The Politics of Storage: Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs) [Illustrated] 9781931534505, 1931534500

Citation preview

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete

Frontispiece. Interior of an abandoned house in East Crete (photograph by Christos Beltes).

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 25

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete by Kostandinos S. Christakis

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2008

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press Printing CRWGraphics, Pennsauken, New Jersey Binding Hoster Bindery, Inc., Ivyland, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Christakis, Kostandinos S., 1966The politics of storage : storage and sociopolitical complexity in neopalatial Crete / by Kostandinos S. Christakis. p. cm. — (Prehistory monographs ; 25) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-931534-50-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Crete (Greece) —Antiquities. 2. Crete (Greece) —Politics and government. 3. Crete (Greece) —Social conditions. 4. Pottery, Minoan—Greece—Crete. 5. Storage jars—Greece—Crete. I. Title. II. Title: Storage and sociopolitical complexity in neopalatial Crete. DF221.C8C48 2008 939’.1801—dc22 2008048269

Copyright © 2008 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

To the memory of my beloved

Iώ

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 CHAPTER 1. From Storage Implements to Subsistence Autarkies: A Framework for Interpreting the Archaeological Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 CHAPTER 2. Palatial Storage Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 CHAPTER 3. Domestic and Nonpalatial Elite Storerooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 CHAPTER 4. Storage Behaviors and Subsistence Autarkies in the Nonpalatial Sector of LM I Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 CHAPTER 5. Storage and Sociopolitical Dynamics in LM I State Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 TABLES FIGURES

List of Tables

1. Nutritional values of cereals, pulses, olive oil, and wine. 2. Minimum and maximum sowing and yield rates of cereals from various regions of Greece in 1860. 3. Minimum and maximum yield rates of cereals from various regions of Greece in 1887. 4. Minimum and maximum yield rates of pulses from various regions of Greece in 1887. 5. Minimum and maximum yield rates of vines and olives from various regions of Greece in 1860 and 1887. 6. Minimum and maximum yield rates from various regions of Greece in 1860 and 1887. 7. Yields of barley, lentils, olive oil, and wine used in the present study. 8. Estimated storeroom size (in m2) in Neopalatial palaces. 9. Comparison of the number of pithoi that palatial stores were designed to house compared with the number of pithoi found in the palaces. 10. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units.

List of Figures

Figures are drawn by Nikoletta Ntolia. 1. Principal Neopalatial sites mentioned in the text. 2. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 12, 15, 70, 62, 11, and 14 (scale 1:10). 3. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 16, 95, 17, 94, 61, and 13 (scale 1:10). 4. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 6, 1, 28, 23, and 4 (scale 1:10). 5. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 85, 88, 87, 55, 54, and 89 (scale 1:10). 6. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 18, 60, 79, 5, 77, 80, and 47 (scale 1:10). 7. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 97, 35, 82, 122, 64, and 83 (scale 1:10). 8. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 73, 74, 67, 76, 63, 53, 72, and 60 (scale 1:10). 9. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 114, 112, 121, 106, 107, 109, and 102 (scale 1:10). 10. Storerooms in the palace and in the Northeast House of Knossos. 11. Pottery from below the floor of the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi. 12. Pottery from Knossos. 13. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the palace of Phaistos. 14. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the palace of Malia. 15. Ceremonial areas and storerooms in the East Wing of the palace at Galatas.

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

16. Distribution of storerooms in the palace of Gournia. 17. Distribution of storerooms and administrative documents in the palace of Petras. 18. Distribution of storerooms and administrative documents in the palace of Kato Zakros. 19. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents: a) House I at ChaniaKastelli; b) the mansion of Sklavokambos. 20. Distribution of storerooms, areas for food preparation, and administrative documents in Mansions A, B, and C at Tylissos. 21. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents in the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada. 22. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents at Hagia Triada: a) Casa del Lebete/Casa delle Sfere Fittili o dei Muri di Creta; b) Casa Est. 23. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the mansion at Mitropolis-Kannia. 24. Distribution of storerooms at Knossos: a) the South House; b) the House of the Chancel Screen; c) the Royal Villa at Knossos. 25. Spaces designed for storage in the Unexplored Mansion and the Little Palace at Knossos. 26. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the mansion at Nirou Chani. 27. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and wine tubs at Malia: a) House Δα; b) House Ζα; c) House Ζβ; d) House of Hagia Varvara. 28. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents: a) the mansion of Myrtos Pyrgos; b) the complex at Makrigialos. 29. Storage in the houses of the town of Gournia. 30. Distribution of storerooms, areas for the processing of staples, administrative documents, and remains of staples at Gournia: a) House Ac; b) House Cf; c) House Ec; d) House Fd; e) House Fe. 31. Distribution of storerooms in Building B.2 and House C.3 at Mochlos. 32. Distribution of storeroom and areas for food preparation and staple processing: a) the mansion at Klimataria-Manares; b) House A at Achladia; c) the mansion at Tourtouloi-Prophetes Elias. 33. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents at Palaikastro: a) House B; b) House 1–17; c) House N. 34. Distribution of storerooms and areas used for staple processing at Kato Zakros: a) House A; b) House B. 35. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples at Kato Zakros: a) House Δα; b) Hogarth’s House G; c) the Strong Building; d) the House of the Niches. 36. Distribution of storerooms, areas used for staple processing, and remains of staples at Kato Zakros: a) House Δ; b) House F; c) Hogarth’s House I(J); d) House N.

Preface and Acknowledgments

The storage of staples and its importance for the functioning of Cretan Bronze Age society has become an active topic of discussion and debate in the last decades. Many are the proposed narratives of sociopolitical development based on the accumulation and storage of wealth. Most approaches have been focused on the storage strategies adopted by palatial authorities and groups controlling second-order centers. The present study reassesses the intrinsic relationship between storage and sociopolitical complexity by combining testimonies on the storage of staples from palatial, nonpalatial elite, and ordinary domestic contexts dated to the LM I period. It adopts a bottom-up perspective, mostly focusing on the nonpalatial sector of LM I state societies. The main goals are: 1. To take a new look at a wide range of information concerned with the storage of staples 2. To develop a more comprehensive model to explain how storage strategies operate within LM I societies 3. To infer sociopolitical and socio-economic levels of interaction among the different social sectors operating within LM I societies (mainly LM IB societies) Some individual arguments have already been presented elsewhere (Christakis 1999a, 1999b, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). Here, the results of additional and continuing research are offered. The main arguments have not changed substantially; some are developed further, while others are clarified. The methodological framework used here is outlined in the first chapter of the monograph. The testimonies concerned with storage activities from LM I contexts

xiv

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

have been reconsidered in great detail in the second and third chapters. The second chapter discusses storage activities in the palatial sector of societal organization. The third chapter discusses testimonies from nonpalatial elite contexts and simple domestic units of palatial and nonpalatial settlements. Chapter 4 offers a synthesis of data on staple storage from domestic contexts and an evaluation of the testimonies—in terms of subsistence autarky—of the resident households. The implications of storage for the political and economic organization of LM I state societies are discussed in the concluding part of this monograph. Figures 2–9 show the most frequently used storage containers (generally known as pithoi) from LM I palatial, nonpalatial elite, and domestic contexts. The number allocated to each pithos form follows the classification of such storage containers established in my study on Cretan Bronze Age pithoi (Christakis 2005). The numbering of pithos forms established in this study is also followed in the case of forms mentioned in the text without being illustrated in Figures 2–9. Figures 10 and 13–36 show the palaces, nonpalatial elite complexes, and simple domestic units relevant to the present discussion. The plans used are simplified versions of the state plans included in the original publication of the complexes. For bibliographic references to the original state plans, the reader may refer to the publications mentioned in the text. In order not to confuse readers familiar with the contexts discussed here, I have retained the numbering of the various spaces as given in the original publications. Keys were used, in palace and house plans, to indicate the spatial distribution of storerooms (defined as such on the basis of architectural layout and/or artifactual assemblages), ceremonial spaces, spaces used for food preparation and/or consumption, areas used for staple processing, organic remains, administrative documents (tablets, nodules, roundels, and sealings), large and small/medium-sized pithoi, and small storage containers. These illustrations do not attempt to represent every activity practiced or artifact found in the palace/house but only those relevant to the present discussion. The artifacts shown are simplified symbols; see the text for more complete descriptions of artifactual assemblages. Symbols are not to scale. Drawings of pithoi, pottery, and palace/house plans were drawn by Nikoletta Ntolia, to whom I would like to express my deepest thanks. The discussion is based on the study of both published and unpublished data. Many institutions and excavators gave me permission to look at their material. I would like to thank the Council of the British School at Athens for permission to study and publish the pithoi and selected pottery assemblages excavated by Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos. I would also like to thank the Greek Ministry of Culture, the Archaeological Society at Athens, the Scuola Archaeologica Italiana di Atene, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the École Française d’Athènes, I. Andonakaki, C. Davaras, N. Dimopoulou, B. Hallager, E. Hallager, D. HatziVallianou, S. Hood, A. Karetsou, V. La Rosa, A. Lebessi, A. MacGillivray, S. Mandalaki, the late N. Platon and M. Popham, L. Platon, G. Rethemiotakis, H. Sackett, J. Soles, M. Tsipopoulou, Y. Tzedakis, A. Vasilakis, P. Warren, and A. Zois. A special debt of thanks is due to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) for the generous support that helped me to cover many expenses. Thanks are also due to the staff of INSTAP Academic Press, particularly to A. Pearce for her work on many figures and S. Ferrence for her faith in the final outcome. This book has been many years in the making, and I have incurred many debts. My gratitude is due to P. Warren for comments and seminal discussions that helped me to sharpen my approach. Under the guidance of the late S. Spanakis and also N. Panagiotakis, I began my journey to Venetian and Ottoman Crete, a journey that

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

opened new horizons. I am grateful to P. Betancourt, G. Rethemiotakis, J. Rutter, and M. Wiener for fruitful discussions on earlier versions of this book. I have benefited greatly from discussing aspects of this research with K. Archondaki, K. Athanasaki, E. Apostolaki, the late C. Beedel, P. Betancourt, K. Branigan, T. Brogan, D. Evely, E. Gerontakou, P. Halstead, E. Hatzaki, S. Hood, V. Isaakidou, D. Kriga, A. Lebessi, C. Macdonald, N. Momigliano, I. Nikolakopoulou, M. Panagiotaki, N. Panagiotakis, L. Platon, A. Sarpaki, M. Schultz, J. Soles, the late S. Spiliotopoulos, and M. Tsipopoulou. As always, none of those mentioned above should be held accountable for any deficiencies or obscurities in this study. Herakleion, January 2007

xv

Abbreviations

AE/NB

Evans, A.J. Manuscript Daybooks on the Excavations at Knossos, Knossos Archives, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

ca.

circa

cal.

calories

cm

centimeter

DM/NB

Mackenzie, D. Manuscript Daybooks on the Excavations at Knossos, Knossos Archives, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

EM

Early Minoan

F/NB

Fyfe, T. Manuscript Notebooks (Sketchbooks) on the Excavations at Knossos, Knossos Archives, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

g

grams

HB/NB

Boyd, H.A. Notebooks from the 1904 Excavations at Gournia, Crete, Archives of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

HM

Archaeological Museum of Herakleion

kg

kilograms

KSM

Knossos Stratigraphical Museum

LM

Late Minoan

m

meter

xviii

ABBREVIATIONS

MM

Middle Minoan

PM I

Evans, A.J. 1921. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I, London.

PM II

Evans, A.J. 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos II, London.

PM III

Evans, A.J. 1930. The Palace of Minos at Knossos III, London.

PM IV

Evans, A.J. 1935. The Palace of Minos at Knossos IV, London.

SMP

Knossos Stratigraphical Museum Pot Number

Introduction

The manner of storing all sorts of material is a fundamental strand in our understanding, as archaeologists, of the workings of ancient societies: part of archaeology’s “mutual knowledge” (Giddens 1993, 105–106). And yet it is almost impossible, or at least very difficult, to quantify. We cannot always detect its presence in the material record, and our estimates of its size are based on assumptions and uncertainties. Nonetheless, the existence and storage of surplus produce is accepted in any recent model of development of social complexity. This is understandably so, as only through such a mechanism can sedentary populations first secure reliable sources of supply and then achieve new levels of expression based on that certainty. Safely-stored foodstuffs for tomorrow permit the creation of material wealth and the development of social interactions today. Such a simple equation underpins all the achievements of human ingenuity that we like to define as culture and civilization. A great deal of literature is devoted to staple storage and its implications for the socio-economic development of Bronze Age Crete. Discussion

may be traced back to Arthur Evans. He was the first to recognize the importance of storage jars (pithoi) and storehouses as a dynamic factor in economic analysis, paying attention both to the functional considerations of the pithoi and to the diachronic structural development of the storage areas in the palace of Knossos. He attempted to estimate the total amount of olive oil stored in the West Magazines by calculating the capacity of the pithoi that the area originally held (PM IV, 647–648). Although at an interpretative level Evans failed to recognize fully what the material evidence implied about the socio-economic organization of Knossian society, his contribution was pioneering, especially when compared to that of many of his contemporaries who totally ignored the question of staple storage. Most accounts written in the first half of the 20th century and touching on the question of storage were in the same vein. The socio-economic implications were overshadowed by the descriptive presentation of the material evidence or misinterpreted by the application of purely modern concepts. The first signs of change arose under the impulse of Karl

2

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Polanyi. In 1944 he published his study entitled The Great Transformation, a fundamental contribution to the study of past economies. After a detailed comparative account of the economies of the Near Eastern, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican empires, Polanyi argued that redistribution was the main organizational mode of large-scale economies. In the Aegean, the role of redistribution as the underlying principle of economic and political organization was strengthened after the decipherment of the Linear B tablets (Ventris and Chadwick 1956). Although very simple in form and content when compared to contemporary Near Eastern and Egyptian scripts, Mycenaean documents offer detailed insights into the palatial administrative system. The texts deal with inventories of resources (goods, labor, and personnel) and record the movement of these resources in and out of the palatial system. From that perspective, the core of the Mycenaean economy was the palace with its storage rooms and its well-organized administration listing goods and personnel, landowning, and assessing deliveries in staple goods (Polanyi 1971). The question of staple storage would be discussed systematically for the first time in Colin Renfrew’s highly influential contribution on the development of sociopolitical complexity in the Aegean (1972). In Renfrew’s analysis, storage appeared for the first time during the Neolithic period. In the Early Bronze Age: The adequate storage of food supplies is an important feature of a developing subsistence economy, and there is evidence that such storage now became more systematic. (Renfrew 1972, 287)

During the Palace period: The abundant evidence yielded by the palaces of Crete and Mycenaean Greece indicates clearly how important food storage and the controlled supply of subsistence commodities were to the palaces. The buildings themselves, and the evidence of the written records, document a high level of centralisation. Yet this centralisation seems no more than intensification of the system already functioning in the previous period at Lerna, at Tiryns perhaps, and indeed at Myrtos. (Renfrew 1972, 288–289)

The development of storage strategies, as seen by Renfrew, directly corresponds to the development of social, economic, and political complexity.

From a simple, almost “embryonic” stage during the Neolithic period and growing into a more developed and systematic version during the Early Bronze Age, storage strategies became more complex and intense during the palatial period. Storage is therefore depicted in purely evolutionary and functional terms. Of great importance was the introduction, in the early 1980s, of the notion of “social storage” by John O’Shea (1981). “Social storage” is defined as the transaction in which food is exchanged for some non-food tokens with, at least, the implicit understanding that such tokens can later be re-exchanged for food. It is a cultural mechanism strongly embedded in a system of reciprocal obligations and formalized exchange networks. “Social storage” transactions are determined by environmental factors such as the geography of the region, factors causing scarcity, and the distribution patterns of resources within a given area and by cultural parameters, such as the subsistence practices, the technology of physical storage and transport, and the levels of sociopolitical integration within a region. Paul Halstead has elaborated upon this perspective for the prehistoric Aegean, explaining its socioeconomic complexity and the rise of palatial institutions (Halstead 1981, 1988). Ethnographic data from pre-industrial Greece and scientific evidence on climate conditions in the Aegean during the last fifty years has provided a framework for the prediction of uncertainty in crop production and the technological and behavioral leveling mechanisms against famine. It was suggested that the advantage of “social storage” over the direct storage of subsistence commodities is that the former eliminates constraints raised by the “shelf-life” of the products. The production of tokens of value from the Early Bronze Age onward thus was envisioned as a means to facilitate “social storage” transactions through a system of reciprocal exchange. “Social storage” is a factor leading to demographic concentration, centralization, and the rise of palatial institutions. The support for this cultural model was provided by the Linear B texts, the assumed increase of craft production during the Neopalatial period, the decrease of storage facilities within palaces in the same period, and the increase of staple storage within secondary centers. These changes have been ascribed to a shift in the interest of palatial institutions from a staple-based economy

INTRODUCTION

to a wealth-based economy (Halstead 1981, 1988; Moody 1987; Branigan 1988a, 1988b). The theory of “social storage” and the decentralization of staple storage from palaces to the periphery had a significant impact on most studies dealing with the socio-economic complexity of Bronze Age Crete. Neopalatial palaces were described as centers of a complex mechanism of redistribution where agricultural and stock-raising surpluses were collected for the support of a nonproducing sector, converted into sumptuary items for “social storage” transactions, or used as relief in times of stress for the population. A complex network of second-order centers, generally known as “villas,” facilitated the mobilization of staple surpluses from the hinterland to the palaces. This narrative has been challenged by Jan Driessen and Colin Macdonald (1997, 52–54). They accept the storage decentralization hypothesis from palaces to the periphery established by Halstead and Jennifer Moody, and the assumption that staple storage increased in the nonpalatial contexts during the LM IB period. According to their point of view, however, the decentralization of food storage from the palaces to the periphery is a mature LM IA or LM IB feature and not one of MM III–LM I. This development is seen not as an intended action but as a cause and effect process. The cause is the inability of the palatial administrations to meet the demands of storage and distribution of subsistence commodities after the volcanic eruption of Thera. Local power groups seized the initiative from the palaces to control the production, storage, and distribution of subsistence goods and to provide famine relief in periods of shortages. The increase of staple storage in the periphery, therefore, was interpreted as a sign of political fragmentation. Despite differences in theoretical trends, methodological procedures, and aims, these contributions share, with very few exceptions, a common view: the organization of storage occurred at a central level of state organization. Interest has concentrated mainly on the storage, manipulation, and mobilization of food staples and the rise and functioning of political complexity at the level of palatial and peripheral political institutions. Storage in simple domestic units has not been a focus of interest except in certain cases examining the storage practices of isolated domestic units, without however

3

attempting an overall discussion of storage in the domestic sector of Cretan Bronze Age societies. Moreover, storage in itself, as a complex process, has been somewhat summarily treated in most contributions on political economy. The main emphasis has been on the production, exchange, and consumption of goods, with storage seen simply as a stage in the exchange process. The one-sided treatment of storage is chiefly due to the “top-orientated” perspective adopted by researchers of Bronze Age Crete, an attitude still largely prevalent today. The focus of archaeological research, with the emphasis placed from its earliest days on the complex role of the palaces, the elite mansions, and the rich cemeteries and sanctuaries of the island, has determined excavation choices—and therefore archaeological interest and discussion—to the detriment of the domestic sector. While the domestic sector of many other cultural contexts has been a topic of vivid concern among scholars for many decades, with seminal contributions to both theory and methodology, the domestic sector of Neopalatial societies is the “Great Unknown”; the only exceptions being a few systematic presentations and discussions of isolated domestic groups. This study sets out to re-assess the sociopolitical implications of staple storage during the LM I period, through a detailed and critical reconsideration of the recovered, albeit incomplete, archaeological testimonies. The LM I period was chosen mainly due to the wealth of evidence existing for that time: most palaces and nonpalatial elite and domestic contexts have floor deposits dated to LM IB with a few belonging to LM IA. The evidence for the earlier phase of the Neopalatial era is too limited and cannot support detailed conclusions. Discussion mostly reflects storage activities adopted by groups during LM IB. The data coming from the LM IA period cannot provide a representative picture of storage activities during this era. The dispositional availability of data, therefore, does not allow for the adoption of a diachronic perspective, and juxtapositions of LM IA and LM IB realities rest almost entirely on negative evidence. Tracing changes from the LM IA to LM IB periods becomes possible only in a few cases; conclusions, however, reflect local causes of process and could not support generalizations of sociopolitical development. The extensive LM IB remains, therefore,

4

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

allow for some broad conclusions to be made regarding the interaction of the various social sectors operating at that time. The strategy followed here, however, is to shift attention to the storage behavior adopted by a group that is sometimes ignored in archaeological discussion: ordinary people. This social group is closely tied to its social and physical environment and, as such, is extremely sensitive to socio-economic and environmental changes. Simple and nonpalatial elite domestic contexts are therefore our primary units of analysis in order to see how subsistence and economic specialization were organized. Taken together, then, the testimonies on storage offer an ideal opportunity to understand LM I societies through a consideration of storage strategies and their synergistic relation with other facets of social, ideological, and political life. The research question is mainly focused on an array of evidence—such as storage containers and installations, architectural remains, artifactual evidence related to the processing and consumption of food, and organic remains. Special emphasis is placed on the storage containers, generally known as pithoi, recovered in the floor deposits of the contexts considered here (Figs. 1–9). The volumetric estimate of storage facilities provides the starting point of a discussion aiming to shed light on both the subsistence autarky of the domestic sector of social organization and the relationships between central and domestic storage. Although the importance of architecture in investigating storage has been a topic of vivid interest, with the most systematic approach that of Ian Begg (1975), the role of pithoi has been rarely investigated. Exceptions are the studies of Y. Dewolf, F. Postel, and H. van Effenterre on the subsistence autarky of the town of Malia based on the architecture of the stores and the capacity of storage containers, quite innovative for its time (Dewolf, Postel, and van Effenterre 1963), and that of Peter Warren on the subsistence of EM II households at the settlement of Myrtos, Phournou Koriphi (Warren 1972). Storage is a complex process intrinsically linked to its sociopolitical framework. It is therefore essential at this point to look at the political landscape of Neopalatial Crete, particularly following the results of recent research. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that local LM I societies were not monolithic and static entities, but they were subject

to changes and adaptations to internal and external stimuli. The triggers of change were environmental upheavals—the Theran eruption was surely the most decisive of these over the approximately 150 years that the LM I period lasted. The role of human agents is also a determining factor of change. Human choices, actions, and intentions affect their surroundings (Barrett 1998, 2002; Dobres and Robb 2000). The political decisions of the rulers/ ruling classes of LM I societies would have been determined by local interests and idiosyncrasies, emergency situations disturbing the social order, and the rationale and ambitions of the rulers themselves or the ruling elements of a corporate group. The leading part played by the individual and/or corporate groups in the transformation of local communities—a part generally hard to identify in the archaeological record (Barrett 2002)—is a determining factor, perhaps more so than the natural phenomena often considered, among most Aegeanists, to be the basic factors of change. Recent discoveries, re-examination of old excavations, and survey data have suggested complex patterns of regional dynamics and significant changes in the sociopolitical organization of most Neopalatial societies scattered across the island (for the principal sites mentioned in the text see Fig. 1). The analysis of these different pictures of sociopolitical development sheds light on the operational scale, structure, and organization of regional Neopalatial states, and therefore allows us to understand more fully the storage activities of the groups active in these societies. The most dramatic causes of process are observed in the regions of the Pediada and Malia. In the Pediada, there is an impressive rise in site numbers from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial period (Panagiotakis 2004). The dense settlement patterns in the west of the plain have been interpreted as the result of more intensive contacts with Knossos. The seat of the main political institution of the region was the palace of Galatas (Rethemiotakis 1999a, 1999b, 2002). The gradual abandonment of the complex, already from the end of the MM IIIB period—an abandonment that may be due to the confrontation of the ambitious local elite with Knossos, which obviously had strategic interests in the area—gave rise to a completely different political scene in LM IA. The palace of Galatas ceased to operate as the seat of

INTRODUCTION

the local ruling group. The settlement around the palace, however, continued to exist and flourish until the end of LM IB (Rethemiotakis 2002; Christakis and Rethemiotakis, forthcoming). The presence of strongly-constructed structures across the region, built to guard important routes, may indicate unrest or conflict either within the region or between local groups and an extra-regional rival (Panagiotakis 2004). The center of Kastelli, already an important urban center from the Protopalatial period, seems to have been the seat of a local ruling group in LM IA (Rethemiotakis 1992). To date, no complex has been located that could have been the seat of a political group controlling the area in LM IB. The Pediada already seems to have entered the sphere of Knossos from LM IA. In the region of Malia, the palace was destroyed at the end of LM IA and never reused (Pelon 2005; contra Van de Moortel and Darque 2006 who argued for a destruction in LM IB). Many houses of the urban center were also destroyed/abandoned in the same period (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 186–193). The lack of a palatial complex that could be used by a political group during LM IB is a clear indication of the radical changes in the political scene of the northern part of east-central Crete. The power vacuum observed at Malia must have been filled either by a small ruling group that would have controlled an urban center in obvious decline, one way or another, or by another palatial power, probably that of Knossos, which would have extended its control to the area. The changes to the political scene in the area of Malia appear to form part of a wider climate of decline observed during the Neopalatial era in this region. The dramatic drop in number of surrounding sites, from 80 during the Protopalatial era to just nine during the Neopalatial, is a clear instance of a loss of integration in the Maliote hinterland, a loss with serious consequences in the political, social, and economic sphere (Müller 1996, 1998; Driessen 2001a). A slight decline in settlement numbers from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial periods and a simplification of site hierarchy, with the basic centers of power being those of Phaistos/Hagia Triada and Kommos, are also observed in the area of Western Mesara (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004, 291–298). The principal political and economic

5

center of the area throughout LM I appears to have been Hagia Triada. In LM IA the new palace of Phaistos had not yet been built and Building T at Kommos, the seat of a political group during MM III, had only limited use in early LM IA, after which it underwent a radical change in function (La Rosa 2002; Shaw 2002). The new palace at Phaistos, founded in LM IB, seems to have been reused by the local political leadership as a ceremonial and cultic center, as opposed to the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada, which appears to have been the basic administrative and economic center of the area (La Rosa 2002). The construction of such a monumental complex during LM IB, however, points to the expenditure of enormous material resources and the mobilization of a huge labor force: all pointing to substantial centralized local communities using architecture as a physical participant in a performance of power and social cohesion. The settlement of Kommos, on the contrary, seems to have lost its former role as a political center (Shaw 2002). I believe that the causes of these changes should not be sought in extra-regional stimuli—the extent of Knossian power has been hinted at in the framework of a Knossocentric view of the LM I period—so much as in local agents with the dynamism to structure regional relations. A drop in settlement numbers during the Neopalatial era but a more developed site hierarchy and signs of nucleation in one or two large centers, especially after the Theran eruption, emerged from survey projects in the region of the Gulf of Mirabello (Watrous and Blitzer 1999; Hayden 2004, 112–120; Haggis 2005, 74–79). The Gournia polity seems to have integrated several areas under its control. The monumental modifications of the palace at Gournia, which is the seat of the main polity in the region, and the picture of growth observed in the major centers of the region, such as Pseira and Mochlos, prove that local societies were experiencing a surge of dynamism (Soles 2002, 2004). Divergent trajectories in settlement patterns were noted in the Siteia district (Driessen 2001a). The low number of Neopalatial settlements in the area of Ziros and Praisos suggests that some parts of the region were in decline. Elsewhere, however, at Petras, Palaikastro, and Itanos, the number of sites seems to rise. The picture presented by these areas, in conjunction with excavation data from

6

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

the Petras and Palaikastro settlements, testifies to flourishing societies. Differences between areas of the Siteia district may result from local geopolitical conditions (Driessen 2001a). The most extreme change in the political scene of East Crete occurred at Zakros. The rebuilding or establishment of the Zakrian palace in LM IB brought about radical reorganization in the Zakros settlement and the wider area, altering the balance of power in the easternmost part of the island. The excavator of the palace has attributed its establishment to Knossos, within the framework of an organized plan and with the ultimate aim of Knossian economic development (Platon 1971b, 240; Platon 2004). How far Knossos played a part in the establishment of this palatial complex, a hypothesis mainly based on the striking similarities of the material culture used by the Zakrian ruling group to that of Knossos, is, to my mind, an open question. In any case, even N. Platon himself accepted a large degree of autonomy for the political group controlling the fate of the town, and presented them henceforth as administrators of the further development of the area. The Zakros area seems to have experienced a surge of dynamism during LM I, except for the last years of LM IB when, following seismic activity, signs of decline are seen before the final destruction of the town at the end of the period (Platon, forthcoming; Archondaki, forthcoming). The examination of patterns of sociopolitical development in the area of north-central Crete is hindered chiefly by the lack of information from surveys and the limited exploration of the known settlements. Existing testimonies suggest an intensively settled area; relations, however, between different centers are difficult to assess. Knossos was the most important polity of the region not only during the MM IIIB and LM IA periods, as has been suggested by Macdonald (2002), but also during LM IB (Warren 2004). Narratives that see the monumental palace in a state of ruin during LM IB (Macdonald 2002) are based on unconvincing arguments. The absence of LM IB deposits from the palace cannot in itself explain the picture of a ruined palace and a palatial polity in decline. Continuous occupation of the palace erased LM IB testimonies. Dumps of LM IB pottery in the South House were convincingly identified by Mountjoy as coming from the palace after a large-scale clearing

operation (Mountjoy 2003, 1–25). Furthermore, indications of the possible political presence of Knossos in neighboring areas such as that of the Pediada and perhaps Malia, and above all of its cultural impact all over the island and even in the rest of the Aegean, are anything but an indication of a declining political power (Wiener 1990; Warren 2004). Although most of the town of Knossos itself remains unexcavated, it seems to have been the largest urban center not only of the island but also of the whole Aegean (Whitelaw 2001, 2004; Warren 2004). Peripheral political groups would have been active around the Knossian center. The most important of these would have been that controlling the settlement of Archanes, while there would have been others active in the area of Nirou Chani and even further away, in Tylissos for example. Their relationships with Knossos are unclear, especially regarding the group controlling Archanes. The differences in scale and complexity between Knossos and the other centers are so great that we cannot support the view that these groups could have gained power and been able to exercise their own policy. Patterns of sociopolitical development described above become yet more complex due to changes in the central and domestic sector of various LM I societies, not just from the LM IA to LM IB periods—the Theran eruption was an event of crucial importance—but actually during these periods themselves. Destruction due to earthquakes during the LM IA and LM IB periods have left their mark on many buildings and resulted in their architectural reorganization. Architectural modifications brought about changes in both the use of space and the economic situation of the households or groups that used the buildings. The reproduction of local pictures is difficult, not only because of the scarcity of excavation data, but chiefly due to the general tendency—now fortunately beginning to change—to view the Neopalatial period as a monolithic entity. Setting aside changes in the palatial and domestic sector over the 100 years of LM IA, changes requiring a more systematic examination beyond the limits of this discussion, I will concentrate on the changes taking place during the LM IB period, the focus of interest due to the wealth of testimonies at our disposal.

INTRODUCTION

Buildings, in many urban centers of the island, bear traces of destruction, possibly due to seismic activity, within LM IB. The length of time between these early destructions and the final destructions of the centers at the end of LM IB is an issue requiring systematic study, which the presentation of new data would aid substantially. Earthquake destruction is followed by repairs, usually hasty and with poor-quality materials— clear evidence of rough-and-ready building. Differences in building methods and materials, pithoi containing plaster, bronze tools left in the place where they were used, and architectural modifications are among the uncontestable evidence that is traceable in the archaeological record. Architectural modifications, abandonment of spaces within the building, and differences in the quality and quantity of artifactual assemblages all may highlight shifts in the economic and social status of households or groups across a single generation. As we will see in the following chapters, many palatial and nonpalatial elite groups, and also simple households, were decisively affected by events of change that occurred within LM IB.

7

Final LM IB destructions that damaged a fair number of settlements seem not to be occurring at the same time but gradually spreading across the island. The meticulous study of ceramic data coming from numerous settlements showed that some destructions come earlier than others. This scenario, supported by W.-D. Niemeier (1984), seems to be confirmed in a number of cases such as the settlements of Chania-Kastelli, Kommos, Hagia Triada, Lagouta-Kolokythi, Pseira, Mochlos, and Palaikastro. The ceramic assemblages unearthed from the final destruction layers of the above sites seem to be later than those of other settlements. Such chronological variations are noted even in different buildings belonging to the same settlement, such as the case of Hagia Triada (Puglisi 2003b). The non-synchronous destructions of LM IB centers therefore blur even further the political picture of LM IB Crete and confirm as a possible cause of the final destructions that affected the island not a natural event but, on the contrary, a human agent—a scenario fully supported in the present monograph.

1

From Storage Implements to Subsistence Autarkies: A Framework for Interpreting the Archaeological Record Food Storage: Some Fundamental Assumptions Basically speaking, storage, in any time or place is a behavioral and technological mechanism that ensures the availability of a very wide range of products, for example, subsistence commodities, artifacts, currency, and knowledge (written records and electronic data). Storage is a delayed-return system where an individual “holds rights over valued assets of some sort, which either represent a yield, a return for labor over time or, if not, are held and managed in a way which resembles and has similar social implications to delayed yields on labor” (Woodburn 1982, 432). In this study, I shall be concerned with one aspect of this broad phenomenon, namely food storage: a strategy designed to provide the long- and shortterm preservation of agricultural food produce beyond its natural period of availability. Food storage must be seen as an intermediate stage in a complex process of production, mobilization, storage, and consumption of staples. Storage, despite being

an independent part, is not autonomous and disconnected from the other stages of this cycle. Storage of food surpluses may be conceptualized in three different ways (Ingold 1983; Soffer 1989): as intra-corporeal storage whereby the accumulation of body fat helps survival during the lean season; as social storage whereby food is converted through formalized exchange networks into durable tokens and social obligations that can be reconverted into food in times of shortage (O’Shea 1981; Wiessner 1982); and finally as material storage, which involves the direct accumulation of food produce. Intra-corporeal storage is very common in animal species but not in humans. Accumulating fat is also an indirect storage strategy where livestock fed with surplus grain and failed crops are consumed by humans in time of need (Flannery 1969; Brenton 1988). Material and “social storage” require advanced technological knowledge and a considerable investment of labor for the processing

10

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

of food surpluses, the construction of permanent storage installations and containers, and the manufacture of valuables. Storage, combined with mobility, diversification and exchange, is a cultural mechanism for evening out the effects of seasonal, inter-annual, and longterm fluctuations in the availability of food resources (O’Shea 1981; Halstead and O’Shea 1989). Variability may be caused by climatic and disease constraints, nutritional balance, demographic stress and warfare, problems of activity scheduling, or the non-concurrence of production, consumption, and exchange. Storage, therefore, is one of the critical preconditions permitting a population to live in permanently occupied areas, to exist in places with high variability of food supply, and to participate in trade activities (Ingold 1983). Storage strategies differ according to the means whereby the surplus is extracted, housed, controlled, and administered, and the time lag between storage and distribution or consumption. As far as the means whereby the surplus is housed and administered are concerned, three systems have been isolated: central, regional, and domestic (Smyth 1989). A basic assumption about the patterns in the spatial organization of storage facilities is that they were located close to the place of production and/or consumption in order to minimize the cost of transportation (Earle and D’Altroy 1982; D’Altroy and Earle 1985). In a central storage system, surplus and craft goods were centrally collected and housed in complexes under the control and administration of government officials. Storage buildings were large architectural complexes, usually with a standardized layout. Most of these buildings were associated with administrative and religious centers in order to meet consumption demands and ensure security and control of the stored goods. They were also found on the main traffic routes of a region or near transshipment locations and in areas with a high level of productivity (Schreiber 1985). In the former case, this was done to facilitate the transportation of short- and long-distance exchange and, in the latter, to assure direct storage of the products. Central storage requires first an extensive input of labor and knowledge in the construction and maintenance of large storage facilities, then the ability to transport goods from the point of harvesting

or manufacture to the central storage complex, and finally the wherewithal to process large quantities of staple materials and create record-keeping systems. Central storage is characteristic of highly hierarchical societies. The direct control of the surplus stored in central complexes and the mechanism of distribution guaranteed the independence and viability of the political institutions and the financing of state enterprises (Childe 1954, 30–31; Haas 1982, 159–160). In a regional storage system, storage complexes were located at the periphery (regions and subregions) of an administrative center. Stored staples were produced, collected, and controlled at the local level. This type of storage provided for the preservation of agricultural surplus on the spot, the minimizing of transport expenditures, an insurance for the local population in the event of agricultural famine, and an important holding area for tribute, all of which enable the state to meet community obligations and to support the provincial state personnel (Earle and D’Altroy 1982; D’Altroy and Earle 1985). Moreover, it could contribute to the emergence of regional elite. Regional storage complexes were large/medium-sized permanent structures. They were either located near local public/ administrative structures or were more isolated. Domestic storage, the focus of this study, refers to the strategies adopted by a household in order to cope with fluctuations in food supply, ensure its economic independence, and contribute to the state surplus. The stored goods were produced and controlled by the members of the household. Domestic storage strategies varied greatly according to the exigencies of the specific circumstances. Storage structures did not have a standardized layout and were either located within the domestic structure or in freestanding structures nearby. Domestic storage played a prominent role in the generation of surplus, and, from that perspective, it was a fundamental resource for increasing state surplus. The household was the main unit of production of goods of subsistence and stocked surpluses (Sahlins 1972, 41–148). Households needed to provide an uninterrupted flow of foodstuffs beyond the period of the natural availability of food staples or during periods of subsistence stress. Diversification of crop cultivation, extension of land use, and increase in technological achievements inevitably affect the production of surplus.

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

The unbalanced accumulation of “normal surplus,” due either to environmental factors or to the internal dynamics of the household unit, leads to social differentiation between households and thus to hierarchy at a community level (Allan 1965, 38–39; Halstead 1989). Nevertheless, the production, accumulation, and management of a redundant agricultural output that is not for immediate needs, but rather is intended for future use, implies the existence of an organizing institution. No domestic unit will produce more than is needed for its subsistence requirements and welfare unless it is forced to do so by a higher authority (La Lone 1994). Domestic storage contributed to the moral and social position of a household. Storage connected resources to requirements and desires and contributed to perceived social status. The householder, who, through a careful and systematic planning of storage, achieved the support of his family during the unproductive season, strengthened his position and appreciation not only within the family group but also at the community level. The responsibilities of each member of the household in connection with the use of household resources are largely gender-determined (Hendon 1996; Moore 1996). Anthropological research and ethnohistorical testimonies suggest that domestic storage, among other factors, defines the position of the members within a family and the social status of the family itself. In many households the processing and storage of food surpluses is intrinsically related to the female members (Ember 1983; Forbes and Foxhall 1995). In other cases, a specialization in the domestic storage strategies has been observed. The storage facilities in the households of the tribes of Marakwet, Kenya, for instance, are divided into those controlled by the males and those controlled by the females (Moore 1996). The surplus kept by women has a “private” character as it is used for the subsistence needs of the household, while the surplus kept by men contributes to the social position of the household (cf. Druker-Brown 2001 for a similar case in the tributes of Tallensi and Manprusi in Ghana). Among Trobriand males (Trobriand Islands), staples are accorded different treatments depending on their use. Goods used for subsistence are kept in the house and consumed therein; goods intended for exchange are kept separately nearby, in a specially designed structure, and are intended to be seen and remarked upon. In this way, by the

11

decoration, quality of construction, and prominence of the storehouse, a man’s status and skill in exchange relationships are advertised (Weiner 1976). Central, regional, and domestic storage strategies also varied according to the methods of state surplus extraction (Smyth 1989). In a taxation, tribute, and labor service economy, central and regional storage strategies were highly standardized in storage techniques, the layout of storage facilities, and their spatial organization. Domestic storage strategies were more varied. Nevertheless, while in a taxation/tribute system domestic storage facilities were substantial in order to contribute to tribute and tax extraction, in a labor service system they were limited, and the stored goods were preserved for short-term periods. In a trade/exchangebased economy, storage strategies were highly diversified except for their spatial distribution, which followed standardized patterns. At a domestic level the investment in storage facilities was limited, and goods were kept for short terms. As stated above, storage is an episode within the process of production-distribution-consumption of surplus. The time lag between the stages varies from days or months to a period of over a year. The first type is here conventionally called short-term storage, the second long-term. The temporal character of storage adopted by the social group can illuminate issues regarding the basis of the economic organization of the society and its consumption habits, and it also can help to underline mutual relationships of dependence between the central, regional, and domestic levels of economic organization. The time lapse between storage and distribution-consumption is determined by physical and climatic constraints and consumption needs. Physical constraints refer to the “shelf-life” of food commodities to be stored (Labuza 1982). These temporal restrictions are subject to the internal and external climatic conditions of the storage area: humid and warm climatic environments, for instance, may affect the preservation of the stored products adversely in contrast to more arid and fresh conditions, while airtight environments substantially contribute to long-term storage practices (Rhodes 1980; Panagiotakopulu 2000). It is worth noting that storage technologies (pithoi, perishable containers, built installations, and crop processing before storage) do not always enable ancient peasants to keep their products

12

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

safe. Indeed, the losses of the stored capital, because of the limits of storage technologies, can amount to anywhere from 50% to 80% (C. Smith 1969; De Garine and Koppert 1988). Consumption is also a critical factor in the temporal definition of storage: nutritional and social needs and replacement funds define the time span that a commodity is kept in the domestic store. Foodstuffs are stored as long as and until a household requires them for its nutritional requirements. Food consumption, as I will discuss in detail further below, also acts at a semiotic level as it incorporates a whole range of social, economic, and

political meanings. The removal of goods from the larder during occasions of intense social interaction can establish, maintain, and change a household’s social position. The social restrictions on the consumption of edible goods also define the kind and quantity of the stored goods, as well as the choices of storage strategies at either the technological or the behavioral level. Stored capital provides the means for the acquisition of goods not produced by a household itself, such as building materials, livestock, metals and tools, and pottery; it is also used to facilitate the household’s capital investments.

The Archaeological Recognition of Food Storage Food storage activities can be appreciated through a wide range of data: storage containers and built storage units, installations and implements concerned with the processing and consumption of staple commodities, the size and architectural arrangement of storerooms, architectural modifications causing changes in the use of spaces, textual evidence, scientific methods of retrieving bioarchaeological information and environmental considerations—all are sound sources of information. The careful use of ethnographic, anthropological, and historical evidence might also be of relevance. The availability of these sources in the context of Bronze Age Crete, however, is rather limited: ceramic storage containers, generally known as pithoi, built storage installations and implements used for the processing of food commodities, architecture, and a few organic remains are the only direct evidence at our disposal. The importance of these parameters is discussed in more detail below.

Pithoi The evaluation of food storage attempted in this study is mostly based on ceramic storage containers, generally known as pithoi (Christakis 2005). Pithoi are here defined as pots of various shapes— namely ovoid, globular, piriform, barrel, conical, and tub. Ovoid and piriform shapes may be elongated or depressed. The mouth is restricted or unrestricted. Restricted mouths usually have a collar. The handles are generally arranged either in two

rows on the upper and lower parts of the body or in a single row on the upper. Pithoi are made of coarse or semi-coarse fabric. The decoration varies from simple to extremely elaborately painted, and in its appliqué and incised compositions. I define as pithoi pots over 50 cm in height, while pots under this are classified as small pithoi or pitharakia. There are two reasons for the great importance of pithoi in the evaluation of food storage. Firstly, pithoi are the food storage containers par excellence. Their physical properties allow the long-term preservation of large quantities of goods, unlike containers made of perishable materials (Christakis 2005, 65). Ethnographic correlates from pre-industrial domestic contexts in Crete showed that pithoi were mostly used for the long term preservation of household foodstuffs, contrary to containers made of perishable materials (sacks, baskets, etc.) used for the storage of small quantities of goods for shorter periods of time and for transport purposes. The use of perishable storage containers also implies the frequent movement of goods within the domestic unit. Secondly, ethnographic evidence has shown that pithoi were rarely removed from their context of use, because of their volume and excessive weight. Ethnoarchaeological studies of recently abandoned contexts have shown that large containers are more often deposited as de facto refuse, even if they were still usable, whereas smaller artifacts tend to be curated (Schiffer 1987, 95, 268–269). In Classical Greece, pithoi were mostly left in the house and sold with the house or the land

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

(Robinson and Graham 1938, 312–316; Amyx 1958). In most notary documents concerned with the census of properties and marriage contracts written during the Venetian and Ottoman occupation of Crete, pithoi were carefully recorded alongside other valuable property, with references to their number, contents, capacity, provenance, and state of preservation (e.g., Stavrinidis 1975, 161– 162, no. 229; 1976, 216–217, no. 807, 315, no. 315; Bakker and van Gemert 1987, 59, no. 39; Detorakis 1990; Grintakis 1990a, 107, no. 248). Pithoi were considered a marker of a household’s wealth: again in many cases they were sold with the house (Stavrinidis 1976, 417–418, no. 1098; 1985, 178, no. 2744; for a full discussion see Christakis 2005, 66–67). Many old houses in Crete that were abandoned in recent decades, have storage equipment left in situ, in some cases with their contents still intact. The ruined villages in the area between Milatos and Elounda in eastern Crete provide some of the best examples (Frontispiece). Although this situation is partly due to changes in storage technology—nowadays pithoi have been replaced by plastic, glass, and metal containers— it may be noted that they were rarely removed, even for the purposes of the greatly profitable antiquarian trade. Thus, the number of pithoi recovered in relatively undisturbed LM I stores may reflect a substantial part of storage containers kept there before the destruction and/or abandonment of the context. This is not the case with storage containers placed on upper floors: erosion and cultivation may have erased crucial evidence (cf. Popham 1988). It is worth noting here that the temporal study of most of the Cretan Bronze Age pithoi has revealed that, in 98% of cases, the date of the pithos corresponds to the date of its find context. Only in a very few cases is there evidence for the use of pithoi older than the date of their context of use (Christakis 2005, 10, 75). It should, however, be noted that storage containers made of perishable materials—such as wooden barrels and boxes, cloth and leather sacks, and baskets—can also serve storage purposes. Testimonies from the Late Cycladic settlement at Akrotiri, Thera (Polychronakou-Sgouritsa 2000; Nikolakopoulou 2003) and ethnographic information demonstrate the importance of perishable storage containers, especially in domestic contexts, for

13

food storage activities. Taphonomic circumstances in Crete do not allow the preservation of these markers. Estimates based on the pithoi therefore reflect only part of the story. Containers made of perishable material, however, were mostly used for transport and short-term storage purposes rather than long-term storage. The most characteristic pithoi used in palatial, elite, and domestic contexts during the LM I period are illustrated in Figures 2–9. Leaving aside questions on the production patterns of storage containers fully discussed elsewhere (Christakis 2005), it is worth focusing on their specific functional attributes. Although all pithoi were used for storage purposes, variations in morphological features (such as the vessel’s height, the degree of closure of the mouth, the width of the base, the ratios of height to maximum diameter and of base diameter to maximum diameter, the vessel’s weight, and the arrangement of handles) imply differences in basic functional attributes such as the stability, capacity, accessibility, and manipulation of contents, transportability, and graspability (Christakis 2005, 45–50, table 1). Differences in these properties suggest differences in the primary function of the storage container. Forms 4–7, 10–18, 51, 55, 85, 87, 88, 95, 100, and 113, for instance, are distinctive in their high stability, low transportability, high capacity, and low/moderate accessibility of the contents. They were suitable for the storage of large amounts of staples for long periods, and in most cases they were placed in the storerooms of large complexes. Forms 1, 24, 25, 28, 34, 36, 48, 54, 56, 60–68, 70–80, 82, 86, 92–94, 98, and 119 have a moderate/low stability, high/moderate transportability, low/moderate volume of capacity, and high accessibility; and some specimens have a mouth very easily closed. The presence of these pithoi indicates a storage model of low/moderate potential and a constant movement of commodities in an intra-domestic and extra-domestic context. Many of these pithoi may have also served for transportation. A total of 60% of them came from domestic stores and the rest from central complexes, the latter context in which they were mostly placed on upper stories. Finally, pithoi with unrestricted mouths (Forms 104, 105, 107, 110, 112, 114, 118, and 120) are noted for their easy displacement of the center of gravity, high accessibility and manipulation of content, and

14

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

medium/high transportability. The frequent presence of spouts argues for the storage of liquids. They served for short-term storage, activities involving the processing of staples, and as collectors. The evaluation of storage based on pithoi, hereby proposed, pursues four paths: the isolation of the entirely and partly preserved pithoi found on the floor and/or in the filling deposit (fallen from the upper floor) of the context; the study of the morphological and functional attributes of the pithoi; the consideration of the relationship between pithoi and their context (architectural and artifactual); and their volumetric estimates in terms of liters. The capacity is estimated using the system of summed cylinders (Nelson 1985; Christakis 2005, 47). When a volumetric estimate of the actual pithos is not possible, because the pot either has not been restored or was destroyed during World War II, the number of liters attributed to it is derived from the “reference vessel” of each form: the result is therefore approximate (Christakis 2005, table 1). It is important to note that such proposed capacities are optimal: they correspond to the volume of the pithos but not to the actual amount of goods kept there.

Pottery Relating to Food Storage, Preparation, and Consumption Households used other types of pottery vessels besides pithoi to store foodstuffs such as large amphorae, jars, jugs, stamnoi, and lekanes. These containers served for storage and/or pouring and transfer purposes. In most contexts, they are associated with pithoi, while in a few cases they were the only storage containers in the building. Pots used for the preparation and consumption of food may also provide information on the relationships between storage and consumption.

Built Storage Installations and Storage Implements Under this broad heading, I have included cists and storage pits sunk in the floor and free-standing enclosures that served for food storage, built benches and platforms, holes cut in the floor and slabs used for the placement of pithoi, and even fine plastered and/or paved floors and drainage channels that served to create a more suitable storage environment. All these storage facilities

imply a considerable investment of labor in their construction, suggesting in turn a systematic planning of storage activities.

Processing Installations and Implements Olive and wine pressing installations and stone tools (grinding stones, mortars, and querns) used for the processing of staple commodities provide insights into the household’s access to cultivable land and food stocks, the relationship between storage and consumption, and the household’s specialization in the processing of staples.

Organic Remains Organic remains are informative on the kind of commodities held in the house and the dietary habits of the household. They were either associated with storage facilities or concentrated within the destruction debris. There is a serious problem here, in that most LM I contexts were excavated long ago, without access to scientific methods of retrieving bio-archaeological information and showing little interest in the collection of this type of data. Naturally, crucial information has been lost.

Architecture Staple storage usually took place in spaces with a standardized layout (Begg 1975). Interconnecting rooms, bays, pillared rooms, sottoscala, and “back rooms” are the most commonly used spaces for storage activities in nonpalatial complexes, while long and narrow spaces off a corridor and pillared rooms are the most recognizable in the palatial sector. The definition of these spaces as storerooms is not always straightforward. As Begg notes, out of 376 Neopalatial rooms considered as stores, 108 are classified according to their contents, 242 by their layout, and only 61 by both criteria (Begg 1975, 218). Here storerooms are so designated by the criteria, first by having the requisite architectural layout, and second by having storage containers and organic remains found within them. Storage activities also took place in areas used for food processing, preparation, and consumption, and even residential purposes. The presence of storage containers in residential areas has often

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

been seen as evidence of functional changes: such are used to draw conclusions on the diachronic development of storage (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 52). There are two points, however, to make here. First, it is my impression that the functional definition of spaces in the context of Bronze Age Crete is not always straightforward, and many of the proposed suggestions on the function of Neopalatial contexts are heavily influenced by modern viewpoints and aesthetics. Second, spaces may be multifunctional. In Classical Greece, for instance, most of the evidence seems to suggest that many domestic spaces did not have a fixed purpose and that furniture could be moved around to suit the occasion (Jameson 1990). In Plato’s Protagoras, for instance, a storeroom was converted into a bedroom for visitors (Pl. Prt. 315d). Rooms in traditional Cretan houses also served many purposes (Vasiliadis 1983; Arakadaki 1997–1998). A mono-functional use of space was observed only in wealthy dwellings where a stricter division of purpose applied. A few pithoi in a residential/ceremonial space, therefore, should not be interpreted exclusively as evidence for a functional change of that space. When, however, rooms used for ceremonial or residential purposes are found packed with storage containers, such as rooms 32 and 33 of the central building at Archanes (Petrakos 1999, 2000, 2001), this is certainly relevant, as it may well imply that functional changes have occurred. Buildings were also subject to architectural modifications following catastrophic events and/or changes in household needs. The levelling of floors, blocking of doors, and infilling and subdivision of rooms frequently occurred in domestic contexts. Architectural changes may affect the overall space devoted to food storage and, therefore, reflect changes in the social and economic circumstances of the household. The temporal definition of these architectural changes is not always straightforward as it seems. There are cases for instance where alterations to the original layout of the building have been dated only on architectural grounds without the use of well stratified ceramic assemblages. I believe it is self-evident that the dating of any architectural alteration, particularly when it provides data used for the proposal of narratives of sociopolitical development, must be based on safe criteria such as datable pottery rather than subjective criteria.

15

Three methodological points need to be discernable, therefore, in the record: 1. Architectural changes may provide solid evidence for discussion only when their date is based on solid grounds such as datable pottery. 2. The previous use of the space now in disuse and/or modified must be known. 3. Material markers must be present to provide an overall picture of past activities for both phases being compared. Moreover, architectural changes are of relevance for the reconstruction of past household behaviors only when they come from fully excavated contexts. Concerning the floor space devoted to storage, it is here estimated by calculating floor-sizes. A space is assessed as a food storage area based on the entire assemblage of its finds, in conjunction with the architecture and its organization. Discussions on food storage, however, made exclusively on the basis of floor extent may lead to misleading conclusions. The evaluation of the storage potential of a certain context based exclusively on the size of the stores does not take into consideration the actual potential, in terms of capacity, of storage implements. For instance, while in some houses and palaces the space devoted to storage is considerable, either the storage facilities themselves had a low volume or the storerooms were left intentionally empty. Thus, in these cases the size of the floor space does not provide a true picture of storage potential. The palaces of Malia and Knossos provide typical examples: the storeroom area of the Malia palace is greater than that of the Knossos palace. The average capacity of a typical pithos at the palace of Malia, however, is between 60 and 120 liters as opposed to 450–500 liters at Knossos. A more promising approach to understanding the storage potential of a context during its last phase of use may be found in a critical and comparative consideration of both floor size and the potential of any associated storage facilities. Empty storerooms in undisturbed contexts may suggest either the adoption of storage techniques that do not leave traces in the archaeological record, or a decrease in the overall storage potential and storage function of that particular structure.

16

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Quantitative and Qualitative Constraints in the Archaeological Testimony The datasets excavated in the LM I contexts considered here do not always provide an accurate picture for reconstructing patterns of storage behavior and subsistence. The availability of the testimonies depends on an array of cultural and natural parameters that create, shape, and affect floor assemblages (Schiffer 1987; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999). Buildings may have an extended life of hundreds of years, with repairs, modifications, and whole or partial rebuilding to reflect new circumstances and needs. Their function can also change over that time, ranging from residential to storage to livestock housing to rubbish pits. Eventually they may be incorporated in other structures or even looted for ready-made building material. Minoanists have often overlooked site formation processes: the assumption that all are familiar with or recognize such limitation has led to little attention being paid to this topic. Many scholars have tacitly assumed that their floor assemblages have a Pompeii-like character. The dynamic of the various processes that affect the quality and quantity of the archaeological record is often not considered fully, while the lack of commonly accepted criteria and terminology in isolating and describing events of destruction, abandonment, and post-abandonment has bred confusion. It is worth, therefore, introducing and discussing the factors that might have affected the floor assemblages of the LM I contexts. This will help us to set up a sound methodological framework, and it will highlight the inherent limitations in the matter under research. Unravelling the complex depositional histories of LM I buildings is a way to successfully comprehend all sources of variability and limitations in the reconstruction of storage behavior and subsistence autarky. The majority of LM I buildings reflect activities dating to LM IB, with only a few dating to LM IA. Most of the LM IB domestic and elite (nonpalatial) contexts have signs of violent fire destruction. Carbonized organic remains, traces of fire in the architectural remains of the structure and on domestic implements, as well as concentrations of burned earth, are clear evidence of the severe fire that

destroyed the house. The conflagration could have been accidental (earthquake, lightning, or domestic accidents), deliberate (departure or death of the dweller/s) or forced (war or strife) (for causes of fire destructions and the role of fire in the formation of the archaeological record, see Stevanovic 2002). The causes of these fire destructions are a matter of vivid controversy (see Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 106–109 for discussion and references). There are those who argue that fires followed a massive natural disaster, perhaps an earthquake and/or a volcanic eruption. For others, including the present author, the fires are better viewed as the result of human action during a period of social and political instability. About 76% of contexts destroyed by fire yield rich assemblages of artifacts: fine and utilitarian pottery, precious items, bronze containers, weapons and tools, administrative documents, and occasionally organic remains are some of the most relevant material remains preserved within the structural debris. Many others, made from perishable materials, are lost. The great number of artifact classes and their uniform spatial distribution within the domestic structure points to an unplanned abandonment. Householders, leaving in great haste, left most of the domestic equipment in situ, only selecting the most valuable, portable, and useful objects. The contextual integrity of the occupied area is very high. Some of the contexts that provide rich floor assemblages and contribute substantially to reconstructing patterns of past behavior are the houses in the settlement of Chania-Kastelli (especially House I), Mansion A at Tylissos, and the mansions at Nirou Chani, Mitropolis-Kannia, Kastelli Pediados, Myrtos Pyrgos, and Makrigialos, the Casa del Lebete at Hagia Triada, House 2 and Building 3/5 at Galatas, Houses Za and Zb at Malia, the building of Rousses Chondrou (LM IA destruction), Building B.2 and House C.3 at Mochlos, House A at Achladia Siteia, the central buildings at Archanes and that at Hagia Triada, some houses at Palaikastro, and many houses at Kato Zakros. Activities before/during/after the fire destruction and abandonment, however, have partially obscured the “freeze-frame” of the floor deposits

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

in some of the aforementioned contexts. Parts of some complexes such as that of the mansion at Mitropolis-Kannia were re-used in later periods. Elsewhere the destruction layers have been disturbed in the attempt to unearth precious items, as is the case with Mansion A at Tylissos, while the householders themselves may have taken useful and portable items with them, as at House N at Palaikastro. Many houses have been damaged by cultivation, geological upheavals, subsequent building activities, or grave-digging, while others were looted for building material. Some houses, finally, may have been destroyed during looting; this has been proposed for the mansion at Myrtos Pyrgos, Mansion E at Malia, and Building 5 at Palaikastro as well as many houses in the town of Pseira (AB, AP, AF N, and BS/BV). Yet other contexts exist with signs of fire destruction, but lack the rich artifact collections (24% of the total). Their finds constitute objects similar to those found in the above houses, but they are far fewer. Representative examples are the mansion at Vrises, that at Sklavokambos, B and C at Tylissos, and several houses at Malia, Hagia Triada, and Gournia. The domestic assemblages discovered in houses belonging to this category do not seem fully representative of household activities. The domestic implements, unusually few to cover the needs of a household, and their distribution indicate that the householders had time to move many items of use out of the house, thereby corrupting the traces of their activities. Removal of domestic implements might also occur much before the destruction/abandonment of the unit, as a result of changes in households needs. The pictures that emerge, therefore, are not entirely representative and certainly detract from a complete reconstruction of past activities. External factors have also had a decisive influence on destruction layers in such cases. Several houses were damaged by geological upheavals and subsequent building activities or roads. Parts of some houses were reused after their destruction, some houses such as that at Tourtouli-Prophetes Elias seem to have been looted, while yet others were filled with rubble brought from other areas of the site, as in the South House at Knossos. In some cases, such as that of Mansion B at Tylissos, the impact of external factors is so decisive that it is not certain whether the scarcity of domestic assemblages results from a

17

planned removal of artifacts or from post-destruction depositional histories. Some complexes were abandoned without any evidence of fire destruction. Case A, B, and C at Hagia Triada, the house at Prinias-Flega, many houses at Pseira and Gournia, and part of House E (the Oblique Building) at Kato Zakros are typical examples. Most of these complexes were found with but poor floor assemblages (mostly coarseware), although exceptions might occur (e.g., Hogarth House I(J) at Kato Zakros). The absence of rich artifactual assemblages might point to a planned abandonment where the household carefully removed domestic implements, a hypothesis supported by the absence of significant post-depositional processes which would have affected the destruction layers. It cannot be ruled out, however, that the overall picture from these units may actually represent past household behaviors. Each case must be examined separately within the wider contextual framework. Other contexts used in LM I were found almost empty of artifactual assemblages dateable to that period. Many of these were subject to extensive reuse after their destruction in LM IB; the floors were cleared of the destruction layers and reused. The most representative examples of this practice are the Little Palace and the Royal Villa at Knossos. In other cases, such as the Gypsum House at Knossos, the South House in the area of the Stratigraphical Museum, and the house southwest of the South House at Knossos, the houses were subject to drastic architectural alterations that eliminated any trace of LM IB activities. In all of the above cases, there is no direct evidence for a comprehensive consideration of the activities of the households. The architecture can of course give us some idea of the spatial organization; such information must be used with care, however, as moveable finds are the only undisputed witnesses to human activity, their presence bringing the rooms to life. Similar pictures of abandonment have also been observed at the palaces. Most palaces were destroyed by fire. The wealth of artifacts and ecofacts, however, varied from case to case. The destruction deposits excavated at the palaces of Kato Zakros and Petras were rich in datasets. Moreover, activities dated to a post–LM IB period do not occur in the palatial area of Kato Zakros, while those at Petras were limited (Tsipopoulou

18

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

1997). The contextual integrity of these palaces is very high. The palaces at Malia, Gournia, and Phaistos have also been destroyed by fire. Their destruction deposits, however, are quite poor. The palaces were almost empty when excavated apart from some assemblages of artifacts (mostly ordinary pottery and few precious items). The contextual integrity of the palatial areas is low, and artifactual and ecofactual assemblages do not provide an entirely representative picture of past behaviors. Explaining these pictures is difficult, especially if we take into consideration that re-occupation in later periods is very limited at the palaces of Malia (Pelon 1997) and Phaistos (Carinci 1989) while being absent at the palace of Gournia (Soles 1991). As far as the case of Phaistos is concerned, it has been argued that the palace was in the process of being furnished (La Rosa 2002). In the cases of Malia and Gournia, it is very tempting to interpret the emptiness of the complexes as the result of a planned abandonment prior to their destruction by fire, or even as the result of looting. Hazzidakis, the first excavator of the palace of Malia, argued that the rarity of finds within the palace, a rarity that does not tally with the splendor of the building, shows that, following its destruction and looting, the palace remained in ruins for a long period of time, allowing subsequent looters to remove the various vessels (Hazzidakis 1919, 56). The palace of Galatas is one of the most typical examples of a planned abandonment and partial re-use of a context. The complex was built in the MM IIIA period, rearranged in MM IIIB, and it lost its palatial character at least as an integrated building complex early in LM IA (Rethemiotakis 2002). Some spaces on the first floor of the north wing and others on the ground floor in the east wing alone were in use during the LM IA period, before the final destruction by earthquake at the end of the same period. Because most areas were found completely emptied of their floor assemblages, these last were probably removed in a planned abandonment. It is worth noting that pottery assemblages (mostly sherds) for the floor levels excavated within the palace are very rich in coarse ware (including many fragments of storage containers), but with few examples of fine ware. The LM I palace at Knossos was in full use over several hundred years until its final destruction in

LM IIIA2. Repairs and modifications, undertaken to accommodate changing needs, created a complex architectural palimpsest. Artifactual assemblages dated to LM I were completely erased by subsequent occupation and thrown from the palace down into the surrounding area (as in the case of the South House, Mountjoy 2003, 1–25). Thus information on LM IA and LM IB activities is almost absent; only architecture and very few artifacts may provide a window into activities dated to that period. Diverse research agendas and recovery protocols have also seriously affected the quality and quantity of datasets for defining past activities. Many scholars, especially those active in the early 20th century, focused particularly on palatial and elite buildings that were potentially architecturally and artifactually rewarding. Interest in excavating “humbler” units—apart from very few exceptions—was limited. A large sector of societal organization, that of the ordinary population, therefore, is largely unknown. Besides, most domestic contexts excavated to date have been located in east-central and eastern Crete: in the towns of Malia, Gournia, Mochlos, Pseira, Palaikastro, and Kato Zakros. Excavations of domestic units in western Crete are correspondingly rare. Differences in the spatial distribution of testimonies inevitably deprive us of the opportunity to locate possible differences in economic behavior among people living in different regions. Aesthetic predilections also determine, to a certain extent, the information provided in the preliminary excavation reports (final reports are actually very few). Finely decorated pottery, sumptuary artifacts, and seals monopolized and continue to monopolize the attention of most researchers. Coarse ware, stone tools, and other implements that provide fresh insights into storage and food processing strategies are very often neglected. The collection of bio-archaeological information was not consistently conducted by the most advanced methods of recovery. In fact early excavators were mostly uninterested in that type of data. Recent research approaches, however, warn us of the importance of such data in reconstructing past subsistence behaviors. Unfortunately, crucial information in that direction has already been lost. In conclusion, the LM I contexts considered here provide quite a varied—in quality and quantity— array of archaeological information. Cultural and

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

natural parameters considerably affect artifactual and ecofactual assemblages. Deductions, therefore, on storage behavior and subsistence advanced here are subject to these limits. Despite the shortcomings imposed by the quality and quantity of the

19

archaeological record, I would argue that a critical approach that takes the contextual frameworks and their problematic character into consideration can provide valuable data for the analysis of household activities.

Interpreting Storage Implements Interpreting the mute collections of artifacts, ecofacts, and architectural remains concerned with storage recovered in Neopalatial domestic units, in terms of the subsistence behavior of those who once used these spaces, is a difficult task. Any attempt to reconstruct domestic subsistence autarky, and even more so, any study of the relationship between autarky and storage facilities, requires an understanding of the interplay of many different classes of evidence for the two key elements of domestic economy: production and consumption of goods. As is so often the case, the information from antiquity is insufficient in both quantity and quality. In this study, I develop a model for converting the volume of storage facilities excavated in Neopalatial domestic units into subsistence potential. The model is based on a series of working hypotheses on the patterns of consumption of LM I households and their nutritional requirements, and the quantity and nutritional value of stored goods. Historic and ethnographic research on production and consumption of subsistence goods in pre-industrial Crete offers the basis for a comparative understanding of possible patterns of production and consumption behavior in LM I times. Ethnohistorical information here is not used as a ready-made answer to the specific problems faced: food consumption is a socially orientated activity and may assume different expressions in different social, political, and cultural contexts. Ethnohistorical information, however, may be a sound medium through which we can ask better questions and formulate better hypotheses. Travellers’ accounts and the economic records of Venetian and Ottoman officials provide crucial information on food commodities and the structure of the Cretan diet from the 15th to early 20th centuries. Great emphasis is placed on literary references and property censuses. To that body of information, I have added the results of an ethnographic study conducted by myself, which focuses

on the relationship between production, storage, and consumption of agricultural commodities. This ethnographic survey was carried out in 85 Cretan villages, selected by taking the ecological and economic diversity of the Cretan landscape into consideration. Testimonies collected during the ethnographic survey reflect production and consumption practices dating from the late 19th century up to 1950. The results of this study are in preparation for publication.

Patterns of Food Consumption in Pre-industrial Crete In the following paragraphs, patterns of consumption of cereals, pulses, vegetables, wild greens, fruits, meat, fish, snails, and dietary products in pre-industrial Crete are briefly discussed (Tables 1–7).

Cereals The pre-eminent position of cereals and bread in Orthodox Christian ritual and the beliefs and superstitions concerned with the processing of cereals and the preparation of bread and its consumption bear witness to the corresponding importance of these goods in the context of pre-industrial Greece (Galavaris 1970; Apostolaki 1972; Defteraios 2000). Cereals (wheat, barley, oats, rye, millet, rice, and maize) formed the main part of Cretans’ daily diet, mostly in the form of bread (fresh or dried), occasionally cooked by themselves or combined with other edible commodities, and even in the form of pasta. Cereals cooked with milk or other dairy products are very frequently consumed among pastoralists. Moreover, the consumption of dried bread is frequent among the poor, soldiers,

20

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

mariners, and shepherds (Detorakis 1983–1984; Mavromatis 1994, 240; Panopoulou 1998; Vlassi 1998). The “social status” of dried bread, however, was quite different in earlier periods. In ancient Greece, dried bread was considered a delicacy (Ath. 12.12). The annual consumption of cereals per person in different areas of present-day Greece (1947– 1974) varies from 110 kg (bread) to 200 kg (Aschenbrenner 1972; van Wersch 1972; Foxhall and Forbes 1982). These figures are close to the estimate of 200 kg per person/year during the medieval period (Svoronos 1976, 60; Asdrachas 1978, 53–54). It is also interesting to note that in Constantinople during the first half of the 12th century, the monthly state provision in cereals (wheat) for a poor household of 13 individuals was 153.6 kg (Hesseling and Pernot 1910, 40, 42). This implies that the monthly consumption of cereals for each member of this household was about 11.8 kg and that annual consumption, therefore, is estimated at 141.6 kg per person. According to Allbaugh’s survey, cereals represented about 39% of the daily diet of a Cretan in 1948 (Allbaugh 1953, 112–114). Average annual cereal consumption was measured at 128 kg per person (Allbaugh 1953, 107). It is interesting to note that householders’ estimates of their own grain consumption—at about 166 kg of cereal products—were considerably higher than the actual consumption recorded by Allbaugh. The discrepancy probably arose because householders were generous in their estimation to ensure an adequate safety margin (Foxhall and Forbes 1982). High rates of cereal consumption were reported by Bowring early in the 19th century. He argued that the daily consumption of bread per person was about 660 g, increasing to 1,333 g during Lent and fasts (Bowring 1840, 163). These figures imply an annual total of 242 to 486 kg of cereal products. Bowring’s estimates should be employed cautiously, as they were not drawn from first-hand observation—Bowring never actually visited Crete—but from information from various officials. A document written in 1898 reports the import of 200 sacks (weighing 80 kg each) of Russian wheat for the monthly subsistence needs of 400 Cretan families (Sidiropoulos 1999). This implies that 40 kg of wheat were allotted to each family. If we take into consideration that the average

composition of a Cretan family, late in the 19th century, was about four adults, then we may assume that each person consumed 10 kg of wheat each month or 120 kg each year. These proportions are lower than the average annual consumption of cereals of 250 g per person observed in mainland Greece in 1860 (Petmezas 2003, 288). The daily portions of consumed bread might also vary according to the type of main meal. Agapios Landos, a 17th-century Cretan monk, provided suggestions on the ideal consumption of bread: one portion of meat requires the consumption of three portions of bread; one portion of fish/wild greens/vegetables requires four portions of bread; and one portion of eggs requires six portions of bread (Landos 1643, 52). Barley bread and bread made from low-quality wheat and occasionally rye was consumed by peasants and the poor (De Bonneval and Dumas [1783] 2000, 227; Bowring 1840, 163; Kalomenopoulos 1894, 61; Lambros 1932, 14; Spanakis 1950; Panopoulou 1998; Petrakis 2001). Peasants and the urban population also ate bread made from equal portions of barley and wheat (known as smigos, smigadi). Smigadi was also made by mixing wheat and/or barley with oats, millet, corn, Lathyrus sativus and Lathyrus ochrus (both legumes), and chickpea. Moreover, bread consumed by pastoralists was usually of lower quality than bread consumed by farmers (Stéphanos 1884, 482). Bread made from high-quality wheat (called white bread) was a commodity mostly consumed by elite and wealthy households (cf. G. Olivier 1801, II, 340). Similar patterns of consumption were also observed in earlier periods (for the Byzantine era, see Koukoules 1952, 12–35; for bread consumption in the medieval Orient, see Ashtor 1968; Faroqui 1995; also Bloch 1970; see Montanari 1994 for bread consumption in 17th- and 18th-century Europe). Peasants and the poor consumed white bread only on special occasions such as weddings and baptisms or during religious festivities. In periods of subsistence stress, breads made from oats, carob, oak-apple, and sweet chestnuts were also consumed. In 1591, during a famine, the population survived by eating wild greens and bread made from millet (Schreiner 1975). It is interesting to note that in recent decades (after 1960) white bread lost its “social status” as it was consumed by wider

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

social groups. Barley bread is now more appreciated than white bread—mostly because of its nutritional properties. The bread of the poor becomes the bread of the upper classes!

Pulses Pulses undoubtedly played a considerable role in the daily diet, being rich in protein and thereby covering a large deficiency in areas where meat was not plentiful. Lentils, fava beans, peas, chickpeas, broad beans, and other legumes were the most frequently consumed pulses in pre-industrial Crete. They were cooked alone or combined with vegetables, meat, and fish. My estimates suggest an average annual consumption for an adult of 16 to 19 kg. This is somewhat higher than the estimates of the Seven Country Project, which assigns an average annual consumption of 10 kg per person (Keys 1980). Higher consumption rates of pulses are observed among the rural population and in poor families, while their consumption is relatively low in wealthy families. According to a popular proverb, pulses are the “poor man’s meat”: they have a high percentage of proteins. The consumption of pulses follows seasonal trends: high in winter months and lower from the spring onward. Patterns are also related to special religious festivities, many of which recall the ancient Greek rituals of panspermía (πανσπερμία) where part of the newly produced goods was voluntarily offered to the gods.

Olive Oil and Wine The patterns of production and consumption of olive oil and wine, as well as of other staples, have been triggered by political initiatives responding to international market demands (TriantaphyllidouBaladié 1988; Greene 2000; Petrakis 2001; Tzedaki-Apostolaki 2002). For example, it appears that olive oil production was much lower in the early Venetian period (13th and 14th centuries) and also in the preceding Byzantine and Arab periods than in later Venetian and subsequent eras (Triantaphyllidou-Baladié 1988). For instance, during the 13th and 14th centuries the production of olive oil in Crete was so low that the Venetian government imported oil in order to fulfill local demand (Gasparis 1994, 55; 1997, 87–88). Olive

21

oil production and consumption increased during the late Venetian and Ottoman periods, mainly due to the expansion of the soap industry (Kremidas 1974; Paraskevas 1990). In the 18th century, the very high consumption of olive oil caused many to express their surprise (Savary 1788, 341). Pashley notes that in the early 19th century, the annual consumption of olive oil of a Cretan family varied from 127 to 250 kg (Pashley 1837, I, 121; II, 305), while Bowring reported that in 1840 for a poor family it stood at about 150 kg (Bowring 1840, 163). According to Allbaugh’s survey, the average consumption of olive oil per person/year was about 30.8 kg. (Allbaugh 1953, 111– 112, 126). Nowadays the average consumption per person/year in Greece varies hugely from 21 to 125 kg (Aschenbrenner 1972; van Wersch 1972; Forbes 1982; Giacco and Riccardi 1991; Mathas-Demathas and Sapounaki-Drakaki 1996). My ethnographic research has shown that the average level has remained at about 25 kg (late 19th century–1940). Very poor peasants consumed less than 7 to 10 kg per year (cf. Ioakimoglou and Giannousis 1933). Consumption patterns of 50 kg per person/year were not frequently attested. Wine played an important role in the dietary regimen of a Cretan family. It contributed to the nutritional requirements of the household. Wine was also used as a cash crop: very often it was sold to markets and substantially contributed to the financial needs of the household (Balta 1986; Asdrachas 1988; Tzedaki-Apostolaki 2002). Wine, moreover, was important for its psychological effects due to its intoxicating properties. A glass of wine marks the beginning and the end of a difficult day, accompanies the daily meal, and promotes friendship. Almost all Cretan households produced and consumed wine. The production was small-scale and the quality of wine in most cases was low. As Bowring stated, “Wine and spirits are drunk as long as the vineyard of each family may happen to supply it” (Bowring 1840, 163). In periods of severe subsistence stress wine substantially contributed to the nutritional requirements of the starving population. Wine consumption was subject to constraints of sex and age, and by social, religious, and environmental conditions. Religious institutions imposed severe restrictions on the daily consumption of wine according to the rules of the Ecumenical

22

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Synods. Drinking wine was avoided during fasting (Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Lent). Exceptions were made for patients and puerperal women because of the salutary properties of wine (Agapios Ieromonachos and Nikodimos Agioreitis 1800, 58). There were also restrictions according to sex and age: females consumed lower quantities of wine (in most cases mixed with water) than males (Stéphanos 1884, 483). Only in Laconia in the Peloponnese were higher rates of wine consumption observed among the female population. Wine consumption was considered advantageous for those over the age of 24 (Michail 1794, 143– 144) or 30 (Landos 1643, 53). Landos also gave instructions on the correct proportions between the quantities of wine and food one should consume every day: a portion of wine required at least two portions of food. Information on the annual consumption of wine per person is varied. In 18th- and 19th-century Greece it is estimated at 153 to 192 kg: consumption was high among peasants and low among specialized pastoralists (Matthaiou 1992). Annual consumption of wine in different parts of modern Greece (1947–1974) varies from a minimum of 38 kg to a maximum of 60 kg per person (Allbaugh 1953, 107; van Wersch 1972, 179). The estimate of a liter per day, proposed by Forbes, is exaggerated (Foxhall and Forbes 1982, 68). According to Allbaugh, the annual consumption of wine for the period 1947–1948 varied from 38.59 to 52.21 kg (Allbaugh 1953, 121). My estimates suggest that an average of two glasses of wine (140 ml) was the rule for the daily wine consumption of the male members of a household. I would argue, therefore, for an estimate of 99.88 kg per person/year. It is important to note that the above discussion concerns local wines, produced and consumed by most households. The situation is different for high-quality or imported wines: only wealthy households consumed these.

Vegetables, Wild Greens, and Fruits Vegetables, wild greens and fruits played an important role in the traditional Cretan diet. A long list of wild and cultivable plants during the 18th century was provided by the French traveller G. Olivier who visited Crete in 1792 (1801, I, 412– 413; for Cretan fruits and greens, see also the

report of De Bonneval and Dumas in 1783 [2000 (1783), 221–228]). Wild greens in particular constituted a large part of daily meals. They were consumed in considerable quantities and always served in olive oil. As Pashley stated, “The evening meal of my host and his wife was a dish of wild herbs, on which the Cretans seem chiefly to live: they boil them, and then serve them up in oil, bread, olives and sometimes cheese, completing the meal” (Pashley 1837, I, 65). A Venetian document written in 1561 reports that Cretan peasants “da dodici mesi . . . alle otto si nutrino colle erbe” or “Eight out of the twelve months of the year they consume wild greens” (Mertzios 1961–1962, 269). In periods of subsistence stress, such as the famine of 1591 (Schreiner 1975, no. 65/36), or during the difficult years of the German occupation, a large section of the population lived exclusively on wild greens (for consumption of wild greens in periods of subsistence stress, see Lambros 1932, 48; Politis 1991, 225). Vegetables and fruits, fresh or dried, were also eaten in quantity (Papadakis 1978; Vlassi 1998). The consumption of vegetables and wild greens was subject to seasonal availability. The eating of wild greens was very high during February, March, and April, while it applied to fruits and vegetables all year round. Sun-dried and salted vegetables kept in fabric sacks or vegetables immersed in brine/vinegar were stored for short-term periods and consumed beyond the period of their availability as a fresh vegetable (cf. Koder 1992, 33; 1995). Wild greens were consumed in high levels by the rural population, while in urban centers consumption was not as high as in the countryside. According to Allbaugh’s survey, the annual consumption of vegetables and fruits per person was about 191 kg (Allbaugh 1953, 108–110). It is worth noting that the Seven Countries Project (1956–1966) has shown that Cretans consumed fruit at four times the rate of other Mediterranean countries, six times more than the Dutch and two times more than the Americans (Keys 1980).

Meat, Fish, Snails, and Dairy Products The consumption of animal proteins was subject to religious constraints, sexual distinctions, and each household’s financial situation and economic specialization. The Orthodox Church placed severe

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

restrictions on how much meat-eating was permissible: in actuality, meat consumption was prohibited for a third of the year (for a vivid description of religious food restrictions, see Tournefort 1717, 42–45). Aside from the restrictions the Orthodox Church placed on all devotees, monks were supposed to adhere to an even stricter dietary code on meat consumption. Since seafood was not considered meat, however, fish became an important staple of any monastic residence (cf. Maltezou 1985). Levels of meat-eating (late 19th century–1940) also varied according to a family’s well-being: high rates were reported in wealthy households where meat/fish was served as often as two times a week. These cases, however, are the exception rather than the rule. Most urban households consumed meat once a week, generally on Sunday, and during religious festivities (e.g., Christmas and Easter) or on special occasions (e.g., weddings and funerals) (cf. Allbaugh 1953, 109–110). Poor urban households and rural peasants usually consumed meat only once a month. Peasants kept a few sheep and/or goats to meet domestic needs for milk, meat, and wool. According to Allbaugh, the weekly consumption of meat in 1948 was about 240 g per person (Allbaugh 1953, 109–110). Note that restrictions in meat consumption according to a family’s well-being are also observed in other cultural contexts. For instance, daily meat consumption per person in Constantinople (late 18th century) is estimated at 350– 450 g for the elite (courtiers and state officers), 72–90 g for Jews, and only 25–50 g for members of the middle class (Stoianovich 1993, 414). High percentages of meat consumption have been reported among specialized pastoralists where, in some cases, meat was consumed three and four times a week. In limited cases, meat consumption among male members of the household during every day of the week has been reported, but such cases are rare. Cases also exist, however, where meat consumption was very low among specialized pastoralists (Taxataki 1984; cf. also Loukopoulos 1930, 9). High rates of meat-eating have been attested since the 15th century: Cristoforo Buondelmonti reported that pastoralists in the mountains of West Crete lived on barley bread, hunting, and sun-dried meat (van Spitael 1981, 193). Meat-eating within groups of specialized pastoralists also present variations: males usually consumed larger portions, in some cases even

23

in periods of fasting, than females. Consumption of meat, especially mutton, was considered a mark of vigor and masculinity (Herzfeld 1985, 175). Animal food has never been the basic source of energy for Cretan pastoralists, however, despite its increased consumption in pastoral contexts. Ethnographic studies from different cultural contexts have shown that a household of six individuals, specialized pastoralists, would require about 223 small goats or 131 small sheep per year for milk and meat, i.e., 22–38 animals per person/ year, if mutton was their main nutritional source (Dahl and Hjort 1976, 220). As far as pre-industrial Crete (and Greece in general) is concerned, it is my impression that these estimates are exaggerated (cf. Halstead 1996). First, not all shepherds possessed such large herds as to be able to slaughter about 300–400 animals per year for their nutritional requirements. The production strategy was geared toward meat, cheese, and wool: meat, milk, and dairy products were used for household self-sufficiency, for non-monetarized barter (in exchange for olive oil, cereals, and pulses), and for currency. Second, the subsistence regimen of Cretan pastoralists was not exclusively reliant on animal proteins: cereals and olive oil, wild greens, and other foodstuffs contributed to their nutritional requirements (cf. Saulnier 1987). Consumption preferences for certain types of meat can also be recognized according to taste, nutritional properties, cultural and religious conceptions, and difficulties in rearing and procurement. Mutton and goat was, and still is, at the top of the list. Sheep and goats are the main sources of meat in the Mediterranean world. Their meat was expensive and only easily obtainable by households with a large income. Ordinary households usually tasted mutton twice a year, at Easter and on the festival of the Assumption. The eating of large quantities of mutton at weddings demonstrated social prestige and so created the material conditions for competition (Vardaki 2003; cf. also Kasomoulis 1939, 176, 178–179 for a similar pattern on the island of Naxos). The habit, therefore, does not simply satisfy hunger but expresses power, authority, and prestige. Cattle were rarely consumed: they were kept for milk and ploughing (cf. Halstead 1995). The eating of beef was considered an iniquity by many Cretans (Aikaterinidis 1988, 528; Imellos 1993, 98; cf.

