and domestic. Although the low archaeological profile of Spartan burials after ca. 550 makes a strong case for austere measures, the sanctuaries do not follow a consistent pattern. For this reason, many have been reluctant to accept a sudden and pervasive transformation of Spartan society.157 Instead, developments follow a more protracted, piecemeal course, suggesting an initial structural change with delayed consequences rather than a drastic, instantaneous redirection of society. One wonders why the Spartans made even a modest move toward such an intrinsically unappealing philosophy as austerity. Those who have addressed this question have situated the so-called Spartan revolution in the context of the Tegean disaster of ca. 580–570, fear of a helot uprising, and internal stress caused by a population decline. Indeed, a near-defeat in war may have caused a revolution in Spartan society that eventually drove out most of the arts, leading to a new focus on self-restraint as a way of producing military success. More research is needed to assess Spartan motives for this change and to clarify the Cretan contribution. Are the similar outcomes a result of common conditions, or did the Spartans selfconsciously model themselves after austere Cretan poleis in the second half of the 6th century? Beginning with Herodotos, the literary tradition held that the Spartans derived their laws and social institutions from Crete, with the Spartans themselves espousing Cretan priority (Hdt. 1.65). Strabo (10.481) adds the noteworthy detail that the Spartans called many of their supposedly native institutions Cretan, as if they originated on the island. Although an alternative tradition linked the introduction of Spartan customs to a Delphic oracle, this version has received little support.158 Even if the Spartans did consult the Pythian priestess at Delphi, her involvement would not necessarily contradict the tradition of Cretan priority, since Apollo’s oracle may have provided later sanction to laws borrowed from the Cretans. 156. Conversely, when the Spartans began minting in the 3rd century, their activity need not signify a relaxation of austerity measures. Palagia (2006, p. 206) connects the introduction of a local coinage to the policy of Spartan kings in their attempt to reclaim lost influence in the Peloponnese through mercenary armies. 157. This is a complex historiographic issue, since the duration of the Spartan artistic recession has a direct bearing on our assessment of its causes.

Dickins (1912, pp. 18–19, 22–26) envisions a sudden adoption of austerity measures in 550, whereas others have taken a different tack. For example, Blakeway (1935) proposes a long-term economic decline beginning in the 6th century. Cartledge (2002, p. 133), Finley (1975, p. 163), Holladay (1977, p. 124), Förtsch (1998, pp. 49–51), and Nafissi (1991, p. 227) agree that it was a gradual process, but they differ over the historical implications. See also Flower 2002, pp. 191–204.

158. Lipka (2002, p. 224, n. 17) examines the case for a Cretan versus a Delphic origin. For Lipka (n. 17) and van Wees (1999, pp. 22–23), the fact that the Lykourgan document was a prose text makes a Delphic origin unlikely. For a contrary view, see Dickins (1912, p. 13), who argues that the tradition of Cretan priority arose later than the Delphic variant. In addition, Perlman (1992, 2005) frames the issue of Cretan influence in a broader context.

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

343

Literary and archaeological evidence tilts the balance in favor of Cretan priority and influence. Lykourgos supposedly visited Lyktos while conducting research for his legal reform package.159 In addition, Ephoros makes a point of saying that the Spartans adopted the institution of the syssition from Crete. According to Strabo (10.481), the Spartans borrowed not only formal institutions but also dances and hymns, suggesting pervasive cultural influence. Accepting the literary tradition, however, requires important qualifications. It seems unlikely that Sparta adopted a new cultural paradigm through the personal agency of reformers. Common to ancient thinkers, this focus on individual agency gives the impression of instantaneous development when a gradual evolution of institutional structures better suits the available evidence.160 Even so, the claim of Cretan priority may preserve a memory of sustained cultural influence. Aristotle (Pol. 1272a) adds that the Cretan syssition was better organized and more communal than its Spartan equivalent, an observation echoed by Dosiadas, who praises the Cretan institution for its collectivist spirit, in particular the fact that resources were pooled by the state and distributed among the entire citizen population.161 Even women and children, it is said, were included in this redistribution system. Lyktian social practices may have been more extreme than Sparta’s and developed at an earlier stage, perhaps serving as a model for Sparta.162 Sparta and Central Crete may constitute an underappreciated variation of peer polity interaction in which cultural influence acts to suppress material distinctions.163 This hypothesis contradicts much current thinking about state development, which holds that greater political complexity invariably leads to more pronounced class distinctions and elaborate expressions of central authority.164 In traditional views of aristocratic competition 159. Nafissi (1983–1984) proposes Lyktos as a model for the Spartan constitution. Toynbee (1969, p. 332), however, dismisses the stated connection between Lyktos and Sparta as a late invention. 160. According to Flower (2002, p. 204), “a cultural proclivity has been transferred into a strict prohibition.” Perlman (2005, p. 302), who attributes Cretan priority over Sparta to a suspect classical Athenian tradition, concedes that the Spartans “may have adopted a Cretan starter-kit” before local developments took them in a different direction. 161. For a contrary view, see Link (1999), who asserts that family connections played a more prominent role in the Cretan syssition than in the Spartan one. Link bases this view on an ancient tradition that held that Cretan boys attended their fathers in the mess halls, but this description of the

Lyktian syssition cannot be taken as fact. From this suspect premise, he infers greater state control in the Spartan context. Forrest (1968, p. 53) also regards the Cretan messes as “looser and more civilised” than the state-controlled Spartan version. See also Perlman 2005, pp. 291–292. 162. Other signs of Cretan influence arguably have appeared at Sparta. Dickins (1912, p. 21) regards the Sanctuary of Ino-Pasiphae at Thalamai in Spartan territory as a Cretan foundation, her cult a transplant in the 7th or 6th century. Finally, the literary sources associate Crete with the Spartan custom of athletic nudity. Although Thucydides (1.6) attributes this practice to Spartan invention, an alternative tradition (Plato Resp. 452c) held that nude exercising was a Cretan innovation later adopted by the Spartans; see Hodkinson 2000, pp. 220–221.

163. Peer polity interaction, as currently understood, entails stylistic elaboration of coins, decorated pottery, armor, inscriptions, statues, treasury buildings, and monumental temples; see Renfrew 1986, pp. 13–16; Snodgrass 1986, pp. 54–57. Comparative evidence from other societies, ancient and modern, would help frame Cretan developments in a broader context, but we lack studies of this scope. Blanton (1998) outlines strategies employed by ancient, medieval, and modern states to regulate power relationships along egalitarian lines, although this general sketch does not provide meaningful comparisons for ancient Crete. 164. According to Yoffee (2005, p. 5), with the rise of state institutions, egalitarian principles typical of village life give way to class distinctions and large and densely populated urban settlements. See also Small 1995, p. 71.

344

chapter 12

and more recent theories based on factionalism, social tensions foster conspicuous consumption and greater stylistic elaboration, resulting in richer and more varied material trappings. These models do not apply well to Central Crete or Sparta, for in cases where external pressure triggers face-saving measures, the archaeological record can send a message only by virtue of its silence. The Cretan contribution arguably lies not in the advent of formal organizations but in the intensification of common principles to enact a radical vision of worldly austerity, a way of life notable for its homogeneous character at symposia, funerals, and sanctuaries. Crete presents us with an archaeologically austere culture in its most extreme and paradigmatic form. Examining Sparta in the context of Peloponnesian-Cretan relations and cultural exchange may offer a profitable venue for future investigation. The chronology, development, and distinctiveness of the Spartan system has been the subject of much recent debate. Judging from the traditional date of the conquest of Messenia in the 8th or early 7th century, Sparta may have made the first move toward a militaristic system based on a narrow circle of citizen-soldiers in control of a serf population. Certainly by the 5th century, Sparta’s treatment of helots points to an oppressive militaristic system, and steps to control the helot population pervaded almost every aspect of Spartan life. It is possible that the Spartans possessed some form of the syssition and agoge as early as the conquest of Messenia, although the stereotypical extremes of the Spartan system in its final form may date to a later period, in the 6th or even 5th century. Perhaps early Cretan versions of the syssition and agoge developed in tandem with Spartan institutions or followed their lead. Cretan communities appear to have led the way, however, in making these institutions serve an ideal of radical material austerity in which the militaristic values of the community overrode individual display. Sparta’s transformation into a similar culture of material austerity may have taken place in the second half of the 6th century or later under Cretan influence. What about Argos and other Peloponnesian poleis of the Dorian cultural sphere? Inadequate publication of finds from sites in the Argolid and elsewhere in the Peloponnese makes it premature to identify patterns and evaluate the prospective role of other poleis in the development of an austere framework, although preliminary evidence points in suggestive directions.165 With the addition of Cretan poleis to the ranks of archaeologically austere communities, Sparta seems far less extreme in comparison to other Greek states. Indeed, Sparta emerges as something of a compromise between the archaeologically restrained Cretan polities and the unbridled aristocratic competition of 6th-century Athens. This study of the Cretan ceramic repertoires is intended to lead to a new foundation for historical research independent of the anecdotal literary tradition with its idealized and homogeneous picture of political life. It can also supplement historical research based on epigraphic texts, for most of the evidence comes from Gortyn and falls under the category of procedural law. New archaeological evidence can support new formulations of long-standing issues. The historical scenarios advanced here take a

165. There are tantalizing glimpses of a connection between Archaic Sparta and Tiryns. Terracotta masks from the bothros on the upper citadel sanctuary at Tiryns closely parallel examples from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary at Sparta. Papademetriou (2001, p. 61, pls. 54, 55) illustrates several examples from Tiryns. Moreover, Archaic inscriptions from Tiryns refer to drinking organizations, platiwoinarchoi, perhaps comparable to Spartan messes; see Figueira 1984, p. 98, n. 31. The Spartan system may have enjoyed much greater currency than now realized. For example, Rundin (1996, pp. 208–209) combed literary sources for examples of the syssition outside the Peloponnese and produced an extensive list. Among Peloponnesian sites, Lerna exhibits numerous parallels with Crete in the Archaic and Classical periods, including the same repertoire of plain drinking cups and small kraters. My study of these finds will be published in a forthcoming volume of the site series. The low visibility of 7th-century Argive burial practices is noted in Chap. 10 (p. 255, n. 89).

a r c h a i c c r e ta n au s t e r i t y

345

tentative first step in this direction, but the limited evidence leads to uncertainty, for pottery must take center stage in the discussion in the absence of monumental architecture, sculpture, or small ivories and bronzes. The picture emerging from this study challenges the traditional view of Cretan isolation by stressing the importance of overseas relations as islanders made sense of the new political and commercial realities of the Archaic Aegean. The island was not a passive bystander as it reacted to external political and economic movements. In the early 6th century, many Cretan communities arguably bound themselves more closely to mainland Greek cultural, economic, and artistic channels at the expense of Near Eastern forms and influences. This significant break with the past had consequences for the survival of Minoan elements in historical Cretan society. In addition, the emergence on the island of an early egalitarian ethos may have had implications for the concept of citizenship in ancient Greece. Although the literary tradition emphasizes conservative institutions arising from a primitive tribal past, archaeology reveals an evolving egalitarian principle enacted on religious occasions, at funerals, and at feasts. Growing interest in post-Minoan Cretan history may soon help clarify this process, as sites currently under investigation make it possible to evaluate the impact of increased militarism, changes in foreign trade contacts, and the economic vitality of island communities.

References

Abadie-Reynal, C. 2005. “Trade Relations in the Aegean Sea: The Ceramic Evidence from Argos between the 1st Century b.c. and the 2nd Century a.d.,” in Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence, ed. M. B. Briese and L. E. Vaag, Odense, pp. 37–49. Adams, E. W., and W. Y. Adams. 1991. Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality, Cambridge. Adams, L. 1978. Orientalizing Sculpture in Soft Limestone from Crete and Mainland Greece (BAR Suppl. 42), London. Agora = The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton IV = R. H. Howland, Greek Lamps and Their Survivals, 1958. XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries b.c., 1970. XXIII = M. Moore and M. Z. P. Philippides, Attic Black-Figured Pottery, 1986. XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, 1997. Alcock, S. E. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge. ———. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories, Cambridge.

Alexiou, S. 1952. “Tête archaïque en poros du Musée de Candie,” BCH 76, pp. 1–17. ———. 1969. “Αι αρχαιότητες Κρήτης κατά το 1967,” CretChron 21, pp. 533–543. ———. 1972. “Ανασκαφή εις Αγίαν Πελαγίαν Ηρακλείου,” AAA 5, pp. 230–243. ———. 1973. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κεντρικής και Ανατολικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 28, B´ 2, pp. 559–564. ———. 1975. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κεντρικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 30, B´ 2, pp. 337–341.

Amyx, D. A. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, 2 vols., Berkeley. Andreadaki-Vlasaki, M. 1991. “The Khania Area, ca. 1200–700 b.c.,” in Musti et al. 1991, pp. 403–423. ———. 1997. “The Geometric Period: The Pottery,” in Hallager and Hallager 1997, pp. 229–240. ———. 2004. “The Region of Mylopotamos in Antiquity,” in Stampolidis 2004a, pp. 26–43. Andrews, E., and F. Andrews. 1937. Shaker Furniture: The Craftsmanship of an American Communal Sect, New Haven. Apostolakou, S., E. Greco, T. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 2004– 2005. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 128–129, pp. 988–1005. Appleby, J. 2000. Inheriting the Revolution: The First Generation of Americans, Cambridge, Mass. Arafat, K., and C. Morgan. 1989. “Pots and Potters in Athens and

348 Corinth: A Review,” OJA 8, pp. 311–346. ———. 1994. “Athens, Etruria, and the Heuneburg: Mutual Miscon­ ceptions in the Study of GreekBarbarian Relations,” in Morris 1994, pp. 108–134. Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge. Atkinson, K. M. T. [1949] 1971. Ancient Sparta: A Re-examination of the Evidence, repr. Westport, Conn. Aubet, M. E. 2001. The Phoenicians and The West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Austin, M. M., and P. Vidal-Naquet. 1977. Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction, Berkeley. Barnard, K. A., and T. M. Brogan. 2003. Mochlos IB Period III. Neoplatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Neopalatial Pottery, Philadelphia. Barrett, W. S. 1973. “Pindar’s Twelfth Olympian and the Fall of the Deinomenidai,” JHS 93, pp. 22–35. Bauslaugh, R. A. 1991. The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece, Berkeley. Beattie, J. A. 1975. “Some Notes on the Spensitheos Decree,” Kadmos 14, pp. 8–47. Beazley, J. D. 1964. Athenian Red-Figure Vase Painters, 2nd ed., Oxford. Benson, J. L. 1985. “Mass Production and the Competitive Edge in Corinthian Pottery,” Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 2, pp. 17–20. Benton, S. 1937. “Herakles and Eurystheus at Knossos,” JHS 57, pp. 38–43. ———. 1939–1940. “Bronzes from Palaikastro and Praisos,” BSA 40, pp. 51–59. Berlin, A. M., and K. Lynch. 2002. “Going Greek: Atticizing Pottery in the Achaemenid World,” Studia Troica 12, pp. 167–178. Betancourt, P. P. 1984. East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware: Studies on a Handmade Pottery of the Early to Middle Minoan Periods (University Museum Monograph 51), Philadelphia.

references ———. 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton. Bile, M. 1988. Le dialecte crétois ancien: Étude de la langue des inscriptions. Recueil des inscriptions postérieures aux IC (ÉtCrét 27), Paris. Bintliff, J., and A. Snodgrass. 1988. “Off-Site Pottery Distributions: A Regional and Inter-regional Perspective,” CurrAnthr 29, pp. 506– 513. Birgalias, N. 2002. “Helotage and Spartan Social Organization,” in Powell and Hodkinson 2002, pp. 249–266. Blackman, D., and K. Branigan. 1977. “An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Catchment of the Agio Farango Valley,” BSA 72, pp. 13–84. Blakeway, A. 1935. Rev. of F. Ollier, Le mirage spartiate, in CR 49, pp. 184– 185. Blanton, R. E. 1998. “Beyond Centralization: Steps Toward a Theory of Egalitarian Behavior in Archaic States,” in Archaic States, ed. G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, Sante Fe, pp. 135–172. Block, F. 1988. Revising State Theory: Essays in Politics and Postindustrialism, Philadelphia. Blondé, F., and J. Y. Perreault, eds. 1992. Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique, archaïque, et classique. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale organisée par l’École française d’Athènes 2 et 3 octobre 1987 (BCH Suppl. 23), Paris. Blondé, F., J. Y. Perreault, and C. Péristéri. 1992. “Un atelièr de potier archaïque à Phari (Thasos),” in Blondé and Perreault 1992, pp. 11–40. Boardman, J. 1959. “Greek Potters at Al Mina,” AnatSt 9, pp. 163–169. ———. 1961. The Cretan Collection in Oxford, Oxford. ———. 1962. “Archaic Finds at Knossos,” BSA 57, pp. 28–34. ———. 1963. “Artemis Orthia and Chronology,” BSA 58, pp. 1–7. ———. 1967. Excavations in Chios, 1952–1955: Greek Emporio (BSA Suppl. 6), London. ———. 1971. “Reflections on the Greek Pottery Trade with Tocra,” in

references Libya in History: Historical Conference 16–23 March 1968, ed. F. F. Gadallah, Benghazi, pp. 89–91. ———. 1974. Athenian Black Figure Vases: A Handbook, London. ———. 1980. The Greeks Overseas, 3rd ed., London. ———. 1982. “Crete,” in Cambridge Ancient History 3.3: The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries b.c., ed. J. Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond, Cambridge, pp. 222–233. ———. 1988. “Trade in Greek Decorated Pottery,” OJA 7, pp. 27–33. ———. 1998. Early Greek Vase Painting, 11th–6th Centuries b.c.: A Handbook, London. ———. 2005. “Al Mina: Notes and Queries,” AWE 4, pp. 278–291. Boardman, J., and J. Hayes. 1966. Excavations at Tocra 1963–1965: The Archaic Deposits I (BSA Suppl. 4), London. ———. 1973. Excavations at Tocra 1963–1965: The Archaic Deposits II and Later Deposits (BSA Suppl. 10), London. Böhm, S. 1990. Die nackte Göttin: Zur Ikonographie und Deutung unbekleideter weiblicher Figuren in der frühgriechischen Kunst, Mainz. Borgna, E. 2004. “Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective,” Hesperia 73, pp. 247–279. Bosanquet, R. C. 1901–1902. “Excavations at Praesos, Part I,” BSA 8, pp. 231–270. ———. 1939–1940. “Dicte and the Temples of Dictaean Zeus,” BSA 40, pp. 59–77. Boulter, C. 1953. “Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century from a Well in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 22, pp. 59–115. Bouma, J. W., and E. van ‘t Lindenhout. 1996–1997. “Light in Dark Age Latium: Evidence from Settlements and Cult Places,” Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Groningen University), pp. 91–102. Bowden, H. 1996. “The Greek Settlement and Sanctuaries at Naukratis: Herodotus and Archae-

ology,” in More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschriften 108), ed. M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub, Stuttgart, pp. 17–38. Bowie, E. 1990. “Miles Ludens: The Problem of Martial Exhortation in Early Greek Elegy,” in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, ed. O. Murray, Oxford, pp. 221–229. Bowsky, M. W. B. 1994. “Cretan Connections: The Transformation of Hierapytna,” Cretan Studies 4, pp. 1–44. ———. 1997. “An Atticizing Stele from Western Crete,” ZPE 118, pp. 197–206. Branigan, K. 1970. The Tombs of Mesara: A Study of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in Southern Crete, 2800–1700 b.c., London. ———. 1993. Dancing with Death: Life and Death in Southern Crete, c. 3000–2000 b.c., Amsterdam. ———. 1998. “Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement in the Ziros Region, Eastern Crete,” BSA 93, pp. 23–90. Brock, J. K. 1957. Fortetsa: Early Greek Tombs near Knossos, Cambridge. Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge. Brulé, P. 1978. La piraterie crétoise hellénistique, Paris. Burford, A. 1969. The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros: A Social and Economic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary during the Fourth and Early Third Centuries b.c., Liverpool. Burkert, W. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, Cambridge, Mass. Butt, K. L. “A Deposit of Archaic and Classical Pottery at Ayia Irini, Keos,” Hesperia 46, pp. 299–314. Cadogan, G. 1992. “Ancient and Modern Crete,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 31–43. Cahill, N. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus, New Haven. Callaghan, P. J. 1978. “KRS 1976: Excavations at a Shrine of Glaukos, Knossos,” BSA 73, pp. 1–33. ———. 1992. “Archaic to Hellenistic

