Negotiating Island Identities: The Active Use of Pottery in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades 9781463203924, 1463203926

Citation preview

Negotiating Island Identities

Gorgias Studies in Classics

31

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the literature, history, philosophy, societies and cultures of the ancient Greekand Latin-speaking worlds. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Classics. Studies of language and linguistics and the archaeology and culture of the Ancient Near East have their own series and will not be included in this series.

Negotiating Island Identities

The Active Use of Pottery in the Middle and Late Bronze Age Cyclades

Ina Berg

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0392-4

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2007 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

In Memory of Jonathan Leiboff †

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents................................................................................... v List of Illustrations ...............................................................................vii List of Tables .........................................................................................ix Preface ...................................................................................................xi Acknowledgments ............................................................................... xxi Abbreviations and Dating Conventions ..........................................xxiii 1. Islands in Time ................................................................................... 1 2. Aspects of Cycladic Island Life......................................................... 19 3. Cultural Interaction and Minoanisation ......................................... 61 4. A Local Perspective on Minoanisation: The Pottery from Phylakopi on Melos...................................................................... 73 5. Island Strategies in the Aegean ...................................................... 111 6. Islands in Context........................................................................... 153 7. Conclusions .................................................................................... 169 Bibliography ....................................................................................... 173 Index ................................................................................................... 221

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. The Aegean, showing the main region and islands ......................... xix Figure 2. Suggested chronology and synchronism for the Bronze Age Aegean................................................................................................... xxv Figure 3. Neolithic sites mentioned in the text................................................. 3 Figure 4. Key sites of the Grotta-Pelos culture and Kampos group .................. 5 Figure 5. Key sites and artifact distribution in the Early Bronze II Aegean ..... 7 Figure 6. Distribution of Phylakopi I culture sites ......................................... 12 Figure 7. Key sites of the late MBA and early LBA period............................. 14 Figure 8. Ayia Irini on Kea. Plan of the Late Bronze Age town..................... 15 Figure 9. The town of Phylakopi in the Late Bronze Age.............................. 16 Figure 10. Sea level rise since the last glacial maximum .................................. 21 Figure 11. Late Minoan seal depicting a vessel under sail................................ 22 Figure 12. Windrose data from Melos............................................................. 24 Figure 13. Prehistoric rigging .......................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Visibility of the land from the sea.................................................. 28 Figure 15. Pollen core sites mentioned in the text .......................................... 30 Figure 16. Rainfall (mm) and hydrology in the Cyclades ............................... 34 Figure 17. Interannual variability of rainfall on Melos ................................... 35 Figure 18. Yields of wheat, barley, and lentil in coastal Thessaly between 1969/70 and 1977/8 ................................................................................ 45 Figure 19. Composition of Faunal Assemblages from select Middle and Late Bronze Age sites.............................................................................. 47 Figure 20. The Aegean, showing key sites mentioned in the text................... 75 Figure 21. The town of Phylakopi in the Late Bronze Age with Renfrew’s excavation trenches indicated.................................................................. 76 Figure 22. Melian fabrics ................................................................................. 79

vii

viii

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 23. Development of the three local fabrics through time .................... 80 Figure 24. Fabrics and the shapes for which they were used .......................... 82 Figure 25. Shapes and surface treatments at Phylakopi................................... 83 Figure 26. Development of local wheelmade/-shaped pottery through time . 85 Figure 27. Development of wheelmade/-shaped production by fabric........... 88 Figure 28. Schematic representation of the pottery production at Phylakopi................................................................................................ 94 Figure 29. Conical cup measurements........................................................... 102 Figure 30. Development of Minoan imports through time .......................... 105 Figure 31. Development of local and Minoanising shapes through time...... 107 Figure 32. Phylakopi. Development of all imports through time ................ 112 Figure 33. Phylakopi. Details of imports through time................................ 113 Figure 34. Development of imports at selected sites ..................................... 158 Figure 35. Presence and absence of materials at selected sites ....................... 160

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Concordance for phases at Phylakopi ............................................ xxiv Table 2. Wind data from Naxos weather station ............................................ 25 Table 3. Pollen core evidence of northern tree taxa in Bronze Age Greece ... 31 Table 4. Archaeobotanical evidence for cereals, legumes and fruits in the Bronze Age Cyclades and Crete.............................................................. 43 Table 5. Animal bone remains at selected Aegean Bronze Age sites............... 46 Table 6. Fish remains from selected Middle and Late Bronze Age sites.......... 49 Table 7. Major taxa of marine invertebrates at selected Bronze Age sites....... 51 Table 8. Average age of death at selected sites in the Bronze Age Aegean...... 53 Table 9. Average male and female height at selected Bronze Age sites ........... 55 Table 10. Diseases present in Bronze Age Greece ........................................... 56 Table 11. Dominant forming technique by shape........................................... 87 Table 12. Height stages of pottery .................................................................. 90 Table 13. Decorative motifs on Melian MC-LC I/II pottery.......................... 92 Table 14. Measurements of conical cups from Ayia Irini, Kea ....................... 99 Table 15. F-test results from Phylakopi......................................................... 100 Table 16. Comparison of variance (s2), mean in cm ( ) and coefficient of variation (CV) between Phylakopi and Ayia Irini................................ 103 Table 17. Comparing conical cups at Phylakopi and Ayia Irini ................... 104 Table 18. Functional categories of imports at Phylakopi.............................. 115 Table 19. Ayia Irini. Development of the dominant forming technique...... 118 Table 20. Ayia Irini. Distribution of imports according to functional categories............................................................................................... 122 Table 21. Functional categories of imports at Kolonna ................................ 134 Table 22. Development of dominant forming technique of Kytheran pots . 138 Table 23. Development of forming techniques at selected sites .................... 145

ix

x

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Table 24. Development of Minoan imports at selected sites......................... 146 Table 25. Functional categories of Minoan imports ..................................... 146 Table 26. Functional categories of Grey Minyan imports ............................ 147 Table 27. Functional categories of Mycenaean (LH I-LH IIA) imports........ 147 Table 28. Functional categories of various imports at selected sites ............. 150 Table 29. Diversity index .............................................................................. 156

PREFACE The island as a metaphor for boundedness and isolation either as something to be feared or desired has long been part of everyday speech (Eriksen 1993). Thus, it should come as no surprise that archaeologists and anthropologists have also become fascinated with islands. The author of this book is no exception. References to islands were common already in antiquity. They experienced a major revival during early colonialism with discoveries of hitherto uncolonized (tropical) lands (Grove 1995; Schulenburg 2003) and subsequently became a widespread motif in popular writings of the late 19th century (Loxley 1990; Peckham 2003). The emotions elicited hereby can either be negative (islands as places of isolation, fear, and danger where primitive people follow primitive practices) or positive (untouched tropical paradise beyond the shackles of modern day urban existence). Both views have found expression in literature, radio, and television. Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1954) captures the fearful view of islands magnificently by demonstrating how isolation from society’s morality and rules transforms a group of British schoolboys into savages. In contrast, Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719), stranded on an uninhabited island, learns to adapt to his isolation without ‘succumbing’ to primitivism. Modern reality TV shows have made use of the isolation and perceived hardship or danger associated with island living by locating the competitors on remote islands (e.g. Survivors on the island of Pulau Tiga near Indonesia and Castaway on Taransay in the Outer Hebrides, UK). Isolation as punishment is a major factor in the use of islands as places of imprisonment or exile: Napoleon, for example, was banished to Elba and St Helena, while members of the Italian mafia are still sent to exile on the islands of Linosa and Asinara (King 1993). xi

xii

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

At the same time, there “still remains a fascination for islands as tropical paradises, perhaps a Utopian ideal, where one could escape the rigours of urban existence” (Rainbird 1999: 219). The most famous example of this genre is probably de Vere Stacpoole’s The Blue Lagoon (1908), closely followed by Alex Garland’s The Beach (1996). However, the stories also highlight that such a paradise does not come without great costs. Without doubt, it is this positive image of islands that appeals to so many of us when we are studying holiday brochures which offer a stress-free lifestyle in unpolluted and romantic surroundings on our chosen island paradise (Baum 1997). This allure of the island is maintained even when the island is located in more temperate climates or is only a short ferry drive away; the physical removal from the mainland and all stresses associated with it appears to be sufficient to create the perception of separateness and escape (Baum 1997; King 1993; Lockhart 1997). Our modern view of islands as insular places is ultimately derived from principles developed in the context of biological studies first formulated by Darwin and by Wallace. Both scholars came independently to the conclusion that islands are advantageous places for the study of general evolutionary and ecological processes as islands were isolated closed systems and enjoyed ‘light natural selection’, resulting in fewer animal or plant species, less competition and, not infrequently, endemic species (Darwin 1859; Wallace 1869, 1892). Founded on NeoDarwinian approaches, MacArthur and Wilson’s seminal book The Theory of Island Biogeography investigates the factors involved in the colonization and subsequent evolutionary development of animal and plant species on islands. The authors argued that the potential of islands lay in their convenient laboratory-like experimental conditions— “a simple microcosm of the seemingly infinite complexity of continental and oceanic biogeography”—such as variation in size or shape, boundedness, and degree of isolation (MacArthur & Wilson 1967: 3). They considered their conclusions not exclusive to island environments, but saw them as models for ecological processes in general as most ecosystems (e.g. forests, streams, caves, tide pools) were surrounded by different types of vegetation. Since publication, the models formulated by MacArthur and Wilson have undergone modification

PREFACE

xiii

and elaboration (Diamond & May 1981; Simberloff 1974; Williamson 1981). On the basis that humans are, ultimately, also animals and are thus subject to similar constraints as other living organisms when establishing themselves on an island (Cherry 1981: 64), many anthropologists had begun to refer to islands as laboratories in the 1950s and 1960s (for a detailed summary see Terrell, Hunt & Gosden 1997: 156– 163). However, it was only in the 1970s that Evans introduced the concept of ‘islands as laboratories’ into archaeological discourse (1973, 1977). He argued that islands could function as small-scale experiments for cultural processes in general as they are clearly bounded and relatively isolated entities governed by fewer variables. For example, the limited range of resources available on islands allows imported products to be distinguished easily. Regarding human behaviour, isolation leads to development of endemic traits, such as exaggerated ceremonial rituals. Still, Evans acknowledged the crucial importance of cultural attitudes towards the sea and outside lands in determining the degree of an island’s insularity. The concept of ‘islands as laboratories’ has been influential and long-lasting both in archaeology and anthropology (where it is experiencing a small revival after two decades of critique), and many scholars have perceived island societies as closed and bounded systems (e.g. Clark & Terrell 1978; Fitzhugh 1997; Fitzhugh & Hunt 1997; Fosberg 1963; Friedman 1981; Goldman 1957; Kirch 1980a, 1980b; Mead 1957; Sahlins 1957, 1958; Suggs 1961; Terrell, Miller & Roe 1977; Vayda & Rappaport 1963). Spate captured this approach so poignantly when he asserted that the islands of the Pacific as “so splendidly splittable into Ph.D topics” (quoted in Kirch 1986: 2). Archaeologists working in the eastern Mediterranean were no different from their contemporaries working on Pacific islands, and several survey designs made explicit use of the concept of ‘islands as laboratories’. The Melos survey, for example, regarded the island as a clearly defined area equipped with limited resources, “facilitating a systemic approach which permits a clear distinction between interactions within the system and those with neighbouring systems operating across its boundaries” (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982: 1). Indebtedness to Evans was made very apparent also in the publication of the Northern Keos survey where it was argued that “[i]slands have clearly defined

xiv

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

and relatively unchanging boundaries that delimit a natural area which can be expected to behave to some extent as a unified cultural unit. […] Similarly, islands lend themselves to the relatively objective operational definition of both population and available resources. […] Many authors have emphasized the laboratory-like conditions of comparative research in insular settings; and where… there exists the possibility of observing the development of discrete yet related polities and of studying the long-term effects of differences among them in size, position, environment, natural resources, and so on” (Cherry, Davis & Mantzourani 1991: 9). Scholars involved in a recent biogeographical revival, however, have taken on board many of the criticisms levelled at the concept. Islands are no longer viewed as closed, but semi-closed systems. Environmental and ecological variables are still regarded as exerting constraints on societies, but they are regarded as non-deterministic. Finally, the appropriateness of generalizations about different island contexts has been questioned. Biogeography is now looked upon as a heuristic device which allows examination of the relevance of geography, ecology, climate, and biology on human behaviour (Fitzhugh & Hunt 1997; King 1993). Indeed, few scholars would deny the potential of human biogeography in understanding the parameters involved in human colonization (but see Bowdler 1995), though its application to cultural change is doubtful. However, despite the perceptive persuasiveness and simplicity of the ‘island as laboratories’ concept, most scholars have come to the conclusion that humans do not act like animal or plant populations, and the island model was criticised and rejected in most anthropological and (to a lesser degree) archaeological circles (e.g. Bethel 2002; Bowdler 1995; Broodbank 2000a; Peckham 2003; Spriggs 1997; Terrell 1997; Terrell, Hunt & Gosden 1997). The reason for the rejection lies in the recognition that no island inhabited by humans is a closed system that exists in isolation. As regards flora and fauna, islands are indeed more closed off than continental habitats. Generally speaking, fewer species live on islands than on an equally sized patch on the continent; more importantly, the species that are represented are those that encounter fewer barriers to dispersal than more land-based types. These differences are based on biological features and thus relatively stable (Diamond 1977; MacArthur & Wil-

PREFACE

xv

son 1967; Whittaker 1998; Williamson 1981). However, there is no reason to assume that humans would make do with the resources available to them locally and the import of foodstuff was probably a more regular practice than commonly imagined as evidenced on the Greek islands of Aigina and Pseira for the classical and prehistoric period respectively (Betancourt & Banou 1991; Figueira 1981; Horden & Purcell 2000: 119). That interaction and contact was key to island living and that ‘pristine isolation’ probably never existed with regard to human populations is demonstrated by ethnographic, archaeological, and experimental data which point to the existence of regular contacts with neighbouring regions even in remote locales, such as the island of Mauritius, northeast Amazonia, and Australia (Eriksen 1993; summaries by Broodbank 2000a; Kuklick 1999; Patton 1996; Rainbird 1999). The relative ease and confidence with which island communities could interact with one another has been further demonstrated by experimental archaeology and computer modelling in the Pacific and the Mediterranean (Finney 1994; Irwin 1992; Lewis 1972; Tzala 1989). While contact was the norm, some islands nevertheless chose to be more isolated than others (e.g. prehistoric Malta and Cyprus: Broodbank 2000a) and we should therefore conceptualise insularity as manmade, relative and in constant flux; as such it can be used as a means to express facets of individual or group identity (Eriksen 1993; Rainbird 1999: 230). In accordance, island communities should not be considered as either connected or isolated, but rather as being placed somewhere along a spectrum ranging from complete isolation (e.g. Easter Island; generally perceived to have been the most isolated island) to complete integration with the outside world (e.g. Manhattan). Movement in either direction is possible and may be slow or rapid, gradual or in jumps, and may not necessarily follow the same direction (Broodbank 2000a: 10).

ABOUT THIS BOOK This book is about cultural contact between island communities that lived in the Cyclades during the late Middle and early Late Bronze Age (Figure 1). It advocates a rethinking of long-held beliefs and problematic models in relation to Cycladic island archaeology through an investigation of pottery assemblages from several sites. Static, determinis-

xvi

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tic models of insularity and contact are contrasted with complex, flexible, and culturally determined perspectives which acknowledge the ability of island communities to consciously fashion their worlds and make choices about the nature and degree of interaction with their neighbours. As a result, material culture will be shown to play an active role in the establishment and negotiation of island identities vis à vis other cultural units; for instance, Minoanisation of the Cyclades is no longer viewed as the inevitable outcome of proximity to and contact with a culturally superior Crete but can now be understood as a deliberate strategy; one that differed from community to community and involved local imitations and imports from a variety of regions. This view is given additional support by a reassessment of maritime transport which undermines the common notion of islands as isolated, essentially self-sufficient and consequently peripheral units; isolation as well as interaction can be consciously fashioned by islanders and resultant relations should be understood as cultural constructs. Islanders are thus perceived as actively involved in the creation of their worlds rather than merely reacting to outside influences. In order to explore interaction, I have chosen to focus my analysis on pottery. Ceramics have been favoured over other finds because of their advantageous deposition, preservation, and excavation conditions in the Aegean. First, they were produced and discarded in abundance on all sites. They are therefore ideally suited for statistically-based, comparative analyses. Secondly, local ceramics can readily be distinguished from imported ones by their clay and by their fabric composition. The distinctiveness of geological profiles in the Aegean enables us to identify the provenance of these imports at least in broad terms (e.g. Cycladic, Dodecanesian, Cretan). Third, both local and imported vases come in a variety of shapes, wares, and decorative features, resulting from different production decisions and consumer choices, thus permitting an in-depth statistical analysis of local preferences. The selection of pottery assemblages for this comparative study was strongly influenced by the need for broad temporal and geographical coverage—wherever possible, spanning the period of increasing Minoanisation across the Southern Aegean between MC and LC II. While the main emphasis of this study is on ceramic assemblages from the Cyclades and Kythera, evidence from other sites is also drawn

PREFACE

xvii

upon to clarify issues. Such a comparative approach provides the analyst with many variables to compare against each other. In the process, similarities and dissimilarities become more easily recognizable. Drawing on several assemblages—each with its particular research design and objectives, different procedures of recovery and discard, as well as different methods of reconstruction, preservation, and storage of the recovered pottery (Berg 2000)—it was important to study one complete assemblage. This assemblage would function as the main reference point for the less well preserved and less fully retained assemblages. Renfrew’s 1974 to 1977 excavations at Phylakopi on Melos provided me with such an assemblage. I studied approximately 78,000 complete pots or fragments in total. Of these, 75,036 came from Phylakopi (Melos), 1 379 from Ayia Irini (Kea), 438 from Mikre Vigla (Naxos), 249 from Paroikia (Paros), and 1,214 from Kastri (Kythera). Material from Kolonna on Aigina was unfortunately inaccessible at the time and analysis is founded on published reports. Due to ongoing work, pottery from Akrotiri on Thera will only be drawn on for comparative purposes. Due to the varying quality of data and the lack of reliable statistics for most of the sites, quantitative results were accorded less significance than the qualitative analysis when making comparisons between different assemblages. Unfortunately, at the time of writing the excavation report of Phylakopi had not yet been published (Renfrew 2007). In some cases, permission had been granted to make reference to the unpublished chapters, though some data remained inaccessible. The imminent publication of the excavations will undoubtedly shed further light on the workings of the settlement. Qualitative comparisons become particularly important once the analysis moves beyond ceramics to incorporate other materials, such as stone, metal, and exotica, which are not present in large enough numbers to permit statistical analysis. The book is divided into two broad sections: the first section, encompassing Chapters 1 to 3, examines the historical, physical, and 1

The chronological sequence was obtained by means of correspondence and cluster analysis (see Berg 2000: Chapter 4; cf. Davis & Cherry 1984, who used multidimensional scaling).

xviii

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

theoretical background and approaches to interaction between and beyond the Cyclades, in particular the vexing question of ‘Minoanisation’. Founded on the analysis of pottery assemblages—most prominently that of Phylakopi—Chapters 4 to 6 provide new perspectives on cultural interaction patterns in the Bronze Age Aegean. To achieve this, the last three chapters move progressively from the local context to the wider regional picture. A brief history of the Cycladic islands and their pattern of interaction are provided in Chapter 1. Given current evidence, the Cyclades were first exploited in the Upper Palaeolithic; however, substantial colonization initially occurred in the Late Neolithic with most islands settled by the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Throughout their history, people travelled and built up exchange networks that reached beyond individual islands. It was only with the emergence of the Minoan palaces in the early Middle Bronze Age and increasing evidence for Minoan cultural influence on many of the islands that some scholars have postulated a loss of independence. The key environmental and technological factors of island life are the topic of Chapter 2. Sea-level changes, seafaring, climate, soils, water and erosion, agriculture and husbandry, and health factors are investigated in order to understand their impact on island communities and contextualise the choices they made. While these factors set the boundaries within which life takes place, none of them could be shown to be environmentally deterministic for life on a Bronze Age island. Culture change in the Cyclades has conventionally been considered with reference to Minoan Crete, and the escalating presence of Minoan objects and local imitations has been called ‘Minoanisation’. Chapter 3 traces the history of approaches to Minoanisation and critiques popular models, such as Davis and Cherry’s ‘Western String’, Wiener’s ‘Versailles effect’, and Branigan’s colony classifications, for promoting a unicausal, unidirectional, and undifferentiated view of cultural interaction. To remedy this situation, it is important to acknowledge the active involvement of the islanders in the acculturation process. By rejecting and accepting non-local features each community negotiated its own degree of Minoanisation.

PREFACE

xix

Figure 1. The Aegean, showing the main regions and islands

Anchored in the belief that interpretations of contact situations need to be founded on comprehensive analysis of local contexts rather than universal models, Chapter 4 thus presents an examination of the pottery production at Phylakopi and the impact Minoan shapes, forming techniques and decorative styles exerted upon it. In addition to Minoan vessels, imports from other regions also reached Phylakopi, Ayia Irini on Kea, Paroikia on Paros, Mikre Vigla

xx

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

on Naxos, Kolonna on Aigina, and Kastri on Kythera (Chapter 5). However, the choices made with regard to type and range of imports as well as technologies were diverse and complex. It will be argued that the observed patterns most likely reflect underlying socio-political attitudes and customs, or possibly even conscious strategies. The reason that pottery is a useful medium of communication lies in its ability to function as a sub-elite object. Imports and imitations thereby allow societies that cannot gain access to the elite sphere of exchange to participate in the consumption of objects and foods that are associated with exotic lands and knowledge. In this context, Minoanisation, just like subsequent Mycenaeanization and preceding Middle Helladic influence, is considered merely a phase within long-standing and everchanging acquisition patterns of Cycladic communities. That Cycladic settlements were, generally speaking, unable to access the elite sphere of exchange is argued in Chapter 6. An analysis of ceramic, metal, and exotic imports indicates that most settlements had a wide range of contacts but were unable to attract exotic imports. Thus, this work highlights the great divide between local Cycladic and regional Aegean-wide patterns of exchange. Despite their inability to tap into the sphere of international elite exchange, communities were nevertheless able to participate effectively in local exchange. While affected by Minoan influence, this influence was not overwhelming and homogenous but selective and diverse—and ultimately determined by settlements’ socio-political preferences. With so many themes being touched upon, this book can be read in many ways: for those interested in island archaeology, it can provide a case study in socially negotiated interaction and seclusion. For those interested in material culture, the analysis of the pottery production at Phylakopi will provide a detailed analysis of a unique site which is hoped to complement the excavation report. For those interested in issues of cultural influence, Minoanisation or the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’, this book offers a critique of earlier approaches and proposes a new perspective on contact situations. In the end, however, the book is an attempt to write a history of interaction between Cycladic communities and Crete from the late Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze II periods which acknowledges that the Cycladic people were ultimately in charge of their own destiny.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The doctoral dissertation from which this book derives was researched under the supervision of Todd Whitelaw and Sophia Voutsaki. I thank them for their guidance and assistance. Further I thank my examiners, Colin Renfrew and the late Elizabeth Schofield, both for a stimulating discussion and for permitting access to their material (Phylakopi and Ayia Irini respectively). The following scholars also gave kind permission to access their material and/or discussed the results with me: Robin Barber (Melos, Naxos), Nicolas Coldstream (Kythera), Jack Davis (Kea, Melos), Olga Hadjianastasiou (Naxos), Stephan Hiller (Aigina), George Huxley (Kythera), Imme Kilian-Dirlmeier (Aigina), Wolf-Dietrich and Barbara Niemeier (Miletus), Toula Marketou (Rhodes, Kos), Marisa Marthari (Thera), John Overbeck (Paros, Kea). Several institutions have supported my research in a multitude of ways: at the University of Cambridge, the Faculty of Classics, the Department of Archaeology, and St. John’s College. At the University of Manchester, the School of Art History and Archaeology; and in Greece, the British School at Athens, as well as the museum guards on the various islands. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the University of Manchester in the form of a sabbatical and innumerable inter-library loan vouchers. British Academy Small Grant SG34091 provided the opportunity to cast a second glance over much of the assemblage and explore related questions. With this book substantially modified from its original doctoral source, I wish to express my gratitude to the following scholars for advice, information and creative discussion on specific issues: Robert Arnott, Cyprian Broodbank, Ian Lilley, Jennifer Moody, and Cemal Pulak. In particular, I wish to thank Robin Barber, Stuart Campbell, Chris Fowler and Oliver Rackham, for extensive comments and suggestions on advanced drafts. A thanks goes also to Caroline Wilkinson xxi

xxii

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

who prepared many of the figures and proofread several of the chapters. Since the completion of the original thesis, some of the data and argument have been presented in journals and conference proceedings. An earlier draft of the ‘Organization of the Melian pottery production’ section in Chapter 4 has appeared in the journal Antiquity under the title ‘The Meanings of Standardization: Conical Cups in the Late Bronze Age Aegean’ (Berg 2004) and a summary of the findings of Chapter 4 entitled ‘Meaning in the Making: The Potter’s Wheel at Phylakopi, Melos (Greece)’ has been presented in the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (2007a). An extended version of ‘The sea’ section in Chapter 2 will appear in the Proceedings of the Mediterranean Crossroads Conference under the title ‘Aegean Bronze Age Seascapes— A Case Study in Maritime Movement, Contact and Interaction’ (2007b). Friends and family supported me during the gestation of this book. Tragically, Jonathan Leiboff, a dear friend, meticulous proofreader, and insightful critic of the original PhD thesis, has since passed away; this book is therefore dedicated to him.

ABBREVIATIONS AND DATING CONVENTIONS The following abbreviations are used (see also Figure 2):

Aegean-wide periods: LN FN EBA MBA LBA

Late Neolithic Final Neolithic Early Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age

Regionally specific: Cyclades: EC MC LC

Early Cycladic Middle Cycladic Late Cycladic

Crete: EM MM LM

Early Minoan Middle Minoan Late Minoan

Southern Greek mainland: EH Early Helladic MH Middle Helladic LH Late Helladic Dates, centuries, millennia and other time-spans are given in calendar years BC or AD unless otherwise specified. xxiii

xxiv

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Chronological sequences of Phylakopi (Melos): Mackenzie Pre-City First City Second City early Third City late Third City

Renfrew Phylakopi O Phylakopi I Phylakopi II Phylakopi III Phylakopi IV

Phases Phase A (A1+A2) Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Table 1. Concordance for phases at Phylakopi

Dating EC MC early LC late LC

ABBREVIATIONS AND DATING CONVENTIONS

xxv

Figure 2. Suggested chronology and synchronism for the Bronze Age Aegean (adapted from Barber 1987; Manning 1999; Warren & Hankey 1989)

1. ISLANDS IN TIME A brief historical overview is presented in this chapter to set the scene for an in-depth engagement with several key Cycladic sites during the Middle and early Late Bronze Age in later chapters and provide a socio-historical context for the processes and interaction patterns discussed in the later chapters.

THE CYCLADES IN THE NEOLITHIC Unlike the Greek mainland and Crete, permanent settlement in the Cyclades was established only relatively late in the Neolithic (Cherry 1990; Davis 1992; Davis et al. 2001). On the other hand, Melian obsidian found in the upper Palaeolithic layers in Franchthi cave indicates that visitation and exploitation of the Cyclades was already under way in the 11th millennium BC (Perlès 1987). While obsidian is the most visible material, the use of kaolin from Melos for incised patterns on ceramics can be dated to the 6th millennium BC and the extraction of marble from Paros and Naxos to the 5th millennium BC. Mining of emery from Naxos and of metals from Siphnos and Kythnos appears to have begun in the 4th millennium BC (Kouka 2004). Despite such evidence of early contact, the Cyclades were first colonised in the Late Neolithic (c. 5200–4200 BC) to Final Neolithic (c. 4200–3200 BC). This development should probably be seen as part of a more general expansion of settlements into marginal areas. However, new findings may overturn this long-held notion: traces of a permanent settlement at Maroulas on Kythnos may indicate that selective colonization of the Cyclades had already begun in the Mesolithic (c. 8200–7800 BC) (Sampson 1996). Regardless of the date of its inception, the colonization process undoubtedly was a prolonged one; eventually reaching its conclusion

1

2

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

in the Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age when most islands were settled (Cherry 1981, 1985, 1987, 1990). The Neolithic in the Cyclades is best known from the excavated settlement of Saliagos near Antiparos (Figure 3). Saliagos was located on a knoll on a small isthmus of southern Greater Paros and has been dated to the Late Neolithic (roughly the 5th millennium BC). The location was well chosen as inhabitants had access to arable land, a fresh water source and a bay suitable for beaching ships. Despite evidence for cereal cultivation and animal husbandry, the settlement’s true occupation was the exploitation of marine resources, as is indicated by the large number of tuna bones found at the site which add up to about half of all animal bones (Evans & Renfrew 1968). Other known sites with contemporary Saliagos-type material are Vouni and Koukounaries on Greater Paros, Grotta and the Cave of Zas on Naxos, Akrotiri on Thera, Phtelia and Mavrispilia on Mykonos, Minoa on Amorgos, and several large lithic scatters on Melos (Figure 3). While several settlements exist, most sites are surface scatters of sherds or lithics that are likely to represent seasonal production sites rather than permanent settlements. The distribution of these settlements and scatters hints at a concentration of Saliagos sites in the southeast Cyclades. Broodbank suggests that this is a reflection of the colonizers’ desire to select largeto-medium islands with greater habitat diversity rather than smaller islands close to the mainland (2000a). The proliferation of surface scatters indicates that people visited and utilised many areas on each island, but did not necessarily choose to settle there (Cherry & Torrence 1982). When settlements were established, they appear to have been long-lived and relatively large, with up to 70–150 inhabitants. Their location near bays indicates the importance of marine resources, and, at the same time, facilitated access to long-distance exchange networks. The settlement of Kephala on Kea is radiocarbon dated to 3600 BC and thus belongs to the Final Neolithic (Figure 3). The size of its population has been estimated to about 50 people. Imports of Melian obsidian, marble and metal objects, as well as similarities in pottery styles testify to diverse contacts with the wider world. The accompanying cemetery is prominently located at the base of a headland and consists of about 40 graves (Coleman 1977; Whitelaw 1991b). Final Neolithic material has also been recognised at the Cave of Zas on Naxos,

ISLANDS IN TIME

3

Paroikia on Paros, Ayios Sostis and Akrotiraki on Siphnos, Akrotiri on Thera, Phtelia on Mykonos, Paoura, Ayia Irini (Period I—later than Kephala or Paoura) and Sykamias on Kea, and Ayia Marina, Kastri, Rethi and Strophylas on Andros (Figure 3). Strophylas stands out among FN sites as it represents a large and prosperous settlement of ca. 25 ha surrounded by a double fortification wall. Its location opposite the Lavrion metal mines is likely to have contributed to its wealth and status (Televantou 2004). Unlike Saliagos culture sites, there is now less reliance on seasonal resources. Instead, coastal villages of moderate size (0.7 ha for Kephala, 1.75–2.0 ha for Paoura and Kastri, 25 ha for Strophylas) exist practicing mixed farming and animal husbandry (including the utilisation of dairy products). Intramural burials are now replaced with clearly demarcated extramural cemeteries (Renfrew 1972).

Figure 3. Neolithic sites mentioned in the text

4

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

While the meagre settlement evidence once allowed Cherry to argue that many of the Cycladic islands were colonized only in the 3rd millennium BC (1981, 1990), this view must now be revised in light of the steadily increasing number of Neolithic and some earlier settlement sites. Nevertheless, by the Early Bronze Age the Cyclades had experienced an explosion in settlement foci and a rise in population resulting in the colonization even of the smaller islands.

THE CYCLADES IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE The Grotta-Pelos culture is dated to the Final Neolithic and Early Cycladic I period and thus bridges this crucial period of in-filling the landscape (Figure 4). Unlike the preceding Kephala culture, islanders have now abandoned community-based village-life for a dispersed settlement pattern with family-based farmsteads or small hamlets as the main functional units (Bintliff 1977). The islands of Melos and Naxos provide the best evidence so far. Stratigraphic evidence from Phylakopi on Melos (Phase A1) is scant. However, settlement-cemetery pairs (e.g. Pelos Pyrgaki-Pelos, Samari-Kalogries) give a good impression of the dispersed nature of habitation in this period. On Melos, 14 sites can be dated to the Grotta-Pelos culture, 10 of which have been designated as settlements (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982). Carefully constructed house walls are visible at Grotta on Naxos. A further settlement was probably associated with the cemetery of Lakkoudes (Dalongeville & Rougemont 1993). Grotta-Pelos material has also been discovered at Markiani on Amorgos, the Cave of Zas on Naxos, Ayia Irini on Kea, and Akrotiri on Thera (Sotirakopoulou 1999, 2004; Wilson 1999; Zachos 1999). Overall, there are a large number of widely dispersed sites, with a preference for small settlement-cemetery pairs indicative of familybased units. Cemeteries are generally small and rarely exceed 20 cist graves. Only three have up to 90 inhumations. Broodbank (2000a) argues that few of these sites were in use for longer than 100 years and therefore designate a more transient use of the landscape. Such shortlived habitation patterns and small population sizes must have increased reliance on social networks and external alliances to buffer against food shortages and insure the survival of the family. The depo-

ISLANDS IN TIME

5

Figure 4. Key sites of the Grotta-Pelos culture and Kampos group

sition of marble figurines and vessels, pottery, and metal objects in graves is likely to be a reflection of these intra-Cycladic networks. Material from the Kampos group signals the transition from EC I to II (Figure 4). The existence of settlements is best indicated by the presence of cemeteries, such as Tsikniades and Ayioi Anargyroi on Naxos as well as funerary contexts on Paros, Amorgos, and Epano Kouphonisi (Karantzali 2004; Philaniotou 2004). Small finds are our first indicator of increased interaction between the Cyclades and neighbouring areas. Cycladic objects (including the first ‘frying-pans’ and Kampos group bottles) and practices have come to light at Iasos on the Carian coast, Manika in Euboia, Ayios Kosmas and Tsepi in Attica, Pyrgos cave, Kyparissi cave, Poros-Katsambas, Ayia Photia, and

6

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Gournes on Crete (Levi 1961–2, 1965–6; Marinatos 1970a–c; Mylonas 1959; Sampson 1985; Wilson, Day & Dimopoulou 2004). In light of extensive similarities in material culture, scholars have suggested that several of these sites may represent Cycladic colonies (for a summary of the debate see Karantzali 1996, 2004). The most persuasive candidate for a colony is Ayia Photia where both rock-cut tombs and grave goods closely parallel burial customs found at Agrilia on Epano Kouphonisi (Zapheiropoulou 2004). Based on the emergence of the Erimonisia as an important network nodal point in EC II, Broodbank has interpreted the increased desire for long-distance voyages and contacts in the Kampos phase as one of the strategies employed by the Erimonisia to improve its position within the Cyclades (2000a). The EC II period is associated with the Keros-Syros culture horizon and continues developments set in motion in the preceding periods (Figure 5). The number of settlements continues to rise resulting in a virtually complete colonization of even the smaller islands. Most settlements as well as their associated cemeteries are small and thus indicative of family units that remain inhabited over longer periods of time. Alongside these hamlets existed several large settlements, including Daskaleio-Kavos on Keros, Chalandriani-Kastri on Syros, Ayia Irini on Kea, Grotta-Aplomata on Naxos, Koukounaries on Paros, and Skarkos on Ios. Further, as yet unconfirmed, large settlements may have existed on Thera (Akrotiri) and Melos (Phylakopi, Phase A2). Daskaleio-Kavos is a large settlement (population is estimated at 100–300 people) which imported pottery, obsidian, marble, and metal objects from elsewhere in the Cyclades. It is likely that the different settlement foci were not used contemporaneously but were a result of relocation within the wider settlement area (Broodbank 2000a, 2000b). North of the settlement, a ‘special deposit’ brought to light a large number of marble artefacts, pottery fragments and other small finds. Among these is the ‘Keros Hoard’ to which c. 350 marble figurine fragments have been attributed. While scholars agree that the regular deposition of marble artefacts and the import of other goods to the settlement are indicators of the site’s involvement in maritime exchange, they disagree on the function of the special deposit. Because of

ISLANDS IN TIME

7

Figure 5. Key sites and artifact distribution in the Early Bronze II Aegean

the exceptional accumulation of wealth, for example, Doumas considered the deposit to have been a wealthy cemetery connected to a successful trading community (1972: 163). Renfrew, on the other hand, argued that the marble objects represent ritual depositions at a panCycladic sanctuary (1984: 27–29). More recently, Broodbank (2000a) reasoned that this cemetery was not special but merely reflected the size of the nearby settlement. While the deposited wealth in individual graves compares well with cemeteries elsewhere in the Cyclades, its consistent accumulation, he argued, is unusual and might best be explained as reflecting distinct local burial practices. With at least 600 tombs, Chalandriani-Kastri is yet another exceptionally large Cycladic cemetery. Comparing data from the 32 richest graves with the ceme-

8

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tery average indicates that several prominent individuals were able to amass a disproportionately large amount of grave goods, especially copper tweezers, copper spatulas, and clay ‘frying pans’; pottery, on the other hand, was much more common in poorer graves (Renfrew 1972: 373–375; Tsountas 1899). With no settlement site found in association with it, Hekman originally proposed that Chalandriani functioned as a communal burial ground for Syros (1994). However, recent trials have indicated that a sizable settlement was located near the cemetery (Marthari 1998). Ayia Irini (Period II) has substantial remains of well-built houses, with indications of town planning. The population is estimated to have been around 150–300 people. Its pottery has close parallels with Attica and almost 30% of the ceramic assemblage consists of imports, most likely of Cycladic origin. Far-reaching contacts are further attested by litharge from silver-rich lead and arsenic copper ores from Lavrion and Cycladic sources (Wilson 1999). The extent of the settlement at Grotta-Aplomata has not yet been confirmed, but the nearby cemetery with its many marble objects makes it likely that such a settlement was large and prosperous (Hadjianastasiou 1989). Excavations at Koukounaries have uncovered a medium-sized settlement spread over three plateaus with evidence of retaining walls, domestic equipment, symbolic artefacts as well as much pottery and lithics (Schilardi 1976–1991). Skarkos on Ios is estimated to have extended in size to 1.1ha. The densely packed houses, some of which had two stories, were arranged in a concentric manner. The occurrence of imported pottery (including sauceboats), obsidian, bronze and lead objects, and marble figurines indicates that this was a prosperous village with local and regional exchange contacts (Marthari 2004). This period is characterised by a greater flow of objects between all regions within the Aegean, no doubt facilitated by the existence of longboats which permitted speedy travel at a greatly increased daily travel range (Broodbank 1989, 2000a). Cycladic finds in Crete, Thessaly, Locris, Boeotia, Aegina, the Peloponnese, western Anatolia, the Dodecanese, and the Ionian Sea as well as imports or borrowings from neighbouring areas were perceived as representing a culturally homogenous entity, termed the ‘international spirit’ (Renfrew 1972: 451– 455). While Renfrew recognised that this homogeneity is merely a veneer overlaying regional traditions, it nevertheless bears testimony to

ISLANDS IN TIME

9

the expansiveness of long-distance networks and the islanders’ ability to mobilise human and material resources for such trading ventures. If the quantity and quality of grave goods and imports in general is taken as a guide, then it was sites like Chalandriani-Kastri, Ayia Irini, GrottaAplomata, and Daskaleio-Kavos that, thanks to their advantageous location within the Cyclades and their large population, were able to become central network nodes and consequently accrue greater wealth. Several of the Cycladic islands had thus established themselves as central to long-distance exchange in the Aegean. The imitation of Cycladic material culture elsewhere (including the phenomenon of the ‘colonies’) could be interpreted as a prestige-enhancing strategy by outside communities (Broodbank 2000a). In late EC II we witness a reversal of fortunes: no longer do outside communities perceive Cycladic material culture and practices as prestige enhancing; instead, it is the islanders who have begun to adopt exotic practices and objects. This loss of influence is particularly noticeable in the case of Crete where no contemporary Cycladic imports have come to light. It is likely that the establishment of a Minoan colony at Kastri on Kythera foreshadows new Cretan independence in maritime matters (Broodbank 2000a). Conventionally, the appearance of eastern metals and metal objects in EC IIIA, the ‘Kastri Group’ with its Anatolian-derived pottery shapes (e.g. depas amphikypellon, tankard, bell cup), fortification walls around some Cycladic settlements, and the desertion of most settlements by the end of the Early Bronze Age was linked to invaders or refugees from the (north) eastern Aegean (Figure 5) (Barber & MacGillivray 1980; J. L. Caskey 1986; Doumas 1988). However, several scholars have convincingly argued that these phenomena are neither uniform nor necessarily contemporary and should therefore no longer be considered as a ‘package’: First, the ‘Kastri Group’ is by no means a homogenous group of pottery types but was adopted unevenly across different sites. In addition, it only made up a small percentage of any pottery assemblage. Second, the appearance of Anatolian pottery and eastern metals can be explained in terms of the prestige they confer upon the user/owner. Third, while fortifications did appear, many sites, however, remain unfortified. More importantly, neither fortifications nor pottery are necessarily contemporary; they should therefore

10

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

not be utilised as the sole dating criterion for a site or individual deposits. Instead of being a chronological marker, the phenomenon of the ‘Kastri Group’ might be understood as characterising the introduction of imported cultural elements, such as vessel shapes, decorative modes, and forming techniques over a longer period of time (Angelopoulou 2004; Broodbank 2000a: 309–319; Davis 1992: 754). EC III is a time of change in the Aegean. A dramatic decrease in the number of settlements and the disappearance of the ‘corridor houses’ in the southern Greek mainland signals widespread population collapse and loss of social complexity. That such disruption and collapse was not universal is apparent at Aegina, Skyros, Samos and possibly Kos and Rhodes where settlement continued without disruption. The most unaffected region, however, is Crete where we can witness an uninterrupted development, ultimately leading to the emergence of the palaces in MM IB. Life in the Cyclades was also severely disrupted. Many settlements were abandoned; among them several of the large trading sites, such as Chalandriani-Kastri, Daskaleio-Kavos, Skarkos, Ayia Irini, and GrottaAplomata (the latter two were later reoccupied). Climate change, overexploitation of the land, epidemics, invaders, and world-systemic disruption have all been proposed as potential causes, but Broodbank regards an accumulation of local changes, such as competition between network nodes resulting in local warfare and localised collapse, as equally likely (2000a: 321–326).