24

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Richter 1994, 23, 134 for a similar belief in Cyprus). This pattern seems to have deep roots: according to the Pythagoreans, “It is forgivable to eat all living beings except the plough ox and the ram” (Diog. Laert. 8.20). The consumption of beef has increased in the last decades as the result of “imported” patterns of consumption and cultural influence. Pork was not considered the best of meats because pigs live in dirty conditions and eat all kinds of disagreeable things. Landos advises members of the upper class against consuming pork because of its fat (Landos 1643, 67). References in many plays of the Cretan Renaissance, however, prove that pork was particularly appreciated by all social classes and was also frequently presented at elite banquets (Papadakis 1978; Vlassi 1998). Pork consumption increased during Christmas and Carnival; in some parts of Crete it was connected with special ceremonies such as weddings (e.g., at Praisos, east Crete). In ancient Greece, pigs were offered at fertility rituals in honor of Demeter and Persephone (Simon 1980, 91–92). Pork is also suitable for short-term storage. Poultry such as hens, cocks, partridges, turkeys, pigeons, ducks, and geese was widely available: the birds are easy to raise. Duck and goose were not widely consumed. Capons and partridges were particularly preferred, especially during Venetian times (Vlassi 1998, 71–73). Almost all households of any social class had a hen-run for cheap meat and eggs; urban populations were heavy consumers. Hunting to provide meat was limited because of the easy access people had to domesticated animals (cf. Allbaugh 1953, 124). Hunting did contribute to the finances of rural households. Agrimi, hares, and various birds could have been so taken. Consumption was higher among peasants than in the urban populations. In periods of subsistence stress, hunting was an important risk-buffering strategy. Difficulties of procurement made game a highly appreciated food, especially in urban contexts. Many literary references, dated to Venetian and later times, inform us of the various hunted animal species, the high value of meat so acquired, the different cooking methods, and the eminent position of game in elite banquets (Vlassi 1998). Seafood was not frequently consumed among Cretans. It was generally thought that seafood was not as nourishing as meat (e.g., Landos 1643, 97). The absence of seafood from Venetian literary texts

dealing with the description of banquets (Vlassi 1998) shows its conception as a “second rate” foodstuff. According to Allbaugh’s survey, the average weekly fish consumption per person in cities and villages was about 160 g (Allbaugh 1953, 110). Urban populations, however, consumed fresh fish more frequently than those living in the hinterland. My ethnographic survey has shown differences in seafood eating depending on location: people who lived in the hinterland consumed much less than those living in major towns, where fresh or sun-dried seafood was regularly sold in the markets. The highest rates of consumption, naturally, were observed in costal settlements. This picture, however, may not be the rule: on the island of Keos, early in the 12th century, fish consumption was very low (Koder 1992, 22). Even today on many Aegean islands the percentage of fish consumption is lower than that of meat consumption, although this picture is partly due to economic parameters. Fresh-fish eating was high among coastal and urban populations, while those who lived in the hinterland more often consumed salted, smoked, and sun-dried fish. The eating of fish increased on special occasions such as some religious festivities and during periods of fasting. Seafood, because of religious beliefs, was the one basic foodstuff in monasteries all year round and especially important during the long periods of abstinence. Many costal monasteries, therefore, specialized in fishing. Snails have a high nutritional potential. According to Allbaugh’s survey, the average weekly consumption of snails per person in 1948 was about 51 g, with lower rates, about 32 g, observable among the town folk (Allbaugh 1953, 110). The consumption again increased during fasting and in periods of subsistence stress. Consumption was very high among poor households. Snails were usually collected after the first rains of autumn and on rainy nights of February and March. They were suitable for short-term storage and therefore consumed all year round. Dairy products such as milk, yogurt, and cheese were also part of the daily dietary regimen (Allbaugh 1953, 124–125). Goat’s milk, and occasionally sheep’s milk, enjoyed a moderate consumption among adults. The weekly intake is estimated at 160 g per person, though this was considerably increased among children. Milk consumption was also higher in peasant and pastoralist communities

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

than in urban ones. Cheese was the best way to store milk. Consumption was moderate overall, with a higher rate in the towns than in the villages. Cheese production was also the main source of income for pastoral societies (Kapetanios 2003).

Dietary Regimens in Pre-industrial Crete Having considered a range of issues in establishing an outline of the consumption of basic edible goods in the context of pre-industrial Crete, it is worth providing a more concrete picture, in terms of percentages of various foodstuffs, of the typical diet then. According to Allbaugh, cereals made the largest contribution of any food to the daily calorific requirements of a Cretan, supplying on average 39% (Allbaugh 1953, 132–133). This is followed by olive oil, which provided a further 29%. For the rest of the daily calorific needs, about 18% was supplied by vegetables, fruits, and pulses, while a slightly lower percentage, about 14%, came from meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and wine. The financial situation of a household substantially affected the above dietary regimen (Allbaugh 1953, 127–129). The consumption of animal proteins and dairy products, for instance, was much higher in wealthy households. Textual sources, mostly travellers’ accounts and reports of state officers dating from the 19th century and earlier, show Allbaugh’s basic dietary regimen applied then too. Venetian and Ottoman legal documents in particular, such as property censuses, marriage contracts, bills of sale, and testaments, offer information on the subsistence behavior of Cretan households during the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries. The importance of these documents is great; leaving aside some methodological constrains, they provide a very detailed recording of goods kept in the larder and/or the landholding of the household (for methodological questions concerning the discussion of data from travellers’ texts, see Droulia 1993). Here, I present four documents that give a “fresh insight” into the past dietary regimens of the respective households. In a marriage contract written on October 15, 1587, the brothers of the late Tzannaki, Nikolo and Alvize Dakiotza, and his two sons, had to provide his widow, Kiria Regina, each year with 24 mousouria of cereal products (i.e., 468 kg), one bota of wine (i.e., 600 liters) and two mistata of

25

olive oil (i.e., 21.4 kg) (Grintakis 1990b, 21–24). In another marriage contract, written on April 29, 1600, Galanzios Varouhas had to provide his mother each year with 102 kg cereal products, 17 kg pulses, 196 kg wine, 5.4 kg flax and, in periods of good yields, 34 kg of olives (Bakker and van Gemert 1987, 94–95, no. 77; flax was grown for its fibers in order to make linen, as well as for food, especially in periods of subsistence stress). A census of property written on May 14, 1684 gives information on the goods kept in the larder of the prosperous household of Papa (priest) Manolis at the village of Kalesa (Stavrinidis 1976, 216, no. 807). The household had in store about 741 kg of cereal products, 292 kg of pulses, 68 kg of olives, and a considerable quantity of wine. There is no information on the quantity of wine kept in Papa Manolis’ larder. Considering that the average capacity of a normal wooden barrel of that period was about 230–350 kg (of wine), we may speculate that the four barrels contained about 920–1,400 kg of wine. Note that another four empty wooden barrels, probably used for wine storage, were also held in the storeroom. One pithos contained vinegar, while onions were also kept in the store. Staples were also stored in 13 small and big pithoi, but there is no information on their type or quantity. It is likely that the pithoi were empty considering the careful recording of the rest of the property. The landholding of the household consisted of four stremmata (1 stremma = 1000 m2) of vineyard, one stremma of garden, and 80 stremmata of plots (cultivated crop not specified). The household also had 105 sheep. A total of 14 beehives were kept in the store. A confiscation of property, dated July 1694, reports that Nikolaos Lignos had in his larder one pithos full of meal, 275 kg of olive oil, about 7.6 kg of wheat, one sack of flour (80–100 kg), and six cheeses (Stavrinidis 1976, 445, no. 1143). There is no evidence for the contents of one large and 14 small pithoi or three barrels. The landholding consisted of one stremma for vegetables, 3.8 stremmata for cereals, 0.4 stremma for fodder, 0.4 stremma for broad beans, 12 olive trees, and one plot of 8 stremmata. Moreover, the household owned one ox, one cow and one calf, six sheep, and six goats. Cereals, pulses, olive oil, olives, and wine are the basic foodstuffs discussed in these documents. The high quantities of cereal products prove that these formed the largest contribution of any food

26

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

to the daily subsistence requirements of the individuals or households mentioned. The annual total of 102 kg of cereal granted to the mother of Galanzios Varouhas is close to the rates of consumption observed in pre-modern Crete. The annual ration of 468 kg of cereals assigned to Kiria Regina, however, is very high; it was probably designed to cover the needs of Kiria Regina herself and her servants. High amounts of cereal products were also kept in the larder of Papa Manolis. It is interesting to note that this document was written two months before the new harvest, by which time the household (of six individuals) would have already consumed a considerable part of the cereals of the last productive season. The recorded grain, therefore, was most likely surplus. A considerable quantity of cereal products was kept in the store of Nikolaos Lignos, while his plots, designed for cereal cultivation, could have provided about 288 kg of barley or 344 kg of wheat (estimates based on the yields per stremma of cereals reported in 19th century Greece, Table 3). Pulses also played an important role in the nutritional needs of these households. The mother of Galanzios Varouhas disposed of some 17 kg of pulses each year, an amount close to the consumption rate in pre-modern Crete. Considerable quantities of pulses, much more than the actual dietary needs of the household, were kept in Papa Manolis’ store. There is no evidence for stored pulses in the house of Nikolaos Lignos. He had, however, sown about 400 m2 with broad beans, which could provide a yield of 28.8 kg (estimates based on the yields per stremma of pulses reported in 19th century Greece, Table 4). No provision in pulses was made for Kiria Regina, perhaps because pulses occupied an insignificant part in the daily diet of this grand lady. Wine occurred in larger quantities than olive products. Kiria Regina and her dependents consumed 588 kg of wine, while the mother of Galanzios Varouhas consumed 196 kg. Large amounts of wine were kept in the larder of Papa Manolis. No evidence exists for stored wine in the house of Nikolaos Lignos: the three wooden barrels, containers used exclusively for the storage of wine, may have been so intended. As far as olive oil is concerned, Kiria Regina is provided with 21 kg, which is a low amount if we take into consideration first the high amount of cereals and wine

that she received and then the needs of her dependents. About 275 kg of olive oil were kept in Nikolaos Lignos’ store. It is interesting to note that Nikolaos Lignos owned 12 olive trees that could have produced about 132 kg of olive oil (estimate based on the average yield per olive tree in early 19th-century Greece). The stored amount of olive oil, therefore, partly represents a surplus from previous productive seasons. Galanzios Varouhas provided his mother, when there was a good yield, with 34 kg of olives, while Papa Manolis kept in store 68 kg. The absence, in these two cases, of any mention of olive oil is a curious omission. Ottoman documents dated to the late 17th and early 18th centuries give information on the value of basic foodstuffs in the market of Handakas (Herakleion) (Stavrinidis 1976, 47, no. 597, 146, no. 747, 273, no. 887, 285, no. 904, 372, no. 1028; 1978, 146–147, no. 1366, 242, no. 1540, 260, no. 1577, 357, no. 1778, 375, no. 1809, 392, no. 1831; 1984, 12–13, no. 1913, 13, no. 1915, 16, no. 1922, 19, no. 1929, 20, no. 1934, 29, no. 1943, 217, no. 2231, 316, no. 2380, 317–318, no. 2383, 319, no. 2385, 328, no. 2405, 354, no. 2443; 1985, 15, no. 2515, 51, no. 2569, 76, no. 2607, 76–77, no. 2608, 77, no. 2609, 118, no. 2659, 133, no. 2682, 144– 145, no. 2702, 153–154, no. 2715, 159, no. 2725, 180, no. 2748). Inferences from these documents should be drawn with caution. The references are concerned only with goods subject to evaluation and not all those consumed by a household. Moreover, the overall body of data for the period from 1672 to 1761 is limited. Only a few texts from the Ottoman State Archive have been translated and published (these documents as well as many others were selected from the archive and translated by the leading expert on Ottoman Crete, the late Stavrinidis). Despite these limitations, it is my impression that we can draw some reliable conclusions concerning the real value of basic foodstuffs (cereals, olive oil, meat/fish, dairy products, and pulses) consumed in pre-industrial Crete, and so highlight patterns in the consumption process. Markets adjust their prices according to supply and demand as well as environmental circumstances (Berov 1976). It has been observed, however, that despite the fluctuation of nominal prices, the inter-relationship between real prices and goods has remained stable over time (period 1672–1761).

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

Among all kinds of meat, mutton and goat are those with the highest demand and thus their prices fluctuate depending on supply. High fluctuations in the market price of mutton occurred either because of low production or in periods of aridity (cf. Stavrinidis 1984, 180, no. 2748). Mutton is expensive and is preferred by the upper class (Mansel 1995, 118–119). Of mutton and goat, lamb and wether mutton are the most expensive followed by that from adult sheep and barren ewes. The relationship between the price values of goat and mutton remained stable throughout the period under examination. Although in most cases goat is cheaper than mutton, it is yet more expensive than other meats. In one of these documents, the difference in the price between mutton and goat is very high (Stavrinidis 1984, 20, no. 1934), while in two other documents, goat and barren ewes have the same price (Stavrinidis 1984, 318, no. 2384, 319, no. 2385). As for beef, it is usually cheaper than mutton and goat. Only in very few cases is the price of beef close to that of goat. Poultry are only mentioned in one out of 17 texts. This fact cannot be readily explained as the consumption of this meat was high, mainly in the poorest classes. The only solution is to assume the existence of their own private hen-runs in most households, even those in urban areas. Pork was never cited in these texts, probably because its consumption was prohibited for Muslims. Fish, salted or fresh, appeared only three times; only one of the documents, however, provided information on its market price. Fish was very expensive, far more so than meat. It is interesting to note that salted fish was more expensive than fresh fish, perhaps because it was imported, mostly from Constantinople (Triantaphyllidou-Baladié 1988, 207). Milk and yogurt are the cheapest dairy products, in contrast to cheese, which is expensive. The market value of cheese is determined by type and quality: hard cheeses are more expensive than soft ones. The price of hard cheese is usually equal to the price of goat-meat and in one case exceeds it (Stavrinidis 1976, 176, no. 747). Pulses and vegetables are usually cheap. Chickpeas are the most often cited, but the most expensive legumes are beans and broad beans. Surprisingly enough, although the price of chickpeas is very low, in some cases it can equal that of mutton (Stavrinidis 1978, 242, no. 1540). This case is certainly due to low market supply.

27

In relationship with other goods, the price of bread is low. In all the texts, there is a clear distinction between good quality (white loaf) and lower quality breads (whole wheat). Other bakery products, such as sweet bread and pies, are more expensive than common bread. The price of bread fluctuates widely in connection with the supply of wheat and barley. Wheat shortages occurred very often (Stavrinidis 1978, 151–152, no. 1374, 164, no. 1395, 243, no. 1544), creating serious subsistence stress. Reserves of wheat, kept in silos located underground, were distributed by the central administration (Stavrinidis 1975, 319–320, no. 403; 1978, 31, no. 1220; 1984, 178, no. 2170, 218–219, no. 2234, 224, no. 2443; 1985, 77, no. 2609). Moreover, in such cases, other measures were implemented, such as the restriction of wheat exports (Stavrinidis 1975, 103, no. 148; 1976, 170, no. 740), the import of wheat from outside Crete (Stavrinidis 1978, 411, no. 1862, 423, no. 1870; 1984, 31, no. 1946; 1985, 74, no. 2607), and the redistribution of wheat within Crete (Stavrinidis 1976, 233, no. 828, 261–262, no. 868, 268, no. 878, 304, no. 937, 411–412, no. 1088; 1978, 164, no. 1395, 256, no. 1570, 264, no. 1583; 1984, 227, no. 2249, 382, no. 2484; 1985, 62, no. 2581). Dietary habits of individuals/households and reference to the demand and prices of basic foodstuffs recorded in the documents discussed above are not entirely representative of the subsistence behavior adopted by Cretan households during the 16th to 18th centuries. Few documents with references to patterns of subsistence have been published and/or translated, while we must keep in mind that these texts were written under particular sociopolitical and economic circumstances. Even so, and despite quantitative and qualitative constraints, these documents present us with valuable indirect insights into past dietary regimens and patterns of consumption. The information briefly stated above leads to two interlinked stereotypes: the close dietary reliance on the part of the peasantry both on local agricultural and pastoral produce and on the adoption of “plain everyday eating habits.” I regard “plain eating habits” as the answer to dearth and occasionally poverty, both of which characterize a considerable part of the life of the peasantry. “Plain eating habits” also help to adjust immediately to autarky and to the consumption of existing

28

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

subsistence commodities. Besides, frugal living is sustained ideologically by the ascetic and “nonconsumption” spirit of the church. The types of consumption depend on the type and size of the settlement, the geographical locations where agriculture and stockbreeding are practiced, the rules governing the market, customs and their practice, and the degree of market liquidation. They also depend on social strata, along with cultural parameters and mutual dependencies. Contact with markets creates new everyday habits and dependencies that become, with time, permanent habits. What differentiates life in large urban centers, with their permanent markets, from smaller urban or semi-urban societies is the possibility or even probability for the middle and lower classes of gaining a larger and more refined variety of daily subsistence commodities. Comparing the dietary habits of semi-nomadic and agricultural people, it is clear that there are differences in the distribution of basic products. These stem, however, from a common attitude toward food by communities living in the countryside: they adopt their everyday consumption needs to a qualitative and quantitative minimum, based mainly on only one part of whatever it is they produce, not necessarily the best part of their production. The daily intake of food has a basic aim—to satisfy the ever-present biological needs, not eating for eating’s sake. The poor and monotonous daily diet in evidence is not an exact reflection of the material

conditions and permanent economic hardship of the farming community as a whole, but only of a significant majority. It does, however, lead to the conclusion that dearth may be a general deliberate and selective behavior, dominating collective daily practices and food-related religious representations, cooking, and consumption patterns. It is well known that in non-monetary communities, autarky models tend to even out the dietary balance between rich and poor (Aymard 1975). The use of the testimonies presented above in any attempt to reconstruct the subsistence behavior of LM I households is a matter open to question. Differences, especially on the sociopolitical level, between Neopalatial, Venetian, Ottoman, and recent modern (1898–1950) Cretan households are critical. The political and cultural position of the people who lived in a house is fundamental and must have been the governing framework for factors such as production, storage, and consumption. It is my impression, however, that the above testimonies offer an approximate guide for reconstructing patterns of subsistence behavior in Neopalatial Crete. The basic aspects of these dietary regimens have a long tradition in the context of the Aegean (cf. Bowring 1840; Stéphanos 1884; Paviot 1991; Matthaiou 1997). Given the frustrating absence of data from the context of LM I Crete and the “longevity” of such a dietary regimen, I will use the above perspectives, though being fully aware of possible anachronistic pitfalls.

Toward a Model of Neopalatial Dietary Regimen The consumption of food—the aspect of consumption most relevant to this study—is a multilevel mechanism. Its function is biological because it satisfies the needs of human survival and reproduction. It acts at a semiotic level as it incorporates a whole range of social, economic, and political meanings (Goody 1982; Caplan 1994; Carrier and Heyman 1997; Scholliers 2001). The vital act of eating can be seen as the ultimate basic locus of identity, conformity, and resistance (Rotin and Fallon 1981). Food and eating, or indeed non-eating/fasting, can be used as a way to deliver or mask power and authority, to express both community solidarity

and division through the act of sharing similar food and taste habits and to infer social inequalities through the acquisition and consumption of exotic and rare foods. Consumption, therefore, does not simply reflect social relations but can also establish, maintain, and change social relations (Orlove and Rutz 1989). The study of organic residue analyses, bioarchaeological remains, artistic representations, and bureaucratic records provide sound information on the kind of basic subsistence goods of the Bronze Age Aegean (cf. Bisel and Angel 1985; McGeorge 1988; Palmer 1989; Tzedakis and Martlew 1999;

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

Riley 1999; Christakis 1999a; Christakis and Rethemiotakis, forthcoming; Vaughan and Coulson 2000; Warren 2003; Killen 2004; Halstead and Isaakidou 2004). The main components of the Bronze Age Cretan diet consisted of: cereals (einkorn wheat, emmer wheat, bread wheat, spelt wheat; two-row barley, six-row barley, naked barley; millet, and oats), pulses (lentils, peas, and beans including grass pea, red pea, Spanish vetchling, vetch, and fava bean), olive oil, animal fats, fish oils, wine, perhaps beer, meat (beef, mutton, goat, pork, duck, partridge, and other game), fish (comber, sea bream, picarel, damselfish, horse mackerel, sand smelt, blennies, red mullet, stingrays), shellfish, snails, dairy products, eggs, wild greens, vegetables, fruit and nuts (figs, almonds, grapes, pears, pistachios, acorns, cornelian cherries, plums, melons, pears, pomegranates), honey, spices, and seasonings. Although it is possible to draw up a list of foods based on this evidence, it is not clear what percentage each of these commodities played in the daily dietary regimen. The consumption of subsistence commodities, beyond purely biological needs, is also determined by social, religious, and environmental parameters. Sex, social ranking, cultural and religious perceptions, and environmental constraints can all play important roles in the definition of models of nutrition (Harlow and Smith 2001; Holtzman 2002; Hastorf 2003). A regimen, for instance, would differ according to the geographical location and the type/size of the settlement. Historical information has shown that the rural diet can be quite different from that of towndwellers (Camporesi 1993). That of elite groups is also likely to be different from that of the ordinary population, taking into consideration the differences in the availability of subsistence commodities and the semiotic value of some foods. The use of rare ingredients and the involvement of specialized personnel in the process of inventing and producing elaborate dishes, recurs features of what Goody calls haute cuisine (Goody 1982, 130–131, 139)—enabling the upper class to use food as a “weapon” of social exclusion. The Mycenaean subsistence ration system, for example, is organized according to sex, age, and the social position of the personnel who received the rations (Palmer 1989, 1994). Analyses of Bronze Age skeletal material from Crete and the

29

Mainland have also shown differences between the diets of males and females both in the consumption of animal proteins as well as in dietary differences between the elite and commoners (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999; Smith 2000). Although the samplebase used for these analyses is too limited to draw extensive or even representative conclusions and the criteria for relating status and diet are not clear, these preliminary results are quite suggestive. The best contributions by which to understand past dietary regimens to date are those of Foxhall, Forbes, and Gallant. Foxhall and Forbes, discussing cereal consumption in Classical Greece, argued that cereals provided about 70–75% of daily nutritional requirements (Foxhall and Forbes 1982). The rest of the calorific intake (25–30%) derived from other goods such as olive oil, vegetables, and wild greens, and food of animal origin. Gallant, on the basis of this estimate and using comparative material from literary sources and ethnographic information, reconstructed a model of dietary regimen for the peasantry of Ancient Greece: 65–70% cereals, 20–25% fruits, pulses, and vegetables and 5–15% oils, meat, and fish (Gallant 1991, 68, 78). Both approaches have been used in my previous attempts to reconstruct Neopalatial diet (Christakis 1999a, 1999b, 2003). Here, I have adopted a more refined model of dietary regimen by combining ethnohistorical information from Venetian and Ottoman Crete with that from Allbaugh’s work on Crete in 1948. Despite pitfalls emerging from the political character of Allbaugh’s project, part of the United States’ aid program for southern Europe, including Crete, after the travails of World War II, and the disruptions of the war that caused changes in food habits, I would yet argue that this contribution remains the only systematic consideration of production and consumption of foodstuffs in pre-industrial Crete. A critical re-appreciation of this study, therefore, ought to widen our understanding. In my working hypothesis, I postulate that the diet of an adult in Neopalatial Crete was made up of 44% cereal products, 38% vegetables, wild greens, fruits, and nuts, 3% pulses, 5% olive oil, 8% wine, and 2% animal products. These percentages were calculated in the following manner. I assign a high rate of consumption of cereals because of their importance in the daily subsistence regimen. Ancient sources and cross-cultural

30

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

ethnographic information show that people in the Mediterranean were always heavy cereal-eaters (Foxhall and Forbes 1982; Garnsey 1999, 17–19). Foxhall and Forbes, drawing information from a systematic collection of ancient references on cereal consumption and ethnographic data, argued that ancient people consumed about 212 kg of cereal products each year. In my calculations, however, I have adopted a more moderate estimate, assuming that a Neopalatial adult consumed about 166 kg of cereal products each year. This figure derives from Cretan householders’ own “rule of thumb” estimate made in 1948 (Allbaugh 1953, 107). I think that this estimate is closer to patterns of cereal consumption observed in the Aegean, the Mediterranean, and Middle East (e.g., Diamond 1947; May 1963; Aschenbrenner 1972; van Wersch 1972; Foxhall and Forbes 1982). As far as the consumption of vegetables, wild greens, and fruits is concerned, it is my impression that Foxhall, Forbes, and Gallant have underestimated their importance in the daily diet. For many pre-modern societies, these goods were as important as cereal products (e.g., in Early Byzantine society; Teall 1959; Kazhdan 1982). Information discussed before has shown the pre-eminent role of these staples in the daily diet of Cretans. Here, therefore, I adopt Allbaugh’s estimate of 191 kg for the annual consumption of vegetables and fruits per person (Allbaugh 1953, 108–110). The percentage of 3% pulses is based on my own estimate of 16 kg for the annual consumption of these goods. As far as olive oil is concerned, Allbaugh argued that this provided about 29% of the calories consumed every year (Allbaugh 1953, 128). Some scholars believe that the high olive oil consumption in pre-industrial Crete could have existed in Cretan Bronze Age times (Riley 1999, 34; Firth 1994–1995, 39). Historical testimonies, however, show that this may not be the case. Cristoforo Buondelmonti, a monk who visited Crete early in the 15th century (1415), reported that the “fruits of Pallas,” i.e., olives, were almost unknown to Cretans (van Spitael 1981, 152–153). A document dating to the middle of the 16th century that describes the properties of the households living in the villages of Melidoni and Agia in the district of Rethymnon is also particularly informative (Grintakis 1990c). The 195 households in the village of Melidoni owned 186 olive trees, of which

36 were grafted. Olives represent about 27% of the total number of trees held by households, with carobs at the highest, at about 67.5%. In the village of Agia, the 33 households owned 61 olive trees, of which 31 were grafted. Olives represent 23% of the total trees, with carobs at 60%. These figures imply that the average number of olives for each household in Melidoni was about one tree, while this estimate was higher, about two trees, for those in Agia. Calculating that olive oil production per tree could be about 11 kg and that oil production is biennial, it then becomes clear that households held low quantities of olive oil. With an average household composition during the 13th to 15th centuries of about 4.14 individuals (Jacoby 1962), we might speculate an average annual consumption of 8 kg per person for the families living in Agia, while olive oil was almost “unknown” at Melidoni. The picture from Melidoni and Agia, although it may reflect particular and maybe unusual circumstances, is crucial: it warns us not to make easy generalizations. The relatively high rates of olive oil consumption attested in Crete during the 19th and early 20th centuries, therefore, need not be projected back to Cretan Bronze Age times. It is worth noting that even during the 19th and early 20th centuries, olive oil production was not as high as it is nowadays. Giannaris argued that olive oil was not abundant and its production was biennial (Giannaris 1909, 10). In the dietary regimen proposed here, I assign a rate of 5% for the consumption of olive oil. This percentage is based on the estimate of 20 liters/person/year (or 17 kg) in the ancient Mediterranean (Amouretti 1986, 181–183; Mattingly 1988, 159, 161). The role of wine in the daily diet has recently been questioned in the context of the Aegean Bronze Age. Studies, drawing information from a wide range of data such as the ecological requirements of grape vines, the considerable labor investment in both the cultivation of vines and the production of wine, the contextual distribution of artifacts concerned with the processing and consumption of wine, and finally textual references, have all been said to argue that wine was not an everyday foodstuff in the Prehistoric Aegean diet but enjoyed a high status (Hamilakis 1995, 115– 121; 1996; 1999). There are many problems with this position. Textual evidence, namely Linear B and Linear A

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

tablets, provides a rich but selective record, biased toward the administrative concerns of the palaces. In fact, whole sectors of production, distribution, and consumption fall outside the remit of the palatial scribes. Subsistence patterns as reflected in written documents are by no means representative of the entire social sphere of Aegean Bronze Age state societies. References to the consumption of wine by high status personnel, the use of wine in ritual, and its consumption on particular occasions may have to do with particular circumstances or the consumption of special kinds of wine (for textual references to different kinds of wine, see Chadwick 1968; Stanley 1982; Palmer 1995). These references, therefore, should be treated with caution. Moreover, as noted recently by R. Palmer, Linear B and Linear A testimonies show that wine was a common but relatively valuable agricultural product (Palmer 2002). Since wine appears in inscriptions along with other agricultural products, R. Palmer quite reasonably suggests that wine was collected from the same sources and distributed together with the other products. The administrators did not treat wine as a hard-to-get commodity or one whose use was restricted to the upper classes. The proposed temporal and contextual distribution of testimonies related to the production and consumption of wine also raises some serious questions. It has been argued that wine production was restricted to “high-ranked” contexts and reached its zenith during the Neopalatial period (Hamilakis 1995, 120–121; 1999). The proposed variations in the production and consumption of wine from the Prepalatial to the Postpalatial periods impose qualitative and quantitative limitations on the empirical data. The diversity of the database poses serious problems of comparability. What do we really know of Neopalatial Crete, outside the “palaces” and “villas”? How many Neopalatial “lower-ranking” contexts have so far been excavated? Is our database for the Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods as representative as that for the Neopalatial era? The limitations of the archaeological data—limitations chiefly due to the elite-orientated direction of research—are determinative and prevent us from setting out generalized patterns of past behavior. Although he certainly recognizes the biases of the data, Hamilakis appears to overlook them when expressing his final conclusions (Hamilakis 1995,

31

120–121; 1996). The isolated example used to prove his case, that of the presence of a wine press installation at the palatial settlement of Petras and the absence of similar installations from the “lowranked” sites of the surrounding region, such as the settlement of Analoukas and the farmhouses at Achladia, Klimataria-Manares, and Zou, seems somewhat inconclusive taken on its own. Moreover, what were originally termed “farmhouses” are in fact simply single domestic units within a larger, unexcavated settlement (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997). Thus the activities taking place in these buildings cannot be considered representative of the full range of activities in the respective settlements. I would argue that the retrieved archaeological data does not support the proposal of the social restriction of wine. Changing patterns for wine consumption and its social and ideological position within Bronze Age Crete should be reconsidered, following a more critical discussion of the empirical evidence. Wine played a role in the daily diet of Bronze Age Cretans: recent organic residue analyses, despite biases in contextual sampling and analytical methods, have shown that wine was not a “restricted” product (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999). Restricted patterns of consumption may indeed exist in cultural contexts where wine was not widely produced (e.g., in Egypt) or for special kinds of wine. In the historically recorded and recent past, wine was widely produced and consumed by all, from commoners upward. Such social constraints that certainly did exist with regard to the consumption of wine concerned high quality or imported wines. In my hypothetical dietary regimen of Neopalatial peasants, I assign a percentage of 8% to wine, based on Allbaugh’s minimum estimate of 38 kg of wine per person for the year 1948 (Allbaugh 1953, 107). Food of animal origin was of minor importance in the dietary regimen of peasants in the agricultural economies of the ancient Mediterranean (Garnsey 1999, 16–17, 122–127). The production of meat was, and still is, of a high energetic cost (Speth 1983). Meat was never thought of as an everyday foodstuff: it was consumed mostly on very special occasions (cf. Goody 1982, 63, 128, 134). Allbaugh estimated the annual consumption of meat and fish at close to 21 kg per person (12.48 kg of meat and 8.32 kg of fish; Allbaugh 1953, 110). It is my

32

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

impression, however, that this estimate, although low when compared to present day standards, might be high in the context of pre-modern Crete (19th century and earlier). In my dietary regimen, meat and fish provide only about 2% of the daily calorific intake of a Neopalatial peasant. This percentage is based on the assumption of 10 kg of meat/fish per person/year (half of Allbaugh’s estimates). The rate of meat/fish consumption might be higher in elite or specialized pastoralist contexts.

Foodstuffs and Storage Volumes in LM I Domestic Contexts A question arises on the kind and quantity of foodstuffs kept in the larder of LM I households. These two parameters are determined from the economic position and social status of the household as well as environmental circumstances. In the case of LM I Crete, discussion is purely speculative. Ethnography may provide some insights in order to build a working hypothesis. Information collected during my research project has show that storage facilities in most pre-industrial Cretan households held cereal products, primarily barley, pulses, olive oil, and wine. The overall storage space devoted to such commodities is an average of 80% of the total capacity of storage implements used in the houses. The other 20% was used for the storage of other foodstuffs and domestic implements, as well as for water. In the present working hypothesis I have adopted the above observation, assuming that 80% of the total capacity of storage implements of LM I houses held cereal products, pulses, olive oil, and wine, and the rest (20%) served for the storage of other foodstuffs such as sun-dried, slated, and smoked goods (olives, vegetables, fruits, nuts, fish, and meat), water, and domestic objects. The 80% of the total capacity used for basic foodstuffs is divided into 55% cereal products, 5% pulses, 8% olive oil, and 12% wine, based on the hypothetical dietary regimen of a Neopalatial peasant discussed above (44% cereal products, 3% pulses, 5% olive oil, and 8% wine). I have excluded vegetables, wild greens, fruits, nuts, and animal products as these goods were usually consumed fresh.

Nutritional Value of Stored Foodstuffs and Nutritional Requirements Per Person The nutritional value of the foodstuffs under consideration is listed in Table 1. For cereals, I have employed the calorific potential of barley: barley was the cereal most frequently consumed in pre-industrial societies by commoners. In the Aegean area, emmer wheat and two-row barley were the more common cereal species, with einkorn and six-row barley second, and bread wheat third (Hansen 2000). For pulses, I have used the calorific potential of boiled lentils: lentils, peas, and bitter vetch are the most consistently and abundantly represented species (Hansen 2000). Inevitably, this oversimplifies a complex picture: we do not know the percentage of different cereals and pulses kept in the larder of each household. The present approach, therefore, has the virtue of being flexible; sophisticated calculations and assumptions are meaningless. The nutritional needs of a human body vary according to sex, age, size, the nature of our daily activities, and the physical rate of metabolism (Taylor 1978). The generally proposed daily allowance requirements can provide relevant insights. One difficulty with using such data in reconstructing past diets is that the number of calories required to meet energy needs can differ significantly from the number of calories actually consumed. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that, in many societies, nutritional resources per person are not necessarily conditioned by biological needs alone but also by social and economic restrictions (Harris and Ross 1987). Concepts of famine and abundance may be influenced by social phenomena, and the line of division can be very subjective from society to society (De Boeck 1994). Ethnohistoric information, for instance, has shown that nutritional requirements present strong variations. An extensive body of data exists for the daily calorific intakes in Greece (first half of the 20th century). The average figures vary from a minimum of 2,163 cal. to a maximum of 3,362 cal. (Diamond 1947; Allbaugh 1953; May 1963). In periods of serious food shortages, lower calorific intakes were also observed: urban locales in Greece

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

during the Nazi regime consumed about 300–500 cal. per day (Mazower 1993, 30). The problem, however, with these estimates is that they do not analyze the data in greater detail: we do not know how the calorific intake varied according gender, age, activity, and the households’ economic position. Allbaugh, for instance, found that the daily calorific intake per person in Crete during 1948 was about 3,065 cal. in wealthy households, 2,544 cal. in those of a moderate income, and 2,393 cal. for the low income bracket (Allbaugh 1953, 127–129). It may be noted that the actual range of calorific intake was very wide. The daily range extended (from on average 829 cal.) to a low of 10% of consumption to a high of 5,707 cal. for the highest 10% of the intake range (Allbaugh 1953, 507). It is difficult to estimate, even very broadly, the daily calorific intake of the Neopalatial population. The study of human skeletal material, a potential source of information here, has been largely ignored. In this study, I accept as a working hypothesis, following Allbaugh’s estimate of the calorific intake of households of low income, that the daily intake of a mature adult in Neopalatial Crete was 2,393 cal. An adult, therefore, requires a minimum of 873,445 cal. per year.

Dietary Estimates and Land Tenure The question we face here is how to calculate the amount of land needed to supply the aforementioned calorific potentials. An obvious procedure is to convert the dietary estimates into land size on the basis of crop-yield data (for the crop yields of the basic staples in the middle 19th century, see Tables 2–6). There are many methodological difficulties. We need to know the factors determining the carrying capacity of land, such as the geomorphologic location of the plots, the properties of the soil, the irrigation, the seasonal and inter-annual variability in climatic conditions, agricultural techniques, and the overall social, political, and economic context (Tivy 1990, 90–114). Most of these data do not exist for Neopalatial Crete, and the gap is filled with modern ethnographic information on crop yields, which do not necessarily reflect

33

ancient patterns because the environment, techniques of agriculture, and sociopolitical frameworks are subject to dramatic changes. Being fully aware of the oversimplification of my approach, I have presented in Table 7 the crop yields per stremma employed in the present discussion. These figures are based on statistical information on the average yields of basic crops from 18 regions of Mainland Greece in 1887 (Tables 3–5), on the autecology of olives, vines, cereals, and pulses, and further, on comparative information from early 20th century Crete and first-hand observation. I principally used information from Mainland Greece (including the Ionian and Aegean islands) from the 19th century, for reasons including the considerable body of data, the great ecological variation of the surveyed area, the systematic recording of many aspects concerning agricultural productivity and agricultural techniques, completely unaffected by modernization. I have not taken into account inter-annual and geomorphologic variations, which, together with other factors, affect production. Moreover, the estimates represent crop yields in good productive seasons; for the olive, production is biennial. In addition, oil yield depends on the age of the tree. The estimate in Table 7 refers to oil yields from large mature trees in a “good year.” The cereal yields of pre-industrial Greece in a good year depended on the practice of biennial, and occasionally triennial, fallow seasons (Landos 1643, 6; Triersch 1833, I, 294; Soutsos 1863, 43–44; Tombazis 1871, 19; Mansolas 1875, 34). There are, however, cases where cereal production is intensive and the period of fallow negligible. On the island of Melos, for instance, farmers have adopted since the 17th century a triennial cropping system without fallow fields because of the scarcity of land (Slot 1982, I, 24–25). Similar patterns of cereal production were also observed in the island of Syros where well-organized maritime communication offered good opportunities of profit from the cereal trade (Kiriakos 1869, 8). For cereals and pulses, I have estimated the replacement needs (seeds) at 12.19 kg/stremma for barley and 11.06 kg/stremma for pulses. The seed replacement for pulses is based on information from 42 regions of Greece in 1860 (Statistics of Agriculture for the Year 1860, Petmezas 2003, 335–407). The data collected from

34

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

these regions do not take into consideration productive variations between the different kinds of pulses. Based on the ratio 44:38:3:5:8:2 (cereal products, vegetables, wild greens, fruits and nuts, pulses, olive oil, wine, animal products) and the crop yields illustrated in Table 7, I calculate that the annual subsistence requirements of an individual are 4 stremmata of cereals (estimated on the basis of barley), 0.3 stremma of pulses (on the basis of lentils), 0.5 stremma for olive oil, and 0.2 stremma for wine. The land required for the production of 166 kg of barley is about 2 stremmata. This must be doubled, however, because cereal yields of pre-industrial Greece depended on the practice of biennial fallow seasons. To this estimate, I need to add the land requirement for growing vegetables and fruit, also part of the diet. I speculate ca. 1 stremma per person for these crops. The average land requirement for vegetables and fruits in pre-industrial Europe during the early 20th century was about 35–40 m2 (Koder 1992, 42). This estimate is not applicable to our study case: Cretans consumed very high levels of these goods. In total, the amount of land needed to support one person for a year is 6 stremmata or 0.6 hectares. Other studies have estimated the same needs from a minimum of 0.6 hectares (Osborne 1987, 46) to a maximum of 1–2 hectares (Wagstaff, Auguston, and Gamble 1982, 175; Whitelaw 1991, 438; Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, 283). How well does this hypothetical construction reflect the patterns of land-holdings observed in traditional Crete and other contemporary societies? In early 19th-century Greece, the average size of a household’s landholding was about 0.5 hectare (Palaiologos 1833, I, 94; Tombazis 1871, 624; Katsoulis, Nikolinakou, and Filia 1985, 15; Petmezas 2003, 294). Only 31.6% of the peasantry possessed landholdings, while 66.5% were landless (Strong 1842). The high number of landless households is partly due to the political situation of Greece after the War of Independence. The Greek government distributed plots to landless peasants (McGrew 1985; Psichogios 1994). For the early 20th century, an extensive body of information exists: about 36.96% of the households had a landholding of 1 hectare, 35.09% of 1–3 hectares, 23.45% up to 10 hectares, 3.87% between 10–100 hectares, and only 0.15% enjoyed over 100 hectares (Evelpidis 1950, 25).

The ethnographic research conducted in the limits of this study has shown that during 1897–1940, the size of a Cretan household’s landholding varied from less than 1 hectare for the poorer families up to 3–4 hectares for the average household. Landholdings of over 10 hectares were not very common. The size of the holdings was dependent on inheritance of estates, dowries, and acquisitions. Possession of land was not static, but changed according to the life cycle of a household. There was a constant sequence of fragmentation and consolidation due to dowry and inheritance customs (Beckner and Mendels 1976; Papataxiarhis and Petmezas 1998). The morphology of the Cretan landscape further contributed to the segmentation of landholding: small pieces of arable land are the main attribute of the Cretan agricultural landscape. Such segmentation of cultivatable land, however, does not encourage an increase in agricultural production (Tombazis 1871, 18; McGrew 1985, 456). As Spiliotakis, the director of the Office of Public Economy, noted in 1864: The smallholding has this fault, that it resists progress and improvements, which are realised only by large farms; the small property proves damaging in many things, being burdened with the required deposits, which, spread across large areas, become productive. (Spiliotakis 1864, ιβ)

The situation in Crete in the early 20th century, a difficult politically period for the island, is described in very vivid terms by Giannaris: Apart from this, cultivated land, though divided into innumerable properties, is so incompletely cultivated that it is only just sufficient to sustain the farmers working it. For example, they have so little grain and other cereals (wheat, barley, oats, broad beans, chick-peas, beans, potatoes etc.) that their annual production does not suffice beyond six to eight months. (Giannaris 1906, 9)

Estimating Households Lévi-Strauss, in a classic piece of discussion, argued that a household is: a corporate body holding an estate made up of both material and immaterial wealth, which perpetuates

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

itself through the transition of its name, its goods, and its titles down a real or imaginary line considered legitimate as long as this continuity can express itself in the language of kinship or of affinity and, most often, of both. (Lévi-Strauss 1982, 174)

This definition—also adopted in this study— emphasizes the interlocking combination of coresidence, kinship, commonality, and economic co-operation (cf. Wilk and Netting 1984). Household members are tightly bound together through the daily activities that contribute toward the sustenance of the house and its members (Joyce 2000). Households are dynamic and flexible systems subject to change (Fortes 1958; Wilk 1991; Goode 2003). Such changes may be linked to the life cycle of the family, economic and ecological conditions, religious beliefs and gender rules, the value of labor and goods, the distribution of power and political ambition, and imported ideas. The changes caused by the life cycle of the family are of particular relevance to the socio-economic position of a household unit. Primary factors determining household composition are the age of marriage and marriage order, adult mortality and life expectancy, infant mortality, and residence patterns (Elder 1987). These parameters determine production and consumption of subsistence commodities, the bases of the domestic economy (Chayanov 1966; Kooreman and Wunderink 1997). Three categories of household have been isolated (Laslett 1972, 1983): 1. Simple family households, further divisible into: i) A married couple alone ii) Married couples with child(ren) iii) Widows or widowers with child(ren) 2. Extended family households: a conjugal family unit with one or more relatives 3. Multiple family unit: two or more conjugal families connected by kinship and/or marriages and co-residing In a wider sociopolitical framework, households may also be grouped into private and institutional units: private households are the simple, extended, and multiple family households as defined by Laslett; institutional households are those living within institutional complexes (palaces or temples).

35

The last were formed by the members of the ruling family or the sacerdotal class, who had a large number of dependants providing labor and services and were reliant upon these institutions for their livelihood. Prehistoric households are generally estimated on the basis of dividing the house size by a constant number of square meters per person. The basic assumption underlying the use of domestic floor area in this archaeological interpretation is that families created spaces according to their developmental cycle, subsistence need, and cultural influences, which change over time as the family develops and as the wider social contexts change. The most influential contribution in this study has been that of Naroll (1962). He found, drawing information from a crosscultural body of evidence, that a person requires about 10 m2 of floor space. “Naroll’s Constant” has been questioned and refined. Generally speaking, estimates for the (roofed) living space required per person vary from a minimum of 6 m2 to a maximum of 50–100 m2 (Cook and Heizer 1968; LeBlanc 1971; Castleberry 1974; Clarke 1974; Sumner 1979; Kolb 1985; Brown 1987; Cameron 1999). In pre-industrial Crete (1949), the average floor size of a rural house was about 56 m2 compared to 39 m2 of an urban house (Allbaugh 1953, 89–90). This allowed an average of 13 m2 per person in rural contexts and 10 m2 in the cities. But when the living space only is considered, the average size of a rural house was about 39 m2 compared to 37 m2 for the cities: these figures imply about 9 m2 of floor space per person in each. Most houses had only a ground floor with three rooms or less. Few houses, mostly in urban centers, had two stories. As far as floor space devoted to storage is concerned, Allbaugh made some interesting observations. Most of the rural houses had a room used for storage purposes (about 10 m2 of the overall floor space). On the contrary, only a very low percentage of urban houses (about 7%) had room/s exclusively devoted to storage activities. According to Allbaugh, houses in the villages required more storage spaces because of more self-sustaining households and the absence of retail merchants. What about Neopalatial households? McEnroe, in his seminal discussion on Neopalatial domestic architecture, isolated three basic types of houses. Type 3 houses are the most frequent domestic structures (McEnroe 1979, 100–114; 1982). Houses of

36

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

this type are distinguished by their simple architectural design and construction techniques; their average ground floor area is about 125 m2. Houses of Type 2 are less frequent (McEnroe 1979, 88–100; 1982) and in many respects are but larger versions of the previous domestic unit. Both houses share the same types of rooms, but the latter can be distinguished by their larger size and the high quality of constructional techniques. The average ground floor area here is ca. 250–300 m2. Type 1 houses are very rare. They are elaborate complexes with close similarities in architectural details, constructional techniques, and arrangement of rooms to the residential areas of the palaces (McEnroe 1979, 56–88; 1982). Residential rooms are segregated from storage/ industrial areas. The average ground floor area of the residential sector in these complexes is about 255 m2. The morphological and functional attributes of houses of these types are highly standardized. Calculations based on Naroll’s assumption of 10 m2 per person suggest the following basic household compositions for each sort of these domestic units. Type 3 houses were designed for 6–10 individuals (cf. McEnroe 1979, 126). Houses of Type 2 could accommodate a maximum of 15 individuals, while larger groups of up to 30 individuals could be housed in Type 1 houses. But estimating household numbers from house floor-size is not as straightforward as it seems. In fact, the space required for domestic accommodation is further influenced by social, cultural, and functional parameters (Hall 1969; Sommer 1969; Rapoport 1982; Wilk 1983; Kent 1984; Blanton 1993). In reconstructing the “meaning” of domestic units, therefore, we must rely on an interpretation of the material markers in the context of the ideology of the occupants (Bourdieu 1990, 192– 193). A household’s wealth may also be a factor of primary importance in the definition of its house size (Bawden 1982; Webster 1990). Wealthy households reside in large houses: usually retaining features and layout similar to more ordinary ones, but on a more elaborate scale. In Neopalatial Crete, for instance, Type 3 houses are very similar in basic architectural and functional features to those of Type 2 (McEnroe 1979, 103, 112; 1982). Differences, however, were observed in both size and construction details: Type 2 houses are more spacious and better built than houses of Type 3.

It is important to bear in mind that material manifestations of wealth may provide insights into the economic status of the household, but not necessarily its social position. Status, political power, wealth, and prestige may be relatively unrelated in complex societies (Earle 1991). Differences in land and wealth mobility certainly create clear social inequalities, but this does not necessarily transfer directly to the political sphere (Hastorf 1993, 13). Wealth and high social ranking do not always go hand in hand: a person with social prestige does not necessarily occupy an elaborate house with valuable possessions (Modjeska 1982; White 1985; Cameron 1999). Moreover, a household’s wealth may vary considerably during its lifetime. Thus, possession of an elaborate dwelling does not necessarily mean that its inhabitants, before its final abandonment/destruction, were wealthy. I believe that in my area of concern there is simply no way of knowing how many people actually lived in each domestic unit. The “silence” of the material makers and the dearth of written testimonies do not allow any speculation, even in broader terms, on how Bronze Age Cretans perceived their living space. The adoption of generalized approaches from cross-cultural ethnographic material may lead us down misleading paths. I have found it more appropriate to use for my calculations two types of “imaginary” household: one of five individuals and one of 10. This working hypothesis stems from two considerations. First, the moderate size of Type 3 houses, the most frequent domestic unit, and the standardization of their basic architectural and functional features suggest that a simple or a minimally extended household is the “rule” for LM I state society (for the relationship between house arrangement and household, see Goody 1976; Cameron 1999; Whitelaw 2001). Households with considerable variation in membership numbers and consequent demands on space have houses of less standardized size and architectural layout. Second, historical information on families in the pre-industrial Aegean supports an average household composition of 4.14 individuals (13th–15th centuries) (Jacoby 1962), 4.4 individuals (Crete, late 19th century) (Stavrakis 1890, 195), and of 4.5–5 individuals (Mainland, 19th century) (Strong 1842, 43–44; Bournova and Progoulakis 1999, 60). Despite the considerable

FROM STORAGE IMPLEMENTS TO SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES

levels of fertility during the 19th century, child mortality was very high (Valaoras 1960): only in a very few cases did households have more than three living children. It is worth noting, however, that although simple-family households appear to have been the norm, the existence of at least some extended and multiple families is not excluded (Panagiotopoulos 1983; Asdrachas 2003, 124–130). In conclusion, I assume that a group of five individuals is the best working estimate for a simple Neopalatial household (proposals on the composition of Cretan Bronze Age households

37

vary from 10 [Hood and Smyth 1981, 10], eight [PM II, 562], six [Warren 2004], and four to five [Whitelaw 2001] individuals). It is here conventionally argued that households of five individuals used Type 3 houses. Larger domestic units such as Type 2 and Type 1 houses may be home to more numerous groups of up to 10 individuals. The elite complexes, such as Mansion A at Tylissos, the Little Palace at Knossos, and Mansion E at Malia, were designed for very large households/groups: besides the elite members, there were also a considerable number of dependent work-groups.

From Storage Potentials to Subsistence Autarkies The concept of autarky, despite its biological definition, has a different meaning and weight in each period, while the methods of satisfying it are correspondingly linked to economic, psychological, cultural, and mental durations. Autarky, in the limits of this study, I define as the capability of the household to fulfil its nutritional requirements beyond the period of natural availability of basic staple commodities, to lessen the risk of famine in periods of poor yields, and to make investments by accumulating food surpluses. Autarky has been a polarizing topic between two different approaches in viewing peasant economies: the “moral” and the “political.” Followers of the first argue that households are primarily concerned with ensuring a reliable subsistence (Wolf 1969; Scott 1976). Householders prefer to minimize the case of having a disaster—selecting production strategies that enable them to lessen the risks of failure—rather than maximizing their average return. For the followers of the latter perspective, householders, even the poorest ones, occasionally have to make risky investments (Popkins 1979). Their strategies are made with an eye to both the short-term and the long-term risks and benefits. Where a “moral” economy emphasizes consensus and collectiveness, a “political” one pays more attention to conflict and competition. As is often the case, such polarization may not adequately explain past economies. Indeed the two positions are not incompatible. Interrelated social groupings, ranging from the level of the household to that of the village and the state, ensured

a complex network of competition and co-operation, duties and obligations between these groups. I pursue three paths in evaluating the level of autarky of households residing in LM I domestic structures. The first determines the optimal subsistence potential of storage facilities within the house. The second attempts to relate this potential to the nutritional requirements of the resident household. The third, based on information from the previous two stages, speculates on the temporal span (in terms of months/years) of the supporting subsistence potential. The rest of the artifactual evidence (residence layout, quality of construction, spatial position within the settlement, and material markers), which may provide insights into the overall economic status of the household, is also taken into consideration. Three different degrees of autarky have been conventionally established for the interpretation of the record. 1. Low autarky: the subsistence potential of the stored foodstuffs is sufficient for the nutritional requirements of a household (of five individuals) for a few months but not all year round. There is no evidence for the accumulation of surplus. Householders faced serious food shortages in periods of poor yields. 2. Medium autarky: the subsistence potential of the stored products is sufficient for the nutritional requirements of a household for a period beyond the productive season.

38

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

There is evidence for the accumulation of low quantities of surpluses used either as a buffer against food shortages or for household investments. 3. High autarky: the subsistence potential of the stored products is sufficient for the nutritional requirements of a household for more than two productive seasons. There is evidence for the accumulation of large amounts of food surpluses. Surpluses were used as buffering mechanisms against long-term food shortages, as well as the increase of the households’ social status through such actions as conspicuous consumption of food, the acquisition/production of high status items, and “charitable” actions to indigent neighbors. The model of converting storage capacities to subsistence autarkies presented and discussed above is tested against the empirical data retrieved from LM I domestic contexts. Two points should be kept constantly in mind. Firstly, the information on food storage in LM I contexts corresponds to the excavated evidence in existence today. This picture may not necessarily reflect the actual storage patterns adopted by households/groups, as it strongly depends first on the

complex depositional histories of the houses/complexes, and then on the quality of the excavation research. The houses excavated at Akrotiri, Thera, with its excellent preserved markers for household’s activities “frozen” by the volcanic eruption, do not occur in Crete. Despite the above problems, the careful reading of the excavated testimonies within their contextual framework and the consideration of their depositional histories provides a sound base for discussion and may give a rough idea of the domestic subsistence potential of LM I households/groups. Secondly, the working model proposed here for the evaluation of domestic storage and the conversion of storage capacities to subsistence potentials is an empirically derived tool for the interpretation of our datasets, based on ethnohistorical information and on a series of oversimplified assumptions. The lack of direct data concerned with the production and consumption of edible goods within the context of LM I Crete justifies the adoption of such a procedure. Although as accurate as possible, my estimates are neither definitive nor unalterable. They may be, or perhaps even should be, questioned. I am convinced, however, that this approach contributes to a relative understanding of the patterns of economic subsistence behavior in Neopalatial households and to the establishment of some principles for future economic analysis.

2

Palatial Storage Practices

The monumental complexes known as palaces are distinctive markers of the political landscape of Bronze Age Crete. They are considered seats of political institutions, acting as regional polities through both the Protopalatial and the Neopalatial periods. Palaces during their life-span were subject to complex architectural modifications following destruction events and changing needs. The analysis of these modifications has led to several interpretations involving diachronic changes in the nature of the palatial economic system. Several scholars have argued that staple storage within some palaces decreased from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial

period when storage activities were transferred to second order centers—the so-called “villas”—that emerged early in the latter phase. Palatial stores were converted to spaces used for craft and cult activities. The production and conspicuous consumption of luxury goods was thereby substantially increased. These changes have been ascribed to a shift in the interest of palatial institutions from a staple-based economy to a wealth-based economy (Halstead 1981, 1988; Moody 1987; Branigan 1988a, 1988b). In the following paragraphs, I will reconsider these narratives based on a critical and up-to-date reconsideration of the excavated testimonies.

Diachronic Changes in the Storage Potential of Protopalatial and Neopalatial Palaces The theory of the storage decrease at Neopalatial palaces is based on a series of architectural modifications to the stores at the palaces of Knossos and Phaistos (Halstead 1981; Moody 1987). It is said

that the storage space within palaces was cut by one-third from MM III to LM I, and it was transferred to second order centers usually known as “villas.” This narrative, however, raises questions

40

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

concerning both the methodological procedure adopted in the discussion of excavated testimonies and the evaluation of the empirical data. One could argue that information from only two palaces— those of Knossos and Phaistos—is too limited to define the economic organization of Protopalatial and Neopalatial palatial polities as a whole. The methodological pitfall of using such limited information for the construction of politico-economic narratives is self-evident, especially if we take into consideration the complexity of the political landscape during Protopalatial and Neopalatial times. The empirical data used to support this narrative is also extremely fragile. The actual preserved information from the Protopalatial levels of the palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, and Petras, the only palaces with a Protopalatial phase, is too fragmentary and cannot support diachronic comparisons of storage potentials. In my view, the juxtaposition of Protopalatial with Neopalatial realities, on the basis of the existing testimonies, leads us down misleading paths of inquiry because of the differences in the quality and quantity of the archaeological markers. These natural limitations have not been taken under serious consideration in many proposed approaches, where a diachronic perspective is adopted and piecemeal data from isolated contexts is used in order for differentiations in the sociopolitical sphere of Cretan Bronze Age societies from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial period, and even within the Neopalatial period itself, to be detected (e.g., Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Knappett and Schoep 2000). Taking into consideration, however, the great impact of the assumed decrease in the storage potential of Neopalatial palaces in the relevant literature, I will reconsider this narrative on the basis of the reconsideration of the proposed arguments. Halstead (1981, 203), the first to argue for the decrease of staple storage within palaces from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial era, said that: Some 20–30% of the ground floor area of the early palaces at Knossos, Mallia and Phaistos seems to have been devoted to storage facilities (Graham 1962: 129 and Fig. 2, 4, and 6). Moreover, at much the same time, there is evidence for a reduction in the storage capacity of the early palaces: at Phaistos, and to a lesser extent at Knossos, remodelling ca. 1600 B.C. of the western façade

encroached upon the magazine area (Pendlebury 1939: 150–52) while at both Mallia and Knossos, new internal walls rendered some of the magazines effectively inaccessible to bulky commodities (Evans 1935 [PM IV]: 630) and on the eve of the final destruction a large part of the magazines was given over to offices concerned primarily with the manufacture of textiles (Graham 1979).

Let us reconsider the archaeological basis of the above theory. In his study on the storerooms of Cretan Bronze Age palaces, Graham, to whom Halstead refers for the above estimates, focuses on the evidence from the Neopalatial and the “Mycenaean” palace of Knossos—and not on that from the Protopalatial palace. These estimates therefore should not be used in any discussion of the storage potential of the Protopalatial palaces. The remodelling of the western facade of the palace of Phaistos will be evidence for the decrease of storage capacity only if the total area devoted to storage in MM II and LM I was known. Otherwise, any encroachment on MM II storage areas remains a simple structural event without any significance for our purposes. As far as Knossos is concerned, there is no evidence for remodelling of the western facade that reduced the extent of storerooms. Pendlebury, to whom Halstead refers, reports only that a door was placed at each end of the Long Corridor of the West Magazines Complex, and in this area cists were sunk below the floor of both the corridor and the magazines (Pendlebury 1939, 151). These architectural alterations not only do not reduce the storage potential of the palace, but, on the contrary, result in an impressive increase: the palatial authority now had at its disposal not only the pithoi but the cists, installations permitting the storage of even greater quantities of goods. Building of new internal walls in the magazines of Malia and Knossos was taken as evidence that some of the magazines were rendered effectively inaccessible to bulky commodities. Evans argued that a whole block of the West Magazines Complex at Knossos was shut off by a cross-wall and doorway at each end, and the separate entrances of the magazines themselves narrowed (PM IV, 630). The question is, when were these walls built? In Evans’ preliminary reports they were identified as later additions (LM II, i.e., LM

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

IIIA) set over the gypsum floor of the Long Corridor (Evans 1899–1900, 20; 1901–1902, 41). In PM IV, however, Evans changed his mind and dated their construction to the MM III period (PM IV, 630; cf. PM I, 449–450). The correct date is the first, as the walls are indeed built over the floor of the Long Corridor, the construction of which is now dated to the LM IIIA period (Popham 1970, 53; Hallager 1977, 35–38). The inaccessibility of storing bulk commodities therefore should be associated with LM III and not MM III. Another remodelling concerned the doorways of the magazines. According to Evans, in the MM II period these doors were first wide, then in the MM III period gypsum doorjambs narrowed the entrances, while in the LM I period the doors were widened once again (PM I, 461–462). Alexiou has suggested that the doorjambs are MM II in date (Alexiou 1964, 34). In combining these arguments therefore, the narrow entrances in MM II were replaced by wider ones in MM III. In LM I the doors remained wide (3 m), but some of them were narrowed in a “rough-and-ready” manner (Magazines IV, V, VI; 1.20–1.60 m). According to Driessen and Macdonald, the widening of the doors is dated to early LM IA, while the final alterations were made in late LM IA (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 141). The “rough-and-ready” walls were probably built during the LM IIIA period (Hallager 1977, 38–45). Some of the remodelling to which Halstead refers therefore took place in a late phase of the Neopalatial period, with further remodelling in the period of the occupation of the palace by the Mycenaeans. These changes were aimed primarily at increasing the security of the commodities stored in the West Magazines, but in no way affected the transportation of stored goods. The width of the entrance in the area of the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex, the principal access to the West Magazines Complex, allows for the moving even of big pithoi. Nor does the reduction of the entrances of some magazines affect the moving of commodities. According to Driessen and Macdonald, the remodelling in the palace of Malia took place in LM IA and LM IB and not in MM III (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 182–185). Van Effenterre argues that these alterations were reinforcements for the upper floor after damage following the volcanic

41

eruption of Thera (van Effenterre 1980, 78) or were a way to increase the security of the stored surplus. It has now been convincingly suggested that the palace was destroyed at the end of LM IA (Pelon 2005). This implies that alterations were dated within the LM IA period. Halstead also placed great emphasis on the existing lead-lined cists in the Long Corridor and Magazine VIII, which according to Evans were used for storing valuable artifacts. The storage of valuable tokens in an area devoted to food storage was taken as proof of the increase of production of sumptuary artifacts used for “social storage” transactions. It has, however, been shown that the precious relics recovered in the lead-lined cists fell or were placed there during the destruction and clearing of debris that preceded the laying of the LM IIIA pavement (Popham 1970, 53; Hallager 1977, 35–38). Halstead also omits the evidence of the other 20 cists from the Long Corridor and the 61 from Magazines IV–VII, IX–XIII, used for other purposes, some probably for the storage of liquid commodities, presumably olive oil (PM I, 452–453). The following observations must be made on the section of the West Magazines given over to offices concerned primarily with the manufacture of textile. Halstead here refers to Magazines XIV, XV, and XVI of the West Magazines Complex. These magazines formed a separate cluster of stores (Christakis 2004). No gypsum floors, cists, or pithoi were identified. The entrances of these stores are from their west end, off a north–south passageway, and not from the Long Corridor. This passageway was in turn directly connected to Magazine XIII through a small doorway at the south end (Evans 1900–1901, 41). There is no evidence for another doorway in the West Facade at the northwest corner of the West Wing of the palace (Evans 1900–1901, 43–44; F/NB 1901, 43, 124). Begg (1975, 22) and Graham (1979, 62) have suggested that a ramp existed outside the northwest corner of Magazine XVI, leading to a doorway opening at the west end of Magazines XV and XVI. This possibility, however, is very speculative; the visible preserved architectural remains do not support the presence of such. Moreover, the careful examination of the preserved architectural remains has shown that no evidence exists for the doorway between Magazines XVI and XVII as suggested by

42

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Evans and Mackenzie (Evans 1900–1901, 41; DM/NB 1900, 25th May). Given that the doorway at the south end of Magazine XIII was blocked, perhaps during the LM IIIA period, it is very likely that a wooden stairway, perhaps in the area of Magazine XVI, provided access from the upper story. Because of these constructional details, the complicated patterns of accessibility and the absence of pithoi, it is very likely that Magazines XIV, XV, and XVI formed a block of storerooms for the storage of special and valuable commodities. The find of Linear B tablets with references to textiles, held on the upper floor and fallen into the area of Magazines X–XVI, may be indirect evidence of the kind of commodity stored here (Palmer 1963, 103– 104). The case of Magazines XIV–XVI, however, cannot be used to support any argument for the reduction of storage capacity of the Knossian palace during its Neopalatial period, since it reflects storage strategies adopted during the Mycenaean occupation of the complex. The diachronic decrease of storage within palaces has also been proposed by Moody (1987). She argues that storage space was cut by 1/3 from MM III to LM I at Knossos and Phaistos. The Protopalatial palaces seem to have devoted about 11% of their ground floor to storage while the Neopalatial palaces averaged less than 5%. This narrative is based on shifts in the size of the area devoted to storage in the palaces of Knossos and Phaistos from MM II to the LM I period. Moody’s proposed estimates should, however, be modified, as the period of use of the storerooms is actually different to that suggested to date. It is difficult to spot the remains of the Old Palace during the MM II period at Knossos. Although some walls of the palace may exist, its overall architectural layout and the function of the various spaces are unknown. Testimonies indicate that the main storage sector of the Old Palace was probably located in the area of the West Wing. Some architectural features of the West Magazines Complex could be dated to the MM II period, although their dating is problematic. Another indication for the presence of a storage complex in the West Wing is the so-called Hieroglyphic Deposit, discovered beneath the later staircase at the north end of the Long Corridor (Weingarten 1994). The written documents of this deposit probably deal with the flow of goods into and out of the palace. These testimonies, however,

are very meager for any estimate, in terms of ground floor size, for the extent of storage activities in the West Wing of the palace. Moody has considered the East Magazines, in the East Wing of the palace, to be Protopalatial in date and estimated their total surface at 525 m2. This storage area, which Evans called the Stores of the Great Pithoi, is a rather enigmatic one. It includes the Magazines of the Giant Pithoi and seems to cover the area of the North-East Portico, the LoomWeight Basement, the North-East Veranda, the Court of the Stone Spout, and the School Room (Hood and Taylor 1981, 20). Although the evidence provided by Evans leaves no doubt about the presence of a storage installation in this part of the palace, it should be noted that neither the total surface area nor the period of use are clear. The only attested part of the East Magazine is the Magazines of the Giant Pithoi, the surface of which is estimated at 45 m2. The main period of use of these stores is not MM II as was generally thought, but MM III. In Evans’ preliminary reports, the Giant Pithoi decorated with knobs were dated to the MM III period (Evans 1902–1903, 25–28; 1903–1904, 11; cf. Mackenzie 1906, 265). Later, however, and influenced by the proposed MM IIB date for the pithoi decorated with knobs at Phaistos (Pernier 1935, 277–285), Evans changed his mind and dated the knobbed pithoi from Knossos to the MM IIB period (PM I, 231–235; PM III, 18–25). I have presented elsewhere my arguments in favor of a MM III date for these large storage containers (Christakis 2005, 12–13). Moreover, the ceramic assemblages excavated in the Magazines of the Giant Pithoi and now kept in KSM Boxes 989–995 strongly question a date in the Protopalatial period. A considerable proportion of pottery, including entirely preserved conical cups, is MM IIIA and MM IIIB, while only very few sherds have been dated to the MM II period. Some other sherds are LM I and LM IIIA. One may thus reasonably conclude that the Magazines of the Giant Pithoi were used during the MM III period but that no evidence exists for their use in the MM II period. Moody considered the North-East Magazines to be food storerooms. Evans, however, very clearly stated that, “their contents differ in character from those of the other Palace storerooms and repositories of this Period, since they do not represent vessels already in use in various departments but the

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

assorted stock of a fabric” (PM I, 568–569). There is not even minimal evidence that this area was devoted to food storage. The Royal Magazines were not filled after the MM IIIB destruction, as Evans argued (PM I, 320–323, 562–568). The study of the architecture and pottery assemblages from this complex, discussed further below, proves that the stores were in full use until the final destruction of the palace in the LM IIIA period. The above arguments show that there are no objective grounds for supporting the diachronic decrease of food storage from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial phase of the Knossian palace. The preserved remains point to the importance of the Neopalatial palace as a storing center. Let us now turn to discuss the palace of Phaistos. A large part of the Protopalatial palace and all of the preserved part of the Neopalatial palace have been excavated and published (Pernier 1935; Pernier and Banti 1951; Levi 1976). As far as the diachronic development of storage is concerned, neither the Protopalatial nor the Neopalatial palace provides reliable evidence for the total estimate of the area devoted to food storage. For the Protopalatial palace, the only known storage areas are rooms X–XVIII, XXI, Magazines XXXIV (Pernier 1935, 239–275, 277–285, 316–327), and rooms XXVIII, LI, LVIII a–e, LXVIII (Levi 1976, 110–120, 203, 209–218, 425). It is self-evident that these were not the only storage areas of the Protopalatial palace. As far as the construction of the Neopalatial palace is concerned, it is now dated to early LM IB (La Rosa 2002). A considerable time span thus exists between the destruction of the Protopalatial palace and the construction of the Neopalatial palace. The main storage sector of the palace is the West Magazines Complex, while storage activities occurred in some other areas of the complex. The fatal drawback to any estimations, however, is that most of the east and all of the southeast part of the LM I palace has been destroyed by erosion. An overall picture on storage activities dated to LM IB cannot be advanced therefore, as storage may also have occurred in spaces located in these wings. Moody rightly points out the shortcomings in calculating the total storage surface of the MM II palace. For MM III, she estimates the storage surface at 680 m2 (the West Magazines, the North-East Magazines, and the four kouloures). This figure should be reduced to 600 m2 as the kouloures were

43

probably not used for grain storage (Strasser 1997). For LM I, Moody argues for a decrease of 3%, as the North-East Magazines were not in use. A justifiable query is raised, however, as to whether these figures have any significance whatsoever, since the total storage area of the Protopalatial and Neopalatial palaces is unknown. It is surely impossible to proceed with a comparative approach. The theory of a storage decline in the palaces during the Neopalatial period was also based on the disuse, early in the MM III period, of the large subterranean structures in the West Court and the Theatral Area of the palace of Knossos and in the West Court of the palace of Phaistos, generally known as kouloures. Evans suggested that those at Knossos were rubbish pits and/or wells for the disposal of surface waters (PM IV, 61–66), and Alexiou said that they were depositories for sacred offerings (Alexiou 1964, 140–141). Others have considered kouloures to be granaries (Halstead 1981; Branigan 1987, 1988a, 1988b, 1990; Marinatos 1987; Bradfer-Burdet 2005) or tree pits (Preziosi 1983, 85; Carinci 2001), while Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou suggest that those at Phaistos were cisterns (Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004, 288). Many theories on the economic status of the Protopalatial and Neopalatial palaces have been based on such evidence. In reality, there are no sound archaeological testimonies on the function of these structures, and any narrative of sociopolitical development based on such ambiguous data seems questionable. An accomplished re-examination of the question by Strasser has convincingly proved that their use as granaries is uncertain (Strasser 1997; contra Halstead 1997). Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the use of the kouloures as storage installations for other staples. In conclusion, the above discussion has shown that the theory of storage decrease from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial period at the level of the palatial sector of societal organization is based on fragile arguments. The architectural arrangement of the Protopalatial palace of Knossos and the function of its spaces remain in the realm of pure supposition. The remains of the Protopalatial palace at Phaistos do not provide information for any overall consideration of staple storage activities. It is my opinion that arguments focused on the juxtaposition of economic, political, and administrative changes between the Protopalatial and Neopalatial

44

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

periods compare two “episodes” of Cretan Bronze Age civilization that are unequally represented in their material testimonies. Conclusions drawn in

this way, therefore, inevitably result in misleading pictures of sociopolitical development.

Storage in the LM I Palaces: The Testimonies The present discussion is concerned with testimonies on staple storage activities from the palaces of Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, Galatas, Gournia, Petras, and Kato Zakros.

Knossos (Fig. 10) It is difficult to determine the extent and nature of storage activities during LM I because floor deposits were completely erased by the intensive later occupation of the palace. Most of the preserved evidence refers to storage activities belonging to LM IIIA (Christakis 2004). Architecture, however, may provide some indirect insights: broadly speaking, the basic layout of the palace during LM I, despite later modifications, seems to be close to what stands now. The complex of the West Magazines is the main storage sector of the palace. It is formed by a group of 18 narrow storerooms arranged alongside a long corridor (PM I, 448–462; PM IV, 630–648; Raison 1993). Evans dated the construction of the complex as a whole to MM IIIB, a date confirmed by Hood’s investigation (Catling 1973–1974, 34). The complex was subject to architectural alterations, especially during LM IIIA (Christakis 2004). Evans suggested that the West Magazines could have housed 420 pithoi (PM IV, 647–648). The number of pithoi in use during the LM I period, however, is not known. The storage potential of the complex was substantially increased by the capacity of 93 rectangular cists (kaselles) set in the floor of the Long Corridor and in Magazines IV–VII and IX–XIII (PM I, 448–462; PM IV, 630–632). Evans divided the cists into two structurally different types: one of lead-lined gypsum slabs and another of plasterlined gypsum slabs. The plaster-lined cists of the Long Corridor also have a shallow rectangular depression in their base. According to Evans, the

plaster-lined ones were modified from the leadlined sort. He argued that the lead-lined cists served as treasuries because remains of valuable objects were found inside, while the plaster-lined cists were used as oil vats (PM I, 452–453). There is reason to be sceptical about the architectural modifications proposed by Evans. The cists of the magazines were not systematically investigated. It is a matter of question, therefore, whether the modification from lead-lined to plaster-lined cists, observed in some cases, applied to all the cists in the magazines. As far as the contents of the cists are concerned, Evans was entirely correct. Lead-lined cists do not provide a suitable environment for staple storage due to the toxic qualities of lead, of which Bronze Age Cretans were presumably aware. The cists therefore might have been used for the storage of non-staple goods. It should be noted, however, that the remains of precious relics found in lead-lined cists, taken by Evans as proof of the function of these cists as treasuries, were in fact part of the filling material when the cists were concealed by the gypsum pavement set down in LM IIIA (Popham 1970, 53; Hallager 1977, 35–38). Plasterlined cists are ideal for staple storage. The most likely staple involved is olive oil. Ethnohistorical information has confirmed the short- and longterm storage of olive oil in plastered cists, set into the floor of olive-press installations and magazines or in cists built above ground (e.g., Orlandos 1927, 75; Lafon 1993). There are no testimonies concerning the pithoi placed in the West Magazines during LM I. Most of the pithoi found in this complex are dated to LM II–IIIA2 (Christakis 2004). Only 24 pithoi can be dated to LM I, while one is dated to the MM III (or even MM II) period. The LM I pithoi—as well as those dated to the LM II–IIIA2 period—are large specimens of very high storage capacity. Adjacent to the West Magazines is the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex, generally considered

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

to be the sacral area of the palace par excellence. The re-examination of the architecture by Panagiotaki has revealed complicated episodes of architectural modification that substantially affect our understanding of storage activities (Panagiotaki 1999, 245–257, 271–276). It appears that the layout of the complex during its “second architectural phase” was quite different from that standing now. A large square room in the northeast part of the complex comprised all of what is now included in the Room of the Giant Pithos and the Temple Repositories Room. This room communicated with the Lobby of the Stone Seat through a polythyron. The space now occupied by Rooms A and B may have been a light well. The East–West Corridor south of the crypts seems to be a post–LM I construction. The East Pillar Crypt may then have been a rectangular two-pillared room, while in the area of the later West Pillar Crypt a rectangular room without pillars was sited. Until further soundings are excavated, the temporal definition of the “second architectural phase” remains in the realm of supposition. A LM I date is very likely, however (Panagiotaki 1999, 256). The function of the ground floor spaces of the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex during LM I is difficult to discern due to the lack of artifactual assemblages assigned to that period. During the LM IIIA period the area was used for storage. Pithoi were found in the Room of the Giant Pithos, in the East Pillar Crypt, and in the Lobby of the Stone Seat (Panagiotaki 1999, 192–215, 219– 225). The discovery of Linear B tablets in this space, dealing with the collection and disbursement of olive oil, has been considered indirect evidence for this kind of stored staple (Palmer 1963, 86–87; Panagiotaki 1999, 203, 208–209). There are some indications showing the occurrence of storage and/or processing of staples in the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex before LM I, too. The well-built cists in the Temple Repositories Room, as well as in other parts of the east sector of the West Wing, may have served for storage (Evans 1903–1904, 30–34; PM II, 70). The remains of what seems to be a Protopalatial cist in the southwest corner of the East Pillar Room show that storage activities might have occurred in the area as early as that period (Panagiotaki 1999, 187, 251). Whether these cists contained staples or precious items is a difficult question to answer, but

45

the construction of the west cist in the Temple Repositories Room suggests that liquid commodities were involved (Panagiotaki 1999, 71–72, 274). The cists of the Temple Repositories Room, the capacity of which is estimated at 7,561 liters, were filled in and covered over with a slab floor at the start of the LM IA period. It has been argued that liquid commodities kept in the cists of the Temple Repositories Room supplied large numbers of people during ceremonies or celebrations in the Central Court (Macdonald 2002). The direct access to the West Magazines would have facilitated the replenishing of supplies. One wonders, however, why commodities kept in the West Magazines were not carried directly to the Central Court instead of being moved first to the Temple Repositories Room, stored in the cist, and then redistributed. Storage and staple processing, therefore, were widely practiced activities in the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex both before and after the LM I period. This may be an indirect indication of the occurrence of such activities in LM I, too, especially if we take similarities in some architectural features into consideration. The architectural configuration of the Magazine of the Jewel Fresco (or Magazine of the Vase Tablets) and the magazine parallel to it suggests that both were storerooms (Evans 1900–1901, 49). It is very likely that the Magazine of the Jewel Fresco was directly connected with the West Magazines Complex. Evans supposed two blocked doors, the first in the west wall of Room B in the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex and the second in the west wall of the Magazine of the Jewel Fresco (Evans 1900–1901, 49; Panagiotaki 1999, 234). It is unclear, however, whether their stored commodities were staples or other goods. Three storage complexes are sited in the east wing of the palace: the Magazines of the Giant Pithoi (already discussed), the Royal Magazines, and the compartments near the Corridor of the Draughtboard. The Royal Magazines are a complex formed by the Corridor of the Bays, the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi, and the East–West Corridor to the north of them (PM I, 320–323, 562–568). Seven large pithoi were found in the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi standing on a gypsum floor laid after the MM IIIA period, a date suggested by pottery assemblages (Fig. 11; the fragment of the LM IIIA kylix shown in Fig. 12a is an intrusion)

46

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

excavated below the floor (PM I, 562; Hood 1996). The pithoi have high capacity, low transportability, and low accessibility. The main entrance to the Royal Magazines was the doorway between the Corridor of the Bays and the Middle East–West Corridor. According to Evans, the doorway was blocked in LM IA (PM I, 323, fig. 236). The pottery found in situ—seven pithoi in the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi and some vases of an “unusual character” in the Corridor of the Bays—was dated by Evans to MM IIIB. Thus he arrived at the conclusion that the complex was filled in at the time of the construction of the Great East Hall, after the MM IIIB destruction. In Pendlebury’s view, only the Corridor of the Bays was blocked, whereas the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi remained open. Access to the magazine was through a possible doorway (Evans 1900–1901, 84), communicating with the Corridor of the Draughtboard (Pendlebury 1939, 204). A critical analysis of both the structural remains and the pottery calls into question the picture envisaged by Evans and Pendlebury. The first problem is that there is no evidence for the blocking of the doorway between the Corridor of the Bays and the Middle East–West Corridor in Mackenzie’s (DM/NB May 6–11, 1901), Evans’ (AE/NB 1, 42), and Fyfe’s (F/NB 1902, 134) diaries or in Evans’ preliminary reports (1900– 1901, 84–85, 102–103, fig. 116). Secondly, the date of pottery proposed by Evans is questionable. Morphological and decorative arguments suggest that the Medallion Pithoi are LM I (Christakis 1999a, 117, 304, 344–345; 2004; 2005, 7–9; cf. Pendlebury 1939, 204). The deposit of the Corridor of the Bays is formed by 46 almost entirely preserved pots (jugs, cooking pots, double vases, bowls, cups, and lids) that were probably used, according to Evans, for “ritual” purposes (AE/NB 1901, 45a, 46a, 48; PM I, 567, fig. 412; Forsdyke 1925, 97, no. A 586, pl. VIII; Foster 1982, 30, 165; Brown 1989, 93, fig. 47). Paste composition and similar micro-finishing details in manufacture suggest production by the same potting group, if not the same potter. The vases were assigned to the MM III period (PM I, 567; Walberg 1976, 120; Foster 1982, 65; Warren and Hankey 1989, 54–57). Evans gave emphasis to some “archaic features” such as the knob and barbotine-like decoration of the jugs (Evans

1900–1901, 87; PM I, 567), although he was well aware, too, of the “later features” of some of the pots (Evans 1900–1901, 85; PM I, 567, nn. 4, 6). I would suggest that these “later features” are the more prominent and distinctive ones. The cooking pots are typical of the LM II and LM IIIA1 periods (e.g., Popham 1984, pl. 86:f, g; Watrous 1992, 34, fig. 26, no. 581, 78, fig. 50, no. 1346; AndreadakiVlasaki and Papadopoulou 1997, 133–135, figs. 51–53). The jugs with a globular body, funnel-like neck and trefoil-mouthed rim are LM IIIA1 (e.g., Hallager 1997, 412, no. 5). A jug from this deposit is very similar to the well known jug from Tomb B at Katsambas (Alexiou 1967, 44, pls. 5, 6; for the shape, see also the jugs illustrated in pls. 16:γ, 24:γ) dated to the LM IIIA1 period, while the knobbed decoration on jugs is also common during LM IIIA1 (Alexiou 1967, 44, 52, pls. 5, 24:γ). The deposit, therefore, is to be dated to the LM IIIA1 period—indeed, it is one of the few assemblages of entirely preserved pots found on the floor of the Knossian palace on the eve of its final destruction. It may be noted, however, that one cup, perhaps intrusive, seems to be MM I (PM I, 566, fig. 412, fourth row, far right), while a jug decorated with appliqué rows of repeated crescents is dated to MM III (PM I, 566, fig. 412, fourth row, far left). Moreover, an almost entirely preserved jug (spout, part of the neck, and handle are missing) with painted decoration dated to LM II was found below the floor level (Fig. 12b; now in KSM Box 1105: “M I 1, K.03 Corridor of the Bay, N. Bay T.P, to 2 m down from floor level 1st. M.”). I would suggest, therefore, that the Royal Magazines were not filled in MM III. No evidence can be shown that the door between the Corridor of the Bays and the Middle East–West Corridor was ever blocked. Rather, the gypsum paving of the Corridor of the Bays was laid or restored after the LM II period, the pithoi in the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi are LM I, and the pottery found on the floor of the Corridor of the Bays is dated LM IIIA1. The only concrete evidence for a blockage in the area of the Royal Magazines is the north–south wall built in the East–West Corridor, close to the entrance of the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi, which blocked access to the stores from the Corridor of the Draughtboard. The date of this architectural modification is uncertain. The construction of this wall, however, is similar to

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

that of the wall blocking the doorway in the west end of Magazines XIII and XIV of the West Magazine Complex, and it was perhaps built in the LM IIIA period (Christakis 2004, 302, fig. 25.3). A complex of small rectangular compartments, known as the Area of the Grooved Partitions, in the northeast quarter of the palace, probably served for the storage of cereals and pulses. Evans (1901–1902) and Shaw (1978) consider these compartments to be pens for livestock. Laffineur suggests that they were niches for the placement of pottery turntables (Laffineur 1991). Hood originally thought that they might have been latrines, but later changed his mind and considered these compartments to be storage bins for grain and pulses (Hood 1985a). The north part of the complex and most of the surrounding area is much disturbed; erosion and later activities, including the construction of a Roman lime kiln, erased most of the ground plan. The architectural features of the complex and the patterns of circulation around it, therefore, are not entirely certain. Shaw has counted the remains of six compartments and restored a row of 11 in all, stretching as far as the northern outer palace wall (Shaw 1978, 237, fig. 2). According to Hood, the southernmost compartment was a lobby through which the system of these compartments was approached from the stepped corridor in the south (Hood 1985a, 310). I am rather sceptical, however, about this suggestion. Two walls formed the compartments. The wall facing east was built of irregularly sized limestone and gypsum blocks, many of which were re-used. The west wall, not now preserved, was probably a mud brick or light timber construction. The space between these walls was divided by sliding wooden partitions. A north–south service corridor, formed by the retaining wall of the Corridor of the Draughtboard and the west wall of the compartments, gave access from the west. The corridor was directly connected with the North-Eastern Entrance. An unpaved corridor, connected at its south end with the North-East Portico, probably ran along the east wall of the compartments. The compartments might have been filled from the hypothetical north–south corridor on the west side or through a wooden covering from above (Hood 1985a, 313). The contents, cereals and/or pulses, could have been emptied through hatches opening on the east side

47

(see the restored perspective views proposed by Shaw and Bianco in Shaw 1978, 241, fig. 4). The dimensions of the preserved compartments vary from 2.30 m x 1.50 m (first, second, and third compartments from the south) to 2.70 m x 1.70 m (fourth, fifth, and sixth). It is here argued, based on the highest preserved height of the east wall, that the height of these compartments was about 1.20 m. The volume of the first three compartments, therefore, is about 12.42 m3, while the volume of the others is about 16.52 m3. Assuming a volume of 22.03 m3 for the other four compartments, we have a volume of 50.97 m3 for the 11 compartments. This implies the storage of about 39,348 kg of cereals/pulses. The proximity of these compartments to the North-East Magazines, storerooms used for the keeping of vessels suitable for food preparation and consumption (PM I, 568–569), and the North Pillar Hall, an ideal space for food consumption, may not be accidental. In conclusion, spaces that on the basis of their layout could be defined as storerooms cover 1,128 m2 or 1,049 m2 and represent 8.8 or 8.1% of the ground floor. They may have housed about 518 large pithoi. This figure is obviously a working hypothesis, as there is no evidence of the actual number of pithoi in use during LM I. Most of the storage containers used in the palace are LM IIIA in date and only very few pithoi, recovered from the floor deposits of the palace, have survived from the LM I period. The storage potential of the pithoi was increased by cists laid in the floor of the West Magazines and the compartments in the Area of the Grooved Partitions.