349 Pottery,” in Sackett 1992, pp. 89– 136. Callaghan, P. J., and A. W. Johnston. 2000. “The Pottery from the Greek Temples at Kommos,” in Kommos IV, pp. 210–301. Callaghan, P. J., and R. E. Jones. 1985. “Hadra Hydriae and Central Crete: A Fabric Analysis,” BSA 80, pp. 1–17. Camp, J. McK. II. 1979. “A Drought in the Late Eighth Century b.c.,” Hesperia 48, pp. 397–411. ———. 2000. “Walls and the Polis,” in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein, Copenhagen, pp. 41–57. Cannon, A. 1989. “The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment,” ClAnt 30, pp. 437–458. Carter, J. B. 1985. Greek Ivory-Carving in the Orientalizing and Archaic Periods, New York. ———. 1997. “Thiasos and Mazeah: Ancestor Cult in the Age of Homer,” in Langdon 1997b, pp. 72–112. Carter, J. C. ed. 1998a. The Chora of Metaponto: The Necropoleis, Austin. ———. 1998b. “Historical Development,” in Carter 1998a, pp. 167– 236. Cartledge, P. 1982. “Sparta and Samos. A Special Relationship?” CQ 32, pp. 243–265. ———. 1987. Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta, London. ———. 2001. Spartan Reflections, London. ———. 2002. Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 b.c., 2nd ed., London. Catling, R. W. V. 1996. “The Archaic and Classical Pottery,” in The Laconia Survey 2: Archaeological Data (BSA Suppl. 27), ed. W. Cavanagh, G. Williams, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, London, pp. 33–89. ———. 2002. “The Survey Area from the Early Iron Age to the Classical Period (c. 1050–c. 300 b.c.),” in The Laconia Survey 1: Methodology

350 and Interpretation (BSA Suppl. 26), ed. W Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, pp. 151–256. Catling, H. W., and E. A. Catling. 1992. “The Lamps,” in Sackett 1992, pp. 257–321. Cavanagh, W. G., and M. Curtis, eds. 1998. Post-Minoan Crete: Proceedings of the First Colloquium on PostMinoan Crete Held by the British School at Athens and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 10–11 November 1995 (BSA Studies 2), London. Cavanagh, W. G., and R. Laxton. 1984. “Lead Figurines from the Menelaion and Seriation,” BSA 79, pp. 23– 36. Chaniotis, A. 1995. “Problems of ‘Pastoralism’ and ‘Transhumance’ in Classical and Hellenistic Crete,” Orbis terrarum 1, pp. 62–89. ———. 1996. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit, Stuttgart. ———, ed. 1999a. From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete (Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und episraphische Studien 29), Stuttgart. ———. 1999b. “Milking the Mountains: Economic Activities on the Cretan Uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic Period,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 181–220. ———. 2005. “Inscribed Instrumenta Domestica and the Economy of Hellenistic and Roman Crete,” in Making, Moving, and Managing: The New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 b.c., ed. Z. H. Archibald, J. K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen, Oxford, pp. 92–116. ———. 2006. “Heiligtümer überregionaler Bedeutung auf Kreta,” in Kult, Politik, Ethnos: Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und Politik. Kolloquium, Münster, 23.–24. November 2001, ed. K. Freitag, P. Funke, and M. Haake, Stuttgart, pp. 196–209. Cherry, J. F. 1999. “Introductory Reflections on Economies and Scale in Prehistoric Crete,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 17–23.

references Christesen, P. 2001. “Society and Economy in Archaic and Classical Greece” (diss. Columbia Univ.). ———. 2007. Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History, Cambridge. Clarke, M. J. 2001. “Akha Feasting: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, pp. 144– 167. Clauss, M. 1983. Sparta: Eine Einführung in seine Geschichte und Zivilisation, Munich. Cline, E. H. 1994. Sailing the WineDark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (BAR–IS 591), Oxford. Coldstream, J. N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology, London. ———. 1969. “The Phoenicians of Ialysos,” BICS 16, pp. 1–8. ———. 1973a. Knossos: The Sanctuary of Demeter (BSA Suppl. 8), London. ———. 1973b. “Knossos 1951–61: Orientalizing and Archaic Pottery from the Town,” BSA 68, pp. 33–63. ———. 1977. Geometric Greece, London. ———. 1983. “Gift Exchange in the Eighth Century b.c.,” in The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century b.c.: Tradition and Innovation (SkrAth 4o 30), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 201–206. ———. 1991. “Knossos: An Urban Nucleus in the Dark Age?” in Musti et al. 1991, pp. 287–299. ———. 1992. “Early Hellenic Pottery,” in Sackett 1992, pp. 67–88. ———. 1999. “Knossos 1951–61: Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from the Town,” BSA 94, pp. 321–351. ———. 2000. “Evans’ Greek Finds: The Early Greek Town of Knossos, and Its Encroachment on the Borders of the Minoan Palace,” BSA 95, pp. 259–299. ———. 2001. “The Early Greek Period: Subminoan to Late Orientalizing,” in Coldstream, Eiring, and Forster 2001, pp. 21–76. Coldstream, J. N., P. J. Callaghan, and J. H. Musgrave. 1981. “Knossos: An Early Greek Tomb on Lower

references Gypsadhes Hill,” BSA 76, pp. 141– 165. Coldstream, J. N., and H. W. Catling, eds. 1996. Knossos North Cemetery: Early Greek Tombs (BSA Suppl. 28), London. Coldstream, J. N., and L. J. Eiring. 2001. “The Late Archaic and Classical Periods,” in Coldstream, Eiring, and Forster 2001, pp. 77–89. Coldstream, J. N., L. J. Eiring, and G. Forster, eds. 2001. Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman (BSA Studies 7), London. Coldstream, J. N., and G. L. Huxley, eds. 1972. Kythera: Excavations and Studies Conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the British School of Archaeology at Athens, London. ———. 1999. “Knossos: The Archaic Gap,” BSA 94, pp. 289–307. Coldstream, J. N., and C. F. Macdonald. 1997. “Knossos: Area of South-West Houses, Early Hellenic Occupation,” BSA 92, pp. 191–245. Coldstream, J. N., and L. H. Sackett. 1978. “Knossos: Two Deposits of Orientalizing Pottery,” BSA 73, pp. 45–60. Cole, S. G. 1994. “Demeter in the Ancient Greek City and Its Countryside,” in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 199– 216. Constantakopoulou, C. 2007. The Dance of the Islands: Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire and the Aegean World, Oxford. Cook, B. F. 1990. “Cretan Red-Figured Lekythoi,” BSA 85, pp. 69–70. Cook, J. M. 1953. “Mycenae, 1939– 1952, Part III: The Agamemnoneion,” BSA 48, pp. 30–69. Cook, R. M. 1959. “Die Bedeutung der bemalten Keramik für den gr. Handel,” JdI 74, pp. 114–123. ———. 1962. “Spartan History and Archaeology,” CQ 12, pp. 156–158. ———. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery, 3rd ed., London. Corinth = Corinth: The Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies

at Athens, Princeton IV.2 = O. Broneer, Terracotta Lamps, 1930. XV.3 = A. N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, The Potters’ Quarter: The Pottery, 1984. XVIII.1 = E. G. Pemberton, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery, 1989. XVIII.4 = G. S. Merker, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods, 2000. XX = C. K. Williams II and N. Bookidis, eds., The Centenary 1896–1996, 2003. Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 b.c.), London. Costin, C. L. 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production,” Archaeological Method and Theory 3, pp. 1–56. Costin, C. L., and M. B. Hagstrum. 1995. “Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru,” AmerAnt 60, pp. 619–639. Craik, E. M. 1980. The Dorian Aegean, London. Crielaard, J. P. 1999. “Production, Circulation, and Consumption of Early Iron Age Greek Pottery (Eleventh to Seventh Centuries b.c.),” in Crielaard, Stissi, and van Wijngaarden 1999, pp. 49–81. Crielaard, J. P., V. Stissi, and G. J. van Wijngaarden, eds. 1999. The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation, and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries b.c.). Proceedings of the ARCHON International Conference, Held in Amsterdam, 8–9 November 1996, Amsterdam. Cross, T. M. 1974. “Bronze Tripods and Related Stands in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Twelfth through the Seventh Centuries b.c.” (diss. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).

351 Cucuzza, N. 1997. “Considerazioni su alcuni culti nella Messarà di epoca storica e sui rapporti territoriali fra Festòs e Gortina,” RendLinc 9.8, pp. 63–93. Cullen, T. 1985. “A Measure of Interaction among Neolithic Communities: Design Elements of Greek Urfirnis Pottery” (diss. Indiana Univ., Bloomington). Cuniberti, G. 2000. “Lakedaimonion Politeia: Priorità e originalità nel dibattito sulle politeiai-modello di Sparta e Creta,” StIt 18, pp. 99– 111. Curry, M. 2000. “The Export of Attic Black-Figure Pottery in the Early Sixth Century b.c.,” in Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, and A. M. Snodgrass, London, pp. 80–88. D’Acunto, M. 2002. “Gortina, il santuario protoarcaico sull’acropoli di Hagios Ioannia: Una riconsiderazione,” ASAtene 80, pp. 183– 229. D’Agata, A. L. 1998. “Changing Patterns in a Minoan and PostMinoan Sanctuary: The Case of Agia Triada,” in Cavanagh and Curtis 1998, London, pp. 19–26. ———. 2001. “Ritual and Rubbish in Dark Age Crete: The Settlement of Thronos/Kephala (Ancient Sybrita) and the Pre-Classical Roots of a Greek City,” Aegean Archaeology 4, pp. 45–59. Daux, G. 1958. “Chronique des fouilles en 1957,” BCH 82, pp. 644–830. ———. 1961. “Chronique des fouilles, 1960,” BCH 85, pp. 601–953. Davaras, K. 1972. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Ανατολικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 27, B´ 2, pp. 645–654. Davidson, J. N. 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, London. Dawkins, R. M., C. H. Hawes, and R. C. Bosanquet. 1904–1905. “Excavations at Palaikastro, Part IV,” BSA 11, pp. 258–308. Day, L. P., M. S. Mook, and J. D. Muhly, eds. 2004. Crete beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference, Philadelphia.

352 Day, P. M., L. Joyner, and M. Relaki. 2003. “A Petrographic Analysis of the Neopalatial Pottery,” in Mochlos IB Period III. Neoplatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Neopalatial Pottery, ed. K. A. Barnard and T. M. Brogan, Philadelphia, pp. 13–32. Day, P. M., L. Joyner, V. Kilikoglou, and G. C. Gesell. 2006. “Goddesses, Snake Tubes, and Plaques: Analysis of Ceramic Ritual Objects from the LM IIIC Shrine at Kavousi,” Hesperia 75, pp. 137–175. Day, P. M., and D. E. Wilson. 2002. “Landscapes of Memory, Craft, and Power in Pre-Palatial and ProtoPalatial Knossos,” in Hamilakis 2002a, pp. 143–166. Day, P. M., D. E. Wilson, and E. Kiriatzi. 1997. “Reassessing Specialization in Prepalatial Cretan Ceramic Production,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 275–289. De Angelis, F. 2002. “Trade and Agriculture at Megara Hyblaia,” OJA 21, pp. 299–310. ———. 2003. Megara Hyblaia and Selinous: The Development of Two Greek City-States in Archaic Sicily (Oxford University School of Archaeology 57), Oxford. Demand, N. H. 1990. Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece, Norman, Okla. Demargne, P. 1947. La Crète dédalique: Études sur les origines d’une renaissance, Paris. Demopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N. 1983. “ΚΓ ´ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων: Κρουσώνας Μαλεβιζίου,” ArchDelt 38, B´ 2, pp. 355–356. De Polignac, F. 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek CityState, trans. J. Lloyd, Chicago. Dickins, G. 1912. “The Growth of Spartan Policy,” JHS 32, pp. 1–42. Di Vita, A. 1985. “Gortyn,” in Ancient Crete: A Hundred Years of Italian Archaeology (1884–1984), ed. A. di Vita, V. La Rosa, and M. A. Rizzo, Rome, pp. 39–71. Donlan, W. 1980. The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece: Attitudes of Su­periority from Homer to the End of

references the Fifth Century b.c., Lawrence, Kans. Droop, J. P. 1929. Artemis Orthia, London. Ducrey, P., and O. Picard. 1969. “Recherches a Latô,” BCH 93, pp. 792–822. Duhoux, Y. 2007. “Eteocretan,” in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, ed. A.-F. Christidis, Cambridge, pp. 247–252. Dunbabin, T. J. 1936–1937. “Ἔχθρη παλαίη,” BSA 37, pp. 83–91. ———. 1952. Rev. of Demargne 1947, in Gnomon 24, pp. 191–197. ———. 1957. The Greeks and Their Eastern Neighbors: Studies in the Relations between Greece and the Countries of the Near East in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries b.c., London. Ebbinghaus, S. 2005. “Protector of the City, or the Art of Storage in Early Greece,” JHS 125, pp. 51–72. Ebert, J. 1972. Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen, Berlin. Ehrenberg, V. 1965. Polis und Imperium, Zurich. Eiring, L. J. 2001. “The Hellenistic Period,” in Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman, ed. J. N. Coldstream, L. J. Eiring, and G. Forster, London, pp. 91–135. Eisman, M. M. 1974. “Nikosthenic Amphorae: The J. Paul Getty Museum Amphora,” GettyMusJ 1, pp. 43–54. Englezou, M. 2000. “Ελληνιστική κεραμική από την αρχαία Λύττο,” in Ε ´ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική κεραμική: Χρονολογικά προβλήματα. Κλειστά σύνολα–εργαστήρια, ed. S. Drogou, E. Zervoudaki, L. Maragkou, and G. Touratsoglou, Athens, pp. 61–68. Erickson, B. 2001. “Historical Greek Pottery from the Excavations of the Odeion, Gortyn,” ASAtene 76–78, pp. 235–247. ———. 2002. “Aphrati and Kato Syme: Pottery, Continuity, and Cult in Late Archaic and Classical Crete,” Hesperia 71, pp. 41–90. ———. 2004. “Eleutherna and the Greek World, ca. 600–400 b.c.,”

references in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 199–212. ———. 2005. “Archaeology of Empire: Athens and Crete in the Fifth Century b.c.,” AJA 109, pp. 619–663. ———. 2009. “Roussa Ekklesia, Part 1: Religion and Politics in East Crete,” AJA 113, pp. 353–404. ———. 2010a. “Roussa Ekklesia, Part 2: Lamps, Drinking Vessels, and Kernoi,” AJA 114, pp. 217–252. ———. 2010b. “Priniatikos Pyrgos and the Classical Period in Eastern Crete: Feasting and Island Identities,” Hesperia 79, pp. 305–349. Evans, A. 1921–1935. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos, 4 vols., London. Faure, P. 1961–1962. “La grotte de Léra (Kydonias) et la nymphe Akakallis,” CretChron 15–16, pp. 195–199. Figueira, T. J. 1978. “Aegina and Athens in the Archaic and Classical Periods: A Socio-Political Investigation” (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania). ———. 1981. Aegina: Society and Economy, New York. ———. 1984. “Mess Contributions and Subsistence at Sparta,” TAPA 114, pp. 87–109. ———. 1998. The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire, Philadelphia. ———. 1999. “The Evolution of the Messenian Identity,” in Hodkinson and Powell 1999, pp. 211–244. Finley, M. I. 1957. “The Mycenaean Tablets and Economic History,” EHR 10, pp. 128–141. ———. 1975. The Use and Abuse of History, London. ———. 1981. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, London. Fisher, N., and H. van Wees, eds. 1998. Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, Swansea. Fletcher, R. J. 1981. “People and Space: A Case Study on Material Behaviour,” in Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, ed. I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, Cambridge, pp. 97– 128.

Flower, M. 2002. “The Invention of Tradition in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta,” in Powell and Hodkinson 2002, pp. 191–217. Foley, A. 1988. The Argolid 800–600 b.c.: An Archaeological Survey, Together with an Index of Sites from the Neolithic to the Roman Period (SIMA 80), Gothenburg. ———. 1995. “Idle Speculation about Argos? Some Thoughts on the Present State of Eighth and Seventh Century Argive Studies,” in Klados: Essays in Honour of J. N. Coldstream, ed. C. Morris (BICS Suppl. 63), London, pp. 79–86. Forrest, W. G. 1968. A History of Sparta, 950–192 b.c., London. Forster, E. S. 1901–1902. “Praesos: The Terracottas,” BSA 8, pp. 271–281. ———. 1904–1905. “Terracotta Plaques from Praesos,” BSA 11, pp. 243–257. Förtsch, R. 1998. “Spartan Art: Its Many Different Deaths,” in Sparta in Laconia: Proceedings of the 19th British Museum Classical Colloquium, ed. W. G. Cavanagh and S. E. C. Walker, London, pp. 48–54. Fox, R. L. 2009. Travelling Heroes in the Epic Age of Homer, New York. Foxhall, L. 1998. “Cargoes of the Heart’s Desire,” in Fisher and van Wees 1998, pp. 295–309. Francis, J. 2002. Rev. of J. N. Coldstream, L. J. Eiring, and G. Forster, Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman in BMCR 2002.08.36, http://bmcr.brynmawr. edu/2002/2002-08-36.html. Frankenstein, S. 1979. “The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function of Neo-Assyrian Imperialism,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia 7), ed. M. T. Larsen, Copenhagen, pp. 263–294. French, A. 1964. The Growth of the Athenian Economy, London. Fulford, M. G. 1987. “Economic Inter­dependence among Urban Communities of the Roman Mediterranean,” WorldArch 19, pp. 58–75. ———. 1989. “To East and West: The Mediterranean Trade of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in Antiquity,” LibSt 20, pp. 169–191.

353 Gagarin, M. 1986. Early Greek Law, Berkeley. ———. 2008. Writing Greek Law, Cambridge. Garland, R. 1985. The Greek Way of Death, London. Gehrke, H.-J. 1997. “Gewalt und Gesetz: Die soziale und politische Ordnung kretas in der archaischen und klassischen Zeit,” Klio 79, pp. 23–68. Gill, D. 1994. “Positivism, Pots, and Long-Distance Trade,” in Morris 1994, pp. 99–134. Gomme, A. W. 1956. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 2: The Ten Years’ War, Books II–III, Oxford. Gondicas, D. 1988. Recherches sur la Crète occidentale: De l’époque géométrique à la conquête romaine. Inventaire des sources archéologiques et textuelles, position du problème, Amsterdam. Gosselain, O. P. 1992. “Bonfire of Inquiries: Pottery Temperatures in Technology. What For?” JAS 19, pp. 243–259. Gouin, P., and C. Vogt. 2000. “Quarrymen and Potters in Ancient Eleutherna,” in Πρωτοβυζαντινή Ελεύθερνα II, ed. P. G. Themelis, Rethymnon, pp. 201–205. Graham, A. J. 1964. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Manchester. ———. 1990. “Pre-colonial Contacts: Questions and Problems,” in Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology in Honour of A. D. Trendall, July 9–14, 1985, ed. J.-P. Descoeudres, Oxford, pp. 45–60. Grandjean, Y. 1988. Recherches sur l’habitat thasien à l’époque grecque 2 (Études thasiennes 12), Paris. Greco, E., T. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1996. “Itanos (Crète Orientale),” BCH 120, pp. 941–952. ———. 1997. “Itanos (Crète Orientale),” BCH 121, pp. 809–824. ———. 1999. “Itanos (Crète Orientale),” BCH 123, pp. 515–530. Greco, E., T. Kalpaxis, N. Papadakis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 2000. “Itanos (Crète Orientale),” BCH 124, pp. 547–549.