THE TRANSITIONAL PHYLAKOPI I CULTURE Developments during the Phylakopi I culture (dated to the EC IIIB period and thus contemporary with early Middle Minoan and Middle Helladic; cf. Rutter 1983, 1984) are best discernable at the site that gave it its name (Figure 6). Pottery distribution at Phylakopi (I-ii/iii, Phase B) indicates that the settlement had become substantial in size. Architectural remains are not extensive but seem to anticipate the more regular Middle Bronze Age arrangement. However, houses remain small and rectangular, and any evidence of a central authority is missing. Cist burials are now superseded by extramural rock-cut tombs designed for multiple burials and by intramural jar burials for children. While there are altogether nine known sites on Melos, Phylakopi is

ISLANDS IN TIME

11

emerging as the dominant centre on the island, foreshadowing complete nucleation in MC (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982). Limited evidence of this period is also discernible at other southern Cycladic sites: Paroikia on Paros, Akrotiri and Phtellos on Thera, Mikre Vigla, Kalandos and the Cave of Zas on Naxos, Plaka on Andros and Kastro on Siphnos, and Ayia Irini on Kea (Period IV) which was probably reinhabited towards the end of the period. A trend away from dispersed small-scale living units towards nucleation, so apparent on Melos, is visible also on other islands and signals a re-emergence of more dominant communities. The Phylakopi I culture is recognisable by its shared pottery repertoire, including barrel jars, cup types, spouted Melian bowls, duck vases, beaked jugs, and multiple kernoi. The duck vase, in particular, has become a symbol of Aegean-wide exchange in a liquid substance (presumably olive oil). Manufacturing centres for the duck vases have been located at Aegina, Melos, Paros, and Samos, with further possible production centres on Naxos, Thera, and in the Dodecanese. The duck vase’s distribution is extensive and includes the Greek mainland and western Anatolia. Local imitations have been uncovered at Beycesultan, Troy, and Cyprus (Rutter 1985). However, imports and imitations are both missing from Crete, the southern Peloponnese, and the northern Aegean (Broodbank 2000a: fig. 119). Unlike the Keros-Syros culture where Cycladic objects exerted cultural influence far beyond their home area due to their prestige-enhancing qualities, contact with regions beyond the Cyclades appears now exclusively based on the exchange of specific commodities, such as the presumed olive oil. With Minoan Crete asserting its status ever more during the Middle Bronze Age, one could argue that this was the last phase in which the islanders were able to act as truly independent players. Probably not unrelated is the introduction of deep-hulled sailing ships at the end of the EarlyBronze Age which, in comparison with Cycladic longboats, were faster, could travel further, required a much smaller crew, and could carry heavier and bulkier cargos (see Chapter 1). Sailing ships, for example, allowed Cretan communities to by-pass the established long boat-based Cycladic exchange networks and access desirable goods directly at source. In addition to eliminating the intermediary, the new boat design must have led to a devaluation of the ideological basis of

12

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

longboat voyaging and thus contributed indirectly to the collapse of the exchange networks themselves (Brookbank 2000a: 347).

Figure 6. Distribution of Phylakopi I culture sites

Thus, at the dawn of the Cretan palaces in MM IA, Broodbank has postulated three relatively separate networks in the Aegean: The Island Network stretches horizontally from Attica via the Cyclades to the Dodecanese and the Carian coast. The Northern Aegean Network incorporates much of central and north-eastern Greece, all north Aegean islands and north-west Anatolia, and the South-Western Network is based around Crete stretching northwards and westwards towards Kythera, Laconia and the Argolid (2000a: fig. 120).

ISLANDS IN TIME

13

THE CYCLADES IN THE MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGE Several Cycladic islands have provided extensive habitation evidence of the Middle and Late Bronze Age period, the most important being Kea, Melos, Thera, and Naxos (Figure 7). Ayia Irini on Kea (Period IVVII) is characterised by extensive rebuilding and reorganization of the site (Figure 8). House A was the central building of the settlement, which developed gradually from MBA onwards. Domestic activities (weaving, storage) took place in some of the rooms (Cummer & Schofield 1984). The ‘Temple’, established early in MBA, stayed in use into Hellenistic times (Caskey 1998). The fortification wall is rebuilt on a larger scale at the beginning of Period V. Surveys have clarified that Ayia Irini was the only large settlement on the island (Cherry, Davis & Mantzourani 1991; Davis & Cherry 1990; Georgiou & Faraklas 1985). A similar nucleated habitation pattern can be observed on Melos where Phylakopi is the island’s central town (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982). The late MBA town (Phylakopi II–iii) is laid out according to a street grid. After destruction at the end of the MBA, Phylakopi (III) was rebuilt, and the ‘Mansion’ and the fortification walls were added (Figure 9) (Renfrew 1978). Recent excavations have greatly expanded our knowledge of MC Thera. It appears that Akrotiri was a substantial town already in MBA. Although its precise size remains unknown, building remains indicate that the town layout changed in the subsequent period (Nikolakopoulou et al. 2004). After at least two earthquake destructions, the town was eventually destroyed by a volcanic eruption in the mature LC I phase (Marthari 1987). Unlike Kea or Melos, there is evidence of other larger settlements on the island at this time, indicating that, despite apparent dominance of Akrotiri, the population was dispersed across the island (Aston & Hardy 1990; Davis & Cherry 1990). On Naxos, full nucleation at Grotta was only achieved in the LBA, while the MC was characterised by the existence of three sites at Grotta, Mikre Vigla, and Rizokastellia (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). At Grotta, stratified deposits have brought to light imported and local pottery of LM IB/LC II date (Hadjianastasiou 1989). The occurrence of Helladic, Minoan, and Cycladic pottery from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages at Skarkos on Ios testifies to the existence of a substantial settlement on the island (Marthari 2004).

14

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 7. Key sites of the late MBA and early LBA period

The penetration of the Island Network by Cretan objects, roughly contemporary with the construction of the first palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, and Mallia, is the earliest indication of an expansion of the South-Western Network to incorporate the Island Network. Small quantities of Cretan ceramics have been found at Phylakopi II-ii,

ISLANDS IN TIME

15

Figure 8. Ayia Irini on Kea. Plan of the Late Bronze Age town (after Cummer & Schofield 1984: plate 3)

now the dominant centre on the island. Ayia Irini (Period IV)—now re-inhabited and equipped with a fortification wall and extramural cemetery—received its first Minoan imports. Their quantities, however, were dwarfed by the more numerous Grey Minyan finds (Overbeck 1989a). While most of the pottery follows local traditions, small quantities of Minoan vessels are beginning to be found alongside the more numerous Grey Minyan (and to a lesser extent Matt-painted) pottery from the Greek mainland. The export of Cycladic objects is

16

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 9. The town of Phylakopi in the Late Bronze Age (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982: fig. 4.3; reproduction with permission from Colin Renfrew)

attested by two Cycladic White imports at Knossos which have been dated to the MM IB/II period. However, Cycladic exports will become more numerous from MM II onwards (Berg 2000: Appendix). Thus, an eastwards re-orientation of the early MBA Cretan network has taken place and does now incorporate routes running north-south between Crete and Attica through the Cyclades. Whether such re-orientation was achieved by peaceful means or by coercion is a matter of debate (see Chapter 3). With the beginning of the New Palace period, we see an increasing intensity in interaction between Crete and the neighbouring regions, including the Cyclades. Generally speaking, Minoan imports increase gradually over time, peaking in the MM III/LM IA period (Berg 2000). However, differences in this pattern can be observed in the Cyclades and will be discussed in later chapters. Local imports of Minoan shapes and designs have also become popular by LC I, not to mention other Minoanising materials, such as frescoes, loom weights, lead weights, administrative script, architectural features, and ritual symbols (Barber 1987). The eruption of the volcano on Thera towards the end of LM IA destroyed all existing settlements on the island. In addition to its (indirect) impact on Cretan palace institutions, it appears to have led to an interruption of trade between Crete and the Cyclades. Trade was probably redirected along a more western route, as is indicated by increased numbers of Cretan imports to Kastri on

ISLANDS IN TIME

17

Kythera during LM IB. As a result, the impact of Minoan-type objects (as well as Minoan imports themselves) already began to wane during LC II (Berg 2000; Mountjoy 2004). Instead, Mycenaean influence became dominant and continued to remain so until middle Late Cycladic III (Barber 1987). While some scholars have argued that the Cyclades had entered a period of relative insignificance and became peripheral to Aegean processes and events at the latest by LC I (Broodbank 2000a: 361; contributions to Hägg & Marinatos 1984; for the peripheral status of islands in general see Royle 2001), later chapters will review the evidence and put forward a different approach. First, however, Chapter 2 will provide a synthesis of environmental factors which are of importance for prehistoric Cycladic communities. In sum, this chapter has demonstrated the varied nature of interaction in the Aegean—ranging from small-scale movement to longdistance voyages, and as such undermines the assumption of islands as bounded and insular systems. Prehistory has illustrated that individual islands should no longer be considered the prime unit of analysis, as Cycladic interaction zones frequently incorporated more (or less) than one individual island. More, because Early Bronze Age longboat voyages required manpower beyond the capabilities of many smaller islands and because distances between islands are frequently smaller than traversing the length of an island, making the coast opposite the more convenient focus of interaction; less, because Middle and Late Bronze Age settlement patterns display great nucleation and discussions based on evidence from the main site may not be representative of the island as a whole.

2. ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE The history of Cycladic people inevitably involves consideration of the environmental setting in which they operated and the technological/physical constraints that impacted on their island life. It is for this reason that this chapter discusses some of the key environmental and technological factors, such as sea level, climate change, soil and water availability, diet, health, and seafaring technology. While some of these factors may present certain limits to human action, they are considered to be non-deterministic and as such do not determine the nature or extent of interaction and connectivity with the Aegean world. To complement data from the Cyclades, frequent reference will be made to other selected sites in Greece and, in the case of seafaring technology, to experimental studies.

SEA-LEVEL CHANGES Since the glacial maximum and subsequent postglacial warming, the global sea level has increased by ca. 120 m (Figure 10) (Fairbanks 1989; van Andel 1989). This sea level change had a major impact also on the Mediterranean by eliminating extensive coastal plains and increasing travel distances between islands (e.g. Jameson, Runnels & van Andel 1994: 202; Lambeck 1996; van Andel et al. 1980: 399). However, the global sea-level curve requires regional adjustments as tectonic movement resulting from the convergence of the African and Eurasian plates heavily influences sea levels in Greece. Flemming in his analysis of 175 independent sea-level data across the Aegean (including Crete, the Peloponnese, Rhodes, Turkey, and Cyprus, but excluding the Cyclades) has demonstrated that there has been considerable regional variability over the last 2000 years and that generalizations cannot be 19

20

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

drawn for locations more than 50 km apart (and possibly as little as 20 km) (1978; cf. Rapp & Kraft 1994). Both relative uplift and submergence are visible at sites without correlating in direction of movement and date (for examples see Evans & Renfrew 1968; Flemming, Czartoryska & Hunter 1973; McDonald & Rapp 1972; Moody, Rackham, & Rapp 1996; van Andel et al. 1980; Watrous et al. 1993). While there was a rapid loss of extensive shorelines between the glacial maximum (ca. 18,000 BP) at –120 m and –7 m around 5000 BP, the sea level had stabilised during the M-LBA periods. The available evidence suggests that fluctuations, if they took place, were limited to two meters above and below present sea level (Figure 10 inset). While two meters of sea level rise may have caused some communities to relocate, the mountainous profile of most islands would have insured that the available land remained relatively constant and that distances between islands did not change greatly.

THE SEA Islands are conventionally defined by their relationship with the sea (see Preface). The sea supplies food or raw materials and permits interaction with other islands and regions. Seafaring technology was well developed in Bronze Age Greece and islanders probably utilised different types of transport according to the cargo and the distance to be traversed. With artifactual evidence of seafaring technology limited, much emphasis is placed on experimental case studies and modern pilot books (for a more detailed account see Berg 2007b). Prior to the emergence of the sail, floats, rafts, and rowing boats were limited in their manoeuvrability by sea-surface currents and winds. From the end of the EBA onwards, however, large sailing ships characterised by greater speed of travel, greater day’s travel range, and greater cargo capacity came into widespread use and have been depicted on Minoan seals and sealings (Figure 11), on two sherds from Phylakopi as well as on Theran wall paintings (Casson 1971; Morgan 1988; Wachsmann 1998). Despite acknowledging some advantages, it is puzzling that the introduction of sailing ships has, in modern scholarly perception, actually led to a decrease in mobility as sailing boats are perceived to be governed by the currents and winds to the same extent as earlier sea crafts, have only a moderate directionality due to poor

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

21

tacking abilities as a result of using a square-rigged sail, and are limited in their movements due to their need for protected anchorages (Broodbank 2000: 345; Morgan 1988; Wachsmann 1998, 2000).

Figure 10. Sea level rise since the last glacial maximum. The inset depicts relative sea level curves for the southern Argolid (A), Paros (B), Argolis Gulf (C), Antikythera (D), and Moni Khrisoskalitisas, western Crete (E) (adapted from Pirazzoli 1991 and Lambeck 1996). The continuous sea level curve (F) is for Barbados (adapted from Fairbanks 1989)

22

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 11. Late Minoan seal depicting a vessel under sail. The hatches below the boat probably indicate oars (after Casson 1971: fig. 39)

Tides, currents, and winds Without doubt, prehistoric sailors took geographical conditions, predominant current, and seasonal wind patterns into consideration in order to sail under the best possible conditions—we should not expect anything else—but available ship technology and navigation skills meant that sailors could be much more flexible if they wished so; ultimately, wind and current could be used to the sailor’s advantage but neither their route nor their destination was predetermined by these environmental factors. This view is strongly supported by modern Pilot books which provide general and area specific information on tides, currents and winds: 1) The Mediterranean is virtually tideless—even spring tides only vary between 0.1 and 0.8 m—as a result, tides are considered to have little or no impact on sailing (Mediterranean Pilot 2000; Heikell 2001). 2) Likewise, currents are considered to have little impact on sailing boats—the vast majority of them do not exceed 1/2 kn. In fact, strong winds are considered a more influential factor in sailing as they can decrease, increase, halt, or even reverse currents (Mediterranean Pilot 2000). 3) It is commonly assumed that predominant winds vary in strength according to season (light winds in the summer and strong winds in the winter), resulting in a sailing season that only extends from April to October. While it is true that there are more gales and storms in the winter months, Figure 12 and Table 2 show the

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

23

overall predominance of comparatively calm conditions throughout the year—between 50 and 75% of all winds could be classified as Beaufort 1–5 and were thus excellent for sailing or rowing in summer or winter. Another common assumption, also based on the modern wind pattern, has been that predominate winds in the Aegean are southerly in winter and northerly in the summer—with obvious consequences for the direction and speed of travel (Agouridis 1997: 3–6; Barber 1987: 17–18: Morgan 1988: 162; Shaw 1990: 423). However, West and East winds also occur regularly (Figure 12 and Table 2). Ultimately, “all winds can be expected at all seasons in the Aegean”—it merely is a question of waiting for a suitable wind (Georgiou 1993: 361 emphasis in original; cf. Heikell 2001; Mediterranean Pilot 2000). If experimental archaeology (Severin 1985, 1987) and ancient literary sources (Homer Odyssey XIX 199–202) are given credence, then sailors would rarely have to wait longer than two weeks for a change in wind direction or resorted to travelling during the night when predominant winds have abated (Denham 1983: xxvi; Mediterranean Pilot 2000: no. 1.3; Heikell 2001; cf. Tzala 1989). With visibility actually much better in the Aegean during the winter months—avoiding summer haze and sea mist which may reduce visibility to three miles or less—winter-sailing is likely to have been common also in the Bronze Age (Heikell 1988: 76– 77; Mediterranean Pilot 2000: no. 1.141–2; Georgiou 1993: 362). Sails and oars In contrast to established assumptions that square-rigged sailing boats are only capable of running directly before the wind, it has been demonstrated that a reach is the safer and faster way to travel and that square-rigged sails could reduce their sail area, thus permitting sailing at a close angle to the wind and tacking manoeuvres (Georgiou 1991, 1993; Roberts 1991; Severin 1987; White 1984: 143–145) (Figure 13). Even rowing boats were not as dependent on wind and currents as is commonly assumed and were in fact capable of rowing against headwind and counter-current, travelling large distances and achieving respectable speeds (3–4 knots in calm sea and up to 12 knots under stormy conditions with the addition of a sail) (Mantzourani & Theodorou 1991: 42; Severin 1985).

24

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

25

26

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Navigation The Mediterranean Sea is comparatively easy to sail and navigate for many months of the year. In contrast to the Atlantic or even North Sea it offers virtually no tides, moderate winds and frequently clear skies (Heikell 1988; Mediterranean Pilot 2000; Morton 2001). The longest open-sea journey in the Aegean Sea is the approximate 93 km between Thera and Crete, but most of the region can be traversed by sight alone (Figure 14) and we have to assume that the ancient navigators had learned to recognise distinct landmarks that served as navigational aids. During night time or when visibility was low sailors could steer according to star or sun paths; alternatively, they could make use of current sets, water temperature, and winds to stay on course. At other times, flight patterns of land birds may guide them to land (Agouridis 1997; Lewis 1972: 137, 163–4; McGrail 1987, 1991a, b; Morton 2001; Wachsmann 1998: 300). Summary The physical environment, seafaring technology, and navigators’ skills were such that maritime interaction was easy to achieve and maintain in the Aegean. With a sail capable of tacking and jibing sailors were able to sail at an angle to the wind at any time in the year. Tides and currents had little impact on prehistoric seafaring. Given that all winds occurred throughout all seasons, unfavourable or strong winds could be accommodated by waiting for a change in direction and strength or by travelling at night when they had abated. The physical environment made navigation comparatively easy, but even on longer journeys or when travelling under unfavourable conditions, navigation skills were available to allow sailors to make their way safely to their destination. It is likely that the majority of movements were on the local scale and involved coastal travel with stopovers. The fact that the length of individual islands is often less than the distance to its closest neighbour draws attention to the intrinsic connectivity between communities from neighbouring islands (as opposed to those from the same island). More importantly, however, the above discussion highlights the relative ease and flexibility with which prehistoric travel of any distance could be undertaken (cf. Morton 2001). This is not to deny the risks

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

27

Figure 13. Prehistoric rigging: a) Reconstruction of the rigging of the Thera sailing ship (after Morgan 1988: fig. 71); b) Rigging reconstruction of a triangulated sail (after Georgiou 1991: plate 23)

28

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 14. Visibility of the land from the sea (after Horden and Purcell 2000: map 9)

inherent in sea travel as clearly demonstrated by numerous shipwrecks. However, isolation was not an option available to communities as, leaving aside equally important social aspects of contact situations (Renfrew 1993), the unpredictable climate and food supplies enforced mobility and contact simply in order to ensure survival (see below).

CLIMATE Pollen diagrams, charcoal remains, and soil studies have all contributed to our understanding of past climates. Based on this evidence, some scholars have claimed that the Middle and Late Bronze Age climate of Greece was not substantially different from that known today with dry, hot summers and cooler, wet winters (Barber 1987; Bintliff 1977; Friedrich 2000). Others, however, have suggested a climate for the Bronze Age slightly more arid than today (Davidson 1978; McCoy 1980), possibly followed by wetter conditions towards the end of the period (Bottema 1982, 1990).

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

29

Unfortunately, there are no local pollen diagrams from the Cyclades during the Bronze Age 2 and we therefore need to draw on evidence from the southern mainland and Crete (Figure 15). This comparison is based on the fact that the Cyclades nowadays lie in the same climatic region of Greece as Attica and the eastern Peloponnese and are likely to have done so also in the past (Turner 1978: 771). The key reference sites are Lake Kopais in Boeotia, and Kleonai, Kiladha, Thermisia, and Lerna in the eastern Peloponnese (Allen 1997; Atherden, Hall & Wright 1993; Bottema 1990; Greig & Turner 1974; Turner & Greig 1975; Jahns 1990, 1993; Sheehan 1979; Wright 1972; Zangger et al. 1997). The most recent and most closely dated pollen diagrams, however, come from the western Peloponnese (Navarino Bay and Osmanaga Lagoon) and Crete (Limnes, Tersana, Kournas, and Delphinos). As can be expected, there are a number of problems associated with the interpretation of pollen cores in relation to depth of detail, availability of reliable radiocarbon dates, dating of sequences, location of coring sites, and pollen production (cf. Pearsall 2001). In order to detect whether the climate in Bronze Age Greece was wetter or drier than the current climate, we have to investigate the presence of plants in pollen diagrams that no longer exist in presentday southern Greece. Thus, in addition to pine, fir, walnut, olive, grasses, maquis, phrygana—plants that are still common in Greece—we have evidence for hornbeam, beech, lime, hazel, birch, elm, and alder— all of which are plants adapted to temperate, ‘northern’ climates (Table 3). Their presence in Bronze Age layers of Greek pollen cores is evidence of a less arid climate at the time.

2

Naxos has provided pollen data for the EBA and the Mycenaean period which seem to indicate a typically dry Mediterranean landscape dominated by shrubs and pine trees (Dalongeville & Renault-Miskovsky 1993). However, the presence of small amounts of hornbeam, a tree limited to temperate European climates, may indicate that this conversion to the dry modern climate was not yet fully completed in the Mycenaean period.

30

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 15. Pollen core sites mentioned in the text

Relevant pollen evidence from Crete (Bottema & Sarpaki 2003; Moody, Rackham, & Rapp 1996) shows that change from wetter to more arid conditions was gradual and occurred during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The presence of Central European (lime, alder, hornbeam, hazel) as well as typical Mediterranean pollen (olive, prickly oak, lentisk) hints at a climate less arid than at present—comparable to

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

31

that of modern Epirus. The almost complete disappearance of larger lime and hazel patches in the EBA indicates the onset of drier and more seasonal conditions. Nevertheless, the presence of some temperate European trees in the MBA, such as hornbeam, ash, poplar, and Pollen core site Lake Kopais, Boeotia

Temperate (‘northern’) tree taxa pollen in Bronze Age layers Hornbeam taxa (Ostrya/Carpinus) Beech (Fagus) Lime (Tilia) Lime (Tilia)

Kleonai, northeast Peloponnese Kiladha Bay, Hazel (Corylus) Argolid Birch (Betulus) Alder (Alnus) Lime (Tilia) Thermisi Lagoon, Argolid Lerna, Argolid Lime (Tilia) Hazel (Corylus) Osmanaga n/a Lagoon, Messenia Navarino Bay, Lime (Tilia) Messenia Elm (Ulmus) Alder (Alnus)

References Greig & Turner 1974; Turner & Greig 1975; Allen 1997 Atherden, Hall & Wright 1993 Bottema 1990

Sheehan 1979 Jahns 1990, 1993 Wright 1972; Zangger et al. 1997 Kraft, Rapp & Aschenbrenner 1980

Table 3. Pollen core evidence of northern tree taxa in Bronze Age Greece

elm—in conjunction with Mediterranean oak maquis/woodland and steppe vegetation is indicative of a climate still wetter than today. Based on extensive flood deposits on Crete Moody has argued for the existence of a ‘Little Ice Age’ between MM I and LM III coinciding with the Löbben phase of glacial advance in Europe (2000; cf. Grove 1997). Estimates for the Little Ice Age give an indication of the magnitude of envisaged change with summer temperatures about 0.6°C

32

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

lower and summer precipitation over 20% greater (Grove 1997: 100). Only by the middle of the first millennium BC did Greece acquire the Mediterranean climate so familiar to us (Rackham & Moody 1996). Support for Moody’s suggestion also comes from insect remains from Akrotiri on Thera. Finds of a troglodytic beetle species with preference for leafy and damp environments indicates a wetter (annual precipitation possibly up to c. 600 mm) and possibly also cooler climate during the Late Bronze Age than today (Asouti 2003). If we accept the evidence of a slow, gradual development from moister to arid Mediterranean conditions beginning in the Neolithic and still not complete in the Late Bronze Age we need to assess the consequences of these wetter conditions for the Bronze Age people. On one hand, a slightly moister climate—comparable perhaps to that of modern Epirus—would have resulted in higher annual rainfall providing more soil moisture for vegetation and increasing the storable water supply. The vegetation cover, including woodland, might have been more extensive and more diverse. Yields from dry farming are likely to have been greater and the food supply for humans moderately more reliable (but see ‘health’ below). On the other hand, documentary sources and pollen evidence presented by Moody (2000) for the (probably less severe) Medieval Little Ice Age conjure up images of unseasonal temperature and precipitation changes resulting in rapid and intensive erosion as well as damages to crops, livestock, and buildings for the Little Ice Age of the Middle and Late Bronze Age period.

SOIL, WATER, AND WIND Having established a climatic framework for the Aegean, I now turn to investigate the key factors influencing vegetation, agriculture, animal husbandry, and human life in general: soils, water supply, and wind erosion—all interacting with each other in subtle ways. Soils Cycladic soils have generally been considered as poor: limited vegetation prevents the formation of humus which contains most of the nutrients; the limited rainfall insures that nutrients are filtered into the soil but the hot sun leads to water evaporation, including many of the nutrients (Bintliff 1977: 90). However, such views were not based on

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

33

soil analyses but on comparisons with present-day conditions which assumed constancy of climate over the last 4000 years—an assumption now questioned (see ‘climate’ above). The island of Thera, thanks to the volcanic eruption, has become a case study in the analysis of paleosoils. The first analyses of pre-eruption soils undertaken by Davidson indicated that no soil or only thin rubble derived soil was present on hillsides and only poorly developed soil on level ground. These soils, due to low moisture content, organic matter, and nutrients, were not particularly fertile but would have allowed plough agriculture (1978, 1980; Limbrey 1990). More recent soil studies provided additional details such as the existence of different types of soil, including “thick brown loamy soils, thin stony soils, barren, relatively unweathered volcanic ashes and lavas, and metamorphic basement rock” (Aston & Hardy 1990: 355). These soil types are familiar from modern Thera but may have been more developed in the Bronze Age as they had c. 15,000 instead of 3,500 years since the last eruption to build up (Rackham 1990: 389). Paleobotanical remains support this conclusion as there is ample evidence of cultivation/exploitation of cereals, pulses and fruits as well as trees (olive, tamarisk, oak) (see ‘diet’ below; Grove & Rackham 2001: 320–1). No soil studies exist for Melos but paleobotanical data indicate the cultivation/exploitation of cereals, pulses, and fruits; the presence of beech marten among the local fauna has been interpreted as an indication of woodland on the island (Wagstaff & Gamble 1982: 97). If modern analogies are given credence (Wagstaff & Augustson 1982: 126), then there can be no doubt that Melian Bronze Age soils must have been sufficiently productive for dry farming. Thus it appears that most of the Cycladic islands had soils of sufficient quality for the cultivation of relatively resistant and undemanding crops, such as barley, pulses, and olives. Under these circumstances, inter-planting of cereals and pulses must have been practiced in order to replenish the soil’s nitrogen content. The presence of bones from sheep/goat, pig, cattle, and wild mammals points to adequate pasture for these animals, and the existence of (limited) woodland is attested by charcoal samples and animal species with a preference for these habitats.

34

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Water Nowadays the Cycladic islands are arid environments which lack permanent rivers, although most islands have seasonal streams. Supplies of ground water vary from abundant (Naxos, Kea) to limited (Melos) and need to be supplemented with collected rain water (Figure 16). It is likely that such variation in water supply also existed in the past.

Figure 16. Rainfall (mm) and hydrology in the Cyclades (after Broodbank 2000a: fig. 17)

If modern topography and rainfall patterns are appropriate parallels for past diversity, we can assume that the mean annual rainfall varied substantially according to the topography of the land—and there is little correlation between wet and dry years on the mainland and the islands. The average annual rainfall for present-day Melos is 450 mm

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

35

and for Thera about 350–450 mm (Figure 16); estimates for Bronze Age Thera indicate annual precipitation of c. 600 mm (Asouti 2003). Variability between regions went hand in hand with inter-annual fluctuations which could vary by as much as 50% (Figure 17). The wet season in modern Crete runs normally from late September to late April, but can be as short as November to December or as long as late August to beginning of July (Grove & Rackham 2001: 27). However, not all rainfall is beneficial to the environment. Deluges, defined as rainfall of more than 100 mm in one single event—frequently occurring in severe bursts, are a commonly occurring phenomenon and would have been even more severe in the proposed scenario of a Middle to Late Bronze Age Little Ice Age. Evidence from present-day Crete shows that deluges primarily occur in the wet season between September and April with a peak in January, the month with the highest rainfall (Grove & Rackham 2001: 35). Some major deluges that have been recorded for 20th century Crete were caused by heavy rains that discharged up to half of the annual rainfall within a few days (Grove & Rackham 2001: 34; Hogarth 1910: 83). While rainfall is desirable for human, animal, and crop, deluges, on the other hand, can ruin a year’s harvest or even a lifetime’s investment in olive trees or grape vines within only a couple of days.

Figure 17. Interannual variability of rainfall on Melos (after Wagstaff & Gamble 1982: 9.4)

36

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

A limited water supply and great inter-annual variability have consequences for life on many of the Cycladic islands (Sarpaki 1992b; Wagstaff & Gamble 1982): 1) Insufficient ground water increases the need for the collection of rain in cisterns. 2) Contaminated water can cause illness or death. 3) Limited water supplies favour the keeping of goats/sheep over cattle. 4) Dry farming is likely to have been practiced for cereals. 5) Diversification of food crops into those with different rainfall requirements was essential as drought can lead to a reduction in cereal yield. 6) Vine and olive were able to survive even in dry years. 7) Pulses were probably also grown under a dry farming system but would have struggled when annual rainfall fell below 400–500 mm (if water supplies were sufficient, pulses could have been irrigated; cf. Castro et al. 1999; Araus et al. 1997). 8) Inter-annual variability combined with generally low rainfall makes periodic droughts a regular occurrence rather than an exception, and several dry years may occur in succession. 9) Deluges had the power to destroy land, crops, animals, and buildings. Erosion Over the last 25 years, the study of erosion events has rightly become an important part of archaeological investigations as erosion could have a potentially devastating impact on already fragile soils and limited water supplies of Bronze Age communities. Especially Zangger, van Andel, and their collaborators have documented many erosion episodes in Greece from the Neolithic onwards and have identified human activity as the prime cause (van Andel, Runnels & Pope 1986; van Andel & Zangger 1990; van Andel, Zangger & Demitrack 1990; Zangger 1992a). While the hypothesis that intensified human activity led to erosion episodes has found many followers (e.g. Jameson, Runnels & van Andel 1994; Watrous et al. 1993), other scholars have voiced doubts arguing either that climate change/extreme weather was a more likely cause (Grove & Rackham 2001; Willis 1994) or that natural and anthropogenic landscape changes cannot be distinguished easily due to the coarse resolution of palaeoecological evidence (Barker 1996; Frederick & Halstead 2000; Halstead 2000). Grove and Rackham, for example, have highlighted the generally resistant and adaptable nature of the Mediterranean landscape and have undermined long-held beliefs about

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

37

erosion—with drastic consequences for our understanding of the past (2001). First of all it has to be understood that erosion itself is not bad and does not always imply degradation of the landscape. In fact, erosion is a constantly occurring process without which there would have been no sediment deposition for cultivable land which the Neolithic and Bronze Age settlers rated so highly, and no fertile alluvial fans or river deltas. Also, most of eroded material does not actually come from cultivatable topsoil, but from gullies and sidecuttings, and would thus have had no detrimental effect on agriculture (Grove & Rackham 2001). Nevertheless, certain events or practices can accelerate erosion, although tree-felling, expansion of agriculture into marginal land or expansion of animal pasture, promoted by Zangger, van Andel, and their colleagues, have not been shown to be among these factors (Grove & Rackham 2001: 241–270). Instead, the (deep) plough and modern bulldozer, tectonics, and geology have emerged as the most important factors in determining the intensity of erosion. After these, water-erosion then becomes the main determinant. However, it is not moderate rainfall that is a hazard to erosion (less than 10 mm of rain at a time have virtually no effect) and even larger rainfalls of up to c. 20% of the annual rainfall may not be detrimental as landscapes can adjust to specific volume of rain without increased erosion. It is deluges with high intensity bursts of rain (more than 30–40 mm per hour) which cannot be absorbed by the vegetation and consequently cause the greatest damage. Vegetation can enhance or hinder erosion, but its importance has been greatly exaggerated; 3 in fact, there is a greater correlation between intensity of erosion and geology than with type of vegetation cover (Grove & Rackham 2001).

3

Experiments have demonstrated that Mediterranean trees become too quickly saturated in heavy rainfall to offer protection against sheet and rill erosion. Maquis, tall undershrubs, grassland, stubble, weeds on fallow land, and moss crusts provide protection equal or better to that of trees, while vines appear to promote erosion (Grove & Rackham 2001).

38

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Accelerating erosion has also been suggested for the island of Melos, albeit only for the very end of the Late Bronze Age (Davidson 1978, 1980; Davidson & Tasker 1982). Arguments mustered resemble those of other followers of the ‘Ruined Landscape’ theory and conveniently summarise widely-held opinions about the Cyclades. These hold that prior to increasing human interference with the land all lower areas with gentle slopes were covered with moderately thick soils which would have allowed extensive cultivation. Over time, an increase in population would have led to an expansion of agriculture onto steeper slopes and into more marginal areas. The resulting hill-slope erosion would have led to degradation of soil on hills as the land available for cultivation would have been reduced; at the same time, the eroded soil would result in alluviation or colluvation and thus increase the (depth of the) cultivatable area of valleys. However, the argument presented is extremely weak as none of its steps has been tested (cf. Grove & Rackham 2001: 290). Instead, much of the argument seems to hinge on a belief that, due to a lack of forest and water, the Cyclades had poor soils, and that these soils were further degraded through human impact creating the barren landscape we know today. However, as Bintliff already pointed out, this is more of an assumption than reality. Barren and thin soils are a result of the Mediterranean climate and previous climates in general and not a consequence of human activities (1977). More importantly, Melos has long been poor in soil, water, and vegetation due to its geology and hydrology rather than as a result of manmade erosion as observed in 1924 by the geologist Sonder (quoted by Bintliff 1977: 50). To conclude, the relatively dry climate, seasonal rainfalls, and proximity to a tectonically active area make it likely that erosion was a constant natural process on many of the Cycladic islands. Erosion episodes, triggered by deluges, must have occurred but probably had little impact on the depth of the topsoil. Evidence from Thera suggests that soils would have been relatively thin but sufficient for plough agriculture. Where woodland did not cover the land, shrubs, maquis, and grassland adequately protected the land from erosion. The common practice of inter-planting and mixed planting of crops would have reduced soil erosion on cultivated plots.

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

39

DIET The Mediterranean is an inherently unstable environment as Whitelaw’s summary of 16 British Consular Reports for the island of Keos illustrate: “[between 1897 and 1914] crops were severely affected by drought in three years, by floods in one, and by a severe winter in another; four harvests of barley, wine and velanidi were individually poor, but all three crops were bad in the same year only once” (1991a: 451). Therefore, Mediterranean farmers base their survival on a combination of different strategies which exploit all environments and where products can easily be switched from one method to another. The strategies are diversification, storage, redistribution, and mobility (Cherry 1981: 60; Halstead 1981). Diversification is likely to include expansion of cultivated crops and domesticated animals as well as the exploitation or management of a great variety of wild resources, including mammals, bees, migrating birds, products from the sea, herbs, and edible plants. To stockpile food on a seasonal basis as well as for times of dearth is essential in Mediterranean communities (Halstead 1989). This includes the keeping of domestic animals and the storage of cereals and dry legumes. It is unclear how much of a surplus was common, but one year of supplies, for example, is envisaged in the Bible (Exodus 23: 10; 1 Maccabees 6: 49). Food preservation processes can be a major factor for survival by making perishable items such as fish, meat, and fruits durable through salting, drying, curing, and pickling techniques (Horden & Purcell 2000: 181). Olives and grapes can be stored for longer periods when converted into olive oil and wine. Another survival tactic is redistribution. Redistribution is particularly relevant in the Mediterranean where the existence of microclimates may mean that neighbouring regions receive different quantities of rain. In such circumstances, stored foodstuff, livestock as well as valuables can become exchange goods in times of need (Halstead 1981). Mobility is more difficult to achieve once a community has decided to settle and is more likely to be used by hunter-gatherer groups. Cultivated and wild plants Prior to the publication of Sarpaki’s work on the paleobotanical remains from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera, most scholars regarded cereals to be the major ingredient in the Aegean Bronze Age diet (Ren-

40

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

frew 1972). The belief was founded upon the recognition that cereals are superior to other foods as they are high in calories, comparatively undemanding of labour investment (Gallant 1991: 63–64, 75–76), easily grown, high yielding, easily stored over long periods, and easily transported. In light of recent research, however, this view has now been revised, acknowledging the important nutritional contribution legumes made to the ancient diet—possibly constituting more than fifty per cent to the ancient diet at Akrotiri (Allbaugh 1953; Garnsey 1988: 49; Halstead & Jones 1989; Horden & Purcell 2000: 201–203; Jones 1987; Sarpaki 1992b) (Table 4). In comparison to cereals, pulses have several advantages. In addition to contributing high levels of proteins to the human diet pulses have a greater tolerance of low rainfall, and drier and less fertile soils and can thus serve as a convenient buffer crop (Figure 18). Disadvantages are their comparatively lower yields and high labour input when irrigated (Gallant 1991: 76–77). Fruits are a seasonal addition to the ancient diet and can be preserved through drying (e.g. figs) or through conversion into liquid form (e.g. olive oil, wine). Fruit trees may have been wild, managed, or cultivated. Of the fruits mentioned in Table 4, olive and grape are well adjusted to the Mediterranean climate, although grape vines generally require better soils and more frequent maintenance than olive trees (Zohary & Hopf 2000). While Renfrew (1972) envisaged the olive and grape to be part of the Mediterranean triad from at least EBA onwards, current syntheses indicate that olive and vine cultivation is unlikely before the Late Bronze Age, but limited use of wild or managed olive and vine was made from the Early Bronze Age onwards (Hamilakis 1996; Riley 1999: 36–46; Runnels & Hansen 1986). Fig trees are a fastgrowing crop and their fruits must have been one of the main sources of sugar during the Bronze Age either fresh or dried—paleobotanical remains have been discovered at many Aegean sites. Date palm and almond are likely to have been imported. Domesticated and wild animals Horden and Purcell have highlighted the great importance of animals for the survival in a Mediterranean environment (2000: 197–200; see also Halstead & Jones 1989: 54). Domestic animals, for example, can be kept alive to protect against unexpected food shortages while at the

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

41

same time providing milk and wool or functioning as traction/transport animals; after death they are the suppliers of meat, horns, and hide. Goat and pig are particularly suitable animals as pigs have a high birth rate and can easily be fattened up and both species feed on land which is of no interest for human cultivation. The great product diversity associated with animals (especially goats and sheep) allows farmers to switch animals from one strategy to another depending on one’s circumstances. The fact that meat can be preserved by drying, salting, or curing makes animals—alive or dead—a suitable cash crop. Wild animals, on the other hand, can form a convenient seasonal supplement to the standard diet. Combining both domestic and wild animals was a favoured strategy in the Aegean Bronze Age as data from a wide range of settlements indicate (Table 5). Trantalidou has shown that wild animals might have contributed between around 2-3% to a Cycladic island’s diet and up to 23% to a mainland settlement’s diet, reflecting availability but also distinct dietary strategies of different communities (1990: table 2). However, not all wild animals would have been hunted for their meat but might have been desired for their fur (badger, beech marten), their skills (wild cat as mouser), or their strength (agrimi for cross-breeding purposes) (Jarman 1996: 217-218). However, domestic animals made up the largest percentage in Cycladic bone assemblages. Comparative proportions of domestic species, in combination with their age at death, can provide further insights into food supplies (Figure 19). At Akrotiri, for instance, lack of juvenile cattle combined with an overall small number of cattle bones (c. 9%) suggests the primary use of cattle as draught animals. Sheep/goat remains cover all age ranges, and a mixed strategy including dairy, meat and wool production has been suggested (Gamble 1978). Analysis of animal bones from the West House provides further evidence for this multi-use approaches (Trantalidou 1990): pig, goat/sheep and cattle are represented in both the debris and destruction levels. Bones in the debris level indicate food consumption and add up to around 50% of all bones. The other 50% of bones can be found in the destruction level and are indicative of uses other than consumption. The overwhelming reliance on sheep/goat over cattle is probably an indication of the restrictions imposed on animal husbandry by the dry climate.

42

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Products of the sea: fish and marine invertebrates While the sea is generally acknowledged as a source of food for Bronze Age populations its importance has either been seen as substantial or minimal. Those scholars believing that seafood contributed greatly to the ancient diet generally refer to the proximity of settlements to the sea and rivers and highlight the large number of available fish and their regular and predictable migration routes (Bintliff 1977: 117–118; McDonald & Hope Simpson 1972: 131: Economidis 2000: 558). The lack of fish bones and shells from excavations is explained with reference to their fragility, small size or food processing practices (for a summary of methodological problems see Powell 1996: 36–40; cf. also Rose 1995). Those that side with Braudel who regards the sea as being a poor resource frequently point to the warmth and salinity of the Aegean basin, anecdotal evidence from ancient writers, and the relative unimportance of fish in the modern Greek diet (1972; Cartledge 2002: 156; Gallant 1985; Halstead 1981: 199–200; Jameson, Runnels & van Andel 1994: 311). Based on modern fishing data Gallant has convincingly argued that catching rates of pelagic fish, due to their tolerance of only a narrow temperature range and great variation of their routes, are unpredictable and can vary by up to 100%. In fact, fish may fail to make an appearance altogether over several years (1985: 30–36). Additional extenuating circumstances can be applied when fishing is undertaken from the shore (passive fishing) where fishermen are dependent on fish to come into the area. Here, catching rates will be even more unpredictable than for active fishing where fishermen can follow shoals wherever they choose to go (Gallant 1985: 30–31); however, regardless of which technique is chosen the labour-intensity and effectiveness of the fishing and trapping equipment was only suited to produce small catches (Gallant 1985: 12–25; cf. Guest-Papamanoli 1983; Powell 1992, 1996: 82–166 for further evidence on fishing methods and equipment).

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

43

44

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

Figure 18. Yields of wheat, barley, and lentil in coastal Thessaly between 1969/70 and 1977/8 (after Halstead 1989: fig. 5.2)

45

46

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

47

Figure 19. Composition of Faunal Assemblages from select Middle and Late Bronze Age sites (based on data from Gamble 1978, 1982 – but cf. Winder 1993; Halstead 1996: table 1)

A comparison of fish remains from several sites shows that there was no unified picture regarding fish consumption: each site consumed different proportions of different species of fish from different types of habitats. However, multi-fishery is commonly observed and an overall predominance for fish from inshore or moderately deeper coastal water—caught with nets and hook and line—is apparent at most sites (Table 6). As regards the contribution of fish to the overall diet, accurate percentages are frequently unavailable but fish bones currently constitute only a small percentage of the total animal bone assemblage (Trantalidou 1990: 402).