Phaistos (Fig. 13) The palace, as we see it today, was built in LM IB (Puglisi 2001; La Rosa 2002). Post–LM IB activities may have partly disturbed floor assemblages in some areas of the complex. The main stores were placed in the west wing of the palace. They consist of 10 rectangular rooms arranged in a row facing onto a long, pillared corridor, covering 184 m2 (Rooms 26–31, 33–37; Pernier and Banti 1951, 77–96). Taking into consideration the patterns of circulation and the floor area, we may speculate that the magazines were designed to

48

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

store at least 100 large pithoi. Nevertheless, only five pithoi were found in the complex. They are large specimens with high capacity, low accessibility, and low transportability (cf. Form 15). Remains of carbonized grain fallen from the upper story and found in the corridor of the magazines between the pillar and the entrance from Room 25 suggest the presence of a further storeroom on the upper floor (Pernier and Banti 1951, 85–86, 330). It has been argued that the ground floor of the West Magazines served for workshop activities and food processing, while storage occurred on the upper story (Hitchcock 2000, 132–145). This argument, although it may explain the emptiness of the West Magazines, does not account for the presence of such a low number of pithoi in the palatial area, given that the pithos is the only storage container suitable for the long term preservation of goods, especially liquids. Storage activities took place in other areas of the palace. Room 11 housed four pithoi partly sunk into the floor, full of grain (Pernier and Banti 1951, 115). Spaces 18, 42, 43–47, 73, and 88 may have served for storage activities because their layout is typical of magazines (Begg 1975, 207–208). Pithoi, however, were found only in Rooms 43 and 88 (Pernier and Banti 1951, 206, 246). As far as the other spaces are concerned, it is not clear whether they served for food storage or for the storage of other commodities and/or implements. In conclusion, the area devoted to food storage covers 219 m2 and represents 3.1% of the ground floor. Just 11 pithoi have been reported from the LM IB deposits of the palace. The amount of goods kept in these pithoi is considerably lower than the amount of goods necessary for the functioning of the Phaistian palatial group. The stores, however, could easily accommodate about 130 large pithoi.

Malia (Fig. 14) The palace was destroyed by fire at the end of LM IA with some spaces in the North Wing reoccupied in LM IB (Pelon 2005). The LM IA date has recently been disputed as part of the northeast facade of the palace has fallen over the LM IB destruction level of a construction built in the Abords Nord-Est of the palace (Van de Moortel and

Darque 2006). I would suggest, however, that only completely preserved pottery from well-stratified deposits found within the context itself constitutes sound criteria for the temporal definition of a context. On the contrary, arguments proposed by Van de Moortel and Darque could not support any perspective of a Maliote palace operating within LM IB, because they reflect building activities outside the palace itself and could not explain the complete absence of ceramic assemblages dated to LM IB from such an extensive complex. In my opinion, present evidence confirms the abandonment of the palace during the LM IA period. The part of the facade that fell on the LM IB layer of the building in the Abords Nord-Est area might have fallen later than the LM IA period. Storerooms were located in the west and east wings, and also in the northeast and southwest areas of the palace. Quartiers I 2–6, II 1–3, VIII 1–3, and XX 1–2 make up the stores in the west wing (Pelon 1980, 178–181, 203–205, 227–235). They were arranged on both sides of a north–south corridor (C 1–2). The corridor was subject to architectural alterations. Walls, built at the north and south ends, blocked access to Quartier IV and Quartier XX 1–2, respectively. The construction of a dividing wall at the center of the corridor interrupted communication between the various storage spaces. Moreover, the doors in the west part of Magazines II 1 and 3 were closed, blocking access from the corridor. Another wall blocked VI 11 off from the corridor. Thus only Quartier I could be reached from outside the palace, through space I 7, whereas the other magazines were accessible only from inside the palace. These patterns of internal circulation suggest a considerable interest in controlling accessibility to the stored wealth. Entirely preserved pithoi were found only in Quartier II (II 1α–γ) (Chapouthier and Charbonneaux 1928, 9–12). About 11 small-sized and six large pithoi, with many other small containers, were carefully placed alongside the walls of Magazine II 1α–γ. One pithos in Magazine II 1γ and another in Magazine II 1α were found upside-down: so positioned perhaps for cleaning purposes? There is no information on the presence of storage containers in the rest of the stores, apart from pithos fragments in Quartier I 4–6. The North-East Magazines cover 75 m2 and are formed of six rectangular spaces (Quartier XXVII

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

1–6) arranged alongside the north portico and an east–west corridor (Pelon 1980, 91–94). The complex was subject to architectural alterations after a fire destruction, such as the blocking of the door between Magazines 3–4 and the opening of a door in the north wall of the east–west corridor. These alterations did not substantially change accessibility to the magazines. It is not certain whether Magazine 6 served for storage purposes. The rectangular structure built against the east wall is interpreted as an oven. Perhaps this space was concerned with food preparation. The storage containers recovered in these magazines were small- and medium-sized pithoi and amphoras (Chapouthier and Joly 1936, 23–24, pl. 8; Chapouthier and Demargne 1942, 15–16, pls. 27:2, 28:1, 2). It is impossible to estimate the overall storage capacity of these containers due to their poor state of preservation and insufficient published information. Their storage potential, however, seems to be low. Storage and food preparation activities took place in Quartiers XXIV and XXV in the east wing (Pelon 1980, 95–96). Organic remains of grain together with pithoi were found in Rooms XXV 2 and XXV 3, respectively (Chapouthier and Demargne 1942, 22–23). Graham suggests that food preparation and storage in these blocks were related to the Upper Northeast Hall, at the north end of the central court, used for banquets (Graham 1961, 169). The East Magazines (Quartier XI 1–7) comprise one of the best examples of Cretan Bronze Age storeroom-complexes (Pelon 1980, 200–207). They are formed of seven long and narrow spaces arranged off a north–south corridor. The complex had two entrances, the first in Magazine 1 and the second by the north wall of the north–south corridor. The second door was later blocked. Other structural alterations were the narrowing of the entrances of Magazines 5 and 7, and the construction of a cross wall in Magazine 2, which limited the area devoted to storage activities. Storage containers were placed on low platforms built along both sides of each magazine. A complex system of channels running beside the platforms and emptying into pithoi set into the floor served for the collection of spilled liquids. This system is regarded as having been constructed initially in the Protopalatial period (Pelon 2002). An earthen floor was laid about 15 cm above the system of platforms and collectors in the last phase of their use. Carbonized remains of grain

49

were found on the earth floor. The dating of this architectural modification is uncertain; it is said that there was a change from a system of storage of liquid commodities to that of dry ones (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 185). Slabs along the east wall of the north–south corridor served for the placement of pithoi, while a channel was used for the collection of spilled liquids. Graham suggests that these stores provided room for 190 pithoi with an overall storage volume of 23,000 liters (Graham 1962, 131). The number, however, of pithoi recovered in the LM IA deposits of these stores is very low. The layout of the adjacent Quartier XXII is similar to that of storerooms (Chapouthier and Joly 1936, 21; Pelon 1980, 203–207). No exact information on storage containers has been published so far, however, while the frequency of domestic pottery may suggest that it could also have been a pottery store. Storage containers were found in Rooms 2 and 4 of Quartier XVIII (Pelon 1980, 213–221). It is said that Quartier XVIII served for cult purposes. For storage activities there was Room 3 of Quartier XVII (Pelon 1980, 213). The blocked door of Room 2, however, suggests that the magazine had fallen out of use before the final destruction of the palace. The north portico of the central court may also have been used for food storage. Ten pithoi and 600 kg of charred lentils were found there (Chapouthier and Charbonneaux 1928, 36). According to Hue and Pelon, the pithoi had fallen from the upper story (Hue and Pelon 1992, 20). The palace is also provided with one of the most distinctive storage complexes: the silos (Pelon 1980, 221–226). These are an architecturally independent unit formed of two rows of four circular structures, each supported by central pillars and enclosed by an enceinte. They were built against the southwest wing of the palace, perhaps during LM IA, and were accessible only from the west court (van Effenterre 1980, 334–335; Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 185). Their function as granaries has been fully discussed by Strasser, who estimated their overall capacity at 369,832–374,160 kg or 240,584–245,048 kg of grain (Strasser 1997, 77, table 1). It is argued that storage in silos reflects communal use, because they were accessible from outside the palace (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 101). I would suggest, however, that the assumed lack of direct access from the palace to the silos is a rather

50

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

weak argument. First, it is likely that interconnections existed between them and the palace proper at the level of the upper floor. The spatial position of the silos is closely incorporated into the palace: the enceinte provides an effective barrier to external access. Moreover, the high investment of labor for the construction of such a structure and the need in any case for a central management to collect and redistribute surpluses also could reflect palatial initiative. In conclusion, the storerooms cover 1,400 m2 and represent 15.7% of the ground floor. This is considerable; Graham’s observations are pertinent, “The palace of Malia is especially remarkable for the large number of storage rooms and small workrooms in all parts of the building, which give it almost the agrarian character of a great country villa” (Graham 1962, 44). Estimating the actual number of pithoi recovered in the palace is a difficult task because of the bias of the published reports. The information on the floor deposits refers to about 40 medium-sized pithoi and five large ones. The stores, however, could easily accommodate a total of 546 mediumsized pithoi.

Galatas The palace of Galatas was built in MM IIIA and lost its palatial character at least as an integrated building complex early in LM IA (Rethemiotakis 2002). Ground floor spaces were completely cleared out after abandonment. Only some ground floor spaces in the East Wing and some upper floor spaces in the North and East Wings were in use until the final destruction of the complex at the end of the LM IA period, a destruction caused by the Theran eruption. Erosion has seriously damaged the West Wing, while artifactual assemblages have been removed from ground floor spaces. It is difficult, therefore, to have an overall picture of storage. Architecture, however, provides some interesting insights into the storage policy of the palatial authority. The main storage complex of the palace is the East Magazines (Fig. 15). The northeast part of these stores is seriously damaged by erosion

(this part is reconstructed in the ground plan shown in Fig. 15 ). The stores, five spaces (one is badly preserved) arranged alongside a long corridor, cover about 80.50 m2. They could easily house about 80 large pithoi with an overall capacity of 24,000–36,000 liters (estimate based on the capacity of Form 4, the most common type of pithos used in MM III Galatas). The stores were found almost empty: only one entirely preserved pithos and two partly preserved pithoi were found in Magazine 5 (Rethemiotakis 1999a, 100, fig. 31). It is likely that storage containers used in the East Magazines were removed from the stores and re-used elsewhere. The entirely and partly preserved pithoi, products of a local workshop, are similar to Forms 4 and 6. They are specimens of high storage potential. Fragments of similar pithoi were found among the pottery collected from the floor deposit of the magazines. Fragments of conical and medium-sized ovoid pithoi were also found (cf. Forms 23, 28, 35, 112, 114, and 116). The East Magazines were not the only stores in the palace; small-scale storage also occurred in various other spaces. The presence of stores in the West Wing of the palace is also quite likely, although erosion and cultivation have erased crucial information. Fragments of large ovoid pithoi were found among the pottery from MM III levels. The use of such specimens of high storage potential and the well-built East Magazines show that the palace was an important storage and collection center. The situation changed during LM IA when most of the palace was abandoned and very few spaces were in use. The East Magazines were emptied of storage implements. One pithos, dated LM IA, was found in a ground floor space in the south wing, while a partly preserved pithos was placed in the upper floor space, above Room 44. Fragments of LM I pithoi were also collected from the upper destruction deposits of the East Magazines: these were used in upper floor spaces. The pithoi, specimens of high storage potential, were similar to Forms 14–17. The overall picture points to the storage of limited quantities of goods. The stored wealth served the needs of the group that used the abandoned palace, but this cannot be used as evidence for the interpretation of the palace as a collection and storage center during LM IA.

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

Gournia (Fig. 16) The palace was built early in LM IA, damaged perhaps by earthquake in LM IA, remodelled during LM IB, and finally destroyed by fire in the end of LM IB (Soles 1991, 2002). The LM IB modifications increased its size, embellished some of its facades, and limited accessibility to the complex. The main stores were located in the basement behind the west facade (Rooms 1–12) (Soles 1991, 38–41). Magazines were reached via the door, which opened in the west facade of the palace (Rooms 1–3), and via staircases (Rooms 1–4, 7) and trapdoors (Rooms 8–12). Pithoi were reported in Rooms 3–9. There is no information on their morphological features and thus their functional performance characteristics. It has been assumed that Rooms 1–3 served as workshops because of the finds of clay and stone lamps, some of which were without traces of use, and bronze tools (Soles 1991, 70). The presence of these artifacts, however, does not necessarily imply the function of these spaces as workshops. The archaeological record shows that very often storage of implements took place alongside staples. The other group of storerooms was located in the northwest part of the main level. It is composed of the rectangular Room 23 and three long rooms arranged alongside a corridor (Rooms 24a, b, c) (Soles 1991, 60–61, 67, figs. 60, 61). Room 23 contained 12 large pithoi, though none are reported in Rooms 24a–c. In conclusion, the overall area devoted to staple storage covers 116 m2 and represents 6.4% of the ground floor. The stores could easily accommodate a total of 80 large pithoi. A minimum of 15 pithoi, however, is reported in LM IB deposits. They seem to be large specimens with high capacity and low accessibility and transportability (cf. Forms 85–88).

Petras (Fig. 17) The Neopalatial palace has two structural phases: one dated MM III–LM IA and the other LM IB, both phases terminated by a destruction

51

(Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996; Tsipopoulou 1999, 2002). Building activities at different parts of the palace followed the LM IA destruction. Partial re-occupation occurred in LM IIIA. The principal stores were built in the north wing. A long corridor gave access to four long magazines, with an alcove at its end. Direct communication of the corridor with areas west of the palace suggests a movement of commodities in the direction of the port. In the LM IB phase, an additional magazine was added in front of a monumental staircase, no longer in use. Thus, in LM IA the North Magazines covered 103.75 m2 and in LM IB 117.73 m2. About 36 large pithoi were in use in LM IB in the stores. These pithoi, similar to Forms 85–88, were large specimens with high capacity, low accessibility, and low transportability. The traces of burnt earth in the area of the stores were interpreted as evidence for the storage of olive oil (Tsipopoulou 2003, 70). An entirely preserved inscribed pithos and fragments of nine others were found in the portico of the central court (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996). Four more pithoi were placed in the easternmost of the series of stores in the west wing of the palace. Amphoras containing olive oil were also found in this store (Tsipopoulou 2003, 71). Two Linear A tablets were found in a disturbed context west of these stores (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996, 23–36). In total, at least 51 large pithoi were found in the LM IB deposits. Their capacity is considerable. Architectural modifications and placement of pithoi in areas not originally designed for storage activities show the increase of the space devoted to storage in the last phase of use of the complex. The area devoted to storage covers 129 m2 and represents 12% of the ground floor.

Kato Zakros (Fig. 18) The palace was built in LM IB (Platon 1999). The complex suffered seismic damage in LM IB before its final destruction at the end of that period (Platon, forthcoming). The picture of repairs seen in certain parts of the palace (Platon 1971b, 238–239) shows that some areas may not have functioned normally during its final destruction,

52

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

while the blocking of some doorways points to the need to restrict circulation within the complex. Administrative documents found in various spaces of the palace attest to the importance of palatial authority as controller of the movement of agricultural goods (Platon and Brice 1975). The LM IB levels were not disturbed by re-occupation in later periods, and so almost all of their finds were intact. Eight rooms (Rooms I–VIII or A, Aα–Γ, H–K), located in the west wing, formed the main storage sector of the palace (Platon 1962, 155–157; 1963, 170, 172; 1971b, 104–115). Forty pithoi and many other smaller containers such as stamnoi, jars, large amphoras, and jugs were recovered in the stores. The strong traces of burnt earth were taken as evidence of the storage of olive oil. Storage containers, at least 10 “palace style jars,” and many other vessels were also found in Room XI (or E) (Platon 1962, 160). In the south part of the west wing, close to the central sanctuary, was Magazine XXVII (or Ω) (Platon 1963, 178). Fifteen large pithoi were found, while a drain installation served for the collection of spilled liquids. Medium-sized pithoi, stamnoi, and amphoras were placed in Room XXVI (or Ψ), in the northwest part of the west wing of the palace that apparently housed workshop activities (Platon 1966, 144).

Storage and workshop areas occupied the south wing of the palace. Many of the spaces in this wing are basements. Room XLVII contained two large pithoi and 16 other medium-sized specimens. It is suggested that the room served for perfume manufacture. Storage activities were widely reported in the upper stories of the palace, as many pithos fragments and entirely preserved “palace style jars” had fallen to the ground floor (e.g., Platon 1965, 194). At least 165 m2, representing 5.7% of the ground floor, are devoted to staple storage. At least 83 pithoi were excavated in the destruction deposits. Most pithoi were very large specimens of high storage potential, low accessibility, and low transportability, similar to Forms 6, 85, 88, and 89. Medium- and small-sized pithoi, such as Forms 59, 60, 69, 70, 77–80, 82, 94, 106, and 121, were also used. The storage potential of the palace is substantially increased by a multitude of other containers such as stamnoi, big jugs, “palace style jars,” and amphoras, a large proportion of which were placed on the upper story. The use of large pithoi, the number of storage containers, and the picture of packed storerooms points to an intensification of storage activities.

A Synthesis The above brief discussion of food storage activities within palaces during LM I make some clear points. Firstly, palatial storerooms show a high standardization in their architectural design and location within the palatial complex. The main storage area of a palace is usually located on the ground floor of the west sector. The exceptions to this architectural layout are the cases of the palaces at Galatas and Petras where the main stores were located in the east and north wings respectively. Storage containers may also be placed on upper stories. The circulation patterns suggest an interest in facilitating the movement of commodities and in controlling accessibility to stored wealth. Special storage installations (silos and cists), paved and plastered floors, platforms, drainage channels, and storage enclosures appear frequently. These all help to

create a suitable environment for long-term storage. The design and construction of palatial storerooms suggest considerable functional planning and a high investment of labor. Secondly, 80% of the pithoi recovered in the palaces (except Malia) have high capacity, low transportability, and low accessibility (cf. Forms 4, 6, 10–17, 85, 88, and 89). The preference for this sort of form argues for the storage of large quantities of surpluses for long periods. The rest (20%) is represented by pithoi with medium/low capacity, high accessibility, and high transportability (cf. Forms 23, 55, 60–65, 68–70, 77–80, 87, and 112). Many of these pithoi were placed on upper stories. The palace of Malia is the exception to this rule, because small/medium-sized pithoi predominate there, while large pithoi are rare.

PALATIAL STORAGE PRACTICES

Thirdly, a comparison between pithoi used in palaces and those used in domestic units shows clear differences in their functional attributes. As we will see in the next chapter, pithoi with medium/low capacity, high accessibility, and high transportability were particularly frequent in most of the houses at Knossos, Gournia, and Kato Zakros. The preference for such small/medium-sized pithoi may imply the adoption of a different type of storage behavior more limited in quantity and time. Fourthly, the discovery of administrative documents in some palatial storerooms and/or in areas adjacent to or above storerooms suggests recording of “incoming” and “outgoing” stores by state personnel (for written documents within palaces, see Schoep 1995). This action implies administrative management of foodstuffs within a centralized state economy. Of course this picture has also been observed in several second-order centers. As far as the theoretical storage potential of the palaces is concerned, there is a great deal of difference in each case. In terms of the ground floor designed for storage, Malia comes first (1,400 m2), followed by Knossos (1,128 m2 or 1,049 m2), Phaistos (219 m2), Kato Zakros (165 m2), Petras (129 m2), and Gournia (116 m2) (Table 8). The ground floor devoted to storage at the palace of Galatas is 88 m2; this is a minimum estimate based on the floor extent of the East Magazines, and it does not take into consideration the other storerooms that were probably located in damaged areas of the complex. If we account for the total number of pithoi that the palatial magazines could have contained, Malia (546 pithoi) and Knossos (509 pithoi) come first again, followed by Phaistos (130 pithoi), Kato Zakros (100 pithoi), Gournia (80 pithoi), and Petras (66 pithoi) (Table 9). The East Magazines of the palace at Galatas could house about 80 pithoi. It may be noted that the types of storage container used in each case determine the overall storage potential of these stores. For instance, the capacity of a large Knossian pithos is ca. 400–500 liters, while at Malia, medium-sized pithoi with a storage capacity of only 60–120 liters predominated. Thus, the Knossian pithoi provide the highest storage potential of all cases. In terms of the overall capacity of the storage facilities (pithoi that the magazines could theoretically have contained and other built installations), Malia and Knossos come first, followed by

53

Phaistos, Kato Zakros, Galatas (minimum estimate), Gournia, and Petras. In most cases, however, the actual picture of the excavated palatial stores is quite different from that proposed above. Some stores were full of storage containers, but equally the number of pithoi recovered can be very low (Table 9). The extensive storerooms of the palaces of Phaistos, Malia, and Gournia, for instance, were found with 11, 45, and 15 pithoi, respectively, far less than the number that these stores were designed to house, while the storerooms of the palace at Galatas were empty. In fact, these palaces were almost empty when excavated apart from some artifacts. The discrepancy between the number of actual pithoi and the number that could potentially be present is very high. Does this discrepancy imply changes in the storage policy of these palatial institutions? It is difficult to give an objective answer to this question. The impressions given by the excavation data may have come about by many means. No information exists on the actual arrangements of storage containers in each store, nor is it certain if stores were ever filled with as many pithoi as they were capable of holding. Each case, therefore, must be evaluated on its own in relation to the overall contextual information. The low number of pithoi recovered at Galatas, Gournia, and Malia cannot be explained as the result of excavation bias or of extensive re-occupation after the destruction of these complexes. Moreover, the extensive use of perishable storage containers is unlikely because they were unsuitable for long-term storage of large quantities of staples (especially liquids). Pithoi were probably removed from the storerooms of the palace at Galatas after the planned abandonment of the complex early in LM IA. Human activities that occurred before the fire destruction of the palace at Malia at the end of LM IA might have considerably altered floor deposits, a scenario that could be equally applied in the case of the palace at Gournia, destroyed in LM IB. As far as the Phaistian palace is concerned—whose extensive West Magazines were found to contain just five pithoi—it has been argued recently that the storage areas were in the process of being furnished (La Rosa 2002). Contrary to the pictures described above, the palaces of Kato Zakros and Petras provide evidence for substantial storage capacities. The storerooms

54

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

of the Zakrian palace were found packed with large pithoi, while a very large assemblage of smaller storage containers located in the stores as well as on the upper floor substantially increased the total. The same picture is also found in the North Magazines, the main storage sector at the palace of Petras. Moreover, architectural modifications made after the LM IA destruction of the palace increased the floor space devoted to storage, while some areas were turned into storerooms during the LM IB period.

These different pictures need to be understood in relation to the storage behavior adopted at the peripheral level of LM I state organization. In the next chapter, a full discussion of storage activities in nonpalatial elite and simple domestic units is offered. I shall argue that no evidence exists for the decentralization of staple storage activities from the palaces to the periphery. Palaces are the main storing centers of their surrounding settlement, even in those cases where storage decrease may have occurred.

3

Domestic and Nonpalatial Elite Storerooms

About 430 Neopalatial buildings that could be defined, on the basis of their architectural layout and artifactual assemblages, as residences of simple and elite households have been located and/or explored, albeit many incompletely. Most are connected to the major urban centers of east-central and eastern Crete—Malia, Gournia, Pseira, Mochlos, Palaikastro, and Kato Zakros—of which only the town of Pseira has been published fully. Few domestic contexts have been excavated in central Crete and hardly any at all in the western part of the island. Of these buildings only 120 provide testimonies on storage activities, some partial and others fuller. Most of these 120 buildings (about 93%) reflect activities dating to LM IB with only a few (7%) dating to LM IA. The information from the very beginning of the Neopalatial era, the MM IIIB period, is even more limited. The evidence, therefore, reflects activities dated to the LM IB, period with very few from earlier periods. The mansion of Vathypetro yields information on changes in the spatial organization of the complex and the activities of its users from LM IA to LM IB, and many other units, such as Houses C.3 and C.7 at Mochlos, many houses at

Kato Zakros, and probably many houses at Palaikastro, yield information on changes within the LM IB period. The houses of the Chancel Screen yield information on changes within the LM IA period, while House Ea at Malia provides data on MM IIIB to LM IA. This chapter considers the artifactual and ecofactual datasets concerning storage activities in LM I domestic and elite (nonpalatial) contexts (Table 10). The complete presentation of the relevant contexts is outside its scope; it focuses exclusively on information providing insights into food storage. The discussion is based on information published in the relevant reports, and it is thus constrained by the quality of those reports. The final publication of the contexts will certainly provide a wealthier array of data than that at my disposal now. References to pithos types excavated in contexts under consideration follow the classification established in my previous work (Christakis 2005; see also Figs. 2–9 for the most typical pithoi in LM I contexts). Capacity estimates for storage containers are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each type of pithos used in the respective context. Only in

56

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

very few cases are estimates based on the volumetric study of the actual pithos. Estimates based on the actual pithoi, when they will be fully published, might provide slightly different figures. They will not change, however, the pictures proposed below. In many contexts, especially those excavated early in the 20th century, detailed information on morphological attributes of storage containers is almost absent. Descriptive terms for pithoi were general (e.g., large pithos, small pithos, “palatial style jar,” stamnos, pithamphora, pitharaki, etc.).

Capacity estimates in these cases are a working hypothesis. These hypotheses are based on the capacity of pithos types used in each settlement and belonging to the typological category indicated by the general descriptive terms provided by the excavators. This approach takes into account any particularities in storage vessel production and use observed in each area (for these differences, see Christakis 2005, 71–85). Although the results are approximate, they can still give us an idea of possible storage potentials.

The Coastal Region of Chania in Northwest Crete Vrises The mansion of Vrises was destroyed by fire in LM IB (Zois 1974). Cultivation and erosion heavily disturbed floor assemblages. The excavated data is not helpful for an overall consideration of storage activities, as a substantial part of the complex is not preserved. Pithoi were found in Room 1 (four pithoi and fragments of two or three more; Zois 1974, 18–19, 47, 49, pls. 7–8, 16–18), Room 4 (three pithoi; Zois 1974, 19, 57, pl. 19:α), Room 2 (one pithos associated with amphorae; Zois 1974, 55), Space 2α (pithos fragments; Zois 1974, 25), Room 3 (a small pithos and fragments of other pithoi; Zois 1974, 27, pl. 19:α), Space 5 (pithos fragments; Zois 1974, 20–21), and Room AI (pithos fragments; Zois 1974, 18–19, 29, pl. 20:α). The pithoi are large specimens similar to Form 18: distinctive for their high capacity, low transportability, moderate accessibility, and high stability. The number of entirely/partly preserved pithoi as well as the quantities of fragments show that staple storage was an important activity for the dwellers of this unit. The capacity of the pithoi mentioned in the relevant report seems to be between 4,400 and 5,000 liters.

Chania-Kastelli The houses in Hagia Aikaterini Square (Houses I–IV), in the Mathioudakis plot, the Splantzia

quarter, the Stylianoudakis and Vlamakis plots, and a building, perhaps of public function, in Odos Katrè, formed part of the Neopalatial town of Chania-Kastelli (Papapostolou, Godart, and Olivier 1976; Andreadaki-Vlasaki 1988; Hallager and Tzedakis 1988). Only House I at Hagia Aikaterini Square yielded evidence of an overall estimate of storage activities. In the other cases, LM I contexts are heavily obscured by modern constructions. Even so, the pithoi in House IV at Hagia Aikaterini Square are worth mentioning, with remains of wheat and barley (Hallager and Tzedakis 1983, 15; 1985, 13). Linear A tablets and other administrative documents, recovered in some domestic units of the settlement, shed light on the movement of food commodities and point to private administrative activities (Palmer 1995; Schoep 1995; 2002a, 198) or to a relation with the central power.

House I (Fig. 19a) The house was constructed in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (Hallager and Tzedakis 1985; Hallager 1985, 1990). Remodelling took place during LM IB (Tzedakis and Chrysoulaki 1987). Floor deposits were particularly rich in datasets. Linear A tablets and other administrative documents indicate that the owner of the house was involved in the movement of commodities (Hallager 1973, 1978). Room E served as a storeroom (Hallager 1973, 444–445, fig. 7; Tzedakis and Hallager 1978, 39,

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

fig. 11; Hallager and Tzedakis 1984, 5; Hallager 1985, 143, fig. 5). Three pithoi were standing alone by the northeast wall of the room, while there was another large one in the west corner. The pithoi were associated with 60 other vessels used for food processing, transfer, and consumption (among them were three large stirrup-jars and other medium-sized storage jars). One large jar contained about 3 kg of pears, horse beans, and lentils, while remains of figs, grapes, and an unidentifiable substance were found in a tripod storage jar (Hallager and Tzedakis 1984, 5; Tzedakis and Martlew 1999, 101; Hallager 2002a, 67). Significantly, one of the two Linear A tablets found in Room E refers to 18 units (1,728 liters) of figs (tablet KH 88; Hallager 1978; Palmer 1995, 142). It is also said that the imprints of vine leaves on a large shallow dish, perhaps used to cover the mouth of the middle pithos at the northeast wall, may indicate the contents of the pithos (Hallager 2002a, 67). The pithoi, except for one conical specimen decorated with painted palm motifs, are ovoid and low-bellied ovoid in shape (cf. Forms 18 and 48). They have high/moderate capacity, low transportability, high/moderate stability, and high accessibility. The sottoscala of the staircase leading to the upper story (Room N) was also used for storage purposes (Hallager 1973, 443, figs. 3, 4). Six smallsized pithoi and a mass of pottery were found in situ. Room M probably served for food preparation: the hearth in its center, taken together with an assemblage of conical cups, small storage jars, cooking pots, a quern and a grindstone found in the western part of the room and near the entrance to Room E, all point to the use of this space as a kitchen (Tzedakis and Hallager 1978, 39; Hallager and Tzedakis 1984, 5, fig. 3). Two pithoi recovered in Room D were filled with plaster and served as containers for some restoration purpose (Tzedakis and Hallager 1978, 38–39, fig. 9). The exact storage capacity of the containers used in House I cannot be estimated at present. The final publication of the pottery assemblages, alongside information on bio-archaeological remains, will provide invaluable data for reconstructing subsistence strategies adopted here. The storage potential seems to be around 1,900–2,100 liters. The area devoted to storage covers 7.5 m2 and represents 3.5% of the ground floor.

57

Nerokourou The mansion was built in late MM III and destroyed by fire in LM IB. Extensive remodelling occurred before its final destruction (Chryssoulaki 1997). Most of the complex has been seriously damaged by bulldozing work. The excavated data do not provide information for an overall consideration of past activities. Storage and industry seem to have been important activities of the residents during LM IB. Entirely preserved pithoi, parts of pithoi, and pithos fragments were found in most ground floor spaces. Pithoi were also placed on the upper floor. Rooms 1 and 2 formed a Minoan hall which, among others, was used for work and storage activities. Three large pithoi (nos. 485, 540, 542) were placed in three of the four enclosures built against the east wall of the hall (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 121–126, 253, 256, 260–261, figs. 65, 72, 73). The upper part of a conical pithos (no. 468; cf. Form 112) and the fragments of a piriform pithos (no. 582; cf. Form 74) were also found in this space (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 247, 249, 265, figs. 61, 79), as well as many pithos fragments (nos. 435, 501–503, 513–520, 524, 529, 530, 531, 534; Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 245, 257–260). A large pithos (cf. Form 18) was placed in the southeast corner of Room 3 (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 265–266, fig. 81), and the badly preserved remains of another pithos were found along the west wall of the room (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 113). The fragment of a pithos (no. 526) was found in Room 4 (Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 259). Fragments of pithoi were also found in Trenches 15/45 (no. 584), 17 (no. 538), 33/34 (nos. 532, 539), Δ.T.3 (nos. 535, 536) and in the surface levels (nos. 521, 523, 525, 527, 528, 533; Kanta and Rocchetti 1989, 259–265). Most of the pithoi are similar to Form 18. These specimens have high capacity, low transportability, moderate accessibility, and high stability. There are also pithoi similar to Forms 74 and 112. The storage capacity of the pithoi used in the mansion is about 1,400–1,680 liters. This is a minimum estimate that does not take into consideration the capacity of the pithoi in a very fragmentary state of preservation. Many other small containers might serve for shortterm storage and transfer purposes. The overall storage potential was probably considerable.

58

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

According to Driessen and Macdonald, the discovery of storage containers in residential spaces points to a change in attitude toward storage in LM IB (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 52, 125). It is worth noting, however, that the preserved

testimonies do not support diachronic juxtapositions of the use of the various spaces: only a small part of the mansion is preserved, while there is no representative picture of activities dating to LM IA and LM IB.

The Psiloritis Region of West-central and Central Crete Apodoulou A large mansion has been partly uncovered at Apodoulou (Matz 1951, 137–140). The excavation was very limited, and the published information irrelevant to the reconstruction of past activities.

Zominthos A large complex, the central building of a settlement, is currently being excavated at Zominthos (Sakellarakis 1983, 488–498; Petrakos 1988, 2004, 2005; Sakellarakis and Panagiotopoulos 2005). The complex was destroyed in LM IA. The group that used this building probably exploited the rich surrounding hinterland and controlled the movement of goods produced in the surrounding region toward major centers of consumption (Sakellarakis and Panagiotopoulos 2005). As far as storage is concerned, pithoi and fragments of pithoi were reported. These come from large speciments with considerable storage potential (Sakellarakis and Panagiotopoulos 2005, 57, fig. 9). The ongoing excavation will provide a wealth of testimonies on storage.

Sklavokambos The region of Sklavokambos/Gonies is one of the richest areas of north-central Crete. At least two settlements have been identified: Kolenia-Gonies and Fouski-Sarakina (Fotou 1997). The latter was probably related to the mansion of Sklavokambos.

The Mansion of Sklavokambos (Fig. 19b) The mansion was destroyed by fire in LM IB (Marinatos 1939–1941). Road construction caused serious damage in a part of the complex. Its architectural design, the fine pottery, and especially the 38 sealings, many impressed with signet rings, are sound evidence of the importance of this unit to the political network of LM I Crete. The mansion may have been used as an intermediate station in the mobilization of commodities from the Psiloritis region to a larger center of consumption (Fotou 1997, 46–47). The main stores are Rooms 11 and 12 (Marinatos 1939–1941, 74–75). Three pithoi were found in the first, and 11 pithoi were placed alongside the walls of Room 12. These pithoi, now very badly preserved, are large specimens, the morphological features of which are similar to Forms 12–16 (Marinatos 1939–1941, pl. 1:1): these have low transportability, low accessibility, high stability, and high capacity. Remains of olive stones were reported from the area of the magazines (Marinatos 1939–1941, 93). In Corridor 14b, a finely painted piriform pithos was found (Marinatos 1939–1941, 75, pl. 1:2; cf. Form 74). It has high accessibility and transportability, low stability, and moderate capacity. Small pithoi (no information is given on their morphological attributes and number) were also found in Rooms 18 and 19a, b (Marinatos 1939–1941, 77). One pithos, similar to Form 70 (HM 8938), was probably placed in one of these rooms. A tub pithos was also reported (Marinatos 1939–1941, 85, pl. 1:3). The capacity of the pithoi for which information is provided is about 7,095–7,820 liters. The area devoted to storage covers 42 m2 and represents 10.6% of the total ground floor surface.

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

According to S. Marinatos, Room 11 originally fulfilled another function, since the pithoi were placed on a floor level higher than the original floor of the room (Marinatos 1939–1941, 74). He said that the bases of the pithoi were placed on the earth at different levels, with the first floor level 25 cm below. Driessen and Macdonald, following S. Marinatos, argue that Room 11 provides an example of a LM IA ceremonial area converted into a storeroom in LM IB (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 52, 127). The arguments provided by S. Marinatos for the assumed functional changes of Room 11, however, are rather uncertain. The examination of the preserved architectural remains, in relation to the architectural arrangement of the adjacent spaces and to the published information, raises serious questions. It is very likely that the excavator missed the original floor of the room. Moreover, the placement of pithoi at various levels is difficult to explain. One could argue that some of the pithoi had fallen from the upper floor. Besides, storerooms with different floor-levels do not necessarily, on that evidence alone, have functional differences (e.g., Mochlos, House C.7, Room 1; Soles and Davaras 1996, 198–202). The layout of Rooms 11 and 12 is typical of that of stores (Begg 1975, 26–28). I would argue, therefore, that Rooms 11 and 12 were originally built for storage purposes: they do not provide support for functional changes.

Tylissos The settlement of Tylissos was situated in a fertile plain on the road from Knossos to the Idean Cave, via Gonies, Sklavokambos, and Zominthos. The settlement was occupied from EM II to LM III, with evidence of re-occupation in historic times. Three large mansions of the settlement have been excavated (Fig. 20; Hazzidakis 1934). Their architectural design, excellent construction, the quantity and quality of artifacts, and the written documents suggest that local elite groups used these mansions. They were destroyed in LM IB. LM IB ruins were partly disturbed in LM IIIA (especially Mansions A and C, Kanta 1980, 9–13; Hayden 1983–1984). The principal drawbacks in reconstructing staple storage

59

activities are, firstly, the disturbances during LM IIIA and later periods, and secondly the summary character of the final publication with little mention of storage facilities.

Mansion A (Fig. 20) This is the best-preserved and best-documented mansion of the settlement (Hazzidakis 1934, 6–26). It was destroyed by fire in LM IB and partly disturbed in LM IIIA. Remodelling occurred before the final destruction of the mansion. The unit was divided into a storage quarter to the north and a residential area to the south. The main stores are Rooms 16 and 17. About 22 large pithoi were marked along the walls of the stores on the published plans (Hazzidakis 1912, fig. 1; 1921, fig. 1). In the final publication, however, only 19 pithoi were shown (Hazzidakis 1934, 21–23, pls. 5, 6). The area next to the entrance (Room 15) contained at least seven pithoi (Hazzidakis 1934, 21). Two pithoi and a cooking pot were found in Room 1 (Hazzidakis 1934, 11). Six pithoi were placed in Room 3, a pillared space (Hazzidakis 1934, 13– 15). Due to the recovery of cult paraphernalia, it has been argued that this last space was used for cult activities (Gesell 1985, 135). In my view, the find of a pyramidal stand and a bronze figurine, the latter fallen from the upper floor, are weak arguments for the “religious” character of this space and cannot support arguments for functional changes. In Room 4, four pithoi were found full of colored substances (Hazzidakis 1934, 15, 99). One pithos was found in the Minoan hall (Room 6) (Hazzidakis 1934, 16). Large quantities of olive oil and entries referring to people were set down on two Linear A tablets with nodules and roundels found in Room 5 (Hazzidakis 1912, 216, pl. 16:e; Palmer 1995). In conclusion, the main areas devoted to food storage were pillar Rooms 16 and 17. The other rooms in which pithoi were found were also used for the storage of domestic implements or other activities. The discovery of storage containers in the area next to the entrance (Room 15), a space not originally designed as a storeroom, points to the intensification of storage activities. About 95 m2 were devoted to storage, representing 18% of

60

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

the ground floor. The stores were equipped with at least 42 pithoi. A total of 90% of them are large, ovoid, and elongated pithoi with a wide mouth and low/no collar (cf. Forms 6, 12–17). They are distinctive for their high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. The use of such containers indicates bulk storage. The rest are piriform and ovoid pithoi with a narrow mouth and distinct collar (cf. Forms 28, 70, 71, and 77). The overall storage capacity of pithoi seems to be 9,900–11,880 liters. This figure may be increased considerably, as many small storage containers such as “palatial style jars” and large amphorae were found. Unfortunately, the information provided by the excavator to determine this last point is quite scant. The storage potential of this unit is very high.

Mansion B (Fig. 20) This mansion is built east of Mansion A (Hazzidakis 1934, 26–32). It has been argued that Mansion B was only an annex to Mansion A (Hitchcock and Preziosi 1997). It was destroyed by fire in LM IB. The archaeological remains were badly damaged and artifacts scarce. There is insufficient evidence on the functional definition of the various spaces. The architectural design of this unit, very close to that of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos and the Bastione at Hagia Triada, suggests that a substantial part of the ground floor may have been devoted to storage. The uniform rooms placed in a series in the north and south parts of the house may have served for storage purposes. Storage containers were found in Room 6, which served as a kitchen (Hazzidakis 1934, 29). There is no information regarding either their morphological attributes or their number. One pithos was placed in Room 12 (Hazzidakis 1934, 31). Animal bones were found in the same space. Four storage containers suitable for short-term storage and transfer or pouring purposes were placed in Room 17 (Hazzidakis 1921, 20–22, figs. 7, 8). In conclusion, the information on the storage potential of this mansion is poor. It is not clear whether this scarcity stems from depositional circumstances or if it reflects patterns of economic

behavior adopted by the residents before the abandonment/destruction of the unit. The area in which pithoi were found covers 30 m2 and represents 8% of the ground floor. The space, however, that could be defined as stores (not exclusively for staples) on the basis of their layout, covers about 120 m2 and represent 32% of the ground floor.

Mansion C (Fig. 20) This mansion was also destroyed in LM IB (Hazzidakis 1934, 32–47). A LM IIIA building was erected over this house, and later, a Greek sanctuary was constructed on its northern part. The datasets are poor and thus no clear evidence of past activities. The storage area is located in the west part of the mansion and is made up of Rooms 8–10 (Hazzidakis 1934, 37–38). Two pithoi and fragments of others were found in Room 8 (Hazzidakis 1934, pl. 10:1). Two more, one of them with a Linear A inscription, were found in Room 9 (Hazzidakis 1934, 37, pl. 23:1; Godart and Olivier 1982, Zb4, 104). Pithoi were placed in Room 10, but there is no information about their number or morphological attributes (Hazzidakis 1934, 37– 38). The pithoi, preserved mostly in fragments, are ovoid and elongated ovoid specimens with wide mouth and low/no collar (cf. Forms 13–17). They have high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. Rooms 7, 2, 3, and Z may also have served for storage purposes (Begg 1975, 210). It is not certain, however, whether the stored goods were foodstuffs. In conclusion, the area devoted to food storage covers 40 m2 and represents 8.9% of the floor space.

Krousonas A large LM IA building has been excavated by Dimopoulou (1985, 297). Many pithoi were standing in the rooms and corridors. The morphological features of these pithoi are similar to Forms 13–16. They have high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. The use of large pithoi indicates bulk storage.

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

61

The Mesara Region in South-central Crete Kommos The harbor town of Kommos, in the western Mesara, is one of the longest-lived centers of Crete. Many houses have been examined in the Hilltop Settlement and the Central Hillside Area, while the central complex of the town, Building T, has been explored in the southern area of the settlement (Shaw and Shaw 1996, 2006a). Sea erosion, intensive and extensive occupation of most domestic units, and building operations in historic periods have erased crucial information on storage dated to the Neopalatial era. The information from some units, however, presented and discussed in a series of thorough publications, provides some insights into storage behaviors of the inhabitants of this settlement.

Building T Building T, a monumental complex in the socalled Civic Center of the town, was constructed and utilized as the seat of the local ruling group in MM III–LM IA Early and destroyed by a fierce fire in LM IA (Shaw 2002; 2006, 17–60; Shaw and Shaw 2006b, 847–850). Information on past activities, including storage, is obscured by natural and human circumstances: sea erosion has destroyed a considerable part of the complex, while the remains were badly disturbed by activity during LM IIIA2 when much of its building materials were re-used in the construction of the monumental shipshed, Building P. Storage activities during LM IA Early occurred in Rooms 23, 24a, 24b, 25a, and 25b in the eastern part of the complex (Shaw 2006, 40–46). These stores were plastered, while the presence of lamps points to poorly-lit environments. Careful construction and dark conditions both suggest considerable planning and labor investment in the construction and good environmental conditions for the preservation of staples. Remains of two pithoi were found in Room 23 (2b/14, C 7496 and 2b/15, C 7509; Rutter 2006, 394, pl. 3.26) and

sherds of another pithos in Room 24a (3b/6, C 7397; Rutter 2006, 394, pl. 3.26). Many pithos fragments were also collected from Room 24b (no information on their morphological attributes is given). The pithoi are medium-sized specimens, two of them similar to Form 23 (2b/15 and 3b/6) and the other similar to Form 29 (2b/14). They have moderate capacity. Although there is no evidence for the presence of other storage containers, Rooms 23, 24a, and 24b provide space for a total of 22 pithoi (estimate based on Form 23). The absence of pithos fragments from Room 25 might point to the use of perishable storage containers. Remains of a pithos were found in the northeast portion of the North Stoa (8/5, C 11746; Rutter 2006, 398–399, pl. 3.29). The pithos, a mediumsized specimen, is similar to Form 23. A small pithos, imported from East Crete, and similar to Form 53 was also found in this area (8/3, C 10758; Rutter 2006, 398–399, pl. 3.29). Fragments of another pithos similar to Form 53 come from Room 21 (16/6, C 7259; Rutter 2006, 414–415, pl. 3.32). Poor evidence exists for storage activities in the LM IA Final–IB Early phase of Building T. The eastern part of the building was subject to architectural alterations, and Storerooms 23, 24a, 24b, 25a, and 25b went out of use (Shaw 2006, 43–46). Four three-sided bins, which according to the excavator were used for grinding grain, were built in Space 16 of the North Stoa during LM IA Final–LM IB Early (Shaw 2006, 33–34). In conclusion, there is little information available for a comprehensive discussion of the storage activity of those using Building T and its phases of use, particularly during LM IA Early. The lack of extensive storerooms and the use of mediumcapacity pithoi indicate storage of limited amounts of goods for short-term storage and consumption. The stress on immediate consumption is also obvious from the testimonies of artifactual assemblages related to the consumption of food (Rooms 19 and 41 as well as the east end of the North Stoa; Rutter 2006, 411).

62

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

The Houses The North House, the Oblique House, the Cliffside House, and the House with the Press, all in the Hilltop Settlement and the House of the Snake Tube in the Central Hillside area were built early in LM I and extensively re-occupied in the LM IIIA and LM IIIB periods. There is very little information concerning LM I activities. Of special interest is the House with the Press, where the olive/wine press installation existed from LM I (Shaw and Shaw 1996, 116–119). The household of this unit was concerned with the processing of agricultural staples. House X, in the southern area of the site, was built early in LM IA, then modified and underwent a major change in overall usage at the end of LM IB, and used until LM IIIA2 (Shaw 1986, 236–240; Shaw and Shaw 1993, 131–161). Most floor deposits reflect activities dated LM IIIA2; information from earlier phases is also plenty. The architectural design and the importance of the finds suggest that the resident household may have belonged to the local elite and was in the service of or interacted with the ruling class, especially if Building T functioned as the central complex of the town (Shaw and Shaw 1993, 160). The published evidence on storage during LM I is rather meager. Storage containers were found in Room 2, perhaps the main store of the house (Shaw and Shaw 1993, 144–147, pl. 22:a). This space was extensively remodelled within LM IA and LM IB. Three pithoi were embedded in a row in the pebble floor alongside the south wall of Room 2 and were in use during the third remodelling stage of LM IA (C 9404–C 9406). They are medium-sized specimens with many morphological features similar to Forms 63–64 (C 9404– C 9405) and 27 (C 9406). These pithoi are dated to the MM III period, and they were re-used in the LM IA context. Their capacity is about 340–370 liters. A stone platform, used for activities taking place within Room 2, was built in the southwest corner of the room. In the LM IB remodelling stage of Room 2, the floor was levelled and the three pithoi were covered (Shaw and Shaw 1993, 147). Fragments of a reliefdecorated pithos and part of a pithos base were found in the space; the pithos base was placed on the platform in the southwest corner of the room.

There is no published evidence for the morphological and functional attributes of these pithoi. If, however, the pithoi were sizeable specimens—as seems to be the case—then the storage potential of the three MM III pithoi is not simply replaced, but total storage in Room 2 is actually increased. In conclusion, the overall picture from House X points to low storage potentials during LM I. Complex stages of habitation and depositional histories, however, may have erased crucial information. Domestic units were also excavated in the Central Hillside Area. The houses had two phases: an early one, MM IB–II, and a later, MM III. A storeroom dated MM III is Room 25 of the South Building in the Central Hillside area (Betancourt 1991, 101– 112). Seven complete pithoi were arranged around the side of the room. Food storage seems to have been limited (Wright 1996, 195–198). Bulk storage may have taken place in areas elsewhere on the site specializing in storage. Evidence is rather limited for the LM I period (McEnroe 1996, 199–212). The evidence from the settlement of Kommos is not helpful for considering food storage activities since the site was extensively re-occupied. The general impression, however, is that storage was rather limited. To quote Shaw: For the LM I period, rooms clearly dedicated to storage, such as those in the LM I house at Kannia (Di Vita, La Rosa, and Rizzo 1984: 71), have not yet been identified at Kommos. . . . After LM I, decline set in, food production became more limited, and the storage facilities were contracted even further. . . . Evidence for extensive storage facilities with pithoi for excess production does not occur in the houses. (Shaw 1996, 382–383)

Pitsidia The remains of a mansion built in MM III and destroyed in LM IB have been excavated close to the village of Pitsidia (Vallianou 1988, 1996, 2003). It seems to be the most important building of an unexplored settlement. The artifactual testimonies yield evidence, among others, for: food processing, preparation, and consumption; weaving activities; and pottery making. The excavated record, mostly unpublished, shows that storage was one of the principal activities of the inhabitants of this complex.

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

The storerooms of the mansion were equipped with a large number of storage containers, only three of which have been published. The first pithos is a large ovoid specimen with morphological and decorative features like those of Forms 14, 15, and 17 (Vallianou 2003, 89, fig. 2:α). It has high capacity, high stability, and low accessibility and transportability. Other similar pithoi are also reported. The second pithos is a medium-sized specimen similar to Form 64 (Vallianou 1996, 157, fig. 5:b), while the last is a medium-sized conical pithos similar to Form 112 (Vallianou 1996, 157, fig. 5:a). Both are specimens with medium capacity, high stability, high accessibility, and moderate transportability. A large assemblage of storage containers exists, similar to Forms 61, 69, and 70. They have low capacity, high accessibility, high transportability, and moderate stability. Strong traces of burning in the area of the stores have been taken as evidence of the storage of olive oil. Remains of olive stones were also found in the stores (Vallianou 2003). The estimate of the actual storage potential of this mansion is difficult to infer because of the unpublished state of the relevant information. The overall impression, however, is of the storage of large quantities of staples.

Seli The remains of two houses, part of a Neopalatial settlement, have been explored at Seli, near the village of Kamilari (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001).

The House in the Volakakis Plot The house was built in MM IIIB–LM IA and destroyed in LM IA (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 15–43). It was seriously damaged by road construction activities and cultivation. The main stores of the house were Rooms a and d. The remains of two pithoi with morphological and decorative features like those of Forms 14, 15, and 17 and the other with those of Form 82 were placed in the northwest corner of Room a (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 26, 103, figs. 19, 20, 135, 275). A large hole cut into the floor may have served for the placement of a pithos (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 24, figs. 11,

63

14). The same interpretation probably applies to a stone slab and a hole in the floor of Room d (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 29, fig. 12). Two pithos fragments were also found in this space (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 109). Parts of a medium-sized ovoid pithos (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 34, fig. 136) and of another one similar to Forms 74 and 76 (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 34, figs. 146, 274) were found in Room f. A small pithos comes from Room b (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 34, figs. 145, 277). The remains of two conical pithoi and the fragment of another pithos were found in the destruction debris moved by the bulldozer in the area of Rooms h and g (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 19, 95–96, figs. 138, 140). The lower part of a conical pithos comes from the surface level of Trench A/I (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 94, fig. 144). In total, at least 11 pithoi were reported in the house at the Volakakis Plot. The numerous pithoi and the presence of storage installations (pits) show that the inhabitants of this house were particularly concerned with the storage of staple commodities. Most of the pithoi are medium-sized specimens with moderate capacity and high accessibility and trasportabilty. Only two pithoi are large specimens with high storage potential and low accessibility and transportability. The capacity of the storage containers is estimated at 1,100–1,280 liters.

The House in the Sifakis Plot The house was built and destroyed in LM IB (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 43–67). Markers concerned with staple storage activities were recovered in Rooms II and IV. In Room II, a deep pit dug into the bedrock in the southwest corner of the room served, according to the excavator, for the storage of staple goods (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 52, fig. 48). The body fragments of a pithos (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 52, 118, fig. 142), the upper body of a small pithos similar to Form 121 (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 52, 111, fig. 273), and fragments of a small pithos (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 117, fig. 183) were found in this room. A small pithos, similar to Form 109, was found in Room IV (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 52, 110– 111, fig. 131). Fragments of pithoi were also found in the area east and north of Room V (La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001, 58, 112) and in Room I (La Rosa

64

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

and Cucuzza 2001, 116, fig. 181:b). The pithoi are small- and medium-sized specimens, and their overall storage capacity is very low (no more than 250 liters).

Hagia Triada: The Villa Reale and the Settlement The settlement of Hagia Triada, an important urban center in the area of the Mesara, was continuously occupied from EM onward. MM remains are limited. A large administrative complex was constructed at the beginning of the Neopalatial period. The settlement was destroyed in LM IB and extensively re-occupied in LM III (La Rosa 1992; Puglisi 2003b). It seems that that settlement’s buildings were not simultaneously destroyed during the LM IB period (Puglisi 2003b). The Villa Reale and many other buildings were destroyed earlier than other units such as Casa del Vassoio Tripodato and the building under Edificio P, which were destroyed later within the LM IB period.

The Villa Reale (Fig. 21) The architectural design, the fine construction, the quality and quantity of the material evidence, and the large assemblage of administrative documents confirm the importance of the complex within the sociopolitical framework of Neopalatial Crete. Its construction in MM IIIB has been seen as an attempt by Knossos to establish its political power and control in the domain of Phaistos (La Rosa 1997; for a different view see Van de Moortel 2002). The complex seems to have been the seat of the main polity of the Mesara in LM I (La Rosa 2002). The assemblage of written documents, the largest so far excavated in a LM I context, gives crucial information on many issues concerning the movement of agricultural products and the administration practices of a LM I political institution (Pugliese Carratelli 1945; Militello 1992). The Villa Reale was destroyed by fire in LM IB. LM III building activities in some areas of the complex partly obscured the Neopalatial ruins. The main storage sector of the complex is the North Magazines (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 129–150; La Rosa 2003, figs. 5, 6). These

magazines suffered much from the construction of the LM IIIA Megaron. At least 40 pithoi were found in these stores: Magazine 58 (eight pithoi), Magazine 59 (three pithoi), Magazine 5 (17 pithoi), Magazine 64 (three pithoi), Magazine 66 (six pithoi), and Magazine 18 (three pithoi). Only ten pithoi in Magazine 5 have survived to the present day, in a badly preserved state, since the rest were destroyed during World War II. Most pithoi were placed in holes carved into the floor or bedrock to increase their stability. The pithoi are large specimens with morphological features such as those appearing on Forms 10, 13, 14, 16, and 23. They have high capacity, low accessibility, high stability, and low transportability. An entirely preserved pithos from Magazine 5 was inscribed in Linear A (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 142, fig. 92, HM 3915; Godart and Olivier 1982, Zb 158a, b, 64–65). The fragment of an inscribed pithos was also found in the same space (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 142, HM 3945; Godart and Olivier 1982, Zb 161, 68–69; in Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 110, however, it is said that the fragment of the inscribed pithos was found in Room 16). Other pithoi (one entirely preserved and fragments of more whose exact numbers are not specified) were similar to Forms 73, 74, and 76 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 142– 143, fig. 93, HM 2969). They have moderate capacity, high accessibility and transportability, and moderate stability. Carbonized bones and small vessels, fallen from the upper floor, were found inside many (cf. Magazines 5 and 64). Carbonized remains of cereals and pulses were found in one vessel kept in Magazine 5. Magazines 8, 17, and 61 formed a special cluster of storerooms (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 135–140). Magazine 8 was provided with eight round gypsum bases with grooves, probably used for the placement of wooden storage containers. The channel installation in the floor of Magazine 61 suggests that this room served for the storage of liquid commodities. Magazine 17 is a pillar-type magazine. The architectural arrangement throughout is of special interest: floors were laid with gypsum slabs, while the drain installations and the gypsum bases for the placement of storage containers both collected dripping liquids. The high investment of labor in the construction of these stores (similar construction details are

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

observed in the palace of Knossos) indicates well-planned storage behavior. It has been argued that these rooms served for the storage of liquid commodities. The strong traces of burning might indirectly imply olive oil. The complete absence of pithoi points to the use of perishable storage containers. Extensive storage activities were also reported in the Southwest Quarter (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 37–61; La Rosa 2003, fig. 3). It is not certain whether this part is contemporary with the rest of the complex (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 37) or a later addition (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 202). The first is more likely (Puglisi 2003b, 150). Storage containers were found in Room 27 (medium-sized pithoi with painted decorations, exact number unknown), Room 28 (about eight mediumsized pithoi), Room 39 (two medium-sized and one small pithos), Room 29 (eight small- and mediumsized pithoi and fragments of at least another five), Room 31 (one pitharaki and fragments of two pithoi decorated with painted spirals), Room 33 (fragments of a medium-sized pithos), Room 35 (one pithos, similar to the specimen in Room 33), and Room 37 (one pithos and fragments of another). At least 31 storage containers were found in the Southwest Quarter. This is a minimum estimate as there is no information on the number of pithoi in some spaces. The spaces where most pithoi were placed are Rooms 27, 28, 29, and 39. One to three pithoi were placed in Rooms 31, 33, 35, and 37. Most pithoi are small- and medium-sized specimens with low to moderate capacity and high accessibility and transportability. Only two large examples, perhaps similar to Forms 13–16, were found. These have high storage potential, high stability, and low accessibility and transportability. The preference for small- and medium-sized containers may imply short-term storage and constant movement of commodities. Commodities were used for the immediate subsistence needs of the users of this complex. Remains of carbonized almonds and figs, peas, and broad beans were found in Rooms 28 and 39 respectively (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 43, 51). A Linear A tablet (booking 45 units of wool) and 45 sealings were found on the window-sill between Corridor 9 and Room 27 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 40–41; Militello 1988; Palaima 1994). According to E. Hallager, the correspondence between the

65

units listed in the tablet and the number of nodules cannot be a coincidence and may reflect the same transaction. He rightly concluded that each nodule represents a unit of wool (Hallager 2002b). Information from written documents and the find of loomweights and daggers/knives in Room 27 all point to textile industry and to transactions dealing with the in-coming and out-going of wool. Storage containers were also placed in areas not exclusively used for storage purposes. About 14 pithoi were found in the residential Northwest Quarter (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 80– 110). In more detail, two pithoi (the base imprint of a pithos and the actual base of another) were found in Room 3 (the pithos shown in Maraghiannis and Karo 1912, pl. 7 is a MM III survival). Four pithoi were placed in the south part of Portico 11. About 10 medium-sized pithoi were placed against the north and south walls of Magazine 16. Magazine 15, a two-pillared store, was used for the storage of domestic implements. One pithos was inscribed in Linear A (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 110, HM 3946). There is no information on the morphological features of the pithoi used in this quarter. Administrative documents (sealings and Linear A tablets) fallen from an upper space were found in the area of the magazine. In the area of the East Residential Quarter, pithos fragments (destroyed in World War II) were found in the scala and Pianerottolo 75 and in Latrina 68 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 158–174). Two pithoi, one of them with morphological features as those of Forms 13–16 and one stone pitharaki (Warren 1969, 61), were placed in Magazine 69. Several pithoi (exact number unknown), one of them found upside down, and a small conical pitharaki were placed in Magazine 72. Tablets in Linear A and many ritual vessels were found in the same space. In conclusion, the floor space where pithoi were found covers 723 m2 and housed at least 88 pithoi and pitharakia. These are minimum estimates, as in many cases the size of rooms cannot be estimated because the walls are badly preserved (e.g., Magazines 6, 18, and 72) and information on the exact number of storage containers is not always available. In total, 41% of the ground floor of the Villa Reale served for storage purposes. Almost 80% of the pithoi were similar to Forms 13–16. Most,

66

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

especially those with high storage potential, were placed in the main storage sector of the complex, the North Magazines. The other stores of the Villa Reale were mostly equipped with small- and medium-sized pithoi. The overall storage capacity of the pithoi for which information is given cannot be estimated, as most of the pithoi were destroyed in World War II. Here, I assume as a working hypothesis that storage containers held about 30,000–33,000 liters of goods. This is a minimum figure, as it is impossible to estimate the capacity of pithoi for which there is no information on exact number, morphological features, and the capacity of the perishable storage containers used in Magazine 8. The storage is long-term, with evidence of the accumulation of large quantities of staples. To quote La Rosa, The number of places dedicated as storerooms, in relation to the size of the complex, was considerable, even if they were not always arranged in a regular system. This fact, along with the sealings, Linear A tablets, and imports, suggest that the building was used mainly for recording, collecting, and depositing goods and produce. (La Rosa 1992, 71)

The Bastione This architecturally independent building is situated northeast of the Villa Reale (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 211–220; Puglisi 2003a). The building was erected in late LM IA over the Edificio Ciclopico and the Vano con il Pilastro and extensively used in LM III. Hellenistic and Roman constructions were built over it in turn. The later occupation inevitably obscured LM IB floor activities. A recent re-examination of the testimonies has provided a more accurate architectural plan, assigning the eastern half of the building to LM III rather than LM I, as previously believed (Puglisi 2003a). The new layout of the Bastione is now similar to that of Mansion B at Tylissos, the mansion at Pitsidia, and the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. The function of the complex is rather enigmatic, mostly due to the absence of LM IB floor deposits. The architectural design, however, suggests that it may have been used for storage purposes and workshop activities (McEnroe 1979, 215–216; Puglisi 2003a). According to Watrous, it held goods to be exchanged for commodities brought by sea trade (Watrous 1984).

The Houses Eight houses in the Neopalatial settlement of Hagia Triada have been excavated. Two of them have yielded sufficient evidence of an overall estimate of storage. The others cannot be used because their original aspect is partly unknown and/or information is scarce. The first, the Casa dello Pistrinum, was built on the northeast side of the central street (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 271–272). The house was constructed late in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (La Rosa 1989, 85). Only one room has been explored: remains of a pithos were found with a stone trough and grinding stones. The excavators suggest that the room was used for bread preparation. The remains of another building were excavated in the southwest corner of Casa Est (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 290–291; La Rosa 1979–1980, 55–107): it is known as the Casa dei Fichi. It is not certain whether it was an annex to Casa Est or an independent domestic unit. The house was destroyed by fire in LM IB. Its southeast part lay beneath a LM IIIA2 shrine. The evidence of storage is rather limited. Two small pithoi were placed in a space (La Rosa 1979–1980, 55–107). Remains of barley, figs, pears, cyperus, and lentils were found (Follieri 1979–1980). Three houses were excavated west of the Bastione. These were very modest dwellings. No traces of violent destruction have been reported. They seem to have been abandoned in LM IA, being thus contemporary with the Edificio Ciclopico and the Vano con Pilastro (La Rosa 1979–1980, 119; 1989, 86–87). They were found almost empty. Casa A was disturbed in LM III. No artifacts were found except part of a small pithos in Room A2 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 273–276). Casa B and Casa C were almost empty (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 276–278). It is not certain whether the Casa nord della Casa Est was an independent unit or an annex to the Casa Est (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 293–296). The material remains are very badly preserved. The Casa della “mazza di breccia” is an important unit the remains of which are badly preserved (Di Vita 1990–1991, 430–431; 1992–1993, 411–419). Published data on storage is limited: three piriform pithoi were found in Magazine h (Di Vita 1990–1991, 430–431, fig. 21).

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

The Casa del Lebete and the Casa delle Sfere Fittili o dei Muri di Creta (Fig. 22a)

67

spatial association with the Villa Reale, the architectural design, the quality of construction, and the few artifacts confirm the importance of this mansion. It is not certain whether the complex forms one or two houses, or even if it is an annex to the Villa Reale. The entire east part of the complex, the so-called Magazino dei Sacelli, was devoted to storage (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 286–289). Pithoi were found in Room a (six pithoi of various sizes) and Room b (three pithoi; one of them placed on a slab). The lower parts of several pithoi (exact number unknown) were found in Room d. Many pithoi were placed on clay discs with a groove, perhaps for the collection of dripping liquids. Four pithoi were placed in Room f. In total, at least 13 pithoi were reported as well as fragments of many others, for which there is no information on number or morphological attributes. The pithoi were destroyed in World War II. The morphological features of storage containers for which information is given are similar to those of Forms 10, 14, 15, and 17. They have high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. The preference for these types indicates bulk storage. We may speculate that the overall storage capacity is about 5,100–5,950 liters. The area devoted to storage covers 94 m2 and represents 40% of the total ground floor.

These two houses, destroyed in LM IB, formed a single unit divided into a storage/administrative sector (Casa del Lebete) and a residential sector (Casa delle Sfere Fittili o dei Muri di Creta) (Palio 2002). The Casa delle Sfere Fittili o dei Muri di Creta was found almost empty (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 265–269). The information on storage is rather limited: one medium-sized pithos was placed against the north wall of Room 3. The Casa del Lebete was found full of rich artifactual assemblages: pottery, prestigious objects, and the group of Linear A tablets (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 247–264). The main storage sector, in which 14 pithoi were placed along the walls, is Room 3 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 249– 256). Eight pithoi were similar to Form 14 and five to Form 64. Smaller containers, such as four big jugs and three amphorae, were associated with the pithoi. Three pithoi were found in Room 4 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 256). Two partly preserved pithoi, perhaps similar to Form 64, and one bathtub were placed in Room 7 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 258). Carbonized remains of figs were found in one of the pithoi. The black earth inside the bathtub was interpreted as the remains of cereals or other edible commodities. Medium-sized pithoi (exact number unknown) were recovered in Room 8 (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 263). The area in which storage containers were found covers 28 m2 and represents 22% of the ground floor (estimate based on the ground floor of the Casa del Lebete). The overall capacity of the pithoi is a matter of speculation, as they were destroyed in World War II. On the basis of the storage capacity of the “reference vessels” for each pithos type, the capacity of pithoi for which information is provided is 3,120–3,600 liters. This is a minimum estimate as there is no information for the number and morphological features of the pithoi found in Rooms 7 and 8.

The Neopalatial settlement is mostly unexplored. Remains of three houses (Case 101, 103, 104) were recovered in the area northeast of the palace (Pernier and Banti 1951, 391–414). The remains were badly preserved and the published information inadequate. Neopalatial constructions were also recovered in the area of Hagia Photini (Levi 1961–1962; Palio 2001b), at Hagios Giorgios in Phalandra and at Chalara (Levi 1967–1968; Palio 2001a). Two of them are relevant for our purposes and are discussed below.

The Casa Est (Fig. 22b)

The House of Hagia Photini

This mansion was erected east of the Villa Reale in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (Halbherr, Stefani, and Banti 1977, 279–291). The

This house was built early in LM IB and destroyed at the end of the same period (Levi 1961–1962; Palio 2001b). The principal storeroom

Phaistos

68

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

of the house was Room θ (Palio 2001b, 248). Two pithoi and 11 other vases used for food consumption, short-term storage, and transfer purposes were found in this space. Storage containers were found in Room η (Palio 2001b, 245, fig. 3; cf. Form 74) and Room ζ (Palio 2001b, 248, fig. 7; cf. Form 121); the latter room probably served as a kitchen (Palio 2001b, 245–246). A great assemblage of vases such as a small piriform pithos, many cups, jugs, amphorae, and bridge-spouted jars were stored in Rooms ι and π (Palio 2001b, 248–250). A fragment of a Linear A tablet, found in Room ι, indicates some sort of administrative activity (Palio 2001b, 250). Most of the pithoi used in this house are small piriform specimens. They are distinctive for their low capacity, high transportability and accessibility, and low stability. One of the two pithoi (a body fragment decorated with rope patterns) kept in Room η was probably a medium-sized ovoid specimen. The overall capacity of the storage containers, including large amphorae, is about 200–250 liters. The low storage potential and the presence of large assemblages of pottery used for consumption suggest short-term storage and constant movement of commodities (cf. Palio 2001b, 248).

The House at Chalara At Chalara, at the southeast foot of the palace hill, parts of a large house were excavated by Levi (1967–1968; Palio 2001a). The house was destroyed in LM IB. Hellenistic building activities heavily obscured the Neopalatial constructions. Room ε was probably the principal storeroom of the house (Levi 1967–1968, 111–113; Palio 2001a, 357). Seven large pithoi with morphological and decorative features as those of Forms 14 and 15 (F 3851, F 3852, F 3854, F 3855), Form 67 (F 3856, F 3857), and Form 23 (F 3853) were found in situ (Levi 1967–1968, 117, 118, figs. 68, 69; Palio 2001a, fig. 47). They were associated with jugs, amphorae, bridge-spouted jars, and cups. They have a high/moderate capacity, low/moderate accessibility and transportability, and high stability. The lower parts of two large pithoi were recovered in Room θ (Levi 1967–1968, 115; Palio 2001a, 357). They were similar to Forms 14 and 15. Carbonized remains of cereals were found in one of them. Ten small piriform pitharakia and a

small conical pithos had fallen from the upper floor into Room α (Levi 1967–1968, 106–111, figs. 70, 71, 83:a; Palio 2001a, 355–356, fig. 50). These storage containers were distinctive for their low capacity, high accessibility and transportability, and moderate stability. Fragments of pithoi were also found in the surrounding area of the house (Palio 2001a, 310–348). The storage activities in this context have been discussed by Palio who estimated the capacity of the pithoi in Rooms ε and α at 1,267 liters (Palio 1999, 144–145). If we speculate that the capacity of the partly preserved pithoi of Room θ was at least 240 liters, then the overall capacity of the pithoi here is 1,507 liters.

Kouses The badly preserved remains of a house, built in MM III and destroyed in LM IA, were excavated near the village of Kouses. According to the excavator, the house was built in MM II (Marinatos 1924–1925, 75). Reconsideration of the pottery, however, has shown that this may not be the case: the pottery is dated to MM III and LM IA. The vessels dated by S. Marinatos to MM II (Marinatos 1924–1925, 61–64, figs. 5, 6) are actually dated to the MM IIIA period (cf. Walberg 1983, 95).

The House at Kouses The house was destroyed in LM IA (Marinatos 1924–1925). Floor assemblages were heavily disturbed by LM III activities and Early Christian burials. Rooms A, Γ, Δ, and E, among others, served for staple storage. At least seven badly preserved pithoi were found in the house (Marinatos 1924–1925, 66–68). Of these only two are now known. The first, a large ovoid pithos dated to LM I (not to MM IIIA as S. Marinatos argued), was found in Room A (Marinatos 1924–1925, 67, fig. 7). The other (the upper part of a pithos similar to Forms 13 and 16) was found in Room E (Marinatos 1924– 1925, 67, fig. 8). S. Marinatos dated this pithos to MM IIIB–LM IA. In fact the specimen is typical of LM I. The lower part of a pithos, similar to that found in Room E, was found in Room A (Marinatos 1924–1925, 66). This part was carefully cut from the rest of the body, and it is not certain whether it was

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

used for storage or served as the cover for another pithos. Sherds of pithoi were also found in Rooms Γ and Δ. (There is no information on their morphological features.) The other pithoi, about two or three specimens, recovered in the house (unknown find spots) were probably similar to MM II–III pithoi as used in the palace of Phaistos (Marinatos 1924–1925, 67). A small storage container was also reported (Marinatos 1924–1925, 64, fig. 6). This pithos is dated to the MM IIIB–LM IA period and not to MM IIB as S. Marinatos has argued. The function of the two compartments in the southeast corner of the house is not certain. According to the excavator, they might have been used as storage bins (Marinatos 1924–1925, 55). In any case, these compartments were out of use in the last period of habitation, since slabs, perhaps for the placement of heavy utensils, were laid over them (Marinatos 1924–1925, 57). There is no evidence of the olive press installation in this part of the house, as cited by Driessen and Macdonald (1997, 207). S. Marinatos has clearly stated that the installation Driessen and Macdonald consider an olive press was not used as such (Marinatos 1924–1925, 57). Most pithoi found in this house have moderate capacity, moderate accessibility, low transportability, and high stability. Capacity estimates are but suppositions, as the pithoi are not preserved. It is speculated here, on the basis of the capacity of “reference” vessels, that the storage potential of pithoi kept in the house is about 660–850 liters. The area in which storage containers were kept covers 24 m2 and represents 3.8% of the ground floor.

Mitropolis-Kannia The settlement is situated southwest of the village of Mitropolis. A mansion, the central building of the settlement, was discovered by Alexiou (1957) and excavated by Levi (1959).

The Mansion of Mitropolis-Kannia (Fig. 23) The mansion was destroyed by fire in LM IB (Levi 1959, 244); the northeast part was re-occupied and used as a shrine in LM IIIB. Architectural modifications also occurred in some spaces.

69

Storage was the principal activity in this unit. The overall storage capacity is exceptional for a building of this size. The storerooms were in the north area. Pithoi were found in Room IV (seven pithoi; Levi 1959, 242), Room XI, a pillared magazine (18 pithoi; Levi 1959, 243), Room XIV, another pillared magazine (12 pithoi; Levi 1959, 243), Room XXI (six pithoi; Levi 1959, 243), Room XVI (ten pithoi; Levi 1959, 244), and Room XXVI (one pithos; Levi 1959, 244). Half of a pithos in Room IX served to cover a bronze cauldron. Large amphorae, jugs, and bridge-spouted jars, used for transfer and pouring purposes, were also recovered in the storerooms (Levi 1959, 244, 255, figs. 12:a, b, 26:a). Organic remains of pears and fava beans were recovered in Room XI (Levi 1959, 243). Small stone cists were set in the floor of Rooms XI (two) and XIV (one) and probably served as collectors for spilled liquids. The strong traces of burned earth indicate the presence of olive oil. A total of 95% of the pithoi were large, ovoid, and elongated specimens with a wide mouth and low/no collar similar to Forms 13–17. They have high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. The rest are similar to Forms 23, 35, 69, 75, 106, and 109. The capacity of the storage containers is estimated at 21,895–24,690 liters. Smaller storage containers such as large amphorae and piriform pitharakia considerably increased the storage potential of this context. About 147.25 m2 was devoted to storage, representing 34% of the ground floor. The mansion of Mitropolis-Kannia provides the highest number of pithoi so far reported in a nonpalatial context. It has been argued that the extensive storage activities in the mansion reflect functional changes in LM IB (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 54, 206–207). In their view, the mansion, after an earthquake that caused the collapse of the upper floor, was transformed in LM IB into a cult and storage complex. This view is based on the cleared-out destruction debris outside the mansion, the absence of prestigious objects, and doubts on the existence of grander rooms on the upper floor. Such evidence, however, may be read in a different way. Destructions and extensive re-occupation have substantially affected the archaeological deposits. The accumulation of debris outside the mansion, for instance, may have taken place in LM IIIB when the northeast sector of the mansion

70

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

was transformed into a sanctuary. It is interesting to note that destruction debris had accumulated at the southwest, southeast, and northwest parts of the mansion, leaving clear the area in front of the northeast part of the mansion that was used in LM IIIB. The complicated history of the complex will be fully understood after its final publication As far as the absence of prestigious objects is concerned, it is likely that the destruction of LM IB, which affected only a part of the mansion, gave its inhabitants time to remove precious artifacts. Moreover, the presence of a second floor is not a matter of doubt. The staircase and the cups that have fallen inside some pithoi show that a second story existed. It is argued here that the ground floor of the mansion was used for storage activities, while residence took place on the upper floor.

Anegyros A partly preserved house was found near the village of Anegyros (Lebessi 1971, 287–290). The house was built in LM IA and re-occupied in LM III. There is no published evidence of storage. The pithos fragments found in the surface levels were LM III in date.

Protoria The remains of a large complex, destroyed in LM IA, were discovered at Protoria, close to

Pyrgos (I. Andonakaki, pers. comm. 2004). Perhaps it was the seat of a local ruling group. A long rectangular storeroom set to one side of a corridor, like the arrangement in palatial complexes, was excavated. About 12 conical pithoi were found upside down. Grain and pulses were stored in amphorae. The overall picture, although very limited as the complex is under excavation, points to bulk storage.

Lagouta Kolokythi A complex, the central building of a small settlement, was excavated at Lagouta Kolokythi (or Skinias Monofatsiou) at the eastern end of the Mesara (Mandalaki, forthcoming). The complex was destroyed late in LM IB and partly disturbed by modern looting. Many spaces were also found packed with pottery suitable for food preparation and consumption, while carbonized remains of staples were reported. Pithoi similar to Forms 62, 68, 70, 71, 104, 107, and 112 were found. Most of these pithoi are distinctive for their low storage potential and high transportability and accessibility. Large storage containers were not numerous: no more than four pithoi similar to Form 13. Despite the wealth of data concerning food processing and consumption, the storage potential seems moderate, as the pithoi used in the mansion had a limited capacity. The overall picture suggests a great deal of constant withdrawal, perhaps from a peripheral store, rather than large accumulation of foodstocks.

The Kanli Kastelli Region of North-central Crete Kanli Kastelli (or Vitsila) and Galeni An important settlement was revealed by S. Marinatos northeast of Kanli Kastelli (Marinatos 1955, 306–307). The settlement had already been noted by Evans, who supposed the existence of a large complex, perhaps a palace (PM II, 71). Evans reported the remains of large pithoi similar to

Forms 6 and 10. Unfortunately, much of the site has been destroyed. A substantial building has been partly explored at Galeni (Banou and Serpetsidaki 1996). The complex is dated to the MM III–LM I period. Many fragments of pithoi have been reported, similar to Forms 4 and 6. The number of pithoi and the use of large specimens points to the storage of considerable quantities of staples. Further excavation

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

will provide a wealth of testimonies on this building, the seat of a group that may have played an

71

important role in the political affairs of northcentral Crete.