354 ———. 2002. “Itanos (Crète Orientale),” BCH 126, pp. 577–582. Green, P. 1970. Armada from Athens, London. Guarducci, M. 1935. Inscriptiones Creticae 1: Tituli Cretae Mediae Praeter Gortynios, Rome. ———. 1939. Inscriptiones Creticae 2: Tituli Cretae Occidentalis, Rome. ———. 1942. Inscriptiones Creticae 3: Tituli Cretae Orientalis, Rome. ———. 1950. Inscriptiones Creticae 4: Tituli Gortynii, Rome. Guest-Papamanoli, A., and A. Lambraki. 1976. “Les grottes de Léra et de l’Arkoudia en Crète,” ArchDelt 31, B´ 1, pp. 178–243. Guizzi, F. 1997. “Terra comune, pascolo e contributo ai syssitia in Creta arcaica e classica,” AION 4, pp. 45– 51. ———. 1999. “Sissizi a Creta in Età Imperiale? Forme di imposizione tradizionali e finanze cittadine a Lyttos,” in Il Capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente. Actes de la Xe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain, Rome, 27–29 mai 1996, Rome, pp. 275–284. ———. 2001. Hieraptyna: Storia di una “polis” cretese dalla fondazione alla conquista romana, Rome. Gunter, A. C. 2009. Greek Art and the Orient, Cambridge. Guralnick, E. 2004. “A Group of Near Eastern Bronzes from Olympia,” AJA 108, pp. 187–222. Guy, M., and M.-F. Matheron. 1994. “Les citernes d’Eleutherna: Rapport préliminaire,” in Ελεύθερνα 2.2: Ένα ελληνιστικό σπίτι (“σπίτι Α”) στη θέση Νησί, ed. T. Kalpaxis, A. Furtwängler, and A. Schnapp, Rethymnon, pp. 28–46. Hadjidaki, E. 1988. “The Classical and Hellenistic Harbor at Phalasarna: A Pirate’s Port?” (diss. Univ. of California, Santa Barbara). Hadzi-Vallianou, D. 2001. “Ομηρικά στοιχεία στην Ακρόπολη Σμαρίου,” Πεπραγμένα του Η ´ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου A2, Iraklion, pp. 136–137. Haggis, D. C. 1996a. “Archaeological Survey at Kavousi, East Crete: Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 65, pp. 373–472.

references ———. 1996b. “The Port of Tholos in Eastern Crete and the Role of a Roman Horreum along the Egyptian ‘Corn Route,’” OJA 15, pp. 183–209. ———. 2002. “Integration and Complexity in the Late Prepalatial Period: A View from the Countryside in Eastern Crete,” in Hamilakis 2002a, pp. 120–142. ———. 2003. Rev. of Kommos IV, in BMCR 2003.06.18, http://bmcr .brynmawr.edu/2003/2003-06-18 .html. ———. 2005. Kavousi 1: The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region, Philadelphia. ———. 2007. “Stylistic Diversity and Diacritical Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: A Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA 111, pp. 715–775. Haggis, D. C., and M. S. Mook. 1993. “The Kavousi Coarse Wares: A Bronze Age Chronology for Survey in the Mirabello Area, East Crete” AJA 97, pp. 265–293. Haggis, D. C., M. S. Mook, C. M. Scarry, L. M. Snyder, and R. D. Fitzsimons. 2007. “Excavations at Azoria, 2003–2004, Part 1: The Archaic Civic Complex,” Hesperia 76, pp. 243–321. Haggis, D. C., M. S. Mook, C. M. Scarry, L. M. Snyder, and W. C. West III. 2004. “Excavations at Azoria, 2002,” Hesperia 73, pp. 339– 400. Hahn, M. 1997. “Archaic to Byzantine Periods: The Pottery and the Small Finds,” in Hallager and Hallager 1997, pp. 209–212. Halbherr, F. 1901. “Report on the Researches at Praesos,” AJA 5, pp. 371–392. Hall, J. 1998. “Grave Goods,” in Carter 1998a, pp. 563–590. Hall, J. M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. ———. 2002. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago. Hallager, B. P. 2000. “The Late Minoan IIIC Pottery,” in The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970–1987 2: The Late Minoan IIIC Settlement, ed. E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager, Stockholm, pp. 135–174.

references ———. 2003. “The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Pottery,” in The GreekSwedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970–1987 and 2001 3.1: The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Settlement, ed. E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager, Stockholm, pp. 197–265. Hallager, E., and M. Hahn. 1997. “Ar­chaic to Byzantine Periods: Stratigraphy and Catalogues,” in Hallager and Hallager 1997, pp. 202–208. Hallager, E., and B. P. Hallager, eds. 1997. The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970–1987 1.2: From the Geometric to the Modern Greek Period, Stockholm. Hamilakis, Y. 2000. “The Anthropology of Food and Drink Consumption and Aegean Archaeology,” in Palaeodiet in the Aegean: Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 1993 Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washington D.C., ed. S. J. Vaughan and W. D. E. Coulson, Oxford, pp. 55– 63. ———, ed. 2002a. Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” Archaeology, Oxford. ———. 2002b. “Too Many Chiefs? Factional Competition in Neopalatial Crete,” in Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum 23), ed. J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 179–199. Hammer, D. 2004. “Ideology, the Symposium, and Archaic Politics,” AJP 125, pp. 479–512. Hansen, M. H. 2004. “Introduction,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, ed. M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, Oxford, pp. 3–153. Harris, D. 1995. The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford. Harrison, G. W. M. 1988. The Romans and Crete, Amsterdam. Hartley, M. 1930–1931. “Early Greek Vases from Crete,” BSA 31, pp. 56– 114. Hasaki, E. 2002. “Ceramic Kilns in Ancient Greece: Technology and

Organization of Ceramic Workshops” (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati). Hayden, B. 2001. “Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, pp. 23–64. Hayden, B. J. 1997. “Rural Settlement of the Orientalizing through Early Classical Period: The Meseleroi Valley, Eastern Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 2, pp. 93–144. ———. 2004. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 2: The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and Related Studies (University Museum Monograph 119), Philadelphia. ———. 2005. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 3: The Vrokastro Regional Survey Project. Sites and Pottery (University Museum Monograph 123), Philadelphia. Hayden, B. J., J. A. Moody, and O. Rackham. 1992. “The Vrokastro Survey Project, 1986–1989: Research Design and Preliminary Results,” Hesperia 61, pp. 293–353. Helms, M. 1988. Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance, Princeton. Henderson, B. W. 1927. The Great War between Athens and Sparta, London. Herman, G. 1987. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge. Higgins, R. A. 1967. Greek Terracottas, London. Hill, J. N. 1977. “Individual Variability in Ceramics and the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization,” in The Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, ed. J. N. Hill and J. Gunn, New York, pp. 55–108. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action, Cambridge. Hodkinson, S. 1997. “The Development of Spartan Society and Institutions in the Archaic Period,” in The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, ed. L. G. Mitchell and P. J. Rhodes, London, pp. 83– 102. ———. 1998. “Laconian Artistic Production and the Problem of

355 Spartan Austerity,” in Fisher and van Wees 1998, pp. 93–117. ———. 1999. “An Agonistic Culture: Athletic Competition in Archaic and Classical Spartan Society,” in Hodkinson and Powell 1999, pp. 147–187. ———. 2000. Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta, London. Hodkinson, S., and A. Powell, eds. 1999. Sparta: New Perspectives, London. Hoffman, G. 1997. Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Contacts with Iron Age Crete, Ann Arbor. Hoffmann, H. 1972. Early Cretan Armorers, Mainz. Holladay, A. J. 1977. “Spartan Austerity,” CQ 27, pp. 111–126. Holloway, R. R. 1971. “An Archaic Hoard from Crete,” ANSMN 17, pp. 1–23. ———. 1991. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily, London. ———. 1994. The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium, London. Holt, T. 2000. Olympiad: An Historical Novel, London. Homann-Wedeking, B. 1950. “A Kiln Site at Knossos,” BSA 45, pp. 165– 192. Hood, S., and D. Smyth. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area (BSA Suppl. 14), London. Hope Simpson, R. 1995. “The Archaeological Survey of the Kommos Area,” in Kommos I.1, pp. 325–402. Hopkinson, J. H. 1903–1904. “Note on the Fragment of a Painted Pinax from Praesos,” BSA 10, pp. 149–153. Hopper, R. J. 1979. Trade and Industry in Classical Greece, London. Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford. Hornblower, S. 1991. A Commentary on Thucydides, Volume I, Books I–III, Oxford. Houby-Nielsen, S. 1995. “‘Burial Language’ in Archaic and Classical Kerameikos,” Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 1, pp. 129–191. Hutchinson, R. W. 1939–1940. “Hellenic Pottery from the Temple Site at Palaikastro,” BSA 40, pp. 40– 41.

356 Huxley, D., ed. 2000. Cretan Quests: British Explorers, Excavators, and Historians, London. Huxley, G. 1969. “Nikias, Crete, and the Plague,” GRBS 10, pp. 235–239. ———. 1971. “Crete in Aristotle’s Politics,” GRBS 12, pp. 505–515. ———. 1972. “The History and Topography of Ancient Kythera,” in Coldstream and Huxley 1972, pp. 33–40. ———. 1994. “On Knossos and Her Neighbours (Seventh Century to Mid-Fourth Century b.c.),” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, ed. D. Evely, H. HughesBrock, and N. Momigliano, London, pp. 123–133. Jameson, M. H. 1988. “Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece,” in Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, ed. C. R. Whittaker, Cambridge, pp. 87–119. Jansen, M. B. 2000. The Making of Modern Japan, Cambridge, Mass. Jarva, E. 1995. Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour (Studia archaeologica septentrionalia 3), Rovaniemi, Finland. Jeanmaire, H. 1939. Couroi et courètes: Essai sur l’éducation spartiate et sur les rites d’adolescence dans l’antiquité hellénique, Lille. Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries b.c., rev. ed., with a supplement by A. W. Johnston, Oxford. Jeffery, L. H., and A. MorpurgoDavies. 1970. “Ποινικαστάς and Ποινικάζειν: BM 1969.4–2.1, a New Archaic Inscription from Crete,” Kadmos 9, pp. 118–154. Jessop, B. 1990. State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place, University Park, Penn. Johannowsky, W. 1955–1956. “Frammenti di un deinos di Sophilos da Gortina,” ASAtene 33–34, pp. 45–57. ———. 2002. Il santuario sull’acropoli di Gortina 2 (Monografie della Scuola Archeologica italiana di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 16), Athens. Johnston, A. W. 1979. Trademarks on Greek Vases, Warminster.

references ———. 1989. “Aeginetans Abroad,” Horos 7, pp. 131–135. ———. 1991a. “Greek Vases in the Marketplace,” in Looking at Greek Vases, ed. T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, Cambridge, pp. 203–232. ———. 1991b. “The Vase Trade: A Point of Order,” Acta hyperborea 3, pp. 403–409. ———. 1993. “Pottery from Archaic Building Q at Kommos,” Hesperia 62, pp. 339–382. ———. 1996. “The Graffito on the Aryballos 107.84: A Note,” in Coldstream and Catling 1996, pp. 463–464. ———. 2005. “Kommos: Further Iron Age Pottery,” Hesperia 74, pp. 309–393. Jones, D. 2000. External Relations of Early Iron Age Crete, 1100–600 b.c. (AIA Monographs 4), Philadelphia. Jones, R. E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1), Athens. Jones, R. E., and J. B. Rutter. 1977. “Resident Minoan Potters on the Greek Mainland? Pottery Composition Analysis from Agios Stephanos,” Archaeometry 19, pp. 210–217. Jordan, B. 1979. Servants of the Gods: A Study in the Religion, History, and Literature of Fifth-Century Athens, Göttingen. Kagan, D. 1974. The Archidamian War, Ithaca. Kallet, L. 1998. “Accounting for Culture in Fifth-Century Athens,” in Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, ed. D. Boedeker and K. A. Raaflaub, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 43–58. Kallet-Marx, L. 1993. Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1–5.24, Berkeley. Kalpaxis, T. 2004. “The Acropolises: Central Excavation Sector II,” in Stampolidis 2004a, pp. 104–115. Kalpaxis, T., A. Furtwängler, and A. Schnapp, eds. 1994. Ελεύθερνα 2.2: Ένα ελληνιστικό σπίτι (“σπίτι Α”) στη θέση Νησί, Rethymnon. Kanowski, M. G. 1984. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes, Brisbane. Kanta, A. 1991. “Cult, Continuity, and the Evidence of Pottery at the

references Sanctuary of Syme Viannou, Crete,” in Musti et al. 1991, pp. 479–505. Karetsou, A. 1978. “Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων Ηρακλείου,” ArchDelt 33, B´ 2, pp. 353–355.

Kenfield, J. 1994. Rev. of Winter 1993, in BMCR 94.11.05, http://bmcr .brynmawr.edu/1994/94.11.05.html. Kennell, N. 1995. The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta, Chapel Hill. Kirsten, E. 1942. Das dorische Kreta 1: Die Insel Kreta im fünften und vierten Jahrhundert, Wurzburg. Knapp, A. B. 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity, Oxford. Knapp, A. B., and J. F. Cherry. 1994. Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange, and Politico-Economic Change, Madison, Wisc. Knappett, C. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Between Pots and Politics in Minoan Studies,” in Hamilakis 2002a, pp. 167–188. Knappett, C., and T. F. Cunningham. 2003. “Three Neopalatial Deposits from Palaikastro, East Crete,” BSA 98, pp. 107–187. Koehl, R. B. 1986. “The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage,” JHS 106, pp. 99–110. ———. 1997. “The Villas at Agia Triada and Nirou Chani and the Origin of the Cretan Andreion,” in The Function of the “Minoan Villa”: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6–8 June 1992 (SkrAth 4o 46), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 137–150. Kolb, F. 2004. “Troy VI: A Trading Center and Commercial City?” AJA 108, pp. 577–614. Kommos = Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete, Princeton I.1 = J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, eds., The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town, 1995. II = P. P. Betancourt, The Final Neolithic through Middle Minoan III Pottery, 1990. III = L. V. Watrous, The Late Bronze Age Pottery, 1992. IV = J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, eds., The Greek Sanctuary, 2000.

V = J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, eds., The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, 2006. Konstantinou, I. K. 1955. “Ανασκαφή εν Ερετρίᾳ,” Prakt 1955, pp. 125– 131. ———. 1956. “Ανασκαφή κεραμεικῶν εργαστηρίων Ερέτριας,” Prakt 1956, pp. 105–109. Kontoleon, N. 1970. Aspects de la Grèce préclassique, Paris. Kotsonas, A. 2002. “The Rise of the Polis in Central Crete,” Eulimene 3, pp. 37–74. ———. 2005. “Ceramic Styles in Iron Age Crete: Production, Dissemination, and Consumption: A Study of Pottery from the Iron Age Necropolis of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna” (diss. Univ. of Edinburgh). ———. 2006. “Wealth and Status in Iron Age Knossos,” OJA 25, pp. 149–172. ———. 2008a. “The Discovery of Eleutherna: From the Formation of the Modern Cretan State to H. Payne’s Excavations (1899– 1929),” BSA 103, pp. 291–315. ———. 2008b. The Archaeology of Tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna: The Early Iron Age Pottery, Athens. Kraay, C. M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Berkeley. Kroll, J. H. 2009. “What about Coinage?” in Interpreting the Athenian Empire, ed. J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas, and R. Parker, London, pp. 195–209. Kunze, E. 1935–1936. “Orientalische Schnitzereien aus Kreta,” AM 60–61, pp. 218–233. Kurke, L. 1992. “The Politics of Habrosune in Archaic Greece,” ClAnt 11, pp. 91–120. ———. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton. Kurtz, D., and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs, Ithaca. Kyrieleis, H. 1993. “The Heraion at Samos,” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, ed. N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, London, pp. 125–154. Laffineur, R., and P. P. Betancourt, eds. 1997. TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference,

357 Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), Liège. Langdon, M. 1997a. “Cult in Iron Age Attica,” in Langdon 1997b, pp. 113–124. ———, ed. 1997b. New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece, Columbia, Mo. Langdon, S. 2008. Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100–700 b.c.e., Cambridge. La Rosa, V. 1997. “Per la Festòs di età arcaica,” StMisc 30, pp. 63–87. Lavrencic, M. 1988. “Ἀνδρεῖον,” Tyche 3, pp. 147–161. Lawall, M. 1998. “Ceramics and Positivism Revisited: Greek Transport Amphoras and History,” in Trade, Traders, and the Ancient Economy, ed. H. Parkins and C. Smith, London, pp. 75–101. Lebessi, A. 1969. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κεντρικής και Ανατολικής Κρήτης: Αφρατί,” ArchDelt 24, B´ 2,

pp. 415–418. ———. 1970. “Αρχαιότητες και

μνημεία Κεντρικής και Ανατολικής Κρήτης: Αφρατί,” ArchDelt 25, B´ 2,

pp. 455–461. ———. 1971. “Αρχαιότητες και

μνημεία Κεντρικής και Ανατολικής Κρήτης: Λύττος,” ArchDelt 26, B´ 2,

pp. 493–499. ———. 1972. “Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου,” Prakt 1972, pp. 193–203. ———. 1973. “Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου,” Prakt 1973, pp. 188–199. ———. 1975a. “Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου,” Prakt 1975, pp. 322–329. ———. 1975b. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κεντρικής Κρήτης: Ανασκαφές,” ArchDelt 30, B´ 2, pp. 337–342. ———. 1976b. Οι στήλες του Πρινιά, Athens. ———. 1979. “Αρχαιότητες και

μνημεία Κεντρικής και Ανατολικής Κρήτης: Λύττος,” ArchDelt 29, B´ 3,

pp. 886–887. ———. 1985a. “Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου,” Prakt 1985, pp. 263–285. ———. 1985b. Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου

358 1.1: Τα χάλκινα κρητικά τορεύματα, Athens. ———. 2002. Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου 3: Τα χάλκινα ανθρωπόμορφα ειδώλια, Athens. ———. 2009. “The Erotic Goddess of the Syme Sanctuary, Crete,” AJA 113, pp. 521–545. Lemos, I. S. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries b.c., Oxford. Lendon, J. E. 1997. “Spartan Honor,” in Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War, and History in Ancient Greece in Honor of Donald Kagan, ed. C. D. Hamilton and P. Krentz, Claremont, Calif., pp. 105–126. Le Rider, G. 1966. Monnaies crétoises du V e au Ier siècle av. J.-C. (ÉtCrét 15), Paris. Levi, D. 1927–1929. “Arkades: Una città cretese all’alba della civiltà ellenica,” ASAtene 10–12, pp. 1–710. ———. 1930–1931. “I Bronzi di Axòs,” ASAtene 13–14, pp. 43–146. ———. 1945. Early Hellenic Pottery of Crete, Princeton. Lévy, E. 1997. “Remarques préliminaires sur l’éducation spartiate,” Ktema 22, pp. 151–160. Liddy, D. J. 1996. “A Chemical Study of Decorated Iron Age Pottery from the Knossos North Cemetery,” in Coldstream and Catling 1996, pp. 465–514. Link, S. 1994. Das griechische Kreta: Untersuchungen zu seiner staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Stuttgart. ———. 1999. “Der geliebte Bürger: Paideia und Paidika in Sparta und auf Kreta,” Philologus 143, pp. 3–25. Lioutas, A. 1987. Attische schwarzfigurige Lekanai und Lekanides, Würzburg. Lipka, M. 2002. “Notes on the Influence of the Spartan Great Rhetra on Tyrtaeus, Herodotus, and Xenophon,” in Powell and Hodkinson 2002, pp. 219–225. Luke, J. 2003. Ports of Trade, Al Mina, and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant (BAR–IS 1100), Oxford. Lupi, M. 2000. L’Ordine delle gener-

references azioni: Classi di età e costumi matrimoniali nell’antica Sparta, Bari. ———. 2002. “Sparta Compared: Ethnographic Perspectives in Spartan Studies,” in Powell and Hodkinson 2002, pp. 305–322. Luraghi, N. 2002. “Helotic Slavery Reconsidered,” in Powell and Hodkinson 2002, pp. 227–248. ———. 2008. The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge. Lynch, K. 1999. “Black-Figure, RedFigure, and Communal Drinking in a Late Archaic Athenian Home,” AJA 103, p. 298 (abstract). Ma, J. 2009. “Empires, Statuses, and Realities,” in Interpreting the Athenian Empire, ed. J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas, and R. Parker, London, pp. 125–148. MacDonald, B. R. 1981. “The Emigration of Potters from Athens in the Late Fifth Century b.c. and Its Effect on the Attic Pottery Industry,” AJA 85, pp. 159–168. ———. 1982. “The Import of Attic Pottery to Corinth and the Question of Trade during the Peloponnesian War,” JHS 102, pp. 113–123. Mackil, E. 2004. “Wandering Cities: Alternatives to Catastrophe in the Greek Polis,” AJA 108, pp. 493–516. Maier, F. G. 1985. “Factoids in Ancient History: The Case of Fifth-Century Cyprus,” JHS 105, pp. 32–39. Malkin, I. 1994. Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge. Marangou, A. 1999. “Wine in the Cretan Economy,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 269–278. Marangou, L. 1969. Lakonische Elfenbein- und Beinschnitzereien, Tübingen. Marangou-Lerat, A. 1995. Le vin et les amphores de Crète (ÉtCrét 30), Paris. Marcus, J., and K. V. Flannery. 1996. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley, London. Marginesu, G. 2005. Gortina di Creta: Prospettive epigrafiche per lo studio della forma urbana (Tripodes 2), Athens.