48

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Because of fluctuations in the supply, fish cannot be relied on as a staple food and has to be considered supplementary (Powell 1996; Gallant 1985; Gamble 1979). It is therefore comparable to other seasonally available foods, such as migrating and resident birds (for example, doves, shearwaters, partridges, falcons, owl, and possibly chicken have been identified at Kommos [Reese 1995: 194–204]), wild animals, and plants. Despite its comparatively low nutritional value fish is a handy cash crop because some fish can be preserved easily for up to one year through drying, smoking, salting, or pickling (Gallant 1985; Horden & Purcell 2000: 195). Unlike fish, the preservation of marine invertebrates is very good and consequently our picture of their exploitation is more complete (Table 7) (Karali 1999). At Akrotiri, Thera, for instance, Murex and Patella are the most common species adding up to around 85% of the total assemblage. Except for 31 triton shells, at home in the deep seas, all molluscs were collected from the shore. Most shells seem to have been eaten raw, used as fish bait, or as ornaments (KaraliYannacopoulou 1990). A similar procurement and consumption pattern can be observed at Palaikastro with the distinction that the most common species of shell is Murex. Discovery of several substantial Murex deposits makes it likely that they were used for dye production (Reese 1987). Patella was by far the most common mollusc at Kommos and, together with Monodonta and Murex trunculus, was probably collected as food or fish bait (Reese 1995: 240–273). In addition to species that leave traces we should also assume the consumption of sea urchins, crabs, cuttlefish, octopus, etc.—commonly depicted images of Bronze Age art (Karali 1996; Powell 1996: 62–66). From the synthesis presented above it has become apparent that Bronze Age communities exploited a great diversity of habitats and food resources. While preferences varied from site to site two patterns can be detected. First, staple plants and animals (in themselves diversified to accommodate changing circumstances) are complemented by a great variety of seasonal (and potentially variable) plants, land animals, and marine animals. Second, while the exploitation of the land seems

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

49

Table 6. Fish remains from selected Middle and Late Bronze Age sites (for a broader overview see Rose 1995: table 5.20). * indicates presence of a fish taxa in assemblage; ** indicates dominant species in assemblage (Akrotiri: Trantalidou 1990; Gamble 1979, Mylona 2000, 2001, 2004; Kommos: Rose 1995: 204-239; Lerna: Gejvall 1969; Palaikastro: Riley 1999: table 21; Habitat information is based on www.fishbase.org; Whitehead et al. 1984, 1986)

50

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

to include all types of terrain and vegetation, the exploitation of the sea is limited to smaller fishes from inshore and deeper coastal waters but only exceptionally stretches to the open seas. However, despite practicing the three key strategies (i.e., diversification, storage, and redistribution) the procurement of sufficient quantities of (fresh) food was a constant struggle as is demonstrated in the following section on ‘health’.

HEALTH Health of prehistoric populations cannot be assessed directly, but has to be understood as the end-product of a variety of factors, many of which do not leave recognisable traces in the archaeological record (Bush & Zvelebil 1991). As virtually no human skeletal material has come to light from the Cyclades, the discussion draws heavily on contemporary Middle and Late Bronze Age material from Crete and the Greek mainland. Such a comparison of regionally and temporally different samples for the purpose of drawing inferences for the Cyclades is justified because the patterns identified so far indicate that local differences may be overridden by general Aegean-wide population trends (Halstead 1977: 107). Mortality rates and life expectancy Mortality rates are one of the key indicators of the overall health of a society, and are a reflection of the ‘stresses’ people are exposed to, their resistance to them, and their ability to carry out successful medical interventions. Despite regional differences, there are several broader patterns that emerge from the data: child mortality rates were high—with poor hygiene, inadequate nutrition, population nucleation, and only basic medical care the most likely culprits (Halstead 1977). The average age of death was not much above 30, and women had a shorter life expectancy than men as many died during their childbearing years 4 (Table 8). Finally, only a small proportion of the population survived after the age of 50.

4

It should be noted that that Angel’s life expectancy calculations included a complete dataset (i.e. all children and adults).

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

51

Table 7. Major taxa of marine invertebrates at selected Bronze Age sites (Palaikastro: Reese 1987; Ayia Triadha: Wilkens 1996; Akrotiri: KaraliYannacopoulou 1990 (erroneous percentages re-calculated); Kommos: Reese 1995: 240-273; Nichoria: Reese 1992)

Height Height is influenced by nutrition and general health (Table 9). The greater height of the Shaft Graves occupants at Mycenae in comparison to their contemporaries from Lerna, for example, is likely to reflect dietary differences between an elite with regular access to meat and the general population with a primarily vegetarian diet (Angel 1973; cf. Smith 2000). Population density, living conditions, and differential nutrition are reasons put forward for the observed height differences between taller individuals in rural Armenoi and smaller skeletons from urban Khania on Crete (McGeorge 1992).

52

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Diet, malnutrition, and nutritional deficiencies Bronze Age people had access to a wide variety of foods. Despite this, malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies were common among the population (especially women who were more vulnerable during pregnancy and lactation) because commonly stored foods like cereals, pulses, figs, raisins, dates, honey, and olive all are generally deficient in iron, Vitamin C and calcium (McGeorge 1990: 424). The quality of past food supplies can potentially be inferred from organic residue analysis, stable isotope analysis, palaeobotany, average human height (see above) and tooth wear. Arguably our best indicator of malnutrition and/or disease is lines of temporary arrest of tooth-enamel formation which occur during childhood and indicate childhood growth disturbance. Such arrest lines are present to a slight or severe degree in 61% of the MH Lerna adult sample and at LH II Nichoria arrest lines were visible in 46.7% of the population (Angel 1971; Bisel 1992). At LM III Khania virtually every individual was affected by growth disturbances, most likely as a result of a poor weaning diet or childhood growth spurts (McGeorge 1992). Diet also had an impact on dental health. Extensive wear, largescale tooth loss, and high incidences of caries are typical for populations eating a coarse milled cereal diet and seem to affect almost every individual in the Aegean Bronze Age (Carr 1960; McGeorge 1988). Again, the Shaft Grave elite is shown to have a superior health with a better dental disease rate than their contemporaries from Lerna (Angel 1971, 1973; Bisel & Angel 1985; cf. Bisel 1992; McGeorge 1988, 1992; Prag et al. 1994; Smith 2000). Disease For diseases to be recognised they need to leave identifiable stress marks on the skeleton. Despite the limitations of this approach due to a) different diseases resulting in similar stress marks, b) some diseases not resulting in any stress marks, c) our inability to sometimes differentiate between acute stresses and genetic or adverse environmental factors, and d) differential preservation of bone material from children and adults, a wide range of diseases has been identified (Table 10).

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE Site

Period

Knossos

MM

Asine (excavations of 1970s) Asine (excavations 1920-1974) Lerna

MH

Mycenae, Shaft Graves

MH-LH I

Knossos Nichoria

Neopalatial period LH II

Armenoi

LM III

Chania

LM III

MH MH

53

Male Female Sample size n/a 28.3 M:F:46 34.9 27.5 M:16 F:12 35.4 30.4 M:30 F:20 37 31 M: 57 F: 47 35.3 34.3 M:19 F:3 35.4 n/a M:54 F:30.1 31.4 M:15 F:16 30.7 27.3 M:143 F: 107 34.1 25.6 M:7 F:9

Table 8. Average age of death at selected sites in the Bronze Age Aegean (Armenoi: McGeorge 1992; Asine: Angel 1982; Chania: McGeorge 1992; Knossos: McGeorge 1992; Lerna: Angel 1971; Mycenae: Angel 1973; Nichoria: Bisel 1992)

Common symptoms of disease are cranial lesions (porotic hyperostosis), potentially caused by multiple diseases such as malaria and iron-deficiency anaemia of nutritional origin (Angel 1971, 1973; Sallares 1991: 275; but see Aufderheide & Rodriguez-Martin 1998 for an alternative explanation). According to Angel there was a reduction in the occurrence of lesions from 60% in Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedia to 20.4% in MH, indicating a general improvement of the population’s health (1971: 77–84; cf. Bisel & Angel 1985). That elites had better general health is apparent when comparing skeletons bearing traces of porotic hyperostosis from MH Lerna (20.4%) with those from the Shaft Graves (8%) (Angel 1971). At the non-elite LM III cemetery from Khania, 31.8% of all adult skulls showed such lesions (McGeorge 1992).

54

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Hypertrophy, hypertrophic arthritis, and exostoses are indicators of joint responses to hard use and affected up to 75% of males and 50% of females from MH Lerna. Arthritis of joints, hands, or feet may reflect repetitive occupational strain, deformity, or healed fracture and is present in 41% of males and 18% of females in MH Lerna (Angel 1971). Traumatic arthritis was present in 18.7% and vertebral arthropathies in 75% of all individuals from LM III Khania (McGeorge 1992). Possible evidence for an epidemic comes from Tomb 11 at LM III Khania where an adult female was buried with 5 children. As all six died at around the same time an unidentified epidemic is the most likely cause (McGeorge 1992). Not only were diseases manifold and frequent in prehistoric Greece, but also their impact on the families was greater than in modern times. For example, satisfactory healing of diseases may require total rest for several weeks or even months. Thus, any individual affected would have been completely dependent on the community without being able to contribute labour—potentially resulting in lesser provisions for the family—or a life-long disability when healing time had to be cut short due to labour demands. Equally, many diseases are nowadays managed effectively with the help of drug treatment or with surgery, but without such treatment might have developed into a chronic and severe condition. In addition, general living conditions may have made people more receptive to diseases. For example, lack of sanitation, especially in larger urban areas, would have resulted in increased contact with parasites and contaminated water supplies. Unhygienic conditions and high population densities could have providing a fertile breeding ground for infectious diseases (Arnott 1996, 2004b; cf. also Bisel 1992; McGeorge 1992). Equally, seasonal malnutrition may have affected the overall health; women, in particular, are more vulnerable to disease due to a weakened immune system in childbearing years and bone changes (osteoporosis) during and after the menopause. Women’s bad health also had consequences for the survival of the young as death of a mother may result in death of her children (Ingvarsson-Sundström 2003).

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE Site Asine

Period MH

Male (cm) 164.6

Female (cm) 153.6

Lerna

MH

166.3

154.2

Kato Zakro

MM

167

157.5

Mycenae, Shaft Graves Nichoria

MH–LH I

171.5

158.8

LH II

170.3

165.8

Athens

LH

167.4

155.4

Pylos

LH

166.7

152.1

Armenoi

LM III

167.6

154.6

Chania

LM III

164.5

148.8

55 Sample size M: 20 F: 13 M:38 F:27 n/a M: 15 F:4 M:5 F:2 M:11 F:9 M:4 F:7 M:107 F:68 M:4 F:3

Table 9. Average male and female height at selected Bronze Age sites (Armenoi: McGeorge 1992; Asine: Angel 1982; Athens: Bisel 1992; Chania: McGeorge 1992; Kato Zakro: Becker 1975; Lerna: Angel 1971; Mycenae: Angel 1973, 1982; Nichoria: Bisel 1992; Pylos: Bartsocas 1977)

56

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Arthritis and degenerative diseases of the bone: Traumatic arthritis, vertebral disc lesions, and exotosis Osteoarthritis and degeneratve joint disease Spinal osteophytosis Foestier’s Disease Bilateral temporo-mandibular degenerative disease Spondylolitis, ankylosing and degenerative Spondylolisthesis Perthes’ Disease Congenital disease and deformities: Hydrocephaly Microcephaly Paget’s Disease Neoplastic disease: Osteosarcoma Metastic bone cancer Dental disease: Dental caries Pariodontal disease Dental abscess

Infections and Infectious diseases: Staphylococcal infection Tuberculosis Osteomyelitis Poliomyelitis Brucellosis Maxillary sinusitis Alveolar recession Bacterial spondylitis Mastoiditis Anaemia and Malaria Falciparum malaria Thalassaemia Sickle cell anaemia Paediatric anaemia Other metabolic disease: Gallstones Avitaminosis Osteomalacia Rickets Scurvy Goat

Table 10. Diseases present in Bronze Age Greece (after McGeorge 1988 and Arnott forthcoming). I would like to thank Robert Arnott for allowing me to publish the data in advance of his own publication.)

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

57

Medical knowledge Fractures, wounds, and various injuries are visible in most samples, including skeletons from Lerna, Asine, the Grave Circle B at Mycenae, and the LM IIIA/B cemetery at Armenoi, Crete. Grmek estimates that more than 10% of bones from the Aegean Bronze Age were fractured with a female:male ratio of 1:4 (1989: 57). In order for fractures to heal successfully, they need to be reduced, immobilized, and stabilised. Knowledge of these basic medical skills is evident on Crete from EM onwards and on the Greek mainland from MH onwards (McGeorge 1988, 2006; Angel 1982). In addition to the setting and manipulating of bones, basic surgery probably also included the removal of foreign bodies and would have utilised bandages, plaster, splint, and supports (Arnott 1997). Basic knowledge of dental surgery is known from Minoan Crete and is visible in healed broken jaws, and successful (as well as unsuccessful) tooth extractions (Carr 1960; McGeorge 1988, 1992). The occurrence of trepanation, normally by scraping away the layers of the skull, attests to existence of sophisticated surgical skills on Crete and on the Greek mainland (Hagios Haralambos Cave, Mycenae, Lerna and Asine), although most individuals died during or shortly after the procedure (Angel 1971, 1982; Arnott 1997; McGeorge 2006). The only preserved surgical kit comes from LH IIB Nauplion (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1971). Arnott suggests that readily available obsidian tools would have been sufficient for most procedures; bandages could have been made of linen and medicinal plants could be made into potions and lotions—as evidenced in the EM metal workshop at Chrysokamino (Arnott 1997, 1999a, 1999b; 2006). Based on evidence for medical intervention, Arnott has argued for the existence of medical practitioners and healers in the Aegean Bronze Age (1996; 1999c; 2002; 2004a, 2004b). The fact that medical care was of better quality for the elite might indicate the existence of at least a two-tier system with priest-healers attached to the elite and laymen professionals in charge of overseeing the well-being of the community (Berg 2004a). To summarise, child mortality was high in the Bronze Age Aegean and frequently reached up to 50%. The majority of children who did not die probably experienced seasonal malnutrition and shortage of

58

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

vital minerals and vitamins leading to greater susceptibility to diseases, reduced growth, and reduced life expectancy. The average expectancy was not much over 30, though some individuals lived into their 60s. Most people would have lived in rural areas with a good food supply and a decreased risk of infectious diseases, though those living in nucleated towns may have encountered contaminated water supplies, and crowded, unhygienic living conditions. Towns with a large population, possibly combined with nucleated settlement patterns, as confirmed for Melos, could have led to the introduction and survival of densitydependent diseases. Population density was probably sufficiently high in Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, and Akrotiri to support such diseases (Arnott, pers. comm.). Being seaports, newly arriving settlers, itinerant craftsmen, and traders would have brought the locals in frequent contact with new pathogens with the potential to develop into fullyfledged epidemics. With only basic medical treatment available, many diseases were incurable and developed into a chronic condition, thus reducing the available labour force. Illness or death of working adults, in particular, would have had severe consequences for the survival of the very young and very old. Over a lifetime, physical work and repetitive tasks would result in bone inflammation and deformation for a large percentage of the population. In addition, industry-related diseases, fractures. and illnesses would also have been common in the Cyclades, such as those related to copper mining and smelting, lead and silver mining, marble quarrying, potting, and fishing. Women had their first child in their teens, and bore on average 5.5 children with annual births not being uncommon (Angel 1971; McGeorge 1992). The majority of women died in their childbearing years. Those who survived were more susceptible to diseases due to malnutrition, physiological fatigue through childbirths, and hormonal changes in and after menopause. Both men and women had severe tooth wear due to eating coarse milled grain. About one quarter of all teeth were lost, carious, or abscessed, and many individuals would have lost all their teeth by the age of 40.

CONCLUSION The Bronze Age Cyclades are a familiar and, at the same time, a strange place. With the obvious exception of Thera, the islands had

ASPECTS OF CYCLADIC ISLAND LIFE

59

roughly the same contours as today. Sea level fluctuations probably occurred but are best understood in terms of local tectonic events; any changes were probably limited to within a few meters and did not greatly impact on the island communities with regard to shorelines, available agricultural land, suitable harbours, and distances between islands and the Greek mainland. The prehistoric climate was, if anything, slightly wetter than in the present-day Cyclades. Higher annual rainfall would have increased the storable water supply, but would not have greatly impacted on the types of foods that could be grown and the kinds of animals that could be kept. While poor harvests may have been less frequent than suggested by modern and medieval data, human bone and tooth evidence suggests that food supply was often insufficient in quantity and quality. While soil and water supplies were sufficient for dry farming of relatively resistant and undemanding crops, such as barley, pulses, and olives, and provided pasture for relatively undemanding animals, interannual variability in rainfall, and distinct microclimates meant that diversification of food crops and animals, utilisation of seasonal resources, redistribution of foodstuff or manufactured items, and storage of suitable crops were essential to avoid periodic droughts. Despite employing the three main risk-ameliorating strategies, malnutrition, seasonal malnourishment, and vitamin deficiencies were constant companions and had a major impact on the lives of the people by making them more vulnerable towards certain diseases. In addition to high child mortality and a short life expectancy, physical work and repetitive tasks could cause debilitating chronic diseases. Fractures, even when stabilised, took long to heal, putting families under great stress during harvest season.

3. CULTURAL INTERACTION AND MINOANISATION Prehistoric settlements in the Southern Aegean islands show a dramatic increase in the number of Cretan imports, local imitations, and the adoption of Cretan technological, architectural, ritual, and cultural features from the Middle to the early Late Bronze Age period. This escalating presence of Minoan and Minoanising features and its social connotations has been called ‘Minoanisation’. Serving as the theoretical foundation for the detailed case studies discussed in the remainder of the book, this chapter critically reviews the interpretations put forward to explain Crete’s influence on other populations, in particular, the people in the Cyclades. Despite increasing sophistication of approaches to the phenomenon, reasons for the encountered material variability remain poorly understood. Highlighting the uni-dimensionality and inflexibility of current approaches, this chapter moves to propose a methodology that permits Minoanisation to be viewed as a dynamic, individual, and multi-dimensional process whose characteristics can be explained through archaeological analyses that move from the local to the regional context. As summarized in Chapter 1, the late Middle and early Late Cycladic period saw a concentration of population in large dominant sites near suitable harbours. The building of fortification walls, large communal structures, and the overall settlement layout indicate a community’s ability to mobilise resources and coordinate large-scale projects. Islands were able, to varying degrees, to attract exotic imports from Crete, Greece, and further abroad (see Chapter 6), and Cycladic objects found their way to Crete, the Greek mainland, Aegina, the Dodecanese, and the Carian coast (Berg 2000: Appendix). However, it has long been recognised that the islanders relationship was strongest with 61

62

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Minoan culture, as evidenced by the use of Minoan(-type) writing and weight systems, weaving, and potting technology, pottery shapes and consumption practices, wall-painting styles, architectural features, as well as religious symbolism and ritual practices. While there is no doubt that the islanders adopted Minoan cultural traits, it is less clear whether this should be interpreted as a response to Minoan economic, cultural, or political influence over the Cyclades. Nowadays, scholars are much more guarded in their assessment of Minoanisation, but at the beginning of the discipline, Minoan political power, phrased in terms of a ‘Minoan thalassocracy’, was considered the most likely scenario. Based on Evans’ equation of Knossos with the Palace of Minos, scholars argued that Ayia Irini, Phylakopi, and Akrotiri might have been the Minoan colonies alluded to by Thucydides’ and Herodotus’ accounts of King Minos and his sons: Minos is the earliest of all those known to us by tradition who acquired a navy. He made himself master of a very great part of what is now called the Hellenic Sea, and became Lord of the Cyclades islands and first coloniser of most of them, driving out the Carians and establishing his own sons in them as governors. Piracy, too, he naturally tried to clear from the sea, as far as he could, desiring that his revenues should come to him more readily (Thucydides I.4). [F]or Polycrates was the first Greek, of whom I have knowledge, to aim at the mastery of the sea, leaving out of account Minos of Cnossus and any others who before him held maritime dominion (Herodotus III.122,2).

The first scholar to associate a Cycladic site with one of the colonies of King Minos was Hall in his review of Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Atkinson et al. 1904) by referring to Phylakopi as a “mere over-sea outpost of the Minoan culture”. The presence of a pillar room, a drainage system similar to that at Knossos, strong fortification walls (but the lack thereof on Crete), and the steadily increasing quantities of Minoan vessels at Phylakopi were interpreted as an indication of peaceful interaction under the same (Minoan) ruler (Hall 1905: 83). However, criticism of a too literal application of literary sources to the archaeological past was initially voiced by Furumark (1950: 181–183). A more detailed critique was subsequently provided by Starr (1954/55)

CULTURAL INTERACTION AND MINOANISATION

63

who argued that the myth represented aspirations of the present, embedded in stories about past events. This can clearly be seen in the development of the myth through time: when King Minos was originally mentioned by Homer he is merely characterised as a powerful man (Od. XI 322, XIX 178; Il. XIII 450). The association of King Minos with maritime dominion first occurred in Herodotus’ writings at a time when Athens exercised ‘thalassocracy’ over the Aegean. Later, the myth was reiterated by Thucydides when Athens was consciously attempting to establish herself as a sea power against the Delian league. References to King Minos were used to legitimize Athens’ bid for power (Baurain 1991). The myth re-emerged again in Evans’ ‘Palace of Minos’ in a climate saturated with imperialist notions. 5 This instils no greater faith in the myth. Consequently, it appears most prudent to reject the myth of the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’ as a truthful narrative of past events. It should rather be regarded as the expression of a political climate in which sea empires were existent or desired (Fears 1978: 116). Despite the critical article by Starr (1954/55), the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’ became the accepted dogma. During the 1960s and 1970s new data from excavations across the Aegean helped ‘flesh out’ the details of these Minoan colonies: in addition to the abundant pottery evidence, scholars realized that architectural and technological features also displayed Minoan influence. The recognition of Minoan religious features outside Crete, such as peak sanctuaries (Troullos on Kea; possibly also Mikre Vigla on Naxos) and religious items or symbols (e.g. Kea, Melos, Thera), added a new dimension to the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’. Of great importance was the discovery of Linear A inscriptions (even tablets), indicating that the Minoan record-keeping system was in use outside Crete. However, the increasing amount of data not only highlighted the great diversity in Minoan influence on the different presumed colonies, but also forced scholars to reconsider the islands’ relations with the Greek mainland, Kythera, and Aegina. As a result, it was no longer viable to apply a uniform ‘thalassocracy’ model to all situations. The search for new, more adequate models began and 5

In fact, Pendlebury compared the Minoan thalassocracy to the establishment of the British Empire in India (1939: 286).

64

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

a number of conferences functioned as the springboard for many of the ideas. The Second Theran Congress (Doumas 1978) provided a first opportunity for scholars to analyse similarities and differences between presumed Minoan colonies. The recognition of diversity in the adoption of Minoan features at individual sites made it impossible to continue to subsume them under the term ‘colonies’ (Coldstream 1978; Davis 1978; Schachermeyr 1978; Shaw 1978). Drawing on a wider climate of change in archaeology, Aegean archaeologists became increasingly aware of the need to develop explanatory models for the encountered material diversity in order to move beyond mere descriptive categories. The following three were the most influential models: Branigan’s colony classifications (1981, 1984), Davis’ ‘Western String’ (1979; Cherry & Davis 1982) and Wiener’s ‘Versailles effect’ (1984). In 1979 Davis published his seminal article on ‘Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age’. In the paper he addressed the phenomenon of great numbers of Minoan imports and Minoanising items at the sites of Ayia Irini on Kea, Phylakopi on Melos, and Akrotiri on Thera, and the comparatively scant evidence of Cretan objects from other Cycladic islands. Davis suggested that this observed pattern is representative of the actual distribution and the depth of contact, and not a result of an excavation bias. The ‘Western String’ is what he calls the presumed route along the principal ports of call (Akrotiri, Phylakopi, and Ayia Irini—each one a convenient daytrip from the next) for Minoan traders travelling northwards towards the Lavrion metal mines. As evidence for frequent interaction between these islands, Davis points to Theran finds on Melos and Kea, Melian finds on Thera and Kea, and Keian finds on Melos. Silver, lead, saffron and unguents, wool, and stone are the items most likely to have been traded along this network, and directional exchange is the most likely model of exchange as no distance related fall-off curve from Crete has been observed. The three islands might have served as redistributive centres of Minoan goods to neighbouring Cycladic islands (Davis 1979). Initial responses to the ‘Western String’ led Davis and Cherry to further clarify and expand the model. Although little evidence for contact has come from any other island, the ‘Western String’ was by no

CULTURAL INTERACTION AND MINOANISATION

65

means the only route through the Cyclades that could be envisaged. Interaction could have occurred along alternative routes. “It is conceivable, for instance, that some mainland pottery reached Thera (and perhaps also Paros) along a W-E route from the Argolid via Melos, rather than by a N-S route along the ‘Western String’” (Cherry & Davis 1982: 339: footnote 21). The mode of travel was being envisaged as tramping—akin to a travelling bazaar. The ‘Western String’ soon became widely accepted, and, as an estimation of its perceived reality, has lost the quotation marks in the process (see Graziadio 1998: 37; Mountjoy & Ponting 2000; Rehak & Younger 1998: 136). Not long after, other preferential or directional routes, such as an East-West connection (via Crete and the Cyclades) and the ‘Eastern String’ (reaching from Crete via Karpathos to the Dodecanese and Carian coast) were proposed (Davis et al. 1983; Niemeier 1984). However, the model also received some criticism. Schofield emphasized that the ‘Western String’ islands might indeed have had a special, but not necessarily a unique, relationship with Crete (1982). She cautiously suggested that archaeologists might have to adjust their views when more evidence became available in the future, as indeed soon happened (see below). A very different approach to the observed artefact variability was proposed by Branigan. Based on ethnographic parallels, he attempted to define the term ‘colony’ more accurately (Branigan 1981). He classified settlements with reference to ethnographic cases according to the quantity and quality of artefact groups, and looked at ways in which immigrants maintain their identity in foreign environments. Branigan distinguished between three types of colonies: ‘settlement colony’, ‘governed colony,’ and ‘community colony’. A ‘settlement colony’ refers to towns or cities founded by a foreign people on unoccupied land and populated by people resettled there from the foreign homeland... Such a colony may be self-governing or governed from the homeland, or may achieve self-government after a period of government from the homeland (Branigan 1981: 26).

The term ‘governed colony’ denotes

66

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES existing settlements which have a foreign administration or government imposed upon them by force... Such colonies do not require the permanent resettlement of larger numbers of ‘colonists’; only a ‘governor’ (whatever the title), perhaps a small administrative staff, and some sort of garrison to ensure the security of the ‘governor’ and the adherence of the colony (Branigan 1981: 25).

The third category, ‘community colony’ or ‘enclave colony’, implies that a significant element of a settlement’s population is comprised of immigrants from a foreign place ... This element forms a distinctive social grouping within the settlement’s society, sometimes reflected by their spatial distribution within the settlement (Branigan 1981:26).

Branigan considered Kastri on Kythera to be a plausible candidate for a Minoan ‘settlement colony’, because various groups of evidence (drain, ceramic shapes and decoration, stone vases, Linear A, burials) indicated that settlers had arrived from Crete to establish a new town on virgin soil in EM II (Branigan 1981: 32; cf. Coldstream 1978; Coldstream & Huxley 1972, 1984). Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, and Akrotiri, on the other hand, could not have been settlement colonies, since each had a long local history before the earliest Minoan imports appeared. Minoantype frescoes, weights, symbolic items, Linear A, pottery, and architectural features have been discovered at all three sites, but were frequently adapted to fit in with local traditions (e.g. Theran frescoes, Theran building techniques, Melian copies of Minoan vessels). None was built on virgin soil and there was a continuous development of the sites without any signs of an abrupt change in the material culture as postulated for a ‘governed colony’ (pace MacGillivray 1984 who suggests that the late MC destructions might have been caused by Cretans). Thus, Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, and Akrotiri must have been ‘community colonies’ (Branigan 1981). Detailed assessments of, and general consensus on, the colony-status of each site can regularly be found in the literature (e.g. Cadogan 1984; Davis 1992; Doumas 1982; Niemeier 1984; Schofield 1982). While acknowledging great variability between sites, Branigan’s model, based on different proportions of local and foreign settlers, remained classificatory, and did not provide explanations for the diverse material record.

CULTURAL INTERACTION AND MINOANISATION

67

While Branigan’s model initially advocated a one-to-one relationship between the material evidence and the strength of Minoan political or economic influence, he himself began to question this link in a follow-up article (1984). In this article he argued that frequent contact between groups does not necessarily lead to more visible influence, or even assimilation, in the material culture. He warned scholars by reciting the cautionary tale of the Assyrian merchant enclave at Kültepe (1984). This group of merchants formed an enclave, a ‘karum’, outside the walls of the Anatolian town. As they used local building materials, adopted the local material culture and took local wives, their assimilation was so complete that archaeologists would have been unable to discover their presence if it had not been for the archived tablets which gave account of exchange and interaction between the trade community and the Assyrian homeland (Branigan 1984: 49–51; Emre 1963; Özgüç 1964). The reverse situation, namely that plentiful interaction can exist between a non-local and local culture without either of them adopting features from the other, has also been observed (Hodder 1978a, 1978b). It was concluded that no direct relationship necessarily exists between the degree of interaction and the intensity of cultural similarities (Hodder 1982: 8). Instead of equating material evidence and the degree of cultural influence in a linear fashion, Wiener (1984) put forward a processoriented model which examined the reasons behind the adoption of new/foreign features. His model of emulation processes, called the ‘Versailles effect’, interpreted the presence of Minoan artefacts and imitations as a consequence of their social desirability, rather than as a natural outcome due to the presence of foreign settlers. Wiener’s ‘Versailles effect’ refers to the widespread adoption and imitation of ‘fashth th ions’ coming from the court of Versailles in 17 /18 century Europe (Wiener 1984: 17). The model stipulates that no political or economic gain is necessarily implied, but that cultures strive to imitate a society because they perceive it to be culturally superior; and the reasons for imitating foreign material culture and social behaviour lie within the receiving society (e.g. social stratification). In 1982, the Swedish conference on the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’ not only brought the three above models to the forefront of archaeological thought, but also established a consensus among scholars re-

68

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

garding the nature of the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’ (contributions to Hägg & Marinatos 1984; see also Doumas 1982; Wiener 1990): archaeologists became increasingly aware that, to avoid confusion, the terms ‘thalassocracy’, ‘colonies’ and ‘control’ needed to be defined more carefully before being put to use. Military force or religious control were suggested as possible means of control by the Minoans (Hiller 1984; Marinatos 1984), but most scholars seemed to favour some kind of economic control or dominance (Davis 1984; Niemeier 1984; Schofield 1984; Stos-Gale & Gale 1984). The idea of political domination was put aside as impossible to prove or disprove, though it continued to be drawn on as a feasible interpretation (most recently by Niemeier 2004). One of the most important outcomes was the recognition that different regions or islands might have stood in very different relationships with Crete (e.g. Davis 1984; Doumas 1984; Schofield 1984). Minoan influence on the mainland was generally regarded as more superficial than that in the Cyclades and resulting from the ‘Versailles effect’ rather than political or economic control. The Cycladic islands, on the other hand, were regarded as more heavily influenced than the mainland, although the precise nature of the ‘influence’ remained unclear (e.g. Dickinson 1984; Hägg 1984; Korres 1984; Wiener 1984). Since then, new excavations and surveys have highlighted the limitations of the three approaches. New Minoanising finds from Mikre Vigla on Naxos and from Skarkos on Ios (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989; Marthari 2004) have shattered the basic foundation of the ‘Western String’ model, according to which only Thera, Melos, and Kea had stood in a ‘special’ relationship to Crete. In addition, variation in quantity and quality of pottery imports makes it unlikely that all islands were part of the same route (Berg 2006). The analysis of seafaring capabilities and navigation skills in Chapter 2 (also Berg 2007b) has further undermined the suggestion of a set route and the need for regular stop-overs. Wiener’s ‘Versailles effect’, on the other hand, is still considered a valuable interpretation, but its usefulness is limited as it perceives Minoanisation as a homogenous process and does not attempt to explain the observed differences in culture change at different islands. Branigan’s colony classifications are still regarded as useful devices because they alert us to material differences between sites. However, his approach has been devalued by his own acknowledgement

CULTURAL INTERACTION AND MINOANISATION

69

that material culture is not necessarily a direct result of political, cultural, or economic activity, as the example of the Assyrian merchant enclave by the Anatolian town of Kültepe shows (1984; cf. Emre 1963; Özgüç 1964). Since then, some progress has been made. The existence of Minoan political control over regions outside Crete, for example, has been questioned further. Meta-analyses of field survey data have provided evidence of fluctuating power bases on Crete which, while favouring Knossos in the Neopalatial period, were neither dominant nor permanent (Cunningham & Driessen 2004; Driessen 2001). Whether any kind of consistent, formal control over other regions (such as a ‘Minoan thalassocracy’) could have been established under those circumstances is doubtful, and indeed the nature and paucity of Cycladic sealing evidence speaks against such claims (Karnava 2004). While evidence of overt political control has not been detected in the archaeological record (even Niemeier [2004: 395]—a staunch supporter of the ‘thalassocracy’ hypothesis—admits that based on archaeological evidence “Minoan predominance over the Cyclades is possible but cannot be proved”) and appears to be distinctly anachronistic in light of increasingly stronger evidence of regionalism and fractional identities on Crete, scholars continue to debate the possibility of more ephemeral, informal control mechanisms, such as inter-marriage between elites and seaborne raids (Broodbank 2004), not to mention economic or cultural means of influence.

MOVING BEYOND CONVENTIONAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF ‘MINOANISATION’ While archaeological evidence has thrown doubt on the suitability of the above approaches to explain cultural change in the Cyclades, the greatest criticism of such scenarios comes from the social sciences where the study of contact situations has recently undergone a major reassessment. Having been formulated in the 1980s, the three above approaches are a product of the intellectual climate at the time when interaction between cultures was interpreted in the context of Westernisation and colonialism. Acculturation, the acquisition of culture traits as a result of contact, was a frequent label used to describe contact situations. This process of change may be reciprocal but was gen-

70

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

erally perceived to be asymmetrical, resulting in the (partial) absorption of the dominant culture by the peripheral one (Beals 1953; Herskovits 1938). Correlations between material finds and different acculturation scenarios (e.g. incorporation, assimilation, fusion, and compartmentalization) have been established to distinguish between different circumstances (Spicer 1961; cf. also SSRC 1954; Rogers 1993). However, these theoretical advances did not challenge the basic assumptions of acculturation approaches, namely that they tended to be descriptive and classificatory in nature and “tended to treat the process as unidirectional, imposed by the ‘dominant’ […] culture onto a somewhat choiceless recipient culture” (Deagan 1998: 26; for a recent summary of critiques see Cusick 1998a). It was not until the 1990s that anthropologists and archaeologists, influenced by the work of Foster (1960), began to conceptualize culture contact and change as a complex, multidirectional process based on selections made by the ‘recipient’ culture according to the value and cognitive systems of the communities involved. This shift from linear acculturation to multidirectional transculturation has allowed archaeologists to explore and explain culture change from a variety of perspectives, such as gender, class, and resistance (see contributions in Cusick 1998b). Unlike American or colonial archaeology, which has moved beyond unidirectional notions of culture change, Aegean archaeology is still greatly indebted to the concept of acculturation (Evans 1928; Gale 1991; contributions to Hägg & Marinatos 1984 and Hardy et al. 1990). This is most clearly visible in the term ‘Minoanisation’ which is intimately associated with notions of colonial superiority (Cadogan 1984; Doumas 1982; Schachermeyr 1978; Wiener 1984); ‘Minoan’ people are hereby portrayed as actively imposing culture change upon a peripheral community which functions as a passive receptacle of foreign cultural values, practices, and goods. When coupled with a neobiogeographical view of islands as bounded, isolated, and peripheral units (e.g. Royle 2001), it is easy to see how islanders are frequently perceived as lacking any cultural, economic, or political power over their lives. In keeping with approaches to culture change that emphasise the complexity and multidirectionality of the process, the following chapters mark an attempt to move away from established models towards a

CULTURAL INTERACTION AND MINOANISATION

71

contextual analysis of each island settlement in order to gain a better understanding of the socio-political or economic considerations at play which led to the adoption or rejection of a specific set of Minoan features at individual sites. It does this by progressing from an analysis of the local context to a study of the regional picture. It will be shown that the Cycladic communities were actively engaged in shaping their own fortunes and were able to manoeuvre within the broader constraints. By rejecting and accepting features—from decorative styles to technologies, painting conventions, building styles, cult practices, and cooking practices—each community negotiated its own degree of Minoanisation, the details of which may provide us with glimpses of the strategies followed. Analysis of the regional context allows us to understand whether there was a broader underlying pattern to the process of Minoanisation. This, in turn might reveal the reasons behind island preferences, why different islands desired to interact with Cretan culture, and how they established and maintained interaction. This active, constantly ongoing process of transculturation is visible in the ceramic record which forms the basis of this study. Before we can embark on such an analysis, however, we need to be aware of the terminology employed and its underlying implications. Two terms are of particular relevance here: ‘Minoan’ (noun or adjective) and ‘Minoanised’ (also ‘Minoanisation’, ‘Minoanising’). Application of the term ‘Minoan’ to the totality of Cretan archaeological remains creates the impression of a single homogeneous cultural, biological, and ethnic unit. However, it is important to remember that that ‘Minoan’ culture itself was variable and heterogenous, and indeed experienced itself ‘Minoanising’ acculturation episodes (Broodbank 2004; Hamilakis 2002; see also contributions to Hamilakis & Momigliano 2006). To continue talking about ‘Minoanisation’, as if the implied cultural reference (‘Minoan’) is unambiguous, is unwise and every effort should be made to investigate the local Cretan context in greater detail. It is likely that investigations may find special links between particular Cretan regions or towns (or indeed intermediary Minoanised places) and other regions or towns—such as the proposed connection between Bronze Age Mochlos and Phylakopi (Carter 2004), between east Crete and the Dodecanese (Marketou 1998), and between Knossos/Mesara and Miletus (Knappett & Nikola-

72

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

kopoulou 2005)—with implications for understanding the process of ‘Minoanisation’ both on Crete and abroad. Desirable as such microlevel investigations are, they are often difficult to achieve in practical terms due to lack of differentiation between some Cretan fabrics, quick and cost-effective analytical methods, specialisms, and time constraints. Regrettable as it is, these factors also prevented a more detailed understanding of the Cretan context in this study and references to Minoan remains should be understood as requiring further analysis. Not dissimilar to the implication of the term ‘Minoan’, discussions of Creto-Cycladic relationships generally represent the different Cycladic settlements as forming one undifferentiated ‘Minoanised’ entity (cf. also ‘Western String’, ‘community colonies’), thus denying islanders their individuality in dealing with outside cultures and failing to acknowledge the diversity of the material record. While some may advocate a change in vocabulary to symbolise an appreciation of diverse transculturation scenarios, I cannot see any obvious advantages in so doing as the term ‘Minoanised’ serves as a convenient and widely understood short-hand for changes in a society’s interaction with the outside world. What does need to be altered, however, is our understanding of these overarching terms. Instead of implying a homogenous, undifferentiated interaction process, use of such terms should make explicit acknowledgement of the variability and local distinctiveness of an interactive, culturally-governed process (cf. Broodbank 2004).

4. A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION: THE POTTERY FROM PHYLAKOPI ON MELOS This chapter presents results from my statistical analysis of the pottery production at Phylakopi. Topics explored are the changing uses of fabrics, forming techniques and decoration, potential transformations in the organization of the production, and the development of Minoan imports and local imitations between the late MC and LC II period. It will be argued that what is normally simply labelled ‘Minoanisation’ and regarded as a natural by-product of regular trade and contact, is actually interplay between long-held cultural traditions and newly emerging desires.

THE SITE The island of Melos is the western-most of the Cyclades and lies halfway between Crete and Attica (Figure 20). While people have visited the island since the Upper Palaeolithic, first settlement evidence dates to the Neolithic. The EBA witnessed a marked dispersion of small farmsteads. There is no evidence for contact beyond its Cycladic neighbours at this period. Towards the end of the period a nucleated settlement pattern had already formed—with Phylakopi emerging as the main site on the island. 6 Throughout the MBA and LBA, Phyla6

Over the last 100 years, Phylakopi has been the focus of several excavations and surveys (Atkinson et al. 1904; Hogarth, Mackenzie & Edgar 1897/98; Mackenzie, Atkinson, & Edgar 1898/99; Mackenzie 1963; Smith 1896/97; Dawkins & Droop 1910/11; Barber 1974; Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982;

73

74

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

kopi remained the only permanently inhabited site on Melos. The LBA saw an expansion of the settlement site to 80 m * 200 m and the construction of an impressive fortification wall (Figure 21). The Mansion and a written recording system may indicate the existence of a local authority. Some Grey Minyan and Matt-painted pieces represent mainland imports, while imported MM and LM pottery indicates contact with Crete (cf. Chapter 5). However, Minoan influence went beyond the import of pottery and included frescoes, architectural features, Linear A writing, and Minoanising vessels (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982).

PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF PHYLAKOPI: CYCLADIC, MINOANISED OR MINOAN? The question of Minoan influence was already considered by the first excavators. Originally they had suggested that Phylakopi’s wealth— due to the manufacture and export of obsidian—would naturally encourage trade with other islands and thus explain the presence of Kamares vessels (Hogarth, Mackenzie & Edgar 1897/98: 2). By 1904, however, no doubt influenced by Evans’ excavations at Knossos, the excavators began to view Phylakopi with reference to, though not necessarily as fully dependent on, Crete. Kamares imports at Phylakopi and the presence of Melian vases at Knossos were interpreted as the result of peaceful interaction between the two islands in the MBA. During the early LBA, however, Phylakopi was perceived to have been under Crete’s spell culturally, although the selectiveness of the adoption process and the ingenuity of Melian potters in combining new Cretan elements with native features was emphasized (Atkinson et al. 1904: 263–264). While the excavators themselves did not immediately equate Phylakopi with one of the colonies of King Minos, Hall, in his review of the final publication, made this leap, referring to Phylakopi as a “mere over-sea outpost of the Minoan culture” (1905: 83). Renfrew 2007; Sanders & Catling, in: AR 1989–90: 67). Five distinct occupational phases have been identified and can be dated to the EC period (Phylakopi 0+I), the MC period (Phylakopi II followed by a destruction), and the LC period (Phylakopi III+IV) (Table 1).