The Archanes Region of North-central Crete Archanes The area of Archanes was extensively occupied from Neolithic to Historic times (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997). Unfortunately, the exploration of the Bronze Age settlement is heavily obscured by the modern village. Parts of the central building of the settlement were excavated in the area of Tourkogeitonia, but most is unexplored. Remains of MM II, MM III, and LM IA buildings were recovered in the area of Troullos (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 65–66). Five rooms of a well-built house, destroyed in LM IA, have been excavated (Sakellarakis 1966, 413–414). There is no published information on storage activities. Two houses were also excavated at Tzami: one is discussed below (Lebessi 1970). None of the excavated buildings provide enough information for an overall estimate of staple storage activities.

The Central Building Most of this complex lies under modern structures (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 74–112). The main plan excavated so far belongs to MM IIIB or early LM IA. The complex was destroyed by fire in LM IB. The architectural layout (with palatial features), the fine construction, and the wealth of artifactual assemblages suggest that it was used by an eminent elite group. Taphonomy and recovery protocols provide a wealth of crucial information, which, when fully published, will provide significant information on activities of the political group using this important complex. Fragments of large pithoi were found in the filling levels of many spaces of the complex, attesting to staple storage activities (e.g., Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1980, 377; 1981, 412, 423; 1982, 506, 519). Recently, however, the excavators, Y. Sakellarakis and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, brought to light two spaces used for storage that give us a sound idea of storage activities in a LM IB elite context.

Two spaces, Rooms 32 and 33, originally built for residential and/or ceremonial activities, were changed into storerooms before the final destruction (Petrakos 1999, 2000, 2001). The layout of these spaces and the excellent ashlar masonry of the walls are not typical of storerooms. In Room 32, 11 pithoi and 87 smaller containers (mostly amphorae and tubs) were found, while 29 pithoi and 145 smaller containers were found in Room 33 (Petrakos 2000, 98–100). Small “amphoroid” vessels, some with sealed mouths, were placed around some pithoi (Petrakos 2000, 100, figs. 118–120). The pithoi, dated to MM III and LM I, are large ovoid specimens with high capacity, low transportability, high stability, and low accessibility (cf. Forms 4, 6, and 10–17; for the pithoi from theses stores, see the illustrations in Petrakos 1999, 2000, 2001). They were so very closely placed, especially in Room 33, that it was almost impossible to move between them. The violent conflagration that caused the vitrification of many pithoi and left its impressive imprints on the ashlar walls might suggest the storage of flammable commodities such as olive oil and/or animal fats. The numerous “amphoroid” vessels suitable for the safekeeping of easily evaporated substances (cf. PM I, 411, fig. 295; Panagiotaki 1999, 133, fig. 37; similar vessels, associated with two pithoi, and containing olive oil were found in the palace of Petras [Tsipopoulou 2003, 71]) and the reported presence of aromatic substances (Psilaki and Psilakis n.d., 15) may indirectly imply the storage of aromatic oils. According to the excavators, Y. Sakellarakis and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, textiles were also stored in some pithoi (Petrakos 2001, 83, figs. 91, 92). Although the main stores of the complex still remain to be found, the evidence to date shows that the complex may have been the main storage center of the surrounding settlement. Moreover, the use of residential Rooms 32 and 33 as storerooms indicates an intensification of staple storage activities in the last period of use of this complex. The capacity of

72

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

the pithoi used in these spaces seems to be around 16,000–20,000 liters. This figure should be increased as many medium- and small-sized storage containers were associated with the large pithoi.

The House in the Kalpadaki Plot The remains of a mansion dating to LM IB were excavated by Lebessi in the Kalpadaki Plot (Lebessi 1970). It is also believed that this mansion was part of the central complex of Tourkogeitonia (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 130– 135). Eight storage containers and about 32 other vases were found along the north side of the north wall of a room located in the west part of the plot (Lebessi 1970, 262–267, pls. 364:γ, 366:β, 367:α, β; Lebessi, Olivier, and Godart 1974, 113–116, pls. 37:α–δ, 38:α, 39:α, β, 40:α, β, 41:α, β). Another pithos, not illustrated in the relevant publications, is a conical specimen similar to one published by Lebessi (1970, 264, pl. 367:β [HM 19206]). These pithoi are similar to Forms 69, 74, 106, and 122. They are small- and medium-sized specimens with low/moderate storage potential, and high accessibility and transportability. Charred fig seeds, peas, chickpeas, beans, and olive stones were found inside some of the pithoi and in the surrounding area. A group of Linear A tablets with references to agricultural products, such as cereals, olive oil, and wine, was found in the same space (Lebessi, Olivier, and Godart 1974). A medium-sized ovoid pithos was also found in the northwest area of the plot (Lebessi 1970, 267, pl. 327:α). The capacity of the storage containers reported in this unit is about 800–1,000 liters.

Archanes-Xeri Kara Part of a mansion built in LM IA and destroyed in the same period was excavated by N. Platon in the area northwest of Archanes (Platon 1958, 467). Activities dated to LM III and the Byzantine period had disturbed the LM I levels, while most of the complex was badly damaged by bulldozer. A re-examination of the data by S. Chryssoulaki has distinguished two architectural phases, both dated to the LM IA period (Chryssoulaki 1987). In the second phase, a paved room was modified into

a work/storage area, while a pithos was installed in a stylobate hole. The floor deposits are rather poor, making any consideration of storage rather difficult. Pithos fragments collected from this context come from large pithoi similar to Forms 13, 15, and 16. The use of such pithoi indicates accumulation of considerable quantities of goods. Storage evidence, however, is too scanty to draw any definitive conclusion. Driessen and Macdonald have used the evidence from Xeri Kara to support their perspective of functional changes from areas devoted to residential/ceremonial purposes in LM IA to storage/production purposes in LM IB (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 52). There are two problems with this picture. First, there is evidence of the use of the mansion in LM IB. Second, only a very small part of the mansion has been excavated, and thus the material record is very slight. No representative data, therefore, exists for any functional definitions to be made.

Vathypetro About 4 km from Archanes, southeast of Mt. Juktas, is located a Neopalatial settlement that stretches over three low hills. The central mansion of this settlement was excavated by S. Marinatos (1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955) and reexamined by Driessen and Sakellarakis (1997).

The Mansion of Vathypetro The architectural design, size, excellence of construction, and high quality of the artifactual assemblages confirm the importance of this unit. The complex is believed to be composed of two buildings joined by a long corridor: the West, built in LM IA, and the East, built in LM IB (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997; this phasing is deduced based on architecture alone and not on ceramic grounds). The final abandonment is dated to LM IB. In Room 10, a pillared magazine, 16 pithoi were placed alongside the walls and around the two pillars (Marinatos 1949, 103–108; 1952, 599– 604). Small vases had fallen from an upper story inside some pithoi (Marinatos 1949, 107, fig. 8; 1952, 600, fig. 10). The pithoi are large, ovoid, and

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

elongated specimens with a wide mouth and low/ no collar (cf. Forms 10, 12–16). They have high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. Their capacity is estimated to be 6,400–8,000 liters. Many vessels suitable for pouring and transferring purposes were placed in the same area. Room 10 was destroyed at the end of LM IA by an earthquake and has been filled with debris. Hood argued that the space was out of use in LM IB (Hood 1978, 685). Room 40, a finely paved and pillared space, contains the well-known wine press installation set in its northeast corner (Marinatos 1951, 264– 269; 1952, 594–599; Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 75). One conical pithos and another ovoid, elongated pithos similar to Form 15 were found beside the south wall of the room (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 71, fig. 11). The conical pithos was suitable for the fermentation of must, but not for long-term wine storage because of its unrestricted mouth. About 16 small- and mediumsized pots suitable for pouring, transfer, and short-term storage purposes were found in Room 40. The large quantity of loomweights is evidence of textile production activities (Marinatos 1951, 269). According to Driessen and Sakellarakis, the wine press installation is dated to the second phase of the complex, i.e., LM IB (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 70, 75). The function of the area is uncertain in LM IA. The pithoi from Rooms 10 and 40 were not the only storage containers recovered. It is said that pithoi were also found in other areas, but no published information exists (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 75). Pithoi were also probably placed on the upper story of the mansion. This is the case of a pithos found 1 m above the floor level (Marinatos 1950, 242). Room 53 in the East Building served

73

for food preparation and storage (Marinatos 1952, 605–607). Five hearths and three storage pits were found in this space. Fragments of large clay boxes, perhaps used for storage purposes, were also found in the area of the East Building (Marinatos 1952, 607). Driessen and Sakellarakis argue that the area of Rooms 32 and 34 was subdivided by walls after the LM IA destruction and used for storage purposes (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, 69). No pithoi were reported from these spaces. Driessen, Macdonald, and Sakellarakis have suggested that the floor space devoted to food processing and industrial activities increased from LM IA to LM IB, with many spaces converted into storerooms (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 52, 176–178; Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997). What do these assumed changes really imply about the diachronic development of storage? Could the proposed functional conversion of Rooms 32–34 support the increase of storage in LM IB? In my view, the excavated evidence suggests a decrease of storage from LM IA to LM IB. In LM IA, storage space covers 24 m2 (Room 10) and represents 2.7% of the ground floor. In LM IB, storage space covers 15 m2, only 1.5% of the ground floor (Rooms 32–34; Room 10 is out of use in LM IB and Room 40 is primarily used for the processing of staple commodities). Moreover, only very few pithoi were found in the LM IB levels of the mansion. The absence of assemblages of storage containers from LM IB levels is striking. The role of depositional factors in the formation of this picture cannot be completely ruled out, although they cannot have altered the picture so radically in any case. The decrease of storage in LM IB is not in accordance with the assumed increase in activities concerned with food processing, production, and consumption at that time.

The Heraklion Coastal Region of North-central Crete Knossos Little is known of the largest settlement of Bronze Age Crete. The elite-centric character of the archaeological investigation, mostly focused on the monumental palace and some sumptuary mansions, is

responsible for the overall lack of substantial knowledge on domestic units in urban Knossos. The extensive and intensive re-occupation of the few excavated domestic contexts in later periods, the diverse research agendas and recovery protocols, and the absence of well-published data are the

74

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

drawbacks one faces in the consideration of domestic staple storage activities during LM I. About 40 buildings forming part of the Neopalatial settlement of Knossos are known. Most of them have only been partly explored. Of these, very few provide patchy information on staple storage behavior: their relative testimonies are discussed below.

The South House (Fig. 24a) The South House was constructed at the southwest corner of the palace and was destroyed in LM IA (PM II, 373–390; Mountjoy 2003). According to Evans, it was “the residence of some Palace functionary with considerable interest at Court” (PM II, 376). The question of storage has been fully discussed elsewhere (Christakis 2003). The main points are summarized here. The spatial distribution of the pithos material, mostly fragments, and the architectural arrangement of the ground floor suggest that the Inner Basement and the Pillar Basement are the main stores of the house. Together, the rooms cover 29.64 m2, and, taking into consideration patterns of internal circulation, they could house about 16 large pithoi or a considerable assemblage of storage containers made of perishable materials, the exact number of which cannot of course be estimated. Besides pithoi and other containers, both rooms provide space for the custody of domestic implements and precious artifacts. The extent of floor space devoted to storerooms (about 14% of the total) may argue that the mansion was designed to house a considerable number of storage containers. The absence of pithoi from these spaces is striking, however, especially considering that both Evans and Mackenzie were careful in reporting entirely preserved or fragmentary pithoi. The role of depositional parameters also could not be ruled out.

The House of the Chancel Screen (Fig. 24b) The house was constructed in MM IIIB and destroyed in LM IA (PM II, 391–396). Fragments of one or more medallion pithoi (Form 10) were found in Room 9 (PM II, 396, 418). The pithos or pithoi were associated with large amphorae, similar to those recovered in the Temple Repositories of the Central Palace Sanctuary Complex, and many cups.

A large MM III pithos, similar to Form 6, was placed in the underground cellar (Room 13); it was associated with a LM IA ewer (PM II, 395, fig. 224). Room 12 was identified by the excavator as a storeroom (PM II, 395). There is no evidence of the presence of storage containers. It is also uncertain whether the pillared Room 10 served for storage purposes. The pithoi in this house are large specimens with high storage potential (about 850– 1,000 liters). Architectural alterations caused changes in the storage capability of the house. The construction of a staircase in the area of Corridor 11 blocked access to the southwest part of the house, and it may be that Rooms 12 and 13 went out of use (DM/NB 1922.I, 21). Before this architectural modification, the overall floor extent devoted to storage covered about 20.25 m2 and represented 8.8% of the ground floor. This space could accommodate a considerable number of pithoi and/or perishable storage containers. In the last period of use of the house, the decline in storage space to 6 m2 indirectly implies a decrease in the storage needs of the household.

The Northeast House (Fig. 10) The basement remains of a large complex were excavated close to the northeast borders of the palace (PM II, 414–430). It is uncertain whether they formed a house or were part of a specialized building annexed to the palace. The latter seems more likely, though the general plan of the complex is uncertain (cf. McEnroe 1979, 207). The excavated remains, now backfilled, cover 837 m2. The complex was built in MM IIIB or early LM IA and was probably destroyed late in LM IA. Nine magazines were excavated, covering 133 m2. Magazines VI–VIII were probably later additions to the original plan (PM II, 416). Two pithoi were found in Magazine I and another five in Magazine II (PM II, 416, fig. 240). An inscribed clay sealing was found in Magazine VI, and according to Evans this find “seems to bring this building into a palatial relation” (PM II, 421). Many fragments of pithoi were also collected from Magazines IV–VIII (DM/NB 1922.I, 5–6, 13–15), however only two pithoi with finely painted decorations were published (PM II, 422–424, figs. 244, 245). Many fragments of pithoi are kept in KSM (KSM-Lapidarium, Boxes PP 5–12, 18). They

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

come from very large specimens similar to Forms 6 and 10. These pithoi are distinctive for their high capacity, low transportability, low accessibility, and high stability. Conical pithoi similar to Form 114 were also found in these stores. It is difficult to estimate the exact number of pithoi placed in the Northeast House. We may speculate, on the basis of the floor extent of the excavated architectural remains, the size of Forms 6 and 10, and the patterns of internal circulation, that Magazines I–VIII were designed to house about 62 pithoi. The capacity of these pithoi could be speculated to be 24,800–32,000 liters. The Northeast House seems to have been a storage complex annexed to the palace. To quote Evans, “It may, indeed, have served as a supplementary storehouse, which would account for its exceptional size and its numerous Magazines” (PM II, 412). This crucial observation of the excavator is totally ignored in the literature on the economic organization of the Knossian palace.

The Royal Villa (Fig. 24c) This finely built mansion is situated northeast of the palace. The architectural features, quality of construction, and fine artifacts attest to its importance (PM II, 396–413; Fotou 1997, 34–41). Although it was constructed early in LM IA, the main period of its use and destruction falls within LM IIIA1 (Popham 1970, 16–20). Testimony for storage activities dated to LM IIIA1 is almost absent: there is no information for pithoi apart from the well-known conical example with the papyrus decoration (PM II, 400–401, fig. 231). The evidence of LM I floor activities has been completely erased by later occupation. The architectural design of the house, however, laid out early in LM IA, provides interesting insights into staple storage. Three areas may have served as storerooms: the sottoscala in the southeast corner of the house (Room B), Room H, and the pillar crypt (Room D). Sottoscali were frequently used as magazines (Begg 1975, 24–26). In most cases, however, they served for the storage of domestic utensils. The architectural layout of Room H also suggests that it was used for storage purposes, although it is not certain whether it would have contained staples and/or domestic utensils (Fotou 1997, 38). Evans considered the pillar crypt (Room D) to be an area

75

devoted to cult activities (PM II, 406–408; cf. Hood 1997, 106). The accomplished re-examination of the area by Fotou, however, has convincingly shown that the room served for the processing and storage of liquid substances (Fotou 1997, 41). The pillar crypt provided space for at least 10 large pithoi. The space devoted to storage covers 26 m2 and represents 11% of the ground floor.

The Little Palace (Fig. 25) This is the largest known mansion of the Knossian settlement (PM II, 513–544). The thorough publication of the unit by Hatzaki has contributed to the understanding of this important mansion of the Knossian settlement (Hatzaki 1996, 2005). It was built in MM IIIB/LM IA and remained in use until LM IIIA1/early IIIA2, while partial reoccupation occurred in LM IIIB. The elaborate architectural design, the high quality of construction, and the artifacts found suggest that the inhabitants of this unit were eminent members of the Knossian ruling class. Despite the lack of storage equipment dated to LM I, the architecture may provide some indirect help in identifying spaces that, based on their layout, may be defined as storerooms. These were laid out during LM I. The two-pillared room (Room 36) in the southwest part of the mansion probably served for storage proposes (Hatzaki 1996, 36; 2005, 61–63, 196), as did Rooms 28–30 in the south part of the mansion (Hatzaki 1996, 37; 2005, 58–59). It is important to note that these storerooms were very easily reached through the main entrance of the mansion. There is no evidence concerning the function of the basement pillared rooms in the southeast corner of the complex (Rooms 3 and 1; Hatzaki 2005, 39– 42). The architectural design of these spaces, however, with the pillars and the stone vats between them, is typical of a storeroom. The underground construction and limited lighting create an ideal environment for storage activities. Thus, if all the aforementioned spaces served for storage activities, the floor space devoted to that activity would cover 93 m2 and represent 6.6% of the ground floor. These spaces could house a large assemblage of storage containers. It should be noted, however, that it is not certain whether these spaces served exclusively for staple storage or were also used for the storage of domestic instruments.

76

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Moreover, there is no evidence on the functional properties of storage containers used in this context: large stores may have been equipped with low storage potential pithoi and vice versa. In any case, the mansion was furnished with large storerooms, which may indirectly imply the storage of considerable quantities of staples.

The Unexplored Mansion (Fig. 25) This is the only Knossian mansion to have been published in full (Popham 1984). According to the excavator, the mansion, actually an annex to the Little Palace, was built in LM IA but never completed at that time. The building was fully occupied in LM II. The mansion was destroyed by fire at the end of LM II. A series of narrow, parallel rooms of corridor L (Rooms M, N, P, and Q) recalls storerooms in other LM I buildings. The direct communication of corridor L with the main entrance of the building may have facilitated the moving “in” and “out” of commodities. These rooms were also the main stores during the LM II phase. If Rooms M, N, P, and Q were intended to be storerooms in LM IA, then the storage area therefore covers at least 30 m2, representing 8.6% of the total floor space. The excellently documented floor deposits reflect the activities carried out in LM II, a period outside the chronological framework of the present study. It is, however, worth highlighting one point. All the pithoi used during LM II (Forms 61, 69, and 70) are specimens with low storage capacity, high transportability, high accessibility, and moderate stability. Their overall storage capacity is about 800–1,000 liters (Mudd 1984, 178). Such pithoi were very popular in the Knossos area from the LM IA period and were found exclusively in the houses of the Knossian domain, but not within the palace. Only one similar specimen was found in the West Magazines Complex. Contrarily, there is little evidence in the houses for large pithoi like those found in palatial storerooms.

The North House A substantial part of a building was excavated west of the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum by Warren (1980–1981). The exceptional quality of pottery, the fine mural decorations with religious connotations, and the human sacrifice confirm the

singularity of this unit (Warren 1981, 1985b). It is not entirely certain whether this building was a normal dwelling or an area devoted exclusively to religious activities. The building was destroyed by fire in LM IB. There is evidence of food preparation and consumption, weaving, and cult activities. Storage activities in this complex took place in a space above the so-called Cult Basement Room (Warren 1980–1981, 80–85). Ten pithoi and one pitharaki were placed there. Two of them were used for the storage of vessels. Four pithoi are similar to Form 69 (Warren 1980–1981, 81, figs. 22, 23; SMP 2051). They have high transportability, stability, and accessibility and low capacity. Two pithoi are similar to Form 122, and they have the same functional attributes as the aforementioned specimens (Warren 1980–1981, 82, fig. 26; SMP 9801). A conical (with vertical upper/middle profile) pithos has also been reported (Warren 1980–1981, 81, 83, fig. 20). This is associated with a concentration of burned earth, shells, and child bones. Another ovoid pithos with a narrow mouth and low/no collar seems to be a MM III survivor (Warren 1980–1981, 81, fig. 21; cf. Form 28). This pithos has moderate capacity and transportability, and high accessibility and stability. The space devoted to storage covers 10 m2 and represents 10% of the upper floor. The storage capacity of the pithoi recovered in this context is low (360–480 liters).

The Acropolis Houses Three houses, dated MM III, LM IA, and LM IB, were built one over the other in the area of the Acropolis (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979). The remains are very badly preserved. Deposit F is the main floor deposit of the LM IB house (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, 44–51). The excavators dated this deposit to the LM IA period. Driessen and Macdonald, however, have convincingly shown that a LM IB date is more likely (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 162). Four pithoi were placed in Room 1 of the LM IB house. Two are similar to Form 114 (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, 46– 47, figs. 32, 33), while the others are similar to Form 69 (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, 48, fig. 34). These pithoi have high accessibility and transportability and low capacity. The capacity of these pithoi is very low (203 liters). It is not certain, however, whether these were the only storage containers

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

in the house. The absence of fragments/parts of large pithoi points to low storage potentials. Many pithoi were reported in the deposits excavated in the other houses. They are similar to Form 106 (Deposit E: V.212, V.213, V.214; Deposit H: V.267) and to Form 69 (Deposit H: V.270, V.273). They have the same functional characteristics as the aforementioned specimens. The upper part of a pithos (Catling, Catling, and Smyth 1979, 56, pl. 11:f [Deposit H]) belongs to an ovoid, elongated pithos with a wide mouth and low/no collar (cf. Form 13). An overall estimate of the storage activities taking place in these houses is impossible, mostly due to the overall state of preservation of the archaeological remains. It may be observed, however, that there is a clear preference for pithoi of low storage potential and high transportability and accessibility, while pithos sherds from sizable specimens are rare.

Hogarth’s House A This is one of the two houses excavated by Hogarth on the Gypsades hill (Hogarth 1899–1900, 71–73). The house was built in MM III or early LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB. Reoccupation occurred in LM II–III. The construction of a Roman building in the west area of the house disturbed the earlier levels. The architectural design and the quality of construction reflect the wellappointed character of this unit. Only a few material remains were recovered in the floor deposit, and excavation reports are very brief. The information provided by Hogarth on storage implements is rather scanty. Only one pithos is illustrated in Fyfe’s plan in Room 4 (Hogarth 1899– 1900, pl. III). It may be assumed, taking into consideration the trend to draw pithoi of large dimensions, that the specimen was similar to large LM I pithoi (cf. Forms 11–17). The doorless Rooms 5 and 6, the narrow and parallel Rooms 14–16, and Rooms 11– 13 may have served for storage purposes because of their architectural design. There is no concrete evidence, however, to confirm this.

Hood’s House A corridor and three small rooms were excavated immediately behind the west wall of Hogarth’s

77

House A by Hood (1958, 18–19). It is not certain whether these remains formed an independent house or were an annex to Hogarth’s House A. The building was erected in LM IA and destroyed in the same period. Evidence exists for later activities dating to LM IB and LM II. A number of pithoi were placed on a platform. One of them is a small ovoid specimen (Hood 1958, 19, fig. 28). This pithos has low capacity and high transportability, accessibility, and stability. Another is an ovoid elongated specimen with narrow mouths and high collar (SMP 4604), while five others are piriform specimens with narrow mouth and high collars (cf. Form 61, SMP 4601; Form 69, SMP 4599; Form 70, SMP 4600, SMP 4602; and Form 76, SMP 4605). The piriform pithoi are distinctive for their high capacity, high transportability and accessibility, and low stability. There is a clear preference here for pithoi of low storage potential and high accessibility and transportability. The capacity of the storage containers is estimated at 350–430 liters.

Poros and Katsambas The evidence for storage strategies adopted by households residing in the wealthy Neopalatial settlement that extends under the eastern suburbs of Herakleion, namely Poros and Katsambas, is patchy. Continuous habitation seriously obscures archaeological investigation (Dimopoulou 2004). Some three buildings, perhaps mansions, have been excavated there. The first was explored by N. Platon in the locality of Anemomili (Platon 1951b, 446; 1955b, 565). The discovery of a stone throne indicates the high social status of the owner of this mansion. The house was destroyed in LM IB. Another building was excavated by Alexiou (1955, 314–320). The architectural features, fine fresco decorations, and imported pottery suggest that the structural remains formed part of a wealthy Neopalatial dwelling. This mansion was destroyed in LM IA, and one part may have been re-occupied in LM IB–II. Another building, destroyed in LM IA, was excavated in the Psychoyoudakis plot by Dimopoulou (Dimopoulou, Olivier, and Rethemiotakis 1993, 502). There is evidence of industrial activities (Dimopoulou 1997). Two other buildings

78

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

have been excavated in the nearby area. None of these complexes has been fully explored, and there is insufficient evidence on storage.

Amnisos The remains of a small settlement have been explored at Amnisos, east of Herakleion, around the Palaiochora hill (Schäfer 1992). The settlement was destroyed in LM IA. LM IB sherds on the west side of the hill suggest a limited occupation during that period (Niemeier 1985, 177). The best-documented building is the so-called Villa of the Lilies excavated by S. Marinatos (Marinatos 1932, 1933, 1935; Stürmer 1992, 129–150, 217–223). Testimonies on staple storage are scarce. The architectural design of Rooms 3 and 4 shows that these spaces may have served for storage purposes. Storage containers were rarely mentioned in the excavation reports. Only a small pitharaki was found in Room 4 of the complex (Stürmer 1992, 219, pl. 67). The absence of storage containers is striking. It is not certain whether this picture is due to depositional circumstances or to economic patterns.

Prasa Three houses were excavated by N. Platon about 1 km south of the village of Prasa (Platon 1951a). They were part of a small settlement on the road from Knossos to Amnisos. A large part of House A is missing. The house was built early in MM and destroyed in LM IB. The material remains yield evidence of food processing and consumption activities. A total of 16 holes were cut into the floor along the walls of Room A (N. Platon 1951a, 247, fig. 2). They may have served for the placement of pithoi during MM II. These holes had gone out of use in LM I; it is not certain whether Room A served for storage purposes in the Neopalatial period. There is no evidence of storage containers in the LM I levels. House B was destroyed in LM IA. Rims of conical pithoi were reported. There is no information on their numbers. The overall impression is that storage seems limited. House Γ is but partly excavated.

Nirou Chani In the area of Vathianos Kambos, on the promontory of Hagii Theodoroi, the remains of a large Neopalatial coastal settlement were discovered (Marinatos 1926). The principal mansion of the settlement was excavated by Xanthoudides (1919, 1922).

The Mansion of Nirou Chani (Fig. 26) The mansion was built early in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (Xanthoudides 1922; Fotou 1997, 41–46). The well-planned architectural design, the fine quality of construction, and the quantity and quality of artifacts confirm the importance of this unit. Architectural modifications occurred before the final destruction of the complex. The storerooms, four rectangular spaces arranged to one side of an east–west corridor, were built alongside the north facade of the mansion. Pithoi were found in Magazines 24, 25, and 31, but their exact number is unknown. The excavator reported “dozens” of pithoi (Xanthoudides 1922, 16). Ten pithoi were placed in Room 24, two in Room 25, and two more in Room 31 (Fotou 1997, plan A). One pithos was later found by N. Platon (Platon 1947, 636). Carbonized seeds were found in one of the pithoi (Xanthoudides 1922, 17). Five mud-brick bins were built in the northeast area of the complex, and they also served for storage purposes (Xanthoudides 1922, 9). Carbonized beans and chickpeas were found in the bins. In total, 15 pithoi were reported in the stores of the mansion. The pithoi were badly preserved, and now only scanty remains are left in situ. They are similar to Forms 13–16. These pithoi have high capacity, low accessibility and transportability, and high stability. Their storage capacity is about 6,000–6,750 liters. The volume of the bins is 7.2 m3, equivalent to 7,200 liters or 5,558 kg of cereals/pulses. The total area devoted to food storage covers 60 m2 and represents 11% of the ground floor. The storage potential of this unit is very high. According to Driessen and Macdonald (1997, 52, 180), the architectural features of the storage sector of the mansion suggest that the stores were a post–LM IA construction. Staple storage activities, therefore, increased from LM IA to LM IB. It is, however, worth noting that this temporal definition

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

is not based on sound grounds, such as datable pottery. Moreover, the detailed re-examination of the

79

complex by Fotou does not support a different phase of construction for the stores (1997, 41–46).

The Pediada Region in the Eastern Part of North-central Crete Galatas The remains of a Neopalatial settlement have been partly investigated by Rethemiotakis at Galatas Pediados (2002). The center of the town was the impressive palace erected in MM IIIA and gradually abandoned in LM IA. Three buildings of the extensive Neopalatial settlement have been excavated (House 2 and Building 3/5), while another awaits further exploration (Building 1). Two of these buildings (House 2 and Building 3/5) were destroyed in LM IB, a fact that implies that the settlement carried on after the abandonment of the palace. Building 3/5 was a large unit. It was built in MM IB, totally remodelled in MM IIIB, and ruined in the LM IB period (Rethemiotakis 2002; Rethemiotakis and Christakis, forthcoming). Five large pithoi, similar to Forms 14, 15, and 17, were found against the east wall of Room 6. A few other small- and mediumsized storage containers were also found in other spaces of the building, some of which were probably fallen from the upper floor. The overall capacity of pithoi recovered in this building is considerable, perhaps about 1,700–1,950 liters.

House 2 House 2 was destroyed in LM IB (Rethemiotakis 2002; Christakis and Rethemiotakis, forthcoming). Building activities dated to LM IIIA partly disturbed the ruins of the upper story of the house and, in part, the deposits of Rooms 3 and 6 on the ground floor. The overall artifactual evidence, including fine pottery, proves the importance of the household within the framework of the local society. Material remains yield evidence of staple processing, food preparation and consumption, and weaving activities. The main stores of the house were Rooms 8 and 9. Two large ovoid pithoi, one piriform, and another tripod barrel pithos were placed in Room 8. The

pithoi were associated with small- and mediumsized containers suitable for transfer and pouring purposes. Two querns and 10 grinders were positioned around the base of one of the ovoid pithoi. Two conical pithoi, one placed upside down, were found in Room 9. Organic residue analyses give crucial information on the content of the storage containers excavated in these stores (Christakis and Rethemiotakis, forthcoming). Of the pithoi placed in Room 9, the first yielded evidence of degraded beeswax (alkaline, alcohol, and wax esters) and fatty acids, and the second of triacylglycerol distributions consistent with the presence of degraded vegetable oil, possibly olive oil. The four pithoi placed in Room 8 yielded evidence of degraded beeswax and degraded vegetable oil, possibly olive oil. The beeswax was applied as a sealant on the inside to reduce the porosity of the pithoi (Christakis 2005, 52). Rooms 10 and 11 were also used for storage activities. A large ovoid pithos was placed in Room 10, while a tripod barrel similar to the specimen in Room 8 was found in Room 11. Organic residue analyses showed that the pithos in Room 11 contained wine, while the pithos in Room 10 yielded evidence of degraded vegetable oil, possibly olive oil. Room 7 was used for food preparation and the processing of staples. The main feature of this room is the enclosure built against the west wall of the room, which served for the storage of domestic implements. Amphorae, jugs, some cups, a small pithoid pot, a stirrup-jar, two cooking pots, and seven grinders were carefully placed in the enclosure. Organic residue analyses show that the pithoid pot contained olive oil. Two large stone mortars, used for the processing of staples, were built in the south part of the enclosure. Olive stones were found around the mortars. The pithoi used in this house have an overall capacity of 1,080 liters. The capacity of the small

80

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

storage containers used in the upper story is estimated at 115 liters. Large amphorae found in the destruction deposits have a capacity of 100 liters. In total, containers used for short and long-term storage have an overall storage capacity of 1,295 liters. The area where pithoi were found covers 24 m2 and represents 14% of the ground floor.

1986–1987). One of these rooms served as a storeroom. Six pithoi similar to Forms 14 and 17 were housed there. They have high capacity, low transportability and accessibility, and high stability. According to the excavator, they may have contained olive oil because of the strong traces of burned earth.

Avli

Kastelli Pediados

A small part of a building, perhaps a mansion, was explored by Alexiou (1972). Three large pithoi, two similar to Form 15 (HM 19496, HM 19497) and the other piriform in shape (HM 19495) were found. They are large specimens of high storage potential (with a capacity of 840–950 liters). One of the pithoi is decorated with raised bands with concentric circle impressions (HM 19496). This decorative pattern, of Knossian influence, is found on pithoi used in high status contexts (Christakis 2005, 30–31). The overall picture points to bulk storage; excavated data however is too limited for any discussion in that direction.

The remains of an important settlement were partly revealed at Kastelli (Rethemiotakis 1992). Occupation occurred as early as EM. The Neopalatial settlement was an important center in the Pediada plain. Seven rooms of a large mansion, perhaps the central complex of the settlement, were excavated. The building, erected in MM IIIB was abandoned in LM IA and partly reused in LM IB. There is evidence of re-occupation in LM IIIC (Rethemiotakis 1997). The architectural design, the fine construction, and the quality of the finds confirm the importance of this unit, perhaps the seat of a ruling group. Unfortunately, archaeological investigation has been limited by modern construction. A storeroom, used in LM IB, housed four large pithoi with morphological and decorative features like those of Forms 13–17. The use of these pithoi indicates long-term bulk storage. Their capacity is about 1,600–1,800 liters. This is a minimum estimate as the complex might also have been provided with other stores.

Nipiditos A Neopalatial settlement, destroyed by fire in LM IB, was examined by N. Platon in the area of Nipiditos (Platon 1956b, 417). Dimopoulou excavated four rooms of a well-built house (Dimopoulou

The Lasithi Plateau in the Center of East-central Crete Lasithi The remains of a settlement, now backfilled, were excavated by Dawkins at Plati (1913–1914).

Unfortunately, the Neopalatial houses were obscured by the LM III settlement.

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

81

The Area of Malia in the Northern Part of East-central Crete Malia The town of Malia is one of the few extensively explored urban centers. The summary character of the early publications, the diverse research agendas and recovery protocols, and the lack of interest in storage containers displayed by some excavators are the main drawbacks one faces in reconstructing any storage activities. Despite such shortcomings, the question of palatial and domestic storage has been discussed by Dewolf, Postel, and van Effenterre in a series of pioneering and seminal contributions (Dewolf, Postel, and van Effenterre 1963; van Effenterre 1980, 1983). About 14 buildings, forming part of the extensive Neopalatial settlement of Malia, are so far known. Of these, only a few provide information on storage; those testimonies are discussed below.

Quartier Δ House Δβ is a large complex (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 48–52). It is not certain whether it was one or two houses. The original construction is dated MM and the complex was partly modified in the Neopalatial period. It was destroyed by fire in LM IA. Rooms 5–8 served as storage, and they cover about 20 m2 (10% of the ground floor). Room 7 contained pithoi. No information on the morphological attributes of the storage containers exists. Moreover, the functional definition of the various spaces is difficult to ascertain. House Δγ was abandoned in LM IB (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 52–54). There is insufficient evidence to define the function of the rooms, and no evidence exists on storage. HOUSE Δα (FIG. 27a) The house was destroyed by fire at the end of LM IA (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 43–48). Modifications to the original architectural design, such as higher floors and blocked doors,

were reported. The architectural design and the material remains confirm the importance of this unit. Room 12 served as a storeroom (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 43–44). Its location close to the main entrance of the house is particularly suited to the ready transport “in” and “out” of commodities. The doorways between Rooms 8 and 10 were blocked before the final destruction of the house by mudbrick partitions; Room 8 was then converted into a storeroom (Olivier 1982, 680). One pithos (similar to Form 70), large amphorae, jugs, and cooking pots were placed in a mudbrick enclosure in the east part of Room 8 (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 47, pl. 20:5). Big amphorae and jugs were placed along the east wall of Room 10 (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 47, pl. 20:3). One small pithos was placed in the sottoscala in Room 11 (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pl. 31:3; cf. Form 70). Large vessels were sited near Room 4 (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pl. 19:1). The storage containers used in this house are small-sized pithoi, with other vessels such as large amphorae and jars. The pithoi are similar to Forms 70 and 121. These specimens have low capacity and high accessibility and transportability. There is no published evidence of the use of large pithoi of considerable capacity. The large jugs and amphorae are suitable for transfer purposes and perhaps for short-term storage. Although a considerable part of the floor extent is devoted to storage activities (about 15%), the picture obtained from the preserved storage containers indicates a very low potential (no more than 400 liters).

Quartier E Two buildings were excavated in this quarter; Maison E, a building of exceptional dimensions often called the “Little Palace” of the Maliote settlement, and House Eα.

82

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

MAISON E The complex was constructed early in LM IA and used until LM IIIB (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 91–154). Its exceptional dimensions, architectural layout, and fine construction confirm the importance of this complex within the urban center of Malia. The mansion was probably used by an important group. The continuous occupation of this unit has obscured floor activities of LM I date. There is, therefore, no direct evidence of storage activities for that time. Architecture, however, provides some indirect information. Rooms XLII–XLV, in the northwest area of the complex, may have served for storage, because their layout is that of storerooms (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 112–113). Two large pithoi were found in Room XLIII (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 113, pl. 43:3, 4). They were perhaps similar to Form 54 of high storage potential. A pithos collector was also placed in the southwest angle of Room XIII (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 104, pl. 37:2). It is likely that part of this space served for storage activities. It was also recently argued that the circular underground structure in Room XXXVII served for grain storage (Bradfer-Burdet 2005). Its storage potential is estimated at 2,840 kg of cereals. In conclusion, the architectural layout of the complex shows that it was provided with extensive storage installations. The area that seems to be devoted to storage covers 53 m2 and represents 4% of the ground floor. It is difficult to quantify storage potentials, however, as there is no direct evidence of the storage implements dated to LM I. HOUSE Eα This house was constructed early in MM III and destroyed in mature LM IA (Pelon 1970, 141–163). Three architectural phases have been determined. A decrease in the ground floor is noted—from 175 m2 in MM IIIB (second phase) to 120 m2 in LM IA (third phase). The LM IA phase is rather modest. There is evidence of food preparation and consumption activities. Rooms 9 and 10 served as magazines during the second architectural phase. A conical pithos was found in Room 10 (Pelon 1970, 154, pl. 30:2). The space devoted to storage during the second architectural phase covers 12.6 m2 and represents 7.2% of the ground floor.

Rooms 9 and 10 were no longer used during the third architectural phase. A large pithos, a MM III survivor, was found in Room 7 (Pelon 1970, 153, pl. 30:1). The specimen, similar to Form 89, has high capacity, low accessibility and transportability, and high stability. Room 8, adjacent to Room 7, may also have served for storage. The area devoted to storage covers 8 m2 and represents 6.6% of the ground floor. The storage potential of the house was low in both phases (up to 600 liters).

Quartier Z Three houses were excavated in Quartier Z (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 62–100; Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 1–89). House Ζγ was occupied in MM II and LM I (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 27–38). The Neopalatial levels are badly preserved. The house was probably destroyed by fire in LM IB. The base of a pithos was found in Room I (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 31), remains of another pithos were reported in Room V (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 34), and a fragment of a conical pithos was found in Room IX (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 31). The excavators also reported many other fragmentary pithoi (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 41). The information on their morphological features is very vague: most of the pithoi are said to be ovoid or conical in shape. Some ovoid specimens might be similar to Form 6. The published data does not allow any estimate of storage potentials. The other houses from this quarter, House Ζα and House Ζβ, provide better evidence. HOUSE Ζα (FIG. 27b) House Ζα was constructed in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 63–100). The architectural design and the quality of the material remains emphasize the importance of this unit. Rooms 26–28 were the main stores (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 77). Blocking of the door between Rooms 27 and 26 altered the original patterns of circulation. A large quantity of vessels was recovered—including three wine tubs, all of which were badly preserved. Carbonized remains of foodstuffs were also reported. Small storage containers,

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

of limited capacity, are illustrated in the publication (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, pl. 39). There is no published evidence of the use of medium- or large-sized pithoi. Rooms 26–28 cover 37 m2 and represent 8.7% of the ground floor. The absence of pithoi and the preference for storage containers of low capacity is significant. The overall storage capacity, despite the considerable floor area devoted to storage, is limited. HOUSE Ζβ (FIG. 27c) This house was constructed in two phases and destroyed by fire in LM IB (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 7–26). The architectural design and the quality of the artifacts, including many bronze finds, confirm the importance of this unit. There is evidence of food preparation and consumption and weaving activities. The presence of an obsidian workshop has also been suggested. The stores of the house were placed in its north part (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 13–23). Three pithoi were standing along the east wall of Room I. Two large conical pithoi and some small storage containers were found in Room II. Room IV contained four large pithoi. Small storage containers (exact number not specified) were placed in Room V, which apparently served as a workshop. Three pithoi were found in Room X. One was filled with plaster. Many other vessels were found in this space. There is no concrete information on the morphological and functional attributes of the pithoi used in this house (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, 41). Two pithos bases from Room II (Deshayes and Dessenne 1959, pl. III) come from specimens similar to Form 55, while others seem to be ovoid specimens decorated with rope-work. It is very likely that most of the storage containers used in this house were sizable pithoi, as French excavators usually use the term pithos for sizable specimens, while for small ones they prefer the term jarre. Although an exact calculation of the storage capacity of the pithoi found in the house is impossible, I will assume an overall storage capacity of about 1,540–1,740 liters (estimate based on an average capacity of 160–180 liters for a sizable pithos at Malia). This amount is increased by the capacity of the small storage containers used alongside the pithoi. The area devoted to storage covers 29 m2 and represents 9% of the ground floor.

83

Quartier Λ Four Neopalatial houses were excavated in the area of Quartier Λ (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1969). The re-occupation in LM III heavily obscured the floor activities in three of these. The Maison de la Façade à Redans yields evidence of food processing, preparation, and consumption (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1969, 91–105). The few LM I containers suggest short-term storage. The LM I floor activities were totally obscured in the Maison des Vases à Etrier (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1969, 106–114). The Neopalatial pottery published from the Maison de la Cave au Pilier yields evidence of food preparation and consumption (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1969, 114–132). The few storage containers are suitable for short-term storage. The fourth domestic unit, Maison Κγ, is unpublished.

Quartier N Part of a Neopalatial building was recovered beneath Quartier Nu (Driessen and Farnoux 1994). It is not certain whether it was a domestic unit.

The Region of Hagia Varvara Some buildings were excavated in the region of Hagia Varvara. A large mansion, Villa A, was badly preserved and has been backfilled (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 11–18). Fragments of pithoi were reported in Room 10, which apparently served as a storeroom. The overall evidence of storage activities is scanty. A complex, Building B, was also recovered in this area (Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 19–21). The information is again very limited.

The House at Hagia Varvara (Fig. 27d) This house was destroyed by fire in LM IB (Pelon 1966). The archaeological remains yielded evidence of food preparation, consumption, and weaving activities. The main storage area is Room 5 (Pelon 1966, 562–564). Two large ovoid pithoi (Pelon 1966, 577, figs. 24, 25) and six big

84

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

amphorae and jugs, suitable for storage and transfer/pouring purposes, were found in this space with many other vessels (Pelon 1966, 574– 576). A small conical pithos, similar to Form 109, was found in Room 4 (Pelon 1966, 572, fig. 17).

The area devoted to storage covers 9.37 m2 and represents 7.7% of the ground floor. The capacity of the pithoi is about 380–460 liters. This estimate should be slightly increased by the capacity of the other containers found in the house.

The Viannos Area in the Southern Part of East-central Crete Viannos Area

The Building of Rousses Chondros

N. Platon worked on several Bronze Age buildings in the area of Viannos. A complex was excavated at Kefali Lazana near Chondros (Platon 1960a, 283–286). The building was destroyed by earthquake in LM IA. The remains are badly preserved, and there is no published evidence of storage. At Tourkissa, part of a badly-preserved house, destroyed in LM IA by fire, was excavated (Platon 1960a, 286–289). Two large pithoi and one lekane were found in Room B and four pithoi, jugs, and amphorae in Room Γ. The pithoi were large specimens. There is no evidence of the overall storage potential of this house. The remains of a LM I house were recovered at Pervola (Platon 1957, 147). There is no published evidence of any consideration of storage.

A small building destroyed by fire in LM IA was excavated at Rousses (Platon 1957, 145–147; 1959a, 207–209). It is not entirely certain whether it stood alone or was part of a small settlement. Stone robbing and modern construction have partly disturbed the ruins. An impressively numerous assemblage of storage containers was found in Rooms A1, A2, and A3. These spaces were completely packed with pithoi and other containers such as amphorae, jugs, and four hundred conical cups. About 26–28 ovoid and piriform pithoi are also reported. They are mostly large- and medium-sized specimens suitable for long-term storage. The overall picture is that of bulk storage (perhaps between 2,000 and 3,000 liters).

The Myrtos Region in the Southwestern Part of East Crete Myrtos Pyrgos

The Mansion of Myrtos Pyrgos (Fig. 28a)

The Neopalatial settlement of Myrtos Pyrgos is located on a steep hill east of the modern village of Myrtos. Occupation is dated from EM onward. A prominent complex, which was the seat of the group that controlled the Myrtos valley, was constructed on the top of the hill in LM I while at least 22 houses of the surrounding settlement have been excavated (Cadogan 1977–1978, 1992, 1997). Complex depositional histories have obscured testimonies from the domestic units: information is scanty and indicates low storage potentials.

The complex was built in LM IA and burned down in LM IB (Cadogan 1977–1978, 1997). According to the excavator, the final destruction was due to human action. The mansion’s position on the top of the hill, the architectural design, and the high quality of the artifactual evidence, including written documents in Linear A and roundels, emphasize the high social position of the owner (Morpurgo-Davis and Cadogan 1971; Rehak and Younger 1995; Cadogan 1997). The main storerooms were Rooms 8 and 9 (Cadogan 1977–1978, 77, 79, fig. 30). Nine

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

pithoi were reported. Organic remains of barley, bitter vetch, and celtic beans were also found. The pithoi are similar to Forms 54, 55, and 88. Some are specimens with high capacity, low transportability, low accessibility, and high stability. The rest have a medium capacity and transportability and high stability and accessibility. Other storage containers of small dimensions and limited storage potential were

85

found in other spaces of the mansion. The overall capacity of the pithoi in Rooms 8 and 9 is around 1,350–1,600 liters. This figure should be slightly increased due to the capacity of the small storage containers used in the rest of the complex. The area devoted to storage covers 50.4 m2 and represents 5.6% of the ground floor.

The Region of the Isthmus of Ierapetra in the Central Part of East Crete Gournia The Neopalatial settlement of Gournia, in the northern part of the isthmus of Ierapetra, is one of the most typical examples of a Cretan Bronze Age town. At its center was the small palace. About 75 domestic units were excavated, with three more in the suburbs (Hawes et al. 1908; Fotou 1993). It is worth noting that only a small part of the town has been excavated, about 1.5 hectares, leaving about 5 hectares still untouched. The town suffered a LM IA destruction; it was finally destroyed in LM IB. Some houses, such as Houses Eh, Ei, Ej, and He, were reoccupied in LM III (Hawes et al. 1908, 23; these units are not included in the present discussion). Hawes, followed by others, argued that some of the houses were abandoned after the LM IA destruction (Hawes et al. 1908, 24; see also Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 214–215). According to Soles, there is no sound evidence to argue for such an abandonment (Soles 2002, 128). Gournia ought to be a good case for the investigation of inter-settlement variations in storage practices and household activities in general. The quantity and quality of artifactual evidence, however, varies from house to house. Many houses were found almost empty; others had very few finds, with only a very few having rich floor deposits. This picture is mostly due to the complex habitation histories of the domestic units and the formation processes of the archaeological record. The excavation procedures and their poor documentation also create additional obstacles to the reconstruction of domestic activities.

Hawes paid particular attention to the classification and description of the storage containers in her notebooks (HB/NB IV, 77–88 verso). She usually called those pithoi over 80 cm in height “large,” while small pithoi (below 50 cm) were labelled “pitharia.” Most of the pithoi used in the town are small-sized specimens of a low storage potential, while large-sized pithoi were rare. It is worth noting that large pithoi were mostly found in the palace. As far as staple storage is concerned, the majority of houses—49 domestic units—had no storage containers (Fig. 29). Only 22 houses were so equipped. Five of these last are discussed below in more detail (Houses Ac, Cf, Ec, Fd, and Fe). The most frequent assemblages of storage containers in the domestic units where pithoi were found are: 1. 1–4 small pithoi associated with no more than 4 large amphorae (e.g., Houses Ab, Ad, Ae, Ba, and Bb) 2. 1–6 small pithoi on their own (Houses Cd, Ce, De, Dg, Ea, Ee, Eg, Fb, Fd, Fe, and Fi) 3. 1 or 2 medium- and large-sized pithoi associated with no more than 3 small pithoi (Houses Aa, Ac, and Ck) 4. 1 or 2 medium- and large-sized pithoi alone (House Cc) 5. 9–12 medium- and large-sized pithoi (Houses Cf and Ec) (Fig. 29) The overall picture provided by existing archaeological information is that of limited storage potential. The capacity of the storage containers used in most

86

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

cases rarely exceeds 400 liters. The most relevant domestic units for the town of Gournia are discussed below.

House Ac: Spaces 16–21 (Fig. 30a) The wine press installation placed in Room 21 shows that the household was involved with staple processing among other activities. The main storerooms were Rooms 16 and 17, reached from above by a wooden staircase or ladder. A pithos, standing on a stone bench, and three pitharakia were found in Room 16 (HB/NB III, 3, 28). The pithos is similar to an illustrated specimen (Hawes et al. 1908, pl. I:30; cf. Form 88). One of the pitharakia is also illustrated (Hawes et al. 1908, pl. 1:27). Remains of seeds stored in a jar were also found in Room 16 (HB/NB III, 28). The area where storage containers were found covers 24 m2 and represents 16% of the ground floor. The capacity of the storage containers, however, is low: it seems to be around 445– 510 liters.

House Cf: Spaces 24–29 (Fig. 30b) The house is rich in floor deposits including a piece of clay with two seal impressions and a small roundel with Linear A (Hawes et al. 1908, 24; Fotou 1993, 68). The main store is Room 29 where four small pithoi were placed in a row against the south wall of the room and another small pithos was placed against the west wall (HB/NB III, 5). Three small pithoi were found in Room 27, two in the southwest corner of the room and the other at the middle of the south wall. A medium-sized pithos was also found in this house (HB/NB III, 35). The area where storage containers were found covers 21 m2 and represents 20% of the ground floor. The overall capacity of the nine storage containers recovered in this unit is around 540–720 liters.

House Ec: Spaces 16–23 (Fig. 30c) This is one of the very few domestic units with rich floor deposits (Fotou 1993, 79–80). Due to the considerable number of pithoi, the house was called “the Pithari Suite.” The main storerooms are Rooms 16 and the room west of it. Seven medium-sized pithoi and two small specimens (the latter illustrated in Hawes et al. 1908, pl. 6:38, 41) were recovered

(HB/NB II, 29, 30; III, 1, 11–11 verso). Some of the pithoi are medium-sized specimens similar to Form 88 (HB/NB III, 11; Hawes et al. 1908, pl. 1:30). Large amphorae were also found. The pithos in the southwest corner of Room 16 was upside down. Fragments of two pithoi were placed in the southeast corner of Room 18 (HB/NB III, 1), and another pithos was placed in Room 21 (HB/NB II, 29). Altogether, the storerooms of the house held 12 pithoi. Their overall capacity is estimated at 660– 880 liters. Goods were also kept in other containers such as the large amphorae. The area devoted to storage covers 15 m2 and represents 15% of the ground floor; the overall storage potential is considerable.

House Fd: Spaces F13–18, 19(?), 20 (Fig. 30d) The artifactual testimonies from this house yield evidence of food preparation and consumption, weaving, and workshop activities (bronze tools). The large quantity of bronze tools recovered in this unit was taken as evidence of its sudden destruction (Hawes et al. 1908, 23; HB/NB II, 45; HB/NB III, 3). Storage containers were found in various places. A small pithos (similar to that illustrated in Hawes et al. 1908, pl. 1:27) and another storage container (no information on its morphological features exists) were found in Room 14, the main hall of the unit. Jugs were placed on a platform at its west side. A large pithos was standing in the southeast corner of Room 13 (similar to that illustrated in Hawes et al. 1908, pl. 1:30; cf. Form 88). Two fragmentary storage containers (no information here either about their morphological features) and a small pitharaki (similar to that illustrated in Hawes et al. 1908, pl. 1:27) were found in Room 18. The area where storage containers were found covers about 23 m2 and represents 16% of the ground floor. The overall capacity of the storage containers excavated in this house is no more than 510–610 liters.

House Fe: Spaces 23–28 (Fig. 30e) House Fe was erected adjacent to House Fd. The artifactual testimonies provided information for food preparation and consumption and the processing of staple commodities. One pithos and four pitharakia were placed in Room 24 (HB/NB III, 5, 31; HB/NB IV, 79; two pithoi were shown on the

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

town plan in Hawes et al. 1908; cf. also Fotou 1993, pl. 29, plan B). One pithos and another five storage containers (no information as to their morphological features) were found in Room 28 (HB/ NB III, 5, 31): one jar contained seeds (HB/NB III, 31). The storage potential of the house is about 255–340 liters.

Vasiliki The settlement of Vasiliki was extensively inhabited in EM, but from the close of that period occupation diminished. Only three Neopalatial houses were reported by Seager (1904–1905, 207, 209; 1906–1907, 113, 124) and were re-examined by Zois. Houses N and M were abandoned in LM IA (Zois 1972, 291–301; 1976a, 65–66), while Building K, perhaps a house, was in use until LM IB (Zois 1976b, 447–449). The architectural remains were only partly preserved, and Seager’s excavation reports lack detail. No storage containers were reported by either Seager or Zois. In Room 3 of House M, Zois noted holes cut into the floor (Zois 1972, 296, fig. 1, pl. 250). Perhaps they were used for the placement of pithoi. The evidence from Vasiliki is of no use for our purposes.

Pseira The Neopalatial town of Pseira, destroyed within LM IB, was extensively explored by Seager (1910). The poorly documented excavation of Seager, the Post-Neopalatial occupation of the site, and the looting of many domestic units are the principal drawbacks to the reconstruction of storage strategies adopted by the inhabitants of the Neopalatial settlement. The republication of Seager’s excavations by Betancourt and Davaras has succeeded to a good degree in clarifying the basic history of the settlement (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 1998, 1999; also Floyd 1998). Some 62 individual buildings are known: most of them seem to have been houses. The documented evidence of staple storage in most instances is very limited. Ultimately, it is uncertain whether the lack of information is due to the complex depositional

87

histories (including looting) and the effects of the earlier archaeological investigation, or if it accurately reflects the economic activities adopted by the households. House AA (Seager’s House A) was constructed in LM IA or slightly earlier and destroyed in LM IB (Seager 1910, 13, 24; Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 15–23). Only the rooms of the lower terrace are preserved today. There is no evidence of storage activities except some sherds of small pithoi in the area of Room AA 12. Building AP or the Building of the Basement Staircase was destroyed/abandoned in LM IB (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 61–65). Sherds of containers probably used for storage purposes were found in Room AP 3. The storage area, if Room AP 3 was a storeroom, covers 19 m2 and represents 14% of the ground floor. Nevertheless, the evidence is very slight. Only the general outline of Building AN is preserved (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 67–72). No evidence of domestic activities remains. Building AD Center (The House of the Foreign Pottery) was abandoned in LM IB (Seager 1910, 15–16; Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 105–138). LM III sherds indicate later activities. The large quantity of foreign pottery suggests that the owner of the house played a role in “the receipt, storage, or transhipment of pottery and/or commodities transported in pottery” (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 138). There is no information on storage containers. Only the rim and the base of a jar (perhaps a small pithos) were found in Space AD 1 (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 108–109). The rim of a jar was also found in Room AD 2 (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 111). In addition to the above, there are three more buildings in Area A relevant to our discussion.

House AF N Very little from this house has been published so far (French 1991–1992, 68–69). The quality of construction and the artifactual evidence confirms its importance. Evidence of food preparation and consumption and cult activities was recorded. As far as storage is concerned, 11 pithoi (no published information on their morphological features) had fallen from the upper floor in the area of Rooms AF 7 and AF 8 (Floyd 1995, 40). Some sherds were burned. In association with these, two fragments inscribed

88

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

with Linear A signs were found. The fragment PS 4370 belongs to a large piriform pithos, while PS 4163 is from a medium-sized ovoid or piriform specimen. The overall storage potential of this house seems considerable.

Building AB (Seager’s House B) This house was destroyed in LM IB (Seager 1910, 14–15, 24–27, 37–38; Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 25–50). The quality of the artifactual data suggests that it was the “residence of a wealthy citizen” (Seager 1910, 14). There is evidence of food preparation and consumption but not of cult activities (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 49). In Room AB 4 the well-known pithos decorated with painted bulls’ heads and double axes was found along with 38 sherds of large, closed shapes (coarse ware) that may suggest the presence of other storage containers (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 35–36, figs. 16, 38, pl. 13A, B). If Room AB 4 was the main storeroom of the house, then 8.4 m2 was devoted to storage, representing 2.6% of the ground floor. The overall storage potential of this unit seems low (perhaps no more than 300 liters).

Building AD North (The Corridor Basement) This house is located at the northern limits of Block AD, directly south of Building AM (Seager 1910, 15–16, 23, 27–29; Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 89–101). The pottery yields evidence of food preparation and consumption. There is no evidence of religious activities as supposed by N. Platon (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 101). Nine pithoi were placed in a row on the west side of Room AD 14 (Seager’s Room 5) on either side of the doorway (Seager 1910, 15–16; Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 94–95). Two of these are the well-known pithoi with the net-spiral decoration (Seager 1910, 28, fig. 9; Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 95, figs. 27, 45, pl. 23C, D). The morphological and functional features of the rest are unknown. Sherds of pithoi were also found in Rooms AD 11 and AD 16 (Betancourt and Davaras 1995, 94–95). The area devoted to storage covers 7.5 m2 and represents 6.5% of the total ground floor. The capacity of the storage containers seems to be 620–730 liters.

Twenty-six domestic units were excavated in Area B (Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 3–235). Pithoi, however, were reported in only three houses. In House BO a small piriform pithos had fallen from the upper floor into the area of Basements 1 and 2 (Seager 1910, 12–13, fig. 14; Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 119–120). A large quantity of sherds from storage containers was found in Building BN East (Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 107). The building seems to have specialized in staple storage activities (Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 301). Sherds of at least 20–25 storage containers are found in the area of Space BT 1 (Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 177–182). The storage containers, however, seem to be of low storage potential. It is worth noting that the storeroom was located on the upper floor of the house (Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 300). The published evidence of storage in the domestic units excavated in Areas C, D, and F is very limited (Betancourt and Davaras 1999, 238–309).

The Plateia Building The house was abandoned in LM IB. The architectural design and the material evidence suggest that the owner of this unit was an important member of the Neopalatial society of Pseira (Floyd 1998, 219–227). The complex was probably extensively looted when the town was destroyed in LM IB. The study of the material remains by Floyd yields evidence of food preparation, processing, and consumption, as well as for weaving, workshop, and cult activities (Floyd 1998, 201–217). The information on storage is rather limited. It is argued, on the basis of architectural layout, faunal remains, and stone tools that Zone C of the house may have served for food storage, processing, and preparation (Floyd 1998, 212–214). The few fragments of storage containers recovered in this house come from pithoi of low storage capacity. The overall picture points to a limited storage potential.

Mochlos The Neopalatial settlement on the island of Mochlos and the mainland of Crete, south of the island near the Limenari road, is one of the most important settlements of east Crete. The site was

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

briefly explored by Seager and extensively excavated by Soles and Davaras. The town was destroyed within LM IB.

Settlement on the Island Seager explored about 12 domestic units in Blocks A–D (1909). Seager’s excavation procedures, the poor documentation of the excavation and lack of good published reports, and the extensive reoccupation of the site in the LM III and historic periods are the principal drawbacks to the understanding of staple storage. Pithoi were completely absent from House A (Seager 1909, 278–281), House B (Seager 1909, 281–283), House C (Seager 1909, 288), House D.1 (Seager 1909, 288; Soles and Davaras 1992, 441–442), and House D.4 (Soles and Davaras 1994, 411). It is not certain whether this absence of storage containers is due to the depositional histories of the domestic units (some houses contained very few artifacts of any sort), the result of Seager’s lack of concern for coarse ware, or if it even reflects the actual patterns of economic behavior. Only one house yields enough information relevant to our purposes. HOUSE D.3 This house was explored by Seager (1909, 293–303) and re-explored by Soles and Davaras (1992, 439). It was destroyed by fire of unusual violence in LM IB (Seager 1909, 294). Roman activities disturbed the LM IB levels. Pithoi were found in Room 11 (a piriform pithos of the socalled “palace style” type; Seager 1909, 299, fig. 19), Room 12 (one pithos), Room 13 (one pithos), Room 14 (two painted pithoi, and two others without decoration; Seager 1909, 300, fig. 20). According to the excavator, the strong traces of burning suggest that they may have contained olive oil (Seager 1909, 300). Hundreds of conical cups fell from the upper floor in the area of Room 11 while a large assemblage of cooking pots, also stored in the upper floor, fell in Room 9 (Seager 1909, 298, 300–301). In total, seven pithoi were found. They have high transportability, accessibility, and stability, and low capacity. The area devoted to storage covers 7.83 m2 and represents 1.74% of the ground floor. The storage containers excavated in this unit are of low potential (about 300–400 liters).

89

BLOCK C The recent excavations, still in progress, by Soles and Davaras have substantially contributed to our better understanding of the settlement (Soles 2004). Seven domestic units, all destroyed in LM IB, have been explored so far. House C.1 is partly preserved (Seager 1909, 284; Soles and Davaras 1992, 434–439). The Roman and Byzantine occupation obscured LM IB floor activities. There is no published evidence of storage activities. A substantial part of House C.2 was excavated (Soles and Davaras 1994, 396–404). It was destroyed in LM IB but earlier levels have yet to be excavated. There are at least three phases dated to LM IB. The material remains yield evidence of food preparation and consumption and workshop activities. Three different floors were found in Room 2. The first ground floor yielded fragments of a large pithos (Soles and Davaras 1994, 398, P 124). There is no published evidence of storage containers in other rooms of the house. Little has been excavated in House C.4 (Soles and Davaras 1994, 400). Two large pithoi were found in one of the rooms of this unit (P 122, P 123). House C.6 is partly explored. The LM IB levels were disturbed by later activities (Soles and Davaras 1996, 198–199). Only two rooms were excavated, and they both served for storage purposes. Rooms 1.1 and 1.2 respectively yielded four (P 820, P 1101, P 1109, P 1112) and three (P 1108, P 1110, P 1114) pithoi. One of the pithoi found in Room 1.1 was a large specimen with morphological and functional features like those of Forms 85 and 88 (Soles and Davaras 1996, 199, pl. 57:a). A piriform jar (P 1098) was found in Room 1.2. There is no published information on their morphological attributes. HOUSE C.7 This house, although only partly explored, provides interesting information on functional changes (Soles and Davaras 1996, 199–202). The house had two architectural phases, both dated LM IB. In the first phase, storage activities were reported in Room 3 (Soles and Davaras 1996, 201). Four large pithoi were buried below the first floor level of the room, in a row against the south wall. The pithoi were out of use in the very last phase of occupation when a second floor was laid and the space was used as a workroom.

90

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

An interesting assemblage of storage containers was excavated in Room 1 (Soles and Davaras 1996, 201). In its first phase of use, this space served for food preparation activities (Soles and Davaras 1996, 201). In the second phase, however, it was converted into a storeroom: its door was blocked, and access was from the upper floor (Soles and Davaras 1996, 200). Four pithoi (P 868, P 869, P 871, P 895) were found in the second phase of use of this room, together with other smaller containers and a bronze foundry hoard (Soles and Davaras 1996, 200–201, fig. 13). A piriform jar decorated with incised lilies (P 832) was also found in the upper-story collapse within the room. The pithoi here are small- and medium-sized specimens. A stone channel, built at the northeast corner of Room 1, and a flat terracotta drain may have been used, according to the excavators, to feed liquids, oil, or wine into the various storage jars from another room to the north (Soles and Davaras 1996, 201). HOUSE C.3 (FIG. 31) The house has two architectural phases, both dated to LM IB (Soles and Davaras 1994, 400–444; 1996, 194–198). It was a wealthy unit as the architectural design and the quality of the artifacts, including copper ingots and bronze objects, confirm. Rooms 1.1–1.3 are the main storerooms of the house. Nine pithoi were found on the ground floor in Room 1.1 (P 125, P 126, P 133–P 135, P 769, P 775, P 782, P 789; Soles and Davaras 1994, 401, fig. 6, pl. 93:b, c; 1996, 194–196). A considerable assemblage of copper ingots and bronze objects was also held here. Many other small vases were scattered among the pithoi, but it is difficult to tell which had fallen from above and which belonged to the ground floor. Three pithoi were found in Room 1.2 (P 127, P 139, P 1206; Soles and Davaras 1994, 402–404, pl. 95:a; 1996, 196). A total of 13 pithoi were found in Room 1.3 (P 129, P 130, P 807–P 814, P 817–P 819; Soles and Davaras 1994, 404; 1996, 197) together with conical and ogival cups that were perhaps used as scoops for the contents of the pithoi. Pithoi placed in the upper floor of the house had fallen into ground floor spaces. Four pithoi (P 489, P 524, P 759, P 790) from the upper story ended up in Room 1 (Soles and Davaras 1994, 401, pl. 93:d; 1996, 194); two more (P 128, P 837) were in Room 3 (Soles and Davaras 1994, 404; 1996, 196).

In total, 31 pithoi are reported. Most are medium- and large-sized specimens with morphological features similar to Forms 69, 70, 88, and 94. The volume of the pithoi utilized in this house was studied by Schultz and Evenson (2001). They have identified three different groups of pithoi whose capacities are 36, 83, and 135 liters respectively. This suggests that a standardized unit of volume was in use at Mochlos during LM IB. The capacity of the pithoi of House C.3 seems to be around 2,000 liters. The overall storage potential of this house is considerable. BUILDING B.2 (FIG. 31) This monumental complex has been identified as the central building of the settlement of Mochlos (Soles and Davaras 1994, 405–411; 1996, 184–194; Soles 1999). The LM IB levels were disturbed in Hellenistic and Byzantine times. The material remains provide among others evidence of food preparation and consumption, workshop, and cult activities. The main stores were the pillared Rooms 1.1 and 1.2 to the south. Room 1.1, a pillared magazine, contained seven pithoi (P 778, P 779, P 783–787; Soles and Davaras 1996, 189). Two badly smashed pithoi were found in Room 2.1 (P 763, P 764; Soles and Davaras 1996, 187). Three small pithoi were buried beneath the floor of Room 1.4 (Soles and Davaras 1996, 193). In total, there is published information for 12 pithoi. No information is given concerning their morphological features. The area devoted to storage covers 106 m2 and represents 26% of the ground floor. The complex seems to have considerable storage potential (perhaps up to 1,600 liters). It is worth noting, however, that there is no evidence of the accumulation of large quantities of staples, as in House C.3.

The Settlement on the Mainland of Crete Two buildings have been excavated on the Cretan mainland near the Limenaria road: Building A and Building B. Their inhabitants specialized in workshop activities such as stone vase making, textile production, pottery making, and metallurgy. A rural establishment has also been excavated at the far end of the Mochlos coastal plain at Chalinomouri. These complexes were recently fully published (Soles 2003; Barnard and Brogan 2003; Soles et al. 2004). The exemplary publication of the archaeological

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

datasets provides a case study for the reconstruction of subsistence patterns of the resident households. BUILDING A Building A consisted of 10 spaces, some of them later additions (Soles 2003, 4–40). The complex was destroyed in LM IB or early LM II. Coastal erosion and modern constructions had damaged some parts. Storage containers were found in many spaces of the building. The upper half of a pithos similar to Form 87 was found in Room 8 (IB.436; Soles 2003, 11–12; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 77, fig. 42, pl. 23). Room 4, the main workroom, contained three pithoi (IB.437– IB.439) and two small amphoroid jars (Soles 2003, 12–17; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 77, fig. 43, pl. 22). Only the upper half of each pithos was used: each one lacks its lower body and base. These storage containers probably contained material used in workshop activities that took place in this space. A bin against the east wall of the room was probably designed for storage. Two large pithoi (IB.433, IB.434) with morphological and functional features as those of Forms 85 and 88 and six small storage containers (IB.390, IB.391, IB.395, IB.402, IB.413, IB.417) were placed in Room 1 (Soles 2003, 21; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 73–76, figs. 33, 34, 37, 39, pls. 19, 20, 22). It is said that some of these pithoi contained material used in the manufacturing activities that took place there. Two small stone-lined pits were also constructed against the base of the northern wall of Room 2. Room 2, apparently a doorless space, may have served for the storage of foodstuffs and domestic implements as well as for food preparation. The room contained a large amount of floral and faunal remains—clear evidence of its use as a kitchen. A fragmentary pithos (IB.451) was found in Room 10, which served for general living and cooking activities (Soles 2003, 34–35). The area where storage containers were reported covers 31.3 m2 and represents 20% of the ground floor. It is important, however, to note that these spaces were not used exclusively for staple storage. In fact, it is hard to tell which of the pithoi recovered in Building A were used for the storage of edible commodities or for raw materials used in workshop activities. The large amount of floral and faunal material recovered in most spaces of the building shows that its inhabitants enjoyed a

91

varied Mediterranean diet. The overall capacity of the storage containers (about 410–580 liters) and their arrangement in the space indicate a low stored subsistence reserve. BUILDING B A large part of the building was destroyed by coastal erosion, while other parts lie beneath the modern road and a line of tamarisk trees (Soles 2003, 43–89). The complex was built in several different stages within LM IB and was destroyed at the end of this period or after the beginning of LM II. Many of the storage containers recovered in this unit were used to hold the raw materials used in working activities; very few were associated with staple storage activities. Room 8 served as a pottery workshop (Soles 2003, 48–50; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 57, 73– 74, 77, figs. 13, 33, 34, 44). A large basin (IB.270), four small-sized storage jars (IB.392, IB.393, IB.432B, IB.427), and two pithoi (IB.432, IB.447) were kept in this space alongside many other vessels. It is said that the fragmentary pithoi (IB.432, IB.447) may have held the temper for pottery making, while the large basin (IB.270) was intended for mixing the clay. Pottery activities also occurred in Room 4 (Soles 2003, 52–55). A small piriform pithos (IB.418; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 75, fig. 39, pl. 20) and the top half of a pithos (IB.449; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 78, fig. 44) were probably associated with pottery production. Storage containers were also found in Room 1 (IB.273; Soles 2003, 62). Pithos fragments lay scattered in the part of the northwest terrace that runs alongside Room 3 (IB.340, IB.443; Soles 2003, 73; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 65, 77, fig. 43, pl. 23) and in the rear yard outside Kiln B (IB.409, IB 420; Soles 2003, 81; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 74, 75, figs. 36, 40). These small pithoi, and other vessels, were probably products of the last kiln firing. Room 9 served for food preparation, storage, and consumption activities (Soles 2003, 75–77). A large amount of faunal material and remains of olives, grapes, lentils, dwarf chickling, and many shells make up the edible commodities that lay on the floor of the room. A small piriform jar (IB.412) and a basin (IB.274) were found in Room 2 (Soles 2003, 64; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 75, 57, figs. 14, 37, pl. 10). Remains of edibles were also found in this space that also served as a workshop.

92

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

The storage containers excavated in this building are mostly small-sized pithoi of low capacity (perhaps up to 250 liters). Large storage containers are not very frequent. As noted above, most of the storage containers were used for raw materials necessary for workshop activities, while very few held edible commodities. The overall picture points to a low stored subsistence reserve.

The House at Chalinomouri on the Mainland of Crete The farmhouse was built in LM IB, destroyed at the end of this period (or early LM II), and partly reoccupied in LM III (Soles 2003, 103–132). The LM IB layers were very well preserved. This house, too, provides a valuable array of artifacts and ecofacts for the reconstruction of its subsistence patterns. Room 2, located at the northwest corner of the house, is the main storeroom of the unit (Soles 2003, 112–116, figs. 64–69; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 72–78, figs. 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, pls. 18–20, 22). Eight storage containers were buried beneath the floor. Four pithoi (IB.414–IB.416, IB.435) and one amphora (IB.380) were buried at the north end of the room, while three pithoi (IB.397, IB.445, IB.446) were sunk along the southwest wall of the room. Some of these containers were covered with lids. They were found empty, except for the amphora that contained wine and one pithos (IB.416) used for pottery storage. The capacity of these containers is estimated at 348 liters. Two pithoi (IB.421, IB.442) were also

placed on the floor of the store (Soles 2003, 113; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 75, 76, figs. 40, 43, pl. 21). Organic remains of cereals and pulses were found on the floor area. Small storage containers were also found in other parts of the house. Two small pithoi (IB.408, IB.422) were placed in Room 6 (Soles 2003, 109; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 74–75, fig. 36), while a pithos similar to Form 109 was part of a wine/oilpress installation. Remains of edible goods were reported. The broken remains of two pithoi (IB.398, IB.448) lay on the floor of Room 1 (Soles 2003, 116; Barnard and Brogan 2003, 74, 77, fig. 44, pl. 23). It is not certain whether these containers were used for the storage of staples. Remains of faunal material were also found. The storage containers excavated in this building are small-sized pithoi of low capacity. Large storage containers are absent. The capacity of storage containers is estimated to 553–618 liters. The floor space devoted to storage covers 20.72 m2 and represents 18% of the ground floor. The storage potential is low.

Chrysokamino A farmhouse, destroyed in LM IB, was excavated in the area of Chrysokamino (Floyd 2006, 205– 213). Its remains, found below a LM IIIA building, were badly preserved and information on storage is rather limited.

The Siteia Region in the Northeastern Part of East Crete Petras

House I.1

The coastal settlement of Petras was the seat of the main polity of the Siteia region (Tsipopoulou 1996; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997). The area was extensively occupied from EM onward. The settlement, two houses of which have so far been excavated, was articulated around a small palace.

The house was destroyed in LM IA (Tsipopoulou 1990; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997; Tsipopoulou and Dierckx 2006). The material remains yield evidence of food processing, preparation and consumption, weaving activities, stonevase making, and staple processing. Six pithoi were

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

found in this house, while a wine press installation was built in Room 2 (Tsipopoulou 1990, 316; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, 208). No published information exists on the morphological features of the storage containers. The overall impression, however, is of a low storage potential. The high percentage of pottery suitable for transfer and pouring purposes and the low storage potential suggests movement and long-term storage of the processed staples elsewhere.

House II.2 This house was built in MM III, remained in use throughout LM IA, and was destroyed during LM IB (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996, 9–11). Textile production was the principal domestic activity. Installations for washing, dying, and weaving wool were found in many rooms (Burke 2006). The pottery also suggests food preparation and consumption. Three small pithoi and a nodulus with reference to a special type of olive oil were found in Room K (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996, 11, 18– 21, 36–38, fig. 15; Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, 208) and a “palatial style jar” in Room E (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996, 20, fig. 7:e). The storage potential of this house is very low.

Klimataria-Manares A large mansion was excavated by N. Platon on the road between Siteia and Piskokephalo (Platon 1952, 636–639; 1953, 288–291; 1954, 361–363; Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, and Kanellopoulos 2005). The complex was extensively destroyed by road construction. It was built on three levels accessible via high staircases. The occupation is dated MM III–LM IA. The complex is situated at the southern edge of the Bronze Age harbor of Siteia, and its function was connected with the movement of goods from the harbor inland along the Stomion River, which passed directly through this spot in the Neopalatial period (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, 210). The stores of the mansion were Rooms A and Γ (Fig. 32:a). Four pithoi were found in Room A and

93

two in Room Γ (Platon 1952, 637–638). Room Γ had a plastered floor: plaster decreases the penetration of humidity and helps keep out rodents that could cause loss of foodstuffs. Rooms B, Δ, and E might also have served for storage, although there is no evidence of storage containers. Rooms A–E were on the lower level close to the river, thus facilitating the movement of commodities. Pithoi were also found in Rooms I/K (one pithos and fragments of others; Platon 1954, 362) and Π (Platon 1952, 638). Both spaces were used for food storage, processing, and consumption. Most pithoi are large specimens with high capacity, perhaps similar to Forms 85–88. The overall picture indicates the storage of considerable quantities of goods (speculated to be 2,800–3,150 liters).

Achladia The remains of a small settlement were examined by N. Platon (1952, 646–647; 1959b, 210–217) and further re-explored by Tsipopoulou and Vagnetti (1995). Three domestic units were isolated, but only one has been fully explored (N. Platon 1952, 646– 647; 1959b, 210–217; Tsipopoulou and Vagnetti 1995, 33–35; L. Platon 1997).

House A (Fig. 32b) According to the excavator, the house was constructed in MM IIIA and destroyed by an earthquake in LM IA (Platon 1959b, 212). The recent re-examination of the pottery by L. Platon, however, suggests construction in late LM IA and final destruction in LM IB (Platon 1997, 195). The house shows evidence of adaptations in the architectural plan such as the blocking of doorways (Platon 1997, 190–199). Storage containers were found in many places in the house. Three pithoi were found in Room B (Platon 1959b, 213). The first is a large piriform specimen of high capacity (Platon 1997, 194, fig. 13). The others are medium-sized pithoi with low capacity and high transportability, stability, and accessibility. Many vases suitable for the processing and consumption of food were also found in this space. Fragments of two pithoi were

94

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

found in Room Γ (Platon 1959b, 213). Room E, the main pottery storeroom of the house, contained two small pitharakia, while part of a large pithos and large amphorae were found in Room Δ (Platon 1959b, 213–214). Two sizeable pithoi and five pitharakia were placed in Room M (Platon 1959b, 215). They were associated with vases suitable for food preparation and consumption. Parts of pithoi and pithos fragments were also found in the rubbish pits south of the house, between it and House B (Platon 1959b, 216). Storage containers in this house were placed in areas not exclusively devoted to storage purposes. Room E, where the largest concentration of pottery was found, was a pottery storeroom, while Rooms M and B were the main residential areas of the house where cooking activities also took place. It is not certain, however, as L. Platon suggests, whether the closing of polythyra (in Rooms M and B) corresponds to a functional change of this space from residential to storage (Platon 1997, 193). Ethnographic information shows that spaces in domestic units may be multifunctional. In total, one large pithos, six medium-sized specimens, and six pitharakia were found in the house. Their overall capacity seems to be 1,180–1,585 liters. The area where pithoi were found covers 179 m2 and represents 61% of the ground floor.

Zou A large complex, part of a settlement, was excavated by N. Platon (1955a, 288–293; 1956a, 232– 239). According to the excavator, the building was destroyed by an earthquake in LM IA (Platon 1955a, 289; 1956a, 239). The study of pottery, however, may also show a destruction in the LM IB period, as in the cases of the houses at Achladia and Tourtouloi-Prophetes Elias, which were destroyed in LM IB and not LM IA as N. Platon argued (Platon 1997). The west part of the mansion has been heavily damaged by road construction. As far as storage is concerned, it is impossible to arrive at an overall estimate because a substantial part of the house is missing. Moreover, the actual number of pithoi has never been published. Small pithoi (exact number unknown) were placed in Room Z, which

apparently served for cooking activities (Platon 1955a, 291–292). Fragments of large pithoi were found in Rooms Γ and E, while a slab in the northwest corner of Room Γ might have served for the placement of a pithos (Platon 1955a, 292). It is important to note that both spaces were underground, a condition that is ideal for storage activities. Part of a pithos was found in Room Θ (Platon 1956a, 235), while fragments of conical pithoi were excavated in Room Δ (Platon 1956a, 236). The use of large pithoi indicates the storage of considerable quantities of goods. The published information, however, is too limited for any conclusions.

Tourtouloi-Prophetes Elias Part of a Neopalatial settlement was explored by N. Platon. A large complex constructed on two terraces has been excavated.

The Mansion of Prophetes Elias (Fig. 32c) The complex was destroyed in LM IB (N. Platon 1960b, 294–300; L. Platon 1997). It is not certain whether it consisted of more than a single house. N. Platon argued for a single unit, a view confirmed by the recent study of L. Platon (1997). Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou argue for two different houses on the basis of architectural details (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997, 206). The mansion is badly preserved, and this makes the full understanding of its functions difficult. An Early Christian cemetery also disturbed the north area of the complex, while LM III activities were reported in the area of Rooms M and Ψ. The excavated finds testify to food preparation and consumption and weaving activities. The wine press and the wine tubs recovered in the mansion suggest that wine production was an important activity of the residents of the unit. Storage containers were placed in many spaces of the complex. Fragmentary pithoi associated with cooking pots were found in the area of the chamber cut in the rock west of Room A (Platon 1960b, 295–296, pl. 236:α). Room Γ had a wine press installation (Platon 1960b, 297). The lower part of an unfinished pithos (HM 12335), a small globular pithos, and cups were found in the same space. The

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

main storerooms were located on the upper terrace. Some badly preserved storage containers were placed along the east wall of Room A', while two medium-sized pithoi were placed in the adjacent Room Ω (Platon 1960b, 299). Rooms X and Ψ served for the storage of domestic implements and for food preparation (Platon 1960b, 299–300). Three pithoi were found in Room Ψ, while a wine tub was found in the same space. Another pithos was placed in Room X. Four pithoi and one wine tub were also placed in Room B1 (Platon 1960b, 300, pl. 237:β). In total, 12 pithoi and many of the small-sized storage containers were found in this mansion. The pithoi are medium- and large-sized specimens with morphological features similar to those of Forms 85, 87, and 88 (N. Platon 1960b, pl. 238:α; L. Platon 1997, 201, fig. 31). Small-sized pithoi with

95

morphological features similar to these of Forms 79, 80, 95, and 109 were also reported. The overall storage potential of the pithoi seems to be around 2,000–3,000 liters. This is a minimum estimate as there is no information on the morphological features of fragmentary storage containers in Rooms A and A' as well as many small storage containers.

Sikia The remains of houses destroyed in LM I were excavated close to the village of Sikia (Platon 1954, 368). There are no published testimonies for considering storage activities, although pithoi were reported in many units.

The Diaskari Region in the Southeastern Part of East Crete Makrigialos The harbor settlement of Makrigialos is located east of Ierapetra on the south coast of Crete. Two buildings have been defined, but only one has been excavated (Davaras 1992, 1997).