references Marinatos, S. 1936. “Le temple geométrique de Dréros,” BCH 60, pp. 214–285. Marshall, F. H. 1905–1906. “Tombs of Hellenic Date at Praesos,” BSA 12, pp. 63–70. Martin, P., and F. Plog. 1973. The Archaeology of Arizona: A Study of the Southwest Region, New York. Matson, F. R. 1984. “Physical Characteristics of the Fabric, Slip, and Paint,” in P. P. Betancourt, East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware: Studies on a Handmade Pottery of the Early to Middle Minoan Periods, Philadelphia, pp. 52–59. Mattusch, C. C. 1988. Greek Bronze Statuary, Ithaca. Mazarakis Ainian, A. J. 1997. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion, and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 b.c.), Jonsered. McPhee, I. 1986. “Laconian RedFigure from the British Excavations at Sparta,” BSA 81, pp. 153–165. ———. 1997. “Part II: Attic Pottery,” in The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya 6 (University Museum Monograph 97), ed. D. White, Philadelphia, pp. 69–108. Meiggs, R. 1972. The Athenian Empire, Oxford. ———. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford. Meritt, B. D., H. T. Wade-Gary, and M. F. McGregor. 1939. The Athenian Tribute Lists 1, Cambridge, Mass. Mertens-Horn, M. 1992. “Die archaïschen Baufriese aus Metapont,” RM 99, pp. 1–122. Miller, D. 1985. Artifacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India, Cambridge. Miller, M. C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century b.c.: A Study in Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge. Miller, S. 1978. The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form, Berkeley. Miller, S. G. 1974. “Memnon’s Cistern,” Hesperia 43, pp. 194–245. Moignard, E. 1996. “The Orientalizing Pottery,” in Coldstream and

Catling 1996, pp. 421–462. Möller, A. 2000. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece, Oxford. Momigliano, N. 1999. Duncan Mackenzie: A Cautious Canny Highlander and the Palace of Minos at Knossos (BICS Suppl. 72), London. Moody, J. A. 1985. “The Development of a Bronze Age Coarse Ware Chronology for the Khania Region of West Crete,” Temple University Aegean Symposium 10, pp. 51–65. Moody, J., H. L. Robinson, J. Francis, and L. Nixon. 2003. “Ceramic Fabric Analysis and Survey Archaeology: The Sphakia Survey,” BSA 98, pp. 37–105. Moreno, A. 2007. Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries b.c., Oxford. Moretti, L. 1957. Olympionikai: I vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici, Rome. Morgan, C. 1988. “Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf, and Western Greece during the Eighth Century b.c.,” BSA 83, pp. 313–338. ———. 1990. Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century b.c., Cambridge. ———. 1999. “Some Thoughts on the Production and Consumption of Early Iron Age Pottery in the Aegean,” in Crielaard, Stissi, and van Wijngaarden 1999, pp. 213– 259. ———. 2003. Early Greek States Beyond the Polis, London. Morgan, C., and T. Whitelaw. 1991. “Pots and Politics: Ceramic Evidence for the Rise of the Argive State,” AJA 95, pp. 79–108. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society, Cambridge. ———. 1990. “The Gortyn Code and Greek Kinship,” GRBS 31, pp. 233–254. ———. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge. ———, ed. 1994. Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge.

359 ———. 1997. “The Art of Citizenship,” in Langdon 1997b, pp. 9–43. ———. 1998a. “Archaeology and Archaic Greek History,” in Fisher and van Wees 1998, pp. 1–91. ———. 1998b. “Beyond Democracy and Empire: Athenian Art in Context,” in Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, ed. D. Boedeker and K. A. Raaflaub, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 59–86. ———. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece, Oxford. ———. 2009. “The Greater Athenian State,” in The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium, ed. I. Morris and W. Scheidel, Oxford, pp. 99–177. Morris, S. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, Princeton. ———. 1997. “Greek and Near Eastern Art in the Age of Homer,” in Langdon 1997b, pp. 56–71. Morrow, G. 1960. Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws, Princeton. Mortzos, C. 1985. Ανασκαφή Βρυσών Κυδωνίας: Το ελλ ηνικό ιερό Α στον Κάστελο, Athens. Muhly, P. 2008. The Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Syme Viannou 4: Animal Images of Clay (Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 256), Athens. Murray, O. 1983. “The Symposion as Social Organization,” in The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century b.c.: Tradition and Innovation (SkrAth 4o 30), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 195–199. Musti, D., A. Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M. Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and M. E. Giannotta, eds. 1991. La transizione dal miceneo all’alto arcaismo: Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 14–19 marzo, 1988, Rome. Myers, J. W., E. M. Myers, and G. Cadogan, eds. 1992. The Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, Berkeley. Nafissi, M. 1983–1984. “La controversia sulla priorità fra le politeiai di Sparta e Creta: Eforo e Pausania,” Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia di Perugia 21, pp. 344– 366.

360 ———. 1989. “Distribution and Trade,” in Laconian Mixing Bowls (Allard Pierson Series, Scripta minora 2), ed. C. M. Stibbe, Amsterdam, pp. 68–88. ———. 1991. La nascita del kosmos: Studi sulla storia e la società di Sparta, Naples. ———. 1999. “From Sparta to Taras: Nomina, Ktiseis, and Relationships between Colony and Mother City,” in Hodkinson and Powell 1999, pp. 245–272. Nakassis, A. 2000. “The Bridges of Ancient Eleutherna,” BSA 95, pp. 353–365. Neer, R. T. 2001. “Framing the Gift: The Politics of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi,” ClAnt 20, pp. 273–336. ———. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting: The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530–460 b.c.e., Cambridge. Nevett, L. C. 1999. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge. Nixon, L. 2006. Making a Landscape Sacred: Outlying Churches and Icon Stands in Sphakia, Southwestern Crete, Oxford. Noble, J. V. 1965. The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery, New York. Nodarou, E. 2008. “Appendix: Petrographic Analysis of Selected Early Iron Age Pottery from Eleutherna,” in A. Kotsonas, The Archaeology of Tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna: The Early Iron Age Pottery, Athens, pp. 345–362. Nodarou, E., and C. Rathossi. 2008. “Petrographic Analysis,” in P. Muhly, The Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Syme Viannou 4: Animal Images of Clay (Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 256), Athens, pp. 165– 182. Oakley, J. H. 1992. “An Athenian Red-Figure Workshop,” in Blondé and Perreault 1992, pp. 195–203. ———. 2009. “State of the Discipline: Greek Vase Painting,” AJA 113, pp. 599–627. Oliva, P. 1954. “On the Problem of the Helots: Critical Study,” Historia 3, pp. 5–35. Olympia = Olympische Forschungen, Berlin

references IV = E. Kunze and H. Schleif, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, 1940 und 1941, 1944. XIII = H. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia, 1981. XXI = W. Gauer, Die Bronzefässe von Olympia 1, 1991. Orlandos, A. K. 1975. “Κρήτη: Περισυλ­λογή αρχαίων και ελάσσονες ανασκαφαί εις Κεντρικήν Κρήτην,”

Ergon, pp. 195–202. Orton, C., P. Tyers, and A. Vince. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge. Osborne, R. 1989. “A Crisis in Archaeological History? The Seventh Century b.c. in Attica,” BSA 84, pp. 297–322. ———. 1996a. Greece in the Making, 1200–479 b.c., London. ———. 1996b. “Pots, Trade, and the Archaic Greek Economy,” Antiquity 70, pp. 31–44. ———. 1996–1997. “The Spartan Exception,” Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Groningen University), pp. 19–24. ———. 1999. “Archaeology and the Athenian Empire,” TAPA 129, pp. 319–332. ———. 2004. “Greek Archaeology: A Survey of Recent Work,” AJA 108, pp. 87–202. Palagia, O. 2006. “Art and Royalty in Sparta of the 3rd Century b.c.,” Hesperia 25, pp. 205–217. Palermo, D. 1992. “L’edificio e i materiali,” in Priniàs 2: Mandra di Gipari: Una officina protoarcaica di vasai nel territorio di Priniàs (Studi e materiali di archeologia greca 5), ed. G. Rizza, D. Palermo, and F. Tomasello, Catania, pp. 27–114. Palmer, L. R. 1969. Penultimate Palace at Knossos, Rome. Papadakis, N. 1980. “Γεωμετρικόςαρχαϊκός αποθέτης στην πόλη της Σητείας,” AAA 13, pp. 61–66.

———. 1986. Ierapetra: Bride of the Libyan Sea, Ierapetra. Papademetriou, A. 2001. Tiryns: A Guide to Its History and Archaeology, Athens. Papadopoulos, J. K. 1997. “Innovations, Imitations, and Ceramic Style: Modes of Production and Modes of Dissemination,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 449–462.

references ———. 2003. Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 31), Princeton. ———. 2005. “Inventing the Minoans: Archaeology, Modernity, and the Quest for European Identity,” JMA 18, pp. 87–149. Papadopoulou, J. 1988. “Ceramica a vernice nera,” in Gortina 1, ed. A. di Vita, Rome, pp. 169–197. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2002. “Written Law, Literacy, and Social Conflict in Archaic and Classical Crete,” AHB 16, pp. 135–150. Papapostolou, I. 1973–1974. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 29, B´ 3, pp. 921–930. Parisinou, E. 2000. Light of the Gods: The Role of Light in Archaic and Classical Greek Cult, London. Parker, A. 1990. “The Maritime in Classical Archaeology,” Antiquity 64, pp. 335–346. Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford. ———. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Pashley, R. 1837. Travels in Crete, 2 vols., London. Payne, H. G. G. 1928–1929. “Annual Meeting of Subscribers: Eleutherna,” BSA 30, pp. 266–268. ———. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period, Oxford. Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, London. Peacock, D. P. S., and D. F. Williams. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide, London. Pemberton, E. G. 2003. “Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from Corinth and Its Athenian Connections, in Corinth XX, pp. 167–179. Pendlebury, J. D. S. 1939. The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction, London. Perachora I = H. G. G. Payne, Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930–1933 1: Architecture, Bronzes, Terracottas, London 1940. Perlman, P. 1992. “One HundredCitied Crete and the ‘Cretan

Πολιτεία,’” CP 87, pp. 193–205. ———. 1995. “Invocatio and Imprecatio: The Hymn to the Greatest Kouros from Palaikastro and the Oath in Ancient Crete,” JHS 90, pp. 161–167. ———. 1996. “Πόλις ῾Υπήκοος: The Dependent Polis and Crete,” in Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis: Symposium August 23–26, 1995 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3), ed. M. H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 233–287. ———. 1999. “Krêtes aei Lêistai? The Marginalization of Crete in Greek Thought and the Role of Piracy in the Outbreak of the First Cretan War,” in Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, Culture, and Society (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 9), ed. V. Gabrielsen, P. Bilde, T. EngbergPedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, Aarhus, pp. 132–161. ———. 2000. “Gortyn: The First Seven Hundred Years (Part I),” in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein, Copenhagen, pp. 60–89. ———. 2002a. “The Cretan Colonists of Sicily: Prospography, Onomastics, and Myths of Colonization,” Cretan Studies 7, pp. 177–211. ———. 2002b. “Gortyn: The First Seven Hundred Years, Part II: The Laws from the Temple of Apollo Pythios,” in Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 6), ed. T. H. Nielsen, Stuttgart, pp. 187–227. ———. 2004a. “Crete,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, ed. M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, Oxford, pp. 1144– 1195. ———. 2004b. “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor: The Economies of Archaic Eleutherna, Crete,” ClAnt 23, pp. 95–137. ———. 2004c. “Writing on the Walls: The Architectural Context of Archaic Cretan Laws,” in Day,

361 Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 181– 197. ———. 2005. “Imagining Crete,” in The Imaginary Polis. Symposium, January 7–10, 2004 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 7), ed. M. H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 282–334. ———. 2010. “Of Booty, Battle, and (Citizen) Women: A ‘New’ Inscription from Axos, Crete,” Hesperia 79, pp. 79–112. Pernier, L. 1925–1926. “L’Odeum nell’ ‘agora’ di Gortina presso il Leteo,” ASAtene 8–9, pp. 7–15. Perreault, J. Y. 1986. “Céramique et échanges: Les importations attiques au proche-orient du VIe au milieu du Ve siècle avant J.-C., les données archeologiques,” BCH 110, pp. 145– 175. ———. 1999. “Production et distribution à l’époque archaïque: Le cas d’un atelier de potier de Thasos,” in The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation, and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries b.c.), ed. J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, and G. J. van Wijngaarden, pp. 291– 301, Amsterdam. Petrie, W. M. F. 1899. “Sequences in Prehistoric Remains,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 29, pp. 295–301. Pipili, M. 2001. “Samos, the Artemis Sanctuary: The Laconian Pottery,” JdI 116, pp. 18–102. Platon, N. 1952. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτῃ κατά το έτος

1952,” CretChron 6, pp. 471– 481. ———. 1953. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτῃ κατά το έτος 1953,” CretChron 7, pp. 479–492. ———. 1957. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτῃ κατά το έτος 1957,” CretChron 11, pp. 326–340. ———. 1958. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτῃ κατά το έτος 1958,” CretChron 12, pp. 459–483. ———. 1960. “Έρευναι της Α.Ε. εις Ανατολικήν και Κεντρικήν Κρήτην,” ArchDelt 16, pp. 258–262. Platon, N, and K. Davaris. 1960. “Η αρχαιολογική κίνησις εν Κρήτῃ κατά το έτος 1960,” CretChron 14, pp. 504–527.

362 Plog, S. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest, Cambridge. Polányi, K. 1963. “Ports of Trade in Early Societies,” Journal of Economic History 23, pp. 30–45. Polányi, K., C. M. Arensbert, and H. W. Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in Early Empires, New York. Pologiorgi, M. 1985. “Από το κλασικό και ελληνιστικό νεκροταφείο της Κυδωνίας,” ArchDelt 40, A´,

pp. 162–177. Popham, M. 1978. “Notes from Knossos, Part II,” BSA 73, pp. 179– 187. Powell, A. 1998. “Sixth-Century Laconian Vase-Painting: Continuities and Discontinuities with the ‘Lykourgan’ Ethos,” in Fisher and van Wees 1998, pp. 119–146. Powell, A., and S. Hodkinson, eds. 2002. Sparta: Beyond the Mirage, London. Powell, B. B. 1991. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet, Cambridge. Prent, M. 1996–1997. “The Sixth Century b.c. in Crete: The Best Candidate for Being a Dark Age?,” Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Groningen University), pp. 35–46. ———. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults: Continuity and Change from Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period (Religions in the GraecoRoman World 154), Leiden. Price, T. H. 1978. Kourotrophos: Cults and Representations of the Greek Nursing Dieties (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 8), Leiden. Raab, H. A. 2001. Rural Settlement in Hellenistic and Roman Crete: The Akrotiri Peninsula (BAR–IS 984), Oxford. Rackham, O., and J. Moody. 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape, New York. Rafn, B. 1991. “Archaic and Classical Graves at Halieis: A Summary,” Acta hyperborea 3, pp. 57–71. Ratinaud-Lachkar, I. 2004. “Insoumise Asine? Pour une mise en per­spective

references des sources littéraires et archéo­ logiques relatives à la destruction d’Asiné par Argos en 715 avant notre ère,” OpAth 29, pp. 73–88. Reed, C. W. 2003. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge. Renfrew, C. 1986. “Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change,” in Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, Cambridge, pp. 1–18. Rhodes, P. J. 1997. “Introduction,” in The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, ed. L. G. Mitchell and P. J. Rhodes, London, pp. 1–8. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago. Richter, G. M. A. 1961. The Archaic Gravestones of Attica, New York. ———. 1970. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths. A Study of the Kouros Type in Greek Sculpture, 3rd ed., London. Rickman, G. 1980. The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome, Oxford. Ridgway, B. S. 1993. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, 2nd ed., Chicago. Riley, J. A. 1984. “Pottery Analysis and the Reconstruction of Ancient Exchange Systems,” in The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, ed. S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, Amsterdam, pp. 53–73. Rizza, G. 1967–1968. “Le terrecotte di Axòs,” ASAtene 45–46, pp. 211–302. ———. 1983. “Prinias nelle fasi Geometrica e Orientalizzante,” ASAtene 61, pp. 45–51. ———. 1985. “Prinias,” in Ancient Crete: A Hundred Years of Italian Archaeology (1884–1984), ed. A. di Vita, V. La Rosa, and M. A. Rizzo, Rome, pp. 143–167. ———. 1991. “Priniàs: La città arcaica sulla Patela,” in Musti et al. 1991, pp. 331–347. ———. 1992. “La scoperta e lo scavo,” in Priniàs 2: Mandra di Gipari. Una officina protoarcaica di vasai nel territorio di Priniàs (Studi e materiali di archeologia greca 5), ed. G. Rizza, D. Palermo, and F. Tomasello, Catania, pp. 13–26. Rizza, G., and S. M. V. Scrinari. 1968. Il santuario sull’acropoli di Gortina 1 (Monografie della Scuola Archeo-

references logica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 2), Rome. Robertson, M. 1975. A History of Greek Art, Cambridge. ———. 1992. The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge. Robinson, E. S. G. 1928. “Pseudaeginetica,” Numismatic Chronicle 8, pp. 172–198. Roebuck, C. D. 1959. Ionian Trade and Colonization (AIA Monographs 9), New York. Rolley, C. 1977. “Le problème de l’art laconien,” Ktema 2, pp. 125–140. ———. 1993. “Les bronzes grecs et romains: Recherches récentes,” RA 1993, pp. 387–400. Rosivach, V. J. 1994. The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens, Atlanta. Rotroff, S. I. 2006. “The Introduction of the Moldmade Bowl Revisited: Tracking a Hellenistic Innovation,” Hesperia 75, pp. 357–378. Rotroff, S. I., and J. H. Oakley. 1992. Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 25), Princeton. Roy, J. 1999. “The Economies of Arkadia,” in Defining Ancient Arkadia, ed. T. H. Nielsen and J. Roy, Copenhagen, pp. 320– 381. Rundin, J. 1996. “A Politics of Eating: Feasting in Early Greek Society,” AJP 117, pp. 179–215. Ruschenbusch, E. 1978. Untersuchungen zu Staat und Politik in Griechenland vom 7.–4. Jh. v. Chr., Bamberg. Rutter, J. B., and A. Van de Moortel. 2006. “Minoan Pottery from the Southern Area,” in Kommos V, pp. 261–715. Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction, Washington, D.C. Sackett, L. H., ed. 1992. Knossos: From Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion 2 (BSA Suppl. 21), London. Sakellarakis, Y. 1988. “The Idaean Cave: Minoan and Greek Worship,” Kernos 1, pp. 207–214. ———. 1992. “The Idaean Cave Ivories,” in Ivory in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period (British

Museum Occasional Paper 85), ed. J. L. Fitton, London, pp. 113–140. Sakellarakis, Y., and E. SapounaSakellarakis. 1997. Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light, Athens. Sallares, R. 1991. The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, London. Salmon, P. 1965. La politique égyptienne d’Athènes, Brussels. ———. 1984. Wealthy Corinth, Oxford. Sanders, I. F. 1982. Roman Crete: An Archaeological Survey and Gazetteer of Late Hellenistic, Roman, and Early Byzantine Crete, Warminster. Savignoni, L. 1901. “Esplorazione archeologica delle provincie occidentali di Creta,” MonAnt 11, pp. 285–582. Scanlon, T. F. 2002. Eros and Greek Athletics, Oxford. Schachter, A. 2003. “Evolutions of a Mystery Cult: The Theban Kabiroi,” in Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, ed. M. B. Cosmopoulos, London, pp. 112–142. Schäfer, J. 1957. Studien zu den griechischen Reliefpithoi des 8.–6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aus Kreta, Rhodos, Tenos, und Boiotien, Kallmünz. ———. 1992. Amnisos: Nach den archäologischen, historischen, und epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit, Berlin. Schaus, G. P. 1980. “Greek Trade along the North African Coast in the Sixth Century b.c.,” Scripta mediterranea 1, pp. 21–27. ———. 1985. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya 2: The East Greek, Island, and Laconian Pottery (University Museum Monograph 56), Philadelphia. Schmaltz, B. 1980. Metallfiguren aus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben (Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben 6), Berlin. Schmitt Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Rome. Schnapp, A. 1994. “La colline de Nisi,” in Ελεύθερνα 2.2: Ένα ελληνιστικό σπίτι (“σπίτι Α”) στη θέση Νησί, ed. T. Kalpaxis, A. Furtwängler, and A. Schnapp, Rethymnon, pp. 22–27.