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

Figure 20. The Aegean, showing key sites mentioned in the text

75

76

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

77

Furumark, in his re-assessment of Cretan cultural influence in the Aegean, also saw the settlement as politically dependent on Crete. By linking evidence of the late MBA destruction with the succeeding dependency of Melian pottery on Minoan prototypes, the abandonment of local traditions, the lack of contacts between the Cyclades and the mainland, and the knowledge of a Cretan expansion in the early LBA, Furumark argued that the Cyclades were politically subjugated to Crete (1950: 192–202). He speculated that the establishment of colonies and political alliances might have been the result of a desire on the part of Crete to safeguard its interests against a mainland expansion (Furumark 1950: 252–253). The ‘Western String’ model first highlighted the economic (rather than political) impact of Crete on the Cyclades (Cherry & Davis 1982; Davis 1979). Phylakopi was hereby regarded as one of the presumed ports of call for Minoan traders travelling northwards towards Lavrion. Phylakopi might have served as a redistributive centre of Minoan goods to other Cycladic islands. Because of its close links with Minoan Crete, Melos received greater amounts of Minoan goods and became thus more deeply Minoanised than other islands. Instead of a one-to-one relationship between quantity of material and intensity of contact, Branigan considered Phylakopi to have been a ‘community colony’ as it had a long local history prior to the arrival of the first Minoan imports and the site continued to develop thereafter without any sign of abrupt change in the material evidence. Cretanderived frescoes, Linear A, weights, pottery, and architectural features have been discovered at Phylakopi, but were frequently adapted to suit local customs (1981, 1984). Wiener’s ‘Versailles effect’, on the other hand, specified that the presence of Minoan artefacts and imitations at Phylakopi was a consequence of their social desirability (1984).

78

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

THE POTTERY PRODUCTION AT PHYLAKOPI ON MELOS 7 Melian fabrics My own macroscopic analysis of the assemblage has been able to distinguish between two local fabric groups; these can also be detected petrologically (Davis & Williams 1981; Jones 1986: 271–2; Vaughan, in: Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989: 154–156). These fabric groups are: 1) the ‘local’ fabric and 2) Cycladic White (Figure 22). The Local Fabric Group ranges from semicoarse to very coarse clay with an orange to brown colour palette, and is characterized by plentiful volcanic inclusions. All shapes (local as well as imitations of Minoan shapes) and surface treatments have been recognized in this fabric. Included in this fabric group, but distinguishable from this fabric by its softer clay, 8 is the ‘conical cup’ fabric which was exclusively used for small, open Minoan shapes and normally remained unpainted. The Cycladic White Fabric Group 9 exists in a fine/semicoarse and coarse version. It is characterized by its whitish, often finely levigated clay, which was well fired. The coarser variety varies in colour from very pale brown to 7

All percentages are based on the author’s own analysis of the pottery assemblage from Renfrew’s 1974–77 excavations. 75,036 fragments and complete vessels from the trenches KKd, ∏A, ∏C, ∏DI/∏E, ∏S, PK, Pla were studied (for details on the methodology see Berg 2000). Of those, trenches ∏A and PLa together contained almost 70% of all fragments. In terms of temporal coverage, 40% of all fragments came from MC layers, the remainder belonged to the LC I-II periods. The limitations of the data are discussed in the Introduction. 8 No systematic analysis of firing temperatures and conditions was undertaken as part of this study; however it is possible that the softness of the ‘conical cups’ fabric indicates different firing conditions from that of the other fabrics (cf. Orton Tyers & Vince 1993: 138). That differences between fabrics can be expressed also in distinct firing processes has been shown by Kiriatzi and her colleagues (1997). 9 Most scholars regard Melos, rather than Thera, as the main production centre of this fabric. This assumption is tentatively supported by petrological and chemical analyses (Davis & Williams 1981; cf. Vaughan, in: Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989; Jones 1978: 476, 1986; Kilikoglou et al. 1990; but see Marthari 1998).

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

79

light olive and contains plenty of volcanic inclusions. Common shapes are traditional Melian serving vessels, especially cups and jugs, often decorated in Black and Red naturalistic and curvilinear designs (Berg 2000). While all three fabrics (‘local’, ‘conical cup’, and ‘Cycladic White’) are present between the late MC and LC II period, their proportions vary over time (Figure 23): the ‘local’ fabric, always by far the most abundant, decreased over time as the ‘conical cup’ fabric became more prominent. The ‘conical cup’ fabric made its first appearance in late MC, but was very rare. A large increase in popularity can be discerned in each of the succeeding phases. Cycladic White was most common in the late MC period but steadily decreased over time. This overall pattern is not unexpected and is comparable to what is known from other sites.

Figure 22. Melian fabrics. a) Cycladic White (Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982: plate 16.2), b) ‘local’ fabric, c) ‘conical cup’ fabric. All images by permission from Colin Renfrew

80

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

During the late Middle Cycladic period, the dominant ‘local’ fabric was used for all shapes. In the later phases it ceased to be used for handleless cups, but remained the most important fabric for all other vessel types (Figure 24). The fabric was used both for local and Minoanising vessels, such as handless cups, amphorae, bridge-spouted jars, and semiglobular cups. As regards the relationship between shapes and surface treatments 10 all three major categories of surface treatment (burnished, painted, untreated) can be found in this fabric. Most shapes, including cooking and storage vessels, seem to be represented in an untreated and painted version (Figure 25).

Figure 23. Development of the three local fabrics through time

The ‘conical cup’ fabric made its first appearance at Phylakopi in late MC. Its popularity increased dramatically in subsequent periods, making it the second most popular fabric in late LC I/LC II (Figure 23). After some initial experimenting in the ‘local’ fabric, the manufacture of handleless cups (i.e. bell, conical, rounded, and straight-sided cups) came to be exclusively associated with the ‘conical cup’ fabric. Indeed, the focus on this shape was so complete that only a small mi10

In order to qualify for correlation between shape and surface treatment, at least 20% of the shape had to be made in the particular ware.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

81

nority of fragments belonged to vessels other than handleless cups (Figure 24). This implies that virtually all of the shapes manufactured in this fabric denote Minoan-style vessels; few bowls, tumblers, mugs, jars, and one basin represent the entirety of non-Minoanising shapes. Interestingly, the proportion of these vessels waxed and waned relative to the popularity of the fabric, 11 indicating that the clay was suitable for the manufacture of other open and closed shapes. With the exception of a few painted pieces, almost all vessels in this fabric remained untreated (Figure 25). Cycladic White was the second most important local fabric in the late MC period, but its popularity waned in the later phases (Figure 23). Presumably because of its unusual fine buff clay, its quirky shapes, and colourful decoration, Cycladic White was frequently exported and has regularly been found on other Cycladic islands, Crete, the Greek mainland and beyond (Berg 2000: Appendix). While quite a wide range of serving vessels was manufactured in this fabric, hemispherical cups and jugs predominated (Figure 24). Minoan-style bridge-spouted/holemouthed jars also occur but the majority of shapes were firmly rooted in the local Melian repertoire. As regards decoration, many fragments were painted in the characteristic Black and Red style with motifs often imitating Minoan designs (Figure 25) (Atkinson et al. 1904 [referred to as ‘Early Mycenaean with Designs in Matt Black’]; Barber 2007; Papagiannopoulou 1991: 102–115).

11

There was only one non-Minoanising vessel in late MC, but already seven in early LC I, and 22 both in middle LC I and late LC I/LC II.

82

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 24. Fabrics and the shapes for which they were used (Minoanising shapes are underlined; local = ‘local’ fabric; cc = ‘conical’ cup fabric; CW = Cycladic White fabric)

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

Figure 25. Shapes and surface treatments at Phylakopi (Minoanising shapes are underlined; B=burnished; P=painted; Plain=untreated; mono=monochrome)

83

84

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

To summarize, three local fabric groups distinct in clay composition, colour, shapes, and decoration could be distinguished at Phylakopi. Cycladic White was fine in texture, the ‘local’ and ‘conical cup’ fabrics were coarse. Cycladic White was made of buff clay, the ‘conical cup’ fabric of light brown clay, and the ‘local’ fabric covered the whole colour range from orangey-red to brown. As regards local versus Minoanising shapes, Cycladic White was primarily used for local Melian shapes. The ‘conical cup’ fabric was only used for Minoan-style handleless cups and the ‘local’ fabric, with the exception of handleless cups, was used for all shapes, whether of local or of Cretan origin. This clear distinction between fabric groups can also be seen in the surface treatment: the ‘conical cup’ fabric was generally left untreated, while Cycladic White was always painted. As above, the local fabric crosses the boundaries and can be found burnished, painted, or untreated— depending on the function of the vessel. Forming techniques Phylakopi was among many Cycladic settlements which began producing pottery by utilizing rotative kinetic energy (RKE) for the first time in late MC/LC I. As this change coincided with the appearance of Minoan-type frescoes, the Minoan writing system, an increase in Minoan ceramic imports, and the occurrence of Aegean lead weights scholars have consequently regarded Minoan Crete as the place from which the wheel technology diffused to the Cyclades (Papagiannopoulou 1990: 61). At Phylakopi, as at other Cycladic settlements, there was a rapid increase in local wheelmade/-shaped 12 pottery from the MC to the LC 12

It is important to emphasize that the existence of a potter’s wheel does not necessarily imply the consistent utilization of rotative kinetic energy during the making of a vessel. Nor is the existence of surface features commonly associated with wheel-thrown pottery (e.g. rilling around the interior and/or exterior, concentric striations on the base, and compression ripples around the neck) incontrovertible evidence of its use (Courty & Roux 1995; Roux & Courty 1998; Henrickson 1991). Thus, what is conventionally considered a wheel-thrown vessel might in fact be wheel-shaped (i.e., use of a potter’s wheel to join, thin, or smooth walls originally built by hand). Based on experiments, Courty and Roux have developed a methodology that allowed

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

85

I period, in particular in early/middle LC I (Figure 26). At first glance, this appears to demonstrate a quick and complete acceptance of the potter’s wheel by the Melians.

Figure 26. Development of local wheelmade/-shaped pottery through time

A breakdown of forming technique by shape, however, shows the pattern to be much more complex (Table 11): First, while wheelmade manufacture became more popular over time, it was exclusively small open shapes which were wheelmade in late MC. Only in the succeedthem to differentiate between truly wheel-thrown and wheel-shaped vessels (1995; Roux & Courty 1998), but there are still many grey areas. Knappett’s analysis of Middle Minoan pottery from Knossos suggests the continued use of wheel-shaping for several generations after the introduction of the potter’s wheel (2004), and it is possible that Phylakopi witnessed a similar development. Until a reliable method has been found to distinguish macroscopically between wheel-throwing and wheel-shaping, all subsequent references to ‘wheelmade’ or ‘wheel-thrown’ should be understood as referring to any kind of use of rotative kinetic energy during all or part of the forming process.

86

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

ing LC I period does wheelmade production extend also to closed vessels. Such a pattern (initial preferential use of RKE for small open shapes, gradually spreading to larger closed shapes) can, for example, also be observed at Ayia Irini on Kea, Akrotiri on Thera, Knossos on Crete, and Toumba in Central Macedonia (Kiriatzi et al. 1997; Knappett 1999b; Papagiannopoulou 1990). Second, it was not merely open shapes, but specifically open Minoanising shapes—later followed by closed Minoanising vessels—which were the first to be made consistently with the wheel. Only much later do we see examples of the first wheelmade Melian shapes, namely cups and bowls. Although pots were indeed increasingly made with the wheel, the increase was not as steep and uniform as Figure 26 would lead us to believe. Analysis of forming technique according to fabric highlights the complexity of the pottery production at Phylakopi (Figure 27). In the ‘local’ fabric, for example, the quantity of wheelmade vessels gradually increased, but the majority of vessels continued to be made by hand—even in the LC I-II period. 13 When the wheel was used it was primarily for small open shapes, such as cups and bowls; examples of wheelmade closed serving or preparation vessels were rare. The quantity of Minoanising vessels among the wheelmade ones was disproportionately greater, indicating a preference of wheelmade manufacture for Minoanising pots (Berg 2000: fig. 5.12). The ‘conical cup’ fabric is the only fabric group consistently associated with wheelmade production. From the very first occurrence of this fabric in late MC virtually all of the pots were wheelmade (Figure 27). Interestingly, a disproportionately large quantity of handmade vessels was found among the few non-Minoanising vessels produced in this fabric, 14 suggesting that the fabric was clearly suitable for either mode of production even though there was a clear social preference for Minoan-style shapes. 13

It should be noted that the sample size for middle LC I pots was considerably smaller than the other phases. Resulting percentages especially for the smaller categories should be considered in this light. 14 In addition to six bowls, four conical cups and three bell cups were also made by hand.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

87

Vessel shape

late MC

early/ middle LC I

late LC I/LC II

Cycladic bowl Melian bowl other bowls panelled cup hemispherical cup tumbler semiglobular cup rounded cup conical cup bell cup straight-sided cup saucer jug jar bridge-spouted/ hole-mouthed jar amphora bucket/ cooking pot/ tripod cooking pot basin pithoid jar/pithos tub lamp rhyton

hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand wheel wheel wheel wheel hand hand hand

hand hand hand hand/wheel hand/wheel hand hand wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel hand hand hand

hand hand hand hand hand/wheel --wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel wheel hand hand hand

hand

hand

hand

hand

hand

hand hand hand hand ---

hand hand hand hand hand/wheel

hand hand hand hand/wheel wheel

hand/wheel

Table 11. Dominant forming technique by shape (all local fabrics; Minoanising shapes in bold; hand=handmade; wheel=wheelmade/-shaped; hand/wheel=roughly equal proportion of handmade and wheelmade/-shaped)

88

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Cycladic White pots were primarily made by hand, although the proportion of wheelmade vessels increased rapidly in LC I—more rapidly even than in the ‘local’ fabric (Figure 27). As Cycladic White was overwhelmingly used for local shapes, this increase in wheelmade pots reflects an increase in local wheelmade shapes.

Figure 27. Development of wheelmade/-shaped production by fabric

To summarize, different forming technique patterns can be identified for the three different fabric groups at Phylakopi. The ‘local’ fabric and Cycladic White are predominantly handmade and focus on traditional shapes, whereas the ‘conical cup’ fabric is strongly correlated with both Minoanising shapes and wheelmade production. As regards the progressive expansion of the use of the potter’s wheel, it is interesting to observe that it is small open vessels which are first made with the wheel. An expansion of wheelmade manufacture also to large open and closed vessels only occurs at a later stage. Such a pattern has been

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

89

observed at many sites. As I have argued elsewhere (Berg 2007a), experiments with modern potters seem to indicate that this pattern is of universal relevance and reflects physical and mental learning stages common to all potters. Unlike coil-building, which can be learned within one year (Crown 1999; Roux & Corbetta 1989: 69; WallaertPetre 1999), wheel-throwing requires up to 10 years of concerted practice to reach an expert level of competence as it depends on the acquisition of progressively developing techniques (cf. Ericsson & Lehmann 1996). Based on experiments with modern potters and non-potters, Roux and Corbetta (1989) have demonstrated that wheel-throwing apprenticeship is governed by an increase in the size of the pot— progressing from small open vessels for inexperienced potters, to medium-sized open vessels for competent potters, and finally to closed and large open vessels for expert potters. This pattern mirrors perfectly the developments at Phylakopi (Table 12a, b): conical cups, bell cups, straight-sided cups, and saucers are the first wheelmade pots in late MC. None of the pots is larger than 10 cm and their manufacture does not require a perfectly centered lump of clay. Panelled cups, hemispherical cups, rounded cups and the rhyton, the first large open shape representative of 2nd stage of apprenticeship, are added in early and middle LC I. In late LC I/LC II the semiglobular cup, the Melian bowl, the lamp and the amphora are added to the wheelmade repertoire. Of these, the amphora is our first example of a large vessel with a restricted orifice, representative of the acquisition of the most advanced potting skills. However, as the amphora was normally made in at least two stages (body coil-built, neck wheelthrown), Melian potters had not yet acquired the skills representative of the final stage of the apprenticeship and had not yet learned how to exploit fully the potential of the potter’s wheel. Two explanations for this phenomenon can be put forward: either Melian potters deliberately chose not to apply wheel-throwing techniques to the larger vessels, or potters lacked the necessary daily practice to enhance their skills. As there certainly were attempts at wheel-throwing large vessels, I find the former explanation unsatisfactory. The lack of daily practice, however, seems more likely if we assume that only deliberate daily practice (four hours are suggested by Ericsson & Lehmann 1996) can further enhance the necessary skills. With a population of 1,400 to 3,000 (cf. Renfrew & Wag-

90

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

staff 1982: 139–140, 252), potters at Phylakopi were most likely parttime specialists who worked on a seasonal basis or intermittently throughout the whole year and thus lacked the opportunity to become full-time craftsmen. If standardisation is accepted as an indicator of fulltime craft specialization (Benco 1988; Costin 1991; Longacre 1999; Longacre, Kvamme and Kobayashi 1988; Rice 1991; but see Arnold 1991 and London 1991), then a recent analysis of Melian conical cups indicates part-time production at Phylakopi (Berg 2004b; see below).

VESSEL HEIGHT REACHED TYPE OF POT MADE

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

6 cm

22 cm

> 22 cm

Little and big fairy lamp

Jar lid, 10 cm vessel, 20 cm vessel

30 cm vessel

Table 12a. Height stages of a potter’s apprenticeship (after Roux & Corbetta 1989)

VESSEL HEIGHT REACHED TYPE OF POT MADE

STAGE 1 5-8 cm

STAGE 2 20 cm

STAGE 3 > 20 cm

Cup, saucer

Rhyton

Amphora

Table 12b. Height stages of Melian potters

Decoration More than 30 distinct decorative motifs or patterns are part of the Melian repertoire in MC, LC I and LC II (cf. Davis & Cherry 2007; Papagiannopoulou 1991). Some of these follow a local tradition (e.g. diaper net, zigzag, hatches, fishes) and some are of Minoan origin (e.g. tortoiseshell ripples, foliate bands, spirals). To determine cultural preferences for the selection and location of each motif, seven motifs were considered: zigzag, diaper net, foliate bands, lilies, spirals (running and single), volutes and tortoiseshell ripples. These motifs were chosen due to their relatively large sample size and their distinctiveness. All motifs were analysed according to the type of the vessel used on, their location on the vessel, the fabric and decoration.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

91

Despite the limitations of a largely fragmentary assemblage, it became apparent that the Melian potters were using the Cretan-derived motifs for the same shapes, in the same locations, and with the same colour combinations (dark-on-light either imitated directly when the clay was light, or dark on a buff slip when the clay was reddish) as Cretan potters (Table 13). For each of the examples on feature sherds, parallels from Crete are easy to find (e.g. Betancourt 1990; Catling, Catling & Smith 1979; Schiering 1998; Watrous 1992). Interestingly, whenever the precise shape could be identified, it almost always belonged to a Minoan-style vessel. Although this evidence reflects a general trend in LC I to use Minoanising shapes with pattern-painted decoration and reserve burnished or red/dark monochrome decoration for traditional Melian shapes (see Davis & Cherry 2007), it also supports our claim for a division between traditional and Minoan-style pottery production at Phylakopi. It appears that Melian potters also used different motifs depending on whether they were making a traditional or Minoan-style vessel. Whether this pattern is the result of different manufacturing units or consumer preferences is impossible to determine as relevant spatial and contextual information is missing. The proverbial exception to the rule seem to be some Cycladic White jugs and panelled/hemispherical cups which, although typically Melian in shape, used spirals and volutes as well as traditional motifs. The reverse was investigated as well, and in those case where we have details it can be confirmed that local motifs never occur on Minoanising vessels (Table 13). To summarize, whilst Marthari was able to argue for an adaptation of Minoan motifs to the local Theran tradition (1987, 1990), this kind of detail is, unfortunately, unobtainable in this sample. However, the evidence seems to support a separation of Minoanising and local traditions: most Cretan-derived decorative motifs appeared on imitations of Minoan shapes, and traditional motifs were used for local shapes. Insofar as information is available, Melian potters used Minoanising motifs for the same shapes and in the same locations as their Cretan counterparts.

92

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Motif

Vessel type

Location

Fabric

Decoration

Foliate band

open, closed

rim, upper body

local

poly, dol

Lily

bridge-spouted jar semiglobular cup, carinated cup, rounded cup, bell cup, bowl, jug, jar, amphora

upper body

CW local

poly dol, lod

Volute

hemispherical cup, bowl, amphora, jug

Ripples

bell cup, cup, bowl, jar, ewer

Zigzag

Melian bowl, Cycladic cup, jar Melian bowl, Cycladic cup, bell cup, jar

Spiral

Diaper net

upper body, local shoulder, lower

dol

body, handle

CW

dol

rim, upper local body, shoulder, handle, lower body rim, upper local body, shoulder, lower body rim, neck, local spout, body

dol

rim, upper body, body

dol

local

dol dol

Table 13. Decorative motifs on Melian MC-LC I/II pottery (poly=polychrome; dol=dark on light; lod=light on dark; local=local fabric; CW=Cycladic White)

Discussion The patterns that have emerged from our analysis of fabric groups, forming techniques and decoration are highly illuminating: there appears to have existed an understanding of the appropriate use of fabrics, shapes, forming techniques and decoration resulting in something akin to a conceptual division of the Melian pottery production (Figure

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

93

28). The ‘local’ fabric was linked to handmade production of local shapes using local motifs. The ‘conical cup’ fabric was closely associated with the potter’s wheel and almost exclusively focused on Minoanising shapes. This separation was maintained even when there was a cross-over: Minoan-style shapes produced in the ‘local’ fabric were more regularly wheelmade, used pale brown clays (or a pale slip) and Cretan-derived motifs; the small number of local shapes produced in the ‘conical cup’ fabric, on the other hand, had a greater likelihood of being handmade. Local shapes, therefore, continued to be made by hand, even after the introduction of the wheel at Phylakopi. As contact with Crete had been established in the Middle Bronze Age and wheelmade imports had found their way to Middle Bronze Phylakopi, we have to conclude that contact with Crete and the Greek mainland did not lead to substantial changes in the forming technique at Phylakopi between MC and LC I-II but to the establishment of a parallel tradition. Most pots continued to be made according to the local Melian tradition—by hand. Melian potters knew of the potter’s wheel and knew how to use it, as it has been demonstrated by the growing percentage of wheelmade vessels through time. However, for reasons unknown, Melian potters did not consider the wheel appropriate to be used for most of their local pottery, but applied it primarily to Minoan-style shapes. As regards the Minoanising production, its most striking feature is its close adherence to the Cretan production process, including clay colour (pale brown), shape (Minoanising), manufacturing process (wheelmade) and decoration (Minoanising). For Melian potters, it seems, Minoan-type shapes seemed to have been intrinsically linked to the potter’s wheel. However, given the existence of hybrid vessels (functionally or socially) that combine Minoanising and local features in non-deterministic ways, it is probably best to consider the above pattern as presenting two extremes along a continuum (rather than a strict dichotomy) with an adherence to the Minoan tradition on one end and the local tradition at the other. Indeed, the existence of variability indicates that the observed pattern was not accepted by all potters and should thus be considered socially meaningful in itself.

94

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 28. Schematic representation of the pottery production at Phylakopi

No such patterning is visible at contemporary sites. At Akrotiri, most mature MC pottery was made by hand, but already by the end of the Middle Bronze Age, most vessels were wheelmade (Papagiannopoulou 1990: 61–62). At Ayia Irini, Overbeck remarked that “nearly all readily identifiable local products are hand-built; use of the potter’s wheel is rare [in early MC]” (1989a: 8). For the late MC (Period V), Davis commented that “many of these pots are wheelthrown, especially the smaller vessels; the wheel appears to have been used much more than in Period IV” (1986: 4). By Late Bronze I virtually everything is wheelmade at Ayia Irini (Elizabeth Schofield, pers. communication). While Keian potters also used different clay for Cretan-style handleless cups the adoption of the potter’s wheel was widespread comprising both local and Minoanising vessels (for a detailed discussion see Chapter 5). How best to explain the observed conceptual division in the Melian pottery production? Elsewhere I have suggested that certain facets of the local identity were deeply embedded in the technique of hand-building resulting in the rejection of the potter’s wheel for local shapes, but allowing its use for the imitation of foreign vessels (Berg 2007b). At the core of this argument lies the acknowledgement that the technical and socio-symbolic content of a technology are inseparable. Technology is hereby understood as social practice that often plays an important role in forging, reaffirming and/or contesting relationships and traditions (Dobres 1999, 2000, 2001; Dobres & Hoffman 1999; Ingold 1999; Lemonnier 1986, 1992, 1993; Pfaffenberger 1988, 1992; van der Leeuw 1993). However, not all technological processes are equally suitable to be used as vehicles for every type of social communication.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

95

Gosselain has demonstrated that visibility of a technique is a major factor in understanding its socio-cultural significance (2000). In his Cameroonian case study, he found that “certain facets of identity were related consistently to certain stages of the chaîne opératoire” and was able to distinguish between three technico-social categories (2000: 189): 1) Techniques that leave visible evidence on the finished product (e.g. tempering or mixing clays, secondary forming techniques, decoration, certain firing techniques and most post-firing treatments). Easily visible techniques allow other potters, customers, relatives and neighbours to be aware of an individual’s techniques. As a consequence, these features are easily transmittable, fluctuate through time and reflect the more superficial, situational and temporary facets of identity; they often are a response to changing social, economic, or symbolic pressures. 2) Techniques that leave no visible traces on the finished product but are observed by fellow workers, especially when the work is done on a collective basis (e.g. clay selection, extraction, processing and firing). Consequently, modifications are likely to reflect adjustment to local or regional identities. 3) Techniques that do not leave visible traces on the finished product (e.g. primary forming techniques which are generally obliterated by secondary forming treatments). They are most resistant to change as they are based on specialized gestures and motor habits acquired through repeated practice. Thus, primary forming techniques reflect the most individual and rooted aspects of social identity, including kinship, learning networks, gender and social class (Gosselain 1998, 2000; Gelbert 1999; cf. Mahias 1993 and Arnold 1999 with reference to India and Mexico respectively). Categories 1) and 3) can also be detected at Phylakopi. The rapid adoption of very visible innovations (Cretan-derived shapes, motifs and fabric colour) was probably a reflection of more situational identities and was likely due to customer demand, based on a desire to participate in elite rituals associated with the Minoan culture. The adoption of the potter’s wheel, on the other hand, was resisted for fear of undermining the deep-rooted facets of the local’s identity, such as kinship, gender, social class and learning networks, the practice of hand-

96

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

building had become associated with (cf. Jones 2002 who considers identities as being created through practice). The observed conceptual division of pottery manufacture into a local and Minoanising production, if we follow Gosselain, represents a materialized expression of underlying social conflict. The fact that hybrid vessels existed in some numbers indicates that traditions, aspirations and social values were not always fully accepted by everybody (Berg 2007a). The organization of the Melian pottery production Little is known about the organization of the Melian pottery production: Did potters work full-time or part-time? Were they specialists or laypersons? How many workshops existed on Melos? 15 How many people worked in each workshop? Where were the workshops located? Nothing definite can be concluded as yet. However, there are indications that potters were most likely part-time specialists competent in the use of hand-building techniques. Competence in the use of the potter’s wheel, on the other hand, was of a lesser standard and only slowly advanced to the top level of mastership. The existence of two or more potters specializing in the same fabric or shape might possibly be deduced through archaeologically visible evidence of competition, such as diversification of the output or optimization of the production process (Davis & Lewis 1985; Knappett 1997, 1999a: 631). Competition through diversification may find ex15

One path of enquiry presents itself as a logical consequence from our discussion of fabric groups, shapes, and decoration, namely did the observed differences between the local fabrics or those between the local and Minoanising tradition imply distinction also in the organization of their manufacture? That is, did individual potters specialize in one fabric or one forming tradition or did most potters work with all fabrics and forming techniques? A study of vessel morphology, production technology, ratio, orientation, or angle dimensions was conducted to ascertain the identifiable existence of analytical individuals and shed light on workshop preferences. Unfortunately, a pilot project undertaken by the author was unable to attribute specific work practices to individual workshops/potters. The study highlighted that successful attribution studies require larger quantities of feature sherds and a less fragmentary assemblage than available at Phylakopi.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

97

pression in the production of a wider or different range of shapes, or by offering a greater variety of decorations. Competition through optimization may result in an attempt to cut costs and produce a consistent and recognizable product in one or more fabrics through standardisation in dimensions and shapes. These two outcomes are not mutually exclusive since each addresses a different stage of the production process: diversification is directed at the consumer and aims to make the pots more attractive by offering a wider range of shapes, fabrics or decorations. Optimization, on the other hand, operates at the production level; by controlling the potter’s motor habits and amount of clay used, the product can be made faster, more reliably and more cheaply, and, as a consequence, should result in a more standardised product. Both diversification and standardisation could therefore shed light on the organization of the Melian pottery production. If we could, for example, identify a trend towards diversification in Cycladic White, this could potentially indicate external competition as this fabric was a frequent export article: in order to make the product more appealing to the customers, the Melian production might have made deliberate attempts to diversify shapes or decorative motifs to outshine their Theran competitors. If optimization was visible in the ‘local’ fabric, it could potentially indicate internal competition between different Melian potting groups. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the assemblage of Phylakopi precludes this kind of investigation for the ‘local’ fabric and Cycladic White. However, there are enough complete pots in the ‘conical cup’ fabric to be analysed with regard to optimization tendencies. Among all the complete pots in the ‘conical cup’ fabric, conical cups themselves made up the largest number and were therefore chosen for this analysis (see also Berg 2004b). Conical cups, partly due to their unassuming nature and general lack of decoration have only become an object of detailed study relatively recently (Davis & Lewis 1985; Gillis 1990a, 1990b, 1998; Knappett 1999c; van de Moortel 2002). However, their abundance–numbering up to thousands on most Cretan and Cycladic sites–and occurrence in secular and ritual contexts have now given them a prominent spot in the minds of Aegean archaeologists. Conical cups are generally regarded as part of the standard Minoan kitchen/dining kit (Wiener 1990: 135). Having been

98

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

found in residential and funeral contexts alike they must have fulfilled an important function in the context of drinking and feasting. A most interesting study of conical cups was undertaken by Davis and Lewis. Here, the authors set out to investigate whether the production of locally made conical cups at Ayia Irini on Kea was influenced by trade with Crete (1985). Statistical analysis unambiguously demonstrated that there was a development towards standardisation in the local Keian conical cup production between LC I to LC II (Table 14 a, b). This standardisation found expression in a narrowing range of height, rim and base diameters and a decrease in average cup weight through time. The authors concluded that conical cups were produced by specialists who had implemented time- and labour-saving strategies in order to compete more successfully with Cretan producers. However, this interpretation overlooks crucial evidence, namely that very few Minoan conical cups were imported into Kea and no locally produced Keian conical cups have been found on Crete. It appears therefore that conical cups were generally produced for local consumption only and were not traded over great distances. Thus standardisation of Keian conical cups is unlikely to have been the result of competition between Cretan and Keian pottery manufacturers. Instead, increasing competition between different potting groups at Ayia Irini, possibly spurred on by exposure to a more technologically advanced society, is more consistent with the available evidence. As no Keian control group was examined, this hypothesis has to remain hypothetical. To determine whether comparable stresses existed in the Melian pottery manufacture, I undertook a statistical analysis of 305 complete or large complete conical cups from Phylakopi of LC I to LC II date. 16 The dimensional measures were height, rim diameter, base diameter, and body thickness. Descriptive statistics supported by the F-test established whether there was a drive towards standardisation. 17 16

LC I is defined as including all early and middle LC I conical cups while LC II encompasses all late LC I/LC II conical cups. With a modal height of 3.9 cm in LC I, these cups correspond to Caskey’s Type M cups studied by Davis and Lewis. 17 The F-value derived from the F-test is the ratio of two variances. The magnitude of this indicates whether these two variances are significantly dif-

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

99

Period height s2 rim diameter s2 base diameter s2 LC I 0.27 0.90 0.27 LC II 0.18 0.24 0.08 a)

Variances (s2) measurements of conical cups from Aya Irini, Kea

Ftest

height rim diameter F** F**

base diameter F**

volume F**

b) Measurements of conical cups from Ayia Irini, Kea. Recalculated results from Davis & Lewis (1985) for the F-test (variance). N/s = not significant; * = significant at the 0.05 level; ** = significant at the 0.01 level Table 14. Measurements of conical cups from Ayia Irini, Kea

Standardisation in height, rim or base measurements would lead to a more homogenous product. In other words, the cups would be more similar to one another in their dimensions. However, none of our measurements indicates a trend towards tighter clustering between LC I and LC II (Figure 29a–c). In all cases the F-test tells us that the distribution of cups around the mean remains similar over time; there is no increasing uniformity of dimensions between LC I and LC II (Table 15). Standardisation of clay volume—with the intention to produce a more cost-effective product and increase efficiency in the manufacture—would have led to a reduction in weight of the average cup. As no weight was recorded as part of my research design, wall thickness is our main indicator for changes in the average weight of a cup. Surprisingly, conical cup walls were getting thicker, rather than thinner, over time, indicating that more clay was being used per average cup (Figure ferent. In other words, if we observe an increasing uniformity in the measured dimensions (i.e. the cups are clustering together more closely) over time this might indicate an increase in efficiency in the manufacture as more vessel dimensions would cluster together more tightly.

100

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

29d). This is best demonstrated by the t-test 18 which shows that the distance between the means differs significantly at the 0.001 level. Thus, potters did neither implement more cost-efficient strategies nor did they attempt to standardise the production as demonstrated by the F-ratio (Table 15). Measurements Height Rim diameter Base diameter Body thickness

F-test n/s n/s n/s n/s

Table 15. F-test results from Phylakopi comparing conical cup dimensions between LC I and LC II (n/s = not significant; * = significant at the 0.05 level; ** = significant at the 0.01 level)

The difference between Keian and Melian conical cups is pronounced. While Keian cups became more standardised over time in all dimensional measurements, Melian ones did not change between the LC I and LC II period. 19 When comparing Melian and Keian conical cups, statistical tests show that they were not significantly different in the LC I period. The opposite is true for the LC II period for which 18

The t-test describes whether the distance between two means is significant or negligible, i.e. if the two samples could come from the same population. 19 A comparison between conical cups from MC and LC I layers at Ayia Irini possibly suggests that standardisation only occurred towards the end of the LC I period. When Keian MC conical cups were compared with Keian LC I conical cups, the F-test showed no significant difference in the variances of height, but that of the rim diameter had increased significantly (p=0.01) from MC to LC I, while the reverse was true for the variance of the base diameter which had significantly decreased between the periods at the 0.01 level. The fact that variances of the rim and the base moved in opposite directions indicates that the MC and LC I Keian conical cups were very variable and not yet standardised. However, caution in the interpretation of these results is advised as only seven complete conical cups have been published from the MC period (Davis 1986).

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

101

our tests show significantly different variances, means and coefficient of variation 20 between the two groups (Tables 16 and 17). As Melian conical cups did not change through time and the Keian development has been explained as a trend towards standardisation, we have to conclude that Melian conical cups did not become standardised in the same way as Keian cups did. Thus, standardisation, possibly as a result of internal competition (or accidental processes, cf. Berg 2004b), was active at Ayia Irini, but not at Phylakopi (or at least not to the same degree). To conclude, analysis of Melian conical cups has demonstrated that there was no trend towards standardisation between LC I and LC II. We can therefore assume that no competition existed between potters making handleless cups which found expression in the optimization of the production. Based on ethnographically-tested case studies, Roux has demonstrated that the scale of production is intimately linked with the level of standardisation achieved by a producer, because potters involved in large-scale production develop, through constant and deliberate practice, more controlled motor habits in the making of a particular vessel and will consequently produce a more standardised product. Part-time potters, on the other hand, will have less practice and will produce vessels with greater metrical variation. This metrical variation is captured by the coefficient of variation: values below 3 per cent indicate large-scale production (an estimated 14,000 pots a year per potter) and values above 6 per cent are representative of small-scale or very small-scale production (less than 6,000 pots per year per potter).

20

The coefficient of variation (CV) is the variation from the mean expressed as a percentage. The smaller the coefficient, the more standardised the assemblage. An assemblage that displays a CV of less than 1.7 per cent has to be regarded as mechanically produced, while random production without discernible standardisation produces a coefficient in excess of 57.7 per cent (Eerkens & Bettinger 2001).

102

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 29. a) Conical cup height in LC I and LC II; b) Conical cup rim diameter in LC I and LC II; c) Conical cup base diameter in LC I and LC II; d) Conical cup body thickness in LC I and LC II

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

Variable height

Period

Phylakopi

LC I

Ayia Irini

= 3.8 2

s = 0.18

103

= 3.72 2

s = 0.27

CV= 4.74% CV= 7.26% = 3.8

= 3.81

s2= 0.19

s2= 0.18

LC II

CV= 5.00% CV= 4.72% rim diameter

LC I

= 8.85 2

s = 0.56

= 8.79 2

s = 0.90

CV= 6.32% CV= 10.24% LC II

= 8.50 2

s = 0.48

= 8.08 2

s = 0.24

CV= 5.65% CV= 2.97% base diameter

LC I

= 4.02

= 3.85

s2= 0.15

s2= 0.27

CV= 3.73% CV= 7.01% LC II

= 3.90 2

s = 0.14

= 3.51 2

s = 0.08

CV= 3.60% CV= 2.28% body

LC I

=0.64

n/a

s2= 0.014

thickness LC II

=0.75

n/a

s2= 0.014 Table 16. Comparison of variance (s2), mean in cm ( ) and coefficient of variation (CV) between Phylakopi and Ayia Irini

104

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

The range between 3 and 6 per cent can indicate either large-scale or small-scale production (between 6,000 to 14,000 pots per year per potter) (Roux 2003). Based on these data, we can conclude that Keian conical cup production changed from (very) small-scale in LC I to large-scale in LC II—most likely the result of a move from part-time to full-time manufacture. No such change is visible at Phylakopi where the coefficient of correlation places the production in the ambiguous category of large- or small-scale throughout the LC I to II period. Based on the lack of change through time and the fact that some values are above or close to the 6 per cent divide, small-scale production seems the more likely scenario. Naturally, this does not imply that all of the Melian pottery production (i.e. that using the ‘local’ and Cycladic White fabric) was conducted under the same social conditions. Period LC I LC II

height n/s n/s

rim diam n/s F**

base diam n/s F**

Table 17. Comparing conical cups at Phylakopi and Ayia Irini. F-test results (n/s = not significant; * = significant at the 0.05 level; ** = significant at the 0.01 level)

Minoan imports To shed light onto the process of Minoanisation, it is desirable to establish whether the production of local imitations was somehow connected to the supply of Minoan imports. While most scholars assume that Minoan imports generally peaked in the LM IA period, Figure 30 shows that Phylakopi followed a different pattern. Here, Minoan imports were at their most numerous in late MC and steadily decreased thereafter. 21 While actual Minoan imports fell over time, locally produced imitations became increasingly popular rising to 21% in late LC I (Figure 31). It is likely that these observed trends are not completely independent of each other but are correlated. Two possible scenarios 21

In fact, recent clay analyses have indicated that most of the LM IB imports actually matched the Athenian fingerprint and thus have to be considered non-Cretan products (Mountjoy 2004; Mountjoy & Ponting 2000).

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

105

can be proposed: 1) a decrease in actual Minoan imports led to an increase in local production, 2) rising local production reduced the demand for Minoan imports. Unfortunately, our temporal resolution does not allow us to distinguish conclusively between the two alternatives.

Figure 30. Development of Minoan imports through time (body sherds excluded)

Regardless of the sequence in which events took place, there was a general desire for more Minoan-style pots—be they actual imports or local imitations. Indeed, the demand was so great that imports alone, even at their most numerous, could not satisfy it. As a result, Melian potters began producing their own copies—copies which strove to resemble the originals in all aspects, including shape, forming technique,

106

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

clay colour and decoration. Despite producing exact copies, the clay colour, the volcanic inclusions, and the execution of the decoration left no doubt about the local provenance of the products. Nevertheless, the widespread use of local imitations indicates that the islanders considered them equal to the originals. This process has been called ‘substitution’ or ‘equivalence’, resulting in customers mentally associating their local products with the originals; they regarded them as ‘the same’ for specific purposes (Barnett 1953: 190, 209). A comparable example can be found in Abramson’s work which interprets the copying of European items by New Guinea people as an attempt to acquire “riches and powers possessed by Europeans by means of the magical principle of similarity” (1976: 264–5). But what purpose did Minoan pottery (or its imitations) serve in the Melian society? The answer to this question is commonly assumed to lie in the use of Minoan pottery as a status symbol (Papagiannopoulou 1991: 118). Groups may wish to enhance their prestige in their own or the eyes of others by taking on the materials, symbols, and regalia of other groups—there is almost a magic of the power rubbing off by imitation (Dawson, Fredrickson & Graburn 1974: 48).