The Mansion of Makrigialos (Fig. 28b) The complex was built and destroyed by fire in LM IB. The ruins have been badly damaged by cultivation. The architectural design, which imitates palatial prototypes, and the quality of the artifactual assemblages, including finely decorated pottery imported from various areas of Crete, show that the complex was the seat of the ruling group controlling the region of Makrigialos (Davaras 1973, 590; 1997).

The published information on storage activities is slight. The main stores of the mansion were Rooms 7–11 in its west part (Davaras 1973, 590; 1997, 123). Some pithoi were dug into the floor. There is no information on the actual number of pithoi found in the stores, but it seems that there were at least 11 (Davaras 1973, 590, pl. 558:α, β, δ). Some (perhaps seven) are large specimens similar to Forms 85 and 88. The rest are medium- and small-sized ovoid and piriform specimens. One piriform pithos was imported from the area of Palaikastro (cf. Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, pl. 22:e). It is difficult to estimate the overall storage potential of pithoi used in the mansion. It seems, however, to be around 2,200–3,390 liters. The area devoted to storage activities covers 71 m2 and represents 8.8% of the floor space.

The Palaikastro Region in the Easternmost Part of East Crete Vai Part of a house destroyed in mature LM IA was excavated in the area of Vai (Daux 1951, 195–198).

Two storerooms were revealed containing pithos fragments.

96

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Palaikastro This carefully planned Neopalatial town was built early in LM IA (MacGillivray and Sackett 1992). Destructions occurred in LM IA and LM IB. Most houses were reoccupied in LM II, continuing until LM IIIB. Re-occupation heavily disturbed the LM I floor assemblages. Cultivation and stone robbery has also disturbed the archaeological contexts. The temporal history of the LM I town suggested by the excavators might be re-considered in the light of the recent re-examination of L. Platon’s chronological sequence of the town of Zakros. It is likely that some deposits assigned to the LM IA period were actually LM IB in date. Much of the settlement excavated early in the twentieth century is now back-filled. The published information for these early explorations is very sparse; no proper stratigraphical observations exist. Thus the consideration of food storage activities is necessarily incomplete. The houses were divided into blocks. The account here is presented following this division.

Old Excavations BLOCK β This block contains five houses (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 310–316; 1902–1903, 287–289). House B (or 1–22) is the only domestic unit for which we have an overall estimate of storage, and it will be discussed below. Three small jugs containing wheat and peas were found in Room 23 of House 23–25 (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 316; 1902– 1903, 287–288). From House 40–47, only the upper part of a medium-sized conical pithos with finely painted decoration was reported in Room 46 (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 289; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 42, fig. 30). The House 26, 27, 32–39 was extensively reoccupied in LM III, and floor assemblages reflect activities dated to LM III (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 315–316; 1902–1903, 288–289). Pithoi were found in Room 26 (two pithoi) and Room 29, a pillaredtype magazine (three pithoi) (Bosanquet 1901– 1902, 316). Three pithoi, one of them of the “palatial style jar”-type, were found in Room 33 (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 316; one of the pithoi recovered in this space is that shown in Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 41, fig. 29; it is dated to LM I).

These pithoi date to LM I: set into the lower floor level of the room, they were reused in LM III (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 288). An olive press (or more probably a wine press installation) was placed in Room 37 (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 288). Olivestones were found on the floor of Room 32 (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 288). The capacity of the pithoi used in LM III is limited. HOUSE B: ROOMS 1–22 (FIG. 33a) The fine architectural design and quality of construction emphasize the importance of this unit within the Neopalatial settlement of Palaikastro (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 310–316; 1902–1903, 282–287). The house suffered a fire destruction early in LM IB and was finally destroyed by another fire in LM IB. Extensive remodelling such as the blocking of doors and passages, construction of the staircase and lustral basin, disuse of some spaces, and the subdivision of the original large house into two domestic units probably followed the earlier destruction. The richness of the material evidence led the excavator to suggest that the “house had been left in perfect order, and had evidently escaped being plundered” (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 282). The main storerooms of the house are Rooms 10 and 13 (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 314; 1902–1903, 282–287): found stocked with many vases, the larger arranged around the walls, the smaller in heaps as if fallen from shelves. Three large pithoi and at least 13 other smaller specimens were found in Room 10 (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 283). A Linear A tablet was also found in this space (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 145, fig. 127). In the adjacent Room 13, one small pithos and fragments of eight others were reported (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 283). It is argued that Room 10 was converted into a store at a later time (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 314). The fine plastered floor and the location of this room near an entrance-corridor (Rooms 12–13), which was blocked later, suggest that it might have served for residential purposes. In the sottoscala of Room 22, four large pithoi were placed in a row against the back wall and two others, one inside the other, were placed on the left (Bosanquet 1902–1903, 287). A large collection of LM IB vessels and bronze tools was also found in the same space. One of the pithoi contained fine LM IB vessels. Three barrel pitharakia were found in the lustral basin of the house (Room 3,

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

Bosanquet 1901–1902, 312). The space seems to have lost its original function (ceremonial or religious) and was converted into a storeroom. Overall, six large and at least 25 small pithoi were found in House B (the pithoi full of fine pottery from Room 22 and the two pithoi placed one inside the other from the same space are not included). Only one similar to Form 109 was illustrated (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 65, fig. 52). The morphological features and therefore the functional attributes of the rest are unknown. The area devoted to storage covers 30 m2 and represents 7% of the ground floor. The storage potential of this house is considerable and it is speculated at 3,050–3,600 liters. BLOCK γ Three houses and a shop-like complex were excavated in Block γ (Dawkins 1902–1903, 290– 292). House 1–12 was extensively re-occupied in LM III (Dawkins 1902–1903, 290–291). For House 13–22 the published information is scanty (Dawkins 1902–1903, 291). There is no evidence of the presence of storage containers. House 23–32 was extensively re-occupied in LM III (Dawkins 1902–1903, 291–292). A wine press installation was found in Room 32. It is not certain whether Rooms 33–38 formed a domestic unit (Dawkins 1902–1903, 292). According to the excavator they formed a shop. Four large pithoi, one containing carbonized pears, were found in Room 38. BLOCK δ Three domestic units were excavated in this block (Dawkins 1902–1903, 292–294; 1903–1904, 216–226). There is no published information on storage containers in Houses 1–16 and 46–48, the latter re-occupied in the LM IIIA period (Dawkins 1902–1903, 292–293). House 18–40 is an important domestic unit (Dawkins 1902–1903, 293). Only a conical pithos was found in Room 20 (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, pl. 22:a; Forsdyke 1925, 122, fig. 162, BM A 736). BLOCK ε Five houses were excavated in this block (Dawkins 1902–1903, 294–295). House 1–18 was an important construction (Dawkins 1902–1903, 294). The published information is limited: there is none at all for storage containers. Only one pithos was found in Room 18 in House 18–20 (Dawkins

97

1902–1903, 294). Coarse pottery was found in Room 28 of House 21–28 (Dawkins 1902–1903, 294). The architectural design of House 29–35 confirms the importance of this unit (Dawkins 1902–1903, 295). A wine press installation was found in Room 29. There is no published evidence of the presence of storage containers. House 36–43 was destroyed in LM IB (Dawkins 1903–1904, 204–207). The material remains yield evidence of food preparation and consumption and weaving activities. Several pithoi were reported in this house, but there is no information on their find-spots (Dawkins 1903–1904, 205). Some are illustrated (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 55–56, fig. 43:c, pl. 22:f). Two signs in Linear A script were incised on the shoulder of this pithos (Christakis 2005, 60). These are piriform pithoi with a narrow mouth and high collar; they have a medium capacity. There is not enough evidence to estimate the overall storage potential of the house. BLOCK ξ Five domestic units were excavated in this block (Houses 2–7, 8–19, 20–25, 26–34, and 35–44; Dawkins 1903–1904, 207–212). The houses were extensively re-occupied in LM III, and there is no information for an overall estimate of storage in LM I. BLOCK π Four houses were excavated in this block (Houses 1–6, 7–16, 17–22, and 38–40; Dawkins 1904–1905, 286–290). They were extensively re-occupied in LM III. BLOCK χ Four domestic units were excavated in this block (Houses 1–17, 19–20, 21–48, 51–66; Dawkins 1904–1905, 272–286). There is no evidence for the presence of storage containers. House 51–66 was an important domestic unit as the high quality and quantity of the artifacts confirms, but it was badly preserved. The material remains yield evidence of food preparation and consumption. HOUSE 1–17 (FIG. 33b) This house was built in LM IA and destroyed in LM IB (Dawkins 1904–1905, 283–286). Part of the house (Rooms 1–9) was re-occupied in LM III. The architectural design, the construction, and the fine quality of the artifacts confirm the importance of

98

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

this unit. There is evidence of architectural modifications. The material remains yield evidence of food preparation and consumption and weaving activities. The information on staple storage is inadequate. There is no information on the presence of pithoi. Only a LM III pithos is reported outside Room 5 (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, pl. 22:b). The architecture, however, may provide some indirect insights. Rooms 16 and 17, because of their layout, could have served for storage purposes. Note the stone benches, perhaps for the placement of storage containers, along the walls in Room 17 (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 283, fig. 13). The function of doorless Spaces 10–12 is uncertain, but they may have served for storage purposes. BLOCKS ς, υ, λ, κ There is little information on the domestic units in Blocks ς, υ, λ, and κ (Dawkins 1903–1904, 202, 214–216). HOUSE A ON THE CLIFF This fine construction, built in LM I, was heavily re-occupied in LM III (Bosanquet 1901–1902, 306–308). The LM III floor deposits provide extensive information on food storage strategies for that period; it seems low. KOUREMENOS Seven houses were excavated in the area of Kouremenos, west of Kastri (Dawkins and Tod 1902–1903, 329–335). Of these, only House C was not re-occupied in LM III. The house has a fine architectural design. It was destroyed in LM I. Unfortunately, no finds were reported apart from some bronze tools. DISCUSSION In conclusion, due to the drawbacks mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, we cannot arrive at a complete estimate of food storage behavior adopted by the Neopalatial households at Palaikastro. Nevertheless, the impression is that food storage, with a few exceptions, was rather limited. Only very few houses were found with pithoi in situ. This pattern may also be valid for the period of re-occupation in LM III. Most of the pithoi found in LM I levels have a medium/low capacity. Large specimens were rare. As the excavators pointed out, “Huge vessels [i.e., pithoi] like those found in the

Magazines at Knossos were not in use at Palaikastro” (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 55).

Recent Excavations Recent and ongoing excavations by the British School at Athens have succeeded in clarifying the Neopalatial history of the settlement and have provided a more complete picture on storage strategies. Unfortunately, the extensive LM III re-occupation has largely disturbed LM I floor activities. Eight buildings were excavated. House N and Building 5 are the only complexes that may provide a relative estimate of their food storage potential. The evidence from the rest is unhelpful in our investigation due to the unpublished state of the excavated data. The final publication of these contexts will provide a substantial body of evidence. Building 1 was erected early in LM IA, modified during LM IA–IB, and destroyed by fire in LM IB. Partial re-occupation occurred in LM III (MacGillivray et al. 1987, 138–148; MacGillivray et al. 1988, 259–268, 271–274; MacGillivray et al. 1989, 419–422, 429). According to the excavators, the building had a public function (MacGillivray et al. 1988, 268). As far as storage is concerned, there is no published information for storage containers. Building 2 has not been excavated in its entirety (MacGillivray et al. 1987, 148–151). A wine press installation was found in Room 1. There is no published information on the presence of storage containers. In Building 3, which had two architectural phases within LM IB, most of the rooms were cleared out and remodelled during LM III (MacGillivray et al. 1988, 268–270, 274– 276; MacGillivray et al. 1989, 421–424). There is no evidence of LM I floor activities except in the area of a large room in the southeast corner (MacGillivray et al. 1989, 424). Building 4 suffered from an early destruction in LM IA (MacGillivray et al. 1989, 429–434). A space (Room 15) was converted into a store after the LM IA destruction. The LM III re-occupation erased all LM I floor activities (MacGillivray et al. 1988, 276). Only one pithos, perhaps ovoid in shape, was reported from the corridor in Trench EQ92 (MacGillivray et al. 1989, 424). Deposits dated within LM IB were found in Rooms 13 and 14 of the complex (MacGillivray 2006, pers. comm.). Conical and tub pithoi were found, including the

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

fragment of a pithos with a Linear A inscription. Building 6, a carefully built unit, was perhaps the residence of an influential family (MacGillivray et al. 1992, 125–129). It was destroyed in LM IA. There is no published information on storage. Building 7 was extensively re-occupied in LM IIIB (MacGillivray et al. 1991, 128–129; Sackett 1996). The LM IIIB floor deposits yield extensive evidence of food storage. About 11 medium-sized pithoi were found in Rooms 2, 5, and 12. There is no published evidence of food storage in LM I. BUILDING 5 This was constructed early in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (MacGillivray et al. 1989, 421–429, 434–435; MacGillivray et al. 1991, 123–133; MacGillivray, Driessen, and Sackett 2000). The LM III re-occupation left most of the interior undisturbed (MacGillivray et al. 1991, 127). Extensive remodelling took place during the use of the unit (MacGillivray, Driessen, and Sackett 2000, 44–47). The architectural design and fine quality of the artifacts, including the famous chryselephantine statuette, confirm the importance of this unit within the settlement of Palaikastro. At least 21 small-sized storage jars were found in Room 13 (MacGillivray et al. 1991, 130, pl. 10; MacGillivray, Driessen, and Sackett 2000, 27–31, 50, figs. 1.7, 1.9, pl. 4:a, d). Some stood upright; some were filled with wheat and lentils. Many were overturned, either lying on their sides or even upside down: some of these jars had probably fallen from above, while others were deliberately inverted. Three large pithoi were found in Room 7, and they were perhaps deliberately overturned during the destruction of the unit (MacGillivray et al. 1988, 269, pl. 46:e). The function of Rooms 8 and 9 is not certain but they probably served for storage and workshop activities (MacGillivray et al. 1991, 132). The overall potential of the storage containers kept in this building may be around 1,635–2,100 liters. In total, the area devoted to storage covers 18.76 m2 and represents 8% of the ground floor. HOUSE N (FIG. 33c) This was constructed in LM IA and destroyed by fire in LM IB (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 252–268; Sackett and Popham 1970, 215–231). A series of structural modifications, dated LM IB, shows that some rooms were out of use at the end of

99

LM IB. According to the excavators, the final phase of habitation is less prosperous than the previous one (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 268). The material testimonies provided evidence of food processing, preparation and consumption, weaving, and cult activities. The quality of the archaeological investigation and publication (indeed this is the only fully published domestic unit of the Palaikastro settlement) make House N an ideal case for reconstructing storage behavior. Room 7, a storeroom, was close to the main entrance of the house. This position is particularly suitable for the movement of commodities into and out of the store. Four large pithoi were found in situ (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 258): one held grain. The position of the pithoi as found suggests that the magazine “was hurriedly ransacked at the last minute” (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 258). The main storerooms of the house are basement Rooms 8 and 9. Two small pitharakia (NP 46, NP 47) were found in Room 8 (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 260; Sackett and Popham 1970, 235, pl. 63:f). Room 9 housed four pithoi (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 260, pl. 69:a, b, d). Two were placed on slabs along the west wall of the room. One of them is a medium-sized piriform specimen (NP 70; cf. Form 87; Sackett and Popham 1970, 228, 236, fig. 19, pl. 65:e). The other pithos, a large specimen perhaps similar to Form 54, had a spout at the base and was associated with a plain trough. According to the excavators, it had possibly contained oil. Two other large pithoi with high capacity and low transportability were set beside the east wall of the room (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 260, pl. 69:a, d). These large piriform specimens were similar in shape to Forms 85, 87, and 88. Besides these, other storage containers, such as a conical pithos (NP 68; Sackett and Popham 1970, 226, 236, fig. 16, pl. 65:a; cf. Form 112), a small “palatial style jar” (NP 69), and two small pithoi (NP 64, NP 65) were also used (Sackett and Popham 1970, 226, 229, figs. 16, 19, pls. 63:b, 65:b). Three small pitharakia (NP 83, NP 85, NP 86) were found in Room 10, a finely plastered space (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 261; Sackett and Popham 1970, 226, fig. 16, pl. 65:e). A barrel pithos (NP 88) was found in Room 11 (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 263; Sackett and Popham 1970, 229, fig. 19, pl. 65:f; Form 102). It should be noted, however, that Room 11 was

100

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

already out of use in LM IB. In Room 14, a cooking area, a tub pitharaki, and some other small containers suitable for pouring and transferring purposes were found (Sacket, Popham, and Warren 1965, 264). Two pithoi, one of which contained nests of small plain cups, were found in Room 17 (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 266). The pithoi were not used for food storage purposes, and, again, the room was out of use in LM IB (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 265). In Room 18, a piriform elongated pithos with narrow mouth and

high collar (NP 121) was found upside down: its base broken, it was filled with small nested cups (Sackett, Popham, and Warren 1965, 266; Sackett and Popham 1970, 229, fig. 19, pl. 65:f; cf. Form 87). Overall, nine large/medium-sized pithoi and eight small pithoi and pitharakia may have served for staple storage in LM IB. (The storage containers from Rooms 11, 17, and 18 are not included in this estimate.) Their capacity is 1,710–2,025 liters. The area devoted to food storage covers 17 m2 and represents 8.5% of the ground floor.

The Zakros Region in the Easternmost Part of East Crete Azokeramos An MM IIIB–LM IA isolated building, perhaps a farmhouse, was excavated by Davaras (1964, 442). Fragments of pithoi and a wine-tub were recovered.

Epano Zakros Part of a large building was excavated by N. Platon (N. Platon 1964, 163–167; 1965, 216–224; L. Platon 2002). The location of the complex, the architectural design, the quality of construction, and the material remains confirm the importance of this unit and its direct connection with the town of Kato Zakros. The mansion was destroyed by fire in LM IB. There is evidence of functional changes after LM IA with emphasis on the processing and storage of staples (Platon 2002). Unfortunately, a substantial part of the mansion had been destroyed by modern road construction. The main store of the mansion was Room Θ, a pillared magazine. Eight large pithoi similar to Forms 85 and 88 were found (Platon 1965, 221–222, pls. 247:β, 248:α). They have low transportability and accessibility and high stability and capacity. One was inscribed in Linear A (Platon and Brice 1975, 82–83). The inscription reports the quantity of 32 liters of wine. The capacity of the pithoi in this room seems to be about 3,200–3,600 liters. It is not certain whether the pithos placed in the east corner of Room B served

for storage purposes or for some sort of industrial activity (Platon 1965, 219–220). In Room A, a wine press installation was found (Platon 1964, 165–166; 1965, 218–219), while apparatus concerned with wine processing or other industrial activity was found in Room Γ (Platon 1965, 220). Wine production and industrial activities seem to be the principal concerns of the residents of this mansion.

Kato Zakros The town of Kato Zakros was inhabited from EM onward (N. Platon 1992; L. Platon 1999). Some houses were excavated early last century by Hogarth (1900–1901). The settlement was later systematically excavated by N. Platon. Although the excavations are still unpublished, N. Platon’s preliminary reports are very informative. About 41 domestic units are available for consideration here, although very few of these are relevant for our purposes. N. Platon argued that many houses of the town provided evidence of two destructive events, one dated to LM IA and the other LM IB. The throrough study of pottery by L. Platon and his collaborators has convincingly shown that pottery groups named LM IA by N. Platon are actually LM IB in date (L. Platon, forthcoming; Archondaki, forthcoming). Remodelling usually occurred within the LM IB period. Sporadic re-occupation occurred in LM IIIA. Most of the pithoi recovered in the

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

houses are small- and medium-sized specimens; very few houses were equipped with pithoi as large as those used in the palace.

The Southwest Hill (Hagios Antonios) Eight houses were excavated in this part of the settlement (Houses A, B, Δ, Δα, E, Z, Θ, and the building south of House B). The building south of House B was badly damaged: apart from some pithos fragments, there is no evidence of substantial storage activities (Platon 1984, 432–439). House Δ was an important domestic unit (N. Platon 1962, 146–148; 1963, 162–164; 1988, 237–239). According to N. Platon, it was destroyed in LM IA and re-occupied, especially its west part, during LM IIIA2–IIIB. The date of LM IA, however, should be confirmed in light of new research. The evidence of storage activities is meager: only some fragments of pithoi from sizable specimens were reported. House Θ, with only two rooms, was abandoned in LM IB (Platon 1986, 278–281). In Room A, the fragments of a pithos and a millstone were found (Platon 1986, 280). Fragments of a pithos and the base of a large vase were found outside the west facade of the house (Platon 1986, 281). HOUSE A (FIG. 34a) The final abandonment occurred in LM IB, apart from some rooms deserted earlier in LM IA (according to N. Platon) and another reused in LM IIIA2 (N. Platon 1962, 143–147; 1963, 160–162; 1988, 236–237, 239–243; L. Platon 2003, 106, 108). Room Δ served for the processing of staples: a wine press installation was set in the north part of the room and was associated with querns, mortars, stone basins, and fragments of large pithoi (N. Platon 1962, 144, pls. 143:β, 145:α; L. Platon 2003, 106). One barrel pithos was found at the junction of Rooms N–Ξ (Platon 1962, 145). The doorless Spaces M i–iii may have served, among other purposes, for storage activities (Platon 1962, 146). Fragments of two or three pithoi, cups, cooking pots, and amphorae were reported. Room Σ yields evidence of four different floors (Platon 1988, 239–243). More pieces of pithoi were found on two of them, dated to LM IA, while a pithos collector was associated with the oldest floor of the space dated to MM III. Still more were also found

101

in the filling deposit of Room T (Platon 1988, 242). Despite all of this, it is very difficult to estimate the storage potential of this unit due to the fragmentary state of the evidence and the absence of information: we could assume, however, a storage potential between 1,200 and 1,600 liters. The area where pithoi were found covers 41 m2 and represents 20% of the ground floor. HOUSE B (FIG. 34b) The house was destroyed in LM IB (Platon 1961, 219–222; 1962, 148–152; 1963, 166–169). Partial re-occupation, which did not substantially affect LM IB deposits, occurred in Room Ψ during LM IIIA2 (Platon 2003, 106). The finds, including a well-built wine press installation in Room M, show that the owners of this house specialized in the production of wine. One large pithos was associated with the wine press installation (Platon 1961, 221). Twelve storage containers (seven or eight medium-sized pithoi and four-handled amphorae) were found in Room Π (Platon 1962, 150–151). The containers were associated with amphorae, stamnoi, lekanai, cups, jugs, and other vases. Rooms Λ–O, the main residential spaces of the unit, housed five pithoi of which four are large ovoid/piriform specimens and one is conical (Platon 1961, 221; 1962, 152). A large pithos was placed in Room P, and two were in Room X (Platon 1962, 152). Room Σ, located close to one of the two entrances of the house, was divided by a wall into two parts (Platon 1962, 151–152). The fragments of a large pithos were found in one part, while 12 small storage containers were placed in the other. The containers were associated with many cups and bowls apparently stored in the same space. Part of a small pithos and fragments of another were found in Rooms Φ–Υ (Platon 1963, 168). The three stone basins and fragments of vases suitable for food preparation and consumption suggest that both spaces served for such activities. Owing to their architectural layout, the mudbrick compartments A, B', B'', and Γ may have served for storage purposes (Platon 1961, 221). It is uncertain whether these spaces served for storage of agricultural goods or domestic implements. Part of a large pithos decorated with relief double axes, like the pithos from House Z, was found in the unit (L. Platon 2006, pers. comm.). Fragments of large pithoi were also

102

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

found in the stepped street between House B and House E (Platon 1963, 167). As far as storage is concerned, some points need to be mentioned. First, there is the considerable investment of labor in the construction of the main storerooms of the house. The walls of Room Π and the walls and floor of Room Σ were dressed with plaster. Plaster decreases the penetration of humidity and helps keep out rodents that may cause loss of foodstuffs. Second, the inner space of Room Σ, where the stamnoi were found, is in direct communication with the entrance of the house and so with the stepped street beyond. The high transportability of storage containers placed in this storeroom and the patterns of circulation point to the need for frequent movement of the stored commodities. We may speculate that the overall capacity of the storage containers lies between 3,250 to 4,050 liters. This is a minimum estimate, as it does not take the capacity of the small storage containers in Room Σ into account. The area devoted to food storage covers 37 m2 and represents 14% of the ground floor. The storage potential is considerable. HOUSE Δα (FIG. 35a) This house was abandoned in LM IB (N. Platon 1961, 216; 1962, 148; 1984, 421–432; 1985, 248– 256; 1986, 263–278; 1987, 299–308). Modifications to the original architectural design such as higher floors, blocked doors, and the abandonment of rooms then used as dumping grounds were reported. The main storeroom of the house was Room IV, a C-shaped paved space (Platon 1984, 426–429). About six pithoi were reported. The pithos placed in the northwest corner of the room is a large ovoid specimen with 12 handles (Platon 1984, 428, pl. 217:α), while the other pithoi are medium-sized piriform specimens (called pithamphorae). Tubs, pithoid jars, cooking pots, cups, and bowls were found in the same space. Storage activities also occurred in Room III where a pithos-collector was sunk into the floor (Platon 1984, 424). It contained burned earth, which was considered evidence for the presence of olive oil. Cooking pots were also found in this room. The fragment of a large pithos was found in Room I (Platon 1962, 148), while fragments of a pithoid container were found in Room II (Platon

1984, 425). More fragments were also found in Rooms IX (Platon 1985, 251), X (Platon 1985, 253), XI (Platon 1985, 254), XII (Platon 1986, 266–267), and XV (Platon 1987, 303–305). N. Platon suggested that these spaces, some of which were underground, fell out of use in LM IB. The reexamination by L. Platon showed that these spaces were in use until the final destruction of the house (L. Platon, forthcoming). It is difficult to estimate the capacity of the storage containers recovered in the LM IB levels as information on pithoi from some spaces is very scant. It seems, however, that the capacity of pithoi for which a reconstruction of their morphological features is possible is between 800 and 900 liters. The area devoted to food storage covers 19 m2 and represents 9% of the floor space. HOUSE Z Five rooms are preserved in House Z, which was destroyed in LM IB (N. Platon 1963, 165–166; 1987, 308–313; 1988, 229–236; 1990, 289–297). It is not entirely certain whether House Z is a proper domestic unit or is a building with a specialized function. The main storeroom of this unit was Room A (Platon 1963, 165; 1987, 310). About 11 badly preserved pithoi and many other vases were placed alongside the walls. The pithoi are mediumand small-sized specimens. According to N. Platon, the burned earth in this space is indirect evidence of olive storage. A wine press installation was set in the south part of Room Γ (Platon 1988, 234– 236). Two large pithoi, one of them decorated with relief double axes (N. Platon and L. Platon 1991, 395, pl. 222), four pitharakia similar to Forms 77 and 79, and cooking pots, amphorae, jugs, and cups were found in the same space (N. Platon 1988, 231–236; Kopaka and Platon 1993, 97–101, figs. 32–38). The two large pithoi are specimens with high capacity, low accessibility, and high stability. The other storage containers, which were suitable for transfer purposes, have low capacity and very high transportability. The storage containers of Room Γ served for the processing, short-term storage, and the transfer of must/wine (N. Platon 1988, 236). In conclusion, the household of this unit was concerned with the processing of agricultural staples. The overall amount of stored goods is about 1,240–1,530 liters.

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

The Upper Town Many houses were excavated in this area. A substantial part of the important Building North of the Harbor Road was used early in the Neopalatial period (Platon 1968, 162–164; 1969, 204–209; 1970, 210–218; 1972, 177–179; 1973, 156–163; 1976, 432–439). The published evidence from the LM IB levels is not helpful for the reconstruction of storage activities. The remains of Building H were heavily disturbed, and thus the LM I picture is not very clear (Platon 1970, 238–245; 1971a, 261–263). The house had two phases, LM IA and LM IB (the LM IA date is not certain). There is evidence of food processing, preparation, and consumption. Pithos fragments were found in various spaces of the complex (Platon 1970, 242, 244; 1971a, 262). The underground Rooms Φ and Υ seem to have served for food processing and probably storage. They comprised an annex to Building H. Storage activities were probably limited. The Building of the Double Doors was abandoned in LM IB (Platon 1971a, 266–270). The floor deposits were disturbed by cultivation. Room Δ may have served for the processing of staple commodities. A clay drain ending in a plain dish may imply the presence of a wine press installation (Platon 1971a, 269). A large quantity of vessels suitable for transferring and pouring purposes was found. There is no evidence for the presence of storage containers or fragments of pithoi. There is no published evidence of substantial storage activities from the Tower Building (Platon 1969, 218–219; 1970, 219–226; 1971a, 248–251). Only the lower part of a pithos was reported from the filling deposit of Room Z (Platon 1971a, 250). It is not certain whether the archaeological record provides a clear picture for LM I. The information from the Building of the Shrine Deposit (Platon 1969, 232–236; 1970, 223–227; 1971a, 264–265), the Building Complex of the Upper Kitchen Apartments (Platon 1968, 164–168; 1969, 222–224), the Building of the Cyclopean Tower (Platon 1969, 218–219; 1970, 219–220; 1971a, 248–251), the Buildings in the Area between the Tower Building and the Oblique Building (Platon 1972, 184–185), the Building outside the Strong Building (Platon 1968, 162–164), the Complex Northeast of the Kitchen Rooms (Platon 1972,

103

186–187), the Building Northeast of the Rooms of the Bath (Platon 1972, 187–190), and the Building of the Northwest Sector (Platon 1968, 168–174; 1969, 225–226) is not helpful for our purposes. It is worth noting here that N. Platon considered some of these buildings (Building of the Northwest Sector, Building Complex of the Upper Kitchen Apartments, Oblique Building) to be annexes to the palace (Platon 1969, 199–200; 1971b, 226–232). This suggestion, however, is quite unlikely: the floor deposits of these complexes are dated MM III–LM IA, while those from the palace are LM IB. Moreover the re-examination of the evidence by L. Platon shows that the palace was an early LM IB construction (Platon 1999). The most relevant domestic units of this area are the houses discussed below. THE OBLIQUE BUILDING (HOGARTH’S HOUSES D AND E) The south part of the house was used only in LM IA, while the north part was used until LM IB (Hogarth 1900–1901, 135; Platon 1968, 174–180; 1969, 226–229). There is evidence of extensive architectural modifications. The four tubs for wine press installations found in Room IV suggest that the household was concerned with the processing of staples (Platon 1968, 174; Kopaka and Platon 1993, 58). Seven large pithoi were found in Room E I (Hogarth 1900–1901, 131, 135, fig. B; Platon 1968, 175–176). It is not certain whether the doorless Spaces E, VI–IX served as storage spaces (Platon 1969, 227–228). In any case, these spaces had fallen out of use by the last phase of the complex. The floor space devoted to storage covers 10.5 m2 or 29 m2 (with doorless Spaces VI–IX) and represents 6% or 18% of the ground floor respectively. The capacity of the storage containers is about 2,100–2,450 liters. HOGARTH’S HOUSE G (FIG. 35b) This badly preserved house was destroyed in LM IB (Hogarth 1900–1901, 137–139; Platon 1970, 227–233; 1971a, 265–266). There is evidence of architectural remodelling. Most of the testimonies concerned with storage come from Rooms I–IV, built at a lower level than the rest of the house. The access to these spaces was through a door in the south wall of Room I and also by a

104

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

staircase that ties this part of the house to the rooms of the upper part (Platon 1970, 232). The door, at some stage, was blocked. Room I was provided with slabs in the northwest and northeast corners that may have served for the placement of large containers (Platon 1970, 233). One pithos and the fragments of a pitharaki were found in this space (Hogarth 1900–1901, 139; Platon 1970, 233). Room IV was equipped with a collector (Hogarth 1900–1901, 139; Platon 1971a, 265– 266). Perhaps this room was used for the storage of liquid substances. Remains of pithoi were also found in other places in the house: large pithoi were found in the paved vestibule (Hogarth 1900–1901, 139), two pithoi were placed in Room V (Hogarth 1900– 1901, 139), while two small pithoi were placed in the sottoscala of Room VIII (Platon 1970, 230). Fragments of large pithoi, found in the area of the Building of the Double Doors, probably came from House G (Platon 1971a, 268). In conclusion, the main storerooms of this house are Rooms I–V. They cover 18 m2, representing 12% of the ground floor. The collector in Room IV indicates planned storage practices. There is no clear evidence of the functional attributes of the pithoi excavated in this house. The capacity of storage containers mentioned in the reports seems to be around 970–1,150 liters. This is a minimum estimate as it does not take into consideration the fragments of large pithoi in the paved vestibule. THE BUILDING OF THE POT DEPOSIT The house was abandoned in LM IB (Platon 1969, 219–221; 1971a, 251–255; 1972, 183–184). Structural phases have been isolated. Remains of pithoi were found in some spaces of the house. Fragments of an upside-down pithos were found in Vestibule A (Platon 1969, 219; 1971a, 251). The pithos was associated with jugs and cups. Parts of two small pithoi were found in Room B (Platon 1969, 221), while two small pithoi (stamnoi) and an amphora were placed in Room H (Platon 1971a, 255). Another small pithos (stamnos) was found in Room Z (Platon 1972, 183). Room Λ served for food activities (Platon 1971a, 253–254). The area where pithoi were found covers 16.50 m2 and represents 13% of the ground floor. The excavated picture indicates a low storage potential (450–550 liters).

THE STRONG BUILDING (FIG. 35c) According to N. Platon the complex suffered two destructions, one in LM IA and the other in LM IB (1968, 156–162; 1969, 209–218; 1970, 218–219; 1971a, 244–247; 1972, 179–183). Structural modifications were reported in many spaces of the complex. The architectural design, the quality of construction, and the artifacts confirm the importance of this unit within the Neopalatial settlement of Kato Zakros. The main stores were Rooms Δ, E, Λ, M, and N, located in the north part. A pithos-collector was placed in each of Rooms Δ and E (Platon 1968, 160; 1969, 212). Dark, oily earth was collected from the pithos-collector of Room E: this was taken as evidence of the storage of olive oil (Platon 1969, 212). The collectors suggest that both stores may have served for the storage of liquid goods. Room Λ was found empty, perhaps because it was used for the storage of perishable goods (Platon 1969, 213). Rooms M and N, however, were packed with many vessels. Two medium-sized pithoi of moderate storage potential were placed in the east wall of Room M (Platon 1969, 213, pl. 260:β). They were associated with small pithoi (stamnoi), amphorae, one cooking pot, cups, and various sizable pots (Platon 1969, 213). One medium-sized pithos and five small pithoi were found in Room N, together with many small vessels (Platon 1969, 213–214, pl. 260:γ). Evidence of storage was also reported from many other locations in the complex. Food preparation and storage activities were reported in Room A (Platon 1971a, 245–246), while Room Γ was found packed with small storage containers (big amphorae, stamnoi, pitharakia) and cooking pots (Platon 1968, 161, pls. 153:β 154, 155:α). A large pithos placed upside down was found between Rooms A and Γ (Platon 1968, 161, pl. 155:β). The pithos was not in use; two small pithoi (stamnoi) were found close to it. Room Z served for residential purposes. A small pithos and one cooking pot were placed in the east corner of the room (Platon 1969, 212). Carbonized remains of grain and peas were found in the sottoscala of Room Φ (Platon 1969, 215), probably once stored in a perishable container. A small pithos and other small vessels were found in Room Υ (Platon 1969, 217, pl. 264:γ). Rooms K, Kα, and I served for

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

storage purposes (Platon 1969, 215–216). A large amphora and two small pithoi (stamnoi) were found in Room K with cooking pots, conical cups, and jugs. Room Kα served for the storage of pottery placed on wooden shelves. Room Δγ probably served for food preparation activities (Platon 1972, 182). The overall area devoted to food storage and domestic implements covers 20 m2 and represents 8% of the ground floor. The collectors sunk into the floors of Stores Δ and E indicates planned storage practices. There were many storage containers in the complex: most were small- and mediumsized specimens with low/moderate capacity and high accessibility and transportability. The absence of large pithoi is striking. The overall capacity of storage containers for which information is provided is about 840–1,090 liters.

The Harbor Area Seven houses were revealed in this area. The East Building had two phases, both LM IB in date (Platon 1977, 421–434; 1978, 260–268; N. Platon had argued for an LM IA and LM IB date, a chronological sequence, however it is not confirmed by the resent re-examination by L. Platon [forthcoming]). Remodelling took place after the first LM IB destruction. The floor assemblages were poorly preserved. Only some rooms were in use in LM IB. The evidence of storage is very limited. Parts of a small pithos had fallen from the upper floor in the area of Room A (Platon 1977, 425), while fragments of small pithoi were found in Room B (Platon 1977, 429). The evidence from the Easternmost House South of the Harbor Road (Platon 1980, 312– 315), the Easternmost House North of the Harbor Road (Platon 1979, 308–310; 1980, 310–311), and the Buildings North of the Harbor Road is rather limited (1977, 434–442; 1978, 269–282; 1979, 295–308). Only fragments of pithoi were reported from the filling and floor deposits of these houses. An overall estimate of the storage potential is thus not possible. The most relevant domestic unit in this part of the town is the House of the Niches. THE HOUSE OF THE NICHES (FIG. 35d) The house had two phases of habitation. According to the excavator, the first is dated LM

105

IA and the second LM IB (Platon 1975, 355–369; 1976, 422–432). A recent re-examination by K. Archondaki suggests that both phases were dated within LM IB (Archondaki, forthcoming). Architectural remodelling, such as levelling of floors, filling and abandonment of rooms, and blocking of doors has been noted. The rooms on the lower terrace, in the south part of the house, were filled in: only the north part of the house was in use until the final abandonment of the complex in LM IB caused by severe fire destruction (Platon 1975, 356, 361; 1976, 422, 432). LM IIIA building activities occurred over the ruins of the house. The storage testimonies from this unit during the two phases of habitation follow below. The main storeroom during the first phase of habitation was the space beneath Rooms VII–VIII (Platon 1975, 361–366, pls. 281, 282). In the northwest corner, two stamnoi (small piriform pitharakia) and two pithoi were found. A small pithos and two stamnoi were placed on a low platform alongside the east wall of the storeroom with cups and jugs, while two pithoi—one of them conical—were found by the east wall. The storage containers from this space are distinctive for their high transportability and accessibility and low capacity. Their overall capacity is limited. Storage containers (fragments) were also placed in a space above Rooms VII–VIII (Archondaki, forthcoming). Room X may also have served for storage purposes since its architectural design is similar to that of the previous room. Three enclosures, perhaps used for the storage of domestic implements, were built in this space (Platon 1975, 366–368). It is worth noting that the storerooms in the south area of the house were underground: climatic conditions in such spaces are particularly suitable for storage purposes. In total, the area devoted to storage covers 27 m2 and represents 11% of the ground floor. The capacity of the storage containers is about 460–530 liters. This is a minimum estimate as storage containers also might have been placed in the north part of the house. In the second phase of habitation, the underground storerooms (spaces beneath Rooms VII– VIII and X) were filled in. A floor was then laid at the same level as that in the north part of the house (Platon 1975, 365–366). One pithos was placed in the northwest corner of Room X, while fragments

106

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

of another were also reported (Platon 1975, 365–366). They were associated with cooking pots, among other vases. Two small pithoi were found in Room III (Platon 1975, 358). One contained pulses; carbonized pulses were also found near the north wall of the room (Platon 1975, 359). Room V has a row of niches along the north and east walls. Two small piriform pithoi (one pithamphora and one stamnos), fragments of pithoid containers, and a lekane were found there, associated with many other vases (Platon 1975, 361). One medium-sized pithos and at least three small pithoi (stamnoi) were found in Room XII (Platon 1976, 424–427). They too were associated with many other vases. The space apparently served for the storage of agricultural goods and domestic implements. The upper part of a large pithos, perhaps similar to Form 88, was found in the destruction deposit of Room VI (Platon 1976, 423). The capacity of the storage containers is about 800–950 liters. In conclusion, testimonies suggest changes in the spatial distribution of storage activities from the first to the second phase of habitation. The architectural layout of the space beneath Rooms VII, VIII, and X and its artifactual assemblages indicate that it was the main storeroom of the house. During the second phase of habitation, this area fell out of use and the storage vessels were placed in rooms used for other activities and not purely for storage. The pithoi in use in both phases of habitation are of low storage potential, with the sole exception of one large pithos used in the latter phase. The total storage capacity of the house seems not to have exceeded 1,000 liters.

The Northwest Hill This area was partly investigated by Hogarth (1900–1901) and further explored by N. Platon. Many fragments of pithoi were reported from the filling and floor deposits of the Building Northwest of Hogarth’s House A (Platon 1982, 340–348; 1983a, 342–347). The overall evidence, however, is not helpful for reconstructing storage activities. A small part of House Ξ was excavated (Platon 1986, 281–285; 1987, 313–317). There is no evidence of storage apart from a few pithos fragments in the filling deposits (Platon 1986, 285; 1987, 316).

HOGARTH’S HOUSE A The house was excavated by Hogarth (1900– 1901, 129–134) and re-explored by N. Platon (1978, 283–286; 1984, 416–419). It had two phases, both dated to LM IB, and not to LM IA and LM IB as N. Platon had thought (L. Platon, forthcoming). The house was provided with a wine press installation. A Linear A tablet and an important assemblage of clay sealings suggest book-keeping and the movement of commodities (Hogarth 1900–1901, 132–133; Weingarten 1983; Palmer 1995, 143). The tablet records considerable quantities of barley (4,512 liters) and figs (at least 4,032 liters) (Palmer 1995, 143). In the entrance of the house (Room IV) and near the doorway, a wine press installation was constructed (Hogarth 1900–1901, 130; Kopaka and Platon 1993, 58). Two small pithoi had fallen from the upper story into this area (Hogarth 1900–1901, 132). Room VIII was the main storeroom of the house. Five large pithoi, nine amphorae, and many conical cups were found (Hogarth 1900–1901, 132). Many fragments of pithoi were found in the fill deposits of the other rooms by N. Platon (1984, 417–419). The overall picture indicates a storage potential of about 1,560–1,830 liters. The amounts of barley and figs listed in the tablet could not be stored within the house, contrary to what R. Palmer thought (1995, 145). HOUSE Δ (FIG. 36a) According to N. Platon, the architectural remains yield evidence of two phases, one LM IA and the other LM IB (Platon 1980, 320–329; 1981, 365; 1984, 419–420). Remodelling and abandonment of rooms took place especially after the LM IA destruction. Fragments of pithoi were found in various spaces of the house such as Room Γ (fragments of a large pithos; Platon 1980, 323), Room Z (base of a small pithos similar to Form 109 and fragments of a tub; N. Platon 1980, 325), the sottoscala (the lower parts of four small pithoi; Platon 1980, 327; 1981, 365), and Room H (fragments of small pithoi; Platon 1981, 365). The area where pithos fragments were reported covers 14 m2 and represents 10.7% of the ground floor. The storage potential of the house was low due to the limited storage capacity of the pithoi (between 500– 600 liters).

DOMESTIC AND NONPALATIAL ELITE STOREROOMS

HOGARTH’S HOUSE F (FIG. 36b) This house was abandoned in LM IA (Hogarth 1900–1901, 136; N. Platon 1984, 412–416; 1985, 225–235; 1986, 248–263; 1987, 295–299; 1988, 219–225). The testimonies yield evidence of the processing of staple commodities. Pithoi and fragments of pithoi were found in Room 1 (filling deposit: fragments of at least five pithoi; floor level: fragments of large pithoi; Platon 1985, 228), in the niche of the southwest corner of the house (one conical pithos, a large amphora, and many small vases; Platon 1986, 253–254, pl. 108:α, β), in the area of the staircase (Platon 1986, 251), as well as in the filling deposits of many rooms of the house (Platon 1985, 235; 1986, 262–263; 1987, 297–298). The areas with high concentrations of pithos fragments cover 26.5 m2 and represent 8.6% of the ground floor. HOGARTH’S HOUSE I (J) (FIG. 36c) The house was abandoned in LM IB (Hogarth 1900–1901, 140–142). The architectural design and the material remains confirm the importance of this unit. There is evidence of food preparation and consumption, weaving activities, and the processing of staple commodities. A small pithos, large basins, and broken vessels were found in Room I (Hogarth 1900–1901, 141). One pithos was placed in the southwest corner of Room V (Hogarth 1900–1901, 141). Two large pithoi were found in the court (Room IX; Hogarth 1900–1901, 140). Seven big amphorae (small piriform pithoi), stamnoi, and cups were found in Room XIV (Hogarth 1900–1901, 141, pl. 5:3). Room XV contained two large pithoi and three small ones (Hogarth 1900–1901, 141). Room VIII, a doorless space, may have served for storage purposes (Hogarth 1900–1901, 141). The function of the five plastered troughs in Room XI is uncertain (Hogarth 1900–1901, 149). The presence of a drain suggests that industrial activities took place. A

107

wine press installation was built in Room XVI (Hogarth 1900–1901, 140–141; Kopaka and Platon 1993, 59). The total area where pithoi were found covers 70 m2 and represent 22% of the ground floor. Most of the pithoi used in this unit were medium-sized specimens with high transportability and accessibility and low capacity. The preference for such pithoi might suggest the frequent movement of commodities. We may speculate that the overall storage potential of this house is ca. 1,520–1,840 liters. HOUSE N (FIG. 36d) The house had two structural phases and was abandoned in LM IB (N. Platon 1985, 236–248; 1986, 285–297; 1987, 316–324; 1988, 225–230). Fragments of pithoi that may belong to at least 20 different specimens were reported from the filling deposits of this house (Platon 1985, 237–239, 245–247; 1986, 287–291, 293–296). Only three are from large pithoi; the rest are from small- and medium-sized specimens. The high concentration of pithos fragments in Rooms 17–19, built at a lower level with pottery suitable for food preparation and consumption as well as bones, all suggests that this area was devoted to storage and food activities. Fragments of pithoi were also found in the area of the doorless Spaces 8 and 8a, and fragments of a pithos and of tubs, cups, and cooking pots were in the northwest corner of Room 16. The large quantity of pithos fragments suggests that food storage was widely practiced in this house. The fragmentary state of the evidence, however, is not entirely helpful for our purposes. Despite the preference for small- and mediumsized pithoi, the storage potential of this house seems considerable. We may speculate a storage potential of 2,000–2,100 liters. The area where pithoi were found covers 22 m2 and represents 12% of the ground floor.

4

Storage Behaviors and Subsistence Autarkies in the Nonpalatial Sector of LM I Societies The great variety of storerooms and their equipment found in simple houses, wealthy mansions, and central nonpalatial elite complexes across the island, described in the previous chapter, illustrates the diversity of storage practices adopted by groups operating within LM IB societies. This chapter brings together the testimonies on storage

and highlights possible patterns of storage behaviors and subsistence autarkies adopted by households/groups residing in these contexts before their abandonment and/or destruction. This diversity is here reduced to a few simplified process patterns, bearing in mind however that houses and households are unique.

Patterns of Storage Behavior The consideration of datasets concerning food storage within their contextual framework has revealed the following process patterns, which may reflect different models of storage behavior.

Storage Pattern I Most Neopalatial domestic units were found without storage implements: no pithoi have been mentioned in the floor deposits, and only in a few

cases have sherds from low-capacity containers been reported. The existence of built storage installations have not been attested either. The rest of the artifactual testimonies, in many cases quite rich, suggests on occasion activities other than storage, including food preparation and consumption, storage of domestic equipment, household industries, and commerce. Most houses of the urban centers at Gournia and Palaikastro, many at Malia, Mochlos, and Pseira, and some at Hagia Triada and Kato Zakros belong to this category. The contextualization of this

110

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

pattern of storage shows that it is mostly associated with small domestic units of simple architectural design and construction technique and small size, such as Type 3 houses in McEnroe’s classification (McEnroe 1982).

Storage Pattern II The number of pithoi found within the domestic unit when excavated varies from two to 14 specimens. Their capacity usually fluctuates between 250 and 500 liters, in a few cases reaching 1,000 liters. This is the most common pattern in the cases where storage containers were found. Such storage potentials have been observed at: Mansions B and C at Tylissos; the Sifakis plot house at Seli; the house at Hagia Photini at Phaistos; the house at Kouses; the North House, the Acropolis houses, and Hood’s House at Knossos; perhaps Houses A, B, and C at Prasa; Houses Da, Dg, Ea, Za, Zg, the houses at Quartier L, and the house at Hagia Varvara at Malia; Houses Aa, Ab, Ac, Ad, Ae, Ba, Bb, Cc, Cd, Ce, Cf, Ck, De, Dg, Ea, Ec, Ee, Eg, Fb, Fd, Fe, and Fi at Gournia; most houses at Pseira; House D.3 and Buildings A and B at Mochlos; and perhaps at Houses C.2, C.4, C.6, C.7 also at Mochlos, although these units are not fully excavated. Additional examples include: the farmhouse at Chalinomouri; perhaps the farmhouse at Chrysokamino; Houses I.1 and II.1 at Petras; many houses at Palaikastro (Old Excavations); and most houses of the Zakrian settlement including Hogarth’s House G, House Da, the Strong Building, the House of the Niches, Houses G and D of the Northwest Hill, and the Building of the Pot Deposit. The study of the functional performance characteristics of the pithoi used in these contexts reveals a very high percentage of specimens with high/medium transportability, high accessibility and graspability, and low/medium capacity (almost 80% of the total). The rest is represented by large specimens with low transportability and accessibility and high storage capacity (20% of the total). These two groups of pithoi are not mutually exclusive but can occur in the same storeroom. The most frequent combinations of storage containers are:

1. One or two large pithoi 2. Two or three large pithoi combined with no more than six small- or medium-sized pithoi 3. No more than 14 small pithoi. Pithoi were usually associated with large amphorae and jugs suitable for short-term storage and transfer purposes. Some houses were equipped with medium-sized containers (but no pithoi) and/or smallsized containers suitable for transfer, pouring, and short-term storage such as amphoras, big jugs, stamnoi, and tubs (e.g., Houses Da and Za at Malia). Storage containers were placed in storerooms such as small rooms, doorless spaces reached by a trapdoor or ladder, underground spaces, back spaces, and spaces underneath stairways. They were also placed in areas used for food preparation, processing, and consumption, and in residential areas as well as in upper floor spaces. Likewise, storerooms served for the storage of domestic implements and for other activities that have left no traces in the archaeological record. Pithoi were placed along walls and in corners and occasionally sunk into the floor up to the rim. Special installations giving a more suitable storage environment are rare. The few exceptions are: the pithos-collector House Da, the Strong Building, and Hogarth’s House G at Kato Zakros; the storage pit at the Sifakis Plot house at Seli; and the enclosure for storage containers in House Da at Malia. The overall area devoted to storage activities usually represents 4–10% of the ground floor of the domestic unit. Higher percentages (15–23%) have been observed in the farmstead at Chalinomouri and Houses Ac, Cf, Ec, Fd, and Fe at Gournia. These estimates, however, refer to spaces that were not used exclusively for storage activities. Despite the considerable ground floor area in which storage containers were found, the pithoi used in these contexts are of low storage potential. The contextualization of this model of storage behavior shows that it is mostly associated with small domestic units of simple architectural design and construction (cf. houses of Type 3 in McEnroe’s classification; McEnroe 1982). This pattern also occurs in some luxurious mansions: Mansion B (the annex of Mansion A) and Mansion C at Tylissos; the House of the Chancel Screen, House Da, and House

STORAGE BEHAVIORS AND SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES IN THE NONPALATIAL SECTOR

Za at Malia; House D.3 at Mochlos; and the Strong Building at Kato Zakros.

Storage Pattern III This pattern is not as frequent as the previous two. The overall potential of storage containers varies from 1,200 to 2,000 liters. The pithoi excavated in some contexts have a potential between 1,200 and 1,600 liters (the house in the Volakakis plot at Seli, the house of Chalara at Phaistos, perhaps the mansion at Vathypetro [LM IB phase], House 2 at Galatas, the mansion at Myrtos Pyrgos, perhaps Building B.2 at Mochlos, House A at Achladia, and Houses A and Z at Kato Zakros) and others from 1,600 to 2,000 liters (House I at Chania-Kastelli, Building 3/5 at Galatas, House Zb at Malia, perhaps House AF N at Pseira, House C.3 at Mochlos, Building 5 and House N at Palaikastro, Hogarth’s Houses A and I [J], and House N at Kato Zakros). The study of the functional performance characteristics of storage containers used in these units points to an increased use, over the previous model, of large pithoi with high capacity, low transportability, and low accessibility. Their number varies from a minimum of two to a maximum of nine specimens. These pithoi were combined with small/medium-sized pithoi (seven to 17 specimens) and vessels suitable for transfer and pouring purposes. House C.3 at Mochlos was equipped with 31 small/medium-sized pithoi, while there is no evidence for the use of large specimens. Medium-sized pithoi, about 11 specimens, were also used at House Zb at Malia. Pithoi were placed in doorless spaces, spaces underneath stairways, pillared rooms, and small rooms. Storage containers were also placed in upper floor spaces, as in the house at Chalara at Phaistos and Building 5 at Palaikastro. Storage containers also stood in areas devoted to food preparation and consumption, residential areas, industrial areas used in the processing of staple commodities, and on the upper story. The overall area devoted to storage activities usually represents 3.5–26% of the ground floor of the domestic unit. Higher percentages such as that observed at House A at Achladia

111

(61%) are based on the floor extent of spaces in which pithoi were found, and not on spaces used mostly for storage activities. This storage pattern is usually observed in domestic structures of Type 2 in McEnroe’s classification (McEnroe 1982), in sumptuary complexes such as Building 3/5 at Galatas and Building 5 at Palaikastro, and in mansions that seem to be the central buildings of their settlements such as the mansion at Myrtos Pyrgos, the mansion at Lagouta Kolokythi, and Building B.2 at Mochlos. This category must also include many elite houses of the Knossos settlement, such as the South House, the South-East House, the House of the Frescos, and the Royal Villa. Unfortunately the exact reconstruction of storage activities in these cases is impossible, as the houses were inhabited for many years, and thus many of the storage containers used in the LM I period were removed from the relevant contexts in later periods. Nevertheless, storage potentials within the limits of Storage Pattern III may be extrapolated from the number of pithoi that the stores of these complexes could hold.

Storage Pattern IV This category includes a small percentage of houses in which the storage potential of the pithoi and other storage containers varies from 2,100 to 4,000 liters. These storage potentials have been seen at the Casa del Lebete, the mansion at Makrigialos, perhaps at the building of KlimatariaManares, the mansion at Tourtouloi–Prophetes Elias, House B at Palaikastro, the mansion at Epano Zakros, and the Oblique Building and House B at Kato Zakros. The mansions at Nerokourou and Kastelli Pediada must also belong to this category. The storage containers in the two latter complexes have an overall storage potential of 1,400–1,680 and 1,600–1,800 liters respectively. It is crucial, however, to note that excavated pictures do not entirely reflect past behaviors, as a considerable part has been erased by complex post-depositional activities and archaeological research limitations. The estimates proposed above do not reflect actual storage patterns, and groups using these complexes

112

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

may have had larger quantities of goods in store. The Pitsidia mansion must also fall into this category, as it had extensive storerooms and large groups of storage containers. The household/group that once used the house at Krousonas and the mansion at Avli may also have had in storage quantities of goods such as those described above. Large, high-capacity storage containers are predominant in most of these contexts. Their number varies from six to 10 specimens. Large pithoi were combined, in some cases, with small/medium-sized pithoi (five to nine specimens) and vessels suitable for transfer and pouring purposes. The exception to this arrangement is House B at Palaikastro, which was equipped with 25 small/medium-sized pithoi and only six large specimens. Pithoi were placed in doorless spaces, rectangular storerooms, spaces underneath stairways, and small rooms. Storage containers also stood in areas used in the processing of staple commodities, and on the upper story. They were placed alongside the walls and in corners, on the floor and/or on slabs, and were occasionally sunk in the floor up to the rim. Special storage installations such as drainage channels, enclosures, paved and plastered floors creating a more suitable storage environment, and benches and holes cut into the floor for the placement of storage containers are frequent and suggest an investment of labor in the construction of these stores. The overall impression is that of a functional plan. The area devoted to storage activities usually represents 7–14% of the ground floor of the unit. This storage pattern is usually observed in complexes of a certain importance. The mansion of Makrigialos, a complex whose architectural layout includes palatial features, was the central building of a small harbor settlement. The mansions at Nerokourou and Kastelli Pediada were also units of a certain importance within their intra-settlement framework. The complex at Klimataria-Manares was a goods shipment station, while the mansion at Epano Zakros specialized in the processing of staples (grapes) and the shipment of wine to a greater center of consumption. The houses at Palaikastro and Kato Zakros are large domestic structures that share many features with Type 2 houses in McEnroe’s classification (McEnroe 1982). Two important complexes also appear to come under this category: the Little Palace at Knossos and Maison E at Malia. There are no testimonies

regarding the storage containers that would have been in use during LM I, as the floor deposits dated to this period have been lost due to the continuous use of the complexes during LM IIIA and LM IIIB. Nevertheless, both complexes had extensive storerooms that could have held a large number of storage containers, with a total capacity within Storage Pattern IV limits.

Storage Pattern V The final storage pattern is very rare. The overall potential of storage containers and built installations varies from 5,000 to 33,650 liters. Such storage potentials have been observed at the Sklavokambos mansion, Mansion A at Tylissos, the Villa Reale and the Casa Est at Hagia Triada, the mansion at Mitropolis-Kannia, the complex at Vathypetro (LM IA phase), and the mansion at Nirou Chani. The mansion at Vrises and the central building at Archanes-Tourkogeitonia must also belong to this category. The storage containers excavated in these complexes have a capacity of about 4,400–5,000 and 16,000–20,000 liters, respectively. It is worth noting that these are minimum estimates; the excavated picture from both complexes is only partly preserved or known. Thus the storage potential estimates suggested here represent only a part of the total of storerooms, and larger quantities of goods may have been stored in these complexes. Large pithoi of high capacity and low transportability and accessibility predominate in this pattern of storage behavior. The number of large pithoi varies from 14 to 71 specimens. They represent about 90% of the storage containers used in the stores, while the rest are medium- and small-sized pithoi. The pithoi are associated with large containers suitable for transfer, pouring, and short-term storage purposes (amphorae, jugs, tubs, etc.) Mudbrick enclosures in the mansion of Nirou Chani considerably increased the capacity of the movable storage implements. Storerooms always have a standardized architectural layout. Pillared rooms, parallel rooms arranged along a corridor, and interconnecting rooms are used for storage purposes. Storage spaces are equipped with cists sunk in the floor, drainage channels, collectors, stone benches, paved and plastered

STORAGE BEHAVIORS AND SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES IN THE NONPALATIAL SECTOR

floors, and special storage enclosures. The quality of construction shows a considerable investment of labor in creating good storage spaces for the preservation of stored wealth. In most cases the magazines were segregated from residential rooms, either in a distinct wing of the house or in separate blocks within it. The overall impression is one of high functional planning and investment of labor in the construction of storage facilities. Storage containers were occasionally placed in residential areas or areas devoted to food preparation and consumption but not as frequently as in the other cases. In some cases residential or ceremonial spaces were converted into storerooms. The most impressive case is that of the central complex at Archanes-Tourkogeitonia, where two residential or ceremonial rooms were converted into storerooms in the last years of use at the complex. The area devoted to storage covers 10%–18% of the ground floor. In the cases of the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada and the mansion at Mitropolis-Kannia,

113

storerooms represent 41% and 34% of the ground floor. The mansion of Vathypetro shows the lowest percentages of floor area devoted to storage with 2.7% of the overall ground floor in LM IA and 1.5% in LM IB; this is a clear instance of storage decrease from LM IA to the LM IB period. Storage decrease was also observed in the storage potential of pithoi. This storage pattern usually occurred in large and well built mansions. Some of these complexes, because of their spatial position within the settlement and the overall contextual evidence (including inscribed administrative documents) may have been the administrative centers of the surrounding settlements (e.g., the mansions at Nirou Chani, Vathypetro, the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada, and the central complex at Archanes-Tourkogeitonia). Some other buildings, such as those at Sklavokambos and Mitropolis-Kannia, were probably used—besides their function as seats of local ruling groups—as intermediate stations in the mobilization of commodities to a larger center.

Subsistence Autarkies of LM IB Households The overview of testimonies concerned with storage and their discussion within the contextual framework has highlighted significant differences in the distribution of storage containers and installations at LM IB ordinary and nonpalatial elite domestic units (Table 10). These differences imply a considerable degree of variation in the quantities of subsistence reserves kept in store and the subsistence autarkies of the households/groups that once used these contexts. A question arises concerning the understanding of meaning and implications of different storage patterns for the subsistence economy of the nonpalatial sector of LM IB societies. In the discussion that follows, storage capacities are interpreted in terms of quantities of stored foodstuffs, their subsistence potential in terms of calories, the land tenure required to supply these calorific potentials, and the period of subsistence autarky, following the methodology developed and discussed in the first chapter of this study. Proposed estimates are not factual data; they should rather be considered as figures of a primarily illustrative value, to help us understand patterns of household behavior.

As outlined above, most LM IB domestic units were found without storage containers (Storage Pattern I). A reasonable question arises: how far does this image—obviously quite an odd one because the storage of food supplies is the cornerstone of a household economy—reflect patterns of past behavior? Or is it due to parameters affecting the formation of the archaeological record and/or research pitfalls? One should bear in mind that: 1. Both houses with storage containers and houses without such vessels coexist in the same urban center, which has been excavated following the same research protocols 2. There is no evidence of extensive and intensive reoccupation—with the exception of certain houses at Palaikastro—in the contexts in question after their abandonment or destruction 3. The causes of abandonment or destruction seem to be the same in units with pithoi and those without

114

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

4. Storage containers, as opposed to the rest of the household goods, are difficult to move following the abandonment or destruction of a context I will uphold, therefore, that the lack of durable storage containers in these houses reflects actual patterns of process and is an indication to be taken seriously into account in economic analyses and reconstructions of household behavior. How to explain this striking pattern? A number of possible explanations can be considered. Households may have preferred storage containers that were less archaeologically visible than pithoi. The use of such containers, however, is inappropriate for storing the quantities of goods essential to cover the nutritional requirements of a household all year round. Perishable containers are useful—as shown by ethnographic parallels—for storing small quantities of goods over short periods of time and for transport purposes but not for long-term storage. Households may have also owned farmhouses in the countryside where they could have stored food surpluses and brought these into the town in small amounts as needed (cf. Osborne 1985, 1992 for examples from Classical Greece). This explanation is quite unlikely. The widespread use of peripheral storerooms cannot explain the extensive picture of houses with no storage vessels observed in several settlements. Storage of a household’s basic nutritional wealth far from the residential area is inadvisable as, apart from the problem of frequent transportation of the surpluses from the peripheral store to the house, there is also the question of security of the stored wealth. Households almost always prefer to keep their basic goods under their direct control. I would argue, therefore, that the households in question enjoyed a very limited degree of subsistence autarky, barely enough to meet their nutritional needs for the whole year. This situation may have created dependency relations with the central administration or wealthy groups, or involvement in commercial exchanges and/or manufacturing of goods in order to ensure part of the necessities of life. The detection of eight noduli impressed with the same seal, carefully stored inside the lid of a vase, and weights in House Fg at Gournia (Fotou 1993, 89), a unit with no storage containers but full other artifacts,

suggest the involment of the resident household in economic transactions. The storage potential in most of the houses in which storage vessels have been found varies from 250 to 500 liters and in few cases reaches 1,000 liters (Storage Pattern II). Assuming that 80% of these storage capacities was used for the storage of cereals, pulses, olive oil, and wine—the remaining 20% is assumed to have been used for other goods such as sun-dried, slated, and smoked goods, water, and domestic implements—we may speculate that storage potentials of 250–500 liters pinpoint the storage of 106–212 kg of cereals, 12–25 kg of pulses, 20–40 liters of olive oil, and 30–60 liters of wine. If we convert this information into calories, then the subsistence potential varies within 615,572–1,231,441 calories. The above calorific potential was produced from 4.3 to 8.8 stremmata. In cases where storage capacities of about 1,000 liters are observed, the percentages of the abovementioned goods increase. In these cases, the household would have had stored at its disposal about 424 kg of cereals, 49 kg of pulses, 80 liters of olive oil, and 120 liters of wine. These quantities, produced by 10 stremmata of arable land, provide a calorific potential of 2,462,882 calories. Considering that the domestic units in which these storage potentials were observed were probably designed for households of about five individuals, we may infer that the stored goods were insufficient to cover their nutritional requirements all year round. Households with storage potentials under 1,000 liters would have had only a few months’ reserve. In cases where storage potentials were about 1,000 liters, the period of nutritional autarky would have been longer—maybe seven months—but this would still have been insufficient to fully cover the nutritional requirements of a household of five. One could of course argue that these estimates may not fully reflect actual subsistence autarkies. The relatively low number of storage containers does not necessarily imply a low subsistence potential: besides the role of depositional circumstances affecting floor deposits, some amounts of foodstuffs might have been stored in perishable containers. Furthermore, fresh commodities may also have contributed to the nutritional requirements of the household. Even if we assume the use of perishable storage vessels and consumption of fresh goods,

STORAGE BEHAVIORS AND SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES IN THE NONPALATIAL SECTOR

however, we must not imagine storage potentials substantially altering the picture described above. It is likely that people living in these houses were unable to meet their nutritional requirements throughout the year. There is no evidence for the accumulation of surpluses that would enable householders to face food shortages in periods of stress. The frequent occurrence of a similar storage behavior in many contexts from different regional settings—contexts with different depositional histories and excavated according to different research protocols—may not be accidental. It is very likely that the picture of restricted subsistence autarky characterizes a large section of localized LM IB societies. The availability of edible goods throughout the year would not have been steady, but would have varied depending on the quantities stored in each house and the dietary requirements of the household. Ethnographic information from pre-industrial Crete shows that the various types of goods in the cellar of each household were plentiful in the months immediately after the harvest but then gradually diminished. Cretan families who had adopted a similar storage behavior to that discussed above— note that this storage behavior was predominant among pre-industrial households in Crete—kept in their larder olive oil and cereals that could cover their requirements for seven (64% of the households) to eight (36% of the households) months. The spring months must have been difficult ones for the households because their stores were running out. This ethnographic picture of economic straits linked to agricultural production also emerges from certain 16th-century loan contracts (Drakakis 2004, k), while in wills itemizing household goods drawn up at the end of spring, many of the pithoi used by the household were half-empty or almost empty (e.g., Stavrinidis 1976, 216, no. 807). Furthermore, the half-empty pithoi found at Akrotiri, Thera, led Marinatos to believe that the earthquake that destroyed the site took place at the end of the spring when the last year’s supplies had been exhausted and the new crops had not yet been harvested (Marinatos 1971, 54). The low storage potentials described above have also been observed at House Ac at Gournia and House II.1 at Petras, where households were involved with the processing of staples. These low storage potentials may mean that wine production was intended to cover household needs, or that the

115

goods produced were stored in an area outside the house. A wine press installation was also found in House Dd at Gournia. No pithoi were found there, however, which may point to the transportation of the product to another context. The inscribed clay lamp found in Room K of House II.1 at Petras (Tsipopoulou and Hallager 1996) suggests the movement of goods in and out of the domestic unit. The fragment of a Linear A tablet at the house of Hagia Photini at Phaistos, a house lacking installations for the processing of staples, shows that the householder was involved in the movement of goods. Other cases of houses with wine press installations—such as many houses in the town of Kato Zakros—are completely different. The storage containers in use had a considerable storage potential. I believe that these dissimilar pictures—which are of course too few to generalize—arising from the combination of storage potentials and the presence of installations for processing agricultural products, stress local variations in production, storage, distribution, and consumption of goods, in this case wine. The picture of a low subsistence reserve, based on the low number of storage containers, also occurred in some domestic units that, on the basis of their overall architectural layout, were probably built and used by wealthy households. This is the case of Houses Da and Za at Malia, Mansions B and C at Tylissos, the House of the Chancel Screen, House D.3 at Mochlos, and finally, the Strong Building at Kato Zakros. These buildings had large storerooms capable of holding many storage vessels. The use of few pithoi and/or other containers of low storage potential, however, contrasts with the considerable floor space allocated to storage activities. This contradiction is difficult to explain, bearing in mind the economic and perhaps the social status of the households able to build and use these complexes. Taking into consideration the absence of complex postdepositional histories that might have radically altered the excavated picture, it is argued here that households residing in these complexes had low quantities of goods in their stores. The overall data, therefore, highlight possible changes in the economic status of the households before the destruction of the house and/or a relationship of dependence on the central administration. Of particular interest is the case of the House of the Niches at Kato Zakros. Hasty and shoddy

116

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

building alterations and interior reorganization of the unit brought about a reduction in its living and storage spaces (Archondaki, forthcoming). The use of a small number of low-capacity pithoi and the absence of clearly functionally diverse storage areas may indicate changes in the storage practices of the resident household. The poor-quality architectural alterations, the few artifacts demonstrating wealth, and the changes in storage practice highlight changes in the household’s functional needs, which are determined either by changes in its composition or by engagement in specialized activities or connection with the central authority. The overall excavated picture shows that during its last phase of use, the House of the Niches must have had a household of relatively limited economic power, a situation that would surely have created dependency relations. In other houses representing a relatively small part of the total, the storage containers found have a potential of 1,200–2,000 liters (Storage Pattern III). These quantities may imply the storage of 530–849 kg of cereals, 62–99 kg of pulses, 100–160 liters of olive oil, and 150–240 liters of wine. If we convert this information into calories, the subsistence potential varies from 3,075,160 to 4,926,061 calories. The above calorific potential was produced from 13–36 stremmata. Goods stored in perishable containers and fresh goods would also have contributed to the dietary requirements of the household. If we assume households of about five individuals, we may infer that cereals, pulses, olive oil, and wine were sufficient for the nutritional requirements of a family of five for a period of 8–13 months. The period of subsistence autarky is limited in more numerous households, in which case the stored surplus would also have been less. Generally speaking, these storage potentials provide a picture of relative prosperity, especially when compared to those of Storage Patterns I and II. This picture of prosperity is partly confirmed by the rest of the archaeological context, including carefully-planned architectural layouts in many of the houses in question and the discovery of considerable assemblages of finely crafted artifacts. Many households also seem to have engaged in specialized activities. The households residing in Houses A, Z, and Hogarth’s Houses A and I(J) at Kato Zakros specialized in the production of wine. The considerable storage potentials of these

complexes allowed the storage of wine within the domestic unit. Part of the product would have been consumed by the household, while the rest would have been intended for transport and storage in another context. The discovery of the important assemblage of sealings in Hogarth’s House A points to the participation of the relevant household in activities connected to the transport of goods and its close relationship with the palatial group controlling the urban center of Kato Zakros. The reference to large amounts of agricultural products on the Linear A tablet found in this house is a direct testimonial to the important role of this household in the administration of such goods. The family using House I at Chania-Kastelli must also have played an important part in the movement of agricultural products, as did other families in the settlement, because tablets and other documents were found in the houses where they resided. The tablets refer to significant quantities of subsistence goods (Palmer 1995). The discovery of tablets at this settlement may allude to a level of private administration so far unattested elsewhere on the island (Schoep 2002a, 198). It is equally possible, however, that households were related to the palatial group controlling the urban center. In the case of House C.3 at Mochlos, whose household specialized in commercial activities, as did many others in the settlement (Soles 2004), the stored subsistence products would have served to cover nutritional requirements on the one hand and formed a stored capital at the household’s disposal for its commercial enterprises on the other. These subsistence potentials are also observed at complexes that seem to have been the seats of groups of people ruling over the wider area. This is the case with the mansion at Myrtos Pyrgos, the mansion at Lagouta Kolokythi, and Building B.2 at Mochlos. The architectural layout of these complexes, their position within the settlement, and the rich assemblages of fine artifacts underline the prominent social position of the people who used these complexes within their intra-settlement framework. The storage potentials, however, are relatively low, especially if we consider the increased consumer needs of these groups—necessary not only for survival but also for conspicuous consumption of goods within a society of intense contrasts and distinctions. Part of the goods administrated by these people may have been stored in peripheral storage

STORAGE BEHAVIORS AND SUBSISTENCE AUTARKIES IN THE NONPALATIAL SECTOR

complexes that would have supplied the groups in question at regular intervals. The LM IB phase of Vathypetro must belong to that same category. Storage vessels—although their exact number is hard to specify—must have had a storage capacity within the terms of Storage Pattern III. On the contrary, based on the storage capacity of its pithoi, LM IA Vathypetro is ranked in Storage Pattern V—a fact evidently pointing to a clear decrease of storage potential in that site from the LM IA to LM IB period. In very few contexts the storage potential varies from 2,000 to 4,000 liters (Storage Pattern IV). Converting these potentials into stored foodstuffs, we may assume the storage of 849–1,698 kg of cereals, 99–199 kg of pulses, 116–320 liters of olive oil, and 240–480 liters of wine; goods produced from 20–40 stremmata. The above quantities of goods provide a subsistence potential of 4,926,061– 9,852,122 calories, a sufficient amount to cover the needs of a household of five all year round and even longer. These storage potentials also hint at the collection of a surplus amount determined from case to case, depending on the overall potential of the storage containers and the members of the household. This picture of subsistence prosperity is observed in complexes whose groups must have played an important political or social role within their local communities, such as the Little Palace at Knossos, Mansion E at Malia, and the complex at Makrigialos. These storage potentials ensured a high degree of subsistence autonomy for the people in question, at the same time providing them with the opportunity to participate in conspicuous display/consumption of wealth. Other buildings must have been used by individuals engaging in specialized activities, meaning that part of the stored wealth may not have been intended for their personal use. The large quantities of goods found in the Casa del Lebete, combined with the assemblage of Linear A tablets, demonstrate that the group using the house participated in the distribution of agricultural produce and must have been directly linked to the central administration controlling the Hagia Triada settlement (Militello 1992). The mansion of Epano Zakros was used, among other activities, for the production and storage of wine and the mobilization of the finished product to a major center of consumption (Platon 2002).

117

There is also evidence for wine production at the complex of Tourtouloi–Prophetes Elias, explaining the high storage potential of the vessels found there. Part of the wine production may have been transported to other distribution/consumption centers. The probable high storage potentials of the complex at Klimataria-Manares are justified, because the complex was probably the shipment station of goods from the harbor of Siteia inland, and vice versa, along the Stomion River (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997). The case of House B at Kato Zakros is of particular interest. The well-built wine press installation in Room M shows that the owner of this unit was particularly interested in the production of wine. The storage containers in this unit have the highest potential of all houses whose households specialized in wine production. The containers could store considerable quantities of wine besides the foodstuffs necessary for the nutritional requirements of the household. The spatial distribution of storage containers within the unit in relation to their functional properties is relevant. Most pithoi and other containers used for storage were medium-sized specimens with moderate capacity and high transportability. The preference for containers with these functional characteristics may suggest frequent use and mobility of stored commodities within the domestic unit. It may also imply the circulation of stored goods in an extra-domestic sphere. It may not be coincidental that the main storeroom of the house, Room S, a finely plastered space, is directly connected through a doorway with the town area. The store was equipped with small and mediumsized storage containers. Storage containers with functional performance characteristics similar to those of House B were also found in Hogarth’s House I(J), another domestic unit of the Zakrian town specializing in the production of wine. The storage potential of this unit, however, was lower than that of House B. The last storage pattern (Storage Pattern V) is very rare and greatly exceeds the storage potentials observed in other contexts. The overall potential of storage containers and built installations is over 5,000 liters (it varies from 5,000 to 33,650 liters). These amounts of goods could provide large subsistence reserves and could cover, according to the particular circumstances, the subsistence needs of large households/groups for a long period. They

118

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

might also have provided famine relief for a low number of individuals in times of food shortage. The large quantities of stored goods would surely not have been used exclusively to meet nutritional requirements, as they are present in complexes under the control of political groups ruling extensive areas. Some of these complexes, such as the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada, the central building at Archanes-Tourkogeitonia, and the mansion at Nirou Chani, were the seats of regional political groups that would have controlled the production and distribution of large quantities of agricultural produce from areas that in some cases, as we shall see in the next chapter, were extended much farther than their immediate hinterland. Other centers must, among other things, have functioned as transport centers for products mobilized from the hinterland to larger centers of consumption. These are Mansion A at Tylissos and those at Sklavokambos and Kannia-Mitropolis. Thus the figures observed are far higher than those necessary to cover nutritional requirements, taking on a special economic

dimension not just within each settlement but in some cases beyond it. Differences observed in the storage capabilities of ordinary houses and nonpalatial elite complexes highlight the existence of marked contrasts in the subsistence autarkies and the access to sources of wealth of the households/groups who were once resident in the units. These contrasts, reasonable in the context of complex social structures in which access to sources of wealth is not the same for all and is determined by political, economic, and ideological factors, have not been stressed despite being well known, perhaps because they pose questions on pictures of welfare and abundance. In the following chapter we shall see how these different pictures of autarky in ordinary domestic and nonpalatial contexts may be associated with the corresponding pictures seen in palaces, thereby helping us to infer sociopolitical and socio-economic levels of interaction among the different social groups operating within LM IB state societies.

5

Storage and Sociopolitical Dynamics in LM I State Societies The question of storage is a vital one in any discussion of the economic management of complex societies. The development of any form of institution, whether religious, political, or military, presupposes access to an uninterrupted supply of goods. Discussions on production, exchange, and consumption of material wealth, however, usually have paid little attention to storage except as a necessary stage of the exchange process where the focus is primarily on the surplus presumed to be in the stores (Gudeman 1998). Storage is here seen as a dynamic stage in the process of production, mobilization, storage, and consumption of staples. Storage, despite being an independent part, is not autonomous and disconnected from the other stages of this cycle. It is believed that storage, per

se, plays a direct part in matters of political and social power. At the same time, storage acquires a moral dimension: it makes resources available to the individuals and/or groups who require them, affecting their perceived social status in the process (Halperin 1994, 167). The social evaluation of individual and social groups may take into account their connection to the practice of storage. The study of archaeological data concerning storage practices derived from palaces, nonpalatial elite buildings, and ordinary domestic units, following the above lines of thought, offers an ideal opportunity for the investigation of economic dynamics among social groups operating within LM I state societies and provides insights into the organization of political power.