363 Schreiber, T. 1999. Athenian Vase Construction: A Potter’s Analysis, Malibu. Sekunda, N. V. 2000. “Land-Use, Ethnicity, and Federalism in West Crete,” in Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, ed. R. Brock and S. Hodkinson, Oxford, pp. 327–347. Shanks, M. 1999. Art and the Greek City State: An Interpretive Archaeology, Cambridge. Shaw, J. W. 2000. “Ritual and Development in the Greek Sanctuary,” in Kommos IV, pp. 669–731. Shaw, M. C. 1983. “Two Cups with Incised Decoration from Kommos, Crete,” AJA 87, pp. 443–452. ———. 2000. “The Sculpture from the Sanctuary,” in Kommos IV, pp. 135–209. Shear, J. L. 2003. “Prizes from Athens: The List of Panathenaic Prizes and the Sacred Oil,” ZPE 142, pp. 87– 108. Sherratt, A., and E. S. Sherratt. 1991. “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems,” in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90), ed. N. H. Gale, Jonsered, pp. 351–386. ———. 1993. “The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium b.c.,” WorldArch 24, pp. 361–378. Shipley, G. 1987. A History of Samos 800–188 b.c., Oxford. Shoe, L. M. 1936. Profiles of Greek Mouldings 1, Cambridge, Mass. Simon, C. G. 1986. “The Archaic Votive Offerings and Cults of Ionia” (diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley). Singor, H. W. 1999. “Admission to the Syssitia in Fifth-Century Sparta,” in Hodkinson and Powell 1999, pp. 67–89. Sinopoli, C. M. 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York. Sjögren, L. 2003. Cretan Locations: Discerning Site Variations in Iron Age and Archaic Crete (800–500 b.c.) (BAR–IS 1185), Oxford. ———. 2008. Fragments of Archaic Crete: Archaeological Studies on Time and Space (Boreas 31), Uppsala.

364 Small, D. B. 1995. “Heterarchical Paths to Evolution: The Role of External Economies,” in Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, ed. R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley, and J. E. Levy, Arlington, Va., pp. 71–85. Small, J. P. 1994. “Scholars, Etruscans, and Attic Painted Vases,” JRS 7, pp. 34–58. Smith, R. A. K. 2004. “Late Minoan III Mochlos and the Regional Consumption of Pottery,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly 2004, pp. 309–317. Smith, S. T. 2003. Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire, London. Smith, T. R. 1987. Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean (BAR–IS 371), Oxford. Snodgrass, A. 1974. “Cretans in Arcadia,” in Antichità cretesi: Studi in onore di Doro Levi 2, Catania, pp. 196–201. ———. 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment, Berkeley. ———. 1986. “Interaction by Design: The Greek City State,” in Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, Cambridge, pp. 47–58. ———. 1989–1990. “The Economics of Dedication at Greek Sanctuaries,” ScAnt 3–4, pp. 287–294. ———. 1990. “Survey Archaeology and the Rural Landscape of the Greek City,” in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, ed. O. Murray and S. Price, Oxford, pp. 113–136. ———. 1991. “Bronze Age Exchange: A Minimalist Position,” in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90), ed. N. H. Gale, Jonsered, pp. 15–20. Snyder, L. M., and W. E. Klippel. 2000. “Dark Age Subsistence at the Kastro Site, East Crete: Exploring Subsistence Change and Continuity during the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age Transition,” in Palaeodiet in the Aegean: Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 1993 Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washington D.C., ed. S. J. Vaughan and W. D. E. Coulson, Oxford, pp. 65–83.

references Spencer, N. 2000. “Exchange and Stasis in Archaic Mytilene,” in Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, ed. R. Brock and S. Hodkinson, Oxford, pp. 68– 81. Sporn, K. 2002. Heiligtümer und Kulte Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, Heidelberg. Spratt, T. A. B. 1865. Travels and Researches in Crete, 2 vols., London. Spyridakis, S. 1970. Ptolemaic Itanos and Hellenistic Crete, Berkeley. ———. 1976. “Salamis and the Cretans,” PP 31, pp. 345–355. ———. 1990. “Ierapytna,” Amaltheia 82–85, pp. 38–44. Stampolidis, N. 1990. “Eleutherna on Crete: An Interim Report on the Geometric–Archaic Cemetery,” BSA 85, pp. 375–403. ———. 1993. Ελεύθερνα 3.1: Γεωμετρικά–αρχαϊκά χρόνια και Οδηγός στην ἐκθεση “ Το γεωμετρικό–αρχαϊκό νεκροταφείο της Ορθής Πέτρας,” Rethymnon. ———. 1994. Ελεύθερνα 3.2: Από τη γεωμετρική και αρχαϊκή νεκρόπολη. Ταφικές πυρές και ομηρικά έπη, Rethymnon. ———. 1996. Ελεύθερνα 3.3: “Αντίποινα”: Συμβολή στη μελέτη των ηθών και των εθίμων της γεωμετρικής–αρχαϊκής περιόδου, Rethymnon. ———. 1998. “Imports and Amalgamata: The Eleuthernian Experience,” in Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus, Dodecanese, Crete, 16th–6th Century b.c. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymno, Crete, in May 1997, ed. V. Karageorgis and N. Stampolidis, Rethymnon, pp. 175–185. ———. 2003. “A Summary Glance at the Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age (11th–6th c. b.c.),” in Sea Routes . . . from Sidon to Huelva: Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th–6th c. b.c., ed. N. Stampolidis, Athens, pp. 41–79. ———, ed. 2004a. Eleutherna: Polis, Acropolis, Necropolis, Athens. ———. 2004b. “Eleutherna: Recent Research,” in Stampolidis 2004a, pp. 22–25.

references ———. 2004c. “The Necropolises: West Excavation Sector III,” in Stampolidis 2004a, pp. 116–143. ———. 2004d. “The Polis: West Excavation Sector III,” in Stampolidis 2004a, pp. 82–103. Stampolidis, N., A. Kotsonas, and S. Oikonomou. 2004. “Catalogue of Objects from the Necropolis at Orthi Petra,” in Eleutherna: Polis, Acropolis, Necropolis, ed. N. Stampolidis, Athens, pp. 234–295. Starr, C. G. 1965. “The Credibility of Early Spartan History,” Historia 14, pp. 257–272. Steel, L. 2004. “A Goodly Feast . . . A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus,” Hesperia 73, pp. 281–300. Stefanakis, M. I. 1999. “The Introduction of Coinage in Crete and the Beginning of Local Minting,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 247–268. ———. 2007. “Appendix 1: Two Argive Triobols and Notes on Argive Coinage in Crete,” in D. C. Haggis, M. S. Mook, C. M. Scarry, L. M. Snyder, and R. D. Fitzsimons, “Excavations at Azoria, 2003–2004, Part 1: The Archaic Civic Complex,” Hesperia 76, pp. 308–311. Stein, S. J. 1992. The Shaker Experience in America: A History of the United Society of Believers, New Haven. Steinmetz, G. 1999. “Introduction: Culture and the State,” in State/ Culture: State-Formation after the Cultural Turn, ed. G. Steinmetz, Ithaca, pp. 1–49. Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, New Haven. ———. 1993. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley. Stibbe, C. M. 1989. Laconian Mixing Bowls (Allard Pierson Series, Scripta minora 2), Amsterdam. ———. 1994. Laconian Drinking Vessels and Other Open Shapes (Allard Pierson Series, Scripta minora 4), Amsterdam. ———. 1997. “Lakonische Keramik aus dem Heraion von Samos,” AM 112, pp. 25–142. Stissi, V. 1999. “Production, Circulation, and Consumption of Archaic Greek Pottery (Sixth and Early

Fifth Centuries b.c.),” in Crielaard, Stissi, and van Wijngaarden 1999, pp. 83–113. Talamo, C. 1987. “Il sissizio a Creta,” Miscellanea greca e romana 12, pp. 9– 26. Tegou, E. 2006. “ Ἐνα ιερό ιστορικών χρόνων στη θέση Γερακάρω της Αξού,” in Ο Μυλοπόταμος από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα IV: Ελεύθερνα–Αξός, ed. E. Gavrilaki and G. Z. Tzifopoulos, Rethymno, pp. 275–293. Themelis, P. 1992. “Eleutherna,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 91–95. ———. 2004. “The Polis: East Excavation Sector I,” in Stampolidis 2004a, pp. 46–81. Tilly, C. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, a.d. 990–1992, rev. ed., Cambridge, Mass. Tomber, R. 1993. “Quantitative Approaches to the Investigation of Long-Distance Exchange,” JRA 6, pp. 142–166. Tomlinson, J. E., and V. Kilikoglou. 1998. “Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from the Early Orientalizing Kiln at Knossos,” BSA 93, pp. 385–388. Torelli, M. 1982. “Per la definizione del commercio greco–orientale: Il caso di Gravisca,” PP 37, pp. 304–326. Toxey, A. P., and J. C. Carter. 1998. “Unglazed Pottery,” in Carter 1998a, pp. 719–730. Toynbee, A. 1969. Some Problems in Greek History, Oxford. Treister, M. J., and T. V. ShelovKovedyayev. 1989. “An Inscribed Conical Clay Object from Hermonassa,” Hesperia 58, pp. 289–296. Trundle, M. 2004. Greek Mercenaries: From the Late Archaic Period to Alexander, London. Tsipopoulou, M. 1988. “Κορινθιακή κεραμική στην Ανατολική Κρήτη κατά τις φάσεις Γεωμετρική και Πρώιμη Ανατολίζουσα,” CretChron

27, pp. 262–282. ———. 1992. “Un atelier géométrique étéocrétois,” in Blondé and Perreault 1992, pp. 145–156. ———. 2005. Η Ανατολική Κρήτη στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Herakleion.

365 Tyree, L. 1975. “Cretan Sacred Caves: Archaeological Evidence” (diss. Univ. of Missouri). Tzedakis, Y. 1969. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 24, B´ 2, pp. 433–434. ———. 1970. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 25, B´ 2, pp. 465–478. ———. 1973. “Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Δυτικής Κρήτης: Αλόιδες Μυλοποτάμου,” ArchDelt 28, B´ 2, pp. 583–585. Tzedakis, Y., and A. Kanta. 1978. Καστέλλι Χανίων, 1966: Αναλυτική μελέτη της κεραμικής από τη στρωματογραφημένη τάφρο Β και το πηγάδι, Rome. Van de Moortel, A. 2002. “Pottery as a Barometer of Economic Change: From the Protopalatial to the Neo­palatial Society in Central Crete,” in Hamilakis 2002a, pp. 189–211. van der Leeuw, S. 1984. “Pottery Manufacture: Some Complications for the Study of Trade,” in Pots and Potters: Current Approaches to Ceramic Archaeology (Institute of Archaeology 24), ed. P. M. Rice, Los Angeles, pp. 55–69. van der Vliet, E. C. L. 1996–1997. “The Seventh Century b.c. as a Dark Age: A Historian’s Perspective,” Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Groningen University), pp. 25–33. van Effenterre, H. 1948. La Créte et le monde grec de Platon a Polybe, Paris. ———. 1976. “Demeter on a Knossian Ring-Inscription,” JHS 96, p. 154. ———. 1991. “Développements territoriaux dans la Crète postminoenne,” in Musti et al. 1991, pp. 197–206. ———. 1993. “Le pacte GortyneRhittèn,” Cahiers du centre G. Glotz 4, pp. 13–21. van Effenterre, H., and D. Gondicas. 1999. “Lyttos, ville fantôme?” in La démographie historique antique, ed. M. Bellancourt-Valdher and J.-N. Corvisier, Artois, pp. 127–139. van Effenterre, H., and F. Ruzé. 1995. Nomina 2: Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec, Rome.

366 van Effenterre, H., T. Kalpaxis, A. B. Petropoulou, and E. Stafrianopoulou. 1991. Ελεύθερνα 2.1: Επιγραφές από το Πυργί και το Νησί, Rethymnon. van Effenterre, H., A.-M. Liesenfelt, and I. Papaoikonomou. 1983. “Base inscrite de Kydonia,” BCH 107, pp. 405–419. van Wees, H. 1999. “Tyrtaeus’ Eunomia: Nothing to Do with the Great Rhetra,” in Hodkinson and Powell 1999, pp. 1–41. ———. 2003. “Conquerors and Serfs: Wars of Conquest and Forced Labour in Archaic Greece,” in Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures (Hellenic Studies 4), ed. N. Luraghi and S. E. Alcock, Washington, D.C., pp. 33–80. ———. 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities, London. Vickers, M., and D. Gill. 1994. Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery, Oxford. Vink, M. C. 1996–1997. “The Archaic Period in Greece: Another Dark Age?” Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Groningen University), pp. 1–18. Vitelli, K. D. 1977. “Neolithic Potter’s Marks from Lerna and the Franchthi Cave,” Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 36, pp. 17–30. Viviers, D. 1994. “La cité de Dattalla et l’expansion territoriale de Lyktos en Crète centrale,” BCH 118, pp. 229–259. ———. 1995. “Hérodote et la neutralité des crétois en 480 avant notre ère: La trace d’un débat athénien?” Hermes 123, pp. 257–269. ———. 1999. “Economy and Territorial Dynamics in Crete from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period,” in Chaniotis 1999a, pp. 221– 234. Vogeikoff, N. 2000. “Late Hellenistic Pottery from Mochlos in East Crete,” in Ε ´ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική: Χρονολογικά προβλήματα. Κλειστά σύνολα– εργαστήρια, ed. S. Drogou, E. Zervoudaki, L. Maragkou, and G. Touratsoglou, Athens, pp. 69–74.

references Vogeikoff-Brogan, N., and S. Apostolakou. 2004. “New Evidence of Wine Production in East Crete in the Hellenistic Period,” in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (Danish Institute at Athens 5), ed. J. Eiring and J. Lund, Aarhus, pp. 417–428. Vokotopoulou, I., A. Despoini, B. Misailidou, and M. Tiberios. 1985. Σίνδος: Κατάλογος της έκθεσης, Athens. Voyatzis, M. E. 1990. The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea and Other Archaic Sanctuaries in Arcadia, Gothenburg. Walberg, G. 2001. “The Role and Individuality of Kamares Ware,” Aegean Archaeology 5, pp. 8–18. Wallace, S. 2003. “The Perpetuated Past: Re-use or Continuity in Material Culture and the Structuring of Identity in Early Iron Age Crete,” BSA 98, pp. 251–277. Warden, P. G. 1990. “Part I: The Small Finds,” in The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya 4 (University Museum Monograph 67), ed. D. White, Philadelphia, pp. 3–86. Warren, P. 1984–1985. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–82, Part III,” AR 31, pp. 124–129. Wason, P. K. 1994. The Archaeology of Rank, Cambridge. Watrous, L. V. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton. ———. 1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of ExtraUrban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete (Aegaeum 15), Liège. ———. 1998. “Crete and Egypt in the Seventh Century b.c.: Temple A at Prinias,” in Cavanagh and Curtis 1998, pp. 75–79. Watrous, L. V., and H. Blitzer. 1995. “The Gournia Survey Project: A Preliminary Report on the 1992– 1994 Field Seasons,” AJA 99, p. 313 (abstract). Watrous, L. V., and D. Hadzi-Vallianou. 2004a. “The Polis of Phaistos: Development and Destruction (Late Minoan IIIC–Hellenistic),” in

references The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Institute of Archaeology 23), ed. L. V. Watrous, D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, Los Angeles, pp. 307–338. ———. 2004b. “Creation of a Greek City-State (Late Minoan IIIC– Orientalizing),” in The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Institute of Archaeology 23), ed. L. V. Watrous, D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, Los Angeles, pp. 339–350. Watrous, L. V., D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer. 1993. “A Survey of the Western Messara Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984, 1986, and 1987 Field Seasons,” Hesperia 62, pp. 191–248. Weinberg, G. D. 1960. “Excavations at Tarrha, 1959,” Hesperia 29, pp. 90–108. Westgate, R. 2007. “House and Society in Classical and Hellenistic Crete: A Case Study in Regional Variation,” AJA 111, pp. 423–457. Whitelaw, T., P. M. Day, E. Kiriatzi, V. Kilikoglou, and D. E. Wilson. 1997. “Ceramic Traditions at EM IIB Myrtos, Fournou Korifi,” in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 265–274. Whitley, J. 1991a. “Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece,” BSA 86, pp. 341–365. ———. 1991b. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a Pre-literate Society 1100–700 b.c., Cambridge. ———. 1992. “Praisos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan 1992, pp. 256– 261. ———. 1994. “Protoattic Pottery: A Contextual Approach,” in Morris 1994, pp. 51–70. ———. 1997. “Cretan Laws and Cretan Literacy,” AJA 101, pp. 635–661. ———. 1998. “From Minoans to Eteocretans: The Praisos Region

1200–500 b.c.,” in Cavanagh and Curtis 1998, pp. 27–39. ———. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge. ———. 2002. “Objects with Attitude: Biographical Facts and Fallacies in the Study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Warrior Graves,” CAJ 12, pp. 217–232. ———. 2004. “Style Wars: Towards an Explanation of Cretan Exceptionalism,” in Knossos: Palace, City, State, ed. G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, London, pp. 433– 442. ———. 2006. “Praisos: Political Evolution and Ethnic Identity in Eastern Crete ca. 1400–300 b.c.,” in Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3), ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, Edinburgh, pp. 597–617. ———. 2007. “The Minoans—A Welsh Invention? A View from East Crete,” in Archaeology and European Modernity: Producing and Consuming the “Minoans” (Creta antica 7), ed. Y. Hamilakis and N. Momigliano, Padua, pp. 55–67. ———. 2008. “Identity and Sacred Topography: The Sanctuaries of Praisos in Eastern Crete,” in Religion and Society: Rituals, Resources, and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World: The BOMOSConferences 2002–2005 (AnalRom Suppl. 40), ed. A. H. Rasmussen and S. W. Rasmussen, Rome, pp. 233–246. Whitley, J., K. O’Conor, and H. Mason. 1995. “Praisos III: A Report on the Architectural Survey Undertaken in 1992,” BSA 90, pp. 405–428. Whitley, J., M. Prent, and S. Thorne. 1999. “Praisos IV: A Preliminary Report on the 1993 and 1994 Survey Seasons,” BSA 94, pp. 215–264. Wickham, C. 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800, Oxford.