Thus, the use of imitations can be seen as the Melians’ attempt to establish a steady supply of prestige-enhancing Minoan-type vessels for an ever increasing part of the population. Indeed, this hypothesis is supported by circumstantial evidence. For an object to function as a status symbol, it needs to be used in socially-charged situations. This fact makes storage and processing vessels unsuitable for the task as they are generally used in private. Serving vessels, on the other hand, are used during semi-private or public occasions and would have presented a communication tool for social competition. As most Minoan or Minoanising pots were serving vessels (cups, spouted jars, jugs, etc.) it is likely that at least part of their function was to play a part in the communication and negotiation of social status.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

107

Figure 31. Development of local and Minoanising shapes through time

Having argued that Minoan-style vessels may have been used as symbols in socially-charged situations, we need to be aware that they are, quite literally, merely containers—solidified manifestations if you will—of social interactions and competitive, resource- and labourintensive strategies. It is not necessarily the presence or quantity of Minoan-style pots itself which may enhance a person’s status, but it is the practices that are bound up in the consumption patterns which form the actual battle ground for social competition. These practices revolved around the procurement and consumption of food and drink

108

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

items, in particular fermented beverages like wine (cf. Tzedakis & Martlew 1999). While wild vine was exploited since the Neolithic, it is only in the Neopalatial period that we find that grape vines are systematically cultivated, and wine presses attest to the production of wine at many Cretan high-status sites (Hamilakis 1996). Unlike the production of other foodstuff, vines are resource- and labour-intensive as they need deep soil for root penetration and regular maintenance (pruning, weeding, etc.) to produce a good crop (Zohary & Hopf 2000: 151). The making of wine, in addition to being labour-intensive, requires access to specialized resources and knowledge, such as suitable equipment and knowledge of fermentation processes. Thus, it was the participation in the Minoan-style drinking and feasting rituals and in particular their implication of access to resources, mobilization of labour, and access to specialized knowledge imbued in the drink which made these situations so socially significant (Hamilakis 1999). While the vessels in which the drink and food were served and consumed from needed to conform to general Minoan imagery, they did not have to be actual imports. The main emphasis was on the drinking and feasting rituals themselves; the material expression of these social practices, I would argue, was of secondary importance resulting in the prevalent use of local imitations of Minoan vessels. But how should we explain the observed overall increase in Minoanising vessels? The growth was so pronounced that Furumark spoke of a complete replacement of the traditional pottery repertoire through soulless copying of Minoan shapes (Furumark 1950: 195–9). While exaggerating the scale of copying, his comment clearly highlights the islanders’ desire for these new kinds of vessels (and may also explain the existence of hybrid combinations). Does this increase signify a steady increase in people who were able to mobilize all the required resources to host such rituals? Or, alternatively, could the increase demonstrate the desire of the many who, although they could not afford to host the actual ceremonies, wished to signal their social aspirations by displaying Minoan-style vessels? Function analysis of the find contexts and analysis of the spatial distribution of Minoan imports and Minoanising vessels is essential to test this hypothesis further. Neither, unfortunately, is possible at Phylakopi.

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON MINOANISATION

109

Conclusion Despite the existence of hybrid vessels, one of the most apparent visual divisions in the pottery production at Phylakopi was that between the local and the Minoanising styles and shapes. This division was expressed in the pottery and permeated every aspect of the assemblage. The ‘conical cup’ fabric was only used for Cretan-derived shapes, Cycladic White chiefly for local ones. The local fabric could be used for both, but even then a distinction would be made clear: local shapes were handmade while Minoanising ones were frequently wheelmade. Motifs also followed this trend. Local motifs could generally be found on local shapes and Minoan-style ones on Minoanising shapes (Cycladic White being the exception). In other words, when features were imitated, no selected Minoanising features were consistently incorporated into the local repertoire, but an exact local copy of the original Minoan pot was made including clay colour, forming technique, shape, surface treatment, and motifs. We have to conclude that Melian potters regarded their local tradition as separate from the Minoanising one. What was appropriate for one, was not for the other. Above, resistance to the application of the potter’s wheel to local shapes has been explained as resulting from the association of the hand-building mode with deep-rooted aspects of local identity, such as kinship relations, learning networks, and social class. The use of the potter’s wheel for Minoanising vessels, on the other hand, did not cause social tension and expanded rapidly. As a result of the almost exclusive association of the potter’s wheel with Minoanising shapes, the technology itself became invested with the same cultural connotations as the pots, and both in turn were solidified manifestations of the labour- and resourceintensive, competitive Minoan-style drinking and feasting rituals, creating a seamless web of interaction between material, technology, and social meaning (Dobres 2001). The fact that hybrid vessels existed hints at contrasting, and by no means firm, value systems within the community which are being expressed through diverging practices (cf. Jones 2002).

5. ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN Continuing with our analysis of the local context, this chapter utilizes a comparative perspective of pottery production, import, and imitation to explore the nature and depth of Minoanisation at Cycladic sites. While most scholars agree that Minoanisation differed between regions (i.e. Greek mainland, Cyclades, Dodecanese), all of the traditional approaches treat each region as a cohesive analytical unit within which culture change expressed itself in similar ways. This view is reflected in terms like ‘Western String’ and ‘Versailles effect’. If this assumption were correct, then this homogeneity should find itself replicated in the settlements’ material culture and practices. However, as this chapter will show, there are no two settlements that are alike in their material culture—be it in the local pottery production, adoption of new technologies, or imports. Based on the variability visible in the material record, it will be argued that Minoanisation was a phenomenon whose local manifestation were as varied as the number of individuals it affected. Pottery from the following sites was studied by the author: Phylakopi on Melos, Ayia Irini on Kea, Paroikia on Paros, Mikre Vigla on Naxos and Kastri on Kythera. Published evidence from Kolonna on Aigina and Akrotiri on Thera will be drawn on as appropriate (Figure 20). In most cases, provenance attribution was based on visual inspection; as a result, attributions are at a regional (rather than island/localespecific) level. We begin by returning to the site of Phylakopi.

PHYLAKOPI ON MELOS Pottery appears to have been imported to Phylakopi from four recognizable areas: the central Cyclades, other Cyclades (?), the Greek 111

112

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

mainland (Grey Minyan, MH Matt-painted, Mycenaean) and Crete (Figures 32 and 33).

Figure 32. Phylakopi. Development of all imports through time

Imports from the central Cyclades were negligible in the Middle Bronze Age but increased up to the late LC I/LC II period. Imports consisted mainly of serving vessels, such as cups and bowls, jugs and jars, although also two pithoi and one tripod cooking pot reached Phylakopi. Many of the shapes imitated Minoan ones, such as bridgespouted jars, straight-sided cups and semiglobular cups. Most imports were handmade in the Middle Bronze Age, but the use of rotative kinetic energy soon became popular. Imports from other (possibly Cycladic) islands increased marginally between MC and LC II, but remained small in quantity. The emphasis was on serving vessels (fre-

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

113

quently Minoan or mainland imitations). While handmade in MC, the wheel became the accepted mode in late LC I/LC II. Grey Minyan was

Figure 33. Phylakopi. Details of imports through time (body sherds included)

the second most popular import at Phylakopi during the Middle Bronze Age but quickly faded out. Imports were exclusively of the standard open vessels (goblets, kantharoi, and bowls)—almost always wheelmade. The Melians seemed to like the ware and copied it locally. Mycenaean wares increased drastically in popularity and became the most important import in late LC I/LC II. The most frequent exports were cups and goblets. A few alabastra and piriform jars also occurred. Minoan imports can be divided into a coarser and finer variety. They peaked in the Middle Bronze Age and declined steadily throughout the

114

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Late Bronze Age. Vessels made of the coarser clays were more regularly made by hand in the Middle Bronze Age, but by LM IA most of them were wheel-thrown. The imports made of finer clay mainly belonged to serving vessels and were regularly wheel-thrown already in late MBA (see also Chapter 4). Discussion While the total number of imports into Phylakopi did not change greatly over time, the relative proportions, however, did. Minoan and Grey Minyan were sought after in late MC; Mycenaean pots (as well as LM IB vessels produced in the Athens region) became the most important ceramic import article in late LC I-II. Cycladic imports remained relatively constant throughout time but were never as numerous as those from the Greek mainland or Crete. The two configurations are representative of two co-existing interaction patterns: the constant flow of Cycladic vessels is indicative of local or regional trade with neighbouring regions. Here, quality and quantity of import were of secondary consideration, while social and ritual contacts as well as emergency food supplies must have been at the very heart of this type of interaction. The highly volatile pattern (with regard to quantities, wares, and region of origin) of Minoan and mainland imports attests to inter-regional trade. Here, participation was not a question of survival or social relations but was governed by general, often Aegean-wide, fashion trends that marked a desire to acquire socially-recognized display objects and participate in exotic, prestige-enhancing drinking and feasting rituals—albeit on a sub-elite level (see Chapter 6). Ample evidence for such exchange can already be found in the Early Bronze Age (Broodbank 2000a). However, that these patterns were not exclusive and that motivations frequently overlapped can be seen in the data. As Table 18 demonstrates, virtually all imports—be they from nearby or far away— belonged to the category of serving vessels. Amphorae from Crete were the only visible witness to an exchange where the traded good was certainly more important than the container. For the inhabitants of Phylakopi, acquisition of desirable non-essential serving vessels appears to have been the prime reason for the import of pottery. Perishable containers are likely to have been used for the transport of food-

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

115

stuffs. Alongside the building of the Mansion, the use of frescoes and the Linear A script, procurement, display, and use of exotic and socially-charged imported serving vessels was only one of the ways open to Melians to engage in the negotiation of social relationships (cf. Sherratt & Sherratt 1998). Serving Central Cyclades

***

other imports

***

Grey Minyan

***

Mycenaean

***

coarse Minoan

***

fine Minoan

***

Preparation

Storage

***

Table 18. Functional categories of imports at Phylakopi

AYIA IRINI ON KEA The island of Kea is situated only 21 km off the coast of Attica. The first permanent settlement sites date back to the Neolithic. Survey data seems to indicate that, unlike many other Cycladic islands, Kea’s population did already become nucleated at Ayia Irini during the Early Bronze Age. While there is evidence for possible seasonal fieldhuts or the like, this nucleated pattern remained stable throughout the M-LBA (Cherry, Davis & Mantzourani 1991; Davis & Cherry 1990; Georgiou & Faraklas 1985). Excavations at Ayia Irini (Figure 32) took place during the 1960s and 1970s (Caskey 1962–1972; Cummer & Schofield 1984; Davis 1986; Overbeck 1989a; Wilson 1999). Several surveys followed later (Cherry, Davis & Mantzourani 1991; Davis & Cherry 1990; Georgiou & Faraklas 1985). Ceramics evidence reveals that the site was probably in use since the LN II/EC I period. By MC II the site had been abandoned and reoccupied. During the MBA, House A, the ‘Temple’ and the fortification walls emerged as important architectural structures. The nearby site of Troullos has been interpreted as a watch-

116

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tower or shrine. Major earthquake destruction contemporary with LM IB/LH IIA was followed by partial reconstruction of the town.

PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYIA IRINI: CYCLADIC, MINOANISED, OR MINOAN? Despite plentiful evidence of Cretan imports and influence at Ayia Irini, the excavator emphasized the continuity of the local culture (Caskey 1972: 391). While acknowledging the existence of a ‘Minoan thalassocracy’, overt references with regard to the nature of interaction between Kea and Crete were infrequent (Caskey 1964b: 278). It was only later, when scholars reinvestigated the material evidence, that the link between Kea and Crete was made more explicit. Ayia Irini came to be accepted as one of the ports of call along the ‘Western String’ route. Preferential treatment by Minoan traders resulted in greater Minoanisation of the settlement (Cherry & Davis 1982; Davis 1979). The site must have been a ‘community colony’ as it had existed long before Minoan influence became apparent. Frescoes, Linear A, weights, Minoan symbolic items, Minoan pottery and architectural features all were present, but had been partially adapted to local traditions (Branigan 1981, 1984). The reason for Ayia Irini’s interest in Minoan objects and ideas is best explained by the ‘Versailles effect’ and symbolises local demand for a socially desirable product (Wiener 1984). More recent analyses have further highlighted the settlement’s indebtedness to Minoan culture: House A, for example, contained 19 Minoanising architectural and design features. Among them were indented façades, cut slab pavement, the light well, a drain, a pillar room, terracing, and frescoes (Hitchcock 1998: 172). Large clay statues found in the ‘Temple’ imitate Minoan dress (Caskey 1986: 33–34) and the nearby site of Troullos, originally interpreted as a watchtower or shrine, has been reinterpreted as a Minoan-style peak sanctuary (Peatfield 1983: 273 no. 1; Rutkowski 1986: 211; Sakellarakis 1996: 93).

THE POTTERY PRODUCTION AT AYIA IRINI Keian fabrics The dominant fabric at Ayia Irini is hard semicoarse to coarse, red to dark red clay with mica, iron, quartz and chlorite schist as the most

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

117

prominent inclusions (Davis & Williams 1981; Jones 1986: 259–261; Morris & Jones 1998). This fabric is used for all types of wares and shapes. 22 Serving vessels were either burnished, painted, or plain. Most of the processing and storage vessels were left untreated. The second local fabric is semicoarse pale brown clay and was primarily used for the manufacture of Minoan-style handleless cups. Forming technique Wheelmade vessels increased rapidly from the first time of contact with Crete and the Greek mainland. During the early MC very few vessels were wheelmade at Ayia Irini. Overbeck remarked that “nearly all readily identifiable local products are hand-built; use of the potter’s wheel is rare” (1989a: 8). Interestingly, while the first wheelmade shapes belonged primarily to small open vessels, there were also a few examples of jars; both Cycladic and Minoan shapes were among those made with the wheel. During late MC wheelmade manufacture had become quite popular. Davis writes that “many of these pots are wheelthrown, especially the smaller vessels; the wheel appears to have been used much more than in Period IV” (1986: 4). Indeed, use of the wheel was all-pervasive; in addition to small open vessels, trays, jars, and jugs were also sometimes made with the wheel—many of these represent Minoan shapes. From LC I onwards, most vessels were wheelmade (Elizabeth Schofield, pers. communication 1999). In contrast to Phylakopi, it seems that this new technology was readily accepted by the locals and applied to the whole range of pottery. Table 19 is based on the studied assemblage selection and shows that the wheel was first employed for small open shapes and serving vessels. Only later did the use of the wheel expand to also include food preparation and storage vessels.

22

Other geologically similar islands (e.g. Kythnos, Seriphos, Siphnos) might parallel this particular fabric. However, until contemporary assemblages from these islands have been submitted to a comparative analysis, the degree to which their products can be distinguished macroscopically or scientifically remains unknown.

118

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Period IV

Period V

Period VI

Period VII

(early

(late MC)

(LC I)

(LC II)

MC) Serving

hand

wheel

wheel

wheel

Preparation

?

?

hand and

wheel

wheel Storage

hand

hand

?

hand and wheel

Table 19. Ayia Irini. Development of the dominant forming technique (based on studied sample; hand=handmade; wheel=wheelmade/-shaped, hand and wheel=roughly equal percentage of handmade and wheelmade/-shaped; ?=no information available)

While the use of wheelmade manufacture was much more pervasive at Ayia Irini than at Phylakopi (see Chapter 4), the same apprenticeship sequence (progression from small open to large closed vessels) can be recognized. This further supports Roux and Corbetta’s argument that this developmental sequence is not culturally determined but based on mental and physical learning patterns, and is thus of universal relevance (1989). Overall, Minoan shapes were more likely to be wheelmade than local ones.

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE KEIAN POTTERY PRODUCTION With much of the excavated pottery discarded, no representative conclusions can be drawn from the remaining assemblage. However, some clues with regard to the organization of the production can be found in Davis and Lewis’s analysis of conical cups where the authors observed a marked tendency towards standardisation in conical cup dimensions between LC I and LC II (1985). As these cups were for local consumption only, the observed standardisation may best be explained as resulting from internal competition between different potting workshops in an attempt to reduce the costs of labour and material (see also Chapter 4).

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

119

Minoan imports and local imitations Minoan and Minoanising imports (not distinguished) were rare at the beginning of Period IV (early MC), but increased rapidly. By the end of that period they constituted a substantial proportion of the total bulk of pottery and had become the dominant import (Overbeck 1984: 112, 1989a: 11). Data from a representative pottery assemblage suggested that ca. 8% of the vessels were Minoan or Minoanising imports (Overbeck 1982: 40). This percentage increased between Period IV and V. By late MC, Minoan imports had become “abundant” (Davis 1986: 6). Minoan influence seems to have been stronger than mainland influence in this period (Caskey 1972: 387). Minoan imports continued to outnumber all but the local fabric in LC I (Period VI); although Caskey warned that a detailed analysis may show mainland imports to be equally numerous (1972: 392). Only in Period VII (LC II) did fine Minoan imports begin to decrease and were overtaken by Mycenaean ones (Cummer & Schofield 1984: 146). However, recent clay analysis has demonstrated that most of the LM IB imports were actually produced near Athens (Mountjoy 2004; Mountjoy & Ponting 2000); thus it seems that Minoan influence was even less pronounced in LC II than hinted at by stylistic criteria. Little detail is available for the development of local imitations. Overbeck highlighted Cycladic hole-mouthed jars and round-mouthed jugs as local imitations of Minoan shapes in Period IV (J. C. Overbeck 1984, 1989a: 12). During Period V many Minoan shapes were imitated locally: cups (straight-sided, rounded, handleless), jugs (roundmouthed, pinched, trefoil mouth), spouted jars, specialized vessels (lamps, trays, pithoi) and, of course, tripod cooking pots. Many of these shapes were wheel-thrown, particularly small open shapes. Imitations were common in all local decorative styles (Davis 1986: 86–98). Most of these shapes continued into LC I-II. The repertoire was enriched by the addition of in-and-out bowls, rhyta, askoi, and braziers (Davis 1986: 86–89). Minoanising vessels were generally painted with Minoan-style motifs or left plain. Among the plain ones, handleless cups stand out; they have been found in thousands and constituted up to 50% of the total pottery in some contexts (Cummer & Schofield 1984: 47–48). Thus, local imitations of Minoan shapes increased over

120

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

time and included all three functional categories (serving, preparation, storage). Based on the specialists’ reports and the studied sample selection, it can be concluded that the development at Ayia Irini appears very different from that at Phylakopi where the development of imports and imitations correlated negatively. Here, Minoan imports remained abundant over time, decreasing only in LC II, while local imitations increased steadily through time. Keians seemed to embrace novelties and new potting technologies. New shapes soon became part of the settlement’s repertoire. In contrast to Phylakopi, this new technology was readily applied to local and Minoanising shapes. Other imports and local imitations In addition to Minoan vessels, imports from the mainland and other Cycladic islands reached Ayia Irini during the MBA and LBA. With geologically similar fabrics from Kythnos, Seriphos, and Siphnos only poorly understood, merely Melian imports can be recognized with some certainty. Imported were both Cycladic White and the coarser Melian fabric. During the early MC period Melian imports amounted to 6% of the total assemblage and included beaked jugs, jars, and bowls (Overbeck 1982: 40, 1984: 111, 1989a: 13). Melian pots were at their most popular during Period V. Imported shapes were the panelled cup, the Cycladic bowl, beaked jugs, and hole-mouthed jars (Davis 1986: 83–84). Melian vases continued to be imported on a smaller scale in LC I-II and included panelled cups, jugs, and rhyta (Caskey 1972: 393; Cummer & Schofield 1984). Non-Melian imports, on the other hand, may have come from nearby islands and may indicate Ayia Irini’s closest social and economic contacts. Imported wheelmade Grey Minyan vessels were present in great quantities during the MBA and continued in smaller quantities into LC II. During early MC, Grey Minyan imports averaged 9%, although they could reach as much as 20% in some deposits. Shapes included the kantharos and goblet (Overbeck 1982: 40–43). The bowl was introduced in Period V, during which Grey Minyan remained very popular (Davis 1986: 84). In LC I the Grey Minyan repertoire consisted chiefly of small vessels (rounded cups, goblets) and, for the first time, was complemented by imports of Yellow Minyan (cups, jugs) (Caskey

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

121

1972: 392–393; Cummer & Schofield 1984: 47). Keian potters only rarely imitated the ware locally (Overbeck 1982: 43). MH Matt-painted imports were rare at Ayia Irini (Caskey 1972: 392). They amounted to approximately 3% in the early MC period; barrel jars, later replaced by two-handled jars, were very popular (Overbeck 1982: 40–41). Local imitations of mainland shapes were common in Period IV and included the deep basin, the barrel jar, and the globular jar, mainly in the Yellow-slipped and Dark-on-light wares (Overbeck 1984: 111). Matt-painted vessels were occasionally found in Period V (Davis 1986: 84). They continued into the Late Bronze Age. Closed vessels seemed to be characteristic of this ware (Cummer & Schofield 1984: 46–47). Fine Mycenaean imports increased steadily from LC I onwards and included all functional categories; they overtook fine Minoan ones by LC II (Cummer & Schofield 1984: 146). Consumer preferences for specific fabrics and shapes are clearly apparent and have been summarized in Table 20. Grey Minyan imports were predominantly open vessels. Melian imports seemed to have been treasured as serving vessels, while MH Matt-painted shapes were regarded highly as storage vessels. Their popularity was great and they were copied locally in hundreds. Minoan and Mycenaean imports, on the other hand, follow a different trend. Here, no functional specialization could be recognized. The range of shapes was wide; it included serving vessels, such as cups and spouted jars, as well as storage and specialized vessels (amphora, alabastron, rhyton). Thus, with the exception of some local shapes (Cycladic bowl, panelled cup) many serving vessels were actually imported into Ayia Irini. Be they of Minoan origin (straight-sided cup, semiglobular cup) or mainland shapes (goblet, kantharos), the great variety in shapes and wares is noteworthy especially in the MBA. In addition to illustrating the wealth and wide range of the town’s contacts, this colourful assemblage strongly suggests the existence of social competition within Keian society. The procurement, display, and use of non-local serving vessels is likely to have been one of the means by which inhabitants attempted to negotiate relationships within the community. Imports of Minoan and Mycenaean processing and storage vessels, on the other hand, may hint at more fundamental changes in Keian society, such as the adoption of new food processing methods or new food types.

122

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Serving Melian

***

Grey Minyan

***

Preparation

Matt-painted

Storage

***

Minoan

***

***

***

Mycenaean

***

***

***

Table 20. Ayia Irini. Distribution of imports according to functional categories

Discussion Analysis of the pottery assemblage and a careful study of the specialists’ reports suggest interesting differences between Phylakopi and Ayia Irini with regard to Minoanisation. While the pottery production at Phylakopi appeared to be relatively conservative, potters and consumers at Ayia Irini adopted the opposite strategy: they fully embraced Minoan ceramic culture and incorporated it into their local pottery production, although it ultimately remained rooted in their own local tradition. In Phylakopi, a division between a Minoanising and a local potting tradition emerged. Such a development was not visible in the pottery production of Ayia Irini. To the contrary, local potters widely accepted the wheel and began using it soon after the introduction of the technology to the settlement. In addition to technology, Minoan features and objects were adopted: Minoan shapes were produced locally and Minoan decorative motifs became very popular. As Davis and Lewis (1985) demonstrated, there is sufficient evidence to argue for a trend towards optimization through standardisation within part of the Keian pottery production. This development was interpreted as resulting from internal competition between different potting establishments.

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

123

In addition to imports from Crete, Ayia Irini also received pottery from the Greek mainland and Melos. Many of the imported wares represent serving vessels and might have been used competitively in the social arena. Surprisingly, the variety of imports is not mirrored by Keian ceramic exports to other regions. Only small quantities of MC Keian vessels have been discovered at Lerna, Asine, Aigina, Paros, and Athens, and their paucity is remarkable (Berg 2000: Appendix). During LC I-II no Keian pottery was found outside Kea and Melos. While the coarseness of the clay and the lack of fine local products might explain the scarcity of Keian pots abroad, other items must have been used in exchange for imports. Cloth and metals have been suggested as the most likely candidates for exchange products (Davis 1979: 147, 1984; Schofield 1990). The lack of Keian vases outside the island, Ayia Irini’s relative wealth as indicated by a great range and quantity of ceramic and other miscellaneous imports, its convenient nodal location between the Cyclades and the mainland, and the evidence for a range of industrial activities (perfume, metal casting, weaving, etc.) all support one explanation: Ayia Irini functioned as an intermediary for exchange between the mainland and Crete and possibly also for other Cycladic islands (cf. Overbeck 1982: 38; Rehak & Younger 1998: 136 n. 325). This interpretation is supported by the range and number of non-ceramic artefacts, particularly metals, found in all levels at Ayia Irini. Finds of litharge, slag pieces, crucibles, tuyères and the attribution of virtually all analysed metal to the Lavrion field (Gale 1998; Gale, Stos-Gale & Davis 1984: 400) point to Ayia Irini as a recasting and redistribution centre for metals; other industrial or craft activities, such as weaving, aromatics, stone bowls and, of course, pottery manufacture (with indications of competitive local production), were spread across the settlement. As yet no industrial quarter has been recognized; the wide dispersal of these activities suggests part-time production which seemed to have involved every household (Georgiou 1986: 53; Schofield 1990: 209). Ayia Irini appeared to have been “one big ‘workshop’” with a specialization in metallurgy (Gale 1998: 752; Schofield 1990: 209). By offering raw materials and finished products, the island established itself as a convenient meeting point and supply center, thus reducing the need for the Cretans or mainlanders to travel to the homeland of the respec-

124

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tive trading partner (cf. Dickinson 1994: 243; Overbeck 2004 who argues that it was mainlanders who settled at Ayia Irini at the beginning of Period IV). Circumstantial evidence for the presence of Cycladic but not Minoan traders on the mainland is presented by Dietz. His closely argued chronological account of imports in the Shaft Grave period demonstrates that Cycladic imports antedate Minoan ones; and, if one is willing to equate a product’s provenance with its trader’s origin, suggests that Minoan imports were traded by Cycladic middlemen (1998: 15; and indeed Wilson [1987: 44–46] has argued that Ayia Irini functioned as a gateway community already in EC II and possibly even in the Final Neolithic). While Gale goes as far as to argue that it may have been islanders from Kea who were involved in the control of mining in Lavrion (Gale 1998: 752), Ayia Irini’s convenient location opposite the Lavrion mines must, as a minimum, have attracted much trade and traffic (Gale, Stos-Gale & Davis 1984: 401). No doubt, by facilitating trade Ayia Irini gained preferential access (compared to other Cycladic neighbours) to non-local materials which in turn played an important role in internal social negotiations. Whether this development had been an actively pursued strategy by the islanders or an accidental byproduct of craft production cannot be established. However, there is no reason to assume that Ayia Irini was unique in its function as a workshop and processing centre, or had a monopoly over access to the Lavrion mines (Gale, Stos-Gale & Davis 1984: 401). 23

MIKRE VIGLA ON NAXOS The island was first settled during the Late Neolithic. Naxos was densely populated in the EC period. The existence of three sites (Grotta, Mikre Vigla, and Rizokastellia) during the MBA indicates that the trend towards nucleation had just begun on Naxos; concentration

23

The evidence at Thorikos is not clear. Cycladic imports have been found together with MM III and LM IA pots, possibly suggesting that Cycladic traders were in charge (Davis 1979: 157; Mussche 1967; Papagiannopoulou 1991: 301).

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

125

of the population at Grotta appears only to have been achieved late in the LBA. In 1985 a surface survey at Mikre Vigla unearthed evidence of a site (Figure 20) (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). The promontory had probably been occupied continuously from EC I to LH IIIC (Hadjianastasiou 1993: 259). Evidence of spinning, weaving, grinding, and wall plaster led to the conclusion that Mikre Vigla had been a small but prosperous site. Most of the pottery was of local type and, while covering EC through to LC periods, was mainly dated to the late MC/early LC I period. Melian vases represented the most numerous import category, followed by Minoan and mainland vessels. In addition to pottery, loomweights, one piece of bronze and fragments of monochrome MC/LC plaster were discovered. About 140 fragments of locally made terracotta figurines were also found most likely dating to the MC period. The survey directors hypothesized that their small size of the figurines might favour a domestic setting, though a public shrine cannot be excluded (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989: 114–116, 140).

PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF MIKRE VIGLA: CYCLADIC, MINOANISED, OR MINOAN? The survey directors themselves perceived the site to have been under Minoan cultural influence comparable with other known Cycladic sites. They interpreted the figurines as unique, but made from local clay sources (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989: 114–116). Sakellarakis, however, reinterpreted the evidence as a peak sanctuary assemblage and thus created a much stronger link with Crete (1996: 95–98). He suggested that the manifold parallels with Cretan finds, the habitus of the figurines, the additional finds (conical cups, incense burners, tripod cooking pots, loom-weights), as well as the prominence and visibility of the site paralleled peak sanctuaries on Crete and Kythera (and perhaps Troullos on Kea) (1996: 95–98). Mikre Vigla is commonly regarded as a Cycladic site influenced by Minoan culture due to its perceived superiority (‘Versailles effect’). However, accepting a certain degree of Minoanisation, the evidence from Mikre Vigla (not to mention the recent evidence from Skarkos on Ios; Marthari 2004) challenges the validity of the ‘Western String’ model which postulates a special relationship between Crete, Akrotiri,

126

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Phylakopi, and Ayia Irini. It now appears likely that Crete’s relationship with these three settlements might have been special, but not unique (Schofield 1982).

THE POTTERY PRODUCTION AT MIKRE VIGLA Naxian fabrics Thin section analysis of pottery from Mikre Vigla was able to distinguish five fabrics: a) Dark Burnished/Plain Ware, b) Plain Ware, c) Hard Buff, d) Red-brown Micaceous Ware, and e) Semi-coarse and Coarse Ware fabric groups (Vaughan, in: Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989). Clay colours varied from red to reddish brown with the exception of the Hard Buff fabric. Size differences of inclusions were the main guide to fabric differentiation; the most common inclusions were schist, chert, granite, mica, and quartz. Macroscopic or chemical analysis, however, is unable to distinguish between all five fabric groups (Jones 1978: 480–481, 1986: 265–267). The most obvious distinction is between two finer fabrics and one (semi-)coarse fabric. The (semi)coarse fabric incorporates Semi-coarse and Coarse ware and Redbrown micaceous ware; it was used for all functional categories and vessels normally were plain. Pithoi were only made from a very coarse fabric and remained untreated. The finer reddish fabric (Dark Burnished/Plain Ware and Plain Ware) was exclusively used for burnished or plain cups, bowls, and goblets. There is a small number of examples of the Hard Buff fabric (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). Forming technique Being a surface survey, no accurate percentages can be supplied. However, wheelmade pots seem rare. The few existing ones were produced in the finer reddish clay and imitated small open Minoan shapes, such as semiglobular cups. One amphora represents the only large closed wheelmade vessel (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). As observed also at Phylakopi, most wheelmade pots belong to the class of small, open vessels. Again we can observe a preference for combining wheelmade manufacture with Minoan shapes.

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

127

Minoan imports and local imitations Thirty-three Minoan imports, mostly of MM II-III date, were recorded at Mikre Vigla and included fine and coarse fabrics. Almost all belong to the category of serving vessels and included cups and bridge-spouted jars. Although no accurate percentage can be given, the overall quantity of Minoan imports was probably lower than suggested by the published sample (Robin Barber, pers. communication). Altogether 88 Minoan imitations were present, including amphorae, bridge-spouted and hole-mouthed jars, bell cups, conical cups, semiglobular cups, straight-sided cups, lamps, tripod cooking pots, and fenestrated stands (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). Except for five tripod cooking pots, four amphorae and four lamps, the remainder of the Minoanising shapes belong to the category of serving vessels. Where the forming technique can be identified, it is primarily open Minoanising shapes which were made with the potter’s wheel. If the survey data are taken as an accurate picture of the chronological development, then local imitations follow Minoan imports. Emphasis on serving vessels makes their use as prestige objects likely. Other imports Melian imports represent the most prominent import to Mikre Vigla. Vessels of both Cycladic White and the local Melian fabric were discovered (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). Where forming technique can be determined, the great majority of imports was handmade. Only three wheelmade pots have been identified and belong to open shapes. Trade between Naxos and Melos must have been frequent and regular to account for the large number of feature sherds discovered. This is unsurprising, since ties with nearby islands would presumably be close, due to kinship relations, food provisions to complement one’s own supply (as witnessed by the import of storage vessels), or out of a need to acquire obsidian (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989: 140). The presence of Grey Minyan imports has been interpreted as evidence for an occupation of the site in the early MC period. Despite the small number of actual Grey Minyan imports to Naxos, the ware exerted great influence on Cycladic pottery in general, as is visible in the adoption of the burnished ware and of several shapes related to Grey Minyan. In Mikre Vigla, 26 fragments belonging to the category

128

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

of serving vessels have been classified as imitations of Grey Minyan (bowls with everted rims, ring-stemmed goblets, and kantharoi) (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). Most imported Mycenaean vessels and their local imitations date to the LH III period. However, two cups and other fragments indicate contact in LH I-IIA (Barber & Hadjianastasiou 1989). Discussion Mikre Vigla received imports from the mainland, Crete, and neighbouring islands and imitations of them were manufactured locally indicating that pottery production was outward looking and welcomed new cultural traits; around 40% of the local pottery assemblage imitates foreign shapes and wares and might signal the inhabitants’ desire to emulate exotic objects and rituals; if Sakellarakis’s suggestion of a Minoan-style peak sanctuary is accepted (1996: 95–98), then the community’s openness was even greater than ceramic evidence indicates. In contrast to Ayia Irini, exchange appears to have been most frequent between Mikre Vigla and the island of Melos; this interaction went beyond the acquisition of mere display articles as the presence of Melian storage vessels demonstrates. Barber and Hadjianastasiou explain the prominence of Melian imports with the Naxians’ need for obsidian. Trade with emery and marble, as indicated by the presence of these materials, could be seen as an alternative stimulus to contact (1989: 140). At first glance the evidence suggests that Mikre Vigla too should be counted among those Cycladic communities which stood in a special relationship with Minoan Crete, and adopted many traits in an attempt to emulate a superior culture. At second glance, however, the evidence suggests a more complex picture of contact, exchange, and emulation: while there was an undeniable demand for Minoan vessels, there had also been a strong demand for Gray Minyan ware. Both wares were copied locally and reflect a generally open attitude by the inhabitants towards new inventions. The predominance of serving vessels among these imports (and imitations) reflects demand for prestigeenhancing objects. However, Mikre Vigla’s closest contacts were with Melos.

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

129

PAROIKIA ON PAROS The island was first settled in the Final Neolithic. Paroikia is an unfortified, well-planned town situated near a deep, sheltered bay (Figure 20). In 1900, von Gaertringen and Rubensohn began to excavate the Kastro at Paroikia (Rubensohn 1917). The ceramic finds were later reexamined and republished by Overbeck (1989b). Despite evidence of earlier pottery, the settlement was probably first inhabited in the EC IIIB/early MC period (Barber 1987; Overbeck 1989b: 20). Most of the pottery excavated dates to the early Middle Bronze Age and represents a typical Cycladic assemblage with only few imports.

PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF PAROIKIA: CYCLADIC, MINOANISED, OR MINOAN? As no Minoan imports came to light, Rubensohn did not link his finds to the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’ but used material from Phylakopi as a reference point, thus placing Paros firmly in a Cycladic context (Rubensohn 1917). Contrary to Rubensohn, Overbeck identified six fragments as Minoan or Minoanising imports. He nevertheless agreed with Rubensohn that no Cretan influence is visible on the local production (1989b: 21). Paros is generally perceived as having been less Minoanised than contemporary sites in the Cyclades (Davis 1992: 742).

THE POTTERY PRODUCTION AT PAROIKIA Parian fabrics The Parian fabrics can be divided into a coarse and a fine variety. The hard coarse bisque encompasses the entire colour range from red through orangey to brown with plentiful inclusions (Jones 1986: 264; Overbeck 1989b). This fabric covered the entire range of wares and shapes. The finer fabric is mainly buff to light brown with some inclusions. It was primarily used for cups and bowls, never for cooking or storage vessels. Apart from vessels involved in food preparation which were either plain or painted, all surface treatments were applied to all functional categories and were present in both fabrics. Nevertheless, serving vessels seem to display a preference for painted decoration.

130

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Forming technique Rubensohn and Overbeck contradict each other on the quantity of wheelmade local pots at Paroikia. Rubensohn stated that only the coarsest vessels were not made with the wheel, whilst Overbeck observed no wheelmade fragment (Overbeck 1989b: 3; Rubensohn 1917: 17). My analysis supports Overbeck’s impression: no more than eight of the local pots utilized rotative kinetic energy. In comparison with other Cycladic assemblages it would indeed be unusual to see a great number of wheelmade vessels at such an early period. The eight wheelmade pots were evenly divided between the coarse and the finer fabric, but were exclusively reserved for cups and bowls. Minoan imports and local imitations Minoan imports were very rare at MC Paroikia. A fragment of a holemouthed jar is the only certain Cretan import while another two fragments potentially could be of Cretan origin and another three are non-Cretan Minoanising imports (Overbeck 1989b). No local imitations were recognized during the MC period (though there are later conical cups) nor did Minoan imports exert any influence over the local production (Overbeck 1989b: 21). Interestingly, the majority of the imports belong to the category of serving vessels (jugs or jars). Other imports and local imitations All other imports also belong to the category of serving vessels. It seems that Parians took a particular liking to Grey Minyan ware, of which twelve imports (bowls, goblets, kantharoi) have been found. Grey Minyan was also copied locally in small quantities (four). Nevertheless, Overbeck emphasizes that the quantity of Grey Minyan pales beside the amounts recorded at Ayia Irini (1989b: 24). Two Middle Helladic cups or bowls were also present. Several Cycladic White imports, presumably from Melos, have come to light. Interestingly, the people of Paroikia imported fine Cycladic White pottery but imitated the coarse Melian fabric (Overbeck mentions ten imitations of Melian beaked jugs and barrel jars; 1989b: 22–23).

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

131

Discussion As had been highlighted already for other sites, the majority of imports are vessels for display purposes. While purchasing items for competitive consumption rituals, the impact of foreign pots onto the Paroikian pottery production and repertoire remains scant during the early MC period. If the different proportions are perceived as representative of past reality, then Paroikia had a greater desire for Melian and mainland shapes than for Minoan vessels. The rare use of the potter’s wheel was restricted to small open vessels and shows only the very early impact of a new technology. There is no reason to assume that Paroikia was influenced by Minoan culture. While few Minoan imports were probably used in the social arena, no local imitations existed. Like other contemporary sites, Grey Minyan was very influential and inspired local imitations. Plentiful Melian imports and local imitations may be a reflection of strong social links with its Cycladic neighbours, rather than with more distant regions.

KOLONNA ON AIGINA The island of Aigina is situated in the Saronic Gulf. After early excavations at Aigina (Furtwängler 1906; Welter 1938), new series of excavations were launched in 1966. Summaries of the most recent excavations under Felten und Hiller can be found in the Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts, Wien. The promontory of Kolonna revealed occupation levels dating from the LN to the Byzantine period (Figure 20) (Papagiannopoulou 1991: 186–187; Walter & Felten 1981). In the MBA there was a productive ceramic industry at Kolonna: M-LBA Aiginetan vessels have been widely reported from the mainland, Cycladic islands, and Cretan sites (Rutter 1993: 775–780; Zerner 1993: 56) and Minoan-style vases were copied locally (KilianDirlmeier 1997). During the LBA a local Marine-style workshop might have existed on the island (Hiller 1975).

PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF KOLONNA: LOCAL, MINOANISED, OR MINOAN? During the Late Bronze Age, there was evidence for an increase in Minoan imports into Aigina. Seven imported LM IB vases have been re-

132

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

ported (Hiller 1975). The fact that 19 of the published vessels were local imitations of LM IB vessels gave rise to the belief that a potter’s workshop existed on Aigina in LH I-II which produced Minoan pots. Hiller believed that this workshop was run by Minoan potters specializing in the production of the LM IB Marine style. This suggestion was supported by circumstantial evidence from the LM IB Marine Style provenance study which concluded that most Aiginetan LM IB vessels had a very homogenous local composition. If there was a workshop, it was short-lived; it became assimilated within one generation and its production ceased (Hiller 1975: 52). Other finds were loomweights of MM type with Linear A signs and a potter’s wheel of possibly Cretan clay (Welter 1937: 24). Moreover, a MM stone hammer and three Minoan stone vessels were discovered (Hiller 1993: 199). In an attempt to explain the presence of Minoanising vases at Kolonna, Furtwängler originally referred to the writer Strabo, who had reported that Cretans settled on Aigina and founded the sanctuary of Aphaia (1906: 473). Hiller too argued that Cretans settled at Aigina in the early Late Bronze Age (1975: 52, 54). He believed that Aigina was within the realm of the ‘Minoan thalassocracy’ which itself was based on Cretan military overlordship (Hiller 1984). Kilian-Dirlmeier concurred that Minoans must have been resident from the MBA onwards. She contended that resident Cretans must have been in charge of trade on the Cycladic islands, but argued that evidence did not support a similar interpretation for Aigina (1997: 120–122).

THE POTTERY PRODUCTION AT KOLONNA Aiginetan fabrics In the MBA and LBA there was a productive ceramic industry at Kolonna: M-LBA Aiginetan vessels have been reported from mainland, Cycladic, and Cretan sites (Zerner 1993: 56). The pottery production at Kolonna was firmly rooted in the mainland tradition (Hiller 1975; Siedentopf 1991; Wünsche 1977). The majority of all pottery found was produced locally. The most common wares were Matt-painted, burnished, and plain (Papagiannopoulou 1991: 189).

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

133

Imports and local imitations Minoan and Cycladic vases do not amount to more than 1% each of the pottery assemblage (Hiller, pers. communication). Cycladic White and a few Cycladic burnished fragments were the only imports during the early MH period. Despite a few MM IA imports (Hiller, pers. communication; Rutter & Zerner 1984: 77), regular trade with Crete only began in the MH II period as evidenced by thirty MM II fragments. The MH II/III period sees contact with Kea (one Minyan imitation). Imports from the Cyclades and Crete (10–15 MM III fragments) continued in MH III (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997; Papagiannopoulou 1991: 191–193). In early MH, Cycladic White and a burnished ware were both imitated locally in small quantities. In the MH II period, local imitations of Cycladic vases (particularly pithoi and jugs) became more common. In MH III local imitations of Cycladic shapes increased (panelled cups, spouted bowls). However, throughout all times, contact with the mainland was most important and imitations of Cycladic or Cretan vessels lag behind the contemporary fashion (Papagiannopoulou 1991: 190–193). The presence of resident Minoan potters has been inferred by Hiller from the relatively large number of local imitations, their homogeneity in decorative features, the restricted repertoire of Minoanising shapes, and the use of local, rather than Cretan, clays (1993: 198–199). Contrary to most other sites, the potters of Kolonna did not import or imitate foreign cups or bowls in great numbers; instead, the popularity of the kantharos remained unbroken (Papagiannopoulou 1991: 191). During the Late Bronze Age, there is evidence for an increase in Minoan influence at Kolonna. The possibility of a potter’s workshop in LH I-II producing Minoan-style pots on Aigina has already been mentioned by Harland (1966: 15); and Hiller’s catalogue lists nineteen vessels which were local LM IB imitations (1975). Hiller finds it most plausible that this workshop was run by Minoan potters specializing in the production of the LM IB Marine Style. The workshop was shortlived; it became assimilated within one generation and its production ceased soon afterwards (Hiller 1975: 52). Imports into Kolonna demonstrate that the settlement had many far-reaching contacts in the Bronze Age. Unusually, imports did not

134

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

consist exclusively of serving vessels but also included pithoi and amphorae, indicating the movement of goods as well as fashions (Table 21). The Minoan link was rather tentative in the Middle Bronze Age and, as Papagiannopoulou speculated, the Aiginetans might have received Minoan imports via their Cycladic connection (1991: 195). In the Late Bronze Age, the situation seemed to have changed and contacts with Crete might have been direct (Papagiannopoulou 1991: 190– 197). Serving Cycladic

***

fine Minoan

***

coarse Minoan

***

Melian

***

Kytheran/Peloponnesian

***

Preparation

Storage ***

***

***

***

Table 21. Functional categories of imports at Kolonna

Discussion Kolonna was a busy and wealthy place as the large quantities of imported containers, and luxury objects from the Shaft Grave demonstrate. Aigina had contacts with the Cyclades (clays from Melos and the central Cyclades have been singled out but there were contacts with other islands), presumably Kythera, the mainland, and Crete. Contact with the mainland was overwhelming, whereas Minoan and Cycladic imports were roughly equal in amount. Great quantities of Aiginetan vessels were found on many mainland and Cycladic sites indicating that Kolonna had been an important pottery production centre for the ‘Gold Mica Fabric’ from MH I onwards (Niemeier 1995: 76; Zerner 1993: 48–50). As no sites with Aiginetan vessels have been discovered on the coast west of Aigina, it can be assumed that traders went to Lerna and Asine from where the pottery was distributed inland (cf. Nordquist 1987: 64). The Aiginetan pottery distribution pattern demonstrates that the Argolid was a very important trading region, and that Lerna, at least during the earlier phase, must have been

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

135

one of the most important trading sites in that region (Nordquist 1987: 62). The rich content of the MC Shaft Grave and the impressive fortifications indicate that social stratification must have existed at Kolonna and that the elite was able to control access to prestige items and organize the population already in the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Walter & Felten 1981). The great diversity in shapes and origin of ceramic imports illustrates the Aiginetans’ desire for exotic shapes and foodstuffs. Minoan influence also existed at Kolonna, but was rather tentative. Any impact on the local pottery production was negligible and superficial. Kolonna’s strongest ties were undoubtedly with the mainland. While the settlement participated in trade (and thus accumulated some Minoan objects), I see no reason to argue that it was under Minoan spell (culturally or otherwise). In fact, as regards technology, Kolonna had already begun to use the potter’s wheel in EH III when Minoan potters had only started to experiment with it (Walter Gauss, pers. communication; cf. Wünsche 1977: 27), indicating that the settlement received its inspirations from quite a different region.