Organization of Storage in the Central and Domestic Sectors of LM I Societies To begin the discussion with the storage practices adopted by groups controlling LM I palaces,

groups at the apex of the political and social hierarchy, I will argue that the extensive and well-built

120

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

storerooms they possessed show that long-term control and maintenance of wealth was one of their primary concerns. Stored wealth was a valuable asset, both economically and politically: wealth, when controlled and channelled, helps to sustain and reenact order and legitimacy (Baines and Yoffee 2000). The interpretation, in specific economic and political terms, of subsistence wealth stored within palaces, however, was a matter open to debate. The extensive and well-equipped palatial storerooms were used as evidence of the interpretation of palaces as large redistributive centers. Renfrew had argued that ecological variation in resources between regions leads to regional specialization in subsistence strategies and craft activities (Renfrew 1972, 296–297, 307). Palaces guaranteed the production and distribution of specialized products. Their authority was derived from their position as coordinators of the gathering and successive redistribution of locally produced goods. Halstead pushed the question further, arguing that palaces developed a centralized redistributive system with a relief function (Halstead 1981, 1988; Halstead and O’Shea 1982). Relief redistribution was seen as a response to inherent problems of farming due to climatic variability: storing surplus from good years reduced the risk of crop failure. In order to alleviate the limitations of contemporary storage technologies, food surpluses were converted into tokens in other materials, with the implicit understanding that these could later be re-exchanged for food in lean years. This transaction was called “social storage.” Relief distribution, therefore, was seen as a crucial action within the mature palace economy. The role of political groups as redistributive agents in the emergence and development of state institutions has received serious criticism. Earle has convincingly demonstrated that ecological variation in resources and the assumed role of regional leaders in redistributing specialized staple production does not fit well with the ethnographic and ethnohistorical evidence of societies organized around chieftains (Earle 1977; 1997, 67–75). Redistribution, a notion that actually covers a diversity of arrangements—ranging from the “pooling” or sharing of labor and produce within small social groups to the “mobilization” of resources for the elite—exclusively supported the activities of the

chieftain institutions. The chief land managers were able to mobilize staples by limiting the right of access to productive facilities to those contributing labor services. In the context of the Bronze Age Aegean, the subsistence/redistribution model, as envisioned by Renfrew, has received plentiful and diverse criticism. The re-evaluation of archaeological testimonies and textual information questions the dominant position of redistribution within the palatial economy (Cherry 1986; van Andel and Runnels 1988; Halstead 1999). The extent of subsistence diversification in the area of the southern Aegean has been exaggerated, while making the further point that diversification does not necessarily lead to local economic specialization. Moreover, there is no evidence that the palaces redistributed products of local specialization. Palatial redistribution, in effect, was not so much “pooling” as upward “mobilization” of resources. The role of palaces as relief distribution agents and the social storage model also require some comment. Models that look to the relationship between political power and institutional generosity take the existence of centrally stored large quantities of surpluses as a necessary precondition (e.g., Brumfiel 1994). Stored surpluses were capable of supporting the ruling class and, at the same time, alleviating the subsistence problems of commoners in periods of crisis. In the context of LM I Crete, however, the picture of palatial storage facilities as excavated does not support this narrative. Stored goods were certainly used to support part of the non-producing sector of the local society, but it is unlikely that they could ever have sustained large groups of the population. The number of people living in the palatial centers was much higher than the number that could be supported on the goods stored within the palace in periods of crisis. In the case of Knossos, for instance, if we suppose an optimal storage potential of 300,376 liters and bear in mind that an adult would need 300–400 liters per year to cover his basic nutritional needs, we see that the goods stored in the palace would have fed only 750–1,000 persons each year. The number of dependents is low given that the city of Knossos would have had a population of about 15,000. The picture of the limited supporting potential of the goods stored within the palace remains unchanged even if we suppose that

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

food rations were distributed for short periods and not all year round. Similar pictures are evident in all the other palatial centers. Of course the number of individuals that a palace could support would vary according to the particular economic circumstances. Certainly, estimated figures are subject to considerable variation if one or more of the variables is altered, but the general pattern—that the palatial storage potential falls far short of the local population’s needs—is nonetheless clear. Thus optimal storage potential, as observed in the palatial sector of societal organization, does not support the claimed importance of redistribution as a means of provisioning state societies. The view of the palace as a redistributive center of subsistence relief for nonpalatial dependents or as a buffer agent against food shortages, as this has been generally argued on the basis of the size of palatial stores, is a highly questionable one. The stored subsistence wealth within the palaces could support a restricted number of individuals. If palaces had functioned as redistributive centers for their large urban population, far more centralized space should have been devoted to the storage of staple products. It is of course highly possible that stored goods within palaces do not represent the only capital the palaces administrated. Goods could be stored equally well in peripheral warehouses within the settlement or the wider region controlled by the palatial authority, close to their area of production and/or consumption. In this case, palatial polities would have a considerable amount of subsistence reserve at their disposal to support large numbers of individuals. The possibility of such warehouses controlled by palaces should not be dismissed in the context of LM I palatial settlements. The so-called Northeast House and the Arsenal at Knossos, as well as the Bastione at Hagia Triada, were storage complexes probably controlled by ruling authorities. In the urban centers of Malia, Gournia, and Kato Zakros—the best documented, albeit incompletely, palatial centers of Bronze Age Crete—large warehouses outside the palace have not so far been reported. These different pictures, partly due to limited study of the urban area around palaces, may highlight differences in the economic strategies of each palatial polity. Amounts of agricultural products listed in Linear A tablets provide additional proof of the

121

presence of peripheral storehouses controlled by the central administration (palatial or peripheral). On many tablets, the quantities of staples in which the central administration was directly interested are so large that they could not have been kept in stores within the known administrative complex (cf. Halstead and O’Shea 1982; Bennet [1985] drew upon evidence from Linear B tablets for a similar suggestion). The TY 3 tablet from Mansion A at Tylissos, for instance, lists a single entry of 220 units of olive oil, a figure equivalent to 21,120 liters, while the HT 102 tablet from the Casa del Lebete at Hagia Triada lists a single entry of 1,060 units of barley, a figure equivalent to 101,760 liters (Palmer 1995, 139). If the average capacity of a large pithos at Mansion A at Tylissos is about 300–350 liters (estimate based on the capacity of Form 15), the quantity of oil booked on TY 3 would have filled about 60–70 pithoi. Given the number of pithoi excavated within the mansion, at least 42 specimens, the above amount of oil could not have been stored within the mansion. Equally, the entry of 1,060 units of barley listed on tablet HT 102 would have filled about 226–254 pithoi (estimate based on an assumed average capacity of a large pithos at Hagia Triada of 400–450 liters). Given the overall amount of agricultural products recorded on tablets from Hagia Triada, the number of storage containers excavated at the Villa Reale (about 88 specimens), and the need to reserve storage space for other commodities, it is reasonable to assume that the quantity of barley listed in HT 102 was stored outside the central complex. Stores within the settlement, such as the Bastione complex and the extensive stores of the Casa Est, could house considerable amounts of goods. Large amounts of goods listed in the tablets may never have reached the corresponding centers but were stored in storehouses close to the center of their production and/or consumption (cf. Palmer 1994, 192, 194, drawing upon evidence from Linear B tablets for a similar suggestion on wine). If peripheral storehouses actually existed—and this is very likely—one could argue that palatial authorities, as well as ruling groups controlling peripheral centers, had enough wealth to exercise an active economic policy at several levels, i.e., within intra-settlement, regional, and intraregional frameworks. Even in this case, however,

122

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

could we support a narrative that sees palaces as redistributive centers of subsistence relief for a settlement’s population or as buffer agents in periods of food crisis? It does seem reasonable that redistribution of subsistence goods in periods of food shortages would have been undertaken by political institutions. The intervention of state institutions in difficult times is reported in many cultural contexts. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to exaggerate the significance of institutionalized generosity. Disbursements of food to commoners mostly occurred on festive occasions and at similar conspicuous displays of wealth; these had no correlation with environmental stresses in the food supply (Earle 1977). Relief distribution is all too often a tool of political propaganda rather than a tangible service. It is conducted for the ultimate purpose of aggrandizement of the ruler or of maintaining the political status quo. In the pre-industrial Aegean, historic data from Venetian and Ottoman times show that the redistribution in periods of famine of large quantities of cereals, stored in state silos, did not usually go to alleviate food shortages (Kostis 1993, 84–89). Centrally stored grain was used primarily for the state, and only in cases of serious social unrest, caused by famine, was it sold to consumers. Even in periods of stress the state had an eye to profit. Free distribution of food rations occurred only in periods of festivity. Although these testimonies come from sociopolitical contexts where market laws affect mobilization and consumption of goods, they still give us some insights into how the state in pre-industrial societies might react in periods of crisis. As far as the “social storage” hypothesis is concerned, there is no doubt that it may indeed successfully explain the emergence and development of political institutions in many cultural contexts. It is my impression, however, that there are some questions concerning its empirical basis in the case of Bronze Age Crete. It is argued by Halstead and others that the need first to cope with climatic variability between districts of diverse topography, and then to minimize losses of any stored capital, occurring due to the limitations of contemporary storage technologies, all lead to the development of a mechanism to convert staple goods into sumptuary artifacts, the latter to be exchanged in periods of stress for food from elsewhere (Halstead

1981, 1988; Halstead and O’Shea 1982). This concept is based on information on inter-annual variation in crop-yields and climatic instability between different districts of modern Crete and the geomorphology of the Cretan landscape, in combination with observations on the decrease in space devoted to staple storage within the palaces, the increase in craft activities, and finally the decentralization of storage from palaces to the periphery. The impact of climatic variability on crop yields seems to have been much over emphasized. Although there can be no doubt that climatic instability can have a major impact on food supplies, local conditions alone will not cause food shortages on the scale of famine. Kostis, in an accomplished discussion of historic testimonies on land infertility and famine in 17th- to early 19th-century Greece, holds that we must turn more to the social mechanisms of surplus allocation and distribution in order to monitor frequency and intensity of shortages, and only secondarily examine meteorological conditions (Kostis 1993, 55). Famine and weather-induced crop destruction do sometimes coincide. This is not enough, however, to explain instances of food crises. Agriculture on the Greek mainland is in a position to face unfavorable climate incidents, which would hardly be sufficient in themselves to explain the cases of nutritional imbalance. The idea that palatial institutions are more concerned with the production and mobilization of luxury items used in “social storage” transactions than in the accumulation and storage of staples during the Neopalatial period also needs to be reconsidered in the light of new data. I would argue that there is no evidence to prove—as discussed in Chapter 3 and further below—that staple storage within palaces decreased, being transferred to secondary complexes, the so-called “villas.” The new reading of the evidence proposed here shows that the palaces were important centers for the collection and storage of staples. Concerning the theory of increase and intensification of production and consumption of items conferring prestige and social status during the Neopalatial period, it is true that most testimonies come from Neopalatial contexts. It should be noted, however, that the picture we have of the Protopalatial period is incomplete mostly due to complex depositional histories and research bias,

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

which do not permit methodological diachronic approaches in that direction. This apart, the study of artifacts from the Protopalatial and earlier periods proves the existence of a complex system of production and distribution of luxury goods to cover the consumer demands of the ruling class (e.g., Knappett 1999; Day and Wilson 2002; Van de Moortel 2002; Tomkins, Day, and Kilikoglou 2004). Doubts may also be raised concerning the feasibility of converting luxury goods into food. Historical information has shown that in periods of food shortages the value ratio between the sumptuary item and the subsistence commodity may be considerably inverted. Valuable items were often exchanged for low quantities of food, meaning that people could not meet subsistence problems effectively due to lack of goods. The most telling examples are exchanges during the Nazi occupation of Greece (Margaritis 1995). Because of the scarcity of food caused by the warfare, the urban population was in a precarious situation (Magkriotis n.d., 68–80). Starving householders roamed the countryside in order to exchange valuables for food. Valuables often obtained very little (Thomadakis 1984; Margaritis 1995; Fakiolas 2003). A diamond necklace, for instance, might be exchanged for just 20 liters of olive oil and 35 kg of wheat. Food was at a premium as people’s desperation was fuelled by widespread scarcity. Such exchanges created marked dislocations of wealth between the different classes in Greek society. I would argue from this that exchanging valuables for food may not always provide any substantial subsistence relief in times of dearth. Farmers were clearly aware of the problems in the convertibility of sumptuary goods into food, and so preferred to store considerable quantities of subsistence commodities, even facing the risk of deterioration, rather than convert them into sumptuary goods/currency. In conclusion, then, the institutions residing within palaces may have operated as large, autonomous groups, storing goods (within the central administrative complex or in peripheral warehouses) for the maintenance of a restricted number of non-food producers and to provide the means to finance state enterprises. Relief redistribution to the masses that were not related, through a working relationship, to the palace cannot be dismissed, especially in periods of serious social unrest caused by subsistence stress. At the same

123

time, however, I would argue that the picture of consensus and reciprocity, which the concept of relief redistribution indirectly implies, actually contrasts with the power-brokering and dependence relationships within a stratified and hierarchical political system. The ideal of consensus seems illusory, and the politics of self-interest were well and truly alive in ancient states. Apart from the economic conclusions that can be drawn from the extent and layout of storerooms within palaces, the study of storage behaviors can also shed light on the social and ideological structures of various LM I societies. The careful construction of palatial stores, the standardization observable in their architectural vocabulary, the use of sumptuary building materials, complex patterns of circulation around storerooms, patterns of lighting, direct association of storerooms with ceremonial areas, and production of pithoi of high craftsmanship exclusively used in palaces, could all be part of a planned “scenographic setting” for the display of the stored wealth itself. Palatial authorities probably sought to show off their stored supplies in a fairly demonstrative fashion on certain occasions and to certain social groups. Display of wealth can establish, maintain, and change social relations. The comparative overview of the architectural layout of the palace storerooms has shown that, of all political groups controlling palaces, that using the Knossian palace seems to have placed most importance on display strategies. The palace storerooms are particularly well built with extensive use of luxurious building materials, including finely cut ashlar masonry, gypsum floors and door jambs, and walls lined with gypsum slabs and fine plaster, while the architectural layout is the most complex found in any palace (Christakis 2004, 2006b). This high quality of construction is not found in the storerooms of any other palace with the exception of the West Magazines in the palace of Phaistos where ashlar blocks are extensively used. The layout and quality of construction of the storerooms at the Knossian palace is in accordance with the architectural elaboration observed in the rest of the complex. Thus, we see that the basic form of the various palaces is determined by a wide spectrum of factors and status considerations, which are not always successfully realized in the final product (cf. Adams 2006).

124

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Access to palatial storerooms is restricted: complex arrangements of narrow and long corridors, interconnected spaces, and narrow doors lead to the storage wings of the palaces. The need to limit access to palace storerooms—a need varying from case to case—contradicts the picture observed in most domestic and nonpalatial elite contexts. Nonpalatial storerooms are more easily accessible from the outside. The more restricted patterns of accessibility in some nonpalatial elite complexes and domestic units, such as the South House of Knossos, the set-up at the mansion of Vathypetro, and Mansion E and House Ζα at Malia, are exceptions to the rule. All these different patterns of storeroom location and accessibility may not be the result of purely utilitarian choices in each case. Many architectural decisions regarding building layout and location of various activities are determined by underlying social relations and invested with deeper symbolic meaning (Moore 1996). I would argue that the differences in observed storage space in the cases discussed here are connected to the varying views of each community on storage as a means of defining social status. Each storage area provides us with information on the social values and relationships of its inhabitants and their attitudes to a place of importance that could contain vital clues to social identity. In highly stratified social contexts, a desire to establish and maintain control is always present. Limiting access to “places of importance” is one such method adopted by ruling groups: this may be achieved by creating symbolic barriers, but it is usually reinforced by physical ones (Love 1999). This exclusion operates like a one-way mirror, allowing rulers to observe and control lower sections of society without allowing the latter to do the same. The restricted ease of access with respect to storage indicates a conscious decision by palatial institutions to define and validate their position in this, as in other, social spheres of interaction. The existence of palatial stores, their size and architectural arrangement, and the amounts of goods kept in these spaces would be well known to the commoners residing in the urban center around the palace. People would know that palaces had large quantities of goods in store, but only very few were allowed to see the stored wealth. I suggest that this knowledge would form part of their interactions with others, consciously or otherwise. Thus storage

and access to storage play an important part in social organization, status, and identity. Blocking of doors, construction of cross-walls, and narrowing of corridors alter the original architectural arrangement of storerooms in palaces. The temporal definition of these alterations is not straightforward: it seems likely, however, that most were dated to the period before the final destruction/abandonment of the respective complexes. Architectural modifications in the stores of the palaces at Galatas and Malia were probably LM IA, as these palaces were abandoned at the end of that period (Rethemiotakis 2002; Pelon 2005). Changes at the palaces of Zakros and Gournia were dated within LM IB, perhaps during the last years of the period (L. Platon, forthcoming for the Zakrian palace), while a date at the beginning of LM IB was proposed for the palace at Petras (Tsipopoulou 2002). The picture for the Knossian palace is not clear, as the complex is a palimpsest of architectural alterations occurring across a very wide span of time (Christakis 2004). Bearing in mind that very few of these changes are due to the need for structural support of the palace building itself, I believe that any explanation must take into account the political and social circumstances prevalent in the corresponding polities. The need for increased security of the stored wealth in times of social stress, reducing yet further the already limited access to palace storerooms, is a convincing explanation of these architectural alterations (for increased complexity in the accessibility of LM I buildings, see Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 45–47). Charting any trends in the storage policy of palatial institutions within the approximately 100 years of the Neopalatial era is open to question. Recent studies, as we have seen in the introductory part of this study, have highlighted marked chronological differences in the foundation and destruction/abandonment of Neopalatial palaces. The palaces at Phaistos and Kato Zakros were built in LM IB, and there is no concrete evidence of a LM IA phase. The palace at Gournia was built in LM IA and destroyed in LM IB: testimonies for storage activities dated to LM IA are not preserved. The palaces at Galatas and Malia were built in MM III—the latter had a Protopalatial processor—and destroyed in LM IA: artifactual assemblages reflect activities dated to LM IA. The

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

LM I palace at Knossos was intensively and extensively re-used and remodelled in later periods. The situation is even more complex because palaces, within their lifespan, were subject to destruction, rebuilding, abandonment, and reuse of spaces. These different and, in many respects, complex pictures warn us not to make easy generalizations on narratives of sociopolitical development: each case must be considered on its own local terms, based on the particular evidence each has yielded. The political authority that undertook the rebuilding of the Phaistian palace early in LM IB created a palatial complex with an extensive and well-planned storage sector, a clear indication of its intention to store substantial amounts of goods within the palace. The lack of movable storage items in the stores has been argued to show that the palace had not been completely furnished at the time of its destruction in LM IB (La Rosa 2002). Regardless of the cause, the mobilization of considerable capital and human labor for the construction of such a monumental complex, clearly points to the robust dynamism of the local ruling authority of the western Mesara in LM IB. Large amounts of goods were stored at the central complex of Hagia Triada, the Villa Reale. Stores were extensive and found full of pithoi, while storage containers were also placed in spaces not normally designed to take them. It is worth noting that the space reserved for storage at the Villa Reale is much greater than the corresponding space at the palace of Phaistos. High storage potentials are also observed in some buildings of the settlement related to the Villa Reale, such as the Casa Est and the Casa del Lebete. Moreover, a new storehouse, the Bastione, was built in LM IB. It is likely that goods stored in these complexes were under the control of the ruling group residing in the Villa Reale. The written documents, the largest ensemble of LM I documents so far excavated in Crete, also prove that the central administration exploited and mobilized considerable quantities of agricultural products. The emphasis on storage activities observed in the Villa Reale forms part of the wider sociopolitical framework of the western Mesara in LM I. The Villa Reale was the seat of the political and economic institution “in charge” of the western Mesara in LM IA, when the palace of Phaistos

125

was in ruins and Building T at Kommos—the seat of a ruling group that may have played an active role in the political affairs of the western Mesara in MM III when the Villa Reale was in the process of being built—was in a damaged condition (La Rosa 1995, 2002; Shaw 2002). The Villa Reale was also the main political center of the region in LM IB, as the Phaistian palace seems not to have had the time to be used fully, and no monumental building that could be used as a seat of a ruling authority exists at Kommos. The palaces at Malia and Galatas were in ruins in LM IB: the palace of Galatas lost its palatial character, at least as an integrated building complex, early in LM IA and was finally destroyed late in LM IA, while that at Malia was ambandoned at the end of the same period. The low number of movable storage containers recovered within the palace at Malia is hard to explain. Complex depositional histories after the destruction of the complex may have altered floor deposits considerably. The scenario of a gradual abandonment before the final destruction of the complex also cannot be ruled out. The palace, however, was provided with extensive storage facilities including the silo complex, a later addition to the original palatial structure, perhaps dated to LM IA. It is argued here that storage in silos reflected the need to keep large quantities of cereal surpluses safe outside the main palatial complex, which was perhaps damaged after a destruction, as well as indicating changes in the collection and mobilization patterns of such commodities. Domestic units abandoned in LM IA, such as Houses Δα, Δβ, and Εα, were provided with very few storage implements of low storage potential. Overall, artifactual assemblages and their spatial distribution in these units point to a picture of decline. In the present state of our knowledge, therefore, the palace was the main storing center of the Maliote center during LM IA. Low storage potentials were also found in domestic units used in the LM IB period, after the abandonment of the palatial complex. The storage potential of Houses Δγ, Ζβ, Ζγ, and the house at Hagia Varvara is limited. House Ζα displays considerable storage facilities. The storage potential, however, is still too low to suggest any crucial role in the collection, storage, and mobilization of staples.

126

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

The only nonpalatial context at Malia that displays storage facilities of relevance is Mansion E. The continuous occupation of the complex from MM III, when it was erected, until LM IIIB, deprives us of direct information on storage activities during the LM I period. The architectural layout, however, points to the storage of large quantities of surpluses, as storerooms could house considerable assemblages of storage containers. The storage potential of the complex was limited compared to that of the palace. During LM IB, when the palace was ruined, the group that used Mansion E may have played an important role in the collection and storage of staples. The East Magazines at the palace of Galatas were well planned and extensive. They were designed to house a large assemblage of storage containers. Magazines were probably located in the west wing; unfortunately they were much destroyed by erosion and cultivation. The preference for large containers points to the storage of large quantities of goods for long periods. It is difficult to evaluate this picture within the urban framework: most of the extensive town is still underground, and there are no testimonies, therefore, from domestic units contemporaneous with the main period of use of the palace. Despite the absence of intra-settlement comparative information, I would argue that the palace was the main storage center of the town. The situation changed dramatically early in the LM IA phase. Most ground floor spaces of the palace were abandoned and cleared of implements. Two pithoi and sizable parts of a few others were left in the abandoned East Magazines. Few large storage containers were placed in the upper floor spaces used in the LM IA phase. Their overall storage potential is low: the picture certainly does not reflect that of the previous period when the palace was the storage center of the town. In the present state of knowledge, it is difficult to tell whether storage was moved to another complex during LM IA. The problems occurring at the central level of administration indicate a radical reorganization of the mechanism of collection, storage, and redistribution of goods, a mechanism whose control would have been assumed by the local community. The domestic units of the LM IB period, when the palace was in ruins, were provided with storage facilities capable of ensuring the resident households a good level of

subsistence autarky (Christakis and Rethemiotakis, forthcoming). Few storage implements were recovered in the palace at Gournia. The palace was, however, provided with extensive stores that could contain many large pithoi. Depositional activities may play a significant part in the formation of the excavated picture. Houses around the palace were found with surprisingly little storage apparatus. In fact, the majority of houses in the town had no storage containers, and only very few domestic units were equipped with small- and medium-sized pithoi. The storage potential observed in these units is very low. House Ec is the only context outside the palace with a considerable number of pithoi. These storage containers, however, covered the needs of the resident household; it is unlikely they had a role of any importance to play at the level of the settlement. The palace remains the key storage center in the settlement. In most houses of the coastal settlements of Pseira and Mochlos—the most important urban centers of the Gournia domain—storage potentials are particularly low, although it should be noted that this picture may be partly due to depositional histories and research bias. Considerable storage potentials were observed at House AF N at Pseira and Houses C.2, C.3, C.6, and C.7 at Mochlos. Considerable quantities of stored goods were also kept in the stores of Building B.2 at Mochlos, which seems to be the seat of the group that controlled the settlement. Stored goods certainly provided a high level of autarky to households/ nonpalatial elite groups that used these units. In none of these cases, however, is there evidence to suggest that the groups controlling these centers assumed any crucial role in the mobilization of agricultural goods produced in the area of the Isthmus of Ierapetra. The palaces of Kato Zakros and Petras were furnished with substantial storage areas. That of Petras is the only case that provides evidence by which to review staple storage within LM I. According to the excavator, architectural modifications following the LM IA destruction increased staple storage within the palace, which thereby lost much of its monumentality (Tsipopoulou 2002). The stores were packed with pithoi set so closely together that movement within the stores was difficult. Evaluating this picture within the

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

framework of the surrounding settlement is complicated. The two houses so far sampled, one destroyed in LM IA and the other in LM IB, give too little information to permit observations on how storage was handled within the settlement. It is worth noting, however, that these same houses, apparently specializing in staple processing and industrial activities, did not yield any significant evidence of storage activities. In the region of Siteia Bay, the palace of Petras seems to be the main point of centralization and mobilization of the agricultural product from the hinterland (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997). The extensive storerooms of the palace at Kato Zakros were found packed with large pithoi and many other smaller storage containers. In spite of all the problems the palace faced due to the earthquake that struck it shortly before its final destruction—problems that the local ruling group attempted to solve with a series of extensive repairs—it remained the basic storage center of the settlement: the many precious artifacts found inside the palace and, above all, its full storerooms leave us in no doubt as to the financial health of the resident political group. Although storage vessels were found in many houses of the town, the storage potential of each individual house was low. Considerable storage potentials were observed in a few domestic units such as Hogarth’s Houses A and I(J), House B, and the Oblique Building. Most of these contexts specialized in the processing of staples, perhaps under palatial initiative and control (L. Platon 1988, 223–242, 398–399; Palmer 1994, 22). The storage strategies of the Knossian polity during LM I are wide open to debate. The LM I floor deposits of the palace were completely cleared out and thrown from the palace down into the surrounding area (as in the South House; Mountjoy 2003), while the storerooms were subject to extensive remodelling during LM IIIA (Christakis 2004). The basic layout of the stores, however, was established in LM I: the extensive storerooms of the palace of that date show that staple storage was an important activity of the Knossian polity. The important role of the palace as a storage center within its settlement is also confirmed from the study of the few LM I pithoi re-used in the LM IIIA palace (Christakis 2004; 2005, 76–78). These pithoi, products of specialized workshops, are specimens of high storage potential. Pithoi of low

127

storage potential are almost absent from the entirely preserved specimens and numerous pithos fragments dated LM I and kept in the boxes of the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum (KSM). The Northeast House and the Arsenal, large complexes used for storage activities, were probably under the direct control of the Knossian polity. It is very likely that stored goods covered the needs of palace dependents. Discussing storage activities adopted by ordinary and nonpalatial elite households at Knossos is difficult: archaeological investigation has been focused primarily on the palace and some sumptuary mansions, leaving aside “humbler” domestic units. Besides, complex depositional histories erase crucial information. The floor extent of the storerooms of most nonpalatial elite mansions, such as the Royal Villa, the South House, the Southeast House, and the House of the Chancel Screen, shows that households might have had considerable quantities of goods at their disposition. Storage in these contexts, however, covers household needs. The Little Palace was provided with spacious stores. It could reasonably be argued that this complex provides the highest ground floor area devoted to storage activities in the nonpalatial sector of the Knossos settlement. In any case, the storage potential at the Little Palace, even if we assume the use of large pithoi, is very low when compared to that of the palace. The narrative that sees the group residing within the Little Palace as competing with the palatial authority (Hamilakis 2002) is questionable, as it does not take into consideration the marked differences in the storage capabilities and the economic wealth of the Palace and the Little Palace, as well as the overall archaeological testimonies. Storage areas in other houses of the settlement, such as Hood’s House, the North House, and the Acropolis Houses, are limited. Large pithoi of high storage potential were rare in the deposits of these units, while small- and medium-sized pithoi were predominant. It is worth noting that fragments of large pithoi are also rare among the pottery kept by Evans from other domestic units of the settlement. Although the heavy pottery selection has considerably altered the excavated pictures, the absence of fragments of large pithoi—kept in other cases—may be relevant. Despite the limitations imposed by the quality of

128

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

the archaeological record, the palace seems to have been the principal storage center of the Knossian settlement. Accumulation of considerable quantities of staples occurred at large complexes and in the sumptuary mansions of nonpalatial settlements. Many of these first seem to be seats of groups controlling domains peripheral to palatial centers. The extent of storage activities in these contexts proves that ruling groups were managing and exploiting their hinterland, and seem to have been largely self-sufficient in doing so. Storage technologies, however, do not demonstrate the quality of functional planning and the high investment of labor observed at palaces. A large assemblage of storage containers was found in the stores of the mansion at MitropolisKannia. This case provides the highest number of movable storage items so far reported in a nonpalatial context. The uniqueness of this case is made more explicit once compared to the storage potential of pithoi in the main administrative center of the Mesara Plain during LM IB: the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada. The mansion at MitropolisKannia had half the quantity of pithoi found there. Likewise, it had half the pithoi that the West Magazines of the palace of Phaistos may have housed. The apparently disproportionate storage potential of the complex points to its importance in the network of collection and mobilization of agricultural surpluses within the Mesara. Part of the stored staples could have been consumed locally; the rest was probably sent to the major centers of the region. Large quantities of staples were kept at Mansion A at Tylissos. The stores were found full of pithoi while storage containers were also placed in spaces that were not originally designed for storage. The stored capital contributed to a considerable level of autarky of the group residing in the mansion. Part of the stored goods could also be mobilized to a major center of consumption. The substantial evaluation of the storage activities in Mansion A, however, presupposes their correlation with the corresponding activities in Mansion B, as the latter complex may have been constructed as a storage annex to Mansion A. Mansion B was provided with extensive storerooms: in fact most of the ground floor of this complex was devoted to storage activities. The stores, however,

were found almost empty. The excavator reported only very few pithoi, and although there is insufficient data on their morphological features, they seem to be small- and medium-sized specimens. It is very tempting to see these different pictures as the result of changes in patterns of economic behavior. The group using both complexes may have decided to reduce storage activities in Mansion B and concentrate its wealth in Mansion A. Testimonies, therefore, highlight a storage decrease. A picture similar to that of Mansion B is also seen in Mansion C, the finest complex of the settlement of Tylissos. The stores of the mansion, designed to house a considerable assemblage of storage containers, were found to contain very few pithoi. This picture may point to changes in the economic situation of the residing household, as it seems not to have had access to significant amounts of goods stored in its own house. The pictures of these three mansions very clearly stress the possible intra-settlement changes in past household behaviors that may have taken place in a settlement in the last years of LM IB. Although the role of depositional histories and research bias cannot be ignored, it will not have been so decisive as to skew to such a degree the data that allows us to shed light on past activities. I would argue that the excavated pictures point to a dramatic decrease of storage within Mansions B and C and the concentration of storage in Mansion A. These pictures highlight the dramatic changes in the economic status of the rich groups operating in the Tylissos settlement. Such pictures are not limited to Tylissos but, as we shall see below, are also seen elsewhere, most notably in the case of the town of Zakros. It is also possible that Mansions B and C were deserted during an earlier phase of LM IB, compared to Mansion A. Confirming such a scenario, which cannot be excluded if we take under consideration similar existing cases from other centers (e.g., Hagia Triada), presupposes the in-depth study of ceramic assemblages from the above units. Of course we do not know how far the picture of shrinkage observed in the three mansions of Tylissos can be generalized for other units of the settlement, as most of this important center remains unexplored. It is certain, however, that part of the ruling group faced serious economic problems.

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

Large pithoi were found in the mansion of Nirou Chani. The complex was also equipped with bins designed to hold considerable amounts of cereals/pulses. Pithoi and bins together provided a high level of autarky to whoever controlled this complex. Of course, the storerooms could contain far more pithoi than those found. Actually, the picture of the storerooms, as described by the excavator, does not refer to full storerooms—like those of the central building at ArchanesTourkogeitonia, for example—but to half-full ones: Magazines 25 and 31 were found with just two pithoi and only Magazine 24 was full of such containers. Storage decrease in the very last years of the mansion may be a possible scenario to explain this picture, particularly if we take into account that testimonies of large-scale depositional parameters that could drastically alter the image of the storerooms are lacking, and that the widespread use of storage containers made of perishable materials is not an indicator of long-term staple storage. The evidence from the central complex at Archanes-Tourkogeitonia is difficult to interpret in the present state of knowledge, as the principal storerooms of the complex are yet to be found. The reuse of two residential/ceremonial rooms for storage purposes and the impressive picture of the stored wealth recovered in these spaces might point to storage intensification, provided that the central stores were in full use. Substantial quantities of staples were also kept in the stores of the mansion at Sklavokambos. The mansion seems to have been one of the principal storage centers of the region. Goods provided a considerable level of autarky for the residents of this unit, but the amount is too low to assume they had any decisive importance at a regional level. Indeed, it is not entirely certain if goods stored at this mansion were consumed locally. It has been convincingly argued that the mansion of Sklavokambos, rather than being the seat of a local ruler, served only as a shipment station to facilitate the movement of commodities or primary resources to another large center (Fotou 1997). The central building at Zominthos must have been used for a similar purpose: the group using this complex exploited the rich surrounding hinterland and shipped goods toward major centers of consumption (Sakellarakis 1983; Sakellarakis and Panagiotopoulos 2005). Zominthos, Krousonas,

129

Sklavokambos, and Tylissos are part of a wellorganized network for the mobilization of goods from the mountain zone of Psiloritis and the wealthy valleys of Sklavokambos and Tylissos to a major center of consumption, probably Knossos (Warren 1994, 2004). The mansion at Klimataria was another shipment station (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997). The complex was provided with considerable storage facilities, which were seriously damaged by modern activities. Stored goods were moved from the Bronze Age harbor of Siteia inland, and vice versa, along the Stomion River. A picture of considerable storage potential occurs in the central building of Makrigialos. The stored goods provided a considerable level of subsistence autarky for the resident elite group. The amounts of stored goods, large when compared to amounts stored in ordinary domestic units, show that the central building was probably the main storage center of the surrounding settlement. These amounts, however, are too low to allow us to draw any conclusions of economic and political importance. The picture from the central complex at Kastelli Pediada is rather patchy due to the limited archaeological investigation. The use of large pithoi of high storage capacity and the overall contextual framework may point to a considerable level of autarky for the group that once used this mansion. Considerable quantities of goods were probably kept in the stores of the mansions at Nipiditos and Avli, although testimonies from these contexts are limited for overall estimates. Low storage potentials are observed at the mansion at Myrtos Pyrgos and that at Vathypetro. The stores in the former complex contain only very few pithoi with a low storage capacity. The group that controlled the fertile region of Myrtos Pyrgos and resided in this mansion probably had access to commodities stored in peripheral warehouses. Administrative documents found in the central complex (two partly preserved Linear A tablets and nodules) reveal the involvement of the local ruling group in the production, mobilization, and storage of agricultural goods (Cadogan 1997). One of the tablets, PYR 1, refers to 90 units of wine (i.e., 2,592 liters) while the other tablet, PYR 2, books cereals. The quantity of wine mentioned could not have been stored in the central building. Whether, therefore, the wine was intended for ritual purposes, as has

130

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

been argued (Morpurgo-Davis and Cadogan 1971), or for daily consumption and/or a banquet, it must have been stored in a storage complex, perhaps somewhere in the settlement. Staple storage is very limited at the mansion of Vathypetro; the absence of considerable assemblages of pithoi from the LM IB levels is very striking there. Moreover, the disuse of the main magazine of the complex (Room 11) after the LM IA destruction points to a dramatic decrease in staple storage from LM IA to LM IB. Further, the absence in the LM IB phase of areas used exclusively as storerooms and the discovery of very small groups of pithoi in various areas of the complex, points to a necessity for satisfaction of immediate needs rather than systematic and planned storage of large surplus quantities. The overall picture points to a gradual economic impoverishment of the group that once used this complex, as its storage requirements decreased appreciably from LM IA to LM IB. Moderate levels of storage potential were also observed in the mansion at Lagouta Kolokythi. This picture is in clear contrast to that of intensive food preparation and consumption, and wealth in general, implied by the rest of the artifactual testimonies. Subsistence goods were probably stored within a peripheral warehouse. The same picture was also observed in House D.3 at Mochlos where large assemblages of conical cups and cooking pots were stored on the upper floor. The picture of intense food consumption activities contrasts with the low storage potential of the unit. A similar storage model seems to have been adopted by the group using Building T at Kommos during the MM III period. Despite all the indications of food consumption, an activity that took place in finely decorated spaces, the storage potential of the building is based on the excavation data currently available; unfortunately it is too fragmentary, for an overall image of storage seems to be low. Taking these observations together, I would suggest that the stored capital held in peripheral complexes guaranteed the viability of the ruling groups in charge of the peripheral polities, providing them with the means to reconfirm their status within a regional and intra-regional framework. Besides the goods stored within the complex itself, political groups could also control subsistence goods stored in warehouses built in the settlement or in the

wider region, closer to the areas of production and consumption. The evidence from Linear A tablets shows that most peripheral polities controlled large quantities of goods that could not be stored in the central complex itself. Some of these peripheral complexes may have also been used, among other purposes, as intermediate stations for the mobilization of staple products from the periphery to a larger center of consumption. The reading of the testimonies proposed above has stressed a differentiation observed in the storage behavior of groups controlling nonpalatial centers. Some groups store a large part of the goods they control in the central building they use. This is the case with the group residing in Mansion A at Tylissos, the mansions at Sklavokambos, perhaps that of Archanes-Tourkogeitonia, Nirou Chani, the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada, and the mansion at Mitropolis-Kannia. Large pithoi of high storage potential and low transportability are predominant in this storage behavior. In other cases, such as those of the mansions at Myrtos Pyrgos, Lagouta Kolokythi, Building T at Kommos, House D.3 and Building B.2 at Mochlos, and Makrigialos, the quantities of goods are relatively small compared to the needs of the groups using these complexes. This stresses the adoption of a different storage model, in which only a small part of the goods controlled by the group was kept in the central building, while the rest must have been stored in peripheral warehouses. The use of storage containers with high transportability and low/medium capacity observed in many of the above complexes in the second category, may point to the storage of a limited amount of goods and a frequent need for withdrawal of commodities from a peripheral store. The redistributive role of peripheral polities as providers of subsistence relief is highly questionable in light of the excavated evidence. The amount of stored capital kept within these complexes is in most cases too low to feed large groups. Exceptions are Mansion A at Tylissos, the mansion at Nirou Chani, and that at MitropolisKannia, where large quantities of staples were stored. The stored capital could support, on occasion, a considerable number of individuals: a group, however, far smaller than the likely population size of their settlements. The storage potential of some peripheral centers is not stable throughout the LM I period. Storage potential at the mansion

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

at Vathypetro decreased after LM IA, while storage also decreased in Mansion B, which is the storage annex of Mansion A at Tylissos. Every case, therefore, should be examined on an individual basis, because although most central buildings and/or wealthy mansions of nonpalatial settlements were built with extensive storerooms, it seems that in some of these there was a dramatic reduction of storage potential in their final years of use. I will argue that this picture points to clear changes in the mechanism of production, storage, and distribution of goods. Thus generalizations of economic development may not reflect past behaviors, as the adoption of different strategies, according to the local political, economic, and environmental circumstances, created a multicolored horizon. The storage capabilities observed in most domestic units are quite different from those observed in the palaces and the central buildings and wealthy mansions of nonpalatial settlements. Many of the LM IB houses were provided with few low-capacity storage containers (Storage Pattern II), while pithoi were absent from many other houses (Storage Pattern I). These pictures of limited storage potential observed in many domestic units, belonging to different urban centers point to low levels of subsistence autarky. The food commodities in store were sufficient for a household’s nutritional requirements for a few months but not for the whole year. Households must have developed strategies in order to secure the foodstuffs essential to their survival. There is no evidence for the accumulation of surpluses, and the risk of food shortage would have been particularly high in periods of poor yields. The adoption of such storage strategies by households using sumptuary mansions hints at changes in their economic background. During their final phase of use, these buildings were used by households with relatively limited economic power, whose immediate priority was probably to meet vital needs. Higher storage potentials than those discussed above are seen in a limited number of houses (Storage Patterns III and IV). Households were able to attain a level of relative self-sufficiency for a period beyond one productive season, and in a few cases there is evidence of the accumulation of low quantities of food surpluses. Some of these households were engaged in the mobilization of agricultural

131

products—in some cases quite large quantities, as the Linear A tablets show—and they would surely have had close links to the central administration, commercial activities and the processing of staples. These pictures of greater or lesser abundance are not representative of the domestic sector of the various communities, where low storage potential is observed in most cases. What might be the explanation for the picture of low subsistence autarky observed in most ordinary households? The low storage potential observed in many households may be interpreted as the result of limited or even controlled access to sources of wealth and to goods stored in central complexes, increased participation of the household in the production of a state surplus, or the systematic participation of household members in activities unconnected to the production of subsistence goods. Direct information from LM IB societies does not exist and only speculations may be advanced. Moreover, the scenarios proposed here are not mutually exclusive and could have operated within the same context. Some households might have had limited access to cultivable land. Thus, the household’s agricultural output would be too low to provide large amounts of subsistence goods all year round. The limited access to cultivable land is perceived here either as the result of political intervention and/or as the outcome of factors concerned with the developmental cycle of the household. In hierarchic polities, access to land was strictly controlled by the central administration. By controlling the access to arable land, leaders could also control people’s livelihood and thus establish a system of dependence in favor of the ruling class (Hastorf 1993, 213–214, 223–225; Earle 1997, 102–104). Likewise, the transmission of landholdings from one generation to another, the economic misfortunes of a household, and the labor supply and managerial ability of its members, might affect the overall size of land tenure and output. There might also be cases where a substantial part of a household’s agricultural production was levied, by taxation, to the palace or the secondorder center for the needs of the central or regional authorities. Householders were obliged to give a substantial part of the personal agricultural surpluses that they raised from their landholdings to the central authority. One point needs to be clarified. It

132

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

has been suggested that in economies based on taxation, domestic units had substantial storage facilities to meet the demands of taxation (Smyth 1989). I shall argue, however, that this was not always the case. Newly harvested surpluses might have been levied immediately by tax collectors and stored in central complexes or peripheral warehouses under the control of the central administration. Extensive and permanent domestic storage facilities were not necessary, since only a part of the household’s agricultural output actually reached the house. Ethnographic information also reports the storage of newly harvested crops away from the domestic unit, in order to keep the products safe from tax collectors. Householders might work as tenant farmers in palatial and nonpalatial elite estates. The tithe paid to the landlord in crop yield was too high, and the remainder was not always sufficient for their nutritional needs. Cultivation by tenant farmers was more convenient for political institutions, because they were guaranteed a fixed income (usually paid in crop yield) without being confronted with the task of supporting and controlling the tenants. The system of awarding land in exchange for services was convenient for both institutions and laborers. The institutions were guaranteed manpower for various services, while laborers had direct access to land and were able to organize it as if it were their own. The land belonged to the state and was withdrawn after the death of the laborer or at the end of his service. Other households, especially those living in large urban centers, might receive food rations from the central administration in exchange for full-time or part-time labor. In this case, domestic storage facilities might be limited. Near Eastern, Egyptian, and Mycenaean archives document a fairly complex rationing system of unprepared and cooked food in exchange for labor based on the subject’s sex, age, labor, and position in the hierarchy (Gelb 1965; Killen 1985; Milano 1989; Palmer 1989; Aloni and Negri 1996). The crucial sociopolitical implication of this system is that it allows ruling groups to control the livelihood of a considerable part of the population and thus create a group of dependent and easily controlled individuals (Gamble 1979; Earle 1997). The control of nutritional requirements by the ruling class may have extended to elite groups.

The ability of the ruling class to control access to subsistence supplies by the elite inhabiting large centers, allowed them to restrain those groups within conflicting claims to power and status. Something similar might be the case with the elite mansions around the palace of Knossos: although storage potentials were considerable when compared to those of the ordinary population and would have afforded the resident households a significant degree of nutritional autarky, they would certainly not have allowed those households to exercise a competitive policy with regard to the palace. Their size suggests that they could not supply much more beyond their immediate household needs. Taxation and control of manpower are the most common strategies employed by the authorities of stratified states for the acquisition of capital and the viability of the ruling sector (Brumfiel 1994; Earle 1997, 67–104). The importance of control of manpower is so great that it has been argued that in many complex societies, control of labor was more vital than control of land (Tigger 1993, 45; van Dommelen 1999). Information provided by Mycenaean administrative documents fully confirms the existence of similar modes of economic behavior. Archive documentation suggests the support of fully-dependent and semi-dependent personnel through food rations (Palmer 1989; Aloni and Negri 1996), allocations of land (Killen 1985; Kazanskiene 1995), and prestige goods (de Fidio 1982). Furthermore, the archives document the existence of a complex system of taxation in kind and labor (de Fidio 1982; Killen 1983, 1985). Contributions in different commodities were fixed (Olivier 1974; de Fidio 1982). It may be noted that taxation was decentralized: taxes were collected by regional and local sub-centers (Lejeune 1979; Morris 1986). Although Linear A documents have not been deciphered, and the structure of the Neopalatial administrative system is not the same as that of the Mycenaean system, there is little doubt that a substantial part of Cretan Bronze Age archives recovered in palaces and central buildings of nonpalatial settlements document rations in kind (food, items), perhaps in exchange for services to the palace (Palmer 1995; Schoep 2002a, 185– 186). It has been suggested, for instance, that tablet HT 101 from Hagia Triada documents the payment

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

of labor with rations in olive oil (Was 1973). It therefore seems that the commoners’ labor and the taxation system could have played an important role in raising capital within the political framework of LM I polities. The nature and extent of these economic strategies, however, are unknown. The storage potentials observed at palaces, central buildings of nonpalatial centers, wealthy mansions of peripheral settlements, and ordinary domestic units challenges the influential and longestablished view of storage decentralization from the palaces to the periphery during the Neopalatial era. It has been said that storage within the palaces decreased from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial period, being transferred to second-order centers, the so-called “villas”. The decentralization of storage has been seen either as economic specialization of the palaces (Halstead 1981, 1988; Moody 1987; Branigan 1988a, 1988b; Walberg 1995) or as the outcome of the inefficiency of palatial institutions in coping with the production and mobilization of foodstuffs (Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 53–54, 101–102). I have shown that the theory of storage decrease at the palaces from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial period cannot be sustained, as it is based on fragile arguments. The patchy testimonies for staple storage in the palaces of the Protopalatial phase do not allow a safe reconstruction of the storage behavior adopted by the palatial authorities. Narratives based on the juxtaposition of economic, political, and administrative aspects of palatial authorities operating during Protopalatial and Neopalatial periods compare two “episodes” of the Cretan Bronze Age that are unevenly represented in their material testimonies. Conclusions so drawn lead to very oversimplified and in some ways misleading pictures of sociopolitical development. As far as the assumed decentralization of staple storage from palaces to the periphery is concerned, I think there is an inherent problem: namely, the misunderstanding of the actual role of buildings labelled “villas” within the political and economic framework of Neopalatial state society. Our views of these complexes are clouded by a substantial bias: exploration of Bronze Age Crete has been markedly skewed in favor of privileged and sacral complexes, used by secular and religious elite groups alike, leaving us with an inadequate and

133

unrepresentative sample of the more mundane and homogeneous groups that lived around elite complexes. Recent research has begun to address this inequality. It is now fully understood that large mansions standing isolated in the countryside, with very few exceptions, are not free-standing complexes but the central buildings of a settlement, the latter remaining mostly unexcavated. The view, therefore, of “villas” as isolated residences of dependent officials appointed by palatial authorities in order to promote their interest in distant regions is open to question. It is more likely that most central complexes/wealthy mansions of nonpalatial settlements were centers of authority and power in their own right. Consequently, the storage potential of these peripheral centers must be examined within their macro- (regional) and micro- (intra-site) frameworks: only then can one attempt to trace possible economic links with the nearest palatial center. Understanding the patterns of production and consumption of goods at the level of the periphery is a basic prerequisite for the comprehension of storage potentials observed in central and elite complexes of nonpalatial centers, let alone the political and economic relationships between the different centers of power. Even if we accept the traditional narrative that sees the “villas” as palatial sub-centers, can we speak of storage decentralization from the palaces to the periphery during the Neopalatial era? Based on the sizes of the ground floor storerooms in palaces and “villas”, it has been said that about 18% of a villa was devoted to storage and that, proportionately speaking, these “villas” had the capacity to store, on average, three times more than the contemporary palaces (Moody 1987). The reconsideration of the archaeological evidence proposed in the present study has shown some divergences in these estimates. Instead of the estimated 18%, the average floor space devoted to storage is here calculated at only 9%. Leaving aside divergences in these estimates— due to the different methodologies used to approach the question of storage—could we use estimates of floor extents alone as a parameter to support the narrative of storage decentralization? I would argue that the reconstruction of staple storage potentials in any given context should involve the interplay of many sources of potential information: the overall floor size of the storerooms

134

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

in relation to the functional properties of the storage devices provides a more promising approach to understanding storage behaviors. Estimates exclusively based on ground-floor size, neglecting the functional properties of the said devices, can lead to misleading conclusions. There are cases, for instance, in which extensive stores were equipped with pithoi of only low storage capacity. The evaluation of staple storage exclusively based on the floor area devoted to such an activity, therefore, can cause confusion. How can the fact that staple storage at the complex of Myrtos Pyrgos represents 11% (5.6% according to my estimates) of the overall ground floor space be evidence of considerable storage potential when the capacity of the pithoi that the stores could house does not exceed 1,350–1,600 liters? How can we argue that Tylissos could accommodate almost 40% of the staples stored within the palace of Knossos (Moody 1987, 240) when the storage potential of the pithoi that the stores of the three mansions were designed to house would be around 32,000 liters, whereas the capacity of the storage installations of the Knossos palace (pithoi and built storage installations) was about 300,376 liters? To conclude, the evidence from palaces, central buildings of nonpalatial settlements, wealthy mansions, and ordinary domestic contexts does not support the argument of storage decentralization from the palaces to the periphery. Although there is no doubt that some peripheral central complexes had a considerable storage potential, I firmly believe that to compare these complexes to

palaces is to compare two completely different entities. Palaces and central complexes of nonpalatial settlements, despite their similarities mainly in architectural features, have basic differences that make them impossible to juxtapose and compare. It is also important to acknowledge that palatial storage differs from that in the central buildings of nonpalatial settlements—not only in scale but also in its technology: those means (pithoi, built storage installations, architectural arrangement of storerooms) adopted by palatial institutions are more systematic and complex, showing a clear intensification and systematization of staple storage at this level of society. The storerooms of central buildings in second-order centers are simple in arrangement and construction detail when compared to the palatial stores, and the built storage installations are infrequent and patterns of accessibility are less complex than those seen in the palaces. The exception is the case of storage areas of the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada where an important investment of labor in the construction of the stores, the adoption of unique storage technologies, and considerable functional planning is noted: it is very likely that specific goods were stored in specific storerooms. When, of course, the storage areas of nonpalatial elite contexts are compared to those of simpler domestic units, the differences are obvious. Storage spaces in ordinary houses are simple in arrangement and construction. This fact underlines the hierarchy of storage technologies at all levels of local society.

Production, Storage, and Consumption of Staples in LM IB Societies How do we make sense of this puzzling but potentially very exciting picture of storage potentials at the different levels of societal organization during LM IB? At the beginning of this monograph it was argued that storage must be seen as but an intermediate stage in a complex process of production, mobilization, storage, and consumption of staples. Storage, despite being an independent part, is not autonomous and disconnected from the other stages of this cycle. This cyclical process

is examined here on the basis of the relationship between the population sizes of palatial and nonpalatial centers, their various subsistence needs, the available agricultural land, and the storage potentials observed in these contexts. Most of the large urban centers organized around palaces—the exception is that of Phaistos in the Mesara Plain and that of Galatas in the Pediada, the wealthiest and most productive regions of the island—were located in areas whose carrying

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

potential could not entirely cover the subsistence needs of their population. In a thoughtful consideration of the Knossian economy, Warren has convincingly argued, mapping the relationship between population size and available agricultural land, that the area of cultivable land needed to feed the estimated population of the settlement during the Neopalatial era was the Knossos valley plus 2.5 times as much land again (Warren 1985a, 2004). Warren argues that the Knossian population relied heavily on foodstuffs produced in and brought from other regions such as the fertile regions of the Pediada, Archanes, and the Ida mountain zones (cf. Panagiotakis 2004 for the importance of the Pediada as a provisioning center). In their pioneering study on the Maliote economy, Dewolf, Postel, and van Effenterre argued that the carrying capacity of the region around the urban center could not entirely cover the nutritional needs of the population (Dewolf, Postel, and van Effenterre 1963, 42–53; van Effenterre 1980, 453– 468; 1983). Cereal production was not sufficient to cover the needs of the town flock and considerable cereal supplies, estimated to 25,000 hectoliters, were channeled to the town from the Lasithi uplands (this estimate is excessive; Watrous 1982, 16). Olive oil production, however, was sufficient for the nutritional needs of the Maliote population. The above estimates did not include the land required for the cultivation of other agricultural goods necessary for the nutritional requirements of the townsfolk, such as pulses, vines, fruits, and vegetables. If we take this into account, then the carrying capacity of the region around the urban center is even more limited than that estimated by Dewolf, Postel, and van Effenterre. I would suggest that a population of 8,000 souls—an estimate derived by multiplying the site-size of Malia, ca. 40 hectares, by an assumed residential density of 200 individuals per hectare—required for its subsistence at least 4,800 hectares of cultivable land. If we take into account that the cultivable land in the environs of the town of Malia is about 650 hectares, it is obvious that it would have been vital to import agricultural products from other areas. Gournia was the largest settlement in the north part of the Isthmus of Ierapetra, strategically positioned at the north end of a cross-isthmus route to the south. The town was densely populated, especially after the consolidation of peripheral

135

populations to Gournia, perhaps following the Theran eruption (Watrous and Blitzer 1999). If the population of the town amounted to 1,000 people—an estimate derived by multiplying the site size of Gournia, ca. 5 hectares, by an assumed residential density of 200 individuals per hectare— then at least 600 hectares of cultivable land were necessary for their requirements. (The population of Gournia is estimated at 2,000–3,000 people by Soles [1991] and 400–1,200 by Watrous and Blitzer [1999].) The cultivable land around the settlement, amounting to about 200 hectares, could not fully cover the subsistence needs of its population, which probably depended heavily on staples brought from the north area of the isthmus and the Asari area. As a controlling center for the movement of rurally and centrally produced goods through this part of the island, Gournia was ideally placed. The urban center of Kato Zakros was located in an agricultural hinterland that was too small to provide the urban population with the means of subsistence. The inhabitants, estimated at 1,600 souls at least (estimate based on a site-size of 8 hectares; note, however, that the town is not fully explored), must have relied heavily on the production and mobilization of goods from other regions: the Zakrian population needed at least 960 hectares for its subsistence requirements, much less than the available arable land in the environs of the town. The palace played a crucial role in the control of mobilization of staples from outlying territories to the center. Tablets from the palace archives record considerable quantities of staples such as barley (amounts range from 1 to 90 units, i.e., 96–8,640 liters or 74–6,670 kg), figs (96–384 liters), olives (96–2,400 liters), olive oil, and wine (39–104 liquid units or 1,065–2,995 liters)—a commodity with which the Zakrian administration was particularly concerned (Platon and Brice 1975; Palmer 1994, 20–23; 1995). Many of these staples were produced in regions far from the surrounding arable lands of the town. The complex at Epano Zakros was probably one station used for the processing and storage of locally produced staples before their shipment to the palace of Kato Zakros (Platon 2002). The isolated buildings discovered in the wider Zakros area must also have acted, among other things, as control stations for the production and mobilization of agricultural

136

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

products (Chryssoulaki 1999). Although these buildings were originally built to oversee and protect land communications, it seems that during the Neopalatial period they operated as centers for the exploitation of fertile areas. Published information, although limited, points to low storage potentials covering the needs of small households/ groups. None of these buildings provided evidence for extensive storerooms. These units were used in the mobilization of agricultural riches and craft products to the large centers—including Kato Zakros—using a complex and well-organized road network. The carrying capacity of the environs of Petras provided the coastal town with a certain degree of self-sufficiency. The population of the town, amounting to 500 people (estimate based on multiplying the site-size, ca. 2.5 hectares, by an assumed residential density of 200 individuals per hectare), would require about 300 hectares. Considerable quantities of staples would also flow in from the far hinterland. Settlements located in the wider region around Petras, such as those at Achladia, Tourtouloi, and Zou, were probably intended to channel staples from the hinterland to the town (Tsipopoulou and Papacostopoulou 1997). Isolated farmhouses, such as those in the area of Hagia Photia, facilitated agricultural exploitation and provisional storage (Tsipopoulou 1989, 27–31, 99), while the complex at Klimataria, as stated above, was a shipment station for the mobilization of staples from the hinterland to the port of Petras and vice versa. Two Linear A tablets, poor remains of the extensive archive that the palace probably had, show that the ruling group controlled the mobilization of staples from a wide area. The subsistence needs of the less populated urban centers show that the carrying capacity of their environs provided a considerable degree of self-sufficiency. Khamalevri, Sklavokambos, Tylissos, Archanes, Nirou Chani, Kastelli Pediada, Myrtos Pyrgos, and Makrigialos—to mention only a few centers—exploited fertile regions of considerable agricultural productivity. The extensive towns of Palaikastro and Chania-Kastelli were also located in areas with considerable agricultural reserves. Most of these centers were also collecting points for produce brought from the surrounding region. Farms and houses, widespread across many regions of the island, exploited the surrounding

agricultural land and aided in the transfer of staples to the center (e.g., Tsipopoulou 1989, 99; Watrous and Blitzer 1999; Hayden 2004, 116–117; Haggis 2005, 34–35, 75–76; Betancourt 2006, 241–256). The farms may have formed the permanent residences of rural households, who would have needed to ensure the security of boundaries, water rights, and crops (Hayden 2004, 116–117). The main function of these households would have been the production, storage, and mobilization of goods. Goods produced were channeled to secondorder centers or even directly to the palaces and used for an immediate market, for export, and even for the viability of small rural elite groups operating around second-order centers. Other centers, however, such as the town on the island of Pseira, were located in areas of limited agricultural potential. Extensive and intensive use of poor land on the island grew the goods necessary for the subsistence of the population (Betancourt and Hope Simpson 1992; Betancourt 1995; 2005, 290–294). Practices of agricultural intensification, such as capital intensification by investment in terracing, or the planting of slow-maturing trees and intensive land use by manuring or maddening, are widely-used practices in order to provide subsistence reserves (Halstead 1992). Agriculture on such lands involves high investment of labor. Trade and industry could also provide additional support for the population living in areas of limited agricultural potential. Imported items, raw materials, and products of specialized work could be exchanged, in open markets, for subsistence goods. Many of the inhabitants of Pseira may have been involved in such activities (Betancourt and Banou 1991; Betancourt 2005, 290–294). The most illuminating case, however, is that of the town of Mochlos, an important port and gateway community. There is evidence that full-time craftsmen were not controlled by the elite. Their common, utilitarian products supplied a large market, probably serving areas beyond the settlement of Mochlos itself where there were not specialists to meet local requirements (Soles 1997; 2003, 95–99; 2004). The towns of Poros and Kommos are also important trade centers. Unlike the other centers mentioned, however, Poros and Kommos are surrounded by a region of considerable carrying capacity that could easily sustain its inhabitants (for Kommos, see Parsons and Gifford 1996, 317–319).

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

At this point it would be an omission not to mention the information provided by the Linear A tablets found in some second-order centers. These documents attest to a complex system of exploitation of rich agricultural hinterlands and the mobilization and distribution of agricultural goods toward the main center or even distant centers of consumption (Schoep 2002a, 175–199). Information from the written documents found at Hagia Triada allows us, for instance, to form an idea— even a very tentative one—of the size of the exploited hinterland. Texts refer to considerable quantities of barley and olive oil, commodities with which the central administration was particularly concerned (Palaima 1994; Palmer 1995). The total amount of barley listed in the tablets is about 4,148 units, equivalent to 382,398 liters or 29,521 kg. This quantity would have been produced by about 778 hectares, half lying fallow (estimate based on a yield of 75.89 kg per stremma). As far as olive oil is concerned, the approximate total listed in the tablets is 425 units, equivalent to 40,899 liters or 40,081 kg. If we consider that the annual yield of a large mature olive tree in a good year is about 11 kg (early 19th-century yields), then this quantity of olive oil came from 3,643 trees, an estimate which in terms of land extent may imply the cultivation of 140 hectares. Taking into account, however, the fact that the olive production cycle is biennial, the above estimates should be doubled. In conclusion, at least 1,058 hectares of arable land was necessary for the cultivation of the above staples booked in the tablets. Of course we should bear in mind that it is uncertain whether some of the quantities of goods mentioned on the tablets are duplicated, depending on whether they were entering or leaving storage (Palaima 1994). We should also be aware that the tablets refer only to certain amounts of the goods in which the central administration would have been interested. To the calculation of the area of arable land we must add the land used for the cultivation of other agricultural products, many of which are not mentioned on the tablets. We also need to include the area of land required to cover the subsistence needs of the inhabitants of Hagia Triada, estimated at ca. 300 hectares. We conclude from the above that the central administration was interested in the cultivation of lands located beyond the local territory of the town and handled goods from the wider Mesara area. It is impossible, however, to

137

identify the exact areas supplying the ruling class of Hagia Triada with goods. The exploitation, therefore, of local resources such as agricultural products, organic and inorganic raw materials, and products derived from wild and domesticated animals, both ensured the viability of peripheral political groups and their subjects and created surpluses that could be used in exchange activities. Community specialization in trade and craft activities provided additional support for the respective communities. To what degree peripheral centers were self-sufficient, however, is a matter for discussion. The known nonpalatial settlements may be economically selfsufficient, but they are not isolated: survey data from many regions of the island reveal complex patterns of intra-regional interaction and it should not, therefore, surprise us that the “periphery” presents a more complex picture than might have been anticipated (Driessen 2001a). Intra-regional complexity inevitably implies variation in patterns of production, demand, and consumption of commodities. Moreover, it implies competition over the intensively farmed uplands. It is also unclear whether this self-reliance extended to all sectors of their economy or whether for some goods they relied on a larger center. Patterns of production, storage, and consumption of staples, as estimated from the correlation between population, productive potential of environs, and storage potentials, show that the large population of most palatial centers could not exist without food supplies and other goods being obtained from nearby hinterlands. The need for food supplies must have become even more imperative during LM IB, since the population of some urban centers had increased considerably, perhaps following the eruption of Thera (for demographic dislocations after the Theran event, see Soles 1999; Watrous and Blitzer 1999; Hayden 2004, 111). Most of the peripheral centers, on the other hand, seem to have a higher degree of self-reliance, although of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Larger centers, therefore, have a higher ratio of people per unit of productivity than smaller ones. Self-sufficiency of urban centers cannot be considered a given, and this creates dependency relationships within the limits of their own territories, or even, in certain cases such as those of Knossos or Malia, beyond them.

138

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

If this were the case pure and simple, how did these large urban centers procure supplies of subsistence goods and raw materials? Urban centers interact with the countryside to procure their basic needs for survival in many ways. Evidence from around the world and throughout recorded history reveals many avenues of gaining access to such goods: force and tribute; establishing a presence in another region either within an existing center or by setting up one’s own (colonies); even purchasing or exchanging segments of territory (Hayden 1994). The choice followed will depend on the resources an urban center can invest, its own internal politics, and the perceived and actual risks of the venture. Setting up a colony requires substantial capital and effective leaders; a military option requires good generalship and much investment of men and material. Exchange and purchase on an “open” market will work only as long as the desired produce is available: supplies can be easily interrupted. Spreading the risk by diversification requires considerable economic management and investment. How might decisions have been made? Factors in the process will surely have included the distance to be travelled, the availability of the desired materials, and the wherewithal to set up settlements, including land suitable for food production. “Profit margins,” trade economics, competition, and the size of the “home market” will all have influenced decision making. Force of itself cannot usually be maintained for long: occupation has to be tempered with a degree of compromise and accommodation with the native population if they are not to decamp, revolt, or fail to work effectively (Godelier 1978). Economic interaction between the urban centers dominating Bronze Age Crete and their hinterlands cannot be reduced to a simple schema. Morphological and environmental variability between the territories of these centers and differences in the availability of agricultural goods and raw materials substantially determine patterns of production, mobilization, and consumption of goods. Moreover, different social groups may react differently to local circumstances. Governmental institutions, for instance, in order to obtain additional agricultural wealth and raw materials from their hinterland, would adopt economic strategies quite different from those of non-dependent commoners.

Thus, the economy of urban centers can have two quite separate focuses of intent. One is that of the governing institutions, prominent in both textual records and archaeological remains. The other is that of commoners, invisible in documents and inadequately known from archaeological datasets. Cultivation of arable land farther afield and agricultural intensification are strategies that may alleviate problems of limited carrying potential around urban centers. Patterns of land-use in the context of Bronze Age Crete are unknown: demographics, historical boundaries, spiritual landscapes, ancestral connections, and environmental conditions can be crucial parameters determining land cultivation. We can speculate that nondependent urban populations could exploit distant fields or marginal lands. Access to these arable lands would have been very competitive and contested. Isolated structures, found in many survey projects, may be farmhouses like the contemporary metochia (see Arakadaki 2004 for ethnographic parallels). Cultivation of arable land at some distance from the center of habitation, however, has a serious drawback: the considerable labor investment required. The need to invest large amounts of human labor in cultivation has always been a compelling reason for pre-industrial cultivators to minimize distance between residences and fields, in the context of high transport costs and heavy dependence on agriculture. Exchange of goods between different centers of production may also provide a subsistence reserve upon which urban commoners could rely. It is likely that farmers from secondary centers and villages brought their products to the urban center and exchanged them with everyday utilitarian goods and products of specialized work. These barter exchanges, taking place in open markets, would provide a substantial additional help to commoners. In the context of the Cretan Bronze Age, exchange of goods between commoners is somewhat hypothetical, mainly due to the severe limitations of archaeological data pertaining to exchange patterns in the ordinary sector of society, and also because of the non-commercial and anti-market perspective of many approaches to the economy of the prehistoric Aegean (for a critical discussion, see Morris 1986; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991). However, a substantial array of ethnographic and historic data from the pre-industrial

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

Aegean, as well as from many other cultural contexts contemporaneous with LM I Crete, shows that exchanges of this kind took place in preindustrial societies, and there is no real reason to believe that this scenario may not also be applied to Bronze Age Crete. The scenario of exchange of subsistence goods between urban and peripheral groups of not-dependent commoners fits well with the lack of substantial storage facilities observed in most LM IB houses. In contexts where trade and exchange occurred, domestic storage facilities are expected to be low, as storage was only short-term (Smyth 1989). Perhaps it is no coincidence that most houses in the towns of Pseira, Mochlos, and Gournia, communities deeply involved in trade and industry (Betancourt and Banou 1991; Soles 1997; 2004; Watrous and Blitzer 1999), had a limited storage potential. The role of palaces in the control of this interregional barter exchange of goods is a matter of debate. I suggest, in the absence of relevant evidence, that the possible scenarios range between

139

two extremes. First, mobilization and exchange of goods could be under palatial control. Palatial polities created, maintained, and controlled the mechanisms of mobilization of staples from the periphery to the center and the rules determining the exchange of imported products with locally made goods. By controlling mobilization and exchange of food supplies, palatial institutions could control people’s means of livelihood. On the other hand, such a mechanism need not be invested in the central governing organs of the state. It may also lie in self-regulating market relations that operate outside the direct control of state administration. Worldwide testimonies have shown that many pre-industrial societies were, on occasion, capable of operating large-scale exchanges, even in the absence of developed hierarchies (Sherratt 1982). There is also substantial evidence to suggest that even within highly centralized regimes, private entrepreneurs were engaged in local or interregional exchange independently of the state (Westenhortz 1984).

Ritual and Political Economy Even if the cultivation of distant arable lands and the intra-regional exchange of goods between farmers were sufficient to cover the subsistence needs of both the ordinary population and the elite groups, these sources might yet be inadequate to produce the constant flow, in sufficient quantities of agricultural goods and raw materials, that palatial institutions needed for supporting non-food producers, craft industries, and sponsoring largescale ceremonial events. If this was so, then second-order centers must have supplied the missing capital to the palatial groups. Linear A tablets provide some support in favor of this scenario. It has been argued, indeed, that the format of Linear A tablets shows the mobilization of agricultural commodities, perhaps toward taxation, from the periphery to the center (Schoep 2002a, 99, 178, 190–192). The question then becomes: how did palatial institutions induce second-order centers to surrender locally produced staples and raw materials, in the absence either of some immediate return (a situation inherent in a redistributional economy as conceptualized here), or of some

measure of compulsion (a behavior typical of more developed states)? It is my impression that the palatial polities operated in a regional setting that, for whatever variety of reasons, exerted only partial control. Regional idiosyncrasies, participation in trade networks, the carrying capacity of the land around some nonpalatial centers, availability of raw materials, the considerable storage facilities in many central complexes and/or wealthy mansions of nonpalatial settlements, specialization in the production and mobilization of products of craftsmanship, the diversification of record-keeping technologies, and the monumentality and conspicuous consumption of an elaborate material culture within peripheral contexts, all reveal a dynamic picture in which economically and administratively independent groups manage and exploit a defined territory. Some secondary centers would surely have been under the tight control of a palatial center. At the same time, however, other centers might be economically and administratively independent. Within a mosaic of such sociopolitical formations, the scenario by

140

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

which palatial authorities controlling the various regions of the island might hold an indisputable political and economic command over extended territories and ensnared secondary centers by means of some repressive tangle of bureaucracy, as in the case of Mycenaean kingdoms, seems rather improbable. Palatial powers seem to develop other methods to draw peripheral groups into their political orbit and make use of their labor and goods. The control of their ideological and cosmological beliefs through ritual may be one of these means. Ritual pervades many aspects of human existence, and by its performance brings people together (Leach 1966). Through its practice, beliefs about the universe are brought into being and altered to suit the changing times (Kertzer 1988). Ambitious groups exploit it to bolster their positions: establishing artificial codes of behavior to “explain” why specific rights and obligations exist (Earle 1997, 8, 143–158; Wolf 1999, 55). Ruling groups through ceremonies create exclusive ranks and kindle ambition in others to be part of the same; obligations formed bind the participants in everyday life, a strategy that has longterm economic and political profits (Bourdieu 1977, 191–195). Large-scale ritual events promote the extraction of surpluses and enable governing groups to acquire them (Webster 1976; Hayden 1995). There is a great deal of evidence stressing the vital importance of ritual to palatial groups. The design of Cretan Bronze Age palaces includes ceremonial and religious spaces, patterns of circulation that lead to areas suited to large gatherings, monumental construction, complex pictorial compositions, rich assemblages of ritual objects, and high prestige items. All these features can argue that palaces—beside their use as political, residential, administrative, and economic centers of ruling groups—might also have been used as spaces for the enactment of ritual actions (Moody 1987; Driessen 2002). Palatial institutions were surely deliberately designed spaces wherein large groups of people could come together, thus reinforcing and recognizing the common bonds that linked center and periphery. Pictorial compositions of crowd scenes and public rituals, despite their fragmentary nature, bear witness to the participation of large-scale groups in collective events taking place in palaces (Davis 1987; Marinatos 1987).

The sponsoring of large-scale and labor-intensive ceremonies that revolve around vital elements of fertility, supernatural/ancestor veneration, and renewal in society and cosmos, conducted according to pre-established schedules within certain spaces, and the control of the material expression of cosmologies and ideologies would, together, enable palatial institutions to draw urban commoners and secondary centers into their orbit. Second-order centers, therefore, could be controlled effectively by ideologies and cosmologies. Palatial institutions, acting as mediators between their subjects and the supernatural realm, could gain long-term economic and political profits from this role. This connection of palatial economy to ritual has already been noted by some scholars. The spatial association of storerooms with “shrines,” the discovery of ritual objects within storerooms, and the presence of incised religious symbols on the walls of storerooms led Evans to assume that the economy was specially placed under a religious guardianship (PM I, 449–450). This suggestion was seconded by N. Platon, according to whom the gathering of staples was based on the system of “first-fruits” (Platon 1983b). One part of the agricultural production was voluntarily and regularly given to the palace as an offering to the deity. Palatial administrations used the stored surpluses for the common good and general prosperity. Pilali-Papasteriou has advanced the suggestion that the ruling class used a “ceremonial façade” for the collection and storage of staple wealth (Pilali-Papasteriou 1987). The issue also has been discussed by Kyriakidis, who argued for the existence of some ritual institutions large enough to challenge the geopolitical setting of the island, being comparable in storage potential to the “villas” (Kyriakidis 2001; 2005, 105–106). Questions, as ever, remain as to how accurately some lines of evidence have been used to posit this connection between religion and economy. The definition of many spaces in palaces as “sanctuaries” is based on meager evidence: a few objects, the cultic use of which is not always straightforward. Complex depositional histories have been largely disregarded, while inherent assumptions about the functions of specific room types still prevail. The pillared crypts, for instance, are still considered to be “sacral,” but critical studies combining many different lines of

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

data have authoritatively highlighted serious problems with such a definition (Rutkowski 1986, 21–45; Fotou 1997). Furthermore, long-established assumptions on ritual and religion that are based on rather questionable grounds still exercise a great influence. Recent studies that are based on critical reconsiderations of data—Panagiotaki’s research on the Central Sanctuary Complex of the palace of Knossos is an example (Panagiotaki 1999)—warn us not to accept old narratives uncritically. The finding of pithoi in isolated sanctuaries or storerooms close to palatial “sanctuaries” cannot sustain narratives that seek to connect the religious sphere and staple storage. Even less so can narratives that see religious institutions as independent and semi-independent organizations, acting either within palaces or in a wider social context (PilaliPapasteriou 1987; Kyriakidis 2001; 2005, 105– 106). The problem is not whether there were storage facilities in religious contexts, but to what extent the storage potentials in such contexts point to storage beyond the everyday needs of religious institutions—needs related to ceremonial activities or subsistence requirements—that would show an economic specialization of the sacral sector of state society in collection, storage, and mobilization of surpluses. The few storage containers that have been found in areas near supposed sanctuaries in palaces cannot be taken as evidence of property belonging exclusively to the sanctuary inside the palace itself when the storage capacity of these pithoi is very small and insignificant. It is difficult to estimate storage activities in most peak sanctuaries, caves, and urban community shrines, as pithoi were in most cases neglected in favor of artifacts connected to ritual. The exception is the peak sanctuary of Vrysinas, whose pottery is the object of systematic study (Tzachili 2003). In any case, the excavation data available to date do not indicate systematic storage of large quantities of surpluses, which could have been seen as an indication of economic specialization of religious institutions. The number of pithoi, mainly sherds, in peak sanctuaries is usually low and points to limited storage activity, a picture confirmed in the few cases of caves in use in LM I (cf. Tzachili 2003 for the peak sanctuary of Vrysinas; for peak sanctuaries and caves used in LM I, see Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 53–56).

141

Storage activities were also limited in the sanctuary at Symi. Any discussion in that direction must take into account the incomplete nature of the available information, as only part of a large site of at least 17,000 m2 has been explored. The information published in the preliminary reports does not support the picture of excessive storage potentials proposed by Kyriakidis (2005, 106). No extended storage areas and assemblages of pithoi and other containers that might point to the planned and systematic storage of large quantities of staples have so far been found. The above picture is also fully confirmed by the study of the ceramic assemblages by the present author. The spatial distribution of storage vessels (mostly fragments of pithoi and a few entirely/partly preserved specimens) and their functional attributes point to the storage of moderate quantities of goods. Pithoi and other containers used during Protopalatial and Neopalatial times in the various buildings were small- and medium-sized specimens of low to moderate capacity. The same may also apply to the pithos material found in the open-air structures of the sanctuary. Large pithoi were found infrequently, and in most cases in Neopalatial levels. I would argue, following the narrative proposed by the excavators discussing activities in Building U, that goods kept at Symi served for the needs of a limited staff which operated only seasonally and not year-round (Lebessi, Muhly, and Olivier 1995; for seasonal use, see also Lebessi and Muhly 1990). About 10 to 15 large pithoi dated to the MM and LM periods (no detailed information is given) were found at the cave of Stavromyti, on the slopes of Mt. Juktas (Marinatos 1950, 251–257). The number and arrangement of pithoi indicates the existence of a proper storeroom. It appears, however, that the excavator’s theory concerning religious use of the cave is not borne out by the data, but it is based on the belief, valid in some other cases, that caves were used for cult purposes. It is very likely that the cave, which appears to have been used for habitation from the Neolithic period (Marinatos 1950, 256), was a peripheral storeroom perhaps connected to the important settlement at Karmari. Caves have been used since antiquity for the storage of staples: the dark, cool conditions create an ideal storage environment, while the storage of the wealth in a cave increases its security.

142

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

High storage potentials in a religious context were observed only in the Juktas peak sanctuary (Karetsou 1976, 1978, 1981). The complex had a series of sizable stores (Rooms I–V), while many pithos fragments excavated in these spaces come from large specimens (cf. Forms 4, 6, 13–17). We must also bear in mind that the religious authority would have controlled, at least in the MM III period, peripheral complexes specializing in storage among other things. One of these was the building at Archanes-Anemospilia destroyed in MM IIIA (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 269– 311). The building, in which a human sacrifice took place, has the typical layout of a storage complex with two groups of three storerooms—only one group is now preserved while the other is badly damaged due to ground erosion—arranged along a long corridor (cf. Driessen 2001b). About 26 pithoi, similar to Forms 4, 6, 23, 24, 109, 114, 112, and 121 and many other smaller storage containers, as well as remains of carbonized seeds, were found within the building (Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1979, 353–355, 362–366, 374, 375, 383–384). The overall capacity of the pithoi points to the storage of considerable quantities of agricultural products. The building at ArchanesAnemospilia, therefore, besides its cultic use, was also an important storing center. Many pithoi similar to Forms 4, 6, 109, 112, and 114 were also found in Building B, north of the sanctuary (Petrakos 1989). The storage of agricultural produce was one of the basic activities of the building’s occupants. The destruction and abandonment of these buildings within the MM III period (MM IIIA for Archanes-Anemospilia and MM IIIB for Building B) and the absence of similar complexes during LM I may suggest changes in the storage policy of the sanctuary, with the goods being concentrated in the sanctuary building itself. In conclusion, the storage potentials observed in religious places/contexts are limited in most cases. In none of the cases known to date—with the exception of Mt. Juktas—can the scenario of systematic collection and storage of goods, demonstrating economic specialization of the sacral sector of state society, be upheld. The goods seem to have been used to cover the everyday needs of religious institutions, needs related to ceremonial activities

or subsistence requirements. The exception is the peak sanctuary of Juktas, whose priesthood appears to have administrated considerable quantities of goods that would have served to cover the needs of this important center, without, however, playing a more significant role at regional level. Moreover, there is no sound evidence that the amounts stored in the peak sanctuaries were proportional to the size of the related settlements, a narrative advanced by Kyriakidis (2005, 105–106, 123). Not only are there no safe data permitting us to indulge in a full estimate of the quantities of staples stored at peak sanctuaries, but we do not know the production potentials of the groups using the settlements connected to each sanctuary. At the important peak sanctuary of Symi, which was used not only by the nearby settlements of Viannos but also by settlements in Pediada and north-central Crete (Lebessi and Muhly 1990; Lebessi, Muhly, and Olivier 1995; Papasavvas, Muhly, and Lebessi 1999; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2004), storage potentials are low. It would appear, therefore, that storage was connected with the needs of each sanctuary rather than the production capacity of the groups that used it. Such criticism aside, one point is nonetheless clear. In palaces, except that of Petras, central storerooms, ceremonial spaces, and areas where assemblages of ceremonial and prestige artifacts—some of which might have had a cultic function—have been found are closely physically linked. The architectural layout and patterns of circulation in the west wing of the palaces of Knossos (Christakis 2004), Phaistos, and Malia, the east wing of the palace of Galatas (Rethemiotakis 1999b; Fig. 15), and the west wing of the Kato Zakros palace (Platon 1971b, 101– 173) provide the most eloquent examples. The spatial integration of these sectors is certainly not accidental. Architecture seldom reflects a single set of concerns (Rapoport 1982). It is actually the result of a multidimensional and holistic process through which humans make symbolic statements about social order (Douglas 1982). The association of ceremonial/ritual and storage spaces in the central sector of a societal organization can therefore be seen as an attempt to give a form of expression to an order based on ideologies and cosmologies.

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

The constructed space of palaces becomes a dynamic container for structuring social interaction. If the spatial connection between storage and ceremonial/ritual spaces is indeed an element of mutual knowledge, it is then also part of the spoken and unspoken dialogue through which people construct and challenge the moral system within which they live. This can be employed both to control people and to provide routes for channelling events expressing solidarity or division in the community. By using such means of social manipulation, therefore, palatial institutions legitimized their superior access to wealth, position, and authority. Under the excuse of acting as ritual agents, they could develop the means to mobilize agricultural goods, raw materials, and products of craftsmanship from the hinterland to the center. They could also mobilize the labor force necessary to their political enterprises. The degree of exploitation exerted by regional political groups on their periphery must have varied from case to case. To a large extent this is determined by the particular interest of these institutions in the mobilization and consumption of certain commodities, and the specialization of second-order centers in the production of certain types of goods. Textual and archeological testimonies show that some central institutions might be particularly interested in the mobilization of certain types of goods, while some second-order centers might be specialized in the production and mobilization of certain products of craftsmanship (e.g., Soles 1997; Schoep 2002a, 175–189). Provincial leaders had the opportunity to enhance their local position by serving as intermediaries between local settlements and central power. They had a shared interest in maintaining the supernatural legitimization of the palatial leadership with its claims to high religious status and control of ceremonialism (Webster 1976). They would have been impressed and attracted by the display and consumption patterns of the palatial authorities, to which they themselves aspired. The association of local leaders with the central authority improved their chances of possessing prestige goods—Brumfiel and Earle have dubbed this

143

“politically charged commodities” (1987)—whose possession and display were critical to the state’s ability to claim legitimacy. Leaders of secondary settlements sought, therefore, to maintain or increase their local status by using medial symbols to represent their connections and affinities, whether real or not, to the supreme power. The forms of architecture, actually simplified versions of palatial architectural vocabularies, the display and consumption of the elaborate material culture, and the use of symbolically prestige items observed in the ruling sector of the periphery demonstrate the links between peripheral leadership groups and the palaces. The striking unity in material culture reflects the adoption of palatial “vogues” by the leading sector of the periphery: a process of emulation, in which peripheral groups sought to raise their own status by imitating the material culture used by palaces (e.g., Betancourt 2004). The adoption of similar practices of social aggrandizement by different political institutions is also observed at the level of palaces: palatial institutions operating in various regions of the island adopted Knossian cultural trends, a clear instance of the ability of the Knossian palatial elite to translate ideas and values into the material realm (e.g., Soles 2002; Platon 2004). Knossian impact on the formation of cosmological beliefs and ideology during the Neopalatial era was indeed dominant and pervasive (Wiener 1990; Soles 1995; PilaliPapasteriou 2004). Imitation of palatial culture, however, is not blind: there are distinctive local currents within the wider styles of the time. In pottery production for instance, regional pottery traditions, economic changes, and patterns of consumption seem to have played a dynamic role in the process of emulation (Day 1997; Platon 2002; Van de Moortel 2002; Christakis 2005, 2006b). New avenues of study need to be explored, moving away from previous assumptions and opening up to approaches based on difference, circumstance, and local factors. Of course, how far this homogeneity of the material culture and the determining role of Knossos may be interpreted as a sign of a lasting island-wide political system is debatable (Schoep 2002b for discussion and references).