367 Willetts, R. F. 1955. Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, London. ———. 1962. Cretan Cults and Festivals, London. ———. 1965. Ancient Crete: A Social History, London. Williams, D. 1993. “Aegina, AphaiaTemple XVII: The Laconian Pottery,” AA 108, pp. 571–598. Williams, J. 1997. “Ideology and the Constitution of Demeterius of Phalerum,” in Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War, and History in Ancient Greece in Honor of Donald Kagan, ed. C. D. Hamilton and P. Krentz, Claremont, Calif., pp. 327–346. Wilson, D. E., and P. M. Day. 1994. “Ceramic Regionalism in Prepalatial Central Crete: The Mesara Imports at EM I to EM II A Knossos,” BSA 89, pp. 1–87. ———. 1999. “EMII B Ware Groups at Knossos: The 1907–1908 South Front Tests,” BSA 94, pp. 1–62. Wilson, R. 1987–1988. “Archaeology in Sicily, 1982–1987,” AR 34, pp. 105–150. Winter, N. 1993. Greek Architectural Terracottas from the Prehistoric to the End of the Archaic Period, Oxford. Wright, J. C. 2004. “A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society,” Hesperia 73, pp. 133–178. Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations, Cambridge. Young, G. M. 1937. “Archaeology in Greece, 1936–37,” JHS 57, pp. 119– 146. Zeimbeki, M. 2004. “The Organization of Votive Production and Distribution in the Peak Sanctuaries of State Society Crete: A Perspective Offered by the Juktas Clay Animal Figures,” in Knossos: Palace, City, State, ed. G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, London, pp. 351–361.

I ndex

Achlada, 8 agelai, 313, 31317 agoge, 314, 334, 334108, 109, 344 Aigeidas, 1781 Aigina: coins of, 292, 292114, 115, 298, 298139, 341; decline of, 1042, 296– 297; and inscriptions, 292, 294124; and mercenaries, 277–278; and overseas trade, 291, 292–294, 292115, 297, 307, 333 Alcock, S. E., 33 Alexiou, S., 728 Alkman, 338–339 Al Mina, 10, 282 Aloides Mylopotamo, 11 American Shaker communities, 330, 33096, 98 Amnisos: and bronzes, 260114; highnecked cup, 142, 14256; and Orientalizing style, 306; Sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas, 237; and votives, 264 Amykleion, Sanctuary of Artemis, 240, 24129, 340–341 Anatolia, 276, 299 andreion, 309, 310, 3104, 311, 312, 313–320, 31734, 35, 326, 329–330 Aphrati: and bronzes, 260, 300, 317; burial customs, 279, 306; Corinthian imports, 5126, 229; cup bases, 40, 41; cup base with stepped-profile underfoot, 129; cups in domestic deposit, 29–30; deep cup with offset rim, 125; and demographics, 245; domestic architecture of, 11, 1147; Eleuthernian exports, 79–80, 289; exports of, 196; fabric analysis, 34, 191; and feasting, 315, 317; Geometric and Orientalizing necropolis at, 10; high-necked cups,

102, 222, 228; inscriptions of, 239, 23922, 300146, 331; itinerant potters of, 40; jug bases, 193–194; kraters, 4619, 110, 163, 224, 2249; lamps, 171, 20220; and local and regional styles, 223, 224, 225, 228, 231; low-necked cups, 148–149, 223; Orientalizing cemeteries, 249–250, 252, 253, 255, 256; Orientalizing school of pot painting, 224–225, 22510; pottery production in, 41, 42, 191; stylistic links with Tocra, 3243; Suborientalizing style, 324; trays, 111 Aptera, 337 Archanes, sanctuaries of, 268 architects, emigration from Crete, 9, 938 architecture: and Cretan recession, 11–13, 12, 1256; domestic, 11, 1146, 47; and feasting, 314, 31421, 315–317, 319–320 Argos, 18, 1890, 25589, 336, 337, 337129, 344 Aristophanes, 1675 Aristotle, 3, 16, 19, 1995, 304, 3102, 311, 313, 339–340, 343 Arkades, destruction of, 307 Arkadia, mercenaries of, 1464 Arkesilas Painter, 335113 Arkoudia, 294, 294124 Arnold, D., 3971 art: and Cretan isolation, 16–17; and Cretan recession, 6–15, 623, 1358, 22, 235, 307; and Greek mainland, 306; and Near Eastern motifs, 280, 299142, 303, 304; and overseas trade, 298 artists: Arkesilas Painter, 335113; Berlin Painter, 293; Bowdoin Painter, 295128; emigration from Crete, 9, 938,

370 10; itinerant, 40; itinerant potters, 514, 39–40, 3974; Polos Painter, 64, 28680; resident potters, 514; Sophilos, 187; Tithonos Painter, 293 Athenaeus, 309, 3117 Athens: and Aigina, 296–297; and austerity, 271; black-figure works of, 324; Cretan embargo on, 296, 296131; and Cretan isolation, 18, 1890, 19, 1992, 94, 95, 335; and Cretan timber, 1675, 289, 28998; decline in 7th century, 15; drought in, 1359; and Egypt, 297, 297135; and Kythera, 297, 297134; lamps, 166, 167, 171–172; and Orientalizing style, 302, 302155; production models of, 3868; and social structure, 305; and symposia, 327, 32778 athletes, 17, 1780, 81, 322, 343162 Attica, and hilltop sanctuaries, 15 Attic black figure, 186, 187 Attic black gloss, 187 Attic imports: analysis of, 3761; decorative range of, 38; distinguishing from Atticizing wares, 37; and Eleutherna, 46, 51, 52, 58, 63–77, 122, 274, 275, 28680, 296, 306; and Gortyn, 186, 187; and Isthmus of Ierapytna, 189, 231; and Itanos, 231, 233, 293116; and Kastello Varypetrou, 230, 293, 296, 306; and Knossos, 116, 119–120, 11920, 12026, 121, 122, 135, 13550, 140, 187, 228, 243, 244–245, 24546, 27510, 293116, 296, 306–307; and Kydonia, 293, 293119, 295128; and Olous, 231, 306; and Phalasarna, 306; and Praisos, 200, 231; and Tocra, Libya, 6346 Atticizing style: Attic products distinguished from, 37; grave stelai, 7–8, 829, 30; and Kydonia, 230; and Praisos, 220; skyphoi, 187, 18727, 28; and Vrokastro, 198 Attic kantharoi, 152, 153, 229 Attic lamps, 165, 1669, 167, 171, 17220 Attic lekythos, 229, 230 Attic red figure, 187 Attic skyphoi, 198, 220, 275 Aubet, Maria, 276, 27720, 278, 27834, 279, 281 austerity: archaeological, 334–345; and aristocratic competition, 330; and Athens, 271; as coping strategy, 307; in Cretan spheres of activity, 342, 344; diversity of, 331–334; and plain pottery, 260–262, 265–266, 271, 326; and poleis, 320, 331, 337,

index 342; and Sparta, 331, 334, 334111, 337–339, 338133, 341, 342, 342157, 343–344 Axos: and andreion, 312; cemeteries of, 252; Eleutherna compared to, 43; and inscriptions, 331; limestone head from, 728; sanctuaries of, 268; “Sanctuary of Aphrodite,” 257, 259, 262, 271159; and Sparta, 337; Temple of Aphrodite at, 12, 1256; terracottas from, 8–9, 831, 262; votive deposits of, 266 Ayia Pelayia: bronzes of, 727; chronology of, 237; and distribution patterns, 37; and feasting, 315; and inscriptions, 333; and Knossian imports, 237; Sanctuary of Apollo at, 1357, 129, 306 Ayia Pelayia house II, dating of, 11, 1147 Ayia Triada, 240, 314 Ayios Ioannis, 246 Azoria: abandonment in 5th century, 192, 19216, 307; and bronzes, 299144, 32256; cup bases, 206; Cycladic imports, 231, 294, 295126; and decorative patterns, 301, 301150; and demographics, 246, 248; destruction horizon, 2921; domestic architecture of, 11; Eleutherna compared to, 43; excavations at, 4, 9, 936, 1256, 29, 189, 192, 196, 225; and feasting, 317, 31734, 319–320, 31939, 41, 42, 329; high-necked cups, 91, 222; and inscriptions, 331, 333; kraters, 110; krater stands, 319, 31939; Lakonian imports, 286; low-necked cups, 223; and Orientalizing styles, 300, 301; phase of 6th-century activity, 189, 248; pithoi, 301; tulip cup, 157, 224 Beazley, J. D., 293 Berlin, Andrea, 37 Berlin Painter, 293 Betancourt, P. P., 513 Blitzer, H., 192, 225 Boardman, John, 4, 6–7, 623, 3243, 200, 24968, 257, 259, 259105, 282 Borgna, Elizabeth, 314, 325, 32572, 32675 Bosanquet, R. C., 200 Bowdoin Painter, 295128 Brock, J. K., 1044, 25377 Bronze Age: character of trade in, 276, 277; and coarse-ware chronologies, 24, 249; and Knossos, 236–237; and Orientalizing renaissance, 257; production and consumption, 31–32

index bronzes: and Idaian Cave, 6, 7, 260, 260114, 289; and inscriptions, 322– 323, 32257; and Kastello Varypetrou, 299143; Orientalizing style, 222, 257, 299, 304; and Peloponnesian trade, 289; and sanctuaries, 259–260, 260114, 264, 265–266, 271, 298, 299–300, 322–323, 340, 341; 6thcentury decline in, 6, 7, 727 Broodbank, C., 1995, 300147 Callaghan, Peter, 1567, 22, 34, 35, 8668, 116, 118, 11814, 120, 12535, 128, 13446, 14155, 148, 14862, 152, 15780, 163, 179, 18622, 187, 228, 229, 32782 Cannon, A., 32991 Carter, Jane, 315, 340148 Cartledge, Paul, 291, 291108, 335, 340148 cemeteries: and Aphrati, 249–250, 252, 253, 255, 256; Atticizing grave stele from Eleutherna, 7–8, 829; and bronzes, 299; and burials, 249–257, 274, 298; and Cretan recession, 10, 15; Early Iron Age, 1, 42, 115, 248, 249, 24967, 25273, 25590, 91, 302152; fabric analysis, 34–35; funerary banquets, 45–46, 4617, 52; and funerary practices, 10, 249–252; and gap of 6th century, 20; and kraters, 46, 4619, 20; and lamps, 49, 4922, 20220; and Orientalizing style, 10, 249– 250, 24968, 252–253, 25273, 25377, 255–256, 306; Orthi Petra, 1044, 29, 436, 45–51, 4512, 5025, 250–252, 253, 256; and Phalasarna, 256, 295–296, 296129, 130, 298, 298141; and Praisos, 200, 250, 256–257; and Prinias, 241, 252, 253; and social structure, 255– 257; spacial organization of, 253; and Sparta, 339–340; trays, 111 ceramic analysis: of Early Iron Age, 5, 3969; methods of, 23–42; and settlement continuity, 21 ceramics. See pottery, Cretan; pottery, imported Chalkis, and sanctuaries, 205 Chania region, and coarse ware, 23 Chaniotis, A., 1465, 1674, 27725, 28155 Cherry, J. F., 515 Chersiphron, 938, 115 circulation model, 322, 32256 civic ideology, 21, 268, 269, 270, 320–331 climatic change: and Cretan recession, 13–14; and drought, 13–14, 1359, 1460, 238; and Knossian recession, 238

Coldstream, J. N., 513, 1357, 2813, 14, 3344, 13446, 48, 163, 1652, 200–201, 20112, 2211, 237, 2377, 244, 264, 278, 28050 conservatism: of Cretan society, 16–17, 19, 21, 171, 174–175; in Eleutherna, 40–41, 89, 102, 228, 231, 245–246; in Gortyn, 331; in Knossos, 159, 15987; in lamp production, 167, 171; in Lyktos, 224, 311, 331; and politics, 312–313 consumption: and bronzes, 299, 300; and communal principles, 325–326; and fine-ware pottery, 245; laws concerning, 330–331; and production, 31–35, 37, 39; and social structure, 31, 3134, 305, 321– 322, 329, 32991; and Sparta, 321 Cook, R. M., 282, 338 Corinthian imports: and Aphrati, 5126, 229; decorative range of, 38; and Eleutherna, 46, 51–56, 5126, 5229, 63, 68, 229, 273; identification of, 37, 3761; and Itanos, 231; and Kato Symi, 5126; and Knossos, 5126, 116, 119, 120, 122; and Praisos, 200 Cornell, T. J., 22111, 25587 Cretan pirates: and Athens, 1994; and ethnic identity, 1465; extinction of, 281; in Hellenistic literature, 14, 1463; income of, 16 Cretan recession: and architecture, 11–13, 1256; and art, 6–15, 623, 1358, 22, 235, 307; causes of, 9–10, 1042, 13, 1358, 59; as central Cretan phenomenon, 4; as Dark Age, 1; and demographics, 10, 11, 1148, 13, 14, 20, 22, 200, 235; and economy, 10, 1041, 12, 1255, 13, 14, 22; and emigration from Crete, 9, 938; and environmental catastrophe, 13–14, 1359; and Knossian recession, 235– 245; and Lasithi plateau, 5, 11, 1150; and settlements, 3, 10, 11–12, 1148, 14, 15, 247 Cretan Sea, 19, 1992 Cross, Toni, 317, 319, 31939 Cucuzza, Nicola, 240, 24129 Cullen, Tracey, 40 cult of Apollo, 246 cult of the goddess: and Gortyn, 12, 1253; and lamps, 264–265 Curetes, 189 Cyclades, 15, 19, 231, 284, 294, 300, 300147, 306, 333–334 Cyprus, 6, 247, 24759, 279, 299 Cyrbas, 189 Cyrenaica, 283, 284 Cyrene, Libya: Cretan black-figure

371 fragments, 324; Cretan krater fragment, 110; Cretan pottery, 285; Cretan recolonization of, 14, 23328, 290; founding of, 238; Lakonian imports, 58, 282, 283, 285, 290; sanctuaries of, 266135 Daedalic style: and artistic recession, 260, 260115; and Axos, 262; and Eleutherna, 111; figurines, 8; and Knossos, 236; monumental sculpture in, 6 D’Agata, Anna Lucia, 315 Dark Age: Cretan recession as, 1; decline of Greek mainland centers in, 1358 Dattala, 23922 Day, P. M., 32 Delphi: Cretan consultation of oracle, 18, 342; and Pausanias, 321; and Spartan customs, 342 Demargne, Pierre, 6, 620, 9, 937, 38, 10 Demetrios of Phaleron, 330–331, 33199 demographics: and Archaic Latium, 22; and cemeteries, 252; and Cretan recession, 10, 11, 1148, 13, 14, 20, 22, 200, 235; explanations of depopulation, 4, 248–249; and Kavousi, 246, 24654; and Knossos, 235, 245, 248, 249; and Lyktos, 14, 246, 24760; and military conflicts, 24237; and nucleation, 246; and rural areas, 11, 12, 247; and urban centers, 11, 12, 14, 247–248; variables of, 245–249 Dickins, G., 343162 Diktaian Cave. See Psychro Cave Diktaian Mountains, and regional perspective, 5, 228 Diodorus Siculus, 1884, 264131 Diognetos, 1781 Dion Akron, 261–262 Dipoinos, 938 division of labor, and production models, 38 Di Vita, A., 18011 Dorian material: inhibition of market production, 16; and regional perspective, 5 Dosiadas, 309–310, 315, 317, 32677, 343 Dreros: Delphinion, 257; Eleutherna compared to, 43; and feasting, 315; and inscriptions, 331 drought: in Athens, 1359; and Knossian recession, 238; lack of Cretan evidence of, 13–14, 1359, 1460; Theran drought, 238

372 Dunbabin, Tom, 10, 1041, 1358, 115, 24024 Early Iron Age: cemeteries, 1, 42, 115, 248, 249, 24967, 25273, 25590, 91, 302152; ceramic analysis of, 5, 3969; feasting of, 314–315; sanctuaries, 266 Ebbinghaus, S., 936 economy: and austerity, 307, 320, 326, 330; and cemeteries, 254, 256; and Cretan isolation, 16; and Cretan recession, 10, 1041, 12, 1255, 13, 14, 22; and military conflicts, 308; and overseas trade, 275–279, 280, 281, 288–289, 299, 299142, 300, 345; and production models, 38; of Rome, 276–277, 27721, 22, 280, 281; and Sparta, 341; subsistence, 16 Egypt: and Athens, 297, 297135; and bronzes, 300; and coins, 283; and Orientalizing renaissance, 299142; and overseas trade, 6, 276; and Peloponnesian trade, 282–283, 284, 285, 287 Eiring, L. J., 2813, 14, 1652, 2211 Eleutherna: amphoras, 46; Aphrati imports, 79–80, 289; archaeological context of, 43–51; Argive imports, 62–63, 6244, 286; aryballoi, 51–52; Attic imports, 46, 51, 52, 58, 63–77, 122, 274, 275, 28680, 296, 306; Atticizing grave stele from, 7–8, 829; black-figure lekanis, 64, 6448; blackgloss drinking cups, 68, 6853; bowls, 111–114; bridges of, 43, 432; Class of Athens banded cups, 65–66, 6651; conservatism in, 40–41, 89, 102, 228, 231, 245–246; Corinthian imports, 46, 51–56, 5126, 5229, 63, 68, 229, 273; Cretan imports, 77–86; cup bases, 40, 88–89, 96, 102, 124, 184, 21834; cups, 30, 63, 68, 81; deep cup with offset rim, 108, 125; and demographics, 245–246; drinking cups, 60, 62–63, 68; exaleiptra, 52; excavations at, 4, 46; fabric analysis, 34, 87, 245; farmstead excavation, 254; Frankish tower, 44; gap in 6th century, 10, 45; Geometric and Orientalizing cemetery at Orthi Petra, 1044, 29, 436, 45–51, 4512, 5025, 250–252, 253, 256; Gortynian imports, 80–86, 184, 18419, 289, 297–298, 298137; grave goods of, 266; Hellenistic fortification wall, 44; high-necked

index cups, 86–103, 105, 221, 222, 228, 245, 275; and inscriptions, 261–262, 288, 328, 331; and intra-island trade, 297–298, 298137; Knossian imports, 77–78, 80, 81, 121, 133, 237; kouros from, 728; kraters, 46, 4619, 51, 52, 56–58, 5735, 37, 60, 63, 66, 77, 109–111, 273–274, 285, 327; Kydonian imports, 78–79, 285, 289; Lakonian imports, 51, 52, 56–62, 5735, 63, 68, 105, 110, 229, 273–274, 2744, 6, 275, 285–286, 287, 290, 325; lamps, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 174, 20220, 203; lekythoi, 63, 66; and local and regional styles, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 245; local pottery, 86–114, 274–275, 285; low-necked cups, 104–108, 223; and overseas trade, 273–275, 287–289, 28887, 294, 297; pithoi, 45–46, 51; pottery production in, 3969, 3971, 41, 42; red-figure cup, 68, 72; sanctuaries of, 44, 448, 268; settlements at, 63; skyphoi, 68, 6855, 72, 112, 114, 160, 275; small hemispherical cup, 109, 127; terracottas from, 33; tomb clusters, 45–46, 49–51, 88, 105, 111, 299143; trays, 111, 112–113; “White Style,” 52 elite display: and feasting, 325, 330; and inscriptions, 21; and overseas trade, 280; shifts in, 1570. See also social structure Eltynia, 829, 331 emigration from Crete: and colonization of Libya, 14; and Cretan recession, 9, 938 environmental catastrophe: and Cretan recession, 13–14, 1359; and Knossian recession, 238. See also climatic change Ephoros, 313, 331, 331101, 343 Epidauros, 289 epigraphy. See inscriptions Epimenides, 938, 238–239, 259109, 320 Eretria, and sanctuaries, 204 Ergoteles, 17, 1780, 115 Eteocretan language, 199 Eteocretan material: defining of, 20112; idiosyncrasies of, 4; and inscriptions, 331; and regional perspective, 5 ethnic identity: and ceramic decoration, 323; and Cretan pirates, 1465; and fabric analysis, 3453; and Praisos, 199; and regional perspective, 5; and social structure, 304

index Euripides, 267140 Evans, Arthur, 3, 33, 115, 1151, 118, 2365 Feasting: and Azoria, 317, 31734, 319–320, 31939, 41, 42, 329; communal, 325, 32574, 326, 329, 330, 345; and Cretan institutions, 311–313; and monumental architecture, 314, 31421, 315–317, 319–320; and musical entertainment, 327–328; and reclining, 327, 32779; and social structure, 32154, 325, 326, 328–329 Figueira, T. J., 1042, 291109, 298139 Flower, Michael, 335113, 336, 343160 Forster, Edward, 199 Garland, R., 25587 Geometric style: and Aphrati, 10, 34; in early 6th century, 6, 7; and Knossos, 33 Gomme, A. W., 1994 Gondicas, D., 296129, 298141 Gortyn: acropolis of, 187; and andreion, 312; Archaic cups, 178–180; Attic imports, 186, 187; Atticizing style, 220; and black gloss, 176–177, 1761, 180, 298137; and cemeteries, 254, 306; coin types, 240, 241, 341; conservatism of, 331; and cult of the goddess, 12, 1253; cup bases, 40, 89, 178–179, 18113, 182, 192, 206; cup base with stepped-profile underfoot, 129; Daedalic figurines from, 8; and demographics, 246, 247, 248; Eleuthernian exports, 80–86, 184, 18419, 289, 297–298, 298137; exports of, 184–186; fabric analysis, 33, 176, 193; fragmentary pelvis from, 728; Great Code at, 20, 20102, 178, 241; high-necked cups, 26, 38, 180–184, 186, 228; imports of, 186–187; and inscriptions, 178, 1785, 235, 246, 267, 267139, 331, 333, 344; kantharoi, 152, 184, 18416, 229; and Knossian recession, 240–243, 24235, 307; lekythos, 184, 230; and local and regional styles, 223, 224, 225, 228, 231, 245; lownecked cups, 184, 223; nozzles of lamps, 184, 18418; Odeion, 176, 178, 1787, 179, 184, 186, 187, 246; pottery production in, 41, 176, 184, 230; regional consolidation of, 240; sanctuaries of, 12, 1253, 257, 266, 268, 271159; Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore,” 172, 178, 180, 18113,