KASTRI ON KYTHERA The island was first settled in the middle-late Neolithic period. Already by the Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age it was quite densely occupied with small farmsteads and a larger village (Kastri). During the protopalatial period, the dispersed settlement pattern was replaced by a more nucleated one with Kastri as the main site. A great expansion of sites took place in the neopalatial period and Kastri grew into a large settlement (Bevan 2002; Broodbank 2004). Explorations of the promontory of Kastri by Benton and subsequent excavations at Kastri between 1963 and 1965 revealed a hitherto unknown Minoan settlement (Figure 20) (Benton 1931/32: 245–246; Coldstream & Huxley 1972). The earliest deposit came from the Kastraki Hill and contained EH I-II pottery. Deposit β, with finds of EM II pottery, came from the promontory itself and was Minoan in character. The first visible architectural remains (street, drain, and house walls) were connected with a MM IB town but the material evidence was scant (Coldstream & Huxley 1972: 56). Four successive LM I horizons, dating to early LM IA, later LM IA, a mix of LM IA and LM IB, and pure LM IB could be recognized.

136

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

The site was abandoned by the end of LM IB. Recently, a Minoan peak sanctuary has been discovered near the top of Ayios Georgios overlooking Kastri (Sakellarakis 1996). The Kythera Island Project investigated the site’s relationship with its immediate hinterland between 1998 and 2003 (Broodbank 1999, 2004).

PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF KASTRI: MINOANISED OR MINOAN? Based on the overlap of local pottery shapes and decoration with provincial West Cretan fashion and plentiful Cretan parallels for weights, stone bowls, grave types, and symbols, the excavators concluded that Cretans had set up their home on Kythera as early as in EM II, after driving out the previously established mainland population. The Minoan settlement continued to prosper until the LM IB period (Coldstream & Huxley 1984; cf. Benton 1931/32: 245–246). Branigan considered Kastri to be a plausible candidate for a Minoan ‘settlement colony’ (Branigan 1981: 32; cf. Coldstream 1978; Coldstream & Huxley 1972, 1984). The site was a new Minoan foundation on virgin soil in EM II whilst a neighbouring EH I-II site lay abandoned. Various groups of evidence (drain, ceramic shapes and decoration, stone vases, Linear A, burials) indicated that settlers had arrived from Crete to establish a town on this island. In the 1990s, excavations at Ayios Georgios unearthed over 50 bronze figurines, votive hands and legs, bronze model swords, an oxhide ingot fragment, melting debris, stone vases, offering tables and much MM I/II-LM IB pottery. This typically Cretan assemblage led the excavator to the conclusion that he had uncovered a Minoan peak sanctuary (Sakellarakis 1996). Most recently, the interdisciplinary Kythera Island Project has begun to investigate the long-term history of the island and its importance as a stepping-stone between Crete and the Peloponnese. Preliminary results published so far have provided a much more detailed understanding of the changing settlement pattern and pottery production. While there is no doubt about the close connections with Crete throughout the Bronze Age, the continued production of Minoanising pottery invites us to consider the question of Kytheran identity and the islander’s relationship with their ancestral homeland (Broodbank 1999, 2004).

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

137

THE POTTERY PRODUCTION AT KASTRI Kytheran fabrics Three principal fabrics could be distinguished at Kastri: coarse ‘Oatmeal’, coarse ‘Micaceous’, and fine ‘Oatmeal’ (Coldstream & Huxley 1972; Kiriatzi 2003 presented the most recent scientific analysis, but did not indicate the relationship of the new fabric types to the old categories; cf. Zerner 1993: 45–47 for provenance analyses of potential exports of Kytheran vessels to Lerna). Coarse ‘Oatmeal’ is characterized by hard pale orange or buff clay with plentiful inclusions. This fabric was particularly common until the end of the MBA and was used for the whole range of shapes including storage and cooking vessels. The second coarse fabric is coarse ‘Micaceous’. The clay varied in colour from red to brown and contained many inclusions. This fabric was used for the whole range of shapes, though most emphasis was on its use for storage and cooking vessels. Fine ‘Oatmeal’ is pale red to orange in colour and contains few inclusions. The majority of pots made in this fabric were cups and bowls. Forming technique Wheelmade manufacture was customary for fine wares from MM IBIIIA onwards (Coldstream & Huxley 1972: 94), but was initially only applied to small open shapes, soon to be followed by closed serving vessels (Table 22). Cooking and storage pots continued to be made by hand even in the Late Bronze Age. Thus, a universal progression from small open to larger closed vessels is observed also at this site. Minoan imports and local production Minoan imports (mainly hole-mouthed jars and cups) were rare in the Middle Bronze Age and remained rare even in LM IA. However, between LM IA and LM IB Minoan imports increased to 10% of the total assemblage (Coldstream & Huxley 1972: 292). The LM IB imports consisted almost entirely of fine cups. This sudden increase in LM IB has been linked to the volcanic eruption and the subsequent destruction of Thera at the end of LM IA. This natural disaster led to the loss of a vital harbour. Traffic going northwards towards the mainland via Thera must have been interrupted and diverted. It is possible that Kas-

138

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tri emerged as a substitute for Akrotiri and thus became a more important route of exchange in LM IB (Coldstream & Huxley 1984: 110; Berg 1999). This growth in trade and the ensuing prosperity were visible in the increase of pottery imports and small finds. In the period after the Theran eruption, finds of silver, gold, faience, and bronze suddenly appeared at Kastri, where previously Melian obsidian had been the most exotic good (Berg 2000: Appendix). MM III

LM IA

LM IB

cups

wheel

wheel

wheel

cooking pots

hand

hand

hand

pithoi

hand

hand

hand

jugs/jars

hand

hand

hand and wheel

Table 22. Development of dominant forming technique of Kytheran pots (adapted from Lewis 1983: 83). Hand=handmade; wheel=wheelmade/shaped; hand and wheel=roughly equal percentage of handmade and wheelmade/-shaped

From the Early Bronze Age onwards (Deposit β), the local Minoanising production was Cretan in character. Local pottery became more plentiful through time and encompassed the complete ceramic repertoire known from provincial Cretan pottery sequences (Coldstream & Huxley 1972: 277). Except for the above mentioned surge in LM IB imports, most of the LM IA and IB pottery was made locally (Coldstream & Huxley 1972). Other imports and local imitations In late LM IB the influence of Mycenaean pottery grew, but Minoan imports continued to outnumber Mycenaean ones (Coldstream & Huxley 1972). Alabastra are the most popular mainland import; other shapes were comparatively rare. When studying the functional categories of imported vessels, it becomes apparent that Minoan imports from LM IA onwards were primarily open vessels, presumably imported for their own sake. Alabastra, on the other hand, were the main mainland import, hinting at

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

139

trade of the content rather than to acquire the vessel itself. Alabastra and their content could have been exchanged for Kytheran pottery, foodstuffs, or other perishable items. As the abundance of Kytheran pottery on mainland sites indicates, Kastri’s trade network seemed to have been directed northwards (Berg 1999). This is unsurprising since the market for Minoanising wares on Crete would, understandably, be virtually non-existent (ignoring for the moment the issue of a Minoanisation of Crete itself). The lack of a Cretan ceramic presence in Laconia or Messenia in LH I can be interpreted in several ways: it is possible that the ever-increasing supply of Kytheran Minoanising wares to the Peloponnese satisfied all existing demand, thus making it unprofitable for Cretan traders to trade with this region directly. Alternatively, Cretan traders might have decided not to trade further with Laconia thus opening up a market for Kythera. Unfortunately, current available data are inconclusive with respect to cause and effect. Discussion Kastri was in close contact with Crete over several centuries. The fact that pottery shapes, decoration, and manufacturing processes closely followed the provincial Cretan fashion and that all other evidence, such as weights, stone bowls, grave types ,and symbols, parallels Cretan finds, made the excavators conclude that Cretans had set up their home at Kythera as early as the EM II period (Coldstream & Huxley 1984). Throughout the Middle and early Late Bronze Age, Kastri took its inspiration from Crete, although much of its exports seemed to have gone to the mainland. During the LM IB period, Minoan imports increased dramatically. Such an increase has not been recognized at any of the Cycladic sites and has been explained as a result of the Theran eruption which might have led to a redirection of some Minoan trade via Kythera. Clearly, the inhabitants of Kastri perceived themselves as Minoan even several centuries after they had originally settled on the island. This self-identification with Crete was so strong that neither contacts with the Greek mainland nor Mycenaean pottery imports resulted in adoption of foreign cultural traits. In other words, Kastri is the most heavily Minoanised settlement in the Aegean and we can only speculate about its internal mechanisms to maintain this cultural link to its

140

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

ancestral homeland to the exclusion of all other influences over so many years (cf. Broodbank 2004). Unlike the settlements discussed above, Kastri had little need to import Minoan vases for display purposes as its entire production was Minoan in terms of shapes, decoration, and manufacturing process (Coldstream & Huxley 1972; Kiriatzi 2003: 129). This is why the rise in imports in LM IB has been linked to external (an increase in trade with Crete) rather than internal (a heightened social desire for new wares) causes.

POTTERY EXCHANGE AND INTERACTION IN THE AEGEAN As this chapter has demonstrated, choices made in the procurement and use of pottery are manifestations of much more complex underlying social attitudes, taboos, and customs. The adoption of the potter’s wheel, the choice of imports and the depth of influence on the local repertoire all provide clues to cultural preferences and social strategies (and may in some instances even imply forethought on the part of the islanders). While few sites provide as much data for an in-depth analysis as Phylakopi, broad patterns can nevertheless be distinguished. The adoption of the potter’s wheel It is commonly believed that the potter’s wheel was introduced to the Cyclades from Crete (Dickinson 1994: 108; Papagiannopoulou 1990: 61). However, proof in support of this statement is utterly lacking. Circumstantial evidence comes from the observed correlation between the first use of wheelmade manufacture, increasing imports of Minoan shapes, and the use of the potter’s wheel for Minoanising shapes at Cycladic settlements. While this association indicates that the potter’s wheel was perceived to be of Minoan origin—certainly in our eyes and quite possibly also in the eyes of the islanders—evidence of wheelmade manufacture from the ‘Lefkandi I’ and Tiryns cultures of the EH IIB and III periods (Wünsche 1977: 27) hints at a variety of pathways this invention could have taken to reach the Cyclades. Once the potter’s wheel had arrived in the Cyclades, it is commonly assumed that prolonged exposure to it would have invariably led to its adoption by local craftsmen as it is regarded as a technological improvement over turntable-type devices by way of its increased speed, ability to produce standardised products and make pots with even walls. However, the

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

141

differential and often incomplete uptake of the wheelmade production at Cycladic communities clearly speaks against such a scenario. In fact, Berg (2005) has shown that such perceived advantages do not actually exist and that a full-scale adoption of a technology, were it attempted, is associated with great material and social costs. More importantly, ethnographic case studies have comprehensively shown that there is no correlation between length of exposure and adoption of a technology; instead, cultural values and technological traditions have to be accorded much greater significance than a perceived technological gain (Arnold, Huttar & Nieves in preparation; Franken 1971). It is those underlying cultural values and traditional practices which find expression in the analysed pottery assemblages which show neither a unified nor straight-forward adoption and use of wheelmade manufacture by Cycladic communities (Table 23). At the most general level, it can be said that wheelmade production became more popular over time. Initial use was restricted to small open vessels and only gradually spread to larger closed vessels, such as jugs and jars. As this pattern has been observed at every site, it supports Roux and Corebetta’s claim that this sequence is universally applicable as it is based on the acquisition of progressive physical and mental skills (1989; for a fuller discussion of their work see Chapter 4). Even after the use of the potter’s wheel had spread to larger vessels, it was primarily serving vessels which were wheelmade; most processing and storage vessels continued to be made by hand even in the later periods. More importantly, it was the Minoanising shapes which were consistently among the first to be thrown with the wheel. With regard to Phylakopi, I suggested in Chapter 4 that deep-rooted aspects of the islanders’ identity (e.g. kinship, gender, social class, and learning networks) were intrinsically bound up with the handmade mode of production and thus prevented a quick incorporation of the new technology. The fact that most Minoan imports were visibly wheelmade might have contributed to the association of the new technology with Minoan culture (and consequently with all preconceptions of the society, its representatives, its material and spiritual imports; cf. Helms 1988). While, broadly speaking, conceptually incompatible with the local pottery production, there was no resistance to employing the potter’s wheel in the copying of foreign objects. While potters at Phylakopi appear to have

142

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

been reluctant to incorporate new shapes, designs, and technologies, potters at Ayia Irini and Akrotiri (Knappett & Nikolakopoulou 2005; Papagiannopoulou 1991) used the wheel more regularly and applied it to the full range of pottery sooner; this fact indicates that these two sites welcomed and incorporated Minoan features more readily into their local cultural matrix than others. As a result they appeared more heavily Minoanised than Phylakopi. Indeed, as technology cannot be separated from the social matrix of a society (Dobres 2000), identification of the potter’s wheel with Minoan prestige items (made with the wheel) might have resulted in the technology itself being perceived as an item of prestige (Berg 2007a; cf. Knappett 1999a for MM Knossos). Thus, Minoanisation is unlikely to have been an accidental by-product of more or less regular exchange with Minoan Crete but may indeed have been an intentionally striven for (or rejected) symbol of a society’s wealth, know-how, and cultural tolerance in order to enhance regional political aspirations and attract trade from regions beyond the local exchange network. Minoan imports and local imitations It has frequently been said that Minoan imports increased slowly over time, peaking in the LM IA period. Although some sites followed this general trend, there were a number of settlements which did not (Table 24): at Phylakopi, Minoan imports already began to decrease after late MC, even though they remained the dominant import in LC I (see Chapter 4). At Kastri, Minoan imports did not decrease but increased, peaking in LM IB. At Naxos, Minoan imports were outnumbered by Melian imports. This great variety in the import patterns mirrors the variability in the sites’ relationships with Minoan Crete. This diversity cannot simply be explained as a result of decreasing geographical distance or preferential exchange treatment, but needs to be interpreted with reference to the local socio-cultural context. What is certain, however, is that most societies appear to have found Minoan pottery very attractive and copied it locally. Local imitations covered the full range of serving, preparation, and storage vessels. While imitations of serving vessels might be most easily explained as a desire to emulate prestige-enhancing shapes, this interpretation cannot easily be applied to storage or processing vessels which were

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

143

mainly used out of sight of potential visitors. In these instances, the adoption of Minoan shapes can either be explained in functionalist terms (the new shapes were an actual or perceived improvement over existing local shapes) or as a social strategy (procurement of exotic foods, their preparation in new types of containers and ultimate consumption indicates access to restricted resources and knowledge and can be used competitively in the social arena). So far, archaeological evidence does not allow differentiation between the possible scenarios. Import strategies Imports did not arrive on a more or less random basis, instead different settlements acquired vessels of different functions and from different areas involving widespread and eclectic exchange networks according to specific social needs and desires. Differences between settlement preferences and strategies can be discerned in the quantity and quality of their ceramic imports. Tables 25–27 present a summary of the available evidence. Minoan imports (Table 25) can be divided into finer and coarser ones. Generally speaking, storage vessels were made of the coarser fabric. Serving vessels, on the other hand, could be found in both the finer and coarser varieties. Ayia Irini stands out as it was the only site which also imported processing vessels in larger amounts, while most other settlements only imported serving and storage pots. But the situation is not clear-cut: Mikre Vigla and Kastri preferred serving vessels and did not import amphorae or storage jars. In those instances, display objects—rather than food items—were the desired imports. Only open vessels were produced in Grey Minyan ware (Table 26); they were valued and were widely distributed throughout the Aegean. Although the range of shapes was similar on all sites, the quantities varied substantially. At Ayia Irini and Phylakopi, much Grey Minyan was found, while no fragments have been found at Kastri and only a handful at Akrotiri. As some Grey Minyan reached Crete (a small number of local imitations has been noted), the lack thereof at Akrotiri or Kastri cannot be simply explained as a result of a trading range which only included the northern and central Cyclades. For reasons that currently elude us, there was no demand for this ware on Thera and Kythera.

144

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

SERVINGVESSELS Phylakopi

Ayia Irini Mikre Vigla

late MC

LC I

LC II

open: hand

open: hand and

open: hand

closed: hand

wheel

and wheel

closed: hand

closed: hand

open: wheel

open: wheel

open: wheel

closed: hand?

closed: wheel

closed: wheel

open: hand

---

---

---

-----

closed: hand Paroikia

open: hand

(early MC)

closed: hand

Akrotiri

open: wheel

open: wheel

closed: hand?

closed: hand and wheel

Kastri

open: wheel

open: wheel

open: wheel

closed: hand

closed: hand

closed: hand and wheel

Table 23. Development of forming techniques at selected sites: serving vessels, processing vessels, storage vessels (open=open shapes; closed=closed shapes; hand=handmade; wheel=wheelmade/-shaped; hand and wheel=roughly equal amounts of handmade and wheelmade/-shaped; ?=uncertain)

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

145

PROCESSINGVESSELS late MC

LC I

LC II

Phylakopi

hand

hand

hand

Ayia Irini

hand?

hand and wheel

wheel

Mikre Vigla

hand

---

---

Paroikia (early MC)

hand

---

---

Akrotiri

wheel?

?

---

Kastri

hand

hand

hand

STORAGEVESSELS late MC

LC I

LC II

Phylakopi

hand

hand

hand

Ayia Irini

hand

?

hand and wheel

Mikre Vigla

hand

---

---

Paroikia (early MC)

hand

---

---

Akrotiri

?

?

---

Kastri

hand

hand

hand

Table 23. continued.

146

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Phylakopi

late MC

LC I

LC II

dominant

dominant

not dominant

Ayia Irini

dominant

dominant

not dominant

Akrotiri

dominant

dominant

---

Naxos

not

---

---

---

---

dominant Paros (early MC)

not dominant

Kastri

dominant

dominant

dominant

Aigina

not

not

?

dominant

dominant

Table 24. Development of Minoan imports at selected sites (dominant=dominant import; not dominant=minor import; ?=data insufficient)

Serving

Preparation

Storage

Phylakopi

***

***

Ayia Irini

***

Mikre Vigla

***

Paroikia

---

Akrotiri

***

***

Aigina

***

***

Kastri

***

***

***

Table 25. Functional categories of Minoan imports

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

Serving Phylakopi

***

Ayia Irini

***

Mikre Vigla

***

Paroikia

***

Akrotiri

---

Kastri

---

Preparation

147

Storage

Table 26. Functional categories of Grey Minyan imports

Mycenaean imports (Table 27) were generally made of fine clay and consisted either of small open shapes or of containers such as alabastra, piriform jars, or stirrup jars. The table demonstrates the differences between some of the settlements studied. While Ayia Irini imported the whole range of vessels, Kastri had a preference for alabastra and their content. Serving Phylakopi

***

Ayia Irini

***

Akrotiri

***

Aigina

***

Kastri

Preparation

Storage 24 ***

***

*** *** ***

Table 27. Functional categories of Mycenaean (LH I-LH IIA) imports

24

Mycenaean storage vessels were principally alabastra and piriform jars. Unlike Minoan imports, these storage vessels were generally made of fine clay.

148

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Phylakopi’s most popular exports were Cycladic White cups and jugs which have been found across the Aegean. Local imitations also existed on Thera, and possibly on Kea. As with many other imports, Melian ones were principally serving vessels, although Mikre Vigla also imported some storage jars and amphorae. While the precise local meaning escapes us, the above discussion has demonstrated the great variety in import preferences at several sites. 25 Imports vary in overall quantity, proportions of wares, functional category, and meaning attached to them in each local context. As a result, ceramic imports can symbolise social or economic preferences, supply strategies, and highlight differences in social and economic strategies between several settlements. Pottery exchange was not necessarily simple, small scale, and short distance but could be complex, large scale, and long distance: each settlement was very different from any other settlement. No two sites reacted in the same way to external influences. Some imported only serving vessels, others also storage vessels. Some had a preference for Minoan wares, others for Melian vases. Some, like Ayia Irini, Phylakopi, and Mikre Vigla, imported large numbers of Grey Minyan ware while Akrotiri did not (Table 28). Although the meaning is as yet unclear, it is apparent that the absence was not accidental but was a result of socio-economic considerations. Thus, the terms ‘Minoanised’ and ‘Western String’ describe a variety of contact situations whose meaning has only begun to be explored in this work. The observed diversity in ceramic preferences is compatible with the explanation that trade in pottery served social functions, was open to manipulation, and could lead to social change. In this context, some (or all?) of the imported (and imitated) pottery could be regarded as a ‘prestige item’. Appadurai defines prestige objects by reference to the complexity of acquisition through institutionalized scarcity and the possession of specialized knowledge as a prerequisite for their appropriate consumption; prestige objects are also often non-functional and show a high degree of linkage between their consumption and person25

A further example of site-specific consumer preferences is provided by Lewis for Ayios Stephanos (1983).

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

149

ality or identity (1986: 38). What makes an object a ‘prestige item’ is not necessarily its rarity, the technology, or its elaboration, but the value that is attached to it and the way it is used by the buyers. In the case of ceramic containers, I would argue, they have taken on the role of meaningful prestige items not necessarily because of their different look but because they imply knowledge of distant cultures, exotic drink and food items, procurement, preparation, and appropriate use on social occasions. Some, however, would deny the possibility that pottery could have been a prestige item as clay is available almost everywhere and the manufacture does not require specialized knowledge. And while few would argue that ceramics belonged to the high sphere of elite exchange, imports and local imitations could nevertheless act as an important prestige item in the second millennium economies (Sherratt 1999: 185). Because of the ease of production, pottery is more likely to be conducted through unofficial, entrepreneurial trade and to be governed by supply and demand; because the material or technology could not be restricted in its distribution and because pottery is liable to import substitution, this material held little potential for exclusivity and was thus of little importance to elites. 26 Pottery, both imported and imitated, could consequently be called ‘sub-elite’. This concept implies the desire of social groups to emulate elite behaviour. As they are excluded from access to elite items, they express their ambitions through the use of non-threatening (since not convertible into higher-level goods) exotic pottery (Sherratt 1999: 185). Such a phenomenon has been commonly observed in more recent (colonial) contact situations. Helms cites the example of leading Arapahoe Indians of North America who used to dress in a mixture of native and European clothes and accessories. The items chosen were what we would consider everyday items (uniforms, watches, hats, etc.). To wear these items was not so much a question of imitation but an expression of association and iden-

26

This scenario does not exclude that pottery production was in part encouraged by local powers and that ceramics travelled alongside more important luxury materials.

150

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tification with the new distant ruling power and the resulting enhanced prestige at home (1988). Minoan

Grey Minyan

Mycenaean

Melian

(LH I-LH IIA) Phylakopi

S, ST

S

S, ST

---

Ayia Irini

S, P, ST

S

S, P, ST

S

Mikre Vigla

S

S

---

S, ST

Paroikia

---

S

---

S

Akrotiri

S, ST

---

S, ST

S

Kastri

S

---

ST

S

Kolonna

S, ST

?

S, ST

S

Table 28. Functional categories of various imports at selected sites (S=serving vessels, P= preparation vessels, ST= storage vessels)

CONCLUSION Settlements that formerly have been subsumed under the terms ‘Minoanising’, ‘Minoan colonies’, ‘Western String’, etc. have been shown to be as individual and distinct as the people who lived in them. Based on the ceramic record alone, we can distinguish between communities that were outward looking and those that were turned inwards. That openness or closure was not dependent on geographical or ecological variables but was socially constructed is most clearly apparent in the case of Ayia Irini whose openness towards foreign shapes, forming techniques, and decorations has been interpreted as a consequence of conscious social strategies. Depth, intensity, and nature of ‘Minoanisation’ were a result of social negotiations rather than proximity to Crete, incorporation into a trade route, or frequency of exchange contacts. Once we acknowledge that Cycladic islanders were in charge of their own destinies, Minoan Crete can no longer be perceived as the active partner due to its alleged superior culture. On the contrary, studies have clearly demonstrated that no contact situation is exclu-

ISLAND STRATEGIES IN THE AEGEAN

151

sively governed by one culture alone; the depth of influence is the result of frequently subconscious ‘negotiations’ between all partners (Jones 1997; Malkin 1998; Moore 1987; Paynter & McGuire 1991; for applications of this view to the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean see Knapp & Cherry 1994; Nordquist 1987; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991). Even if we postulate a conscious attempt by the Minoans to impose their culture on to the Aegean, or perceive Minoanisation as a byproduct of ongoing trade, or acknowledge the existence of a Bronze Age ‘Versailles effect’, the depth of influence was ultimately the outcome of internal negotiations at each of the Cycladic and Aegean settlements. Of equal importance is the recognition that scholarly fixation with ‘Minoanisation’ is misplaced and assigns too great an emphasis to a passing phenomenon. As the comparative analysis has shown, all settlements had wide-ranging contacts and maintained links with other regions besides Crete. In addition, import preferences at all settlements fluctuated through time and it is clear now that Minoanisation was a transient phenomenon rather than a permanent state of being—just like the import and adoption of Grey Minyan during the Middle Bronze Age or Mycenaean shapes during the Late Bronze Age. More than anything, this demonstrates that it was not Minoan objects or practices per se that the islanders were interested in, but it was their exotic, non-local nature. Such an interest in exotic vessels can be traced back to the Early Bronze Age and has remained a feature of Cycladic island life in the Middle and Late Bronze Age; while the focus of their desire changed through time, the aspiration behind it remained the same.

6. ISLANDS IN CONTEXT The previous chapter demonstrated that differences between settlements might find themselves reflected in their ceramic records. It was argued that ceramics—due to the lack of any mention in written or iconographic records, the general availability of the raw material, and the relative ease and low cost of production—did not travel in the same sphere as elite objects and can function as prestige-enhancing and change-inducing objects in ‘sub-elite’ contexts only (Sherratt 1999: 184–185). This chapter broadens the scope and investigates a settlement’s access to other classes of material (such as stones, metals, and precious stones), some of which can be shown to have functioned as powerful status enhancing objects at an elite level, and therefore had an increased ability to induce change (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991). Before beginning, it is worth noting that the quality of data between sites varies and depends on the nature of the deposit, the degree of preservation, and the excavation and storage strategies. The perishable nature of some artefacts and the reuse of others make it unlikely we will ever have comprehensive data about some artefact categories while, for example, ceramics are normally over-represented. Unfortunately, incompleteness of assemblages as well as selective preservation and retention of archaeological finds prevent quantitative analysis of the data. Instead, a more qualitative analytical approach is warranted here. To this effect, the range of different material categories (e.g. ceramics, stone, metals, exotica) will be compared between sites (Berg 2000: Appendix). The advantage of looking at the range of materials, rather than comparing quantities of specific categories, is that it is less sensitive to variable publication, uneven information, and selective preservation. Artefact categories were chosen on the basis of material rather than provenance since information on the latter is often unavailable. Employing this method, the artefacts cannot represent the 153

154

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

complete picture. However, they can nevertheless indicate the direction and extent of exchange. As more and more provenance information becomes available, a more sophisticated analysis will become possible in the future.

APPROACHES TO REGIONAL INTERACTION IN THE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN Pottery is undoubtedly the most common artefact at Aegean Bronze Age sites, followed by stone and metal. Frequently the number of exchanged non-ceramic objects is very low. Still, the overall number of imports can be of great importance because ethnographies have shown that increasing diverse interaction linkages (in particular of precious items) are often associated with increased prestige for an individual or even villages and districts as it reflects the acquirer’s power in accessing powerful outside symbols (Helms 1988: 154–156, 1993). Applying this knowledge to the Bronze Age Cyclades, we can utilize the categories of imports to illuminate the position a settlement held within the wider region and thus determine a settlement hierarchy. This is based on the premise that the more diverse the assemblage, the more diverse access the settlement had to exchange partners. The more diverse the collection of valuable prestige items, the greater the settlement’s ability in attracting high level prestige exchange and thus the higher its position in the regional settlement hierarchy. To determine how well-connected settlements were, a ‘diversity index’ was designed in which all imported finds were categorized according to groups of materials, such as pottery, stone, metals, and exotica. Each group was further subdivided according to the precise material (e.g. stone was subdivided into obsidian, serpentine, and marble). The range is determined on the basis of presence/absence data alone; quantities are not taken into account to avoid a bias towards well-published/-excavated sites. To give an example, a settlement might have imported pottery, obsidian, marble, lead, bronze, and copper, either as finished objects or as raw materials. This

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

155

gives a diversity index of ‘6’ or, by categories, ‘pottery: 1, stone: 2, metals: 3’. 27 A comparison of the range of materials at different sites is presented in Table 29. 28 As expected, large centres have a higher diversity index than small settlements. Nevertheless, the diversity displayed between sites is instructive. Each followed a different trajectory and imported a different range of materials. Phylakopi consistently had the lowest range of imports among those Cycladic sites for which sufficient data are available indicating that the town did not have access to the elite exchange sphere. Ayia Irini, on the other hand, received a slightly wider range of imports. Akrotiri far excelled other Cycladic sites. Akrotiri’s MC material has not yet been fully published, but current evidence suggests that the town already received a diverse range of imports in earlier periods (Barber 1978, 1987; cf. Nikolakopoulou et al. 2004). Having considered the overall range of materials imported into various settlements, let us now investigate relative proportions of each material category (Figure 34). The assumption is that type and proportion of imports are indicative of the status of each settlement; changes in these proportions may reflect local strategies and/or changes in regional interaction patterns. More importantly, if a value-ranking of these imports can be established, the settlements could be ranked accordingly. This hypothesis is based on the ethnographically observed

27

The limitations of this kind of approach lie in the incompleteness of information available to us. If, for example, provenance information was available for all ceramic imports, a much more detailed categorization could be attempted (e.g. Central Cretan, Argolid, Kytheran). Likewise, if metals could safely be linked to specific sources, categorization could also take their provenance into account (e.g. Siphnian, Cypriote, Sardinian). Unfortunately, no such information is consistently available at all sites. This analysis is therefore restricted to material only. Future advances will undoubtedly provide greater detail on specific sites. 28 Note that grave finds have not been taken into account for this study. Generally speaking, graves have higher amounts of (precious) imports and would thus bias our comparison in favour of sites with excavated cemetaries.

156

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

MBA

LB I

LB II

Phylakopi

3

6

8

Ayia Irini

9

9

11

Akrotiri

?

9

---

Kastri

2

5

8

Kolonna

3

3

?

Knossos

16

16

16

Kommos

9

9

10

Table 29. Diversity index. Range of different categories of materials at selected sites (?=insufficient data). Data taken from Berg 2000: Appendix

phenomenon of ‘spheres of exchange’ or ‘spheres of circulation’ (Bohannan & Bohannan 1968; Narotzky 1997). Malinowski was among the first to point to the existence of several, perceived to be strictly separate, exchange spheres in the Kula exchange in Melanesia. He argued that red shell necklaces (soulava) and white shell bracelets (mwali) were the only items exchanged against each other in the ceremonial exchange network. Alongside this ceremonial exchange, people carried out ordinary trade in everyday objects. Items traded in these two spheres of exchange (i.e. ceremonial and ordinary) were nontransferable in order to preserve the exclusivity of the high-level goods. Shell necklaces could only be exchanged for shell bracelets and vice versa, but never for foodstuffs (Malinowski 1922: 81–84). The commodities were not regarded as equivalents and were thus ordinarily not exchangeable (Bohannan & Bohannan 1968: 227–228). In order to explain the separation into spheres of exchange, scholars have pointed to the conceptual differences in the use of exchange goods. They argued that spheres are created when the exchanged items do not function as ‘general purpose’ money as, for example, money does in modern society. Instead, goods, such as the above-mentioned shells, are regarded as ‘limited purpose’ money which can only be converted into a specific set of other objects (Gregory 1982: 104). Other scholars were, however, quick to point out that these spheres are not as separate as originally suggested and that ‘conver-

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

157

sions’ took place. Yams, for instance, are widely accepted in transactions in Melanesia and can be exchanged for both high and low value items, thus serving as ‘general purpose’ money (Belshaw 1965; Bohannan & Bohannan 1968: 234). In line with these anthropological observations of several, principally separate spheres of exchange I suggest a similar scenario for the Middle and early Late Bronze Aegean. Although it is uncertain how many spheres there were, or which items always travelled in which spheres, a division between lower ranking and higher ranking items can nevertheless be postulated. If we agree with Appadurai that prestige objects are characterized by the complexity of acquisition through institutionalized scarcity, specialized knowledge as a prerequisite for appropriate consumption, and their non-functionality (1986: 38), then materials which are readily available, which can be worked with known technologies, and which are used as tools and weapons should be classed as sub-elite. According to these criteria, ceramics, obsidian, and other stones should be classified as ‘sub-elite’ items. Although they were not available everywhere, they were found in every settlement, indicating that access to them was general and not restricted (see Figure 35a–c). In addition, they could be copied in local materials, did not require specialised techniques to be worked, and were used for everyday purposes rather than merely for display; stone vases probably served as display articles, but they were so widely distributed and copied locally that access to raw material and knowledge must have been general. The next category is ‘metals’. A marked difference is apparent between lead, bronze, and copper on one hand and gold and silver on the other. The former were widely available locally while the latter were restricted; gold in particular was likely to be associated with longdistance acquisition from regions beyond the local realm and would therefore have been perceived as qualitatively different from metals available nearby (Helms 1993) (Figure 35a–c). Lead, bronze, and copper were frequently made into utilitarian items such as weights, knives, daggers, and pins, while gold and silver were made into vases, jewellery, or ornaments (cf. Renfrew 1986). This differentiation resulted in

158

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 34. Development of imports at selected sites (note that the pie graphs do not represent proportions of imports but of categories, i.e. ceramics, stone, metal, and exotica)

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

159

the use of different technologies: while all metals needed to be extracted and melted, only gold and silver were worked into delicate objects. I would therefore argue that lead, bronze, and copper were part of the lower-level exchange sphere, while silver and gold moved within the elite sphere (and are therefore grouped together with the exotica) (cf. Sherratt & Sherratt 1991: 360–362; Renfrew 1986). Finally, alabaster, amethyst, gypsum, lapis lazuli, faience, ivory, rock crystal, glass, amber, and ostrich eggs, etc. belong to the category of exotica. These materials were scarce and their distribution was selective and restricted (Figure 35a–c). They were mainly used for jewellery, ornaments, and display vessels. They were items traded in the elite exchange sphere. Independent support of the postulated ranking of materials is provided by a graded (most valuable to less valuable) list of booty from Tuthmosis III’s campaigns on a dedication relief at the Amon-re temple at Karnak: gold, silver, semi-precious stones, bronze, copper, fine stones—no doubt leaving out the least valuable materials not worthy of inclusion in this public list (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991: fig. 2). How great the value difference between precious and base metals was, can be deduced from the ‘exchange rate’ of 100 oxen: 9 oxen for a gold and bronze armour in the Iliad (VI.234–6). Thus, there is evidence for at least two spheres of exchange. Pottery, obsidian, marble, serpentine and probably lead, copper, and bronze travelled in the lower-level sphere. All exotica as well as silver and gold were part of the higher-level sphere. Conversions of goods from one sphere into another were probable and base metals might have functioned as the necessary ‘general purpose’ money. Base metals seem to me the most likely candidate since the raw materials were not generally available, their production required some specialized knowledge and possibly equipment and they were in high demand for tools, dress items, and weapons.

160

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 35a. Presence and absence of materials at selected sites in late MBA (based on Berg 2000: Appendix with additions).

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

Figure 35b. Presence or absence of materials at selected sites in LB I

161

162

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Figure 35c. Presence or absence of materials at selected sites in LB II

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

163

Returning to Figure 34, it can be observed that only MBA Knossos shows a high count of exotica. No other sites had such imports, or if they were present were small in quantities. Most of the imported objects consisted of pottery, stone, and metals. This pattern did not change greatly in LB I. Knossos continued to import a wide range of non-local materials, while most other sites only received pottery, stone, and metals. The exception was Akrotiri which also showed a wide range of exotic imports. Finally, in LB II, some of the smaller settlements also seem to have gained limited access to exotica and thus increased their range of valuable imports. Since these exotica only consisted of one or two items, they might not necessarily imply a change in the status of the settlement. Instead it is possible that some had become less exclusive and were therefore redistributed more widely. As already indicated in Chapter 5, Kastri on Kythera, probably as a result of the destruction of Thera, suddenly became very important for interregional trade. In LM IB the settlement suddenly received a diverse range of luxury materials whereas previously pottery had been the most precious import. Having determined which materials travelled in which sphere, these insights can now be used to suggest possible rankings for each of the settlements discussed in this work. Thus, settlements with much pottery, stone, lead, bronze, and copper but no exotica were unable to gain access to the elite sphere and can therefore be regarded as lower ranking settlements. Conversely, those settlements with many exotica and gold or silver are of a higher rank in the regional hierarchy. According to these categories, Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, and Kolonna have to be classified as lower ranking settlements. Akrotiri and Kommos should be classed among the higher ranking settlements. Knossos stands out among our chosen sites as it has the highest count of valuables. Kastri gained in importance over time and became a high ranking settlement in LB II. When analysing each material category in more detail, we can catch glimpses of specific trade preferences and how settlements were able to manoeuvre by specializing in exclusive social and economic relations (Figure 35a–c). Phylakopi had wide-ranging contacts, but they were mainly expressed in terms of pottery imports from and exports to neighbouring regions. Two ivory items are the only possible exotic

164

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

objects found at the site. The people of Phylakopi did not have access to elite exchange, nor did they necessarily attempt to attract this kind of trade. Ayia Irini was different. The town actively encouraged trade, but nevertheless remained a lower-ranking site. Given its location close to Lavrion, the presence of metals and the widespread evidence for metal smelting and casting, the town might have specialized in the trade of metals. Beside this, ceramics and stone were the most frequent imports. The town eventually received a very small number of exotica in LC II, but these were so small in number that they do not yet indicate any active involvement in elite exchange. Akrotiri was the wealthiest of the Cycladic settlements and received a large number of exotica. In this case, a clear preference is visible as most Syrian gypsum bowls discovered in the Aegean came from this site. Akrotiri might have attempted to define itself vis-à-vis the big Cretan centres through its special connection with Syria. Knossos, in turn, had special relations with Egypt as the large number of Egyptian imports indicates. At Kastri, on the other hand, no particular material preferences are visible; future excavations might change this picture. As already stressed in preceding chapters, there are great differences between settlements in the Aegean, even within the Cyclades. What was previously summarized under one heading has now been shown to be settlements of different access to elite networks. Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, and Kolonna, although partly producing for export and facilitating interregional trade, were themselves only of little importance. The inhabitants were unable to participate in interregional elite exchange and therefore only had limited influence on broader patterns. 29 Akrotiri, on the other hand, stood far above the other Cycladic settlements and participated in elite exchange; its diverse contacts can be seen in the range of valuable imports, and its wealth is visible in the architecture, frescos, and lifestyle. Kastri, most likely as a result of the 29

The pattern would look rather different for Kolonna if we were to take the MH shaft grave remains (and possibly the Aegina Treasure) into account. Clearly, specific individuals existed at this site who were able to gain access to a wide range of goods and participate in the elite exchange sphere (KilianDirlmeier 1997).

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

165

destruction of Thera, became a substitute for Akrotiri in LM IB. Kommos, employed as a comparison to the studied sites, had access to the elite sphere, although the amounts reported up to now are relatively small. Although it might have been relatively independent from the nearby palatial centres (Knapp & Cherry 1994: 138–141), the abundance of pottery from many distant sources, the evidence of metal working, and the exotica hint at a busy town with palatial buildings directed towards trade (cf. Shaw & Shaw 1985: 35, 1995, 1996). It has been argued above that the range of imported items can be indicative of a settlement’s ability to access local or regional exchange networks; the more diverse the range, the more contacts a site potentially had and, as a consequence, the more powerful the settlement in the regional hierarchy. 30 Champion—employing a world-systems approach—considered plurality of interactions as indicative of a core state since cores generally have more interaction partners than peripheries (1989b: 14–15). Accordingly, we can postulate a link between the plurality of connections and the island’s position within an exchange network: the more connections and contacts a site had, the more prominent was its position in comparison to other sites. Thus, the wider the range of imports (and in particular of valuables), the more contacts a settlement had. Among the settlements discussed, only Knossos had access to a wide range of select valuables. All other sites, with the exception of Akrotiri and Kastri, did not have as diverse contacts and only imported lower-level goods. Only in LB II was there some diffusion of higher-level goods also to those minor settlements. The exclusiveness of access to certain valuables in LB II (mainland: amber, Knossos: Egyptian items) might indicate emerging competition between those regions. The mainland began to assert itself by demonstrating exclusive contacts to procure desirable valuables but had not yet developed into a serious opponent to the Cretan centres. A further indicator 30

This argument is valid even when it is one contact partner alone who supplies the other with diverse imports. The fact that one society is, for example, able to gain access to metals, stone, and exotica, albeit supplied by the same trade contact, is nevertheless an indication of its ability to access different spheres of exchange, and thus its influence.