144

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Storage and Sociopolitical Dynamics at the End of LM IB How can the storage pictures from the palatial, nonpalatial elite, and ordinary domestic contexts that have been presented be combined, in order for us to understand sociopolitical dynamics between groups operating within LM IB societies, as well as the relationships arising between the regional powers before the end of LM IB? A single basic constant emerges from the above analysis and prevails throughout LM I: that of intensive storage at the level of the central power, palatial and peripheral. The picture of life built up from most excavated palaces and central complexes of nonpalatial settlements suggests a considerable accumulation of staples at the central sector of state organization. Moreover, the reconsideration of the relevant evidence shows the weakness of the long-established view of storage decentralization from palaces to the periphery. Palatial institutions were particularly concerned with storing and controlling subsistence surpluses. The storage facilities of palaces used by political groups in LM IA were extensive. The extent of storage installations in LM IB palaces confirms the importance that palatial authorities set on the collection and storage of staples. Further, the use of stored capital within palaces, as a marker of economic and political power (proposed here as based on differences in storage technologies between palatial and nonpalatial political institutions and changes in patterns of accessibility to palatial stores), also shows the importance the palaces placed on staple storage. The need to store substantial amounts of goods has also been observed at the level of the periphery. Most of the buildings used by the ruling groups controlling smaller political centers during LM IA and LM IB have extensive storage areas demonstrating the necessity of goods storage. Of course, this necessity might depend on the particular political and economic circumstances in each area as well as on local idiosyncrasies. We have seen that certain peripheral groups preferred to store a large portion of the goods to be administered in the central building, while other groups stored smaller amounts in the central building and the greater part in peripheral complexes. The interest of LM IB palatial and peripheral institutions in accumulating and storing capital

conforms to the picture of renewal and prosperity observed—at least in early LM IB—in many palatial and nonpalatial elite contexts. Complex settlement patterns, construction of monumental palatial complexes and the renovation of others, active overseas exchange, building activities and expansion of many settlements, production and consumption of luxury artifacts, products of high craftsmanship, and evidence of large-scale ritual and feasting ceremonies all point to a society experiencing a surge of dynamism in most parts of the island. Despite the physical consequences to certain parts of Crete and the psychological impact on Bronze Age Cretans, for whom it was an unprecedented natural event, the eruption of the volcano of Thera would not have had a negative effect on LM IB state societies (Warren 2001). The image of storage intensification observed in the governing sector contrasts with storage activities in most domestic units, where storage potentials point to low levels of subsistence autarky. Life for a considerable part of the population was probably frugal. The basic aim of most households was to satisfy their current day-to-day needs. The surplus that each householder would have been able to store would have been low in most cases, leading to insecurity in times of crisis. The adoption of this frugal way of life by households residing in some sumptuary mansions/houses indicates dramatic changes in their life and economic background. Only a few households were the exception to the rule. Nutritional quality must also have been low, especially for groups living in large urban centers. The diet of these groups would have been based mainly on stored goods, as the degree of access to fresh products—access which would have been particularly high for those in smaller, self-sufficient farming communities—may have been limited. (This narrative was proposed by McGeorge [1988] in order to interpret the signs of malnutrition and the decline in life expectancy observed in human osteological material from Bronze Age Crete.) The leading sector of the LM IB states, therefore, pursued “maximizing” strategies of production, aimed at producing, extracting, and mobilizing consistent agricultural surpluses and

STORAGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS IN LM I STATE SOCIETIES

raw materials to feed groups of non-food producers, procure raw materials for craft industries, and support large-scale and labor-intensive ritual/ feasting events and building programs. Palaces utilized ceremonial events and restricted circulation of a politically charged material culture to strategically incorporate their periphery into the palace-sponsored economic and political system. Political groups of outlying territories supplied capital to the palace, aspiring to strengthen their ties with the central authority. The establishment, in some parts of the island, of new settlements in marginal lands in LM IB may be interpreted as a deliberate step taken to enable local authorities to collect larger quantities of agricultural surpluses (Watrous and Blitzer 1999; Watrous and HadziVallianou 2004, 297). In the long run, the need for constant and increased mobilization of resources at the top of the social pyramid inevitably leads to social tensions and conflicts. Contextualization of data from some palaces indicates that governing institutions might follow different political, economic, ceremonial, and social strategies (Adams 2006). Competition among the major centers of power dominating Bronze Age Crete over access to material and social resources, and therefore to political leadership, will have promoted an unstable island-wide political landscape. Competition was probably intense in areas close to territorial borders of regional polities: subordinated groups can change allegiance the more they are situated at the periphery as sovereignty declines from center to periphery (Southall 1956). The horizon became increasingly complex, as competition may have extended among the different political groups that controlled second-order centers, and even among rural groups operating around these centers. Political territories, therefore, may have been arenas of interaction among different groups aspiring to establish, cement, and change status and power. Competition and conflict may be expressed through remarkable consumption of material wealth, a process conferring power and prestige, through the conversion of material wealth into symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1990, 112–121; cf. Hamilakis 2002 for Bronze Age Crete). A group’s military skills and willingness to fight are also often determining factors in the acquisition of rank and participation in political decisions, as

145

well as the acquisition of political power itself (Keeley 1996; LeBlanc 1999; cf. several papers in Laffineur 1999 on Bronze Age Crete). The idea that Bronze Age Cretans were happy, peaceful builders of sanctuaries and palaces run by the elite is obviously unrealistic. In fact in the LM I period there was a largely urbanized population of farmers, craftsmen, and traders ruled by an elite class, used as a labor force and competing for resources whose availability presents strong regional variations. Economic interaction between palatial institutions, peripheral leaders, and commoners, therefore, intensified in order to cope with the increased demand for energy in the central sector of societal organization. Complex sociopolitical settings were thus formed, determined in each case by the local political, economic, and environmental circumstances. Increased conspicuous consumption of wealth in the elite segment created pressure on the lower classes, the actual producers of material capital and providers of the labor force. This pressure may have increased even further in certain areas of the island due to environmental stress occurring within LM IB. Many households and even peripheral political groups may have faced serious problems before the final destruction and abandonment of their houses/complexes: the decrease in pithos numbers seen in some units may indicate changes in access to and administration of goods. The means of achieving this escalation and the strains it engendered might explain the social unrest at the end of this era. The causes of the extensive destructions seen within LM IB and the collapse of the political system must be sought in the economic relationships between the various groups, relationships which seem to intensify during the LM IB period with the influx of an always increased wealth to the apex of the social pyramid. The widespread destructions of urban centers seem not to be simultaneous since certain centers, even clusters of buildings within the same urban center, were destroyed at earlier phases of the LM IB period while others were ruined very late during that same period. Based on the above evidence, it can be confirmed with certainty that a human agent, rather than some natural catastrophic event, was the main driving power behind the LM IB destructions in Crete.

146

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

It also seems unlikely that the Mycenaeans, through a sweeping invasion to the island (Hood 1985b), played a leading role in the destruction of the LM IB political system in Crete. In reality, the Mycenaean presence right after the LM IB period is debatable (for an overview of the different theories, see Farnoux and Driessen 1997). Making inferences and drawing conclusions from the material culture in order to confirm such a presence is rather unsafe. It has been argued in convincing terms that the introduction of the Mycenean material culture in Crete after the LM IB period has rather functioned as a medium for status competition in a horizon of political instability (Preston 2004a, 2004b). The Mycenaeanization, a phenomenon observed not only in Crete but also in the rest of the Aegean, was probably a

selective process of cultural and economic domination by mainland palatial polities (Preston 2004a, 2004b). In my view—a view adopting Tainter’s perspective on the collapse of complex societies (Tainter 1988, 193–216)—the crisis and consequent collapse of LM IB political systems was due to a top-heavy hierarchy feeding on a weakened population. The demands of the elite in terms of food supply, goods, and labor brought no corresponding subsistence security or economic benefits to the rest of society. The ensuing social cost was high: internal or external conflict, agricultural crisis, and environmental disaster may have triggered the final collapse of LM IB societies, but only because those societies were following a course that made them vulnerable to collapse.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Abbreviations follow the conventions recommended in the American Journal of Archaeology 111.1 (2007), pp. 14–34.

Adams, E.E. 2006. “Social Strategies and Social Dynamics in Neopalatial Crete: An Analysis of the North-Central Area,” AJA 110, pp. 1–36. Agapios Ieromonachos and Nikodimos Agioreitis. 1800. Phdavlion th" Nohthv" Nhvo~, th" Miva", Agiv J a", Kaqolikhv", kai Apostolikhv" twn Orqodovxwn Ekklhsiva", Leipzig. Aikaterinidis, G.N. 1988. “Lai>kov" politismov",” in Krhvth, Istoriva kai Politismov" II, N.M. Panagiotakis, ed., Herakleion, pp. 523–550.

Allbaugh, L.C. 1953. Crete: A Case Study of an Underdevelopment Area, Princeton. Aloni, A., and M. Negri. 1996. “Il valore dell’orzo nella Grecia Micenea e Classica,” in Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia: Roma-Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991 (Incunabula Graeca 98, 1), E. de Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi, eds., Rome, pp. 23–57. Amouretti, M.-C. 1986. Le pain et l’huile en Crèce antique, Paris.

Alexiou, S. 1955. “Anaskafhv Katsampav Krhvth",” Prakt 1955, pp. 311–320.

Amyx, D.A. 1958. “The Attic Stelai. Part III: Vases and Other Containers,” Hesperia 27, pp. 255–310.

———. 1957. “Anaskafhv Mhtropovlew" Govrtuno", ” Prakt 1957, pp. 148–149.

Andreadaki-Vlasaki, M. 1988. “Upovgeio avduto hv ‘dexamenhv kaqarmwvn’ sta Caniav,” AAA 21, pp. 56–76.

———. 1964. A Guide to the Minoan Palaces, Herakleion.

Andreadaki-Vlasaki, M., and M. Papadopoulou. 1997. “LM IIIA:1 Pottery from Khamalevri, Rethymnon,” in Hallager and Hallager, eds., 1997, pp. 111–151.

———. 1967. Usterominwikoiv Tavfoi Limevno" Knwsouv (Katsampav) (Biblioqhvkh th" en Aqhvnai" Arcaiologikhv" Etaireiva" 56), Athens. ———. 1972. “Anaskafaiv kai perisulloghv arcaiothvtwn,” ArchDelt 27 (B'2, Chronika), pp. 619–624. Allan, W. 1965. The African Husbandman, Edinburgh.

Apostolaki, S. 1972. “Agrotikav evqima th" Krhvth": ta evqima th" sporav",” Ellhnikhv Yuchv 2, pp. 29–33. Arakadaki, M. 1997–1998. “Nofaliav" Merampevlou: sumbolhv sthn arcitektonikhv twn oreinwvn oikismwvn th" Krhvth",” Krhtikhv Estiva 6, pp. 43–194.

150

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 2004. “Xeroliqikav ktivsmata kai kataskeuev" apov thn anatolikhv Krhvth (II). Metovcia kai mhtavta tou Kaqarouv,” Krhtikhv Estiva 10, pp. 51–132.

———. 2002. “Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record,” in Archaeology Theory Today, I. Hodder, ed., pp. 141–164, Cambridge.

Archondaki, K. [forthcoming]. “Anasunqevtonta" ti" drasthriovthte" enov" noikokuriouv: h perivptwsh tou Kthrivou twn Kogcwvn sto neoanaktorikov oikismov th" Zavkrou,” in Pepragmevna I v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou, Chania.

Bawden, G. 1982. “Community Organization Reflected by the Household: A Study of Pre-Columbian Social Dynamics,” JFA 9, pp. 165–181.

Aschenbrenner, S. 1972. “A Contemporary Community,” in The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment, W.A. MacDonald and G.R. Rapp Jr., eds., Minneapolis, pp. 47–63. Asdrachas, S. 1978. Mhcanismoiv th" Agrotikhv" Oikonomiva" sthn Tourkokrativa (ie v–i" v aiwvna"), Athens. ———. 1988. Oikonomiva kai Notropive", Athens. ———. 2003. Ellhnikhv Oikonomikhv Istoriva IE v– IQ v Aiwvna", Athens. Ashtor, E. 1968. “Essai sur l’alimentation des diverses classés socials dans l’Orient Médiéval,” Annales, économies, sociétés, civilisations 23, pp. 1017–1053. Aymard, M. 1975. “Pour l’histoire de l’alimentation: quelqes remarques de methode,” Annales, économies, sociétés, civilisations 30 (2–3), pp. 343–379. Baines, J., and N. Yoffee. 2000. “Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth: Setting the Terms,” in Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States, J. Richards and A. van Buren, eds., pp. 13–17, Cambridge.

Beckner, L., and F. Mendels. 1976. “Inheritance Systems, Family Structure and Demographic Patterns in Western Europe,” in Historical Studies in Changing Fertility, C. Tilly, ed., Princeton, pp. 209–223. Begg, D.J. 1975. Minoan Storerooms in the Late Bronze Age, Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto. Bennet, J. 1985. “The Structure of the Linear B Administration at Knossos,” AJA 89, pp. 231–249. Berov, L. 1976. Prices in the Balkans during the 16th–19th Centuries and the European Revolution of Prices, Sofia. Betancourt, P.P. 1991. Kommos II: The Final Neolithic through Middle Minoan III Pottery, Princeton. ———. 1995. “Pseira, Crete: The Economic Base for a Bronze Age Town,” in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds., 1995, pp. 163–167. ———. 2004. “Pseira and Knossos: The Transformation of an East Cretan Seaport,” in Crete Beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference (Prehistory Monographs 10), L.P. Day, M.S. Mook, and J.D. Muhly, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 21–28.

Bakker, A., and A. van Gemert. 1987. Manwvlh Barouvca Notariakev" Pravxei". Monasthravki Amarousivou (1597–1613), Rethymnon.

———. 2005. “Discussions and Conclusions,” in Pseira IX: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira Island. Part 2: The Intensive Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 12), P.P. Betancourt, C. Davaras, and R. Hope Simpson, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 275–306.

Balta, E. 1986. “Apov to forologikov tekmhvrio sthn agrotikhv oikonomiva: oi kallievrgeie" sth Santorivnh ton 18o aiwvna,” Ta Istorikav 3/6, pp. 283– 314.

———. 2006. “Land Use on the ChrysokaminoChomatas,” in The Chrysokamino Metallurgy Workshop and its Territory (Hesperia Suppl. 36), P.P. Betancourt, ed., Princeton, pp. 241–256.

Banou, E., and I. Serpetsidaki. 1996. “Galevni,” ArchDelt 51 (B'2, Chronika), pp. 623–624.

Betancourt, P.P., and E. Banou, 1991. “Pseira and Minoan Sea-Trade,” in THALASSA: L’ ègee prehistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse (23–25 avril 1990) (Aegaeum 7), R. Laffineur and L. Basch, eds., Liège, pp. 107–110.

Barnard, K.A., and T.M. Brogan 2003. Mochlos IB: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Neopalatial Pottery (Prehistory Monographs 8), Philadelphia. Barrett, J.C. 1998. “The Politics of Scale and the Experience of Distance: The Bronze Age World System,” in The World-View of Prehistoric Man. Arranged by the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities along with the Foundation Natur och Kultur (Konferenser 40), L. Larsen and B. Stjernquist, eds., pp. 13–25, Lund.

Betancourt, P.P., and C. Davaras. 1995. Pseira I: The Minoan Buildings on the West Side of Area A (University Museum Monograph 90), Philadelphia. ———. 1998. Pseira II: Building AC (the “Shrine”) and other Buildings in Area A (University Museum Monograph 94), Philadelphia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1999. Pseira IV: Minoan Buildings in Areas B, C, D and F (University Museum Monograph 105), Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P., and R. Hope Simpson. 1992. “The Agricultural System of Bronze Age Pseira,” Cretan Studies 3, pp. 47–54. Betancourt, P.P., V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1999. MELETEMATA: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegeaum 20), Liège. Bisel, S.C., and L. Angel. 1985. “Health and Nutrition in Mycenaean Greece,” in Contributions to Aegean Archaeology, N. Wilkie and W. Coulson, eds., Minneapolis, pp. 197–210. Blanton, R. 1993. Houses and Households: A Comparative Study, New York. Bloch, M. 1970. “Les aliments de l’ancienne France,” in Pour une histoire de l’alimentation (Cahiers des Annales 28), J.-J. Hémardinquer, ed., Paris, pp. 231–235. Bosanquet, R.C. 1901–1902. “Excavations at Palaikastro I,” BSA 8, pp. 286–316. ———. 1902–1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro II,” BSA 9, pp. 274–284. Bosanquet, R.C., and R.M. Dawkins. 1923. The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations 1902–1906 (BSA Suppl. 1), London. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge. ———. 1990 The Logic of Practice, Cambridge. Bournova, E., and G. Progoulakis. 1999. “O agrotikov" kovsmo", 1830–1940,” in Eisagwghv sth Neoellhnikhv Oikonomikhv Istoriva (18o"–20o" Aiwvna"), V. Kremmidas, ed., Athens, pp. 45–104. Bowring, J. 1840. “Report on Egypt and Candia,” Reports from Commissioners XXI, pp. 3–185.

151

———. 1988b. “Some Observations on State Formation in Crete,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester April 1986, E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 63–71. ———. 1990. “A Dynamic View of the Early Palaces,” in Pepragmevna ST v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A'1, Chania, pp. 147–159. Brenton, B.P. 1988. “The Seasonality of Storage,” in Coping with Seasonal Constraints (MASCAP 5), R. Huss-Ashmore, J.J. Carry, and R.K. Hitchcock, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 45–54. Brown, A.C. 1989. Arthur Evans and the Palace of Minos, Oxford. Brown, B. 1987. “Population Estimation from Floor Area: A Re-study of ‘Naroll’s Constant’,” Behavior Science Research 21, pp. 1–49. Brumfiel, E.M. 1994. “The Economic Anthropology of the State: An Introduction,” in The Economic Anthropology of the State, E.M. Brumfiel, ed., Lanham and London, pp. 1–16. Brumfiel, E.M., and T.K. Earle. 1987. “Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction,” in Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, E.M. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle, Cambridge, pp. 1–9. Burke, B. 2006. “Textile Production at Petras: The Evidence from House 2,” in Pepragmevna Q v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A'1, Herakleion, pp. 279– 291. Cadogan, G. 1977–1978. “Pyrgos, Crete, 1970–1977,” AR 24, pp. 70–84. ———. 1992. “Myrtos-Pyrgos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 202–209. ———. 1997. “The Role of the Pyrgos Country House in Minoan Society,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 99–103.

Bradfer-Burdet, I. 2005. “Une kouloura dans le ‘Petit Palais’ de Malia,” in KRHS TECNITHS: L’artisan crétois. Recueil d’articles en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Poursat, publié à l’ocassion des 40 ans de la décourerte du Quartier Mu (Aegaeum 26), I. BradferBurdet, B. Detournay, and R. Laffineur, Liège, pp. 39–49.

Cadogan, G., E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, eds. 2004. Knossos: Palace, City and State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organized by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), London.

Branigan, K. 1987. “The Economic Role of the First Palaces,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 245– 248.

Cameron, C.M. 1999. “Room Size, Organization of Construction, and Archaeological Interpretation in the Puebloan Southwest,” JAnthArch 18, pp. 201–239.

———. 1988a. “Social Security and the State in Middle Bronze Age Crete,” Aegaeum 2, pp. 11–16.

Camporesi, P. 1993. “Cuisine de ville et cuisine de campagne,” in La Terre et la Lune. Alimentation, Folklore, Société, by P. Camporosi, Paris, pp. 143–148.

152

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Caplan, P. 1994. Feasts, Fasts, Famine: Food for Thought (Berg Occasional Papers in Anthropology 2), London. Carinci, F.M. 1989. “The ‘III fase protopalaziale’ at Phaestos: Some Observations,” in TRANSITION. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze recent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (Aegaeum 3), R. Laffineur, ed., Liège, pp. 73–80. ———. 2001. “Per una diversa interpretazione delle kulure nei cortili occidentali dei palazzi minoici,” Creta Antica 2, pp. 43–62. Carrier, J.G., and J.M. Heyman. 1997. “Consumption and Political Economy,” JRAI 3 (2), pp. 355–373. Castleberry, S.E. 1974. “Further Refinements of Formulae for Determining Population from Floor Area,” WorldArch 6, pp. 118–122. Catling, H.W. 1973–1974. “Archaeology in Greece, 1973–1974,” AR 20, pp. 3–41. Catling, H.W., E.A. Catling, and D. Smyth. 1979. “Knossos 1975: Middle Minoan III and Late Minoan I Houses by the Acropolis,” BSA 74, pp. 1–80.

———. 2003. “Pithoi and Staple Storage in the South House,” in Knossos: The South House (BSA Suppl. 34), P.A. Mountjoy, London, pp. 153–161. ———. 2004. “Palatial Economy and Staple Storage in Late Bronze Age Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 299–309. ———. 2005. Cretan Bronze Age Pithoi: Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Bronze Age Crete (Prehistory Monographs 18), Philadelphia. ———. 2006a. “Metabolev" tou apoqhkeutikouv dunamikouv twn anaktovrwn kai h politikhv oikonomiva katav thn palaioanaktorikhv kai neoanaktorikhv perivodo,” Pepragmevna Q v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A'2, Herakleion, pp. 69–82. ———. 2006b. “Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Protopalatial and Neopalatial Crete,” in Pottery and Society: The Impact of Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery. Gold Metal Colloquium in Honor of Philip P. Betancourt, M.H. Wiener, J.L. Warner, J. Polonsky, E.E. Hayes, eds., Boston, pp. 119–137.

Chapouthier, F., and J. Charbonneaux. 1928. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Premier rapport (1922–1924) (ÉtCrét 1), Paris.

Christakis, K.S., and G. Rethemiotakis. [forthcoming]. “Identifying Household Activities: The Case of House 2 at Galatas Pediada, Crete,” in The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete from the Neolithic Period through the Roman Era (Hesperia Suppl.), K. Glowacki and N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, eds.

Chapouthier, F., and P. Demargne. 1942. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Troisième rapport. Exploration du palais. Bordures orientale et septentrionale (1927, 1928, 1931, 1932) (ÉtCrét 6), Paris.

Chryssoulaki, S. 1987. “Xerhv Karav Arcanwvn,” in EILAPINH: Tovmo" Timhtikov" gia tovn Kaqhghthv Nikovlao Plavtwna, L. Kastrinaki, G. Orfanou, and N. Giannadakis, eds., Herakleion, pp. 179–196.

Chapouthier, F., and R. Joly. 1936. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Deuxiéme rapport. Exploration du palais (1925–1926) (ÉtCrét 4), Paris.

———. 1997. “Nerokourou Building I and its Place in Neopalatial Crete,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 27–32.

Chadwick, J. 1968. “Mycenaean Wine and the Etymology of glukuv",” Minos 9, pp. 192–197.

Chayanov, A.V. 1966. On the Theory of Peasant Economy, Homewood, IL. Cherry, J.F. 1986. “Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in the Minoan State Formation,” in Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry, eds., Cambridge, pp. 19–45. Childe, V.G. 1954. What Happened in History, Harmondsworth. Christakis, K.S. 1999a. Minoan Pithoi and Their Significance for the Household Subsistence Economy of Neopalatial Crete, Ph.D. diss., Bristol University. ———. 1999b. “Pithoi and Food Storage in Neopalatial Crete: A Domestic Perspective,” WorldArch 31, pp. 1–20.

———. 1999. “Minoan Roads and Guard Houses-War Regained,” in POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), R. Laffineur, ed., Liège, pp. 75–85. Clarke, S.K. 1974. “A Method for the Estimation of Prehistoric Pueblo Populations,” The Kiva 39, pp. 283–287. Cook, S.F., and R.F. Heizer. 1968. “Relationships among Houses, Settlement Areas and Population in Aboriginal California,” in Settlement Archaeology, K.C. Chang, ed., Palo Alto, pp. 79–116. Dahal, G., and A. Hjort. 1976. Having Herds (Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 2), Stockholm.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D’Altroy, T.H., and T. Earle. 1985. “Staple Finance, Wealth Finance and Storage in the Inka Political Economy,” CurrAnthr 26, pp. 187–206. Daux, M.G. 1951. “Chronique des fouilles en 1950,” BCH 75, pp. 101–198. Davaras, C. 1964. “Arcaiovthte" kai mnhmeiva Krhvth",” ArchDelt 19 (B'3, Chronika), p. 442. ———. 1973. “Arcaiovthte" kai mnhmeiva anatolikhv" Krhvth",” ArchDelt 28 (B'2, Chronika), pp. 585–596. ———. 1992. “Makrygialos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 172–174. ———. 1997. “The ‘Cult Villa’ at Makrygialos,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 117–135. Davis, E.N. 1987. “The Knossos Miniature Frescoes and the Function of the Central Courts,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 157–161. Dawkins, R.W. 1902–1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro II. The Houses and the Pottery,” BSA 9, pp. 290–328. ———. 1903–1904. “Excavations at Palaikastro III,” BSA 10, pp. 196–226. ———. 1904–1905. “Excavations at Palaikastro IV,” BSA 11, pp. 258–292. ———. 1913–1914. “Excavations at Plati in Lasithi, Crete,” BSA 20, pp. 1–17. Dawkins, R.W., and M.N. Tod. 1902–1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro II,” BSA 9, pp. 329–335. Day, P.M. 1997. “Ceramic Exchange between Towns and Outlying Settlements in Neopalatial East Crete,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 219–228. Day, P.M., and D.E. Wilson. 2002. “Landscapes of Memory, Craft and Power in Pre-palatial and Proto— palatial Knossos,” in Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” Archaeology, Y. Hamilakis, ed., Oxford, pp. 143–166. De Boeck, F. 1994. “When Hunger Goes around the Land: Hunger and Food among the Alaund of Zaire,” Man 29, pp. 257–282. De Bonneval, P., and M. Dumas. [1783] 2000. Reconnaissance de l’ile de Crete. Anagnwvrish th" Nhvsou Krhvth"/. Mia Anevkdoth Mustikhv Ekqesh tou 1783, G.B. Nikolaou and M.G. Peponakis, eds., Rethymnon. de Fidio, P. 1982. “Fiscalita, redistribuzione, equivalenze: per una discussione sull’ economia micenea,” SMEA 23, pp. 83–136. Defteraios, A.N. 2000. To Ywmiv katav ton Gavmo, th Gevnnhsh, thn Teleuthv kai w" Dwvro sti" Koinwnikev" Scevsei" twn Ellhvnwn, Athens.

153

De Garine, I., and G. Koppert. 1988. “Coping with Seasonal Fluctuations in Food Supply among Savanna Populations: The Massa and Mussey of Chad and Cameroon,” in Coping with Uncertainty in Food Supply, I. de Garine and G.A. Harrison, eds., Oxford, pp. 210–259. Demargne, P., and H. Gallet de Santerre. 1953. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation (1921–1948). Premier fascicule (ÉtCrét 9), Paris. Deshayes, J., and A. Dessenne. 1959. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation II (1948–1954). Deuxiéme fascicule (ÉtCrét 11), Paris. Detorakis, Th. 1983–1984. “H aggareiva th" qavlassa" sthn Benetokratouvmehn Krhvth,” Krhtologiva 16–17, pp. 103–139. ———. 1990. “Mia eikovna astikouv plouvtou ston Cavndaka (1568),” CretChron 30, pp. 77–102. Dewolf, Y., F. Postel, and H. van Effenterre. 1963. “Géographie préhistorique de la région de Malia,” in Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Étude du site (1956– 1957) et exploration des nécroploles II (1915–1928) (ÉtCrét 13), H. van Effenterre and M. van Effenterre, eds., Paris, pp. 28–53. Diamond, W. 1947. Agriculture and Food in Greece (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration Operational Analysis Paper 19), London. Dimopoulou, N. 1985. “Krouswvna",” ArchDelt 40 (B', Chronika), p. 297. ———. 1986–1987. “Arcaiologikev" eidhvsei" apov thn Pediavda,” Luvkto" 2, pp. 30–41. ———. 1997. “Workshops and Craftsmen in the Harbour-town of Knossos at Poros-Katsambas,” in TECNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., Liège, pp. 433–438. ———. 2004. “To epivneio th" Knwsouv ston PovroKatsampav,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 363–380. Dimopoulou, N., J.-P. Olivier, and G. Rethemiotakis. 1993. “Une statuette avec inscription en Linéaire A de Poros/Irakliou,” BCH 117, pp. 501–521. Di Vita, A. 1990–1991. “Atti della Scuola,” ASAtene 68–69, pp. 405–500. ———. 1991–1992. “Atti della Scuola,” ASAtene 70–71, pp. 395–488.

154

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 1992–1993. “Atti della Scuola,” ASAtene 72–73, pp. 335–431.

———. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory, Stanford.

Di Vita, A., V. La Rosa, and A. Rizzo. 1984. Creta antica: cento anni di archeologia italiana, 1884–1984, Rome.

Earle, T.K., and T.N. D’Altroy. 1982. “Storage Facilities and State Finance in the Upper Mantaro Valley, Peru,” in Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, J.E. Ericson and T.K. Earle, eds., New York, pp. 265–290.

Dobres, M.-A., and J. Robb. 2000. Agency in Archaeology, London. Douglas, M. 1982. In the Active Voice, London. Drakakis, M. 2004. Micahvl Marav". Notavrio" Cavndaka Katavstico 149. I. [16/1–30/3 1549], Herakleion. Driessen, J. 2001a. “History and Hierarchy: Preliminary Observations on the Settlement Pattern of Minoan Crete,” in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 51–71. ———. 2001b. “Crisis Cults on Minoan Crete,” in POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., Liège, pp. 361–369. ———. 2002. “‘The King Must Die:’ Some Observations of the Use of Minoan Court Compounds,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 1–14. Driessen, J., and A. Farnoux. 1994. “Mycenaeans at Mallia?” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 54–64. Driessen, J., and C.F. Macdonald. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège. Driessen, J., and J. Sakellarakis. 1997. “The VathypetroComplex: Some Observations on its Architectural History and Function,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 63–77. Driessen, J., I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, eds. 2002. Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001 (Aegeaum 23), Liège. Droulia, L. 1993. Perihghtikav Qevmata: Upodomhv kai Proseggivssei", Athens. Drucker-Brown, S. 2001. “House and Hierarchy: Politics and Domestic Space in Northern Ghana,” JRAI 7, pp. 669–685. Earle, T.K. 1977. “A Reappraisal of Redistribution: Complex Hawaiian Chiefdoms,” in Exchange Systems in Prehistory, T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson, eds., New York, pp. 213–229. ———. 1991. “The Evolution of Chiefdoms,” in Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideologies, T.K. Earle, ed., Cambridge, pp. 1–15.

Elder, G.H., Jr. 1987. “Families and Lives: Some Development in Life-Course Studies,” in Family History at the Crossroads, T. Hareven and A. Plakans, eds., Princeton, pp. 179–200. Ember, C.R. 1983. “The Relative Decline in Women’s Contribution to Agriculture with Intensification,” American Anthropologist 85, pp. 285–304. Evans, A.J. 1899–1900. “Knossos I: The Palace,” BSA 6, pp. 3–70. ———. 1900–1901. “The Palace of Knossos,” BSA 7, pp. 1–120. ———. 1901–1902. “The Palace of Knossos,” BSA 8, pp. 1–124. ———. 1902–1903. “The Palace of Knossos,” BSA 9, pp. 1–153. ———. 1903–1904. “The Palace of Knossos,” BSA 10, pp. 1–62. Evelpidis, X. 1950. Oikonomikhv Istoriav th" Newtevra" Ellavdo", Athens. Evely, D., I.S. Lemos, and S. Sheratt, eds. 1996. Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR-IS 638), Oxford. Fakiolas, R. 2003. “Oikonomikev" exelivxe" sti" dekaetive" ’30 kai ’40,” in H Ellavda ’36–’49. Apov th Diktatoriva ston Emfuvlio: Tomev" kai Sunevceie", H. Fleischer, ed., Athens, pp. 321–350. Farnoux, A., and J. Driessen. 1997. “La Crète mycénienne ou les noces d’ Ariane et de Thésée,” in La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table ronde internationel organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes (Athènes, 26–28 mars 1991) (BCH Suppl. 30), J. Driessen and A. Farnoux, eds., Athens, pp. 1–7. Faroqui, S. 1995. Kultur und Alltag im Osmanischen Reich, Munich. Firth, R.J. 1994–1995. “Estimating the Population of Crete during LM IIIA/B,” Minos 29–30, pp. 33–55. Flannery, K.V. 1969. “Origins and Ecological Effects of Early Domestication in Iran and the Near East,” in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby, eds., London, pp. 73–100.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Floyd, C.R. 1995. “Fragments from Two Pithoi with Linear A Inscriptions from Pseira,” Kadmos 34, pp. 39–48. ———. 1998. Pseira III: The Plateia Building (University Museum Monograph 102), Philadelphia. ———. 2006. “A Summary of the Habitation Site at Chrysokamino-Chomatas,” in The Chrysokamino Metallurgy Workshop and its Territory (Hesperia Suppl. 36), P.P. Betancourt, Princeton, pp. 205–213. Follieri, M. 1979–1980. “Proviste alimentari vegetali da una casa minoica ad Haghia Triada (Creta),” ASAtene 41–42, pp.165–172. Forbes, H. 1982. Strategies and Soils: Technology, Production, and Environment in the Peninsula of Methana, Greece, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

155

Cycladic Prehistory, J.F. Cherry and J.L. Davis, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 122–133. Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History, Cambridge. Gasparis, X. 1994. Fusikov kai Agrotikov Topivo sthn Mesaiwnikhv Krhvth 13o" kai 14o" ai, Athens. ———. 1997. H Ghv kai oi Agrovte" sth Mesaiwnikhv Krhvth: 13o" kai 14o" Aiwvna" (Eqnikov ’Idruma Ereunwvn: Institouvto Buzantinwvn Ereunwvn 4), Athens. Gelb, I.J. 1965. “The Ancient Mesopotamian Rations System,” JNES 24, pp. 230–243. Gesell, G.C. 1985. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67), Göteborg.

Forbes, H., and L. Foxhall. 1995. “Ethnoarchaeology and Storage in the Ancient Mediterranean beyond Risk and Survival,” in Food in Antiquity, J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, and M. Dobson, eds., Exeter, pp. 69–86.

Giacco, R., and G. Riccardi. 1991. “Comparison of Current Eating Habits in Various Mediterranean Countries,” in The Mediterranean Diets in Health and Disease, G.S. Spiller, ed., New York, pp. 3–9.

Forsdyke, E.J. 1925. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum I. Part 1: Prehistoric Aegean Pottery, London.

Giannaris, A.N. 1906. Periv th" Katastavsew" en th Krhvth Gewrgiva" kai Emporiva", Chania.

Fortes, M. 1958. “Introduction,” in The Development Cycle in Domestic Groups, J. Goody, ed., Cambridge, pp. 1–14.

Godart, L., and J.-P. Olivier. 1982. Recueil des inscriptions en linéaire A. 4. Autres documents (ÉtCrét 21 [4]), Paris.

Foster, K.P. 1982. Minoan Ceramic Relief (SIMA 64), Göteborg.

Godelier, M. 1978. “Infrastructures, Societies, and History,” CurrAnthr 19, pp. 763–771.

Fotou, V. 1993. New Light on Gournia: Unknown Documents of the Excavation at Gournia and Other Sites on the Isthmus of Ierapetra by Harriet Ann Boyd (Aegaeum 9), Liège.

Goode, W.J. 2003. “Family Changes over the Long Term: A Sociological Commentary,” Journal of Family History 28, pp. 15–30.

———. 1997. “Elements d’analyse architecturale et la question des functions de trios bâtiments-‘villas’: la Royal Villa, le ‘Mégaron’ de Nirou et le ‘Mégaron’ de Sklavokambos,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 33–50. Foxhall, L., and H.A. Forbes. 1982. “Sitometria: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity,” Chiron 12, pp. 41–90. French, E. 1991–1992. “Archaeology in Greece 1991– 1992,” AR 38, pp. 1–70. Galavaris, G. 1970. Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps, Madison, WI. Gallant, T.W. 1991. Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy, Cambridge. Gamble, C. 1979. “Surplus and Self-sufficiency in the Cycladic Subsistence Economy,” Problems in

Giddens, A. 1993. The Giddens Reader, Stanford.

Goody, J. 1976. Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain, Cambridge. ———. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology, Cambridge. Graham, J.W. 1961. “The Minoan Banquet Hall,” AJA 65, pp. 165–172. ———. 1962. The Palaces of Crete, Princeton. ———. 1979. “Further Notes on Minoan Palace Architecture: 1. West Magazines and Upper Halls at Knossos and Mallia; 2. Access to, and Use of, Minoan Palace Roofs,” AJA 83, pp. 49–69. Greene, M. 2000. A Shared World: Christians and Muslims in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Princeton. Grintakis, G.M. 1990a. To Prwtovkollo tou Reqemiwvth Notarivou Giavnnh Blastouv, Rouvstika (1599– 1614), Athens (privately circulated).

156

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 1990b. To Prwtovkollo tou Reqemiwvth Sumbolaiogravfou Tzwvrtzh Trwivlou (1585–1600), Athens (privately circulated). ———. 1990c. Duvo Krhtikav Cwriav-Melidovni, Agiav— sta Mevsa tou 16ou Aiwvna, Athens (privately circulated). Gudeman, S. 1998. “Introduction,” in Economic Anthropology (The International Libray of Critical Writing in Economics 99), S. Gudeman, ed., Cheltenham, pp. 11–18. Haas, J. 1982. The Evolution of the Prehistoric State, Princeton. Hägg, R., ed. 1997. The Function of the “Minoan Villa.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6–8 June, 1992 (SkrAth 4°, 46), Stockholm. Hägg, R., and N. Marinatos, eds. 1987. The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (SkrAth 4°, 35), Stockholm. Haggis, D.C. 2005. Kavousi I: The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (Prehistory Monographs 16), Philadelphia. Halbherr, F., E. Stefani, and L. Banti. 1977. “Haghia Triada nel periodo tardo palaziale,” ASAtene 55, pp. 1–296. Hall, E.T. 1969. The Hidden Dimension, New York. Hallager, B.P. 1997. “LM III Pottery Shapes and Their Nomenclature,” in Hallager and Hallager, eds., 1997, pp. 407–417. Hallager, E. 1973. “Minoan Kydonia. Excavations 1973,” AAA 6, pp. 439–448. ———. 1977. The Mycenaean Palace at Knossos (Medelhvsmuseet Memoir 1), Stockholm. ———. 1978. “Two Linear A Tablets from the GreekSwedish Excavations, Kastelli Khania 1977,” SMEA 19, pp. 35–47. ———. 1985. “The Greek-Swedish Excavations at Khania,” Pepragmevna E v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A', Chania, pp. 139–154. ———. 1990. “Upper Floors in LM I Houses,” in L’ habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique, l’Université de Paris I et l’ École française d’ Athènes (Athènes, 23–25 Juin 1987) (BCH Suppl. 19), P. Darque and R. Treuil, eds., Paris, pp. 281–292. ———. 2002a. “Wine and Pithoi: Written and Archaeological Evidence,” in Oivno" Palaiov"

Hduvpoto". To Krhtikov Krasiv apov ta Proi>storikav w" ta Newvtera Crovnia (Dhmosieuvmata tou Arcaiologikouv Institouvtou Krhvth~ 1), A.K. Milopotamitaki, ed., Herakleion, pp. 61–68. ———. 2002b. “One Linear A Tablet and 45 Noduli,” Creta Antica 3, pp. 105–109. Hallager, E., and Y. Tzedakis. 1983. “The GreekSwedish Excavations at Kastelli, Khania 1980,” AAA 16, pp. 3–17. ———. 1984. “The Greek-Swedish Excavations at Kastelli, Khania 1982–1983,” AAA 17, pp. 3–20. ———. 1985. “The Greek-Swedish Excavations at Kastelli, Khania 1984,” AAA 18, pp. 9–28. ———. 1988. “The Greek-Swedish Excavations at Kastelli, Khania 1987,” AAA 19, pp. 11–26. Hallager, E., and B.P. Hallager, eds. 1997. Late Minoan III Pottery: Chronology and Terminology (Danish Institute at Athens Monograph 1), Athens. Halperin, R.H. 1994. Cultural Economies Past and Present, Austin. Halstead, P. 1981. “From Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storage and the Rise of the Minoan Palace,” in Economic Archaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches (BAR-IS 96), A. Sheridan and G.N. Bailey, eds., Oxford, pp. 187–213. ———. 1988. “On Redistribution and the Origin of Minoan-Mycenaean Palatial Economies,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester April 1986, E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 519–530. ———. 1989. “The Economy has a Normal Surplus: Economic Stability and Social Change among Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, Greece,” in Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, P. Halstead and J. O’Shea, eds., Cambridge, pp. 68–80. ———. 1992. “Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean: Towards a Model of Palatial Economy,” in Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–17 (SkrAth 4°, 46), B. Wells, ed., Stockholm, pp. 105–117. ———. 1995. “Plough and Power: The Economic and Social Significance of Cultivation with the Oxdrawn Ard in the Mediterranean,” Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 8, pp. 11–22. ———. 1996. “Pastoralism or Household Herding? Problems of Scale and Specialisation in Early Greek Animal Husbandry,” WorldArch 28, pp. 20–42.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

———. 1997. “Storage Strategies and State on Prehistoric Crete: A Reply to Strasser, JMA 10 [1997] 73–100,” JMA 10, pp. 103–107.

———. 2003. “Andean Luxury Foods: Special Food for the Ancestors, Deities and the Elite,” Antiquity 77, pp. 45–54.

———. 1999. “Towards a Model of Mycenaean Palatial Mobilization,” in Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces, M.L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 35–41.

Hatzaki, E.M. 1996. “Was the Little Palace at Knossos the ‘Little Palace’ of Knossos?” in Evely, Lemos, and Sherratt, eds., 1996, pp. 34–45.

Halstead, P., and V. Isaakidou. 2004. “Faunal Evidence for Feasting: Burned Offerings from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos,” in Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett, eds., Sheffield , pp. 136–154. Halstead, P., and J. O’Shea. 1982. “A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking,” in Ranking, Resources and Exchange, C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, eds., Cambridge, pp. 92–99. ———. 1989. “Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty,” in Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, P. Halstead and J. O’Shea, eds., Cambridge, pp. 1–7. Hamilakis, Y. 1995. Strategies for Survival and Strategies for Domination: Wine, Oil and “Social Complexity” in Bronze Age Crete, Ph.D. diss., Sheffield University. ———. 1996. “Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze Age Crete: A Review of the Evidence,” OJA 15, pp.1–32. ———. 1999. “Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete,” WorldArch 31, pp. 38–54. ———. 2002. “Too Many Chiefs? Factional Competition in Neopalatial Crete,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 179–199. Hansen, J.M. 2000. “Palaeoethnobotany and Palaeodiet in the Aegean Region: Notes on Legume Toxicity and Related Pathologies,” in Palaeodiet in the Aegean: Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 1993 Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washington D.C. (Wiener Laboratory Monograph 1), S.J. Vaughan and W.D.E. Coulson, eds., pp. 13–27. Harlow, M., and W. Smith. 2001. “Between Fasting and Feasting: The Literary and Archaeological Evidence for Monastic Diet in Late Antique Egypt,” Antiquity 75, pp. 758–768.

———. 2005. Knossos: The Little Palace (BSA Suppl. 38), London. Hawes, H.B., B.E. Williams, R.B. Seager, and E.H. Hall. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete, Philadelphia. Hayden, B. 1994. “Village Approaches to Complex Societies,” in Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, G.M. Schwartz and S.E. Falconer, eds., Washington and London, pp. 198–206. ———. 1995. “Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities,” in Foundations of Social Inequalities, T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman, eds., New York, pp. 15–86. Hayden, B.J. 1983–1984. “Late Bronze Age Tylissos,” Expedition 26 (3), pp. 37–46. ———. 2004. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete, Volume 2: The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and the Related Studies (University Museum Monograph 119), Philadelphia. Hazzidakis, J. 1912. “Tuvliso" Minwi>khv,” ArchEph 1912, pp. 197–233. ———. 1919. “Anaskafaiv en Malivoi" Krhvth",” Prakt 1919, pp. 50–62. ———. 1921. Étude de préhistoire crétoise. Tylissos a l’ époque minoenne, Paris. ———. 1934. Les villas minoennes de Tylissos (ÉtCrét 3), Paris. Hendon, J.A. 1996. “Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practices and Domestic Relations,” Annual Review of Anthropology 25, pp. 45–61. Herzfeld, M. 1985. The Poetics of Manhood, Princeton. Hesseling, D.-C., and H. Pernot. 1910. Poèmes prodromiques en Grec vulgaire, Amsterdam. Hitchcock, L.A. 2000. Minoan Architecture: A Contextual Analysis (SIMA 155), Jonsered.

Harris, M., and E.B. Ross, eds. 1987. Food and Evolution: Towards a Theory of Human Food Habits, Philadelphia.

Hitchcock, L.A., and D. Preziosi. 1997. “The Knossos Unexplored Mansion and the ‘Villa-Annex Complex’,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 51–62.

Hastorf, C.A. 1993. Agriculture and the Onset of Political Inequality before the Inka, Cambridge.

Hogarth, D.G. 1899–1900. “Knossos II. Early Town and Cemeteries,” BSA 6, pp. 70–93.

158

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 1900–1901. “Excavations at Zakro, Crete,” BSA 7, pp. 121–149. Holland, B., A.A. Welch, I.D. Unwin, B.H. Buss, A.A. Paul, and D.A.T. Southgate. 1991. McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, London. Holtzman, J. 2002. “Politics and Gastropolitics: Gender and the Power of Food in Two African Pastoralist Societies,” JRAI 8, pp. 259–278. Hood, M.S.F. 1958. “Archaeology in Greece 1958,” AR 5, pp. 3–25. ———. 1978. “Traces of the Eruption Outside Thera,” in Thera and the Aegean World I. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, C. Doumas and H.C. Puchelt, eds., London, pp. 681–690. ———. 1985a. “Pigs or Pulses? The Pens at Knossos,” AJA 89, pp. 308–313. ———. 1985b. “Warlike Destruction in Crete c. 1450,” in Pepragmevna E v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A', Hagios Nikolaos, pp. 170–178. ———. 1996. “Back to Basics with Middle Minoan IIIB,” in Evely, Lemos, and Sherratt, eds., 1996, pp. 10–16. ———. 1997. “The Magico-religious Background of the Minoan Villa,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 105–116. Hood, M.S.F., and D. Smyth. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area (BSA Suppl. 14), London. Hood, M.S.F., and W. Taylor. 1981. The Bronze Age Palace at Knossos: Plan and Sections (BSA Suppl. 13), London. Hue, M., and Pelon, O. 1992. “La salle à piliers du palais de Malia et ses antécédents,” BCH 116, pp. 1–36. Imellos, S. 1993. Zhthvmata Paradosiakouv Ulikouv Bivou, Athens. Ingold, T. 1983. “The Significance of Storage in Hunting Societies,” Man 18, pp. 553–571. Ioakimoglou, G., and S. Giannousis. 1933. “Periv tou kovstou" th" eparkouv" trofhv" twn ptwcwvn tavxewn tou laouv,” PraktAkAth 8, pp. 223–228. Jacoby, D. 1962. “Phénomène de démographie rurale à Byzance aux XIIIe–XIVe siècles,” Études Rurales 5–6, pp. 175–186.

Joyce, R.A. 2000. “Heirlooms and Houses: Materiality and Social Memory,” in Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, R.A. Joyce and S.D. Gillespie, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 189–212. Kalomenopoulos, N. 1894. Krhtikav hvtoi Topografiva kai Odoiporikav th" Nhvsou Krhvth", Athens. Kanta, A. 1980. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery and Their Distribution (SIMA 58), Göteborg. Kanta, A., and L. Rocchetti. 1989. “La ceramica del primo edificio,” in Scavi a Nerokourou, Kydonias (Ricerche Greco-Italiane in Creta Occidentale I) (Incunabula Graeca 91), Y. Tzedakis and A. Sacconi, eds., Rome, pp. 103–279. Kapetanios, A. 2003. “The ‘Socialisation’ of Animals in Epirus, Ikaria, and Crete,” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (BSA Studies 9), E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti, eds., London, pp. 283–290. Karetsou, A. 1976. “To ierov korufhv" Giouvcta,” Prakt 1976, pp. 408–418. ———. 1978. “To ierov korufhv" Giouvcta,” Prakt 1978, pp. 232–258. ———. 1981. “The Peak Sanctuary of Mt. Juktas,” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980 (SkrAth 4°, 28), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 137–153. Kasomoulis, N.K. 1939. Enqumhvmata Stratiwtikav th" Epanastavsew" twn Ellhvnwn, 1821–1833, Athens. Katsoulis, G., M. Nikolinakou, and B. Filia. 1985. Oikonomikhv Istoriva th" Newvterh" Ellavda". Apov to 1453 mevcri to 1830, Athens. Kazanskiene, V.P. 1995. “Land Tenure and Social Position in Mycenaean Greece,” in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds., 1995, pp. 603–611. Kazhdan, A.P. 1982. “Two Notes on Byzantine Demography of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Byzantinische Forschungen 8, pp. 115–122. Keeley, L.H. 1996. War Before Civilization, New York. Kent, S. 1984. Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space, Albuquerque.

Jameson, M.H. 1990. “Domestic Space in the Greek City-State,” in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge, pp. 92–113.

Kertzer, D.I. 1988. Ritual, Politics, and Power, New Haven.

Jameson, M.H., C.N. Runnels, and T.H. van Andel. 1994. A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day, Stanford.

Killen, J.T. 1983. “PY An 1,” Minos 18, pp. 71–79.

Keys, A. 1980. Seven Countries Study: A Multivariate Analysis of Death and Coronary Heart Disease, Cambridge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1985. “The Linear B Tablets and the Mycenaean Economy,” in Linear B: A 1984 Survey. Proceeding of the Mycenaean Colloquium of the VIIIth Congress of the International Federation of the Societies of Classical Studies (Dublin, 27 August–1 September 1984), A. Morpurgo-Davies and Y. Dahoux, eds., Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 241–305. ———. 2004. “Wheat, Barley, Flour, Olives and Figs on Linear B Tablets,” in Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Achaeology 5), P. Halstead and J.C. Battett, eds., Sheffield, pp. 155–173. Kiriakos, G. 1869. vEkqesi" periv th" Kallievrgeia" twn Prwvimwn Lacanikwvn en Suvro, Athens. Knappett, C. 1999. “Assessing a Polity in Protopalatial Crete: The Malia-Lasithi State,” AJA 103, pp. 615– 639. Knappett, C., and I. Schoep. 2000. “Continuity and Change in Minoan Palatial Power,” Antiquity 74, pp. 365–371. Koder, J. 1992. O Khpourov" kai h Kaqhmerinhv Kouzivna sto Buzavntio, Athens. ———. 1995. “Fresh Vegetables for the Capital,” in Constantinople and its Hinterland, C. Mango and G. Dagron, eds., Aldershot, UK, pp. 49–56. Kolb, C.C. 1985. “Demographic Estimates in Archaeology: Contributions from Ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican Peasants,” CurrAnthr 26, pp. 581–599. Kooreman, P., and S. Wunderink. 1997. The Economics of Household Behaviour, London and New York. Kopaka, K., and L. Platon. 1993. “LHNOI MINWIKOI. Installations minoennes de traitement des produits liquides,” BCH 117, pp. 35–101. Kostis, K. 1993. Aforiva, Akrivbeia kai Peivna. Oi Krivsei" th" Diatrofhv" sthn Ellhnikhv Cersovnhso (1650–1830): Problhvmata Prosevggish" kai Empeirikev" Endeivxei~, Athens. Koukoules, F. 1952. Buzantinwvn Bivo" kai Politismov", Vol. E: Ai Trofaiv kai ta Potav. Ta Geuvmata, ta Deivpna kai ta Sumpovsia, Athens. Kremidas, B. 1974. Oi Sapwnopoiive" th" Krhvth" sto IH v ai, Athens. Kyriakidis, E. 2001. “The Economics of Potnia: Storage in ‘Temples’ of Prehistoric Greece,” in POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, eds., Liège, pp. 123–129. ———. 2005. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries, London.

159

Labuza, T.P. 1982. Shelf-Life Dating of Foods, Westport, CT. Laffineur, R. 1991. “Habitat égéen et reconstructions: quelques réflexions méthodologiques à propos du quartier north-est du palais de Cnossos,” L’ habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique, l’Université de Paris I et l’ École française d’ Athènes (Athènes, 23–25 Juin 1987) (BCH Suppl. 19), P. Darque and R. Treuil, eds., Paris, pp. 3–19. ———, ed. 1999. POLEMOS: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Recontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liège. Laffineur, R., and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1995. POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), Liège. Lafon, X. 1993. “L’huile en Italie centrale à l’époque républicaine: une production sous-estimée,” in La Production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée (BCH Suppl. 26), M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun, eds., Paris, pp. 263–281. La Lone, D.E. 1994. “An Andean World-system: Production Transformations under the Inca Empire,” in The Economic Anthropology of the State, E.M. Brumfiel, ed., Lanham and London, pp. 17–42. Lambros, S. 1932. Braceva Cronikav, Athens. LaMotta, V.M., and M.B. Schiffer. 1999. “Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages,” in The Archaeology of Household Activities, P.M. Allison, ed., London and New York, pp. 19–29. Landos, A. 1643. Biblivon Kalouvmeno Gewponikovn, ei" to Opoivon Perievcontai Ermhneiva" Qaumasiwvtatai" pwv" na Kentrwvnwntai, kai na Futeuvontai, ta Devndrh kai jEtera O j moia kai Exovcw" pw" na Kubernavtai pa" evna" dia na Fulavgetai Ugihv". Ej ti de kai Iatrikav Diavfora Alhqevstata Sunagmevna apov Iatrouv" Sofwvtatou", ei" Pavsa Asqevneian, kai Mhnolovgion dia jOlai" tai" Eortaiv" tou Crovnou, Venice. La Rosa, V. 1979–1980. “Haghia Triada, II. Relatione preliminare sui saggi del 1978 e 1979,” ASAtene 41–42, pp. 49–164. ———. 1989. “Nouvelles données du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent à Haghia Triada,” in TRANSITION. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze recent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (Aegaeum 3), R. Laffineur, ed., Liège, pp. 81–92.

160

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 1992. “Agia Triada,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 70–77. ———. 1995. “A Hypothesis on Earthquakes and Political Power in Minoan Crete,” Annali di Geofisica 38, pp. 881–891. ———. 1997. “La ‘Villa Royale’ de Hagia Triada,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 79–89. ———. 2002. “Pour une révision préliminaire du second palais de Phaistos,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 71–96. ———. 2003. “‘il colle sul quale sorge la chiesa ad ovest è tutto seminato di cocci . . . ’. Vicende e temi di uno scavo di lungo corso,” Creta Antica 4, pp. 11–68. La Rosa, V., and N. Cucuzza. 2001. L’Insediamento di Selì di Kamilari nel Territorio di Festòs (Studi di Archeologia Cretese 1), Padua.

Lejeune, M. 1979. “Sur la fiscalité Pylienne Ma,” in International Colloquium on Myceanean Studies. Actes du sixième colloque international sur les texts Mycénienes, E. Risch and H. Muhlestein, eds., Neuchâtel, Switzerland, pp. 147–150. Levi, D. 1959. “La Villa Rurale di Gortina,”BdA 44, pp. 237–265. ———. 1961–1962. “Gli scavi a Festòs negli anni 1958–1960,” ASAtene 39–40, pp. 377–504. ———. 1967–1968. “L’abitato di Festòs in località Chálara,” ASAtene 45–46, pp. 55–166. ———. 1976. Festòs e la Civiltà Minoica I (Incunabula Graeca 60), Rome. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1982. The Way of the Masks, Seattle. Loukopoulos, D. 1930. Poimenikav th" Rouvmelh", Athens.

Laslett, P. 1972. “Introduction: The History of the Family,” in Household and Family in Past Time, P. Lastett and R. Wall, eds., Cambridge, pp. 1–89.

Love, M. 1999. “Ideology, Material Culture, and Daily Practice in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica: A Pacific Coast Perspective,” in Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, D. Grove and R.A. Joyce, eds., Washington, D.C., pp. 221–241.

———. 1983. “Family and Household as Work Group and Kin Group: Areas of Traditional Europe Compared,” in Family Forms in Historic Europe, R. Wall, J. Robin, and P. Laslett, eds., Cambridge, pp. 513–563.

Macdonald, C.F. 2002. “The Neopalatial Palaces of Knossos,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 35–54.

Leach, E.R. 1966. “Ritualization in Man in Relation to Conceptual and Social Development,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 251, pp. 403–408.

MacGillivray, J.A., J.M. Driessen, and L.H. Sackett. 2000. The Palaikastro Kouros: A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and its Aegean Bronze Age Context (BSA Studies 6), London.

Lebessi, A. 1970. “Anaskafikaiv evreunai ei" anatolikhvn Krhvthn,” Prakt 1970, pp. 256–297.

MacGillivray, J.A., and L.H. Sackett. 1992. “Palaikastro,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 222– 231.

———. 1971. “Anaskafikaiv evreunai kai perisulloghv arcaivwn ei" kentrikhv Krhvth,” Prakt 1971, pp. 187– 300.

MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, J. Driessen, R. Bridges, and D. Smyth. 1989. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1988,” BSA 84, pp. 417–445.

Lebessi, A., and P. Muhly. 1990. “Aspects of Minoan Cult: Sacred Enclosures. The Evidence from the Syme Sanctuary (Crete),” AA 1990, pp. 315–336.

MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, J. Driessen, A. Farnoux, and D. Smyth. 1991. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1990,” BSA 86, pp. 121–147.

Lebessi, A., P. Muhly, and J.-P. Olivier. 1995. “An Inscription in the Hieroglyphic Script from the Syme Sanctuary, Crete (SY Hf 01),” Kadmos 34, pp. 63–77.

MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, J.M. Driessen, and S. Hemingway. 1992. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1991,” BSA 87, pp. 121–152.

Lebessi, A., J.-P. Olivier, and L. Godart. 1974. “Pinakivde" Grammikhv" A ex Arcanwvn,” ArchEph 1974, pp. 113– 167.

MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, J. Driessen, C. Macdonald, and D. Smyth. 1988. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1987,” BSA 83, pp. 259–282.

LeBlanc, S.A. 1971. “An Addition to Narroll’s Suggested Floor Area and Settlement Population Relationship,” AmerAntiq 36, pp. 210–211.

MacGillivray, J.A., L.H. Sackett, J. Driessen, and D. Smyth. 1987. “Excavations at Palaikastro, 1986,” BSA 82, pp. 135–154.

———. 1999. Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest, Salt Lake City.

Mackenzie, D. 1906. “The Middle Minoan Pottery of Knossos,” JHS 26, pp. 243–267.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

Magkriotis, D.I. n.d. Qusivai th" Ellavdo" kai Egklhvmata Katochv", Athens.

———. 1955. “Anaskafaiv en Lukavstw kai Baqupevtrw Krhvth",” Prakt 1955, pp. 306–310.

Maltezou, X.A. 1985. “Timev" agaqwvn kai amoibev" sth Benetokratouvmenh Krhvth (16o" ai.),” Simikta 6, pp. 1–32.

———. 1971. Excavations at Thera IV, Athens.

Mandalaki, S. [forthcoming]. “To minwikov kthvrio sto Sciniav Monofatsivou,” in Pepragmevna I v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou, Chania. Mansel, P. 1995. Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924, London.

Mathas-Damathas, Z., and L. Sapounaki-Drakaki. 1996. “To lavdi sthn Ellavda to 19o aiwvna: katanalwvsei" kai timev",” in Eliav kai Lavdi. D v Trihvmero Ergasiva" (Kalamavta, 7–9 Maivou 1993), A. Louvi, ed., Athens, pp. 432–443.

Mansolas, A. 1875. Apografikaiv Plhroforivai periv Gewrgiva" katav to 1875, Athens.

Matthaiou, A. 1992. “To krasiv w" basikov eivdo" diatrofhv" sthn Tourkokrativa,” in Istoriva tou Ellhnikouv Krasiouv. B v Trihvmero Ergasiva", Santorivnh, 7–9 Septembrivou 1990, A. Louvi, ed., Athens, pp. 183–190.

Mantzourani, E., G. Vavouranakis, and C. Kanellopoulos. 2005. “The Klimataria-Manares Building Reconsidered,” AJA 109, pp. 743–776.

———. 1997. Aspects de l’alimentation en Grèce sous la domination ottomane; de règlementations au discourse normative, Frankfurt.

Maraghiannis, G., and G. Karo. 1912. Antiquités crétoises, Herakleion.

Mattingly, D.J. 1988. “Olea Mediterranea?” JRA 1, pp. 153–161.

Margaritis, G. 1995. “H oikonomiva twn antallagwvn sthn Krhvth ton kairov th" germanikhv" katochv", 1941– 1945: sugkrivsei" kai upoqevsei",” in Pepragmevna Z v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou G '1, Rethimnon, pp. 241–252.

Matz, F. 1951. Forschungen auf Kreta 1942, Berlin.

Marinatos, N. 1987. “Public Festivals in the West Courts of the Palaces,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 135–143. Marinatos, S. 1924–1925. “Mesominwikhv oikiva kavtw Messarav,” ArchDelt 9, pp. 53–78. ———. 1926. “Anaskafaiv Nivrou Cavni Krhvth",” Prakt 1926, pp. 141–147. ———. 1932. “Anaskafhv Amnisouv Krhvth",” Prakt 1932, pp. 76–32. ———. 1933. “Anaskafhv Amnisouv Krhvth",” Prakt 1933, pp. 93–100. ———. 1935. “Anaskafaiv en Krhvth,” Prakt 1935, pp. 196–220. ———. 1939–1941. “To minwikov mevgaron Sklabokavmpou,” ArchEph 1939–1941, pp. 69–96 ———. 1949. “Anaskafaiv Baqupevtrou Arcanwvn,” Prakt 1949, pp. 100–109. ———. 1950. “To mevgaron Baqupevtrou,” Prakt 1950, pp. 242–257. ———. 1951. “Anaskafhv mevgarou Baqupevtrou (Krhvth"),” Prakt 1951, pp. 258–272. ———. 1952. “Anaskafaiv en Baqupevtrw Krhvth",” Prakt 1952, pp. 592–610. ———. 1953. “Anaskafaiv Baqupevtrw Krhvth",” Prakt 1953, p. 298.

Mavromatis, G. 1994. Iwavnnh" Olovkalo" Notavrio" Ierapevtra", Venice. May, J.M. 1963. The Ecology of Malnutrition in Five Countries of Eastern and Central Europe: East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, London. Mazower, M. 1993. Inside Hitler’s Greece: The Experience of Occupation 1941–44, New Haven and London. McEnroe, J. 1979. Minoan Houses and Town Arrangement, Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto. ———. 1982. “A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses,” AJA 86, pp. 3–17. ———. 1996. “The Central Hillside at Kommos: 3. The Late Minoan Period,” in Shaw and Shaw, eds., 1996, pp. 199–235. McGeorge, P.J.P. 1988. “Health and Diet in Minoan Times,” in New Aspects of Archaeological Science in Greece (Occasional Paper of the Fitch Laboratory 3), R.E. Jones, and H.W. Catling, eds., Athens, pp. 47–54. McGrew, W.W. 1985. Land and Revolution in Greece, 1821–1870, Kent. Mertzios, K. 1961–1962. “Stacologhvmata apov ta katavstica tou notarivou Mic. Marav,” CretChron 15–16, pp. 228–308. Michail, K. 1794. Diaithtikhv h" Protevtaktai kai Istoriva Sunoptikhv periv Archv" kai Proovdou th" Iatrikhv" Episthvmh", kai tinwvn authvn Eudokimhsavntwn Andrwvn, ek Palaiwvn te kai Newtevrwn Suneranisqeivsa Dapavnh Filikhv, Vienna.

162

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Milano, L. 1989. “Le razioni alimentari nel vicino oriente antico,” in Il Pane del Re, R. Dolce and C. Zaccagnini, eds., Bologna, pp. 65–100. Militello, P. 1988. “Riconsiderazioni preliminari sulla documentazione in lineare A da Haghia Triada,” Sileno 14, pp. 233–261. ———. 1992 “Aspetti del funzionamento del sistema amministrativo ad Hagia Triada,” in MYKENAIKA: Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les texts mycénienes et égéens organise par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellenique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 2–6 october 1990) (BCH Suppl. 25), J.-P. Olivier, ed., Paris, pp. 411–414. Modjeska, C.N. 1982. “Production and Inequality: Perspectives from Central New Guinea,” in Inequality in New Guinea Highlands Societies, A. Strathern, ed., Cambridge, pp. 50–108. Montanari, M. 1994. The Culture of Food, Oxford. Moody, J. 1987. “The Minoan Palaces as a Prestige Artefact,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 235–241. Moore, H.L. 1996. Space, Text, and Gender: An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya, New York. Morpurgo-Davis, A., and G. Cadogan. 1971. “A Linear A Tablet from Pirgos, Mirtos, Crete,” Kadmos 10, pp. 105–109. Morris, H.J. 1986. An Economic Model of the Late Mycenaean Kingdom of Pylos, Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota. Mountjoy, P.A. 2003. Knossos: The South House (BSA Suppl. 34), London. Mudd, P. 1984. “Pithoi and Pithoid Jars,” in The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 17), by M.R. Popham, London, pp. 178–179. Müller, S. 1996. “Prospection archéologique de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 120, pp. 921–928. ———. 1998. “Prospection archéologique de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 122, pp. 548–552. Myers, J.W., E.E. Myers, and G. Cadogan, eds. 1992. The Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Naroll, R. 1962. “Floor Area and Settlement Population,” AmerAnt 27, pp. 587–589. Nelson, B.A. 1985. “Reconstructing Ceramic Vessels and their Systemic Context,” in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, B.A. Nelson, ed., Carbondale, IL, pp. 310–329.

Niemeier, W.-D. 1984. “The End of the Minoan Thalassocracy,” in The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (SkrAth 4°, 32), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, Stockholm, pp. 205–214. ———. 1985. Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos. Stil, Chronology und historischer Kontext (AF 13), Berlin. Nikolakopoulou, E. 2003. “Akrwthvri Qhvra". H povlh se katavstash evktath" anavgkh",” in ARGONAUTHS. Timhtikov" Tovmo" gia ton Kaqhghthv Crivsto G. Ntouvma apov tou" Maqhtev" tou sto Panepisthvmio Aqhnwvn (1980–2000), A. Vlachopoulos and K. Birtacha, eds., Athens, pp. 554–573. Olivier, G. 1801. Voyage dans l’empire ottoman, l’Egypte et la Perse, 2 vols., Paris. Olivier, J.-P. 1974. “Une loi fiscale mycénienne,” BCH 98, pp. 23–35. ———. 1982. “Travaux de l’école française en Grèce en 1981: 2-Maison Da,” BCH 160, p. 680. Orlandos A.K. 1927. Monasthriakhv Arcitektonikhv: Keivmeno kai Scevdia, Athens. Orlove, B.S., and H.J. Rutz. 1989. “Thinking about Consumption: A Social Economy Approach,” in The Social Economy of Consumption, H.J. Rutz and B.S. Orlove, eds., Lanham, pp. 1–57. Osborne, R. 1985. “Buildings and Residence on the land in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Contribution of Epigraphy,” BSA 80, pp. 119–128. ———. 1987. Classical Landscape with Figures, London. ———. 1992. “‘Is it a Farm?’ The Definition of Agricultural Sites and Settlements in Ancient Greece,” in Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–17 (SkrAth 4°, 46), B. Wells, ed., Stockholm, pp. 21–25. O’Shea, J. 1981. “Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage,” in Economic Archaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches (BAR-IS 96), A. Sheridan and G. N. Bailey, eds., Oxford, pp. 167–183. Palaima, T.G. 1994. “Seal-Users and Script-Users/ Nodules and Tablets at LM IB Hagia Triada,” in Archives Before Writing. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Held at Oriolo Romano, October 23–25, 1991, P. Ferioli, E. Fiandra, G.G. Fissore, and M. Frangiapane, eds., Rome, pp. 307–330. Palaiologos, G. 1833. Gewrgikhv kai Oikiakhv Oikonomiva, Nauplion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Palio, O. 1999. “L’immagazzinamento nella casa TM I di Chalara (Festòs),” in Epiv povnton plazovmenoi. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e G. Pugliese Carratelli, Roma, febbraio 1998, V. La Rosa, D. Palermo, L. Vagnetti, eds., Rome, pp. 141–150.

163

Buzantinwvn kai Metabuzantinwvn Spoudwvn th" Benetiva" 18), N. Panagiotakis, ed., Venice, pp. 465– 495. Papadakis, M.M. 1978. “Oi trofev" twn krhtikwvn sto 15o & 16o aiwvna,” Krhtologiva 7, pp. 49–72.

———. 2001a. La casa Tardo Minoico I di Chalara a Festòs (Studi di Archeologia Cretese 2), Padua.

Papapostolou, I.A., L. Godart, and J.-P. Olivier. 1976. Grammikhv A sto Minwikov Arceivo twn Canivwn (Incunabula Graeca 62), Rome.

———. 2001b. “Tardo Minoico I: La casa di Hagia Fotinì,” in I cento anni dello scavo di Festòs (Roma, 13–14 dicembre 2000) (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 173), L. Beschi, A. di Vita, V. LaRosa, G.P. Carratelli, and G. Rizza, eds., Rome, pp. 243–272.

Papasavvas, G., P. Muhly, and A. Lebessi. 1999. “Weapons for Men and Gods: Three Knossian Swords from the Syme Sanctuary,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 641–650.

———. 2002. “Le Case del Lebete e delle Sfere Fittili ad Hagia Triada,” Creta Antica 3, pp. 121–132. Palmer, L. 1963. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts, Oxford. Palmer, R. 1989. “Subsistence Rations at Pylos and Knossos,” Minos 24, pp. 89–124. ———. 1994. Wine in the Mycenaean Palace Economy (Aegaeum 10), Liége. ———. 1995. “Linear A Commodities: A Comparison of Resources,” in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds., 1995, pp. 133–156. ———. 2002. “Wine in Bronze Age Crete: The Textual Evidence,” in Oivno" Palaiov" Hduvpoto". To Krhtikov Krasiv apov ta Proi>s > torikav w" ta Neovtera Crovnia. Praktikav tou Dieqnouv" Episthmonikouv Sumposivou. Kounavboi: Dhvmo" ‘N. Kazantzavkh’ 24–26 Aprilivou 1998, A.K. Milopotamitaki, ed., Herakleion, pp. 95– 104. Panagiotaki, M. 1999. The Central Palace Sanctuary at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 31), London. Panagiotakis, N. 2004. “Contacts between Knossos and the Pediada Region in Central Crete,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 177–186. Panagiotakopulu, E. 2000. Archaeology and Entomology in the Eastern Mediterranean: Research into the History of Insect Synanthropy in Greece and Egypt (BAR-IS 836), Oxford. Panagiotopoulos, B. 1983. “Mevgeqo" kai suvnqesh th" oikogevneia" sthn Pelopovnnhso guvro sta 1700,” Istorikav 1, pp. 5–18. Panopoulou, A. 1998. “Paraskeuhv kai pwvlhsh ywmiouv sthn povlh tou Cavndaka (16o"–17o" ai.),” in Anqh Carivtwn. Melethvmata Eovrtia Suggrafevnta upov twn Upotrovfwn tou Ellhnikouv Institouvtou th" Benetiva" epiv th Pentakosiethrivdh apov th" Idruvsew" th" Ellhnorqodovxou Koinovthto" Benetiva", eti de epiv th Tessarakontaethrivdi apov th" Enavrxew" Leitourgiva" tou Institouvtou (Ellhnikov Institutov

Papataxiarhis, A., and S. Petmezas. 1998. “The Devolution of Property and Kinship Practices in Late and Post-Ottoman Ethnic Greek Societies,” in Problèmes de la Transmission des Exploitations Agricoles (XVIIIe–Xe Siècles) (Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Italie et Mediterranée 110), G. Bouchard, J. Goy, and A.L. Head-König, eds., Rome, pp. 217–241. Paraskevas, P.M. 1990. “H sapwnopoiiva th" Krhvth" sta crovnia th" Krhtikhv" Politeiva",” CretChron 30, pp. 152–161. Parsons, M., and J.A. Gifford. 1996. “Soil and Land Use Studies at Kommos,” in Kommos I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 1: The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries, Princeton, pp. 292–324. Pashley, R. 1837. Travels in Crete, 2 vols., London. Paviot, J. 1991. “Cuisine grecque et cuisine turque selon l’experience des voyageurs (XVe–XVIe siècles),” Byzantinische Forschungen 16, pp. 167–177. Pelon, O. 1966. “Maison d’Hagia Varvara et architecture domestique à Mallia,” BCH 90, pp. 552–585. ———. 1970. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation. Troisiéme facicule (1963–1966) (ÉtCrét 16), Paris. ———. 1980. Le Palais de Malia V (ÉtCrét 25), Paris. ———. 1997. “Le palais post-palatial à Malia,” in La Crète Mycénienne. Actes de la Table ronde internationel organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes (Athènes, 26–28 mars 1991) (BCH Suppl. 30), J. Driessen and A. Farnoux, eds., Athens, pp. 341–355. ———. 2002. “Contribution du palais de Malia à l’étude et à l’interprétation des ‘palais’ minoens,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 111–121. ———. 2005. “Les deux destructions du palais de Malia,” in KRHS TECNITHS: L’artisan crétois. Recueil d’articles en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Poursat, publié à l’ocassion des 40 ans de la décourerte du

164

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Quartier Mu (Aegaeum 26), I. Bradfer-Burdet, B. Detournay, and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège, pp. 185–197. Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1939. The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction, London. Pernier, L. 1935. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs, Rome. Pernier, L., and L. Banti. 1951. Il palazzo minoico di Festòs, Rome. Petmezas, S. 2003. H Ellhnikhv Agrotikhv Oikonomiva katav ton 19o Aiwvna. H Perifereiakhv Diavstash, Herakleion. Petrakis, M. 2001. “To exwterikov empovrio th" Krhvth" katav thn perivodo th" Autonomiva" (1898–1912),” in H Teleutaiva Favsh tou Krhtikouv Zhthvmato", Th. Detorakis and A. Kalokerinos, eds., Herakleion, pp. 279–298. Petrakos, B. 1988. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 1988: Zwvminqo",” Ergon 1988, pp. 165–172.

———. 2000. “Ergasive" melevth" kai sunthvrhsh" eurhmavtwn anaskafwvn Zavkrou,” Prakt 155, pp. 195– 198. ———. 2002. “The Political and Cultural Influence of the Zakros Palace on Nearby Sites and in a Wider Context,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 145–156. ———. 2003. “Ergasive~ melevth~ kai sunthvrhsh~ eurhmavtwn anaskafwvn Zavkrou,” Prakt 158, pp. 105–109. ———. 2004. “To Usterominwikov I anavktoro th" Zavkrou: miva ‘Knwsov"’ evxw apov thn Knwsov,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 381–392. ———. [forthcoming]. “To anavktoro kai o minwikov" oikismov" th" Zavkrou livge" movno wvre" prin apov th megavlh katastrofhv,” in Pepragmevna I v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou, Chania.

———. 1989. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 1989: Giouvcta",” Ergon 1989, pp. 147–152.

Platon, N. 1947. “Cronikav: H tuvch twn arcaiothvtwn th" Krhvth" katav ton povlemon,” CretChron 1, pp. 628–636.

———. 1999. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 1999: Arcavne",” Ergon 1999, pp. 81–87.

———. 1951a. “Anaskafhv minwikwvn oikiwvn ei" Prasav Hrakleivou,” Prakt 1951, pp. 246–257.

———. 2000. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 2000: Arcavne",” Ergon 2000, pp. 96–101.

———. 1951b. “Cronikav: H arcaiologikhv kivnhsi" en Krhvth katav to evto" 1951,” CretChron 5, pp. 438–450.

———. 2001. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 2001: Arcavne",” Ergon 2001, pp. 80–83. ———. 2004. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 2004: Zwvminqo",” Ergon 2004, pp. 48–53. ———. 2005. “To Ergon th" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" katav to 2005: Zwvminqo",” Ergon 2005, pp. 62–65. Pilali-Papasteriou, A. 1987. “Ierav kai apoqhvke" sthn anaktorikhv Krhvth,” in EILAPINH: Tovmo" Timhtikov" gia tou Kaqhghthv Nikovlao Plavtwna, L. Kastrinaki, G. Orfanou, and N. Giannadakis, eds., Herakleion, pp. 179–196. ———. 2004. “Knwsov" kai Qeokrativa,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 323–327. Platon, L. 1988. The Workshops and Working Areas of Minoan Crete. The Evidence of the Palace and Town of Zakros for a Comparative Study, Ph.D. diss., Bristol University. ———. 1997. “The Minoan ‘Villa’ in Eastern Crete. Riza, Akhladia, and Prophetes Elias, Praissos: Two Different Specimens of One Category?” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 187–202. ———. 1999. “New Evidence for the Occupation at Zakros before the LM I palace,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 671–681.

———. 1952. “Anaskafaiv ei" thn periochv Shteiva",” Prakt 1952, pp. 630–648. ———. 1953.“Anaskafaiv ei" thn periochv Shteiva",” Prakt 1953, pp. 288–297. ———. 1954. “Anaskafaiv periochv~ Shteiva",” Prakt 1954, pp. 361–368. ———. 1955a. “Anaskafaiv periochv~ Shteiva",” Prakt 1955, pp. 288–297. ———. 1955b. “Cronikav: H arcaiologikhv kivnhsi" en Krhvth katav to evto" 1955,” CretChron 9, pp. 553–569. ———. 1956a. “Anaskafhv minwikhv" agroikiva" ei" Zou Shteiva",” Prakt 1956, pp. 232–240. ———. 1956b. “Cronikav: H arcaiologikhv kivnhsi" en Krhvth katav to evto" 1956,” CretChron 10, pp. 405–422. ———. 1957. “Anaskafhv Covndrou Biavnnou,” Prakt 1957, pp. 136–147. ———. 1958. “Cronikav: H arcaiologikhv kivnhsi" en Krhvth katav to evto" 1958,” CretChron 12, pp. 459– 483.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1959a. “Anaskafhv mesominwi>kouv oikivskouierouv ei" Rouvsse" Covndrou,” Prakt 1959, pp. 207– 209. ———. 1959b. “Anaskafhv Acladiwvn Shteiva",” Prakt 1959, pp. 210–219. ———. 1960a. “Anaskafhv Covndrou Biavnnou,” Prakt 1960, pp. 283–293. ———. 1960b. “Anaskafaiv periochv~ Praisouv,” Prakt 1960, pp. 294–307. ———. 1961. “Anaskafhv Kavtw Zavkrou,” Prakt 1961, pp. 216–224. ———. 1962. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1962, pp. 142–168. ———. 1963. “Anaskafaiv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1963, pp. 160–188. ———. 1964. “Anaskafaiv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1964, pp. 142–168. ———. 1965. “Anaskafaiv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1965, pp. 187–224. ———. 1966. “Anaskafaiv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1966, pp. 139–173. ———. 1968. “Anaskafaiv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1968, pp. 149–183. ———. 1969. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1969, pp. 197–237. ———. 1970. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1970, pp. 208–251. ———. 1971a. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1971, pp. 231–275. ———. 1971b. The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete, New York. ———. 1972. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1972, pp. 159–192. ———. 1973. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1973, pp. 137–166. ———. 1975. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1975, pp. 343–375. ———. 1976. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1976, pp. 419–439. ———. 1977. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1977, pp. 421–446. ———. 1978. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1978, pp. 259–299. ———. 1979. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1979, pp. 282–322.

165

———. 1980. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1980, pp. 297–330. ———. 1981. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1981, pp. 331–366. ———. 1982. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1982, pp. 320–348. ———. 1983a. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1983, pp. 335–347. ———. 1983b. “The Minoan Palaces: Centres of Organization of a Theocratic Social and Political System,” in Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981, O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, eds., Bristol, pp. 272–276. ———. 1984. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1984, pp. 392–439. ———. 1985. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1985, pp. 217–262. ———. 1986. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1986, pp. 243–297. ———. 1987. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1987, pp. 290–324. ———. 1988. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1988, pp. 219–243. ———. 1990. “Anaskafhv Zavkrou,” Prakt 1990, pp. 279–299. ———. 1992. “Zakro,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 292–300. Platon, N., and L. Platon. 1991. “Ergasive~ melevth~ kai sunthvrhsh~ eurhmavtwn anaskafhv~ Zavkrou,” Prakt 1991, pp. 392–396. Platon, N., and W.C. Brice. 1975. Inscribed Tablets and Pithos of Linear A System from Zakro (Biblioqhvkh th" en Aqhvnai" Arcaiologikhv" Etairiva" 85), Athens. Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, New York. ———. 1971. “On the Comparative Treatment of Economic Institutions in Antiquity with Illustrations from Athens, Mycenae, and Alalakh,” in Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi, G. Dalton, ed., Boston, pp. 306–334. Politis, L. 1991. Katavlogo" Ceirogravfwn th" Eqnikhv" Biblioqhvkh" th" Ellavdo", ar. 1850–2500, Athens. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa, N. 2000. “Apoqhvkeush kai fuvlaxh agaqwvn ston UK I oikismov tou Akrwthrivou Qhvra",” ArchEph 139, pp. 65–94.

166

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Popham, M. R. 1970. The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos (SIMA 12), Göteborg. ———. 1984. The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (BSA Suppl. 17), London. ———. 1988. “The Historical Implications of the Linear B Archive at Knossos Dating to either c. 1400 BC or 1200 BC,” Cretan Studies 1, pp. 217–227. Popkins, S. L. 1979. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam, Berkeley. Preston, L. 2004a. “A Mortuary Perspective on Political Changes in Late Minoan II–IIIB Crete,” AJA 108, pp. 321–348. ———. 2004b. “Final Palatial Knossos and Postpalatial Crete: A Mortuary Perspecitive on Political Dynamics,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 137–145. Preziosi, D. 1983. Minoan Architectural Design: Formation and Signification, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam. Psichogios, D.K. 1994. To Zhvthma twn Eqnikwvn Gaiwvn, Athens. Psilaki, M., and N. Psilakis. n.d. Ta Bovtana sth Krhvth, Herakleion. Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1945. “Le iscrizioni preelleniche di Hagia Triada in Creta e della Crecia peninsulare,” MonAnt 40, pp. 422–610. Puglisi, D. 2001. “Il problema degli inizi del TM I nella Messarà alla luce dei nuovi dati da Hagia Triada,” Creta Antica 2, pp. 91–104. ———. 2003a. “Il Bastione Tardo Minoico I ad Hagia Triada: nuove osservazioni su cronologia e funzione,” ASAtene 81, pp. 573–593. ———. 2003b. “Hagia Triada nel periodo Tardo Minoico I,” Creta Antica 4, pp. 145–198. Raison, J. 1993. Le palais du second millénaire à Knossos II: Le front ouest et ses magasins (ÉtCrét 29), Paris. Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach, London. Rehak, P., and J. Younger. 1995. “A Minoan Roundel from Pyrgos, Southeastern Crete,” Kadmos 34, pp. 81–102. Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC, London. Rethemiotakis, G. 1992. “To minwikov ‘kentrikov ktivrio’ sto Kastevlli Pediavda",” ArchDelt 47, pp. 29–64.

———. 1997. “Late Minoan III Pottery from Kastelli Pediada,” in Hallager and Hallager, eds., 1997, pp. 304–326. ———. 1999a. “To nevo minwikov anavktoro ston Galatav Pediavdo" kai to ‘ierov sphvlaio’ Arkalocwrivou,” in Krhvte" Qalassodrovmoi, A. Karestou, ed., Herakleion, pp. 91–100. ———. 1999b. “Social Rank and Poltical Power. The Evidence from the Minoan Palace at Galatas,” in Eliten in Der Bronzezeit (Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 43), Mainz, pp. 9–26. ———. 2002. “Evidence on Social and Economic Changes at Galatas and Pediada in the New-Palace Period,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 55–69. Rethemiotakis, G., and K.S. Christakis. 2004. “Contacts between Knossos and the Pediada Region in Central Crete,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 169–175. ———. [forthcoming]. “Power Strategies and Cultural Idiosycrasies in Protopalatial Crete: Some New Evidence from Galatas, Pediada,” BSA. Rhodes, M.C. 1980. “The Physiological Basis for the Conservation of Food,” in Post Harvest Food Conservation (Progress in Food and Nutrition Science 4), A. Herzka, ed., pp. 11–20. Richter, M. 1994. Ellhnikav Eqima sthn Kuvpro, Nicosia. Riley, F.R. 1999. The Role of the Traditional Mediterranean Diet in the Development of Minoan Crete: Archaeological, Nutritional and Biochemical Evidence (BAR-IS 810), Oxford. Robinson, D.M., and J.W. Graham. 1938. Excavations at Olynthus VIII: The Hellenic House, Baltimore. Rotin, P., and A.E. Fallon. 1981. “The Acquisition of Likes and Dislikes for Food,” in Criteria of Food Acceptance: How Man Chooses What He Eats, J. Solms and R.L. Hall, eds., Zurich, pp. 35–48. Rutkowski, B. 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven and London. Rutter, J.B. 2006. “Minoan Pottery from the Southern Area: 3. Neopalatial and Late Minoan Pottery,” in Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006a, pp. 337–630. Sackett, L.H. 1996. “A Bull’s Head Rhyton from Palaikastro,” in Evely, Lemos, and Sherratt, eds., 1996, pp. 51–58. Sackett, L.H., M.R. Popham, and P.M. Warren. 1965. “Excavations at Palaikastro VI,” BSA 60, pp. 248– 314.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sackett, L.H., and M.R. Popham. 1970. “Excavations at Palaikastro VII,” BSA 65, pp. 203–242. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics, London.