182, 18416, 186, 18728, 206; and settlements, 320; “skyphos,” 186, 18622; small hemispherical cup, 109, 127; and social structure, 304, 305162; and Sparta, 337; tulip cups, 186, 224 Gournia: and demographics, 246; gap in 6th century, 11; intensive surveys of, 190, 191, 192, 19216, 193, 194, 196; and local and regional styles, 228, 231 Graham, A. J., 1890, 23918 graves. See cemeteries Greek Archaeological Service, 35, 4, 1892, 200 Greek mainland: and bronzes, 300; cemeteries of, 253, 25381, 256; and coinage, 341; Cretan isolation from, 15–16, 18, 1888, 19; Crete as intermediary in art, 6; and Dark Age, 1358; decline in 7th and 6th centuries, 15; imported pottery from, 22, 30, 37, 273; and lamps, 165, 171, 174, 175; regional styles of, 37–38, 40, 230, 231; and sanctuaries, 204–205, 306 Guarducci, Margherita, 622, 1786, 243, 292 Guralnick, E., 299142 Hadzi-Vallianou, Despoina, 246, 320 Haggis, Donald, 21, 23, 24, 249, 15781, 19111, 19216, 280, 299142, 300, 317, 31942, 32256, 329, 33094 Halbherr, Frederico, 199 Hall, Jonathan, 335 Hamilakis, Y., 32574, 33094 Hammer, Dean, 328–329 Hasaki, E., 3969, 20527, 20528 Hayden, Barbara, 11–12, 1251, 19111, 19216, 24654, 31421 Hayden, Brian, 321 Hayes, J., 3243 Helms, Mary, 279 Hermippos, 1675 Herodotos, 13, 18, 1886, 233, 238, 283, 290, 291, 291109, 292, 32255, 342 Hesiod, 27620 hetairia, 310, 312, 329 Higgins, R. A., 2363 Hill, J. N., 41 Hodder, Ian, 254 Hodkinson, Stephen, 328, 338, 338133–135, 339, 340, 341, 341151 Hoffman, Gail, 621, 279 Holladay, A. J., 339138

373 Holloway, R. R., 22111 Homer, 5, 16, 278, 321, 32779, 328, 335 Hopkinson, J. H., 22036 Howland, R. H., 166, 167, 171, 17220, 174 Huxley, G., 34, 1884, 244, 297 Hybrias, 327–328 Idaian Cave: and bronzes, 6, 7, 260, 260114, 289; historic evolution of, 266–267; and literary sources, 267, 267140; and Orientalizing style, 257, 259, 266–267 ideology: civic ideology, 21, 268, 269, 270, 320–331; and social structure, 321–322; of Sparta, 321, 32149 Ierapytna, Isthmus of: Archaic cup bases, 192–193; Attic imports, 189, 231; and demographics, 246; excavations of, 192; and fabric analysis, 19112; imports of, 196, 198; and inscriptions, 189, 1893, 191; jug bases, 193–196; kantharos, 198; Knossian imports, 189, 190, 196; lekythos, 189, 190, 229; and local and regional styles, 225; and overseas trade, 281; and pottery production, 32, 3239, 35, 189–190; and Praisos, 201; and territorial expansion, 192 Ikadion, 1781 inscriptions: and Aigina, 292, 294124; alphabetic writing, 6, 622; and andreion, 311–312, 31210, 315, 317; of Aphrati, 239, 23922, 300146, 331; and Axos, 331; and Ayia Pelayia, 333; and Azoria, 331, 333; and bronzes, 322–323, 32257; and Cretan constitution, 331, 333; and Cretan decline, 21; and dating, 1357, 20–21, 20102, 21103, 22; and demographics, 20; and Eleutherna, 261–262, 288, 328, 331; and Gortyn, 178, 1785, 235, 246, 267, 267139, 331, 333, 344; and Ierapytna, 189, 1893, 191; and Itanos, 334; and Knossos, 331; and kosmotate, 312; and Kydonia, 292, 292111, 333; and laws, 20, 2099, 331, 333, 344; and military conflicts, 307; and overseas trade, 288–289, 292; and Praisos, 199; and regional perspective, 5, 514; and ritual drinking, 261; and social structure, 304 intra-island trade: and Eleutherna, 297–298, 298137; and pottery

374 production, 4, 39, 3972, 184, 186– 187, 225–228; surplus production for, 1674 Ionian Sea, 279 isolation: and Athens, 18, 1890, 19, 1992, 94, 95, 335; literary testimony of, 15–19, 1779, 22, 273, 294; and military conflicts, 18, 1884, 86; and Persian Wars, 18, 1884, 88, 273; and politics, 16, 18, 1884, 88, 19, 1992, 235, 345 Istron, 190, 196 Itanos: Attic imports, 231, 233, 293116; cemeteries of, 250, 251, 253, 256; Corinthian imports, 231; Cycladic imports, 231, 233, 294, 294126; and demographics, 248; Eleutherna compared to, 43; excavations at, 4; and inscriptions, 334; lamps, 221; and local and regional styles, 224; low-necked cups, 105; and overseas trade, 333–334; pottery production in, 41; sanctuaries of, 268, 270 Jansen, Marius, 335 Jeffery, Lilian, 20102, 1786, 312 Johnston, A. W., 1041, 179, 187 Jones, Donald, 277, 27725, 278–279, 28782 Jones, R. E., 20424 Kagan, D., 1994 Kallet, L., 27612 Kamarakia, 268 Kamares, 323 Kamilari: Gortynian imports in, 186; sanctuaries of, 268, 269; Sanctuary of “Demeter and Kore,” 240 Kanta, A., 32 Kastello Varypetrou: and Attic imports, 230, 293, 296, 306; and bronzes, 299143; drinking cups, 78; kraters, 46; and Lakonian imports, 286, 28678, 296, 306; local pottery of, 23021; Orientalizing cemetery of, 250–251, 252; Orientalizing pithoi from, 9, 250–251, 25069, 25273, 301; pottery production in, 224 Kato Symi: and bronzes, 259, 260, 260114; Building F, 1357; Corinthian imports, 5126; cup bases, 41, 102, 179, 184; deep cup with offset rim, 125; drinking cups, 261–262; fabric analysis, 34; jug bases, 193–194; kotylai, 129; lack of 6th-century activity, 12, 1255; and local and regional styles, 225, 231; low-

index necked cups, 104, 148; plaques of, 257, 257104, 259, 259111; pottery production in, 191; sanctuaries of, 270; Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite, 7, 257; settlement of, 252; terracottas from, 33, 261, 262 Kavousi: coarse wares of, 23, 249, 25; and demographics, 246, 24654; gap in 6th century, 11; intensive surveys of, 190 Kennell, Nigel, 334, 334108 kilns: and production, 33, 3348, 38, 3865, 3969, 71, 87, 118, 12128, 135, 13551, 201–207, 261, 323 Kirsten, Ernst, 6, 17, 282 Kleinias, 16 Knossos: and Aphrati potters, 40; archaeological context of, 116–121; Archaic pottery, 121–133; Argive imports, 286; Attic imports, 116, 119–120, 11920, 12026, 121, 122, 135, 13550, 140, 187, 228, 243, 244–245, 24546, 27510, 293116, 296, 306–307; “bellied” cup, 158–160; and black gloss, 25, 134–135, 176, 243, 244; ceramic record of, 34; chronological implications of imports, 119–121, 11921; chronology, 30, 33; civic center, 237; coarse pottery of, 24, 248, 33; conservatism in, 159, 15987; cooking ware from, 33, 3344; Corinthian imports, 5126, 116, 119, 120, 122; cup bases, 40, 89, 96, 123–124, 132–133, 178, 179, 206, 216, 218; cup base with steppedprofile underfoot, 128–132, 206; cup-skyphos, 135, 13550; decoration techniques, 134, 13448, 138, 13853, 190, 19010, 223, 301149, 328, 32887; deep cup with offset rim, 108, 125–127; Demeter’s small temple at, 13, 1357; and demographics, 235, 245, 248, 249; destruction of, 1358, 14, 235, 24024, 241, 243, 331, 331101; drinking cups, 121; Eleuthernian exports, 77–78, 80, 81, 124, 133, 289; Evans’s excavations at, 3, 115, 1151, 118, 2365; exaleiptra, 119, 122; exceptional status of, 4; fabric analysis, 121, 12128; Fortetsa, 1044, 28782, 306; funerary customs, 340; gap of ca. 600–400, 1, 3, 10, 1148, 22, 235, 237, 238; glazing characteristics, 134–135, 137; highnecked cups, 26, 38, 86, 87, 89, 96, 102, 105, 120, 12535, 133–147, 13446, 148, 14966, 180, 182, 2211,

index 222, 228, 244; household kraters, 163, 32782; and inscriptions, 331; jug base with ring foot, 132; jug nozzles, 163–164; kantharoi, 120, 134, 135, 145, 152–155, 15270, 72, 229, 244; kouros from, 728; krateriskoi, 236, 2365; kraters, 4619, 109, 119, 122, 158, 163, 224, 244, 327, 32781; KW (wells), 119; kylix, 122; Lakonian imports, 119, 122, 229, 286, 28678; lamps, 165, 1652, 166, 1669, 12, 167, 171, 17119, 172, 17220, 22, 174, 203; Late Archaic and Classical pottery, 133–164; lekane, 158, 160–162; lekythoi, 189, 190, 244; and local and regional styles, 221, 223, 224, 225, 228, 231, 245; local pottery, 120, 121–133, 237–238, 243–244; low-necked cups, 104, 105, 12535, 133, 134, 13446, 147–151, 14862, 14966, 223; mortuary record of, 1044; North Cemetery, 278, 28782, 306; Orientalizing cemeteries, 249–250, 24968, 252, 25273, 25377, 255, 256, 306; and overseas trade, 28050; pottery production in, 41, 135, 229, 230; recession of, 235–245; recovery in Classical period, 3, 243–245; Roman Basilica, 237; Royal Road, Well H, 116, 244; Sanctuary of Demeter, 9, 116, 118, 17119, 172, 17222, 178, 20220, 236, 24341, 244, 264, 264131, 268, 269, 278; Sanctuary of Rhea, 2365; “Shrine of Glaukos,” 118, 120, 147, 148, 149, 163, 20220, 236, 2362, 243–244, 264131, 268; skyphoi, 119, 158, 160–162; small hemispherical cup, 109, 127–128; Southwest Houses area, 118, 119, 120, 121, 236; and stratification, 29, 116, 121; Stratigraphical Museum excavations, 116; “Temple of Rhea,” 236; terracottas, 236, 24341, 24443, 264, 268; trays, 111; tulip cups, 155–158, 15577–79, 15780, 224, 244; and Tylissos, 18, 337; as type site, 4, 513, 243; Unexplored Mansion, 116, 121, 128, 178, 228, 236; well RR:H, 29, 116, 119–120, 132, 141, 14155, 182, 244 Koehl, Robert, 314, 31425 koinon, 1886 Kolb, Frank, 276, 27617 Komai, 436, 7860 Kommos: altar at, 1357; and black gloss, 25; cup bases, 179, 206; cup base with stepped-profile underfoot,

12839; and demographics, 247; and feasting, 315; gap in 6th century, 32, 12, 1255; Gortynian imports at, 186, 18622; high-necked cups, 38, 181– 182, 222; Lakonian imports, 5633, 336; and local and regional styles, 224; sanctuaries of, 262, 262126, 264; skyphoi, 160; small hemispherical cup, 127; and trade, 240, 280; tripillar shrine at, 279 Kontoleon, Nikolaos, 21 kosmotate, 312 Kotsonas, Antonis, 21, 3969, 71, 45, 4515, 52–53, 8668, 109, 25170, 25486, 336 Kounavi. See Eltynia kouroi, fragments of, 7, 728 Krousonas Maleviziou, domestic architecture at, 11 Kydonia: Argive imports, 286; Athenian expedition against, 19, 297; Attic imports, 293, 293119, 295128; and Atticizing style, 230; cemeteries of, 256; Doric temple at, 231; Eleuthernian exports, 78–79, 285, 289; high-necked cups, 230; and imported pottery, 229; and inscriptions, 292, 292111, 333; and intra-island trade, 298; jug base with ring foot, 132; lack of austerity in, 333; Lakonian imports, 286, 28678; lamps, 221; and local and regional styles, 224, 228, 231; occupation of, 5, 248; and overseas trade, 288, 289100, 291–292, 294, 295, 295128, 336; pottery production in, 41; and pseudo-Aiginetan coinage, 298, 298139, 341; and Samian settlers, 291, 291110, 293; sanctuaries of, 268 Kythera, 285, 28576, 286–287, 297, 297134 Lakonia: amphoras, 336; chronology, 30; and Dorian invasion, 247; figural pottery of, 338, 338137; kantharoi, 2211; kraters, 229; Minoanizing pottery, 40; and Olympic games, 17; and overseas trade, 282–283, 28367, 290–291, 290104 Lakonian imports: and Azoria, 286; and Cyrene, Libya, 58, 282, 283, 285, 290; and Eleutherna, 51, 52, 56–62, 5735, 63, 68, 105, 110, 229, 273–274, 2744, 2746, 275, 285–286, 287, 290, 325; and Kastello Varypetrou, 286, 28678, 296, 306; and Knossos, 119, 122, 229, 286, 28678; and Kommos, 5633, 336; and

375 Kydonia, 286, 28678; and Priniatikos Pyrgos, 286; and Tocra, Libya, 282, 285 lamps: and Aphrati, 171, 20220; Archaic types, 166–171, 174; and Athens, 166, 167, 171–172; Attic lamps, 165, 1669, 167, 171, 17220; black gloss, 28; and cemeteries, 49, 4922, 20220; chronology, 30, 49, 4921, 165, 174; Classical types, 171–174; Cretan conservatism in production, 167, 171; and Eleutherna, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 174, 20220, 203; 4th-century types, 174–175; and Greek mainland, 165, 171, 174, 175; Howland’s types, 166–167, 171, 17220, 174; imported, 166, 172; and Itanos, 221; and Knossos, 165, 1652, 166, 1669, 12, 167, 171, 17119, 172, 17220, 22, 174, 203; and Kydonia, 221; nozzles of, 184, 18418; and Praisos, 202–203, 220; and Roussa Ekklesia, 166, 172, 221, 265; and sanctuaries, 165, 172, 264–265, 268 Lappa, 286, 28678, 333, 333103 Larisa, 190, 192, 19216, 196, 225 Lasithi plateau: and Cretan recession, 5, 11, 1150; and drought, 1460; and Lyktos, 239, 23920, 307 Latium, 22, 22111 Lato: Daedalic figurines from, 8; Eleutherna compared to, 43; and feasting, 316; pottery production in, 205; and sanctuaries, 204 laws: and andreion, 312, 315; and consumption, 330–331; Cretan constitution, 304, 311, 312, 313, 331, 334; Great Code at Gortyn, 20, 20102, 178, 241; and inscriptions, 20, 2099, 331, 333, 344; and social structure, 305, 305163; sumptuary, 320 Lebessi, Angeliki, 7, 1147, 261119 Lendon, J. E., 321 Lera, cave of, 293–294, 294123, 124, 295128 Levi, Doro, 10, 22510, 252 Libya: and Peloponnesian trade, 282, 285, 287, 297; Theran colonization of, 13. See also Cyrene, Libya; Tocra, Libya Lindos, Rhodes, and Lyktos, 1890 Link, S., 21103, 343161 literary sources: and andreion, 309, 310, 3104, 311, 312, 317, 326; and Cretan isolation, 15–19, 1779, 1995, 273; Crete mentioned in, 1; and Idaian Cave, 267, 267140; and Itanos,