166

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

of mainland expansion is that its volume of trade seemed to have increased; Mycenaean imports outnumbered Minoan ones at Ayia Irini in LC II but possibly already in LC I and at Phylakopi on Melos in LC II (Cummer & Schofield 1984). Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, Mikre Vigla, Paroikia, and Kolonna are lower-ranking settlements and can be defined as semiperiphery. While world-systems theory has highlighted the interconnectedness of all participants in the system (see Berg 1999 for an application of world-systems thinking to the Aegean Bronze Age), our evidence suggests that only changes in high-ranking societies will lead to recognizable changes in the distribution pattern of material culture. Lowranking societies, it appears, cannot influence interregional patterns in a manner that can be detected archaeologically. Their manoeuvering was only visible on the local level but did not necessarily have any consequences for regional elite interaction. Thus, the consequences of Ayia Irini’s active promotion of trade or Phylakopi’s insistence on traditional features in its pottery production are not detectable on a regional level. The discussion of valuables has demonstrated that neither site received any exotica; despite attempts by Ayia Irini to improve its position, it was kept in its low-ranking position. The early Late Bronze Age can thus be characterized as a period of ‘unequal exchange’ and as reflecting a core-semiperiphery hierarchy (cf. Wilkinson 1991). A hierarchical relationship existed and was maintained between low and high ranking sites. Although Kea, too, benefited from this arrangement (e.g. increased trade and a regular supply of sub-elite imports), the greater gain was on the side of Crete and the mainland which profited from a more efficient supply while not having to share power. Nevertheless, despite ‘exploitative’ tendencies by Crete and the Greek mainland, neither was actually able to dominate politically or economically any of the other islands (cf. Kardulias 1999). They exerted a strong ‘pull’ which went beyond simple imitations of Minoan features and led to deep-seated changes in the field of production and technology of these societies (e.g. pottery production, metallurgy, weaving) (Davis 1984; Davis & Lewis 1985; Schofield 1990). Despite being lower-ranking settlements, the islands were by no means helpless by-standers but active, albeit not always archaeologically visible, participants in their own destiny. While our evidence

ISLANDS IN CONTEXT

167

does not allow for a detailed enough understanding of past strategies, anthropological and historical case studies clearly indicate that interaction always was a two-way process in which both partners gained something (Kohl 1987: 16; Schortman & Urban 1994: 403; Shipley 1993: 273). And we can safely assume that this was also the case in the Aegean Bronze Age.

CONCLUSION Investigation into broader patterns and into the position of each settlement within the region has illuminated several aspects of interaction in the Bronze Age Aegean: first, each settlement was very different from any other and followed different strategies to pursue its goals. This diversity is visible in the material record, both in ceramics and non-ceramic materials. As a consequence, the Cyclades, for example, can neither be analysed as one homogenous unit, nor can the degree of Minoanisation of a particular site be determined by reference to areawide patterns. Finally, a regional analysis needs to be accompanied by an investigation of the local situation to visualize the existing diversity as broader regional patterns appear to obscure distinct local relationships.

7. CONCLUSIONS It was Broodbank in his book An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades who argued that the direction taken by the Cycladic people from the Middle Bronze Age onwards “ceased to be primarily of the islanders’ own making” (2000a: 361). In contrast to his view, this work has promoted a view of the islanders as active players able to influence their position even in the Middle and Late Bronze Age. While there is no denying that Cycladic settlements did not generally participate in high-level exchange networks, the communities were nevertheless able to make conscious decisions about the pathways they wished to follow on a local level. More importantly, these cultural traditions and social strategies can be detected in the local archaeological record if we only look carefully enough. Since the discovery of the Minoan palaces by Evans, scholars have been eager to see developments within the Cyclades as dependant on or at least heavily influenced by Crete—resulting in what has been called ‘Minoanisation’. A re-assessment of the three most influential approaches to Minoanisation, namely Davis’s ‘Western String’, Wiener’s ‘Versailles effect’, and Branigan’s colony classifications has highlighted their usefulness as heuristic devices but has also criticised their limited explanatory potential as they viewed the islanders as passive recipients of superior Minoan culture. The image of islanders as passive, marginal, and powerless is heavily inspired by prevailing imperialistic and colonial views of acculturation approaches and is promoted by those who view islands as bounded and isolated units surrounded by a sea that acts as a barrier to communication and interaction. While not necessarily powerful on a regional level, analysis of the pottery production and consumption has demonstrated that the adoption of Minoan traits was selective and site specific. In conjunction with preferences observed in the acquisition of other wares, this behaviour has 169

170

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

been interpreted as part of a wider strategy by communities in accessing exotic goods and technologies for prestige-enhancing purposes. In this scenario, far from being passive recipients, Cycladic people are portrayed as actively involved in determining the level of Minoan (or other) influence and utilising it for their own goals. For example, the adoption of Minoan features at Phylakopi was obstructed by cultural values that had become associated with traditional pottery manufacture. Ayia Irini’s receptiveness for Minoan features, on the other hand, was interpreted as a deliberate strategy to attract trade. However, Minoan vessels, concepts, and technologies were not the only imports that reached Cycladic communities. In fact, Minoan imports were only part of an overarching import strategy for non-local pottery which varied from site to site. The fact that Minoan imports had been preceded by Grey Minyan vessels and were soon to be succeeded by Mycenaean wares shows how transient the impact of any fashion trend was. Arguably, the importance of pottery imports lay in the acquisition of non-local items rather than the specific acquisition of, say, Minoan, Mycenaean, or Kytheran products and thus symbolises the generic desire of lower-ranking societies to acquire desirable sub-elite items regardless of their precise provenance. If we acknowledge that each community was able to negotiate the nature and degree of Minoanisation by incorporating, assimilating, or rejecting Minoan features according to its own underlying groupspecific social attitudes, then we need to re-assess the use of the term ‘Minoanisation’. While scholars frequently acknowledge the different degrees of Minoanisation between the Cyclades, the Greek mainland, and the Dodecanese, differences among Cycladic settlements are being downplayed by classifying them under unifying terms, such as ‘community colonies’ or ‘Western String’ settlements. Not unlike modern prejudices towards globalisation which is perceived as a global homogenizing process through exchange of goods, people, knowledge, and images in particular for Third World countries, Minoanisation also has been presented as resulting in cultural homogenization. Again, not unlike globalisation, Minoanisation can now be shown neither to be an inevitable outcome, nor to imply acceptance of cultural values. Instead, the nature and degree of Minoanisation should be regarded as a result of negotiations between different social strata in a community (cf.

CONCLUSIONS

171

Helms 1993: 204–5). However, it has also to be acknowledged that distinct patterns are frequently only visible on the local level. When considering the Aegean-wide context, differences between island communities become blurred due to our inability to tease out significant patterns from the existing archaeological evidence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. A. Abramson (1976). Style Change in an Upper Sepik Contact Situation. In: N. H. H. Graburn (ed.), Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Cultural Expressions from the Fourth World. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 249–265. C. Agouridis (1997). Sea Routes and Navigation in the Third Millennium Aegean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 1–24. L. G. Allbaugh (1953). Crete: A Case Study of an Underdeveloped Area. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. H. Allen (1997). The Environmental Conditions of the Kopais Basin, Boeotia during the Post Glacial with Special Reference to the Mycenaean Period. In: J. Bintliff (ed.), Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece. Proceedings of the 6th International Boeotian Conference. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 39–57. J. L. Angel (1971). Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid. The People. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens/Smithsonian Institution. ________ (1973). Human Skeletons from Grave Circles at Mycenae. In: G. E. Mylonas (ed.), O Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykinon. Athens. Archaeological Society of Athens. pp. 379–397. ________ (1982). Ancient Skeletons from Asine. In: S. Dietz (ed.), Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–1974. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. pp. 105–128. N. Angelopoulou (2004). The “Kastri Group”. The Evidence from Karfari Ton Amygdalion (Panormos) Naxos, Daskaleio Keros and Akrotiri Thera. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

173

174

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

A. Appadurai (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–63. A. Appadurai (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Public Culture 2, 1–24. J. L. Araus, A. Febrero, R. Buxó, M. O. Rodríguez-Ariza, F. Molina, M. D. Camalich, D. Martín, and J. Voltas (1997). Identification of Ancient Irrigation Practices Based on the Carbon Isotope Discrimination of Plant Seeds: A Case Study from the South-East Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 729–740. ________, G. A. Slafer, R. Buxó, and I. Romagosa (2003). Productivity in Prehistoric Agriculture: Physiological Models for the Quantification of Cereal Yields as an Alternative to Traditional Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1–13. D. E. Arnold (1999). Advantages and Disadvantages of Vertical-Half Molding Technology: Implications for Production Organization. In: J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. pp. 59–80. ________, J. A. Huttar and A. L. Nieves (in press). Why Was the Potter’s Wheel Rejected? Social Choice and Technological Change in Ticul, Yucatán, Mexico. In: C. A. Pool and G. J. Bey III (eds.), Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. P. J. I. Arnold (1991). Dimensional Standardization and Production Scale in Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2, 363–370. R. Arnott (1996). Healing and Medicine in the Aegean Bronze Age. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 89, 265–270. ________ (1997). Surgical Practice in the Prehistoric Aegean. Medizinhistorisches Journal 32, 249–278. ________ (1999a). War Wounds and their Treatment in the Aegean Bronze Age. In: R. Laffineur (ed.), Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze (Aegaeum 19). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 499–506. ________ (1999b). Healing and Medicine. In: Y. Tzedakis and H. Martlew (eds.), Minoans and Myceneaens. Flavours of their Time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture/National Archaeological Museum. pp. 262–279. ________ (1999c). Healing Cult in Minoan Crete. In: P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20). Liège/Austin: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 1–6. ________ (2002). Before Machaeon and Podalirius: Minoan and Mycenaean Healers. Cretan Studies 7, 1–19. ________ (2004a). Minoan and Mycenaean Medicine and its Near Eastern Contacts. In: H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and M. Stol (eds.), Rethinking the History of Medicine: ‘Rationality’ and ‘Magic’ in Babylonia and the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill. pp. 153–173. ________ (2004b). Disease and the Prehistory of the Aegean. In: H. King (ed.), Hygeia: Health in Antiquity. London: Routledge. pp. 12–31. ________ (2006). Chrysokamino, Occupational Health and the Earliest Medicines on Crete. Paper presented at the 10th International Cretological Congress, 1–8 October 2006, Chania. ________ (forthcoming). Disease, Healing and Medicine in the Aegean Bronze Age. Leiden: Brill. ________ and E. Stuckey (2003). Finding the Hydra: The Search for Malaria in the Prehistoric Aegean. In: K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds.), Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 24). Liège/Austin, Texas: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 209–215. E. Asouti (2003). Wood Charcoal from Santorini (Thera): New Evidence for Climate, Vegetation and Timber Imports in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 77, 471–484. M. A. Aston and P. G. Hardy (1990). The Pre-Minoan Landscape of Thera: A Preliminary Statement. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 348–360.

176

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

M. Atherden and J. A. Hall (1999). Human Impact on Vegetation in the White Mountains of Crete since AD 500, The Holocene 9, 183– 193. M. Atherden, J. Hall, and J. C. Wright (1993). A Pollen Diagram from the Northeast Peloponnese, Greece: Implications for Vegetation History and Archaeology. The Holocene 3, 351–356. T. D. Atkinson, R. C. Bosanquet, and C. C. Edgar. (1904). Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos. London: Macmillan. A. C. Aufderheide and C. Rodriguez-Martin (1998). The Cambridge Enzyclopedia of Human Pathology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R. L. N. Barber (1974). Phylakopi 1911 and the History of the Later Cycladic Bronze Age. Annual of the British School at Athens 69, 1– 55. ________ (1978). The Cyclades in the Middle Bronze Age. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 367–379. ________ (1981). The Late Cycladic Period: A Review. Annual of the British School at Athens 76, 1–21. ________ (1987). The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. London: Duckworth. ________ (1999). Hostile Mycenaeans in the Cyclades? In: R. Laffineur (ed.), Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze (Aegaeum 19). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 133–138. ________ (2007). The Middle Cycladic Pottery. In: C. Renfrew, with N. Brodie, C. Morris, and C. Scarre (eds.), Excavations at Phylakopi, 1974–1977 (BSA Supplement 42). London: British School at Athens. ________ and O. Hadjianastasiou (1989). Mikre Vigla: A Bronze Age Settlement on Naxos. Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 63– 162. ________ and J. A. MacGillivray (1980). The Early Cycladic Period. Matters of Definition and Terminology. American Journal of Archaeology 84, 141–157. G. Barker (1996). Regional Archaeological Projects. Archaeological Dialogues 3, 160–175. H. G. Barnett (1953). Innovation. The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

C. S. Bartsocas (1977). Stature of Greeks of the Pylos Area during the Second Millennium B.C. Hippocrates 2, 157–160. T. Baum (1997). The Fascination of Islands: A Tourist Perspective. In: D. G. Lockhart and D. Drakakis-Smith (eds.), Island Tourism. Trends and Prospects. London/New York: Pinter. pp. 21–35. C. Baurain (1991). Minos et la Thalassocratie Minoenne. Réflexions Historiographiques sur la Naissance d’un Mythe. In: R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa. L’Egéen Prehistorique et la Mer (Aegaeum 7). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 263–266. R. Beals (1953). Acculturation. In: A. L. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 621–641. M. J. Becker (1975). Human Skeletal Remains from Kato Zakro. American Journal of Archaeology 79, 271–276. P. L. Beesley, G. J. B. Ross, and A. Wells (1998). Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis. Fauna of Australia. Vol 5. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing. C. S. Belshaw (1965). Traditional Exchange and Modern Markets. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. N. L. Benco (1988). Morphological Standardization: An Approach to the Study of Craft Specialization. In: C. C. Kolb and L. M. Lackey (eds.), A Pot for All Reasons. Philadelphia: Temple University. pp. 57–72. S. Benton (1931/32). The Ionian Islands. Annual of the British School at Athens 32, 213–246. I. Berg (1999). The Southern Aegean System. Journal of World Systems Research 5, 475–484. ________ (2000) The Minoanization of the Southern Aegean: A Comparative Approach to Ceramic Assemblages. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge. ________ (2004a). Performing Religion: Practitioners and Cult Places in Minoan Crete. In: T. Insoll (ed.), Belief in the Past (BAR International Series 1212). Oxford: Archeopress. pp. 27–36. ________ (2004b). The Meanings of Standardisation: Conical Cups in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Antiquity 78, 74–85. ________ (2005). A Comparative Look at the Use of the Potter’s Wheel in Bronze Age Greece. Paper Presented at the 2nd Interna-

178

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

tional Conference on Ancient Greek Technology, 17–21 October 2005, Athens. ________ (2006). The ‘Western String’: A Reassessment. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Cretological Congress, Elounda, 1–6 October 2001. Irakleio: Society of Cretan Historical Studies. pp. 135– 150. ________ (2007a). Meaning in the Making: The Potter’s Wheel at Phylakopi, Melos (Greece), Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 234–252. ________ (2007b). Aegean Bronze Age Seascapes—A Case Study in Maritime Movement, Contact and Interaction. In: S. Antoniadou and A. Pace (eds.) Mediterranean Crossroads. Oxford: Oxbow. P. P. Betancourt (1990). Kommos II. The Final Neolithic through Middle Minoan III Pottery. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ________ and E. S. Banou (1991). Pseira and Minoan Sea-Trade. In: R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa. L’Egéen Prehistorique et la Mer (Aegaeum 7). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 107–110. N. Bethel (2002). Navigations: Insularity versus Cosmopolitanism in the Bahamas: Formality and Informality in an Archipelagic Nation. Social Identities 8, 237–253. J. Betts (1971). Ships on Minoan Seals. In: D. J. Blackman (ed.), Marine Archaeology. London: Butterworths. pp. 325–338. A. Bevan (2002). The Rural Landscape of Neopalatial Kythera: A GIS Perspective. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15, 217–256. J. L. Bintliff (1977). Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (BAR Suppl. Series 28). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. S. C. Bisel (1992). The Human Skeletal Remains. In: W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie (eds.), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Vol II: The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 345–358. ________ and J. L. Angel (1985). Health and Nutrition in Mycenaean Greece: A Study in Human Skeletal Remains. In: N. C. Wilkie and W. D. E. Coulson (eds.), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology. Studies in Honor of William A. McDonald. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 197–209.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

P. Bohannan and L. Bohannan (1968). Tiv Economy. London: Longmans. S. Bottema (1980). Palynological Investigations on Crete. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 31, 193–217. ________ (1982). Palynological Investigations in Greece with Special Reference to Pollen as an Indicator of Human Activity. Palaeohistoria 24, 257–289. ________ (1990). Holocene Environment of the Southern Argolid: A Pollen Core from Kiladha Bay. In: T. J. Wilkinson and S. T. Duhon (eds.), Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Franchthi Paralia. The Sediments, Stratigraphy, and Offshore Investigations. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 117– 138. ________ and A. Sarpaki (2003). Environmental Change in Crete: A 9000–year Record of Holocene Vegetation History and the Effect of the Santorini Eruption, The Holocene 13, 733–749. S. Bowdler (1995). Offshore Islands and Maritime Explorations in Australian Prehistory. Antiquity 69, 945–958. K. Branigan (1981). Minoan Colonialism. Annual of the British School at Athens 76, 23–33. ________ (1984). Minoan Community Colonies in the Aegean? In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 49–53. F. Braudel (1972). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (S. Reynolds, trans.). London: Harper Collins. N. Brodie (2004). The Donkey: An Appropriate Technology for Early Bronze Age Land Transport and Traction. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. C. Broodbank (1989). The Longboat and Society in the Cyclades in the Keros-Syros Culture. American Journal of Archaeology 93, 319– 337. ________ (1999). Kythera Survey: Preliminary Report on the 1998 Season. Annual of the British School at Athens 94, 191–214.

180

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

________ (2000a). An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ________ (2000b). Perspectives on an Early Bronze Age Island Centre: An Analysis of Pottery from Daskaleio-Kavos (Keros) in the Cyclades. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 323–342. ________ (2004). Minoanisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 50, 45–91. J. Brunhes (1920). Human Geography. London: Harrap. R. J. Buck (1962/63). The Minoan Thalassocracy Re-examined. Historia 11, 129–137. H. Bush and M. Zvelebil (1991). Pathology and Health in Past Societies: An Introduction. In: H. Bush and M. Zvelebil (eds.), Health in Past Societies (BAR International Series 567) Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. pp. 3–9. G. Cadogan (1984). A Minoan Thalassocracy? In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 13–15. H. G. Carr (1960). Some Dental Characteristics of the Middle Minoans. Man 60, 119–122. T. Carter (2004). Mochlos and Melos: A Special Relationship? Creating Identity and Status in Minoan Crete. In: L. P. Day, M. S. Mook, and J. D. Muhly (eds.) Crete Beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference. Philadelphia, Penn.: INSTAP Academic Press, pp. 291–307. P. Cartledge (2002). Sparta and Lakonia. London: Routledge. J. L. Caskey (1962). Excavations in Keos, 1960–1961. Hesperia 31, 263– 283. ________ (1964a). Excavations in Keos, 1963. Hesperia 33, 314–335. ________ (1964b). Ceos 1964. Archaeology 17, 277–280. ________ (1966). Excavations in Keos, 1964–1965. Hesperia 35, 363– 376. ________ (1971a). Investigations in Keos Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966–1970. Hesperia 40, 358–396. ________ (1971b). Marble Figurines from Ayia Irini in Keos. Hesperia 40, 113–126. ________ (1972). Investigations in Keos II. Hesperia 41, 357–401.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

________ (1981). Notes on Keos and Tzia. Hesperia 50, 320–326. ________ (1986). Did the Early Bronze Age End? In: G. Cadogan (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean. Leiden: Brill. pp. 1– 31. M. E. Caskey (1984). The Temple at Ayia Irini, Kea: Evidence for the Late Helladic IIIC Phases. In: J. A. MacGillivray and R. L. N. Barber (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades. Edinburgh: Department of Classical Archaeology, University of Edinburgh. pp. 241–254. ________ (1986). Keos II. The Temple at Ayia Irini. Part I: The Statues. Mainz: von Zabern. ________ (1998). Ayia Irini: Temple Studies. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 123–138. ________ and N. Tountas (1998). Ayia Irini. Some New Architectural Details. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 695–697. L. Casson (1971). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. P. V. Castro, R. W. Chapman, S. Gili, V. Lull, R. Micó, C. Rihuete, R. Risch, and M. E. Sanahuja (1999). Agricultural Production and Social Change in the Bronze Age of Southeast Spain: The Gatas Project. Antiquity 73, 846–856. E. A. Catling, H. W. Catling, and D. Smyth (1979). Knossos 1975: Middle Minoan III and Late Minoan I Houses by the Acropolis. Annual of the British School at Athens 74, 1–80. T. C. Champion (ed.). (1989a). Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London: Routledge. ________ (1989b). Introduction. In: T. C. Champion (ed.), Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London: Routledge. pp. 1–21. J. F. Cherry (1981). Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 41–68.

182

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

________ (1985). Islands out of the Stream: Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular Prehistory. In: A. B. Knapp and T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology. pp. 12–29. ________ (1987). Island Origins: The Early Prehistoric Cyclades. In: B. Cunliffe (ed.), Origins: The Roots of European Civilisation. London: BBC Books. pp. 15–29. ________ (1990). The First Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3, 145–221. ________ and J. L. Davis (1982). The Cyclades and the Greek Mainland in LC I: The Evidence of Pottery. American Journal of Archaeology 86, 333–341. ________, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani (1991). Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from the Earliest Settlement until Modern Times. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology. ________ and R. Torrence (1982). The Earliest Prehistory of Melos. In: A. C. Renfrew and J. M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 24–34. J. T. Clark and J. Terrell (1978). Archaeology in Oceania. Annual Review of Anthropology 7, 293–319. J. N. Coldstream (1978). Kythera and the Southern Peloponnese in the LM I Period. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 389–401. ________ and G. L. Huxley (1972). Kythera: Excavations and Studies. London: Faber. ________ and G. L. Huxley (1984). The Minoans of Kythera. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 107–110. J. E. Coleman (1977). Kephala. A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

C. L. Costin (1991). Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1–56. M. A. Courty and V. Roux (1995). Identification of Wheel Throwing on the Basis of Ceramic Surface Features and Microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 17–50. J. G. Coutsis (2000). The Insects Depicted on the Wall Paintings of Thera: An Attempt at Identification. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 580–584. J. P. Coy (1973). Bronze Age Domestic Animals from Keos, Greece. In: J. Matolcsi (ed.), Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. pp. 239–243. P. L. Crown (1999). Socialization in American Southwest Pottery Decoration. In: J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People. A Dynamic Interaction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. pp. 25–43. W. W. Cummer and E. Schofield (1984). Keos III. Ayia Irini: House A. Mainz: von Zabern. T. Cunningham and J. Driessen (2004). Site by Site: Combining Survey and Excavation Data to Chart Patterns of Socio-political Change in Bronze Age Crete. In: S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry (eds.), Sideby-Side Survey. Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 101–113. J. G. Cusick (1998a). Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of Concepts and their Application in Archaeology. In: J. G. Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. pp. 126–145. ________ (ed.) (1998b). Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. R. Dalongeville and J. Renault-Miskovsky (1993). Paysages Passés et Actuels de l’Île de Naxos. In: R. Dalongeville and G. Rougemont (eds.), Recherches dans les Cyclades. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen. pp. 9–57. ________ and G. Rougemont (eds.) (1993)., Recherches dans les Cyclades. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen.

184

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

C. Darwin (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray. D. A. Davidson (1978). Aegean Soils during the Second Millennium B.C. with Reference to Thera. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 725–739. ________ (1980). Erosion in Greece during the First and Second Millennia BC. In: R. A. Cullingford, D. A. Davidson, and J. Lewin (eds.), Timescales in Geomorphology. New York: Wiley & Sons. pp. 143–158. ________ and C. Tasker (1982). Geomorphological Evolution during the Late Holocene. In: C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–94. J. L. Davis (1978). Minoans and Minoanization at Ayia Irini, Keos. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 257–259. ________ (1979). Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age. In: J. L. Davis and J. F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (Monograph 14, Institute of Archaeology, UCLA). Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. pp. 143– 157. ________, E. Schofield, R. Torrence, and D. F. Williams (1983). Keos and the Eastern Aegean: The Cretan Connection. Hesperia 52, 361–366. ________ (1984). Cultural Innovation and the Minoan Thalassocracy at Ayia Irini, Keos. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 159–166. ________ (1986). Keos V. Ayia Irini: Period V. Mainz: von Zabern. ________ (1992). Review of Aegean Prehistory I: The Islands of the Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 96, 699–756. ________ and J. F. Cherry (eds.) (1979). Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology. pp. 143–157. ________ and J. F. Cherry (1984). Phylakopi in Late Cycladic I: A Pottery Seriation Study. In: J. A. MacGillivray and R. L. N. Barber (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades. Edinburgh: Department of Classical Archaeology, University of Edinburgh. pp. 148–161.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

________ and J. F. Cherry (1990). Spatial and Temporal Uniformitarianism in Late Cycladic I: Perspectives from Kea and Milos on the Prehistory of Akrotiri. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 185–200. ________ and J. F. Cherry, (2007). The Cycladic Pottery from Late Bronze I Levels at Phylakopi. In: C. Renfrew, with N. Brodie, C. Morris, and C. Scarre (eds.), Excavations at Phylakopi, 1974–1977 (BSA Supplement 42). London: British School at Athens. ________ and H. B. Lewis (1985). Mechanization of Pottery Production: A Case Study from the Cycladic Islands. In: A. B. Knapp and T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric Production and Exchange. The Aegean and the Mediterranean. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of Los Angeles. pp. 79–92. ________, I. Tzonou-Herbst, and A. D. Wolpert (2001). Addendum: 1992–1999. In: T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory. A Review. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. pp. 77–94. ________ and D. F. Williams (1981). Petrological Examination of Later Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Ayia Irini, Keos. Hesperia 50, 291–300. R. M. Dawkins and J. P. Droop (1910/11). Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, 1911. Annual of the British School at Athens 17, 1–22. L. E. Dawson, V.-M. Fredrickson, and N. H. H. Graburn (1974). Traditions in Transition. Cultural Contact and Material Change. Berkeley: Lowie Museum of Anthropology. K. Deagan (1998). Transculturation and Spanish American Ethnogenesis: The Archaeological Legacy of the Quincentenary. In: J. G. Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact. Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. pp. 23–43. D. Defoe (1719 [modern edition 1983]). The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Cruesoe of York, Mariner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. H. de Vere Stacpoole (1908). The Blue Lagoon. A Romance. New York: Duffield & Co.

186

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

H. M. Denham (1983). The Aegean. A Sea-Guide to its Coasts and Islands. London: John Murray. R. E. Dewar (1997). Does it Matter that Madagascar is an Island? Human Ecology 25, 481–489. J. M. Diamond (1977). Colonization Cycles in Man and Beasts. World Archaeology 8, 249–261. ________ and R. M. May (1981). Island Biogeography and the Design of Natural Reserves. In: R. M. May (ed.), Theoretical Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 228–252. C. Diapoulis (1980). Prehistoric Plants of the Islands of the Aegean Sea. Sea Daffodils (Pancratium Maritimum). In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 129– 140. O. T. P. K. Dickinson (1984). Cretan Contacts with the Mainland during the Period of the Shaft Graves. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 115–118. ________ (1994). The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. Dietz (1998). The Cyclades and the Mainland in the Shaft Grave Period—A Summary. In: S. Dietz and S. Isager (eds.), Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens II. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. pp. 9–35. M.-A. Dobres (1999). Technology’s Links and Chaînes: The Processual Unfolding of Technique and Technician. In: M.-A. Dobres and R. Hoffman (eds.), The Social Dynamics of Technology. Practice, Politics and World Views. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 124–146. ________ (2000). Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell. ________ (2001). Meaning in the Making: Agency and the Social Embodiment of Technology and Art. In: M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. pp. 47–76.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

________ and R. Hoffman (1999). The Social Dynamics of Technology. Practice, Politics and World Views. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. C. G. Doumas (1965). Korfh t’Arwniou, Archaiologikon Deltion 20, 41–64. ________ (1972). Notes on Cycladic Architecture, Archäologischer Anzeiger 87, 151–170. ________ (ed.) (1978). Thera and the Aegean World. Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978. London: Thera Foundation. ________ (1982). The Minoan Thalassocracy and the Cyclades. Archäologischer Anzeiger 97, 5–14. ________ (1988). EBA in the Cyclades: Continuity or Discontinuity? In: E. B. French and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. pp. 21–29. J. Driessen (2001). History and Hierarchy. Preliminary Observations on the Settlement Pattern of Minoan Crete. In: K. Branigan (ed.) Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 51–71. P. S. Economidis (2000). The ‘Little Fisherman’ and the Fish He Holds. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 555–560. J. W. Eerkens and R. L. Bettinger (2001). Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66, 493–504. K. Emre (1963). The Pottery of the Assyrian Period Colony. Anatolia 7, 87–99. K. A. Ericsson and A. C. Lehmann (1996). Expert and Exceptional Performance: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints. Annual Review of Psychology 47, 273–305. T. H. Eriksen (1993). In Which Sense Do Cultural Islands Exist? Social Anthropology 1, 133–147. A. Evans (1921–1935). The Palace of Minos at Knossos. London: Macmillan & Co. J. D. Evans (1973). Islands as Laboratories for the Study of Culture Process. In: C. Renfrew (ed.), The Exploration of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. London: Duckworth. pp. 517–520.

188

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

________ (1977). Island Archaeology in the Mediterranean: Problems and Opportunities. World Archaeology 9, 12–26. ________ and A. C. Renfrew (1968). Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. London: British School at Athens. R. D. G. Evely (1988). The Potters’ Wheel in Minoan Crete. Annual of the British School at Athens 83, 83–126. ________ (2000). Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. Vol. 2. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. R. G. Fairbanks (1989). A 17,000-Year Glacio-Eustatic Sea Level Record: Influence of Glacial Melting Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep-Ocean Circulation. Nature 342, 637–642. J. R. Fears (1978). Atlantis and the Minoan Thalassocracy: Fact or Fiction. In: E. S. Ramage (ed.), Atlantis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 103–134. T. J. Figueira (1981). Aegina: Society and Politics. New York: Arno Press. B. Finney (1994). Voyage of Rediscovery. A Cultural Odyssey through Polynesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. B. Fitzhugh and T. L. Hunt (1997). Introduction: Islands as Laboratories: Archaeological Research in Comparative Perspective. Human Ecology 25, 379–383. W. W. Fitzhugh (1997). Biogeographical Archaeology in the Eastern North American Arctic. Human Ecology 25, 385–418. N. C. Flemming (1978). Holocene Eustatic Changes and Coastal Tectonics in the Northeast Mediterranean: Implications for Models of Crustal Composition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 289, 405–458. ________, N. M. G. Czartoryska, and P. M. Hunter (1973). Archaeological Evidence for Eustatic and Tectonic Components of Relative Sea Level Change in the South Aegean. In: D. J. Blackman (ed.), Marine Archaeology (Colston Papers 23). London: Butterworths. pp. 1–66. F. R. Fosberg (ed.) (1963). Man’s Place in the Island Ecosystem. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

G. M. Foster (1959a). The Potter’s Wheel: An Analysis of Idea and Artifact in Invention. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15, 99– 119. ________ (1959b). The Coyotepec Molde and some Associated Problems of the Potter’s Wheel. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15, 53–63. ________ (1960). Culture and Conquest: America’s Spanish Heritage. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. H. J. Franken (1971). Analysis of Methods of Potmaking in Archaeology. Harvard Theological Review 64, 227–55. C. Frederick and P. Halstead (2000). Preface. In: P. Halstead and C. Frederick (eds.), Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 9–11. J. Friedman (1981). Notes on Structure and History in Oceania. Folk 23, 275–295. W. L. Friedrich (2000). Fire in the Sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ________, P. Wagner, and H. Tauber (1990). Radiocarbon Dated Plant Remains from the Akrotiri Excavation on Santorini, Greece. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 188–196. A. Furtwängler (ed.) (1906). Das Heiligtum der Aphaia. München: Verlag der Königlichen Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. A. Furumark (1950). The Settlement at Ialysos and Aegean History c. 1550–1400 B.C. Opuscula Archaeologica 6, 150–271. N. H. Gale (1991). Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90). Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ________ (1998). The Role of Kea in Metal Production and Trade in the Late Bronze Age. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 737–758. ________, Z. A. Stos-Gale, and J. L. Davis (1984). The Provenance of Lead Used at Ayia Irini, Kea. Hesperia 53, 389–406.

190

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

T. W. Gallant (1985). A Fisherman’s Tale. Ghent: Belgian Archaeological Mission in Greece/Seminar for Greek Archaeology of the State University of Ghent. ________ (1991). Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. C. Gamble (1978). The Bronze Age Animal Economy from Akrotiri: A Preliminary Analysis. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 745–753. ________ (1979). Surplus and Self-Sufficiency in the Cycladic Subsistence Economy. In: J. L. Davis and J. F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory. Los Angeles: University of California. pp. 122–134. ________ (1982). Animal Husbandry, Population and Urbanisation. In: C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 161–171. A. Garland (1996). The Beach. New York: Riverhead Books. P. Garnsey (1988). Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. N.-G. Gejvall (1969). Lerna: The Fauna. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. A. Gelbert (1999). Technological and Stylistic Borrowings between Ceramic Traditions: A Case Study from Northeastern Senegal. In: L. R. Owen and M. Porr (eds.), Ethno-Analogy and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production. Tübingen: Mo Vince Verlag. pp. 207–224. H. S. Georgiou (1986). Keos VI. Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic and Industrial Pottery. Mainz: von Zabern. ________ (1991). Bronze Age Ships and Rigging. In: R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa. L’Egéen Prehistorique et la Mer. (Aegaeum 7). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 61–71. ________ (1993). A Sea Approach to Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age. In: C. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939–1989. Amsterdam: Gieben. pp. 353–364.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

________ and N. Faraklas (1985). Ancient Habitation Pattern of Keos. Locations and Nature of Sites on the Northwest Part of the Island. Ariadne 3, 207–266. C. Gillis (1990a). Minoan Conical Cups. Form, Function and Significance. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. ________ (1990b). Akrotiri and its Neighbours to the South: Conical Cups Again. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 98–117. ________ (1998). Pottery and Statistics: A Pilot Study. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 155–160. W. Golding (1954). Lord of the Flies. London: Faber. I. Goldman (1957). Variations in Polynesian Social Organization. Journal of the Polynesian Society 66, 374–390. O. P. Gosselain (1998). Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In: M. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 78–106. ________ (2000). Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 187–217. G. Graziadio (1998). Trade Circuits and Trade-Routes in the Shaft Grave Period. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 40, 29–76. C. A. Gregory (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. J. R. A. Greig and J. Turner (1974). Some Pollen Diagrams from Greece and their Archaeological Significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 1, 177–194. M. D. Grmek (19892). Disease in the Ancient Greek World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. A. T. Grove and O. Rackham (2001). The Nature of Mediterranean Europe. An Ecological History. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

192

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

D. Grove, J. Moody, and O. Rackham (eds.) (1990). Stability and Change in the Cretan Landscape. Cambridge: Department of Geography, Cambridge. J. M. Grove (1997). The Spatial and Temporal Variations of Glaciers during the Holocene in the Alps, Pyrenees, Tatra and Caucasus. Palaeoklimaforschungen/Palaeoclimatic Research 24, 95–103. R. H. Grove (1995). Green Imperialism. Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens, and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600–1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A. Guest-Papamanoli (1983). Pêche et Pêcheurs Minoens: Proposition pour une Recherche. In: L. Nixon and O. H. Kryszkowska (eds.), Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. pp. 101–110. ________ (1996). Hunting and Trapping in Prehistoric Crete: A Proposal for Ethnoarchaeological Research. In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 337–349. A. C. Haddon and J. Hornell (1936–8). Canoes of Oceania. Honolulu: Bishop Museum. O. Hadjianastasiou (1989). Some Hints of Naxian External Connections in the Earlier Bronze Age. Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 205–215. ________ (1993). Naxian Pottery and External Relations in Late Cycladic I-II. In: C. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age. Amsterdam: Gieben. pp. 257–262. R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.) (1984), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. ________ (1984). Degrees and Character of the Minoan Influence on the Mainland. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 119– 121. H. R. Hall (1905). The Excavations at Phylakopi. Classical Review 19, 79–84.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

P. Halstead (1977). The Bronze Age Demography of Crete and Greece—A Note. Annual of the British School at Athens 72, 107– 111. ________ (1981). From Determinism to Uncertainty. Social Storage and the Rise of the Minoan Palace. In: A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology (BAR International Series 96). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. pp. 187–213. ________ (1989). The Economy has a Normal Surplus: Economic Stability and Social Change among Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, Greece. In: P. Halstead and J. O’Shea (eds.), Bad Years Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–80. ________ (1992). Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean. Towards a Model of Palatial Economy. In: B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece (Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–17 May, 1990). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 105–117. ________ (1996). The Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece: When, How, Who and What? In: D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London: UCL Press. pp. 296–309. ________ (2000). Land Use in Postglacial Greece: Cultural Causes and Environmental Effects. In: P. Halstead and C. Frederick (eds.), Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 110–128. ________ and G. Jones (1989). Agrarian Ecology in the Greek Islands: Time Stress, Scale and Risk. Journal of Hellenic Studies 109, 41–55. Y. Hamilakis (1996). Cretan Pleistocene Fauna and Archaeological Remains: The Evidence from Sentoni Cave (Zoniana, Rethymnon). In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 231–239. ________ (1999). Food Technologies/ Technologies of the Body: The Social Context of Wine and Oil Production and Consumption in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeology 31, 38–54. ________ (2002). What Future for the ‘Minoan’ Past? Re-thinking Minoan Archaeology. In: Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Labyrinth Revisited. Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 2–28.

194

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

________ and N. Momigliano (eds.) (2006). Archaeology and European Modernity: Producing and Consuming the ‘Minoans’ (Creta Antica 7). Padova. Bottega d’Erasmo. D. A. Hardy et al. (eds.) (1990). Thera and the Aegean World III. 3 Vols. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. J. P. Harland (1966). Prehistoric Aigina. Rome: Bretschneider. K. J. Harte (2000). Birds of the Thera Wall Paintings. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 681–697. J. J. Hekman (1994). Chalandriani on Syros: An Early Bronze Age Cemetery in the Cyclades, Archaiologiki Ephemeris 133, 47–74. R. Heikell (1988). Mediterranean Sailing. London: Nautical Books. ________ (2001). Greek Waters Pilot. St Ives: Imray, Laurie, Norie, & Wilson. M. W. Helms (1988). Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. M. W. Helms (1993). Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Austin: University of Texas Press. L. Hempel (1991). Forschungen zur Physischen Geographie der Insel Kreta im Quartär. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. R. C. Henrickson (1991). Wheelmade or Wheel-finished? Interpretation of ‘Wheelmarks’ on Pottery. In: P. B. Vandiver, G. S. Druzik, and G. S. Wheeler (eds.), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II. Pittsburgh, Penn.: Materials Research Society. pp. 523–541. Herodotus (1921). Histories (translated by A. D. Godley). London/New York: Heinemann/Putnam’s Sons. M. J. Herskovits (1938). Acculturation: The Study of Culture Contact. New York: J. J. Augustin. S. Hiller (1975). Alt-Ägina 4,1: Mykenische Keramik. Mainz: von Zabern. ________ (1984). Pax Minoica versus Minoan Thalassocracy. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 27–31.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

________ (1993). Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery on Aegina. In: C. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939–1989. Amsterdam: Gieben. pp. 197–199. L. A. Hitchcock (1998). Blending the Local with the Foreign: Minoan Features at Ayia Irini, House A. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 169–174. I. Hodder (1978a). Simple Correlations Between Material Culture and Society: A Review. In: I. Hodder (ed.), The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London: Duckworth. pp. 3–24. ________ (1978b). Some Effects of Distance on Patterns of Human Interaction. In: I. Hodder (ed.), The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London: Duckworth. pp. 155–178. ________ (1982). Toward a Contextual Approach to Prehistoric Exchange. In: J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle (eds.), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. London: Academic Press. pp. 199–211. D. G. Hogarth (1910). Accidents of an Antiquary’s Life. London: Macmillan. ________, D. Mackenzie, and C. C. Edgar (1897/98). Excavations in Melos, 1898. Annual of the British School at Athens 4, 1–48. Homer (1995). The Odyssey. (Translated by A. T. Murray). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ________ (1998). The Iliad. (Translated by R. Fitzgerald). Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. Horden and N. Purcell (2000). The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell. T. Ingold (1999). Foreword. In: M.-A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman (eds.), The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics and World Views. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. vii-xii. A. Ingvarsson-Sundström (2003) Children Lost and Found. Unpublished PhD thesis, Uppsala University. G. Irwin (1992). The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

196

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

S. Jahns (1990). Preliminary Note on Human Influence and the History of Vegetation in Southern Dalmatica and Southern Greece. In: S. Bottema, G. Entjes-Jieborg, and W. van Zeist (eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Rotterdam: Balkema. pp. 333–340. ________ (1993). On the Holocene Vegetation History of the Argive Plain (Peloponnese, Southern Greece). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2, 187–203. M. H. Jameson, C. N. Runnels, and T. H. van Andel (1994). A Greek Countryside. The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford: Stanford University Press. M. R. Jarman (1996). Human Influence in the Development of the Cretan Mammalian Fauna. In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 211–229. A. Jones (2002). Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. G. Jones (1987). Agricultural Practices in Greek Prehistory. Annual of the British School at Athens 82, 115–123. R. E. Jones (1978). Composition and Provenance Studies of Cycladic Pottery with Particular Reference to Thera. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 471–482. ________ (1986). Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. Athens: British School at Athens. S. Jones (1997). The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. New York: Routledge. L. Karali (1996). Marine Invertebrates and Minoan Art. In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 413–422. ________ (1999). Shells in Aegean Prehistory (BAR International Series 761). Oxford: Archaeopress. L. Karali-Yannacopoulou (1990). Sea Shells, Land Snails and other Marine Remains from Akrotiri. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Con-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

gress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 410–415. E. Karantzali (1996). Le Bronze Ancien dans les Cyclades et en Crète. Les Relations Entre les deux Régions. Influence de la Grèce Continental (BAR International Series 631). Oxford: Archaeopress. ________ (2004). The Transition of EB I to EB II in the Cyclades and Crete. Historical and Cultural Repercussions in Aegean communities. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. P. N. Kardulias (1996). Introduction. Journal of World-Systems Research 2, 1–8. ________ (1999). Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age WorldSystem. In: P. N. Kardulias (ed.), World-Systems Theory in Practice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 179–202. A. Karnava (2004). Written and Stamped Records in the Late Bronze Age Cyclades: The Sea Journeys of an Administration. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. I. Kilian-Dirlmeier (1997). Alt Ägina 4,3: Das Mittelbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab von Ägina. Mainz: von Zabern. V. Kilikoglou, C. Doumas, A. Papagiannopoulou, E. V. Sayre, Y. Maniatis, and A. P. Grimanis (1990). A Study of Middle and Late Cycladic Pottery from Akrotiri. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 441–448. R. King (1993). The Geographical Fascination of Islands. In: D. G. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith, and J. Schembri (eds.), The Development Process in Small Island States. London: Routledge. pp. 13– 37. P. V. Kirch (1980a). The Archaeological Study of Adaptation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. In: M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Academic Press. pp. 101–156.