167

Schreiber, K.J. 1985. “Comment to T.N. D’Altroy and T.K. Earle, ‘Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy’,” CurrAnthr 26, p. 201.

Sakellarakis, Y. 1966. “Arcaiovthte" kai mnhmeiva kentrikhv" kai anatolikhv" Krhvth",” ArchDelt 21 (B'2, Chronika), pp. 411–419.

Schreiner, P. 1975. Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, Vienna.

———. 1983. “Anaskafhv Idaivou Antrou,” Prakt 1983, pp. 415–500.

Schultz, M., and F. Evanson. 2001. “Volumes of Pithoi from House C.3 at Mochlos,” poster presented at the 9th International Cretological Congress, October 1–6, 2001, Elounda, Crete, Greece.

Sakellarakis, Y., and D. Panagiotopoulos. 2005. “Minoan Zominthos,” in O Mulopovtamo" apov thn Arcaiovthta w" Shvmera, E. Gavrilaki and Z. Tzifopoulos, eds., Rethimnon, pp. 47–75. Sakellarakis, Y., and E. Sakellaraki. 1979. “Anaskafhv Arcanwvn,” Prakt 1979, pp. 331–392. ———. 1980. “Anaskafhv Arcanwvn,” Prakt 1980, pp. 354–401.

Scott, J.C. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia, New Haven, CT. Seager, R.B. 1904–1905. “Excavations at Vasiliki, 1904,” in Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania I.3, Philadelphia, pp. 207–221.

———. 1982. “Anaskafhv Arcanwvn,” Prakt 1982, pp. 467–530.

———. 1906–1907. “Report on Excavations at Vasiliki, Crete, in 1906,” in Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania II.2, Philadelphia, pp. 111– 132.

Sakellarakis, Y., and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki. 1997. Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light, Athens.

———. 1909. “Excavations on the Island of Mochlos, Crete, in 1908,” AJA 13, pp. 272–303.

Saulnier, F. 1987. “Merikev" ovyei" tou koinwnikouv metaschmatismouv se evna oreinov cwriov th" Krhvth",” in Diadikasive" Koinwnikouv Metaschmatismouv sthn Agrotikhv Ellavda, S. Damianakos, ed., Athens, pp. 425–435.

———. 1910. Excavations in the Island of Pseira, Crete (Anthropological Publications of the University Museum vol. III.1), Philadelphia.

———. 1981. “Anaskafhv Arcanwvn,” Prakt 1981, pp. 409–448.

Savary, C. 1788. Lettres sur la Grèce faisant suite de celles sur l’Égypte, Paris. Schäfer, J. ed. 1992. Amnisos. Nach den Archäologischen, Historischen und Epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit, Berlin. Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Albuquerque. Schoep, I.M. 1995. “Context and Chronology of Linear A Administrative Documents,” Aegean Archaeology 2, pp. 29–65. ———. 2002a. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete: A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Suppl. 17), Salamanca, Spain. ———. 2002b. “The State of the Minoan Palaces or the Minoan Palace-State,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 15–33. Scholliers, P. 2001. “Meals, Food Narratives, and Sentiments of Belonging in Past and Present,” in Food, Drink and Identity, P. Scholliers, ed., Oxford, pp. 3–22.

Shaw, J.W. 1978. “Sliding Panels at Knossos,” BSA 73, pp. 235–248. ———. 1986. “Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1984–1985,” Hesperia 55, pp. 219–269. ———. 1996. “Domestic Economy and Site Development,” in Shaw and Shaw, eds., 1996, pp. 379–400. ———. 2002. “The Minoan Palatial Establishment at Kommos. An Anatomy of its History, Function, and Interconnections,” in Driessen, Schoep, Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 99–110. ———. 2006. “The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Civic Buildings,” in Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006a, pp. 1–116. Shaw, J.W., and M.C. Shaw. 1993. “Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1986–1992,” Hesperia 62, pp. 129–190. ———, eds. 1996. Kommos I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 2: The Minoan Hilltop and Hillside Houses, Princeton. ———, eds. 2006a. Kommos V: The Monumental Buildings at Kommos, Princeton and Oxford.

168

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 2006b. “Conclusions: The History and Functions of the Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos: 2. Achitectural Forms and their Use,” in Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006a, pp. 846–854. Sherratt, A. 1982. “Mobile Resources: Settlement and Exchange in Early Agricultural Europe,” in Ranking, Resource and Exchange, A.C. Renfrew and S.J. Shennan, eds., Cambridge, pp. 13–26. Sherratt, A., and S. Sherratt. 1991. “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems,” in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90), N.H. Gale, ed., Jonsered, pp. 351–386. Sidiropoulos, K. 1999. “Arcavne" 1897–8: Oikonomiva kai oikonomikhv diaceivrish h aqevath pleurav tou Agwvna,” in Arcavne" 1897. Praktikav Episthmonikouv Sumposivou (30–31 Augouvstou 1997), Th. Detorakis, ed., Archanes, pp. 133–169. Simon, E. 1980. Die Götter der Griechen, Munich. Slot, B.J. 1982. Archipelagus turbatus: Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottomane c. 1500–1718 (Uitgaven van het Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 51), 2 vols., Amsterdam. Smith, C.V. 1969. Meteorology and Grain Storage, Geneva. Smith, S.K. 2000. “Skeletal and Dental Evidence for Social Status in Late Bronze Age Athens,” in Palaeodiet in the Aegean. Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 1993 Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washinton D.C. (Wiener Laboratory Monograph 1), S.J. Vaughan and W.D.E. Coulson, eds., Oxford, pp. 105–113. Smyth, M.P. 1989. “Domestic Storage Behaviour in Mesoamerica: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach,” Archaeological Method and Theory 1, pp. 89–138. Soffer, O. 1989. “Storage, Sedentism and the Eurasian Palaeolithic record,” Antiquity 63, pp. 719–732. Soles, J. 1991. “The Gournia Palace,” AJA 95, pp. 17–78. ———. 1995. “The Functions of a Cosmological Centre,” in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds., 1995, pp. 405–414. ———. 1997. “A Community of Craft Specialists at Mochlos,” in TECNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–22 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt, eds., Liège, pp. 425–431.

———. 1999. “The Collapse of Minoan Civilization: The Evidence of the Broken Ashlar,” in Laffineur, ed., 1999, pp. 57–65. ———. 2002. “A Central Court at Gournia,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 123– 131. ———. 2003. Mochlos IA: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisan’s Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Site (Prehistory Monographs 7), Philadelphia. ———. 2004. “New Construction at Mochlos in the LM IB Period,” in Crete Beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference (Prehistory Monographs 10), L.P. Day, M.S. Mook, and J.D. Muhly, eds., Philadelphia, pp. 153–162. Soles, J., and K. Davaras. 1992. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1989,” Hesperia 61, pp. 413–445. ———. 1994. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1990–1991,” Hesperia 63, pp. 391–436. ———. 1996. “Excavations at Mochlos, 1992–1993,” Hesperia 65, pp. 175–230. Soles, J.S., C. Davaras, J. Bending, T. Carter, D. Kondopoulou, D. Mylona, M. Ntinou, A.M. Nicgorski, D.S. Reese, A. Sarpaki, W.H. Schoch, M.E. Soles, V. Spatharas, Z.A. Stos-Gales, D.H. Tarling, and C. Witmore. 2004. Mochlos IC: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Small Finds (Prehistory Monographs 9), Philadelphia. Sommer, R. 1969. Personal Space: The Behavioural Basis of Design, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Southall, A.R. 1956. Alur Society: A Study in Process and Types of Domination, Cambridge. Soutsos, I. 1863. Dokivmion periv twn Oikonomikwvn Metarruqmivsewn, Athens. Spanakis, S. 1950. “Ena evggrafo th" Benetikhv" gerousiva" gia thn avmuna tou Basileivou th" Krhvth",” CretChron 2, pp. 485–486. Speth, J. 1983. Bison Kills and Bone Counts, Chicago. Spiliotakis, S. 1864. Statistikhv th" Gewrgiva", Athens. Stanley, P.V. 1982. “KN Uc 160 and Mycenaean Wines,” AJA 86, pp. 577–578. Stavrakis, N. 1890. Statistikhv tou Plhqusmouv th" Krhvth", Athens. Stavrinidis, N. 1975. Metafravsei" Tourkikwvn Istorikwvn Eggravfwn Aforovntwn ei" thn Istoriva th" Krhvth" (1658–1672) I, Herakleion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1976. Metafravsei" Tourkikwvn Istorikwvn Eggravfwn Aforovntwn ei" thn Istoriva th" Krhvth" (1672–1694) II, Herakleion. ———. 1978. Metafravsei" Tourkikwvn Istorikwvn Eggravfwn Aforovntwn ei" thn Istoriva th" Krhvth" (1694–1715) III, Herakleion. ———. 1984. Metafravsei" Tourkikwvn Istorikwvn Eggravfwn Aforovntwn ei" thn Istoriva th" Krhvth" (1715–1752) IV, Herakleion. ———. 1985. Metafravsei" Tourkikwvn Istorikwvn Eggravfwn Aforovntwn ei" thn Istoriva th" Krhvth" (1752–1762) V, Herakleion. Stéphanos, C. 1884. La Créce du point du vue naturel, ethnologique, anthropologique, démographique et médical (Dictionaire Encyclopédique des Sciences Médicales), Paris. Stevanovic, M. 2002. “Burned Houses in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe,” in Fire in Archaeology. Papers from a Section Held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000 (BAR-IS 1089), D. Gheorghiu, ed., Oxford, pp. 55–62. Stoianovich, T. 1993. “Arithmetic and Ethnography of Balkan Foods,” in To Ellhnikovn. Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis Jr., J.S. Langdon, ed., New Rochelle, NY, pp. 407–424. Strasser, T. 1997. “Storage and States on Prehistoric Crete: The Function of the Koulouras in the First Minoan Palaces,” JMA 10, pp. 73–100. Strong, F. 1842. Greece as a Kingdom, or a Statistical Description of that Country from the Arrival of King Otho in 1833 down to the Present Time, London. Stürmer, V. 1992. “Area A: Die Villa der Lilien,” in Amnisos. Nach den Archäologischen, Historischen und Epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit, J. Schäfer, ed., pp. 129–150, 217–223, Berlin. Sumner, W. 1979. “Estimating Population by Analogy: An Example,” in Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, C. Kramer, ed., New York, pp. 164–174. Svoronos, N. 1976. “Remarques sur les structures économiques de l’empire Byzandine au XIe siècle,” TravMém 6, pp. 49–67. Tainter, J. A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge. Taxataki, E. 1984. “H zwoklophv kai h poimenikhv zwhv sthn Krhvth sthn archv tou 20ou aiwvna,” Amalthia 15, pp. 159–176. Taylor, T.G. 1978. Principles of Human Nutrition, London.

169

Teall, J.L. 1959. “The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire 330–1025,” DOP 13, pp. 89–139. Thomadakis, S. 1984. “Mauvrh agorav, plhqwrismov" kai biva sthn oikonomiva th" katecomevnh" Ellavda",” in H Ellavda sth Dekaetiva 1940–1950. Ena Eqno" se Krivsh, J. Iatrides, ed., Athens, pp. 117–144. Tigger, B.C. 1993. Early Civilazations: Ancient Egypt in Context, Cairo. Tivy, J. 1990. Agricultural Ecology, Essex. Tombazis, A. 1871. Ta Paragwgikav Stoiceiva en th Ellhnikhv Gewrgiva, Leipzig. Tomkins, P., P.M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou. 2004. “Knossos and the Earlier Neolithic Landscape of the Herakleion Basin,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 51–74. Tournefort, J.P. 1717. Relation d’un voyage du Levant, Paris. Triantaphyllidou-Baladié, G. 1988. To Empovrio kai h Oikonomiva th" Krhvth" (1669–1795), Herakleion. Triersch, H.W.J. 1833. De l’ètat actuel de la Grèce, 2 vols., Leipzig. Tsipopoulou, M. 1989. Archaeological Survey at Aghia Photia, Siteia (SIMA-PB 79), Partille, Sweden. ———. 1990. “Neva stoiceiva gia th minwikhv katoivkish sthn periochv th" povlh" th" Shteiva",” in Pepragmevna ST v Deiqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A'2, Chania, pp. 305–321. ———. 1996. “Palace-centred Polities in Eastern Crete: Neopalatial Petras and its Neighbours,” in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 244), W.E. Aufrecht, N.A. Mirau, and W.S. Gauley, eds., Sheffield, pp. 263–277. ———. 1997. “Late Minoan III Reoccupation in the Area of the Palatial Building at Petras, Siteia,” in Hallager and Hallager, eds., 1997, pp. 209–252. ———. 1999. “Before, During, After: the Architectural Phases of the Palatial Building at Petras, Siteia,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 847–855. ———. 2002. “Petras, Siteia: the Palace, the Town, the Hinterland and the Protopalatial Background,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 133– 144. ———. 2003. “Elaiovlado sthn neoanaktorikhv Shteiva. Sugkevntrwsh, apoqhvkeush kai anakatanomhv sto plaivsio th" anaktorikhv" oikonomiva" tou Petrav,” in Eliav kai Lavdi sthn Krhvth. Praktikav Dieqnouv" Sumposivou, Shteiva Krhvth" 23–25 Maivou 2002, N. Michelakis, ed., Herakleion, pp. 66–76.

170

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Tsipopoulou, M., and H. Dierckx. 2006. “Usterominwikov IA spivti I.1 ston Petrav Shteiva": domhv, leitourgiva, kai katanomhv twn eurhmavtwn,” in Pepragmevna Q v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A'1, Herakleion, pp. 298–315. Tsipopoulou, M., and E. Hallager. 1996. “Inscriptions with Hieroglyphs and Linear A from Petras, Siteia,” SMEA 37, pp. 7–46. Tsipopoulou, M., and A. Papacostopoulou. 1997. “Villas and Villages in the Hinterland of Petras, Siteia,” in Hägg, ed., 1997, pp. 203–214. Tsipopoulou, M., and L.Vagnetti. 1995. Achladia: Scavi e Ricerche della Missione Greco-Italiana in Creta Orientale (Incunabula Graeca 97), Rome. Tzachili, I. 2003. “Quantitative Analysis of the Pottery from the Peak Sanctuary at Vrysinas, Rethymnon,” in METRON: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24), K.P. Foster and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège and Austin, pp. 327–331. Tzedaki-Apostolaki, L. 2002. “O oivno" sta crovnia th" Krhtikhv" Politeiva",” in Oivno" Palaiov" Hduvpoto". To Krhtikov Krasiv apo ta Proi>storikav w" ta Newvtera Crovnia (Dhmosieuvmata tou Arcaiologikouv Institouvtou Krhvth" 1), A.K. Milopotamitaki, ed., Herakleion, pp. 249–262. Tzedakis, Y., and S. Chrysoulaki. 1987. “Neopalatial Architectural Elements in the Area of Chania,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 111–115. Tzedakis, Y., and E. Hallager. 1978. “The GreekSwedish Excavations at Kastelli, Chania 1976 and 1977,” AAA 11, pp. 31–46. Tzedakis, Y., and H. Martlew, eds. 1997. Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their Time, Athens. Valaoras, G. 1960. “A Reconstruction of the Demographic History of Modern Greece,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 38, pp. 114–139. Vallianou, D. 1988. “Pitsivdia. Minwikhv Agrevpaulh (Qevsh Plavke"),” ArchDelt 43 (B'2, Chronika), pp. 531–534. ———. 1996. “New Evidence of Earthquake Destructions in Late Minoan Crete,” in Archaeoseismology, S. Stiros and R.E. Jones, eds., Athens, pp. 153–167. ———. 2003. “Elaiokallievrgeia kai elaioparagwghv sthn Krhvth katav thn Arcaiovthta,” in Eliav kai Lavdi sthn Krhvth. Politismov"-Peribavllon-UgeivaOikonomiva. Praktikav Dieqnouv" Sumposivou, Shteiva Krhvth" 23–25 Maivou 2002, N. Michelakis, ed., Herakleion, pp. 86–104.

van Andel, T., and C. Runnels. 1988. “An Essay on the ‘Emergence of Civilization’ in the Aegean World,” Antiquity 62, pp. 234–247. Van de Moortel, A. 2002. “Pottery as a Barometer of Economic Change: from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial Society in Central Crete,” in Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” Archaeology, Y. Hamilakis, ed., Oxford, pp. 189–211. Van de Moortel, A., and P. Darque. 2006. “Late Minoan I Architectural Phases and Ceramic Chronology at Malia,” in Pepragmevna Q v Dieqnouv" Krhtologikouv Sunedrivou A'1, Herakleion, pp. 177–188. van Dommelen, P. 1999. “Exploring Everyday Places and Cosmologies,” in Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, W. Ashmore and A.B. Knapp, eds., Oxford, pp. 277–285. van Effenterre, H. 1980. Le palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne (Incunabula Graeca 76), Rome. ———. 1983. “The Economic Pattern of a Minoan District: The Case of Mallia,” in Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981, O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, eds., Bristol, pp. 61–68. van Effenterre, H., and M. van Effenterre, eds. 1969. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le centre politique I. L’ agora (1960–1966) (ÉtCrét 17), Paris. van Spitael, M.-A., ed. 1981. Description Insule Crete et Liber Insularum. Chapter XI: Creta, by Cristoforo Buondelmonti, Herakleion. van Wersch, H. 1972. “The Agricultural Economy,” in The Minnesota Messenia Expendition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment, W.A. MacDonald and G.R. Rapp Jr., eds., Minneapolis, pp. 177–187. Vardaki, E. 2003. “Consumption Strategies in a Highland Village of Central Crete: Marriage Banquets as a Case Study,” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (BSA Studies 9), E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti, eds., London, pp. 297–301. Vasiliadis, D. 1983. To Krhtikov Spivti, Athens. Vaughan, S.J., and W.D.E. Coulson. 2000. Palaeodiet in the Aegean Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 1993 Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Washington D.C. (Wiener Laboratory Monograph 1), Oxford. Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge. Vlassi, D. 1998. “Ta edevsmata th" krhtikhv" kwmwdiva",” in Anqh Carivtwn. Melethvmata Eovrtia Suggrafevnta

BIBLIOGRAPHY

upov twn Upotrovfwn tou Ellhnikouv Institouvtou th" Benetiva" epiv th Pentakosiethrivdh apov th" Idruvsew" th" Ellhnorqodovxou Koinovthto" Benetiva", eti dei epiv th Tessarakontaethrivdi apov th" Enavrxew" Leitourgiva" tou Institouvtou (Ellhnikov Institouvto Buzantinwvn kai Metabuzantinwvn Spoudwvn th" Benetiva" 18), N. Panagiotakis, ed., Venice, pp. 55–75. Wagstaff, M., S. Auguston, and C. Gamble. 1982. “Alternative Subsistence Strategies,” in An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos, C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff, eds., Cambridge, pp. 172– 180. Walberg, G. 1976. A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery, Uppsala. ———. 1983. Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz am Rhein. ———. 1995. “Minoan Economy: An Alternative Model,” in Laffineur and Niemeier, eds., 1995, pp. 157–161. Warren, P. M. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge. ———. 1972. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (BSA Suppl. 7), London. ———. 1980–1981. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978–1980. Part I,” AR 27, pp. 73–92. ———. 1981. “Minoan Crete and Ecstatic Religion,” in Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May 1980 (SkrAth 4°, 28), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 155–166. ———. 1985a. “Minoan Palaces,” Scientific American 253, pp. 94–103. ———. 1985b. “The Fresco of the Garlands from Knossos,” in L’iconographie Minoene. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Athenes (21–22 avril 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11), P. Darcque and J.-C. Poursat, eds., Paris, pp. 187–208. ———. 1994. “The Minoan Roads of Knossos,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, eds., Athens, pp. 188–210. ———. 2001. “Book Reviews: The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption by J. Driessen and C. Macdonald,” AJA 105, pp. 115– 118. ———. 2003. “Cretan Food through Five Millennia,” in Briciaka: A Tribute to W.C. Brice (Cretan Studies 9), Y. Duhoux, ed., Amsterdam, pp. 271–284. ———. 2004. “Terra Cognita? The Territory and Boundaries of the Early Neopalatial Knossian State,”

171

in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 159–168. Warren, P.M., and V. Hankey. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol. Was, D.A. 1973. “Olives to Pay Minoan Labour,” Minos 14, pp. 7–16. Watrous, L.V. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton. ———. 1984. “Ayia Triada: A New Perspective on the Minoan Villa,” AJA 88, pp. 123–134. ———. 1992. Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age Pottery, Princeton. Watrous, L.V., and H. Blitzer. 1999. “The Region of Gournia in the Neopalatial Period,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 905–909. Watrous, L.V., and D. Hatzi-Vallianou. 2004. “Palatial Rule and Collapse (Middle Minoan IB–Late Minoan IIIB),” in The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta Archaeologica 23), L.V. Watrous, D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, Los Angeles, pp. 277–304. Webster, G.S. 1976. “On Theocracies,”American Anthropologist 78, pp. 812–828. ———. 1990. “Labor Control and Emergent Stratification in Prehistoric Europe,” CurrAnthr 31, pp. 337– 366. Weiner, A.B. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange, Austin. Weingarten, J. 1983. The Zakro Master and His Place in Prehistory (SIMA-PB 26), Göteborg. ———. 1994. “Sealings and Sealed Documents at Bronze Age Knossos,” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, eds., Oxford, pp. 171–188. Westenhortz, A. 1984. “The Sargonic Period,” in Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East (Incunabula Graeca 82), A. Archi, ed., Rome, pp. 17–30. White, J.P. 1985. “Digging out Big-men?” Archaeology Oceania 20, pp. 49–57. Whitelaw, T.M. 1991. “The Ethnoarchaeology of Recent Rural Settlement and Land Use in Northwest Keos,” in Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times (Monumenta Archaeologica 16), J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 403–454

172

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

———. 2001. “From Sites to Communities: Defining the Human Dimensions of Minoan Urbanism,” in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 15–37 ———. 2004. “Estimating the Population of Neopalatial Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 147–158. Wiener, M.H. 1990. “The Isles of Crete? The Minoan Thalassocracy Revisited,” in Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989. I: Archaeology, D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J A. Sakellarakis, and P.M. Warren, eds., London, pp. 128–161. Wiessner, P. 1982. “Risk, Reciprocity and Social Influences on Kung San Economies,” in Politics and History in Band Societies, E. Leacock and R.E. Lee, eds., Cambridge, pp. 61–84. Wilk, R.R. 1983. “Little House in the Jungle: The Causes of Variation in Household Size among Modern Kekchi Maya,” JAnthArch 2, pp. 99–116. ———. 1991. Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among the Kekchi Maya in Belize, Tucson. Wilk, R.R., and R.M. Netting. 1984. “Households: Changing Forms and Functions,” in Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic

Group, R.M. Netting, R.R. Wilk, and E.J. Arnould, eds., Berkeley, pp. 1–28. Wolf, E.R. 1969. Peasants, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. ———. 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crises, Berkeley. Woodburn, J. 1982. “Egalitarian Societies,” Man 17, pp. 431–451. Wright, J.C. 1996. “The Central Hillside at Kommos: 2. The Middle Minoan Period,” in Shaw and Shaw, eds., 1996, pp. 139–199. Xanthoudides, S. 1919. “Anaskafhv ei" Nivrou Cavni Krhvth",” Prakt 1919, pp. 63–69. ———. 1922. “Minwikov mevgaron Nivrou,” ArchEph 1922, pp. 1–25. Zois, A. 1972. “Anaskafhv ei" Basilikhvn Ierapevtra" (1970 kaiv 1972),” Prakt 1972, pp. 275–309. ———. 1974. Anaskafhv Bruswvn Kudwniva" 1, Athens. ———. 1976a. Basilikhv I. Neva Arcaiologikhv Ereuna ei" to Kefavli Plhsivon tou Cwriouv Basilikhv Ierapevtra, Athens. ———. 1976b. “Anaskafhv ei" Basilikhvn Ierapevtra",” Prakt 1976, pp. 440–459.

Index

Index

Achladia House A, 16, 31, 93–94, 111, 136 Agia, 30 agriculture, 28, 33, 52, 115–118, 121–122, 125–128, 131, 134–140, 143–146 Alexiou, S., 41, 69, 77, 80 Allbaught, L.C., 20–25, 29–30, 32–33, 35 Amnisos, 78 Anegyros, 70 animal fat, 29, 71 Apodoulou, 58 Archanes Anemospilia, 142 Kalpadaki Plot house, 72 polity, 6, 113, 18, 135–136 Tourkogeitonia, central building, 15–16, 71–72, 112–113, 118, 129–130 Troullos, 71 Tzami, 71 Xeri Kara, 72 architecture modifications/alterations, 14–15, 59, 61, 96, 71, 73– 74, 78, 81, 90, 96–99, 103–104, 116, 124, 126 semiotic dimension, 123–124 (of) storerooms, 14, 40–54, 56–107, 109–113, 123– 124

autarky, 37, 113 high degree, 38, 117–118, 126, 129 low degree, 37, 115, 131, 144 medium degree, 37, 128–129, 132 authorities palatial, 40, 50, 52, 116, 120–121, 123, 125, 128, 131–133, 140, 143–144 peripheral, 121, 125, 131–133, 145 religious, 142 Avli, 80, 112, 129 Azokeramos, 100 beer, 29 beeswax, 79 Begg, I., 14, 41 bins. See storage, installations/implements Bowring, J., 20–21 Buondelmonti, C., 23, 30 calorific intakes Bronze Age Crete, 33 pre-industrial Crete/Aegean, 25, 32–33 calorific potentials, 32–33, 113–117 carrying potentials. See land caves, 59, 141

176

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

cereals consumption of, 19–20, 23, 25–26, 29, 33 production of, 26, 34, 135 redistribution of, 122 remains of, 48–49, 56, 64, 66–68, 70, 85, 92, 99, 104 storage of, 47, 114–115, 122, 125, 129 Chalinomouri. See Mochlos Chania-Kastelli House I, 16, 56–57, 111, 116 Houses II–IV, 56 polity, 136 Chrysokamino, 92 cists. See storage, installations/implements collapse of political systems, 145–146 collection of goods, 45, 50, 125–126, 128, 132, 136, 140– 142, 144–145 collectors. See storage, installations/implements competition, 128, 132, 137–138, 145–146 complexity, socio-economic, 2–3, 118, 137 conflict, 5, 132, 145–146 Constantinople, 20 consumption of food, 11–12, 28, 29, 47 patterns Bronze Age Crete/Aegean, 19, 29–32, 109– 118, 134–139 pre-industrial Crete/Aegean, 19–28, 30–32 semiotic dimension, 11–12, 29, 31–32, 116–117 stereotypes of, 29, 31–32, 113–118 context, integrity of, 16, 18 control of beliefs, 140 goods, 52, 58, 114, 120, 126, 130–131, 135–136, 144 labor, 132 land, 131 nutrition, 8, 11, 132, 139 convertibility of luxury goods, 120, 122–123, 145 cooking activities, 47, 49, 57, 91, 94, 110–117 craft activities, 39, 114, 120, 122, 123, 136–137, 139, 142, 144–145 crop yields, 33–34, 120, 122 culture homogeneity of, 143 imitation of palatial, 6, 143, 145 Cyprus, 24 dairy product consumption, 22–27, 29 Demeter and Persephone rituals, 24 destruction(s) fire, 16–18, 48–49, 51, 53, 56–59, 64, 66–67, 69, 71, 76–77, 79–84, 89, 92, 95–96, 98, 100, 105 seismic, 6, 7, 16, 18, 69, 73, 84, 94, 127 within LM IB period, 7, 51, 64, 145–146

dietary estimates, 33–34 dietary regimen/habit Neopalatial Crete, 28–32, 114–118 pre-industrial Crete/Aegean, 19, 21, 23–25, 27–32 display of wealth. See wealth drain channels. See storage, installations/implements Driessen, J., 3, 41, 58–59, 69, 72–73, 76, 78 Earl, T., 120, 143 economy domestic, 10–12, 19, 35, 109–118, 131–133, 144 interaction, 124, 137, 139, 145 palatial, 3, 119–128, 144–146 political, 3, 119–146 staple-based, 2, 39, 122 trade/exchange-based, 11, 114, 138–139 wealth-based, 3, 39 ethnography on abandonment of contexts, 12–13 food consumption, 19, 21, 23–24, 29, 30, 32 landholding, 34 pithoi, 12–13, 32 production, 19, 33 storage, 11, 13, 32 Evans, A., 1, 40–47, 70, 74–75, 140 exchange, 2–3, 9–11, 23, 66, 114, 119, 120, 122–123, 132, 136–139, 144 exploitation of resources, 58, 118, 125, 128–129, 136– 139, 143 fallow, 33–34, 137 famine, 2–3, 10, 20, 22, 32, 37, 115, 118, 122 farmhouses, 31, 92, 100, 111, 114, 136, 138 feasting, 144–145 fire. See under destruction(s) fish consumption, 20–21, 27, 29, 31–32 foodstuff. See also cooking activities market value, 26–27 nutritional value, 32–33 organic remains, 4, 48–49, 56–58, 63–70, 79, 82, 85–86, 91–92, 104 organic residue analyses, 79 rations, 114, 121–122, 132 shelf-life, 11–12 shortages, 115, 118, 121–123, 131 Forbes, H., 22, 29–30 formation processes, 16–19, 111, 113, 115, 126 Forms of pithoi Form 1, 13 Form 4, 13, 50, 52, 70, 142 Form 5, 13 Form 6, 13, 50, 52, 60, 70, 75, 89, 142 Form 7, 13 Form 10, 13, 52, 64, 67, 70, 73–75

INDEX

Forms of pithoi, cont. Form 11, 13, 52, 70, 77 Form 12, 13, 52, 58, 60, 73, 77 Form 13, 13, 52, 58, 60, 64–65, 68–70, 72–73, 77– 78, 80, 142 Form 14, 13, 50, 52, 58, 60, 63–65, 67–70, 73, 77– 78, 80, 142 Form 15, 13, 48, 50, 52, 58, 60, 63, 65, 67–70, 72, 73, 77–80, 121, 142 Form 16, 13, 50, 52, 58, 60, 64–65, 68–70, 72–73, 77–80, 142 Form 17, 13, 50, 52, 60, 63, 67, 69–70, 77, 79, 80, 142 Form 18, 13, 56–57 Form 23, 50, 52, 61, 64, 68–69, 142 Form 24, 13, 142 Form 25, 13 Form 27, 62 Form 28, 13, 50, 60, 76 Form 29, 61 Form 34, 13 Form 35, 50, 69 Form 36, 13 Form 48, 13, 57 Form 51, 13 Form 53, 61 Form 54, 13, 82, 85, 99 Form 55, 13, 52, 83, 85 Form 56, 13 Form 59, 52 Form 60, 13, 52 Form 61, 13, 52, 63, 66, 77 Form 62, 13, 52, 70 Form 63, 13, 52, 62 Form 64, 13, 52, 62–63, 67 Form 65, 13, 52 Form 66, 13 Form 67, 13, 68 Form 68, 13, 52, 70 Form 69, 52, 63, 69, 72, 76–77, 90 Form 70, 13, 52, 58, 60, 63, 70, 76–77, 81, 90 Form 71, 13, 60, 70 Form 72, 13 Form 73, 13, 64 Form 74, 13, 57, 63–64, 68, 72, 74 Form 75, 13, 69 Form 76, 13, 63–64, 77 Form 77, 13, 52, 60, 102 Form 78, 13, 52 Form 79, 13, 52, 95, 102 Form 80, 13, 52, 95 Form 82, 13, 52, 63 Form 85, 31, 51–52, 91, 93, 95, 99, 100

177

Forms of pithoi, cont. Form 86, 13, 51, 85, 93 Form 87, 13, 51, 91, 93, 95, 99–100 Form 88, 13, 51–52, 85–86, 90–91, 93, 95, 99, 100, 106 Form 89, 52 Form 92, 13 Form 93, 13 Form 94, 13, 52, 90 Form 95, 13, 95 Form 98, 13 Form 100, 13 Form 102, 99 Form 104, 13, 70 Form 105, 13 Form 106, 52, 69, 72, 77 Form 107, 13, 70 Form 109, 63, 69, 84 92, 95, 97, 106, 142 Form 110, 13 Form 112, 13, 50, 57, 63, 70, 99, 142 Form 113, 13 Form 114, 50, 75–76, 142 Form 116, 50 Form 118, 13 Form 119, 13 Form 120, 13 Form 121, 52, 63, 68, 81, 142 Form 122, 72, 76 Foxhall, L., 29–30 fruit consumption and production, 19, 22, 25, 29–30, 34, 135 Galatas Building 3/5, 16, 79, 111 House 2, 79–80, 111 palace depositional history, 18, 50, 125 storage, 50, 124, 126 polity, 4, 134 Galeni, 70–71 Gallant, T.W., 29–30 Giannaris, A.N., 30, 34 Gournia, 17–18, 53, 85–87, 109–110, 114–115, 126, 135, 139 House Aa, 85–86, 110 House Ab, 85, 110 House Ac, 85, 110, 115 Houses Ad, Ae, Ba, Bb, Cc–Ce, 85, 110 House Cf, 85–86, 110 Houses Ck, Dd–Dg, Ea, 85, 110 House Ec, 85–86, 110, 126 Houses Ee, Eg, Fb, 85, 110 Houses Fd, Fe, Fi, 85–87, 110

178

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

Gournia, cont. House Fg, 85, 110, 114 palace, 51, 124, 126 polity, 5, 124, 126, 135 Graham, J.W., 40–41, 49–50 Hagia Photia, 136 Hagia Triada administrative documents, 121, 125, 132, 137 Bastione, 60, 66, 121 Casa A–C, 17, 66 Casa dei Fichi, 66 Casa del Lebete and Casa delle Sfere Fittili o dei Muri di Creta, 16, 67, 111, 117, 121 Casa del Vassoio Tridpodato, 64 Casa della “mazza di breccia,” 66 Casa dello Pristinum, 66 Casa Est, 66–67, 112 Casa Nord della Casa Est, 66 Edificio Ciclopico, 66 Edificio P, 64 polity, 5, 113, 117–118, 128, 137 Vano con il Pilastro, 66 Villa Reale, 5, 64–66, 112–113, 118, 121, 125, 131, 134 Hallager, E., 65 Halstead, P., 2–3, 40–41, 120, 122 Hamilakis, Y., 31 hinterland (exploded), 3, 5, 58, 118, 127–129, 135–138, 145 homogeneity of material culture, 6, 145 Hood, S., 44, 47, 73, 77 household, 34–35 categories of, 35 change in economic status, 15, 115–117, 145 (as) consumer, 12, 14, 20–28, 30, 113–118, 131, 144 estimating households, 34–37 landholding, 25, 34, 114, 116, 131 life-cycle, 34–36, 131 (as) producer, 10, 113–118, 131, 132, 136 specialization, 14, 88, 90, 101–102, 112, 116–117, 127 subsistence autarkies, 37–38, 113–118, 131–133, 135–137, 144–145 houses Bronze Age Crete, 16–17, 37–39, 110–113 pre-industrial Crete, 13, 15, 32, 35 Hue, M., 49 human agent, 4, 7, 53, 61, 84, 145 hunting, 23–24 ideology, 36, 123, 140, 142–143 imitation of palatial culture. See culture

industry, 13, 57, 65, 73, 77, 100, 107, 111, 127, 136, 139, 145 intensification of agriculture, 33, 136, 138 consumption, 122 production, 122 storage, 59, 71, 129, 134, 144 Isthmus of Ierapetra, 85, 126, 135 Juktas, 142 Kanli Kastelli, 70–71 kaselles. See storage, installations/implements Kastelli Pediados, 16, 80, 111–112, 129 Katsambas, 46, 77–78 Keos, 24 Khamalevri, 136 Klimataria-Manares, 31, 93, 111–112, 117, 129, 136 Knossos Arsenal, 121, 127 cultural/ideological trends, 143 houses Acropolis Houses, 76–77, 110, 127 Hogarth’s House A, 77 Hood’s House, 77, 110, 127 House of the Chancel Screen, 55, 74, 110, 115, 127 House of the Frescoes, 111 Little Palace, 37, 75–76, 112, 117, 127 North House, 76, 110, 127 Northeast House, 74–75, 121, 127 Royal Villa, 17, 75, 111, 127 South House, 17, 74, 111, 124, 127 South-East House, 111 Unexplored Mansion, 76 palace Area of the Grooved Partitions, 47 Central Palace Sanctuary Complex, 41, 44– 45, 141 changes in storage space, 41 cists, 40–41, 44–45, 47 Corridor of the Bays, 45–46 Corridor of the Draughtboard, 18, 44, 45–47, 124, 127 East Magazines, 42 Hieroglyphc Deposit, 42 kouloures, 45 Magazine of the Jewel Fresco, 45 Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi, 45–46 Magazines of the Giant Pithoi/Stores of the Great Pithoi, 42, 45 North-East Magazines, 42–43, 47–48 Room of the Giant Pithos, 45

INDEX

Knossos, palace, cont. Royal Magazines, 43, 45–46 storage potential, 1, 15 West Magazines Complex, 40–47 political power, 4–5, 127–128, 143 Kommos Building T, 61, 125, 130 Cliffside House, 62 House of the Snake Tube, 62 House with the Press, 62 House X, 62 polity, 5, 125, 136 Kostis, K., 112 kouloures. See storage, installations/implements; Knossos, palace Kouses, 68, 110 Krousonas, 60, 112, 129 Kyriakidis, E., 140 labor, 2, 5, 9–12, 14, 30, 35, 50, 52, 64, 102, 112–113, 120, 125, 128, 131–134, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145–146 Laconia, 22 Laffineur, R., 47 Lagouta Kolokythi, 7, 70, 111, 116, 130 land award of, 132 carrying potential/capacity, 33–34, 135, 137 communication by, 136 control of, 120, 131–132 dietary estimates and, 33–34 infertility of, 122 intensive use, 136 marginal lands, 138–139 landholding. See under household Landos, A., 20, 22, 24 Lasithi, 80, 135 legitimization of power. See power Lévi-Strauss, C., 34 Mackenzie, D., 42, 46–47 Makrigialos, 16, 65, 111, 113, 117, 136, 129–130 Malia Hagia Varvara, 83–84, 110, 125 House Da, 81, 110, 115 House Db, 81 House Dg, 81, 125 House Ea, 55, 81–82 House Za, 16, 82–83, 110–111, 115, 124–125 House Zb, 16, 83, 111, 125 House Zg, 82, 125 Maison de la Cave au Pilier, 83, 110 Maison de la Façade à Redans, 83, 110 Maison des Vases à Etrier, 83, 110 Mansion E, 17, 37, 81–82, 112, 117, 124, 126

179

Malia, cont. palace, 48–50, 53, 124 East Magazines, 49 magazines in the West Wing, 48–49, 142 North-East Magazines, 48–49 silos, 49–50 storage potential, 4, 15, 50, 53 polity/regional dynamics, 4–6, 121, 124, 125, 135, 137 Quartier N, 83 malnutrition, 114–115, 144 manipulation, social, 143 market, 21, 26–28, 122, 136, 138–139, 143 McEnroe, J., 35 meat consumption, 19–24, 29, 31–32 value, 23, 27 Medallion Pithoi. See pithos Melidoni, 30 Melos, 33 Mesara regional dynamics, 5, 64, 125, 128, 134, 137 Mirabello regional dynamics, 5 Mitropolis-Kannia, 16–17, 62, 69–70, 112–113, 118, 128, 130 mobilization of crops, 3, 9, 58, 113, 116, 118–120, 122, 125–129, 130–131, 133, 134–136, 138, 141, 143–144 labor, 125, 143 luxury items, 36, 122, 143, 145 Mochlos Buildings A and B, 16, 90–92, 110, 111, 116, 126, 130 Chalinomouri, 92, 110 Houses A and B, 89 Houses C.1–C.7, 16, 55, 59, 89–90, 110–111, 116, 126 Houses D.1, D.3, and D.4, 89, 111, 115, 130 metalworking, 90, 139 trade, 116, 136, 139 workshops, 90–91, 136 modifications/alterations of buildings. See architecture Moody, J., 3, 42, 43 Mycenaean, 29, 132, 140, 146 Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, 4 Myrtos Pyrgos, 16–17, 84–85, 111, 116, 129, 130, 134, 136 “Naroll’s Constant,” 35–36 Nazi regime, 33, 123 Nerokourou, 57–58, 111–112 Nipiditos, 80, 129 Nirou Chani, 6, 16, 78–79, 112–113, 118, 129–130, 136 nodules, 59, 65, 93, 114, 129

180

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

nutrition requirements, 12, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32–33, 37–38, 120, 122, 131–132, 135, 144 olive, 26, 31, 33, 135 olive oil consumption, 21–22, 25–27, 29–31, 34, 114–117, 123 payment of labor, 133 production, 26, 135, 137 remains, 58, 63, 72, 79, 91, 96 storage, 1, 32, 41, 44–45, 51, 63, 65, 69, 71, 79–80, 89, 102, 104, 121 olive press, 14, 62, 69, 96 Olivier, G., 22 organic remains. See foodstuffs organic residue analyses. See foodstuffs Orthodox Church food restrictions, 19, 22, 23 Ottoman documents on food, 25–27, 122 on pithoi, 13 palaces. See also Gournia; Knossos; Malia; Phaistos; Zakros changing storage potentials, 15, 39–44, 53–54, 133–134, 142 controllers of livelihood, 131–132, 139 depositional histories, 17–19, 44, 47–48, 50–52 exchange controllers, 139 places of ritual, 140, 143, 144–145 redistributive centers, 2–3, 45, 50, 120–123 storage potentials, 15, 44–54 storerooms, 15, 44–54, 64–65, 76, 85, 120, 123– 127, 144 supporting potentials, 120–121 Palaikastro Block b, 96–97, 111 Blocks g–e, x, p, 97 Block c, 97–98 Blocks l, k, ~, u, 98 Building 5, 17, 99, 111 Buildings 1–4, 98 Buildings 6–7, 99 House N, 17, 99–100, 111 House A on the Cliff, 98 Kouremenos, 98 Palmer, R., 31, 106 Panagiotaki, M., 21, 22 Pashley, R., 21–22 pastoralists, 19–20, 22–23, 32 peak sanctuaries, 141–142 peasants, 11, 20–24, 34 Pediada, 4–6, 79–80, 135, 142 Pelon, O., 49 Pendlebury, J.D.S., 40, 46

peripheral polities. See second-order centers personnel, 2, 29, 31, 117, 133 Petras House I.1, 92–93, 110, 115 House II.1, 93, 100 palace, 51, 53–54, 71, 124, 126–127, 142 polity/town, 5–6, 31, 92–93, 136 Phaistos Case 101, 103, 104, 67 House of Hagia Photini, 67–68, 110, 115 House at Chalara, 67–68, 111 palace, 18, 47 kouloures, 43 Protopalatial storerooms, 40, 43 Room 11, 48 storage, 47–48, 52–53, 125 West Magazines Complex, 47–48, 123, 128, 142 polity, 5, 64, 125, 134 pithos, 12. See also Forms of pithoi abandonment, 12–13, 114 evaluation of storage, 1, 4, 12–14 functional attributes, 13–14 imported, 95 Knobbed Pithoi, 42, 46 marker of household wealth, 13 Medallion Pithoi, 45–47, 74 placed on upper floors, 13–15, 49–50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 68, 73, 79–80, 87–88, 90, 105–106, 110–112, 126 placement, 14, 49, 51, 57, 62–64, 67, 77, 81, 87, 98, 105, 110–113 sunken, 48, 89, 92, 95, 110, 112 upside-down pithoi, 48, 65, 70, 79, 86, 99, 100 Platon, N., 6, 72, 77–78, 80, 84, 88, 93–94, 100–102, 104, 106, 140 Platon, L., 93–94, 96, 100, 102–103 Pilali-Papasteriou, A., 140 Pitsidia, 62–63, 66, 112 political economy, 3, 118–146 leadership, 6, 118, 140 propaganda, 122, 139–143, 145 territories, 5–6, 118, 134–137 Polyani, K., 2 population estimates, 120, 135–136 Poros, 77–78, 136 power, legitimization of, 28, 143–145 Prasa, 78 processing installations, 12, 14, 45, 62, 69, 73, 86, 92–94, 96–98, 100–103, 106–107, 111–112, 115, 117 production crops, 2, 33–34, 58, 94, 100–101, 114, 116–117, 120, 130–132, 135, 137, 139–140 luxury items, 2, 39, 41, 122–123, 139, 143–144

INDEX

production, cont. maximizing strategies, 37, 122, 136, 144–145 politically oriented production of crops, 21–22 Prinias-Flega, 17 Protoria, 70 Pseira, 7, 17–18, 87–88, 109, 110–111, 126, 136, 139 Building AB (Seager’s House B), 17, 88 Building AD, 87, 88 Building AN, 87 Building AP, 17, 87 Building BN East, 88 House AA (Seager’s House A), 87 House AF N, 17, 87–88, 111, 126 House BO, 88 Plateia Building, 88 Psiloritis, 129 pulses consumption of, 21, 25–26, 29–30, 32, 114, 116–117 production of, 33–34, 114, 116–117, 135 remains of, 49, 57, 64–66, 69, 70, 72, 78, 85, 92– 93, 96, 104–106 reciprocity, 123 redistribution, 2, 3, 27, 45, 50, 120–123, 126, 130, 139 regional dynamics Gulf of Mirabello, 5 Malia, 4–5 Mesara, 5, 61, 64 north-central Crete, 6 Pediada, 4–5 Siteia, 5–6 regional idiosyncrasies, 4–5, 139, 144 relief redistribution, 3, 118, 120–123, 130 religious centers/contexts, storage, 140–142 Renfrew, C., 2, 120 research agendas/recovering protocols, 18, 31, 71, 73, 81, 101, 113, 115 ritual, 19, 21, 24, 31, 129, 139–145 Rousses Chondros, 16, 84 Sakellarakis, Y., 71, 73 Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., 71 seafood, 23–24 sealings, 58, 65–66, 74, 106, 116 second-order centers as consumers, 126, 130 as mobilizations of wealth, 39, 53, 113, 117–118, 121, 126, 128 as producers, 117–118, 130, 136–137, 143 as redistributors, 130–131 imitators of palatial culture, 142–143 incorporated into palatial system, 6, 139–140, 143– 145 storage, 128–131, 133–134

181

self-sufficiency, 23, 35, 128, 131, 137, 144 Seli, 63–64, 110, 111 Seven Country Project, 21–22 shipment stations of goods, 10, 57, 93, 112–113, 117– 118, 129, 135–136 Sikia, 95 silos. See storage, installations/implements site-hierarchy. See regional dynamics Siteia, 16, 92–93, 117, 127, 129 Sklavokambos, 17, 58–59, 112–113, 118, 129, 130, 136 snails, 19, 24, 29 social status of food, 20, 23, 29, 30 of storage, 11, 118, 123–124 space, multifunctional use, 15, 94, 110–113, 125. See also storerooms specialization, 4, 112, 116–117, 120, 127, 136–137, 138–139, 141–142 Spiliotakis, S., 34 Stavromyti Cave, 141 storage, 9–12 archaeological recognition, 1, 4, 12–15 behavior, 1, 9, 16, 19, 53–54, 61, 65, 74, 98–99, 109–113 (in) caves, 141 central, 2, 10, 11, 39–54, 120–123, 126, 129, 131– 132, 134, 137, 142, 144 containers, perishable, 11–13, 16, 53, 61, 65–66, 74, 104, 114, 116, 129 decentralization, 3, 54, 39, 133–134, 144 decrease, 15, 39–44, 54, 73–74, 113, 117, 122, 128–131, 133, 145 discussion among Aegeanists, 1–2, 120 display, 123–124 domestic, 3, 4, 10–11, 38, 55–107, 109–118, 124–134 floor space, 15, 35, 110–113, 127, 133–134 gender-determined, 11 installations/implements benches, 112 bins, 47, 61, 69, 78, 129 cists, 14, 40–41, 44–45, 47, 52, 69, 112 collectors, 14, 49, 52, 64, 67, 69, 101–102, 104–105, 110, 112 compartments, 45, 47, 69, 101 drain chanels, 52, 64, 90, 103, 107, 112 enclosures, 14, 52, 57, 79, 81, 105, 110, 112– 113 holes, 14, 63–64, 72, 78, 87, 112 kaselles, 44 kouloures, 43, 82 platforms, 14, 49, 52, 62, 77, 86 pits, 14, 73, 91, 110 silos, 27, 49, 50, 52, 122, 125 intensification, 52, 59, 71, 129, 134, 144

182

THE POLITICS OF STORAGE

storage, cont. interpreting the testimonies, 19–37, 113–118, 119– 146 labor invested, 10, 14, 50, 52, 61, 64, 102, 112, 113, 128, 134 long-term, 12–13, 52–53, 66, 73, 80, 84, 93, 114, 120, 129 moral dimension, 11, 119, 143 (in) palaces, 2, 3, 15, 39–54, 64–65, 71, 76, 85, 119–128, 133–134, 142–144 palatial shrines in, 141 (in) peak sanctuaries, 141 peripheral/regional, 2–3, 10–11, 39, 54, 70, 114, 116, 128–131, 133–134 process of, 1, 3 short-term, 12–13, 24, 60–61, 65, 68, 73, 81, 83, 102, 110 social status, 11, 119, 124, 130 “social storage,” 2–3, 9, 41, 120, 122–123 sociopolitical implications, 40, 43–44, 118–146 standardized, 10–11, 14, 52 Storage Patterns I–V, 109–114, 116–117, 131 technologies, 12–13, 109–113, 134 storerooms accessibility of, 40–42, 46, 48–49, 51–53, 75–76, 81, 120, 124, 144 architecture, 14–15, 39–54, 56–107, 109–113, 123– 124, 134, 142–143 construction, 14–15, 39–54, 56–107, 123–124, 134, 142–143 empty of pithoi, 15, 42, 50, 53, 60, 66, 82, 85, 98, 104, 128 estimates of floor size, 15, 109–113, 133–134 functional planning, 52, 61, 65, 104–105, 113, 128, 134 modification of, 39, 42, 72, 74, 81–82, 89, 102– 103, 105–106, 124, 123–124 peripheral, 10, 114, 116–117, 121, 124, 129–130, 132, 141–142 pillared, 14, 45, 47–48, 59, 64–65, 69, 72–74, 90, 96, 100, 111–112, 140–141 security, 10, 41, 124, 141 spaces converted into, 15, 54, 59, 71–73, 90, 96–98, 113, 129 underground, 74–75, 82, 94, 102–103, 105, 110 Strasser, T., 43, 49 subsistence autarky, 4, 37–38, 113–118, 126, 128–129, 131– 132, 144, patterns, 19–32, 91, 113–118, 131 surplus, 1, 3, 41, 50, 52, 114–117, 119–120, 122, 125– 126, 128, 130–132, 137, 140–141, 144–145 Symi, 41–42 Syros, 33

tablets HT 102, 121 KH 88, 57 Linear A, 30–31, 51, 56–57, 59, 65–67, 72, 84, 96, 115–117, 129–132, 136–137, 139 Linear B, 2, 30–31, 42, 121 PYR 1, 130 PYR 2, 130 TY 3, 121 Tainter, J.A., 146 taxation/tribute systems, 10–11, 24, 131–133, 138–139 tenant farmers, 132 Thera Akrotiri, 13, 38, 115 eruption, 3–6, 16, 38, 41, 50, 139 trade, 10–11, 13, 33, 66, 131, 136–138, 139, 145 transport of goods, 2, 10, 12–13, 41, 114–116, 138 Tourtouloi-Prophetes Elias, 17, 94–95, 111, 117 Tylissos Maison A, 16–17, 37, 59–60, 112, 115, 118, 121, 128, 131, 134 Maisons B and C, 17, 60, 66, 110, 115, 128, 134 settlement, 6, 59–60, 128–130, 134, 136 Vai, 95 van Effenterre, H., 4, 41, 81, 135 Vasiliki, 87 Vathypetro, 55, 72–73, 111–113, 117, 124, 129, 130–131 vegetables consumption, 20–21, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32 production, 34, 135 Venetian documents, 122 on food, 20–21, 24–26, 115 on pithoi, 13 Viannos, 84, 142 “villas,” 3, 33, 39, 122, 133 Vrises, 17, 112 Vrysinas, 141 warfare, 10, 123 Warren, P., 4, 135 wealth access to, 120, 131, 143 display of, 117, 122, 123, 145 material manifestations of, 36, 119, 145 semiotic dimension of, 36, 145 western Mesara. See Mesara wild greens, consumption, 19–20, 22–23, 29, 30, 33–34 wine consumption, 21–22, 25–26, 29–31, 114–117 kinds, 22, 31 processing installations, 14, 62, 73, 75, 86, 92–98, 100–104, 106–107, 112, 115, 117

INDEX

wine, cont. production, 34, 115–117, 121 vats/tubs, 82, 94, 100, 103, 107, 110, 112 written documents, 9, 13, 16, 25–27, 31, 36, 42, 53 Zakros Epano Zakros, 100, 111–112, 117, 136 Kato Zakros Building of the Pot Deposit, 104, 110 Harbor Area, 105 Hogarth’s House A, 106, 111, 116 Hogarth’s House F, 107 Hogarth’s House G, 103–104, 110 Hogarth’s House I(J), 17, 107, 111, 116, 117 House A, 101, 111 House B, 101–102, 111, 117 House D, 106, 110

183

Zakros, Kato Zakros, cont. House Da, 102, 110 House N, 107, 111 102, 111, 116 House Z, 102, 111, 116 House of the Niches, 105–106, 110, 115– 116 houses/town, 16–18, 109, 110, 112, 121, 128, 135–136 Northwest Hill, 106, 110 Oblique Building, 17, 103, 111 palace, 17, 51–54, 124, 126–127, 142 Southwest Hill, 101 Strong Building, 104–105, 110–111, 115 Upper Town, 103 Zominthos, 58–59, 129 Zou, 31, 94, 136

Tables

TABLES 1, 2, AND 3

Commodity

Energy (cal.)

Protein (g)

Fat (g)

Carbohydrates (g)

Barley

360

7.6

1.7

83.6

Wheat

323

12.6

1.8

68.5

Pulses (lentils)

297

24.3

1.9

48.8

Pulses (chick peas)

24

8.4

2.1

16.1

Olive oil

899

trace

99.9

0

Wine (red)

68

0.2

0

0.3

Table 1. Nutritional values of cereals, pulses, olive oil, and wine. Quantities given per 100 g. Wine is per 100 ml. (after Holland et al. 1991).

Seed (kg/stremma*)

Yield (kg/stremma*)

Crop Min.

Max.

Mean

Min.

Max.

Mean

Barley

8.93

15.28

12.19

47.80

122.34

103.94

Wheat

8.14

19.84

13.74

54.31

148.47

88.64

Smigos (wheat-barley mix)

8.65

14.23

12.34

67.86

90.71

74.46

Oat

7.50

11.11

9.96

49.06

83.31

71.98

Rye

9.68

13.33

11.96

53.05

90.79

71.10

Table 2. Minimum and maximum sowing and yield rates of cereals from various regions of Greece in 1860 (estimates based on information from Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1860 [Petmezas 2003, 335–407]). * 1 stremma = 1000 m2.

Yield (kg/stremma*) Crop Min.

Max.

Mean

Barley

53.38

116.63

75.89

Wheat

64.81

142.52

90.62

Smigos (wheat-barley mix)

21.78

97.32

57.31

Oat

51.88

109.38

79.62

Rye

40.24

204.83

92.26

Table 3. Minimum and maximum yield rates of cereals from various regions of Greece in 1887 (estimates based on information from Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1887 [Petmezas 2003, 409–430]; there are no data on sowing rates). * 1 stremma = 1000 m2.

TABLES 4, 5, 6, AND 7 Yield (kg/stremma*) Crop Min.

Max.

Mean

Tare

27.07

338.45

117.46

Lupine**

4.81

6.41

5.61

Lentils

17.75

97.02

50.11

Beans

6.67

192.22

49.48

Chick peas

14.04

85.17

46.9

Broad beans

18.40

142.06

72.08

Fava beans

11.00

89.74

43.17

Fresh peas

33.23

105.67

71.73

Peas

43.45

98.29

77.75

Table 4. Minimum and maximum yield rates of pulses from various regions of Greece in 1887 (estimates based on information from Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1887 [Petmezas 2003, 409–430]; no data on sowing rates; * 1 stremma = 1000 m2; ** very limited data).

Yield (kg/stremma*) Crop

1860

1887

Min.

Max.

Mean

Min.

Max.

Mean

Vine (wine)

62.26

523.30

228.91

52.90

335.23

178.95

Olives (olive oil)

20.12

20.12

20.12

7.21

92.29

28.62

Table 5. Minimum and maximum yield rates of vines and olives from various regions of Greece in 1860 and 1887 (estimates based on information from Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1860 and Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1887 [Petmezas 2003, 335–430]). * 1 stremma = 1000 m2.

Yield (kg/stremma*) Crop

Figs

1860

1887

Min.

Max.

Mean

Min.

351.05

351.05

351.05

Max.

Mean

12.33

339.98

128.67

Almonds

23.11

2,091.00

208.92

Walnuts**

15.16

602.54

358.97

Hazelnuts**

53.59

856.38

210.95

Chestnuts**

14.35

329.66

103.16

Table 6. Minimum and maximum yield rates of fruits and nuts from various regions of Greece in 1860 and 1887 (estimates based on information from Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1860 and Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1887 [Petmezas 2003, 335–430]; * 1 stremma = 1000 m2; ** very limited data).

Crop

Kg/stremma*

Barley

75.89

Lentils

50.11

Olive oil

28.62

Wine

178.95

Table 7. Yields of barley, lentils, olive oil, and wine used in the present study (estimates based on information from Statistics of Agriculture of the Year 1887 [Petmezas 2003, 409–430]). * 1 stremma = 1000 m2.

TABLES 8 AND 9

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Malia

Knossos

Phaistos

Kato Zakros

Petras

Gournia

Galatas

Table 8. Estimated storeroom size (in m2) in Neopalatial palaces (for Galatas the estimate is the minimum).

600

500

Pithoi the stores were designed to house

400

Pithoi found in the stores

300

200

100

0 Malia

Knossos

Phaistos

Kato Zakros

Gournia

Petras

Table 9. Comparison of the number of pithoi that palatial stores were designed to house compared with the number of pithoi found in the palaces (the number of pithoi found in the LM I palace of Knossos is unknown).

TABLE 10 Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

4,400–5,000

IV

Context

Date

Vrises

LM IB

Chania-Kastelli (House I)

LM IB

Chania-Kastelli (House II)

LM IB

II–III*

Chania-Kastelli (House III)

LM IB

II–III*

Chania-Kastelli (House IV)

LM IB

II–III*

Nerokourou

LM IB

7.5 (3.5%)

1,900–2,100

1,400–1,680

III

IV*

Apodoulou Zominthos

LM IA

IV–V*

Sklavokambos

LM IB

42 (10.6%)

7,095–7,820

V

Tylissos (Mansion A)

LM IB

95 (18%)

9,900–11,880

V

Tylissos (Mansion B)

LM IB

12 (32%)

II

Tylissos (Mansion C)

LM IB

40 (8.9%)

II

Krousonas

LM IA

IV*

Kommos (Building T)

LM IA

II–III*

Kommos (House X)

LM I–III

II–III*

Kommos (North House)

LM I–III+

Kommos (Oblique House)

LM I–III+

Kommos (Cliffside House)

LM I–III+

Kommos (House of the Snake Tub)

LM I–III+

Kommos (House with the Press)

LM I–III+

Pitsidia

LM IB

IV

Seli (Volakakis Plot House)

LM IA

1,100–1,280

III

Seli (Sifakis Plot House)

LM IB

250

II

Hagia Triada (Villa Reale)

LM IB

Hagia Triada (Casa dello Pistrinum)

LM IB

II*

Hagia Triada (Casa dei Fichi)

LM IB

II*

Hagia Triada (Houses west of Bastione)

LM IB

II*

Hagia Triada (Casa A)

LM IB

I

Hagia Triada (Casa B)

LM IB

I

Hagia Triada (Casa C)

LM IB

I

Hagia Triada (Casa della “mazza di breccia”)

LM IB

Hagia Triada (Casa del Lebete)

LM IB

28 (22%)

3,120–3,600

IV

Hagia Triada (Casa Est)

LM IB

94 (40%)

5,100–5,950

V

Hagia Triada (Casa nord della Casa Est)

LM IB

Phaistos (Hagia Photini House)

LM IB

200–250

II

Phaistos (Chalara House)

LM IB

1,267

III

Kouses

LM IA

660–850

II

723 (41%)

30,000–33,000

V

II*

24 (3.8%)

Table 10. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; + reoccupied unit with no good LM I deposits.

TABLE 10

Context

Date

Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

Mitropolis-Kannia

LM IB

147.25 (34%)

21,895–24,690

V

Anegyros

LM I–III

Protoria

LM IA

V*

Lagouta Kolokythi

LM IB

III

Kanli Kastelli Galeni

LM I LM I

III–IV*

Archanes (Central Building)

LM IB

16,000–20,000

V

Archanes (Kalpadaki Plot House)

LM IB

800–1,000

II

6,400–8,000

V

Archanes (Troullos)

LM I

Archanes-Xeri Kara

LM IA LM IA

24 (2.7%)

LM IB

15 (1.5%)

III*

LM IA

29.64 (14%)

III*

LM IA

20.25 (8.8%)

LM IA

6 (2.6%)

Vathypetro Knossos (South House)

II

Knossos (House of Chancel Screen) Knossos (Northeast House)

LM IA

850–1,000

II

24,800–32,000

V*

Knossos (Royal Villa)

LM I–IIIA+

26 (11%)

III*

Knossos (Little Palace)

LM I–IIIB+

93 (6.6%)

IV*

Knossos (Unexplored Mansion)

LM II

30 (8.6%)

II

Knossos (North House)

LM IB

10 (10%)

Knossos (Acropolis House)

LM IB

II*

Knossos (Hogarth’s A)

LM IB

II*

Knossos (Hogarth’s B)

LM IB

II*

Knossos (Hood’s House)

LM IB

II

Amnisos (Villa of Lilies)

LM IA

II–III*

Prasa (House A)

LM IB

II*

Prasa (House B)

LM IA

II*

Prasa (House C)

LM IA

II*

Nirou Chani

LM IB

Galatas (Building 1)

LM IA

Galatas (Building 3/5)

LM IB

Galatas (House 2)

LM IB

II

13,200–13,950

V

1,700–1,950#

III

1,295

III

LM

840–950#

IV*

Nipiditos

LM IB

1,200–1,500#

IV*

Kastelli Pediados

LM IB

1,600–1,800

IV

400

II

Avli

Plati (Houses)

60 (11%)

360–480

24 (14%)

LM I

Malia (House Da)

LM IA

25 (15%)

Malia (House Db)

LM IA

20 (10%)

II–III*

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; + reoccupied unit with no good LM I deposits; # minimum estimate.

TABLE 10 Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

Context

Date

Malia (House Dc)

LM IB

Malia (Maison E)

LM I–IIIB

53 (4%)

MM IIIB

12.6 (7.2%)

>600

II

LM IA

8 (6.6%)

>600

II

Malia (House Fa)

LM IB

37 (8.7%)

Malia (House Fb)

LM IB

29 (9%)

Malia (House Fc)

LM IB

II*

Malia (Maison de la Façade à Redans)

LM I

II*

Malia (Maison des Vases à Etrier)

LM I

II*

Malia (Maison de la Cave au Pilier)

LM I

II*

Malia (Maison Jc)

LM I

II*

Malia (Quartier N)

LM I

Malia (Hagia Varvara-Villa A)

LM I

Malia (Hagia Varvara-Building B)

LM I

II–III* IV*

Malia (House Ea)

1,540–1,740

380–460

III

Malia (Hagia Varvara-House)

LM IB

Viannos (Kefali Lazana)

LM IA

II*

Viannos (Tourkissa)

LM IA

II*

LM I

II*

Viannos (Pervola)

9.37 (7.7%)

II

II

Viannos (Rousses Chondros)

LM IA

38 (51%)

2,000–3,000

IV

Myrtos Pyrgos (Central Building)

LM IB

50.4 (5.6%)

1,350–1,600

III

Myrtos Pyrgos (houses)

LM I

I–II*

Gournia (House Aa)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Ab)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Ac)

LM IB

445–510

II

Gournia (House Ad)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Ae)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Af)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ag)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ah)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ba)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Bb)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Bc)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House south of House Bc)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ca)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cb)

LM IB

Gournia (House Cc)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Cd)

LM IB

>400

II

24 (16%)

I

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; > less than.

TABLE 10 Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

>400

II

540–720

II

Context

Date

Gournia (House Ce)

LM IB

Gournia (House Cf)

LM IB

Gournia (House Cg)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ch)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ci)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cj)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ck)

LM IB

Gournia (House Ck)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cl)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cm)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cn)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Co)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cs)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ct)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cp)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cq)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Cr)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Da)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Db)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Dc)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Dd)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House De)

LM IB

>400

II

Gournia (House Df)

LM IB

Gournia (House Dg)

LM IB

Gournia (House Dh)

LM IB

Gournia (House Di)

LM IB

Gournia (House Ea)

LM IB

Gournia (House east of Ea)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Eb)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ec)

LM IB

Gournia (House Ed)

LM IB

Gournia (House Ee)

LM IB

Gournia (House Ef)

LM IB

Gournia (House Eg)

LM IB

Gournia (Building between Ee–Ef, Eh)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Eh)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ei)

LM IB

I

21 (20%)

>400

II

I >400

II I I

>400

660–880

II

II I

15 (15%)

>400

II I

>400

II

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; > less than.

TABLE 10 Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

Context

Date

Gournia (House Ej)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ek)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House El)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fa)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fb)

LM IB

Gournia (House Fc)

LM IB

Gournia (House Fd)

LM IB

23 (16%)

510–610

II

Gournia (House Fe)

LM IB

18 (19%)

255–340

II

Gournia (House Fe)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ff)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fg)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fh)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fi)

LM IB

Gournia (House Fe)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fj)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Fl)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Ha)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Hb)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Hc)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Hd)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House He)

LM IB

I

Gournia (House Hf)

LM IB

I

Vasiliki (House N)

LM IA

I–II*

Vasiliki (House M)

LM IA

I–II*

Vasiliki (Building K)

LM IB

I–II*

Pseira (House AA)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (Building AP)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (Building AN)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (Building AD Center)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (House AF N)

LM IB

II–III*

Pseira (Building AB)

LM IB

8.4 (2.6%)

300

II

Pseira (Building AD North)

LM IB

7.5 (6.5%)

620–730

II

Pseira (Houses in Area A)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (House BO)

LM IB

II*

Pseira (House BN)

LM IB

II*

Pseira (House BT)

LM IB

III–IV*

Pseira (Houses in Area C)

LM IB

I*

>400

II I

>400

II

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; > less than.

TABLE 10 Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

Context

Date

Pseira (Houses in Area D)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (Houses in Area F)

LM IB

I*

Pseira (the Plateia Building)

LM IB

II

Mochlos (House A)

LM IB

I*

Mochlos (House B)

LM IB

I*

Mochlos (House C)

LM IB

I*

Mochlos (House D.1)

LM IB

I*

Mochlos (House D.3)

LM IB

Mochlos (House C.1)

LM IB

Mochlos (House C.2)

LM IB

Mochlos (House C.3)

LM IB

Mochlos (House C.4)

LM IB

II*

Mochlos (House C.6)

LM IB

II*

Mochlos (House C.7)

LM IB

II*

Mochlos (Building B.2)

LM IB

106 (26%)

1,600

III

Mochlos (Building A)

LM IB

31.3 (20%)

410–580

II

Mochlos (Building B)

LM IB

>250

II

Mochlos (Chalinomouri)

LM IB

553–618

II

Chrysokamino

7.83 (1.74%)

300–400

II I* II*

29 (22%)

20.72 (18%)

2,000

III

LM I

Petras (House I.1)

LM IA

>500

II

Petras (House II.2)

LM IB

>500

II

Klimataria-Manares

LM IB

49 (10%)

2,800–3,150*

IV*

Achladia (House A)

LM IB

179 (61%)

1,180–1,585

III

Achladia (House B)

LM IB

Zou

LM IB

Tourtouloi-Prophetes Elias

LM IB

Sikia (Houses)

LM IB

Makrigialos (central building)

LM IB

Makrigialos (house)

LM IB

Vai

LM IA

II*

Palaikastro (Block b: House 23–25)

LM IB

II*

Palaikastro (Block b: House 40–47)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block b: House 26, 27, 32–39) Palaikastro (Block b: House B)

III–IV* 170 (33%)

2,000–3,000

IV

71 (8.8%)

2,200–3,390

IV

LM I–III+ LM IB

Palaikastro (Block c: House 1–12)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block c: House 13–22)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block c: House 23–32)

LM I–III+

30 (7%)

3,050–3,600

IV

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; + reoccupied unit with no good LM I deposits; > less than.

TABLE 10

Context

Date

Palaikastro (Block c: House 33–38)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block d: House 1–16)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block d: House 46–48)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block d: House 18–40)

LM I–III+

Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

Palaikastro (Block e: House 1–18)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block e: House 18–20)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block e: House 21–28)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block e: House 29–35)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block e: House 36–43)

LM IB

II*

Palaikastro (Block n: House 2–7)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block n: House 8–19)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block n: House 20–25)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block n: House 26–34)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block n: House 35–44)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block p: House 1–6)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block p: House 7–16)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block p: House 17–22)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Block p: House 38–40)

LM I–III+

>400

Palaikastro (Block v: House 1–17)

LM IB

II–III*

Palaikastro (Block v: House 19–20)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block v: House 21–48)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Block v: House 51–66)

LM IB

I–II*

Palaikastro (Houses in blocks y, t, k, j)

LM IB

Palaikastro (House A on the Cliff)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Houses at Kouremenos)

LM I–III+

Palaikastro (Building 1)

LM IB–III

Palaikastro (Building 2)

LM IB

Palaikastro (Building 3)

LM IB–III

Palaikastro (Building 4)

LM IB–III

Palaikastro (Building 5)

LM IB–III

Palaikastro (Building 6)

LM IA

Palaikastro (Building 7)

LM I–III

Palaikastro (House N)

LM IB

Azokeramos

LM IA

Epano Zakros

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House A)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House B)

LM IB

II*

18.76 (8%)

1,635–2,100

III LM I–III

17 (8.5%)

1,710–2,025

III II*

3,200–3,600

IV

41 (20%)

1,200–1,600

III

37 (14%)

3,250–4,050

IV

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; + reoccupied unit with no good LM I deposits; > less than.

TABLE 10

Context

Date

Kato Zakros (House D)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House Da)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House E)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House F)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House H)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Building south of House B)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Building North of the Harbor Road)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Building H)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Building of the Double Doors)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Tower Building)

LM I

Kato Zakros (Building of the Shrine Deposit)

LM I

Kato Zakros (Building Complex of the Upper Kitchen Apartments)

LM I

Kato Zakros (Buildings in the Area between the Tower Building and the Oblique Building)

LM I

Kato Zakros (Complex Northeast of the Kitchen Rooms)

LM I

Kato Zakros (Building Northeast of the Rooms of the Bath)

LM I

Kato Zakros (Oblique Building)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

19 (9%)

800–900

II

1,200–1,530

III II*

II*

LM IA

Kato Zakros (Building of the Cyclopean Tower)

Kato Zakros (Building of the Northwest Sector)

Extent of Stores (m2)

LM IA LM IA/LM IB

10.5–29.0 (6%–18%)

2,100–2,450

V

Kato Zakros (Hogarth’s House G)

LM IB

18 (12%)

970–1,150

II–III

Kato Zakros (Building of the Pot Deposit)

LM IB

16.50 (13%)

450–550

II

Kato Zakros (Strong Building)

LM IB

20 (8%)

840–1,090

II

Kato Zakros (East Building)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Easternmost House South of the Harbor Road)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Easternmost House North of the Harbor Road)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Buildings North of the Harbor Road)

LM IB

II*

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; # minimum estimate.

TABLE 10

Context Kato Zakros (House of Niches)

Date

Extent of Stores (m2)

Storage Potential (liters)

Storage Pattern

LM IB

27 (11%)#

460–530#

II

800–950

II

1,560–1,830

III

500–600

II

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Building Northwest of Hogarth’s House A)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Building Northwest of Hogarth’s House A)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House N)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (Hogarth’s House A)

LM IB

Kato Zakros (House D)

LM IB

14 (10.7%)

Kato Zakros (Hogarth’s House F)

LM IB

26.5 (8.6%)

Kato Zakros (Hogarth’s House I [J])

LM IB

70 (22%)

1,520–1,840

III

Kato Zakros (House N)

LM IB

22 (12%)

2,000–2,100

III

II*

Table 10, cont. Storage potentials of LM I domestic and nonpalatial elite units. Capacity estimates are mostly derived from the “reference vessel” of each pithos type. Percentages in ( ) refer to the ratio between the extent of stores to the overall ground floor extent of the house. Cells are left vacant in cases where available information is limited for estimates; * assumed estimate; # minimum estimate.

Figures

0

25 50 km

Figure 1. Principal Neopalatial sites mentioned in the text.

N

FIGURE 1

15

70

Figure 2. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 12, 15, 70, 62, 11, and 14 (scale 1:10).

12

62

11

14

FIGURE 2

95

17 94

Figure 3. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 16, 95, 17, 94, 61, and 13 (scale 1:10).

16

61

13 FIGURE 3

1

28

Figure 4. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 6, 1, 28, 23, and 4 (scale 1:10).

6

23

4

FIGURE 4

88 87

Figure 5. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 85, 88, 87, 55, 54, and 89 (scale 1:10).

85

55

54

89

FIGURE 5

60

79

5

Figure 6. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 18, 60, 79, 5, 77, 80, and 47 (scale 1:10).

18

77

80

47

FIGURE 6

35

82 122

Figure 7. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 97, 35, 82, 122, 64, and 83 (scale 1:10).

97

64

83 FIGURE 7

74 67

76

63

Figure 8. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 73, 74, 67, 76, 63, 53, 72, and 60 (scale 1:10).

73

53

72

60

FIGURE 8

112 121

106

107

Figure 9. Pithoi from LM I contexts: Forms 114, 112, 121, 106, 107, 109, and 102 (scale 1:10).

114

109

102

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

store (layout and finds) store (layout) area possibly for storage

N

Figure 10. Storerooms in the palace and in the Northeast House of Knossos.

FIGURE 11

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

Figure 11. Pottery from below the floor of the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi (KSM Box 1111 [a, b, c, f, g, i, k, m, n] and Box 1112 [d, e, h, j, l]. Scale 1:3. Courtesy of the British School at Athens.

FIGURE 12

a

b

Figure 12. Pottery from Knossos: a) fragment of a kylix found below the floor of the Magazine of the Medallion Pithoi (KSM Box 1112); b) LM II jug found below the floor of the North Bay in the Corridor of the Bays (KSM Box 1105). Scale 1:2. Courtesy of the British School at Athens.

FIGURE 13

N

store (layout and finds)

small/medium-sized pithoi

store (layout) area possibly for storage

large pithoi

remains of staples

Figure 13. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the palace of Phaistos.

FIGURE 14

N

store (layout and finds) store (layout)

remains of staples small/mediumsized pithoi

area for storage and food preparation multifunctional area with pithoi

large pithoi

Figure 14. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the palace of Malia.

FIGURE 15

N

store (layout and finds) area for food preparation ceremonial area area for food consumption and ceremonies

Figure 15. Ceremonial areas and storerooms in the East Wing of the palace at Galatas.

FIGURE 16

N

store (layout and finds) store (layout)

Figure 16. Distribution of storerooms in the palace of Gournia.

FIGURE 17

N

store (layout and finds)

multifunctional area with pithoi

store (layout)

administrative documents

small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi

Figure 17. Distribution of storerooms and administrative documents in the palace of Petras.

FIGURE 18

N

store (layout and finds)

administrative documents

small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi

Figure 18. Distribution of storerooms and administrative documents in the palace of Kato Zakros.

FIGURE 19

N

N

store (layout and finds) area for storage and food preparation multifunctional area with pithoi remains of staples

small/mediumsized pithoi administrative documents

large pithoi

Figure 19. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents: a) House I at Chania-Kastelli; b) the mansion of Sklavokambos.

FIGURE 20

N

store (layout and finds) store (layout) area for storage and food preparation area possibly for storage

administrative documents small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi

multifunctional area with pithoi

Figure 20. Distribution of storerooms, areas for food preparation, and administrative documents in Mansions A, B, and C at Tylissos.

administrative documents small/mediumsized pithoi

store (layout) multifunctional area with pithoi

Figure 21. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents in the Villa Reale at Hagia Triada.

remains of staples

store (layout and finds)

large pithoi

N

FIGURE 21

FIGURE 22

N

store (layout and finds) multifunctional area with pithoi remains of staples administrative documents small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi

N

Figure 22. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents at Hagia Triada: a) Casa del Lebete/Casa delle Sfere Fittili o dei Muri di Creta; b) Casa Est.

FIGURE 23

N

store (layout and finds) large pithoi remains of staples

Figure 23. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the mansion at Mitropolis-Kannia.

FIGURE 24

N

N

N

store (layout and finds)

store (layout) large pithoi area possibly for storage

Figure 24. Distribution of storerooms at Knossos: a) the South House; b) the House of the Chancel Screen; c) the Royal Villa.

FIGURE 25

The Unexplored Mansion The Little Palace

N store (layout)

Figure 25. Spaces designed for storage in the Unexplored Mansion and the Little Palace at Knossos.

FIGURE 26

N

store (layout and finds) large pithoi remains of staples

Figure 26. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples in the mansion at Nirou Chani.

FIGURE 27

N

N a

b

N

N

c

d

store (layout and finds) multifunctional area with pithoi remains of staples

small/mediumsized pithoi large pithoi wine tubs

Figure 27. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and wine tubs at Malia: a) House Da; b) House Za; c) House Zb; d) House of Hagia Varvara.

FIGURE 28

N

a

N

b

store (layout and finds) administrative documents area possibly for storage remains of staples

small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi

Figure 28. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents: a) the mansion of Myrtos Pyrgos; b) the complex at Makrigialos.

FIGURE 29

Pit House North Trench

Wall N of House Ab

Early House Remains

Fe

Ea

E Aa

Ab Fd

Ec

A Ac

Ee

Court

F

Fi

Ad Ae

B Ce Cc Cd

Eg

Cf

Bb

Fb House remains S of Fa

N

C

Ck

House S of Bc

G Palace

9–12 large/ medium pithoi

Rock Dump

D

Terrace

1–4 small pithoi and no more than 4 amphoras

Dg

Public Court

1–6 small pithoi

De Rock Dump

1–2 large/medium pithoi and no more than 3 small pithoi

Rock Dump Rock Dump

1–2 large/ medium pithoi

House remains

H

no pithoi

0

10

20

30

40 m

Figure 29. Storage in the houses of the town of Gournia (adapted from Fotou 1993, pl. XXIX).

FIGURE 30

N

N

a b

N

N

c

d

N

store (layout and finds)

store (layout)

small/mediumsized pithoi

multifunctional area with pithoi

wine press installations/ wine tubs

remains of staples large pithoi administrative documents

e Figure 30. Distribution of storerooms, areas for the processing of staples, administrative documents, and remains of staples at Gournia: a) House Ac; b) House Cf; c) House Ec; d) House Fd; e) House Fe.

small/mediumsized pithoi

Figure 31. Distribution of storerooms in Building B.2 and House C.3 at Mochlos.

store (layout and finds)

Building B.2

N

House C.3

large pithoi

FIGURE 31

FIGURE 32

P

A

L

B

C I/J

D

E

E

B

N

D

a

C

N

b

store (layout and finds) B'

store (layout) area for storage and food preparation

A' C

multifunctional area with pithoi

X

W

small/mediumsized pithoi

V

A

c

N

wine press installations/ wine tubs

large pithoi

Figure 32. Distribution of storeroom and areas for food preparation and staple processing: a) the mansion at Klimataria-Manares; b) House A at Achladia; c) the mansion at Tourtouloi-Prophetes Elias.

FIGURE 33

N

a

N

N b

c

administrative documents store (layout and finds)

area possibly for storage

store (layout)

multifunctional area with pithoi

small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi area for storage and food preparation

remains of staples

Figure 33. Distribution of storerooms, remains of staples, and administrative documents at Palaikastro: a) House B; b) House 1–17; c) House N.

FIGURE 34

N

N L M

C

L III K

B

A

T D

R

L II

U K

LI O

Q

V

a

R

P

b

store (layout and finds)

area possibly for storage

small/mediumsized pithoi

multifunctional area with pithoi

wine press installations/ wine tubs

large pithoi

Figure 34. Distribution of storerooms and areas used for staple processing at Kato Zakros: a) House A; b) House B.

FIGURE 35

N

N a

L

K

b

E

D

M

III

F

A

J

Ja

C

I

N

T U

N Cc

c

d

store (layout and finds)

area for storage and food preparation

store (layout)

remains of staples

multifunctional area with pithoi

small/mediumsized pithoi

large pithoi

Figure 35. Distribution of storerooms and remains of staples at Kato Zakros: a) House Da; b) Hogarth’s House G; c) the Strong Building; d) the House of the Niches.

FIGURE 36

N

N

F C G

a

b

N

N c

d

store (layout and finds) area for storage and food preparation area possibly for storage

small/mediumsized pithoi

multifunctional area with pithoi

wine press installations/ wine tubs

large pithoi

Figure 36. Distribution of storerooms, areas used for staple processing, and remains of staples at Kato Zakros: a) House D; b) House F; c) Hogarth’s House I(J); d) House N.