376 233; and Knossos, 115, 242–243; and Larisa, 192, 307; limitations of, 309–311, 3091, 3117, 338, 343; and Lyktos, 309, 311, 331; and military conflicts, 307, 313; and overseas trade, 280, 283–285, 288, 289, 290–291; and Sparta, 334, 335, 337, 338–340, 342–343. See also specific authors Luraghi, N., 334111 Lykourgos, 343 Lyktos: Aristotle on, 3, 16; and cemeteries, 306; conservatism of, 224, 311, 331; and demographics, 14, 246, 24760; destruction of, 243, 24339; as enemy of Knossos, 238– 239; excavations of, 3, 35; exports of, 196; fabric analysis, 34–35, 3453; fine wares, 3344, 34; and inscriptions, 331; and literary sources, 309, 311, 331; and local and regional styles, 223, 224, 225, 328; and politics, 333; pottery production in, 41; and sanctuaries, 267; and Sparta, 238, 239, 23918, 337, 343, 343159; treaty with Lindos, 1890 Lynch, Kathleen, 37, 32778 Macdonald, C. F., 163 Mackil, Emily, 242, 24237 Magna Graecia, 282, 292 Malkin, I., 337128 Marangou, A., 340148 Margarites, pottery production in, 8769 Martin, Paul, 39 Mazarakis Ainian, Alexander, 316 Meneleion, 340 mercenaries: of Arkadia, 1464; income of, 16; and Peloponnesian War, 14, 1463; and Salamis, 1886, 27828 Mesara plain: cemeteries of, 256; and fabric analysis, 33; and Gortynian expansion, 240, 241, 247; imported pottery, 32, 187; and local and regional styles, 225; and regional perspective, 5; settlements of, 12; state formation in, 320 Meseleroi valley, settlements of, 11 Mesopotamia, 276 Messenia, 334, 337, 344 Metagenes, 938, 115 Metellus Creticus (Roman conqueror), 44 military conflicts: and Cretan isolation, 18, 1884, 86; and demographics, 24237; and economy, 308; and inscriptions, 307; and Knossian recession, 238–

index 243, 24235; and literary sources, 307, 313; and overseas trade, 299; and Peloponnesian trade, 297 Miller, M. C., 6853, 8167, 24759 Minoan period: and cemeteries, 256; ceramic analysis of, 5; and Knossos, 1, 3, 115, 236–237; and overseas trade, 276 Minos, King, 16, 18, 1884 Mirabello, and local and regional styles, 225 monumental sculpture: and chronologies, 235; in Daedalic style, 6; in 6th century, 7–8, 728 Moody, Jennifer, 1359, 23, 24, 247, 9, 20424 Mook, Margaret, 23, 24 Morgan, Catherine, 3761, 259 Morpurgo-Davies, Anna, 312 Morris, Ian, 4, 410, 5, 619, 20, 2097, 21, 22113, 25381, 25482, 271, 302, 302152, 304, 335 Morris, S., 938, 1041, 14, 23328, 260113, 290, 303, 303156, 336 Morrow, Glenn, 15–16, 18 Mt. Ida: lack of 6th-century activity, 12; and local and regional styles, 225, 228 Munsell readings, 34 Nafissi, Massimo, 283, 28367, 290104, 293, 343159 Naukratis, 282–283, 290, 292115 Nebuchadnezzar, and trade, 10, 281, 299 Neer, Richard, 321 neutron activation, 32, 121 Nikias, 19, 1993 Nisi. See Eleutherna North Africa: Cretan pottery in, 290; and Peloponnesian trade, 285–286, 292, 297; and Sparta, 337 Nuristan, 303156 Oleros, 190, 191, 196 Olous: Attic imports, 231, 306; Cycladic imports, 294, 294–295126; lamps, 166, 172, 289; sanctuaries of, 268, 269, 269151, 306 Olympia: pottery production in, 20527; sanctuaries of, 204, 259 Olympic games, 17, 1780, 81 Onythe Goulediana, domestic architecture of, 1146 optical emission spectrography, 40 Orientalizing renaissance: and Bronze Age, 257; and bronzes, 222, 257,

index 299, 304; and cemeteries, 10, 249–250, 24968, 252–253, 25273, 25377, 255–256, 306; and Cretan recession, 6, 623, 15; dating of, 22; and decorative traditions, 324, 328; and foreign craftsmen, 621; and Kastello Varypetrou pithoi, 9, 250– 251, 25069, 25273, 301; and Knossos, 33; and Near Eastern motifs, 299142; and overseas trade, 298–308; and sanctuaries, 12, 257, 257102; and settlements, 12, 1251; of 7th century, 9; and social structure, 302–305 Orthi Petra: Eleuthernian cemetery, 1044, 29, 436, 45–51, 4512, 5025, 250– 252, 253, 256; and imported pottery, 273, 274, 287; and kraters, 274, 275; pottery production, 3971 Osborne, Robin, 15, 1571 overseas trade: and Aigina, 291, 292–294, 292115, 297, 307, 333; and cemeteries, 254; in Classical period, 1675; and Cretan timber, 1675; Crete as transshipment point, 279–281; disruption of, 10, 1041, 15; and economy, 275–279, 280, 281, 288–289, 299, 299142, 300, 345; and Eleutherna, 273–275, 287–289, 28887, 294, 297; and imported pottery, 273; and local pottery styles, 4, 231; and numismatic evidence, 283, 290102, 292; and Orientalizing society, 298–308; Peloponnesian trade, 273, 281–298, 307; Phoenician trade, 278–280, 27834, 28043, 50, 281, 284; and prices, 281– 282, 28258; reorientation of, 307; surplus production for, 1674, 288; temporary lapse in, 296–297, 298 Palagia, O., 342156 Palaikastro: plaques, 199; Temple of Zeus at, 12, 1256, 257, 259, 267–268, 268145; votive assemblage, 257, 267, 267143 Palestine, 315 Papadopoulos, John, 245, 3130, 40 Papadopoulou, Jeanette, 176, 1764 Parisinou, Eva, 264 Parthenon, 289, 28998 Pausanias, 238, 239, 321, 337 Payne, Humphrey, 43, 51, 52, 56–57, 5737 Pediada, and local and regional styles, 225 peer polity interaction, 336, 336122, 343, 343163

Peloponnesian style: high-necked cups, 221, 222; production of, 7, 727, 2211, 231 Peloponnesian trade: and Crete, 281– 298, 336, 337; and Egypt, 282–283, 284, 285, 287; and Libya, 282, 285, 287, 297; and North Africa, 285–286, 292, 297 Peloponnesian War: and Cretan isolation, 18, 19; emigration of potters from Athens, 40; and mercenaries, 14, 1463; and Peloponnesian trade, 297 Pemberton, Elizabeth, 245, 37 Pendlebury, John, 6, 727, 23920 Perachora, pottery production in, 222 Perikles, 1994 Perlman, Paula, 14, 1674, 1779, 1995, 1787, 19218, 23918, 240, 24027, 246, 288, 28892, 305162, 311, 31214, 31317, 333, 337128, 343160 Persian Wars: booty from, 278; and Cretan isolation, 18, 1884, 88, 273 Petrie, Flinders, 29 Phaistos: coin types, 240, 341; and demographics, 246; and feasting, 314; and inscriptions, 331; settlements of, 320; “Temple of Rhea” at, 12, 1256 Phalasarna: and Attic imports, 306; cemeteries of, 256, 295–296, 296129, 130, 298, 298141; and overseas trade, 288; and pottery production, 230; and Sparta, 337 Pharatsi, 262 Phoenicia, 6, 279–280, 27942, 28043, 50, 284 Pindar, 17 piracy, 14, 1463, 65, 277, 27721, 291109 pithoi, 35, 6, 9, 2815, 3969, 45, 46, 11813, 251, 252, 28258, 300, 301, 317, 319, 320, 329, 338, 339 Plato, 16, 17, 1779, 267140, 313 Pliny, 289100 Plog, Fred, 39 Plutarch, 17 Pólanyi, Karl, 276 poleis: and andreion, 315; and austerity, 320, 331, 337, 342; of Classical Crete, 3; and coins, 341, 342; and Cretan isolation, 18; and Cretan recession, 11; estimating number of, 5; inter-polis hostilities, 307–308; and Olympic games participation, 17; pottery production of, 37–38, 41, 4187; rise of, 623; subsistence economy of, 16; and syssition,

377 309–311; and trade disruptions, 10; variations between, 333; varied responses to Greek mainland styles, 231 Polichna, 268 politics: and alliances, 1567; and conservatism, 312–313; and Cretan isolation, 16, 18, 1884, 88, 19, 1992, 235, 345; and Cretan recession, 9, 937; and Gortyn, 240, 24024; and literary sources, 313; and Lyktos, 333; and monumental architecture, 13; and overseas trade, 282, 302151; and pottery production, 37; and social structure, 328–329; Spartan political power, 13; and state formation, 21, 312, 313, 314, 319, 320, 343, 343164; traditional view of, 1673, 345 pollen samples, 1359 Polos Painter, 64, 28680 Polybios, 243, 24339 Polykrates, 291, 291109 Polyrrhenia, 337 Proxenos. See Nikias potters, itinerant, and regional perspective, 514, 39–40, 3974 potters, resident, and regional perspective, 514 pottery, Cretan: amphoras, 2815; banded wares, 25, 28; bellied drinking cups, 28, 147; black gloss, 23, 25–28, 39, 41–42, 221, 325; chronology of, 28–31, 3025, 40, 41, 86, 191–192; coarse-ware chronology, 23–24, 231; coarse-ware typologies, 24–25; and conservatism, 41, 174–175; cooking wares, 23–24, 245, 2815; cup bases, 40–41; decorated fine wares, 24; distribution patterns, 35, 37; fabric analysis, 32, 33–34, 3346, 3449, 53, 37, 3970; fine-ware chronologies, 25, 26; gap of ca. 600–400, 1; highnecked cups, 26, 28, 38, 49, 325; kantharoi, 26–28, 38, 134, 152–154; kylix, 28; local and regional styles, 37–41, 221–228, 2224; Orientalizing cups, 26, 28; pattern-decorated, 25, 28; pithoi, 2815; production and consumption, 31–35, 37, 39; sequences of, 3, 21–22, 24, 41–42, 189, 200, 221, 235, 246, 247; seriation, 29, 2922, 30; shape studies, 24–28, 248, 2511, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 3970, 325, 32571; stylistic dissemination, 40–41, 221, 225; stylistic innovation, 28–29, 2917, 38,

378 40; stylistic uniformity in, 39–40, 326; stylistic variation in, 31, 34, 37–41, 3973; tulip cup, 38. See also lamps; and specific sites pottery, imported: chronological implications of, 119–121; dating of, 22, 30–31; gap of ca. 600–400, 1; lamps, 166, 172; local versions of, 37, 68, 119, 122, 187, 198, 220, 228–233; from Mesara, 32; and power relationships, 30–31, 3130; scarcity of figural works, 324–325. See also Attic imports; Corinthian imports; Lakonian imports Powell, Anton, 338, 338137 Praisos: Attic imports, 200, 231; Atticizing styles, 220; cemeteries of, 200, 250, 256–257; and chronology, 200–201; Corinthian imports, 200; cup bases, 40, 41, 192, 205–207, 216, 217–218, 21834; cup base with stepped-profile underfoot, 129; cups, 203–204; Cycladic imports, 295126; and demographics, 246, 248; early jug, 205; exalepitra, 200; fabric analysis, 199, 203–204, 20424; and feasting, 315; gap in ceramic sequence, 200, 246; Hellenistic cups, 217–219; high-necked cups, 88, 205–217, 221; and imported pottery, 229; and inscriptions, 199; intensive survey of, 200–201, 20114; jug base with ring foot, 132; kiln wasters, 203, 204; lack of austerity in, 333; lamps, 202–203, 220; and local and regional styles, 223, 224; plaques, 199–200, 202–203; pottery production in, 41–42, 199, 203–204, 20426, 206–207; sanctuaries of, 199, 202–203, 204, 261, 268; shrine on the third acropolis, 13, 1357; temple on first acropolis hill, 12, 1256; terracotta busts from, 8–9, 932, 199–200, 246, 262; votive deposits of, 202–203 Prent, Mieke, 22, 22113, 259, 259110, 262126, 267144, 269, 303, 303157 Prinias: and cemeteries, 241, 252, 253; and demographics, 245; destruction of, 241–242, 243, 307; and feasting, 315, 316; gap in 6th century, 10, 1044, 1148, 241; and inscriptions, 331; Orientalizing cemeteries of, 252, 253; pottery production in, 20527; and sanctuaries, 204, 266; small hemispherical cup, 127 Priniatikos Pyrgos: excavations of, 189, 19111, 225; Gortynian imports in,

index 186, 18727; Lakonian imports, 286; low-necked cups, 223; tulip cup, 224 production models: and consumption, 31–35, 37, 39; hierarchy of, 3868; local and regional styles, 37–41; Peloponnesian, 7, 727, 2211, 231 Profitis Ilias, 192, 201–202, 20218, 205 prytaneion, 20, 310, 3103, 316, 31631 Psammetichos I, 283 Psychro Cave: and bronzes, 260; lack of 6th-century activity, 12; and Orientalizing style, 257, 259, 267 Rackham, O., 1359 Raubitschek, Antony, 239 regional perspective: and Cretan recession, 247; and emphasis on Knossos, 3, 4; and gap in 6th century, 6, 11–12; and imported pottery, 32, 228–233; and inscriptions, 5, 514; meaningful analysis of, 410, 5, 513–15; and overseas trade, 286–287; and pottery production, 37–41, 176, 224–228; and Praisos, 199–200; and sanctuaries, 271 Renfrew, C., 336122 Rethymnon plain, and Eleutherna, 43, 287–288 Rhaukos, 243 Rhitten, 240, 24027, 24235 Rice, P. M., 3973 Ridgway, Brunilde, 260, 260115 Rizza, G., 1044, 2096, 1785, 241 Robinson, E. S. G., 298139 Rokka, 230 Rome, economy of, 276–277, 27721, 22, 280, 281 Rotroff, S. I., 2917 Roussa Ekklesia: lamps, 166, 172, 221, 265; plaques, 199; sanctuaries of, 831, 268; votive deposits from, 831, 163, 172 rural areas: and demographics, 11, 12, 247; and Gortyn, 240–241; and sanctuaries, 268–270 Ruschenbusch, E., 341 Sakellarakis, J. A., 267140 Salmon, J. B., 5229, 281 Samos, 266135, 283, 290, 291 sanctuaries: and bronzes, 259–260, 260114, 264, 265–266, 271, 298, 299–300, 322–323, 340, 341; and Cretan recession, 15; Daedalic figurines from, 8; of Demeter at Knossos, 9, 116, 118, 17119, 172, 17222, 178, 20220, 236, 24341, 244,

index 264, 264131, 268, 269, 278; and Eleutherna, 44, 448, 268; and gap of 6th century, 20; and gaps in settlement, 14; and Gortyn, 12, 1253, 257, 266, 268, 271159; of Hermes and Aphrodite at Kato Symi, 7, 257; and high-necked cups, 28; and kilns, 204–205, 20527, 28; of Kommos, 262, 262126, 264; and lamps, 165, 172, 264–265, 268; and Orientalizing renaissance, 12, 257, 257102; at Phaistos, 12, 1256; plain pottery in, 260–262, 260117, 265–266, 271; at Praisos, 199, 202–203, 204, 261, 268; and Prinias, 204, 266; and religious practices, 257–271, 298, 306; Roussa Ekklesia, 831, 268; and rural areas, 268–270; “Shrine of Glaukos” at Knossos, 118, 120, 147, 148, 149, 163, 20220, 236, 2362, 243–244, 264131, 268; and social structure, 259, 264, 269, 305, 305162; and terracottas, 262, 264, 267, 268; and urban centers, 271159; and women, 264–265; of Zeus Thenatos, 7 Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, 334, 336, 337, 337131, 340, 341149, 344165 Sanctuary of Athena Samonia, 270, 270158 Sanctuary of Ino-Pasiphae at Thalamai, 343162 Sanders, I. F., 33 Sardinia, 279 scanning electron microscopy, 32 Schinavria 11, 1251 script. See inscriptions sculpture: monumental, 6, 7–8, 728, 235; of 7th century, 621 Second Messenian War, 238 seers, emigration from Crete, 9, 938 Sekunda, N. V., 256 Seneca, 23919 settlements: and bronzes, 299; and Cretan recession, 3, 10, 11–12, 1148, 14, 15, 247; dating of, 1, 21; and demographics, 248; at Eleutherna, 63; and gap of 6th century, 20; and Ierapytna, 246; and Orientalizing style, 12, 1251; and overseas trade, 289; of Phaistos, 320; of Vrokastro, 1251, 192 Shaker communities, 330, 33096, 98 Shaw, J., 262126, 299142 Shaw, Maria, 261, 264, 264128 Shoe, L. M., 1786 Sicily, and overseas trade, 276, 279 Siteia: Cycladic imports, 295127;

Daedalic figurines from, 8; plaques, 199; pottery production in, 41, 225 Sjögren, L., 1148, 1995, 3969 skolion, 327–328, 32884 Skyllis, 938 Small, J. P., 2748, 33094 Smari, 315 Snodgrass, A., 265 social structure: and aristocratic competition, 304, 307, 329–330, 32991, 333, 343–344; and cemeteries, 255–257; and ceramic decoration, 323–324, 325; consumption influenced by, 31, 3134, 305, 321–322, 329, 32991; and feasting, 32154, 325, 326, 328–329; and gift exchange, 278, 287; and Gortyn, 304, 305162; and ideology, 321–322; and laws, 305, 305163; and Orientalizing style, 302–305; and overseas trade, 300, 302151; and politics, 328–329; and sanctuaries, 259, 264, 269, 305, 305162; and shapes, 32. See also elite display Sophilos, 187 Sparta: and literary sources, 334, 335, 337, 338–340, 342–343; and Lyktos, 238, 239, 23918, 337, 343, 343159 Sparta and Spartans: and agoge, 334, 334108, 109, 344; and art, 338, 342157; and austerity, 331, 334, 334111, 337–339, 338133, 341, 342, 342157, 343–344; and coins, 342, 342156; and Cretan isolation, 18; cultural insularity of, 335, 335113; drinking customs of, 328; figural pottery of, 338–339, 339138; funerary customs, 339–340, 340145; ideology of, 321, 32149; interaction with Crete, 336– 337, 337128, 342, 343, 343160, 162; and Knossos, 238–239; and Olympic games, 17; and overseas trade, 336; political power of, 13; and Samos, 291, 291109; 7th-century evidence of, 15, 1571; and social structure, 32255; and state formation, 334–335; and Thera, 290; and Tiryns, 344165; utopian tradition of, 335, 337 Spencer, N., 249, 302151, 32991 Spensithios decree, 311 Spratt, T. A. B., 201, 20117, 202, 20218, 204 Stampolidis, Nikolaos, 46, 728, 436, 45, 4512, 8668, 287 Stavromenos, Eleutherna, 8 Stibbe, C. M., 2917, 5736, 37 Strabo, 199, 20218, 242–243, 261, 310,

379 31317, 314, 322, 331, 342, 343 stratification: at Azoria, 9; and dating, 29; and Knossos, 29, 116, 121 Sturgeon, M., 728 survey, intensive, 11, 12, 23, 7859, 184, 186, 190–192, 200, 201, 237, 239, 241, 246, 24760, 320 Sutton, Robert, 295126 Sybrita, terracottas from, 33 symposia: and austerity, 344; and drinking practices, 326–329, 32889; and figural pottery, 32778, 338–339; and kraters, 32782; and pottery shapes, 32677; syssition compared to, 313, 335; tomb furniture, 46, 274 Syria, 6, 10, 299, 315 syssition, 309–313, 320, 326, 333–335, 343, 343161, 344 Tarrha, 230, 23022 terracottas: from Axos, 8–9, 831, 262; from Eleutherna, 33; and gap of 6th century, 2096; and Knossos, 236, 24341, 43, 264, 268; manufacture of, 8; and Praisos, 8–9, 932, 199–200, 246, 262; and sanctuaries, 262, 264, 267, 268; and Temple of Zeus at Palaikastro, 1256, 267 territorial expansion: evidence for, 14–15, 1567; and Gortyn, 240; and Ierapytna, 192; and Lyktos, 239, 270 Thaletas, 320, 336127 Themistokles, 17 Theophrastos, 1460, 23919 Thera, 233, 23328, 238, 290 Theron, tyrant of Akragas, 1884 Tholos, 280 Thraco-Macedonian region, 283 Thrapsano, 20424 Thronos, 315 Thucydides, 13, 19, 24759, 285, 297, 340144, 343162 Tithonos Painter, 293 Tocra, Libya: Attic imports, 6346; Cretan pottery, 32, 3243, 89, 111, 121, 125, 12535, 128, 132, 285, 290; and Lakonian imports, 282, 285 Tokugawa, Japan, 335 Tolmides, 297 Tomber, Roberta, 277 Toynbee, A., 343159 trade. See intra-island trade; overseas trade Trojan War, 18 Tylissos, and Knossos, 18, 337 Tyre: capture of, 10, 299; and overseas trade, 281

380 University of Crete at Rethymnon, 4 University of Wales, Cardiff, 200 urban centers: and demographics, 11, 12, 14, 247–248; formation of, 43; and sanctuaries, 271159 Van de Moortel, Aleydis, 323 van Effenterre, H., 1888, 24235 Van Wees, H., 32258 Vink, Marja, 15, 1570 Vitelli, K. D., 40 Viviers, Didier, 4, 14, 1674, 1888, 23922, 317 Vogeikoff, N., 1891 Vrokastro: Atticizing style, 220; and demographics, 246; intensive surveys of, 190–191, 19111, 193, 194, 196, 198; and local and regional styles, 224, 228, 231; pottery

index production in, 41, 42; 6th-century settlements of, 1251, 192 Vronda, 246 Wallace, Saro, 246, 24657, 25591 Warren, P., 1168, 1169 Wason, P. K., 255 Watrous, L. V., 11, 1150, 14, 192, 225, 239, 267, 279, 300145, 320 Whitelaw, Todd, 32, 3239 White Mountains, 5 Whitley, James, 4, 619, 16–17, 21, 21106, 20112, 27833, 280, 300146, 302, 302155, 303, 303156, 158, 304160, 320, 326, 32675, 77, 32779, 333 Willetts, R. F., 1995, 20–21, 21103, 25486, 31214, 32884, 341155 Wilson, D. E., 32 Xenophon, 32889, 339