198

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

________ (1980b). Polynesian Prehistory: Cultural Adaptation in Island Ecosystems. American Scientist 64, 39–48. ________ (1986). The Archaeology of Island Societies. In: P. V. Kirch (ed.) Island Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–5. E. Kiriatzi (2003). Sherds, Fabrics and Clay Sources: Reconstructing the Ceramic Landscapes of Prehistoric Kythera. In: E. P. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds.), METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 24). Liège/Austin, Texas: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 123–130. ________, S. Andreou, S. Dimitriadis, and K. Kotsakis (1997). CoExisting Traditions: Handmade and Wheelmade Pottery in Late Bronze Age Central Macedonia. In: R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds.), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmenship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16). Liège and Austin: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 361–367. M. E. Kislev, M. Artzy, and E. Marcus (1993). Import of an Aegean Food Plant to a Middle Bronze IIA Coastal Site in Israel. Levant 25, 145–154. A. B. Knapp (1998). Mediterranean Bronze Age Trade: Distance, Power and Place. In: E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium BC (Aegaeum 18). Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin. pp. 193–205. ________ and J. F. Cherry (1994). Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange and Politico-Economic Change. Madison: Prehistoric Press. C. Knappett (1997). Ceramic Production in the Protopalatial Mallia ‘State’: Evidence from Quartier Mu and Myrtos Pyrgos. In: R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds.), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmenship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16). Liège and Austin: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 305–311. ________ (1999a). Assessing a Polity in Protopalatial Crete: The MaliaLasithi State. American Journal of Archaeology 103, 615–639. ________ (1999b). Tradition and Innovation in Pottery Forming Technology: Wheel-Throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 94, 101–129.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

________ (1999c). Can’t Live Without Them. Producing and Consuming Minoan Conical Cups. In: P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcom H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20). Liège/Austin: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 415–420. ________ (2004). Technological Innovation and Social Diversity at Middle Minoan Knossos. In: G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State (British School at Athens Studies 12). London: British School at Athens. pp. 257–265. ________ and I. Nikolakopoulou (2005). Exchange and Affiliation Networks in the MBA Southern Aegean: Crete, Akrotiri and Miletus. In: R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds.) EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean (Aegaeum 25). Liège and Austin: Université de Liège/University of Texas at Austin. pp. 175–183. P. Kohl (1987). The Ancient Economy, Transferable Technologies and the Bronze Age World-System: A View from the Northeastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East. In: M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–24. G. S. Korres (1984). The Relations between Crete and Messenia in the Late Middle Helladic and Early Late Helladic Period. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 141–152. O. Kouka (2004). ‘Diaspora’, ‘Presence’ or Interaction? The Cyclades and the Greek Mainland in the Final Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. J. C. Kraft, I. Kayan, and O. Erol (1980). Geology and Paleogeographic Reconstructions in the Vicinity of Ancient Troy. In: G. Rapp and J. Gifford (eds.), Troy Supplementary Monograph 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 11–42. ________, J. G. R. Rapp, and S. E. Aschenbrenner (1980). Late Holocene Palaeogeomorphic Reconstructions in the Area of the Bay of

200

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Navarino: Sandy Pylos. Journal of Archaeological Science 7, 187– 210. H. Kuklick (1996). Islands in the Pacific: Darwinian Biogeography and British Anthropology. American Ethnologist 23, 611–638. K. Lambeck (1996). Sea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Time. Antiquity 70, 588– 611. C. Lambrou-Phillipson (1991). Seafaring in the Bronze Age Mediterranean: The Parameters Involved in Maritime Travel. In: R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa. L’Egéen Prehistorique et la Mer (Aegaeum 7). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 11–19. P. Lemonnier (1986). The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147–186. ________ (1992). Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Museum of Anthropology. ________ (1993). Introduction. In: P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. London: Routledge. pp. 1–35. D. Levi (1961–2). Le Due Prime Campagne di Scavo a Iasos (1960–1). Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e della Missioni Italiane in Oriente N.S. 23–4, 504–571. ________ (1965–6). Le Campagne 1962–4 a Iasos. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e della Missioni Italiane in Orient N.S. 27–8, 401–456. D. Lewis (1972). We, the Navigators. The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific. Canberra. Australian National University Press. H. B. Lewis (1983). The Manufacture of Early Mycenaean pottery. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Minnesota. S. Limbrey (1990). Soil Studies at Akrotiri. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 377–382. V. M. Liritzis (1988). Seafaring, Craft and Cultural Contact in the Aegean during the 3rd Millennium BC. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17, 237–256.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

D. G. Lockhart (1997). Island and Tourism: An Overview. In: D. G. Lockhart and D. Drakakis-Smith (eds.), Island Tourism. Trends and Prospects. London/New York: Pinter. pp. 3–20. Y. G. Lolos (1990). On the Late Helladic I of Akrotiri, Thera. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 51–56. G. A. London (1991). Standardization and Variation in the Work of Craft Specialists. In: W. A. Longacre (ed.), Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. pp. 182–204. W. A. Longacre (1999). Standardization and Specialization: What’s the Link? In: J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People. A Dynamic Interaction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. pp. 44–58. ________, K. L. Kvamme and M. Kobayashi (1988). Southwestern Pottery Standardization: An Ethnoarchaeological View from the Philippines. Kiva 53(2), 101–112. D. Loxley (1990). Problematic Shores: The Literature of Islands. London: Macmillan. R. H. MacArthur and E. O. Wilson (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton. Princeton University Press. J. A. MacGillivray (1984). Cycladic Jars from Middle Minoan III Contexts at Knossos. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 153– 158. D. Mackenzie (1963). Daybook of the Excavations at Phylakopi on Melos, 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899. Athens: no publisher. ________, T. D. Atkinson, and C. C. Edgar (1898/99). Excavations in Melos, 1899. Annual of the British School at Athens 5, 3–19. M.-C. Mahias (1993). Pottery Techniques in India. Technical Variants and Social Choice. In: P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological Choices. London: Routledge. pp. 157–180. B. Malinowski (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelago of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge.

202

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

I. Malkin (1998). The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. S. W. Manning (1999). A Test of Time. Oxford: Oxbow. E. K. Mantzourani and A. J. Theodorou (1991). An Attempt to Delineate the Sea-Routes Between Crete and Cyprus during the Bronze Age. In: V. Karageorghis (ed.), The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean 2000–600 B.C. Larnaca: Pierides Foundation. pp. 38–56. N. Marinatos (1984). Minoan Threskeiocracy on Thera. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 167–178. S. Marinatos (1970a). From the Silent Earth. Athens Annals of Archaeology 3, 61–68. ________ (1970b). Further Discoveries at Marathon. Athens Annals of Archaeology 3, 153–166. ________ (1970c). Further News from Marathon. Athens Annals of Archaeology 3, 349–366. T. Marketou (1998). Excavations at Trianda (Ialysos) on Rhodes: New Evidence for the Late Bronze Age I Period. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. (Classe di Scienze, Morali, Storiche e Filologiche 9 [Series 9]), 39–72. M. Marthari (1987). The Local Pottery Wares with Painted Decoration from the Volcanic Destruction Level of Akrotiri, Thera. A Preliminary Report. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 359–379. ________ (1990). The Chronology of the Last Phases of Occupation at Akrotiri in the Light of the Evidence from the West House Pottery Group. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 57–70. ________ (1998). The Griffin Jar From Ayia Irini, Keos, and its Relationship to the Pottery and Frescoes from Thera. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 139–154.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

________ (2004). Aspects of Pottery Circulation in the Cyclades during the Early EB II. Fine and Semi-Fine Imported Ceramic Wares at Skarkos, Ios. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. F. W. McCoy (1980). Climatic Change in the Eastern Mediterranean Area during the Past 240,000 Years. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 79–100. W. A. Mcdonald and R. Hope Simpson (1972). Archaeological Exploration. In: W. A. McDonald and J. G. R. Rapp (1972). The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 117– 147. ________ and J. G. R. Rapp (1972). The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. P. J. P. McGeorge (1988). Health and Diet in Minoan Times. In: R. E. Jones and H. W. Catling (eds.), New Aspects of Archaeological Science in Greece (Occasional Papers of the Fitch Laboratory 3). Athens: British School at Athens. pp. 47–54. ________ (1990). A Comparative Study of the Mean Life Expectation of the Minoans. In: Pepragmena tou ST’ Diethnous Archaiologikou Synedriou. Chania: Chrysostomos. pp. 419–428. ________ (1992). Part II: The Burials. In: B. P. Hallager and P. J. P. McGeorge (eds.), Late Minoan III Burials at Khania. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. pp. 29–44. ________ (2006). Trauma, Surgery and (Pre-)Historical Events. Paper presented at the 10th International Cretological Congress, Chania, 1–8 October 2006. S. McGrail (1987). Ancient Boats in N.W. Europe. The Archaeology of Water Transport to AD 1500. London/New York: Longman. ________ (1991a). Bronze Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean: A View from NW Europe. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90). Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. pp. 83– 91. ________ (1991b). Early Sea Voyages. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20, 85–93.

204

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

M. Mead (1957). Introduction to Polynesia as a Laboratory for the Development of Models in the Study of Cultural Evolution. Journal of the Polynesian Society 66, 145. Mediterranean Pilot (2000). Aegean Sea and Approaches with Adjacent Coasts of Greece and Turkey. United Kingdom: Hydrographer of the Navy. J. Moody, O. Rackham, and G. Rapp (1996). Environmental Archaeology of Prehistoric NW Crete. Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 273–297. ________ (2000). Holocene Climate Change in Crete: An Archaeologist’s View. In: P. Halstead and C. Frederick (eds.), Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 52–61. H. Moore (1987). Problems in the Analysis of Social Change: An Example from the Marakwet. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeology as Long-Term History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 85–104. L. Morgan (1988). The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C. Morris and R. Jones (1998). The Late Bronze Age III Town of Ayia Irini and its Aegean Relations. In: L. G. Mendoni and A. M. Ainian (eds.), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Athens: Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity/National Hellenic Research Foundation. pp. 189–199. J. Morton (2001). The Role of the Physical Environment in Ancient Greek Seafaring. Leiden: Brill. P. A. Mountjoy (1993). Mycenaean Pottery. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxbow. ________ and M. J. Ponting (2000). The Minoan Thalassocracy Reconsidered: Provenance Studies of LH IIA/LM IB Pottery from Phylakopi, Ay. Irini and Athens. Annual of the British School at Athens 95, 141–184. ________ (2004). Knossos and the Cyclades in Late Minoan IB. In: G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State (British School at Athens Studies 12). London: British School at Athens. pp. 399–404.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

H. D. Mussche (1967). Thorikos 1965: Rapport Preliminaire sur la Troisième Campagne de Fouilles. Brussels: Comité des Fouilles Belges en Grèce. D. Mylona (2000). The ‘Fishermen’ Frescoes in the Light of the Fish Bone Evidence. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 561–566. ________ (2001). Mia Archaiologiki Anasitisi ton Psaradon tis Archaias Santorinis kai tis Psarias tous. In: M. Danezi (ed.), Santorini, Thera, Therasia, Aspronisi, Iphaisteia. Athens: Adam. pp. 189–192. ________ (2004). Appendix C. Tuna Slices in the Frying-Pan. Fish Remains from ‘Kitchen’ in Pillar Pit 65N. Paper presented at Orizon. Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. G. Mylonas (1959). Aghios Kosmas. An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica. Princeton: Princeton University Press. S. Narotzky (1997). New Directions in Economic Anthropology. London: Pluto Press. W.-D. Niemeier (1984). The End of the Minoan Thalassocracy. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 205–215. ________ (1995). Aegina—First Aegean ‘State’ Outside of Crete? In: R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 12). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 73–79. ________ (2004). When Minos Ruled the Waves: Knossian Power Overseas. In: G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis (eds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State (British School at Athens Studies 12). London: British School at Athens. pp. 393–398 I. Nikolakopoulou, F. Georma, A. Moschou, and F. Sofianou (2004). Trapped in the Middle: New Stratigraphical and Ceramic Evidence from MC Akrotiri, Thera. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

206

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

G. C. Nordquist (1987). A Middle Helladic Village. Asine in the Argolid. Uppsala: Bohusläningen Boktryckeri. T. Özgüc (1964). The Art and Architecture of Ancient Kanesh. Anatolia 8, 27–30. C. Orton, P. Tyers, and A. Vince (1993). Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. C. Overbeck (1982). The Hub of Commerce in Keos and Middle Helladic Greece. Temple University Aegean Symposium 7, 38–49. ________ (1984). Stratigraphy and Ceramic Sequence in Middle Cycladic Ayia Irini, Kea. In: J. A. MacGillivray and R. L. N. Barber (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades. Edinburgh: Department of Classical Archaeology, University of Edinburgh. pp. 108–113. ________ (1989a). Keos VII. Ayia Irini: Period IV. Mainz: von Zabern. ________ (1989b). The Bronze Age Pottery from the Kastro at Paros. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ________ (2004). The Commercial Foundation and Development of Ayia Irini IV (Kea). Paper presented at Orizon. Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. G. A. Owens and G. Trench (1996). A Possible Reading of Linear A PH Zb 4. Kadmos 25, 171–172. E. Panagiotakopulu (2000). Butterflies, Flowers and Aegean Iconography: A Story about Silk and Cotton. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 585–591. D. Papageorgiou (2004). Sea Routes in the Prehistoric Cyclades. Poster presented at Orizon. Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. A. Papagiannopoulou (1990). Some Changes in the BA Pottery Production at Akrotiri and their Possible Implications. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 57–66. ________ (1991). The Influence of Middle Minoan Pottery on the Cyclades. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. M. Patton (1996). Islands in Time. London: Routledge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

R. Paynter and R. H. McGuire (1991). The Archaeology of Inequality: Material Culture, Domination, and Resistance. In: R. H. McGuire and R. Paynter (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 1–27. D. M. Pearsall (2001). Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. San Diego. Academic Press. A. A. D. Peatfield (1983). The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. Annual of the British School at Athens 78, 273–279. R. S. Peckham (2003). The Uncertain State of Islands: National Identity and the Discourse of Islands in Nineteenth-Century Britain and Greece. Journal of Historical Geography 29, 499–515. C. Perlès (1987). Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Fasc. 3: Les Industries Lithiques Taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. B. Pfaffenberger (1988). Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature. Man (NS) 23, 236–252. ________ (1992). Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 491–516. O. Philaniotou (2004). Naxos, Tsikniades: An Early Cycladic Cemetery. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. D. Pitt (1980). Sociology, Islands and Boundaries. World Development 8, 1051–1059. J. Powell (1992). Archaeological and Pictorial Evidence for Fishing in the Bronze Age: Issues of Identification and Interpretation. In: R. Laffineur and J. L. Crowley (eds.), ΕΙΚΩΝ. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology (Aegaeum 8). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 307–316. J. Powell (1996). Fishing in the Prehistoric Aegean. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. A. J. N. W. Prag, J. H. Musgrave, R. A. H. Neave, and Y. Sakellarakis (1994). The Priest and Priestess from Archanes—Anemospilia: Reconstructing Minoan Faces. Annual of the British School 89, 89– 100. S. Price, J. H. Musgrave, R. A. H. Neave, E. Sakellarakis, and J. A. Sakellarakis (2002). Relative Sea-Level Changes in Crete: Reas-

208

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

sessment of Radiocarbon Dates from Sphakia and West Crete. Annual of the British School at Athens 97, 171–200. E. Protonotariou-Deilaki (1971). Archaiologikon Deltion 28 (B’1), Chronika 90–94. D. J. Pullen (1992). Ox and Plow in the Early Bronze Age Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 96, 45–54. O. Rackham (1978). The Flora and Vegetation of Thera and Crete before and after the Great Eruption. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 753–764. ________ (1990a). The Greening of Myrtos. In: S. Bottema, G. EntjesJieborg, and W. van Zeist (eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Rotterdam: Balkema. pp. 341– 348. ________ (1990). Observations on the Historical Ecology of Santorini. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 384–391. ________ and J. Moody (1996). The Making of the Cretan Landscape. Manchester: Manchester University Press. P. Rainbird (1999). Islands Out of Time: Towards a Critique of Island Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12, 216–234. G. Rapp and J. C. Kraft (1978). Aegean Sea Level Changes in the Bronze Age. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 183–194. ________ and J. C. Kraft (1994). Holocene Coastal Change in Greece and Aegean Turkey. In: P. N. Kardulias (ed.), Beyond the Site. Regional Studies in the Aegean Area. New York & London: University Press of America. pp. 69–90. D. S. Reese (1987). Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin. Annual of the British School at Athens 82, 201–206. ________ (1992). Appendix I: Recent and Fossil Invertebrates. In: W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie (eds.), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Vol. II. The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 770–778.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

________ (1995). The Minoan Fauna. In: J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 163–291. P. Rehak and J. G. Younger (1998). Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete. American Journal of Archaeology 102, 91–173. A. C. Renfrew (1972). The Emergence of Civilisation. London: Methuen. ________ (1978). Phylakopi and the Late Bronze Age I Period in the Cyclades. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 403–421. ________ (1984). Speculations on the Use of Early Cycladic Sculpture. In: J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris. London: British Museum Publications. pp. 24–30. ________ (1986). Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Prehistoric Europe. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 141–168. ________ (1993). Trade Beyond the Material. In: C. Scarre and F. Healy (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 5–16. ________, with N. Brodie, C. Morris, and C. Scarre (eds.) (2007). Excavations at Phylakopi, 1974–1977 (BSA Supplement 42). London: British School at Athens. ________ and J. M. Wagstaff (eds.) (1982). An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. M. Rice (1991). Specialization, Standardization, and Diversity: A Retrospective. In: R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange (eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anne O. Shepard. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. pp. 257–279. F. R. Riley (1999). The Role of the Traditional Mediterranean Diet in the Development of Minoan Crete (BAR International Series 810). Oxford: Archaeopress. O. T. P. Roberts (1991). The Development of the Brail into a Viable Sail Control for Aegean Boats of the Bronze Age. In: R. Laffineur

210

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

and L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa. L’Egéen Prehistorique et la Mer (Aegaeum 7). Liège: Université de Liège. pp. 55–60. J. D. Rogers (1993). The Social and Material Implications of Culture Contact on the Northern Plains. In: J. D. Rogers and S. M. Wilson (eds.), Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 73–88. M. J. Rose (1995). The Fish Remains. In: J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 204–239. V. Roux (2003). Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of Production: Quantifying Degrees of Specialization. American Antiquity 68, 768–782, V. Roux and D. Corbetta (1989). The Potter’s Wheel. Craft Specialization and Technical Competence. New Delhi/Bombay/Calcutta: Oxford & IBH. ________ and M. A. Courty (1998). Identification of Wheel-fashioning Methods: Technological Analysis of 4th–3rd Millennium BC Oriental Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 747–763. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen (eds.) (1987). Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. A. Royle 2001. A Geography of Islands: Small Island Insularity. London. Routledge. O. Rubensohn (1917). Die Prähistorischen und Frühgeschichtlichen Funde auf dem Burghügel von Paros. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts: Athenische Abteilung 42, 1–98. C. N. Runnels and J. Hansen (1986). The Olive in the Prehistoric Aegean: The Evidence for Domestication in the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5, 299–308. B. Rutkowski (1986). The Cult Places of the Aegean. New Haven: Yale University Press. J. B. Rutter (1983). Some Observations on the Cyclades in the Later Third and Early Second Millennium BC. American Journal of Archaeology 87, 69–76. ________ (1984). The Early Cycladic III Gap: What It Is and How To Go about Filling It without Making It Go Away. In: J. A.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

MacGillivray and R. L. N. Barber (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades. Edinburgh: Department of Classical Archaeology, University of Edinburgh. pp. 95–107. ________ (1985). An Exercise in Form vs. Function: The Significance of the Duck Vase. Temple University Aegean Symposium 10, 16–41. ________ (1993). Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland. American Journal of Archaeology 97, 745–797. ________ and C. W. Zerner (1984). Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 75–83. M. D. Sahlins (1957). Differentiation by Adaptation in Polynesian Society. Journal of the Polynesian Society 66, 291–300. ________ (1958). Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Y. Sakellarakis (1996). Minoan Religious Influence in the Aegean: The Case of Kythera. Annual of the British School at Athens 91, 81–99. R. Sallares (1991). The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World. London: Duckworth. A. Sampson (1985). Manika I. Athens. Etaireia Evvoikon Spoudon. ________ (1996). Nea Stoicheia gia ti Mesolithiki Periodo ston Elliniko Choro. Archaiologia & Technes 61, 46–51. A. Sarpaki (1992a). A Palaeoethnobotanical Study of the West House, Akrotiri, Thera. Annual of the British School at Athens 87, 219–230. ________ (1992b). The Palaeoethnobotanical Approach. The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartet? In: B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. pp. 61–75. ________ and G. Jones (1990). Ancient and Modern Cultivation of Lathyrus Clymenum L. in the Greek Islands. Annual of the British School at Athens 85, 363–368. F. Schachermeyr (1978). Akrotiri—First Maritime Republic? In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 423–428. A. L. Schallin (1993). Islands under Influence. The Cyclades in the Late Bronze Age and the Nature of the Mycenaean Presence. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.

212

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

W. Schiering (1998). Minoische Töpferkunst. Mainz: von Zabern. D. U. Schilardi (1976–1991). Anaskaphi Parou. Praktika tis en Athinais Archaiologikis Etairias 22–38. various pages. E. Schofield (1982). The Western Cyclades and Crete: A “Special Relationship”. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 9–25. ________ (1984). Coming to Terms with Minoan Colonists. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 45–48. ________ (1990). Evidence for Household Industries on Thera and Keos. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 201–211. E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban (eds.). (1992c). Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction. New York: Plenum Press. ________ and P. A. Urban (1994). Living on the Edge. Core/Periphery Relations in Ancient Southeastern Mesoamerica. Current Anthropology 35, 401–430. A. H. Schulenburg (2003). ‘Island of the Blessed’: Eden, Arcadia and the Picturesque in the Textualizing of St Helena. Journal of Historical Geography 29, 535–553. P. Selwyn (1980). Smallness and Islandness. World Development 8, 945– 951. T. Severin (1985). The Jason Voyage. London: Lutchinson. ________ (1987). The Ulysses Voyage. London. Hutchinson. W. Shakespeare (2002). The Tempest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. W. Shaw (1978). Consideration of the Site of Akrotiri as a Minoan Settlement. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 429–436. ________ (1990). Bronze Age Aegean Harboursides. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 420–436.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

________ and M. C. Shaw (eds.). (1985). A Great Minoan Triangle in Southcentral Crete: Kommos, Hagia Triadha, Phaistos. Toronto: Society of Mediterranean Studies, University of Toronto. ________ and M. C. Shaw (1995). Kommos I,1: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. The Kommos Region, Ecology and the Minoan Industries. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ________ and M. C. Shaw (1996). Kommos I, 2: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. The Houses of the Minoan Town. Princeton: Princeton University Press. M. C. Sheehan (1979) The Postglacial Vegetational History of the Argolid Peninsula, Greece. Unpublished Ph.D., Department of Biology, Indiana University. A. Sherratt and S. Sherratt (1991). From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90). Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. pp. 351–386. ________ and S. Sherratt (1998). Small Worlds: Interaction and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. In: E. H. Cline and D. HarrisCline (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium BC (Aegaeum 18). Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin. pp. 329–342. S. Sherratt (1999). E Pur Si Muove: Pots, Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean. In: J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, and G. J. v. Wijngaarden (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (16th to Early 5th Century B.C.). Amsterdam: Gieben. pp. 163– 211. G. Shipley (1993). Distance, Development, Decline? World-Systems Analysis and the “Hellenistic” World. In: P. Bilde, T. EngbergPedersen, L. Hannestad, K. Randsborg, and J. Zahle (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. pp. 271–284. H. B. Siedentopf (1991). Mattbemalte Keramik der Mittleren Bronzezeit. Mainz: von Zabern. D. S. Simberloff (1974). Equilibrium Theory of Island Biogeography and Ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5, 161–182.

214

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

C. Smith (1896/97). Excavations in Melos. Annual of the British School at Athens 2, 63–76. S. K. Smith (2000). Skeletal and Dental Evidence for Social Status in Late Bronze Age Athens. In: S. J. Vaughan and W. D. E. Coulson (eds.), Palaeodiet in the Aegean. Oxford: Oxbow Books/Wiener Laboratory of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. pp. 105–114. Social Science Research Council (1954). Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation, American Anthropologist 56, 973–1002. P. Sotirakopoulou (1999). Akrotiri Thiras: I Neolithiki kai Proimi Epochi tou Chalkou epi ti Basei tis Kerameikis. Athens: Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens. ________ (2004). Akrotiri, Thera: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Phases in the Light of the Recent Excavations at the Site. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. E. H. Spicer (1961). Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. M. Spriggs (1997). The Island Melanesians. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. C. G. Starr (1954/55). The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy. Historia 3, 282–237. Z. A. Stos-Gale and N. H. Gale (1984). The Minoan Thalassocracy and the Aegean Metal Trade. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 59–64. R. C. Suggs (1961). The Archaeology of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 49, 1–205. J. Swift (1726). Gulliver’s Travels. London: B. Motte. C. A. Televantou (1990). New Light on the West House WallPaintings. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 309–26.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

C. A. Televantou (2004). Strofilas—A Neolithic Settlement on Andros. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. J. E. Terrell (1997). The Postponed Agenda: Archaeology and Human Biogeography in the Twenty-First Century. Human Ecology 25, 419–436. ________, T. L. Hunt, and C. Gosden (1997). The Dimensions of Social Life in the Pacific: Human Diversity and the Myth of the Primitive Isolate. Current Anthropology 38, 155–195. ________, M. Miller, and D. Roe (1977). Human Biogeography. Henleyon-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul. R. J. Thornton (1980). Space, Time and Culture among the Iraqw of Tanzania. New York: Academic Press. Thucydides (1919). History of the Peloponnesian War. Books I and II (translated by C. Foster Smith). London/Cambridge, MA: Heinemann/Harvard University Press. K. Trantalidou (1990). Animals and Human Diet in the Prehistoric Aegean. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 392–405. ________ (2000). Animal Bones and Animal Representations at Late Bronze Age Akrotiri. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 709–734. ________ (2004). The Microcosm of a Kitchen Seen from the Mammal’s Remains. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. E. Tsoukala (1996). The Animal Bones from Smari: A Preliminary Report. In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 273–275. C. Tsountas (1899). Kykladika II. Archaiologiki Ephimeris, 73–134. J. Turner (1978). The Vegetation of Greece during Prehistoric Times: The Palynological Evidence. In: C. G. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World. London: Thera Foundation. pp. 765–773.

216

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

________ and J. R. A. Greig (1975). Some Holocene Pollen Diagrams from Greece. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 20, 171–204. C. Tzala (1989). O Dromos tou Opsidianou me ena Skaphos stis Kyklades. Archaiologia 32, 11–20. Y. Tzedakis and H. Martlew (eds.) (1999). Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their Time. Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture/General Directorate of Antiquities. T. H. van Andel (1989). Late Quaternary Sea-Level Changes and Archaeology. Antiquity 63, 733–745. ________, T. W. Jacobsen, J. B. Jolly, and N. Lianos (1980). Late Quaternary History of the Coastal Zone near Franchthi Cave, Southern Argolid, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 7, 389–402. ________, C. N. Runnels, and K. O. Pope (1986). Five Thousand Years of Land Use and Abuse in the Southern Argolid, Greece. Hesperia 55, 103–128. ________ and E. Zangger (1990). Landscape Stability and Destabilisation in the Prehistory of Greece. In: S. Bottema, G. EntjesJieborg, and W. van Zeist (eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Rotterdam: Balkema. pp. 139– 157. ________, E. Zangger, and A. Demitrack (1990). Land Use and Soil Erosion in Prehistoric and Historical Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 379–396. S. van der Leeuw (1993). Giving the Potter a Choice. In: P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge. pp. 238–288. A. van de Moortel (2002). Pottery as a Barometer of Economic Change: From the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial Society in Central Crete. In: Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Labyrinth Revisited. Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 189–211. A. P. Vayda and R. A. Rappaport (1963). Island Cultures. In: F. R. Fosberg (ed.), Man’s Place in the Island Ecosystem. Honolulu: Bishop Museum. pp. 133–144. S. Wachsmann (1998). Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. London: Chatham.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

________ (2000). Some Notes on Mediterranean Seafaring during the Second Millennium BC. In: S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation. pp. 803–824. M. Wagstaff and S. Augustson (1982). Traditional Landuse. In: C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 106–133. ________ and C. Gamble (1982). Island Resources and their Limitations. In: C. Renfew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–105. C. Walker (1996). Animal Bones from Palaikastro Building I: A Preliminary Report. In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 277–281. S. M. Wall, J. H. Musgrave, and P. M. Warren (1986). Human Bones from a Late Minoan IB House at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 81, 333–388. A. R. Wallace (1869). The Malay Archipelago. London: Macmillan. ________ (1892). Island Life: Or the Phenomena and Causes of Insular Faunas and Floras Including a Revision and Attempted Solution of the Problem of Geological Climates. London: Macmillan. H. Wallaert-Petre (1999). Manual Laterality Apprenticeship as the First Learning Rule Prescribed to Potters. In: L. R. Owen and M. Porr (eds.), Ethno-Analogy and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production. Tübingen: Mo Vince Verlag. pp. 185–206. I. Wallerstein (1974). The Modern World-System: Toward a Critique. San Diego: Academic Press. H. Walter and F. Felten (1981). Die Vorgeschichtliche Stadt. Befestigungen. Häuser. Funde. Mainz: von Zabern. L. V. Watrous (1992). Kommos III. The Late Bronze Age Pottery. Princeton: Princeton University Press. L. V. Watrous, D. Xatzi-Vallianou, K. Pope, N. Mourtzas, J. Shay, C. T. Shay, J. Bennet, D. Tsoungarakis, C. Vallianos, and H. Blitzer (1993). A Survey of the Western Mesara Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984, 1986, and 1987 Field Seasons. Hesperia 62, 191–248. P. M. Warren and V. Hankey (1989). Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

218

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

G. Welter (1937). Aiginetische Keramik. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 19– 26. ________ (1938). Aigina. Berlin: Mann. K. D. White (1984). Greek and Roman Technology. London: Thames & Hudson. P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen, and E. Tortonese (1984). Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Part 1. Paris: UNESCO. ________, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen, and E. Tortonese (1986). Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Part 2. Paris: UNESCO. T. Whitelaw (1991a). Ethnoarchaeology of Recent Rural Settlement and Land Use in Northwest Keos. In: J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani (eds.), Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History. Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from the Earliest Settlement until Modern Times. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. pp. 403–454. ________ (1991b). Investigations at the Neolithic site of Kephala and Paoura. In: J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani (eds.), Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from the Earliest Settlement until Modern Times. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology. pp. 199–216. R. J. Whittaker (1998). Island Biogeography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. M. H. Wiener (1984). Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: The Tale of the Conical Cups. In: R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. pp. 17–26. ________ (1990). The Isles of Crete? The Minoan Thalassocracy Revisited. In: D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1. (Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 6–9 September, 1989). London: Thera Foundation. pp. 128–161. ________ (1991). The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90). Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. pp. 325–350.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

B. Wilkens (1996). Faunal Remains from Italian Excavations on Crete. In: D. S. Reese (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistoric Press. pp. 241–261. D. Wilkinson (1991). Cores, Peripheries, and Civilizations. In: C. Chase-Dunn and T. D. Hall (eds.), Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder: Westview. pp. 113–166. M. Williamson (1981). Island Populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. K. J. Willis (1994). The Vegetational History of the Balkans. Quaternary Science Reviews 15, 769–788. D. E. Wilson (1987). Kea and East Attike in Early Bronze II: Beyond Pottery Typology In: J. M. Fossey (ed.), Syneisphora McGill 1: Papers in Greek Archaeology and History in Memory of Colin D. Gordon. Amsterdam: Gieben. pp. 35–49. ________ (1999). Keos IX. Ayia Irini Periods I-III. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements. Part 1: The Pottery and Small Finds. Mainz: von Zabern. ________, P. M. Day, and N. Dimopoulou (2004). The Gateway Port of Poros-Katsambas: Trade and Exchange between North-Central Crete and the Cyclades in EBI-II. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. N. Winder (1993). When is a Time-Trend not a Time-Trend? Scale and Profile at Bronze Age Phylakopi (Melos). Circaea 11, 49–64. H. E. Wright (1972). Vegetation History. In: W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp (eds.), The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 188–199. R. Wünsche (1977). Studien zur Äginetischen Keramik der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag. P. Yule (1980). Early Cretan Seals: A Study of Chronology. Mainz: von Zabern. K. L. Zachos (1999). Zas Cave on Naxos and the Role of Caves in the Aegean Late Neolithic. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 153–163.

220

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

E. Zangger (1992). Neolithic to Present Soil Erosion in Greece. In: M. Bell and J. Boardman (eds.), Past and Present Soil Erosion. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 133–147. ________, H. Leiermann, W. Noack, and F. Kuhnke (1997). A 21st Century Approach to the Reconnaissance and Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes. In: P. N. Kardulias and M. T. Shutes (eds.), Aegean Strategies. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 9–31. P. Zapheiropoulou (2004). Early Bronze Age Cemeteries of the Kampos Group on Epano Kouphonisi. Paper presented at Orizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, 25–28 March 2004, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. C. Zerner (1993). New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early Late Helladic Periods on the Mainland. In: C. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939–1989. Amsterdam: Gieben. pp. 39–56. D. Zohary and M. Hopf (20003). Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

INDEX Acculturation, xviii, 72, 69–72, 169 See also: Culture change; Minoanisation, Transculturation Akrotiri Diet, 48 Akrotiri (Thera), 13, 58, 138 Access to elite networks, 163– 66 History of Minoanisation debate, 62, 64–67 Imports, 143, 155, 163–64 Pottery production, 86, 94, 142 See also: Neolithic; Early Cycladic Ayia Irini (Kea), 13, 58 Access to elite networks, 164– 66 History of Minoanisation debate, 62, 64–67, 115–17 Imitations, 120–21 Imports, 119–24, 128, 130, 142– 50, 155, 163, 166 Metal-working, 123 Period IV–VII, 11–16 Pottery, xvii Pottery production, 86, 94, 98– 104, 116–24 Trade hub, 123–24, 170 See also: Neolithic; Early Cycladic Biogeography, islands, xii–xv Chalandriani-Kastri (Syros), 6 Climate, 28–32

‘Little Ice Age’, 31 Pollen diagrams, 28–31 Colonies, Minoan, 62–64, 66–68, 72, 74, 150 Colony classification (Branigan), xviii, 67, 77, 116, 136, 150, 169– 71 Craft specialization, 90 Culture change, xviii, 68–71, 111, 140–44, 169–71 Theoretical approaches, 69 See also: Minoanisation; Influence Darwin, xii Daskaleio-Kavos (Keros), 6 Diet, 39–50, 52 Animals, 40–41 Plants, 39–40 Seafood, 42, 47–50 Strategies, 39, 41 Early Cycladic I, 4 See also: Grotta-Pelos culture Early Cycladic II, 6–9 See also: Keros-Syros culture Early Cycladic III, 9–10 Erosion, 36–38 Exchange, spheres of, 156–62 Exotica see: Prestige items Grotta (Naxos), 13 Grotta-Pelos culture, 4 Health, 50–58 Diseases, 52–56 Height, 53–55 Malnutrition, 52

221

222

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Medical knowlede, 57–58 Mortality rates, 50 Herodotus, 62 Identity, xv, 94–96, 109, 136, 141 Imports Minoan, 16–17 Preferences, 169 Range of, 154–56, 164, 165, 167 See also: Individual sites; Pottery Influence Cultural, 61–77, 116 See also: Minoanisation; Culture change Insularity, xiii Interaction, xv, 154, 166–67 Island As laboratories, xii–xiv Danger, xi Metaphor, xi Motif, xi Tropical paradise, xi–xii Isolation, xi, xiv–xv Kampos group, 5–6 Kastri (Kythera), 9, 135–40 Access to elite networks, 163– 66 Exports, 139–40 History of Minoanisation debate, 66, 135–40 Imitations, 138–39 Imports, 16, 138–39, 146, 163 Pottery, xvii Pottery production, 137–39 Kastri Group, 9–10 Keos survey, xiii Kephala (Kea), 2 Keros-Syros culture, 6 Knossos (Crete), 13–17, 62, 69, 71, 74

Access to elite networks, 165– 66 Imports, 163–64 Kolonna (Aigina), 131–35 Access to elite networks, 164 History of Minoanisation debate, 132 Imitations, 133–34 Imports, 133–34, 163 Marine Style workshop, 133 Pottery production, 131–32 Shaft Graves, 134 Kommos (Crete) Diet, 48 Imports, 163–65 Late Cycladic I, 13, 16 Late Cycladic II, 13, 17 Late Cycladic III, 17 Melos Erosion, 38 Grotta-Pelos culture, 4 Soils, 38 See also: Phylakopi Melos survey, xiii Mesolithic, 1 Metal objects, 123, 153–63 Middle Cycladic, 11, 13 Mikre Vigla (Naxos), 13, 124–28 Access to elite networks, 166 History of the Minoanisation debate, 63, 68, 125–26 Imitations, 127–28 Imports, 127–28 Interaction, 127–28 Pottery, xvii Pottery production, 126–28 See also: Phylakopi I culture Minoan Terminology, 71 Minoanisation, 16–17, 61–72, 74, 111, 116, 119, 122, 125, 129,

INDEX 131, 136, 138–44, 148–51, 169– 71 History of debate, 61–72 Models, 61–72 Theoretical Implications, 70–72 See also: Culture change; Influence; Acculturation; Transculturation Neolithic, 1–4 See also: GrottaPelos culture; Kephala culture; Saliagos culture Palaikastro Molluscs, 48 Paroikia (Paros), xvii, 129–31 Access to elite networks, 166 History of Minoanisation debate, 129 Imitations, 129–31 Imports, 129–31 Pottery production, 129–31 See also: Neolithic; Phylakopi I culture Peak sanctuaries Cyclades, 63, 125 Kythera, 136 Phylakopi (Melos), 58, 73–109 Access to elite networks, 163– 66 History of Minoanisation debate, 62, 64–66, 77 Imitations, 104–5 Imports, 104–5, 111–15, 143, 148, 155, 163, 166 Phylakopi I, 10–12 Phylakopi II–III, 13 Pottery, xvii Pottery production, 78–109, 120–22, 141, 170 See also: Grotta-Pelos culture; Phylakopi I culture

223 Potter’s wheel, 84–96, 96, 109, 117, 125–28, 135, 140–44 Potters, 74, 89–97, 100–107, 109, 121, 125–28, 141 Pottery, xvi As status symbol, 106 Conical cups/handleless cups, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 109, 118, 125, 127, 130 Consumption practices, 107 Cycladic, 111–14, 133–34, 143, 148, 146–48 Cycladic White, 16, 78, 79, 81, 84, 88, 91, 97, 104, 109, 120, 127, 130, 133 Decoration, 90–91 Fabrics, 78–84, 86, 92, 116–17, 126, 129, 132, 137 Forming techniques, 84–94, 117–18, 126, 130, 137–38 Grey Minyan, 15, 74, 112, 113, 120, 121, 127, 130, 131, 143, 148, 151, 170 Import preferences, 143–50 Import Preferences, 148, 146– 50, 151 Marine Style, 131–32 Matt-painted, 15, 74, 112, 121, 132 Melian, 120–22, 125, 127–28, 130 Minoan, 104–7, 111–14, 119– 22, 130, 133–34, 138, 146 Minoanising, 16, 61, 64, 68, 71, 74, 80, 81, 80–83, 84, 86, 88, 91, 93, 96, 106, 108, 109, 116, 119, 120, 122, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 150

224

NEGOTIATING ISLAND IDENTITIES

Mycenaean, 111–14, 119, 121, 128, 138, 147, 151, 166 Organisation of production, 96–104, 118 Prestige item, 149–50, 153, 159– 62 Standardisation, 90, 96–104, 117–18, 122 Wheelmade, 84–93, 113, 117– 18, 126, 130, 137–38, 140–42 Prestige items, 154–66 Rainfall, 34–36 See also: Water supply Deluges, 35–36 Rowing boats, 20, 23 See also: Seafaring Sailing ships, 20 Manoeuvring, 23 Square-rigged sail, 21 See also: Seafaring Saliagos (Greater Paros), 2 Saliagos culture, 3 Seafaring, 20 Currents, 22–23 Navigation, 26 Tides, 22–23 Winds, 22–23 See also: Sailing ships; Rowing boats

Settlement hierarchy, 154, 163–67 Skarkos (Ios), 6 Soils, 32–33 Stone objects, 157, 163 Technology, 94–96, 140–42 Socio-symbolic meaning, 94– 96, 142 Thalassocracy, xx, 62, 63, 67, 69, 116, 129, 132 Thera Eruption, 16 Soils, 33 Thucydides, 62–63 Trade, 114–15, 128, 133–34, 143– 50, 157–67 Preferences, 163 Transculturation, 70–71 See also: Acculturation; Culture change; Minoanisation Versailles effect, xviii, 64, 67, 68, 77, 111, 116, 125, 151, 169 Wallace, xii Water supply, 34 See also: Rainfall Western String model, xviii, 64, 65, 68, 72, 77, 111, 116, 125, 148, 150, 169, 170 World-systems approach, 165, 166